|
Hungary DISSENT AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
In the late 1980s, numerous signs pointed to an
enlivening of
cultural and intellectual life. The bounds of permissible
expression became wider as authorities eased restrictions
on
artistic, intellectual, and political expression.
Until the mid-1980s, outright opposition to the regime
and
its social, political, and cultural policies was
undertaken
primarily by intellectuals. However, the relative success
of the
economy after 1968 made it difficult for dissidents to
attract
broad followings. The working class was politically
quiescent,
being the beneficiary of full employment and generous
welfare
provisions. The government's response to its critics was
to
acknowledge their existence but also to stress their small
numbers and irrelevance. Few official punitive actions
such as
arrests or trials took place, but the authorities did use
lowlevel police harassment, surveillance, and other forms of
indirect pressure. Prominent individuals found their
movements
watched and occasionally hindered by the police. Less
eminent
people sometimes received threats to their jobs and
careers.
Authorities denied some individuals permission to travel
abroad
or, at the other extreme, urged them to emigrate. The
police
conducted occasional house searches and levied fines for
illicit
printing or distribution of unauthorized publications
(samizdat).
Most dissidents faced only sporadic repression but also
minimal
public response.
In addition to the continuing efforts of dissident
intellectuals, several groups of protesters pursued
specific
social or political goals in the early 1980s. The law did
not
recognize conscientious objection and prescribed up to
five
years' imprisonment as punishment for refusal to perform
military
service. Beginning in 1977, however, members of certain
small
Christian sects, such as the Nazarenes, Jehovah's
Witnesses, and
Seventh-Day Adventists, were allowed to perform unarmed
military
service
(see Conscientious Objection
, ch. 5). This
privilege was
not available to Roman Catholics and members of larger
Protestant
denominations, whose church hierarchies had a history of
supporting the establishment. As of 1986, Amnesty
International
reported that as many as 150 Hungarian conscientious
objectors
were in prison, most of them Jehovah's Witnesses who
refused to
perform even the alternative military service available to
them.
In the early 1980s, an independent peace movement of
significant
proportions developed (called Peace Group for Dialogue, or
Dialogus), made up primarily of university students and
recent
university graduates. Facing official hostility and unable
to
initiate a dialogue with the authorities, the organization
disbanded in 1983. Its members and other persons formed
other
smaller groups and engaged in small-scale independent
activity.
Under pressure from the authorities, some of these small
groups
eventually merged with the officially recognized National
Peace
Council.
In the mid-1980s, the ecology, or "Green," movement was
the
largest independent movement. Its supporters opposed the
joint
project of the Czechoslovak and Hungarian governments,
financed
partially by the Austrian government, to build the
GabcikovoNagymaros Dam at the border where the Danube River crosses
from
Czechoslovakia to Hungary
(see Relations with Other Communist Neighbors
, ch. 4). Demonstrations attracted as many as
20,000
people. Several smaller environmental organizations also
engaged
in small-scale public awareness campaigns. The
environmental
groups often sought to maintain distance between
themselves and
dissident political groups, both to legitimize their
viewpoint
vis-a-vis the government and to attract wider support.
Environmentalists were very cautious in their response to
the
1986 accident at the Chernobyl' nuclear power plant in the
Soviet
Union, which was a politically sensitive issue. The
government
criticized independent environmental groups, accusing
activists
of pandering to nationalist sentiments and permitting
foreign
agitators to intrude. The official press generally ignored
the
activities and statements of the environmentalists.
Occasionally,
the police harassed their leaders. Nevertheless,
environmental
issues appeared to be of great interest to the public,
many of
whom signed protest petitions and attended meetings in
significant numbers.
In the late 1980s, opportunities for self-expression
expanded
greatly and abruptly. The party itself was planning to
establish
a limited multiparty political system in the country
(see Amendments of 1972
, ch. 4). Increasingly, party members
acknowledged public criticism of conditions in society and
responded to them. And in the late 1980s, for the first
time in
decades, the authorities occasionally permitted
demonstrations
calling for changes in policy. However, signals sent by
the
government to the public were somewhat mixed; occasional
arrests
and mistreatment of dissidents continued, and police broke
up
some demonstrations. In the late 1980s, individuals began
testing
the limits of the government's less restrictive approach.
The
system of informal self-censorship, which had operated
since the
1960s, appeared to be foundering
(see Mass Media
, ch. 4).
Historians called for archival sources on the nation's
recent
history to be opened and freely examined by impartial
scholars. A
variety of independent publishers and periodicals
appeared,
dealing with sensitive issues or publishing the works of
authors
previously considered taboo. The official press and
occasionally
even television journalism were becoming more outspoken on
virtually all issues, possibly in response to growing
competition
for the public's attention.
As freedom of association became more extensive (a more
permissive law was officially adopted in 1989), a number
of
groups emerged with interests spanning the entire range of
social
and political life. The focus of many new associations
revealed a
growing popular interest in public affairs. The groups
ranged in
outlook from the neo-Stalinist Ferenc Munnich Society,
founded in
1988, to the "Openness Club," also founded in 1988, which
sought
to promote complete freedom of the press, television, and
radio.
Some groups with definite political leanings hoped
eventually
to function as viable political parties. Others sought
merely to
represent and publicize the viewpoints of members. Several
of the
latter received particular attention throughout the
country. In
September 1987, a group of about 150 intellectuals,
including
some party members, formed the Hungarian Democratic Forum
to
sponsor public debates on social and political policy. At
first
the regime seemed to welcome the Forum, apparently hoping
to reap
the support of previously disaffected intellectuals.
However, the
Forum's status later became less clear, as some of the
participating party members were expelled from the party.
In 1988
a group of students established a new national
organization
called the Federation of Young Democrats. A politically
radical
group, it aimed to establish a democratic Hungary, but its
leaders denied any plans to form a political party. In
1989,
together with five other organizations, the Hungarian
Democratic
Forum and the Federation of Young Democrats formed what
became
known as the Opposition Roundtable to discuss a variety of
social
and political policy options.
In the late 1980s, more than at any time in the
previous four
decades, the Hungarian people lacked a consensus on the
proper
social goals of the country. Some observers, both within
the
country and abroad, feared that if economic conditions
worsened
as predicted, latent conflicts among social groups would
destabilize the country, especially in the absence of
strong
state and party influence, which was no longer considered
legitimate in the eyes of the populace. However, other
observers
stressed the opportunities for the emergence of new, fresh
ideas
and the vigorous, healthy debates that were occurring
throughout
Hungarian society. The latter assessment gave genuine
grounds for
optimism.
* * *
For a retrospective view of aspects of society's
development,
Zsuzsa Ferge's A Society in the Making is helpful.
Both
Hungarian and Western ethnographers have shown special
interest
in Hungarian rural life and its modern evolution. Two
valuable
studies are Edit Fel and Tamas Hofer's Proper
Peasants and
Peter D. Bell's Peasants in Socialist Transition.
Hungarian Ethnography and Folklore by Hungarian
ethnographers Ivan Balassa and Gyula Ortutay contains a
wealth of
detail as well as illustrations of traditional Hungarian
folkways. For the current urban perspective, Peter A.
Toma's
Socialist Authority provides a readable, somewhat
journalistic overview. The Hungarian government's Central
Statistical Office publishes statistical yearbooks in
English
that incorporate much information concerning past and
present
social structure. The Foreign Broadcast Information
Service's
Daily Report: East Europe offers current reporting
of
major social developments as depicted in the Hungarian
media. The
reports published by Radio Free Europe contain valuable
information and analyses as well. (For further information
and
complete citations,
see
Bibliography.)
Data as of September 1989
|
