Hungary reemerged as a hot discussion topic in democratization circles recently ? for all the wrong reasons. As discussed by my colleague David in this forum, the Hungarian parliament, comprised of a single-party controlling majority, is blazing ahead with a series of controversial electoral reforms, media restrictions, and legislative limits to the number of legally recognized religions in the country.
Offering a window into the usually staid diplomatic banter between allies, the State Department?s public reaction last month to events in Hungary generated a spirited and R-rated kerfuffle involving a senior diplomat in the Obama Administration and a founder of the majority Fidesz party who also happens to be a Hungarian Member of the European Parliament. On July 24, Thomas O. Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary at State?s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor ? and erstwhile professor in the Democracy and Governance program here at Georgetown ? testified before the House Foreign Affairs Europe and Eurasia subcommittee on the topic: ?Eastern Europe: The State of Democracy and Freedom.? He criticized the Lukashenko regime in Belarus, upon which the US has imposed progressively strict economic sanctions, he expressed alarm about the ?assaults on freedoms of the press, assembly, and rule of law? in Russia, and he praised the Turkish government?s decision return property to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the seat of the Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul.
On the topic of Hungary, Melia?s prepared testimony expressed concern about recent actions taken by the ruling Fidesz government, particularly the ?unprecedented two-thirds parliamentary majority [attempt] to lock in changes to the Constitution that could solidify its power, limit checks and balances, and unduly hamstring future democratic governments in effectively addressing new political, economic and social challenges.? In response to questions from subcommittee chair Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) and ranking member Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Melia straightforwardly echoed the policy enunciated by Secretary Clinton during her late June visit to Budapest: it is incumbent on good friends to raise these issues.
In a particularly unfriendly response, Tam?s Deutsch, a founding member of the ruling Fidesz party and Member of the European Parliament, tweeted in Hungarian, ?who the f*** is Thomas Melia and why do we have to deal with this kind of s*** every day?? This became the headline of a news story in the Hungarian press the following day, and led to a series of articles and blog postings answering the question. An English-language article answered Deutsch?s first question, referencing Melia?s work with the National Democratic Institute in the late 1980s and early 1990s: he trained political party activists and civil society actors in Hungary, including the Federation of Young Democrats (yes, the Fidesz party), in various democratic campaign and election techniques during Hungary?s democratic transition. Other reports, including an Economist article online, observe that Deutsch acted rather hastily without researching the question he posed: before joining the State Department, Melia had a distinguished career as an activist with over twenty-five years of experience promoting democracy and human rights in influential positions at Freedom House, NDI, and what is now the Solidarity Center.
In this case Deutsch was unable or unwilling to substantively address Melia?s well-founded criticism, so rather than defending indefensible policies, he attacked the messenger. Deutsch deserves credit for heightening the international community?s focus on the critical issues raised in Melia?s testimony, including democratic representation, religious rights, and media freedom. Here are the substantive issues for discussion:
Democratic Representation: The Hungary Spectrum blog described the proposed electoral changes on July 12, challenging one significant effort proposed by Fidesz (there are others, including cutting the number of legislators and eliminating compensatory seats). Currently, parliamentarians are elected to the unicameral national assembly, as explained by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, in a combined single-member district and party list PR system. Single member district elections take place in two stages: a first round, wherein a candidate must win over 15% of the vote to participate in a second round, which takes place two weeks later. The goal of the two-week period and the runoff is to create an incentive for parties and candidates to bargain on the basis of the first round results, to create coalitions and/or to withdraw in favor of a stronger candidate from a friendly party. This has worked very well in Hungary since 1990. In a single round simple plurality system, which is what Fidesz is now proposing, five candidates can split the votes: one candidate wins with only 24% of the votes, with the other four candidates receiving 19% each, totaling 76% of the actual electorate. In the two-round system as it stands, the four candidates would have an opportunity to form coalitions among the top performing candidates and political parties to put forth a candidate to represent more than 24% of the electoral vote in the second round. As David describes, the result of Fidesz?s proposed single round simple plurality system would be to limit the ability of smaller parties to form coalitions.
Right of Religion. On August 9, Freedom House called on the Hungarian government to repeal the ?Law on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion, and on Churches, Religions and Religious Community.? As reported by Freedom House and explored in the Huffington Post, the law reduced the number of recognized religious groups from 358 to 14; reregistering religions must pass a series of tests to demonstrate a history in Hungary, provide a petition with 1000 citizen signatures, and secure approval from two-thirds of the parliament. These restrictions violate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as outlined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and raise a host of ethical questions about the role of the state.
Media Freedom: In protest of recently announced layoffs of 550 employees of the state-funded radio and television media, hundreds converged outside of the Magyar R?di? station on July 13. Two political parties, the Socialist MSZP and the LMP green-liberals participated in the demonstration and criticized the firings as politically motivated by the Fidesz party. As Melia testified, this comes on the heels of the ?government replac[ing] members of a media oversight board?with candidates aligned with the ruling party.? As explained by Human Rights Watch, the board is now authorized ?to impose fines of up to ?700,000 (approximately $900,000) on media outlets for ?imbalanced news coverage,? material it considers ?insulting? to a particular group or ?the majority? or it deems to violate ?public morality.?? The United States is not alone in criticizing the law: as outlined in the Economist in January, when Hungary assumed the EU Presidency (which it handed to Poland on July 3), Germany and France expressed concern about the law as well.
Hungary is taking a series of democratic detours: these are complicated issues that Melia and his team at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor spend much of their time analyzing. Twitter captures a single moment in diplomatic time, just as an overheard quip might have a generation earlier; let?s hope that Deutch?s tweet is not indicative of the flippancy with which the Fidesz party is approaching all other aspects of governance, or of more general hostility to Hungary?s democratic allies expressing well-grounded concern about the country?s current deviation from its democratic trajectory.
strauss kahn internet speed test chely wright chely wright goldman sachs libya news charleston sc
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.