What the Hungarian elections say and what they don't

As a result of the elections held in Hungary last Sunday, Viktor Orbán lost the power he had held for 16 years. The end of a 16-year rule by someone who governed a country in what we might call an authoritarian-populist manner through an election is, regardless of the circumstances, a significant development when we look at the world today.

After finishing my doctorate, I taught in Hungary for a short time. During this period, I also had the opportunity to listen to many political scientists who were trying to conceptualize the Hungarian case. Hungary was being discussed through a literature that we are very familiar with in Turkey as well, such as illiberal democracy, authoritarian-populism, competitive authoritarianism, and democratic backsliding. In fact, the two countries were sometimes analyzed together. At other times, Russia and Poland were added to this pair and studied comparatively.

The fact that the opposition party in Hungary defeated the ruling Fidesz under far from equal conditions created a justified storm of excitement among the opposition in Turkey. In this context, the Hungarian elections truly tell us that what seems invincible can indeed be defeated. Indeed, Orbán lost despite support from both the US and Russia, controlled media, the inseparable relationship between the party and capital, a transformed bureaucracy, an electoral system that favors the strong, and many other factors. Poor conditions and fatigue seem to have brought about this result.

However, these elections do not tell us that there will be a wind of change that will spread its effect to different geographies and countries. First of all, comparing systems is quite important for the sake of a mental exercise. However, every country has its own unique conditions. For example, Hungary is, despite everything, an EU member country. In recent years, the EU has suspended a significant portion of the funds going to Hungary, citing reasons such as the rule of law. But when we look at the big picture, these types of normative forms of relationships are definitely not on the agenda of the rest of the world. Nor do they care. Secondly, I think these developments should be viewed from a slightly longer-term perspective. For example, Trump was elected in the US, then lost, and then returned with an even worse version. I suppose it will be necessary to analyze from a bit further away what the era exactly corresponds to, that is, whether large-scale changes are taking place. I attribute this requirement more to my identity as a historian than to my pessimistic identity.

And finally, toppling Orbán in Hungary through an election was a historic success, yes. However, if this is to bring a wind of change with it, it is essential to calculate well what it will sweep along with it.

Since yesterday, it has been written and drawn that Magyar also emerged from within Fidesz and that the Hungarian people actually gave up on one right-wing party and chose another. I find this partly justified and partly unjustified. After all, I think our society knows best what a so-called election strategy can push a person to vote for.

On the other hand, it is known to many that Magyar also pursues politics on a populist line and has a conservative stance on many social issues. In other words, the question of what kind of change it is inevitably comes to mind.

I would also like to draw attention to a broader question related to these issues: In such changes, how do the existing political systems or structures, both internal and external, shape the newly elected person/group/party? It is not possible to give an answer to this yet, but it is a question I care about. The changes that will (or will not) be made both in the nature of the political regime internally and in Hungarian foreign policy will certainly answer this question in the future.

In short, congratulations to Hungary, which has reignited the passion for election analysis in Turkey...