Earlier this week, Idea, a Hungarian polling institute, conducted a poll showing that Péter Magyar and his Tisza party have a slight lead over Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party.
That was again a very good summary. I agree that Hungarians always need a strong leader, and everyday people never accepted those gay-looking middlemen with their super trendy suits. I know that Szijjarto is also one of these men, but for these reasons, he can never be a leader for Hungarians. It is somehow funny that although Magyar is also a trendy man, he does not look at all gay, and because of this, he can be seen as a leader. This is exactly how Hungarians think about these things.
Another important aspect is that Magyar must have a real professional team in the background. By working in the online marketing industry, I know how everything can be measured, planned, and presented to customers. And customers are now the everyday voters in Hungary. Magyar's team focuses exclusively on the most important things, does not waste effort on minor problems or issues, and dictates the topic not only for their own voters but also for the opposition party, Fidesz's, voters.
And the final aspect of the success of Magyar and his Tisza party is taking care of communication for the various parts of Hungary. I never understood why the heck politicians from opposition parties in Hungary don’t go to the small villages and towns. They always tried to dictate from Budapest what is good and appropriate for the much poorer and simpler people in the countryside. Hungarians need local politicians, and previously, we had only two types: Fidesz party local leaders, who did and said exactly what Orbán and his team instructed, and opposition local politicians, who basically did nothing. Voters in villages and small towns need local men who help with everyday goals: opening a hospital in the city, developing the local gymnasium, repairing worn roads. Even in the smallest villages, there is a lot to do: people need post offices, fresh bread in the tiny stores, doctors more often, schools for their kids, etc. Magyar and his team understood that they need local people, cells ("Tisza islands"), and must build their party from the bottom up. This way, people will have local politicians who can establish the Tisza cell in the city, and those cells can grow into county-wide support, which can then build the nationwide party. This is the only possible way to reach the top, and Orbán showed the right track in the early 2000s; he did exactly the same. I was always wondering why the opposition politicians don’t do exactly the same
Let me reflect to the forever emerging thought of "need a strong leader" together with the (can be measured, planend and presented to customers".
My problem is with two words: "strong" and "customer".
Define please strong; is it well-advertised (from taxpayers' money) leader? Is it a one-man decision making board allowing no objection? Or is it a charismatic conflict-generating person?
While there are a noticeable incline in the weatlh of a nation at the beginning of the era of a "strong leader", after they reach their zenith the ending is almost always chaotic. A different course can be seen when a "weak" or "weakened" leader is in position; the checks and balances in a democratic state can prevent overwinning a political party providing a kind if continuity.
You can decide which is better... if you have the will and ablitiy and knowledge to have a realistic understanding of the complex picture.
Otherwise you are not a citizen who votes, but only a customer who pays for the show.
Therefore I strongly oppose the "strong leader" idea. What I think is preferable is the general teaching of the masses to understand basic democratic processes and terms. Obviously, this latter one gives result after decades.
With the intent of giving a friendly advice: all commenters are referring only to recent events tied to politicians. Their act now is determined by their decades long past. It is not my idea, it is originating from László Kéri (a well-known politologist in Hungary) who said that for a meaningful reply one must scrutinize the years or decades old past as well.
Actually, there are some, and probably most of them can be considered as a reflection and reaction to recent changes in Hungarian politics.
1. In 2023, Orbán held his speech in Veszprém, a middle-sized city of historical importance in the middle of the western part of Hungary. In the past few years, it became a habit that Orbán chose locations for the official state commemorations outside of the capital. This was considered to be a sign that Orbán "gave up" Budapest, as his party was far stronger throughout the countryside, and in several aspects, the government policies and communication were adjusted to this situation. There was some kind of a "rural - urban" opposition. Coming back to the capital - I think - is kind of a power statement, a sign that Orbán and his party had returned to the race in Budapest.
2. The speech itself was brief (compared to the one by Magyar), but much more reflectant to internal politics than last year. In 2023, Orbán simply stated that the last remnants of the post-socialist party are slowly disappearing, and spoke not much more about the opposition. This year, he clearly appointed his opponent, and labelled the new opposition as the server of external forces, which fits to the recent theme - the endangerement of loosing sovereignity - of the government. He also wanted to show that he is ready to fight.
A similar note was that Orbán had drawn a parallel between Moscow and Brussels, stating that just like the former was the oppressor of the free and sovereign Hungary, the new imperialistic intentions are coming from Brussels.
3. About the size and make up of the crowd...well...in recent years, most of these commemorations were organized in enclosed areas for a selected audience, and others could only attend outside of the zone to follow the speech through projectors. As you may have realised, this is also a clever way to have the illusion of a big crowd, as the enclosed area seems fully packed, and there are even more viewers outside. It was the same this year. The composition of the audience was not very different, but it was clearly visible that his supporters are getting older, and there is a problem with addressing the youth.
It is worth noting, that recently (in the last few years) Orban avoided making open public appearances, especially in Budapest. Usually he addresses his own supporters only. On national holidays he tends to pick secluded countryside locations, with pre-registered loyal fans as audience, and without any opposition media. The 23th Oct event was done in a small and secluded public square of Budapest, where entry can be tightly controlled. The employees of the nationwide water utility companies, who helped to fight the Danube floods, were invited under the guise of a "family day", to serve as audience. The speech was in my opinion a disgrace to the memory of heroes. Orban criticized the victory plan of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, and envisioned a coup d'etat orchestrated by "Bruxelles" (common reference to the EU in Orban's rhetoric, presented as a malicious entity to Hungarians) and suggesting that the "slavic armies" of Ukraine would participate in displacing the Orban regime and putting up a "puppet rule" of the new favorite of EU, referring to Peter Magyar but not mentioning him by name.
If you want to read the actual ramblings, some quotes available here but please treat it with a grain of salt.
The celebration crowd of Tisza came from all parts of the country, typically most of them are self-organizing local activist groups, dubbed "Islands of Tisza". Magyar tends to give a good show of entertainment, this time in the spirit of remembrance to the revolutionary events and victims. The speech itself was maybe one of the most energetic and visionary I have seen from him so far. Naturally Magyar also used the opportunity for his own political agenda, but this particular event, 23th Oct, is an important part of building the identity of the national right-wing ideals and the old pre-corruption Fidesz (if there was ever one), to which Magyar tends to think back with nostalgia.
Anyway, Magyar proposed some specific measures of action to achieve if he manages to get into power, including joining the European Public Prosecutor's Office, bringing home the blocked EU funds, better wages for public servants and low earners, reduction of corruption. Also he announced the start of the selection process for parliamentary representatives.
Just a minor correction: the venue of Orbán’s speech, Millenáris Park is not a “public square”, rather a private property (owned and run by some state-controlled company though) that is most of the time open to the public
That was again a very good summary. I agree that Hungarians always need a strong leader, and everyday people never accepted those gay-looking middlemen with their super trendy suits. I know that Szijjarto is also one of these men, but for these reasons, he can never be a leader for Hungarians. It is somehow funny that although Magyar is also a trendy man, he does not look at all gay, and because of this, he can be seen as a leader. This is exactly how Hungarians think about these things.
Another important aspect is that Magyar must have a real professional team in the background. By working in the online marketing industry, I know how everything can be measured, planned, and presented to customers. And customers are now the everyday voters in Hungary. Magyar's team focuses exclusively on the most important things, does not waste effort on minor problems or issues, and dictates the topic not only for their own voters but also for the opposition party, Fidesz's, voters.
And the final aspect of the success of Magyar and his Tisza party is taking care of communication for the various parts of Hungary. I never understood why the heck politicians from opposition parties in Hungary don’t go to the small villages and towns. They always tried to dictate from Budapest what is good and appropriate for the much poorer and simpler people in the countryside. Hungarians need local politicians, and previously, we had only two types: Fidesz party local leaders, who did and said exactly what Orbán and his team instructed, and opposition local politicians, who basically did nothing. Voters in villages and small towns need local men who help with everyday goals: opening a hospital in the city, developing the local gymnasium, repairing worn roads. Even in the smallest villages, there is a lot to do: people need post offices, fresh bread in the tiny stores, doctors more often, schools for their kids, etc. Magyar and his team understood that they need local people, cells ("Tisza islands"), and must build their party from the bottom up. This way, people will have local politicians who can establish the Tisza cell in the city, and those cells can grow into county-wide support, which can then build the nationwide party. This is the only possible way to reach the top, and Orbán showed the right track in the early 2000s; he did exactly the same. I was always wondering why the opposition politicians don’t do exactly the same
Let me reflect to the forever emerging thought of "need a strong leader" together with the (can be measured, planend and presented to customers".
My problem is with two words: "strong" and "customer".
Define please strong; is it well-advertised (from taxpayers' money) leader? Is it a one-man decision making board allowing no objection? Or is it a charismatic conflict-generating person?
While there are a noticeable incline in the weatlh of a nation at the beginning of the era of a "strong leader", after they reach their zenith the ending is almost always chaotic. A different course can be seen when a "weak" or "weakened" leader is in position; the checks and balances in a democratic state can prevent overwinning a political party providing a kind if continuity.
You can decide which is better... if you have the will and ablitiy and knowledge to have a realistic understanding of the complex picture.
Otherwise you are not a citizen who votes, but only a customer who pays for the show.
Therefore I strongly oppose the "strong leader" idea. What I think is preferable is the general teaching of the masses to understand basic democratic processes and terms. Obviously, this latter one gives result after decades.
With the intent of giving a friendly advice: all commenters are referring only to recent events tied to politicians. Their act now is determined by their decades long past. It is not my idea, it is originating from László Kéri (a well-known politologist in Hungary) who said that for a meaningful reply one must scrutinize the years or decades old past as well.
Interesting and useful, thank you.
Are there interesting/worthwhile comparisons to be made with Orban’s 23/10 speech? Either the content or the size and make up of the crowds?
Actually, there are some, and probably most of them can be considered as a reflection and reaction to recent changes in Hungarian politics.
1. In 2023, Orbán held his speech in Veszprém, a middle-sized city of historical importance in the middle of the western part of Hungary. In the past few years, it became a habit that Orbán chose locations for the official state commemorations outside of the capital. This was considered to be a sign that Orbán "gave up" Budapest, as his party was far stronger throughout the countryside, and in several aspects, the government policies and communication were adjusted to this situation. There was some kind of a "rural - urban" opposition. Coming back to the capital - I think - is kind of a power statement, a sign that Orbán and his party had returned to the race in Budapest.
2. The speech itself was brief (compared to the one by Magyar), but much more reflectant to internal politics than last year. In 2023, Orbán simply stated that the last remnants of the post-socialist party are slowly disappearing, and spoke not much more about the opposition. This year, he clearly appointed his opponent, and labelled the new opposition as the server of external forces, which fits to the recent theme - the endangerement of loosing sovereignity - of the government. He also wanted to show that he is ready to fight.
A similar note was that Orbán had drawn a parallel between Moscow and Brussels, stating that just like the former was the oppressor of the free and sovereign Hungary, the new imperialistic intentions are coming from Brussels.
3. About the size and make up of the crowd...well...in recent years, most of these commemorations were organized in enclosed areas for a selected audience, and others could only attend outside of the zone to follow the speech through projectors. As you may have realised, this is also a clever way to have the illusion of a big crowd, as the enclosed area seems fully packed, and there are even more viewers outside. It was the same this year. The composition of the audience was not very different, but it was clearly visible that his supporters are getting older, and there is a problem with addressing the youth.
It is worth noting, that recently (in the last few years) Orban avoided making open public appearances, especially in Budapest. Usually he addresses his own supporters only. On national holidays he tends to pick secluded countryside locations, with pre-registered loyal fans as audience, and without any opposition media. The 23th Oct event was done in a small and secluded public square of Budapest, where entry can be tightly controlled. The employees of the nationwide water utility companies, who helped to fight the Danube floods, were invited under the guise of a "family day", to serve as audience. The speech was in my opinion a disgrace to the memory of heroes. Orban criticized the victory plan of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy, and envisioned a coup d'etat orchestrated by "Bruxelles" (common reference to the EU in Orban's rhetoric, presented as a malicious entity to Hungarians) and suggesting that the "slavic armies" of Ukraine would participate in displacing the Orban regime and putting up a "puppet rule" of the new favorite of EU, referring to Peter Magyar but not mentioning him by name.
If you want to read the actual ramblings, some quotes available here but please treat it with a grain of salt.
https://hungarytoday.hu/to-be-hungarian-is-to-fight-viktor-orban-delivers-his-1956-anniversary-speech/
The celebration crowd of Tisza came from all parts of the country, typically most of them are self-organizing local activist groups, dubbed "Islands of Tisza". Magyar tends to give a good show of entertainment, this time in the spirit of remembrance to the revolutionary events and victims. The speech itself was maybe one of the most energetic and visionary I have seen from him so far. Naturally Magyar also used the opportunity for his own political agenda, but this particular event, 23th Oct, is an important part of building the identity of the national right-wing ideals and the old pre-corruption Fidesz (if there was ever one), to which Magyar tends to think back with nostalgia.
Anyway, Magyar proposed some specific measures of action to achieve if he manages to get into power, including joining the European Public Prosecutor's Office, bringing home the blocked EU funds, better wages for public servants and low earners, reduction of corruption. Also he announced the start of the selection process for parliamentary representatives.
Media coverage in English:
https://telex.hu/english/2024/10/23/magyar-what-happened-to-russkies-go-home-mr-prime-minister
Just a minor correction: the venue of Orbán’s speech, Millenáris Park is not a “public square”, rather a private property (owned and run by some state-controlled company though) that is most of the time open to the public