Lustration
Lustrationin Central and Eastern Europe is the official public procedure of scrutinizing a public official or a candidate for public office in terms of their history as awitting confidential collaborator(informant) of relevant former communistsecret police,an activity widely condemned by the public opinion of those states as morallycorruptdue to its essential role in suppressingpolitical oppositionand enabling persecution ofdissidents.Surfacing of evidence for such a past activity typically inflicts severereputationdamage to the person concerned. It should not be confused withdecommunizationwhich is the process of barring former communist regular officials from public offices as well as eliminating communist symbols.
The principle ofnon-retroactivitymeans that a past role of a confidential collaborator (informant) is alone as such inadmissible from the beginning for criminal prosecution or conviction, thus, lustration allows at least to bring such past collaborators tomoral responsibilityby making the public opinion aware of the established outcomes through their free dissemination. Another motivation was the fear that undisclosed past confidential collaboration could be used to blackmail public officials by foreign intelligence services of other former Warsaw Pact allies, in particular Russia.
Depending on jurisdiction, either every positive result or only the one obtained regarding a person who falsely declared otherwise, may trigger consequences varying greatly among jurisdictions, ranging from mereinfamyto purging the person from office and a 10-year exclusion from holding public offices.[1]Various forms of lustration were employed inpost-communistEurope.[2]
Etymology
[edit]
Lustration in general is the process of making something clear or transparent, usually by means of apropitiatoryoffering. The term is taken from theancient Romanlustratiopurification rituals.[3]
Policies and laws
[edit]After the fall of the various European Communist governments with theRevolutions of 1989between 1989 and 1991, government-sanctioned policies of "mass disqualification of those associated with the abuses under the prior regime" were initiated as part of the widerdecommunizationcampaigns.[4]
Lustration in turn targets former confidential informants of the communist secret police who remain in or apply for political positions or even civil service positions, rather than former communist regular officials. In some countries, however, lustration laws did not lead to indiscriminate exclusion and disqualification, taking into account that people were often blackmailed to become informants or coerced into providing information without realising its true recipient.[4]Lustration law in Hungary (1994–2003) was based on the exposure of compromised state officials, while lustration law in Poland (1999–2005) depended on confession.[2]Lustration law "is a special public employment law that regulates the process of examining whether a person holding certain higher public positions collaborated confidentially with the repressive apparatus of the communist regime."[2]The "special" nature of lustration law refers to its transitional character. As of 1996, various lustration laws of varying scope were implemented in theCzech Republic,Slovakia,Hungary,Macedonia,Albania,Bulgaria,Lithuania,Latvia,Estonia,Germany,Poland,andRomania.[5]As of 2019, lustration laws had not been passed inBelarus,nor informer Yugoslaviaor the former SovietCentral Asian Republics(Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan,andUzbekistan).[citation needed]
Results
[edit]Lustration can serve as a form of punishment byanti-communistpoliticians who weredissidentsunder a Communist-led government.[citation needed]Lustration laws are usually passed right before elections, and become tightened whenright-winggovernments are in power, and loosened whilesocial-democraticparties are in power.[6]It is claimed that lustration systems based on dismissal or confession might be able to increase trust in government,[7]while those based on confession might be able to promote social reconciliation.[7]
There are, however, some paradoxal side effects of the process. For example, in spite of the fact that some informants were coerced or blackmailed into collaboration and may thus be also considered victims themselves, or in some cases despite terminating later the collaboration in favor of genuine dissident activity, the public attention and condemnation has focused primarily on them rather than on the communist government officials or secret police officers. Moreover, if the past collaboration is contested in a court, the verdict depends to some extent on testimonies of former communist secret police officers who engaged with the alleged informant, thus making those orchestrating the repressionsde factothe ones deciding the case.
Examples
[edit]In Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic
[edit]Unlike many neighbouring states, the new government in theCzech and Slovak Federative Republicdid not adjudicate undercourttrials, but instead took a non-judicial approach to ensure changes would be implemented.[citation needed]
According to a law passed on 4 October 1991, all employees of theStB,the Communist-era secret police, were blacklisted from designated public offices, including the upper levels of the civil service, the judiciary, procuracy,Security Information Service(BIS), army positions, management of state owned enterprises, the central bank, the railways, senior academic positions and the public electronic media. This law remained in place in theCzech Republicafter thedissolution of Czechoslovakia,and was extended indefinitely.[8]
The lustration laws in Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic were not intended to serve as justice, but to ensure that events such as theCommunist coup of February 1948did not happen again.[9]
In Poland
[edit]The first lustration bill was passed by the PolishParliamentin 1992, but it was declared unconstitutional by theConstitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland.Several other projects were then submitted and reviewed by a dedicated commission, resulting in a new lustration law passed in 1996.[10]From 1997 to 2007 lustration was dealt with by the office of the Public Interest Ombudsperson (Polish:Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego), who analyzed lustration declarations and could initiate further proceedings. According to a new law which came into effect on 15 March 2007, lustration in Poland is now administered by theInstitute of National Remembrance(Polish:Instytut Pamięci Narodowej;IPN).[11][12]
In Ukraine
[edit]InUkraine,lustration refers mainly to the removal from public office of civil servants who worked underUkrainian PresidentViktor Yanukovych.They may be excluded for five to ten years.[13]
See also
[edit]- Berufsverbot
- Indignité nationale
- Ironclad Oath
- Proclamation of Timișoara
- Religion in ancient Rome
- Truth and reconciliation commission
- Vergangenheitsbewältigung
Further reading
[edit]- Williams, "A Scorecard for Czech Lustration",Central Europe Review
- Jiřina Šiklová,"Lustration or the Czech Way of Screening",East European Constitutional Review,Vol.5, No.1, Winter 1996, Univ. of Chicago Law School and Central European University
- Rohozinska, "Struggling with the Past - Poland's controversial Lustration trials",Central European Review
- Human Rights Watch[14]
- Roman David,Lustration and Transitional Justice: Personnel Systems in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
- 1904 (Merriam)Webster's International Dictionary of the English Languagesays:"a sacrifice, or ceremony, by which cities, fields, armies, or people, defiled by crimes, pestilence, or other cause of uncleanness, were purified"
References
[edit]- ^"In Ukraine's Corridors Of Power, An Effort To Toss Out The Old".NPR.2014-05-07.Retrieved2014-05-07.
- ^abcRoman David (2003).""Lustration Laws in Action: The Motives and Evaluation of Lustration Policy in the Czech Republic and Poland (1989-2001)"(PDF).Law & Social Inquiry.28(2): 387–439. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2020-01-28.Retrieved2011-11-12.
- ^Chisholm, Hugh,ed. (1911)..Encyclopædia Britannica.Vol. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 131.
- ^abEric Brahm, "Lustration",Beyond Intractability.org, June 2004, 8 Sep 2009
- ^Nalepa, Monika (2010).Skeletons in the Closet: Transitional Justice in Post-Communist Europe.Cambridge University Press. p. 99.
- ^Elster, Jon, ed. (2006).Retribution and Reparation in the Transition to Democracy.Cambridge University Press. p. 189.
- ^abRoman David, Lustration and Transitional Justice: Personnel Systems in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, pp. 183, 209
- ^"451/1991 Sb. Zákon, kterým se stanoví některé další předpoklady pro výkon některých funkcí ve státních orgánech a organizacích".
- ^Kieran Williams, "Lustration"Archived2019-04-08 at theWayback Machine,Central Europe Review
- ^Mark S. Ellis,Purging the past: The Current State of Lustration Laws in the Former Communist BlocArchived2013-11-01 at theWayback Machine(pdf), Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 59, No. 4, Accountability for International Crimes and Serious Violations of Fundamental Human Rights (Autumn, 1996), pp. 181–96
- ^(in Polish)Najważniejsze wiadomości – Informacje i materiały pomocnicze dla organów realizujących postanowienia ustawy lustracyjnejArchived2007-10-07 at theWayback MachineIPN News. Last accessed on 24 April 2007
- ^(in Polish)Biuro Lustracyjne IPN w miejsce Rzecznika Interesu Publicznego,Gazeta Wyborcza,15 March 2007, Last accessed on 24 April 2007
- ^"Lustration law faces sabotage, legal hurdles".Kyiv Post.23 October 2014.
- ^"Hsw".Hrw.org.Retrieved7 November2017.
