![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Almost 25 years has passed since transition, and Hungarian democracy is in a deplorable state. Party politics pervades every aspect of political life, undermining the autonomy of civil actors, treating them as a potential ‘fan club’ of parties rather than cooperating and consultative partners. In order to capture what went wrong in Hungarian civil society, we propose a structural analysis that highlights pathologies of the differentiation between the political and civil spheres. We elucidate how the political sphere usurps the autonomy of the civil sphere; thereby not only does it undermine trust in civil actors, but also undercuts their capacity to perform their control function over the political sphere. In the analysis, we concentrate on what we identify as the ‘fake-civil/pseudo-civil’ phenomenon and related discourses, relying on the conceptual and theoretical apparatus developed by Arato and Cohen.
Acknowledgement
Ákos Kopper would like to recognize the support of the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI Grant Number 23-01794.
Notes
1. At the same time, it is important to stress that despite curtailing the legitimacy of the former in taking part in politics, the opposition sitting in parliament legitimates the political game; what takes place can be read as a shift towards a two-pole electoral system with two main political blocks, where Fidesz's aim is not to exclude the left from the political game, because it actually needs it for the legitimization of its power. The aim is merely to assure that the left does not become strong enough to challenge the rule of Fidesz. As long as this is assured, a two-party system where Fidesz is to win is the ideal Fidesz scenario.
2. Actually, Fidesz is in coalition with the Christian Democrats, but in reality, the Christian Democrats are a facade, hardly existing as an autonomous political entity.
3. What do we mean by civil society? While generalist approaches identify it with social order in general (Perez-Diaz, Citation1998), for minimalist approaches it is just one sphere of society. Our understanding is closer to the latter interpretation, although the important point for us is to realize that modern societies comprised different subsystems, with each operating according to its distinct logics. What we focus on are pathologies of these differentiations, undermining the democratic life of societies.
4. Although the economic sphere is also an integral part of the framework, we put this issue aside, while we acknowledge that there are fake-civic organizations that specifically strive to receive funds intended for supporting the civic sphere.
5. It is justifiable to ask what could actually be read as an indicator that the ideal Arato and Cohen call for is approximated. Such indicators can be the following: there are various forms of extensive consultations inviting civil agents to join decision-making processes; party politics not pervading all aspects of social life; occasional bipartisan decisions, where party interests are trumped by the common good; de-centralized decision-making procedures, etc. It is also important that politics is able to govern, make decisions, and successfully implement them, sometimes with the help of civil organizations.
6. The distinction between what counts as civil and what counts as political is therefore not always straightforward but is permeated with ambiguities. Drawing the line, making this distinction is anything but trivial. This shows that differentiation between political and civil is not a question of a pre-given definition but is part and parcel of the self-constitution and reflexive operation of the socio-political system. It is a constant and never-ending boundary-making process between the political and the civil. For a community to operate democratically, it is necessary to be able to establish this distinction in a way to define norms of political conduct where the two spheres remain autonomous and at the same maintain their ability to cooperate.
7. Actually, Fidesz had earlier exploited this ambiguity when adding the words Polgári Szövetség to its name. By this move it tried to ally (szövetség = alliance) itself with citoyens or burghers (the meaning of the Hungarian polgár). This had the corollary that the previously neutral polgár suddenly acquired party-political connotations.
8. Again paradoxically, these groups were ambiguously defined as neither political nor civic entities. The founding document of the organization lays down ‘[t]he aim of the foundation is to preserve the values of civil society, to promote tradition and political culture…’ (quoted from the founding document of the organization, available at the court).
9. Their ‘fake grassroots’ characteristics were obvious—at least from the outside—and they were made even worse when party leaders actively promoted them. Thus, for example, when the Prime Minister appeared at a ‘civic tent’ proclaimed as a stage for civic discussion, the phoniness of the event was evident. Claims by the Prime Minister that he was there ‘merely’ in his civic capacity only exacerbated the event's fakeness.
10. In 2011, the CÖF also became the government's official strategic partner (Stratégiai partnerségi megállapodás, Citation2011).
11. As an example, see the letter of the CÖF (Citation2013) to Jose Manuel Barroso:
It is possible that a Peace March from Hungary to Brussels will be necessary, where we invite and request the solidarity of all nations and well-meaning communities who share our vision of a Europe made up of fully equal nations guarding their national sovereignty.
12. We tried our best to render our findings despite limitations of language and the difficulty of accurate translations for frequently figurative expressions.
13. As an example, see Facebook (Citation2011) and Egymillióan (Citation2011).
14. This obviously does not mean that there are no organizations recognized as genuinely civil. Nevertheless, there is a general aura of suspicion and distrust.
15. This issue also has an aspect concerned with the problem of funding and financing civic organizations. However, this topic is outside the scope of the present paper, although doubts about the financial independence of civic agents certainly aggravate the problem of ‘fakeness’.