As I mentioned yesterday, Ferenc Gyurcsány agreed to write five articles for a new column launched by the editor-in-chief of Galamus, an internet news and opinion website. Most newspapers immediately picked up on the fact that Gyurcsány was commenting on the political news of the week and normally summarized what he had to say. The biggest splash was his last note. He decided to defend Viktor Orbán's trip to Baku and his signing an agreement with Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Romania to build a new pipeline from Azerbaijan and Georgia to Europe via Romania and Hungary. I wrote about the project in detail a few days ago.
Since then most commentators have viewed the project as unrealistic for several reasons, including the lack of a sufficient amount of available natural gas in Azerbaijan and the expense of liquedation and regasification. People also pointed out the diplomatic complications such a project will most likely create in Hungary's relationship with the European Union and Russia. I personally share these worries as should be clear from my earlier writing on the topic.
Ferenc Gyurcsány thinks differently. He began his article by quoting Gábor Horváth in Népszabadság, who argued that "Viktor Orbán administered a huge kick in the teeth of the Nabucco pipeline" when he signed a letter of intent to build the AGRI pipeline. According to Gyurcsány, this is "an exaggeration."
First he renumerated Europe's natural gas needs, which used to be 500 billion m3 a year. Today it is, due to conservation and the growth of green energy sources, approximately 450 billion m3. One third of these needs is produced locally, one third comes from Russia, and the rest from elsewhere. Hungarian consumption is 13-14 billion m3 per year of which 80% comes from Russia. Such dependency on one source is worrisome, and decreasing this dependency is of paramount importance.
The current risk is twofold. One is the route of the pipeline. There is only one pipeline coming from Russia and it goes through Ukraine. If there is any problem between Russia and Ukraine concerning the gas supply, no gas can reach Hungary. Disputes between these two countries have been numerous and there were weeks when Hungary received no natural gas whatsoever. During Gyurcsány's tenure as prime minister Hungary signed an agreement with Russia concerning the building of another Russian pipeline called the Southern Stream about which one can read in this blog. At that time Viktor Orbán attacked Gyurcsány for dealing with the Russians, and I understand that the United States was also unhappy about this agreement. Some people accused Gyurcsány of being too friendly with Russia and turning his back on the Nabucco pipeline, a European Union project. However, Gyurcsány kept repeating that Hungary is also supporting the Nabucco pipeline because he considered that drawing on three sources of natural gas was better than relying on one or two.
The other problem with the current situation is that all the gas comes from one source, meaning Russia. Outside of Russia there might be two potential sources. One is the area between the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus, especially Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, and other the Gulf region, for example Qatar. AGRI and Nabucco would carry natural gas from the former region while liquefied gas (LNG) could come from the latter to Croatia and from there to Hungary.
The Southern Stream and Nabucco could each carry between 10 and 30 billion m3. Half of this amount according to European Union regulations must be given to countries that are not directly involved with the project. The rest is to be shared by the countries who are signatories to the agreement. In Hungary's case that would mean between 2 billion m3 at maximum capacity or at minimum only 700-800 million m3. AGRI according to news that reached the public would produce 2-8 billion m3 which means that Hungary would receive only a few million m3 of natural gas a year through AGRI. Thus, concludes Gyurcsány, neither of these projects solves Hungary's dependence on Russian natural gas by itself. Therefore, it is a good idea to work on several projects at the same time.
Gyurcsány admits that we know relatively little about the AGRI project. We have been told that it will be able to carry between 2 and 8 billion m3 of gas a year and that the cost of building the pipeline would be between 1.5 and 4.5 billion euros. The two most important considerations here are the availability of gas and the financing. As for financing Georgia, with its very large debt, is in the worst situation. Of course, Hungary's debt is also far too high, and Romania's situation is not rosy either.
An even bigger problem is the Azeri natural gas supply. Azerbaijan contracted to supply the Turks (6 billion), the Russians (2 billion), the Georgians (1-1.5 billion) and even the Iranians (a few million m3 ). That amounts to about 9-10 billion m3 per year. In addition, Azerbaijan itself needs about 10 billion cubic meters. That is altogether about 20 billion m3. Azerbaijan also promised to supply Syria (1 billion), Jordan (1 billion), and Nabucco (10-12 billion) in addition to AGRI (2-8 billion). But in 2009 Azerbaijan produced only 16.9 billion m3 and this year's production is estimated to be 17.2-17.9 billion m3. Azerbaijan's hope lies with the Sah-Deniz fields that are supposed to be further developed by BP, but the work is being postponed for obvious reasons--BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Yet, with all these obstacles, according to Gyurcsány, Orbán did the right thing when he went to Baku. The opposition should not criticize him and accuse him of spending too much money on a private plane. This is petty and not worthy of a "responsible" opposition. Well, I don't think that he will find a similarly generous gesture on the other side.
Yes you are right, he (Gyurcsány) won't find a "similarly generous gesture" from the Fidesz side. And that's because Gyurcsány is very likely to stand before the court for the Sukoró corruption and the police crimes against protesters in the street riots of 2006.
Anyway, I don't like this "agreement" from Gyurcsány. He is playing the "Dirty Fred" effect. When someone as discredited and inglorious as Gyurcsány stands by your side, you'd better flee for your own good.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 18, 2010 at 03:54 PM
Pásztor Szilárd: "And that's because Gyurcsány is very likely to stand before the court for the Sukoró corruption and the police crimes against protesters in the street riots of 2006."
It is hard to credit the stupidity of Hungarian right. Put Gyurcsány on trial and FIDESZ will transform him from discredited politician into martyr, and the natural focus for all opposition to themselves domestically. What's more they'll turn Hungary into an international pariah - the first European country since the 1950s to stage show trials against its leading politician (at least this is how it will be seen internationally). And they will guarantee what FIDESZ's supporters least want to see - his return to a position of political power. But I think they are just too dumb to grasp this.
Posted by: Mark | September 18, 2010 at 04:06 PM
Mark: he will be probably put on trial. Will he be condemned? Unknown yet, but chances are he will.
Because the Sukoró and the 2006 riot crimes are widely known within the Hungarian public, it is unlikely Gyurcsány would be regarded as a martyr if he gets condemned for these cases.
Put him on trial and condemn him for makeshift reasons (something the left wing has a good track record in doing so), yes he will become a martyr. But for corruption and anti-democratic crimes? No way. The public longs to see their sense of justice satisfied. They want gratification and rightfully so.
Would Hungary become an international pariah? This gives me chuckles. Would we become a pariah for letting independent jurisdiction do its work? No, we're pariahs if we hold it back.
All in all, this would be a huge step in turning Hungary back from upside down.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 18, 2010 at 04:43 PM
Szilard: "he will be probably put on trial. Will he be condemned? Unknown yet, but chances are he will. Because the Sukoró and the 2006 riot crimes are widely known within the Hungarian public"
And because Budai's lies are well known he is also guilty? Come off it.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 18, 2010 at 04:50 PM
Eva: if Budai lies, his papers won't remain standing when they are put to the test before the court.
But as things look now, the only chance Budai is lying is if he had crafted his papers himself, along with all signatures that seem to come straight from Bajnai's, Gyurcsány's and Veress' hands, and along with all the stamps of the Ministries. Budai should also have made his papers come from the registered file folder of the previous government. Pretty hard work to counterfeit all these, if you ask me.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 18, 2010 at 05:03 PM
Szilard: "Eva: if Budai lies, his papers won't remain standing when they are put to the test before the court. But as things look now, the only chance Budai is lying is if he had crafted his papers himself, along with all signatures that seem to come straight from Bajnai's, Gyurcsány's and Veress' hands, and along with all the stamps of the Ministries."
Your problem is that you simply swallow all the nonsense Budai comes up with. The fact is that both Bajnai and Gyurcsány are sueing and not without reason. For example, he accused them of perjury, but it seems that he has a rather peculiar notion of what perjury is.
The fact is that one doesn't even know whether there was any crime committed. Just because according to one real estate appraiser a piece of property is worth X amount of money and later someone else claims that it is worth less it doesn't mean that those involved are guilty of anything. Unless one can prove that the "independent" apraiser was bribed or blackmailed.
Budai cannot come up with any proof but surely he is trying. Not because Gyurcsány is guilty but because Orbán was very offended by his losing to him in the debate in 2006. But that's not enough to put someone in jail. Unless of course, the courts are intimidated and the prosecutors are pressured.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 18, 2010 at 05:32 PM
"It is hard to credit the stupidity of Hungarian right. Put Gyurcsány on trial and FIDESZ will transform him from discredited politician into martyr,"
This makes sense from the outside. But one of the most important concepts on the right of the last couple of years is that there must be some sort of "reckoning". We can use Szilard here as a sort of one man focus group for hard core Fidesz views: "gratification" is what it is all about.
Along with "revolution" it is the word I have heard the most often expressed by Fidesz supporters in the last 5 years or so. So Fidesz will be giving its grass roots supporters what they want. Autistic as Fidesz are, they don't really consider what anybody else may think important. So there is a logic to this case.
Though it will be popular with the right, Mark is right that a trial would have severe impact internationally and with non-Fidesz supporters in Hungary. If only because Gyurcsyany is clever. This is why a show trial would be stupid. It will more likely be a replay of the Dimitrov trial than the Mindszenty trial. Don't expect a cowed and broken man in the dock. Gyurcysany will use this case as a propaganda exercise. Imagine the Orban - Gyurcsyany debate debacle, but then in court, daily, for weeks on end.
Gratification for what exactly is not completely clear. If Fidesz was really interested in prosecuting communist criminals or corruption they could have done so in 1994-1998, and they could also clear their own ranks now. What they are actually with this "gratification" is satisfying a mob sentiment, a repayment desired for social ills suffered since 1989, for which a scapegoat is needed.
The suppression of the 2006 riots was brutal, it is also clear that in most countries a investigation would have led to perhaps the
sacking of senior police officials and perhaps a minister, not to a criminal prosecution of the prime minister.
" Would we become a pariah for letting independent jurisdiction do its work?"
If the Hungarian judiciary was independent, they would have started these investigation much earlier. They are just as servile to political interests under Fidesz as under the MSzP.
Posted by: Passing Stranger | September 18, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Passing Stranger: "The suppression of the 2006 riots was brutal"
I disagree with you. In comparison what would have happened in Paris, London, Berlin, or New York, it was a mild affair. I watched the whole thing on television and what I saw was mostly policemen retreating. In other countries they would have moved against the attackers with full force.
More policemen than attackers were injured. The few attackers who had to appear in court received no sentences.
No, I think Fidesz managed to rewrite history. Here is for example the case of the courtyard of Magyar Rádió. The president of the Radio testified yesterday. He is about the fifth person who says that they didn't see whatever was happening there. Meanwhile it turns out that some people who were employed by MR were actually the leaders of those who wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government by force. He didn't mention what happened to these "ideological leaders" as he called them. Most likely nothing.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 18, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Eva: what you write may sound nice for outsiders but it's not all outsiders you're dealing with here.
It seems completely obvious that a crime has been committed by the Sukoró real estate exchange. You intentionally withhold that prosecutors are already submerged in deep investigation of the case upon the denunciation of the State Audit Office. Miklós Tátrai, then chief of the National Assets Handler has already been arrested. His institute was under clear command of the Ministry of Finance, but during conducting the Sukoró contract, both Bajnai's Ministry and the prime minister himself were strongly involved, as all of Budai's papers testify.
Up to this day, there is not one single disproof against any of Budai's claims that are supported by files from the Ministries involved. It will probably be extremely difficult for Gyurcsány to cleanly come out of this.
As for the 2006 riots, what you write is simple and outrageous lie. Several hundred protesters, by-passers and other people not even involved with the riots were injured, eyes got shot out, people have been shot in the neck and in the back, all by a police force that was clearly violating the law in force by attacking without their mandatory identification badges that were taken off upon unlawful command of their supreme officers.
There is simply no way you can turn this politically controlled, barbaric police attack into some rightful procedure.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 18, 2010 at 06:48 PM
@Pasztor: You prompted me to trawl through what's been reported on Sukoro.
From what's been printed, you cannot possibly know if there's such evidence. Budai has unveiled a letter bearing Bajnai's signature showing what we know in any case: that Bajnai and Gyurcsany were aware of the Sukoro deal.
But the documentation Budai released does not support his claim that there were irregularities about the relative pricing of two differently-sized parcels of land, and nor does it provide any evidence of illegal favours having been done. He says it does, but the letter itself proves no such thing.
He says he passed all the really hard evidence to the prosecutor. I guesss he decided to keep the really damning stuff away from the public eye?
In any case, the allegations are pathetic. Experts have come up with different valuations for two different bits of land? The affair is so obfuscated you can't even turn it into a pithy campaign slogan. If that's the best skeleton they can find, then they really haven't found much at all. Alternatively, it's the only skeleton they can find which doesn't also implicate a member of their team.
Posted by: Alias3T | September 18, 2010 at 08:12 PM
...and the fact of a prosecutor's investigation doesn't tell us much.
These are the prosecutors who received evidence that a security company controlled by a powerful banker was tracking the movements of the head of the National Security Office (now known as the AVH, of course), and gathering kompromat on the leader of a party. And their response was to investigate not the banker, not the security company - but the party leader.
The prosecutor's office is possibly the single most rotten institution in Hungary. It doesn't just take political orders, it sits panting on its haunches and begs for a biscuit too.
Posted by: Alias3T | September 18, 2010 at 08:22 PM
PassingStranger: " We can use Szilard here as a sort of one man focus group for hard core Fidesz views"
I fear you under- and overestimate Szilárd, who in fact is a propagandist, given the freqency of his comments probably a paid one, not simply a core supporter. (And as a paid propagandist he can be less convinced than he pretends to be but of course can really wake up every morning with thirst for communists' blood :) ) Therefore what we really know is that Fidesz leadership thinks the population wants to see Gyurcsány being put to trial or at least the same leadership believes it is advantageous to create such passionate emotion.
From where can one suspect Szilárd is a propagandist? (Not the worst kind, he at least skilfully imitates discussion, I think Eva can take it as a compliment, Fidesz did not send the usual "trolls" or "droids". :) ) The most important proof is the Márai quote. If you google it (in Hungarian) almost 95% of the search reasults come from rightist websites or from comments of rightists on websites from nol.hu to forum.index.hu I knoiw that Hungarians are very civilized and educated, but this single quote being more popular and more known than "Anyám tyúkja" is a bit suspicious, isn't it?
Moreover, in case of Gyurcsány and Bajnai Szilárd mentioned here only the issues under investigation at the moment. (Well, investigation is an exaggeration, neither the special committee nor Budai is investigating the cases in the proper sense of the word.) Ordinary rightists would very probably mention Hajdú-bét associated with Bajnai, some privatization cases linked to Gyurcsány, maybe the Apró-villa too. Szilárd is too focused on the issues on then propaganda agenda, to strictly adhering to the communication line of Fidesz not to became suspicious.
Not to speak of his activity to defend the flat-tax's fairness. It is the only element of the 29 point without support of an outright majority in the opinion polls (even in the dubious polls of Nézőpont Intézet), on which the government seems vulnerable, therefore Fidesz's intention is to frame the issue according to his aims even before th parliamentary debate begins. And in the discussion Szilárd behaved like propganadist (a not wuite prepared) propagandist. He repeated the Fidesz message, never engaged in real discussion of the facts, never admitted when he was wrong and never cinsidered counterarguments. (It is the same with these inevstigations, of course.)
However, Szilárd reveals the most important weakness of the "jail Gyurcsány" strategy. He portrays Gyurcsány as the root of all evil, the guy who deliberately tried to ruin Hungary in a criminal way and almost prevailed in his attempt. It implies Gyurcsány being a very smart guy, a genius of crime. However, on the other hand he assumes the "investigations" will discover hard proof, implying that Gyurcsány was so stupid not to cover his ass by destroying evidence of his criminal activity. Therefore they could not imagine Gyurcsány standing up to a show trial and debunking the charges at least in the eyes of more or less impartial observers.
Before you conclude I'm paranoid, let me share a peculiar exeprience from yesterday. An interviews was publsihed on a not quite important website yesterday, only tangentially critical to Fidesz. The first comment (!) imediately tried to question the credibility of the interviewee referring to his family, an information not public (i.e. not secret but not public on the web, easily available to ordinary people simply coming through the interview etc.). The "identity" of the commenter was clearly created for this occasion, there is no sign of the existence of this person in the world, although he gave a "real" name and even attached a photo. As the information on the family was not publicly available it should have stemmed from a source collecting it and using for such purposes. As the commenter was non-existent it was probably another propaganda activist.
Posted by: Gábor | September 19, 2010 at 03:28 AM
Ok folks back to the real problem which is Europe’s need for gas and the problem of gas pipelines across Russia. The Azeri plan on the surface is a good one. Technically it is sound and as all the technology is well known, tried and tested so there is little risk on that score. However the real risk comes from those in control of the project. if Europe, who will have to put up the money, is not careful and does not establish firm control, all you will get is a few bits of rusty pipes and a lot of very ‘fat cats’. Someone commented it was not green. Actually LPG is easy enough to make and if the plant is powered (at least to some extent) by wind farms, that argument is knocked on the head
On the subject of wind farms, Hungary has refused to go in for them because they cannot store the surplus power produced. Do a google for Dinorwig and have a look. You will then understand what the problem is for Hungary. But there is always another way one of which I figured out whilst discussing a bottle of a rather nice Merlot and a lump of Stiltern chees my daughter sent me. I know how to make almost all the gas you could want using wind farms.
I also know how to use almost forgotten technologies to harness the Duna without building dams and flumes etc. Why has no great university professor thought of it? I doubt that any of them have as a teenager, ever spent most of August (in a leaky wading suit) repairing the wooden teeth on hundred year old water wheels. If there is anyone out there who really wants to know the ‘how’ of either project I dare say that our good hostess could put them in contact with me
Posted by: Odin's Lost eye | September 19, 2010 at 03:39 AM
It may well be possible Fidesz uses paid propagandists, but there are plenty of people with the time and inclination to spout this kind of rubbish free of charge.
If he's a propagandist I hope they don't pay him very much, because he is not very effective. It is too obvious that he simply ignores all difficult questions and answers only by shouting. He achieves the opposite of what he desires: he forces people to explain their criticism of official policy in far more detail than they would do otherwise. He seems to think that the same message and tone that works for a right wing Hungarian audience also works for a foreign, English speaking audience. His whiney nationalism and tone of righteous indignation is similar to that of the far right emigres of the communist period, and they were more of an embarrassment to their Western hosts than useful allies.
Posted by: Passing Stranger | September 19, 2010 at 06:02 AM
Alias3T: "These are the prosecutors who received evidence that a security company controlled by a powerful banker was tracking the movements of the head of the National Security Office (now known as the AVH, of course), and gathering kompromat on the leader of a party. And their response was to investigate not the banker, not the security company - but the party leader."
I assume you're talking about the UD Zrt case. I was thinking writing about this latest because Ervin Demeter, former minister in charge of national security, goes from television station to television station with the incredible story that it wasn't UD Zrt that broke into the government's computer network, but the national security office's own man, recommended by György Szilvásy (who else?), broke into, for example, the parliament's system. And he says all that with a straight face.
This case is about the most outrageous I've ever heard of even by Hungarian standards. While the "banker" (Csányi), Demeter, Stumpf, and all the others involved should be investigated and brought charges against, the victims of the the illegal activities of UD Zrt will be the ones who will be most likely prosecuted.
And one more thing. In these parliamentary committees there are people who are "investigating" cases they themselves were involved in. Máriusz Révész, Fidesz MP who allegedly received brutal treatment in the hands of the police on October 23, 2006, is a member of a parliamentary subcommittee that is trying to prove that Gyurcsány personally was responsible for the police "brutality," while Demeter is investigating the UD Zrt case in which he was caught on the telephone asking the people at that "firm" to spy on the National Security Office. Boggles the mind.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 19, 2010 at 07:19 AM
@Odin: sorry, we were all distracted by the troll. On Nabucco - I think it depends on Turkey, which is feeling its way towards a much more activist geopolitical role. If they think it will grow their influence in their old Ottomon hinterland, then it'll happen. This latest plan? Well, god knows. Depends how much the gas price rises.
@everyone else: Following on from Gabor - the proof of the pudding is this: There is as much dirt as you want on the previous government. The thing is, most of it's not connected to Gyurcsany. There was, for example, a minister with extremely good contacts inside the Kremlin and the looks of a TSz elnök who is as corrupt a figure as anybody the last 20 years have thrown up. If you want to prosecute the corruption of the previous government, he could provide you with show trials into the next decade. But they need Gyurcsany.
Posted by: Alias3T | September 19, 2010 at 08:05 AM
Alias3T: "But they need Gyurcsany."
It isn't as if FIDESZ haven't been trying hard to get him since 2004. All the suggestions about things Attila Kulcsár supposedly told prosecutors, to Szijjárto's committee into the origins of Gyurcsány's wealth - and they have failed to produce the evidence they need to put him before a court. In trying so hard they have constantly undermined the political case they could have made more clearly against him - that he is Socialist wide boy; a rich man for whom politics and government are a hobby; that he has a difficult relationship with the truth; and that aside of chasing headlines he has no idea what he wants for the country. Some of these lines of attack are unfair, but I am sure they would have stuck if FIDESZ had not been trying so hard to find non-existent evidence of personal corruption, and concentrated instead on building the case. And now by trying them they seem intent on rescuing his reputation.
Posted by: Mark | September 19, 2010 at 08:24 AM
It must never be forgotten that through well-timed appointments, the prosecutor's office has been effectively controlled by Orban appointees thoughout the 2000s. If there were sufficient grounds to prosecute Gyurcsány et al, the means and the will were certainly there. On the other hand, it soes appear that these prosecutors did a great job of burying any inquiries into the Orban government. Anyone remember the name Kaya Ibrahim? Or the success of the Orban family in bidding for road construction projects?
Posted by: GW | September 19, 2010 at 10:24 AM
It is a bit off topic, but honesty deserves it: after a long deliberation with a fellow commenter Szilárd doesn't seem to be paid propagandist, maybe he is just spending too much time with people from around Navracsics and let himself manipulated.
Posted by: Gábor | September 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Greetings again all. Just to remind you of the old saying 'Do not feed the trolls'! It is what they want. This blog is hurting someone high up. Because of the renown of its hostess and the driving force behind it, it is probably read in ‘ministries’ all over and some of its contents feature in ‘ministerial briefings’. As to the good pastor have a browse at this www.encounter2010.org/?lang=en&page=experience. It might just be the one.
As to a show trial, for the trial of László Rajk, Mátyás Rákosi had to import some 32 specialists from Moscow to write the scripts and rehearse the accused etc. Such help is not available these days. Any attempt to try Gyurcsány or Bajnai without any cast iron, copper bottomed evidence would cause such a stench in Europe that the ‘Mighty One’ (Orban Victor) would probably have to go into hiding!
Posted by: Odins lost eye | September 19, 2010 at 03:46 PM
@Odins lost eye: I believe the URL encounter2010.org above is not the one you are looking for. You should look no further than Facebook.
Posted by: SVN49 | September 19, 2010 at 04:23 PM
This isn't a witch hunt. All of us know how to use Google.
Posted by: Alias3T | September 19, 2010 at 04:45 PM
This isn't a witch hunt.
All of us know how to use Google.
I'm sure Eva will confirm that anybody is welcome to post here.
Posted by: Alias3T | September 19, 2010 at 04:46 PM
Whether people agree with Szilárd's position or not, his contributions do spark good debate on this board, so providing he keeps his comments civil, I welcome the chance to debate with him. Without the alternative view, the board will become all to one sided.
Posted by: John T | September 20, 2010 at 04:02 AM
I rather like Szilárd. He sems quite real to me and you'll find people just like him on just about every blog or message board.
It would be a lot duller on here without him.
And I'm sure if Fidesz wanted to damage Eva's reputation they'd pick a more subtle way of doing it. A poster like Mark, for instance, who writes clearly and intelligently and who doesn't always agree with Eva. Post for long enough so that we get to respect him and gradually increase the comments that undermine Eva's position until we start to feel uncertain of her and drift away from the blog. That's how I'd do it, anyway.
Mark, a Fidesz troll - now there's a thought!
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 20, 2010 at 07:37 AM
Paul Haynes: "Post for long enough so that we get to respect him and gradually increase the comments that undermine Eva's position until we start to feel uncertain of her and drift away from the blog."
I don't think you'd succeed - but then I have no intention of undermining anyone. And I welcome the opportunity provided by someone like Szilárd who fluently defends FIDESZ and its point-of-view. After all, as he has pointed out, it is a view that has considerable support within Hungarian society (and occassionally, though not very often, I do agree with things FIDESZ says).
I don't represent anyone except myself. But the real reason I wanted to react to Paul Haynes is that there is an assumption in Hungarian political culture that a diversity of views is somehow a bad thing - and that everyone is divided into rabid fascists on the one side, or godless Communists on the other, or that diversity somehows weakens the unity of the nation (and that victory requires the suppression of all forums for expressing alternatives)- though ironically for all those accusing this blog of "Marxism" while we have had occasional fascist posters, I've never seen anyone attempt to defend a Communist position on here! In so as I'm concerned the problem of Hungary going back to the First World War is that left and right have fought a cold (and sometimes a hot) civil war with each other which has left the country way behind those countries it was directly comparable to in 1914. If those on the right would recognize the legitimacy of those on the left and vice versa this would be a major step forward. It doesn't mean the two sides have to agree; just that there is a basis for proper debate.
I think too that there is too much of a tendency for people of the same political persuasion to stick together, and there is a lack of preparedness to debate issues across political boundaries. The problem with this is that if people always debate with people who agree with each other then their assumptions will not be tested and they will do stupid things - there are more than enough examples from both left and right of this happening. I've always tried to read people I don't agree with, and I would suggest this is something that is good for all of us. We all need to escape from the constraints of our ways of seeing the world, or they will turn into parallel universes that will distort our sense of reality.
Posted by: Mark | September 20, 2010 at 08:10 AM
Paul: "A poster like Mark, for instance, who writes clearly and intelligently and who doesn't always agree with Eva. Post for long enough so that we get to respect him and gradually increase the comments that undermine Eva's position"
Oh, I don't think that Mark and I are that far apart. There are certain things we see differently. One is the role of the socialist party in the 21. century. The other is: what to do with the national debt. And third, the stimulus package. Sure, stimulus is a good answer in situation like today but Hungary simply is not in the position to follow Matolcsy's ideas. Moreover, I'm very skeptical about Matolcsy's economics. Once he already managed to make a mess of things (2000-2002).
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 20, 2010 at 09:20 AM
Mark - it goes back a lot further than that. It wasn't 'left v right', but it was effectively the state of undeclared civil war between the King and the 'Barons' which led to a weakened Hungary being relatively easily defeated by the Turks.
And just about everything bad that's happened to Hungary since led directly from that defeat and occupation.
I realise you know all this, but I just thought Szilárd would be happy to read a bit of patriotically slanted history from one of us Marxists.
By the by, my tongue was firmly in both cheeks with my 'Mark as a Fidesz troll' comments, I hope everyone realised that!
And please, everyone, call me Paul.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 20, 2010 at 04:07 PM
Eva - re your areas of disagreement with Mark. I'd be interested in a brief summary of your views on all three topics, particularly the last two. I'm afraid to say I've never heard of Matolcsy, do you have a link for some background in English?
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 20, 2010 at 04:25 PM
OK Paul, I will be short.
My criticism of the post-1989 period is that all political parties went off after the system change and concentrated on an illusory image of the west, and grand ideological (and largely unrealistic) designs of creating a perfect free market and building a middle class and they forgot that democracy actually requires that someone represent the majority who have to go out and earn wages and salaries. Had they done this we wouldn't be talking about right populism so much now.
For the whole period since 1985 except three years (1997-9) Hungary has been stuck in a debt trap. The insistence on every post-socialist government on precise debt repayment has stymied the economy. I cannot imagine how it will all be repaid and therefore a condition of addressing the underlying economic problems is negotiated debt restructuring.
I opposed Bajnai's cuts and the terms of the IMF/EU loan. I did so because I felt they placed short-term financial interests over those of a long-term recovery. Hungary has an ageing population; it also has desperately low labour force participation, and this is due to a shortage of decent paying work. Given its demographic dynamic Hungary is faced with long-term stagnation and eventually contraction if this is not addressed. To pursue budget cuts in a recession is to depress economic activity and destroy jobs. All research show that when there is a spike in unemployment permanent damage is done to the prospects of the labour market to recover, and Hungary cannot afford any damage if it is to have any economic future at all.
But if I was stimulating the economy, I'd use the money for job creation schemes in the east of the country - I wouldn't throw the money away as Matolcsy would on tax cuts for the rich.
Posted by: Mark | September 20, 2010 at 05:38 PM
Thanks again, Mark.
Your first point clarifies things a little for me, as I have long been confused about Hungarian politics, especially the early post-change years.
As regards representation of the working people, how does the Smallholders Party fit into this, and why was its decline so sudden and complete? And presumably the 'surprise' election of the Socialists in 94 was the working people trying to get a government with their interests at heart? Why didn't it turn out to be that?
Your point on debt restructuring is an excellent one, especially as the post-change government inherited a huge debt it had no responsibility for. I would have thought it would have been relatively easy, given the optimistic, post-Communist mood of the time, to get this debt rescheduled, or even written off. How come the government didn't try this?
Your last point has horrible resonances here in the UK at the moment, as I'm sure you are only too aware. As someone who lived through the optimistic post-war years, I share your views on this completely, but we seem to be in a depressingly small minority at the moment.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 20, 2010 at 06:46 PM
Paul: "how does the Smallholders Party fit into this, and why was its decline so sudden and complete?"
If you want to know about the Smallholders' Party and its relationship to those who worked in agriculture in the early 1990s the best analysis is written in English and is here:
http://www.liv.ac.uk/history/research/cee_pdfs/WP08v2.pdf
Though written in the early 1990s one can extend its analysis to see how the party became so vulnerable after it joined the FIDESZ led government, i.e. it had no real social base in agriculture.
Paul: "And presumably the 'surprise' election of the Socialists in 94 was the working people trying to get a government with their interests at heart? Why didn't it turn out to be that?"
Well the first thing to say is the MSZP victory was no surprise to anyone spending time in industrial areas. I knew they were unstoppable in summer 1993. However, that was only part of the explanation - certainly protest against unemployment and declining real wages was important. But the MSZP captured and cultivated the anti-political vote, by arguing that the "new" parties were a bunch of squabbling incompetents while they were the experts at governing. They even had a campaign poster in 1994 which can be translated as "let the experts govern!" You can imagine how much this offended anti-Communists, and the 1994 election campaign set the tone for the atmosphere of bitter polarization that came after.
The reason it didn't work out was that the MSZP - like the MSZMP was always a coalition, and it was a coalition that bridged a working-class base who wanted social democratic politics; the managers of the large industrial enterprise which were in 1994 only partially transformed who stood to gain from privatization; and the neo-liberal technocrats. It was (and still is) a very fragmented party and like now lacked a strategy; thus when it met with the consequences of the Mexican financial crisis it was - after a period of drift - after which it when down a neo-liberal route under Bokros.
Paul: "How come the government didn't try this?"
Because all post-socialist governments - in the face of the overwhelming evidence of states like Poland which did restructure - believed that they would lose market confidence. However, Hungary's failure has left it especially vulnerable to every problem in the international economy.
Paul: "Your last point has horrible resonances here in the UK at the moment, as I'm sure you are only too aware."
I live in the UK too; I know.
Posted by: Mark | September 21, 2010 at 04:59 AM
It is good to see that the number of intellectual heavy weights are increasing on
this blog.
I keep on hoping that one day I will see a debate about serious issues, such as how to solve the problem of unemployment, the environment etc. etc.
Posted by: latefor | September 21, 2010 at 07:32 AM
latefor - I think a good starting point would be don't vote in a government that poisons the air with nationalistic propaganda, but actually has no idea what it's doing, or how to do it. And certainly don't vote it in with such a huge majority that it can ammend the constitution in its favour and 'govern' without an effective opposition.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 21, 2010 at 06:11 PM
Mark - thanks yet again for your thoughts, and especially that link - very interesting reading. (It's odd that the information I needed to understand the Smallholders movement should be, not in Hungary, but in Liverpool!)
This sort of information is really appreciated, as, although I am fairly well read in Hungarian history (more so, oddly, than most Hungarians I know), the history books all stop at, or before, the change of regime. As a non-Hungarian reader, my only sources of information on Hungary since 1990 are such things as Hungarian Quarterly articles and the odd bits and pieces I can glean off the net.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 21, 2010 at 06:21 PM
I've read with amusement all the idiotic garbage about how I would be a paid propagandist. All the while the very narrowly scoped, left-wing extremist author and audience of this blog being depicted as "English speaking, foreign audience".
Foreign, for sure, as participants here have the least possible in common with Hungary. English speaking too, maybe even audience. But representative of an usual foreign audience? This isn't good even for a joke.
Very funny as readers here complain about me "ignoring difficult questions" while I never ducked any single question, if not by chance, while all my specific allegations get ignored systematically, take for example everything I wrote in this topic about the case with Budai and Gyurcsány/Bajnai.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 22, 2010 at 08:32 AM
@Paul: "if Fidesz wanted to damage Eva's reputation"...
this is the funniest part I've seen here so far.
First, to damage any reputation, you'd have to have some sort of it. Eva is practically unknown in Hungary (and wouldn't be tolerated if she weren't). Second, Fidesz's smallest business is way over anything like trying to damage the "reputation" of such "sub-culture" writers of anti-Hungarian extremist minority rhetoric. Too bad, I say, because the harm done abroad to Hungary by such writers should not be underestimated, but there are much-much more significant damage-doers like Paul Lendvai, Gregor Mayer and the like.
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 22, 2010 at 08:38 AM
"(and wouldn't be tolerated if she weren't)"
You shouldn't post in haste, Szil, you reveal too much about yourself.
As for you always answering questions, you could start by answering my one about the common belief amongst Fidesz supporters that there is an 'international Jewish conspiracy' against Hungary.
In fact, let's have a little competition - which poster can list the most questions not answered by Szilard? I suspect we are going to get into at least two digits here.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 22, 2010 at 09:56 AM
@Paul: I'm not posting in haste at all. Eva would not be tolerated in the same sense she is "not tolerated" today: very few people in Hungary care about this newly "founded" "Galamus" thing and their writers as they're a reincarnation of Klubrádió (kind of an outcast extremist radio) on the net.
As for the Jewish conspiracy, it is certainly not a "common belief amongst Fidesz supporters", I wouldn't even say it's common among Jobbik supporters where there are a lot more extremists.
It is a very stupid thing to divide the world into Jews and non-Jews, some extremists do it (and many left exremists who make a living off of it) but most Fidesz supporters couldn't care less about who is Jew and who isn't, including me.
Is that adequate for an answer?
And why are you refusing to take into account that I'm alone here versus the all of you? What do you think I'm capable of? Am I spending my whole day here to react to everything which in many occasions would require pages to react to?
Posted by: Pásztor Szilárd | September 22, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Paul, Szilárd is very typical. They will tell who is "tolerated" who who isn't. Nice democratic attitude.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | September 22, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Szilárd - Your last few comments have given me a good chuckle. I think you have totally misjudged the make up of the people who comment on this board. A number of them are Brits like me, and they are interested to varying degrees in Hungary. Far from hating Hungary, I think most have a liking for it, but are simply frustrated at the goings on. And that is the overall driver for their comments.
And if you think this board is full of extreme left viewpoints, then you are totally clueless (sorry, but can't think of a better word to some it up) about what constitutes "left" and "right" outside of Hungary. I'm like many in the UK in that my views are a mix of "left" and "right" and I don't slavishly follow a political party - all have some policies that I can support. The worrying point for you perhaps is that based on the views you have expressed here, I consider you to be more left wing than me overall.
Posted by: John T | September 22, 2010 at 01:15 PM
"The worrying point for you perhaps is that based on the views you have expressed here, I consider you to be more left wing than me overall."
Best chuckle I've had for a while!
"Far from hating Hungary, I think most have a liking for it"
Why else would we be here? Personally, I find a great deal to like in Hungary, in many ways it is more civilised than England, and, assuming you have a job/money, a much more pleasant place to live in.
Indeed, so much did I 'hate' Hungary, that I invested a large chunk of my redundancy and a 10m Ft mortgage (not in Swiss francs!) in a flat in Debrecen. And I was looking forward to the day when we could live in Hungary, especially as we had a daughter by then, who I most certainly did not want educated in the English system.
But now I sit here watching the value of my flat slide (but still paying the ruddy mortgage) and wondering if we will ever end up living in Hungary. To burn our bridges and move over at the moment would be the height of madness.
This is what Orbán (and, of course, the people who elected him) has done.
Posted by: Paul Haynes | September 22, 2010 at 06:16 PM