I’m in an optimistic mood today, and therefore I chose two topics that offer hope for a more equitable political arrangement at home and a more closely integrated European Union.
The first topic is a look at the results of the Hungarian EP elections with a view to assessing the opposition parties’ chances at the municipal elections, to be held sometime in October. Although Fidesz won the election with 52.5% of the votes, the opposition parties, especially if they coordinate their efforts, have a good chance of winning in many municipalities. Here I am grateful to András Bódis of Válasz Online, who compiled a “super analysis” of the results and concluded that in a large number of towns with populations over 10,000 Fidesz will have stiff competition from a joint opposition. These results surprised me because one almost never encounters the aggregated numbers broken down by localities.
Bódis views this election, which was based on party lists, as an opinion poll with a very large sample. Admittedly, Bódis looked only at localities with populations of 10,000 or more, where a greater percentage of people vote for opposition parties than in smaller towns and especially in villages. There clientelism completely distorts electoral results, as Isabela Mares and Lauren Young’s article, “Varieties of Clientelism in Hungarian Elections,” which appeared in Comparative Politics, amply demonstrated. In any case, Bódis found that in two-thirds (111) of these 167 towns Fidesz didn’t reach its overall 52.5% in the EP election. So, Fidesz can feel safe in only 56 towns; in the other 111 its position is vulnerable if cooperation between the parties is maintained and if the parties choose their candidates wisely. As one would expect, the larger the municipality the greater the odds that opposition parties could win. Of the 79 cities with populations over 20,000, a united opposition would have a chance of winning the election in 68.
This is a heartwarming result because such a widespread victory by opposition politicians in towns that have been dominated by Fidesz ever since 2006 would stimulate political activity in areas where until now very little was happening. It would give the opposition a base on which to build for the next national election.
Now let’s move over to the larger European picture. I don’t think that commentators on the European Parliamentary election emphasized enough the large turnout, which was a welcome development. In 1979, when the first such election took place, 62% of eligible voters participated. Since then, fewer and fewer people bothered to vote. 2014 was the low point, with only 43% of the eligible voters going to the polls. This year the participation rate rose sharply. Not counting the United Kingdom, 53% of the electorate voted, which is the highest turnout in 20 years.
According to most commentators, the key factor sparking greater participation was the rise of the populist parties, but Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, also adds the “specter of Brexit” as an incentive for greater support of and confidence in the institutions of the European Union. Public opinion polls have been indicating that in many countries the population has more trust in the EU than in their own governments. Moreover, especially with today’s erratic U.S. foreign policy, the recognition is growing that only a strong, united Europe can stand up for the interests of the member states against such monolithic powers as the United States and China. That recognition, I believe, will accelerate integration.
It is a lonely place out there, all alone
George Soros focused on the substantially larger election turnout in his latest article, which appeared in Project Syndicate a few days ago. This indicates to him that “Europe’s silent majority” spoke out, wanting to have a radical reform of the European Union. First on his list is the reform of the Spitzenkandidat system, which is in its present form vigorously supported by Germany. Not surprisingly, Soros is not a backer of Manfred Weber, and he is not keen on Jens Weidman, Germany’s second choice, either. He seems to indicate that if he had a say, he would prefer Emmanuel Macron’s solution, since he “doesn’t feel bound at all by the principle of the Spitzenkandidat.”
Jean Pisani-Ferry, a French economist who has a regular column in Project Syndicate, interprets the election results as a sign that Europeans are ready for a more “political Europe.” A more political Europe would mean that additional political prerogatives would be taken away from the member states, which naturally the national governments resist. However, given the political will expressed at the EP election, with the growth in the number of liberals and greens in the European parliament, change might be on the way. The European Union has “to deliver what citizens rightly regard as European common goods, or it will have lost relevance and legitimacy.” He is thinking here, among other things, about a common policy on climate change.
Integration is the only way to salvage the values the European Union has articulated and defended in the last few decades. They cannot be wasted because of recalcitrant national governments, especially those whose leaders are willing to sacrifice their own country’s interests for their personal ambitions. Only strong political will from the center can stop politicians like Viktor Orbán and Matteo Salvini from ruining the work of those wise men who after the war realized that without national reconciliation there is no future for Europe.