Lánczi András liberális korszakából

Korábban már többször írtam Lánczi András marxista korszakáról, és most végre megtaláltam azt a cikkét, egész élete egyetlen, valamennyire mérhető, tudományos (de nem filozófiai) folyóiratban publikált cikkét, amelyet az ún. liberális korszakában írt, amikor már negyvenéves volt és éppen Soros György finanszírozta tudományos tevékenységét.

1995 – 1997, The Rebirth of Political Extremism in Eastern Europe
Részvétel formája: kutatásvezető
Finanszírozó: The Open Society Foundation (Lánczi Corvinusos oldaláról)

Én ezt a cikket még sohasem láttam, de most valahogy megtaláltam.

Azokat a részleteket emeltem ki a cikkből, amelyekért ma esetleg kiszerkesztené az a Mandiner, amely Mandiner címlapján Lánczi doktor éppen azzal keménykedik, hogy sokkban van a balliberális értelmiség. Azt gondolom, hogy olyan mondatokról van szó, amelyekben valamiféle régen eltűnt intellektuális integritás nyomát lehet felfedezni. Később Lánczi csak marginális magyar folyóiratokban publikált filozófiacikkeket, de jó helyen, jó időben írta meg a Konzervatív Nyalatványt, amivel vagyont és státuszt szerzett, morzsányi filozófusi tehetség nélkül.

1. “In Hungary, under the relatively benign rule of János Kádár’s ‘goulash communism’,
   the media were less rigidly controlled than elsewhere in Eastern and Central Europe,
   permitting broader scope for debate. This affected the transition, in which some media
   spontaneously privatized themselves, with the involvement of foreign media
   conglomerates. By 1994, however, the government regained control over several
   important publications and otherwise fostered a more conservative press. The
   electronic media meanwhile remained overwhelmingly in state hands, and open
   conflict flared in 1992. The media became the focus of political battles, involving
   parliament, government, the constitutional court and the president, and purges of
   journalists and officials in the media led to assertions that little had changed since the
   communist regime. The question is whether control of the media will remain a spoil
   of election victory, or new legislation will establish a non-partisan framework for the
   future.”

2. “The old tools of hegemony can be utilized in the pursuit of
the ‘good’, however that is defined by new political elites – the purging of
state institutions, the elimination of rivals, the reinforcement of certain
values at the expense of others, for instance.” “Newspapers,
magazines, radio and television served as the central information and
propaganda organs of the party-state, controlling and attempting to mould
information in such a manner as to reinforce political control.” “Kadar’s policy, summarized in his oft-cited quotation that ‘those who are not against us are with us’, withdrew overt communist dogma, and replaced
it with reformist economic policies and greater tolerance for social pluralism.”

3. “First, some remaining assets were
privatized on the basis of ideological criteria. One example was the case of
Magyar Nemzet, the only major daily which had not privatized itself prior
to parliamentary elections. In 1990 the government blocked the attempt by
the editorial staff to sell the paper to the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter. The
paper was subsequently sold to the French press concern Hersant, which
was apparently viewed by the government as more ideologically
conservative. Several months later many of the paper’s journalists struck
against the new editor, decrying the dismissal of several journalists in what
they viewed as an attempt to steer the paper in a pro-government direction.
Second, some press assets remained in state hands, and were reorganized
into government publications. “In 1990 the political weekly Heti
Magyarorszdg saw its editor fired over the protests of its staff and replaced
by a government appointment. The publication subsequently turned in a
strongly pro-government direction. “

4. ” In early 1991 a new daily publication, entitled Uj
Magyarorszdg, appeared on the stands, with an obvious pro-government
and anti-opposition slant. While the paper was not technically state-owned,
the corporation which owned it turned out to be a joint-stock company made of up shareholders who were largely state-owned firms.”

5.

“In accordance with our opening arguments, the purge within the electronic
media which followed Hankiss’s and Gombar’s removal cannot simply be
characterized as the product of an authoritarian-leaning government which
sought to stifle objective journalism. While such criticism may be valid, it
is a much more accurate and valuable observation that in fact the new
government found itself influenced by the institutional context surrounding
it.”

“The removal of critical elements within the electronic media continued.
In April 1994 the radio programme Gondolat-jel was cancelled by Csucs on
the basis of its purported bias. Even more dramatically, in March
Hungarian Radio summarily dismissed 129 journalists from their posts.
While it was widely acknowledged that both radio and television were overstaffed, the choice of these cuts was clearly political; Csucs himself
acknowledged that dismissals were based on whether, in the eyes of the
government, those sacked had been previously associated with the previous
communist regime.” One of the most seriously hit programmes in this purge
was the long-running news programme 168 Ora, which lost its editor and
many of its staff.”

6.

“At Hungarian Television the following day, the evening
news programme Egyenleg also came under attack for a broadcast the
previous October, when it had reported that skinheads had disrupted a
speech by President Goncz commemorating the 1956 revolution, during
which the police did not intervene. Nahlik claimed that the programme had
falsified the footage, and he suspended Egyenleg’s editor and three of his
colleagues, leading the remaining staff to quit the programme (the charges
were later determined to have been unfounded).
Several new appointments
to important positions at Hungarian Television and the national press
agency MTI also drew criticism from the opposition members of parliament
as clearly based on partisan considerations.”

7.

“The broadcast media had earlier been carrying oblique
reports which suggested that an MSZP victory would be tantamount to a
return of communist power. But by late April, the pro-government
newspaper Pesti Hirlap began an open attack on the MSZP. Its editor,
Andras Bencsik (who was also running as an MDF candidate for
parliament) stated at a public rally that the MSZP’s president, Gyula Horn,
was ‘certainly a criminal and possibly a murderer’, claiming that the party
president had been active in the suppression of the 1956 revolution.
Bencsik’s assertion was then duly reported by his own paper.”

8.

“As a final salvo, just days before the election, television news chief
editor Istvan Palfy, speaking on the popular weekend news programme A
Hét, implored his viewers to vote against the liberal or socialist opposition,
for such a victory for the ‘liberal-bolshevik alliance’ would lead to the
destruction of the Hungarian people and, bizarrely, their replacement
through the mass resettlement of foreigners.”

9.
“Even new appointments have not been safe from the government’s ire.
Janos Bethlen, hired to replace Istvan Palfy as head of television news, was
himself fired in May 1995 after less than a year in the post. According to
Bethlen and others, his dismissal resulted from what the government saw as
excessive criticism of its actions in the news, rather than the media acting
as a mouthpiece of the government. Domestic and international media
organizations now argued that the new government’s policies towards the
media were in fact little different from those of its predecessor.”

“With regard to the electronic media, the key issue is a new media law. If
independence in the electronic media can be created through legislation
which will separate the lines of authority, then television and radio may
avoid becoming simply spoils, to be purged and reordered with every
change of government. Initially the coalition’s efforts in the area of
legislation indicated that the views of the opposition would be largely
ignored, raising the spectre that changes in the media law would serve
primarily to consolidate governmental power.”

……………

Ezt tényleg Lánczi írta, a cikk gyakorlatilag a rendszerváltás utáni hat év médiaügyeinek kronologikus felsorolása, nincs semmi a sorok közé rejtve, abszolút tárgyilagosan elmesélik azt, hogy mi történt Magyarországon. Amennyire látom, ez egy special issue lehetett, amelyet Lánczi társszerzője Patrick O ‘Neill szerkesztett, és annyiban tűnik tudományosnak, hogy néha idéznek benne egy Adam Przeworski nevű híres lengyel-amerikai politikatudóst. Mindenesetre, ez az utolsó írásos bizonyítéka annak, hogy Lánczi András valaha az életében képes volt egy aránylag bonyolult szöveget úgy leírni, hogy közben nem szolgált valamilyen rezsimet fennhangon. Azóta negyedszázad telt el.