6 January 2012
As an avid reader of the Financial Times (FT), I was staggered by the paper’s coverage of Hungarian affairs this week. In short, it seemed like a systematic assault on the policies of the Hungarian Government and a smear campaign against the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.
In the opinion of the FT, Hungary is becoming an undemocratic state under a populist right-wing party, with the introduction of an avalanche of laws which are threatening democracy and against EU law. To make matters worse, these laws are threatening Hungary’s basic economic stability and by implication, threatening foreign investment.
Sadly, when examined against the facts, it appears that the FT is indulging in caricature journalism, with poor and superficial judgement replacing informed reporting. There is virtually no attempt at balance in their coverage.
This affair, I believe, has two important consequences.
First, it is possible to argue that the paper is judging Hungary on opinion and not fact. Just look at the emphasis on the FT’s coverage between the opinion of ‘critics’ and the explanation of the government on most of the issues being raised. The emphasis is clearly on the side of government critics. I was struck by how often the FT coverage noted that new laws ‘have the potential’ to be misused and therefore by definition, are bad. However, was the FT unable to find any sources to give a counter-opinion on why new laws might be good? After all, any government sitting with a parliamentary majority like Fidesz’s must have some supporters? Is it possible that the FT is deliberately suppressing these voices?
Second, the impression is given that this situation is such a threat to democracy that either all new laws and the new constitution must be altered or consigned to the dustbin or the government must go. Am I the only person who feels this is a slippery slope heading towards the undemocratic removal of a democratic government?
The current Hungarian government was fairly elected and fairly well represents Hungarian opinion. The political opposition has been unable to accept this decision and has played its part in deliberately exaggerating the domestic situation in Hungary as an assault on democracy. Sadly, the EU and its various institutions have played their part in sustaining this lie. The FT has become a cheerleader.
In case it hasn’t already registered with the FT, the weakening of democracy in Europe started in Budapest in 2006 under a Socialist-Liberal coalition. The FT’s coverage then of how a Hungarian Prime Minister admitted falsifying government statistics and lying on the economy brought little or no coverage. The fact that a former Hungarian Prime Minister could admit to lying to his people day and night and stealing an election was barely mentioned in passing by the FT. Where were the in depth analysis of how this was undermining the concept of European democracy. How loud were the condemnations from the EU and the FT when innocent protestors on the streets of Budapest were savagely beaten and shot at with plastic bullets by the Hungarian Police? Did the FT not think to ask themselves why the recent protests in Budapest – under what they say is an authoritarian government – was allowed to happen and with no police brutality? Really, is the FT playing fair or does it have an agenda?
In fact if we ask ourselves honestly where the font of anti-democracy lies today, might it not reside in Brussels and the EU? Both Greece and Italy have unelected prime ministers. Indeed, one of them was removed because he had the temerity to suggest his people have a referendum. Belgium has had no government for nearly two years and no pressure was exerted. Why has the FT not pursued this very important development? What form of democracy is the EU importing today? Please tell me that the average voter across the EU has any confidence in its management of economic matters – I don’t think so. Arguably what we are seeing in Europe today are the early signs of a fundamental rethink on the whole concept of democracy and neo-liberal views of the world which have so spectacularly failed and which might be replaced by more representative forms of government – populist or otherwise.
The FT’s coverage of Hungarian affairs of late has been unbalanced and even vindictive. It has not brought any clarity to the situation in Budapest through its reporting but has merely become a cheerleader for a baying crowd of political losers who cannot abide the fact that the people have spoken and passed a negative judgement on their past behaviour. How does this do justice to democracy in Hungary.