[FR] Reforms towards decentralisation in Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic (1990-2001)

The reform of territorial organisation in the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe is at the crossroads of several major challenges for their future integration into the European Union.

Firstly, there is the democratic challenge: breaking with the sterile tradition of ‘democratic centralism’ and passivity, establishing relations of trust and proximity with citizens and encouraging their participation in public life. Secondly, there is the challenge of modernisation: an organisation comprising several levels of autonomous authorities is the key to more efficient and less bureaucratic government. The creation of a new class of local political and administrative leaders committed to improving the quality of services provided to the population remains an ambitious goal. Finally, there is an economic challenge: the establishment of entities large enough to assert themselves as credible economic and financial partners goes hand in hand with the emergence of a ‘civil society’ capable of actively contributing to economic and social development.
Czech sociologist Michal Illner offers a remarkable summary of the reforms undertaken in three of these countries – the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland – clearly highlighting their common features and differences. I would highlight that the establishment of local and municipal structures progressed very quickly because it responded to a strong need for grassroots democracy, but that without a regional level of government, it risks leading to confusion and a certain disillusionment, as reflected in opinion polls. It is at regional level that the difficulties are concentrated, not only because this is where the question of the sharing of legislative and financial power arises in concrete terms, but also because, in the three countries studied, the boundaries currently in place are difficult to base on indisputable historical or geographical references.

This study thus highlights the considerable challenge of successfully establishing this regional level for the management and planning of economic and social development, particularly in the context of the European Structural Funds. It points to the risk for the Union, if it fails to propose an attractive and well-thought-out model in time, of being accused of seeking to superimpose statistical divisions on those recently decided. It also demonstrates the importance of decentralised cooperation and interregional exchanges in making structural interventions acceptable to the new Member States, which are in particular need of them. I conclude that if the Union wants its cohesion policy to achieve its objectives, it will surely have to revisit it by adopting a pragmatic and decentralised approach.

Much of the success of the major enlargement depends on this, and I would like to thank Michal Illner for providing us with solid analysis to renew our approach to decentralisation and the regional issue in the enlarged Union.