Don’t expect Hungary’s MPs to lay themselves off

From time to time, the idea of a smaller parliament is brought up in Hungarian politics. It would not save a lot of money, but is nevertheless popular due to its symbolic value, and all the parties have declared themselves in favor of it. This time, it is Ferenc Gyurcsány who came up with a proposal along this line: he suggested that the number of representatives should be reduced to 199, and the current, mixed electoral system should be replaced with a list-based one. The Fidesz plan would keep 200 MPs, but also single-member constituencies.

As things stand now, the proposal has little chance of succeeding. It is more likely that the debate on it – if there is a debate – will follow the usual scenario. A few five-party meetings will be held, but no agreement will be concluded on the details. The emphasis won’t be on reaching a consensus, but on blaming the political rivals for failing to do so. In the end, the issue will disappear from the agenda, only to return for a few cameo appearances, as a point of reference.

Several factors work against the agreement. The idea of a smaller parliament is certainly popular, but not necessarily among the representatives themselves. Who would want a lay-off of almost fifty percent at his or her own workplace, not knowing whether he or she will be affected by that? Most politicians’ main motivation is the hope of being re-elected – the chances of which would be significantly decreased by such a change, even if their own party ends up winning big. Therefore, the rivals are – in this specific case – allies, and their most efficient means is the rejection of any kind of compromise.

While having a smaller parliament is against the interests of individual MPs, changing the electoral system – a necessary part of the change – may also hurt party interests. It is a commonplace in political science that the electoral system is not a neutral thing, meaning that, depending on the system, the same votes can lead to different allocations of the mandates. As of now, the list-based part of the mixed Hungarian system seems more advantageous to the MSZP, while the majority approach benefits Fidesz – which is clearly reflected by their positions on this issue. The dilemma could have an ideological aspect, too, as the list-based system usually results in a more proportionate representation, while single-member constituencies in a more stable government. However, the parties aren’t much concerned by that, knowing that in four years, the roles may be reversed, reflecting the actual balance of power.

Besides such practical reasons, tactical ones may also impede an agreement, especially on Fidesz’s (the prevailing opposition’s) part. They can rightly fear that the government may reap the benefits of implementing such a popular change, which may prove to be an asset in the next electoral campaign. Right now, Fidesz does not need to take a risk like that.

Therefore, barring a miracle, the Prime Minister’s proposal is bound to fail. As Gyurcsány is surely aware of the above considerations (and many more), the question begs itself: why did he make his proposal? The most probable reason is that he wanted Fidesz to reject it. Since the start of the economic crisis in October, the MSZP has kept emphasizing that, with regard to the country’s dire situation, it was ready to cooperate, but the largest opposition party refused that because of its political interests. The popular idea of a smaller parliament looked like a good means of highlighting this dichotomy.

So much for theory. In practice, however, there are several reasons why this initiative is unlikely to yield real results for the government. The very message, mentioned above, seems inadequate: of course, people in general would prefer to see their leaders cooperate instead of hitting each other blindly. However, they probably do not allocate responsibility for the lack of cooperation irrespectively of their party preferences. On the other hand, in the present economic situation, such differences in style may not matter that much – they may serve as a background to what politics is supposed to be about: making appropriate decisions.

Another impeding factor is that the proposal will probably fail to receive enough attention to really influence people. For that, it would need to be a constant presence on the agenda for a longer spell of time. Ferenc Gyurcsány has too many issues in hand to focus on that. As for the socialists, it is a question of how efficiently they can support him: he has outshone other MSZP leaders for too long, stripping them of the ability to lead such a campaign. Moreover, many of them may not even feel too enthusiastic about the proposal, which, in the case of the MSZP, is prone to result in terrible communication.

But, after all, in the midst of an economic crisis, isn’t it the politicians’ duty to keep as many jobs as possible?