Orban as a successor to Imredy and Gombos?
Sandor Revesz is perhaps the first left-wing columnist to attempt to define "political correctness" in today's Hungarian media. But the day after his article on the issue was published, Revesz's own paper, Nepszabadsag, published a piece which contradicts his definition of "contemporary Hungarian PC." The article in question was Jozsef Debreczeni's on "Horthy and Orban."
Motif: those who find "pc" annoying |
Revesz's article tries to distinguish between "politically correct and incorrect styles of speaking." The dilemma in question still revolves around anti-semitism in a Hungarian context. In contemporary Hungarian, "zsidozas" (making negative comments about Jews) is the province of anti-semites. But it is also, at least in common parlance, something done by people who talk at length about Jewishness, who air views about the holocaust, who write books about the subject, whatever their position. (There are, for example, according to some critics, writers who carry out 'zsidozas', because they discuss relations between Jews and non-Jews and express opinions about the tension in this relationship).
It is striking that Revesz links the idea of political correctness to the public expression of anti-semitic and racist prejudices. But the term, as it was born in the US in the 1970s and 1980s, had nothing to do with Jewishness. Ruth Perry, the media sociologist, says the term first appears in Mao's Little Red Book, from where it was adopted by the American Right and used to criticise the Left. It then changed its meaning, as a common understanding developed between radical civil rights activists and feminist groups that the media should use "neutral" - or politically correct terms instead of pejorative words.
The word black was replaced with African-American, and a new meaning was found for the word gay, and attempts were made to emphasise in language that certain occupations were open to both men and women, leading to formulations like spokesperson.
In Hungary, discourse on political correctness is linked to the Horthy era, to the Jewish Laws and the Holocaust, despite the fact that 18 years have passed since the first free elections. There have been five elections since then, and only in 1998 did an anti-semitic, anti-globalisation party enter parliament. It only just crossed the 5 per cent threshold, and the right-wing government did not take the party into the coalition. That party dropped out of parliament in 2002. These electoral results, like other events, do not prove that anti-semitism is a greater danger in Hungary than in any other country.
On the right, and especially on the far right, the media is blamed for Hungary's failure to deal with the integration of gypsies - the media had been too politically correct, it is said. The claim is too absurd to contend with. But I agree with Revesz when he says "the idea behind politically correct speech styles was discredited when it was linked to external, formal demands that were independent of practical action."
My belief is that the cause of gypsy integration can only be advanced by promoting economic growth and creating jobs. Political correctness is not enough on its own, and the existing culture of benefits won't take us far either. But where do the Magyar Garda's appearances in gypsy settlements take us?
In his article, Debreczeni Viktor Orban's statements since 2002 as a guide to the kind of government he expects to see if Fidesz returns to power following the 2010 elections. His feverish fantasies depict parallels between Orban and Gombos, the promoter of racial purity, and Bela Imredy, the war criminal. To this day, these two politicians are associated with an admiration for Mussolini, the visit to Hitler and the passing of the second Jewish Laws.
It is well known that politicians often phrase things ambiguously in public, to make sure their words are not later used to attack them and to appeal to the largest number of people possible. Viktor Orban was doing no different when he examined the relationship between parliamentarism and democracy to establish the extent to which a legitimate referendum can influence a government's policy.
But is it politically correct to twist somebody's words to evoke a collective tragedy of 70 years ago, the Holocaust, and the Hungarian policies that contributed to it, and then push all that onto the head of the leader of today's Hungarian opposition? Revesz is right when he says that our assessment of Imre Nagy, who was executed 50 years ago, cannot be influenced by the fact that his notes make comments about "Rakosi's Jewish clique," which was "alien to the nation." But acts, not words count for politicians. Viktor Orban and his party can be judged on the basis of his acts in government between 1998 and 2002.
What they say is secondary to this. The Socialist Party's and Ferenc Gyurcsany's reputation are based on its and his achievements over the two parliamentary cycles that have elapsed since 2002, and not on the basis of biased columns in newspapers.
It's worth remembering what Bela Imredy is supposed to have said when he was taken to the banks of the Danube in February 1946 to look at the ruins of the Chain Bridge. "The pillars are still standing," said the politician, who had once been regarded as a talented economist.
Sadly, no more can be said of the relationship between today's Hungarian democracy and a public that still cannot abandon its double standards.
János Pelle
