Gábor Gavra: Dear viewers, welcome to the “ÖT” YouTube channel. I’m Gábor Gavra, and this is our show called “Ring”. Before I introduce today’s guest, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Over the past four months, Ring’s guests have included János Lázár, Gergely Karácsony, Balázs Orbán, Péter Márki-Zay, Klára Dobrev, and – most recently – László Toroczkai. Now we welcome Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, as our guest. And of course on Ring we’ll also be glad to welcome Péter Magyar, president of the Tisza Party. Today on Ring my colleague András Hont and I will be asking the questions. András has already interviewed Viktor Orbán in another programme on the same channel. András, please ask the first question.
Good afternoon.
András Hont: Good afternoon. Basically, we’ll be talking about what was said at Kötcse and the situation that’s emerged after that – if there is one. We’ll start right at the end, at the end of that speech. There you said, “from now on everyone really needs to do everything they can, and those who know me know that I’m not someone who threatens or acts aggressively.” Aren’t you?
No I’m not.
András Hont: “But believe me, nothing will be forgotten. Everything will be noted, and everything will be dealt with.” Who was this addressed to?
Gábor Gavra: It’s often said that the part before the “but” isn’t important.
András Hont: Yes.
Yes, but if we jump to the sentence before that quote, everything immediately becomes clear.
András Hont: “Everything must be subordinated to our shared victory.”
That’s what it means. We won’t forget those who don’t subordinate everything, who don’t subordinate everything to the shared victory.
András Hont: Because many have interpreted this as a threat to your opponents. I read it more as a message directed internally.
The beauty of political communication, like literature, is that it’s difficult for the listener to identify what the author meant. But the text is self-explanatory: basically, it says that those who don’t subordinate all their resources, energy, behaviour and actions to the shared victory should expect that we won’t forget it.
András Hont: Is there such a thing within Fidesz?
Of course, there is in every party. I’ve never seen a community where everyone is 100 per cent committed to the common goals.
Gábor Gavra: But before previous elections we haven’t heard you say something like this – at least in public.
I’ve said even harsher things.
Gábor Gavra: Internally. In Kötcse? Because it was behind closed doors?
Yes, yes, because – how should I put it? – I didn’t want to make a big announcement about it, but since this time it was open, well…
Gábor Gavra: Péter Magyar’s explanation of these words, like yours, is that you were speaking to people internally. But unlike you he says that it’s due to a rebellion or palace revolution within Fidesz…
Indeed.
Gábor Gavra: …and you want to put things in order. Is there a clear dividing line between a palace revolution and a demotivated base or demotivated cadres, so to speak?
I wouldn’t say that our people are demotivated – or that our cadres are demotivated, as you’ve put it. But what I wanted to say is that there’s a period in every campaign when you can be funny, and maybe even get away with a few pranks – or at least it’s considered a forgivable sin. But there’s a stage in every match, including election campaigns, where you can no longer joke around, because at that point any mistake you make is irreparable. Now we’ve entered that phase, and it’s good for everyone to be aware of that. That’s all I wanted to say, nothing more.
Gábor Gavra: Perhaps the reason that quite a few people understood it to be directed outwardly – or outwardly as well – is that in 2018, at the Peace March on 15 March, you said that after the election you’d seek amends, political and legal amends. Did anything come of that? Or…
I think perhaps it did. The word “amends” sounds strong in Hungarian, but if…
Gábor Gavra: And what was that?
…we look at it in an Esterházy [strictly formal] way, as it’s written, then it’s a fair expression, isn’t it? So “amends” means that you won’t be any harsher than they were to you. Or it means “what goes around comes around” – nothing more. I have a law degree, after all. I remember being surprised when in my first year they explained that the principle of talion – “an eye for an eye” – is a civilisational achievement. One might think it’s barbaric, but in fact it’s not. Because if it’s an eye for an eye, it means you can’t take two eyes for one. In this sense, “amends” is a fairly accurate term, because everyone knows that what goes around comes around. At the same time, if it turns into revenge, then I don’t think that’s good. I think there’s a difference between amends and revenge. The problem with revenge is that it’s backward-looking. So you’re dealing with something that’s already happened. Meanwhile, you’ve won an election, and you should be dealing with what lies ahead. And revenge turns your head, your attention, your thoughts, backwards. That’s why it’s not a good idea to start the period after an election victory with revenge. That’s why, if I’m not mistaken, the amends, even if there were any, weren’t very memorable. What’s more, there’s a Chinese proverb that says...
Gábor Gavra: You took away, or took back, Hír TV from Lajos Simicska, and a purge took place there.
We didn’t take anything from anyone. That’s not our way. There are interest groups within the Right, and they settled that among themselves, without involving politics.
András Hont: If the situation develops in this way, is such a reshuffle conceivable after the April election?
There’s a reshuffle after every election. Elections are important moments in the life of a nation or a community. They don’t exist so that we can pretend that nothing’s happened. After an election we need to take stock, learn lessons and draw conclusions. Therefore one shouldn’t waste the opportunity represented by an election, which is a turning point. It’s then that we have to deal with certain things, talk honestly with one another about who did what, who did what we expected of them. Nothing’s forgotten, we have to bring things up, or settle them among ourselves one way or another: either forgive one another, apologise, or part ways. So that’s how it is after an election. What’s more, after a Hungarian election, if you win, especially if I form a government, there will be another difficulty. Because I don’t usually form a new government based on past merits, but I try to put together its structure and its members from the point of view of what we expect – not from the Government, but from the country: what kind of period the next four years will be, and what kind of government structure will be needed for that. Of course people aren’t interested in this, because politics is about politics, but if you look at how many different structures I’ve tried since 1998, with one turning out this way, another that way, and a third another way, they were all different. The number of ministries has ranged between 14 and 8, depending on whether there was a “superministry” or not. It all depended on what I thought, what as a result of our discussions together we thought about the kind of challenges we’d face in the following four years and how the Government could respond to them effectively. This also shows what a luxury it is – to use that common expression – to have lived our lives for so long without having any of the constraints of a coalition. In the constrained situation of a coalition you cannot form your government with the future in mind, but you have to keep internal tensions under control, because you’re not alone in the governmental wheelhouse. Apart from me I don’t think there’s a single prime minister in Europe today who can afford the luxury of thinking about the next government and seeking to derive the government structure and ministerial leaders solely from the challenges facing the country. I think this is one of the great advantages of Hungarian politics.
András Hont: Well, since we’ve mentioned the Government or governance, the announcement in Kötcse, the part that’s triggered political action, was the call for a national consultation. We had doubts about this, not yet about its content – because we’ll talk separately about taxes, the economy and other issues – but only about the role of the Government.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, national consultations have been organised by the Government – at least since 2010. Before that, consultations were held by Fidesz as an opposition party. That was how László Sólyom became Fidesz’s nominee for President of the Republic in 2005.
Indeed
Gábor Gavra: But the thing is, I don’t think the Government needs to be so harsh on the largest opposition party. We can say that it’s organising a consultation to discredit Fidesz’s only potential challenger – obviously using a lot of public money.
That shouldn’t be done – I agree with that. So the consultation questions must be formulated in such a way that they’re fair. And they must comply with the legislation in force.
Gábor Gavra: And wouldn’t it fairer for the Government not to intervene in this election campaign?
Because what you’re saying goes beyond the scope of existing legislation. So, in my opinion, it’s not legally possible for one party – say a governing party – to organise a consultation on a proposal made by one of the opposition parties. It’s possible to organise a consultation on the question of how many tax brackets there should be, whether it should be this way or that way. But the lawyers are already working on it – and I can see the beads of sweat on their foreheads as they try to figure out how to phrase it in a way that stays within the bounds of the law and political good taste.
András Hont: But that’s favourable to Fidesz.
Well, we don’t usually work against ourselves.
András Hont: But Gábor’s question was probing this: that you don’t usually work against yourselves. But still, it’s public money, and organised by the Government so that it’s good for Fidesz in the election...
Gábor Gavra: Good for Fidesz, and obviously bad for the Tisza Party.
Right, but this is inevitable in the sense that I get in my car and go to a political rally. I sit in a government car, a government vehicle. The opposition doesn’t. So what I’m saying is that there are consequences, advantages and disadvantages on both sides in the opposition–governing party situation. It’s impossible to imagine a situation in which being in the ruling party has only advantages or only disadvantages, and the opposition only has advantages. It is what it is. When I led the opposition, for example, when I led the Hungarian opposition for sixteen years, I had to fight with the leader of the ruling party as a challenger. At that time there was an imbalance. Here it’s the degree that’s important.
Gábor Gavra: You all took this badly. I remember it was because…
People don’t like it, but there are laws that set the rules, and there’s a political culture that allows this to be acceptable – but not to the point of excess. I think what’s important is the degree.
András Hont: Incidentally, there are laws that a government with a two-thirds parliamentary majority can change in certain circumstances.
Yes, but if we look at how the rules governing competition between parties in Hungary have changed under Fidesz’s two-thirds majority, then I think – and of course I can’t recall every change in legislation – that overall it was fair.
Gábor Gavra: Incidentally, this is at least my third interview today on this subject: I spoke earlier with András Schiffer, Dániel Deák, and Gábor Horn about this. András – András Schiffer – said that in his opinion if this consultation actually goes ahead, it will be the most serious transgression in government communications, government propaganda, since 2010 – and perhaps the most serious ever. Gábor Horn called it outright election fraud, because in the election campaign the Government will be contributing money – taxpayers’ money – obviously on the side of Fidesz, and obviously against Tisza.
Well, this also shows that great knowledge is a great problem. So intelligence doesn’t always serve people well, because it often happens that intelligent people, like those you’ve mentioned, jump to conclusions. Calm down. It’s only worth making such serious accusations when you’ve seen the questions, when you’ve seen the consultation. To me, saying such harsh things about unknown national consultation questions indicates a certain intellectual arrogance. Even without knowing the subject of my examination, I’ve already been given my examination result; this is why I think this goes beyond the bounds of civic culture.
András Hont: Okay, fine, if we’re on the subject of accusations, Let’s deal with something that’s been stirring up the public lately. Because in this interview obviously we want to ask everything that people will later say I didn’t ask or we didn’t ask.
That’s unavoidable, dear András.
András Hont: Yes. So, Hatvanpuszta. This is a sensitive issue at the moment, and it was already something like that when we last spoke here. But a lot has happened since then. You’ve tried to elegantly brush it off by saying that you don’t know what’s going on there, you don’t know exactly what it’s about, and it’s your father’s estate.
That’s not what I’m saying, that’s not what I’m saying.
András Hont: Then what?
Well, that it’s nothing to do with me. That’s not the same thing.
Gábor Gavra: When you gave an interview to my colleague Hont here on ÖT, there was talk about the increase in wealth of Lőrinc Mészáros, István Tiborcz, and – at greater length – Ádám Matolcsy. And a few weeks ago you spoke with my friend Tamás Király on Ultrahang. Tamás brought up Hatvanpuszta, and in your response you said that the farm owned by your father is a complex of buildings – which, let’s face it, is an impressive complex of buildings. Your opponents’ criticisms are that it’s a mansion-like complex worth approximately 6 billion forints. Without taking a position on whether you’re telling the truth or your opponents are right about this, Hatvanpuszta is either a half-finished farm belonging to your father, or a mansion-like investment worth 6 billion forints. Wouldn’t it be easier to open it up to the public and show what’s there?
Well, I’m happy to show what’s mine. Journalists are often in Felcsút, and sometimes they’re in front of my house in Buda. Of course, my life’s an open book and I’ve made a declaration of assets. But I’m not responsible for what’s not mine, what doesn’t belong to me – I don’t show it, because it’s not mine. Quite simply, I have nothing to do with it, as I said earlier.
András Hont: In Kötcse you spoke about...
If what you mean by your question is that the whole thing is unpleasant, I don’t find it unpleasant at all.
András Hont: In Kötcse you spoke about...
What I mean is that it’s because my tolerance threshold and my standards are probably different from yours. So in my opinion, this thing in Hatvanpuszta is basically political propaganda, which is nowhere near what I have been through many times before. Sorry, but this is like a light afternoon tea.
András Hont: Soon what I’m going to ask won’t be so light...
Sorry, what I want to say is that sometime after 2010 – I don’t know which campaign it preceded, but it’s like this before every election – the whole country was plastered with pictures of me in prison clothes, sitting behind bars. So compared to that, whether my father has a farm and what it’s like is just an afternoon tea.
Gábor Gavra: That was Jobbik’s campaign back then...
I don’t remember who it was, but I just remember that I was walking along with my children, and they asked me why I was plastered all over the place on billboards. Well anyway, this whole thing, which seems like it’s a big deal to you, is part of my everyday life.
András Hont: Believe me, there are parts of our everyday lives that others wouldn’t willingly take on.
But I’m winning that match.
András Hont: You’re probably right about that. However, in Kötcse you mentioned your wife several times, as it was your wedding anniversary the day before you were there.
I mentioned her twice, yes.
András Hont: Yes. And when it comes to Hatvanpuszta, people often bring up your wife, Anikó Lévai. Is it true that she’s in charge there, that she has some kind of influence – or isn’t that true?
When my father asks her for something, obviously she helps him. But otherwise, I’ll say it again, it’s a farm, and it always has been. It was established around 1823 or 1825, 200 years ago – it was always a farm, and it still is today. I’d like to see it completed one day, and I hope that will happen this year, that my father will finally manage to put it into operation and start farming there, and I hope he’ll be successful in that.
Gábor Gavra: There was a seemingly dangerous incident involving Hatvanpuszta: a car chase that, according to Ákos Hadházy, took place between him and security guards at Hatvanpuszta. And of course, you can say that this has nothing to do with you.
Bingo!
…but okay, not just because of that. Don’t you think it’s dangerous that the security guards for your father’s property are putting at risk their physical safety and that of an elected Member of Parliament? And I don’t think that here I’m going any further than what...
I think Ákos Hadházy owes me a debt of gratitude – because he lives off me, I’m supporting him. If it weren’t for me, he wouldn’t have a political career. For very many years he’s been living off his attempts to catch me out in all sorts of situations. That’s what he lives off, that’s what gives him publicity, that’s what creates opportunities for him; to the point where he goes onto land that belongs to someone else, in this case my father – which isn’t the most commendable habit. So I don’t know what else to add, except that Ákos Hadházy can thank me for giving him a chance to...
András Hont: Indeed, to such an extent that the relationship…
…stay alive as a politician. Because if someone suddenly had to say something about what he’s actually achieved, what he’s done, then we wouldn’t really be able to think of anything – apart from unsuccessfully snooping around after me.
What’s more, the relationship’s an old one – I mean the relationship between Ákos Hadházy and you.
I think he was a member of Fidesz, wasn’t he?
András Hont: That’s right. He was a local council member in Szekszárd from 2006. And two years ago one of your main persecutors now – the most prominent opposition party leader – was applauding you from the front row at Tusnádfürdő...
Everywhere I appeared, to be precise.
András Hont: Yes, the main...
I have some great quotes from that period about how well we were governing – I mean, said by the current leader of the Tisza Party.
András Hont: You mean what he said to you personally?
No, that he said publicly, like, “It’s never been so good for young people...”
András Hont: I know, I quoted that once, it appeared in an interview with him in Magyar Nemzet, and at first I posted it without any context, so I didn’t say who said it. The commenters told me to go to hell, but then I revealed that it was the man they’d voted for a week earlier. Anyway, yes, that was it. But I thought that something...
But Fidesz is one big incubator. If we now remove ourselves from the dimension of the daily hurley-burley, we’re talking about a fantastic success story, aren’t we? After all, a few years before the fall of communism, in the mid-1980s, some young people got together, inspired other young people, and said that now there would be a future different from that which had been planned for us, and that we’d topple what we call communism. The Russians would go home, or we’d send them home, the Soviet Union would end, and there would be a different world. And we said, “We must have a place in this, an opportunity. Come on, let’s do it!” We called on a lot of people, and from then on – let’s say from 1988, when Fidesz was formed – to the present day, thousands of people have had the opportunity to do something for the community. If one wanted to build a modest career, one could even do that. I think Fidesz is a fantastic success story. From time to time people left us – obviously they think that we left them – and they continued their political careers elsewhere. To give you the first example, Gábor Fodor went on to be a minister in an SZDSZ–MSZP government. So Fidesz is a big incubator. And overall – setting aside problems of betrayal and disloyalty, let’s put those aside for now, and just look at it as a social phenomenon – I think that It’s a big deal that for more than thirty-one years there’s been an organisation that’s continuously brought young people into public life. I think that even though we’ve now come into confrontation with some former Fidesz members, the process I’m talking about is still a great one. I thought Momentum would repeat this. When Momentum was formed, I thought it was a possibility that those guys would do this…
Gábor Gavra: Gábor Törők said that he saw a young Viktor Orbán in [the former Momentum leader] András Fekete-Győr.
Well yes… I can’t now say personally, but…
Gábor Gavra: He saw that.
…but it seemed that a historical era was at an end, young people were arriving, and Momentum could bring them into public life. And that would be good, we could discuss what needed to be discussed. But then that opportunity was lost. And it hasn’t emerged again since. So Fidesz is the last big, real incubator and launch pad.
Gábor Gavra: I think we can bring the Hatvanpuszta question to a close, but there’s been a recent development. We’re recording this on Tuesday in the early evening, late afternoon, and viewers will be able to see this interview on Wednesday morning. On the day of recording, there’s been news that Ákos Hadházy, whom both of you mentioned – and indeed I did too – is filing a complaint in the Hatvanpuszta case because of two historic stables that he claims have been destroyed. Is the Prime Minister absolutely certain that the Hatvanpuszta construction project has been carried out in full compliance with the law?
Only the person who did it can answer that. If I were to answer that question in any way, I’d be admitting that I know the details. But I’ll repeat myself once again: apart from the fact that I sustain Ákos Hadházy through my very existence, I have nothing to do with this whole affair.
András Hont: Okay, let’s talk a little more broadly, and not just about Hatvanpuszta. A lot of people have acquired serious real estate assets over the past fifteen years.
And other kinds of assets too.
András Hont: And other kinds of assets too. Unfolding around us is not what I’d call a political dialogue, but a series of monologues. Our friend András Schiffer, whom I mentioned earlier, said that since the NER – the System of National Cooperation – began its operations in 2010 with the imposition of special taxes...
It didn’t start that way, but it continued that way, yes. Although actually we imposed a bank tax at the beginning, yes.
András Hont: Yes. And the...
But that came later. Retail, energy...
András Hont: No, the tax on telecommunication companies was in the autumn of 2010.
Okay! But…
Gábor Gavra: There were severance packages...
…later. So – how should I put it? – the broader policy of accepting or implementing special taxes was something that was imposed later, but there really was such a thing.
András Hont: But András [Schiffer] says that the political poison could be drawn from this issue if a neutral, non-punitive special sectoral tax were imposed on those who have become spectacularly wealthy – he was referring specifically to real estate assets. This is relevant to our conversation in that the Hungarian tax system was a particularly prominent element of your speech, in which you discussed what distinguishes Hungarian taxation and types of taxes from those in Western Europe and the EU in general. And if we interpret correctly from small signs – such as the multi-billion national consultation – this will be a central element in the coming period.
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves with talk of a multi-billion consultation, András – let’s wait and see how much it will cost, we don’t know.
András Hont: Okay, fine, all right. We don’t know how much...
Gábor Gavra: If it’s free, I mean for the taxpayers, then we’ll issue a correction.
Taxpayers will definitely get as much information as their money pays for, that’s guaranteed.
András Hont: I see.
Gábor Gavra: Okay.
I mean through the consultation.
András Hont: Returning to the sectoral special tax, would this be a viable option or not?
I’m not in favour of any tax increases. That’s my starting point. But this is a different issue from what’s happened to us over the past thirty-five years, because ultimately that’s what we’re talking about: that there was a...
András Hont: Well, I was only talking about fifteen, but we can extend it to thirty-five.
Yes, but if someone actually looks at, say, a more serious economic analysis and checks where the capital groups that exist in Hungary today come from, what their origins are, and then tries to link them to political periods, they’ll find a 50–50 split. That’s my opinion.
Gábor Gavra: So half are Fidesz or close to the Government, or...
No, no, it’s about where it comes from, from which period. Because we’re talking about thirty-five years. We’re talking about a Hungary that had a nationalised economy. Of course, certain leaders and people in prominent positions were able to acquire some serious private property through various tricks, but it wasn’t a society based on private property. And from there we moved to a market economy, an economy based on private property, and the economy began to function in a way not organised by the state. Now we can see the results of this. There are poor people, there’s a middle class, there are rich people, there are capital assets, there are companies, there are private individuals who make major economic decisions, who set up factories or close them down, and so on. So a different world has been created. Now, some people are irritated by this, while others say, “Well, in the end isn’t this what we wanted? For something like this to happen?” Now, there’s something in this that we don’t like, of course, there are shady dealings in it, and perhaps I can acknowledge that too. But I cannot accept that this is exclusively a phenomenon on the Right or one that’s linked to our government, because these thirty-five years as a whole should be viewed as a single process. I don’t want to name any affiliations on the Left or capitalist groups and families that rose to prominence during the period of leftist government, because that’s how Mr. Hadházy makes his living, not me. But this is what we’re faced with. The question is how we relate to this. Do we want to impose some kind of wealth tax, or tax, or I don’t know what, as a result of what we see? I’d caution against that.
Gábor Gavra: The question here, and for example Fidesz, when say you and Lajos Simicska had a falling out, or disagreed…
I am not aware of anything like that. Really?
Gábor Gavra: Two…
I don’t fall out with anyone.
András Hont: What you literally said about Lajos Simicska was that it’s unfortunate that a person can sink so low.
Yes, but…
András Hont: I wouldn’t call that praise.
Yes, but a falling out is when you’re there, isn’t it? I’ve never… There are very few people I’ve fallen out with in my whole life. Because very often I just get up and leave the situation. Why would I go looking for trouble? So it’s not easy to fall out with me – that’s all I’m saying.
Gábor Gavra: I think politicians call this “lawyerspeak”: it wasn’t a falling out that happened between you and Lajos Simicska, but something else.
A breakup. Let’s call it a breakup.
Gábor Gavra: A breakup.
András Hont: Have you spoken to each other since then?
A cooling in relations. We’re talking about something from school days.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, indeed high school days.
Of course, because we went to high school in Székesfehérvár, yes. We weren’t classmates, because Lajos was maybe two years above me. And he was in the D class, while I was in the B class. The B class was for those studying English, while the D class was for general studies – maybe that’s how one should put it. But we went to Vidi [Székesfehérvár FC] matches together, and I learned a lot from Lajos. In fact there was a period when we prepared for the university entrance exam together. He’d just had a motorcycle accident, and I visited him regularly, and we went over the history topics needed for the law school entrance exam. So, yes, that was an old relationship from school days. I don’t want to spoil or deny it, nor do I want to change it – no matter what happened afterwards. I don’t want to rewrite it, because it was a very beautiful period in my life – not because of Lajos, but because in general, when you’re 18, you accumulate a lot of good things. Then things turned out the way they did. Lajos was a very successful entrepreneur, I think, and a capital owner during the period we’re now talking about, the last thirty-odd years…
András Hont: This is the digressive part of the conversation, which is natural, because that’s how conversations are. But Lajos Simicska...
We can’t stand still.
András Hont: No, that’s true. And Lajos Simicska came up almost by accident. But as he’s come up, I’ll ask you this: haven’t you spoken to each other since then?
No, we haven’t.
Gábor Gavra: Okay. So, when the breakup happened…
Right, what I want to say is that of course we’d only end up ruining things. Most of it was a good story.
Gábor Gavra: You aren’t speaking to each other, and that’s that.
If we started talking, it would be bad for everyone. In such situations one has to drop the whole thing.
Gábor Gavra: Okay, I think we can move on from the fact that Viktor Orbán and Lajos Simicska haven’t spoken since 2015. However, between 2015 and 2018, when Lajos Simicska said that he was backing Jobbik in Hungarian politics and taking a stand against you, you were very sensitive to the fact that Jobbik was, so to speak, Lajos Simicska’s mercenary. This raises a question, which we also talked about with András Schiffer. As a leftist, obviously he’s especially sensitive to what the proper distance is between a politician and a major owner of capital.
It’s an important question.
Gábor Gavra: I also think it’s an important question. On the evening we’re recording this, and before our viewers see this, the Hungary–Portugal match will be played. But last week you flew to the Ireland–Hungary match on Sándor Csányi’s private jet.
I went at the invitation of the President of the Hungarian Football Federation [MLSZ], on the President’s plane and in his company – as I always do.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, the Government Information Centre also said that everything went in accordance with standard practice.
There was a big debate in the Hungarian parliament about whether it’s right for a prime minister to do this or not. And a committee debated it fully…
Gábor Gavra: That’s exactly what we’d bring up.
Yes. But the committee decided that it was okay. So I’m doing what I’m doing with the approval of the Hungarian parliament.
Gábor Gavra: When you’re invited to a match by the President of the MLSZ, Mr. Csányi, who’s also one of the richest Hungarians...
Yes?
Gábor Gavra: Indeed, he invites the Prime Minister.
András Hont: One of the two richest.
Gábor Gavra: Does this mean that Mr. Csányi is paying for it, or is the Prime Minister contributing?
In such a case my trip is paid for by the Hungarian state, because I’m going at the invitation of the MLSZ, and the Hungarian government pays the MLSZ for this – the MLSZ, I think. That’s how it works. This is because this was the conclusion after Parliament fully debated this as a major issue and made a decision on how to handle such situations. So this is how things are, because I’m complying with what Parliament has decided.
Gábor Gavra: This is the distance…
But the truth is that I paid some of it because I lost at cards in the last game of Ultimó. Usually there’s a game of Ulti, and on my way home I lost.
Gábor Gavra: Okay, but in this case, this distance between the Prime Minister of Hungary and one of the richest Hungarians – who’s also the President of the Hungarian Football Federation – may well comply with the law, but does it also comply with the personal taste of Viktor Orbán, who calls himself a plebeian?
Of course. There’s some kind of misunderstanding here. Every prime minister personally knows every wealthy person in their country. There may be a threshold above which this isn’t possible: for example, the President of the United States may not know every wealthy American – but obviously he’d like to. It’s inevitable. So when we talk about “distance”, that doesn’t mean we don’t know each other, that we act as if we don’t know each other, that we don’t play cards together, that we don’t watch a game together, that we haven’t grown up in the same village, that we didn’t go to the same high school. So anyone who wants to pretend that is a fool. There’s a natural order to life. I think I know all the major Hungarian owners of capital. I know who they are.
Gábor Gavra: Me too.
I know them personally. But what we’re talking about is that when capital and major owners of capital do business, they’re focused on their own profits. That’s why they’re businesspeople. When I make economic policy, I look at how best to serve the public interest, the common good, the collective interests of all Hungarians. They’re in business, I’m in economic policy. And I never deal with business. I’m not willing to discuss with anyone anything that has to do with how to make money out of something. You can talk to me about taxes, economic policy and development – those are matters of economic policy. But you can’t do business with me. No one has ever succeeded in doing so, and no one ever will.
András Hont: Well, now they won something at cards.
And I lost.
Gábor Gavra: And how much can independence in political decisions be safeguarded from the major owners of capital, when you’re so often in the same space as them?
Let’s look at a specific case. If you look at the history of OTP Bank, you’ll see that I’ve made many decisions – and many government decisions were made which I myself supported – that helped Hungarian banks. But I’ve also made decisions that didn’t help them, because I scalped them or taxed them.
András Hont: In Kötcse you also mentioned transaction charges.
Right. Take the banking tax, for example. Now you can imagine that Sándor Csányi isn’t exactly jumping for joy about the bank tax. Or if we look at OTP’s annual report, he always tells me, “Dear Viktor, if you look at it, you can see that this bank makes its profits abroad, because here at home you’re taxing us to death.” But even so, the bank tax has to be paid – whether or not I sit in the same space as him. This is why I say that you can talk to me about economic policy, but no one has ever done business with me, and no one ever will. Because I’m sensitive about independence and, horribile dictu, integrity – which, incidentally, is the essence of this government.
András Hont: Okay.
We’re incorruptible, we’re unwavering, and sometimes we may even be stubborn – because no matter how much money is at stake, or who’s sitting where, in certain matters we won’t yield. Economic policy as a whole must serve the interests of the Hungarian community, and there can be no exceptions or advantages based on favouritism. This applies to everyone.
András Hont: I’d much rather talk about taxes and...
This is very important, and the question, that’s where we started from, and how we relate to it...
Gábor Gavra: How political independence can be ensured.
And in general, the fact that there are such large fortunes now – that’s what we started talking about. There are huge fortunes, and in a system of private ownership there always are. I think that the personal independence and integrity of politics and the Prime Minister – which I believe is a prerequisite for the independence and integrity of the country – can only be ensured in the way that I’m doing it.
András Hont: I see. I wanted to start my own question with an explanation, saying that I’d much rather talk about structural issues...
Gábor Gavra: After all, that’s how we started.
András Hont:...such as the situation of Hungarians. But no, with a sentence like that it’s simply that stories from more than twenty years ago come to mind. I understand that we can’t talk about business, but then how should we interpret this sentence, for example? “Let’s not be the ones gaining the most,” This is, of course, the Tokaj affair, which happened some twenty-odd years ago…
You know, this refers to the dilemma that if the Prime Minister owns or co-owns some property, some agricultural property, then he’s entitled to certain agricultural subsidies – land-based subsidies. It’s not just him that’s entitled to them, but everyone. And then, although he’s legally entitled to receive the highest level of subsidy, you have to be careful that it doesn’t happen ; because if it does, everyone will believe that it happened because he’s the Prime Minister. You have to pay attention to that. But of course it’s best if you don’t have anything like that – and I terminated my ownership.
András Hont: Prime Minister, I can inform you that no one believes that now either. You might be able to convince me here at this table...
I don’t want to convince anyone, because a person’s integrity doesn’t depend on whether what they say is believed. Of course I’d be happy if people believed what I say, but in a democracy it’s impossible for everyone to believe what the Prime Minister says – and the closer we get to issues related to private life, the fewer people will believe it. In Hungary there’s a perception of what politics looks like, what corruption looks like, what wheeling and dealing looks like: there’s a certain way of thinking. I can’t change that, but I’m not willing to adapt to it either. I have a clear, principled position and behaviour, and I act accordingly. People used to think that the earth was flat. Well, my God! How can I put it? You can’t make certain things dependent on whether people believe them or not. It is what it is, and that’s that. It is as I say. Even if they don’t believe it, it’s still true. Even if you don’t believe it, András, it’s still true. That’s what I call integrity.
András Hont: Talking about a flat earth reminded me of support for the Laposa Estates too, but I won’t get into that now. That was our terrible puns section.
Gábor Gavra: We can move on to personal income tax issues…
András Hont: We can.
Gábor Gavra:...and we can move on to the enforcement agents’ mafia.
András Hont: I’d like to talk about taxation.
These are important questions. Let’s end this discussion about whether, and how, Hungarian society can come to terms with the shift from a state where “no one owns anything”, or “you only have personal property”, to having to live in a modern…
András Hont: We can talk about that further, but...
…economy based on private property, in which success is partly measured in money, in which there are rich people and poor people, and a middle class. Society has to figure out how to relate to all of this. I think this is a key question, what you feel is fair, what’s acceptable, and what isn’t. In my opinion, these are perhaps not questions for politicians, but for philosophers and analysts...
Gábor Gavra: There’s a practical side to this. Let’s move on to that, because I think it’s an important part of the state’s ability to protect those citizens who felt vulnerable, say, after the fall of communism, but also before or after 2010 – part of how well it can protect them from market conditions or even certain abuses. So I suggest we talk a little bit about the enforcement agents.
András Hont: I was going to say the same thing.
Enforcement agents?
András Hont: Enforcement agents.
Gábor Gavra: Because last Friday, if I remember correctly, László Toroczkai, the President of the Mi Hazánk [“My Homeland”] Movement, claimed that audio recordings obtained by Mi Hazánk – some of which have already been made public – prove that it wasn’t György Schadl who was the key figure in the enforcement agents’ mafia, which is already under investigation. Nor was it even Pál Völner, but a minister whom he has not yet named. Do you have any knowledge of this – either from Mi Hazánk or elsewhere...
Excuse me! Mr. Toroczkai is a Member of Parliament, and I think he’s a brave man, so let him show his hand! What’s with all this mystery and Hadházy-style behaviour? Tell us who it is! Let’s hear it!
András Hont: We don’t know.
Neither do I.
András Hont: So it’s no use...
Gábor Gavra: I asked him too.
And what did he say?
Gábor Gavra: He said they’d make it public, but he couldn’t reveal anything yet.
András Hont: But anyway, this is just another topic that leads to heated debate. Since we’ve already mentioned wealth and how society feels about it...
Gábor Gavra: It’s a hot topic for at least the second time.
András Hont: Yes, but how does society feel about it? That it’s an everyday experience that not even the existence of wealth, but the fact that a certain amount of wealth can ensure a life above the law. And the enforcement agents...
No, no, let’s not go any further, and let’s not accept it! So let’s not just shrug our shoulders and say that if you’re wealthy you’re above the law. We cannot accept that! It mustn’t happen! One cannot live in such a world. One can live in a world where one can reasonably believe that one’s success is fundamentally dependent on one’s performance. And if this isn’t the case, because others are above the law, then you won’t feel at ease in that country. So let’s not accept that. If that’s the case, then let’s take action against it. Let’s not just shrug our shoulders in a commie or Gyula Horn way and say, “So what?” Let’s not do that! If we feel that this is a problem, then let’s solve it.
András Hont: Okay. But in the case of the enforcement agents, this is precisely what’s causing the tension and the anger.
I don’t think so.
András Hont: The feeling that I’ll be evicted from my apartment if I can’t pay, they’ll take my car away from me, and I see that...
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m familiar with the details of day-to-day enforcement practices – far from it; but I do know that there are serious debates about this, and these debates are being brought before Parliament in the form of whether the enforcement system should operate on a private basis or be state-run. There was one like this, and now there’s another. I think this is a good debate, a meaningful debate.
Gábor Gavra: There’s already been such a debate between you and László Toroczkai, for example.
Yes, but it’s a meaningful debate – it can be raised and discussed. I don’t want to say that the current situation is necessarily good, I just want to say that we should discuss it sensibly, and if there’s a proposal to change it, then let’s change it. But basically, of course, there are business struggles going on here too, because this is a business: judicial enforcement is an economic activity, which definitely yields some profit, and since the state issues the authorisation, it’s not the case that just anyone can be an enforcement agent. There’s an order to it...
Gábor Gavra: Well...
...you get certification, and it provides a business opportunity. Those who have received this certification are in this business, and those who haven’t aren’t. So these debates that are going on are very often debates motivated by personal financial interests. What I want to say is that this is no reason not to consider this a meaningful and serious debate. It can be continued. I’m not taking sides with either solution, on which way it will go...
Gábor Gavra: This is interesting for two reasons. On the one hand, let’s say that there’s no government official involved in this case who was senior to Pál Völner...
And we’re still waiting for the court’s ruling on that, because it hasn’t appeared yet.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, we’re awaiting the court’s verdict.
András Hont: Do you believe in his innocence, by the way?
I am – how shall I put it? – blind in this matter. I’ve only seen what’s been visible in the political debates. I am also awaiting the court’s verdict.
Gábor Gavra: Okay.
I’ll accept the court’s verdict, of course.
Gábor Gavra: Even if Pál Völner’s found guilty?
Well, what should I do?
Gábor Gavra: Okay. So, one thing is that this case has at least reached the point where the Prosecutor’s Office has charged your – or more precisely, the Ministry of Justice’s – former state secretary. That’s one part of it.
And my colleague, too.
Gábor Gavra: That’s right.
So the pain is twofold.
Gábor Gavra: That’s right.
The case isn’t only political in nature, but also personal.
Gábor Gavra: The other thing is, has your position on the issue of non-profit or business-based judiciary enforcement shifted in either direction?
It’s not set in stone. I see it as a practical question. Basically, I’d let the experts put their proposals on the table, and we’d choose the best solution based on our experience. It could go one way or the other. I’m not committed to either side – either non-profit nor for-profit.
Gábor Gavra: Right, here we have state licenses and the fact that the state selects the enforcement agents. That’s exactly it – at least if the Prosecutor’s Office reconstructed it correctly. Then that’s exactly what laid the foundation for the fact that here...
Yes, but there are many other professions like this, aren’t there? So this is an existing...
Gábor Gavra: …a series of crimes...
Yes, this is an existing problem – there are economic activities in which participation is subject to state licensing. And, as you say, there’s a risk of abuse of influence. In the case of notaries, for example, it’s also the state that grants the right to operate. And this is also the case for certain business activities related to the military industry. So this is a natural consequence of the modern state. Clear rules are needed, transparency is needed, and if someone oversteps the boundaries of the law, then conclusions must be drawn immediately and punishment must be delivered. Let’s not give up on this expectation, let’s not shrug our shoulders and say that it will never happen. We want it to be this way, so let’s strive for it. And if it isn’t, hold me, as Prime Minister, accountable. I’m not personally involved in such things, but if something like this happens behind my back, then the political responsibility should be shared by the Government and the Prime Minister. This is the correct order of things.
András Hont: Many people are trying to do this.
We were just talking about how certain people are above the law, but right now, a former colleague of mine, who was also a state secretary in my government, is standing trial. He wasn’t really above the law, as far as I can see.
András Hont: That certainly supports your view, but let’s wait for the court’s verdict and see how it all ends.
Gábor Gavra: And of course, let’s also wait and see if Mi Hazánk comes up with new names. Then maybe...
András Hont: The problem is I’ve jumped here, but I can’t get around it. In one of the last few interviews Judit Varga was mentioned, and you said that she was a person with prime ministerial abilities. Then you also said that if you’d been her husband, then today Judit Varga would be Prime Minister. Or her wife, or her husband? Her husband. Yes, her husband. Then Judit Varga...
In the modern world, it’s all mixed up, isn’t it?
András Hont: Yes, yes, because, you know, this whole footballers’ wives problem...
Yes, yes.
András Hont:...confuses the picture. So Judit Varga would be Prime Minister. I really don’t want to be harsh with someone who came to grief, especially in such an unpleasant affair. So I don’t want to offend her in this, but the fact that there were two cases in which something happened in her ministry that she didn’t know about doesn’t show her abilities in a good light. In one case, the Pegasus affair, she says she doesn’t know who signed what. In the other case, in the ministry, in judicial enforcement matters, according to this...
The Pegasus case is completely different. The Pegasus case is a legally regulated matter in which, in my opinion, the Minister of Justice has no personal responsibility whatsoever. The Government’s operating procedures describe what permits are required for secret service activities, which government body issues them, and which individuals issue them. And that’s their responsibility, not their superior’s. It wasn’t the minister who was designated, but the deputy always exercised that authority – and I believe that’s still the case. So I don’t think Judit was at fault there. There was a division of powers among the executives, and so the responsibility was borne by the state secretary alone. As for Judit’s performance, we can all be critical, because no one’s perfect, and politics is a very difficult job. But overall I stand by what I said: that there are footballers who are born – there are footballers that are made and footballers who are born with the gift. And it’s the same in politics: there are politicians who are born to the profession and there are those who learn the profession – who become good at it anyway. But you see, when you see their movements on the field, you can tell who learned the game and who was born to it. And Judit is a woman with the personality and the abilities that show you she was born for this. It’s always been a God-given talent.
András Hont: Yes, but from this point of view this question of judicial enforcement is still interesting, because the plot is thickening in an intriguing way, and the cast of characters is growing.
The Ministry of Justice – which we undervalue, by the way – doesn’t receive enough attention. There very important...
Gábor Gavra: Well, during Judit Varga’s term...
András Hont: One can’t say that, but we already...
There extremely difficult, serious work...
András Hont: Prime Minister...
We’re not talking about the work of the judiciary at the moment, but about related legal issues. But there’s a very serious task there, especially related to the European Union’s rule of law procedure, which requires very serious intellectual preparation, in which the Hungarian legal system and constitutionality must be defended in several languages, in a very difficult environment and against enemies. I’ve seen very few people – some, but very few – who have done this with the same effectiveness and elegance as the Minister.
Gábor Gavra: When you say that Judit Varga is a natural talent, a natural political talent, that’s fine – obviously you know her. But do you consider her a successful minister of justice, in that...
She wasn’t successful. If she’d been successful, she’d still be in her position. That’s the tragedy of the situation, isn’t it? That someone is talented, yet unsuccessful.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, but the case that caused her to leave politics was the issue of a presidential pardon rather than something in the ministry – and she didn’t end up becoming the leader of Fidesz’s list for the European Parliament elections in 2024. But, regardless of who within the ministry was specifically responsible for the Pegasus case, the two cases mentioned by my colleague Hont...
But it was a normal case, there was no irregularity there.
András Hont: Yes, but some statements were made...
There’s no reason to apportion blame.
András Hont: …about people not knowing what they were signing, and about not being aware of something that they should have been aware of. But let’s dwell on the enforcement agents for a moment, because the story is really intriguing: it’s not just a question of what she knew as Minister of Justice and what the division of powers was. I’ve read the legislation about the appointment of enforcement agents. There’s a pre-qualification process, in which someone from the judicial office is also delegated – either the president or the vice-president.
And there’s also a scoring system.
András Hont: Yes, and who was the vice president at the time? The mother-in-law of the Minister of Justice…
Ah!
András Hont:...who is, of course, his mother, the mother of...
We’re talking about Péter Magyar’s mother.
András Hont: Yes, yes.
I don’t know her, and I can’t judge legal abilities...
András Hont: But no, no – it’s just that this is all happening a few rooms along the corridor. It’s quite strange for me.
If you work in public administration, like I do, you’re not really surprised by this. There’s a review committee, there’s scoring, and then there’s a state secretary who has to approve and sign it. I don’t think – or feel – that Judit was responsible for that either.
András Hont: But then after this her husband runs out onto the street...
That’s bad luck.
András Hont:...making the whole thing unbearable.
Okay, but it’s bad luck that she married someone like that. Well, now, about that...
András Hont: What kind of person?
That a person would marry someone like that. Well, that’s bad luck. That’s her bad luck.
András Hont: Yeah, bad luck! I didn’t want to discuss their marriage, but anyway from this strange situation, maybe I’m reading all kinds of theories into it, and that’s a common mistake of mine…
I think so, overthinking. We’re dealing with liberal overthinking in Budapest.
András Hont: Thank you very much. All right.
Gábor Gavra: András, we still have the topic of the EU and “filthy Fidesz”.
András Hont: No, I’d like to stay with the tax issue for a moment, because it’s as if a Republican golden age has dawned in this country.
No!
András Hont: This is the first time I’ve seen a Hungarian prime minister boast that we offer only three months of unemployment benefit, and that we have the most flexible legal environment for employers – meaning that employees are less protected. It’s the Republicans in America who tend to say things like that. And so it’s emerged – and this will probably be a central element in the election campaign – that the phrase “progressive taxation” is solidifying into an expletive.
Quite right, too. It is an expletive.
András Hont: We’re talking about the tax system used by the vast majority of countries.
Yes, but many countries aren’t doing things right. For example, I believe that a flat tax system is much better than a progressive tax system, and the examples we see seem to confirm this. I’d be cautious about unemployment benefits, because it’s very important that when unemployment benefits expire, it’s not a case of “Game over, you’ll have to go off and live under a bridge”; but that you can go to the local government, ask for public work, and you’ll get public work, mostly decent public work. And we also offer training on how to get back into the labour market or into normal living conditions from public work. So when their unemployment benefits run out after three months we don’t let people go, but we want to help them so that they don’t remain unemployed, but come back and are able to work again. I think this may be Republican, but I could also call it plebeian. I believe that it’s good for people to be willing and able to work and to receive the pay they deserve. I don’t know if this is Republican, but it’s certainly plebeian.
András Hont: One element of my question, which I quoted from your speech, was unemployment benefits, but first you mentioned the flat tax, then the rules applicable to employers, and so on. The Tisza...
There’s this rule, excuse me, let’s talk about this: the flexibility of labour rules or labour law rules. I see that there are many countries where, supposedly in the interests of protecting workers, strict rules are applied that prevent people who want to work more from being able to work more. Of course a line has to be drawn, because it’s not good for people to work themselves to death; but it’s also not good for us to tell them how they should work, under what conditions, and under what accounting system. They’ll discuss this civilly with their employers and figure out what’s best for them. This is the case as long as there are more jobs than there are workers. And in Hungary we’re still in a situation where, when you talk to employers, they tend to say that they can’t find enough workers to meet their needs. In such circumstances it’s better to let people work and encourage them to do so. They’re not threatened by the spectre of unemployment. Unemployment makes people vulnerable, it makes workers vulnerable to their employers; but today the latter are searching high and low for people they can employ. So I feel that as a general rule, not talking about exceptions now but as a general rule, Hungarian workers, Hungarian employees, are not only not in a vulnerable position, but they also receive support from the Government – legal and financial support – to work. We’re constantly raising the minimum wage so that they cannot be paid less than a certain amount. And I could give you many examples of this. So I think that’s fine.
Gábor Gavra: We keep hearing from you, your opponents and public commentators that it’s such a pity that in Hungary there are no normal policy debates – for example on tax policy. To be honest, it really bothers me when, let’s say, influencers linked to Fidesz, Megafon and its associates, pounce on a sentence said by Zita Mária Petschnig. This is obvious, as my colleague Hont and I pointed out last week on the rightly popular television programme ÖT. So what Zita Mária Petschnig said, and I understand that she’s a reform-minded economist, and from the Institute of Financial Research, and to you – how should I put it?- at least...
András Hont: To quote Orbán, liberal economists are happy when blood is flowing. Right? That was the gist. Your relationship with her is conflicted and long-standing, likewise with László Kéri. But when Zita Mária Petschnig says that anyone who talks about reducing VAT must also talk about raising taxes, Megafon jumps on this statement to tear her apart – obviously not physically – and the Tisza Party brushes it off as if it had nothing to do with them. I think that you and your opponents behaving this way makes it impossible to have normal policy debates.
Yes, but I don’t think there’s a policy debate on this issue...
András Hont: But what is this?
...but rather a debate about credibility. Of course, the question of whether there should be progressive taxation or flat-rate taxation is also a good question. About this there could be a professional...
Gábor Gavra: The whole thing about Zita Mária Petschnig as a policy...
I’ll come back to Zita in a moment. So, we could have a sterile policy debate about this, but that’s not what today is about. What we’re talking about is the opposition party saying that it won’t reveal what it wants to do, because if it did it would lose the election. This isn’t a debate about tax policy, it’s simply a scam – to put it mildly. Or “We can’t say what we want to do now, but after the election anything’s possible.” That’s what today’s debate is about, not taxes...
András Hont: I understand that the sentence that...
Sentences.
András Hont:...yes, but that sentence isn’t as brutal as saying “Small victory, small change; big victory, big change”, which didn’t reveal all the details of the truth either.
That was a very simple and understandable sentence, there was no deception in it, and it turned out as I said. But this is about deception. And then, of course, we see that they put it to a vote at a gathering of Tisza Party people, with 80–90 per cent saying “yes” to a progressive tax system – but then the next day they denied it. So this isn’t a debate about tax policy, but about credibility, about political reliability.
Gábor Gavra: Prime Minister, when in the 2010 election you won a two-thirds majority under the old electoral system, the two-round electoral system, you didn’t say a stinking word about changing the Constitution unilaterally without a referendum, or about a new electoral system, or a whole bunch of other things. I don’t think you can blame the Tisza Party for this, so...
Not us, but all Hungarians, of course, we have to confront them. Well, how is that possible...
Gábor Gavra: They didn’t confront you either.
In a democracy, how is it possible to keep people in the dark with this? “I’m not going to tell you what we’re planning, because if I did we’d lose the election.” But then how am I supposed to vote? What am I supposed to vote for? You can’t say that now…
András Hont: Why – would you want to vote for Tisza?
Now I’m speaking on behalf of a citizen. “I can’t say what we’re planning, but after the election anything’s possible.” What? It’s a wonder the sky hasn’t fallen.
Gábor Gavra: But isn’t it the case that Péter Magyar saw from you that you can be successful by not revealing your plans before an election – except that his vice-president is so amateurish that he talks about it?
I don’t know if the vice-president is amateurish or not, but you simply can’t treat people that way.
Gábor Gavra: But isn’t that what you did?
No, how so? Don’t be ridiculous!
Gábor Gavra: You said that the Constitution...
I’ve never concealed anything in any matter, and I’ve never lied to people.
András Hont: But at an embassy reception you said that people should pay attention not to what you say, but to what you do.
Well? I explained this to a poor American who doesn’t speak Hungarian. She told me – this was a conversation with an American lady – that she didn’t understand something. It was a little out of context, and she didn’t understand what it meant. I told her not to pay attention to what it meant, because she wouldn’t understand: “Look at what I did, and then you’ll understand what’s happening in Hungary.” This was a conversation with the ambassador. I don’t think you can do that with voters: say that you’re not going to tell them what you’re planning to do, because if you did, they wouldn’t vote for you. Well, how? Here we’re not facing a problem of democracy, but a problem of civilisation.
Gábor Gavra: Sorry, but again, what I mean is that among you – the Fidesz leaders at the time – obviously there wasn’t anyone who would have admitted on camera that they couldn’t discuss what you were preparing, because…
Because we weren’t preparing anything that needed to be kept secret.
András Hont: So curtailing the powers of the Constitutional Court wasn’t such a thing, even though you said that the Constitutional Court was decisive...
Yes, let’s take these one by one! I don’t want this hanging over me. All right?
András Hont: So, before 2010, when the Constitutional Court ruled, when it rejected Fidesz’s referendum request, you said that Hungarian politics has an iron law: that the Constitutional Court decides. Then, when you came to power, we finally left the Iron Age behind, because you abolished the Constitutional Court’s power to rule on financial matters.
No, no! We didn’t abolish it: we restricted it. We said that until the national debt falls below a certain level, the Constitutional Court cannot rule on financial matters. But it will get there, we’ll bring it down, and then it will be able to rule on this again.
András Hont: By the way, what is the state of the Hungarian economy? Because we’re talking about taxes here, and if I were in your shoes, I’d say – I don’t want to give advice to the Fidesz campaign...
Go ahead! We welcome it.
András Hont: Right. Because when someone promises tax cuts, they have to say that this means that after all the Hungarian economy isn’t on the verge of collapse, right?
Of course, but that’s nonsense...
András Hont: No, no, no, no, I don’t know about that – I’d just say that if I were in government and someone came up with tax reduction plans...
I could say that, but there’s no point in arguing about the state of the economy without any substance.
András Hont: What is a substantive debate about the economy?
It has substance when it includes facts. But these debates aren’t taking place now; instead there are debates about beliefs. Those who support the opposition say that the Hungarian economy is about to collapse, while those who support the Government say that the Hungarian economy is on a solid footing. And in that not a single fact is mentioned – which is why the debate is pointless. We can’t really expect anything else before the campaign.
András Hont: But at the beginning of the year you also said that there would be a flying start. And since then, the part of the public you mentioned first – those who support the opposition – have...
Wasn’t that the case? Excuse me, wasn’t that the case?
András Hont: No! Well...
Excuse me, what happened? What happened was that we announced an economic action plan for this year, which – given that the American president had taken office – was based on the assumption that sanctions and the war would no longer be blocking the Hungarian economy. It turned out that this wasn’t the case, that the war continued, and so I had to reschedule the plan for this financial year.
Gábor Gavra: So you were wrong, and too optimistic.
Excuse me! Sorry, I’ll do everything, this is about reliability again. But we’ll do everything – I’ll do what I promised. I’ve just had to reschedule by six months. That’s why the flying start really hasn’t... As I’ve said, the runway was long, and there are ten million people on the plane, so at a time like this take-off is difficult. But it’s true that everything we promised – pensions, tax cuts, family support – has been implemented, or will be implemented – not from January, but from 1 July.
András Hont: And what do you think the third quarter growth figures will be like?
I don’t know; maybe [Minister for National Economy] Márton Nagy can tell us – if there’s anyone at all in the current European economic situation who dares to make predictions, as making predictions is an extremely risky endeavour. All I can say is that every measure I’ve announced and which we’ve already partially implemented and will continue to implement is backed by economic policy. So we’ll still be able to implement these measures, even if economic growth is no more than 1 per cent.
András Hont: Excuse me, as the subject has come up, in April you told me that you had high hopes for Donald Trump’s presidency, specifically from a Hungarian perspective. And you promised that there would be agreements with the United States by the autumn.
Some of this has already happened, and some of it is still ahead of us, to put it optimistically. Politically-motivated sanctions have been lifted. And while the entire international economy is focused on Americans wanting to bring their capital home, and also persuading others – such as European companies – to invest in them rather than at home, since President Trump took office there have been five or six major American high-technology investments in Hungary. So we have a cooperation with the Americans that results in them not taking capital out of Hungary, but bringing it in. This is why President Trump’s victory is bringing economic benefits to the Hungarian people, with investments coming from America – high-quality, high-tech investments. This is good.
Gábor Gavra: You were just talking about insubstantive debate, and you said that those who support the Government see the Hungarian economy as stable, while those who support the opposition – the Tisza Party, say – see it as collapsing...
I admit that I support the Government.
Gábor Gavra: Well, I don’t know who Mihály Varga, the Governor of the Central Bank, supports, but I assume it’s...
Karcag. Karcagi SE [football club].
Gábor Gavra: Yes, but he says we have to face the facts: GDP has fallen in seven of the last twelve quarters, similar to what happened immediately after the fall of communism and during the 2007–08 crisis. Well, it’s certainly not a collapse, but it’s not good...
Of course! But that’s why I said what I said earlier: that despite this, GYED [childcare allowance] and GYES [infant support benefit] have been made tax-free. We’ve already increased the tax credit for families with children by 50 per cent. From 1 October, mothers with three children won’t pay income tax until the end of their lives. We’ve launched a 3 per cent state-subsidised home loan programme. These are huge things. So the fact that we’re able to implement these programmes in such a difficult situation, as you’ve described here, is, in my opinion, a great economic feat by the Minister for National Economy. We can regard that as incidental for now, because it shows that there’s energy in this country. Here growth is indeed as you say, and as the Central Bank governor quoted – but even in such a situation, this country is capable of doing these things. What vitality there is in this country! I said that I support the Government; I think the Hungarian economy is on a stable footing.
András Hont: And do you think this will characterise Hungary’s economy in the long term?
What can we say about this? That’s a very difficult question. We can say that what we’re doing now, in the months ahead, we can do even with the economy’s current performance. I cannot now answer the question of how long this can be continued with new programmes, because that really depends on how the war develops. Because both the war and the sanctions are blocking European economic growth – including Hungary’s. If we could get rid of them, which is why I’m working to free us from both the war and the sanctions; then the growth prospects for the Hungarian economy would improve immediately and significantly.
András Hont: You touched on this in your speech in Kötcse, so we’re right where we need to be. You said that the Russians have won this war.
Yes, that’s my position.
András Hont: But when someone wins a war, it’s usually over. What prevents victory or defeat from being seen as good or bad for the other side, whether they’re the victors or the defeated…
What club do you support, András?
András Hont: Vasas, of course.
If you were a Fradi [Ferencváros] fan, you’d know the answer to that question: “More, more, more, this isn’t enough!” That’s the nature of war – even when you’ve won. If you’re winning – and the Russians are winning.
András Hont: So what does this mean?
That it’s in our interest to stop them as soon as possible.
András Hont: But they won’t stop; because apparently they’re demanding that the Russians push on through western Ukraine.
The question is how to stop the Russians. I think the Russians can be stopped by agreement. We must come to an agreement with them. My opinion is that we need to conclude a comprehensive European–Russian economic and security agreement that goes beyond Ukraine and includes other issues – including those with serious economic consequences. This is how we can stop them. We won’t be able to stop them militarily – it can only be done through diplomacy. So there’s no possibility of this on the front lines.
András Hont: Which would mean...
All military experts who have recently written or made statements about winning the war now agree that a Russian military victory – which I believe has already happened – can only be reversed if the West sends hundreds of thousands of troops to the front line. This would have unforeseeable consequences equivalent to World War III. This is why they’re reluctant to do so. If this is the case, then there’s no solution on the front lines, there’s only a diplomatic solution.
Gábor Gavra: But diplomacy, you see...
President Trump is also trying this.
Gábor Gavra: Okay, but in the last twenty years or so, Russia has attacked several of its neighbours. Georgia in 2008...
That’s a disputed story.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, it occupied its autonomous territories, but under international law...
It’s about who started it…
Gábor Gavra:...Georgia tried to recapture its territories, and that’s when the Russians moved into those areas.
The situation worsened compared to how it was before.
Gábor Gavra: Back then Viktor Orbán didn’t hold back in his condemnation of the Russian leadership…
No, he didn’t!
Gábor Gavra:...on this issue. Then came 2014. Ambassador Simonyi was a guest on Ring, when he called Donald Trump a statesman because of the Alaska and Washington summits. This surprised me coming from him, but...
I also think it’s a great achievement on his part.
Gábor Gavra: …he called Angela Merkel and the then leaders of the European Union – who brought about the Minsk agreements – traitors to Europe, simply because they’d concluded an agreement with the Russians. And it’s as if you’re now advocating something similar to that – which didn’t bring about lasting peace at all.
You’re right to point out that I’m advocating something similar, yes.
Gábor Gavra: Okay, but isn’t this just like throwing more and more morsels to an insatiable predator?
No, because we’re the stronger ones. So the peculiarity of the whole situation is that while we’re talking about Russia – what did you say just now? What kind of predators?
Gavra Gábor: Predators with an insatiable appetite.
In fact we’re the stronger ones. NATO is much stronger than Russia. Even without America, we Europeans are stronger than Russia.
Gábor Gavra: Okay, but then why don’t we assert our strength? Obviously, no one – or rather, no sane person – wants a third world war, but if we’re the stronger ones...
Yes?
Gábor Gavra:...then why don’t we assert our power, and why don’t we...
I agree with you. That’s the question. Because we’re stupid, because Europe’s poorly led, because we could assert our power through negotiations. If we’re stronger but don’t want to fight, that’s the situation, then our superiority...
Gábor Gavra: Is the division of Ukraine an exercise of power?
...then power can only be exercised through negotiations. If you don’t negotiate, your superiority is meaningless. If you don’t negotiate and you don’t want to fight, then the weaker side will prevail and move forward. In this situation there’s only one thing to do. We must take the initiative. At every European Council meeting I constantly raise the issue that Europeans – especially the Germans and the French together – should initiate negotiations with the Russians. We shouldn’t be knocking on doors in Washington, whispering in the American president’s ear like kibitzers. That will do Europe little good.
András Hont: And in your opinion...
We, as Europeans, must negotiate with the Russians on our own behalf, aware of our own strength. We must say, “Gentlemen, all the cards are on the table. We see what you know, and you can see what we know. Let’s come to an agreement.”
András Hont: Negotiations require two parties. And at the very least, it’s necessary for reliability and trustworthiness to come into play to some extent. But that only has a role in domestic politics.
Yes, but I wouldn’t base foreign policy on the trustworthiness of the other party.
Gábor Gavra: Especially in this particular case.
András Hont: Yes, but then what kind of person is Putin?
It must be based on an equilibrium of power. Foreign policy can be based on power equilibrium.
András Hont: What guarantees can we ask from Vladimir Putin that he’ll abide by a peace agreement?
First of all, today we need guarantees not from him, but from Russia, which will be upheld regardless of who’s the leader of Russia. When will they be upheld? When there’s an agreement that’s good for us and acceptable to them and we have the power – the power set out in a written agreement – which we can enforce. Well, that’s the only way. You can’t negotiate with the Russians on the basis of good intentions. Sorry, but if you know Russian history, you can’t think that. It’s a military...
Gábor Gavra: The truth is that I don’t think it even occurred to them that it would be possible to negotiate with them.
Yes, but that seems to have been the point of the question. So let’s take the realities seriously. There is Russia – huge, as big as it is, with its power; and there is Europe. There are 130-odd million Russians, and there are 400 million of us. They have a GDP that’s a fraction of ours. Their military spending is well below what we Europeans – not to mention the Americans – spend on security and armaments every year. According to all the figures and data, we’re strong, we Europeans are strong. But we look helpless. That’s our problem. It’s a leadership problem.
Gábor Gavra: But if Europe negotiates with the Russians as you suggest on the division of Ukraine, say, why would it look stronger?
What we can agree on will become clear at the negotiating table. But we have to sit down in a way that we can...
Gábor Gavra: Doesn’t this proposal weaken Europe?
No, I don’t think so. Now we’re getting weaker every day. We’re getting weaker every day. The Russians are advancing every day – I don’t know how many metres, but every day. And on top of that, we Europeans give the impression that we’re not capable of concluding a good security agreement with the Russians on our own, but instead we run to Washington to get Daddy – as some have called him – to enforce our views through his decisions. We sit there like subordinates in front of the boss. You’ve seen those pictures, haven’t you?
Gábor Gavra: In a lesson with the class teacher.
While the people sitting there are talking about European strategic autonomy. It can’t be like this. Excuse me, this isn’t my business, because I’m not the French president and I’m not the German chancellor, and there isn’t a Hungary with 80 million people, and there isn’t a France – or excuse me, a Hungary – with 66 million people; but there’s a Hungary with 10 million people. Hungary must know – and the Hungarian prime minister must know – where its place is, what it can and cannot undertake. But there’s one thing we can certainly undertake, and that’s to think. We think logically, we reason, and we tell European leaders what we think should be done in order to be successful. I’ll do the same tomorrow, because the President of the European Council, Mr. Costa, is coming to see me. Because even though we’re the stronger ones, we’re unsuccessful. We’re unsuccessful in war, we’re unsuccessful in geopolitical realignment, and we’re unsuccessful in the economy – even though we have every opportunity to be strong.
András Hont: I’d have liked to speak more about the EU, because everything that’s been said is just unbelievable...
Tomorrow President von der Leyen will speak in the European Parliament, so we’ll have something to talk about tomorrow. It will be a “State of the Union” address, so I’m sure there will be people here who will have strong opinions about it – me too, for sure.
András Hont: I don’t want to miss it. I’ll set my alarm. Time is running out, and if we drag this out any longer I think we’ll be really testing the patience of our viewers. So, there will be an opportunity in the near future to discuss everything you think about the circular organisation of Europe. But I’d like to ask one more question. Gábor, do you have anything?
Gábor Gavra: András, I think you should ask another question.
András Hont: Okay. When we met here in April, we didn’t know that this would be a series, that it would be spread across podcasts.
Well, there’s something I kept secret.
András Hont: Yes?
Gábor Gavra: That’s it.
That’s what my big secrets are like.
András Hont: Yes, yes. So we didn’t know that at the time.
I don’t know if you believe it, but even I didn’t know that at the time.
András Hont: Okay, that’s not what I mean. I just want to ask if this served as some kind of lesson for you...
The reason itself was a lesson. So I see that, whether we like it or not, to borrow an expression from a German philosopher that accurately describes the situation, we’re living in a period of structural change in the public sphere. Habermas may have written this at some point...
András Hont: Yes.
…in the early 1970s: “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”. And something similar is happening now. So we find ourselves in a public sphere with a completely transformed structure, and this has enormous consequences for our private lives, our jobs, our salaries, and our political and community lives. And we have to adapt to this. One of the things that follows from this – and this is a big challenge for me, something I suffer from – is how to maintain the seriousness of politics. Because the structural change in the public sphere has brought with it – excuse me for using foreign words – daily impact campaigns. It’s no longer a question of having an idea, a thought, a topic, and discussing and debating it at length over several days: instead daily impulse campaigns take place in the online space. Every day there’s a new story. This is why it’s surprising to us older people that someone says something on Monday, says the opposite on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday says something entirely different, on the same topic. This is because the only thing that matters is how much interest it generates, and whether on that day the impact, the effect, was high or not. In the world today this is what politics is gradually becoming. I don’t want to single anyone out, but when I sit in European Council meetings, there are often only two or three of us who aren’t tapping away at our smartphones, checking the latest miserable news. And we’re talking about European leaders. The entire democratic political system has been affected by the need for daily impact. And I’m working on maintaining some seriousness... I have to adapt to this too, and I can’t do anything about it, because that’s the way it is. But at the same time I try to maintain the seriousness of politics, and I look for those podcasts – which is why I’m sitting here now. My liking for you gentlemen wouldn’t have been sufficient reason for me to sit here for so long, but I’m sitting here with you now, I’ve been to others, and I’ll go on other longer talk shows, so that there’s political content besides the daily impact campaigns. Otherwise we’ll become stupid. Well, if politics consists of how to campaign on such minor issues, minor scandals, and then the next day the same thing starts again on a different topic, then how will this make for an intelligent country? And how will this make for intelligent politics? And in times like these, our only weapon is our intellect. We cannot allow politics to become primitive. That’s why I go on these shows. I go and talk. Sometimes it’s pleasant company, other times less so. But I go, and where I see an opportunity to talk seriously about something, I make myself available.
András Hont: This summer...
Obviously, I don’t want to come out of these conversations badly; I don’t engage in them to make enemies or garner hostility. That might be forgivable, but I want to talk seriously to journalists, and through them I want to talk seriously to the people. That’s why I’ve been going on these podcasts. It’s a change – so András is right, it’s a big change compared to what I’ve been doing so far. Because until now it was the opposite: I thought that if the Prime Minister spoke too often and for too long, he’d dilute the significance and importance of what his words actually meant.
Gábor Gavra: By the way, when you spoke on what we could call your own media – the state media or media close to Fidesz – over the past decade or decade and a half, didn’t you feel that you were getting rusty by not facing any substantive questions?
No, I gave interviews everywhere, but only where there were meaningful questions. Another thing you’re thinking of, if I understand you correctly, is that I don’t do “revolver” interviews. So I don’t do interviews in which the reporter pulls out a gun and starts shooting, and I jump aside; because that doesn’t make people any smarter, we can’t explore the topic, and the whole thing turns into a sparring match or a cockfight. I don’t do that kind of thing. But I’m happy to talk to people who disagree with me but who behave seriously.
András Hont: This summer wasn’t just about this podcast tour, but also about another phenomenon that’s been strongly amplified in the press: the “filthy Fidesz” propaganda at music festivals. First, briefly, what’s your opinion about this? After that I’ll ask another question, as a kind of final chord.
I grew up in football stadiums, so it’s not new for me. I don’t like hearing it in stadiums either, but that’s how it is...
András Hont: Okay. I think all of this is an introduction or lead-in to a very important question. Although this – I mean the “filthy Fidesz” campaigning – isn’t necessarily characteristic only of young people, and I think it’s a mistake to label this as exclusively a youth phenomenon, it’s a fact that new generations are now entering politics.
Aren’t we overthinking this again? Isn’t it simply a case of what usually happens before every election, where a few months before the election, emotions run high and things happen that everyone is a little ashamed of after the election? For example, calling political rivals “filthy”. I think that’s what this is about, and it will pass. But another problem with new generations entering politics is how they think about what surrounds them, and that they take for granted a lot of things that our generation fought for.
Gábor Gavra: For you, this could also mean, in part – how should I put it? – that it’s not enough to be better than Gyurcsány and his people, couldn’t it?
But in the election we’ll get a majority among young people. We have to win over young people. We need to talk to them. So I’m not worried about this, about the new generations. I have an opinion about young people, but I don’t know how much time we have left.
András Hont: We’ll listen to it.
I don’t want to dwell on it, but now – regardless of the concert atmosphere and the heightened emotional state before the election – I have a good opinion of young people. This is because among those I know – and I know a lot – the real problem they have in their lives is with those things which we call “fake.” They don’t want a fake life, and they don’t want fake things. They want serious things, a serious life, seriousness, serious stakes, serious opportunities. They don’t just want to live better, or have a higher standard of living or a bigger apartment, but they want their lives to have weight, to be meaningful, to be honourable – not just good and easy, but honourable. I know a lot of young people like this. And you can talk to them – even if currently they’re shouting “filthy Fidesz” at some concert. But those young people who are fed up with fakeness and feel that somehow they can’t get to a point where their lives have meaning, because there aren’t really any serious challenges they can take on, those young people are the ones you can talk to. I don’t think they’re any worse than we were.
András Hont: That’s not what I meant, but rather...
It wasn’t exactly easy for us either.
András Hont: I can’t judge that. But if I take Lajos Simicska and you as examples, then...
Ask your father, András.
András Hont: I can’t, because he’s passed away.
I’m sorry.
András Hont: It’s just a question of what our next few years will be about, because there will be people for whom a lot of what we talk about in a conversation like this – or even in a speech in Kötcse – already belongs to the past. They were children not only when you came to power, but also when, say, the CEU [Central European University] protests were taking place.
Yes, but what follows on from this? We fought hard for more than thirty years. I don’t want to bring up the memories of veterans, but I just want to say that we know exactly that the things that are good in Hungary today, that give this country its strength, that represent its future, didn’t come about by themselves and don’t exist by themselves – regardless of what we think about the state of the country today. Many young people were born into this situation, and they think that it’s normal for everyone to have a job, for example. And that, for example, a degree comes with a much higher salary. Or that vocational training is dual training, and you don’t learn useless knowledge working unnecessarily in a workshop, but you work in a factory which will call you immediately after school and you’ll get a decent job. They think this is the natural order of life. And they think that – how can I put this? – you can fly on autopilot, because it can’t break down, because that’s natural. But that’s not how it is: flying on autopilot means we’ll crash into the ground. I think that this, among other things, is what we need to tell them. But it’s very difficult. You know, there’s this saying in politics – it’s a bit convoluted – that “What already exists doesn’t exist”. So what’s already happened is no longer considered a political achievement by people, including young people, but is taken for granted. This is a challenge that we politicians must somehow overcome.
Gábor Gavra: Well, that was Ring. We’d like to thank Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for being here. I’d like to thank my colleague András Hont for co-hosting this programme with me and, most of all, I’d like to thank our viewers for their attention. This was the third hour-and-a-half-long Ring within a week, following the debate between Balázs Orbán and Péter Tarjányi, and the interview with László Toroczkai. So those of you who have watched all three hour-and-a-half-long programs deserve some kind of serious award. And as a farewell, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to the “ÖT” YouTube channel – if you haven’t already done so. If you liked this conversation, then like it and share it with your friends; if not, then tell Viktor Orbán, András Hont, or even me in the comments section below the video. See you next week, and goodbye!
No way! See you at the game. Go, Hungarians!
Gábor Gavra: Oh, and after our recording, Hungary will be playing Portugal at the Puskás Aréna, as you already know...
András Hont: Yes, two-thirds of the conversation will be there.
Gábor Gavra: Yes, but I won’t be. See you later!