Discussion Papers 2004.
New Aspects of Regional Transformation and the
Urban-Rural Relationship 45-64. p.

SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN
GENERAL ELECTIONS – 1990–2002
GÁBOR NAGY
Introduction
For the new democracies from East-Central-Europe the free elections represented
the feeling of freedom. They gave the legitimacy of governments marked out the
leader parties of the political system and measured the electoral basis of them. As a
geographer, I was less interested about the major legal and philosophical aspects of
the results of general elections in Hungary, however more about the spatial conse-
quences and changes of them. We could recognize quite clear the regional differ-
ences in the rate of presence in different period, to identify the most active and
passive areas, as well. There were consequent behaviours in the party-preferences,
too, particularly in the regional inequalities of conservative, liberal, or social-
democrat sympathies.
There are some special aspects of the post-transitional (after 1989) general
elections in Hungary. Firstly, there were no interim elections between 1990–2002
independently the changing party-basis of the winning coalition, a death of the
Prime Minister (Mr. József Antall in 1993), or the stability of the majority of the
winners (in 2002 the social-liberal coalition had only 5 mandate majority, but it
does not involved any problems in the legislation process or governance). Sec-
ondly, the speed and deepness of the change in the party-system were quite moder-
ate in this period. There were radical changes in the basis of the parties, but before
2002 the system was – more, or less – stable. The new actors of the political field
born from certain wings of the “first-generation” parties that dominated the
transformation period (1989–1990). And last, but not least, the Hungarian party-
system became (after the general elections in 2002) a very simple system, domi-
nated by two major parties (from the conservative and the social-democrat pole)
and it is quite similar to the two-party-systems in some Western democracies. In
this time, there are no challenger parties to weaken this duopolistic system, while
the politically active people’s need is clear for other political parties, too.
The two major parties formed themselves into people’s party rather than elec-
toral parties in the last 3–5 years. They have nationwide structures: groups of ac-
tivists, media background, economic supporters, international connections, and
specialists in all fields of interest. The smaller parties are unable to compete with
them, because they have no sources to built up such rival systems, so they have to

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
46 GÁBOR
NAGY
concentrate on some politically important themes, topics to get the minimal level of
electoral support to exist inside the House of Parliament.
The political career became a profession. The major part of former leaders of
the democratic opposition in the 1970s, 1980s left the active political career, the
smaller group form itself a specialist of a certain field. The new generation of the
politicians made themselves ready for this kind of career after the secondary
school, or at least the diploma.
The structure of the paper concentrate on the next major points:
1)  The legal background of elections (delegation system, limitation, the role of
first and second round of elections, co-operation of parties)
2)  The actors: party system of Hungary (conservative parties, social democrats,
liberal pole, radical groups) traditional and new elements and their role,
changing programs and practise of parties
3)  The past and present of general elections: participation, differences between
elections and the two rounds of a same election, forming coalitions among
parties before the elections and/or between the two rounds (locally or
countrywide)
4)  Some geographical aspects of elections: differences in participation (West-
East slope – except Budapest), the changing importance of the second
rounds; spatial stability and shifts in party preferences (“blue-collar”
regions, “citoyen” traditions and agrarian countryside).
5)  And try to summarize a few concluding remarks: about some aspects of a
needed reform in election system.
The legal background of elections
Delegation system is a mixture of two (three) types of elections. The parties who
take place in the Parliament have three sources for delegate representatives. There
are 176 individual districts (close to each other by size) for direct voting, regional
lists (by counties) for delegates of parties, and above all national list of parties
(together 210 places). There are rigorous methods for calculate the number of
delegates minimising the lost votes and make the system more balanced. If one
party lose most of the individual districts, but got a lot of votes in the election it
would be many delegates in the Parliament from the compensation lists. This
system prefers the winning party and the second largest (if it is strong enough) and
helping to create working coalitions after the elections. Thanks to this difficult
system, Hungarian governments filled out their cyclical period since 1990.
Limitation has important role to select the parties set on foot in the general
elections. Firstly it was 4% of the valid votes, but after 1994 it grew up to 5%. It

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
47
resulted, that after the transformation there was no more than six parties in the
Parliament in a political cycle.
Hungarian general elections have two rounds. In the first round the voters got
two pages, one for the party lists and the second for choosing the individual
candidate. In the first round the number of votes for the parties became clean, and
in some districts would be winner as individual. The level of validity in the first
round is 50%+1 of voters, and the winner should get the majority of valid votes. (If
the level of validity was too high, at the of second round there will be an extra
voting for that districts.) That’s why there is no winner in the majority of individual
districts in the first round. If a candidate gets 15% or more of the valid votes, there
is a possibility to continue his/her campaign between the two rounds. In the 1990s,
there were three candidates in the second round by individual districts more often
(sometimes four), but in 2002 most of these districts has only two candidates (one
is social democrat, or liberal, the other is conservative). In the second round of
elections voters got only one paper with the name of candidates. The limit of
validity is lower, 25%+1 of voters, and the winner will be that candidate who gets
50%+1 of valid votes. After the first round we can see the assistance of the parties
seeing the number of votes on regional party-lists, and we have some information
about the assistance of individual candidates in the districts. But we get no
information about the major part of winners in the districts and the distribution of
mandates of compensation list.
Except the 1990 general elections we can see different types of co-operation of
parties. The most general form of co-operation is the withdrawal from someone’s
candidate and marking the favoured party of person, asking their voters to go and
vote in the second round. All greater parties have some smaller allied parties who
have minimal chance to become a party over 5%, but in some districts they have so
many voters, so they are able to upset the winner. In a special case, two (or more)
parties could make a deal about general withdrawal in most of individual districts
to defeat their concurrent(s). The second phase, if the two (or more) parties have
common candidates in one (or more) districts before the first round. In the third
type there are not just common individual candidates, but common party-lists, as
well. And last the fourth type is associate of parties for one or more general
elections, such as CDU/CSU in Germany.
The actors – Changing party system of Hungary
1) Conservative parties: MDF – Forum of Hungarian Democrats, KDNP –
Christian Democrats, FKGP – Small-holders (Farmers) Party, MDNP –
National Democrats, Centrum, FIDESZ–MPP – Young Democrats-Party of
Hungarian Civilians (former liberal) (Figure 1).

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
49
2) Social-democrats: MSZP – Socialist Party, MSZDP – Social Democrats
(Figure1).
3) Liberal pole: SZDSZ – Free Democrats, FIDESZ (now conservative)
(Figure 1).
4) Radical groups: MIÉP – Party of Hungarian Justice and Live (right
wing), MP – Workers Party (left wing), MZP – Hungarian Green Party
(eco-party) (Figure 1).
A certain group of Hungarian parties has got historical roots, so we can call
them traditional actors. On the conservative pole KDNP and FKGP has more than
80 years history and they had a traditional class of voters, as well, especially in
1990, after the transition period. But till the end of the 1990s these parties loose
their supporters because they have no answers for the new challenges in the 21st
century. FKGP recruited its voters from the agrarian regions, but they role in the
conservative governments (1990–94, 1998–2002) was so unsuccessful, that the
whole party had been eliminated in the last elections. The KDNP had important
connections with the Roman-catholic church, but this base was not hard enough for
successful act in the 1998 general elections. On the left side, the MP is the succes-
sor party of the Communist Party of Hungary (MSZMP), and its base rooted in the
elder generation, the losers of the transition period. The renewed Socialist Party
(MSZP) formed itself a modern social-democrat formation, and (almost) the only
representative of left side. MSZDP is the oldest party, was founded in 1890, but its
history doesn’t help them to get into the Parliament after 1990. Now its role is
minimal on the left side.
The new actors group is recruited that formations founded around 1989. In the
first phase there were two poles of new actors: MDF – based on the intellectual
class in the shadow under the socialist period, and SZDSZ – recruited mostly from
the intelligentsia of the capital city opposite the communist party in the 1970s and
1980s.
While MDF became a moderate conservative party after the first general elec-
tions in 1990, the radical wing founded a new party, called MIÉP (it has Parlia-
mentary panel between 1998–2002). The technocrats of MDF created the new
party of MDNP, but it has only episode in the history of elections. In 2002 MDF is
a small conservative party in the shadow of FIDESZ–MPP. SZDSZ and its liberal
direction resulted a rather great representation in the first two Parliaments, but after
a coalition with the Socialist Party the majority of the liberal party’s supporters
leaved the party and joined to FIDESZ–MPP.
Now SZDSZ is in a governmental position with MSZP again, but its role is
more important, because SZDSZ give the majority of the government. FIDESZ
was called the “youth session of Free-Democrats” before the first election, and
behave as a liberal party. After 1993, the leaders of FIDESZ recognised, that liberal

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
50 GÁBOR
NAGY
pole is too small for winning a general election, and saw the missing integration in
the right side. As a transformed party (from liberal to conservative) FIDESZ be-
came the magnet pole of conservative parties between 1993 and 1998. This reor-
ganised conservative pole (with FIDESZ as a leading force) was able to win the
general elections in 1998. Other newly founded formations, such as Green Party, or
Centrum (and the other ones) are too weak to “jump up” the limit of representation
in the Parliament, but their existence show, that Hungarian society has serious an-
tipathy against two-party system.
The programs and practise of parties seemed very changeable in the 1990s. On
the conservative pole MDF began its way as a party with a moderate program a
“humanised capitalism”, and, in some cases a party with a “third way” program
(neither socialist, nor capitalist) goes back to the peasant writers utopian dream
about “Hungary – a country of gardens”. Under the period of transition became
clean that the only choice for Hungary is capitalism, based on democracy, private
ownership and state founded on the rule of law. This mainstream eroded the act of
“collecting party” of MDF, firstly the nationalist, radical group, and after loosing
the general elections the technocrats leaved the party and formed their own move-
ments (MIÉP and MDNP). The roots of MDF went back to the conservative era
between the two World Wars, and the short democratic period between 1945–48.
Nowadays, MDF is in a transformation period, forming out a modern, European
conservative party, similar West European ones, but trough this transformation
period, the party loosed the leader position of the right wing, it goes to FIDESZ.
Young Democrats began their political life with a radically critical point of
view, it was normal in the case of a “generation party”. They criticised the former
socialist system, but the new conservative government, too, because of its impo-
tence solving the problems of transformation period. After the return of socialists
(1994), the leaders of the party changed their profile radically. They leaved the
liberal pole and joined to the conservative forces and became the main organisators
of a closer co-operation among the right wing parties. It belonged to a crisis inside
the FIDESZ, the liberal wing of the party leaved it (someone joined to SZDSZ, the
others leaved the political field). As a real alternative of the social-liberal govern-
ment the coalition of conservative parties won the 1998 elections. Its program
based on the European and Nord-Atlantic access, but with a harder national rheto-
ric background. Nowadays FIDESZ wants to be the only representative of national
history, the values of citizenship, the Hungarian minorities all over the World and
the ethic of religious man. They organised circle of clients around the party, pre-
ferred them in the decisions of state investments sometimes against of effective-
ness). They became more “old fashioned” as MDF, else if they 20–30 years
younger than the representatives of the other party. FIDESZ had an aggressive
style in political life, it let them seen very strong and self-confident, and the num-
ber of their voters increased. But, in parallel, this style (with a higher rate of cor-

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
51
ruption) was not acceptable for a large number of voters, so the polarisation of
political field became sharper in the last four years.
On the socialist pole, MSZP was in a “political carotene” between 1990–1992.
This period turned the party into a technocrat style, they criticised the new gov-
ernment and pointed out the mistakes of Ministries. This style and the living nos-
talgia after the socialist period, particularly employment, moderate differences
among living style etc. resulted a great triumph in the 1994 elections. They inher-
ited a country in a very bad position, that’s why the party had to turn into managing
the crisis, instead of making a social-democratic program. This program resulted a
deep crisis in society, but after a two years period it became the basis of an in-
creasing economy, with more resources for solving social problems. MSZP began
to move into a social democrat way in the last year of they cycle, but it was not
enough, they lose the 1998 elections. In an opposition, the party had serious inner
crisis, they were unable to communicate with the people, and they had no answers
against the FIDESZ’s aggressive style. After a long hesitation, MSZP’s leaders
solved the inner crisis, and try to point at the mistakes and contradictions of the
government’s policy. MSZP transformed itself a social-democrat party, with a high
sensitivity of social problems, with responsibility of EU access. This reform re-
sulted the new governmental period after 2002. At the beginning of the new period,
the social-liberal government formed out a social package, called “100 days pro-
gram” and they performed it (it is unique after the elections!), so the popularity of
the party was increased radically.
The only liberal party – SZDSZ – had/has a special way of development in its
program. Before the first general elections 1990, SZDSZ initiated a referendum
about election of the President of Hungary in 1989. It has special importance, be-
cause at that time the reform-socialist Imre Pozsgay was the most popular politi-
cian, and in a direct election (with a high legitimacy) he has the greatest chance to
be the first President. SZDSZ had an alternative point of view, about indirect elec-
tion (by the Parliament) and it has won. At that time SZDSZ represented a political
party forcing a radical turn from socialism into a liberal democracy. In 1990 and in
1994 SZDSZ had the second largest fraction in the Parliament, but in different
position. Between 1990–1994 they were the main opposition party of the conser-
vative government, but were able to create the legal background of new democracy
(MDF-SZDSZ pact, in 1990). After 1994, SZDSZ became a part of new social-
liberal government, as a balance power of socialists. This four years period eroded
the theoretical basis of SZDSZ’s program; the co-operation with the post-commu-
nist party became the majority of its voters estranged from the party. The liberal-
technocrat policy of SZDSZ made the party much smaller (6–7%), closer to the
representation of the West European liberal parties. The continues disputes among
the leading ideologists of SZDSZ make hard to transform the movement into a

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
53
motivation to go and vote again. In the last two cases the situation was different.
The participation in the second round was higher than in the first one. In 1998 the
lower rate of voting came from the “no campaign” of the social-liberal govern-
ment. They suggest, there is no alternative against them (that was a great fault!). As
people saw – after the first round – that the new conservative coalition, led by FI-
DESZ is able to win the elections the rate of activity increased in the right wing. In
parallel, in the socialist pole, a high number of voters became passive, because
after the first round MSZP was the leader force. In 2002 the situation was just the
same, except the rate of participation was rather high in the first round (over 70%),
but it became higher in the second. The leader of the first round was MSZP, and
the newly activated voters strengthen the right side, but “there were not many
enough” (Viktor Orbán, former Prime Minister) to change the result. In 2002, the
voters of the social and liberal pole were active enough in the second round, to
make their parties win.
These elections were mainly “protest voting”. Firstly against the communist
period, after against the incompetence, in 1998 against the restriction policy and
last time against the corruption and building client-system. Of course there were
lots of positive elements of the campaigns, but the crucial points of the elections
were always negative. In the first three cases, every time a new party, a new
coalition got a chance to lead the country. 2002 was the first election, when a
“traditional” coalition had an opportunity to repeat.
Forming coalitions among parties before the elections and/or between
the two rounds (locally or countrywide)

Table 2/1
Result of parties in general elections, 1990
Party Party
list
Individual  Compensation  Together
% of
candidates
list
representatives
MDF 40
114
10
164
42.49
FKGP 16
11
17
44
11.40
KDNP 10
3
10
21
5.44
SZDSZ 34
37
23
94
24.35
FIDESZ 8 2
12
22
5.70
MSZP 14
1
18
33
8.55
others
8

8 2.07
First two parties

258
66.84

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
55
Table 2/4
Result of parties in general elections, 2002
Party Party
list
Individual  Compensation  Together
% of
candidates
list
representatives
FIDESZ–MDF 67
95
26  188  48.70
(MDF)

24
6.22
(FIDESZ)
164
42.49
SZDSZ 4
3
13
20
5.18
MSZP 69
78
31
178
46.11
First two parties

342
88.60
Source: own calculation.
The Hungarian election-system prefers stabile coalitions for governing the
country, instead of proportionality, which system mirroring the real promotion rate
of parties. That’s why the final results of general elections – except the last one –
made an opportunity forming out stabile coalitions. In the last case (2002) the ma-
jority of the social-liberal coalition is only 5 representatives against the conserva-
tive pole. In 1994, when MSZP has absolute majority in the Parliament, the coali-
tion with liberals showed, that the communist era is over, the coalition partner and
the opposition had extra rights to examine the functioning of government and con-
trolling it.
Changing structure of parties
If we take a closer look at the proportion of votes at party lists, we will see a fun-
damental trend we call it “way a two-plus-two party system”.
In 1990 the structure of the Parliament was three poles. There were two strong
parties (MDF and SZDSZ) one was the leader force of the first free-elected gov-
ernment and the other became the greatest actor of opposition. Two medium-sized
parties have important role (FKGP and MSZP), and two small parties represented
special stratums of the society (roman-catholic – KDNP, and young generation –
FIDESZ). If we take a closer look at the whole structure of the valid votes, we can
see a more balanced three-pole structure: the conservative wing had a relative ma-
jority with 44%, the liberal parties got 32% and the social-democrats 20%. There is
a great gap between the real rates of countenance and a representation in the new
Parliament (59, 30, 9 percent). In this election 8 candidates got place in the Parlia-

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
57
leave the political centre empty. This attempts were unsuccessful thanks to the
mistrustful of the leaders of these smaller parties and the actions of the FIDESZ to
save this hegemony in the right.
In the last elections it seemed clear, that the party structure of the new
Parliament would be more simply than ever before. On the right side the joint list
of FIDESZ–MDF has just the chance to jump up the 5% limit, on the left MSZP
save its dominancy, too, and SZDSZ, the only liberal party seemed as a certain
actor of the new Parliament. There were only two questions: How much is the real
number of MIÉP’s voters? Would it be enough to jump up the limit or not? And the
other: What would be the role of agrarian party (FKGP) after the elections? It
seemed more or less clear, that MP and the new formation of Centrum would be
out of the new Parliament, and they have no chance in individual districts, as well.
The answers were: the agrarian party will have no role in the Parliament, thanks to
the chaos after their four years period in the agrarian sector; and MIÉP’s voters
were not enough, thanks to the high rate of activity in the first round. After the
elections the party structure of the Parliament became quite simple, 2+2, that
means two “great” forces in the left and right side, with one-one “satellite” parties.
In this case time to discuss a reform of delegation system and elections, because
most of the voters do not prefer a two-party system instead of the monopolistic
party under the communist era.

Geographical aspects of elections
Regional differences in participation
The rate of participation shows slight regional differences in the general elections.
The group of more active and rather passive counties is quite stable, independently
the overall rates of participation. We could see a clear west-east slope, except
Budapest, at every time (Figure 2–3).
In 1990 the capital city and the western counties (along the Hungarian-Austrian
border) were the active ones and the less actives lay in the Great Plain region. The
absolute difference between the most and less active county (without Budapest)
was 23.1%.
Till 1994 this gap, between the most and lest active counties decreased to
12.7%, but the group of active and passive countries were quite stable. While the
overall activity rate increased more than 12%, there were two counties (Vas, Győr-
Moson-Sopron) when a small rate decrease was registered, however this activity
rates were the highest among counties. There were no movements in activity rate
comparing the two rounds of the elections, independently the overall change of
activity.

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
59
Figure 3
2002. 2nd round – Participation

Source: edited by the author.
In 2002 the record rate in participation implied a moderate gap between the
most and less active counties (Vas and Bács-Kiskun) in was weaker than 10% (first
time after the transition). Budapest was more active, than the counties – as usual –
but the difference was less than 3%. The activity rates of this election were higher
than ever before in the whole country (actually in 1994), but while the maximum
was increase only with 0.6%, the minimum increased more than 4%. There were 8
counties (with the capital city 9) over 70%, and none under 65. The results of the
second round we cannot compare with the first ones, because in 45 of 176
individual districts the election was valid and successful, too, that’s why there were
no need for second round in them. So we have take a closer look at activity rates in
district level. In the first round the absolute maximum could be measured in
Budapest, when 9 districts had 80% or higher activity rate, and only 1 under 70%.
(In Budapest there are 32 districts, altogether.) In the countryside Baranya county
gave the maximum, and Hajdú-Bihar the minimum. The differences between the
maximum and minimum activity level were almost 20% in the capital city and 21%

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
60 GÁBOR
NAGY
in the countryside, but on overall level it went up to 28%. There were 15 districts in
the countryside over 75% (none was over 80%), and only two were under 60%.
The increasing activity level in the second round decreased the spatial differences
inside Hungary. While the maximum activity level of Budapest decreased with
0.3%, and minimum increased up to 0.9% (there were 21 districts in the second
round), there were more radical changes in the countryside. The level of maximum
went up to 2.7%, so there was 1 district in the countryside with above 80% activity
level. The number of district with over 75% increased from 15, to 28, while the
whole number of districts decreased from 144, to 110. There were no districts
under 60%, and only 2 between 60–65% (one in Békés county and the other is in
Hajdú-Bihar). The level of minimal activity grew up to 5.6% in the second round,
compare to the first. So the difference between the most and lest active districts
decreased in Budapest (–1.2%), in the countryside (–2.9%) and in the whole county
(–5.9%), as well (Figure 2–3).
In the practise of Hungarian general elections we can say, that higher activity
rate in the whole country decreases the spatial inequalities in participation among
counties, between the capital city and countryside and among the districts, as well.
However, we can recognize the active and passive counties and districts and this
spatial structure seems to be quite stable, the emerging activity level moderates the
regional differences effectively. This spatial structure in the level of participation
may result a different level legitimacy, as well, but in Hungary it has no sign in the
political field. (Maybe it has higher interest in that electoral system, which based
on only, or mainly on individual districts.)
Spatial stability and shifts in party preferences
(“blue-collar” regions, “citoyen” traditions, agrarian countryside):
If we take a closer look at spatial preferences of certain parties we could see some
stable regional basis of them, but there is a wide range of mobility in party
preferences at the same time. Moving towards the last general elections, the rate of
stability is emerging and mobility became weaker.
MDF was the main representative of the right wing in the first election, in 1990.
The best results of the party were concentrate on the South Great Plain, Central
Transdanubia, the capital city and its agglomeration zone. The “black holes” of
MDF preference concentrated on the South and West Transdanubia. If we see the
strongest poles of the party preferences in the case of MDF’s coalition partners
(FKGP and KDNP), we could see that Great Plain as a whole, South Transdanubia
(FKGP), and Northern Hungary (except Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén county) (KDNP)
were the secondary basis of the right wing parties. The liberal pole (SZDSZ and
FIDESZ) had strong positions in the West and Central Transdanubian region, and

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
61
in Budapest, but had some weaknesses particularly in the Great Plain, and some
peripheral (Somogy) and industrial (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) counties. The only
left wing party MSZP had better results in the industrial regions, in the capital city
and in some counties without strong rival party.
The situation was dramatically changed in 1994. The social democrats won the
elections and their basis seemed rather strong countrywide, except the West-
Transdanubian region (with Veszprém county) and the South Great Plain. The only
liberal party SZDSZ had good results in the Transdanubian region and the capital
city, and the “black holes” were concentrate on the eastern side of the country (ex-
cept Somogy). The conservative parties lost a lot of voters in this four years period
but the spatial preferences were not changed dramatically except MDF. This party
lost the two-third of the capital city and its whole agglomeration zone, weakened
the positions in the Transdanubian region, but got some new poles in the east
(Bács-Kiskun and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg).
In 1998, when the FIDESZ led conservative coalition won the general elections
the spatial party preferences became clearer than before. FIDESZ had strong basis
in the West and Central Transdanubia (except Komárom-Esztergom county) and in
some counties with Christian-democrat traditions (Tolna, Csongrád). Its coalition
partner FKGP had relative good results in the whole Great Plain and Pest county
and some Transdanubian regions with harder agrarian traditions (Zala, Somogy).
The main weak points of their spatial preference map were lay on the industrial
regions and the capital city, Budapest. As FIDESZ integrated the right wing of
KDNP, called MKDSZ (Association of Christian-Democrats) this party became the
successor of its better positions in the counties with Christian-democrat traditions.
The great loser of the elections was MSZP. Its positions were weakening in the
whole West-Transdanubia and in the South Great Plain, as well. The main basis of
the party became more characteristic, the industrial face counties in Transdanubia
and in Northern Hungary, the capital city and some counties in the Great Plain with
agrar-socialist traditions (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and Békés) The only liberal party
SZDSZ loosed the two-third of its supporters, so its spatial basis shrieked dramati-
cally. Except Budapest and the agglomeration zone, there were only smaller re-
gions, districts when SZDSZ were successful, thanks to the quality of the individ-
ual candidates.
In 2002, when the results of general elections were as tight as never before, the
spatial preferences of parties had not changed dramatically, comparing to 1998.
MSZP, the winner party was not able to extend its preference zone, but tightened
its disadvantageous zone in some cases, especially in the Great Plain and Central
and South Transdanubia (Figure 4). FIDESZ-MDF joint list won 12 counties in the
last elections, but was unable to weaken MSZP’s positions in its primary prefer-
ence zone. While the agrarian party FKGP and the radical nationalist MIÉP went
out of the Parliament, their voters moved to FIDESZ (and not MDF) stabilizing its

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
SOME GEOGRAPHICAL ASPECTS OF HUNGARIAN GENERAL…
63
If we see the results of individual districts and the spatial structure of party pref-
erences (the results of party lists) we could recognise a strong correlation between
the two structures. This correlation became stronger moving towards the present
days. In the first elections sometimes and somewhere we could found examples of
successful campaign of individual candidates, or the “emblematic figures” of par-
ties in the main preference zone of different parties, these samples became more
sporadic in 1998 and 2002. It means, that the “face of individual candidates” loses
its importance and the role of party and party-program became more stressed. The
practice of joint lists of parties, or forming coalitions between the two rounds, and
withdrawals from candidature and labelling the preferred candidate, or more often
parties made the Hungarian election system more simple. The voters prefer the
greater parties, which have chance to jump up the 5% limit, and candidates belong
to these parties. In this case the citoyen had an opportunity to give his/her two valid
and usable votes for the preferred party, else if one or two votes could get lost.
Concluding remarks
The results of the elections in Hungary resulted a rather simply party structure,
with only “traditional” actors in the Parliament and with a quite stable spatial
party-preferences. The techniques of co-operation among parties, forming coali-
tions between the two rounds, withdrawals and marking preferred parties are cal-
culable quite well. The decreasing role of personal quality of candidates and
emerging importance of parties should make this situation stable for a longer term.
After the general elections in 2002, a team of professionals began to discuss
about the reform of Hungarian election system. The main elements of the planned
reforms are:
1)  Eliminating the second round of the elections.
2)  Reduction the number of representatives in the Parliament.
3)  Shorten the campaign period.
4)  Increasing the amount of money for the campaign in the individual districts
in parallel with a strictly monitoring system checking the money spending.
There are some questions about the new planned system, far from a compro-
mise:
1)  One or bi-cameral legislature would be the better (on the second case, who
will be the representatives in which delegation system, in the second house:
chambers, trade-unions, representatives of the civil society, Churches,
ethnic minorities etc.)

Nagy, Gábor : Some Geographical Aspects of Hungarian General Elections - 1990-2002.
In: New Aspects of Regional ransformation and the rban-Rural Relationship.
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2004. 45-64. p. Discussion Papers, Special
64 GÁBOR
NAGY
2)  Preferring individual districts, or party lists (the first one results a greater
legitimacy for representatives in certain districts, the other one is closer to
an proportionate system), or keeping the existing mixed system.
3)  How to join the election reform with the administrative reform (forming the
new structure of small-regions).
We are unable to see the results of this plan in these days, not only for the
discussion among the professionals, but also for the disagreement among political
parties. The legal background of election system is in the Constitution of Republic
of Hungary and in special basic laws, so the change of these statutes need a two-
third majority in the Parliament. We have to see, that the two great parties (MSZP
and FIDESZ) has the power to block the whole reform system if their interests
seem to be damage. However, the above-mentioned reform is sure to happen
accessing to the enlarging Europe.
References
Földes, Gy.–Hubai, L. (eds.) 1999: Parlamenti választások Magyarországon 1920–1998.
(General elections in Hungary, 1920–1998). – Budapest, MTA Politikai Tudományok
Intézete, Napvilág Kiadó.
Szoboszlai, Gy. (ed) 1990: Parlamenti választások 1990 (General elections 1990). –
Budapest, MTA Politikai Tudományok Intézete.
Kurtán, S.–Sándor, P.–Vass, L. (eds.) 1994: Magyarország politikai évkönyve 1994.
(Political Yearbook of Hungary, 1994). – Budapest, Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar
Központja Alapívány.
Kurtán, S.–Sándor, P.–Vass, L. (eds.) 1999: Magyarország politikai évkönyve 1998-ról.
(Political Yearbook of Hungary, about 1998). – Budapest, Demokrácia Kutatások
Magyar Központja Alapívány.
Kurtán, S.–Sándor, P.–Vass, L. (eds.) 2003: Magyarország politikai évkönyve 2002-ről.
(Political Yearbook of Hungary, about 2002). – Budapest, Demokrácia Kutatások
Magyar Központja Alapívány.
Kurtán, S.–Sándor, P.–Vass, L. (eds.) 1998: Magyarország évtizedkönyve – A rendszer-
váltás (1988–1998) I–II. (A decade of Hungarian politics – The period of transition
1988–1998.) – Budapest, Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány.
Romsics, I. 1999: Magyarország története a XX. században (History of Hungary in the 20th
century). – Budapest, Osiris Kiadó.
Valuch, T. 2002: Magyarország társadalomtörténete a XX. század második felében. (Social
history of Hungary in the second part of 20th century). – Budapest, Osiris Kiadó.
http://www.valasztas.hu   (The results of the general elections in 1998 and 2002).