Menu
Zsolt Törőcsik: Emotions aren’t subsiding over the amendment to the Act on Assembly, adopted for the protection of children. This week there have been demonstrations on this issue, one of which ended in the closure of a bridge, and this morning there were demonstrators outside this building. This is one of the subjects I’ll be asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about in the next few minutes. Good morning.
Good morning.
What’s your assessment of these demonstrations, and in general of the fact that this amendment has provoked such a furore in Hungarian public life?
I see that there’s competition among the opposition parties over who can be the most provocative. It’s not easy to be an opposition party, especially when the Government is doing a lot of things, as it’s doing right now – announcing a breakthrough year in the economy and in politics, when we’ll be changing a lot of things. In such a situation the Opposition has two options: either it can be constructive, take a constructive approach to the proposals, make comments, additions and improvements; or it can wave aside all that, abandon it and turn to staging provocations. In Hungary now I see that we’re facing the latter. Of course it would be nice to think that they gathered outside the radio building because they were excited about my upcoming interview, but I’m afraid that isn’t the case.
But why do you think this debate isn’t receding? Because they say that this is a violation of the right of assembly, and that the country has embarked on an undesirable path.
Yes, it’s obvious that it’s not what they say it is; but they know that, and it’s obvious to them. What’s happening in Hungary is an absurd situation in which even bridges are being blocked – I’d like to say a few words about that – and in which they’re saying that in Hungary democracy is at an end, with the abolition of the right to assemble. Meanwhile they’re assembling. What I’m saying is that their claims are being disproved by the events themselves. But this isn’t what it’s about: it’s about a political competition. There will be elections in Hungary in one year’s time; the opposition parties are reorganising, they have problems achieving visibility, and since they’re not constructive opponents, they’re competing with each other in provocative anti-government activities. At the same time, I understand this, and we must understand each other – after all we belong to a national community; but we could also have a little respect for each other. So I can understand that someone may have an objection to a particular law, especially if it’s on a Pride-related issue: that’s when liberals always cry, as it’s one of those issues. But we should be respectful – I mean they should be respectful of other people. For example, it’s not legally possible to close bridges. Freedom of expression and opinion should be based on the rational consideration that one isn’t restricting other people’s lives unnecessarily. To close bridges for sport or almost as if one was playing sport – first one, then another and then a third – isn’t normal. And I believe that the majority who aren’t protesting have the right to live their lives in a normal way.
Based on what you’re saying, does this warrant any legislative action by the Government?
We’ll be thinking about that. We can see that there’s a wave of this, because there was a fracas in Parliament, the like of which we’ve never seen. After all, it’s a place that’s supposed to have some dignity – and historically it has. I don’t think you can behave however you like. Anyway, what happened happened: smoke bombs in Parliament, then bridges and roads blocked. So there’s some tension among the Opposition. The Government and the majority must stay alert: we mustn’t react too agitatedly, and we must also be sensitive with amendments to legislation. But I think that the bridge closures have perhaps brought with them the lesson that the law should clearly guarantee that account is taken of the interests of the majority who aren’t demonstrating.
We shall see what steps will be taken in this matter, but what’s certain is that the Government will add four elements to the Hungarian Village Programme. If we look back over the last few decades, the worldwide trend has been for people to move from areas with small villages to cities or to their outskirts. The result of this process has been the depopulation of these rural areas. With this in mind, what’s the reason for now defying this trend somewhat and expanding the Hungarian Village Programme?
There’s a huge body of literature on this debate, with libraries full of books on whether the modern world necessarily brings urbanisation with it. Most things in the modern world are about efficiency: how to organise a service most efficiently, and how to give people jobs most easily. The accompanying aspect of this is how to make the most money. The one can make the most money by crowding people together within a small area, where they access services. This results in cost savings for the service providers. This all runs counter to the village way of life – not just in Hungary, but all over the world. Now I think that politics isn’t about always putting financial considerations first. There are other aspects of higher value; for example, the tradition of a country, the structure of its settlements, the way the country is populated, and so on. Hungary has a great tradition – and I think a great resource – in the village. If you go, say, to the east of us, you won’t find many villages of this type. The Hungarian village is an ecosocial unit. So in a Hungarian village – especially in bygone times, let’s say in my childhood – all the conditions for a quality life existed. Then, after the fall of communism, the villages started to atrophy or weaken. It’s possible that we could talk about this phenomenon starting even earlier, but at that time it definitely accelerated, and now we’re faced with the question of what the future of the Hungarian village should be. My personal opinion – and as a village boy I’m obviously biased – is that the village doesn’t belong to the past, but to the future. The crowded metropolitan way of life is appealing to some people: some people like it and aspire to it, and the constant flux and bustle of life in a big city may be attractive to most young people. But people with families are more attracted by calm, predictability, a healthy environment, personal contact with neighbours, and the security that comes from knowing your surroundings and other people. So I think that, if they have the choice, a significant proportion of people with families will continue to prefer to live in the countryside rather than move to a city. And they’re also our country’s citizens, so the views of people in villages must also be taken into account in national policy. So villages must be strengthened, not weakened. In addition, I believe that if we’re right on this – and we’re not always right, although there have been examples of that – and if we’re right about future development, then there will be a constant phenomenon of people moving out because of urban problems. Budapest also suffers or encounters this kind of thing, and it’s a matter of opinion as to whether we consider it suffering when settlements around cities become suburbanised: when those who can afford it – especially if the state supports rural home creation with, say, family home creation and village family home creation support programmes – consider moving out of the cities, with consequent suburbanisation. So not only can the traditional form of the Hungarian village, which used to be based on agriculture, find a future for itself, but now so too can village culture built on a non-agricultural background – especially if the village is not synonymous with the idea of the end of the world. So village life will become attractive if the Government really succeeds – and why shouldn’t it? – in creating the following conditions: everyone – even in the most remote village in the country – having access to a dual carriageway or motorway within thirty minutes; the internet being available everywhere; small villages having services such as crèches and kindergartens; and, following decisions we’ve just taken, every village having a shop and a pub. In other words, if the modern conditions for a civilised life are in place. What I’m talking about isn’t a lost cause: it may look like tilting at windmills and trying to oppose a world trend; but it isn’t, because since we launched the Hungarian Village Programme, we’ve recorded 1,200 settlements in which population decline has halted. So with regard to village life I think that good things can come from the combination of government will with people’s instincts.
Now there are four areas where the Government is intervening. There are calls for applications for shops and for pubs, a church renovation programme, and a plan to install cash machines. Why are these the four areas that have been chosen? Because at first glance there doesn’t seem to be any connection between them.
These are rather new elements of the Hungarian Village Programme. We’re not only dealing with these, because the Hungarian Village Programme has been running for five years – with the renovation of schools, kindergartens, cemeteries and chapels of rest, and the strengthening of the background needed for human life. This programme is being led by a Member of Parliament from Csorna. He’s one of our most successful politicians, and the programme itself is perhaps one of the most successful programmes. It’s more a case of new elements being added to it; so we’re not talking about something new, about a new programme, but about new elements of the programme. Small shops are a recurring problem: it’s difficult to live in a village if there’s no shop. There’s been a big debate – a philosophical debate within the Government – about where the soul of the village resides now: in the pub or in the church. In the end we declared a draw, and so we’re renovating and strengthening both the pubs and the churches. And ATMs are also important. This is one of the most difficult things to resolve: how to manage this, and at whose expense. Here we have a deal with the banks to provide access to cash in every village, for which we need ATMs everywhere. In any case, we’re modernising the village while preserving its traditions. It’s a valuable form of settlement and community life in Hungary, we don’t want to abandon it, the people living there want to continue it, and young people and families are interested. I believe that we have every reason to declare the village programme to be one of the most important programmes.
Speaking of people in families, in Parliament this week a proposal was also tabled on personal income tax exemptions for mothers under 30, and for childcare and infant care benefits. Why is the Government continuing to extend personal income tax exemption in this direction?
Of course these are measures that we’ve talked about earlier, but they’re relevant again because the bills implementing them have been submitted to Parliament. This, I think, is why we’re talking about them now. But in fact, beyond the specific measures, here in Hungary a very important debate with a historical dimension is now coming to a close. Perhaps we have this debate everywhere in Western civilisation: what do we consider to be the basic unit of society – the individual or the family? If it’s the family, as national conservatives like us say, then this idea must be reflected in the regulation of the economy. If we’re liberals, and we see the individual as the smallest unit and the starting point, then another regulation follows from that. Because in a framework of thinking that’s centred on the individual, that’s centred only on the individual, the family doesn’t appear as an important consideration. How one lives is considered to be a private matter. And there’s some truth in this, because ultimately how one lives is a private matter; but for the community the questions of whether children are born and traditional ways of life are preserved are important ones. This is why national conservatives like us say that the family is the basic element of society and of the life of the nation, and that we should acknowledge this and accept it. And, if this is the case, then we should also build our economic system upon it. Let’s make forms of family enterprise possible and let’s build our tax system on this. The tax system should respect and help families. Depending on how many children you have, assistance in bringing up children should be provided. We should say that it is our great, social, shared national goal that those who have children shouldn’t find that the burden of raising them makes them worse off than those who don’t have children. So we’re talking about measures, but what’s actually happening is that we’re making the Hungarian economic system family-centred. And in this we’re the first in the world. There are other initiatives like this, but in the kind of comprehensive approach that we’re taking there are new things that aren’t available in the Western world – such things as mothers with two children being exempt from tax for the rest of their lives, or family tax allowances being available not only for a mother or a father, but for both of them as a family. I believe that this is the future. Others will follow us. This has often been the case, with migration, war and so on: the Hungarian position is five or ten years ahead of the European position, and the others follow us. I think that here too, the Western world may come to realise that if it doesn’t give families respect, appreciation, support and recognition, and assist them, then it will lose something without which it’s very difficult to build a happy life and a successful economic system. This is why I believe that the future lies in family-centred economic systems – and Hungary is the first country in Europe to achieve this.
At the same time, we’ve also spoken several times about the futility of increasing family allowances if part of what’s provided is taken away by inflation – which in Hungary in February was the highest in the European Union. In order to bring this down, barely two weeks ago the retail profit freeze was introduced; and according to the information available so far, the prices of almost nine hundred of the one thousand relevant products have fallen. How satisfied is the Government with the results so far?
According to the data I’m working from, 874 products have seen price reductions, and the average of these price reductions is somewhere between 17 and 18 per cent. This is a big deal. I don’t know if there’s ever been anything like this in Hungary’s history. There was a system of price freezes in which we stopped prices going up; but to my recollection I don’t think there’s been an example in modern Hungarian history of getting prices to stop rising and then fall. I was also nervous when we started this, because in politics going down the wrong road is a risky business. Whenever an issue arises, my first suggestion to ministers is always to take down the dossier in which we’ve already dealt with a similar case, open it up, see how it went, and build on that. But issues come along for which there’s no earlier dossier. Now there’s no earlier dossier for the regulation of profit margins. The fabric of society – especially trade, with families on one side and traders, suppliers, food processors and producers on the other – is an extremely complex and sensitive societal structure. So to intervene in that without any prior experience is a serious risk in political and intellectual terms. So I too was on edge about whether or not it would work; we went through all the steps sixteen times just to make sure that we were being cautious enough, taking enough care. but after two weeks, I have to say that it’s working. So the thing is up and running, it’s a regulatory system that’s working, and it’s produced results. We’re Hungarians, of course, we’re also dealing with international retail chains, and traders will certainly try to find a way around this. They’ll try to somehow get back the money that they’re not getting now as a result of profit margins being regulated – because you go shopping, and while you used to pay 100 forints for a product, now you’re paying 80. A great many retailers think that the Government shouldn’t be saying what profit margin they can charge. Now we’re saying, “Dear retailer, 10 per cent is enough for you”; but many people are thinking, “Well, if we can get 11–12 or 20–30, why not try?” I’m sure there will be attempts to somehow get around the Government’s price-cutting policy, so there are ongoing checks. We have two or three more responses up our sleeve if retailers don’t accept this new situation. So we’re in a constant struggle, and part of my job is to consult on the specific situation of prices – if not daily, then weekly – with Robert Zsigó, our government commissioner in charge of this. This is how I can give some quite surprising figures. There are products for which prices haven’t fallen by 17–18 per cent, but by more than 50 per cent. The prices of certain milks, yoghurts, sour cream, cottage cheese and fats have fallen by 50 per cent. We have, of course, announced profit margin regulation until the end of May, in the hope that by then the situation will have normalised and traders will realise that they’ll have to make do with 10 per cent. In the meantime I think there will be attempts to circumvent the regulation. We’ll have to stop these with checks, and at the end of May there will be a big, evaluative debate on what the experience has been, and whether or not we should continue.
Let’s continue with a topic that, unlike the profit margin freeze, doesn’t affect our daily lives at the moment, but could do in the future. The European Commission is proposing that every EU citizen should have a 72-hour emergency stockpile of essentials. What do you think is the justification for this plan or request from Brussels?
It’s all very well for the Commission to think this, but it expects the Member States to implement it. First of all, Hungarian households usually have enough food for 72 hours. I don’t know how Westerners live, but when I go into a Hungarian pantry, I see that 72 hours wouldn’t be an insurmountable problem.
Neither would 72 days…
But let’s get past that and try to understand why they’re doing it. And what I see is that Brussels is preparing for war. So we have to take this seriously. So now it seems funny that they’re sending a message from Brussels to all European families to have enough food for 72 hours. Now, if you look behind this, you become rather horrified: What’s going on in these people’s minds? Are they preparing for something? At present I don’t see Europe being threatened with war. There’s no doubt that there’s a Russo–Ukrainian war, on an eastern front hundreds of kilometres away. There’s speculation that beyond Ukraine this war could reach Europe – say Budapest, Warsaw or the Baltic States. But there’s no reality to that: there’s simply no likelihood of anyone attacking a NATO member country. If someone is preparing for war, it’s because they want to initiate some kind of war. So Brussels wants to continue the war that’s in progress, because they’ve jumped into this war by supporting Ukraine. Hungary has stayed out of it: we’re on the side of peace, we’re not supplying weapons and we’re not sending soldiers. But there are countries in the EU – and, as far as I can see, Brussels is their mouthpiece – who want to get even more involved in this war. I see that they’ve also been floating the idea of wanting peacekeepers, soldiers and so on, and I feel that there is political preparation for a deeper involvement in the war with the kind of news that we’re talking about – that every family should have 72 hours of food. I’d also like to send a message from here to Hungarian families that they don’t need to do anything out of the ordinary. There’s no threat of war, Hungary won’t go to war with anyone, we shall remain on the side of peace, and even if Europe goes to war, we certainly won’t go to war.
Just yesterday, however, European leaders who are committed to supporting Ukraine met in Paris and pledged further support and security guarantees for Ukraine. Meanwhile US–Russian and US–Ukrainian talks continued this week, with progress being made. What’s the reason for the growing divergence – rather than convergence – between the US and European positions on the war?
It’s because some European countries and the Brussels bureaucracy itself want war. The US president wants peace. So we’re witnessing a great schism, a transatlantic schism: America is on the side of peace, working, negotiating to achieve a ceasefire and peace; and the European countries are arguing for the continuation of the war, and working to achieve it. This is what the Americans were doing earlier: before President Trump arrived, the Americans and the Europeans were cooperating, marching in lockstep, all on the side of war. The new American leadership has got out of that and says that the task is to make peace. And I think that the only thing we should do is wholeheartedly support American aspirations, peace aspirations, and not plan and implement a war strategy in opposition to America’s, as most European countries are doing. There are some of us who don’t agree with this. Of course this opinion is most strongly represented by Hungary, but the Slovaks aren’t happy either – I can see that. I hear the Italians saying things in such a reluctant style or tone, and the speeches of the Prime Minister. So there are countries which feel that Europe shouldn’t move towards war but towards peace. This may hurt the pride of some of the larger European states, but the truth is that the only thing we should be doing is supporting the Americans. I’m all the more convinced of this because the Europeans – I should say we Europeans – have already been given a chance. There was the Minsk Agreement, which was a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Back then we Europeans decided that this agreement would be guaranteed by the two biggest European military powers, economic and military powers: France and Germany. The Minsk Agreement was therefore signed by four powers. And the truth is that we weren’t able to enforce this agreement. So the European guarantee – the French and German guarantee – wasn’t enough. It turned out that Europe didn’t have the strength and capacity to enforce such a peace agreement. But the answer to this isn’t war: the answer is to find someone who can enforce it. And if we Europeans can’t, then – let’s face it – the Americans have to be involved: they’re bigger, they’re stronger, and they have a better chance of bringing about a ceasefire and a peace that they can keep. So if you want peace, support the Americans. This is a rare phrase in modern politics: “If you want peace, support the Americans”; but it’s true here and now.
Let’s talk about another piece of news, because foot-and-mouth disease has reappeared in Hungary. This time, too, it’s been identified at a cattle farm in Győr–Moson–Sopron county. What steps have been taken so far to control the disease, and what more is needed?
There’s the disease itself. It appeared in the village of Nagybajcs, and now we’ve identified it in a village called Levél, also in Győr–Moson–Sopron County. In such cases serious decisions need to be taken: livestock herds need to be destroyed, disinfection is needed, and so on. The infection has come from neighbouring countries, and apparently this has come from Slovakia. This has consequences for border crossings, for the transport of goods and for disinfection; so suddenly life there slows down, and even comes to a standstill. And if this infection were to spread nationwide it would have very serious consequences – even at the level of the national economy. For the time being the serious consequences are being felt at a local level. I’ve been to Kisbajcs and Nagybajcs. A great many people worked on these livestock farms, supporting their families. The animals have been destroyed, and there’s no work. So this is causing serious difficulties for the families and communities living there. I was there with the Minister for Agriculture, whose job it is to help these settlements and provide economic assistance so that livelihoods there aren’t destroyed by the foot-and-mouth epidemic. We’re working on this. The second thing is to prevent further spread, and on this we must cooperate with our neighbours to the west and north: Austria and Slovakia.
Among the subjects I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about were the recent waves of protests, the new programmes for small settlements, and the effects of the freeze on retail profit margins.
