Laszlo Lengyel: We Need a Convincing Government, a Convincing Prime Minister
Gabor Fodor and the Free Democrats rejected the Gyurcsany package. They were right in grasping that only one sentence of this programme needed to be taken seriously: "If Parliament does not accept this programme, I will resign." The Socialist Party's leaders have now either to support Gyurcsany and his package, or they have to persuade Gyurcsany to resign from the prime minister ship, remaining party leader until the next congress. The second course of events is in the country's interest: a convincing government with a convincing prime minister.
Fodor and Gyurcsány © MTI |
The Gyurcsany package is convincing neither from a political nor from an economic point of view. A government programme has to be painstakingly worked out by a process of consensus. A government programme has to address all the key strategic challenges. A governing programme is not the same as a big tax cut package. A governing programme is a plan that outlines reforms and perspectives. A real strategic programme is not one that a party's leaders discover for the first time in a newspaper article. A programme should persuade people at home and abroad that it is something that can be implemented. Gabor Fodor is right to say that this is not a programme. It's not about whether it's good or bad - it's just not the goods.
The liberals know very well that their rejection can lead to two reactions: the Socialists and their leaders may support Gyurcsany and his package, saying they are ready to face political death on its behalf and that they will not give in to the Free Democrats' blackmail. Then, under Gyurcsany's leadership, they can continue their attempts to discredit the Free Democrats. They can buy a few Free Democrat MPs so they will vote for anything placed under their noses.
The other possibility is that the Socialist leaders change their minds, persuading their prime minister to resign, allowing him to remain party leader until the next congress, and then start coalition negotiations with the Free Democrats, accepting the latter's proposal for a government of experts that would run until 2010. Each side can take one step towards the other: the Socialists give up on the prime ministership until 2010, while the Free Democrats discuss a coalition programme which would set out the contours of a reform programme for the next two years.
The first variant would mean that the Socialists would have to quickly slice up the Free Democrats. Ferenc Gyurcsany is experienced in the necessary tactics. If the remaining Socialist voters and the Socialist MPs hate the Free Democrats enough, and if they can tar the liberals with the right brush, then they can continue as a minority government.
If they manage to attract eight or nine liberal MPs to their side, then the country will continue to slide on downwards. The other version would demand some boldness of the Socialist Party's leaders: they would have to believe they were able to deal with Gyurcsany, forcing him out of office. They would have to be persuaded that not just the party's MPs, but broader society would also accept this.
Peter Kiss's statement about a new coalition with the Free Democrats shows that the party is prepared to contemplate coalition negotiations in place of its current minority government struggles. The party's people remember well what happened when they insisted on voting for Katalin Szili as president of the republic over the Free Democrats' objections. How can they now face the budget vote with nothing but a belief in their ability to buy a few MPs, inducing them to desert their party? It's the riskiest approach possible.
Gabor Fodor wasn't making an ad hominem attack when he questioned the absence of authenticity. The Socialists have to deal with their Gyurcsany problem. There's no way of delaying this. Since the end of 2004, we have been bit-players in a drama centred on two politicians facing each other down. Orban is stuck in the world of the elder Bush, of Kohl, of Tudjman, of the 1990s. Gyurcsany is still living the days of Clinton, Blair, Schroeder and Putin.
European leaders look at one another. "The Hungarian economy? Fragile and uncertain. Still the same people? Still the same thing?
Unfortunately, yes. And will there be reforms? No. One side opposes all reform on principle, while the other started but gave up. Just those two? Nobody speaks a European? Somebody does, but..."
If Gabor Fodor, Peter Kiss, Gabor Kuncze, Ildiko Lendvai, Imre Szekeres and Istvan Szentivanyi arrange get their parties' behind them - and call on that person. Then the country will have a convincing face to show the world. People will believe in us. Otherwise History will let us go.
