Fidesz vice-president and member of the parliament’s national security committee Szilárd Németh says Politics Can Be Different (LMP) MP Bernadett Szél cannot participate in the committee’s next meeting, reports 444.hu.

“Bernadett Szél and her party, LMP, are serving George Soros’s interests. Therefore, the opposition politician cannot participate in the national security committee’s meeting dealing with the Soros-plan,” Németh said at a Monday press conference.

The Fidesz MP said that since the government had asked “the people” about the “Soros-plan”, LMP politicians had been working to discredit the national consultation and telling all sorts of lies about it. Németh said Szél is in the pay of the Open Society Foundations’ George Soros as she used to work for NGOs financed by Soros. He stressed that Szél used to work as a project manager for the “migrant caressing” NGO Menedék (Shelter), the Hungarian Association for Migrants.

“I think someone who is a paid employee of the Soros empire […] cannot participate in the national security committee’s meeting,” Németh said.

He recalled that Szél had met European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Věra Jourová who, according to Németh, also happens to be a Soros hireling, concluding that “the relation between LMP and Soros, and Soros and EU policy are clearly visible.”

According to Szél, Németh’s statement is only an acknowledgment that she is doing her job well. The prime ministerial candidate of LMP told 444.hu that the reason for his anger might be the fact that she posed questions with “unusual thoroughness” to employees of the Constitution Protection Office, Hungary’s internal security intelligence agency tasked with uncovering the “Soros-network.” According to the LMP co-chair, at the meeting of the national security committee it became clear that no such network exists.

“The intelligence agency presented a material anybody could gather from the internet,” Szél told the news site.

She said she had contacted the Counter-terrorism Information and Criminal Analysis Centre with a request to declassify the Constitution Protection Office’s report. Szél argues that the report is overrated and, were it released to the public, people would see there is no “Soros-network”. According to her, Fidesz’s objective is for people to only know the “propaganda reality” instead of reality.

According to the current laws, committee members cannot be legally banned from national security committee meetings. 444.hu contacted the chair of the national security committee, the Hungarian Socialist Party’s (MSZP) Zsolt Molnár, who confirmed that there is no way Fidesz could ban anybody from the meeting. Németh had simply made a political statement, Molnár argued.

The exact date of the next committee meeting has yet to be announced. However, the government is said to be preparing an “anti-Soros” legislative package this week that may very well include restrictions on opposition MPs’ participation in committee meetings.

The post Szilárd Németh forbids Bernadett Szél from attending next national security committee meeting appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

Liberal/green party LMP (Politics Can Be Different) posted the following to its website yesterday:

Fidesz’s main policy is corruption—LMP again holds a thematic parliamentary day.

LMP’s position is that over the past 7 years the government institutionalized pervasive and suffocating corruption of every kind.  Under the leadership of Bernadette Szél, LMP confronts Fidesz’s crimes and presents the party’s proposed solutions.

By its own admission the Fidesz government considers corruption to be its main policy. Among other things, the systematic theft can best be seen in the plundering of EU funds, the Paks loan, the settlement bond businesses, the theft of the private pension funds, and in the disappearance of national wealth and the loss of public money.

LMP’s position is that corruption undermines the moral order of society: where unauthorized advantage becomes the norm, citizens can rightfully believe that nothing is as it appears. It is not surprising, then, that according to Eurobarometer’s latest research 86 percent of Hungarian inhabitants see clearly that the country suffers from all-pervasive corruption. 

Under the leadership of Bernadette Szél LMP is confronting Fidesz with its crimes in today’s parliamentary session.  Furthermore, we are presenting a package of anti-corruption points which confirm that an LMP government will be the first one without corruption.

Criminal proceedings to be finally launched after 2018:

The post LMP names and shames corrupt Fidesz politicians, supporters appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

Interior Minister Sándor Pintér left through a back door after appearing at a closed session of the parliamentary National Security Committee on Tuesday, where he took questions regarding potential threats posed to Hungary’s national security by what the government has called the “Soros network.”

But according to opposition members of the committee present at the closed session, Pintér and his national security agencies have been unable to uncover any threat to Hungary posed by Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros or the civil organizations he supports in the country.

“I thoroughly tried from every direction to determine whether a [Soros network] exists and how it works,” said committee member Bernadett Szél (LMP) after the session where she questioned Pintér. “I tried to get information, and I can say with a completely clear conscience that no such intelligence information is available to suggest that some kind of genuine network is operating here.”

It was announced last week that the government had asked Pintér to present the findings of an investigation conducted by national security agencies on national security risks posed by Soros and the civil organizations he supports. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in a radio address in late October, called for the agencies to “expose” the Soros network to the public, and alleged that the network “has an elaborate zone of influence in the European Parliament and in other institutions of the European Union.”

But despite such claims, and months of assertions through state propaganda that Soros and the NGOs he funds are working to destabilize Hungary, signs increasingly indicate that the Soros plan and Soros network concepts are little more than political scare tactics employed by the Hungarian government to retain its power.

According to information on the closed session procured by index.hu, Pintér gave diplomatic answers to questions regarding his findings on the existence of a Soros network. His answers reportedly resembled those he gave to the media days ago in which he said, “I don’t know whether George Soros poses any danger, but ideas he promulgates do not conform to the Hungarian conceptions and to Hungarian law. An open society, a society without borders are not accepted at the moment. They are futuristic.”

Brussels takeover

Prime Minister Orbán himself has repeatedly asserted that Soros has infiltrated numerous European institutions which are now carrying out his vision of changing the ethnic composition of the continent.

“The Soros network has an elaborate zone of influence in the European Parliament and in other institutions of the European Union,” Orbán said in an October radio address. “Its aim is to create a mixed-population Europe and to condemn Hungary for opposing this.”

Orbán also alleged that according to “documents leaked from the Soros empire,” members of the “Soros network” work to impose its migration policies on Hungary, and there is a “Soros list” containing some 200 “friendly” MEPs who work to create a “mixed-population” Europe.

But as index.hu points out, it would be a difficult task for Hungarian intelligence services to prove that a secretive network has taken over numerous institutions of the European Union and is surreptitiously working to implement Soros’ ethnic- and social-engineering master plan.

But that hasn’t stopped the Hungarian government from continuing to assert just this. Even after the Fidesz European Commissioner Tibor Navracsics insisted repeatedly that the Soros Plan does not exist and the concept is “a rhetorical element of the upcoming election campaign”, the government has not relented in its claims. Orbán even used Navracsics’ denials as proof that the Soros Plan was even more secretive than anyone might have thought, because even a European Commissioner doesn’t know about it.

The post Interior Minister can’t find evidence to support gov’t claims of “Soros network” appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

Politics Can Be Different (LMP) prime ministerial candidate Bernadett Szél was barred from giving a lecture at Budapest’s Corvinus University, reports index.hu.

Szél was invited by the student organization Economists in Public Policy (KDSZ) to share her party’s public policy vision for public health-care, education and the national economy.

The event would have been held on November 21 had the university’s leadership not cancelled it. Index.hu contacted the Directorate of Communications of Corvinus, which confirmed that the university had barred Szél’s event.

The Directorate of Communications argued that “the university is committed to the values of university autonomy, freedom of speech and dialogue,” and would always give home to scientific and public policy debates. According to the directorate, Szél’s lecture would not have fit into either of these categories.

“So far, we have not provided a place for public campaign events with a party political interest, and will not do so hereafter,” said the university spokesman. Over the years many politicians have been welcomed by the university.  In 2015 for example, Budapest Mayor István Tarlós was allowed to speak and take questions on any topic.

Corvinus also hosted the debate between Momentum Movement chair András Fekete-Győr and Balázs Fürjes, the government commissioner responsible for the Olympics about holding Olympics in Budapest, during which the withdrawal of the Hungarian application for the 2024 Games was announced.

The university also hosted two prime ministerial debates, although it was called Budapest University of Economics at the time. One, in 1998, was between Socialist (MSZP) Prime Minister Gyula Horn and a young Viktor Orbán. Then in 2002, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán debated with his MSZP challenger Péter Medgyessy.

Rector of Corvinus University András Lánczi was appointed in April 2016. Previously Lánczi was president of the board of the Fidesz-tied think-tank Századvég Foundation. At the time of the pro-Central European University protests, Lánczi sent a letter to university employees in which he warned them to “refrain yourselves from showing your worldview and political preferences”.

The post Bernadett Szél barred from giving lecture at Budapest’s Corvinus University appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

Opposition Members of Parliament had the chance to directly address Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a National Assembly session Monday, which produced some notable responses. Index.hu covered the session.

Perhaps the most dramatic incident was Orbán demanding an inquiry against Politics Can Be Different (LMP) co-chair Ákos Hadházy after the anti-corruption politician confronted the Prime Minister about a medical public procurement, reports HírTV.

Hadházy noted that General Electric (GE) had filed a complaint with the Public Procurement Authority after GE found a public procurement for breathing machines issued by the National Healthcare Services Center (ÁEEK) to be tailored to the needs of only one bidder. The bidder that won the contract, moreover, gave a USD 2.65 million higher bid than GE. Even though the arbitration committee confirmed that the procurement only suited one bidder, and fined ÁEEK HUF 50 million (USD 189,400), an undersecretary later denied that the procurement was rigged. Hadházy turned to Orbán to find out who was right, the undersecretary or the arbitration committee.

Instead of answering the question, Orbán responded with an angry outburst, accusing Hadházy of lobbying for GE:

“A representative stands up in the Hungarian Parliament and starts to lobby for a company,” Orbán said. “How much money did you receive for this? How dare you? How dare you lobby for a company in the Hungarian Parliament during an ongoing public procurement? Now, I have been sitting here for many years but I have not seen a case more corrupt than this, shame on you!” According to 444.hu, the Prime Minister later said that he is demanding an inquiry against Hadházy.

HírTV revealed that last week the ÁEEK was fined an additional HUF 5 million (USD 18,900) over another improper public procurement for an anesthetist workstation.

Burned-out despot

Jobbik chairman Gábor Vona confronted Orbán over apparent attacks against the far-right party by Fidesz-dominated government institutions. Vona asked Orbán whether he considered it “sportsmanlike” that Orbán’s “own people” were “continually damaging other parties’ billboards,” or that Orbán himself was attempting to silence Jobbik “using illegal tools like the State Audit Office, government offices, the police, the prosecutor’s office, basically everything.”

“I ask you nicely not to come at me with George Soros or with Lajos Simicska, because I’ve already told you countless times that neither I nor the majority of the country is curious about your personal wars,” Vona said, referring to Fidesz’s anti-Soros campaign and accusations that Jobbik is being secretly financed by former Fidesz treasurer and exiled oligarch Simicska.

“The question, Mr Prime Minister, is whether you can fight in a sportsmanlike way. My question…is whether you will ever be a democrat, or will you depart from [the prime ministership] April 2018 as a burned-out despot.”

Orbán shot back at Vona, saying that the government does not deal with Jobbik’s party financing or billboard issues, and that, in his opinion, “you guys are simply lame.”

Vona replied by saying that he had first been drawn into politics 15 years ago at Orbán’s personal invitation into his “citizens’ circle” (polgári kör), and since then he had learned a great deal from the Prime Minister.

“I learned a few things about how to handle political situations, and I learned a lot more about how not to handle them. I learned that a political leader cannot lose his dignity. And you Mr Prime Minister, have lost your dignity. You don’t care about the people, the wages, the pensioners, the youth, the emigration…but your little stadium, your little train, and your big money. That’s the only thing you care about.”

Healthcare? Soros!

Politics Can Be Different (LMP) co-chair and prime ministerial candidate Bernadett Szél also addressed Orbán, telling him “we aren’t interested in the Soros Plan,” but that “under your leadership the number of infections in hospitals has doubled. What can you say to that?”

Orbán answered the question on healthcare by saying Szél would rather not hear about the Soros plan “since you were program director at the Menedék Hungarian Association for Migrants, and as a part of the humanist movement, you were a member of the Soros network.”

(Szél was the program director for the human rights NGO between March and June 2002.)

Szél answered by saying that she had also worked in the Central Statistical Office (KSH) and therefore knows precisely how much the government is spending on public healthcare.

“On this side we see clearly that the emperor wears no clothes,” she said, adding, “beyond the walls the entire opposition is mobilized” against Orbán.

The post Orbán demands inquiry against Hadházy, responds to direct questions from opposition in Parliament appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

Two weeks ago, the village of Őcsény was the scene of a national scandal. Villagers threatened the life of a local guesthouse owner, slashed his tires, and vowed to do what they could to prevent him from providing shelter to bonafide refugee families.

Prime Minister Orbán responded to the scandal by siding with the outraged villagers, and condoning their violent actions against the owner of the guesthouse.

We asked the leaders of 10 opposition parties what they thought of the Őcsény scandal. Here’s what they told us.

Lajos Bokros, MOMA

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

I am sad to see that the citizens who have been incited by this fascist government chose to deliver “people’s justice” — this is both unlawful and a crime!

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Viktor Orbán’s response encourages others to criminal acts and is therefore a criminal act in and of itself.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

People who have been given refugee status must be guaranteed freedom of movement. This is enshrined in international law.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would assist in taking care of the refugees, just as MoMa [Movement for a Modern Hungary] did in 2015.

András Fekete-Győr, Momentum

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

Unfortunately, what happened in Őcsény shows where these hate campaigns can lead…Orbán’s propaganda brings the worst out in people: it redirects people’s deepest fears (for example, those who have lived in small settlements who, even after eight years of Fidesz governance, still see no future for themselves and are still struggling to get by) towards groups that cannot even be lumped into one, because as long as we are terrified, we do not have to talk about the conditions of hospitals or the lagging education system. We are working to unite society and usher in political peace. Orbán politics – which play on people’s fears – will backfire because it is uncontrollable. It can sweep him away at any time, if the people come to believe that Orbán can no longer protect them.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

The other similarly strong statement Orbán made was that “[the Hungarian people] have been lied to so much with this migrant issue that they no longer believe that only children will come.” Ever since he has said this, he still has not made it clear who has been doing the lying. It is Orbán’s propaganda that is doing the lying, and that is why his statement is so disgusting. If he approves of the method in which [the residents of Őcsény responded to the guesthouse owner providing a place to rest for the families], surely he is also impressed with the “decidedly firm, loud, and clearly-understandable” manner in which Lajos Simicska expressed his opinion of Orbán.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Momentum’s goal is to set up a humane and effective system in which the interests of the Hungarian state, individual citizens, those crossing the border, and the European Union all prevail. We will do away with the various [bureaucratic layers] to ensure that the procedures for those crossing the borders will be conducted by a state agency, from the moment they enter the system until the moment their procedure has been concluded. While they are here, the asylum-seekers will only be permitted to leave the closed facilities on justifiable grounds, but they will be able to move freely within the shelter. Additional office space with increased capacity will be provided to authorities to process asylum claims.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

It is in no one’s interest to take someone to a place where they might fall victim to some harm. It is for this reason – because of the misguided fear that the propaganda has stirred up – that we would first concentrate on conflict prevention and start by consulting with locals.

Gábor Fodor, Hungarian Liberal Party

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

I would like to point out two things here. First, it is important to see that – despite the hate campaign – the situation is not completely hopeless. There are open and kind people in Hungary who are eager to help. At the same time, we also see where this irresponsible hate campaign leads to. It may set back by 20-30 years the ability of people to live normally side by side and the acceptance of others who might be different. In my opinion, this is one of the most harmful things that the Orbán government has done to this country.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Viktor Orbán either does not understand the situation, or he does — which is even worse. If he does not understand what is happening, it is tragic. If he does understand, and is simply cynical, it shows that he is only concerned with victory and guided by political profit — this is even more tragic. I think it is unacceptable for someone to speak this way in a bar, let alone the prime minister speaking this way in front of an entire nation.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Those who have been granted refugee status must be ensured the freedom of movement. The cornerstone of liberal refugee policy is humanity and liberal order. The laws must be followed and executed. Aside from the perspective of humanity, the UN Charter and EU laws also require Hungary to do its part in assisting those who have fled their homes.

We agree with the German liberal party’s position that a refugee status is a temporary status, therefore those with refugee status must return home once the conflict has been resolved. This is something that is important for the post-civil war reconstruction of these countries. Immigration is another issue: it is currently in Hungary’s interest to develop a regulated and comprehensive immigration policy. We, liberals, agree with the immigration system used in Canada. This is what ensures secular rule of law and an educated labor force.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

Naturally, I would go there and help them, just as I did with my fellow party members two years ago. These people need help, not more contempt and persecution.

György Gémesi, Új Kezdet

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

It’s tragic and extremely saddening to see the kinds of emotions that flared up at the town hall forum against someone who was trying to do something charitable. This business owner and a foundation were trying to do something nice by providing support for a few days to people recognized as refugees by the Hungarian government. The locals lost their heads and responded with such hate. As a mayor myself, I am sad to see the mayor of Öcsény’s resignation. He was a very prepared mayor who served that area for 11 years. The settlement really went too far with this.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

My opinion is that the prime minister was not entirely appraised of the situation. He did not see the clips that the television news reports played. Despite this, I think his response to the incident was not a response. If the prime minister, the man who leads the Hungarian state, sides with the outraged locals over those who enjoy the protection of the Hungarian state, then he accepts that the people are essentially criticizing the state’s decisions. From this perspective, this village rejects the prime minister and the Hungarian state. This is a consequence of the hate campaign that has been directed at the refugees, Soros [of the Open Society Foundation], Brussels, and other institutions. This is the huge problem, not what the prime minister said. If he is really that out of touch, then he obviously will not admit that he received criticism. The behavior of the residents of Őcsény was a criticism of the Hungarian state and the Hungarian government.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

If someone receives refugee status, that person must be guaranteed freedom of movement — there’s no other way about it. One does not have to come from Africa, Syria, to receive this protection. They can come even from Transcarpathia. Whoever receives refugee status in Hungary – be they Turkish, Syrian, Transcarpathian, even Russian – enjoys the protection of the Hungarian state. That’s all there is to it. Now, whether someone rightfully received refugee status is another question, but that’s not mine to decide. But if someone receives refugee status, you simply cannot restrict their freedom of movement. You can’t just lock that person in a box. And we should not confuse refugees with non-refugees. But, in this case, we are talking about people with refugee status — people just like those many Hungarians in 1956. They received refugee status because the Russians were in this country.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

Nothing. What would I do? Should I go over to where they will be? What should I do? If there is a guesthouse and the owner says that the refugees will be his guests for a week, then all they have to do is play by the rules. If he owns an empty house and invites someone over, that’s his business because that’s his private property. This man did not invite criminals to his house, he did not take terrorists there, he invited people that had been guaranteed the protection of the Hungarian state. Looking at it this way, I simply don’t see what the issue is.

Ferenc Gyurcsány, Democratic Coalition

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

[Biologist and ethicist] Vilmos Csányi has taught us that it is coded in our genetics to be afraid of cultures and individuals who do not necessarily conform to our community. Our own communities offer us security, while foreign communities pose a challenge. That’s how simple the code is. But while the modern world has dramatically reduced these fears – in some communities these fears are almost completely gone – the fears have not all passed. What is at least as important to note is that deep-rooted fears can be triggered by outside stimulus, they can be triggered.

In recent years, the otherwise peaceful residents of Őcsény have become slaves to the government’s traumatizing public rhetoric inciting fear of foreigners. They have become trapped by fear. That is no justification for the behavior of the key local players who instigated this situation, or those who took part in the vandalism. While their responsibility is indeed serious, I do feel the government’s responsibility for this situation is far more serious.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Orbán’s position is morally abject, and constitutes a public and criminal crime. If Orbán agrees with stigmatizing, discriminatory and unlawful behavior against a societal group then he is an inciter, someone who disregards his own duty to his fellow man, his proclaimed Christian values, and the totality of Hungarian constitutionalism and legal order.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

The freedom of movement cannot be taken from individuals who lawfully received refugee status. It is an unquestionable part of their legal status and existence as human beings.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would help them get set up in their homes, find schools for their children, find a physician for the family, and I would invite them over so that we could get to know each other.

Péter Juhász, Együtt

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

It is very unfortunate that the government’s relentless, violent, disgusting, and deceitful campaign of hatred has led to this. Viktor has reached his goal: using his lies to turn Hungarians against Hungarians, while completely distracting the public from addressing how much Lőrinc Mészáros has stolen for him.

We have to recognize that this is no longer only about whether the residents of Őcsény would welcome refugees in their settlement. Of course, it is also unfortunate that the question even arises despite it being completely evident that the refugees are actually children who are persecuted and in trouble. This situation is also about an atrocity committed against a Hungarian man, a resident of Őcsény, because he wanted to help, because he wanted to do something humane, because he did not buy into the government’s propaganda, because he dared to think differently from the majority.

For this reason, I cannot put blame on the residents of Őcsény for this atrocity, because they only acted in the manner for which the government propaganda trained them. After so many hate campaigns, it is understandable that they would be so afraid, even if there is no reason for them to live in fear.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Viktor Orbán has just openly advocated for inciting violence. Hungary’s prime minister cannot endorse that citizens deliver justice on their own by threatening and assaulting another citizen, damaging that person’s property, or curtailing that person’s right to self-determination. Only the state has a monopoly on the use of force, and even, under lawful and justifiable circumstances in conformity with the rule of law, may the state use force. It is precisely the statements like those made by Viktor Orbán that have led to lynchings and genocides the world has witnessed in the not-too-distant past. His position is completely unacceptable.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Együtt has made it clear on numerous occasions that Hungary must take an active role in resolving Europe’s refugee crisis and that it must support a refugee quota. We have also made it clear that we believe not everyone must be accepted, but that we have a responsibility to welcome those who are fleeing war, violence, and certain death. These people must not be treated as criminals because they are not criminals. After assessing national security risks, we must follow European norms and ensure the free movement of these people, just as it is our responsibility and in our interest to ensure quality integration programs for them to help them learn the Hungarian language, offer them an education, and even help them learn about Hungarian history and culture. When this issue was raised, we offered a policy to deal with it.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would be the first person to organize support from civil society for the refugees. I would organize a fundraising campaign, a philanthropic movement, and would facilitate an opportunity for locals to get to know the refugees. I would handle any potential fears from the locals by engaging them through pamphlets and town hall forums. Effective communication can work miracles and I believe even the most hostile situation can be managed with helpful information, development of skills, and empathy.

Gergely Karácsony, Párbeszéd

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

It is infinitely saddening that Fidesz’s years-long hate campaign has caused such fear and division in Hungary. Normal discourse has completely disappeared between neighbors, and while the visit of six refugee children prompted such emotions in Őcsény, no one in the village is talking about the fact that there is no local pediatrician, the local savings cooperative has closed, the village’s only ATM will be removed, and there is no wood for heating.

This is the situation around the entire country and this is what Fidesz’s goal has been all along: to use a nightmarish picture conceived by Orbán to distract the citizens from failed governance (inequality, the failed education system, the state of health care, etc.) and industrialized theft.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Viktor Orbán either does not know that Őcsény was the scene of vandalism and life-endangering threats (which I doubt), or he knows this and tolerates it, even condones it. If the latter is the case, we must recognize that the chairman of Fidesz has sunk to a never-before-seen moral low: he is encouraging Hungarians to turn on each other. It appears that warlike rhetoric is slowly making way for instigating civil war. That is why we decided to file a criminal complaint for what he said.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Those who have been granted refugee status in Hungary or other EU Member States have proven that they have fled war, and we know they do not pose a national security risk. We do not need to be afraid of them, there is no reason for us to reject them, and there is no reason for us to curtail their freedom of movement.

We know that many people are afraid of strangers, but if we take the time to get to know a refugee or a refugee family, we will see that they are people just like us, except that they are in a much more difficult situation.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

The Zugló city council accepted my proposal with two-thirds support – which included the Fidesz deputy mayor’s vote – that our municipality would provide a warehouse for those philanthropic organizations helping the refugees. We, the residents of Zugló, have always found a way to live peacefully among each other. Today, this district is diverse and I do not believe that a few visiting refugees would ruffle feathers.

For this reason, I would do nothing and would instead try to ensure that no one would  take advantage of people in a difficult situation in order to break the peace.

The role of politics in not to create stress, it’s supposed to do the exact opposite: to harmonize opposing interests and perspectives. For my part, I would like a district and a country where there is peace, where everyone feels at home, where everyone counts.

Gergely Kovács, Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

The residents of Őcsény are in imminent danger. It is for this reason that I suggest, for security reasons, we build a fence around the village, institute curfews after 4pm, and restrict marriage between homosexuals and Muslims.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

The prime minister’s statement legalizing tire-slashing will give a significant boost to tire salesmen.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

We will build an overpass over the country for them.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would roll over to my other side.

Gyula Molnár, MSZP

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

It is very unfortunate that Fidesz’s hate campaign has resulted in this. This campaign is Fidesz’s way to distract the people from seeing how it is looting the country. If MSZP was in government, we would live in a more peaceful country where the government would not generate fear, but would instead work to increase citizens’ sense of security. That does not require much beyond working for each other — and not against each other as Orbán does.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Viktor Orbán defended crimes that are listed in the Hungarian criminal code — threatening someone with decapitation, truculence, and vandalism. This is incredibly harmful and I do not think there is any other way to interpret his words.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Anyone who has received refugee status has been thoroughly vetted by Hungarian authorities and was not found to pose any risk that would otherwise restrict their entry into Hungary. If these people do not pose a risk, why would we lock them behind bars?

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would like to make this clear: we are talking about refugees, not migrants. Anyone who receives refugee status in Hungary has been thoroughly vetted by Hungarian authorities and was not found to pose any risk. For this reason, I don’t see why I should be concerned if a refugee comes to my municipality.

Bernadett Szél, LMP

What are your thoughts on this Őcsény story?

What transpired in Őcsény is outrageous, and it is shameful that we are now at the point where refugees in Hungary – who have gone through every legal procedure – cannot spend a few days in peace at a privately-owned guesthouse. It is a complete failure of the rule of law that this could happen. But we must see that something like this would not have happened three or four years ago. What happened in Őcsény is the result of the several years long hate campaign which cost many billions of forints and was executed by the Orbán government. The billboards, national consultations, commercials veiled as being social information ads, the one-minute propaganda news reports, and constant [derogatory use of the word] “migrants” — Fidesz used everything in its arsenal to cast a nightmarish image of refugees.

What do you make of Orbán’s statement that he does not see anything wrong with the town’s response to the refugees visiting the guesthouse?

Instead of Viktor Orbán and Fidesz looking inwardly and acknowledging what their anti-refugee campaign has resulted in, the government is proud of what happened. No, what happened is not right and no, this is not how Hungarians would behave under normal circumstances. With this statement, Viktor Orbán condoned – in fact, supported – that Hungarians turn against each other.

Viktor Orbán has arrived at the point where he is now openly condoning truculence, violence, and racist hate-related acts. Therefore, Viktor Orbán has openly decided to stand on the side of violent criminals instead of those who are innocent — this a new low in Hungarian political culture.

Viktor Orbán legitimized threats specifically made against the life of the owner of a lawfully operating guesthouse, a man who has no connection to any civil society organization or public funds, because of a decision he made. In fact, Orbán expressly gave his support to these threats. Orbán claimed the Hungarians have been lied to about the migrants. He is right about that, he is the one who has systematically lied about this for the past three years.

It will be a slow process until we finally bring peace to this society, until we are able to change the fear and hate that has inundated society for years, but LMP will do this after 2018 because a successful Hungary cannot be built on hate.

What is your party’s message to Hungary’s voters regarding the free movement of individuals that have been granted refugee status?

Anyone that receives refugee status, that is, anyone who is legally in Hungary, is entitled to the rights and opportunities enshrined in Hungarian law, the Fundamental Law, and the Geneva Convention. Any curtailing of these rights is unconstitutional and runs counter to international law. Because the aforementioned laws guarantee the free movement of refugees, any curtailing of them is clearly a restriction of rights.

What would you do if you learned that your municipality planned to welcome refugees?

I would facilitate the opportunity for dialogue because everyone needs to become acquainted with the other’s life story and background. Instead of hate-mongering, there is need for everyone to understand where the other person is coming from because Hungarians are not a hateful people: they are open and eager to help. This is what needs to be facilitated, not hate-mongering.

The post How Hungary’s opposition leaders reacted to the Őcsény fiasco appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

On Wednesday, LMP parliamentarian and national security committee member Bernadett Szél held a joint press conference with László Majtényi, founder of the Eötvös Károly Institute, to discuss the implications of Fidesz’s war on NGOs and the use of Hungary’s national security services for political purposes. Szél and Majtényi’s remarks implied that lines are blurring between politics and national security: Hungary is well on its way to becoming a police state.

Background

Last week, following a meeting of the national security committee, Fidesz vice-president and committee co-chair Szilárd Németh publicly claimed that Hungary’s secret services see a “serious risk” that street riots will take place before the upcoming national election. Németh proceeded to name three opposition activists whose names had been brought up during the committee’s closed meeting.

He warned that “foreign-funded organizations” and certain individuals are intent on taking part “in the disruption of Hungary’s internal order.”

The overarching problem

At Wednesday’s press conference, Szél lambasted Hungary’s ruling party for intentionally using the committee for political purposes.

According to Szél:

• Németh’s campaign against the “Soros network collaborating” NGOs is completely baseless.
• The government is trying to use the national security committee for its own political purposes, and the committee’s most recent meeting crossed a line that “the country cannot simply let slide.”
• Németh broke the law when he divulged specifics (which are classified) of what was discussed during the meeting.

Szél said she tried to file a criminal complaint against Németh for divulging classified information, but Hungarian law does not allow her to do so because she personally has no standing in the matter.

“Surely unconstitutional”

According to the law, neither Szél nor the individuals named by Németh can file a criminal complaint in the matter. The only one with standing in this case is the entity responsible for classifying the information — the Constitutional Protection Office, Hungary’s internal security agency.

This obscure anomaly prompted Szél to turn to the Constitutional Protection Office to request that they file the complaint. (Szél later said she would submit a bill modifying the law to allow for affected parties to file criminal complaints on their own.)

Eötvös Károly Institute founder László Majtényi commented that the existing law referred to by Szél is “surely unconstitutional.”

According to Majtényi, the situation in Hungary now is reminiscent of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, where critics of the one-party state were ruled insane, locked in asylums, and given electroshock treatment.

In Hungary, new national security risks had emerged: autonomous person, autonomous groups, and autonomous organizations, Majtényi said. “Anyone who seeks intellectual and moral independence will be treated as a national security risk in this campaign.”

Majtényi, citing historian István Bibó’s remarks in the 1950s, said “every manifestation of this brutal state must be ended.” Majtényi later added that all this must be done within constitutional limits, adding that the problem is far greater than just Szilárd Németh; it is about a systemic problem.

Draft bill thumbs nose at ECHR ruling

Emese Pásztor, a junior researcher with the Eötvös Károly Institute, then took the floor to address the government’s draft bill that would modify a law on secret information gathering. The law was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in January 2016 after the court found that the state’s security services were able to conduct secret surveillance of citizens without judicial oversight or suspicion that a crime had been committed.

Hungary’s Ministry of Interior was compelled to modify existing legislation to conform with the ECHR’s ruling. In August 2017, the Hungarian government released its draft bill.

According to Pásztor, there are three main problems with the interior ministry’s bill:

• The bill states that the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH) would be responsible for supervising the secret gathering of information, whereas the ECHR recommended judicial control.
• The bill states that warrants for secret information gathering are to be issued by the justice minister and that the NAIH could only issue an opinion of the warrant. In other words, the security services could perform secret information gathering of citizens for up to a week before the NAIH could shut it down. The ECHR recommended that warrants be issued by an entity independent of the executive, such as a judge.
• The bill also introduces an ex-post remedy to citizens targeted by secret information gathering. Such individuals can submit a “surveillance complaint” to the NAIH. But the Eötvös Károly Institute says this remedy is no good in its current form, and instead calls on the government to take steps to ensure citizens targeted by secret information gathering are informed when it no longer poses a threat to national security.

The post Hungary well on its way to becoming a police state appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

The Orbán system is a historically unsuccessful system that has caused enormous damage, says Democratic Coalition (DK) chairman Ferenc Gyurcsány.  In an interview with our paper by the former head of government, the subject of the irresolvable dispute over principles with László Botka and the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) came up, as well as the striking differences between the politics of the two parties.  We covered why he does not support Gábor Vágó’s referendum initiative, what he thinks about Márton Gulyás’ movement and Agora. Youth also came up and neither DK nor the other parliamentary parties address them.  We also learned that for Christmas baby Jesus will bring documents about Viktor Orbán’s secret foreign bank accounts.  Finally, we spoke about what he thinks about Bernadette Szél and LMP, the kind of person Ron Werber is, and the subject of his recent SMS exchange with him.

What do you think? Will baby Jesus bring documents about Viktor Orbán’s secret foreign bank accounts for Christmas this year?

I would like it if he would bring it by October 23rd.

How are things? Have you managed to meet since then with the person who is in contact with him?

There is one point of contention.  If I buy a washing machine, I would like to know that I am really getting that and not a toaster.

You’ve already served up this analogy in a few places.  Can you elaborate?

Look, if I were to give a fraction of the money for it, I would still like to know what I am seeing with my own eyes if authentic. For this I need to be able to authenticate it before paying for it.  There are various, rather complicated, legal and trust issues.

But is there any progress in the matter?  Because this way the thing just hovers.

Hovering is better than crashing. I can only come forward with authentic papers.  I am working on obtaining them.

Some weeks ago I had an interview with political analyst Zoltán Ceglédi who said “Whenever did it happen that anyone within DK expressed a firm opinion that went contrary to Ferenc Gyurcsány?” I don’t really recall there being any public discussion, but it is certain that it never happened that somebody prevailed over Gyurcsány. In the last five years only Szabolcs Kerék-Bárczy and Tamás Bauer dared to criticize DK.  One of them immediately left the party’s leadership and the other the party itself.  And yet we do not speak of Gyurcsány being a dictator, even though the existence or failure of cooperation depends on his person. Do you also believe in party discipline rather than parading internal conflicts within the party in public as is customary with MSZP?

I believe in a lot of discussion. In this regard I have changed a lot. I think our task is to present the common policy of the party. But this does not happen on my command!  Indeed, it is necessary to discuss matters a lot, and it is for this reason that once a week we hold an extensive common discussion where we often vote. Certainly, it has happened that I was voted down. But for the most part everyone accepted that we conduct these debates in-house. I would add that it has happened more than once that the person holding the press conference found himself in the minority.  Tamás left of his own accord, regretfully.

Following sharp conflicts?

Yes. There was a disagreement over our 2014 parliamentary election program regarding the historic ideal of the United States of Europe in which we said it needed a strong social character. For example, sooner or later there must be a common European wage policy. That does not mean that we want comparable wages or a wage union. For example, we are in favor of an EU proposal that, wherever minimum wages exist, they reach the subsistence level. We called for a proposal, not a directive!  Tamás did not agree with this, and he was left alone with his opinion during the vote. At the end of the argument he politely said that he was resigning from the presidium. Szabolcs was another story. His case hit us like a lightning bolt from the blue. There wasn’t any argument before our conflict. Nothing. For a while he was quieter at presidium meetings, and for this reason I spoke with him several times to try and find out what the reason was. Then all of a sudden, we were confronted  with him going public, how should I put it . . .

He started maligning DK.

That’s the lesser problem. But if someone says from within about the party that it does not want to win, that is an accusation against which one cannot defend oneself. It is an indelible stigma. In this case we asked, specifically the presidium asked in Szabolcs’s presence, that he leave the party because he was harming the party in a matter that was not true and which damages and destroys us. I didn’t even have to say anything. So with us there is no iron-clad order and discipline, but we are infinitely loyal to one another, about that there can be no doubt

On the subject of MSZP, let’s talk about László Botka. Nowadays you say with greater and greater confidence that there will be cooperation with them.  But what form  will this take?  For the time being we see nothing of the sort.

Look, I’ll tell you a very important theoretical point of view. Everyone says they want a civil world, right? There is a very important foundation to the civil world, and that is that we recognize individual and group freedom and independence. Neither the prime minister nor the prime minister candidate should have any say in who runs a company, who is the head of a civil organization, who is the leader of a university, or who is the leader of a party.

And with this we have arrived to the point, if I’m not mistaken.

This is a  question of principle. I also consider it natural that entities independent from us exist in the country, which, moreover, are rather different from us. If we want to cooperate with them, then the first step is that I have to acknowledge their independence. If it were not the case, then we are simply going around in circles.

A big part of our argument with Orbán is that he wants to neuter (his opponents). He wants to say how a civil organization should operate, how CEU should work, how independent a research institute should be, and when you are a good Hungarian. We say, no, to the contrary: we want a world where those in power respect our independence.

In fact, we are glad for it. Here there is no Gyurcsány problem, but a very important theoretical, cultural, and behavioral disagreement. And in this regard we think it is not about DK but about a point of view that does not lead us in the direction of civil deportment. Who today wants to say who should be a DK representative will the day after tomorrow want to tell others how to behave and who should represent them.  But we stand opposed to this!  I think every European democrat stands opposed to this.

Well, then it seems that this difference in viewpoint is irresolvable.

Of course, it is irresolvable with regard to this point. But at such times what does a leader do?  A leader must integrate. He has to acknowledge that what he thinks cannot, for some reason, be realized. At such times it is necessary to strike a compromise!  Without that nothing will come of it. Today there is no cooperation without MSZP. I strongly dispute Botka’s point of view, but even if truth were not on my side, even then I would not know what to do about László Botka in this regard, as we are independent entities. Then we have to confront the fact that there will not be a common party list. If he maintains his point of view, then there is no common list. However, we need to find a compromise in this situation.

And what would that be?

We would agree on the 106 (electoral districts). I would add that Együtt says the same thing. And there are those who do not even want this, like LMP and Momentum. In this regard who has Botka managed to agree with over the past eight months?Okay, but on that subject you have only managed to agree with the Lajos Bokros head of MoMa.

Naturally the reason for that is that MSZP should be at the center of a desirable agreement. 

Everyone understands that if we cannot agree with them, then every partial agreement is at best palliative. Moreover, those who act wisely do not conclude closed agreements, but hope that they will continue to expand. In other words, everyone on this side is waiting for MSZP. So are we, although I do not even participate in this argument. A party vote will take place this week which, knowing my own party, obviously will not cause a huge surprise. But it will make it very clear that it is not Gyurcsány’s point of view, but that of the vast majority of our members. We are the only party that does not stipulate any conditions and make demands of others. But there is one thing we do not allow to be called into question, and that is our own independence.

You mentioned Együtt. Just this morning I saw Péter Juhász on TV, who thinks that DK and MSZP should run one common list and the “New Pole” parties another. In other words, Együtt doesn’t even want to be part of a common list with MSZP or DK.

True, I think there is no chance of having  a common list embracing all the democratic opposition parties. But Együtt also says that they need to coordinate in the 106 electoral districts. After a certain point, it doesn’t matter who is right, just look at what the alternative is like.

What are the main contrasts between MSZP and DK politics?  How could you solve the problem of one party defining its character at the expense of another?

We are saying very different things.  First of all, we are cautious when it comes to promising a thirteen-month pension and excessive social or wage promises, because it won’t happen.

You think that today, but for a while there has been talk . . 

Okay, but now we are talking about what the differences are, aren’t we?  We can also speak about the old things as well.

True. Let’s stick with the present!

Who behaves irresponsibly in opposition will behave irresponsibly in government as well. Secondly, we are cautious when it comes to failing to notice that it is not possible to do one-dimensional politics.

There are very successful people in this country, and there are groups living modest middle-class lives, and there are those who are very poor. Playing these groups against one another is not a good idea. “Make the rich pay!” says MSZP. By contrast, I would say that we need a fair social agreement, because if we do not value success, and if we look for scapegoats, then sooner or later the country will be ruined. I believe in more moderate politics. Thirdly, we accepted a principled position with regard to the rights of Hungarians living abroad to vote. We said that those who do not actually live here should not vote. Fourthly, we ask for revision the contract with the Vatican, they do not. Fifthly, we support EU attempts to condemn the Orbán government. In this the MSZP’s European members of parliament are cautious, because they are afraid Fidesz will respond by saying that the worthless left-wingers want to harm Hungary. We are not afraid of Fidesz but fear for our country. I think it is crystal clear what we say on these matters. MSZP represents far more traditional social policies than we, and surrenders far more easily on many issues when confronted with Fidesz’s unacceptable policies.

Not long ago you declared rather optimistically that DK will continuously grow.  However, what I see is that if there will be additional supporters, it is certain that young people will not be among them.  On the basis of my own experience today’s people in their twenties did not turn away from politics, but rather they were never interested in it in the first place because for the past ten years or so such shards of information remain, according to which “Gyurcsány, disturbances, Balatonőszöd speech,” then more recently “Orbán, stadium construction, Lőrinc Mészáros.” To them those in power, as well as the opposition parties, are invisible. On the other hand, it is easy to experience if a funny Two-tailed Dog Party billboard appears in the street, or if they paint neglected, crumbling sidewalks four colors, or even erect a roof over a bus stop. Do you not think it would be a wise thing to focus on future generations, that is future voters, instead of adhering to the status quo?

We are not adhering to the status quo but rather to our own principles, culture, and style. Look, we cannot represent much else other than what we believe. These quasi-pirate parties like the Two-tailed reflect well in a curved mirror. Protest parties. And it’s certain that they can obtain the support of many tens of thousands. But the end goal is still governance. If the question were whether the Two-tailed Dog Party was capable of governing, then I think that 1-2 percent or less of the people would vote yes.

That was not the point of the question, but rather the targeting and addressing the youth.  Apart from the Two-tailed Dog party there is Jobbik, which for many years has been consciously building a youth organization thanks to which according to my knowledge it has become the most popular party among university and college students.  No one else really deals with us. We are only addressed to the extent that once a year all the parties attend the EFOTT festival.

Whoever is twenty years old and is not rebellious and does not protest is not twenty years-old.

They protest, only not about politics but against something else. Politics does not even reach them. So try again. 

I have become a moderate politician. My party conducts moderate politics. Those who are impatient and want fast solutions require radical solutions, pithy and terribly hard words, and in some cases scapegoats, just as for years Jobbik had groups looking for scapegoats. We cannot satisfy such needs. To us politics is not about obtaining five percent at any price, because then we sell our souls for thirty pieces of silver.  From that point of view, democracy is a trade and true in that if DK offers one alternative and somebody does not like this, then he finds another. That is completely all right.  We cannot and will not compete with the likes of Two-tailed or Jobbik, even if we love the former’s attitude. I think that if we have our own party list, which is looking more likely than a common one, then somehow we will end up with between 10 and 15 percent.  We can be a  stable centrist party. Of course I would be happier with 30 percent, but for that we will not give up everything!

We are not going to take the same path as Viktor Orbán who has been everything during his life in order to obtain a majority.  We can only say what we believe in.  If somebody doesn’t like this, then I am eternally sorry, but this is the alternative we embody.

Why doesn’t your party support Gábor Vágó’s referendum initiative on capping the salaries of the directors of state-owned companies?

The final decision will be taken in the next few days, but I think that at best we can take a permissive stance: who wants may sign, but are not going to get substantively involved. Why? Because I do not agree with it.

(So much for DK party members having their own opinion independent of Gyurcsány’s-tran.)

How is that?

I see that a state-owned company needs to be just as competitive as privately-owned ones. The state does not dictate the market for wages. If a certain wage level emerges in the private sector, say with large infrastructural development companies, then — in the event the state wants to operate competitive state-owned companies — it has to hire competitive people. Those will not go there to work for one-third of the wages. In other words, sometimes what offends our sense of justice and what proves collectively useful sometimes conflict. I think Gábor Vágó’s demands are popular now. But the death penalty is also popular, so why don’t we support it? Because we are principally opposed to it. I think it is not possible to conduct correct politics exclusively based on popularity and opinion polls because that takes us down the wrong path. We don’t want to be popular at the expense of having to support matters which we happen to believe are not good for the country in the medium term, even if the majority agrees with it today.

I understand the principle of competition. But for example Gábor Vágó cited György Matolcsy who obviously earns an outrageous amount, especially if we add the various dirty money flowing from his foundations. There are those who in his case would not be saddened if he took a little less home.

Okay, but that is a different question, if you don’t mind my saying. To say that a government of the democratic opposition will do the following with regard to the earnings of the heads of the Hungarian National Bank, that’s all right. Or to say in general that we do not agree with this terrible disparity in wages that has come about in Hungary between blue-collar workers and CEOs, that’s also okay. But we do not solve this problem one iota if we say, for example, that companies must pay a punitive tax if wages exceeding a certain amount are paid, and that beyond a certain point it is not worth paying them so much. We could say that the highest wage paid at companies should not exceed the average wage by a factor of five. Or that whoever pays more than this should pay at least the same amount to the state. I do not say that this is the best solution, but at least it is more sophisticated and would apply equally to state and non-state-owned companies

But for this the party that promises this and whose program stresses this must come to power. The goal of the current effort is to compel something to immediately come about.

Do you imagine that a valid referendum will result from this in which four million people participate? You must be joking!  Maybe Gábor says this and honestly believes it. But the political reality of this compelling some sort of legislative act is zero. It whips up certain passions without reaching its objective. Of course those initiating it — and I do not mean this in a pejorative sense — can derive some political benefit from it: Gábor will become better known, play a role, and realize some of his ambitions with regard to public life. Put another way, in a more positive light: a normal debate stemmed from his question for which we should be happy.

On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, DK representatives are supporting the Jobbik-initiated procedure stripping János Áder of power.

No. We will never sign off on anything Jobbik initiates. Out of principle.

I’m certain, however, that they are in the habit of attending the “Agora” roundtable discussions organized by Márton Gulyás’s Common Country Movement.

Yes, I was there. And from the beginning a DK representative has attended every discussion.

So you are participating in the struggle for a proportional or I would rather say fair electoral system?

Yes, even though according to our program we do not agree with it. That the electoral system is not free and fair is indisputable. But the biggest problem is not that it is not proportional. Look at the German electoral system. Is that proportional? No. The British system is a purely majority system, and yet it is free and fair. There is only one criterion to determining whether an electoral system is free and fair: whether it is built on an agreement of political parties having conflicting interests. Is it the result of consensus and mutual compromise? Our main problem is that it is a one-party electoral system!  We think there are two main principles. The one is that the will of the voters be reflected in their representation, that is the principle of proportionality. The other is that the electoral system ensure governability, that is, that it help the formation of a majority capable of governing.

The latter places emphasis on the principle of the majority.  Since both have their own logic, we would like a mixed system. But there are an awful lot of other solutions as well. Marci Gulyás says that it should be clean, proportional, include electoral lists of candidates, and perhaps that is the good solution. The point is that we received a polite invitation to the Agora, which is the symbol of dialogue. That is absolutely all right. Then let’s talk!

Let’s talk a little about LMP.  Since the start of September we have been witnessing two exciting developments: one is the candidacy (for prime minister) of co-chair Bernadette Szél . The other is the hiring of Ron Werber. Presumably you know both actors. What is your opinion of them?  How does all of this influence LMP’s changers and the campaign?

I think I’ve spoken with Benadett Szél twice in my life.

In the corridors or over coffee?

Once recently at length by telephone in a cordial manner. The other took place in a make-up room. That is the extent of my direct connection with her. Judging from her actions in parliament and elsewhere in public, I think she’s a talented politician who is past her initial difficulties. I cannot say when she will mature or whether she has already matured, but I am positive about her person. Ron Werber, on the other hand, I’ve known for about 16 years.

What kind of person is he?

Very talented. The kind of person who can persuade the blind that they will see again, the deaf that they will hear again. Someone who is very important in an election campaign. Like most talented people, he is a difficult person. He is not easy to work with because he insists on his point of view from beginning to end. There are two things I think he is good at: he is extraordinarily good at mobilizing base supporters, something  a party greatly needs, and he is excellent at molding the character of certain politicians. I think Bernadett Szél is in need of the latter, as she is a new candidate without decades of experience as a politician.

In a certain sense he is also the victim of character assassination in Hungarian politics, as are some of us. He never ran a campaign of hate. If I can put it elegantly, he ran a critical campaign, which is entirely warranted, and I have no problem with this. For opposition parties — which was the case with MSZP in 2002 — it was natural to make a critical campaign. LMP is in such a position now.

They claim they are preparing a positive campaign. Can you imagine this? 

No party will ever say that we are preparing an ugly, disgusting negative campaign.  Voters don’t like to hear this. Furthermore, opposition parties whose campaigns do not mostly consist of critical elements hurt themselves. If someone thinks that in a positive campaign the stronger message will be which of us promises what in public education, and that with this we unleash unbelievable energy and passion in the voters, then he doesn’t know them. We say “Orbán or Europe?” If I see it from their perspective, this is a strongly critical campaign. If I see it from our perspective, then it is positive in that we are offering an alternative. But allow me to add something: the key to LMP’s success in my eyes is whether they are capable of understanding that it is not possible to win many votes from the right.

You say they won’t be able to capture many votes from the right. It tones the picture somewhat that a recent survey indicates that Jobbik supporters would vote for Szél.

Except this will not be the case. They would stand behind her if it were a question of Orbán or Bernadette Szél?  (Jobbik chairman) Gábor Vona is a candidate for prime minister, who will not be abandoned by Jobbik voters for Szél’s sake. If, in the final months, it appears there is actually something at stake in the elections, or that there is a chance of changing the government, then 1-1.2 million people will turn out to vote who would not do so otherwise if the match was already over. In this way, participation will be 75 percent instead of 65 percent. Our task is to reach in the final months this relative plateau so that there is something at stake in the elections, and that is what will turn out so many people.

I think it’s a vain reverie that voters are quick to change parties. Those who are disaffected with Fidesz will for a good while say that they do not know whom to vote for, or rather simply will not vote. A lot of time, months or even years must pass before they find a new party for themselves. It is not really possible eight months before an election to take voters away from one party or the other. For this reason there is a huge competition for one million people who will probably vote, but still do not know whom to vote for, and there is another one million who only vote if the election is close. That’s two million people who can stir up things.

When did you last speak with Ron Werber?  Did you contemplate hiring him as a campaign guru?

We spoke often, and I met him frequently. We last spoke and exchanged short messages when I learned of his agreement with LMP before the story appeared in the press.

Did you merely discuss this by SMS?

Of course, absolutely.  During our meets there was an exploratory part whether we wanted to cooperate or not. In the end, we decided not to.

So there was receptivity on his part?

I wouldn’t say that. There was definitely an aspect of this to our conversations. Our friendship has remained, to the extent a friendship of this kind can exist, but the decision was not to work together with him.

And are you thinking of engaging another well-known or less well- known foreign campaign guru? Or are you confident in their own expertise?

You won’t get me to say who will be our advisors. But that isn’t even important. The person of the campaign advisor itself is only exciting if it’s an insanely strong public character. By the way, who works for a party is not that important because the final decision is  the politicians’ anyway. The advisor is responsible for offering advice, but it is for the politicians to decide, as we are responsible for our decisions.

A large number of slogans and catchphrases are mixed up today in connection with the NER (System of National Cooperation):  mafia state, crony capitalism, new Kadarism, neofeudalism, illiberal state.  How would you briefly summarize the point of the system?

I would say it is “rotten.”

Concise, but that doesn’t say much . . .

Look, I know all of these slogans. And I know most of the expert debates as well about the extent to which Bálint Magyar is right, and to what extent those using the term crony capitalism are right.

This “national” attack on all fronts is a corrupt system that goes contrary to centuries of progressive efforts in Hungarian history. I think it is unwarrantable. There can be no question that it will fail.

But there is a question of how and when?

As well as what it leaves behind. One must understand that political and historical success are two different things. There were many successful political systems in the 20th century that were capable of sustaining themselves for decades, and still we consider them to have led our nation into a dead-end street. I have no doubt that the Orbán system is historically an unsuccessful system causing enormous harm. As for how much time is needed to understand the political consequences and for an alternative to be born, or what the alternative will do with what is left behind, there are indeed a lot of questions. What we can do, we are doing.  I have no pangs of conscience in this regard. The rest depends on the election.

Many are of the opinion that a simple change in government will not do away with the NER. What concrete actions are required to wind it up?

Very much depends on whether we are talking about a two-thirds majority or a simple majority. There is no disagreement that priority should be given to the restoration of constitutional order, civil rights, media independence, and freedom of religious practice and the freedom to establish a church. What can be done about these things largely depends on the size of the majority, in other words, what means can be used.

Nor is there any debate — given the corruption of the system — that it is necessary to restore the independence of the judiciary, courts, and prosecutors. Furthermore, a large number of regulations are required in order to obstruct the corruption encompassing the whole state to a greater or lesser degree. Nor do I think there is any disagreement about the need to restore a greater level of freedom and independence to public education. We need to return the schools to the local governments, primarily to the teachers, children, and parents. This could be done relatively easily. It will be a much more difficult thing to put health-care in order because too much money is missing to achieve quick, visible success. Finally, we think it is necessary to restore the European and Atlantic orientation and to end this freedom fight which is leading nowhere, because it is destroying us.

What do you realistically expect from the 2018 election, and how do you see your own role?

I cannot answer unequivocally because the situation today is very complicated. If there is an agreement on the side of the opposition, and an agreement comes about between the political leaders, and if the voters maintain the previously unfamiliar habit which we first saw in the four by-elections involving a strong mood for a change in government, in which thousands of voters leave their own party and ad absurdum vote for the other side, because they see that candidate as having the greatest chance of victory, then Fidesz could lose 60-70 constituencies. Fidesz today is the largest minority. A majority with only 35-40 percent support can only work if the opposition is very divided.  Otherwise, it is discarded, because its support falls to under one third. If, on the other hand, the disparaging infighting continues, and everyone attacks everyone else, then Fidesz can win 100 electoral districts for a two-thirds majority. Between these two possibilities everything is possible. I am calm with regard to myself and my party because we will perform significantly better than before. At the same time, this is not great news for the entire democratic opposition. Frankly speaking, the most important thing is not what percentage DK has. At best, that matters to us and a few hundred thousand people. The real question is how the opposition will perform as a whole But the key to solving this question lies not with us but with other parties.

The post Ferenc Gyurcsány: There is no Gyurcsány problem appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.

“Part of the reason for the current state of politics is that there is simply no debate. There is not enough public debate. Fidesz regularly allows itself the luxury to absent itself from TV programs, debates. They try to avoid these situations because they are afraid.” – Bernadett Szél, LMP (Politics Can be Different) candidate for prime minister

Bernadett Szél will be LMP’s candidate for prime minister in next year’s general election, reports ATV.  The LMP co-chair announced her candidacy on ATV’s Egyenes Beszéd (Straight Talk) program on Monday, although it must still be approved by LMP’s general assembly on September 30.

In an interview with Egyenes Beszéd host Zsuzsa Demcsák, Szél defended her party’s steadfast opposition to cooperating with other opposition parties, telling the independent broadcaster:

“On the one hand change of government is required and we are eager to cooperate with anyone who is interested in the change. On the other hand we cannot cooperate with anyone who has not learned from the rock-hard mistakes of the past thirty years”.

According to Szél “a totally new approach in politics is needed in Hungary” to solve the current political crisis. She partially blamed opposition parties for the state of the country, claiming that “instead of doing their jobs as politicians, they are occupied with their polling position while the race is already on”.

Responding to the claim that LMP cannot present itself as a constructive alternative to other parties, Szél said: “We have seven months until the election. Seven months in politics is like seven years in a person’s life.”

She said she has been contacted by many people throughout the summer and, based on her experience, voters “would like to see someone in power whom they can trust, a person who is transparent, someone who has not deceived them”.

Although Szél acknowledged that it is a valid question whether it is realistic to expect LMP to govern after 2018 given the current situation, she insisted that the election is still far from over. According to the latest polls, LMP would barely make it into the parliament, let alone form a government.

“I stand ready, moreover I call on the other prime minister candidates to debate, even in this studio, let’s bring in more chairs,” she said. “We should not meet in smoky little rooms and discuss matters in cafes. Instead we should stand out in front of voters and say to their faces what would we do with this country. Part of the reason for the current state of politics is that there is simply no debate. There is not enough public debate. Fidesz regularly allows itself the luxury to absent itself from TV programs, debates. They try to avoid these situations because they are afraid.”

The LMP co-chair declared that politicians should abandon the custom of “asking for a blank check”, and presented the most crucial steps in her first 100 days in office should she become prime minister. This includes a wage correction program worth a total of HUF 1440 billion (USD 5.6 billion) that would tackle the wage crisis in Hungary and include social measurements as well. After this, according to Szél, her government would allocate significant funds to education and public healthcare. Citing LMP’s 12-point anti-corruption agenda, she vowed to crack down on corruption. “From then on, the gentlemen and ladies currently in power would be able to observe the country from a completely different place,” Szél said with a broad smile.

When asked whether it was realistic to run a female candidate for prime minister, Szél gave an impassioned answer. “Do you think I would have taken up the responsibility if I had not thought it is realistic? Naturally, I think it is realistic. I feel the strength in myself, the determination and the commitment as well.”

The post Bernadett Szél is LMP’s candidate for prime minister appeared first on The Budapest Beacon.