Shrinking venues: advocacy groups in illiberal governance. The case of Hungary

Post-2010 Hungary is a well-documented case of democratic backsliding or illiberal political transformation. These developments affected, among others, the constitution, the system of checks and balances, the media, and civil society as well. Governmental funding of civil society was curtailed and put under political control, while human rights NGOs have been attacked by means of both political communication and legal regulation. This paper focuses on how illiberal politics have changed the practices of governance understood as policy making; how these changes have affected the opportunity structure of advocacy groups in influencing policy making; and how advocacy groups have adapted their strategies as a response to the illiberal challenge. Based on a series of interviews conducted with the representatives of advocacy groups as well as members of the central administration the paper investigates the changing patterns of policy advocacy in three arenas: the venues of social dialogue, the arena of direct lobbying, and the arena of activism and mobilization. The expectation of the research – in line with the prediction of the opportunity structure theory – was that the purposive undermining of social dialogue by the government will spur advocacy groups to redefine and relocate their activities into the arena of lobbying and, even more, that of activism. As the Hungarian government has a clear populist appeal including a sensitivity towards public opinion, the expectation was that policy advocacy is still possible through changing the public mood and mobilizing the public. Some cases, like the successful civic mobilization for a more stringent penal policy on domestic violence or the one against Hungary organizing the Olympic games, illustrate the potential of policy change through activism. However, the general picture seems bleaker. Illiberal politics have got a grip on both formal and informal policy venues which makes lobbying more difficult for advocacy groups. Mobilization and activism have been also hindered by a series of factors, including new strike regulation; drying up NGOs’ funding; growing political control over the media; growing social apathy fuelled also by purposive political intimidation by the government; and a general transformation of the public sphere in which policy debates have been washed away by polarizing discourses and instrumental political communication. The paper’s general conclusion is that the long time span of illiberal politics in Hungary has made possible a number of deep social transformations which strongly affect advocacy groups and their activities as well.