László
Kéri
Parties in the Run-Up to
the 1998 Elections
[...]
In the first months of 1997 it seemed that three of the more-or-less
similarly supported political parties were in a position to win over a
majority of Hungarian votes in the coming elections. For months on end
the results expected of the In dependent Smallholders' Party, the League
of Young Democrats, and the Socialists remained in the 20-25 per cent band.
It seemed that any one of these three could win the 1998 elections, but
that none had a chance of scoring a victory on a scale that would enable
it to dispense of its two rivals. In other words, every observer predicted
that a forced coalition would become a necessity. However, after the summer
of 1997, relations have changed. Although not spectacularly, the Hungarian
Socialist Party has increased its support month by month, while its rivals
have either stagnated, or they found themselves slipping downhill.
Today the question is whether in this multi-party system the communists'
successor party--whose weight, power potential and economic, mass-communications
and organizational strength are greater than those of all the other parties
combined--will continue to predominate. All the early signs are that, after
the 1998 elections, four parties at most will play a serious role. Hence,
in what follows, I shall attempt to outline the position and perspectives
of these four parties.
[...]
The parties
The multi-party system has shown surprising stability between 1990 and
1998. In the first and the second general elections, in 1990 and 1994,
respectively, the same six parties achieved representation in Parliament,
with four of them gaining approximately similar results on both occasions.
All this was largely due to the electoral system, believed by many to be
somewhat complicated. The Hungarian system is a combination of the two
main systems used in other countries. Of the 386 seats in Parliament, 176
are of the individual constituencies, using the simple majority principle,
almost exclusively based on the results of the second round. The rest of
the seats are allocated according to the proportional representation system
on the basis of the party list results in the first round.
The Hungarian parties are, generally speaking, of three kinds. At the outset,
the so-called three "system-changing" parties were the most important.
These were the parties that put together programmes for changing the political
and economic system in the political struggles at the end of the communist
period in 1987 and 1988. (Generally with a longish cultural, generational
and quasi-political past.)
The Hungarian Democratic Forum was the first to build up a national organization
and to collect together elements of the dissatisfied intelligentsia in
the provinces; to a large extent it was able to rely on the mood and demands
which emerged during the dramatically rapid changes of 1988-90. It was
the Forum that won the first elections, securing 43 per cent of the seats;
but four years of coalition government exhausted its political reserves.
In 1994 it won just 10 per cent of the seats in Parliament and lost its
centralist liberal fraction. In contrast to its beginnings ten years ago,
the party now is decidedly centre-right and conservative in character,
and in 1998 it seems to have no chance of playing an important role in
the third Parliament.
The Alliance of Free Democrats was the other decisive political force in
the changeover. Winning approximately 24 per cent of the Parliamentary
seats in 1990 and 18 per cent in 1994, it ran second on both occasions.
As a markedly liberal party and as a committed supporter of citizens' rights,
the rule of law, the market economy and integration with Western Europe,
its possibilitities have by and large been determined by this profile since
its creation in 1988.
In 1994 the Free Democrats accepted the role of junior partner in a coalition
with the Socialists, and now in the run-up to the 1998 election they are
finding it difficult to come to terms with the consequences of this. In
the ten years of their existence so far, the Free Democrats have been able
to count on the support of the better-educated in the urban middle class.
The third among the "system-changing" parties is the League of
Young Demo crats--Hungarian Civic Party, which was a very special product
of the changes in Hungary. In 1990 it secured 6 per cent of the seats in
Parliament, with the fact that it gained seats, causing widespread surprise.
The majority of its MPs were in their twenties, just out of university.
In 1994 the party achieved the same result as before, and this, too, was
an enormous surprise, since this time everyone saw this as a defeat. In
the period between the first two elections, the party had been far and
away the most popular: in 1992, for example, it enjoyed more support than
all the other parties put together. At present it casts itself in the role
of the centre-right party to replace the Socialists, we shall see with
what success.
Of the Hungarian parties, the Hungarian Socialist Party is supposed to
represent a degree of continuation of the old system, although this is
true only in part. In 1990 they secured around 9 per cent of the seats
in Parliament, which at the time was a major defeat for the reform communist
alternative, although it was well known abroad that their leaders were
popular. (It will perhaps be sufficient to mention Imre Pozsgay, Miklós
Németh and Rezsõ Nyers.) The resolve of Gyula Horn shaped
the Socialists into a disciplined, competitive and highly pragmatic party
during its years in opposition, and its victory in 1994 was therefore not
surprising. But the scale of the victory was. With 54 per cent of the seats
the party won an absolute majorty, which no-one had expected. Admittedly,
the spectacular victory was, to some degree, the result of the two-round
Hungarian electoral system, in which the winner of the first round is unduly
favoured. In any event, the past eight years are not enough for one to
be able to say whether the Hungarian Socialist Party is a typical East
European successor party, or rather whether it can be regarded as the first
successful post-war Social Democratic organization in Hungary.
The so called "historical" parties did not play a decisive role
during this decade.
In both elections the Christian Democratic People's Party achieved around
6 per cent, although this time it seems unlikely that they will be able
to repeat this result. As the party of Hungarian Christian Democracy, it
would have liked to continue where István Barankovics was forced
to leave off in 1949, but after the passage of forty years this proved
difficult. In 1990, the party joined the coalition led by the Hungarian
Democratic Forum, but was unable to establish a sufficiently distinct profile.
Ongoing internal disputes since 1994 have put paid to it.
Finally, the second renowned "historical party", the Independent
Small holders' Party, is, in the 1990s, merely a distortion of its once-famous
and important predecessor. In 1990 it secured some 12 per cent of the seats
in Parlia ment, but only four years later managed approximately 7 per cent.
The Small holders' real problem is not so much its lack of weight, but
rather that the political style and political culture they represent are
a far cry from the general requirements in Europe at the end of the 20th
century. From the political point of view, it is undoubtedly important
that there be a party capable of voicing the grievances of the man in the
street. However, to do no more than formulate these grievances in radical
right-wing, sometimes extremist and populist, terms is no substitute for
a coherent programme and credibility. Today's Independent Smallholders'
Party
resembles its historical predecessor in name only.
L. K.
László Kéri,
a political scientist, frequently comments on current affairs.
