23 March 2016
As the dust and debris settles after the latest terror outrage in Brussels, it is inevitable that a sustained period of soul-searching will break out in Europe. Why has it come to this? Why should Europe suffer such carnage? There is no doubt that these are dark days for Europe.
It is also inevitable that many people will link the current spate of terrorism with the migration policies of both the EU and many of its members. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been at the forefront of this recent debate on migration and set himself against his German counterpart, Angela Merkel and the hierarchy of the European Union.
Some might question whether such issues should be linked at all but there can be no escaping the mood which is prevalent across Europe and which would appear to be sustaining and empowering right wing political and anti-migration groups across the continent.
Yet to view this recent nexus of migration and terrorism in isolation would be to miss a larger point, which Orbán raised in his Tusnádfürdő speech, namely the cultural future of Europe. Commentators seized on Orbán’s desire to construct Hungary’s future on an illiberal state model as a demonstration of his anti-democratic tendencies. What they failed to do, due to a lack of sustained analysis and engagement with the wider context of illiberalism in the context used by philosopher Isaiah Berlin, was to pick up on a challenge to the existing liberal order.
Indeed, for the informed observer, many of Fidesz’s policies over the last few years has been to put the traditional ideological battles of Hungarian politics to one side and focus on the pillars or social foundations of a post-liberal order which sees value in models of social and cultural cohesion of the past.
In placing emphasis on the family, on the importance of religion in society and on Catholic Social Teaching models for economic development, Orbán is not merely judging the current political, social and economic norms but trying to replace them with alternatives which resonate with citizens unsure of their place in a globalized world. The treatment of Banks and large international companies – whether this is with regard to mortgage arrangements or Sunday trading – Orbán has struck a chord, which is deeper than mere populism. By emphasizing SMEs within a more sustainable economic model, he is not simply pushing back against multinational companies and their tax avoidance image but realistically sensing that employment policies, which are merely linked to taxation regimes and not people, have no permanency and is economically transient.
When Orbán then addresses the issue of migration, he is not adopting an illiberal line but seeing more clearly than the liberal community, the implications of imposing failed and frankly dangerous policies on unsympathetic states and its citizenry. The events in Cologne stand as a fitting testimony to that perspective.
In his critique of the failure of the liberal democratic form, Orbán in particular is critical of two planks of that form, which are the demise of the nation state and the dilution of religion. In fact, both of these are integral to Fidesz’s worldview and both historically contributed much to the creation of European identity and culture. The EU is a major proponent of the liberal democratic form and does much to dissolve national sovereignty. It also denies that Christendom and most of the cultural traits associated with it had anything to do with Europe as it stands today. Is it any wonder that Hungary’s relations with the EU are often fraught and fractious?
Prime Minister Orbán is, in short, calling for and creating policies to support a concept of ‘Neo-Christendom’. He clearly believes that Europe’s liberal democratic order is under assault and not just from terrorism. He understands that Europe is under assault from the policies which support mass migration, which continues to turn a blind eye to the failure of multiculturalism and which economically continues to support the ever widening gulf in wealth between a global and unaccountable elite and the citizenry of Europe.
Sadly, the political opposition in Hungary is not willing or capable to engage in this debate. The Socialists are unsure what they represent – other than a certain section of the pensioner population – and subsequently are incapable of articulating a counter narrative. Jobbik similarly has no cohesive concept on anything beyond slogans and sound bites. In short, Jobbik seems bereft of ideas. The liberals, like liberals everywhere, are politically invisible but tied to an elite which continues to pursue a model of society which is every bit as doctrinaire and ideological as anything produced by Marx.
Although migration and terror will continue to shape the political debate in Europe, space needs to be created in which the Orbán concept of ‘Neo-Christendom’ can be discussed in terms of society, culture, economics and politics. There can be no guarantee that Orbán is right about Europe and identity but so long as he sees it within a wider context, then the more it needs to be examined. It is just possible that his vision of a different future contain the seeds of European development which looks back to the future for its success.