Transcript Political socialization and political culture in Hungary

New Political Culture in the
Making: Central and Eastern
Europe in Transition
Erasmus Link to Norway visit to
the University of Bergen
11 May 2004
István Tarrósy, M.Sc.
part-time lecturer in Political Science, UP
managing director of Europe House
Structure of the presentation
1.) Political culture: the foundation stones  a general
overview of the terms and their relations  setting the
scene
- political culture
- political socialisation
2.) some features of political culture in CEECs
3.) a more specific investigation of Hungarian specialities 
political traditions
in particular:
- heritage of the Communist past
- present-day situation: changes in political socialisation
4.) Is there a distinct European political culture?
Political culture:
The foundation stones
• Almond (1989): "something like a notion of
political culture has been around as long as men
have spoken and written about politics."
• C 5th B.C. – Herodotus: comparing different
characteristics of nations
• 1950s – early behaviourists: focus on human
behaviour and attitude
• The term ‘political culture’  Almond, Verba, Pye
- Almond-Verba:
1. the chain between the individual and the
institutions;
2. the group of orientations reflecting the
attitudes of the individual
The foundation stones 2
3. 3 types of political orientations: parochial,
subject, participant
- Pye: the complex of attitudes and practices
resembling the historical evolution of society +
psychological reactions
 based upon the investigation of developing
countries
Present-day definitions
Körösényi (1998)
- the subjective side of politics
- can be approached from different angles:
1. the collective cultural, behavioral and attitude-related patterns
of a political community; the complex of political knowledge,
values, feelings and symbols
2. the collection/group of the attitudes, values and norms,
together with the preferences, information and capabilities of the
individual
Coxall & Robins (1998)
A political culture is the pattern of understandings, feelings and
attitudes which dispose people towards behaving in a particular
way politically. It is the collective expression of the political
outlooks and values of the individuals who make up society. All
societies possess a political culture.
Present-day definitions 2
McCormick (2003)
The term political culture describes the norms, values and
expectations of a society as they relate to politics and
government. Political culture helps explain what leaders and
citizens regard as acceptable and unacceptable regarding the
character of government, and the relationship between
government and people.
Political socialization
• Political culture is intertwined with the
overall socialization of people.
• Negrine (1996):
it is the process of social learning whereby individuals
acquire knowledge, skills and dispositions that enable them
to participate as more or less effectice members of groups
and the society
• Primary and secondary agencies (agents)
• Direct – indirect
• Unifying – divisive
Some features of political culture
in CEECs
• CEECs – Western Europe
 under Soviet rule: CEECs were forces to give up
or transform their political and cultural traditions
 distorted new culture
 there is still no consolidated rotation of the
different governments
• the problem of mutual trust  distrust and
suspicion are among the main features  a lot to
do to reach maturity!
• politics: a game played by men  national
politics represented by men
Political traditions in Hungary
Q: What influenced or determined Hungarian
political traditions?
• The state ideology of St. Stephen 
constitutional way of thinking
• International political orientation: always (stuck)
between East and West
• The question of national and state sovereignty –
the relationship with the Habsburgs
• Clerical/religious cleavage: Habsburgs and
catholic aristocracy and protestant (Calvinist)
noblemen
Political traditions in Hungary 2
150 years of political development
• Weak democratic but strong parliamentary
tradition since the revolution of 1848-49
• The Horthy Era between 1920 and 1944
• The Communist regime: not unified at all 
different periods, different characteristics
1948 – 1963: classical, totalitarian dictatorship
1960s, 1970s: authoritarian dictatorship, the
heyday of the Kádár Era
1980s: more neutral and relaxed political
dictatorship with a series of reforms
The heritage of the past
• State control  everything put under
strict control of the Communist Party
• Family remained the only community that
could stay independent more or less
• Society became atomised
• With the loosening of state control over
the economy the second economic
sphere gradually developed
• In addition, double society came into
existence
• Political cynicism coupled with Hungarian
pessimism
Problem areas: true or not?
• Lack of democratic political tradition (too
long authoritarian tradition)
• Weakness of the representation of
interests (interest groups) and civil society
• Intolerant social and political attitudes
(e.g. ethnic prejudices)
• Low turnout on elections and general
political apathy
• Lack of pragmatism
• Inexperienced political elite
Political socialisation and its
agencies
• The features of the cursed/damned socialist
system disappearing slowly
• The change itself was gradual and without any
violence
• The crisis of the family  uncertainty (but great
importance!)
• The norms of the new society pulled friends
apart
• The appearance of the new agent of
socialization, i.e. network connection, e.g.
Amway, Lions, Rotary
• Changes in the media of socialization
Central Europe (still) in Transition
As Ralf Dahrendorf (1990: 92-93) suggests:
Three fundamental conditions of the road to freedom 
1. the formal process of constitutional reform – taking at least
six months;
2. a general sense that things are moving up as a result of
economic reform – unlikely to spread before six years have
passed;
3. the provision of the social foundations which transform the
constitution and the economy into such institutions that can
withstand the storms generated within and without – sixty
years are barely enough to lay these foundations (civil
society)
What has happened so far?
Following Dahrendorf’s criteria:
1. Indeed, political change took approx. 6 months 
constitutional laws:
1989: Freedom of Association, Est. of the Constitutional
Court, Electoral Law
1990: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Press, Party Law,
Law on Self Governments
2. Indeed, economic change took approx. 6 years 
- drop in real wages made acceptance of market economy
not an easy task for citizens
- it the beginning hesitation regarding privatization – only
economic circumstances forced the government towards a
massive sell-out
3. Shall we wait another 60 years until the change in civic
attitudes will enable democracy to work properly? How
about civic attitudes in general? What happened to them
since the change of the regime?
Transition (rock’n’) rolls on
• Political change (maybe) is not over yet:
the Prime Minister has recently made
proposals for:
– Electing the President directly, by the citizens
– Shrinking the number of MP’s
• Economic change faces challenges by the
time of joining the EU common market
• Civic attitudes are neither better, nor
worse than in other democratic countries
Back to Europe: Hungary in the
European Union
• Further transformation? How? In what
way?
• What will happen to Hungarian identity?
• How will Hungarian political culture get
accustomed to a European political
culture? And the other way round?
• Numerous other questions concerning the
costs and benefits on both sides…
Is there any European political
culture?
• Jacques Thomassen (Twente): ”A distinct
European political culture supposes a common
political culture across the countries of Europe.”
• But: most CEECs have a democratic history of
not more than a decade
• Pye  pol.cult. is a historical-cultural heritage
from the past  CEECs need to work out a twofaced (not Janus-faced!) pol.cult.
1.) common CEE pol.cult.
2.) new, Western-European-oriented attitudes
Henry Ford once said:
Coming together is a beginning;
keeping together is progress;
working together is success.”
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Almond, G. A. & Verba, S. (Eds). (1989). The Civic Culture Revisited. Newbury Park,
California: SAGE Publications.
Flora, P. et al. (Ed). (1999). State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in
Europe. The Theory of Stein Rokkan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Almond, G. A. et al. (2003). Comparative Politics Today. A World View. 7th ed.
London: Longman.
Körösényi, A. (1998). A magyar politikai rendszer. [The Hungarian political system].
Budapest: Osiris Kiadó.
Coxall, B. & Robins, L. (1998). Contemporary British Politics. London: Macmillan.
McCormick, J. (2003). Contemporary Britain. London: PALGRAVE.
Negrine, R. (1996). The Communication of Politics. London: SAGE.
Komlósi, L. I. et al. (Eds.) (2003). Communication and Culture. Argumentative,
Cognitive and Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Völgyes, I. (1999). Politikai szocializáció és kultúra Magyarországon. [Political
socialisation and culture in Hungary]. Világosság. 7. 3-14.
Simon, J. (Ed.) (1998). Ezredvégi értelmezések. Demokráciáról, politikai kultúráról,
bal- és jobboldalról. [Interpretations at the end of the millennium. About democracy,
political culture, left and right]. Vol. 1. Villányi úti könyvek 23. Politikatudományi
sorozat 19.
Gerő, A. (2003). 2003. április vége. Egy polgár naplója. [The end of April 2003. The
diary of a citizen.] Magyar Hírlap. 28 April 2003.
Thank you for your attention!
Takk!
Köszönöm!