Political Swingers

Some politicians stick to the same principles in all their life. Indeed, crossing the floor is a rather rare event in the British Parliament. Others drift with the tide. The best example is probably Pierre Laval, who was the architect of the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact in 1940. A  few years later he set up La Milice, under the aegis of the Vichy government, perhaps the most murderous Right-wing police organisation Western Europe ever saw. Plus, of course, there are the swingers who like to have more than one partner. The same thing might happen in politics under special circumstances.

What are the necessary conditions? There should be two strong powers and one weak power. It is usually in the interest of the weak one not to stick to one of the strong ones but gain some advantage by switching from one to the other. My first example is Cardinal George Martinuzzi. He was an adviser to King John 1st of Hungary in the 16^th century. The two great powers were the Ottoman Turks and the Hapsburgs. He preferred one and then the other one, whichever he thought was more advantageous for Hungary, his adopted country.

A clear case was when Martinuzzi asked for the military support of the Sultan during the siege of Buda by the Hapsburgs in 1541. In response to the request, the Sultan sent a Turkish army to relieve Buda and occupy it – an occupation which lasted until 1686. A few years later, after Martinuzzi had invited the Turks into Buda, he started to play the other side, plotting with the Hapsburgs to take over Eastern Hungary, including Transylvania. The trouble with swinging is that after a while the swinger is likely to be found out and then his chances of maintaining a happy relationship with either side look rather limited. In Martinuzzi’s case, he was assassinated by Habsburg agents.

My second example is quite different. After all, the intrigues of today do not resemble those of yesteryear. This is hardly surprising if we consider that some five hundred years have gone by  since the times of Cardinal Martinuzzi.

Witches are no longer burned at the stake, although defenestrations still occur occasionally. The new thing is a President of the United States who would not pass an A-level exam in European Geography or History.

So, my second example is Victor Orban, the present Prime Minister of Hungary, who has brought the art of swinging to perfection.  One day he votes for NATO and the next he might vote for the opponent of NATO. One day he may celebrate the bravery of Hungarians fighting the Russians in 1956. Another day he might decry the arrogance of Ukrainians  for daring  to resist the Russians. A further example is his several votes against European Ukrainian aid packages: sometimes he uses his veto, sometimes he agrees not to use it in return for concessions from the EU.

My third example is Miklós Kállay, Prime Minister of Hungary in 1942-1944. Kállay had an impossible task. He was entrusted by Miklos Horthy, Regent of Hungary, to reverse some 20 years of propaganda in favour of the Axis’ powers, the frequent mention of the gratitude of the Hungarian nation to Hitler and Mussolini for returning some of the provinces to Hungary which she had lost in Trianon in 1920 as part of the peace negotiations. Kallay was bound to fail. His attempts to find a foreign foe to whom Hungary could surrender were entirely unsuccessful.

That reminds me of a story that did the rounds in Budapest at the time. Hitler asks one of his advisors: “How long would it take to occupy Hungary?”

The advisor replies: “It depends. If they resist, it could take 2 days. If they don’t resist, it could take 3 days.” Hitler looks up, bewildered. The advisor explains: “We would have to listen to all the welcoming speeches.”

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.