The politics of consistency

The very existence of Fidesz, let alone its political success, arouse the most extraordinary antipathy where its opponents are concerned - this demands further analysis. For one, it is less than evident that the word “opponents” is the right one; given the Hungarian left’s no-holds-barred methods, “enemies” sounds more accurate. To anyone with a knowledge of politics the Hungarian scene is all but inexplicable, while to Hungarians it has become the norm. Outsiders follow their Hungarian political allies, without taking much trouble to scrutinise Hungarian realities.

This extreme polarisation demands further analysis, all the same. What is it that accounts for Fidesz’s success, for not only did it win a two-thirds majority a year ago, but its support appears to be holding up well to this day? The left’s analysis is, all too often, vapid, unconvincing or contemptuous of the Hungarian voter (or all three). Some of its representatives have been known to describe Hungarians as “servile” (as Ágnes Heller did at a hearing in the European Parliament on 1 March), easily manipulated and inherently “racist” (this being in itself a racist comment, as it implies genetic transmission). The left’s analysis also attributes superhuman powers to the prime minister, Viktor Orbán. These explanations are, not to put too fine a word on it, rubbish and would disgrace a 13 year old. True, they are simple and thus seductive.

A far better set of explanations is to be found in the realm of ideas. Political parties that put forward a clear, coherent and consistent set of principles – not just programmes – offer their followers stability and predictability. This makes it possible for society to chart a way through the complexity of a globalised world. In a word, consistency creates security.

This proposition, of course, goes directly counter to what passes for pragmatism or “politics as management”, the qualities so characteristic of the Hungarian left – indeed, of much of the European left in general. The outcome is a politics that lurches from one expedient to the next. In the Hungarian case, matters were made worse by the far-reaching corruption of the left while in power, which ate away at voter trust in politics as such.

The corruption and the lack of guiding principles, the reliance on vague promises and PR slogans of the “we are in favour of  a better world” type, are in any case correlated and probably connected causally. It is far more likely that a political party will become corrupt if it has no clear set of principles by which its behaviour is to be guided; quite apart from anything else, having such a set of principles can be regarded as an aspect of democratic accountability.

Fidesz has enunciated a very clear set of principles and has pursued them in power, much to the frustration and anger of the Hungarian left, which in consequence is bereft of any response other than distortions, lies, reliance on slogans and a trust in the credulousness of their Western counterparts and the Western media (the latter appear completely ready to accept as Gospel what their left-wing Hungarian interlocutors tell them).

The dependence of the Hungarian left on the West and its corresponding lack of rootedness in Hungarian society constitute a separate topic, but the determination of Fidesz to pursue its present course can only enhance this lack of autonomy, which means that its chances of constructing a set of principles by means of which they might challenge Fidesz diminish by the day.

Sch. Gy

PS. The remarkable success of the Scottish National Party in gaining an overall majority in the Scottish Parliamentary elections on the 5 May could well be regarded as a similar phenomenon – voters like political consistency.