Éva Andor: It’s always like this, isn’t it? That’s how they welcome you, right?
No, no, no. It gets better as you go from north to south.
I’ll clarify that – this is how they usually welcome you at anti-war DPK [Digital Civic Circles] rallies. Are you able to get used to this, by the way? This may be a strange question, but people always ask whether it’s easy or difficult to get used to not being welcomed with affection somewhere. What about the opposite?
You see, I live in Budapest. I’d like to live in Felcsút, but my work ties me to Pest, and it’s not quite like that there. I go into a shop or somewhere, and no one has ever hurt me; they haven’t attacked me physically, for example, and that’s a big deal – watch TV or listen to the radio, and you’ll see that happens in the West. They don’t even insult me – they don’t even say anything, sometimes not even “hello”. It’s hard to separate this from modern civilisational developments and politics. Sometimes I see them turn away, or signal that we’re in the same place just by chance. But overall I have to say that our people are in a much better state of mind and have a higher level of civility than we ourselves tend to think. So real life isn’t like the reality of Facebook – perhaps I could put it that way.
Prime Minister, thank you for being here!
Excuse me, but is it also important – and a tricky question – whether or not they’re greeting me, or themselves. Because, after all, I haven’t done anything special: we’re not talking about Erika [Miklósa], standing up here, singing something and taking our breath away, are we? We’re not talking about a production. I’m not really doing anything other than what are perhaps more than plans, but rather dreams – the plans and dreams – that Hungarians have been nurturing for almost a hundred years, and which I’m trying to make come true. This is why when they greet me, I actually think that they’re not really greeting me, but rather saying: “We still have hope in you.” And they stop there, because there are different ways to continue that sentence; but the point is that we still have hope, because things cannot stay this way. I could also say, excuse me, that we’re starting this at such an elevated level.
I started it, or I asked about it.
Or at such a deep level. The way I’ve always looked at it is that, of course, one needs to govern; and to govern well – which means, let’s say, making people’s lives easier or smoother, or helping them make their own lives happier. That’s what we call governance. But that’s a specialist matter, and I didn’t really take that on. I think others could solve that too. My secret ambition has always been different. I came to believe – from what I learned at home, what I read, or from all the signs I could see – that the 20th century was ruined. So here we’d lost. And somehow, embedded in us, under our skin, the feeling that we’d lost. And I took it upon myself – it was my plan – to use the tools of politics not only to simply have a better government, but to change our fate: to turn losers into winners. That’s what I signed up for. And when I meet people, I see that they think the same way. This feeling of defeat – or the feeling or mental state of a defeated person – can be read from even the smallest signs. We didn’t come together to talk about our weaknesses, but just note how we talk. We haven’t always talked like this. We string our sentences together in such a way that there’s always something uncertain in them, so that they don’t have such a sharp edge. It’s always a little bit like, “Something didn’t work out, it didn’t quite work out.” Either it worked out or it didn’t. I can give you many such examples. Pay attention when we speak – all of you and me. There’s always a half-sentence which isn’t spoken in the manner of the children of other nations who experienced the past as victors. And there are many other small signs in our gestures. So the fact that we lost the 20th century – losing territory, people, population, blood, economic assets, opportunities and a future – lives with us much more deeply than we think. And it will remain this way until we change it together, until we become the most successful people in Central Europe. Then it will change. And if, from my point of view, I don’t view politics as an election, which of course is necessary, but as the mission of a generation – and Fidesz is also something of a generational party – then this is the mission of our generation. So first of all, in the second half of the 1980s, the mission was to encourage people to believe that there would be big changes here. In the mid-1980s that was not yet so obvious. I remember that when we founded Fidesz, my family members rushed over to me, in a state of breathless agitation. I was living in Szolnok, in the Széchenyi Housing Estate, in an apartment in a system-built block. And my family showed up. The radio had announced that young people had formed an anti-government organisation. And they asked me, “What are you doing?” They said, “The Soviets will still be here when you die, you won’t be able to get rid of the communists, no matter how much you want to. This is how we’re going to live, and you have to find your place in this.” I still thought that the mission of our generation – under the wing of the MDF and the SZDSZ, who were smarter, bigger, and more experienced – was for someone to say, “No, this is about to end, and it’s up to us when it ends, let’s get ourselves together and do it…” And we did it. That was the mission of our generation in the second half of the 1980s. It was described as radical anti-communism, but that’s not what it was about – or rather it was about more than that. Now I think that when we hand over the baton – because, as you can see, it won’t last forever – the mission of our generation is that when the new generation comes, it should be a generation of politicians and public figures who hold their heads high and say, “Those who went before us were winners, weren’t they? The country’s starting to look the way we want it to. It’s the economic centre of the region, and it’s the most competitive country in the region. There’s strength here, opportunity, development, the realisation of good things, individual and community plans.” And now we must win. The question now is not how we can be defensive, but how we can seize the opportunities offered by the future.” So I’d like to leave Hungarian public life in the knowledge that this is the state of the country and this is the new generation that will take our place. I believe we’ve come here together in this hope.
The Prime Minister’s response was actually an example of something I’ve observed many times: that you like to take even the simplest, most minor question and expand it to a much broader perspective, giving depth to things, seeking explanations, and communicating these to people. Not only do not many people do this, but it’s done by very few people in Europe, or even in the whole world – and in Hungary I can’t think of anyone else off the top of my head apart from you. Why do you feel that it’s important that when we started with the fact that you came in and were welcomed, that you actually presented to the audience – let me use this word – a vision?
Look, let’s first talk about why others don’t do it. No, it’s not lack of ability – they could do it too. I don’t think it’s courage that they lack, but rather the will. They’re not used to walking on the edge of a cliff or a precipice. I learned from József Antall that there are things you always have to think about, but never talk about. He said that if you want to explain the background of things in a complex way, sooner or later you’ll say things that are better left unsaid, because it will cause trouble in a modern world divided by power structures. And politicians avoid risk, preferring to finesse things, soften them, stop short, and not say anything. That’s why others don’t do it. The reason I do it is because I believe that it’s important that everyone who’s interested understands not what I’m doing, but why I’m doing it. So I don’t want to promote or sell a measure, or force it on people – I want to involve them. How do we think about power? There are countless definitions, enough to fill an encyclopaedia. What is power? And everyone who’s exercised power for a long time has their own interpretation – and I’m gradually coming to the point at which I too can have my own. I think that in the Hungarian understanding, in the Hungarian historical context, power means the ability to act collectively. This has biblical foundations, by the way – but I won’t quote it exactly, because I don’t know it: nothing’s perfect. But there’s a section of Scripture where it says that he did not speak as the scribes did, but as one who has authority. This doesn’t only mean what we might think at first glance, that he has power from God, but that he has the ability to persuade people to act together. And in this sense good leadership, good political leadership, is nothing more than achieving a shared conviction that here something serious is happening, and that we shall act on it together. It’s not about the Government doing something and you applauding or booing: it’s about there being things that we can convince each other are important, put our energy into, and then get done. I come from a family in which I was the first person to graduate from university. My parents graduated from college as adults, so I can’t say that I come from an intellectual family, but rather from a “semi-intellectual” one. But I’m the first to have gained a university degree. Yet I never thought of my grandparents, for example, as not being intellectuals. There’s this word, “intellectual”, that confuses us – we don’t know exactly what it means. Does it mean a profession, an intellectual occupation, or some kind of intellectual capacity? I grew up among people, my own grandparents, who weren’t highly educated, and one of my grandfathers was already over forty when he finally got his high school diploma – no one knows exactly why, but it was important to him. But they were intelligent people in the sense that they never accepted anything as it was, and always asked, “But why is it that way?” So I think understanding things, why things happen – and this applies not only to physics and human relationships, but also to politics – is a fantastic joy in life. Now that I’m old, when I realise something myself – why something is the way it is, something I didn’t recognise before, what the connections are – I’m suddenly overcome with a feeling of joy. I’m sure it’s not related to education, but to a certain disposition. And I think in the Hungarian mentality, this contemplative attitude which we’ve brought from the East – of observing the world, understanding the world, discovering connections, even if we can’t express or describe it well because we’re not so well educated, but the desire to understand – is a feature which distinguishes Hungarians from most Western European peoples. With very few exceptions, because there are some, every Hungarian is basically an intellectual in the classical sense of the word: it gives them pleasure and is important for them to understand what’s happening to them and around them. And since I’ve committed myself not simply to good governance but to changing our destiny, the more people understand what I’m talking about, the closer we’ll be to a shared will, the closer we’ll be to overcoming our losses, to becoming winners, and to creating good things together. So everything’s connected – even these long and complicated explanations I’m giving now, with which I’d like to encourage less educated people to understand that politics isn’t mischief perpetrated by people in suits, and not about policy measures: it’s about understanding the world, about ideas that arise from understanding the world, and about putting those ideas into practice. This is why it’s open to everyone, even to people with an education only extending as far as the eighth grade, if they have the desire in their hearts and minds to understand what’s happening around them. Therefore, although one often encounters its ugly side, politics also has a beautiful side, another side that’s worth noticing. It’s worth joining movements such as the Digital Civic Circles movement, where we come together for events. You can see that I don’t give speeches, but I’m here so that together we can gain an understanding of a few things – which will obviously follow now. So this is the reason for this way of speaking, that’s convoluted, intricate, and sometimes rambling.
Washington, Moscow, Istanbul, Mohács. I think I’ve very concisely summarised your last three weeks in geographic terms. What do you think, for example, with what you’ve just said, about how much…
First of all: Mohács is the most important. Let’s start with that.
And that’s what the question relates to, that’s what the question relates to.
Excuse me, if I may I’d like to open a sidebar here. This isn’t just because of what many of us here think; because when I see the road sign for Mohács, it reminds me of my friend Józsi Szekó. Maybe I have a powerful acquaintance in Washington – perhaps the term “friend” isn’t allowed in this profession. And perhaps there are people in Russia who don’t wish us ill. And maybe there are people in Istanbul with whom I can work. But if we take these four cities, my friend was – unfortunately was – only in Mohács.
That’s why – but I think not only for that reason – it’s important that the anti-war gathering of the Digital Civil Circles has now arrived in Mohács. How do you see this? Why is it important that we’re here now?
There’s a special reason, which obviously everyone here knows. This is the town, the place, the region, that symbolises a turning point in Hungarian history. This is where Hungarian history took a turn. Here history took a turn for the worse: it was the graveyard of our national greatness. But it’s also a symbol of survival – because if Mohács was able to survive the disaster of Mohács, then perhaps other settlements can also survive. So in this there’s the question of vitality. On the other hand, politicians usually go to big cities, and meetings are also held in big cities. This is understandable. But I have an important message – or rather we have an important message – for Hungarians living in rural areas and towns – and even for those living in villages: they’re no less important, they don’t live at the world’s end, they’re not outside, but inside, if we’ve been praying, they’re in the Mass. They’re also part of the country’s great shared history. So there’s really no need to explain why we’ve come to Mohács. On the other hand, I wanted to be sure.
Next week…
Sorry, I’m saying this because I wanted to be sure. Because, you know, it’s an old… I don’t know if it’s love or just a marriage of convenience, but we’re well matched here, because I think Mohács did good for us, and we did good for Mohács. There’s also a feat here, something of a political feat, which you might not be aware of. If you look at the election results, you’ll see that we have an electoral system in which you can vote for a party list and an individual candidate. The number and proportion of votes cast for parties rarely diverges from the number cast for individual candidates. There’s a divergence of 1–2 per cent, if any. The only place where this isn’t the case is Mohács. Because Member of Parliament Hargitai usually gets 6 or 7 per cent more. This is a special feat, and I congratulate János on that.
I mentioned those cities because it clearly shows how much your life has accelerated. But the life of the DPK has also accelerated, because now there’s only one week between successive anti-war rallies instead of two – just as the worsening news from the West has also accelerated. Next week you have to go to Brussels. I’ll recap a news story from the last few days: with the stroke of a pen it was decided to freeze seized Russian assets for an indefinite period. On your social media page you wrote that the rule of law has ceased to exist in the EU. But if the rule of law has ceased to exist in the EU, what can we put our trust in? You’re going to Brussels now. How can you win in legal terms if your counterpart, the other side, doesn’t follow any rules?
Okay, but I started with the communists at the national round table. Sorry, here… Our “school” was a good one. And we managed to solve that situation somehow. We didn’t think the players on the other side were fair, they were playing with marked cards, there were more of them, and for us everything was wrong. In fact I’m going there for a fight. That’s how it is. There was a time when gentlemen read out the rules of the game, and then the smarter contestant won. That era in the history of the European Union is over. And the decision you mentioned – bypassing Hungary, violating European law in broad daylight, out in the open, bypassing Hungary to get their hands on Russian assets – hurts us primarily because it brings to an end the illusion that in Brussels the rule of law holds sway. We can say that also up to now legal interpretation has been in their hands, so we started at a disadvantage – but earlier it wasn’t possible to close the EU’s founding documents and then set them aside, which is what’s happening now. But this decision is extremely important from another point of view, from a perspective which extends beyond the Hungarian context. This is a declaration of war. Meddling with Russian assets, frozen Russian assets, and misappropriating them is a declaration of war. I’ve never seen a case in which taking 200–300 billion euros from a country didn’t provoke some kind of response. That’s impossible! If you let them take even small amounts of money, they’ll loot the entire country. That cannot be allowed. So we’re at a very serious moment. And you’re undoubtedly correct in your observation that we’re now holding anti-war rallies almost every week, but none of them are boring, and none of them are like the previous ones, because something’s always happening: conditions and situations are deteriorating at such a rapid pace. I’d like to say a few words about Russian assets, if I may, since earlier I mentioned that we need to understand complex issues. Because you probably hear a lot about it, but you might not know what it is. In peacetime the international practice is that every country has foreign exchange reserves. This means that we have our own money – Hungarians have the forint, we have forints; but forints aren’t accepted when we want to pay with them in other countries, so we convert part of our assets into currencies that are accepted – mostly dollars or euros. And if our money loses value, we can protect the forint by using complicated operations. This is called foreign exchange reserves. Every country has them. And according to international financial rules, you generally can’t – in fact you aren’t allowed to – keep these reserves in your own country. So you always have to keep your foreign exchange reserves in another safe country. This is mainly so that if creditors see that the Hungarian economy – or any other economy – is collapsing and they might not get their money back, they can satisfy their claims from the foreign exchange reserves. This is why the reserves must always be kept outside the country. The exception to this is gold, which is a special form of foreign exchange reserves and which we keep at home – but let’s leave that out of the story for now. So this is international practice. We Hungarians also have reserves in Belgium, in the same place as the Russians. We have foreign exchange reserves, so if they start tinkering with them, we Hungarians also have to think about whether our foreign exchange reserves are in a good place. Because if a country’s foreign exchange reserves are somewhere where others can get their hands on them, and ours are there too, then it’s better to move them to a safer place. Now, this is what foreign exchange reserves are. War broke out. The Russians attacked Ukraine, trying to keep the date of the attack secret – and this is why they didn’t repatriate their foreign exchange reserves. When they attacked the Ukrainians, the money was there, and it stayed there. And the European Union froze it. Most of it is in Belgium, but there’s also some in other countries – even a little in America and Japan, if I remember correctly. But the bulk of it – more than 200 billion euros – is in Europe, mostly in Belgium. Here I’d like to cite the example of the Second World War. If I remember my history lessons correctly, this was also the case then, but even during the Second World War, German foreign currency reserves abroad weren’t seized. So it’s extremely unusual and exceptional to touch another country’s assets which have been placed abroad under contract. Because there’s a contract under which the Belgians must keep those assets safe, and when the owner – in this case the Russians, but it could be the Hungarians – asks for them, they must be transferred here, there or anywhere. And if you prevent this, you’re violating the number one principle of the entire international financial system; this is that there are designated and certified economic companies and financial institutions that can deal with such transactions, thereby guaranteeing the security of foreign exchange reserves – from the Arab world to Russia. This is why there’s this huge debate. Because everyone feels that if this money is touched, it’s quite possible that other countries – say the Arabs – won’t keep their money in euros. What’s more, if the Russians win the lawsuit related to this, and we can be 100 per cent sure that the Russians will win a lawsuit initiated after such a move, it’s only a matter of time before someone has to pay that money back. And it will have to be repaid by the company that undertook to hold it. That is a Belgian company. This is such a massive operation, such a large sum of money, also because of foreign currency reserves beyond Russia, that it could bring down the Belgian economy. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this is why the Belgian prime minister has become emboldened. I’ll just have a coffee and sit back, because I can’t say anything about the European Union and this move that’s as harsh as what’s being said by the Belgian prime minister himself. The reason for this is that Belgium feels that if the EU takes this step, its own national economy could be directly threatened. This is the story of the foreign exchange reserves. Of course it’s difficult to imagine Russians negotiating with the Americans while there’s more than 200 billion euros on the table. It’s difficult to imagine that one of the world’s best businessmen and the well-equipped Russian president – armed with the appropriate knowledge, coming from the old world – would negotiate with each other while 200 billion euros is lying there unclaimed, and that in such circumstances it would remain there. What I mean by this is that one of the key issues in the Russian–American negotiations is what to do with that money. In fact the Russians and Americans have already agreed on what to do with the money. There are public documents about this, so I’m not saying this based on peeking through the keyhole, but based on documents. And in this the Europeans haven’t been dealt any cards. So this money is either available to the Europeans or it isn’t. Since the Russians are the owners of the money, they, as owners, can legally agree with the Americans on what to do with their money. The Europeans can only take it by illegal means. So now we have an extremely complicated conflict of interests. What’s more, it’s no coincidence that the Europeans are insisting on this amount of money, because Europeans, from Spain to Denmark, have – pardon the expression – been feeding this idea to their own citizens for years now. They’ve been saying: “Don’t worry, dear Spaniards and Danes, people like you who are looking on, who only have a passing interest in politics, don’t worry. Because supporting Ukraine and the war in Ukraine won’t cost us Europeans a penny in the end. So feel free to support the war, because we won’t be taking the money out of your pockets, but we’ll be financing the war from frozen Russian assets.” And Europeans have believed this. Of course we Hungarians don’t believe it. We’ve seen this before. Smart people don’t believe such things, but Westerners aren’t like us: they’re not as well drilled in the subject of “weathering the storms of history”, and therefore they believe it, they believe such things. And now we’ll see which way the monkey jumps. And now European leaders will have to admit that their populations will pay for the war! “Up until now, we’ve said you won’t, but if this money isn’t there, you’ll be paying for the war. From Denmark to Portugal! And it won’t just be you paying for it: your grandchildren will pay for it too, because we’ve taken out loans that we can’t repay, and your children will also pay the interest on those loans.” This is about to become clear. This is why the entire European elite – from the German chancellor to the Slovenian prime minister – is in a state of panic. Because the truth will come out. And when it does, and it turns out that the money isn’t really there and it can’t really be paid for, but will have to come out of people’s own pockets, there will be a “peasants’ revolt”. A peasants’ revolt will break out! Everywhere in Europe! And all those who argued for war will fall. And then they’ll have got off lightly, considering they dragged their own nations into such an adventure. Sorry for the long speech, but this is the problem with the Russian assets.
But it seems that even though they’ve frozen these funds, it’s still not enough. They don’t think it’s enough either. In Hungary, for example, it’s emerged that Brussels is clearly represented by the Tisza Party, as virtually every point in their austerity package can be found in a Brussels document. And now it’s no secret that this money would be given to Ukraine, in the name of financing the war.
I received a letter just two weeks ago, or ten days ago, from Frau Ursula. There are Germans in this region, so I have to be careful with my comments criticising the Germans – although the ones here are Germans who are now within our country, aren’t they? So now they’re basically the same as us. But in reality, over there we see three Germans calling the shots. I think these are the people leading us down a blind alley or driving the EU into a brick wall: the German chancellor; the leader of the largest group in the European Parliament, Mr. Weber; and Ursula von der Leyen, who’s the President of the Commission. This is a German affair. And they think that either we have the Russian money or we don’t, either the war will end or it won’t; and if it doesn’t end, then we’ll need more money, and we’ll have to send money to Ukraine from somewhere without causing political upheaval at home. But they never say “Let’s pool money to send it to Ukraine.” I always say this: “Folks, if we want to finance a war, let’s get out our paper and pencils and calculate how much Germany will pay, and how much Belgium will pay. Let’s see if you can throw it in. Or do you want to throw it in?” But they don’t do that – they say they’re collecting some money and using it as collateral in order to take out loans. And for the loan the Union itself is quite creditworthy on the international financial markets, there’s a moratorium on repayments, the first five years, a grace period, or whatever you call it. After that they have to start repaying – first the interest, then the principal. And they’ll end up in the same situation that we Hungarians went through under socialism – which is why the alarm bells are ringing. That’s what Kádár and his cronies did, saying that everything would be fine: “Now it’s true that the economy isn’t doing well, but we’ll help ourselves out with a little loan.” And in the end, the whole thing collapsed! So what I’m trying to say is that there’s Russian money, and there’s the other option of collecting money from the Member States, which will serve as the basis for a larger loan. And they want to collect from the Member States as well: the President of the Commission is asking for 135 billion euros from the 27 Member States. In a very polite but forceful tone, because Hungarians are a chivalrous nation, I wrote in reply that we thanked them, but we won’t be taking advantage of that: it’s a great offer, but we don’t want to participate in it – we’d rather leave that wonderful opportunity to the others. Well, that’s how it looks. And we have to be prepared for Brussels’ third attempt at winning a Hungarian election – following 2018 and 2022, that will be the scenario in 2026. Why only since 2018? That’s very interesting. We had our disagreements before then, but Brussels didn’t consider Hungarians to be a serious threat. We’re a country of 10 million. Germany has 80–84 million, Italy has 60 million, France has 64 million, the Netherlands has almost 20 million, but Hungary has 10 million – its GDP isn’t large, and its military… Once, during my first term in office, a Turkish Chief of General Staff asked me how many soldiers Hungary had. I said, “As many as you have going AWOL on a typical weekend.” Fortunately that’s no longer true, but it was true then. Today we’re in a slightly better position; but the reason that Europe fears us today isn’t because of our army. “Lord, save us from the arrows of the Hungarians” is an old story, not something you see in today’s news reports. Well, what I’m trying to say is that Hungary became dangerous in 2016: in 2016, with migration. At that time Europe, with the exception of Hungary, unanimously took the position that migration is good and that not only should it not be prevented, but that – as the German Chancellor said – “We can handle this.” In fact, they said, it could actually remedy demographic and other problems, and overall we’d come out of it well. At the time we said that this was a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Many times in other places I’ve said that fortunately there were Hungarians who had their wits about them, who went down to the border, saw what the conditions were like, and demanded that there be a fence and border protection. Of course I immediately thought of the truth in the English saying that a country without borders is like an egg without a shell – that’s also true. And we took a different path. We said that migration is a danger: it isn’t good, it mustn’t be managed, it mustn’t be handled; it must be averted, and they mustn’t be allowed in. What’s more, it’s like toothpaste: once you squeeze it out of the tube, you can’t put it back in. So once they’re in, that’s it – just look at it. You can’t put millions of people on trains. You can put a dozen or two on a plane, and that will look good in photos. But millions came in. How are you supposed to get them out of there? It’s not my job, but I don’t see how they could get rid of them. They only have one idea: send them here to us. That’s what the Migration Pact is about: “There are too many here, so we’ll send them to the Hungarians, for example.” The Migration Pact – supported by Tisza and supported by DK [Democratic Coalition] – states that we must continuously maintain accommodation for 30,000 migrants, and always admit as many as the Brusselite headquarters orders to be sent here. That’s hundreds every year! Meanwhile, we’ve worked for years and suffered unfair setbacks in Brussels because we’ve said no to all of this. I’ll end my digression there. So what I want to say is that since the 2015–16 migration crisis we’ve become dangerous to other countries in the EU because we’re living proof that you can defend your country, in the future you can defend your country from migrants. In fact the Hungarian example shows that you should have defended yourselves in the past, and you didn’t. And all the problems caused by migration – violent attacks, crime, social problems – are all because you made the wrong decisions, while the Hungarians made the right ones. We didn’t want this role, to be held up as a hate-figure – that wasn’t the plan. But that’s how it turned out, and we’re living proof that things could have been different. Europe could have remained Christian, Europe could have remained a continent populated by European people. This didn’t happen, because the leaders made mistakes. And since then, the Hungarian government that set this example and presents it every day – an example which they have to face every day – must be removed from power and replaced with a government that will make Hungary like Germany, Austria or France, allowing migrants to enter. Then this thorn in their side will be removed. This is why they wanted to overthrow us in 2018 and 2022, and this is why they want to overthrow us in 2026 – this, among other reasons, but mainly for this reason. And the embodiment of this intention is the Tisza Party. I see no difference between four years ago and the current crop. To me the current leader of the opposition is like [Péter] Márki-Zay. He’s the same, isn’t he? They pulled him out from somewhere, pulled him out of a hat, put him there, and now he’s saying all sorts of things. In fact, Márki-Zay had one advantage: at least he’s a mayor, he’s done something, I think – perhaps for the benefit of local people. But anyway, that’s the situation here now. And that’s what’s at stake in this election. Back in 2018 there was no talk of war, but now it’s coming. That will add to the migration issue. Now, before you think – excuse me, one more sentence, or if I may it will be two – that migration, which we usually refer to in the past tense, is over, let’s not deceive ourselves: it doesn’t belong to the past. Migration is the biggest issue for the future – it’s not over. We haven’t defended ourselves yet, but we’re constantly defending ourselves. And Africa hasn’t even stirred yet. And if you look at the numbers, you’ll see these Western leaders with their curious ideas, and when Africa stirs we’ll be under much greater pressure than before. We don’t usually think of Türkiye as life insurance. But for the Hungarians Türkiye is life insurance. President Erdoğan is our life insurance. Today there are three million refugees in Türkiye whom the Turks won’t allow to leave their country – even though they’d come, and they’d come up through the Balkans into Europe. And every year more than 100,000 are stopped. But if this policy changes, if there’s a change in Türkiye, then millions of migrants could flood into the continent, not only from Africa but also from Türkiye, and we’ll have to be able to defend ourselves against that. That’s not an easy task. The most important task for the next generation will be to find a way to do that. Migration isn’t a thing of the past: migration is the most important issue for the future – if we survive the war.
I’m certain, Prime Minister, that there are people sitting here in the audience who remember exactly what happened here ten years ago. Back then tens of thousands of migrants flooded in, the buses arrived and they boarded them, and it was far from certain that order could be maintained until the fence was complete. What you’re saying is that one half of the Migration Pact is that we should accept them in, and the other half is that we should pay a huge amount of money. You’ve said, “No way!” Being an EU Member State, their decisions obviously apply to us, but this is compounded by what we’ve discussed – about them not following the rules. So how can we emerge from this unscathed?
Yes, because we’re not alone. Perhaps I could also say something about the difficult situation here in the 1990s, which I also remember. Without downplaying it, because it was difficult, it was different in nature from what we’d face now if migrants were to arrive here from, say, Syria or Nigeria. Because back then those who were coming here were at least our neighbours. That was a problem, it caused big problems. Incidentally, we stood our ground heroically, and in terms of humanity I think the whole region passed with flying colours. This is what’s said by those who came here and then went home. Some of them stayed here, and if I understand correctly, they found what they were looking for, and we live together without conflict – which is also encouraging for the future. But those who are preparing to come now aren’t like those who came here then. I’m not saying that Serbs or Croats or Bosnians are a simple matter: they’re peoples of character, so to speak. But they still come from the same cultural circle – even the Bosnians to a certain extent, who are Muslims, but have lived in a European environment for I don’t know how many centuries. Those who are preparing to set off now know nothing about our world. They know nothing of the social teachings that we’ve used to organise our world. It’s not just that they don’t respect them: they don’t want to. They don’t even know what it’s like to have their lives organised like this. People usually have a certain way of organising their lives, which they learn from their own culture, from childhood to adulthood: life is like this; this is how you should think about women; this is how you should think about marriage; this is how you should think about children, the elderly, your neighbours, quarrels, revenge, money, business, cooperation, war. Everyone has learned these things. There’s also a teaching in our minds that’s completely independent of the fact that many people in Europe and Hungary have lost their personal relationship with God – yet still these teachings are there. This is why I don’t think it’s strange for non-believers to participate in, say, a prayer like the one that took place here today. It is not something alien – it’s ours, after all. And maintaining and finding a personal relationship with God is an extremely complicated and difficult thing. We didn’t come together today to talk about this, nor is it my brief, but we’re in a Christian culture, based on the same teachings: what’s good, what’s bad. Those who come here don’t see that, which is why they treat women the way they do. That’s why they behave the way they do. That’s why they think differently about work, and so on and so forth. And I don’t think we need to saddle ourselves with trouble. Undoubtedly there are many people coming from places where, at home, they’re in trouble. But help should be brought to them – the trouble shouldn’t be brought here. It wasn’t the job of Europe – especially the rich countries – to let them in. And now it doesn’t know what to do with them, even though it’s burned through tens or hundreds of billions of euros. Instead, that money should have been taken to places where there’s poverty, strife, unrest and war, where order should have been established, and where we should have helped to create a liveable life. But we didn’t spend the money on that: instead of taking help there, we brought trouble here. We ourselves bear no responsibility for this – our only task is to defend ourselves as an island. How big is the island? After this I really will stop. How big is the island? There’s Hungary. There are the Serbs. You know them, don’t you? They don’t mess around. So that’s a different attitude, so to speak. Then there are the Slovaks, who don’t even want to hear about migrants, and there aren’t any there. Then there are the Czechs: knedlíky, beer, it’s a different world – not like čevapčići. So things are more complicated there, but Prime Minister Babiš, who took office on the 9th of this month, thinks about migration in much the same way as we do. So we have another partner there. And then there are the Poles, who – since we’ve mentioned čevapčići – we currently have a beef with politically; but overall we’re still on the same wavelength as the Poles, we’re on the same wavelength when it comes to migration – and we’ll continue to be so. So what I want to say is that we’re not completely alone: there are others who are also migrant-free countries, and we’re working together. We’ll have to defend this large island called Central Europe, and then the next generation will have to defend it too. This isn’t impossible. It would be more difficult alone, but this way it is indeed possible.
Prime Minister, I don’t know if you’re aware of exactly how many days are left until the election.
Exactly?
Exactly 120.
We formed the Fight Club 400 days before the election. It’s a powerful political community. Later we formed the Digital Civic Circles, which is a civil society movement – and I suggest that we keep it that way, that we keep it separate and not mix it up with party affairs. That was our plan. There are still 120 days left – perhaps we can…
Is that a lot or a little?
It’s not much, but perhaps we can finish it. What was our plan? I’d like to say a few words about that, if I may – excuse me, in a nutshell. So how did the idea for the DPK come about? With the Digital Civic Circles I noticed that there are negative things in the online space. And in our world, conservative, national Christians tend to keep their distance from all that – because, first of all, there’s the harsh tone, the facelessness, the fact that something can be written without having to imagine anyone behind it, without taking responsibility for what’s said. And there’s a kind of flippancy in it all, isn’t there? So it’s kind of thrown out there. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but there’s this… So it’s like, “I always know better. You’re talking to me.” Okay, fine. So there’s this flippancy, coarseness, lack of standards – and maybe even soullessness. But what happened was that this became the new market square, with people talking and reacting to one another there more than they do in real life. My goal wasn’t to make the Right strong in the online space; I only intended that as a consequence. Instead I was thinking about why we accept that the online space has to be this way. Why should it be? It’s just a tool. Maybe we’re afraid of it because it’s culturally alien, it brings change, and leftists always adapt faster than we do. There must be a reason for this, as the libs are faster at getting into the rhythm than we are. But why should we leave it to them? Why should it be flippant? Why should it be coarse? Why should the style of communication be like that of the left-liberal world? Well, we’re here too! It could be like us, couldn’t it? It could be moderate, respectful, but still interesting. It’s important. Why are we letting this happen? Then, if we manage to introduce this there, it will have political consequences, of course, because political debates will take place in a space that’s more favourable for us. But that’s not the point – that’s just a consequence. The most important thing – and when we started the movement this is why I called it an online conquest of the homeland – is that we shouldn’t hand it over: let’s move there, let’s move up, let’s become embedded – it’s ours too, not just theirs. This is up to us. Let us find what we call “the national algorithm”: the style, the manner, the topics we discuss, the way we interact, the way we are. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but we think of ourselves as belonging to the better part of the country. Of course the whole country is great, but overall, there are better and less good parts to it. They’re not here now, because, as we heard from Máté, the trousers got stained – but they usually are. And this duality says everything about what I’m describing. Why are we here? First of all, we feel good here, we like being together, we hear interesting things and meet interesting people here. The tone of the conversation about our shared issues is hopeful, reassuring, encouraging. It’s not that nervous, jerky, whatever… This is why we’re here. Why do they [Tisza] come to where we are? To spoil our fun, right? They come to provoke us. It’s true, the country is small, smaller than it should be – but to only go to where we are is perhaps taking things too far. They want to provoke us because they want to spoil this. And this is more than politics – it’s much more than politics. It’s not about which party you support, but what you think of as a normal life, what one considers public life to be. And this is why I think the DPK is a great success. But we’re not where we should be. We’re not where we should be: the opponent is even stronger. It’s difficult to measure this accurately. Of course in the online space the difference between our presence and theirs is much smaller now, but it still exists. They organise themselves in Facebook groups, which are public. That’s not the same as what they’re doing with the Ukrainians – that’s something else. But there’s also a public aspect. There are about 200,000 of them there. And we number 137,000, if I read this morning’s report correctly. So with 137,000 our number is lower. We need these 120 days to make our presence in the online space at least as big as that of people who think differently from us – let’s say, the liberal left. If we can achieve a draw, then our huge advantage in real life – which isn’t only numerical but also, in my opinion, spiritual, natural and qualitative – will be enough to win the election. But to do so, we need to achieve a draw in the online space. We have 120 days. It can be done.
I only asked this because obviously one doesn’t like to ask a politician or a prime minister to make predictions; but as you said, things have accelerated so much that the answer you gave last week might not be valid this week. So much is happening. We haven’t even talked about Lajos Bokros showing up, for example.
But how wonderful that is!
He did show up. What did you think when you saw him?
You see, it’s very difficult to define the mission of the Right. Over the past decade or two, God has tasked us with cleaning up what the Left has botched. In 1998, you all honoured me and our political community for the first time by giving us enough support to form a government. What was our job in 1998? To fix what Lajos Bokros and his people had wrecked! Because Lajos isn’t joking – if you let him, he’ll do what he says. So he’s not a political joker. He’s not joking – it’s not as if something’s just popped into his head. He’s a determined man. As he’s said, he thinks that it’s wrong to give mothers of three a lifetime tax exemption. He wasn’t misspeaking, it’s written there. And, while the world is changing so fast that we can barely keep up, he says that it’s out of the question for us to give pensioners the increases they need to feel secure. The same goes for the 3 per cent loans… Excuse me, but ultimately we want three things from the economy, don’t we? I’m speaking now as a citizen. We want three things, and the rest is hocus-pocus. Of course, GDP and investments, the balance of trade and specialist issues are important, but we want three things. The first thing is to have a roof over our heads. We don’t want to be homeless. Everyone should have their own house or apartment, their home, their castle. That’s the first thing we want. The second is to have job opportunities, whereby decent work is paid for with decent wages, so that one can support oneself, one’s children, one’s family, and so on. That’s the second thing. The third thing is that when one grows old and no longer has the strength to work, there should be some kind of system, a reserve behind one, so that one doesn’t have to live out one’s old age in shameful conditions: a decent old age. These are the three things we want. This could be a pension, savings, many things, there are all kinds of life strategies; but today our common life strategy is that we have a pension system through which we guarantee this for the elderly. That’s what we have. These are the three things we want. Lajos Bokros doesn’t want these three things. He wants our money – because he doesn’t want to give cheap loans to young people, he considers a work-based economy to be nonsense, and his message to pensioners is this: “Get by as best you can.” They don’t simply believe in other economic policy tools: they have a different view of what the economy is for. The economy isn’t for the most talented to make money in. Of course, it’s good if the most talented make money, but that’s not the point of the economy. Of course it’s good when the most talented people make money, but that’s not the point of the economy. The point is to create a space that’s acceptable and affordable for all of us, one that provides enough security for us to develop our talents, desires and plans – to earn enough money to be able to do the things that are important without existential pressures. If one is lucky, one’s work coincides with one’s mission, one’s vocation, or one’s passion. But this isn’t always the case. That’s all. So that’s what the economy is for. But in the minds of bankers, Lajos Bokros, the Tisza Party and DK, the economy isn’t about this, but about numbers, profits and returns. Of course these aren’t insignificant, because a market economy can’t function without them, but that’s not the goal. These are just tools to enable what we call Hungarians – currently numbering around 10 million or 9.5 million, plus those who belong to us, no matter how history has unfolded – to create a standard of living for ourselves that allows everyone to realise their potential and achieve what they consider important, individually and collectively. That’s all we want. So we don’t fit into Lajos Bokros’s worldview. And Lajos Bokros doesn’t fit into our worldview.
The Tisza Party expert László Lengyel, for example, has said that if they get the opportunity they’ll revoke the fourteenth month’s pension in five seconds. Well, fortunately, I saw a video in which you decided in ten seconds to raise next year’s minimum wage and guaranteed minimum wage. So, since today we’ve been talking so much about speed, I’d like to bring this up as well…
Let’s talk…
…as it’s not sure…
Let’s devote a sentence to the fourteenth month’s pension.
I’m not sure they’ll win on this one.
First of all, I think it’s very important that what happens is fair to all generations. We’ve given young people so much: 3 per cent home loans, income tax exemptions for those under 25, student loans, workers’ loans. Of course the future belongs to them, but the world doesn’t belong only to twenty-year-olds. There must be some kind of equilibrium, some kind of balance. We mustn’t forget about the elderly. So people like me who make decisions about the country’s resources must first of all take this aspect of fairness into account. Secondly, we can only commit to this because we can only commit to what we’re sure will preserve the value of pensions. But in the meantime, salaries haven’t only retained their value – they’ve increased. We can’t increase the value of pensions at the same rate as salaries are increasing, mainly because it’s not the state that decides how much salaries are, but the market. But beyond preserving their value, pensioners should, if possible, be given the possibility for increased pensions. And this is what the thirteenth and fourteenth months’ payments are for – to increase pensions. It’s true that this is a lump sum, but it’s actually a pension increase. And this is why I believe that fairness can’t be eliminated from public life. There’s economic rationality and many other factors – but in that case we’d be able to entrust the fate of the country to economists. We don’t do that because they only see numbers, while we see people. This is why we have to be successful in some way, we have to maintain economic dynamism, we need growth, we have to give opportunities to young people, and we have to give the elderly what they’re entitled to. We have to keep this in balance somehow. And we’re not particularly rich, by the way; we will be, but we’re not there yet, because we’ve only been governing for fifteen years – when we reach thirty, we’ll be talking about something completely different. We don’t have time to talk about that, but it’s Christmas, and at this time of year you can ask the Infant Jesus for something, can’t you? So, to my mind, Hungary is borrowing today so that it can function. This is called government debt as a percentage of GDP. But my plan is that we will actually lend money. This is what I’m asking for.
One last question, which I can’t leave out. Is there anything else you want for Christmas? Besides this, maybe. I don’t know, more hours’ sleep, less need to drink coffee?
When I was a soldier, they said that soldiers don’t feel cold – they just sense that the temperature’s low. That’s how I am. I’m not tired, but my strength declines. So yes, it will be good to sleep. But you see, we were like a big family: I have five children, and the last one has left home. So now we’re struggling with the fact that we didn’t come together to be just the two of us, and I’m waiting for Christmas so that we can be together again. That’s all. If that happens, then I’ll be happy, thank you very much.
I’d like to thank the Prime Minister for his answers and thoughts so far, but the conversation isn’t over. It’s not over, because I’ll now hand over to Zsófi and Philip, who will interpret and pass on questions from the audience.
Zsófia Szabó: That’s right. Thank you, Éva Andor.
Philip Rákay: Thank you very much.
Zsófia Szabó: And we really did receive a lot of questions on our Facebook page. Prime Minister!
Philip Rákay: We’re trying to select them with civic propriety. There were a couple of sharper ones. There are a couple of… Let’s start with this one: “Prime Minister, do you think it’s a source of pride or shame that Fidesz’s worst, most discredited figure is the best that the opposition has to offer?” Yes, and there’s another related to this, a question from Jutka Kel: “Prime Minister, what’s the difference between the terrible Bokros package and Tisza Petey’s package?”
It’s difficult to see the difference, but the ruling Right must take into account that it’s not only the traditional Left that’s opposing it, but also that politics is a profession in which one can experience success or failure. And if you govern for a long time, there are not only those who are successful – I could name many who have proven themselves to be talented, successful, and good at what they do – but there are also those who fail. Ours is a very difficult world. You can fail professionally or personally – you’re out there in the open. People see you. And if there are human problems, they become visible too. So here it’s not easy to stand your ground. So as we move forward, and the longer we’re in government, the bigger the number of people who feel that they’ve failed. They’ve failed, and they really have failed. And who’s responsible? Them, of course. But it’s not just about them – they see it as definitely someone else. One has to take into account the fact that there will be those on the right who fail, who have become unfit, who haven’t received a chance, for whom the community has declared, “Guys, enough is enough”, and who sooner or later will try something else. And the Brussels shield presents itself so readily and unmistakably! You have to slip under it, and there will always be milk and honey for you. “Even if I don’t work, over there they’ll still pay me. I’m sure that over there they won’t revoke my parliamentary immunity, so I’m safe, right? If I say what they want me to say, then I’ll get their backing. Life is even simpler than in Fidesz, where they’re really like wolves, out in the cold, having to battle against headwinds.” So I wouldn’t say it brings shame; I’d say it’s unavoidable. The fact that this is exactly what happened to this particular person is another matter. But I’d still like to say to our own people that we shouldn’t be confused about who is the real opponent we have to fight. It’s not the leader of the opposition, not even the Tisza Party. They could be called the Tartar hordes, and they still wouldn’t be the main challengers. The real challenger is Brussels. The real opponent is in Brussels. That’s where the headwinds are coming from, that’s where they want to undermine Hungarian life, that’s where they want to tell us how to live. And the important thing is that we won’t allow that. Márki-Zays come and go – it’s just that they don’t always have the same name.
Philip Rákay: Éva Vancóné Galbács asks: “Prime Minister, do you still have any plans up your sleeve that you’ve long wanted to implement and would still very much like to realise in your role as Prime Minister?”
The only problem is that the law prohibits me from interfering in Hungarian footballing affairs. But there are some.
Zsófia Szabó: We have a very good question from István Gombkötő, who asks: “What’s the management habit that most drives your staff crazy? Or is there one that you consider absolutely necessary?”
Things would be better without a staff, because they do everything for me – and maybe that’s the problem. They take care of me, they prepare everything; but all help is also a limitation. And I’m a street fighter, with lone-wolf instincts, so I like to take care of myself and manage my own affairs. I remember when we first came to power in 1998, not yet knowing the protocol, and we moved into the Prime Minister’s residence. It was a nightmare – it was like being in prison. My wife said, “Never again”. That’s not why we lost the election… But I said, “If it’s like this, then no.” So now I haven’t moved anywhere: I live at home, where I’ve always lived. So maybe the staff finds it difficult to accept that I see help as a limitation. But that’s how it is. I’m still half Kun. That’s how they are.
Zsófia Szabó: Thank you very much!
Philip Rákay: Maybe next time we’ll ask the staff what they think. And then one last question. Attila Kocziha writes: “Prime Minister, what was your most difficult and riskiest decision, and what lessons did you learn from it?”
I have many horror stories. I can’t tell them yet, because the people involved are still alive. So I have to carefully choose something that doesn’t cross outside the boundary of gentlemanliness or chivalry. But I remember one scene. It was in Brussels, perhaps in the autumn of 2015 or 2016, when the German chancellor cornered me. At that time, chancellors didn’t come and go like they have recently. Mrs. Merkel had been in office for sixteen years, and was in a different weight division. She took me to task over the fence and migration. She said that it wasn’t possible to have a situation in which twenty-six EU countries – at that time, perhaps, the British were still in – and for one country to stand out, to veto, and to oppose them. I should recognise that this was impossible, and I should drop my opposition. When a German threatens you, it’s a serious matter. It’s easier to deal with other people. And I said that we have Germans in Hungary who are extremely good Hungarians. I said, “Believe me, I think they all agree with me, without exception. So this isn’t a German–Hungarian dispute, because your Germans – who are now our Hungarians – don’t want migration into Hungary. Believe me, this will lead to bad things. Because from a Hungarian perspective, we see that once before, the Germans – not even the Germans, but Berlin – told us who we couldn’t live with. There was a period like that in our history, wasn’t there? It didn’t lead to anything good. And now you want to tell us who we must live with. Well, that won’t lead to anything good either! Stop it. In Hungary, this will ultimately stir up anti-German sentiment. Don’t do it!” But I couldn’t convince her, and she said that now I’d find out what it was like when the German chancellor’s protective hand is no longer over Hungary. And then I had to make a decision: Yes or no? So I took a deep breath, heard the German boots, imagined them on my chest, and with my last breath I said, “No!” And that was the end of the conversation. Well, that was it.
Philip Rákay: So that’s the final word for today. Thank you very much to Éva Andor and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán; and thank you very much for joining us today. We’ll meet again in a week’s time in Szeged, at the largest gathering of the Digital Civic Circles Tour to date. We have many surprises in store – including “Lázárinfo” with Viktor Orbán next Saturday.
Éva Andor: Prime Minister, thank you very much for today’s conversation, and for being here today. Go Hungarians, that’s the way!
Go Hungary, go Hungarians!
Philip Rákay: Thank you very much. Thank you Mohács!
