10 April 2013
For the past two years, Hungary’s government, prime minister and governing party have been the subject of largely unprecedented attacks by both internal and external critics. These critics have assailed everything from the size of their parliamentary majority, their drafting of a new constitution, freedom of the press and the judiciary and their ‘unorthodox’ economic policy.
Who are these critics? Foremost among them have been the defeated political opponents of the 2010 election, primarily the Hungarian Socialists and Liberals. The Hungarian people threw out Liberalism as a meaningful political statement in modern Hungary. Similarly, the Hungarian people savaged socialism and with it the main culprits who brought Hungary to its knees through massive financial mismanagement and corruption. Finally, the Hungarian people rejected the ‘technocratic’ balm of unelected politicians and their sleight of hand with IMF loans, which the then Hungarian Prime Minister and Financial Minister claimed was a necessary condition of managing the global financial collapse of 2008.*
Today, amongst the ranks of critics must be added certain elements of the EU, including the European Commission, spearheaded by Commissioner Reding and the Left/Liberal bloc in Parliament, vocally orchestrated by former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and perennial protester, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.
What all these critics have in common is a fear that their concept of Europe – which must override the interests of Hungary – is being slowly undermined and that Hungary is atypical of that process.
The European Union has long since become both dysfunctional and anti-democratic and with a difficulty in recognising the concept of genuine popular mandate. Large electoral victories such as Fidesz’ in 2010 were not to be congratulated as a clear statement of a well-functioning democracy but rather a danger to democracy. No congratulations were offered to the Hungarian people by the EU for following democratic processes in removing a government from office that clearly, by its own admission, stole and election. Instead, the EU willingly let itself be used by the Left/Liberal elite in Budapest as a cheerleader for those who wished to undermine an elected government and force it into making policy that clearly had not been chosen by the people. The ‘Orwellian’ nature of EU diktat is staggering.
The attacks broadened to include the development of a new Hungarian constitution and the introduction of new economic and fiscal policies. Every attempt has been made to force Hungary into accepting EU-backed economic and fiscal orthodoxy but with ever lessening success as this has taken place against the backdrop of economic stagnation and downright failed policy in the Eurozone. Ask the people of Cyprus what price orthodoxy.
Criticism of the constitution has gone the same way and people in Hungary sour of the party-political partisanship of the Liberal-Left in the European Parliament, which passes off as informed legal criticism. How bizarre is it also that the negative opinion of a US legal scholar on Hungary’s constitution – and who is also very politically opinionated – is fronted up at the Helsinki Committee as indicative of objective concern for democracy in Hungary. Even more bizarre is European Commissioner Reding’s threatening behaviour to Hungary, citing the ‘nuclear weapon’ of the suspension of voting rights if it does not behave regarding the re-framing of the constitution to her satisfaction. Yes, that’s right, she is an unelected civil servant who is there to serve the Member States! How would the United states react to a Hungarian scholar criticising the American constitution before Amnesty International or an EU Commissioner telling the UK Parliament that they must pass legislation according to EU will or face the consequences?
If you want to note something in common about all these critics is their poor understanding and disdain for democracy – from the defeated politicians in Budapest to the who’s who of nobodies in the European Parliament – and their attempt to deny ordinary Hungarians their right to elect their own government and yes, take the consequences if it goes wrong and change it next time round. These critics have retreated from democracy as generally understood.
Hungary’s challenge today is not only a question about Budapest politics but actually is part of a wider debate on what 21st century politics might mean to future generations and especially the meaning of democracy. The European dream is a failed utopia. Global governance is a charade and the notion that liberalism and progress move inexorably onwards is likewise a fallacy.
Fidesz will most likely win the next election in 2014 not on propaganda but on its policies because they simply resonate with more people. The external interference and cheap threats will not bring back those politicians and policies, which have had their day.
* See Stefan Wagstyl, “Chart of the week: the Hungarian forint’s long fall from grace” FT, March 10, 2013 where he states that Hungary’s deficit-fuelled debt created a financial crisis of its own in 2007-8, well before the global financial crisis in 2008. This does somewhat question the Gordon Bajnai myth that he was a prudent financial manager.