Environmental protection and the Hungarian transition

Abstract

Drawing upon the agenda-building literature, I examine how and why the issue of environmental protection came to be on the political agenda in Hungary, in both the Communist and post-Communist regimes. If we assume that regime type matters, there should be differences with regard to how and why the environment was placed on the institutional (formal) agenda in the Communist and post-Communist governments. The agenda-setting literature is, however, based on stable political systems rather than systems in transition. Thus, the agenda-building process in the two regime types may not be as different as expected. This leads to the second research question: How does the democratic transition process impact agenda-building processes in the environmental issue area?

Notes

1 For more about agenda-setting, see Cobb and Elder, 1971, 1972; Kingdon, 1994; Nelson, 1984.

2 During the 1960s and early 1970s several laws were enacted—mining (1960), land (1961), forests and forestry (1961), water management (1964), construction activities (1964), medical care (1972), nature conservation (1961), and a decree on the protection of air purity (1973). Apart from the decree on the protection of air purity, they were primarily motivated by the desire to protect natural resources used in production and not for ecological or health reasons. The 1976 Act on Environmental Protection marked the political declaration of the importance of protecting the environment. The Act stipulated that each citizen had a right to live in a healthy environment and that society as a whole should be interested and involved in the protection of the human environment (Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy, 1992, pp. 25–26).

3 In the Soviet Union experts played a similar role in generating concern for the environment. According to Ziegler (1987), individuals who participated in Soviet environmental policy by voicing their opinions through the mass media or scholarly publications may be divided into two groups—specialists and nonspecialists. Specialists, who had significantly greater influence over the formulation and implementation of environmental policy than did nonspecialists, included natural scientists and engineers, and some social scientists (e.g., economists and sociologists). Specialists were the ones who first express concern over the possible harmful effects of projects. Soviet leaders were more likely to tolerate proposals for change coming from experts than lay persons. Participation by nonspecialists in Soviet environmental policy was restricted almost entirely to the output side of the policy process. The primary significance of nonspecialist participation was symbolic. It was a means for mobilizing the population as a demonstrable form of self-government; the functional aspects of this type of participation were minimal (Ziegler, 1987, pp. 64–65).

4 For more about Soviet environmental protection and its indirect influence on Eastern bloc environmentalism see Jancar, 1987, and Ziegler, 1987.

5 At the local level, away from the central control of Budapest, state-sponsored institutions such as the National Patriotic Front, with local offices throughout the country, did not act to suppress local initiatives from below. Newly emerging groups made use of state sponsored structures to improve communications and coordination. Similarly, the Youth Communist League provided the framework for independently minded university groups (Fisher, 1993, p. 210).

6 In 1983 the Hungarian Academy of Sciences produced a critical report of the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros dam plan, although the academy was subsequently forced into silence on this issue until 1988 (Fisher, 1993, p. 208).

7 One of the oldest and most well known university groups in Hungary was the Nature Conservation Group of Budapest’s Eötvös University (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 98). Established in 1983 by a group of young biologists with the intention of creating a green movement, it gained wide publicity during its national campaign to protect Szarsomyo Mountain from limestone mining. After initial setbacks the campaign was eventually successful. The group later became involved in other conservation, environmental, and education issues and served as a strong convergence for different groups (Persanyi, 1993, p. 144). Around the same time other independent university environmental groups were formed. The Green Circle of Budapest’s Technical University was one of the main forces behind a popular movement to clean up the capital’s dirty air. Other university green groups were established at Budapest’s Medical College, Godollo Agrarian University, Sopron Forestry School and the science universities of Debrecen, Szeged, and others (Persanyi, 1993, p. 144).

8 The rest of this paragraph is based on information in the Foreign Broadcast Information Service Report for 11 May 1984, p. F2.

9 By the mid-1980s, news of environmental concern and protest with regard to the dam project had reached beyond the Hungarian border. In 1985, the West German parliamentary Green group led an unofficial delegation to Hungary to protest the dam (Jancar-Webster, 1991, p. 46).

10 In May 1988, at a party conference there was a bloodless purge, with most of the conservatives in the politburo being replaced by reformers (Weiner, 1994, p. 59).

11 Falling living standards sharpened public awareness of pollution as the weakening economy spent less and less on environmental protection. By the end of the 1980s, environmental awareness had increased considerably. Polls conducted in 1988 showed that almost no one thought environmental protection was, on the whole satisfactory. The majority (79%) expressed a wish that natural resources be maintained to benefit future generations. Many (62%) said that they believed that environmental protection had priority over production. An overwhelming majority would accept lower living standards if health hazards could be reduced. Environmental protection was seen by 36% as a major concern. About a third (34%) said information on environmental protection was insufficient. Increasing members of people called for more forceful action to promote environmental protection (U.S. EPA, 1989, p. 97).

12 In February 1989, the HSWP gave up its monopoly as the only, legal, party in Hungarian politics. Then, reformers from within the ruling regime initiated a roundtable to reform the government. The roundtable lasted from June to September, and because no organization had a popular mandate included three sides: the reform and conservative communists, and a third side comprised of six social organizations and trade unions. In October, the parliament passed a constitutional amendment that permitted and protected a multiparty democracy. The reform communists thought that if they were perceived as bringing about real change in the government they could win in a competitive election. The first elections, however, were deliberately postponed by the democratic opposition for several months until real political parties had a chance to form. This delay both strengthened the opposition parties and weakened the ruling regime (McFaul, 1993, pp. 8–11, 21).

13 According to the Independent Ecological Center, the number of existing registered groups is no more than 40, including green sections of political parties. Only two or three of them have memberships over 1000, six to eight have more than 100 members, but most have only a few dozen (Persanyi, 1993, p. 150). Only two or three of the non-Budapest based environmental groups have been active recently (Hajba, 1995).