When the coalition broke up in spring, it was thought that
the greatest challenge facing the minority government would be the vote on the
2009 budget. However, in the end, the bill was passed without much excitement.
There were several other issues on the agenda, but, unlike in previous months,
none of them gained predominance. In another round of SZDSZ infighting, caucus
leader János Kóka got the better of chairman Gábor Fodor.
While in previous months, there was always a dominant issue
on the agenda, this was not the case in December. None of the issues that came
up were novel or significant enough to stand out. The decision on the 2009
budget could have been such an event, but after the SZDSZ had declared its
support for the bill, the outcome of the vote could be taken for granted. There
was some more talk about the liberal party when chairman Gábor Fodor attempted
to become caucus leader, but was defeated by János Kóka. This umpteenth
instance of their rivalry once again drew the attention to the divisions within
the SZDSZ. The economic crisis had less of an effect on Hungarian party
politics, but remained a background, as well as a point of reference for it.
The MSZP emphasized the need for cooperation, and made concrete steps to
improve the system of communal labour. The Fidesz kept attacking the cabinet,
contrasting the “brutal restrictions” it has implemented with the European
solutions. The conflict between Hungary and Slovakia still had its share,
albeit a small one, of the agenda, as the Hungarian parliament passed a
twelve-point political declaration referring to recent events (15. 12.). Other
than that, December was a month of lengthly strikes: the railway workers (from
14. 12.) and the employees of the Budapest Airport (from 09. 12.) stopped
working, setting an early challenge to Csaba Molnár, who had been appointed
Minister of Transport on the 1st December. It is also worth mentioning that the
parliament – that is, presumably, the socialists – rejected the President’s new
candidate (Mária Orbán Havasiné) for chairman of the Supreme Court (08. 12.),
and that the extreme rightist group, the Hungarian Guards, were dissolved by
the Metropolitan Court of Budapest (17. 12.).
The ratio of topics favourable to the government has
decreased. So has the same ratio for the opposition, but to a lesser degree,
meaning that, unlike in the previous two months, there is virtually no
difference between the two values (Graph 1). Their sum is quite low, presumably
due to the strike’s long presence on the agenda. As a result of the holidays at
the end of the year, the political parties are usually less active in December;
this was again the case (Graph 2).
Since the break-up of the coalition in late spring, the main
question of Hungarian politics was whether the MSZP would be able to pass the
2009 budget. Failing to do so would not necessarily have meant the fall of the
government, but would have created a politically untenable situation for the
socialists. The Prime Minister himself increased the stakes when he promised to
resign in case the budget did not pass. Political analysts had two points of
reference when assessing the prospects of the budget: statements made by the
opposition parties, and their (presumed) interests. As all the opposition
parties – that is, the parliamentary majority – have expressed an unfavourable
opinion of the bill, its chances of passing seemed quite low for a long time.
On the other hand, the two parties that could tip the balance, the SZDSZ and
the MDF, were weakened by the small parties’ inherent handicap and a series of
internal conflicts to such an extent, that they had to avoid early elections.
Therefore – especially after the Prime Minister had made clear that there would
indeed be early elections if the budget was rejected – both parties were
interested in the passing of the bill. In theory, it was possible that some of
the five independent MPs would side with the government, but relying on the
persuasive skills of the MSZP for political survival would have been too risky.
The fate of the budget could only be taken for granted if the SZDSZ, the MDF or
both supported it. Ultimately, it was the liberal party that decided to do so,
citing the economic crisis as its main motivation. They emphasized that in the
current situation, the country could not afford not to have a budget. However,
one may assume that, if the economic environment was different, they would have
found another argument for voting yes or abstaining (which would also have
helped the government). They could even claim that they got something in
exchange for their votes, as the MSZP supported their proposal for a “budget
spending ceiling”. In the end, 209 MPs voted for the budget, which would have
passed even without the support of the 18 liberal politicians (15. 12.).
What is the political significance of the passing of the
budget? It is an undeniable success for the MSZP that they managed to avoid
defeat, and what it would have entailed: a huge loss of prestige, the
resignation of Ferenc Gyurcsány and a probable rout at the early elections.
There are however two factors that diminish the political value of this
success. Firstly, the result came as no surprise. It could be expected ever
since Gábor Fodor bowed to the pressure from within the SZDSZ and the Left in
general, and abandoned his claim for a “government of experts”. From that
point, the real question was not whether the liberals would support the budget,
but rather how they would do it and what arguments they would use to justify
their decision. Furthermore, the possibility of independent MPs helping out the
government – in case of the abstention of a few SZDSZ or MDF representatives –
was more and more talked about. The support of Minister István Gyenesei was
certain, but the votes of Zoltán Legyel, Antal Császár or Janos Vas could also
be counted on. Secondly, news about the budget disappeared from the front
pages, in part because of the decreasing uncertainty; its place was taken by
the spy scandal, the economic crisis and the conflict between Hungary and
Slovakia. Therefore, together with the uncertainty, the (political) importance
of the issue has also diminished. As a consequence, the passing of the budget is
unlikely to have a significant impact on the political constellation. Although
Ferenc Gyurcsány attempted to present the event as if it were a great victory –
or, more precisely, the strategic defeat of the Fidesz –, he did not really
place emphasis on this message. The opposition party, for its part, emphasized
that the government could only pass the budget in an unethical way, by buying
votes.
For the SZDSZ, December was difficult enough because of the
budget, but it was made even more embarrassing by another chapter of the
Fodor-Kóka rivalry. After he had been elected chairman in June, Gábor Fodor
made clear that he also wanted to be caucus leader of his party; at that time,
however, neither Kóka nor the liberal MPs wanted such a change. This issue re-emerged
when Kóka’s one-year mandate expired on the 5th December, and elections were
held for the caucus leadership. Gábor Fodor – expecting that the balance of
power has shifted in his favour – announced that he would run for the position,
and János Kóka accepted his challenge. (01. 12.). The stakes were high for both
politicians: the position of the caucus leader means more public appearances,
which is especially important for members of a small party. Fodor risked his
prestige to gain complete control of his party, putting an end to the “dual
power”. János Kóka would have suffered a serious, if not fatal blow, had he
been replaced as caucus leader. Although in a democratic party, competing for a
position is not unnatural at all, this race nevertheless looked like another
sign of the rift within the SZDSZ, due to the party’s controversial recent
past, and the apparent lack of substantial differences between the two
politicians. Their rivalry is clearly damaging to the liberals, as it ruins the
party’s image and uses up a lot of creative energy. Paradoxically, the
situation was further worsened by those who drew attention to this fact, such
as former chairman Iván Pető, who suggested that Fodor should stand down for
the sake of the SZDSZ (03. 12.), or Budapest Mayor Gábor Demszky, who said that
both candidates should do so (13. 12.). After the first round, in which the two
men received the same number of votes (08. 12.) Fodor seemed ready to do so, as
pushing János Kóka into the background would have been good enough for him (09.
12.). His rival, on the other hand, was not fighting for his prestige, but to
keep his power, so he rejected this proposal. In the end, Kóka won the
election, and it was Fodor’s ally József Gulyás whom he defeated – Gábor Fodor
himself stood down to decrease the importance of the probable loss (15. 12.).
The list of politicians who have appeared on the agenda is
still headed by Ferenc Gyurcsány (Graph 3), even though he was less active than
in November (Graph 4). The Prime Minister invited Viktor Orbán for a personal
meeting, in order to show his much-emphasized desire for consensus (17. 12.).
The chairman of the Fidesz seemed inclined to cooperate in certain areas – such
as the construction industry –, but he refused the Prime Minister’s invitation,
claiming that he did not want to legitimize the government’s mistaken
management of the crisis with his presence (18. 12.). It is a surprise to see
István Gaskó in the third place of the list – he, as the main organizer of the
railway strike, was a regular guest of the media. Although the strike had
indeed remained free of politics for some time, after a while, the trade union
leader started to blame the government and personally Ferenc Gyurcsány for the
inability to reach a compromise. László Sólyom was also more active than usual
– the President made the news primarily because of his row with the socialists,
after the MSZP had rejected his candidate for chairman of the Supreme Court, in
spite of not having any professional objections against Mária Orbán Havasiné.
Print article 