17 January 2012
The EU has convinced itself that Hungary’s government is taking the country on an anti-democratic path. Ever since the furore over the Hungary’s new media law in January 2011, which conveniently for the government’s critics, blew up as Hungary was to assume the Presidency of the EU, Budapest politics have hardly been out of the news. The adoption of a new constitution has been badly received and associated laws – particularly in relation to the management of the Hungarian Central Bank – have also generated an avalanche of protest.
Both the European Commission and the liberal-left in the European Parliament have been in the vanguard of vocal protest but member states less so. Indeed, so acute is this so-called crisis that Hungary’s application for an IMF loan has been stymied until such times as this matter is sorted out. In short, the EU claims that its actions are clearly intended to uphold democracy.
In terms of defending democracy, however, this case has clearly established two competing camps and possibly two views of democracy and accountability. For the average Hungarian, the debate is not merely academic but strikes at the heart of what they believe democracy to be.
The EU view of democracy – the much-vaunted EU ethos – is deeply rooted in post 1945 politics. The centrality of the Franco-German relationship is ever-present and in economic terms, orthodoxy rules. Solidarity and progress are founding tenets of the community, although at times it is difficult to know exactly what this means. Consensus and compromise are also high on the list of EU virtues, in recognition perhaps of Europe’s fractious nature. All of these are ‘benignly’ monitored by a vigilant Commission, ever alert to infringements by individual member states and in more recent times, joined by a vocal European Parliament. The crowning achievements of this process is commonly taken to be the three pillars of ever closer union, namely the single market and Schengen, the single currency and enlargement.
One should not easily discount such achievements – they are considerable. However, one should not easily discount the problems of democratic accountability that has accompanied these achievements and which might end up rupturing democracy in Europe.
Every recent public referendum on ever closer union has been rejected by the people of Europe. In such cases, the rules are either changed or new votes are held until the ‘right’ answer is achieved. The attempt by a recent Greek prime minister to hold a referendum on the conditions of a financial bailout for his country cost him his job. One could be forgiven for thinking that democracy has been trampled on so often that it lacks the value it used to have. What is democracy if it is not practiced?
Europe’s economic collapse has further alerted commentators to clear signs of democracy been sidelined in the EU. The removal of democratically-elected prime ministers in Greece and Italy is bad enough but the lack of transparency and political stitch-ups associated with new economic strategies that has taken the EU further along the lane of ‘more Europe’ has public opinion or consultation conspicuous in its absence. Only the UK has politically stepped out but others will certainly follow in due course – particularly when they consult their electorates.
Hungary is one such country that has democratic issues. After all, the EU says so. Yet what exactly are these issues and how does the situation look from Budapest?
If anything, one could argue that Hungary is a perfect example of a functioning democracy. The most recent election in 2010 was both fair and decisive – something which might not be said about the previous two. The winning party had such a significant majority in part because it promised the people justice – in short, to eradicate the lingering vestiges of fifty years of communism – but also to ensure that the destructive economic and social policies and rampant corruption of the previous Socialist-Liberal coalition could not be repeated. A government was not only justice but accountability – witnessed by the number of former politicians and civil servants under police investigation, including the former prime minister. The political opposition in Hungary has done nothing constructive to oppose the creation of a new political, economic and social order in parliament and persists in gesture politics. Their refusal to participate in the constitutional consultation process and the debates in parliament was a deliberate snub to democracy and effectively disenfranchises the few people who actively voted for them.
Democratically healthy also are the street protests and the commentary of the Hungarian media – one can and often does protest. However, external commentators must surely ask themselves why such popular manifestations are not seen in any other Hungarian city. Is this perhaps because the protests have no resonance amongst the great bulk of the population and actual voters? The great fuss over the independence of the central bank is also questioned by Hungarians – what kind of democracy is actually under threat? The Hungarian Central Bank is run by an individual who was appointed by the previous Socialist prime minister – a close relationship by some accounts. Some say his predecessor was ousted. This banker was paid over twice as much as his US counterpart, Paul Bernanke. This banker didn’t pay taxes in his own country but preferred an offshore account. Professionally, he presided over a massive ballooning of Hungarian national debt, the falsification of national financial data and the need for an IMF emergency loan. Is it any wonder that his impartiality is questioned? Is it any wonder why Hungarians are curious why his tenure is so important to the EU and the IMF?
Why is the EU unable to see and respect Hungarian democracy in this case? Why did the EU fail to intervene in 2006 and hold the then prime minister accountable for having lied to his people day and night and having destroyed the economy with his deception and fraud? Did the then Commissioner responsible for economic affairs deliberately ignore this? Did no official in Brussels feel that the police brutality against public demonstrations warranted some sort of political intervention?
The sad truth is that the EU’s role in protecting democracy in Hungary has been stained by inaction in the recent past and by the obvious application of double standards. Is it little wonder that the Hungarian people are equating the EU with the old Soviet Union?