Our new cycle of serfdom

In the medieval era in Europe most kingdoms employed the system of serfdom. In this, the rights to ownership, movement, and other basic forms of self-determination were severely curtailed by the landowners on whose land people worked and lived. Their state of dependency - that they had no land or means of production - meant that they were exposed to unfair conditions in dealing with the landowners. We are now entering a state of modern capitalism in which a great part of society lives or will live in a state of semi-serfdom. The landowner is today the alliance of the corporations and major governing parties. This is the situation in most of Europe, China, Japan, and the US.

The cycle of serfdom is different from the old one. The recipe now is to instill in people a sense of competition and ambition. All rewards - money, ownership, etc. - are performance tied, and performance is measured relatively to one's competing cohort not absolutely. People are then asked to get in dept or deplete a large amount of their resources to obtain the rights to enter the competition (go to uni, obtain professional training and licenses, etc.). This stage already sees a large number of people becoming indebted, with only a part of them having a chance of repaying those debts within reasonable times, say 4-10 years.

In the next stage more and more institutions raise the levels of entry to all positions. Cleaning and service jobs require now several trainings and previous experience; highly skilled jobs see the graduates of top universities go to to toe even with numerous internships and work experience under their belts. At this stage participants of the workforce who have to rely on wages or a salary get exposed to companies and governments. They are asked to be mobile to an absurd degree, and without adequate compensation. Without willing to enter the race for the mid-management or higher jobs their financial rewards will never be enough to make them truly independent. Already their first purchase of a flat or house will put them into debt and dependence towards both their crediting institution and their workplace.

Take a career in medicine for example. University entrance exams are hard and so is progression. That's a good thing, for quality control reasons. But these institutions are also expensive in most countries, even with scholarships or loans. Then doctors are asked to work a large load of extra hours, night shifts, weekend shifts. They are rewarded to some degree, but comparing with the people owning factories, lands, businesses, shares, or being able to invest in bonds, securities, etc. their income is minuscule, while their work/life balance is abismal.

Take another as another example researchers. Research jobs used to be prestige jobs and a large number of them granted tenure. However this changed in the last 30 years. Business administrators and managers infiltrated the higher levels of higher education everywhere. Their salaries and numbers are rising at never before seen rates (this is what drives up the tuition fees to exorbitant levels), while some of the key reforms they bring is it undermine tenure, offer short-term and term-time only contracts, and dispose of any researchers speaking up on important social issues if they don't fit the ideas of Marketing.

The dirty work part of managing these changes and carrying them out is usually relegated to the throng of mid-level managers now found at almost any institutions. These folks are usually naive, good-willed, and often talented, hard working people. Nevertheless, they are either blind to what they assist in, make themselves believe that the rosy phrases in which marketing dresses things up are the reality (e.g. introducing mandatory extra tasks for job-roles is called 'opportunity to learn new skills', whereas in reality it is simply an additional duty to perform an extra task not included in the original contract without further remuneration for it), or they are corrupt enough not to mind.

It is a sad world, and most us either end up playing the debt game, or shape our lives in ways to accommodate the needs of corporations and public institutions increasingly run by people with a business background, having zero sense of social responsibility and the mission of public institutions.

This trend is horrible in itself. It makes it even more worrying that having to shape our lives around the needs of companies shatters most social networks. Shifting living places repeatedly makes us unable to stay near and take care of our parents and other old relatives. It ruins are chances to have a local identity and properly participate in charities, volunteer, get to know our neigbours and the folks at the local pub, and to participate and understand local and regional politics. That is, it makes us vulnerable to a lack of identity. Our votes are then only informed by what we see on TV, which are usually debates and slogans regarding enormous topics like the economy, war, immigration or healthcare. The dumbed-down and oversimplified choices we are offered aren't real, and our influence and understanding of politics is vanishing, as are our family ties and abilities to shape our local social groups.

It was just a question of time of course how the people will big money - the owners of corporations, land, politicians, business people, etc. of all nations, Americans, Chinese, Swiss, Brit, French, etc. - will come to figure out how to thwart the progress made between 1919 and the 1970s. That era saw a great shift in general welfare, supported by strong labour unions, strong government regulations, corporate social responsibility directives, and activism in politics of middle class and working class people. As we are gradually pushed out from politics and business takes over, the gains we made in equality are also disappearing. We can still stop this, and then move on with equalisation, developing sustainable economies and stopping climate change. Or we can see how for the sake of a few percent of the world's population it all goes to shite.

Where the thieves guilds went

Having seen the scandals surrounding several PMs this year (former PM Blair who was extremely busy as can be read here, here and here, Cameron, Orban, etc.) I think the following little [fake] piece from a history textbook is interesting:

"Formerly, thieves guilds were institutions common to many European and other countries' communities. The thieves had to follow set quotas on what was seen as a reasonable amount to steal, and even paid taxes to local councils and lords in some cases. In later ages, these institutions specialized mostly towards politics and became what is known nowadays as 'parties'."

Building a healthier society, part I.

One of the main problems I encountered when I moved back to Hungary - the country where I grew up and spent most of my life - was that people lack a firm sense of social identity as well as solidarity.
I returned to Hungary for a bit, after having spent years in the UK and Japan. It was a rough experience to look around here.
When I lived at home 10 years ago I was under the apprehension that one of the main reason why people in West European countries are much better off is because governmental institutions are more developed there. But the most interesting thing I observed in the UK was that in many respects the social system and the schooling system was more frugal than in Hungary (although: much better organised). That was when I started to realize that the main problems in Hungary have to do with its specific history. These problems cannot simply be solved by technical developments of institutions or laws. The people who work at the institutions, who live their everyday lives here have to change most. What the British and the Japanese have and we lack is a rich, multi-layered sense of identity, a sense of being a civilian, and an incentive to solve their own and their communities problems through solidarity and cooperation.

Social institutions and civil activity were present and developing in Hungary in many forms between the 1867 agreement with the Austrians and the start of World War I. But the war and the political turmoil following it didn't do much good: between 1918 and 1921 Hungary was briefly taken over by the communist party, who were chased away by paramilitary rightist troops, and then while the consolidation of the parliamentary order was underway lost 2/3 of its territory when the Treaty of Trianon became effective. Our politicians sided with the Germans and got into World War II, standing on the wrong side. Throughout this period the governments preserved much of the political privileges and influence of the upper classes in a deeply divided society where poverty was a huge concern. After the war while rebuilding was still underway when the Soviet Union gobbled up the country and it became the field of a large scale social experiment in building institutions and introducing social policy which only had rudimentary roots in the country before.

The Communist system under the Soviet occupation, which lasted until 1989/1990, forced people not to go against the state. And it also promoted that they should rely on the state for everything. For most Hungarians it is still a natural reaction to look to the state in times of trouble. This instinct is what the current government is relying on. They try to appear as a strong and caring state that solves all problems. Of course this is not true. But even if it were true the main problem is that at the moment most Hungarians are not willing to look after their own and their communities' needs. They continue to depend on the state. When the economy is not going well, when the government isn't working well, the voters grumble, but that's about as active as they get most of the time.

When I arrived home I saw a society that is fundamentally divided about political issues. As if people only had a political identity. Politicians are trying to make voters believe that their identity is defined by which party they support. But in reality people are members or communities. They have families, friends, jobs, goals, interests and hobbies. And their relatives and communities have problems, have issues. People also have positive ideas that could be realized without the involvement of the government. It is a mistake to always wait for Big Brother to look after us. What we should foster in this country is a sense of being able to organize small, non-political groups, which help us feel as members of communities, without having to feel as members of a political party. I don't like any of the current political parties very much and I'm not a member of any of them. I have a mild sympathy for LMP, but very often I find their approach impractical, cumbersome, and on many issues they seem to lack good suggestions and ideas.

At the same time I do see a lot of potential in people who live here. They can make this a nicer place, a more enjoyable place. They can change: I'm sure Hungarians are not only capable of taking seriously not musical festivals and dance competitions, talent and reality shows, but also substantive issues like poverty, lack of education, lack of social services, lack of support for the elderly and the sick, and a lagging economy.
We could take these issues seriously and put in a few hours of work every week to make local organizations - charities, volunteering organizations, support services, clubs, etc. - work. Local people know best what they need and how their problems can be solved. That way, we wouldn't need to rely on others, and especially not on the government to help us. At the same time we would regain a sense of belonging, of being three-dimensional people who have a home, who have a community, who have interests and can enjoy themselves on their weekends. That is what this country is lacking. Not more administration and certainly not a larger government collecting even more taxes and paying even more politicians.

A calmer report of the refugee-situation

In September I wrote a short essay and gave it the title 'A calmer report'. I didn't publish it at the time and I'm sorry for that now. But sadly, it is still relevant. The fundamental questions about how we should deal with the people coming to Europe haven't been settled. The cruelest and coldest options still have many supporters. People are coming here from regions that have been thorn by wars and from places which are so much poorer than most European countries that the average citizen here couldn't even imagine.

I'll copy what I  wrote then here. It is a longer piece, but the main message is short and simple. The situation could have been and can be solved. All that is needed is to stay calm and act professionally. What we have learned from the 20th century should be that as soon as we notice that politicians are simply trying to secure their position by fear-mongering and hate campaigns against immigrants, it is time for them to go. If they don't want to, we should make them. After all they are supposed to represent us and we - the citizens - lend them our power and authority. They would be nil without that, and without our money.

A calmer account of the treatment of refugees in Hungary

The current situation in Hungary is that there have been more than a 170 000 people entering the country through the Southern border this year without any permit. This has caused substantial panic amongst politicians and shown that many of the Hungarian and EU regulations and measures in place are inadequate to handle a situation when whole countries collapse – as is the case with Syria and Libya now. Those displaced are counting on the European countries. Their hopes are encouraged by the fact that most countries in the region have repeatedly claimed to be exemplars of solidarity, democracy, and that they are seriously concerned with protecting human rights.

The media and the politicians have also been occasionally confused about the situation, not talking about the issues at hand, but about irrelevant topics or generating fear instead of seeking practical solutions. Of course nobody in Europe wants to accept higher risk of terror or living with extremists. But this does not call for panic and exclusion, but for increased and better security and more advanced methods of social, educational, and personal integration. The Hungarian government has been both one of the most vocal participants in this debate and one of the most often criticised ones. So, let’s just stop for a second and ask ‘What is going on in Hungary?’

But before a detailed discussion of the government’s actions I have to shortly address the role and behavior of two groups within Hungary: The police forces and the volunteers working at both the registration camps by the Southern border and at the transit zones in Budapest and the Austrian border. The police came under some international and domestic criticism. Many of them have been unhelpful, rude and hostile to the newcomers. Nevertheless one should take into account that the number of the police forces is too small to deal with an event of such a scale. Most policemen behaved supportively and did a professional job. Several cases of friendly, supportive interaction have been recorded where the individual policemen went well beyond their duties in providing help. All in all, as a Hungarian it has been quite comforting to see that most the forces on the grounds have dealt with the pressure, tiredness, long hours, and uncertainty professionally: there have been no reports of violence or brutality.

The civilians who volunteered and the charities have been remarkably active. Doctors have been at work tirelessly, people have brought or donated towards the cost of medicine, food, clothes, drinks, extension cords, tents, blankets, and for the children, toys. There have been volunteers who translated and interpreted, prepared guiding materials, organized food distribution and helped liaison between the refugees and migrants, and the police and officials in tense situations. All in all, the situation hasn’t affected the average Hungarian citizen much: there were occasional traffic jams one the motorway between Budapest and the Austrian border, and disturbances in the train schedules at one of the three major train stations in Budapest, Keleti (Eastern) station.

Besides the overworked police and charities (the number of people crossing the border every day without permits can be checked here: Anyone can check out the data: http://www.police.hu/hirek-es-informaciok/hatarinfo/elfogott-migransok-szama), the ones who have been truly adversely affected were those coming to Hungary to seek refuge and to travel on towards other EU countries. Their treatment and situation often leave a lot to be desired: In Hungary the cold weather is setting in – at night it can be around 4-6 celsius degrees and it often rains for hours – and there aren’t enough proper shelters to accommodate all the refugees. Also, their registration has in some cases been going terribly slowly and they haven’t been provided with adequate, detailed information about the legal procedures that they have to go through before they can enter an EU country and move around freely within its borders. What caused these problems?

With the above question we have arrived at the main problem: The government level actions in Hungary. Parliamentary seat holder and co-leader of the party LMP (­Lehet Más a Politika/Politics Can be Different) told in an interview that the Prime Minister informed him and the other party leaders in a meeting held last winter that the number of people arriving and seeking asylum in the EU will drastically increase in the summer. The questions comes naturally to mind, that if the government had this information already last winter, why did they not act on it? Why have they not constructed adequate accommodation, showers and toilets, why have they not hired more interpreters and translators and prepared materials about the regulations and rights of those arriving here and crossing the borders to apply for refugee status? Why have they not increased the numbers of the police and interacted with the EU’s border control services (FRONTEX)? I can only risk an interpretation of the behavior of the government based on what has been said and done by them so far. But I do think that the interpretation is very hard to doubt and in fact is the true account of what is happening in Hungary at the governmental level at the moment.

What has done the government done so far? It started a giant poster campaign in the Spring. The posters were placed in several locations in Hungary, with messages in Hungarian on them such as ‘If you come to Hungary you have to respect our culture’, ‘You cannot take away the jobs of Hungarians’, and similar messages. Adherents of the ruling party FIDESZ have accordingly started to talk about the dangers of immigration, branding those arriving here in advance as immigrants and not refugees, and assuming that they want to live and work here. The latter assumption also turned out to be false: Most people arriving at the Hungarian borders are reluctant to apply for refugee status here because they don’t want to stay here. At the same time the government also initiated a ‘consultation with the people’: They have sent a form in a letter to everyone of voting age and asked questions like ‘Would you rather that the government spends its money on illegal immigrants or on Hungarian families and children?’ All the questions stressed that none of the people coming here have any just claim on our solidarity and support. They also tried to make people accept a false dilemma, that it is impossible for the state to help the refugees and to perform its normal duties to its citizens. Whether this was intended as a statement of a fact or a threat to Hungarians remains a mystery.

Being occupied with the above mentioned media campaigns the government did not make adequate preparations for when the masses of refugees and migrants actually arrived: The situation escalated sharply in June-July, and the numbers entering the country are still rising day by day. Nevertheless, practically no preparations have been made: Authorities tried to house all refugees at the same accommodations and shelters that have been used for decades now. These buildings are decent, but old and can’t accommodate as many people as they were suddenly supposed to. The government started opening registration camps along the border, amongst them the one that became most famous, the one next to the small town of Roszke. Roszke was intended as a place for registration where the people arriving would only stay at most one or two days until they are registered. Accordingly, there wasn’t any proper accommodation and no sanitising facilities. The government took quick measures, but still, it did not make use of the information it had of the scale of the issue at hand: the number of administrators doing the registration was far smaller than what was needed. There weren’t enough translators, not enough properly translated information packages, no information points about EU procedures and rules. At this point, instead of expanding on the available services provided to the incoming masses of people, the government chose to build the controversial fence.

As can be glossed from this much, there have been very few practical steps to help the migrants, but many steps that aimed at vilifying and alienating those coming to the EU seeking shelter and a brighter future. While it might be true that a number of Germans resist the idea of accepting more refugees into their country and have set accommodations on fire, at least there were accommodations. The Hungarian government has instead focused on creating more registration camps. Two small ‘temporary’ accommodation camps are under construction since more than a month, but there have been no news yet of them having been completed. Hence, there is no proper accommodation, no shelters, only transit camps and registration camps. When huge numbers of refugees and migrants who have been registered travelled to Budapest to try and find a means of travelling on towards Germany and Sweden, the Mayor’s Office had to step in and organize ‘transit zones’, where people on the move could temporarily stay, and had access to at least some water, electricity and toilet facilities.

Thus, the capitol had to step in to fill the void left by the government. But according to EU law these people were not allowed to travel: Their application for refugee status has to be evaluated in the country where they have registered, and they have to register in the first EU country that they enter. Of course Greece – a country in terms of GDP, PPP, and average earnings still better off than Hungary - does not do its duty as an EU member and sends on most people without registration. Did the government at this point take action to alleviate the condition of the people stranded in Hungary? Not really. Just this week Parliament has passed new laws that deem Serbia to be a safe country for refugees. This notion of ‘safe’ garnered a lot of criticism: The notion of a safe country for refugees is standardly taken to mean that those seeking asylum, applying for refugee status have a reasonable chance of actually getting the status, their case will get a fair and balanced treatment, and if their case is judged favourably have a reasonable chance of settling in the country. Looking at the statistics of the acceptance rates of applications for refugee status in Serbia is very discouraging, and the Serbian government hasn’t been very proactive in accommodating refugees in the country. These are some of the main reasons why most refugees move on.

The new law passed by the Hungarian Parliament also makes it possible for the government to declare a state of emergency due to the huge numbers of people crossing the border without permits and to deploy the military on the borders to assist the police in turning people back, registering them, preventing them from leaving the registration camps before having completed a the registration procedure, and so on. The move of deploying the military and granting extra rights to the police and deploying the military very controversial and many Hungarian politicians, lawyers, legal organizations and civilians have spoken out against, but to no avail. The governing party has two-thirds majority and some members of the far-right party Jobbik have also supported the new law.  

In the last two weeks the government has also repeatedly rejected the idea of setting up an EU sponsored and run ‘Hot Spot’, like the ones in Italy and Greece. In some cases the Prime Minister struck a horrible tone in his speeches. He said for example that since Hungary hasn’t forced other European countries to take in a proportion of the roma population of Hungary it would be unjust to force Hungary to accept the quota-based distribution of refugees. Besides antagonizing their voters, the government also employed another method in their communication strategy: They systematically conflate the two issues of a) the difficulty of registering and accommodating those who enter the EU, with the issue of b) what treatment and support the refugees and migrants receive. They hide the fact that support and services for the incoming masses have been wholly inadequate by repeating that they are only doing their duty in registering them and only letting them leave towards other EU countries if those countries agree to accepting them. Of course they do their legal duty in performing the registration process, but that is no reason and does not necessarily have to be done in ways that are wholly inadequate. The standard move of the PM and other government officials in the debates has been – employed often by foreign minister Peter Szijjarto and by the head of the PM’s office Janos Lazar - to accuse anyone criticising the work of the Hungarian government of criticising all Hungarian and pretending that the government is criticised for doing the registration, while in reality they were clearly being criticising for not providing adequate accommodation, food, information, travel, and sanitary circumstances.

Sure enough, there has been some panicking and unjust criticism coming from other countries. The fence has by many been treated as a symbolic issue, as sending the message that the EU countries are actually not committed to the values that they often claim to be championing. Whatever we make of that debate, the fence has not been used to keep everyone out of the EU: there are doors on the fence and the police and volunteers guide those arriving at the border to the doors, where they can enter, get medical support, food and water, and are registered. This made the arrival of refugees and migrants much more organized and contributes both to the security of Hungary and the EU as we can actually know how many people and who has entered the EU. It also made the work of the authorities and the volunteers and charities easier and more effective. Furthermore, it makes the work of traffickers harder as well, and many more have opted for entering in the legal way since the fence has been put up.

Another debated issue about which there has been much confusion was that of registering people and preventing them from travelling on to other EU countries. Some journalists seemed to have seen this as some strange form of cruelty on the part of the government. But it is by no means obvious what Hungary should do in the current situation: Greece and Italy let large numbers of people move on unregistered. This is clearly not okay: These people don’t have papers, EU authorities have no idea where they are coming from, they don’t have working permits, and addresses. In case their applications are judged unfavourably and they have to leave the EU it will be nearly impossible to trace them. When Hungary did let refugees cross to Austria and eventually to Germany last weekend these two countries have both signalled that this should not happen again in such an uncontrolled fashion. An additional problem relating to registration is that many people before crossing the border throw away their papers and so cannot be identified by the authorities. The police have to accept their words for who they are and where they are coming from. Two weeks ago German journals have announced that Germany accepts the applications for refugee status of all those fleeing from Syria. It has been misunderstood that this only applies to people who were at the time already in Germany. So, currently, about 95% of the people crossing the border say that they are Syrians and seek asylum. Before news of the misunderstood German policy became public a significant proportion of people claimed to come from Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and Eritrea.

Two other cases which have gathered much attention were the photo of a woman, a child and a man lying on the tracks at the Bicske train station, police standing around them and grabbing them. The photo has been taken by some to show the police aggressively throwing people to the ground. Since then videos of what happened have been published: The Syrian man, the husband and father of the woman and child in the photo, laid on the train tracks in an act of protest against not being allowed to leave the country for Germany. His wife tried to persuade him to let go of the tracks, while police observed. The man has suddenly grabbed his wife, who was holding their child, and pulled them down on the tracks too. That is when the police grabbed the man, freed his wife and child, and took him away so that he can’t harm himself and his family. The other infamous case has been that of the far-right TV-reporter Petra Laszlo who has kicked refugees, amongst them some children. This behavior has not been common in Hungary in the last months and her behavior does not represent the majority opinion of how we should relate to refugees and migrants. The case of Ms. Laszlo is currently under investigation by the police.

If taking only a brief glance on some leading journals it seems that passion has subsided somewhat and more balanced opinions are starting to appear. But in fact what is rather happening is that some journalists and politicians are taking the side of Mr. Orban and his government. The problem with this is that the debate does not become clearer, only more polarized. Participants actually accept that the rhetoric employed by the government is actually the right way of thinking and talking about the issues at hand. As I have tried to show in this piece, this is far from the truth. The Hungarian government could have done plenty more to avoid a crisis, to provide normal support for people entering the country. The rhetoric of fear mongering, of talking up the risk of refugees spreading diseases, of terrorism, of the difficulties of accommodating people from Arabic countries with different religions and cultural background did nothing to help solve any of the practical issues that Hungary or the EU faces in the moment.

So, why did the government adopt this stance? Taking into account the government’s earlier policies and position on such issues as the Ukraine, its relation to Russia and president Putin, its strange remarks about a failing EU and the follies of democracy, two goals can be discerned. FIDESZ is conscious of the fact that the way they have communicated – even when not in harmony with how they act – has garnered them enough support to win two-thirds majority in parliament twice in a row. With emphasizing the message against cultural diversity and multiculturalism they also appeal to voters who would otherwise maybe vote for Jobbik - the far-right party – in the next elections, i.e. they are also fishing for votes. At the same time they try to weave a story about Hungary being the country which fulfils its duty of protecting the rest of the EU. At one point Szilard Nemeth has talked in terms of them and us, and some journalists close to the government have liked the current situation to the advances of the Ottoman armies in the 14^th-17^th centuries. The goal of these moves is to show that Hungary is a valuable, serious member of the EU, and at the same time thereby to justify Orban’s actions and political views.

All in all the government’s strategy could be summarized as aiming at alienating the refugees and showing a strict and stern stance towards the problem. This way the government seems to hope to avoid having to take its share from helping and taking in refugees. So, what was the just part of the criticisms against the Hungarian government? It is surely true that there is a significant lack of amenities and supplies, and services aren’t adequate. The government has conducted misleading and anti-refugee media campaigns. Members of FIDESZ have repeatedly spoken of ‘aggressive illegal immigrants’ but there are no known, reported cases of any violence against Hungarians. It has also been repeatedly claimed by Hungarian journals and analysts supporting the governing party that mostly young man are arriving who might be trained soldiers or terrorists. Maybe there are people who are terrorist or trained soldiers, but if one takes a quick glance at the police statistics it can be seen that on most days about one fifth of all people entering the country are children, many are female or old. Also, many of the man have families at home.

What is needed currently to help sort this situation out? The most important would be more cooperation among EU member states. Unique solutions are no solutions at the moment because the whole region, culture, economy, and politics will be affected. Instead of trying to gain support at home, politicians should abandon the media strategy to make this process into something that we disagree over, and should work on transforming into an exemplar of cooperation. Many EU member states are already exhibiting remarkably cynical thinking about human rights abuse in China and African countries, and other important issues. Let’s not make things even more indefensible by ignoring people fleeing collapsed countries.

What we need urgently are practical proposals. The EU member states need to provide those considering a move to the EU realistic information and realistic help. People shouldn’t have to risk a long, dangerous – often perilous - and expensive journey to Europe to discover that they are being turned away. Also, those who can start a new life in the EU shouldn’t pay to traffickers and smugglers. Cheap, safe, sustainable and regulated transport services could be set up and operated with a profit. We need to get the information needed to those who need it. Those who have just fled their countries and are full of hope and longing for a safe and stable place where they can imagine living and their children growing up will become victims of traffickers telling fairytales about Europe and misleading people so as to make them give up everything and risk the journey. Relegating some of the administration to safe camps nearer their countries of origins, migrants and refugees could receive faster and fair treatment. These operations could be conducted jointly by EU states, giving both more practical experience in how to work together and create job opportunities.

There is also clearly need for more initiative in integration: governments should work on making plans about how the working potential of the refugees could be best made use of, how their children should be schooled, how they can become proficient in the local language as fast as possible. Also, due to the difficulties of the registration process further background checks and security measures will have to be implemented.

As I have indicated, I see the main problem in the way the Hungarian government is using the situation to gain advantage in a broader political debate within the EU. The real victims of this situation are the refugees, and in the long run both them and those EU citizens who will have to deal with the lack of clear policies and guidelines, helpful integration projects and an effective, standardized administrative system that can handle the applications quickly, reliably, and fairly – both to those seeking a safe new home in Europe, and those already living here. As I have suggested a good way to start is to talk more about the facts and about practical solutions, and way of doing so is to familiarise ourselves with the data. Getting the facts right should then easily dispel the rhetoric employed by politicians who want to trade on the misfortune and suffering of others to gain political influence.

Hungary's true face as the refugee influx has revealed it

Recently Janos Lazar has accused the European Commission of having launched an investigation into breaches of EU regulations by Hungary to take revenge for Hungary's staunch and firm response to the 'migrant-crisis' and 'illegal immigration'. The Hungarian government uses these last two terms to label the group of issues surrounding the arrival of masses of people into Europe. Janos Lazar is Minister of the Prime Minister's Office, so what he says is what Orban thinks. What Orban thinks is what his ministers think.

Of course Orban and Lazar are wrong as usual. Lazar has been the strongman posing as a 'defender of Hungarians' when he accused Hungarian NGOs of accepting money from Norway Grants to run campaigns against the government. These ridiculous claims have been proven wrong since then and no matter how hard the tax office (NAV) tried they couldn't find faults with the accounting at the NGOs investigated.

The same is the case this time. Lazar - as often - is talking blatant nonsense. The EC has problems - and rightly so - with procedural issues. That is, Hungary didn't follow certain EU rules which are binding to all members in the way they dealt with migrants. This is a purely legal issue. Similar procedures have been started against other countries which failed to comply with particular regulations and laws.

Orban's and Lazar's statements are not the first ones. They are part of a large campaign they have been conducting systematically. The strategy is simple: raise panic at home, accuse others of not doing anything, bring in drastic measures (which aren't necessary in reality), and then pose as the defender of the people. Lots of votes at home: granted.

The main problem of course is not that Hungarian government hasn't provided enough translators for the refugees or such small issues. It is that the government has failed morally. It has refused and refuses to support and help anyone. What strikes me still is that the government is very popular at the moment in Hungary. I think that the moral failure is mostly the governments, but at least a number of voters who should know better and could think for themselves share in the blame.

How to alleviate the career-parental leave tension, and keep your workforce up-to-date: A practical suggestion

I want to offer a practical solution to two interrelated problems that are usually treated separately. One concerns how to keep one's skills from becoming out-of-date while on parental leave, the other is how to support younger people who would like to have children early but see this as an obstacle to attaining their goals in education or at work.

Our traditional view of schooling is that one finishes the secondary stage and then either gets a job or goes into higher education. In higher ed nowadays it is increasingly common that learners obtain one or two master's degrees, and many even a PhD or other professional qualifications. I think all in all this is a good trend: it is linked to higher GDP levels, higher satisfaction levels of learners and workers, more skilled labour force on the job market, and in general a more educated society.
This phenomena of longer learning time is linked to the facts that people start working and settle later, and as a consequence also have children later. That people start working later is not in itself a problem, but it is surely true that people start contributing to their countries' GDP later, thus affecting the viability of the social, education, healthcare, pension and defense systems as well.
Late childbirth has two obvious effects: couples who have kids later are more likely to have fewer kids, and since grandparents and other relatives might be in their seventies or eighties, they can help less both with child-raising, financial support, and in general they require more support themselves too. Not to mention the fact that they have less time to spend with their grandchildren, which might be a significant emotional loss to the whole family. (I'm not saying that people used to be able to spend more time with their grandchildren in earlier times - that could be false since not only has the average age of having kids gone up in the countries with the largest per capita income, but also the average life expectancy is much higher. But there probably isn't a proportionate growth of time one gets to spend with one's grandchildren.) Of course I'm not arguing that we should all have kids early. But there are people who would like to but feel that they cannot. My suggestions are supposed to be helpful for them.

Another problem that the phenomenon of starting to work later is linked to is that people who want to have a career and start working in the second half of their twenties or even in their early thirties will be even less likely to have kids soon. Spending 1-3 years out of work seems to be a big loss for many individuals as well as many employers. Woman are especially often - implicitly - threatened not to have kids if they want to advance on the career ladder.

In light of this, the suggestion I want to make could help with three issues:
1) They could enable people to keep their skills and even acquire new skills while at home with their young children,
2) Being able to keep their skills up to date could in turn make it easier for them to choose to go on parental leave, as well as making this a more attractive possibility for employers, and
3) This could in turn lead to people being more likely to go into a job after a BA/BSc and pursue advanced studies at later stages, thus starting to contribute to production sooner and spending time later to upgrade their skills and abilities.

The suggestion is basically this:
Many universities are offering now distance learning options. There are excellent websites where one can enroll into academic courses for free, or enroll for a small fee and if completing all assessment successfully get a certificate testifying that one has acquired credits in that universities system for the course after having been  assessed by uni stuff.
Most such courses not only require people to listen to presentations and talks, but also to solve exercises and tasks, sometimes even to work in groups, and they almost always provide forums to talk with fellow learners and teachers.
Thus, such an experience has many benefits:
- It can help learners to acquire new skills, or keep their knowledge up-to-date,
- It can help parents who spend an increased amount of time at home alone without much adult company by enabling to be part of a community working towards the same goal, to make friends, and to experience something different from work,
- It can offer benefits to employers: parents on parental leave might get new skills and abilities, in any field - one might think of genetics, statistics, programming, computer literacy, marketing related knowledge, and so on,
- It can enable younger people who went into a job after completing their secondary education or their undergraduate education to pursue further studies that they are interested in, to keep their CV more competitive, and to recharge after a period in work without losing the opportunity to advance their career further,
and
- It can benefit the state by helping couples to have children at an age when they want to and see it fit for themselves, and they can at the same time become more skilled future employees.

Such programmes could be fostered by the state and employers. Higher education institutions (and probably also secondary education institutions in cases where needed) would be more than happy to offer such courses. Distance learning could be tailored to the time and needs of stay-home parents. In fact, one of the big advantages of distance learning is that many courses don't actually require that the learner always does things at set times. Videos uploaded to secured university sites can be viewed and reviewed at any time, exercises and tasks can be practiced and completed whenever most convenient, and so on.
Promoting such programmes could in the long run also be a tool for gender equality: parents - whether male or female - wouldn't have to worry that much about their career and could undertake parenting in any way that they can agree on. Mixed stay-at-home programmes could be encouraged, where for a certain amount of time one parent is at home and for another amount of time the other parent.

Of course the legal framework would be very important: such programmes should not become a tool for systematically requiring women to stay at home, nor be a tool by employers to force parents at home with their small children and newborn  babies to put in long hours into acquiring complex new skills and mastering large materials. This should be an opportunity, not a requirement.

In financial terms, the state could support families who want to participate in this programme in buying computers and enrolling into online courses, as well as offering initiatives and funds to universities that participate in such schemes.


A brief disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this topic, so, if my suggestions are outdated or very obviously flawed please let me know in the comments or in an email.

How the Hungarian government promotes itself and how it hides behind voters

The current Hungarian government is, frankly put, not worth a sack of poop. The government spends about 65 billion Hungarian Forints (roughly £155 million) on the state TV channels (M1, M2, Duna, M4). The interesting bit is that M1 has been transformed recently into a news channel. Well, guess who the news cover now 24/7? Yepp, it's the government all the way down baby, nothing else.

The other fun thing currently in vogue in Hungarian politics is to say: 'Well, the voters gave us 2/3rds majority, so whatever I do, it is what the people want me to do!' A bit of corruption: 'The people want me to do this.' A bit of lying: 'That's what the voters gave me license to do.' Being cruel towards refugees: 'Hey, it's the voters, not me!'
This is the main line taken by the PM and other prominent members of the government, and this is how they defend themselves from any criticism. When they are fairly confident that they can manipulate people the way they want they hold what they call a 'national consultation'. This consists of every registered voter receiving a leaflet with a number of question organized thematically. We can send this back to a government office. The whole process is secretive, there is no transparency, no one overseeing how the incoming replies are evaluated. The questions are of course put so that they prime people towards the answers which suit the governments main line. This is also done out of tax money of course.
In the last such 'consultation' people had the chance to answer questions about immigrants. (The leaflet did not really ask anyone about refugees or asylum seekers.) The questions all stank, but of course there are enough devotees and silly folks to send in a lot of opinions in line with the governments opinion. About 1,1 million people - allegedly - sent in such replies. This is less than 20% of the voting population. But ever since then whatever disgusting thing the government does at the borders, they justify it by this vote.

In the light of the above described I have two practical suggestions. I would be happy if either of them would get accepted.
1) Let's ask people whether they are happy that the government spends their tax money on promoting themselves. Of course at least 20% of the voters aren't happy with this. Accordingly, they should offer the option to pay back my shares from taxes (a few thousand Forints per year) which goes towards supporting the state TV (and radio) channels. Or
2) Let the voters decide what the government should use their money for. I would be super happy if my money would go either towards the proper nutritious and healthy feeding of poor children, or towards financing research at higher ed institutions, or towards creating a welcoming and effective settlement programme for refugees. I also wouldn't mind if my money would be divided between these three goals. But I do mind it being taken away for propaganda purposes and for presenting facts in a tendentious way.

Coetzee on Humanities and Universities

The link is here, it makes a good read during lunch break:

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-01-universities-head-for-extinction/

I agree with Coetzee very strongly that a certain amount of universities should be financed in keeping up decent humanities units. The question how many and how many students should be supported by the state to study there is a more difficult question.

What I've witnessed so far is that most Humanities disciplines are too difficult for a great many of the students attending, who then tend to blame their education instead of realising that they are not cut out for it. Of course I'm not saying that failure is only their fault. It might be the result of many components: engaging in these disciplines is hard, one needs a good background in culture and history, one needs to be motivated and willing to work hard (you cannot pick literature to learn a bit about good books, or German to learn the language). At the same time many of these diplomas are not preparing you for a specific job, so you will have to gather other skills after or besides your education if you want to land a job not related to your education.

Also, due to terrible financing schemes on the part of the government many uni's needed to accept huge numbers of students to finance their departments. This is very destructive for humanities. Instead of valuing a good academic stuff tutoring few quality students, and doing important work on culture, social issues, education, and cooperating with local communities and government on such issues, the teachers have to conduct mass classes to people who don't really know why they are there and often do not read the compulsory texts.

All in all, I would opt for retaining larger research and public engagement oriented humanities units, with less students.