A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 2016., Új folyam 3. (Szeged, 2016)

TÖRTÉNETTUDOMÁNY - Sipos József: Az ellenzék 1922-es kampánya és a törvénytelenségek

lózsef Sipos

The 1922 campaign unlawful acts of the opposition

The 1922 campaign unlawful acts of the opposition

József Sipos

The findings of the present study could be summarized as follows: the program of the legitimist opposition paid hardly no attention to social issues and they were not really adamant regarding the execution of the land reform either. Their main focus was abolishing the dethroning of the Habsburg family and the crowning of Otto. They hoped to restore the legal system from before the war through the restoration of the institution of monarchy and from the Holy Crown Doctrine. And that’s not all! The latter was also hoped to help in the restoration of historical Hungary. The abolishment of dethroning however was not made by possible by neither the domestic, nor the international balance of powers. The restoration of the legal system did not depend on this Doctrine either. Thus, the campaign of the opposition bore no fruit. The only exceptions were Western Transdanubium and Northern Hungary, where the catholic majority and the devoted clergy and intellectuals still believed in these principles.

As we have seen, the strongest of the opposition's liberal parties was the Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party led by Rassay. Their program and campaign thoroughly dealt with the democratic execution of the land reform, with social issues and the democratization of the Christian-national discourse. All these attracted the masses, which posed a danger to the ruling elite. Hence, the party received the most savage attacks from the Prime Minister and from the politicians of the Unified Party, which caused the public authorities to move against the democratic opposition and its politicians. This was especially true in case

of the octobrist leaders - Barna Búza, Count Tivadar Batthiányi and László Fényes - and their parties. The public administration and the enforcement apparatus committed a multitude of illegal acts here and extremely right wing associations committed more and more atrocities against the democratic opposition and its leaders. At the end of this study, by use of some examples, we showcase what the government did to intimidate the opposition’s press. Their tools included the buyout of newspapers, the political and material corruption of editors and even the ban of the opposition’s papers. Of course, the majority of banned papers were liberal ones. These examples also prove that the government and its apparatus violated the freedom of press on several occasions at the assembly election of 1922. The direct political responsibility for these - as we could see - rested on the shoulders of Bethlen and Klebelsberg. The topic is not exhausted by the showcasing of this issue. Press historians should do a thorough research of the subject: this is especially true, since the professional literature of press history does not deal with this important theme in any significant way. /37/. The various facts uncovered in the present study prove that parties of the opposition made mistakes during the election campaign as well. At the same time, these facts show that the authorities acting against them - often due to the encouragement of the government - committed a multitude of unlawful acts. That’s why we consider it necessary that the syntheses not only communicate the results of the elections but also the fact that it was achieved by the unlawful behavior of the government.

163