How extended was the Stasi network in DDR?

Questions and relative answers - Die Zeit (German)
Also in Die Zeit - Liebe Ossiversteher

Voices of dissent: Ethnic reconciliation in Central and Eastern Europe (I)

The Hungarian-Slovakian relations rarely reached a normal, non-tensed level, after the fall of communism.

As a overall rule, the dialogue between Hungary and its neighbours started from the very beginning on a dissonant tone, right after József Antal's claim of representing 15 million of Hungarians - including all the ethnic Hungarian from Romania, Hungary and Yugoslavia - repeated by all the heads of the governments in Budapest, whatever their political orientation, created serious rifts in the dialogue between Hungary and its neighbouring countries.

One of the EU and NATO full membership conditions was a proof of good bilateral relationships with the neighbours, but the reconciliation process took longer than expected. The identity survival and the political tools chosen for supporting it tensioned sometimes this relationships. The Hungarian status law an initiative of Orban Viktor's government but voted - even with some nuances - by all the Hungarians parties, increased the lack of trust and provoked diplomatic tensions, mainly with Romania and Slovakia, hosts of larger Hungarian communities. But, in the same time the evolutions in the two cases are different.

In Romania, the cross-border cooperation, the economic and military exchanges continued in the last 20 years at a very high level, despite the nationalist accents of the public discourse - available as well for members of the Hungarian party, RMDSZ/UDMR. One of the hardest nationalist, anti-Hungarian and anti-Semitic Romanian party, The Greater Romania Party/PRM was left out of the Parliament at the last parliamentary elections, November 30. Since 1996, RMDSZ/UDMR is part of the coalition government, having in this way all the opportunities to be part of the political negotiations, as well as to be part of the decision making process. The process is far to be accomplished as the request of the minority don't get the full agreement of the Romanian parties - the recreation of Bolyai university in Cluj, the full restitution of church properties confiscated by the communist regime, being among the constant claims of the Hungarian party. But, at least, a certain mechanism of discussion and negociation was created in order to prevent serious tensions. Since 2005, they are held periodically Hungarian-Romanian joint Governmental meetings, in Bucharest or in Budapest with an agenda going beyond the issues of minority rights.

A similar evolution was followed in Slovakia. But, since 2006, it was for the first time since Vladimír Meciar's nationalist regime of the 1990s, the Hungarian minority Party of the Hungarian Coalition (Strana madarskej koalície: SMK) was left out of the power-sharing coalition. In its place, the right-wing Slovak National Party (Slovenská národná strana: SNS) gained the unexpected favour of populist Socialist Prime Minister Robert Fico, along with Meciar's People's Party - Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (Ludová strana - Hnutie za demokratické Slovensko: LS-HZDS), although Meciar himself plays a noticeably quieter role than SNS leader Jan Slota. Giving the popular support enjoyed by the ruling coalition and its nationalist discourse, it is hard to predict a change of tone, situation in which it is expected to have a radicalization of the Hungarian political party as well, echoing with a more and more active, visible and organized Hungarian far-right.

It is quite inappropriate to talk about models universally available in terms of ethnic reconciliation, mainly in a region where history is still playing a very important role. But, at least, it is possible to identify a couple of ingredients whose mixture could create the premises for a choice of the dialogue, instead of confrontation - of any kind. The permanent dialogue between representatives of the majority and those of the minority is one of the key. Nationalism ia an intellectually created concept, but it is available too for the reconciliation. Civil society representatives from both parts might constitute themselves in voices for dialogue. The Slovak intellectuals already sent a public message in this respect, and it is an important step forward, that must be continued, diversified and enforced, not only in crisis situation.

In Trust: Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Francis Fukuyama is stating that the efficient economic and social organizations are emerging from those societies which have wide and efficient trust networks, including in this category the social-society network.

In Central and Eastern Europe, it is exactly this trust who was destroyed, with long term consequences, by the communists regimes. In each of the countries of the former Eastern block, the communist operated differently - from the "goulash Capitalism" in Hungary, to the paranoid dictatorship in Ceausescu's Romania. But, at the level of the society, of people-from-people relations, it is exactly this trust who was extincted, through the repression system. You was educated - in school, or family or society as a whole - to do not trust anybody - because spy of a "foreign" anti-communist power, or a collaborator of the secret polices, or member of the minority groups. The rising stars of communism from yesterday were the today "capitalism's agents", so, who to trust? Not even your family members. And extreme nationalism was an efficient tool to create a wide support for the regime.

It is obvious that the general political, social and economic situation in the last 20 years tremendously changed in Central and Eastern Europe. But, the past/various sentimental interpretations of history are resurgent, in political crisis, in elections times or simply when a need for getting a stronger identity is required. It will continued to be so, but such discourses have to be counter by an open dialogue of the public intellectuals on dissenting topics. It will took longer than winning a political campaign for a four-years term in office, but it is a very basic test of the mission and role of intellectuals in these (still) post-communist societies.

Communist jokes

Among the other former communist countries, the Czech Republic was always considered the "wonder kid" in terms of solving the problems of the communist past. The process of "lustrace" started early '90s , at a large scale, never reached by other countries from the area. Lists of former collaborators of the Czech secret services StB were published and many public personalities needed to make two steps behind. The mechanism is quite simple: someone who accepted once the dirty compromise of betraying another individual - in some cases including close relatives, wife, husband, parents, children etc. - lost the right to express on public matters. Communism made use of all the human weaknesses in order to have as much as possible the perfect control of mind and bodies. The assumption from the lustrace law is right, the problem is who is in the position to judge and what are the criteria of the judgment. On the other side, you cannot build a normal society with corrupted people. Perhaps those who never lived in communism could behave similarly faced with the perspective of losing the personal freedom. But, by now, they never been faced with such a choice so, at least, they don't have to think permanently about their weaknesses and the compromises. Milan Kundera was considered a role-model for those who never accepted the communism. He wrote wonderfully about the human weaknesses and the cynicism of the "brave citizens" of the communist world. Recently, he was accused of denouncing a Western spy to the communist authorities half a century ago. Fellow writers showed their solidarity and he denied the accusations, even he never entered the details of the story in itself. Former Czech president Vaclav Havel is the last from a long list of Kundera's supporters. We aren't fully aware of understanding - even we know quite in detail - the enormous joke of communism yet. And "a joke's a very serious think".

Dos mensajes sobre Kundera

VÁCLAV HAVEL 06/11/2008, El Pais

Yo también recuerdo la época. Recuerdo el ambiente de entonces. Es difícil de explicar. Si miro al pasado, no lo comprendo y a veces hasta me asombro de mí mismo y me pongo colorado. ¿Cómo podía, por ejemplo, usar el término "literatura socialista", si debía de saber que era una tontería, que no existe literatura socialista ni capitalista, ni puede existir? ¿Cómo podía decir en público cosas diferentes a las que pensaba?

Precisamente ayer, fui a ver la película Tobruk, y me hice la misma pregunta por enésima vez: ¿habría resistido la verdadera lucha? Y en la cárcel me preguntaba a mí mismo muchas veces: ¿qué les habrías dicho y revelado si te hubieran torturado físicamente? Y, por otra parte: ¿qué pensarán los jóvenes historiadores cuando encuentren un apunte donde diga que denuncié a un prisionero? Podría explicarles que ese hombre quería suicidarse y que yo no podía hacer otra cosa para salvarlo que eso, y ellos comprenderán y me admirarán. Mi complicada aclaración adicional quedará, sin embargo, siempre agazapada en un lugar oculto, tras la terrible noticia original sobre mi traición.

Está claro lo que quiero decir: aunque Milan Kundera hubiera ido a la policía a denunciar a un espía, lo cual, en mi opinión no sucedió, hay que intentar -al menos intentar- verlo con el prisma de la época. Uno no tiene que ser un comunista acalorado o un fanático para hacer algo de buena fe, pensando que con eso allana el camino hacia un mundo mejor. Bastaba con dudar de que no fuera una trampa preparada para él o para sus próximos, o incluso estar "casi seguro" de ello. Bastaba con pensar que si no era el héroe de Tobruk simplemente se dijo: ¿por qué debería dejarme cerrar en un campo de concentración durante diez años por "saber y no decirlo"? Los campos de concentración pertenecen a los héroes, no a mí. Digo todo esto, repito, por si hubiera ocurrido lo que dicen los historiadores jóvenes. Yo, por mi parte, tengo bastantes razones materiales para pensar que Milan Kundera no fue de repente a la comisaría de la policía nacional (SNB) a decir que alguien le había dicho que otra persona le había dicho que a un lugar tal y tal llegaría un espía para recoger una maleta. Creo que no sucedió de un modo tan tonto, ni pudo suceder. Sea como sea, una cosa es evidente: Milan Kundera, ya mayor, estaba inmerso en un mundo completamente kunderiano, del que sabía distanciarse -como persona física- durante años. ¿Qué significa entonces? Para mí, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente: antes de meternos con cualquier cosa, debemos valorar qué puede surgir de ello y si se corresponde con nuestro carácter. Si el protagonista de este suceso fuera un desconocido, y no un escritor de fama internacional, el caso habría pasado inadvertido. En otras palabras: es arriesgado escribir bien y hacerse famoso. Por otra parte, de vez en cuando hay que arriesgarse. Para el bien común. Si la obra de Kundera no existiera, el mundo estaría mucho peor. Pero Milan Kundera estaría hoy -el 16 de octubre de 2008- mucho mejor. Al menos estaría como ese desconocido.

Para terminar, sólo dos mensajes:

1) Jóvenes historiadores, por favor, ¡cuidado a la hora de valorar la historia! Porque, al igual que nuestros abuelos, de buena fe podéis hacer más daño que bien.

2) Milan, ¡ánimo! Un hombre como usted sabe que en su peregrinación por la vida se encuentra con cosas peores que la profanación en la prensa.