On Monday, an international conference was held in Ljubljana, entitled “Illusive Reconciliation: Transitional Processes in Central and Eastern Europe in a Comparative Perspective,” which was organised by the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Study Centre for National Reconciliation, in cooperation with the Platform of European Memory and conscience. Both Slovenian, as well as foreign guests, held presentations at the conference. It was opened by Dr Tomaž Ivešić, director of the Study Centre for National Reconciliation, who reminded the attendees that the day of remembrance for the victims of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes is tied to August 23rd, 1939, when the Hitler-Stalin agreement was signed, paving the way for World War II. Tens of millions of people were expelled, tortured, and murdered under totalitarian regimes.
Although the end of World War II brought the defeat of the Nazi regime, many people in Central and Eastern Europe continued to suffer under the communist regime. On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Slovenia, the 25th anniversary of the Redressing of Injustices Act, and the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War in Slovenia, the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union recognised the second half of 2021 as a favourable moment for a legal and historical reflection on what has been done so far in the field of reconciliation, redress of injustices, punishment of those responsible for trampling on human rights, and thus the state of the rule of law in the former socialist countries.
In his introductory address, the President of the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia, Alojz Kovšca, said that the Republic of Slovenia has taken some positive steps in this direction, starting with the denationalisation process, adopting a law on redressing the injustices and compensation, and establishing several parliamentary and government commissions. He emphasised, however, that the perpetrators of crimes during the rule of the communist regime were not tried in Slovenian courts and that the charges against them simply fell apart. “To this day, the restitution of property for the Jewish community has not been regulated,” he added.
Prime Minister Janez Janša said that unfortunately, “present-day Slovenia is among the post-communist countries that are firmly stuck somewhere in the middle. And when we take a look at what Slovenia has done compared to the Visegrad countries and other countries that had communist regimes after the Second World War, we realise that there is still a lot of work to be done.” Janša then emphasised that we still have parties in parliament that represent the regime, as if there was nothing wrong with it at the time, and one party even cites the regime as an example of how the country should develop in the future. “Today, as we remember the victims of totalitarian regimes on European soil, we should not just look back, but ahead,” he said, adding that if we are not able to learn anything from history, we will be doomed to repeat it.
Discrimination against victims of communism, compared to victims of Nazism and fascism
The conference was further divided into two panels, the first of which discussed Slovenia, where Dr Peter Jambrek from the New University spoke about the current challenges of European consciousness regarding the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, in light of dealing with the victims of communism, fascism, and national socialism. “Member states differ greatly when it comes to their experience with the three totalitarianisms. The European integration cannot be successful if it does not treat the ideological backgrounds of all three totalitarianisms equally, and especially if it does not treat the victims of these totalitarianisms equally and without discrimination,” he said, adding that there should be no difference in treatment of victims who have been tortured or murdered. Regarding the current challenges presented in the title of the conference, Jambrek said that his research showed that the 2009 resolution was not implemented, but that the authors of this resolution were not fully optimistic about the reconciliation processes or the efforts to commemorate the victims and did not expect an element of European consciousness that openly opposes the resolution. He said that discrimination against the victims of communism, on the one hand, compared to the treatment of victims of Nazism and fascism, is very obvious. “Reconciliation in Slovenia without structural development changes remains the tool and weapon of the partisans of the current situation,” Jambrek concluded.
The Slovenian judiciary has not found any individual criminally responsible for human rights violations during the communist rule
“On Transitional Justice From Trieste to Monošter: Between Utopia and Reality” was the title of Dr Jernej Letnar Černič’s presentation. Černič is also a higher education professor from the New University. He has been dealing with this field for decades, and in his research, he has noticed a gap between utopia and reality regarding the transitional reality in Slovenian society. He asked what we can do to internalise the measures of transitional justice in Slovenian society. “How can we take a step forward? Perhaps we will not come to reconciliation just yet, but we may reach coexistence and allow ourselves to really take a look at the recent history.” He said that transitional justice is still a taboo topic, and there is no consensus on it in Slovenian society. He problematised the fact that in 30 years, the Slovenian judiciary has not found any individual criminally responsible for many crimes against humanity. However, over 600 post-war cemeteries have been identified, and yet, no one has been convicted for these acts. He cited the case of Romania, where, in recent decades, those involved in human rights violations have been condemned. Reconciliation will never be realised; however, coexistence and understanding are achievable and also extremely important, Letnar Černič concluded.
Dr Janez Juhant from the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana talked about the legal-political, sociological, psychological, and theological basis of reconciliation. Juhant sees a key problem in the fact that the victims of the revolution were never mentioned in our legislation. The legislation in our country did not define the revolution as an important factor that also resulted in victims. “And this is one of the very important key messages, which has finally been indicated with the latest statement from the academy regarding reconciliation, as it highlighted the fact that there was terror among the people during the revolution, which also led to self-defence and thus to the victims.”
Relations between Slovenia and Italy are heavily burdened by history
At the end of the first panel, Dr Matic Batič from the Study Centre for National Reconciliation spoke about the Slovenian-Italian reconciliation, with the subtitle “Are we at the finish line yet, or are we still on the way there?” He stressed that relations are heavily burdened by history. Positive developments had taken place at the international level when the border issue was reconciled. Since 2004, Slovenia and Italy have also been allied with the European Union and NATO. He also highlighted the case of the Slovenian minority in Italy, which had not had adequate legal protection for a long time, but that had changed. He also noted the important role of monuments.
Hundreds of communist criminals have already been convicted in Poland, victims and relatives received the allowance
The second panel discussed Central and Eastern Europe, namely, Dr Łukasz Kamiński, President of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience, spoke about Poland’s experience in dealing with the communist past. In the introduction, he presented the chronology of Poland with communism and said that events had taken place that justify the title of the nineties as the lost decade. He said much has been done about reconciliation after communism, but there was a growing sense of dissatisfaction on the part of the victims. As early as 1989, the first attempt to convict communist crimes happened already, with reports and parliamentary commissions. Hundreds were convicted for communist crimes. Reconciliation is extremely important in Poland, he said, and the victims and relatives of victims of the communist regime also receive an allowance, in addition to their pensions. He also stressed the importance of monuments to the victims and heroes of the opposition. In order to achieve reconciliation, all communist holidays and celebrations were abolished. He concluded his presentation with the thought that it is very late, but not too late, not to only focus on the problems, but to try to resolve the situation if it is not possible to change the name, and the court hearings are still symbolic signs here.
In Romania, too, the reconciliation process began with the trial of communist officials
The next guest to present her contribution was Dr Anemona Constantin from the University of Bucharest, who spoke about the contribution of historians to reconciliation with the past in Romania in the years from 2003 to 2006. She pointed out that several mechanisms were important in this process. “After 1989, Romania began the process of reconciling with the past with several mechanisms of transitional justice, including trials of former communist officials,” she said, noting that “revision of historical discourse has often allowed new democratic regimes to adopt penal measures and norms.”
Are there any signs of new totalitarianism in Brussels’ attitude towards Hungary?
At the end of the conference, Dr Áron Máthé from Hungary spoke about the “moment in history that has already passed,” and the possibility of transitional justice in Hungary between the regime change and its legacy. He also spoke about whether Brussels’ attitude towards Hungary was showing signs of a new totalitarianism. He replied with, “yes and no.” “Yes, because there is a desire everywhere in Europe to control language and words, that is, to determine what we can say and what we cannot. This is very dangerous, as communism also began by hijacking the language. But on the other hand, the answer is also no, because such tendencies from Brussels are far from being as strong as they were under communism. At least for now.”
Anita Gužvič
