Coalition crisis little more than a desire for the limelightThe Alliance of Free Democrats (SZDSZ) has shown two different faces in the media concerning the coalition debate. The first is threatening to withdraw from the coalition and referring to irreconcilable differences of opinion, while the other says there is merely a disagreement on technical issues which will be resolved shortly. These two messages reveal that the liberal party’s real aim is not to break up the coalition with the Socialists, but to make its own work in the coalition more visible. Nevertheless, the fact cannot be ignored that there is a genuine difference in interests between the two coalition partners, making it tricky to reach a compromise which both parties can serve up to the public as a success. Since 2002 the SZDSZ has faced two main criticisms. The first complaint (typically made by the right, but occasionally also by Socialists) is that the liberals, despite minimal support, force their unpopular, liberal, market-based measures onto the governing coalition, and via the government onto the rest of society. The other typical criticism (made by the opposition within the SZDSZ and the liberal press), is that the SZDSZ is not capable of putting across and enforcing its principles in government policy.  Puffing up plumageAfter breaking its tax cut promises, the reforms could now be the only way for the liberal party to combat discontent with its performance. The party’s criticisms of the slowing down of reforms and its direct or veiled threats of withdrawing from the coalition, are not in fact designed to break up the coalition, but to make the liberal’s party’s work in government more visible. On a personal level, SZDSZ party chairman János Kóka, whom many still think of as “Gyurcsány’s right-hand man” needs to be seen to distance the party from the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), in order to prove his independence both to his own party and to the public. Where next?Healthcare reorganisation remains the main area of conflict for the coalition parties. Although both parties have come up with new proposals recently, neither has budged significantly from their original position. The difference of opinion between the two parties on the issue of having one or more health insurers has not yet been resolved, but willingness to reach an agreement was signalled by Gábor Horn, SZDSZ state secretary for coalition negotiations who said last Tuesday evening following talks between the coalition partners that there has been an convergence of attitudes, and the debate now is only about the solution. Power relations in Parliament mean that the two parties are forced to cooperate and compromise. It would not be in the interests of either party to dissolve the coalition in the current political situation. If the next elections were brought forward, the MSZP would achieve its worst result since 1990, and it would also be suicidal for the SZDSZ. If the SZDSZ failed to clear the five per cent hurdle in an early election, the partly could disappear once and for all from the political palette. The most likely scenario, therefore, is that the coalition partners will reach agreement on the insurance model by the end of June.  A tie as good as a winOne way out of the current situation is for the coalition parties, stressing the values they uphold, to try to save face and reach compromise decisions which later both sides can pass off to their voters as a success. Nevertheless, given that both parties have publicly declared their positions, it will be tough to reach a decision which does not look like either side has backed down. The most likely outcome of a mixed health insurance model will still pose a challenge to the coalition parties, since if the MSZP stresses that the new model is still based on state solidarity and “national risk community” whilst the liberals emphasise that healthcare has been opened up to market competition, it could weaken the messages of both parties.
