Hungarian Socialist Party Joins Outcry Over Media Impasse

The bodies that rule over the publicly financed broadcasters have been plagued by internal disputes and accusations of political influence on what should be professional decisions since the political compromise that was the Media Act of 1996. Recently, however, the situation has deteriorated even further, as the government has received criticism for having allowed the boards of Hungarian Radio and Television to be presided over by representatives appointed uniquely by the Government. This situation may even contravene the very basis of the Hungarian constitution. Outcry over the current situation has come from high places, including the American Ambassador to Hungary, Ambassador Peter Tufo, who publicly expressed his concern.
After the Hungarian Socialist Party held a press conference aimed at informing the international press about the deteriorating media situation, budapestweek.com asked Ildiko Lendvai, media specialist and Deputy head of The Hungarian Socialist Party Parliamentary Section to express her view of the recent events.

Commentary: Ildiko Lendvai
The Media in Hungary Today

There is a consensus in Hungary that a media-war is taking place. There are intense debates about the realization of freedom of the press and the direction of public media. Early on in the debate media-policy was a domestic policy issue, but through the input of European and other foreign press, the issue has increasingly become a foreign policy issue.

THE Hungarian Constitution – as any other democratic Constitution – guarantees the freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of thought and freedom of the press. The public media plays an important role in the realization of those freedoms. In 1996, the Hungarian Parliament passed the Media Act by a majority vote of 90%. This law opened the way for the pluralistic media-market and the introduction of commercial radio and television. Taking account the freedom of the press, the law was a very important achievement. Previously, without commercial television for example, the public was only be exposed to public television under a unilateral governmental direction.

It was a very important task of the Media Act to guarantee the balance and political independence of the existing two public Television and Radios. The Constitutional Court decided that it was a violation of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution if the media, as earlier, were under the control of the Government and its leaders were appointed by the Prime Minister. Consequently, the Media Act established a new control system. It established the public foundations from the public radio and Televisions. Directed by the boards of trustees, under the Media Act the trustees (eight persons) are elected by the Parliament from the nominees of ruling and opposition parties proportionally.

This structure provides that the different political actors decide on the operation of media in harmony and they guard over its balance and impartiality. According to the law, a 2/3 majority is needed to initiate the appointment and recall of the President of the Radio and Televisions.

This structure is a complicated one, and it is a debatable point that the representatives of political parties should direct these bodies. However, there was a clear intention of the law that the ruling and opposition parties through a balanced representation would be able to make decisions only in harmony, and thus avoid the monopolization of public information.

One might as well say that this was a wrong solution when the delegates of political parties are too close to the operation of public TV and Radio, but there was a consensus that it was worse yet if only the Government should direct them without any control.

Unfortunately, this is the present situation in Hungary. In 1999, the majority of Parliament elected the board of trustees for the Hungarian Television from nominees of only the ruling parties. This year, the government has done the same in the case of Danubius Television and the Hungarian Radio. The result is obvious. According to figures from the National Radio and Television Board, the presence of government politicians in political and news programming has achieved levels of approximately 80%, while opposition parties have enjoyed only 20% air-time at a point when the ruling parties have only a slight majority in the Parliament.

What has happened? There is a simple explanation. A radical right wing party, the Hungarian Truth and Life Party (HTLP) has, supported by the ruling parties, implemented a special interpretation of the Media Act. Early on, the HTLP demanded two seats of the four on the board that are ascribed to opposition parties. The HTLP acted contravention to its representation in the Parliament. The HTLP have only 12 MPs while and the Hungarian Socialist Party has 136, and the Alliance of Free Democrats have two times more than the HTLP. Despite these facts, they nevertheless requested a higher than proportional representation in the board.

A “compromise solution” was later submitted under which every party concerned would receive the same quantity of the seats. In this way, the ruling parties, supported by the HTLP, would achieve a 2/3 majority while the Hungarian Socialist Party (HSP) and the Alliance of Free Democrats (AFD) should have only a walk-on role.

The ruling parties leaned back in their chairs and said that they did not want to take part in the debates over the opposition parties candidates, and they would not elect the opposition trustees until there was an agreement that came from the opposition parties themselves.

The Government referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court according to which if one side does not nominate candidates, the Parliament would form a body from the delegates of the opposing sides. The simple truth is, however, that the opposition factions had nominated candidates- but demands of the HTLP were maintained to increase the number of members to more than four persons.

There was no legal reason why the Parliament should not have decided on the issue of how many seats they give to the Socialists and to the Free Democrats, and how many seats the HTLP should receive from the four available to the opposition candidates.

It seems, however, that the Government wanted to avoid the responsibility of making a decision at all, being happy with a 2/3 majority in the boards and having the power to elect its President. However, such an obvious co-operation with the extreme right wing should be embarrassing. The ruling parties have only a slight majority in Parliament and thus they feel the support of the HTLP is necessary. In this way, the Speaker did not submit the opposition candidates to the Parliament electing which resulted in only the trustees of ruling parties being elected. The Government has occupied the Public Radio and Television, which is financed from public funds and as a result, making them a mouthpiece of the Government.

Ensuing events have even surprised the ruling parties. The Chief Public Prosecutor stated in a letter sent to the Speaker of the house that the proceeding was unlawful. The fact that the Speaker subsequently ignored the opinion of the Chief Public Prosecutor may have been the reason that led to his resignation shortly thereafter.

The Alliance of Hungarian Journalists protested against the situation that resulted in more than ten thousands people demonstrating on the streets of Budapest in a protest initiated by civil organizations. In 1999, the Country Report of European Union criticised the fact that there are only ruling party members in the board of the Hungarian Television. The High Representative of EU stated to the Committee on Foreign Affairs that, “there is no democracy without impartial public information and balanced representation.” The Ambassador of United States in Budapest also expressed his concern about the situation in a separate statement.

Of course, we have to solve this problem at home. The next weeks should decide whether the opinion of “pigeons” or that of “hawks” would be stronger. It is a hopeful sign that Minister of Justice (who is also the President of the Hungarian Democratic Forum, a junior coalition partner in the Hungarian Government) also expressed her concern, not even taking part in the vote. Many well know conservative politicians sympathising with the Government have also stated that they could not agree with the recent events.

If the commitment towards the democracy and freedom of the press would be stronger than the craving for the occupation of media organs, then the good sense and the interest of the Public could prevail.

04.21.
Ildiko Lendvai

Commentary by Ildiko Lendvai, Deputy Head
Hungarian Socialist Party Parliamentary Section