Péter Ungár has yet to find his original voice, but he’s already managed to make Ferenc Gyurcsány great.
Ferenc Gyurcsany; televisions; Peter Ungar; podcast;
There has been no normal political life in Hungary for some time, so it is not surprising that the role of politicians is becoming more and more confusing. Primarily on the opposition side, of course. It is becoming more and more difficult to control the Orban system. Two-thirds of the people are in a static state, democratic institutions are blocked, and the room for maneuver is narrowing. No wonder the oppressive sense of helplessness gives rise to all kinds of situations that are thought to be blessed.
Many people make a fool of themselves because all it takes is for people to turn away from traditional politics and parties, only civil movements and organizations can produce an effective alternative to the current illiberal system. No trace of this was seen for a good decade. Wherever parties and trade unions are unable to achieve something, civilians are also powerless. Watch the fruitless struggle of teachers. All kinds of movements lack strong social support.
The confusion is clearly indicated by the fact that there are more and more hard-to-articulate actors in the domestic political space. They waver between parties, civilians, parliament and the street. It turned out that many of them were activists and activists, not politicians. The classic example is Peter Johasz. But András Fekete-Győr is stuck at this point, Ákos Hadházy has been struggling on the border for years. Barbeside is also unable to become a force that can be measured in percentages because its leaders are still motivated by the enthusiasm of the civil movement. The dog party has found such a good form for this spontaneous public initiative that the only question is what will happen once it gets into T. Ház.
Since the 2022 election, Peter Ungar, co-chair of the Liberal Democratic Party, appears to be losing his political profile. However, it is not the activist, but the media person who causes insecurity. More precisely, the analytical inclination. Using an artistic analogy, it has a creative and critical trajectory. He is able to speak as a politician, political scientist, fact-checking journalist, and celebrity. It was no coincidence that he tried to find intermediaries. So it’s no surprise that he recently launched his own video podcast series.
The message is quite clear and sympathetic: we’re stuck somewhere, the answers are nowhere in sight, let’s consider the situation with others, from different perspectives. Stumbling status is well conveyed through the visual background of the conversations. In the overall picture, the faces are kept dark in contrast to the light streaming through the window. Dark but calm interior. Reassurance Sanitarium for Psychological Rehabilitation.
Something original, attractive and electrifying can be made from this. He is a politician in a state of meditation and endurance. All that is required is for Peter Ungar to remain in the role of politician throughout, expressing his human and spiritual depths. However, at the moment he often switches to being a presenter or journalist. He asks and does not always respond equally to the answers given. We lose the contemplative public figure who, with others, tries to clarify matters and search for solutions, and another personality, who knows how many hundreds of media personalities, who ask the same topics for who knows how many times. Well, respect András Lányi if you want it so much, but why should you get carried away with Zoltán Ceglédi at the level of the clever grumbling of dozens of topical podcasts?
Let’s put it this way, Peter Ungar didn’t find his authentic voice in this promising project. But he did manage to make Ferenc Gyurcsany great. The meaningful conversation between the two showed exactly the difference between a measured political approach and the insufficiently refined ambitions of public life. Gyurcsány uses his technique of theatrical debate, with which he can emphasize even a flat idea, but regardless, he intellectually dominates the conversation. He argues with a broad perspective, using a clear conceptual repertoire, and comments fueled by moral sentiment bounce off his position. It is a pity that, in addition to recognizing the capabilities necessary for political success, he is unable to see that he lacks many of them.
Peter Ungar’s inner research and what has been said in previous episodes of his show paint a rather bleak picture, and unfortunately, of the current state of the Democratic side. Self-repetitions, petty accusations, self-doubt, indecision, updated by activist motivations. Role confusion. I respect Marton Gulias more and more, because he was able to make clear decisions after evaluating the 2018 elections. He did not force his activist nature into politics, but turned to the media to create a forum to understand the processes and develop a new political alternative. Those who built it have not yet been able to take advantage of the opportunity deeply enough, but this is how Partizan was created, perhaps the most thought-provoking channel on the democratic side, stimulating public activity.