Passzív rezisztencia szekunder formái Magyarországon 1848 és 1865 között
Passive Resistance of Secondary Form’s in Hungary between 1848 and 1856

Summary/Abstract: Passive resistance is a kind of non-violent opposition, consisting of various components of non-collaboration, civil disobedience, and satyagraha; a series of non-violent political protest-actions, which is non-violent in each and every case, in spite of the fact that its participants do not stand on the base of principal non-violence. Essentially, passive resistance is open, mass non-collaboration with power, without assuming the full responsibility for the criminal consequences of the participants behaviour. History and political science consider Ferenc Deák as the originator, and the greatest personality of passive resistance. Ferenc Deák’s letter to Anton Schmerling, the then Minister of Justice of the Austrian Empire, dated on 25 April 1850, is considered as the starting-point of passive resistance; and Deák’s five letters on the subject are assumed to be the most important political documents of it. Hungarian historiography associates the concept of passive resistance withDeák, because of his mentality, political career, liberal views, way of life, activity, and history-making personality. The years passed from 1849 to 1861 are generally called the period of “the Hungarian passive resistance”, and at the same time the period of Ferenc Deák’s passive resistance. However, Deák’s starting years from 1824-1833, spent in Zala county, which also showed elements of passive resistance, and the former years (from 1820) of local and national passive resistance are not considered as part of the field of passive resistance. We can not detail here the passive resistance of the period before the reform era, and the age of reform (before the revolution), also, we can not touch young Deák’s activities of these periods, but we have to mention a few essential points. 1. Passive resistance, as a special form of political protest, did exist and “flourished” in Hungary; 2. Roots of the postrevolution passive resistance period, and Deák’s then political activity goes back to the period of passive resistance before the revolution (that is called Deák’s primary political socialization); 3. The post-revolution period of passive resistance is a repeated appearance of the same attitude against the same power (the House of Hapsburg), so the postrevolution passive resistance can be considered as a resumption of the former one, a continuity of the same political behaviour; 4. Both periods of passive resistance came from the lack of power, and appeared as the weapon of the weak; 5. An essential difference between the two periods is that the first one is the fighting method of a society that can not take up arms yet, and the latter one is the way of political struggle of a society that can not take arms any more; 6. Afterwards, it is well-known that the pre-revoéu tion passive resistance was the initial phase of a violent uprise, while the post-revolution passive resistance was a rearguard action, fueled by the memory of the revolution.

• Details
• Contents