I think it’s time to take a look at the European parliamentary election, stepping outside the misleading context of the Hungarian campaign, which has been hijacked by Fidesz’s false portrait of the European Union’s current challenges. Because of the incessant propaganda fueled by a practically unlimited amount of money, the average Hungarian citizen is by now convinced that the issues in the coming election are migration and the defense of Christian Europe. But if one takes a look at the recent program proposals of Manfred Weber (EPP) and Frans Timmermans (S&D), the two chief contenders for the job of presidency of the European Commission, an entirely different picture emerges.
Foreign news coverage in Hungary is often filtered through a Hungarocentric lens. For example, Magyar Hang, which reported on Manfred Weber’s 12-point program, concentrated almost exclusively on those parts of the program that directly affect Hungary–most notably, Weber’s answer to rogue states’ disregard of the rule of law. He suggests setting up a nine-person commission that would assess the rule of law in all member states. At the moment, Poland and Hungary are the likely targets, but Romania’s socialist government has also been scrutinized lately. As for the government media, it is full of articles condemning Weber’s disapproval of nationalism and populism. Otherwise, not a word about Weber’s hope for 10,000 border guards by 2022, setting up a European FBI to fight terrorism, or the television debate between Weber and Timmermans last week.
Narrow passage
The lack of coverage of the television debate was noteworthy because, in the second half of it, the two candidates had plenty to say about Fidesz and its suspension from the European People’s Party. Weber tried to defend EPP’s decision to suspend Fidesz instead of expelling the party, stressing that the “expulsion of Viktor Orbán and Fidesz is still on the table.” That didn’t satisfy Frans Timmermans, who has firmer views when it comes to the far right. He said that he would “categorically exclude working with the extreme right.”
A Timmermans presidency would herald a more determined attitude toward countries like Poland, Hungary, and Romania where the rule of law has been seriously damaged. He sees “other world powers” trying to impose their will on Europe through commercial measures. Surely, here he is thinking of China, so Viktor Orbán’s collaboration with Beijing only adds to Timmermans’ dislike of Hungary’s would-be dictator. Timmermans wants to work toward “a more sustainable Europe, based on the Circular Economy that aims at minimizing waste and making the most of existing resources,” which the Orbán government blithely ignores. He is a promoter of gender equality and wants to stop gender-based violence and sexual harassment. Again, he is at loggerheads with the present Hungarian government over these issues. The Dutch social democrat also calls for the EU to adopt a fair asylum and migration policy, based on shared responsibility and solidarity among member states, which makes him in the eyes of Fidesz “the right hand of George Soros.”
Politico’s projection for the makeup of the next European Parliament today shows 171 seats for EPP and 147 for S&D. But the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe/ALDE (97 seats) and The Greens (57 seats) have gained strength in the past few weeks. Thus, Timmermans’ presidency, supported by a coalition of socialists, liberals, and greens, is still very much alive.
Timmermans has been giving a lot of interviews lately in which there are direct and indirect references to the Hungarian and Polish situations. For example, yesterday he told the Rheinische Post that “right-wing populists pretend that there is a future in the past,” which accurately reflects the Orbán government’s attitude toward the past. He is determined to have an equitable solution to the refugee crisis based on solidarity. As he said in that interview, “One has to explain to Hungary and Poland that there will be no open borders to Austria or Germany anymore if we have to suspend the Schengen agreement because of their stubborn attitudes.”
He is hopeful, however, because he sees “a growing willingness to work together on the refugee issue, not in Hungary but in Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic.” For instance, Timmermans said that the European Commission had received a letter from Polish mayors asking to send refugees to their towns. In addition to his strong criticism of countries that refuse to work for the common good, he has some progressive ideas about fair corporate taxation and a pan-European minimum wage. None of these items in Timmermans’ program ever makes it to the Hungarian media.
It is not in the interest of Fidesz to inform the Hungarian public about the real issues being debated by the candidates because a thorough airing of their programs would reveal the emptiness of their own campaign, which has almost nothing to do with the political choices facing Europe today. The opposition, which should strive to inform the Hungarian public of what is at stake in the EU parliamentary elections, hasn’t exploited all of their admittedly limited possibilities. Having such a narrow view of European politics necessarily leads to provincialism and alienation from faraway Brussels. Generalities about “European values” are not enough. A thorough airing of the programs of the different groups of the 751-member European Parliament is badly needed. In its absence, it’s no wonder that few people bother to vote in EP elections.