“Hungarian! You are an orphaned Abandoned mortal. Prostrate among all the nations, Hungarian, have faith and the future is yours.”
(Mrs. Elemér Papp-Váry, Hungarian Credo, 1921)
“The millennial series of disasters is over.”
(István Örkény: Nézzünk bizakodva a jövőben 1967)
(Let us look confidently to the future)
Subsequent to the 2010 parliamentary elections the new national assembly met for the first time on May 14, 2010. The government took office on May 29. Representing the political forces, which gained a two-third majority at the election, two representatives of the two-party coalition, the Young Democrats’ Alliance–Hungarian Civic Party, [Fiatal Democraták Szövetsége–Magyar Polgári Párt] (FIDESZ) and the Christian Democratic People’s Party [Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt (KDNP), László Kövér for FIDESZ and Zsolt Semjén for KDNP, submitted a legislative proposal on May 19, 2010, with the title of: “Testimonial to National Togetherness Day.” The purpose of this initiative was to make June 4 a National Memorial Day in honor of the Trianon Peace Treaty ending World War I for Hungary and signed on that day in 1920.
The parliamentary chronology is clear. The victors in 2010 considered it particularly important that the first symbolic political gesture of the new majority was to establish the commemoration, couched in a definite spirit, to the memory of the event that had caused one of the most significant traumas to the Hungarian national sentiment.
Memorial Act — Festival of Remembrance
The concept of the memorial act and of the festival of remembrance is derived from the history of the symbolic politics of the secular, civic state. The festival of remembrance was the designated day of the national community and no longer a part of religious tradition. Its origin refers back to ecclesiastic holidays but its contents are secular. It relates to the universality of the citizens making up the country and not to a religious communality.
For this reason the remarkable days of outstanding importance in the life of the political community are generally marked by the legislature of the day. By their content they could relate to individuals or events but, regardless whatever they are related to, they always gather a symbolic content.
In Hungarian history the first commemorative legislation coincides precisely with the beginning of modern Hungarian statehood, namely 1848. In the so-called April Laws Article 1 dealt with the official remembrance of Palatine József’s death, who had died the previous year.
The process then became unstoppable, at least so far as commemorative legislation about individuals were concerned.[1] We might mention some. Acts were passed for Ferenc Deák (Act 2 of 1876), Count Gyula Andrássy (Act 3 of 1890), Queen Elisabeth (Act 30 of 1898), Franz Joseph (Act 1 of 1917), Count István Széchenyi (Act 42 of 1925), Lajos Kossuth (Act 32 of 1927). Of course a law was enacted also for Saint Stephen (Act 33 of 1938). In 1946 the merits of the still living Mihály Károlyi were enacted into law (Act 2 of 1946) and, for the greater honor of domestic servility, the memory of Stalin was immortalized in Hungarian law (Act 1 of 1953).
Hungarian legislatures created commemoratives for rulers still in power such as the fortieth anniversary of Franz Joseph’s coronation (Act 28 of 1907), Miklós Horthy’s tenth anniversary as regent (Act 9 of 1930) and twentieth anniversary (Act 2 of 1940).
The new regime expunged a number of these commemorative legislations but this did not change the fact that the memorial days attached to individuals became imbedded in secular culture similarly to the days of the saints in the religious tradition.
The memorial days and the related parliamentary actions were not limited to individuals. The present Hungarian memorial day structure shows a varied image: February 1is the memorial day of the republic, February 25 is the memorial day of the victims of Communist dictatorship, April 16 is the memorial day of the Hungarian victims of the Holocaust, June 19 is the memorial day of the independent Hungary and October 6 is the memorial day of the Arad martyrs, the military leaders of the defeated revolution who were executed in Arad in 1849. In addition, there are also designated days that are celebrated by individual groups and which were not, in any, way related to parliamentary initiative. Such days include the day of Hungarian cards, the day of Hungarian soccer, the day of the Hungarian musical comedy, etc.
It can be said therefore that the memorial day has become completely a part of our culture; the commemorative legislations are not at all unusual in Hungarian legal and political practice.[2]
The memorial days and the legal acts referring to them always had a variety of contexts. There were instances when the goal of the memorial day and of the commemorative legislation was a national monument, created by personal contributions or by government funding. In other cases it meant that in the schools and the pertinent communities a festive commemoration was to be held each year. Another type of memorial day was when it was only a legislative gesture and yet another type was when it was conceived as a ritual event built into the very existence of the particular community. There are examples for every type in our past which shows that neither the memorial day nor the commemorative legislation were absent from the Hungarian culture.
It ensues from this that a day designed to remember Trianon and its legal background are in cultural harmony with our symbolic political history.
Justification for the Introduction of Memorial Days
Being aware of Hungarian traditions, the commemorative legislation and memorial day as cultural-political forms, need no justification. The concrete legislative act, however, does require that the arguments be listed. Let us see first how the proponent of the act supported his submission.
June 4, 2010, was the ninetieth anniversary of the Trianon Peace Treaty and this gave a sufficient reason for commemoration. Even though ninety is not usually a noted anniversary occasion, it not being a “round number,” there have been examples in Hungarian legislative history for its use in such a fashion. The Kossuth commemorative legislation was enacted on the eightieth anniversary of 1848. The first justification thus is the anniversary albeit this was not a sufficient reason.
It was a much more important justification that the parliamentary majority that took its seat in 2010 defined itself, among other things, as being national in nature and obliged itself firmly toward the granting of citizenship to the people living in the neighboring counties but having Hungarian ancestors. The majority believed that, independently of borders, the fact of a Hungarian descent constituted membership in the Hungarian nation and that therefore Hungarian citizenship had to be granted to them. The majority demonstrated this obligation by submitting amendments to the citizenship law on May 17, 2010, and this opened the door to the Hungarian minorities living in other countries to become members of the Hungarian political nation. This act, after ninety years, reversed the Trianon Peace Treaty without any territorial changes.
It was a logical addition to the expansion of the citizenship to indicate symbolically that the national dismemberment had come to an end. The most effective way to make this spiritual demonstration was to state: “Let us remember Trianon, but in a different way.” In the justification of the legislative proposal these aspects were emphasized. Under the positively perceived national strategy the MP who submitted the proposal distanced himself from the era that considered Trianon to be a burden. He distanced himself from the logic of “let us learn to be smaller,” expressing the acceptance of the post-Trianon status quo. He also extended the intent of expanding Hungarian citizenship and dissociated himself from the plebiscite of December 3, 2004, which due to the low turn-out, was unable to confirm the intentions of expanding the Hungarian citizenship.
The new vision emerging from the commemorative legislation was the following: “We need a new national policy that does away with the use of the ‘within border’ and ‘cross border’ concepts because there is only one Hungarian world, one Hungarian nation. There are only Hungarians and every Hungarian is responsible for every other Hungarian.”[3]
This justification disassociates itself from both the revisionist policies of the interwar period and from the worldview, committed to silence and self-denial, of the Socialist era. It comes out in favor of: “Let us dare to dream boldly” and believes that a reunification of the nation, regardless of state borders, was the task of national politics.
It is for this reason that the title of the legislative proposal heralds to concept of national togetherness because the dual citizenship in combination with the commemorative legislation could reassess the experiences of being torn apart derived from the Trianon Peace Treaty and would end in the long run, the so called, “Trianon trauma.”
The parties in the new parliament were fundamentally positive toward the idea of the commemorative legislation. Other than the two parties that were about to form a government, which proposed the new law, it was the far-right Movement for a Better Hungary [Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom], commonly known as Jobbik, being represented for the first time in parliament, that was most supportive of the legislation. They mentioned that for them Trianon was always important and therefore they are happy to support the proposal. The speech of its principal orator demonstrated that they did not need this new vision. His use of the term “Csonka Magyarország” (Mutilitated Hungary) was reminiscent of the revisionary world between the two wars. The last sentence of his speech was evoking the spirit of territorial revision when he openly referred to the Hungarian Credo of the Horthy era: “It could be one purpose of this June 4 remembrance that finally strengthened our belief to see not only an ordeal in Trianon but also that through suffering it God wanted to make this nation better and greater so that we could see resurrection in June 4, because I believe in one God, I believe in one country, I believe in God’s eternal justice and I believe in Hungary’s resurrection.”[4]
Speaking a in similar vein another representative of the same party stated that after the change in regime the Hungarian state had made fundamental bilateral treaties with its neighbors which, “regrettably guaranteed the inviolability of the territorial borders.”[5] The tone struck by the Hungarian far right signified that in their phrasing of Trianon they adhered firmly to the nationalist, revisionist narrative developed during the Horthy regime.
The Socialists agreed that it was appropriate to remember Trianon but they raised several objections. One of their principal objections was that Trianon should not appear by itself but that the national interdependence was symbolized by two dates combined. These should be June 4, the Trianon Day and May 9, the Europe Day because membership in the European Union and the ensuing political consequences guarantee the permeability of borders and the respect of minority rights. This would also then make it possible to move beyond Trianon. The Socialists also noted that the text submitted contained a number of statements that were either unnecessary or should be altered. For instance “Hungarian nation” should be replaced by “Hungarian cultural nation.” They also mentioned that the legislative proposal contained differentiations of worldviews. They believed that this text made the importance of religion a matter of law. Their reservations were indicated not only by their speeches[6] but also by the submission of a number of amendments of the legislative proposal.[7]
The Politics Can Be Different [Lehet Más a Politika] (LMP) also supported the proposal but mentioned that there were ambiguities in the language of the proposal[8] and submitted a one sentence amendment asking that the National Assembly express its respect for those who took on solidarity with the Hungarians and suffered injury because of it, even though they were not Hungarians.[9]
The Constitutional, Legal, and Steering Committees of the National Assembly rejected the amendments submitted by the opposition and allowed only one minor change. Consequently, at the final vote on the National Interdependence Act, on May 31, the results were: three hundred and two yes, fifty-five no and twelve abstentions. The Socialists voted no, the LMP, except its chairman, abstained and the Jobbik voted with the government majority.
The Text of the Law and the Comments of the President of the Republic
The official name of the new law is: Act 45 of 2010, “On Testimony on National Togetherness.”[10] It was published in ten languages.[11] The text enacted over the signature of the president of the republic reads:
“Act 35 of 2010 of the National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary on Testifying to National Togetherness
We, the members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary, those who believe that God is the Lord of history and those who try to understand the course of history from other sources, for our country and for the totality of the Hungarian nation, under our responsibility, stated in the Constitution, remembering one of the greatest historic tragedy of the Hungarians, the dictated peace signed on June 4, 1920, that dismantled historic Hungary and placed the nation under the jurisdiction of a number of other countries. Recognizing the political, economic, legal and psychological problems caused by the dictated peace and unresolved to this day we are led by the purpose that this action contribute to the mutual understanding and cooperation of the peoples living together in the Carpathian Basin, to a peaceful future and to the re-unification of Europe fragmented by the tragedies of the twentieth century, we enact the following law:
Article 1.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary pays tribute to all those men, communities and their leaders and to their memory, who made it possible with their assumption of responsibilities and with their accomplishments, that the Hungarians could, after the unjust and undignified fragmentation of the Hungarian nation by foreign powers on June 4, 1920, become stronger again spiritually and economically and were able to survive this and other ensuing historical tragedies. The National Assembly bows its head before all the men and women, and their memory, who in this struggle over the past ninety years suffered for their being Hungarian, mentioning particularly those who had to sacrifice their life in order to attest their national identity. The National Assembly remembers with approval all those who, albeit not Hungarians, demonstrated solidarity with the Hungarians.
Article 2.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary confirms that the historically well known attempts to resolve the problems created by the dictated Peace Treaty of Trianon were failures, regardless whether they were new border modifications accomplished with the support of foreign powers, or whether they were an attempt to extirpate national identity under the aegis of international ideology. On this basis the National Assembly declares that the solution of the above problems can be achieved only within the framework defined by rules of international law, by the cooperation of countries of equal standing, democratic in structure and sovereign in nature, assuring increasing well being, security under the law and a practical legal equality. The starting point can only be the freedom of the individuals, including their ability of selecting their national self government, and the right of the national communities for internal self-determination. The National Assembly, at the same time, condemns all such endeavors that are directed to achieve assimilation of the nationalities living on the soil of the given country.
Article 3.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary declares that every one of the Hungarians and their communities under the jurisdiction of other states are an integral part of the Hungarian nation. Their unity across state lines is a reality and is also the defining element of their individual and collective identity. On this basis the National Assembly confirms Hungary’s obligation to maintain and promote the mutual relationship of the members and communities of the Hungarian nation as well as to support their natural demands for the various forms of autonomy promulgated by the generally accepted practices in Europe.
Article 4.
The National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary considers it to be its duty to admonish the present and future members of the nation to always remember the national tragedy caused by the Trianon peace dictates, recognizing our faults which had caused injury to the members of other nationalities and, learning from these, as well gaining strength from the examples of cooperation during the struggles of the past ninety years working to strengthen national togetherness. For this reason the National Assembly declares that June 4, the anniversary of the dictated Trianon Peace Treaty of 1920 is the Day of National Togetherness.
Article 5.
The present act takes effect on June 4, 2010.
László Sólyom Dr. Pál Schmitt
President of the Republic President of the National Assembly”
The National Assembly held a festive session on June 4, 2010, where the President of the Republic of Hungary also spoke. According to the president there are two types of images about the nation. One is the political concept of the nation based on equality of law and loyalty of the citizen. The other one is the cultural concept of nation characterized by its own language, culture, history and national consciousness. Historically and politically the country and the nation do not necessarily overlap. The president believed that consequently the two concepts of nation could result in much tension. It was for this reason that he considered it a positive step that the act about national togetherness emphasized the Hungarian nation and national unity rather than the historic Hungarian state. On the basis of this talk, he considered it to be a positive national strategy to recognize the requisite role of the mother country and also to declare the independence of the cross-border parts of the nation. He stated: “Budapest does not direct the so-called homogeneous cross-border Hungarian society because there is no such thing. The Hungarians have become multi-centered and this must be institutionalized while building the cultural nation.”[12]
He believed that this law had to be imbued with life. For this the following endeavors had be instituted in the case of the Hungarians living as minorities outside of the mother country:
“Making the Hungarian language official on a local and regional level. The right and actual facility to establish a Hungarian of educational and cultural system and to endow them with the same support being received by the cultural institutions of the majority. Teaching in the mother tongue is the best way to maintain a Hungarian national consciousness and is the best weapon against assimilation. This must include prosaletizing and religious life in Hungarian. A territorial administrative organization within the given countries that would assure that the fewest number of Hungarians would become minorities in these areas. This means a territorial arrangement in the framework of which it becomes possible to practice specific nationalities’ rights in culture, education and language linked to the area. Another goal is the development and closing the gap in the infrastructure and economy in areas inhabited by Hungarians. Furthermore, the official recognition of the Hungarian national symbols and the assurance of political representation at the various levels of the political system. Finally, something that pertains only to us, the mother country: individual emancipation within Hungary so that our cross-border compatriots staying in Hungary not be treated as foreign citizens. The new citizenship act is very helpful in this matter but must never lead to our differentiating between members of the Hungarian nation on the basis whether they have Hungarian citizenship or not.”
According to the president, the Law of National Togetherness wished to cease the victimhood and mournful attitude passed on for generations. There was need for the Hungarians for self-examination but there was also a need for the majority population of the neighboring countries to approach the Hungarians with an open heart. This is the only way in which a new, unified, moral and emotional integration can take place not only between Hungarians and Hungarians but also between Hungarians and non-Hungarians.
There can be no doubt that the law opened a new path to the state’s social and political management of the Trianon syndrome. It rejected the way the official interwar narrative and was not thinking in terms of revision or self-pity. It was justified for the president of the republic to believe that there was need for a new moral and emotional integration.
Yet, during the debates on the legislative proposal it became clear that there were some who rigidly adhered to the well trod path of speaking with nationalist and irredentist slogans and to the appropriate cultural and political formats. The extension of Hungarian citizenship gave legal emphasis to the cultural concepts of the nation, lifting it to the area of the cultural concept of statehood even though the concept of country and nation did not yet coincide. In this way it created an actual and potential source of tensions both within certain neighboring states and also among the Hungarians. How would the Hungarian state protect its citizens living in other countries and holding the citizenship of those countries if their cultural and minority rights were in jeopardy? How would the possible conflicts due to this problem respond to the Hungarian nationalist interpretations caused by the dismemberment? Would it help the idea of togetherness without a revisionist component or will it act in opposition to it?
The principal question emerging was: can the optimism in the future replace the pessimism of the past?
What Ensued from the Law
In addition to the Law of National Togetherness the National Assembly accepted a government decree and a National Assembly motion.
The government decree confirmed: the Day of National Togetherness was included in the line of the national holidays and among other outstandingly important programs.[13] All this shows that the state attributed a particular importance to the Day of National Togetherness, similar to the national holidays, and assigned a decisive role to it in its symbolic politics.
The National Assembly motion was passed on October 21, 2010, and contains the following:
“Resolution no. 101/2010 of October 21 of the National Assembly on the Introduction of the Day of National Togetherness, on the Shaping and Strengthening of Relations between the Young Hungarians in Hungary and Abroad in Public Education and Also on the Presentation of Cross-Border Hungarians.
- In order for the relationships between the Hungarians of Hungary and cross-border Hungarians to be improved and in order to get to know each other better, the National Assembly calls on the government to:
- a) prepare a memorial day in the schools on the Day of National Togetherness to begin with the 2010–2011 school year. Such a memorial day in addition to remembering the Trianon decision, will promote the strengthening of the relationship between the Hungarian sister schools in the Carpathian Basin and between the student communities.
- b) review the experiences gained through school trips to the neighboring countries and through the cooperative efforts Hungarian sister schools and especially through the exchange camping experiences in the Carpathian Basin. On the basis of the lessons learned prepare a national program to make it possible for every Hungarian youngster in the public schools to visit with Hungarian state support Hungarian areas in the neighboring countries at least once. Equally, within the framework of exchange programs have as many cross-border Hungarian youngsters as possible visit Hungary. Furthermore, make a recommendation to finance this until 2013 through grants and after through budgetary means.
- c) With the involvement of the Ministry of National Human Resources, explore the possibility of creating by December 31, 2012, the House of the Hungarians which would be a center of methodology for the support of remembrance in the schools of National Togetherness Day and of educational excursions. It would also be the most important institution for introducing the cross-border Hungarian communities, their most important national accomplishments in language maintenance, pedagogy, and public education.
- The National Assembly calls on the government to make a recommendation by December 31, 2010, concerning the amendment of the legal regulations, or the enactment of new regulations, that would assure, with the involvement of the Ministry of National Human Resources, the professional and financial background to the above.
- This resolution will take effect on the day of its release.”[14]
The goal that the study trips, sister school cooperation and exchange programs make it possible for the largest number of Hungarian students to visit the Hungarian areas in the neighboring countries, and vice versa, shows well the intent of bypassing the Trianon syndrome, replete with victimhood, self- pity and revisionism. The coordination of these visits was the responsibility of the Apáczai Közalapitvány [Apáczai Public Fund], which, on the basis of the parliamentary resolution, initiated a national program with the title of “Határtalanul” [Without Borders]. The public start of the program occurred on May 27, 2010, months before the parliamentary resolution and a few days before the law was enacted. Between May and October, 2010, students from 177 public schools and six thousand students from trade- and professional schools could visit the areas of the neighboring countries inhabited by Hungarians.
In principle there were three types of these study tours to areas in the neighboring countries:
* Thematic and instructive trips;
* Joint camping trips, programs and classes with local Hungarian students;
* Volunteer work that the visiting students performed for the communities they visited.[15]
It was evident, and had been shown in many previous experiences, that the most effective antidote for the nationalistic victimhood politics and awareness was personal experience and communication. This was the precise goal of the “Határtalanul” program and it was thus an excellent form of mutual understanding and of getting rid of nationalist illusions. It became an adequate tool for the expression of national togetherness.
It was of remarkable significance that the day devoted to the values of national togetherness became one of the memorial days in the schools and a part of the Hungarian educational system. (The Hungarian public education system regularly celebrates an additional three memorial days: February 25—the memorial day of the victims of the Communist dictatorship; April 16—the memorial day of the victims of the Holocaust and October 6—the memorial day of the Arad martyrs.)
It became an important question how the schools were going to handle the Trianon anniversary and would they be able to go beyond the old “there is no other loser but I” narrative. To assist them in this there was educational background material prepared on order from the government. It does not follow that all schools acted accordingly but it does show the intent of the government.
The hundred thirty one page book contains programs, lesson plans, source materials, bibliography, quotations from the literature and scholarly analyses. It assists in conceptually identifying the areas, which because of the Trianon Peace Treaty were taken from historic Hungary. These are called detached areas in the background material while in step with the law the peace treaty is called the peace dictate.
The background material interprets World War I and the peace treaty at the end of it in accordance with the position of contemporary Hungarian scholarship. Naturally the Hungarian scholarly approach is also open to questions. One could ask for a better general historical perspective. There is a real omission of the view, stressed by many, of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy’s intentions to reorganize the realm and this raises a question about the integrity of historic Hungary. There is also the question about the nationalist perspective and terminology which at times can also be seen in the scholarly literature which neglects to emphasize the responsibility for Hungarian nationality policies. This is not a subject for the present work and historical scholarship can expect pedagogic scholarship to give only material that corresponds to its own cultural standards.
Because it deals with students, formulating the emotional impact becomes very important. In this respect the document states:
“The Memorial Day of National Togetherness is not a day of mourning even though it relates to a sad event. Therefore there has to be an opportunity to go beyond the historical recollections and assistance in facilitating the relationships of the Hungarians with sister schools and student organizations in the Carpathian Basin. There has to be an expansion of the familiarity of our youth with the Hungarians beyond the borders and a gathering of the experiences gained thereby.
The remembrances in the schools might contribute to the understanding of the Trianon trauma and to its recovery. This can be really successful if it is based on active participation by the students, their volunteer work, collection of donations, exhibits, projects, theme days and even theme weeks. The purpose and goal of all this is to make it understood that the ethnic boundaries of the Hungarian nation do not coincide with the actual borders of the Hungarian state.
The contents of the June 4 Memorial Day can be incorporated only by purposeful school activities based on educational activities and reflecting the national togetherness. The practical accomplishment has to go well beyond the memorial day in a form of school projects, theme days or weeks, and become successful only if it is incorporated into the spirit of education and if it contributes to the activities performed on behalf of the cross-border Hungarians by contact maintained with the sister schools.”[16]
The key sentence is: “not a day of mourning” but a “day of togetherness.” The material intends to strengthen the togetherness, correctly in my view, by making it a positive, valuable part of patriotism. For this reason there are multiple literary references in the lesson plans and in the addenda. For the sake of completeness I enclose a list of the poets and writers who are included: Géza Gyóni, Gyula Juhász, Endre Ady, Dezső Kosztolányi, Albert Wass, Sándor Sajó, Sándor Remenyik, Mihály Babits, Sándor Petőfi, Gyula Illyés, Péter Veres, Lajos Áprily, Attila József, Emil Ábrányi, Jenő Dsida and Sándor Csóori. In addition to the literary texts there are also a number of folk songs.
The list shows that there are writers who are part of the recommended literature but could not have written about Trianon, having died long before it. Their patriotism, however, is beyond any doubt.
There are writers in the list who according to the present literary canon are in the first order and there are others who belong to the second or even third order. And there is also one whom some, during the past few years, want to push to a major position in the Hungarian literary canon (Albert Wass).
The compliers and editors of the pedagogic material performed a generally satisfactory task and the material corresponds to the status of current Hungarian scholarship. The principal thrust of the material is patriotism and an expression of the value of togetherness. The instructions for the schools attempt to go beyond the earlier, belligerently self-pitying, defiant narrative believing in a Hungarian resurrection.
As I had indicated earlier, we do not know what kind of memorial services were held at the several thousand educational institutions in the country. We have reason to be skeptical concerning the implementation of the goals of the scholarly material. An author in the publication of the History Professors’ Association wrote:
“During the summer of 2011 I visited a school in Kőszeg and looked at the June 4 decorations that had been left around. The displays in the corridors were Hungary in 1941 maps and pictures and every one of the captions stressed how the unified homogenous Hungary had been carved up by strangers and how this was partially remedied by the Vienna Awards. Caricatures depicted the spiteful, underhanded, evil looking Serbs, Slovaks and Romanians who crawl around wresting away the Hungarian soil from an innocent maiden or a shackled young man. There were no ethnic maps, no current analytical explanation and no mention that there had been a World War. I can well imagine what kind of a program was performed in this environment.”[17]
There is not necessarily a causal relationship between the scholarly pedagogic material and the practice of remembrance in the schools. Some schools held an entirely different kind of commemoration than the one spelled out by the law and by the scholarly pedagogic material. This was perhaps why the opinion was reached that:
“The collective self-delusion and the distortion of history exhibited in practice demonstrate that it is impossible to take the originally drafted slogans of the law ordering the Day of National Togetherness seriously. This law was supposed to mandate that June 4 shall be about national togetherness, contributing to the peaceful future of the peoples living together in the Carpathian Basin in mutual understanding and cooperation. It was to playa part in the reunification of Europe fragmented by the tragedies of the twentieth century and help the shaping of the common future of the peoples of the Carpathian Basin and the success of common European values.The “Pedagogic background material” drafted on instruction from the Ministry of National Human Resources by the Educational Research and Development Institute in May 2010, states that the memorial day of national togetherness was not a day of mourning. All this was just written drivel.”[18]
It seems that the duality, that I call the pessimism of the past and the optimism of the future, remained unchanged in the planned and performed school commemorations.
It is worthwhile to examine which narrative was dominant in the events of June 4, since the enactment of the law. Was it what the law proposed or was it the “prayer mill” of Hungarian nationalism associated with Trianon as utilized so regularly in the past?
Fourth of June, Events and Interpretations
It is almost impossible to review the list of events associated with June 4 since regime change. What is important for us is to determine whether the 2010 law could create a new narrative, emphasizing solidarity and patriotism, that goes beyond the attitude of victimhood and the complete rejection of responsibility.
Let us first see briefly in what spirit the day was remembered in 1990 and 2000, on the seventieth and eightieth anniversaries.
On June 4, 1990, György Szabad, the president of parliament asked that the National Assembly commemorate the day by standing silently for one minute. The recommendation triggered a violent reaction and the MPs from the FIDESZ Party marched out of the chamber in protest.
In 2000 Prime Minister Victor Orbán the president of FIDESZ, in his speech at Edelény, recalled Trianon. His principal comment was,
“During the past one thousand years five empires occupied us and there is no trace left of any of them. We who had been occupied and trampled upon are still here. On June 4 one must say, however, that there are not as many of us and our country is not as large as it was before, but we still exist, we have survived everything and now we are planning our future.”
In 2000 the government coalition organized a joint commemoration in Zebegény by the local Trianon Memorial. The monument had been erected between 1935 and 1938 but was not completed. The final completion was undertaken in 1996 and it was dedicated on June 4, 2000.
The largest attendance, more than ten thousand people, was attracted by the program of the extreme right Party of Hungarian Life and Justice [Magyar Igazság és Élet Pártja (MIÉP)] on Heroes’ Square. Here the Reverend Loránt Hegedűs, Jr. commented on the “Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish mafia crippling the country.” The speakers’ speeches were acknowledged by the crowd with yells of “No, No, Never. Let Trianon perish” The journal of MIÉP, the Magyar Forum, had a special edition to remember Trianon. In this issue it commented that if Romania was drifting toward the east why should it take our Transylvania with it?
In Debrecen the statue of Hungarian Suffering that was given to Hungary in 1933 by Lord Rothermere, was rededicated.[19]
In 2010, at the ninetieth anniversary, there was not much time for the government to draw attention to itself with grandiose and national memorials. As we had mentioned, the government was established only on May 29 and the law was enacted on May 31 and thus it was not possible to plan a major event for June 4, only a few days away. Parliament held a memorial session and it was here that the president of the republic spoke. It is absolutely true that the law, by itself, was considered a major event, at least in Slovakia. The Slovak government issued a statement on the ninetieth anniversary of the signing of the Trianon Peace Treaty. In this statement the Slovak government rejected the revisionist attempts of the Hungarian government and parliament because these raised questions about the history of the twentieth century. The Slovak government vigorously protested against the unilateral interpretation of the post-World War I political history. The statement includes: “The Trianon Peace Treaty not only resulted in the birth of the new countries for the nationalities suppressed by Hungary but also of the Republic of Hungary. Most of these states are now in the European Union.” It is evident that Slovakia does not agree with the Hungarian interpretation of Trianon. The Slovak reaction was probably against the Hungarian victimhood politics that were traditionally present in the political narratives. The law on National Togethernes made an attempt to get beyond this but the Slovak government did not choose to acknowledge it.[20]
It did undoubtedly note, however, that in Hungary the Trianon anniversary the narrative of the extreme right was dominated by the language and traditions of the Horthy era. Jobbik entering Parliament with relatively meaningful support, in keeping with its brief but characteristic past, organized commemorations all over the country. The principal event took place in Budapest’s City Park [Városliget] but there were memorial events in Balmazújváros, Békéscsaba, Ceglédbercel, Csákvár, Csót, Dabas, Dévaványa, Dunaújváros, Eger, Gönc, Hőgyész, Jászapáti, Jászdózsa, Kaba, Kazincbarcika, Kistarcsa, Kozármisleny, Körmend, Kőszeg, Makó, Marcali, Mezőkövesd, Miskolc, Nagykanizsa, Noszvaj, Ózd, Pécel, Pécs, Pilisborosjenő, Pilisvörösvár, Putnok, Ráckeresztúr, Recsk, Salgótarján, Sopron, Sümeg, Szarvas, Székesfehérvár, Szentgotthárd, Szerencs, Szolnok, Szombathely, Tahitótfalu, Taktaharkány, Tatabánya, Tiszaújváros, Újfehértó, Veresegyháza and Vértes. The memorial extended to Transylvania: Sepsziszentgyörgy [Sfântu Gheorghe], Székelyudvarhely [Odorheiu Secuiesc], Csíkszereda [Miercurea Ciuc], Gyimesbükk [Ghimeș-Făget], Kolozsvár [Cluj-Napoca], and Marosvásárhely [Târgu Mureș] were the sites.
The festivities reflected the spirit of revision and were conceived in the spirit of national self-pity. In the Csíkszereda and Gyimesbükk events the lectures included the “Crucifiction of the Hungarians” and “The Horrors of Dismemberment” and a march to the millennial border. The group whose name already suggests revision, namely the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement, frequently participated in the planning. The handbills inviting to the event demonstrated unmistakable revisionist ideas. They frequently included maps of dismembered Hungary, the “No, No. Never” slogan and the call to “Wash off the Ignominy”[21]
In 2011 the role played by the government, suggested by the law, was much more meaningful. In front of Parliament on Kossuth Square the national flag was raised in the presence of the Hungarian high public officers and there were presentations. There were concerts by choral ensembles in Ópusztaszer, and in Sárospatak and in some other communities ecumenical services were held. Duna TV whose major task is to telecast programs to cross-border Hungarians, devoted an entire day to the Trianon commemorations. The events of the memorial day beyond the borders encountered some problems. In Transylvania Hungarian organizations were frequently unable to organize joint events. There were commemorations in Slovakia’s towns with a Hungarian majority: Somorja [Šamorín], Dunaszerdahely [Dunajská Streda] and Komárom [Komárno]. In Carpathian Ukraine and in Serbia the day was also remembered. In Subotica (Szabadka) in the Vojvodina, there was a festive Hungarian citizenship oath-taking ceremony.
A symbolic event of the Day of National Togetherness was the launching of class excursions beyond the borders. Under the “Without Borders” program eleven thousand students from Hungary visited Hungarian communities in the neighboring countries during 2011. The government was officially represented when a group started out for Slovakia. It was announced that the Magyarság Háza [House of the Hungarians] would be located in the Magyar Kultúra Székháza [Headquarters of Hungarian Culture] on Szentháromság Square on Castle Hill. A new national political research institute would also be located there. It was announced that the “Without Borders” program would be placed with the Gábor Bethlen Foundation.[22] The cited pedagogic background material was ready for distribution.
Yet, the local commemorations did not omit the motives recalling the Horthy era. In Tószeg it was decided to erect a Trianon memorial as suggested by the law. Historic Hungary was crucified on a dual cross showing the contours of present Hungary. This was clearly interwar symbolism. Paraphrasing a sentence of the law, the Catholic priest, blessing the monument, said: “God, you are the Lord of human history and this is why we turn to you with our prayers and ask you to heal these painful wounds of our nation and return these detached areas to us.”[23] It seems that regardless of the intention of the framers of the law, the local implementation was quite different.
It was different because the non-governmental programs used the traditional narrative associated with Trianon. Jobbik and its associated organizations arranged the same type of celebrations nationally. The World Alliance of Hungarians organized its customary trip to Versailles where the slogan of the “Pan-Hungarian Movement” was: “Justice for Hungary, Justice for Europe.”[24] The first part of the slogan is clearly related to the revisionist policies of the Horthy era.
By 2011, in the wake of the law, there was clearly a new element in the story, but this could not change the existing narrative.
In 2012, the events associated with the memorial days, inspired by the State, became expanded. In addition to the flag-hoisting ceremony on Kossuth Square, there was an all-day event entitled: “We Have Come Home.” It included arts and crafts fair, a gastronomic festival, folk dance instruction, dog patting, literary discussions, and music programs. For the first time in a Trianon festival there was a Rom orchestra (Parno Graszt). Under the title: “The Hungarians Are the Fashion” a competition was organized and the best collections were displayed in the square. There was an Open Parliament Day and the building could be visited without charge.
A national ringing of the church bells was organized for the time the peace treaty had been signed. There were some problems because not every denomination was equally receptive to this. In Szarvas, at the Memorial of the Center of the Historic Country, there was a community apple tree planting event, a symbol, as it were, of shared roots. In the House of the Hungarians an extraordinary history lesson was held and the “Without Borders” program was promoted.[25] In consideration of the Day of National Togetherness, a play entitled Feketeszárú cseresznye [The Cherry with the Black Stem] by Sándor Hunyady was performed at the József Attila Theater.[26]
The Jobbik, the World Alliance of Hungarians and the celebrants in Zebegény held their usual festivities which now included the imprint of the national togetherness.[27]
Summary
The time elapsed since the enactment of the Day of National Togetherness law in 2010 is too short to allow us to draw meaningful conclusions. Some connections, however, can be seen.
The national memorial day and the commemorative law constitute an organic part of the Hungarian symbolic political culture and can look back on substantial tradition. Its existence cannot be questioned.
It is a justifiable and justified endeavor to provide memorial days and memorial laws to our major historic turning points. We have, in fact, already done that as shown by the days assigned to the thirteen martyrs of Arad, the Holocaust, and the victims of Communism.
The Trianon Peace Treaty, at the end of World War I was without any doubt a turning point which determined the fate of the people living in the Carpathian Basin and calling themselves Hungarians.
It is therefore entirely proper, twenty years after the regime change, for the Hungarian legislature and the Hungarian state to create a memorial for this event.
The endeavor to enact a law that wants to go beyond the revisionist political thought attached to Trianon is intellectually and politically noteworthy. Such is the law about the Day of National Togetherness even though in its text elements of an archaic narrative do appear. The law considers first of all the positive experience as manifested in patriotism, rather than the feeling of victimhood and of passing on the responsibility to others.
This is particularly important if so far a spiritual behavior was dominant that was manifested by denial and hopeless resistance and that thought not in terms of people but in terms of territory.
The law, therefore, must become manifest in a political and cultural medium that functions with a form of narrative anchored in the theme and introduces something new.
The past years have shown that the process had begun but that the old narrative was much stronger than the new and it seems that the old narrative adapts the new one to itself.
Keeping the old narrative mode viable is made easier by the fact that the preamble of the 2012 Fundamental Law, the National Creed, locates the end of Hungarian self-determination on March 19, 1944, followed by a long hiatus. This, by implication, raised the value of the revisionary thinking and politics of the Horthy era and reactivated its narrative mode linked to Trianon, which is precisely what the 2010 law wanted to bypass.[28]
It is therefore doubtful whether the Hungarian national consciousness and the corresponding symbolic political arena can achieve the renewal that liberates it from a politically shaped view of history which glorified ethically the course of self-destruction.
It is also a question whether the part of the Hungarian society which thinks in terms of patriotism but not in the paradigm of political nationalism can contribute to the conversion of our national grievances into a positive content in the shaping of an era of symbolic history? It is noteworthy that in regards to the symbolic political acts concerning Trianon the Hungarian left wing and its intellectual support demonstrate a very poor imagination. It is insensitive about the non-nationalistic management of out national problems.
In spite of the intentions of the law, the spirit of the Great Hungarian Failure, that has led nowhere and is leading nowhere is still haunting here.
[1] István Halász and Gábor Schweitzer, Szimbolika és közjog. Az állami és nemzeti jelképek helye a magyar alkotmányos rendszerben [Symbolism and Civil Law. The Place of State and National Symbols in the Hungarian Constitutional System] (Bratislava: Kalligram, 2010), 141–148.
[2] In this regard Act 1 of 2000 can be considered to be a commemorative that was legislated on the occasion of the one thousandth anniversary of the existence of the Hungarian state and it commemorates both Saint Stephen and to the Holy Crown.
[3] Statement by László Kövér during the parliamentary debate on May 21, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat_aktus?p_ckl=39&p_uln=5&p_felsz=1&p_felszig=31&p_aktus=2)
[4] Speech by Gábor Vona in the parliamentary debate on May twenty first, 2010. The end of the sentence is a quotation from the Hungarian Credo written in 1920 by Mrs. Elemér Papp-Váry. (www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=5&p_felsz=12&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=12).
[5] Speech by Tamás Gaudi-Nagy in the parliamentary debate on May 21, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=5&p_felsz=22&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=22).
[6] István Hiller’s speech in Parliament on May twenty first, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=5&p_felsz=8&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=8); Ildikó Lendvai’s speech in Parliament on May twenty five, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=6&p_felsz=225&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=227); István Hiller’s speech in Parliament on May twenty five, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=6&p_felsz=211&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=211)
[7] http://www.parlament.hu/irom 39/00039/00039-0002.pdf
http://www.parlament.hu/irom 39/00039/00039-0003.pdf
http://www.parlament.hu/irom 39/00039/00039-0004.pdf
http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/00039/00039-0005.pdf
http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/00039/00039-0006.pdf
[8] Speech of Lajos Mile at the session on May twenty first, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=5&p_felsz=14&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=14)
[9] http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/00039/00039-0008.pdf
[10] http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/MKPDF/hiteles/MK10092.pdf
[11] http://www.vajma.info/docs/Nemzeti-osszetartozas-torveny.pdf
[12] Speech of László Sólyom, the President of the Republic, in Parliament on May 4, 2010. (http://www.mkogy.hu/internet/plsql/ogy_naplo.naplo_fadat?p_ckl=39&p_uln=11&p_felsz=2&p_szoveg=&p_felszig=2).
[13] Magyar Közlöny, no. 111 contains the government decree 1137/2010 of July 1, 2010. The title of the decree is: “On the Order of the Preparation and Implementation of the National Holidays, and of the Programs of Exceptional Significance.”
[14] Magyar Közlöny, October twenty first, 2010. No. 163.
[15] Instructional background material for the Day of National Interdependence. Prepared on instruction by the Ministry of National Resources by the Educational Research and Development Institute in May 2011. (http://www.kormany.hu/download/0/cd/30000/A%20nemzeti%20%C3%B6sszetartoz%C3%A1s%20napja.pdf).
[16]http://www.kormany.hu/download/0/ed/30000/A%20nemzeti%20%C3%B6sszetartozas%A1s%20napja.pdf
[17] László Lőrinc,”Mit kezdjünk a Nemzeti Összetartozás napjával? Mi segít és mi nem?” [What shall we do with the Day of National Interdependence? What helps and what does not?], http://www.tte.hu/tte/tte-a-mediaban/7499-mire-hergelik-az-ifjusagot-a-nemzeti-oszetartozas-napjan.
[18] Article entitled: “Mire hergelik az ifjúságot a “nemzeti összetartozás” napján?” [What is the youth pestered with on the “Day of National Togetherness?], http://www.tte.hu/tte/tte-a-mediaban/7499-mire-hergelik-az-ifjusagot-a-qnemzeti-oesszetartozasq-napjan
[19] http://www.hunsor.se/trianon/trmegemlekezesek.htm The article summarizes the major events of the eightieth anniversary and comments on the seventieth anniversary as well.
[20] http://kitekinto.hu/karpat=medence/2010/06/09/pozsony_revizionizmussalvadolja_magyarorszagot/
[21] The complete lis is in: http://karpatia.lapunk.hu/?modul=oldal&tartalom=1109782; http://barikad.hu/node/54450 Similar comments are in the Vitézi tájékoztató, Year XXIX, No.1.
[22] http://www.karpatalja.ma/kitekinto/magyarorszag/2379-nemzeti-osszetartozas-napja-pedagogiai-hatteranyag-segiti-a-megemlekezest ; http://www.utazzitthon.hu/trianon-emleknap-2011-opusztaszer.html
[23] Tószegi Tükör, Yr. XIII. No. 2, June, 2011.
[24]http://www.egipatrona.hu/mvsz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=502#.UPU1TvLBuLk
[25] For the lst of events see: http://nemzetiosszetartozas.kormany.hu/ (http://nemzetiosszetartozas.kormany.hu/junius-4-2012; http://index.hu/belfold/2012/06/04/az_egyhazvezetoi_nem_ellenere_lesz_trianoni_haragozas/; http://kiralyiudvar.lapunk.hu/?modul=oldal&tartalom=1195014; http://www.neppart.eu/nemzeti-osszetartozas-napja-megkezdodtek-a-megemlekezesek.html).
[26] http://kiralyiudvar.lapunk.hu/?modu=oldal&tartalom=1195014
[27] http://www.barikad.hu/trianon_megemlekezesek_orszagszerte-20120603
[28] See András Gerő, “Az új rend hitvallása” [Creed of the new order], in Szétszakított múlt [Fractured Past] (Budapest: Habsburg Történeti Intézet, 2012), 203–239.