In 2008, there was a political action thriller, Vantage Point, that told the attempted assassination of the American president through several perspectives. Instead, in Ash's novel, rather than the perspectives of several people, he details the perspectives of four different countries: Poland, Hungary, Germany and Czechoslovakia. All of these countries, more specifically the cities of Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin and Prague, are all undergoing some form of political 'refolution', as Ash describes.
Each city is undergoing its own separate form of 'refolution', and while these cities share aspects to this in common, there is also distinct and marked differences between them all. And the one thing to keep being reminded of, was that all of these perspectives coexist within the European theater. As Ash lays the groundwork for outlining the events in each of these cities, as the climax of their political structure seems to mount, he distinctly makes a point to compare and contrast the events between these different cities, especially in Prague as he is dicussing the role of the Catholic church and how this is such "a striking contrast with Poland" (96).
In Poland, the political territory is such that one of the biggest waves of change to the country was that of free elections. General Jaruzelski commented, "It was the first time that voters could choose freely. That freedom was used for the crossing-off of those who were in power until now" (32). Election day, June 4, 1989, was “a landmark not only in the post-war history of Poland, not merely in the history of Eastern Europe, but in the communist world” (32). Ash also presents the question of what Solidarity truly was in the context of the summer 1989. He outlines four specific aspects to Solidarity that were present. “First, it was Lech Walesa, whose personal popularity and authority had reached extraordinary heights, reinforced, of course by every meeting with a President Mitterand or Bush. Second, it was the parliamentary group- 161 out of 460 members of the sejm, ninety-nine out of 100 members if the Senate. These new parliamentarians personally represented very different tendencies and traditions, but on June 4 they were all- social democrat or conservative, Christian or Jew, bright or dull-elected because they were the candidates of Lech Walesa and Solidarity. Defeated communist candidates remarked bitterly that if a monkey had stood as an official Solidarity-opposition candidate he would have been elected; and there is probably some truth in that. Third, Solidarity was the loose structure of national, regional and local Citizens’ Committees which actually organized the election campaign. Beside veteran Solidarity activists these Citizens’ Committees were joined by many people- doctors, engineers, teachers, journalists- who had not been so active before. They were the essential constituency organizations for the new members of parliament, and, as it were, the local nurseries of Poland’s seedling democracy. Finally, there was Solidarity as what it had been first: a trade union. But Solidarity- as- trade union had grown only sluggishly since its (re-) registration in April. There was none of the exuberant dynamism of autumn 1980, when an estimated three million people joined the newborn union within a fortnight” (33-34). The emergence of this democracy within Warsaw and the greater Poland birthed political transition with the agendas of Lech Walesa and other leaders who sought to have their own personal visions into this new government. According to Joanna Szcxepkowska, who was a famous Polish actress, announced to television viewers that “on 4 June 1989, communism in Poland ended” (45). And Ash wrote, “To say that communism in Poland ended on that day was a poetic exaggeration. But the end of communism in Poland followed directly from the free vote of the Polish people on that glorious fourth of June” (46).
In contrast to Poland, “Hungary was a funeral, particularly the funeral of Imre Nagy, a mere thirty one years after his death” (47). As a former prime minister in Hungary who led the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and was later executed, Nagy had a profound impact on the climate of Budapest within the context of the revolution and "pronouncing 1956 to have been not, as previously maintained, a counter-revolution', but rather a 'popular uprising against an oligarchic rule that had debased the nation' (49). The head of the Budapest Workers' Councils in 1956, Sandor Racz, proposed a question of, "Will freedom for Hungary grow from the blood of these heroes?" (50). And in response to this question, he proposes three obstacles to this question, which include, "The first obstacle is the presence of Soviet troops on Hungarian soil. There there is the communist power, clinging to power. The third obstacle is the fragmentation of society" (50). It was this question raised in the wake of the event surrounding the formal burial of Imre Nagy that presents a somewhat interesting perspective and the government structure is under reform. In addition to Racz, Viktor Orban of the Young Democrats stated, "If we can trust our souls and strength, we can put an end to the communist dictatorship; if we are determined enough we can force the Party to submit itself to free elections; and if we do not lose sight of the ideals of 1956, then we will be able to elect a governement that will start immediate negotiations for the swift withdrawl of the Russian troops" (51). While these separate parties exist, it is interesting to note the various perspectives that exist and how they each have their similar and yet in some ways, different approaches to this changing politcal climate.
And next, Ash shifts his focus to Berlin where the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall seems apparent. As Ash comments, "The East Germans felt grateful to Gorbachev. But more important, they felt they had won this opening for themselves. For it was only the pressure ot their massive, peaceful demonstrations that compelled the Party leadership to take this step. 'You see, it shows Lenin was wrong,' observed one worker. 'lenin said a revolution could succeed only with violence. But this was a peaceful revolution'." (64). The monumental step that the Berlin Wall signified in Germany's political infrastructure changing shape demonstrated that "a revolutionary people's movement has set in motion a process of profound upheavals" (64). The very structure of the Berlin Wall had been such a political division that "The Wall was not round the periphery of East Germany, it was at its very centre. And it ran through every heart. It was difficult even for people from other East European countries to appreciate the full psychological burden it imposed" (65). So, on a personal level, what did the fall of the Wall signify for both West and East Germans alike? How did these perspectives vary and how were they similar? It was indeed the fall of the wall that lifted a repression off of the German people and was considered "the first peaceful revolution in German history" (69).
Lastly is the focal point of Ash's collective accounts, the true Magic Lantern in Prague. According to a meeting Ash had with Vaclav Havel, "In Poland it took ten years, in Hungary ten months, in East Germany ten weeks: perhaps in Czechosolvakia it will take 10 days!" (78). However, it was the Magic Lantern that served as "the headquarters of the revolution" (79). And yet, he seems to juxtapose the idea of the theater as headquarters with different smells as well as people playing the rolse of actors. Especially the Workers, Ash highlights this group and how "all the intellectual voices are stilled when The Worker rises to speak" (87). He also contrasts the politcal happenings in Prague to those of Poland and Germany in 1989, which shows how his 'witness' to these events have helped to shape his understanding and develop this sense of political awareness, as Ash recalls, "it was fascinating to see individuals responding instantly to the scent that wafted down into the Magic Lantern as the days went by. The scent of power" (88). And as the Forum commented through deliberations, "we are talking to the government of our country because we want a proper government, responsible to a proper parliament, not the rule of one Party" (92). And so it was with the Revolution and birth of a new government with Czechoslovakia, that reform began to take place. As Vaclav Klaus, as the Star of the Forum, noted, "[the Civic Forum] considers its basic objective to be the definitive opening of our society for the development of political pluralism and for achieving free elections.' The movement is open to everyone who rejects the present system and accepts the Programmatic Principles. There will be no hierarchial structure," (107). The vision for the Prague government was such that, "there should be a grand coalition government, a government of experts, men of competence and moral integrity" (108). And it was with this political vision that this country began to move foward...
And so 1989 brought a lot of challenges for Eastern Europe as distinct political, social and economic reform took place in separate countries which yet still coexisted together. And in the words of Timothy Garton Ash in reference to 1989, "this was the year that communism in Eastern Europe died" (131).
Discussion Questions
1) Ash makes the distinction between being a witness and a historian as well as trying to contrast these two perspectives to a particular situation. Is there a distinct difference between these two vantage points? How are they similar? How are they different?
2) Each of these cities had some form of political "refolution' in the year 1989. And yet, with this, it brought many changes because the Communist party was dissolving. He approaches the year 1989 with dual perspectives of the present as well as hindsight. But how does this dual perspective affect our understanding of this 'refolution' in the European theater?
3) The funeral of Imre Nagy adds another layer to the climate in Hungary 1989. What implications did he/ his funeral have on the changing climate in Budapest and the greater Hungary? What contributions did he bring to Hungary that made the whole country almost give him this day of reverence?
4) It seems that with any change or even proposed change to the structure of Germany, everyone holds their breath and 1989 was no exception, especially with the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, Ash seems to present a change in thinking regarding what the Wall truly symbolizes and how it positions Germany for the future. Is this a true turning point for Germany's attempt at a true democracy?
5) Ash paints this distinct picture of Prague in 1989, with the Magic Lantern being the focal point, in essence, "the headquarters of the revolution". And while it is a true place and accurate to refer to it as such, he also seems to 'personify' this theater as a way of framing the revolution in Prague. Is it fair to say that his use of smells as well as descriptions of groups and other topics fair? And if so, what is his purpose in presenting Prague in this way?
Resources:
Ash, Timothy Garton. The Magic Lantern. New York: Random House Publishing, 1993. Print.
Fulbrook, Mary. A History of Germany: 1918-2008 The Divided Nation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment