Katalin Csiba, spokesperson of LMP, on the party's strategy after the January split and the party's positions regarding sexual minorities, cooperations with other political and social actors and the relationship to the new green left party Dialogue for Hungary (PM). 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 forcefully thus far, but which you are planning to work on more intensively now that the internal opposition has departed?
In this respect, LMP has not changed. We would not like to drop issues; the only thing which may happen is that we will narrow our focus. Two issues which we will work on for sure are the fight against corruption and the question of job creation. We would like to group all of the policy areas under these two topics.
And are there any areas which have been important for the departing party members and MPs in particular, and which LMP does not wish to push further? For instance, the equality of sexual minorities has been Tímea Szabó’s issue.
Our political position is clear regarding human right issues and it did not change; however, it is already apparent that we will have no capacity to make every issue a political priority. The aim at present is to become issue owners in some areas, and to focus our political work.
For instance, will you go to the Gay Pride event? This has been a source of numerous conflicts within the party for years.
There have not been theoretical differences inside the party on this matter; the only conflict has been over how LMP should participate. There were some who said we have to stand up for this issue symbolically and visibly, so we have to go to the Pride event with a party flag and all that goes with it. Others argued that the best way for a party to deal with the situation of sexual minorities is not a symbolic stand up once a year but more discussion on the issue if there are civil initiatives.
Pride event will never persuade homophobic people of our position. There are people in Hungary, who are not homophobic, yet who nonetheless would like parties to focus on their everyday problems, and for whom Pride event seems rather a time wasting event. This is why I think the LGBT movement should not only call attention to sexual discrimination but should also show solidarity with the poor, with those left behind, with the unemployed and others.
Another recurring question has been how LMP should respond to various events organised by the extreme right, e.g. marches by the Hungarian Guard. Is it expected that your view will change in this respect? If, for instance, a conflict were to break out like the one in Gyöngyöspata, would LMP hold a demonstration?
We are planning to make our position clear with respect to extreme-right marches as well as our responses to such events within the scope of a party debate. We agree that we will fully support any grass root event which is organised to oppose the extreme right gaining ground. For me, however, the political exploitation of such events is unacceptable – namely, that when the Guard has a demonstration and politicians who have been in power during the past twenty years rush out and proclaim how terrible it is, yet when they were in government – even as prime minister – they did nothing to curb the social tensions which bring about such demonstrations.
So LMP will keep away from such events then?
I cannot respond to that. It is certain, however, that I personally do not believe in counter-demonstrations where we demonstrate with very aggressive slogans, because this reinforces the bond between those who for whatever reason sympathise with the Guard and those who are not necessarily depraved. This is why I have always supported the idea of organising a parallel event, such as a green picnic with public forums or a local problem-solving event. If we have enough capacity to organise such events in the future, I will certainly promote this; if such events do not take place, however, it will not be for political reasons but rather due to a lack of capacity.
Does LMP plan to campaign among Hungarians living outside the borders of Hungary?
We have no specific campaign idea for this yet, but we definitely do wish to entertain good relations with the representatives of Hungarian political parties in neighbouring countries.
Let us turn to the campaign. Do you still stand by the plan of ‘no alliances’?
Based on our approved strategy, we are not planning to enter any electoral alliance with current parlamentary and former governing parties – not even on the level of electoral districts. This means that we are going to enter the campaign with 106 independent candidates. Our aim is to get into parliament as an independent party. If we do not present a candidate in an electoral district, this will only be because we need very credible candidates to represent LMP.
If there is a district where the battle between the government party and opposition candidate promises to be very tight, would you consider pulling back your candidate to help the opposition candidate?
LMP would like to address those voters who – when confronted with a choice between a government candidate and an opposition candidate – would rather choose to stay at home than to support either of them. Therefore, I do not think you can simply add up the vote estimates for the candidate of the opposition and LMP’s candidate. It is trickier.
Do you plan to cooperate with any other organisations, such as farmers’ organisations or trade unions?
Yes. We are absolutely open to them. Especially farmers’ organisations dealing with land-grabbing or ecological farming could be our strategic partners, since they do not want to formulate a stance on political questions unrelated to agriculture and farmers’ rights. We are in contact with them and will be looking to deepen this connection. Moreover, if new political formations appear on the scene, we will of course be looking to establish contact with them – assuming they fulfil the minimal conditions of respect for the rule of law and basic democratic values.
What do you mean by ‘conservative’ in this respect?
In my view, a conservative is someone who believes in slow change, and that it is better when changes take place in a step-by-step manner amid organised and regulated circumstances than through revolutionary, raging transformations.
Do you think it is possible that there are conservative groups in Hungary for whom the basic principles of LMP’s founding charter are not overly liberal or leftist?
I think it is possible to present alternative choice to those coservative voters who think Fidesz went beyond the border. Furthermore, I think that rather than imagining a close-knit alliance, one can also conceive of symbolic cooperation. The common basis for such cooperation could be to bring new people into politics, or the conviction that curbing social mobility is a harmful process that must be stopped.
How will you finance the party? The euphoria which made fundraising possible when LMP was founded is now over. Who would give any money to one side of a split party, and why?
We cannot know in advance what mood will prevail during the campaign period. Many may be thinking that it is important to have a third party which is brave enough to stand up to the elites of the past, and who may therefore even be willing to support us financially. But for now we are living on what we have.
When will the campaign start?
I think it is already on.
Who will your prime minister candidate be?
We do not know yet.
When would you like to make this decision?
I think only at the end of the year. It is not wise to name a prime minister candidate too early, and thereby to expose him or her to planned political attacks.
Does anyone stand a chance against András Schiffer?
This is a question for an internal process. There are opinions that András is a successful and serious party politician, yet we need a prime minister candidate who could be a symbolic ‘umbrella personality’.
Do you think it is possible to cooperate with Dialogue for Hungary (PM) on certain issues, even if they form a leftist election alliance?
It depends on what sort of cooperation you mean.
For instance, I reckon your positions on agricultural issues will not differ much despite the split, so it would be logical to continue working together on these issues.
I absolutely agree, and just as we cooperated with the Socialists on certain issues in parliament, we are also open to cooperation with PM if the interests and goals are the same.
Viktor Orbán’s strategy has been quite successful in forging a solid block under his control on the right side of the political spectrum. How does LMP plan to avoid this trap? Or do you even want to avoid it?
Why is Fidesz the question? You mean how can we differentiate ourselves from Fidesz?
Because Fidesz has the biggest appetite. Over 20 years they have devoured the former governmental party MDF, then the Smallholders, the Christian Democrats… The list is long, and LMP might not be any stronger than these parties were.
The last couple of months have been more about the leftist block trying to entice LMP into some form of leftist block. Our answer was initially a gentle ‘no, thank you’. Since the pressure did not relent, however, we had to move on to saying ‘thank you, we would not like to cooperate with discredited figures’. We did not waver. For me, this means LMP is strong and brave enough to accomplish what it seeks to achieve.
Let us suppose you get into parliament as an independent party. Do you think it is possible to enter government with a leftist alliance in order to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to adopt a new constitution?
Why should we make a coalition for adopting a new constitution? A two-thirds parliamentary vote is amply sufficient to achieve this. Otherwise, LMP is not yet mature enough to take up a position in government yet we are on the road.
Was there any lesson learned from the split? Has it highlighted any organisational problems which will have to be re-examined?
It has. One is that we would like to adopt an organisational reform and would introduce a co-chair system. Each co-chair would be a kind of political manager in charge of internal political affairs. He or she would be responsible for laying the groundwork for a well-functioning grassroots internal democracy, for instance by ensuring that coherent proposals are circulated to members before party debates.
Many point out that the split of the LMP was due to a failure of grassroots democracy. Do you agree with this?
I think we should recognise errors and attempt to draw the right conclusion from them – namely that grassroots democracy is not something that works without coordination. It only works if political material can be presented in a coordinated manner to the greatest possible number of people, who can then process this information on their level, according to their professional skills and available time. We cannot expect grassroots democracy to work automatically; it is machinery that needs to be operated.
UPDATE: On 9 March, LMP’s congress voted on the introduction of the co-chair system. The two co-chairs will take on the functions of the former spokespersons as well as the former strategic and policy coordinators.
The interview was conducted by Flóra Hevesi for the Heinrich Böll Foundation.