29 MARCH 2011
As the enquiry continues into the policing of the riots in Budapest in September – October 2006, it would appear that the role of the then Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, is once again under scrutiny. The Hungarian Socialist party condemn the enquiry as an exercise in retrospective political revenge, whilst the Government and the ruling Fidesz Party see it as an attempt to establish a clear line of responsibility for the consequences of the police action at the time.
Few impartial observers would disagree with the view that in September – October 2006, the Budapest Police and their regional reinforcements totally mishandled the policing of a number of major events taking place simultaneously in Budapest.
The evidence clearly demonstrates operational and tactical confusion at best and total unprofessionalism at worst, with serious breaches of discipline and procedure compounding tactical errors in command and control. Indeed, the reported use of unauthorised weaponry, never mind the unprovoked thuggery, seemed to suggest that the Police Force was institutionally dysfunctional and some elements out of control.
In and by itself, this is a sad indictment of the Budapest Police. It should not be forgotten that many officers were placed under severe strain and some might have feared for their lives. However, given the vast sums of EU taxpayers money spent on their transformation – for example the European Commission Technical Assistance Programme, Phare – and the extensive bilateral training programmes sponsored by many EU Police Forces, one is forgiven for asking what went wrong!
The parliamentary enquiry has focused by and large on tactical issues and these are by no means unimportant. However, with the questioning now focusing on the role of the then Prime Minister, new dimensions of the issue will be explored. Indeed, the examination of the strategic policing policy in both Hungary and Budapest will come under scrutiny.
From the evidence presented to the enquiry, it would appear that the then Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány gave strategic advice to the head of the national police. In doing so, he clearly placed himself in the operational chain of command and as such should be held accountable. Of course this begs the question as to why the Prime Minister felt he had to do so. The recent student-led demonstrations in London, which resulted in mass demonstrations and rioting and at one point, threatened the security of the heir to the British throne as he travelled through London, did not involve Prime Minister Cameron. It is generally expected that the Police have adequate planning and preparation to handle such problems and which certainly do not require the political decision-making of a Prime Minister.
How might we then account for the direct involvement of the then Prime Minister Gyurcsány during the September demonstrations? One possibl e reason is that he received an operational threat assessment which was so grave in its conclusion that he feared a widespread breakdown of law and order. If that was the case, we need to know precisely what Prime Minister Gyurcsány was told and by whom. Another possible explanation was that the Prime Minister, caught in a spiral of public dissent and anger due to his admission that he had lied day and night to the Hungarian people in order to win the recent election, might have been in a fearful state of mind and panicked sufficiently that he wanted to emphasise through his ‘strategic vision’ and orders that any public disorder was not local but linked to a wider attempt to seize political power. If this is the case, then Gyurcsány politically and operationally miscalculated and his response, in part, helped trigger the nature of the police response.
Whatever the reason, the poor political judgement shown by Gyurcsány and his interference into the complex operational aspects of the counter-demonstration strategy was an unmitigated disaster and damaging to the public and international image of the Hungarian Police. It will take many years for trust to return, if ever.