Ministry of Public Administration and Justice

Our fathers’ stories live with us – interview with Minister Navracsics

August 22, 2012 11:00 AM

Interview with Dr. Tibor Navracsics, Minister of Public Administration and Justice in the Hungarian history magazine Múlt-kor, on the occasion of the upcoming European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Totalitarian Regimes.

During the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the European Union in 2011, Hungary, Poland and Lithuania initiated a day of remembrance for the victims of totalitarian political systems, which was accepted by the Ministers of Justice of the European Union. August 23rd was chosen as the day of remembrance as it coincides with the date of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was when the representatives of the two dominant regimes declared the border of their Eastern European interests.

Múlt-kor: What were the main reasons for introducing a day of remembrance in the European Union?

Tibor Navracsics: During the first half of 2011 under the Hungarian Presidency of the EU, the day of remembrance was brought up first during informal conversations between Baltic and Central European politicians who supported a collective day of remembrance devoted to the victims of National Socialism and Communism. This desire arose from the Central European, Baltic and South-West European countries that feel that there is a definite and strong European condemnation and a desire for elimination of National Socialism and its different national variations but Communism falls under different condemnation. The symbolic system of Communism seems to have become part of retro fashion: red star, T-shirts showing Che Guevara with Soviet scythe and hammer printed on them. For us who lived with these symbols they are not funny fashion objects but symbols of a totalitarian system, especially for the Baltic countries, which 20 years ago were essentially a part of the Soviet Union and were forced to live without independence. Moreover, it seems that in Western Europe, Communism is considered as a forgivable sin, or as a bygone historical era. For this reason in the councils of the Ministers of Justice it was brought up that the victims of Communism should be given similar concern to those of National Socialism. The most apparent way of equally honouring the victims is that we remember them not separately but in the understanding of Hannah Arendt, thus remembering them as two large examples of totalitarian systems. This was the background when word came that we should assign a European day of remembrance. The 23rd of August, the day of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was axiomatic symbolically indicating the intertwining of these totalitarian systems.

Múlt-kor: On last year’s day of remembrance it was said that Western European common talk stops short of condemning Communism. They seemed inclined to understate what happened in the Eastern Block. Do you agree with this?

Tibor Navracsics: Yes, we felt this during our discussions. It is no wonder, since they did not live under this system; they know it less than we Central Europeans, who lived it through. Not to mention the Baltic countries, where even in 1991, in Vilnius, Soviet troops shot into the demonstrators. The general who ordered the shooting still lives in Russia without any repercussions. He had no trial in Russia; however, in Lithuania he is still a wanted war criminal. This day of remembrance has several layers of meaning: it can be said that the Westerners had absolutely no experience of Communism, meanwhile in their internal political history, after 1945, the communist parties had an important and determinative roles in the majority of cases, whether it be France, Italy or even Spain, after Franco. In these countries the communist parties were determinant and well known; in certain cases they were acknowledged coalition partners of domestic politics. This is the reason for the careful Western European approach. The Brits finally flung the debate open. During one of the debates they said that Western Europeans have to consider that this was not only history or part of the past, but it had several heritages and consequences that could be felt in everyday life, strangely not only in Central Europe, but in several cases in Western Europe too.

Múlt-kor: Does Hungary have an indefeasible role in making the day of remembrance official?

Tibor Navracsics: Yes, we initiated it and lobbied for it in alliance with our Polish and Lithuanian partners. The final decision was made during the Hungarian Presidency. Our gestures made it possible that this first European day of remembrance took place in Warsaw, and the others’ gestures made it possible that this year it is organized in Budapest.

Múlt-kor: What kind of effects do you expect a day of remembrance will have in the short and long term?

Tibor Navracsics: Its short term effect is, that we, European Union politicians could meet up yearly and keep this subject alive. I see its long-term effect in that year by year we can continue to remember one of the saddest events of 20th century European history, which is full of disgraceful events anyway. In fact what happened on the 23rd of August in 1939 was that Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union divided the north-east part of Central Europe into interest spheres and also agreed on a new world order. They did this in a secret pact including all the cultural, political and economic consequences of the decision. In the long term I hope that continuing to talk about this pact, as part of our collective European remembering, will strengthen even more our commitment to democracy. Moreover, through such negative examples, as this pact was, it makes certain what we really mean by democracy.

Múlt-kor: Does the introduction of the day of remembrance help heal the wounds or perhaps open them up? Concerning this there is a vivid discussion about it in Hungary.

Tibor Navracsics: If we consider only Hungary – even the case of Béla Biszku, or the case of the counsel of Péter Mansfeld or the story of Mária Wittner – all these cases show that they still have an affect even today. Thus, in Hungary the stories of our fathers and grandfathers of the Rákosi- and Kádár regime still live with us. Accordingly, yes it will reopen some wounds, even possibly wounds that many of us have not even known to exist. For example, very few knew in Hungary that the counsel for the Mansfeld case lives amongst us as an untroubled citizen in a house on Naphegy Street. At the same time, I believe, that these painful discoveries will lead to long term peace, provided justice is finally administered. When it comes out who was responsible and also who stood on the right side at that time. As a result things will eventually be settled.

Múlt-kor: How can these stories be made to be experiencable and understandable to 18-22 year old people who did not even live at the end of Communism?

Tibor Navracsics: I see this problem every year, when teaching didactic science of politics as I try to explain the logic of totalitarian and authoritarian systems to second year university students. Earlier it was enough to refer to certain cases, since several of my students remembered them. Today I have to explain this as a historical event that seems far from them and is now just an abstract study experience. There are two possibilities to this. The choked atmosphere, which is always present in a totalitarian system as result of lack of freedom, was probably most effectively described by George Orwell in his book 1984: when people cannot be who they are, but have to be what they are expected to be. This restricts all aspects of one’s life. Another way is what Hannah Arendt said about totalitarian systems: the aim of a political system in a democracy is the self-realization of the members of the community, thus individuals; in a totalitarian system individuals are only means for the realization of some abstract aims, whether it be Communism or a pure race Europe. Thus, the life of an individual is unimportant, because it is just a raw material necessary to maintain the system. This is really difficult to imagine for most young people. In these cases I recommend reading literature since they describe the logic of totalitarian systems more precisely than political science.

Múlt-kor: Who you consider to be the symbol for the day of remembrance?

Tibor Navracsics: As a result of the vicissitudes of our Central European history unfortunately there are an abundance of choices. Still, I believe we should choose a living symbol like János Horváth. He is the senior chair of the Hungarian Parliament, who, as a politician of the Smallholders' Party was imprisoned by both the Arrow Cross Party and the Communists. He was an active member of movements against the National Socialists, Arrow Cross and Communist Parties. After 1945 he tried to live and work in Hungary but was rarely allowed to practice his civil profession. After leaving in 1956 he had a distinguished career in the United States then he chose to come back to Hungary in 1998 in order to continue his profession. His case symbolises well that even though totalitarian systems have many differences on the surface, they do not accept democracy; they imprisoned democrats by any means. János Horváth’s willpower, patriotism and fidelity to his country should be a guide for everyone to follow.