Ex-communist Europe Eastern approaches
Hungary's travails
Budapest vs Brussels
Jan 17th 2012, 16:39 by A.L.B. | BUDAPEST
HUNGARIANS are used to foreign rule. The Mongols, the Turks, the Habsburgs, the Nazis and the Soviet Union have all left their mark. Sometimes the locals help the occupiers, sometimes they get in their way. Usually it’s a bit of both.
These time-honoured tactics have proved less successful under Hungary’s latest overlords: the European Union, especially as the country joined the club voluntarily. Today the European Commission launched legal action against Hungary over three issues: a new central-bank law, which it says opens the door to political control; judicial reforms that will see hundreds of judges forced to take early retirement; and concerns over the independence of the new data ombudsman. Hungary has a month to modify the laws. If it does not do so, it faces being hauled in front of the European Court of Justice.
Today's ruling is a serious setback for the right-wing Fidesz government. The groundswell of concern in Brussels and other western capitals about Fidesz’s relentless centralisation of power is steadily growing.
It also comes as Hungary is seeking financial assistance from the IMF and the EU. Tamás Fellegi, the government’s chief negotiator, is making the diplomatic rounds but so far has nothing to show for it. Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, made it clear last week that Hungary will have to play ball with the EU before it can receive a penny.
So what next for Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister? In most countries enduring a fraying economy and a non-stop diplomatic barrage the ruling party would be cracking as potential rivals readied themselves for power. Not in Hungary. The faithful Fidesz flock stick to the party line as happily as their Communist predecessors.
A compromise looks likely to be found on the central bank and data protection. The question of the judges may be more difficult. Assuming the commission sticks to its guns and forces concessions from Mr Orbán, he will be politically weakened. His popularity is already sagging—one poll gives Gordon Bajnai, his technocrat predecessor, a popularity rating of 28%, one percentage point ahead of the prime minister.
Should Mr Orbán refuse to make concessions then the prospect of an IMF deal will evaporate, the forint will plunge further, bond yields will climb yet higher and the prospect of default later in the year will loom ever larger.
Supporters of the government argue that the commission's action is an outrageous attack on Hungarian sovereignty. Fidesz won a landslide two-thirds majority in a free and fair election less than two years ago, they say, giving it an overwhelming mandate for change. Brussels should mind its own business.
It’s a fair point, but as pressure grows on Budapest the focus will likely shift to the lack of a proper mechanism within the EU to bring wayward members into line. Infringement proceedings are serious but can drag on for years. The EU has the Copenhagen criteria to ensure aspiring countries meet membership requirements, but little to ensure that they stick to them once inside.
The markets' reaction to today's development has been muted. Hungary sold three-month T-bills worth €55 billion forints ($226m), 10 billion more than the target and at slightly lower yields.
But Société Générale is already advising investors to sell forints, predicting that the currency may slide to as low as 325 against the euro. (It briefly hit 324 earlier this month.) Recent reassuring comments towards the EU and the IMF from the government may be nothing more than “yet another tactic to calm markets down”, the bank said.
Eastern approaches deals with the economic, political, security and cultural aspects of the eastern half of the European continent. It incorporates the long-running "Europe.view" weekly column. The blog is named after the wartime memoirs of the British soldier Sir Fitzroy Maclean.
Advertisement
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Cassandra | The World in 2012
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Multimedia | Audio, video and videographics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Will the euro survive 2012 intact?
- Japan's immigration control: Gulag for gaijin
- Newt Gingrich: Newt and the "food-stamp president"
- The Republican nomination: Live-blogging the Republican debate
- Hungary's travails: Budapest vs Brussels
- Charlemagne: And then there was one
- Taiwan’s elections: It’s all right, Ma
- The South Carolina primary: The slog begins
- The Republican nomination: Red-meat delivery
- Israel and Palestine: Toddling to talks about talks
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Technological change: The last Kodak moment?
- Rioting in Romania: The battle of Bucharest
- Daily chart: Winners and losers
- Internet regulation: Black ops
- Newt Gingrich: Newt and the "food-stamp president"
- Civilian drones: Difference engine: Unblinking eye in the sky
- The euro zone crisis: France goes soft-core
- Japan's immigration control: Gulag for gaijin
- Mexico's drug war: Working together
- The visible hand
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Sir,
you are quite wrong on the Hungarians sticking happily to the Communist party in the past- au contraire- they put the first nail into the coffin of Communist with the 56 uprising!
Also I notice that the Economist is very slow, to cover the pro-government demonstrations, which wasn't the case for the opposition's rallys.
Many sources like the BBC, the WaPO, and blogs like
http://hungariandigest.wordpress.com/
http://esbalogh.typepad.com
have attempted to cover this event already. It is now the 23th and the peace walk took place on the 21th. Yet there is nothing from the Economist on this subject. Also the opposition's opera rally was covered on it's own without being lumped in together with 2-3 other topics. So please give the same respect here, cover the event individually without lumping it together with other stuff, trying to downplay its significance.
For years there was severe over-education in Hungary in lawyers and economists. This was due to the previous system which provided state funded places for thousands and thousands every year, now this was cut to a much more reasonable few hundred. This lead to the degrees in this professions becoming almost worthless. Now with the "95% cut" which is presented as a bad thing there IS a chance that the degrees will be worth something again.
I am very happy about this change because 1) taxpayer money is not wasted on training professions which already have too many people and just results in unemployment 2) the degrees of "Prospective economists" will be worth more in the future due to this change.
I don't understand how could this ever be interpreted as bad when the unemployment was already massive in these two fields.
I've just been told that I will be flying to Budapest next month... I don't mind the destination, but the timing sucks... Maybe I will post the exchange rate of the Forint when I get in there, and again when I get out of there....
It's such a shame that Orbán has maneuvered himself into this whole EC&IMF clash. Sure, given the track record of his 1.5-year governance this was pretty much inevitable, even though he surely could've done better. I mean I'm sure that he's cunning enough that he foresaw his drop in popularity not only within Hungary, but abroad as well (which's evidenced by rumors coming from Fidesz circles too). He surely knew that this was inevitable no matter what steps will he take as well. But why didn't he just introduce any REAL reforms so far? I mean sure, the constitution might sound like a notable one, but it isn't: regardless of its somewhat obscure preamble and the whines of the opposition there were only a few notable changes. And it's the same with the rest of the laws as well: they've introduced over 200 laws in a single year (they even had trouble with the Roman numerals because of this) with little to no reforms whatsoever. To be precise: the education system is still the same "soviet" type that has been put in place by the commies probably in the 1950s. The same goes for the healthcare: patients have to bribe the doctors to get a treatment in a decent quality (or sometimes even to get a treatment at all). Or the local councils: their numbers are around 3200, which's insane. But the list goes on and on. Now they've wasted over 1.5 years only to encounter MUCH more resistance from every side now than they did a year ago.
As for this resentment of Hungary abroad I'd say that it pretty much stems from the fact that the West has a hard time understanding Hungary or its way of thinking. The mentioning of Gordon Bajnai in an Economist blog post just seems to prove this even more. This misunderstanding doesn't come from the country's communist legacy only. I wrote an article about the rest of the aspects: http://hungariandigest.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/hungary-vs-imf-definitel...
@from Gdansk, The Prospective Economist, Wendromer, Daniel Prinz: care to share some of your thoughts on it on the blog as well?
The 95% cut in students is the mother of all reforms. You will find such a "change" nowhere else. This basically shut down public education as it is for those professions --- and it is not even easy to call these schools private then and let them charge a price and take students as they like.
Maybe the underlying mean, crude central planning logic truly resembles "your Commies", but don't say they didn't do anything.
Also, a tax reform that loses 500 billion forints, mostly to the rich, would be a crown jewel of any arch-Conservative government in the West. Don't say it's not a result, it's not a policy. It's a huge change to our social contract, our society.
Also, the enormous cuts to unemployment benefits (shortest in the OECD!) and welfare is a reform that most Western governments would not try only every other decade. Let alone the 130 billion-forint-worth public works programs, the cuts to disability (and early) pensions, or the homeless policies.
And again, though completely mismanaged, and worst, badly accounted, the pension reform is another biggie.
Again, compare any of this to what a typical German, French, British, Indian, American government even tries or hopes to achieve in a term. These are huge.
Just because these are mostly bad policies and some of the institutional changes get the attention (esp. in the West, as they TRULY don't care and would never lecture any sovereign country on such policies, exactly because we are not a colony, thank you very much), it is foolish to say that nothing happened.
Yes, Orbán and most lawyers and politicians, esp. from 1989, enjoy "framing" more than anything else, and perhaps it is their only expertise if they ever had any, but Orbán did more than framing (and politicking, buying media etc.) this time. They did already, and they will do more. I'm happy if The Economist starts talking more about this too.
The 95% cut in state-funded law/economics/liberal arts student quotas IS a big step all right, but it took them literally 1.5 years to come up with something like this (IIRC they first started talking about this in early December). What the hell did Rózsa Hoffman & co. do up until now (besides arguing with Zoltán Pokorni)? Because favoring Slavic and New Latin languages instead of English (or German) doesn't sound like a reform to me.
It's not only the "underlying mean, crude central planning logic" that resembles the Commies, but also the way they pushed through all the laws (i.e without discussing it at least with NGOs/experts in the given fields first) and their taxing policies (i.e. taxing the banks - those rich capitalist-imperialist bastards - or the "mall building moratorium") so don't tell me this is the way any Conservative government of the West does it.
Fine, the tax reform and unemployment benefits cut/reform WAS a big thing, but obviously it wasn't enough, otherwise Orbán won't be pressured into negotiations with IMF. Also don't forget that the public work programs are just a temporary solution to the unemployment problem.
Well, IDK about the Germans (I'm not as well-acquainted with their politics as with others) but AFAIK Sarkozy has pushed through a LOT of policies in France which the previous presidents couldn't (since they were "downvoted" by the protesters) and England had (up until recently) a left-wing cabinet which didn't feel like making any reforms at all. In the US the Obama administration has managed to make an unprecedented step: pass a universal "socialized" healthcare legislation which no previous president could (even FDR has failed on this). And India.........let's just say that the country's thoroughly apathetic regarding politics (and usually it's only the poorest of the poor who cast their votes anyway).
Also I didn't say that they didn't introduce ANY reforms at all. I only said that there were very few of these (which were usually mismanaged too) and they surely could've done better. I also understand the West's criticism to some extent as well. But I still don't like if when one uses demagoguery instead of facts to criticize someone.
Well, the readers and writers of The Economist will know (even) better, but trust me, a government doing this much, actually, policy-wise, not just in framing and politicking, is a rare thing already. Actually, that's why it's puzzling it is not discussed much.
On whether the public finance reforms were enough or not: Orbán would not need the IMF without his tax reform because he would have much more money coming in and private creditors would still trust him that he can and will make them full.
On the public works: Hungarian unemployment is not a labor supply problem (or in the long-term sense of having enough skills, it is, but the camps won't help that). And it is not temporary. The camps won't help, and definitely not "temporarily".
I'm afraid I know much too little about Hungary to comment on her internal affairs in such detail. All I can say is that for any government to pass 365 laws in such a short space of time is impressive. Inevitably at least some of these laws are going to be bad, but that'd be inevitable in any country. Fascinating as a critique of such an active time in Hungarian legislation is, it'd be impossible for even the most knowledgeable person to give a fair appraisal at such an early stage.
My prime concern is pretty much summed up in Andrzej and Joanna Gwiadza's statement. It doesn't only concern Hungary, in some respects a far bigger crisis exists in the way the EU operates, e.g. the ease with which democratically elected leaders are replaced by so-called "technocrats". Very disturbing indeed. (And what about the democratic mandate and transparency of EU legislation? How did we learn about ACTA?)
I read hungariandigest with interest. Was it you who also wrote about Kim Scheppele?
Best wishes,
from Gdansk
And a little trivia to spice up any news piece: Now that the public purse is empty after the huge tax cut for the rich and after the appropriated accumulated stock of (ex-private) pension wealth was spent for the latent stimulus of 2011 (and admittedly, not rolling over some public debt), money is cut not only from welfare or schools, but also museums. Austerity bites hard. Last week the National Museum had to send the professional team to shifts as guards, as they had to fire some people and they chose to fire the guards. This is sadly in state in Europe.
And you can also ask Béla Tarr (an uncontroversial authority in Hungarian film if there ever was one) about how he feels about public subsidies now going through the producer of Terminator 2 sitting in the cabinet, Andrew G. Vajna.
Well, those things you mentioned are sad. No one likes restrictions. But do not forget about the main problem: the post-communist government left a huge debt behind. Hungary inherited about 80% GDP-rated debt in 2010 at the elections, while this ratio was about 56% in 2002 before the post-communist government got in power. Whatever anyone can tell, that is the biggest problem of the country. Hungary has to amortize about 13 billion Euro only this year for the debts, what mainly left by the former government. This amount is about 15 % of the GDP in 2012, which is a very significant amount. If Hungary would have only 56 % of debt, we should pay back much-much less than 13 billion Euro. Hungary should not have more restrictions, the country would have much more money for the education, etc.
This is a mistaken view. Yes, the country piled up a huge debt, largely as it paid more generous pensions as it could have afforded (pensions were always a gift from future, richer generations to past ones, and it is easy to screw up the math and go overly generous). But, yes, also because waste at MÁV and others, and inefficient procurement.
But note a few things nobody seems to notice: Three bad years (meaning 10GDP% deficits) are enough to go from 50GDP% of debt to 80GDP%. I know that those countries are different, but still, this is what happened to the UK and the US, even.
Also, pensions imply a funny math. Exactly because private pensions transferred not only assets but also liabilities to the funds, the accounting was bad, and the transitional increase in public deficits was spurious. Orbán never made this point, but he had at something like this. But this exactly proves the point that some rise in the debt from 50% to 80% is innocuous as we will need to finance smaller public pensions later and we can pay back our debt instead.
Basically, if you think about the pension accounting, it also follows that private accounts could have been added back to the STOCK of the public balance sheet (instead of the FLOW of the budget). But then the debt level is only 70GDP%.
Making things worse, Orbán saw this, took the pension wealth back, but instead of paying down the debt, he wasted some more in the latent stimulus of 2011. (Check the MNB numbers, the public deficit would have been above 7GDP% without the pension money.) This way he himself ADDED to the debt.
Yes, the interest burden is pretty large. That's why it would be more important to regain the trust of creditors and keep interests low. That would save us WAY much more money than stupid cuts on museum budgets instead.
We simply lost a lot of money to the rich with the income tax cut. Over 500 billion forints each year. That is a self-inflicted wound to Orbán's budget, he did not inherit that from anyone. He does not want to collect the money and then he's surprised that he does not have any. To save schools or museums, for instance...
You are right in several issues. Myself do not agree the 16% flat taxing of the incomes. Maybe it works in rich countries, maybe it will work in Hungary 20 years later but not now. It wasn't the time to put this in practice.
Apart from this if the public debt is about 56% instead of 80% there would be a big leftover in the budget, not 500 billion HUF but 1500 billion...
So, I still can say that the biggest problem is the public debt of the country which was highly generated by the socialist-liberal governments between 2002-2010. With this heritage is very-very difficult to make progress for any kind of government. Especially if the government also makes mistakes. That makes the things more difficult... but that does not change the basic debt-problem.
You're on a good track, Pocemon, stick to your math. Pay attention. If we had 24GDP% lower debt, how much more we had left over to spend each year in our budget? Even at our sadly inflated interest rates, at most 2.4GDP%. Not a huge difference for a country where the government spends roughly half of the whole country (50GDP%).
Don't let the right-wing media wash your mind about the debt. Yes, it is always better to have less esp. because then you can take out some in an emergency, and your creditors trust you more with a lower interest rate. But Japan or Italy or Belgium did not collapse with a debt of 150GDP% or so. Of course, that burden is easier if markets trust your leader and you pay a lower interest rate. But why is it Gyurcsány's fault that markets don't trust Orbán?
(And even if they don't trust him anymore, I just showed that the current level of debt makes much less of a difference than cutting income taxes. Or wasting the pension funds on buying MOL, by the way. And it is infinitely more hard to save in welfare checks of 28,000 forint cut back to 22,000 what you lost by leaving billions more in the hands of Demján or Csányi, just two people. You need to thousands of people's welfare just to save what you splurged on a single oligarch. Why is it fair or just?)
Espcially if the debt burden were that high as you claim, it should be a national priority to earn the trust of markets and get the lowest interest rates possible. How is Orbán doing on that priority? Isn't he wasting our money?
You exactly know that this situation is not about "trust". The EU and the big multinational companies want to use their usual political and financial influence on Hungary. With the present government it is not going as easy as it was going before. That is why the big screaming. Their just want to gain back their influence almost at any cost. Which can be comprehensible from their viewpoint but not necessarily the interest of the country.
What many people do not know, Hungary is on the 3rd place on the worldwide rank of public debt comparing the debt per head to the average salary! This number means 21 months work on average salary to be able to pay pack the public debt per head. This is a more than heavy data. You should be aware of this!
So, the GDP-rated public debt is just one number. Japan's debt is almost internal debt (not currency from abroad), mostly the Japanese people are the creditors of their own state. The Japanese citizens are not interested to fuck around their government and Yen while a "foreign" creditor would not care about moral issues. As we can see in Hungary they really do not care: they want more interest, that's all. For this goal they can even cooperate with each other not to buy stocks from the government. If you say this is not true I should say yes, it has happened in 2008 and a few weeks ago to pump up the interest of the stocks. It is not really about trust, it is financial manipulation.
You exactly know that this situation is not about "trust". The EU and the big multinational companies want to use their usual political and financial influence on Hungary. With the present government it is not going as easy as it was going before. That is why the big screaming. Their just want to gain back their influence almost at any cost. Which can be comprehensible from their viewpoint but not necessarily the interest of the country.
What many people do not know, Hungary is on the 3rd place on the worldwide rank of public debt comparing the debt per head to the average salary! This number means 21 months work on average salary to be able to pay pack the public debt per head. This is a more than heavy data. You should be aware of this!
So, the GDP-rated public debt is just one number. Japan's debt is almost internal debt (not currency from abroad), mostly the Japanese people are the creditors of their own state. The Japanese citizens are not interested to fuck around their government and Yen while a "foreign" creditor would not care about moral issues. As we can see in Hungary they really do not care: they want more interest, that's all. For this goal they can even cooperate with each other not to buy stocks from the government. If you say this is not true I should say yes, it has happened in 2008 and a few weeks ago to pump up the interest of the stocks. It is not really about trust, it is financial manipulation.
The is empty rhetoric, Pocemon. The guys who bid for our bonds, thus determine its price thus determine our interest rates care about one thing (as everything else is fixed for a bond, esp. if it is not denominated forint but in a currency they want anyway): how likely it is that the government won't pay as the bond pledges to. This is pure trust. Trust in Orbán's abilities, e.g. that he will understand the math and will tax the rich again as he needs the money or the bonds won't be paid back on time. And trust in Orbán's intentions (and political support) not to leave the creditors empty-handed. I must say the war rhetoric and the denigration of people who gave us their money is not a good sign, I understand that.
Tell me, what is the interest of the West, then? Why is it good for the creditors to make a mess out of Orbán? What do they want to dictate? If he pays back the bonds, they got all they can. They can only lose if Orbán does not pay. Is it such a scandal that the creditors try to "influence" Orbán to actually fulfill his contractual promises?
Nobody gains anything else from a weak forint or anything. They don't get back more euros just because the forint is weak. And they don't get more euros if Orbán falls and there's a new PM. They still only get what the bond always promised. (Unless you think Orbán would not pay back the bonds but the new PM would. Well, you're talking about default, then.)
I don't know about you debt statistics, so some sources would help. In any case, Hungary does not look like a country who could not sustain an 80GDP% debt level easily if she would be ready to tax its rich again (and perhaps not scare all capital away thus keep the economy going).
The is empty rhetoric, Pocemon. The guys who bid for our bonds, thus determine its price thus determine our interest rates care about one thing and one thing only (as everything else is fixed for a bond, esp. if it is not denominated forint but in a currency they want anyway): how likely it is that the government won't pay as the bond pledges to. This is pure trust. Trust in Orbán's abilities, e.g. that he will understand the math and will tax the rich again as he needs the money or the bonds won't be paid back on time. And trust in Orbán's intentions (and political support) not to leave the creditors empty-handed. I must say the war rhetoric, the denigration of people who gave us their money, or the respect of private property the pension "reform" and the crisis taxes (and their justification) show is not a good sign, I understand that.
Tell me, what is the interest of the West, then? Why is it good for the creditors to make a mess out of Orbán? What do they want to dictate? If he pays back the bonds, they got all they can. They can only lose if Orbán does not pay. Is it such a scandal that the creditors try to "influence" Orbán to actually fulfill his contractual promises?
Nobody gains anything else from a weak forint or anything. They don't get back more euros just because the forint is weak. And they don't get more euros if Orbán falls and there's a new PM. They still only get what the bond always promised. (Unless you think Orbán would not pay back the bonds but the new PM would. Well, you're talking about default, then.)
I don't know about you debt statistics, so some sources would help. In any case, Hungary does not look like a country who could not sustain an 80GDP% debt level easily if she would be ready to tax its rich again (and perhaps not scare all capital away thus keep the economy going).
"how likely it is that the government won't pay as the bond pledges to. This is pure trust."
It is not. The higher the interest after the bonds the less chance to have the debt being paid back by the debtor. This happened partly with Greece. Maybe they would have been able to pay back their debts with - let's say - 6% interests, with the interests what the have got recently it is clear: mission impossible. I do not know whose goal this is at the end but this is what happening. Greece is going to be in very deep regression for long-long time and they have to sell out the country by the "conditions" of the EU and IMF. For sure it is not the interest of the country. So whose?
Similar happened in Hungary in the 90's when the conditions of further loans were the "privatization" of the economy. Everyone can see it did not lead anywhere. We could not pay back our debt but lost the majority of the economy and 1-1.5 millions of jobs while we had more and more public debt. You do not have to be a prophet to see that Greece could hang a board on the country in a few years' time: "SOLD", without the slightest chance to get rid of the huge debt. The final result: no country, yes debt. As it happened in Hungary as well.
"Tell me, what is the interest of the West, then? Why is it good for the creditors to make a mess out of Orbán?"
Simple. They want to see someone else instead of Orbán, or a very cooperative Orbán in all matters. They need servants, not equal partners. If that does not happen - they are pressing with what they have in their hand.
This is the "very democratic" West who criticizes Hungary for "antidemocratic" steps. It is funny and very sad at the same time, don't you think?
And what would that servant serve, my friend? What would the other guy actually do? You are being unreasonable here. I know more policy-makers than you do, Barroso has nothing to ask from Orbán apart from being a calm and reasonable guy who can respect contracts and be trusted with voting on EU matters.
Also, hoping to have a friend in not bullying.
Just because a falling forint and a default is bad for Hungary does not mean it's good for anyone else either.
You have your logic backwards. Interests are high because are bonds are selling for cheap because demand is weak because people think Orbán will not respect their property right and "contracts" (inherent in the bond) any more that he did with the pension funds, swiss-franc-loans, foreigners' profits etc. If Orbán will default because interest rates rose too high, this is part of his self-inflicted wound. That is the consequences of his own actions, not anybody else's.
Also, another genuinely economic story instead of just politicking: You never mentioned who replaced Fellegi when he lost his portfolio in the cabinet. The uneducated lady presiding over spending of all EU development funds in Hungary is a point-man of the petty businessman behind Fidesz, Simicska. And instead of bothering the minister the way they did with Fellegi, they now have a man in the ministry, the brother of Simicska's right hand man, Zsolt Nyerges.
This is an excellent collection of articles about this empire, though in Hungarian: http://cimkezes.origo.hu/cimkek/kozgep-zrt-/index.html?tag=K%F6zg%E9p+Zrt.
And Simicska also controls a big chunk of the advertisement market through MAHIR, which came handy for Fidesz in campaigns ever since 1998, and is also a great way to legally pump money into any media outlet you want. And guess what, Heti Válasz, Hír TV, Magyar Nemzet, Lánchíd Rádió get a lot of advertisement (though now they also get it from state-owned enterprises, like the gambling behemoth Szerencsejáték Zrt. or Magyar Posta). This is as much of a threat to a free, fair and unbiased press in Hungary as the new media authority. And this is nothing new (or strictly illegal, sadly).
If a new article meant for the print edition is brewing (and a quick post on the well-funded "civilian" protest yesterday gratefully acknowledged by the Interior Ministry, nothing less), here are a few substantial points that did not make it into articles so far:
Actual policies are also changing, even if the EU only criticizes the framework, the constitution. Note that The Economist, much like the Western press, governments or clubs let Orbán wreck welfare, tax policy or secondary and higher education exactly because Hungary is sovereign with a government with a mandate.
But the tragedy of the homeless, and the unemployed or early-retirees whose benefits have been drastically cut, or the poor families with kids who hoped to give it a try at marketable professions like business or law in the supposedly "public" education system should be mentioned. This is more important than the obvious, blatant plagiarism of the ex-Communist, corrupt-Olympic-official president (who presided over the disgraceful doping scandal of the Hungarian Olympic team in Athens). Even if the president is much more visible trying to give a face to hubristic, smug and hypocritical regime lecturing the nation on ethics, unity, consensus and peace.
The publicly funded university places for everything related to economics or business have been cut from 4800 to 250. This is a 95% cut. I repeat that. A 95% cut. This is not a new government implementing some clever new policy it was elected to do. This is a heavy-handed shock to families weeks before application deadline (and after most foreign application deadlines), as heavy-handed as any central planner ever got.
Also, nobody even tries to argue why the West, or finance, or capitalists, or bankers, or (of course) Jews would benefit from the collapse of Hungarian public finances. The forint would fall, but so what? They don't want to buy anything denominated in forints. And they only want to see their euros back. Some people gossip about a Grand Plan where foreigners would come in and buy stuff at a bargain once everything collapsed and more lenient government is in place. Even Orbán said last week that future wars will be faught for land and water (in Europe???). I wonder why the intelligent people could not stop these stupid speculations spread. As if nobody could do anything if the Hungarians were left no land and water would be being pumped out of the country? No sovereign could reclaim the property? That stock is really hard to steal, and the flow of benefits is pretty easy to stop, if not reverse. Really, not even The Economist pushed anyone around Orbán to elaborate on their insinuations about who would benefit if Hungary goes under.
Orban (Hungary's PM) is going to make a fool of the IMF and the EU.
Not that long ago Orban and his party spoke about the IMF and the EU as if they were the Antichrist. But they've driven the country's economy off of a cliff, so now they are trying to act nice.
But they are just ACTING nice. Emphasis on acting.
Let's not forget Orban's and hid right-wing buddies (Jobbik). Just a few days ago Jobbik burnt the EU flag. And this is not a coincidence.
Jobbik is technically a different party from Orban's Fidesz. But in reality, they are just the radical form of Fidesz. They are the ones who will burn the flag, if Orban officially could not do it. They are the ones, who will intimidate the opposition.
As soon as Orban gets the funding from the EU/IMF, he will continue on his radical work.
He will continue his fight against the freedom of speech in Hungary. He will keep putting his own "soldiers" in every main government position. And he will make sure that they stay there, by making changes to the constitution.
This is a very dangerous game.
The country needs the help of the EU/IMF, to ensure that Hungary will not become the first dictatorship within the EU.
Ah, and by the way, I read that the people from the Economist who report on Hungary, speak Hungarian...
"His [Orbán's]popularity is already sagging—one poll gives Gordon Bajnai, his technocrat predecessor, a popularity rating of 28%, one percentage point ahead of the prime minister."
Hahaha! Wishful thinking, isn't it? Or a joke albeit a poor one?
Just because Bajnai is financed by CAP (Center for American Progress)it does't make him a particularly desirable alternative to Orbán. (He is such a bore, ingenuine, apolitical and so on that no one even considers him as a future PM inside Hungary.)
Your journalism is just scratching the surface, no deep understanding of what is going on in Hungary. Picking up one insignificant fact and presenting it as something substantial will do only for the ones who know very little about the country's current "mood". BBC is doing far better in capturing the real feelings of the majority of Hungarians.
On the note of Orbán's decreasing popularity - I am strongly hoping that your paper will cover the events of Jan 21st in Budapest.
Bajnai and his whole "foundation" (the so called Haza és Haladás) serves American interests exclusively.
When under the MSZP-SZDSZ government, (when MSZP-SZDSZ controlled all aspects of public life) two-radio frequencies were awarded to Hungarian companies instead of American ones by the MSZP-SZDSZ dominated ORTT. What did Bajnai do? He publicly condemned the ORTT decision made by ORTT in which his political side had the majority! I would expect no less of him, than to follow the precise instructions of his US handlers in the future as well. He started out as a creature of Gyurcsany but seems he found a new master now.
Not sure why this CAP thing is so big, Bajnai's own website advertises that they are sponsored by them, so we can hardly talk about a secret take-over or something.
So you think the poll which found Bajnai more popular or as popular as Orban was flawed?
Which American interests? What are American interests?
Which American radios?
The communique of the Ministry of the Interior about the demonstration the 21st clearly shows the character of the regime (which, by the way has a popularity rating of 16%). There are quite a lot of people (usually the politically active on the net) who could imagine Bajnai. Hungary had bad luck with leaders with charisma and strong will, a team player who has already proved that he is able to lead the country out of an economic quagmire would be more than welcome.
And January paychecks are still ahead...
The communique of the Ministry of the Interior about the demonstration the 21st clearly shows the character of the regime (which, by the way has a popularity rating of 16%). There are quite a lot of people (usually the politically active on the net) who could imagine Bajnai. Hungary had bad luck with leaders with charisma and strong will, a team player who has already proved that he is able to lead the country out of an economic quagmire would be more than welcome.
And January paychecks are still ahead...
I used to consider Economist a reliable resource until our famous media law debate. The law was strongly condemned by Economist - without even knowing a word of the media law.
Now same issue with our Constitution - and other issues condemned by the left wing liberal journalists and European Parliament representatives: without the reasonable knowledge of the law or the situation in question. I did not perceive this kind of comments before but the Great European Culture Ethics did its job well. "Forming dictatorship in Hungary" and "Suppressed opposition media in Hungary" and such topics. Ask Mr Western Liberal Left Wing Journalist how many Hungarian opposition paper and electronic media he or she knows... Shame on you, Western guys!
Hungarian left-wing or liberal media, partial list:
Népszava, Népszabadság(largest political daily), a HVG(largest weekly), 168 óra, Galamus, Index(second largest news portal) Origo(largest news portal), ATV, a TV2(second largest Hungarian TV station), RTL klub(largest Hungarian TV station), Magyar narancs, Figyelő, az FN24, VG.hu, Stop.hu, a class FM(largest radio station), a Klubrádió.
Well, I am afraid that if anything the Economist is a conservative paper not a left-wing one. I am a little bit worried that you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is "liberal left wing," which of course includes conservative papers like Le Figaro, NZZ, FAZ, The Economist and conservative politicians like Barroso, Merkel, Juppe, Sarkozy...
Most of these are true. But Index? Come on. RTL Klub, TV2? Are you joking? You can't just put anyone on the left that doesn't 100% agree with you... This makes you look like not entirely serious.
Stop spreading this lie that those stupid Westerners know nothing about Hungary. They do read what is there to read, and can think for themselves, thank you very much. If they disagree with you, perhaps, perhaps it is your problem, not theirs. If anything hurt the West seeing clearly on this one was the fact the Hungarian government always sent incorrect or outdated translations of proposed or enacted laws.
An excellent proof: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/hungary-misunderstood/
Sir, I don't have time to this kind of, excuse me, fogging.
I never said that those stupid Westerners knows nothing of Hungary.
I brought up 4 specified issues. Of course, it can be generalized but the "lie" you respected me with, was never said.
Please read my first comment on 8-Jan-2011 related the media law. Without knowing a word of the law (id est before the offical Englis translation), it was widely condemned. This is a fact and I am open to your opinion against this fact supported by your facts.
Second, our PM was the one who disclosed that, during that famous Parliament debate, he had not want to publicly humiliate any representative regarding their scarce or zero knowledge of our Constiution or its institutions (for example the Legfelső Bíróság was mixed up with Alkotmánybíróság and so on). What do you have on the contrary?
Also,
of course, there is no forming dictatorship in Hungary (I hope at least you agree with this...) and Orbán is not a right wing extremist (as per, for example, Le Monde issued on 3-Jan-2012).
of course, the opposition media is not suppressed or persecuted in Hungary. I am really open for your facts against it (Please be so kind and do not bring up this Klubrádió-frequency-taking-away. I expect facts, if possible, not a very recent blurry political issue. Thank you.).
The very reason I commented is the widespread practice of generally left wing or/and (thanks for the correction, Daniel Prinz) liberal Western journalism which is to condemn issues of my country without even a brief knowledge of the law, regulation, fact or the situation in question.
I think your comment knowingly resembled less-balanced pieces that claim that the West would be happy with Hungary if only they knew the truth. And I could immediately say that you should not be so condescending toward the French foreign minister, the German chancellor or American secretary of state to claim that they cannot get anyone research things decently even if they want to. That they risk embarrassing themselves by writing critical letters to prime ministers after reading nothing but bogus op-eds from Hungarian Communists in dubious newspapers.
But let's not even go there, I don't want us to speculate about how easy or prevalent it is to deceive high officials elsewhere.
I gave you a very specific example of a prominent critic who proved that she knows Orbán's defense, checked the facts and links in all hr facts, and still thinks Orbán is wrong --- perhaps consciously and deliberately, which you could call, well lying.
Everybody repeats that Westerners only repeat two sentences that György Konrád or whoever told them. And this is not true. You alluded to the same thing, I must say.
One thing is sure Mr Prinz: we would never have dreamt back in the soviet system, that the western world - including what you call a conservative part of it - would one day so well fraternise with our Hungarian ex-commies and their liberal friends. I understand as a fact that the journalists that write in the newspapers you mentioned call their Hungarian contact for news (or vice versa) and they happen to be invariably the liberal, or leftwing journalists and correspondents that we have so many of. What I do not understand is that why they are not curious to hear the story from other sources, if they are so balanced and unbiased???
Leftwing or conservative, how is it possible for any newspaper to deliberately lie about facts - under the banner of free press? For instance, I was out there yesterday to participate in the "march" to support our freely elected government. There was not a loud word to be heard, except for some hurrays, and the outspoken objective was to reassure our political leaders that they still have their backup in the country. Why was it then construed to be an anti-EU demonstration, in all the western papers? By rough estimation (I was on Kossuth square, while my brother came with the march from Hősök tere, and we were in phone contact, so we could tell each other what we saw), we calculated that some 6-700 thousand people were there. I can accept that our estimated figure was somewhat wrong and the truth is closer to 400K as it was later stated in the radio and TV, but I find it rather too disgusting that all those news channels that you seem to be supporting against your own country, distorted the figures and they told their readers that tens of thousands were out, the highest figure mentioned was 100K. Is this what they use their freedom for? And subsequently, another question: if this lie can be conveyed to people in HUngary without a reproaching word let alone restrictions, from anybody, least of all the goverment, where is the famous infringment of free press? Likewise, all those people who scream from the top of their lungs all their repulsive lies through the newspapers and TV and radio channels in Hungary, against Hungary, do they really believe that their freedom is limited? Ridiculous - and you know that too.
Why are you assuming that these papers and politicians only have liberal contacts? Because they disagree with you?
I am afraid Barroso, Merkel, Sarkozy, Juppe, Cameron and so on are not people I call conservative. They are the most important European conservative politicians, period.
Why, oh why, do you have to construe criticism coming from these people as being informed by commies and liberals? These people sit together with Orban in the European People's Party, for god's sake.
Also: this past week, Orban's policies have been criticized by such well-known Hungarian conservative economists as Heim, Bod and Jarai. Are they communist/liberal agents too? Get your head out of your ass.
Obviously the listed politicians are not journalists to have correspondents or such contacts. But as a matter of fact, they are actualy far from being conservative. Remember Barroso himself referred his maoist past as being a nicely remembered pasrt of his past, while Merkel is a former eastgerman beurocrat, who outmanoeuvered Stoiber in CDU. Merkel was and is more liberal - Stoiber would have been the conservative. Sarkozy is obviously defending French capital driving ahead in Hungary. He, quite pathetically, gives up elegance of a respectable statesman, and quarrels about small money for a French company. So the names, and what jersey they wear is not all. Furthermore, we all know that these politicians are now in one team against us, because at long long last, we - official Hungary - stop (or try to stop) letting foreign banks and companies shovelling money out of our country. So yes, they are hurt, but why would that cause us to cry our eyes out? And your last remark is very typical of the hazy argumentation with which you inject your poisons here: criticism is entirely different to the killing campaign that many pseudo Hungarians pursue against our country. So if there are criticisms, let them be, but if there are dirty lies round every corner, they are shameful. Your final sentence disqualified you from normal people's discussions.
Look, you are funny. Remember what Orban was like before 1993? Okay. After turning from a radical liberal, church-bashing, anti-establishment leader into a conservative, Christian politician, I don't think he has the right to lecture anyone on their political past. Before 1993 or so, Orban was more liberal than SZDSZ. You are making ridiculous errors:
-Barroso was a Maoist at a time when Portugal was a dictatorship
-Merkel wasn't even in politics before 1989, she was a scientist (by the way she is not even East German, her family moved to the DDR because her father, a pastor, was appointed to work there). Stoiber was never in CDU, he was a leader of CSU.
-what you are saying about Sarkozy is nonsense: anyone who doesn't agree with you is not a statesman but someone bought up by petty money? Come on, we all know better than this.
You need to do some research if you want to pick this fight.
I cannot recall anything like Orbán lecturing anyone here on anyone's political past. It was me.
Barroso said he used to be a MAoist, I did not state anymore, where is the ridiculous error? Who spoke about Merkel being in politics before 1989? She was brought up in the "ehemalige DDR" whether you like it or not. Stoiber was CSU, true enough, here is the ridiculous mistake you like to pick on. Congrats. Sarkozy was arguing in favour of a French company selling dinner tickets and he excersised his political influence in doing so. I think this is pathetic.
The real question - from which you would like to dodge away - namely why all newspapers collectively lie about the true figures of the peace walk of yesterday remained unanswered.
Good night.
And what if the information foreign leaders get from Hungary ARE biased? I mean maybe it isn't György Konrád alone who tells them this, but other sources might be biased too? And not necessarily for the fact that they are proponents of Orbán's opposition, but e.g. due to the fact that they don't know Hungary well enough. I mean I don't think that they are aware of the two points I'm trying to make in my blog mentioned above (hungariandigest.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/hungary-vs-imf-definitely-not-a-david-and-goliath-fight/) What do you think?
And besides, we all know how much hate propaganda was spread against Hungary on the West during and after WWI. What if some of that got stuck as well?
I am not sure what bias they might have. They know the biases of media outlets, e.g. the American ambassador deliberately published her letter in Heti Válasz (even though it was not nice how the editors treated her in the end, IMHO). Adam LeBor, of The Economist, you know, was happy to talk to Fellegi in 2010. Edward Lucas, his boss and the other contributor to this blog sat down with Orbán just a few months ago. What kind of sources do you think they need.
Also as a general point, diplomats have seen (and still do see) worse from many governments (and opposition politicians, and anyone), they have the people and the methods to research issues. They are not perfect but they are no fools.
If it's a bias that educated, urban Westerners are convinced that an independent central bank is a good thing, for instance, and you think this is open to debate, maybe you can call the biased. But this bias does not come from Hungary, esp. not from the few sources you think they have (and they have more).
I tried to prove the Kim Lane Scheppele does know many things, and still researched (and linked in) many things directly. I understand that it is embarrassing to acknowledge that the Westerns know what they are talking about when they are distrustful of us, but well, they do...
Also, I know quite a few foreigners, they care about the Hungarian people. There are no ill feelings whatsoever. If anyone knows anything about history, it's 1956 and 1989....
Actually I don't think that undermining the central bank's independence is a good idea (in fact I've pointed this out in my blog post as well). I also think that the ombudsman thing's fishy as well, but why shouldn't be the rest of the issues open to debate?
Actually your mention of the diplomats has reminded me of the factual (and VERY cynical) cables I read about on various issues. And this confirms my suspicion that western politicians' sources are quite grim even more. But still, how come that the same sources weren't so pessimistic about Gyurcsány when he messed up the economy big time? Why is it that (the wannabe dictator he is) Orbán is MUCH more eagerly criticized in the West than his socialist counterpart(s)? Doesn't that sound like bias to you?
Sure, I've met many people who care about Hungarians too. Unfortunately the thing is that I still feel that there's a double standard in place: when the Hungarian minorities are mistreated in the countries surrounding Hungary (mostly Slovakia, Romania and Serbia, but sometimes in Ukraine too), nobody seems to care. But when Hungary itself does something stupid, the very same people are screaming from the top of their lungs (unfortunately most despicable ones are usually the loudest e.g. Daniel Cohn-Bendit).
There is no double standard, esp. not in commenting on our constitutional matters and economic policy. Maybe you pay more attention to criticisms of Hungary than to criticisms of Romania. I think so...
I am truly unsure about the bias. Many people were happy to see Orbán in 2010. Where was your bias then? And people, incl. The Economist, gave them credit for a lot of things they actually shouldn't haven. (I pointed out the "debt burden", or the "stolen money", or their pension accounting already.)
Maybe you think Hillary Clinton should chew over some ideas more, and perhaps with different weighting. Perhaps it is so. But then we are talking subtler issues than the whole affair, scandal being a giant misunderstanding!
Finally, a note. If the Hungarian right is so hurt that they have fewer friends in the West, why don't they also do something about it? Why not ask for more advice? Gyurcsány was bad as hell, but even they actually tried to learn from other countries (in actual policies, like health care or education). Why is it a given that the Hungarian never wants to consult anyone? The best example for our current education reforms come from Hungary in 1920s. Why? Why nothing from Sweden, or Finland, or Singapore, or Korea, which are doing great? And why was Berlusconi Orbán's best friend? Why nobody else? He was proud of Merkel's and Cameron's trust. Why did he lose that?
Or even one more thing, or Gyurcsány. Yes, it is an intellectual fashion to claim your last remnants of autonomy and integrity that you need to both Orbán and Gyurcsány equally. What if they are not equal, at least not from perspectives that matter for the West? What is Gyurcsány did not send Brussels mistranslated laws? What if Gyurcsány did not declare war on the IMF? What if Gyurcsány's vizitdíj did not sound that horrendous to Western policymakers? What if Gyurcsány's tandíj did not sound that bad (and the West does not care anyway)? Yes, Gyurcsány has ill-gotten gains from privatization, but the West cares less about politicians' past then how promising or threatening his policies are looking. And yes, Gyurcsány was aweful about lying in 2006 and with his handling of the protests. He did not get many friends with that on the West, trust me.
But I am not sure I want to go down that road. Our current problems are more obvious than to be stuck on the problem whether Gyurcsány or Slovakia would deserve the same. For this stinking pile of sh*t, they would get the same treatment, trust me.
Yesterday, the peace walk was really good. Incredible number of people. The _mainstream_ middle class were there, even many parents with children.
Of course, there will be no coverage at all. They will say that all these were small group of fanatics, etc.
The point here is that the investors on the other hand will know that the government is quite stable.
In the EU, the ones at least who can locate Hungary on the map, will also know that it is more difficult to place some extraterrestial here as PM.
"The point here is that the investors on the other hand will know that the government is quite stable."
Let's hope so! What if they don't?
A country should not be told by "investors" who the best government is. Do you call this "democracy"???
I also wonder if the international press will cover the Peace Walk for Hungary, a mass rally of several hundred thousand people, at all in some cases? I think their tactic will be to report it on the last pages (so that they can point to that and say "we reported it") but will do everything they can to lessen the significance of this huge demonstration.
Remember that the miniature protest (in comparsion to this) at the Opera was covered as leading news, like it was something massively significant...
Why a peace rally? Is there a war in Hungary or what?
By the way, why do Romanians and Serbs show up in Budapest to show support towards Hungary's nationalist government? It very much looks like a staged act.
Why a Peace Rally you ask? Well it wasn't a peace rally it was a Peace Walk, maybe you don't know what that is? You can find out more about peace walks, by you know googling them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_walk
It's not about war or peace but raising awareness of important issues, like Hungarian self-determination, sovereignty, the ability to elect a government in free and democratic elections which is then responsible for handling matters of the state. Free and democratic elections only matter, if the choice made is respected for the pre-agreed term (4 years in this case).
If the government elected is toppled from the outside then the "free and democratic" elections did not really matter in the end. For democracy to exist, that is a basic requirement. Foreign installed unelected puppets are not possible in a real democracy. The march is exactly about preserving Hungarian democracy and the ability of Hungarians to elect their own leaders.
A minor clarification just before you get hooked to your own idea of the demonstration being a "staged act".
Presumably your knowledge of that distant part of Europe is a bit limited. So those "Romanians" and "Serbs" are actually Hungarian ethnic minorities with Hungarian mother tongue living in Romania and Serbia. Many of them probably with dual citizenship.
just browse a little the web. You will find a lot of proof that some people were paid to participate (just like the 15th March).
In fact ethnic Hungarians living abroad do not suffer the consequences of the policy of the government: petrol: over 400 HUF, EUR: over 300 HUF, CDS: above 600 pts. VAT: 27% from 25.
There were also public servants who said that in view of the forthcoming staff cuts their bosses strongly recommended them to take part. You can also look at the CV of Bencsik and the other organisers.
Nobody doubts that Hungary elected its leader, so there is no one else to blame for his blunders in tax policy, welfare, education etc.
And nobody will topple Orbán unless he runs aways from cleaning up his own mess.
Just as importantly, reconsider your demands. Nobody takes anything from anyone, if not Hungary from its current creditors but that's already the default we hope to avoid. The current creditors have nothing to gain from the forint tumbling. They just want to see their euros back. New creditors are business-like too -- until they can hope to see their money back, they would lend us. Why is it their problem and not Orbán's if now they think Hungary would not fulfill its part of the contract but run away with the money? Why is anyone OBLIGED to give Hungary a loan? Why is that a right of Hungary? (Or anyone else.) We want NEW money from other people. Nobody's taking anything away from us.
Coverage of the Peace Walk for Hungary:
http://hungariandigest.wordpress.com/
http://mandiner.hu/cikk/20120121_bekemenet_magyarorszagert_percrol_percre
It was a huge demonstration with 2-300 000 people minimum. Since a 2-30 000 opposition rally at the Opera was covered by the Economist the following day (january 3) I am very interested to see if they will cover a demonstration 10 times that size with the same speed and enthusiasm.
Perhaps you guys also don't mind that this peacewalk was organized by Zsolt Bayer, who doesn't refrain from writing more or less openly antisemitic pieces in Magyar Hirlap when that's what our nation needs.
Oh come on, Daniel, a single guy, anti-Semitic or whatever, could never organise a demonstration that size. What made a far greater number of Hungarians "step out" today is patently obvious. Look no further than to the tone of the above blog and bear in mind people like Barroso have also been using the same shamefully insulting language.
PS, it's late so I'll answer your post regarding the economy tomorrow.
It wasn't organized by one person. But the people who called for this demonstration are ultranationalistic, chauvinistic and antisemitic. There is a reason Fidesz politicians didn't want to speak there: while they want these votes, they are embarassed to be seen with people like Zsolt Bayer, Andras Bencsik or Peter Szentmihalyi Szabo. By the way, I am not saying that the people were like that or that they wouldn't have gone if this was organized by normal Fidesz politicians.
Here are the organizers' names from their website (http://www.demokrata.hu/cikk/bekemenet_magyarorszagert/), if in any doubt:
Bayer Zsolt közíró, Bencsik András főszerkesztő, Bencsik Gábor történész, Pataky Attila zenész, Pozsonyi Ádám író, Schulek Ágostonné, Stefka István főszerkesztő, Szentmihályi Szabó Péter író, Szalay Károly író, Széles Gábor vállalkozó, Szőnyi Kinga műsorvezető
The list of the organizers' names from their website (http://www.demokrata.hu/cikk/bekemenet_magyarorszagert/):
Bayer Zsolt közíró, Bencsik András főszerkesztő, Bencsik Gábor történész, Pataky Attila zenész, Pozsonyi Ádám író, Schulek Ágostonné, Stefka István főszerkesztő, Szentmihályi Szabó Péter író, Szalay Károly író, Széles Gábor vállalkozó, Szőnyi Kinga műsorvezető
It's seems that Daniel is very disappointed by this demonstration. Trying to de-legitimize a rally of 500 000 by finding fault with some of the organizers is a cheap trick.
Why don't you also mention Daniel that many of the opposition protests, were organized by the "Ország drogosa" (can you provide a good translation for that, Daniel?), Péter Juhász
Here is the article describing him as the Ország Drogosa
http://index.hu/belfold/juhi0326/
Interesting that you did not mention it earlier that he wants to legalize the production, trade, and use of Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, and all other hard drugs.
I wonder what the EU would say if they guy actually became someone and had some power, instead of organizing demonstrations... I wonder if our country would be tolerated once turned into Europe's biggest meth-lab where production is free and trade is unhindered. So be careful about mentioning the organizers because you won't come out clean from that comparsion.
So the guessing game has begun. But before you come up with your false figures, tell us how many foreigners were brought over the border to take part. They do not count as Hungarian citizens even if they have the - also false - impression that they do.
orszag drogosa = drug-dealer of the nation?
I thought Kendermag wanted to legalize marijuana only, but maybe not. In any case, you probably agree that wanting to legalize drugs and being an antisemite is not of the same order of magnitude?
I am not trying to delegitimize the demonstration at all, I don't think the person of the organizers matters at all for legitimacy (whatever legitimacy means). This is especially true, because if Orban himself had organized it there would probably have been even more people, and he is certainly a legitimate person.
All I am saying is that as a good conservative, one should be careful to distance herself from Mr Bayer and his kind. In case you are wondering, I and my friends almost didn't go to the demonstration at the Opera, exactly because it was partly linked to people like Gyurcsany, whom I would want to distance myself from.
And what about Gábor Széles, with his money and enterprises (his newspapers are ordered in a number of copies by a number of FIDESZ-led municipalities that even all kindergardens have three of them? Not to talk of other government contracts...
Shamefully insulting? It's Orbán and Matolcsy always declare wars on things, and they did declare one on the IMF! You really claim that they are just negotiating gentlemanly or you hope nobody can read Hungarian?
And by the way, Fellegi was shouting with the IMF delegation too, in his ministry. Don't be so pompous. Barroso is as friendly as he can be without actually looking like a fool.
Uhm.......if it would've been REALLY organized by hateful people (which apparently it wasn't) then the outcome of the demonstration would've been somewhat different. I mean come on! Nobody was burning any flags, nobody was smashing storefronts/toppling over trash containers and neither were there any anti-Gypsy sentiments present. All in all the whole demonstration was peaceful in nature. Sure, Zsolt Bayer DOES have a despicable style and András Bencsik's "Scythian" chain store is somewhat weird (to say the least) as well, but let me give you an analogy to this: I just can't bring myself to looking at Elton John (yeah, I REALLY think that he's ugly, I can't help myself) and yet I think his music is great, he's a great composer and I can listen to his music at any time. So arguing with Zsolt Bayer and András Bencsik sounds kinda like a poor excuse to me: if one's concerned of the fact that the West is badmouthing Hungary using tendentious/grossly illogical statements or thinks that the EC's gone too far with his requests (which STILL remains to be seen), then I think that he's participated on the protest regardless of the persons mentioned above. Besides: it's not like it's been organized by Vona, Budaházy, Toroczkai or any of their likes.
Okay, understood. You are willing to go to a demonstration for what you think of as a good cause, even if it's organized by someone who professes openly antisemitic views.
Of course, people participated regardless of the persons mentioned, the issue is whether that's a problem.
Of course not! And all the 23 million Romanians will come to Hungary just to take your job and generally hurt you in the most despicable ways possible! Run for your lives!
Ahem.....you've listed all the organizers yourself. Therefore you can see that Zsold Bayer and András Bencsik weren't the only organizers. And even though I don't recognize all the names I doubt that all of them (or the majority of them) are anti-Semitic either. Sure, there's also e.g. Ádám Pozsonyi who I don't sympathize with, but there's also Attila Pataky who I don't have anything against.
As for the participation, obviously people didn't mind the organizers either. Otherwise it wouldn't have gotten this big (even Index has talked about 100k demonstrators). And besides, a Gypsy organization took part in the protest as well. If they didn't mind Bayer Zsolt, then who would?
This is your personal opinion, but it is not the ultimate truth. Against your statement, I say that these men are not ultranationalistic, not chauvinistic, and not antisemitic. So who is right? Come on you cannot be so near sighted. Calling others names, will not help anyone of us.
Fidesz, and their representatives have been seen many times with these gentlemen so they are not embarassed at all. Only this time, it was NOT organised by a party, even less by the government. Should any one of them have been seen there, your unbiased media would have screamed and shouted that they ordered people out, as in North Korea - just like this lie was already floated. You know this was the real reason, but you deliberately wanted to twist and turn things an untruthful fashion. This is why millions in Hungary get sensitive and irate. And hypocrately, when there's harsh words of bitterness, come your inevitable judgements, namely that Hungary is full of intolerant, antidemocratic people.
Well, read some quotes from Bayer's articles here:
http://www.antiszemitizmus.hu/archivum/magyar+hirlap/magyar+hirlap.html
He has written multiple articles arguing that the present criticism coming from Western press, the EU and the IMF are coming from Jews.
I have nothing to do with his articles, and I have not read them. It is however a fact that today, jews and not jews histerically keep yelling at us for things that are a./ existing in their own or other European countries b./ trying to downsize the exploitation of Hungary by western lobby forces. This should hurt everybody, who calls her- or himself Hungarian.
Good points. So why write antisemitic articles then?
While you are it, please if you would be so kind to tell us how exactly Western lobby forces are exploiting Hungary. And how am I hurt?
Today hundreds of thousands of Hungarians demonstrated for Hungarian self-determination sovereignty and to show that our government is not alone!
We defend our values, defend our constitution and defend our homeland.
Nem leszünk gyarmat! We will not be a colony!
I am happy we won't be a colony. Perhaps it's also time to come up with ideas on how to sort our economy out.
Defend what? There has been no constitution in Hungary since Januar 1, 2012. Mr Orban accused his political opponents, or enemies as he refers to them, with not having read it. And now it turns out that not even "supporters", aka activists on his pay list, have read it yet?
Calling EU membership colonisation is just another piece of evidence of how mad the regime you are supporting has become. And how silly its supporters are.
Nobody is calling EU membership colonisation. They are protesting the open calls in the press which call for the colonisation of Hungary.
The definition of a colony: territory under the immediate political control of a state. A colony has no independent international representation, and its top-level administration is under direct control of the state.
It is exactly what was proposed for Hungary. External powers (Washington was explicitly mentioned) should just remove the current "top-level administration" and replace it with one loyal to them. That is the textbook definition of colonial status.
Could you point us to sources? If this is the case I am seriously worried about the American government taking us over, but I need some evidence. At least a newspaper article or something.
Things are changing in the EU. If its citizens can organise themselves in a meaningful way, it won't always be Brussels telling countries how to run things. If you want to be more than simply another commentator of history's footnotes, follow us to find out how you might test your ideas against those of likeminded individuals. Democracy 2.0 has arrived.
The Second World War resulted from the European tolerance for the horrible choice made by the Germans in 1933. Marshal Pilsudski tried to convince gen Weygand to occupy Germany, but the UK unfortunately declined to support the action. Not long ago we had to call Austria to order. Anyway, do we care what the majority of North Coreans feel about their beloved leaders?
The Second World War resulted from the European stupidity of closing the WWI.
A French politician (Henry Pozzi) who attended the "peace conferences" wrote in 1933: we planted the next big war in Europe in 1920-21 with the "peace treaties" of the world war...
The issues brought up by the article are ridiculous.
There are two things going on here
(i) attacking the Hungarian government by the foreign press based on
two-sentence ideas planted by post-communist thinktanks
(ii) trying to create a situation in which Hungarian politics can directly be influenced,
and use it for taking advantage of the country
The example for the latter is trying to put Bajnai as the head of a new government.
This issue is a complete misunderstanding of the Hungarian situation.
Bajnai was one of the most unpopular politicians in Hungary and it is clear
to everybody that he was an accomplice in the stealings of the communists.
In a quite transparent manner, he was the good cop, while Gyurcsany was the bad cop.
He stabilized the economy (i.e., they counterbalanced the increasing budget deficit due to stealing by saving money on the people).
If now they really want to put back this guy (Soros and coworkers), then they are really out of picture here. Why not bringing back Gyurcsany? Or Gyula Horn? (Slightly demented, but good enough.)
froze the economy)
The only results will be
(i) Hungarians will hate the EU, which is unfortunate.
(ii) Orban will be more popular than before.
Maybe, after all, Orban pays the Economist to write this rubbish ...
While I agree with you that the Economist might be overly optimistic about Bajnai, I looks to me that the country is very obviously doing worse than under Bajnai. Just to take the example of public debt: it has grown by a stunning 1000 billion under Orban, while there has been much talk about driving it down and a couple of thousand billions of our pension savings have been wasted on this.
If you believe that the statements of the article are "based on
two-sentence ideas planted by post-communist thinktanks," then give concrete examples of where it is wrong. It's easy to say that they are communists much harder to argue your point.
(By the way, not that it's all that important, but right now Mr Bajnai is as popular as Mr Orban. Don't know the reason.)
Daniel Prinz I think your comment shows the exact problems with the way the MNB calculated the debt. ("the example of public debt: it has grown by a stunning 1000 billion under Orban")
When you constantly recalculate the debt, the exchange rate you use will have a large impact. For exmaple the forint strengthened from 324 to around 301 in trading today, before bouncing back to 304. Even at the 304 level I bet that your "1000 billion" is a much different number now. So not so quickly with the "Orban increased the debt rhetoric" when the debt increase comes mostly from the exchange rate, it can vanish just as easily.
Not calculated by the MNB. Calculated by AKK, the public debt management agency, with a Fidesz-appointed director.
Also: why has the exchange rate changed from (not 304 but from 280 and below) to 320? When the euro reached 300 Gyurcsany Fidesz was out there talking loudly about how that cabinet messed up. When it reached 300 under Orban, who is responsible for it? And when it then went on to 320? Yeah, I know: speculation attack. Lol.
But of course it's not only public debt: no growth, with the possibity of recession, a massive deficit, falling exchange rate, high inflation, pension savings spent, begging for money from the IMF. Would you remind what's good about economic policy these days?
"Bajnai was one of the most unpopular politicians in Hungary": maybe, but people found out that there is worse, let's see the current ratings (2012-1) BAJNAI G 28, MATOLCSY GY. 22, ORBÁN V. 27, SCHMITT P. 34 (will be less soon).
"it is clear to everybody that he was an accomplice in the stealings of the communists." - proof please, as with you other incriminations, otherwise you sound like a typical pro-gvt newspaper...
"Bajnai was one of the most unpopular politicians in Hungary": maybe, but people found out that there is worse, let's see the current ratings (2012-1) BAJNAI G 28, MATOLCSY GY. 22, ORBÁN V. 27, SCHMITT P. 34 (will be less soon).
"it is clear to everybody that he was an accomplice in the stealings of the communists." - proof please, as with you other incriminations, otherwise you sound like a typical pro-gvt newspaper... Please specify: what did he steel, when, when was he convicted for it etc.