Philospohical Faculty Comenius University, Gondova 2, Bratislava 800 00

Philospohical Faculty Comenius University, Gondova 2, Bratislava 800 00

(Historical essay)

Ideas of Integration within Middle Europe

in (the Slovak Politician) Milan Hodza’s concepts

Bratislava, November 24, 2000 Juraj Brocko

Dpt.: history/archives

Special assistance: PhDr. Maria Tonkova

Mgr. Pavol Lukáč

Even at the beginning of the 90’s, the Western Europe did not think at all about creating a whole, the part of which would also be the post communist states of Middle and Eastern Europe. The differences between these two parts, were not able to be overseen. The devastated economics caused by previous communist governments were far from being an acceptable outlook for integration. For the West the former eastern block was only a weaker neighbour, which was necessary to be checked, or directed and especially its development be analyzed, so that no further outrageous steps happen.

It seems quite probable that the EU states practically accept the idea of achieving a broader organizational structure, where the states of the central and eastern Europe would be in calculated. This fact is but highly complicated for all the participating parts.

Today many middle-European historians, in Slovakia I would mention Pavol Lukac, underline that within the last two hundred years in different conditions many plans for creating a modern, democratic, above-national, political whole in central Europe were created. Their authors were known personalities of these regions. From among others I would just mention here the Czech Frantisek Palacky, the Romanian Aurel Popovici, the Polish Adam Czartorysky, the Austrian Karl Renner, the Hungarian Oszkar Jaszi, etc. “While also among their ideas, in spite of the fact, that they all were interested in creating an above-national federative whole in middle Europe, there existed a number of optional differences, how to achieve such a state and in what form.” [1] These plans were changing in the time flow. From a more distant view it can be declared that many of them were too idealist for real materialization, but important is, that they were here and were forming a “living soil” for ideas today.

*

Naturally an introduction into the problems is important. What could these ideas and concepts, I would like to deal with go out from? I would like at least in small to underline the highly complicated situation in this region.

After finishing World War 1 on the territory of already weakened Austro-Hungary, the following states based on national principles were formed – one state, one nation. This solution, however, in the conditions of a middle-European region showed itself to be very complicated. Czechoslovakia, itself, was also ridiculed that it is only a sort of Austro-Hungary made in smaller. Naturally, the Czechoslovak regional representation tried to explain the situation that the majority of the local population is made by the united Czechoslovak nation. And in this it was finally supported also by one of the most important part of the Slovak educated and political representation, “by which not only the idea of the political, but also that of the ethnic and cultural unity was accepted, they gave up for decades existing and enforced principle of the national identity, i.e. compared to the preceding step they made a step back.” [2] This situation can be easily explained. “Slovak ideas of the necessity of creating a united Czechoslovak state, a united nation, in this period, were created by unfair foreign conditions, i.e. worried of a highly threatened one’s own community and of the number of possible perspectives of the nation’s development.”[3] The Slovak politician Vavro Srobar in his autobiography very clearly describes the statute of young Slovak people in Hungary: “...young people do not like reading about poverty, humiliation, enslaving and the constant crying rejects them from those, who in their helplessness are dying under the strong pressure of a powerful, big and famous nation.” [4] “If we count the success of the Hungarian sciences – Slovak science had not existed then – the culture, the beauty of Budapest, quickly developing itself into a metropol, her beautiful constructions, her self-assured ideas of the mission and the greatness of the over-twenty- million Hungary...”[5] And so out of this part of the Slovak intelligentsia many of them became “over-runners”, in the local periodical terminology often called “madaroni”. “So that the mentioned ideas often had their real basis, however, they were idealized and naive, and therefore it was not difficult to get them under the stronger part’s thumb in the state weapon – under the influence of the Czech ambitions and concepts.”[6] On the other hand the democratic principles, which Czechoslovakia in the whole period between the two world wars was able to keep, were a perspective idea for creating a fair multinational unity, which could function on a common political view of the inhabitants , not only on a national principle. In this case we could speak about Czechoslovakia, as a basic unit of the whole united Europe, which, at the moment seems to be devoured, however, its healthy steps can be again re-united.

L. Liptak, declared about creating Czechoslovakia in 1918, about the home Slovak representatives: “The Czech policy was accepted passively and with regard.” [7] With all my honour to Srobar, to the supporters of the magazine “Hlas ludu”, with all my honour to Andrej Hlinka I think in Slovakia there had not existed a real personality with a real constructive programme. However, one personality was away from the grey curtain of the usual Slovak diameter of the Slovak political scene: Milan Hodza. Due to the fact that in the preceding period he had already chosen the bad political card, he had to wait for his “coming back” into high politics.

* * *

In the words by Pavol Lukac the foreseeing and over-timing of Hodza’s way of thinking it has to tell quite a lot to the present day observer of the hectic changes in Europe at the end of the 20th century.

It is interesting to follow the development and continuity of Hodza in such a hectic and changeable period as was the first part of the 20th century. On the one hand, this was the period of creating the sub-mass for geopolitical changes, which became the most important ones for this century – e.g. the arousal of fascist and communist dictatures and the division of the old continent arising from it. On the other hand also the controversial development in the middle European continent and the changes in regimes - from a monarchy to a republic, from autocratic regimes to democracy, etc. It used to be very difficult for a politically active Slovak to keep one’s own face and political opinions during all this period and not to become a political person with chameleonic attitudes of Joseph Fouche.

*

“The last attempt to a federative changing of the Habsburg monarchy in the year 1905- 1914 assisted by the successor to the throne Francz Ferdinand” [8]

As I told already in the introduction, in this region had existed the tradition of the concepts of creating an above – national, more equal, more democratic entity as was Austro-Hungary, and these were used by Milan Hodza, too. As a young journalist he is underlying Frantisek Palacky’s ideas from the revolutionary years of the 19th century about the federalization of the monarchy: “If Austria had not existed, it would have to be made up,” Hodza understands, that it is important to think out such a political programme, which would be interested in uniting all the nations of the Danube Region into one unity of nations, so creating a counterpoise of the aggressive Germanism. Starting from these ideas he was developing already at the beginning of his political career contacts with the Serbs and Rumanians. Together with them they founded the “Snemova narodnostna strana” (Assembley’s nationalities party) in the Hungarian Parliament. At the beginning he was attempting at the lobby policy oriented at the Hungarian government. He believed, in this way he could win a lot for Slovakia. After his political failure in Budapest he turned to Vienna.

Here he began the cooperation with Frantisek Ferdinand and his “belvedery workshop” (a group of intellectuals and politicians who were preparing changes in the monarchy), who for achieving their aims counted the use of non-Hungarian nationalities. Pavol Lukac explains Hodza’s attitude to Vienna in the introduction Hodza’s work Federation: “As can be seen, he himself did not make any illusions either about the personality of Frantisek Ferdinand, or about the general possibilities of the change of the monarchy.” [9] The successor to the throne realized, that to preserve the monarchy unity they would need to change the system. He saw the solution in the plan of the Transylvanian (Sedmohradsko) political thinker Aurel Popovici from the year 1906 to create “the Big Austria”. Hodza’s characterization of it: “Popovici stressed, that the dualism settled in by the Austro-Hungarian equalization in 1867 was a definite separation of Hungary from the Habsburgan monarchy. The Danube Region can only be preserved if they can achieve a change into a monarchy of 15 “half-sovereign” states... His plan left so much exaggerated space to the ruler and Austrian Germans to meet their ambitions.” [10]

From his first own description of Hodza’s visit at the ruler we also learn about Hodza’s personal political views - that in reality he was not a supporter of absolute monarchy. His first visit to the successor, when he was 28, he describes like this: “Frantisek Ferdinand, a tough and sincere Catholic, did not mind my Protentantism, in our talk. The only serious objection was that I was a supporter of democracy, or even of a land reform.” [11] And in spite of everything, as he himself says, he was one of the few examples who to His Highness behaved politely.[12] In 1913 Hodza clearly defines his ideas to the successor in his memorandum, called PROMEMORIA. A highly interesting fact, from my point of view, is the situation, that he is clearly sure about the chances of his nation. Already then he saw its chances as a part of a greater entity. The preambule of the memorandum sounds: “The development of the political ability of the new age tends to a big region, to a world empire. There is no future for small regions. Not only that their stronger neighbours can beat them, but also that they will not be able to satisfy their national and economic demands, which can be asked from a modern state establishment.” [13] Milan Hodza’s political views were, however, quite unexpectedly, stopped by the Sarayevo assassination.

II. “Initiatives to achieve understanding in central Europe” [14]

Milan Hodza’s beginnings as a Czechoslovak politician were not very positive. On October 30, 1918 he came to Martin, where they were accepting the basic declaration about the official acknowledgement of Czechoslovakia by the Slovak political elite, however, only in the evening and so missed the meeting. At the beginning he was given the right to represent the Czechoslovak government in the talks in Budapest, but his activities in Budapest overshadowed his position and for a time he appeared a bit forgotten. [15]

So he started almost from a zero, but he sincerely tried to bind to his previous political ideas. He wished to a strong democracy in Europe. The stabilizing element, which could prevent the left and the right radicalism, was according to Hodza, the broadest part of inhabitants in this part – the peasants, building 64 per cents of the middle European people. Also his politics of “agrarian democracy” he tried to see in his broader political consequences. Therefore the English R.H.M.Worsley could proudly write that he can see in them another element for the stablilization of the whole middle Europe. [16]

At the beginning of the twenties of the 20th century Hodza prepared and organized a cooperation of agrarian parties in middle Europe (Poland, Yugoslavia, Rumania and Bulgaria). Only the Hungarian agrarian party was not able to start a cooperation with the middle European democratic peasants. [17] I consider it a great plus in Milan Hodza, that in times, when the national feelings of Hungarians after the big losses were still very painful, he tried to renew a deeper mutual cooperation. He underlines the common interests of all the newly organized, independent nations in central Europe and he suggested a cooperation in the Danube lowland.

For the important economic Hungarian weekly Pesti Tozsde-Kereskedelmi Lapok he highly clearly answered them their open question: “...if the small nations are isolated and boardered by rivalry, they can easily become the plague of the world policy. At the same time, however, they can become also a highly precious part of the fair world policy (therefore unthinkable balance of the political forces) – if they can be able to adopt the same views of the common ideas and events, especially, if their geographic location is so important.” [18]

“Central Europe, central European mentality, central European situation - this all exists.” [19]

On March 5, 1931 Hodza clearly delivered a lecture in the big hall of the Trade and Craft Chamber in Brno, called Czechoslovakia and central Europe. Here he already clearly defined the necessity of integration: “There exists a whole number of reasons why the central Europe is and has to be - but I do like to point to Russia. If for the middle Europe did not exist any political or economic reasons, the only one, that the present Russia by its civilization and by its life-style is a new part of the world. The East starts, where Russia starts. The states and nations in the central Europe have to be prepared to any possible development of Russia. If we do not have this sort of solidarity, with regard to the huge Russia, it could mean, that one day we could appear between Germany and Russia as between two grinding stones.” [20]

I would like to point to another, in my view not unforgettable part of his plan. The broader organizational form of the Danube region he did not only see in the guarantee of small nations of middle Europe, which could guarantee the safety against any possible military danger of the strong neighbors. Such cooperation leads to economic prosperity and from the political point of view it makes more insensible the national antagonisms, issuing from minority problems and from the attitudes of single nations to get the leading position, or to manage other nations.” [21]

Why was this side so important?

Pavol Lukáč clearly explains the difficult relations in this region, where the newly established states were so badly suffering by their mutual conflicts and historical aversions, that the idea of their cooperation was to too idealistic. [22] To the bottom came the problems of nationalism, the problems of minorities, as well as the problem of the state legal order, in which the problems of centralism contra autonomism stood against each other. Milan Hodza did not undervalue none of these problems, which are followed up today. He also tried to solve them.

“THE ROAD TO INTERNATIONALISM LIES THROUGH NATIONALISM.” [23]

Nationalism was a problem deeply studied by Hodza. He was searching the conditions for forming the political identity of the state. He refused the Fichte’s definition of a nation of a number of inhabitants, speaking one language and having one legislature. According to Hodza a sociological notion of a nation demands asks for a collective will – this is a condition of a national whole. He starts from European thinkers Mazzini and Renan, that nationality is a mission, it supposes a will and means not only the right but also the duty towards humanity. In this way it is only a morale obligation and the responsibility flowing out of it. He does not see a any difference between a full expression of nationalism and an expressed international cooperation. He considers a nation capable, if it is able “to compete in an international competition, however, to be able to compete, it has to have a moral foundation, it must be clear of its responsibility - that the thing created by many generations before us, must be considered to be one of the moral rights to our own independence.” [24]

I consider highly impressive, even though for the Slovak situation rather rare, Hodza’s thoughts about the border between the love to nation and nationalism. Hodza stresses Mazzini’s thought, that the national community is an organic mediator between mankind and individual personality, who is able to contribute to its progress.

2THE PROBLEMS OF MINORITIES:

In the whole middle Europe they had different mutual colonizations from the 13th to the 19th centuries causing that none of the middle European states is without minorities and without a minority problem. Hodza as a former leader of a minority in Hungary knew well the consequences of neglecting the national problems in a monarchy. By his attitude to minorities he tried to overcome the political and psychological gulfs between CS and its neighbours, the nations of which became minorities of this state. He was accepting to find a common soil, on which the Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians could meet, in spite of all national conflicts.