Tag Archives: Orbán regime

The way the world is beginning to see Viktor Orbán’s Hungary

In the last three days three articles have appeared in two leading English-language newspapers, The New York Times and The Guardian, about the systemic corruption in the Orbán government. The word is out at last: a crime ring, run by Viktor Orbán himself, has taken hold of the Hungarian economy. The beneficiaries are the prime minister and his family as well as a few friends and political cronies.

The foreign press’s new-found interest in the criminal activities of Viktor Orbán was ignited by a short article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal exactly a month ago. It reported that OLAF, the European Commission’s Anti-Fraud Office, had sent a report to the Hungarian government recommending that the authorities take legal action over “serious irregularities” in projects carried out by a company that was controlled by the son-in-law of Viktor Orbán. The very fact that Hungarians had to learn about this damning report from a foreign source says a lot about the lack of transparency in Hungary.

It seems that after almost eight years of brazenly embezzling public funds, 80% of which come from the European Union, the friends and family of the Hungarian prime minister are finally coming under scrutiny. Detailed analyses are starting to plumb the depths of the systemic corruption that has made a small group of people very rich in record time. On the basis of calculations by responsible and usually accurate investigative journalists, Viktor Orbán’s hidden wealth may amount to 300 billion forints, more than a billion dollars.

One of the two Guardian articles by Jennifer Rankin neatly lists all the corruption cases that directly involve the Orbán family, including the growing wealth of Lőrinc Mészáros, which may be only partially his own. The list Rankin came up with is most likely incomplete because sub-contractors do not appear in the databases. Since most of these riches come from the European Union, Viktor Orbán’s anti-Brussels rhetoric is especially jarring. The conclusion is that, as Miklós Ligeti, head of legal affairs at Transparency International, put it, “Hungary is now in the grip of party state capture.”

The article ends with a question: will the European Union have the courage to do something about this theft of EU funds? Between 2014 and 2021 Hungary will have received €25 billion from the European Union, which makes the country one of the largest per capita recipients of the EU’s economic development funds. EU politicians are aware of the wholesale robbery that goes in Orbán’s Hungary, but for political reasons they are avoiding tackling the problem. Ingeborg Gräßle, head of the European Parliament’s budgetary committee who visited Hungary a few months ago to take a ride on Viktor Orbán’s rather expensive choo-choo train, merely says that a new kind of “semi-legal” irregularity is emerging in these post-communist countries, including Hungary. Otherwise, she estimates that in 36% of the cases there is only one bidder for EU-financed government projects, and, let me add, the remainder is most likely fixed. But that’s not all. According to András Inotai, a Hungarian economist, in 2017 5% of the country’s GDP came from EU funding while Hungary’s economic growth during the same period was about 4%. So, all that money is doing mighty little good.


Düsseldorf Carnival 2018

On February 10 an in-depth article appeared in The New York Times by Patrick Kingsley titled “As West Fears the Rise of Autocrats, Hungary Shows What’s Possible.” Hungary is described as “a political greenhouse for an odd kind of soft autocracy, combining crony capitalism and far-right rhetoric with a single-party political culture.” What follows is a detailed description of the process by which Viktor Orbán has managed to achieve his goal of an illiberal state. A former Fidesz official described the present Hungarian situation the following way: “sometimes I feel like I’m traveling in a time machine and going back to the ’60s…. All the characteristics and features on the surface are of democracy, but behind it there is only one party and only one truth.” Viktor Orbán is described as one of the strongmen of the age, alongside Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Donald Trump. “Although Mr. Orbán lacks the global profile of those leaders, what he is doing in Europe is seen as part of a broader decline of democracy in the world.”

This is what Hungary looks like from New York and London. But what has been happening since the OLAF report detailing István Tiborcz’s alleged criminal activities was released? First of all, the government has come up with a strategy to divert responsibility from Orbán’s son-in-law to Lajos Simicska, Orbán’s old friend-in-crime, now enemy. This strategy may work on the propaganda level but it will not be sufficient to save Tiborcz from prosecution. But we ought not worry about the future of Ráhel Orbán and her husband. The Hungarian prosecutor’s office has already announced that its investigation of the case will be long and arduous. I have no doubt that after an inordinately long investigation Tiborcz will be found innocent of any wrongdoing. The government propaganda machinery also concocted the story that the European Union’s anti-Orbán forces timed the release of the report to coincide with the national election. It is with OLAF’s help that Soros’s men in Brussels want to remove Viktor Orbán from the seat of power.

Otherwise, all eyes are on Hódmezővásárhely, where István Tiborcz’s business career began. To recap the story: Orbán’s future son-in-law needed money and a contract to establish his business credentials, which he didn’t have. Both were provided through the good offices of the prime minister. Orbán convinced his favorite oligarch at the time, Lajos Simicska, to put some money into the young man’s firm. As collateral, Simicska demanded a share of the business. After two years, Tiborcz and his business partner paid the loan back and Simicska retired from this business venture, which he had never actually run. As for the needed contract, János Lázár, today chief-of-staff of Viktor Orbán but then still mayor of Hódmezővásárhely, suddenly had a burning desire to install new public lighting.

The sleepy little town is now all over the media as a result of the details of the project, which came to light thanks to 24.hu. So, Lázár felt that he had to give a press conference right on the spot. After a general denial of any wrongdoing, he offered a description of the town’s business venture with István Tiborcz. Lázár’s fairy tale about the bidding process and the details of what happened afterward is especially amusing if one reads old articles on the town’s internet news site called Vásárhely Hírek. While there, I also decided to read up on the special election campaign for mayor, which is in full swing at the moment.

The election will take place on February 25. Of course, the scandal around István Tiborcz also touches on the town and the election. There seems to be some anxiety in Fidesz circles about the outcome, although a couple of weeks ago I was certain that the independent candidate, Péter Márki-Zay, who lost his job after he declared his candidacy and was so maligned by his pro-Fidesz parish priest, had not the slightest chance of making a decent showing. But in the last few days commentators have pointed out that the Hódmezővásárhely election is a unique case in the sense that neither Jobbik nor the left-of-center parties have put up candidates and therefore Márki-Zay is facing the Fidesz candidate, Deputy-Mayor Zoltán Hegedűs, alone.

The town was planning to distribute 10,000 forint vouchers to pensioners sometime in March, just before Easter, but, behold, the decision was made to disburse them before the election. The prime minister also invited Hegedűs for a cup of coffee in his office in the parliament, and Defense Minister István Simicskó paid a visit to town to make sure that everybody knows that the old military barracks will be renovated and the Hódmezővásárhely shooting gallery will be the very first one to open in the whole country.

Political observers often complain about Hungarians’ indifference to corruption, which they tend to view as a fact of life. Perhaps there is hope. If Márki-Zay makes a good showing in a town where the deceased Fidesz mayor received 61% of the votes, followed by Jobbik with 17.1% and MSZP-DK-Együtt with 15%, it will give us a clue about public sentiment. A Márki-Zay win could have a measurable effect on the national election on April 8.

February 12, 2018

András Inotai: “Spiritual genocide is taking place here”

“They are creating hateful people and at the same time creating four million seriously deprived, poor people. . . . Inciting hatred within the population awakens the basest of human-animal instincts.” – András Inotai, former director of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences World Economic Research Institute

This is a partial translation of an interview with András Inotai, former director of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences World Economic Research Institute, published by the online daily zoom.hu on January 2, 2018 under the title: “András Inotai: Itt szellemi népirtás folyik.”

My heartfelt thanks to Budapest Beacon for allowing me to use their translation, which is republished here with some minor changes. The original Hungarian is somewhat longer. For those who can handle the language, it is worth looking at.

Source: zoom.hu / Photo Balázs Ivándi-Szabó

When we discussed meeting up, you commented that you had something to say because you were not too happy about the direction of the world and Hungary. What did you have in mind?

We are moving faster and faster towards globalization that strengthens and deepens mutual dependencies with steps that are increasingly difficult to understand or follow. This is not new. It is not possible to reverse this trend. These changes have winners and of course losers. At the same time, it is necessary to differentiate among the losers. There are absolute and relative losers. Looking at developments in Hungary after the system change and especially after 2010, I would consider myself and a significant part of the population to be relative losers.

Like many others, I do not sit in Lőrinc Mészáros’ place, and am not a Fidesz oligarch. Just as earlier I did not belong to MSZP or SZDSZ circles. So I live, I am okay materially, but spiritually more and more depressed.

It is important not to discount the rather wide circle of relative losers, whose motivation is as spiritual as material. Why? Because the class of relative losers includes those who voted for Brexit in a country that is one of the biggest winners from globalization. Especially financially. This by itself is a total absurdity. This class placed Donald Trump in the President’s seat in the United States, which for decades has been the motor of globalization and unequivocally its biggest winner, as it continues to be.

However, both the Americans and the English fell asleep over the past decade and a half. A significant part of the British believe that England is still a world power. They do not take into account that the world was fundamentally reordered over the past decades. The competitive Europeans showed up, both inside and outside the EU, as well as the Chinese, Indians, South Koreans, Mexicans, and Brazilians. A typical lower-middle class family living in the English countryside thinks that its country produces a significant part of the world output. Of course in 1948 this was indeed 12 percent, but today it’s two percent. In the case of the United States many believe that the country can do whatever it wants.

However, the connection between politics, society, and the economy has reached a point where nobody can say they are independent. This means that nobody can decide exclusively about themselves. For this reason nobody can take a maximal decision, only optimal, which means the best balance of advantages and disadvantages. This is a totally simple connection, although many people cannot see it. They are the ones who get it in the face and believe the nonsense that we are independent, proud, and strong. In their circles, however, frustration and anger is only getting stronger.

In this situation is it not a logical, indeed an expected, decision on the part of certain countries to raise the walls surrounding them in order to defend themselves?

You can call for an end of globalization. You can call for us to protect Hungarian sugar and milk. Let’s protect the Hungarian money market. So be it! We don’t need foreign banks! Statements of this nature have been frequently made at the highest levels. “Thanks” to this kind of thinking, today the local banking system is more than 50 percent in Hungarian hands. And what happens if the Hungarian bank collapses? We should finally acknowledge that foreign-owned financial institutions undertook recapitalization in the billions of euros in order to remain here during the 2008 economic crisis. If a Hungarian credit institution implodes, who is going to recapitalize it? The Hungarian taxpayers, if they want their deposits to be secure.

These corrupt deals that are taking place in the banking system are characteristic of the “growth” of wealth of an unprecedentedly selfish new oligarchy. We are very close to a banking system in which one or more Hungarian entities may collapse, or in which a single one may trigger a chain reaction.

The situation cannot be all that serious.

You are very much mistaken! People are stupid to allow this to happen. This is the product of the spiritual genocide that has taken place in Hungary over the past years, which the Hague court should address were it authorized to do so, as the crime is similar to physical genocide. The spiritual infection is active in the case of migration, Soros, EU opposition, as well as passive in that official “national” propaganda has become an organic part of government. The latest obvious example of this is that we now commemorate the anniversary of virtually everything. They reassessed the 1956 revolution within the framework of a year-long 60th anniversary “commemoration.” Here was the Saint László commemorative year even though they do not know precisely when he was born, but the official propaganda proclaimed it a celebratory year. By contrast, I do not know who took note of the fact that last year was the 150th anniversary of the Compromise of 1867 between Austria and Hungary, about which there was hardly any mention. Even though we could draw conclusions from its results, dilemmas, and consequences. Hungary managed, under the wise leadership of Ferenc Deák, to launch half a century of modernization despite the ever-opposing incendiary Lajos Kossuth, agitating against that Compromise from abroad. Because it is indisputable that the Compromise strengthened the nation and its future and served the country’s long-term interests. This can be demonstrated through an examination of history. It was the kind of a step of which there is no sign today. Meanwhile EU membership and EU money offer a unique historical opportunity, or would have, to prepare for the 21st century.

The first half of your answer was perhaps worded too strongly.

No! A hopelessly dramatic situation has come about! That is my considered opinion! Look what is happening with human capital, which is critical to sustainable competitiveness and the foundation for the balanced growth of society. This can be observed across three areas: education, research and development, and health care. These are the foundation stones. All three have been deliberately destroyed in recent years.

Related to this is the nature and extent of social polarization, the likes of which has never happened in the European Union. Moreover, I am a beneficiary of these, but I do not at all wish to be! Here are some examples so you can better understand what I am talking about. The flat tax in and of itself is brutally antisocial. Today I pay far less in taxes than before the introduction of the new tax rate, but I would be able to live quite well with the previous high tax burden as well. At the same time, others, for whom changes brought additional financial burden, are left struggling even as the budget has suffered a very significant loss of revenue which, among other things, could have been spent on education, social services, and health care.

The other is the pension system. I do not need that 1.8 or 2 percent which the current Hungarian pension system automatically assures everyone uniformly. I would gladly give that money to those who need more in order to live a life worthy of a citizen of the European Union.

The governing party’s behavior is unbelievably cynical and anti-social. And yet, people tolerate it.

Maybe that’s because people hear from the government what they want them to hear . . . 

Excuse me! I need to return to human capital. One must also have an innovative society, which is characteristic of the Scandinavian countries. Innovation is the defining element, the key, to successful and sustainable development in the 21st century. This is necessary to remain competitive, especially in small countries which are integrated into the world economy. The fundamental question is how capable society is to hold its own in the accelerated 21st century. From this point of view, Hungary is not only deeply in the negative range, but the government’s deliberate and irresponsible measures and propaganda destroys–in fact has already destroyed in many fields—the pillars of adaptation.

The innovative society is open, not closed. It shows solidarity, not hate. It is cooperative, not artificially polarized, fragmented. It is oriented towards the future and is not always escaping into the “glorious past.” It is prepared for changes, challenges, and actively adapts instead of continuously living in a state of anxiety, fear, insecurity, and artificially created crises in which it consumes increasingly limited physical, material, and intellectual reserves. Here I note that a natural part of globalization is polarization, but apart from Hungary there is not a single government that would deliberately strengthen this through its actions. Even crisis-hit countries with very limited resources try to contain that trend. Here, they add another shovelful.

They are creating hateful people and at the same time creating four million seriously deprived, poor people.

Is this really the goal? Because if so, then something has gone terribly astray. The self-proclaimed populist, Christian conservative government is sending the message that four million Hungarians should perish — please, forgive me — and we will defend six million. Is this the great national idea? Because if I put together the government’s numerous political elements, that is what I see. This is more than irresponsible, it is the murder of a nation.

Is the situation really this bleak?

Unfortunately, I must continue. There are still two elements necessary for lasting competitiveness. One is that society cannot maintain competitiveness without a certain degree of cohesion and solidarity. If this falls below a critical level, then we can see international examples of slowing and eventual cessation of capital infusion. Not only foreign but Hungarian capital would do the same, and in part already has. Who wants to keep their money in a country where there is continuous societal tension, where mutual distrust is artificially created, where there is insufficient skilled labor capable of thought due to poor education and health care? The second element is the effectiveness of the government sector. This is not only eradicated by an unprecedented degree of corruption comparable to an African dictatorship but also by the “results” of the “overgrown” public sector of the past few years. In contrast to the 2010 government program which, correctly, promised a modest but effective government sector, today 24 percent of those employed full time are tied either directly or indirectly to the state sector. What else needs to be said?

Maybe this is our historical fate. We hate each other and we have to live with that fact. At the beginning of the 2000s I asked a very respected figure of the national intelligentsia whether the system change couldn’t have been done better. We stood at the 0 km mark, with all its problems and possibilities, but within just ten years’ time many already feel that this isn’t the horse we wanted. Even then it looked as if everything went wrong already. His answer was “no.” This is who we are, forever pulling apart and hating each other and those who are better off. 

I am not a social psychologist. However, speaking on the basis of historical experience, the Hungarians are, in fact, not a cohesive society. I don’t want to say we are unique in this respect and that this is only characteristic of our national spirit, and that there aren’t other examples of this phenomenon. This wouldn’t be such a big problem. The problem is that in the developed world nobody deliberately conditions society to hate or to incite against various supposed or actual enemies. Among those sitting in the current government nobody looks a little further. Let’s take the current migrant question. If I conduct a campaign of hate now, does anyone know what the consequence of this might be in the future? It’s certain that in time the subject of our hatred changes, but the hatred remains. I am not saying that there isn’t a migration problem. There is and it isn’t small. We must deal with this issue. However, the situation should not be blown out of proportion and least of all should it be the subject of a hate campaign. The inconceivable xenophobic mood is due to this. For the sake of illustration. One million people from the Middle East and Africa arrived in Europe with its population of 510 million. That is 0.2 percent of the population of Europe. If we cannot absorb and integrate this, then there are big problems. Of this, less than 1,300 would have come to Hungary, a country whose survival for the past 1200 years has been due to repeated spontaneous immigration or deliberate settlement projects throughout the 18th century.

The problem of the refugees must be handled, but many countries, Hungary included, say the problems must be remedied where they originate . . . 

I completely agree with this, and the European Union even developed a plan for this. As I see it, even if the plan works, and the member states uniformly support the recommendations and the actions, even then there could be serious disagreements because the migration pressure will not go away. There will not be a perfect solution. But it is exactly for this reason that cooperation is so important. Joint thinking and action weaken or undermine unilateral steps. And inciting hatred within the population means awakening the basest of human-animal instincts.

January 22, 2018

Anne Applebaum’s encounter with Mária Schmidt

In an inversion of normal practice, the transcript of an interview that Mária Schmidt gave to Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum appeared on Schmidt’s blog, Látószög (Viewing Angle). If Schmidt was the interviewee, how could it happen that that she was the one who translated the interview into Hungarian and published it? János Széky, a columnist for Élet és Irodalom, expressed his astonishment on Twitter: “I just don’t get it.” If Applebaum arranges an interview with “Orbánist ideologist Mária Schmidt, spewing govt propaganda, why is it published on Schmidt’s own blog first?” Good question. As far as Anne Applebaum is concerned, the interview, which she initiated, was part of a research project she was planning for next year. In Mária Schmidt’s version, the interview took place because she “wanted to understand the changes in [Applebaum’s] thinking; why the independence and freedom of the region is no longer important to her.”

Schmidt obviously considered the publication of this interview to be politically significant, so she made sure that the right-wing Hungarian media was informed of its impending release. Identical articles appeared in Origo and Pesti Srácok, two of the most extreme right-wing media outlets of the Orbán government, articles which I suspect she herself wrote. Both had the same title: “Mária Schmidt: We are in a war of cultures.” In it we learned that Schmidt and Applebaum used to be good friends, but because Applebaum wrote several articles recently that “attacked the Hungarian government and the region” they became somewhat estranged. She didn’t neglect to mention that Applebaum was the recipient of the Petőfi Prize established by the Public Foundation for the Research of Central and East European History and Society in 2010, when Schmidt was on the board of the foundation. The day after the Origo and Pesti Srácok articles, the official government-edited Híradó, which is distributed to all media outlets, announced the interview’s availability. Naturally, her newly-acquired newspaper, Figyelő, also called attention to it. She made sure that the rather lengthy interview would reach a lot of people.

Anne Applebaum began the interview with her reactions to one of Mária Schmidt’s articles, “The grave digger of the left,” which appeared in April on the same blog in which she published the interview. The grave digger is, of course, George Soros. Applebaum was not exaggerating when she said in the interview that the accusations Schmidt piled on Soros are “absurd”; they have nothing to do with reality. But that’s not the only trouble. As I said in the first installment of my two-part review of this infamous article, “Schmidt’s piece is the result of shockingly bad research” or, even worse, an offering of “alternative historical facts.” There is no need to dissect this deplorable piece of scholarship again, but perhaps a quick read of my summary might be in order.

I must say that I’m not as charitable as Anne Applebaum, who thought highly of Schmidt as a historian, at least until she saw this blog post on Soros. I wouldn’t even call her a historian. She is a propagandist. I have never read anything by her that I consider to be a serious piece of scholarship. She has been working hard for years to come up with an alternative Hungarian history and a newly minted present reality. It is time to give up the idea of finding common ground with the Hungarian far right or, as Anne Applebaum called them, the Hungarian “neo-Bolsheviks.” Almost two years ago, Applebaum gave an interview to a Hungarian journalist whose writings at that time were supportive of the Orbán government. He cornered her at the GLOBSEC Tatra Summit Conference, where she expressed her reluctance to engage in political discussions with supporters of the government who refuse to admit the real nature of the regime. I think her instincts at that time were right. There is no use trying to have a rational conversation with someone like Mária Schmidt.

Anne Applebaum has been under attack ever since her op-ed piece appeared in the November 7 issue of The Washington Post on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. In this article she committed a mortal sin in the eyes of Viktor Orbán’s minions. She included their hero in a group of politicians—Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, and Jarosław Kaczyński—and called them neo-Bolsheviks who “have little to do with the right that has been part of Western politics since World War II, and … have no connection to existing conservative parties.” An accurate description of the current state of affairs.

The Hungarian reaction to this article was swift. Zoltán Kovács, the diligent spokesman for the prime minister’s office, announced that Anne Applebaum is suffering from “irrational Orbanophobia.” Instead of thinking of the one hundred million victims of communism, Applebaum used this date “as an opportunity to disparage democratic political parties and leaders—including Prime Minister Orbán—whom she dislikes, bizarrely comparing them to Bolsheviks.” What a disgrace to call him a neo-Bolshevik when in 1989 he “courageously stood up … to demand that the occupying Soviet troops leave the territory of Hungary.” With this article, Applebaum joins “an illustrious group, including the communist collaborator Paul Lendvai.”

The comments of Kovács were at least halfway civil, which one couldn’t say about the articles in government papers. According to János Csontos, one of the worst of the bunch at Magyar Idők, “if political baseness were part of the Olympic Games, The Washington Post would receive a gold medal” for allowing Applebaum to publish that article. Her epithet for Orbán and his populist colleagues is not the result of “stupid prejudice” and “intellectual torpidity.” Here “a new tortuous ideology is being prepared.” In another article, a right-wing commentator alleged that “Applebaum’s pills have rolled away,” a turn of phrase indicating that the person in question has lost his/her mind. 888.hu described her article as “massive screaming,” a term most often used to describe pigs just before they are slaughtered. Another article, also in 888.hu, described her as a woman prone to hysterics who “since her husband is no longer foreign minister [of Poland], has been like an offended beast of prey that circulates around the world.” The article referred to her as Mrs. Sikorski (Sikorskiné). It described her article in The Washington Post as a piece of “overarching triteness.”

As you can see, the loyal followers have been rushing to the aid of their leader. They are aghast. It is bad enough that some critics call Orbán a populist, a fascist, a Mafioso, but a Bolshevik? I suspect that Mária Schmidt felt compelled to join the choir and come up with a contribution of her own, which just happened to be an interview which wasn’t hers. This interview with Anne Applebaum was the perfect vehicle to show her loyalty to “the anti-communist hero,” as she calls him in the interview whom Applebaum dared to call a neo-Bolshevik.

November 30, 2017

Paul Lendvai, Orbán: Europe’s New Strongman. A review

Paul Lendvai latest book, which just appeared in English translation, Orbán: Europe’s New Strongman (London: Hurst & Co. and, soon to be released, Oxford University Press, 2017) is much more than the title suggests. It is a masterfully executed, concise yet complete political history of Hungary from the late 1980s to today. Anyone who’s interested in Hungarian affairs should have this book on hand. In it one can find almost everything that is critical to understanding the admittedly complicated and sometimes baffling recent events in the country. Viktor Orbán is the focus of the book; about half of its 250 pages deals with the Orbán years since 2010.

Although the book was released in England only a couple of weeks ago, several glowing reviews have already appeared, which annoyed the Orbán regime to no end. Zoltán Kovács, the  talented communication maverick in charge of misleading public opinion abroad, has not read the book yet, but he already attacked Paul Lendvai by going after The Financial Times’s reviewer for daring to call Orbán “lord and master of Hungary” when, in fact, he is a three-time democratically elected prime minister. I can well imagine what will happen when they get to the actual text.

The picture of Orbán that emerges from the pages of this book is not pretty. Lendvai acknowledges Viktor Orbán’s extraordinary talents as a politician, but what lies behind his success? Here are a few descriptions, some from Paul Lendvai himself and others from observers and people who knew Orbán personally. Ever since his student days an “absolute will to power molded his character.” One of his college friends described him as “domineering and intolerant.” There was also “an expediency about him, one without any principles.” He is a man “untroubled by any sense of scruple.” He is someone who with “grim determination and clever tactics” exploits the weaknesses of his opponents. He is a reckless opportunist with an “insatiable greed for power and money.” Igor Janke, a Polish journalist who wrote an admiring biography of Orbán (Forward!: The Story of Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban), cited unnamed staff members who described him as “a ruthless chess player of power politics, who has concentrated immense power in his own hands, power that he is unwilling to share, and that is extraordinarily dangerous. Inwardly he is full of passions which are not visible on the outside. Plays chess with people around him but in such a way that they cannot endanger his own position. He takes good care that all substantive decisions remain in his hands and he is not choosy about his methods.”

I was pleased to see that Lendvai dwelt at some length with Orbán’s troubled relations with those members of the Budapest intelligentsia who from the late 1970s had been involved in clandestine activities against the Kádár regime. These people came from professional families. They were well-groomed socially as well as intellectually, and they originally acted as tutors of sorts–politically, socially, and intellectually–to the young students who came from smaller towns or even villages. In 1993 Orbán said in an interview that “I am not a sensitive intellectual of the twentieth generation,” and “there is in me perhaps a roughness brought up from below. That is no disadvantage as we know that the majority of people come from below.” As Lendvai writes, these young students’ “initial admiration for the brilliance of some liberal and left-wing intellectuals evolved over the years into an aversion fed by inferiority complexes, later into almost open feelings of hatred.” This aversion eventually developed into “disdain for cosmopolitan Europhiles.” A “turning away from liberal positions and to the espousal of grassroots nationalist values, in contrast to the ‘alien’ left-liberal governments, has run like a thread through subsequent debates, peaking with Orbán’s open avowal of ‘illiberal democracy’ in the summer of 2014.”

Orbán grew up in irreligious surroundings. He was baptized, but as far as we know he didn’t receive any kind of religious education and refused to have a church wedding when he and Anikó Lévai got married in 1986. But once he moved Fidesz from the left to the right, his contacts with church dignitaries intensified. It was at this time that he met Zoltán Balog, the Hungarian Reformed minister who apparently took it upon himself to give religious guidance to Orbán, who had discovered that a knowledge of religion was essential for his political career. He apparently told Balog: “I was not aware that the Church is so important, such an important part of Hungarian life. I cannot talk to the people about politics if I don’t understand that!” So, it seems that it was politics that led to religiosity. Are these feelings genuine? It is hard to tell. József Debreczeni, the biographer who perhaps knows him best and whom Lendvai quotes, doubts it. As he says, “Viktor Orbán is a man who almost automatically believes in the veracity of whatever he considers to be politically useful to him.”

As I said, this book is much more than a biography of Viktor Orbán. It is a masterful analysis of almost 30 years of Hungarian political history. Starting with a short description of the late Kádár years, Lendvai covers the key aspects of political life during this period. Lendvai’s personal contacts with the political actors are immensely valuable, whether this comes in the form of an interview with Kádár or impressions of Ferenc Gyurcsány. His harshest words are reserved for Orbánism, but he doesn’t spare the socialists either. He reports on conversations with Gyurcsány, during which “he tore the Socialist party to pieces, deriding it as a party incapable of deciding whom and what it represented.” Conversations with Gyurcsány, with his staffers and secret enemies, as well as with independent commentators, confirmed his suspicions that “the Socialist party was not one of common convictions, but rather a disgusting snake pit of old Communists and left-wing careerists posing as Social Democrats.”

Throughout the book Lendvai carefully dissects Orbán’s methods of elaborately constructing  a “bastion of power” that is “impregnable to external assault.” Lendvai agrees with the general view that after two overwhelming electoral victories “the Orbán regime cannot be defeated under ‘normal’ circumstances by any free and fair election in the foreseeable future.”

Here I could cover only snippets from this remarkable book, which I highly recommend. I especially urge “Brussels bureaucrats” to read it; they could learn a lot from Orbán: Europe’s New Strongman.

October 30, 2017

The Orbán government and its American media supporters

While researching media reactions to Jean-Claude Juncker’s state of the union address, I came across Breitbart News‘s take on the speech, which was illustrated with a photo of Juncker in the company of George Soros. Breitbart, as well as other alt-right publications, are riding high on Soros-bashing. What does Soros have to do with Juncker’s vision for the future of Europe? Nothing. The article otherwise was sprinkled with Nigel Farage quotations. In general, Breitbart News is fascinated with both George Soros and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

I also visited Fox News, where I found an elevating article on the same subject titled “EU power grab: A hunk of Junck” by John Moody, executive editor and executive VP of Fox News. This opinion piece is also peppered with Nigel Farage comments, but Moody also devotes considerable space to Viktor Orbán, who called immigration “poison” and a “Trojan horse for terrorism.” Orbán is Moody’s man, someone who “will not bend” no matter how much he is being threatened by the European Union. “Sounds like a tough-talking populist candidate who bucked the political system in the United States last year. Whatever became of him?” he asks mournfully.

If some of the mainstream English-language newspapers spent as much time on Hungary as Breitbart News does, the world would be a great deal better informed about Hungarian reality. Alt-right publications are indiscriminate supporters of the Orbán regime. Here are a few headlines: “Hungary looks to ‘sweep away’ Soros-linked organizations,” “Hungary: Left-wing EU Soros puppets are attacking us for opposing mass immigration,” “Hungarian PM: We won’t let ‘Europe’s kingmaker’ Soros have the last laugh,” just to mention a few. Many of these articles were written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., the Vatican analyst for CBS, who left the priesthood in 2012 after fathering a child. Two days ago he published an article in which he rejoiced over the fact that “Hungary takes NY Times to school on Europe’s migrant crisis.” He is referring to an article Zoltán Kovács wrote as an answer to a New York Times editorial titled “Hungary is making Europe’s migrant crisis worse,” which appeared on September 8.

Kovács’s answer, which appeared on his official website, was subsequently reprinted in several English-language government publications. Williams located it on abouthungary.hu, and he found Kovács’s answer to the “sanctimonious op-ed rife with errors and misconceptions regarding Europe’s migrant crisis and Hungary’s role in protecting Europe’s borders” to be brilliant.

I took a good look at The New York Times editorial and couldn’t find all the errors and misconceptions Williams was talking about. The editorial bemoans the fact that Hungary, which opened its borders in 1989 because it was guided “by generally accepted international principles of human rights and humanitarian considerations” now behaves very differently. The country now refuses to allow refugees even to enter the country, despite the verdict of the European Court of Justice that found Hungary and Slovakia’s refusal illegal. “It is particularly sad to see countries that so poignantly celebrated the lifting of the Iron Curtain now argue, as Hungary does, that being asked to take in a small number of Muslim immigrants is somehow a violation of European laws and values.”

Zoltán Kovács’s response was titled “The New York Times editors really still don’t get it.” Why did Kovács insert the word “still”? Because Kovács already wrote a letter to The New York Times: “Dear New York Times Editors: You just don’t get it, do you?,” which Breitbart News faithfully reported on at the time. His objections to the Times’s editorial are numerous. He questions the assertion that East European countries “have stubbornly blocked entry to refugees.” He objects to the description of Viktor Orbán as a “hard-liner,” and he bristles at calling Orbán’s demand for EU reimbursement of half of the cost of the fence Hungary built to keep the refuges out “arrogant.” The overarching problem with the editorial, Kovács asserts, is that the editors simply don’t understand the European migrant situation. As he puts it, “Admittedly, it’s not easy to grasp this ‘indisputably difficult problem’ from the comforts of Midtown Manhattan.” However, Kovács is ready to share “some basic facts”–for example, that “Hungary is securing an external border of the 510 million-strong European community,” which is “a meaningful demonstration of [Hungary’s] solidarity.” He objects to the editorial’s references to international law and European values that “appeal to the ‘limousine liberal’ readership of the Times” because there is no international law, no European treaty that gives Brussels the authority to decide on immigration. Kovács closes his response with these ringing words: “As the government responsible for the safety and security of Hungarian citizens—as well as the citizens of Europe—we will not apologize for continuing to assert our right to make our own decisions on immigration and to keep Europe’s borders strong.”

Although Kovács thoroughly dissected the text, he ignored the editorial’s reference to “Hungary’s callousness.” Perhaps he decided to ignore the affront since the treatment of refugees in Hungary is widely known to be glaringly inhumane. Unfortunately, it is not only officials who treat them abominably; ordinary citizens also often show them no mercy. Perhaps you recall Index‘s report on an Iranian-Afghan couple with their three children and a fourth on its way. I told their story in a post titled “Life in the Hungarian transit zones” about a month ago. In this particular instance the husband didn’t get any rations because he had gone through Hungary once on his way to rescue his family in Macedonia. The sequel to their story was just published, which is every bit as heart-wrenching.

The Iranian-Afghan couple at the EU-financed refugee camp

After months of imprisonment in the transit zone came a surprising development: the family received asylum. They could go to a refugee camp in Hungary and be safe but outside of the transit zone they continued to receive harsh treatment. One has the distinct feeling that this behavior is intended to encourage even those who receive asylum to move on. For example, throughout the long trip the officers didn’t allow the couple to have baby formula on hand. As a result, the ten-month-old baby cried bitterly for hours. The husband was forbidden to accompany his wife to the gynecologist, although she doesn’t speak any English. They asked for an interpreter; their request was denied. As for the behavior of ordinary Hungarians, the poor man had another bad experience. He and one of his children, who had cut his hand, were taken to the hospital in Győr (18 km away), but they had to take the bus back to the camp. He gave the driver 5 euros since he had no forints. The driver took the money but wouldn’t allow them on the bus. It took them three hours to walk back to the camp.

Two days after he told his story to the reporter, the family was already in Germany. He is certain that he will not be deported back to Hungary because “people abroad know how Hungarians treat the refugees. The European Court of Justice decided in our favor twice. I have the decisions on my phone. If I tell them what treatment we received here, they will not send us back.” And, indeed, Germany hasn’t sent any refugees back to Hungary since April 11. Defending the borders of Europe is one thing, cruelty is another.

September 15, 2017

Sándor Kerekes: The Dress Rehearsal–The fate of George Lukács and his archives

When the present campaign against the Central European University started I did have some pangs of deja vue, the feeling that this did happen to me, I have experienced this feeling before. And indeed, not long afterwards, as the weekend of April the 22 has arrived I realized that the basis for the recognition was none other than the bizarre goings on surrounding the Lukács Archives.

George Lukács has been a thorn in the side of the right and the ultra-right for a long time. He was the scion of a wealthy bourgeois family, the son of a wealthy assimilated Jewish banker, who, nevertheless, signed up for Marxism, Communism and not only did he support those ”unspeakable” tenets, but was actively involved in fighting for them in the Hungarian Commune in 1919.

He was always engaged in cultural issues, but was not averse, at least not in his youth, to take action if necessary. This is how he became shortly after being the commissar for culture, a political commissar in the military. And in this capacity was he embroiled in an event of decimation of his military unit after an unfortunate defeat at Tiszafüred. The actual facts of this episode are unclear, some say he carried out the executions of seven soldiers, other say he prevented the executions and in any case, he was not the one ordering it. Nevertheless, the stigma of this event has remained with him forever.

The apartment house where George Lukács lived

After the commune he emigrated to Austria and eventually to Germany, where he met and impressed Thomas Mann, wrote and published and became involved with the Communist International, but to his detriment, because he was eventually declared a right wing heretic, ”revisionist.” His life from here on was alternating between Moscow and Berlin until finally he was forced to settle in Moscow during the darkest years of Stalinist terror. He kept on working, mostly in the field of literary criticism and aesthetics, probably to avoid notice and managed to stay out of the political infighting until he was finally deported to Tashkent by the NKVD in 1941.

At the war’s end he began his political carrier in Hungary. He was co-opted as the member of the Academy of Sciences, became the member of parliament, was appointed as a professor of the Budapest university and was also made to be the editor of a journal or two. It looked at last, after decades of misery, that he has hit his stride and was the mainstay of the communist establishment. But, of course it didn’t last. As a free spirit he soon became a stumbling stone to the party establishment, he was ”criticized” and applied the then customary ”self-criticism” to himself and soon became a political pariah again.

In 1956 he was appointed minister of culture again in the Imre Nagy government for twelve days. That lead to endless misery and also to internment in Romania. After the revolution he remained in internal exile and banishment, but managed to publish abroad, thanks to his international fame and the fact that he was writing all his works in German, that made him the darling of the western European intelligentsia.

In the nineteen sixties he informally established a kind of philosophy school, or ”circle,” including roughly twelve, or fourteen young students of philosophy, whom eventually became the cutting edge and were collectively called the ”Budapest School” of the discipline. (They were also called the ”Lukács kindergarten.”) Eventually, however, they were one by one discredited for not towing the party line and were forced either to share Lukács’s internal exile, or were forced to emigrate and become respected academics abroad. Also, they were the intellectual vanguard of the opposition that prepared later for the change of the system.

Sometime in 1965, Lukács was finally forgiven, the communist party has readmitted him as a member and for the remaining few years of his life was spent in unbridled public respect if not adulation. He died in 1971 and that was the event that started him out as the unintended hero of a new and even more surreal saga. As long as he only acted as the free spirit that he was, at all times and at all places, eventually he became the opposition of the prevailing order. He insisted on being a Marxist and a communist, but the communist establishment refused to tolerate his independence and intellectual superiority. Therefore, he always ended up censured, in being the minority of one, and the subject of permanent suspicion and exclusion. But that was fine with him, he was content taking the honest, uncompromising intellectual’s position for better and for worse. However, it is also true that in the short periods of power he used his position and doctrinaire nature to make the life of other, non-Marxist writers and philosophers miserable, often forcing them to abandon their calling and resort to a livelihood of physical labor.

It is worth keeping in mind that Lukács’s works were written in a dense German prose, heavily laden with Marxist-Leninist jargon and in any case, they are about the esoteric subjects of ethics, aesthetics, literary criticism and some kind of social science not to be mistaken with sociology. (He never managed to get ready with his all-encompassing, general work of philosophy. Although he has worked for years on the outline and the materiel. And actually, the manuscripts of this “super opus” are, besides of many others, the sought after documents the scholars come to his archives to study.) It is obvious, therefore, that the political right that ceaselessly attack him as long as they can remember, has no quarrels with his works, because they are devoid of the intellect to read and to value any of it. If there is anything that can be regarded as his ”fault,” it is his Marxism, his communism most often mentioned, but frequently with reference to his Hungarianized name that was still Löwinger in his father’s time and that it is a clear and unmistakable reference that in his case we have on our hands an “un-reconstituted, pushy, overachieving, and in any case, intolerable Jew.” This is what the ultra-right cannot forgive.

In 2011 prime minister Orbán’s hand-picked president of the Academy of Sciences has put into motion the fervent wish of all right-wing ignorami that the Lukács Archívum, located in his former apartment at the shore of the Danube, at a magnificent location, and has served the international community of social sciences and philosophy as a research institute, and a place of pilgrimage, should be shut down. Also, the George Lukács Foundation that was taking care of the collection of his books and manuscripts housed there, must be shut down because it is “bearing the dishonorable name of the Marxist-communist: George Lukács.” The Academy obsequiously agreed that the closing becomes effective January 1st 2012. This was the moment when the international outrage begun to gather and it is increasing ever since.

Although I was aware of Lukács over the years, I had no particular interest in becoming acquainted closer until the controversy erupted. Since, however, I was planning to visit his archive, as it is open to all interested researchers, only appointment is required. But, why should I deny it, I never got around to do this until this spring.

It is a recurring spring time ritual in the tourist trade in Budapest, to open certain houses, buildings to the public, usually those celebrating their one hundredth anniversary. This year, however, the buildings standing on the shore of the Danube were chosen, a fascinating array of Budapest trivia, regardless of age, and one of these, one of the most prominent ones, was the art-deco building in which Lukács spent his life from 1945 until his death in 1971. Admission only at Sunday from 5 p.m. At 4:30 there was a sizable line up. I was first. This apartment is indeed at a magnificent location, but is still in municipal possession, dusty and neglected, yet it is hard not to suspect that behind all the machinations to shut down the Archive is somebody’s grubby desire to get possession of the roughly 900 square feet flat. It was touching to see the actual unmistakable signs of obvious penury the great man has lived in. On his cheap, well-worn desk besides the elegant small bronze bust of Goethe, there lies a carton box of cheap cigars and there is the case for his iconic glasses made of papier-mâché. Of course, there are books everywhere. It is tacitly admitted after questioning that the once open book shelves that cover almost every wall, were furnished with glass doors and locks, because in the early years the admiring visitors didn’t hesitate to pinch a book or two as a souvenir of their visit. The visitors now are so numerous that I can only slowly make any progress from room to room, everybody is whispering in respectfully subdued tones, we are at the scene of history and of the battle waged for intellectual freedom. That is what happened here fifty, sixty years ago and just the same, that is happening now as I am ambling from room to room making some photographs. Of the three rooms the middle one where I luckily can speak to one of the archivists. Is it still to be closed down and if so, when will it happen? I ask him. Well, he answers in measured tone, it is no longer imminent, the new president of the Academy is less sanguine and more reasonable. Chances are that the archive will survive. They are optimistic and the visitors, scholars and gawkers alike, just keep on coming.

I was truly touched not only by the spirit of the location, but also by the reverence the other visitors have shown towards it. And then I just went home to find an ad in a weekly paper about an international conference dedicated to the life, work and importance of George Lukács, to start in four days’ time at ELTE university.

I attended this conference’ first and last days. I was amazed to learn that the obscure and impenetrable writing and theories of Lukács are a living and active legacy, practically all over the world. The participants of the conference came from a hundred countries, the presenters came from the US, Brazil, Portugal, Japan, Germany and a lot of other places, not to forget Greece. The language of presentations was mostly English, but there was a whole section’s worth of Portugal speakers too. In many respect I was vastly underqualified to understand the ideas discussed. However, reverence towards them and the intense immediacy and importance of those ideas was truly astounding.

Finally, Agnes Heller, supposedly Lukács’s favorite and certainly most famous disciple gave the closing key note address. It was, as are all her speeches, very simple and very reasonable, devoid of any scholarly frills or embellishments. And after she finished it she announced to go around the room, hearing everybody’s question personally and answering it one by one. At that moment she launched herself at the crowd, the tiny 86, or so years old, and commenced a lively conversation with the more than hundred attendees. I asked her quite early, because I was sitting close to the front, how Lukács had lived, how did he make a living. She told the story that the great man was completely without covetousness, he owned one suit of cloth, one pair of shoes and when the Academy of Sciences provided him with a car and chauffeur, one of the perks of membership at the time, he had no idea what to do with them. She also told of Lukács’ circumstances in Moscow, where he lived in condition so poor that nobody found it worth to denounce him for the sake of acquiring his apartment. This helped him to survive the hard years in Moscow.

Ágnes Heller at the Lukács Conference

The international outrage and protest seemingly managed to stave off the closing of the Lukács Archive for the time being. The attempt to get rid of it may just have been the dress rehearsal for the much greater task, the attack against the CEU. His statue, however, was not nearly as lucky. The ultra-rightists, when they saw that the Archive is probably too tenacious an issue, went full tilt against the statue, standing in a lovely park near the Danube in the last thirty-two years. The park is located in a heavily Jewish populated area, with indelible holocaust memories and here the Jewish Lukács had respect and appreciation. Not to mention that the quality of the statue was also worthy of the man and the locale. The City of Budapest council, however, was not ashamed to decide, at the behest of a young, neo-Nazi alderman, to remove the statue and remove it they did on the 28th of March this year, post haste.

And yet, as the respect and admiration for Lukács doesn’t cease to pour in, and although his statue is taken back, for some rest, to its sculptor for the time being, his Archive is on the verge of revival and a possible renovation was also mentioned. All these toing and froing around him was very similar to what is happening now around the Central European University. This is why I had the feeling of déjà vuThe statue was a small matter city hall could deal with it. But the CEU is bigger, much more important and too much depends on its existence: this is a matter for the government. The government has botched it up, awakened the protest of domestic and international community, the European Union, the United States and the scholarly community near and far. And if the story of the Lukács Archives is any indication, then we have reason to trust that the politicians’ stupidity and ineptitude will prove to be insufficient to slay such edifice of spirit and ideas such as the CEU is.

June 17, 2017

 

 

 

The political credo of László Botka, MSZP’s candidate for prime minister

The original article by László Botka, titled “Az igazságos Magyarországért,” appeared in 160 Óra on January 21, 2017. Thanks to the staff of The Budapest Sentinelit was translated into English and published today. I am grateful to the Sentinel‘s editors for permission to make the translation available to the readers of Hungarian Spectrum.

♦ ♦ ♦

The Hungarian left has not been in such a storm battered state during the entire existence of the third republic, yet Hungary has never needed the left as much as it does now.

Viktor Orbán, in power since 2010, has thrust a country that served in the 1990s as a model for democracy in Eastern Central Europe into autocracy. Any democratic political force that defeats Orbán must return to constitutional democracy and the rule of law. However, the Orbán regime has not only dismantled the rule of law and democracy, but also spread a concept of society that is deeply unjust, runs counter to the basic interests of Hungarian people, and which all true left-wing forces must fight against.

The crisis of the left wing is not only a domestic issue. The rapid advance of national populism means progressive political forces around the world have found themselves on the defensive. Talk in recent years has been about nothing else: from the refugee crisis, via Brexit, to the US presidential election. Populists promised those parts of society that have been left behind, or are just holding on, that they can once again enjoy a secure livelihood – through the repression of other groups. Migrants, the homeless, the unemployed, the “undeserving” poor, ethnic minorities, intellectuals who express solidarity with them, and civic activists are all marked down as enemies of the nation. Hungary is at the forefront of all this: here the breakthrough for national populism came in 2010 with Orbán’s “ballot box revolution”.

Photo: Péter Komka

The left is now charged with a historic task: we must put a stop to this far-right national populism, and make our own vision of society attractive once again. Populists cannot solve the crisis that exists on many levels; they only make the problem worse. A populist is like a dentist who does not dare to tell a patient with toothache what the real cause of the problem is. Instead of treating it, he prescribes painkillers. The patient may well get temporary relief, but in reality his condition is getting ever worse. The left will not get anywhere with false remedies. We must be honest, because lying to a patient is dishonorable, the effects of a painkiller are only temporary, and the problem will only return in a more serious form. The Hungarian left must present a vision of a future Hungary that we would all like to live in, somewhere we can live well.

In this piece – which will be followed by more over the coming weeks – I have undertaken to present a vision of how our homeland could become a more just country. By aiming for this goal, the left could finally haul itself out of its deep crisis. We need a politics of equality that is far removed from that practiced by the left-wing in recent years and one that is diametrically opposed to Orbán’s vision of Hungary.

Orbán dreams of a “work-based” authoritarian state in which government representatives have the last word on every issue, even when they are wrong – one where the powers that be promise a well-functioning and developed economy can be built by ending democratic debate. Some observers of Orbán’s system say the prime minister’s aim is to set up an eastern European Singapore, where Orbán could lead the country for decades as father of the nation, and hurriedly join the developed world by cutting back on political debate. To put it more simply, Orbán is offering prosperity and security in exchange for freedom and democracy.

Hungary cannot accept this deal for two reasons. First of all, because this promise is a lie. Hungary will not be the next Singapore. There is not and never will be an Orbán miracle. Instead of building a developing, authoritarian Singapore, there has been a Putinization of the country, where the promise of prosperity only applies to those favored by Orbán. For the rest there is only poverty, hopelessness and abjection – and restricted freedom. We are talking about a system where, according to the Ministry of Human Resources, capable members of society are carrying Hungary “on their shoulders” while disadvantaged people such as the disabled and the Roma are merely a burden. That is, in its own dishonest way, the government is dividing society into those who “pull their weight” and the “carried”. Yet this “carrying on the shoulders” is another lie, because the government long ago abandoned the disadvantaged to their own problems and difficulties. Society under Fidesz is a cast system in which everyone has their own place and fate. Helping the lower casts is in no way an aim of the Orbán state. This cast system is held together by the power principle. Since 2010, Fidesz has built a new feudalism, and with this it keeps Hungary on the margins of the Western world.

Orbán believes in a labor market where workers are diligent producers and desire nothing but a secure place on the production line. This is the opposite of where the developed world is heading. The knowledge-based economies of the modern world can only take off with the work of creative people. The only route to creating a prosperous, dynamic economy is one where the education system sends students brimming with imagination and creativity out onto the path. It is significant that the education budget as a proportion of GDP has sunk to tragic depths under the Orbán regime. A new left-wing government must set out the goal of transforming Hungary into an innovative, knowledge-based economy by markedly increasing funding for, and radically raising, the level of education.

Equally significant is the fact that Orbán has come up with just one idea to tackle unemployment: workfare. But is not difficult to see that no start-up entrepreneurs are going to emerge from among those on public work schemes. Moreover, it is unfortunately clear that there is no path from the prison of workfare to a real job. Orbán’s work-based state is, for hundreds of thousands of people, nothing but a dead end.

Instead of the Orbán state, where social groups are set against one another and divided into winners and losers, we need a state that actively intervenes to help people achieve their goals and, where necessary, ensure a high level of leverage for this recovery. Hungary can only be successful if an ”only the fittest survive” mentality is replaced with one of “we are all in the same boat”.

It is not only because authoritarianism does not lead to prosperity that we must say no to Orbán’s system. Authoritarianism is unacceptable in and of itself. Orbán’s cast system is unjust to its core and its authoritarianism unacceptable. As one of the 20th century’s most influential egalitarian thinkers, John Rawls, put it: justice is more important than any other parameter for evaluating societies. Equally important is Rawls’ view that freedom, equality and prosperity are indispensable building blocks for a just society, so one cannot sacrifice basic human rights in the interests of material prosperity. Therefore, we cannot choose the route of authoritarianism, because there is a better and more moral path: that of freedom and prosperity. Prosperity for the large majority of society – as the example of Scandinavian society shows – can and should be ensured when freedom and prosperity reinforce one another.

From 2018, the next left-wing government must build a successful and prosperous Hungary on a foundation of justice. To further this aim, I offer a vision of a successful left-wing state based on the ideal of equality for all as an alternative to Orbán’s authoritarian state. The three pillars of egalitarian politics are equality of opportunity, relative equality of wealth, and the principle of equal citizenship.

The ideal of equality of opportunity, a cornerstone of all western democracies since the Second World War is nothing other than the rejection of a cast system. The strong conviction is that social advancement cannot depend on others, only our own talents and endeavors, irrespective of whether we come from a rich or a poor family.

The idea of equality of opportunity cannot be reconciled with Fidesz’s politics. Under Orbán’s regime, the wealthy elite spend millions so their children can study in private schools or in Switzerland. For the poorer parts of society, an uncompetitive or downright segregated school is the first, and often the last, station.

With regard to this basic principle, the left should not shy away from self-criticism. The “third way” social democracy of the 1990s and 2000s – for which former Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány was the standard bearer in Hungary – moved too far from the idea of equal opportunity. The third-way “New Labor” party that will forever be associated with the names of British prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and its successors, gave up on material equality and placed equality of opportunity as the exclusive guiding principle. The third way soon turned hollow: it became clear that it had been naive to think that equality of opportunity alone was enough. Even if it had succeeded in ensuring social mobility in education and the world of work, material inequality and social division would not have disappeared. The left believed, and its followers believed, that modernization would create no losers, only winners. The principle of equality of opportunity promised that everyone could find a place in knowledge industry based on high skill levels, but this remained an illusion. The fate of those left out of the modern knowledge economy became ever more hopeless. Nationalist, chauvinist and populist forces picked up on this, and disappointment gave them a way to reach the people.

Photo: Zoltán Balogh

Nor can a society of equals develop when half of the country is mobile, well trained and wealthy and the other is tied to the land, unskilled and owns nothing. We cannot describe such a country as just. Inequality of wealth today is tomorrow’s inequality of opportunity. This situation in Hungary in this regard is serious. A report by Tárki in 2016 showed that 44% of the population owns no property, and 60% are incapable of adopting a middle class way of life. The most absurd thing about all this is that it we find ourselves at this point under the leadership of a government that continually invokes the name of the middle classes.

Despite Fidesz’s chief economic ideologue saying that criticism of wealth disparities arises purely from jealousy, certain social risks can really only be averted by combating economic inequalities. Research has shown that a raft of new problems arise when wealth inequality gets out of control. In societies with high social inequality, life expectancy is shorter, education is of lower quality, social mobility is restricted, and there is a higher rate of mental illness, drug addiction and crime. Hungarians’ terrible state of health and its catastrophic results in the PISA survey are grimly related to the enrichment of Lőrinc Mészáros.

So the promise of equality of opportunity is not enough to improve the lot of the half of Hungarians that have been left behind. We must also strive for relative wealth equality – this is the second fundamental principle of egalitarian left-wing politics. Instead of sports stadiums and the enrichment of the “national” oligarchy, resources must be spent on citizens. Partly in the form of quality education, partly through social security packages that reduce the lack of food and adequate housing, and risks arising from illness of the loss of a job.

Besides all this there is a third pillar to equality that is less often mentioned: the principle of equal citizenship. In a society based on equal citizenship, the prime minister has to wait in line at the baker’s, the post office or the doctor’s surgery just like anyone else. This notion of equality must become the most important guiding principle for the Hungarian left.

The principal of equal citizenship is breached by the emergence of a new cast of powerful and gracious ladies and gentlemen who do not share public spaces with the common people, do not breathe the same air. It is enough to think of the minister in charge of propaganda, who flies to parties by helicopter, or the chief government minister who shoots hundreds of pheasants while hunting with his partners, and who believes that everybody deserves their lot in life. Meanwhile, the system they put in place locks entire masses into poverty and the world of workfare. This is how Viktor Orbán and Fidesz have corrupted Hungary: in place of a nation of fellow citizens, we have become a nation of lords and lackeys. Politicians of the governing party no longer represent the interests of the people, citizens or the nation in the Parliament, merely the private goals of their separate “elite” cast. It cannot go on like this!

I see the most important task of the left as precisely that of recreating the conditions for equal citizenship. We must become worthy of representing the principles and practicing egalitarianism. We must put an end to the era of unprincipled compromise, climb-downs and putting up with things – our political actions must have a moral basis. Egalitarian politics is just, and suitable for lifting Hungary to the level of the developed Western world.

It follows from this that the next left-wing government must also conduct a principled foreign policy. Viktor Orbán swapped a western orientation based on solid moral principles for opportunistic friendships with dictators. We cannot give up the ideal of an open and free Europe in favor of a new Iron Curtain era. A European partnership built on shared ideals is the right policy, and one that serves Hungary’s interests. However much Viktor Orbán might deny it, we belong to the free world.

In my political career to date, I have used the means at my disposal to work for a free and just Hungary and the politics of equality. If I am given the opportunity by the citizens, this is what I would also like to do as prime minister of Hungary.

January 28, 2017