By the basic rules of the alliance of freemasons, freemasonry excludes all political and religious questions; on the other hand, however, the purposes of freemasonry cover spreading of enlightenment, protection of freedom of conscience and religion as well as intellectual freedom; in addition, the rules also rouse the members of alliance to useful action concerning public affairs; by basic rules freemasonry is a progressive institution.

If it is explained in the widest sense, authority of freemasonry does not reach anything but charity, exclusively. In this respect, the contrast (huge contradiction) between the two basic rules is inextricable. If every public affair, every social question is also a political question, how freemasonry can develop and protect freedom of conscience and religion as well as intellectual freedom, etc.  On the other hand, if authority of freemasonry does not reach anything but charity, how can it works as a progressive institution, since further development of progressive efforts has organic connection with all current issues of public life.
So, it is obvious that the conception of political question as such and its explanation would give narrow frames to freemason's work and it would lose all of its effect and importance. Following the history of Hungarian freemasonry, we can see that all important issues of public life were included, it did not accept the wider explanation. 

Aversion to discussion of political issues can be traced back to hard public conditions in Hungary. The class of landowners, as the governing group in the parliament aversed from all kinds of social policy and social problems (to solve), except for own interests.
Parliamentary work was characterized by unnecessary and resultless public-law debates and party strifes of low standards. A new  idea was created in general public;  all  issues had to be excluded from the life of association if it had no guts in them; it was harmful to be involved in politics.

In the meantime, however, Hungary underwent a social  transformation; new classes and interest groups entered the stage of social life; social issues came into the limelight, it was obligatory for citizens to deal with such issues if they stood for progression and they wanted to spread enlightenment, protect freedom of conscience and religion as well as intellectual freedom and participate in public life in a useful way.  Unfortunately, parliament had the authority to decide what were social issues and problems, politicians intervened (due to the interests of parties and classes) and suggested that freemasonry did not deal with issues that were thought to be political ones.
Malice also had a big role in the discussions and debates of lodges. It was interesting that always those lodge members opposed state public education and general rights of election, that was universal suffrage, who had the objection to raising such questions because they were said to belong  to politics somehow. A question is not with political nature in itself, it depends on the way we deal with that. Actually, the most simple social issue can also be labelled political  if its content is unpleasing for politicians (being in power).       
Let's see an example:
Anyone who said that Law XLV. of 1907 Juridical relations between employer and farm-servant was the law of love, well, that man had good sense of social policy. However, anyone who was shocked at inhuman measures of the law, well, that man talked politics.

So, considering the information mentioned above we can say that the alliance of freemasons could not deal with issues on the government, house of representatives, it could not give the government votes of confidence or express lack of confidence. However, it could deal with all issues that were out of the circle of everyday party politics, regardless of the fact that the solution of problems (or rather issues) could not be achieved without the active participation of the government and parliament.
Universal suffrage and religionless state public education do not belong to favourite ideas of the parliament of big landowners, but for Hungarian bourgeoisie and working class, it is quite urgent, as interests, to come to fruition. So, if freemasonry deals with such social issues, it incurs calumniation related to talking politics.
Hopefully, the circumstances mentioned before cannot discourage freemasonry from fulfilling its duties. 

This article is the expansion of the speech told by the undersigned on the congress of freemasonry. It would have been quite harmful if that conception had been prevailing among freemasons.

Pál Szende