|
Hungary Elections to the National Assembly
In 1983 the government instituted a new electoral
system for
the National Assembly and local councils to encourage more
popular participation in governmental affairs. Before 1966
Hungary had used an electoral system in which a voter
could vote
only for or against the official slate of candidates. In
1966 the
government initiated election procedures that made the
nomination
of more than one candidate possible; in the 1971
elections, 49
districts out of 352 nominated two or more candidates. By
1981,
however, the number of multicandidate districts declined
to
fifteen, thus causing concern within the party leadership
and
eventually triggering reform.
In 1983 the regime instituted a new electoral system
for
several reasons. British authority Bill Lomax has written
that
Hungarian leaders "felt sufficient confidence that by
granting
measured degrees of independence and autonomy to society,
they
could win not just the passivity but the complicity if not
quite
the loyalty of major sections of the population." Through
its
multicandidate elections, the regime attempted to convince
the
populace that the political system was essentially
democratic.
The electoral system afforded the government the
opportunity to
mobilize people in support of a political campaign and
thereby
increase their political awareness. Finally, the elections
provided an occasion for testing the HSWP's organizational
and
supervisory abilities.
The new rules compelled the nomination of several
candidates
in single-member districts. Both residents of the district
and
workers employed in the district but living elsewhere
could
participate in the nomination meetings. At the meetings,
voters
could ask questions of the candidates and comment on their
programs with support or objections. The PPF organized the
meetings and proposed the candidates. Nominations could
also be
submitted by other social and political organizations or
persons
in the district. All candidates, however, had to accept
the PPF
program to be eligible for nomination. Thus the procedure
favored
regime candidates and minimized the chances for an
independent.
For a candidate to gain nomination, 33.3 percent of the
persons
present at the meeting had to cast a "yes" vote. If no
candidate
received the required percentage, another nomination
meeting was
held. In addition, the rules stipulated that the number of
nomination meetings equal the number of candidates, but
each
parliamentary district had to have at least two candidates
and
therefore two meetings. All proposals for the nomination
of
independent candidates had to be resubmitted at the next
meeting.
The rules also allowed each citizen to vote for several
nominees.
Because the regime could use the PPF to mobilize large
numbers of
people against undesirable candidates, this rule
discriminated
against independent nominees.
The efforts of the dissident Laszlo Rajk to gain
nomination
illustrate the barriers faced by independent nominees. On
April
18, 1985, at the first of the two required nomination
meetings in
the southern constituency of Budapest's fifth district,
Rajk
gained the support of about 40 percent of the 223 people
present.
At the second electoral meeting on April 22, the regime
attempted
to thwart Rajk's nomination. HSWP activists, plainclothes
police,
and factory workers filled the hall. Rajk's speech raised
such
controversial issues as conscientious objection to
military
service, the fate of the environment, and the problem of
Hungarian minorities abroad
(see Relations with Other Communist Neighbors
, this ch.). At the second meeting, only about 27
percent of the of the 1,388 voters present supported Rajk.
In addition to the obligatory multiple candidacies, the
new
electoral system called for the establishment of a
national list
of thirty-five candidates to be elected without
opposition.
Politburo member Mihaly Korom justified the national list
by
arguing that "important interests demand the
representation of
leading personalities" from society, culture, science, and
the
churches. Korom maintained that the "character of their
work, the
province of their activities go far beyond the boundaries
of
their electoral districts." The law was successful in
promoting
multiple candidacies throughout the country. In addition,
some
independent candidates gained nomination and election. Of
the 352
National Assembly constituencies in the 1985 election, 298
had
two candidates each, 50 had three candidates each, and 4
had four
candidates each. Most of the triple and quadruple
candidacies
occurred in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplen, Fejer, and Pest counties
and in
Budapest. Of the 152 people who were not originally on the
PPF
list and were nominated from the floor, 70 received the
necessary
one-third votes at two or more nominating meetings, and 51
of
them had been proposed in addition to the 2 nominees
successfully
nominated by the PPF.
About 1.5 million people, or 20 percent of the
country's
eligible voters, participated in the nominating meetings
for the
1985 elections to the National Assembly and the local
councils.
Approximately 150,000 people asked to speak out at the
meetings
in support of the proposed candidates.
In the general election, abstention rates were high by
East
European standards. Turnout in the whole country was 93.9
percent, down from 97 percent in 1980. The turnout in
Budapest
was 88.4 percent. The number of valid votes cast (votes
submitted
according to the rules) was 94.6 percent; in Budapest this
figure
was 92.3 percent. Negative votes--votes cast against all
candidates on the ballot--amounted to 1.2 percent of valid
votes.
Of the 352 electoral districts, 42 required runoff
elections
because no candidate could muster the required 50 percent
plus
one of the valid votes. Another eighty constituencies had
close
contests. Of the seventy-eight independents who gained
nomination, forty-three won seats after runoff elections.
Nevertheless, thirty-three of these forty-three candidates
were
party members. The proportion of independent candidates
was quite
low, but, according to American political scientist
Barnabas
Racz, their nomination marked an unprecedented development
in the
history of East European elections.
Although the 1985 election was democratic by East
European
standards, Hungarian dissidents and Western commentators
pinpointed several troubling features. In most of the
electoral
districts, the two PPF candidates were the only nominees.
In
addition, only the priorities of the candidates differed,
not
their programs. The regime subjected campaign literature
to
strict copying regulations, and it took steps to limit
publicity
for candidates. Dissidents maintained that the procedures
favored
the big industrial enterprises, which packed nomination
meetings
with supporters for their preferred candidates. In turn,
these
candidates, once elected, formed parliamentary lobbies
that
supported increases in subsidies for the industries to
which they
owed their nomination.
Data as of September 1989
|
