palotas.net

This writing will probably differ from the accustomed publications of the days past in many respects. I have to begin with saying that it was not that I came late for the timeliness of this piece of news when I was ready with my own writing after the Attorney General’s resignation, with a several day delay. According to my wont if I set to a writing then I usually stand up from my table only having the ready article, even risking the lateness for family programs. My meditation on Kálmán Györgyi did not render it possible this time. Thoughts, the personal memories were whirling in me. The frustration the judgement of the General Attorney produced in me was unusual for me.

When I thought about the Attorney General’s person, I saw a person being conscious of his appreciation of his path of life, professional successes, giving the impression of confidence, calm and mainly fairness. I can remember I took note of him first in 1991 as a member of the Parliament when he tolerated it extremely soberly that he had to answer unprepared, often silly but at least unmerited remarks. His calm, businesslike behavior put up a curved mirror for many of those who managed to get in the Honored House only thanks to the current of the change of regime and who could be there not as direct consequence of the acknowledgement of their paths of life. It was my commitment to human honesty what insisted on me, intervening as a representative, telling my fellow-representatives all that the affected Attorney General responsible to the Parliament could not express. In the following years I listened to his words always learning, I heeded his public actions with respect, which actions were never intrusive, even it was rather his moderation what was conspicuous. I still remember this calmness, human nature of his personal appearance, his easily intelligible sentences and they still command respect in me.

Then why is this duality in me? Why is it still nearer by me that in spite of my personal disappointments, in the days past I kept fingers crossed for him to stay in his office? I kept fingers crossed for it although I could have not answered the “why”. ……… Not, because I had had to be disappointed in the notion of him formed in me so many times.

I and only I surely know that the actions of the state administration against me were unmerited and unjust. I am the only one who can be sure in their unjust being, though, because of my open public actions, I trusted that the people respected by me, the scholars of their professions understood or at least felt the same moral creed.I trusted that at the unmerited attack of the Tax Office I would be secured by the personal confidence with the that-time police leaders and the Attorney General which became mutual through many years. Their personal experiences will make them skeptical and they will put a stop to the unhindrance of the tax authority. It was paradoxical that I even rejoiced at it that, as a state reprisal because of my rejection of the difference of opinion considered as tax debate in the beginning, the APEH made also criminal charge against me. Because this way I partly got out of the direct powers of the APEH, and two new bodies, the police and the state attorney’s office could start inquiring. That time I extremely trusted in the independence, impartiality and preparedness of these two bodies. I told it to my friends with confidence that now the APEH was wide off the mark because its whole procedure would become untrustworthy within a few weeks when the police and the state attorney’s office, declaring my lawful behavior, would conclude the proceedings against me. I based one of the strongest supports for my optimism on my confidence in Kálmán Györgyi’s person. My later disappointment was commensurable only with the bigness of my confidence. Though I have to mention also the politeness of the people participating in the proceedings all the while, but they could have hardly been more unprepared professionally. And it was true not only for the knowledge of their own criminal proceedings but mainly for understanding the contents of the respective legal expectations. The investigator officer asserted it all the time that he was not able to judge the tax-issue, the judge would decide about it. In spite of my objection, the base of the incrimination, then the formal accusation was such a “tax expert’s” report, which the requested expert made only on the basis of the denunciation material of the APEH, since my hearing (the incrimination) came following this report, perhaps on its basis. The police, then the state attorney’s office left my request, then my complaint out of consideration. In those I asked them to order for a new expert examination in the respect and with the full knowledge of what I presented, respectively to entrust a so-called judicial tax expert on the basis of the laws instead of the expert unknown by me in his person, partiality. I would have liked to prove it by the biased partiality of the materials of the tax authority that far from being founded on fault the APEH denunciation was definitely malicious, partial and contained numerous unlawful procedural elements. To establish these assertions of mine I also made criminal charges requesting the evidence of the illegalities. These attempts of mine remained unsuccessful. The police and, following my complaints, the state attorney’s office had never got to the stage of investigation in the case of these denunciations. They refused to start an investigation often in a humiliating way and in spite of the evident and perceptible illegalities. They explained it by saying that the investigation could not be expected to come to success. Later, when in a few cases I got to the judicial stage with my own obstinacy as private prosecution, it was the trial judge who declared it. Then he directed the state attorney’s office to hold a real investigation concerning my denunciation because the court noticed a crime liable to prosecution by popular action. The answer of the police and the state attorney’s office came about even after it. They refused to investigate again, because they considered the arbitrary ranging of the act not traced yet as obsolete. Finally it was the Parliamentary Commissioner of Citizenship Rights who partly restored my legal injury in the respect of the complaints about the proceedings of the tax authority and the illegalities refused by the police. In the comprehensive tax audit proceedings of one taxpayer he declared the single or repeated constitutional injury in more than five diverse fields. Though the Parliamentary Commissioner’s statement exonerated me, but it could not substitute for the obligation of a police investigation. Therefore it could not declare it that the perpetrators of the illegality committed their act intentionally and this way their act was a crime at the same time. And if there is not an investigation then there is neither a formal accusation and this way any felony can remain secreted “forever”!

It was the moment when I asked to meet Kálmán Györgyi in person through official channels. According to my expectation the Attorney General granted an interview to me in an anticipatory way. It strengthened my confidence in his person again. The responsible public prosecutor proceeding in my case was present at the meeting too. The atmosphere of the conversation was extremely calm and polite this time too. It did not resemble my notion of such an occasion when a fraud with the chance of a 5-8 year imprisonment asked to meet the state attorney. I asked only one thing from Kálmán Györgyi in this conversation. I wanted the same judgement for the denunciation of the Tax Office, the examination of its contents and my contrary opinion. What I asked did not mean anything else but having the laws obliging the police and the state attorney’s office in the course of their proceedings be observed fully and impartially instead of the conspicuous “loyalty” to the state organs. I also asked him to cross the continuation of an evidently unlawful practice. That privacy, trade and tax secrets about all the particulars of the proceedings of the police, then the state attorney’s office, which were protected by the law and could not be lifted in a criminal procedure, became public continually. Not to mention the at least uncertain being of their professional level. This matter evidently concerned the present public prosecutor too, but it still did not prevent him from giving a personal interview to journalists in the following days and giving information even about the transactions, showing his lack of preparedness which was even perceptible for specialists.

I closed the conversation with an unusual personal suit. I admitted that though I am convinced of having the right on my side both professionally and morally, but I also know, feel that it is almost impossible for a man to undertake a permanent opposition to an organization (the APEH in this case) provided with the full arsenal of power means of the state and “bravely” leaving all legal and moral limits out of consideration. But I still undertake and carry through with it. But opening two new “fronts” would be unbearable for me too. In this case it would be the public presentation of the serial injuries of the police proceedings and the attitude of the state attorney’s office, and taking legal actions against the affected ones. Though the possibility of legal remedy is given in these cases too, but I would probably not be able to practice my rights. This is why I requested the personal meeting expressing my respect for Kálmán Györgyi and my conviction of his honesty. Later I experienced what I said then. After the judicial verdict of acquittal in my criminal procedure it took several years to me to restrain myself and summarize my experiences of the proceedings of the police and the state attorney’s office and to initiate proceedings at the Parliamentary Office of Citizenship Rights a few months ago. The proceedings were instituted since then but we would have to wait a while for its statements!

Leaving the meeting I felt that Kálmán Györgyi listened to me respectfully but I did not feel the “internal” decision of him, I did not feel that I had convinced him. And not even that he would try to reveal it by an internal inquiry whether the proceedings of the state attorney’s office led by him could cause somebody’s unmerited calumny. I do not think that, taking it easily, he thought that so many mistakes would pass somehow and I was at the wrong place in the wrong time. I rather felt that he had and probably still had a misinterpreted loyalty remained to the state attorney’s office, where the infallibility of the state attorney’s office as unity should be ensured.

It was justified also later when the trial court – as fast as unbelievable even for me – acquitted me of the charges. They did not institute investigation about the unacceptable being of the professional level of the proceedings of the police/state attorney’s office charging but let that “eccentric” public prosecutor be made impossible by the organ directed by him, who preferred his commitment to human rights to the presumed reputation of the state attorney’s office on the basis of what experienced in the court room.

The public prosecutor, who acted in the courtroom according to the principles of the constitutional state, was made impossible in his profession and living. The procedure of the police/state attorney’s office had a great contribution to it that I had to significantly limit my public part because of unmerited actions of power. A few years ago one of my closest friends, an old and ill man, was kept in pretrial imprisonment for almost half a year. There he lost more than 10 kilos of his weight within a short time. Then, according to my conviction, his physique brought low in this unmerited situation lost its resistance to his disease being in him for ten years but medically stabilized. He died after a few months. Fortunately he could live to see the conclusion of the procedure against him because of its unfounded being. I, as president of the Entrepreneurs’ National Alliance, could achieve my aim neither in his case, which was making them at least keep the procedure within the expectable human and legal bounds. I had expressed my obtuseness in László Juszt’s case in many of my earlier writings. Where everybody having an average legal knowledge could shudder at the defying of law by the police units specialized for the most important cases and this way probably directed by the most prepared leaders, then at Kálmán Györgyi’s “enlightenment” on his return from holiday. In László Juszt’s case it was a leading journalist, public figure losing – though perhaps only temporarily – his permanent chance to appear on television, and it was the magazine invented by him that had closed down under compulsion. It certainly makes me think that the weekly paper 168 óra publishes it week by week that the police, the state attorney’s office – I would not make bold even to think of the Tax Office – could not find it out in 560 days who that Kaya Ibrahim was! Whether was there a crime where the only possibility was crime? Where the perpetrator is known, the way of commission is known, the quantum of damages is known and the aggrieved party is known. Though it is true enough that the competent ones should charge to examine the crime!

My selected examples only illustrate, they are only to show that the organs of powers following the change of regime are not working without disturbances yet. They make mistakes and these mistakes are often spectacular, they still ruin human lots, paths of life, while sometimes they make an incomprehensibly wide way for the political, economic and often also the general crime.

I cannot answer my question drafted in the first sentences even reading my writing again. I still feel that it would be better if the Attorney General would be called Kálmán Györgyi in the future too. I cannot answer the why. My disappointments would give enough reason each to wish his retirement. I might be too optimistic and trust my first impression of people. I might want to believe that there is some explanation for all those I founded my doubts on. Perhaps it was his last step, his firmness in connection with the media boards of trustees, expressing his conviction what gave another argument in favor of his person. I might feel that the change of regime in the last ten years would have involved much more political sacrifice without Kálmán Györgyi. It makes me think of my father who has reminded me of it many times that when judging a certain age, a certain person I should examine it through the glasses of that age to get to know the right judgement. I might fear for the future. I am afraid that this position became so risky that it was impossible for somebody having similar preparedness, strength to undertake it, while the “aspirants” not having these abilities would be unacceptable for many of us.

A sentence at the end. I disagree with it that the reason of his resignation can be a personal matter. I would like to believe that he would reconsider his standpoint and publish it before long. If the reason is a matter of private life or state of health then that is really all being the business of the public, but this much certainly is. If it is political or official then we have the right to get to know the details and making us acquainted with it is an obligation even if the law does not definitely describe it for him.

March 9, 2000 János Palotás

Kövér is the president of the party while Orbán is „just” prime minister!

Last weekend the decision-makers of the FIDESZ, in compliance with the expectations, had divided the prime ministerial and party-presidential assignments. After this they elected László Kövér to be the president of the FIDESZ by unanimous votes. True that all participants of the media gave news of the happenings but the first reports were pretty abridged. It was partly due to that the bygones were known in advance, this way nothing unexpected happened besides its accomplishment. And as for the analysis of the new situation, we still have to wait a little more for it. Nor I would like to touch upon this by my writing. Because I had already written about what I expected at the time of the first news and a considerable time was needed to see what would come next. Now only László Kövér’s person and personality are interesting for me.

I got to know László Kövér at the end of the eighties as one of the members of a young and new politician generation and a circle of friends. They were beaming with energy, will to act and it was imprinted on their faces that „..we want and will prove something!”. To me it was extremely sympathetic and I felt myself near them even with my age of thirty-odd and more experience of only a few more years. I have talked about it in several writings of mine already that during the nineties, independently of my intention, I became a bit estranged with the members of this circle of friends. It was mainly the style that was unacceptable for me and I was „more forgiving” with the certain people. But I felt and knew that their infallible order of values knew the term of forgiveness much less if the apparent or real mistake was made by some outsider. This way I could learn it that they had a much worse attitude to me than what remarked my judgement of them. László Kövér, though he was one of the elected leading people of the FIDESZ, still came to the front rarely. And he remained acceptable even in spite of his personality, his sometimes a bit „rough” manners.

But the final result of the 1998 elections resulted in essential changes in László Kövér’s case in addition to numerous other politicians’. The politician, who is safely „acceptable” in spite of his faults, got a significant chance when he could rise to be an important political and governmental leader. The chance also changed that requirement-level which the same man had to be up to. The previous, sometimes unpolished sometimes rather ill-mannered – speech is much less acceptable further on. The very same sentence from a public figure can be hard criticism but from someone wielding power it is already, just because of the significant change of the means, a threat.

Unfortunately the notion of László Kövér in me is changing into the wrong direction month by month. It was the end of October 1999 when I wrote my thoughts down last, following his unacceptable parliamentary speech as secret minister. The FIDESZ took a stand for its minister that time (too!). And now we can know it that they did not do it only as a question of loyalty but they also agreed with his say. This conclusion can be drawn by that a few months later they found him the most suitable person to be the president of the party. I would like to quote from that writing of mine:

„ .. It is fundamentally right and a usual thing in politics that a parliamentary faction takes a stand for its minister. It is true even if the minister has made a grave mistake by his statement. But it is by no means all the same what solution they choose! István Stumpf, the Minister leading the Prime Minister’s Office, had founded a school as a political scientist following the change of regime to help the development of a new and young politician generation with a democratic frame of mind. I do not know that which and how many politicians of the FIDESZ were the students of this school but nowadays it seems to me that not enough.

Minister László Kövér, who is a jurist in view of his qualification, called all of the older politician generation of the MSZP traitors – because of their activity in the past – publicly for the Parliament and the viewers of the television. This assertion is not only politically a serious mistake but it is surely also unlawful. In this writing of mine I do not want to decide whether a minister should be dismissed because of this. We could list the examples long when prime ministers, ministers and leading politicians had certainly resigned their posts because of less than this or almost similar cases. Nor the series of those cases would be shorter when a country with so well-developed democracy had disregarded statements much more serious than this without special consequences. As for us, we would like just think it of ourselves that our democracy is already developed and the social processes are consolidated. Hungary is now the society of the transition where we have to make fundamental changes in our history, legal system, institutions and heads in the midst of serious tensions and within a historically short time.

But I would like to assert that we have already reached, respectively had to reach, to be able for more in handling the made mistakes. It would have been the most sympathetic to me if László Kövér had have apologized for his generalizing assertion at the same forum. Remarking that he was concentrating on another part of the debate and that was why he drafted badly instead of his actual will. Also this would have been followed by a small altercation nut in this case „they have to dismount from the dead horse”. But of course the politician is not always such „a man of grit”. This way even that would have been acceptable if he gave his words, not interpretable in many ways however, a well-bred explanation with a new „particular” content. Though nobody would believe it but it is also impossible to prove what he means by his own sentences. This way he could have averted the reasons claiming for his resignation by the new content. And instead of the embarrassing minutes of apology it is enough to say just that I am sorry if my words were mistakable, next time I will take care of the unmistakable draft. This solution is less elegant but „politician-like”. But it is a serious mistake to stick to the „inferior” sentences and to go too far with them because of self-respect. For example the business man sticking to the inferior goods will surely become bankrupt sooner or later. It is senseless to draw a comparison between the assertion and for example the assertion of Péter Kiss (MSZP) in which he compared the style of the Orbán-cabinet to the style of the Gömbös-cabinet. Senseless, because it was the style what Péter Kiss compared and he did not call the members of the FIDESZ criminals, fascists. Senseless, because nor Péter Kiss’s assertion was felicitous and at that time they definitely protested against it. This way the comparison means that according to their own one-time protest, László Kövér has made a mistake now. That turn beginning with a government spokesman’s statement that the claim of the opposition for making a minister resign means that they would like to intervene to the forming of a government „prematurely”. Even the mere listing of those cases would fill pages when the politicians of the FIDESZ claimed for some minister’s resignation from the opposition side – often with good cause. It is conspicuous of the young politicians of the FIDESZ that they suffer from forgetfulness which cannot be explained even by their age. Now the young age has to be a chance and a duty for them to the high level politics. If it does not work yet then it is usual for the youngsters to start or continue their studies after their daily work on the evening or correspondence courses of the political school formerly considered high level by me and linked with their own minister’s name.

My final remark:

It never can be too late to apologize! . says an ancient adage.” .. That was the quotation.

A few days after my one-time writing László Kövér was received by János Bethlen in the program of the television (MTV-1) entitled Hétóra. Besides many other things he stated about himself and his criticized sentences. He did not really choose the solution I suggested but his sentences had remarkable contents. It was the most important positive thing to me that he partly blunted, this way comprising also the sympathizers of the MSZP, the generalizing part of his sentences. And he apologized to the ones belonging to the „wider” circle for his possibly mistakable drafting.

It can be considered even as positive when, stating about his own style, he admitted that it was mostly rough and sometimes more outspoken than usual in the society. He said he was such a one and he had to be accepted so. It was just this sentence what became instructive, warning to me. It is that thought in the case of which it matters in what environment the it is said. In my opinion from a political critic it is part of the freedom of thought and speech. If I do not like it then I do not listen to it. Or I listen to it and dispute either its content or its style.

Not the same for a member of the government and a leader of politics and power, who participates in directing the country. It is unacceptable of him to produce the sense of being threatened and juridical insecurity by the nature of his speeches, and not only in the ones just involved in the speech. Because in democracy undertaking these assignments contains not only rights but also obligations which have to be accepted by the elected one from this point. Because without this the style transgressing the social standards, the rough drafting are not only insulting. They also cause the sense of being threatened, juridical insecurity in the ones professing different values. And it can cause fear. And it can cause serious infringement upon the constitutional rights of others. It is important to know that the people, who are resolutely outspoken and other times draft roughly and are „infallible” at the same time, are dangerous. And they are also unsuitable to be leaders, decision-makers even if the most of their aims however are acceptable. And even if, according to their own belief and conviction, they themselves wish to do for the better, though in their own style.

Of course it is possible that I see it wrong, that I misunderstand that intention with which the new elected president of the party started his work. The political opponents’ (László Kovács and/or Gábor Kuncze) aversions, statements qualifying the speech and then the press statements of the new president of the party arousing fear and hatred do not have to be absolutely accepted. Because these sentences can be biased, politically motivated etc. Biz it still would be good to avoid it even in their case. That is why today I paid attention to the reactions of my friends out of the circles of businessmen, scientists and simple employees. Whose lives do not connect to any of the political trends and the politics is not a part of their days. I myself abstained from forming an opinion and listened to their reactions produced by the parts of speech published in the television news. There was no exception in that respect that the content of these parts of speech was „too much, too hard” for my friends and acquaintances.

Also the content of László Kövér’s speech was remarkable. Every writing stressed those words of the president of the party where he stated it drawn point by point that only the FIDESZ had real nation-saving ideas of solution. This assertion awakes at least bad memories in those who are a bit more widely-read in history. The speech was obviously offensive for the opposition but surely impolite towards the members of the coalition.

I consider it as a sign that it was the people of the Kisgazdapárt making statements who gave the elected president of the FIDESZ a lesson of rhetoric. They gave utterance to their pleasure because by the content of László Kövér’s speech the FIDESZ recognized those nation-saving values, tasks which they had as early when the FIDESZ did not even exist yet.

The young president of the party should notice the following as soon as possible. The world does not find an entire party in our immediate vicinity acceptable to the government of a democratic country. In spite of its indisputable social voter-basis, because their earlier speeches are remembered and considered as arousing hatred and fear. .. Maybe we should not get this far!

January 31, 2000 János Palotás

2003-05-10_23:00:00

Dr. György Lasz

Motto:

Losing a close friend has never been understood and accepted! For this reason, I may apply to our heart at this time. There is no loss in our heart; we assured an eternal place for our friends, and beloved ones there. It may help us accept the unacceptable.

János Palotás

—————

The following few lines can be found on the WEB page of the In-Kal Security Ltd. founded by him.

“Director:

Dr. György Lasz (54) (Ph.D. Pro Deo. USA)

International security political expert

He was a retired counsellor of the Interior Minister (rapporteur). Previously: He was a criminal detective, and a head of a department . He has been a criminal media-expert since 1998.

After the political change-over, he was a head and a spokesman of the Ministry of the Interior up to 1992 when he was pensioned off. He has many state medals and the title of the excellent policeman. He is the author of many police and property protecting books.

He is the doctor of defective science. (He wrote and defended his learned treatise about general safety policy and about the professional, mental and ethical rules of insuring a program, with the title of “The legal consequences of the disturbances in Europe.”)

————

He was a friend, and this word means a lot to many people, so to me and my son too!

Today it is so hard to write about him and about the common memories, because his leaving was so unexpected. Once, I am sure that I will have the opportunity to recall my friendship with this exceptional man in detail. He was a friend and this place is eternal for him in my heart.

It is the natural part of life; however, it is incompatible with life that I more often have to say good-bye to somebody, whose existence was such a natural part of my life until his farewell. It was such a natural feeling to me that he always existed for me that he could call me or I could call him at any time, because we were friends. The naturally and the lack of it are those things which give me the impression of the empty space. This huge space has to be and can be filled with our common memories, thoughts with the progress of time.

Today there are two pictures in front of me. One of them is when he cam unknown to me to the National Organization of Entrepreneurs in 1991 and started to talk about his past in the Ministry of the Interior, and the other one is the funeral which was organized by his family in such a way that I have never experienced such a shocking but such a beautiful farewell. His wife, his sons and his friends took a memorable leave of him. He talked about his sons a lot and frequently and he asked my advice in connection with the upbringing of his sons while he played an important and unforgettable role in the upbringing of my son and also for my son, who also stood next to me at the funeral. The following years will give the opportunity for me to recall the countless events of the period which is between the two pictures! It became urgent to me, because the happening of these meetings was such a natural thing before, but I have to story away the revived memories deeply from now, because what was natural so far, that will be unrepeatable from the time on.

János Palotás       

Among my thoughts on politicians I would have had to write about Viktor Orbán as the prime minister of Hungary. Still I had waited long while I was thinking how I could at least partly separate my feelings about him from my general malaise. It probably cannot be done, so for this reason I had decided to stay at the subjective approach.

I met Viktor Orbán and many of his (yet then) friends first in 1988-89. We talked in person very little, I rather sympathized with that circle of youth (István Stumpf, Gábor Fodor, Klára Ungár, László Kövér etc.) to whose company he belonged too. I got in connection with the youth of FIDESZ first when we were organizing the National Council of Hungarian Youth Organizations (MISZOT) replacing KISZ, then in connection with the Századvég newspaper and school of politics, and finally we met in the 1990 Parliament. I was elected to MP from the district of my residence independently of parties as a well-known economist and businessman, but supported by the MDF. In this way I was doing my work on side of the government, while the FIDESZ – with Viktor Orbán – was doing its on side of the opposition. The work between the government and the opposition was not going in a friendly tone even then. Perhaps due to my specific – a bit independent – position I could often talk to the MPs of the opposition even in mutual sympathy. I have pleasant memories of that summer when the youth of the FIDESZ getting together on their favorite resting place, the stairs of the main entrance of the Parliament, invited me to their circles from time to time and raised the idea of my honorary status in the FIDESZ what I received with thanks.

The judgement of the taxi-blockade in the October of 1990 meant the first „mote” in our relationship. I am convinced that the MDF-government was responsible for the development and later the aggravation of the taxi-blockade. I have never identified myself with the blockade itself but it was not the participants who the responsibility rested upon, while seeking for solution was definitely apolitical duty. This way I unavoidably came into antagonism with the government in spite of my status on the side of the government. On the other hand I would have obtained assistance from the opposition upon the logic of politics. But the parties of the opposition, including the SZDSZ and the FIDESZ, found neither their position nor their part in this conflict. While the government was plainly accusing them of responsibility fort this social protest (which had really passed the limits of legality), actually they had nothing to do with either the unleashing of the protest or the calming down of it. Mainly the FIDESZ got into defensive position and instead of politically demonstrating the awkward responsibility of the government they denied the people of the protest to prove they were not responsible for the protest. The reaction of these young people inexperienced in politics was calamitous and showed the lack of preparedness. But even then they were unwilling to change the viewpoint they stated first.

But that time and later also the disagreement meant only difference of opinions to me and it surely had no effect on my judgement of certain politicians of the FIDESZ. However, walking and talking in the lobby of the Parliament I had to notice that our relationship got wounded on the side of the FIDESZ. The next mote was the debate about the budget at the end of the year, where the professional background determining the opinion of the FIDESZ was given by some FIDESZ-politicians who were working in the financial research institute that time, so their way of thinking was equal to backing the opinion of the Ministry of Finance up by research work. This is how it could happen that „unusually” in case of a party of the opposition the FIDESZ declared they would not support any proposal for an amendment which would make the proposal of the government lose balance, while of course they would not vote for the budget itself. This way my critical remarks (besides the proposers of the government) created a conflict between the FIDESZ and me again. But the debate about word fair meant the real break. Among the parties in the Parliament it was the FIDESZ which had pledged itself against the word fair most. The origin of this opinion was again the Pénzügykutató Rt. functioning as the research institute of the Ministry of Finance. As one of the leading orators of the FIDESZ Viktor Orbán introduced his resolution. The jurist politician’s lack of economical preparedness could not be hidden by his (even that time) laudable oratorical talent in this case. It was visible that he was preparing for this speech very hard and he had been sorely tried by the „outcome” of the duel of words between him and me in the Parliament. Following this I had to feel that the former friendship had definitely turned into hostile. This thing was hurting my feeling all time long because what this situation meant to me was the loss of the human and political sympathy of a sympathetic young group. Perhaps Gábor Fodor was the only one who took the stand for the positive human and political relationship.

The next time I could experience that the FIDESZ and Viktor Orbán did not „forget” was when I was preparing for the 1994 elections. Before the elections an alliance, the so-called Liberal Coalition, would have liked to offer a third elective possibility beyond the alternative of the MSZP opposed to the coalition-circles of the MDF obviously getting more and more unpopular. The idea of joining this organization to introduce our possible conceptions of coalition from the political supply had been brought up also in the case of the Köztársaság Party which was led by me and was being organized and getting stronger that time. The new grouping clung to the liberal name and it prevented the joining because it could have induced the Köztársaság Party (which considered ideology as a matter of everybody’s privacy) to explain itself among the members and sympathizers. Finally the Köztársaság Party did not have to decide about it because they let us know in an informal way that Viktor Orbán and the FIDESZ would be members of the alliance only if the Köztársaság Party led by János Palotás did not participate in it. It was a pretty clear allusion of what kind of attitude Viktor Orbán had to the judgement of me.

In the November of 1994 started the state administration to put their undeserved pressure on me, acting illegally even in public. A politician has to prepare himself for situations like this. But according to the unwritten rules of politics the greater political risk is offset by the fact that the infringement of a politician’s lawful rights is also a greater risk for the state administration because while the MPs on side of the government are protected by their own colleagues, the molestation of a public figure not belonging to the government is always followed by the protest and control of the opposition. Well, the risk of publicity had „found” me and the state administration had got under way. What had not occured was the remarks and protest of the parties of the opposition against the evident violations of law which had been legally proved since then. I had to experience that the official violation of law did not offend against the presumed self-interest of the opposition led by Viktor Orbán and this way it would have been against their interest if they had raised their voice against it.

Sometime in 1997 I was talking to Gábor Princz, the president of Postabank. The matter was friendship when I told him that it often worried me when two of my „friends” turned roughly on each other in the exacerbated public life, then they both expected me to declare which of them I would remain loyal to. I have never yielded to the pressure to choose like this. This way I usually succeeded to keep both relationships but I even „lost” both of them a few times. It was true in the sphere of banks too, where I had friendly relationships with the first men of many banks as the leader of VOSZ, while more of them were waging a hard fight with each other as bankers. My friendship with Gábor Princz was generally known too and a few of his rivals held it as a grievance. Most of them had finally acknowledged and also accepted it but there was also a banker who plainly „blackmailed” me that if I did not break off relations with the president of Postabank then he and his bank would break with me and the VOSZ. This latter had happened. Thereupon told me Gábor Princz that it was always easy neither for him. After many years of our friendship he made friends with Viktor Orbán too, because he considered him a determined and ambitious young person and in contradiction to many others he was ready to support his goals with pleasure. He also had to handle the fact in this friendly relationship that Viktor Orbán’s opinion of me was not the same as his judgement. I assured him that I felt no antipathy to this friendship of him. I also used to like Viktor Orbán and perhaps I would still like him now but it was hard to do feeling that the other felt definite antipathy to me. At the time of this talk of us in Szentendre Gábor Princz talked about Viktor Orbán, their meetings and discussions definitely fairly. Nowadays this talk often occurs to me when the ex-„friend” leaves the – undeserved – calumny of this banker declared „public enemy” (what is basically false in my opinion) unanswered. At least I can see as much of a strong character in him (which is still very little to me) as he has not participated in the atmosphere of „all bad things are caused by Postabank” with his own voice yet.

Following the 1998 elections I was not embittered by the FIDESZ winning the elections to my great surprise. Although in my opinion the professional and political preparedness and the background of the MSZP much surpassed the abilities of the winning party, I was sure that being disenchanted of its comfortable self-conceit and the petty-minded internal plays served the MSZP right. As for my opinion of a businessman I am definitely optimistic of that belief of me that a more disadvantageous starting ability can be made up by wish of proof and success-oriented impulse effectively. But it is important that the aim shall be success-oriented and not power-oriented!

But during the one and a half years of governing till now Viktor Orbán and the team charged by only him could not succeed in finding the positive success-orientation. He has not succeeded in perceiving the dividing line between the positive message of creativity, chance to create offered by the chance of ruling and wielding power that cuts both ways. But I also admit that what many people prognosticated, the state non-functioning because of the lack of preparedness of the government, had not realized. Viktor Orbán has taken many steps and made many statements which are considered mistakes even in politics (the shadowing case, the statement about nuclear weapons, actions in connection with the bank of issue, problems with the exact time, many political replacements and nominations, doubts in connection with the economic past, the calumny of László Juszt, etc.) but until now he had never got into such a remarkable situation which could have raised the issue of the inaptitude of the prime minister.

I think the readers have noticed that most of my thoughts relate to Viktor Orbán only indirectly, over the behavior of the FIDESZ as a political party. I have almost never worked with Viktor Orbán directly, we did not really have a mutual company. But Viktor Orbán’s figure has always determined the image of the FIDESZ. Because of this my terms with this party have been formed equally to that of its current president. I believe that the obstinate striving after the appearance of being infallible, the aggressive style of wielding power might could be favorable to them in getting hold of the political power but the inability to change style may cause (and I think it will) the „downfall” of both the FIDESZ and Viktor Orbán, which would mean the loss of political power of capability to govern involving the post of prime minister in this case.

János Palotás

08.12.1999.

Árpád Göncz

Our first democratic Parliament elected in 1990 elected Árpád Göncz to the President of the Republic of Hungary. As a member of this same Parliament I found my politician-ideal in this politician and man.

I disagreed with that the people should not elect the president directly but he would be proposed as candidate as a result of a parliamentary deal. I found it still better if the society chose wrongly itself then being told who the right person was for us. But I think in this case the wrong system elected an outstanding statesman. Of course it caused a hubbub within a few months. Prime minister József Antal got „disappointed” in the honorable writer pretty fast, who I think was expected to perfectly suit the imagined protocol role.

But it did not happen that way. The writer was an outstanding man first of all, whose everyday life set an example for the new „politician” team.

It meant very much to me that he was helping my work as a friend for years. I could not ask anything from him what he would not do for me even leaving his advisors’ antipathy out of consideration. Although his nearest colleague was trying to remove me from Mr. President’s retinue for years, but unsuccessfully. It met with success only after the state administration found associates like the most read Hungarian daily paper, the Népszabadság, to its (proved for now) unlawful discrediting campaign.

Perhaps he is the only politician who I am sorry to be able to meet only „accidentally”.

János Palotás

…back

I am angry eith Dénes Kosztolányi, too. Why? – I ask myself. As far as I remember I have never met him in person, never have had personal contacts with him. I am watching my own self and I do not really understand my own reactions. It is not typical of me that anybody (might he be a contemptible character of our everyday life) could bring any hardly disguisable emotinons of mine to the surface.Although Dénes Kosztolányi has no „antecedents” in our public life. I consulted the 1998 „Hungarian and International Who is who” and it did not even mentioned this former doctor of the Eötvös Lóránt University of Science. He got into the Parliament in 1998 from the Budapest regional list of FIDESZ and become member of two committees (national security and commune) right away,then after Viktor Orbán’s disreputable statement he became the chairman of the Shadowing Committee as the main treasurer of the prime minister’s „trustworthiness”.

As I had already touched it in many of my writings, in my opinion Viktor Orbán was both „misguided” by his well-informed colleagues before his ominous shadowing-statement and fell victim to the pressure of having to make statements as it happened many times with politicians. The point of this polite sentence is that Viktor Orbán’s statement does not square with the facts. Though it is not nice of a prime minister I still do not show temper when Viktor Orbán appears on television, though I disapprove his sentences defended by Dénes Kosztolányi, but I do not overvalue them.

Then what is the matter with Dénes Kosztolányi, who is so weightless both in politics and public life and whose role in execution is not more than a politics-puppet? Until the time of this writing of mine he had not made even one self-made proposal in the Parliament, he had altogether fourteen remarks. As to most things there is an answer to it but so hard to reveal. That look, that style, that calmness, that way he faces me from the television: that is so insulting. Insulting, because violating all democratic legal principles with so perfect calm and declaring the evident untruth looking in my eyes degrade the viewers so deeply. It beams: „I can say anything and you have to accept it, you deserve only this level”.

And can we really do anything against it? Anything more than just waiting the elections in 2002? To tell the truth it neither offers areal solution, because neither 1998 the electorate wanted to see him against the MPs, we received him as a present from the Budapest regional list.

I really think that Dénes Kosztolányi passed the verges of the democratic legal system in the senses the moral, the politics and even penal law. In connection of waiving György Atyánszky’s (I think – undeserved) parliamentary immunity I strove to point the contradictions of the ruling-mechanism in the Parliament. I am afraid that our feeling of legal security is going to get the next „snub” in connection Dénes Kosztolányi. For me it was definitely a good feeling to read that among several touched ones the management of the Pinpoint Ltd. Have had enough of the conspicuous trampling of their rights to the dust and the discrediting of them without any legal consequences. However, unfortunately it is easy to predict the future of their „denunciation” addressed to the main public prosecutor. Even if it is a publicly committed violation of law and perceptible by people with even an average knowledge of law, before the investigation and the charging the parliamentary immunity of the perpetrator should have to be waived.

Even the parliamentary immunity committee itself claims and the parliamentary practice points that in the case of an application of waiving somebody’s parliamentary immunity they do not examine whether it is reasonable or not, but in cases of slander, frame-up, etc. They „safeguard” the MP’s parliamentary immunity without examining the case thoroughly. This is how some people can become „taboo” while the complainants have to endure the disdain of a lot of their constitutional rights. Although I truly believe that sooner or later the Parliament will change this practice, I still can not believe that its possibility will be provided just by the case of Dénes Kosztolányi, who defended the Prime Minister of the parliamentary majority so shamefully.

János Palotás

03.12.1999.

During my career I often met people who – otherwise having big knowledge – I felt were different from me and I was seized by a bad feeling talking to them. It took a long time to me to recognize the reason of my aversion. I already know that the thing that I felt repulsion for in the case of most of them was their relation to their own set of values. It was not easy to recognize these thoughts. The things delivered during our professional or even general discussions or the listening to their speeches, the reading of their writings could stay within those bounds – even for years – where the delivered thoughts stood really close to me, only the terminology was a little strange, that is all.

The perception always came unexpectedly. It was an uninteresting debate, a ministerial answer, a private letter that showed me that this person’s personality really stood very far from me. A man who I could respect before for having own recognizable set of values, consistent thoughts, even outstanding knowledge. The trouble begins and end also ends when the one forming his own set of values obliges not only himself to adopt it but also expects others to follow his opinion without any critiques!

This behavior might be called vocation, might be called stubbornness, or bigoted opinion, but to me this self-notion mostly belongs to the extremists. These people existed in all ages, could be found in all professions, their existence is limited neither to age-group nor to sex or education. I do not like them even if their names are connected to many scientific discovery in science, world-famous works of art, self-denial referring to human greatness in history too. True enough that in the position of power or ruling it was these people who sent researches to a dead-end for years, made the people of different opinion be harassed and the most of the unleashing of the wars were connected to these people too. In the extreme way of thinking it is of no significance whether the concerned ones are extreme nationalists, leftists or the forcible representatives of their religious affiliation. It is their natural character to disclaim their bigot character even to themselves because they are pledged to their own faith too, so this way they are convinced democrats in politics. I really had been terrified many times listening to the speeches in the Parliament, paying attention to the MPs who declared themselves Christians but stoned others in their speeches and expelled their critics from among them. I wonder whether they have read the „Ten Commandments” at all?! And had they understood these commandments if they had read them?

Géza Jeszenszky’s speeches in the early 90’s only disturbed me. Later I felt I did not like this man, maybe I found him insincere. Now I think I was wrong in his case too. Géza Jeszenszky believes in what he says, he is pledged to his thoughts. But the nature of his pledge is detrimental. Detrimental, but not illegal until he does not have means, office and function to represent his own opinion forcibly. But his actions will become even illegal if (becoming a public functionary) he transgresses the law for the sake of his conviction on the basis of the well-known principle „the end justifies the means”. It is detrimental and violates the law if he makes an untrue declaration about the selling of weapons as foreign minister (February 1991), then discredits our country by his assignment with „I can do anything because I have a responsible assignment” (Austria, December 1993) or „I can incite hostility by speaking plainly or in a private letter” (December 1990, November 1999).

I am concerned that (though his principles stand much closer to me than those of for example István Csurka) Géza Jeszenszky is just as unsuited to be civil servant, minister or ambassador of a democratic country as the leader of the home extreme right.

My final note: Viktor Orbán hold the above-written opinion of Géza Jeszenszky in the September of 1990, he claimed his replacement because of his inaptitude. Even to his own mind, Géza Jeszenszky -probably- has not changed since then. Géza Jeszenszky is the ambassador of our country in the United States assigned by Viktor Orbán. If Géza Jeszenszky has not changed then is it perhaps Viktor Orbán’s set of values what has altered?

Péter Polt was born in the very same year (1955) when I had to face the challenges of the world. Life connected us not only by the date but we had met several times and mostly suddenly during my life.He pursued his studies as a jurist and I did as an economist, but the army brought us together in the army base in Kalocsa. While several thousands of us spent the that-time mandatory eleven months together, I could hardly recall more than twenty-thirty names. Both Péter’s name and face had remained in my memory. Although he was not a loudmouthed person calling „enforced” attention to himself by his behavior. He was quiet, moderate but calm and moral even in „tough” situations. I awoke to the consciousness of the value of this quality only in the following years at the university. I liked the company, the community also young – probably it was what directed me as a public figure – but I was still not able to make unclouded relationship with many of my university-mates (my fellow-soldiers). I attended school with many young scamps in our class who were active, friendly, participated in mostly all university programs, were good students but I still kept away from daily relations with them. The mutual girl-friends, group-mates often asked me what my problem was with them, why I kept the distance. I could not and did not want to tell that these young ones, who were so sympathetic now, could not stand the test of the army, the atmosphere in the army base which were different from the normal social values. Also their behavior was beneath themselves in the tough and often unjust situations. It was when it became my conviction that the institution of the so-called compulsory conscription would not do. Most of the young men could have probably lived all their lives without having to feel ashamed of any of their behavior. But at the same time they were not born heroes and could not give a good answer for the abnormal situations.The reason why Péter’s person – together with a few of his mates – had remained in me was because I felt it all the time that our scale of values (I surely did not call it that way that time) was the same and we could and had to overcome most situations with proper self-possession, often with humor and sometimes with self-irony.

We had common things neither at the time of military service nor in the following years, this way we met neither during university years nor in the following years. I still had not forgotten his person. It was many years later when I got to know that he had finished the university of law and was a lawyer in several criminal actions nearly for ten years.

More than fifteen years had passed after the military service when we met in course of the 1994 parliamentary elections. I had been living in the 16th district of the capitol since 1980, he had just moved to the district with his family and, as far as I could remember, with his two children. The younger one was about one year old. It was when I got to know that he had got connected with political public life and was going to be nominated for mandate as candidate of the FIDESZ. Because of the same place of residence the fellow-soldier became a political rival!

The common scale of values came to surface immediately in this case too. I never doubted a moment that our electoral „battle” would not damage the picture formed of each other. The political opponent meant enemy for none of us, though we were really rivals. At this election the MSZP gained a total victory in the individual electoral districts. This victory was far not so convincing in our district as in the entirety of the Country. I shared the second and third places with Péter.

Next I met him in 1995 when he was nominated for general deputy of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Citizenship Rights by the FIDESZ. In a democratic country this assignment for me is one of the highest appreciation attainable for a jurist, which is on a level with the constitutional judges and/or the judges of the Supreme Court. I was glad that they chose a person extremely sympathetic to me for this position and it made me feel good too that it was when also the representatives of my age-class began to undertake and get part on the highest grade of directing the society. It is a specially unusual occurrence in the jurist society. My life so ordained – partly against my will – that in the following years I met Péter Polt in his office many times. Sometime we met concerning my own petitions, sometime I checked up some legal cases with him as president of the Enterpreneurs’ National Alliance. I was connected with him immediately at the third of my phone calls, but I could not recall such call when I was not called back within a day. Also as parliamentary commissioner he has remained that man who is quiet voiced but expressing his opinion firmly but not forcing it on others, who I got to know in the army.

I can declare myself lucky because I have met and could talk to many people with really big knowledge and acknowledgement in their professions in my life. Of course also with many well-known ones, of whom people thought much more than the truth. It was a good inside measure during my conversations whether my negotiators’ sentences told me something new in a subject, whether they added to the well-known reasoning or whether they could make the same assertion clearer in another light. If they did then I always felt that the spent time was not senseless and I would gladly continue the conversation with him sometime later. I have never expected the world-saving thought from these talks. But it is still important to me to feel that there was something „surplus” given by the past time. This surplus has been always sensibly present in the conversations with Péter Polt.

According to what I expressed in my earlier writing, I was not glad that Kálmán Györgyi gave up his assignment as Attorney General. I felt it in spite of the fact that during Kálmán Györgyi’s assignment I had to endure unjust proceedings from the police and the state attorney’s office directed by the Attorney General. I was seized with dubiety also when the Hungarian press raised it for the first time that Péter Polt could be made likely as Kálmán Györgyi’s probable successor. Though the General Attorney’s assignment means the highest legal appreciation too, in my opinion it does not precede the social appreciation of the Commissioner for Citizenship Rights, it is rather equal with that. But in a transitional social age the General Attorney is more exposed to the intention of political intervention. The state attorney cannot elude even the most delicate situations. Kálmán Györgyi had to make a stand – and not always successfully – on the case of the „media board of trustees”, at László Juszt’s supposed betrayal of state secret, then soon on Kaya Ibrahim. I consider it true generally that independence of parties is important in the person of the Attorney General of the country. But if I accept that a man’s world concept is his private business then its existence, his earlier manifestations about it cannot be considered as reason for preclusion. The real question is much rather that he shall not be the biased, extreme representative of his own world concept. He shall be able to accept others’ different being and as state attorney he shall keep to legality, constitutionality, truth, and with proper emphatic attitude. I have no doubts about the existence of the above conditions in Péter Polt’s case.

I talked about it with Péter Polt at the time of the „gossip” and also told him my misgivings. Of course having respect for his decision, will. Then a few days ago in one of the morning programs of television Péter Polt, already nominated officially by the President of the Republic, answered the host’s question by saying that in his opinion the top of professional appreciation for a criminalist was the assignment of the attorney general. Since then I kept my fingers crossed for him without doubts to get the needed support for his assignment in the parliamentary voting without overtones. I am glad that the voting ended successfully and he was elected for Attorney General of the country by a support significantly beyond the necessary proportional number of votes. I hope it for the sake of all of us that his intentions will come true with successes and my doubts will disappear in oblivion.

Péter Polt cannot be ranked among my friends in the ordinary sense of the word. We have not met in the sphere of my private life. We have never spent our spare time together etc. But I take his person for such a man, and I handle him so in myself too, like those of my friends, with whom I had many-many common experiences. And the future is incalculable.

04.05.2000 János Palotás