On family policy, BDS, diplomatic engagement, clemency cases and returned laws - Katalin Novák in InfoRádió

Today, Hungary is the Mecca of family-oriented thinking, said President of Hungary Katalin Novák in her interview on InfoRadio’s programme Aréna. In connection with the Budapest Demographic Summit, the President of Hungary stressed the importance of having children and starting a family, but also spoke about the essence of her visits to Kyiv and Warsaw, the key role of personal relationships, the challenges of the Head of State's veto and pardon, and why it is necessary to run without bodyguards in Tiszabecs.

The very first point of your original presidential programme is that you wish to continue to work for families, so that all the children their parents desire to have can be born and brought up safely. As Minister, you had clear tools to do this. What tools do you have as President?
I worked for Hungarian families in government for a long time. Now, in a new position, facing a new task, I have other options. But that doesn't mean I can't copntinue working for Hungarian families, even if by different means. Supporting Hungarian families, making it possible for them to have children, encouraging young people to have as many children as and when they want, is not primarily about finances. It is not just or not primarily about the support that Hungarian young people and families raising children can receive so extensively in Hungary. Rather, it is the pro-family mindset, about the personal experiences that I have had and continue to have as a mother of three children, experiences that I have had in my own family, but not just me, all of us experience these things. If we can talk about them, if we can put the cause of families at the centre, if we can tell young people, as an encouragement, that although the responsibility of having children is a heavy one, children are a wonderful gift that cannot be replaced by anything else, then perhaps in time we can change the mentality, the thinking that is so prevalent  in the so-called developed western world. This mentality makes young people give up having children, and those who would like to have children, finally do not have them for some reason, or simply run out of time. In my view, what is needed here is not only subsidies, not only financial incentives, but also, in parallel and alongside them, a pro-family mindset, a public discourse about families and the promotion of an attitude to life that puts families at the centre of everything that is happening in Hungary.
 

All rosy things to talk about for young people about to start a family? Anyone who has had children knows that this would not be true. Or should they be taught how to do it?
It is very good that you have asked this question, because it is also about the fact that a family is not the rose-tinted experience that people see in advertisements. It's not about a morning of everyone peacefully spreading margarine on their bread and having a pleasant chat about what's in store for them that day. The life of most families is much more hectic than that, and very often there are tragedies, difficulties, situations to go through, situations to deal with, whether in the life of the child or in the life of the adult. I, for example, only slept two hours last night because one of our children had to be taken to the clinic and we spent the night in the emergency room.
I hope she is well.
Thank God, that’s why I can be here now...
If you are here, it means she is well.
She has been discharged and she is home. And I have just told you this because I'm a mother myself, I know that raising children is not an easy task in life. It's hard. But I also believe that if we are pro-life, if we stand up for the value of human life, then we must cherish and help the human life that is conceived, the child that is born, even if it is not born into this world in a state that is seen as perfect in the traditional sense of the word. We must also be there for those who are living with such difficulties, who are raising a sick child, or who have a broken relationship and are forced to bring up their child or children alone, and help them to cope with this as best they can. I am thinking here of single-parent families, but we can also think of orphaned children, and unfortunately there are many situations in life that have not gone according to plan, and we must be there for those who need help. I believe that we also need to talk about the fact that the decision to have children is not an easy one to make, because we know that those who want to have children when they are young, when they have to say that this is the moment, that it is time to have children, they do not find its so easy to do so. There may be financial reasons for this, but it may also be that they are just afraid of taking on the responsibility, they have no experience. If I may be personal again, the first baby I ever saw up close was our first son. Nowadays, multi-generational families don't live together like they used to, we don't see child rearing, birth, caring for a baby. So we also have to help young people believe that they have the instinct to care for a vulnerable baby.
We need to change the way young people think about their future children, which is where the fear is, or we need to change the way society as a whole thinks about people with children, because that is where the difficulties are. Take the workplace, for example. That is a very challenging issue.
I would not even talk about changing the way young people think, but rather about freeing their emotions, so that we dare to be proud of our instinct, dare to be freer in embracing the instinct that tells us how important the family we come from, where we were born, our brothers and sisters, our extended family, our children, really are in our lives. And to make sure that we do not only put on a pedestal a mindset that prefers the individual, individual well-being, but also think in terms of the family as the smallest, but very important community. And think about whether it is worth encouraging a mindset that is in favour of the family, in favour of life. I believe that the most important thing here is to really bring out the good instincts that we all have.

The Budapest Demographic Summit is about to begin, this is already the fifth. How can it help us? 
The most important thing for us is what is happening to Hungarians in Hungary and in the Carpathian Basin or even in the diaspora. But the lack of children is not only a Hungarian phenomenon, it is the same everywhere in the so-called developed Western world. If we just think about the fact that there is not a single country in Europe today where there are enough children being born to even maintain their population - so we are not talking about population growth - then we can sense how big the problem is. Or I could quote Elon Musk, who said that the demographic challenge is now more serious than the climate crisis, it is a bigger problem for the future of the developed world. I am also inclined to take that as a true statement. It is a problem for Europe as a whole, and indeed for the Western world as a whole. Indeed, some suggest that it will catch up with the whole world, even the developing world, in time. And if we are faced with this, then on the one hand it is worth thinking about how we can reverse this demographic winter, this demographic crisis. On the other hand, as Europeans, as Hungarians, it is also worth thinking about whether we accept as a necessity that we will give up the next generation, that we will give up having children, and that others will come in their place, and that we can replace our own children with others. I think that the Hungarian people have made their views quite clear on this. They would like more Hungarian children to be born again. There is a phenomenon whereby far fewer children are born in the developed world than the number young people would like to have. They are asked in their early twenties how many children they plan to have, and they compare that with how many children those same young people will end up having. And there is what is called a fertility gap. It means that for some reason these aspirations, these plans, are not being realised. This is where we have to do something about it. It is not that young people do not want to have a family at all, they do, but there are the difficulties that you mentioned. With jobs, with reconciling family life with work, with the difficulties they face, whether in education or in health. I am not necessarily talking only about Hungary, but also elsewhere. And why do we need to have a demographic summit? We decided in 2015 to bring together people from around the world, especially from Europe, who think along the same lines about this problem. Since then, we have organised the Budapest Demographic Summit every two years, and the interest is growing. Today, heads of state and government are also coming to the summit on 14 September, and the leaders of the historic churches will be here too. From the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ephraim to the Nobel Prize-winning economist and international leaders of family NGOs, speakers are coming to Budapest to reflect together on the solution. I would even go so far as to say that Hungary is the Mecca of pro-family thinking today, because we are the place to meet to think together about the most important issues affecting families.
Can the result of all these shared reflections be something that would bring the fertility rate above, say, 2.1? There has been a shift in this. We are now around 1.6, starting from a very bad number, but it is still not 2.1 percent. 
The increase that we've seen in Hungary over the last decade has been unparalleled in the rest of Europe, but it's true, there are still too few children being born. Just because we are meeting here, talking about these important issues, listening to each other, learning from each other, it will not mean that twice as many children will be born the next day. But I am convinced that we can place this topic among the issues that need to be discussed at the highest level and at the lowest level at the same time. And by the lowest level, I just mean that in our everyday conversations we also start to address the question of what I could do, whether it would help in a small town or village if, say, one mother were to look after two or three or four more children, children under three, in a family crèche. And then a new job can come along, and those mothers can go back to work. Or is it helpful if we say that a grandparent who is still working can also go on grandparental leave, because both parents are working, and there is a grandmother or grandfather who is still active, and he or she would be happy to take care of the child and there is help to do so. Or how we can help those who do not have a child because there is no place to have one, no suitable home. How can we help them have a home? How can we send a message to women, to mothers, that we recognise the work they do in bringing up many children? And if they also work, they should pay less in public charges. And if these steps, this help is actually mainstreamed into our thinking in such a way that we in the village know that our neighbour pays less tax, that they have a house earlier than we do, that they received support and assistance for some reason, then these will have an effect over time. People start thinking, well, maybe I will get help just when I dare to say yes to the next child. This thinking is very slow to change, because there was a very bad practice, when even the third year of childcare allowance was no longer available, when all support for home ownership was abolished, when the income of parents who had children was planned to be taxed, and indeed was taxed. My feeling is that these positive steps need time to really get through to the minds of people, so that they really feel what I believe is happening in Hungary today, and what the figures also support. Today, it is no longer shocking if someone has six, seven or eight children, because we know that if someone has decided to do this voluntarily, if a couple has taken this on and is bringing up their children responsibly, then we must acknowledge this, support and help them, but we must also support those who are having their first child, their second or third, and those who are planning to have children. We do all of this without, of course, any negative consequences for those who choose not to have children, not to be committed. It is everyone's free, personal choice.
The second presidential point is that women should be free to fulfil their potential in their families and in their professions alike. Is this a feasible goal? From a man's point of view, it would take two people, one being fulfilled in her life at home and the other in her profession. But we are talking of one woman here, not several.
I have the honour of being the first woman President of Hungary. This is a privilege that also comes with additional responsibilities, because I feel - and I receive this confirmation very often - that the very fact that a woman is President of Hungary is encouraging to plenty of women today. It tells them that there is actually no ceiling that they cannot break through, that what they have set for themselves is within their reach. Of course, not everyone's life path is the same as mine. Nor does everyone aim to be, say, the head of a company, or to hold any kind of leadership position. But it is possible, and our role is to help women to unleash their talents and skills and fulfil their aspirations. It is indeed very difficult to reconcile the two, it is already difficult enough to stand our ground in the family. I see that men are increasingly taking on responsibilities in the family. Few people know that in Hungary all family benefits are available to fathers, too. A father can stay at home on childcare leave in the same way as a mother, or he can also take advantage of the childcare benefit extra, so a father or even a grandfather can receive childcare benefit while working, and he can stay at home on sick leave with a child in the same way as a mother, and more and more fathers are taking advantage of this. So there is a natural evolution in the distribution of responsibilities. I am convinced that this should not be forced, yet should certainly be made available and that women should be supported in achieving what they want to achieve. It is a great help that in Hungary today, every year more women graduate from universities than men, and the number of women graduates is significantly higher than the number of men graduates. In general, it is also true that women are demanding their place in the labour market, and I am convinced that it is worth supporting them in this by every means possible. This is also what the personal income tax exemption for mothers of four children is all about, and besides, there is nowhere else in the world where, if a woman gives birth to a child while working, she takes home more money in the first six months of her childcare leave than she had earned from her work. This also tells women that they do not necessarily have to fall behind financially even if they have had a child. But I know that it is not easy yet, these issues are very difficult to resolve. That is why I also think it is good practice that every year, companies, workplaces or even municipalities that introduce family-friendly practices and consider this criterion to be important are recognised.
On the third point, you said that you would stand up for the less visible, for the vulnerable and the poor. How can you stand up for them?
Often, a good word and attention can make a big difference.It has been my experience over the last year and a half that when I sit down on the wooden stool with them, not just figuratively but in reality, I meet families, people who are not in the spotlight in everyday life, and whenever I go somewhere, I don't go to the places that are in the centre of attention anyway, that everybody is talking about and everybody knows about, but I try to go to the people who are not in the spotlight, who are not in the centre of attention in that way. Yet that is exactly where the task and responsibility begins, because if someone has not been noticed for a log time and then for a moment has experienced this, it is even more difficult to live without it afterwards, if this attention then ceases again. That is why I try to maintain contact with these families and people in the long term, in a sustained way, and perhaps draw attention to the fact that we can all do something through our own means. If all we do is look around in our own environment, see who lives next door or three houses away, if we hear of someone who has a problem or difficulty and we all try to help in some way as best as we can, then I feel that those who are in a more difficult situation can breathe a little easier every day. This is the feedback I receive from plenty of people with whom I have had the opportunity to talk and meet over the last year and a half, and of course, when I see a problem or situation that draws attention to a systemic failure, I report it to the legislators, even if I do not have executive responsibility now.
It was not on your agenda, but the former name of your office, i.e. the Office of the President of Hungary, has been replaced by the name Sándor Palace. Why?
Sándor Palace, the building, was built in the early 1800s and was called that because it was built for the Sándor family, so the name of the building has always been Sándor Palace, and this is actually a catch-up with an international practice. In many places, the office is named for the building, and we have also broken with the name Office because I do not want my staff to see their workplace as an office, and they certainly do not work as if this was an office. It is not a bureaucratic ivory tower, it is about people. We are dealing with people's lives, and we are trying to deal with it in a way that is worthy of our resonsibility. We do not see ourselves as an office, which is why we have taken the name of the building.
Then, should we not think of more, say, that on the model of the Elysée Palace, the constitutional status of the President of Hungary will also be elevated in time?
Absolutely not! And just think of 10 Downing Street, which is the office of the British Prime Minister, for example, or the White House, which is also named after the building, it is something that is common practice abroad. I am convinced that in Hungary, too, the optics are better than if an office were to appear only as an administration centre.
But is there nothing of the official nature left for the President of Hungary? There are cases, and cases are handled by offices.
I can reassure everyone that everyone will continue to do their job in the same way, but the approach is really changing in the sense that we are looking more at the person than the case.
Your are very active in diplomacy and foreign affairs. What is the role of the President of Hungary? Foreign policy is the job of the government, isn't it?
The tasks of the President of Hungary are defined in the Constitution, in some points in very specific terms and in others in somewhat general terms. It is also a legally established reality that the conduct of foreign policy is the responsibility of a democratically elected government, you are absolutely right on that point. But it is also enshrined in the Fundamental Law that the President of Hungary represents Hungary. This representation also extends to international representation, so when I am engaged in diplomatic activity, it is because of this constitutional duty.
In peacetime this is easy to understand, but we do not have peace now. You go to places where the government does not go, for example, Ukraine. What is your role there?
I try to keep a number of things in mind when it comes to our international relations. Indeed, we are in a situation that no one expected, with a war in our neighbourhood knocking on our door, and it is even worse than that, because Hungarians have already lost their lives in this terrible war. Now, even more sadly, we cannot even see the end of it. I would even go so far as to say that we do not see a way out of this war. Not only the end, but also the way to the end is not currently visible to the decision-makers. In this situation, we must decide wisely and negotiate wisely. I believe in the role and importance of human relations. At the end of the day, people are sitting everywhere, people are making decisions, and so it opens up a different opportunity if we can meet each other face to face, if we can look each other in the eye, if we can ask a question directly or answer a question directly. This helps to avoid misunderstandings, it gives us the opportunity to negotiate and act together as allies in goodwill towards each other. I try to seize this opportunity when I travel to a place, in this case Kyiv in response to an invitation. I have been to Kyiv twice in the last year and a half, and most recently a few weeks ago, and I had the opportunity to have a longer one-on-one meeting with President Zelensky. It is an opportunity to talk directly about things that are not in the public eye.
Even in your first presidential speech, you expressed your views on Russia's aggression in Ukraine in no uncertain terms, in very clear and dry sentences. It is still readable and visible today. Has it been heard in Ukraine? What is your experience?
Some people have heard it, some people have not, and this is not a message that I intended for anyone in particular, but I believe that there are situations when it is not helpful to use the usual office jargon, when we should not look for solutions in multiple complex sentences, in unravelling ulterior motives, or when it is not certain that this kind of loud thinking in public is in place. There is and, I would add, would be a place for such thinking, much more so, in my view, than is currently the case. I, for one, miss this type of frank, open discussion in a closed circle, because it would help if we could talk to each other in a much more open, much less cosmeticised way, say, at the level of heads of state or government, about what our options are in relation to the Russian-Ukrainian war, how we can help in such a way that Hungary, NATO or Europe does not get involved in this war, and where the limits and boundaries of this assistance lie. These issues should not necessarily be discussed in public, just as it is not necessarily worth talking about military reality, the possible outcomes of events on the battlefield in public.
The enemy can hear you.
And we have to face it. Every day I receive and read military reports from the front, I think what I think. It's a good thing to discuss this among ourselves, and to engage in long-term reflections that do not just focus on today, on whether we can satisfy the hunger, sorry, the hunger of the journalist, of the public, the escalating pressure arising from the need to always come out with something more, because what was enough yesterday is no longer enough today. Instead, we should really expose what we think will be the reality tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and ten, twenty, fifty, one hundred years after tomorrow, whether we reckon with the fact that Russia will exist, that we will have to maintain or that we will not have to maintain some kind of relationship with Russia. We will have to define our relationship with Russia at some point, and we should get to that point as well, so as to prevent that Ukraine is crushed, so as to ensure that the loss that Ukraine is suffering at the moment can be minimised, so that fewer lives are lost in this war, with the added proviso that it is the Ukrainians' right to decide in their hearts how long they are prepared to make sacrifices, but others also have the rigth to decide how much sacrifice their own nation is prepared to endure. And it is also a good thing if people have the opportunity to express their opinion freely. In all cases, it certainly helps if there are elections in a country.
Yes, but free speech requires as much information as possible, and what you've said is that access is limited for most people, because that's the nature of things. So how do we know when enough is enough?
It is worse than that, because not only is it limited access to information, but it also gives the ordinary news reader the illusion that they have access to a lot of information, while typically the information they get is distorted by both sides. But people assume that they have a realistic view of the situation. Fortunately, from this point of view, we Hungarians only need to know where the Hungarian people feel the limits of their capacity and we can be proud of the unanimous, clear and unreserved support they have shown for the victims of the war. Let us think back, it is almost forgotten how from the very first moment, on 24 February, on the very night of that day, the next day, mayors, local leaders, civilians, office staff, along the border, got together and went and made sandwiches, how they even gave up their own homes so that the refugees could have somewhere to rest for a while, how the aid organisations joined forces and helped on Hungarian territory, in Transcarpathia and in the interior of Ukraine, and how they are still there today, providing assistance. This assistance is still ongoing along the border. So the Hungarian people, with all their strength and sacrifice, have stood by Ukraine under attack and the people living there, not only by the Hungarians, but also the Ukrainians. We can be proud of this, and we also have a responsibility, which the Hungarian people have entrusted to us as decision-makers and leaders, to preserve peace in this country, and we must then convert this responsibility into deeds, words and actions.
Can your personal relationship with the President of Ukraine strengthen and guarantee the security and future of the Hungarians of Transcarpathia? That is, the fact that the two of you talked about this?
My ambition is definitely to help the situation of the Hungarians in Transcarpathia also through my personal relationship with the President of Ukraine. As far as I can see, the situation of the Hungarians in Transcarpathia is not at the forefront of his thoughts at the moment, and it is not one of the first one or two or three problems, difficulties or issues that are on his mind. This could even be good news, if the situation of the Hungarians in Transcarpathia would be improving at this point. It is a sad situation, or I might even say an outrageous or tragic situation, that we are now witnessing steps taken backwards in terms of the rights of the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia. I personally drew the attention of the Ukrainian President to this, saying that if this had not been on his desk for some reason, he should now be aware of it, he should deal with it, and we can only hope that this will have a positive outcome. But I am not naive, I am just an optimist.
How do you choose your destinations when, say, war does not require you to pick a destination?
I am invited to a lot of places, and these invitations usually have a purpose, a reason. Often behind a visit there is an economic cooperation that can be discussed locally, which is helped by our meeting or by a personal relationship developing between the two of us. I sometimes feel that we underestimate the branch of international relations called cultural diplomacy, which is about when two nations are in a friendly, allied relationship, beyond what decisions are taken, what formal agreements we enter into say, in the field of the economy or on energy issues, there are also certain cultural theads binding us together, and if this spirit and culture behind our relations ceases to exist, then we may still have a pragmatic relationship, even a mutually beneficial one, but somehow the essence of the relationship will be lost. Let us think of Hungarian-Polish friendship. It is no coincidence that my first official trip abroad was to Warsaw, and I have been there since then, and I hope that I will continue to do so, and now, for example, I met President Duda for the last time in Bucharest, and our personal relationship is very good. Hungarian-Polish friendship has been through a lot. If it were not for this desire for mutual understanding between us, this awareness of how much we have in common, whether culturally, emotionally or habitually, it would be much more difficult to find common ground in difficult moments, or even to find the opportunity to give each other a little time and then, when the intensity of this difficulty has lessened, to pick up where we left off. These personal relationships, I feel, can help Hungary a lot, at least that is the conviction that guides me in my work.
Is your aim to change the image of Hungary abroad in any way? We have been the happiest barrack, we have been gulyas communism, we have been the most successful regime change country, and then we have been the least successful regime change country. What kind of country do you want us to be?
It is my personal experience that people who have been here, say, in the last few years and those who have not, but read about us or try to find out about us, have a very different impression of Hungary. And I will perhaps not be revealing any surprises if I say that those who come here in person typically have a significantly better personal experience, by light years, than those who get their information about Hungary from reading very biased opinions. I want to make the consciously formed, negatively influenced image of us more realistic. Not to improve it, but simply to make it more realistic. And I trust that if we exchange mobile numbers with another President, which is now common practice in diplomacy, and we keep in touch on a daily basis via whatsapp or some other communication channel, we will be able to ask each other if we encounters anything that does not fit in with the image we would have thought from our personal meeting, and we can correct some of the misstatements and untruths that many people are trying to use to destroy Hungary's image. I would like to create this realistic image of Hungary in others, and not to say that we are perfect, not to say that everything is in order here in Hungary and that there are no faults or that there is nothing to find fault with. Maybe, but certainly the picture is much better than what they try to portray of us.
Should we take it as that a president is finding out what's what from you before their own staff would put the daily report in front of them in the morning on what actually happened? Is that how it works?
I does happen, indeed, that, say, something is surprising to them, because we talked about it, say, at our last meeting, and they read a contrary news item or receive a contrary information item, they pick up the phone, contact me, ask me what is the background to this, is the information they have received correct, yes, that is how it can work. And then it can work in other ways. Sometimes, the next time we see each other, it comes in the form of a criticism. But I also have the opportunity to either correct it or, if the criticism is justified, to try to shed some light on the background, if I can, or to say that I don't know the background myself.
You sent back legislation four times, these were political and constitutional vetoes. On what grounds do you send back legislation? You said you send back the bad ones but not the good ones.
I had no idea when I said this that it was such a simple and yet difficult thing, because how and on what basis do we say whether a law is good or bad? I have to sign the laws. I also have to consider whether my opinion on a law passed by a democratically elected Parliament should be reflected in a constitutional veto or a political veto. I feel it is both my duty to give the legislature the leeway that a democratically elected, legitimate legislature should be given to enable a country to function and also to fulfil my duty under the Fundamental Law, which is to guard the democratic functioning of the country, and, since that is perhaps the yardstick that one can ultimately use, to the best of my belief, I express my non-association with the legislation that I cannot accept for some fundamental reason. There have also been examples when, although a legislation has already been passed, when the bill has already been voted into law, but  I have been aware or I thought that it was still contrary to the Fundamental Law, then once again, in accordance with my duty as defined in the Fundamental Law, I must also guard the letter of the Fundamental Law, and therefore I must send it to the Constitutional Court, and there have been examples of this.
The constitutionality veto seems simpler, and obviously there is a constitutional lawyer on staff who can tell you which one conflicts with the existing Fundamental Law. The political veto seems more complicated because it considers the political vision of the community from which also you come to be inappropriate. 
Let's split this one into two, then: the constitutional veto is really about a conflict with the Fundamental Law. It is not necessarily easy to say that either, because the Constitutional Court is not always clear in its rulings on this. Even among constitutional judges there can be a dispute of interpretation. I have used a constitutionality veto in one case so far, and in this case it was about a building law. In this case, the Constitutional Court unanimously declared this legislation to be unconstitutional. The other situation is where I have a political veto, and there have been examples of this. I will give you a specific example, the legislation known as the Complaints Act. I have made an objection in the explanatory statement in relation to that act, which I feel goes beyond what you are talking about. It is not merely a question of whether I personally agree or disagree with the priorities, the emphases, the issues, the means by which the legislature wishes to define, say, a tax law or a law governing any area of our lives, and I see here a level of abstraction, so to speak, where there is room for political veto. But this is a highly subjective issue.
At the level of abstraction used by the average person, let's say, what came across to me is that the president would not be happy if we started filing reports against each other, because that's how people translate it, right?
That's the level of abstraction I'm talking about.
Did you expect that your action in the case of György Budaházy and his associates would stir up such tempers? Although you did not question the court's decision, the sentence was imposed and is still in force.
This is a matter of presidential clemency. It is at least as difficult, and I think more difficult, than a political veto. That is, in my judgment, the most difficult task or power of the President, to pardon an individual from enforcing a judicial decision. Few people may know this, but there is also what is called a procedural pardon, which is about even terminating the proceedings. This is a very serious decision in any case. Some of them come to the public eye or are of greater interest, such as the Budaházy case or the Hunnia trial, people know it by either of these two names. But I deal with pardon cases almost on a daily basis, I have to make a lot of these decisions. We are talking about individual fates, tragedies. And I'm just asking a theoretical question, and I'm not going to answer it. Let's say there's a traffic accident where someone has drifted into the opposite lane. The person has caused a road accident, and therefore somebody's death. But a very trustworthy person, a great, respected person in their own community, and their own children were in his car, and clearly, nothing like that has ever happened to them before. And there's, say, a case of somebody who's driving drunk, for the umpteenth time, and even though they have never caused anybody any trouble, they have been convicted of drunken driving. In the first case and in the other, they come to me for a presidential pardon. I am just making the argument that if someone thinks about how they themselves would make a decision in such a case, they might understand that even in the case of a traffic accident like this, it is difficult to make a decision.  
Not to sidestep your question about the Budaházy case: here we have witnessed a criminal trial that has been going on for 15 years. In it, the co-defendants of the amteenths order have also been dragged through a very lengthy procedure. What I focused on when I made this decision on clemency was that I did not decide positively on the case for clemency of someone who had caused injury to another person, who had abused another person. On the one hand, because there was such an aspect in this case, I did not grant pardon there. On the other hand, it is not that someone who has been finally convicted by a court as guilty is suddenly not guilty. It is a question of suspending the execution of this sentence, with the possibility of resuming the sentence, for the maximum period provided for by law, i.e. for five years. In addition, these convicted individuals have not received any of the other benefits that they applied for. It was a difficult decision, and I am sure that, whatever decision I would have adopted, many people would not have been happy with it. I will have to answer to my own conscience and to the Lord at the time of the final judgement.
In meeting Hungarians beyond the border, can you also listen to those who do not live right next to us? There are many of them all over the world, but with very different problems from those who live in our neighbourhood.
Wherever duty calls me, even if I travel to a distant country where Hungarians live in significant numbers or even in smaller numbers but in a cohesive community, I try to take every opportunity to meet them, and it also feels good to see that there is a return to Hungary in this sense, and I have also been confronted with the difficulties and limitations encountered by a Hungarian living in the diaspora but wishing to return to his or her homeland. I also try to help with these problems by indicating to the decision-makers and the executive authorities when I see these kinds of difficulties.
And would they like to come home? When would someone who has been away for a long time want to come home? What experiences have you had?
A lot depends on what kind of environment you live in, a lot of times the freedom that people have in Hungary today, the freedom to think conservatively, or to think in a liberal way in terms of values, to have a political affiliation in any direction and not needing to fear retribution is attractive. The feedback I get from many people is that there is a 
degree of indoctrination going on where they live - and this has unfortunately been coming to the forefront in the Western world in more and more places, even in schools, especially in universities - that they tend to be reluctant to identify with it. Not necessarily because they disagree with it. A real liberal-minded person cannot accept the fact that it is not possible to think in several different ways, and I have met several people who, for example, when their children entered the age when they would go to university or when the young people themselves were to enter university, said no, thank you, I will have none of this, and would therefore move to Hungary instead. 
Where is it most difficult to align the role of the President of Hungary and your personality? In the past, you have held many functions. So you know how to function in office, but as far as the personality of a person is concerned, no one is born to be president.
What's unusual about it is that from the moment I walk out the door, whatever position I'm in, I'm the President of Hungary. Even when I go shopping, even when I go canoeing with the family.
Going shopping?
Yes, I shop regularly. I think the last time I went shopping was yesterday. After the first surprise, we sorted the vegetables there with several others, and then we got to the point where we concluded together that it was a bad thing to have to weigh and label everything separately.
The labelling is terrible.
Of course, the struggles of labelling... It takes about five seconds to appreciate that this is not the first time I've seen such a device, not the first time I've been faced with the fact that even goods bought by the piece have to be labelled now. And how they're remodeling the store, why all the merchandise is in a different place than it was last week, so we start talking about these types of things shortly after we're surprised to see each other in the store. And it matters here, but it could be even in Tiszabecs, when I go for a run in the morning on the dam or run into the village early in the morning, on the way there they were just wondering if they saw a familiar face, on the way back they'd already guessed who it was. So they've stopped me everywhere and we've talked about the situation along the border, what's going on in public employment, who's feeling what. Good conversations are developing. But I need to remember that from the moment I step out the front door of our family home, I am the President of Hungary. I cannot put it in a drawer, I cannot hang it on a nail, and I must try to behave in a manner worthy of it, whatever life situation I find myself in.
OK, but how can the Tiszabecs run be done discreetly? I see other presidents running on TV, and then everywhere there's either a big car or athletic-looking bodyguards in front of them, behind them, in formation, hidden, how can you do it without being too conspicuous?
There are rules for that, but let's say I was running in Tiszabec without bodyguards, I was running alone and there was no one looking after me in that sense.
Or you just didn't know about it.
No, but it was nice to know that I wasn't in danger, either. That's important to me because it's a completely different encounter with people when they see that I'm really not approaching them in a ring of bodyguards. Accepting, of course, that guarding my safety is not about my person, but about the need to preserve the safety and dignity of the President of Hungary. And I am extremely grateful to those who do this 24 hours a day, and they accept that there are times when it is very good for me, in terms of making personal contact, when I am not seen getting out of a big black car or moving in a narrow ring, and fortunately I have relatively many opportunities to do that. That's when I can have really good personal conversations, get into really good personal relationships with the people I'm meeting at the time.