Czech_Nationalism

CZECHOSLOVAKIAN EXPERIENCE OF NATIONAL IDENTITY The end of Cold War brought into World agenda two political events: first, drastic changes at national frontiers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia including the creation of new states, and secondly the replacement of official ideologies with more liberal capitalist ones, leading to a transformation in reallocation and ownership of economic resources, in a reversal Marxist way where this time superstructure shapes the infrastructure. The first issue was the abolishment of a Post World War I heritage (Versailles Treaty and the end of Habsburg Empire) and the second one was making extinct Yalta’s ‘Spheres of Influence’ agreement. On the other hand there are counter arguments about Yalta’s historical importance as Leff pointed out depending on an argument made by a British diplomat: “The suggestion that East Europe was carved up at is an illusion; it was carved up by the advance of Soviet armies into East Europe”. Among these events it is not very hard to differentiate newer approaches to political, social and cultural aspects of life, such as the rise of nationalism, reliogion, consuming behavior, changes social status, etc. Though it is not specific to the Second World, ethnic nationalism among Eastern European countries and former Soviet Republics is one of the most prominent feature of this era along with the restructuring market economy. It is not a coincidence that newly formed states are based on ethnic differentiation and the rise of nationalism on political and social arenas of those post-communist states. The intellectual and ideological void created by the disappearance of the official socialist ideology paved way to the emerging ethnic nationalism, suppressed for decades. According to Cviic, however, the communists had shown a strong nationalistic character during the resistance years, at World War. This essay will be focused on the development and destruction of Czechoslovak national identity, pursuing a historical approach. That destruction signifies also the end of all non-ethnic nationalities in the Second and Third World (Interestingly, First World seems immune to such changes) with the globalization. Historical Evolution of Czechoslovakian Nationalism The First Republic The First World War brought an end to the multinationalistic empires of Central and Eastern Europe. Though not allied with the Axis Russia provided land and population for the birth of five states: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (half of the latter’s territory came from Germany). From the multinational Habsburg Empire hatched the Yugoslav kingdom (a multiethnic entity itself), Czechoslovakia (unification of two nation states with considerable minority populations of German and Hungarian origin), Hungary, and Austria. As Leff points out “The new countries remained multinational – large numbers of minorities were trapped in the ‘wrong’ state, with Poles or Germans or Hungarians separated from ethnic kin next door serving as a standing invitation to external intervention”. However these ‘trapped’ ethnic formations did not present themselves as a problem unless the continental stability is endangered by powers outside the boundaries, a situation quite controversial to the one after 1990s. Historically Bohemia had a bi-cultural nature, Czech and Slovak ones. Although after 1919 there was a resentment against the idea of a two-nation state the Peace Treaties signed after the First World War urged Czechs to live in a country of which the boundaries were drawn according to criteria different than the ethnic boundaries. The postwar settlement of Versailles was generous to the newborn state of Czechoslovakia: it retained German Sudeten regions, the disputed Silesian territories with their Polish population, and a large Hungarian minority in Slovakia. The Czech side, the more advanced one, was embracing more the concept of one Czechoslovak nation. Unable to develop a unifying literary language (Extreme Slovak nationalists, and to some degreethe Marxists today, recognize a distinct Slovak language and literature in Great Moravia itself ) the Slovak side was hesitant fearing that such a unification would result in giving up their identity. Facts of lesser industrialization rate and constituting only 15% of the Czechoslovak population provided sound bases for Slovak hesitation. On the other hand tense relationship with Hungary urged some of the Slovaks to seek a tighter link with the Czech side. At October 30th, 1918, Slovak side declared they were pro for a Czechoslovakian state. In October 1929, Slovak autonomists were out the government for good. First two decades will be remembered with the dissatisfaction of everyone, with the exception of Czechs, from a unitary state of two nations and different minority groups. With the economically settling Slovak side the urges for more autonomy put under pressure the politicians who were pro for a centralized system. According Leff, a more flexible political system might accommodate Slovak complaints but the complex and easily deadlocked system postponed a mutually satisfactory resolution. Instead of institutional adjustments hopes were laid in education and in the development of Czechoslovakian identity. Interestingly Czech nationalism was never considered apart from the Czechoslovakian paradigm. Even in 1991 according to a survey 31% of Czechs denied the existence of a Czech national character. The State’s efforts to integrate minorities into the system were fruitful and in an era where nearly all the states in Eastern Europe created in the aftermath of World War I adapted some form of authoritarian government Czechoslovakia continued with his functioning parliamentary system. However proportional representation and strong divisions among different ethnic communities transformed the system to a rather clumsy one and the average government life was around a year. Crowded coalitions resulted in rigidity and inflexibility. The realities of international politics put an end to the peaceful coexistence of two nations for a period of six years, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist literally. Czechoslovakia Under Communism After the Second World War II, Czechoslovakia had found itself in a radically different situation. First of all the composition of the population had been changed. Czechs and Slovaks’ ratio rose from 65% of 1920s to 90%, bringing a demographical homogeneity. But the existence of two nations still dominated local political agenda. The communist regime, established after 1948, failed to solve the ‘Slovak identity problem’. Unlike pre-War era, the attempts to put an end to the Slovaks complaints existed, based on the idea that economic development would exterminate any differentiation between the two communities. Contrary to the expectations it fueled the national self. The industrialization of Slovakia, a movement which according to the Communist ideology would bring the two parts of the state together, became one of the main drives of the Slovak nationhood. The political arrangements had their own contributions to the problem. When the Slovaks had their National Council and the Czechs had not, both sides felt that the other community was enjoying some privilege they did not. For the Czechs Slovaks had their own institutions and were enjoying a privileged status. On the Slovak side the Czechs were considering the government as their own and creating some preservation devices for the Slovaks. In order to get rid of the asymmetry created the Communist Party adopted a program to turn Czechoslovakia into a federation. The year 1969 had marked the date Czechoslovakia became a federal republic. Soviet Union supported that decision in the light of the “divide and conquer” motto, thinking that controlling the country while dealing with the both parts would be easier. That caused a resentment among the Czechs about the Slovaks had a benefit from the general tragedy of Soviet invasion. Furthermore the image of Slovaks having a disproportionate power in the new system had its place in the Czech communal memory. On the other hand Slovaks never got satisfied with the federation. The Communist Party, never federated, preserved its supra nature, leaving nearly no room for local governments to gain autonomy. Leff underlines this disillusionment: “No wonder then, that after the Velvet Revolution, the new political leaders launched a quest for an “authentic federation” to heal old wounds and establish a new basis for national cooperation”. The Velvet Revolution of 1989 The epoch following the pro-Soviet communists established their firm grip on the Czechoslovak state and society is characterized by immobility in many aspects of social life, kept the Czech-Slovak relationship in a kind of cold storage. The changes in Soviet Union characterized by the concepts of ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’ had no immediate effects on the ruling elite of Czechoslovakia. However streets reacted to that movement coming from abroad, unlike 1960s. The changes in East Germany and the collapse of Berlin had forced the those who were in charge not to undermine the happenings. The negotiations with the leading dissidents had started in November 1989 and communist-dominated parliament unanimously Havel as president of the republic. First free elections since 1946 were held. It was expected that with the absence of a central Communist Party the federal structure would work properly and meet the expectations of the both communities, mainly Slovaks. Surprisingly it did not. The Slovak community had higher aspirations. First of all during the World War II they had enjoyed their own statehood under the supervision of Germans for six years. Second, they had caught up with the Czech in terms of economy and industrialization. Third, the demographic structure of the country had been changed: there were 49 Slovaks for 100 Czechs in 1991, whereas this figure was 29 in 1921. The general tendency among Slovaks was to achieve an independent status. Though the Czech side were ready to make concessions to avoid the separation, Slovakia was on its way to statehood. Facing the inevitability the Czech government urged the dissolution of the federation without delay. At December 31st, 1992 Czechoslovakia ceased to exist once again. This time it is for good. Aftermath Both countries, Czech and Slovak republics, experienced considerable difficulties on building their own national identity at post Cold War era. There were no immediate threats from outside powers (Officialy there are no international ennemies. However a nationalistic government in Russia is considered as a potential burden, especially in an engagement with Ukraine). But still Czech do experience minority problem. It is not at the size of pre-World War II era, since most of the minorities were deported, mainly Sudeten Germans. Currently Slovaks are the largest minority in the Czech Republic. The fact that a great number of Slovaks reside in the Czech Republic does not look like as a center of clash: even after the breakup only a small portion of Czechs (7%) have a negative feeling for the Slovak. However Gypsies whose have no protectors (For example Hungarians in Slovakia are protected by their ‘home country’. Hungary) constitute a good number of the minorities. Historically disregarded by the settled communities and labeled for vicious occupations Gypsies lack the citizenship status since according to the new citizenship law they cannot provide the proof of their unspotted criminal history. In Slovakia Gypsies are targets of hostility too. The influences of socialist era fading away, nationalist tendencies and aggressions come to the surface. It is possible to see their reflections when Havel’s apology from Germany for the deported Sudeten Germans received a great amount of unpopularity in his country. Another related issue is the rise of anti-Semitic tendencies after 1989 (For the commmunist period: “The official ideology of the communist regimes was, communist leaders asserted, ‘anti-Zionist’ rather than ‘anti-Semitic’, although the distinction in practice was hardly clear”). Conclusion The roots of modern Czech nationalism can be traced till late Middle Ages. For occasions such as Hussite revolution of the fifteen century, the National Revival of the nineteenth, the twenty years of independence in the twentieth, and the brief period following the Second World War the national identity had come to the foreground. In the interim periods they had hard time to preserve a notion of national consciousness, especially under Habsburg rule. Slovak nationalism has had a much shorter history than Czech nationalism, but a more linear development. Till First World War Slovak nationalism was so weak that its disappearance was one of the possible outcomes. However, after 1918, stimulated by the independence the national consciousness steadily increased and reached its apogee at the sovereignty which took place between 1939-1945. Though more recent in nature Slovak identity presented the main obstacle in the formation of a Czechoslovakian one. At the formation of the state in 1918, the reluctance came from the Slovak, fearing to lose their national identity when facing more culturally conscious and economically dominant the Czech. Later one, with the investments and efforts of the Communist regime, the strengthening economic infrastructure of the Slovakian side had nurtured the rupture from Czechoslovakian consciousness. On the other hand, Czechs did not consider a national identity without referring to a Czechoslovakian one. Aware that a larger local market and higher population figures would add their economic and political strength they wanted to keep the union as long as possible. In the end the efforts of Czechs to create a nation from a synthetic state and two nations have failed. In a comparative study it is possible to perceive common features among different cases. With a oversimplifying way we can say that Quebecois separatist movement provides a similar picture: economically underdeveloped part of the union felt uneasiness. The federal government favors in economic and cultural terms that state and with boosting economic development the separatist tendencies grew larger. In this essay the focus is on the historical development of Czechoslovak identity and the unit of analysis was ethnic communities. Definitely more emphasis deserve the market structure, religious backgrounds, political leaders and the dynamics of the World War II period where Germans create a Slovak state whereas destroying the Czech one. Such an approach requires a more comprehensive study which is beyond the scope of this essay. Bibliography • Leff, C., The Czech and Slovak Republics, (London: Westview Press, 1997) • Cviic, Christopher, Remaking the Balkans, (London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1995). • Krejci, J. and Machonin, P., Czechoslavakia, 1918-92, (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1996) • Sugar, P. and Lederer, I.J., Nationalism in Eastern Europe, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994) • Jelavich, Russia’s Balkan Entanglements, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 2nd ed. • Innes, Abby, Czechoslovakia: The Short Goodbye, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001) • Kirschbaum, Stanislav, A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival, (New York: Saint Martin’s Press, 1996) • Holy, Ladislav (author), The Little Czech and the Great Czech Nation : National Identity and the Post-Communist Social Transformation, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).