The Troubling History of a Plebiscite Boycott

Kara Eva Schlegl
Aug 9, 2017 · 4 min read

Last year, in a post-Brexit Hungary, the Government decided to seize hold of the conservative tide. The European Union had, back in 2015, imposed quotas for accepting relocated asylum seekers into each EU country to cope with an influx from Syria. A year in, with a kind of delight that would make our Peter Dutton weep, the right-wing Fidesz Government initiated a referendum to halt the quotas and lock these refugees out.

The ‘quota referendum’, as it was called in the media, was defended by the Government as a means of encouraging public autonomy. Yet it was met with direct criticism from opposing parties, and from a large portion of the public, labelling it xenophobic and anti-humanitarian. 22 non-governmental organisations called for Hungarians to shun the plebiscite, stating that it didn’t “allow the promotion of our common values, has no sense and is inhumane.” Many parties called for a boycott, with the Democratic Coalition releasing a campaign song with the lyrics; “Do not say no, do not say yes, the answer does not mean anything, if the question is liar.”

With a No vote, the Government had authorised itself to block the passage of 1,294 asylum seekers into their country. At the polls, the No vote won by 98%, the Government declaring a “sweeping victory for all those who believe that the foundations of a strong European Union can only be the strong nation states.” But voter turn out was low. It hovered at 40%, give or take a few hundred thousand votes which had been vandalised. It missed the 50% voter turn out cut off that the Government needed to validate the decision, which rendered the plebiscite useless.

Useless, is of course, a subjective term. In a way that mirrors the “fake news” rhetoric conservative politicians around the world have adopted, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán insisted the victory was “politically and legally” binding, and when that didn’t meet the verdict from the courts, his deputy told the press that the overwhelming figure meant the government had received a mandate from the public to “defend the country against the compulsory quota”. It became a battle cry, a percentage to quote to press, a “fact” to encourage not only the obstruction of refugee settlement, but the anti-migration movement as whole. As BBC News Europe editor, Katya Adler put it, “the referendum result is both a crushing defeat and an emphatic victory for Hungary’s prime minister.”

If there were any country to rival Australia in their horrific treatment of asylum seekers, it would be Hungary. Passed on the 7th of March this year, Hungary’s Parliament instituted a new policy that would legally transfer all asylum seekers into a network of camps made from shipping containers. The law passed not only enables the government to imprison refugees, but increases border security, establishes a new elite border police, and allows for the ability to physically force asylum seekers back into neighbouring Serbia, leaving them without asylum and at terrible risk.

The devastating legislation came to pass after a solid two year campaign from Orbán, where he called migrants and asylum seekers ‘poison’ in public speeches, and directly praised Donald Trump for his anti-Muslim offensive. The invalid plebiscite only served to escalate this diatribe, with other countries joining Hungary in the fight against the EU, citing the vote explicitly as evidence for overwhelming support against refugee quotas. The Telegraph stated that the plebiscite had triggered a domino effect — one that continues to this day, as Hungary and Slovakia, backed by Poland, have taken the EU to the courts.

The disturbing fact is that while the plebiscite boycott may have helped to stall legislation against asylum seekers, it is evident that the staggering 3.2 million people who showed up to the polls and voted ‘No’ only strengthened the Government’s bid for anti-migration reform. The case against having a plebiscite was sound — that a public opinion poll to determine human rights is and never will be any less than an unconscionable and inhumane practice. But the path to fight against a system that would force its country into such a practice is never simple.

The dilemma resides in the fact that a loser can claim victory if they are the one to set the rules. Orbán’s anti-migration agenda continues full steam, affirmed by his invalid plebiscite, fuelled by his party-room majority and riled by his EU allies. The Hungarian population, the 60% who protested, who stayed home at the vote, are left to wait until the next election to determine Orbán’s fate.

Kara Eva Schlegl

Written by

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade