Liberals stigmatize conservatives and Christian Democrats, try to make them impossible... Today there is no liberal democracy, only liberal non-democracy; it has liberalism but no democracy. I fight liberals for freedom. While I am on the side of freedom, they are on the hegemony of opinion. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated in his interview with the Slovak news portal Postoj, which we will publish in its entirety:
Let's start with the hottest topic of the last few months, vaccines...
…Yes, but there is another hot topic. Because why are we actually sitting here now? Hungary is preparing for the V4 presidency, and I saw that I last gave an interview to a Slovak newspaper in 2009.
You gave this interview to former colleagues of .týždeň on Rimaszomba, at the MKP congress. By the way, the truth is that he has given three interviews to German newspapers in recent months...
...exactly, nothing for the Slovaks. I think this is not a normal thing and I decided that it should be changed.
Already at the end of autumn, when nothing could be guessed about the complications surrounding the vaccine shipments, you already cast your vote in favor of the Russian and Chinese vaccines. Did you anticipate these shipping issues, or was the vote for Eastern vaccines something close to your heart in the first place?
I decided this way because I went through a similar case in the spring of last year, only then it was called the fight for ventilators. The demand was much greater than the supply, we foresaw something similar and wanted to secure ourselves. And since we have good relations with Russia and China, we inquired in advance if they would be able to sell us vaccines. They replied yes, in limited quantities. Just now, before entering this room, I finished a telephone conversation with the President of China. I have just agreed with him that the remaining vaccines will be delivered to us at an earlier date.
In Slovakia, the government was shaken partly because of Sputnik, as part of the government does not agree with its use without registration by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Were you not afraid that they would start vaccinating without European registration?
Our inspection authority is world-class. We did not allow the Russian and Chinese vaccines to be put on the market automatically, it had to be approved by our control authority. But if there is any suspicion, we will also have the Western vaccine checked. For example, we now see that there is a problem with the Janssen vaccine from Johnson & Johnson. EMA's opinion on this vaccine is not automatically accepted. It went to the warehouse, and the inspection authority will inspect it in the same way as the Chinese or Russian vaccine.
In the next few days, the Hungarian laboratories will also decide on the Slovak Szputnyik, but many people will not trust this, arguing that Szputnyik was not actually approved by Hungarian scientists, but by Viktor Orbán.
Slovakia is a sovereign country. We were asked for help to give a professional opinion. We will publish it and you can do what you want with it. There will always be silly speeches.
In recent weeks, the term sovereignty has been used several times in connection with Budapest. After your meeting with former Prime Minister Igor Matovič and György Gyimesi - where they agreed on the testing of Sputnik in Hungary - Mr. Gyimesi stated that these discussions were successful because Slovak diplomats did not participate in this discussion. If a Slovak diplomat had been present, would they not have reached an agreement with Matovič?
I will not take the problems of Slovak politics on my shoulders. I can only say that Hungary's intentions were good. I am always willing to serve everyone who was my Prime Minister colleague, and through him, my nation. If tomorrow Fico or former Prime Minister Pellegrini say they want to talk to me, I will be at their disposal. I have been in politics for a very long time, which is hard work, but there is also a pleasant part. You have to work with different types of people, which is intellectually very exciting, also in the case of Slovakia with Fico, Pellegrini and Matovič, who are completely different personalities. I had a very good relationship with all of them, both politically and personally.
Mikuláš Dzurinda was also opposite you for four years. Which of them was the most intellectually interesting to you?
Mikuláš is getting lost in the fog, I'd rather stay with the last three. Robert Fico is a fighter, an old political fighter, who always fought hard for the interests of Slovaks, in all our negotiations, when we sat down. We had to invest a lot of emotional and intellectual energy to realize in the end that cooperation is better than fighting. We have reached this point, we have concluded many good agreements. And being an old fighter myself, I know that fighters have mutual respect for each other. Pellegrini is a completely different type. He is a man of compromises, who always wants to agree. Of course, he strives for a good agreement, but in a more Mediterranean, relaxed way.
And Igor Matovič?
Unfortunately, I had little time to work with Igor Matovičc. For him, Christianity is the key. Mr. Matovič is a man of absolutely good intentions. A classic, Catholic, well-intentioned man. When I sat down to talk with him, it was as if I were talking to Brother Matovič. These things matter. We should not believe the Western political idea that institutions are the most important thing in politics. They are always operated by people. Personal character, way of thinking, worldview are extremely important. These characters have played a very positive role in the construction of Slovak-Hungarian relations in recent decades.
Even though the number of inhabitants of Hungary is less than 10 million, in Europe you are constantly talked about, you are seen as a strong player, the media portrays you in the same way...
...I think it's more like I'm running the devil's empire. In other words, this is not such a positive highlight, on the contrary.
You were helped to this new position by the refugee crisis, during which you said what many Europeans to the west were thinking, but their politicians did not say.
That's right. Probably everyone is more concerned with Hungary than its weight would justify, because we took a stand against the entire mainstream on the subject of migration. My European colleagues were all constantly talking about a European solution, and I told them that if there was no such solution by a certain date, we would build the fence on a national basis and stop migration. Time passed, there was no European solution, and I did what I said before. Migration opens up many issues, such as border protection, family, demography, security, terrorism, which are serious geopolitical issues, but also ideological issues. And since I participate in these discussions, this makes Hungary and me personally known.
Isn't it the case that Chancellor Angela Merkel made you a European symbol, who rejected the protection of German borders in September 2015?
It is often the case in Hungarian history that the Germans make the heroes, but also the martyrs.
He must have talked to her many times since then. Do you think he regretted this move?
Yes, I spoke to him several times and tried to convince him that our own path, which we Hungarians have chosen, can also be followed by others. I never wanted to convince him to think differently about migration. If the Germans want to let in millions of Muslims and build a multicultural society, that is their decision, their destiny. I only asked him to recognize our right so that we too could have a free decision. Which is different from German. We do not want such a society. I asked him not to strive for hegemony, but for pluralism. He responded that migration cannot be stopped. My answer to this was that Hungary will prove that it is possible, and consider us as a laboratory. And how did he regret it? In this regard, it is not Angela Merkel who is interesting, but the German spirit.
Photo: postoj.sk
What do you think?
Germans believe that if the native German society begins to abandon Christian values, when it will live with the millions of Muslim migrants, it will mix and create a new society. In political terminology, this is called an open society, and Germans believe in it. I do not believe in this, as I think that this way parallel societies will be created, which will live side by side, and this can cause big problems. I do not wish this for my own country.
You mentioned the multicultural German spirit, but right after you became a hero in the German CSU after the refugee crisis, and when your name was mentioned at mass events, the Bavarians applauded obliviously, and the People's Party chief, Manfred Weber, only spoke of you in superlatives . Today you are not allies, quite the opposite. What happened between you?
All love has a history of development, but the personal part of it is perhaps not so interesting. It is enough to know that Mr. Weber insulted Hungary when he said that he did not want to be president of the European Commission with the Hungarians' vote. The Hungarian people expected from me that such a statement would not remain without consequences. With the votes of the Hungarians, Weber could have been the chairman of the committee, but he said he didn't want it that way, so it didn't happen. In politics, which is also about personal ambitions, this obviously caused him some personal pain. But such is life. Behind personal things there is something else, which is perhaps the most important question of our time. What do the Germans want? German Europe or European Germany? That's a huge difference.
What is this difference?
When Germans want a German Europe, it means they want to tell other peoples what to do and how to live. And Manfred Weber joined this trend. He wants to determine what is right in migration, family policy, tax policy. He wants to tell us how we Hungarians should live. Helmut Kohl did the opposite: he wanted a European Germany, he aspired not to hegemony but to pluralism. He always acknowledged that even smaller peoples have the right to decide their own destiny.
Does Angela Merkel, unlike Kohl, strive for hegemony?
After a longer period of time, we will be able to say something with certainty about Merkelism. I still have an opinion about it, but time will have to test that. I think that the Merkel era, which lasted sixteen years, was a transitional era. When this era began, the Germans did not yet want to tell other European nations how to live, because the German CDU had a clear character that was different from the European liberal mainstream. Helmut Kohl even took up this debate with the liberal European mainstream and the liberal press. But after that it stopped. Today, there is no difference between the opinion of the liberal mainstream and the opinion of the German Christian Democrats. The reason for this shift was that the Christian Democrats were unable to form a majority and Angela Merkel had to govern in a grand coalition. Can I open a branch so they can understand better?
A German branch?
Yes. When I first became Prime Minister in 1998, I was thirty-five years old. I have been in politics for ten years, but I have never been prime minister. I called Helmut Kohl and asked him, as an experienced leading European politician, for a meeting, if he would talk to me and tell me what he thought was important about this profession. He replied that of course, come, I am at your disposal. We talked for long hours.
What did he tell you?
One important thing: the Hungarian voters elected you, your responsibility is mainly for Hungary, and don't let anyone limit you in this. At the same time, he said that I should demand that my opinion be taken into account in Europe. Namely, by seeking harmony with the other European leaders, but never allowing someone else to dictate to me what and how to do.
He obviously took these advices.
But he also advised me that if I want to be a successful prime minister, I must also be a party leader. I did not accept his advice, resigned from the party presidency, and lost the following elections.
Helmut Kohl would probably be surprised by the disintegration of the old alliance and the formation of new ones. At the beginning of the year, Fidesz left the European People's Party (EPP) and announced the creation of a new alliance with Law and Justice (PiS) and Matteo Salvini's League, which is meant to protect traditional Christian values. What is your goal, do you want to create a new faction in the European Parliament, or do you want to create a new European movement that will try to change the European Union?
When Fidesz left the EPP, or as we say: the EPP left us, it was an important question for us whether to participate in European party life. We decided to do so, also because the European party debates are spilling over into domestic politics. We did not want to give this advantage to our opponents. Now we need to clarify what we want to achieve in European politics. Our answer to this is that we want to change Brussels.
What does it mean exactly?
Brussels, in its current form, is not capable of providing adequate answers to people's problems. An example of this was migration, but Brussels' response to the 2008 financial crisis was equally unconvincing. We wanted to change Brussels with the EPP, but they did not undertake to do so. Now we have to create a new political community that can influence Brussels, which we are working on now, Poles, Hungarians, Italians, Spaniards and many others. Which will eventually appear in some kind of institutional framework.
If the League were to win the next elections in Italy, they would be relatively strong, but it needs additional allies for pan-European influence. Do you also count on politicians like Marine Le Pen?
Cooperation always means the will of several actors. None of us can demand that only actors close to him can participate in the cooperation. Not only the Hungarian Fidesz brings its own allies into this cooperation, but also the Polish PiS and Salvini. This must be accepted.
Are you saying that they are also counting on Marine Le Pen, so they are also counting on someone you were once dismissive of?
That possibility is up in the air.
A few years ago, you started talking about building an illiberal country. This scared many people, because this idea is considered a denial of power sharing, which is otherwise a characteristic of majority (pluralist) democracies. Is there a reason for fear?
No. I think just the opposite. There is no liberal democracy today, only liberal non-democracy. It has liberalism, but no democracy. Liberals strive for opinion hegemony. This is what political correctness is for, and with the help of this they label conservatives and Christian Democrats and try to make them impossible. I fight liberals for freedom. While I am on the side of freedom, they are on the hegemony of opinion. There is another dimension to your question. In the last hundred years, Europe has been threatened by two totalitarian threats: National Socialism and Communism. The answer to this was that the conservatives and the Christian Democrats, the liberals, joined forces to protect democracy. After 1990, they moved away because we think completely differently about important issues such as the family, migration, the task of nations, and education. I am illiberal in this regard, and that is why I did not use the term anti-liberal. Liberals should not only see us as the enemy. They were our allies for a hundred years.
It sounds natural when said this way, but how do you explain that you caused such negative reactions with this concept and definition?
Because it's complicated, and modern politics today is at war with such a detailed debate. Argument-based politics has narrowed. Modern politics is no longer about persuasion, but about slogans, watchwords and mobilization. That is why today's European politics is much worse than it was thirty years ago.
What would Viktor Orbán, who was in opposition to the national-conservative government of József Antall and held anti-clerical views, think about the formation of the illiberal state in 1992?
Each policy is qualified by the coordinate system of the given period. What was the coordinate system like then? There were the communist successor parties, which were forced into opposition, and then came the conservative government parties. The question then was whether these new parties could prevent the return of the post-communists. The conservatives did not invite us to the government, so we remained in the opposition. But we didn't want to go over to the side of the post-communists. The original big liberal party went over there and committed moral suicide. We did not go, we were the opposition of the conservatives and fought against the return of the post-communists. Which unfortunately could not be prevented. This led us to unite all democratic forces, and in 1998 we ousted the post-communists from the government. Undoubtedly, since then we are not in the same position on many ideological topics as we were then, but there is also continuity. Even then, we were on the side of freedom and against the post-communists, that hasn't changed.
Try to summarize how you personally have changed over the past thirty years.
It's hard to say, I'm biased. What do we know today that we didn't know then? We know that the role of churches in society is greater than we assumed at the time. We also know that without the cooperation of the Central European states, none of the Central European states can protect their own sovereignty. In the nineties, this was not so obvious. We also did not assume that reality would deviate from the Western model as much as it did in 2008, during the economic crisis. At that time, the economic pillar of the West was shaken, and the social pillar with migration. In the nineties, the appeal of the West was unquestionable. I respect the West, we participate in integration, but I have to say that the countries to the west of us have lost their appeal over the past decades. I don't want Hungarian children to live in a Hungary like many Western European countries in twenty years. Thirty years ago, we did not know how the Muslim world would expand in Europe, how China would change the world economy. And since we are Latin Christians, we did not assume that Orthodox Christianity would play such a significant role in the future.
In other words, are you telling those who look at you how much it has changed, that the surrounding world has changed much more?
Change and preservation give the dynamism of human life and also the spiritual excitement of life. This is a fertile conflict. We do not want to fall out of the modern world, we are not anti-modernists, we understand that the world is changing and must change. The question is what we want to save from the past into the future. From this point of view, we have continuity. We want to preserve freedom, which we call national sovereignty at the level of nations, and individual freedom at the level of individuals. We insist on this even in the midst of the modern world.
Some of your critics, including former allies from your Liberal days, say you've changed because of power. When Vladimír Mečiar ruled in the nineties, we were exposed to criticism from the Union, saying that democracy and freedom of the press were in danger in Slovakia, and that Mečiar was building an authoritarian state. Today, the same words are addressed to you. We sense that some of this criticism is written primarily by the liberal-left establishment and is ideological in nature. On the other hand, several conservative Hungarians in Slovakia admit that, for example, the public service media are completely pro-government, similar to how it was in our country under Mečiar. The question is whether he did not go too far in taking over the various spheres of the state?
I don't know Slovak public television, but I do know German and British public television. I dare say that the Hungarian public television is less pro-government than the German one.
Many Hungarians rather see it as similar to what TV was like under János Kádár.
I lived under János Kádár, and I tell them: it's not like that. Under Kádár, we had to print our thoughts illegally and distribute them secretly. If a Slovak friend of ours visits Hungary today, goes to a newspaper seller and says, I want the newspapers that defame Orbán and his government, he will receive about eight newspapers and magazines. But let's talk seriously about the press. There are two ideological trends in Hungarian politics. One is a liberal, the other a Christian Democrat. If you look at commercial television, there is a liberal and there is a conservative. Or look at the big online portals. One or two of them are conservative and there are six on the liberal side. If you look at the national dailies, the largest is liberal and the second largest is conservative. And if you look at the political weeklies, two are conservative and four are liberal. In other words, if you look at the commercial media, you will not see any hegemony there, but pluralism.
Criticism is also directed at the fact that he equalized this ratio between liberal and conservative media by using political power.
When I came to power, the media ratio was one to nine in favor of the liberal view. Now it's half and half. My critics say I changed that, but I didn't. I have said publicly that I urge Christian-minded businessmen not to accept the nine-to-one situation. I called on them to establish Christian-democratic, conservative media projects. Because this is not the task of the state, but of private business. This is how a lot of conservative media was created.
Let's stay with the public service media, isn't it the case that you take the position that these media should not be critical of the government?
Public service media are made by journalists, I cannot and do not want to give instructions. However, I consider it normal that when there is a conservative government, the public service media tend to have this attitude as well. I can't give them instructions. But if you want to report on the life of the country, you can ignore the fact that the center of power is the Christian Democratic government. When there was a liberal government in Hungary, the public television channel interpreted the liberal government, moreover, in such a way that conservative and Christian ideas did not find a place in the private media either. But since I think this is the nature of public service media, the key is not public service media, but whether there is media outside of it. Moreover, the viewership of public television is a fraction of that of commercial television, not to mention the online world. Today, everyone can be a journalist or correspondent if they have a smartphone and upload their own news. In other words, overall, the Hungarian media situation is fair in my opinion.
It was strange for us, Slovak journalists, that the Hungarian press was forbidden to report on the COVID situation from nursing homes. We could not imagine this here in Slovakia. Wasn't this a muzzle for journalists and commercials as well?
We did not give instructions to journalists, but to hospitals. We have given instructions that journalists cannot enter hospitals either. Many countries have acted similarly. We have made it clear that those responsible for defense will provide all information to the press every day. But as long as there is an epidemic situation in the hospitals, no one can set foot there. If relatives can't go there, why should journalists be allowed in?
Last year, the representation of the Hungarian minority in the parliament ceased for the first time in thirty years. How do you explain this?
This is a sensitive issue. State borders, political borders and national borders do not coincide. Hungarians who live in Slovakia speak Hungarian to their children, read Hungarian literature, watch Hungarian media, and simply live together with Hungarians in a cultural sense. Therefore, here in the motherland, as we call it, we must pursue a policy that strengthens this cultural unity, but does not interfere with the sovereignty of the other country.
However, it is probably valid that Budapest has its own interests in the southern part of Slovakia.
It is in Budapest's interest that the Hungarians living in Slovakia are able to represent their own interests in Bratislava, and that we should not have to represent their interests in Bratislava from Budapest. If the Hungarian community in Slovakia is doing well and they are able to represent their interests, it is better for the Slovaks and for us. It's bad right now.
However, the influence of Fidesz has become extremely strong in the southern part of Slovakia during the past ten years. While the MKP accused Béla Bugár of betraying the Hungarian cause and contributing to the assimilation of Hungarians in Slovakia, Bugár told you that he would not become a vassal of Fidesz, and in Híd they were extremely critical of the money that came through tenders to the south of Slovakia. The treacherous word against Bugar was probably a representation of the internal struggle in Magyar...
…these are very harsh terms. I understand that Béla Bugár would not be proud of his friendship with us, but many Hungarians feel the opposite way. But this is a debate between Hungarians, who like to bicker among themselves. But here we are talking about the Hungarians in Slovakia, who must find a way to represent their own interests, either through a mixed party or by joining a large party or with their own party for the Hungarians.
Doesn't the Most-Híd case indicate that Fidesz's interest is that the Hungarians in Slovakia are in one party?
The interest of Fidesz as a national party is that many Hungarian children are born in Slovakia, their mothers speak Hungarian with them, they go to Hungarian schools, no one hurts them when they speak Hungarian, and they have the freedom to represent themselves politically. How they do this is secondary. That is why we support cultural identity and not political interests.
However, there were periods when great tensions arose because of your political projects, with which you targeted our Hungarians, whether it was Hungarian IDs or dual citizenship ten years ago. It is a fact that in the last period he no longer brought up these types of topics, it was also surprising that last year's Trianon anniversary also took place almost conflict-free. Didn't this happen because these topics were politically exhausted for you?
For example, in Romania, Serbia, Croatia, they believe that dual citizenship is a good legal tool and helps them to coexist with different opinions. You Slovaks think differently, you have the right to do so, I do not agree with you on this, but I simply acknowledge that you do not want to enforce this legal instrument. And we hope that they will change their opinion about this one day based on other examples. But this is no reason to cause tension.
Isn't it the case that the refugee crisis under your leadership changed the Hungarian attitude towards the European Union and Central Europe so much that you don't want to open up divisive topics?
I will always ask the neighboring states to provide a worthy homeland for the Hungarians living there. If I see that there is a violation of rights, I will always speak up in an appropriate way. But the weight of these problems is now much less important than the issue of the entire region. Because if we don't get together, Slovaks, Hungarians, Czechs, and Poles, and we don't act together to the west and the east, we will all be in trouble.
What do you mean by that?
It might sound a bit strong to a Slovak ear, but we Hungarians think that all peoples should understand a lesson in Central Europe. The II. after World War II, the Central European peoples, regardless of which side they were on, all of us got the same class share. Those who were on the good side were rewarded the same as we, who were on the bad side, were punished. There is simply a community of fate. The question is who will organize Central Europe. The Germans, the Russians, the Americans or us who live here?
In reality, doesn't Viktor Orbán want to organize it?
This is not realistic, the flagship is Poland. Without Poland, the other countries in the region have no weight. If Poland were to withdraw from the V4, the V4 would lose its capital weight. Slovakia also has a key role, but I'm not sure that all Slovaks understand this.
How do you understand that?
The essence of the V4 is that it can exert an effect both to the north and to the south. To the north are the Poles, to the south are the Hungarians. The north must be connected to the south, and without you we would be split in two. That is why I always recommend to the Slovak Prime Minister that we prioritize North-South relations. There are no highways, no railroads, and the gas lines go in different directions.
Slovaks, however, see themselves as a bridge between East and West rather than between North and South. In addition, the fact that the V4 is completely divided in relation to Russia and Putin prevails. The Poles are strongly anti-Russian, the way of thinking is different in Slovakia and Hungary, and the atmosphere in the Czech Republic is currently changing after the Vrbětice affair. Won't Vladimir Putin share the V4?
First of all, let's separate the person of the Russian president from Russia. Let's not create the illusion that this issue depends on the personality of the Russian president, Russia is simply a geopolitical problem for us. Yes, the Poles pursue a very determined anti-Russian policy, we Hungarians consider you Slovaks to be more pro-Russian. And there was always a Pan-Slavic element in Czech political thinking. We Hungarians perceive that it is easier for the Russians to cooperate with the Slavic countries than with us. Moreover, we are the only country that started a war with Soviet Russia in 1956. Apart from us, no one else has done this, this element is part of our national heroism.
How do you want to unite the V4 if the attitude towards Russia divides it and will divide it?
The best answer is to look at the map. It is quite obvious that Poland needs security guarantees, it is a huge flat area. Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are protected by the Carpathians, of course we also need guarantees, but we are not threatened by Russia, as the Poles feel. Therefore, it is essential to coordinate the demands for Polish security guarantees with the demands for Hungarian-Russian cooperation within the V4. In other words, each V4 member state will shape its own Russia policy, but we must be able to give each other guarantees against Russia as well. Now, when the Czechs asked us to issue a statement of solidarity, regardless of what I think about what's going on, we immediately gave the Czechs that solidarity…
...despite the fact that you think completely differently about the case in Vrbětice?
I asked the Czech leaders if what I read really happened. I got the answer "highly likely". So that's what I think about the situation.
Today, guarantees to Poland are implemented within NATO, are you thinking of some kind of special guarantee within the V4?
Yes, they are implemented within the framework of NATO, but today we can only fantasize about European defense. Defense is not for the world of fantasy, it is the harshest reality, because there force is opposed to force.
So your answer is a common European defense that radiates strength?
From our point of view, the EU is pursuing a primitive Russia policy, it can only say yes or no. We, on the other hand, need a nuanced policy that understands that Russia is a very powerful state that also respects power. So if we are not militarily competitive with the Russians, they will pose a threat to us. On the other hand, we have to work together in the economy. However, we do the opposite, we demonstrate economic strength with the policy of sanctions, but we are soft militarily. It should be done the other way around.
In the union, you are considered a person who wants to weaken or destroy the union and its institutions. However, you are now saying that you want to build a strong European defense to solve the Russian problem?
Yes, because in my head the coordinate system is not drawn in such a way that we either fully support the union or are completely against it. There are elements in the union that should be strengthened, the opposite is true with regard to the European Parliament, which plays a distinctly harmful role because it places European politics on a party basis and is used by the European left to attack the sovereignty of states. So the question is not whether the EU is yes or no, but what kind of EU?
István Stumpf, the man who shaped you intellectually, recently said that by 2030 the European Union will either become a federation, a community of nation states, or cease to exist. What is your prediction for 2030?
This question once again underlines the importance of Slovakia. Slovakia is a key country not only because it connects the northern and southern parts of Europe, but also because you are the only Central European country that has embarked on an experiment called the Eurozone. They have valuable experience, for now we are just outside observers, whether monetary integration is good for a nation or not.
Surely you also have economic analysts and political scientists who appreciate this.
Of course, and there are different opinions. But returning to your question, the union by 2030: all I know for sure is that no European people will be created, Hungarians, Slovaks, Germans and French will continue to live here, there will also be a large Muslim element in Europe, but "a European people " will not. There will be nations and states, the form of cooperation will be invented, today it is called the European Union. But the point is not the institution, but the intention. We will work together in 2030, the question is what will happen to us.
In what sense?
Cultural changes are taking place in Western Europe, there are a lot of migrants and a Muslim minority, the original population is abandoning Christianity and moving towards a post-Christian and post-national society. The question is whether these societies will be able to build a stable Western Europe.
Do you think they won't be?
Personally, I am much more convinced about the future of Central Europe than about the future of Western Europe. I believe that our children will live better than us. We will experience a great Central European renaissance in the economy, demography, security policy, and culture. I'm an optimist. But will there be stability in Western Europe in 2030? This is the most exciting question of the future.
Do you actually want to prepare Central Europe for life without the European Union?
I would rather say that until now the union revolved on a German-French axis, it was a bipolar cooperation. We are now heading towards a third pole by 2030: Central Europe, or the V4. Trade between the V4 and Germany is twice that between Germany and France and three times that between Germany and Italy. In recent years, this tripolarity could already be felt in the debates on migration or the budget, for me this is the vision of the future.
Hungarian politics was captive to Trianon for decades, József Antall also said that he felt like the prime minister of 15 million Hungarians. When we listen to you now, we have the feeling that you no longer live with this Trianon trauma, but have found a new European mission for Hungarians.
We love this sentence from Antal, at that time it was an extremely important sentence.
Not anymore?
In the meantime, thirty years have passed, which did not diminish this sentence, only completely different questions came to the horizon. Central Europeans can only find answers to these together, because if we retreat to our own borders, or if we adopt a hedgehog attitude, then we will all lose.
You talk about your own Central European visions, which go beyond decades. However, as early as next year, you may lose the elections in Hungary against the unified opposition, aren't you afraid of that?
When I finish this election cycle, I will be able to say about myself that I was in government for 16 years and in opposition for 16 years. Whatever happens, I've been through it all.
If you lose, will you try to come back in four years?
I'm going to win. We are a big party with a culture behind it, programs, visions, and the majority of Hungarians feel and want something that we represent. Whether they think we represent them well is another question. Our presence in politics, as a political party, is deeply grounded both philosophically and emotionally, so we will always be such a party. A new generation of politicians has grown up, they are 15 years younger than us, they no longer went to school under communism, they received a better education, they speak several languages, their horizons have broadened, while they learned the political profession with us. So if our generation decides one day not to come to work anymore, we will have successors.
However, it is certain that Angela Merkel will leave permanently in half a year. You say to the German press that you regret your departure. Given the heated debate they've had over migrants, is this a courtesy on your part to the German public, or do you really regret your departure?
I respect Merkel, even though I don't agree with her on many things. It is a great personal achievement that he was able to keep his own party at the center of government for 16 years. Anyone who does not practice this craft cannot even appreciate how much intellectual and emotional energy it requires. I'm really sorry to see you go. Until now, it was always possible to know in advance what would happen in Germany after the elections, the framework was stable. I am afraid that after Merkel's departure we will realize that she will be missed more than we think today.
Why?
Now all doors are open. What will be the consequence of the great weight of the Greens, will a new generation of German political leaders be ready? Nobody knows that.
He also talked about Christianity in this conversation, and considers himself a Christian Democrat. From a Slovak point of view, unlike Poland, Hungary is a secularized country, the number of practicing Christians is relatively low. Could it be that you are already a post-Christian country, and what you are keeping alive is in some sense political Christianity, as it is in Putin's Russia?
My personal answer is that I am a professing Christian and every Christian Slovak is my brother. As far as politics is concerned, the task of Christian Democratic politics is not to protect church beliefs, and therefore I would not use the term political Christianity. The most important question of our existence, whether we are saved or damned, is not a political question, although it is an essential question of Christianity. But politics is not competent in this. So I am not talking about Christian politics, but Christian-inspired politics. We protect forms of existence such as human dignity, freedom, family, and national community. There are political tendencies that attack these, they want to tear them apart, this must be opposed. This is not about my personal faith, since a person who is not a believer himself can be a part of a Christian democratic policy. We are not at the head of some kind of sect, but of a political party with a program.
The key issue for the Slovak Christian Democrats is the protection of unborn life, which you also represent, but in practice you did nothing about this during your administration. In other words, you admit that it is a fundamental human right, but at the same time you don't want to go further, because maybe there wouldn't be a majority in society?
We are clearly on the side of life, in 2011 we adopted a new constitution, where we clearly laid out what we consider important about the meaning of life. A policy of total prohibition, which would otherwise be legitimate from a moral point of view, would actually have the opposite effect. In politics, the result matters, the intention is also important, but the intention can end in disaster without a result. In 11 years, it was possible to radically reduce the number of abortions - even without a complete ban. The result of our governance is that the country is much more pro-life. However, the question led us to another important idea, how the truth and the majority are related in politics. Which is a tough question. Because if the majority does not serve justice, then the majority is worthless. But if you cannot bring the truth together with the majority, you cannot act in politics for the sake of truth.
The original article: https://www.postoj.sk/78144/dnes-uz-neexistuje-liberalna-demokracia-s-liberalmi-vediem-zapas-o-slobodu?fbclid=IwAR1CcNLjO1friP3TajH431NoJItVYfGmOCji_83L9S5FzlAgKhrnamVwENQ
source: miniszterelnok.hu
