Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
László Öllös: Time for Hungarian-Slovak Dialogue (Conclusion)
Time for Hungarian-Slovak Dialogue conspicuously avoided addressing one of fundamental questions of constitutional democracy: shall the state have the right to demand loyalty from citizens it strives to massacre or drive them out of their homeland? A negative answer to this question would immediately lead to the issue of Beneš decrees. The declaration adopted by the Slovak parliament implies a positive though unspoken answer to this question: yes, the state shall have the right to demand loyalty also from those of its citizens who belong to the minority and who this very state intends to exterminate or drive them out in masses. Combining the value systems of Hitlerism and Stalinism with various opinion streams that accept the concept of constitutionalism produces very peculiar kinds of social, Christian, civic, liberal and other democrats. This phenomenon may be observed not only in Slovakia but all over the ambiguous region of Central Europe, although the Hungarians became its most recent victims. The principal message of the present study is that an ideology formed in such a utilitarian way can never change by itself. It can only be changed as a result of an open public debate in which the general public may learn about other viable alternatives. Those who stick to their democratic values may benefit from such a debate; on the other hand, the absence of a public debate in the world of relative values puts them in a disadvantage. The public debate is likely to catalyze self-reflection and self-correction of those who view their own interest as the ultimate value and are able to turn anything - including emerging aggressive national sentiments - to their advantage. Therefore, the public debate may weaken the social credit of aggressive national fanatics. New values may only sprout in the public consciousness if they are openly advertised in a public debate. But if the discussion fails to evolve into a full-fledged public debate and remains in the domain of the political elite or isolated groups of intellectuals, the new values will only reach the public after they pass through various ideological filters. So, there is no change in the system of values without an open public debate on these values. This is the principal message of Enlightenment. The problem is that aggressiveness of national states partly inhibited or redirected this process. When one public opinion poll recently established that pupils of the final grade of Slovak primary schools consider ethnic Hungarians to be the most unlikeable category of non-Slovak fellow compatriots, many beheld the nightmare of future burdened by conflicts. One can ill turn a blind eye on the fact that Slovaks tend to view ethnic Hungarians with overt hostili-251
