|
|
Hungary and the Perspective on Sustainability
 |
Krisztina Ónodi
Systems Consulting Ltd,
Budapest, Hungary
Member of the Hungarian Association of the Club of Rome
|
|
I would like to start with two quotations.
"Growing disparity in the distribution of wealth in society seems to be a
blinding feature of the new economy. The rich become richer and the poor,
poorer. It is reported that [. . . ] the best-off 50% of the population own 93% of
the national income, in contrast to 7% earned by the other half. This is surely
intolerable!"[1]
. . . and the second quote:
"In Hungary 30% of all declared income is in the hands of a few hundred
people.’2 ‘This has become a country of 3 million beggars, people who do not
have any chance at all, for whom life is only a question of survival."[2]
The first quote comes from Alexander King, one of the founders and presidents
of the Club of Rome, and it refers to Great Britain. The second one
is a brief description of current poverty in Hungary by sociologist Zsuzsa
Hegedüs.
The EU did play a major role in the Energy Charter Initiative, started in
the early 1990s, and it has signed the protocol. But Russia has not signed.
So the Charter provides a useful arena within which to observe evolving
energy policies.
Using the example of Hungary, I would like to illustrate how poverty, the
condition of society in general and democracy are related to the perspectives
for sustainable development.
What is the relationship between society and sustainable development?
"Besides ecological and economic sustainability, the idea of social sustainability
can be formulated. If the dimensions of the three sustainabilities are
connected, then the deterioration of one will affect the other two as well. We
are talking about the framework defining the stability of the 3 systems. The
unequal distribution or polarization of incomes, the decrease in the ‘real’ income
of certain layers, the lasting and high rate of unemployment and the inequality of knowledge and education spoil the possibilities for the development
of social sustainability. Poverty and social inequality are important
inhibiting factors."[3]
In order to examine sustainable societies it is essential to examine the state
of democracy as well
A sustainable society needs a strong democracy. In this kind of political
system, the various social expectations and the processes necessary to attain
them are accompanied by public debates involving the greatest number of
people, for the longest possible time. In the various representative democracies
these expectations are not met today.
In examining sustainable development in present-day Hungary, I
would like to talk about democracy, the significant social gap, a few typical
attitudes to life and the situation of civil society.
An evaluation of democracy in Hungary
Post-socialist democracy in Hungary fulfilled the obligatory tasks of transition,
developed a modern market economy and carried out a seriously
restrictive programme. But, in fifteen years, it has not been able to tackle
the qualitative tasks of establishing a democratic policy and society, mostly
due to the lack of a properly developed model or consensus. The next few
decades will decide whether or not this twofold lack proves to be crucial. In
any event, the accession to the EU has brought the period of transition to a
close.[4]
What is the nature of Hungarian society today?
If we examine Hungary from the viewpoint of cohesion and convergence
as defined by the EU, we may see that the country has split into two regarding
the following aspects:
1.Social: the masses which have almost no hope for escaping poverty and
catching up with others. Of these, 800,000 are starving and living under
intolerable conditions, in so-called ‘deep poverty’, with the middle
layer increasingly falling behind, in contrast with the elite enjoying high
incomes and economic power. This is generally called a Latin American
type of society;
2.Economical: on the one hand, there are strong, usually multi-national
groups of companies, and, on the other, small and medium sized companies
with hardly any opportunity to develop, stagnating almost to the
point of bankruptcy;
3.Regional: backwardness is typical of most parts of the country.
Within the borders of the EU, the average rate of development is 75%. 70
regions do not attain this level, out of which six are located in Hungary.
The split in society
Up to 1988 social mobility functioned, albeit slowly. In consequence of the
transformation, skilled workers lost their jobs. A large majority of the middle
layer, relatively strong in the past, has been sliding downwards, or at least
becoming marginal. These are small and medium sized businesses which are
struggling to survive. They are not part of the modern world, which the small
group at the top (approximately 15% of the society), have gained admittance
to.
From 1990s onwards, income of the population gradually decreased. In
1995, the difference in the way of life between the rich and the poor was
greater than in average Western European countries, approaching the extent
of polarization found in Latin America.[5]
Taxes are a particular burden. According to an OECD report, an international
comparison shows that Hungary had the highest taxes (69.5% per
capital) in 2006. This is significantly higher than in Scandinavian countries
which are much more developed and where, unlike in Hungary, a significant
proportion of tax deductions are spent on social welfare. (Taxes in Austria
are by 25% lower than in Hungary).[6]
Most difficult to win over for sustainable development are the so-called
marginal groups, i.e. groups of population which are discriminated on the
basis of certain criteria. They have very slim chances for having their needs
and requirements satisfied by the society. They have hardly any chance to
make social decisions. Their common characteristics are:
- low or irregular income;
- low level of communal solidarity;
- deficiencies in socialization;
- deficiencies in education.
The most significant marginal group is that of the poor, who are unable
to satisfy their needs, cannot live their lives with dignity, are always struggling
to survive, have a strong, subjective sense of poverty, and a pessimistic
outlook on the future.[7]
A few characteristic attitudes to life in the Hungarian society
1. Crisis of trust and values
The latest end-of-the-century Forsense research into public opinion on social
trust demonstrated that the average person has the least trust in politicians.
In addition ". . . in consequence of totalitarian and authoritarian political
factors in the past decades, an increasing and serious alienation and anomie
(mass violation of norms) have developed: increasing numbers of people felt
helpless against external hostile forces shaping their lives; they were increasingly
unwilling to observe the norms of social coexistence, among them rules
of morality, for the values which upheld them had been shaken."[8]
2. Lack of solidarity
According to the latest assessment, even the unwritten rules of socially
sensitive way of thinking have not yet developed in Hungary. The role of
the state, developed during the communist period, is still prevalent and this
‘exempts’, so to speak, the private individual from any act of social solidarity.
Within the middle layer, social solidarity is demonstrated as behaviour in
accordance with norms and primarily takes the form of occasional donations.
About 6% of the population regularly give support to those in need.[9]
3. Apathy
The Eurobarometer survey completed in November-December 2006
showed that amongst EU citizens aged 15+ Hungarians are particularly pessimistic
about their present situation and their future. Hungary comes last in
responses to this question: ‘Taking everything into account, can you say that
you are happy?’ We are also the most pessimistic nation when we consider
our perspectives for the next five years and our possible future impoverishment.[10]
The civil society in Hungary
"The bi-annual assessment of the Lisbon strategy pointed out that there is
a lack of cooperation between civil society and the local authorities, as well as
between the EU institutions, in developing regional and/or national future
perspectives and in establishing development programmes; this has considerably
contributed to the fact that these objectives have been achieved only
partly or not at all . . . "[11]
The Lisbon strategy, resumed in 2005, involved a programme of ‘new
partnership’ on all levels. In the interest of increasing civil activity, the focal
points of the programme were: publicity, transparency and the reinforcement
of participatory democracy ensuring local involvement as the primary
initiator of development.
The formation of civil movements is, therefore, among the most important
conditions for sustainability. Most of the first civil organizations and
movements for environmental protection in Central and Eastern Europe were
formed in late 1980s. They gained strength together with the political opposition
of the time. The number of such organizations working in the region
was approximately 2,500: around 900 in Hungary, 750 in the Czech Republic,
450 in Poland and 200 in Romania. They have an important role in asserting
interests, especially in dealing with environmental conflicts.[12]
At present the role of civil society in Hungary concerning questions of sustainable
development and environmental protection is largely determined by
the main characteristics of our political culture: the predominance of centralization
and the bureaucratic governance. At local levels of the institutional
network, the local society could directly influence decisions concerning its
own environment. In democratic countries, these are free of civil supervision
to an immense extent and are not defenceless in the face of the central
apparatus of government.
Our present institutions do not encourage the re-establishment of political
activity in society as much as they should. The restoration of conditions
for constitutional democracy has not reduced the distance between political
institutions and society to the extent that was hoped for.[13]
The effect of the present situation in Hungary on democracy as a basis for
sustainable development
A well-established democracy has a significant role in the success of sustainable
development and in the extent to which the various layers of society
are capable of identifying with the objectives of sustainable development.
Sociologists had already formulated the following conclusions regarding
the period of 1989-1996: "Political and sociological investigations have led
to the conclusion that we cannot be absolutely certain of the stability of the
democratic system because there is much dissatisfaction not only with the
market economy but also with democracy. An alienated and anomic society
is clearly not capable of creating a modern market economy or running a
democratic system in the right way."[14]
And, finally, a quote from a contributor to the conference entitled ‘The
structure and relations of spheres of interest in Hungarian society today’, organized
by the Hungarian Institute of Political History in 2007: "The changes
that have taken place since the change in the political system have caused
profound distortions in the structure of society; they have generated growing
inequalities which are opposed to modernization. However, politics does
not want to concern itself with social processes which endanger democratic
change."
According to philosopher Dénes Kis: ". . . at this moment we need not fear
for democracy because of the covertly or overtly authoritarian behaviour of
the masses but because of the indifference and frustration which come up in
the framework of a democracy developing in inadequate and random ways.
Again, the consequences of this will, of course, be incalculable."[15]
Summary
Thus, what are the difficulties and dangers that arise from the present situation
in Hungary and which also affect sustainable development?
- The democratic deficit;
- Extensive poverty arising from a Latin American type of polarization;
- The underdevelopment of civil society;
- A strong domination of negative attitudes to life.
On the level of national politics, the outlook for the future does not seem any
brighter, either. According to an assessment by the Institute of Political History
in 2006, there are no strategically formulated answers to the questions we could call ‘traditional’ concerning Hungarian society, or to questions arising
since 1990, because any responsible search for answers has been swept
under the carpet by interests created by the process of economic, political
and social change in structures.
Despite this, what are some hopeful signs?
1. As a result of the present restrictive politics, organizations working to
protect the interests of members of various professions have already got
underway.
2. In September 2006 there was a call to form a National Civil Forum. According
to the founding manifesto, the NCF would fulfil the role of an
arbitrator and mediator to serve the collaboration of local communities,
professional organizations and civil groups.
3. The National Sustainable Development Strategy was established in the
summer of 2007.
4. From several viewpoints, perhaps the most hopeful sign is the headway
made by Local Agenda 21 in Hungary. Irrespective of the nationwide inadequacies
of participatory democracy, democracy and civil society can
thrive in towns and communities. A system of requirements and accountability,
which can be followed precisely, and the experience of the international
network, could bring fast and spectacular results in the future on
the level of local government.
Finally, some recommendations for research which can contribute to the
renewal of CoR and to the development of a new strategy.
1. General questions:
- Sustainable development and democracy;
- Sustainable development and the state of society with special regard
to poverty.
- Sustainable development and civil movements;
- How can the various groups in society with their differing interests
be influenced to move in the direction of sustainable development?
2. In relation to Central and Eastern Europe, it is worth investigating what
new questions and answers can be formulated in connection with sustainable
development, arising from the more backward economic and social
conditions there. How can they be used outside the countries of the region?
Rerences
[1] Alexander King, The scheme of things (curiously planned). . . Get-together / Teledialouge
on 11 May 2007, (p. 9.)
[2] Hegediüs Z., Bedöglött a társadalom, 2005.12.14. www.radio.hu
[3] Farkas Péter, Egymásba kapaszkodva. Település és közösségfejlesztés a globalizáció korában.
L’Harmattan Kiadó 2006. pp. 188,(p. 52.)
[4] Kiss Endre, Az ígéret földje elöotti sivatag (A magyarországi átmenet föo perspektívái) pp.
49-61. In: Magyarország az új Európában. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2004/3, (p. 49.)
[5] Farkas Péter, Egymásba kapaszkodva. Település és közösségfejlesztés a globalizáció korában.
L’Harmattan Kiadó 2006. pp. 188, (p.48.)
[6] Magyar köztehercsúcs. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 02. 26.
[7] Farkas Péter, Egymásba kapaszkodva. Település és közösségfejlesztés a globalizáció korában.
L’Harmattan Kiadó 2006. pp. 188, (p. 165.)
[8] Magyarország a legújabb társadalomtudományi kutatások tükrében, 1996. 51.
www.sulinet.hu
[9] Marketing Centrum felmérése. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 06. 13.
[10] Rekordapátia, kilátástalanság és rossz elöoérzetek. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 03. 02.
[11] Ugrin Emese, A részvételi demokrácia, mint az organikus államszervezés modellje. Polgáris
szemle, 2006. 03. 2. évf. 2. 2005-2006, Polgári Szemle Alapítvány, Budapest, (p. 5.)
[12] Szirmai Viktória – Szépvölgyi Ákos, A fenntartható fejlödés lehetöoségei Kelet-Közép Európában.
2/13 2004. 04. 01. www.regi.ahet.ro
[13] Lányi András, A fenntartható társadalom. L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2007,(p. 24.)
[14] Magyarország a legújabb társadalomtudományi kutatások tükrében, 1996. 51.
www.sulinet.hu
[15] Kiss Endre, Az ígéret földje elütti sivatag (A magyarországi átmenet föo perspektívái) pp.
49-61. In: Magyarország az új Európában. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2004/3, (p. 59.)
Bibliography
Alexander King, The scheme of things (curiously planned). . . Get-together / Teledialouge
on 11th May 2007.
Nemzeti Fenntartható Fejlöodési Stratégia. Társadalmi egyetértést megalapozó
munkaváltozat. Munkaanyag 2007.ápr.23. NFFS_2.2_20070423,
Eric Ezechieli, The Natural Step. A guide to the natural step framework. Becoming
Strategic towards Sustainability. www.detnaturaligasterget.se
Farkas Péter, Egymásba kapaszkodva. Település és közösségfejlesztés a globalizáció
korában. L’Harmattan Kiadó 2006. pp. 188..
Civil Society Monitoring the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development. The Club of
Rome, European Support Center. pp. 40. http://esc.clubofrome.org/sharing
Michael Dauderstädt, A kiböovített Európa a fenyegetéssel teli világban. pp. 9-29. In:
Magyarország az új Európában. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2004/3.
Kiss Endre, Az ígéret földje elöotti sivatag (A magyarországi átmenet föo perspektívái)
pp. 49-61. In: Magyarország az új Európában. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2004/3.
Michael Ehrke, Az új Európa – gazdaság, politika és társadalom a posztkommunista
kapitalizmusban. pp. 61-77. In: Magyarország az új Európában. Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung, 2004/3.
Thomas Prugh – Robert Costanza – Herman E. Daly, The Local Politics of Global
Sustainability. Island Press, Washington, D. C. – Covelo, California, 2000.
Lányi András, A fenntartható társadalom. L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2007.
Országos Civil Fórum Alapító Nyilatkozata, 2006.09.24.
www.orszagoscivilforum.hu/alapitoknyilatkozata1.php
Hegedöus Zsuzsa, Egyre nagyobb lesz a társadalmi szakadék. NetHírlap,
www.nethirlap.hu/printme.php?cikk=21724
Társadalom: írástudók felel˝ossége. Csomaghatások – Gondola hírösszefoglaló,
2007.29. hét. www.gondola.hu/cikk.php?szal=49397&part=1
Magyarország a legújabb társadalomtudományi kutatások tükrében, 1996.51.
Link to Website
A mai magyar társadalom szerkezete és érdekviszonyai. Politikatörténeti Intézet.
2006. 08. 06. http://www.polhist.hu/intezet.index.php?fkod=305
Hegedöus Zsuzsa, Bedöglött a társadalom, 2005.12.14.
www.radio.hu/index.php?cikk_id=163654
Ugrin Emese, A részvételi demokrácia, mint az organikus államszervezés modellje.
Polgáris szemle, 2006. 03. 2. évf. 2. 2005-2006, Polgári Szemle Alapítvány, Budapest.
Szirmai Viktória – Szépvölgyi Ákos, A fenntartható fejlöodés lehetöoségei Kelet-Közép
Európában. 2/13 2004. 04. 01.
www.regi.ahet.ro/printbelso.php?action=cim&name=336
Magyar köztehercsúcs. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 02. 26.
Marketing Centrum felmérése. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 06. 13.
Rekordapátia, kilátástalanság és rossz elöoérzetek. Magyar Nemzet, 2007. 03. 02.
Ripp Zoltán, Rendszerváltás Magyarországon 1987-1990. Napvilág Kiadó, Budapest,
2006.
|
|
|
|
