International think-tank: Fidesz’s victory migh threaten Hungarian democracy

Policy Solutions presented its annual review of Hungarian politics last week. According to them, it is very likely that Fidesz is going to win the parliamentary elections this April. However, Fidesz’s victory might result in further governmental expansion in the economy, the media, and local governments. The parties of the leftwing and liberal opposition were positioning themselves during 2017 already for the post-April 2018 period. This gave a unique opportunity for Jobbik to become the main challenger of the governing party. The once radical party’s shift towards a people’s party is honest – according to Policy Solutions. Moreover, since Fidesz moved to the right of the Hungarian political spectrum, Jobbik can position itself in the centre and can broaden its base. Our summary of the review.

’We protect Hungary!’

To start with, polls show that another two-thirds majority voting for Fidesz in this April is not impossible, at all. However, there is a substantial group of electorates who are unlikely to participate because they never or rarely vote. This means that

even governing parties cannot lie back.

According to Policy Solutions, Fidesz owed its victory in 2014 mostly to the economic development. However, this year Fidesz will not rely on the economy, though Hungary’s economy is – from a certain point of view – in a better shape than it was 3.5 years ago. The overall theme will be protection from Brussels, the Soros plan, the Muslim invasion and demographic challenges.

Thus, a large part of Fidesz’s campaign is based on successful fear-mongering regarding the refugee crisis and the European Union. The government’s communication is simple:

only they can protect Hungary from the refugees, from George Soros’s “dangerous” plan and Brussels.

Interestingly, surveys suggest that for the most part Hungarians are aware of some of the costs of this protection. These are, for example, the desolate state of the health and education systems, systemic corruption, rising inequalities. However, they accept it more than any other government since regime transition because they think that this one delivers what the public wants.

Keys for victory: media, communication, and economic growth

According to the review, the Hungarian economy entered a period of sustained growth in 2017. However, this is based mostly on the continuous inflow of EU development funds and a pre-election consumption surge. While Hungary sustained its macroeconomic stability,

regional development disparities, a high level of economic inequality, as well as systemic corruption

remained the hallmarks of the economy. Moreover, most public funds went to brick and mortar projects. In contrast, the share of health care and other crucial areas of social protection continued their gradual decline. Finally, Hungary’s position remained unchanged in international competitiveness rankings. Most countries in the region grew quicker and Hungary fell behind Slovakia and Poland in the last seven years.

Of course, the

government talks only about the brighter side of the economy.

They can do so since Fidesz could shift the political balance towards the governing parties in the last few years. Though critical thoughts still have a good chance to spread online,

Fidesz’s dominance has increased to unprecedented levels in the TV, radio and local newspaper markets.

For example, they control all regional dailies, the second largest tabloid, Bors and Hungary’s second largest commercial television channel, TV2. Furthermore, Fidesz dominates near completely sales houses that sell media advertising and outdoor advertising companies. To make matters worse, they managed to take over some influential and critical or neutral newspapers which were either transformed into pro-Fidesz ones or closed like Népszabadság.

Fidesz’s victory can lead to “Huxit”?

 According to Policy Solutions, following a victory in 2018, it would not be surprising if Fidesz would take further steps towards the reduction of the role of local governments, a clear dominance in the media market, or if civil society organisations would be attacked at the local level as well. PS states that this is because