The Hungarian Tourism Agency already has a new and old leader – but why is it still a secret what kind of tourism policy it should implement?

Minister of Economy and Energy István Kapitány announced on July 21 that he had asked Olivér Csendes to lead MTÜ. The announcements about the appointment emphasized the new leader’s strategic, innovation and international corporate governance experience, as well as his previous involvement in tourism. However, there was no mention of what kind of mandate he was given, what organizational and policy changes were expected of him, which previous practices he should eliminate and which ones he should continue.

Olivér Csendes is certainly suitable to lead the Hungarian Tourism Agency, and professional arguments can be put forward both for and against him, one can evaluate his work at the head of Visit Hungary, his previous international experience, his network of contacts or the political and professional heritage he brings with him from his previous state role. The fact and manner of his appointment are not primarily about him: how can the head of such an important state organization be appointed in such a way that the profession and citizens still do not know what tourism policy, what institutional model and what specific government program the new leader and the MTÜ should implement?

The suitability of a leader can only be judged in terms of the task for which he or she was selected. Crisis management? Institutional consolidation? Rethinking the relationship between Visit Hungary and the MTÜ? Reviewing previous support and marketing practices? Building an international market? Repositioning rural tourism? Or simply ensuring that a significant part of the previous system continues to operate under new political supervision, but essentially unchanged?

We do not know the answers because before the appointment we did not learn about a detailed government tourism strategy to which Olivér Csendes' personality and professional program could be compared. Thus, the appropriate executor was not sought based on the strategy, at least not visible to the public, but the leader was selected first, and perhaps at some later time it will become clear what exactly is expected of him.

Tourism is under-represented in the TISZA program – but this and precisely why there is still no new tourism policy

It would be inaccurate to say that the TISZA election program did not address tourism at all. The sector did indeed appear in the economic development chapter of the 240-page program, and it even correctly identified several problems that the profession has been talking about for years. The document stated that tourism is a defining sector of the economy, while it does not have an independent government representation of sufficient weight, the continuous reorganization of the institutional system interrupted professional continuity, the use of subsidies was often opaque, and developments often did not sufficiently take into account sustainability, local communities and regional inequalities. The program also addressed the labor shortage and the operation of the NTAK, which burdens businesses.

These are important statements, but the TISZA program did not say anything about how it would address these problems, what measures and in what timeframe or institutional system it plans to implement them. Tourism was not given an independent, comprehensive policy chapter, but appeared for a few pages in a subsection of economic development. This in itself is revealing in the case of a sector whose economic, employment, regional development, transport, cultural and foreign trade importance is frequently emphasized by all governments around the world and is brought into government at a high level, which does not even merit an independent state secretary position for TISZA, although 14% of the national economy is linked to the sector. We wrote about this in detail in the first weeks of the government in our analysis entitled Why did tourism become the stepchild of the new Tisza government?, in which we also showed how the decrease in the institutional weight of tourism is not in line with the economic importance of the sector.

The program did not reveal anything about the exact institutional structure that TISZA envisions, what powers it would give to or take away from the MTÜ, how it would separate management, marketing, development and data provision tasks, what it would do with the current support system, and how it would ensure that state tourism policy in the future serves the interests of the entire Hungarian tourism ecosystem, not just a few selected market players linked to political leadership. We previously analyzed the problems of the currently effective strategy in our article National Tourism Development Strategy 2030 – change of direction or fine-tuning of established practice?, specifically addressing the fact that a strategic document in itself does not mean a real change of direction if the implementation model, priorities and logic of resource allocation remain essentially unchanged.

It is worrying that we have not identified any measurable goals, so we do not know what indicators the government will use to qualify its own tourism policy as successful in four years. Will the goal be more guest nights or higher specific spending, perhaps further strengthening the concentration in Budapest or catching up with rural areas? What do they think about increasing the number of guests, profitability, productivity and improving working conditions? Should we expect more state campaigns or stronger regional and local destination management? What approach will the government take: will it pay attention to the increasingly noticeable problem of overtourism, or will it aim to further stimulate mass tourism, as in previous years, or will it aim to build a smaller volume, higher added value, more sustainable demand? How will it shape the relationship between public transport and mobility and tourism actors?

We have also considered these dilemmas when comparing the Slovenian and Hungarian tourism strategies in our article entitled Not more tourists, but more value . There we came to the conclusion that without baseline data, target values, responsible parties, deadlines and public evaluation of results, the strategy easily becomes a communication decoration. Hungary does not necessarily need more tourists, but rather for the value created by tourism to finally reach more regions, more businesses, more employees and more local communities.

When you feel like the decision was made not by the minister, but by the top executive of the multinational company

István Kapitány came to the government from a long and successful multinational management career. At the head of a large company, the logic of management is clear: the ownership and business goals are known, and an organization, managers, budget and implementation model must be assigned to them. The CEO selects the people with whom he wants to achieve the goals set for him.

But running a government is not simply managing a large corporation with a different set of business cards. It is not enough to appoint good leaders, because first political and policy decisions must be made about what the state wants to achieve, what public interests it represents, what markets it regulates, what resources it allocates, and what social consequences it considers acceptable. Then you can look for the leader who is best suited to implement these goals.

This sequence is not visible now. István Kapitány introduced the new head of MTÜ, but at the same time as the appointment, he did not present the comprehensive policy program for the implementation of which the new CEO will be responsible. Thus, the profession received a personal decision without a strategic framework, while it was the TISZA program that established that one of the biggest problems of previous years was the lack of strategic continuity.

Where is the political responsibility for tourism?

The government's place of tourism in the new structure has already raised questions. The area has been placed under the ministry of István Kapitány, the State Secretariat for Economic Development is headed by Ágnes Fábián, and, according to publicly available information, direct management of tourism is organized at the deputy state secretary level.

However, the organizational chart is not a policy in itself. Even three months after the formation of the government, the profession has not received comprehensive information about the principles along which they intend to transform the management of the sector. There was no detailed professional statement that would have clearly set out the priorities, explained the future role of the MTÜ, or demonstrated which of the criticisms formulated in the election program would become actual government measures.

This is particularly problematic because political responsibility cannot be shifted to the new CEO of MTÜ. Olivér Csendes may be responsible for implementation, but setting the fundamental directions of tourism policy is the job of the government, the minister and the relevant state leaders. As long as these directions are not clear, the appointment of the head of MTÜ does not provide answers, but rather raises new questions.

Why wasn't there an open tender?

Before and after coming to power, TISZA consistently promised that performance would be the deciding factor instead of connections, and professionalism instead of political loyalty. The government announced an open competition for the position of KEHI president, in the justification of which it itself emphasized the importance of professional knowledge, integrity and credible selection.

That is why the question is legitimate: if public competition is important at the head of an audit institution, why was the same not justified at the head of an organization that influences one of the country's largest economic sectors and is connected to significant state resources, data, marketing spending, and development programs?

An open application does not automatically guarantee the best decision, nor does it exclude the possibility of putting pre-selected candidates into a position. However, it creates a kind of professional comparability. Applicants must describe what they think about the institution, what problems they see, and what program they would implement. And the public can at least partially learn about the criteria on which the decision was made.

There are several recognized professionals with international experience working in Hungarian tourism who could have put a professional concept on the table in such a process: László Puczkó, Ádám Ruszinkó, Gábor Bódis, Balázs Kovács or Csilla Mezősi cannot be mentioned because any of them would have been a better choice, but because there are candidates with different professional backgrounds and thinking. In an open procedure, Olivér Csendes could have won, but then we would know why he proved to be the most suitable, not just from a ministerial announcement, but from a comparison of programs.

Now we only know that István Kapitány asked Oliver Csendes to lead the MTÜ, but not who else was considered, what requirements were set, what professional concept he put on the table, and what results he will have to be held accountable for.

Silent Oliver cannot get a clean sheet.

The appointment of Olivér Csendes is also special because he is not a new player in state tourism management. He led Visit Hungary, which is part of the MTÜ, for nineteen months, from which he left in February 2026. Many people mentioned both upon his arrival and departure that Olivér Csendes was specifically called home from Vienna at the request of Ráhel Orbán, in order to make the MTÜ, which is run by Zoltán Guller, a little less political and more professionally credible towards foreign partners. This stigma will be difficult to remove, which is why an open selection, along familiar programs and concepts, would have been more advantageous.

According to his own assessment, his mandate was to create a sustainable and effective operation of Visit Hungary in the long term, and he successfully fulfilled this task. A few weeks ago, in a podcast interview (Dunakavicsok) – from which it was obvious that Olivér Csendes would return – we got to know some of his visions.

These experiences are undoubtedly advantages, as they are familiar with the institutional system, the sending markets, the campaigns, the international partners and the inner workings of state tourism marketing. However, this can also be a political and professional burden, because they cannot say that they had nothing to do with the system that the new government severely criticized in its election program, since Visit Hungary was also one of the implementers of ideas stemming from Ráhel Orbán's consulting work.

Visit Hungary was not a peripheral state enterprise, but an important implementing organization of the previous tourism policy. If, according to the new government, a significant part of tourism subsidies, campaigns and developments operated in a non-transparent manner, if too much money was spent on low-value-added investments and marketing activities that are difficult to evaluate, then it is necessary to clarify how the new head of the MTÜ relates to these criticisms. The extent to which Hungarian tourism policy was forced to move beyond thinking based on real estate and capacity development was also shown in our previous analysis of the missed opportunities of active tourism .

In recent years, the impression has grown in professional public opinion that there has not always been a sufficiently visible distance between state tourism marketing and certain politically well-connected tourism interests. This cannot be automatically and solely made the personal responsibility of Olivér Csendes and declared that he only served specific interests. The trust problem still exists, and the new leader must not remain silent, but must be able to resolve it through consistent, transparent operation.

It is not enough to say that a new era is beginning. It is necessary to show what will be new. Will the substantive data of the contracts, campaigns and supplier decisions of the MTÜ and Visit Hungary be made public? Will there be predefined, measurable campaign goals and subsequently accessible results assessments? Will it be revealed which accommodations, regions and products receive state marketing support based on what professional criteria? Will there be real competition, or will the actors of the previous system be able to continue their operations unchanged under new political supervision?

Twenty-five questions and one unanswered question

Szálloda.blog previously sent twenty-five specific questions to the decision-makers responsible for tourism at TISZA in its article titled Why did tourism become the stepchild of the new Tisza government?. We did not ask for general political slogans, but asked questions to which every government-capable policy workshop should have a clear answer: what will be the fate of MTÜ, how will the task of Visit Hungary change, what will be done with NTAK, how will the system of subsidies be transformed, what role will professional organizations have, what future do they envisage for rural tourism, and how will tourism be linked to transport, regional and economic development.

It was not by chance that we included the relationship between transport and tourism among the most important issues even then. We have previously presented in detail that public transport is one of Hungary's largest, still untapped tourist and economic reserves , while tourism, transport and regional development decisions are still often made separately. However, the guest does not perceive ministerial powers and sectoral responsibilities, but whether he can get to an area, whether he can find a coordinated schedule, understandable information and a truly usable tourist offer.

After the inquiry, we received a phone call from the secretariat of State Secretary Ágnes Fábián, and we were promised that answers would be provided, but that the due diligence is currently underway and is a priority. A longer period of time has passed, but no substantive answer has been received to date.

If a new government has identified closed, opaque, centralized decision-making as one of the biggest flaws of the previous system, it cannot afford to reproduce the same operation with new names and new leaders. Professional dialogue does not consist of the government listening to questions and then not answering them, but of taking on the responsibility of justifying its own decisions and being willing to defend them in public debate.

Ten questions that can no longer be avoided after the new appointment

1. What specific, public and accountable tourism strategy has Olivér Csendes been commissioned to implement?

2. What are the measurable goals of the NGO for the next four years, and what indicators will be used to evaluate the performance of the new CEO?

3. Why was there no open competition for the leadership of the MTÜ, while the government itself referred to the credibility of the public selection in other major state institutions?

4. Who participated in the nomination and selection process, what other candidates were considered, and what professional criteria were used to select Olivér Csendes?

5. How does the new government evaluate Visit Hungary's operations in recent years, and which previous practices does it intend to preserve, transform, or eliminate?

6. How can they guarantee that state tourism marketing will distribute attention and resources based on transparent professional considerations in the future, and not on political, ownership or relationship interests?

7. Will the costs, selection mechanisms, performance indicators and ex-post evaluations of the MTÜ and Visit Hungary campaigns be made public?

8. What institutional place and autonomy will tourism be given within the government, and who bears political responsibility for the sector's strategy?

9. When will the government respond to the twenty-five policy questions previously sent by Szálloda.blog ?

10. When will real, public professional consultation begin involving hotels, catering establishments, employees, local governments, transport providers, educational institutions and independent tourism professionals?

    
    

The appointment of Olivér Csendes cannot be called a good or bad decision in itself, because we do not know the program against which we could judge it. He could be a credible leader, implementing reforms and resolving the trust problems of the previous system, or he could be the manager of an old institutional model that continues to operate in a new political era.

The difference will not be shown by ceremonial presentations, professional biographies and general sentences about innovation, but by whether a clear tourism policy will finally be made public, and whether the new leader is willing to make its implementation measurable and accountable. And neither István Kapitány nor his state secretary responsible for the area, Ágnes Fábián, have yet made any substantive statements about this, just as neither of them has spoken much about tourism in general and have so far avoided meetings and/or confrontation with the profession. Here is a big rhetorical WHY?

The announcement on July 24 that a tourism subcommittee has been established in Parliament, which will include 6 TISZA representatives, also represents a degradation of domestic tourism, as it was not even given the status of an independent committee representing all political factors. Undoubtedly, this is more than nothing, but it is certainly not enough.

The order is still important. A responsible government first says where it wants to go, then selects the person it considers capable of carrying out and completing this journey. In Hungary, we have now actually met the train driver, but not the route, the timetable or even the destination. Hungarian tourism is too important a sector to spend four years trying to figure out the strategy behind personal decisions.

About the author:

Tamás Pakuts has been actively involved in aviation and tourism for almost 35 years, and in the hotel industry and catering for more than 25 years.

As a manager and consultant, he had insight into the operations of several airlines, as well as hotels, hotel chains, and shipping companies, successfully taking on a role in their operational management, crisis management, and development.

He is currently present in many countries around the world with his colleagues as an expert, consultant, and trainer in the hotel industry and aviation, and he and his colleagues are working on the development of numerous new, internationally noteworthy projects.