Hungary: A Weimar for the 21st Century?

[J. J.]

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.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

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. 

[J. J.]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[Dan the Roman]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

It is very close to a repeat of the late 1930's Hungary, in terms of party domination.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Austria is almost certainly the best example. There the Christian Social and Social Democratic parties traded power.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[The Mikado]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dan the Roman]

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

[Insula Dei]

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?

[Dan the Roman]

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.

[dadge]

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.

[J. J.]

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

It is very close to a repeat of the late 1930's Hungary, in terms of party domination.

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
[/quote]

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

[dadge]

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/