Hungary is going to the most critical elections of the last period on Sunday, April 3rd. Around eight million voters, ten percent of whom are from abroad, will decide who will rule Hungary for the next four years.
For Viktor Orban, who won three elections and has been in power for 12 years uninterrupted, the most important development that made the 2022 elections a “critical election” was that the Orban opposition came together in recent years by establishing an electoral alliance from the far right to the far left.
The opposition’s move to participate in the elections with common candidates met with measurable support from the public who wanted a change in power.
However, this advantage that the opposition provided in front of the public with the alliance initiative was balanced with the moves of Orban and the big election campaign following the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. According to the latest election polls, the ruling party FIDESZ seems to be ahead by 2-3 points in the April 3 elections.
Viktor Orban: National hero? An authoritarian leader liquidating democracy?
Hungarian prime minister Orban is a controversial and divisive leader. Among his supporters, he is seen as a political genius who gives Hungary a personality and develops national culture and pride.
For the other half of the country, Orban is a populist oppressive leader who does not care about principles and programs, does not hesitate to engage in even the most dangerous maneuvers and campaigns for power, and turns a blind eye to corruption.
It is a fact that Viktor Orban not only divided the Hungarian public opinion during his twelve years in power, but also created controversy in the European Union political scene with the programs and measures he proposed. Orban could not be indifferent to it, and the European public was divided into two as supporters and opponents of Orban.
The road from “liberal” democracies to “authoritarian” democracies
Although Orban is the much talked about political leader of a small country with a population of ten million, the views defended by him should be considered as a model of populist politics that gained support in many parts of the world after the Cold War.
In terms of these populist policies, liberal democracies, Western civilization, XX. Its model, which was based on the institutional functioning it created in the 19th century, has now gone bankrupt. The pains of transitioning from a bipolar world to a polycentric world can be overcome by bringing national values and national security to the fore.
According to these views, national security may in many cases contradict the known model of democracy.
In other words, some democratic fundamental rights may be waived for a while, if necessary, in order to ensure national security.
This model, defined by Orban as “illiberal”, that is, illiberal democracy, grants broad powers to the leader, who once derives his sovereignty from the electorate, and lets him restrict democratic rights, the opposition’s opportunities, and freedom of speech and opinion if he deems necessary.
Separation of powers
One of the most characteristic features of the Orban regime was the elimination of the separation of powers, which enabled the state institution to remain impartial and continuous, and created social balance, against political governments that came and went with elections in classical democracies.
Viktor Orban immediately changed the constitution with a two-thirds parliamentary majority in the general elections. He had one of his closest colleagues elected president. It also made the Parliament dysfunctional in many areas.
Then it gradually abolished the neutrality of state institutions. He brought his supporters to the head of important institutions such as the Constitutional Court, the Council of State, the Court of Accounts, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, and the Supreme Council of Judges.
The top institution inspecting radio and television was also put under strict discipline in the first place.
Then came the strict control of state radio and television.
This was followed by the silencing of the opposition press. But this did not come with bans, closures and prison sentences, but with tax sanctions, cutting government postings or, in some cases, creating corporate legal problems.
Is the distribution of tenders to supporters corruption? Or the strengthening of national capital?
One of the most controversial practices of the Orban regime was the shy distribution of government contracts to pro-FIDESZ investors and entrepreneurs, at first shyly and then increasingly boldly, including Viktor Orban’s son-in-law.
In most of the investments in question, the tender was generally prepared to be delivered to the address. In other words, in the tender announced at the last moment, the conditions of only a single entrepreneur matched the tender conditions.
With this method, an ordinary plumber who was Viktor Orban’s childhood friend became the richest businessman in the country within ten years.
Most of the emerging investors were newly rich with significant FIDESZ connections, transferring their assets from back to ground with offshore companies. Legal problems and blatant corruption that arose from time to time were also not considered significant by the courts.
The examples and criticisms that the opposition talked about were not very effective, because the ideological explanation of this was also ready: the government emphasized that a new economic period was entering, and was talking about the necessity of creating Hungarian national capital in this new period. With the help of the media, which was completely under control, public opinion was neutralized.
Of course, one of the important factors in the insensitivity of the public was corruption, examples of which were seen before, that is, when the opposition was in power.
The thought of “honey licks his finger” prevented people from reacting.
Hungary and the European Union
The European Union opposed many practices brought to the agenda by the Orban regime in Hungary over the last twelve years, which were described as “slashing the rule of law” by liberal democracies and as “strengthening national sovereignty” by Orban supporters.
The reaction of the European Union was not only principled. Brussels was also disturbed by the allegations that the large investment funds poured into Hungary by the European Union were distributed among peers in a dubious manner. Some reports prepared on this subject also confirmed these claims.
However, the reaction of the European Union was not effective for a long time. Perhaps the most important reason for this was the EU’s own internal problems and the slowness of the legislation that determined the functioning of the EU and the working of the decision mechanisms.
However, two more important factors should be reminded here of the EU’s inertia. One of these was the successful defensive lobbying of four Eastern European countries, known as the V4 countries, led by Hungary and Poland, against Brussels.
The second important factor was the tolerance shown by Germany, whose weight is indisputable in the EU administration. Having developed very serious economic relations with Central and Eastern European countries, especially Hungary and Poland, Germany did not want to confront these countries with strict EU sanctions.
What will be the election results?
Polls indicate that Viktor Orban is likely to win in the April 3 election. Most likely, the outcome of these elections will be determined by the foreign votes that gave Orban a two-thirds majority in the other two elections.
Ten percent of Hungarian voters are ethnic citizens from neighboring countries and Hungarians working in Western European countries.
During the FIDESZ rule, citizenship rights were granted to approximately one and a half million ethnic Hungarians living in countries neighboring Hungary.
Ethnic Hungarians can be said to determine the election results, with citizenship and the right to vote, provided by the referendum that the opposition opposed.
Because 92% of foreign votes support Orban.
Support for Orban is low among immigrant Hungarians working in Western Europe.
According to the opposition, the Orban government therefore evaluates the voting rights of foreign voters differently: Ethnic Hungarians are given the right to vote by mail, while Hungarian migrant workers living in the west are advised to go to embassies or consulates to vote.
What awaits Hungary after the election?
Although the election results are not yet known, there is almost a consensus on what awaits Hungary after the election.
Whether Orban wins the elections or the opposition wins, Hungary’s agenda will be economic and political problems.
The first reason for this is the economic contraction, increasing inflation and the depreciation of national currencies, which dominated the world first due to the epidemic and then to the war.
However, everyone agreed on another issue is the damage caused by the election budget implemented by the Orban government to the economy.
The Hungarian government has been distributing money to its citizens for a year. The hikes in minimum wages and pensions, increased social and family benefits, the six-month increase ban on fuel and some basic foodstuffs, the postponement of electricity and natural gas hikes, and finally the change in direction of investments due to elections will show their effects after the elections.
However, another important point that should not be forgotten is the EU’s determination to end the disorganization within itself.
The measures taken against Russia, the Hungarian government’s grudging adherence to these measures, and the reaction against it indicate that Brussels will no longer tolerate “mischiefs” in eastern Europe.
For this reason, it may be possible to reduce or even cut EU aid.
Due to the attitude of Poland, which strongly opposes Hungary’s policy of balance with Russia, it is considered certain that Hungary will lose the support of the V4 countries.
Whoever emerges victorious in the spring elections, Hungary faces a difficult autumn.