9 June 2016, Budapest
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to welcome you all. Instead of mentioning names and listing people’s positions, let me just say that I am pleased that the heads of all the major institutions of the Hungarian state are here today at the Chief Prosecutor’s Office to show their appreciation. There is absolutely no doubt that having the Justice Minister represent the Government on this day of recognition would have a number of advantages – not least on intellectual grounds. I thought, however, that this is not a General Meeting of the Academy, and that as today is focused on appreciation of the prosecution services, it is only right for the Government to be represented by the Prime Minister. I would therefore especially like to thank all the heads of state institutions who have decided to come here to join us – including the leaders of the Curia, the Constitutional Court and the State Audit Office. Thank you for making it possible for us all to be together here today.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Hungarian politics has a variety of traditions. One dangerous tradition which has survived is that for some reason political leaders tend to believe that if they are asked to deliver a speech, they have to say something. This has resulted in all sorts of troubles in Hungarian politics, and continues to do so to this day. We are a talented people, and we also like to talk. This means that we talk a lot, and say a lot. As a result Hungarian politics always generates more thoughts than it is able to use. On the one hand this is good, because it facilitates decision-making, but it also has a downside: it is impossible to use all the thoughts and ideas we have, and there will always be some who believe that their important thoughts are not required by decision-makers, and who feel that certain trends or people are ignored in public discourse or resulting decisions. This leads to yet another problem, namely that at times like this the existing institutional system – including the legal system – finds itself under attack.
As modern politics is heading in a brutal direction, areas once considered taboo or off-limits for widely accepted national interests are also becoming targets for attack. In Hungary it used to be inconceivable for court rulings, say, to be fiercely attacked in open political discourse. Today this is not at all unusual. In this respect Hungary has become westernised, because this has been an established practice in the West for the last few decades. Hungarian politics once distanced itself from this practice, but we have now caught up with the West, and this less desirable consequence of our EU membership has also emerged in Hungary. This is also true for the prosecution service. Having been a Member of Parliament since 1990, I can clearly remember that in the 1990s it would have been the gravest violation of a well-established taboo for an MP to attack Chief Prosecutor Kálmán Györgyi in Parliament in relation to a specific case. At the time we would have been outraged, and demanded to know what the Honourable Member of Parliament was thinking of, engaging in such behaviour. Quite probably such a comment would have done more harm than good to the person making it. Today, however, this is no longer the case; now it is an accepted part of political practice to involve the Chief Prosecutor or a specific case – even one currently in progress – in political discourse. This is the new world, Ladies and Gentlemen, and I find it hard to believe that we can force the genie back into the bottle. So it is not worth fighting against – though a government and a political approach based on Christian foundations will always be open to hope for improvement. I would rather suggest, both to you and myself, that we try to live with this situation, look on it as an aspect of our civilisation, and develop a modus vivendi which offers us the greatest possible peace of mind.
My aim in telling you this is to ask you not to pay attention to political attacks, and not to allow such attacks to influence your work. You should only listen to your own conscience and the applicable legislation, you should only seek and follow the path marked out by those, and you should not allow any kind of tugging at your trouser legs or jacket sleeves to distract you from fulfilling the obligation embodied in the oath you have sworn.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I also see this meeting here today as important because, while no one can foresee what the future holds (though many of us are trying to understand it), I can perhaps venture to say that in the next ten, fifteen or twenty years law and order will be held in higher esteem in European circles. Something increases in value when there is a higher demand for it. I believe that this law of the market is also true in your line of work. Law and order will be greatly in demand across the whole of Europe. This is severely threatened, and therefore countries which continue to live in settled circumstances, which are able to maintain law and order, and which are able to guarantee security and legal certainty for their citizens can gain the greatest competitive advantage. When we use the term “competitive advantage” in political discourse, we usually think of economic competitiveness and economic competitive advantages. This is not without reason: after all, this is the heart of the matter. But a time is coming when law and order will becomes important and increasingly valuable in terms of competitive advantage. And I have to say that in this respect the situations of many of our friends are worsening, and at all costs we must strive not to join them in their fate. The more we succeed in preserving law and order in Hungary, the more Hungary’s competitive position among the nations will improve as the whole. I would like to ask you to also look at this side of the coin when you make a decision on a specific case. When you do your job well, when you protect law and order in Hungary, you help Hungary and the Hungarian people reach a higher level, earn more respect, and occupy a better position in this competition between nations – the results of which have been unfortunate for our country so many times in the past.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
At the same time, over the next decade or two the importance of law and order will also increase from a power point of view. Without engaging in lengthy historical arguments, I would merely ask you to think back to the period after World War II and the period between that time and the present day. You will see that economic success has been the most important factor in giving legitimacy to the European elite which has continuously ruled and exercised power in Europe – including every EU Member State, and particularly the later entrants. Naturally governments have come and gone – governments of the right and of the left – but the changes have remained within a single system, within a single elite, within a single way of thinking and within a single culture. Over the past sixty years parties outside the establishment challenging the entire system with new ideas have not generally entered the realm of the European power system. This has been a stable system, but it is changing now.
Power is, of course, something which excites different people for different reasons; what is also beautiful about it is that when seen from different angles it shows different refractions. I follow that school of thought – it may perhaps be called the Ferrero School – which sees the issue of legitimacy as the most interesting aspect of power. The truly important question is not how power is exercised, but why the people accept the power which is exercised over them. And if we look back over the past sixty years, we can conclude that the European people accepted the political discourse, the exercise of power and the ruling elite because – apart from minor lapses – year after year it was able to provide European citizens with ever increasing prosperity, social order and a good life. This era, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honourable Chief Prosecutor, has come to an end. In Europe power can no longer derive its legitimacy from economic achievements. The simple reason for this is that the world economy is undergoing such profound changes that the European Union will be unable to retain its position in the global economic race without restructuring its very foundations. Year after year we see signs of the EU’s decline, whether we look at its contribution to gross world product, or other indicators of competitiveness. Naturally this is not true for all parts of the European Union at once, because – thank God – we Central Europeans fall outside this category. It is clear that we in Central Europe are experiencing a rate of growth higher than the rest of the European Union; and I can responsibly say that – unless the leaders of the Central European countries blunder badly – on the foundations of the present structures there will be continuous growth at a rate higher than the EU average for another ten to fifteen years. So here in Central Europe the legitimising force of economic success will survive, but this will not be typical of most of Europe.
This then leads us to the question: if those who exercise power no longer gain legitimacy from economic success, what will they gain it from? Why will the people accept the individuals, groups and the elite who exercise power, and why will the people accept the methods which they employ in the exercise of power? What will stop them from shaking off these people and methods, and trying out some new and different political forces from outside the current system? My answer to these questions is that over the next fifteen years the European political elite will be able to maintain its legitimacy if it places emphasis on law and order instead of the economy. Those who govern and exercise power in Europe in the next ten to fifteen years will be the ones who are able to guarantee the security of the European people. We have yet to see the signs of this, clearly this change has not yet occurred, and as far as I can see it has not even formed in people’s heads, but I can sense that European politics is heading in this direction. I would like to thank the Chief Prosecutor, the prosecution service, our courts and the police because – guided by this thought, or simply by common sense – in recent years the service they have rendered points in precisely this direction. Today one of the most important factors in legitimising the exercise of political power in Hungary is law and order, which is guaranteed by the work of the prosecution service, the work of the police and the work of the judiciary.
So today you form one of the system’s most important pillars. This is not a party issue. We are not talking about one’s heart beating stronger on the left or the right, or whether an autopsy would show one’s heart to be pink or orange. That is quite irrelevant now. We are talking about the order of Hungarian life based on democratic Hungarian traditions which must be continuously legitimised. We must continuously prove the quality and value of this life to the people, and gain their acceptance that in Hungary, too, this can only be maintained if, in addition to economic achievements – luckily not instead of them, as I have mentioned our economic success – we also have at our disposal the legitimising factor of law and order, which you alone are able to maintain. In the period ahead the value of your work will increase in the eyes of Hungarian citizens, rather than in the eyes of politicians.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to congratulate and thank those prosecutors who have received decorations and awards today, and who with their dedication have further enhanced the already high prestige of the prosecution service in Hungary. We need your dedication, and it is thanks to you, also, that in Hungary today our laws can be fully – or almost fully – enforced. As I mentioned, without your work, the people of Hungary could not live under the rule of law. I would therefore encourage everyone – if encouragement of any kind is required at all – to be proud of the service you render. In my opinion at present one of our prevalent social problems – of which we have a great many – is that few people are proud of what they do for a living, far fewer than there should be. In this respect I would ask you to set a good example as prosecutors.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Honourable President,
In order for the rule of law not to be compromised in your area of work, two conditions must be met simultaneously. The first one is that you should only be subject to the law and the spirit of the law, and that this alone should define your work. I believe that this condition is in place. The other condition is that the Government should see the independence of prosecution as an important guarantee of the rule of law, in accordance with the relevant international documents and decisions of the Constitutional Court. I shall not reopen this old debate: we have here with us not only the incumbent Chief Prosecutor, but also former ones. I had the opportunity to engage in interesting, exciting and intense debates with former chief prosecutor Kálmán Györgyi about the best position of the prosecution service within the organisational system of the state: whether it should be subject to the judiciary of the day, of which there are several examples under the rule of law; or whether it should be subject to Parliament, and thus operate independently of the executive branch, as is the case in Hungary today. This debate has been settled. It does not matter now who thought what in this debate – my position was quite the opposite of what we have today. Now, however, that is irrelevant. This is the constitutional situation, this is the foundation on which we have built our system of the rule of law, this is an important pillar which cannot and must not be removed, compromised or changed. The fact that this situation in Hungary is the result of an organic historical development should be seen as a guarantee of the rule of law – and as a conservative prime minister, this is perhaps the correct stance for me to take. This fact in itself deserves respect, and we must consider the inherent opportunities, rather than think about changing the situation. However painful it may be to admit, in this respect Kálmán Györgyi proved to be right – history has proved him right. So I suggest – and in this respect I am with you – that we should look upon the institutional independence of the prosecution service as one of the important guarantees of the rule of law in Hungary, and we should seek to improve the work of the prosecution service by perfecting this system.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The organisational independence of the prosecution service and its guarantees, however, do not mean that we live on separate planets, and that we should live and work in complete isolation from one another. By independence we do not mean that every organisation is free to do what it wants, or what it sees fit. In a constitutional sense, the meaning of independence – because in this context the word “independence” should be perceived in a constitutional sense – is a public service performed for the common good: the common service of the various state organisations rendered for the common good in accordance with the rules laid down in the Constitution.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In a number of fields the Government has relied on – and continues to rely on – the work of the prosecution service and Hungarian prosecutors by respecting your constitutional independence in the spirit of this cooperation. One such field is in particular the attainment of crime policy targets, based on principles of cooperation laid down in international documents which we are signatories to. We have cooperated to strengthen public security and law and order, and I think we have achieved some good results. I am going quote a few numbers, as in modern communication every political speech has certain mandatory elements. The number of registered crimes fell from 436,000 in 2010 to 329,000 by 2014, and during the same period the number of those convicted fell from 129,000 to 108,000. In percentage terms these are major achievements: a job well done, on which I congratulate you. Regarding the number of perpetrators with a previous criminal record, between 2010 and 2014 this figure fell from 34,000 to 23,000. As each and every one of these criminals poses a grave threat to law-abiding citizens, this is a particularly important decrease. Thanks to your excellent work, successful prosecution rates are increasing year after year, and here we have some figures which resemble the old days: 96.4 per cent and 96.6 per cent. I am familiar with the argument – and I do not wish to be involved in it here – which the police usually refer to, which is that of course, these figures are good because the prosecution likes to play it safe. This is not the question that we should discuss here and now; this is a question that should be addressed at professional forums. I regularly participate in meetings, which are also attended by the Interior Minister and the Chief Prosecutor, where we review the state of crime in Hungary, and so I am well acquainted with these internal debates. These debates do not devalue these figures, which are remarkable and indicate an achievement which is also outstanding by international standards. On this, too, I wish to congratulate you.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Before coming here today, I spoke to the Honourable Chief Prosecutor about the figures for 2015. These have not yet been officially published, and as far as I can see they indicate a further improvement in law enforcement. Based on these figures I have come to the conclusion that the reform process with which we built a new constitutional system in Hungary has been successful. We should remember that the new Constitution entered into force on 1 January 2012. We do not normally list the jobs we have completed, though if we did, we would perhaps appreciate them more, and would be prouder of the work we have accomplished. After all, in addition to the new Constitution, we have created a new Civil Code, a new Penal Code, a new Public Administration Code, and an entirely new Labour Code; and this is all in addition to the laws on the organisation of the judiciary. And if we add to this the new procedural laws, the laws on civil and criminal proceedings that we shall also create during this parliamentary term, in the next twelve to eighteen months – not looking any further into the future – I have to say that this is an outstanding and heroic period of Hungarian law-making. The results that these reformed institutions and these new codes produce are not irrelevant. The results, the figures, show that it has been well worth embarking on this enormous reform process, which has led from the Constitution all the way to the complete rewriting of the procedural codes.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to mention that, thanks to the consistent administration of justice in Hungary, over the last few years we have also succeeded in combating criminal rings whose activities had frustrated the operation of the state and damaged the moral fabric of society more or less since the fall of communism.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Chief Prosecutor, too, covered in his speech the legal consequences and challenges related to the phenomenon of mass migration. I myself would like to say a few words about them as well. My starting point is that the rule of law is particularly important during the period of mass migration. Illegal migration is a major threat in itself, and the discourse of moralisation – allow me to call it that – which has evolved in its wake is posing some grave challenges for the legal system of Europe. I would like to make a clear distinction without any further explanation by establishing the fact that there is a difference between morals, moral foundations and moralisation. Moral foundations reinforce the administration of justice, while a discourse of moralisation – which relativises our laws – is expressly destructive and hinders its operation. We are not in an easy position therefore. Mass migration itself is a problem, but the discourse of moralisation induced by mass migration which has become the norm instead of a legal discourse has put Europe’s judicial systems in a decidedly difficult position. We Hungarians have stressed right from the beginning that we expect migrants, too, to observe the laws. Those who kick the door in on us at the moment of their arrival, those who break the law upon their first encounter with us cannot – and indeed should not – expect a friendly reception in Hungary. Instead of a discourse of moralisation, they should expect the exact and full enforcement of the laws. We are convinced that Europe is based on legal security and the rule of law – or to be more precise, on the observance of the law. If the European Union abandons this path, and seeks to find some other foundations for its existence, it risks the unity and future of the European Union.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please allow me to briefly thank and express my compliments to the prosecution service and the Chief Prosecutor also for their role and prestige earned in international legal circles. I wish to thank you for the work you did in the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, the consultative forum of the European Union, and the meetings of the chief prosecutors of the Visegrád Four. And I also wish to congratulate you on the wisdom that the Hungarian prosecution service and its head showed in the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As I have said, Hungary is proud of you and the work that you do. Therefore we cannot ignore the issue of a career model in your profession. As you are aware, in 2010 we took over a country on the verge of bankruptcy. Creating economic stability in the country was a goal which took priority over everything else, and we have only recently been able to deal with issues of pay. The country is full of understandable dissatisfaction and high expectations. Naturally my duty is to strike some sort of balance between these expectations and the performance of the economy. As part of this effort, we have conducted consultations with you, and shall continue these consultations in the future. I appreciate that there is no decision which the judiciary or the prosecution would find satisfactory, or even acceptable. At our meetings the situation is usually described in more colourful terms. I can only promise you – but this is a firm promise – that we shall make every effort to also make your pay system just and fair, in line with the performance of the economy. We shall do this by treating you as a priority due to the historical esteem in which you have always been held, and your historical significance. The system should be just – meaning that your pay is proportionate to the work you do – and fair – meaning that the intellectual capital and strength which you acquired and mobilised during your long studies are acknowledged and enjoy a high social prestige which is inconceivable in Hungary without appropriate pay. In the years ahead we shall always strive to take a step forward.
Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to ask you to remember that the administration of justice in fact means the service of justice. We should not only consider the formalities, but also the spirit of the laws. In my view, the three symbols of justice – the blindfold, the scales and the sword – are valid to this day. This is true even if this particular Hungarian Lady Justice – whom we see as we enter the building – does not have a blindfold. But let me say that the statue in the office of the Chief Prosecutor does have a blindfold. Let us not go into the significance of this contradiction which could be the subject-matter of a nice academic treatise. I would just like to say that in the coming years the blindfold symbolising objectivity, the scales symbolising the weighing of evidence and the sword symbolising punishment also have a meaning, a message and a mission for the judiciary. I am convinced that the administration of justice in a country works smoothly if all three elements – objectivity, the weighing of evidence and punishment – are enforced simultaneously to the same degree; but these elements can only be enforced simultaneously to the same degree through human decisions. You make these decisions, and therefore I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, although we have good laws – we have an excellent Fundamental Law, and our lower-level legal regulations are also acceptable – on their own they do not solve anything. At the end of the day we have the personal decisions of human beings, and these personal decisions must strike a balance among these three elements – internally, and externally, embodied in the decisions themselves.
May you succeed in striking this balance in the next few years. Congratulations on your work, and I wish you much strength and good health.