Tímea Szabó is co-president of the new green left party Dialogue for Hungary (PM). In the interview she talks about the new party's strategy after the split from the green party LMP in January. For an insight into the reasons for the split within LMP you can read the articles conducted in December with former LMP parliamentary group leaders András Schiffer and Benedek Jávor.
Are there any issues which LMP did not pursue as forcefully as you would have liked and that you wish to prioritise in Dialogue for Hungary (PM)?
The basic difference is that we want to stress the leftist aspects of green politics more forcefully than LMP did. In addition to pursuing avowedly leftist economic and social policies, however, we would also like to give green issues more emphasis. We will strive to take advantage of the fact all three LMP politicians who dealt with ecological issues – Benedek Jávor, Rebeka Szabó and László Szilágyi – joined Dialogue for Hungary. There are also matters, like the integration of Roma or equal rights for sexual minorities, which were not consensual issues in LMP. As a politician, I was responsible for these areas and I often found myself having to fight within my own party so that we could address these issues with practical determination in accordance with the ideological commitment outlined in the founding charter. For instance, before the last Gay Pride event I had a fierce debate over whether LMP should appear at the demonstration with its flag and banners. This was not the only instance of controversy over minorities. When I stood up against the marches of the Hungarian Guard, I was criticised within LMP for repelling conservative voters from the party. When one of our activists was injured in Devecser during Jobbik’s rally (she was hit with a sizable stone by a paramilitary), she was asked who gave her permission to stand up in defence of Devecser’s Roma community in the name of LMP.
So you think PM will be able to build a more solid campaign on these issues?
Yes, I do. I feel that in PM there will be no debates about me standing up firmly in defence of any minority group suffering discrimination in Hungary.
What is the situation with the representation of farmers? In LMP, Rebeka Szabó stood up against dubious land-grabbing cases and defended the interests of local farmers. Do you plan to continue cooperating with farmer organisations now that the majority of your rural supporters have stayed in LMP?
Of course. Rebeka is continuously visiting rural areas and consulting with farmers’ associations on land issues, and I do not believe there will be any change in her work.
On an organisational level, what is the biggest lesson you have learned from this long, painful conflict and breakup?
The most important thing I have learned is that the objectives of the party have to be formulated a lot more precisely. One mistake we made when founding LMP was to leave ambiguous formulations of what we stood for in the party’s founding charter, and a second was our lenience in demanding that new members subscribe to the programme presented in that text. When you establish a party, you have to be crystal clear about what your motives are and what you represent.
Was this the root cause of the conflict?
I think that many of those joining the party did not take the values defined in the founding charter as seriously as the founders did. When we founded the party, we strove to achieve something we called ‘value synthesis’, which meant that we would consider the adoption of valuable ideas and policy proposals from both sides of the political spectrum. What we did not make sufficiently clear, however, was that the founding charter was not meant to be an à la carte menu from which you can cherry-pick. It is based on this experience that we decided to define much more clearly the conditions for joining PM. The other lesson is about organisational culture. Similarly to LMP, PM also wants to provide space for grassroots democracy in order to allow both supporters and members to take part in collective thinking and decision-making. We would primarily like to channel the energies coming from the grassroots into thinking about creative strategies for weakening the Orbán government, but also into finding new forms for representing left-green values. However, grassroots democracy cannot mean organisational chaos. Learning from LMP’s mistakes, we introduced a more professional and also slightly more hierarchical party structure. PM’s leadership consists of two co-chairs and a party director who oversee the work of policy committees. There will also be a number of mediating bodies and information channels that will allow members to make their voices heard and to participate in key policy and political debates inside the party.
Do you see any opportunity to cooperate with LMP in the elections? Are the conditions after the stormy breakup suitable for that?
It is quite natural for human relations to suffer during a breakup. However, we as politicians have to put these emotions aside and look at the interests of the country. We in PM see LMP as a potential partner who, due to the manipulative electoral system in place, could play an important role in unseating the Orbán government.
Would you cooperate with LMP on the level of electoral districts?
To send this government packing, you have to keep every option for cooperation on the table. For now, it is LMP who refuses to cooperate with other democratic forces in order to replace the government. It is difficult for us to understand LMP’s argument that the best way to achieve a change of elites is to run independently. After all, if you refuse to cooperate with the left-wing opposition, you are likely to contribute to keeping Viktor Orbán in power. It is difficult to see how that would serve the purpose of changing the elites. This government has become a symbol of the unhealthy nexus of political and economic interests in opposition to which LMP was founded five years ago.
András Schiffer argues that if not now, then in 2018 there will be a realistic chance to get rid of Viktor Orbán without helping the left (which, in his view, has proved a hundred times that it is not more honest than the right) back into power.
This country does not have four more years. Four million people live below the official poverty line, children are starving and tens of thousands of people live on the street.
Isn’t it true, however, that LMP emerged from your conflict as the moral victor? It seems to me that the dominant narrative is that those who stayed in LMP stuck to their principles, while those who left the party did so to strike an immoral compromise with Gordon Bajnai.
The tendency to mistake a willingness to engage in dialogue and to compromise with opportunism is a sad peculiarity of Hungarian political culture. Yes, we would like to cooperate, but this in no way implies striking dishonest deals. When we began negotiations with Together 2014, we started by looking at the congruity of our programmes on the policy level in four areas (democracy, social policy, economic policy and sustainability). We began with this precisely because we do not want to strike a compromise which would go against our basic principles. If we can agree on policy questions, we can then talk about electoral cooperation.
Does Together 2014 support PM financially?
No, it does not.
Where do you get your money?
From nowhere. The funds allocated to our eight MPs only allow us to employ a few experts and organisers. Fortunately, interest on behalf of supporters ready to offer help is steadily growing. This means that we mostly receive in-kind contributions, which is not to say that there are no people who donate money to help us finance our activities. Unfortunately, we learned this week that the Ecopolis Foundation (the party foundation of LMP) has decided not to allocate funds to the Ecopolitical Summer Academy this year. We have been organising this event – which enjoys European visibility – for years, and we would like to continue to do so. So we are also looking for sponsors for the Summer Academy now.
Frankly speaking, this seems to be an open fight between LMP and PM. You also had a brawl over parliamentary committee seats that were reallocated after the split in the group.
We have lost many valuable committee seats. Benedek Jávor was deprived of the position of chair in the Committee for Sustainability, and Gergely Karácsony and I had to relinquish our deputy chair positions because we became independent MPs. Rebeka Szabó’s situation is even worse: she could not keep her membership in the Committee for Agriculture. In the meantime, Lajos Mile – who remained in LMP – was allowed to keep his seat, and Ágnes Osztolykán kept her deputy chair position as well. It is obvious that László Kövér (the president of the parliament) favoured the remaining LMP MPs with these decisions.
Does the euphoria (in some ways similar to that surrounding LMP when it was founded five years ago) around PM compensate for this material loss?
The conflicts of LMP did not start last year; deep ideological and socio-cultural differences had been present for a long time. Eventually, the party also fell apart in organisational terms, which was a very difficult experience to go through personally. Therefore, when we finally decided to leave, it was a relief for all of us. But the euphoria has more to do with the fact that we finally found our green-left political home, which LMP did not provide us. The party’s reluctance to provide a clear definition of its identity undermined its credibility, and kept a lot of voters away.
Does the outside world also reflect this euphoria? How do you stand in the polls?
Yes, definitely, although we are not yet measured by pollsters. But the slide in support for LMP – the party stood at 1% in the latest polls – most probably indicates that many LMP voters followed us. If I am right, this would also confirm the key argument we repeated on numerous occasions over the past few months – namely, that the majority of LMP voters see the dismissal of the Orbán-government as a priority and would therefore support cooperation on the left.
But without money and a strong network of support it will be difficult to reach these voters. How will you build a new organisation in barely a year’s time?
We have already started expanding our network and are progressing very rapidly. Only this week, six local chapters of PM were created. Our strategic aim is to get into parliament with an independent parliamentary group in 2014. That would allow us to continue building the party.
Do you plan to campaign among Hungarians living outside Hungary?
Of course, because Dávid Dorosz – who used to be responsible for this in LMP – will continue his political career in PM. I have also dealt with the matter from the human rights perspective, so we are well positioned to continue the work on this front.
If in 2014 the political situation is such that it allows you to enter government, do you think that PM would participate in a government led by Fidesz or MSZP?
Well, it is very difficult to forecast anything at this point. While we have many problems with the governments of the previous eight years, we still have a lot more in common with the Socialists than with Fidesz. Therefore, I would definitely exclude any kind of cooperation with the latter.
The interview was conducted by Flóra Hevesi.
UPDATE: On 8 March, Together 2014 announced the creation of a party alliance with PM. The new party alliance, officially called the Together 2014 – PM Party Alliance, will present a common prime minister candidate, a common electoral list and common candidates in electoral districts in the 2014 elections. According to the electoral law, party alliances must receive at least 10% of votes cast for party lists to receive parliamentary mandates. If the Together 2014 – PM Party Alliance receives at least 10% of votes, PM will be able to form an independent parliamentary group after 2014. The party alliance is led by a presidency formed by six people, two of whom – Benedek Jávor and Tímea Szabó – have been delegated by PM.