Porcupine Julian Barnes' novel The Porcupine centers on the trial of Stoyo Petkanov, the former communist president of a now democratic society. This book gives insight into the age-old political quandary of whether it is best for democracies to punish the old regime or to forgive and forget. The word "punish" in this context refers to sentencing after truth and reconciliation trials where there is no concrete evidence of actual law breakage. Basically, the charge is political dissention. As Stoyo noted, "I am charged with being a Socialist and a Communist. Guilty, comrades, in every case." (p. 121) This definition does not include punishment for actual crimes such as those tried during the Nuremberg Trials. That sort of punishment is completely acceptable, while the punishment looked at in this book is totally impractical and unjust. Petkanov and those similar to him should not be punished because the old hierarchy is needed to assist the new, because history is cyclical, and because the justness of democracy will never justify unjustness. For practical reasons, Petkanov and the entire old regime should not be punished. This point is illustrated by the example of post-war Japan. While many political and military figures were punished for actual war crimes, the economically crucial bureaucracy was left in tact- as opposed to being tried for being fascists. Without the stability of the tried and tested bureaucratic hierarchy, Japan could not have performed and sustained its half-century fiscal miracle. The democratic government represented by Peter Solinsky seems not to have learned this valuable lesson. The entire communist government was purged and chastised, the result was daily protests because of food shortages. The smallest of compromises could have had made a tremendous difference during the transition period. Of course there are going to be numerous challenges when every position in a government is replaced within a very short amount of time. Even if a complete purge is planned instead of a compromise, slowing down the downsizing can have long ranging effects. When fighting battles of ideology, it is important to realize that less abstract factors such as experience often become very important attributes. Moving from practicality to idealism, Julian Barnes' advocacy of a cyclical view of history argues against the punishment of Stoyo Petkanov. History is basically a series of vacillations from one extreme to the other: "Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Fascism, Anti-Fascism, Communism, Anti-Communism." (p. 42) Another example occurs when Peter Solinsky ponders over the thought of using his political influence in order to attain an upscale place of residence (p. 128), one of the exact charges he had brought against Stoyo Petkanov. Acceptance of this cyclical perspective will lead to actions that try to make the extremes less extreme, as truth is seen as more subjective and less absolute. Since history is seen as the history of opposing ideas, the center of these dialectical disputes would be the spot closest to truth. Therefore, attempts at repressing the communist element in society will inadvertently strengthen it. The traitors of today will become the martyrs of tomorrow. It is political arrogance that causes humans to presume their theory superior to all others, making compromise impossible, although it would be the best solution for all. Thus, "moral trials" may seem like a good prospect in the present, but historically they will only lead to a greater backlash. It is this blind arrogance that allows humans to reach the absurd conclusion that injustice is justified by the justness of their cause. By definition, no just cause could reach its end by use of unjust means. In The Porcupine, the democratic representatives used all sorts of undemocratic mechanisms to convince themselves that Mr. Petkanov was a diabolical tyrant. As reported by Petkanov himself, "I was illegally arrested, illegally imprisoned, illegally interrogated and am now before a court which is illegally constituted." (p. 34) As for the trial itself, the judge allowed the prosecution to present new evidence in mid-trial; new charges could be added as well. The atmosphere mixed with media and vengeance to form an impenetrable wall, which kept fairness and impartiality in the periphery, a shame to any so-called democracy. However, this trial was far more desired than the punishment many of the ex-president's associates received. Specifically, comrades Ceausescu, Nicolae, and Elena where all murdered execution style without even a show trial, which is exactly what Stoyo's trial was, a show. As the trial progressed beyond its initial stages, it seemed that not only would the charges of deception, abuse of authority, and mismanagement not be enough for the mob masses, it would be difficult to determine quilt to even these minimal accusations. Therefore, prosecutor Peter Solinsky added the charge of murder mid way through the trial. The victim was Anna Petkanov, Stoyo's daughter. Supposedly, the government had been working on a drug that would cause cardiac arrest. Anna, who had been criticized for her subtle anti-socialism, died of a heart attack. Without any conclusive evidence, it was unanimously agreed that Stoyo had killed his own daughter with this mysterious heart attack drug. The sentence emerged as thirty years of internal exile, officially for murder, unofficially for communist affiliation. If this new democracy were the ideal it claimed to be, why would it be involved in such undemocratic tactics? Those in favor of punishing political dissidents of the old regime have many compelling, although naïve and fallacious, arguments. First, reconciliation is seen as a necessity in order to progress. Trials and public campaigns are used to admit and accept ones past, and allow the citizenry to rise above it. The problem with this reconciliation is that it is a false reconciliation, it is mere propaganda with no questions asked. A true reconciliation would resurface both the good and bad aspects of the prior regime. Secondly, there is the idea that all dangerous elements must be purged so as to prevent their future uprising. This argument does not account for the cyclical nature of history. Purging can only result in giving the rebellious something new to seek, creating martyrs, and causing a greater resurgence in the future. Lastly, there is the opinion that any compromise with the old regime will only cause unrest and factioning. While this is the last situation wanted in a fledgling democracy, harmony is needed. This again, forgets to take account of the cyclical view of history. Advocates of harmonious democracy imagine that democracy is the absolute end of political evolution, even though democracy itself was born from the combination of many previously incongruent ideas. None of the arguments used in favor of punishing the previous government stand up under scrutiny. "You did not destroy the Pyramids in retrospect guilt at the suffering of the Egyptian slaves." (p. 44) Destruction of the Pyramids would only render that suffering to have been in vain. Likewise with communism, it is unnecessary and impractical to attempt to abolish every aspect of communism, both positive and negative. In this fictional story, the previous governmental hierarchy was successful in feeding the masses; something the newer party had trouble with. Theoretically, any assistance and compromise between the two would have improved this situation. Besides, suppression of the communists will only lead to a stronger emergence the next time they show their head, if one follows a cyclical view of history. The most important argument against ideological punishment is that right doesn't make wrong right. A right cause will never require wrong measures to attain its end. Even if the wrongs are masqueraded as right. As Punishment of political dissidents will never be helpful in the long run for consolidation of democracy. Works Cited Barnes, Julian. The Porcupine. New York: Vintage Books, 1993 |