Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Interview on Hungarian Television's "Tonight" Programme.

Péter Obersovszky: Good evening! Tonight, we will attempt the impossible. We will be reviewing the most important events of the part four years in just thirty minutes. We will be investigating the issues that have had a decisive influence on Hungary and on the everyday lives of the Hungarian people. In other words, we will be taking stock of the past four years. The guest of the Tonight programme this evening is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Thank you for accepting our invitation, Mr. Prime Minister.

Orbán Viktor: Good evening!

PO: Today's headline is that the Seuso Treasure, the "family silver", as you described it, has found its way back home to Hungary

OV: It hasn't found its way back home, we have brought it home.

PO: And is it now ours?

OV: Yes, we brought it home because it belongs to us.

PO: So it is definitely ours?

OV: It always has been ours.

PO: Is it ours by law?

OV: It always has belonged to us. The State of Hungary never gave up its position according to which, wherever the Treasure may have ended up, it has always been the property of the State of Hungary. There have been international legal debates on the subject, but we have maintained this standpoint throughout. For instance, we may have paid for the Treasure now, but we view this as reacquisition expenses and not as a purchase price.

PO: What will happen to the other half of the Treasure? Could that also find its way to Hungary?

OV: Yes, we are working on that too. We would like everything that is ours to be here in Hungary. If it's ours, it should be in our possession.

PO: When people here at home heard the news – as we know, this issue has been ongoing for decades now…

OV: Yes, it's like an adventure from the pen of Jenő Rejtő…

PO: Yes. Then what came to everyone's minds was that to all intents and purposes the majority of those involved – except for the court, the international court – never denied that the Treasure belonged to Hungary. So why did we end up paying for what is ours anyway?

OV: Let's say we paid a retention fee. We haven't paid a purchase price, that's the important thing. But we had to get our hands on it somehow. You know how things go, like they often do in life; one may be in the right, but then there is reality, and the two must be brought into harmony somehow. And at such times one must search for all kind of solutions. And we found a solution too. Many governments have worked on this issue during the past thirty years. We didn't find a solution either during our first term in office. But on this occasion there was a moment, an opportunity, and we found a solution and brought the Treasure home.

PO: Will you or can you tell us what that solution was? Because the preface to the event was interesting. When the Central Bank of Hungary renewed the tradition of trying to retrieve Hungarian works of art that form a part of the national identity, then there was a lot of speculation as to exactly what artistic treasures…

OV: But this wasn't achieved from those funds. It has been perhaps a month since the cabinet came to a decision that we want to get this treasure back and are prepared to make financial sacrifices to achieve that goal. This is why we issued the related Government Decree, which was of course made public. I've seen speculation in my press review regarding what could possibly be in the background of this Decree. Nobody knew. I myself view it as a significant and destiny-changing moment that something was not leaked out of the public administration system for four whole days. I don't think something like that has ever happened during the past millennium.

PO: What I heard today was that a very important change has been implemented in the current situation, and this is that the ownership rights to the Treasure may change and legal debate may continue, but according to the current state of affairs the Treasure can never leave the territory of Hungary again.

OV: That's right, it's ours.

PO: Moving on. We need to put four years on the balance now. I was looking at a speech you gave in 2010 after the first round of the elections, and in that speech, amongst other things, you said that Fidesz is aware of the fact that it has received a historic mandate from the people of Hungary. And now, four years later, looking back on that speech, I began thinking about what were the things with regard to which it was clear that the people were expecting. Work, security, order, a vision of the future; hope, if you like. And later you also mentioned these issues.

OV: Yes; and perhaps also that they too should also finally be able to feel at home in their own homeland. That things in Hungary are the way that the Hungarian people otherwise want them to be, and the country's leaders aren't forever citing the fact that because of foreign and other requirements nothing can be like it should be and how the people want it to be. We also had to break from this tradition.

PO: Did this require historic changes?

OV: I think so, because in politics wishes tend to disappear, they don't usually lead to anything. In politics, for wishes, hopes and dreams to become reality requires strength, organisation, solidarity, unity and all sorts of other things. And in Hungary in 2010, this solidarity and unity came into being. How I often biblically view this two-thirds majority is that this is a roman talent, an opportunity, a capability, which we were given by the people with the words, go forth and prosper with it in such a way that it serves the good of the community – and to the best of your ability, because we will be calling you to account. This is why it may have often seemed that I did not accept and was unprepared to acknowledge any kind of resistance but instead, if we felt that something serves the good of the people of Hungary, then we always searched for the tools with which to make that thing a reality, because I felt that we, or I, would ultimately have to sit down and settle our accounts with that two-thirds majority. I felt that I couldn't stand up before the people of Hungary in 2014 and tell them, as was otherwise the custom in Hungary, what we haven't been able to achieve and why. Because the people had given us a two-thirds majority, with which they said: well, my friend, we have never before given anyone a mandate of this kind, get things done! This was what people expected of us. And I did my best to fulfil those expectations.

PO: What have you succeeded in achieving? That you can tell us within the space of half an hour, thirty minutes.

OV: First of all, we have sown the seeds of the country's future. This is what we call the Fundamental Law or Constitution. We determined the framework, hammered in the pegs and formulated the values according to which we want to put Hungarian life in order. The second important thing is that we had to save the country from a looming economic collapse. At the time, Greece was in no worse a situation than Hungary. The fate of the Greeks could well have been the fate of Hungary; we could easily have found ourselves in a similar situation. This didn't happen and there was no collapse of any kind here in Hungary. Thirdly, we had to transform, renew and reorganise everything that wasn't working properly. And lots of things weren't working properly from the healthcare and education systems right through to the economy, small and medium sized enterprises, debt management and the tax system. These all had to be reorganised. After all, by 2010, twenty years had passed since the regime change, and that represented a long period and provided a lot of experience. A fifth of a century. So we knew what we wanted in 1990, but we weren't able to realise it. And by 2010 we also knew why. We were able to pinpoint the obstacles that needed to be pushed aside. We felt the absence of those agreements that nobody had been able to conclude over the previous twenty years, and we set about trying to conclude them. So I feel that we were able to go about our duties with sufficient weaponry, or to put it another way with historical experience on our side. And if I had to summarise everything into a single sentence, then I would say that we have reclaimed Hungary for the Hungarians.

PO: The family silver, in another sense.

OV: Yes. Yes, look…

PO: In 1990, everyone wanted capital to be totally free and unrestricted, and everyone thought that this would perform miracles here in this country. In 2010, you said that in the opinion of the Government, this is not true. Not everything can be allowed, it cannot be stated that capital is absolute, and then you took up arms against Europe and the world in defence of this principle.

OV: Yes, and it must be said that our argument was reinforced by the fact that in 2008, the Western economic system that had been built on this theory suffered a collapse. So it was clear that this was the beginning of a new economic era for the West, and within that certainly for Europe. Meaning that if we continue doing in the future what we did in the past then we will end up exactly where we ended up in 2008, with another financial and economic crisis. And so everyone has to search for new solutions; all of Europe and every country within it, including Hungary, must travel a path that is suited to its own character and must adapt its economic policy to fit its own needs. And accordingly there is no point in engaging in philosophical debates, but we must instead realise a concrete economic policy that has a hope of achieving results. This is what gave rise to the proportionate tax system and this is what gave rise to the new method of managing public debt; this is what enabled us to thank the IMF for its cooperation, this is what gave rise to the bank tax and this is what enabled us to face the large, international companies who were abusing their monopoly positions, which in turn enabled the reduction in public utility prices and the Job Protection Action Plan. These are all new elements, because we felt that it was no longer possible to cook using the old recipes.

PO: People are wondering to what extent this can be continued. Because while we have thrown the old recipes out of the window, we see that other countries are still cooking with the old recipes, although there are places where the Hungarian solutions are being transposed, but then what comes to the mind of the average Hungarian citizen is, so what was the point of these four years of pushing and shoving with Europe? Were we a test site? Was Hungary a kind of experimental guinea pig to see how far things can be taken?

OV: No, we chose this role and this path for ourselves, so it isn't worth thinking of ourselves as the subject of someone else's experiment. The fact is that we acted more rapidly than others were able to. Look at the reorganisation of the pensions system, for instance. We broke the ice there, but more or less every Central European country – more rather than less – have now also reorganised the system that we too reorganised. Hungary was faster than everyone else. That was thanks to the two-thirds majority. Hungary's greatest competitive factor and competitive advantage during the past four years have been the two-thirds majority. So when we had to solve a problem we were often able to solve it in just two or three days, or perhaps two or three weeks, while other countries required months or even years. We are not cleverer than everyone else, and I would discourage Hungarian public opinion from nurturing this idea, but we have succeeded in organising the country in such a way, and the people have succeeded in creating such a level of unity in Hungary, that has made us quicker than everyone else.

PO: Why? Let's go through the people's hopes, or if you like through the desires that brought into being these historical changes. Are people living in greater order today?

OV: They will decide on that on 6 April. I think life in Hungary is now more transparent and more secure. A pensioner doesn't have to worry that their pension will be taken away, for instance, in comparison to the era prior to 2010, when this in fact occurred. What the country's leaders promised, that they would protect pensions, has been accomplished, and in fact we have succeeded in increasing them to some extent. And when we said that we would help Hungarian enterprises by putting fewer taxes on income that is derived from work, then we introduced the new tax system, which I think people today feel to be more secure and calculable. Today it is easier to think of work as something that can provide a living for someone and their family, and perhaps people are also beginning to believe than in the upcoming period work will not just be enough to enable people to get by, but they will also be able to get ahead and prosper through work. In this sense, we can look to the future with increased hope and confidence; in this sense I think our lives are more secure.

PO: What further opportunities are available with regard to reducing public utility prices, which is one of the Government's most important policy directions?

OV: Well, we have performed two large reductions of ten percent each, and a third is in progress. The price of gas will decrease at the beginning of April, followed by the price of electricity in September and district heating in October. Let's see this through first, that is my respectful recommendation, and then we can initiate the next step in the process. The current cuts have all been related to households. I see an opportunity for enabling further cuts for households through the introduction of a non-profit public service provider system, but the biggest breakthrough, and this is what we would like to set as our objective, this is what we are asking the electorate to entrust us with a mandate for, would be if we could provide cheaper energy to the economy, and especially to industry. And in fact our straight-out objective is for the price of electricity required for the operation of industry in Hungary to be the cheapest in Europe.

PO: Is this what requires the reacquisition of service providers? Everyone's talking about a non-profit model.

OV: It requires tools.

PO: But someone, please excuse me, drew my attention to the fact that there is a report published every year about where the cost of living is cheapest in Hungary. The winner is always Kaposvár, but the service provider there is basically under private ownership.

OV: Kaposvár is a nice goal too, but I usually have a look around Western Europe too, and what can be seen there in most places, let's say that the most general solution there is for things, services, instruments and systems that are required for people's everyday lives, that are vital and unavoidable parts of everyday life, to be under the influence of the community. There are various solutions to enable this. The point is that that the interests of the community and business interests that stem from services that are of rudimentary importance to the community are not allowed to become distanced and to act without regard for the other. No system like that exists on continental Europe.

PO: I have been paying attention to your recent statements and everything you have said during the election campaign. You have spoken at length about the reorganisation of two important, large systems; education and healthcare. You are fully satisfied with the reorganisation of the education system, and haven't voiced any criticism in that regard, but in relation to healthcare you say that results have been achieved but there is still much to do, and that must mean you are dissatisfied.

OV: First of all, I am one of the great majority of Hungarian people with regard to the fact that in my view, I would like to see a government with which I was totally satisfied. So we should put aside the phrase: we are satisfied with ourselves. There is no such thing in Hungary. Even those who are supporting us with elemental force look for and find a few things that they are not satisfied with. This is a cultural characteristic here in Hungary, it's not worth being offended by it or finding it strange, that's how it is here. And this is how I view things; I never use the word satisfied. And with regard to education we especially have no reason to use this term, although we have created the framework for the new education system and I think we are moving in the right direction. There have been and are still some serious debates on this issue; I think it is right that education should be supervised by the state and it is right for the state to guarantee the quality of education; it is also right that it should guarantee Hungarians that their place of birth doesn't decide the quality of education that they can enjoy. This is how things used to be. Now, our education system will provide a dependable level of quality throughout the country. It is right that there is a national curriculum, it is right that teachers have a career model and it is right that there is a monitoring system and that this is supervised. So I think these are all good things, but this is just a framework. If I look at what happens day to day within the education system and how effective their work is, I can't provide you too much good news. I know that there was heated debate here with regard to results of the latest PISA report, and a new report will be published next week on digital learning and problem-solving abilities; we are moving down in the rankings and aren't doing too well in any category. And so in international comparison the performance of our education system, at least according to international studies, is clearly decreasing. This is a problem, and we must stop this process and turn it around. If we don't stay one of the cleverest peoples in Europe then we won't be competitive either. And this depends on education, at least to a major degree. So there are still lots of internal, content-related issues here. What do children learn, how they learn, what teaching methods are used and how many hours-a-week? This will mean serious professional and political debates in the future.

PO: And healthcare?

OV: The picture is a little clearer with regard to healthcare; we know exactly where our weakest points are in that area. The Achilles' heel of the healthcare system today is that we are unable to remunerate our general practitioners to the standard required. They don't receive high enough salaries, they don't have enough equipment and they don't have access to enough training courses, in other words that under the current system we are not yet able to provide the best possible level of service at the location which is nearest to the patient, but instead automatically send people on for outpatient or inpatient treatment. I think Hungary is still behind with regard to reinforcing the general practitioner system. It is a good thing that we have taken the operation, conditions, requirements and demands of our hospitals into state hands, and that the state now assumes responsibility for the running of hospitals; I think that things have improved significantly in this respect. We have spent around 300 billion forints on hospital development programmes. I don't remember when Hungary was last able to spend this kind of money on healthcare during the course of the last hundred years, and even hospital assets have increased. But despite this, many hospitals are not at all in a good situation, but this isn't the biggest problem, but as I have already said, we need to reinforce our general practitioner system; this is the task for the next four years.

PO: There are two very important take-off points that you talked about regularly in and before 2010, one of which is agriculture. We have seen a huge redistribution of farmland. Has this modified the ratio of small and large farms to the desired degree or are we still far from that?

OV: The situation is that Hungary is performing better, but still not well enough. The Government came to a decision, and I know this programme isn't about philosophical issues or historical issues, but the decision we made is one of this nature, which has put an end to a Hungarian debate that has lasted two-hundred of perhaps even three-hundred years, with regard to the issue of who should own farmland in Hungary. According to the Government's decision, a maximum of 20 percent of Hungarian farmland may be farmed by large estates, it doesn't have to be 20 percent, that is the maximum, and the rest should be in the hands of small and medium-sized enterprises and small and medium-sized farms, both as far as ownership rights and the actual working of the land are concerned. The Land Law was created with this objective in mind, and the goal is to reorganise Hungarian agriculture in a way that enables that reorganisation to be constructive rather than destructive. Or at least this process should be managed in this way. I think this is a good question and we are moving in the right direction. We will have to battle it out to push through this legislation, just like the budget.

PO: Will this battle be as hard as the one fought in the interests of the reduction in public utility prices?

OV: The battle to protect the reduction in utility prices will be the hardest battle of 2014. But as far as difficulty goes, the battle for the land act will be the second toughest in Brussels this year.

PO: Innovation, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, facilitating loans and increasing the ratio of Hungarian banks, Hungarian-owned banks, to at least fifty percent. You have mentioned these on several occasions as prerequisites for the realisation of the Government's promise to create one million new jobs over the course of ten years.

OV: Look, the language I am about to use has gone out of fashion, but we are patriots and we would like to be good patriots. And we believe that the country is not in control of its own fate if at least fifty percent of the financial sector isn't in Hungarian hands. We are not talking about Hungarian banks, but about Hungarian-owned banks. We must reach a ratio of fifty percent. I know that many people call this voluntarism, I know that the West is shaking its head, I know that we are treading on the toes of giants and powerful forces...

PO: Is anyone prepared to take on the responsibility? It isn't that easy being a bank.

OV: I will. Oh, sorry…

PO: The participants…

OV: My apologies, but it first needs the backing of the Government, and of the Prime Minister.

PO: Well you can certainly back it.

OV: I don't think I can support this issue any more than I am already doing. We are already speaking perfectly openly and clearly. I think the answer is yes. I think that one characteristic of the Hungarian banking system is that there is not enough competition. The positions have been handed out and agreed upon to too great an extent. And I think that some fresh blood would do some good. This isn't just my own personal opinion, those who are responsible for developing the Government's economic policies also agree.

PO: What is the current ratio of Hungarian involvement?

OV: It depends where we put OTP [OTP Bank, Hungary's largest bank]. I like to regard OTP as a Hungarian bank.

PO: Let's calculate things that way then, at worst….

OV: But things are more complicated as far as ownership goes, because a significant proportion of the owners aren't in Hungary. We are at about thirty-forty percent if we include OTP. So we are not far off, and in fact above forty percent within OTP.

PO: Job Creation.

OV: All I would like to say is that job creation isn't such a huge task; it isn't such an immense challenge as it would seem at first glance. It can be done.

PO: Are you satisfied with the way in which the Hungarian economy has begun to grow? We can see that in Hungary those companies who… Our performance is exceptionally good with relation to exporting automobiles; Hungary is slowly being talked about as a world power in vehicle manufacturing…

OV: As far as exports go, what I can tell you is that in general…

PO: …but the small and medium-sized enterprises…

OV: Hungarian experts have achieved record levels during this past year, and this is one of the reasons why the Hungarian economy can feel secure, it cannot be toppled. International experience shows that in countries where the balance of payments and the export-import balance are in order, the country might be faced with difficulties, that's life, but it stands firm. In such cases there's no need to worry about financial insecurity. This is why Hungary too can feel secure, because its exports are performing well. And this also includes small and medium-sized enterprises now. According to our data there are 2000 to 2200 small, but to a greater extent medium, Hungarian business organisations, and I mean Hungarian medium, not German medium, that are currently export-capable. This number is estimated by the Export-Import Bank based on turnover, and this is the number we must increase to around 12 thousand or so. And what I have learned from György Matolcsy [Governor of the Central Bank of Hungary] it that the Hungarian economy will be strong and will be standing firmly on its own two feet, and we will have reason to speak about success, if the number of Hungarian small and medium-sized enterprises reaches a level of 10-12 thousand.

PO: I read a preview of an interview with Minister for National Economy Mihály Varga, which will be published tomorrow in one of the country's weeklies, who said that, providing Fidesz will also be a member of the next government, the fine-tuning of the New Széchényi Plan will be next on the agenda. It is interesting that I have also heard the term fine-tuning from you during the course of this conversation and increasingly often in general. Would it be correct to say that the next four years –providing Fidesz is also part of the next government – will be about fine-tuning? Meaning you will have been able to gain the required experience from the systems that your have modified, and the next step is to fine-tune them?

OV: I would like to be able to agree with you and we would like to be able to reply yes to this question, but life will decide. I also think there are areas where we can pretty safely say that the frameworks are stable, are on firm footing and are appropriately placed: these need fine-tuning. But let's not disregard the possibility that as life moves forward it creates new challenges for us and draws question marks for us, and then we must provide more powerful solutions than just fine-tuning; we cannot exclude this possibility, none of us can see into the future.

PO: The Minister for National Economy says that the Hungarian economy is riding a wave of excellent figures at the moment. And this high-riding has led many people to begin speculating about a possible single-digit income tax.

OV: Yes, and I am one of those people.

PO: That would be regarded as a small miracle.

OV: That’s true, but just a small one. Look, this is a very difficult question. Since the programme, as is clear from your questions, does not touch on issues of deep philosophical content, and this is just such an issue, all I would say for now is that I am convinced that a good economic system is an economic system that leaves as much money as possible in people's pockets. A system that encourages people to work and to make money, and which takes the least possible amount of money away from those earnings. And what this requires is for the deduction we call personal income tax to be as low as possible. But at the same time, the essence of politics and economic policy is balance, meaning systems cannot fall out of balance; in other words that we cannot allow our desires to control our decisions. They must be controlled by our will, but they must have sober deliberation behind them. We must keep things in balance, so we cannot run ahead in this case either, while putting the budget's other important factors – education, healthcare, culture – fully in brackets. We must move forwards slowly.

PO: According to the polls, the ruling party isn't doing too badly. Why don't you want a prime ministerial debate under such circumstances? There would be little risk involved.

OV: My opinion on this is as follows. I think that over the past four years we have conducted every debate in full gaze of the general public. And in addition, people have seen what life is like when the socialists are in power, and what it is like when we are at the helm. So I think all the information required for the voters to come to a well-founded decision is already available. What I see from the statements arriving from the opposition is that they don't in fact want to argue anything with me, but instead only want to attack me, and to an even greater extent to try and discredit me. They don't need me for that; they can do that without me being there. I am not going to do them the favour – I see they are desperate – of providing them with a target for their attacks and slanders in the form of my own body. So in my view the correct behaviour in the interests of the country is for the Prime Minister to concentrate on only one thing: to convince as many people as possible to go out and take part in the elections. This is what I will be doing during these remaining few days prior to the elections.

PO: If you don’t mind, I have left until the very end one of the most important debts that the government will leave behind it, whether you remain in office or Fidesz will not be the party to form the next government. And I am speaking about internal debts in general, not the problem of the country's foreign exchange debtors. Because although I know that the problems have different roots, but people who have forint debts are suffering just the same as those who have accumulated debts in foreign currencies. Why is it impossible to solve the problem of internal debt more efficiently, or more quickly if you like? What do you see as the reasons for this?

OV: I agree with your point of reference, with the starting-point of your question, and that brings us back to the beginning of your question. To the issue of what makes a country secure. When can people begin to feel that their lives are more secure? I think, when people have the reserves required to avert unexpected situations. Meaning that if their children fall ill, a sudden problem arises, they lose their job, find themselves in an unexpected situation, the life of the family becomes more difficult, so if they are incapable of generating income for a period of time, they have reserves from which to draw. If they feel they have something to draw on in time of trouble, then their lives are more secure, or perhaps are secure. This is not the case in Hungary today. There are lots of people who, though their lives may seem to be standing on firm foundations, are living from one month to the next and if trouble arises then they would not know who to turn to except for their friends and family. Few people could draw on the savings they have accumulated themselves. This is why we must…

PO: They turn to the government.

OV: This is why we must put families in a position in which they are able to accumulate savings. The first step in this process is to try and remove some of the debt that is pressing on their shoulders. The situation is somewhat easier in the case of people who have foreign currency debts. We have succeeded in freeing 360-370 thousand families from this situation. And if the required court rulings are issues, and I think that all of the required court rulings will have been made by the end of May, then we will be able to help the remaining Hungarian people – and I mean people who have taken on foreign currency based home loans – exit their current situation. We have the required techniques and the required knowledge. As far as I can see, the banks also have the willingness to come to some kind of agreement. So we will be able to help this portion of the Hungarian world.

PO: So you believe in the court solution and in the fact that foreign currency loans can be taken off the market?

OV: No, I do not believe in the court solution. What I believe in is that since the courts will also be coming to a decision on two other issues, these will determine the room for manoeuvre available to the Government, and the Government will be able to make use of that. If needed, it will expand that room for manoeuvre and we will bring those few hundred families who are still suffering out of this hopeless situation. I would add that we have already helped 370 thousand families of out a similar situation. And if we have succeeded in helping the first 370 thousand, why shouldn’t we succeed in helping the second or the third?

PO: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for accepting our invitation.

OV: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here.

PO: You have been watching the Tonight programme, see you next time. Thank you for watching, Goodbye and good night!

(Prime Minister’s Office)