Friend or Foe?
This is an old post. Information may be outdated.
The style of public discourse and politics has changed worldwide. Politicians no longer promote programs that appeal to everyone but instead focus on messaging only to their stable voter base.
Similar to other countries around the world, the content and tone of political discourse in Hungary have changed significantly. The leading political force has resorted to the old tried-and-true recipe of offering a future based on general fears that already exist in society, suggesting that only its envisioned policies can provide protection from global and local threats. Hungarian politics is strongly leader-driven, with individual political factions forming around a significant party leader, each of whom seems irreplaceable within their own party, and they apparently do not strive for regular personnel changes in leadership.
The political system corresponds to the party and parliamentary system of the early 20th century, but the rigid political structure cannot provide effective answers to the problems of the 21st century.
Therefore, two fundamentally different political directions have emerged: according to the ruling party, national conservatism means achieving the least possible integration, especially within the European Union, while maximizing the use of the money flow associated with EU subsidies.
The other direction suggests that the greatest possible association with the European Union should be achieved, and domestic policy should be guided primarily by compliance with European laws.
Political polarization, the division of society into two opposing camps, has been present in Hungarian public life since 1989. However, this process has intensified in recent years, with the conflicts between political parties becoming sharper and the search for compromise increasingly difficult.
As a result of polarization, public discourse has also shifted increasingly towards extremes, and moderate voices are becoming less and less audible.
The rise of social media has further strengthened this process. Social platforms allow people to easily and quickly access information, express opinions, and argue with others. However, this also carries the risk that users are increasingly exposed to information that confirms their own opinions, and the opportunity to encounter different perspectives decreases. Social media algorithms often present users with content that reinforces their existing opinions, further strengthening polarization.
In addition, social media provides space for hate speech and disinformation. Hate speech reinforces prejudices against minorities and increases social tensions. Disinformation, through the manipulation of facts, undermines public trust and makes it difficult to get informed.
On social media platforms, political parties regularly spend large sums of money to promote their own, sometimes extreme, views. Contributors seemingly independent of the government essentially convey its messages without the scrutiny of media laws.
Public media almost exclusively publishes news and press materials that follow the ruling party’s line, making public information one-sided.
Some members of parliament also boldly label their political opponents as traitors. Legal action against such statements is rarely possible under the law because, according to the laws, public figures are required to endure much more humiliation than ordinary private individuals.
Another important factor in the transformation of Hungarian public discourse is the declining role of traditional media. The circulation of print media is constantly decreasing, and the online media market is increasingly dominated by social platforms. This means that people rely less and less on credible information from traditional media and get their news from social media, further fueling the spread of disinformation.
The negative consequences of the transformation of Hungarian public discourse are already noticeable. Society is becoming increasingly divided, and cooperation between political parties is essentially non-existent.
Numerous steps need to be taken to improve public discourse. Political parties should strive for compromise and avoid extreme rhetoric. Social media platforms should take more effective action against hate speech and disinformation. Traditional media should find a way to regain the public’s trust and provide reliable information to society.