Orban’s ‘foreign influence committee’

When Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán made his watershed speech at Baile Tusnad two weeks ago the international press understandably focused on his pledge to introduce an  “illiberal democracy” in Hungary. Generally overlooked was Orbán’s extraordinary claim that a “committee that deals with constant monitoring, recording and publishing foreign attempts to gain influence” had been formed so that Orbán and his followers “will know who the characters behind the masks are”.

However, according to information given to the Budapest Beacon by the Prime Minister’s Office, no such committee exists. Orbán was evidently referring to the ad hoc Committee to Uncover Hungarian Connections to the Wiretapping Scandal Affecting Several European States and Attempts by Foreigners to Gain Influence, which was established in December in the wake of Edward Snowden’s US National Security Agency surveillance revelations.

The committee was chaired by Máté Kocsis of Fidesz and included as members Zsolt Csampa and Gergely Gulyás (both Fidesz), Tamás Básthy (KDNP),  Imre Iváncsik (MSZP), Ádám Mirkóczki (Jobbik), Lajos Mile (LMP) and independent Lajos Pősze.

Mirkóczki told the Budapest Beacon that he did not remember this examination committee ever dealing with the role of different NGOs or Norway Civil Grant recipients during its work.

According to Mirkóczki, even though the committee was supposed to collect testimonies, examine findings and produce a final executive report, none of that happened until the end of the parliamentary session. The committee was “exclusively formed as a reaction to Edward Snowden’s leaks, yet it was not fulfilling its job and was only made by Fidesz as a diversion from the topic”, he added.

Iváncsik and Kocsis both failed to answer our enquiries. The committee was suspended at the end of the 2010-14 parliamentary session without publishing any findings or reports.

Hungarian EP candidates debate issues live on TV

Hungarian European Parliament candidates debate the benefits of European Union membership and the bloc’s future.

Lead candidates for six of the eight Hungarian parties contesting Sunday’s European Parliament election participated in a televised debate on ATV Friday evening.

Each candidate had the opportunity to deliver three two-minute speeches – two on topics provided by ATV and one on a topic of their choosing – and three minutes worth of rebuttals.

Each spoke on whether they felt EU membership had been beneficial or detrimental to Hungary over the past ten years.  They were then asked to talk about what changes they envisioned for the EU and Hungary’s place in it.

Haza Nem Elado (Homeland not for sale) and Seres Maria Szovetsegei (Maria Seres allies) candidates Arpad Kasler and Tamas Toth turned in rigid, uninspiring, decidedly eurosceptic performances consisting mostly of reading previously prepared speeches blaming the EU and multinational companies for Hungary’s problems.

Kasler complained that he had only been informed of the rules of the debate that morning and had been given a different set of questions.  He claimed Haza Nem Elado was not a “business party” and criticized other small parties for fraudulantly collecting endorsement signatures in the Hungarian general election last month.  Kasler argued that the European Union had enabled multinational companies to obtain new markets at minimal cost with little tangible benefit for Hungary.  He condemned government plans to build two new reactors at the Paks atomic energy plant instead of making use of renewable energy, pointing out that even a small leak would render Hungarian products unsellable, and a larger one could render Hungary uninhabitable.

Toth criticized the mainstream parties for their role in “selling out” the country and Jobbik for failing to accomplish anything meaningful.  The debate assumed a decidedly personal tone when Toth announced that information concerning the death of his son twenty years earlier had been inexplicably classified and that none of the parties he had approached had brought any clarity or closure to the situation.  He criticized Jobbik MEP Krisztina Morvai’s advocacy of the “rights of victims”, saying that greater emphasis needed to be placed on crime prevention.

Together 2014-PM candidate Gordon Bajnai devoted much of his time to criticizing Jobbik for its anti-EU rhetoric and behavior, pointing out that Jobbik MPs had burnt or otherwise defaced the European Union flag on many occasions, and had repeatedly stated that Hungary would leave the EU under a Jobbik government.  He accused Jobbik of fomenting hatred, pitting Hungarians against one another, and of representing the interests of Russia and other powers to the detriment of Hungarians and Europeans alike.  He warned that if Jobbik ever came to power it would result in civil war.

In a debate otherwise devoid of statistics, Bajnai criticized the second Orban government for negotiating HUF 350,000 (USD 1,600) less per capita in the way of European grants for the 2014-2021 funding period.  He said anti-EU and anti-multinational rhetoric threatened the jobs of 700,000 Hungarians, and that the loss of EU membership would deprive land owners of HUF 68,000 (USD 320) of subsidies per hectare.  Bajnai warned that in this case the Hungarian forint/Euro exchange rate would increase to around HUF 400.  He stressed the importance of sending delegates to Brussels prepared to represent the interests of the Hungarian people, even when this meant opposing the government’s official policies.

Bajnai likened EU development grants to “discovering mineral wealth underground” and warned the European Commission was on the verge of suspending Hungary’s participation in such programs due to lack of transparency and corruption.  “These days it comes as a surprise if Lajos Simicska’s company doesn’t win an EU tender,” he said.

Jobbik candidate Morvai said Hungary’s EU membership had been “disastrous”, claiming it effectively dated back to 1990, that is, two years before the Maastricht treaty and fourteen years before Hungary’s accession to the EU.   She said it was a “lie” that Jobbik intended to take Hungary out of the EU, but that her party envisions a more just European Union in which Hungarians are properly remunerated for their work, as well as a a looser alliance of nations, each pursuing their own policies within a broader European framework.  Morvai said EU membership had deprived Hungarians of the right to produce their own food and other “basic human rights”.

Speaking without notes, LMP candidate Tamas Meszerics called for greater democracy and transparency in the EU decision-making process, claiming at one point that “the central committee of the Hungarian Workers Party operated with greater openness than the European Commission”.   Meszerics criticized EU members for competing excessively with one another for capital investment at the expense of workers and the environment.  He also criticized previous Hungarian governments for making too many concessions, and the current government for waging a false “war of independence” against Brussels for the sake of political expediency.  Meszerics said greater emphasis should be placed on formulating practical European solutions to real European problems.  He said his was the only party that steadfastly opposed plans to build new reactors at Paks.

MSZP lead candidate Tibor Szanyi said joining the EU was the most important decision made in Hungary’s thousand-year history.  He said his party planned to use Hungary’s EU membership to advance its five-point platform and to combat the pernicious policies of the Fidesz-KDNP government, including the practice of subjecting foodstuffs to a 27 percent value added tax.  Szanyi pointed to the fact that Jobbik chairman Gabor Vona had given numerous interviews and delivered numerous speeches opposing EU membership as evidence that Jobbik candidates had no place in Brussels.  He said a vote for any left-wing party other than MSZP was a wasted vote because MSZP delegates would sit with the European Socialists, the largest and most influencial of all the European parties.

Notably absent from the debate were candidates from the governing Fidesz-KDNP alliance and Ferenc Gyurcsany’s Democratic Coalition (DK).

Fidesz, which is expected to garner between 52 and 57 percent of the votes on Sunday, offered no explanation as to why it declined to participate.

Gyurcsany told ATV that DK candidates did not wish to “legitimize” Jobbik by appearing on the same stage with them.

(Editor: DK’s decision not to participate in the debate merely demonstrates the extent to which Gyurcsany’s party is out of touch with Hungarian voters.    It is not for Ferenc Gyurcsany or DK to “legitimize” a rival party, but for voters.  For better or worse, they have done so.  Jobbik received close to a million votes, or 20 percent, in the April 6 general election. Jobbik is no longer a fringe, regional party confined to the poor regions of north-east Hungary, but a mainstream party enjoying strong grass-roots support throughout the country – an astonishing development for which Ferenc Gyurcsany deserves much credit.  The day he quits politics permanently is the day the Hungarian left can truly begin to renew itself).

Hungarian MEP George Schopflin in his own words

“Hungary is a European country.  It has to be understood in a European context”.

Budapest Beacon senior reporter Benjamin Novak recently caught up withGeorge Schopflin, a member of the Hungarian delegation to the European Parliament.  Born in Hungary in 1939, his family moved to the United Kingdom when he was still a child.  He taught Eastern European history and politics at the University of London for nearly thirty years and has published a number of books on these subjects in English and Hungarian.

Upon his return to Hungary in 2004 he was immediately elected to the European Parliament on the Fidesz list.  He sits on the European Parliament’s committee on Foreign Affairs and is a substitute member on the Committee of Constitutional Affairs.

We appreciate Mr. Schopflin talking to us not only about EU issues but about domestic issues as well.

Hungary’s role in the European Union

Since 2004 my two primary areas of interest in the European Parliament have been foreign affairs and the work of the Constitution Committee which really deals with the sort of structural problems in the future of the European Union, as well as other much more technical issues.  Foreign affairs is anything which is not part of the internal politics of the European Union, for example trans-Atlantic relations, Middle East, Russia, eastern partnership, and enlargement which is actually where I’ve been working most of the time, particularly south-eastern Europe.

I think Hungary entered the European Union in the firm belief that this is a very positive step, that finally we are rejoining Europe from which Hungary was wrenched by the Nazi occupation and then the Soviet occupation, one after another.

There is of course only one Europe, a Europe that changes.  The Europe of 2004 is not the Europe of 2013.  But Hungary joined and sought to be a loyal and active member of the European Union but at the same time to protect Hungary’s national interests.  And if you look at it from that perspective we can compare ourselves although much smaller to France or Germany.  Both are loyal members of the European Union but put a lot of emphasis on their national interests.

The central difficulty that I see is that, whereas in the 1950s there was still such a thing that could be defined as a European interest and a European identity, I think by now this is much weaker, but it hasn’t disappeared entirely.   But if you accept that I think you will see that the interest of the member states has really acquired greater saliency partly because the European Union itself is so much more integrated.

When I joined the size of the (EU body of law) was about 80,000 pages.  By now it’s 120,000.  It tells you something of the sheer volume of integration affairs.  All sorts of technical things not having very much to do with the European Union are regulated with the objective of creating a level playing field and a single market so that people don’t gain advantage through, let’s say, social dumping or playing the field. There are terrible scandals that take place which is not really a Hungarian interest so we can view it with a degree of detachment.   I’m thinking of marine fishing although river fishing is another story.  I think one can safely say there is tension between the national interest and the European Union interest.  What’s interesting is that on balance it is possible to find a compromise between the two.

Hungary’s compliance with the Copenhagen agreements

I don’t think Hungary is in breach of Copenhagen. First of all, I’m firmly of the belief that, although I don’t want to downplay the economic importance of the European Union, it is a political organization, without the political will things don’t happen.  There is the functionalist illusion that if you keep changing or adding to the acquis communautaire gradually this will bring about a much more united Europe.  I don’t believe this to be the case.  It works up to a small point.  If the member states don’t have the will to integrate, integration doesn’t happen.  And you can see this at the moment with the highly complex banking, financial, fiscal rules which I freely confess I don’t understand. If the will to reform the banking system is there, it will happen.  It’s not quite there yet although various steps have been taken.

Hungary is well inside what Copenhagen is supposed to be.  Don’t forget the European Union’s regulations are not that strictly defined. Environmental policies are strictly defined. But when it comes to human rights I wouldn’t say it’s a completely open area but it’s fairly open.   And human rights by the way are political, legal, and I would say ideological. What is a human right?  I don’t know.

In terms of the European Union I would say human rights is about insisting on certain liberties such as freedom of assembly, freedom of media, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion–there are dozens of international conventions on all of this.  Hungary is well within those.

The actual regulation of certain areas is always going to be contested.  For example, you’re familiar with prime minister Cameron’s article in the Financial Times this week? He wants to restrict the right of EU new member states to take up work in Britain.   It’s not an absolute ban but it’s a restriction.  Is this within the Copenhagen criteria?  I think it is certainly an attack on one of the four freedoms—the freedom of movement of labor.  We have seen basically that this is much more a political, economic, and sociological issue.  For example in France, in the Netherlands, to some extent in Germany, certainly in Britain there is growing resentment at the population movement from these countries towards the West.  It’s a structural problem.  You have people in this country earning 700 or 800 euros a month who will go to Britain doing much lower qualified work but getting three times the salary.  What do you do with this?  You have to ask very hard questions like what’s the value to a graduate in media studies going to London and being a waiter?

On subsidiarity

Subsidiarity is EU concept.  It’s not a Hungarian concept.  It’s the principle which the European Union in its legislation says various functions should be discharged at the level where it is most appropriate to discharge it.  The reorganization of local government in Hungary is about de-concentration.  Have a look at the detail (nobody looks at the detail) the way in which the State administration has been radically simplified within the last three and one half years is very far reaching.  And if you go to any of the counties you will find that the local government is much more local than it was during the previous government.  There’s been a far reaching decentralization.  I’m not going to call this subsidiarity because it’s just not the right word.

Hungary’s market economy and the state of its hospitals

I think the Hungarian economy is a market economy, there is no real problem with new entrants coming into the economic arena.   The State has a role in the running of the economy.   Where the dividing line is between the State and the market is always a contest. Try to compare Britain with Germany.

The hospital system under the socialist government was pretty much so collapsing.  Large numbers of young doctors were emigrating.   Hospitals were being closed.  It was a top category disaster.  The state had to step in.

In order to understand the steps that this government has taken you have to understand the context.  And the context starts really in 2002, maybe in 2006 with the previous government.  It’s incomprehensible what this government has done without looking at the state of this country when it took over in 2010. I think there has been an improvement gradually bringing into being a certain level of order.  It’s not an ideal situation.  And bear one thing in mind: in every country the demand for health care is infinite.  A relatively poor country like Hungary can’t afford to provide for infinite demand.   I think the Hungarian government has done what it can do with rather limited resources.   Bear in mind the situation of this country in 2010.  Hungary was very close to economic collapse.

It’s taken a long time but we are starting to look at some low level growth figures at long last and ideally till next year it will be even better than that. Still very low, but by European criteria, it is not bad.

The Tavares Report

The Tavares report is not worth the paper it is written on.  It’s heavily ideological.  It will be a footnote in history.  It’s a dead letter anyway.  I don’t think anyone will discuss it apart from the Left.  For the Left it’s manna from heaven.

What you have to understand is that in the European Parliament there is a very particular type of left wing operating.  In other words, there is a de facto let’s say alliance, not coalition, between the far left, the Greens, the Socialists, and the Liberals.  It’s an alliance which you will not find in any domestic parliament.  It’s inconceivable that the far left and the liberals would be in the same coalition.  Look at Germany.  The free democrats will have nothing to do with der Linke.

In the European Parliament the Left seized on Hungary primarily I think because the idea that a Center-Right government should get a two-thirds majority was noxious in their eyes.  I’ve taken part in I think six hearings on Hungary organized by the Left (maybe only five I don’t remember it was so many) and basically they do not accept any of the counter-arguments or the rebuttals.  Now the Tavares report is the peak of this and I think it has been going down from there.  Tavares’ most recent initiative is trying to stop the European police academy from coming to Hungary has failed. Tavares is now basically on his own.  He’s been abandoned. The commission is no longer interest in supporting Tavares.  (EU Justice Commissioner) Reding I think has basically accepted the state of affairs. Tavares may get some support from his Green allies, but not I think from the other groups. Partly because it’s no longer a big issue relevant to the elections next year.

The left wing has a majority in the Hungarian Parliament.  People don’t understand.  The EPP is the largest group, but the left wing has a majority if the liberals choose to vote with the Left which on this issue they did.  The foreign ministry did a line by line analysis of the Tavares report rebutting a large number of his “truth claims”.  Nobody paid a blind bit of attention to us.  They voted on party lines.  They voted ideologically.  I would say it’s a historical curiosity, the Tavares report, nothing else.   Oh, and one other curiosity, Tavares is the best known Portuguese in Hungary and certainly the most unpopular.

If you are talking to the Hungarian Left, they think Tavares is their savior.  A knight on a white horse.  But no, I think if you listen to the majority people loathe Tavares.  They loathe La Posta.  Remember they do watch these Hungarian debates on television in Hungarian.  That’s certainly the feedback I’m getting.

The rise of extremism in Europe

I don’t know about the European Union as a whole.  I really have no idea what the various agencies do in this respect.  I can only really talk about the European Parliament.  Jobbik has really only two members of Parliament in Brussels. Basically it’s ignored unless Jobbik is used as a pretext for belaboring Hungary, which of course happens all the time.

Have a look at yesterday’s Daily Mail.  You will see a perfect example of this.  It’s this article by Michael Berlin, have a look at it.  It’s available on the internet.  It’s a perfect example of how to make a point by basically ignoring everything else that is happening in Hungary.  And getting at the Hungarian commissioner Andor, who is actually a left wing person, but never mind all that.

There is a real issue which is why is it that Jobbik support in 2010 is about 17 per cent and it was about the same in the 2009 (European Parliament) election.  I think their support is now steady.  It’s sort of plateauing at 10-12 per cent.   But why do they get that support?  The answer is in the Hungarian rust belt there are real problems which no government has addressed.  And secondly it’s a response to globalization finally on the part primarily of young, male intellectuals, who are not the dominant Jobbik supporters, but they make a lot of noise.

The rise of the far right is not a uniquely Hungarian phenomenon.  You see it in France, Greece, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland.  Even the Alternativen für Deutschland nearly got into the Bundestag.  Beppe Grillo (an Italian comedian and politician -ed) got 25 per cent of the vote!

The rise of extremist groups is a European issue but only if you look at them on a comparative basis.  If you simply extract Jobbik from that context then I don’t think you will understand what the phenomenon is about.

On nationalism and nationhood

Hungary is a European country.  It has to be understood in a European context.  You can’t look at nationalism and nationhood purely in the Hungarian context.

The left wing has been saying basically since 1990 that there is no distinction to be had between the democratic Right and the far Right.

People claim there is no real distinction between Fidesz and Jobbik as a way of de-legitimizing the democratic Right.  The Left in Hungary does not have a theory of democratic Conservatism.  It believes that it is the sole guardian of Democracy. It believes that it has a monopoly on Democracy. Consequently, anything that does not conform to their concept of Democracy is Fascism.

Gyöngyöspata

I’m not persuaded Gyöngyöspata was quite as innocent as it looked.  There is some evidence to suggest that the Russian secret service is behind it. The FSB (Russian Federal Security Service) has been involved in a number of such actions, not just in Hungary but also Poland and the Czech Republic. You should talk to a domestic politician. It’s only marginally an EU issue.

On the rehabilitation of Hungarian wartime leader Admiral Miklos Horthy  

That is a part of Hungarian history.  I was never a particular admirer of Horthy.  But I would say just the one thing.  Horthy isn’t just about 1944.  In 1939 he kept Hungary out of the war.

Fellow MEP Lajos Bokros

He’s not a conservative.  Conservatism for me involves respect for tradition.

The Hungarian Left embraced the complete freedom of the market and tried to eliminate the role of the State, which is Bokros’ position.  He therefore is a left winger, although he pretends to be a conservative.  I wouldn’t accept him into a conservative party.

Religious freedom in Hungary

If I want to start a religious establishment there is nothing to stop me.  Regulations were introduced to stop religious business. The groups that were de-registered can apply to re-register. If you go back historically the state has always supported the Churches.

Keeping in touch with what is happening in Hungary

Like every other member of the European Parliament I am here almost on a weekly basis.  I talk to people in the foreign office.  I talk to people in the Ministry for Public Affairs.  I am briefed when it comes to certain issues.  Otherwise I am not briefed.  I make my own decisions.  And so on and so forth.  When it comes to, what is one of my central concerns, the negotiations with Serbia, then I coordinate with the Foreign Ministry.  And the general Hungarian attitude is that we are in favor of Serbian accession to the European Union.  But when I go there I’m there to represent the European Union.  I make it very clear that I’m not there as a Hungarian, I’m there to represent the European Union.  To which they say “okay, fine.”  So, the minority issues are just one among many.  I could talk endlessly about Serbia, I would say that’s my role. That’s my job.  To say what is the European interest.  What is the Hungarian interest.  How those two can be reconciled if there is a conflict.

Fidesz

I met the founders of Fidesz in the eighties and some of the things have changed, some have remained the same.

I think in the early years Fidesz’ primary concern was how to get rid of Communism.  Therefore, pretty much everything that Communism stood for was regarded in negative terms.  Once Fidesz was elected in 1990 then it began to understand some of the things that actually Hungarian society wanted.  So for example, the level of social protectionism, which I think was not initially part of Fidesz thinking, has much more (changed) than anything else.

What I think Fidesz always had from the outset was their concern for Hungarian nationhood.  I choose my words very carefully.  A concern for Hungarian nationhood. It’s still applicable but not because there is a serious danger of it being lost.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ongoing reference to fighting a war of liberation

You have to go back to the historical reality of the particular kind of Hungarian modernity that was being constructed prior to 1914 which was then broken.  Partly by losing the war, partly by Trianon and the loss of territory, and so on.  And since then the model of Hungarian modernity has been contested.  Then you get Communism basically saying there is no such thing anyway.  There’s only Internationalism.  When you come out of that you are then in the business of trying to reconstruct the sense of the collective self.  This I think is heavily contested.  Fidesz has one particular take on this.

The United States of America

I was in Washington very recently, less than a month ago. It is one of the most chauvinist countries I’ve ever been to. It’s one of the most introverted countries. Is it still correct only 8 per cent of Americans have passports?  They have no idea of the rest of the world.  Quite amazing introversion.  Something that no Hungarian would ever allow him- or herself.

Lajos Bokros: The Hungarian disease is infectious

Lajos Bokros

A Budapest Beacon kérte magyar képviselő Bokros Lajos, hogyan látja Magyarország szerepe az EU-ban 2010 óta.  Megkaptuk a következő választ:

Nem tudok beszélni a többi képviselő. Tudok beszélni csak magamnak. Kaptam az EU pontosan amit várt. Ez nagyon pozitív és fontos, sőt.

Az EU gyors volt felismerni a jelentős romlás a demokrácia minőségét közé tartozik. Az Európai Bizottság gyorsan az bírálta a médiatörvényt, amely már az első lépést tett a magyar párt, hogy aláássa a polgári szabadságjogokat. Az uniós intézmények, valamint az Európa Tanács, észlelt elég korán a megjelölt erózió a jogállamiság tartozik. A Velencei Bizottság egyszerű, kiemelve, hogy a magyar kormány rosszhiszeműen járt el, amikor elpusztította a fékek és ellensúlyok a magyar politikai rendszerben. Az Európai Parlament jóváhagyta a híres Tavares-jelentés nagy többséggel a július, 2013 árnyéka előadója az EPP, valamint számos európai parlamenti képviselő az azonos csoportba, ami az otthona Fidesz az EP-ben, pozitívan szavazott is.

Soha nem gondoltam volna, hogy az EU megvédje a liberális demokrácia küldött annak nem létező csapatok. Rajtunk múlik, hogy a magyar társadalom, hogy hagyja abba ezt a negatív tendenciát, és hogy az ország vissza a jogállamiságot, és rá az utat a demokratikus fejlődés. Az EU nem több és nem kevesebb, mint egy nagyon fontos véleményező testület.

Azt akarjuk, hogy az EU és az EBESZ, hogy figyelemmel kíséri a magyar parlamenti választások jövő tavasszal, mert sokan vannak jelei annak, hogy a kormányzó párt is igénybe csalás. A választási rendszer jelentősen torzult, és most élesen előnyös a kormányzó párt. Az Országos Választási Bizottság, amely az emberek a Fidesz csak. A szabályok a kampányfinanszírozás és a médiahasználat, szándékosan szabott oly módon, hogy kedvez a Fidesz.

Az EU lenne bölcs dolog, hogy észre, hogy a magyar betegség fertőző. Antiliberális, tekintélyelvű, populista tendenciák a nő számos új EU-tagállamok, többek között Lengyelországban, Szlovákiában, Romániában és Bulgáriában. A szélsőjobb térnyerése is a régi EU-tagállamokban, különösen Görögországban, Franciaországban, Belgiumban és Hollandiában. A kormányzó párt Magyarországon már létrehozott egy kulturális koalíció a Jobbik, egy szélsőjobboldali rasszista párt a parlamentben.

Az EU-nak nagyobb vokális és aktív, mint a gyám a koppenhágai kritériumok demokráciát védelmező Európában.

Swedish paper accuses EU of betraying democracy in Hungary

AUGUST 25, 2014 BY STAFF

Translation of the op-ed piece EU sviker demokratin i Ungern (EU betraying democracy in Hungary) appearing in August 24, 2014 edition of the Swedish daily Götebourgs-Posten.

For example, on that hot July day in 2013 when the Parliament considered the resolution based on a report from the Portuguese representative Rui Tavares; a report that was a scathing indictment of the developments in Hungary. A report that went step by step over how EU member Hungary dismantled the framework designed to protect democracy and to ensure the separation of powers, and how the Hungarian Government took control of the public service companies and limited press freedom.

Instead silence. Empty votes. Wandering glances.

The betrayal of the Swedish Moderate Party and Christian Democrats in the case of Hungary is obscene. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and moderate parliamentarians Gunnar Hökmark and Anna-Maria Corazza Bildt have been seriously tarnished by their permissive attitude towards Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

While Hungary is turning undemocratic, the Swedish right criticizes the man who leads the whole operation. This is completely incomprehensible. The silence of the influential EPP Group in the European Parliament (which includes the Conservatives, Christian Democrats and the Hungarian governing party Fidesz) allows Fidesz to continue its activities undisturbed.  All criticism is dismissed as malicious attacks from European liberals and socialists.

Ignorance is not to blame. No one who follows Hungarian domestic politics or who has followed Viktor Orbán’s political shift from liberal to national conservative populist, could have been surprised by his statements in late July.  At a meeting in Romania Orban noted that he was willing to dismantle democracy because liberal democratic states “are not capable of becoming internationally competitive”.  Orbán also said that Russia and China were good examples of countries that have succeeded in this regard.

The Hungarian prime minister’s gaze has long been directed eastward, away from Brussels, away from the European mainstream.

None of this is new. Viktor Orbán’s power ambitions as well as his attitude to democracy and public debate have been clear for a long time.

Austrian journalists Ernst Geleg and Roland Adrowitzer’s book about Orbán,Schöne Grüsse aus dem Orbán land (Greetings from Orbán country) quotes Orbán as saying: “I will bind the hands of the next ten governments.”

In the spring of 2010, before Fidesz came to power, Orbán was interviewed by the (Hungarian) weekly Nagyitás.  There, he repeated what has come to characterize his attitude: he sees a political landscape without squabbling, political arguments, and internal strife. And one strong party able to govern for a long time.  His own, Fidesz, founded by a number of law students in the ‘80s.

Fidesz has systematically recast the entire Hungarian law. Right after the 2010 election, when the party captured a two-thirds majority in Parliament, a comprehensive program of legal reform began extending to virtually all areas. Supported by a qualified majority, Fidesz was able to overwrite the basic law over and over again and force through changes while the small fragmented opposition stood in a corner without influence.

One feature is the so-called cardinal laws. These are laws that can only be changed by a qualified majority, that is, at least two-thirds of the parliamentary seats. Many things that would usually be possible for a new government to change – social policy, economic policy – is now locked up by Cardinal Law, so that even if Fidesz loses power in the next election in 2018, a new government will not be able to make big changes.

The party has also made sure to appoint a majority of judges to the Constitutional Court loyal to Fidesz, which further ensures a long lasting influence over legislation.

For Hungary’s large Roma minority the years Fidesz has spent in power has meant accelerating problems. The gap has increased, “welfare” has been replaced by “workfare”, which in Fidesz’s case means hard work for poor conditions: barely two thousand Swedish crowns a month for eight hours of work a day.

Fidesz has gradually adapted its policy to that of fascist Jobbik.  A large number of Jobbik proposals made before going to the polls in 2010 were carried out between 2010 and 2014.

Underlying its entire policy is the safeguarding of the nation, the church, cultural heritage, and the nuclear family model. Clampdown on criminals. There must be an end to coddling. That homelessness was outlawed last year was a natural consequence of all this. In several key areas, such as immigration and globalization, Fidesz are to the right of the Sweden Democrats.

There is also good reason to note what is happening with the official Hungarian view of history.

The rehabilitation of the former regent Miklós Horthy is proceeding full steam. The pronounced anti-Semite Horthy ruled Hungary in the years 1920-1944, and was regent when half a million Hungarian Jews were deported in the spring and early summer of 1944 under the auspices of Adolf Eichmann. Now you can see bronze busts of Horthy here and there in Hungary.
Fascist writers of the ‘40s such as József Nyiro are now part of the literary canon Hungarian school children are expected to read. Fidesz has established several new historical institutes, including the Veritas Institute headed by renowned historical revisionist and military historian Sándor Szakaly, who previously wrote a book praising the Hungarian gendarmerie during the war; the same gendarmerie who carried out the deportations of Hungarian Jews.

On April 6 of this year parliamentary elections were held in Hungary. Fascist Jobbik got more than twenty percent of the vote, Fidesz around forty-five. Since the ruling Fidesz rebuilt the electoral system to favor their own party, forty-five percent constituted another qualified majority in parliament.

The next four years Fidesz can continue remaking Hungary as its head sees fit. Without debate, without discussion. That the European Parliament would seriously intervene and impose requirements is unlikely to occur. Rather than openly confront their sister party that keeps on turning developments in Hungary in increasingly dangerous directions, too many party siblings within the EU’s EPP group have chosen to follow Hökmark and Corazza Bildt’s example and close their eyes.

The question is how far one EU country can move in anti-democratic direction before Swedish parliamentarians wake up. The risk is that it will be nearly too late.

FACTS

The writer

Gabriel Bystrom is GP cultural editor. Ordfront press is releasing his book “Tystnadens triumf” (Triumph of Silence) next week examining the background to the development of the Hungarian situation and the possible consequences of the changes of the past years.

Subject

Developments in Hungary. The national conservative Fidesz party has exercised power since 2010. Over a few years the party has changed much of the Hungarian state apparatus. In late July Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said he was skeptical of “liberal democracy” and instead pointed out China and Russia as examples of states that inspire him.

In Hungary radical right-wing village mayor uses force and intimidation

An outlandish wardrobe and a talent for self-promotion have got Mihlály Orosz, the radical right-wing village mayor of Érpatak, significant national and even international press coverage.  Recently Orosz claimed Nazi collaborator, Hungarian Arrow Cross leader Ferenc Szálasi was the “last legally elected Hungarian leader in 1944″.  Earlier this month he hanged two Israeli leaders in effigy in a PR stunt that received international coverage.

Orosz is known for the so-called “Érpatak model” of zero tolerance when it comes to law enforcement and sentencing those convicted of crimes to hard physical labor.  Fidesz-linked daily Magyar Nemzet praised the mayor for “exceptional work” in cutting crime rates, even referring to the north-eastern village as “the Érpatak Miracle”.

However a study of the village conducted by the ethnographist and Roma studies expert Pál Nagy paints a very different picture, depicting a deep and frightening culture. Having originally returned to his home village to carry out extensive research about Érpatak’s 200-year-old Roma community, Nagy soon changed its focus after several local Gypsies were attacked and arrested. According to Nagy, Orosz’s “far-right utopia” merely means stricter Roma segregation combined with intimidation and violence against political opponents. Orosz, who has been mayor since 2005, is an omnipotent figure who intimidates his subjects, disseminates global conspiracy theories and far-right ideology, and metes out punishment on any dissenters, Nagy found.

Although Orosz often claimed that his model “does not differentiate on the basis of race or ethnicity”, according to Nagy it is almost exclusively Roma people who suffer from the increased level of administrational violence and humiliation.

“Orosz has abused his legislative framework, often engaging in vigilantism, consciously following a peculiar ideological mix of anti-democratic beliefs and strong influence of Arrow Cross,” Nagy adds.

“This was not the life of bourgeoisie at the beginning of the 21st Century, but rather the many misuses of power characteristic of the 17th century,” writes Nagy, adding that “most of the widespread abuses in Érpatak have gone unreported.” By way of example he cites “the police chief of nearby Újfehértó, who is a personal friend of Orosz, who made Érpatak public works employees scrub the stairs of the police station with toothbrushes”.

Another case study comes from 2011, when local police arrested two elderly Roma men for living in small shacks in a forest near the village. In their absence their living quarters and most of their personal belongings were set on fire and destroyed. Nagy suspects the arson was committed by the mayor’s men, to prevent the arrested men from returning home. On another occasion, Orosz told the local social workers to introduce compulsory IUDs for all of the Roma women in Érpatak.

In 2004 Érpatak was a poor village with a 20% unemployment rate. After taking power as an independent the following year Orosz positioned himself alongside the far-right and started patrolling the streets and collecting payment for utility bills by force. According to Orosz, his drastic methods resulted in a rapid increase in payments.

After the series of racially motivated murders of Roma people that took place in Hungary in  2008-09, many right-wingers began to talk of Érpatak as a successful model of establishing law and order, not least Orosz himself.

The foundational thought of this model was the separation of “constructive” and destructive” elements within society: he changed the local welfare distribution system to serve only those he had listed as “constructive” elements of the village and “declared war” on the rest.

According to Nagy, Orosz borrows most of his views from a philosopher named András László, publishing two of his books through his own church Sofia Perennis, and even awarding himself a “doctorate” through one of these churches. “These are signs of the twisted self-image he promotes,” according to Nagy.

Civil Liberties Union’s Roma Program sent its representative Gábor Szöllősi to write a report on the developments at Érpatak. It spoke about Orosz establishing his own “field guards”, founding his own “knightly order” and beginning to use the self-acclaimed titles of “PhD” and “Knight”. Szöllősi claims Orosz harassed him regularly and even ordered his beating last year.

Local resident Ferenc Polyák originally supported the mayor, but after turning against his “model society” suffered an attack on his house that involved a lit Molotov cocktail being thrown through his window. Polyák said he suspects that Orosz had a role in the attack.

Érpatak’s official webpage also offers a window on Orosz’s worldview, especially in a separate section on his favored conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 being “an inside job” on the part of the US government and the existence and global influence of the secret society The Illuminati.

Nagy says the combination of Orosz’s far-right ideology and his need for the spotlight have merely helped to “preserve extreme poverty” and destroy individual rights.

Norway EU minister dismayed by EU inaction on Orban gov’t

Norway’s minister for European affairs Vidar Helgesen has become the third Europe minister in as many weeks to call for action against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s self-proclaimed “illiberal” government.

On the heels of criticism from his opposite numbers in Sweden and Germany, as well as the international press, Helgesen notes in a letter to The Financial Times “the Hungarian government has replaced heads of the judiciary, and theatre and museum directors, tightened control over the media and changed the country’s election rules”.

As with other recent comments, Helgesen does not stop at criticism but calls for Orbán’s plan to “break with the dogmas and ideologies accepted in western Europe and instead establish an illiberal state”. He adds that “I am puzzled and disappointed that a response from the EU institutions has been largely lacking”.

Moving closer to home, Helgesen addresses the Hungarian government’s recent “crackdown on civil society” and makes the accusation that “Orbán attacked the Norwegian government for funding NGOs … Police action has since been taken against the NGO fund supported by Norway”.

Helgesen recalls that “Hungary is now violating the terms of the agreement for these funds, most of which go to the Hungarian government. In response, we have suspended all payments to the Hungarian government, while maintaining the NGO fund”.

He underlines Norway’s long-standing financial commitment to promoting civil society in the less-wealthy EU countries. “Similar funds supported by Norway exist in 15 other EU member states and are valued by NGOs and governments alike. Norway’s support to Hungary is part of the EUR 1.8 billion contribution made by the European Economic Area and European Free Trade Association countries to social and economic cohesion in Europe.

“While not a member of the EU, Norway is closely integrated with the EU and deeply committed to the values that underpin European integration. These values are now being challenged by the Hungarian government, a member state and a recipient of massive EU funding.”

Yet, the Norwegian politician adds, “the very week that the EU was discussing sanctions against Russia for its violations of Ukrainian sovereignty, Mr Orbán held up Russia as a success story”.

“As we approach the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU should demonstrate in no uncertain terms that it will not accept the re-establishment of an illiberal state within its borders,” Helgesen concludes.