Jobbik MEP Gyöngyösi: Vera Jourova and the foreign policy of populists
The world of diplomacy had long been a special area in politics otherwise dominated by daily issues. The reason was that a country’s foreign political priorities hardly change as often as its governments, so foreign affairs traditionally used to be a consensual area with projects supported across the aisle and carried over from one government term to the next. Then came the populists.
Remarks from Jobbik MEP Márton Gyöngyösi
Populist politics is characterized by ruling the moment, so there’s either no place for long-term strategic planning at all or it cannot supersede daily political interests.
This makes foreign policy lose its privileged status, it becomes “internalized” as a mere tool in domestic politics. “If scandal-mongering and oversimplified messages work so well in domestic politics, why shouldn’t they work in foreign policy, too?” That’s what such populists as Hungary’s governing Fidesz party and its leader Viktor Orbán think. As far as scandals are concerned, it’s not too hard to create them since it’s still relatively easy to set up the professional politicians of countries or organizations that are still used to the classic diplomatic norms, by luring them to the slippery slope of populist foreign policy with a little bullying. This is what we saw recently with the unprecedented dispute breaking out between the Hungarian PM and European Commission vice president for values and transparency Vera Jourova.
Let’s make it clear first that the members of the European Commission must basically remain politically neutral and they cannot comment or evaluate the politics of member state governments.
Of course, it’s hard to define where the line is between a little poking, a discreet message and a direct political commentary. Unsurprisingly, the Hungarian government, which is so sensitive to other people crossing such lines, often runs into similar scandals, just to mention Jean-Claude Juncker’s “dictator” comment a couple of years ago or Vera Jourova’s latest remark about Hungary having an ill democracy rather than an illiberal one.
According to Gyöngyösi, although the Commission representatives undoubtedly crossed a line, it is also a fact that Viktor Orbán’s government has gone out of its way over the past years to test the tolerance level of European politicians.
As far as Mme Jourova is concerned, she has already been in the crosshairs of the Hungarian government propaganda (and she has also been praised, just as you would expect in a system where communication overrules everything). One thing is clear: if a commissioner still decides to cross the line and step out of her assigned zone by resorting to making the kind of statements that Vera Jourova did and even confirming them later on, it should be an important sign for the Hungarian governing party – if it was willing to interpret such signs for what they are.
Of course, the Hungarian government’s reaction was predictable. Both domestically and abroad, their propaganda machine immediately attacked Mme Jourova, showering her with such names as Soros agent or “libtard”, which are now commonly used in Orbán’s communication.
The Hungarian regime’s sensitivity to even the smallest criticism and the fact that an EU Commissioner is an ideal target for the Fidesz regime’s conspiracy theories are probably not the only reasons for this act. The other reason is the country report expected to condemn Hungary’s rule of law situation and published just a few days after the brawl. This skirmish allowed Orbán to prepare his camp for the next populist political battle by using a pre-emptive strike to discredit the report’s author in advance, thus “proving” her bias.
On the other hand, the rule of law report is actually quite tenuous. The 25-page report contains no new information on the Hungarian situation and fails to go beyond scratching the surface in all aspects.
Centred around three major topics, the report discusses the rule of law in Hungary from three aspects: the justice system, corruption and media pluralism.
Gyöngyösi writes that all three are fundamental issues but if this is the only information you got, you will have a hard time trying to understand the way how the Orbán regime works. Far be it from me to underestimate the attacks against media independence but the reason for the Orbán regime’s popularity or unpopularity doesn’t depend on whether Hungarian intellectuals, who speak foreign languages and gather information from a thousand different sources, have a sufficient number of media outlets. The real reason is the fact that Hungarian villages and small towns are now ruled by a new feudal order built on EU monies, where the local Fidesz-tied feudal lord (typically the mayor or the head of the government office) has total control over the people living there. If necessary, he buys their votes, threatens their livelihood or breaks the secrecy of the voting process. None of these things are even mentioned in the report. If it depended on Budapest, Fidesz would have fallen long ago. But it doesn’t depend on Budapest. It depends, for example, on the electoral district in north-east Hungary where a by-election will be held on 11 October and where Fidesz used administrative means to prevent the all-opposition candidate from getting the support of each opposition party. They simply removed the one they didn’t like from the ballot. The report says nothing about this, either. The report also fails to mention that the government, year after year, simply withholds the state subsidies of the opposition parties on the pretext of fines or the pandemic.
As long as Brussels remains so uninformed, we can hardly expect these reports to be anything but fuel for the Hungarian government’s sabre-rattling politics and vulgar reviling of EU politicians. In the short run, it serves Orbán’s foreign policy very well.
The long-term picture is of course quite different. Not that it’s better, not at all. In fact, it’s rather depressing. Even though EU leaders don’t seem to understand the exact workings of the Hungarian regime, they do sense the tension and, although we all know that the EU’s mills grind slowly, the remark of an EU Commissioner can’t be good – regardless if it complies with the norms or not. Just like it’s not very reassuring for the future when Dutch PM Mark Rutte openly raises the question of founding an EU without Hungary. Slowly but surely, these ideas will eventually break their way through and become acceptable. No matter how combative Orbán remains in the EU, he can hardly have an answer to what happens if they let go of his hand.
We, Hungarians don’t worry for him. We worry for Hungary.
Read alsoJobbik MEP Gyöngyösi: Orbán in Lukashenko’s footsteps
Source: www.gyongyosimarton.com
please make a donation here
Hot news
Attention! Traffic changes and public transport disruptions tonight in popular Budapest district
Appalling: New Hungarian draft law proposes one year in prison for aggressive comments online
Microbusinesses in Hungary to become eligible for regulated electricity prices
The big comparison: Is the Vienna Christmas market cheaper than the Budapest one?
Capping service fees: A new era for Hungary’s catering industry
Hungarian government presses for effective steps against imports of fake honey in Brussels
