Hungary Compelled to Reform
...
I don't believe that either the intellectual vacuity epitomised in the statement that "the village is the way of life for the future", to quote the leader of the opposition (in a country in which by now 70 per cent of the population is urban), or the government's "technocratic rationalism" are particularly promising answers to the question of what kind of society we want.
On top of all these problems, Hungarian society is presented with daunting civilizational challenges. In this respect, too, it lacks a coherent intellectual answer. Let us look at some of these challenges.
Two out of every five Hungarians live in polluted and noisy areas. By now a fifth of the population, two million people, suffer from allergies. Hungary's use of renewable energy sources is a sixth of the average of the 25 EU member states. The proportion of Hungarians who enjoy higher and further education is one third of the EU average. In 23 EU countries half the population can speak English at a conversational level; in Hungary only 16 per cent can. The proportion of those who never use the Internet is 34 per cent in the 25 EU member states; in Hungary it is 57 per cent. And then there is the problem of old age. In Hungary there are over three million pensioners. All that the imagination of Hungarian politicians can come up with is to think of buying votes. If one side offers 13 monthly pension payments in a year, then the other promises 14. Meanwhile the country spends 50 per cent less on care for the elderly than the EU average. Men wait a year and a half, women a year, to get into a municipal-run home. Caring for the elderly falls mainly onto relatives, a new form of slave labour for those involved.
Naturally, these are only examples, mere indications of what is needed for Hungarian society to catch up. Still, none of this has become a burning political topic. Hungarian politics is incapable of translating the civilizational questions into issues. Yet, if there is compulsion-and there is a great deal-we cannot forego making it explicit. Intellectual vacuity refuses to tackle the question. But neither do the narrow-minded "technocrats" seek solutions to the problems affecting the quality of life.
Let me mention an example that is particularly timely. It concerns the healthcare system. I basically dislike this term: the way it is used hides a technocratic obsession with the economically viable functioning of institutions- which is, of course, not to be taken for granted. But the basic question still concerns how long Hungarians want to live. The term "health policy" is, to my taste, more apt, because it captures two problems: on the one hand it sees the task as helping us to stay healthy as long as possible, and on the other it ensures that if we do become ill, we receive decent care.
On average, in the EU, people enjoy 10 more years of healthy living than Hungarians. In the Union the proportion of the overweight is five per cent lower than in Hungary. A Hungarian eats eighty kilos less fruit per year than the EU average, but (in terms of pure alcohol) drinks approximately two litres more. It is hardly surprising that Hungarians die relatively early, and thus live fewer years as pensioners than the EU average, even though the average European retires later. It is no wonder that the average annual death rate from cancer is 180 per 100,000 in the EU, while in Hungary it is 260. The same indicator for cardiovascular diseases is 233 for Hungarians, while in the EU it is under 100. Yet in Hungary the number of hospital beds per 100,000 inhabitants and spending on pharmaceuticals far exceeds the EU average.
Of course, it is possible to reduce the number of beds and streamline the pharmaceutical subsidies-these are the central aims of the current healthcare reform. But this will not lead to the consumption of more fruit, nor will it lower the incidence of cancer and make Hungarians healthier or let them live longer.
So I would expect Hungary's political elite to set as its goal a very simple demand: "Long live Hungarians!" Or put in another way, "Let Hungarians live longer!"
I realise that this problem does not overly preocupy those thinking in terms of cost efficiency, and is of even less interest to those content to mouth empty slogans. But to me and many others it is important.
On the basis of all this, I believe that the time has come to fill the void with competing visions which, without being utopian, seriously address our problems.
In my humble opinion, trying every four years to win the majority of votes is not a particularly ambitious agenda.
The fundamental question for me is: what will become of us? What kind of society do we wish to live in, and what kind of answers can we find to the civilizational challenges facing us?
I believe that democracy has no alternatives, but its quality has. Quality can be denoted by an adjective. The adjective is "enlightened".
I want an enlightened democracy. 
András Gerő
is professor of history at Eötvös Loránd University and the Central European University, Budapest, as well as director of the Institute of Habsburg History. His most recent book is Imagined History: Chapters from Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Hungarian Politics, CHSP Hungarian Studies Series No. 9, 2006.
