Fidesz today held its 28th congress, which again reelected Viktor Orbán as the chairman of the party. His reelection wasn’t exactly a surprise. Of the 26 years between 1993 and 2019, 23 times the congresses voted for Viktor Orbán, often without a single “nay” vote. In 2007, after Fidesz lost the election for the second time, 28 brave men or women had the guts to vote against him. Otherwise, the votes were unanimous.
Between 2000 and 2003, when in three years the party had three different chairmen, it was Orbán’s own decision to let his friends László Kövér, Zoltán Pokorni, and János Áder try their hands at leading Fidesz, but the “experiment” obviously failed. From that time on, the chairman and the deputy chairmen, chosen most likely by Orbán himself, have been running without opponents. A truly democratic party.
Given the history of the Fidesz chairmanship, it was amusing to watch Orbán as he tried to give the impression of a somewhat reluctant leader who is over 50 and who wouldn’t mind spending more time with his growing family but whose duty it is to remain at the helm for the sake of the future of his country. Because, we were told, “the best is still ahead of us,” both domestically and abroad. Therefore, he will remain in charge.
The grateful leader among his own, September 29, 2019 / MTI / Photo: Zsolt Szigetvári
After a fairly lengthy rehashing of his old stories about the first and the second “revolutions,” the first in 1990 and the second in 2010, and his party’s accomplishments in the past few years, he moved on to his plans for the next ten years. This is not the first time that he threatens us with a 20-year-long Fidesz rule, although just like any autocrat he most likely views his own prospects as having no time stamp at all. His plans include the elimination of poverty and a solution to the serious problems of the Roma minority at home. Given Fidesz’s poor performance both at eliminating poverty and at elevating the Roma from conditions that resemble the worst of undeveloped countries, one has serious doubts about the promised successes.
The other, much more interesting topic was Orbán’s view of the position of Hungary and its allies in the region and their future relations with the European Union. He foresees the formation of a strong Central European bloc that includes Poland, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, which will be a somewhat “independent” subgroup of the European Union that the Baltic states might eventually join. This territory will be a separate cultural enclave, different from the multicultural West. It will be ethnically pure and Christian.
Speaking in the name of these countries, Orbán said that “we are the countries who don’t want to be ruled by an empire directed from Brussels; we don’t want to become immigrant countries with mixed populations; we want to remain proud European nations.” Again, speaking in their names, he emphasized that “we want to reach an agreement” between the two halves of the European Union, “keeping in mind the interests of Hungary and the East European peoples.”
Such an understanding, however, has conditions, which in my reading is that the western half of the European Union accepts the status quo in countries like Poland and Hungary. The easterners don’t interfere with the domestic affairs of the western Europeans, and in return “they have to accept our right to organize our lives according to the laws of Christian freedom.” In brief, the European Union must accept non-democratic regimes like the ones in Poland and Hungary without a murmur; they cannot insist on European values and democratic norms; and their only duty is to provide money, lots of it. Under these circumstances, Viktor Orbán is ready for a compromise. He expressed his hope that Ursula von der Leyen will consider this proposal a fair one and will do her best to implement this new interpretation of the functioning of the European Union.
But that’s not all. Western politicians “must give up their open attacks against our states and governments” and “no longer be willing to finance scads of Soros pseudo-civic organizations from European money.” His position is that “we don’t send paid activists to them, and therefore they should take theirs home.”
If that weren’t enough, he added that “another condition of the rapprochement is the discontinuation of hidden operations against the governments of East-Central Europe.” In the future they must desist from trying to undermine parties not to their liking because “one Ibiza was more than enough.” This last reference is to the downfall of the chairman of the Freedom Party of Austria, Heinz-Christian Strache, as a result of his unfortunate encounter with the “niece of a Russian oligarch” on the Island of Ibiza.
Orbán made pious references to the European budget, which is not for “financing groups preferred by liberals, media that liberals prefer, or organizing demonstrations and training activists.” These groups constitute “a serious threat to the peaceful, tranquil life and its economic development” that exists in the region.
If these demands are satisfied, Orbán, acting here as a spokesman of all East-Central European countries, is willing to make peace with Brussels.
Reading these bellicose lines, I have the distinct feeling that Orbán so far hasn’t informed Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, and David Sassoli, president of the European Parliament, of his understanding of the future of the European Union and his conditions for a rapprochement. I doubt, by the way, that he ever will. I am also wondering whether he discussed his ideas of “Christian liberty” as a common platform of the V4 countries before he demanded special consideration for that ill-defined concept of his. Finally, did he ever receive permission from his fellow prime ministers to speak in their names? I doubt it.
I hope that the new leaders of the European Union are prepared for the onslaught that is awaiting them. Otherwise, good luck trying to reach an understanding with Viktor Orbán.