The idea of America has fascinated the European imagination ever since Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean. Throughout the centuries, European thinkers from Michel de Montaigne to Jean Baudrillard and Alexis de Tocqueville have cultivated different and often contradictory images of the continent and its inhabitants. Following the foundation of the United States, America stood for the great political experiment in liberty and natural law, and served as an inspiration to many European nations. For some Europeans today, however, the U.S. has come to epitomize everything negative about modernity: rampant individualism, materialism and cultural poverty. Undoubtedly, Europe has things to learn from America, and vice versa. Professor Levine asked: What if European thinkers have never been truly interested in getting to know the real America and used it only as an ever-changing symbol to prop up their own political beliefs? What are the implications of such willful ignorance?

Read our event summary on Paprika Politik. 

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

Read the event summary on Paprika Politik!

Can we say that modern feminism has gone too far and attempt to avert its negative consequences? Or is this a fear of the unknown that holds us back on the way towards greater freedom for women?

Arguing in the affirmative were: Dr András Lánczi (Corvinus University of Budapest) and Dr Petra Aczél (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Arguing against were: Dr Andrea Pető (Central European University) and Ayse Gül Altinay (Sabanci University, Turkey)

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

DIP! events are moderated, but candid conversations in English, followed by Q&A and informal discussion with members. DIP! evenings are for CSS members only, and are held off-the-record, according to the Chatham House Rule.

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

The book is available online in Hungarian (A fejedelem) here and in English here.

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

Video archive:

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Time: 19.00

Venue: Gerbeaud Café (Vörösmarty tér 7-8)

Details: Our guest for 2012′s first DIP will be His Excellency Aly Houssam El-Din El-Hefny, Ambassador of Egypt. He will talk about questions related to Egypt’s international and regional role in Africa and the Middle East, Egyptian-Hungarian relations, the Arab Spring and its aftermath, the evolving political landscape of post-Mubarak Egypt, his professional career and personal impressions of Hungarian politics.

DIP! events are moderated, but candid conversations in English, followed by Q&A and informal discussion with members. DIP! evenings are for CSS members only, and are held off-the-record, according to the Chatham House Rule.

RSVP

Scroll down for event summary.

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

While the countries of the Eurozone are ruminating over the possibility of giving up more of their economic sovereignty to salvage the common currency, Hungary is simultaneously leading its own so-called freedom fight for greater financial independence.

The implementation of Hungary’s “unorthodox economic policies” started about one and half ago, when the freshly elected Fidesz government embarked on a path towards faster economic growth – a laudable and worthy goal. This action plan included lower general taxes without cutting government spending and a deliberately higher budget deficit. Since the latter measure was incompatible with EU regulations, Hungary changed its economic course and resorted to levy higher taxes on banks, which were perceived as punitive by many economists. Whereas this solution did indeed help to balance the budget, it undermined the government’s original goal to speed up growth. The lack of predictability and the hostile rhetoric about the financial sector have alienated future investors and discouraged banks to extend more loans.

Nonetheless, recent news seems to indicate that the government is willing to steer back the country’s policies to the economic mainstream. For example, it has expressed a will to restart negotiations with the IMF before Hungary’s economic woes worsen and rating agencies further downgrade the country. What has to be borne in mind, however, is that the prospective IMF aid is not a panacea for all financial ailments but a means to kick-start recovery. Long-term growth rests on the government’s credibility in policy matters and a business-friendly regulatory framework that does not put an unnecessary burden on entrepreneurs. In all likelihood, Hungary will have to abandon its unusual and so far unproductive economic plan, and heed the commonsensical advice of economists.

Fidesz itself has deviated from the classic precepts of conservatism in its purportedly praiseworthy and revolutionary freedom fight. Even though it has consistently employed the conservative rhetoric of personal responsibility, its policies have revealed a lack of substance. If anything, populist actions like bailing out Swiss franc mortgage holders and blaming the crisis solely on the financial sector, denying the additional culpability of the government and ordinary citizens have damaged the ethos of accountability. If Fidesz wanted to present itself as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative party, it should most likely go back to the beaten track and terminate its risky economic experimentation.

In sum, the current situation of Hungary is unusual albeit not unique. It reflects two important historical lessons: 1) economics can never be fully separated from politics and 2) politicians often need crises to re-orientate their focus from the next elections to long-term solutions.

Hopefully, officials of the current government will eventually take the criticism to heart and realize that while we all cherish freedom and independence, the substitution of common sense with revolutionary zeal could endanger both and make us more dependent than ever on the help of others.

by Zsófia Göde

Every state has the right to decide whether they wish to grant the right to vote to their citizens residing abroad. Throughout Europe, there are different responses to this problem depending on circumstances, history and the geopolitical environment. As Hungary is drawing up its new electoral system and considers offering the right to take part in parliamentary elections to Hungarians living abroad, the issue of voting rights becomes subject of heated political debates. While the political discourse focuses much on international standards an policy trends, little is heard on the morality of out of country voting. Is the extension of voting rights to Hungarians abroad a wise political decision? Does it help Hungarian-Hungarian relations? Does it hurt our bilateral ties with our neighbours?

Our two guests from Slovakia, Lucia Papayova (Anton Neuwirth Kollegium) and Ákos Melecske (Roundtable of Slovakian Hungarians) argued in affirmative and our Hungarian debaters, András László Pap (CEU) with Péter Józsa (HHRF) argued against the resolution. The resolution failed this time.

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

Event summary:

It was not long after passing the Hungarian citizenship law that the politics of Hungary and its neighboring countries came to intertwine once again around a vital issue: the possible extension of voting rights to non-resident, ethnic Hungarians, spread across the Carpathian basin and around the globe.

The strongest arguments in support of out-of-country voting are the idea of empowering the Hungarian diasporas through suffrage and the historical commitment of ethnic Hungarians to their homeland. Central-Eastern Europe is well-known for its checkered past involving redrawn borders, land swaps, population changes and the vicissitudes of minority existence. The proposed concept of out-of-country voting aims to serve as a regional, ex post facto pacifier. Those ethnic Hungarians who have remained outside the borders of Hungary have paid a high price for having been on the wrong side of history and many feel disenfranchised when it comes to Hungarian parliamentary politics.

Non-resident Hungarians are affected by the actions and legislation of the Hungarian state especially in foreign policy matters, and having a say in this process would lead to their greater empowerment as opposed to them simply being on the receiving end of frequently paternalistic measures. Even though there are non-parliamentary political forums, the debaters argued that they are ineffective. They have also argued that too much emphasis on taxation and its relationship to representation distorts the debate since it reduces politics to economics and disregards the many familial, emotional, and work ties that bind ethnic Hungarians to the Republic of Hungary.

Opponents of extended voting rights have expressed staunch support for “no representation without taxation” and has been generally wary of the possible ethnic and intra-community tensions that the extension of voting rights could bring about. Most of the issues debated and legislated in the Hungarian parliament (e.g. media law, same-sex marriage) have no bearing on the life of non-resident citizens. Even if conceded that ethnic Hungarians in some ways will always be affected by Hungarian politics, the desirability of extra-territorial voting rights is questionable. Civil society organizations, bottom-up initiatives, and EU institutions present more efficient political channels for these people. There is also the likely possibility of harming bilateral relations with Hungary’s neighbors (local politicization of the voting rights issue or the export of Hungarian domestic party politics), in addition to the very real tendency for ethnic Hungarians’ abroad to feel an increasingly political disconnect from their country of residence.

Taking a keen interest in other countries’ political life is not a sufficient reason to grant people voting rights. In this era of internet and other communication technology, it is increasingly easy to keep up with world politics; yet, the idea of expansive suffrage does not follow naturally from this technological advance. It is the sovereign right of every state to determine the nature of its voting system and exclude even groups of residents on justified grounds (e.g. minors, convicts). The proposal of the current Hungarian government has also failed to garner majority backing. According to a Medián pulic opinion poll,  support for the concept currently stands at a meager 17 percent. Furthermore, the position of ethnic Hungarians is largely unknown and they are underrepresented in this rushed decision-making process.

In short, the opposition has remained skeptical about the benefits of voting rights and argued that it would probably bring more harm than good. For the supporting side, such law would mean greater democracy and ameliorating living conditions for ethnic Hungarians in neighboring countries. In the end, all debaters managed to showcase a variety of valuable arguments and prove that emotionally-charged topics like this can be tackled with respect and reasoned arguments.

Summary by Zsófia Göde

Scroll down for event summary!

Here a SimpleViewer Flash gallery should be displayed. Click here to open the post in your browser to see the gallery.

Roma integration has been a hot topic for several years not only in Hungary but also in the wider Central-Eastern Europe region (e.g. Czech Republic, Bulgaria). Recently there have also been reported incidents of anti-Roma violence, which have exposed the gravity of the issue of social  integration (or rather the lack of thereof).

There is a universal moral aspect to building truly equal societies, however, it is an economic and political necessity as well. Common sense dictates that integrating large chunks of “missing” workforce would boost the regional economies. According to some studies it could mean a significant 3-5 per cent growth in terms of GDP. The political need for integration is borne out by negative examples of internecine, ethnic violence such as the genocide in Rwanda or the Yugoslavian Wars. These bad memories all point to the fact that the unity of the body politic depends on the recognition and representation of minorities on a state level. In theory, there is no universally accepted detailed definition of minorities under international law, which makes this process increasingly difficult. In practice, minorities are usually understood as non-dominant elements in the societal power structure and dealt with accordingly.

There are different dimensions of integration from local and national to intergovernmental and supranational levels. An example of the latter is the newly adopted EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (henceforth: European Roma Strategy). The document stipulates that all 27 member states are to devise their own national frameworks for Roma integration by 2012, when it will be evaluated and later monitored by the European Commission and the European Council. The member states are also obligated to name their policy representatives. The European Roma Strategy, however, is more of a tool than a solution in itself. It encourages countries to act but the EU has no means to sanction the lack of political will, not even by threatening to withdraw certain funds.

On the national level, the focus should move beyond the discussion of rights to real opportunities for self-realization. Take the issue of schooling. Roma children are often discouraged to attend school because of ongoing verbal and physical harassment, from which their parents try to protect them. They may even grow up in an environment where education is not linked to upward social mobility and there are no positive role models who have managed to break the cycle of poverty. Empowerment and the idea of “giving back to the community” are the best recipes for lasting solutions. Even in the case of top-down policy initiatives, Roma people must identify with the strategies as a prerequisite for success.

Ultimately, the responsibility for integration lies more with the majority since they hold the overwhelming political, financial and media power that can be exercised. Yet integration is still a two-way street and Roma people are also responsible for fostering greater community cohesion and the ethic of self-help. The majority society has a moral obligation to mingle with minority groups and not to form strong opinions without first-hand experience. Political correctness can be a useful tool to keep debates respectful and to check hateful language with the added caveat that it should not threaten freedom of speech.

Whether there is real potential for change, has yet to be seen. The fate of the European Roma Strategy will not be decided until 2012 and even then it can take years for programs to exert a visible effect. Political will is a precarious construct and only the future will tell the true intentions of the governments in Central-Eastern Europe.

Summary by Zsófia Göde