.jpg)
The writer Thomas Mann once claimed that the Nazi period was a “morally good time”. This remark was made by a person who, not long after receiving the Nobel Prize, was forced to emigrate from Germany because he was amongst Hitler’s most noticeable opponents.
With this phrase, Mann, of course, did not wish to express the idea that the Nazi period was a morally good time, but instead to convey the fact that the Nazi period was a morally simple time. Simple, because the moral choices were very clear: black was black and white was white.
Similarly, one could draw the conclusion that in Latvia the period of occupation was a morally good, meaning a morally simple time. The line of conflict was clearly drawn between the victim – the people, and the oppressor – the state. It is not a coincidence that at the first plenum of the Creative Associations in 1988 practically all of the speeches were variations on one theme: one speaker after the other denounced the destructive consequences of the long years of occupation on the Latvian people and the Latvian identity. One could say that the year 1988 was even an exceptionally good time in moral terms – the line of demarcation had been drawn more clearly than ever, and positioning oneself on the “right” side no longer held the threat of exile or other types of repression.
The period of occupation was a morally simple time for other reasons as well, for even if one gave in to compromise with the powers that be, even if one collaborated with the “wrong” side, it was not too difficult to justify such behaviour: the regime was such a merciless tyrant, and the individual was just a small cog in the wheel, forced to follow orders – if one didn’t obey, the road to Siberia was guaranteed.
Yet along with the re-establishment of independence, suddenly, the customary line of conflict disappeared; and along with it the hated, but nevertheless familiar object of the subjugator, as well as an excuse for cowardice. What now? Where to search for the new line of conflict, the new system which would properly organise the world into dark and light powers, according to the forces of good and evil? It was sought in various places – in sects, in parties, and even right there in the old enemy’s quarters – it was sought everywhere, just not in the place where all moral conflicts both start and finish even in the times of deepest oppression: in each individual person. This truth was self-evident also among Soviet era dissidents, including Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who wrote in The Gulag Archipelago that “...the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but through every human heart.” Even in the most dire of circumstances and most difficult conditions, one has the power to refuse one’s consent if one is ready to pay the personal cost.
By the time of the plenum in 1988, the situation in the state was tragic, and it was not difficult, with a bit of courage, to point to the guilty parties. The names of those guilty parties – Stalin, Molotov, Ribbentrop, Voss, Pelše and others – could finally be called out loud, which was done by a majority of the speakers. Nevertheless, from today’s perspective it is significant to note that there was only one voice in 1988 that dared to suggest that the cause of the problem was not only with them, the evil oppressors, that the guilty party was not only the eternal “other”, but perhaps also ourselves; that perhaps we as a people, as individuals were also equally to blame? Perhaps we did not want to see that the real moral line of demarcation passes though every human heart individually?
This lonely and also prophetic voice was that of Pēteris Pētersons. Prophetic, because by changing only a few surnames in his speech of 1988, we arrive at, to my mind, a very precise description of the present-day situation. Allow me first to read Pētersons’ words from 1988, afterwards adding my own version, in which just a few names and surnames have been changed. Pētersons said, “We are analysing Stalinism in great depth here. And nonetheless, that scarlet-lettered bunch – Stalin, Beria, Zhdanov, Molotov, Vyshinskiy and whoever still else, – and then the eternally righteous, patient rest of us all. This scheme is a little one-sided. Let us not deny that we all were... definitely fellow-travellers of that time and of those processes. I would say – accomplices... The essence of Fascism, the essence of the Stalinist dictatorship is not to be found in the person of the maniacal despot, but in the maniac’s uniquely created climate, in the soil in which little hitlers and stalinuks are born in the millions, incubator-like, all by themselves. And it is precisely for the Latvian people that the heating temperature of this breeding machine did not need to be raised to the prescribed norm – the chicks briskly hatched all by themselves”.
Now the present-day version:
“We are analyzing the theft of the state in great depth here. And nonetheless, that scarlet-lettered bunch – Lembergs, Šlesers, Šķēle, Kargins, Kalvītis, Gailis, Krištopāns, LC, TP, TB, SC, LSDSP and whoever still else – and then the eternally righteous, patient rest of us all. This scheme is a little one-sided. Let us not deny that we all were... definitely fellow-travellers of this time and of these processes. I would say – accomplices... The essence of oligarchy, the essence of party dictatorship is not to be found in the person of the maniacal despot, but in the maniac’s uniquely created climate, in the soil in which little ainars, little aivars and little andruks are born in the thousands, incubator-like, all by themselves. And it is precisely for the Latvian people that the heating temperature of this breeding machine did not need to be raised to the prescribed norm – the chicks briskly hatched all by themselves”.
Nonetheless, the difference between that time and today is that if earlier the driving force of the incubator was the fear of exile, interrogation, or incarceration, then today it suffices for the breeding machine that one feels unworthy without a “Hummer” or a “Range Rover” sitting in the garage, or one feels second-class if one cannot spend Latvian winters in warmer continents, or if one’s house does not have a view of the sea or a lake.
Today the financial and moral deficit in our country is so great, firstly, because the private moral balance of so many Latvian inhabitants is largely in the red. If in one column we put that which we have received from the state, and in the other column we put what we have given to the state ourselves – can we all affirm that our private balance is in the black?
For the so-called “intelligentsia” – actually, this term is applicable only to a certain era and a specific region, however, for the sake of brevity, let us use it also here – for this creative “intelligentsia” the new post-communist world of the nineties was very disorienting. Some found the new conditions liberating, while others, in turn, lost their way. If for years you have been on the side of “your own people” , criticizing and fighting against “the other”, the occupier, it was not a self-evident task to suddenly remove oneself from the milieu of one’s “own people” (1), and to begin throwing stones from outside of the circle. Particularly if your words now need to be aimed at former colleagues and friends, with whom you once stood shoulder to shoulder on the barricades. Particularly if you were accustomed to feeling a sense of belonging to a certain milieu, accustomed to the sense of warmth and camaraderie that fighting for a common cause can bring; accustomed to at least a minimal – and in some cases even exclusive – level of comfort in your lifestyle; accustomed to most everything but the feeling of being absolutely alone, an outsider, a marginal, an ec-centric – for in those heady years of revolution the “intelligentsia” was at the centre of the nation’s power, not on the edge of it. The intelligentsia, which was of an inordinate importance during the years of the national re-awakening, suddenly became inordinately inconsequential during the post-awakening period.
By contrast, in a democratic society the roles of the “intelligentsia” and politicians are fundamentally different, as the basis of democratic politics is working with half-truths – with republican, democratic, socialist or conservative, party x or y truths – which as a whole create the true landscape of an independent country. In a democratic society the “intelligentsia” can and must participate in the public discussion of questions that concern the society, of politics on a wider level, but it cannot achieve this effectively if it is involved in the competition for political power. As a politician you defend one element of half-truth, as a representative of the “intelligentsia” you attempt to recognise and illuminate various elements of truth and untruth, which can be found on all sides.
Today those actors, musicians, writers and other representatives of the “intelligentsia” who repeat over and over that, by entering politics or participating in the promotion of a political party, they are doing exactly the same thing that they used to do during the time of the reawakening – they are mistaken. The exchange of their so-called “authority” (although today it would be more appropriate to speak of an actor’s or pop-musicians “notoriety”) for political influence – how innocent is this exchange? What kind of responsibility is this representative of the “intelligentsia” willing to assume – or is responsibility only the prerogative of politicians – whereby writers, actors, musicians etc. get off scot-free? By participating in the promotion of a party, playing a role in its television advertisements and thus helping it gain power – are you freed of your responsibility on the day after the elections, or should you speak up loudly about concrete deeds and misdeeds of the party during the whole length of their term?
And if during the years of the revolution, the actor or musician was all the more admired the more bravely and loudly he positioned himself on the side of truth, then today instead of inflaming the hearts of people, we need to illuminate their minds. There is a surfeit of noise all around us, but it is wisdom that we are sadly lacking.
According to the ancient Roman saying, what is permitted to Jove is not permitted to the ox. However, this familiar saying cuts both ways, and many things that are permitted to the ox, are not permitted to Jove. And, if the creative intelligentsia recognizes in itself the features of Jove, then it must also carry the burden of Jove. It is no accident that immediately after the war, General De Gaulle had the writers shot first, for collaborationism, and only after that, the policemen. The task of Jove-the-writer was to enlighten minds, to create a road for others, but instead he misled the people. The responsibility of Jove is greater; hence, the consequences are also more serious.
If only the nostalgia for morally simple times does not prove to be overly strong, then in present-day democratic Latvia everyone – Jove, the ox, the representative of the creative intelligentsia and the common citizen – must take on similar tasks in order to find ourselves in a better Latvia in another 20 years time.
Firstly – participation. If each of us had practiced democracy with the same fervour that we practiced consumerism in the last few years, then we would not find ourselves in the place where we are today.
Secondly – responsibility. The ox cannot criticize the scarlet-lettered surnames for theft and dishonesty if he himself in his daily life not only avoids paying taxes, but also deftly renames a “bonus” as a “supplementary payment” and shares benefits and information only within his own circle. And Jove, yes, Jove has a greater responsibility in this sense. It is precisely Jove – the intelligentsia – that can introduce a new dimension of morality into politics and the life of the state. However, this does not necessarily mean entering politics in the narrow definition of the term, by trying to become a parliamentarian or minister, but quite the contrary – staying strictly independent and at the same time politically engaged, which, amongst other things, means being critical of deputies and ministers.
Participation and responsibility. If in the last two decades each inhabitant of Latvia or each representative of the creative intelligentsia would have been maximally responsible as an individual towards the greater Latvian national interest, towards the greater common good, we would not be where we are today, one would not have to organise this plenum, which – with all due respect to the organisers of the event – is, unfortunately, both a form and a platform from a previous era, from the morally simple times. For it is not going to be the declarations that we pronounce to each other here in this safe, cosy group that will significantly change the reigning system of values and the quality of life in Latvia, but instead, that which we each individually do or do not do when we leave this auditorium or turn off our televisions. The climate in the greenhouse, the temperature of the incubator – we regulate it ourselves, we prepare the soil ourselves, and only each of us individually can determine if those same old/new chicks will briskly hatch on their own or if the breeding machine will be switched off altogether and used for completely different purposes.
(1) It is interesting to note that in many Eastern European and Slavic languages there is one simple, frequently used word which designates “one of us”: i.e. in Latvian “savējais”, in Russian “nashe”. In most Western European languages one needs to put together several words in order to convey this notion of cliquishness, of the clan.
.jpg)