Hungarian Politics

[Tamas]

Separately I think Orban may have solved the problem of how to deal with past associations with Putin: pitch yourself as the peace candidate v war-mongers. So there were anti-war, but pro-Ukrainian protests which Orban's press and party framed as "pro-war" because they want Hungary to get more involved. It'll be interesting to see if that gets picked up elsewhere.

Yes. With tremendous media support to create this narrative, but the morally despicable stance of "choosing between cheap heating/fuel or having our sons killed in a war" managed to avoid the trap posed by Putin's war for Orban.

This relates to the very bad picture Orban's career paints of Hungarian society I was thinking about: although as the years of Orban's autocracy keep going this will be less and less true, but I think it has society which shaped Orban and not the other way around.

That's because Orban has no morals or true political views (or rather, if he does, nobody can tell which those are). He started out as a young liberal - Fidesz struggled to remain relevant. He then became a sort of classical conservative. This was liked much better and landed him the government. The far-right continued to be a rising challenge though, so he morphed himself into their image, an image which has been his most successful.

[Sheilbh]

That's because Orban has no morals or true political views (or rather, if he does, nobody can tell which those are). He started out as a young liberal - Fidesz struggled to remain relevant. He then became a sort of classical conservative. This was liked much better and landed him the government. The far-right continued to be a rising challenge though, so he morphed himself into their image, an image which has been his most successful.

To be slighty provocative and play devil's advocate here - this is mentioned in The Light That Failed - is there an argument that he basically hasn't changed? That Orban was a classical liberal, within the European context slightly centre-right, in 1990 - when Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, Giulio Andreotti and Pope John Paul II were the leading lights of the European centre-right.

That what's happened since is not so much a shift in Orban or Hungary but a transformation of Western Europe especially on issues such as gay rights/family, immigration, culture and secularisation that has also swept along the centre right. One of the ideas they touch on in that book is that possibly part of the "issue" with Hungary - but also Poland and other CEE countries - is the Europe they yearned to join 1990 doesn't exist anymore and that's one of the faultlines. That that Europe (the Western alternative during the Cold War) is what those countries still broadly support, not the Western Europe that's emerged since?

It's a bit like, on the other side, someone who was a mainstream social democrat in 1990 in most of Europe would now probably be on the fringes of the democratic left.

[Tamas]

I know what you mean but it is not true in Orban's case. It would take a long post, but closely following Hungarian politics from the inside (my first election was 1998's, Orban's first foray from mocking Christian Democrats in Parliament in the style of "kneel for prayer, monks!" to becoming a devout conservative in a span of 4 years), it is clear that in his case this was an amoral shapeshifting to try and find the recipe that works.

Most importantly to disprove your theory - classical liberalism was never strong or significant in Hungary. Orban realised that somewhere between 1994 and 1998.

[Admiral Yi]

That's a bit of a stretch, innit Shelf?  A classical liberal with 1990's attitudes towards gays would not have Orban's disregard for media freedom, or immigration, or the vast international Jewish conspiracy.

Hungary to me fits in the same category as Turkey and Poland (and maybe Serbia).  Even in the absence of rigging the system, a majority would probably vote for authoritarian leaders.  The problem is not the current leaders and their tricks, its the people of these countries.  You can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

[Sheilbh]

That's a bit of a stretch, innit Shelf?  A classical liberal with 1990's attitudes towards gays would not have Orban's disregard for media freedom, or immigration, or the vast international Jewish conspiracy.

Maybe - I take Tamas' point that it doesn't work for Orban. And I think the way he's built control is different (I also think it's more complete than anywhere else).

I think we underestimate how authoritarian Cold War Western Europe was. But in 1990 Kurt Waldheim was President of Austria. Germany had liberalised especially with Brandt, but Schmidt and Kohl were not exactly hippies. Italy was even more constrained. The UK had Maggie. And it was an era when there weren't multiple news sources (and I think in some countries state media was pretty pro-government though I think that varied a lot) - the media environment was quite narrow, so also the point when Berlusconi, Murdoch etc were probably at the peak of their powers as media moguls (although that might just be an age thing). In addition, obviously, the UK has a very majoritarian system of government. I think in 1990 much of Europe was still pretending that they weren't immigration societies, they just had temporary "guests" as workers or as refugees.

Europe was a more narrow, authoritarian, traditionalist, Christian, conservative (and socialist) society but one that was recognisable to CEE countries from their pre-Soviet history. There was a degree of continuity there. Joining Europe was less of a change and more of a return to the current they were on before their history was interrupted by the war. I think in the gap between 1990 and joining the EU, Western Europe transformed itself from that mid-century Cold War European state to something far more open (for now).

[The Larch]

It surprises me that you of all people use a pro-Brexit argument (the mythical German car-makers as the ultimate decision makers in the EU). 

It wasn't true for Brexit - but I don't think it's entirely untrue everywhere. Certainly not with the approach of Germany's governments under Merkel to Hungary, or China for that matter.

From everything I've read Germany under Merkel was very reluctant to come down on Orban for many years and even within the EPP it was the CDU/CSU (and especially the CSU) that didn't want to punish Fidesz. The reporting certainly here in the Guardian and elsewhere basically called out Merkel as Orban's protector within the EU. It feels like that is at least partly driven by economic considerations as well as a desire not to rock the boat/push things into a confrontation when they can be left to drift. I think - as with tolerance for autocracy within the EU and on Russia and China policy - the new Germany government will be far, far better.

That's true and I think that it's something that, when Merkel's legacy is evaluated with hindsight will bring it down a few pegs. In any case, Merkel is not there anymore to cover up for Orban or Fidesz, and in such a touchy topic as the relations with Russia maybe not even the other Visegrad countries that would normally veto any resolution against Hungary would come up in its defence as usual, so maybe Hungary could deal with severe consequences should it go further in its blocking of pro-Ukraine initiatives.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe - I take Tamas' point that it doesn't work for Orban. And I think the way he's built control is different (I also think it's more complete than anywhere else).

I think we underestimate how authoritarian Cold War Western Europe was. But in 1990 Kurt Waldheim was President of Austria. Germany had liberalised especially with Brandt, but Schmidt and Kohl were not exactly hippies. Italy was even more constrained. The UK had Maggie. And it was an era when there weren't multiple news sources (and I think in some countries state media was pretty pro-government though I think that varied a lot) - the media environment was quite narrow, so also the point when Berlusconi, Murdoch etc were probably at the peak of their powers as media moguls (although that might just be an age thing). In addition, obviously, the UK has a very majoritarian system of government. I think in 1990 much of Europe was still pretending that they weren't immigration societies, they just had temporary "guests" as workers or as refugees.

Europe was a more narrow, authoritarian, traditionalist, Christian, conservative (and socialist) society but one that was recognisable to CEE countries from their pre-Soviet history. There was a degree of continuity there. Joining Europe was less of a change and more of a return to the current they were on before their history was interrupted by the war. I think in the gap between 1990 and joining the EU, Western Europe transformed itself from that mid-century Cold War European state to something far more open (for now).

I think you're conflating stodgy, conservative, and old fashioned with authoritarian.  Waldheim was president of Austria, but that was after his huggy kumbaya tenure at the UN.  Media (especially TV) may have been narrow at that time, but it was certainly not suppressed.

[Jacob]

I think you're conflating stodgy, conservative, and old fashioned with authoritarian.  Waldheim was president of Austria, but that was after his huggy kumbaya tenure at the UN.  Media (especially TV) may have been narrow at that time, but it was certainly not suppressed.

Was Waldheim's "huggy kumbaya tenure at the UN" pro-immigration and in favour of multi-culturalism and in favour of LGTBQ+ rights? Because I think that's what Sheilbh is referring to.

[Jacob]

As for Hungary, the main thing I wonder about is the degree to which they'll be able to and interested in undermining support for Ukraine and the united front against Russia.

[Admiral Yi]

Was Waldheim's "huggy kumbaya tenure at the UN" pro-immigration and in favour of multi-culturalism and in favour of LGTBQ+ rights? Because I think that's what Sheilbh is referring to.

Well no, he used Waldheim as an example of authoritarianism.

[Jacob]

Was Waldheim's "huggy kumbaya tenure at the UN" pro-immigration and in favour of multi-culturalism and in favour of LGTBQ+ rights? Because I think that's what Sheilbh is referring to.

Well no, he used Waldheim as an example of authoritarianism.

Which he expands a bit later in the paragraph to "more narrow, authoritarian, traditionalist, Christian, conservative (and socialist) society".

What do you think the point Sheilbh is making is?

[Sheilbh]

Bad phrasing on my part - I didn't mean to limit it to that. And you're right - but Waldheim also became president after the revelations about his past came out and prompted a fairly nasty campaign in Austria even if he didn't explicitly talk about Soros. This documentary is really good (on Amazon Prime in the UK so maybe in the US too ) - trailer gives a sense and it's worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oGlG0lu50c

[Admiral Yi]

What do you think the point Sheilbh is making is?

I thought he was trying to say that the EU was authoritarian in the 90s and Orban the classical liberal was comfortable with that and it is the EU that has evolved away from authoritarianism whereas Orban has stayed the same.

[Jacob]

I thought he was trying to say that the EU was authoritarian in the 90s and Orban the classical liberal was comfortable with that and it is the EU that has evolved away from authoritarianism whereas Orban has stayed the same.

I see. We have almost the same interpretation, except I include "socially conservative and ethnically exclusive" as part of what Europe was and isn't anymore, which Orban, his constituency, and those like him are reacting to.

[Admiral Yi]

I see. We have almost the same interpretation, except I include "socially conservative and ethnically exclusive" as part of what Europe was and isn't anymore, which Orban, his constituency, and those like him are reacting to.

I agreed with Shelf that attitudes about gays have changed dramatically in that time.  I didn't take exception to that, just the description of Europe as authoritarian.  Maggie Thatcher wasn't authoritarian.  Neither was Kohl.

Unless you're using a definition of authoritarian which is so watered down as to be meaningless, and thus has no relevance to a discussion about Orban.