Mr. Viktor Orbán's "State of the Nation" address

Since 1999, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has each year been requested by the Hungarian Association of Civic Cooperation to share his thoughts with the public on the "State of the Nation". This year the former prime minister has again accepted the invitation to address the foreign and domestic events of prime concern to Hungarians, including the crisis in the Middle East and EU-accession.

Dátum: 2003-02-12 10:19:00, eredeti URL: http://archiv.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=7611
KCMDB-be feltöltve: 2024-05-04 18:03:55.777549, Feltöltő: fidesz_hu_scraper_v2

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have today a few thoughts of mine which I wish to share with you, but first of all, do allow me to thank your Association of Civic Cooperation for inviting me here today. I am glad that the tradition you started five years ago continues. For days now, we have been hearing speculations as to the reasons for this gathering of ours. Much like the questions our children might be asked by the curious in their time, to which they may reply that we were here because on the first Thursday of each February, people of national pride gather to exchange opinions on the state of our country's affairs. Our children will have learnt by then that tradition is derived from a sense of continuity and not by way of explanations.

My Friends! I feel embarrassed somewhat by the plethora of topics. As soon as it became known that I was to be with you here tonight, the lights lit up on the switchboard as friends and advisors called to persuade me to deal with this or that, and indeed, I received suggestions even from the other side. So much so, that press conferences had been called to enumerate the issues they felt I ought to deal with.

Just a few examples, if you will, of the subjects they wanted to impress upon me: they felt it important that I talk about "the internal crisis of the centre-right", "the purposefully endangered EU-accession referendum", or about "how the extreme right MIEP supporters and their ideology have prevailed in Fidesz". If not all of this makes full sense to you is not because I am mistaken in my recollections. Also it was suggested that I should evaluate the record of the Medgyessy government - but with the warning that it had better be a positive one - and that I should not fail to mention the steps taken by the government in laying the foundations of an improving welfare society.

Well, now, my Ladies and Gentlemen, I would rather heed the old advice not so much to talk of things that others have a say upon, but rather address myself to matters of which I am knowledgable and to which I may even be able to make a contribution, as well. For this reason, please allow me to share my thoughts with you on issues of war and peace, on our accession to the EU, on sincerity, on straight talk, on the language as she is spoken, on freedom and, if you still hold out, I may reflect on the state of public affairs in our country, as well as on the issues and challenges ahead of centre-right politics. There's no need for panic, all this shall be briefer than it might sound at first.

Only one quarter of the year behind us fell to our government's tenure. For that reason, I stand before you today not as prime minister or as a former prime minister. A four-year era, or if we want to be more modest, a four-year period came to a close in the country's political life, very much like in our own lives. If I understood properly the kind words of introduction, then I assume that you are more interested in the views of one of the leading personalities of the centre-right, of Fidesz. Therefore, if you would allow me, I would rather concentrate on the present and the future in my comments, whereas I would touch upon the past only to the extent that might be useful in contemplating the future.

Well, let us have a look at the issue of war and peace. I shall commence my statements with these issues, since these matters happen to be weighing heavily of the minds of everyone right now around the world. People tend to wish each other good health upon parting company. Today, they wish for peace upon departure. We Hungarians have gained some experience in the ways and means of wars and the current threat is not by any means the first one encountered. You will recall the recent conflict in the Balkans, where some 350 000 of our fellow Hungarians live, out of which we emerged without having lost a single Hungarian life. This proved to be a baptism of fire for Hungary, then a NATO member for a mere fortnight, without anyone's life here at home having been unduly affected.

Well, let us pose the question, how could all this have happened in such a manner? I would say it was because Hungary in those days possessed an accurate compass. In every moment of danger and before every decision taken, we have asked ourselves the simple question: what is the Hungarian interest? Nowadays, it is the threat of a distant war that casts a shadow on us. Many of us, perhaps the majority of our population, feel that we are not in possession of the right answer. We appear to be drifting, as if someone had failed to raise the same question again: what is the Hungarian interest? Instead, we are hearing of foreign expectations only, as if those who now direct Hungary's foreign policy were lost in a haze as to what the true Hungarian interests are. However, where haze prevails begins the realm of mistakes, as well. Now that conflicting signals, wishes and expectations are arriving from capitals important to us, we seem to have lost our way in the jungle of big power games in the absence of a reliable navigating instrument of our own. I tend to believe that it is for this reason that the citizens of this country, including Members of Parliament, must learn of the intentions of this country's leadership from the foreign press. We do not know if this was on purpose or not, whether they have truly lost their way or that they had set out in a certain direction on purpose. The essence of the matter is that we understand and the rest of the world understands that the Hungarian Government has opted for war. The government, however, does not by any means speak for the entire country. The vast majority of Hungarians want peace, yes, peace rather than war. And indeed, the way we see is that there is still a chance for a peaceful solution. For this very reason, we should preserve our sobriety. For it is our conviction that Hungarian interests require that as long as there is a hair's breath of a chance for peace, we should remain calm instead of acting hastily or falling in line with others. We may add to this that, as a nation of 1956, we ought to make it perfectly clear that it would be unacceptable for us to go to war with any independent country without the decision and authority of the international community.

My dear Friends, no amount of humane declarations could possibly repair the mistake that we have drifted into the war supporters' camp. Let us remember that not a single snowflake would ever admit to having started an avalanche.

Let us exchange a few words over the matter of joining the European Union. We all know and feel that this is an important issue. The accession negotiations have ended and it also turned out that the conditions of our admission were beneath all our previous expectations. It may not be an exaggeration to claim that we are likely to be second-class members for a few years. The numbers are known, the comparisons are clear. In the case of per capita support, Hungarians will obtain some 49 euros, compared to the 437 euros received by Greeks, whose country is much better-off than ours, or the 418 euros of the Portugese. Also we have learnt by now that Hungarian farmers will get only one quarter of support compared to their French, German, Austrian and other European colleagues. We may therefore state that the terms and conditions of our admission in many areas refute the principles of fair competition, common sense and mutual accommodation. Slowly we also come to accept that in the wake of our entry, we may not enjoy some well-deserved rest but rather we shall face still more struggle in a competition harsher than we find today. It is not surprising therefore, if the voice of concern rings ever louder. Many intellectuals and experts on law who enjoy a degree of popularity within the civic circles movement have even ventured to suggest, and let me now quote them, we find unacceptable the myrads of rules and regulations stemming from the present overcentralised authority of the union which tend to limit our sovereignty.

All these things are true and all these opinions are to be taken into consideration. And still, despite the numerous counterarguments, the arguments in favour of membership tip the balance toward accession. I shall repeat this slowly, for the benefit of those who do not want to understand it. Let me repeat once again, therefore: the arguments in favour of membership tip the balance toward accession. It is my strong conviction that despite the obvious difficulties, Hungary should struggle for equality, for the right of self-determination, and for transforming the internal workings of the European Union in ways that suit our taste. Well, my dear Friends, many portray this sober assessment of the situation as ill-willed acvilling, or to use the terminology of the well-informed or the semi-literate, as euroscepticism. We are of the opinion, however, that one does have to recognise the fact that in all likelihood the institutes or the states or political parties and, what is more, even the EU itself could be less than flawless, simply because the people who bring such entities into being and who maintain them happen to be less than perfect themselves. It was this healthy and, let me say, natural human thinking that had separated for long decades the citizens of western nations from our world here, from the world where the final solution was being expected from the emergence of a perfect society and was to be achieved through total adherence to the Party.

There is yet another problem here, however. A growing number of people are feeling now that the government intends to demostrate support for the European Union as a sign of its own popularity. This undercover intention has been unmasked by now for all thinking people. And pronounce out it loud: it is an unnecessary game. As the old saying goes: when you put cheese in the mousetrap, be careful to leave room for the mouse, too. For this very reason, we recommend to the government not to turn the EU-referendum into party politics. For the same reason, we ask the people not to hand down a sentence on the government on 12 April, regardless of what they think about it, but to vote on the merits of the accession proposal only. All the recent debate about the European Union has brought to the surface yet another and possibly an even more serious matter. This is the issue of the freedom of speech, freedom of thought and the freedom of opinion, in other words, the issues of the very pillars of democracy. Let us stop for a moment here. One of the government's EU campaign slogans reads like this: "whoever votes against EU- membership casts a vote against his children's future". In fact, this line of reasoning is more offensive than the one-time memorable slogan "whoever is not with us, rallies against us". Such a line of argument was perhaps once acceptable to persuade people to join "voluntarily" the kolkhoz farming collectives. Alas, this will not do in the case of EU-accession at all. My friends, it seems an idle effort to attempt to swot up the new vocabulary of democracy if the grammar remains the same old stuff. For if someone is branded with having sold his children's future, that person in fact is being necessarily excluded from the community of decent people. In a democracy, a referendum is supposed to be about the opposite. It is supposed to be about whether we are interested in each other's opinions. Whoever holds an office of responsibility, must have ears to hear the questions and must also have a heart to respond to the causes of doubts and uncertainties. Persuasion, this is we all need to learn, begins with listening, listening to the other's opinion.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Sailing back to home waters, let me say the following: the most characteristic phenomenon of public life, even ten months after the elections, is a continuing, unrelenting and incomprehensible urge to destroy everything put in place by the previous administration. The trail of debris include the Szechenyi Plan, student loans, motorway construction, farmers' credit scheme, family enterprises, the House of Terror, the Bozsik programme as well as the National Theatre and the Status Law. It would seem to an observer that nothing whatsoever built up during the previous four years was good enough to last. One might be even tempted to think that they would even pull down the bridge across the Danube at Esztergom only to put it up anew a few metres up or downriver just to be able to claim it as their own.

The sad thing is about such a process is that it causes damage in the human soul besides the destruction of material or spiritual values. In this way people, possibly in their millions, are being affected in their self-esteem or dignity - people who could rejoice and still rejoice in the prospering of their country. We all know that our country, though not without any fault, grew and prospered between 1998-2002. We can only hope that no worse period shall ever befall upon this country.

Can there be a rational explanation for this kind of wanton destruction? Can there be a reasonable explanation for the continuing preoccupation of this government with the opposition in the midst of the thickening gloom of economic woes? Can there be a rational explanation why this government would rather act as the "opposition of the opposition" instead of conducting itself as a responsible government? One likely explanation to the rage might be that their irresponsible and wholesale accusations are being refuted one by one. There was no influx of 23 million Romanians into this country, as they predicted, nor was anyone's free Saturday taken away, there was not to be the "night of the long bytes", nor were there trucks full of anti-MSZP leaflets rolling in from Austria, any more than there was anything irregular found in the accounts of the House of Terror, nor was there any abuse found in the finances of the movie on Széchenyi. One of this government's Secretaries of State has just recently had to apologise for demeaning remarks made about the makers of the Bánk bán movie. Worth noting that this particular Secretary of State happens to be the third member of this government to lose a slander case at court. And their lineup is far from complete yet.

This could well be one of the causes of their rampage but what other causes could there be? Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, another reason could well be that the 2002 general elections yielded a precarious balance hitherto unknown in modern Hungarian politics. Is it not the reason that it is the first time that the Left finds itself in a situation where it has to govern the country with balanced forces? In the period prior to 1989-90, let us say from about the end of post-war coalition times or following 1956, the Left simply did away with their political opponents, either killed them or jailed them or forced them into exile. It came to path in 1994 that a left-wing government lawfully gained office for the first time in Hungarian history under democratic conditions and free elections. We are aware that then the Left faced a weak, splintered political centre-right, having just lost its prime minister, as well as a shaken, frightened and withdrawn centre-right electorate that was even afraid to voice its opinion. In addition, the Left had gained a two-third majority in Parliament with which it could easily change the constitutional framework by not hurting the constitution itself. The fact that only the Bokros package stayed as their most memorable achievement from for those four years, makes for an other story by all itself. Today, however, the situation is that there is a slim parliamentary majority. Today, although the steering wheel of government have been taken away from us, support for the centre-right has never been as solid, there has never been so many people on this side at any one time as there are today in our ranks.

Supporters of the centre-right have never before been more determined, devoted or enthusiastic as today. For the first time after 1947, notwithstanding the magnificent two weeks in 1956, it is again the centre-right supporters who are braver and more outgoing in standing up to their views than the advocates of the current government. As things stand today, people with patriotic inspirations found on the centre-right could make moves, if necessary and if they so deem, in their hundreds of thousands. Let us face it, it was much easier in the past for the Left. It was much easier once upon a time, when Géza Hofi and János Komlós played, with great talent though, the role of the opposition. However, today we live in different times and there is a new tune being played as well. It seems that these are not the times of the saloon opposition, but those of the folk hero Lúdas Matyi. So, come on, Lúdas Matyi!

Ten months after the elections, it is high time for all of us, including the parties of the current government, to calm down and face the realities. It is high time for all of us to realise that the mandates of the centre-right will not be less. It is high time for all of us to realise that the centre-right stands united and showing no sign of unravelling. It is high time for all of us to realise that the unity of the centre-right will not disintegrate, neither from within, neither from outside. It is being kept together by a band of millions of voters.

It is time that, ten months after the elections, the government got down to the business of solving everyday problems, instead of being obsessed with the opposition. The time has come for the government not to be the opposition of the opposition, but to grow up to hard task and challenge of government.

There is yet another factor with which present and future governments alike should get acquainted. The overwhelming majority of people, and I do not think I am mistaken in saying this, regardless of their party sympathies or even perhaps independently thereof, can readily identify with the most important achievements of recent years. They may claim as their own the extra family support, the strict control of gas, electricity, medicine and transport prices, the protection of national assets together with the support given to Hungarian enterprises. They readily identify with the protection of Hungary's arable lands the homestead farm support schemes and the strict penalties imposed on drug trafficking as well as the pursuits of other crimes. They can identify with, I believe, the Status Law, too. These are the values, these were the goals and achievements which the majority of the people regardless of the colour of the government held dear, and with a sober mind, we can probably assume that they would continue to appreciate and cherish them: as for the majority of the people these are not about politics, but about life itself, about the life of his own and that of his family. Even if it is an uncomfortable feeling, all of us have to get used to the idea and the fact that the achievements of the current turn of government will be likewise judged by what it leaves behind: we can look back upon the Szechenyi plan, the Status Law, the family tax benefits, the student loan scheme, the Maria Valeria bridge, the University of Transylvania and the new National Theatre.

The task of leaving an imprint upon the country is not an easy one. It is not an easy one, but not one that cannot be accomplished, either. And success, let us admit bravely, is our common interest. Well, my Friends, there is an issue in Hungarian politics today that we would rather not talk about because it seldom occurred in its own right. Let us pose the seemingly simple question that who is arguing with whom and in reality who is facing whom out there in Hungarian politics? If we were to put this question to you in the audience, possibly nine out of ten would answer something like that one political party with the other, or possibly something else that common sense would presume. But is it really the case, my dear Friends? Let us consider the issue of public security, crime or law enforcement: between 1998 and 2002, the number of recorded criminal acts dropped from 600,000 to 421,000. We all know that such a continuous and significant decline has not occurred in the last decade or so. In addition, the number of recurring criminals dropped by 30 percent in the same period. We may truthfully claim therefore that as a result of four years of very hard work, there are now fewer criminals on the streets and still fewer of the habitual criminals are to be found at large. In other words, we can truthfully say that the prospect of stiffening penalties did act as a deterrent against crime. From March 2003, however, under an earlier regulation, the severity of the Penal Code will be significantly alleviated. The people do not want that. Then who is it good for? It seems that the government is in reality facing the multitude of law-abiding citizens. Or let us look at the drug situation. Until very recently, the law pursued drugs and drug distributers. This government, on the other hand, has changed the law in respect of drug usage and trafficking. According to the new laws and regulations and I am not quoting word by word but the essential thing is that one may escape punishment under certain circumstances even when distributing drugs at school. According to the minister, the act of conveying drugs covers drugs-for-money transactions as well. Who is to benefit from this? We parents are against it. The least we can expect from a government is that anyone selling drugs to our children at school should be punished with the full severity of the law. It can be well observed, or should we rather say that it would appear as though, the government had squared up against parents fearing for their small children.

Then let us take a matter of state assets and the question of its privatisation. In Hungary today, more than 80 percent of the GDP comes from the private sector. This is a percentage much higher than what is to be found in a number of western countries. Between 1994 and 1998, under the previous socialist administration, a good portion of the strategic national wealth was sold, in our opinion, below its real value. Many corrupt transactions during these times had come to light. The exposure of the Hungarian economy to foreign capital has significantly increased as a result. Certainly not by mistake, the government decided to postpone the next round of state asset sales until after the EU-referendum on 12 April, but some preparations to this end have already begun. So who is this good for, when approximately 80 percent of the population oppose further disposal of state property? Then let us look at the position of Hungarian enterprises. Once again, the majority of people subscribe to the opinion that domestic companies should have a preferred position at home. Few people realise that in Western Europe 80 percent of public purchases get funneled to their own businessmen, and in some instances, this percentage can get as high as 90 percent. Yet in Hungary today, highway construction is put up for bids in such a fashion so as to exclude Hungarian companies from the tenders. So in whose interest is all this?

It is for all to see that the factory closures which create layoffs by the thousands will amount to a most serious problem, too. Where will all these people get new jobs? We thought that the small and medium-sized Hungarian enterprises were about to soak up unemployment. Supposed that they are helped by the state to this end. Let us say, with a Széchenyi Plan, for instance. The Széchenyi plan has been suffocated. Who is to benefit from this, Ladies and Gentlemen? For the Minister of Labour is a clever person who sooner or later will see that, in the absence of newer investments, only supporting the Hungarian enterprises can bring about meaningful reductions in unemployment. Here, too seems to score the old proverb saying that one should always weigh twice than slice once too often. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have now come to the case of the strong HUF which appears to resemble all the aforementioned to a frightening degree. Hungarians believe in the strong HUF and with good reason, because they know that when their currency is weak then prices rise and that pulls down the value of their labour thus devaluing their earning capacity. The government nonetheless wishes to weaken the HUF on purpose. Once again I must ask you: who would benefit from all this? Here too, we are faced with a situation in which the people believing in the strong HUF, most likely the majority of us, debate the government in office. Let us mention, if only in parentheses, that the Hungarian National Bank rebutted speculators betting against the HUF evoking an international applause and professional acknowledgement. As a result, the Governor of the MNB Zsigmond Járai has made tens of billions of HUF in profit, ultimately to the benefit the state budget. It is incomprehensible therefore, why the government under these circumstances should attack Governor Járai, despite the fact that until now, he has been the only one in a leadership position to have made money for the budget.

And let us continue with the questioning: who stands to benefit from all this? In the same manner, the same question can be applied to the Status Law. The coalition parties, it would seem, would squeeze this law until it becomes a dead text void of its original content which after all has already provided impetus and a fresh atmosphere of hope for the Hungarian communities in the dire strait of minority position. Who is to benefit from such course of action? In reality, the government is battling not so much with the opposition here, but rather with the Hungarians beyond the borders. They are already wondering whether there is still a place for them to be called as a mother country. Our message to them, if they permit is that governments may come and go, harder times may come and go, but the mother country shall remain and they can always count on it.

Lastly, we must continue to persist with this line of questioning in the case of the Hungarian agriculture, too. What do we see over there? Until recently, family farms received 16,000 HUF in support per hectare of land, as well as soft loans were at their disposal. The government recently took away half of the support scheme's value, as well as suspended the soft loans. So who is to benefit from this? Tens of thousands of rural employees will find themselves in difficulties even greater than those endured by them so far. Our farmers will shortly be subjected to stiff competition with farmers in much better shape and enjoying much greater support financially. I have to ask yet again - who is to benefit from this? I believe it is our job, my dear Friends, to raise these matters in public time and again even if we are to receive nothing else but ridicule and accusations from the government for our efforts.

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is already enough to open a newspaper at random to meet news of concern. Factory closures, employees laid off by the thousands, schools destined to be closed up, hospital employees prepared to strike. Stormclouds are multiplying over the sky of the Hungarian economy. One could find the following stories, for example, in yesterday's Népszabadság. There was a report on impending strikes over the energy sector, or that some 25 percent, or half a billion HUF less resources are available to stimulate exports. We could read of local grass-roots campaigns to save neighbourhood hospitals in Budapest. But my Friends, not all the news that we read is altogether bad, for the Minister of Education does have some good news for us. Let me cite the recommendation that students need not be made to repeat classes having failed at examinations. While he failed to draw unqualified support for his idea, at a closer look we discover that there is some merit to it. Namely, that it should not only apply to elementary pupils but be extended to cover governments, too. What is more, he should have filed his report much earlier in order to spare us some bad headaches.

So dear Friends, for the sake of avoiding misunderstanding, let us put it on the record that there is no question of a collapse of the Hungarian economy. For it is much stronger than that. All we can responsibly say today is that problems are appearing more and more often. A number of well-known economists, among them friends of the current government, have already raised the alarm bells. As for myself, I feel this may well be a bit of exaggeration but there could well be a common understanding that unless the government changes its ways, god forbid we could well be in receipt of a Medgyessy fiscal package. There are still other developments worthy of our attention. If you can still bear with me, I would raise a few of them here and now. Take this matter of factory closures, for example, where the official explanation blames the 50,000 HUF per month minimum wages as one of the causes. Just for the record: in Portugal the minimal wages happen to be the double of ours, in Greece and Spain two and a half times higher, whereas five times higher in Ireland, Great Britain and France. Let us not be embarrassed to say out loud that the government has doubled its own salaries while it lectures the man in the street for intending to take home HUF 50,000 for their families.

The true reality show is not being played out on the Hungarian commercial TV channels nowadays: the true life drama is being played out along the Hungarian-Austrian border where Hungarians once again are doing their shopping in Austria. This time around they are going out there not so much for scarce material, but because it is cheaper to buy clothing, shoes and fuel there. Who would have thought of such a turn of events a few years ago? And next, allow me to say a few words about the regrettable fact that why the Peugeot automobile company will not have made-in-Hungary vehicles. Such developments may happen even among optimal macroeconomic conditions. What is interesting is that how this particular decision was explained to the public by one of the officials of the Ministry of Economy: he said that Hungarian officials had notified the French company that the material would be debated by the government at its session of 17 January. The reporter answered by saying that Peugeot made the decision three days earlier, on 14 January. The official commented that the reason for the timetable of the decision should be searched with Peugeot. As the last of the stories worth mentioning, let me draw your attention to this little story that has so far not been officially confirmed, although it is already a topic of hot debate in Western Europe and in the United States in particular. According to news reports, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office has authorised the state secret service operation, Mosad, to liquidate suspects in other countries of the anti-terrorist coalition. The state secretary in charge of the Hungarian state security agencies, when asked about the issue, answered that he was sceptical as the report had not yet been confirmed, but in any case, and now I quote him, no such action may be carried out on Hungarian soil without an official permission of the authorities here. The question that inevitably arises in one's mind is what if permission was granted. Yes, you have heard me well, with permission, yes, and the job gets done, Ladies and Gentlemen.

What undoubtedly makes things even more difficult for all of us is that we increasingly find it harder to understand one another because of newly found linguistic mishaps. Ten months ago they claimed that the budget was empty and then they went to distributed 320 billion HUF. Ten months ago they said that the state administration was bloated because of the Prime Minister's Office, and the concentration of power had become terrible. So they went out to "decrease" the PM's Office budget from 3.5 to 7.1 billion HUF and "reduced" its staff from 540 to 800. There is a factory closure practically every week, whereas we are hearing of victory celebrations in job creation. Highway tolls have been increased with the explanation that in this way motorists now can drive over an additional 160 kilometers of new highways. Earlier we had heard of nothing else but that the previous government built no highways at all. We tend to think of the story when the old Szekler is asked by someone, whether he knows if fish drink water. The old Szekler answers: "Whether the fist drinks water, I have no idea. But he has the opportunity do so, that is for sure."

Let us therefore talk about the language we use, of straight talk, and of freedom. Back in the time of socialism, leaders used language to disguise their thoughts. True enough, when we spoke to them, we too tried to make use of the language in an obscure manner. Twelve years ago, the most uplifting success of the political transformation was how words regained their true and original meaning. At last we spoke so that others may become familiar with our thoughts. My friends, freedom requires more than one conditions. Essential to freedom and democracy are a constitution, as well as free elections and inevitably we need a Parliament, too. But do believe me that all this together does not amount to too much because it will not work if sincere discussion is absent from our midst. The old Chinese considered: when words lose their meanings, people lose their freedom. Moreover, not only their freedom, but also their security. That is what we experienced with the issue of the Taszár air base. First we were told that interpreters would be arriving. Fine. Then it turned out that the interpreters our future administrative experts. Fine. The future administrative experts, however, turned out to be volunteers in contract with the United States armed forces. That is how we learned that the word "interpreter" means "mercenary" in Hungarian. That is not fine, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Instead of jokes, let us consider this issue a serious one and let us say out loud that our people deserve more than this talk and this treatment. They deserve straight and sobering words, all of us in fact deserve this commodity, including those who believed on a hot summer day the words on free schoolbooks, no increases in gas prices, no cuts in jobs, unhindered pension improvements and that support for our farmers and small businessmen would not cease. We are thirsty for clear words and, no matter if the news are bad, we prefer them to arrive in a pristine linguistic format.

Finally having dealt with national matters of one kind or another, allow me to take a closer look at our own backyard. Ten months ago we did not make it a secret that the situation was indeed very severe for us and that the months ahead would be decisive. At that time I quoted Sándor Márai to you, so it would be equally fitting if I did so again. Here is what he says: All that the world might want from you is merely compromise or half-solution. All that counts is what you have contracted with yourself and in this contract there cannot be compromise. We said then, Ladies and Gentlemen, that all that is important from a government's job, and then we thought of the past four years, is what becomes a part of our own lives. At the time we said that whether the past four years had indeed stemmed from our spirit, this we would know in due course.

Well, I think we have got the answer in the ten past months, we might just as well declare the results. My dear Friends, despite the lack of governmental tools and opportunities, we have stayed together. Citizens in their hundreds of thousands have come to realise what the little hero Maugli taught us in the Jungle Book: we are of the same blood, you and I. All these people have come to recognise that to stand alone is to be like a single stem of reed that may buckle in the wind. But take a stand of ten, twenty, thirty, thousand, ten thousand, or hundred thousand stems of reeds and they can remain standing tall and proud and may even fend off the wind. And we, Ladies and Gentlemen, had the power to stay together, and as a result, we had the power to protect our values. If this is an imaginary award ceremony here, the gold medal undoubtedly goes to women. During the last ten months, and I have experienced this at all the centre-right events that I visited in this period, if it came to the values we cherish, solidarity, human dignity and freedom, they were the ones to be the most determined and most self-sacrificing amongst all.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let us pose the question, what can the opposition, and the citizens of centre-right sympathy do in the current situation? The opportunities available to the opposition in Parliament are few. It may form an opinion if it deems that the government is heading in the wrong direction, it may put forward alternative solutions, it may help its country on the international scene. Although the tools are scarce, the opposition, with the help of the people, has managed to score some results. We have managed to effect changes in the constitutional amendments concerning EU-accession so that it would not sacrifice our national independence upon our entry in the European Union. we have managed to prevent the government from discriminating against religious instructors. And although we are not satisfied with the current version of the drug legislation, the current verasion is less harmful than it would have been without a determined stand taken by the opposition. And what can you do, Ladies and Gentlemen? First of all, let us forget the idea that the exclusive terrain of public life is the Hungarian parliament. In fact, public life is present everywhere in all communities. It is now our and your responsibility to save those values which we collectively represent in Hungarian public life: human dignity, family, work, learning, order, national solidarity. And these values are only present if we are also present everywhere. Centre-right forces cannot therefore aim lower than being present at every town, village and settlement throughout the country. Let us consider that ever since the civic circles have come into being, the values we cherish are ever more present, more and more people are talking about them, more and more people are standing by them in debates, which has contributed to a change in the country's spiritual make-up.

The moral lesson of the past four years might be that people like us must only shoulder the responsibility of government for the sake of grand national goals. We must also know, however, that an uncompromising representation of national interests inevitably provokes confrontation. The reason for this is that we did not have time in the eight years after the fall of communism to settle several issues determining our future. There was not enough time to provide the pensioners with adequate allowances. There was not enough time to make the Hungarian entrepreneurs equal partners of their foreign colleagues. The first eight years were not enough to protect the Hungarian families from the unjustified price rises carried out by big international companies. The first eight years were not enough for linking up the lives of Hungarian communities in the Carpathian Basin with that of our own, so that we could provide for their survival.

Therefore, as a result of the eight years before 1998, the centre-right government had to protect the Hungarian positions, let me put it cautiously, vis-a-vis several international financial institutions, multinational companies, and international organisations, let alone the domestic debates. Let us have a look at the situation realistically. Our perseverance was enough for four years, but only for four years. Now the time has come to gain strength. I do not think we need a spiritual strength, but a physical one: the question is whether we will be able to shoulder the burdens stemming from the abovementioned conflicts, and to that end, I am convinced that we need to build a strong, European people's party.

Let us glance over our shoulders to see the road we have travelled. What has happened to us, in fact? We might say that we wished for strength and the Almighty gave us hardships in which we learned of strengthening ourselves. We asked for wisdom and he gave us problems that we learned to solve. We sought progress but Providence gave us brains and brawn with which we learnt to seek solutions. We asked for bravery and he exposed us to danger which we could conquer. We longed for love and we found people in distress whom we were to help. Dear friends, we received nothing that we asked for and we received everything we need.

A citoyen is perhaps someone, to quote Zsigmond Móricz, who is not satisfied with living as he can, but someone who is working in a way that he be able to live as he wishes. Those people who share these thoughts and sentiments know that politics is only one, albeit exciting, slice of everyday life. Those people who share these thoughts and sentiments notice the beauties of life even if politics is not proceeding in the direction they wish. Those people who share these thoughts and sentiments have noticed also in 2002 that Andrássy avenue and the Tokaj wine region have become parts of the UN World Heritage, that the first Hungarian Nobel Prize in literature was born, that Hungarian children have again won significant prizes at the student olympics, that the Millenary Exhibition have had more than half a million visitors and that the National Theatre has opened its gates. So those who share these sentiments and think akin to us those are the people who grow stronger in trust, friendship and love felt toward one another. Take it from me that when those fellow compatriots of ours, who have been estranged from us by political deceit, demagogy or expert hate-mongering, will see these three qualities: trust, friendship and love radiate from our faces, they may be able to liberate themselves from the prison of hatred and they may meet us on the way.

Let there be peace. Come on Hungary, come on Hungarians!