Rethinking the incumbency effect. Radicalization of governing populist parties in East-Central-Europe. A case study of Hungary

ABSTRACT

The paper focuses on the issue of populist parties’ ‘incumbency challenge’ in government position. While populism became a key issue in political science during the past years, research projects focusing on the adaptation of populist parties to government positions are comparatively rare. Based on the research of West-European right-wing populist parties, scholars of the topic often argue that incumbency results in adaptation and mainstreaming processes for populist parties and in the weakening of their populist discourse and claims. The paper conducts a case study analysis of the Hungarian populist radical right party Fidesz, one of the most successful populist parties in East-Central-Europe. The research operationalizes the performative and discursive theory of populism, and analyses the discourse maintained by Fidesz during its two consecutive government period between 2010 and 2018. Based on the research results, the paper ultimately argues that the externalization of the populist ‘them and us’ dichotomy allowed a strategy to maintain, or even radicalize, populist discourse in government position. These findings challenge the dominant stream of populism literature stating that long-term incumbency of populist parties either results in electoral losses, or in adaptation and mainstreaming processes weakening the populist rhetoric. Even if this ‘externalization strategy’ might not be exclusively used by populist parties, it can be identified as a viable strategy for populists in government to overcome the incumbency challenge.

KEYWORDS:

• Populism
• incumbency challenge
• radical right
• crisis
• Hungary
• Fidesz
• Orbán
• discourse analysis

ORCID

Daniel Hegedüs http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9534-9525

Notes

1 It must be noted that neither the 2014, nor the 2018 Hungarian elections fully complied with the OSCE commitments of democratic elections, and were labelled therefore as ‘free but not fair’ elections. See the report of the OSCE electoral observation missions to the respective Hungarian elections: https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/hungary/121098?download=true and https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/hungary/376639?download=true

2 To the categorization of Fidesz as populist party see: Enyedi, 2016; Pappas, 2014 and 2016; Kriesi & Pappas, 2015; and Palonen, 2018.

3 ‘I am convinced that we shall not offer a counter-governance, but we have to realize a governance guided by the goals of our nation. Of course, this has a significant impact on the government program, on the political style, the structure of the government, and several other political questions. […] Personally, […] I suggest to choose the politics of permanent governance instead of the politics of permanent fight. Not the ongoing and permanent conflict with our counterparts shall determine our mindset, but the struggling for important national goals. Of course there will be a political competition and ultimately the electorate will decide. But the main question is what alternatives do we offer. Do we offer the continuation of the two-party-system in a dual power field characterized by permanent debates on values? Or do we present the behaviour of a great governing party, the behaviour of a political power with a claim for permanent governance to the public.’ – The speech of Viktor Orbán at the ‘Civic Picnic’ in Kötcse, 5 September 2009. (The author’s translation.)

4 The discourse of Fidesz often referred to the government period of the left-liberal coalition between 2002 and 2010 as the ‘past eight years’.

5 Enyedi came in his analysis of Hungarian populism to a similar conclusion (Enyedi, 2016).

6 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 24 July 2010. (The author’s translation.)

7 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 24 July 2010.

8 Commemorative speech at the anniversary of 1956 revolution and freedom fight, 23 October 2010. (The author’s translation.)

9 State of the Nation address, 7 February 2011. (Official translation)

10 ‘We are vulnerable, because we were also weakened by the politics of the previous era. We have every reason to fear that this past wants to return. The past that brought immense indebtedness on us, record unemployment, abuse of power, widespread corruption, escalation of crime, the rise of extremism, the emergence of ideologies that reject human dignity and equality, the deployment of the police against peaceful citizens, a capital on the verge of bankruptcy and a countryside in decline.’ – State of the Nation address, 7 February 2011.

11 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 23 July 2011. (The author’s translation.)

12 ‘We know very well the nature of unsolicited assistance by comrades, and we can identify it even though it is dressed in well-tailored suits, not in uniforms. […] European bureaucrats observe us with suspicious eyes because we say that new ways are required. We say that one must break out from the jail of indebtedness and we say that only great nations can make Europe great again. […] The reign of speculators will not be abolished by speculators and bureaucrats either, and nor will they free the troubled chariot of Europe from the ditch. They will not do that, but the hardworking citizens of Europe will do. Either the world of hardworking people will come, or it’s over for Europe’ – Commemorative speech at the anniversary of 1848 revolution and freedom fight, 15 March 2012. (The author’s translation.)

13 ‘The truth is that the torch of those we could follow flamed out. The recipe of the way out from the crisis and the rules of the new transition cannot be acquired from the West. Moreover, it seems as we would have a small advantage in finding solutions that are emulated now by the Western countries.’ – Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 23 July 2011.

14 Commemorative speech at the anniversary of 1848 revolution and freedom fight, 15 March 2012.

15 ‘Our achievements reflect that Hungary is performing better. The efforts of the Hungarian people in 2012 were not pointless. It was a good decision to break free from the designated path and take our fate into our own hands, but not everyone is happy about this. Those who profited politically and economically from Hungary’s weakness for several years or even decades, both at home and abroad, are unhappy about it. They plan to take Hungary back into the past, hoping that time has lessened the bleak memory of those years. But they will be proven wrong; a strong country doesn’t forget. We will not forget those eight years. […] We will not forget that together, they put the country to ruin. They are the old set, we know them well and we know exactly what they are up to. They would cancel the bank tax and instead make the population pay once more; they would cut pensions and again abolish tax concessions after children. This is what the banks and the speculators expect them to do, and the weak always bow to the will of the powerful. They never stood for and continue to not stand up for the interests of the Hungarian people. This is why they are surrounded by the buzzing of influential foreign interest groups, like flies around meat. They are in fact the ones who want the people of Hungary to be saddled with them yet again.’ – State of the Nation address, 23 February 2013. (Official translation, emphasize added by the author.)

16 ‘We have won many battles, but we have yet to win the war. What has happened is simply that instead of retreating, we have begun to fight back. Those who think that we are the ones who instigated this conflict are mistaken. When we took office in 2010, the war between the multinationals and consumers, between the banks and foreign currency debtors, and between monopolies and families were already well underway. And we Hungarians were in a losing position on all fronts. In 2010, the choice we had to make was on whose corner of the ring we should enter the fight, and we chose the red white and green corner. The balance of power has changed significantly since then; we have won several rounds, but the fight is not over.’ – State of the Nation address, 17 February 2014. (Official translation)

17 See the reference to the global competitiveness

18 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 29 July 2014. (Official translation)

19 ‘ … if I look at the non-governmental world in Hungary, or at least at those organisations which are regularly in the public gaze – and the recent debate concerning the Norway grants has brought this to the surface – then what I see is that we are dealing with paid political activists. And in addition these paid political activists are political activists who are being paid by foreigners. They are activists who are being paid by specific foreign interest groups, about whom it is difficult to imagine that they view such payments as social investments, and it is much more realistic to believe that they wish to use this system of instruments to apply influence on Hungarian political life with regard to a given issue at a given moment. And so, if we want to organise our national state to replace the liberal state, it is very important that we make it clear that we are not opposing non-governmental organisations here and it is not non-governmental organisations who are moving against us, but paid political activists who are attempting to enforce foreign interests here in Hungary.’ – Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 29 July 2014.

20 Nonhoff distinguished three types of political demands that stand in hierarchical relationship with each other. First, cumulative demands articulated in a language act describe partial aspects of the necessary conditions required to overcome the lack of certain public goods. Second, subsumptive demands represent necessary conditions of certain public goods that are also considered to be sufficient conditions of the fulfilment of other public goods. Therefore the fulfilment of a subsumptive demand results in the simultaneous fulfilment of several cumulative demands. Third, the comprehensive demand represents the highest level of discursive claims, the fulfilment of which results in the fulfilment of all subordinated subsumptive and cumulative demands. As the comprehensive demands can discursively substitute any other demands in the chain of equivalence, it often fulfils the role of the ‘empty signifier’ in a discursive project.

21 Commemorative speech at the anniversary of 1956 revolution and freedom fight, 23 October 2010. (The author’s translation.)

22 ‘Our Nation said yes to fundamental changes in our country. Everything must alter, our constitution, our laws, the public moral, the taboos, the orders, the goals, the relationships, and the values too. Media, environment protection, the schools, public procurement, all must be changed. Everything must be changed, that is hostile to the people, hostile to the nation, hostile to the reason and the moral. Everything that is hostile to life.’ – Commemorative speech at the anniversary of 1956 revolution and freedom fight, 23 October 2010.

23 State of the Nation address, 17 February 2014. (Official translation)

24 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 29 July 2014. (Official translation)

25 ‘Hungarian people want to stand on their feet, want to be the masters of their own fate and know that this can only be achieved with decent work. Anyone can say anything, Hungarians are decent people and work for them is a matter of honour. Hungarians do not want to live on benefits, to look for the easy way, they want to work.’ - State of the Nation address, 7 February 2011. (Official translation)

26 Bǎile Tuşnad summer university speech, 24 July 2010. (Official translation)

27 In this context, radicalization reflects on the fact that over time Orbán’s rhetoric has embraced an increasing amount of radical-right features, especially nativism.

28 ‘Terrorist organizations recruit fighters to join their ranks from among immigrants living in the continent’s western part, while the southern borders of the EU – including our own state’s borders – are besieged by waves of modern-day migration, in the face of which increasingly frustrated states and governments are at a loss. […]Europe is facing questions which can no longer be answered within the framework of liberal multiculturalism. Can we shelter people, many of whom are unwilling to accept European culture, or who come here with the intent of destroying European culture?’ – State of the Nation address, 27 February 2015. (Official translation)

29 ‘The modern world sees economic facts as the ones that truly count. It may be right, but I would attach higher priority to facts related to life. Above all, the facts which determine our biological survival and continuance.’ – State of the Nation address, 27 February 2015.

30 State of the Nation address, 27 February 2015.

31 ‘Yes, we must understand that liberal politics only ever recognizes two kinds of opinion: its own and the wrong one.’ – State of the Nation address, 27 February 2015.

32 The speeches of Prime Minister Orbán used the Hungarian term „népvándorlás” which is identical to the German word „Völkerwanderung” and the historical concept of the English ‘migration of nations’. The official English translations of the speeches provided by the Hungarian Chancellery use the term ‘mass migration’, which appears to be more commonly used in English, but has a rather different stylistically message than the original Hungarian wording. The official English translations of Prime Minister Orbán’s speeches tend to stylistically ease the message that is often much harder in the Hungarian than in the English version. In this paper I consequently use the wording ‘migration of nations’ as the translation of „népvándorlás” to preserve the original style, context, and secondary meaning, except in the quotes from the official translations.

33 State of the Nation address, 28 February 2016. (Official translation)

34 ‘in Brussels and some European capitals the political and intellectual elite see themselves as citizens of the world – in contrast to the majority of people, who have a strong sense of nationhood. The way I see it, the political leaders are also aware of this. And while there is no chance of them agreeing with their own peoples, they would rather turn their backs on them. […] But this means that the real problem is not outside Europe, but inside Europe. Those who do most to endanger the future of Europe are not those who want to come here, but the political, economic and intellectual leaders who are trying to reshape Europe against the will of the people of Europe. This is how, for the planned transport to Europe of many millions of migrants, there came into existence the most bizarre coalition in world history: the people smugglers, the human rights activists and Europe’s top leaders.’ – State of the Nation address, 28 February 2016.

35 In October 2016, a controversial referendum took place in Hungary on the ability of the European Union (EU) to resettle migrants in Hungary without the Hungarian parliament’s approval. Following an expensive and manipulative government campaign, the referendum held on 2 October failed to pass the 50-per cent validity threshold. See: Nations in Transit Hungary Report 2017, https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2017/hungary

36 ‘From an ideological perspective this means that liberal ideology turned against the ideology of democracy, the latter being the ideal of a community organised on a majority basis, according to the will of the majority. From a political perspective, the open society means that – instead of elected members of parliament and governments – true power, decisions and influence must be put in the hands of people who are part of the global network, media gurus, unelected international organisations and their local offices. […] This is the transnational empire of George Soros, with its international heavy artillery and huge sums of money. What makes this worse is that, despite the Hungarian people declaring its will in the quota referendum, the organisations of George Soros are working tirelessly to bring hundreds of thousands of migrants into Europe. They are working to divert the Hungarian parliament and the Hungarian government from the path that has been determined by the people’ – State of the Nation address, 10 February 2017. (Official translation)

37 Budapest Business Journal, 8 June 2015, https://bbj.hu/politics/immigrant-billboards-being-destroyed_98829

38 ‘We are giving personnel, border guards, technical hardware and equipment to the Balkan countries, because it is they who are in reality defending Europe’s borders. And while they are resisting, we will also be able to defend our own borders more easily. We have known this since the time of Hunyadi.[38] […] We shall teach Brussels, the people smugglers and the migrants that Hungary is a sovereign country, and its territory can only be entered by those who will obey our laws and accept the authority of our law enforcement and military personnel. The defence of our southern borders will not be enough. We must stand our ground on another battlefield – fortunately this is not the realm of soldiers, but of diplomats.’ – State of the Nation address, 28 February 2016.

39 ‘The EU clearly divides into two camps: on the one side are the federalists, and on the other are the supporters of sovereignty. The federalists want a United States of Europe and compulsory resettlement quotas, while the supporters of sovereignty want a Europe of free nations, and will not hear of any form of quota. This is how compulsory resettlement quotas have become the essence and symbol of the times we now live in. This is important in itself, but it also encapsulates everything which we fear, which we do not want, and which has the potential to prise apart the alliance of European peoples. We cannot afford to allow Brussels to place itself above the law. We cannot afford to allow the consequences of madcap policies to be expanded into those countries which have complied with every treaty and every law – as we have done. We cannot afford to allow them to force us or anyone else to import the bitter fruits of their misguided policies. We do not want to – and we shall not – import crime, terrorism, homophobia and anti-Semitism to Hungary. In Hungary there shall be no lawless urban neighbourhoods, there shall be no street violence or immigrant riots, there shall be no arson attacks on refugee camps, and gangs shall not hunt our wives and daughters.’ - State of the Nation address, 28 February 2016.