Gabor Vona, president of the Jobbik party, marks the 170th anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian revolution against the Austrian Empire, March, 2018. Attila Volgyi/Press Association. All rights reserved.
Since Viktor Orbán was returned to the office of Prime Minister of Hungary
in May 2010, he and his party Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség
(Fidesz-MPSZ; Hungarian Civic Alliance) have transformed the political system
of Hungary in a sustained way.
Democratic participation and participation rights have been massively
restricted. Their goal is to fight against the (liberal) individual and to
struggle instead for the (ethnic) collective: it is not about the individual
human being as subject, but instead about the human being as part of a very
specific cultural community. In 2012, the “Journal of Democracy" was still
talking about "Hungary's
Illiberal Turn" – using Hungary’s own chosen propaganda term for
talking about the country as an "illiberal democracy". Today, one
must attest that Hungary should no longer be understood in terms of a democracy
at all. Moreover, the processes of demolishing democracy can only be understood
if one realizes that two radical right-wing parties, Fidesz and the
party Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom (Movement for a Better Hungary),
are working in a mode of functional task-sharing.
Founded in 1988, the radicalisation of Fidesz can only be understood in the
context of its relationship with the party Jobbik, founded in 2003. This is
because Fidesz and Jobbik practice a de facto division of labour in
Hungarian politics. While Fidesz leads the way in dismantling Hungary's
democratic structures in constitutional and legal norms, turning Hungary into a
nationalist dictatorship, Jobbik is advancing a racist, anti-Roma and
antisemitic struggle against democracy on the street – with assaults and
extensive expulsions of the homeless, among other groups.
With these two parties, as I have argued
elsewhere, Hungary has taken its leave of democracy and has transformed itself
into a dictatorship. This is especially the case with Fidesz’ super-majority in
parliament, but also the new constitution, changes to the Nationality Law and
the Electoral Law, and through a restrictive media law, which allows forms of
censorship. The latter is based on general clauses and has demonstrably
restricted media freedom. In the official state name, furthermore, the word
"republic" was deleted.
Hungary’s new constitution is based on an ethnic understanding of the
nation, with minorities excluded. Harkening back to Europe’s dark years before
the Second World War, family, honour and work are glorified. Myth and God are
given constitutional status, while the powers of the judiciary at the
constitutional level have been massively limited.
These legislative changes comprehensively include explicit ethnic
assumptions. All of them have considerably expanded the positions of power of
the ruling parties and drastically restricted the rights of the opposition.
Both parties are pursuing a rescaling of politics. They base themselves
extensively on premodern religious traditions, and then Jobbik, as an
explicitly antisemitic party, refers to fascist traditions in speeches, symbols
and rituals as well as to pro-Nazi Hungary under its leading collaborator
Miklós Horthy.
As this suggests, liberal democracy has become the sworn enemy of both Fidesz
and Jobbik. An anti-American and anti-European – or at least, anti-EU –
attitude, combined with a pro-Russian orientation, also links both parties.
Moreover, both act decidedly nationalistically, instrumentalising the so-called
“foreign-Hungarians” in places like Romania and Austria, in both law and
politics, in order to further their own ambitions for a Greater Hungary; for
example as potential supporters in elections. They combine these nationalist
principles with an imperial-annexationist claim – in the case of Jobbik, with
direct reference to fascist and National Socialist models, and in the case of
Fidesz, more closely referencing the traditions of the Catholic Empire of the
Magyars, a nationalistically defined ethnic nation within the soon-to-be-revived
Magyar Királyság (the “Kingdom of Hungary” in Hungarian). In addition
to its autocratic-aristocratic dimension, it has a clearly ethnic connotation –
with Magyar culture stretching back more than a thousand years to the 9th
century.
The differences that can be drawn between Fidesz and Jobbik can be found
above all in the strategic occupation of thematic areas: Jobbik often
formulates the radical antidemocratic ideas, which Fidesz then implements.
Domestically, Jobbik fulfills the function of a seismograph for Fidesz. They
show what room for manouevre there is in Hungarian society for its nationalist
de-democratization, and how radically at any stage the nationalist ideals of
Hungary can be implemented via street action.