Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Interview on Kossuth Radio’s „180 Minutes” Programme (13 June 2014)
Gábor István Kiss: Our guest today on 180 Minutes is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Good Morning!
Viktor Orbán: Greetings to your listeners.
GIK: The tenth post regime change government has been formed. It is the third that has been formed with your premiership, but the first that doesn’t have a government programme, and so at the beginning of our conversation I would be very grateful if you could provide us with a few undertakings for this term in office. More precisely, what will be happening and what do you feel is important, and in everyday terms, if possible.
OV: There can of course be no government without a programme, and we too have a programme, which I presented in Parliament in 2010. We began the implementation of that programme following the 2010 elections, and that is what we will be continuing. In this sense, Hungary’s voters know exactly what they can expect from the current government.
GIK: I can just ask you though, so what will be the case with single digit personal income tax, for instance.
OV: Yes, of course you can ask, but I would rather come forward with my own thoughts. I was suddenly struck by your question with regard to what I feel is our most important undertaking. Obviously, every Minister has a certain point of the programme that is especially close to their heart, and which is not merely a commitment, but also a personal commitment. I too have an issue of this kind, which is more than a simple obligation on the part of a Prime Minister, it is in addition also a personal commitment. It is what in political jargon we call full employment, but that doesn’t mean anything in itself, so I would rather describe it by saying that I believe in the idea that the world owes it to every single human being, including the Hungarians, that they have the chance to maintain themselves and their families through work. And so my most important personal commitment for the next four years can be summarised by saying that by the end of our current term I would like to achieve a state of affairs in which I can tell the people of Hungary that everyone in this country who wants to work can find some kind of work. It may not perhaps be what they have been dreaming of and perhaps not what they would prefer above all others, not the kind of job that requires the least work to provide a living, but they will not need to rely on benefits received from others and will instead be able to maintain themselves through their own efforts; this is the world that I would like to see develop in Hungary by 2018.
GIK: Let’s move on to the field of concrete facts now…we are going to need those questions after all, if we want to find our way onto that path. Let’s talk about public work then, because that is what you were in part referring to with what you just said…
OV: Yes, it is indeed part of what I meant.
GIK: So one can assume that public work will remain an element of government policy during the upcoming term.
OV: It won’t just remain so…
GIK: Will it stay with us throughout?
OV: This isn’t something that is dependent on a government decision. Let me take a step back once more: what happened in this country for a good twenty years? Governments were always telling people why not everyone has a job, and they tried to explain this to them, excuse the expression, to push it down their throats, and I think this was not a good policy. What we need to explain to people is how they can create jobs and what kind of jobs we can create. The state cannot of course create jobs instead of the economy, so it is very important that we reinforce the capability of enterprises to provide people with work through the tax system, regulations and so forth, but there will always be some, and especially if there happens to be a crisis in Europe, as is still the case today, there are always some people who are unable to find work on the job market, and it is in such cases that the state must step in. The radical difference between our government’s approach and that of other governments over the previous twenty years is that we do not want to compensate people for not having jobs, but we instead want to create jobs for them; this is what we call the start work programme, or as it has come to be known, the public work programme. This will expand further, because the public work programme doesn’t just exist because the government wants it to, but because while there are people in this country to whom the private sector is incapable of providing work, the state will continue to provide public work to such people, and today there are unfortunately not just a few people of this kind, but hundreds of thousands, and accordingly the size and level of organisation of what we offer people through the public work programme will continue to increase in the upcoming period.
GIK: And then in the light of this let’s move on to one of the most important issues and one which affects the most people: personal income tax. Everyone who lives in Hungary and earns a salary is affected by income tax. Can there truly be single digit income tax in Hungary before the end of the current government term?
OV: We would like there to be.
GIK: What is required for it to become reality?
OV: Economic growth in the 4-6 percent range.
GIK: On a single occasion or repeated growth?
OV: Permanent growth. We will be able to reduce the level of taxation if the economy is growing appreciably. Today, growth is in the 2 to 4 percent range; when we took over the governing of the country it was in the 0 to 1 percent range, and we succeeded in increasing it to 2 percent, and we are now in the 2 to 4 percent range. It is very difficult and many things have to luckily coincide, all of the stars must be aligned correctly, but it is not impossible that with an active government politics we can realise growth within the 4 to 6 percent range in the Hungarian economy for several consecutive years.
GIK: How long will the so-called special surtaxes, the sectoral surtaxes, be part of the Hungarian economy? The question of how long these taxes will remain payable is of most interest to the large economic operators, to the multinationals, international corporations and to the bank sector, of course.
OV: While we are in government they will definitely remain in place, because according to our approach those who have extra high incomes must play a greater role when it comes to public contributions. We believe in the equitable distribution of public burdens and there are a few sectors in Hungary whose huge profits mean they need to contribute proportionately more: the bank sector, a significant ratio of multinationals, the energy sector and the media sector are sectors of this kind.
GIK: Before we move on to the latest and most often quoted change in legislation related to value added type public contributions, the advertising tax, let’s first speak a little about the structure of the government. As you promised, it was indeed difficult to notice with regard to both staff and structure that a new government has been formed, but what is noticeable is that the Prime Minister’s Office has been hugely expanded and the various professional fields that now fall under the sphere of responsibility of János Lázár [Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office] require practically half a page to list. Why was this necessary?
OV: This is the third government that I have had the opportunity to form. I have already tried out two organisational structures, one between 1998 and 2002, which was called the Chancellery Ministry, and another between 2010 and 2014. Between 2010 and 2014, the task of coordinating public administration was given to the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice; that is where this task was performed and it was also from there that the reorganisation of the state took root. This work was begun and has been completed to all intents and purposes, meaning that there is today no need to reorganise Hungarian public administration, but instead we need only to complete the process of reorganisation that we have already begun, and so the Ministry of Public Administration has ceased to exist in this form and the work of the former Ministry has been split into a classical Ministry of Justice, with the other part of its former duties transferred to the Prime Minister’s Office.
GIK: Since you mentioned the Ministry of Justice, the head of the Ministry is new to the cabinet, the former Ambassador to France. When you introduced László Trócsányi, you asked him to protect Hungary’s constitutional identity within international space, or words to that effect. This would seem to mean that you are expecting arguments, renewed arguments, on the constitution, the Hungarian constitution? Isn’t the constitution strongly legitimised by the fact that two general elections have been held in Hungary according to its provisions and that in Parliament even the opposition benches are only occupied by MPs who all swore allegiance to this text? Can the debates on the constitution be opened once again?
OV: We certainly don’t want to open these debates again and open debates aren’t what are happening within the European Union today; a stealthy empire-building is occurring without the launching of debates; what is occurring to all intents and purposes is the amendment of the EUs basic treaties step by step through the amendment of individual regulations. The latest argument concerns the issue of who should be the President of the European Commission, and according to the constitution the decision on the person of the President has always fallen within the sphere of authority of the Council of Prime Ministers, and this is still the case according to the European constitution. Despite this, there is now a demand for the Prime Ministers to automatically nominate the star candidate put forward by the parties that occupy places in the European Parliament to be President of the Commission. This is the latest stealthy amendment of the constitution in Europe. And so what we need to be prepared for is not that they will openly attack the Hungarian constitution, that we have already protected, but what we need to be ready for is that there will be continuous attempts by Brussels to reduce the scope of authority of the community’s nation states, which we must prevent using constitutional arguments.
GIK: We spoke about the conflict regarding the nomination of the President of the European Commission three weeks ago. Much has happened since then in both Budapest and London. How do you see the situation now? Who is in the majority; what are Juncker’s chances?
OV: There is ongoing debate. And I will soon be travelling to Portugal for a European People’s Party summit where we will be discussing these issues, and there we will be representing the standpoint, and there are a good many of us, who say that before deciding on the next President, we need to determine the most important points with regard to the renewal of Europe. The voters have made it clear, and it is also made obvious by the situation, that Europe must be renewed. The question is, how and in what? We must put down these points in writing and then we need to elect a Commission President who is prepared to implement this programme of reform, and this is the standpoint that I will be putting forward in Portugal at the beginning of next week.
GIK: I’m in a bit of a flurry with regard to the topics under discussion during this conversation, and that is partly thanks to you, because you have said several newsworthy pieces of information, but let’s get back to the structure of the government. Who in your opinion will have the hardest task, which of your new ministers can expect to encounter the most significant problems, where do the country’s problems lie? Prior to the elections, you mentioned the field of education, for example.
OV: I will have the hardest job.
GIK: Who will have the second hardest job in the new government?
OV: The second hardest task is always related to the economy, but it is very difficult to determine an order of difficulty or importance, because the everyday safety of the people, and accordingly the police force, is at least as important as the economy. That our children should receive a proper education and that they should be born at all is at least as important as the question of how we can afford to raise them. So the family and education are important too. It is very difficult to determine an order of importance, but what is certain is that whatever we do requires money and money is generated by those who are actively involved in the economy, by entrepreneurs and employees. So if that is working suitably then we have the resources to be able to find solutions to the other issues. If the economy is sickly, is coughing, is wobbly or becomes stuck, then the opportunities available to the other ministers will also diminish.
GIK: Well, let’s now take a look at the controversial pieces of legislation put forward as individual bills by Members of Parliament, and firstly at the proposed taxation of advertising revenue. It is clear that you would like to introduce a turnover-related VAT-type tax in the spirit of the equitable distribution of public burdens, but where are the background calculations?
OV: We are in possession of all the background calculations.
GIK: Except they haven’t been made public.
OV: No, that’s not true at all. We are harnessing 9-10 billion forints from a sector that is large in size and which operates with a very large profit margin. If their profits were smaller, they would not have to pay a lot of taxes. It is those who earn greater profits who must pay more taxes; all of the numbers are public.
GIK: And what about the professional conciliations?
OV: We have performed those.
GIK: Except those weren’t public either.
OV: They were public, in the second half of 2013 and also in early 2014; since the idea had already emerged then, we have already performed all of the necessary professional conciliations.
GIK: And what are the economic requirements that make this a necessity? We are clearly not talking about an insignificant sum of money, but then again it only constitutes 1 percent of the deficit expected for this year, so there must be a serious problem with the budget if this extra revenue is indeed needed because of the state of the budget. So what is the concrete economic requirement in this case?
OV: There is no requirement, only justice. It is just that those who achieve greater profits and who operate with larger profit margins should pay more taxes. This same principle is valid for the banks and everyone else. The banks used these exact same arguments, the telecommunications sector put forward these exact same arguments and the multinationals came forward with these exact same arguments. There is nothing new in this train of thought; this is a sectoral tax that already exists in Hungary with regard to other sectors, and now the advertising sector will also be included.
GIK: In view of the protests against the new tax, have you or those who developed or proposed the bill become uncertain or changed your original standpoint? Having seen that content-producing and content-servicing enterprises from what we can call both the left and the right are protesting on a joint platform?
OV: The bankers did exactly the same thing; right and left-wing bankers protested on the same platform. You would have protested too, but there is a way of doing things. Nobody likes paying taxes. And those who earn a lot of money especially don’t like paying taxes. These sectors, these people, earn a lot of money and this is why they would like to pay less tax, I understand that. They pool their forces to try and prevent themselves from having to pay more taxes, I understand that too. However, there is a principle, the principle of the equitable distribution of public burdens, which we must enforce within the whole Hungarian economy, and the advertising profession can be no exception.
GIK: And is it not a valid argument…two valid arguments… One, that the advertising industry is important, because they say that every 10 forints spent on advertising leads to the movement of 47 forints in monies that affect GDP within the economy, this is one argument, and the second is the question of what happens if instead of Hungarian-produced television programs there is an influx of Mexican or Brazilian soap operas and that endangers Hungarian jobs? This is what those affected say.
OV: What I have learned is that the banks said they would not lend people money, people would not be able to acquire loans, they will not be able to put their money in the bank and that the banks would all exit Hungary. As far as I can see, the bank sector in Hungary is operating very nicely.
GIK: Another piece of new legislation that has already been adopted, although this too has now been adopted, so Parliament has adopted both of them, concerns the amendment of the electoral procedure for the capital, the regulations of Budapest City Council and the make-up of the Council. We are of course speaking on a radio station that has national coverage, so perhaps many listeners are thinking, what have the elections for the City of Budapest Council have to do with me? So this is how I shall put my question.
OV: There is much truth to it, if this is what they think.
GIK: There may be much truth in it, but the signs indicate that that the issue here is why these regulations needed to be changed just a few months before the end of the current term and prior to the expected date of the upcoming local elections?
OV: Local government elections have been held six times in Hungary since the regime change and on three of those occasions they occurred under such circumstances. So there is nothing new in this happening here in Hungary.
GIK: Why is it so difficult to decide which system is best?
OV: The truth is that the real issue isn’t which is best, but when will we finally get down to properly thinking over logically and calmly, having given ourselves several years of preparatory work to do so, whether Budapest’s public administration is good the way it is and where we should or shouldn’t change things. So far, this has usually been decided with relation to the momentary balance of power through pieces of impromptu legislation. I think that when we are over these upcoming elections then it would be worth devoting the period between 2014 and 2018 to allowing the newly elected leadership of the capital, the newly elected leaders of the capital’s districts and the Members of Parliament who are involved in public administration to sit down in peace and formulate a new Budapest Act, with which we will provide the capital with a stable system of operation for the next several decades. This has not happened during the past 24 years, there was no time and even now we are only amending a single element of the current system, and correctly, I think, but I very much hope that we will have both the time and the opportunity to develop a comprehensive concept following several years of work.
GIK: And what does the current Mayor of Budapest say to this? Because he will be the one who has to lead this body. Does he agree with the amendment? Have you consulted with him at all? And does everything that he has said in reply lead you to believe that the official Fidesz candidate for the post of Mayor of Budapest will or will not be István Tarlós?
OV: István Tarlós enjoys great respect and is held in high regard within Fidesz. We view him as an excellent Mayor; the kind of Mayor who has brought a new frame of mind and a new world to the people of Budapest. We live here in this city and as city dwellers we perceive that there is greater order in the city and that the Mayor of Budapest has searched for ways of cooperating with the government in the interests of realising development projects throughout the city. As a result, we have been able to complete projects that had previously run aground and we have been able to launch the “Budapest 21” programme, which is about creating a 21st century Budapest. Budapest is one of the country’s greatest resources and it is a wonderful place; anyone who comes here as a visitor or tourist will remember the city forever. So Budapest is perhaps the greatest source of the country’s economic development, good reputation and standing, and this is something that we otherwise have our grandparents to thank for; all we need to do now is not ruin it, but instead maintain this high level of quality.
GIK: Prime Minister, let’s get around to answering the question.
OV: Getting back to the issue at hand, we have every reason to believe that when the Council convenes, and they are expected to do so within the next few weeks, then they will speak with acknowledgement about the work performed by the Mayor of Budapest, and I think we have every reason to believe that we can recommend to the citizens of the capital with a good conscience that he should continue the work that he began in the capital during the past four years. Now, as far as the situation of the prospective Mayor of Budapest is concerned, the relationship between the district mayors, who are elected directly by the people – because of course people live in the city’s districts, and not under the authority of the City of Budapest itself – and the Mayor of Budapest, who is directly elected by the people, will now include an element of compulsory cooperation. Because of course they will all be members of the same body, and I think that given the current conditions, this is the best possible solution.
GIK: A sharp change of subject, but this is also very important: we are approaching the 25th anniversary of 16 June 1989, it will be on Monday. This is an important day both with respect to you personally and with regard to everything that happened on Heroes’ Square 25 years ago. You have given our “Freedom Square 89” programme a rather personal interview here on public media. It will be broadcast on the anniversary. In keeping with the character of this programme, however, I have a very difficult question to put to you, but we still have a few minutes left to go into detail.
OV: First of all, the most difficult question and the most difficult problem is that while this is of course a very important anniversary, I will be in Portugal next week to hold a lecture on the future of the European Union, when in fact I would of course like to be here at home to celebrate together with the people.
GIK: There will be more talk about the next 25 years.
OV: Perhaps on the 50th anniversary.
GIK: But getting back to the past quarter of a century, the mission you undertook at the time, and you have said so on many occasions; why did you write your speech in that way, what did you mean by it and by the fact that you felt your calling then and there, when you stood on that podium. Has this mission come to a close in view of the results of the 6 April elections or not? Has the regime change in Hungary come to an end or not?
OV: Indeed, politics is a unique thing; it is three things at once. A mission, which must be performed in the interests of the nation and the people; a profession, which has its own way of doing things, like every profession, and a task, which must be performed. At historic moments, it is always the mission element that comes to the fore, but the other two are also important. A speech also needs to be written, that’s a task, and of course it must also be put before the public at the right moment, and that is more of a mission. So, I believe that we brought the first regime change to an end in 2010. Or, as I would put it, there have been two regime changes in Hungary so far: there was one in 1990, which resulted in a transitional period, and which we brought to an end in 2010, following all kinds of difficulties and murky events, when we performed the second regime change. We are now in the fourth year of this new regime. The decisive difference between the two regime changes is that the first regime change did not succeed in creating a Hungary and a politics that focuses on the public good.
GIK: And my question was: have we now succeeded in achieving this?
OV: I believe that this occurred with the formulation of the new constitution in 2010. Our new constitution, which we call the Fundamental Law, is not a liberal constitution. The first twenty years following the regime change and the system that was established following the first regime change was a liberal system that only concentrated on individual interests and not on public interests; it didn’t even regulate or force politicians to serve the public good in any form, everything was based on individual interests. Now, however, we have a constitution that is based on the public good and which in this sense is a national constitution. And so I think that the second regime change in 2010 remedied the errors and shortcomings of the first regime change, while of course acknowledging all of the merits of the first regime change, because it certainly had great merits as well as shortcomings, and it is in this spirit that we are performing our work now.
GIK: Today’s guest on “180 Minutes” has been Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.