Yet another input relevant to the, shall I say phenomenon of east European homophobia, this time in relation to Hungary. The most energetic throwers of eggs and bottles during the gay pride in Budapest this year were supporters of Jobbik, a far-right political party. They are well know for the anti-semitic and homophobic rethoric, and recently celebrated the creation of its very own paramilitary wing, set up “in order to carry out the real change of regime and rescue the Hungarian people.” Not quite moving with the times there.
In a recent article an Hungarian sociology professor expresses his regrets about the developments and says that Hungarian democracy, being as young as it is, “still needs to be developed rather than challenged.” It made me think, who has ever said that development and challenge are mutually exclusive in relation to democracy? Isn’t the latter often a way for the former to happen in the first place? Especially in the case of Hungary, where the political situation is relatively favorable to democratic and tolerant trends. Specifically in regards to the issue of gay rights versus homophobia, a law legalising same sex marriage, for example, is in its draft stage. Look a few borders north-east, to Latvia, where the same law was taken off the agenda in December last year. Moreover, Hungary has two established politicians who are officially gay, and a prime minister who publically condemned the attack on the pride.
Political extremism and intolerance is never good news, but if the alterantive is good enough, the contrast could work in favor of democracy, tolerance, even civic participation. It’s more likely that people have opinions when there is something to have opinions about. And people often find it easier to define what they want when they know what they don’t want. It might be wrong of me to think that this is the case for Hungary. But you get the idea.
I recently read an interesting essay which speculated around the links between the hostile outburst of homophobia in Latvia, and the Soviet past. These are presumably links which have been drawn before, and they may be terribly far-fetched and despicably generalizing. But for me, being quite new to all this, it made for a very good read. The best thing about it was that it offered some relief primarily because, in my interpretation at least, it called for patience. First and foremost, the author stated, the ex-communist countries have a long tradition of applying one truth, and one truth only. Furthermore, they rather missed out on the sexual revolution in the 1960’s; no wonder they are not embracing public homosexuality, the essay argued.
I’ve just been given an opportunity to have a look into a Lithuanian LGBT organization and I’m already wondering if I wouldn’t be overwhelmed with impatience if I was actually working here. I keep looking at it from the broad perspective. How does a small NGO, whose survival depends on constantly adapting their project proposals to limited funding opportunities, tackle issues which in this environment are genuinely hardcore? This little office, hidden away in a square, employing but a handful of people can hardly scratch the beast, can it?
It is therefore a relief to read about the time factor. I thought of it myself. However much the Polish and Baltic youngsters I came across back in London sighed and shock their heads over the homophobic trends in their home countries, they most often concluded with something indicating that it doesn’t really apply to young people. That’s always something. The older generation will, after all, eventually die out.
That way, it is easier to praise the indisputable symbolical value of the organization I work for. They’re working on becoming more known, maybe first and foremost to other gay people, so that the latter at least know that there is something out there, on their side, maybe even to offer direct support. And maybe, for now, it is of secondary importance what they actually achieve practically. Most of the money they receive seems to go to networking with organizations in other countries. Hundreds of euros spent on traveling, accommodation and food for people whose minds already are wide open; how does that change the Lithuanian public?
I find myself thinking in terms of practical and concrete measures. Or at least conduct a survey based on real people, and make recommendations. Maybe research is more my field. I find these issues endlessly interesting, especially so in the east European context and I know that the NGO sector has played and will continue playing a crucial role in advancing these kinds of issues. But when it comes to actually taking measures, it tends to always seem insufficient.
