On 19 January, the IDM, in cooperation with the University of Vienna, hosted a panel discussion on the upcoming Hungarian parliamentary elections. Dorothee Bohle, Krisztina Rozgonyi, and Péter Techet examined the consequences of Hungary’s illiberal democracy, which has been in place since 2010 and is deeply embedded in society and the economy. The discussion took place at the University of Vienna and was moderated by Tobias Spöri.

Techet: Illiberalism on a legalistic foundation

Techet focused on the legal aspects of the regime, emphasizing the Orbán system’s legal foundations and its legalistic understanding of law. On the one hand, liberal democracy was dismantled after 2010 using exclusively legal means: the Fidesz government possessed the necessary two-thirds majority in parliament, which enabled it to adopt a new constitution as well as key legislation concerning, for example, the judiciary and the media. For any future government, reversing these developments would therefore be extremely difficult, as it would either need to secure a two-thirds majority itself or dismantle the system using means that would be considered illegal from a purely formalistic perspective.

On the other hand, according to Techet, Fidesz does not understand law as a value-based system aimed at promoting social cohesion, but rather as a purely technical instrument for enforcing individual interests. Techet described this mindset as “legalistic authoritarianism.” Fidesz, he argued, is a “party of lawyers” that is particularly adept at employing legal loopholes and tricks. Even corruption, he noted, has effectively been legalized in Hungary, meaning that a new government could only hold those responsible to account through retroactive legislation or other political measures.

Rozgonyi and Bohle: Controlled media and economy

Krisztina Rozgonyi described the monotonous media landscape in Hungary: with the exception of a few print outlets and online newspapers, the entire media market—both public and private—is under Fidesz control. Rozgonyi, who was forced to leave Hungary for political reasons, pointed out that Fidesz deliberately employs disinformation, fake news, as well as AI-generated images and audio recordings during election campaigns. As a result, it is difficult to determine on what informational basis voters ultimately make their decisions.

Dorothee Bohle analyzed the economic dimensions of the regime, particularly the corruption-driven construction of a “national bourgeoisie” and the use of foreign investment—such as German automotive firms or the Chinese battery industry—in the service of political power. She also highlighted the problematic role of the European Union, especially the European People’s Party, which, she argued, supported Orbán for far too long out of economic interests or political opportunism.

What can be done?

In the debate, all three panelists agreed that Péter Magyar remains a “black box.” His success, they argued, by no means guarantees the dismantling of the regime, given the deep entrenchment of Fidesz’s power within institutions, the economy, and society. Bohle even suggested that Magyar could at best bring about change within the system, but not a transformation of the system itself—if only because he emerged from that very system. Techet emphasized that Magyar is not being supported because of his personality or his still largely unknown political program, but solely because he is currently seen as the only figure capable of unseating Orbán. For this reason, even liberal or left-wing voters are prepared to support a conservative politician like Magyar.

Techet described Magyar’s strategy as “anti-system populism against an illiberal system.” Magyar employs populist rhetoric and positions himself against “the entire system,” including the “old opposition.” In an illiberal democracy such as Hungary, however, this may carry a more positive meaning than in liberal democracies. Magyar mobilizes anger—not against liberal democracy, as many populist parties in Europe do, but against an existing illiberal system. Whether such a system can still be removed through elections at all, Techet argued, remains questionable. Moreover, he stressed that a new government without the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments would be effectively incapable of governing.

In the final discussion, the audience raised numerous questions regarding the role of Hungarians living abroad, the possibilities for legally dismantling the regime, and Magyar’s plans concerning the criminal prosecution of corruption cases.

Photo: Malwina Talik