Hungarologische Beitrage 10. Universität Jyväskylä (1997)
Epilogi - Liitteet - English summary
concerning the past are examined. Secondly, the analysis of the report finished by the history committee formed to prepare a new program for the ruling party is presented. The new interpretation of the events of 1956 as an uprising instead of a former counterrevolution officially emerged for the first time. The results of the former history committee were suddenly published by the Communist reformer Imre Pozsgay at the end of January 1989. The next chapter of the book contains notable discussion which followed Pozsgay's sudden declaration. The possibility that Pozsgay's declaration became the "last nail in the coffin" of the communist unity is stressed, and, finally, the contingent situation which led to the acceptance of a multi-party system two weeks later is discussed. In addition to opposition, some party members preferred plurality and, thus, the party came to a watershed: the reforms had to be cancelled or even more radical steps to the plurality had to be taken. The minutes of the decisive session of the Central Committee, published already in 1993 and 1994, are used as new source material. The last three chapters focus on the time after February, 1989. First, the political dimensions of the reburial of Imre Nagy, former Prime Minister, are emphasized. Secondly, the changing national symbols and days are discussed. Finally, the past as a part of the election campaign of March and April 1990, is examined. Changing national symbols and the past itself became important factors in the new contingent situation; literally, the past was brought into present, where it has built identities for the future. On the one hand, people tried to distinguish between the past and the present and, on the other hand, the "right" symbols were argued to belong to "us". However, the changing of the symbols did not formally mean a change in the power relationships, since most old symbols were abolished during the old regime in protection of the Communist reformers. As a conclusion, the 1956 experience and its naming and the political past are dealt with in the light of the Hungarian example. Naming an event (trying to define something) is seen as a mean of using symbolic power in the context of rhetoric. Until 1989, "1956" belonged to the history of winners and rejected the names used about it in the Hungarian public. History writing is connected to the 239