An Interview with Kadar

His hands tremble slightly now, and the flesh around his eyes makes them seem smaller than they really are, heightening an occasional glare, muffling his frequent shy smiles. Yet Janos Kadar still displays the same unexpected charm and cool canniness that have helped make the onetime typewriter mechanic the boldest and most beloved leader in Eastern Europe. Wearing a tailored gray suit and a wine-red silk tie, Kadar chain-smoked Symphonia cigarettes while talking for two hours with a group of TIME visitors in his office in Budapest’s Central Committee headquarters. Any initial reserve that the General Secretary displayed quickly vanished. Present at Kadar’s first interview with a U.S. publication in two decades were TIME Managing Editor Jason McManus, Chief of Correspondents Henry Muller, Deputy Chief B. William Mader, and Eastern Europe Bureau Chief Kenneth W. Banta. Excerpts from the session, which consisted of answers to written questions followed by a lively, give-and-take discussion:

Q. Under your leadership Hungary has been more successful economically than most other Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) bloc members. How do you explain this performance?

A. In my view there are both common characteristics and particularities in the development of members of the bloc. Since their endowments are different, I can see no reason for the economic results of the individual countries being compared superficially–and even less for their being contrasted.

As for the Hungarian economy, I think we are pursuing a policy whose main lines have been justified by practice. An important factor is that we are a small country of 10 million people, requiring large imports of raw materials and energy. As a result we are heavily influenced by the state of the world economy. That is reflected in our vigorous economic growth from 1960 to 1975, and, later, a slowdown in the rate of development.

We do not underestimate our problems. We have not yet found the formula for a more effective and lasting improvement of the economy. We are not applying the results of science rapidly enough. Some of our products are not competitive enough, and the organization of work leaves much to be desired.

Still, an indication of our overall success is that since 1960 industrial production has increased more than 3 1/2 times, agricultural production has nearly doubled and national income has nearly trebled. That we have held ground, particularly in the past five years, is, I think, of no less significance. In the past few years we have stood the test of unfavorable international economic conditions, halted the process of accumulating debts, preserved the country’s solvency, and even slightly improved upon our achievements. It proves that the political and economic foundations of our society are firm. When accounting for these results, I should like to lay particular emphasis on the fact that our people feel this country belongs to them. To sum up, let me say that in the past four decades we have built a new country here along the Danube and Tisza rivers, namely socialist Hungary, whose people are incomparably better off both materially and culturally than ever before and enjoy more extensive rights and greater freedom and democracy than at any other time during their long history.

Q. The Hungarian economy now appears to be facing some problems familiar to the West, including a slowdown in growth, inflation and the threat of unemployment. How do you plan to deal with these problems?

A. In some respects, there are similarities. In the past few years we had to reduce our rate of growth temporarily, due to weakness in the world economy and the need to improve the stability of our own economy. But in the five- year plan that began this year, we would like to achieve an annual GNP growth rate of 3%. This rate would enable us to continue necessary restructuring of the economy, to upgrade technology, and to raise the living standard while reducing the rate of inflation. Unemployment, a serious problem for Western countries, is unknown in Hungary.

Q. How do you view relations between the U.S. and Hungary? In what areas is an improvement necessary and possible?

A. In the past two decades joint efforts have gradually removed the obstacles to good relations. Despite the differences in social systems and the great geographical distance, we can further strengthen the ties. A major contribution to this would be an end to all trade barriers between our two countries, and long-term assurance of most-favored-nation treatment.

Q. There have been indications that Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev wants to draw his East European allies economically and politically nearer to the Soviet Union. What is your reaction to this idea? What is the importance and the future of Hungary’s close ties with the West?

A. As you know, Hungary is a member of the Warsaw Pact and Comecon, groups of independent socialist countries. For them the main issue is improving their existing cooperation, and not to set up the dilemma of “drawing nearer” or “increasing the distance.” Mikhail Gorbachev spoke about our cooperation in that spirit at his 27th Party Congress and in other statements.

That cooperation, however, does not mean seclusion from the rest of the world. Hungary today exports to 143 and imports from 103 countries. Many years of observation indicate that the stronger the economic cooperation between socialist and capitalist countries, the firmer are the foundations for building their political relations. The converse is also true: when the political atmosphere is improving, economic cooperation is encouraged. This is obviously not a one-way street. Politicians of the capitalist countries have pointed out themselves the advantage of cooperating with socialist countries, including additional employment and marketing opportunities.

Q. Gorbachev’s style of leadership has led to the replacement of many top party officials in the Soviet Union, especially of the older generation. How do you view this development?

A. That is an internal affair of the Soviet party and the Soviet Union. Of course, the personal factor always influences the making of a policy. For us Hungarians, it is the main political line of the Soviet Union that chiefly matters. The leadership of our party welcomed without reservations the important decisions made at the 27th Congress earlier this year because they point in the same direction as our own endeavors.

Kadar passed a signed copy of his written answers across the table. The General Secretary then lit a cigarette and leaned toward his visitors. “Now,” he said, “I am at your disposal.”

Q. If you had to choose just one achievement of the past 30 years that you would most like to be remembered for, what would it be?

A. I usually do not think about that, but if you ask me, two things come to mind. The first is not high politics, but a personal matter. When I was a young man I became a Communist at a time when they did not hand out awards for it. I joined the underground and the party because of my conviction. I believed in that ideal, but it was not certain I would live to see the ideal come true. Now I can say I have lived to that point, to the birth of a new Hungary.

The second relates to the very grave and difficult period that occurred in Hungary in 1956. It was a situation in which I felt I had to take a strong stand, to assume an important position. There were others who could have done the job, but it fell to me. I did not seek it.

At that time Hungary was in the forefront of international interest for a number of reasons. My purpose was to remove Hungary from the front pages, and gradually we succeeded. For my actions in those days I was widely denounced, especially in the West. I was called all kinds of unpleasant names. But we were able to put an end to a very bloody series of events that could have led to civil war. Things became normal and gradually another favorable approach emerged with regard to our country. This was due, among other things, to our efforts to avoid ready-made solutions, trying to see the world as it is.

Q. Gorbachev was here for a visit before the Warsaw Pact summit in Budapest two months ago. Did he come to teach or to learn?

A. At meetings of this kind, teachers and students do not negotiate. Of course there is an exchange of experiences, but it is impossible to apply those in a pattern-like manner. I think that many things we do in this country Gorbachev cannot accept, which is quite understandable. The conditions and possibilities of the Soviet Union are quite different from ours. I can definitely say the Soviets understand and appreciate that we search for new solutions to present problems. I would like to single out our system of economic management, which I would describe as a socialist planned economy that pays attention to the market. Our system has been operating for 18 years, and that indicates it is a realistic system. We have reorganized our agriculture completely in a way that has been accepted by the farmers. We do not interfere in how cooperatives are run. How should I know, for example, who should be leading a cooperative? They choose their own managers and decide what they should produce. The results are tangible, this is undeniable.

Q. In 30 years in power you seem to have avoided creating a cult of personality. Was this a deliberate strategy or simply the unintended result of your own personal style and instincts?

A. I have never been interested in rank and to a certain extent even in popularity. In my view, anyone who thinks he creates history is stupid. Everyone should attend to the job at hand. If it becomes a part of history, so be it.

I have always stuck to my positions, and I have always paid the necessary price. To be on good terms with the world, you must have a good and clear conscience. Ordinary men do not spend a lot of time looking at themselves in the mirror. But it is important that when you do look in the mirror, you should not feel ashamed.

Q. What is your concept of democracy under socialism?

A. Democracy is an essence of our political system, which means that it is a serious matter. We wish to strengthen the democratic features of Hungary without changing the basic structures. It is a sad but historic fact that Hungary has had no considerable traditions of democracy. The development of democracy is a manifold task. Just to give you an example, I would mention the trade unions, which are not independent but autonomous. We take that seriously. We do not pass resolutions that are binding on the unions. Instead, we feel it is up to party members in the unions to convince the people there by argument, and it is a principle we maintain.

Q. What guarantee is there that the achievements of the past 30 years can be preserved in the future?

A. I believe the Hungarian public appreciates the achievements of the past 30 years, that there is law-and-order, that everyone who wants to work can, that the living standards have improved. People are aware of this. They do not talk about it every day–instead, they set claims for what they miss. This is understandable. But if people see our achievements are in danger, they will defend them.

Q. Has it been decided who will be your successor?

A. The succession question is, of course, interesting, but I am not interested in dealing with the question. I believe that more important than the personal issue is that when I leave this job there will be no change in the main line of policy. I am deeply convinced about this. There are several guarantees. Among them the most important is the fact that our present policies have been shaped in open political activity, with masses of people involved.

As for the personal factor, I have always stood for broad autonomy for people in key positions who are my close associates. Under our system we take collective decisions, but the implementation of those decisions is the responsibility of the individual. So I am not too concerned about the succession. In a sense, you know, there is always a successor. Even in 1956 there was one.