Resilience and political development of Europe during the crisis: evidence from Hungary

The article reveals the strategies of the political elites in a number of East European countries, which allowed them during the pandemic crisis not only to maintain stability, but also to expand the use of authoritarian practices by easing foreign policy pressure from Brussels. Using the case of Hungary as a basis for empirical analysis, I show how the crisis has increased the opportunity for power elites to consolidate their dominance. The restrictive measures imposed by Western countries were used by the Hungarian authorities as an excuse to carry out another attack against political competition and civil liberties. However, the main outcome of the political development during the pandemic crisis in Hungary was not so much a clearly observed undermining of democracy and the rule of law, as another round of nationalization of a number of economic enterprises that fell under the control of the ruling elites. This strengthened the economic foundation of autocracy in contemporary Hungary, making the regime more autonomous from EU pressure. I argue that the autocratization of Hungary in the context of the pandemic is based on the successful application of the maneuvering strategy by the elites. Their choice, in turn, is shaped by the historical legacy of Hungary, which pioneered this strategy to resist Moscow's pressure during the Communist rule. I show that the two most important factors - temporality and spatiality -are key to the effectiveness of the political survival of the current political regime in Hungary. The first of them provided an arsenal of strategies that were effectively used in the Soviet period and reapplied by the Hungarian elite nowadays. The second factor ensures the exchange of ideas between the leaders of the East European countries - EU member states. Thus, the “learning” and successful application of strategies that reinforce authoritarian tendencies in contemporary Hungary has both historical (temporal) and spatial dimensions.

1. Boese W.A., Edgell A.B, Hellmeier S., Maerz S.F., Lindberg S.I. How democracies prevail: democratic resilience as a two-stage process. Democratization. 2021, Vol. 28, N 5, P. 885-907. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1891413

2. Buzan B., W®ver O., Wilde J. Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner publishers, 1998, 240 p.

3. Dragomir E. Breaking the CMEA hold: Romania in search of a ‘strategy' towards the European economic community, 1958-1974. European review of history. 2020, Vol. 27, N 4, P. 494-526. DOI: 10.1080/13507486.2019.1694492

4. Folke C., Carpenter R., Walker B., Scheffer M., Chaplin T., Rockstrom J. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and society. 2010, Vol. 15, N 4. DOI: 10.5751/es-03610-150420

5. Kansikas S. Socialist countries face the European community: Soviet bloc controversies over East-West trade. New York, London: Peter Lang, 2014, 224 p.

6. Miklossy K., Smith H. (eds). Strategic culture in Russia's neighborhood: change and continuity in an in-between space. New York, London: Lexington Books, 2019, 302 p.

7. Miklossy K. Khrushchevism after Khrushchev: the rise of national interest in the Eastern Bloc. In: Smith J., Ilic M. (eds). Khrushchev in the Kremlin: Policy and government in the Soviet Union, 1953-1964. London, New York: Routledge, 2010, P. 150-170.

8. Miklossy K. Subregional integration in East Central Europe: strategies in the in-between sphere. In: Broad M., Kansikas S. (eds). European integration beyond brussels. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020, P. 269-290.

9. Miklossy K. The Helsinki Process and the Finnish model from small states' perspective: Hungarian and Romanian CSCE-strategies in comparison. In: Blomqvist A., Iordachi C., Trencsenyi B. (eds).Comparisons and entanglements: Hungary and Romania beyond national narratives. New Y ork, London: Peter Lang, 2013, P. 485-514.

10. Obrist B., Pfeifer C. Multi-layered social resilience: a new approach in mitigation research. Progress in development studies. 2010, Vol. 10, N 4, P. 283-293. DOI: 10.1177/146499340901000402

11. Olsson L., Jerneck A., Thoren H., Person J., O'Byrne D. Why resilience is unappealing to social science: theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science advances. 2015, Vol. 1, N 4, P. 1-11. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1400217

12. Szhcs J. Vazlat Europa harom regiojarol. Budapest: Magveto, 1983, 136 p.

13. Trencsenyi B. Central Europe. In: Mishkova D., Trencsenyi B. (eds). European regions and boundaries: a conceptual history. New York and Oxford: Berghan Books, 2017, P. 166-188.

14. Walker B.H., Gunderson L., Knozig A., Folke C., Carpenter S., Schultz L. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and society. 2006, Vol. 11, N 1. DOI: 10.5751/es-01530-110113