The results of a new Median opinion poll may undermine our faith in the wisdom of the masses. The poll shows that the clump of referendum questions supposedly due to spout out of the hose any day now will go down in history as the "nine yes referendum." Because the unimpeachably wise people appear to answer yes to both Fidesz's referendum questions and the mirror image questions recently proposed by Laszlo Kalman. It may happen that a majority of voters vote against hospital privatisation while simultaneously saying a resounding yes to the sale of state hospitals. Demand a sweeping liberalisation of the pharmacy market while obstinately insisting on the status quo. And let's not even talk about land reform. Is this really a case of society-wide dyslexia or functional illiteracy, or is there a more worrying explanation for these contradictions?

Certainly, a population that is not especially clued up about (economic) policy must rank high on the list of suspects if we are to seek a guilty party. For some the results of this survey are a cause for mirth, though others would prefer to cry. But it certainly enriches the arsenal of arguments at the disposal of opponents of direct democracy. Some questions, it would seem, are too complex to be entrusted directly to the voters. The people can hardly be blamed for their relative ignorance. There's nothing to be ashamed of. Parliamentary democracy is a kind of acknowledgement that the people can't deal with every issue. So we entrust certain issues to people who are supposed to be better informed.

It's a myth that referendums involve the people taking an independent decision, since the question always begs the answer. As they stand, referendums are just a means for political elites to manipulate and pass the buck. The people don't decide, they are just made to take responsibility for the decision. Collecting signatures for a referendum is just another kind of political campaigning. It was common in Napoleon III's banana republic for Bonapartists aspiring to the presidency to use referendums to paralyse the legislative process. At least we haven't yet got that far.

But something isn't quite right with the way we practice direct democracy. Early on in our democratic transition, it was made impossible to recall MPs from parliament by means of a referendum. It was understood that this would destabilise the legislative process, calling the democratic process into question. But Fidesz has clearly decided that if it can't get rid of individual MPs, it can at least "recall" individual laws by arranging a referendum vote to overrule unpopular measures. This is all true, but it isn't a full explanation for this strange contradiction.

There's no denying the contrast. Fidesz's proposals amount to a paternalist, somewhat Kadarist package. Hospitals (and public institutions more generally) should remain in the hands of the government or the local authorities. They should pay for them. There should be nothing like a free market in medicines. Instead, the state should distribute a limited number of pharmacy licences. The right to buy agricultural land should be restricted to farmers. Kalman's proposals take more of a free-market, neoliberal approach. Owners should benefit from the freedom to privatise. A free market in medicines also emerges from a kind of free-thinking economic philosophy. The customary basis of the private economy is that the tenant or the land user has the first option on buying land. These two philosophies are fire and water. How is that many seem to be able to reconcile these two different viewpoints?

There's nothing new in this. The average citizen of this post-communist region has a similar relationship with the regime change. He would like to drive a Suzuki while hanging on to his job in the Trabant factory. As a consumer, he likes the breadth of choice and quality the market economy offers. He would be delighted if the healthcare system was service-orientated and focused on the patient - even if this involved bringing in private capital. He'd also be pleased if he could buy non-prescription drugs in the supermarket. But he is not keen on the "risks and side-effects" of the free market. He wants the state to carry on taking care of him. In schizoid fashion, he wants the prosperity that goes with liberal capitalism along with the overregulated security of socialism. He wants his round peg, and he wants it in a square hole. Yes to economic freedom! And yes to paternalism! Even if the matter doesn't affect him directly. Because it's most unlikely that many of the respondents to this survey were family smallholders.

We could do with a responsible statesman or stateswoman. Somebody who could explain that we can't ride populist and free-market horses at the same time.

László Tamás Papp