Talk Elections

Reading these articles has made me literally sick. A dictatorship is being installed at the heart of Europe and nobody gives a damn. EU has failed at so many levels it's not even funny anymore.

http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/press/budapest-experiences-a-new-wave-of-hate/ (http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/press/budapest-experiences-a-new-wave-of-hate/)

Neo-fascist thugs attacked Roma families, killing six people in a series of murders. The right-wing populists of the Fidesz Party won a two-thirds majority in the parliament, while the anti-Semitic Jobbik party captured 16.7 percent of the vote, making it the third-largest party in Hungary, next to the Socialists. Unknown vandals defiled the Holocaust Memorial with bloody pigs’ feet. A new law granted the government direct or indirect control over about 80 percent of the media. The television channel Echo TV showed an image of Nobel laureate and Auschwitz survivor Imre Kertész together with a voiceover about rats. Civil servants can now be fired without cause. Krisztina Morvai, a member of the European Parliament for Jobbik, suggested that “liberal-Bolshevik Zionists” should start thinking about “where to flee and where to hide.”

On May 14, 2010, Gábor Vona, the chairman of Jobbik, was about to make an appearance at the Hungarian parliament, whose seat is probably the world’s most beautiful parliament building, a domed, neo-Gothic structure protected by bronze lions. Everyone was concerned that Vona would appear dressed in a fascist uniform from the past. As it happened, he showed up in a black suit, to the relief of many in the audience. But shortly before the swearing-in ceremony, the radical right-wing politician threw off his jacket to reveal a vest reminiscent of the uniforms of the Arrow Cross Party. Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung described it as “sort of a Nazi outfit.”

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/ (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/)

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.

...

The new election law specifies the precise boundaries of the new electoral districts that will send representatives to the parliament. But the new districts are drawn in such a way that no other party on the political horizon besides Fidesz is likely to win elections. A respected Hungarian think tank ran the numbers from the last three elections using the new district boundaries. Fidesz would have won all three elections, including the two they actually lost.

...

According to a proposed constitutional amendment, the crimes of the former communist party will be listed in the constitution and the statute of limitations for prosecuting crimes committed during the communist period will be lifted. The former communist party is branded a criminal organization and the current opposition Socialist Party is designated as their legal successor. It is still unclear, legally speaking, what this amendment means. But it is probably not good for the major opposition party.

Yes, I've been hearing horrendous new from Hungary for a while now. Didn't imagine the situation was that disgusting though. I really fear for hungarians.

And you're 100% right about the EU. It should have been up to them to stop this authoritarian derive. But after all, they didn't do anything for Berlusconi (who fortunately couldn't go that far, but still did a lot of harm to justice and media pluralism) so it's not surprising.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/




This is exactly what our conservative friends would love to do here in the US. Supermajority requirements for everything they want to block and an election system that gives disproportionate representation to the vote. They've already got one of two (let's not forget the Senate's filibuster either).

Three cheers for minority rule! We'll never adopt proportional representation because we love our unfair electoral system that constantly fcks us in the ass because it has been with us so long. Tradition is sacrosanct.

People need to embrace change when it is reasonably and fairly justified. God damn idiots

It's sad to see another country being spit upon by these authoritarian fools

Hungary is pretty worrisome indeed.

The blog to read is here:

http://esbalogh.typepad.com/ (http://esbalogh.typepad.com/)

Yeah, I've been following this for a while. Really worrying.

Technocratic governments in Greece, then Italy, and now this happens.

A dark time for democracy in Europe.

Because the left wing parties are too hollowed out spiritually to oppose neo-liberalism, you get situations like this.

Hungary is one place where a EU-imposed technocratic government might actually be an advance. Yeah, I can't believe I just said that either, but all means are justified when it comes to getting rid of Orban and Fidesz.

I have been waiting for true, effective Transitional Justice in post-communist countries for a while, but the way those Hungarian politicians seem to be trying to do it is appalling.

It's not transitional justice they seem to be after, but a way to completely outmanoeuvre the opposition. Also Orban's anti-communism borders on the ridiculous when it appearantly is a sufficient reason to throw Imre Nagy (Imre Nagy!!!!!!1111111) out of the national Pantheon.

Has anyone here been to the Jewish quarter of Budapest (iirc it's in the 'Pest' part)? It's pretty vibrant and fun. Short of reading this forum/wikipedia/or actively searching for the topic on like JSTOR, there's no way you'd ascertain that a non-negligible percentage of parliament seats are controlled by people who harbor anti-semitic beliefs.


I don't really understand the incentive behind this. Fidesz and MSZP basically alternate election victories, no? No party ever remains perpetually popular if they're in office perpetually. People will start to get pissed off if the can't replace the incumbents. So why not simply sit on the status-quo? I realize people are protecting their jobs, but is it really that difficult to find work if you have "Member of Parliament, Hungary" on your resume?

The problem is that MSZP have basically collapsed as an organized entity... iirc polls have them behind or level with Jobbik.

Last Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_parliamentary_election,_2010)
Opinion Poll (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-14/hungary-radical-nationalists-tied-for-second-in-poll-ipsos-says.html)

Wow, this is what you get for stopping paying attention between elections. I had no idea this was happening. I presume the kind of power is similar to Putin?

Is it due to Fidesz' policies, or did they just kill themselves ?

Current standings in Parliament:

Government Coalition (263)
     Fidesz (227) -- Conservatives with an Authoritarian streak
     Christian Democratic People's (36) -- Christian, Social, and National Conservatives
Last Election - Ran as a coalition, winning 263 seats
Opposition parties
     Socialist Party (48) -- Ex Communist, current moderate Social Democrats 59
     Jobbik (46) -- NAZI, NAZIlike, NAZIish, neo-NAZI, (claims to not be NAZI) 47
     Politics Can Be Different (15) -- Soft Liberals, Progressive, Greenish 16
     Independent (14) -- Probably former Socialists 1

Yeah, their credibility took a huge hit for obvious reasons. And, for obvious reasons, it's harder for a postcommunist party to recover credibility than a normal social democratic party. So while they don't seem to have fallen any further, discontented voters seem to be moving towards... urgh.

This does seem to be similar to Russia, with the three top parties being unpalatable?

You're saying that saying "We have lied morning, noon, and night" is bad for a party's credibility?  ???

That's far from the only reason...

I note that, unnoticed to the rest of the world, the Hungarian government went to the IMF requiring assistance about a month ago.

Yeah Gully, that blog you posted is very, very interesting and well worth a read, even if it's ever so depressing.

Self-suicide and economic crash of 2008 (which hit Hungary very hard). Plus as Al pointed out the MSZP is a "post-communist" party and so has all the baggage that goes with that and as post-1989 East European politics has shown, ex-commie parties even reformed as the most neo-liberal social democrat, can fall pretty hard if things go wrong.

@Belgiansocialist: Have you seen post about the "art of the new constitution"... that says everything really.

Someone ought to upload that painting on the 2006 riots.

()

You mean, like this?

Here's more government sponsored art - Shall we call it "Orbanic Surrealism": http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2011/11/horror-fourteen-pictures-to-accompany-the-new-hungarian-basic-laws.html (http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2011/11/horror-fourteen-pictures-to-accompany-the-new-hungarian-basic-laws.html)

Fidesz seem to be bad enough, but 24% for Jobbik is scary.

Hungarian politics has been looking bad for a few years now, but I hadn't realised just how bad it seems to have got from the links people have been posting here.

Definitely the latter. Google Mikado's quote above - I'm shocked you've not heard about it before!

I see. I really don't know how this country will end up. It's really a nightmare.

Putin or worse. The standard comparison that I've seen is Lukashenko.

I really don't understand how this can be happening in an EU member state, but then I remember phrases like 'Marktkonforme Demokratie' and stop being confused and afraid and start being disgusted. And afraid.

I'm reading the preamble to the new Constitution. It's called the National Creed. Most of the actual content is...relatively inoffensive so far (though I do note they seem to have made the Holy Crown the head of state again), but the way it's written, presented, and the fact that it's called the NATIONAL CREED is highly unsettling. I don't expect to like what I see when I get to the actual provisions.


ETA: Okay, it breaks out 'Hungary protects the institution of marriage between man and woman' on the second page of the actual provisions, and it only gets worse from there. Horrible Constitution.

This is a fantastic thread. I didn't think Orban would act so quickly after the elections a few months ago; I guess I was wrong.


But in Russia, the Kremlin has neutered any opposition with its staged opposition. And Orban is not as calculating as Putin. The political situation in Hungary seems more like a government descending further into far-right rhetoric due to its complete inability to add confidence to the economy.

Hungary's debt as % of GDP is near-Britain levels; its bonds are being valued as junk; and there's no EFSF to bail them out. On top of that, the government is cutting harshly but keeps flip-flopping between going to the IMF or walking out. At least Russia has its oil and gas. Hungary just has no idea what it's doing.


Surely this is a facsimile of this... (http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/15468)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that how most of the planet defines marriage?  It's not like they defined marriage as only between a white man and a white woman.  Actually a chunk of the planet defines marriage as between a man and a woman or between a man and multiple women.  Well to be precise I'm pretty sure most of the planet doesn't define marriage because the communities in those countries have a commonly understood meaning and don't really need to codify it.  Just because our country chooses to make a circus out of every little thing doesn't mean the rest of the human race even notices let alone cares about that kind of stuff.

This statement in the constitution is a non issue (barring any additional information).  And it certainly is not apocalyptic.

The rest of the statements in this thread are concerning.  I visited Hungary once.  I liked it.  A lot of culture there.  I hope it doesn't go down the toilet.  I'm very disappointed to hear about these events.

Can anyone link to an English (or Russian) version of the Nemzeti Hetvallas? Sounds like a fun read.

Well, yes, but you have to look at this contextually. Hungary isn't a particularly conservative country even by European standards (it has civil unions or some functional equivalent, though one wonders for how long at this rate). Even many countries that are a lot more conservative on these sorts of issues don't feel the need to put this sort of thing on the second page of their constitution, or in it at all.

Foucaulf makes a really interesting point (as usual); it does look like this is designed to distract the public from Hungary's real problems. It seems to me that this will be fascinating to read about in a few decades' time.


Preamble (http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/BRNEDA224_004970.pdf), constitution (http://www.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/CONSTITUTION_in_English__DRAFT.pdf)

true.

I hear you.  I don't know enough about their culture to have an opinion either way.

From what I know it's roughly comparable to those of countries like Austria and the former Czechoslovakia on these issues, maybe a little more conservative but not to the extent that I'd expect a constitutional ban to be something with a wide consensus.

It is not quite Weimar.  More a turn to the center-right.

In 1932-33, you had a collapse of the center with the left and right gaining. 

I was unaware that fascism was considered center-right. Thank you for informing me.

Considering that Jobbik is not in the coalition, I'd still call it center-right.

For the record, I do not think that the Fidesz party is fascist, however it would seem as if a non-insignificant part of its electoral base is, hence the parties rhetoric concerning "Jewish capital" and its remarks and polices towards Hungary's Roma and GLBT communities.

Wikipedia's article on Orban tells us that he re-purposed it after taking over in the nineties, one imagines to corner a different voter base.

J.J. does the absence of logic in your posts sometimes irritate you. I mean I understand the desire to be illogical, but does it ever irritate you?

What will the EU do? Or do they not care because it does not involved money?

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.

I don't see a Weimar parallel.  Simply put, so you will get it, you had both extremes gaining The Nazis on the extreme right and the Communists on the extreme left.  In some ways, Germans were given a choice between right and left. 

Hungary looks more like a drift to the right, possibly internal to Fidesz.

The parliament will condemn them.

The council will ignore them, learning the lesson from when Haarder was elected in Austria.

Beside that if any rights of minorities are broken, they can bring it to the European Court, and if the new government ignore that, you will see the different EU institutions react. But before that it serve no purpose.

Stop embarrassing yourself, J. J. It's actually quite painful to watch.

You really have no idea of what happened in 1932, do you?

From what is being described, Fidesz has moved to the right, and the electorate has moved to the right.  You don't have the more extremest parties (on either the left or the right) making huge gains.  You don't have the most right wing party in the coalition.

If Jobbik starts increasing seats at the expense of Fidesz, you could be closer to Weimar, but that hasn't happened yet.

I have a reasonable idea and even made maps once.


The point is that Fidesz is also an extremist party (at least by the standards of a normal democratic country) which has been governing in an increasingly authoritarian and alarming manner.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

()

()

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

Um, going back to the original post:


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.


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!

Ugh.

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)

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

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

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

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.

Bored. 

Sorry, but are any of you even vaguely familiar with Hungarian history between World War I and World War II?  You have a fairly good analogy there.

Please, enlighten me, at least, with regards to His and Horthy's Circumstances. I know the basics about the man--right-nationalist, Regent of a country lacking a royal family, background in the Austro-Hungarian navy, either betrayed or was betrayed by the Axis depending on who you ask--but not much more.

In this regard, the Hungarian Parliament was dominated by a right wing party (they kept changing their names), but never the most right wing party.  Even then, the parties moved further to the right, but there parties further to the right.

It is a remarkably similar situation to today.

It was arguably a Fascist government, bit it was clearly to the left of the Nazis and their Hungarian allies, Arrow Cross.

Just because your not a NAZI does not mean you are not a Fascist. Mussolini was a Fascist, THE fascist, but he was pro-jew. 

I think that is the point made with a comparison to Horthy.  He certainly didn't establish a liberal democracy.  Horthy and Unity Party, with its successors, were not the furthest people to the right, either in Europe or in Hungary.

Mussolini initially was not anti-Jewish, but that changed in the late 1930's.

To point out the obvious/what everyone else is thinking, etc...

J.J., the reason why 'Weimar' was used as the title for the thread was almost certainly because the name has a certain resonance in this sort of context. Whereas, 'Horthy' doesn't mean much to anyone these days (if it ever meant much at all) and, anyway, is only arguably more 'relevant' because of geography.

It is very close to a repeat of the late 1930's Hungary, in terms of party domination.  Weimar was situation where there was polarization and center finally sided with the extreme right, against the extreme left.

The title is as good as "Reductio ad Hitlerum" would be.  "Hugary slipping toward Fascism," might have been a lot better. 

I think there are parallels between the government in the 1930's and today's Hungarian political situation.  And I would call the Hungarian government of the 1930's Fascist, though not Nazi.

Austria is almost certainly the best example. There the Christian Social and Social Democratic parties traded power. The Christian Social party was moderate and Dolfuss had a moderate reputation, but when the SDs refused to play ball in 1932 he had to go to the non-Nazi fascists in the Heimwehr. He then became a prisoner of them, and eventually of Mussolini.

In effect you a had a normal center-right party, which moved into an unwanted coalition with the far-right - with the real blaming going to an electorate that was running rapidly to the right.

Fidesz = Christian Social
Socialists = Social Democrats but weaker and more corrupt

I get the impression that my post was read and not really read. Sigh.


Orban is claiming to rule as a Regent? You can certainly draw parallels with Hungarian dictatorships past if you like, but the fact remains that the name 'Horthy' means nothing to most people.


Well, no, it was much messier than that. Unless you're counting the SPD as extreme left, which would be insane. But, to repeat, the word 'Weimar' is almost certainly only being used because it evokes something, not as a direct pitch-perfect comparison.


The only difference between 'Hungary slipping towards Fascism' and 'Hungary: A Weimar for the 21st Century?' would be that the one would be using more evocative (and emotive) language than the other.

No they didn't. The SDAPÖ formed one government (1918-1920) and participated in another (1920-1921) and that was that. Austrian politics before Austrofascism was characterised by extreme polarisation between Red Vienna and the permanent CS government nationally.


No it was not. Anyway, I can see there's no point going any further...

Since we're talking about comparing Hungarian leaders to Horthy, thoughts about this quote I just read:

Looking at the new political system, Krugman is on crack.

Th existing political lines favored the Left massively. Fidesz won 42% of the single-seat vote in 2006 compared to 40.3% for the Socialists, but only won 68 seats as opposed to 98 for the Socialists. Under the new lines Fidesz would win 96 as opposed to 97 for the Socialists.

Claiming that the new maps are unfair because they would change the results of elections Fidesz actually won more votes in is absurd.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_parliamentary_election,_2006
http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Beyond%20democracy%20-%2027%20Nov%202011.pdf

Uhm, that second link you posted makes an elaborate case for the new boundaries being extremely biased towards the right? Also, I apppearantly recall reading somewhere that under the new boundaries Fidesz could lose an election 40-52 and still walk away with a majority of seats. Sounds quite fair to me.


I can understand you wanting to score some cheap points on Krugman, just try not to do it on the back of the half of Hungarians who don't want to live in some sort of pathetic parody on a fascist banana republic. Deal?

The piece is disingenous because its claims for bias are based on how much better the new boundaries are vis-e-ve the old ones, arguing that because the right gains its biased. its like claiming new lines in Britain under which the Tories would have won 50 more seats in 2010 would be biased towards the Tories. Compared to the status quo yes, but it would bring them more or less into line with fairness.

In the case of the 40-52 figure, its calculated by assuming that all the small parties that win support through the regional seats end up with their votes wasted - ie. the plan does discriminate against all the 3-7% parties that tend to ally with the Socialists, but if you assume they will actually behave differently and form joint lists a lot of that disappears.

Again, the change in single member constituencies based on the 2006 results are to go from 68-98 Fidesz to 96-97 Fidesz when Fidesz in fact won 42-40 in the popular vote. Thats far closer.

Why's everyone hating on JJ so much? He's not said anything particularly outrageous. Fidesz is a centre-right party that happens to be led by a man who needs to see a psychiatrist. I lived in Hungary during the first Orban government and he was normal and the period was unremarkable. When he lost power he had some sort of breakdown and has come back infected with some of the "Big Hungary" lunacy that seems to haunt a lot of inadequate Magyar males. My wife (who is Hungarian) and many of her friends are worried about whats going on in her homeland, and although the political situation is far from ideal, especially a a time when the country is groaning under debt and joblessness, I try to be sanguine and reassuring that this time will pass. It will pass, because there comes a point when enough people are laughing at the emperor's new clothes that he buggers off back to his boudoir. There is no external threat - Hungary is not Germany. And the internal threat won't last long.

I actually came here to get more info on the electoral reforms - if anyone has any additional links to the ones already posted, I'd be glad to read them.

There is nothing about Orban being regent.  Sorry, but since we are talking about Hungary, it just might be more appropriate to cite the history of Hungary.


The Communists were gaining.  There was a polarization, with an electorate moving toward the extremes.  This is more of the electorate moving toward the right.

There is a better analogy, Hungary in the 30's and early 40's.


Accuracy and emotion are two different things.  Comparing Hungary, drifting rightward, to the polarized Weimar is just hugely inaccurate.

Sorry if someone's already posted it, but here's an analysis of the new Hungarian electoral law. http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/readingpolitics/2011/12/25/hungary%e2%80%99s-new-electoral-law-part-1-the-basics/