- You told our magazine last year that if you were asked to complete a second mandate, you would be obliged to weigh up the decision very seriously. Was there anything to consider?

- There was nothing to consider. Since I was not asked, I already realised before the election that another five years of my idea of what the presidency should be was not required. It was not easy to accept this but as far as my personal fate is concerned I will complete my work with a clear conscience. As the president of the Constitutional Court I wrote a lengthy, contemplative justification on why capital punishment should be abolished. I argued that the unassailable dignity of human life is rooted in its being unique and non-recurring. This is also my understanding of what a president should do.  I have tried to accomplish everything in one cycle that I set for myself. That is why I started to ‘gather in the harvest' early on. I began my summary talks last year on 20 August; on 22 October I bade farewell to young people at the Technical University. At the beginning of the year we presented a report on corruption and education by the "council of wise men" (established by Sólyom); we completed the summary material of the conference series on transborder Hungarians. Finally, not long ago a collection of texts selected from my most important statements as president was published. It was a great gift that I was able to complete these five years, even though it was a very difficult period. I could even joke that I fitted two cycles into one. The task before me now is to discover my new role as a former president.

- We hold study volumes and conferences in high esteem, but we must ask: did it not occur to you at times that with broader competence you could have accomplished more in the areas you listed above?

- When I became president I was well aware of the legal possibilities because as a constitutional court judge I had done my best to define them. It would be improper for someone to fill a position and then attempt to widen its scope of authority. At the same time I made some discoveries which alter the public misconception about the weakness of the president's power. For example, the president's right to return laws to Parliament to be reconsidered was not regarded as an especially strong licence; however, in my experience it is the political veto that gives real power to a head of state. There was enormous pressure on me to turn to the Constitutional Court every time there was the slightest doubt in regard to a new law; that is to use my constitutional veto as a weapon. I always resisted this. However, in the case of political veto the president is able to express his lack of agreement on a far wider platform. Of course Parliament can accept the same text even without any amendment, but I was still able to achieve results. For example, when Parliament made decisions that were favourable for the big parties and unfavourable for the minority parties. Or in cases of "cheek", such as when there was an attempt to add another seven years to a ten-year-old tender to make public buildings accessible for handicapped people because they were unable to complete the works.

- You sent laws back to Parliament thirty-one times. So is the Parliament's legislative performance becoming increasingly poor?

- This is really a very high number. The number of political vetoes may have risen in recent times because in the previous parliament things were done in such haste that there was no time to word texts properly. There were frequent attempts to take shortcuts by submitting the initiatives of individual MPs, and economic lobbies shamelessly took advantage of this. But I have also made use of this weapon in the new term: I felt the possibility of dismissing civil servants without reason disquieting from both a humanitarian point of view and in regard to EU regulations. In the same way, I protested that with an amendment to the constitution the election of constitutional court judges has been exclusively placed in the hands of the government majority.

- These measures, among others, are cited as proof of Fidesz having excessive power. Do you think the integrity of the constitution is in danger?

- The two-thirds majority is part of Hungary's political system, and it has happened before; the government parties after 1994 had a supermajority and they also wanted to redraft the constitution. Little is known about the intentions of today's parliamentary majority based on their statements. For example, all we have heard in the case of the new fundamental law is that committees have been set up. However, some of the voices of concern lack all credibility.  These days they even come from people trying to have me protect democracy while they were trampling over it for eight years without a guilty conscience.

- What is your view about the new government's plans for redrafting the constitution?

- I consider it as a great failure of mine that I was not able to change the misconception burnt into the minds of right wing politicians according to which the present constitution is a communist one. In fact, it is completely new and the only thing that has stayed the same is the numbering of the sections. Of course it's a shame that for example in the highly symbolic year of 2000 it was not renumbered or a new preamble was not written, since these details are used as justification to call the text temporary. If you have a look at the German constitution, passed in 1949, a section stipulates that it remain effective until Germany's reunification. Since the Grundgesetz worked after the unification of Western and Eastern Germany in 1990, the above section was annulled. The United States has had the same constitution for two hundred years but nobody calls it the constitution of slavery. Indeed, it was our constitution and the activities of the first Constitutional Court that brought Hungary back to Europe.

- Although you have often stood up against limitations to free speech and you did not sign the law on hate speech, you did add your signature to the law banning the denial of the Holocaust. Why?

- Because it was not anti-constitutional. I do everything in my power to defend free speech: the law on hate speech was too broad in its definition, and the Constitutional Court generally nullifies such laws. However, if the facts of a case are narrowed down, some opinions can be deemed by the legislator as punishable. The defence of national symbols, the punishment for the use of autocratic symbols, and the denial of the Holocaust were all this type of "narrowed down" cases. If I had submitted a petition, the Constitutional Court would have surely rejected it.

- Why did you not use your political veto?

- In the communiqué at the time when the law was signed I objected to such a difficult topic being raised during a general election campaign. It would have been a very bad situation if in the last two weeks of the campaign people would have been saying that as a result of the law not coming into effect Nazis were free to calmly carouse around in Hungary.

- You have now worked with three prime ministers. How did these relationships differ from one another?

- My opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány has been thoroughly debated by the press, and a proper relationship developed between myself and Gordon Bajnai. I had a serious discussion with Viktor Orbán during which - this was before his announcement of the 29 measures - he informed me about his ideas for the economy. There was an intensive exchange of ideas about the background, consequences and alternatives. This is how the relationship between the head of state and the prime minister should work. At the same time, although we have much in common in terms of ideology, I expect the same standards from the new government as I always have. I must note, for example, that the present excess of new laws has its drawbacks. Not only in a technical sense but often on the level of principle too. And when I was in office I took my work seriously: if something was unconstitutional, I turned to the Constitutional Court. If I had an objection - such as in regard to the dismissal of civil servants or the laws governing the selection of constitutional court judges - I used my political veto.

- You were very subtle in describing the conflict that developed with Ferenc Gyurcsány. In the volume Századvég [End of a Century], in which you summed up your presidency, you counted your declaration made on the night of the municipal elections, which all but called upon the prime minister to resign, as being among the most significant ones. You wrote: if you had just made this one speech, you would have fulfilled the responsibilities of a president. Can you explain?

- Many people think I was cantankerous and that I was stretching the limits. But I had to declare that the prime minister's behaviour not only caused a moral crisis but also threatened the foundations of democracy. I felt that if I had not done this, I would not have been worthy of the office of president.  However, it was precisely in such a serious situation that I had to remain within the boundaries of the presidential sphere of authority. Therefore, I did not expressly call upon the prime minister to resign but rather requested that Parliament decide his fate. Even back in the summer of 2006, when the Gyurcsány package was passed, I stipulated that it calls into doubt the basis of democracy if the exact opposite of what was promised before an election is carried out. At the time of the vote of confidence on the one hand I called upon Fidesz to return to the chamber and on the other hand I insisted that parliament vote on whether such methods are acceptable to keep power. Parliament passed it - but I could not accept it. I kept all the events that took place between the prime minister's Balatonőszöd speech and the police brutality on 23 October on the agenda. Even two years later I "greeted" the prosecutors daily by reminding them that in autumn 2006 the representatives of the Public Prosecutor initiated procedures to take citizens into custody indiscriminately.

- You draw a strange comparison in your book between the state commemoration on 23^rd October and a scene from the famous Gárdonyi novel Eclipse of the Crescent Moon in which the Hungarian nobleman Bálint Török is in the sultan's tent and is able to hear the beheading of the Hungarian prisoners.

- It is the most eerie memory of my presidency when in an emptied and completely sealed Kossuth Square the wreath laying was taking place by foreign presidents and guests in deathly silence and all that could be heard were one or two shouts from the distance. It is very strange that one remembers something read as a school child. Another thing that often came to my mind in addition to the Eclipse of the Crescent Moon was a novel called The Baron's Sons. In that one the last words of Ödön Baradlay before his execution are: "Our defence is in our deeds. Posterity will judge us". I don't think the present Parliament represents posterity. We are all going to be judged together.

- So it seems high politics have been stressful for you. During your presidency you traversed the country; did you have a different impression of things in the countryside?

- These five years were eventful not only in comparison with my career as a scholar but also as a constitutional court judge. Whenever I managed to escape the Budapest "stage" I always learned a great deal. I encountered good will in the country: from village teachers through doctors, mayors to civic leaders and economists I got to know a lot of people. I was enriched with countless soul enlivening meetings. This normalcy is Hungary's gold reserve.

- You spent a considerable amount of time with Hungarians living beyond the borders, and at one of the celebrations in Hungary your absence was commented on.

- It is characteristic of the majority of the press that they have no sense of proportion and thus commented on my absence at the official flag hoisting because I celebrated 15 March in Kolozsvár. Not since Trianon has a Hungarian head of state spent a national celebration with Hungarians beyond the borders and addressed the nation from there. I made this common celebration a regular one. It was an important achievement of my presidency that I was able to explain to my foreign partners - and thus introduce among the generally received concepts - the notion of ‘cultural nation', meaning that in Central Europe cultural and national borders do not overlap.

- You couldn't convince everybody of this. What conclusions did you draw when you were not allowed to enter Slovakia last year?

- I turned to the Slovaks with an open heart and at the beginning they seemed to be receptive to this. However, when I spoke out against the Bratislava resolutions confirming the Beneš decree the tone became hostile. What we face is a deeper seated and more biased nationalism than we had thought. But we must not give up. In the series of conferences dealing with the issue I learned from those living beyond the borders that we have to turn to our neighbours who live there. We have to impress on them, addressing them in their own language that cooperation is advantageous and we have to acquaint them with Hungarian culture. I am pleased with the memorial law on Trianon which expresses the need to start anew. Its text also includes the mistakes made by the Hungarians, thus making the nationalist attacks of the successor states unfounded.

- In your coming tasks you listed the training period for the role of "former president".  You expressed your happiness that LMP had gained seats in Parliament. After your mandate has expired do you think you might support the green party?

- There is no way I would want to take part in party politics; it would be ridiculous. However, I would not rule out a role in public life. I still have a lot of energy and I would like to be of use to the Hungarian people.  It will indeed be a big challenge to distinguish between real and substitute action. In the past, when I finished a book or a commission expired it took me a while to find a new theme or goal with which I could identify heart and soul. It will be like that again.