Krekó, Péter and Attila Juhász. 2017. The Hungarian Far Right: Social Demand, Political Supply, and International Context. Stuttgart: ibidem Press. 267 pp.

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Hungarian Cultural Studies Pub Date : 2020-07-30 DOI:10.5195/ahea.2020.400
Steven Jobbitt
{"title":"Krekó, Péter and Attila Juhász. 2017. The Hungarian Far Right: Social Demand, Political Supply, and International Context. Stuttgart: ibidem Press. 267 pp.","authors":"Steven Jobbitt","doi":"10.5195/ahea.2020.400","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Charting the dramatic rise of the far right in Hungary since the late 1990s, this comprehensive study by Péter Krekó and Attila Juhász draws on an extensive body of original research to explain both the popular appeal and electoral successes of two key Hungarian parties: the radical right Jobbik (Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom [‘Movement for a Better Hungary’]), and the populist right Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetség [‘Alliance of Young Democrats’]). As the authors note at the very beginning of the book, the consolidation of illiberal politics in Hungary has over the last decade garnered a great deal of attention from Hungarian and foreign scholars, as well as from international media, and for good reason. The “meteoric rise” of Jobbik since 2006, coupled with the growing extremism of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, demand explanation, especially in light of the fact that together the two parties captured, in both the 2010 and the 2014 general elections, roughly seventy percent of the popular vote. Focusing in particular on Jobbik and its supporters, and taking the broader European context into consideration, Krekó and Juhász argue that the dramatic shift in contemporary Hungarian politics needs to be examined from two critical points of view: social demand and political supply. Although Jobbik’s popularity had already begun to wane by the time they published their study in 2017, the authors contend that a detailed analysis of Jobbik’s appeal and relative political competencies opens up new perspectives on the specific nature of the far right in Hungary, and this, in turn, helps us to better understand Fidesz’s decision to adopt, in the wake of their electoral victories in 2010 and 2014, increasingly populist, nativist, and authoritarian approaches. Stressing the need to gauge and understand the social demand behind the popularity of the far right in Hungary, Krekó and Juhász employ an evaluation criterion called the Demand for Right-Wing Extremism index (DEREX), a measurement tool developed by analysts at the Political Capital Institute (a policy research and consulting institute founded in Budapest in 2001, of which Krekó is executive director and Juhász is deputy director). A percent-based indicator, DEREX provides a quantitative overview of responses to opinion-poll surveys that gauge the attitudes and dispositions of respondents in four main categories: prejudices and welfare chauvinism; right-wing value orientation; antiestablishment sentiment; and fear, distrust, and pessimism (40). Though they do not ignore social and economic factors entirely, Krekó and Juhász contend that ideological and psychological elements, as well as emotional factors, need to","PeriodicalId":40442,"journal":{"name":"Hungarian Cultural Studies","volume":"13 1","pages":"215-217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hungarian Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/ahea.2020.400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Charting the dramatic rise of the far right in Hungary since the late 1990s, this comprehensive study by Péter Krekó and Attila Juhász draws on an extensive body of original research to explain both the popular appeal and electoral successes of two key Hungarian parties: the radical right Jobbik (Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom [‘Movement for a Better Hungary’]), and the populist right Fidesz (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetség [‘Alliance of Young Democrats’]). As the authors note at the very beginning of the book, the consolidation of illiberal politics in Hungary has over the last decade garnered a great deal of attention from Hungarian and foreign scholars, as well as from international media, and for good reason. The “meteoric rise” of Jobbik since 2006, coupled with the growing extremism of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, demand explanation, especially in light of the fact that together the two parties captured, in both the 2010 and the 2014 general elections, roughly seventy percent of the popular vote. Focusing in particular on Jobbik and its supporters, and taking the broader European context into consideration, Krekó and Juhász argue that the dramatic shift in contemporary Hungarian politics needs to be examined from two critical points of view: social demand and political supply. Although Jobbik’s popularity had already begun to wane by the time they published their study in 2017, the authors contend that a detailed analysis of Jobbik’s appeal and relative political competencies opens up new perspectives on the specific nature of the far right in Hungary, and this, in turn, helps us to better understand Fidesz’s decision to adopt, in the wake of their electoral victories in 2010 and 2014, increasingly populist, nativist, and authoritarian approaches. Stressing the need to gauge and understand the social demand behind the popularity of the far right in Hungary, Krekó and Juhász employ an evaluation criterion called the Demand for Right-Wing Extremism index (DEREX), a measurement tool developed by analysts at the Political Capital Institute (a policy research and consulting institute founded in Budapest in 2001, of which Krekó is executive director and Juhász is deputy director). A percent-based indicator, DEREX provides a quantitative overview of responses to opinion-poll surveys that gauge the attitudes and dispositions of respondents in four main categories: prejudices and welfare chauvinism; right-wing value orientation; antiestablishment sentiment; and fear, distrust, and pessimism (40). Though they do not ignore social and economic factors entirely, Krekó and Juhász contend that ideological and psychological elements, as well as emotional factors, need to
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Krekó、Péter和Attila Juhász。2017年,《匈牙利极右翼:社会需求、政治供给和国际背景》。斯图加特:ibidem出版社。267页。
Péter Krekó和Attila Juhász的这项综合研究描绘了自20世纪90年代末以来极右翼在匈牙利的急剧崛起,利用了大量的原始研究来解释匈牙利两个关键政党的民意吸引力和选举成功:激进右翼政党Jobbik,以及民粹主义右翼青民盟(Fiatal Demokraták Szövetség[青年民主党联盟])。正如作者在本书一开始就指出的那样,在过去十年中,匈牙利非自由政治的巩固引起了匈牙利和外国学者以及国际媒体的极大关注,这是有充分理由的。自2006年以来,Jobbik的“迅速崛起”,加上匈牙利执政党青民盟日益增长的极端主义,需要做出解释,特别是考虑到两党在2010年和2014年大选中总共获得了大约70%的选票。Krekó和Juhász特别关注Jobbik及其支持者,并考虑到更广泛的欧洲背景,认为当代匈牙利政治的戏剧性转变需要从两个关键的角度来审视:社会需求和政治供给。尽管在2017年发表研究报告时,Jobbik的受欢迎程度已经开始下降,但作者认为,对Jobbik吸引力和相对政治能力的详细分析为匈牙利极右翼的具体性质开辟了新的视角,这反过来又有助于我们更好地理解青民盟的决定,在2010年和2014年的选举胜利之后,他们采取了越来越民粹主义、本土主义和威权主义的做法。Krekó和Juhász强调需要衡量和了解匈牙利极右翼受欢迎背后的社会需求,他们采用了一种称为右翼极端主义需求指数的评估标准,政治资本研究所(Political Capital Institute,2001年成立于布达佩斯的一家政策研究和咨询机构,Krekó担任执行主任,Juhász担任副主任)分析师开发的一种衡量工具。DEREX是一个基于百分比的指标,它对民意调查的反应进行了定量概述,该调查衡量了四大类受访者的态度和倾向:偏见和福利沙文主义;右翼价值取向;反建制情绪;以及恐惧、不信任和悲观(40)。尽管他们并没有完全忽视社会和经济因素,但Krekó和Juhász认为,意识形态和心理因素以及情感因素需要
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hungarian Cultural Studies
Hungarian Cultural Studies SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Narrating the Danube Swabian Identity and Experience from Women's Perspective Pánczél Hegedűs, János. 2022. Nem forradalom, hanem szabadságharc: Mindszenty József 1956-os helyzete és tevékenysége (Not a Revolution, but a Fight for Freedom: The Position and Activities of József Mindszenty in 1956). Budapest: L’Harmattan. 390 pp. Translanguaging in Family Communication Possibilities for a New Social Model? Materiality and Making Meaning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1