Máté Kulifai: I warmly greet our dear viewers. I’m Máté Kulifai, and we’re here in the “Hetek” studio. We’re about to conduct a special interview, but before we begin, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to the Hetek YouTube channel, if you haven’t already. And here in the Hetek studio I welcome the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán.
Hello.
I’d like to start with a personal question. I have three wonderful, lively children and a marvellous, beautiful wife – I’m a family man. And when the war in Ukraine broke out in 2022 – or rather when Russia attacked Ukraine, as the war had already been going on for some time – I couldn’t help but wonder what I’d do if a similar situation were to happen here in Hungary. So, as Prime Minister, what would you say is the guarantee that, say, within the next five years, we won’t find ourselves facing a similar wartime situation here in Hungary – or even a world war in Europe?
Well, I can’t tell you what you should do, but I can tell you what I’d do, whether or not I were Prime Minister: if our country were attacked, we’d have to defend it. I’ve got children too, five of them, and six grandchildren as well. So we’d have to protect them – there’s no two ways about it. When we defend our homeland, we also defend our families, and we can’t just run off, because then homeland, home and family would be left defenceless. So we must stand our ground. But that’s not really the main point. It’s worth thinking about such things, of course, but the Prime Minister’s task isn’t to ponder what he’d personally do in that kind of situation – it’s to make sure that such a situation never arises in the first place. And I can tell you that the most important guarantee that we won’t find ourselves facing such tense circumstances is something called national governance. I’m not talking about the Government itself or the governing parties, but about the kind of leadership that maintains its focus exclusively on Hungary’s interests. Hungary’s number one interest is peace: cooperation with our neighbours, connectivity, and engagement with everyone in partnership; policies that build friendships rather than enemies, and that resolve tensions before they turn hostile. So what we need is a national government – whatever its composition may be – that understands that the nation’s foremost interest is peace. I believe that is the greatest guarantee – aside, of course, from God above.
Yes – you’ve just spent two days in Copenhagen at the EU summit, and there were several voices there suggesting that Europe is preparing for war with Russia. For me this raises the following question: How can Hungary stay out of this, when almost every other European country apart from us seems to be marching into the conflict? Is there any scenario in which Hungary can stay out of the thick of this?
I say that we must stay out as I’ve been doing – excuse me, but up until now we’ve stayed out. You’re very polite when you speak about the Copenhagen summit, the European leaders there and their meetings, and you say that “there were several voices”. Well, they weren’t just several voices – there were only such voices. So Europe has a war plan. This war plan, this war strategy, was presented quite openly in Copenhagen – as openly as I’m speaking to you now. They said, “Yes, we’ve got a war plan – and we’re going to win this war.” They explained the plan, and how they’ll win. In response I had to say, “That’s all very exciting, but Hungary isn’t at war with anyone. We have no war plan. We have a peace plan: a plan for how to stay out. And we have absolutely no desire to join you in going to war with anyone. We didn’t join the European Union to go to war: we joined so that there could be peace, because the EU is a peace project. Of course, if you decide otherwise, a ten-million-strong Hungary can’t hold you back, but we won’t take part in that.” So we must be able to stay out of it – and what you’re getting at in your question is the ability to stay out. When Europe decides to go to war, or when most countries in Europe do, does Hungary have the capacity, the talent, the strength and the know-how to remain outside such an expanding war? I think it’s possible. That’s what I’m working on.
Can this 26-against-1 situation last for long? How long can one keep using a veto within the community if, as you say, twenty-six Member States want something different? How long can such an independent position be maintained?
Well, firstly for as long as people have the strength to do so. I’m not resisting for the sake of resistance: I’m exercising our rights – the rights of the Hungarian people. So I’m not opposing something: we’re standing up for our rights. That’s not the same. If the situation were that we wanted to change the status quo and the others didn’t, then I’d have to accept it. It’s not about me wanting something different – I don’t want to change the current situation. There’s been no war so far, we haven’t gone to war. They want to change the situation: they want to take in Ukraine, they want to send money to Ukraine, they want to send weapons to Ukraine. And they want to use the EU for this. I can’t prevent the French or the Germans from sending weapons to Ukraine; but we have rights, and so I can prevent the European Union sending weapons and Hungary being dragged into such a weapons shipment operation. So I don’t want to ruin anything, I don’t want to change the good things, but I want to protect peace. I have the right to do that. Indeed, let’s look at the issue of Ukraine’s accession. The fundamental question is whether some twenty or more people want – or at least say they want – Ukraine to join the European Union. Ultimately, at the end of the debate the question is whether Hungarians have the right to not want to be in a European Union with Ukrainians. And I think we have that right, because we’re members and they’re not; and for various reasons, which we can name, we don’t want to be in a union with the Ukrainians – neither militarily in NATO, nor economically in the European Union. And we have the right to not want to be in a union with them. In other words, we have the right to say that this union won’t be expanded to include Ukraine.
You’ve mentioned that we have the right to do this, but we also need to be able to enforce that right, and that requires strength. But if I now step up to the international level, then a big question is whether the massive power of the twenty-six Member States wants to force through Ukraine’s accession. We’ve already seen examples of this, in which it doesn’t matter what we have the right to do and what we don’t have the right to do, because they can override that too. This is why I’m asking about the possibility of going against the twenty-six, and of how long this can be sustained. The possibility of revoking the veto right or rewriting the rules has been raised. For the time being we can invoke this right. The question is whether the pressure will increase to such an extent that they’ll no longer recognise that right.
These are constitutional rights – but of course any right can be violated. So the twenty-six Member States can violate our constitutional rights, Hungary’s constitutional rights, our European Union constitutional rights; but then we’ll defend ourselves, we’ll go to court, and so on and so forth. Even if they involve us in the war, they can’t defeat us – they can bypass us at most. This is a big difference. Think of the First or Second World War. Then it wasn’t a question of bypassing us, but of dragging us in. In the First World War István Tisza was unable to keep Hungary out. They dragged Hungary in too. Horthy was unable to keep Hungary out of the Second World War; he managed to do so for a while, but then we were dragged into the war. So the question here is whether we can keep ourselves out. We might not be able to prevent a number of bad things that we have the right to prevent, but that’s still not the same as being dragged into them. Hungary has several lines of defence. What they’re trying to do in Brussels is less of an obvious violation of constitutional rules, because that would lead to legal proceedings, and they’d lose in court. They want to replace the Hungarian government. The stakes in every election in Europe right now – not just in Hungary, but also today and tomorrow in the Czech Republic – are whether the bureaucrats in Brussels will succeed in ensuring that the nation states are led by governments that will follow Brussels’ instructions. And where there are no such governments, they want to replace them. And where governments that are patriotic – in other words, national – are poised to win, they’ll block their path to victory. That’s their plan. That’s how they replaced the Polish government. That’s why there’s a pro-Brussels government in Poland now, and that’s what they want in Hungary too. The Tisza Party is a Brussels project – or creation, to put it nicely in Hungarian. They create these parties, NGOs and the pro-Brussels media support them, they give them lots of money from Brussels, and they protect them as MEPs through parliamentary immunity. All this is because they want them to be the ones who will replace the current government and implement what Brussels wants. That’s the plan. So they don’t want to change the laws; they want to change the governments. And they’re doing it quite shamelessly. They used to be shier, they concealed their intentions better, but today they’re no longer shy, and they say it openly. So what I’m saying now isn’t the explanation of a secret conspiracy, but something that’s out in the open. They’ve told me this in Brussels. I was standing in the European Parliament, and they said, “You’re the past, step aside, let Tisza come through.” That’s how it works.
Turning for a while to Hungarian–Ukrainian relations, you mentioned that the strength of staying out of the war also lies in the fact that the Hungarian leadership isn’t allowing relations between the two states to deteriorate to the point of hostility. And particularly in recent times, Hungarian–Ukrainian relations have become quite tense. There have been reciprocal entry bans, back-and-forth messaging, censorship of media outlets, and attacks on the infrastructure of the Druzhba [Friendship] oil pipeline. Then there’s been a spy war – at least according to the press – and a drone dispute. Looking back through history, wars have been started for less than this.
We need to stay alert. You’re right, we need to stay alert.
Is there a realistic chance…
I’m alert.
…the chance of a future military conflict between Ukraine and Hungary?
Well, there’s always the danger of that, but leaders need to stay alert – in this case, me, for example, but also the parliamentary majority, the Government, and the Minister of War. So we really need to stay alert and keep our cool – we call it strategic calm. There is continuous Ukrainian secret service activity on Hungarian soil. We, as the services say, have been detecting this – we know about it – and we’re defending ourselves against it. And indeed influence on Hungarian domestic politics isn’t only coming from Brussels, but also from Kiev/Kyiv – as they’re working together on this. So now the goal in Brussels is to have a pro-Ukrainian government in Hungary. Ukraine also has an interest in this, with the Ukrainians supporting the Hungarian opposition in all kinds of ways – sometimes more is known about this, sometimes less. We are, of course, monitoring this.
If Kiev/Kyiv and Brussels want to influence Hungarian politics or the outcome of the election, why wouldn’t Russia?
It’s possible that the Russians would also like to, but Hungary is a sovereign government. So overall what bothers me isn’t that the attempts to influence us come from Brussels or Kiev/Kyiv – any influence at all bothers me. Because Hungary is the size it is, and it must forcefully protect its sovereignty. I’m not saying it’s like virginity – that’s not what I mean, because it has to be used actively. But sovereignty is a country’s most precious asset. That’s why we mustn’t allow influence over us – even if it’s meant in a friendly way. We’re happy to cooperate with everyone, we’ll repel attacks, but even our friends can’t tell us what to do. They can’t tell us how to live, what our foreign policy should be, or what Hungary’s position should be on any given issue – that isn’t possible, because Hungary is a sovereign country. Agreements can be made with us, but it’s not possible to force us or bypass our sovereignty – at least when there’s a national government. There hasn’t always been a national government in Hungary. Hungarian history can be divided into periods according to the type of government we’ve had: internationalist, imperial, colonial, and so on. But there have been periods when we’ve had national governments. We’re currently in just such a period.
On several occasions you’ve stated that Hungary doesn’t want to be Russia’s neighbour. Here I’d put this question to you: Exactly why not? And does it follow from this that those who are now neighbours of Russia – the Baltic states, or anyone else that’s close to Russia – have a realistic sense of danger when they say that in certain circumstances Russia could attack them? Why don’t we want to be neighbours with Russia?
There are three countries that we definitely don’t want to be neighbours with, in my opinion. We don’t want to be neighbours with the Germans. We’ve already experienced that, and it caused problems: the Anschluss. It’s good to have Austria and the Czech Republic there. We don’t want to be neighbours with the Russians. We’ve already had that too. The Soviet Union’s border was here, on Hungary’s eastern border. And we don’t want to be neighbours with the Turks either. We’ve been there before. What we’re talking about isn’t fantasy, philosophy or theorising, but experience – historical experience. It’s good if geographical units of one kind or another separate us from the great empires that have an effect on us. This is a great asset. So it’s good if we’re not neighbours with those countries. It’s therefore a good thing that there’s a territory between Hungary and Russia that’s now called Ukraine. It’s in Hungary’s strategic interest for Ukraine to exist. So this isn’t just a geopolitical point of view. One could also argue from the point of view of world peace and European security, but now I’m speaking from the point of view of Hungarian national interest: Ukraine’s existence is in Hungary’s interest.
Regarding Ukraine’s existence, however, you’ve said that the state only functions because Europe’s providing money, weapons, or whatever else is needed to keep the state and the army operating. Hungary, however, doesn’t want to support Ukraine militarily with either money or weapons. Help me resolve this contradiction of how Ukraine can survive if we aren’t very supportive of Europe pouring money and weapons into it.
We support the idea of concluding a strategic agreement with Ukraine. So there should be a strategic agreement between the European Union and Ukraine – not membership, but a treaty. In it, we’d set out who does what. How will Ukrainians allow Europeans into their market? How will we trade with each other? Will Ukrainians be able to work in Europe – and if so, how? What security guarantees will we give? Do we even want to give any to the Ukrainians? What will happen to the minorities living there – such as the Hungarians? We need a comprehensive strategic agreement that also guarantees preservation of Ukraine’s statehood, if it complies with the agreement. Today Ukraine doesn’t have independent statehood: today we’re the ones who are in fact supporting it. But most of the money doesn’t go towards running Ukraine; of course we pay pensions and salaries, but most of the money goes towards the war. If there were peace, this money wouldn’t have to be spent on the war, but we could keep some of it – and we could even use another part of it to develop the economy in Ukraine. But that’s not what’s happening today; instead, we’re burning billions of dollars or euros on the front line. According to our calculations, Europe has burned through 175 billion euros so far.
You’ve also made a statement saying that Russia has essentially already won the war in Ukraine and that all that’s happening now is the division of Ukraine, in which the major European powers are also playing a role. With regard to Hungarians living beyond the border, this raised the question in my mind of how the Hungarian government would react if, say, Transcarpathia were within a French, German or British sphere of influence.
Let’s talk about it, but for now, this isn’t happening openly – and, generally speaking, nothing that happens covertly or underhandedly is good for Hungary. A country the size of Hungary is safest when everything related to it is made public. So, in my opinion, secret diplomacy won’t lead to results here, and we need to speak openly. What’s happened is that the Russians have occupied about 20 per cent of Ukraine’s territory, pushing into Ukraine by more than two hundred kilometres from the former Russian–Ukrainian border. This is now a Russian zone. The Russians want to keep this territory. The Russians are also demanding that there be a demilitarised zone to the east of this front line: a neutral zone, a weapons-free zone. The Russians have said that this is because they don’t want to find themselves in a situation again in which there are weapons in Ukraine that can be used to fire directly and effectively at Russia. I don’t want to get into what settlement plans will or won’t be successful, but I just want to say that at this moment one-fifth of Ukraine is under foreign occupation, and the other three-fifths or four-fifths can’t stand on their own two feet, but are being supported by us. It’s obvious that this situation can’t be sustained in the long term. The question is this: How can we get out of this situation? The way out of this situation is diplomacy. This is why Hungary proposes that the European Union and Russia hold talks on Europe’s future security system, which includes Ukraine. The talks shouldn’t just focus on Ukraine; that’s an important issue, but not the most important one. The most important issue is how to achieve life in Europe that’s secure, free of terrorism and war – not just in Ukraine – and which also offers European citizens economic prosperity. This is the crucial question. We won’t have such a life as long as there is war; so something else is needed instead of war. The war should not only be ended with a ceasefire, but a general settlement should be established that guarantees security for everyone in the long term. I think this is the goal, but it can only be achieved through diplomacy; I don’t think this goal can be achieved on the front lines. Europeans believe that in order to achieve these goals the war must be won, but I don’t think that will work; so it would be better – as is customary in Europe – to initiate some level of diplomatic negotiations and ultimately establish a security agreement at the highest level between the western and eastern parts of Europe.
Yes, but in the world of diplomacy questions arise – because compared to the Alaska summit, for example, there were negotiations with Russian president Vladimir Putin and with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, yet the negotiations and Donald Trump’s efforts didn’t really lead to any results. I don’t know whose responsibility this is. Another related question is how you assess the fact that the American president has taken a 180-degree: up until now he’s used tough rhetoric against Ukraine, but now he says that Russia is a paper tiger, and that Ukraine still has the opportunity to regain the territories occupied by Russia – and even go further than that. This is a big change. Is someone influencing Donald Trump’s position?
Well, I understand that interpreting the world is an important part of your profession, but I can’t help you with that, because what I say has diplomatic consequences. So I’m reluctant to engage in such speculation, because I bear responsibility for the country, and that fact doesn’t allow me to do so. But I can say a few things. The first is that even if diplomatic contacts don’t lead to success, they must still be continued. The question is this: Can a war be ended with a ceasefire or peace negotiations, but without diplomatic contacts? Answer: No, it can’t! Therefore, even if negotiations between opposing parties fail ten times out of ten, they must be attempted an eleventh time. Wars in which the parties don’t negotiate with each other are always about mutual extermination and total destruction – as was the case in World War II with the capture of Berlin. But if the goal isn’t to permanently destroy one of the warring parties, but to accept that it will continue to exist after the war, then it’s necessary to negotiate continuously – even during the war. This has always been the case in European culture. This isn’t the case here. The current situation is exceptional in that the European Union isn’t negotiating with the Russians – while also saying that this is our war. Of course Hungary doesn’t agree with that – this isn’t our war. But even so, negotiations should still take place. What’s unusual isn’t when negotiations take place, but when they don’t. So today we’re in an abnormal situation. I won’t comment on the American turnaround; I can only say that as a result of this turnaround the European Union will now purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American weapons, which we’ll then give to the Ukrainians. The President of the United States is a businessman.
Let’s move on to another foreign policy topic. Hetek also focuses on the Middle East, where a lot of interesting things have been happening – especially in recent years. In UN votes and EU statements, Hungary is often the only European country to stand by Israel. For me this raises the question of whether this is solely a matter of representing Hungarian interests, the result of good political relations, or something more – something loftier that connects Hungary and Israel, or influences your position.
There are many factors involved, so it’s a long story… Let’s make a list, shall we? Since you’ve raised this question, I suggest we try to enumerate the reasons we have for working closely with Israel. Let’s start with the simplest one: many Hungarian citizens live in Israel. Hungarian citizenship is based on blood, so if someone’s ancestor was a Hungarian citizen, then they become a Hungarian citizen by being born. The Hungarian state doesn’t create citizenship, it only recognises it – because it’s based on blood, on descent. So if you go to Israel – and there are no exact numbers, but we have estimates about this – you’ll find a lot of people there…
Always.
…who have Hungarian ancestors, who are essentially Hungarian citizens, but haven’t yet requested determination and registration of their citizenship by the Hungarian state. And there are many Hungarian citizens of Jewish descent living in Hungary. There are no records of this, so it’s difficult to estimate. I often ask MAZSIHISZ [Federation of Jewish Communities in Hungary] how many there might be, but they don’t give a number either, although I think it’s over 100,000. This is a large community, and Israel is important to them. And since they – the Jewish citizens of Hungary – belong to the Hungarian nation, their views can’t be ignored. So I believe that there’s a historical fact that there’s a large Jewish community living in Hungary, a large Hungarian Jewish community living in Israel, and the Hungarian government has a certain degree of responsibility to them, because these people are also full citizens of Hungary. Therefore I can’t ignore this when I talk about Hungary’s role in foreign policy relations with Israel. So perhaps we can tick off the first point. Let’s look at the second one. The stability of the region in which Israel is located is a key issue for Hungary. If that region becomes unstable, waves of refugees will start heading for Europe – including, as we’ve already seen, Hungary. In my opinion, the stability of the region depends on two countries. There are two countries without whose stability the region cannot be stable: one is Egypt, and the other is Israel. Hungarian foreign policy has special relations with both countries. We have very good relations with Egypt and with Israel. We have an interest in the stability of both countries. We’re not a world power, but we help both countries when we can, and in the areas that we can. That’s the second thing. The third thing is cultural and historical, in my opinion – namely that Jewish culture is part of Hungarian culture. I myself am Calvinist. The Old Testament is, after all, rooted in the Holy Land…
In fact, a significant part of the New Testament is also…
…in fact, perhaps even that, yes – although it’s a more complicated matter. The Old Testament certainly comes from there, from the East, if I may put it that way. This is why Hungary has a special connection to the Jewish community, through Christian culture and the Old Testament. This is a cultural and historical fact that can’t be ignored if the country has a serious government. Let’s move on. We have business interests. Israel has major investments in Hungary, we have joint research projects – even in highly sensitive areas such as the military industry and cyber security. And since there’s trust between the two countries, these are well-developed relationships from which we both benefit: they do and we do. And there’s also the personal aspect that you’ve mentioned, which is that when Netanyahu is in power in Israel, we have a personal friend in Israel. So Hungary doesn’t have many friends, and I can’t say that every Israeli leader has been – or will be – a friend of Hungary. We must value our friends. And for various reasons, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a sincere friend of Hungary. That’s why we’ve always helped him, and he’s always helped us. So friendship undoubtedly has this dimension that can be linked to parties and individuals. That’s pretty much how it is. It’s a lot to unpack.
Another related question concerns the fact that in the UN in recent weeks several European states – but also several other states – have unilaterally recognised the Palestinian state. This has sparked a major debate. How do you see the issue of a two-state solution and the question of a Palestinian state now? I know that Hungary had already recognised the Palestinian state in the communist era.
It’s all mixed up, and I don’t know exactly where we stand right now. So even if you asked me as a lawyer, I’d scratch my head, because it seems that we did recognise the Palestinians during the communist era, but it’s not that obvious…
Right.
…that this has been incorporated into Hungarian law. So somehow we’re in no man’s land. Anyway, this is why no one’s bothering us. But this is a serious matter, so it’s worth dealing with it seriously. The question is not whether or not we recognise Palestine, but whether this is the solution to the situation there. First of all, I must say that I never like to give anyone advice from the outside on how to solve their problems. So in my opinion the fact that the world is excited and constantly wants to give advice to the people there on how to solve their problems often doesn’t help them find a solution. Today I’ve been looking at the news from Italy, and the Italian Left is holding mass demonstrations against the Italian government and the Israeli government over the Palestinian issue. Is this a good thing? For whom? So I’d recommend caution. Secondly, the situation now looks a little easier – I mean the debate on the two-state solution. Because this has been cut across by the US president’s twenty-point peace plan, which doesn’t even mention a two-state solution. I’ve read this twenty-point peace proposal, and it doesn’t mention a two-state solution, but all kinds of other solutions and models are brought up, and today everyone’s talking about supporting this twenty-point proposal.
You too?
Of course – Hungary supports it too. So I think we can philosophise about a two-state solution, but at the moment the direction that seems to be the path to a solution is the twenty-point proposal presented by US president Trump. We support that. I have only one philosophical comment on the two-state solution, if I may. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible, and I see this as being outside the realm of possibility. It sounds good, but it’s outside the realm of possibility. Because there’s a state that exists and that doesn’t want a two-state solution; and the one that wants it doesn’t exist. It’s difficult to achieve a two-state solution from this…
You’ve mentioned the mass demonstrations in Italy, and I’d like to connect this to the fact that in many large European cities there are demonstrations that are said to be pro-Palestinian. I question whether these demonstrations truly represent their side. And at the same time a serious wave of anti-Semitic hatred has emerged in Europe, the likes of which was perhaps only seen before World War II. To mention just the most recent incident, in Manchester, a British citizen with an immigrant background stabbed several Jewish people in front of a synagogue on Yom Kippur, and two died. This is a very serious wave of violence, and the perpetrators often act under the banner of Palestinian solidarity. How do you view this wave of incidents?
I find this situation very difficult. I thank God that this isn’t happening in Hungary. Those who suffer from this are being deeply wounded, and in Manchester they’re facing very serious issues as well. So we knew that anti-Semitism was a tradition in Europe, but one that was fading and weakening. We also knew that homophobia exists in Europe. I think this tradition is also weakening, but it does exist. But then migration came, and millions of people flooded in. And among the millions who came in, the tradition and support for anti-Semitism and homophobia is much greater than what we knew in Europe, where we’d marginalised it. So when millions of migrants were allowed into Western Europe, a lot of anti-Semitic sentiment, people, and homophobic views were also allowed in. Now all of that is there with them. We need to do something about this. This is why I say that I thank God for giving us enough strength not to let them in here, because then we’d also be struggling with that problem. Democracy is an extremely sensitive instrument. Democracy depends on votes. And in order for a political force – say a party – to obtain governmental power, it must garner votes. And if you let into a country millions of people who are, say, anti-Semitic or homophobic or want Islamic culture instead of Christianity, or want Sharia law instead of Christian laws, then these people you’ve let in will become voters, and someone will represent them in politics. So something very serious has happened in Western Europe. We’re now seeing terrorism, and you’ve mentioned the Manchester attack; so we’re seeing daily manifestations of this. But in the long term it’s an extremely serious challenge to democracy. Jews and Jewish communities are leaving Western Europe in large numbers because they’ve been outnumbered by Muslims. The number of Muslim votes is higher, and so policies serving Muslim views – both positive and negative views – have gained strength in those countries. And this means that members of the Jewish community feel ever less comfortable there. They’re leaving. I don’t want them to have to leave, but I see the numbers and I see that this is happening. So what I’m saying is that in a democracy, changing the cultural composition – the foundation – of the original population has far-reaching consequences, many of which you can’t even calculate when you let in these huge masses of people. And Western Europe has made the mistake of letting them in. Without thinking things through beforehand, it’s now facing the consequences. And in Western Europe one of the victims of this lack of foresight is the Jewish community.
Demographics and population decline are also indirectly related to this topic, and here I’d like to shift the focus slightly to domestic politics. The Government has made many decisions on family support, on programmes, on financial support and policies; yet the latest population decline and birth rate indicators show that ever fewer children are being born, and the population decline here in Hungary may even be accelerating. Is this partly due to the ineffectiveness of government policy, and should something be changed, or is there another reason for this?
We’re now discussing the most important issue concerning Hungarians, because the most important question is whether we’ll continue to exist – and if so, for how long. And since we’re not a nation of tens of millions, but only around ten million, this is a much easier process to calculate mathematically than in Germany with its 86 million, Türkiye with its 90 million, Russia with its 150 million, or the United States with its 350 million. In those countries such doubts don’t exist. Such doubts have very serious psychological and cultural consequences. It’s difficult to be cheerful in a country where, if you think about the situation for a moment, you’re faced with the possibility that we’ll shrink and eventually disappear, that someone will come and take our country away from us, or that we’ll melt into something else. So it’s terrible – at least to my heart – to see such terrible outcomes. And if we don’t want to escape from all these debates into a bottle of red wine, then we’ll have to find a solution. And I think that the Government is doing the right thing. If we hadn’t launched the family policy in 2010, there would be 200,000 fewer children in Hungary today. And it’s true that even these 200,000 more children aren’t enough to reverse the trend. But we’re still talking about 200,000 Hungarian children who wouldn’t have been born if in 2010 the Left’s economic and family policies had continued. I think we should put on record that 200,000 people – children, Hungarian children – have been born. So this is the most important measure of our family policy. The question is whether this is enough. And I think that if Hungary has available money generated by the economy which we can decide on spending, then as much as possible should be spent on supporting families.
But is this enough…
Well, we can’t say, because, you see…
…for a turnaround?
Because what’s the situation here? The state can’t force anyone to have children – fortunately. The point here is that everyone makes their own personal emotional or career decisions about their own lives, and the state shouldn’t interfere in that, because people live their lives as they wish – within the boundaries of the law. If someone doesn’t want children at all, then they don’t want them. What the Government can do is treat who wants children and who doesn’t want them as a private matter, while also acknowledging or admitting that whether or not someone has children matters to the community. And if someone – say a woman – has two children, it means that because of her we’ll no longer be declining in numbers. So we can say that she’s replaced herself and her husband, and thus she’s already helped the community with its problem of shrinking, and possibly even disappearing. And such a decision must be encouraged. We shouldn’t interfere, but we should encourage it. We should say, yes, family is valuable – it’s valuable for spiritual reasons anyway; but now we’re talking about demographics, and it’s also valuable from a demographic point of view. If you’re having a child, you’ve made a personal decision, but it’s a very important decision for the community. Thank you very much, we’re grateful for it. We know that it’s a burden, and we know that those who don’t have children are better off financially than you who do have children. This isn’t fair. We’ll help you, we’ll give you tax breaks, everything, housing assistance, help with setting up a home. We’ll give you help so that having children isn’t ultimately a decision influenced by financial considerations, by material considerations, but a personal decision that comes from your heart. This is as far as we can go. And from there on the paths diverge. Because there are those who think that Hungarians are such that if they’re given the opportunity to not have to make decisions about having children on a financial basis, then they’ll have many children. I believe this, I belong to that world, that’s who we are. Others say that this won’t be enough, because women still won’t have enough children. And maybe it won’t – because without God’s influence, without the Holy Spirit, it probably won’t work. I’m sure of that. But one obstacle, which is financial hardship, can be removed. And if the Government can do that, I think it will lead to results. Now it has led to 200,000 souls, and there will be even more.
Two years ago in Tusványos you spoke about nation states, and you made a very interesting point about how nation states have a biblical basis and are part of the order of creation, because we read in the Scriptures that at the Last Judgement not only individuals will be judged, but also nations. This is somewhat in the realm of theology, but I’m still curious to know how you think Hungary should conduct itself as a nation in order to receive a favourable judgement. And what responsibility do you personally, as the current leader of the Hungarian nation, have in steering the country in the right direction for this judgement?
My friends often tease me that I sometimes get the genre wrong, because I give political sermons instead of political speeches. That may be true, but I don’t know if it’s a problem. In any case, one must tread carefully when venturing outside one’s own field. This is for two reasons: firstly, because it’s better to stick to what we know, as that’s what we’re good at; and secondly, because there are others who are more knowledgeable than us, who have a better understanding of the field and can navigate it, and who can give people more help than a politician can. So we must be cautious. But I’ve always believed that since the existence of the Hungarian nation isn’t only a biological and economic issue but also a spiritual one, we represent a quality, a cultural and spiritual quality – one that I think is very special, and something that perhaps no one else has. Therefore those who take responsibility for governing the country should sometimes point out to voters that being Hungarian is something special, and that this needs to be talked about. And who else should start this conversation if not the Prime Minister of Hungary? So sometimes I digress, knowing my limitations; but sometimes I see it as necessary to stray into this area. And I’m certain that Hungary will receive, win and retain its right to exist from God if it helps Him – if it helps God build His kingdom. That’s the essence of the matter. And in this regard I think that Hungary has helped a great deal over the past thousand years. I’m not saying that our track record is faultless, but I think we’ve assisted God a great deal in bringing God’s kingdom here on Earth closer – even if it doesn’t fully arrive. And every generation should think about this. So every generation in Hungary should look at whether their generation has fulfilled its mission in this respect. I also evaluate the Government’s work in this dimension, and I try to do my part here as well.
And you also feel this responsibility on a personal level, to do what God has assigned to you…
It’s my job, which has been assigned to me.
This raises a question, which I feel to be a criticism, that very often politicians, political parties or governments who represent Christianity in their rhetoric, communication or even values are often involved in moral scandals within one political community or another; and in doing so, they discredit Christianity itself if they represent it in their rhetoric but fail to live up to it in their private lives or in moral matters.
Unfortunately, this is the case.
Shouldn’t politics keep a greater distance…
Yes, it should.
…at the church level, the denominational level, or even the level of representing Christianity?
That’s another issue, let’s talk about that too. The separation of church and state. But before we talk about that, the separation of church and state, let’s talk about the other more important dimension that you’ve mentioned. Yes, the fact is that we’re human beings, and therefore we’re fallible, and that’s why things have happened that shouldn’t have happened. Now, if this calls into question one’s suitability for leadership, even in a moral sense, then one must immediately withdraw from public life. If the offence isn’t so serious, then there’s a procedure for what to do. First, you have to admit your guilt, repent, accept your punishment, and make amends. So, no, I don’t know anyone who’s perfect and, because of minor or major transgressions or sins, has never had reason to go through these four stages. But politics is a cruel world, so if you commit a serious offence that falls into the category of moral failing, you have to leave, because you have to accept the punishment. And the punishment is often that you leave. Now, however, it’s very important that we don’t give in to the libs. This is very important because what do the libs, commies and anti-Christians use this human fallibility for, which I also believe we must fight against? They use it to say that all moral standards are meaningless. So while we must acknowledge the fact of fallibility, this should not lead us to become cynical. Liberals, leftists and commies, on the other hand, offer cynicism instead. They say that you’ve failed to clear the bar, and that the bar has no meaning. Christians say that I’ve failed to clear the bar, but the bar does have meaning, and we’re not going to lower it. This is important, and I think it’s a big difference between the Right and the Left. So I agree with what you say, the Christian…
But the problem of Christian hypocrisy…
Of course!
…from this point of view, doesn’t exist on the so-called liberal side, but it does exist on the other side…
Yes. Of course!
…if one represents it but doesn’t live by it.
Yes, of course. But hypocrisy is a sin, isn’t it?
Absolutely!
That’s also something to be admitted, regretted, punished, and so on. Now, at the same time, we must also see that in politics today those who represent values are under constant attack. The best example of this is the “Uncle Zsolt” case, which is currently underway, and for which everyone will get their just desserts. I don’t want to talk about that now, but since you asked the question, why was Zsolt Semjén singled out? We all know that Zsolt Semjén isn’t a saint – but he is almost one. So, in my opinion, he’s fundamentally far from not only heinous crimes, but even the sins of fallibility: he’s an innocent man. In this case, he certainly is. But why was he singled out? Why did they want to smear him with paedophile accusations? Because he leads a party that’s the only ideological party in Hungarian politics today. I lead Fidesz. It’s a people’s party. It was organised to represent certain values, implement a programme, and therefore garner votes and create political power. The KDNP isn’t like that. The KDNP says that it has a very strong Christian system of values, and it has a duty to always represent this Christian system of values – regardless of whether this helps or hinders it in politics. It’s an ideological party. And the key figure in this is its president. And by trying to hunt him down, even though he was innocent, they actually wanted to hunt down the only Christian Hungarian party based on ideology. And Christian parties cannot exist without Christian churches, so obviously through him the church could also be targeted. So there are some nasty games being played here. But you’re right to say that we Christians must defend ourselves against hypocrisy, double standards and false piety, and try to live up to the highest standards – while at the same time being aware that from the other side Christians are subject to vicious attacks that lack any moral standards and that are aimed at discrediting them. So let’s not allow self-criticism to blind us to reality, and in the end forget that the real problem isn’t a lack of self-criticism; of course if that’s the case it can be a problem, but a much bigger problem is that political figures and parties based on Christian principles are under attack. This is a much bigger problem than that. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t deal with the smaller problem, but we mustn’t allow our sense of danger to diminish or be turned in the wrong direction. That’s where the real danger to Christianity comes from. There’s also a danger within Christianity, which you call hypocrisy, and this must also be addressed; but the real danger comes from outside, and we mustn’t confuse or mix up the two.
Let’s also discuss the other topic. I’d like to ask you what the desirable distance is that a state or government should maintain from churches. There are many parallels in history where, for example, the existence of a state church led to the persecution of other Christian denominations and communities, or even gave the clergy power that at the national level did more harm than good to the country in some cases. Is it possible to maintain equal distance from all churches? Or if a government policy takes a denominational direction, does it alienate the majority of society, or other denominations?
That’s at least three or four questions I’m trying to…
I don’t want to get too deep into it, just that…
But I think we should go deep, as these are very interesting, if you don’t mind…
Absolutely.
…I’m happy to do so. So, the first thing is the problems involved in an intertwining of state and church. You gave historical examples of the problems this has led to, and that’s true. But let’s look at the present: now the problems are even bigger. So where a state church was established, typically in Protestant areas, and the state has turned in a liberal direction, it’s now dragging the churches along with it. So there’s a liberal decline that can be observed in the Western world today, from cynicism to the rejection of the traditional family model, to the rejection of absolute values. The state turned in that direction, because it took a liberal turn, the church turned with it, and those churches are all in trouble. It’s not my place to name those countries and churches, but this is what we’re seeing. With jovial Catholic goodwill, Catholics sometimes remind me – a Calvinist – that we can see how the Protestant churches have fared, after cooperating too much with the state. But what you’re talking about isn’t just a story from the past – it’s also a problem in the present. So, is there a good distance between the state and the church, or can a good distance be measured? I think the Hungarian constitution makes an interesting attempt, and enough time has passed for us to appreciate this. The Hungarian constitution says that the church, that churches and the state shall operate separately, and shall cooperate for certain purposes. I think this is a good solution, but it has to be done well. So we don’t interfere in each other’s affairs and we work separately, but there are issues on which we cooperate. Why shouldn’t we work together? A good education system is in the interest of us all. Or the care of real refugees – not migrants brought here for money, but real refugees, the care of people in need; why would cooperation on that be a problem? So I think that the Hungarian constitution clearly defines the relationship between the state and the church. The question now is, if this relationship is clearly defined, are we doing it right? I can say two things about this. If the churches feel that the state supports them too much, then I suggest they don’t ask for money. If they don’t ask, we won’t give. We only give what they ask for. And I never comb through the figures: I assume that if they ask, they must need it, and they can say what they’re asking it for: for a church, for a school, for this, for that. But I’ve never thrown money at them, so it’s always an initiative from the church. That’s number one. Two: this is regulated by a concordat. The Vatican and Hungary established a concordat, which is a treaty that defines the relationship between the state and the church in relation to Catholics. We copied this in relation to Calvinists, so we concluded it in the same way with the Protestant churches. This is why I believe that today there’s a basic document which, if everyone complies with it, can ensure an optimal distance. But there’s one thing I don’t want to deny, which is that it’s significant that the country has a government with Christian values, or that the country has a Christian prime minister. I’d even say that it’s significant that he’s a Calvinist. This means that, unlike a left-wing or liberal prime minister or government, I believe that the existence of religious communities is in itself an asset. So it’s not only the services they provide in terms of education, healthcare, childcare and social institutions, but I also believe that it’s an asset that spiritual communities exist in a country. Left-wingers probably disagree with me on this, but I consider it an asset. And these spiritual communities exist through the churches. So for Hungary the very existence of churches is good, useful and necessary. The Constitution is right here, because it says that Hungary wouldn’t exist today without Christianity. It’s a fact that Christianity and the future of the nation have been linked for a thousand years – this is a fact that can’t be ignored. It’s based on experience. It’s a guide. The least that can be expected from the current Hungarian prime minister is to say that the more religious and spiritual communities there are, the better it will be for Hungary. This is regardless of the fact that there’s no physical benefit, only spiritual. “Only spiritual” is in quotation marks, but that’s perhaps the most important thing. So in this respect I’m biased, I don’t want to say that I’m not biased towards Christian churches, I don’t represent a cool, constitutional position; I have to be mindful of that, and it sets limits for me. But at the same time I’m happy when new churches are established, when new communities are formed, when old churches are strengthened, when spiritual life is stronger, I think all of this is good for our national community.
I must respond to this comment because you’ve expressed criticism of Protestant state churches, which I believe to be justified.
It’s rather a description.
But since you’ve mentioned that the Catholic Church – or rather its representatives – tend to bring this up, it should also be mentioned that there have been moral questions related to the Vatican leadership that have led to a change in the Catholic Church’s position. And I have a question about the future of Europe, because there have been visions of a Habsburg Empire – let’s say a renaissance or revival of the Habsburg Empire – and whether or not that’s desirable. In this regard, I find myself facing a dilemma, as the Catholic Church or the Catholic worldview is more internationalist or supranationalist than, say, nation-state-oriented. Is this significant in the context of the question of empires versus the sovereignty of nation states?
Especially in the context of Habsburg–Hungarian relations, within which most of our freedom fighters were executed by the Habsburgs. So Vienna executed our people, which means that historically this relationship is even more strained than you describe, making it an even more difficult issue. Let’s start from the premise that Hungary is a country where 75 per cent of the population can be considered Catholic and 25 per cent Protestant. And we who are Protestants would do well never to forget this. It’s important to acknowledge this. This is such a country it is. Preachers may be able to work to change this, but that’s not at all the task of the Prime Minister. In this respect I belong to the minority. I’m very fortunate that my wife is Catholic, and in this respect I can accept Catholic views well, I understand them well. And since we follow the traditional Hungarian model, whereby our children follow their parents according to their sex, my son is Protestant, but I have four daughters who are Catholic. So together with my wife there are five of them at home, and I understand this world and can think with that mindset. This requires work, by the way. Referring to the religious diversity that exists in Hungary, at the inauguration of Cardinal Péter Erdő in the Basilica of Esztergom, our Bishop Bölcskei said in his address that religious disputes are rare in the trenches. By this he meant that in the modern world today Christianity as a whole is under attack. And Calvinist–Catholic debates are stimulating, and I think they can be conducted with sufficient gentleness, but in our debates with one another let’s not forget that we’re under attack from a great enemy – I’d say that we’re all under attack from the Antichrist. So we’re in the trenches, and at times like this religious debates are only good if they strengthen us and don’t weaken us. This is my credo regarding the coexistence of Calvinists and Catholics – or Protestants and Catholics. How should we relate to this? I’m fortunate enough to have been prime minister for twenty years, and in this country I think there are very few of us who can afford to ask almost anyone anything that has political implications – although private life is different. Well, I take this opportunity, and I also talk to my Catholic brothers about this issue, asking them where we stand: internationalism, supranationalism or nationalism? And when these conversations come to a conclusion, it can be somehow summed up that the Catholic Church recognises that nations are unique. So nations are God’s creations, they therefore represent something of quality, and we must never build systems that erase the aspect of God which is represented by each nation. Therefore it’s possible on a Catholic basis to find a balance in which universal humanity, universal humaneness, brotherhood and neighbourliness prevail, let’s say universal brotherhood, while at the same time national affiliation is also valued. In my opinion, Hungarian Catholicism must always find this balance. And I think that’s what they profess and represent today. I’ve seen numerous specific debates on the international stage in which Catholics have fought for Hungarian national causes more vigorously – or at least as well – as Protestants. So in national matters today I have no criticism of the Catholic Church.
Your opponents claim that you’re an autocrat. This raises the question of, after fifteen years of Fidesz rule, what counterbalances remain within Hungarian state administration to the power of Fidesz or the Government – given that the leaders of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Constitutional Court, the judiciary and the President of the Republic were elected exclusively by the votes of the ruling parties. What counterbalances to Fidesz’s power remain at present? And here I’d also like to ask a related question: Would you be happy if in certain circumstances your political opponents had similar power?
In the political arena you have exactly as much strength and power as your competitors allow you to have. So don’t complain, fight first – that’s my advice to my opponents. I led the opposition for sixteen years. So it’s not fifteen years of Fidesz government, but twenty years of Fidesz government: sixteen years plus four, for a total of twenty. So, if you like, from the perspective of your question the situation is even gloomier. But I led the opposition for sixteen years, and so I know both sides of the coin: you’re not sitting opposite a prime minister who only knows power, but a prime minister who knows the other side of the coin better than anyone else. Excuse my immodesty, but – horribile dictu – there’s no one else in Hungary other than me who’s toiled in opposition for sixteen years, who’s led the opposition that long. I’ve done that too. When I’m accused of what you’ve just mentioned, I laugh and say, “Yes, and where’s the leader who knows both power and life in opposition? Who, when he makes a decision, can weigh things up, because he has experience from both sides?” Now the Hungarian system is a parliamentary system, so it’s not an autocratic system in the sense that it doesn’t derive its powers from the Prime Minister or the President, but from Parliament. And here Parliament has to decide on a number of issues. In Parliament, of course, whoever has the majority decides. But it’s not the Government that decides, it’s the Members of Parliament – and that’s not the same thing! This is why these accusations don’t hold water for the Public Prosecutor’s Office, for example – because the Public Prosecutor’s Office isn’t subordinate to the Government, but to Parliament. But in Germany, let’s say, where the accusation of autocracy doesn’t come into play or doesn’t arise, the Chief Prosecutor is subordinate to the Government, and in specific cases the Government or the Minister of Justice can instruct the Chief Prosecutor. So before we criticise Hungary for the way the Public Prosecutor’s Office is organised, let’s acknowledge that in many European countries the Public Prosecutor’s Office is directly under the control of the Government – and there are even countries where in specific cases it can intervene. This is impossible in Hungary because the Public Prosecutor’s Office is subordinate to Parliament, not the Government. I cannot instruct the Chief Prosecutor, nor do I elect him or her. I do have a vote, but it’s not me who appoints the Chief Prosecutor: it’s Parliament. In terms of the distribution of constitutional powers, Hungary is a well-designed, exemplary country in Europe. Most governments in Europe have more power than the Hungarian government has under the Constitution. What makes the Hungarian situation unique is that we win parliamentary elections by a large margin, and thus the power concentrated in Parliament is also derived from the mandate we receive from voters, coming from – or going to – Fidesz. But someone has to be given that power; voters have to vote for someone – and they don’t vote for the Government, they vote for representatives, and the representatives elect the Government. I think this is a good system. And what’s more, I wouldn’t call it autocracy, but rather the ability of the Government to act, the benefits of which Hungary has enjoyed over the past fifteen years, and for twenty years when I’ve been in government. Today the danger isn’t power or excessive power, but weakness. Let’s look at European governments, which are weak, fragmented, torn apart by coalition disputes, unable to reach decisions, lacking in reforms, and setting up committees instead of making decisions. They’ve been unable to curb migration – things have just taken their course. They’re unable to implement the reforms necessary for competitiveness. So Europe’s big problem today isn’t the excessive power of governments, but precisely their lack of capacity to act, their lack of decision-making power. Let’s be glad that Hungary has been spared this, and that we have a government that’s capable of making decisions and taking action.
I’ll put forward a hypothesis, and perhaps it will shed light on the problem arising in my mind in this regard. Let’s assume that on 12 April – but I don’t know when the election will be – there’s a narrow victory. If the Tisza Party loses, they might say – as the losing side usually does in such cases – that there was electoral fraud, and then there will be great social tension. If the Government loses, it might say that external influence was so intense that it calls into question the legitimacy of the election result. If an atmosphere resembling a civil war develops here, producing great tension, is there any institution or position in Hungary that will enjoy public trust and which can bring calm?
I see that you don’t trust me – that’s the conclusion I draw from this question; because I’ve won an election and taken power, and I’ve lost an election and handed over power.
But with regard to social tension the question remains.
But we dealt with that too. So every change of government involves tension, and every election victory also involves tension. Look at me! I’ve dealt with all of this. Why would I have lost my insight and ability to act on this now? I haven’t lost it. Trust me! We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Thank you very much for the interview. I’ve been speaking with Viktor Orbán for over an hour. There have been some exciting questions, but we look forward to hearing your opinions in the comments section. Thank you very much for the conversation. And if you enjoyed this interview, this conversation, or are curious about further content from Hetek, please subscribe to the Hetek YouTube channel. All the best!
