With the most recent public opinion polls showing that the Free Democrats (SZDSZ) enjoy the support of little more than 1% of the voting electorate, the party is well below the minimum of 5% needed to gain admission to parliament. Were an election held tomorrow, the party would easily lose its parliamentary mandate, and likely become a peripheral party in Hungarian politics that does not enjoy representation at the national level.

Considering that this party was once the second largest in post-communist Hungary, it at first seems rather surprising. Unlike their main partner in system change (and later political adversary) the Democratic Forum (MDF), the Free Democrats were never a catchall party, which is also why they never enjoyed such broad success. So while it was more or less inevitable that once political preferences became more defined the Democratic Forum would lose support, the same could not be said about the Free Democrats.

The drop in support from 1990 to 1994 was to be expected, as the first four years after communism had many losers among the winners of the new system, which is also the reason that the newly-minted Socialist party (MSZP) that barely made it into parliament in 1990 single-handedly won a majority in the 1994 elections. What surprised many observers, however, was that the Free Democrats – who had been more vocal in their opposition to the communists prior to system change than the Democratic Forum – formed a coalition with the Socialists, especially since the Socialists did not need the Free Democrats to form a government, but did so in order to have a constitution-modifying supermajority.

This could be considered the first nail in the coffin of the party, since to many, (primarily on the Right), it appeared to be a betrayal of the tenets of the system change, even though it was more indicative of a new political alignment divided between urban-liberal (Left) and rural-Christian (Right) groupings. It was also the move that would eventually allow the Young Democrats, better known as Fidesz, to supplant the Democratic Forum and become the large party of the Right. From this point forth, the Free Democrats would become tightly linked with the Socialists not only within the government, but also in the public's mind.

It has been so ever since, despite the various minor squabbles between the parties who have continuously been in power since the Spring of 2002, when the only "success" that came from Fidesz's gestures toward the far-right was the alienation of the more populated center, thus returning the Socialist-Free Democrat coalition to power.

Since that period, there have been only two public spats that resulted in a significant change to policy. The first was the Free Democrat threat to leave the coalition in the summer of 2004, after dismal returns at the European Parliamentary elections, which saw the departure of Socialist Prime Minister Péter Medgyessy, and the beginning of the prime ministership of the then little known Minister of Sports, Ferenc Gyurcsány.

The second significant inter-party disagreement was over Katalin Szili, the Socialist nominee to be president of the republic. Finding her too partisan, the Free Democrats abstained in the voting process, thus allowing environmental NGO Védegylet's nominee László Sólyom to become president with the backing of the Right. However, considering that the post is mostly symbolic, this can hardly be considered nearly as significant as the forcing of Medgyessy from power a year before.

Despite earlier indications of a Fidesz return to government in 2006, the Socialist-Free Democrat coalition eked out a slim victory and returned to power for another term. This was followed months later, however, by the government announcing the need for austerity measures, in turn followed in September by the prime minister's leaked lies speech, which spawned several days of rioting. A month after that, the 50th anniversary commemorations of the 1956 revolution devolved into rioting that saw a battle between the far-right and police collide with a peaceful commemoration/rally held by Fidesz.

The incident resulted in over a hundred people injured – a significant proportion of whom were innocent – by riot police who behaved in a manner ignorant of basic civil rights, not differentiating between rioters and harmless bystanders, including Máriusz Révész, a Fidesz MP who was beaten bloody by riot police despite displaying his parliamentary identification.

In the subsequent uproar, one would have expected among the voices of the opposition and human rights groups the voice of the Free Democrats, as Hungary's liberal party. The measure of a liberal is tolerance of others and defending their rights, regardless of how distasteful they may personally find them. One need only to look at the American Civil Liberties Union, who regularly defend the rights of those most find abhorrent, not because they agree with them, but because they believe these people have a right to their views, and a right to express them peacefully as long as laws are observed.

But instead of speaking out on behalf of the innocent victims of police brutality caught up in the riots, the Free Democrats closed ranks with the Socialists. The party's most successful politician, Budapest mayor Gábor Demszky, not only requested that Budapest Police Chief Péter Gergényi not retire early in face of demands for his ouster by the opposition, but the mayor also decorated the police chief for his performance during the riots, later banning a planned protest by farmers against the austerity program. Following the appearance of a bandaged Márius Révész in parliament after the riots, (a move most likely meant to score political points), then Free Democrat chairman Gábor Kuncze openly mocked him.

In January, András Schiffer of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (Társaság a Szabadságjogokért – TASZ), wrote a scathing article for the literature and political weekly Élet és Irodalom, in which he accused the party of abandoning its liberal roots, adding that a true liberal can no longer vote for the Free Democrats based off their actions following the previous year's riots.

In recognition of their failure to speak up a year before, new Party Chairman János Kóka, who replaced Gábor Kuncze last March, said on October 23rd of this year that the party should have spoken up after the riots and condemned the police brutality. Considering how by this point their popularity had vaporized, this was too little too late.

Following the party's 19th anniversary the previous week, former party member and founder Gyula Kozák, in an open letter published in weekly HVG, mentioned the many former founders who no longer associate with the party, and added that today's party is a "small group of extortionists."

Furthermore, considering that the country's most unpopular politician is Health Minister Ágnes Horváth, and the party insists on healthcare reform opposed by the majority of the nation, there is little that the party can do to save itself prior to the next scheduled election in 2010. Barring a miracle turnaround of the economy and unprecedented success with respect to healthcare reform in just over two years, the party is unlikely to significantly improve on its 1% popularity rating.

In acknowledgement of their dire position, Gábor Horn surprised many toward the end of October when he announced that the Free Democrats would be willing to step into a coalition with Fidesz, should Fidesz win the following election. Unsurprisingly, Fidesz Chairman Viktor Orbán dismissed the suggestion out of hand, not least of which is because if the election were held next week, Fidesz would win a comfortable majority without the aid of coalition partners.

Reaction to Horn's suggestion was unanimously negative, with many observers stating that it was recognition on the part of the party that they are without a future, and an admission that the party is willing to form a coalition with anyone as long as they remain in government.

Perhaps there remains only one method that could save the party, but it is a move that even the most desperate of gamblers would be loath to attempt: immediately leave the governing coalition and force new elections.

The main problem the Free Democrats have in terms of popularity is that they have come to be seen as merely an offshoot of the Socialists, who in light of their support of the prime minister, have continued to bleed popularity. By leaving the coalition and forcing new elections, the Free Democrats would instantly cut their umbilical cord from the senior governing party, show their independence from the Socialists, and perhaps preserve what support they still retain.

Even then, while it is unlikely that they could muster the 5% to make it back into parliament for the next government cycle, they could at least point to that act as signifying a break from their former senior coalition partners when it made a difference, as opposed to a parting of ways after the next election, thus also silencing many of their critics by placing principles before power.

However, like the party chairman's admission that the party should not have remained silent about the previous year's police brutality, this action would in most likelihood be seen as being too little too late, thus its unlikeness, meaning that unless a miracle economic turnaround occurs within the next two years, the undertaker has finished placing the final nail in the coffin.