Hummmm. As I read this, I thought I was reading about California and the Democrat Party there. I had to double check the headline several times. Orbán must have talked to the folks in California and stolen their playbook.
As for a captured "State Media", we certainly have that in the USA. We call it CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and even PBS, yet no one says 'boo' about it. The best we get is complaints that Tucker Carlson and/or Fox News are Russian puppets. These people certainly know what a puppet is alright.
The fact is the people of Hungary have spoken and spoken loudly. They want someone in power who means what he says and says what he means and that is Viktor Orbán.
Hungarians appreciated Orbán's message, and they trust him to deliver on it.
Is it wrong for people to want:
- Respect for a sovereign and secure Hungary denoted by REAL ENFORCED borders? or
- Respect for traditional Hungarian values (Yes, I know these sound very strange: family, hard-work, religion)? or
- To be left alone to pursue their lives?
Let's be honest, the discontent is largely driven by the Alphabet Mafia: LGBTQIA+. They want to completely upend society, including elimination of the traditional family structure. If you don't think so, then why are people required to believe that men can have babies too? Or let's look at the nomination of someone to the highest court in the most powerful country in the world who refused to define what a woman is because this person (a woman) said she's not a biologist.
The Hungarian people see this. They are not stupid, and they want no part of it at all - whether from Brussels or Washington.
For those who have not been there, the majority of Hungarian people are very poor. They truly have very little, but they are very generous people (probably to a fault) who appreciate what they do have. Outside of the few major Hungarian cities, these people face a very meager and difficult existence on a daily basis. I would love to see someone from the 'left' (whatever that means these days) try and tell one of these 'simple-minded' voters who have been 'captured by Orbán's rhetoric that the difference between a 'man' and 'woman' is the costume the individual chooses to wear. They would laugh in their face. Hungarians know better.
While I very much appreciate the author's right to her opinion and she is clearly entitled to express her views, I am only surprised by the fact that Orbán's margin of victory was not bigger.
And might I add, that the 20 years of being start pupils of transition liberalism ended with economic collapse and crisis from 2005-2011 ended by... whom? And this has radically improved the living standards of Hungarians, and particularly outside of the city.
I remember sitting in 2010 on the Czech Slovak border and friends had returned from Hungary with 100 year old Tokaji that once would have gone for 200 Euro that they got a case of for that much because the crisis had basically hollowed out the value of the country. We talked about it. the Czech and Slovaks took it rather solemly after the second bottle. "I wouldn't want this to happen to our cultural treasures' they said. IT was a humiliation. Orban came in and turned it around and distributed generous family oriented benefits.
That's why 'Hate the O-man' strategy didn't work in Hungary but it could work in the US.
And he is winning. Fidesz vote share does nothing but increase, with election observers finding virtually no problems.
They, along with Romanians, are probably the most anti-Semitic and anti-Roma people in the world. Interesting that the article mentions Fidesz burning ballots from Romania. Europe is always full of very strange bedfellows but we in the US need to ally with the ones least supportive of Hitler/Stalin/Putin types.
I suppose. I find the way westerners relate to the Roma issue... rather ridiculous. IT just isn't so straightforward. I could be wrong, but I am assuming you have never lived for a long time in a country-region with a large Roma presence? It's not a simple issue of needing to have 'good civic citizenship attitudes'. The 'Roma question' is difficult because Roma, by and large, DO NOT WANT any more than Orban does to integrate into one civic community. Orban & Roma general have an 'us' and 'them' ethnic attitude. I like to say that the Roma question is like the challenges of Native American relations, the African American relations, and the Latin American relations, overlayed with legacy of communism, and then foisted upon poorer countries. It's *really* hard.
So, even if it was true that - say - Hungary was more anti-roma than the Czech Republic (which I doubt) - it wouldn't tell me much. I should note - given you follow up - that Roma and Romanians have no real overlap, ethnically. Romanians are romance language speaking, and Roma speak a remote indo-european language akin to language spoken in Northern India. I assure you that Orban and Fidesz officials know this.
Anti-semitism is just bewildering as accusations go. I can't find any evidence of it either in my experience or in any studies. I have seen far more anti-semitism in Western Europe than Eastern Europe... and particularly Hungary.
This report - which is the most broad and comparative I could find at short notice - seems to utterly decimate this accusation (And also corresponds well to my experience). It correctly shows that Islamophobia is extraordinarily high in Hungary. This is not surprising, given it is a people who were repeatedly attacked and enslaved by Ottomans.
As to 'supporting Putin types'. This is honestly just silly. Orban has denounced the invasion, and his policy vis-a-vis Russia are almost indistinguishable from Germany's or the Netherlands. It's unclear why Westerners would spend a decade slandering and libelling Hungary and it leadership and then be aghast when they aren't first in light at the solidarity parade, when countries like Germany and the Netherlands are hemming and hawing.
Firstly, if you think we have "state captured media" in the US, I don't think you fully grasp the meaning of that term. Our major media outlets are independently owned and operated; they aren't directly owned or financed by the U.S. government or by sources controlled or determined by a political party, as around 80% of media in Hungary is. You don't see politicians revoking public broadcasting licenses from American news networks or directing state advertising to pro-party media. The one unfortunate thing we do have in common with Hungary is the decline of independent *local* media (due to corporate consolidation and "vulture capitalism"), but that's a somewhat different issue.
The fact that American journalists tend to skew liberal does not make them "state captured", especially since half the time "the state" is controlled by conservatives. Tucker Carlson wouldn't be the most watched "news" program if liberals controlled the media like Fidesz does in Hungary. And while Hungary doesn't have the kind of brutal, journalist-murdering media domination found in most autocratic nations (like Russia, for example), but that's by design. Being a member of the EU, Orban needs a degree of "plausible" deniability, so you get his brand of "soft autocracy".
Granted, when Trump was in office, one could be forgiven for thinking America actually did have state-controlled media, with Fox News' blatant violations of journalistic ethics in exchange for access to the President, Newsmaxx having an *explicitly* stated policy of support for Trump, and OAN's general insanity in pushing pro-Trump conspiracy theories (earning them a nice little pat on the back from Trump during a press conference for being "good to" him). But in Hungary, this sort of political media manipulation isn't the product of an out-of-control politician whose party gave up trying to hide his irrepressible and blatant corruption - it's being competently institutionalized by a party apparatus that has shrewdly consolidated its rule.
And sadly, Orban is now getting a big assist from fanboys on the American right like Tucker Carlson, Rod Dreher, and Matt Schlapp - people who have surrendered any care for democratic integrity in favor of whatever strongman will oppose the bogeymen that have driven them to existential crisis - immigrants, gays, lesbians, transgenders, social justice warriors, etc. I implore you not to succumb to this same temptation. I may be a progressive, but like many here I also have my issues with the modern left. That shouldn't matter in this case. Numerous international organizations and observers have attested to the erosion of democracy under Orban. Democracy demands that we withstand some degree of cultural friction. And while our institutions are still stronger and our culture of independence far more robust than in Hungary's case, we are more vulnerable to this brand of creeping illiberalism than we have been in a long time.
Thanks for your comments. As will come as no surprise, I respectfully disagree with most of them.
I would encourage you to read Mr. Brandon Zicha's well-documented post below. It starts out: "This is a poor piece..." In it, Mr. Zicha rebuts point-by-point the various attestations of the international community concerning Prime Minister Orbán's stewardship of Hungarian Democracy.
As for the US media, let's be honest. I'm pretty sure you don't believe a prerequisite to being captured by the government is that the news media must be on the government's payroll. As for the US mainstream media, it is not beholden to the "government". It's beholden to the democrat party. The mainstream media is a democrat party propaganda tool used to 'manufacturing consent' (see Noam Chomsky).
You mentioned revoking broadcasting privileges. Well, the democrat party doesn't need a government fiat. The democrat party only needs to 'wink and nod' at its captured apparatchiks, the "Social Media' companies, who are more than willing to do whatever is needed. Take, for example, Twitter shutting down the New York Post's Twitter account for weeks ahead of the 2020 presidential election because the Post dared to raise questions (found on numerous Hunter Bidden laptop emails) about an extensive and brazen 'pay-for-play' scheme directly implicating Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. And, as it turns out, that New York Post story was true, but sadly the MSM didn't figure it out in time to help inform the public. They buried it - not because the government told them to bury it, but because the mainstream media understood what the democrat party wanted. How many times did we hear it had 'all the markings of classic Russian disinformation'? Yea, right. It was disinformation alright, but not Russian, mainstream media.
Appreciate your comments, but give me Viktor Orbán any day....
"But the fact remains that in Hungary, even if the opposition does everything right, it is nearly impossible to replace Fidesz during elections. Since the party returned to power in 2010, the country has seen the deepest erosion of democracy in the European Union. Orbán has successfully manipulated Hungary’s system in order to translate popular support into an unbeatable electoral majority. He provides a textbook example of how autocrats can erode liberal democracy while facing minimal consequences."
This paragraph could be rephrased: "But the fact remains that in Hungary, even if the opposition [tries its hardest], it is nearly impossible to replace Fidesz during elections. Since the party returned to power in 2010, the country has [overwhelmingly supported Fidesz through the democratic process]. Orban has successfully [campaigned and garnered democratic support and has translated that support] into an unbeatable electoral majority. He provides a textbook example of how [elected officials can win elections by standing up for national interests in the face of international pressure]."
Viktor Orbán said and did a bunch of stuff that duped (or forced) people into voting for him. These people clearly would have cast their votes elsewhere had they had the chance.
We know this because we know what result would have been achieved absent Orbán's underhanded maneuvers, i.e., It would have us in power and Orbán on trial or worse.
Where these same 'tactics' are deployed elsewhere (i.e., California), not a beep of concern.
The thing is that there are problems in Hungarian constitutionalism.. but they are (a) similar in type and magnitude to those seen throughout the West (b) Orban and his team seem actively more concerned and conscientious about it , and (c) they have left lots of potential power grabs on the table inexplicably if they, indeed, wanted to short up power irrevocably.
The problem with these articles in Persuasion about alleged anti-democratic measures taken by the populists of Europe is that they are always written by people who hate their values.
I am opposed to efforts to undermine democracy, full stop. Which means I oppose Fidesz rigging elections, if it is true that that is what they are doing. But I also fully support Hungarian voters if they oppose the efforts of globalists to undermine their national sovereignty and traditional culture and society, and further those interests by winning at the ballot box.
This article is actually more fair-minded that most, in allowing that Orban's policies are legitimately very popular in Hungary.
It is interesting that Persuasion, which purports to be so concerned about democracy, has never written an article about how undemocratic it is that population change policies in Europe always seem to be so dramatically at odds with the desires of European electorates, and have been for decades.
This is a poor piece on a number of issues, and I am happy to write a rejoinder. But, in the meantime, some facts:
-There is very little evidence of serious gerrymandering in Hungary. Part of this is the function of the principles established for drawing district lines (stay within counties, and maintain the integrity of Budapest districts)
-There is evidence of malapportionment in the reforms of 2011 and 2014 but they actually were LESS malapportioned than others. Not a little either.
- Orban reduced the size of the legislature *to the optimum size deemed the standard by political scientists* from a dreadfully oversized parliament before (which was WHY the districts were redrawn)
- The electoral system reform in 2011 did make the electoral system more majoritarian like that of the UK, Malta, or the United States House, and these systems substantially over-reward plurality winners to deliver decisive majorities. It is barely a Mixed system at all, but it was left more mixed than it could have (They kept proportionality rules).
- They lowered the threshold for ethnic minority parties to get in parliament (as nationalist authoritarians bent on domination do, I guess?). Ah, but that is a dastardly trick too, because then they won't as eagerly join the opposition pre-electoral coalition! The less democratic and more democratic elements all point to authoritarianism. How... tautological.
All told, via the electoral process there is startling little evidence of even remotely norm-breaking shenangans. The talk of predatory partisan gerrymanders is borderline disinformation.
As I have written elsewhere, there are worrying aspects to Hungary, and Orban's goals vis-a-vis changes in power (As with any leader) are not perfectly clear. However, the problems faced in Hungary are the same pressures faced across the West. The declines we see are the same as those across the West. There is virtually no serious threat to democracy in Hungary that isn't present in countries like the US, the UK, the NL, and countless other countries.
Even one of the main worries of the EU regarding electoral integrity (mail in ballot's sans ID) is considered a major democratic advance in the United States. In Hungary: Bad. IN America: Good!
Why? Excellent question.
Hungary, as all of our Democracies, is in a fragile place right now, but its biggest problem is its opposition in the new constitutional system. The REAL shenangan was that moving from a more proportional to a more majoritarian system of representation the largest most unified part was advantaged in terms of winning seats. The divided opposition is a problem, as is its poor campaigning. They are losing because they are bad at winning. Yes, there is some bias in the larger media system. But, even before that, liberal and left publications were not able to draw large circulations, and political entrepreneurs outside the right seemed as interested in working with the voters they had, as they are now interested in competing withing the constitutional system they have.
The solution, is that the opposition leadership in various parties give up power and merge into a larger party capable of capturing real vote share in the constituency districts. But absolutely none of them, nor their constituents, or their interest groups have any interest in that or playing in a majoritarian system.
So, they turn to propaganda and 'political sciencey' looking analyses that are ultimately motivated political studies almost entirely unsubstantiated. These coalitions in Hungary do not want this majoritarian system because it harms their office interests, not the policy or governance interests of Hungary. Indeed, their refusal to get realistic about the new political world they live in is why they lost the election.
Orban is and was eminently beatable by a strong center right liberal with a national rather than internationalist orientation. But the small groups of educated, international, and left Hungarians don't want that. They want to win without winning elections in this system. They look to the EU to enforce policies on their fellow citizens that they can't win at the ballot box. They look to international pressure. All this, of course, just plays into Orban's narrative (how is it we lose).
So if this kind of liberal myopia, bad politics, and myopia sounds familiar, it should. Because it's the exact same kind of thing we are seeing from left-leaning parties across the West, and they keep losing. 'I don't like the system, and it doesn't advantage me, so it's undemocratic' Sounds familar. It's the Democratic complaint about the US Senate and Electoral College. Democrats SHOULDN'T HAVE TO patrongize the great unsophisticated unwashed in rural states, and Democrats shouldn't have to campaign in tiny places if it means compromising on their desires for deep blue urban areas so its all so very unfair. (check out the electoral bias in House elections in the 1960's sometime)
Unable to win via democratic means, the liberal left appeal to courts, dominance in non-state institutions, international pressure, international courts, media, or conspiracy to force policies they cannot win at the ballot box and stand aghast as *how it could be possible they are not liked by the masses!* It's the liberal conundrum. And, it's explained usually by boogeymen (always men).
I should note that the 'malapportionment' was also radically LESS malapportioned than previous constitution. Not merely comparatively. Before the reform the difference between the smallest to largest district was 300%. Now it's 30%. That is the largest district is 30% larger than the smallest as opposed to three times the size.
Let's try some numbers here. Orban won 2,847,363 votes. The opposion parties won 1,810,994 and 319,261 votes. The bottom line is Orban won 57% of the popular vote.
Yeah, but really Brussels should be setting policy in Hungary, not Hungarian voters. Because, you know, democracy is so sacred and stuff. As long as the voters don't get in the way of open borders corporate globalism.
In California, every TV station, every newspaper (that I know of), every politician, every corporation, etc. supported Proposition 16 (to legalize racism in CA). Only the people said no. The establishment was very upset (and still is).
I read it as a causal argument based on a counter-factual. If some day an opposition would have won (given free press etc) but was prevented from winning because of gerrymandering, a biased court, payoffs, and voter suppression, then you could no longer call that country democratic. History shows again and again that any autocratic regime will not have overwhelming popular support forever. But once the conditions for democratic governance are gone, they are very difficult to restore.
What would the vote counts have been, exactly, without the gerrymandering, payoffs, control over public information, etc? Please give me the numbers.
(I would also point out that the vote counts in autocratic nations tend to remain very impressive long past the point where the government has lost public support.)
There is no significant gerrymandering. Even if there was, it would barely effect vote totals.
Influence on public information is the *only* element of your list that is remotely real. There is no evidence of vote buying. No evidence of voter intimidation or manipulation. Weak evidence of gerrymanders. Weak evidence of any non-normative behavior AT ALL on the elections side of the ledger beyond the informational environment... but that is a much more complicated story.
How is it that winning 53% of the votes got Fidesz 83% of the seats in parliament without gerrymandering?
And leaving out “the informational environment” is like saying Putin’s popularity has nothing to with his complete domination of media. Imagine if all US channels were nonstop Fox News.
But first, some facts. Fidesz didn't win 83% of parliamentary seats. Fidesz won 68% of the parliamentary seats. But, if it *had* won that many seats, it would not be historically unheard of.
Consider these election results from UK history for the majority party:
One of the things that makes me upset about this piece - as a political scientist myself - is that any political scientist that is properly trained and qualified to be writing a piece like this must know that majoritarian electoral systems produce these kinds of exaggerated rewards routinely, regardless of partisan or non-partisan gerrymanders. This is a well-known feature of these systems and the election reforms of ca2011 and 2014 basically has transformed the Hungarian electoral system to one far more like a UK style system (majoritarian) than a Dutch style system (highly proportional).
Now, we can absolutely debate the merits of movements along these continuum. But, what we can't say, is that to move in the direction of the UK is a move towards electoral authoritarian institutions.
Now, the reason why this happens, and why it gets worse if you have a fragmented opposition, is that in single-member districts (constituency districts) or 'PR' systems with a low avg. district magnitude (Hungary has both) only a small number of parties CAN get seats. And if the opposition is divided and the government unified, they are advantaged in competing for districts with few available seats.. and very advantaged if they are competing for a single seat - REGARDLESS of how you draw the lines.
But, in this case, the Hungarian rules for drawing district lines is actually quite restraining. Budapest and Counties must have integrity. Districts can't cross country lines or impinge on the capital. 'Gerrrmanders' with long salamander like lines to capture the right voters are a tool not available for Hungarian district-crafters. They can gerrymander still, but in far tighter constraints than you would find in Illinois or New York. Take a look at those state maps overlayed by a couny map. Do the same for Hungary. Illinois and New York are *obviously* just at a glance, more clearly gerrymandered.
So, in light of these *very* basic facts any comparative political science scholar *must* know if they are minimally informed and *not* simply presenting one's political biases as knowledge, there is very little on-its-face clearly anomalous about this hungarian election result or, indeed, the system itself. It is, ultimately, well within democratic norms on virtually every meaningful dimension.
This is particularly true given that Fidesz has - for most Hungarians - objectively governed well the past decade, and particularly in comparison to the prior decade. This isn't a story of a Trumpy leader who is a misgoverning chaos machine obsessed with his golden toilet to busy tweeting from atop it to deliver on his promises to his lower income base. Rather, this is the story of what happens when a populist actually delivers on the goods for their constituency that is more than a majority of the voters.
None of this makes things in Hungary 'a-okay', but it does mean (a) way more evidence is required to satisfy claims of predatory voter choosing gerrymandering, that (b) whatever is found is unlikely to be comparatively substantial, and that worrying signs of slides to autocracy need to be sought elsewhere.
there are places to look. Media is one (though I think overblown). The other is in some complex adminstrative reforms, and a Democratic Party style courtpacking policy that has harmed the constitutional courts independence at a time when the rules of constitutional amendment give the supermajoritarian ruling power almost unlimited control.
Combining such an amendment procedure with and electoral system that is majoritarian, when the opposition is fragmented provides almost unrefuseable opportunities for the power seeking party cartel.
But as you might have already grasped from my rejoinder here... the problems that I can see all look pretty familiar. They are not anomalous either. They are backsliding trends we see ACROSS advanced industrial democracies. On a number of dimensions Hungary isn't even in the lead. So, why the level of fire direct at Orban? Why the lying and exaggerating?
I don't know, but what I must conclude is that there is something other than concern for the truth and democracy at its root.
Hummmm. As I read this, I thought I was reading about California and the Democrat Party there. I had to double check the headline several times. Orbán must have talked to the folks in California and stolen their playbook.
As for a captured "State Media", we certainly have that in the USA. We call it CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and even PBS, yet no one says 'boo' about it. The best we get is complaints that Tucker Carlson and/or Fox News are Russian puppets. These people certainly know what a puppet is alright.
The fact is the people of Hungary have spoken and spoken loudly. They want someone in power who means what he says and says what he means and that is Viktor Orbán.
Hungarians appreciated Orbán's message, and they trust him to deliver on it.
Is it wrong for people to want:
- Respect for a sovereign and secure Hungary denoted by REAL ENFORCED borders? or
- Respect for traditional Hungarian values (Yes, I know these sound very strange: family, hard-work, religion)? or
- To be left alone to pursue their lives?
Let's be honest, the discontent is largely driven by the Alphabet Mafia: LGBTQIA+. They want to completely upend society, including elimination of the traditional family structure. If you don't think so, then why are people required to believe that men can have babies too? Or let's look at the nomination of someone to the highest court in the most powerful country in the world who refused to define what a woman is because this person (a woman) said she's not a biologist.
The Hungarian people see this. They are not stupid, and they want no part of it at all - whether from Brussels or Washington.
For those who have not been there, the majority of Hungarian people are very poor. They truly have very little, but they are very generous people (probably to a fault) who appreciate what they do have. Outside of the few major Hungarian cities, these people face a very meager and difficult existence on a daily basis. I would love to see someone from the 'left' (whatever that means these days) try and tell one of these 'simple-minded' voters who have been 'captured by Orbán's rhetoric that the difference between a 'man' and 'woman' is the costume the individual chooses to wear. They would laugh in their face. Hungarians know better.
While I very much appreciate the author's right to her opinion and she is clearly entitled to express her views, I am only surprised by the fact that Orbán's margin of victory was not bigger.
And might I add, that the 20 years of being start pupils of transition liberalism ended with economic collapse and crisis from 2005-2011 ended by... whom? And this has radically improved the living standards of Hungarians, and particularly outside of the city.
I remember sitting in 2010 on the Czech Slovak border and friends had returned from Hungary with 100 year old Tokaji that once would have gone for 200 Euro that they got a case of for that much because the crisis had basically hollowed out the value of the country. We talked about it. the Czech and Slovaks took it rather solemly after the second bottle. "I wouldn't want this to happen to our cultural treasures' they said. IT was a humiliation. Orban came in and turned it around and distributed generous family oriented benefits.
That's why 'Hate the O-man' strategy didn't work in Hungary but it could work in the US.
And he is winning. Fidesz vote share does nothing but increase, with election observers finding virtually no problems.
Thank you for the color commentary. I love Hungary and the Hungarian people.
They, along with Romanians, are probably the most anti-Semitic and anti-Roma people in the world. Interesting that the article mentions Fidesz burning ballots from Romania. Europe is always full of very strange bedfellows but we in the US need to ally with the ones least supportive of Hitler/Stalin/Putin types.
I suppose. I find the way westerners relate to the Roma issue... rather ridiculous. IT just isn't so straightforward. I could be wrong, but I am assuming you have never lived for a long time in a country-region with a large Roma presence? It's not a simple issue of needing to have 'good civic citizenship attitudes'. The 'Roma question' is difficult because Roma, by and large, DO NOT WANT any more than Orban does to integrate into one civic community. Orban & Roma general have an 'us' and 'them' ethnic attitude. I like to say that the Roma question is like the challenges of Native American relations, the African American relations, and the Latin American relations, overlayed with legacy of communism, and then foisted upon poorer countries. It's *really* hard.
So, even if it was true that - say - Hungary was more anti-roma than the Czech Republic (which I doubt) - it wouldn't tell me much. I should note - given you follow up - that Roma and Romanians have no real overlap, ethnically. Romanians are romance language speaking, and Roma speak a remote indo-european language akin to language spoken in Northern India. I assure you that Orban and Fidesz officials know this.
Anti-semitism is just bewildering as accusations go. I can't find any evidence of it either in my experience or in any studies. I have seen far more anti-semitism in Western Europe than Eastern Europe... and particularly Hungary.
This report - which is the most broad and comparative I could find at short notice - seems to utterly decimate this accusation (And also corresponds well to my experience). It correctly shows that Islamophobia is extraordinarily high in Hungary. This is not surprising, given it is a people who were repeatedly attacked and enslaved by Ottomans.
As to 'supporting Putin types'. This is honestly just silly. Orban has denounced the invasion, and his policy vis-a-vis Russia are almost indistinguishable from Germany's or the Netherlands. It's unclear why Westerners would spend a decade slandering and libelling Hungary and it leadership and then be aghast when they aren't first in light at the solidarity parade, when countries like Germany and the Netherlands are hemming and hawing.
The report: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2018-experiences-and-perceptions-of-antisemitism-survey_en.pdf
If Ketanji Jackson needs a biologist to define a woman, then she's clearly admitting gender/sex is a biological determination, not a social one.
Great point
Firstly, if you think we have "state captured media" in the US, I don't think you fully grasp the meaning of that term. Our major media outlets are independently owned and operated; they aren't directly owned or financed by the U.S. government or by sources controlled or determined by a political party, as around 80% of media in Hungary is. You don't see politicians revoking public broadcasting licenses from American news networks or directing state advertising to pro-party media. The one unfortunate thing we do have in common with Hungary is the decline of independent *local* media (due to corporate consolidation and "vulture capitalism"), but that's a somewhat different issue.
The fact that American journalists tend to skew liberal does not make them "state captured", especially since half the time "the state" is controlled by conservatives. Tucker Carlson wouldn't be the most watched "news" program if liberals controlled the media like Fidesz does in Hungary. And while Hungary doesn't have the kind of brutal, journalist-murdering media domination found in most autocratic nations (like Russia, for example), but that's by design. Being a member of the EU, Orban needs a degree of "plausible" deniability, so you get his brand of "soft autocracy".
Granted, when Trump was in office, one could be forgiven for thinking America actually did have state-controlled media, with Fox News' blatant violations of journalistic ethics in exchange for access to the President, Newsmaxx having an *explicitly* stated policy of support for Trump, and OAN's general insanity in pushing pro-Trump conspiracy theories (earning them a nice little pat on the back from Trump during a press conference for being "good to" him). But in Hungary, this sort of political media manipulation isn't the product of an out-of-control politician whose party gave up trying to hide his irrepressible and blatant corruption - it's being competently institutionalized by a party apparatus that has shrewdly consolidated its rule.
And sadly, Orban is now getting a big assist from fanboys on the American right like Tucker Carlson, Rod Dreher, and Matt Schlapp - people who have surrendered any care for democratic integrity in favor of whatever strongman will oppose the bogeymen that have driven them to existential crisis - immigrants, gays, lesbians, transgenders, social justice warriors, etc. I implore you not to succumb to this same temptation. I may be a progressive, but like many here I also have my issues with the modern left. That shouldn't matter in this case. Numerous international organizations and observers have attested to the erosion of democracy under Orban. Democracy demands that we withstand some degree of cultural friction. And while our institutions are still stronger and our culture of independence far more robust than in Hungary's case, we are more vulnerable to this brand of creeping illiberalism than we have been in a long time.
Thanks for your comments. As will come as no surprise, I respectfully disagree with most of them.
I would encourage you to read Mr. Brandon Zicha's well-documented post below. It starts out: "This is a poor piece..." In it, Mr. Zicha rebuts point-by-point the various attestations of the international community concerning Prime Minister Orbán's stewardship of Hungarian Democracy.
As for the US media, let's be honest. I'm pretty sure you don't believe a prerequisite to being captured by the government is that the news media must be on the government's payroll. As for the US mainstream media, it is not beholden to the "government". It's beholden to the democrat party. The mainstream media is a democrat party propaganda tool used to 'manufacturing consent' (see Noam Chomsky).
You mentioned revoking broadcasting privileges. Well, the democrat party doesn't need a government fiat. The democrat party only needs to 'wink and nod' at its captured apparatchiks, the "Social Media' companies, who are more than willing to do whatever is needed. Take, for example, Twitter shutting down the New York Post's Twitter account for weeks ahead of the 2020 presidential election because the Post dared to raise questions (found on numerous Hunter Bidden laptop emails) about an extensive and brazen 'pay-for-play' scheme directly implicating Presidential candidate, Joe Biden. And, as it turns out, that New York Post story was true, but sadly the MSM didn't figure it out in time to help inform the public. They buried it - not because the government told them to bury it, but because the mainstream media understood what the democrat party wanted. How many times did we hear it had 'all the markings of classic Russian disinformation'? Yea, right. It was disinformation alright, but not Russian, mainstream media.
Appreciate your comments, but give me Viktor Orbán any day....
"But the fact remains that in Hungary, even if the opposition does everything right, it is nearly impossible to replace Fidesz during elections. Since the party returned to power in 2010, the country has seen the deepest erosion of democracy in the European Union. Orbán has successfully manipulated Hungary’s system in order to translate popular support into an unbeatable electoral majority. He provides a textbook example of how autocrats can erode liberal democracy while facing minimal consequences."
This paragraph could be rephrased: "But the fact remains that in Hungary, even if the opposition [tries its hardest], it is nearly impossible to replace Fidesz during elections. Since the party returned to power in 2010, the country has [overwhelmingly supported Fidesz through the democratic process]. Orban has successfully [campaigned and garnered democratic support and has translated that support] into an unbeatable electoral majority. He provides a textbook example of how [elected officials can win elections by standing up for national interests in the face of international pressure]."
Well pull!
One can summarize the concerns of this article:
===============================
Viktor Orbán said and did a bunch of stuff that duped (or forced) people into voting for him. These people clearly would have cast their votes elsewhere had they had the chance.
We know this because we know what result would have been achieved absent Orbán's underhanded maneuvers, i.e., It would have us in power and Orbán on trial or worse.
Where these same 'tactics' are deployed elsewhere (i.e., California), not a beep of concern.
Such is today's neo-democracy....
The thing is that there are problems in Hungarian constitutionalism.. but they are (a) similar in type and magnitude to those seen throughout the West (b) Orban and his team seem actively more concerned and conscientious about it , and (c) they have left lots of potential power grabs on the table inexplicably if they, indeed, wanted to short up power irrevocably.
The problem with these articles in Persuasion about alleged anti-democratic measures taken by the populists of Europe is that they are always written by people who hate their values.
I am opposed to efforts to undermine democracy, full stop. Which means I oppose Fidesz rigging elections, if it is true that that is what they are doing. But I also fully support Hungarian voters if they oppose the efforts of globalists to undermine their national sovereignty and traditional culture and society, and further those interests by winning at the ballot box.
This article is actually more fair-minded that most, in allowing that Orban's policies are legitimately very popular in Hungary.
It is interesting that Persuasion, which purports to be so concerned about democracy, has never written an article about how undemocratic it is that population change policies in Europe always seem to be so dramatically at odds with the desires of European electorates, and have been for decades.
This is a poor piece on a number of issues, and I am happy to write a rejoinder. But, in the meantime, some facts:
-There is very little evidence of serious gerrymandering in Hungary. Part of this is the function of the principles established for drawing district lines (stay within counties, and maintain the integrity of Budapest districts)
-There is evidence of malapportionment in the reforms of 2011 and 2014 but they actually were LESS malapportioned than others. Not a little either.
- Orban reduced the size of the legislature *to the optimum size deemed the standard by political scientists* from a dreadfully oversized parliament before (which was WHY the districts were redrawn)
- The electoral system reform in 2011 did make the electoral system more majoritarian like that of the UK, Malta, or the United States House, and these systems substantially over-reward plurality winners to deliver decisive majorities. It is barely a Mixed system at all, but it was left more mixed than it could have (They kept proportionality rules).
- They lowered the threshold for ethnic minority parties to get in parliament (as nationalist authoritarians bent on domination do, I guess?). Ah, but that is a dastardly trick too, because then they won't as eagerly join the opposition pre-electoral coalition! The less democratic and more democratic elements all point to authoritarianism. How... tautological.
All told, via the electoral process there is startling little evidence of even remotely norm-breaking shenangans. The talk of predatory partisan gerrymanders is borderline disinformation.
As I have written elsewhere, there are worrying aspects to Hungary, and Orban's goals vis-a-vis changes in power (As with any leader) are not perfectly clear. However, the problems faced in Hungary are the same pressures faced across the West. The declines we see are the same as those across the West. There is virtually no serious threat to democracy in Hungary that isn't present in countries like the US, the UK, the NL, and countless other countries.
Even one of the main worries of the EU regarding electoral integrity (mail in ballot's sans ID) is considered a major democratic advance in the United States. In Hungary: Bad. IN America: Good!
Why? Excellent question.
Hungary, as all of our Democracies, is in a fragile place right now, but its biggest problem is its opposition in the new constitutional system. The REAL shenangan was that moving from a more proportional to a more majoritarian system of representation the largest most unified part was advantaged in terms of winning seats. The divided opposition is a problem, as is its poor campaigning. They are losing because they are bad at winning. Yes, there is some bias in the larger media system. But, even before that, liberal and left publications were not able to draw large circulations, and political entrepreneurs outside the right seemed as interested in working with the voters they had, as they are now interested in competing withing the constitutional system they have.
The solution, is that the opposition leadership in various parties give up power and merge into a larger party capable of capturing real vote share in the constituency districts. But absolutely none of them, nor their constituents, or their interest groups have any interest in that or playing in a majoritarian system.
So, they turn to propaganda and 'political sciencey' looking analyses that are ultimately motivated political studies almost entirely unsubstantiated. These coalitions in Hungary do not want this majoritarian system because it harms their office interests, not the policy or governance interests of Hungary. Indeed, their refusal to get realistic about the new political world they live in is why they lost the election.
Orban is and was eminently beatable by a strong center right liberal with a national rather than internationalist orientation. But the small groups of educated, international, and left Hungarians don't want that. They want to win without winning elections in this system. They look to the EU to enforce policies on their fellow citizens that they can't win at the ballot box. They look to international pressure. All this, of course, just plays into Orban's narrative (how is it we lose).
So if this kind of liberal myopia, bad politics, and myopia sounds familiar, it should. Because it's the exact same kind of thing we are seeing from left-leaning parties across the West, and they keep losing. 'I don't like the system, and it doesn't advantage me, so it's undemocratic' Sounds familar. It's the Democratic complaint about the US Senate and Electoral College. Democrats SHOULDN'T HAVE TO patrongize the great unsophisticated unwashed in rural states, and Democrats shouldn't have to campaign in tiny places if it means compromising on their desires for deep blue urban areas so its all so very unfair. (check out the electoral bias in House elections in the 1960's sometime)
Unable to win via democratic means, the liberal left appeal to courts, dominance in non-state institutions, international pressure, international courts, media, or conspiracy to force policies they cannot win at the ballot box and stand aghast as *how it could be possible they are not liked by the masses!* It's the liberal conundrum. And, it's explained usually by boogeymen (always men).
I should note that the 'malapportionment' was also radically LESS malapportioned than previous constitution. Not merely comparatively. Before the reform the difference between the smallest to largest district was 300%. Now it's 30%. That is the largest district is 30% larger than the smallest as opposed to three times the size.
Let's try some numbers here. Orban won 2,847,363 votes. The opposion parties won 1,810,994 and 319,261 votes. The bottom line is Orban won 57% of the popular vote.
Yeah, but really Brussels should be setting policy in Hungary, not Hungarian voters. Because, you know, democracy is so sacred and stuff. As long as the voters don't get in the way of open borders corporate globalism.
In California, every TV station, every newspaper (that I know of), every politician, every corporation, etc. supported Proposition 16 (to legalize racism in CA). Only the people said no. The establishment was very upset (and still is).
I read it as a causal argument based on a counter-factual. If some day an opposition would have won (given free press etc) but was prevented from winning because of gerrymandering, a biased court, payoffs, and voter suppression, then you could no longer call that country democratic. History shows again and again that any autocratic regime will not have overwhelming popular support forever. But once the conditions for democratic governance are gone, they are very difficult to restore.
What would the vote counts have been, exactly, without the gerrymandering, payoffs, control over public information, etc? Please give me the numbers.
(I would also point out that the vote counts in autocratic nations tend to remain very impressive long past the point where the government has lost public support.)
There is no significant gerrymandering. Even if there was, it would barely effect vote totals.
Influence on public information is the *only* element of your list that is remotely real. There is no evidence of vote buying. No evidence of voter intimidation or manipulation. Weak evidence of gerrymanders. Weak evidence of any non-normative behavior AT ALL on the elections side of the ledger beyond the informational environment... but that is a much more complicated story.
How is it that winning 53% of the votes got Fidesz 83% of the seats in parliament without gerrymandering?
And leaving out “the informational environment” is like saying Putin’s popularity has nothing to with his complete domination of media. Imagine if all US channels were nonstop Fox News.
Very fair question. The answer is: Very easily.
But first, some facts. Fidesz didn't win 83% of parliamentary seats. Fidesz won 68% of the parliamentary seats. But, if it *had* won that many seats, it would not be historically unheard of.
Consider these election results from UK history for the majority party:
1931 - CON V: 61% S: 85%
1935 - CON V: 54% S: 70%
1945 - LAB V: 48% S: 61%
1983 - CON V: 42% S: 61%
1997 - LAB V: 43% S: 62%
2001 - LAB V: 41% S: 63%
Or these from the U.S. House elections:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPfgMJCWYAUfIxH?format=png&name=small
One of the things that makes me upset about this piece - as a political scientist myself - is that any political scientist that is properly trained and qualified to be writing a piece like this must know that majoritarian electoral systems produce these kinds of exaggerated rewards routinely, regardless of partisan or non-partisan gerrymanders. This is a well-known feature of these systems and the election reforms of ca2011 and 2014 basically has transformed the Hungarian electoral system to one far more like a UK style system (majoritarian) than a Dutch style system (highly proportional).
Now, we can absolutely debate the merits of movements along these continuum. But, what we can't say, is that to move in the direction of the UK is a move towards electoral authoritarian institutions.
Now, the reason why this happens, and why it gets worse if you have a fragmented opposition, is that in single-member districts (constituency districts) or 'PR' systems with a low avg. district magnitude (Hungary has both) only a small number of parties CAN get seats. And if the opposition is divided and the government unified, they are advantaged in competing for districts with few available seats.. and very advantaged if they are competing for a single seat - REGARDLESS of how you draw the lines.
But, in this case, the Hungarian rules for drawing district lines is actually quite restraining. Budapest and Counties must have integrity. Districts can't cross country lines or impinge on the capital. 'Gerrrmanders' with long salamander like lines to capture the right voters are a tool not available for Hungarian district-crafters. They can gerrymander still, but in far tighter constraints than you would find in Illinois or New York. Take a look at those state maps overlayed by a couny map. Do the same for Hungary. Illinois and New York are *obviously* just at a glance, more clearly gerrymandered.
So, in light of these *very* basic facts any comparative political science scholar *must* know if they are minimally informed and *not* simply presenting one's political biases as knowledge, there is very little on-its-face clearly anomalous about this hungarian election result or, indeed, the system itself. It is, ultimately, well within democratic norms on virtually every meaningful dimension.
This is particularly true given that Fidesz has - for most Hungarians - objectively governed well the past decade, and particularly in comparison to the prior decade. This isn't a story of a Trumpy leader who is a misgoverning chaos machine obsessed with his golden toilet to busy tweeting from atop it to deliver on his promises to his lower income base. Rather, this is the story of what happens when a populist actually delivers on the goods for their constituency that is more than a majority of the voters.
None of this makes things in Hungary 'a-okay', but it does mean (a) way more evidence is required to satisfy claims of predatory voter choosing gerrymandering, that (b) whatever is found is unlikely to be comparatively substantial, and that worrying signs of slides to autocracy need to be sought elsewhere.
there are places to look. Media is one (though I think overblown). The other is in some complex adminstrative reforms, and a Democratic Party style courtpacking policy that has harmed the constitutional courts independence at a time when the rules of constitutional amendment give the supermajoritarian ruling power almost unlimited control.
Combining such an amendment procedure with and electoral system that is majoritarian, when the opposition is fragmented provides almost unrefuseable opportunities for the power seeking party cartel.
But as you might have already grasped from my rejoinder here... the problems that I can see all look pretty familiar. They are not anomalous either. They are backsliding trends we see ACROSS advanced industrial democracies. On a number of dimensions Hungary isn't even in the lead. So, why the level of fire direct at Orban? Why the lying and exaggerating?
I don't know, but what I must conclude is that there is something other than concern for the truth and democracy at its root.