Krisztián Lentulai: I saw your conversation with Tibor Kapu. And I noticed something that’s unusual for you.
Really?
You were excited. At certain moments the Viktor Orbán I saw there was a little child. It was an unusual situation, in which you were able to do an interview with the first Hungarian astronaut since Bertalan Farkas, and it was like your childhood had returned.
It could have been that, and I suppose when you do something for the first time, there’s always a feeling of excitement. I’m 62 years old, and doing something for the first time is a surprising experience – and that’s what happened. And indeed I remember “Uncle Berci” [Bertalan Farkas]: I even told the technical people there that I remember that when Uncle Berci was launched, [the Hungarian rock band] LGT wrote a song which was on the radio for days and days. It really brought back memories from my high school days. At such times people may get emotional, but for a politician it’s better to hide it, because people don’t want to see you getting emotional – instead they want you to go ahead, knowing what you want and doing your job. So I tried to hide that.
Anyway, what’s the real significance of it? I’m terribly sad – I thought we were finally going to have an event that wouldn’t be defined by party politics. But for something that’s fundamentally science-based, in social media I see nothing except displays of opposition to the Government or support for it.
Are you sure you’re right?
In my immediate environment. Maybe I live in a bubble, but that’s what I see.
Yes, but is it party-based? I understand that there’s debate, there’s pushing and shoving. But is it partisan? That’s the question. Or are partisan debates inherently based on something else? So is it the fault of politics, or are we just like that? This matters! I’m inclined to think that’s just how we are. So we’re Hungarians, and it’s very difficult for us to agree and think in unison. I used to sometimes leaf through the minutes of old parliamentary debates – back when I had more time, of course. You wouldn’t believe what things were said in debates on the Chain Bridge and the building of the new Parliament. And when those projects were finished, everyone assembled, saw the success and celebrated. We’re Hungarians. When Tibor Kapu comes back, everyone will say, “Yes, that was a great thing.”
May you be right! It was really disappointing for me to see. I hope that at least this scientific work will be communicated to society, and we end up on the same path, that people can really put these things to one side. Because sometimes I’ve felt that there’s envy; I don’t want to dwell on it too much, but sometimes I’ve felt the existence of envy, and in many cases I’ve noticed that nowadays it’s enough to throw buzzwords around, and many people take advantage of this. And they’re saying, “What good does this do Hungarian families?”
Yes, but it’s not politics, it’s in our blood – believe me. We’re Hungarians, and it’s in our nature. And therefore it’s also very important. Tibor Kapu’s deed, his heroic deed, the fact that he’s up there, and therefore every sentence he says has meaning, is because it’s really about us, about our character. Those who quibble, attack and grumble have a legitimate point of view, which would be worth discussing calmly – but not on a party basis. It’s this: “What’s really the need for this? What’s the point of spending money and energy on putting a Hungarian into space?” I asked Tibor Kapu himself this question, and he answered it convincingly at the level of reason, within the realm of reason – or at least he convinced me. He explained what experiments are being carried out, and that they can only be conducted up there. Out of thirty experiments he can do twenty-five, and all these twenty-five are Hungarian experiments: either from a Hungarian scientific institute or a Hungarian company; so in a way they’re not international, not foreign, but experiments related to some Hungarian activity, to the further development of some research or some business.
In fact, ours form the majority: out of the four astronauts, we have the most experiments.
He explained this to us, to me, and I understood it. But I think there’s another thing. People aren’t only of the mind, but also of the heart; and a very important question is how a community, a nation, looks at itself. Does it see itself in a way that, in our rotten lives, there are things that we can never have anything to do with – because we’re small, we’re this or that, this way or that way, because we haven’t been dealt a strong hand? Or you – sorry, we – think of ourselves as someone, we can compete with anyone, because size doesn’t always matter, and what someone else can do, we can do. This is why I say that what you’ve seen may not have been party-based, but rather our cultural pattern, and it may be that only the party map has revealed it. Because, without wishing to offend anyone, I’m sure that in our world – in the civic, national, Christian world – there’s certainly an overwhelming majority who say with pride and heart that if we pull ourselves together we Hungarians are capable of anything. On the other side there are people of character who doubt this. So it’s not politics that’s being imposed on us, but our cultural differences – sometimes in political language. So in any case, for me Tibor Kapu isn’t a hero because he’s gone into space. That’s also a great thing, because in the thousand years that Hungarians have been born and raised here in the Carpathian Basin so far only two Hungarians have succeeded in doing that. So it’s not a bad thing to be one of only two who have ever done that. And here again I’m not talking in a political sense, but in a cultural sense. There’s a man in space. He can look at the Earth. What does Tibor Kapu say when he looks at the Earth? “I was looking for where Hungary is.” He could have said “I was finally free. I see the whole world.” He could have spoken in a cosmopolitan way and said, “It’s all at my feet”. But that’s not what he said. He said that his part there is Hungary, and that’s what he looked at. These are very important phrases and very important cultural patterns. It’s not only because he was able to go up, which is a huge physical and mental achievement, but that when he went up, he looked back at us. This is why I consider him a hero. At least for me, personally, this is why he’s a hero.
This is Hotel Lentulai, and our guest is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Thank you for accepting our invitation. Before we continue, because we’re on YouTube, on the Mandiner YouTube channel, I’ll ask everyone who hasn’t already done so to subscribe and press the little bell, because through that you’ll be notified of all our new content.
I’ve never been in an escape room before, so thanks for the invitation! I hope you’ll let me out at the end.
Yes, there are so many of us here, we’ll get out somehow, that’s for sure.
I’ve been in places like this before, but they put me in there so I couldn’t get out. It was a lot like this back in the late eighties.
From that perspective Tibor Kapu can probably see humanity itself as a speck of dust, and can see that human existence can vanish in an instant. Outside earlier, Prime Minister, we were talking about a Portuguese footballer: yesterday a footballer who played in the Portuguese national team lost his life in a tragic car accident, along with his brother. The Portuguese FA is also in mourning, as are Porto and Liverpool – because we’re talking about Diogo Jota, Dominik Szoboszlai’s teammate. Now, since Dominik has moved to the Premier League, I think that even people who weren’t previously committed to an English team are watching Liverpool matches.
Me for example – I’m not committed to any foreign team. Real Madrid a bit, because of Puskas.
Here’s my Real Madrid cap.
Because of Puskás, but definitely not to English teams, because I don’t rate English football as being among the best. I never thought I’d watch an English team at all, but since Szoboszlai plays there, and now our friend Kerkez...
Yes.
Indeed, a goalkeeper from the Puskás Academy is knocking on the door there, and I’m watching out for him. And now there’s Jota.
Yes, yes.
I was very surprised at myself. When I heard this news. And a few days after his wedding. The whole thing was a...
Yes, it was. Two weeks...
And I thought about his poor brother too.
That’s right, his younger brother.
I thought of their poor mother. It’s a wonder she doesn’t lose her mind. Two children gone in an instant. And I realized that, after having watched Szoboszlai’s games regularly, it had become personal for me. So I watched and I listened to the news as if I knew him – which is strange because I didn’t know him, and I have no connection with him – apart from the fact that he was a Christian Portuguese person, who therefore belongs to our world. But it’s more than that: I’d let him into my room through the screen, and it had become a personal loss. It’s very interesting how these modern means of communication can create a personal relationship with people you’ve never met, you’ve never known. All it takes is a Hungarian – he’s a teammate of Szoboszlai’s. That’s how it works.
I was born in 1974, and my first football experience on television was in 1982. By 1986 I was buying the sticker album as a kid, and the special issue of Képes Sport [“Illustrated Sport”]. A few years ago I even found something in a sealed box at my mother’s house, in which my 12-year-old self had written “fix” after the 6–0 loss to the Soviets.
Ah...
I lived my life and my peers in such a way that it couldn’t exist.
Something must be done.
We were the first European team to qualify. Can you give me any encouragement that we’ll qualify for a World Cup finals even in my lifetime – which in this respect will coincide with yours, as you’re just over ten years older than me?
I have more reason to be optimistic than you.
What will come from this?
What it comes down to is that in 1986 you only saw us when we almost managed to climb back. Thanks to my grandfather, I remember watching many matches as a very small child in adventurous circumstances. Of course no one cares about that, that’s not what we need to talk about.
In this show anything can be interesting.
But what I really remember, and what I remember as a tragedy, the first time I cried after a football match, was Sweden–Hungary, when that miserable, tall, gangly Swede headed into our goal from where Vidáts – who was still somewhere around the Swedish goal – should have been. That made it 3–3. And Eriksson – or whatever they called that gangly Swede – headed it in to make it 3–3. We were on the verge of qualifying, and with a 3–2 win we’d have made it to the World Cup finals. But it didn’t work out. I didn’t know it at the time, but now I can see that was the real start of the downhill slide. So therefore, where we are now and how we should assess what we’ve achieved so far is something I can judge better than you, because you start from 1986, when we were hoping for another upward phase. I’m a child of hopelessness, in terms of football in a time when Hungarian football took a tumble and failed to qualify for two consecutive World Cups. Because of Marseille, as Szepesi would say, “Here come the Czechoslovaks!” And then later because of this game. And we had to climb back from there. So I think that if we could go from the depths of where we were in 1974 to where we were in 1986, if I apply that to where we are now, if we can progress that far, then we’ll be playing in a World Cup final – which, incidentally, is my unshakable idea. Everyone laughs at and mocks me, but I think we’ll play in a World Cup final, and I’ll live to see that. It will happen in my lifetime.
Is there a leader for this now?
Yes, I trust in Szoboszlai. I have my secret line-ups.
On a magnetic tactics board?
No, a little notepad. I’m stuck in the Gutenberg Galaxy, and I write with pencil and pen. No one’s asked me for advice, of course, but for myself I’ve written down how it’s going to be in eight years’ time, when we play in the World Cup final.
Here in Hotel Lentulai let’s recall the young Viktor Orbán. I’ll tell you why I’m asking you this. Two years ago I had a long conversation with László Kéri, and two weeks ago I had another long conversation here with László Bogár. Both of them talked about your past. Bogár said that as a teenager and a young university student you were an untamed, primal force, with an inspiring debating skill and style that inspired those around you. That’s one of the new ideas. Throughout my show two years ago, whenever you came up in the context of the modern era, Kéri called you “Orbán”; but when it was in the context of the Bibó College period, then he called you “Viktor”. And the same was true for Gábor Fodor and Deutsch. Kéri started by calling them by their surnames when criticising them, yadda yadda, in a current context, then he went back through time in a weird time machine with the aid of my show, and suddenly it was Viktor, Gábor and Tamás.
Yes, but that’s nice, isn’t it?
Absolutely lovely stuff.
Because what’s it all about, after all? It’s about the fact that after all we are – in this way, that way, or another – students of László Kéri.
Yes.
He wasn’t officially our tutor, but we spent many hours together – special elective seminars outside regular university courses, and so on. So we have a lot to thank him for. And when he says such horrible things about us, he says things that really make my hair stand on end. I think “My God, Laci!” It’s not that I say “Oh there goes Kéri again, saying who-knows-what”, but rather, “Laci, come on, we’ve known each other forever, you can’t possibly mean that!” So it’s a great thing that the teacher–student relationship can survive political storms. I think it is a nice thing. And life’s like that. We’ve grown up, and we don’t always like our former teachers in every way. I’d like to have had untamed, primal energy, because then I’d have been able to progress towards the national level in Hungarian football, rather than in politics; but I didn’t have enough untamed, primal energy for that. Because if there’s somewhere you need it, that’s where you really need it. But there’s definitely a kernel of truth in that, although I wouldn’t look for it in the term “untamed, primal energy”, but rather in the radical–moderate aspect. Because I’m a radical, and so in my thinking I follow the radical Hungarian tradition. I can’t remember whether it was Ady or Csurka – I get these radical authors mixed up in my head – who wrote the key sentence that for me is the benchmark: that a nation, a people like the Hungarian people, should always be radical – even when they breathe. This means that you have to think radically. So, even if we don’t like what we see, we must think through everything that happens to us in every single one of its implications. Otherwise we’ll lull ourselves into illusions, and that will be a big problem. But in politics we must not act radically. So I’m radical in thought, but moderate in action. And therefore those gentlemen’s recollections of a primal force aren’t unjustified, but it’s rather about a kind of intellectual–political radicalism. And in debate, of course...
Yes...
In a political debate a radically-minded person also follows through the implications of his ideas, and then he displays force in debate – which appears to be force but is, in fact, intellectual radicalism.
The Right in society, who stand by the Government, often say that you must have a crystal ball at home. So there are a lot of things that Viktor Orbán seems to have predicted or sensed.
That’s because...
Csurka is the other one before you who used to be spoken of in that way.
But the reason I’ve said what I’ve said is because I think things through. I don’t just see something and react – in fact, I believe that the reason I’m kept around, if I may put it that way, and the reason Hungary has a prime minister, is for that person to consider everything thoroughly, with courage, without fear, and without holding back any energy. So I’m really a person who thinks things through, and perhaps in this respect I’m competitive – even perhaps at international level. We’re doing something now, and that’s fine; but I want to know what it will be like tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and three years from now. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have this radical intellectual approach to understanding the world. And if you have that attitude, you can see things ahead that people who are stuck in the present day or in the present can’t imagine, being unable to link what we see here today with what we’ll see here tomorrow. Migration, to give you a concrete example. So I don’t have a crystal ball which enabled me to look into migration, but I did understand what it is. I put a lot of energy into understanding what was going to happen here. And not even half of what’s going to happen has yet happened in the whole European world. So in that sense it’s not a crystal ball, it’s... Although on migration my wife should take the real credit.
There you go!
Yes. I was watching to see how it was going to develop. She was working for an aid organisation and went down to help migrants. This was during the first wave. She came home and said, “Pull yourself together, get down there and don’t let any of them in. They’re all young men of military age in good physical condition. Let’s stop telling stories about them being refugees, because this is going to be a big problem. Go and put things in order.” Now, that’s not the exact phrase she used, but she told me to get going and stop it.
And do you think that believing your wife was empirical?
In certain things it’s essential for me to believe her. She’s a better, intellectually more capable person than I am. She was also a better student and a better lawyer than I was. So she’s worth listening to.
I want to show you something – I’ll go over to you. [Shows the prime minister a photo on his mobile phone.] Do you need my reading glasses?
No.
Tatabánya, Radio Radír.
Wow!
The unrecognizable form is me.
Is that you?
Yes.
I’d never believe it.
Well, what about that?
I recognise the other one, but I don’t think that’s you.
It was in 2009. And when I came across this photo the other day, when I was preparing for today, do you know what came to mind? That it was the final year for you and your party when you were free of a certain responsibility – in a good sense : in 2009 you could still say, “We’ll do it, we’ll do things differently, we’ll come back, this is no good, that’s no good, and this is what we have to offer”, and so on. So being in opposition, you could really let rip, as they say. That was the final year. The devil wouldn’t have thought – although with your crystal ball you might have – that sixteen years would pass, and Fidesz and the Fidesz government would still be running the country, and Viktor Orbán would still be Prime Minister.
This reminds me of two things. One: I think I’ve done it – or, to be more justifiably modest, we’ve done it. So we’ve done what we said in 2009 – our biggest commitments. Now this show wasn’t about that...
This was the roadshow against co-payments when visiting the doctor.
Yes. But I think that the greatest commitments we made to this country, to the people, were that we’d have a national government, that we’d have a national, civic, Christian constitution, that we’d transform the entire Hungarian economy, that we’d go from having 13 per cent unemployment then to everyone having a job. We said great things, and I think we’ve done them. This doesn’t mean that everything is in place. To my colleagues I always recommend the Viennese saying, according to which, “Everything’s very good, but nothing’s in its proper place” – that’s what they say in Vienna. So I have no problem criticising myself. I’m a Calvinist, and the rule there is that the church must always be reformed. So there’s no such thing as something that’s good, and it’s definitely not true that something can’t be better. So after fifteen years it doesn’t bother me at all that, in discussions that I regularly take part in, I have to say to people, “There’s this thing, here’s where we’ve gone forward, but what does it look like? Well, there’s still a lot of work to do!” So even after fifteen or sixteen years I’ll never run out of work. So my attitude to the world, to reality, is how to change it, how to improve it, how to make it even better – whether I’m in government or in opposition. To me that’s not relevant, because the direction of my thinking is independent of my political situation.
A new opposition force led by someone with a rather peculiar past has appeared on the map. I’ve been on countless programmes, and I’ve watched a lot of programmes, in which they say that there’s a division on the Right, between or within the media, the profession. There are those who say that we must focus on them, we must show them for what they are; the other diametrically opposed view is that we don’t need to do that, and we need to focus on our own business. Incidentally, this could also be a very good footballing analogy: we can play according to our own tactics and they’ll have to adapt to us; and other coaches say, “Let’s always look at how they do things, and then we’ll adapt to them.” And there are those on one side who say that we don’t have to pay attention to the opposition, and good governance is enough. Here’s my question. Next year will mark the sixteenth year of the Fidesz–KDNP government.
For me it will be my twentieth year.
Even more so...
Because I was in government earlier.
That’s right. Can society grow tired of governance? Because we’ve never seen that. We can’t think of an example of that from anywhere in the world in recent decades. So is it possible for society to become complacent, for Fidesz voters to become complacent, and for Fidesz politicians to become complacent?
That can happen, but it mustn’t be allowed to happen. What a thing that would be! Besides, we’re not the kind of people who just loaf around from morning till night. I think that few people in this country work more than me or than us. I’d like to meet those people who claim to work more than us – or even me personally – in terms of hours or results. I don’t want to be immodest, but this is, say, 14 to 16 hours a day. But I’d say two things. I think it’s good that they’re bored with the Government. It’s not bad, it’s good. Because we should get to the point where we can say that things are still going well here, regardless of the kind of government we have – which is never irrelevant, of course, but not decisive. Unfortunately, I don’t know if we ever will – our history isn’t like that. There are countries in Europe where they don’t even notice if they don’t have a government. The fact that Belgium doesn’t have a government for 180 days isn’t noticed. You don’t notice whether Italy has a government or not. And then there are peoples or nations whose history and character require a state and a government, because if there’s no well-functioning state and no government to run it, the whole community will fall apart, be paralysed, stagnate, fail, disintegrate. I think we’re like that. So I think it’s good for people to know that it’s important to have a government and it has to be a good government, but I’d like to arrive at the point at which people say, of course, things are going well in terms of governance. But we’re not there yet. This is the first thing I’d say. My second comment is that here the analogy that works isn’t football, but rugby. Because politics is like rugby: you have to fight while running. You’ve got the ball, you’re running and you’re being attacked all the time. You have to beat them.
Name a sport that has no culture in Hungary.
Yes, but politics is like that. So the point is that you have to fight while running, and if you have the ball you’re not attacking someone else, but you’re constantly being attacked. You go towards the goal you set, you carry the ball, you run, run, run, run,, and they come at you from left and right. You can’t get too complacent – if you get too complacent you’ll get knocked down, like we see on the rugby pitch. That’s the way it is.
If we look at the history of modern Hungary since 1990, since the fall of communism, we first need to look at the composition of the first parliament – even in its appearance. Of course, there were those dressed in garments from the Red October Clothes Factory, but there was also, say, Tamás Deutsch’s denim jacket. A lot has changed. The speeches have changed, the narrative has changed, how to fight for the loyalty of the voters has changed, and there’s been a change in what it means to put up a successful fight for the electorate’s votes so that mandates can be won. In the 35 years from 1990 to today, how do you think the political archetype in Hungary has changed?
Very much.
Because the skills that are needed are completely different from those back then.
Is it possible to take a step backwards here – to talk about more serious matters and farther afield?
Let’s do that!
I’m not a cultural anthropologist, of course, I’m just an amateur observer, but a key issue in politics is communication. Communication, if I analyse the word, means to make something communal, to make something common: if I have a thought, a plan, an idea, I communicate it to you, I make it common. I don’t talk to you, I make it common. Now, if one tries to imagine it backwards, humanity can now be in the third stage of “how to make things common”. In the beginning, if I wanted you, I had to go over to you – because there was still no such thing as writing. So that was oral communication. Someone would go over to another person and tell them something. Then Gutenberg came along with book printing: you wrote it down, you gave it to someone, he or she read it. The sine qua non of gaining information and making an idea communal through reading is that the one who reads understands – not just reads, but understands – the other person’s idea, and not just what’s written, but what’s behind what’s written. So in our world, where I come from and maybe you come from, the point of things is understanding – not simply knowing the words, but understanding them. There’s something, someone says something to me and I understand what that other person is saying. I want to understand why he’s saying it, and so on. And now humanity is entering a third stage, and it’s affecting politics and our profession: there are images. So you can send images. Of course we who are still stuck in the Gutenberg Galaxy think that the really important thing is understanding, because to understand things well is to understand them through imagined pictures behind texts. But young people just send images to one another. The text is getting shorter and shorter. And if I don’t want to be biased towards my own youth, but want to understand young people today, I have to admit that there may be more information in a picture than in a Dostoyevsky novel. Now, I may be exaggerating, but there’s much more, only we don’t see it as such, because we see value in understanding. And young people today look at it, they have an impression, they’ve recognised it, and they move on. And that affects our profession. Therefore, in politics, the role of understanding, the ability to understand, the desire to understand, which used to be paramount, is shrinking; and what’s becoming the determining factor is more the impression, the experience, the short term, a single day, a mood. This is bad for political thinking. It may be good for communication, because we can more easily form a sense of community; but it’s certainly bad for a deeper understanding of what’s important. I too struggle or suffer with this, and I see the phenomenon. But that’s how it is now, that’s how the world is. We communicate with images, you have to be able to speak in that language, you have to reach the other person in that language, you have to explain in images what you want, what you think, and others will infer it from those images. It’s difficult. This hasn’t been good for our profession. So far I see a drop in standards rather than the rise of a new standard.
In connection with this topic, last year in Kötcse you said the following. It’s not enough for Fidesz politicians to win policy debates. They must also be able to articulate, even improvisationally, in a few minutes, in front of a camera, clearly accessible ideas. They must do this not in bureaucratic language, but in a clear, understandable, human way, which actually helps to convey the message of the Government. But my question is this: Don’t you think that some people are comfortable doing this, while other people aren’t?
Yes. And those who don’t like it, will spin out of the profession. Because it’s simply like you said: you need different capacities, different skills. And those who don’t have them just don’t have them. This doesn’t mean that they’ll disappear from politics, but we certainly can’t put them in the front line. We’ll put them somewhere useful, because experience, knowledge, it all counts, but we can’t send them out. I’ll send Lázár out, let’s say, for “Lázár Info”. So he’s a master of this, at an internationally outstanding level. What we’re talking about is Lázár Info and János Lázár. I don’t think anyone’s ever seen anything like it – and I certainly haven’t seen it in Hungary or anywhere else. Three hours, out on a street corner – and then, my friends, an opponent comes along, saying terrible things. And then, with such elan, in the end he manages to avoid a mob brawl – which is itself a fine achievement sometimes – and answers his opponent. But when I watch a Lázár Info, I see that he’s not only done all that, but that he’s also said everything important. It’s a great feat, and very few people in politics can do that. This new era will separate the wheat from the chaff. Many of us won’t stay on our feet, many won’t make it through.
As you’re highlighting this ability now, how many such people with this ability would be needed?
One hundred and six: in Hungary there are 106 constituencies.
Let’s see this new force! As a voter there are things that come across to me: my Prime Minister represents me up there in Parliament, in Brussels, in Strasbourg, wherever he goes. He has the opportunity to speak for me, to convey my ideas and my interests, to represent me.
That’s true.
However, there are also situations, Prime Minister, such as this interview situation, where I, as the presenter, am given greater leeway, but your position doesn’t allow you this. And this is what’s coming up next.
This is true. I can’t say just anything.
When speaking of the emergence of Péter Magyar and the complete frenzy that he’s brought in his wake, conservative people, people on the Right – regardless of generation – say that such a thing is unspeakable. And here’s something you cannot say, but I’ll say. This is a man who’s a lunatic, who’s betrayed his family, who’s running a circus, and has nothing to say. I talk to many people, and we – my friends and acquaintances – have come to the conclusion that the key to this is that the section of society that doesn’t like Fidesz aren’t looking for someone to govern them, but for a hangman.
Well, that’s also possible. Of course I don’t want to make any negative personal comments.
That’s why I brought it up like this.
Yes, yes, so I don’t say that. I could go even further than that, but...
But this is the kind of anger that makes you clench your fists. Isn’t that what you feel?
Yes, but instead I try to understand it.
Okay.
What are we talking about? For me there’s nothing new in this. What you call new isn’t new to me. I’ve seen it before, always in different forms, but in essence it’s the same, and as a radical thinker looking at things in depth, for me it’s the same. The nature of democracy is that whatever you do, there are always people who won’t like you, won’t agree with you, won’t want what you want. And there are many reasons for that – they can be spiritual, ideological, intellectual, matters of personal dislike, personal grievance. They can be many things. That’s how it is, that’s democracy. And now when power and politics are organised according to democratic rules – which they are, because we can’t do better than that, as Churchill said – then we have to take note of it. So this is a funny sounding sentence, but there’s also a little pain in it: we even benefit those who don’t vote for us. With our opponents, even those who vote for them are worse off as a result – and yet they still vote for them. There’s a little pain in that, isn’t there?
You’re telling me – of course.
Okay, but it’s not worth complaining too much, because that’s the way it is. So that’s democracy. If power in a society is organised according to democratic rules, then it’s always like that, and that has to be acknowledged. There’s no point in regretting it or saying that they don’t see the connections, that they’re voting against their own interests. So there’s no point in regretting it. That’s the way it is. Your job is to be good in this environment, to help as many people as possible in this environment. Garner the understanding, the interest, the sympathy of as many people as possible. That’s the first thing. The second isn’t new to me, because the basic structure of Hungarian politics has remained unchanged for a hundred years. The same set of people are always facing the same other set of people. It’s the same now. The question is, who’s your master? My master is the Hungarian people. I belong to the Hungarians. I serve the Hungarians. This has never been true for my opponents – never. It’s never been true for my major opponents. The masters of those people were somewhere else, they never wanted what was good for the Hungarians, but were always guided by internationalism, by Western civilisation, by NATO, by Brussels, by God knows what – but they were always guided by something from somewhere outside, something other than what this country needs. And such people are always found by foreign powers who care about what happens in Hungary and who want to influence events in Hungary. Therefore, the masters of these politicians aren’t here. This is why I’m not arguing with them, why I’m not arguing with the Tisza Party and Péter Magyar – I’m arguing with their masters! Every month in Brussels. Our opponents are there. My opponents aren’t Hungarians, but the people over there – and, of course, their prefects here. So to me this isn’t new: it has a different shape, a different aroma, a different smell, a different look – but in essence, from where I’m looking at it, it’s the same.
Okay, let’s say I accept that statement, and that it’s a fateful thing, which we’ve seen different incarnations of in the past. Then we can say that the recipe exists. But we don’t have the recipe after all: it doesn’t appear with the emergence of Péter Magyar, of the Tisza Party, with Fidesz immediately knowing what to do the next day. Because although – as you’ve said – the phenomenon is familiar to you, the new form it takes requires a completely different way of fighting.
Well, yes, but I’m not concerned with that right now, because the most important thing in politics is timing. I’d rather...
That’s how the Germans win tournaments.
I’d rather say that timing is the most important thing in tactics – maybe not in substantive matters, but timing is everything in tactics, in the tactical part of politics. And a ruling party needs tremendous self-discipline. Outside the campaign period, like now, I can’t afford – nor can the country afford – the Government spending more than 10 to 15 per cent of its time dealing with its opponents. And I’m not willing to spend any more time on it than that. That’s all that’s needed. So, of course, some attention is needed, because the nature of rugby is that if...
I wanted to say, you just mentioned rugby. Well, you can’t measure it with fine precision.
Yes, but that’s roughly how I see it. Then we’ll get closer to the elections, the campaign will come, the pre-campaign period will come – or, I could say, campaign preparation, pre-campaign followed by campaign. Then the ratio will shift, then we’ll have to do things differently, because we’ll have to enter the fray. But right now we’re still in the pre-preparation stage. This is nothing compared to what’s coming.
I’m sitting here with Viktor Orbán on Friday morning; and, as seen from Friday, yesterday Judit Varga returned to the spotlight. She had to appear as a witness in court. It was good for me to see her. It was good in the sense that she put the opposition journalists in their place. She seemed composed. Once again I was overcome by the same feeling of loss – and many of us on this side feel that this woman is capable of more. If you saw the reports, as I imagine you did, how did you feel?
It always hurts. These are personal matters, so I can’t say much about it here. But I struggled with her over the final year and a half: on at least three occasions she said she wanted to quit. She said that she couldn’t stand what was going on at home, but this...
I see...
...was intolerable. And I told her, “Judit, please hang in there. Try, you’re talented, I have great faith in you, you’re doing very important work – try.” Well, she hung in there as long as she could. So for me the pain is also personal. On the other hand, it’s a huge loss to the country. I have to say that in politics it’s very rare to find such talent, natural talent – not learned, but innate – as Minister Judit Varga had. And of course, politics is infinite: you’ll never be ready, fully prepared and knowing everything. That’s not how it is. The essence of politics is experience, which is something you can never have too much of. But as an old fox, if I may put it that way, who has opened up opportunities for many young people both outside and inside politics, it’s my job to somehow recognize talent, ability and sensitivity. And Judit had the skills to be Prime Minister. Of course, she’d have needed another four to eight years, but she had everything it takes for someone to dare to take on the leadership of a country, to make important decisions, to lead, to organize, to represent.
Until now I hadn’t heard you say that so explicitly.
Yes, well, I don’t usually say such things. Brilliant: Judit is brilliant – that’s the best word I can use to describe her. That’s why the whole thing is so painful and infuriating.
If I may suggest, based on past performances in this show, please drink some water. Coming up is the personal segment, which is an important part of the show. When preparing for Viktor Orbán and trying to compile a list of the people you’ve seen from all kinds of fields, I realized that this is a list that’s two or two and a half times longer than usual.
Yes, but is it all right for the Prime Minister to make personal comments about people?
This is a playful name for a certain psychological test, which is an association game.
We’re treading on very dangerous ground here, yes.
Believe me, you’re safe.
Yes, because it’s not good for private individuals to express opinions about others – but for someone in a position of power it’s very dangerous. So please be understanding.
That’s how it will be. The essence of the game is that I’ll keep feeding you names, and you, Prime Minister, will tell me the first thought that comes to mind when you hear each of these names. There’s not much opportunity for storytelling.
One word, two words, three?
No, some people can describe this person in a very literary way with just one word. That’s also possible. A short sentence, one or two sentences. And since there are a lot of names and I want to move on, this is a fast-paced segment of the show. So here comes the personal segment, with Viktor Orbán at Hotel Lentulai. János Kádár?
Gallows.
Károly Grósz?
We got away with it.
Mátyás Szűrös?
A decent man.
Imre Pozsgay?
A man of the heart.
József Antal?
Misfortune. I don’t mean for us – for us it was very good that he was our prime minister. But he didn’t have more time, which was a great misfortune.
László Bogár?
Complicated.
Imre Boros?
A provincial genius.
Gyula Horn?
Slow and steady wins the race.
Gábor Kuncze?
Empty.
Bálint Magyar?
Dullard.
Ildikó Lendvay?
Talented.
Ibolya Dávid?
Betrayal.
Krisztina Morvai?
It’s a shame she quit so soon.
Ferenc Gyurcsány?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph!
Gábor Fodor?
Difficult.
He’s the difficult one?
Difficult, yes. Gábor is a complex character. We were roommates, so I was very close to him. In fact, I still am – even though now we don’t have anything in common. If I’m radical, then he’s absolutely middle class, absolutely moderate. Moderate to the point of avoiding all conflict – perhaps that’s the right way to put it.
Gábor Vona?
The man who lost his way. We were together in the first civic circle that I founded after the 2002 election.
András Schiffer?
Well, intellectually he’s on the same path as me. I used to debate with him, I remember, even in Parliament, but he’s the one who understands the phrase that we’re a people who even have to breathe radically. So he’s intellectually radical – even though he’s left-wing, urban, and therefore the opposite of me. But he still has an intellectual need to think things through, and that’s why it’s good to talk to him – even if you don’t agree with him.
He knows that collectively we voters on the Right always dream of having an opposition like that of Schiffer.
Yes, but that hurts him more.
I was just about to say that, but I don’t want to bring trouble down on András. Klára Dobrev?
I don’t know her, but I’d say that it couldn’t have been easy for her.
Gábor Demszky?
Why do you ask? Because of his terms as Mayor of Budapest?
I’ve jumped a category.
But you’re asking because of his terms as Mayor of Budapest, aren’t you? I have other experiences. I was in jail or a holding cell with him, in joint detention for a few hours. And, you know, a holding cell is a tough place – especially if you’ve been beaten up beforehand. And he took it well. But then, as Mayor, I think I could say bad things, or be critical, but I won’t. There, when the situation was tense and difficult, and the stakes were high, Gábor conducted himself well.
István Tarlós?
No risks!
Gergely Karácsony?
Well… Pride, bankruptcy, traffic jams.
I didn’t tell the viewers or you, but from an ethical point of view, I won’t ask about active government politicians here.
I don’t want to judge anyone morally either. The whole segment... I’m not at all in a position to judge people. I’d rather answer you by helping you understand characters, I’d rather try that.
This is the segment that guests don’t usually like, but viewers like it all the more. In this way, you’re pleasing the viewer.
Yes, I feel terrible, yes.
Árpád Göncz?
Accidental.
László Sólyom?
That’s a more difficult question. László Sólyom rendered great service to his country. Despite the fact that on the constitution, on creating a constitution, we were in two different two worlds... Of course he was a professor and I was just a student. But this country might have fared much worse if he hadn’t been President during the Gyurcsány government. He took on the job and did it, and he served honourably as President during the Gyurcsány government, which is a great thing. So László Sólyom, who was also our teacher, was someone I’m naturally biased in favour of. I didn’t agree with him on important issues, but I salute him for saving the country from greater trouble with his presidency.
We don’t really talk about this.
But that’s how it is. We’re not always fair. I also remember that, in my opinion, he interpreted the constitution poorly and unfavourably from the point of view of Hungarian sovereignty, and so on. But all that is secondary to the heroic deed he undertook and accomplished in those five years as President, saving the country. Let us remember that the leftists didn’t treat him well. Those were harsh years. And he endured and accomplished it.
János Áder?
You can entrust your family to him. So if you get into trouble and need someone to entrust your family to, that person is János.
Katalin Novák?
Our other super talent. What a pity. What a pity.
Gábor G. Fodor?
If you don’t poke at things, you won’t get anywhere. So Gábor is the kind of person who pokes at people, politics, situations, and tries things out. Inspirational – perhaps that’s the right word.
Mária Schmidt?
Mari? The bravest woman I’ve ever known. Not even three men could withstand the intellectual abuse that’s been – and continues to be – directed at her. And Mari remains unshaken.
László Kéri?
Well, since it’s happened, it’s happened... It’s a shame.
István Stumpf?
I can only say the best things about him. This is despite the fact that when Fidesz was formed there were two concepts. If I speak in terms of old Hungarian historical contexts, then it was a party of slogans and resolutions. István was of the opinion that we shouldn’t form immediately, because it would cause big trouble: we were still in communist times, so he said that first we should announce our intention to form at some point, and then see what happens. And then I said to him, “István, be serious – either we do something now or we don’t.” What I said was that we were young – and young people today are the same. No fake stuff. Announcing that someday, maybe, if you don’t mind, we’ll do something – that’s fake. We said we were going to do it, so let it be real, let it be true. I had a disagreement with István, but he didn’t want to force his will on me or on us at all. Like a teacher, he just said, “Think this through.” I can only say the best things about István. He was a fantastic Minister leading the Prime Minister’s office. Few people remember that now, as he’s better known as a constitutional judge. He was a fantastic minister. In 1998, at the age of 35, I was elected prime minister, and at the age of 35, I had to form a government. No one remembers this now, but my rule was that I tried to invite only people older than me into the Government. And everyone was older. I was the youngest: I – the Prime Minister himself – was the “Benjamin” in the Government. This is because experience and knowledge were needed. And I felt that there were things that I could take on, but a lot was missing – experience, routine. And it had to be made up for somehow. And then I asked István to think about the whole system of the Government’s brain centre. And he not only thought about it, but he acted on it. I was – and am – very grateful to him.
Márton Békés?
There’s much more to come, so we’ll read more good books.
Péter Tölgyessy?
Well, that’s a difficult case.
The opposition is just now discovering him.
Yes, but Péter’s a smart man.
Absolutely!
He’s the man who didn’t succeed. We’ve been talking about liberation. I think it was after the 1968 Czech liberation attempt, the Czech–Czechoslovak attempt to liberate themselves from the Russian or Soviet empire, when many people were emigrating. One of their prominent intellectuals had fled to Vienna, and they asked him, “What is a political scientist?” Because he became a political scientist. “A political scientist is someone who has failed.” In politics, of course. And Péter is like that. He’s been very unlucky. His whole generation has been unlucky, by the way. We’ve overrun our time, and I’m not sure if anyone cares… So let’s try to think through everything that’s happened in the last thirty-five years with the minds of ‘68ers. This partly explains why they hate me, and us, so implacably – beyond intellectual reasons, because they’re in a progressive, liberal world, which is a different world from ours. But they had a chance in 1989–90. János Kis, the SZDSZ, Gábor Demszky, Bálint Magyar, Iván Pető, I could go on. And Péter Tölgyessy. And they almost defeated the MDF! It was a matter of 3 or 4 per cent – the party list result. It was a complicated electoral system back then, and that small difference meant that they almost succeeded. Then came 1994, when, in theory, if the ruling party failed, the largest opposition party would take over. That was their second chance. What happened? Gyula Horn came back and beat them. And again, it wasn’t the ‘68er SZDSZ that was returned, but the old communists. And Gyula Horn brought back the MSZP [Hungarian Socialist Party] – the renewed, transformed MSZP. Another failure! So they decided to sell their souls and formed a coalition: the most radical anti-communist party formed a coalition with the former communists. It was like the instigators of the French Revolution actively participating in the Bourbon Restoration, let’s put it that way. It was a rather strange thing. But they did so in the hope that the communists were old, and that sooner or later they could come to power from within the Government. But instead we came to power in 1998. So first they were defeated by the old conservatives, then they were beaten by the old communists, and then by the young members of Fidesz. They never managed to make it. We’re talking about a generation that was understandably frustrated, because it always felt that it was the most educated and the smartest. It doesn’t matter whether or not that was true...
They made the rest of society feel that way.
But that’s what they thought. Now we don’t know if that was the case, because they never got to try their hand. So I always say that I don’t know, maybe you were the smartest and the best, and you would have set a world record and caused a worldwide sensation – but first you have to get there, and only then can you do it. They didn’t even get there. But at the same time, it can be a frustrating experience for an entire generation. Behind them is a big world, a big ecosystem: all those artists and intellectuals, everyone who never really made it there because every time it somehow turned out that way. We’ve been here again since 2010, and they never succeeded. Sure, Péter may have had great political talent and might have been a good leader, but we’ll never know. Instead, now he’s writing.
I’m trying to hurry up and get this done. Dénes Kemény?
After three gold medals, there’s nothing more to talk about.
Krisztina Egerszegi.
That’s fantastic! Not only is she fantastic, but so is that. So, the thing is, someone decides like that at the age of twenty-six?
Under thirty, yes.
Well under thirty.
Absolutely!
She says that life isn’t just about swimming. She wanted a family, children, and that was that. There were two or three gold medals left in her, weren’t there? Well...
Of course...
And she says that’s fine. So this action or this decision – which is a lifestyle choice made in the face of fame, success, and temptation – shows great strength of character, I think. I’ve always liked her, and this decision of hers elicits not only affinity in me, but respect – respect going beyond athletic honour and glory.
Tamás Darnyi?
Well... Darnyi is one of the kings, right? Or the king. That’s why he won in both his events, on two occasions. I don’t know when that will happen again.
There are many kings...
I see Huber is trying, but it’s very difficult.
There are many kings here, but I’ll have to go with this one. Danuta Kozák?
She’s the silent assassin, right? I’ve talked to her several times, and I don’t think she’s ever said a loud word in her life, at least not wherever I was. She got in the kayak, went wild and killed everyone. So there was no mercy. I respect her very much.
István “Kokó” Kovács?
I think Kokó has political talent. I’ve tried several times to see if he could possibly get into politics, because I feel… What’s the essence of political talent? is essential. I don’t know if we have that much time left. So we’ve talked about skills.
I have more time than you do, because you have to hurry...
Because the most important thing in politics is that you have to love people. Not in a general, pious way – which is also a very nice thing. In politics, you don’t have to love them that way, but specifically, just as they are.
One of the parties is now putting love on its banner, you know.
And this means that in politics, love actually means that the work you do – you don’t do it for yourself, but for them. And you yourself believe it that way too. And when you talk to them, to the people, you don’t talk to them because there’s something you want to tell them that’s important to you, but only about what’s important to them – because ultimately it’s about them. And I think Kokó has this ability. But there’s another equally important task: it’s outrageous that the generation after László Papp can’t produce a boxer who’s a contender for an Olympic gold medal. Something needs to be done! We are, after all, talking about a shining star of Hungarian culture – so in boxing we’re someone, right? I’ll say something about that later. I think in boxing we’re someone, and this whole boxing culture, the association, should be organized so that something comes out of it. I talked to Evander Holyfield, who’s one of the kings – or not a king, but an emperor. I talked to Holyfield, and asked him if he knew that Hungary is the only country where boxing isn’t called boxing. He said no, because boxing is boxing everywhere. I said no – because in our country, boxing is “fist fencing”.
Isn’t it like that anywhere else?
I don’t think so. I told him it was fist fencing – or I’m not even sure how to translate it. It’s strange. He looked at me in puzzlement. Because it’s not just about raw power and technique – it’s a form of fencing. And I think that for us, in our boxing, it’s always been about fist fencing. And I think it’s a cultural attribute, a special feature. And you don’t get that feeling with the word “boxing”, which I really regret. But if he didn’t enter politics, perhaps Kokó will succeed there.
András Törőcsik?
When I was growing up I would sit with my grandfather in the kitchen in the village of Alcsútdoboz. The radio would be turned up loud, broadcasting live coverage of championship football matches. We had a picture of the undefeated Fradi [Ferencváros] champions, and underneath it hung a triangular Fradi flag. So that was how I grew up. And against this backdrop I became an Újpest fan, as a child. And the only reason for that was the Fazekas–Zámbó–Dunai–Törőcsik combination. So there you go. And it was just about their play! I didn’t even know what Újpest was.
You were looking for conflict with your father.
It was my grandfather. In the village they even said that they were the police team. I said, “What are you talking about, police team? Well, Törőcsik... Just look at Törőcsik, can’t you see?” My father was less interested in football, but I was with my grandfather. We lived in Alcsútdoboz, in a two-bedroom “Kádár Cube” village bungalow. My mother, father, brother and I shared one room, and my grandmother and grandfather shared the other. They tried to raise me properly, which on my parents’ part was no small undertaking. So there was discipline, bedtime, school – in other words, order. And when the World Cup was in Latin America in 1970, I was seven years old. Because of the time difference, the matches were at night. And then the trick was that the two rooms opened into each other, and at night my grandfather opened the door and I would sneak over. My mother later told me that they knew, of course, but they pretended not to see me. So at night I sneaked over and sat on my grandfather’s lap, with a bottle of Bambi orangeade and Neapolitan wafers. And we watched the games together. That’s how I grew up. I must have been seven years old when that happened. I was in school.
Well, I’ll also switch quickly from one to another. Zoltán Novotny, István Vass...
Whoa!
Great! Tibor Nyilasi?
I’m glad he’s still around. “Nyíl” is a great fighter. When I was younger I used to go up to Normafa regularly at dawn to run and keep in shape. Now I don’t have the strength or time for that. I used to run, and sometimes I’d hear pounding feet coming up behind me, panting sounds, and Nyíl would regularly overtake me. So I have personal memories of Nyíl as well.
Lajos Détári?
He was indispensable. Détári? Well, he was our last genius. Now Szoboszlai is good...
It’s interesting because Gera and Dzsudzsák followed him, and we also have Szoboszlai, but for some reason, “Döme” remained the one.
Because Döme was world class. Szoboszlai has fantastic abilities in my opinion – as an old amateur footballer on the sidelines of the football world. Sometimes I can’t sleep at night, and I don’t want to let work occupy my mind, so in the early hours of the morning, or at night I just watch old matches. There are very few old matches, Hungarian matches, that I haven’t seen – if any. And when I see Szoboszlai, it’s like seeing the reincarnation of Albert Flórián. It’s the same movement, everything – like against the Brazilians.
He runs a little more.
I’d be careful about saying that, because we – and especially you, because of your age – remember the old Albert. But somewhere I read once that he ran from Isaszeg to Pest for training. So I think we underestimate him, because we remember the older Albert Flórián, his hip, and whatever.
Yes, yes, yes.
But if we look at the Brazil–Hungary game, the work was there. So I think we’re being a little unfair. But I really have to say that in Szoboszlai I see an Albert Flórián. But I’m looking for a Farkas. Then, when we have our Jancsi Farkas, we’ll be there, at the top or thereabouts, among those storming the summit. We don’t yet have that today.
Not Zoli Varga?
No, no, we underestimate him. I don’t think so. I even played with Zoli Varga, God rest his soul, because he was a kid from Vál. That’s two villages after Alcsút.
Did he really score three goals from three corners without any preparation when he was a coach?
I played with him in an old boys’ match on the Alcsút football field, which has a slope. Our goalkeeper was a former national team player, and Zoli Varga took a corner. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. Now I see Szoboszlai, but Zoli Varga was stratospheric even compared to Szoboszlai. What happened was that he put it down there, and with force, from a corner kick, into the short upper corner – but with such force that our former Honvéd goalkeeper, Lévai, tipped it over. Another corner kick. The second time with even more power, but to exactly the same spot, and Lévai tipped that one over too. And the third time he put it in the same way, even harder – and it went in. So not just once. I’ve seen a lot, and I respect Uncle Öcsi [Puskás], but a shot like that? I stood there mesmerized at the corner of the penalty area, hoping it would bounce out, but it didn’t bounce out…
Henrik Havas? Sudden change.
We’re Christians after all, and we try to find something good in everyone. He, for example, is an Újpest fan.
György Baló?
Duel. Back when we were first in government, there was a programme in which Gyuri [Baló] agreed to discuss government measures, and this regularly turned into a duel. A rare thing. So this type died out first. He was a true rarity, an intellectually gifted man who understood politics and whose very deep knowledge bordered on science. And as a journalist he was easy to understand and had a light touch. So that’s one type. In the Anglo-Saxon world this is a well-known type of journalist – someone who’s almost in the realm of science, but not quite, someone almost in politics, but not quite, and who can explain everything well. We lack these people. We’ve never had many of them, and in practice this genre may be revived – for example, Mandiner could have the task of reviving it, finding these people, because it fits a certain profile. But since Baló we haven’t had people with this ability.
András Hont?
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that I recruited him to Fidesz. And it’s also only a slight exaggeration to say that I expelled him.
Symmetry.
But in fact, I was never… I think he was in the group in Budapest District VI, and when the communist regime fell, he was a young... So let’s be serious: he has his merits. There were very few high school students who, before the fall of communism, said, “Okay, let’s do it!” But András was one of them. Hont didn’t mess around – he came along and did it. Then, of course, as we know him from the media, there wasn’t the party discipline, the consultation, the compromises – it wasn’t a world in which he felt at home. It was only a matter of time before he drifted away. Then, with some kind of group breakup – I don’t even remember the year – our paths finally diverged. So now he’s in the media, but at least there’s finally someone there who understands politics – because he’s been scorched by it. He knows what he’s talking about.
Dániel Bohár?
This is the new world. This is the new world, and he’s the star of the new world. And I think he’s still at the beginning of his career.
Márton Gulyás?
I don’t know him, and I don’t think I’ve ever exchanged two words with him in my life. But I’m afraid that’s the team that has other masters.
Bence Apáti?
I’ll never forget the heated political debates about where the Prime Minister should give his speech in 2023, on the bicentenary of Petőfi’s birth. Should I give a traditional 15 March speech, as I usually do and as expected, on the steps of the Museum Garden in Budapest? Or should we go to Petőfi’s birthplace and have a 15 March dedicated to Petőfi there? We chose the latter. I had long wanted to say something serious and good about Petőfi, which of course the opposition always interprets as talking about literature instead of politics. But that’s not important – I don’t think they really understand what I’m saying, but that’s another matter. And there was Bence Apáti in the crowd. I saw him standing there on the side. And I put a quote from Petőfi into my speech, a quote about journalists. It was something like, “If there was no such thing in the world as horseradish sauce, what I’d hate the most would be journalists or theatre critics.” And in my mind’s eye I can still see Bence Apáti: I looked to the side and saw him laughing and slapping his knee. And ever since then, when I see Bence that’s what always comes to mind: horseradish sauce. I wanted to see his latest production at the Operetta Theatre, but life intervened, and I couldn’t go because I was stuck somewhere in Brussels.
Egon Rónai?
I don’t know him. Sooner or later we’ll inevitably be together on a show, if he’s interested, because he’s pursuing a genre that no longer exists – I mean the kind of show he does on the Left.
Yes.
It’s all but extinct. There is still one like that. But tell me, please, what is it with the Left? On the Left there’s hitman journalism: bang, bang, bang. But Egon Rónai says, “Well, tell me, please, I have a question, I’m interested in something…” That voice has died out on that side – but he has it, so I think sooner or later something might come of it.
Zsolt Bayer?
With “Zsoci” till death us do part. Whatever it is, politics, spritzers, literature – until death.
And Azahriah?
I’d rather not say anything about him, because the only words that come to mind are strong expressions from the vernacular, and since we’re talking about a young and very talented person, I’d rather not make things easier or harder for him; let him get on with it. Calling people protozoa crossed a line, so I was forced to defend my own community; but I don’t want to defend it in such a way that such a talented young man’s mistake... Well, let him be, let him be talented, he has it in him. But talent and success don’t entitle anyone to talk about others who may be less talented, intelligent, and successful than they are as if they were toe-rags. That’s not acceptable!
The last question from Hotel Lentulai is a combination of questions. Please give a short answer and a brief explanation, Prime Minister. This is a two-part question. First, be self-critical and name one thing you’re dissatisfied with in the Government’s performance and activities, or one thing that’s long overdue and still hasn’t been done. Second, name a politician, publicist, artist, intellectual, anyone from the other side of the barricade with whom you disagree about the world, but whom you read, watch, listen to, and respect.
Am I supposed to do the work of the opposition as well? Do I understand correctly?
This is a question that carries a message, believe me.
Two jobs for the price of one? Look, there are a lot of things that aren’t right, and even if they were, it wouldn’t matter, because the world we live in is undergoing changes that mean that even things that were fine last year will have to be adjusted so that they’ll be fine next year. So sitting here we’re not in a state of rest: there’s no comfort. There are a lot of things ahead of us that need to be changed. As for the other side, they’re out of ideas – that’s the problem, they’re out of ideas. Where do we classify Tölgyessy, here or over there?
Well, we’ve already talked about him.
Yes. I always enjoy talking to Péter, but perhaps it’s not fair to classify him as being on the other side. They’ve pretty much all disappeared. Oh, sorry – Hiller. Well, now I’ve outed him, there you go.
I’ve been planning to invite him for a long time.
I’ll tell you why I think I could have a good conversation with Hiller – excuse me, Member of Parliament István Hiller. There’s a secret – or non-public – committee in the Hungarian parliament. It’s called the EU Grand Committee. Before every summit in Brussels the Prime Minister goes there to report and inform the representatives about the positions that, based on the agenda, the Hungarian government will represent on behalf of Hungary in Brussels. So it’s not that I just go to Brussels and do whatever I want, but beforehand I have to consult with a parliamentary grand committee, in which all the parties in Parliament are represented. The only condition is that no one makes any public statements – in order to ensure that these are international matters and that we can discuss them seriously. So everyone knows that the committee exists, but we don’t talk about it – and that’s as it should be. If there’s a national policy that needs to be implemented in a foreign and European context, then this committee embodies it. The MSZP’s delegate there is István Hiller. When we talk about important national and strategic issues there, I see that there are points on which we can have a stimulating discussion – although he’s very much on the Left and I’m obviously very much on the Right from his perspective.
Thank you for your answer, and thank you for coming here to Hotel Lentulai. This political side and the media have their work cut out for them, so we won’t be bored next spring.
It will work out.
My guest at Hotel Lentulai was Viktor Orbán. Thank you very much for joining us again for another long programme. Drop in again on us next week! Bye!