Tag Archives: Zoltán Bodnár

Orbán buries democracy with faint praise

After Viktor Orbán delivered his speech at the Friends of Hungary Foundation on Saturday, I received two e-mails calling my attention to it. One of them included a commentary on the speech by Zoltán Bodnár, former CEO of the Hungarian Export-Import Bank and earlier a deputy chairman of the Hungarian National Bank. Lately, Bodnár can often be seen on TV as the adviser to Gábor Fodor’s liberal party on economic matters.

Bodnár called Orbán’s speech a milestone, akin to his speech in Romania last summer about illiberal democracy. “Any of you who still have doubts about what kind of a society Orbán wants … should listen to this speech.” I searched for newspaper accounts of the event but was disappointed. I couldn’t find any earthshaking revelations in the summaries of Orbán’s speech. Bodnár must be exaggerating, I thought.

Today I know what the problem was. The summary that appeared in scores of Hungarian newspapers was prepared by MTI, the official Hungarian news agency, whose management has a keen sense of what should be left out of their reports. Anything that would create an outcry both at home and abroad must be ignored. And Bodnár was right. Those missing lines would have created an uproar if they had been widely reported.

First, I will look at the speech as it appeared on Orbán’s website. I will concentrate on those sections that were left out of the MTI summary and will also point to the prime minister’s creative use of quotation marks. Second, I will call attention to some very important sentences that were uttered during the question and answer period but were not transcribed for the prime minister’s official website.

What is it that Bodnár and others found more objectionable and more telling than Viktor Orbán’s words about “illiberal democracy”?

Democracy versus autocracy

The main theme of the speech was the necessity of breaking through political taboos that prevent us from finding the right answers to real questions. Instead of listening to our instincts, “we escape to a world of voodoo and taboo away from our own questions, the questions of our own lives.” According to the Hungarian prime minister, Europe is spending its energies on sterile debates about ideology and political systems instead of trying to find answers to such important questions as “how it is possible that while Europeans–including ourselves–value democracy over non-democratic arrangements, the latter are more successful today? Will democracy in the decades ahead–as we would like to believe–be capable of providing good political leadership?” While last summer Orbán simply talked about illiberal democracies, by now he got to the point of doubting that democracy can be a viable instrument of political leadership. While allegedly valuing democracy, he testified to the superiority and even desirability of autocracy over democracy.

Viktor Orbán in his element during the question and answer period

Viktor Orbán in his element during the question and answer period

Orbán elaborated on this theme: “The European politician is inclined to suppose that the question of political arrangement is of the utmost importance because, if it is solved, the problems of reality are automatically taken care of.” I think this sentence needs a “translation.” In my interpretation, what Orbán means here is that European politicians believe that democracy is the foundation of a healthy society and economic system, but in his opinion that is not the case. Democracy itself doesn’t solve problems, and solving problems doesn’t require a democratic system.

These were the main points that were cunningly left out of the MTI summary that circulated in the Hungarian media.

While I’m still on the main body of the speech, I’d like to point out at least one instance in which Orbán falsified his source. Orbán wanted to prove that small nations actually have an advantage over large ones in this uncertain world and that therefore “Hungary has a real chance to show new ways, new means, and methods for the benefit of the whole world.” What is the supporting evidence for this contention? Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, wrote an article a couple of months ago titled “Are You Ready for the Technological Revolution?” In it Schwab claims that “the defining features of [the new post-post crisis world] is the rapid pace of technological change. It is so fast that people are even referring to it as a technological revolution. This revolution is unlike any previous one in history, and it will affect us all in ways we cannot even begin to imagine…. In this new world, it is not the big fish which eats the small fish, it’s the fast fish which eats the slow fish.” The message is that countries, regardless of their size, will be successful as long as they respond quickly to technological challenges.

Orbán the technophobe took liberties both with Schwab’s text and with the very notion of citation. He attributed the following sentences to Schwab, putting them inside quotation marks: “The era has ended in which a big fish eats the small one. From here on the fast fish will rule while the slow ones will be destroyed. In this new world nothing will be taboo, we must study and re-evaluate all practices.

“No” to an intellectual direction that is considered progressive 

Finally, let me translate a passage that can be heard on a five-minute video in which the key sentences from the speech were collected. The most valuable part of the video is the one- or one-and-a-half-minute segment from the question and answer period. From Orbán’s answer it seems that someone from the audience must have said something about the “bad communication” of the government as the reason for Hungary’s unsavory reputation abroad. Orbán corrected him. Yes, communication could have been better, but this is not the only reason for the West’s dislike of his government. Here is the relevant text:

There is an intellectual debate in Europe about which way the Continent should be heading. What its mission is. In my opinion we are on the right side of this debate, but it is not a popular one. Today those are in the majority who think that Europe should move toward the fulfillment of individual rights, and that means three things. For example, it would help our individual freedom if we could get rid of our sexual identity. They think it would further the cause of freedom if we could get rid of our national identity. They think that we would be better off if we could rid ourselves of those ideas that stem from being God’s creatures. In this case we could make decisions more freely about life’s questions. But we don’t agree. It is better if we openly admit that. In our opinion, man will not be freer if he removes the barriers imposed on him by being a created entity. [Applause] In our opinion we don’t have to get rid of our sexual identity, our national identity. Here we cannot make concessions even if our reputation suffers. In these questions we can’t lie. The truth is that we don’t agree with the intellectual direction that considers itself progressive.

At least Orbán is honest here, which is something. It doesn’t happen too often. My other correspondent, who shared his reaction with me and many others, wrote: “I’m in despair. What should we do? What can we do? Our leader went mad. I feel sick!”

In the one published reaction to the video I found these words: “It rarely happens that I have to search for words, but it has happened. I looked at, I listened to the mad speech of our leader, and even without a degree in medicine I can say: we are in big trouble.”

What can I add to that? Perhaps I should correct the blogger who thinks that something is wrong with Orbán’s mental state. No, I am convinced that he is perfectly sane and that he believes every word in this speech as well as in many others. They are all variations on the same theme, except the message gets stronger with the passage of time. I wonder when the day will come that the Hungarian people as well as the European Union decide that they have had enough.

A new opposition candidate for mayor of Budapest, a rift in MSZP

It was about a week ago that I wrote about the Budapest municipal election. At that time there were seven candidates running against the incumbent István Tarlós, Fidesz’s choice in both 2006 and 2010. At that junction Ferenc Falus, the candidate of the joint democratic opposition, was trailing behind Lajos Bokros, former finance minister (1995-1996) and EU member of parliament (2009-2014), a man who calls himself liberal conservative. Együtt-PM, the party whose nominee Falus was, tried to convince Bokros to withdraw in Falus’s favor, but Bokros refused, saying that he was ahead of Falus in the polls. If anyone should withdraw it is Falus. At this point it looked that neither man would budge, and therefore I predicted that Bokros would be the scapegoat of the united opposition if István Tarlós wins the election by a large margin. Well, I was wrong. Yesterday Falus withdrew in favor of Bokros. György Magyar, an independent, followed suit.

So, what happened? Well, that’s not exactly clear. Here is Lajos Bokros’s side of the story. He received a telephone call from Viktor Szigetvári, co-chair of Együtt-PM, allegedly speaking in the name of all four parties–MSZP, DK, Együtt and PM–who informed him that they were ready to support him and drop Falus’s candidacy. A meeting was arranged, to be attended by representatives of all four parties, but to Bokros’s dismay only Szigetvári of Együtt and Ferenc Gyurcsány of DK showed up. Szigetvári was again asked about his authority to speak in the name of those who were absent. Szigetvári assured him that he had the authority. Falus later joined the meeting, and the participants decided to make the announcement yesterday at noon.

It turned out that Szigetvári did not in fact have the authority to speak in the name of MSZP and PM. MSZP’s Budapest executive board got together in a hurriedly called meeting as did the national executive board at a separate gathering to decide the matter. After a lengthy discussion Ágnes Kunhalmi, chair of MSZP’s Budapest board, announced last night that they support Bokros’s candidacy. A few minutes later József Tóbiás, chairman of MSZP, made a short statement. Although he did not say that the party is not endorsing Bokros, he stressed that for them it is not enough that somebody is a democrat, as Bokros surely is; he must be “a social democrat.” He expressed his great sorrow that voters of socialist convictions cannot vote for a leftist candidate. It is a shame. They had a good candidate in Csaba Horváth, who in 2010 received 35% of the votes, but on the insistence of the other three parties they sacrificed him for the sake of Együtt’s candidate, Ferenc Falus. PM earlier announced its refusal to support a liberal conservative candidate because the party can’t expect him to fully represent their green-socialist agenda.

Ágnes Kunhalmi, chairperson of the Budapest MSZP

Ágnes Kunhalmi, chairperson of the Budapest MSZP

With less than three weeks to the municipal elections at least we have two fewer candidates vying to unseat István Tarlós. It was always clear that András Schiffer’s LMP would have nothing to do with any of the other democratic parties because he is convinced that within a few years his party will be able to unseat Viktor Orbán and Fidesz singlehandedly. As far as Jobbik is concerned, the democratic opposition wants nothing to do with an anti-Semitic and racist party. That leaves only the candidate of the Magyar Liberális Párt (MLP). This is the party, if you can call it that, of Gábor Fodor, who in the last hours of SZDSZ served as its chairman. Although he makes a very good impression in interviews, people who know him say that his main concern is his own advancement.

Gábor Fodor’s behavior in the last year and a half supports his critics’ contentions about his character. In April 2013 he established his own liberal party and a year later, thanks to the intervention of Ferenc Gyurcsány, he received the #4 place on the party ticket of the united opposition. I assume Gyurcsány thought that after the election Fodor would join the DK parliamentary caucus out of gratitude. Indeed, if Fodor had done this, DK today would have a separate delegation. But once Fodor was safely ensconced in parliament representing practically nobody except himself, he had no intention of joining anyone. He decided to remain independent.

Fodor’s second move was to present his own candidate for the mayoralty of Budapest, Zoltán Bodnár, a former deputy governor of Hungary’s central bank. Considering that the party is not supposed to have any money, Bodnár’s campaign seems to be extraordinarily well financed. His posters are all over town, which has made the other democratic parties suspicious. It is widely believed by opposition politicians as well as voters that it is Fidesz who stands behind the lavish liberal campaign. This suspicion was reinforced yesterday when Zoltán Bodnár announced that he has no intention of withdrawing because he is “the only serious candidate.” At the same time, with no support for his contention, he accused Ferenc Gyurcsány of orchestrating Falus’s removal from the campaign. In his version it was Gyurcsány who “forced Falus’s withdrawal.”

In any case, at the moment it looks as if Bokros will have four opponents: István Tarlós (Fidesz-KDNP), Gábor Staudt (Jobbik), Antal Csárdi (LMP), and Zoltán Bodnár (MLP). According to Nézőpont Intézet’s poll, Csárdi and Staudt will each receive 3% of the votes. Bodnár’s name did not appear on Nézőpont’s list, but “Other” polled at 2%.

I consider the most important political development of the last couple of days to be the open split of the socialists. We have always known that within the party there is a left and a right wing. The right wing has been more open to cooperation with non-socialist but democratic parties and groups. In the Budapest MSZP these people seem to be in the majority. They think that getting rid of Tarlós in Budapest is more important than any party consideration. They feel comfortable with people in DK, among whom there are a number of former SZDSZ politicians as well as people from the moderate conservative MDF.

As far as I can recall, this is the first time that the MSZP leadership has split so openly and unequivocally. This rift may have serious repercussions–in the most dire scenario leading to the eventual breakup and possible demise of MSZP. If that happens, the hard-liners will have nowhere to go. The moderates, by contrast, have already established networks that may lead to some kind of association or even merger with other parties. The next couple of years might be more exciting than we think right now.