X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 09:21:30 +0200
From:         Jan Szelepcsenyi <janszel@POSEN.MFF.UNIBA.CS>
Subject:      "Re: Paradigm shift"

Kamil Marcinka once wrote....
>Jan Szelepcsenyi writes:
>>
>>But that's his personal problem. Middle Europe is going to be
>>changed. The dividing of Czecho-Slovakia into two separated
>>republics, i.e. political and economical subjects is creating a
>>competitive situation. The Czech are trying to get a good
>>starting position. The campaign against Slovaks is organized for
>>getting some advantages at the international political scene as
>>well as at the international market. Unfortunately the mind of
>>some individuals, like Mr Feldek, is a very narrow one, slavish.
>>They aren't able to imagine that this little nation could have
>>its own state and could improve its ability to live in the
>>international community as an even partner of other European
>>nations. The compensate this misbelieve and mistrust in the
>>inborne power of a nation in joining themselves to some Czech
>>intellectuals, making for them the dirty job: in killing the
>>image of an ongoing state.
>>
>>However, sooner or later our neightbours and other cooperating
>>partners will have the possibility to make their own impression
>>about the education, creativity or know-how of our people.
>>
>>I can imagin my words sound like a propaganda speech shouted
>>from barrikades. But we are fighting now for very simple things,
>>basic values, to which you have got used a long time before.
>>Our problems are for you probably the problems of an another
>>world. But we try to solve them. Succeeding in this attempt
>>we'll get able to join you.
>>
>>Don't believe people who are trying to disturb this effort.
>
>Jan:
>
>Thanks for the interesting contribution.
>
>
>The question is, if and when Slovakia exercises this right,
>will it improve or worsen the living conditions of its inhabitants.


Nobody is able to give an exact answer to this important
question.  In spite of all the development od social science and
general education there is still a big area of behavior and
social activity which the man may examine only by doing it.
Following a newsgroup about economics I've got persuaded, that
astrology is probably a more exact discipline. Then, let's
see how we'll manage this deal.

But in fact I'm not quite sure if it's correct, when we are
correlating categories of human being concerning our personal
and social identity, freedom and liberty with categories of
living standards.

The Slovaks wern't pampered by their history. They've got an
permanent course in living within proper limits. Then the aspect
mentioned by you probably want be the decisive one.


>There are two major consequences of a split: the expenses associated
>with the division, and the political and economic sanctions by the
>rest of the world.

A divorse as well as a division is an expensive undergoing.
But I don't understand your frightening with political and
economic sanction. The foreign politicians repeatedly claimed
our right for selfdetermination, which we have to fulfill in
a constitutional way. For what have we to be punished, then?

>When the politicians who are preparing the way for
>the split deny the heavy impact of these two factors, it's a wishful
>thinking at best, and arrogant lying at worst.


There is no other way to proof this hypothesis only to undergo
this experiment.

>Furthermore, there are other circumstances that compound the problem.
>True, HZDS won in free elections, and its victory is a reflection
>of Meciar's popularity.

The popularity of a politician is the main atribute of his job.
Therefore it sounds crazy if Meciar is all the time accused
because of being popular, but nobody disturbs, that the news in
TV and newspaper are full of data about the popularity of the
American candidates for presidency.

That's an important criterion more: if the politician is keeping
his promisses. Let's see. The account is mostly very simple.

I don't know how may help Meciar's popularity in solving the
problem with the huge budgetary debt. It's an heritage of the
previous government. Will the people take it in account? That's
the point where the jusice of the history is mostly hobbling.
But that's his problem.

>But who is Meciar? He's a thug (a "hulva't,"
>as they say in Slovak); his choice of words and expressions might
>be appropriate for a pub after midnight, but not for a government
>officer;

I'm not quite sure if I'm able here to follow your way of
thinking. What did you mean with the previous chapter? Do you
accuse Meciar for his behavior, or the voters because of giving
their votes for a thug?

>His way of dealing with others who disagree with him is primitive
>and disgusting (a reported incident: Meciar: "How much do you weigh,
>dear colleague?" MP: "80 kilograms." Meciar: "Well, for me you're
>just 80 kilograms of shit." ("tak pre mna ste iba 80-kilove hovno."));
>his political platform can only described as populist, because truly
>the only constant in his politics is to stand for what is the most
>popular position and change it whenever advantageous.

Once let us speak about the way how the journalists were dealing
with Meciar. I'm curious if you will agree with them. What a
position does take a politician, it's some kind of star dust.
The main question is if he did managed the main problems of a
society - political, social, economical, cultural etc. problems.
Nor less important is the way of solving these problems. Nobody
gives time to him. In two months time he managed to pass a new
constitution. Is it enough, or not enough?

I'll try to examine the reported incident. That's the first time
I've heard it. But it wouldn't be the first time, that I'd heard
a quite untrusty story. Unbelievable how many hate does he mobilize!


>Additionally, there is the baggage of the Slovak Republic. The core of
>the problem here is NOT that the Slovak Republic was a Nazi ally--that's
>all history now. The problem is that some Slovak nationalists today
>look at the old Slovak Republic with pride, consider it a source of
>inspiration, and try to justify it. The rest of the world will never
>have any sympathy for this.

In accusations it is very incorrect to use expression like "SOME
Slovak nationalist". Some Americans like to use riffle during their
amok. Does it mean that ALL, or the MAJORITY of Americans like
to use riffle and ALL or the MAJORITY are getting crazy and killing
innocent people - of course, using riffles...

You are right, they are some people feeling and behaving in the
way which you described. But none of this people get an seat in
the parliament, the extreme right or left parties are fighting
for their simple being and the old-fashioned nationalists don't
have any influence at the political life and decision-making.

>Against this background it is only understandable that there is increased
>sensitivity to anyone with past associations with the Slovak
>Republic or the Nazis (i.e. Slobodnik).

I'm getting bored by the case of Slobodnik. It changed in a
legend.  Do you know, that he was in the camp 10 days, that he
saved the life of 3 French and one Russian partisan, etc. etc.?


>So, the split will necessarily worsen the living conditions in both
>Bohemia and Slovakia, because of the associated expenses combined
>with the loss of credibility in the eyes of the world community.
>This is the extent of what Bohemia faces in the event of the
>split. Slovakia however will have a host of other problems: internally,
>the consequences of having Meciar's government; externally, being the
>perceived initiator of the split, which will further erode foreign
>investor confidence.

Do you know that already in 1991 the Czech government officials
elaborated a plan how to organize the customs at the Moravian
border?

Can you explain, please, to me what are "the consequences of
having Meciar's government", i.e. a government based on results
of free democratic election. Did we have to make a revolution
against Meciar, or to manipulate the election results?

It's to early to say, how Meciar's government will be.


>Unfortunately, most people in Slovakia are either unaware of these
>issues, or right now they are simply not important to them. The
>driving force behind this whole independence movement is not a rational
>analysis of what is really best for inhabitants of Slovakia, but
>emotional issues of pride, quest for recognition, and such.
>Mr Frajkor does not include "Slovak Republic" in the address because
>he thinks there might be another Martin in Bohemia, but because of
>some odd satisfaction which has nothing to do with speeding up or
>otherwise improving the delivery. However, while his peculiar
>addition has no real impact, the split of CSFR has a potential of
>having grave (not catastrofic, just grave) consequences for the
>inhabitants of Slovakia.

All this propagandistic rubbish, which you have got presented by
Czech humanists and intellectuals is the best way how to keep
foreign capital away from Slovakia, how to spread misbelieve to
an unknown and newborn nation over all the world and how to
weaken thed ability pf the Slovaks to act at the international
market. Why do you trust to old-fashioned organization of the world?
Look at Palestina, the Kurds and other nations and ethnic groups:
It didn't appear a politician, who would able to say: let's give
the souvereignty, dignity, freedom, liberty... This kind of problems
and tasks need a fight against a traditional organization of
states and international community. All the nature is developing.
Why the organization of international life has to be kept the same?


>Again, I have no interest in defending Feldek as a person. But before
>you judge people like Kusy, Hoffman, and many other Slovaks who
>oppose the split of CSFR, try to understand that they are not
>trying to hurt the Slovakia, but help her. In their eyes, as well
>as in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world, it is the
>combination of the Slovak nationalists, separatists, and populists,
>who are doing the real damage.

I never mentioned Mr Kusy or Hoffman in my comments. I never
mentioned hundred of oponents who have different opinion to
these questions. Everybody has the right to have his own beliefe
and his own vision about the future of a community. But I really
don't believe that it is a help for a nation, if a writer is
blackmailing a minister of culture because of a story, which is
not in any relation to his personal integrity, professional
abilities and to his tasks. Instead of solving important
problems of the cultural life the minister has to defend himself
against accusations, which are pronounced without any evidence.

I have to claim that I'm not able to get free of prejudices.  In
the same way as Mr Feldek hates fascists I hate people who tried
to use all the privilegies reserved for collaborators with the
previous regime. I don't like poets for every political
constellation.  I'm not willing to listen lectures about
democracy given by the previous secretary of CP responsible for
the ideological work. This type of people were educated to give
philosophical explanation for all the crimes done by the
communist regime.

And I'm very very sorry when I see, that well-minded and well
educated people are depending in creation of their own
standpoind on the information provided by these - shadows of the
past.

Once, being a young man, Mr Feldek mentioned to me: "One way,
how to make a career, is to change your handicaps in your
advantage." He follows this idea in his own way. Be careful...


>--Kamil Marcinka (Internet address: tkmarc@hovmb.ion.chevron.com)

Thanks for your time.


Jan
----
Jan Szelepcsenyi                        	Telephone: + 42 7 220863
janszel@posen.mff.uniba.cs              	Address  : ul. A. Mraza 4
                                                	   821 03 Bratislava
							   Czechoslovakia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU