A question of viewpoint

Everyone filters what he experiences in some way, according to some principles that inform his judgments. If we are (as F. H. Bradley argued in The Presuppositions of Critical History) both the architect of the past--however recent that past may be--and the author of our filtering principles, then in effect there will be as many points of view as there are people. Of course, we tend to minimize this diversity and talk instead about principles that inform the judgments of groups of people. József Szájer, Fidesz European parliamentary member, for example is convinced that their removal of the cordon was a victory for democracy. It would be strange were he to think otherwise. After all, he was one of those who helped Viktor Orbán dismantle it. Gergely Bárándy, a young lawyer and MSZP politician who comes from a long line of lawyers, thinks that the verdict was a death sentence for the rule of law in Hungary. Krisztina Morvai (a so-called legal expert) and Zoltán Balog (a Presbyterian minister and Fidesz member of parliament) are convinced that October 23, 2006, marked the beginning of dictatorship in Hungary where the prime minister himself ordered the police to attack peaceful demonstrators in a most savage manner. Others consider the mob's action despicable and the police reaction weak.

Some "political scientists" are certain that a minority government cannot work and that the current Hungarian government is doomed to failure. Others are hopeful. Some people think that the only rational policy of MDF and SZDSZ is the path they are currently pursuing while others find their decisions of late to be suicidal from their own vantage point. Some economists are certain that Hungary is destined to be the loser of the region: everybody, including the Romanians, will surpass Hungary, and the poor Hungarians will be looking at Slovakia with envy in their eyes. Well-known economists project economic growth at a fixed rate: currently the Slovak economy is growing by 10% while Hungary's growth is about 2%, and, they claim, this disparity will continue far into the future. Others are pretty sure that eventually the Slovak economy will settle into a yearly growth of about 4% and that the Hungary economy will do the same.

Some political analysts are certain that there is a huge political and economic crisis in Hungary. Fidesz especially likes to talk about crisis. István Stumpf a couple of days ago talked about a "triple crisis," i.e. political, economic, and societal. Viktor Orbán added a fourth one: state crisis. I'm at a loss to figure out what that means. Others are convinced that there is no real economic or societal crisis and that the political one was actually created by Fidesz. Fidesz's "linguists" in charge of political discourse came up with the idea that perhaps if they repeat the word "crisis" at least ten times a day, eventually people will believe that there a is real, immediate crisis. This strategy seems to work, by the way.

Let me insert here a cartoon I liked very much. It appeared in Népszava.

Caption: "Heeeelp, we are sinking!"

NWO thought that I look at the policies of MDF and SZDSZ (yesterday's blog) through tinted glasses while, obviously, he and others who think similarly to him, look at events as they really are (which, of course, is as impossible for him to do as it is for me). He incorrectly infers that he is right and I'm wrong. He may be right or I may be right. Or we both may be wrong. I find it hard to understand why it would be good for either MDF or SZDSZ to have early elections. Sure, they could distinguish themselves from MSZP this way, but then what? Would they be willing to sacrifice their parliamentary representation? Nice distinguishing! Let me insert here another cartoon that appeared in today's Vasárnapi Hírek.

Gyurcsány stands on a ball called "Budget," carefully balancing, while Ibolya Dávid and Gábor Fodor are pulling him this way and that way. Dávid says "We are not going to vote for it." Fodor says: "Neither will we." And the caption reads: "Be careful because in the end we may all fall on our faces!" It seems that I'm not alone in thinking that this may be the wrong strategy. But the best thing is to wait and see. Or perhaps we will not see because it is always possible that they will reconsider and change their tune.

Comments

[New World Order]

Eva

I will try one more time to get my point across.

I think one must distinguish between a Party's public tactics (in this case-a call forearly elections) and the Party's (or the Party's leader's private calculations) (in this case, understanding that becasue it is probably not in the interest of any Party to have early elections, they will not occur). In this case, this is a perfect example of a basic Prisoners' dilemma. Each Party knowing that early elections are not in their interest believes they can "call for such elections" as a way of distinguishng themselves, but do not actually have to risk an election now as long as the other Parties also act rationally. The cartoon is a good one because, like all such instances, these situations can fall apart if the various Parties mis-judge each other's intentions.

On this point, Eva, what do you think is in the best interests of the two small Parties? How do you think they can find a consistent block of support? For SzDSz, what is gained by staying in coalition with the MSZP when Gy and the MSZP believe their sole road to political salvation is to "throw out" SzDSz's whole political program.

Finally, please tell me what economist believes that Hungary's long term competitiveness is not poor relative to the other CEE countries, and expect that growth rates-assuming no further real changes to the strucutre of the Hungarian economy-will be similar to other countries in the region? You are correct, however, that Slovakia will slow down, and it is true also that there are some serious economic issues in Slovakia lurking behind it sucess, but nevertheless, on current paths the country will end up doing far better than Hungary, as will its people.

[dinayekapelye]

Eva, you never answered my observation pointing out your logical inconsistency (previous post). But since that is not your habit when cornered (I know, no time, more pressing things...), let's precede anyway.

It may also be that there are some politicians who are just conceivably more motivated by their own moral stand than by political gain? Is this within your compass of comprehension?

Also on bias in observations in the forming of theoretical discourse you are right that bias is inevitable as many more eloquent people have pointed out before. You unfortunately are not widely read (stuck in political tittle-tattle most of your life) and have had a blinkered academic career. Otherwise you would know and understand the corollarly to your argument.

Just to upset Dumneazu, I will point you in the right direction with some choice passages gleaned from self-compiled chrestomathy:

"All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas."
- Kant, B 730, Critique of Pure Reason (1787)

"A person's processes are psychologically channelized by the way in which he anticipates events."
- Kelly, G. A. (1955) "The Psychology of Personal Constructs", New York: Norton, p.46

"Twenty-five years ago I tried to bring home the point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: 'Take pencil and paper; carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!' They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe. Clearly the instruction, 'Observe!' is absurd. (It is not even idiomatic, unless the object of the transitive verb can be taken as understood.) Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. And its description presupposes a descriptive language, with property words; it presupposes similarity and classification, which in its turn presupposes interests, points of view, and problems."
- Popper, Karl. 1965. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

"It is the theory that decides what we can observe."
- Albert Einstein quoted in Werner Heisenberg, 'Physics and Beyond : Encounters and Conversations', 1971, p77

"Without some guiding orientation, the observer's attention will 'scatter', and his account is likely to become either a desperate attempt to get everything in, or a haphazard selection of the more dramatic items of the behaviour. What damages research is not the absence of a truly 'open' mind at its outset, but the false presentation of classroom data as 'objective' data constituting an independent test of the theory hidden within them. What observations will be selected as significant, and how they will be interpreted, will vary according to the researcher's perspective. Unless that perspective is made available for criticism and discussion, it is impossible to evaluate the usefulness of the research."
(Furlong and Edwards, 1977, Language in Classroom Interaction: Theory and Data)

All well and good, but already we have a word of caution entering the line of reasoning. One must be cautious, dare one say humble, too. One puts forwards theories and arguments knowing that one takes a perspective which by and large must be biased in some way. So one should be ready and willing to listen and respond to the inconsistencies of our thoughts and reasoning. To continue:

"One cannot do theoretical research without having the courage to put forward a theory, and, therefore, an elementary model as a guide for subsequent discourse; all theoretical research must however have the courage to specify its own contradictions, and should make them obvious where they are not apparent."
- Eco 'A Theory of Semiotics' (1976) Indiana University Press, p 7

Need I spell it out for you?

Finally,

"Corruption : The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike from those who think differently"
- Nietzsche from 'The Dawn'

[New World Order]

With reference to my prior posts on Hungary's economy, see below an article from Portfolio.hu--

Anti-competition attitudes limits growth in Hungary - Political Capital
Friday, 16, May 2008 01:58:00 PM

Economic and political processes in Hungary - similarly to other CEE countries, - are extensively influenced by voters' anti-market and anti-competition sentiments. This has a considerably negative effect on competitiveness. This in turn translates into a number of risks that operate in the short, medium and long terms from the perspective of investors and other economic players, Political Capital's Risk Forecast Division warns. The population's strong aversion to the market economy and anti competition attitude is also a risk factor, the research company says.

Cyclical fiscal policy and political demagogy are also mentioned among the rsik factors. The voters expect the state to provide a high level of services, yet they advocate the reduction of taxes. They clearly favour market competition in areas where, as consumers, they can enjoy its benefits, but they turn against the market when they themselves are expected to compete in it. They expect more protection from the government, while they also opine that the state interferes too much in their life.

Although Hungarians consider competition at the workplace important in principle, they reject it when it threatens their own career opportunities, or when immigrants are allowed to join in the competition.

The fact that politics interferes with the economy, can be considered as a short term risk. Among the nations that joined the EU in 2004, Hungarians show the lowest level of support for free competition. This tendency, already inherent in Hungarian politics, was amplified by the outcome of the 9 March, 2008 referendum, held about issues that are rarely decided by referendum in market economies: the abolition of the doctor visitation fee, the university tuition fees, and hospital care fees.

Illustrative of the political opposition to the strengthening of free competition is the full agreement in which the factions of MSZP and Fidesz, Hungary's two leading political parties, have recently blocked the plans about the transformation of the Hungarian Power Companies Ltd. (Magyar Villamos Mûvek), which primarily aimed at breaking up the company's monopoly. Short-term risks include the government's intervention into market processes through specific instruments like price control
(energy, public utilities), or, yielding to voters' aversion to private ownership, the maintenance of state or semi-state monopolies in areas that should otherwise be controlled by the market.

Lessons learned in the past years leads politicians to the conclusion that the transformation of the state redistributive systems is the third rail of Hungarian
electoral politics, and touching it amounts to political suicide.

In the past few years (between 2000 and 2007) public sentiment in Hungary has shown a steady or even increasing demand for governmental paternalism, particularly in the fields of job creation, welfare expenditures and education.

These types of spending also significantly stretched the budget deficit during the reign of the Socialist government, but if Fidesz were in power, the situation would not likely to change.

During the past years government tried to decrease the budget deficit by increasing taxing, and due to the paternalist policy, governments were not brave enough to cut budget spending.

The now unprecedented high taxes on labour (the 2nd highest in OECD countries, according to OECD data from 2007) the party-political price of deeper and economy-strengthening budgetary and tax reforms, and voters' cumulative historical experience since the change of regime in periodical cycles of intensive overspending, followed by drastic restrictions, are three factors that will constrain in the mid-term any Hungarian government's scope for action, together with their chances of breaking the vicious circle of populist-paternalist policies and eliminating the growth-hindering effects of the current taxation system and budgetary policy.

It is likely that governments will continue in the mid-term the present practice of trying to make up for lost revenue by borrowing and budgetary deficits.

Political opposition to the introduction of a linear system of taxation is widespread in Hungary. Data from a 2006 survey show that out of 20 European countries Hungary ranked third after Bulgaria and the Ukraine in terms of voters' agreement with the statement that "the government should reduce differences in incomes". Voters' demand for equalising policies in turnforces the political elite to hold off from economically desirable endeavours aimed at the simplification of the taxation system and the

Long-term risks

The average Hungarian voter has misgivings about immigrants who may become competitors in the labour market. Data from the 2002 European Social Survey show that out of 22 European countries, Hungary ranked second in agreeing with the statement that immigrants can deprive them of jobs. The majority of Hungarian respondents also expected employers to favour Hungarians over immigrants, when jobs are scarce.

The most recent Eurobarometer survey on this issue also shows that Hungary has the most intolerant attitude to economic immigration, disagreeing with its necessity even in just 'certain sectors of our economy'. Thus the anti-competition political culture has a "civic chauvinism" component, which in the future may cause considerable tension between the immigrants and Hungarian citizens, further amplifying counter-selective forces in the labour market and the economy. Furthermore, it also raises the dangerous prospect of political forces deciding to play on to the fear of immigrants jeopardising jobs, and thereby further exacerbate the population's aversion to foreigners.

The envy of success experienced in Hungary is supported ideologically by a belief that in Hungary only unfair means can bring about success in the fight for possessions, and the majority of the members of the society use these means. This belief, however, gives confirmation to the members of the society to seek ways for prosperity through unfair ways, and to use means otherwise deemed immoral in the competition against rivals.

Among post-socialist countries Hungary holds the second most favourable opinion about the former political system, and the worst opinion about the current democracy, according to surveys conducted at the turn of the millennium. Criticisms of free market mechanisms, plutocracy and the change of regime are gaining more and more ground in the increasingly vocal rhetoric of the parliamentary opposition. This may consolidate and further enhance the anti-system sentiments in some of the voter groups. The key political risk here is that extremist political movements may gather strength. The other associated long-term political risk is that the self-corrective mechanisms of democracy and capitalism, which rely on a flow of reliable information both for the market and for politics, are greatly hampered by general, widespread and endemic distrust in official statistics.

[dinayekapelye]

New World Order,

Thanks for pointing that article out. A great piece of writing.

The link is:
http://www.portfolio.hu/en/cikkek.tdp?cCheck=1&k=2&i=14848

[Eva S. Balogh]

Dina-something or other: "Also on bias in observations in the forming of theoretical discourse you are right that bias is inevitable as many more eloquent people have pointed out before. You unfortunately are not widely read (stuck in political tittle-tattle most of your life) and have had a blinkered academic career."

This is why I don't talk to you. Among other things. Moreover, you will be deleted because this is not acceptable discourse. You are right and everybody else is wrong. You are waisting your precious time by writing these long harangues.

[Eva S. Balogh]

NWO: "anti-competition sentiments. This has a considerably negative effect on competitiveness. This in turn translates into a number of risks that operate in the short, medium and long terms from the perspective of investors and other economic players, Political Capital's Risk Forecast Division warns. The population's strong aversion to the market economy and anti competition attitude is also a risk factor, the research company says"

I don't want to brag, but I wrote about this before I read about the Political Capital study. My blog was inspired by a psychologist's study based on questionnaires filled out by business managers. I don't know whether the two studies have anything to do with each other or not, but obviously it is a problem that draws a lot of attention.

Another problem that stands in way of reforms is the relative well being of the population in the late Kádár regime. If the Hungarian situation would have been the same as in Romania or Czechoslovakia, the population would be more tolerant of sacrifice.

[Eva S. Balogh]

NWO: "Eva I will try one more time to get my point across. I think one must distinguish between a Party's public tactics (in this case-a call forearly elections) and the Party's (or the Party's leader's private calculations) (in this case, understanding that becasue it is probably not in the interest of any Party to have early elections, they will not occur)."

Yes, this is a possibility, but I don't see the point. I simply don't think that this strategy will work. I don't think that the number of of these two parties' supporters will grow as a result. My suspicion is that Hungarian politics is moving toward a two-party system.

[Adrian]

Eva,

"My suspicion is that Hungarian politics is moving toward a two-party system."

I wish, unfortunately, I don't think the electoral system will allow it. Any proportional representation system empowers marginal - dare I say it, "extremist" views. If they are knocked out this time, new groupings will be formed in the futrure

Orbán would not be where he is today - rhetorically - if it hadn't been necessary to pick up as many right-wing votes as possible.

Similarly, Gyurcsány would not be beholden to form coalitions with non-serious political outfits like the SZDSZ.

[Odin's lost eye]

@ Prof Balogh
You mention the names of József Szájer, Krisztina Morvai and Zoltán Balog and the opinions they hold and talk of in public.
If I may make 2 quotes from your piece
1 *** “József Szájer, Fidesz European parliamentary member, for example is convinced that their removal of the cordon was a victory for democracy. It would be strange were he to think otherwise. After all, he was one of those who helped Viktor Orbán dismantle it.” ***
May I remind people of ‘Pride’s Purge’? I presume that what Fides members wanted to do was something akin to ‘Prides Purge’ or at least intimidate those with other viewpoints to ‘stay away’.
For those who do not know what ‘Pride’s Purge’ was. On the 6th December 1648 Col Thomas Pride and his regiment (of foot) entered the Houses of Parliament in London and of the 489 elected Members of Parliament, arrested 45, forcibly removed another 186 and scared off a further 86 members, leaving a ‘Rump’ of just 83 members. There were 18 ‘no-shows’ that day.
2 *** “Krisztina Morvai (a so-called legal expert) and Zoltán Balog (a Presbyterian minister and Fidesz member of parliament) are convinced that October 23, 2006, marked the beginning of dictatorship in Hungary where the prime minister himself ordered the police to attack peaceful demonstrators in a most savage manner” ***
An ‘Act of Parliament’ created the Police force. That same body (Parliament) also laid down its powers and duties. On October 23, 2006 after a rally and speeches there was a well-orchestrated attempt to re-enact the events of 50 years before. In 1956 the marchers went to the radio station where after some finagling by the radio authorities it seems that the AVO guards opened fire on the crowd, which then provoked the whole insurrection. This time the mob broke into the building so had no excuse to obtain firearms. From what I saw on the TV the police tactics were quite normal and their response to the violence originating from the mob ‘was in the main’ a measured response to stop a ‘Civil Riot/Disorder’, which I believe is unlawful in Hungary!
Unless the acts setting up the police say otherwise the Prime Minister cannot order the police to ‘Exceed their Duties’ nor can he order them to do anything that could lay them open to a charge of ‘Dereliction of their Duties.
My question is do Krisztina Morvai and Zoltán Balog really believe what they say? Can they prove their accusations! If they can why have they not done so in a court of law?
Does József Szájer really believe that the cordon is a suppression of democracy and that it is a democratic right to physically intimidate duly elected Members of Parliament who hold different opinions to him and his supporters?

Another point is that there seem to be certain ‘dirty words’, which is not un-common in socialist societies. These dirty words are PROFIT and COMPETITION. The idea is bedded deep in the Hungarian psyche and until they are rooted out Hungary will be stuck on the mud.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Odin's lost eye: "My question is do Krisztina Morvai and Zoltán Balog really believe what they say? Can they prove their accusations! If they can why have they not done so in a court of law? Does József Szájer really believe that the cordon is a suppression of democracy"

Good question. I wish I could answer it. I really don't know by now. At the beginning I was sure that they are knowingly distort the truth. But later I started thinking that: "Oh, my God, they start to believe their own propaganda.

[Odin's lost eye]

From what I have read in this excellent web site, much of which is way beyond my knowledge, I think that Krisztina Morvai, Zoltán Balog and József Szájer really believe their own statements. I also think that the fluency and ease of the language used so do the other party bosses in Fides. If this is true then when and IF they come to power God help us all. “When the lunatics take over the asylum it is every man for himself”!