Claim:
The Fidesz party was the little brother of SZDSZ, but later betrayed its principles.
Rebuttal:
The two parties did indeed have a close relationship in the beginning, but their relationship was strained by numerous conflicts.
In detail:
At the time of the regime change, many people did indeed see Fidesz as the “little brother” of the SZDSZ. The two liberal parties envisioned the transformation of the political system according to similar liberal principles and took joint action on a number of issues, such as the so-called ’four-question referendum’ and the ’Dunagate’ scandal. Rumors of a close relationship were reinforced by personal connections, such as the fact that Fidesz founder Gábor Fodor lived in the apartment of SZDSZ member János Kis in 1988/89 and even looked after his dog when Kis was staying in the United States as a guest lecturer. The feeling of being a “youth organization” may also have been fueled by the fact that, until the 1993 Fidesz congress, only people under the age of 35 could be members of the party.
However, the relationship between the SZDSZ and Fidesz was accompanied by a certain tension from the outset. Fidesz, which had been formed earlier, at the end of March 1988, already felt in 1988 that the SZDSZ wanted to draw it into its own orbit, and Péter Tölgyessy, one of the leaders of the SZDSZ, made a specific reference to this. The joint four-party referendum campaign in the fall of 1989 became a watershed in the sense that it greatly increased the SZDSZ’s visibility and popularity, but not that of Fidesz. In other words, it was during these months that it became clear that the Free Democrats might even have a chance of winning the election, while Fidesz could only hope to gain seats in parliament. Under these circumstances, they were unable to agree on their candidates, and Fidesz already wanted to break out of its role as the “little brother” by trying to position itself between the two rival parties, the SZDSZ and the MDF. This was later expressed by the phrase “child of divorced parents.” Before the second round of the 1990 elections, an agreement was reached between the SZDSZ and Fidesz on withdrawals, but with little success. A few months later, the MDF-SZDSZ agreement was criticized by the young democrats who had been left out of the backroom deal.
At the beginning of the first cycle, they also took a similar position on a number of issues, with Fidesz sharply—but professionally—criticizing several of the government’s proposals. While Fidesz took a hard (or harder) line on theoretical and ideological issues, it proved to be more “understanding” in acute political situations, such as the taxi blockade or the Croatian arms shipment scandal during the South Slavic war. The SZDSZ viewed both political issues as grounds for bringing down the government, while Fidesz did not. At the end of 1990 and the beginning of 1991, they repeatedly “sent messages” to each other publicly.
The relationship between the two parties was therefore not without its problems. The SZDSZ sought to establish itself as the leader of the liberal pole, while Fidesz wanted to avoid any endeavors that would not have meant an equal partnership. Thus, their basic stance toward the Antall government was also different, which caused serious tension within Fidesz from the second half of 1991. By this time, József Antall’s internal opposition within the MDF had grown stronger and become more open. In response to their radical demands and statements, the political declaration and movement known as the Democratic Charter was born. This resolution, signed by politicians and intellectuals, placed the defense of democracy against right-wing extremism at the center of the political struggle. The Charter was also signed by members of the Fidesz faction, but they were right to fear that the opposition parties – including the Socialists, who had been politically quarantined until then – would want the Free Democrats to control their cooperation, which would undermine Fidesz’s independent image.
The relationship was further exacerbated by the so-called headquarters affair, which essentially involved Fidesz and the MDF selling the headquarters building that had come into their joint ownership as a state subsidy, with the proceeds being used in a non-transparent manner through various businesses to finance the parties and, according to some investigative articles, even to enrich themselves privately. This transaction is often referred to as a “fall from grace” or a “loss of innocence,” which led to a significant deterioration in Fidesz’s reputation among opinion makers and the loss of its previously measured 40 percent support.
The turmoil within the two liberal parties and internal conflicts among the young democrats led to a minor split within Fidesz in 1993. Members who advocated closer cooperation with the SZDSZ, including Gábor Fodor, Klára Ungár, Zsuzsanna Szelényi, Péter Molnár, left Fidesz and continued their work in the SZDSZ. For a long time, the public did not pay much attention to the differences between the two liberal parties, not least because in the 1994 elections, the two parties ran in an electoral alliance against the conservatives led by the MDF (which also included two other organizations, the Agrarian Alliance and the Entrepreneurs’ Party).
The public did not really notice the differences in the two parties’ understanding of liberalism either. Both parties defined themselves as liberal, with Fidesz joining the Liberal International even earlier, in September 1992, where it remained a member for a long time (until 2000) even after its change of political orientation. On certain issues, Fidesz appeared to be tougher and more radical than the SZDSZ. This was also true of symbolic issues: For example, on June 4, 1990, the Fidesz faction walked out of the uncoordinated one-minute silent mourning break ordered on the anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon, and its representatives repeatedly greeted Christian Democratic speeches with derisive shouts (“On your knees, pray!”). But also in specific cases, such as the compensation law, which the SZDSZ abstained from voting on, while Fidesz voted against it.
Political science only began to address this issue after Fidesz began slowly building a new political bloc after 1993/94 and started using the term “liberal” instead of “liberal,” as well as emphasizing the values of family and nation.
Common past: knowledge to dispel historical misconceptions – supporting the work of Slovak and Hungarian history teachers through print and online publications, professional conferences. A project of the Association of History Teachers and the Hungarian-language newspaper of the Denník N news portal.
Funded by the European Union. The information and statements contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the European Union or the Tempus Public Foundation. Neither the European Union nor the funding authority can be held responsible for them.
