A LETTER TO FIDESZ

6 January 2012

I probably don’t need to tell you that the media – both domestic and foreign – are having a great time at your expense.  I also don’t need to tell you that much of it is ill-informed, lacking in objectivity and imbalanced.  The attacks on your Prime Minister are both spiteful and malicious.

Despite this, you seem unable to effectively counter this tirade against you.  Frankly, that’s stupid as it won’t go away.

Until the elections in 2010, Fidesz seemed to be both well-informed and constantly a step ahead of the opposition.  You seemed to anticipate the political context and structure your political attacks accordingly.  In short, you seemed to know what you were doing – what to say and when not and crucially, how to say it.

Today, I see a communications policy which is a pale shadow of what had gone before.  You no longer control the agenda.  Indeed, you do not know what the message should be and how to get it across.

If you really are interested in saving your policies, never mind your majority, then start to think clever.

First, you should identify what constituted your success from 2004 until 2010 and simply build upon it.  Frankly, this means completely revamping your communications concept, operations and staff to reflect what worked well for you in the past.

Second, identify what your message is – strip away the pointless propaganda and base it on the facts.  If you really are engaging in counter-revolution, then lets start to hear more about what needs sorting and why.  A key element of this process is to move away from rebuttal communications to strategic messaging.  If the domestic or international media is biased, then show it with concrete examples, not hang-wringing indignation.

Third, set the agenda, don’t respond to it.  Why am I not hearing more about your rationale for a new constitution or why you have an issue with the media?  Why are you consistently afraid to bombard the international media, such as The Economist or The Financial Times, Der Spiegel or the New York Times about your concerns over the political neutrality of the Head of the Central Bank, or his excessive salary or his tax arrangements?  If changing the law on the make up of the central bank is so important, then tell us why, don’t infer – this only dilutes the message.

Fourth, hire better people.  It is evident to me that too many appointments are filled by second-rate staffers.  Lifting your media experts from local think tanks will not get you the professionalism or knowledge you need in order to deal with a hostile media.  Similarly, employing British spin-doctors with absolutely no local knowledge is a waste of time and money.  Loyalty to party hacks and old pals is one thing, losing your majority is another!

Finally, why don’t you begin this communications revolution with a comprehensive analysis of what has been said against you of late and build up a detailed picture of how the media has misrepresented your message or knowingly falsified information.  Once you have it, publish it and be damned.  You have nothing to lose!