COURAGE

povezivanje zbirki

Rukopis za članak Državna kriza Titove Jugoslavije napisan je nakon što je Tito srušio hrvatsko rukovodstvo u Karađorđevu u prosincu 1971., a u povodu izlaska jedne od Ciliginih knjiga o tome pitanju. Ciliga opisuje jugoslavensku krizu kao složeni koloplet političkih i ekonomskih problema. Ne samo da nacionalno pitanje izaziva državnu krizu, nego mu se sada pridodaje i kriza samoupravnog socijalizma kao modela državnog kapitalizma. Ciliga je smatrao da bez političkog pluralizma i široke demokratizacije te stvaranja labave konfederalizacije, Jugoslavija odlazi u sigurnu propast i moguće nove međunacionalne ratove. U konačnici, priželjkuje svrgavanje komunista s vlasti i transformaciju Jugoslavije iz diktature u demokraciju s jedne, a s druge strane njezino pretvaranje de facto u savez suverenih država. 

U ovom rukopisu jednog članka koji je napisan 1954. godine Ciliga je poslao kritičku poruku Titovom odnosu prema nacionalnom pitanju. Ciliga drži da nacionalno pitanje koje je potresalo staru Jugoslaviju nije riješeno ni u novoj Jugoslaviji, nego da u njoj i dalje Srbija dominira nad drugim republikama. Federalni model države, koji su Tito i komunisti proklamirali u ustavu države nakon rata, nikada nije zaživio, nego je u stvarnosti postojao snažni centralizam, koji nije dopuštao slobodniji i autonomniji razvoj jugoslavenskih naroda. Dapače, Ciliga smatra da nacionalno pitanje, bez obzira na socijalističku revoluciju i dalje nagriza jedinstvo Jugoslavije. Zapravo ne postoji simetrična federacija kako su to Tito i komunistička partija proklamirali, nego je u konstelaciji federalnih članica na djelu srpska prevlast. To je bila prepreka u stvaranju balkanske konfederacije Južnih Slavena nakon rata, jer bi pristup Bugara tom savezu ugrozio tu prevlast. 

This eighty-eight-page manuscript contains the texts of eight sermons and seems to have been prepared to be sent abroad for publication. The author was a priest and professor at the Theological Institute in Bucharest, and was imprisoned between 1948 and 1964. While in the notorious prison of Pitești, he was forced to take part in the infamous re-education experiment in that prison, which turned a part of the prisoners into the torturers of the others. Tormented by such a terrible sin, Calciu-Dumitreasa tried, according to his own confession, to write about this prison experience in order to come to terms with it. However, he changed his priorities when, in the aftermath of the earthquake of 1977, the demolition of churches in Bucharest began while the hierarchy of the Romanian Orthodox Church kept quiet. It was then that Calciu-Dumitreasa conceived this series of non-conformist sermons, in which he argued against atheist education and reminded his students of fundamental Christian values, of their mission as priests who must build, and not destroy, churches in order to take care of their parish communities. Seven of the sermons were delivered by the author in the Radu Vodă Church in Bucharest between 8 March and 19 April 1978. Particularly important is the sermon of 15 March 1978, in which Calciu-Dumitreasa explicitly condemned the demolition of the Enei Church, the first church demolished in Bucharest. The sixth sermon, of 12 April 1978, was no longer delivered in the church but in front of it, for the authorities had closed the church and locked the students in their dormitories in order to impede them from attending what had turned in the meantime into an increasingly popular event. The eighth sermon was supposed to open a new cycle entitled “Christianity and Culture” on 17 May 1978, but it was never delivered due to the author’s removal from his teaching position. Continuously harassed by the secret police, in 1979 Calciu-Dumitreasa endorsed the establishment of the Free Trade Union of the Working People of Romania, which caused his arrest and imprisonment for another five years. He was released only in 1985, after intense international lobbying, especially by the United States administration, which threatened the Romanian communist regime with the withdrawal of Most Favoured Nation status. A year later, he went into exile in the United States, where he remained until his death. This manuscript was probably confiscated on the occasion of his arrest in 1979. This version of the sermons differs slightly from the post-communist published volume because it mentions the persons who were responsible for the interruption of his cycle of sermons in 1978.

The many letters to be found in Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca’s collection are indisputable evidence of their commitment to using RFE’s broadcasts to protect Romanian dissidents from the abuses and acts of violence organised against them by the communist authorities. An illustrative example of this is the letter that Father Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa sent to Monica Lovinescu and Virgil Ierunca in October 1984.

A former political prisoner, Calciu-Dumitreasa was imprisoned again in 1979 after delivering a series of seven sermons for young people the previous year. Through his sermons, Father Calciu-Dumitreasa hoped to strengthen the faith of young people whose Christian spiritual life was threatened by communist atheism and materialism (Petrescu 2013). The letter written by Father Calciu-Dumitreasa describes his situation and the situation of his family after his release from prison (August 1984) due to a huge campaign organised by the Romanian diaspora, and also makes known to the listeners of RFE’s Romanian desk his decision to emigrate.

At the beginning of his message, Calciu-Dumitreasa mentions that while imprisoned he refused any kind of collaboration with the regime. Furthermore, he continued to perform his duty as a priest despite the threats, terror, and beatings he was subjected to by the communist authorities. After his release, Calciu-Dumitreasa has been welcomed by his friends, acquaintances, and former students but to his very great disappointment the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to strip him of the priesthood. Thus, in his letter he urges the Orthodox Church’s hierarchs to reconsider their position regarding his removal as he has proved to be a faithful defender of Christian values even in the most unfavourable circumstances. Moreover, the Securitate continues to watch each of his movements and its "unbated persistence in hate and malice" means that persecution against him and his family has continued.

In this context, Calciu-Dumitreasa mentions that despite his immense investment of love, faith, and suffering in "our country and Church," he has decided to emigrate due to the harassment his family continues to be subjected to by the Securitate. At the end of his letter, Calciu-Dumitreasa expresses his belief that those who have stood by him in difficult times in Romania will also surrender him with their love into his forced exile.

Apart from the official addressees, the “Call for protest” – also included in the Göteborg collection – was published in the most prestigious samizdat of the Kádár era which addressed the “second public sphere,” Beszélő. The “News” column of issue no. 5–6 (December 1982) published it under the title “Cases of Harassment by Police Forces in Transylvania – A Hungarian Act of Protest.” The same edition of Beszélőalso included the fundamental documents of Ellenpontok no. 8 (October 1982), “Memorandum” and “Programme Proposal.”, while the previous numbers (1–4) were published in detail in issue no. 4 (September 1982) of Beszélő. The “Call for Protest” was signed by seventy-one representatives of the Hungarian opposition of the time – writers, literary historians, historians, editors, economists, lawyers, sociologists, philosophers, philosophy historians, translators, film directors, poets, pianists, architects, linguists, journalists, academicians, actors, public writers, sculptors, biologists, ethnographers, and a three-time Olympic champion.

The Call has the following content: “On 6 and 7 November 1982 Romanian state security personnel arrested several young Hungarian intellectuals in Transylvania. They conducted searches in their homes and confiscated documents relating to the political situation in Hungary and Transylvania. The exact number of persons arrested is not known yet. The following names are known: Attila Ara-Kovács, writer-philosopher, Attila Kertész, actor, Géza Szőcs, poet, and Károly Tóth, teacher. In the course of a week several persons were interrogated, among them being the agricultural engineer Lóránt Kertész and his wife Éva Kertész, Márta Józsa, Éva Bíró, András Keszthelyi, a philosophy student, together with the Tóth couple. Some of them, for instance Géza Szőcs, Károly Tóth, and his wife, were physically abused. After a few days Attila Ara-Kovács and Károly Tóth were released on the condition that they cannot leave the city (Oradea) or their homes. We still have no information regarding the whereabouts of the remarkable poet Géza Szőcs, whose name is known in all Hungarian-speaking territories. Not even his closest relatives and friends know where he is. We have reason to suspect that the political police has still not released him. We make an appeal to everyone: protest!We also call on our Romanian friends: please intervene for the release of Géza Szőcs!This call for protest has been sent by its signatories to the president of the Ministerial Council of the Hungarian People’s Republic, to the directory board of the Union of Hungarian Writers, and to the Hungarian PEN Club.” (Beszélő Összkiadás 1992)

The call for protest is not entirely accurate due to the lack of authentic sources. It is mostly based on rumours and assumptions, and although it abounds in information it remains the instrument of the selected few. The moderate form of the collective enforcement of interests, as expressed through the “media outlets” – the samizdat – is obviously an organised one, aimed at improving the situation of those affected. There are no data regarding the immediate effects of the call for protest in Romania, nor whether the leaders of the MSZMP (Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party) too any immediate steps in order to change the minority policy in Romania. At the same time, the official Hungarian circles reproached “in the course of internal discussions” that the call reached international media outlets sooner than the Hungarian government. In December of 1982 the editorial team of Beszélő categorically denied this, arguing that such accusations only “discredit a fully legitimate civil initiative,” and divert the attention from the real issue, namely, “what’s going on with the Hungarian intellectuals in Romania and what can Hungarian public opinion and the Hungarian state do against the serious violation of minority rights.” (Beszélő Összkiadás 1992).