Budapest - The philosophy behind the crisis

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE "CRISIS" of the fall of 1996

Seeing the events of September and october 2006, 168ora thought it is time now to ask
three dozen thinkers – journalists and university professors, artists and politologists,
economists and sportsmen –, how they evaluate the events. We chose to quote Maria
Ludassy's answer here. You will find links to rest of the answers and more on the bottom
of this page.

Mária Ludassy, Philosopher:

"Political resolution is yet to come. Behind the crisis, there are two different and
irreconcilable understandings of democracy. Orbán (Victor Orbán, leader of the largest
opposition party FIDESZ, former PM between 1998-2002, lost elections in 2002 and
2006), and his basis believe in what can be seen as the heir of Rousseau's philosophy.

Rousseau worded his criticism of parliamentarism 250 years ago: in the name of public
will, the will of society’s majority can be revised. In his view, a nation can only have one
common interest and one opinion, pluralism is against the nation, the parliament is a
betrayal of public will. Robespierre also said that France has two parties: the people and
the enemy of the people. As opposed to these views, the principle of English
parliamentary ideals were established, which were based on multi-party system and the
legitimacy of different views.

Viktor Orbán and his party supporters now appear as the late messengers of Jacobins’
dictatorship, and breach democracy on behalf of the will of the people.

At the same time, MSZP (the
MSZP is the socialist party in
the governing social-liberal
coalition that won democratic
elections in 2002 and in 2006;
the PM of this current
government is Ferenc
Gyurcsany) indeed committed
a moral error when they
deliberately concealed budget
numbers. It is another thing to
damage or explode
democracy.

Orbán and his basis are experimenting with this. While the leader of FIDESZ is referring to
the will of the people, he is really only declaring his own power, excluding all alternatives
other than himself. It shows severe deficit of democracy if we reduce the world to a fight
between good and evil. It is deeply anti-democratic since they describe those who think in
different terms as corrupt. Modern parliamentarism has no real chance in such an
atmosphere.

The intellectual elite of the change of regime, and the parties agreed in the basic concepts
of democracy. Orbán and his basis have stepped out of the democratic framework when
they tolerated people waving Árpád-striped flags. But it is not only the throwing of
cobblestones that counts as violence, anti-Semitic remarks also do. People do not find
Orbán’s statement to initiate a Charta sufficient; they demand further changes. And if he
believes himself to be the executive of popular will, then he cannot compromise, since the
people would see this as a betrayal of common will.

Of course in this situation liberal intellectuals can't do anything. Even if they speak up or
sign statements, it does not matter. We can only expect a solution if all parliamentary
powers come to realize that in such a situation, the priority is to defend constitutional order,
and to reach this common goal, they cast aside their personal and party interests."

Read a short appetizer to Hungarian History here. | Budapest 1956

Budapest - What was going on?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUDAPEST
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -