.png)
The rise of populist regimes globally since the 1990s has been dramatic, raising concerns over threats to democracy and the increasing susceptibility of states to democratic erosion. As aptly defined by Cas Mudde, populism is “an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ vs ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the people.” In short, populists desire the fulfilment of the will of the people or the achievement of the common good, seeking direct connection with the masses without interference by other political parties, the independent media, or civil society. However, in pursuit of fulfilling the people’s will and eliminating accountability of their regime, populists have often consolidated and misused the extension of their powers for electoral gain.
To begin with, Mudde categorises populism as a thin-centred and chameleonic ideology due to its ability to adopt right-wing and left-wing approaches and form part of broader ideologies such as nativism and nationalism. There are two distinct forms of populism: exclusionary and inclusionary populism. Exclusionary populism is primarily associated with European, right-wing populist parties because it emphasises a nativist distribution of state resources and political rights to its citizens but not outsiders, like immigrants. On the other hand, inclusionary populism is predominantly adopted by left-wing, Latin American populist parties, focusing on socioeconomic concerns and the material inclusion of poorer sections of society ostracised by ‘the elite’. It advocates for the political representation of discriminated groups but does not limit itself to natives, extending political rights to all of society. This article focuses on the prevalence and implications of right-wing populism in Hungary.
See the video below to see how Orbán consolidated power in Hungary.
Since the inception of his rule as Hungarian Prime Minister in 2010, Viktor Orbán has significantly undermined the judiciary and media, leading to a severe decline in democratic standards referred to as democratic backsliding. Democratic backsliding denotes the incremental erosion of democratic institutions, rules and norms that results from the actions of duly elected governments. Orbán's actions have posed a serious threat to Hungarian democracy, manipulating the will of the people to introduce a new constitution and weaken the Constitutional Court. In 2010, Orbán’s Fidesz party used its two-thirds parliamentary majority to amend the process of electing constitutional judges, enabling itself, as the governing party, to elect judges without multiparty consent.
Furthermore, packing courts with pro-Fidesz judges diminished judicial restraint on executive power, thus violating inclusive participation, a key tenet of liberal democracy which emphasises the people's ability to control and contest the conduct of the government. Fidesz’s judicial overhaul also illustrates how populism results from increasing public distrust of democratic institutions, eliminating legal barriers that prevent the implementation of the people's general will. In a 2014 interview, Orbán described checks and balances as “a U.S. invention” adopted in Europe due to intellectual mediocrity, reflecting his illiberal, populist stance, which exploits the people’s will as a path to unrestrained power. Moreover, Orbán amended the Hungarian constitution in 2011 to increase the number of judges from eleven to fifteen, most of whom were pro-Fidesz, to consolidate greater control over the Constitutional Court and enable it to rule in his favour. This amendment led to executive aggrandisement, a term which refers to the augmentation of the power of the executive branch of government, and generated an imbalance in the separation of powers.
Additionally, Orbán’s Fidesz regime has attacked independent, pluralist media in Hungary. In 2010, by enacting the ‘Media Act’ and the ‘Press Freedom Act’, Fidesz enabled itself to monitor private media outlets through the Media Council. The ambiguous nature of the media legislation leaves its interpretation of the independent media’s actions up to the discretion of the Media Council, which is primarily comprised of pro-Fidesz individuals. Therefore, independent media bodies in Hungary have remained susceptible to punitive measures by the Media Council if they fail to comply with preset guidelines, forcing them into a systemic bias towards Fidesz. As a result, Fidesz’s attack on Hungarian media has contributed to misleading media coverage and narratives reinforcing the governing party’s position at the expense of the opposition, thus weakening the electoral process and political transparency.
More notably, Fidesz has also targeted and suppressed journalists in Hungary by creating the ‘Sovereignty Protection Authority’ to strengthen its political power. In particular, left-wing journalists reporting against its actions have been subject to condemnation by the government, portraying them as elitist outsiders serving the interests of multinationals in Brussels and American democratic dollar billionaires.
Orbán’s Fidesz regime reveals populism’s underlying threat to liberal democracy by circumventing democratic institutions, like the judiciary and the media, that are vilified as immoral and championing itself as a trustworthy spokesperson of the mass public, thereby eliminating barriers to their general will. Ultimately, right-wing populist parties in Europe, such as Fidesz, must be controlled by regional governing bodies like the European Union (EU). However, the EU’s criticism of such populist regimes remains insufficient, with concrete sanctions and decisive threats of removal from the bloc necessary to deter the erosion of democracy in Europe and provide a blueprint for the protection of democracy globally.
Comentários