Today I am returning to the annual Fidesz extravagance in Băile Bálványos/Bálványosfűrdő because this time there is plenty to report, due largely to the willingness of three opposition parties to appear at the event. Two parties, Jobbik and LMP, were active participants in discussions arranged by the Fidesz organizers, while five MSZP politicians made a cameo appearance, allegedly to meet leaders of youth organizations from Transylvania. I don’t know whether they were successful in that task or not, but they did meet a bear, who settled right next to their minibus.
The Fidesz media took the participation of Jobbik and LMP in this thoroughly Fidesz affair for granted, but when they heard Bertalan Tóth reveal in an interview that MSZP would be going there as well, the surprise was genuine and the reaction negative. Some government propaganda machines looked upon the decision as a sign of weakness, while the less charitable Fidesz hacks pretty well told “Berci” to get lost. Tusványos is theirs; MSZP has no right to step on hallowed ground. His place is among the throngs of gays at the Budapest Pride; he should not dirty Tusványos with his presence. Tóth was also accused of being a coward for not admitting, unlike Ferenc Gyurcsány and Ágnes Vadai of DK, that “he hates us.” So, playing nice doesn’t pay in Fidesz circles.
MSZP’s decision to make an appearance at the festival wasn’t exactly popular at the other end of the political spectrum either. “Andrew S.” accused the whole opposition of being the hostage of Fidesz. It is made up of parties that are being manipulated by Viktor Orbán, and now MSZP is openly admitting that it has been working behind the scenes with Fidesz. Of course, this and other rather extremist interpretations of MSZP’s decision to take a quick look at the festival are unfair. I do, however, share the view that MSZP’s decision to stop by at this very Fidesz affair was a mistake. It is true that they refused to take an active part in any of the discussions, but by stressing that their quick trip to the festivities was for the purpose of meeting young leaders of Transylvanian organizations, they admitted that they have no direct channels to Hungarian political life in the region; they need the help of Fidesz.
The MSZP delegation consisted of five politicians, three of whom are important leaders of the party: Zsolt Molnár, István Ujhelyi, and Gábor Harangozó. They said that in addition to Băile Bálványos, they will also visit other more important Hungarian centers: Miercurea Ciuc/Csíkszereda, Târgu Mureș/Marosvásárhely , and Oradea/Nagyvárad. Molnár pointed out that MSZP has its own “national policy” (nemzetpolitika), which is radically different from Fidesz-KDNP’s. MSZP’s ideas on the relationship between “the mother country” and Hungarians living in the neighboring states would actually be more advantageous to the Hungarian minorities. Currently the minorities are able to vote only for party lists, making their votes worth half those cast in Hungary proper. MSZP would modify the electoral law in such a way that Hungarians outside the borders could vote for their own members of parliament.
Thus, instead of defining and advocating for an opposition view, MSZP, alongside Jobbik and LMP, is settling for a supporting role. I should add that the same is the case with the “migrant question.” Their thinking goes along these lines: “For Fidesz this strategy worked very well; so, let’s imitate it.” This is also true of the hate campaign and the resultant xenophobia. “People like it, let’s not fight it.” But opposition parties usually don’t win over voters with such lukewarm, namby-pamby responses.
It is also hard to justify visiting Tusványos when István Ujhelyi, a socialist MEP, said that the gathering’s original motto in the late 1980s was “Transition from dictatorship to democracy” but that by now this motto should be changed without any hesitation to “Transition from democracy to dictatorship.” But if this is the case and MSZP politicians share this view, then, pray tell, why did they visit these Fidesz celebrations even for a moment?
However ill advised the trip, the socialist politicians must have fared better than Ádám Mirkóczki, Jobbik’s spokesman, and László Lóránt Keresztes, LMP’s new co-chair, who had the pleasure of engaging in a two-hour discussion with Péter Harrach and Máté Kocsis, leaders of the Christian Democratic and Fidesz parliamentary delegations respectively. The government side in no time led the two so-called opposition party representatives to enthusiastically support the wise migration policies of Fidesz. The conversation on domestic issues wasn’t any better for the representatives of Jobbik and LMP, because there was no way they could deny the deep crisis both parties find themselves in.
Then there are those former politicians who time and again tell us that they have totally and irrevocably retired and that they are enjoying their private law practices but who in point of fact are unable to cut the umbilical cord. This is what is happening to Gergely Bárándy, MSZP’s former legal expert, and András Schiffer, founder of LMP. Schiffer’s relationship with Fidesz was always murky, and he had visited Tusványos several times before. Bárándy’s presence was more surprising. I think it was his vanity that drew him to have a discussion with Gergely Gulyás, whom he considers his intellectual equal. Earlier the two men had had a verbal encounter to the satisfaction of both. This time the discussion wasn’t exactly fruitful because it soon became clear that Bárándy considers Orbán’s political system an autocracy while Gulyás insists that it is democracy at its best. In brief, the discussion led nowhere.
From left to right: András Schiffer, Zoltán Kiszelly (moderator), Gergely Gulyás, and Gergely Bárándy
I found the Orbán government’s new-found confidence the most interesting part of the encounter. You may recall that early on Viktor Orbán told all the Hungarian ambassadors that one of their most important tasks would be to launch an immediate and strong rebuttal to any unfair criticism of the Hungarian government. Of course, as far as they were concerned, there was no such thing as “fair criticism.” Every article that appeared in the foreign press had to be answered and answered sharply. Now Gulyás insists that “criticism coming from abroad, from the European Parliament or from other deviant organizations brings only popularity for us. We can hardly wait for the Sargentini report.” The old “bad habit of attaching too much importance” to these unfair criticisms is over. Supreme self-confidence reigns in Budapest. Unfortunately the weak opposition parties merely helped the regime gloat over its successes.