“Det
omaka paret: Tjeckernas och slovakernas historia” by Ingmar Karlsson is a
recently published book in Swedish on a somewhat obscure topic (at least if you´re
Swedish). Yes, it actually deals with the history of the Czechs and the
Slovaks, two Slav peoples in Central Europe with a somewhat complex relation to
each other. The author has previously published books on Turks, Kurds,
Assyrians and European minority peoples (as in the Sorbs or the Ladino). I sure
wondered why on earth he decided to tackle Czechs and Slovaks next! It turns
out that Karlsson was Swedish ambassador to *both* the Czech Republic and
Slovakia during the 1990´s. His wife is Slovak and his mother-in-law Czech (or
perhaps Silesian Austrian). Karlsson met both Vaclav Klaus and Vladimir Meciar,
the controversial top dogs on, respectively, the Czech and Slovak sides back in
the days. Apparently, the meetings were pretty tense!
As for myself, I have both Moravian, Slovak and Hungarian affinities, and therefore read “Det omaka paret” with great interest. I did manage to find perhaps four or five factual errors (some of them strange), but overall, I have to say that Karlsson knows his Czecho-Slovak history in and out, so much in fact, that I wouldn´t be surprised if he can read Czech and Slovak himself. In the end, even I learned a few things from Karlsson´s book, and I *do* read both languages, thank you.
As for myself, I have both Moravian, Slovak and Hungarian affinities, and therefore read “Det omaka paret” with great interest. I did manage to find perhaps four or five factual errors (some of them strange), but overall, I have to say that Karlsson knows his Czecho-Slovak history in and out, so much in fact, that I wouldn´t be surprised if he can read Czech and Slovak himself. In the end, even I learned a few things from Karlsson´s book, and I *do* read both languages, thank you.
Karlsson´s
main point, which unfortunately is mostly true, is that Czechs and Slovaks
(despite speaking mutually understandable languages) really have very little in
common. The Czech lands, Bohemia in particular, were once the near-literal
center of Europe, both politically and culturally. Prague was an important
metropolis for centuries, from the 14th century to the 17th ditto.
Bohemia experienced a “Protestant” Reformation a century before Martin Luther
burst onto the scene in Germany. The Bohemian king was an elector of the “Holy
Roman Empire”. Later, when the Czechs had been suppressed by the Germans, their lands
were nevertheless industrialized, giving them an advantage over many other
parts of Austria-Hungary when that empire came crushing down after World War I.
By contrast, Slovakia was for almost 1000 years a Hungarian-controlled territory,
simply known as Felvidék (“the Upper Lands” i.e. northern Hungary). For most of its history, it was
strongly Catholic. It was also mostly populated by peasants, often impoverished
smallholders.
When
Czechoslovakia was formed in 1918, the Slovaks were actually fewer in number
than the Germans, the most visible national minority in the new Czech-dominated
republic. The Czech leadership declared Slovaks to be part of a united “Czechoslovak”
nationality, an artificial creation supposed to boost the Czech numbers at the
expense of Germans, Hungarians and other national minorities. While some
Czechoslovakist Slovaks did exist, most Slovaks soon threw their support behind
the Catholic nationalist Slovak People´s Party, which opposed the central
government in Prague. Since this party eventually collaborated with the Nazis,
they were banned after World War II. Still, the differences between the two brother
peoples persisted. In Bohemia and Moravia, the Communist Party became the
single largest party in the post-war elections. In Slovakia, most voters
preferred the Democratic Party, the only viable non-Communist party. (This was before the Prague coup in 1948, when the Communists took over completely.)
Under Communism, Prague centralism was (of course) the order of the day, something which benefitted ethnic Czechs (or at least ethnic Czechs who were Communists!), although *some* positive things did happen in Slovakia - Karlsson believes that the industrialization of this previous rural backwater was a good thing, despite being carried out by an authoritarian regime. The supposed "federation" between the Czech and Slovak "socialist republics" created in 1969 was mostly a sham reform.
Under Communism, Prague centralism was (of course) the order of the day, something which benefitted ethnic Czechs (or at least ethnic Czechs who were Communists!), although *some* positive things did happen in Slovakia - Karlsson believes that the industrialization of this previous rural backwater was a good thing, despite being carried out by an authoritarian regime. The supposed "federation" between the Czech and Slovak "socialist republics" created in 1969 was mostly a sham reform.
Flash
forward to 1989, and the usual pattern reemerges. Immediately after the fall of
Communism, political developments took a different course in
Bohemia-Moravia compared to Slovakia. In the Czech lands, a mimic of the
Western party system emerged, with conservative, liberal and Social Democratic
parties. In Slovakia, the political field (after a Catholic Christian
Democratic interlude) became dominated by nationalist populist formations with
nebulous platforms and strongman leaders. One of the main political issues was
the constant conflict with the Hungarian minority. (The German minority was
forced to leave the Czech lands after World War II, making Bohemia and Moravia
more ethnically homogenous.) While few people *really* wanted to dissolve
Czechoslovakia, the inability of the Czech and Slovak politicians to create a federation
that would satisfy both sides eventually set the stage for the country´s
partition into two independent states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Thankfully, the divorce was peaceful. And inevitable, if Karlsson is right (and
I think he is).
The last
chapter deals with recent events in the two nations. One thing that struck me
recently is that the Czech Republic and Slovakia has become *more* similar the
last 20 years or so, not less, which was the tendency immediately after independence.
Slovak politics are still dominated by a nationalist populist party, albeit a
different one than during the 1990´s. Vladimir Meciar´s Movement for a
Democratic Slovakia (HZDS) has been replaced by Robert Fico´s Smer. Critics
charge the dominant political factions with rampant corruption, xenophobia and
pro-Russian leanings. But the Czech Republic has *also* become anti-globalist,
tacitly anti-EU and pro-Russian, even electing a Slovak populist billionaire named
Andrej Babis Prime Minister! (Yes, the Czechs have elected a *Slovak* Prime
Minister.) This tendency started already during the time of Vaclav Klaus, whose
reputation as an orthodox neo-liberal Friedmanite seems to be overblown, to say
the least. In reality, most of the Czech economy was subsidized by the
government of this supposed market reformer, who opposed Czech EU membership
and wrote positively about Vladimir Putin.
It´s
almost as if Czechs and Slovaks have finally become ready to create that united
nation-state which has proved so elusive throughout history.
The
irony!
No comments:
Post a Comment