A clean wind in Europe’s dirty corners

In four of the continent’s most corrupt countries, politics in favor of honest governance may have the upperhand.

Reuters
Supporters of the opposition candidate for Hungary's prime minister, Peter Marki-Zay, attend a rally in Budapest Oct. 10.

 When a survey last month asked people in Europe if corruption had increased over the previous year, four countries ranked among the worst: Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Yet all four now have something else in common. In October, they each saw political stirrings for clean governance or rule of law.

The most dramatic shift was in Hungary, where democracy has been eroded by a populist prime minister, Viktor Orbán. Six opposition parties have united against him and on Oct. 17 chose a small-town mayor, Péter Márki-Zay, to run in the next election. He promises to uphold the values of the European Union and support efforts to prevent the theft of EU money in Hungary. Mr. Orbán’s party is now behind in the polls.

In Austria, Chancellor Sebastian Kurz resigned Oct. 9 over new allegations that his People’s Party used government money to buy positive coverage of him in the media. In the Czech Republic, Prime Minister Andrej Babis lost badly in an election after revelations that he used undeclared wealth to buy a castle in France.

In Poland, more than 100,000 people took to the streets last weekend in protest over the ruling party’s stacking of the judiciary and a recent ruling by the constitutional ctribunal that Poland can ignore EU laws. More than 80% of Poles do not want to jeopardize the country’s EU membership. They see it as a check on political corruption.

These recent events point to another result of last month’s poll of Europeans by the watchdog group Transparency International. Nearly two-thirds say ordinary people can make a difference in the fight against corruption. That’s a mighty force for honesty and accountability in government. In October, many politicians felt that moral force.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.