Opposition Discourse About National Recovery and Resilience Plans. Poland and Hungary Compared

• Authors: Agnieszka Dudzińska , Gabriella Ilonszki

Abstracts

EN

Although the governments of Poland and Hungary seem to similarly contest the conditionality mechanism that requires one to respect the rule of law when using EU funds, there are differences between these countries. They become visible in the framing of political communication as regards the opposition parties. This article seeks to identify the grounds of the competition from parliamentary opposition of the governments in relation to the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund. An analysis of 2021's parliamentary debates on national recovery and resilience plans revealed three communication frameworks: the financial frame (the policy dimension), the quality of governance frame (the politics dimension), and the European integration frame which shaped domestic political rivalry (the polity dimension). Differences within these framings between the narrative of the Polish and Hungarian opposition resulted from different institutional and structural contexts. The study confirms the importance of national opposition parties for the analysis of the process of European integration. The existence of a liberal opposition may promote the salience of the topic of European integration in domestic political debate.

Keywords

EN

Recovery and Resilience Facility; National Recovery and Resilience Plans; European Integration; Conditionality Mechanism; Rule of Law; Intergovernmentalism; Poland; Hungary

• Publisher: Centre for Europe, University of Warsaw
• Journal: Studia Europejskie-Studies in European Affairs
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 27
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 37-62

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Agnieszka Dudzińska

• University of Warsaw

• https://orcid.org/0000000176715676

author

Gabriella Ilonszki

• Corvinus University of Budapest

• https://orcid.org/0000000263944047

References

• Bakke, E. and Sitter, N. (2022) „The EU's enfants terribles: Democratic backsliding in Central Europe since 2010”, Perspectives on Politics. No. 20(1), pp. 22-37.
• Bellamy, R., Kröger, S. and Lorimer, M. (2022) “Party Views on Democratic Backsliding and Differentiated Integration”, East European Politics and Societies. Vol. 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/08883254221096168.
• Bermeo, N. (1992) “Democracy and the Lessons of Dictatorship”, Comparative Politics. Vol. 24(3), pp. 273-291. Available at: https://www. jstor.org/stable/422133 (Access 26.01.2023).
• Bickerton, C.J., Hodson, D. and Puetter, U. (2015) “The new intergovernmentalism: European integration in the post-Maastricht era”, Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 53(4), pp. 703-722. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12212.
• Bíró-Nagy, A., Szászi, Á. and Varga, A. (2022) How much EU do Hungarian want? Pro-EU and Eurosceptic Attitudes in Hungary. Budapest: Policy Solutions. Available at: https://www.policysolutions.hu/en/news/557/ how_much_EU_do_Hungarians_want (Access 26.01.2023).
• Bozoki, A. and Hegedus, D. (2018) “An Externally Constrained Hybrid Regime: Hungary in the European Union”, Democratization. Vol. 25(7), pp. 1173-1189. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664.
• Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (2020) Official Journal L 424, 15 December, pp. 1-10. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec/2020/2053/oj (Access 12.01.2023).
• Csehi, R., and Zgut, E. (2021) “'We won't let Brussels dictate us': Eurosceptic populism in Hungary and Poland”, European Politics and Society. Vol. 22(1), pp. 53-68. DOI: 10.1080/23745118.2020.1717064.
• Dawson, J. and Hanley, S. (2019) „Foreground Liberalism, Background Nationalism: A Discursive-institutionalist Account of EU Leverage and 'Democratic Backsliding' in East Central Europe”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. No. 57(4), pp. 710-728.
• European Commission (2023) Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/recovery-and-resiliencescoreboard/index.html (Access 12.01.2023).
• European Parliament (2022) Socio-demographic trends in national public opinion - Edition 8. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyour-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer/socio-demographic-trendsedition-8 (Access 12.01.2023).
• Gnauck, G. (2021) “Der EuGH überschreitet seine Kompetenzen”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2.12. Available at: https://www.faz.net/- gq5-aijwv (Access 12.01.2023).
• Göncz, B. and Lengyel, G. (2016) “Changing Attitudes of Hungarian Political Elites Towards the EU (2007-2014)”, Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung. Vol. 41, No. 4(158), pp. 106-128. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44062865 (Access 12.01.2023).
• Hodson, D. and Puetter, U. (2019) “The European Union in disequilibrium: new intergovernmentalism, postfunctionalism and integration theory in the post-Maastricht period”, Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 26(8), pp. 1153-1171. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2019.1569712.
• Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2018) “Cleavage theory meets Europe's crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage”, Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 25(1), pp. 109-135. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279.
• Ilonszki, G. and Dudzińska, A. (2021) “Opposition behaviour against the third wave of autocratisation: Hungary and Poland compared”, European Political Science. Vol. 20, pp. 603-616. DOI: 10.1057/s41304- 021-00325-x.
• Index (2021) “Kövér László kimondta, hogy ma már biztosan nemmel szavazna az EU-csatlakozásra”. 7.11. Available at: https://index.hu/ belfold/2021/07/11/kover-laszlo-europai-unio-nepszavazas/ (Access 12.01.2023).
• Interia.pl (2016) „Kaczyński o Brexicie”. 24.06. Available at: https:// wydarzenia.interia.pl/raporty/raport-brytyjskie-referendum/aktualnosci/ news-kaczynski-o-brexicie,nId,2225146 (Access 12.01.2023).
• Karolewski, I.P. and Benedikter, R. (2016) “Poland is not Hungary”, Foreign Affairs. 21.09. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ central-europe/2016-09-21/poland-not-hungary (Access 12.01.2023).
• Konfederacja Wolność i Niepodległość (2019) „Polska dla Ciebie”. Available at: https://konfederacja.pl/program/ (Access 12.01.2023).
• Lengyel, G. (2011) “Supranational Attachment of European Elites and Citizens”, Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 63(6), pp. 1033-1054. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27975609 (Access 12.01.2023).
• Szczerbiak, A. and Taggart, P. (eds.) (2008) Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Szułdrzyński, M. (2016) „Kaczyński: Musimy wyjść z inicjatywą zmian UE”, Rzeczpospolita. 27.06. Available at: https://www.rp.pl/kraj/art3568101- kaczynski-musimy-wyjsc-z-inicjatywa-zmian-ue (Access 12.01.2023).
• Taggart, P. (2020) Europeanization, euroscepticism and politicization in party politics in Bulmer, S. and Lequesne, C. (eds.) The member states of the European Union, 3rd Edition. New European Union Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/hepl/9780198737391.003.0014.
• Taggart, P. (2020) 14. Europeanization, Euroscepticism, and Politicization in Party Politics in The Member States of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 12. Available at: https://www. oxfordpoliticstrove.com/view/10.1093/hepl/9780198737391.001.0001/ hepl-9780198737391-chapter-14 (Access 12.01.2023).
• Tesche, T. (2022) “Pandemic Politics: The European Union in Times of the Coronavirus Emergency”, Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 60(2), pp. 480-496. DOI: 10.1111/jcms.13303.
• Tosiek, P. (2019) “The Polish Vision of EU Future: Imitation of the Hungarian Model?”, Rocznik integracji europejskiej. Vol. 13, pp. 283-293. DOI 10.14746/rie.2019.13.20.

Identifiers

DOI

10.33067/SE.1.2023.2

Biblioteka Nauki

2189672