Mr. Fischer prooves himself misinformed right in the title of his defense of Prime Minister Orban’ policies by caling him a Democrat. Mr Orban defined his vision for Hungary’s political future in an article published in the February 16, 2010 issue of Nagyitás, a Fidesz controlled magazine: „The political field of force seems to take a new form. Currently the system’s duality apparently ends, partly as the result of the development of favorable circumstances for right wing ideology and rhetoric, and partly as the result of our party’s gaining strength. There is a realistic possibility in Hungary that politics in this country for the next 15-20 years will be defined not by a dualistic field of force, which with constant debates generates divisive, captious and unnecessary societal consequences. Instead of these debates one big governing party, a central political field of force will become in existence, which will be able to define the national agenda. It will do that not by participating in constant debates but with presenting that agenda with the party’s own creativity.” The agenda of the Hungarian Prime Minister is summarized above with brutal clarity. This much is more than enough about Mr. Orban’s current views of democracy. This is a very strange concept of a very strange Democrat. Does this concept reflects Mr. Fischer’s idea of democracy or he just does not know better? The notion of “democracy” defined by Mr. Orban perceptively was described as one party democracy by engineer-writer Rudolf Ungvary. I remember it as people’s democracy maintained by Matyas Rakosi, Erno Gero, Janos Kadar, and Karoly Grosz. Those of us, who paid attention to Mr. Orban’s statements and actions in the past twenty years were aware of his “creative vision” described above, are not and will not be astonished by its practical implementation now that he gained power. In the light of Mr. Orban’s obstinate announcement of his vision of Hungary’s future, Mr. Fischer and all Hungarians should not be taken aback by the yet to come events in Hungary. An other fictitious assumption in Mr. Fischer carelessly phrased title is the suggestion that Mr. Orban takes on the Old Guard of the pre-1990 Communist regime in Hungary. The fact is that he took in many of them to serve in high positions in his Government or in state institutions. The list of them revealing:: the President of the Republic of Hungary, Paul Schmitt, the Foreign Minister of his Cabinet, Janos Martonyi, his trusted advisor on the new Constitution, Imre Pozsgay, his mentor in college and newly appointed justice of the Constitutional Court, Istvan Stumpf.. All were trusted members of the influential circle of the pre-1990-Communist regime. The practical consequences of Mr. Orban’s anti Communist rhetoric are limited only to those who are threatening his aim at absolute power. Mr. Fischer ignores to consider and explain these very telling facts in his analysis: Mr. Orban was forced by the EU to modify those parts of the Media Law, which were branded as violating EU standards. A bigger blow to Mr. Orban is the postponement of the summit meeting of heads of State and Government scheduled for the end of May in Godollo, Hungary to discuss the issues of the Eastern Partnership Initiative of the EU to the second half in 2011 and the change of its location to Poland. This represents a significant prestige loss for Mr. Orban. It shows that the EU lost confidence in his ability to prepare and execute the agenda for such a meeting, The fact that Mr. Orban, the current President of the EU was not invited to a meeting of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Presidents Sarkozy and Komorowski on February 7 in Warsaw where the agreement was reached about the changes regarding the time and location of the Summit. Mr. Orban’s and Hungary’s name was not mentioned in the Communique issued at the conclusion of the meeting. The European Parliament still keeps the discussion of the issues related to the Media Law on its agenda. The content and the language of the new Constitution are hotly debated and many of Mr. Orban’s recommendations are rejected even by his closest collaborators. Mr. Fischer’s analysis is incomplete and superficial.

Now, let's see. Country origin, check. Family man with five children, check. No respect for elders fond of compromise and for "corrupt bastards' club", check. Hated and hounded by the international coven of left-wing journalists, check. Made temporarily unelectable by their lies, check. Immensely popular with ordinary folks, check. Folks, if Mr.Orban were female, pretty and American, he would be called Sarah Palin.

What a breath of fresh air. Orban is a man for all seasons and Hungary finally has a man to lead it out of 40 years of communist morass and 20 years of neo-communist, socialist corruption. I wish him success and hope he leads Hungary to a better future.

People serving foreign oppressors from the East or West have torn our country for most of history. It is time for the poststalinists to be exposed, underlining that Gyurcsany and his comrades are earlier communist leaders, turned high capitalists, not socialdemocrats.

Well done! It's time someone outed the so-called freedom-loving "liberals" in Hungary! Sadly, this situation came about because they didn't face the communist era past, and still haven't. This situation couldn't arise in Cambodia, or Guatemala, or here in South Africa, because we did face our pasts. There's a lesson there for Hungary.

Finally an article which reflects the reality and not the biased preconceptions of lazy western journalists. Thanks!

I think we should wait with condemning the media law or any actions of Orbán until we see it in its full extent. I agree that the international media fails to see the true nature of what's going on in this country - and provides easy evidence of its ignorance by calling Népszabadság the "leading daily newspaper". What's the idea of calling this particular one the leading? Western journalists should be taking their jobs a little bit more seriously and try to remain neutral in their reviews.