In analysing the dissent phenomenon in Romania under N. Ceausescu's rule we have to take into account the three models of control adopted by the regime: remunerative, coercive and symbolic-ideological (K. Verdery, 1991). Much have been writers about the ability of RCP to associate intelligentsia and to use nationalism as an instrument for legitimising its rule and for keeping the intellectuals coupled or subservient. But Michael Shafir demonstrated that in Romanian traditional political culture, intelligentsia has always been in a posture of defender of the nation, a repository of national values #7;. Developing further Shafir's arguments, Katherine Verdery argued that RCP was "forced" to integrate this extremely powerful discourse into its ideology, rather than becoming the initiator of the move towards the nationalist discourse #8;. This new perspective has deep consequences for our analysis, because it demonstrated that national discourse in Romania was much more than a tool devised by the RCP to control the society: it has always been the most powerful discourse, able to monopolise the socio-economic and political issues in Romanian society. The deeply nationalist imprint on the Romanian intelligentsia made most Romanians regard dissent as having anti-national overtones. Because in Ceausescu's Romania dissent meant not to join the nationalist chorus. Romanian public opinion tended to regard many dissidents as rather eccentric figures than potential civic leaders (see P. Goma's or M. Dinescu's cases). On the other hand, the Hungarian community in Romania contained a high level of potential dissent for many reasons (a different cultural history, tradition and religion of stressing autonomy in relation with the state rather that obedience to the state as in Romanian case; historical resentments and dissatisfaction; and political support and encouragement from Budapest). All these drew a frontier between Romanian and Hungarian dissents; although they had a common enemy, they developed two isolated and even antagonistic discourses. Most of the Hungarian dissidents were not concerned in their discourse with the general problems of the Romanian society and did not consider the situation in general, but formulated rather specific demands related with the situation of Hungarian community and focused their propaganda in revealing to international community the tradition of intolerance and xenophobia in Romanian society. The result was that Romanian intellectuals in general did not support their discourse. There are of course notable exception, as the reaction of Romanian writer Eugen Ionescu at Vienna Conference in 1986, or the Joint Declaration of Romanian and Hungarian intellectuals in January 1990. But, the following analysis will reinforce my conclusion that a Romanian-Hungarian common reaction could be traced with more success at the lower level of workers' uprisings than at intelligentsia's level.
The beginning of the Hungarians' dissidence could be related with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. Hungarian intellectuals realised the impact of human right concept on Western policy; the efficiency of press campaign and of unfavourable international publicity on pressuring the Romanian government; and they took advantage of the "recognition of samizdat as a legitimate and reliable mean of communication" #9;. That is way their activity was focused on revealing information about Hungarian minority in the Western press. "Contacts with Hungary no doubt also played a part in persuading members of the Hungarian minority to put pressure on the Romanian state by publicity in the West" #10;.
Consequently, in 1977 and 1980, Károly Király, (a
former RCP First Secretary, member of the CC and vice-president
of the Hungarian Council), protested in letters against the manipulation
of the Council of Workers of Hungarian Nationality, pointing out
that there was "a great gap between theory and practice" #11;;.
In 1977, Professor Lajos Takacs wrote a memorandum protesting
about the official policy concerning minorities #12;. In December 1981,
some Hungarian intellectuals launched a Hungarian-language samizdat
entitled Ellenpontok (Counterpoint), having as objective to arouse
international opinion, to strengthen minority consciousness. "The
editors of Elenpontok were concerned primarily with showing what
they perceived as the long historical roots of Romanian intolerance
and xenophobia and, by implications, the impossibility of coming
to terms with the existing nationalist current" #13;. It is interesting
to remark that the first Romanian samizdat, Romania Libera
(April 1988), and the samizdat news agency "The Hungarian
Press of Transylvania" activated both in Budapest and showed
growing unofficial political support of the Hungarian government for
the dissidence against Romanian regime. In spite of these efforts,
two interesting cases demonstrated the gap between Romanian and
Hungarian dissidence from Romania. In December 1989, László
Tókés was presented in Hungarian press as the "
hero", the angel of the Romanian revolution. And Hungarian
press found his Romanian counterpart in Doina Cornea, "this
brave lady", as she was called in Magyar Nemzet #14;. The
two symbols seemed to represent the Romanian-Hungarian common
fight and reconciliation, and Hungarian media circulated the idea
of proposing both for Nobel Prize for Peace #15;. But soon, Cornea
spoke against the reopening of a separate Hungarian University
in Cluj, and her name was then replaced by another dissident figure,
Smaranda Enache, the director of Puppet Theatre from Tirgu Mures.
As for Laszlo Tókés, his declarations made abroad
about the Hungarian minority's situation in Romania were considered
by Romanians so radical that his image in Romanian press radically
deteriorated.
|
|
| Back | Index | Next |