EXPERTS' PARADISE: THE ARGUMENTS AND THE ODDS FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BUDAPEST 000899

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/CE; PLEASE PASS TO NSC FOR ADAM STERLING

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/09/2013
TAGS: PGOV HU
SUBJECT: EXPERTS' PARADISE: THE ARGUMENTS AND THE ODDS FOR
A GOVERNMENT OF EXPERTS

REF: BUDAPEST 895 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: P/E ERIC V. GAUDIOSI; REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)


1. (C) Summary: A government of experts remains a persistent
topic of conversation as prolonged gridlock continues to
erode public confidence in Hungary's political class.
Currently championed by the SzDSz, a government of experts is
constitutionally possible but would likely not be politically
empowered to do more than serve as a bridge to new elections.
Although the image of an impartial technocratic cabinet
dedicated to "crisis management" remains appealing, it is an
improbable option in a country with no analogous precedent,
few genuinely apolitical experts, and little public consensus
for reform. End Summary.

TECHNO TOPS THE CHARTS


2. (C) As Parliament prepares to pick up where it left off
in June, both commentators and average citizens continue to
discuss the possibility of a government of experts. Past
polling indicates that strong majorities support the idea,
reflecting both deep frustration with the political class and
a strong predisposition to value expertise. Despite the
public's interest in the idea, polls also indicate that the
vast majority of respondents believe that a government of
experts is an unlikely scenario.


3. (C) Originally proposed by FIDESZ in the tumultuous fall
of 2006 as an alternative to the Gyurcsany government, the
idea is currently championed by the PM's erstwhile coalition
partners, the SzDSz. Party President Gabor Fodor regards a
technocratic cabinet as a better option than either the
suspended animation of the current government or the acrimony
and indecision of an election campaign. Although some in the
SzDSz have expressed principled concerns regarding a
government of experts (characterizing it as "not
unconstitutional" but either "undemocratic" philosphically or
"suicidal" politically),party spokesman Jozsef Gulyas
continues to cast it as "the pace car necessary to keep us
from driving too fast for conditions."


4. (C) Interestingly, FIDESZ is no longer leading the
charge, with party spokespersons characterizing a government
of experts as a temporary option to pave the way for early
elections after a period of "crisis management." As the
publication Napi Gazdasag observes, FIDESZ may see an expert
government making the difficult decisions regarding reform in
the near term ( and then stepping aside.

POPULAR MECHANICS


5. (C) Most supporters of the idea envision a government
composed of professional experts with minimal party ties.
Although former National Bank President Gyorgy Suranyi )
himself frequently mentioned as a possible PM candidate )
concedes that "all Hungarians have some (partisan) color," he
believes there are enough respected professionals in
academia, in business, and in national institutions to staff
a government of experts. To date, most of the names in
circulation have been drawn from the National Bank, the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the State Audit Service.


6. (C) SzDSz officials believe that a government of experts
could be installed "overnight," thus avoiding the "long,
brutal, populist campaign" which they believe would
inevitably precede new elections. As they point out, a new
Prime Ministerial candidate could be nominated in Parliament
and elected by a vote of fifty percent plus one.


7. (C) The constitutional mechanism for the vote would be a
"construtive measure of no confidence," which requires the
nomination of a new Prime Minister as part of any no
confidence vote and provides for immediate transfer of power.
By contrast, a successful vote for the dissolution of
Parliament would require the same majority and begin a
three-month pre-election period, during which the incumbent
government would stay on in a caretaker role.

KNOW THE RIGHT THING; DO THE RIGHT THING


8. (C) Once in office, the government of experts would ) in
the words of SzDSz MEPP Istvan Szent-Ivanyi ) marshal the
courage to "do what everyone knows we must" rather than
"making reelection its priority." In the SzDSz's view, this
would include "telling the truth to Hungarian voters about
the price that needs to be paid to fix the economy."

NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN


BUDAPEST 00000899 002 OF 002



9. (C) Despite the SzDSz's press, a government of experts is
not the only option in play. The independent conservative
MDF party is reportedly planning to call for dissolution when
Parliament returns to session next week despite the SzDSz's
open opposition to the idea, arguing that this would be the
best way to "pour clean water into the glass." Gyurcsany
confidante Klara Akots tells us this move would only
galvanize MSzP support for the PM. "He would be willing to
be flexible regarding all alternatives," Akots noted in an
oblique reference to Gyurcsany's comments regarding
resignation, "but talk of early elections from the opposition
only makes the party want to hold on to those red velvet
seats (in Parliament)."

COMMENT: REGENCY OR RECEIVERSHIP?


10. (C) Hungarians are understandably tempted to see a
cabinet of experts as a way to remove a government most
dislike and to avoid an opposition many distrust. It would
also address the nagging public concern that the system
itself is broken and that the parties cannot be trusted to
speak truthfully or to act honestly.


11. (C) These are tempting arguments in principle but in our
view a government of experts would be severely challenged in
practice:

- Reaching consensus would require the parties to unite
behind a candidate to replace PM Gyurcsany. Although FIDESZ
Party President Viktor Orban has joked "you wouldn't believe
how many Hungarians could see themselves as Prime Minister,"
early favorite Andras Simor of the National Bank has already
been criticized for his perceived pursuit of the job, and
candidates of truly national stature are few and far between.
With the SzDSz, FIDESZ, and the MDF all eager to claim the
credit, an accord on a new Prime Minister could prove elusive
n matter how high the frustration with Gyurcsany.

- Given the degree of partisan polarization here, genuinely
apolitical figures acceptable to all parties but able to fill
out the cabinet may also be harder to find than many seem to
believe. (As ICDT Director Ambassador Istvan Gyarmati often
jokes, "I am the only neutral party in Hungary."
Negotiations between the parties over cabinet positions could
be protracted, undermining confidence in its political
neutrality and prospectively leaving a government of experts
right where the minority government is now: adrift at home
and unfocused abroad.

- An agreement on a governing platform could prove harder
still. Although there is no precedent to guide the formation
of a technocratic government, observers here agree that a new
Prime Minister would likely want a multipartisan commitment
to support at least key elements of a governing agenda.
Right now the parties can project onto a government of
experts their own policy agendas; finding common ground among
their competing substantive platforms will require more
cooperation than the opposition parties have demonstrated
thus far.

- As for the public, there is no evident consensus about
whether reform is necessary, much less which reforms would be
the priority. A government of experts is unlikely to make
controversial but necessary decisions any more palatable or
any more popular with voters who believe reform has already
gone too far. As much as Hungarians like to complain about
"the crisis," few support crisis management.


12. (C) Although it will inevitably remain a topic of
conversation, a government of experts would answer only 1
question: how to break the current trench warfare between,
among, and within the parties. Whatever its professional
credentials, however, it is unlikely to have the party or the
public support to answer any others. If the parties are able
to agree on a government of experts as the least common
denominator, it may have too little political capital and too
little substantive latitude to do more than serve only as a
bridge to new elections.

Foley