Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:23:47.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Changes in Hungary After the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Barnabas Racz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

When the economic reform (NEM) was introduced in Hungary in early 1968, it was announced that political reforms aiming at the "democratization of the socialist system" would also be made. The Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party (MSZMP) and the government stated that economic decentralization would be accompanied by the "strengthening of socialist democracy and the broadening of the participation of the masses in political activities." Several measures were taken to promote this objective through discussion and debate–but not through dissent or decision-making. After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968, which seriously affected the entire East European bloc, Hungary's move toward democratization became less pronounced and the government's policy definitely more cautious both in words and deeds. In this study I attempt to analyze the meaning and scope of the political changes that took place in Hungary in the aftermath of Czechoslovakia, giving special attention to the concept of democracy, the organization of the party and government, the position of the mass organizations, and the meaning of the increasing group conflicts.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , December 1970 , pp. 633 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1970

References

1. The basic features of the NEM (New Economic Mechanism) are fundamentally similar to the reforms of other bloc countries, although there are some differences among them in scope and degree. See United Nations, Economic Survey of Europe, 1965, pt. 1, p. 57.

2. Note the following editorial statement : “Socialism does not have to tolerate an opposition against it because it represents in itself the interest of the working masses,” Népszabadság (Budapest), Mar. 3, 1968, p. 5.

3. Rezsö Nyers, member of the Political Bureau, “The Impact of the Economic Reform Upon the Society,” Társadalmi Szemle (Budapest), March 1968, p. 16.

4. Statement on the Congress of the PPF, Népszabadság , Apr. 19, 1968; see also Apr. 24, 1968, p. 2.

5. Magyar Netnset (Budapest), June 11, 1968, p. 4.

6. See, for example, the Statement by Sandor Lakos, director of the Sociological Institute of the MSZMP Political Academy, Népszabadság, June 4, 1968, p. 5; Népszabadság g, June 13, 1968, p. 4; Gyula Kallai, member of the Political Bureau and president of the National Assembly, “Economic Reform and the Development of Society,” Társadalmi Szemle, June 1968, p. 11.

7. Gyula Kállai, “Socialist Democracy, Socialist State,” Népszabadság, Dec. 24, 1968, p. 3.

8. Endre Kálmán, editor of Társadalmi Szemle, “The Variations and Potentialities of Democracy,” Társadalmi Szemle, August-September 1968, p. 12. Endre Kálmán, “The Slogan of Democratic Socialism and Reality,” Társadalmi Szemle, December 1968, pp. 14-23. For the rigid and authoritarian concept of democracy, see Valeria Benke, member of the Central Committee, “Unbroken Policy,” Társadalmi Szemle, October 1968, pp. 3-16; see also Zoltán Komócsi, member of the Political Bureau and secretary of the Central Committee, “National Interests and the Principles of Proletarian Internationalism,” Népszabadság, Apr. 4, 1969, pp. 1-2.

9. Béla Biszku, member of the Political Bureau and secretary of the Central Com mittee, “A Few Actual Questions About the Leading Role of the Party,” lecture on the Political Academy of the MSZMP, Népszabadság, Mar. 13, 1969, p. 3. Imre Pozsgai, secretary of the Bacs County Party Bureau, “Selected Problems of the Development of the Socialist Democracy,” Társadalmi Szemle, October 1968, p. 20; see for the discussion of the principle in the state apparatus, Gyula Kallai, “Actual Questions of the Life of the Socialist State,” Népszabadság, May 9, 1969, pp. 5-6.

10. See the debate between Peter Veres and Jozsef Bognar, “Between Hopes and Fears,” Népszabadság, Nov. 12, 1967, p. 9 (reference to suggestions that the party should reduce its involvement in economic and cultural matters).

11. Társadalmi Szemle, June 1968, p. 2.

12. Magyar Nemset, Oct. 25, 1968, p. 2.

13. Common Declaration of the Central Committee of the MSZMP and the Revolutionary Worker-Peasant Government on the March 5-6 joint meeting, Népszabadság Mar. 8, 1969, p. 1.

14. Speech by János Kádár on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the party, Népszabadság, Nov. 24, 1968, p. 1; see also statement by Bela Biszku, Társadalmi Szemle, January 1969, p. 5.

15. “The Status of the Party Democracy,” an analysis of the work of the Fourteenth District Party Committee in Budapest, Népszabadság, Mar. 12, 1969, p. 4.

16. Biszku, “A Few Actual Questions,” pp. 3-4; see also Népszabadság, Apr. 27, 1969, p. 3.

17. “In the Name of Unity and Responsibility,” Népszabadság, Dec. 15, 1968, p. 3. It is pointed out that in only about 2 to 3 percent of the cases were the official candidates “not elected.

18. In order to be placed on the ballot the candidate must be recommended by the nominating committee or by any member of the organization and must win a minimum 51 percent of the votes; see “Report About the Election Meetings of the Party Organizations,” Népszabadság, Oct. 24, 1968, p. 3.

19. László Rózsa, “Half-Way,” Népszabadság, Dec. 1, 1968, p. 3; for the importance of the party in the economy, see also Népszabadság, May 25, 1969, p. 3.

20. Népszabadság, Feb. 8, 1969, p. 3, and May 17, 1969, p. 5.

21. “Ideological Center in the Counties,” Népszabadságt Feb. 2, 1969, p. 6.

22. See Éva Katona, journalist, “Ideology, Conviction, School,” Társadalmi Szemle, July 1968, pp. 62-63.

23. József Horváth, “Voluntarily Undertaken Obligation,” Népszabadság, Mar. 27, 1969, p. 3; see also “Communist Ethics and Political Responsibility,” Népszabadság, Apr. 27, 1969, p. 3.

24. Magyar Nemset, Dec. 18, 1968, p. 1.

25. Statement by Dr. Gyula Szilágyi, candidate of biology and secretary of the party organization in the Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Népszabadság, Oct. 9, 1968, p. 5. The italics are mine.

26. “Communists in the Administrative Agencies,” Népszabadság, Feb. 8, 1969, p. 3, and May 17, 1969, p. 5.

27. Statement of Jenő Fock, chairman of the Council of Ministers, Magyar Nemset, Oct. 17, 1968, p. 3.

28. Népszabadság, Feb. 8, 1969, p. 3.

29. A basically similar trend in the USSR was analyzed by Oliver, James H. in “Citizen Demands and the Soviet Political System,” American Political Science Review, 63 (1969) : 465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Népszabadság, Apr. 1, 1969, p. 5, and also Apr. 23, p. 5.

31. Dr. József Varga, candidate of the Academy of Sciences, “Theoretical Questions of the Development of the Council System,” Társadalmi Szemle, May 1969, pp. 3-13.

32. Dr. György Gonda, chairman of the Executive Committee of Vas County Council, “About the Increase of the Councils’ Role,” Társadalmi Szemle, June 1969, pp. 65-68.

33. Éva Terényi, “Jurisdictions and Councils,” Népszabadság, Nov. 9, 1968, p. 5.

34. Varga, “Theoretical Questions” (see note 31).

35. Statement by Dr. Mihály Korom, minister of justice, Magyar Nemset, Nov. 17, 1968, p. 3.

36. “Local Courts in the Villages,” Népszabadság, Dec. 4, 1968, p. 3. Such “social courts,” especially in small communities, are likely to generate much resentment and may be conducive to the creation of new tensions. However, there is no available data at present for an evaluation of the new system. Official statistics show that 37 to 42 percent of the earlier social courts, organized in 1964 at the places of work, exist only nominally, and those that are operative deal with only a few cases per year; see Népszabadság, Apr. 17, 1969, p. 3.

37. Statement by Dr. Sándor Beckl, secretary, on the meeting of the National Council of Labor Unions (SZOT), Népszabadság, Dec. 12, 1968, p. 3.

38. Ibid. The first significant veto was cast in April 1969, in the Athaeneum Printing Office in a disagreement between the local labor union and management. In the report about this case the lack of the application of the veto is criticized; see Népszabadság, June 1, 1969, p. 6.

39. Gábor Somoskői, secretary of the SZOT, “The Confidence of the Workers,” Népszabadság, Jan. 12, 1969, p. 1.

40. Nyers, “The Impact of the Economic Reform,” pp. 7-21.

41. Kállai, “Economic Reform,” p. 11.

42. Népszabadság, Jan. 3, 1969, p. 3.

43. Wages for the skilled workers in cooperatives are frequently much higher than in industry, resulting in a reverse-flow of labor from the industrial to the agricultural sector of the economy, Népszabadság, Jan. 31, 1969, p. 3.

44. For a detailed analysis of the question see Dr. Sándor Zsarnoczai, university docent, “Peasant Incomes and Living Standards,” Társadalmi Ssetnle, June 1969, pp. 12-27.

45. See “Working Days in the May 1st Clothing Factory,” Népszabadság, Oct. 30, 1968, p. 6.

46. “Conflicts, Misunderstandings and Embarrassments,” Népszabadság, Dec. 11, 1968, p. 6.

47. See Népszabadság, Mar. 25, 1969, p. 5. For a reference to popular views, according to which the differentiated premium-distribution system contributes to social conflicts and creates contradictions in the society, see “Problems of the Economic Reform,” lecture by József Bálint, head of the Department of the Economic Policy of the Central Committee, on the Political Academy of the MSZMP, Népszabadság, May 23, 1969, pp. 4-5.

48. Népszabadság, Mar. 25, 1969, p. 5.

49. Népszabadság, Feb. 6, 1969, p. 5.

50. Statement by Jenö Fock, Népszabadság, Jan. 3, 1969, p. 3.

51. With reference to Czechoslovakia, see “A ‘Common Cause' : The 2000 Words,” Problems of Communism, November-December 1968, pp. 12-13; with reference to Hungary, see Charles Derecskei, “To the Tick of a Different Clock,” Atlantic Monthly, February 1969, pp. 74-83.

52. Népszabadság, Mar. 19, 1969, p. 3.

53. See Dr. Laszló Molnár, professor of sociology at the Political Academy, “Thoughts About the Social Functions of Sociology,” Társadalmi Szemle, December 1968, pp. 87-91.

54. Statement by Béla Biszku, Társadaltni Szemle, January 1969, pp. 5-6.

55. Michael Gamarnikow, “Political Patterns and Economic Reforms,” Problems of Communism, March-April 1969, pp. 11-23.