Hearing before United States Helsinki Commission
Statement of Frank Koszorus, Jr.
National President of the American Hungarian Federation and Public Member of the U.S. Delegation of the 1989 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on the Human Dimension
The American Hungarian Federation (Federation), founded in 1906 as an umbrella organization, is an independent, non-partisan entity representing a broad cross-section of the Hungarian American community. From its founding, the Federation has supported liberal democracy, human and minority rights and the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).* The Federation also supports good American/Hungarian and trans-Atlantic relations.
The Federation appreciates the Helsinki Commission’s efforts to promote democracy and strengthen democratic institutions in Hungary and throughout CEE. We also appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record and hope that it will contribute to that goal.
The statement briefly addresses two issues: (1) the need to distinguish between genuine concern for the state of democracy in Hungary and the use of rhetorical democratic pretexts skirting democratic institutional norms that are being used to wage a political campaign to negate the voting public’s clear and overwhelming choice of the current government in the 2010 internationally recognized free and fair elections; and (2) the need to vigorously promote democracy by supporting the rights of religious and national minorities, including the rights of the Hungarian minorities living in countries bordering Hungary.
JUDGING THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY IN HUNGARY
Rigorous analysis required. The Federation applauds efforts free of political bias that are intended to strengthen institutions, transparency in government, the rule of law, and separation of powers in Hungary. It believes that the United States must remain engaged in CEE on a constructive and evenhanded basis to help strengthen democratic institutions and the stability that derives from democracy.
With the exception of NATO’s enlargement, attention soon drifted away from CEE after the euphoria following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Some quickly lost sight of the economic, moral and spiritual damage left in the wake of close to fifty years of Communism that had been imposed on the region by Soviet bayonets. Free elections were held and therefore nothing more needed to be done seemed to be the attitude shared by some decision and opinion makers.
This analysis of CEE was superficial. Despite great strides toward freedom, democracy and democratic institution building throughout the region, there is work to be done, as, for example, is evident from rising anti-Semitism in parts of the region and intolerant attitudes and discriminatory policies directed at the Hungarian minorities in some of the countries neighboring Hungary – an issue that is largely ignored by some who are proponents of the questionable notion that democracy is in serious jeopardy in Hungary.
Putting the internal affairs of democracies established on the western parliamentary model, such as Hungary, under a microscope, however, is unusual and requires rigorous analysis. If the microscope is brought to bear to evaluate the actions of the government, the two questions that always must be asked are as follows: do those actions transgress in any substantial manner the established institutional norms practiced by a consensus of democracies around the world? And do they transgress the democratic norms established within the country being discussed itself?
In engaging in this review, one must distinguish between political questions that may arise about a government’s effectiveness or the wisdom of its policies and actions that may have breached in any substantial way institutional norms of democracy as practiced around the world in its various forms.**
Examining Hungary from this perspective, the legislative agenda of the current government, while perhaps politically controversial, does not rise to the grave level of putting “Democracy at Risk.” There has been robust, critical discussion in Hungary’s media about every aspect of the key laws in question that Parliament has passed, no state repression of the opposition’s right to publicly criticize and object, and no state efforts to deny the opposition its democratic right to peacefully win over the public to its side in the next elections. In addition, demonstrators have freely expressed their anti-government opinions, while foreign commentators have given interviews, and critical assessments have been published in the Hungarian media. On winning the election, the opposition can and undoubtedly will introduce its own legislative agenda, and if it has enough support in the electorate as Fidesz did, it can enact its own changes to the constitution as well. These are core elements of democracy well in play in Hungary today.
The Federation strongly supports and encourages a robust review of these matters, including a legitimate political debate surrounding the amendments to the constitution relating to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Has its jurisdiction been unduly limited by the Court’s right to review only the procedures used to amend the constitution, not the substantive amendments themselves? How does that limitation compare to the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction concerning modifications to the Constitution and amendments thereto? Does the ability of more officials to take cases to the Court to review laws even in the absence of actual and pending litigation advance the rule of law? Would it have been preferable to submit the amendments to the Venice Commission for review before they were passed by Parliament?
The Federation, however, is concerned with the insinuations that the process itself was somehow not democratic. One can agree or disagree with the outcomes, but to question the institutional integrity of the process ironically strips the credibility of the very democratic procedures at play that could be used to establish other outcomes by other elected governments as well.
Factual accuracy mandated. In addition to the need for rigorous analysis noted above, factual accuracy is necessary if the criticism is to be credible. For example, in an editorial calling on the EU to be firm with Hungary, the UK Independent erroneously stated that if the constitutional amendment were to pass, “coverage of elections campaigns will be restricted to state media only.” In fact, no such limitation exists; campaign commercials, not coverage, is limited.
Partisanship undermines fair review process. The Federation issues this statement not because it believes that no steps could be taken to strengthen democracy, democratic institutions and Hungary’s economy or that no mistakes have been made. It is not suggesting that every critical comment is solely meant to disparage Hungary. Rather it believes that some of the international criticism is not evenhanded or based on facts but on generalizations and speculation, i.e., what might happen as a result of the new laws as opposed to what has happened. Such criticisms often reveal a lack of understanding of Hungary’s history and the character of its people who have repeatedly sacrificed and demonstrated their commitment to freedom, as in 1956 when they rose up against Soviet tyranny. Suggestions in furtherance of the vaunted goal of strengthening democracy must be free of even a hint of political partisanship and must be grounded in principles and objective analysis.
VIOLATION OF MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED
Minority rights and democracy. Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, aptly noted, “one of the basic tenets of liberal democracy is that minority rights are protected.” And as the late champion of human rights, Congressman Tom Lantos, eloquently reminded us, this protection should extend to all religious, national and ethnic groups, including Hungarians.
The record is dismal on this score. The Federation is deeply concerned about the threat to democracy and human rights arising from discriminatory actions and policies directed at members of the Hungarian minority in some of the countries of CEE. It is deeply concerned about the continuing assaults on ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina, Serbia. It is deeply concerned that Slovakia has adopted discriminatory language and citizenship laws; refuses to exonerate Janos Esterhazy, an unsung hero of the Holocaust who was the only member of Slovakia’s parliament to vote against the deportation of Jews in 1942; and refuses to repeal those provisions of the Benes Decrees that imposed collective guilt on the Hungarians after the Second World War. It is deeply concerned that Romania refuses to grant its Hungarian minority’s legitimate request for autonomy; restore the independent Hungarian university in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár; provide restitution to all churches/religious organizations for property confiscated by the previous Communist regime; and proposes redistricting of administrative units that would further reduce the ability of Hungarians to effectively participate in public affairs, especially in matters affecting them and to enjoy their culture.
Minority rights enhance security. These human rights violations also impact security which is as much a function of the stability that is associated with democracy and minority rights as it is a function of military reforms and equipment in the context of multi-ethnic CEE.
This was recognized during the first round of NATO’s enlargement. The March 26, 1997
RFE/RL report titled, “Europe: U.S. Senator Outlines Criteria for NATO Expansion,” reported that then Senator Biden “said Senators will determine whether the prospective members maintain democratic institutions, respect civil and minority rights and keep their military forces under civilian control before they vote their consent.” In his article, “Slovakia and NATO: The Madrid Summit and After,” National Defense University Strategic Forum, April 1997, Jeffrey Simon wrote: “In sum, the major stumbling block to Slovakia’s candidacy to NATO arises from questions about the most fundamental criterion–the shared democratic values of respect for the rule of law and minority rights.” These countries should be held to the same standard now that they are members of NATO and encouraged to build tolerant societies by respecting the right of their Hungarian minorities.
Lack of respect for minority rights needs to be reviewed. Despite the less than exemplary record of countries neighboring Hungary when it comes to the treatment of their Hungarian minorities, Hungary has been inexplicably criticized for taking reasonable measures consistent with international norms and practices, e.g., citizenship, to assist the members of the minorities in their legitimate, justified and democratic efforts to preserve their distinctive culture. At the same time, some of the critics who aver that democracy is in danger in Hungary are silent when it comes to minority rights violations affecting Hungarians living in other countries in the region — violations that can be quantified.
Criticism is directed at the wrong party. But for the lack of respect for the minority rights of members of the Hungarian communities in states neighboring Hungary, the issue of Hungarian minorities would be moot. Intolerance and discrimination targeting any group (including Hungarians) based on ethnicity, nationality or religion is intolerable and should be condemned. Criticism, therefore, should be directed at those who violate minority rights, not at the victims of discrimination or those who speak up on their behalf. Respect for minority rights would not only be consistent with democracy – an important goal for the U.S. also — it would eliminate the need for Budapest to speak out against discriminatory practices in those countries.
While democratic institution building should be encouraged and debated, they should be done based on facts, and in a fair, unbiased and evenhanded manner. This review process, including criticism, must be bereft of partisanship (or even the appearance of partisanship) and undertaken solely in furtherance of promoting Western values, not political expediency. Finally minority rights must be respected and all forms of intolerance and discrimination, such as anti-Semitism and anti-Hungarian measures, must be condemned and not allowed to undermine democracy in CEE.
*Several members of the Federation or their parents fought tyranny during and after World War II and escaped from Hungary to enjoy liberty. For example, the president’s father blocked the deportation of the Jews of Budapest in July 1944 and the executive director’s mother fought for freedom and was wounded during the 1956 Revolution.
** And what are the democratic norms that are alleged to have been violated and are the judgments applied evenhandedly? For instance, Great Britain’s democracy is not challenged because it has adopted the first-by-the post rule – a rule that can result in a majority of voters playing no part in determining the outcome of an election and single party majority governments.
Another example can be found in the conclusion of a study (Hungarian Media Laws in Europe: An Assessment of the Consistency of Hungary’s Media Law with European Practices and Norms) by the Center for Media Communication Studies, Central European University. The Center, which is critical of Hungary’s media law, acknowledges that there are “key deficiencies in a number of other European countries that may inhibit press freedom in ways that also do not conform to European free-press norms.” But those other countries are still deemed to be democratic and not subjected to the same intense scrutiny and hostility that Hungary has been since 2010.
Hungary’s recently enacted law on religions has been criticized for being restrictive. Maybe it is and further amendments may be in order, but last year’s State Department’s Annual Report to the Congress on International Religious Freedom notes similar restrictions in other European countries while not averring that democracy has been put at risk. The Report, for instance, notes that Austria only has 14 officially recognized religious societies.
Mr. Koszorus sounds suspiciously like an echo of the current Hungarian government’s spin-masters.
This provides ample copy-paste material for our house trolls … I wonder who they are?
Apologies if I’m missing something, but why is the testimony of the National President of the American Hungarian Federation of any import whatsover? Is he an authority in constitutional/religious/media matters? Does he live in Hungary? Does he represent the Hungarian government?
In any case, his text seems to have little to do with what was being discussed yesterday, and is focusing instead on minorities living in Romania and Serbia (which the Helsinki Commission is much involved in, so implying that they are not is utterly shameful).
As a previous poster has commented, the new amended constitution is a human-rights disaster waiting to happen. It effectively empowers the government to imprison those without a registered home, or to punish those who are not employed or able to send their children to school. No surprises that this further institutionalises discrimination against the Hungarian Roma community.
LAURELS FOR KOSZORUS’S FRANK CANT
— criticism of the Hungarian government is political partisanship…
— the bad guys are the socialists: the Hungarian government is just using its mandate to undo the damage they did…
— what the Hungarian government does, it does with a big majority mandate: if the opposition ever gets one, they are free to do the same…
— lip-service to the need to combat anti-semitism and anti-Roma bias — and then to the point: the minorities that need the protection are the Hungarian minorities in adjoining countries…
These are some traditional Hungarian Americans, 99% of whom are conservative right wingers.
Fed by money from the current government, so yes, in a way they do represent the Hungarian government.
They have zero relevance in the US, but they can appear as somebody. Fidesz has a huge number of civil organisations which help them (appearing as non-partizan). I wonder why Friends of Hungary was not involved.
The problem is – if ever a government supporter ever stopped to think about – is that what Fidesz is doing now in places like Transylvania is making things *much worse* for ethnic Hungarians abroad. Fidesz are throwing rocks into the hornets nest – creating provocation. This is precisely what the average Transylvanian Hungarian seeks to avoid.
Szaniszló’s answer about his Táncsics-award: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OvilBmYnjw
Did you know that Szaniszló graduated in Moscow and was in the eighties the correspondent of Magyar Hirlap (then the daily of the Council of Ministers) in Moscow? I wonder why Magyar Hirlap had to have a correspondent there (as there were a number of other correspondents there anyway), so perhaps he wasn’t. Well, Gábor Széles, his oligarch boss now at Echo TV, who for some misterious reasons could do business in the early eighties and set up companies in Switzerland and Hong-Kong during those years, may know him from his times at khm,during the eighties. Szaniszlo sure got a bit of Zirinovski in him.
Re Koszorus. I included it because he was invited to testify. This group tries to convince everybody that it is THE representative of American Hungarians. It is in fact a “gittegylet.” Someone else can explain what “gittegylet” means in Hungarian thanks to Ferenc Molnár’s famous book, “The boys of Pál Street.”
“I have exposed the lies of the September 11 events. I have uncovered the truth in the Kennedy murders, the Diana murder (!) and the Haider murder! That is why I’m attacked now!”
Man, what a pitiful tool. I hope the space aliens will take him when they come to meet the Hunkies.
The propaganda were so thick I just couldn’t finish reading it…
“gittegylet”–the best I can do using my dictionary is something like ‘putty association’ or ‘putty club’. Hopefully someone else can improve on this.
The boys, in a high school class, had this fraternity. The did only one thing: stole the putty from freshly made windows. It was used to seal the the corners where the glass slides into grooves. The unused putty dries out so they had this putty chewing duty.
So they had hierarchy, goals, duties – kinda like Frank’s organization. In the Hungarian language the expression is used for useless organizations, that have grandiose names but do nothing.
Ok. Let’s give them some credit. They are going to have a charity ball in April here in the DC area. It’s been going on for a while. They are also active with scouts. They do other events, like 2 weeks ago they were singing the Szekely anthem in front of the white house and so on.
I was tempted to go to the ball, out of curiosity, but they seem to be a closed club. Also I can’t stand Hungarian folk music.
They are not necessary the same bad seed as the Fidesz, but they are definitely betting on them. I guess the reason is that they seem to be Trianon maniacs and like what the Fidesz lunatics like Kover does in Transylvania and they are also seem to be Christian conservatives and perhaps also still think that the Fidesz is the one that represents these views.
This is all good, nothing wrong with it, besides Frank Koszorus Jr. joining the bullshit choir to protect Hungary’s most dangerous government.
It’s a pity that there’s no other organized group with people who’s views are different. Perhaps professor Balogh could do a post about the Hungarian organizations and (sorry) the state of the Hungarian lobby in the US.
“Janos Esterhazy, an unsung hero of the Holocaust who was the only member of Slovakia’s parliament to vote against the deportation of Jews in 1942”
As we discussed on Eva’s blog earlier, Esterhazy abstained and he sent a letter to the Slovak Parliament shortly after the vote asserting that he was anti-Semitic.
Frank Koszorus’ father was the commander of the First Hungarian Armored Division, that the Regent Horthy sent to Budapest to prevent the deportation of an estimated 200,000 Jews.
Professor Balogh can explain it better, but I think Colonel Koszorus’s intention was to protect Horthy from an imminent putsch. Temporarily stopped the deportations (only in Budapest) because he chased out the gendarme. But again it was a side effect.
I maybe wrong. I’m not an expert.
Well anyway if the apple didn’t fall far from the tree, that would explain Koszorus Jr’s vehement support of the Fidesz. According to rumors/facts Mr Koszorus also benefited a lot financially from his relations with the Fidesz (especially the first Fidesz government).
I detect weasel words… If the word “overwhelming” was in Hungarian – and wasn’t a deverbal adjective rather than a verb in the first place 😉 – it might be in definite form, leading to the question “what was overwhelmed”? (*)
I read plenty of objections to the Fidesz government on this blog and elsewhere: violent disagreement with what they’re doing. But I haven’t read anyone questioning its mandate to rule, in a normal fashion, for the term they won. Whether this “overwhelming” victory gives them a mandate to radically overhaul the power-structure in Hungary, changing the constitution and stacking the centres of power with their own people, so as to lock in their election victory – this is another question.
So this is very clever rhetorical trick the speaker is playing here; and what’s interesting is that it’s the pure form of a very widespread trick, which is all over the place in Fidesz rhetoric: conflate two things (objecting to Fidesz’s assault on democracy, and objecting to their mandate up to 2014), and accuse those voicing the former of voicing the latter! Thus it’s “proved” that anyone attacking Fidesz for their outrageous mucking-about with democracy is merely politically motivated, refuses to accept the legitimacy of their election victory, and is thus anti-democratic.
Sure the Fidesz majority “overwhelms” any argument that they might not have a mandate to rule, for the moment. But does it “overwhelm” the last 20 years of Hungarian political history? Or the Constitution? Or widely-accepted principles of separation of powers?
Fidesz, of course, think that it does. The confusing thing is that they never come out and clearly say so. Instead they obfuscate; abroad with this kind of weaselly-argumentation – and at home by (again covertly) deploying a “state of emergency” argument. The more they’re attacked, the more fuel they have to stoke this “Hungary is under threat from traitors” line.
It’s depressingly familiar…
( (*) Apologies for the excursion into grammar. I just find, as a learner of Hungarian, that the definite/indefinite distinction is a very cool thing about the language…)
“But I haven’t read anyone questioning its mandate to rule, in a normal fashion”
The answer is easy and short.
A democracy is mainly about checks and balances. Trias Politica. The separation of powers. It is no longer over there in Hungary.
Comments are closed.