30 December 2011
The continuing foreign media criticism of Viktor Orbán and his government shows no sign of abating. This week alone, the Hungarian government has been criticised for introducing legislation which ‘critics’ argue will reduce the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank. It has been accused of silencing a popular radio station. Its attempts to redefine election boundaries are described as a blatant attempt to hang on to power.
This is not the first time that the international media – particularly influential UK and US organisations – have rounded on Hungary. Indeed, in some cases, it reflects the opinions of the EU, the IMF and the US State Department.
Yet what is Hungary’s crime and is the media being objective in its criticism? Indeed, is the media blurring the line between objectivity and opinion?
From what I can gather, Hungary is being accused of drifting towards some form of unstated authoritarianism. It is also being accused of being economically unorthodox. The Prime Minister is likened to Vladimir Putin and his country likened to Belarus.
Such caricature reporting is both inaccurate and lazy. Hungary, good or bad, is not Belarus. Viktor Orbán is not Putin and where is the authoritarian behaviour?
The facts, as best as we can judge them, suggests a different picture. The ruling party has a massive majority in parliament. It should not be forgotten that only one or two opposition MPs sitting in parliament actually won a ballot! The reasons for such an election victory – which brings with it the right to amend the constitution as well as the right to introduce new laws – are straightforward, namely the Hungarian people voted to punish a Socialist-Liberal Alliance which had bankrupted the nation, presided over unheard of levels of corruption and was led largely by a Prime Minister who by his own admission had lied day and night to the people and used a bag of tricks to steal an election. It is the Hungarian people who clamoured for change and did so democratically.
Just consider what the international media has not reported or analysed in any depth on recently in Hungary, including:
• The opinions of those who support government policy and why they do so
• Why are there no public demonstrations outside Budapest?
• Bi-election victories for Fidesz
• The numbers of former Socialist and Liberal Ministers and State officials arrested on corruption charges
• The former prime minister under investigation for corruption
• The on-going investigation and convictions of police officials involved in the 2006 attacks on innocent citizens
• The reasons why the government wishes to introduce a flat tax
• The reasons why the government might not fully support the new euro compact
• The reasons why the Head of the Hungarian Central Bank used off-shore tax accounts
• The reasons why the constitution needed to be changed
• Why the criticisms of the media law had gone away
This is a fairly long list of important matters to Hungarians that foreign journalists are seemingly ignoring or under-reporting. If they think that only the opinion of the so-called ‘chattering classes’ in Budapest is worthy of reporting they are also out of touch. Much of the above actually explains why Fidesz acts in the way it does and remains very popular.
The really interesting question is why this perceived imbalance of reporting is allowed to happen and who does it benefit?