András Körösényi: A magyar politikai rendszer
(The Hungarian Political System). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 1998,
391 pp.
Taken from Budapesti Könyvszemle—BUKSZ, Winter 1998, pp. 472–75.
András Körösényi is a political scientist and
university lecturer. He is the author of contributions to periodicals—some
of them to highly controversial debates—as well as the author of a number
of books. His works so far have dealt primarily with political ideologies,
Hungarian political thinking today, and certain aspects of the Hungarian
political system.
Körösényi sets out to delimit the scope of this present,
summarizing book as follows: on the one hand in the Introduction, he distances
his work from semi-scholarly political journalism, and on the other he
wishes to make a break with the approach of specialist works on constitutional
law and public administration. His principal intention is to create a work
with an “expressly... political approach” (p. 11). This declaration may
seem surprising, since political science in Hungary, after experiencing
a rebirth, is now in its second decade. The newspapers publish articles
every day by political scientists, and there is no political programme
on television or radio which does not call on at least one political scientist
to represent “scholarship”. In addition, we are talking about a subject
which is now taught at every Hungarian university. So why is this distancing
necessary? Körösényi advances a number of reasons. In
a piece published in 1996 he presented a somewhat negative picture of the
approach and style of discourse of the representatives of Hungarian political
science today, and of the various pundits who claim to speak in the
name of scholarship: ”In Hungarian political thinking—and a significant
number of works on political science cannot be viewed as exceptions—concept-use
and concept-building are determined not by methodological or analytical
standards, but rather by aesthetic and stylistic considerations. Some writers
”blend“ political science with belles lettres, others with political journalism
or the literary pretensions of the nineteenth century political essay,
not to mention the literary output of political scientists and the political
journalism produced by a number of authors.”1 Körösényi’s
view at that time was that political thinking of this type was unsuited
to objective political analysis. This is not Körösényi’s
first attempt to improve the professional standard of political science
in Hungary: his book Pártok és pártrendszerek (Parties
and Party Systems (Budapest: Századvég Kiadó, 1993)
was, after the introductory-type textbooks, the first work in Hungarian
to offer a comprehensive picture of party systems in Western Europe (and
was therefore marred by a number of stylistic and editorial infelicities,
as pioneering works often are).
Körösényi’s latest book is divided into three main
structural units. In the first part (the Introduction and Chapters 1 and
2) the author lists the sociological features and conditions for the operation
of the Hungarian political system (e.g., political traditions, political
culture, composition and attitudes of the political elite). Then (in Chapters
3–8) Körösényi goes on to discuss the non-state participants
in the political system (e.g., parties, voters, interest groups, pressure
groups), and finally (in Chapters 9–14) governmental institutions in the
stricter sense of the term (e.g., government, parliament, the constitutional
court). His book, then, contains not only time-honored sections describing
institutions and the political system, but also covers themes which determine
the latent functioning of that system in an ongoing fashion, (e.g., political
culture, the exercizing of pressure)—showing that political science is
a wide field indeed. On the other hand, his presentation of the Hungarian
political system does not extend to the role local government authorities,
the media, and the judiciary have in influencing political processes—although
the author himself considers these to be important. The unexplained reason—beyond
limitations of space—is presumably that research into these aspects have
been scarce.
The structure of the book does not always seem logical. On the one
hand we can accept that the author attaches importance to, and therefore
discusses first, the traditions and the political culture that in the long
run determine the development of the Hungarian political system, as well
as talking about the composition and attitudes of the political elite which
operates the entire system (although we only learn later about the context
in which they exist). However, there seems to be no good reason why chapters
introducing the individual parties and the Hungarian party system should
precede discussion of the political fault-lines which divide society. Körösényi
states that “the political fault-lines that have evolved give structure
to the entire party system” (p. 126). For similar reasons, it would have
been better to have discussed the electoral system and Hungarian elections
before analyzing voter behavior.
An outline sketch only of a few chapters of the work, which runs to
nearly 400 pages, can be given here. A chapter in the first part of the
book deals with the political culture of Hungary. After defining the term
itself he goes on to discuss how we Hungarians generally feel about democracy
as it exists here, and, in the light of public opinion surveying, how we
view the political institutions revived or created after the changeover
and finally, how willing we are to take part in political events (elections,
rallies), and how much notice we take of politicians. Summing up empirical
research and the various surveys, the author states: Hungarian society
is fairly atomized in terms of structure (the family is the main unit,
rather than communities of different character or on a greater scale),
the sense of national identity is weak, and people tend to view the operation
of the political system that has come into being since 1989 so to speak
from the outside. They have no faith in their power to assert their interests
(political cynicism), their participation in politics can be described
as middling by international standards, and finally they are mistrustful
of, and even dissatisfied with, politicians and democratic institutions.
At the same time Körösényi emphasizes that political culture
in Hungary, despite these “negative” aspects, cannot be characterized as
“undeveloped” (the expression is hardly ideal), but can be described as
a kind of mixed political culture, in which the majority does not participate
actively, but a peculiar “stabilizing apathy”, the passivity of the citizens,
ensures the firmness of the democratic system. Naturally, the author attempts
to explain these characteristics, including the heritage of communism,
which despite a stress on ideology and politics, made people passive and
apolitical. This narrowed down and formalized the diversity of social relations
(organizational initiatives), on the other hand the slightly freer opportunities
in economic life (household plots, formal scope for semi-private enterprise
operating within state or cooperative units (GMK) and (reluctant) permissiveness
offered possibilities for the evolution of a peculiarly Hungarian dual
structure, with a dual morality and dual rules of conduct.
Generally, when defining national stereotypes, it is customary to speak
of the pessimism of Hungarians. The chapter also points out that in Hungary
the changeover occured gradually and, happily, without bloodshed. Precisely
because of this, people have not experienced the historic transformation
in an acute personal sense, with the result that they may feel that it
was the politicians, the elite groups, who created the new system, and
that they themselves were left out of the process (“negotiated revolution”,
elitist character of the transformation).
In the second part Körösényi lists the non-state participants
in the political system, and the institutions operated by them. The reader
is probably given least information on the composition and role of the
various interest groups and pressure groups. This is understandable, since
a fairly small percentage of the population belongs to an organized interest
or pressure group of any kind (e.g., trade unions, civil organizations
that are active politically too), and thus has no direct experience of
their operation. But Hungarian political science is deficient in this area
too. A good indication of this is that with the exception of the operation
of the trade unions and the major entrepreneurs’ and employers’ organizations
and their work in negotiating and promoting interests, Körösényi
discusses other organizations which represent interests (sectional organizations
based on group affiliation, communities based on a common set of values,
political movements) merely in passing. He tells us little about informal
lobbying and its influence on political decisions or pressure by the Churches
and individual economic enterprises. Of course, this is not the author’s
fault, since it is rather difficult to measure such forms of interest promotion
precisely, and they usually remain hidden from analysts (or rather, they
can only be suspected). For this reason it will require further research
to lay bare these processes (it is important to note that Körösényi
deals with lobbying separately, as a legitimate form of influence). Finally,
this section of the book looks at the direct forms of articulation of interests
and opinion. However, it is clear from the data in the tables that, when
it comes to political protests (demonstrations, petitions, hunger strikes,
etc.) and referendum initiatives, almost half were organized by the parties,
and not by various civil groups and organizations. Without exception the
truly effective and successful movements and initiatives were those which
enjoyed party support.
The third part of the book covers the basic institutions of democracy
in Hungary (parliament, government, constitutional court, the office of
the President of the Republic), showing their development, functions, and
operation. Chapter 9 gives a general presentation of the constitutional
and governmental system in Hungary, placing great stress on the distinctively
Hungarian features which differ from the picture in other countries. Körösényi
characterizes Hungary’s system of government as “limited parliamentarism”.
My greatest problem with this is the concept itself. In contrast to his
other writings, here the author neither devotes sufficient clarification
to the expression “system of government”, nor to the expression “parliamentary
government”. Körösényi uses the phrase “system of government”
in its more general sense—in other words, he employs the concept to describe
the power relations within the state structure (the influences the different
powers exert on each other in their separation) and the entire system of
institutions in the higher reaches of the state. He thus concludes that
of the three basic types (presidential, semi-presidential and parliamentary)
Hungary, on the basis of its system of government, can be described unequivocally
as a parliamentary system. However, by the 20th century, the author argues,
as a result of democratization processes the meaning of parliamentarism
in Europe (government responsible to parliament) has undergone a change,
and instead of the division or dualism of the legislature and the executive,
a fusion of the two is observable (e.g., co-operation between the government
and its majority in parliament). In this system it is the government that
is the decisive and outstanding participant in the legislature, and its
room for manoeuvre has increased (e.g., the right to dissolve Parliament,
party discipline). Compared to this, Körösényi regards
the Hungarian system as “limited”, since in Hungary, as a result of the
changeover process, a number of checks and balances have been built into
the system, which certainly restrict the operation of parliamentarism in
the “modern” sense.
The term “limited” is unfortunate. It carries a negative meaning, since
“mixed”, “traditional” and “classical” better describe the parliamentary
system in Hungary; but I think that the words “characteristically Hungarian”
also deserve consideration since, according to the author, the distinctions
lie in the relations which have developed between the branches of government
and the system of checks and balances. But, I do not fully agree with the
thinking behind the expression. Körösényi sums up the
criteria for 20th-century parliamentarism in nine points 1) Ministers are
also members of parliament; 2) The head of state and the head of the government
are two separate persons; 3) The Government is responsible to Parliament;
4) The legislature may be dissolved at any time; 5) Ministers are responsible
to Parliament; 6) Governmental dominance of the legislature; 7) Majority
decision-making; 8) Party discipline; 9) Government—Opposition dualism.
He then goes on to assert that in the case of Hungarian parliamentarism
six features apply in a fairly limited way only. The present reviewer considers
these nine points to be somewhat idealistic (probably every political system
in Europe except the British deviates from this standard in at least two
or three points). Moreover a number of points (Nos. 3 and 5; 6 and 7) refer
to more or lers similar things. Still I agree that the Hungarian system
is special despite this. Körösényi sees the reasons for
this in the compromises reached first in the changeover negotiations and
later in those arrived at by the democratically elected parties, more precisely
in the mutual mistrust between the political forces, and in the political
thinking of the transformation period (e.g., the dominance of liberal notions,
depoliticization, the desire to curb the state radically). However, I do
not regard the governmental system that has evolved in this way as a limited
one. Namely, most criteria which Körösényi lists in support
of his assertions do not limit the working of Hungarian parliamentarism
as a whole, but merely (in a narrower sense) confine the Government’s freedom
of movement within limits (except for the institution of the constructive
no confidence motion). Although it is true that in many respects the Hungarian
system is a throwback to classic (19th-century) parliamentarism, its workings
cannot be regarded as limited on account of this. Rather, additional (“modern”)
checks and balances built into the system (constitutional court, ombudsmen)
strengthen the mixed character of the governmental system. In my view the
author approaches the effectiveness of the government’s working and describes
the Hungarian system rather onesidedly.2 As far as I know Körösényi
does not use the expression “limited parliamentarism” in his earlier writings.
It is clearly to the credit of András Körösényi’s
new textbook that it is user-friendly for teachers and students. That the
text is broken up into a large number of sections is helpful. Other commendable
features are the numerous tables, information regarding specialist literature
at the end of each chapter (especially important works are listed separately
under the heading “Recommended Reading”), and the collection of key concepts
occurring in the chapter in question.
http://www.c3.hu/scripta