The
first debate of the conference was dedicated to legacy of the democratic
opposition and the challenges of political transformation. The panel was
chaired by Krzysztof Bobiński who opened the disussion with a historical
remark. According to him, the general feeling in the late 80s was fatigue and
desire for normality. Since 25 years passed a debate on successes and failures
of the transitions is necessary. The time of celebrations and anniversaries
ended.
First
of all, Laszlo Rajk reminded that the debate takes places on the
anniversary of the Hungarian revolution in 1956. Worth remembering - the events
in Budapest were an act of solidarity towards the protesters in Poznań. What
united them is the dedication to freedom. It led them to the non-violent
revolution in 1989. According to L. Rajk, there’s one another important element
of the politcal changes of that times. That is the institutional revolution.
He personally saw the creation of the instituions that will guarantee the
effective checks and balances system as the main challenge of the Autumn of
Nations. Nevertheless, as it turns out, institutions aren’t enough and the
human factor needs to be taken into account as well. This led L. Rajk to a more
pessimistic observation. In his opinions, the current ruling elite in Hungary
betrayed the ideals of the democratic dissidents. “Business is more important
than democracy for them”. L. Rajk sees two solutions here. The first one is based
on “practicing democracy” - a constant care for civic education and
culture. The other one is the establishment of the Copenhagen Committee to
monitor the constitutional deveopments of the respective states.
Then Magdalena
Vasaryova discussed the state of mind of the democratic opposition on the
eve of the political breakthrough. As she quoted Jan Carnogursky “we
were not prepared”. The revolutionary elite did not know how democratic state
works in practice. This resulted in frustration and the general disappointment
with the political developments. She also refered to the problem of the
victimisation of history. “Who’s victim of whom?” - she asked the
audience. In her opinion blaming others is actually a way to give up own
personal responsibility. Finally, she raised the question of the Visegrad
cooperation. It’s disintegrated. Attitude towards Russia’s invasion on Ukraine
divided Central Europe. “Hungary and Slovakia conduct irresponsible
provincial policy”.
“Poland
is a country of a major success”. That’s how Jan Lityński
began his contribution to the debate. Despite the expectations were obviously
higher and the legacy of Solidarity or totalitarian experience have been lost,
Poles succeeded. Poland is in order. Thus - “why is it so bad if it’s so
good?” J. Lityński sees the low political culture as the main problem.
Young people follow the simplistic answers of both national and liberal-egoist
extremists. That’s the failure of transi
tion.
Then
the floor was given to the audience. Zbigniew Zgała outlined the weak
state as a major problem. In his opinion it does not work properly in order to
safeguard citizen’s interests. “People are left alone” - he said. On the
other hand, Wojciech Przybylski pointed out the need for the change
of generations in politics. ‘68 generation shall finally change its role in
the public sphere - serving with advice to the younger generation. Samuel
Abraham raised the problem that young people have problems to formulate
their interests. This is perhaps why they follow extremists with clear views on
everything regardless of the complexity of public affairs - Magdalena Vasaryova
concluded. The debate was finished with Laszlo Rajk call for positive
radicalism that would rather focus on re-shaping the world than on the
figure of enemy. “The history is not over. Let’s be happy” - he summed up the
discussion.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz