April 7th, 2014

Orbán sweeps back into office as leftist opposition fails to gain traction

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz-Christian Democratic government cruised to reelection on Sunday, aided by a government-decreed cut in household utility prices and an opposition hobbled by internal divisions and an uninspiring campaign.

Critics who have spent the past four years accusing Orbán of authoritarian leanings could only stand and watch as Fidesz swept 44.54 percent of the party-list vote. This will give the governing party 133 mandates in the country’s new 199-seat Parliament, according to the National Election Office.

If the results stand, Fidesz will retain the two-thirds parliamentary supermajority that has given Orbán a free hand to reshape the country and its institutions over the past four years. Orbán is the first Hungarian prime minister to win back-to-back elections since 1990.

“We racked up a crushing victory, the meaning of which we still cannot fathom tonight,” Orbán said in his victory speech. “I am proud that I received a mandate to continue my work.”

A final winner still cannot be declared in five nail-biter races in Budapest and Miskolc. Should Fidesz lose even one seat as a result of a recount, its two-thirds majority will be in jeopardy.

Opposition Cries Foul

Orbán’s vanquished opponents are crying foul, saying the vote was conducted under new electoral regulations that Fidesz tailored to benefit itself. Hvg.hu, a news site, points out that Fidesz won some 800,000 fewer votes than in 2010 and its share of the vote declined by 8 percent, yet its two-thirds majority appears to remain intact under the new system.

The Unity Alliance, an umbrella group of left-liberal opposition parties, placed a distant second, with 25.99 percent. They are on track to win 38 seats in the next Parliament.

“I acknowledge the results of the election, but I cannot offer my congratulations,” said Attila Mesterházy, president of the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) and the Unity Alliance’s candidate for prime minister, in his concession speech. “We have not experienced such unfavorable winds at any time in the past 24 years.”

Jobbik, an anti-European Union party known for slurs against Hungary’s Roma (Gypsy) and Jewish minorities, raised its share of the vote to 20.54 percent from 16.67 percent four years ago. This translates into 23 seats in Parliament.

“Jobbik managed to reach a better result than the pollsters predicted for us,” party president Gábor Vona said after the election. “But we have to acknowledge that we were unable to achieve the goal we set for ourselves in the election campaign… we failed to bring a close to the last 24 years.”

Politics Can Be Different (LMP), an ideologically heterodox green party that refused to join the Unity ticket. scored 5.26% of the vote, squeaking past the 5 percent threshold needed for parliamentary representation. They will have five seats. The Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP), a nominally independent group that ran all of its candidates jointly with Fidesz, will also have a caucus in the new Parliament.

Today’s landslide is remarkable given that opinion polls show that most Hungarians have been unhappy with Orbán’s leadership for nearly his entire term in office.

Left Weakness

The left-liberal opposition accuses Fidesz of bending the law to secure its own reelection – a claim that even Fidesz vice president Lajos Kósa seconded in an unguarded moment last year. However, most analysts argue that Unity would have lost under any circumstances. As politics.hu’s Zoltán Csipke wrote, the opposition suffers from an acute leadership drought. Unity is dominated by many of the same men who plunged Hungary into a morass of fiscal chaos and corruption between 2002 and 2010. They helped unleash the tsunami of voter outrage that swept Fidesz to a 68 percent parliamentary majority – a prize that has allowed the Orbán administration to pass virtually any law it pleases.

Yet Orbán’s reforms have hardly been a magnet for popularity. Upon taking office, he ran into criticism that he was using his supermajority to cement himself in power. Fidesz pushed through a new Constitution that watered down checks on executive power. The administration packed the Constitutional Court with party loyalists and narrowed its scope of its authority. Parliament became little more than a rubber stamp, critics charge.

The state bore down on the media, passing a law that granted Fidesz-appointed regulators sweeping powers to levy fines on media outlets for vague infractions. Hungary’s state broadcasters, which had never enjoyed true independence under any administration, became de facto Fidesz mouthpieces.

The government’s fiscal policies included a raft of new taxes and a controversial decision to nationalize Hungary’s compulsory private-pension system. The government used this HUF 2.9 trillion in workers’ retirement savings – roughly equivalent to 10 percent of GDP – to pay off debt and plug holes in the budget. Today, the private-pension kitty has been almost entirely depleted.

By July 2012, Orbán’s approval rating had plunged to an all-time low of 25 percent among all voters, compared with 53 percent when he took office. His party had slid to 16 percent from 42 percent just after the 2010 election, according to pollster Ipsos. Still, neither the Socialists nor Jobbik were able to turn Fidesz’s dwindling fortunes into political profit.

Utilizing Utilities

Just when the government’s prospects were at their dimmest, Fidesz struck upon the cornerstone of its successful reelection campaign: Government-decreed cuts in household utility prices.

In late 2012, Fidesz unveiled a plan to force utility providers to slash household bills for water, electricity and gas by 10 percent. The so-called rezsicsökkentés program later lowered the price cuts to 20 percent, with more reductions in the works. Utility companies were required to promote the government program by telling customers how much they had saved on each of their monthly bills.

When the mostly foreign-owned utility providers protested, Orbán brilliantly cast their complaints as an outside attack on Hungary. In March 2013, gas companies won a lawsuit that would have obstructed the price reductions; Fidesz responded by launching a petition drive to prove that Hungarians wanted to pay less. Orbán said these signature sheets would have the force of a referendum.

“The international service providers have strong friends” that Hungary has a hard time standing up to, Orbán said in an interview with state radio. “It is necessary to unite for the sake of the national will, and protect the utility-price reductions… This is a difficult battle, and my back is scarred by whips and cudgels… but in spite of it all, I’m happy.”

Mesterházy, Unity’s prime minister candidate, complained that cheaper utility bills are the only policy that Fidesz can offer voters. “No matter how hard I searched, I could not find Fidesz’s political program, apart from the single slogan of fighting utility prices,” he said last month.

Fidesz’s poll numbers began to rebound the moment the utility bill reductions went into force, according to Ipsos data. József Szájer, a Fidesz member of European Parliament who led efforts to redraft the country’s constitution after 2010, examined the possibility of guaranteeing low utility prices via constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, Fidesz used the signatures from the petitions to set up a database of supporters ahead of today’s election.

Common Touch

In his handling of rezsicsökkentés, Orbán made a clear choice to play the role of patriotic martyr fighting against hostile foreign forces. This has proven to be one of Orbán’s greatest assets, and helps explain his charismatic appeal: He instinctively understands the insecurity that many Hungarians feel about their relationship with stronger European powers.

Orban has a talent for addressing Hungarians’ sense of victimhood, which stems from a history of defeat – from the 1848 Revolution to World War I to the 1956 Revolution. He makes people feel important, justified and vindicated about their “Hungarian-ness.” Among opposition parties, Jobbik alone has a knack for this kind of politics.

The prime minister was in his element the eve of the election, when a Magyar Nemzet journalist asked him what a second two-thirds majority would mean to him.

“Two thirds would mean much more than self-justification,” Orbán said. “It would be the kind of inspirational victory that expands our horizons, that would make us believe that we, the Hungarians, are truly capable of anything.”

Alex Kuli (@alexanderkuli) is a contributing editor at Politics.hu.
Please note that due to a large volume of trolling and false abuse flags, we are currently only accepting comments from logged-in users.
  • Damien Dae

    44.54% of the vote = 133 out of 199 seats in the Parliament? Fidesz supporters will say this is legal but is it legitimate?

    • Alex Kuli

      If it’s illegitimate, then the US electoral college is also illegitimate. The new electoral system is dominated by the “first-past-the-post” principle, where whoever scores the greatest number of votes in a constituency wins the constituency. A candidate no longer needs to clear the 50% hurdle.

      For example, in 2008, Obama beat McCain 53% to 46%, but Obama’s electoral vote count was 365 to McCain’s 173. Fidesz has adapted this principle to Hungary’s Parliament. Even so, 93 of 199 seats are still decided by proportional representation.

      Whether it was fair for Fidesz to singlehandedly rewrite the election law is another question.

      • Damien Dae

        In your example, the proportionality of the vote is not respected but it does not change the outcome of the election: Obama won against McCain. However, the electoral vote sometimes does not respect the popular vote like in 2000 when Bush Jr won although Gore had more votes, so yes one could question its legitimacy. Back to the Hungary election, we’re talking about a Parliamentary election and a distribution of seats among future MPs. Having a system which favors the party with the most votes so it can have a majority is understandable. But when a party wins with not even half of the votes and gets an absolute majority, something is wrong.

        • Voiceofreason

          Actually the UK system is the same. Quite often a party with around 35% of the popular vote wins a majority of seats in the parliament. PR is clearly a much fairer system.

          • Using the UK system, Hungary would have 189 Fidesz-KDNP MPs (95%) now and 10 MPs from your postcommie/libnazi favourites. 🙂

          • Standard

            Why are you so obsessed with the Orban regime?
            Do you somehow benefit from corruption?
            Are you so ignorant that you missed all the criminal and unethical deeds of FIDESZ?
            I understand that many people voted for them in 2010, simply to get rid of the equally evil MSZP gang. Now, 4 years later, what’s your excuse to let loose a ruthless dictator on Hungary for yet another term?
            Even if you personally gain from having FIDESZ ties, you should at least consider the millions of Hungarians who will pay for it.
            Face it, Orban is unfit for any political position, and his yes men in the parliament are worthless opportunists. They will ruin the country. So why the applause? What do you love so much about Orban?

          • No excuse from me.

          • guest

            You posted exactly the same comment on Hungarian Spectrum. And exactly the same comment as ‘FUCeaucescu’. So you really are ‘one team’ aren’t you?

          • Damien Dae

            You did not answer the question Standard was asking.

          • DoubleH63

            Why would he answer the question Standard was asking?

            Never mind… I just realized that you must be one of those
            very well educated foreigners with vast understanding and appreciation of democracy the Dutch drugie finds everywhere outside of Hungary.

          • Damien Dae

            Once Fidesz supporters are asked a question they cannot objectively or openly answer, they dodge it and sometimes even start insulting people. Why is it so hard to answer Standard’s question? Unless you feel uncomfortable, which you’ll deny in any case.

          • DoubleH63

            Ok, let me give it another try, just because at least you
            can read and write. Comprehension and logic might be a different matter. But here it is again.

            Sequence of events:

            You pinkos (you, Comrade Alex Kuli, Comrade Voiceofreason) were discussing election systems in different countries.

            Leto made the comment (to Voiceofreason) that going by the UK system ZSIDESZ would have even more seats in Parliament than what they got under the Hungarian system.

            Standard knowing that Leto is a hardcore ZSIDESZ supporter, asked him several questions; all basically asking him why is he still a ZSIDESZ fan?

            Next, guest made a comment, accusing Leto to posting the same thing [about the UK system comparison] on Hungarian Spectrum along with FUCeaucescu.

            Next, here you come reprimanding guest for not answering Standard’s question.

            Again, I am asking you: why should he??? Standard asked Leto – NOT guest.

            If after all this you still don’t get this very simple thing go complain to Reding.

          • I haven’t posted anything there recently. My remark is trivial though so no surprise I’m not the only one whom it occurs to.

        • szgp

          The Idea behind the electoral collage which selects the president is that the states elect the president, he is not elected directly by the people. Simple minds complain about this each time that a president is elected without a majority of votes, and their candidate does not win. But the writers of the constitution spent much time in thinking this through. It is to ensure that less populated states have equal representation. So say California could not band together with Texas and decided a president who would not favor the less populated states interests. The U.S. constitution was written in many ways to guard against the Tyranny of the majority. So the idea of one man one vote is anathema to it. Consider if the majority of the people wanted to eliminate the minority and voted to do so, would you defend their will as being democratic?

          • Guest

            That is not completely true. Their is complicated reasons why it is built this way. One reason was the founding fathers did not believe popular vote tabulating was realistic. I think originally state legislators choose the electors. The only way it helps small states is in making sure they are at least entitled to 3 electros no matter how small they are. If you won all the big states I think you would only need 11 one them to be elected President. Protecting the minority had nothing to do with in. Why do you think slavery existed in the US until the passing of the 13 amendment. If anything the electoral college is majoritarian since as long as you get one more vote then your opponent you win all electors.

          • Syndicate

            That is not completely true. Their is complicated reasons why it is built this way. One reason was the founding fathers did not believe popular vote tabulating was realistic. I think originally state legislators choose the electors. The only way it helps small states is in making sure they are at least entitled to 3 electros no matter how small they are. If you won all the big states I think you would only need 11 one them to be elected President. Protecting the minority had nothing to do with in. Why do you think slavery existed in the US until the passing of the 13 amendment. If anything the electoral college is majoritarian since as long as you get one more vote then your opponent you win all electors. It a type of first past the post. In fact all elections in the US are first past the post.

          • szgp

            If you mean that blacks are a minority, they did not enjoy the same rights as free men and certainly did not have the right to vote before emancipation. So as wrong as slavery is, you can not consider that as germane to our discussion. The founders did consider the tyranny of the majority as something to guard against. They were off course thinking of themselves, and their own states – but we share their humanity regardless of our race. As far as the complexity of why the constitution is built as it is, I am not an expert so I did a quick check before I commented to make sure that was correct. No one reads long comments, but for those who want to explore this complex but interesting topic, which probably has relevance to Europe and Hungary today, I included the above link. It was the first one that I found, but it is a good starting place and there are many more.
            http://www.lewrockwell.com/200… I’ll take a chance at opening a can of worms and say that I think that Germany in the last century might be a good example of the tyranny of the majority.

          • Syndicate

            All I am saying that it really does not give protection for smaller states since the electoral college is proportional to popular vote unless you are really small. I do approve of the Ron Paul article you put up. But their is complex reason for him putting up an article when he was aiming to campaign in New Hampshire, during the 2008 Republican Primary, a state which is very close to the 3 elector floor.

      • Thurzo

        Obama can’t change the constitution based an electoral college vote.

        • Alex Kuli

          Amending the U.S. Constitution is an extremely tough thing. to do. You need two-thirds of BOTH houses of Congress, plus ratification in two-thirds of state legislatures (or approval by three-quarters of state ratifying conventions).
          In any case, the point is moot. Can you imagine the brouhaha that would break out if, say, Rand Paul becomes president in 2018, and the Tea Party wins two-thirds of the seats in Congress plus controls two-thirds of the state legislature, and then President Paul says, “I think we need a new Constitution. One that will guarantee funding for my pet projects and eliminate checks and balances against me. The current text was written by people who were born as British subjects. It’s waaaaaay too monarchist for me.”
          Naturally, the situation is different because the U.S. Constitution is considered a sacred text in a way that European constitutions are not.
          But the Electoral College is only one example that I used to illustrate the point. The U.S. Congress can also be elected with a relative majority of votes. In other words, if the Tea Party were to go independent, they could theoretically take two-thirds control of Congress with 35% of the vote in a three-way race against Republicans and Democrats.

  • pantanifan

    Where next for the Leftist opposition?

    1. The Gyurcsány Question:
    Is it better to have him outside the tent, pissing in, or inside the tent, pissing out? Make a decision and stick with it. I listened to his speech last night, it was very rousing and filled with characters from Hungarian history (Babits/ Batthyány, etc.). But the truth is when he handed over the keys to Bajnai as PM, there was no alternative to an IMF bailout… which means he had helped to screw up the economy

    2. It’s the economy, stupid:
    As someone once said (Clinton?), this is what decides elections. Going into this election with almost the same team as the one that took the country to the brink of economic disaster was not a wise move. I don’t think the majority of Hungarians agree with the State media policy of Fidesz, or with having a
    rubber-stamp President, or with many other political/democratic aspects of Fidesz, but most people think they are less likely to destroy the economy. The Left has to find a way of: a) keeping the budget deficit in check and b) helping to encourage economic growth, otherwise there won’t be any wealth for them to redistribute

    3. Act like a government in waiting:
    Being anti-Orban is not a manifesto. They could learn from LMP here. When Fidesz does something good for people, like reduce utility bills, they should support them or come up with a better alternative (otherwise they look
    like the party that wants to increase utility bills, hands up all those who want to pay more?). Pick your areas to fight on, but don’t just oppose Fidesz because they’re Fidesz… They could start by congratulating Orbán and Fidesz for their election victory.

    4. Set the agenda:
    The impression I have is that they are very reactive and not proactive. Why not approach the government with proposals on what they will support them on within the EU (e.g. a strategy for Roma assistance, protecting minorities (especially Hungarian minorities) abroad in terms of use of language, support for RMDSZ and equivalents in neighboring countries, etc.) and put the ball in Fidesz’ court to respond? And while we’re on the subject of Hungarian minorities abroad, they need to make it clear whether or not they support the new citizens’ right to vote, and if so, try to at least reduce their electoral deficit in Erdély/Felvidék, etc….

    Also, why not join the campaign to release the Communist-era files and really put the past behind them?

    • Thurzo

      I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. But I note that the economy was much better in 2010 than in 2012 and than now. Also, when Gyurcsány tried to balance the books, Fidesz led protests against every measure: do you remember all of the anti-austerity marches? The referendums? The parliamentary defeats as SZDSZ crumbled? Where next for the Leftist opposition? The economy grew much more over the MSZP government than over the course of Fidesz’.

      Also they do go around trying to set the agenda, but, of course, you can’t do that because 95% of the media are set by Orbán. Check their websites, and they have been doing almost all the things you have suggested, but it wasn’t reported. It was ignored by the government, until sometimes they deemed to introduce their own program.

      All the left parties, including MSZP, have been campaigning for the release of the communist security files. Only Fidesz opposes it.

      • pantanifan

        Hi Thurzo, re. the economic part of your argument, I guess it’s the Hungarian electorate you need to convince (which doesn’t include me), but if the economy was so much better, then why bother calling the IMF for help?

        Re. the media: point taken, the State media in particular is pro-Fidesz and it’s difficult to get the message across, but maybe this is all the more reason to pick your battles and occasionally even agree with good policies (I don’t think the uncommitted will spend much time on any political party’s websites).

        Re.: release of files, I wasn’t aware of that, good news (though I guess the criticism is why didn’t they do so when in power for 8 years)

        • Thurzo

          The IMF offers low-rate loans. Hungary needed low-rate loans. Orbán saw it as a sign of weakness, and got high-rate loans, but eventually saw that it wasn’t sustainable and so signed up to the huge Russian loan.

          I understand it may not be how the electorate sees it, but that is how things are reported. While ever the press is in the control of Fidesz (and it is becoming more and more – see the purchase of TV2) that will be the narrative and nothing can really change. If you agree with the governments policies you will be ignored (they did agree with lots of the Fidesz initiatives on updating laws and codes – but it didn’t make the news) and if you oppose them you are attacked. I know no-one is going to look at political party websites, but I get tired of (and I’m not counting you) a bunch of people saying the left should have done more, and should have done this or that, when they did, but, surprisingly, it wasn’t reported. I’m a bit dispirited by the situation. There were probably 20 scandals which could have crippled a Western government in the past 4 years, but they were just not reported on, or just glossed over.

          • pantanifan

            Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I understand you are dispirited, but I think it’s better to have this kind of discussion after the elections than (immediately) before.

            Do you have any views on “the Gyurcsány question”, as described in my original post on this thread?

            Also, I realize there was “napi feri” during the campaign, but I saw more Internet ads for LMP than for “Kormányváltás” during the campaign, maybe this part of their media strategy could be strengthened…?

      • FUCeausescu

        For your info it was the 02-10 period when Hungary became the most indebted country in the region by far. Socialists were running an average deficit of 7% per year, with lack of economic growth. This was also the period when the FX debt fiasco was created. The economy may seem great when you are borrowing and spending. In the 2011-13 period about $15 billion in consumer FX loans were paid back. The drag on the economy is equivalent to 3% of GDP per year as a result of this deleveraging.. Of course the economy does not feel as good when you are paying back what you amased during the debt binge of the 02-10 period. Reality is however that the fundamentals of the economy have been improving since 2010. The pain of the FX debt however will be felt until 2020 however, and current government cannot be blamed for it.

        • Thurzo

          The fundamentals are much worse now. That $15 billion dollars paying off FX loans were refinanced into Forint loans, so people aren’t less in debt. In fact they own a lot less now than when they had private pensions savings – the cost of which will balloon in the coming years. In addition foreign investors are scared off, and younger, more productive Hungarians are leaving in droves. Ironically, the only thing propping up the regime are increased transfer payments from the EU.

  • Democrat

    Turnout 60.2%, of whom 44.54% voted Fidesz. So 26.8% of the electorate voted for Orban (roughly in line with his popularity). How can less than one third of the electorate manage to give this dangerous little man two thirds? You do of course get the government you deserve. Hungary is looking forward to a grim few years.

    • Grim years for your postcommie/libnazi ilk indeed. 😀

      • Havelaar

        My mother in law, half Ukrainian, half Hungarian said it perfectly. There are far too many ignorant sheep in Hungary. I am perfectly okay with the Fidesz victory. Let them rule Hungary which is completely ruined economically, ethically and politically. Sooner or later Fidesz/Orban rule will collapse and implode.

        Hungarians at large are not very well educated it is only a question of time when the people of Hungary in spite of their limited understanding and appreciation of democracy will have enough.

        Four more years of, increasing racism, poverty and Fidesz corruption.
        My condolences to the Hungarian people.

        • Apparently there are far too many degenerate libnazi in the Netherlands.

          • Havelaar

            75 years ago, the nazis killed millions of people.
            They were Jews, Roma, Gays, Political enemies and Psychiatrical patients. In the year 2014 there are people like you in Hungary targeting their poison exactly at those kind of people once again.

            Your ilk will never win….your ilk will be destroyed
            by people who are much more intelligent then you, tiny creep. Pay attention…it is coming. I promise.

            “Are those degenerate Dutch libnazi who are “at large” (that is they are not in prison) “very well educated”? :D”

            BTW…your comment made no sense at all, as usual.

            No content…nothing to reply.

          • http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/giggle.gif

            “at large

            1. Not in confinement or captivity; at liberty: a convict still at large.”


    • FUCeausescu

      Well mr. democrat in the US (the leader of the free world) the president is chosen by roughly half of eligible voters casting votes and roughly half vote for one guy the other for the other guy. so about 25% of the eligible voters decide who will be the “leader” of the free world. It is even worse in Canada where a comfortable majority can be gained by taking 35% of the votes. With 60% turnout, we are looking at 21% of voters deciding the next prime minister. If this was your argument to delegitimize Orban, it is not much of an argument at all.

      • Standard

        Democracy in the US? Is that a joke?
        Fair elections in a country where Obama has a billion dollar to blow on his campaign, and Ralph Nader isn’t even allowed to participate in the debate? Voters are fooled into choosing between Democrat and Republican. Either way, the real power remains in the hand of those who were never elected, the super rich.
        As long as the people allow money to be their god, things will not change for the better. Presidents and congressmen are only puppets, and the American people are dazed and confused….

        • Hungarian

          Yeah, it’s a real democracy.
          You get five rich and well connected dude to get party nomination.
          Usually the same recycled faces.
          Then a country of over 300 million can choose between two of them to rule the world….

      • Thurzo

        The President of the US and the Prime Minister of Canada can’t change their countries respective constitutions with that small percent of the vote. That point was easy to understand. Sorry you missed it.

        • FUCeausescu

          The prime minister of Canada, works within a different system. You do not need 2/3 parliamentary majority, you need the provinces to approve the new constitution.

          • Thurzo

            So, you agree… it’s called checks and balances, and is the central point here.

          • FUCeausescu

            I don’t know about balances, but there sure are plenty of checks involved if you know what I mean. I don’t necessarily think that a system where it is harder to make changes to the constitution is better. For instance in the US, supreme courts have been giving the green light for wealthy individuals to purchase politicians by striking down any limits on campaign donations. So the wealthy who are increasingly wealthier can buy both sides of the isle, ensuring that they can further promote their own interests, making themselves even wealthier. As a result in the US, while real median household income has declined by 10%, the 1% at the top are doubling the size of their wealth at a rate of every 10-15 years. There is nothing that the 300 million Americans can do about it because the constitution allows for it and neither side will change it, because both sides belong to the same sponsors. Sounds like checks and balances and flourishing democracy to you?

  • Tjeerd Ossewaarde

    Selling out to Gazprom, the hungarians have a short lived memory, even 1956 seems forgotten. Nobody will help them to plug the hole in the pensions. Poverty ahead. People want to be betrayed: you cannot spend money twice

    • FUCeausescu

      Yes and when they joined the EU they had a short memory as well. what the west did to Hungarians in the aftermath of the great war, condemning 1/3 of ethnic Hungarians to generation of generation of being subjected to a shit existence is far worse than anything the Russians did. And please do not attempt to come back with some excuse, because what was done had nothing to do with ethnic boundaries.

      • Tjeerd Ossewaarde

        after ww 2 all europeans had a shit existence, plus yes when an eastern economy joins the highly competitive eu it needs to compete which equals a bad period first but look at poland, why do they better than hungary? I agree that it is better to lift gradually protection to domestic industries so that they can adjust to competition…I also agree that germany is becoming too dominant in the EU , time that the french get their house in order, socialism means high taxes and many civil servants…

      • MagyarViking

        “what the west did to Hungarians in the aftermath of the great war”
        Yes, and in 1947, in the Paris Treaty, Hungary lost even more land and people, but we do not speak about that, do we?

  • Voiceofreason

    Naturally as one of the post communist lib turds that posts on this site (and is the only pro Gyurcsany person left in Hungary) I am disappointed by last nights election results – it was inevitable that Fidesz would win, but not inevitable that they would regain 2/3.

    Anyway one has to respect the wisdom of the Hungarian electorate in choosing the government, so good luck – I hope it turns out better than I expect.

    • “as one of the post communist lib turds that posts on this site”

      It’s “postcommunist” or perhaps “post-Communist” and it’s “libturd”

      Otherwise I agree. 🙂

      BTW, the supermajority still hangs in the balance.

      Hey, how did you like the election-night speech of your idol? Was it democratic enough for you? 😀



      • Voiceofreason

        Not very gentlemanly. In the UK losing politicians generally congratulate the winners (through gritted teeth).

        • “Not very gentlemanly”

          I’m afraid that’s really too much of an understatement.

          I think losing politicians congratulate the winners, even if through gritted teeth, in every civilized, democratic country.

          However now I meant that Gyurcsány basically called the Hungarian voters idiots because they didn’t choose him and his comrades… How about that?

          • MagyarViking

            Your ilk normally call every Hungarian voter who does not vote for Fidesz/”Jobbik” for ‘foreign-hearted’, meaning they are not True Hungarians….

          • No, I wouldn’t call every Hungarian voter “foreign-hearted” at all who doesn’t vote for Fidesz/Jobbik. I would call only the (hardcore) supporters of MSZP and its splinters as such, especially the szadeszcretin types (“Szadesz” was the mockname of SZDSZ.)
            There’s no need to beat around the bush concerning the fact that often, though not always, these foreign-hearted ones are Jews.

          • Standard

            FIDESZ is not Jobbik, you dumb nordic.
            Jobbik wanted changes, with FIDESZ the song remains the same. Go to hell with all the FIDESZ/MSZP voters.

          • MagyarViking

            “Go to hell with all the FIDESZ/MSZP voters”
            …but you forget the small fact that many ex-MSZP voters, especially in the East Hungary, now vote for “Jobbik”, so should they also go to hell?

          • Standard

            Jobbik voters go to heaven. Even reformed former MSZP people, who were mislead by the propaganda, but saw the light and turned to Jobbik for guidance.
            On the other hand, who cares. I’m going to settle in Prague anyway. There you can still have a beer and smoke in the same pub. That’s freedom. Hungary under Orban is a dictatorship.

        • pantanifan

          Fodor has congratulated Fidesz as well, Schiffer congratulated Orbán and Mesterházy(!), Mesterházy congratulated LMP but not Fidesz, Bajnai looked too depressed to congratulate anyone, and Gyurcsány is looking forward to a “different Hungary”…

          Looks like there is some unfinished business on the left as well, Schiffer clearly doesn’t support Gyurcsány in any way, and is probably not happy about losing half his party to Bajnai’s team…

          • Yup, Fodor was the only one among the lame postcommie losers who had the decency to congratulate Orbán.

        • Damien Dae

          In the UK, no party behaves like Fidesz…

          • Hungarian

            How does Fidesz behave?
            Besides, how did the UK itself behaved for the last couple of centuries Einstein?

          • Thurzo

            Fidesz bans or otherwise arranges that there will be no political advertising, and then funnels taxpayer funds into an association, which is allowed to advertise everywhere. It is outrageous corruption.

          • Hungarian

            So how come that Fidesz lost 600,000 votes and Jobbik gained?

    • Guru
  • Richie

    MSZP knew they couldn’t win on their own, they had to unite with other parties to get more votes & they still didn’t come close to winning!

  • Tjeerd Ossewaarde

    communists on average are very bad managers, real capitalists pursue the same as communists: monopolies to optimize profits (see microsoft.. and boeing before airbus started up), monopolies make lazy; both in politics and business and result in shit output: cars that do not drive (dacia in the past and lada etc), or countries that fail, except perhaps china is doing better than russia because there is business cutthroat competition ,, russia is a failed state, living from what is in the soil (oil, diamond, gas etc) and on it: wheat etc, I am less familiar with hungary: is it an open economy with free entrepreneurship…what will come from hungary, the once so proud seat of a vast empire…why is austria so rich and …

    • szgp

      Austria is rich because it was fortunate enough to remain in the orbit of those lazy capitalists who knew how to maximize profits. Hungary was saddled with the communists who only knew how to pretend.

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.