Up to about six months ago, the SNP constantly pointed to the Velvet Divorce of Czechslovakia in 1992 as an example of how their proposed split-up of the United Kingdom could likewise occur in a peaceful and amicable fashion. I pointed out previously that I thought this was a very dodgy comparison to be making; yes the split was a reasonably friendly one, but it heralded the rise of a meglomaniac fascist Prime-Minister, corruption, press censorship, a servile judiciary, political/business assassinations and more importantly (and still current) steadily increasing ethnic tensions in Slovakia. Now, if you were really going to take the original comparison to its logical conclusions, Slovakia being the smaller, more nationalist of the two countries, the (now) Czech Republic the richer, with most of the financial and industrial capital, then you can probably see why I (if I had been Alex Salmond) would not have been risking being identified as the Caledonian Vladimir Meciar.
I seriously doubt Alex is a reader of this blog, but coincidence or not, The Velvet Divorce is now rarely mentioned as the template to follow. So, it was interesting to see this different take on the question from Neil Ascherson in The Herald. Contrary to what I had been told from a previously impeccable source (Ms O'Neill has more than a passing interest in the politics of the region), it was the Czechs and specifically Vaclav Klaus (today the country's President) who basically manipulated the Slovaks splitting away; as the journalist Theodore Draper wrote: "It was as if Meciar pounded on Klaus's door without really wanting to knock it down; to Meciar's surprise, Klaus opened the door and Meciar fell in."
There was dissatisfaction in both parts of the old Czechoslovakia with the federal structure, but not to the extent that a majority in either the Czech lands or Slovakia wished for a complete separation- how do we know this? Well, the question was not trusted to the population in a referendum, the politicians basically made the decision on behalf of their people.
If you've got a fair to middling imagination you can tie in the situation in the Czechsolvakia of 1992 with that existing between England and Scotland 2008; there is great dissatisfaction with the present constitutional situation, nationalism is rising both sides of the border and there are cynical elements within the Conservative Party who want to take advantage of a SNP Adminstration to increase their power-base within England. There are crucial differences- whatever his faults, Salmond is no Meciar, Cameron intellectually is no Klaus and surely no UK government would attempt to make such an important constitutional decision without referring to their electorate?
But is it also not beyond the realms of possibility that the electorates of both countries could find themselves pushed, ever so gently, by manipulative forces beyond their control towards a separation that they do not want?
Isn't that the real lesson to be pulled from the Velvet Divorce?
13 comments:
Well O'Neill as you indicated, I will though in my crown's worth on this issue.
The problems within Czechoslovakia go back to the creation of the state in 1918.
Before that both Slovakia and the Czech Lands were part of Austria-Hungary. From 1867 Slovakia was part of the Hungarian half of the country whilst the Czech Lands were in the Austrian half.
So what is the reasons for their different economic development?
The single reason is planned industrialisation in the Czech Lands. In the 18th century when Europe was industrialising the Austrian government chose the Czech Lands to be the country's industrial hub. The practical reason for this was the region had strong rivers to power mills.
This industrialisation was helped by a number of factors. Vienna abolished serfdom earlier in the Czech provinces, provided subsidies and government contracts.
When steam power was introduced this continued, particularly as the Czech Lands was the main mining region for the Empire.
In essence the Czech lands became the workhorse of Austria-Hungary producing about 60-70% of primary and industrial output of the country.
The Czech Lands had a good education system with a number of universities. After 1867 the Czech language (always "officially" equal to German but in practice not) was more used as language of education.
Politically the Czechs (along with their German-speaking neighbours) had a limited form of self-government with regional assemblies and sort-of-proper representation in the Parliament in Vienna. Czech nationalism was tolerated with a number of parties in Parliament such as the Old Czech s and the New Czechs battling it out for their vision of an autonomous Czech Lands.
In contrast Slovakia was controlled by Hungarian magnates (Slovakia was invaded by the Magyers around the time of the Vikings) who ran it like a giant farm. They were not interested industrialisation and preferred to make money by charging high prices for grain they supplied to the Empire.
Until 1918 the Slovak language was officially oppressed. There were few Slovak language schools and no Slovak university. The university of Poszny (now Bratislava) only carried out instruction in Hungarian.
The Slovaks had no autonomy and were badly represented in the parliament in Budapest. Slovak nationalism got you a prison sentence.
Therefore this produced an industrialised Czech people and an agrarian Slovak people as deliberate acts of policy. Czechs were more secular and whilst nominally Catholic with a substantial Protestant minority. The Slovaks (as many rural people are) were fervrantly religious - particuarly to annoy the secular Hungarians (Croats of course are also devoutly Catholic to a fault and were under Hungarian rule)
The notion of Czechoslovakia had been floated in a light-hearted sort of a way by nationalist intellectuals in the 19th century. Czechs and Slovaks were united in their belief that they wanted more autonomy within Austria-Hungary but did not want to leave it, fearful of Prussian-led German aggression and/or brutual Russian rule.
The father of Czechoslovakia was Thomas Masaryk. He was born just on the Czech side of the present Czech/Slovak border. His father was a Slovak blacksmith, his mother a daughter of a Czech innkeeper and his Germanic wife.
To cut to the chase Masaryk after training as a blacksmith and a locksmith he was academically gifted enough to go to the universities of Brno, Vienna and Leipzig.
He eventually married an American woman and got a job lecturing law and philosophy at Prague University, eventually making it to being professor in commercial law. He joined the Czech nationalist (well autonomist) movement which was looking for more autonomy within the Empire and was elected to the Austrian Parliament.
Initially he wanted the Czech Lands to be an equal entity with Hungary and the rest of Austria within the Empire with a shared armed forces, currency, foriegn policy etc. Later he changed his mind and decide the new entity should include the Slovaks and proposed the new entity would be called Czechoslovakia.
He founded a party that advocated this policy which had lots of support - not. Out of the 300 Czech MPs his party returned 2.
He took part in crusading causes. He combined a sort-of-politican meets Perry Mason persona taking part in a number cases such as the Zagreb treason trial.
In 1914 after the assasinaton at Sarajevo, he believed that the Empire would reform itself and give more autonomy to the Slavic nations. However he was told by a former Austrian Prime Minister that hardliners had interpreted the assasination as being a sign that Vienna had been too weak in handling Slavic nationalism and there would be a crack down, not an extension, of autonomy. Also German would become the sole official language of the state eventually.
Masaryk went abroad and started to agitate. He made friends with the Allies and started campaigning for an independent rather than autonomous Czechoslovakia. He helped recruit Czech and Slovak prisoners of war into the "Czech and Slovak Legion" a body set up to fight Austria-Hungary on behalf of the allies.
He was helped by a number of people including fellow Czech academic Edvard Benes and Slovak Milan Stefanik. He went to America to get support for his idea. The Czech and Slovak Americans backed him and he set out his vision for the new state.
This blueprint was the "Declaration of Pittsburgh" which promised to set up a democratic federal republic for the Czech and Slovak lands. Later on Carpathian Americans signed up for their ancestral home Transcarpathian Ruthenia - then part of Hungary.
In the closing days of the war the last Habsburg Emperor tried to reform the Empire into the federation that many had hoped for. Masaryk tried to spike his guns by declaring Czechoslovakian independence on the steps of Liberty Hall in Philadelphia.
Wind foward.
After Czechoslovakia was set up, the Slovaks and indeed the Ruthenes expected federation under the declaration of Pittsburgh. The Czechs said they were too underdeveloped for self government.
A centralised unitary state run from Prague was set up. It was enlightened but tended to be insensitive to the Slovaks in particular. There was no official acknowledgement of the Slovak language - the official language of the state was "Czechoslovakian" - a form of Czech.
This lead to the rise in Slovak nationalism in the inter-war years. This was led in particular by priests who were distrustful of the more secular Czechs who seemed to favour protestants for government appointments within Slovakia.
The most prominent of these was Hlinka. Hlinka himself did not want Slovak independence but wanted autonomy as per the declaration.
Of course during the Nazi period Slovakia was a puppet state of the Nazis run by the Hlinka party. Hlinka died before the carve of Czechoslovakia.
After the war the country came back together and was ruled by the communists. Ruthenia was hived off to the USSR. Slovaks still complained about lack of autonomy.
During the Prague Spring, Czechoslovakia's leader Dubcek was a Slovak and he had things changed. Each nation would get its own Parliament. The Federal Parliament would be modelled a bit like the US Congress with the representation in the lower house being based on population whilst both nations had equal representation in the upper house.
Czech and Slovak were declared equal. But together. So when you watched a football match on television the first half would have its commentary in Czech and the second half would be broadcast in Slovak to force both sides to learn each others' language.
These reforms were kept after the crushing of the Prague Spring.
And so to 1989 and all that. So what caused the problems?
Well the economy stupid. During the communist era Slovakia was industrialised. Heavy industry fueled with cheap coal from the USSR. When the communist bloc collapsed and trade barriers went up these heavy industries became uncompetitive as they had lost their cheap source of fuel and nobody wanted to buy their goods.
The Czechs on the other hand had tradition of light engineering which was in demand.
To cause more problems, the Czechoslovakian authorities for moral reasons started to cut production of one of Czechoslovakia's successful industries, arms manufacture (ah Semtex!). This hit the Slovaks disproportionately hard as a lot of their industry was also in the arms manufacturing business.
Result was 4% unemployment in the Czech Lands and 12% unemployment in Slovakia. Not a good situation.
Ascherson covers the circumstances of the break well. Essentially Klaus wanted "shock therapy" for the Czechs which the Slovaks were against as they had already suffered economically from early reforms.
There was also of course the argument over the country's name. Slovaks managed to get Czechoslovakia named in its final days something like the Czech and Slovak Federation.
There are of course problems vis a vis the Hungarians. Partly this is fueled by bitterness towards brutal pre-1918 Hungarian oppression. The Hungarians came back during World War II and occupied part of the country with the Germans always threatening the Fascist puppet government with giving the whole of the country to Budapest. Hence a lot of collaboration.
In Transylvania (which the Germans gave to Hungary during World War II) entire Romanian villages were massacred. I am not sure what would have happened in Slovakia if it had passed to Budapest.
A lot of Hungarians still do not accept Trianon, the treaty which carved up the old Kingdom of Hungary. Saying Trianon was right is a good way to start a fight in some parts of Budapest.
When I was last in Bud (2006) there were lots of stalls outside the Parliament flogging literature and T-shirts complaining about Trianon.
That of course does not justify discriminaton. It should be noted that after World War II, President Benes tried to get the Hungarians of Slovakia deported just the same way as he got the Germans in Czechoslovakia deported. The allies vetoed that plan. The Czechs do not have their ethnic problem as theirs was deported.
I might add that at the creation of Czechoslovakia, half the population of the Czech Lands was German-speaking. One of the more cynical reasons amongst some Czech nationalists for taking the Slovaks on board was to dilute the Germanic influence.
I think somehow Salmond would more like to model himself on Masaryk rather than Mercier. The President-Liberator/the Little Father of the Nation.
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dtomas%2Bmasaryk%26ei%3DUTF-8%26rd%3Dr1%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D21%26ni%3D20&w=508&h=700&imgurl=www.artandarchitecture.org.uk%2Fassets%2Faa_image%2F700%2F5%2F9%2F0%2Fb%2F590bc5e42b105819f5edb9c8e6452966cdacba71.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artandarchitecture.org.uk%2Fimages%2Ffull%2F590bc5e42b105819f5edb9c8e6452966cdacba71.html&size=166.7kB&name=590bc5e42b105819f5edb9c8e6452966cdacba71.jpg&p=tomas%20masaryk&type=JPG&oid=ced6eca4d95ba22a&no=36&tt=172
Since you seem to have connections with the area through presumably your wife, what is your view of Masaryk. Was he a swivel-eyed sepratist who betrayed his Emperor and waged war against his fellow Austro-Hungarians or was he a great man.
If he had been caught he would have shared the same fate as Austro-Italian MP Caesre Battisti who was caught fighting for the Italians.
http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dcesare%2Bbattisti%26ni%3D20%26ei%3DUTF-8%26y%3DSearch%26rd%3Dr1%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D61&w=500&h=375&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F93%2F217162381_06c32805ea.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fnadiolina%2F217162381%2F&size=125.8kB&name=Cesare%20Battisti&p=cesare%20battisti&type=JPG&oid=9271b7b0092336f2&fusr=n-lina&tit=Cesare%20Battisti&hurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/nadiolina/&no=62&tt=3,362
I might add to give an Irish dimension to this, there is a book called "Traitor Patriots". In the US edition Masaryk and his activities are compared to that of Roger Casement. In the UK edition Masaryk is replaced with that of Nazi-sympathiser Heathcott-Emery.
Impressive Aberdonian, very informative. In contrast that oneil talks wan lot a pish sometimes. :)
Aberdonian,
Thanks once again for the informative background.
Ascherson covers the circumstances of the break well. Essentially Klaus wanted "shock therapy" for the Czechs which the Slovaks were against as they had already suffered economically from early reforms.
Do you agree with his theory then that the Slovaks stumbled into the separation?
Would a referendum in either part have delivered a "yes" vote?
Since you seem to have connections with the area through presumably your wife, what is your view of Masaryk
My partner is connected with a project which attempts to monitor the new (and prospective) EU countries in various human rights, legal and civil liberties areas- their work goes back to the system changeover and the collapse of Yugoslavia. I hadn't heard of Masaryk, she being of a more internationalist and cosmopolitan frame of mind (and having spent time in both Bosnia and the previously Serb-inhabited parts of Croatia) tends to have a very cynical view of the various nationalist *heroes* of the region.
I'm trying to persuade her to do a post on here, her views would probably shock my regular readership;)
"beano" who posted at May 17, 2008 5:48 PM:
I've deleted your comment because you've used the handle of another regular poster on here. If you send your comment again under a different name, then I'll post it up.
O'Neill
I was on holiday during the weekend so to give my views late:-
Yes I think that the Slovaks stumbled into independence by accident. As in so many break-up of states the problem was caused by procrustination over reform.
As Robert Kee once pointed out in his excellent and balanced book on Irish natonalism "The Green Flag", the Irish Republic tumbled into being an independent state and NI into being a devolved one (despite its history of being opposed to home rule).
Ditto the same for Austria-Hungary. Everyone generally wanted reform. But foot dragging on the issue let to it breaking up.
The stubbornes over reform can be symbolised by Emperor Franz-Josef in the BBC's "Fall of Eagles".
"So easy to change, not so easy to improve. I will not have the constitution tampered with".
For the record some people think that if Milan Stefanik has lived there would have been federation at the beginning. Unfortunately Stefanik died in a plane accident not long after Czechoslovakia seceded.
As for Masaryk, well there is a statue of St Wenceslas dedicated to him and comparing him to the former as the defender of the Czech people in Hyde Park. There is also a statue of him on Massachussets Avenue in Washington DC.
"But is it also not beyond the realms of possibility that the electorates of both countries could find themselves pushed, ever so gently, by manipulative forces beyond their control towards a separation that they do not want?"
Ah right, so if Scotland or England votes yes in a referendum, it will because they were "pushed, ever so gently"?
Ah right, so if Scotland or England votes yes in a referendum, it will because they were "pushed, ever so gently"?
OK, are the grievances in England which Salmond is provoking are they based on reality? I think (apart from the constitutional one) not. In history it's not the truth which is important but what people believe to be true- if the electorate of both countries are delivered the reality, I'll bet my last dollar they'll vote against separation. If the half-truths and downright lies delivered by Salmond's black propaganda dept, elements of the English Tories, the Daily Mail and Express are belived, then they could feasibly vote "yes"
I'd say the complete opposite see. British Nationalist are the ones who try and shut down any ebate on the matter, they are the ones who don;t want to get into the facts and proper arguments, prefering instead to use terms like "balkanisation" etc and telling us we'll all be poor and hungry if independent.
Either way, I find it incredibly arrogant to believe that your own view is based on truths while an opposing view held by millions is based on lies and propoganda. It's alsovery arrogant to suggest that the majority of people can be "hoodwinked" while you cannot.
Not the quality of response you usually manage O'Neill. Don;t tell me you're also falling into the camp of the Brit Nats who don't want to debate the topic properly!
HF
Your reply deserves a longer one than I've got time for at the minute (pre-pub!). I'll do it over the weekend either here or as a standalone post.
As threatened, my response:
British Nationalist are the ones who try and shut down any ebate on the matter, they are the ones who don’t want to get into the facts and proper arguments, prefering instead to use terms like "balkanisation" etc and telling us we'll all be poor and hungry if independent.
If you’re talking about our political elite, Brown and Co, yes, they (despite the superficial attempts at E-debate etc) don’t want the Great Unwashed getting involved in real debate- about anything whatsoever. There is also too great a caution involved in the Union side of the debate- I want the referendum in all four parts of the Kingdom, today, tomorrow or even 2010, if that’s what the nats prefer.
I’ve no fear of the facts- bring all the facts into the open and I’m 100% convinced that those who have no strong nationalist convictions either way will be voting along with me to retain the Union.
Would you as a Welshman be “poor and hungry” if Wales was suddenly independent tomorrow?
Of course not. I believe, however that in the long-term Wales would suffer politically, socially and economically in such an event; I also believe you’d be losing a very important part of our shared identity- you are, like the English, the Irish and Scottish a part of these islands, their history and culture- what unites us is much, much more than what divides us.
Regarding terminlogy like “balkanisation”, “separatists”and what have you- it’s a fact of modern political discourse and polemicism that exaggeration becomes a tool of debate and argument; it’s not a preserve of the unionist side- take a peep (after a strong drink) at the Scotsman’s comment section or the Slugger O’Toole blog and you’ll leave with the impression that we unionists are Old Nick wearing a red, white and blue waistcoat in disguise. Dig under the hyperbole and if there isn’t an argument left, then you have the right to complain.
Either way, I find it incredibly arrogant to believe that your own view is based on truths while an opposing view held by millions is based on lies and propoganda.
But everyone believes their own opinion or views are based on truths- why are you a Welsh nationalist for example- it’s not because you believe I and the other unionists are pumping out The Truth. Whether you are prepared to see the weaknesses or strengths in other peoples’ view is quite a different matter, but, in the end, if I didn’t believe that unionism was the best way forward for the UK, then I wouldn’t, obviously, still be a Unionist.
It's also very arrogant to suggest that the majority of people can be "hoodwinked" while you cannot.
Can the majority of people be hoodwinked? History right up to the present day tells us “yes”. Can I be “hoodwinked”? Yes. I hope we’d both fight to make sure that the population would have available the full facts and data upon which to make their decision.
But everyone believes their own opinion or views are based on truths- why are you a Welsh nationalist for example- it’s not because you believe I and the other unionists are pumping out The Truth.
There's a difference between believing that your own views are bases on truths and saying that everyone elses views are based on lies. The only definate fact in the independence debate is that not one person knows what will happen after. I know that there are decent arguments against seperation and wouldnever say that all oposition to it is based on lies!
The one lesson from the past ten years in Scotland and Wales is that the more people discuss devolution and independnece, and themore people see it happening and realise that the sky isn;t actualy going to fall in, the more they see seperation as a viable option.
I wouldn;t dare guess the result of a referendum because at the moment the hinest answer is "who knows". Until there is an open and proper debate on the subject, without scaremongering from the unionist politicians, then we just don't know how people would vote.
The only thing that is clear is that support for devolution, and increase devolution, keeps on building. In 1979 something like 75% of Welsh people did not want any devolution, now it seems that the majority wants more devolution than they already have. Things are changin very fast across the UK, and I just cannot see it surviving.
I also believe you’d be losing a very important part of our shared identity- you are, like the English, the Irish and Scottish a part of these islands, their history and culture- what unites us is much, much more than what divides us.
and we'd continue to be part of these islands. Just like the Scandinavians we'd be allowed to make our own choices while also being able to cooperate when we want. History and culture does not dissapear because of independence - if anything there is more chance of such things dissapearing when you are united, with everyone pushed into "being the same".
Post a Comment