28 March 2014

Zsolt Bayer: Good evening! You're watching Proof-Sheet. This edition will be somewhat extraordinary, because my guest tonight is the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Good evening and welcome, Mr. Prime Minister!

Viktor Orbán: Good evening!

ZsB: We are in a somewhat difficult situation, because of course our respect for the viewers dictates that we should use the polite form when conversing with each other, and we will do our best, but I hope you excuse us if we occasionally forget to do so and slip back into more familiar speech. Prime Minister, in 1988 we started out together on the same path and for the same cause [Zsolt Bayer was Chief Press Officer of Fidesz from 1990-1993 and has known the Prime Minister personally since the party was founded in 1988. Ed.].

VO: From the club room of a university dormitory.

ZsB: From the socialist-realist panelling-clad walls of a university dormitory.

VO: That's right.

ZsB: A terribly long time has passed since then, and I think you can tell that by looking at either of us. But as we are nearing the end of this government term, I would nevertheless now ask that you try and asses the past four years from the perspective of that young man. I ask you to do so in that mirror and in that light, and when we won in 2010 and it transpired that we had done so with a two-thirds majority, then you held an ad hoc speech on Vörösmarthy Square, and there you said something that I think has only now become fully clear. What you told the celebrating crowd then was that you know that you are looking ahead to the most difficult task of your life so far. Did you think that it would be this hard?

VO: I didn't know exactly how hard it would be, of course, but one knows when one is facing a difficult challenge. I suppose we could say that it hasn't been worse than I expected. As far as 2010 goes, since my host has been so kind as to mention it, we also met in 2010 and I think I perhaps gave my very first interview to you, so you're a kind of lucky charm to me, and this is one of the reasons I was happy to accept your invitation to be on the show tonight. Like a rabbit's foot; if I touch it, it brings me luck, perhaps this time too, after 2010. But the question you have honoured me with is a difficult one, trying to look at the four years between 2010 and 2014 from the perspective of '88. We remember everything that happened in 1988, because that was a poetically youthful period in our lives in which everything becomes etched into our memories. We didn't have overly complicated desires at the time either: we wanted an independent, free, Hungarian Hungary, and this was why we set out on the adventure that people call politics, and which slowly grew attached to us and became our lives, our calling, and what's more, our mission. I would rather quote a sentence from one of József Antall's speeches. I don't remember exactly when he said it, but in that unmistakeably witty and sarcastic way of his, he once said to those that were trying to push him towards a more radical regime change: you should have accomplished a revolution then, gentlemen. By which he meant that the opportunities available in Parliament are given, the rules of democracy and the rule of law must be abided by; we, regime-changing parties have received as many votes as we have received, and so has the opposition; the revolution has not dismantled the framework of the previous system and so nobody should be surprised at the fact that we can only act according to certain constraints. This is how I understood the words of our late Prime Minister. And I placed that sentence here in my breast pocket, above my heart, and I have waited twenty years to be able to finally take it out of there and to be able to say: well, we have accomplished a revolution, gentlemen. And in 2010, Hungary pulled itself together and accomplished a revolution. People can laugh, as the opposition sometimes does, but compared to the situation during Prime Minister Antall's time in office, when he could only act according to severe constraints, it is undoubtedly true. The situation may have been a little more difficult this time in a certain sense, but when one thinks in a biblical sense, as one does in relation to such important things, it is perhaps right to determine a point of reference. We received a biblical talent, a coin - an aptitude, a mandate, a capability - to perform a certain task, and on that evening, when I gave the short speech that my host mentioned a little earlier, I already knew that we cannot get things wrong. The good Lord gives people this kind of opportunity only once, and we will have to settle accounts with regard to whether we have made good use of this opportunity to the utmost. So we would not find ourselves in the position that József Antall found himself in, of having to tell the citizens of Hungary that there is no more we can do for them and the country except what the law makes possible, because we have not accomplished a revolution. And I felt that I would under no circumstances be a Prime Minister who makes excuses. The kind that is forever explaining to the people what he hasn't been able to accomplish and why; you know, the talk about the international situation and these wonderful bureaucrats in Brussels and in Washington and that we are members of NATO, and that in any case the law doesn't allow us to do what every Hungarian otherwise regards as being right. So I would have liked to save both myself and the country from such a fate. And I think we have succeeded. We spoke clearly and openly, said what we wanted to achieve, and if there were no opportunities available to help realise those goals then we created those opportunities. If there was no given way to reach a goal, we beat a path there. And so in summary I can perhaps say that although it has not been perfect, just as no work can be perfect that is performed by man, and these past four years have not been perfect either, but what I am certain of is that it is impossible to put in more effort than we have done, and than I myself have done. It may be possible to do a better job, but to work harder, I don't think so. And so I am waiting for the judgement day, let's call it, that people will present us with on 6 April, with a peace of mind and a clean conscience.

ZsB: During our conversation we will be roughly covering these important crossroads that have provided a framework for these past four years. But let's stick with 2010 for the moment. The ominous sentence was spoken. The crowds celebrated throughout the night and then there came the moment of transfer. The second Orbán government came to office. Did you encounter roughly what you expected when the reigns were transferred to you by the previous government, or did you have to face a much worse situation?

VO: I don't remember exactly what I felt when if received the reports that are the norm at such times from the various ministers, but the situation was roughly what I had been expecting. I will now be moving into territory that will cause people to say that I have become addicted to conspiracy theories.

ZsB: I am a great admirer of those, so…

VO: Then I've come to the right place. In my view, it was no accident that I was confronted with the state of affairs that I encountered, because the situation was that the 2010 budget, the repayment of the previously undertaken IMF loan instalments and the following local government elections had all been formulated in such a way that things would keep going according to the logic by which the previous government had run the country's affairs and it would be impossible, we would be simply unable, to break out of that mould. And so my feeling was that we had found ourselves in a well-planned trap when we took over the governing of the country, because there are always great hopes and expectations with regard to a new government, because if someone undertakes that they will be able to solve even those issues that may currently seem impossible and that they will under all circumstances do a better, a tangibly better job than their predecessors, and then they are forced to begin by introducing austerity measures and reducing deficits and so on according to the old logic, then they will lose the trust of the people within a matter of days. And in our case the economic constraints were set up in a way that there was hardly any room for movement, and if we were made of the stuff that they were made of then that is most probably what we would have done. But we are party more free spiritually, and I think that in an intellectual sense we are more also courageous when it comes to understanding the world and finding a path forward in it. And I came up with two routes, not on my own, but with my most knowledgeable colleagues, through which it was possible to break out of this cage or trap without crossing the limits of rationality but while removing all obstacles and not losing the confidence of the people for even a single day. One route pointed towards Brussels. To go to Brussels and try and uncover the situation that the people in Brussels were better aware of than we were, because the previous government had already sorted it out with their friends there that they would turn a blind eye to the actual level of the deficit and would accept even obvious lies as fact; so they knew perfectly well in Brussels what the situation was, but it made no difference that their friends happened to have lost the election, the Brussels bureaucracy still has to cooperate with Hungary, because we were a freely elected government that represents its people as a full member of the European Union, and that we should make them understand that the expectations that had represented constraints until then are no longer applicable and should not be maintained as they are, but should instead be rescheduled, let's talk about how the level of deficit reduction and public debt should be different. So we agreed on a rational itinerary for handling this situation. That was rejected. And then I said to them that I understand that they are rejecting this plan, and I already had ideas for the second plan in my head, but I said to them that then they shouldn't be surprised by the way in which I will be fulfilling these requirements. So if they don't give us this opportunity now, then all I ask is that they keep their cool, because we will be fulfilling the undertakings that the previous government took on, economic, budget and public debt figures, but not in the usual way and not using the usual methods. And to this they shrugged their shoulders and said that the way in which we fulfil the undertakings of the previous government falls within the national sphere of authority; the important thing is that they should be fulfilled. And then I came back home and at the parliamentary group meeting in Lovasberény we put together the plan of action that was made up of 29 points and which I put before the parliamentary session that began in September and told the house what route we had found that will lead the country out of this catastrophic, pre-collapse state of affairs. It included the bank tax, the taxation of the multinationals and a new tax system. So it included everything that people often call unorthodox when they talk about the Hungarian Government. This was the 29-point action plan. 200 billion forints in revenue from the banks alone, to mention just one of the points. It seems like a cliché today, but I remember standing there in Parliament on the usual podium, and of course we had a two-thirds majority so I didn't really have to worry about being booed or that what I was going to say wouldn't receive support, and because the parliamentary group had not had an opportunity to become familiar with the proposals, I put the plan before our MPs and initiated a parliamentary debate on them there in Parliament, and I could see the shocked faces. When I mentioned the bank tax, a look of dismay, a look of minor surprise, as they call it in acting school, and when I mentioned the 200 billion, a look of major surprise. They didn't know whether to clap or be afraid. So these were very difficult, but exciting moments, and in the end it was the cooperation with Brussels, or the lack of it, that designated the path along which we had to try and take Hungary. I had to try, I repeat, to take it from a state of financial collapse towards a sustainable, desirable and successful economic policy that was acceptable to the country's citizens.

ZsB: Let the viewers have just a little look behind the scenes. I heard the story I'm about to bring up from a friend of mine who is a Member of Parliament for Fidesz. He told me that immediately prior to announcing these unorthodox measures you called a parliamentary group meeting at which you put to the Fidesz group, the rather populous Fidesz group, the simple question: will you undertake this with me? How do you remember it?

VO: I remember that I didn't have time to explain the various points to them in detail; I just felt that the most important thing was that no one should get frightened. Leaders have a special kind of responsibility because they have a greater overview of things, and even if they see the same things as other members of the parliamentary group, they see it in a wider context and with a deeper understanding. So it is they who must keep up the spirits of the soldiers or the troops, the members of parliament, the parliamentary group, and if we had had cowardly MPs or chickens they would have torn us apart within two weeks, because it was clear what the international reaction would be, what all the anointed economists would say here at home, and it was clear what the opposition would say. We could trust in only one thing, and this is what I told them, that we must trust in the people, because everything that is written down in this plan, I told them, are things that the Hungarians want, but they don't dare believe that there is someone who is capable of achieving them. Firstly that it is allowed, and secondly that they can make it happen. I have many supporters and followers who even a year after we began governing the country told me that if we succeeded, they would vote for me again, but that they aren't at all sure that we can succeed, because during the past twenty years they grew up being told that this cannot be done. It may be good for the Hungarians, it may be right, it may be just, be it is not allowed. And we had to break from this tradition; something that wasn't easy even for our supporters. I am of course prepared to accept a lot of criticism regarding the fact that it could have been done more elegantly, with more discussion and more smoothly, but I am more prepared to accept opinions of this nature from people who have actually done this kind of thing before. But nobody ever has. So, when you have to hack a path through the jungle with a machete, it could perhaps be done more elegantly and then you don't get into such a sweat, but what I can say is that there was no template we could have followed. And clearly, if this included some lack of style, some ill manners or bad posture, or anything that could indeed have been realised with less conflict, then what represents an extenuating circumstance in my eyes is the fact that we had to find an untrodden path or rather that we had to tread an untrodden path.

ZsB: Yes, I think this is clear to everyone. The reason I mentioned the meeting with the parliamentary group was precisely because of the spirit. Because the person who told me about it said that at that moment it could be felt that if you had asked for their lives and their blood, the group would have given it. It would have been possible to begin this difficult process in other ways, I'm sure.

VO: But let's go back even further. In 2002 we lost the elections together, with the majority of the current parliamentary group.

ZsB: With most of them, yes.

VO: We lost the elections together. So these people, this community, has gone through a lot together, and in 2002 when the country was again taken over by the communists – I don't know if I'm allowed to say that on this TV station…

ZsB: I think you are.

VO: So when the communists came back again for a second time – except they were wearing elegant, double-breasted suits on that occasion – they trampled not on everyone's toes, but on their lungs and their necks wherever possible. They made people's lives unbearable. I don't know if the name László Keller means anything to you… [appointed Minister of State for Public Spending in 2002, Mr. Keller was tasked with conducting a witch hunt aimed at discrediting the previous government; his unfounded attempts were unsuccessful. Ed.]. There were some who had to undergo forty-fifty interviews, court proceedings and hearings. These people had a hard time during those eight years. Except that now that we have been in government for four years with a two-thirds majority, the whole things seems so unbelievable. But let's not forget who or enemies are and all the things they did to our people and to our supporters. Not just to our politicians, but also in the world of the intelligentsia, the world of business, in rural areas… So this was indeed a difficult period. And so this parliamentary group has already been through a lot together. And there is something else that I would like to draw to your attention, as a fact that you are aware of from your own example. We acted from the soul in '88 too. So one must undoubtedly learn this profession. Government has its techniques, it has an international environment, there is a pool of knowledge, and all this must be learned. But we, of course, didn't arrive in this profession from a political career, and we didn't start out in politics having just completed school, politics school; for us it was responsibility, conscience and spirit – I don't know if these are still as important to the young people of today, but these are what pushed us forward in this direction. We were an occupied country, there was a dictatorship, there was communism, and even today I am still very proud of that… Of course we have changed a lot, as my host said himself a little earlier based on our signs of physical damage, but this fact remains true. I'm not saying in everyone and fully, but this remains important to both our political community and our supporters. And I think they can feel this, that there is a progression and a soul to our politics that this political community has not left by the wayside, even at the most difficult times. This is one of the reasons we have survived practically everything. Including a very painful election loss. And this is one of the reasons why our relationship is much stronger than many people think. This is why we are not understood by the other side, who think along the lines of their own method of organisation. They are organised in a different way. With us it is the spirit, the solidarity, the comradeship, the honour; the not for us, but in fact for our children, not for us, but for our homeland; we must do only what is both good for us and good for the community… So these are the kind of thing we take into consideration, and it is for such motives that we do what we do. This is what is still keeping us together now. And if this had not been the case over these past four years then ten days before the election the forecasts would not be as favourable as they seem to be to me.

ZsB: It is my belief, and I don't think I'm wrong, that this spirit that you mentioned, Mr. Prime Minister, this spirit is what gave birth to the new constitution. The new constitution which our opponents quite naturally used to say was superfluous, because we had an excellent and wonderful constitution that we formulated back in 1990, and two, that this constitution is exclusionary. That it is an exclusionary constitution that does not meet the will and requirements of the whole of society; that this is Fidesz's constitution. This is what we often hear, isn't it? But my view is that this constitution was somehow indeed brought to life by that spirit.

VO: I read it regularly; there's a copy on a stand in my office and I read parts of it every day. Sometimes the precise legal sections, because issues sometimes arise with relation to which one needs to look at the constitutional background, the constitutional basis for certain solutions, and sometimes I read the national avowal, the first chapter. The 1990 amendment to the constitution, because of which the old numbering remained in place, the numbering of the constitution that goes back to communist times, was a constitutional text that was formulated according to difficult constraints and compromises. And for this reason no one could really relate to it. There is a school of thought according to which the best constitution is one that nobody can relate to, because this enables it to be everybody's constitution, but not anyone's truly. I don't share this way of thinking. A constitution must include some things that grab one by the heart, that take hold and don't let go, that make it clear that you belong to this constitution and that the constitution belongs to you. There has to be a personal relationship of this kind too. The legal experts will of course make fun of how stupid it is to think of a constitution along these terms in the 21st century. So anyway, that was a constitution that was the result of difficult compromises and belonged to no one, and which was tolerated and acquiesced to by everyone. It was nevertheless a nice feat of lawmaking; I don't want to argue that. I also took part in formulating the text, in fact. I worked in the sub-committee of the Opposition Roundtable that was responsible for formulating the text of the constitution – together with József Antall and Péter Tölgyessy. And so this patchwork constitution was my baby too to a certain extent, but I never thought that I would have to life the remainder of my life according to it. Because a draft constitution or constitution that was born out of such constraints and was so heavy with bad compromises couldn't possibly provide the framework for our lives in the long term. It was a nice piece of work from a legal perspective. And it sometimes seems as if President Sólyom also bears a certain level of personal resentment because the new constitution puts into question the merits of the previous constitution and the legal quality of the principles it included. Nobody wishes to question the quality of the legal effort involved, meaning no one should attack the new constitution in an attempt to protect the old one, but as far as I can see this idea is not making its way into people's heads. We did not formulate this new constitution in opposition to anyone or in opposition to the previous constitution; we grabbed the historic moment, knowing that the opportunity had arrived; this is the time to do it. As far as it being exclusionary is concerned, we have thought a lot about this during the past twenty years or so. Not just me, but the whole of Hungarian society. If you leaf through the political writings and studies then the question of whether it is possible to stand by something without being exclusionary comes up regularly. Or is the rule of the modern world that you cannot stand by anything, because not everybody agrees with it entirely, and if not everyone agrees then you are being exclusionary? So can we state that this is a Hungary that draws from Christian roots, and so we regard Christian traditions as being especially valuable and worthy of respect? While there are people who are not Christians, including those who are not Christian by parentage, meaning they belong to a different culture, and those who are not Christian in the sense that they deny the idea that forms the basis of Christianity, according to which God exists and we should try to the best of our ability to get closer to him during the course of our lives – and then there are those who are agnostic and who are looking for God. So there are all kinds of people living together in our society. And so if we say that Hungary is a country that is built on Christian roots, that draws from the foundations of St. Stephen, which is built on the foundations of St. Stephen's church, then are we excluding those people from the nation? And if you think about it, then the result of this logic is that nobody can say anything about anything. If we stand up and say that the family is important and we will protect it; that the family is sacrosanct to us. We don't always succeed in living our lives in a way that mirrors this, but it is nevertheless true, so we must protect it, and according to the logic of the creation this means a man and a woman. We are talking about a four thousand year old tradition. If we say that we would like it to remain this way and the constitution thus states that it must remain this way, then are we excluding people who have a different opinion? I don't think we are excluding them, we just don't happen to agree. The idea of tolerance is also something that leads to a similar question: what exactly does tolerance mean? If someone has a different opinion to mine with regard to several important issues, am I being tolerant by not having an opinion on these issues? Or does tolerance perhaps mean that we have a standpoint, and possibly a strong, majority standpoint, and we believe that something should be organised in a given manner because this is what we believe in? And we otherwise accept, endure and live with the fact that other people have something different to say about it, but we don't give up our own standpoint. I think that of course people have the right to a different opinion on important issues, but I would like to achieve a state of affairs in which we are associated with people who say, let us dare to say what we think about important issues such as our homeland, Christianity, our European roots and the family without wanting to offend anyone. Tact is of great importance here. Because understanding, being tactful, acceptance, inclusion and being open towards people who have different values is an important gesture. This needs to be practiced, and it is not equal to giving up our own point of view. I think that from this perspective the constitution is a good and worthy document and it was a good feeling to take part in its formulation.

ZsB: To return quickly to the beginnings and to 1988, when we began the whole thing out of faith, spirit and from the heart, the point of reference was relatively simple. At the time, we knew and felt exactly that there existed a western world and a welfare society that is a democracy, where people live well and earn enough to enjoy a good quality of life, and this is what we want to achieve. And then when the time finally arrived when we could just about step into this world, it transpired that that world is basically finished.

VO: Today, it is very difficult to decide, my dear host, my dear friend, if we had a distorted view of the West of our dreams…

ZsB: Yes.

VO: ...or if it had changed by the time we were able to get to know it personally.

ZsB: Yes.

VO: I don't think we will ever be able to answer that question. Whatever the case, what is certain is that when we arrived at that point – let's speak about the political side of it – that by the time we joined NATO and the European Union and saw free trade, the West was just living through a time, from the second half of the 80s, which was the period of the wildest neoliberal economic and social way of thinking. Which drew our attention to the fact that we should not fully equate the given fashionable political and economic views with the West, because those views are forever changing. We should instead look at the values that lie behind them, and from this perspective the West remains very attractive. Because freedom is an attractive thing, after all. A political set-up based on free elections and the will of the public is after all important. The fact that the individuum and personality have a defence system to protect themselves from whatever government happens to be in power is an important thing, I think. What I was talking about before, that perhaps I do not belong to the majority with regard to certain views and perhaps my views aren't accepted as equal, but they listen to them, I can represent them, and can live by them and I can even organise my world and the community according to them, I just have to accept the fact that I am in the minority. But that is no reason for them to trip me up and beat me down. So the western way of life has such wonderful values that despite its current problems should not be thrown out of the window, because out with the bathwater goes the baby. From this perspective the freedom-fighting Hungarian traditions and Hungarian way of life are western traditions. If we look at culture, the situation in the West is also that there is at once an inclination to continue and preserve tradition, while at the same time revolt against the status quo. And that is very similar to the Hungarian way of thinking on life that I have observed here in Hungary, according to which we of course respect our forefathers and want to continue what they started, while at the same time there is a kind of resistance in us as to whether we should in fact be doing things this way or should we do something else according to how we see these things and approach them from that angle instead. And so I still see the West as the most attractive way of life and framework for life as far as values go. The snag is that from the mid-eighties the West was going through an era that is in fact being reviewed today, and in which review we were also involved through our governance following 2010, because it transpires of the world that came about as a result of those twenty years in the west, that it is practically unviable. It bears with it dangers that must be averted. We will soon be seeing the beginning of a new era in Europe too. We have run a little ahead in the sense that we have a vein for doing so, we know each other, we like to think, we like to draw the relevant conclusions from it and we received a two-thirds majority, so we had the legal mandate to do move more rapidly too, but I am positive, and I often assess the news that arrives from the West from this perspective, that the West is also moving in the direction that we too are moving in. 

ZsB: Yes, we are all in agreement that the West, as a kind of social structure and social and philosophical bedrock, is the most attractive by far. What I was trying to refer to is that in the meantime the so-called welfare society has lost its raison d'être and has become void. And this government suddenly found itself standing there, or at least this is how I experienced it, the government found itself standing there with an empty treasury, with millions of problems at the outset, practically on no man's land, and it suddenly had to organise this world somehow.

VO: And in addition we were cursed by out own thinking to some extant, because we are apt to do that too. Because we have always understood the western world as a place where we strive to translate two Christian teachings into the language of social organisation. One is that God made man in his own image, meaning that every individual must be respected. And the other is that God created us a free people, as free beings. It doesn't work such that you open the relative religious text and it tells you what you need to do with regard to a certain life situation, but instead the text includes the principles, thoughts and teachings according to which, if your interpret them well and are prepared to think them over, incorporate them and let them into your soul, then you will find the answer. So we are also created with free will. And now it would seem that the West has forgotten about the fact that these two things, these two wonderful characteristics of theirs, in fact also stem from Christianity. And we, who as I said are also cursed with thinking, had a problem with the West not only because the economic system was collapsing, and not only because it is incapable of regenerating its biological foundations, because very few children are being born and we are moving towards a terrible state of affairs, but also because in the meantime we no longer find in the West, not in politics certainly, those elements that are derived from Christian philosophy and the Christian way of thinking, which if we can recapture could provide a solution to these problems. So we sensed the symptoms of the crisis in economic management and social organisation in the West, and at the same time we felt that the spiritual foundations that could provide a solution to these problems if we build on them were somehow in the minority there. And we gave voice to these feelings of ours. And in addition we come from an intellectual world after all, '88, vocational colleges, so if we think something and its presentable, then we try and share it with others, and when, for instance, they wanted to put us over their knee in the European Parliament, then I told them all these things because I thought it best if we play with an open hand. This is how these four years were spent, and I think we have gained at least as much respect as we have received blows.

ZsB: Since you have mentioned Brussels, when you were standing there on that day and the whole country was watching what was happening on the television at home, didn't you feel those attacks that you had to listen to there to be immensely unfair and demeaning? Didn't you feel a little as if everything we had ever believed in had suddenly been betrayed there?

VO: How should I put it? I was pinned down to such an extent that I didn't get this far in my thinking. I was more overcome by the feeling that they are trying to force me into an unnatural human position here and that I shouldn't reply to the allegations one by one, because then I would be accepting the situation and defending myself within that framework, but that I need to break out of this situation. What do I mean? I mean that I was accused of things. If they tell you, Mr. Zsolt Bayer, you steal from the shop, and you reply, but I never steal from the shop, you've already lost the battle. So you need to find the point – in a biblical sense too, if you like – where you can turn things around and the whole debate changes. And the point I found was that if someone – I imagined someone – is watching this calmly and with a clear head in Hungary or anywhere else, then it is impossible that they should agree with all those bellowing figures who were doing their best to strip the meat from my bones. It is impossible that they like what they see. And accordingly it is impossible that they are the representatives of Europe and of European ideals that the people of Europe would like to have. And then I removed myself from that whole situation and I said: gentlemen, what's going on here? We are being betrayed, as you said, this isn't what Europe is about. In our view, Europe is the world of rational debate, of respect, level-headedness and common sense. What's going on here? This was the tone I had to find. That's not easy in a situation in which you feel as if gargantuan boulders are being thrown at you and everyone is there because they want your downfall. One is gripped by a feeling like this at such times, and if you begin to struggle and argue with force within the framework provided by the opposition then you have already lost the match. This is the part of politics, which can be called a profession, that concerns the question of how to get out of such situations like an escape artist.

ZsB: We were just discussing the fact that we Hungarians have run a little ahead now and have tried to make a previously unknown vacuum habitable, with relation to which three things come to my mind. And this can be linked to the question of what it means to be European too, I suppose. Three things that are criticised the most but I nevertheless think they are the greatest achievements of this term in government. I will say three catchphrases, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister to react to them. These are the so-called work-based society, the reduction in utility prices and the family support system.

VO: Well, I think these are three pillars which form the philosophical basis of everything we have done offer the past four years. But the key is the formulation of these three principles, because that doesn't just flow out of one's pen by itself. It needs a certain intellectual courage to say that the situation is that what has developed in the West and which we call the crisis isn't just one of the low-points of the otherwise usual changes in the global economy, or let's call them conjunctural fluctuations, because the global economy has such a theory, and practice too, I think, but it needed courage for us to stand up and say that this isn't the case this time, but, as the language of our profession calls it, this is a structural crisis. So if the West doesn't modify its fundamental structural elements, doesn't reorganise itself, doesn't renew itself, then it will find itself again and again in the same situation it is in today. And so if someone has the courage to state this, and this requires a lot of courage, because there are many arguments against it, which I shall not go into now, but if they have the courage to state that European politics and the European economy need to be renewed based on the foundations of Christian civilisation, then since we are not a large European power we must begin doing this here in Hungary, and then the three statements, the three pillars that you mentioned follow automatically. Meaning what things do we need to build on? We need to answer the question of what pillars we want to build the new-structured European Hungarian society and economy onto. And the first is the work-based society. Because why did we go bankrupt? We went bankrupt because the whole of Europe was made to believe that people can get ahead without work, that they need to take on loans instead of saving up to buy something and things will work themselves out somehow, that they should deny the principle that for every forint spent someone will have to do the work eventually. Meaning that work and a way of life based on work lost esteem. People who said they wanted to make a living from work were regarded as fools, and especially here in Hungary, and let's not imagine 2014, because that's a rational thing to say now, but let's think back to 2008 or 2009, if someone went home and said, father, I've decided to make a living working… We all know what I'm talking about. This had to be put right and we had to make it clear that in the modern world, including the modern Hungarian world, work, performance and effort is still the way to make a living. By doing something that brings advantages both to you and to the community. The other thing was the family support system, meaning that in Hungary people's experience was that the family support system of the more children you have, the more support you receive, pushed communities, and this includes both Roma and non-Roma communities, in a direction that meant they tried to make a living by having more children rather than from going to work. I know it may sound impolite and I don't want to offend anyone, but it isn't…

ZsB: It's still the…

VO: It isn't worth turning a blind eye to reality, that's the truth. Without generalising. And so what we tried to do, in view of the fact that Hungary must indeed protect families and must indeed help people have more children, and there is indeed a need to enable young people to realise their desire to have more children that is clear from almost every survey, and so some kind of family support system must be established. But that cannot have a negative effect on the idea of a work-based society or on the idea of full employment. This means that we must link work to child and family support. This is one of the key points of the economic system we have constructed. And I think we have found a good solution, because we introduced a tax system that clearly supports work, but we introduced it on a family basis, meaning that the constitution clearly states that the income that is required for the raising of a child cannot be taken away from people, i.e. it cannot be taxed. And this gave rise to this family tax system, which is a tax benefit received on the basis of the number of children people have…and the tax allowance for families with children is at the core of this system. I am proud of it, because it wasn’t easy. It needed a lot of time and a lot of debate before we were able to weave these individual elements into a working whole.

ZsB: And let's not forget about the reduction in utility charges.

VO: The reduction in public utility charges is like an ocean in a drop of water. Because we aren't just talking about the fact that the excellent, work-supporting tax system isn't worth a thing if people's incomes are taken away in other ways. About a state of affairs in which people are unable to do what they like with their own incomes because the cost of living takes it all away; we are talking about something more. About how people are able treat us. And the "us" is important hear: us, Hungarians. And the public utility companies are not Hungarian companies. The problem is that the monopolies, regardless of their national identity, have abused their sole positions and have overcharged the Hungarians at every possible opportunity, and they could do so without hindrance under the socialist governments. Utility prices were increased fifteen and twenty times during the previous government with prices increasing by 200 and 100 percent in total [gas and electricity, Ed.]. And these monopolies aren't even Hungarian. How is that possible? Without going into detail, how is it possible that here we are, ten million of us, we have inherited an economic structure from communism, we're working day and night, the old people are working, people are working during retirement, the youngsters have to be roped in to work, the head of the family has two or three jobs, all just to enable us to survive, and then there arrive – thanks to privatisation – the socialists call in these big companies, who lean back in their executive chairs and say this may be Hungary, but that makes no difference, and they get to work and establish these rules, and we swallow our pride, grin and bear it and almost explode with anger, but we keep on paying and paying and enduring? How long can you do that to a country? So these are the reasons for the reduction in public utility prices, and the left often jokes that it isn't all that important. Like an ocean in a drop of water, it incorporates all of the pain and unacceptable nature of our existence, and so I am happy that the current government is being increasingly identified with the reduction in public utility prices. This isn't just about money; it's about everything that is included in the subject.

ZsB: I would like to add just a couple of things that we should never forget. To the greater glory of the market economy, the sacred market economy, when the energy companies were privatised the socialist government determined an annual profit of eight percent for them in the contracts. Including if that level of profit is not achieved from the market. Let's not forget that.

VO: Yes, that's right.

ZsB: And the other thing is that during the last elections the previous Mayor of Paris, the later victorious current Mayor of Paris, campaigned stating that if he wins he will immediately remove the company called Suez from the head of the waterworks.

VO: The tendency in the West is the same as what we re doing, except it is mentioned much less often, meaning that if governments aren't necessarily doing it yet, at least the local governments of large western cities are pulling back companies who provide services that are required for everyday life one by one because they know that this is the only way they can defend the interests of their city's inhabitants. The eight percent profit that they determined, and in support of which they were able to bring up a host of arguments, was such a strong contractual right, it was given to the investors as a contractual right by the socialists, that when I was lucky enough to be in government between 1998 and 2002 I was unable to do away with it. And if we hadn't had a two-thirds majority, I couldn't have done anything now either. So this is a risky struggle between unequal parties and undertaken against giants, which without unity cannot be fought successfully. I tried to improve the situation somewhat between 1998 and 2002, but it was impossible to change its fundamentals because we didn't have the required strength. Because, as József Antall said, you should have accomplished a revolution then, gentlemen. Well, there was a revolution in 2010, and this is why we were able to begin reducing public utility prices.

ZsB: We are running out of time, but there is something else that I would definitely like to mention. And that’s the issue of Hungarian farmland. I would like to remind you of two strings of events that happened at the same time and parallel to each other. The first is that when the new Land Act was adopted the parliamentary group of the Jobbik party made a huge uproar in Parliament, occupying the Speaker's pulpit and screaming that we had sold out our homeland and sold off Hungary's farmland. While parallel to this the Austrians ran off to Brussels to denounce the government for not allowing them to purchase farmland in Hungary anymore, because that is against European Union law. It is obvious that these two claims cannot both be true. Someone isn't telling the truth. What's the situation with regard to farmland?

VO: Well, Jobbik isn't here now, so it would be improper and unfair to judge their position on this concrete issue, and in general to judge their politics, so I will refrain from doing so. But what I perhaps can say is that it isn't worth running headlong into a wall. In fact I'd dare say it isn't worth running into a wall in any manner. It is much better to follow the rules of common sense, to recognise the opportunities available and to with a certain amount of finesse, gently but subtly, achieve our goals. This is without doubt a significant difference between us and the political organisation commonly known as Jobbik. It is an important difference. There are other important differences too, but this is the incident you mentioned, so I would have liked to make this clear. As far as this concrete issue goes, the fact is that we need to find a solution according to which we conform to the view and expectation of the European Union whereby one cannot discriminate between various citizens of the European Union, while at the same time ensuring that Hungarian farmland remains in Hungarian hands. This is the task at hand. And that requires brains, not brawn; it requires thought. How does one go about doing it? One looks at how other countries do it. One trots off to Austria, say, and takes a look at how they can purchase farmland. Because the EU has never questioned the Austrian regulations on acquiring farmland. It transpires, that it cannot question them. There's something of interest for us here then. Then one goes off to another country and has a look there too. And then one collects these laws and regulations. This is what we did; this is what I did. I read all of them. I could sit an exam on the land regulations of the Austrian federal state of Vorarlberg if needed. So you read all of these and you sit down with the experts and you piece together a set of rules and regulations that conforms perfectly to general EU principles, but which according to European practice is tried and proven to protect the given country's farmland and keep it in the hands of its own citizens. This is what the Hungarian Land Act is based on. Brussels is attacking it. Let's forget about the domestic criticism for the moment; that's just a simple misunderstanding, intellectual limitation or political ill-will. It is not worth judging it now. Brussels is a serious thing though. They have taken shots at us with regard to several issues. I am familiar with the preparatory steps for action against us that are underway in Brussels, and nothing will happen prior to 6 April as far as I can see, because we expect something perhaps two or three weeks later, but they will be seriously attacking the Land Act we have formulated on two-three or perhaps four points and there will be another, very heated battle between Brussels and Hungary. The reduction in public utility prices will, I think, continue to be the determining subject of debate, the large international interest groups will try to use Brussels to push us off or divert us from our path or course, but the other main battlefield will be the Hungarian land regulations. I can already see roughly what the main directions of attack will be and I am already working on what replies we will need to provide, and we'll see how we can handle the situation. But one thing is certain: Hungarian land must remain in Hungarian hands while conforming to European Union norms.

ZsB: Mr. Prime Minister. There are ten days to go until the elections. During the course of our conversation you have already mentioned the fact that things are looking good, the forecasts are positive. But at the same time I think, and this perhaps stems from my character, that once someone has been bitten by a snake, they are also afraid of lizards. And my only fear is that we will again see a kind of 2002 syndrome during which the masses who sympathise with us feel that the election is such a foregone conclusion that they won't bother going out to vote on 6 April.

VO: Let's get to grips with this question then. It is an exciting question. I have been travelling all over the country and this is the most important thing that I need to talk to people about. Then again, we can't tell people things that aren't true. They can feel that our chances are good themselves. So we can't we can't tell them that if they don't pull themselves together and if they don't go out to vote and don't stand up for what they believe in, then we will be overwhelmed, because…

ZsB: That isn't how things stand.

VO: …and by whom, pray tell? People have a good sense of reality after all. However, if we describe the situation clearly then we can perhaps, well we can't mobilise them, but we can perhaps give them the motivation to mobilise themselves. The first thing is that it is good to be the favourite. So let's admit that we are the favourites to win. Well, in Hungarian sports, and especially in football, there is a concept according to which teams are often crushed by the weight of being the favourites. I can hardly wait to be crushed under the weight of being the favourite as many times as possible during my life. Because being the favourite means that even your rivals are saying that you're better and have a better chance of winning. That if everyone plays according to their abilities then you will win. We aren't the ones who must come up with some fantastic novelty within the next ten days to turn things around; someone else has to. And it is good that this isn't our problem. So let's admit and let's state openly: we are the favourites. But it is also obvious that being the favourite is not a self-fulfilling state of affairs. Being favourite must be taken to fruition. Being favourite is an entry ticket to the fight, but you still have to win the fight. You are allowed to have the best corner or can come out fighting with the sun behind you; you have an advantage compared to your opponent, but you can't skip the fight entirely. And so the voters must go out and vote. And success will either be your personal success too, or it will not come into being. And there is this blasted thing in politics that elections have this bothersome characteristic according to which a small victory and a huge victory require just the same amount of effort, and you can never know whether it was perhaps your personal effort and participation that transformed a good chance into a loss. So if someone thinks that we don't have to work as hard during these next ten days because success is already in the bag, they won't only have to live with the fact that our success is less compelling, but also with the fact that we could lose the elections. This may sound rather absurd knowing the other contenders, but nevertheless: if many people believe that victory is certain even without their participation, then we won't win. And so what we need to clearly make our supporters aware of is that it depends on you. On you personally. If you go out to vote and everybody else goes out to vote then we can achieve a great victory. We are standing at the threshold of a historic opportunity. I don't want to talk about that now, because, how should I put it, that would be a bad omen. But we are standing in the gateway of such a fantastic opportunity, partly with regard to the future of our opponents and partly with regard to the future of the country, which we must now grab hold of, but this requires personal commitment, personal participation and personal effort, because not only should you go out to vote, but you should take your neighbours and everybody, and if we are capable of this and many millions of people think this together, and we have been capable of this on many occasions in recent years, of millions of people thinking the same thing together, then we are standing on the threshold of a great triumph. I think this is the message that it is worth passing on to the country's voters, to every single respected Hungarian voter.

ZsB: Mr. Prime Minster, thank you for being here.

VO: Thank you for the opportunity!

ZsB: Thank you for watching. See you again next Saturday at the usual time. Good evening.

(Prime Minister’s Office)