symbolic elements of everyday culture - MTA Szociológiai ...

● Kapitány Ágnes – Kapitány Gábor ● System change – symbol change in Hungary… ●
social systems as well. This conflict marked the end of the former formula: that of the opposition between the
old (“communist”) and the new (“democratic”) system; first a tripolar formula emerged which confronted
three kinds of political-social models, then along the borderline of modernization the liberals and the socialists
formed an alliance (opposing the conservatives). This was an important symbolic message and result of the
media war. The rearrangement of symbols resulted in a new political combination. On the other hand the
upgrading of the media meant that in contrast to the political practice of state socialism, the role of publicity
became very important in the everyday exercise of power. However at the same time it upgraded the
possibility of publicity manipulation and brought new forms of manipulation. People understood by these
symbolic struggles that although the system change did not bring “power to the people” (as many people had
hoped), the nature of power had changed and, after all, the representatives of power should not behave as
commanders of a military system, but as merchants who have (to be able) to sell their (political) goods on the
market.
The upgrading of the symbolic role of publicity was expressed in a great number of signs. One of them was that
repeated proposals to stop the presence of TV at the parliamentary sessions were opposed not only by
different parties, but by a great part of public opinion, too. (Though these parliamentary sessions are not
always interesting for the public and the style of parliamentary discussions often discredits parliamentary
politics, itself.)
CHANGES IN THE SYMBOLIC SPHERE (1989-1996)
Public opinion considers the existence of different political parties to be the main symbol of the system change.
But the symbolism of political parties itself is changeable. The HSP has tried to transform its image, as we have
seen earlier. Although it is rather conspicuous that after winning the election in 1994 former bureaucratic
elements appeared, for example in the language style of many representatives of this party. But the other
parties have also changed. The most striking changes occurred in the image of the party of young democrats
(FIDESZ). They went on the stage as a party of dynamic young people in revolt (this was expressed in many
direct symbolic signs, some of their actions designed to “êpater le bourgeois”, their appearance with long hair,
wearing jeans and pullover in Parliament, and so on), but later – trying to occupy the empty place of the
conservative middle force – they changed their image strikingly: they began to wear suits, cut their hair, and
modified their style from an ambiguous hippie-yuppie form to an unambiguous yuppie one. (They abandoned
the conciliating role between the conservatives and liberals they had played at the beginning as the
representatives of a new generation without prejudice – this effort was symbolized by distributing oranges to
the members of Parliament; they also adopted the role of modern, qualified experts and to symbolize this role,
they were the first to bring laptops to sessions of Parliament to connect the role of “experts” with their new
conservative image, suggesting that they are the up-to-date conservatives.)
The Free Democrats too tried to change their image. In their case it was forced upon them by the pressure of
right-wing political forces, which called the leaders of the liberals a lobby for Jewish interests, an exclusive
organization of elite-intellectuals of the capital, the sons of the former nomenclature elite who began their
careers as Marxists, and so on. Perhaps under the influence of these attacks – and considering a conservative
majority of voters – the Free Democrats had a new leading candidate in the 1994 elections who, according to
38