The Political Nature of Ideological Polarization: The Case of Hungary

• DOI: 10.1177/0002716218813895
• Author: Federico Vegetti
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: II. Democratic Erosion under New Elites

78 ANNALS, AAPSS, 681, January 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0002716218813895

The Political

Nature of

Ideological

Polarization:

The Case of

Hungary

By

FEDERICO VEGETTI

813895ANN The Annals of The American AcademyThe Political Nature of Ideological Polarization

research-article2018

Polarization in Hungary is one of the most severe cases

in Europe. It is predominantly elite-driven, and deter-

mined mostly by the antagonistic confrontation

between the parties. Left and Right blocs oppose each

other in a struggle where the loser is completely denied

any influence on policymaking. The two blocs endorse

opposing views on socio-cultural policies, but this divi-

sion emerged as a consequence of the rhetoric and

coalitional choices of parties, more than from the soci-

etal divisions that they ostensibly represent. Moreover,

while the perceived ideological distance between party

blocs is wide, the actual programmatic differences in

the parties’ economic and social policy stances are

modest. This article draws on a broad range of sources

to describe the process of polarization in Hungary after

the fall of communism. I discuss how a polarizing style

of political competition can lead to a politically divided

society and, over the long run, to democratic erosion.

Keywords: Hungary; political polarization; Left–

Right; ideology; illiberal democracy

Hungary transitioned to democracy in 1989,

and by 1998 the cleavages that cut through

the nascent multiparty political system had

become perfectly bipolar, with all major parties

belonging to either the “Left” or the “Right.”

But the classic economic ideological measures,

such as the role of the market versus govern-

ment regulation in the economy, do not define

the Left–Right scale in Hungary. Instead,

Hungarian parties are polarized on cultural and

symbolic issues, such as religion, nationalism–

cosmopolitanism and, more recently, immigra-

tion, and they define Left–Right in those terms.

The two party blocs emerged due to a

Federico Vegetti is a postdoctoral researcher at the

University of Milan (Italy). From 2013 to 2018 he was

a research fellow at the Central European University in

Budapest, where he learned about polarization in

Hungary first hand.

Correspondence: vegetti.fede@gmail.com

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF IDEOLOGICAL POLARIZATION 79

consistent pattern of coalition formation among parties, which never bridged the

Left–Right divide. Moreover, the perceived ideological distance between blocs is

inflated by antagonistic and delegitimizing actions and rhetoric that characterize

interaction between the opposing camps.

This article describes the contours of party politics in Hungary, focusing on the

resurgence of polarization from 2002 to 2010 and its essential stability through

2018. It shows that the high degree of party ideological polarization perceived by

Hungarian citizens does not correspond to large programmatic differences

between parties. I argue that the perceived ideological conflict has political ori-

gins, and that the winner-take-all logic produced by institutional rules, combined

with psychological elements of the us-versus-them discourse employed by the

parties, provides perverse incentives for de-democratization.

According to Freedom House, Hungary is the only European Union (EU)

member country that shows a significant decline in its aggregate Freedom Score

over the past 10 years (see Freedom House 2017a). The V-Dem Liberal

Democracy Index for Hungary has been falling since 2010, and it is now the low-

est among EU-member countries (see Coppedge et al. 2018). As the ruling party

Fidesz further concentrates power, its leader, Viktor Orbán, is moving the coun-

try toward an openly illiberal democratic system, weakening checks and balances

and press freedoms, and changing rules for electoral advantage—the early stages

of what countries like Turkey and Venezuela have gone through.

The Nature of Polarization in Hungary

The extent of political polarization in any given country can be understood

through either of two perspectives. The wide range view holds that polarization

is a matter of differentiation of the policy supply: in this case, the choices offered

to citizens are as wide as the policy ground covered by the political parties

(Dalton 2008). This view tends to focus on positive implications of polarization,

such as increased electoral competitiveness and mobilization. One example of

this model is Switzerland, where Lachat (2011) shows that party polarization is

associated with greater importance of substantive policy considerations for citi-

zens’ vote choice. The entrenchment view, on the other hand, argues that polari-

zation implies concentration of the policy supply around two poles, with little

room for a middle ground (McCarty et al. 2006; McCoy, Rahman, and Somer

2018). Scholars taking this perspective have found that voters in polarized polities

are more partisan, less likely to switch between parties over time, and more

biased in their political evaluations and opinions (Druckman, Peterson, and

Slothuus 2013; Smidt 2017; Vegetti 2014). While the wide range view looks at the

global divergence between actors and preferences, the entrenchment perspec-

tive emphasizes local convergence: namely the alignment of actors and prefer-

ences along a single conflict dimension. When polarization follows this pattern,

between-group alienation and within-group concentration are likely to reinforce

each other and lead to conflict (DiMaggio, Evans, and Bryson 1996). Hungarian

politics is a textbook example of entrenched polarization.