November 8th, 2011

Parliamentary committee tells Gyurcsány to wait until April to form new faction

Ferenc Gyurcsány’s new Democratic Coalition will not be allowed to form a new party faction until the spring after leaving the Socialist Party faction, parliament’s Constitutional and Procedural Committee decided Monday. The vote in the committee came with government parties and Jobbik voting against waiving the six-month waiting period, and with Socialist Party members abstaining, ostensibly over disagreements with the committee leadership.

The decision against Gyurcsány’s new party formation came after President of the Parliament László Köver deferred to the committee for their opinion. Before the committee met, Csaba Molnár, who will head the Democratic Coalition parliamentary faction once it forms, cited the case in 1996 when members left a party to form a new faction.

Christian Democrat MP György Rubovszky, who supported waiving the waiting period in 1996 and who Molnár cited in his argument, countered that the significant difference was that in 1996 the Democratic Forum’s faction split in two, while this time around, as Socialist Party chairman Attila Mesterházy noted, Gyurcsány’s followers left the party.

According the parliamentary rules, any parliamentarian that leaves or is expelled from a party faction must sit as an independent candidate for six months before joining another faction. []

Follow on twitter at @politicshu.
Please note that due to a large volume of trolling and false abuse flags, we are currently only accepting comments from logged-in users.
  • Viking

    in 1996 the Democratic Forum’s faction split in two

    According the parliamentary rules, any parliamentarian that leaves or is expelled from a party faction

    Then there are *no* rules that regulates when a faction “splits”, than that option does not exist
    There is only 2 ways an MP can leave a faction (as per above) and a split is that more than one MP leaves the group and some remains
    Legally it is about if a “split” can be recognised as a ‘special state of leaving a faction’, or it is part of actually ‘leaving the faction’?
    This could possible be challenged in another forum, if such exist, then it seems odd that there are scenarios that are not covered by the rules, *if* not explicitly so mentioned/covered by said rules
    But The Supreme Leader finds that Gyurcsány is a bigger threat than MSZP, so He decided to do it this way
    And maybe The Supreme Leader is anyway thinking of having new Elections 2012, so with this move He can stop another Parliamentary faction formed, which can get time in the State Media in the run-up for the election

  • Leto

    Mesterházy’s letter about that Gyurcsány’s faction *left* MSZP made the decision very straightforward. 🙂

    • Viking

      As anyone doing who is *splitting* from a faction does , leaving
      This will just increase Gyurcsány’s statues as persecuted by The Supreme Leader and for some reason I think ‘leto’ likes that
      But that does Gyurcsány’s supporter also, then it gives them something to rally about and point to double standards
      PS A “split” is that a unity falls into 2 or more parts. All parts that is not the original formal part, *leaves* that original part
      It is just logical
      If the rules would handle a case of “split” as different from “leaving”, the rules would have mentioned that
      This gimmick about “splitting” is just that, a gimmick to go around the rules
      But now the rules are interpreted to support Fidesz as usual and they are *THE* party without any principles at all, except make The Supreme Leader happy

      • Zoltán Csipke


        While some might not see much difference in the language between “splitting” and “leaving”, in the Hungarian parliament apparently it is important.

        When asked about the language used in his letter announcing the Gyurcsány group’s leaving of the MSZP faction, Attila Mesterházy reiterated that he intentionally used the words “left the party” instead of saying that the faction split, knowing full well that that would mean Gyurcsány and Molnár would not be able to call on the precedent. Consider it something of a “going away present” from Mesterházy to Gyurcsány.

        • Viking

          Zoltán Csipke says:
          November 8, 2011 at 4:21 pm

          Consider it something of a “going away present” from Mesterházy to Gyurcsány.

          Agreed, but I also believe that if it had been MPs wanting to join Fidesz a total new interpretation had occurred of those rules, then what happened in 1996, 1997 and 2004 were obviously not according to that same rules
          It was obviously more of a Gentleman’s Agreement but, but now it is more ‘What Fidesz wants, Fidesz gets’
          If the lawmakers had thought of that a faction could be split, then they would have rules for that also, meaning leaving is leaving, regardless how
          Of course Orban wants these rules stone-hard because His party is the one that is likely to split in this Parliament, when the austerities come true and current MPs understand they will not be guaranteed a place in the next Parliament, for no other reason 386 will be just 200

    • Leto

      BTW, MSZP MPs abstained from voting and LMP didn’t show up at all. 🙂 Apparently they don’t fancy either the idea of the jester (aka Őszödi Böszme) foaming at the mouth each morning when the Parliament sits…

      • Viking

        Well, this group of MPs just split the MSZP-faction in two parts, so that the remaining MSZP-MPs would jump of joy is probably a bit misreading the situation
        LMP and Gyurcsány do not seem to be the best of friends also. I think the Gyurcsány-camp but it like this:
        ‘People from LMP are welcome, except Party Leader Schiffer’

        We all know, if the 1st split in this Parliament had been “Jobbik”-MPs wanting to join Mother Fidesz, these MPs would not have to walk in the political wilderness one second later, regardless how they left “Jobbik”

All content © 2004-2015 The All Hungary Media Group. Articles, comments and other information on the All Hungary Media Group's network of sites are provided "as is" without guarantees, warranties, or representations of any kind, and the opinions and views expressed in such articles and columns are not necessarily those of the All Hungary Media Group.