Jobbik

Jobbik – The Movement for a Better Hungary Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom
Leader	Gábor Vona
Founded	24 October 2003
Headquarters	1113 Budapest, Villányi út 20/A
Ideology	Antiglobalism[1] Christian democracy[2] Euroscepticism[3] National conservatism[4] Radical nationalism[group= 1] Nationalism[5] Political radicalism[6] Self-determination[7]
Political position	Nationalist[8][9][10][11]
International affiliation	None
European affiliation	Alliance of European National Movements
European Parliament Group	Non-Inscrits
Official colours	Red and Silver
National Assembly:
European Parliament:
Website
www.jobbik.hu (Hungarian) www.jobbik.com (English)
Politics of Hungary Political parties Elections

Jobbik, The Movement for a Better Hungary (Hungarian: Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom) commonly known as Jobbik, is a Hungarian political party with a strong commitment to nationalism.^[12] Jobbik has been accused by its political opponents and some Western press outlets of being fascist^[13] and anti-Semitic^[14] party. The party has strenuously denied^[15][16][17] these allegations as being either politically motivated^[18][19][20] or simply false.^[21][22][23] The party describes itself as a principled, conservative and radically^[24][25] patriotic Christian party, whose fundamental purpose is the protection of Hungarian values and interests.^[26] As a result, Jobbik is the only major Hungarian party dedicated to supporting the cause of the significant (a quarter of Hungarians live outside Hungary^[27]) Hungarian minorities that exist external to the nation's territory in countries bordering Hungary^[28] in their campaigns^[29][30] to achieve self-determination and autonomy.^[31] At the 2009 European Parliamentary elections, Jobbik won 3 seats and in doing so came close to beating the ruling Hungarian Socialists (the successor organization^[32] to the MSZMP) into third place.^[33] Hungary's 2010 parliamentary elections saw Jobbik cement its posititon as the nation's 3rd largest party, doubling the vote it had received in the previous year and getting just 3 seats short of the previous ruling party.

History and development

1956 veteran Gergely Pongrátz: a Jobbik founder

Foundation

Originally established in 2002 as the Right-Wing Youth Association (Jobboldali Ifjúsági Közösség – JOBBIK) by a group of catholic and protestant university students, Jobbik was eventually founded as a political party in October 2003.^[34] Instrumental in this was the person of Gergely Pongrátz, who in a speech to the founding conference stated, “The torch is now falling from our hands, it is you who must take it up, that spirit, those values, for which so many brother-in-arms died in ’56. It is you who must take it onwards.”^[35]

The fledgling political party found support in a minority nationalist sentiment, which rejected the more extremist^[36] (and then more popular) views of MIÉP.^[37] Whereas MIÉP’s nationalism was racial with regards to Magyar identity,^[38] irredentist in its Carpathian foreign policy,^[39] and at best ambivalent towards violence as a political tool (being at times openly neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi);^[40][41] in contrast Jobbik’s definition of Magyar identity was essentially cultural,^[42][43] its approach to Pannonian issues (despite being marked by significant rhetoric^[44]) more one of cross-border ethnic self-determination,^[45][46] while it rejected violence in favour of support for democracy (being essentially Traditionalist and Christian democratic).^[4][47][48]

Jobbik demonstrated their commitment to the latter with the nationwide erection of crosses to mark the Christmas of 2003,^[49] in a reaffirmation of the country’s Christian heritage.^{[nb 1]} The move was greeted by Christian academics with some hesitation, given the more correct theological association of the crucifixion with Easter.^[50] In a traditionalist move the party also chose to adopt what they saw as the oldest emblem of Hungarian national identity: the Stripes of the House of Árpád;^[51] to whose rehabilitation they remain dedicated.^[52] This was later subject to considerable international controversy, despite the flag's prominence on the Hungarian Coat of Arms. By 2004 Jobbik was the only Hungarian political party openly skeptical of accession to the EU, its motto at the time being: “Hungary: Viable, Proud, Independent.”^[53]

Alliances

Though its history to date had been so defined by distancing itself from, and being highly critical of, MIÉP, Jobbik nevertheless entered an alliance with them for the purpose of fighting the 2006 national elections. Called the MIÉP–Jobbik Third Way Alliance of Parties, its intention was to provide the voter with an alternative right-wing choice; to the prime national right-wing party the centre-right Fidesz, then in opposition.^[54] Perhaps most significant however, given Jobbik’s later electoral success (see the party’s approach to the agrarian vote, in Policy position: 3.1 The European Union), was the third party in this alliance, the vestigial remains of the Independent Smallholders’ Party (the FKgP). The landslide winners of Hungary’s first post-World War II national elections, the FKgP were the traditional representatives of the significant rural and farming vote; who had had their legitimately won 1947 election stolen in 1948 by the Soviet backed Hungarian Communist Party.

Though the FKgP had by 2006 become a politically spent force, their natural constituency nevertheless represented a persistently cohesive block; which had long felt that even though it represented the most productive and long-suffering part of the Hungarian economy, had failed to profit from events post-1989, and had if anything seen their circumstances worsen considerably.^[55] In the 2006 Hungarian national elections the alliance was a failure. Barely scoring 2.2% at the polls. Jobbik qualified the alliance a blunder (a sentiment that was proven justified by later events^[56]) and broke it up; thus rendering themselves even more politically insignificant.^[56] Ostensibly the 2006 election was “won” by Fidesz, who had taken 43.2% of the popular vote at the polls; they did not however go on to form the next government.

The previously incumbent Socialist MSZP, despite achieving 42% nevertheless managed to hold on to power; due to their ability to find a coalition partner (in the form of the Liberal SZDSZ) between electoral rounds when Fidesz could not.^[57] Despite this, the Fidesz leader Viktor Orbán conceded defeat, and the incumbent MSZP headed by Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány was returned to office; the first government for whom this had happened after 1989.^[58] In spite of the fact that the party Gyurcsány headed was the admitted successor to the Hungarian Communist Party that had ruled Hungary since the events of 1947-8,^[32] It was felt that the MSZP had successfully transformed itself into a democratic party in the European Centre-Left model.^[59] In contrast by the end of April 2006 the far-right, and nationalist causes respectively, seemed consigned to a fate of increasing obscurity.

October 2006

The aftermath of the protests of Autumn 2006 became a cause célèbre for a new mainstream Hungarian nationalist movement. (Here 10,000^[60] gather at Kossuth Square to demand the Prime Minister's resignation.)

In May 2006, Gyurcsány spoke at a meeting of senior MSZP members, though he believed his speech to have been private, it had been recorded; and was released on 17 September. In it he said, “Obviously, we lied throughout... we lied morning, night and evening.”^[61] The Prime Minister was admitting that his previous administration had deliberately misrepresented crucial economic data, in order to secure re-election.^[62] The speech’s release sparked a wave of protest nationwide,^[63] and exposed Hungary to international ridicule.^[64] Viktor Orbán who still headed Fidesz, called on Gyurcsány and his government to resign, and described the PM, as “a person who is a part of history and the past.”^[65] His intended meaning was clear, despite their protestations, the MSZP had retained the same tactics that they had used while Communists in years past: they would resort to anything to stay in power.^[66] Independent of Fidesz, a protest camp established itself in the square immediately outside parliament (Kossuth Tér); it gradually grew into a permanent encampment,^[67] and was host to speeches and events by representatives of every anti-government group in the country (from neo-Nazis on the one hand to maverick artists on the other); for whom the historical analogy was clear, the “post-”Communists had yet again, like in 1948, stolen an election.^{[68][69][70][nb 2]}

Despite remarks “tantamount”^[72] to calling for his resignation coming from the President,^[73] Gyurcsány and his supporters called the protesters “anti-democratic”;^[74][75] while the state-run^[76] media spoke of a “fascist rabble”. Though undoubtedly correct about some who had spoken in the encampment; the implication was clear: according to the MSZP administration, anyone who opposed the legitimacy of the government had Fascist sympathies.^[77] Meanwhile the date of the 50th anniversary commemorations of the Uprising of 1956 was approaching, to which a host of international leaders had been invited; the irony and parallels of events were not lost on the protesters.^[78] Having shipped in enormous numbers^[79] of police from the provinces, on the eve of the celebrations the encampment was evicted, and a wide cordon raised around the Kossuth (parliament) square.^[80] On the 23rd October 2006, three separate 1956 commemorative events took place in Budapest.^[81] The first at the retaken Kossuth Square in the morning featured apart from Gyurcsány, his supporters, foreign dignitaries and an honour guard: no Hungarians.^{[nb 3][82]} The second was the peaceful^[83] mainstream Fidesz event in Astoria in the afternoon, numbering 100,000.^[84][85][86] The third, a more provocative and occasionally violent protest, stretched from the Erzsébet Square to the Andrássy Boulevard, just over a kilometre to the West of the Fidesz event.^[87][88] Containing all sorts of protesters including the most militant minded, the simply disaffected, and the youthfully incensed.;^[89][90] united in indignation at Gyurcsány portraying himself as the spokesman for the memory of the nationalist ’56 rebels, earlier on in the day.^[91][92]

Controversy over the Police's actions continues to this day.

The police did not make their move until the separate Fidesz rally was drawing to a close.^[93][94][95] (A dossier of witness statements and photographs was later compiled by the “Free Speech Foundation”, for international human rights bodies.^[96]) There is a consensus, that the police action was brutal,^{[97][98][99][100]} they “weighed in with mounted charges, teargas grenades, rubber bullets fired at people's heads, water-cannon and steel truncheons.”^[101] The severity of the tactics used drove the protestors of Erzsébet Square towards and through to the just dispersing Fidesz event; with the riot-gear clad police following behind.^[102][103] The most serious charge levelled at the police (and by extension the regime), was that this did not happen by chance, but was a deliberate and planned move to suppress and intimidate mass legitimate opposition.^{[nb 4][104][105][106]} In finding it politically expedient not to differentiate between centre-right conservatives, nationalists, and extreme-right fascists;^[107] both internationally in terms of its rhetoric (terming the events the work of extremists^[108]), and nationally in terms of the police action (with Gyurcsány unambiguously stating, “the police should step up strongly, decisively, collectively and with the full force of the law.”^[109]); the MSZP achieved its objective: and remained in power. But their actions also had an unintended consequence. Swelling the numbers of those sympathetic to Hungarian nationalism, from the existing conservative ranks; while at the same time legitimising it, by contributing to the marginalization of the extreme-right. The provocative behaviour of such fringe elements being seen as giving the police precisely the excuse they had wanted, to act with such overwhelming force. Consequently, though many neo-Fascist and neo-Nazi groups continue to exist in Hungary (including The Arrows of Hungarians Liberation Army, the Hungarian Defense Movement, Hungarian National Firing Line, Pannonian National Guard and Pax Hungarica), they are arguably, as vociferous as they are electorally insignificant;^[110][111] the events of 23–24 October meaning that their popularity wanes in direct proportion to their propensity for violence.^{[nb 5]}

Growth and Electoral Success

Jobbik was perfectly positioned to capitalize on this mainstream growth in nationalist sentiment. Which after October 2006 felt confirmed in the belief, that the events of 1989 had essentially been a sham; because “Communists” were still in charge. Not ideological communists of course,^{[nb 6]} but tactical communists, whose behaviour was indistinguishable from the elite that had ruled pre-1989; because (a) Gyurcsány’s speech^[112] and his administration’s subsequent behaviour^[113] was seen as proof that the establishment was dedicated to nothing more than remaining in power at any cost, (b) the severity of the police’s actions^[114] confirmed their willingness to ruthlessly use the state’s security apparatus when they felt the security of their positions threatened,^{[nb 7]} and (c), the kneejerk classification of any and all opposition as “Fascist”^[115] (Communist standard practice^[116]) and the use of their terrestrial media monopoly to put forward this message both internationally and nationally.^{[nb 8]} Subsequent events permitted the party to consolidate its growth. Those who might have looked to Viktor Orbán to demand justice and confound the objectives of the state were to be disappointed.^{[nb 9]} The MSZP/SZDSZ government’s later actions also confirmed the nationalist version of events: the regime placed all the relevant files about the police action on the secret list for 80 years. When the chief of Budapest police was called before a parliamentary committee to account for his force’s actions, the left-wing members walked out, the police chief refused to answer questions and then walked out too.^{[119][nb 10]} The result, as György Schöpflin put it was that, “the memory of 1956 and events of today have become merged,”^[120] and Jobbik, being the party with the greatest positive association with the nationalist resistance that ’56 represented (see 1.1 Foundation), were catapulted from obscurity into being a potentially potent political force.

Krisztina Morvai, who successfully headed the party's 2009 EP candidate list; and Gábor Vona the Jobbik party chairman; during their nationwide tour.

In 2007 the party published a policy document^[121] which sought to explain and find solutions to the problems of the preceding years. Named after Gábor Bethlen, it described the country as suffering from a “crisis of constitutionality” (e.g. despite its actions the government was facing no accountability, and the Gyurcsány administration was persisting in office), which had resulted in a political status quo in which all parties acted to benefit themselves, if indeed they acted at all; preferring rhetoric which concealed their ineffectiveness and corruption. However, in its opinion Jobbik was faced with an obstacle to disseminating its policy approach (see 3. Policy position). Namely that the Hungarian media could be divided into two camps: the terrestrial television stations and the majority of print media who were broadly sympathetic to the governing MSZP/SZDSZ coalition, and the satellite stations and a minority of publications, who were committed to Viktor Orbán’s “one camp of the right”^[122] policy i.e. they were Fidesz sympathetic. As a result the party was compelled to mobilize primarily at the local level. This in turn brought it closer to the immediate concerns of the Hungarian electorate, allowing it to be acutely conscious of the severe local effects of the global financial crisis, and the notable rise in crime (or arguably, the rise in the perception of crime – see 3.4 Law and Order).

The party faced its first electoral test with the coming of the 2009 European parliamentary elections. Once again however, it felt that it was being intentionally excluded by the media from the opportunity of presenting its (symbolically 56 page^[123]) manifesto to the public;^[124] while being slandered internationally by a national political elite that “feared the Hungarian nation finally getting into their own parliament.”^[125] Consequently, Gábor Vona, the party chairman; and Krisztina Morvai, arguably the country’s most famous human rights advocate (who had agreed to head the party’s list), conducted a nationwide tour to take the party manifesto directly to the electorate. The election’s results surprised Jobbik^[126] as much as it shocked their opponents:^[127] the party sending three MEPs to Strasbourg; coming close to level with the incumbent government (MSZP) while eliminating their coalition partner (SZDSZ), to become the nation’s third party.^[33] Unsurprisingly, Morvai’s first speech^[128] to the European parliament called for the chamber to be conscious of human rights abuses within the community, i.e. Hungary, in order to secure legitimacy about them taking place in other nations, i.e. Iran; as she pointed to what she called every major anti-government demonstration suffering the same fate since 2006.^[129] Vona himself was pepper sprayed, handcuffed and arrested at a seated protest in Budapest on 4 July 2009,^[130] a demonstration whose legality is still a matter of dispute. In doing so he consolidated his appeal to those who felt that Orbán had abandoned the original protesters of 2006. Vona in contrast, actively joining a demonstration after the police had begun violent efforts to break it up. With Jobbik saying of the incident, that “The violent arrest and forcible detention of the leader of a major European opposition party [was] a sickening development, and without precedent in the 21st Century.”^[131]

October 25, 2009 Jobbik founded the Alliance of European National Movements in Budapest together with political parties from four European countries, Nationaldemokraterna (Sweden), Fiamma Tricolore (Italy), Front National (France) and the Front National (Belgium).^[132]

Manifesto and political programme

The original programme (in Hungarian) contains 88 pages. There is a shortened English language manifesto: (24 pages) ^[133]

Issues and Ideology

Linguistic clarifications

The Movement for a Better Hungary more commonly goes under its abbreviated name Jobbik (pronounced [ˈjɒbbik]), which is in fact a play on words. The word Jobb in Hungarian has two meanings, the adjective for “better” and the direction “right,” the comparative Jobbik therefore means both ‘the more preferable choice’ and ‘more to the right’. This is similar to the English "Right Choice" meaning both Conservative and Proper.

Jobbik is associated with the re-emergence of a Hungarian greeting, coined by the Levente (a veteran led youth cadet organization formed nationally in 1921); namely the call “May God grant” (Adjon az Isten) and response “a brighter future” (Szebb Jövőt!).^{[nb 11]} This may be used as a personal salutation or as a form of address, and is frequently abbreviated to Szebb Jövőt! as a verbal or written valediction; by those sympathetic to the mainstream nationalist movement.^{[nb 12]}

The meaning of the party’s 2009 election slogan “Hungary belongs to the Hungarians” (Magyarország a Magyaroké!) was also the subject of considerable scrutiny.^{[nb 13]} Some critics thought the slogan essentially tautological,^[135] while others were sufficiently concerned to mount a successful complaint at the National Electoral Commission; which ruled it “unconstitutional” on the very eve of the election.^[136] Jobbik maintained that the use of the slogan’s wording was justified because Hungary’s political and economic elite had been engaged in enriching themselves through placing the majority of the country’s significant assets into private or foreign ownership.^[137]

Radical nationalism

Gábor Vona: "What do we mean by radicalism?" ^[138]

Views of Jobbik about modern political divisions: "We are not even a right-wing party," declares Mr Varkonyi. "We do not believe in the division between left and right. The true division is between those who want globalisation and those who do not. We are a patriotic party."^[139]

The comparative political ideological framework within which Jobbik exists is right-wing populism, whose strategy “relies on a combination of ethno-nationalism with anti-elitist populist rhetoric and a radical critique of existing political institutions.”Right-wing populism^[140][141] (As a result Jobbik is part of an increasing Europe-wide trend,^[142] which began with the Danish Progress Party in 1972,^[143] and finds its most significant contemporary manifestation - in terms of most likely to actually form a government - in the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid^[144] led by Geert Wilders.^[145])^{[nb 14]} The most conspicuous advocate of the Hungarian expression of this right-wing populist trend, radical nationalism,^{[nb 15]} is the “articulate and softly spoken former History teacher” Gábor Vona;^[149] who was elected chairman of Jobbik at the age of 27. Vona’s radical nationalism actively rejects the conventional classification of the Left-Right political spectrum; which he views to be inherently false and misleading. He supports this contention by pointing to what he calls the persistent inability of this convention to provide solutions to the most pressing issues of the day. For Vona, the division between Left and Right, as commonly understood, is an essentially illusory perspective.^[150]

In the place of this illusory divide Jobbik substitutes the twin ideologies of, first, a virtually unrestrained capitalism (namely economic Neoliberalism), and second, modern social liberalism (deemed to include Political correctness and Multiculturalism); which it maintains are the two primary forces actually governing the lives of the modern European (and by extension Hungarian) citizen. But it is also mistaken to believe that these two ideologies are opposed, and in conflict. For Jobbik they represent the status quo, to which the majority of established politicians unquestioningly subscribe.^[25] Moreover, any questioning would be pointless because these twin ideologies operate at the trans-national rather than national level. They are imposed and enforced by the directives and regulations of the European Union, which in the form of the Commission has already exclusively appropriated the most significant executive powers of national governments; and whose democratic removal the European elector is (by design) incapable of achieving.^[151] As a result the Hungarian citizen is forced to endure a succession of day-to-day realities that fly in the face of their own interests;^[152] and there is nothing of merit that politicians from the two main parties can do about it, as a result they either spend their time enriching themselves, or manufacturing political controversies over symbolic issues in order to divert attention from their own impotence and corruption.^[153] This is the radical element of Jobbik's ideology.

The nationalist element comes from the suggested solution to this dilemma. As these two currently governing ideologies are considered, by definition, indifferent to the economic fate or cultural survival of the Hungarian people: nationalism is revealed as a sensible, intelligent and worthwhile political choice.^[153] And a new and realistic divide emerges, which permits one to make valid and useful distinctions between policy options or Euro-legislation. Namely, does it serve the national interest, or not. As Morvai Krisztina remarked on the 2009 campaign trail, “We have no use in Hungary, for those laws,^[154] which in our own land actively disadvantage Hungarians and prioritise the interests of foreigners.”^[155] Consequently, Vona has stated that he sees one of the key functions of the party to be compelling those in Hungarian public life to profess which side of this actual political dividing line they occupy. To declare “on which side of the real barricade they stand.”^[156] The party’s magazine is entitled “Barricade” (Barikád)^[157] for this reason.

Cultural conservatism

Policy position

Hungary

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Hungary

Constitution President Pál Schmitt Prime Minister Viktor Orbán National Assembly Speaker László Kövér Political parties Fidesz - Jobbik - KDNP LMP - MDF - MSZP Other parties Constitutional Court Elections 1990 - 1994 - 1998 - 2002 - 2006 - 2010 - Legislative Presidential Regions Counties Subregions Cities, towns, and villages Politics of the European Union Foreign relations

Other countries · Atlas Politics portal

Imminent EU regulations on arable land ownership are a major party issue.

The European Union

Jobbik views about Lisbon Treaty:^[158]

The economy

The Eco-Social National Economy:^[159]

Hungarian minorities

The demographic consequences of the Treaty of Trianon are still keenly felt.

Of the three victorious powers of World War I it was the United States under Woodrow Wilson which argued for self-determination amongst the ethnic communities of the Austro-Hungarian empire.^{[nb 16]} France and Britain however, arguably had a broader strategic agenda of ensuring that any future resurgent Germany would not have a European industrial ally to call upon. They therefore sought by their boundary decisions, primarily to economically cripple Austria and Hungary respectively to ensure this objective. Though a subject of debate, two consequences of their actions nevertheless followed. First, Austria-Hungary being an autarky, had they had such an agenda it was successful. (Germany in World War II had no such industrially significant ally.) Second the Treaty of Trianon, being the document which in 1920 specifically partitioned the Kingdom of Hungary in this process, left large ethnically Hungarian communities (whose residence had spanned centuries) outside the territorial border of modern Hungary; such communities today making up one quarter of Central Europe’s Magyar population.^[27] As a consequence the Hungarian constitution states that, “The Republic of Hungary bears a sense of responsibility for what happens to Hungarians living outside of its borders and promotes the fostering of their relations with Hungary.”^[160]

However, according to Jobbik, successive Hungarian governments have found it inconvenient to honour this commitment. While the EU, remembering of course that the resolution of the Magyar minority issue was sold as a chief benefit of joining the community, appears merely to have hoped that accession would have just made this issue somehow disappear. Given its continued and resolute refusal to get involved in any alleged incident of the infringement of Magyar minority rights, this being in stark contrast to frequent and repeated highlighting of the Roma minority issue. The point being that whereas in Hungary, minority issues are actively promoted and defended (through exclusive multi-ethnic radio and TV times, and dedicated social funding); the deliberate curtailment of Magyar rights Jobbik argue, are not just merely a rhetorical feature of the political extremes of some neighbouring countries, but are actually a part of official government policy or persisting legislation. (e.g. the Beneš decrees) Jobbik campaigns for these communities to be given the opportunity of self-determination that was originally denied them. As a result the party has caused concern amongst those whose political or constitutional principles are strictly opposed to even countenancing such a proposal, due to commitments to territorial integrity.

Law and Order

Controversy

The Hungarian Guard in their cultural role. Here a Guard choir sings in Békéscsaba. (note the dulcimer on the right)

The Hungarian Guard

The symbol of the Guard, the crest of King Emeric, decorated with lions and Árpád stripes, which is also part of their uniform.

In June 2007 president Vona, supported by the party, founded and registered the organisation called Magyar Gárda, which says in its deed of foundation that it intends to become “part or core” of the national guard to be set up in accordance with the Bethlen Gábor programme, and it also wishes to participate actively “in strengthening national self-defence” and “maintaining public order” as well as supporting and organising social and charity missions, in disaster prevention and civil defence. The foundation of the Guard was accompanied by sharp political debate.

On 10 March 2008 three leading figures resigned from the party: Dávid Kovács, the founding president of the party, Ervin Nagy, committee chairman, and Márton Fári, former chairman of the party’s ethical committee. They indicated the Hungarian Guard as the cause of their resignation, stating that "Jobbik has been merged inseparably with the Guard, taking responsibility for something that it cannot really control in the long run".

On 2 July 2009 the Metropolitan Court of Appeal (Fővárosi Ítélőtábla) disbanded the "Magyar Gárda" Organization because the court held that the activities of the organization were against the human rights of minorities as guaranteed by the Hungarian Constitution. The Guard has attempted to reorganize itself as a civil service association, known as the Magyar Gárda Foundation, engaged in cultural and nation building activities rather than politics. Its renewed activities are opposed by the Hungarian authorities ^[161] and prosecutors claim that the founding of the new organization is in contempt of previous court rulings.

Jobbik argues that the national police should be greatly strengthened and -with the FIDESZ- supports introducing an American style "three strikes law" ^[162] The radical right wing in Hungary, including Jobbik protested against Israeli President Shimon Peres, after he said that "Israel is buying up Hungary".^[163]

The Roma issue

Besides its declarations regarded as anti-ziganist by the party’s critics, some members brought back the use of the term gipsy crime^[164] which was in official use before the 1990s by the authorities. Gipsy crime in this sense is used to refer to criminal acts typically attributed to members of the Romani community.

Allegations of Fascism

The standard of the House of Árpád (held here by King Béla III) is medieval in origin,

though used by the vicious Nazi allied Nyilas government of Oct '44 - Jan '45 (armband),

still remains a ubiquitous national symbol. (logo of the Office of National Security)

The Árpád stripes flag (Jobbik claim^[51]) has been in almost continuos nationwide use since the 9th century.

The party denies being anti-Semitic, homophobic, or racist in any way, dismissing such criticisms as the "favourite topics" of an "ignorant and misled" European Union.^[165] Even so, the movement has been accused of playing on those fears.^[165] Jobbik has also been linked to homophobic incidents in Budapest.^[166][167] In London on 16 May 2008 the delegation of Jobbik's Committee of Foreign Affairs met Nick Griffin, chairman of the British National Party. They discussed cooperation between the two parties, and the elections for the European Parliament. Griffin spoke at the party rally in August 2008, while former vice-president Zoltan Füzessy is presently resident in Gravesend, Kent, England.^[168]

Charges of Anti-Semitism

On the eve of the 2009 elections to the European parliament, a comment was posted on an unofficial and unverified Hungarian political internet forum, allegedy in the name of Prof. Krisztina Morvai, who then headed the party’s electoral list. Addressing their remarks to Hungarian Jews the comment poster stated that they “would be glad if the so-called proud Hungarian Jews went back to playing with their tiny circumcised dicks instead of vilifying me.”^{[169][170][171]} News of this comment, which has been roundly condemned,^[172] spread rapidly around the world^[173][174] and eventually even featured in an article by The Economist.^[175] (Whose readership immediately questioned the wisdom of using an unverified 3rd party forum posting as an authoritative source.^[176]) Morvai’s critics have pointed to her refusal to even discuss the issue,^[177] let alone deny it;^[178] implying that this is sufficient to unquestioningly ascribe authorship of the remarks to her.^[179]

Her supporters however, claim that though she certainly has a record of being critical of the state of Israel^[147] given a sympathy for the Palestinian cause she developed while working as an international Human Rights lawyer,^[148] the idea of Morvai being an anti-Semite is "simply ridiculous", given that at the time of her alleged remarks she was in point of fact married to a Hungarian of Jewish origin,^[180] with whom she has three children,^[181] but from whom she is now separated.^[180]

In a newsletter published by a group calling itself "The trade union of Hungarian police officers prepared for action," the following was allegedly printed. "Given our current situation, anti-Semitism is not just our right, but it is the duty of every Hungarian homeland lover, and we must prepare for armed battle against the Jews." The editor of the union, Judit Szima, is a Jobbik candidate in the upcoming election for the European Union parliament. Szima "didn't see anything wrong with the content of the article."^[182] The trade union denies that they published such a statement and they announced they would demand for a correction from the European Jewish Congress.^[183].

Election results

For the Hungarian Parliament:

*In an electoral alliance with MIÉP, under the name of the "MIÉP-Jobbik Third Way Alliance of Parties", joined by Independent Smallholders’ Party (FKgP) organisations from 15 counties.

For the European Parliament:

† 2009 Seat winners:

1. Krisztina Morvai
2. Zoltán Balczó
3. Csanád Szegedi

Municipal:

Mayoral:

• Pácin - Attila Barati

Notes

References

1. ↑ No English language version has yet been rendered of the Hungarian wikipedia article on the phenomenon of Hungarian Radical nationalism. Though "Radical nationalism" is accurate semantically, in Hungarian it is given in the reverse format Nemzeti radikalizmus ("National [or rather: nationist [sic]] radicalism") due to the fact that the Hungarian noun for "Nationalism" (Nacionalizmus) has a primarily negative associative connotation with the 1940s; rather than a positive patriotic one.

Resources

• “A Crisis in Hungary – The road to dictatorship?”, a dossier of accounts, witness statements and photographs of events on 23 October 2006; the key formative and self-legitimising event of the modern Hungarian nationalist movement.
• An article in Hungarian about the origins of Jobbik from Magyar Narancs, December 4, 2003

External links

• Official website (Hungarian)
• Official website (English)
• Electoral Manifesto (English)
• Changing of the Garda An article in The Economist about the Hungarian far right
• Deed of Foundation (Hungarian)
• "Third way" platform: The nationalist right gets together (HVG)

Political parties in Hungary Represented in the National Assembly (386) Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union (227) - Hungarian Socialist Party (59) - Jobbik - Movement for a Better Hungary (47) - Christian Democratic People's Party (36) - LMP - Politics Can Be Different (16) - Independent (1) Not represented in the Parliament ** Hungarian Democratic Forum (2.67%) - Civic Movement (0.89) - Hungarian Communist Workers' Party (0.11%) - Hungarian Social Democratic Party (0.08%) **Limit for parties to join the National Assembly in Hungary is 5% of popular votes Represented in the European Parliament (22) Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Union and Christian Democratic People's Party (14) - Hungarian Socialist Party (4) - Jobbik - Movement for a Better Hungary (3) - Hungarian Democratic Forum (1) Portal:Politics - List of political parties - Politics of Hungary