Patricia Goletz

”Humboldt” University, Berlin, Germany

patriciagoletz@web.de

 

 

The transformation process and current problems

of the National Memory Institute of Slovakia (Bratislava)

 

 

Abstract: The Republic of Slovakia has been and continues to be in a special position in terms of “digesting” its totalitarian past. This process started at the time, when Slovakia had been in a federation with Czech Republic. At that time most of the legislative norms supported the federal parliament – the country needed new laws. This was rooted in its structure of repressive and ideological authority of power of the former communism. After the partition of Czechoslovakia, the situation in the Republic of Slovakia, compared to that in the Czech Republic, folded up differently. The issue of reassessment of communism and of overcoming its aftermath started to worsen. It was linked to the fact that Slovakia, as a newly independent country, had to learn how to deal with the new political situation in the country. The law on the Nations memory institute of Slovakia (553/2002) had been passed on 28^th September 2002. Some of the main tasks of the institute are: to open documents for persons, who were victims of the communistic regime; to open the personal data of the performers; give motives for criminal prosecution of the offenders and cooperate with the public prosecutors; collecting and treating all kind of information, documents of the period of communism; propagate the ideas of liberty and defence of regimes like nationalism and communism. Nowadays, the National Memory Institute of Slovakia finds itself in a difficult position. On the one hand, there is little interest in preservation of the institute by the politicians. On the other hand, the process of re-evaluating with its past is not satisfying. Even the laws passed on rehabilitation haven’t substantively helped to ease the position of persecuted individuals. There are still political prisoners, who have to serve their residue penalty. Laws were also passed to regulate restitution, but in most cases they proved of no consequence and there was no compliance with them. And there are some more examples of inappropriate implementation of the targeted objectives. The National Memory Institute of Slovakia faces impending closure in the near future. And this is but one of the myriad examples of dealing with the heir of communism in Slovakia.

Keywords: Republic of Slovakia; Communism; Post-Communism; National Memory Institute; Totalitarianism; Memory.

 

 

“Unlawful action on behalf of the State against its citizens can neither be protected by secrecy nor be forgotten.”

 

This quotation, taken from an information leaflet issued by the National Memory Institute of Slovakia, expresses the need for a critical re-evaluation of the communist past for all former communist countries. This re-evaluation seems urgent for two reasons: On the one hand, communism as a lived experience was perceived to be a form of dictatorship after the collapse of the communist states in Eastern Europe and now has to be treated accordingly. On the other hand, the past as a part of a social identity must not sink into oblivion.

Germany was the first state to start dealing critically with its communist past by establishing a Federal Commissioner of the former GDR in 1991. By doing so, Germany set an example for other former communist countries, which subsequently also established National Memory Institutes. However, the circumstances for a critical re-assessment of the communist past have been more convenient for Germany than for other former Eastern Bloc countries.

After the German reunification, the legal system of the former Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) came into force in the new Laender. The legislation thus provided a legal basis for the prosecution of political offenders, as well as for the rehabilitation and compensation of those previously persecuted.

On the contrary, other former Communist countries first had to create a new legal system. Regarding Slovakia, I intend to answer the following questions:

In which historical circumstances was the National Memory Institute established? Which problems did and does it face? What does its work look like at present?

 

Historical circumstances

 

To start with, Slovakia has been in a special position regarding its coming to terms with its dictatorial past. This process started at the time when Slovakia was still part of a federation with the Czech Republic.

By 1990 the General Office of the Public Prosecution in Czechoslovakia had launched rehabilitation acts according to laws 82/1968. It was the first law in Czechoslovakia to regulate the rehabilitation of people who had been sentenced and punished wrongfully as “pests” of socialism, but whose acts were not directed against the socialist society itself (e.g., when those persecuted were of bourgeois origin).

By this law, society started to critically deal with the first dictatorial era of communism.

In the same year (1990), new laws were passed (119, 403, 87/1990), which aimed to annul all court orders from 25.2.1948 until 1.1.1990. The new laws were based on new democratic principles. Law 119 on “Rehabilitation by court” included all cases concerning individuals sentenced for acting in relation to the “General Declaration of Human Rights” (passed in August 1975 in Helsinki). Furthermore, this law regulated the possibility of punishing people who deliberately offended against the former legal regulations of the communist era. Law 403 regulated the restitution of property and Law 87 regulated the rehabilitation of individuals sentenced out of court (people who were not sentenced by law but by personal resentments, especially those who were dismissed from work, such as television studios or pedagogical institutions/schools).

In former Czechoslovakia, the re-assessment of communism was based on four steps: Restitution (403/1990), Rehabilitation (119, 87/1990, and 1991), Lustration[1] (451/1991) and Inspection of State Security documents (553/2002).

The purpose of the lustration law (451/1991) was to prevent former high officials of the communist regime from getting into public office. Those wanting to get into public office had to submit a “clean bill of health”[2] (issued by the Federal Ministry of the Interior); in other words, people had to prove they had not been members of or collaborated with the State Security.

 

The situation in Slovakia, contemporary work and problems

 

After the split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, the situation in the Republic of Slovakia took a different course of development than that of the Czech Republic. Slovakia has started to slow down the activities concerning the critical re-assessment of its communist past.

In Slovakia, no person has gone through the “clean bill” procedure so far. There is no institution to observe the enforcement of this law.

The same issue concerns the inspection of State Security documents.

The State Security archives were not opened until 2003. Previously, they had not been accessible to investigators, historians, formerly persecuted individuals or government bodies. During this period of 14 years, about 200 former members of the State Security and officials of the communist regime have been indicted and punished in the Czech Republic. (More about that subject later on in this essay.)

Furthermore, the law “About the amorality and illegality of the communist system” (125/1996) was not enacted either. The most probable reason for the attempt to marginalize and avoid dealing with the past in a profound manner is that State Security collaborators in Slovakia managed to get into key positions before the materials were published.

At the end of 1999, the Minister of Justice Jan Čarnogurský established a department for the documentation of the crimes of communism at his ministry and promised to deal with the problem.

The establishment of such a department came about for two reasons: On the one hand, the citizen handed in a request to the Minister of Justice.

On the other hand, this minister had been a famous Christian dissident and a defender of human rights during the communist rule. His intention was to make some changes in the field of legislature; thus, he referred to the law “About the amorality and illegality of the communist system”.

The main tasks of this department were to analyse and evaluate collected materials from a statistical, moral and legal point of view. The department opened a library and an archive and it also cooperated on citizens’ initiatives dealing with the same issue.

In 2002, the Slovak parliament passed the Law on the Institute of National Memory in Slovakia (553). The institute was founded as an institute under public law. The Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Slovak Information Service made the documents concerning State Security activities available. The institute’s tasks comprise (553/2002) of

• Performing complete and unbiased evaluations of the period marked by oppression, primarily by analysing the causes and means of the loss of freedom, manifestations of the fascist and communist regimes, their ideology and the involvement of native and foreign persons,
• Disclosing documents on persecution to the persecuted individuals,
• Publicising information on the persecutors and their activities,
• Prompting the prosecution of crimes and criminal offences in liaison with the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Slovak Republic,
• Providing relevant information to authorities of public power,
• Systematically accumulating and expertly processing all types of information, records and documents pertaining to the period of oppression,
• Working with similar institutions in the Slovak Republic and abroad, mainly with archives, museums, libraries, survivors of the resistance, survivors of concentration and labour camps, providing them with information, presenting them with research options, rendering methodical counsel and promoting their activities,
• Presenting the public with the results of its activities, primarily by publicising information and other records between 1939 and 1989, individual actions and life stories, promoting publications, organising exhibitions, seminars, conferences, discussion forums, promoting ideas of freedom and defence of democracy against such regimes as Nazism and communism,
• Granting official status of a participant in the anti-communism resistance.

However, one can say that during the early stage (approximately the first 4 years) of the institute’s existence, its work was primarily concentrated on taking over and collecting the materials and opening the archives. At present, it is occupied with processing the materials (relating to its historical and political meaning)[3].

During the first 3 years of its existence, from 2003 onwards, the institute received many requests from private persons concerning examination of materials. Recently, public interest in the institute’s work has been decreasing. Fewer people hand in requests for examining materials. By now, many people have already received compensation; most of the victims had already died, however.

In relation to the work in the archives, one can observe similar problems. According to the “Recommendation on a European policy on access to archives” – adopted in July 2000 by the Committee of Ministers at the meeting of the Minister’s Deputies – access to public archives is declared as “a right” (III/3). This right and the criteria for access should be defined by law: “In European countries, the responsibility for setting out the general principles which govern access to archives lies with the legislature and, therefore, shall be governed by an act of parliament.” In Slovakia a new law was passed[4] (395/2002) concerning access to archives. The National Memory Institute archive represents public archives of the Slovak Republic. Archival funds and documents on repressive authorities from the period of the Slovak Republic between 1939 and 1945 and unitary, later federal Czechoslovakia constitute archival funds that the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and the Slovak Information Service were obliged to render to the institute. Delimitation of archival documents and funds started in 2003. In three years, the National Memory Institute successively took over archival material amounting to 2100 metres, or 10500 boxes, from state authorities and individuals[5].

Unfortunately, the work in the NMI archive is extremely unsatisfying. A great part of the data files have not yet been processed or identified[6]. Moreover, the archive is understaffed. The disorder of the materials slows down a consequent and swift processing.

By law, the State has to provide financial supplies[7] and make infrastructure or facilities available. In reality, the situation looks very different however. The institute is both underfunded and understaffed at present. The institute’s 80 employees are responsible for the scope of work requiring 150 to 200 employees. Moreover, within 6 years the institute has moved 4 times – it does not have its own building yet.

Finally, we can take a look at the preliminary work status of the National Memory Institute and possible further perspectives. How has the National Memory Institute been able to cope with the following issues?

 

a) Compensation of the formerly persecuted – Inadequately and late. Even after laws on rehabilitations were passed, they did not rehabilitate all those previously persecuted and in full extent. Some un-rehabilitated former political prisoners are called “pending judgments”[8].

Compensation for those who were not sentenced by law but had to suffer social or moral drawbacks (loss of work, see: rehabilitations out of court) was not practically carried out – or only symbolically[9].

 

b) Restitution of property – This was also carried out inadequately. The laws on restitution have not been (consequently) observed. Some people received their former property – most of them were damaged (e.g. used chattels). The compensation for estates was only symbolic. Valuable property (mainly profitable real estates) was not restituted at all and the compensation was not appropriate.

The main reason for threat problematical and inadequate compensation for lost property is that the law on reassignment had only been in use half a year after it was passed.

§19,2 (403/1991): “The entitled person could ask for the delivery of objects or costs of acquisitions during the period of 6 months after the coming into force of this law. Otherwise the right is dissolved.” There were some cases in which people escaped to the US and Canada and did not know that this law existed. After coming back, the statutory period of limitations had run out[10]. People often received inadequate reimbursements[11].

 

c) Punishing offenders – The number of punished offenders was, in fact, small. Some former torturers escaped punishment and even received retirement pensions.

Nowadays the NMI reports about the crimes (after collecting the materials until 2006) and the prosecution is solving them. However, it will take a long time to “digest” them and people probably will not be punished due to the lack of evidence[12]. Until now, only five people have been prosecuted in Slovakia and one person has been legally sentenced.

By comparison: On almost the same amount of documents in Czech Republic, more than 160 former offenders have been prosecuted and 31 have been legally sentenced.

 

The political authority in Slovakia did not bear in mind that the clear majority of people previously persecuted had little or no money and experience in the field of law. As far as the law did not explicitly order to act, the justice and state institutions had been acting very slowly.

 

Conclusion

 

The most obvious problem the institute faces today is public disinterest in the clarification of communist crimes in Slovakia. The NMI of Slovakia was founded very late (firstly in 1999 as a department, in 2002 as an institute) – 13 years after the Velvet Revolution.

One can say that the institute is forced to cut back its business activities at present (see also footnote 3); on the one hand because of the low budget and because of the lack of employees.

On the other hand, there is a need for a better and more organised form of cooperation among the countries in which respective institutes exist (e.g. more exchange programmes for employees, who need material from different countries, which carry on adequate institutions).

 

To exemplify the NMI’s problems, I have made a comparison with the respective Institute of the Czech Republic.

 

Comparison to the Czech Republic	Slovakia	Czech Republic
Established in	1999 (as Department of the Ministry of Justice for the documentation of the crimes of communism) 2002 (officially as an institute with the same scope of tasks as in Germany)	1995 (established as an institute) since 2008 (three institutes: archive of police forces, institute for studies of the history of totality = NMI, UDV[13] of Ministry of Interior)
Employees	80 (requires 150-200)	300 (currently sufficient)
Material-processing	2 km – processed 1/2	22 km – processed 3/4 (started to work in 1991)
Applications for examining documents – tendency	10 000 (within 5 years, half of all requests were filed at the foundation of NMI) tendency: falling	probably 15000 – 20000 tendency: falling
Sentencing of offenders	approx. 5 accused/ 1 sentenced (if proportionally to CZ: 80 should be accused, 15 sentenced)	194 accused / 30 sentenced
Rehabilitations	70 000 (10% still have ”pending judgements“)	160 000 (around 3% still have “pending judgements”)
Head office – district offices	Bratislava – no district offices	Prague – Brno
Centres of information/memorials	Non existent – only some scientific research departments/institutes[14], some statues	Some scientific research institutes[15]

 

Some publications of the Nation´s Memory Institute of Slovakia (English publications):

 

Monographs

• Slavomír Michálek: OATIS Case. The Communist Regime in Czechoslovakia vs. Associate Press correspondent. (2005)
• Vladimír Palko ml.: Bernard Jaško, et al. Resistance Against Communism in the National Security Authority. (2006)
• Pavel Žáček: Heading the State Security. Fall of the Regime in the Records of a Secret Police Officer. (2006)
• Milada Polišenská: Czechoslovaks in the Gulag and Czechslovak diplomacy 1945 – 1953. (2006)
• Martin Lacko: Desertions and captures of Guards Division Officers in the USSR between 1942 and 1943. (2007)
• Matej Medvedcký: Slovak State Intelligence Ace: Imrich Sucký Case. (2007)
• Ján Hlavinka: Jewish Community in Medzilaborce District between 1938 and 1945. (2007)

 

Journal

• “Pamäť národa“

 

Edition documents

• Róbert Letz (ed.): Documents on Trial of Catholic Bishop Ján Vojtaššák, Michal Buzalka and Pavol Gojdič. (2007)
• Pavel Žáček: An Instrument of Class Rule. Organization of the Ministries of the Interior and the Security Forces 1953 – 1990. (2005)
• Jerguš Sivoš (ed.): XII. Direstorate of National Security Authority. Documents on Activities of Counterintelligence Directorate in Bratislava between 1974 and 1989. (2007)

 

Anthologies

• Moc verzus občan. Power vs. Citizen. Purpose of Repression and Political Violence in Communism. (2005)
• Brief History of Great Events. (2005)
• Last and First Free (?) Elections 1946, 1990. (2006)

 

For more information

• http://www.upn.gov.sk/v2/index.php?lang=en (English version)

 

 

Notes