Cuba of the Carpathians? Well, not quite. August 17, 2010
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, European Politics.trackback
There’s a spin on a Hungary related story in the Irish Times. Under the heading ‘Hungary’s new ‘Little Red Book’ harks back to bad old Soviet days’
the ‘Budapest Letter’ column by Daniel McLaughlin has a subheading which reads: The recently elected government has defied the IMF and is carrying out a summer legislative blitzkrieg’
Now, it has to be admitted that in a somewhat Pavlovian like fashion – and not necessarily a positive way – terms like ‘Little Red Book’ and ‘Soviet’ (not that one often sees the two juxtaposed in such a fashion) intrigue me.
Add to that the subheading and one would have grounds for wondering what was going on?
Who is this leviathan of the Carpathians (I exaggerate, apparently only 4% of the mountain range is inside Hungary) that thumbs its nose at the masters of the world?
Is it some leftwing formation steeped in a history of drab state socialism?
Erm… no, not at all.
The centre-right Fidesz party won two-thirds of the seats in parliament in April’s ballot, driving the Socialists from power and securing the right to change Hungary’s constitution and push through any legislation that it desires.
For those who may have forgotten, Fidesz started out as a dissident youth liberal group/party under the Communist regime in Hungary in the late 1980s. My own impression of it in those days was of a fairly libertarian outfit, and indeed it appears that that characterised it well into the 1990s. But around 1995 it shifted ideologically from liberal to conservative, a shift which precipitated a split by more liberal inclined members to the Alliance of Free Democrats.
Nor is its programme left-wing. This is not unexpected in a member of the European People’s Party, a group to which our own beloved Fine Gael is attached. To be honest Fidesz seems more similar to ideological approaches pursued by US conservatives and it may be no coincidence that one can read on wiki:
Orbán was awarded the Freedom Award of the American Enterprise Institute and the New Atlantic Initiative (2001), the Polak Award (2001), the Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit (2001), the “Förderpreis Soziale Marktwirtschaft” (Price for the Social Market Economy, 2002) and the Mérite Européen prize (2004). In April, 2004. he was awarded the Papal Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great.
And their domestic economic and political programme would appear to support the thesis that they are small government conservatives.
The government has merged ministries and wants to shrink the size of parliament and local administration, has claimed greater power over the appointment of constitutional court judges and plans to overhaul the constitution itself in the next year.
In some ways though isn’t this all very familiar? These proposals are not entirely dissimilar to those emanating from… Fine Gael, one presumes coincidentally. Although the idea of an Orbán/Kenny lashup on a philosophical level would be something to behold. At least for a while.
It is, however, on matters of international and domestic finance that Fidesz diverges from [most] other EPP parties. In a big way. A massive, counter-intuitive way… This isn’t Fine Gael flying a kite about EU Commission oversight of national budgets being a bad thing before falling rapidly back in line. Oh no. This is the real deal. Remember that mention above of ‘defying the IMF’… it’s all of that:
Orban has made a dramatic departure from the policies of his predecessors, who latterly were praised abroad for bringing down Hungary’s budget deficit to manageable levels.
While much of Europe accepts the International Monetary Fund orthodoxy and slashes spending and raises taxes to balance the budget and reduce debt, Orban is cutting taxes and shunning austerity measures to try and lift the Hungarian economy out of recession.
His refusal to commit to running a lower deficit next year, and his determination to enforce a tough levy on banks to raise cash for his budget, put him at loggerheads with the IMF, which last month suspended talks with his government over funding plans for next year.
This exemplified what Orban and his team say about reclaiming Hungary’s “economic sovereignty”, something that plays well with a nation that is tired of austerity and is traditionally suspicious of outside interference in its affairs.
And… so far, so good.
Since the suspension of loan talks with the IMF, Hungary has defied the sceptics by successfully raising funds on the international markets at reasonable interest rates.
Although who knows what the future might bring?
“If there’s an external shock and it turns out that Hungary is not able to finance itself from the markets, this would also mean a fiasco for the government which would need to ask for a new loan package,” said Kreko.
“It appears that the government is willing to sacrifice rationalistic ideas for some symbolic measures.”
But, for there is a but.
With an unassailable majority in parliament and the Socialists in disarray after their election drubbing, Fidesz encountered little opposition to its legislative blitzkrieg, until it proposed a Bill that critics say highlights Orban’s hubris and recalls the bad old days of one-party power.
Which would be?
Parliament ruled that a so-called statement of national co-operation must be clearly displayed in all public offices, so “that it is seen, day in, day out, by all Hungarian state employees”, as Orban said. The declaration begins with the statement, “Let there be peace, freedom and accord” and goes on to outline a “new system for national co-operation” based on “work, home, family, health and order” and hails Fidesz’s election victory as a “revolution at the ballot boxes”. The statement’s portentous tone and the order that it hang in every state institution was too much for many Hungarians, for whom the strictures of Soviet rule are not such a distant memory.
You can read the full text in English here on Hungarian Spectrum blog (and hat tip to them)… but here’s some of the gist of it…
“At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, after forty-six years of occupation, dictatorship and two confusing decades of transition, Hungary at last recaptured its right to self-determination and its capabilities (sic).
There is, understandably, mention of the 1956 uprising:
The struggle for self-determination of the Hungarian nation began in 1956 with a glorious but failed revolution…
But it seems a reach to compare that event with the following..
…In the spring of 2010 the Hungarian nation once more collected its remaining strength and in the voting booth it accomplished a successful revolution. The Hungarian people achieved this victory with the overthrow of the old regime and the establishment of a new one, the regime of national cooperation.
Not least because this is not the first Fidesz administration in recent Hungarian history. They entered government in 1998 led by a guy called…Viktor Orbán. That was quite an interesting period. According to wiki that saw a ‘radical reform of state administration’ with the reorganisation of government departments. But more importantly, and again according to wiki – so this may be incorrect:
…the government decided that plenary sessions of the unicameral National Assembly would be held only every third week. As a result, according to opposition arguments, parliament’s legislative efficiency and ability to supervise the government were reduced. In late March the government’s attempt to replace the National Assembly rule calling for a two-thirds majority vote with a simple majority, but this was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
At the same time, the Orbán cabinet continued to strengthen the prime-minister-led political system and introduced the new institution of the constructive vote of no confidence.
I’d love to hear more detail on that last item – indeed I’d bet that the FF/GP Coalition might be interested in it too.
Meanwhile, the declaration concludes with the following:
The Hungarian nation with this historic act obliged the newly elected parliament and government to work, without any hesitation or compromise, for the establishment of the regime of national cooperation. We, the representatives of the Hungarian Parliament, declare that we will place this new political and economic system that came into being as a result of the will of the people on secure foundations that are essential for prosperity, worthy of human beings, and that connect the members of the Hungarian nation of varied colors. Work, home, family, health, and law and order. These are the pillars of our common future. The regime of national cooperation is open to every Hungarian whether he lives inside or outside of the borders.
Hmmm… I’m no fan of such ‘declarations’. And I’ve never much liked three part slogans, or phrases which impel people to certain ends. The ‘new system for national co-operation’ is even less likable.
Now all that said, it’s no ‘Little Red Book’ for which we can all be grateful. But knowing what it isn’t begs the question as to what it actually is? Orbán and Fidesz developed out of anti-communism, again understandable given the history of that nation. But for a conservative administration it is jarring to read a link on the Orbán wiki page from the Economist from 2007 that reads:
Politics of the gutter award: Given jointly to Ferenc Gyurcsany, prime minister of Hungary, for admitting that his government had lied, and for turning a blind eye to police brutality; and to Hungary’s opposition leader, Viktor Orban, for cynical populism and mystifyingly authoritarian socialist-style policies.
‘Mystifying’ is bang on. Is it simply right populism with a cosmetic skim of nationalism – although the anti-IMF policies go some way beyond the cosmetic, all to be conceptually bound up by this ‘declaration’? If so the response has been resoundingly negative .
It’s genuinely a strange one. Just what sort of approach is it that we’re seeing here?
“tough levy on banks to raise cash for his budget”
If only we could, but the cupboard is bare
In case your average IT reader wasn’t swayed by ‘Little Red Book’ and ‘Soviet’, ‘Blitzkrieg’ has been added to the mix for good measure. A veritable smorgasbord of political tut-tuttery.
Those crazy Magyars telling the IMF to sling their hooks! Whatever will they think of next?
coc, very true. The message is loud and clear.
By the way, I’m not criticising them for saying farewell to the IMF. I think that the way that plays out will be very interesting. Indeed one wonders if this state had done something similar early on, and particularly perhaps post-Lisbon II what the results might have been? I don’t know and I only raise the idea hesitantly.
“I’m no fan of such ‘declarations’. And I’ve never much liked three part slogans, or phrases which impel people to certain ends. The ‘new system for national co-operation’ is even less likable.”
my exact thoughts, too. It may just be a sop to Nationalists (you won’t get a 2/3 majority in any country without that), only time will tell. I can’t find what “shunning austerity” refers to, though. Is Orban reversing spending cuts? if so, on what?
The Irish Times’ use of language is bizarre.
That’s something that hadn’t struck me on reading it, but you’re absolutely right. What on earth does it mean.
Ah, the IT must hate this. It’s from an economically conservative point, and yet…
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Northern Ireland and Cedar Lounge Revol, Cedar Lounge Revol. Cedar Lounge Revol said: Cuba of the Carpathians? Well, not quite.: There’s a spin on a Hungary related story in the Irish Times . Under t… http://bit.ly/9N3WAr [...]
Now, if we said that the IMF represents international finance capital, wouldn’t we have terminology that might come from left or right?
Yes, but terminology is usually less exact than we might both like – no?
Here’s Der Spiegel‘s take from back when Fidesz won the election. They’re also less than impressed, but have gone with the Nazi angle, which presumably plays scarier to a German audience.
All propaganda aside of course, it does appear likely that Hungary plays host to a significant element of dangerous loopers, who are closer to the centre of power than one would expect in a civilised society. Like Aznar’s Spain on steroids.
To be honest I find it deeply depressing. The Socialists are essentially economic liberals, the right seems prey to nationalist tendencies of the worst sort. let’s not even talk about the far right. It’s a bit of a disaster.
While much of Europe accepts the International Monetary Fund orthodoxy and slashes spending and raises taxes to balance the budget and reduce debt, Orban is cutting taxes and shunning austerity measures to try and lift the Hungarian economy out of recession.
Great, it’s Dubya on the Danube (and especially with the cult of personality enforced on Government employees).
Jesus, if only I had more time in my day I’d love go in depth on this bad. Maybe tomorrow…
It’s funny, as I was reading the original piece I was thinking to myself, if only, if only I knew someone who knew something – anything – however tangential and could lead us through this tangled web of history, politics and circumstance.
Laim Smullen,
WorldbyStorm, All here is more imformation on hungary
past and present deployments.
i wonder how money the bank levy will raise or is it just
Symbolic?
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/search/label/hungary
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/search/label/hungary
neoliberal mess
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2008/05/neoliberal-mess.html
hungarian crunch
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2008/03/hungarian-crunch.html
hunger in hungary
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2007/10/hungry-in-hungary.html
Well, now that we’ve all moved on. In a nutshell the reason that the conservatives can get away with shit like this is that Hungarians have had austerity measures of one sort or another in effect since 1995. Essentially they played by the rules and feel like they got double fucked for their efforts.
The level of disillusionment with government is also extremely high in this environment. I’m not so sure that the conservatives won so much as the socialists lost, very badly. The closest thing I can think of is of the (American) Nov. ’08 elections on steroids. Though the discontent has been growing for quite sometime. Back in ’06 when the Prime Minsiter admitted that he lied all through the campaign and heavy rioting ensued. There was much made about the far right nature of the rioters at the time and indeed I have no doubt there was a ready overlap between the rioters and Jobbik activists. But as some (including myself) noted at the time, much of what put the rioting over the top was a sense of frustration with the underlying economic situation. Which is essentially the same issue we have now, ie Hungarians played by the new market rules, and after tightening their belts found out that it didn’t matter as they were still fucked and lumped in with dysfunctional groupings such as Romania.
I don’t know if this new departure will work, but it is interesting that the only government in Europe to buck the IMF etc. is a conservative one. While the whole slogan thing is not exactly to my liking I would see a similarity to Cameron’s “big society”. Although I think it is being done with the ham fisted style which is unfamiliar with selling a brand which Western governments seem to have become so adept at doing. I would also note, with a great deal trepidation in as much as I’m not saying that Fidesz are being fascistic but that Fascism as an ideology argues for transcending capitalism. Just an observation mind you, not an accusation. It could also simply be that we are seeing a right wing form of social democracy. Well probably not, but you know, someone had to say it.
I’d like to touch on some of the stuff, such as the debate surrounding the invocation of ’56 and how it mirrors what happened in ’48. ’48 was indeed a revolutionary moment in European history and especially Hungarian history. Hungary not only rose up against the Hapsburgs but was the only place that put up sustained military resistance to the counter revolutionary forces of the Hapsburgs and Czarist Russia. As such it was a cause de celeb (or whatever it is they call it) around the world at the time. The failure of the revolution had even more profound effects, namely the Magyarization of the elite within Hungary. Who had either opposed or remained aloof for fear of social element of the revolution. In defeat they remade a romanticized cultural version of the revolution that they could easily claim for themselves while at the same time using that spectre to leverage concessions from Austria. With obviously the end result of the dual Monarchy (which didn’t really work out too well for Hungary in the end). Remember Arthur Griffith for the Irish connection.
To me it seems that that same disconnect is taking place for ’56 as well. When my wife and I attended the 50th anniversary here (at The Hungarian Freedom Park) we also saw that disconnect. A survivor read a poem he had written which talked about the blood of the workers and students in the streets and that it was their revolution. The commemoration then adjourned to a country club where Tom Tancredo was the speaker. We left after my wife almost got into a fist fight with a lady who started talking shit to me after I booed Tancredo. Well at least my wife threatened to kick her ass and then insisted that we leave. I was happy to stay as I had already paid for my meal in advance, but that’s a side tangent.
The point being that Hungary got reforms in post ’48, and ’56 because they fought hard and became more of a problem than they were worth. It is also worth noting that they lost everytime. We’ll see if this is one more occasion of history repeainting itself. I’d take some time to respond to Liam Smullens posts, but I can already see it descending into duelling antectdotes. So we’ll leave everything well enough alone.
It could also simply be that we are seeing a right wing form of social democracy.
This would chime with the thought I’ve been expressing here, now and then, about politics dividing into one trend that is socially liberal but economically ruthless, and another which believes in social protection but is xenophobic and authoritarian.
Nothing unusual in the narrow spectrum, “socialist” “conservative” situation. Sounds a lot like, Thomas Ferguson’s analysis of democracy in a capitalist state – the investment theory of party competition. (Chomsky references Ferguson a lot, and I think i linked to a documentary on Ferguson here called Golden Rule)
The theory focuses on how business elites, not voters, play the leading part in political systems, in the sense that quite popular political positions don’t get a look in, (healthcare in the US say) but differing blocks within the business elite dominate policy choices. *
I’m not sure what the situation in Hungary is, (with the labour movement in particular and campaign finance as that can ameliorate things) but the “conservatives” in this case, may be the party of labour intensive business, while the “socialists” might be the party of more footloose capital intensive business.
Like other countries, this can shift and change depending on what is the outcome of the investment extravaganza otherwise known as our elections. But only insofar as it stays within that narrow spectrum. Unless labour moves in, ….and/or we ignore the whole “extravaganza” all together…
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition#Explanatory_Example
ejh,
But is this so much about just politics? Christian charities have been doing this sort of work for centuries. The concept of taking care of one’s own hardly seems new. Social protection, but authoritarian tendencies is a dictionary definition of the Catholic Church.
I haven’t really done justice to WBS’s post, glossing over the beef and focussing in other elements that may interest only me, but fuck it.
Yourcousin, would you mind if I posted that up as a post today or tomorrow? I think that’s very very important the dynamic you point to and the dual (or indeed other) readings of the meaning of ’56.
Fine by me
[...] in International Politics, The Left. trackback A follow up comment from Yourcousin to this post which I’ve added here (he’s slightly rewritten it) as a post in its own right – [...]