Gusztav Kosztolanyi

Six months have elapsed since the FIDESZ coalition came into power, prompting the government to take stock of its achievements. Unsurprisingly, its verdict on itself has been one of satisfaction, though it has resisted the temptation to lapse into triumphalism. In measuring its success, it has reviewed progress towards attaining the aims set out in its electoral manifesto. A prominent place amongst the 40 points was occupied by the fight against crime in all its manifestations, great importance being attached to boosting public safety and well-being, so that ordinary Hungarians could feel more at ease in their daily lives.

In the last fortnight, the results of a major survey commissioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs on this very subject has been published (Magyar Nemzet, 25 to 30 January), providing a rich seam of material for any shrewd government to exploit. Its scope was nation-wide, thus combating the myopia which has often been said to beset Hungary's powers-that-be and in every category, a more favourable picture of life outside Budapest emerges than life in the capital, implicitly extolling the virtues of smaller, more tightly-knit communities above the anonymity of the urban sprawl.

The subjects polled were first asked about how they rated public safety in general, the greatest dissatisfaction being vented by inner city dwellers in Pest (Buda consistently scored higher in the minds of its more affluent inhabitants), though, viewed as a whole, the government's programme is resoundingly endorsed. In spite of the new varieties of crime such as employment scams (see last week's ENP) and the trauma of bombings, Hungarians feel far safer than they did at the beginning of the decade when the last such survey was conducted.

The population's image of the police force remains ambiguous to the extent that the majority of respondents find the police force wanting when it comes to fulfilling its primary task of preventing and fighting crime. Marks were awarded to gauge the perceived effectiveness of the force in tackling football hooligans, burglars, the mafia, car thieves and pickpockets: although the rural squads came out on top, the actual scores were dismal without a pass in sight, let alone any gold stars being earned! Nevertheless, even this discouraging result represents an improvement on the last occasion when the public was consulted on its views.

Further criticism was levelled against the lack of an adequate police presence on the streets, which is assumed to have a deterrent effect on would-be wrongdoers. In smaller towns and villages, the police are more visible, though even in these communities, patrols are not felt to be regular enough. There was a uniform call for more police to be seen on the beat, an initiative that would do much to boost public acceptance of their role, as was revealed by the enhanced appreciation voiced by those polled who had at least a nodding acquaintance with their local law enforcers, a fact to which the coalition would be well advised to pay heed. Over two thirds of those surveyed indicated that they would gladly attend meetings at which they could get to know their local officers, with 67 per cent welcoming the proposal according to which the police would be encouraged to visit people living in their districts to discuss the problems specific to their neighbourhoods. This consensus was not exclusive to the provinces, though the alternative forum of residents' associations was put forward for Budapest.

When quizzed about how safe they felt, three pertinent questions disclosed the level of subjective anxiety in subjects' minds. Three questions were asked: are you afraid to walk alone in the streets at night in and around the place where you live? Are you afraid to spend the night alone at home? And: Are you afraid to venture out alone on to the streets during daylight? 65 per cent replied in the affirmative to the first question, 25 per cent to the second and 20 per cent to the third. As might have been predicted, the divide here was particularly pronounced along lines of gender, with 90 per cent of women replying yes to one of the questions and a worrying 50 per cent to two.

Fear is more widespread amongst the inhabitants of the capital, where the crime rate is higher, and people are more densely packed into deprived suburbs without necessarily fostering any contacts with their neighbours, mirroring a general phenomenon of alienation that is not unique to Hungary and has been so well documented as to have become a cliche.

The government coalition is not faring much better than its electorate in the disgruntlement stakes, though the source of resentment lies elsewhere, stemming largely from the behaviour of the opposition, which it condemns as erratic and irresponsible, inimical to the best interests of the country. At a recent meeting of its national committee, FIDESZ representatives decided to bite back, claiming that "with their repeated 'nos' and continuous creation of tension, and having promised to overstep the boundaries of the constitution, the opposition is living up to the Leninist principle of 'the worse, the better'" The aim of this perfidy, it seems, is to destroy the public's confidence by waging "intellectual civil war" against the government, a concept that was repeated a few days later in an interview with Szilard Sasvari, President of the Parliament's Culture and Press Committee (see Magyar Nemzet, 30 January).

The first salvo in this round of rhetoric was fired by Laszlo Kovacs (President of the Hungarian Socialist Party, MSZP), denounced by the government as the chief villain, who declared that the country had never yet had a government that had managed to do it so much damage in so short a space of time. Mr Sasvari's rejoinder was lacklustre, an attempt to discredit the stance adopted by FIDESZ's opponents by shrugging it off as a classic case of sour grapes: "As far as I can see it, the MSZP and the SZDSZ (the Free Democrats) have still not managed to digest the fact that they have fallen from power".

Mr Kovacs' spectacular U-turn on the issue of Hungarian membership of NATO was responsible for the new government's most serious defeat to date: after years of tireless campaigning for the Hungarian cause whilst Foreign Minister, Mr Kovacs and his party blocked the constitutional changes necessary to allow this to happen, thereby inflicting massive humiliation on the Young Democrats.

Further rancour has been caused by the opposition's refusal to support social projects such as the widening of entitlement to family allowances, the abolition of tuition fees in higher education, the tightening up of legislation in the fight against drug abuse and with its calls for the government to withdraw all funding of religious education at schools. According to Mr Sasvari: "the left wing is waging intellectual civil war against us. This is particularly apparent in three areas: firstly in intolerance of churches - as demonstrated by their wish to put a stop to material support for religious education. Secondly, the millennium celebrations. 60 per cent of the country's population feels confident about the future. The dawning of a new millennium and the anniversary of our conversion to Christianity provide an excellent opportunity to remind ourselves of this. We don't need to commemorate the blows fate has meted out to us in the course of history, but we do need a te deum style of celebration: finding a cause, in other words, for joyful celebration. The opposition wants to play down this act of commemoration, depriving it of substance and it has even rejected programmes that had been accepted by the previous government such as rebuilding churches that date back to the Arpad dynasty and decking out historical royal towns. They have attacked the link between the millennium celebrations and national consciousness and reject the notion that we have had anything to celebrate in the last thousand years".

The third area is that of the press, where Mr Sasvari highlights the need for the free flow of information, which he reckons has been hampered by a bias towards the left in the media.

A counter-offensive was immediately launched by Mrs Magda Kovacs Kosa, a member of the MSZP Presidium: "There's more to being in opposition than simply contradicting the government's words and deeds. We also have to demonstrate that we represent a viable alternative worth voting in. This is something that cannot be achieved unless voters know who and what they are voting for when they vote Socialist. These are issues we must respond to strategically. (...) Only now have we seen the emergence and development of what we have to provide an alternative to".

On the subject of NATO, she announced: "It (the proposed change to the constitution) would not have been proper, because in democratic countries, the Parliament does not allow the biggest issue of all, that of war and peace, to be wrested out of its sphere of influence. The compromise that appears to be taking shape respects the ground rules of democracy: the most important issues will remain within the Parliament's decision-making sphere".

Unmitigated pessimism is not entirely justified, therefore, in an evaluation of relations between the parties, though it remains to be seen whether the onset of spring really will be accompanied by a political thaw as well.

Discontent

Six months have elapsed since the FIDESZ coalition came into power, prompting the government to take stock of its achievements. Unsurprisingly, its verdict on itself has been one of satisfaction, though it has resisted the temptation to lapse into triumphalism. In measuring its success, it has reviewed progress towards attaining the aims set out in its electoral manifesto. A prominent place amongst the 40 points was occupied by the fight against crime in all its manifestations, great importance being attached to boosting public safety and well-being, so that ordinary Hungarians could feel more at ease in their daily lives.

In the last fortnight, the results of a major survey commissioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs on this very subject has been published (Magyar Nemzet, 25 to 30 January), providing a rich seam of material for any shrewd government to exploit. Its scope was nation-wide, thus combating the myopia which has often been said to beset Hungary's powers-that-be and in every category, a more favourable picture of life outside Budapest emerges than life in the capital, implicitly extolling the virtues of smaller, more tightly-knit communities above the anonymity of the urban sprawl.

The subjects polled were first asked about how they rated public safety in general, the greatest dissatisfaction being vented by inner city dwellers in Pest (Buda consistently scored higher in the minds of its more affluent inhabitants), though, viewed as a whole, the government's programme is resoundingly endorsed. In spite of the new varieties of crime such as employment scams (see last week's CER) and the trauma of bombings, Hungarians feel far safer than they did at the beginning of the decade when the last such survey was conducted.

The population's image of the police force remains ambiguous to the extent that the majority of respondents find the police force wanting when it comes to fulfilling its primary task of preventing and fighting crime. Marks were awarded to gauge the perceived effectiveness of the force in tackling football hooligans, burglars, the mafia, car thieves and pickpockets: although the rural squads came out on top, the actual scores were dismal without a pass in sight, let alone any gold stars being earned! Nevertheless, even this discouraging result represents an improvement on the last occasion when the public was consulted on its views.

Further criticism was levelled against the lack of an adequate police presence on the streets, which is assumed to have a deterrent effect on would-be wrongdoers. In smaller towns and villages, the police are more visible, though even in these communities, patrols are not felt to be regular enough. There was a uniform call for more police to be seen on the beat, an initiative that would do much to boost public acceptance of their role, as was revealed by the enhanced appreciation voiced by those polled who had at least a nodding acquaintance with their local law enforcers, a fact to which the coalition would be well advised to pay heed. Over two thirds of those surveyed indicated that they would gladly attend meetings at which they could get to know their local officers, with 67 per cent welcoming the proposal according to which the police would be encouraged to visit people living in their districts to discuss the problems specific to their neighbourhoods. This consensus was not exclusive to the provinces, though the alternative forum of residents' associations was put forward for Budapest.

When quizzed about how safe they felt, three pertinent questions disclosed the level of subjective anxiety in subjects' minds. Three questions were asked: are you afraid to walk alone in the streets at night in and around the place where you live? Are you afraid to spend the night alone at home? And: Are you afraid to venture out alone on to the streets during daylight? 65 per cent replied in the affirmative to the first question, 25 per cent to the second and 20 per cent to the third. As might have been predicted, the divide here was particularly pronounced along lines of gender, with 90 per cent of women replying yes to one of the questions and a worrying 50 per cent to two.

Fear is more widespread amongst the inhabitants of the capital, where the crime rate is higher, and people are more densely packed into deprived suburbs without necessarily fostering any contacts with their neighbours, mirroring a general phenomenon of alienation that is not unique to Hungary and has been so well documented as to have become a cliche.

The government coalition is not faring much better than its electorate in the disgruntlement stakes, though the source of resentment lies elsewhere, stemming largely from the behaviour of the opposition, which it condemns as erratic and irresponsible, inimical to the best interests of the country. At a recent meeting of its national committee, FIDESZ representatives decided to bite back, claiming that "with their repeated 'nos' and continuous creation of tension, and having promised to overstep the boundaries of the constitution, the opposition is living up to the Leninist principle of 'the worse, the better'" The aim of this perfidy, it seems, is to destroy the public's confidence by waging "intellectual civil war" against the government, a concept that was repeated a few days later in an interview with Szilard Sasvari, President of the Parliament's Culture and Press Committee (see Magyar Nemzet, 30 January).

The first salvo in this round of rhetoric was fired by Laszlo Kovacs (President of the Hungarian Socialist Party, MSZP), denounced by the government as the chief villain, who declared that the country had never yet had a government that had managed to do it so much damage in so short a space of time. Mr Sasvari's rejoinder was lacklustre, an attempt to discredit the stance adopted by FIDESZ's opponents by shrugging it off as a classic case of sour grapes: "As far as I can see it, the MSZP and the SZDSZ (the Free Democrats) have still not managed to digest the fact that they have fallen from power".

Mr Kovacs' spectacular U-turn on the issue of Hungarian membership of NATO was responsible for the new government's most serious defeat to date: after years of tireless campaigning for the Hungarian cause whilst Foreign Minister, Mr Kovacs and his party blocked the constitutional changes necessary to allow this to happen, thereby inflicting massive humiliation on the Young Democrats.

Further rancour has been caused by the opposition's refusal to support social projects such as the widening of entitlement to family allowances, the abolition of tuition fees in higher education, the tightening up of legislation in the fight against drug abuse and with its calls for the government to withdraw all funding of religious education at schools. According to Mr Sasvari: "the left wing is waging intellectual civil war against us. This is particularly apparent in three areas: firstly in intolerance of churches - as demonstrated by their wish to put a stop to material support for religious education. Secondly, the millennium celebrations. 60 per cent of the country's population feels confident about the future. The dawning of a new millennium and the anniversary of our conversion to Christianity provide an excellent opportunity to remind ourselves of this. We don't need to commemorate the blows fate has meted out to us in the course of history, but we do need a te deum style of celebration: finding a cause, in other words, for joyful celebration. The opposition wants to play down this act of commemoration, depriving it of substance and it has even rejected programmes that had been accepted by the previous government such as rebuilding churches that date back to the Arpad dynasty and decking out historical royal towns. They have attacked the link between the millennium celebrations and national consciousness and reject the notion that we have had anything to celebrate in the last thousand years".

The third area is that of the press, where Mr Sasvari highlights the need for the free flow of information, which he reckons has been hampered by a bias towards the left in the media.

A counter-offensive was immediately launched by Mrs Magda Kovacs Kosa, a member of the MSZP Presidium: "There's more to being in opposition than simply contradicting the government's words and deeds. We also have to demonstrate that we represent a viable alternative worth voting in. This is something that cannot be achieved unless voters know who and what they are voting for when they vote Socialist. These are issues we must respond to strategically. (...) Only now have we seen the emergence and development of what we have to provide an alternative to".

On the subject of NATO, she announced: "It (the proposed change to the constitution) would not have been proper, because in democratic countries, the Parliament does not allow the biggest issue of all, that of war and peace, to be wrested out of its sphere of influence. The compromise that appears to be taking shape respects the ground rules of democracy: the most important issues will remain within the Parliament's decision-making sphere".

Unmitigated pessimism is not entirely justified, therefore, in an evaluation of relations between the parties, though it remains to be seen whether the onset of spring really will be accompanied by a political thaw as well.

Gusztav Kosztolanyi, 22 February 1999