31 January 2012
Slowly but surely, people are beginning to question why the EU vilified Hungary in the way it did recently. Between the accusations of the Commission and the vitriol of some members of the European Parliament, the European public – if such a thing exists – were led to believe that democracy itself was under threat in Hungary. Large segments of Europe’s media were only too happy to sustain this belief.
Yet for all the talk of the ‘putinisation’ of the country through a new constitution, the curbing of the freedom of the press and the emasculation of the Hungarian Central Bank, the reality is strikingly different and less threatening. The country is as free as it has been since 1989, the new constitution has more than enough checks and balances for any working democracy and the media continues to berate the government for all the alleged failures of political and economic mismanagement. Not bad for a country likened to Belarus. What exactly is the problem then?
The real problem for the EU is the scale of Fidesz’s political victory and the ideology which gave rise to it for it clearly demonstrated a social and political move away from the EU’s ‘progressive’ and liberal modus vivendi. In short, Viktor Orbán’s policies were not orthodox, progressive or consensual. Hungary had the temerity to be different!
For many years now, the EU’s default setting has been to see itself as a unique political, economic and social construct, emphasising liberal orthodoxy and political correctness – inclusiveness and solidarity were paramount. However, in order to achieve this state of affairs, Europe’s elite have deliberately undermined participative democracy – Europe’s public were not to be consulted on this project and if they were, no opposition could be countenanced. Referendum after referendum across Europe highlighted this cleavage between popular will and elitist visions – with the citizens saying enough integration and the elite saying ever closer union. Little wonder that a democratic deficit built up in Europe but those who dared criticise the EU were dismissed as ‘little nationalists’.
The recent financial crisis in the eurozone, sparked off by Greece’s economic collapse, has become the platform for even more Europe as the EU’s political elite search for a panacea to economic mismanagement, stagnation and paralysis.
Into this world was catapulted Hungary and Victor Orbán. For Orbán, the nation was the pinnacle of democracy and accountability. The Christian heritage of Europe was something to be cherished – it reflected Hungary’s and the EU’s cultural history and could not be simply airbrushed from Europe’s past as some in the European Parliament would wish to do. Social policies on issues such as abortion or same sex marriage would reflect society, not necessarily popular cultural modes. Progressive taxation was not a given – other forms could be considered.
Across the board, the policies of Fidesz reflect a different concept of politics, of culture, of economics and society. They also confirm the importance of democracy and the notion that political success and victory in fair elections confers democratic legitimacy.
The EU is doing its best to smother this development, despite the fact that many of the EU’s founding fathers would have recognised the value of what Fidesz stands for. Every tool at the EU’s disposal – including the recruitment of the media – has been used to discredit Hungary’s government. However, deep down, Europe’s elite harbour more than a suspicion that the Hungarian public is not so different from their own and that if asked, would pass similar judgements on them as the Hungarian voter passed on the much-discredited Socialists and Liberals at their last election.
If the EU allows Hungary to succeed, politics in Europe could be different.