,
23 tweets,
13 min read
Read on Twitter
I read @TheEconomist's briefing about Hungary. While I do welcome the attention on the disaster that has happened in my native country in the past nine years, I have several problems with the article. THREAD. economist.com/briefing/2019/…
@TheEconomist Let me start with something positive: I was glad that The Economist pointed out some of the reasons (e.g. the deal on forex loans, job creation), due to which people keep voting for Fidesz besides the government's propaganda. This is important, because...
@TheEconomist ...many observers who are rightly abhorred by Orban’s assault on free speech tend to assume that it his governance is about that and nothing more and that Hungarian voters must all be hypnotized or ignorant. They’re not. And now for the problems:
@TheEconomist In retrospect, Orban did change the constitution fairly quickly (in 2011), however, this was preceded by two key steps. 1. A restrictive media law that helped instill self-censorship in critical media outlets before Fidesz’s circles amassed enough money for mass takeovers, and...
@TheEconomist …2. the nomination of Peter Polt, a diehard Fidesz loyalist to head the Prosecutor's Office. Polt has systematically prevented the investigation of corruption cases affecting Fidesz politicians and took cues from the government in every aspect of his work.
@TheEconomist These two developments became the pillars of everything that Orban built afterwards. He then used the new electoral law, a copy of Yanukovich’s 2011 reform, the key feature of which was not so much gerrymandering as first-past-the-post majority districts, to cement his majority.
@TheEconomist Yes, making it easier for Hungarians living in neighboring countries to become citizens and vote facilitated Orban’s subsequent supermajorities. However, these votes only decided 2-3 mandates. index.hu/belfold/2018/v… On the other hand…
@TheEconomist …there were several reports about bussing Ukrainian citizens with fictitious Hungarian addresses to vote for Fidesz in certain districts, yet Fidesz faced no consequences. It would be important to stress this. 444.hu/2018/04/24/a-k…
@TheEconomist The almost complete takeover of the media is barely explained in the article. Here's how it went: Orban first channeled money to a couple of reliable cronies and stooges through public contracts, shady foreign investment deals and loans guaranteed by the state…
@TheEconomist …these people then took over media outlets that either had foreign owners eager to get rid of them or were financially starved through the government- and Fidesz-controlled advertisement market. The new owners then turned these into propaganda outlets or closed them.
@TheEconomist When these outlets were “donated” to the KESMA “foundation” last year, it was but an act of administrative streamlining. These media never actually belonged to their supposed owners; they were middlemen. These media had also been centrally edited. tldr.444.hu/2017/05/18/fid…
@TheEconomist This, again, is key to understand the level of dominance that Orban has been able to achieve in political communication. Most countryside voters get their news directly from the government, not to mention the manipulative “surveys” on migration and Soros. 24.hu/belfold/2019/0…
@TheEconomist The article does not mention that Fidesz has very likely successfully coopted opposition politicians, notably in the Socialist Party, in LMP and in Jobbik (whose separatists created a rival party) but again, this is key to understand opposition dynamics (or the lack thereof).
@TheEconomist …as is, for that matter, the “Gyurcsany factor”, namely that Hungary’s erstwhile (2004-09) prime minister who cast himself as an “inverse Orban” and whom Orban cast as the source of all evil before Soros, is still very much active and has a divisive influence.
@TheEconomist Similarly, the article does not do anything to dispel an oft-heard misconception about the CEU law, namely that the university and the government had a dispute over CEU’s diplomas. No: Fidesz changed the law on higher education practically overnight…
@TheEconomist ...and even though CEU fully met the conditions of the new law, the government still refused to sign an agreement with NY State, which it itself made mandatory for the university to continue working in Budapest. This is pure gangster tactics.
@TheEconomist Amazingly while the article mentions German carmakers it fails to explore their role in keeping Orban cozy with the German political establishment for years. The complacency or rather, spinelessness of the likes of @ManfredWeber didn’t come from nowhere sueddeutsche.de/politik/wahl-i…
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber It was, of course, not only Weber who willfully tolerated Orban’s transgressions: Seehofer, Tusk, Daul and even Merkel herself bear responsibility for not drawing red lines or not enforcing them. They let Orban change the @EPP completely and likely irreparably.
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber @EPP Orban introduced extremist ideas into the circulation of the European mainstream and his allies in the EPP made them acceptable. He opened up the EPP to a coalition with the likes of Salvini, Kaczynski or Le Pen. It may still happen. This is where Orban meets the bigger picture.
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber @EPP (Side note: German companies will no doubt suffer one day for this if and when EU money ebbs and Orban’s mafia state starts racketeering on them, but this is probably a calculated risk and even if it happens it won’t help Hungarian citizens today.)
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber @EPP Lastly, the article fails to mention Orban’s destructive influence on the Western Balkans. I have elaborated on this in this earlier thread. Gruevski, public contracts in Serbia, Dodik, etc. are only some examples.
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber @EPP …not to mention opening up Hungary – and thus providing a gateway into the EU (though of course not the first one) – for dirty Azerbaijani money, to Russian intelligence agencies, for criminals around the world. (See ft.com/content/2d19f9… or hungarianspectrum.org/2017/09/06/the… )
@TheEconomist @ManfredWeber @EPP In short, a lot of good and well-researched material in the article and excellent points, but no coherent story or explanation and lot of painful omissions. I welcome @TheEconomist's attention on Orban but in my view, the above is the story it should have told. (/end)
