The LSE debate, 7 March 2012

A debate was held at the London School of Economics on Wednesday, 7 March, with the title “Hungary at the Crossroads”. The participants were George Szirtes, Victor Sebastian, Zoltán Kovács and myself; it was chaired by Dr. Abby Innes.

These are my speaking notes:

1. What is this debate actually about?  At first sight: a centre-right government with a two-thirds majority is (appears to be?) driving a power grab (a phrase much used in the media), has established a semi-authoritarian system, basic liberties are either in danger or have already been eliminated (take your pick). The new Constitution is a dangerous, anti-democratic document, the new electoral law gerrymanders constituency boundaries to favour Fidesz, the powers of the constitutional court have been massively curtailed, the media law radically restricts media freedom, the data protection ombudsman’s office has been abolished, the independence of the central bank has been undermined, the separation of powers is threatened by the new retirement age of the judges etc., etc.

None of these charges is, in reality, correct, but the situation that we are in is that the details, the ones that disprove charges, no longer matter. We are dealing with a naturalised fact that in Hungary a sort of dictatorship is emerging (comparisons have been made with Belorus and Putin).

The reality is that when the Fidesz government was elected in 2010, it found the country in ruins – the state system was barely working, public administration was in tatters, there was vast indebtedness and unbelievable corruption. Whoever had won the elections would have had to institute far-reaching reforms.

2. The consequence is that Hungary is in the dock; there is a presumption of guilt; what is happening is resembling a Stalinist show trial; that while this is profoundly undemocratic, the offensive is pursued in the name of democracy.

3. Difficult questions arise about European integration. How far can the EU intervene politically in the internal affairs of member states, the distinction between legal procedures and political issue is glossed over; and would this happen with a large member state?

4. A double standard is evident; this gives rise to a sense of injustice, resentment and generates an anti-European, anti-democratic radicalism, because the offensive is lived as unfair, unjust and one’s own voice is ignored

5. The deep cleavage line in HU, the existence of two narratives is ignored, and only one is heard, the majority’s voice is not

6. There seems to be an emerging cleavage line between EU-15 and EU-10, with a realisation that the attack on Hungary could be against any of them (of us). Interestingly Czech and Slovak media have not joined in the offensive. There is anxiety in Romania and Bulgaria that they could be next. Lithuania and Poland have expressed solidarity with Hungary.

7. In the US, two separate lines of argument meet. Leftwing think tanks have successfully persuaded a part of the State Department. Hence the repeated calls for change in Hungary. There are those who dream of a colour revolution against a democratically elected government, there is talk of relaunching RFE broadcasts in Hungarian.

8. Whence the information? Why is only one side of the story acknowledged? how effective are the embassies, the media and NGOs in presenting an objective picture? Not very, it would seem, they ignore the two narratives question.

9. At the same time, the HU left is increasingly losing its roots in Hungary, losing support at home, and dependent on support from abroad. The combined left has same level of support as Jobbik.

Sch. Gy.