Fekete-Győr asks Anna Unger to step back because of the indignation shown against him, or to take Ligeti and Sárvári on her side

I respectfully ask Anna Unger to consider her resignation due to the crisis of confidence that has developed around her nomination.

I do not make this request lightly. I know him personally, and I consider him to be an extremely decent, well-prepared person. However, choosing the president of the NVVH goes beyond what we personally think of the candidate. It is also necessary to consider how much social authorization and how much prior trust the future leader can take to work.

The NVVH will be a new institution that does not yet have its own authority, no results, and no decades-long institutional tradition behind it. It must initially borrow its credibility from those who create and run it. The first president will therefore not simply manage the office: he will also personify it for a long time.

This is a particularly big responsibility for an organization that has to uncover the most serious abuses of the last sixteen years. The NVVH will act in politically sensitive cases, it will have to decide on the order of investigations, and there will certainly be investigations that progress more slowly or end without results. These decisions can only be evaluated in good faith if people fundamentally trust the office’s independence, professional preparation and determination.

However, the selection of Anna Unger apparently caused serious disappointment and mistrust in a significant part of the public who wanted a change of regime. As a result, the future president should simultaneously build a new institution, show results and continuously prove the credibility of his own nomination. This double burden of proof can be a burden for the office from the very first day. In a slow-moving case, for example, many people could more easily see political interference or incompetence.

The most important reason for the dispute is apparently that many people wanted to see Miklós Ligeti at the head of the NVVH. Along with Ákos Hadházy, he is perhaps the best-known and most credible anti-corruption specialist of the past sixteen years. For many years, it could be seen that he consistently represents the same principles even in the face of political opposition.

Of course, this does not prove that Miklós Ligeti would be the best president. Social credibility is not the same as leadership ability, and the construction of a state organization with a large number of employees and special powers would have meant a new kind of task. On the other hand, it means that in his case, the social trust necessary for accountability should not have started to be built after the appointment. When one of the scarcest resources of a new office is credibility, this has a very serious weight.

NVVH’s mission is more important than any candidate. It would not be good if the entire operation of the office was overshadowed from the very beginning by the crisis of confidence that arose around the selection of the president. Anna Unger’s resignation would therefore be a responsible recognition of the fact that the social legitimacy of an institution created for a historical task must be placed before all personal aspects.

A clear position on the Tisza would also be necessary to restore trust. I would consider it correct if the party left open the possibility of reconsidering the nomination. If in the end he decides to stick with Anna Unger, I think it would be worthwhile for him to explain in detail what professional aspects were in favor of him and what made the concept he outlined more convincing. A substantial explanation could answer the current doubts and help a lot to restore trust.

If, in the end, Anna Unger decides not to step down, please consider involving Miklós Ligeti and Nicholas Sárvári in the management or professional work of the NVVH, if they are also open to this. All three embody different, complementary knowledge. Their involvement could also help to restore trust and show that accountability is seen as a shared national task, for which it is worth combining the expertise, experience and social credibility of the candidates.

Accountability has been promised by many people over the past thirty-six years, and people have been disappointed again and again. After so many unfulfilled promises, it is understandable that this time they are not willing to advance their trust unconditionally. It must be earned through openness, transparent decisions, taking criticism seriously and, later, of course, tangible results.

If people receive the message that their concerns are secondary when the NVVH is born, it will be very difficult to convince them later that this office really serves their sense of justice and the restoration of their trust in democracy. Therefore, in my opinion, handling the current dispute is not a secondary communication issue. This is the first real test of credibility for the new institution.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/1BqTDQ2qRs/