The position of Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Union on the prime minister's proposal concerning a "joint list" of parties for the European Parliament elections

Dátum: 2004-03-23 11:50:00, eredeti URL: http://archiv.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=21451
KCMDB-be feltöltve: 2024-05-04 19:43:38.587130, Feltöltő: fidesz_hu_scraper_v2

In the wake of declining economic trends and austerity measures, Hungary was waiting for explanation and direction from the prime minister in his state-of-the-nation address last week. His assessment of the situation was, however, hardly more than a repetition of vague promises made last year in a similar speech and a complete lack of self-criticism concerning his government's economic policy.

In the face of falling popularity and the approaching EP-elections, the goal of the prime minister's speech was therefore twofold:

- thematising public discourse in the political, rather than in the economic, domain in an apparent determination to draw away public attention from economic issues unfavourable for the governing coalition,

- playing on a public sentiment, rooted in the communist period, of popular desire for consensual politics. (Misunderstanding the notion of pluralism, calls for consensus are rewarded, whereas debates are rejected by this sentiment. Therefore, the socialist strategy has been that of pursuing a rhetorical, but not substantial, PR-strategy of putting forward "consensual" proposals, in reality of course par excellence unacceptable for Fidesz, so that they could be able to portray Fidesz as troublemakers.)

- Reduction of the size of Parliament;

- Election of the President of the Republic directly by the people, rather than by Parliament;

- Instead of competing party lists, drafting a single list of candidates of the four parliamentary parties for the European Elections.

It was the third proposal which caused an uproar both domestically and internationally. However, the prime minister's intention seems to have backfired and Fidesz could not have been isolated: the smaller coalition partner SZDSZ rejected the idea right away, with the smaller opposition party MDF immediately following suit. Negative European reactions also gave a significant blow to the idea. Comments called the concept "politically absurd, fundamentally in opposition of demoncratic principles, stripping citizens of their choice" (Hans-Gert Pöttering, leader of EPP group in the EP), an "idea rooted in the old communist system" (Wim van Velzen, vice-president of EPP). The meeting of centre-right European prime ministers in Athens a few days later called attention to the fact that "the proposition was contrary to EU treaties stipulating direct elections for the European Parliament since 1979." Even the European socialists reacted rejection: Hannes Svoboda, vice-president of the EPS group in the EP commented that it was "a proposal contradicting basic system of European elections... and democracy. You cannot skip competition, people must vote for different parties and concepts....The elections must be free and not pre-arranged by a prior compromise." In other words, general domestic and international refusal isolated Prime Minister Medgyessy within a week.

Fidesz president Viktor Orbán reacted by saying that the proposal was right in the sense that unity was indeed desirable, but not in the way envisaged by the prime minister. The socialist proposal of distributing available political positions within the political elite divided public opinion instead of uniting it, and would have meant excluding, rather than including, citizens in democratic processes, he said. Moreover, the proposal of the prime minister turned Hungary against Europe and its democratic traditions. Such ill-considered ideas are not very fortunate because they may harm Hungary's ability to protect its national interests. Instead, he added, unity must mean a protection of peoples' insterests, which implies a consensus on matters of substance. To that end, Mr Orbán introduced a 9-point document, a proposal for common EU-policy up for consideration for the government and other parties in Parliament, titled "Unity in protection of our common interests". These points (a detailed elaboration of which will arrive in a follow-up e-mail) are the following:

 Unity for an equal treatment of Hungarians within the European Union;

 Unity for making use of the financial assistance arriving from the European Union;

 Unity for strengthening Hungarian farmers and the agriculture;

 Unity for helping national minorities;

 Unity for strengthening small and medium-sized enterprises;

 Let the Parliament's European Integration Committee work as an institution of national consensus;

 Common assent on Hungarian EU-bureaucrats;

 Unity for a unified Europe;

Unity for upholding democratic principles in Europe.