I would be happy to have the vote of Romanians, because the majority of our political offer is valid for every person in this country. Does the word autonomy bother you? We can use a different term. I would very much like decision-making power for all local communities, in almost all possible areas, says the president and UDMR candidate for the presidential elections, Kelemen Hunor.
In an interview given to SpotMedia.ro, Kelemen Hunor talked about several sensitive topics: crisis or charade in the coalition, the relationship with Viktor Orban, accusations of revisionism, CCR reform, areas of interest for UDMR, and how governance should look after elections.
“When Mr. Ciucă gets upset, he doesn't respond to Mr. Ciolacu, but he is in government, it's a charade, it doesn't fool me. I've seen the movie in 2020. It's political instability, it's political chaos in administration. Not even in 2020 was it like this, even though there was a pandemic.”
Do you aim to obtain votes beyond the Hungarian community in parliamentary and presidential elections?
Yes, definitely. We obtained votes in the European Parliament elections, especially in the Senate, and in 2020.
It has been speculated that there were votes donated by PSD.
It's an urban legend about donated votes. We simulated the votes received in the European Parliament elections nationwide and saw that we would gain additional mandates compared to what we have now. I believe we will have votes in Moldova, in the south, and in Dobrogea, I hope.
I would be happy to have the vote of Romanians, because the vast majority of our political offer is valid for every person in this country.
Why would an ethnic Romanian vote for you in the presidential elections?
Because I have a clear vision for the future of Romania, pragmatic solutions, and at the end of the mandate, we would have a better, fairer Romania for every person.
I am a predictable, balanced person, who would be closer to citizens than all former presidents, and I would be very attentive to the relationship between the individual, society, state institutions, where the state is constantly at a huge advantage. If it grows further, the citizen is humiliated and mocked.
State institutions must work for citizens and my offer is to change the attitude, to restore hope and trust.
UDMR in governance
What has UDMR done during its periods in government to bring about change in this direction?
Between 1996 and 2000, for example, it introduced the health insurance system. CNAS was established by former minister Hajdu Gabor in an extremely difficult period, with high inflation.
When we were last in government - the Anghel Saligny program, conceived by us for every local community in this country.
An extremely controversial program, with many suspicions of misappropriation of public funds.
From the idea itself to its implementation, regardless of the program, issues may arise that need to be investigated. But each community has priorities that may be different. If we fail to improve the standard of living, which means road infrastructure, water and sewerage, gas, it means we further depopulate the rural areas and do not provide living conditions for young people who want to stay there (details at min. 6).
At the Ministry of Environment, we started the Returo system. It's not perfect, but things have started to move. We have proven that when we are in government, and that is normal, you govern for the whole country, not just for some. Of course, adjustments need to be made where things are not working.
We launched new afforestation in 2021. We started in the south, in Oltenia, where the problems are most acute, and proposed to have over 100,000 hectares afforested by the end of 2020.
When you are in government, you go beyond your political community, which has specific things related to identity.
Hungarian identity
Is there still something to defend from this point of view, do you consider that Hungarian identity is still in danger?
All kinds of problems always arise. In Parliament, there are several initiatives related to education, the use of the mother tongue in administration, local symbols.
Or unacceptable decisions. An ICCJ judge argues that there is no discrimination when Funar says that the Hungarian language is the language of horses, because they are sympathetic animals for Romanians. Or controversial decisions regarding the use of the mother tongue (details at min 10:30)
But there are no systemic issues that endanger Hungarian identity.
Only in very harsh dictatorships does systemic change occur abruptly. In a system like ours, democratic, they start with small things. (details at min.12:00)
Relationship with Viktor Orban
Especially in the current electoral configuration, many are tempted to vote for you, but… There are always two types of "buts." First, the issue of Viktor Orban, the illiberal who constantly hinders the EU. What is your relationship with Viktor Orban, actually?
It is a collegial relationship that has been built over time (min. 14:00). We have known each other since the early '90s. We see each other from time to time, 3-4 times a year, in July when he comes to Romania, when he organizes meetings with organizations of Hungarian communities outside Hungary, maybe during the electoral campaign. It happens on these occasions to have lunch together.
Do you talk on the phone?
I talked to him twice this year, when he called to congratulate me after the European elections and before the visit to Bucharest. There are certain issues where we have different positions.
For example?
Russia and the war in Ukraine. From the very beginning, since 2014, I have had a clear position, after the invasion of Crimea, that from Russia there has never come freedom, prosperity, or security, or, well, not the security we need.
From the first day Ukraine was attacked and I supported, as Deputy Prime Minister, aid for Ukraine, I still support it.
Is there any other disagreement?
I don't know. I should think about it
Perhaps the moment when Mr. Orban said that a people that accepts foreigners on its territory is no longer a pure race?
There he clarified this statement a few days later in Vienna, saying it was a wrong and interpretable statement. He thought not in biological terms, but in cultural terms. And beginner Darwinists say that there is no pure race.
Even culturally, can we talk about purity?
There is no pure culture. But why are the borders closed? Why are controls returning starting from September 16 in Germany? A question arises in Europe: is our Greco-Judeo-Christian culture compatible with radical political Islam? Is coexistence possible or not? The conclusion is beginning to be that it is not. I'm not talking about legal migration. (details at min. 20:50)
Schengen Area
Is the Schengen Area dying under the pressure of this question?
It will undergo reform starting in 2026-2027. The vast majority wants a rethink of the information system, everything related to data and interconnection between different institutions.
But I don't believe it is dying. That would mean the EU is dying.
Therefore, I argue that Romania and Bulgaria should enter the Schengen Area. We need, of course, secure EU borders, but within them we need free movement for all members.
Will we receive, this year, under the Hungarian EU presidency, a definite date for land borders?
Hungary officially and unofficially supports this. But with Austria, we need to work, we cannot shirk this responsibility.
I hope that in December a decision will be made that will give us a fixed date next year.
What would you do as president?
I would go to Austria and discuss. All tools must be used - diplomatic, political, administrative. We have met the conditions for 12 years, with the decisions of European institutions known, ridiculed, and humiliated. This is not acceptable in a partnership.
We should have defended our position. Băsescu had an attempt with the Dutch. We don't necessarily have to think about blackmail, But in the EU, everyone has interests, it's good for them to be convergent and you have to be extremely pragmatic. And Austrians also have interests in Romania, I don't want to go into details. But if you are not able to put your foot down, the world gets used to it. From this point of view, we made a mistake.
Consensus is an important issue.
So you do not agree with moving to majority decisions?
No. For small countries, especially for economically weaker countries, any change in the consensus rule means long-term loss, because at some point you remain in the minority.
Revisionism and Autonomy
The second reproach against you concerns what is radically called revisionism, and less radically - autonomy based on ethnic criteria. Is there, in you, in UDMR, a desire to detach in one way or another from what the current Romania means?
I have said before: everything related to preserving identity and institutional guarantees for our community has been thought of within the existing borders of Romania.
Institutional guarantee starts from the principle of subsidiarity and local autonomy. I would very much like decision-making power for all local communities, in almost all possible areas, except external, defense, public order, national security. (details at min. 29:00)
Does the word autonomy bother you? We can use a different term. I am trying to introduce the idea of subsidiarity because it is a term used everywhere in Europe. It is the correct principle, to which we add, of course, institutional guarantees and linguistic competencies where ethnic communities live.
Real crisis or charade
We have a government, but we don't have a coalition. Is the PNL-PSD rupture real or just a charade?
I have the feeling that there are sincere moments, but not where some show that they are very upset. For example, I believe that when the liberals talk about the flat tax rate, they are sincere. And when the socialists talk about progressive taxation, they are sincere. But when Mr. Ciucă gets upset, doesn't respond to Mr. Ciolacu, but remains in government, it's a charade, it doesn't fool me.
I've seen this movie in 2020. I think deep down they calculate that they will continue together. But we'll see for sure after the elections.
The problem is that if you create a permanent scandal, it carries on. It spreads to state institutions, officials feel it, they stop working, they might even try to circumvent things.
It affects the economy, the last drop of credibility towards governmental policies disappears. In the business world, there is no predictability. You don't know what next year will bring, you don't know what the budget will look like, what the priorities will be. Nicu asks Marcel to tell him what he will do, Marcel says they made decisions together.
There is a 7-year acceptance from the EC to reduce the deficit. This means some measures. Good people, show us, the people, what those measures are! If you have discussed with the EC for 7 years to reduce the deficit from 8% to under 3%, tell us, the citizens, who will be voting soon. It's unacceptable!
There is political instability, chaos in administration. Not even in 2020 was it like this, even though there was a pandemic.
If you were to come back into government, what would be your areas of interest? You mentioned projects in Health, Environment, Development. Are those it?
Those were the areas, but also others. We had Culture, we had Tourism.
Votes are counted, and it needs to be seen who will govern. Those who will govern need to sit down and establish some priorities. There are at least four or five areas where consensus should be reached.
Which ones?
Taxation, the tax regime for the next few years.
Where you just said they are not sincere.
That's why a huge effort is needed. In my view, we need a clean, exception-free flat tax rate. We don't increase VAT, we collect more money, and we reduce the labor tax. The tax system needs to be consensual, at least for the next 4-year cycle.
Then, national development priorities in the economy and infrastructure. Here, I would focus on the food industry, pharmaceutical industry and a few other sectors, where Romania should allocate funds to support companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, as this is how we can reduce the trade deficit. (details at min. 40:00)
Consensus is needed on healthcare and education.
Healthcare, in what sense?
The residency exam should be eliminated; only France and Romania have this exam. We need to invest in rural infrastructure; there are millions of people without a family doctor because no one goes to the countryside. Provide some facilities, have a place to live, have a prepared office, with funds from the budget.
Education?
I would start with reducing hours. Currently, school is like a factory - a child spends 40 hours a week there. It should be reduced to 30, with a system that focuses on developing skills.
Artificial intelligence will eliminate a lot of jobs. You don't need to know all mathematical, physical, chemical formulas because artificial intelligence is better in that area, but you need the ability to use modern technology that develops rapidly for the benefit of people. And this is in the interest of the profession you want to pursue. So, the approach needs to change. (details at min. 44:00)
The Șoșoacă Effect
What do you think are the political effects of the Șoșoacă scandal?
We still don't know. In the long term, at least two issues need to be addressed. If all the complaints filed with the police, the Prosecutor's Office had been taken seriously, and state institutions had worked, we wouldn't have ended up here. It wasn't just political statements, but also outrage. (details at min 46)
Did you find it perverse that this case, which spoke of the violation of the constitutional order, was assigned by the President of the CCR to a Hungarian rapporteur judge proposed by UDMR?
Yes. I found out on Monday, and I was immediately upset. How politically perverse it is when you know that Diana Șoșoacă is constantly anti-Hungarian and has very harsh messages against UDMR.
However, the report was favorable.
Well, that's another story. I don't know, I haven't discussed it, I didn't ask.
Were you still uncomfortable with this favorable report and the vote of Mr. Varga Attila?
The electorate should have decided. But I won't criticize the decision of the Constitutional Court because everything behind Mrs. Șoșoacă somehow indicated this direction.
Considering the precedent set, any politician, yourself for example, could suffer a restriction of rights without being heard, without being able to defend themselves, and without having a legal recourse.
It could indeed set a precedent. In our institutional system, the CCR is both political and legal, but it is not part of our judiciary system. Here lies the second problem.
Perhaps at some point, constitutional jurists need to consider reform, not in terms of reducing the prerogatives of the Court, but for a certain type of cases.
I was against removing from the Constitution the possibility for Parliament to overturn CCR decisions with a constituent majority.
In 2003, through the revision of the Constitution, we turned CCR judges into political players and created a third chamber of Parliament.
We are losing money from the PNRR because appointments to the leadership of state-owned companies were not made correctly. You were at the center of power, you were deputy prime minister, why do we always stumble upon these things. Don't they want to or can't they?
There was an issue with how the PNRR was constructed. Some aspects were sent to Brussels without discussion in the coalition, and that's not right. Cîțu found out at the last minute, got upset, made a scene, but we weren't in a position to redo it. But for me, it was the first sign of questioning how collegial we are.
State-owned companies that don't produce, that are in the red, need to be either sold, privatized, or reformed. At one point, we had a very harsh discussion in the Government when they said to give another 600 million to Metrorex from the national budget. But why should the one in Maramureș, who has never used the metro, pay so much for Bucharest? Change something there, at the company.
Why don't they change?
I don't know. They appointed people connected to each other, making it hard to change. A brutal approach is needed, without favoritism, for a few companies.
Has there ever been a discussion in the coalition on these issues?
Very little was discussed while we were in government.
How are people appointed? Does everyone come and say what position they want?
Ministers make the decision. For example, in Energy, when Virgil Popescu was there, he appointed his people, didn't really discuss with anyone. Or in Transport, Grindeanu puts whoever he wants because he's in the minister's good graces, he doesn't have to come to the Government.
The Vicol case (details at min. 57:30)
The interview transcript was generated with the Vatis Tech