Communism is politcal ideology, which collapsed approximately 20 years ago, characterized by personality cult, restrictions, but also safety and equality for many people. Perceptions of communism are still controversial, but the regime left heritage, which could be used for the purpose of tourism.
Heritage is defined as “the cultural and natural environment that people inherit from previous generations” (Ivanov, Stanislav, 2010). With the cultural heritage we usually associate tangible elements such as architecture, buildings, cities and intagible like customs and religion, dances and songs (Gonzalez, 2008).
In defining heritage it is often hard to say, when our past is long enough behind us, before we start to label it as heritage. What could be already heritage for the generation of 20-years-old ones is just part of the daily life of their parents and grandparents. One phenomenon to support this issue is the communism heritage of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as countries in East Asia.
Some of these countries managed to create tourism product out of their past – like Berlin and Budapest, which embedded Berlin Wall, symbol of the Cold War and the Statue Park in Budapest in their city tours. North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam use tourism as “an important tool for enhancing their sense of national identity and to propagandize the achievements of the socialist regime.” (Henderson, 2007).
Others like Bulgaria and Romania consider the communism regime as “unwanted past”(Light 2000b).
In those countries pro-and anticommunist feelings still exist and therefore communism is sensitive topic. The government is highly engaged in presenting the cultural heritage in the politically correct way – focusing either on the positive or negative side of the communism history, depending on the political orientation of the party. “Post-communist governments do not want their countries to be associated with communism” (Light, 2000).
Politics and tourism are tightely connected, especially in totalitarian regimes. There are several political uses of tourism, and some of them were widely applied during communism.
Foreign tourists` activities were restricted and multinational cooperations were prevented from influencing the people and providing information about the outside world; tourism was utilized as a tool for spreading propaganda to foreign visitors – many of the places shown to tourists and the information provided aim to discredit negative publicity and support the virtues of the political ideology. The citizens of the former socialist block were restricted from travelling abroad and encouraged in domestic tourism, which was commonly used to build patriotism within a country’s citizenry (McLean, 1998).
Due to the restrictions, today many of the residents of countries like Bulgaria are heading to the once forbidden countries, but they still feel nostalgia for their past. On the other hand foreign visitors, who were not allowed to visit the country might be interested to see “what is on the other side”. Visitors from former socialist countries in CEE (Central and East Europe) might be interested in visiting communism monuments, because of nostalgic reasons – they have visited in their youth in Bulgarian resorts and have good memories of the period.
Therefore communism heritage could be pursued as tourist attraction and as a tool to fill in empty niche and diversify the tourism product.Generally the older generations could be targeted with more success, because they will show bigger interest towards the communism heritage, due to the nostalgic feelings they have for the period.
Mostly the resources of communist heritage are located in cities, therefore they could supplement the tour itineraries and could be a tool to spread out the tourism flows. Statues, busts and monuments are found nearly in every city in Bulgaria, thus they could be easily included as attraction in tours.The communist heritage includes not only monuments, but also buildings and architecture of whole cities. Plenty of songs and novels, films, paintings are dedicated to communism.
One of the hindrances for development of communism heritage tourism is the affinity of the CEE countries, including Bulgaria to reintegrate with ‘European’ cultural heritage and to demonstrate a new openness (Fox, 1997). Other obstacle is the bad condition of the monuments. The efforts of the post-communism politicians to drift Bulgaria away from its past resulted in the lack of maintenance. On the other hand the infrastructure to those monuments is still in excellent condition. Therefore they will need funds for reconstruction and advertising only.
Promoting communism heritage will diversify the tourism product in Bulgaria, generate new attractions and help to reduce seasonality. Besides introducing monuments as tourism attractions, special events could be hosted and museum of communism will be established.
In the article it is claimed, that the entrance into the EU will decrease the differences between Bulgaria and other member countries, through the “Europeanization”of cities (Young, & Kaczmarek, 2008), which “will most probably lead to a lack of interest in communist heritage”.
The opinion expressed is debateable, because the “Europeanization”, i.e. the unification of the big cities in Europe could also easily result in bigger demand of alternative tourism, such as heritage tourism and in particluar communism tourism.
The author compares dark tourism with communist heritage tourism, which to certain extent could be accepted, as far it concerns the “dark side” of communism, such as concentration camps, political killings and lack of freedom of speech. As such, communism tourism cannot be pursued, because people still have mixed feelings towards communism.
The communism heritage product is randomly offered as supplementary attraction and excluding few famous monuments is not sought by the tourists. The reason behind this is communism happened too close in the past from now and for many people it is still too sensitive topic. Not many people are ready to commercialize their past as tourism attractions and they cannot accept communism dark side/ good side.
References:
- Ivanov, Stanislav. Opportunities for developing communist heritage tourism in Bulgaria. Tourism Review Vol. 57 No 2/ 2009/ 177-192
- Hughes, Howard , Allen, Danielle. Cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: the views of ‘induced image formation agents’. Tourism Management 26 (2005) 173–183
- Hall, Derek R. Tourism development and sustainability issues in Central and South-eastern Europe. Tourism Management, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 423-431, 1998
- Kim, Samuel Seongseop; Timothy, Dallen J; Han, Hag-Chin. Tourism and political ideologies: A case of tourism in North Korea. Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1031–1043
Hi Yulia, very interesting topic! I think that, if well managed and presented communism tourism is a reasonable form of tourism. Although there are critics on the ethics of communism tourism, in my opinion it is not more or less part of heritage as any old castle in for example Austria and therefore there is no reason for not establishing communism tourism. More essential is the way it is presented. In Berlin, for example, form the holocaust memorial to the Westside gallery, every sign of the ‘dark’ history is displayed in a very ethical manner!
You also mentioned that especially older generations, that have trough lived communism, can be attracted by communism tourism. I would disagree on this point because many, as you mentioned at the end of your posting, might be filled with grieve and don’t want to be reminded or do not consider this form of tourism as appropriate or authentic; on the contrary many younger generations might be interested in learning about their past!
Hi Yulia, Interesting topic! I think that it has potential and can even be very lucrative, but on the other hand I can see tour companies selling tours that would easily be seen as insensitive to the local populations. As you said, people have mixed feelings. Some feel uneasy and some may be nostalgic. This will be hard to balance since tourists perceptions will have effects on those living there, and even between tourists- people with conflicting perceptions will have effects on each others’ experience. With e.g. the holocaust, dark tourism exists that residents may be sensitive to, but more or less everyone agrees on how they see the holocaust so that in a way makes it less complicated. Either way, with tourism being as decentralised as it tends to be, I think communism tourism will happen anyway.
Hey Yulia,
your article has really caught my attention, since I myself also have lived in a communistic country (Ukraine). In my opinion communism tourism has two sides to it. From my personal belief, I am convinced that communism history should under no circumstances be hidden or forgotten about, even though I acknowledge that some countries from the former UDSSR feel negatively about that part of their history. But still, history is or should be part of all people’s lives and I don’t see why that should be hidden in any kind of way. That is why I believe that communism tourism can and will benefit any region, since it provides a destination with an unique tourism ‘product’, that might catch many people’s attention, whether young or old.
Furthermore, and that is where I don’t agree with Anja and Darlene, I don’t see communism tourism as part of ‘dark’ tourism, because a communistic monument for example cannot be compared to a concentration camp. I believe that countries like Bulgaria should absolutely also use the heritage they have and profit from it, even thought of course, as Anja already mentionend, in a sensitive and respectful way, as for example Berlin managed to do it.
Thank you all for the comments! I agree with Elena, that history should not be hidden and the communism past definitely has future in tourism context.
Due to the fact that it has been only 20 years since the regime fell the topic is still sensitive and should be handled with care.
This helped me allot thanks Yulia because of you im gonna do great on my research….