1987. Különkiadvány, 1987.03.12. / HU_BFL_XIV_47_2

Nor is the estima ti on of the danger presented by the various oppositicn groups .uniform: there are those vho consider cnly the members of the radical bourgeois grouping to be the "cpposition", and judge that the so-called national radical grouping is still essentially an a socialist platform today; others are more lenient tcward the bourgeois radicals because of their ccmmitment to "econcmic reform" and "democratization", and consider the members of the radical national facticn more dangerous because of their "anti- eccncnic" stanoe and neutrality toward social reforms as well as their national ism. There are alsó differences of opinion vithin the party oonoeming the methods to be used to oounter the cpposition-enemy groups.

A more successful stand against the efforts of the opposition-enemy is alsó difficult in that the ccmnunists and leaders vorking in the cultural institutions, the press, and in mass ccrmonications do nőt uniformly evaluate the present social, political, and ideological situation nor, oonsequently, the oppositicn activities, and a segment is politically either insensitive or tolerant with regard to cpposition manifestatians. This has alsó ocntributed to the loosening of the norms of publicaticn. In the press and especially in scrae of the literary-cultural joumals, politically problématic and even cppositicnal disclosures appear. In ocntrast—even after political initiatives—a foroeful stand is nőt taken; the mistaken views remain unanswered. The calling to task of the directors of the editorial boards is unjustifiably rare in these instanoes.

Because of the loosening of publicaticn norms and liability of the editorial boards, the positicn formulated regarding so-called "dual publicaticn" in the 1980 and 1982 resolutions of the Politburo was suooessfully asserted cnly in part. The solid legal bases fór the asserticn of the resolution relating to "dual publication" are missing, bút the supervisory agencies and the editoricű. boards were nőt always ccnsistent either. However, the main reason is that ve have nőt sucoeeded in having our position regarding "dual publication" uncarprcrdsingly acoepted by the humanities and social Sciences intellectuals and the editorial boards. This reflects the weakness of our political vork. A segment of the intellectual public opinion considers the existenoe of illegal publicaticns a sign of the freedcm of expressian and aooept with difficulty that they should discourage authors, especially vriters, because their works— vili eh fór political reasons are nőt published in official organs—appear in this type of publication.

A synptcm of the loosening oocurring in intellectual circles is that a growing number of humanities and social Sciences intellectuals are unvilling to take issue with the cpposition. Party members or intellectuals closely associated with the party are alsó increasingly more reluctant to engage in epén debate refcutting cpposition manifestations, partly because of the ambiguous treatment of the cpposition. Sane amerjg them are reluctant in principle to debate views unfamiliar to the public; others are of the cpinian that the activities of the oppositicn are already over the limits of "political handleability" today and do nőt wish to participate in cin ideological debate which might be the "introductian" ard preparatian fór administrative measures. This oanduct is in itself conducive to the spreading of cppositicnal influence.

6. The respansible régiónál and local party organizations have actively worked to politically isolate the efforts of the oppositicn-enemy groups and to thwart demonstratíve actions, and have had a significant role in the essentially successful curtailment over the pást few years of the activities of the cpposition groups by political means. Hcwever, in the activities of the directing and supervisory party organizaticns overseeing the vork of the institutions of higher leaming, colleges and cultural houses we may observe

o- 8 -