Excerpts from Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán’s speech at
the 30th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp, so called "Tusványos" (27 July 2019, Tusnádfürdő/Băile Tuşnad).
* * *
(…)
We call the first change of
system [of 30 years ago] “liberal transformation”; and we can call the second either an “illiberal”
or a “national” transformation. It may be worth devoting a few sentences to this
distinction. We have rethought the relationship between the community and the
individual, and put it on a new conceptual basis. In a liberal system, society
and nation are nothing but an aggregation of competing individuals. What holds
them together is the Constitution and the market economy. There is no nation – or
if there is, it is only a political nation. Here in parenthesis we should thank
László Sólyom, who during his presidency made a lasting contribution when, in
opposition to the concept of the political nation, he elaborated and clarified
– in a legal and philosophical sense – the concept of a cultural nation. When
there is no nation, there is no community and no community interest. In essence
this is the relationship between the individual and society from a liberal
point of view.
 |
| PM Viktor Orbán (center) at Tusnádfürdő, with Hon. Zsolt Németh MP (left) and Rt.Hon. Bishop László Tőkés, former MEP (right) - foto: tusvanyos.ro |
In contrast to this, the illiberal
or national viewpoint states that the nation is a historically and culturally
determined community. It is a historically developed configuration, which
must protect its members and prepare them to stand their ground in the world
for a common cause. According to the liberal view, individual action and who
does what – whether they live a productive or unproductive life – is a purely
private matter, and must not be subject to moral judgment. By contrast, in a
national system, action – individual action – is worthy of praise if it also
benefits the community. This must be interpreted broadly. For example, there
are our gold medal-winning skaters. An outstanding sporting performance is also
an individual performance that benefits the community. If we talk about them, we
don’t say that they have won Olympic gold, but that we have won Olympic gold.
Their individual performances also clearly benefit the community. In an
illiberal or national system, distinguished performance is not a private
matter, but has clearly identifiable forms. Such are self-sufficiency and work,
creating and securing a livelihood. Such are learning and a healthy lifestyle.
Such is paying taxes. Such is starting a family and raising children. And such
is orientation in the matters of the nation and its history, and participation
in national self-reflection. It is such performance that we recognise, rank,
look up to morally and support.
So in terms of the relationship between the individual and society, what
has happened in Hungary [after 2010] is something quite different from what
happened in 1990, when the liberal transformation took place. But similarly to
that transformation, we have put our thinking and culture on a new footing – also
in terms of relations between individuals. To put it simply, but to the point, in
a liberal system the rule is that one has the freedom to do anything, provided
it doesn’t violate the freedom of others. This is the compass of individual
action. In parenthesis, the small problem is the question of exactly what it is
that doesn’t violate the freedom of others. This is something that’s usually
defined by the strongest – but let’s leave that in parenthesis. In contrast to
this, what we have now, or what we’re trying to build, follows another moral
compass. Going back to a known truth, this states that the definition of the
right relationship between two people is not that everyone has the freedom to
do anything which does not violate the freedom of another; the correct definition is that you should not do to others what you
would not want them to do to you. Furthermore, you should do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. This is a different foundational principle.
And here we come to the most politically awkward and sensitive question,
which is the word “illiberal”. Whenever I see the miserable, tiptoeing debates
surrounding this, I’m always reminded of that iconic film for our generation: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The
knights are wandering in the woods when they come across some giants. It turns
out that there is a word which they must not say to the giants; and for a few
minutes in the movie, they puzzle about how not to say a word that everyone
knows they must say. And in international politics the same is true of the word
“illiberal”. The reason for this is that liberals – who have never been
untalented – have developed an interpretation for this expression that defines
it as nothing more than an expression with a prefix, a sham democracy: a system
that disguises itself as democracy, but which in reality is not democracy. And they’ve come up with two propositions: democracy
is necessarily liberal; and Christian democracy is necessarily liberal. I’m
convinced that these are two misconceptions, because obviously the opposite is
true. Liberal democracy could never have come into being without its Christian
cultural underpinnings. Because we have the absurd situation, or the seemingly
absurd situation, in which when making the most important decision for a
country – determining its direction, and who we will trust to take it in that
direction – the votes of any two people are worth the same: they’re worth the
same even if one of those people didn’t even finish their primary level
education, and the other person is the President of the Academy of Sciences.
One is more in need of welfare aid, the other is paying huge taxes, yet each has
one vote. One understands the world and the other doesn’t care about the world,
yet each has the same vote. Such a political construct, which is the foundation
of democracy – especially liberal democracy – can only be created if we find a
particular point of view in which these apparently completely different people
are still equal, and therefore in which their opinions can be taken into
account with equal weight. And this point of view can be nothing but the
Christian proposition that all of us are created by God in His own image. So liberal democracy can only exist in a world
in which Christian culture existed before it. This can be demonstrated both
geographically and historically. So the propositions that all democracy is
necessarily liberal and that Christian democracy must be liberal are simply not
true. Liberal democracy was viable up
until the point when it departed from its Christian foundations. For as
long as it protected personal liberty and property it had a beneficial effect
on humanity. But the content of liberal
democracy changed radically when it began to break the bonds that bind people
to real life: when it questioned the identity of a person’s sex, devalued
people’s religious identity, and deemed people’s national affiliation
superfluous. And the truth is that in Europe over the past twenty or thirty
years this has become the spirit of the age.
(…)
Let us state that for hundreds of years in European political culture there have been two basic concepts
related to views on what is the right world order. The correct one of these
concepts for world order is that in the world there are separate, free states –
preferably states formed by nations – and that these follow their own paths,
and create a system of cooperation accompanied by the least conflict and most
common good for all. The other view says that there must be a power, a
principle, under which the peoples of Europe or the multitude of peoples of the
world can be united. There is a need for such a system, and this system for
uniting peoples is always created and maintained by a supranational force. The first of these can be called a national
conception, and the second can be called an imperial conception. I don’t
want to offend the followers of the imperial way of thinking, so I’m not using the
word “imperialist” – although I could do. For a long time, the idea that the
right order for the world is for it to be subordinated to a single idea – and
that therefore the peoples of the world should be subordinated to a single
system of governance – was the prerogative of the communists: it was socialist
or communist internationalism. This has failed. Even if from nothing else, one
can see that it has failed from the fact that it was not a rational concept.
The vacant space it has left behind it, however, has been occupied by a new
political tendency. This is the European tendency of liberal politics. It is
worth noting that in Europe thirty years ago there was socialist or social
democracy, there was still Christian democracy, and there was liberal democracy.
But as a result of political struggle, liberals reached a position in which it
was said that everyone should now be a liberal democrat: there can be no
distinct socialist interpretation of democracy, like the socialist parties
created long ago; and there can be no distinct Christian democratic
interpretation. And even if something like that exists, in essence it cannot be
different from a liberal interpretation of democracy.
So today, European liberals
are the ones who believe that in their hands they have a theoretical system that
will bring salvation, peace and prosperity to all humanity. They hold a universal model
in their hands. This has been formed
into a thesis, and in European politics today this liberal thesis tells us what
and how one should think, what is appropriate and to be supported, what should
be rejected, and what is incompatible with liberal ideas. It will tell you how
to think about the most basic facts of life. And today I can give you a
brief sketchy summary of this programme by saying that liberals believe that
everywhere in the world – especially in Europe – all human and social
relationships need to be transformed on the model of loosely organised business
relationships: “If I want it I’ll commit to it, and if I don’t want, I won’t;
if I want to enter, I’ll enter, and if I want to, I’ll leave.” From this you
can see why liberals support migration, and from this you can see why it is
George Soros’s network that organises migration. According to the liberal notion of freedom, you can only be free if you
discard everything that involves you in belonging somewhere: borders, the past,
language, religion, culture and tradition. If you can free yourself from all
this, if you can leave it all behind, then you’re a free person. As tends
to happen, the antithesis of this has
also come into being, and this is what I call “illiberalism”. This way of
reasoning states that the individual’s appeal to freedom must not override the
interests of the community. There is a majority, and it must be respected,
because that is the essence of democracy. The
state must not be indifferent to culture, the state must not be indifferent to
the family, and the state must not be indifferent to the question of what kinds
of people – or who – are within the borders of your country. In other
words, today it is the illiberal person who defends their borders, defends
their national culture and rejects external interference and attempts at empire
building. Returning to the woods, and Monty
Python and the Holy Grail: should we be afraid to say the word? Well, we
have good reason to be, but perhaps cowardice is not recommended. And if we don’t
feel strong enough in the present, at times like this it’s always worth
recalling the great figures from the past. For example, if you read the
Atlantic Charter, which Roosevelt and Churchill jointly created and which laid
the foundations for the future of Europe, I can say that it’s a truly illiberal
document. In it the Anglo-Saxons affirm that all peoples have the right to
choose their own destiny, to choose their own government, no one should
interfere in their internal affairs, and their borders should be respected. Or,
to quote Schumann, who as one of the founding fathers of Europe is accorded due
respect even by liberals: “Democracy
owes its existence to Christianity. It was born the day man was called to
realise in his temporal life the dignity of the human person, in his individual
freedom, in respect for the rights of each and by the practice of brotherly
love towards all.” No one could get away with saying that in the European
Parliament – with the possible exception of Bishop Tőkés. So the great figures
who are regularly cited as the creators of the idea of European unity would in
fact not belong among the ranks of what today are called the liberal democrats,
but to the illiberal democrats. This is why I think we should not be afraid to go against the spirit of the age and
build an illiberal political and state system.
(…)
Therefore I think that putting forward an antithesis against the thesis of
liberal democracy – the thesis of illiberal democracy – is an acceptable,
viable and rational decision not only intellectually, but also from the point
of view of a political programme. All we need to do is find the expression or
phrase that gives a positive meaning to the essentially negative-sounding word “illiberal”,
because it’s clear from what I’ve said that everything that we want to distil
into this concept is good. And whatever
way I look at it, I can’t give a better definition of the meaning of illiberal
politics than Christian liberty. Christian freedom and protecting Christian
freedom. Illiberal politics working for Christian freedom seeks to preserve
everything that liberals neglect, forget and despise.
The final question before us is whether Christian culture and Christian
freedom need protection. My answer is that today
there are two attacks on Christian freedom. The first comes from within,
and comes from liberals: the abandonment of Europe’s Christian culture. And
there is an attack from outside, which is embodied in migration, with the
result of this – if not its goal – being the destruction of the Europe that we
knew as Europe.
* * *
“…It’s true that when the Polish Pope uttered his
famous words he meant – beyond spiritual implications – that in political life
one shouldn’t be afraid to resist the occupiers, and likewise one shouldn’t be
afraid to stand up against the communists. This
is what John Paul II said: “Do not be afraid”. And I’m convinced that these
words are still valid. As our duty is – and it is not an optional duty of
the Hungarian nation, but quite simply it’s elementary interest – to continue
and to pursue the change that has begun in the transformation of the defining
spirit of the day in Europe; we must encourage one another in light of the
success of the past ten years and the elections we have won by telling one
another: do not be afraid. We mustn’t be afraid. Let us bravely stand up for
that which I defined in my address as Christian liberty, and then we will win
again, and we will win again in Hungary, in Transylvania, in Romania and in the
whole of the European Union. Just do not be afraid!”
(from PM Orbán’s answers to questions from the
audience after his speech)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento