Hungary – Laboratory of Democracy or Autocracy?
What Can We Learn from Hungary’s March Toward Authoritarianism?
This essay from Civic Way’s global democracy series was co-written by Bob Melville and Will Arrington. Bob is the founder of Civic Way, a nonprofit dedicated to good government, and a management consultant with over 45 years of experience. Will is an advisor to Civic Way with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Will, a former Peace Corps volunteer, works in Washington DC.
Civic Way’s Comparative Democracy Series
The world’s democracies come in many forms, but they face similar challenges.
Some have strong central governments, some federated structures. Some have an independent chief executive and some a parliamentary form. Some variations in democracies are embodied in a nation’s constitution and laws. Others spring from historical, cultural or demographic factors.
To perfect (or subvert) their democracies, many nations change their constitutions, laws and norms. Learning about these actions, and their impact, can provide invaluable guidance to those who want to preserve and strengthen American democracy.
An Introduction to Hungary
Hungary is a landlocked nation in Eastern Europe, bordered by Austria, Croatia, Romania, Servia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine, and dissected by the Danube and Tisza rivers. It’s nearly ten million people inhabit 36,000 square miles (the size of Indiana). Its people are mostly ethnic Hungarians.
Hungary’s market-based economy, with an estimated GDP of $265 billion, is the world’s 57th largest. Its government debt is about 80 percent of GDP. It is a member of the European Union and provides universal healthcare, tuition-free secondary education and social security benefits to its citizens.
In 1989, upon the Iron Curtain’s collapse, Hungary's Third Republic began. After the 1990 elections, the Hungarian Democratic Forum, a conservative coalition, led the new government. For the next three decades, two coalitions—the conservatives and socialists—traded places every four-year election cycle, at least until 2010 when Viktor Orbán's right-wing Fidesz party seized control.
Hungary’s Government Structure
Hungary’s national government is parliamentary with three branches
Executive branch – The Prime Minister, as the chief executive officer, selects cabinet ministers (subject to the approval of the National Assembly and President, and may dismiss cabinet ministers. The President serves as the ceremonial head of state but also serves as commander-in-chief, and may veto legislation or refer it to the Constitutional Court for review.
Legislative branch – The National Assembly (Parliament) is a unicameral body with 199 seats (before the 2012 constitution, there were 386 seats). It chooses the President by majority vote and, like the President, may refer legislation to the Constitutional Court for review.
Judicial branch – The court system includes local courts, regional appellate courts, the Constitutional Court and the Curia. The Constitutional Court, with 15 judges, is the top court. The Curia, with up to 115 judges, handles civil, criminal and labor matters. The National Assembly appoints Constitutional Court justices and the President appoints other judges.
Hungary’s local government structure includes three levels. The first level comprises 19 counties and Budapest. These are further subdivided into 174 districts which, in turn, are subdivided into over 3,100 localities (e.g., towns and villages). Counties oversee development and administration while localities manage preschools, elderly care, rescue services, water utilities and garbage disposal. The national government controls policing but through county and town police departments.
Hungary’s Democracy
Since 2010, Hungary has moved inexorably toward authoritarianism.
In 2021, the Democracy Index scored Hungary at 6.50. Hungary’s DI score fell from 7.53 in 2006 to 7.21 in 2010 (four years before the second Orbán administration) and it has steadily declined since 2010. However, while Hungary’s DI scores have fallen, its 2021 score is still the 10th highest of 28 nations in Eastern Europe. It remains what DI calls a “Flawed Democracy.”
The Freedom House, in its 2022 Freedom in the World report, scored Hungary at 69 (on its 100-point Global Freedom scale) deeming Hungary “partly free.” In its 2020 Nations in Transit report, Freedom House removed Hungary’s democracy classification. It alleged that Hungary’s "right-wing alliance... has gradually undermined the rule of law … rewritten the constitution … eliminated democratic safeguards ... limited parliamentary oversight [and] independent media, while consolidating power.”
Hungary has several parties, but it looks like a one-party state. The controlling party coalition is the Fidesz–KDNP alliance, which holds a super (two-thirds) majority in the National Assembly. Fidesz has 116 seats and the Christian Democratic People's Party (KDNP) has 19 seats. The next two largest parties, the left-wing Democratic Coalition (DK) and Liberal Momentum, have only 25 seats altogether.
Here are some other distinctive features of Hungary’s democracy:
Voting – Universal suffrage for all adults 18 years and older. In addition, since 2011, those of Hungarian descent residing in other nations can vote in some elections, provided their mother is a Hungarian citizen. The voter turnout record (72 percent) was set in 2002.
Elections – National elections are held every four years.
Executive branch – The National Assembly elects the Prime Minister every four years and the President every five years.
Legislative branch – National Assembly elections are held every four years for 106 single-member local districtseats and 93 party list seats. Each local district member must win a plurality in a winner-take-all, single-round election. Parties must win at least five percent of the votes to be eligible for party list seats.
Legislative representation – The local districts have been gerrymandered to boost Fidesz prospects. In addition, any surplus votes not needed by the winning candidate in a local district (i.e., excess votes above the winning plurality) are added to the party list vote count.
Judicial branch – The Constitutional Court is empowered to review the constitutionality of laws.
Term limits – The President serves up to two five-year terms. Parliament members serve four-year terms, and the Prime Minister serves subject to the National Assembly’s support. Curia and Constitutional Court justices serve 12-year terms and must retire by the age of 62.
Removal process – The Prime Minister can be removed by a parliamentary no-confidence vote. The President can be removed for evidence of committing a crime upon a two-thirds National Assembly vote and a Constitutional Court finding of Presidential guilt.
Hungary’s Recent Political Landscape
The Fidesz Party was launched in 1987 as an anti-communist, pro-democracy party. That same year, Orbán ignited his political career with an influential speech calling for liberal democracy and the expulsion of Soviet troops.
In 1998, Orbán was elected Prime Minister and led a center-right government until 2002. However, his party was defeated in the 2002 election. Fidesz never accepted the election’s legitimacy, blaming the media for its loss and, in the years that followed, became increasingly radicalized.
In 2010, Hungary was upended by the Great Recession. Hungarians were crushed by economic turmoil and demoralized by an inept (and corrupt) national government (run by the Socialist party that had defeated Fidesz). That year, Hungarians overwhelmingly returned Orbán and his Fidesz Party to power.
Since 2012, when it replaced the constitution and enacted sweeping new laws, Orbán and Fidesz have methodically weakened democratic guardrails to tighten their grip on power.
First and foremost, they built a more loyal media apparatus. Under the cover of law, they pressured private media firms to sell their assets and blocked mergers that would strengthen private media. By 2017, over 90 percent of Hungary’s media was owned by the government or a Fidesz ally.
Second, they enacted measures to enhance their future electoral prospects. They authorized ethnic Hungarians living abroad to vote in national elections (mostly Fidesz votes). They created fake parties (with fictitious voters) to weaken the opposition. They amended the constitution to enable voters to vote in any district (exploited by Fidesz loyalists). They empowered the Prime Minister to dissolve the government and expanded—and packed—the Constitutional Court.
Since 2018, the European Parliament has sharply criticized Hungary’s government for its abandonment of democratic principles.
Possible Lessons for the US
In 2022, American democracy faces existential threats. The rise of extremism. The destabilizing of elections. Attacks on public institutions and servants, and the brazen derision of accountability for those attacks. A cult-like devotion to authoritarianism. A metastasizing contempt for tolerance and pluralism.
As our political divide worsens, our courts become more partisan and our elected officials more vindictive. As the political fanaticism spreads, more voters seem willing to abandon the American experiment and embrace a more authoritarian model.
Since the most frequently mentioned model is Hungary (at least by right-wing extremists in America and elsewhere), it is important to understand more about that nation, and its retreat from democracy.
Parties – More pluralism and meaningful input from multiple parties could improve government representation and constituent satisfaction.
Voting – While non-citizens comprise a sliver of the population, allowing them to participate in local elections increases their representation and potentially their interest in becoming citizens. It also has probably padded vote totals for Fidesz Party candidates.
Elections – The Central Election Commission (CEC)’s election oversight role, coupled with their six-year terms, provides a promising way to ensure electoral integrity. However, eliminating the second voting round and banning mail ballots for Hungarians working abroad probably weakened the opposition parties (and thereby competition and pluralism).
Executive branch – Requiring a legislative majority to form a government and appoint the Prime Minister decreases the prospects of polarized government.
Legislative branch – The National Assembly must comprise at least three parties and its total seats can be increased to over 200 to ensure that opposition parties hold at least 30 percent of the seats.
Legislative representation – The winner-take-all plurality method often produces disproportional results (i.e., political parties are not represented according to their share of the popular vote). The gerrymandering of local district boundaries has reduced electoral competition.
Term limits – While the Prime Minister does not have term limits, the National Assembly does. The retirement age for justices promotes some turnover.
Removal process – Making the Prime Minister’s impeachment process dependent on approval of the party that selected the Prime Minister could substantially weaken it as an accountability tool.
The parallels between the 2002 Hungarian and 2020 US elections are striking. Fidesz never accepted its loss as legitimate. Embittered by its loss, Fidesz succumbed to authoritarian tendencies. Upon returning to power, it took moved decisively to retain that power. Since 2010, when the Fidesz party took power, it has retained its parliamentary supermajorities in every national election.
As we face serious doubts about the future of American democracy, Hungary commands our attention. Its leader—Viktor Orbán—has been lionized by the US’ leading right-wing extremists. His authoritarian measures and rhetoric have been lauded by the same voices.
If extremists seize control of America’s Presidency and Congress, they seem likely turn to Hungary for inspiration. Knowing more about Hungary will better prepare us for that dark day.