Opposition in the GDR before the upheaval: tensions, strategies and social movements

In the late 1980s, the GDR was in a profound social crisis. Political repression, economic difficulties and the increasing dissatisfaction of the population led to more and more people looking for alternative ways to take action against the ruling regime. Although the opposition at this point was still relatively weak andwas split, as the first activities came about, which pointed to a broader social movement. This article describes the development of the opposition forces, their internal tensions, the strategies of the various groups and the increasing social mobilization, which ultimately paved the way for political upheaval.

Initial attempts at opposition formation and initial tensions

Although some considerations were made at the beginning of the late 1980s in order to recombinate the opposition forces in the GDR and create nationwide structures, the successes have so far been rather small. In East Berlin, rivalries between leaders of the various groups were also recorded, as were regional tensions between the capital and thethe surrounding districts. These conflicts not only concerned personal power issues, but also fundamental political differences and different ideas about how the oppositional movements should best pursue their goals. In the previous literature, this situation is often considered a hindrance to the formation of a unified, powerful oppositionconsidered. But here is another perspective: The existing tensions and political differences in particular helped to create a diverse and lively opposition. They enabled the formation of citizen movements that, in addition to foreign policy developments, the political line of the German government, the deep domestic political crisis and theMassive flight movement became the most important social factors that ultimately questioned the regime in the GDR.

Development of opposition activities by late spring

Until the late spring of the year, the opposition forces were still acting in the usual directions. While some concentrated on public actions, others looked for new structures, wrote open letters and tried to establish counter-publics. It is important to emphasize that while these different approaches cannot be strictly separated from each other,but ideally typical can be distinguished. The so-called Initiative for Peace and Human Rights tried to achieve networking of the opposition groups through a nationwide call. This appeal reflected the group’s self-image, which focused on strict compliance with human rights, democratization, the rule of law and the clear separation of party, stateand society. However, the attempt to achieve a wider opening through this call was initially rather unsuccessful. Although groups were created in several cities that related to the initiative, they remained weak in terms of personnel and less influential. After the repressive actions of the State Security Service against the initiative, these organizations had theirHigh phase already behind. The organization was too closely tied to the previous structures and limited to a few people. The initiative’s programmatic statements were too clearly geared towards socialist ideals, so that there was hardly any room for alternative socialist concepts. This made an inclusive effect more difficult because both many opposition andPotential critics of the system felt overwhelmed by the clear line. Nevertheless, the Initiative for Peace and Human Rights took on a significant pioneering role, but could never become a driving force in social change.

spectacular Actions in Leipzig and the growing protest movement

In Leipzig, the series of public actions did not stop. A first foretaste of the later autumn were events such as the Second Pleiße Pilgerweg and a street music festival, which took place in a short succession. At both events, security forces were attacked. In doing so, passers-by and onlookers spontaneously showed solidarity with the opposition figures, which showed thatthe active protest potential in the population increased. At the same time, it became apparent that the opposition had increasingly emerged from the churches – often exaggerated, but also self-critically spoken of the “ghetto”. Initiatives have been repeatedly mentioned, with some clinging to an umbrella organization, while others have opposed the opinion thatThe variety of pluralistic initiatives would better reflect social diversity. A first approach to bringing the opposition closer to the population was formulated in the early summer of the year. An initiative in Leipzig started with an appeal that contained the terms “democratic renewal” and “social movement”. The focus was on the goalsPromoting democratization and the rule of law, creating counter-publics and building an opposition archive. This initiative was intended to create a movement, which, however, provided no formal structures, no fixed speakers and no memberships. The aim was to mobilize society and to anchor the protest in the population.

Discussions about new structures and the role of the churches

During the year, meetings of different groups took place in several cities, but all of them were unsuccessful. It became clear again and again that the opposition urgently needed new, independent structures that should part with the church organizations. A major theorist who did not belong directly to any group, but as one of the lastbourgeois historians in the GDR enjoyed international reputation, commented on the social crisis during a church meeting in the summer. He emphasized that it is now also a matter of finding partners within the party and state apparatus in order to bring about change. This strategy has so far only been pursued by individual opposition members, but over the course of the yearMany circle the realization that the basis of the opposition must be significantly expanded. A well-known opposition actor who spoke at a colloquium emphasized that the number of opposition members had to grow significantly in order to strengthen social strength.

old institutions and the demand for legal opposition

Since the early 1970s, one of the oldest opposition institutions has existed in a small town with regular meetings: the Christian Peace Seminar. Here, opposition and church staff met to discuss common positions. In the early summer of the year, one of the most important speakers, a well-known theologian, called for the creation of aLegal opposition, comparable to the parties in Poland and Hungary, which can be officially elected there. Another important head of the peace seminar, a committed pastor, went even further and demanded the establishment of an opposition political party in the GDR. This example shows that the efforts to reconstitute the opposition had grown across the country.The most important demands were the introduction of a multi-party democratic system, a transparent electoral system, the reprivatization of large companies, the de-ideologization of the education system and the implementation of the separation of powers and the rule of law. In addition, the idea of a grassroots democratic model was discussed, which, however, left it unclear exactly how thismulti-party system should be related. The word “base democracy” was a much-discussed buzzword in society, which meant a clear rejection of the existing system, but at the same time was implicitly directed against parties and parliamentary democracy. However, this contradiction was hardly discussed, but it became clear that many actors had the desire toto define a fundamental change and plan concrete steps later.

Reflections on new political structures and the desire for reforms

Over the course of the year, several proposals were made independently of each other as to what the future political landscape could look like. Considerations were made to set up a “round table” based on the model of a well-known neighboring country in order to promote social change. At first these considerations were still vague and unstructured, but in the middle of the year there was aSignificant impulse: Various groups formulated an appeal to advance the establishment of new opposition structures. In this context, the idea of a social democratic party was also resumed. A prominent opposition politician who was previously hesitant, finally agreed and suggested founding such a party in the GDR. In the followingmonths, this idea was discussed publicly. The initiatives met with shared reactions: The interest was particularly among those who were looking for new forms of organization, while most opposition members rejected such a party, as they saw it primarily as a threat to the long-established structures. Rather, most opposition forces favoredHeterogeneous social models that combine a wide variety of ideas, and there was approval that a new party in the GDR would fundamentally question the power of the SED. Despite all the differences, some agreed on a common step: They published an appeal aimed at starting an initiative, ato set up the Social Democratic Party in the GDR. It was emphasized that time was pressing and the existing feelings of powerlessness had to be overcome. The aim was to develop a political alternative based on democracy and social justice, with new associations, parties, citizens’ initiatives and trade unions. It was about the introduction of a multi-party system,Democratic electoral legislation, the reprivatization of companies, the de-ideologization of the education system, the separation of powers, the rule of law, regional self-government, social market economy, co-determination in companies, free trade unions, right to strike and respect for human rights. Among other things, recognition of the two-state nature of Germany, a foreign policyspecial relationship with the Federal Republic, the demilitarization of the GDR and a pan-European peace order called for.

Social movements, demands and social change

At present, the stance of recognizing GDR citizenship in the Federal Republic was a central demand that was represented by some actors who were committed to German unity for other reasons. They were convinced that the non-recognition was actually restricted by the citizenship rights of the GDR citizens and that many people lived politically passively because theyThe possibility of developing her identity as a citizen in her home country was lacking. Instead of fleeing to the Federal Republic, they wanted to actively work on reforms there. Although the letter initially only circulated in a few copies, it was made known at several events, above all by a well-known opposition politician. The first news about it appeared in the media, wasbut only made public later. Initially, only a few fellows had found, including some clergymen who tried to strengthen the opposition in their region. The few activists prevailed against the state’s attempts to control these oppositional movements. They held on to their conviction that a clear demarcation and their ownAbility to act are crucial in order to improve the social situation.

The surveillance by the Ministry for State Security

These developments were closely monitored by the security bodies. The Ministry for State Security, which monitored the movements through its informants, was initially misled. By strong orientation towards a particular opposition group, which was classified as particularly dangerous, the Ministry hoped to dissipate oppositionto be able to weaken. But experience showed that the opposition forces were still active despite all the repression and were difficult to get under control.