27 March 2008
The Editor
TOL

Dear Sir,

You recently published Michael J. Jordan's article "On Guard" on Hungary. I would like to put it to you that there are very serious problems with this writing, journalistically, methodologically and in the light of political balance.

I am assuming that TOL does not set out to be an organ of left-wing agitprop. Please tell me if I am mistaken, in which case ignore what follows.

1. Not a single Fidesz source is cited, even while Jordan makes various insinuations about Fidesz, crucially creating the impression that Jobbik is somehow an offshoot of Fidesz. This is complete nonsense, of course, and Fidesz has repeatedly condemned and distanced itself from the extreme right in Hungary.

2. Jordan gives considerable space to Viktoria Mohacsi, who is an MEP and Roma, fine, but why did he make no attempt to contact Livia Jaroka, who is also an MEP and also Roma? Is it because she represents Fidesz?

3. Indeed, all the sources cited, other than those of Jobbik and the [Magyar] Garda, are left-wing or left-wing sympathizers. They cannot be expected to reflect an evenhanded view of the Hungarian situation, indeed, they greatly exaggerate the significance of the Garda.

4. If nothing else, Jordan should have looked at the survey data, which make it clear that the extreme right in Hungary is a wholly marginal phenomenon. Distasteful, yes; politically serious, no.

5. This also raises the problem of context. The far-right exists throughout Europe and is certainly a real problem in countries like France or Belgium or the U.K., but hardly in Hungary. The Slovak Brotherhood regularly parades in Bratislava, something that Jordan seems not to have noticed. Its anti-Roma slogans are blood-curdling. And so are those of Slota's SNS [Slovak National Party], a member of the Slovak government coalition. Likewise, the Iron Guard makes a regular appearance in Bucharest. But not a word about this from Jordan. Why?

6. Jordan writes of "Hungarian revanchism". There is not a scrap of evidence to support this because there is none, whether the meaning of "revanchism" is "revenge" or "frontier revision". I challenge Jordan to find a single instance of either. He might find it instructive to look instead at the results of the 5 December 2004 referendum.

7. Jordan quotes Andrea Szőnyi to say, “Even young people who are not racist or anti-Semitic use the same terminology, that you can’t be both Hungarian and a Jew,” but he does not mention that exactly the same point is made by some – not all – Hungarian Jews. I recall Andras Schiff, the pianist, saying in a BBC interview, "I am not Hungarian, I am a Jew who was born in Hungary." Schiff is not alone. The sociological reality is that there has been a partial dissimilation of Jews in Hungary over the last generation, but the issue is too loaded with the burdens of the past to generate an open debate.

8. Finally, in journalistic terms, Jordan uses very dubious methods, essentially those of "guilt by association" (an old Stalinist technique), when he writes, "Already, it [the Garda] shares seats with Fidesz on several local councils, but 5 percent is the threshold to enter parliament." Actually, there is no sharing of seats as between Fidesz and the Garda or equally between Fidesz and Jobbik. Then, by massively exaggerating the reality of the far-right in Hungary, Jordan is assisting it by giving it the oxygen of publicity. Is that what Jordan wants to achieve?

Yours faithfully,

György Schöpflin
Member of the European Parliament for Hungary (Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Union) and formerly Jean Monnet Professor of Politics, University College London