The traditional "state-of-the-nation" address of Mr Viktor Orbán

Dátum: 2005-02-21 11:42:00, eredeti URL: http://archiv.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=34332
KCMDB-be feltöltve: 2024-05-04 21:20:56.411503, Feltöltő: fidesz_hu_scraper_v2

Dear Friends,

We have a tradition, as Mr János Martonyi said, we cannot simply transform today's meeting of ours into a talking session with local sympathisers, even if it is on-line, modern and up-to-date. We have to say therefore something about the year we left behind, not only because of the tradition, but also because the past year has been an informative one. And if we want to conclude by considering our steps for 2005, first we must know what exactly we have accomplished, where Hungary stands, where have we arrived by the end of the year 2004?

I thought we may start by asking you to remember how we started our conversation last year on the state of our affairs. Then we said that the essence of this tradition is that each year, Hungary stands by the fictive doorjamb and we draw a mark, as our grandfathers did to us on our birthdays, to see how much we have grown since last year. That is what we did last year and we experienced that we had not grown, on the contrary, we had shrunk. And we also said last year that we had not simply shrunk but we cringed on purpose, because we were taught to be small the year before. And Hungary took the tip. This year, Hungary is again measured against the doorjamb, and as it may emerge from our talk, I am not exaggerating if I say that we have shrunk again. The only difference being that we are now told not to consider what the doorjamb shows, it is not the size that counts, but tall talk. Beyond any doubt, the year 2005 has definitely brought novelties in this regard. During my tour of the country in the last few days, I was also told to forget about these marks on the doorjamb as a new age has dawned, and Hungary has a new unit of measurement. I noted two sentences for myself, I read it out now loud. Away with the historicist, introvert, nationalistic, mildly clerical marks on the doorjamb, because things are to be measured differently now. A new age, a modern, open Hungary needs a new unit of measurement, here is the "moonshine-meter". Modern Hungary is to be measured in moonshine-meter.

Indeed, if you consider the year we left behind, it is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that 2004 was the year of tall talk. It started out with the grandiose suggestion of the previous prime minister, which rocked or at least awoke Europe. Let us compete, the suggestion said, let us run at a democratic election by running on a single list, you may remember this, perhaps. And the year 2004 concluded with another announcement, worth at least three moonshine-meter units, which said that we live in great welfare. Yes, this is where we got by the end of the year. In 2004, as I toured the country, I often heard comments suggesting that Hungary's leaders are perhaps not always aware of where they are at the moment. And an old joke also came to my mind which says that the blind pianist talks to the deaf drummer. "Are they dancing already?", the blind pianist asks. "Why? Are we playing?", answers the deaf drummer. Well, my dear friends, this is how we felt sometimes in 2004. Nevertheless, reality is far from being so funny. Reality is far from giving us the reason to amuse ourselves. If we believe the statistics, and why should we doubt them, I can say that Hungary has become a country where we have 1 million compatriots who are left with less than HUF 3400 after having paid their bills. And we have 3 million people in Hungary who make a living from less than half of the minimal wage, or HUF 23,000, a month, if we break down his/her earnings per capita. This is Hungary today.

We have had 33 counts of tax increases since the change of government in 2002, and let us admit, this is more than enough even in dumplings. Thus, though we may have become the country of tall talk, the image of the real Hungary emerges from behind the curtain and I must say that this image is cause for little amusement. If we have a look at 2004 from another perspective, we note that that the past year has been one of losses. After many years, this was the first time that real wages have fallen again. Prices have again grown sharper than average inflation. This has been a year of losses for those who make a living by working. Unemployment has increased in Hungary. By the end of the year we had about 30,000 more people out of work than we had at the beginning. It was a year of losses for the farmers, as they did not receive the funds they were entitled to due to EU membership. It was also a year of losses for the enterprises, not only because of the tax increases, but also because they have not been refunded the VAT they had to be refunded under law, by the way. And it was a year of losses for the pensioners, who were stripped of their earlier pension increases by rising bill and medicine costs, perhaps I do not exaggerate by saying not only stripped once, but twice in the past year.

However, the year 2004 was also a very active one. Hungary's citizens could express themselves three times at the urns - what consequences the country's leaders have drawn from all this is another matter, of course. But please remember that the National Petition was signed by 1,3 million people, about 3 million cast their ballots at the European Parliament elections, almost 2 million people declared at the referendum that our health is not a business matter, and 1,5 million people expressed our sentiment that we, Hungarians belong together. The year 2004 was a very active one. True, there are many who consider themselves primarily experts and who say that it is not preferable if people have a voice too much and if we ask for their opinion too much because that is no other than populism. What we can tell them is that it does not require a shoemaker to know where the shoe hurts. It is time to ask the people sometimes, as we did in 2004 and that is how we ought to proceed in 2005, as well. And I have another remark on politics, concerning a development not among the happiest in 2004. Last year it has elevated to government policy to confront rural and urban dwellers, believers and non-believers, Hungarians within and outside the borders, the poor and the rich, moreover, it was the weak and the innocent who were attacked the most. Let me remind you that ageing women, the churches oppressed for four decades and honest civil servants were threatened most. New government, new bravery! They prefer playing chess with boxers and boxing with chess players, this is the new bravery, my dear friends.

Let me have another remark, if I may, because this topic was a frequent one in earlier discussions about the state of our affairs. What can we do about the recent flood of words, the "communication offensive", as it is said in the papers? I do not have a remarkably rich inventory of tips. What I can offer for all of us is a medical advice only: the best remedy for tall talk is impaired hearing. Let us recur to this strategy! Well, if I need to talk not only about 2004 but comprehensively about the past three years, and if I have to single out one thought only, one that is really painful for me, is that Hungary has changed considerably in the past three years. I am not talking about whether we have a worse or a better government than before, but about the fact that Hungary has somehow collapsed lost her faith, leaked all her energy, lost her self-confidence. Please remember how it was in 1998. We do not know exactly why, neither when, but Hungary somehow underwent a spiritual transformation between 1998 and 2002. Suddenly we felt capable of things we hardly dared embarking upon before. We had ample problems back then, too. There was a complete Russian economic meltdown. Or just consider that we also had environmental catastrophes at that time, cyanide in the River Tisza, floods every year, sometimes more than on a year. And still, we had rebuilt the Mária Valéria bridge between Hungary and Slovakia, the National Theatre, we increased the minimal wage twofold, we introduced the housing subsidy and the university student loan schemes. When the Romanian government refused to launch a Hungarian-language university in Transylvania, we launched it.

And every single house demolished by the floods, even the last building in the last street of the farthest village was rebuilt and made comfortable again. Let me emphasise: not because we had a good government, but because Hungary was a country which believed herself capable of doing she had been unable to do before. This is the sentiment which has evaporated. What I see today is that public discourse is dominated by searching pretexts for inaction. Why cannot we reimburse the VAT for the enterprises? Why cannot we pay the farmers the funds they are entitled to? Why cannot we curb the rising prices? Why cannot we cut taxes? Why cannot we do what? Well, this is the sentiment we should change. If we see the year 2006 on the horizon, it is not simply a change of government we should have in mind. We should also consider giving back Hungary this kind of momentum and vigour, because only then shall we be capable of good governance when the time comes, if the whole country changes, if she regains her self-confidence, self-esteem, optimism and vigour.

Presenter: Thank you very much! Let us begin in a chronological order, a few days ago we were in Pocsaj, a small village by the Romanian border, let us thus begin with the issue of rural life. How can we stop the anti-rural policy pursued by the present government, this is a question put by many. How can the youth be persuaded to stay in the villages? Many consider this to be the only chance of survival for the villages.

Viktor Orbán: Let us separate the issue of the villages from that of the farmers and let us start with the villages. There are 3200 settlements in Hungary, 75 percent of which numbers less than 2000 inhabitants. Thus when we talk about the future of rural life, we are addressing a problem affecting three quarters of Hungary's territory. The Hungarian village feels abandoned, this is not only a feeling that has emerged in the last three years, it is a historical phenomenon, life is more and more insecure in the villages, and we must consider if villages have their future at all. However, if you visit other EU member states to the west of us, you will hear that living in the countryside is perhaps the safest and most predictable of all lifestyles. If something has a future in the European Union, that is the village.

The European Union also considers this to be way it should be, and provides therefore significant subsidies. You may reckon therefore that we are not suffering from a world-wide phenomenon, instead, something is wrong with us. The village could and should have a future. What is the problem? Indeed, the news are that post offices, schools and railways are being closed down, nobody knows if a bus replacement will come. Well, my dear friends, when we are considering this, let us be reminded of the case of the doctor who examines a seriously wounded patient. Why is it that the doctor does not simply cut off the wounded parts? If it is possible, he tries to save them. He applies a bandage and plaster on the wounds. What is the reason for this? Obviously that the doctor has a vision about what it means to be a human being. He has a vision and he knows he could opt for simpler solutions, but then he would not be a human being any more.

Let me ask, what is the pattern on which these decisions, closing down post offices, buses, schools, are made, what is the underlining concept these decisions are derived from? We cannot answer this question. This is what demonstrates how deep the problem lies. We are not simply talking about bad decisions, but a lost plan. Today, decisionmakers in Hungary do not know what rural life could and should be. Only haphazard decisions remain, these are ruining the villages. Therefore, one has to possess a clear-cut, determined rural concept. Villagers do not any more believe anybody, perhaps we are the ones they believe the most, but cautiously. There is no other solution therefore than to ask villagers to establish village assemblies. This implies assemblies on the county level, where villagers gather and express what rural life should look like in their opinion. They draft the plan and, whatever government takes office in 2006, this would be the draft they want to agree upon. And if the government does not give its consent, then villagers will not support that political force which is not ready to implement it, I have no better counsel. Villagers must take their future in their own hands! Similarly, there are suggestions, measures and tested practices in Western Europe which could be implemented in Hungary. Because not only the school is being closed down, but no teacher is left, either. The intelligentsia leaves the villages, or if they had bred it among themselves, they never return. What is a well-tested practice in Western Europe, let us call it simply a "village allowance", could be introduced in Hungary, as well. For those civil servants who deal with organising local culture, teachers, healthcare workers who assume the responsibility of serving in the villages, the salaries should reflect this decision of theirs. Let us introduce this "village allowance"! It has been tested elsewhere, and this is where the future of the village holds.

Presenter: Let me ask a question which came up not only during our visit to Pocsaj, but also which was asked by many in SMS, namely how can one mobilise the voters of the one-time smallholders' party? Is there a way to address this very wide and important layer of society?

Viktor Orbán: First of all, it is worth noting that a year for the farmers is not a calendar year which lasts from 1 January to 31 December, but it seems for the farmers, due to the characteristics of Hungarian politics, that a year lasts from demonstration to demonstration. This is where we stand now. I therefore believe that we must encourage the farmers, and without interfering with their activities, we must also declare that we express solidarity with them. We wish them to succeed, and we wish to MAGOSZ (National Alliance of Hungarian Farmers) to gain strength. Let them be actors impossible to ignore in Hungarian politics. I would like them to know that researches on the effect of EU accession indicate that in Poland and the Czech Republic the farmers' income has increased by 54 percent in a single year. In Hungary, the same paper says, only by 24 percent, but the Hungarian farmers have not received this money yet. This is where we stand, my friends. Whereas other EU member states, old and new alike, protect their farmers, for instance by cancelling some compulsory charges, we charge our farmers heavily. We must say out loud that the westerners are exactly aware of how to support their own farmers without harming EU rules, thereby supporting market access to their national products on the food market. We are not doing that, my friends. In Hungary, the government has not heard of that, there are no such decisions. This mentality is not only absent, but if somebody puts it on the agenda, he is instantly labelled a nationalist. That is where we got. Despite the fact that every other country knows what the English, German, French and Italian interest is. Only we fail to protect our farmers, our jobs, our markets. We must change that!

Presenter: Let us proceed with the questions. Let us now turn to Budapest. What happens to those living in the housing estates? Are those blocks being planned for renovation? The current system is bad, those living there cannot live with it. Why is education worse in the outside districts than in the downtown? Why is central heating much more expensive than gas heating? Why does not have Budapest a nice atmosphere?

Viktor Orbán: Of course, we are not here to talk about what the city leadership has not done in the last 15 years, because what it has not done in the last 15 years will not happen in the remaining one year, either. I will therefore not concentrate on this, if I may. We are in no need of self-justification, but let me search the answer for the question why we have not managed to get closer to the Budapest people despite having accomplished so much in Budapest during the years of the last centre-right government? When it turned out that Budapest would feature among today's topics, I quickly set up a list: Millennium Quarter, Palace of Arts, Millenary Park, Budapest Sports Arena, House of Terror, National Bus Terminal... just to mention a few investments that have been accomplished in Budapest during the four years we were in government. And still, the Budapest people felt this insufficient. But if we go deeper in our thoughts, perhaps they thought it was not insufficient but above their heads. We could not involve them as much in our work as we should have. That it is why one could say we were not doing anything, or at least much less we could do. This is a big lesson for the future.

Therefore, the plans for the future of Budapest should be drawn up in a way so that they should not only be good plans but we must pursue a plan which may be felt by the people as a plan of their own. They must feel that they had been asked and their opinion counts, as well. At the four-party meeting I offered the prime minister that Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Union prepares the new Budapest Plan and places it at the disposal of the government for it to be incorporated in the National Development Project. What I had in mind then is that we must create a Budapest Plan which is drafted otherwise than plans are usually developed on the experts' level. Every Budapest resident should be offered the possibility of expressing what kind of changes he/she deems necessary in his/her immediate neighbourhood.

But let us not bypass the most difficult question. Why is it that we love Budapest, Budapest is our home and still, we do not feel it comfortable? The reason for this, my dear friends, is that when we step outside our doors, from that point on the city is not helping us, on the contrary, it is placing obstacles in our way. Life is here like in a training camp. To exaggerate somewhat, like in a survival camp. We always have to succumb some obstacle instead of feeling well inside of it. Therefore, Budapest has to be renewed with a new plan.

If you look at the proportion of flats heated by central heating and gas heating, you will reckon that those living in the former category pay three times more than those living in the latter. This is unacceptable. If the government was capable of curbing gas price rises in the category of certain flats, the same must be done with central heating. I very much hope that our parliamentary group will make the relevant proposals in the near future. Or we may also put it this way: we expect the government to make this step.

Presenter: But what can be done when the energy producers and distributors are in foreign hands?

Viktor Orbán: Again, we are not forced to invent what is already at hand. During the tenure of the last centre-right government, we established the principles. We made it clear that as long as our government is in office, prices of certain essential services will not be raised in a way exceeding the rate of inflation. Because a significant portion of these prices, or the most important of them, are determined by the government. It is not true that they are determined by the market. It is not true either that they are determined by the world economy, they simply need government decisions. This is no easy struggle, I do not wish to bore you, but I could tell you some of my veteran's stories about the discussions we had which were about nothing else but how pressure is put on the freely elected government representing citizens so that prices be determined in a "smarter", "more realistic" and "market-friendly" way. When this topic is on the agenda, please believe me, big elephants are moving around in the bushes. But this latter phenomenon does not mean that the Hungarian government is powerless. The Hungarian government represents public will. And if its arguments are defendable, the government can indeed protect the people against groundless price increases. It is impossible that we experience essential energy price increases often exceeding twice the inflation rate. There is no better tip therefore in my mind at present, then a silent and calm change of government.

Let me share with you, if I may, one of my experiences. When we visited the district of Óbuda a few days ago, we were also invited to a flat at in an estate block where I had the occasion to talk to the landlord. I tell you this story to demonstrate how far can be from each other the image of the accounts on the "successful and promising state" of the country, expressed in macroeconomic figures, and the image drawn up by reality. The landlord told me that three years ago, before the change of government, the block had a low number of bill arrears, accounting to a total sum of HUF 180,000. Three year after the change of government, this figure stands at HUF 1,800,000 in the same estate block. He also told me that three years ago enterprises were queuing to have a rented shop on the ground floor, they were tendered. He showed me around this time. The shops stand empty, my friends! This is also a product of the three years behind us.

We definitely need a housing estate renovation program. In Hungary, this affects approximately 800,000 flats, Budapest accounting for about 400,000. This is obviously a problem which cannot be ignored. By the way, in our times there were some steps made, not too brave ones, we need a much more comprehensive work, a national program must be launched. Mr Pál Schmitt told me we are making a serious effort in the EU so that the European Union understand that the region which has just been admitted suffers with this serious problem. Western Europe does not any more cope with this problem, and therefore the EU does not have a concept at present in this arena. However, this question must be dealt with, serious development programs have to be launched which cannot be financed from national sources only. The reconstruction of housing estates must be made also a European question.

Presenter: Many comments are saying that the current mayor has not launched any construction projects. And also, many ask, is it true that the suburban ring of districts will be detached from Budapest?

Viktor Orbán: The detachment of suburban districts requires a two-thirds law in Parliament, thus this is just an idea, we are far from declaring that this idea is close to being realised. There has once been good old Budapest, memories of which we cherish from some of Krúdy's novels, or which still survives in some of the still working restaurants from that age. Then came the post-World War II grey-age, and then after the democratic transition everybody thought that Budapest would embark upon a development course. We had much faith and high hopes. If you visit Tallinn or Cracow, I am not even mentioning Prague, you may see with your own eyes how a city looks 15 years after the fall of communism if it is loved and taken care of. We, the people of Budapest have not been so lucky. We often feel as if the whole city had been immobilised by a giant lock. It has stopped, stuck and immobile. I have no better idea: we must free Budapest from this lock. We must try and remove this giant lock with a joint effort. I do not believe any lock could resist in the face of such a huge popular pressure. It will happen in due time.

Let me tell you one more thing, if we happen to speak about Budapest, let us not be bogged down in materialistic issues. There is one more thing, which is hard to grasp, but at least as important as material issues. When we talk about Budapest, let us point out that Budapest is the capital of the Hungarian nation. This means that, in my opinion, one cannot love the nation without not loving its heart, Budapest, and the centre-right must understand that. And one cannot love Budapest without not loving Hungary and the Hungarian nation. We must return the Hungarian nation its capital and the future of Budapest must also provide for that.

Presenter: Somebody has written us that it would be of paramount importance to make people aware how much we are indebted. Many people do not understand this and do not know about this.

Viktor Orbán: I must admit I was surprised to learn this morning that national debt is among the top five concerns people mention. I was surprised because the experience I had so far was that most people just brushed aside the issue and said, it was not their debt, it was not their problem, it was a state debt. But that is not the case. Because we all know that the debt of the nation is purchased by the state, but it is us who are held liable and we have to repay that debt. I was of course aware of the gross numbers, but this afternoon we made some calculations with my colleagues so that I could make you understand what Hungary's debt means in earnest for us. Let us start by saying that the problem is not only the increase of our gross debt, but rather the fact that its proportion, compared to total economic output, is deteriorating. In other words, an increase in absolute figures would not be terrible if Hungarian economic growth had an adequate thrust and if the proportion of output and debt improved. But the problem is that it is continuously deteriorating. Today we stand at the latest figure of HUF 3500 billion, this is the amount of debt Hungary has accumulated in just three years, since the change of government. This figure has sometimes been denied, sometimes other figures have been mentioned, but it is official from today, anybody can check. If we break this figure down per capita, it means that each Hungarian citizen, from the infant to the elderly, is burdened by an additional debt of HUF 350,000 per capita since 2002. This is the increase in your personal debt since the country has been directed by the socialist-liberal government. The prime minister failed to reassure the pensioners when he said that the state debt, or the loan, was in their pockets, among other places. The pensioners told me during my tour of the country last week that the country must be in great trouble if the pensions can only be paid from loans. Whoever works with a scalpel, should not twitch his hands. We must be careful about the sentences we utter as we may easily cause panic. But if we look further, we can say that Hungarian state debt grows by about HUF 225 million every hour. In other words, while you are sitting here for about two hours, having not eaten, drunk or bought anything, Hungarian state debt has increased by about HUF 500 million. It means a daily sum of HUF 4 to 5 billion. If a child is born at this moment, that child is burdened by a debt of HUF 1,162,432 in the moment of birth. This is where we stand. This is the national debt. And this is the future, my dear friends. In summing up, the problem is not when we are warned by the European Union about the excessive state debt, because I also have apprehensions when we look at the EU as an entity which has the authority of teaching moral lessons to us, and we are an independent nation, after all. But we have to realise that the European Union means competition. We have applied to take part in this. We were not called, we applied for it. There are some world champions in there, as well as hopefuls for the title. And we go there and fail even in the qualifying rounds. We are being laughed at, Europe is laughing at us. Three years ago, Hungary was in a pole position. It is inconceivable what has happened in Hungary after three years in terms of state debt, for instance, but also with other indicators. How are we expecting to compete in the European Union? How are expecting to join the common currency with this performance?

Obviously, it will not work. Therefore I think we have to explore two directions of thought. First, what kind of techniques are to be applied in curbing our national debt, and second, how can we improve the Hungarian economic output. Stopping the Széchenyi Plan was a serious error right because we have not spent on our future and on investments. And while our national debt has been increasing, economic growth has stopped. Those debates are wrong which examine how to distribute, in different ways, the cake produced by the current economic output. What we need is another recipe, the one which says how to bake a larger cake. If Hungarian economic growth does not improve, we will not be able to curb our national debt and we will be flooded. The tide is already rising to the level of our mouth. Our future is sold, my dear friends! We only have a few minutes left, perhaps, to choose an alternative future for ourselves and to get off the track on which we are being pushed forward, trying to set a new direction for events with the help of an independent economic policy representing national interests. Our parliamentary group has done its job. We have introduced a labour-friendly tax cut package which was aimed to ease the burden on enterprises and trying to make the Hungarian economy competitive again. It is not the wages that are high but the taxes, the latter are to be reduced if we do not want to be drowned by debt.

Presenter: Can we stop the process of indebtedness? We have a comment here saying that if we spend the loans on pensions, rather than investments, that is like the Kádár-regime...

Viktor Orbán: I would like to avoid this trap, saying something about the Kádár-regime, something which is not necessarily awkward memory related to our young years, because it suddenly turns out that who says something like that is "obsolete, leftist, and would like to bring back the Kádár-years to Hungary". The situation is such that we are unable to stop the growth of our national debt on the short run, from one day to another. But several techniques exist for slowing its growth, stopping it and then reducing it. Let me remind you the reason why we mobilised all our energy for reducing inflation? Remember, inflation stood at 18,5 percent in 1998 and we pushed that figure down to less than 5 percent. Why did we do that? Because if we have a stronger national currency, if the interest rates are lower, then we have easier access to loans. Indeed, we replaced a significant part of our bad loans for good loans with lower interest rates. Our problem today is that it is all to clear for all that the Hungarian economy performs weakly, therefore we are unable to swap our old loans for favourable ones. We are getting loans under worse and worse conditions. To sum up, there are some measures available, but it requires a comprehensive overhaul of economic policy, not only an element of it, namely how to cope with the national debt, but we are in need of a completely new economic policy.

Presenter: Let us turn to another very popular topic, healthcare. There are several questions here. Preserving our health is at least as important as medical treatment, one of the tools for this is sports, which is severely underfinanced at the moment. What concepts does Fidesz have in this arena? What is the reason behind the privatisation of hospitals? On 5 December, a two-thirds majority said NO to hospital privatisation, still there are some plans to sell off some hospitals...

Viktor Orbán: Let me begin with sports and the preservation of our health. Indeed, when Mr István Mikola (Minister of Health in the Orbán-government) worked out the National Health Program, it was centred around the notion that, first and foremost, health needs to be preserved. Healthcare comes only afterwards, when we had lost our health. I vividly remember the debates on government sessions about, for instance, what to do with physical education classes at school. Should there be physical education classes every day at school? In my opinion, there should be. We have not made it that far, but it should be done at some time. I do not believe that today's young generations are inferior to the generations of our parents or grandparents as regards their physical characteristics. But the difference is tangible as far as their physical condition is concerned. It would be very difficult to build a future with a generation which was abandoned in an important phase of their lives, for whom it was not made important to gain physical strength. Thus, I believe that those who seek the essence of healthcare around sports are not entirely mistaken. I would rather not speak about what happened to sports in the current budget, we have not gathered to discuss what has not been done in the past three years, because that would hardly be done during the course of the next year, let us turn toward the future instead.

I heard very interesting remarks about healthcare in Esztergom. The most important remark was that in Hungary today healthcare is not a strategic issue. Let me ask, what is it then? And then I was answered, that nowadays business policies prevail over national ones in healthcare. I asked what they meant. Healthcare workers said that it is brighter than the Sun for them that a part of the Hungarian political elite is speculating on business opportunities concerning the still state-controlled parts of the Hungarian healthcare system. They said this is what the debate on the transformation of healthcare is all about. I think they were right. We must say out loud that healthcare is an issue of high relevance for the nation, other than a business affair. And we must ask a few questions, of course taking the "kádárist" label immediately. But let us ask the question on hospital privatisation: who built those hospitals which are in the hands of the state today? It was not the current government, but mostly the generations brought up in the Kádár-era, mostly today's pensioners. Those cannot be privatised without any consideration, because it is not a propriety of the government, it is public property. Consequently, successive governments must hear the voice of the almost 2 million people on 5 December when they said they did not want public hospitals to be sold. It is not to say that private hospitals cannot work, as nothing denies them functioning. If somebody considers this to be good business, he can build private hospitals. It is allowed to build private hospitals. But it is not allowed to buy public ones.

Presenter: There are many questions asking if hospital privatisation can be stopped as a result of the overwhelming NO vote at the 5 December referendum.

Viktor Orbán: Hospital privatisation may be arranged around two issues. There are certain privatisation intentions which are clearly about real estates. When the economy is not working well, real estate is one of the best investments. How can the old elegant buildings, today used as hospitals, be "picked" from this category and made business with? The other way of thinking goes like this: how can we privatise profitable activities within the hospitals by leaving the less profitable or even deficit activities in state hands? Both tendencies must be stopped. Now, having regard to the fact that 2006 will be an election year in Hungary and we have just had a referendum on the issue, I rule out the possibility of any government bearing the political odium of enabling hospitals and healthcare institutions to be placed in private hands in the face of an overwhelming, albeit non-binding, rejection. I exclude this possibility. Still, if it happens, we should reconsider our profession, and perhaps only our fantasy was more limited than it should have been. But I do not believe in this latter possibility, especially if I take into consideration today's developments and the year ahead of us, and the budget which does not even exist any more. I do not believe that the government wants to arson the roof above its head. In other words, I think that larger healthcare institutions are probably in safety thanks to the decision of the people.

Presenter: Can the government stop raising medicine prices exceeding the inflation rate?

Viktor Orbán: Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, of course it can. Again, pharmaceutical prices belong to the category where governments play an important and even decisive part and have several measures in this regard. Partly official measures, when the government sets the prices for certain medicines, and partly measures related to subsidised prices. I remember that an agreement was in force before 2002, signed by the government at that time and the big pharmaceutical multinationals, which set the degree of price increase at around 4 percent and perhaps we even included several hundred medicines in this category available in Hungary. What happened afterwards? The agreement was scrapped by the new government. Prices have been soaring since then. We must make no miracle here, either. We have already tried something that we tested and worked. It is the Mikola-concepts which should be implemented. By the agreement that the Minister had worked out at that time, one can put a brake on the unnecessary soaring of pharmaceutical prices, which places pensioners in an impossible situation. We have a recipe for this.

Presenter: I suggest that we touch upon a topic which is introduced by a nowadays popular slogan: labour, home, security. Many issues can be discussed under this slogan, the place of women in society to pensions, etc...

Viktor Orbán: I would like to embark upon the issue of labour, if I may, because I think we have arrived to the essence. In order, however, not to commit the impoliteness of ignoring the ladies in today's discussion, let me share with you first two of my experiences. I met ladies in Miskolc and one of them said that whenever she was looking for jobs and she was called for an interview, she was directly posed the question if she wanted to have a baby in the coming years. She was all too aware that answering yes would mean that she would never get that job. I met women who told me they gave birth to two children, stayed at home, graduated at school in the meantime, i.e. they trained themselves and did not wait the plums to fall into their mouth. Then they applied for jobs but were refused because of their children. Because of their children, they did not qualify as "good labour force", not available permanently for the employer. That is where we stand, when we speak about the relationship of ladies and labour.

Hungary features such discriminatory situations which are evidently unacceptable in the European Union. And we do nothing against them. A government has a job to be done here. Not simply executive measures forbidding such behaviour, but also incentives by which enterprises could be made interested in employing mothers. A family-friendly career path must be built for women. If you consider this to be impossible, let me tell you that whereas part-time employment accounts for about 33 percent of the total labour force in Western Europe, this figure stands below 5 percent in Hungary. But we will not be able to provide jobs for women bringing up their children without state-subsidised part-time employment. These were quite shocking experiences in Miskolc.

Presenter: You are planning to introduce a family taxation scheme in 2006, but what exactly is this project? Another question: what do you think about the role of women in politics and how this can be reconciled with family and managing the household?

Viktor Orbán: Let us start at the end. The first thing which is worth noting is that it is not up to the government to decide, instead of the women, what is right or wrong for them. Is it right if they work, or rather if they stay at home as mothers? This is none of a government's business. The governments' task is to realise that the ladies think differently about this issue. There are some of them who primarily want a career without discrimination. If they deliver, they are granted the same salary as men and they want a guarantee for this. And there are those who do not want a job and would rather stay at home raising their children, staying primarily mothers. They have to be given help, too. For instance, with the institution of full-time maternity. And there are also those who want both options. Who say they want a career, but a child, too. There is also someone I know who wants a career and raising five children at the same time. They must be provided the opportunity, as I said, with part-time employment or with some special status. Let them decide! We are not authorised, consecutive governments are not authorised to make decisions in this issue. We have to let all options available and let the ladies succeed. By the way, we try and represent this line of thought in Hungarian politics, but the best would be for them to try. Its painful that we rarely see such ladies in Hungarian politics who fulfil respectable, responsible and serious positions and could be able to influence legislation or government work. All I can say here is that come on, they are welcome, and we would be happy to see more and more talented ladies in our Union taking public responsibilities, considering this work worthwhile and living with this possibility.

As far as the family taxation scheme is concerned, the Hungarian language is difficult, one must be careful with it. Up until now I thought it was clear for all that I meant an extremely positive notion when I talked about family taxation. Nevertheless, as I toured around the country I was asked: is it going to be a new kind of tax, then? I tried and explained that of course not, that family taxation basically replaces the existing personal income tax system in a way which is much more favourable for those who are raising children. We will not repeat what we did last time in government, although I would not like to disqualify that solution which we introduced and which provided a tax break for working parents having children, after each child. That was an important step which had not happened for several decades in Hungary, a step which intended to help families. But it was not enough, because Hungarians think that the tax break on children is something that they get and not something they are entitled to. A big difference! I suggest that we forget about the traditional personal income tax scheme we have had until now. Let us introduce the family taxation scheme which is basically the following. The current unjust approach, which only takes account of the income, should be replaced by the attitude which also observes how many people are being supported by that income. And if someone supports five other people, that income is to be divided in six. The rate will immediately be lower and more money rests with the family. This is the substance of our proposal. It is perhaps not by accident that, although the whole of Europe is suffering from low birth rates, the country where this poses the least problems is where this approach reigns with regards to labour, taxation, childcare, what I have just mentioned. This would be the family taxation scheme.

About the wage increases: in Hungary today, we are being persuaded all the time that it is a bad thing to have a higher salary. We hear it every day that it impairs competitiveness. We hear such comments not only from governmental circles, but sometimes also from entrepreneurs. Well, my dear friends, I am convinced that this is an error. Hungary's problem is that wages are low, as opposed to being high, that is why they are to be increased. It was by no accident that we doubled the minimal wage when we had the occasion, because this happened in respect of labour. If you remember, when the centre-right government took office, the minimal wage in Hungary stood at HUF 19,500. We doubled this amount. The primary reason for doing this was the consideration that salaries must significantly exceed the level of income available from an array of different benefits. If we obtain the same income from benefits as from work, why should we get up in the morning and go to work? Well, ladies and gentlemen, if we want labour to have a respect, we have to pay for it. This is the easiest way of respecting labour. There is another problem, though, which is not simply about wages but which belongs to deeper layers of the Hungarian psyche. I received this question in Várpalota. Why is it that we often feel that the talented person is the one who is adventuring and profiteering, whereas those who can and want to work are untalented? Why is it so?

I sought answer to this question, and I thought to have found it rooted around the time of the democratic transition. If you consider, when in 1990 the age of the market economy and freedom has arrived, many opportunities have opened up. Many have lived with this freedom and many have abused it. And the thought that not working people must be respected but the talented are those who make a living without work has emerged at around 1994. It has become an ideology, a distorted ideology. Whoever gained an income or fortune by deceiving others is "more talented" than someone who wakes up every morning and sets off for an 8- or 12-hour work. Of course, it is important to define somehow, what we mean by working. I tried to set up a definition and came to the conclusion that what we call work is when we earn money in a way profitable to others, as well. That is what we mean by working and let us consider everything else a speculation. Between 1994 and 1998, a characteristic economic system had emerged in Hungary, which can be defined as a pro-profiteering economic and taxation system. Its substance lied in separating work from welfare. This is the biggest problem that can happen in an economy. Because work must be a natural prerequisite of welfare, whereas welfare must be a natural consequence of working. When does somebody work well? It has two conditions. First, to understand his business, it is a matter of education. Second, wanting to work more and better all the time, because he is recompensed in the salary. If he works well, he is well-paid. When work and welfare are separated from each other, and this is what is called pro-profiteering economy, then this latter principle is removed from the system and we start going down the slope. Between 1998 and 2002, we tried to build a pro-labour economic and taxation system, instead of the pro-profiteering one. I am not saying that we fully succeeded. Neither do I say that we fully did our job, we were still far away from calling it perfect. But we started on this road. And people felt that labour was being respected. What do we see now? The past wants to come back.

Since 2002, we are again witnessing the establishment of a pro-profiteering taxation and economic system. We see again that ideal coming back which says that the profiteer needs respect, who earns money without work to the detriment of others. This is where the future of a country ends. Because with such a line of thought the country's heroes are not those who are talented and who are working, but those who want to get rich without work. We must stop this. If there is a change of government in Hungary at some time, we should not be satisfied with a changes of persons in cabinet positions, but we must return to the pro-labour taxation and economic system which had already been introduced back in the times of the last centre-right government. I do not want to put it in a harsher way, but please believe me that this is going to be the genuine stake at the 2006 elections. We must choose between two futures. Shall we allow that we live our lives on the pattern of the pro-profiteering economic system, or shall we change and make steps in the direction of a labour-friendly economic system? We must say out loud that the profiteer is a figure of the past, we do not want to allow him to return and to take our future from us.

Presenter: Let us talk a while about employers! Many entrepreneurs sent us their questions. Why small and medium-sized enterprises are taxed the most when they create most jobs? Why are all multinationals leaving for Slovakia? Hungarian firms suffer in competitiveness because of the high taxes, tenders are won by foreign firms. Why not support the Hungarian firms with tax breaks, instead of the foreign ones?

Viktor Orbán: The questions are right. We talk too much in Hungary about big multinationals and too little about small and medium-sized enterprises. True, multinationals move large capital, but they are not the ones to provide most jobs. The number of people employed by small and medium-sized enterprises exceeds perhaps 2,5 million. Thus when we support entrepreneurs, in fact it is not the entrepreneurs we support. Instead, we try and provide a living for those who are unemployed at present. This was the single most thought behind the Széchenyi Plan. We launched the Széchenyi Plan so that the enterprises could create jobs. It had an other reason, as well. Namely, so that the enterprises feel that the state is not against them, but for them. The state does not simply want to take their money, but if they have an idea, a plan, the state is ready to help. We had never had an example for that in the few decades left behind us. This was the prime significance of the Széchenyi Plan, that is why it was a sin to suspend it instead of launching another. However, I think our parliamentary group searches for answers in the good direction when among their current tax proposals we suggested that corporate income tax should be cut from the present 16 percent to 8 percent in the case of firms with a turnover less than HUF 100 million. This is a good proposal. This is the right direction, such differentiation is allowed in Europe for supporting national small and medium-sized enterprises. We have nothing against multinationals getting rich in Hungary if all of us profit from that. But it is sometimes worth considering why we are elected members of parliament and why are we mandated with governing. The answer: so that we help the Hungarians. For us the priority is that the Hungarians get rich, Hungarian enterprises flourish and create jobs.

I would like to say a few words about unemployment now, if I may, in a way we rarely do. We have this shrewd statistical category called unemployment, and this figure also says that unemployment has risen recently by about 30,000, but this figure says very little about the genuine state of the Hungarian economy. Instead of concentrating on this figure, if you ask how many active people are seeking jobs at the moment, you will get a completely different figure, somewhere between 370-390,000. This is 100,000 more than the number of those in the unemployment statistics. Therefore, the lack of jobs is a much more extensive problem in Hungary than what the official statistics show. Because many more people seek jobs and fail. When we talk about unemployment, we should look beyond those newspaper articles which demonstrates that we are quite well off in Europe as to unemployment, because if I count active job seekers, we may well get a figure about 10 percent for those who are out of work for a shorter or longer period of time. The question weighs more socially and economically than we would think. It may seem dreaming when I say that when considering a new economic policy, a new labour-friendly economy, we should aim at full employment. There are some countries where this works. I can tell you 3-4 countries within the EU where unemployment could be pushed down to this level and employment is almost full. This must be our goal. This is a realistic goal. Do not allow the notion of full employment be labelled as a "kádárist" nostalgia.

Presenter: I have three questions here which all concern a special group in society. What happens to the employment of the disabled? Some consider a serious problem the rise in Roma unemployment because of the miserable situation of the Roma population, and we will shortly turn to the issue of pensioners, as well.

Viktor Orbán: Let us start with the Roma case, perhaps. If I may, I would like to reaffirm without any further detail our earlier principle that we are all interested in the mobility and elevation and integration of the Roma-born Hungarians into our national community as happy and satisfied individuals making a useful contribution. This is the goal for all of us. The question is not this, but how to reach that goal? I have no better answer than what you already heard me saying. In my opinion, there are only two ways leading the integration of the Roma, and these are called work and education. These two possibilities should be offered for them and to persuade them to carry on. If I do not miss the declarations of the Roma organisations, I think our goals are very close to each other and I think their organisations seem ready to support a government program offering work and education.

Presenter: What is to be expected with the disabled?

Viktor Orbán: What we need here is state intervention. We are obviously talking about an issue which will not be solved by the market itself. The fundaments of this system are not bad, the budget allocates resources to this end, the problem is that these resources are dwindling. For instance, the budget this year has significantly cut back such resources. I met people in Esztergom who were fired from their jobs right because of this. I met a manager of a firm employing 30 disabled persons, who told me their site has just been shut down. Earlier regulations helped them, now they are closed and 20 people are out in the street. These are the type of amendments in the budget, which must be considered in advance. But let me cite you another figure. The labour market fund is a huge sum of money in the budget. I am not saying that the rise of unemployment is directly linked to this development, but last year a significant amount, about HUF 13 billion, was withdrawn from this fund. But it happened and unemployment grew. Do you know what amount of money has been withdrawn from the same fund this year? HUF 82 billion, while unemployment is on the rise. These are the decisions for which it is hard to find a rational explanation.

Presenter: The losers of the past and present system are the pensioners. Some questions concern the pension funds, as well as optional early retirement, which would liberate jobs for the younger generations. Many ask why cannot be considered early retirement for those who are working in three shifts, or in a dangerous environment?

Viktor Orbán: The situation is the following. We have certain opportunities, but what we heard for instance in Várpalota is that there are branches of industry, moreover branches with increased health risk, where this option cannot be chosen. Thus, it is worth making a revision in these branches and to see in which health-risk areas it is feasible to apply the option of early retirement. It is interesting to note that in Western Europe the direction of the pension debates is often different. There, many do not want to retire early, because of the significant discrepancy between wages and pensions, and many prefer to stay employed.

In Hungary, the debate goes in the opposite direction. We would be happy to hear opinions like that, arguments that salaries are high and many prefer staying longer at work and ask the government in this regard. We are not there yet. We made steps in that direction so that we could introduce a flexible retiring age. Nor should the state decide on everything here. Some degree of freedom should be vested with the people for them to decide whether they want to retire with fewer number of years spent at work and consequently a smaller pension, or whether they want to stay on longer and receive higher pensions. People should be allowed to choose. Of course, I do not want to bypass the question. We heard the question, if we can declare that after a certain period of time spent at work people could automatically retire. In France, the government coalition is fighting as we speak to fix this limit at 40 years. In other words, if somebody has spent 40 years at work can retire. With a lower pension, by the way, compared to those who serve their years until the general retiring age. And there are countries where women are allowed to retire at an exceptionally preferable age.

As far as the pension fund is concerned, we face a serious problem. But the fact that the pension fund is always in crisis should not be a reason for us to reject every motion which aims at making the system more flexible. The biggest problem we faced in 1990 at the time of the transition when the first centre-right government took office was that the pension fund was empty. Contributions paid earlier were simply missing. The democratic transition set off with this deficit. Had it not happened so, had we had the pension contributions accumulated during the 40 years of communism at our disposal, that would be a huge amount of money, and pensions could be paid from its interests. Sometimes there would be more money in the fund, sometimes less, depending on the number of pensioners in Hungary. But this was not the case. The fund was empty. And ever since then, we have been paying pending pensions from the contributions paid by the actives. This is the truth. This is why we feel that the pension system is on the brink of collapse. But it is not a reason for not trying to move in a direction which allows more flexibility.

Presenter: We have many questions left, but we are running short of time, so let me condense these questions into a more general one: what are the chances for stopping the descent of the economy after a change of government in 2006?

Viktor Orbán: It is possible to do that, but I do not want to point at the composition of the future government as a condition to that, but two other things. The first is what I can put it this way: we must all understand here in Hungary that EU-membership does not mean that we should not fight for our national interests with all available tools. It means the contrary. We have to represent our national interests in a more competitive environment. And therefore, we cannot make every issue in Hungary one of party politics. We have to learn that there are issues of national importance. It is not fashionable to speak like this and sometimes we are criticised if we speak like this. Because we will be lagging behind not only compared to the French and the Germans, but also compared to the Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs. This is only a question of time. Have a look at Slovakia! The problem is not the fact that a few carmakers have set up their sites in Slovakia. What is to be noted is that we were also competing for those sites. Those manufacturers could have come to Hungary, too. And they could have created several thousands of jobs in Hungary. But instead of coming here, they went to Slovakia, where the tax rate is 19 percent. Or look at Romania! There has just been a change of government there. They introduced a 16-percent tax rate. Look at Hungarian wages! The contributions and payroll taxes are highest in Hungary. They are higher than in Romania. Where shall we end up this way? We must understand that certain issues, like redirecting the Hungarian economy from a profiteering to a labour-friendly basis is an issue of national importance. The Romanians, Serbs and the Slovaks know this all too well. They know all too well there that one is first and foremost Romanian, and being a socialist or christian democrat comes only afterwards. The Slovaks also know this, only we, Hungarians fail to recognise this. And if we fail to learn this, i. e. that we are first Hungarians and certain things that are derived from this fact and we are socialists, Fidesz-supporters, christian democrats only afterwards, then Hungary has no chance to recover her economy and gain strength again.

The other issue, a spiritual transformation that we need is perhaps even deeper. Who else can do for this in Hungary than the community which considers itself organised along the civic, national and christian democratic values? Be it the issue of 5 December when we failed to open our hearts and doors in front of the Hungarians beyond our borders, or the question of the birth rates which is one of the lowest in Europe. Are we facing some deeper psychological problem? I also started to think about what may link all these issues together. I came to the conclusion that in Hungary today many people think, I am not saying they are in a majority, but many people think that the fewer we are, the better. However strange as it may seem for us who think otherwise, there are people who think that the other Hungarian is not a stanchion, not a backup and not an aid, but an opponent. "The Hungarian beyond our borders takes away our bread and pensions, makes us leave our homes. The other Hungarian is not an opportunity, but a threat, an obstacle. The fewer we are, the better." If we cannot change this mentality, and if we do not learn that the more numerous we are, the better, Hungary will not regain her competitiveness. I think that the attitude to the state also stands on this bedrock. Because our common, thriving strength is symbolised by the nation, the country, the state. Unless we feel the state to be ours, unless we think that the state, the national and the country exists for facilitating our lives, we wait the change in vain. Let me tell you a strange thing, and I tell you this cautiously, as I do not want rightist critiques following the leftist ones. But the situation is such that we must declare: we must turn the old question the other way round. The old question, close to our hearts, sounds like this: always ask yourself, what you owe to your country, what you owe to your nation? But if you consider the democratic transition, you will find many people saying: what are you talking about? "I paid already. I underwent the transition. I was told it would be hard. I underwent it and lost my job. Who cares about me since then? I am fifty. My salary shrunk in real terms and that is how my pension is calculated now. What shall the state do for us? I have done my part." Our farmers say, "we did it, we entered the European Union. They told us competition would be harsher. We undertook it, we gave our part. But what shall the state, our country give us?" And until we cannot answer the question of what the state, the nation and the country should provide, until we cannot reconstruct it in a way that it could be capable to deliver, there is not much chance to alter our thinking. Although the state owes us a lot, our nation owes us a lot. We live in one nation because we want security. In military terms, out in the street, for our children, for our homes. When I visited the district of Óbuda, almost all flats in the housing block were closed behind security bars. The opportunity to work must be provided, because we will not feel our own country to be ours unless she gives us the economic system providing jobs for those who want to work. She owes us this. She owes us the feeling of not fearing for our children when we let them off to school. Because he/she may have access to drugs at school. The state owes us the guarantee that things like that will not occur. The state owes us the guarantee that our children are taught for right things at school. Our nation owes us the maintenance of Hungarian national culture. If we cannot reconstruct this state and we do not make it obvious for people that the nation will deliver you and that is the reason why the more numerous we are, the better, that is the reason why we must be a stronger nation and state, well, if this line of thought is not made general, then we cannot put back Hungary on her feet, we cannot set her back to the right track again. This is the number two condition of success, in my opinion.

Let us ask the question after all this, what shall we do tomorrow so that things change? I have a suggestion for this, what to do from tomorrow morning onwards. First of all, let us listen to our history, let it teach us. Let us remember the 2002 elections! If we concentrate enough, we may realise that 2002 teaches us that what requires strength is not convincing a lot of people but listening and understanding them. What the centre-right in Hungary needs is not a force of persuasion. (Let us not start a debate what it means left or right, that would derail us. In a certain sense, we could be proud of what the prime minister is saying, namely that we are a left-wing party, but let us leave that now, let us regard it as a compliment as regards our social program.) The centre-right national and christian democratic community should not possess a force of persuasion in the first place, but an ability of comprehension and the force of understanding others. This is what we need. In order that it go beyond a simple declaration and become a key to the future, we must follow this line. I suggest that we make it possible for all people in 2005 to have access to us! Let us make it possible for all people to express their opinions! Let us enable every Hungarian in 2005 to have a say in moulding his/her own future. Accordingly, I suggest that 2005 should be the year of national consultation! We will approach everybody and they can tell us their opinion. This is the machine to be launched, my dear friends. And this machine must be started next week.

This work must start next week and we have to embark upon establishing a new relationship. A new relationship between present and future, Hungarian and Hungarian, a new relationship must be established between politics and the people. This is the new relationship which will render self-confidence which strengthens our souls, and makes us capable of reaching our 2006 goals. In closing all I can tell you is that whatever miserable the 2004 picture may look from the perspective of many Hungarians, whatever clouds are gathering on the 2006 horizon, I would like to ask you never to give up! Let us delete the expression "giving up" from the centre-right, national and christian democratic vocabulary and let us declare that our country cannot be wrecked to the extent which we would make it impossible for us to rebuild her with a joint effort in 2006!