Interview with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in “Napi Gazdaság” (3 June 2015)
by Péter Csermely
Prime Minister, in your speech on the fifth anniversary of your entering government you announced that a change in government policy means that strength will be replaced by attention to people as a guiding principle. Will Fidesz also engage in a charm offensive? Experience has shown that Jobbik has employed such a strategy successfully.
Fidesz and the KDNP differ from their opportunist political opponents in that we are able to think in more dimensions. This characteristic has been dying out in modern politics, as nowadays everything revolves around tomorrow morning, next week or – at the most – the next election. We are fully aware that this one-dimensional thinking is very dangerous for Central Europe, and especially for continuously endangered Hungarians and Hungary. In addition, we must think historically: for example, when we are glad that economic growth in 2014 was 3.6%, we also note that over the last one hundred years the average annual rate of economic growth has been 2.1%. We also always assess our policies in terms of national sovereignty. Perhaps no one wants to occupy us at the moment, perhaps there is no military threat, but control over the resources determining the life of our national community in the long term is something which needs to be reflected in policies at all times. Compared to these concerns, style, charm, radicalism or short-term expedience are subordinate factors for us.
Do you think that only the governing parties are able to enact policy within a multilateral system of relations? Are you not underestimating your opponents?
No doubt, the Left with its internationalist roots knows how to place Hungary in an international environment in which it is always foreigners who have control over the resources required for sovereignty, and in big political questions Hungary will only be able to follow, never to decide on its own path.
We are members of the European Union and NATO. Why is it so important to analyse the state of our sovereignty? We are just as sovereign as any other EU Member State.
Only at first sight. In order to enable Hungary to feel really sovereign as a Member State of the European Union and NATO, we need strong influence in four fields. I do not say that we need to have exclusive influence, because in modern global economic circumstances that would be impossible, and I am not even saying that we should be immune from competition, because that is also impossible. One of these fields is the banking sector. Here the situation is good, and in this sector the ownership ratio of Hungarians exceeds fifty per cent. The second field is the media, because a country in which the majority of these instruments for influencing public opinion are possessed by foreigners is not a sovereign country. In this field we could do better. The third is the energy sector, which is – as with banks – on the verge of recovery and will continue to improve. And the fourth field is trade –especially the retail trade in food products – in which we are far from reaching our target. These four fields had been passed into the hands of foreign companies, and thus the sovereignty of Hungary could only be of a constitutional nature. True sovereignty, however, also requires a political class that cannot be influenced by economic factors and powerful foreign business and media groups. In this respect Austria or the Netherlands could be good models for Hungary. In order for us to change this situation after 2010, we needed strength – significant strength – since we had to fight for our sovereignty while simultaneously implementing a crisis management policy after an economic collapse. We had the power and we used it in accordance with our electoral mandate, but over the long term we cannot only use the language of strength. It is impossible to constantly call on a whole country to mobilize and ask for their help in waging a war. It should be made clear that the fight is not an end in itself, but it is in order to achieve a balanced, happy and successful Hungary. In our country five years of the politics of strength have exhausted all those reserves of energy. Now we must show what the point of that enormous struggle was. And what is more, the benefit of the struggle should appear at all levels, from family budgets to public life.
Can an attentive Fidesz be credible? If someone goes into a pub and slaps other people in the face day after day, people will steer clear of him, even if he comes in with a cake.
In politics nothing happens in a moment. Maybe the communists thought that they could just issue a party resolution and the policy of the party and also public opinion would change overnight (perhaps close to the end of their era they did not think that either). Every political process is slow and gradual. I think the acceptance of the new budget will be a milestone, after which changes could accelerate.
Will this be the consolidation which is expected from you by so many people – your friends as well as your opponents?
Yes, this question is raised year after year. But the real point is what such consolidation is based on. What do we consolidate? Before the structural reforms important for our national sovereignty were completed, before our financial vulnerability was resolved, before sustained economic growth started and before the new tax system took root, we had nothing to consolidate. The question is not “struggle or consolidation”, but whether a political and social structure has been established which facilitates long-term prosperity for Hungarians. I think we are very close to this situation, and everything we have achieved can already be consolidated. We can finally deal with the issues for which we started the whole process nearly thirty years ago. Our time has come, we have created the preconditions, and now it is time to create the civil structure of our society. Everyone can take one step forward. We can create more comfortable and pleasant living conditions for working people: more jobs, less tax, support for families, more order but fewer rules, pride and the courage of our convictions.
Nevertheless this change, this announcement coincides with a fall in the popularity of Fidesz, the loss of its two-thirds majority in by-elections, discord on the Right and hidden or open infighting among Fidesz politicians.
That is the atmosphere I have lived my life in constantly, apart from a period of a few months’ grace after the 2010 election. I cannot choose between calm and restless periods, I can only choose between various types of restlessness. Every profession has its basic conditions, and so does politics. This is a life of constant clashes between interests, ambitions and dissenting views, and anyone who cannot stand this without losing his nerve, cheerfulness and good humour should be in another profession. I watch these events with calm resignation; of course every politician would love it if it were not thus, but everyone knows this is and will be the situation. Popularity goes up and down, and always changes. Sometimes people agree with us, sometimes they do not, sometimes the attacks are stronger, sometimes weaker, but we are always under fire. And it always happens that we make mistakes, and mistakes always have consequences. As to the issue of dissent on the Right: the world of the Right is an intellectual one; according to Bibó it is characterized by over-analysis. I mention this in a positive sense – I find it impressive. The strongest trend in the Hungarian Right is spiritual radicalism, which does not automatically result in political radicalism – or especially radicalism in practice – but which results in all processes being thoroughly examined in terms of their ultimate consequences. From losing a by-election today it is easy to assume the loss of the next parliamentary election in a few years’ time; for some people this is easy to imagine. Of course in certain respects they are right: we have to attend to every small detail, because Hungarians are vulnerable. It is enough for us not all to be present on one occasion, or for us to make a single mistake, and we shall suffer the consequences for a long time – as has happened many times in our history. Someone once wrote that Hungarians should even breathe radically.
In democracies it is a generally accepted custom that, once announced, a political change is made more explicit by a government reshuffle. There is talk about it this time, too, although we know that you practise this quite rarely.
Yes, because it would be like a drug. You might feel it would be good to make your evening a little more pleasant, it would be good to feel release from your obligations, and you might want to take the easiest way – to take some drugs or drink, or a whole bottle of brandy; and the next time you might not realize that you have automatically chosen the same solution. A government reshuffle would be the easiest way. Is a minister unpopular? Let’s replace him. Has he made a mistake? Let’s replace him. Perhaps I have made a mistake? Well, even if that has happened, let’s replace the minister and no one will find out about it. It would never end. So when I have to complete a task, I always put personal issues at the end of the list. Moreover, one of the key goal of politics is to reach stability, and a constantly changing government cannot represent any kind of stability.
So there will be no government reshuffle.
I do not feel it is time to dismiss any of my ministers, but from 6 July together with the ministers we shall assess the past year: the work of the Government and also the activities of each secretary of state. I also have my own proposals on this, and I have received some information from my ministers that make it obvious that there will be replacements among secretaries of state, but those changes will not affect either the policy of the Government or the relationship of the Government and Fidesz.
There are rumours...
I will not become President of the Republic, I will not resign and I will not take any role at European level; there is no succession process underway in Fidesz, I will definitely remain in this job and will do it for as long as the voters authorize me to do so. Is that what you meant?
Yes, and there is only one remaining rumour: will Antal Rogán be your political Chief of Cabinet?
Now I would summarize the performance of the Government as follows: our governance is acceptable or – it can be said – good, while our party political activity is weak. But if we want to maintain the trust of the voters, and if we want to gain another mandate from them, it is not enough to govern successfully. Our party political activity – whatever that entails – should also be good. At the moment my work is organized in a governance / administrative structure, therefore I also need colleagues who can help me in political work. There is no doubt that parliamentary group leader Antal Rogán is top of the list of possible candidates.
In your recent speech you called Jobbik the leading opposition party. What will happen, then, to our favourite opponents on the Left? Won’t you miss them after so many decades?
Today's Left made some significant, painful and so far unsuccessful attempts at finding a leftist identity based on national values. Such values would replace their internationalist identity – derived from an imperial worldview inherited from Moscow – as well as their aim to dissolve traditional communities, the nation and national values and thoughts into an all-embracing internationalism. Their symbiosis with the liberal SZDSZ can be described in terms of this tension, this struggle. Though I do not want them to win in elections, I do want them to establish a Left based on Hungarian national values, a desire to preserve the Hungarian nation culturally, to defend its economic interests and political sovereignty in the international world. It seems that they are a long way from this, but I admit that they are making huge efforts to find their new identity. As for Jobbik: Jobbik is dangerous for Hungary, though that danger should not be exaggerated. Time will tell whether they have only won temporary glory among the opposition parties. They are dangerous because they provide a constant temptation to intellectually surrender to the simplest solutions. Their recurring argument is to get rid of this, to get rid of that, and then everything will change for the better. In the past this way of thinking has caused serious problems for Hungarians, and no success has been achieved with it. But this is a common feature of all opposition parties, and so it would be flying in the face of Providence to entrust either the Left or Jobbik with the governance of Hungary. There is an ongoing global realignment and the world is stumbling from one crisis to the next: we only have to look at the military budgets of the major powers; or the trend in military expenditure just here in our region; or changes in the world share of trade (unfortunately to the detriment of Europe as a continent). If we look at the change in the contributions of various continents to the total world output then we should see that if Hungary does not understand these trends and fails to analyse them correctly, it is storing up trouble that we cannot even imagine today. It must assess the situation properly and precisely map out the narrow path on which it must travel in the decades ahead, to avoid being numbered among the losers. And we have not even mentioned the fact that we live in the period of large-scale migration, affecting the whole globe.
Among the dangers posed by Jobbik, You mentioned the policy of "getting rid of" things. Doesn’t Fidesz do the same on the issue of immigration?
No. We do not want to get rid of anyone living together with us, we just do not want to allow the entry of others. Due to the size and geographical location of Hungary, we are quite vulnerable. If we make a mistake in the issue of immigration just once, if we lose for one moment balance of heart and the mind, then changes will occur here which cannot be corrected later. Our opponents – I assume on the left from spite and on the extreme right from ignorance – regularly misinterpret the issue of multiculturalism, casting it in a false light. The statement that multiculturalism is finished was first articulated by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Multiculturalism means the mixing of different civilizations. The fact that a country contains many nationalities is a completely different matter. Hungary has multinational roots and cultural backgrounds, but this is not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism means the co-existence of people with different background civilizations – for example Islam, the Asian religions and Christianity side by side. We shall make every effort to save Hungary from this. We welcome investors, artists and scientists arriving from non-Christian countries, but we do not want to co-exist with those cultures in terms of large masses of their people.
But are Hungarians interested in this issue? So far there has been a disappointing number of answers received to the national consultation held on this subject.
I heard we received almost three hundred thousand answers, but there are also people who have not yet received the form. Of course I am well aware that Hungarians’ involvement in public life is limited. As to interest, if a Hungarian person travels to Western Europe – let’s say on a Vienna-Munich-Paris-London route – and then returns to Hungary, he or she will be interested in this issue, I am sure. And I am not speaking about whether those people are better or worse than us, but the fact that today we know that this coexistence in Europe has been unsuccessful.
Current economic data for Hungary is good. I will not ask you detailed questions about this data, but treat is as a whole. We have come to a point when Hungary could in practice introduce the euro. Yet we are not doing that, or even speaking about it. Why not?
That's right, it is no accident that it was one of the topics of the recent presidential election in Poland. For Poland would also be in a position to qualify for introduction of the euro and, what is more, basically that public debate was conducted in the form of the presidential election; and finally they voted against the euro. Therefore this is not a unique Hungarian speciality, but a Central European phenomenon. Earlier it seemed an attractive and logical idea to give up our own currency and join a safe financial area providing us a lot of benefits that was established by countries which are more developed than us. With the 2008 economic crisis that illusion evaporated, because in the aftermath the whole world learnt that the problems brought to the surface by the crisis were managed in the clumsiest manner by the eurozone. But such a financial crisis – or even series of crises – may occur at any time.
So we do not want to introduce euro?
Today Hungary – just like Central Europe – is waiting for an opportunity. Smaller countries – primarily the Baltic states – whose size made it doubtful that their own currency would provide them more safety, joined the eurozone. For Hungary, the Czech Republic – and especially for Poland – standing on their own two feet is a competitive alternative.
Isn’t the forint (no matter how strong it is) riskier than the euro, even if there is still crisis in the eurozone?
If there is proper economic policy conducted by the Government and high-quality monetary policy conducted by the National Bank, then the national currency provides a resource in a country of ten million inhabitants. For that purpose government debt should be further reduced so that the forint may not be damaged, if possible economic growth should be increased, and the budget deficit should remain below 3 per cent. Having met all those requirements, the forint would remain stable and strong in the decades to come.
Decades?
If necessary then yes, decades.
In earlier years Hungary was a black sheep of the Union, and in most cases remained alone. Nowadays we are still a black sheep, but it seems as if there are more and more countries silently supporting some hotly discussed announcements of Hungary.
European politics is also changing. The way of thinking of leading European groups has up to now been determined by the idea of so-called “liberalism” (though this term is a simplification). Recently this concept has faced enormous challenges. One of those challenges has been its own weakness; this appeared just at the time of the financial crisis. Another challenge has been that the development of other areas of civilization is faster than ours, and this completely contradicts the consciousness and self-image of Europe. The third challenge has been that some political movements in Europe have arisen which have never been part of the liberal elite’s consensus which has penetrated politics, the media, higher education and intellectual life as a whole. These are the French, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Finnish and Dutch political formations which should be looked on with suspicion. It is within this turbulent environment that we must interpret the reactions provoked by Hungarian economic policy going its own way. The Hungarian story is not only that it is possible to do things another way – though that has been seen as a profanity in itself – but it is rather that through such measures we may succeed. Our example has not caused fear (Hungary is not big enough to be afraid of), but has produced excitement and irritation in the elite power centres throughout Europe; for this reason this story is perceived as a renegade threat rather than a success story.