Annak idején sokat szenvedtem vele, de így újraolvasva végülis kurva jól sikerült ez az esszé, megosztásra érdemes, hátha hozzájárulok néhány árok betemetéséhez: Outline and critically assess the development of Hungarian nationalism since 1989 The rise of the Hungarian Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) in 2009 caused a big surprise in the Western world. They gained 16% of the votes and 3 mandates in the European Parliament out of Hungary’s 22 seats. How did this nationalist party managed to achieve such a striking success out of the blue? Was it really a shock or was it a result of a slow process that was hidden before the public? In this short essay I am trying to find an answer to this question. I would like to examine how Hungarian nationalism developed from the fall of communism, what was the process that produced the Jobbik party? I would like to state my opinion beforehand – I think that the existence and success of Jobbik was inevitable as Hungarian nationalism began to thrive, and the thriving of nationalism was also inevitable, because basically Hungarian nationalism was non-existent in the communist era, before the transition of government in 1989. Nationalist beginnings First we have to clarify one thing or at least try to roughly estimate it: When did Hungarian nationalism begin? Did Hungarian nationalism begin with liberal democracy and the “free market” of ideas and ideologies in 1989 or had it already existed when the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000 AD? Before we start to find the beginning and roots of Hungarian nationalism, I suggest that we examine the key theories about the existence of nationalism. Just like almost every area of social sciences, this one is also dominated by two mainstream theories. These two theories are primordialism and modernist theories. Primordialism states that national identity is something ancient, that it has always existed and that people have always identified themselves with a broader group, using the same language, having the same customs, religion etc. These identities can change and evolve, but the individual will always feel an urge to belong to a group. Modernist theories on the other hand claim that nationalism is a product of modernisation. As societies evolve and develop, as they achieve a self-sustaining economy, a central authority and a centralized identity (language, religion etc.), these changes trigger nationalist emotions. Before modernity states were multi-ethnic and had several regional languages and there was no central authority, therefore people did not have a higher “power” that they could relate to. My personal opinion is that truth lies in between – we should distinguish nationalism from political nationalism. I agree with primordialism in a sense, I think that people didn’t just discover that they were Hungarians during the national awakening of the 19th century. They have always had a Hungarian identity, but that wasn’t the most important thing in their lives, because they thought of themselves as subjects of the monarchy. Although Hungarian history is said to be a series of unsuccessful freedom fights, the uprisings before the 19th century have never had a nationalist aim. The so-called Rákóczi’s war of independence (1703-1711) was the first significant fight against the Habsburg rulers, however in this conflict many Hungarian noblemen took side with the Habsburgs – and serfs usually followed their masters. The technological and social advancement, the absolutist reforms however diminished the prestige and authority of the monarchy. I think that modernist theories determine the factors very well that are needed for nationalist feelings to become political. As the absolute state came to power, these nationalist feelings that have always been present have become more and more attractive to people who no longer sought protection from the monarchy. So in my point of view nationalism is not associated with identity, but rather with loyalty. The national awakening of the 19th century is the birth of political nationalism. The revolution and freedom fight of 1848-49 is the very first act to achieve nationalist motives, an independent Hungarian nation state. The fight was unsuccessful, but the ongoing nationalist political struggle for more sovereignty led to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Hungary gained partial political power and sovereignty for the first time since the Habsburg rule. So, if we want to answer the question raised in the beginning of this paragraph, Hungarian political nationalism had had its earliest roots in the past then and it did not only emerge after 1989. The period between 1867 and 1914 is referred to today as the golden age of Hungary. The semi-independent state started to flourish, most of the symbolic buildings where built during this time, like the Fisherman’s Bastion or the House of the Country (Hungarian Parliament). Hungarian culture and language started to take over the dominance in the theatres. The proportion of Hungarians started to rise, however we have to state that the Kingdom of Hungary have always been a multi-ethnic state and even at its peak the proportion of the Hungarians did not exceed 50%. Before we start to examine the Hungarian nationalism after 1989 we have to dig deeper to understand the conflict between nationalist rightist and internationalist leftist powers during the next 70 years. The core of the problem and the cause of every “evil” was the unjust Treaty of Trianon 1920. The tragedy of the nation As it is well-known the Habsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary lost the first world war and the winners decided that it had to be dismantled into smaller nation states. The Kingdom of Hungary lost two thirds of its territory and one third of its population. The treaty was considered unjust, because the newly drawn borders did not take into consideration the ethnic factor, most of the borders were drawn according to military reasons. Huge masses of ethnic Hungarian populations found themselves in countries like Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The exact number of the Hungarian population in these countries was 3.3 million, around 30 % of the whole Hungarian population! Even I myself am one of the descendants of these people, I was born and I still live in Slovakia, however I consider myself Hungarian and to be honest I do not even speak Slovak very well. The situation has similarities with the Irish history. Like in Ireland, people divided into two groups: those who accepted this treaty and those who did not and even tried to change it. This was the most important issue and the biggest fraction between the parties. Hungary was not a liberal democracy then, it was more like a managed democracy, however it was always the parties that tried to reverse the peace treaty and get a just one instead that won the elections during this era. The desire to get the territories back where Hungarians formed a majority pushed Hungary into the arms of the Third Reich. Hitler promised the governor of Hungary, Miklós Horthy that Hungary would get back these territories without a military intervention. And so it happened, Germany pressured Romania, Slovakia and Yugoslavia into returning most of the Hungarian inhabited land to its original owner. These “favours” however tied the hands of Hungary and the country had to enter the war on the side of the Axis. Nationalist tradition of the right versus internationalist tradition of the left Hungary was once again on the wrong side, and the treaty of Paris in 1947 returned all the territories Hungary managed to get back to Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. The nationalist tradition of the right was discredited on the international level of politics, because of the collaboration with the nazi regime. Democracy was introduced and to the surprise of the communist Soviet Union right-wing parties still managed to gain the majority of the votes. The internationalist communists of Hungary were backed by the soviet regime and they provoked a new election, which they rigged. By 1949 Hungary has become a part of the soviet sphere of influence. What are the characteristics of leftist internationalist tradition and why did it come to power? The ideology of communism was that the international working class had to execute a revolution and introduce the dictatorship of the proletariat all over the world. The communist ideology did not distinguish working class people according to their nationality. Therefore the international character lies in the core of the communist ideology. However there are also other factors that we must mention. First of all, these countries in the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union functioned as the backyard of the superpower. Whenever there were nationalist movements that could endanger the whole communist empire, the Soviet Union intervened immediately. For example in Hungary in 1956 after the Hungarian government could not handle the freedom fighters itself, the Soviet Union helped to defeat them. Though the whole block was under the soviet influence, in some sense, all countries tried to follow some kind of a national communist direction, but Hungary. In Hungary nationalist tradition was so discredited because of the collaboration with Hitler, that even state officials refused to act in the defense of the Hungarian interests. The rights of the Hungarian minorities across the border were violated several times, but these violations remained almost always unnoticed. Before I continue I have to state that when I would be talking about nationalist tradition in Hungarian politics after 1989, I do not necessarily mean extremist, anti-semitic or xenophobic politics, but measures that try to somehow find a solution to the huge problem of Trianon. Transition of government in 1989 And this is the point when we come to the transition of government in 1989. Liberal democracy was restored and the internationalist tradition of the left was no longer the backed by the Soviet Union, it had to compete with the nationalist tradition of the right. The party that won the first election was the right-wing Hungarian Democratic Forum and it started to address symbolic issues that were important to their voters. The prime minister, József Antall said in his inauguration speech that though he was elected by 10 million Hungarians, he wants to be prime minister (if only symbolically) to all the 15 million Hungarians in the world. There was a heated debate about the new coat of arms of the country. Left-wing parties promoted the so-called Kossuth coat of arms, that was used during the 1848/49 fight for freedom, while right-wing parties wanted to restore the traditional coat of arms with the Hungarian crown. In the end the coat of arms with the Holy Crown of Hungary became the official symbol of the state. The most controversial act of the first freely elected government was the reburial of the former Governor of Hungary, Miklós Horthy in 1993. The internationalist liberals and leftists opposed this act and accused the government of supporting radical nationalists, while the other side emphasized Horthy’s crucial role in the rebirth of the Hungarian state after the trauma of Trianon. The Hungarian Democratic Forum was a mass party of the right and it incorporated all the nationalist spectrum. Sooner or later it was inevitable that the most radical nationalist side of the party would secede. It happened in 1993, when the first Hungarian radical right-wing party was formed with the leadership of István Csurka under the name Hungarian Justice and Life Party. This party did not achieve much success, but we still have to mention them, because it was István Csurka who addressed issues for the first time since 1949 that were considered to be taboos. He was the first active politician who stated that the Hungarian government should protect the Hungarian minorities across the border and should actively support these communities. He was also the first one to suggest that Hungary should have the Treaty of Trianon reconsidered and borders redrawn fairer. The second time the nationalist tradition managed to win elections was in 1998. The first government of Viktor Orbán (1998 – 2002) introduced the so-called status law, that provided benefits in many areas (education, health, transportation) for the 3 million Hungarians living across the border. There were other symbolic gestures the prime minister made demonstrating that he wanted to continue the nationalist tradition instead of internationalism. The bridge of Mária Valéria was reconstructed between the Hungarian Esztergom and the now Slovak (but ethnically predominantly Hungarian) Stúrovo (Hungarian name: Párkány). The Holy Crown which is considered to be the embodied continuity of the 1000 years of Hungarian history, was relocated from the National Museum to the House of the Country. The rise of the Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik) The 2002 elections was a big shock for the nationalist side. The governing Fidesz party, however in polls it was always shown that they would win easily, lost the elections. Disappointed conservative university students decided to found an association with the leadership of Dávid Kovács and Gábor Vona in 2002. This movement later became the party Movement for a Better Hungary (Jobbik). Another great battle occurred between the nationalist and internationalist side the two years later. On December 5th 2004 there was a referendum held whether Hungarians across the border should be allowed to acquire Hungarian citizenship easier. The “yes” vote won with 51,57% of the votes cast, however the referendum was not valid because only 37,49% of the people cast their votes (the threshold was 50%). Leftist and liberal parties actively campaigned for the “no” vote providing a proof for their internationalist attitude. This day has become the darkest day of the nationalist tradition and in my opinion this is the starting point for a more radical approach to the nationalist aims. The 2006 elections saw the defeat of the nationalist side again, the Jobbik party gained only 2,20% of the votes. However in October the same year, a secretly recorded speech of the socialist prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány was published. In this speech, he was saying that he was lying during the campaign and he also called Hungary “this whore country”. Huge protests broke out and the Jobbik party actively encouraged their supporters to demonstrate against the government. The prime minister refused to step down and it generated a lot of anger and disappointment on the nationalist side. The ineffective peaceful demonstration of the Fidesz party might have caused many moderate nationalist voters to search for a more radical answer and this might have led to the 2009 surprise result of the Jobbik party. Nationalist issues of the Jobbik What are the issues that radical nationalist voters are interested about, we could ask? The average voter of the party and the whole Jobbik party is characterized in many Western studies as anti-semitic, anti-roma, but I think that these judgments are a bit superficial. I would refrain from taking the side of either the Jobbik party or these Western political studies in this short essay. I will only try to present both opinions and trying to stay unbiased in this question. The most evident nationalist issue that could have brought the Jobbik much success is still the problem of the Treaty of Trianon. They actively campaigned for the changing of the citizenship law, which was done in 2010 when the moderate nationalist Fidesz party won with two thirds of the votes. This was the very first act passed after the government was formed and the nationalist side saw this act as a symbolic remedy for the 2004 referendum. Jobbik also demanded that the day of the signing of the Treaty of Trianon, June 4th should become a memorial day and every school should organize trips for their students to the neighbouring countries, so that the children could meet with Hungarian students living across the border. Both these proposals were accepted by the Fidesz party. The second most important nationalist issue is the situation of the Roma minority in Hungary. Many articles and reports say that Jobbik is racist, labels a whole minority as criminals and their goal is the “magyarization” of Hungary. The Hungarian Guard (Magyar Garda) was founded in 2007 and it is paramilitary organization that intimidates the Roma minority. The Jobbik’s opinion is that they are not anti-roma, only anti-criminals. They state that there are certain types of crimes that are committed predominantly by gypsies, but this does not mean that all gypsies are criminals. They see the Hungarian Guard as a means to protect innocent Hungarian people, whenever they march at a scene where a Hungarian elderly person was killed by a gypsy, they just want to raise attention to the problem that these crimes are committed by gypsies. There were two famous crimes committed by gypsies that might have upset people and made them vote for the Jobbik (a father of three was murdered by a group of gypsies in 2006 and a famous handball player, Marian Cozma was murdered also by a group of gypsies in 2009). The third issue is the situation of the Jewish minority in Hungary. The majority of journalists say that the Jobbik party is anti-semitic, denies the Holocaust and is actively conveying nazi propaganda. They quote for example Krisztina Morvai, who is an MEP for the party: “I would be greatly pleased if those who call themselves proud Hungarian Jews played in their leisure with their tiny circumcised penises, instead of besmirching me. Your kind of people are used to seeing all of our kind of people stand to attention and adjust to you every time you fart; would you kindly acknowledge this is now over. We have raised our head up high and we shall no longer tolerate your kind of terror; we shall take back our country.” (Stadelmann, 2013:101) Jobbik says that they are not anti-semitic, they are only anti-zionist. They do not agree with the politics of Israel and they are critisizing Jewish people not because they are Jewish, but because they are zionist. They claim that many Hungarian Jewish intellectuals have a double identity and the Jewish identity is stronger, so their loyalty to the Hungarian state is questionable. They accuse these intellectuals that they are promoting internationalist interests. Conclusion In this essay I was trying to point out the conflict between the nationalist and internationalist tradition in Hungary during the past 94 years. The dominant nationalist era of 1920-46 was followed by a dominant internationalist era between 1949-1989. In liberal democracy for the first time these traditions had to compete under fair circumstances and it looks like that the nationalist tradition is winning, nationalist parties gained 69% in 2010 and 64% of the votes in the 2014 elections. The causes of the success of a radical nationalist party remains unclear, however I tried to point out a few factors that could have led to its rise.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:54:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015