The accession happened in a time when Europe is burdened with numerous conflicts and facing a set of dilemmas, undergoing changes in its own structures. It is useful here to look at what concepts the large European factions are sculpting with regard to the future of Europe. Then we can deal with the question of how the leaders of Hungarian political life are viewing EU accession and the present and future of Hungary.

Globalization has an effect on everyone: the ideas of Western-European parties and groups of parties conform to the latest international political and economic challenges. The first such challenge is the problem of the new world order.

Oil crisis critical moment
Those who have been following the European unification process and its stages know that the first steps were made around the time of the oil crisis in 1973, by Western Europe’s governing factions. This was the time when the world order created in 1945 suffered its first blows. It was in the 1970s that Europe first had to face the fact it has very strong economic and political competitors, and the United States and Japan had an advantage over a divided Europe.

In answer to this challenge, Europe began opening to countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The turning point in 1989-1990 cannot be explained without pointing out that at the time, there was a need for the whole of Europe to be competitive. This required becoming truly global, which threatened the notion of a divided Europe. Cooperation between Western and Central-Eastern Europe would prove to be fruitful. Not only did the Soviet-type dictatorships become free, but a unified Europe after 1990 promised new prospects. Following the millennium, however, unified Europe’s "honeymoon" ended. Today, the same number of conflicts and unsolved problems burden international relationships as before the systemic changes.

The socialist answer
It is no surprise that at the recent "Congress of the Socialist International" in San Paulo, socialists markedly endorsed creation of a new world order. Its keystones are: multi-lateralism, security, sustainable development, social justice, respect for human rights and gender equality. According to socialist parties of the world, the new world order is already present in many elements, but essentially remains a continuing challenge for the future. From these - equally important – issues, however, several must be emphasized. One of which is to make it possible for the developing world, and other falling behind, to catch up. This is a permanent problem of social development, it is the dialectic of winners and losers if you like. In the former world order (from 1945 until today), developing countries have progressed with high speed while those left behind accumulated a greater disadvantage. The reason for this was mainly due to uni-lateralism. "Humanity," socialists say, "has reached a crossroads. The present world order, which could be best described as unilateral, can trample on human rights, social justice and equal development. This world order has reached its limit. Building a new world order based on multi-lateralism, democracy, respect for human rights and sustainable development is therefore necessary."

These are very critical and categorical words about something that we thought – especially looking from this corner of Europe – existed.

The liberal answer
The liberal parties of Europe are also looking for the right answers. The central point in their proposal is (and they are not the only ones to adopt this view) development of the principles and practical solutions to "good governance." European liberals lobby for individual liberty, the separation of powers, decentralization, increased access to information, the protection of civil rights and free trade. The task of answering to these challenges is almost formulated as a generational question by liberals.

Let’s examine two of the (most urgent) problems faced: the challenge of violence and global governance. The challenge of improving democracy, which is becoming widespread in the world, must be dealt with immediately, they say. It might be surprising for conservatives, but liberals often mention the principle of subsidiarity, explaining it in a way which gives maximum autonomy to regions and local communities. The question of the scope of state and government is also a serious issue for liberals, who feel "big government" and growth of the state’s scope are threats to a free society.

It is especially interesting that the leader of Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, during his visit to Hungary, said the following in an interview: "Today the influence of social democrats is decreasing. Nowadays one only meets one or two social democrat leaders at summit meetings, while the liberal group of political parties has six prime ministers and the presidents of the European Committee, and the European Parliament are also liberals. People believe more and more that the real alternative to conservativism is liberalism."
Although this opinion is not really supported by results of the national parliamentary elections, it is still worth noting.

The Christian democrat answer
Europe’s Christian democrats are also very active, with the European People’s Party’s 2004 long term program defining four basic principles: human dignity, the leading role of the family, social market economy and a decentralized federal Europe.

It is noteworthy that the Christian democrats are strongly focused on human personality (as opposed to liberal individualism). The principle of subsidiarity can of course be found (not very surprisingly) in the program of the People’s Party, which ensures the cohesion of societies. It is important to mention that moderate right wing parties also declare their aims to separate themselves from extremist parties. "Extremist parties reject European integration, sacrifice the citizen to the sovereign nation and foster intolerance, racism, nationalism, xenophobia and terrorism." The Christian democrat answer to global challenges is work and a solidarity-based economy. It is perhaps the European People’s Party’s action program planned for 2004-2009 that is the most comprehensive and manifold of all programs by political parties.

EU-strategies in Hungarian politics
Hungarian politics have changed a lot in the past few years. In the early 1990s, it was enough for a party to show its knowledge of Western affairs to think itself belonging to the mainstream. Today, the essence is in the details. On the surface the dominant participants of Hungarian politics seem to agree, in reality though, the differences in emphasis (and sometimes content) are great.

The ideas of the present government
The Medgyessy government fully supported EU accession. The prime minister states on every occasion that his government does not see any alternative to the European Union. At the same time the government spends more energy than necessary on questioning the opposition’s commitment to the EU. Prior to accession this was not a very positive viewpoint. The Hungarian government could do much if – while not leaving any doubts about their commitment – they made clear citizens’ rights to free speech. In 2003, a referendum was held in Hungary to decide about the country’s accession to the EU, a referendum was not decisive. Less than 50 percent of the people entitled to vote participated, while most of them voted yes to the accession. Government propaganda – in my opinion mistakenly – devaluated the opinion of the opposition and represented their point of view as contrary to Hungarian national interest. This approach though is opposed to well-known Western European processes. We know that a much bigger percent of voters took part in the EU elections in Western Europe, but also the number of votes rejecting the EU was much larger. The majority of Hungarian society supported the accession and it was unnecessary to fear the ones who are of a different opinion. It is the responsibility of the government in power (at all times) not to condemn the people representing a different opinion, but to respect opposing opinions.

The government parties’ idea of Europe
The biggest difference between government and opposition parties is perhaps that the government parties accept the principle of voluntary limitation of sovereignty, while the opposition does not. The voluntary limitation of sovereignty means that the Hungarian government is aware of the nature of the institutions of global governance and therefore does not regard it as negative from the beginning if some kind of "division of labor" is created between Brussels and Hungarian government. The opposition questions this principle.

It has always been part of Hungarian left-wing tradition to resign from certain rights of decision. This tradition roots in the 1980s, when reform communists and reform socialists of the previous system created a new framework for cooperation between Hungary and Western Europe by means of diplomacy. Within the framework of the party-state system, Hungarian foreign affairs and trade diplomacy supported the West in the process mentioned in the beginning of this article. From the early 1970s, when Europe (in competition with the United States and Japan) needed the support of Central and Eastern Europe, it was an important question what kind of relationships were formed between Western governments and Central-Eastern European party elite. The present government policy follows this tradition, the essence of which is to conform to the conditions set by European powers and the EU.

The present government parties often criticize the opposition for holding contradictory views in connection with the EU.

The opposition’s idea of the EU and accession
The EU-related policy of the bigger opposition party questions the picture of the EU represented by government and coalition parties. Fidesz does not accept the doctrine of voluntary limitation of sovereignty but regards the unconstrained representation of Hungarian interests as the most important requirement. This way of thinking is centered around national independence. As Viktor Orbán put it in his speech Aug. 19, 2003: "Saint Stephen has formulated the call and mission of the nation which is valid until the present day. It is something like this: somewhere in the heart of Europe, in the Carpathian basin there has to exist a strong, prosperous, independent and free country." As opposed to the socialist tradition of dependency, Orbán suggests a tradition of "independency." And instead of executing demands of the EU (which is the characteristic position of the left wing according to Orbán) "the question is not anymore what the European Union demands from us, but what we can demand from ourselves."

The difference is obvious: while according to Fidesz the socialist tradition has always been built on the fact it is the world powers who decide the status of Hungary, Fidesz would like to make Hungarian politics equal – that is, they do not accept a kind of "following" behavior, but rather would like to "form" common European politics.

Conclusions
The most important conclusion to be drawn from this analysis are probably that Western European parties (and public opinion) are much more critical about the present development of the world than the Hungarian political elite. We have seen that the top organization of socialist parties was talking about the end of an old world order and feels the need to create a new world order.

With Hungarian parties – understandably, it us who want to join the EU– we find more moderate opinions. Government parties do not criticize, and even Fidesz only cautiously gives voice to its opposing opinions.

Despite all internal arguments, the Hungarian political elite is united about the question of there being no alternative to the EU. This is the most important thing we can say about the May 1st accession and European Parliamentary elections June 13. From this moment Hungary is also institutionally a full right member of the western community.