For decades, policy making and effective political actions have taken place in smaller forums, and not just by freely-elected bodies. One of the fundamental facets of democracy is that elected bodies are in power and in control of political processes.

In reality, a variety of interest groups and organizations are active political players in an invisible, informal manner. Professional policy making groups, or think tanks, have the primary task of assisting parties, governments or business enterprises in gaining an advantage over rivals and competing issues. The party or business enterprise is lobbied in shaping political processes and accommodating the think tank’s interests and concepts. Parties who work with skilled professionals that either are employed by, or influential in various think tanks, have better chances to win elections or gain influence. Parties lacking these resources are more likely to be sidelined in modern parliamentary democracy.

One of the paradoxes of modern democracy is inherent in the role and financing of background organizations behind think tanks, something not yet transparent in Hungary.

In his latest book – Politika és az értelmiség – Pártok, agytrösztök, hálózatok (Politics and the intelligentsia – parties, think tanks, networks) – political scientist Ervin Csizmadia, an associate professor and senior researcher at the Institute of Political Science of the Hungarian Academy of Science, analyzes Hungarian political trends of recent years – in the context of international political developments.

He claims that the role of intellectual, business and other informal networks has gained a growing importance in Hungarian politics. The political stage tends to be determined by conflicts and solutions between groups of politicians, intellectuals and businesses.

Csizmadia suggests that the process of systemic change has seen the increasing influence of think tanks. He concludes it is no coincidence various insiders of the ex-communist party most effectively exploit their past experiences and connections.

Ervin Csizmadia says the role of think tanks in Hungary is gaining importance

“Under the communist dictatorship, organizations connected to the Hungarian opposition were mainly composed of diverse groups of friends in which the common cause was generally limited to the rejection of state socialism,” says Csizmadia, “Before becoming irreconcilable adversaries, these figures thought and acted together. This was not a think tank in the classical sense.”

During the 1990s, the Democratic Charta associated with Hungarian political party, the Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ), was joined by members of the ex-communist party and organized into a united force. This embodied a unique left-wing movement.

In this period, their public image was primarily determined by street demonstrations and petitions. But the group was already receptive to left-wing intellectual inspirations, and recognized the importance of developing a financial and institutional background – a role that was filled by the liberal Soros Foundation.

According to Csizmadia, the institutions of professional think tanks were only established in Hungary during 1994-98, and prompted by the Fidesz-Hungarian Civic Union, whose ideology at the time shifted from a liberal to center-right positioning.

The appearance of professional think tanks was generally a reaction to some form of political change. In this case, following the fall of the first freely elected Hungarian Government and formed by the conservative based Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF). With no ties to the ex-communist party and no government experience, parliament basically became a political arena void of a right-wing factor.

Hence, following electoral defeat, when the revival of MDF seemed inconceivable, Fidesz – originally liberal in its ideology – built a new political right-wing in Hungary, at the cost of internal conflicts. The party manifestly looked to the United Kingdom and examples by the government of Margaret Thatcher. In addition to establishing background institutions and organizational structures, Fidesz redefined its own political agenda - hoping to enshrine right-wing politics, which were fractured and even non-existent in an ideological sense.

It is not surprising that in 1997, the analysis department at the Századvég “Turn of the Century” political school, Fidesz’s so-called think tank, was authorized to devise the future government program. The elaboration of this “Government 2000” project was headed by István Stumpf, who was considered to be an influential thinker dating back to the socialist era, but who was later appointed minister in the center-right government led by Viktor Orbán.

Stumpf himself says that Századvég represented a conservative-national liberal ideology, and openly admitted to being a think tank from the very beginning. Three different, but related, activities conducted in the institution include: post-graduate university courses, practical political study and analysis; policy related research with participation by experts working in government, party competitiveness studies, voter behavior and the media and the publication of books and periodicals.

Accession to the European Union will enhance the role of think tanks, which, according to Csizmadia, are on a weaker footing without connections to similar European institutions. The Századvég Foundation, similar to the French Robert Schumann institute and the German Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, are members of think tank organizations operated by the European Idea Network and the London- based Policy Exchange.

Similarly to the English model which left-wing forces established with the support of Tony Blair - organizational backgrounds in reaction to the advancement of neo-conservatives - the Hungarian left created think tank-type institutions of their own. The Political History Institute and Foundation is one of the most influential left-wing intellectual workshops.

“This is a scientific institution, not a think tank,” argues director György Földes. “Even if its foundation is tied to the Hungarian Socialist Party.”

Földes claims the group does not provide direct consulting to any government or party; nor does it accept commissions. Furthermore, the non-profit arm of the foundation enables general transparency. The institute conducts research in the fields of history and social theory, and has its own library and archives.

Think tanks spin the poltical machine

It is a fact, meanwhile, that this scientific institution was transformed from the original Party History Institute, which before 1990 was controlled by the ex-communist party. “But current scientific research has nothing to do with that,” says Földes, who headed the election think tank of the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) between 1993 and 1994. The strategic-planning work group Földes headed contributed considerably to the election victory of the left-liberal coalition. He emphasizes, however, that scientific and think tank activities, and institutional and private roles are not the same. This holds true even if, at times, these activities seem to overlap and the results of scientific research are applied by parties and governments.

The activities of the József Attila Foundation, a classic think tank, greatly contributed to the 2002 election victory of the Hungarian Socialist Party, the successor party of the reformed Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, which amassed major political experience under the former system. Interestingly, this was the first time foreign professionals participated in a campaign, headed by a high-ranking Israeli advisor, Ron Werber.

The success of the election campaign was also closely linked to Ferenc Gyurcsány, the current minister of Hungary’s Youth and Sports Ministry, who was brought into the limelight by Prime Minister Péter Medgyessy. The prime minister dismissed Gyurcsány’s predecessor and risked attacks from those who scrutinized Gyurcsány’s communist past and his amassed wealth.

Csizmadia argues that those lobbyists and advisors in the background are: “Eventually put into formal posts. They are attracted by the greater rewards and result is a certain hatred within their own parties. They end up having too much power and too little responsibility toward elected officials. This is a source of permanent tension between formal and informal power. We should accept the fact that people involved in think tanks are considered to be the fifth column, along with the media, using their intellectual and financial clout and connections to participate in political decision making, and even dominate public discourse.”