World 2 April 2013 Hungary is no longer a democracy Europe has been slow to act, but it is not too late. Print HTML It is now a fact: Hungary is no longer a democracy. President János Áder has just signed the implementation decrees for new constitutional reforms that wipe out what was left of opposition forces against the government. More particularly, the Constitutional Court is no longer allowed to give its opinion about the content of laws and to refer to its own case-law – which results in the loss of almost all monitoring power on the legislature and the executive. This meticulous destruction of democracy and its values – whose starting point was the landslide election of Fidesz in 2010 – has taken place over months and months, under everybody's eyes. The attack was clear and continuous: crippling restriction of the freedom of the press, political direction of the Central Bank, inclusion in the Constitution of Christian religious references and of the "social utility" of individuals as a necessary condition for the enforcement of social rights, deletion of the word "Republic" in the same Constitution to define the country's political system, condemnation of homosexuality, criminalisation of the homeless, attacks against women's rights, impunity afforded to perpetrators of racist murders, the strengthening of a virulent anti-Semitism . . . Only a few days ago, prime minister Viktor Orban officially decorated three extreme right-wing leading figures: journalist Ferenc Szaniszlo, known for his diatribes against the Jews and the Roma people, who he compares to "monkeys"; anti-Semitic archaeologist Kornel Bakav, who blames the Jews for having organized the slave trade in the Middle-Age; finally, "artist" Petras Janos, who proudly claims his proximity to the Jobbik and its paramilitary militia, responsible for several racist murders of Romani people and heiress of the pro-Nazi Arrow Cross Party, that organised the extermination of Jews and Gypsies during the Second World War. This political degradation gives us a gruesome historical and political lesson. Throughout the twentieth century, representative democracy suffered the attacks of the two major totalitarian systems of the century – Nazism and Communism. Nowadays, in the twenty-first century, it is under the blows of an anti-European, nationalist, racist and anti-Semitic populism that democracy has fallen, at the heart of Europe, amidst the indifference of the European Union and of too many of its citizens and leaders. Obsessed by economic and financial issues, too indifferent to its fundamental values of freedom, equality, peace and justice, the EU has abandoned the fight to promote or even maintain democracy as the political system of its member states. Unlike Putin's Russia, for example, Hungary is not a world power, and realpolitik cannot be invoked as a reason for this desertion. Since Hungary is strongly dependent on European subsidies and assistance, and since the EU has ominously shown in Greece how its financial support can be politicised to the extreme, its supposed lack of room for manoeuvre cannot be invoked either. The fundamental reason is unfortunately as simple as it is worrying: it is a lack of commitment of the citizens and European leaders towards representative democracy as a political system. This is why, since his re-election in 2010, Orban has received the unfailing support of many European leaders, notably from his own political family; this is also why the European Commission does not use any of the instruments available – though it does have many – to enforce the EU's fundamental values. For example, the Commission, the Parliament and the European Council, where the states are represented, can act in concert to pursue actions under Article 7 of the EU Treaty, introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 in order to avoid any backward step on democracy for any EU member state. Article 7 intends to suspend the voting rights of a country within the Council in case of a "potential violation of common values". In Hungary, however, the stage of risk was overstepped a long time ago. Actions under Article 7 should therefore be urgently taken, as a first step towards a strong EU commitment to defend democracy and its values. Similarly, European civil society must continue to commit itself strongly to support Hungarian democrats who bravely fight within the country itself. If the EU and civil society were not to commit themselves with the determination required by the gravity of the situation, we would be doomed to witness its rapid decay, in Hungary and soon elsewhere, if the European commitment turned out to be insufficient. Let there be no mistake: what is at stake here is the nature of the European project and the ability of Europe to preserve our common and most precious commodity: democracy. For several decades, the choice between barbarism and democracy has never been so obvious. Resolutely, we have to choose Europe and democracy. Benjamin Abtan is president of the European Grassroots Antiracist Movement (EGAM) › No "spirit of 45" for the workers at the liberal intelligentsia's favourite cinemas A man wears a sticker on his mouth bearing the name of Hungary's governing party Fidesz at a protest on 30 March against the country's new constitution. (Photo: Getty.) Benjamin Abtan is the President of the European Grassroots Antiracist Movement (EGAM). More Related articles Tristram Hunt: Leaving the EU would be a self-defeating dereliction of duty and history Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić found “responsible” for genocide How deep will the wounds from the Brussels attacks run?
Show Hide image Middle East 26 March 2016 Amid a fragile ceasefire, Syria’s original protesters are rediscovering their voice After more than five years of being bruised and bombed, Syrians are using the downturn in hostilities to reassert themselves – and the justness of their cause. Print HTML One of the most remarkable features of the Syrian ceasefire, which started on 27 February, has been the return of the original protesters. These are some of the civilians who initiated the uprising in 2011 against President Bashar al-Assad at huge personal risk and whose stories have long since been either forgotten or lost. Yet, after more than five years of being bruised and bombed, they are using the downturn in hostilities to reassert themselves – and the justness of their cause. Most of the protests have been in Idlib province, in north-western Syria. A recent demonstration in the town of Darkoush not only called for the downfall of Assad but insisted on the return of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the rebel group that was originally comprised of army defectors who had refused to fire on unarmed civilians and which had no theocratic doctrine. This demand was particularly jarring for Islamist fighters who had been instrumental in liberating the area from the Syrian regime. The anti-jihadist sentiment has been even more acute elsewhere in the blighted country. Protesters in Aleppo singled out Abu Mohammad al-Golani, the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, the official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria, chanting: “Bearded men hijacked [the revolution]! Curse your soul, Golani!” Similar insults were directed against Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State. (Assad was cursed, too, of course.) When fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra tried to storm one of these demonstrations in the town of Maarat al-Numan, the protesters drowned them out by chanting, “One! One! One! The Syrian people are one!” This is a maxim from the incipient, secular phases of the uprising, in which Syrians struggled to stem the tide of rising sectarian and ethnic tension injected by the jihadists’ engagement in the conflict. Syrians have long complained that religious extremists represent precisely what they first rose up against: authoritarianism. To get a sense of just how much the jihadists mirror the Assad regime, consider that Jabhat al-Nusra fighters recently threatened to open fire on unarmed protesters in the city of Idlib. This was the kind of behaviour that the regime exhibited when the uprising first began. Much of this has been forgotten in the West, where many are tempted to view the Syrian crisis as a battle between jihadists on one side and Assad on the other. Ordinary Syrians complain of being abandoned by the international community to the twin tyrannies of Ba’athists and theocrats. They organised these latest protests under the banner “The revolution continues”, in the hope of refocusing attention on their cause. “You can starve them, bomb the f*** out of them, gas them, kill half a million, drive 12 million from their homes,” said the Syrian-British author Robin Yassin-Kassab (who, with Leila al-Shami, wrote the book Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War about the uprising) on social media. “But you still can’t stop their revolution.” For a while, however, it seemed as though the war had killed the revolution. Gathering in large numbers is too dangerous for peaceful protesters when hostilities are in full flow, given the Assad regime’s deliberate targeting of them. Weapons of choice include barrel bombs and other devices thrown from helicopters on to civilians. Missiles fired from Russian and Syrian fighter jets are a further reason not to assemble in groups outside. The protesters were much bolder before Assad adopted his policy of aerial bombardment, although they faced extraordinary risks. Those dangers were made clear after a large protest in Hama in 2011 at which a crowd of thousands sang “Come on Bashar, Time to Leave”, a song by Ibrahim Qashoush, a local firefighter. The song spread rapidly across Syria, becoming an early anthem of the revolution. Days after it was recorded on 2 July that year, Qashoush’s body was found floating in a river, his vocal cords cut from his throat. This was the backdrop to the emergence of the FSA: protecting activists who had committed themselves to peaceful demonstrations. It was quickly overrun and melted into the background after the West limited itself to providing only non-lethal aid. Meanwhile, Iran and Russia – which on 14 March pledged to withdraw most of its troops from Syria – supplied Assad with ever more powerful weaponry to use against protesters, fuelling a breakdown in social order and stability: the perfect conditions for a jihadist insurrection. With limited international backing, Syria’s moderate rebels were soon mostly supplanted by Islamist fighters. Of the main jihadist groups, Jabhat al-Nusra has proved to be far more politically astute than Islamic State, adopting a softer and more pragmatic approach towards civilians. It hopes to win “hearts and minds” by doing so and wants to normalise its Islamist agenda slowly. The re-emergence of the protest movement in towns such as Maarat al-Numan has now thrown that strategy into question. Fighters from Jabhat al-Nusra (along with other jihadist groups, such as Jund al-Aqsa) launched a crackdown against one of the most popular and capable parts of the FSA, known as Division 13, which has broad international support. Protesters responded by storming one of Jabhat al-Nusra’s detention centres and also burned down parts of its headquarters in Maarat al-Numan. It remains to be seen whether this momentum carries over to other rebel-held areas, but recent events demonstrate that Syria’s beleaguered secularists – the country’s only proper hope – remain as defiant and resolute as ever. Shiraz Maher is an NS contributing writer and the author of a forthcoming book, “Salafi-Jihadism: the History of an Idea” Shiraz Maher is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and a senior research fellow at King’s College London’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation. This article first appeared in the 17 March 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Spring double issue More Related articles The Returning Officer: Anna Barlow Tristram Hunt: Leaving the EU would be a self-defeating dereliction of duty and history “My name is Sidra”: how virtual reality could combat compassion fatigue