Hungarian Politics

[Sheilbh]

Yeah it's something the UK seem to had faced in a much more minor way with Boris Johnson. As The Economist pointed it out at the time, much of the British political system depends on everyone keeping to a gentlemen's agreement of not messing it up, same way the EU works, really. So when somebody comes around who could not care less about what is expected of them, the system can be exploited.

I don't really buy Peter Hennessy's "good chaps" theory of politics (though I'm a big admirer). I think the British political system ultimately depends on the idea that politics works - i.e. that public opinion moves and is responsive to what's happening politically, and, in turn, politicians respond to public opinion.

I think with the EU it's a slightly different issue which is that the EU likes to pretend it's a purely legal order of technocratic decision making and not political. You saw this come up a lot in the Brexit negotiations. In reality, it is an intensely political body and horse-trading is arguably the key currency of EU decision making (see: CAP, for example, but also every ECOFIN meeting or council negotiation on legislation) implemented technocratically. It's less everyone needs to be a "good chap" and more everyone needs a legalist/technocratic cover - in the Brexit example there  were various things it was literally impossible for the EU to do because it's a legal order, until it agreed them because the politics changed and the legal constraint melted away. You see this with hard-core Remainers saying the NIP wasn't actually re-negotiated because the EU didn't amend the text of the NIP so it was exactly as they said - which is true, but they amended all the implementing legislation to change the substance of the NIP, which I'd suggest is how you re-negotiate without saying you're re-negotiating.

Suspending a member state is an intensely political decision, which is why it sits with the Council. There is still no sign that member states are willing to take that decision. So, in its absence, we get technocratic busywork from the Commission (who don't have much power over this) and increasing frustration from the Parliament (who also don't have much power on this) - but they can't do anything. It requires the member states to make a political call and bite the bullet. Once they're willing to do that a way and justification legally could be found.

This isn't a lack of ability or agency or impossibility - it is a political choice by the other leaders that, for whatever reasons, they don't want to. Article 7 has been triggered by Parliament (which is about all they can do). It's the Council who are choosing not to acting (and they only need an 4/5 majority at this stage so it's not just Poland). I think a failure in institutional design is far too generous and (helpfully) disguises the real problem.

[Tamas]

Not disagreeing, but the horse-trading expression made me think perhaps it is cultural in the sense that the British are ok to have their political system (officially) hang on the precipice of constant political deal making but "horse-trading" would be a deeply derogatory term in Hungary and perhaps many other parts of Europe, hence the need for the (at least nominally) technocratic approach.

It's something I always think about seeing these British TV shows where they buy and sell antiques at auctions. These shows do not exist in Hungary and the sort of wheeling and dealing would be frowned upon I think. It would be a dishonest puritan frown because otherwise everyone is obsessed with making a good deal on anything, of course, but still.

[Josquius]

I'd say its generally Europeans who have far more negotiation as integral to the system- coalitions are uncommon in FPTP UK whilst its the standard way things work in more democratic countries.
Though I do believe after the negotiation there tends to be an actual formal signed agreement off the back of this rather than a spit and a handshake as in British agreements.
Europeans expect deals in writing. Britain just goes with blind trust.

Also for sure the EU does have rules setup in places with e.g. the selection of the commission president, that makes it look like a straight rule based vote on the candidates democracy, when in actual fact this is a decision decided via negotiation amongst member states and the vote at the end is more of a rubber stamp. This is something that a lot of Brits just fail to grasp.

[Tamas]

Europeans expect deals in writing. Britain just goes with blind trust.

That is very, very true at least for Eastern Europe where I experience.

And this makes on average the UK a far more liveable place than Eastern Europe. But I kinda' wish a middle ground was found.

[Sheilbh]

Not disagreeing, but the horse-trading expression made me think perhaps it is cultural in the sense that the British are ok to have their political system (officially) hang on the precipice of constant political deal making but "horse-trading" would be a deeply derogatory term in Hungary and perhaps many other parts of Europe, hence the need for the (at least nominally) technocratic approach.

Yeah - I think horse trading is probably derogatory in the UK too. And I don't think there's a right answer in the same way as I don't with any institutional system in a democratic context. I think there are trade offs.

I also think they're normally a myth, but like all myths addressing real historical and cultural forces and needs. I think the context of post-war Europe is essential to that. And they're all also simply different forms of legitimacy. I think my only thought is that as the EU is (and should be) acting more as a separate entity then it needs more EU level democracy and power.

But having said that I think the initial appearance can be deceptive and almost serves as a myth and a protection. I think it's very helpful for the other heads of government/state that the common perception is the EU can't do anything against Orban rather than that they have consistently for the last decade chosen not to do anything about him. And it's not just the other populists and Poles, I think until about 2018-9 his major protector at the EU level was Merkel for political and commercial reasons.

It's something I always think about seeing these British TV shows where they buy and sell antiques at auctions. These shows do not exist in Hungary and the sort of wheeling and dealing would be frowned upon I think. It would be a dishonest puritan frown because otherwise everyone is obsessed with making a good deal on anything, of course, but still.

So Bargain Hunt etc has not crossed into Hungary.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on Ukrainian aid, I'm seeing a lot of EU watchers saying that VdL made a huge mistake because she tied Ukrainian aid to the EU budget approval. On Ukrainian aid, Orban is totally isolated within Europe. But there are lots of countries (including Germany and other big states) who are, for a variety of reasons, not happy with the EU budget proposal. I imagine VdL hoped to use support for Ukraine as leverage to pass the EU budget top up, but it looks like that might have backfired. It's a particular issue for the German government because the Constitutional Court's ruling on debt is causing all sorts of budgetary issues/crisis. While Germany is fully committed to Ukraine and I think would find a solution on that, it is apparently a challenge in a time of emergency budget requirements to then increase the EU's general budget. Obviously that's self-inflicted because of the idiocy of constitutionalising budget rules but that's where we are.

And I think that gets to a wider thing I always worry which is sort of linked to what I was saying about Europe's political leaders not wanting to make the decision on Orban. It makes me wonder if it's a little like Britain's role when it was in the EU. It was always on the liberalising end on single market issues and Eurosceptic on further integration and in both cases viewed as an outlier, but was actually also a shield other member states could hide behind without being the awkward one.

So on the budget lots of other EU countries' leaders have objections but they can slightly hide behind Hungary. Similarly apparently, according to EU Commission sources, Orban is vocal on saying Ukraine's accession is going too fast (and they think he actually has a point on minority rights in Ukraine) - but apparently in private the Austrian, Greek, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Polish and French governments are all raising basically all the same issues (Ukraine's not actually ready for accession, particularly with minority rights; and we can't ignore the West Balkans). But those leaders are all able to position themselves as basically supportive if only it weren't for Orban.

And, it's cynical, but I wonder if that's the real reason members of the Council are so reluctant to actually move against Orban is that when they all agree they can find a way to get him to a backdown (€) or to work around him; when they don't actually agree he provides really helpful cover?

[Tamas]

And, it's cynical, but I wonder if that's the real reason members of the Council are so reluctant to actually move against Orban is that when they all agree they can find a way to get him to a backdown (€) or to work around him; when they don't actually agree he provides really helpful cover?

That must be part of it, yes.

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/13/crackdown-on-foreign-interventions-decried-by-hungarian-media

Crackdown on 'foreign interventions' decried by Hungarian media
Sovereignty protection office created with powers to investigate anyone active in public life

Ten independent Hungarian media outlets have issued a joint warning that a new law is "capable of severely restricting the freedom of the press".

The media organisations, which range from small investigative outlets to popular online news portals, said that a law approved by the Hungarian parliament on Tuesday could make it "difficult or even impossible for independent newsrooms, journalists and media companies to operate".

The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has claimed that western governments and individuals are funding and directing his opponents. In recent weeks, the Hungarian government intensified its domestic messaging on the claim that foreign forces were meddling in Hungarian public life and that stricter rules were needed to protect the country's sovereignty.

The law approved this week creates a sovereignty protection office that has broad powers to investigate anyone active in public life.

A Hungarian government spokesperson said the office would "function autonomously with an independent budget, focusing on analysis, evaluation and investigation to safeguard constitutional identity by scrutinising foreign interventions in Hungary's democratic and decision-making processes".

Celebrating the law's passage, Orbán wrote on social media: "Hungary belongs to the Hungarians! We won't let Hungary's future be decided abroad!"

But Hungarian civil society groups and media organisations say the true aim of the legislation is not accountability, but to intimidate and silence critics. "The so-called Sovereignty Protection Authority will be an arbitrarily appointed body with unlimited powers, operating without any oversight," the 10 media organisations said in their statement.

"This office will have the means to threaten and harass the individuals and organisations it targets," they said, vowing to continue their work.

The media groups said the law "does not serve the information security of our society; on the contrary, it is meant to directly undermine it with its threat to free media and democratic debate in general".

Ahead of the law's adoption, a large group of Hungarian civil society groups also raised concerns, arguing that the legislation was unconstitutional and designed to produce a chilling effect.

The NGOs said: "A country where people are intimidated from representing their own interests is not a democracy. Where citizens are accused of serving foreign interests if they speak their minds on public affairs, there is no freedom."

The law has also raised worries outside Hungary.

On Wednesday, the International Press Institute said it "condemns [the] passing of Sovereignty Protection Act by the Orbán [government] without proper public consultation and calls for an EU challenge against the law".

The leaders of four major political groups in the European parliament also expressed concern.

In a letter to the European Commission, group leaders from the centre-right European People's party, Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe and the Greens wrote that the new sovereignty protection office "risks to be used to further silence opposition parties, NGOs and other government critics".

[HVC]

Will no one rid the EU of this turbulent hungarian?

[Tamas]

Saw an interview (on Youtube, obviously you can't see such a thing on other media in Hungary) with a fairly prominent historian who has been a vocal critique of the system. Few points to note:

Mainly the most interesting is that he offered an explanation to one of my questions regarding Orban's system: how is it that seemingly fewer Hungarians bough the communist propaganda BS during the Cold War than they do Orban's?

One thing he mentioned which is fairly straightforward is that now it is easier to make the West into the enemy and Russia the idol because nobody has any exposure to the actual Russian system. Back in the communist era it was the other way around. Russian reality was an everyday reality for Hungarians as well and the West was everything that system wasn't (mostly for real, otherwise in imagination).

The other thing was more general. His thesis is that the Internet and its communication reach is a decisive difference between (post-1956) communist Hungary and Orban's regime. In his view, Orban has far more effective control over the public (in terms of communication and discourse) than Kadar (our post-56 commie leader) ever did. And that's because Kadar's era's media and communication relied on the intelligentsia, of journalists, writers, media personalities. They were needed and were not easy to replace so they had a non-zero wiggle room in the way they conveyed messages and shaped discourse. Nowadays you don't need that filter between your propagandists and the public.

He of course see this as a global issue and is quite pessimistic about the dumbification of public life and discourse.

One of the last questions was what he thinks future Hungarian generations will say of the Orban era looking back. His first reaction was that it will be seen as one of the low points of our history, but then on reflection and based on the above he recanted: his point was, who says that this dumbing down of public standards has stopped, we might be in just the middle of that process, in which case future generations may consider Orban's a golden age.

[Tamas]

Oh and in term of global stupidification, he mentioned: "the US is about to choose between a complete idiot and a senile old man".  Funny because it is true.

[Sheilbh]

Mainly the most interesting is that he offered an explanation to one of my questions regarding Orban's system: how is it that seemingly fewer Hungarians bough the communist propaganda BS during the Cold War than they do Orban's?

Isn't the obvious answer that communism was imposed by force by an external power? Whatever else you say about Orban's system, it's Hungarian and emerged democratically.

[Tamas]

Mainly the most interesting is that he offered an explanation to one of my questions regarding Orban's system: how is it that seemingly fewer Hungarians bough the communist propaganda BS during the Cold War than they do Orban's?

Isn't the obvious answer that communism was imposed by force by an external power? Whatever else you say about Orban's system, it's Hungarian and emerged democratically.

Yeah to be fair the guy also started with that, that Kádárs regime would not had survived the soviet troops leaving.

Still it goes beyond that I think.

[garbon]

Oh and in term of global stupidification, he mentioned: "the US is about to choose between a complete idiot and a senile old man".  Funny because it is true.

Under what definition would Trump not also be a "senile old man"?

[Tamas]

Oh and in term of global stupidification, he mentioned: "the US is about to choose between a complete idiot and a senile old man".  Funny because it is true.

Under what definition would Trump not also be a "senile old man"?

Wouldn't "complete idiot" cut more into the core of what he is?