Out of all the Eastern European countries Romania and Yugoslavia were the only countries that encountered any violence during the collapse of Communism, because their governments were the only ones that openly resisted the people. For example, with Yugoslavia, the leader, Josip Tito, ruled with harsh communism. Then, a lot of the Serbians instigated racially motivated violence, killing many people. Eventually, NATO forces had to intervene. Finally in July 2001, a pro- Western government formed. In Romania the leader Nicolae Ceausescu ordered troops to completely crush any opposition. In response, the people just overthrew the government and killed the tyrant and his wife. While the people set up a new government, the country proved to be extremely unstable. In both countries, the governments’ violence towards the opposition eventually caused a lot of violence, as opposed to the leaders in other countries who actually supported free elections and reform.
This begs the question: should governments retaliate when faced with opposition? Should a government stick by its ideals (in this case, communism) or just listen to the people? In reference to present- day situations in Egypt, the revolution was mainly non-violent, because Mubarak decided to step down from power. However, should he have tried to justify his policies in order to protect his country or is avoiding violence a better idea? I personally believe that a leader should ultimately listen to the people and make any necessary concessions. However, I do not believe that a leader’s policies should always be affected by the people’s opinions. Sometimes very popular policies tend to harm a country. For example, small- business owners supported Gorbachev’s economic structuring, but when it backfired the people were not too happy. Public opinion of leaders always wavers; therefore, this should not control the people’s policies. In all, violence occurred in Romania and Yugoslavia because the governments openly resisted the people.
