“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.
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése