To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Alliance of Free Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alliance of Free Democrats – the Hungarian Liberal Party
Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége – a Magyar Liberális Párt
First leaderJános Kis
Last leaderViktor Szabadai
Founded13 November 1988
Dissolved30 October 2013
Headquarters1143 Budapest, XIV. Gizella utca 36.
IdeologyLiberalism[1][2][3][4]
Political positionCentre
European affiliationAlliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe[2]
International affiliationLiberal International[2]
European Parliament groupAlliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (2004–2009)
Colours  Blue
Website
www.szdsz.hu (in Hungarian; as of October 2012, home page offered link to English module)

The Alliance of Free Democrats – Hungarian Liberal Party (Hungarian: Szabad Demokraták Szövetsége – a Magyar Liberális Párt, SZDSZ) was a liberal[1][2][3][4] political party in Hungary.

The SZDSZ was a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party[2] and of Liberal International.[2] It drew its support predominantly from Budapest among the middle classes, liberal intellectuals and entrepreneurs, with an ideological basis in social[1] and economic liberalism.[5] SZDSZ provided the first freely elected President for the Third Hungarian Republic, Árpád Göncz. The SZDSZ High Mayor of Budapest, Gábor Demszky was in office continuously since 1990 till 2010, when he was replaced by István Tarlós (who himself was a member of SZDSZ in the 1990s).

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    1 608 417
  • Gilded Age Politics:Crash Course US History #26

Transcription

CCUS 26: The Gilded Age Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re going to continue our look at the Gilded Age by focusing on political science. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, so it’s another history class where we don’t actually talk about history? Oh, Me From the Past, your insistence on trying to place academic exploration into little boxes creates a little box that you yourself will live in for the rest of your life if you don’t put your interdisciplinary party hat on. So the Gilded Age takes its name from a book by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner that was called The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today. It was published in 1873 and it was not that successful, but while The Gilded Age conjures up visions of fancy parties and ostentatious displays of wealth, the book itself was about politics, and it gives a very negative appraisal of the state of American democracy at the time. Which shouldn’t come as a huge surprise coming from Twain, whose comments about Congress included, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” And also, “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly Native American criminal class except Congress.” So when faced with the significant changes taking place in the American economy after the Civil War, America’s political system both nationally and locally dealt with these problems in the best way possible: by becoming incredibly corrupt. intro Stan says I have to take off my party hat. Rrrr rrrr rrrrr.... So House Speaker Tip O’Neill once famously said that all politics is local and although that’s not actually true, I am going to start with local politics today, specifically with one of America’s greatest inventions, the urban political machine. So a political machine is basically an organization that works to win elections so that it can exercise power. The most famous political machine was New York City’s Tammany Hall, which dominated Democratic party politics in the late 19th century, survived until the 20th, and is keenly associated with corruption. Oh, it’s already time for the Mystery Document? This is highly unorthodox, Stan. Well, the rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m usually wrong and I get shocked with the shock pen. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got here. “My party’s in power in the city, and it’s going to undertake a lot of public improvements. Well, I’m tipped off, say, that they’re going to lay out a new park at a certain place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared particular for before. Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight. Of course it is. That’s honest graft.” Stan, I know this one. It’s about machine politics. It’s from New York. It doesn’t say it’s from New York, but it is because it is George Plunkitt. Yes! How do you like them apples? Oh, you wanna know the name of the book? It’s “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall.” Stan, transition me back to the desk with a Libertage, please. Plunkitt became famous for writing a book describing the way that New York City’s government actually worked, but he was a small fish compared with the most famous shark-like machine politician of the day, William “Boss” Tweed, seen here with a head made of money. “Boss” Tweed basically ran New York in the late 1860s and early 1870s, and his greatest feat of swindling helps explain how the machine system worked. It revolved around the then-new County Courthouse that now houses the New York City Department of Education. Building the courthouse was initially estimated to cost around $250,000, but ended up costing $13 million by the time it was finished in 1871. Included in that cost was a bill of $180,000 for three tables and forty chairs, $1.5 million for lighting fixtures, and $41,000 for brooms and cleaning supplies. A plasterer received $500,000 for his initial job and then $1 million to repair his shoddy work. The standard kickback in these situations was that Tammany Hall received two dollars for every one dollar received by the contractor. That may seem like a bad deal for contractors, but remember: That plasterer still got to keep half a million dollars, which is worth about $9 million in today’s money. Now of course that makes it sound like political machines were pure evil, especially if you were a taxpayer footing the bill for that courthouse. But machines also provided valuable services to immigrants and other poor people in cities. As Plunkitt explained, Tammany could help families in need: “I don’t ask whether they are Republicans or Democrats, and I don’t refer them to the Charity Organization Society, which would investigate their case in a month or two and decide they were worthy of help about the time they are dead from starvation. I just get quarters for them, buy clothes for them if their clothes were burned up, and fix them up until they get things running again.” In return for this help, Tammany expected votes so that they could stay in power. Staying in power meant control of city jobs as well as city contracts. Plunkitt claimed to know “every big employer in the district – and in the whole city, for that matter --- and they ain’t in the habit of saying no to me when I ask them for a job.” But with all the corruption, sometimes even that wasn’t enough. Fortunately Tammany politicians could always fall back on fraud. Tammany found bearded men to vote, then took them to the barber to shave off the beard, but left the moustache, so that they could vote a second time. And then, they would shave off the ‘stache so they could vote for a third. And then of course, there was always violence and intimidation. By the end of the century a Tammany regular lamented the good old days when, “It was wonderful to see my men slug the opposition to preserve the sanctity of the ballot.” But, corruption wasn’t limited to big cities like New York and Chicago. Some of the biggest boondoggles involved the United States Congress and the executive branch under president Ulysses Grant. The first big scandal, dubbed the “King of Frauds” by the New York Sun, involved Credit Mobilier, the construction company that did most of the road building for the Union Pacific Railroad. This two pronged accusation involved, first: overcharging the public for construction costs and siphoning off profits to Credit Mobilier, and second: bribery of Congressmen. Now, this second charge was, of course, much juicier and also more partisan because only Republican congressmen, including the Speaker of the House, were implicated in it. Eventually Massachusetts Congressman Oakes Ames was found guilty of giving bribes, but no one was ever found guilty of receiving those bribes. As you can imagine, that did wonders for the reputation of Congress. The second major scandal involved the so-called Whiskey Ring, which was a group of distillers in St. Louis who decided that they didn’t like paying excise taxes on their product, perhaps a slightly more noble cause than that of the 2009 Bling Ring, who just wanted to dress like Paris Hilton. John McDonald, a Grant administration official, helped distillers reduce their taxes by intentionally undercounting the number of kegs of booze. But then in 1875, the tax evasion grew out of control. And McDonald eventually confessed and was convicted, thereby tainting the presidency with corruption just as Credit Mobilier had tainted Congress. That leaves the Supreme Court untainted, but don’t worry, the Dred Scott decision is worth at least, like, eighty years of tainting. So with all this distrust in government, after Grant served two terms, presidential elections featured a series of one-termers: Hayes, Garfield (whose term was filled out by Chester Arthur after Garfield was assassinated), Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, and then Cleveland again. McKinley, who was elected twice, but then he was assassinated. As for their parties, Gilded Age Republicans favored high tariffs, low government spending, paying off national debt and reducing the amount of paper money – or greenbacks – in circulation. Democrats opposed the tariffs and were often linked to New York bankers and financiers. In short, both parties were pro-business, but they were pro-different-businesses. Despite that and the widespread corruption, some national reform legislation actually did get passed in the Gilded Age. The Civil Service Act of 1883 – prompted by Garfield’s assassination by a disgruntled office seeker – created a merit system for 10% of federal employees, who were chosen by competitive examination rather than political favoritism. But, this had an unintended effect. It made American politicians much more dependent on donations from big business rather than small donations from grateful political appointees, but, you know, nice idea. And then in 1890 the Sherman Anti-Trust act forbade combinations and practices that restrained trade, but again it was almost impossible to enforce this against the monopolies like U.S. Steel. More often it was used against labor unions, which were seen to restrain trade in their radical lobbying for, like, health insurance and hard hats. But all in all the national Congress was pretty dysfunctional at the end of the 19th century, stop me if that sounds familiar. So state governments expanded their responsibility for public health and welfare. Cities invested in public works, like transportation, and gas, and later, electricity, and the movement to provide public education continued. Some northern states even passed laws limiting the workday to 8 hours. “What is this, France?” is what courts would often say when striking those laws down. Reform legislation was less developed in the South, but they were busy rolling back reconstruction and creating laws that limited the civil rights of African Americans, known as Jim Crow Laws. In the west, farmers became politically motivated over the issue of freight rates. Wait, are we talking about railroads? Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. In the 1870s, farmers formed the Grange movement to put pressure on state governments to establish fair railroad rates and warehouse charges. Railroads in particular tended to be pretty monopolistic: They owned the track going through town, after all, so it was hard for farmers to negotiate fair shipping prices. The Grange Movement eventually became the Farmer’s Alliance movement, which also pushed for economic cooperation to raise prices, but was split into Northern and Southern wings that could never really get it together. The biggest idea to come out of the Farmers Alliance was the subtreasury plan. Under this plan, farmers would store grain in government warehouses and get low-rate government loans to buy seed and equipment, using the stored grain as collateral. This would allow farmers to bypass the banks who increasingly came to be seen, along with the railroads, as the source of all the farmers’ troubles. Eventually these politically motivated farmers and their supporters grew into a political party, the People’s Party or Populists. In 1892 they held a convention in Omaha and put forth a remarkably reform minded plan, particularly given that this was put forth in Omaha, which included: The Sub-Treasury Plan, (which didn’t exactly happen, although the deal farmers ended up with was probably better for them) Government Ownership of Railroads (which sort of happened, if you count Amtrak) Graduated Income Tax (which did happen, after the passage of the 16th amendment) Government Control of the Currency (which happened with the creation of the Federal Reserve System) Recognition of the Rights of Laborers to Form Unions (which happened both at the state and federal level) and Free Coinage of Silver to produce more money, which we’ll get to in a second The People’s Party attempted to appeal to a broad coalition of “producing classes” especially miners and industrial workers, and it was particularly successful with those groups in Colorado and Idaho. As the preamble to the party platform put it: “Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the congress and touches even the ermine of the bench … From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes – tramps and millionaires.” Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, some western states were so Populist, they even granted women the right to vote in the 1890s, which added tremendously to the Populist’s electoral power. But most American voters stuck with the two main parties. Industrial workers never really joined in large numbers because the Populist calls for free coinage of silver would lead to inflation, especially in food prices, and that would hurt urban laborers. But if it hadn’t been for that threat of silver inflation, we might have three major political parties in the U.S. today. Or at least two different ones. Stupid inflation, always ruining everything. Populist leaders also struggled to unify because racism. Some Populist leaders, like Tom Watson, argued that black and white poor farmers were in the same boat, but Southern populists were not inclined to take up the fight against segregation, and even Watson himself later began spouting anti-Semitic rhetoric. But, in the halcyon Populist days of 1892, their presidential candidate, James Weaver, gained 1 million votes as a third party candidate. He carried 5 western states and got 22 electoral votes, which is better than Mondale did. But the best known Populist candidate was actually the Democratic nominee for president in 1896, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan, who once spoke of America as being crucified on a cross of gold, firmly supported free coinage of silver in the hopes that increasing the amount of money in circulation would raise prices for farmers and make it easier for people to pay off their debts. Williams Jennings Bryan is probably better known for the anti-evolution stance he took in the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial,” where he was up against none other than Clarence Darrow. But he did almost become president. So, the Populists were really wary of Bryan as a Democrat, because they feared that their ideas would be reduced to simply “free silver,” but they voted for him anyway. But Bryan still lost the 1896 election to William McKinley in what has become known as the first modern political campaign, because the business classes gave McKinley’s campaign an unprecedented $10 million. Which these days will buy you nine ads in Iowa. But back then, it won you an entire presidential election. He won the electoral college in a landslide 271-176. Bryan’s defeat in 1896 effectively put an end to the Populist Party. The corruption in government, both federal and local, continued, and new journalists called Muckrakers began exposing it in the press. Even though they were defeated at the polls, Populist ideas, especially direct election of senators and a progressive income tax, quickly became mainstream. Now, these days we don’t necessarily associate those ideas with Populists, which suggests that maybe they were right to worry about hitching their wagon to Bryan’s star. But in the end, would you rather have your name survive or see your ideas enacted? But of course many of the problems that the Populists were concerned with persisted, as did the scourge of Jim Crow. We’ll discuss those next week when we look at the Progressive Era. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Okay, I’ll make the transition, but I think you’ll want to keep filming this. Every week there’s a new caption for the Libertage. If you’d like to suggest one in comments, you can do so where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thank you for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Gilded Age Politics -

History

The party's origins lay in the illegal democratic opposition under the communist rule of János Kádár. This gave rise to the loosely organized Network of Free Initiatives (Szabad Kezdeményezések Hálózata) on 1 May 1988 and to the foundation of the SZDSZ as an opposition political party on 13 November 1988. Its founding leaders included János Kis, Márton Tardos, Gáspár Miklós Tamás, and Miklós Haraszti.[6]

The party initially suggested a radical agenda for changing the political, social and economic system in the country. It suffered a close defeat at the first free general elections of the Third Republic in 1990, thus becoming the leading opposition force in the first free National Assembly (Hungary's parliament).

After the fall of the conservative Hungarian Democratic Forum-led government at the following 1994 parliamentary election, SZDSZ surprised many by entering into a coalition with the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), the legal successor party to the communist Hungarian Socialist Workers Party. Thus began a strategic alliance between the two parties that lasted for 14 years, ending only in 2008. The coalition successfully defeated Orbán's Fidesz in 1994, 2002 and 2006.

The heyday of the SZDSZ may be thought to have ended when it suffered heavy losses in the 1998 parliamentary election. In 2002 parliamentary election, it gained only 5.5 percent of the vote, returning 20 deputies to the National Assembly.

Until its withdrawal from the coalition in May 2008, the SZDSZ had three portfolios. It also had a delegation in the European Parliament, receiving 7.7 percent of the Hungarian vote and two MEPs in the 2004 European Parliament election.

In the 2006 parliamentary election, it gained no directly elected seats, but 6.5 percent of the list votes, thus securing 20 members in Hungary's 386-seat National Assembly. This was the first time that the party managed to increase its support compared with a previous general election. The MSZP–SZDSZ coalition had a small majority in the new National Assembly intake.

On 31 March 2008, various reform-related disagreements between the MSZP and SZDSZ led the SZDSZ leader János Kóka to announce that his party would exit the coalition by 1 May 2008.[7] This also meant that the MSZP would have to form the first minority government in Hungary since the change of regime in 1989.

However, the legitimacy of Kóka's position as party president became questioned when it was discovered that some signatures of the delegates to the assembly electing him had been forged. Since he had won his position by a very small margin over Fodor, these votes might have changed the outcome. So a new leadership election was held in June[8] and Fodor was returned.

In the 2009 European Parliament election, SZDSZ retained none of its seats with just 2.2 percent of the total vote, less than half of the minimum five percent needed to secure representation. The party did not even receive five percent in Budapest, its traditional stronghold. Party president Fodor offered his resignation as soon as the official tally was announced at 10:00 p.m.

In the 2010 parliamentary election, SZDSZ won only 0.25 percent of the vote and was shut out of the legislature altogether for the first time since the change of regime. The party was even unable to gain parliamentary seats in Budapest. The Alliance of Free Democrats officially ceased to exist in October 2013.[9][10]

Political positions

The party has been described as fiscally moderate and socially compassionate. It supported same-sex marriage, euthanasia, the legalization of marijuana, higher taxes on corporations and the top 1%, lower taxes for the working class and middle class, creation of a universal basic income, increasing the minimum wage, stronger borders and eliminating illegal immigration, increasing legal immigration by 2% and ending compulsory military service.

Election results

National Assembly

Election Votes Seats Rank Government Prime Minister
candidate
# % ±pp # +/−
1990 1,050,452 21.4%
94 / 386
±0 2nd in opposition János Kis
1994 1,066,074 19.7% Decrease1.7
70 / 386
Decrease 24 2nd MSZP-SZDSZ Supermajority Iván Pető
1998 353,186 7.88% Decrease11.82
24 / 386
Decrease 46 4th in opposition Gábor Kuncze
2002 313,084 5.57% Decrease2.31
20 / 386
Decrease 4 3rd MSZP-SZDSZ Majority Gábor Kuncze
2006 351,612 6.5% Increase0.93
20 / 386
Steady 0 3rd MSZP-SZDSZ Majority (until 2008) Gábor Kuncze
20101 12,652 0.25% Decrease6.25
0 / 386
Decrease 20 8th extra-parliamentary

1 10 joint candidates with the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF).

European Parliament

Election year # of overall votes % of overall vote # of overall seats won +/- Notes
2004 237,908 7.77% (3rd)
2 / 24
2009 62,527 2.16% (6th)
0 / 22
Decrease 2

Party leaders

  • János Kis – 23 February 1990 to 23 November 1991
  • Péter Tölgyessy – 23 November 1991 to 13 November 1992
  • Iván Pető – 13 November 1992 to 24 April 1997
  • Gábor Kuncze – 24 April 1997 to 20 June 1998
  • Bálint Magyar – 20 June 1998 to December 2000
  • Gábor Demszky – December 2000 to June 2001
  • Gábor Kuncze – June 2001 to 31 March 2007
  • János Kóka – 31 March 2007 to 7 June 2008
  • Gábor Fodor – 7 June 2008 to 12 July 2009
  • Attila Retkes – 12 July 2009 to 29 May 2010
  • Viktor Szabadai – 16 July 2010 to 30 October 2013[11]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Hloušek, Vít; Kopeček, Lubomír (2010), Origin, Ideology and Transformation of Political Parties: East-Central and Western Europe Compared, Ashgate, p. 115
  2. ^ a b c d e f Nordsieck, Wolfram (2010). "Hungary". Parties and Elections in Europe. Archived from the original on 27 July 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2018.
  3. ^ a b José Magone (2010). Contemporary European Politics: A Comparative Introduction. Routledge. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-203-84639-1.
  4. ^ a b Paul G. Lewis (2000). Political Parties in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-415-20182-7.
  5. ^ Szarvas, Lászlo (1995), "Parties and Party Factions in the Hungarian Parliament", Hungary, Frank Cass & Co., p. 121
  6. ^ Bohlen, Celestine (25 March 1990). "UPHEAVAL IN THE EAST; A Democratically Evolving Hungary Heads into Unknown at Polls Today". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 September 2008.
  7. ^ Szakacs, Gergely; Chance, David (31 March 2008). "Hungary's governing coalition to break up". Reuters. Retrieved 10 May 2018.
  8. ^ "SZDSZ-tisztújító június 7-én". Népszabadság Online (in Hungarian). 11 April 2008. Archived from the original on 15 April 2008.
  9. ^ Megszűnhet az SZDSZ, Origo, 2013. július 25.
  10. ^ Johnné Rósenblüth Erzsébet lemondott, ősszel megszűnhet az SZDSZ, ATV, 2013. július 25.
  11. ^ [clarification needed] Staff (16 July 2010). "Újra van elnöke az SZDSZ-nek – Szabadai Viktor az új ügyvezető elnök". Népszava (in Hungarian). Archived from the original on 16 August 2017. Retrieved 5 October 2012.

External links

  • szdsz.hu (in Hungarian; at October 2012, home page offered link to English module), the party's official website
This page was last edited on 12 April 2024, at 21:04
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.