Hungary: A Weimar for the 21st Century?

[Beet]

While the use of the term 'center-right' may not be accurate, there is something to J.J.'s insight. In the 1930s, there was a far-left, anti-neoliberal alternative, whereas today, there is none.

[Sibboleth]

Neoliberal? In the 1930s? Anyway, no, the various Communist parties of the period were not any kind of 'alternative' to anything. That was part of the problem. Thinking otherwise is buying into Soviet propaganda.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Comparison to Weimar is incorrect. The comparison should be better to the earliest of the Hitler era, or, the founding of the Reich.

[Χahar]

Comparison to Weimar is incorrect. The comparison should be better to the earliest of the Hitler era, or, the founding of the Reich.

That's the comparison being made.

[J. J.]

Comparison to Weimar is incorrect. The comparison should be better to the earliest of the Hitler era, or, the founding of the Reich.

Even this is a false analogy. 

In Weimar, you had three party groups:

The Left:  SDP, Communists

The Center:  German People's Party (DVP), Centre (Z), and a few small parties.

The Right:  German National People's Party (DNVP), Nazis, a few small parties.

Until 1930, the main right wing party was the DNVP, but they never were in government.  All chancellors were either of the left or the center.  The Nazis were to the right of DNVP, and all other parties.

In 1930-32, both the Nazis and the Communists, extremes of both the right and left respectively, grew.  The Nazis displaced the DNVP as main right wing party in 1930.  Those differences are the key.

1,  In Hungary, the main right wing party, Fidesz, still there, and not in coalition with a righter wing party.

2.  There is no polarization.  The far left is not growing, and neither is the far right, Jobbik.

Had the DNVP gotten a majority (even in coalition) in 1930, you would have a similar analogy.

There is something going on, but it is not a repeat of Weimar.

I might liken it more to Spain under Franco, right wing authoritarian government.

[Nhoj]

Comparison to Weimar is incorrect. The comparison should be better to the earliest of the Hitler era, or, the founding of the Reich.

Even this is a false analogy. 

In Weimar, you had three party groups:

The Left:  SDP, Communists

The Center:  German People's Party (DVP), Centre (Z), and a few small parties.

The Right:  German National People's Party (DNVP), Nazis, a few small parties.

Until 1930, the main right wing party was the DNVP, but they never were in government.  All chancellors were either of the left or the center.  The Nazis were to the right of DNVP, and all other parties.

In 1930-32, both the Nazis and the Communists, extremes of both the right and left respectively, grew.  The Nazis displaced the DNVP as main right wing party in 1930.  Those differences are the key.

1,  In Hungary, the main right wing party, Fidesz, still there, and not in coalition with a righter wing party.

2.  There is no polarization.  The far left is not growing, and neither is the far right, Jobbik.

Had the DNVP gotten a majority (even in coalition) in 1930, you would have a similar analogy.

There is something going on, but it is not a repeat of Weimar.

I might liken it more to Spain under Franco, right wing authoritarian government.

That would seem to be incorrect based on both the last election and the poll that was posted here.

[J. J.]

Comparison to Weimar is incorrect. The comparison should be better to the earliest of the Hitler era, or, the founding of the Reich.

Even this is a false analogy. 

In Weimar, you had three party groups:

The Left:  SDP, Communists

The Center:  German People's Party (DVP), Centre (Z), and a few small parties.

The Right:  German National People's Party (DNVP), Nazis, a few small parties.

Until 1930, the main right wing party was the DNVP, but they never were in government.  All chancellors were either of the left or the center.  The Nazis were to the right of DNVP, and all other parties.

In 1930-32, both the Nazis and the Communists, extremes of both the right and left respectively, grew.  The Nazis displaced the DNVP as main right wing party in 1930.  Those differences are the key.

1,  In Hungary, the main right wing party, Fidesz, still there, and not in coalition with a righter wing party.

2.  There is no polarization.  The far left is not growing, and neither is the far right, Jobbik.

Had the DNVP gotten a majority (even in coalition) in 1930, you would have a similar analogy.

There is something going on, but it is not a repeat of Weimar.

I might liken it more to Spain under Franco, right wing authoritarian government.

That would seem to be incorrect based on both the last election and the poll that was posted here.

What was posted indicated it hadn't.  I do see that Jobbik was a new party.  That said, its growth was substantially less than Fidesz.  There was also a center right party that dissolved prior to 2010; that could account for some of Fidesz's growth. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

probably the world’s most beautiful parliament building,

Violence against Roma people or Jews isn't new in Eastern or Central Europe.

And we have seen lots of far-right wackos in that part of the world, remember Romania Mare or more Recently Attack! in Bulgaria.

[Gustaf]

Considering that they had no problems with Orban as Council President for the first half of this year, after he started doing a lot of this stuff, I doubt they care very much.

The EU guarantees peace, democracy and economic growth in Europe. Anything else is logically impossible.

[Hashemite]

Dear Lord. Does JJ get paid to be retarded?

[J. J.]

Dear Lord. Does JJ get paid to be retarded?

No, I just look at the numbers before going to Reductio ad Hitlerum.  The left collapsed in Hungary.  It didn't in Weimar.

[I left.]

Repeating that over and over doesn't change the authoritarian nature of Hungary's government and the fact that they are actively making the country less democratic.

[J. J.]

Repeating that over and over doesn't change the authoritarian nature of Hungary's government and the fact that they are actively making the country less democratic.

I agree, which is why I compared this to Franco's Spain, though that was a military victory.

What we are seeing is the left collapsing in Hungary.  Fidesz may be drifting the right or just might have become a "big tent" type party (Wiki suggests the latter might be true).

[Hashemite]

Repeating that over and over doesn't change the authoritarian nature of Hungary's government and the fact that they are actively making the country less democratic.

I agree, which is why I compared this to Franco's Spain, though that was a military victory.

Hence why it's a retarded comparison. Anyways, you clearly don't know sh**t about Franco's regime if you compare it to Orban. Orban is a stale authoritarian nationalist. Franco was a clerico-fascist.

[Californian Tony]

Of course, JJ, Hungary isn't 1933 Germany and Orban isn't Hitler.[/obviousness]

The Weimar comparison means what it's supposed to mean. If you don't get it, I really don't know how to help you.

[Foucaulf]

Um, going back to the original post:

More a turn to the center-right.

I think giving a party a constitution-amending majority signifies a bit more than a "turn". But it's all semantic quibbles at this point.

And we have seen lots of far-right wackos in that part of the world, remember Romania Mare or more Recently Attack! in Bulgaria.

To my limited knowledge, the rise of those parties is mostly a protest vote phenomenon. The establishment did not change their ways, and the protest vote dissipated eventually. In light of its incompetence, the Orban government is coercing the far-right. It's disturbing when the establishment is coaxing clueless Islamophobes, but Jobbik is straight out of the Interwar years.

There is also no need for Jobbik to moderate its obvious fascist undertones. Taking advantage of this political upheaval, the party has maintained its identity and is still rising in the polls!

[Vasall des Midas]

Ugh.

[shua]

Under the new constitutional order, the judiciary has taken the largest hit. The Constitutional Court, which once had the responsibility to review nearly all laws for constitutionality, has been killed off in three ways. First, the government expanded the number of judges on the bench and filled the new positions with their own political allies (think: Roosevelt’s court-packing plan). Then, the government restricted the jurisdiction of the court so that it can no longer review any law that has an impact on the budget, like laws pertaining to taxes and austerity programs, unless the law infringes particular listed rights. Finally, the government changed the rules of access to the court so that it will no longer be easily able to review laws in the abstract for their compliance with the constitution. Moreover, individuals can no longer challenge the constitutionality of laws without first going through a lengthy process in the ordinary courts. The old Constitutional Court, which has served as the major check on governmental power in a unicameral parliamentary system, is now functionally dead.

Apart from the court-packing, all that sounds like the usual practice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

(inb4 the International Professional Condescension Committee calls me an idiot for this observation)

[asexual trans victimologist]

Hungary also has a unicameral Parliament with a supermajority involved and Constitutional Courts in Europe generally tend to have easier access than that, though.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I'm thinking that maybe the EU is too busy being bankrupt to deal with this.

[J. J.]

Of course, JJ, Hungary isn't 1933 Germany and Orban isn't Hitler.[/obviousness]

The Weimar comparison means what it's supposed to mean. If you don't get it, I really don't know how to help you.

Well, I think there might be better analogies, possibly even Horthy. 

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Are U.S. Mensa's standards of admission that low, or J.J. is just some extremely bored due on the internet?

[I left.]

Are U.S. Mensa's standards of admission that low, or J.J. is just some extremely bored due on the internet?

Don't confuse education with intelligence. They aren't necessarily entirely related.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Are U.S. Mensa's standards of admission that low, or J.J. is just some extremely bored due on the internet?

Don't confuse education with intelligence. They aren't necessarily entirely related.

True.

At least, J.J. displays very poor judgement to engage in a discussion while not being properly educated on it's topic.