In the heart of Europe, Hungary's socio-political evolution under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán offers crucial insights into the nature of electoral autocracy and its potential reflection on global politics, particularly in the United States. This discussion emerges amidst the renewed political landscape shaped by Donald Trump's second tenure as U.S. President.
Orbán, a stalwart of Hungary's political scene since the late 1990s, has crafted a governance style many have labeled as 'electoral autocracy' —a system that outwardly retains electoral processes but undermines democratic substance. With Trump reemerging as a pivotal figure in American politics, comparisons have surfaced regarding their leadership styles and democratic implications.
Orbán's blueprint for consolidating power began when he faced an electoral setback in 2002. Refusing to accept potential future defeats, he embarked on comprehensive legislative changes that fortified his political reign. By 2010, Orbán’s party, Fidesz, won a decisive majority, subsequently altering the country's constitution and electoral laws to favor incumbency.
The implications of these adjustments were profound. Hungary increasingly saw elections where results were skewed to benefit Fidesz, ensuring a consistent supermajority with less than an absolute majority of votes. This strategic embedding of power echoes globally, drawing parallels with Trump's strategies.
In Trump's case, the parallels are notable, especially with his approach to the judiciary. During his first term, he successfully reshaped the U.S. Supreme Court by appointing three justices, leaning it towards a conservative supermajority. The transformation of the judiciary is crucial in both America and Hungary, serving as a mechanism to sustain and legitimize central authority.
Donald Trump’s second term has seen attempts to extend presidential powers akin to Orbán's governance approach in Hungary. One region of concern is judicial independence. Orbán strategically lowered the judicial retirement age, paving the way for political loyalists within the courts. While Trump cannot directly reshape the judiciary in such a manner, his influence over Republican-nominated judges remains pronounced.
Furthermore, media control and the suppression of dissent is a common strategy employed by both leaders. Orbán affected significant changes to Hungary’s media landscape by facilitating the acquisition of key outlets by politically aligned business magnates. Trump, conversely, has frequently criticized the media, leveraging lawsuits and regulatory pressures against outlets he deems adversarial.
Moreover, an ideological affinity seems to bind Orbán and Trump with other global autocrats, like Russia's Vladimir Putin. Orbán has pursued closer ties with Russia and China, advocating for governance styles that veer away from Western democratic norms. Trump's diplomatic approaches, often favoring authoritarian leaders, amplify this association.
However, the U.S. presents a distinct framework, with its strong democratic institutions and a history of checks and balances that challenge a wholesale shift towards autocracy. Nevertheless, as Zsuzsanna Szelényi, a former Fidesz member, correctly points out, any move towards autocratic governance is an escalatory process — a snowball effect that reinforces itself over time.
The transformation of Hungary serves as a potential cautionary tale for democratic nations worldwide. The comparisons highlight the importance of vigilant democratic stewardship to ensure that processes remain true to their foundational principles, rather than mask shifts towards authoritarian rule.