The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Hungarian and Canadian Perspectives

7. 1956 in the Republic of Hungary since 1989

7. 1956 in the Republic of Hungary since 1989 Heino Nyyssönen Riots and demonstrations took place in Hungary during the autumn of 2006. Flags with a hole in the middle flew in front of international audiences in September. Some felt that the protesters had revolution in mind, while others felt the events did in no way compare to those that took place in 1956. Nevertheless, 1956 has occasionally appeared as a reference point for current events. For example, during the first session of national round table talks in 1989, a representative of independent lawyers argued that three topics should be put into practice from now on: free elections, workers’ councils, and the right to travel. In other words, some wished to follow the precepts of 1956, to “continue” and fulfil the demands of an earlier historical moment, as those moments appeared from the perspective of 1989. Hungary can be seen not only in the context of its early political reforms but also in terms of several symbolic political actions that have recently taken place, such as a new interpretation of 1956, the reburial of Prime Minister Imre Nagy, and the declaration of the republic on October 23, 1989. However, according to the statements of current eye-witnesses and veterans, 1956 has not received the dignity and attention it deserves. In spite of political resurrection, bitter debates and confrontation have shadowed the legacy of 1956 in Hungary.1 The purpose of this paper is to study the content of these allegations and political debates, focusing particularly on how 1956 has become a political matter and politicized since October 1989. There are a couple of studies that deal with the systemic change in Hungary up to the first free elections and the Nyyssönen 1956 in the Republic of Hungary since 1989 151 first years of the new democracy.2 Here, I would like to take a step ahead and examine how the historic 1956 and its commemoration have been present from the autumn of 1989 until now in public debates conducted by different political actors, such as politicians, the media, and even professional historians. 1956 was not only of secondary importance to Hungary’s democratic transition, but it is now at the core of contemporary Hungarian political culture. I have approached this study knowing that the past is not mere history but is ever present and influences contemporary views.3 According to my argument there are two factors that have had an influence on the contemporary politicization of the 1956 revolution and its memory. The first one if that the Kádár regime did not permit any open discussion of the 1956 revolution: there was no critical debate of the 1956 revolution in the public sphere. During the Kádár era, the recent past was monopolized by the ruling Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, which also manipulated events from the recent past for political legitimization. In the new democracy, however, we can also find traces of political legitimization based on history. However, claiming the “truth of 1956” begs for political activity, which, in addition to requiring research work, also stresses the role of the new parties. We could then stress the second factor—or how new political parties formed in 1989 using the memory and legacy of 1956, as well as prior, short-lived experiments with democracy to build their own political identities—and surmise that critical debate and research work began at the same time, when political parties and social movements started to discover their historical roots in order to build their individual identities. As a consequence 1956, the historic event, had to compete for validation with other historical pasts and political identifications. Those who opposed political use of history and party statements remained voices in the wilderness. In fact 1956 and the memory of the revolutionary attempt play such a crucial role in current Hungarian political culture that I cannot give the whole picture in one article.4 Nevertheless, I would first like to take a look at the free elected Parliaments and essential political debates, which concerned 1956, as well: symbols, national holidays, debates concerning punishment, and commemorations. (Particularly, October 23 has been celebrated and commemorated since 1989.) Finally, I would like to speculate with a rhetorical 152 The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: Canadian and Hungarian Perspectives question: Would the status of 1956 be different if October 23 had not become a national holiday? In...