The totally lopsided and biassed article by Shopflin, himself a deputy of his much-praised Fidesz in the EP, but even more the last, extremely silly contribution by flaszlo, show extremely well, how far things have deteriorated in Hungary. Facts, realities no longer exist, only interpretations, as if people were living in two different "mirror worlds". In these worlds even idiotic conspiracy theories like flaszlo's have a "rightful" place, especially in the rhetoric of the right wing.

Few doubt that Fidesz acts in collusion with, or at least tacitly cooperates, with the extreme right, even its lunatic fringe (its leader, Viktor Orban, holds the theory of "one flag, one camp", meaning the "the entire right" should be under a single umbrella, an error that has already cost him two parliamentary elections). Hence, Schopflin's taking offence at Adrew G�llner's article is baffling. Schopflin, in his moral outrage over "the brutal police attacking innocent people," conveniently forgets to mention, that extreme rightist groups, wreaking havoc on Budapest all day, had been on a rampage since the morning of October 23, and practically fought running battles with the police for hours before the merging of the two crowds, Fidesz's legal demonstrators and the illegal illegal "street fighters". (Neither is there any mention of the still unanswered question as to why Fidesz had to hold its mass rally in a site, a busy stree crossing in fact, completely unfit for gatherings, where something of this kind was bound to happen, and where no rallies had been held in the past eighty years or so.) There is ample evidence that these groups deliberately "pulled" the police to the direction of the peaceful demonstration.

According to the paranoid conspiracy theory of the right, shared by hard-core Fidesz fans like flaszlo, this was all " a provocation" organized by government agents, as was every single illegal act that was committed

on that day, and all the participants were "Communist provocateurs".

It shows the utter stupidity of this entire narrative--supported in the last resort also by essays such as Schopflin's---that the same mixture of extreme rightists and hard-core Fidesz fans practically identify today's Hungarian ruling coalition with "the Communist" and especially those against whom the people of Hungary rose up in 1956. That is completely absurd: unlike in 1956, Hungary is a free country today with complete freedom of the press, a freedom of opinion, where civil liberties are respected, the current coalition won in free parliamentary elections, etc. The PM's leaked "lie" speech was, according to many, much more an expression of facing up to the previous lies at long last, and the confirmation of an honest will to break with the decades-long practice of lying to the people than the cynical admission of deceit that the right makes it out to be.

Mistakes or lies aside, the currently ruling coalitioon has nothing to do with either Communisms or dictatorial methods. On the other hand, Fidesz, and especially its leaders, having lost two parliamentary elections in a row, is now trying to use extra-parliamentary, unconstitutional means, to force the government to resign, and since it does not have the parliamentary majority to achieve this, it tries, to do so by using the streets to exert pressure.

Mr. Schopflim may not like this, but this is clearly Weimar tactics: terrorizing the streets and frightening people to the point where, in their desire for peace, they might be ready to yield to the right wing's demands for power (while the fact that Fidesz is also the largest party in opposition gives it a semblance of parliamentarians.)

What makes this tragic--and in this, I agree with Mr. Schofplin--that all this is taking place at a time crucial to the future of Hungary, where there ought to be at least a modicum of consensus if any progress is to be made. While there is an urging need to restore the country's budget balance (the deficit being currently the highest in the EU), Hungary also expects a massive infusion of money from the EU, to be spent of infrastructural, and other projects. The main direction where all tha money should go ought to be a subject of serious discussion and ultimate agreement, at least as far as the main issues are concerned, because the projects involved would cover several election cycles, and, conceivably, several governments. Still, at the moment there is not even the slightest trace of any dialogue. I do not to see that the kind of black-and-white right-wing criticism emanating from Mr. Schopflin's essay, and his distortions of the facts, lead any nearer to the desired goal of restoring a dialogue.

You can see by this two comments, how deep is the polarisation in Hungary. The communist secret services, wich newer were called back, have a light play with the angry population. They can organise such provocative actions like the Tank drive toward the police, or other issues. And FIDESZ had demonstrated on the 4-th November that without the help of the police there is no agression. On the other hand, just the Socialist parties (the Socialist Workers Party, better known as Communists and the National Socialist Workers Party, better Known as Nazis or Fasists) were the only Parties in Europe using power and agression agains the people. And they were the only ones who were killing people. Millions of them without any moment of regret. If somebody knows any other Party, without the word "Socialist" in their names, killing poeple in Europe, please tell me. I�m looking for it, but cant find any.

A writer said that Hungary have had the fasists with most stupidity and the most agressive Communists whitout any invertebration and not less stupid as the fasists were. In 90 percent of the cases, they were the same people. If the Hungarian society dosn�t faces this problem, there will be no Chatarsis and the Problem will come back again and again, untill the Hungarians desapear from the map.

Good Night Hungary

I was very glad to read such a good and comprehensive article about Hungary's current situation. This was so far the best article I ever read in your web site. Congratulation to the author, to George Sch�pflin!

I think it is very hard to predict what will happen in the next months and in the next few years in Hungary. Hungary does not have a democratic tradition to continue like in Great Britain or in Germany after the 2nd World War and in the reality the ruling parties are not controlled by any democratic way - do not forget that todays's crisis was caused by the fact that there was no person or democratic institutions or media who could control the goverment since 2002-, certainly the current Prime Minister, Gyurcsany has far the largest influence on the future. I must add that Gyurcsany is the only candidate for the president of the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) which would mean an extreme concentration of power in one person in Hungary.

I think that there is a 4th possible scenario knowing Gyurcsany's extremist ambitions. The Socialist Party leaded by Gyurcsany would introduce a reformdictature (a term recently introduced by some leeading socialist economic "experts") supported by the violent police and by the centralised govermental media very much like what the Chinese Communist Party does in China. The Western countries would support this dictature in Hungary as they actually support China because of their economic interests.

George Sch�pflin, an esteemed scholar on the region, correctly describes Hungary as a society of impermeable barriers, which "keep out ... alternative perspectives that might disturb the existing status quo" on both sides of the political divide. He sketches this climate of mutual distrust evocatively.

The problem is that Sch�pflin, now an MEP for Fidesz, himself seems to have become part of the problem. His perspective is that of one of the two irreconcilably opposed sides - and one that appears bent on "keeping out alternative perspectives" when it does not fit with partisan interests.

The prime reason I logged on to say this, is because of how he describes the events of 23 October. He writes that "a peaceful and legal commemoration .., organised by the opposition, was dispersed with extraordinary brutality by the police. The crowds were already leaving when the police weighed in with mounted charges, teargas grenades, rubber bullets fired at people's heads, water-cannon and steel truncheons." And that's the extent of it, in his recounting.

This is a staggeringly incomplete version of events. Like everyone else, Sch�pflin has seen the images of protestors driving an actual tank, raided from a 1956 exhibition, into police lines. The relevant part here is that this happened even before the violence reached the peaceful Fidesz demonstration that Schopflin describes, which was taking place further down the road on Asztoria Square.

The street violence of 23 October started on and near downtown Deak Ferenc Ter. The demonstrators who gathered there were people who earlier that day had been driven off Parliament Square, where they had held daily demonstrations for several weeks. These demonstrations had been organised by several civic groups, with a prominent role for the far right. They were organised separately from the Fidesz demonstrations - when Fidesz amassed onto Parliament Square as well on 6 October, the two groups actually had separate stages.

On 23 October, the two thus also gathered separately. And while Fidesz held its peaceful mass rally on Asztoria, the "Parliament Square groups", having been evicted from 'their' square, had roamed to Ferenc Deak Square. What happened there is a matter of contention. What is clear is that, whether the police was provoked or not, it came down on the protestors there with overwhelming violence. In turn, the protestors turned into rioters, pelting the police with stones and setting up barricades near the square - and it was around this time that protestors hijacked the historic tank and drove it into police lines.

All of this happened while further down the boulevard, Fidesz was still holding its rally - which was indeed peaceful. What followed, again, is a matter of contention. Did far right or Fidesz-allied conspirators deliberately coax the police towards Asztoria Square, so as to involve the far larger mass of Fidesz protestors into the melee? Or was it the police which deliberately drove the rioters into the peaceful Fidesz rally, so as to discredit Fidesz?

In any case, the police did drive the rioters to Asztoria, where they merged with the Fidesz demonstration which was indeed just dissolving, and the street fight promptly escalated in size, with police and rioters besieging each other the rest of the night on Asztoria, Rakoczi Boulevard, and later Ferenciek Square and Erzsebet Bridge.

To reduce this story line to one of the police simply battering into the peaceful Fidesz demonstration without provocation is very misleading. The irony is that it smacks of the exact partisan politicking that Sch�pflin denounces in the rest of his article.

There are other, related problems.

For example, in conclusion, Sch�pflin accuses the left of "conjur[ing] up the non-existent threat of [an] anti-democratic movement", warning against "painting the devil on the wall, lest it appear."

The tendency of Hungarians, in these heated times, to interpret the other side's actions in grotesquely alarmist terms is indeed one of the main stumbling blocks to overcoming the current problems. But the irony here is that Sch�pflin himself engages in exactly this as well, right underneath. He conjures up a similarly alarmist scenario that few outside the Hungarian right would take seriously for a moment: "the declaration of a state of emergency and the suspension of democracy." The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

This appears to be the problem of Hungarian democracy now. Even as the party programs of the two rivals do not, arguably, differ more than those of your typical rightwing and leftwing party in other European countrues, the two camps see each other in Manichean terms: good vs evil, forever assuming the other side will do no less than topple democracy itself. Something of a "war psychosis" indeed, except that, as Shopflin proves, the problem is only ever recognised in the other party. Perhaps an MEP for one of the two 'warring' parties is just not the best-placed observer of such a deeply embittered society.