13 March 2011
Agnes Heller is a lesser known modern philosopher. She has often been described as a member of the Budapest school of philosophy, an acolyte of Lukacs and harbouring a distinctive left-wing perspective. In more recent times, Heller would probably describe herself as a ‘Liberal’, although her liberal credentials are not as deep perhaps as other modern philosophers, such as the late Sir Isaiah Berlin.
Few people outside Hungary would probably have heard of Heller had it not been for the fact that she and four other Hungarian academics stand accused of misusing research grants and are currently under Police investigation in Budapest.
Until the investigation has run its course, it is not possible to say if Heller and the others are innocent or guilty. Heller herself denies all and every charge against her. Indeed, it would be a sad end to her career if the allegations were to be true.
However, what is fascinating in this case, is the way in which Heller and various international supporters have sought to cast this case. On one level, a small number of international academics have decided that the case against the Budapest Five is an attack on academic freedom. At least one, if not more petitions have been sent to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences clamouring for an end to the unjustified and politically-driven criticism of internationally-respected academics. Admittedly, some of these foreign academics have now retracted their endorsements of such petitions, citing a lack of knowledge and understanding of the circumstances behind the case.
On another level, the criticism of Heller and the others is seen as a form of political vendetta, primarily instigated by the Fidesz government and controlled by Prime Minister Viktor Orban. If you throw into the mix the inference of latent anti-semitism, then you get a fair idea of how Heller in particular views her current predicament.
Intrigued by this case, I took the opportunity to observe an open debate with Agnes Heller in the European Parliament earlier this month, which was curiously titled “Hungarian Democracy in Danger”. Sadly, I learnt nothing of the case against Heller – she very quickly dismissed the question of the police investigation against her. In fact, what Heller presented to the audience was nothing less than a vitriolic attack against the Hungarian Government, its Prime Minister, the President (whom she acerbically described as a ‘puppet’) and the Hungarian people, masquerading as some sort of philosophical analysis.
Following her intervention, in which she described the Hungarian people as ‘servile’, I felt somewhat discomforted by the sight of a Hungarian denigrating her own people and institutions before an international audience. I also felt cheated that Heller was unable to offer any clear and cogent response to the many questions which seemed to challenge her meta-narrative of democracy in Hungary. I was astounded that she chose to deny that any shootings or beatings or torture took place in 2006, although it is quite possible that she actually believed that, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. Heller did not come across as a ‘scapegoat’ for a generation of public intellectuals in Hungary by any means.
In fact, far from being a scapegoat, I saw Heller as a ‘footnote’ to a rather depressing, sad and disturbing period in Hungarian history – the era of communist domination under the likes of Rakosi, Gero and Kadar. I wondered what the cost was to the integrity of any philosopher, academic or intellectual who had to accommodate or support the communist regime, albeit with a pretty safe academic sinecure and party membership. In Heller’s case, did this protect her from recognising the depravity of the communist system and the lives it destroyed, including academic lives, and the economy it crippled? Of course Heller was fortunate – very fortunate in fact – that she was able to go into exile in the 1970s while most of her countrymen and woman had to remain under lock and key.
Heller the philosopher is no Havel or Geremek. She contributed nothing to the revolution of 1956 and nothing to the liberation in 1989. Yet I still felt rather sad that she found herself unable, in her musings on the current state of Hungarian democracy, to recognise the real substance of democracy – the voice of the electorate. The Hungarian people recently gave a staggeringly-large democratic mandate to Fidesz and to Victor Orban. They simultaneously passed judgement on eight years of Socialist and Liberal political failure and corruption, which has brought the country to its knees. On this, real democracy, not elitist theoretical or academic democracy, Heller remained silent. She has nothing to contribute.
Heller is in fact a perfect semaphore for all that is wrong with a country that needs to face up to its past. Agnes Heller is a footnote to a history that has yet to be told. However, that history can only be told if the truth is allowed to come out.