Co-sponsored by The Center for Russian, East European & Eurasian Studies and The Europe Center

Event Synopsis:

The End of Hungarian Democracy? International Implications
October 21, 2011

After an introduction by Professor Dornbach, Professor Wittenberg asserts that while a spirit of bipartisan ship is a nice feature of the U.S. legislature, it is not a fundamental requirement of democracy and  has historically not characterized the Hungarian parliament. He traces a decades-long tradition of ruling parties using Parliament to limit the presence and influence of minority parties. The current Fidesz government, which ended up with 2/3 of the seats after the 2012 election, now has a supermajority necessary to alter the constitution. Professor Wittenberg attributes Fidesz’s victory to three factors: the incompetence of older right wing parties, partly resulting from lack of governing experience during last four decades of Socialist rule; 2) the arrogance of the Socialist party; and 3) a simple lack of alternatives for voters. Wittenberg points out that Hungary’s complex electoral system resulted in more Fidesz parliamentary seats than the party’s actual popularity with voters would predict. He concludes that the 70% of parliamentary vote won, cumulatively, by extreme nationalist parties, does not bode well for the future of liberal politics in Hungary.

Professor Scheppele describes how the Fidesz party under the leadership of (Victor) Orban has taken its victory as a “mandate to change everything,” often in ways that will allow Fidesz to stay in power in the future. The constitution was amended 10 times during the party’s first year in power. Key changes included reducing the size and jurisdiction of constitutional courts, limiting media activities, allowing election commission representatives to be appointed with a 2/3 majority, and fast tracking the process of voting on new laws to approximately 3 days, leaving little room for discussion and debate. Scheppele echoes Professor Wittenberg’s argument that many voters simply did not have an attractive alternative to Fidesz, which would be less of a danger if the country’s constitution were not so easy to amend. She predicts that Hungary’s current situation should offer lessons to other countries on how to design constitutions.

Professor Halmai concludes the panel by crediting the arrogance (and corruption) of the Socialist coalition with the success of Fidesz in the 2010 elections. He highlights three central problems with the new constitution: 1) It leaves questions regarding who is to be subject to the constitution – for example, does this include the Roma population within Hungary, or Hungarian-Americans living within the United States? 2) The constitution intervenes in the private lives of Hungarians with respect to religion, marriage, abortion, etc. 3) It limits constitutional courts to narrower jurisdictions. He also laments the lack of consensus within the Hungarian government on a set of liberal democratic values.

A discussion session raised such questions as: What prospects are there for pushback from the European Union against some of the recent constraints on rule of law in Hungary? Does the fact that the Hungarian constitution considers the 1.4 million Hungarian-Americans in the United States as Hungarian citizens raise any legal challenge from the U.S.? Does the fact that Hungary has to operates within the frameworks of the European Union and NATO put constraints on its actions with regards to democracy and the constitution? Where does Fidesz’s funding come from?

Presentation of Timothy Garton Ash's draft of editorial content for Freespeechdebate.com, a global, multilingual website for the discussion of free speech in the age of mass migration and the Internet.

5:00 pm: Reception
6:00 PM: Screening of “Coffee Futures” (2009, 22 minutes), followed by a discussion with:

• Zeynep Gursel
  (Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan- Ann Arbor; Director & Co-producer of “Coffee Futures”)
• Hakan Tekin
  (Consul General of the Republic of Turkey in Los Angeles)
• Cihan Tugal
  (Department of Sociology, University of California- Berkeley)

Panelists will focus on political, historical and cultural issues surrounding Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

Coffee Futures (2009, 22 minutes) weaves together the Turkish custom of coffee fortune-telling with Turkey’s attempt to join the European Union since 1959, revealing the textures of a society whose fate has long been nationally and internationally debated often in relation to Europeanness. It aims to encourage a dialogue born from openness, and explores what kind of a place one wants Europe to be in the future.  Coffee Futures received 2009 Special Jury Award for Originality from EurActiv Fondation. In 2010,  it received Best Documentary Short Award in MiradasDoc Festival, Audience Award in !f Istanbul International Independent Film Festival, and Audience Award in Ann Arbor Film Festival. For more information, please visit http://www.neysehalimfilm.com/

Zeynep Gursel is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor, and director & co-producer of “Coffee Futures.” She received her Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California-Berkeley. Her research focuses on how things become imagineable both for individuals and groups, and how forms in which the past and today are narrated are shaped by, and in turn shape, expectations of the future. She was introduced to the documentary world when she worked on Damming the Euphrates(Paxton Winters, 2001) in Southeast Turkey. She is currently completing a book manuscript, Image Brokers,  on the culture of the international photojournalism industry. 
 
Hakan Tekin is Consul General of the Republic of Turkey in Los Angeles. He received his B.A.in International Relations from Ankara University in 1989 and joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey in 1990. He served in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) and Sofia (Bulgaria), attended the NATO Defense College Senior Course in Rome, and worked at the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations in New York. He assumed his post in Los Angeles as Consul General in April 2007.

Cihan Tugal is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California- Berkeley. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor. His research focuses on the role of religion in political projects and how the interaction between religion and politics shapes everyday life, urban space, class relations, and national identity. His book Passive Revolution: Absorbing the Islamic Challenge to Capitalism was published in 2009 by Stanford University Press. His works also appeared in Economy and Society, Theory and Society, Sociological Theory, the New Left Review, the Sociological Quarterly, and edited volumes.

Co-sponsored by the Mediterranean Studies Forum, The Europe Center, The Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Turkish Student Association,  Ford Dorsey Program in International Policy Studies.

With democratic revolutions spreading throughout the region, and as US, European and NATO forces enter the conflict in Libya, the transatlantic community shares concern over events in the greater Middle East. The Europe Center presents a timely seminar by Ami Ayalon, former director of the Shin Bet and commander of the Israeli Navy, about the interdependence of Israeli security and Palestinian statehood and the urgent necessity of achieving a two-state solution to ensure democratic self-determination for both peoples.

Ami Ayalon is a former Member of the Israeli Knesset, Commander of the Israeli Navy, and director of the Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service. In 2003, Ayalon launched, together with former PLO representative Sari Nusseibeh, a peace initiative called “The National Census" to collect signatures of millions of Israelis and Palestinians in support of a two-state solution.

About the Speaker

Admiral Ami Ayalon was born in pre-state Israel in 1945, growing up on Kibbutz Maagan. He served in the Israeli Navy for 30 years. During his service he was decorated with the Medal of Valor, Israel's highest award and the Medal of Honor for carrying out a long list of operations without casualties as the commander of the elite Shayetet 13 Naval commando unit. From 1992-1996 he served as Chief of the Israeli Navy.

Upon retiring from the Navy, Admiral Ayalon was appointed director of the Shin Bet (Israel’s General Security Service). He is credited with rehabilitating the service, which had been hard-hit by its failure to prevent the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In 2003, Admiral Ayalon founded the People’s Voice, a grassroots movement that, together with Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh, formulated a set of principles for a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. To date, over 400,000 people from both sides have signed the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Statement of Principles.

In 2005, Admiral Ayalon was elected to a senior Labor Party seat in the Knesset, and served on the several committees, including as Chair of the Knesset Subcommittee on National Emergency Readiness. In 2007, Admiral Ayalon joined Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet where he served until 2009.

Having formally retired from politics, Admiral Ayalon serves as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Haifa University, leading research on terror, ethics and international law. He is chair of AKIM, a charity for people with intellectual disabilities. He holds two degrees from Bar-Ilan University: a BA in Economics and Political Science and an MA in law, in addition to an MA in Public Administration from Harvard University. He is a graduate of the Naval War College in Newport Rhode Island.

The countries sandwiched between Russia and the European Union are not fully independent actors in regional and international politics: they cannot join the EU or NATO and do not wish to form a community dominated by Russia. Most of of these ‘in-between state’ are caught in a political impasse and security deadlock. This lecture will consider the argument that partnership between Russia and Europe will remain strained as long as the status quo for these states persists.

Marie Mendras is Professor at Sciences Po University and Research Fellow with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. She runs the Observatoire de la Russie, a study group and workshop a at the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales in Paris.

In 2008-2010, Marie Mendras was Professor in the Government Department of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Along with her academic work, she worked as a consultant for the Policy Planning Staff of the Foreign Ministry (1983-1991) and for the Directorate for Strategic Affairs of the Ministry of Defence (1992-1998).

Her publications deal with Russian political developments and foreign policy. She is on the editorial board of the journals Esprit and Pro et Contra and is the author of Russie. L’envers du pouvoir (Odile Jacob, 2008) to be published in English in June 2011 (Hurst, London, and Columbia University Press, New York).

Co-sponsored by the Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies.

About the speaker:

Dr. Franz Cede is a retired Austrian diplomat who served as the Austrian Ambassador to Russia (1999-2003) and to NATO (2003-2007). He also was the Legal Advisor to the Austrian Foreign Ministry. He has a strong California connection dating back to the time when he was the Austrian Consul General in Los Angeles 20 years ago. Dr Cede holds the degree "Doctor of Law" from Innsbruck University. He received an M.A. in international affairs from the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., and is currently an associate professor at the Andrassy University in Budapest, Hungary. Dr. Cede has published several books and articles in the field of international relations, international law and diplomacy.

Jointly sponsored by The Europe Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.

Audio Synopsis:

In this talk, Dr. Cede details his views on Russia's evolving relationships with the EU, NATO, and the US, drawing on his experiences as Austrian ambassador to the Soviet Union from1999 to 2003. Cede first outlines his perceptions of present-day Russia-US and Russia-NATO relations. Russia, he explains, still thinks in Cold War terms of bilateral relations and considers the United States to be its primary strategic partner on global security issues, especially in light of the Obama administration's recent "reset" of relations and ratification of the new START treaty. In contrast, Russia views NATO as outdated and yet still a threat. Its expansion to the East is viewed with suspicion by Putin's administration, which considers these developments to be distinctly anti-Russian. Russia engages with NATO only to the extent that it believes it can influence the organization's behavior and policies toward Moscow.  Still, in Cede's experience, the NATO-US-Russia triangle continues to be at the forefront of Russian policymakers' dialogue. Russian leaders prefer to avoid dealing with the EU because it lacks a coherent foreign policy, and also because Russia prefers bilateral relations with countries that offer a strategic benefit. Dr. Cede quotes Timothy Garton Ash, who wrote in a recent op-ed that "much of the Russian foreign policy elite treats the European Union as a kind of transient, post-modern late 20th century anachronism: flawed in principle, and feeble in practice. What matters in the 21st century, as much as it did in the 19th century, is the...determination of great powers." Dr. Cede cites the Georgian military intervention and recent Ukrainian gas crisis as examples of Russia's renewed attempts to reestablish dominance in its neighborhood.  

In the second portion of his talk Dr. Cede traces the evolution of Russian views of the EU and NATO.  Ten years ago, the EU-Russia relationship was largely ignored in the Russian media. When Cede asked Russian citizens for their views on the EU, they "either didn't know or didn't care." As Ambassador, Dr. Cede found Russian officials better informed, but  disdainful of being given orders by EU donors and "treated like a developing country." Cede illustrates this dynamic by recounting the 2004 incident in which the EU forced the residents of Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast region to apply for EU Shengen visas, which then required special permits to travel throughout Russia.  Western assurances that EU expansion to the east was not an attack on Russia but rather an attempt to extend stability to the Eastern bloc fell on deaf ears. Cede believes that notwithstanding Russia's attitude, the country is too big to ever join the EU, or to be influenced by Europe in its policy decisions. Because Russia still views itself as "one of the poles in a multipolar world," Dr. Cede insists that any change must come from within the country. However, Cede views Russia's candidacy to the WTO, which would require a clearer commitment to democracy and open economic policies, as a glimmer of hope.

Finally, Dr. Cede outlines several "permanent" features of Russia's relationship with the world, including economic interdependence, lack of cooperation on security policy, and weak relations with stateless organizations like the EU and NATO. He lays out several recommendations, which are elaborated on during the Q&A session:

1. EU policymakers and other Western powers (notably the US) should strengthen their common Russia policy. Given the EU's dependence on Russia for oil and gas, it should also diversify its own energy sources to strengthen its bargaining position.
2. The EU should consider membership for "bridge countries" such as Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus.
3. Personal diplomacy between universities, civil society, and citizens is important.  This includes reevaluation of visa policy. Cede hopes that the advent of the internet will also help improve attitudes between Russia and the rest of the world.