The secret to the reform of eastern Europe is to be found in the principle of voluntary action. 

The events of the past two years in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union confounded all the received wisdom of the analysts and experts. It suddenly became apparent that some legitimate form of democracy might be established in a part of the world that had been force-fed a false democracy for more than half -a-century. New political parties emerged overnight, bringing together new coalitions whose common value seemed to be rejection of Marxist-Leninist oppression. Orthodox Marxist economics fell in the same crumpled heap as Marxist politics. Entrepreneurs are now fueled by venture capital; testing the system at every point, encouraged by eager capitalist investors from other parts of the world. 

Why did all this happen, happen so suddenly, and happen without terrible bloodshed? What finally triggered the wave of reform? Reform followed decades of futile protest of the failures of the system. Although we romanticize the roles of courageous protestors, for years their voices were not heard or attended to -- not until frustration over economic stagnation and the lack of consumer goods had reached a boiling point. Cynicism about the suffocating bureaucracy and the corruption of the so-called "vanguard" made political life a bad and bitter joke. That is, government was seen as the problem, not as the solution; the only effective marketplace was illegal. Eastern Europe was a cluster of state-dominated societies in advanced states of moral and functional disrepair. 

To speak of voluntary associations as "vanguards of social change" in eastern Europe is an ironic reminder of the official use of the word "vanguard" in Marxist-Leninist countries. A 1980 official Soviet publication asserted that "The CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] unites in its ranks, on voluntary principles, the advanced and most conscientious part of the country's working class, collective- farm peasantry, and intelligentsia." A Hungarian dissenting voice of the same period expressed concern "that the party would develop into an elite vanguard in whose activities the broad masses of the working class would be unable or unwilling to participate." Twenty years earlier, in an official and anonymous History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the official position of the vanguard was made clear: 

The basic mistake in the Mensheviks' views on the Party was that they confused party and class. By demanding that every striker be allowed to call himself a member of the Party, the Mensheviks were obliterating every distinction between the advanced elements and the remaining mass of workers. That would have meant converting the Party into an organization which would be dragging at the tail of unprogressive moods among the least advanced strata, instead of elevating the entire working class to the level of class consciousness of its most advanced detachment. That would inevitably have led to the Party losing its vanguard role. 

Protest is effective only when there is widespread agreement that things are not going well. Authoritarian systems work only when they are efficient enough to offset cruelty with creature comforts. However, even the worst governments do not fall of their own weight or meekly turn over the keys of power to more principled successors because they suddenly have come to appreciate their shortcomings. Voices of protest must be heard (as Gorbachev has heard them). What begins as a local and perhaps even individual voice grows slowly into a chorus. The words of protest become symbols; the details of protest are elaborated; voices are linked across official and cultural barriers; there is gradual consolidation around a core of issues and problems. 

Two students of social movements have argued that they share certain common characteristics: 

-social movements are segmented -- that is, several organizations bring the cause forward; 

-they are led by individuals -- there is not one dominant leader able to speak for everyone; 

-they make up a communication network; and 

-they are ideologically bound together; whatever their differences they are together in facing a common enemy or opposition. 

Where did the voices come from in eastern Europe? First, of course, from those suffering religious and ethnic oppression. Their voices were never effectively silenced. Fortunately, the voices also included some of the most talented writers, scientists, and intellectuals. Ways were found over decades to make their work available to others willing to risk reading it; organizations illegally printed and distributed a vast literature of protest, satire, and hope. 

A second great wave of protest and reform appeared in Poland under the banner of Solidarity, a "labor union" that combined the features of political organization, pressure group, and moral advocate. The combination of Solidarity and a newly-invigorated leadership of a Polish Pope of the Roman Catholic Church revealed a broader popular base by far than any the government could claim. 

A third great wave of reform grew out of international efforts to unite against the threat of nuclear war. These initiatives sprouted in officially atheist East Germany under a scorned and marginalized religious leadership. 

The combination of personal courage, organizational savvy, and a new and inspiring mission of democracy suddenly became powerful enough to face down the tyrants. The tyrants, with one or two exceptions, proved to be cowardly as well as confused. They fell quickly. The new era of democracy began. 

What strikes me most forcibly about all this is that the reform of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is largely unexplainable in conventional terms of economic and political self-interest. Reform cannot be expected of oppressive and corrupt governments; bad government is the problem. There was no free marketplace, no powerful legion of business interests demanding economic freedom. In other words, there was a corrupt and lethargic and inept first sector of government; there simply was no second sector of the private marketplace of any consequence; the "third sector," as we know it, the vast and disorderly arena of voluntary associations doing the public's business as they see it, was illegal and underground. 

Even so, the fragile, illegal, under-funded, and isolated voluntary action organizations -- "the nonprofits," as we unimaginatively call them -- still proved to be powerful enough to bring down the tyranny without bloodshed. 

The goal of these efforts political parties, to form new even new countries. The societies -- free, open, associations led the way to freedom. is not simply to create new coalitions and alliances or goal is to create new democratic societies--free, open, democratic societies. Voluntary associations led the way to freedom. What is their role in new democracies? What need do new democracies have for them? The powerless have become empowered, rich in new opportunities and ambitions. The new governments aspire to be democratic in terms that the rest of the world can accept. The economies are opening up to free trade and markets and foreign investment--to what is well called democratic capitalism.

Two related questions:

-Why, given such dramatic progress, should there be need for a third sector in these new democracies? 

-As the writers of the new eastern European constitutions sit down to work, what advice have we to give them? 

Addressing the second question first: Most prominent and intense is our urging for them to become free market capitalistic economies. The next lesson we preach is that of multiparty politics. Much less visibly and intensively we are providing advice on how to form and sustain and manage nonprofit organizations, even how to establish and manage foundations. (I don't know whether anyone is urging them to establish national endowments for the arts.) 

Alongside the new business interests flowing from the west into the east there have been representatives of philanthropic foundations. Alongside scientific and technological information visitors have provided instruction in the nuts and bolts of how to set up a foundation and manage it. For several years discussions have been underway throughout eastern Europe to develop nonprofit organizations with the financial and technical help of Americans and western Europeans more skilled and experienced in such matters. Meetings are planned to bring together Soviet "social assistance" specialists and Americans steeped in community action and the devices of charitable endeavor. With little attention from the media -- which continues to focus on the clumsy relations between governments and the narrow self-interest of business enterprise -- preliminary efforts to strengthen the third sector are under way.