‘Gypsy crime’ versus ‘political crime’

Written by Jan Mainka, Publisher

Monday, 16 February 2009

The Veszprém murder made it clear that protection rackets remain a problem in Hungary. Secondly, and more emphatically, it demonstrated that relations between ethnic Hungarians and their fellow Gypsy citizens are at breaking point.

In public debate this social tension has overshadowed the real motive for the crime – namely extorting protection money. Enraged citizens were less worked up about the state’s inability to protect its citizens from the crime than the fact that the Veszprém knife killers were “once again” Gypsies. The focus was less on their terrible act of murder, than on the climax of an escalating ethnic conflict.

“Gypsy crime” was denounced, rather than inadequate public safety. The murderers of the Veszprém handball idol Marian Cozma and their relatives earned the hatred and the thirst for revenge of the majority of society, not only because of their crime, but also because they are Gypsies. All the pent-up frustration of highly problematic daily interaction seemed suddenly to find an outlet with the new martyr figure of Cozma. The prominence and widespread popularity of the victim, as well as the brutality of the crime caused the floodgates to open. The fronts in Hungarian society have rarely been so clearly personified. On one side there was the good-hearted sportsman who came to the aid of a restaurant employee in trouble, and on the other side the three ruthless killers whose faces the whole country has now seen. In view of this clear division of roles, regard for political correctness was abandoned and the public expression of anger became uninhibited.

Political correctness

Anyone daring to make mention of racism or ethnic prejudice in the current charged atmosphere is also guilty! Carried along by the wave of anger, politicians of all colours who generally take an evasive approach, particularly in the case of the Gypsy question, have now turned their attentions to this taboo topic more conspicuously than at any other time. After all it must gradually be dawning on them that Hungary is sitting on an ethnic powder keg that could explode at any time. Again we can see how little has been done in the two decades since the change of regime to put an end to this smouldering conflict. It is increasingly clear that the billion-forint social transfers of the past years have had barely any effect, and may even have exacerbated the issue. Not to mention the ridiculous attempt to solve the Gypsy problem by using the neutral term Roma when the Gypsies in Hungary describe themselves as Gypsies. It is surely no consolation for the relatives and friends of Cozma that he was stabbed to death not by invidious Gypsies, but by Roma citizens. In any case, if the problem is not tackled at its roots, then the term “Roma” will soon also be on track for political incorrectness.

In dubio pro reo

The term “Gypsy crime” that is increasingly used in populist and fundamentalist circles similarly ignores the crux of the problem. Even in the case of statistically proven correlations between skin colour and crime rates, we should be wary of making such unfounded generalisations in the heat of the moment. Regardless of the fact that this form of prejudgement cannot be reconciled with the principles of a state based on the rule of law, this term is misleading and tendentious. Verbally it turns a more-or-less probable correlation into a certainty. It suggests that there are only two types of Gypsies: criminals and future criminals – which, fortunately, is not the case.

Speaking sweepingly of “Gypsy crime” is just as misplaced as speaking of “political crime”, instead of referring to the suspected crimes of a certain János Zuschlag or György Hunvald, to mention the two most prominent cases of the past week. Even the fact that purely statistically there is more talk of politicians in connection with corruption and embezzlement than, for example, teachers or postal officers, does not give us the right to prejudge them.

The comparison with politicians throws light on a surprising parallel: the lax handling of state funds has contributed to both groups becoming problem groups. Access to tax money was and is made too easy for these groups, whether we are speaking of social benefits in the first case, or subsidies (Zuschlag) and revenues from the sale of state assets (Hunvald) in the second case. It is said that opportunity makes a thief. In the case of the two problem groups, this consists of too easy, opaque and inadequately monitored access to funds. Members of the underclass – not only those of Gypsy origin – continue to receive excessively generous direct and indirect social benefits without sufficient controls or requirements to do anything in return (for example ensuring that children attend school or carrying out community work).

In this way, such citizens are kept quiet, but are given no preparation for playing a successful part in the labour market. Their peripheral position in society is further cemented by this form of help. Likewise, through too easy access to state funds and positions, politicians lose their motivation to improve their material situation primarily through exemplary service to their country. Expecting this situation to change itself is just as naive as waiting for a cat that until now has been comfortably fed on pet food to suddenly turn from a cuddly toy into a proper mouse hunter.

The fundamental problem is that at the expense of society a standard of living has been put in reach of both groups that is higher than can be justified by their actual contributions to society. What was morally dubious in times of reasonably sound state finances, now simply cannot be financed any more. The state can as little afford to indiscriminately throw around social benefits, as it can to satisfy all officials on the take.

The gradual reduction of funds to both groups will lead to unwanted, but unsurprising side effects. The underclass which is comparatively lacking in motivation to work and training will increasingly try to compensate for the reduction in social support in other ways, and will do so not only by entering into employment relations on the labour market which in any case is shrinking. The possibility of violent protests, similar to those of a few years ago in Slovakia, cannot be excluded. In the case of politicians the drying up of illegal additional income sources will probably result in even stronger negative selection. Increasingly incapable politicians will have to struggle with even bigger problems. There is little that a few idealists can do to change that.