A „nép” és az „elit” populista szembeállítása, mint mobilizációs keretértelmezés (frame)
Elements of populism gained the momentum within Hungarian political discourse as follows; -anti-establishment, anti-elite, anti „political class”, nomenclature orientation -going with the people, civil society, national and rural plus ethnic community identity against the „alienated aliens” -blaming the institutions as elections and parliamentarism, which manipulated the „popular will”, the need for reviewing electoral results or even to annihilate them and repeat the elections -new forms of organising, building an „Citizen’s Alliances ”(Polgári Szövetség) with nation and civil society, where national and religious symbols play a role, cultural and social community building to establish hegemony beyond the sphere of politics in other social subsystems -remaking the form of the party giving momentum to the spontaneously developed civic initiative’s (polgári körök) on the one hand, and dissolving the organisational identities of the centre right parties within a common frame on the other hand. These elements of populism emerged partly by recalling former experiences, structures and traditions of the anti- Communist dissent- analysed upon the lectures of István Csurka- or referring to Western centre right party models in Germany (CDU as a Volkspartei) and Italy(Forza Italia) within Fidesz MPP in 2002. The latter development synthetised these elements already present within the campaign to a political strategy and organisational form within the May 2003 Fidesz party conference calling the party with the new name to express the organisational and strategical alterations within the identification logo a „Fidesz-Hungarian Citizen’s Alliance”(Fidesz- Magyar Polgári Szövetség) of the civil society, nation and the center right parties under the strong leadership democracy model of Viktor Orbán and based upon the governing role of Fidesz.
This idea of the hegemony of the right based upon one organisational form provoked political discussions, and is at the moment rejected by the two other still existing parties of the Right, MDF and MIÉP: However Hungarian electoral system is majoritarian character may establish the bloc of the right with the hegemony of the Fidesz- Citizen’s Alliance, „Polgári Szövetség” despite of the political will of these parties. Consequently, Fidesz as opposition mobilist party moved to the side of the „Euroscepticists” with the MIÉP, which rejected the Europeanisation, meanwhile MDF upheald its partisanship for the EU developed already earlier. What we may result, is that in Hungary there is an influent opposition party with right wing populist character, combining the tradition of the anti- Communist dissent with the new forms of populism in Western democracies. Fidesz this way will move on the equilibrium between populist mobilisation and democratisation and Europeanisation. First is a supply for its voters identified with the „citizen’s” (polgárok) second is the demand from the EU, NATO and OECD countries, where Hungary seek for stable membership and support. Now the Left seems to be more successfully combining populism and Westernism, than the Right, but this may change under the incalculable and unintended social consequences of EU accession or during the pressures of the so-called New World Order of the USA, and then nationalism, populism from the Right could be the winning alternative with much less approval from the NATO and the EU.