The cultural
model of Central Europe carries a political message with its own meaning for
understanding the regime changes in the region. In order to proceed to an
analysis of the civic culture in Banat and Transylvania, one must take into
consideration that these regions (as well as others with similar historical
traditions, such as Silezia, Moravia, Galicia, Slovakia, Croatia, Bukovina) were
emancipated later and only partially in comparison with the French, North
Italian and Dutch regions. Certain relationship with the West-- maintained by
the religious and aristocratic elite -- functioned as a result of the echo of
Renaissance humanism and the Lutherano-Calvinist Reform. This elite was tempted
to develop its own set of values in a way similar to the West when Banat and
Transylvania became parts of the Habsburg Empire in the 18th century.
Sometimes it succeeded in spite of its economic and social handicaps. As for the
masses, modernization took place no later than the end of the 19th
century. Only then, did the proper moment for Banat and Transylvania arrive and
a large scale transition toward the modern world.
Between
1880 and 1918 an unprecedented demographic explosion happened in the towns of
the region. New and numerous buildings were constructed not only in the big
cities, but in small towns, too, giving them a European architectural
configuration. New administrations were set up following the model of the great
burghs; economic production was diversified; international trade regulations
used across the whole continent were adopted. Culture would play an important
role in preparing the wide-reaching social transformations. The setting-up and
development of a middle-class had priority. Also the multiplication of the
associations concerning culture, the arts, vocational training, science and,
generally speaking, everything that could bring about changes in the mentality
of the masses was encouraged. Enormous expenditures were made at the time in
order to support setting up the infrastructure and the civic society of Banat
and Transylvania. That explains why, in Transylvania, not only cities such as
Cluj (Kolozsvár), Braşov (Brassó/ Kronstadt), Sibiu (Nagyszeben/,
Hermanstadt), Tîrgu. Mureş (Marosvásárhely), but also such smaller towns
as Turda (Torda), Deva (Déva), Miercurea-Ciuc (Csíkszereda), Sfîntu-Gheorghe
(Sepsiszentgyörgy), Odorheiu Secuiesc (Székelyudvarhely), Hunedoara (Vajdahunyad),
Zalău (Zilah), Şimleul Silvaniei (Erdélysomlyó), succeeded in
creating their own social and economic structures. In the Banat region, not only
the cities of Timişoara (Temesvár), but also Reşiţa (Resica),
Lugoj (Lugos), Jimbolia (Zsombolya) and Sînnicolau Mare (Nagyszentmiklós) were
developed. In Bihor County (situated in the western part of Romania), the city
of Oradea (Nagyvárad) was rapidly developed and became a symbol of the cultural
vanguard. Satu-Mare (Szatmárnémeti) and Carei (Nagykároly) were open to
various social and economic developments that eased or determined numerous
contacts with western European regions.
During
the interwar period, numerous former provinces of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire
became the leading forces of industrialization and urbanization in the
respective nation-states. The cases of the Bohemian and Moravian regions in
Czechoslovakia are relevant in this respect. However it was not the case of
Banat and Transylvania regions in newly created Romanian state after the World
War I. Although it was more advanced with respect to its institutions and
community life -- as compared to other provinces of Romania -- Transylvania
became subordinated to a less developed decision-making center, namely to
Bucharest1. As a consequence, the region which had been modernized
after Central European models of civilization fell under the influence of the
political and economic interests originating in the former Turkish Empire. This
explains why Romania’s integration into Western civilization was delayed. Even
though the French and Prussian cultural sources were somehow accepted (i.e., the
elite was formed under their influence), they were not relevant for the
modernization of the Old Kingdom of Romania. These aspects should not be
neglected when we evaluate the political thought in Romania of that time. The
discrepancies between elite and masses were not adequately taken into
consideration. These differences were more visible in the southern and eastern
parts of Romania, but none of its governments was sufficiently preoccupied to
diminish them during the last century, although some of them made notable
contributions to the modernization of the country.
In
this context, let us analyze Timişoara prior to becoming a city in the
Romanian state. According to historical studies, it was the most industrialized
and the most modern city in the eastern part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In
1910, Timişoara -- the capital city of Banat with a population of 72,555
inhabitants -- had got two technical universities, two Episcopal chairs, 62
small and medium sized enterprises, 132 professional associations, 7 daily
newspapers, 17 printing houses, a philharmonic society, and many scientific
associations. The city became the most important center of the Hungarian side of
the empire, following Budapest2. It was ahead all the cities of
Transylvania. Moreover, its openness was due to the multilingualism practiced by
the large majority of the population in a very natural way. It had been usual
for them to speak German, Hungarian, Romanian and Serbian for long periods of
time. The name of the city itself has four forms according to the four languages
spoken: Timişoara (in Romanian), Temesvár (in Hungarian), Temesburg or
Temeswar (in German) and Temisvaru (in Serbian). Without going into details, it
should be noted that this city was the most important center of the first
outstanding regional modernization.Timisoara has put a touch of its spiritual
physiognomy on the whole Banat region as has
Cluj on Transylvania. The former has always been oriented toward a plural
community life3, while the latter has been mainly tempted to define
itself in connection with its ethnic and linguistic identities. The frustrations
caused by the subordinate position of Cluj to Budapest and, beginning with 1918,
to Bucharest delayed the adoption of the principles characteristic of an open
society.
The
previously historical information is useful for a more accurate description of
Timişoara’s physiognomy during the years following the anti-Ceauşescu
uprising. It is possible that, due to its historical background and civic
culture, the population of this city more easily adopted a critical attitude
against the authoritarian and especially against the totalitarian policy.
Despite the demographic changes after World War II, and despite an exaggerated
surveillance (initiated by the political police) against the persons belonging
to minority communities, the inhabitants of Timişoara and the newcomers had
been able either to perpetuate or respectively to imitate the civic values
practiced by the interwar generations. Due to this fact, beyond compare to any
other city’s situation in communist Romania, Timişoara continued to
distinguish itself by an exemplary civic organization. The merit of
understanding the great chance of cooperation and therefore, of organizing a
civic society, belongs to those people who felt, thought and acted beyond their
ethnic and confessional affiliations4. Feeling themselves more
comfortable with their status as citizens of the bourgh, they acquired in time openness towards diversity of any
kind. This attitude would have not been possible in linguistic and religious
communities over-preoccupied by their own ethnic-identity.
It is not just an environment of mutual respect between the majority and
minorities, but also coexistence where the individual’s community-oriented
education seemed to be — and sometimes was — essential.
It is worth remembering the wish of a large segment of the population to
live in freedom, to conduct business, to freely move across the borders, to have
free access to information. Their interest for stable welfare standards had
always been their life philosophy. Nor was the concern for money, household and
material values neglected during the last years of Ceauşescu’s regime.
Even during the food shortage at the end of the ‘70s that was harsher during
the ‘80s, there were social layers that succeeded in maintaining a reasonable
living standard. The Mehala flea market stocked by goods coming from abroad,
namely from Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria and Germany, played an outstanding role
in preserving and stirring up interest in the Western products. Authorities
tried to suppress these markets repeatedly. As for the thirst for information of
Timişoara’s middle class citizens, one can remark that they had often
watched the Belgrade, Novi-Sad and Budapest television broadcasts. They used to
manufacture special antennas in order to intercept the TV programs from the
neighboring countries.
The
elite was educated in the old spirit of the city; in other words, it became the
fruit of the local habitat. It was not idealized by the masses, nor did it try
to impose itself as a model. Its sense of normality was surprising compared to
the behavior of the intellectuals in other towns, or cities of Romania. The Timişoara
elite still preserved some of the characteristics of the Central European
intelligentsia5. That explains why the Bucharest authorities
expressed a kind of reserve for the values of this city, an attitude which
continued to be manifested even after the regime changes in December 1989.
Undoubtedly, the cultural elite of Timişoara did not benefit from an
extensive promotion in the national media. It was due to the fact that the Banat
County, as a border region, had uncontrollable contacts with its Central
European neighbors. Moreover, the Banat has been populated by minority groups,
too, to whom the authorities have always looked with a constant suspicion6.
In the latter sense, the surveillance of the Hungarian, German, Jewish and even
Serbian communities was notorious. It could be demonstrated, however, that a
kind of decent living was possible as a result of the civic environment of Timişoara.
The
communists aimed at indoctrinating the population with a different ideology than
that of the liberal bourgeoisie. There
were, however, many examples that certified that they did not succeed in their
endeavor. Why did they fail? On the one hand, the preservation of a Central
European state of civilization, deriving from the 18th century
Austrian cosmopolitanism, made possible the coexistence of the traditional
communities of Timişoara, namely the German, Hungarian, Romanian, Serbian
and Jewish ones. On the other hand, the intercultural and the inter-confessional
phenomena in the region explain the inhabitants’ rejection of the ghetto-life
and the idea of the purity of origins. Moreover they expressed a greater reserve
for the traditionalist ethnic policies7 of the official ideologists
which built on the background of the dictatorial regimes of Antonescu in the
‘40s, and later of Ceauşescu. The perpetuation of the urban habit of
association and setting up new social segments willing to adapt themselves to
the changes which occurred in post WWII Europe, made the survival of the civic
society possible. Like the cities of Lemberg or Cernăuţi, Timişoara
has been a pre-eminently intercultural city, where -- unlike the neighboring
regions -- the ethnic barriers have not been relevant. An important question
that could be raised is: how has the civic culture been preserved and also how
has it been able to contribute to the political transformation of 1989? A few
distinctive phenomena took place in Timişoara during Ceauşescu’s
rule which represented an avant-garde in the content of ideas. The cultural
activities implicitly or explicitly were carrying the touches of nonconformism
and of a hidden protest. A way of freethinking was developed due to some
intellectual and artistic societies and also to social-communitarian ones. Among
them -- the Sigma Group, the Aktionsgruppe
Banat of the German language writers, Professor Eduard Pamfil’s
Bionics Club, the multilingual society within the Writers’
Association, the inter-confessional reunions, cinema halls and the Phoenix band – were outstanding for their activities. They all
expressed dissatisfaction and critiques of the regime, namely, the rejection of
the “wooden tongue” and of the totalitarian ideology.
The
Sigma Group represented a vanguard
movement in the Romanian art, as it offered new understanding and definition of
the world, by appealing to the industrial aesthetics, marketing, industrial
geometry, complementary colors, design, descriptive geometry, and bionic study.
Iosif Király, an alumnus of the Art School of Timişoara, where the Sigma
Group members used to teach, introduced us to these elements in the Timişoara
of the ‘60s, when the intellectuals where concerned rather with the act of
inward creation than with the past.
“In fact” — he confesses — “we had no spare
time for the past; the present was so eventful, we were living each moment with
such an intensity that there was no more room for anything else. Art and culture
were produced right under our eyes”.
The high school students were reading not only Sartre, Kafka, Joyce,
Ionesco, and Hesse, but also an avant-garde literature in the field of the
social sciences written by Marshal McLuhan, Alvin Tofler or Nicholas Schoffer.
They were listening to music by Shostakovici, Schönberg, Bartók or Stravinski.
The environment was a stimulating one, the students were being treated by their
teachers as peers; this fact gave them a feeling that they could walk shoulder
to shoulder with their teachers to new horizons. Stimulated by art motion
pictures, foreign books and journals, by lectures on the history of arts and the
study of the visual languages, they also discovered the activity of the Sigma Group in the neighborhood. The group’s influence was so
powerful — Király says — that their disciples set up their own artistic
workshops, where they would debate the philosophical issues concerning the
contemporary world8. The students’ exhibition of 1976 at the Kalinderu
Gallery in Bucharest was to confirm the existence of a prestigious workshop
without comparison in Romania at the time. An art critic compared the student
exhibition in Timişoara with “a living ensemble, open, caught unguarded
in full swing, in full development. The dense atmosphere of a balanced respect
for tradition floated above it, along with the spirit of the sober and
courageous experiment, free from any prejudices or other snobbish claim”9.
The critic also noticed with indignation that the exhibition was not advertised
even though the works could have given birth to a genuine emulation. It was
clear that the Timişoara Art High School was unique among the art schools
in Romania, therefore the question arose about which art faculties were prepared
to take in such graduates.
The
Sigma Group — set up around Ştefan
Bertalan and Constantin Flondor, also including famous artists such as: Doru
Tulcan, Molnár Zoltán, Diet Sayler — has become a reference point not only
in the field of the arts, where it decisively contributed to the renewal of the
language of the fine arts, but also in the field of ideological debates. The
wish for a renewal was obvious with all these artists. That is why, in the
‘60s, they became the promoters of a way of communication different from the
communist-dictated one10. The various subjects put forward, the
artistic education striving for open systems, the study of nature, the
outrunning of the established forms, and the introduction of experimental study,
all this made possible the evolution of a special environment in the cultural
milieu of Timişoara. The group’s preoccupations speak about a dynamic
universe, about their intention to stimulate a permanent public dialogue. The
emphasis on the personal experiences of each of the artists’ who belonged to
the Sigma Group or was influenced by
it, is to be noted. The existence of an avant
la lettre constructivism was to impress the experts and the public at the Nürnberg
biannual exhibition in 1969 and indicated not only participation at an
international artistic forum, but also a real European synchronization of the
Timişoara group. The way art started an authentic dialogue with science
gathered positive comments from the most authoritative critics in Romania and
abroad. Sigma was not only a symbol of authenticity, but also a team spirit
such as had never been seen in other intellectual clubs in Romania. Such a
milieu bespoke a cultural and social confrontation, and it soon showed up.
Professor
Eduard Pamfil was the coordinator of the psychiatry seminars in Timişoara,
and he also conducted the Bionics Club
to which artists, musicians, philologists, historians, mathematicians and
philosophers belonged. This club set up a genuine ritual of ideas, fruitful
debates and non-conformist theories. The meeting between the painter, Ştefan
Bertalan — the initiator and animator of the Sigma
Group — and Eduard Pamfil was symbolic for the creative milieu of the
city.
Pamfil’s
ideas expressed an ideal way of communication between the emotional and the
intellectual sides of the human being.
“Bertalan is” — Pamfil used to say, thus
defining himself, too — “a champion of anti-conformism. All the things, all
the gestures, all the speeches that can end in a confortable and placid way are
safely avoided, if not even unbearable for him […]; everything he does is
touched by his wish of being an entity striving for something, nourished by the
continuous stress of being dissatisfied with himself”11.
The civic education he had got in his family and in the Paris school that he attended right after the war, made Professor Eduard Pamfil one of the primary reference points for many generations of young people who approached the values of humanity. Pamfil’s political ideas were stimulated by his scientific and philosophical results. He did not have followers, as did other philosophers had in Eastern Europe, particularly in Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Poland. The role of his criticism of the totalitarian political system, in various occasions, had not always been really understood, but it stimulated his thinking with the aim of finding its way out from under the influence of the neo-Stalinist dogmatism. He had the same tendency to gradually reconstruct civic society just as had the Czech, Polish and Hungarian dissidents. He referred to them whenever he could, however, without succeeding to start a proper movement of protest. His refined speeches on the occasion of his numerous lectures, and his analyzes of the social phenomena, gave evidence of his deep understanding of the world. The support he offered to all those who were persecuted by the regime was substantial. The Psychiatric Clinic of Timişoara and the Psychiatric Hospital of Gătaia had already been a refuge for the protesters to the communist regime, for the so-called misfits and for those who had the courage to oppose the anti-human measures of the Ceauşescu’s. He became a model simply because he succeeded to communicate in a language that was completely liberated from commitment to the totalitarian ideology. Professor Pamfil was a keen supporter of the European orientation in culture, and he was against the traditionalist trend imposed by the media and educational system. He was involved in the city’s life more deeply than any scholar. His presence in the literary milieu, at art exhibitions and in the concert halls, gave him the opportunity to form genuine cultural clubs and to speed up the process of forming the individual. Eduard Pamfil was the symbol of morality which could not be doubted, not even by his enemies. This was the reason why the clubs he initiated preserved not only a civic attitude, but, above all, a way of reflecting normality.
In
addition to the previously mentioned groups, the Universitas
think-tank was set up affiliated to the Student House of Culture. It was
known also under the name of Aktionsgruppe
Banat [The Banat Action Group]. More directly related to the contemporary
social and political problems, very soon the group turned to a championing
rejection of the official ideology. It was made up of young writers of German
language; among them, Gerhardt Ortian, William Totok, Richard Wagner, Ernest
Wichner, Anton Sterbling, Rolf Bossert, Anton Bohn, Werner Kremm and Johan
Lippet, are worth remembering. This society was intensely active during the
first half of the ‘80s. The texts written by its members in Romanian and
German were published in various periodicals in the cities of Timişoara,
Braşov, Sibiu, Cluj and Bucharest. The group was well informed on trends in
world literature and, also, on the political ideas in Germany and Austria. The
pacifism of the “beat” generation marked the group members profoundly. They
had been well educated and analyzed seriously the newspapers and journals of the
time, the legal system and Ceauşescu’s discourse, in order to understand
the main trend in Romanian policy. The group was at times criticized by the
official cultural media. It soon drew the attention of the Securitate,
the political police. Under suspicion since early ‘70s, Aktionsgruppe Banat was accused of plotting against the communist
regime. The young German writers published or read in public poems and essays
with a content that denounced the substance and nature of the existing regime.
Many of poems read in the Universitas
Society (Aktionsgruppe Banat)
suggested the group’s anti-communist attitude. These included Entsheidungsfragen
bei einem Macht-Prozess [Decisive Issues in a Trial of the System], Mit
Chile im Herzen [With Chile in Our Hearts], Allerhand aus einem Modejournal, das ziemlich teuer und
kulturausgerichtet ist [Various Matters in a Rather Expensive Fashion
Magazine Whit Cultural Biases]. In fact, their author, William Totok, was one of
the most suspected and harassed members of Aktionsgruppe Banat, and finally was sent to prison12.
The
group played an outstanding role in the development of opposition against the
totalitarian system. Both conformism and opportunism were rejected alike, but as
the historian, Peter Motzan, noted there were both polemic and prescriptive
commitments in the activist and participative lyricism of these poets. The
presence of Richard Wagner and Rolf Bossert, of William Totok’s reflections
and questions, of the family saga transposed in ample and detailed narration,
and of the questioning of the past from perspective of the present (as in Johann
Lippet’s case), all this demonstrated how this group focused on a reality that
aspired to be ideal. Everything Aktionsgruppe
did was a proof of detachment from political exhibitionism encouraged by the
totalitarian national-communist system. The communist authorities suspected the
Romanian Germans of entering into conflict with the government. This served as
their pretext for opposing the protest attitude of the German writers of Timişoara.
In
fact, this was another reason to encourage and speed up the emigration of this
minority to Germany. It is worth remembering that some members of the Aktionsgruppe
Banat claimed affiliation to Marxist ideology, though the Romanian
national-communism had nothing in common with Marx. Moreover, it was the period
when the Ceauşescu regime was approaching the extreme-right orientation
through chauvinist, racial, and anti-Semitic behaviors. Some newspapers in the
Federal Republic of Germany reported about the dissidence of the German language
writers in Timişoara, and expressed their astonishment to find out that, in
a communist country like Romania even the Marxist writers were interdicted.
Under the title Kulturpolitik mit
Polizeieinsatz. Marxistische Rumäniendeutsche stören die revolutionäre Ruhe
ihres “sozialistischen” Staates [Cultural
Policy and Police Repression: The German Marxists of Romania Disrupt the
Revolutionary Peace of their “Socialist” Country]13, Dieter
Schlesak described the paradoxical situation when not only were some writers
silenced in a communist state because of their Marxist ideas, but even the
doctrine-oriented debates were forbidden. Aktionsgruppe
Banat criticized the populism of Ceauşescu’s propaganda that
distorted the Romanian realities.
Although
the activity of the Society died out after a few years, its merit lay in the
fact that it defended the dignity not only of its members, but also of a city
prosecuted by the authorities particularly because of its cosmopolitan
orientation. Aktionsgruppe Banat was
very active in city life during 1972-1975, but its initiatives did not move the
civil society to demonstrate against the social order. Still the German writers
showed that a way of opposing the system was possible becoming an example for
their fellow-citizens. A few years later, Petru Ilieşu — one of the
best-known and appreciated poets of the ‘80s — was influenced by the ideas
of the German group in Timişoara. His outlook, similar to that of his
generation, was fed by his contact with the world of music. In charge of the
Music and Dance club at the Student House during his student years, he was
influenced by Western rock music. Consequently, in 1982 Ilieşu conceived a
protest manifesto against Ceauşescu’s regime. It included such slogans
as: “Down the Criminal Ceauşescu!”, “Down the Communist Party!”
which were repeated also by the poet, Alexandru Gavriliu. Soon arrested after
went public with his protest, Ilieşu was questioned and later set free
through the intervention of Nikolaus Berwanger14, the ex-editor-in
chief of the German newspaper. Once more, the population could see that beside
the subservience imposed by the regime, an attitude of protest was possible.
Among
the cultural events with great impact on the youth was the Phoenix
band. There is almost a consensus that this rock band contributed one of the
strongest forces of social cohesions in Timişoara and had a positive echo
all around Romania. Phoenix was a
symbol of the people of Timişoara, particularly of the younger generation,
which grew up in the cultural and artistic environment of the city. It was a
multicultural group whose members were Romanian, German, Hungarian, Serbian and
Jewish musicians. The band became distinctive because of its sharp perception of
the social and political realities. The lyrics they sang were manifestos of the
young generation: protests against indoctrination and against mediocrity. The
group found its own style, and cultivated a proper view of the interaction of
the area with the European culture. In the ‘60s, Phoenix was inspired by the musical and photographic themes of the
hippy movement. “The popular ideas, the Bohemian mentality and the picturesque
aspect of the representatives of the peaceful flower power rebellion fascinated us" — Nicu Covaci, the
leader of the group, remembers.
“We were convinced that that was the way; any young
man who desired to free himself from the false morality and narrow mindedness of
the leaders, had to follow it. Some radio stations were forbidden, some art and
music magazines or even journals from the West were considered decadent and were
forbidden as well. The censorship was even more obvious and more powerful in the
whole of cultural and social life. All this was trying to turn aside the dynamic
flow of change which had become evident. But those who were struck by the virus
of liberty were able to cross the barriers and find the information they wanted.
Each issue of “Bravo”, “Musical Express” or "Rolling Stones” was
read hundred of times, devoured by excited young people who were trying to
identify with their idols”15.
The
period of the ‘60s, coincided with endless searching for identity, and also
for ways to appeal to the audience. The songs expressed the thoughts and
feelings of a generation which, mocking the stereotypes, strove for free
expression. Phoenix showed that in Timişoara a movement of the young people
who spoke their minds and ignored formalism was born.
The
challenges of the generation, whose spokesperson was the band of Nicu Covaci,
Florin Bordeianu, Josef Kappl, Mircea Baniciu, Günter Reininger and Béla
Kamocsa, became a real problem for the authorities. The surveillance of Phoenix became the responsibility of all institutions in charge of
propaganda in the county of Timiş and the city of Timişoara. The
non-conformist conduct of the band’s members, their clothes, and the new type
of social relationship they promoted, i.e. the lack of inhibition before the
authorities, created a new atmosphere in many social milieus. The lyrics of
their songs were also the work of some writers who grew up in the academic
environment of Timişoara, among them, Victor Cârcu, Şerban Foarţă
and Andrei Ujică are the most representative ones. There was a kind of
communication between those who wrote the lyrics, the musicians and the
audience, which reflected a hidden revolt against the communist authorities,
against the marginal condition of the younger generation, and against all those
who were trying to forbid the right to look at the Western world. Phoenix
was a distinctive cultural and social landmark due to which a special attitude
in the post-war Timişoara was possible. For Timişoara Phoenix constituted a continuous mocking of the communist authority,
and multiplied the number of young people who later were to contradict the
official ideology. In the ‘60s through ‘70s a new generation emerged which
did not have many things in common with the communist party.
The
leader of the Phoenix band was right
when he remembered that very few people believed in the communist slogans during
that period. “Only the schmucks, whom I instinctively disregarded, were still
flapping their mouths and wanted to convince people why they did not believe in
themselves”, Covaci used to say. However, the idea of communism continued to
be at work in various social strata, often with personal interests being much
more predominant than the sincere attachment to the ideology. Verticality
thrived in the Timişoara milieu, and the Phoenix
band encouraged it in each of its concerts. The visionary side of the songs
proved that the band did a political job by keeping awake the consciousness of
the people who faced a system that falsified values. The stress was put on the
Romanian folklore inspired songs — which Nicu Covaci and some music critics
considered important in the band’s destiny. The option was also an ideological
one, a compromise willy-nilly with the communist system which became again
reflected by nationalist ideals. It was not the only successful farce of Ceauşescu’s
regime, but it was one of the sliest, and its consequences lasted for a long
time.
The Echo of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956
Every
culture influences smaller or larger social groups. As was demonstrated, these
were means of protection against the abuse of the totalitarian system. However
there were some instances in Timişoara when the society adopted an explicit
political orientation and took a stand against the domestic communist regime or
against Soviet domination which extended over the countries in the whole
East-Central European area. The phenomenon of rejection of the extreme-left
ideology was much more obvious inasmuch as the very low salaries, ideological
lies, controlled and centralized economy, and absence of organization menaced
the very biological existence of the people of Banat who used to have higher
living standards compared to that of the population in some other regions of
Romania. In 1956, the citizens of Timişoara, Lugoj, Arad, Reşiţa
-- workers, civil servants and students -- protested against the Soviet invasion
in Hungary. Their solidarity with the Hungarian revolutionaries was so strong
that, at a certain moment — i.e. the last week of October and the first week
of November — it seemed that such manifestations were out of the communist
authorities’ control. The revolution that would happen three decades later
appeared ready to start in western Romania.
Manifestos were spread all over the country, with the following messages:
“We are against the USSR”, “We don’t want to learn Russian” and
“Bring down Georghiu-Dej and his clique of parvenus!”, “We struggle for a
better life and freedom!”, “Students, fight against the intervention in
Hungary of the butchers from Kremlin!”, “Well done, Hungarians!”,
“Freedom must come to Hungary and soon will come here, too!”. The example of
the actions initiated by the students from the Medical and Pharmaceutical School
in 1948, but mainly the civic conscience of the students of the Polytechnic
Institute who, in October-November 1956, had the courage to organize protests
and to formulate anti-totalitarian claims similar to those of the
revolutionaries in Budapest, demonstrate that the citizens of Timişoara
were not indifferent to the social order, Soviet pressure, and humiliation
before Moscow, which was deciding the level of life.
The
Hungarian revolution of 1956 had huge impact on the academic milieu of Timişoara,
many belonging to other social strata who spread detailed information about what
was going on in Budapest alarmed the communist executive of the region and the
government. The movement organizers, namely Teodor Stanca, Aurel Baghiu,
Friedrich Barth, Ladislau Nagy, Aurelian Păuna, Nicolae Balaci, Gheorghe
Pop and Caius Muţiu, reflected a very deep understanding of the problems
the East-Central European world was confronting with, and particularly those of
Romania. The above-mentioned organizers were the messengers of a great social
discontent16. The Students instigated similar actions to those in
Hungary, and conceived memoirs with a social-democratic content. They became
also interested in the relationship between the Hungarian and Polish actions,
thus manifesting remarkable political consciousness. The rejection of the Soviet
domination and the intervention of the Russian army were topics often debated by
the students of the Polytechnic Institute of Timişoara. The starting point
of the anticommunist actions was the discontent regarding the subordination of
the East-Central European countries to the system imposed by the Russians. Due
to the military intervention in Hungary it was for the first time that this was
properly perceived by thousands of people. The shortcomings of the Bucharest
communist regime, the false news which spread by the central press and which
contradicted all that was going on in the neighboring country was discussed.
The
information received from Radio Kossuth
became the main credible source regarding the revolutionary actions in the
Hungarian capital. Because Timişoara was situated near the border, it had
many who spoke Hungarian and news about the events in Hungary spread quickly.
The protesting students of Timisoara put in their memories calls against the
substance of the communist totalitarian system, namely: abolishing the cult of
personality; the rational development of the economic sectors; establishment of
commercial relationships with all interested governments, the capitalist ones
included; withdrawal of the Soviet troops settled on the Romanian territory; and
that the country be governed according to its interests and decent living
conditions.
The
trial which followed the students’ movements shows the worries of the
Gheorghiu Dej regime concerning the events in the capital city of Banat, Timişoara.
The Court of Justice concluded that the students had tried to start a full
movement, similar to the one in Hungary, and it seemed that this was so. The
leaders of the Timişoara movement were sentenced each to eight, six and
four years, respectively of “correctional prison” according to the decision
of the Military Court. There was also a second group of students sentenced
according to the same arbitrary verdict. One of the punitive measures of the
government against the students of Timişoara was to forbid any kind of
association. In spite of this order, a great variety of cultural and civic
societies were born shortly after the events. Although surveillance was tougher,
the organizers found new stratagems.
In
the ‘60s and ‘80s, the discontent of the civic society materialized in
clandestine emigrations, in novels and poems which contained a hidden criticism
of the Ceauşescu regime, in the research of some subjects (in the field of
social studies) who were in disagreement with the officials, and in the refusal
of some courageous citizens to enlist and accept the ideology of the system. In
spite of all this and the population’s effort to resist a social order which
was destroying the individual day by day, one cannot state that there was an
organized project and plan to set-up a new administration for a democratic
regime before 1989 in the social and intellectual milieus of Timişoara. The
representatives of the civic society limited themselves to sporadic appeals and
did not succeed in proposing a political alternative. Did they lack pragmatism
or the courage to go all the way? Both, I think. Perhaps the absence of a
systematic preoccupation for political problems forbidden in any training
institution for decades was the real cause.
Despite
the numerous evidences of the civic cultural activities in Timişoara in the
communist period, it is obvious that there was no democratic opposition similar
to the “Charter 77” of Czechoslovakia, the Solidarnošc
(Solidarity) Union of Poland, and the dissident intellectuals of Hungary. In
addition, the condition of a secondary city inside the country and the absence
of any local autonomy hindered the genesis and co-ordination of a movement
similar to that in the neighboring countries. In spite of the above-mentioned
shortcomings, Timişoara became the first city of Romania in which most of
its population was aware of the need to change Ceauşescu and the communist
rule.
The
protest of the Hungarian Reverend Tőkés László against the destruction
of the villages in Transylvania was well received by the local population. His
dissident activity began in 1981-82 with the clandestine periodical
“Ellenpontok” and continued up to the end of the ‘80s as the head of the
Calvinist Church in Timişoara. Unlike some other dissidents, Tőkés
was encouraged by the ability and availability of the Hungarian authorities and
press, which explains the unique character of the actions in the area of Timişoara.
The opposition of the congregation on December 15th and 16th,
1989 against the attempt to remove Reverend Tőkés was the key moment which
started the great revolt against Ceauşescu’s regime. The protest of the
Calvinist congregation was received and assured by a significant segment of the
city’s population which understood that the sufferings of the minority (the
Hungarians) were similar with those of the majority (the Romanians). His house
surveillance on December 15th had turned into the great anti-Ceauşescu
and anticommunist demonstration during the following days17. The Securitate
political police promoted and supported tense relationships with the neighboring
countries, mainly Hungary. The western part of Romania, especially Timişoara
was under continuous surveillance. Among the measures constantly promoted by the
authorities was the cultivation of suspicion at the level of interpersonal and
inter-confessional relationships as well as an attempt to compromise the
peaceful cohabitation of the Romanian majority with the German, Hungarian,
Serbian and Jewish minorities. In spite of this pressure that had lasted for
decades, what happened in Timişoara in December 1989 was a landmark for the
contemporary history of East-Central Europe. The civil society of this old city
was not completely destroyed and this could generate the feeling of solidarity
and the incendiary demonstrations which decisively contributed to the change of
the social and political order.
Notes
1.
According to Gusztáv Molnár, “Problema transilvană” [The
Transylvania Issue], in Altera (Tîrgu-Mureş:
Liga Pro-Europa, 1998), no.8, pp. 42-67.
2.
Sármány Parsons, “Die Rahmenbedingungen
für die Moderne in der Ungarischen
Provinzstädten um die Jahrhundertwende”, in Andrei Corbea-Hoişie,
J. Le Rider (eds.) Metropole
und Provinzen in Altösterreich (Iaşi: Polirom – Vienna: Böhlau,
1996).
3.
According to Victor Neumann, Multicultural
Identities in the Europe of Regions. The Case of Banat County, public
lecture given at the Institute for Advanced Study/ Collegium Budapest on
February 22, 1996; published in Discussion Papers Series, no.34, September 1996;
and F. Liebhardt, Banater Mosaik. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte (Bucharest:
Kriterion, 1996).
4.
The centralist policy in Romania during 1990-1996, accompanied by a
nationalist discourse, delayed economic reform. Lately the city has gone through
many changes. The multicultural configuration was considerably modified since
many families belonging to the German, Hungarian and Jewish communities
emigrated. The civic culture was deeply affected because the city was populated
with newcomers from the countryside and from more backward regions in comparison
with the Banat-Transylvania area.
5. See Ion Nicolae Anghel, Cartea cu Pamfil [The Book with Pamfil] (Timişoara: Amarcord, 1996).
6.
See William Totok, Aprecieri
neretuşate. Eseuri, articole şi interviuri 1987-1994 [Unretouched
Appreciations: Essays, Articles and Interviews], (Iaşi: Universitatea
Al.I.Cuza, 1995); and Victor Neumann, “Ebrei dopo diluvio. Gli orfani della
Mitteleuropa”, in Lettera Internazionale,
(Rome,
1997), No. 54, pp. 62-64.
7.
The traditionalist or nationalist option is characterized by
advocating Herder’s Volksgeist idea according to which the progress of the
linguistic communities depends on the adoption of a socio-organic model. This
nationalism pays great attention to the native values created in the rural
milieu. Such an ideology – always conservative, often xenophobic and anti-Semite
– had many partisans in the states of the East and Central Europe.
8.
See I. Király’s story in Ileana Pintilie, Ştefan Bertalan,
Constantin Flondor and Doru Tulcan (eds.) Creaţie şi sincronism european. Mişcarea artistică
timişoreană a anilor ‘60-‘70 [European Creation and
Synchronism. The Artistic Movement in Timişoara of the 60s-70s], (Timişoara:
The Art Museum, 1991).
9.
See Andrei Pleşu’s article: “Un liceu de arta plastică
şi cîteva întrebări” [An Arts Highschool and a Few Questions], in
Ileana Pintilie, Ştefan Bertalan, Constantin Flondor and Doru Tulcan (eds.)
Creaţie şi sincronism european.
Mişcarea artistică timişoreana a anilor ‘60-‘70 [European
Creation and Synchronism. The Artistic Movement in Timişoara of the
60s-70s], (Timişoara: The Art Museum, 1991).
10.
Ileana Pintilie, “Punctele cardinale ale mişcării
artistice timişorene 1960-1996” [The Cardinal Points of the Artistic
Movement in Timişoara] in: Experiment
in arta românească după 1960 [Experiment in the Romanian Art
after 1960], (Bucureşti: The Soros Center for Contemporary Art, 1997).
11. Ion Nicolae Anghel, op.cit.
12.
William Totok, op.cit.
William Totok, the dissident, the documents of the local Securitate show that he was charged because he promoted a
bourgeoisie ideology in his poems and favored distrust for the law and for the
totalitarian rule of Romania. According to his criminal record, file no. 2899 of
1975 by the above-mentioned police he was arrested for the offense of
“propaganda against the socialist order”.
13.
Dieter Schlesak, “Kulturpolitik mit Polizeieinsatz. Marxistische
Rumäniendeutsche störe die revolutionäre Ruhe ihres
<<sozialistische>> Staates”, in
Frankfurter Rundschau of July 10,1976.
14.
Nikolaus Berwanger, German journalist and poet, represented all
the minorities of Romania in the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist
Party. In spite of his collaboration with the regime, he had great merits, such
as having really protected many persons. The newspaper he edited for many years
was the most liberal of all in Timişoara during the hard times of Ceauşescu
regime.
15. Nicu Covaci, Phoenix însă eu … [Phoenix, But Me...], (Bucharest: Nemira, 1994), p. 115.
16.
According to M. Sitaru, Rezistenţa anticomunistă. Timişoara
1956 [The Anti-Commnunist Resistance. Timisoara 1956], (Bucharest: Sophia,
1998); and T. Stanca, “Timişoara 1956. Filmul evenimentelor. Am fost
printre organizatorii mişcării studenţeşti” [Timişoara
1956. The Story of the Events. I Was One of the Organizers of the Students'
Unrest], in : 22 Review, (Bucharest, 1990), II, nr.44. See also A. Baghiu,
“Memoriul studenţilor timişoreni din 1956. Cum a fost reprimată
prima revoltă împotriva comunismului” [The memorial of the Timişoara
students of 1956. How the first revolt against communism was suppressed], in:
Timişoara Review (Timişoara, 1990), I, nr.124.
17.
Denis
Deletant, România sub regimul comunist
[Romania under the Communist Rule] (Bucharest: Fundaţia Academia Civică,
1997).
References
ANGHEL,
I.N., Cartea cu Pamfil [The Book
with Pamfil] (Timişoara: Amarcord, 1996).
CORBEA
HOISIE, A.; LE
RIDER, J. (eds.), Metropole und Provinzen in Altösterreich (Iaşi: Polirom –
Vienna: Böhlau, 1996).
COVACI,
N., Phoenix însă eu … [Phoenix,
But Me...], (Bucharest: Nemira, 1994).
DELETANT,
D, România sub regimul comunist
[Romania under the Communist Rule] (Bucharest: Fundaţia Academia Civică,
1997).
LIEBHARDT,
F., Banater Mosaik. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte (Bucharest: Kriterion, 1976).
MOTZAN,
P, Vînt potrivit pîna la tare. Zece
tineri poeţi germani din România [Moderate to Strong Wind. Ten Young
German Poets of Romania], (Bucharest: Kriterion,
1982).
NEUMANN,V.,
“Ebrei dopo diluvio. Gli orfani della Mitteleuropa”, in Lettera Internazionale (Roma, 1997), no. 54.
PINTILIE,
I, “Punctele cardinale ale mişcării artistice timişorene
1960-1996” [The cardinal points of the artistic movement in Timişoara]
in: Experiment in arta românească după 1960 [Experiment in
the Romanian Art after 1960], (Bucharest: The Soros Center for Contemporary Art,
1997).
PINTILIE,
I; BERTALAN, S.; FLONDOR, C; TULCAN, D. (eds.), Creaţie şi sincronism european. Mişcarea artistică
timişoreană a anilor ‘60-‘70 (Timişoara: The Art Museum,
1991).
SITARIU,
M., Rezistenţa anticomunistă.
Timişoara 1956 [The
anti-commnunist resistance. Timişoara 1956], (Bucharest: Sophia, 1998).
TOTOK,W.,
Aprecieri neretuşate. Eseuri,
articole şi interviuri 1987-1994 [Unretouched Appreciations:Essays,
articles and interviews], (Iaşi: “Al.I.Cuza” University Press, 1995).
Timişoara Newspaper, no., I, nr.124, 1990.
Altera (Tîrgu-Mureş: Liga Pro-Europa Press, 1998),
No. 8.
Frankfurter Rundschau,
July 10,1976.