Objectives, main features and background
Hungary (like most EU countries) fits into the ‘architect model’ of cultural policy, in which an intervening state actively supports cultural production. Markets play a weak role in many cultural areas, given the small size of the Hungarian-speaking audience and a low level of internationalisation. Like in other Eastern European countries, no strong system of private investment in the arts emerged in the post-communist period, and they strongly rely on state support.
Hungarian cultural policy from 1990 to 2010 could be classified as belonging to the ‘democratic elitist’ paradigm. By providing forms of institutional autonomy for key actors, competing elite groups establish a situation where particular forms of expertise are seen as the basis for making policy choices. This type of cultural policy model operates through arm’s-length governmental organisations and through forms of governance arrangements.
After 2010, when Fidesz, the governing party gained constitutional power at the elections, the accent from European integration and values moved towards national traditions and conservatism. This included, among others, increased care about the culture of the altogether about two million ethnic Hungarians in the neighbouring countries. The objectives of cultural policy have nevertheless not been enacted in official policy declarations. The statements of the Prime Minister suggest the main clues to the subsequent priorities also in the cultural arena.
The conventional starting point of the Orbán government’s cultural policy is his 2009 speech given at the exclusive annual meeting for his loyal cultural and economic elite. Here, he argued that culture is not a distinct sphere separated from politics and described the function of cultural policy as creating and maintaining the political community. Therefore, cultural policy under the Orbán-governments represent the ‘cultural diffusion’ model, which focuses on the role of culture in strengthening national identity.
Nationalist ideology goes along with religious (Christian) allusions, an anti-LGBT agenda, However, this does not mean that cultural policy is ideologically coherent. Rather, a double structure can be observed, with a certain division of tasks inside the government structures of policy implementation: while the ministerial structure is responsible for the general management of cultural issues and maintaining institutions, ideological issues and ‘culture wars’ have been assigned to the Prime Minister’s own loyal intellectuals.
One of the most conspicuous institutional features of Hungarian cultural policy is the weakness of formal structures. No written document could be found to determine the principles of and governmental priorities for cultural policy. There had not been an independent Ministry of Culture in the governmental structure between 2010 and 2022, although it had existed before 2010 under the Socialist-Liberal governments. Prime Minister Orbán merged it into a broad Ministry of Human Resources, along with education, health and employment affairs. In that period, the highest position connected to cultural policy was a State Secretary in this ministry. Cultural State Secretaries were changed every two years on average and did not announce articulated vision or profile of cultural policy. Their main task was to run the cultural infrastructure. Real policy-shaping actors could be found outside the ministerial structure, directly controlled by the Prime Minister.
There have been periods when culture was one of the top priorities in the evolution of the System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER), as the current political power identifies itself. A new era began in 2018, when the Prime Minister pronounced to focus on the cultural transformation of the country, in the political sense ot the term. From the ideological content the emphasis shifted towards competitiveness: the programmes and institutions connected to the ruling power are expected to achieve and exhibit excellence.
In 2022, a new Ministry of Culture and Innovation was established, led currently by Balázs Hankó. The state secretary responsible for culture is currently Magdolna Závogyán.
The Hungarian cultural policy system does not operate along the conventional algorithm of defining cultural policy priorities, preparing, and executing implementation. A politicised culture without policies. Participatory planning and negotiated decision-making are almost entirely absent. The state secretariat for culture in the Ministry for Culture and Innovation, or the Committee for Culture of the Parliament have negligible roles, and the same applies to the own bodies of the system: the Hungarian Arts Academy – Magyar Művészeti Akadémia, MMA, or the National Council for Culture. Fundamental changes occur overnight and are often linked to influential personalities.
Continued centralisation is an important feature of the system. Mandates and resources of local governments are limited, social and professional partners are little consulted. Annual budgets reveal little of next priorities as their provisions are significantly overwritten by ad hoc government decisions during the year. The lack of detailed manifest strategies does not mean financial neglect: on the contrary, the public cultural spending of the government is among the highest in the continent. Particularly much is spent on preservation and reconstruction of built cultural heritage and new buildings.
Background:
1918- 1945
A relatively small East-Central European country, whose cultural performance reflected the legacies of a once momentous middle power of a thousand-year-old kingdom, and the features of a semi-feudal societal arrangement.
1945-1956
Up until the revolution of 1956, a crude, schematic political course prevailed, slavishly imitating the Soviets, oppressing every kind of autonomy in the cultural life, applying nevertheless important measures in the democratisation of culture.
1960-1989
Cultural dogmatism began to melt away in the early 1960s. Up until 1989, in culture, like in other areas of life, a protracted process of revision was in progress and the most gradual transition within the entire communist bloc had taken place. As a result of state subsidies, culture was accessible at low cost, and cultural consumption (reading of books, attendance at the theatre, cinema, concerts, libraries, museums, and exhibitions) was growing. Under dictatorship, art acquired a specific political significance, which contributes to the view of many that culture has been one of the losers in the transition.
1990-2010
Transition from communism took place amidst great economic difficulties. The national objective of European integration defined the priorities and modalities of cultural policies. Nevertheless, a fatigue of the decades of reforms and expectations led to increasing economic and social crisis in Hungary – aggravated but not really caused by the 1998 world crisis. Those years did not favour concerted action for culture.
Since 2010
The System of National Cooperation (Nemzeti Együttműködés Rendszere – NER) has prevailed.
Comments are closed.