Gyorgy Bence: There is no question that politicians must sometimes lie. Of course, what matters is the goals this lie serves - whether the lie is intended to spare us from economic catastrophe or simply to serve party political ends. But it is a concern when we start to believe that just because a lie is permissible, it is not a lie at all, or even that that lie is some kind of heroic deed. Yet this is what the prime minister seems to think.
But if you accept that it is sometimes permissible, even essential, then why does it matter what people think it is.
Yes. If the prime minister does not see that a lie is always a lie, then he is also unable to accept that even necessary lies deplete his moral reserves. For a politician, it matters whether people see him as a liar or not. If the moral reserves run dry, then people will say to him: "Comrade Gyurcsany, you have achieved great things in the struggle against feudalism, and for this all progressives will think of you with gratitude, but now you must stand aside." I only mention feudalism, because the PM also said: "We want to change the existing feudal conditions."
I thought we had left feudalism behind some time ago. But beyond his unusual approach to morality and politics, do you not find it strange that he said: "If budgetary matters become the core of the campaign, then we cannot speak about all the things we want to do during our term in office."
If budgetary affairs had become the core of the campaign, then - probably - the governing coalition would not have won. But I don't think Gyurcsany's grandiose plans had much effect on MSZP and SZDSZ voters, if only because there were no details to these plans. Nobody knows what voters think about in the solitude of the polling booth, but I would venture that they are not carrying out detailed assessments of different policies. And it is also unlikely that an MSZP voter would have been swayed by the thought that government did not plan to carry on down "the false path we have been following for six years," as Gyurcsany put it in the interview. Out of these six years, of course, two are Medgyessy's and two are Gyurcsany's.
Even the left-wing press has been comparing the promises made before the elections with what happened afterwards. Won't this undermine the credibility of the government's programme? Can a coherent programme still be constructed, a package of budgetary measures that Brussels will accept by 1 September? July and August are not the ideal months for drafting a new convergence programme.
There are plenty of questions, and fortunately I can't answer them all. Is it possible to put together a convincing convergence programme in just a few hot days? But hesitation is bound to be harmful. Even the most sceptical commentators didn't believe that the government was so ill-prepared. Leaving aside the prime minister's interview, it took just 24 hours for the government to withdraw the VAT figures it had just issued. That's ridiculous. Ok, they didn't withdraw them - there was a misunderstanding and the prime minister ordered a state secretary to stick to the original plans, raising a VAT band from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Of course, talking about a misunderstanding is not a political lie, because if you tell your 'private truth', then the public can't follow your grand plans for the future.