University Youth Activism in the Hungarian Illiberal Political Context – a Comparison of the 2012-13 Student Network Protests and the 2020 Freeszfe University Blockade

Under long-lasting illiberal governance, like the post-2010 Orbán regime in Hungary, instrumentalizing law for political purposes, capturing judicial institutions, active civil society and autonomous universities nurturing critical thinking and a politically plural society are preconditions to maintaining the rule of law and public demands of justice. The paper, based on qualitative, interview-based research, explores the identity and operation of two university student movements, the Student Network (Hallgatói Hálózat, HaHa, 2012–13) and the FreeSZFE (SZFE: Színház- és Filmművészeti Egyetem, University of Theatre and Film Arts, 2020) aimed at the defense of university autonomy as opposed to illiberal governmental measures. In 2013, following a mass demonstration in downtown Budapest, the protesting crowd led by the HaHa marched to the building of the ELTE Faculty of Humanities and occupied it. For 45 days, they stayed in one of the lecture halls, which provided the base for forums of democratic debate and the preparation of protests, flash mobs, and other collective demonstrative acts. This university blockade-kind of action was a predecessor to the more radical university blockade of the FreeSZFE movement. The 2020 blockade of the central building of the University of Theatre and Film Arts lasted for 71 days, until November 9, 2020, when the government closed the university buildings due to the COVID pandemic, which decision the protesters complied with based on public health considerations. Both movements addressed illiberal governmental policies in higher education but were also embedded in a political context of civil society’s struggle to challenge democratic decay through collective protest actions. I compare the two movements from the following perspectives: (1) structure and forms of organization, (2) protest actions, (3) motivations of movement members, (4) governmental responses, including the marginalizing techniques applied by government-dependent media outlets, (5) impact on governmental policies and society.