298
PAR.TISAN R.EVIEW
of change that culminated in the transfer of power at the end of the
1980s.
To what degree one can generalize from the case of Hungary to
Eastern Europe as a whole is, of course, another debatable matter. Hankiss
shows that Hungary was the most liberalized of the Soviet dependencies
in Eastern Europe and the most Westernized. (The historically more ad–
vanced political Westernization of Czechoslovakia was suppressed and set
back both in the late 1940s and after 196H.) While entitled "East
European Alternatives," the book is actually a detailcd examination and
social-historical analysis of thc Comlllunist systcm in Hungary from its
beginnings in the late I940s
to
its end in 19H9, with occasional references
to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Thus it is not quite clear to what extent
one can generalize from conditions ill Hungary (which used
to
be de–
scribed as "the most cheerful barrack in the camp of socialism") to the rest
of Eastern Europe.
In
Hungary "reform Communism" went the furthest.
But for that very reason Hungary also showed the limits of the reforma–
bility of state socialist systems, which makes it a uniquely interesting case.
In
Hungary, Hankiss states, "the scope of action of the ruling elitc . . .
was strongly restrained ... by external and internal factors - so much so
that it never had the freedom it claill1ed to have, and that people thought
it had,
to
transform Hungary ... to the extent it wanted to." Hungary
was also unique since in 1956 it had had a genuine and bloody revolution,
such as none of the other Soviet satellites had. The Kt'volution was "a
learning experience" both for the Hungarian Communist leaders and the
population. Although ruthlessly crushed, it led on the one hand to a
regime inclined to compromise, and on the other to a widespread apoliti–
cal mentality among the people. Hungary becamc a "soft" authoritarian
regime; and moving from a soft authoritarian regime to political pluralism
was easier to accomplish (and understand) than similar changes in
Czechoslovakia, East Germany, 13ulgaria, or Albania.
Unlike many ;lI1alysts, Hankiss is acutely aware of the darker side of
the "politics of liberalization" in Hungary:
It kept society in a diffuse and inarticulate state, in a childish depen–
dellCe; it deprived people of efficient institutions of interest intennc–
diation and participation; it was unable
to
develop an cfficient eco–
nomic model and Illechanisnl; it liberalized people without giving
them rights and real freedom.
Nonetheless, the peaceful and orderly transfer of power by the
Communist oligarchy was a relllarkable accomplishment. Hankiss explains
it in part by examining the hopes (mistaken, as it turned out) this group
