“This ambiguity was no longer tenable”

It’s been almost a week now since the LMP Congress adopted a series of resolutions on the party’s electoral strategy for 2014, but there is still disagreement within the party on what the resolution prescribes in practice. Would you please share your interpretation with us?

I’ll talk about the so-called “T14” resolution in a minute but first let me please briefly explain the chronology of events. We are talking about two decisions in fact. One is the resolution that sets the guidelines for prospective cooperation with Together 2014 – hence the nickname “T14” – and the other one is the adopted electoral strategy. We’ve been working on this latter resolution since the summer, when Gordon Bajnai and Together 2014 weren’t on the scene yet. The electoral strategy was finalised in September and then discussed by the relevant forums of the party. Then came the 23rd of October, with Gordon Bajnai erupting onto scene. That changed and speeded up everything: Some in the party instantly suggested joining Together 2014. Then, a couple of days before the Congress, Together 2014 sent us an official request to join the alliance, along with a document outlining the framework for cooperation. We had to come to a decision as soon as possible. The reason I’ve told you this is to highlight that we are talking about two separate processes and decisions, which are of course connected.

Now let’s look first at the adopted electoral strategy, more precisely Article 5 which states that: “We cannot consider as a strategic ally a player whose financial background is inseparable from: the oligarchic networks of the last 20 years; environmentally destructive or extremely exploitative economic activities; foreign interest groups predisposed to perpetuating Hungary’s vulnerability and the current trajectory of global capitalism.” Now, let me remark that this is exactly what LMP declared in its founding documents, and nobody had interpretation problems back then. It is clear that a political community cannot credibly represent an alter-global agenda if it is funded by actors whose income derives from financial speculation or environmentally harmful activities. And to me it is also clear that the same requirements must be demanded from our potential strategic allies. But let’s move on to the pivotal points of the electoral strategy. One of the most important decisions taken was that the Congress voted against any strategic cooperation with the parliamentary parties. The second important and somewhat symbolic decision was that LMP would not participate in a government led by any of the former prime ministers of the 1990-2012 period.

Let me conclude by declaring that the electoral strategy amended at the Congress left the question of electoral cooperation open. Electoral cooperation is not necessarily the same thing as a “strategic alliance”. We may make agreements with certain parties in certain constituencies, but it won’t make them our strategic ally. And, at the same time, we can have a number of non-partisan strategic allies such as professional unions or other organisations. So this point of the electoral strategy does not cover all forms of electoral cooperation.

Let’s talk about the other decision then, namely the so-called T14 resolution, which unambiguously rejects an alliance with Together 2014. Or doesn’t it?

Here, we were asked directly whether we wanted to join the alliance. We rejected this, but, under the framework of the accepted strategy, we are ready to engage in discussions with the member organisations of Together 2014 or their representatives on further opportunities for political cooperation. We have also made it clear that what we would like to see is a programme-based approach. And since these actors – Gordon Bajnai in particular, but also other members of the Patriotism and Progress Association – were governing this country between 2002 and 2010, we ask them first to clarify their relation to this era. Why? Because if someone has been in government for 8 years, I would first like to know what they think about their past record before we discuss the future.

It is still quite difficult to understand what led to this turmoil in the party. Benedek Jávor’s position doesn’t sound much different from yours.

I fully understand if this conflict appears to be a bit strange from the outside. Because if you only look at the competing resolutions, indeed the only difference is that the “77s” – who now form the Platform for Dialogue within LMP – stood in favour of starting discussions with Together 2014 without ruling out the option of joining the alliance, while we stated that we would not join it under any circumstances but we would be ready to discuss other forms of potential cooperation.

So, contrary to how it has appeared so far, you would be open to starting discussions with Together 2014. On which issues?

The T14 resolution specifies in 9 points the government practices of the 2002-2010 period that we find problematic, and asks Together 2014 to clarify how they assess their record on these points. These issues include regulation of the banking sector, the foreign-currency household-credit crisis, land-use policy, energy policy, the national debt, and so on. Because if Together 2014 continues to refuse to openly reject the policies of the Gyurcsány government, then I’m sorry but I don’t have anything to talk about. But if they are ready to openly admit the mistakes that they made over these 8 years, then it is worth starting a dialogue about what we think about the future. And only then can we open the question of prospective electoral or perhaps even governmental cooperation.

So what role do you think LMP should play in toppling the Fidesz government?

I wouldn't try to guess at this point what the balance of power will look like in early 2014 before the elections, but I firmly believe one thing: That the chances of achieving a change of government without Jobbik can only grow if there is a party unequivocally opposed not only to the Orbán regime, but to the 2002-2010 era too. And this party can only be LMP. I note that I purposefully referred to the 2002-2010 era and not the Gyurcsány government. It is important to understand that most Hungarians do not see any meaningful difference between Gyurcsány and Bajnai. Those belonging to sophisticated intellectual circles in Budapest may see the difference, but the average citizen who would like to see the Socialist Party descend to hell would like to see Bajnai descend too. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that an electoral alliance led by Gordon Bajnai will only be able to rally disappointed Fidesz-voters to a limited degree. If we want to strengthen LMP, we must unequivocally communicate what we think about the key figures of the past 8 years. Any ambiguity here will inevitably harm us, and it will undermine the chances of all of the forces seeking to unseat Orbán in 2014. This is why I decided not to duck this conflict, but to engage it. The ambiguity of our position was no longer tenable.

What do you think about the freshly funded Platform for Dialogue?

I’m a great supporter of freedom of speech and assembly. And I also believe that an organised form of dissent is still better than letting disagreements and obscure personal antipathies proliferate. But although I believe that the articulation of disagreements can even strengthen a party, I must also say that it is not possible to have members openly contesting a decision adopted by the party congress the day before. No one can be forced to change his or her conviction, but certain procedural limits have to be observed.

The interview was conducted by Flóra Hevesi for the Heinrich Böll Foundation.