1
Viktor Orbán’s use of history in the European refugee crisis
The Faculties of Humanities and Theology
Centre for Languages and Literature
Master of Arts in European Studies
Author: Ibrahim Kareem
Supervisor: SanimirResic
Submitted: August 2017
Abstract
Viktor Orbán as the Prime Minister of Hungary is a figure that dominates headlines both at home and abroad. During his time in Hungarian and European politics, he has never shied away from using history to bolster his political message. Following the ongoing refugee crisis of 2015, he has employed history as tool against refugees. This paper aims to investigate which aspects of Hungarian history Orbán focuses on in his rhetoric against the refugees coming to Europe, and how he uses it. The hypothesis of this research is that Orbán focuses on the historical trauma of Hungary to stigmatize the incoming refugees, helping him to achieve his political goal of keeping refugees out of Hungary. With shifting demographics in Europe, anti-EU sentiment, a rise of nationalism, and global instability, this Hungarian example of how a politician can use history is an important example going forward. Such tactics may be used again by politicians causing further divisions and furthering a us vs them mentality in Europe.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Research questions and hypothesis
Structure
Theoretical framework
Methodology and sources
Historical background
Foundation of Hungary and the Christian Kingdom
Ottoman wars and occupation
Habsburg Hungary to Austria-Hungary
Hungary in the World Wars
In the Soviet shadow and the 1956 Revolution
From “People’s Republic” to the “Republic of Hungary”
Analysis
“If we do not protect our borders, tens of millions of migrants will come”
“Speech by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on 15 March”
“Are You Opposed to Peace?”
“Provided there are Christians there will be a spiritual upturn”
“Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the official ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the 1956 Revolution”
Conclusions
Bibliography
Introduction
2015 marked a dramatic year in Europe and the world.During the year, over one million people – including refugees, displaced persons and migrants – fled to Europe in search of safety. More than seventy-five per cent of those arriving in Europe were coming from the active conflict zones of Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq.[1]These people were trying to escapeviolence, persecution, war and were in search of a better life for themselves and their families.[2]Though the number of people fleeing their countries to come to Europe has significantly decreased since 2015, the refugee crisis remains an important issue and monumental challenge for not only the European Union butalso the world. The crisis has been one of the most serious tests of the European Union to date, testing unity and ideals in a way few crises have before it.
The crisis has become a point of contention between the member states as the situation escalatedin 2015onwards, making coming to a unified European solution between twenty-eight (twenty-seven as the UK leaves the union) to the issue near impossible. Some member states have been disproportionallydue to geography, as they are located on the external borders of the European Union where they are often times the first point of entry for asylum seekers.Other members have been impacted by the number of people they have taken in relative to their populations as the asylum seekers mobilized to other EU member states further away from the borders. The systems in place for refugees and asylum seekers became overwhelmed on both national and European levels in 2015.
One of these systems, part of the much larger Common European Asylum System (CEAS) in the EU is known as the “Dublin regulation” which establishes which member state is responsible for examining and granting the applications for asylum of people seeking protection in the EU under the Geneva Convention.[3]This includes a wide range of criteria such as family ties or previously holding a visa in the member state, but often times it is the first member state an asylum seeker enters as they enter the EU.The Dublin Regulation dates back to 1990, and has gone through amendments, changes, and reform up to 2013. From July 2013 the regulation, known as “Dublin III” was in place during the refugee crisis of 2015. In that year, as many refugees came by sea across the Mediterranean or through land routes from Turkey to the EU, the first countries they would enter were those on the external borders of the EU. In the fall of 2015 the regulation was partially suspended for Syrian refugeesso they could pass into Europe. This was due to the number of asylum seekers entering that could not be processed and registered as required by European and international law.[4]
Hungary was one of the external border EU member states which experienced a large number ofasylum seekers. This was due to Hungary’s geographic position on what would become known as the “Balkan route” into the EU. Turkey and fellow member statesGreece and Italy could not keep up with the large numbers of refugees in need of assistance.As a result, a number of refugees continued migrating by taking a land route to pass through Hungary to get to northern European countries that seemed to signal friendlier policies towards asylum seekers, such as Germany, Austria, and Sweden. Due to this group of countries’ geographic positions, it was difficult for asylum seekers to arrive by land or sea without first crossing into or through other EU countries.
Compared to the previous year (2014), Hungary saw the highest number of first-time asylum applications after Germany of 174,400 people or 14 per cent of all applications in the EU.[5]Hungary also saw one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers relative to its population behind Sweden.[6]These numbers, of course, just account for officially recorded information. The actual numbers may be even higher. This large number of people coming into the country became very visible, with dramatic scenes of unrest on the borders to the central train station in Budapest in 2015.[7]Some member states wanted to help as they could, others were much more cautious and reluctant to take in large numbers of people from other countries into their own.
Viktor Orbán, the current prime minister of Hungary, took a hardline against those coming to transit through or asylum in not only his country, but in allthe European Union. Orbán was known for his fiery speeches and rhetoric before the crisis in domestic level politics, but with issues of mass migration Orbánfound a new target and rallying cry for his speeches. Under Orbán, the goal was to stop migration to Hungary by the refugees and migrants. By using his public addresses, Orbán found a highly visible platform to warn Hungary and the European Union about dangers they could face from such unregulated mass migration. For those who agree with his platform, he is a man with vision looking ahead to safeguard Europe. For those who disagree with him, his ideasand actions run counter to European ideals.
Research questions and hypothesis
In this study, I will analyze Viktor Orbán’s use of history in official speeches, statements, and interviews, specifically in instances in which refugees and asylum seekers are mentioned. The period of analysis will spana specific period in the crisis,from 2015 to 2016, when Hungary first saw a large influx of migrationand was experiencing the immediate aftermath. This window of time will not only provide current information, but also help in limiting the scope of the study.
The research questionspursued in this study were,
- Which aspects of Hungarian history and memory does Orbán emphasize to legitimize his policy towards refugees during the crisis?
- Why does Orbán chose to emphasize the history he does?
- What goals does Orbán hope to achieve from his use of history or memory?
The hypothesis of this research is that Orbán uses historical trauma to help him achieve his political goal of gaining support to keep refugees out of Hungary.Much of his historical trauma comes from previous occupations of Hungary. For Orbán, this is to show a backlash to growing multiculturalism in some parts of Europe from people from so called “third countries” or countries not in the European Union, and in this case, those with a different ethnicity or religion. Orbán has a specific vision for Hungary, and he has stated before that part of this vision includes the idea of “Hungary for Hungarians” first and foremost.[8]While the idea of the leader of their country to look out for their citizens interests first is not unusual, a leader of a country prompting fear against a group people is. This research focuses on how, through history or memory, Orbán attempts to create a narrative against the incoming refugees or migrants.
This research does not aim to examine the migration crisis from an economic or security point of view. It will not be a concise summary of the crisis. Rather, it aims to examine from a humanities point of view how history is used by Orbán and the current Hungarian government towards this group of people to create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. By analyzing his addresses using the lens of history and memory, we can examine how he tries to relate the current crisis to past historical crises in Hungary. In doing so he can send a clear, calculated message – we have been here before and we do not want to go there again.
Structure
This paper will start with an introduction into the theoretical approach that will be used to examine a selection of Orbán’s public addresses. Common terms or themes to be explored will be explained here as they will apply to the speech analysis section of the thesis. Next, the methodology will be discussed to as how these speeches are analyzed. There will be a brief discussion of the literature and sources that will be used in the research. This research will provide a background to some of the traumatic and important events in Hungarian history as to help “set the stage” for the analysis and discussion on the texts themselves. Sections or specific quotes of selected public addresses by Orbán will be present and analysis will follow.
Theoretical framework
In order to try to understandOrbán’s use of history in his speeches, this thesis will draw on the ideas in the field of history and memory for its theoretical framework. The historical aspect is based on the ideas put forth on the use of history byKlas-GöranKarlsson and UlfZanderin their book Echoes of the Holocaust: Historical Cultures in Contemporary Europe. As the title suggests, the ideas used are applied to the Holocaust, however for the purposes of this research they will help to offer insight into analyzing some of the historical context of Orbán’s speeches.The concepts discussed in their research on the Holocaust that will be explored are the ideas of historical consciousness and cultural trauma.
Before talking about historical culture or collective memories, let us first define culture. There are numerous definitions of what culture is or could be. For the sake of narrowing down the definitions, if we look at culture broadly as a “container of concepts, experiences, meanings, beliefs, conceptions of justice andmorals, manners and practices and other attainments”[9]then history is certainly part of the cultural experience. A group of people, or country’s historical culture is the place of history in daily life.
The idea of historical consciousness can be thought of as how people (individuals or groups of people) understand the past. Historical consciousness as described by Karlsson is:
“a mental process that connects contemporary human beings to what they apprehend as “their” past and “their” future, but also to various larger histories or “imagined communities” which are of longer duration than an individual life and therefore are considered existentially or ideologically precious. Informing the present and implanting hopes for and fears about the future, history as consciousness peraforms the same function as the mirror of Snow White’s stepmother, telling you who you are in relation to other generations and to the world.”
Historical consciousness changes over time, and we are “more or less constantly and consciously interpreting, representing and using history for various aims and purposes.”It uses history to look back and also ask a guide to helplook forward. This very concept is something Orbán returns to in his rhetoric on how to guide Hungary through the crisis.
The idea of cultural trauma is closely associated with the human emotions of trauma and crisis. Sociologist Neil Smelser looks at the idea of cultural trauma as a memory (or memories) accepted by a group or groups of people that evokes an event or situation that has a negative connotation to that group. German historian JörnRüsenhighlights that crisis can form the base of or even constitute historical consciousness.[10]Bringing up traumatic periods of history are common throughout political speeches, and can be an effective tool to persuade an audience.
With that being said, how can a person or a group of people make use of history? History can be used when parts of a historical culture are “activated in a communicative process in order for certain groups in a certain society to satisfy certain needs or look after certain interests.” This research will use some of the typology Karlssondiscussed – specifically focusing on what was described as an existential use of history and a political-pedagogical use of history.
An existential use of history occurs when a group of people tries to preserve the memory and lessons of a tragic event, or series of events, and is “normally well developed among individuals and groups in a society where the function of memory has been strengthened as a result of external pressures and/or potent intracultural homogenisation.”A political-pedagogical use of a history is described as “deliberate comparative, metaphorical, or symbolic use of [the Holocaust] in which the transfer effect between “then” and “now” is rendered simple and unproblematic.” This comparison between “then” and now “is made not to do full justice to historical specificities, but to stir up a moral-political debate.” These different uses are not necessary set individual uses however, there is often overlap between these definitions of use of history.[11]Greater explanation of these concepts will be provided when they are used in the texts. The difference uses will be applied in the context of further explaining Orbán’s speeches – when he uses history, what is his goal at the time?
Other research which was helpful for this study was the work“Twenty Years After Communism”byMichael Bernhard and Jan Kubikwhich examines the political use of memory after the collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe.The memory described in their research is collective memory. Collective memory is “a memory or memories shared or recollected by a group, as a community or culture.”[12]Memory is similar to the previously mentioned historical consciousness. However, rather than looking to the past and the future as historical consciousness, memory is only concerned with lookingdirectly to the past and lacks the dual nature of historical consciousness.Karlssonnotes that this gives memory an instrumental character, that an actor serving as a “memory agent,” can use by applying several different memories to different communities or audiences in political contexts.[13]
The model of “mnemonic actors” and the typology used to describe them in their research was helpful in understanding what Orbán hopes to achieve in his speeches when he brings up the past. A mnemonic actor, as described by Bernhard and Kubiktries to “treat historyinstrumentally, as they tend to construct a vision of the pastthat they assume will generate the most effective legitimationfor their efforts to gain or hold power.”[14]These politicians, political groups, or organizations can at times purposefully use history or memory for their own political gain. Four different types of mnemonic actors are described in their research –but one in particular fits Orbán in this thesis, that of the “mnemonic warrior.” As described by Bernhard and Kubik,
“Mnemonic warriors tend to draw a sharp line between themselves (the proprietors of the “true” vision of the past) and other actors who cultivate “wrong” or “false” versions of history. They usually believe that the historical truth is attainable and that once it is attained it needs tobecome the foundation of social and political life. So, for them the contest in the field of memory politics is between “us”—the guardians of the truth—and “them”—the obfuscators,perpetuators of “falsehoods,” or the opportunists who do not know or care about the “proper” shape of collective memory. The content of collective memory appears to warriors aslargely non-negotiable; the only problem is how to make others accept their “true” vision of the past. Mnemonic warriors tend to espouse a single, unidirectional, mythologized vision of time. In this conception, the meaning of events is often determined by their relation to some “paradiselost” or—negatively—an “aberrant past.” Additionally, in such mythical constructions of time the distinction between the past, present, and future is sometimes collapsed. The presentis construed as permeated by the “spirit” of the past, and if this spirit is defective, the foundations of the polity are corrupted.”[15]