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 
48 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
Figure 1 
The structure of the political field an its actors in Hungary, 1990–2002 
Social-democrat
Radical
Conservative
MIÉP
Munkáspárt
FKGP
MSZDP
KDNP
MDNP
MSZP
MDF
FIDESZ-MPP
Moderate
CENTRUM
SZDSZ
FIDESZ
Radical
Zöld Párt
Radical
Liberal
 
 
Key: Munkáspárt – Worker’s Party (former orthodox wing of the Communist Party); MSZP 
– Hungarian Socialist Party (reformer and technocrat wings of the former Communist              
Party); MSZDP – Hungarian Social-Democratic Party; SZDSZ – Free-Democratic 
Party; Zöld Párt – Green Party; FIDESZ – Young Democratic Party; FIDESZ–MPP – 
Young Democrats–Hungarian People’s Party (after 1996); MDF – Forum of Hungarian 
Democrats; MIÉP – Party of Hungarian Life and Justice (radical wing of MDF, founded 
in 1993); MDNP – Hungarian Democratic and People’s Party (former technocrats of 
MDF, founded in 1996) KDNP: Christian Democratic People’s Party; FKGP – 
Independent Party of Small-holders Centrum: Party of the Centre (electoral party-
coalition founded in 2000). 
Source: edited by the author. 
 

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 
52 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
modern liberal party, but after several changes in the top of the SZDSZ the process 
has almost finished.  
There are two other actors we have to concentrate on: the MP (Workers Party) 
with its nostalgic program “Under János Kádár (former leader of the “goulash-
communism”) everything was better”, and MIÉP with its nationalist, radical pro-
gram. The last one is more dangerous, because the majority of the people are loser 
(or not winner) of the transformation period (about two-third of the population) and 
this groups are very sensitive such a negative program. MIÉP’s program based on the 
criticism of other parties, a sharpen anti-liberal, anti-communist propaganda and 
defending the “small ones”, the Hungarian nation, the minorities outside Hungary. 
Results of the general elections in 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002 
Participation, differences between elections and the two rounds 
of a same election 
Table 1 
Participation rate in general elections (number of valid votes) 
Year 
First round 
Second round 
 
Electors (th.) 

Electors (th.) 

1990 
candidates 
4959 65.42 3410 45.44 
1990 parties 
4911 
62.91 
 
 
1994 
candidates 
5480 68.92 4189 55.12 
1994 parties 
5716 
71.88 
 
 
1998 
candidates 
4468 56.26 4510 57.01 
1998 parties 
4484 
56.38 
 
 
2002 
candidates 
5686 70.53 4424 73.51 
2002 parties 
5718 
71.03 
 
 
Source: own calculation. 
The rate of participation showed a great oscillation among different elections. It 
was a negative result, that in 1990 only two-third of voters legitimated the new 
government and parties. The wide gap between the participation between the two 
rounds resulted the success of the conservative parties, which were in leader posi-
tion after the first round in the most of districts. In 1994 election was a “protest” 
against the crisis, and the incompetence of the MDF-led coalition. There was a 
certain gap between participation in the first and second round, similar to 1990, but 
the reason was different. In 1994, after the first round people saw, that conservative 
parties loosed the elections and MSZP would be the winner, so there was no more 
 

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 

10 
21 
5.44 
SZDSZ 34 
37 
23 
94 
24.35 
FIDESZ 8 2 
12 
22 
5.70 
MSZP 14 

18 
33 
8.55 
others  

 
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 
54 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
Table 2/2 
Result of parties in general elections, 1994 
Party Party 
list 
Individual 
Compensation 
Together 
% of 
candidates 
list 
representatives 
MDF  

 
38 
9.84 
FKGP  

 
26 
6.74 
KDNP  

 
22 
5.70 
SZDSZ  
16 
 
69 
17.88 
FIDESZ  0 
 
20 
5.18 
MSZP  
147 
  209 
54.15 
others  

 

0.52 
First two 
   
278 
72.03 
parties 
 
 
 
 
Table 2/3 
Result of parties in general elections, 1998 
Party Party 
list 
Individual  Compensation  Together 
% of 
candidates 
list 
representatives 
FIDESZ 48 
90 
10 
148 
38.34 
MDF 0 
17 

17 
4.40 
FKGP 22 
12 
14 
48 
12.44 
MIÉP 3 

11 
14 
3.63 
SZDSZ 5 

17 
24 
6.22 
MSZP 50 
54 
30 
134 
34.72 
others 0 



0.25 
First two parties 
 
 
 
282 
73.06 
 
 

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 

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 
56 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
ment who had no connections with the above mentioned parties, their number were 
decreasing election to election, and in 2002 no one without a party base can get a 
mandate in spite of his/her personal qualities.  
Table 3 
Proportion of votes at party lists (percent of valid votes) 
Party 
1990 1994 1998  2002 
MDF 24.73 
11.74 
3.12 
(just with FIDESZ
SZDSZ 21.39 
19.74 
7.88 
5.56 
FKGP 11.73 
8.82 
13.78 
(0.74) 
MSZP 
10.89 32.99 32.25  42.03 
FIDESZ 8.95 
7.02 
28.18 
41.11 
(with MDF
KDNP 6.46 
7.03 
(1.52) 
(0.53) 
MIÉP – 
(1.69) 
5.55 
(4.36) 
Parties in the Parliament 
84.15 
87.34 
90.76 
88.70 
First 
two 
parties 
46.12 52.73 60.43  83.14 
(Rate of representation) 
66.84 
72.03 
73.06 
88.60 
(Differentiation in percent) 
20.72 
19.30 
12.63 
5.46 
Source: own calculation. 
It was unique, that the group of parties inside the Parliament had not been 
changed between 1990 and 1994. When social pole got about 40% of all valid 
votes, the liberal pole decreased to 22% and conservatives got only 35%, but they 
representation in the Parliament took only 27%, because of the lack of co-opera-
tion. That resulted the absolute majority of MSZP.  
In 1998 a new actor came into the Parliament, MIÉP, the former nationalist and 
radical wing of MDF, and this was the time of great change in structure of parties. 
Christian democrats leave the Parliament; MDF was able to create a fraction only 
with the help of FIDESZ (if we see only the party list results, MDF had to move 
out of Parliament, too) in individual districts. SZDSZ and the liberal pole 
weakened, and, in parallel, the populist agrarian party FKGP became the third 
largest fraction, in a crucial position, they were the “king-makers”. There was a 
deal among the other parties in the Parliament, that MIÉP and its nationalist and 
sometimes racist rhetoric and program was not European, so the party was “in 
quarantine” for four years, after the elections, in spite of their own actions to 
support conservative side and the government. In the last two years (2000–2002) 
there were some attempts to form out a new, conservative party, or coalition, with a 
moderate, technocrat program, while FIDESZ moved towards the right wing 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… 
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 
58 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
The overall activity rate in 1998 was dramatically decreased comparing to 1994. 
This process and the changing gap between the most and less active counties (into 
14.8%) resulted, that there were unsuccessful party lists in two counties (Szabolcs-
Szatmár-Bereg and Hajdú-Bihar) in the first round of election. While the group of 
actives was stable, a new actor became the most passive in the second round (Jász-
Nagykun-Szolnok). In the second round the rate of activity was increasing in the 
majority of counties (except the capital city), and the movement was the largest in 
the above-mentioned unsuccessful counties (+6 and +9%). So the gap between the 
active and passive counties decreased significantly between the two rounds.  
Figure 2 
2002. 1st round – Participation 
 
Source: edited by the author. 
 

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 
62 GÁBOR 
NAGY 
preference zone particularly in the Great Plain and South Transdanubia. The only 
result for the conservative parties was the success in Hajdú-Bihar County, which 
was in a transition position between the two main preference zones (Figure 4). 
SZDSZ stabilised its positions in Budapest and Pest County, but its preferences in 
the countryside became weaker comparing to 1998 (Figure 4). 
Figure 4 
2002. Leading parties after the 1st round 
 
Source: edited by the author. 
Some smaller parties, as MIÉP and Centrum found their main preference basis 
in and around the capital city, and in the last case in some counties when the “em-
blematic figures” of the party leaded the party lists (Somogy, Csongrád, Borsod-
Abaúj-Zemplén, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg). MP had and has special preference 
region. It concentrates on the main industrial areas of the country, but mainly in the 
loser counties of the transformation period. Seeing the voters of MP we can say, 
that this protest attitude of the leaders and voters of the party is never enough for 
participating in the Parliament forming a fraction. 
 

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).