Conference report: Who owns the nation?
The panel discussions were preceded by a speech by Gábor Horn, chairman of the board of trustees of the Republikon Foundation. Rita Benyó moderated the discussions.
In the first panel, István Hiller, former Minister of Education and Culture, and Zsolt Semjén, Deputy Prime Minister, debated the concept, content, and political implications of the term “nation”. The discussion ended with the participants agreeing that if there is one thing everyone agrees on, it is the importance of free and sovereign elections.
István Hiller emphasized that he considers civilized debates, where everyone can stand up for their own opinions, to be utmost important. According to his own definition, a nation is a community that takes responsibility for the past, present, and future, both individually and collectively. He added that in the age of modernity, the impact of digitalization and globalization is changing the meaning of nation and national unity. He repeatedly emphasized the need for a national minimum, which would provide a secure foundation for Hungarian solidarity. He highlighted the responsibility of political actors to mitigate the divisions threatening Hungarian society before and after the election.
According to Zsolt Semjén, anyone who feels a sense of shared destiny with the Hungarian nation and works for its future and survival belongs to the Hungarian nation. He added that historically, the Hungarian people have always been a divided society, but it is no coincidence that Hungarian culture and identity have survived among many great powers. He sees the role of the state in this as well: in his view, their goal is to improve the quality of life of the Hungarian people and to preserve the Hungarian nation. In his opinion, there is no more or less division in Hungary than in other European societies, but the question of national extinction makes it important to talk about the nation again and again. In his opinion, healthy conflict will always exist, as it is the basis of democracy that different party policies represent conflicting interests, but the human quality and dignity of each other must not be undermined at any cost.
The ministers' opinions were divided on Hungary's membership in the European Union. They agreed that this relationship was important, but while Hiller supported full membership and emphasized European integration, Semjén highlighted the importance of economic relations and warned against ideological commitment. The discussion also touched on education, the fate of state and foundation funded universities, and the Ukrainian money transfer case.
The participants of the second panel were: Zsolt Enyedi, political scientist and professor at CEU; László Kéri, political scientist and sociologist; Orsolya Karafiáth, writer and poet; Sándor Szakály, Director General of the VERITAS Research Institute for History and Archives; and Pál Hatos historian. During the discussion, they continued the topics and questions raised by the first panel.
Zsolt Enyedi emphasized that a certain level of social division is natural, but it can be dangerous if it divides Hungarians into national and non-national groups. He agreed with the others that it is important to exchange opinions, but he also emphasized the importance of accountability in order to avoid future violations of norms.
According to László Kéri, Hungarian society has already experienced several events that have called national identity into question. He repeatedly emphasized that society is made up of many different subcultures, and in an ideal nation, these should be equally represented. He recognized the danger when a political movement seeks to make its own subculture the national culture.
Orsolya Karafiáth added that it is difficult for the two current political parties to come together because they fundamentally do not consider the system to be equitable, so whatever the outcome, it will be difficult to accept. In her opinion, Péter Magyar has the advantage that his politics are based on embracing and accepting different perspectives within society. She emphasized the importance of accountability and not forgetting.
Sándor Szakály emphasized that it is easy to say in retrospect how things should have been done in the past. Responding to Karafiáth's comment, he added that rejection of the Treaty of Trianon was one of the most fundamental national minimums between the two world wars, yet the fact that people had different attitudes towards it afterwards led to division. He reinforced the position that we must learn to move beyond the grievances of the past, but emphasized the difficulty of doing so.
In Pál Hatos's opinion, social emancipation is the path to achieving and strengthening national unity. He added that there is no need for new national traditions or symbols, but rather a "cleansing" of the old ones. He emphasized that the last 16 years of government should not be evaluated in black and white terms, as this does not provide a complete picture of society and the changes that have taken place.