Budapest

A referendum initiated by the opposition Fidesz party has been attracted a surprisingly high proportion of voters, around 50% of them. This was the most visited referendum since the famous ‘four yes votes’ referendum taken place in 1989 in the phase of the democratic transformation of the country.

According to the final results more than 3 million voters backed to end the fees, including an admittedly large number of left-wing supporters. Fees have been introduced by the socialist government in June 2006 following their re-election in order to decrease budget deficit, to meet the demand of the EU for consolidation, and to hit targets set by the convergence programme.

Though win in of the ‘yes’ votes has been forecasted by pre-referendum polls, a ratio of them was far above expectations (around 80%). It seemed to be common that people are not willing to pay even a small sum (around 1.2 euros) for things that has been always free before - like visiting the doctor. On the other hand, it is typical of human nature that people usually does not like paying taxes. Especially if they are obliged to pay an extra, while a large proportion of their salaries are transferred to the national health care insurance each month.

Recent opinion polls shows a support of 15 % of the government that questions the ability of the socialists to push ahead with more reforms. It still remains open, how losses of the budget could be compensated after the abolishment of the fees that has generated around 20 milliard HUF extra-income for the health insurance found during the past year, strongly contributing to the decrease of budget deficit. The Prime Minister has already announced that the fees would be abolished on 1 April 2008, but the government has no funds available to replace the income-lost. At the same time, Viktor Orbán leader of the opposition, talks about the need of government resignation and a risk of putsch against the Prime Minister. In september another referendum is expexted to be hold for the initiation of Fidesz in order to arrest liberalisation of the health care insurance system that is to be introduced from 2009 according to a bill passed in february. Economic analysts warn that from the investors point of view outcome of the referndum may risk accomplishment of srtuctural reforms and enhance political risks that might as well hold them back from bringing their money into the country.

Following the referendum two political research institutions, the Political Capital Institute and the Századvég, has initiated a public debate on the reform and rethink of the institution of referendum. They think there is a risk that the too frequent initiations of polls make the institution of referendum become a tool of parties’ campaigning. Furthermore, they have stated in their declaration that the die-hard political competition carried out in Hungary has been becoming simplified to a zero-sum game that could has ’incalculable consequences’ on the economy and society of the country.

Nowadays it’s becoming rife that commercials focus on sexuality, but it’s quite dangerous as they have the ability to confirm (or destroy!) among others the stereotype of sexual functions.

Sexist commercials can be divided into three major groups:

- the motto is: sex sells! That is to say when only harsh sexuality appears and this is the only way.

- the other type is when only a part of a female / male body appears like a simple object.

- maybe the third one is the most popular, when we can see a man or woman in a traditional (~patriarchal) position.

These advertisements make stronger the classic stereotypes and help to still exist those archaic differences between males and females (a man is also able to wash the dishes after lunch, isn’t he?). As we watch advertisements we assist to the imaginative world to seep into our life. We start to believe that personal success depends on our perfect skin, shiny hair, dazzling white theets and of course on bifidus essensis. In this way we lead up to mental problems such as anorexia and bulimia.

A woman as housewife is the former stereotype in the history of commercials: washing powders, instant soups, nappy, etc but latterly women appear as a sexual object. Blissfully we can see male stereotypes: man with beer, man in the car, man with his chums.
By the way, does anybody think why is this so simply?

If we estimate what a woman wants and what a man wants we get the answer: a man wants a woman, a woman wants a man (I’ll try to disprove the latter part of the sentence a few lines later). Making an advertisement for a man is easy: you need a pretty woman. If she’s nice, you sold your product (or service).
But for women what are the important things? Romanticism, intelligence, power, just think about… it’s more complicated than commercials for men.

Advertisement corrodes the sexual identities, it turns into a kind of fashion and the boundaries between genders get more and more blurred so the products can be sold for both genders which is a double profit. But a woman still feminine if she wears jeans, drives cars or drinks beer whereas a man immediately turns into non-masculine if he pushes the baby carriage even if he cries.
I think Marlboro Man had been left alone, today a man only can be important if he has a Coca Cola Light but a woman can be valuable on her own (just remember for the commercial with a naked topmodell or the commercial of Christina Aguilera’s parfume). So today women in advertisement not only for ornamental usage. They use the product, and actually they buy them.

Advertisements are based on codes, panels and symbols. We have max. 30 seconds for decoding and the advertiser’s interest is to let the consumer catch the message, that’s why they need symbols which are often equal with stereotypes.