Tag Archives: Tamás Lattmann

MSZP is grasping at straws as its support plummets

At 1:00 p.m. today HVG published Medián’s latest opinion poll on the state of Hungarian party politics and the popularity of politicians. The message MSZP’s leadership received was shocking. For the first time in 25 years, MSZP’s support among determined voters sank below 10%. At 3:45 p.m. Gyula Molnár, MSZP chairman, released a short communiqué on the party’s website: “MSZP’s offer is still alive.” In it, Molnár called attention to the Závecz Research Institute’s quick poll showing popular support for the party’s “generous offer,” after which the following sentence was tacked on: “If all six parties outside MSZP find the person of Ferenc Gyurcsány acceptable on the list, then we are certainly open to negotiations concerning the issue.” Well, that didn’t take long.

After László Botka’s eight months of activity that has only damaged the party, it seems that some forces wouldn’t mind his retirement to Szeged. The interview last night with Tamás Lattmann on ATV’s Egyenes beszéd might point to such a turn of events. Originally, Lattmann was invited as a legal expert on international law to discuss Hungary’s rather belligerent attitude toward Ukraine and this position’s legal ramifications. But it seems that Lattmann had other things on his mind. He apparently indicated before the show that he would like to talk about something else. And that something was hot stuff.

You may recall that at the end of January Lattmann announced his candidacy for the premiership as a non-party candidate, representing civil society. At that point there was no officially declared candidate, and Lattmann believed that a non-party person might be able to expedite negotiations among the left-of-center parties. He also hoped that he could open the door that at the moment divides parties and civil society. But then came László Botka, and Lattmann’s name disappeared from the news.

Lattmann in the interview on Egyenes beszéd claimed that by December of last year there was political agreement among four parties–MSZP, DK, Együtt, and Párbeszéd–which included a joint candidacy for the post of prime minister. He would have been the candidate. But then came László Botka, and the promising negotiations came to a screeching halt. Lattmann’s story about the successful negotiations is not new. We have heard Ferenc Gyurcsány and Lajos Bokros talk about them innumerable times. But that these parties were thinking of an outsider as the candidate for the post of prime minister is certainly new.

Tamás Lattmann

Lattmann gave details. He had negotiations concerning his candidacy with Gyula Molnár, MSZP chairman, Bertalan Tóth, head of MSZP’s parliamentary faction, István Hiller, head of the top party leaders, and Zsolt Molnár, an important party leader, especially in Budapest politics. Lattmann also had talks with DK. As for the anti-Gyurcsány strategy, Lattmann claims, that was Botka’s contribution to MSZP’s policy. Prior to his arrival on the scene, by December, an MSZP-DK understanding was a done deal, including Gyurcsány’s presence on a common party list.

How did the parties in question react to Lattmann’s revelations? According to the communiqué published today by the Demokratikus Koalíció:

During the fall of last year the party’s leaders received a position paper (tájékoztatás) that the leaders of MSZP are conducting negotiations with Tamás Lattmann about his candidacy for the post of prime minister. According to the position paper, the candidate had the backing of the chairman, the head of the parliamentary delegation, and the chairman of the board. MSZP asked DK to meet with Tamás Lattmann for an introductory visit. Accordingly, Csaba Molnár, managing deputy chairman, who was leading the negotiations with the other parties, had a meeting with Tamás Lattmann. The managing deputy chairman informed the presidium of DK of the meeting in detail, and it was decided to be open to the nomination. The presidium accordingly authorized Csaba Molnár to continue talks with the candidate. However, no second meeting was held because MSZP, changing its former position, nominated László Botka as the party’s candidate.

In brief, Demokratikus Koalíció corroborated Lattmann’s recollection of his negotiations with the MSZP leaders. Yet the MSZP politicians mentioned by Lattmann and reaffirmed by DK’s communiqué today outright denied any such negotiations. According to Gyula Molnár, “there is a serious misunderstanding” on the part of Tamás Lattmann, who doesn’t seem to understand the Hungarian language. There were only talks about “policy cooperation” (szakpoliltikai együttműködés). Accusing a university professor of international law of not knowing the Hungarian language is quite a charge.

Today Gyula Molnár, István Hiller, and Bertalan Tóth published a communiqué in which they repeated that Lattmann was mistaken. “It is a fact that can be checked by anybody, since no party organ dealt with the issue and therefore no decision was made.” You may have noticed that Zsolt Molnár, the fourth person Lattmann claimed he talked with, was not among the signatories. He is the one who about a month ago wrote an article about the desirability of stopping the anti-Gyurcsány campaign. In any case, the joint communiqué is no more than typical socialist double-talk. Yes, the issue didn’t get to any decision-making body, but the candidate had “the backing” of the three top party officials who asked DK to take a look at him.

Now let’s move on to MSZP’s second “generous offer.” This time MSZP expressed its willingness to negotiate about Gyurcsány’s inclusion on the list as long as all the other parties are ready to sit down and talk about it. But, as Zoom rightly pointed out, “this is an offer without any stake” because we know that all the other parties already said no to the first “generous offer.” A typical MSZP move, I’m afraid. The offer is meaningless.

Meanwhile something funny happened on the right. The government media suddenly became a great admirer of László Botka, who was thrown overboard by his heartless comrades. Origo’s headline reads: “They kicked Botka in the teeth.” In the article Origo came up with one possible scenario behind the scenes in socialist circles. According to the article, the Molnár-Hiller-Tóth-Molnár team wanted to stop the nomination of Botka already in January, but “at that point they were unable to accomplish their plan.” However, in the last few weeks, Botka couldn’t work on the campaign with full energy because of the constant party intrigues against him, and therefore he is more vulnerable to the intrigues of the Molnár-Hiller-Tóth-Molnár team. Finding one of Fidesz’s own papers standing up for a poor downtrodden MSZP candidate is really amusing. Magyar Idők is not happy with MSZP’s “entirely new direction” as opposed to the “categorical rejection” of Gyurcsány. “We could also say that Gyurcsány, like the fairy-tale wolf, put his foot into MSZP’s cottage. How will this tale end?”

Of course, we don’t know the end of the tale (although I doubt that MSZP will live happily ever after), but today Tamás Lattmann said in an interview with Reflector that under these new circumstances he would no longer be a viable candidate. But he considers Bernadett Szél “a perfectly qualified candidate to become prime minister,” although he is not an LMP supporter. So, this is where we stand at the moment, but who knows what tomorrow will bring.

September 27, 2017

The new media landscape: Magyar Nemzet versus Napi Gazdaság

Back in 2010 I devoted a post to a comparison of the domestic news reporting of two Hungarian dailies: Magyar Nemzet, then a government mouthpiece, and Népszabadság, a paper close to the Magyar Szocialista Párt (MSZP). All the articles appeared on the same day, and the results were startling. As I said then, “Two papers, two worlds.” Nowadays, when the print and online Hungarian media world is in turmoil, I thought it might be useful to take a look at the contents of the new Magyar Nemzet and the paper that took its ideological place, Napi Gazdaság.

In 2010 the most obvious difference between the two newspapers was which news items the editors picked from the offerings of MTI, the Hungarian news agency. Magyar Nemzet neglected to report on news that was unfavorable to the government while it picked up items of perhaps lesser importance if they showed the Orbán government in a good light. Népszabadság, on the whole, covered the events of the day more accurately, but there was a tendency to overemphasize matters that reflected badly on the government.

napi gazdasag2

Fast forward to 2015. Let’s start with Napi Gazdaság. If you recall, Viktor Orbán in his interview claimed that the reason for his government’s problem is the loss of the media that in the past explained the policies of his administration and directed public opinion “appropriately.” Looking at today’s Napi Gazdaság, one finds at least one article that aims to explain the government’s position on what it considers to be an important issue: the objections of the European Commission to certain provisions of the law on the use of agricultural lands, something I wrote about yesterday. Although other papers, including Magyar Nemzet and Népszabadság, didn’t consider the announcement of the chairman of the parliamentary commission on agricultural matters concerning the issue important enough to cover, Napi Gazdaság found it newsworthy. The message the paper wants to convey is that “the Hungarian law doesn’t contain anything that cannot be found in some other, older member states,” and therefore the Hungarian government finds the EU objections discriminatory.

There is another important task Napi Gazdaság must perform–anti-Gyurcsány propaganda. Although the news that Ferenc Gyurcsány’s consulting firm received the job of supervising an international team to improve the quality of decisions on contracts subsidized by the EU is old, Napi Gazdaság decided to include an article on the opinion of Ildikó Pelcz (née Gáll), who thinks that “the case is still full of question marks.” For good measure, the paper ran an editorial titled “Pinocchio.” The editorial combats Ferenc Gyurcsány’s newly announced program on utility prices. More than half of the editorial is designed to show the superiority of the government’s earlier decreases in utility prices over Gyurcsány’s suggestions.

One must always keep alive anti-communism, even if it takes some ingenuity to find a reason for talking about it. Gergely Gulyás made a speech at a conference held in the parliament building in which he called attention to the sufferings of the people on “this side of the iron curtain.” He also charged that “no one ever asked for forgiveness for the sins of communism” but immediately added that “those who maintained that regime can never be forgiven.”

A good government paper must also include some cheerful news, which is hard to come by of late. Therefore, a misleading headline always comes in handy. For example, one of the articles claims that “85% of Hungarian youth believe that they will be successful in life.” The other results of the survey, however, are not so rosy. That these young people believe that “to be successful one needs connections” should make readers wonder about the true state of affairs in Hungary when it comes to job opportunities. Or that over 40% of them would like to work abroad. On the other hand, we ought to rejoice at learning that the Raoul Wallenberg School, after so much tribulation, will be able to move, although “the final decision” will be reached by Zoltán Balog only at the end of May. But then why the announcement now? 

And finally, one ought to hit the opposition hard and, if possible, accuse them of dishonesty and possible fraud. Ferenc Papcsák, former mayor of Zugló, accuses the new administration of Gergely Karácsony of PM (who was supported by all the democratic opposition parties) of wasting the 2.5 billion forints he left behind. According to him, the salaries of employees haven’t been paid, certain projects had to be shelved, and the local paper, for the first time in 19 years, cannot appear because of a lack of funds.

There are several important pieces of news that Napi Gazdaság simply ignores. One is that Béla Turi-Kovács, a Fidesz member of parliament, is turning in a request to re-examine the abandonment of the M4 project. Turi-Kovács began his political career in the Smallholders party and served as minister of the environment in the first Orbán government between 2000 and 2002. This piece of news was reported by Magyar Nemzet, but the abandoned M4 is not something that should be talked about in a government paper.

The other significant news of the day that Napi Gazdaság failed to report on is that the head of Lombard Kézizálog Zrt., a financial institution that went bankrupt back in April, was arrested. Eight banks suffered a loss of about four billion forints. Perhaps even more interesting is another piece of news, this time about Lombard Lízing Zrt., a company being sued by a former customer who received a loan of 3.5 million forints in Swiss francs. Without going into the very complicated details of the case, the Hungarian National Bank and the government are siding with Lombard Lízing Zrt. against the customer. Fidesz seems to be so interested in the case that a Fidesz member of parliament between 2010 and 2014 will represent Lombard in the suit. That piece of news was discussed in a lengthy article in Magyar Nemzet but not in Napi Gazdaság.

Another topic that Magyar Nemzet, like other dailies, spends time on is the question of capital punishment. After all, there will be a discussion of Viktor Orbán’s reference to the death penalty tomorrow in the European Parliament. Magyar Nemzet actually has two interviews on the subject. One with Tamás Lattmann, a professor of international law, and another with Dóra Duró of Jobbik. Lattmann explains that no referendum can be held on the subject, while Duró tells about a debate within the party. The interviews were conducted by Lánchíd Rádió, another Simicska concern.

It is again not surprising that news that the association of history teachers and historians called on the government to condemn the 1915 genocide of Armenians did not appear in Napi Gazdaság. On the other hand, Magyar Nemzet is sympathetic to the cause of the Armenians, and the paper had a number of articles on the subject in the middle of April. Napi Gazdaság would never report on the historians’ request because, first of all, the historians involved are not exactly favorites of this government. Second, the Orbán government has exceedingly good relations with Turkey. Finally, Armenia broke off diplomatic relations with Hungary after the Orbán government sent an Azeri national who murdered an Armenian in Hungary back to Kazakhstan as a friendly gesture to the Azeri dictator.

Magyar Nemzet nowadays provides space for opposition members to express their views. For example, in today’s paper they reported on the opinion of Bernadett Szél, an LMP member of parliament, that the taxpayers will be responsible for the cost of taking care of atomic waste that will accrue at Paks.

The latest news about Vladimir Putin’s remarks on Hungary’s economic interest and the Paks II nuclear power plant naturally appeared in both papers. But there is an important difference. The Magyar Nemzet article consists of four sentences. It is restricted to the bare facts. Napi Gazdaság, on the other hand, spends considerable time on the issue, adding details about the size and the nature of the Russian loan.

Magyar Nemzet can no longer be considered a “government mouthpiece.” That role was taken over by Napi Gazdaság. The question is whether the new Magyar Nemzet will be able to retain its readership. Moreover, for the last month or so, we’ve heard about more and more Magyar Nemzet employees abandoning the paper and joining Napi Gazdaság. I assume they are offered higher salaries. And most likely the journalists who switch believe they will have better job security since the future of Napi Gazdaság, given its favored position, is assured, at least for three more years, while this might not be the case with Magyar Nemzet.

Rally for the New Republic,    March 15, 2015

While the crowd that gathered to hear the speech of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was somewhat smaller than in the past, an opposition rally that took place in the afternoon was much larger than expected. The occasion was the 167th anniversary of the birth of the first Hungarian government in the modern sense of the word.

Although there have been many anti-government demonstrations in the past six months, none was as large as the one against the planned introduction of an internet tax, which frightened the Fidesz-KDNP government into retreat. Since then the number of people who were ready to face the elements has steadily decreased. But with rising temperatures and the prospect of spring, people’s readiness to publicly express their dissatisfaction with the present regime also revived.

By now, reporters hate to guess at the size of crowds. Most newspapers, when the crowd is really large, talk about “thousands.” Well, the crowd was indeed in the thousands. People filled up Rákóczi út between the Astoria Hotel and the Hospital of St. Roch (Rókus kórház).

Uj koztarsasag2

There are at least three reasons why this latest rally was more successful than some of the others. First, the organizers were experienced. Balázs Gulyás, formerly a member of MSZP, led the anti-internet tax rally. Zoltán Vajda, a political novice who seems to be a natural talent, organized a large demonstration in the name of those 60,000 people who, despite government pressure, kept their savings in private accounts after the Orbán government nationalized the savings of about 3 million people. Vajda decided to act when it became evident that the government, always in need of money, was planning to nationalize the accounts that remained in private hands. The third person who joined them was Tamás Lattmann, an associate professor of international law. All three are responsible people, not self-appointed rebels with confused political ideas. They are confirmed democrats who, unlike some young critics of the Orbán government, acknowledge the positive political developments that occurred between 1990 and 2010.

The second reason for the success of this rally was that the organizers know full well that no parliamentary democracy can exist without parties. So, while some of the other organizers practically forbade parties to advertise their presence, the Gulyás-Vajda-Lattmann leadership had no objection to party members appearing with flags and other objects identifying their party affiliation. There were plenty of party logos–with the notable exception of MSZP, which is doing a capital job of burying its brand.

The third reason for the demonstration’s success was a good program. Lajos Parti Nagy, the poet/writer who received the Kossuth Prize in 2007, gave a speech that should be translated one day because it was perhaps the most eloquent and hardest hitting critique of the Orbán regime I have ever heard. The masters of ceremony were two famous actors: János Kulka (winner of the Kossuth and Mari Jászai Prizes) and Andrea Fullajtár (winner of the Mari Jászai Prize).

The surprise of the event was a list of proposals for referendums on nineteen different topics. The three organizers who put together the list of questions for referendums kept their plans secret because, as it stands, if someone turns in an utterly bogus request for a referendum no decision can be reached on any subsequent request on the same topic. For example, DK’s petition for a referendum on Sunday closings is still awaiting a decision because a bogus request was turned in for the sole purpose of postponing or preventing a referendum on the question.

The precise formulation of these referendum questions is important, and for now I can’t provide an accurate translation. So let me just say a few words about my impressions. The questions are grouped into fifteen categories, of which two seem to have received the greatest emphasis: the transparency of politicians’ financial affairs and the right of citizens to know exactly how much money they have in their pension funds. Some of the proposed referendum questions are important, others less so. In any case, the list of questions was turned in and we’ll see what happens. The Orbán government changed the law on referendums to ensure that they will be rare occurrences.

Experts are split on the referendum questions. Some old-timers think that the proposals are naive and are sorry that they were not consulted ahead of time to express their misgivings. Others say that at least the organizers laid down a list of demands because it is not enough to say “Orbán, buzz off!” Later people can add or subtract from this list of demands. This attempt might not be the best, but it is something, they argue. At least people can think about specific ideas and can decide what else they would like to add or change. If nothing else, it will start a public dialogue. At least this is the hope.