As a follow-up to the highly successful public lecture of András Lánczi, the Political Science Department of Pázmány Péter Catholic University organized in March a roundtable discussion with the title "The Role of Think Tanks in politics in Hungary and Europe". As it soon became clear, all of our four guests had different intellectual backgrounds and individual approaches, resulting in a convivial and inspiring conversation.
Péter Csery started his career as an intern at Méltányosség Policy Analysis Center, whose triple slogan is 'parliamentarism, pluralism, and market economy'. Tamás Boros returned to Hungary after working as an EU and communications expert for the European Committee, and founded Policy Solutions, a professedly left wing institute. Tamás Lánczi, a 'second-generation' political scientist (son of professor András Lánczi) joined Századvég Foundation, one of the present government's main partners as a leading analyst. Ágoston Sámuel Mráz is CEO and leading analyst for the market-oriented, conservative Nézőpont Institute.
After a brief personal introduction, Zoltán Kántor asked our guests about the internal operation of their institutes. As Mráz emphasized, the profile of Nézőpont is based primarily on professional political analyses; nevertheless, its most successful activity has been the publication of public opinion polls. Lánczi presented Századvég as the largest and oldest of the think tanks which has had a broad profile from the beginning, and also the present administration relies heavily on its experts' work. Csery found it problematic that in East Central Europe, market is still relatively small, and think tanks face difficulties in finding appropraite sponsorship; however, the methodological approach of Méltányosság (a combination of the historical and the comparative approach) is in high demand. Boros, on the other hand, emphasized that Policy Solutions has good relationships with both the civil and the political sphere, and in addition to giving communications advice, it also prepares comparatve analyses for the public and for business partners as well. He also added though, that these latter analyses are never published for a wider audience. One reason is to protect the institute's own identity (not to publish material which was prepared for someone else, using the latter's special approach); the other is to safeguard the interests of their customers. In this context, Mráz also refuted the claim that the institutes form their opinions solely on their customers' initiatives, in order to communicate political messages towards the public. Lánczi affirmed that the public activity of Századvég is strictly separated from its government affiliations. Boros mentioned, however, that some public service media do practice discrimination: Policy Solutions, for example, is usually not welcome by state radio and television, which is another reason why it prefers giving communications and public policy advice to being present in the media. Csery called the academic sphere the main target of Méltányosság, emphasizing its significance as a book publisher as well.
The next question concerned the profile of the 'ideal' political analyst. Turning to the university students in the audience, Lánczi replied that good political analysts are trained 'on the field', even though it is doubtless the university that teaches how to use concepts properly and how to think in a disciplined manner. The most important thing, however, is to understand the nature of power, and this understanding, unless someone has an extraordinary sense of intuition, can only be acquired through confidential relationships with actual politicians. Mráz, on the other hand, layed stress on the knowledge of objective facts, a large part of which can only be obtained at the university. He also stressed that the other part of knowledge can be obtained through 'information brokership' in the non-public sphere, and that is why the political analyst cannot at the same time act as an investigative journalist in the public media. As a reaction, Boros distinguished between four types of analysts. The first refers to those who collect and systemize information; the second to advisors, who translate this information to the language of politics; the third to those who communicate with the public in easily accessible terms; while there is also a fourth category referring to those who are managers and analysts at the same time, leading an institute and being in contact with customers.
Csery pointed out that being an analyst is not just a job or a profession. It is rather a way of life, which requires a habitually analytical way of thinking. The reason why so few are capable of it is that in Hungary - in contrast to Western universities – those small groups and seminars where these analytical skills could be improved are still relatively rare. Lánczi, however, maintained, that in most cases, the media do not expect analysts to actually analyze, only to express political opinions. Boros agreed and added that in a country where most politicians do not even talk to each other, substantive debates between politicians have often to be replaced by debates between analysts.
In response to questions from the audience, our guests agreed that the personal advisors of professional politicians are usually not political analysts. Professional politcians are 'lonely people' who do not need experts in their inner circle; what they need is spiritual and emotianal support from persons who have their unconditional confidence. They do ask for experts' advice, of course, but it does not mean they always listen to them, since the politicians' success is based less on their professional excellence than on their personal qualities. Therefore, good political analysts do not measure their own success on the acceptance rate of their suggestions; their sole responsibility is to give the most professional advice possible.
The personal and friendly atmosphere of the discussion helped the audience to get a deeper insight into the operation of policy-analyzing institutes, and gain a better understanding of how political analysts work. All in all, it provided a closer and clearer picture of political think tanks. For political science students it proved especially heplful, since in addition to some indispensable information on institutes as employers of a large number of political scientists, it also offered further possibilities to discuss internship programs, either in a formal or in an informal way. Special thanks to our teaching assistant Viktória Ványi, our head of department Kálmán Pócza, our moderator Zoltán Kántor, and all other contributors for making this event possible.
János Makk (undergraduate, Political Science Department)
