Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

Just to clear up some things about my homeland. So not everyone will be influenced too much by what (s)he hears in his/her country news.

Everyone can have a viewpoint on a matter, but if you don't live in the place in question, it's hard to form an own firm viewpoint without *news*. And what if the *news* you hear in your country seem to represent mostly one viewpoint...
...and that is what happens in Europe and in the USA about Hungary regarding the new media law.

There is no "putinization" in Hungary.

What is the difference between a dictator and a democratic leader who decides everything? (You might say Putin is not a dictator; but the Hungarian Prime Minister was called a dictator and my country was called a Führerstaat lately...) A dictator got and keeps his power by force. There is no such thing in Hungary.
The 2/3 majority of voters voted for our governing party. The opposition accepted it too, it was a fair election.

Quoting the linked Washington Post article (Fidesz is the governing party):

Take over the authority? Attacking? Central bank under assault? Excuse me! Where is taking over, attacking and assaulting here? Does the leader party use force or break the constitution or any law? No. They use ONLY their power according to parliamentary standards. In other words: the Parliament -- AS IN MOST DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES -- votes about laws. Does the leading party have 2/3 of votes? Yes. This is what the voters authorized it when voting for it during the election.

One could say: yes, but the law they make is against human freedom rights, freedom of speech etc. Excuse me?! Tell me concretely what parts of the law are exactly problematic. The press and media is full with attacks against Hungarian government, but they DO NOT SAY which parts exactly are problematic in the law. Just that it puts the members of the leading party to the high positions etc. And? They have 2/3 majority (which exists in very few democratic countries of the world), which allows them to vote laws in the Parliament.

A few thoughts (as a side note) about our prime minister, Victor Orban: he was a PM between 1998 and 2002 as well. During these years, he successfully decreased national debt of the country, and improved the economy of the country. These are facts. Moreover, he is a vice president of the biggest party in the European Parliament (European People's Party). He is not a dictator. About the new media law: yes, it's strict. Come to Hungary and see what you can watch if you turn on television most of the time. Lot of things that are not for children to see, I can assure you.

So why the great outcry about the media law? Even governments of other countries tend to attack it. It's about capital. Orban touched things that were supposed to be untouchable: banks, telecom sector, capital. This affected large countries (e.g. Germany), because multionational companies (who now need to pay special taxes) are from these big countries. He touched banks (needless to say, it was 100% the decision of the Parliament).

To summarize: there is nothing terrible and freedom-right-violating about the new (and admittedly strict) media law, and it doesn't "endanger plurality" in media. But Orban touched the untouchable: banks and other companies with lobbies that reach even the government of big countries such as Germany.

So when you hear news about the arising "dictatorship" in Hungary, you can take into account what you heard above from me. Also consider that there wasn't a similar international outcry *at all* when the Slovak Republic approved a law to discriminate minority languages (Slovakia is also a Central-European country, neighbour of Hungary.) Also, a girl called Hedvig Malina was beaten because she spoke her native language instead of Slovak and then the Slovak police and secret service manipulated the whole issue (you can find a lot of google matches about this, but here is the letter of Tom Lantos from USA to the prime minister of Slovakia). I do ask, WHERE WAS the international outcry this time? When an innocent girl is humiliated and framed by the government and police of an European Union member country? Maybe because the big banks, multionational companies, etc. did not lose any benefits from it?! You can decide it for yourself.

Money above everything. I appreciated USA's refrained viewpoint until now (the article of Washington Post was the first criticism I noticed), because to me, it looks like Europe is very often about hipocrisy.

Money and capital above all.

 

It's an editorial and not really a news piece, and not an especially well written one either. It also seems to lack sources and I'm not sure who actually wrote the piece. All I can say is that it appears to be more of a rant than anything else. I can certainly understand why you would find it puzzling, or even offensive. Most editorials written in the US media are intended to be such, that is, outside of the intended target, which is usually the "echo chamber" for one side or another. Think of it as propaganda, or "talking points," which is the new, "improved," term that is used for propaganda these days.

 

Thank you for your clarification. I did not know the facts you've told. Our press refers to these international sources (including this Washington Post article) as major, central viewpoints, implying they're representing the approach of the country in question (in this case, USA).

I do not say, by the way, that there shouldn't be criticism for a new law, especially this one. Just the size and extent of this general international outcry is simply a huge overkill. Which raises the question what deeper motivations are behind it.

Most of us Hungarians are happy that now at least someone starts to care about what our children can watch in the television during daytime, because sometimes it is just unacceptable.

 

Exactly. And that was the same question I was asking myself as well. But if it was a feature article instead of an editorial I would have taken it more seriously.

 

Only by merit of having been enacted in a parliamentarian process doesn't make laws constitutional. They have content, too; it's not just about proper constitutional procedure.

I will: The new Hungarian press law is written so broadly that it would be unconstitutional in my country.

The law regulates all media content - broadcast, print and online - based on identical principles, which runs against OSCE standards on free media. It also gives unusually broad powers to the recently established media authority and media council, which are led exclusively by members supported by the governing party.

The law leaves numerous key terms undefined, such as the protection of public order, which, if violated, requires journalists to reveal their sources. And what exactly is 'unbalanced', legally? Spelling out bad things (like corruption) while failing to point out the other side of the story (the flip side of corruption, so to say)? It has a provision of the law that requires all media - broadcast, print and online - to be registered with the media authority; violations of many kinds, including unbalanced coverage, would be punishable by very high fines. That they are being imposed by a council and not by the government proper is secondary, since the council is led exclusively by members supported by the governing party.

It means the law gives state representatives free and mandatory ad space for the government point of view with all media. In my country mandatory counterpoints are imposed on media only after successful defamation lawsuits through court order. Under the new Hungarian law they are required generally, and by administrative fiat? Interesting. The broad scope of the law also means that to be safe and avoid being fined you'd probably need to register a private blog if it includes political commentary.

And then this licensing - plenty of partisan mischief can be done through that alone. Let me be creative, the obvious one first: What does a license cost? Or one could for instance deny or delay licenses to outlets one doesn't like, and/or make the procedures as hasslesome and bureaucratic as possible, while blaming the opposition for just nor getting the paperwork right. Or one can keep the licensing team understaffed so that it just can't handle (opposition) license requests in time, which would probably mean that until the license is issued, the media outlet has to cease operation, after all, they need a license to operate under the law, lest they want to risk the aforementioned fines. It just can't be helped then ... I have yet to see safeguards against any of that mischief in the law. They aren't there.

It means that, with terms like 'endangering public order' left undefined, if someone feels like it, he can say that something he doesn't like endangers public order - say by writing about and thereby making people angry about something (say, illegal) someone in power did, leading to (justified) protests - and that the allows for cracking down on the source of criticism, maybe silence, perhaps forever, it by depriving it of its cash flow through the imposition of a high fine, suspension or revocation of the license - all of which are quite destructive and chilling prospects for any media outlets. Even if the measure doesn't hold up in court, the damage is done and may well be fatal. I have serious concerns about legal recourse against decisions of that media oversight council.

If one puts his mind to it, such a law can be a potent tool for legal repression. There's an open invitation to arbitrariness, excess and abuse is built in in that law, if we benevolently assume for the sake of argument that abuse is not the sole point of the law anyway. What can be done will be done - the powers in the law will be used. That, and the very real prospect of severe sanctions, have chilling effect and adversely impacts freedom of press; they will result in self-censorship. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press my ass ... Here in Hungary I am totally free to broadcast, print and write on my blog whatever I want, I just currently cannot afford getting a license to do so, and when I say how much the government sucks and is corrupt, a ruling party appointed minder will take care I balance my criticism by giving them the opportunity to say how awesome they are (if I am to avoid a fine, that is)! .... riiiiight.

The criticism is reasonable and perfectly justified. Period.

 

Indeed they have content. But as in every country, the content is specific to that country's traditions and culture; there is no totally "general", universal law. Yes, there is guidelines which are accepted internationally etc., but a democratic country has a big freedom when applying these guidelines. (Think of the state-specific laws of the United States. How great differences there are! Some things that are a crime in one state are not sanctioned in another at all.) Only the PROCESS of applying a new law can truly tell how that law works IN PRACTICE in the country. A law gets its true significance when applied in the CULTURAL context what it targets.

Since I present the media law as something supported by national majority, it is important to note: arguing that the current situation is actually not desired by the voters of the winner party -- this is how certain people argue -- would be incorrect: there is a pretty big national unit in the case of media law (except the representatives of media of course, and the post-communist followers of the socialist party, which is definitely minority). Hungarian people finally want to protect the mental health of their children. If that requires a first, proabbly later-to-be-refined version of a new media law, so be it. As every new system in (any) system development, its first version cannot be totally specified and mature, but it sets directions and architecture. The majority of the Hungarian nation wanted THESE directions, and that is how it's correct.

So, as a Hungarian who knows the conditions and specifics of my country and Central Europe (not just after 1989, but also under the soviet supremacy), I say the size of this criticism is totally an overkill. What do you think, Ragusa, why is Germany one of the countries who protested against the Hungarian media law? Maybe (mostly) because most of the foreign, multionational companies in Hungary are German? A significant part of the telecom tax will be paid by Deutsche Telecom alone, for instance. Come on, man, law is not as general as you think it is, at least not internationally*. (One doesn't need to be a lawyer to know this; this is common sense.) Law has a national CONTEXT, taking into account the traditions and expectations of a nation (and the expectations of other participants too, e.g. foreign companies, but nation should get priority). As long as it's not a clear dictature, it's fine. Yes, one could say this media law is dictatoric: yes, it's not easy to draw the line between certain things in law, but that line should definitely be drawn by the democratically elected leadership of the country (i.e. the nation's majority, indirectly), instead of big countries and companies who (ab)use referring to international "freedom rights" and standards when trying to put pressure on a country for economical reasons.

*Even though, as far as I remember, you're a lawyer; so I admit that you would not look credible if even *you* (as a lawyer) didn't believe in the law (and that law is strictly influenced by... clear principles, without politics, money etc.). I can assure you, the international outcry about the media law is just suspiciously too big to be based only on "freedom rights" and such things.


----------------------------------------------

That was my detailed reaction. To summarize, there are two points:

1) You say that the content of the law also matters, not just that has a democratic origin. I say: true, but who decides how "good" is that content (especially in a Hungary who was taken to the floor by post-communists)? Definitely not foreign countries and "specially" interpreted international standards (interpreted by big companies and certain extreme-liberal forces) should tell it. The nation (those who LIVE here and WATCH and READ the media) should tell it, and more generally, the practical application of the law should tell it.
2) You say that the terms are not well-defined in the content, which gives too much freedom for enforcement and possibilities for abuse etc. First of all, you do not know my country: you didn't need any (possibly wrongly prepared) law here to let the power and its lackeys to abuse the country. With or without laws, and also in the past 20 years and not just until 1989, powers & leaders could do a lot of bad things here. Yes, not with the big capital and multionational companies. With the nation! With the people! (Before one would say that I'm just a victim of Orban's populism: he is not a populist, he ACTUALLY did something, see my previous post and/or google about his REAL achievements). Those who abused power until 2010 didn't need to have poorly defined laws or anything for that. This is how it works in a Central European post-communist country. So I say: this is a new strict law, subject to change, and the nation wanted to give this freedom to its leaders in the first turn. Later, it may be improved, but this first turn is the choice of people.

Yes, it might be unconstitutional in your country.
Yes, there are greater and bigger traditions of democracy in your country, Germany, let alone USA. These (sometimes unwritten) standards and values are followed by your politicians, enforcers etc. too. Not in Hungary. Do you think the German prime minister would need to resign if she admitted in a private meeting "we lied to the country all these years" and said "this b_i_t_ch" country" about her own country?! (underlines are added to bypass forum's filter) Yes, it happened in 2006 in Hungary. No, Ferenc Gyurcsany didn't resign. He tried to present it as an advantage, twisting the meaning. And his party (the socialists) supported him. This is (was) Hungary. Lot of post-communist, shameless politicians are still active who held positions before 1989 under the soviet supremacy. They have no democratic "taste", not even a basic respect to people, so the "democracy" they created and the (non-existing) firm democratical traditions of Hungary cannot be compared to Western democracies.
Hungarian people want a change!

All in all, the media law gets much much more criticism than it would be natural. Period.

 

Baronius,
you are missing my point entirely. The law as written is problematic from a freedom of press and speech point of view. It does have a chilling effect; that is probably intended. It is barn-doors-opened-wide inviting abuse, and phrasing that as being rooted in a 'unique Hungarian tradition of freedom' doesn't change that.

 

Oh, why won't somebody think of the children!

 

Sheesh, you're waking them up Joa!

 

No, you are missing my point. The law is presented as problematic because it is strict and finally gives ACTUAL power to the enforcement. Until now, e.g. the channels which broke law by showing content not suitable for children got some penalty; a few millions forints etc. Their profit easily covered such expenses, it did not even matter to them, so the LAW did not even have a true effect to frighten away those who may think of violating the law. It was nonsense.

As I said, every culture is different; thanks to Soviets and the post-communist oligarchs, there is no "unique Hungarian tradition of freedom". It may invite abuse, but it is not a certain fact that it will be abused. It is good arguing that a good law must not even allow abuse in theory, but first of all, this is never true in 100%; second, a WEAK or OVERREGULATED law invites freedom-based ABUSE OF THE MEDIA. That is what has been happening until now. TOO MUCH FREEDOM allows you to violate the rights of those who would like to get a media with less dirt and disgusting content. As generally in law, you should be free to do something as long as it doesn't violate the freedom of someone else. Well, it's true that in-family education and communication with children is the basis of all, BUT some sort of limit should be given to the dirt as well that may come from the TV.

You say that the law underregulates things and it is not clear and this is where the option of abuse lies: can be, but it's the first version, and at least should deserve a chance; if it was so exact and precise, it would give options again to shameless channels and media how to avoid it etc. The task of the law is to provide frames, extents to its enforcement; not to overregulate everything. Underregulating is not good either, but this is the first version of the law; it will be changed if needed.

The point is, until now, the too much freedom was abused by channels, media, press etc. to provide content that was forbidden, and to MANIPULATE the people. There is a difference between manipulation and informing. This is also where the maturity of political/democratical thinking (which doesn't exist much in post-communist countries) matters: people CAN FILTER the misleading content well; here, they used to believe many things that e.g. an American citizen would never believe. Not because they are more stupid, not at all. Because the communist system and history influenced their thinking in that way.

And I know many of you there (not you personally, Ragusa) in the Western countries do not like Hungarians; and often identify us with gipsies (which is absolutely false) OR with discriminators of gipsies. Our previous idiot post-communist government has a big role in this (lot of government lies to the international world, etc.). Hungary lost its credibility much. So no wonder Hungarians are not liked much.

Noone should get me wrong, I'm not generally against Western countries (in fact, I think there is more things to learn from many of them than the things not to learn). But sometimes this Western "cleverness", hipocricy rejects me. E.g. I remember some countries criticize Hungary for "discriminating" poor gipsies (they should just spend one week together with them near their houses...), but when the gipsies try to immigrate to one of them (e.g. to Sweden), the country rejects them (sends them back). Yeah, they don't want from them, but when they commit crimes here and refuse integration attempts of Hungary, Hungary is criticized for "discriminating" them. Do not be clever in things you do not know.
And about double standards, where was freedom of speech and balanced informing in CNN during the Iraqi War?!




Just keep joking/ironizing about the children guys, that really makes you look nice.

 

Baronius,
I have Hungarian relatives. I'd like Budapest. I like Goulash. The law is still crap.

I think that to think it will not be abused is naive in the extreme. It lends itself to abuse structurally. The neutrality of the enforcement body is in question as well.

And that there have been TV channels showing stuff unsuited for children at night - with impunity! - is no justification to mandate that all media give the government or ruling party free ad space in face of alleged bias or one sidedness. That is about two different issues, and it only has it common that it is about media. Similarities end there.

 

The fact that you've relatives and relations to HU doesn't mean you truly can understand certain things and interrelations inside Hungary.

About the law, the practice will show which of us will be right. I do not say it should not be improved and changed in the future, and its creators did not say either that the law is final. But Hungary will not allow the "international" pressure (significantly motivated by economic interests) to declare a fresh law to be thrown out just because some big companies, liberals and some post-communist or socialist European Parliamentary members are whining.

And if you think TV channels only showed unsuitable content AT NIGHT, you are very wrong. As I said, you're talking about a matter where you only see the formal background (e.g. the new law) and not its context in the society. Yes, I know you say now: "but I do not need to know; the law is bad as it is". We will see. I hope that our government remains strong and only makes improvements that are really required (and not because of international pressure).

 

You are aware that you sound a little declamatory when you say 'The Practice Will Show Which Of Us Will Be Right!'. I don't know what they feed into the water over at your place but it appears to cause a peculiar fervour.

There are things with which waiting on the practice is not a risk that one should reasonably take.

Take a fictitious law that allows for all Baroniusses to be executed if certain irrelevant criteria are met (enacted with a 2/3 majority, of course). You may feel it is a loaded gun pointed at you. Or you may sit bank, wait and speculate: Will they use it? Who knows! Who among us knoweth the future! I would characterise that as being unreasonably optimistic.

Likewise, this law is a loaded gun pointed at opposition press. Will it be used? Practice Will Show! As a matter of fact, even if it remains unenforced, its mere existence must have a chilling effect, because they always can (ab)use it.

 

I agree. The first reaction I had was that Bush/Cheney would love it. But so would both political parties in the USA. But then I would be seeing it through the lenses of an American and not a Hungarian. For all the talk of a Free Press in the US, it is "free," as long as you can afford to buy and own one. So it's hard for me to be critical. That said, I agree, generally speaking with Ragusa's remarks on laws that are intentionally vague regarding restrictions on the press. That opens the door to abuse. But I completely get your remarks regarding your culture and country's specific situation.

 

Gypsies (or Romani) are treated quite poorly and discriminated against all over Europe. Basically no one wants them around, I know that they are more or less living outside of society here and what I have heard from eastern Europe outright pogroms are not far away. They are fleeing Hungary and other countries to come here but the Swedish government are of the opinion that they have nothing to flee from and are the responsibility of their country of birth. Their situation is a problem and a disgrace for all of Europe.

Could you give us some examples of these horrible tv-shows, I am getting curious. Did they show girl/horse sex early in the evening or something?

 

And you as a foreign citizen (at least not Hungarian and not living in Hungary) is going to say the possible practical threats of law in my country. No way. You can't know how a law is culturally and legally embedded to Hungary. The international opinion is welcome; its pressure-putting is not. True that the law DOES affect international media and press that is present in Hungary, but so far, this media abused its power very often, it had a free hand. Now some people are afraid that the opposite will happen: the law will be abused. I do believe that the balance will be found.

I can actually say what Chandos the Red also said: that generally (let me add: in theory) I agree with Ragusa's approach. Knowing the conditions, history and context of my country, however, I don't agree; I think the law should get a chance, and changed only if/when needed. I think it can be a good law.

 

This is the main point that cannot be glossed over. You cannot amend the constitution with something that is unconstitutional and then say it's constitutional because it's now in the constitution. Such logic is circular, and doesn't stand up in court.

That is pretty much exactly what happened in the US regarding waterboarding - they redefined toture so that it didn't include waterboarding, and then used that hare-brained definition as the legal basis for why waterboarding wasn't torture. It's legal because we said it's legal.

Or to get the religious zealots riled up, I'll use this example: We know that the Bible is the literal truth and the word of God because it says so in the Bible. The Bible is right because the Bible says it's right.

The three above examples all use the same faulty logic.

 

Two points:

(1) "amend the constitution with something that is unconstitutional"
This logic (that you "cannot amend" it) assumes the current version of the constitution is "good". This is the classic problem of whether we accept something as an etalon, or create a new etalon. A nation which gives authorization to a party which TELLS IN ADVANCE before the election that they PLAN to change the constitution if elected means the nation WANTS a new constitution. (And whether that new constitution, or e.g. the media law the precedes it, is good or not is not going be told by foreign governments who are not really happy that their national companies lose benefits and profits because of the acts of Mr. Orban...)

(2) The current version of the Hungarian constitution was meant to be a temporary one (after the Soviet supremacy ended), and even the TEXT of the constitution mentions that this is only valid until the final one is created. Then ~20 years passed and noone touched it. Not because it was so good, I can assure you. Noone was ABLE to touch it.

The above two points already show that there are no general rules about what is "constitutional" INTERNATIONALLY. Because constitution varies by country and country. Ragusa's post also contained: "it would be unconstitutional in my country". And? Not in another.

I think the biggest problem is that some countries think that if something works in a way in their country, it must be done in the same way in other places too, in the name of "international standards" etc. They forget that a law must be placed to a cultural, national, society context. On a side note, the current Hungarian media law does not contain parts that cannot be found in other European media laws. This is a fact.

---------------

All in all, we got to the question of the egg and chicken, didn't we?! WHO is going to tell if a Hungarian law is constitutional and/or complies with "freedom rights"? The constitution of Hungary? Or the international opinions? Who?! The international "standards"?! Yes, treaties and agreements matter, but they tell guidelines, and they do not regulate things in exact national contexts. So who? Who is the egg, who is the chicken? There are only opinions and viewpoints, nothing else. What are freedom rights in this case: the media has right to do whatever it wants, or I have right that the TV doesn"t show **** to my children at daytime or early evening?! The balance must be found. Wild liberalism is not the way to go.


----------------

Not that I agree with waterboarding and physical torture, but this reminds to something: the Patriot Act (not that I know it in details or even in structure), and the strict, personal-right-limiting laws of the USA that were introduced due to terrorism. I remember there were outcries and criticism because of this, i.e. that "the freedom rights in the USA are now limited and this is incorrect "etc. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I was not glad to hear about those restrictions but I can understand most of them. Yes, because if there is too wide freedom, then the terrorists have more possibilities too. I know that if we followed this approach, the dictature would be the ideal country, but noone (who is normal) wants to go that far. But the limitations in freedom rights regarding terrorism (if implemented properly) are understandable.

And those who crazily criticized them only looked on ONE SIDE: that the rights of lawful citizens are limited too. They didn't think of those who died, and will perhaps die, because of terrorism. Without constraints and limitations, it's damn hard to find threats, obviously.
Sometimes it looks like to me that the people who sit in their warm homes in front of their computer and write clever forum posts DO NOT IMAGINE the other side of things. They do not imagine that national security cannot guarantee acceptable safety if everything is free to do. It is not so easy job.

I do not know the USA in this respect (so please correct me if I have factual errors above), but I do know Central Europe and my country. I do know what was Soviet supremacy here (even though I didn't live too many years in it; I also know it from others very well.) I also what it was when they privatized state property in the 1990's, and when the international (e.g. French) companies came here. I do know how they squeezed things here, and how they didn't keep their promises. It was all about corruption, especially the privatizations. So, noone is going to tell me that when finally Hungary starts to have a total structural reorganization, it is not constitutional or that it's a dictature. Whatever it is, the people of Hungary finally deserve a leadership that does SOMETHING.

 

Aldeth,
yup.

Baronius,
great for you that you agree with Chandos. That's probably because he says what you want to hear. To wit: He is expressing a very America centric view and, if I may say so, I have a hunch he doesn't know much about Hungary or Law, and, to paraphrase, he doesn't address these issues but refrains to condemn Hungary based on that the US suck so much. He was imo primarily expressing his (probably rightfully) jaded view of US media and the US political landscape.

As for me not knowing the Hungarian legal system - that's right but, as a figure or speech, I know a rotten fish when I smell one. I know enough about law to see this particular law is problematic. So to speak - Hungarian lawyers are just lawyers. Legal principles like the need for neutrality, constitutional requirements for specificity and fairness transcend legal systems and borders. What's unfair in Hungary is unfair in Germany.

Likewise, I don't need to be an expert on Iranian law to see that the unique Iranian legal heritage and how it is law and culturally and legally embedded results in some crap laws, abuse and crap results.

And you miss Aldeth's point also:
that bit about amending the constitution doesn't mean the constitution is good - it simply means it has some basic inalienable rights that must not be contradicted or counteracted if the document is to remain meaningful i.e. you have freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and then add something that contradicts that by limiting their scope or the group of persons entitled to it. So to speak, Aldeth is speaking about 'system breaking' additions. A typical if stark example would be something along this line:

or about Aldeth's example

 

In a certain meaning, yes it is. Every big change, and every start, may be problematic. It can have its evolution. Lawyers such as you and some governments can say that it's bad in advance even now; the nation doesn't need to care. I hope with full heart that this government of Hungary will succeed to reorganize the whole country. There are a lot of people at this moment (and many more than in several European countries) who are in cold and have problems paying their bills and feeding their kids, while I'm sitting in warm room with my 100mbit internet. Not because they were stupid and lost all their money. Because between 2002 and 2010, the country was mostly led by total idiots or powerful swindlers. Talented swindlers that you can't find in USA or Germany once in a thousand years.

Hungary needs system breaking. A revolution. To get rid of all the post-communist heritage once and for all. Only a Hungarian can understand this.