Hungary’s election and Europe’s future

Hungary’s April 12 election, which delivered a landslide victory for the opposition Tisza party, reflects deep economic dissatisfaction. Tisza’s leader, Peter Magyar, proved an effective campaigner. Yet ideologically, the divide is less stark than often portrayed – both major camps are rooted in Christian-conservative traditions. The transition going smoothly: Prime Minister Viktor Orban congratulated his successor. The prophets of doom who alleged that Mr. Orban would undermine democratic change were again proven wrong.

Prime Minister Orban’s Fidesz governed Hungary for 16 years, shaping a political identity centered on national sovereignty and Europe’s Christian heritage. This approach repeatedly clashed with Brussels. Migration marked the first major fault line, as Hungary adopted policies widely criticized at the time but later echoed across Europe in the Schengen area as Western governments’ systemic failures became evident.

Further tensions arose over harmonization. Budapest resisted efforts to standardize policies across the European Union, seeking instead to preserve national traditions and culture. Over time, positions hardened on both sides – Brussels remained dogmatic, as Budapest protected Hungary’s identity.

Non-compliance with “European values” promoted in Brussels and other European capitals was used as a pretext to freeze cohesion money for Budapest, along with hazy allegations regarding the use of EU funds and insufficient measures to fight corruption.

The most serious rupture concerned Russia. Hungary’s dependence on Russian gas required a cautious approach, yet this translated into political friction. The Orban government used its veto power on Ukraine-related issues to counter the pressure Brussels piled on by freezing cohesion funds. At the same time, longstanding disputes with Kyiv over the treatment of Ukraine’s Hungarian minority added another layer of tension.

As a result, Hungary became increasingly marginalized within Europe while strengthening bilateral ties with Washington, Moscow and Beijing.

These dynamics bear resemblance to the United Kingdom’s pre-Brexit relationship with the EU. At their core lies a fundamental issue: the tension between centralization and national sovereignty over culture and governance within a context of striving toward an “ever closer union.” That push also ignores one of the continent’s biggest strengths – the variety that can be found within its people.

Unanimity under strain

Prime Minister Orban has often been used as a scapegoat for the EU’s inefficiencies. Critics argue that he has exercised veto power to extract concessions disproportionate to Hungary’s size. This raises legitimate questions about unanimity, a principle once central to the EU’s design. However, Hungary – whose politics will not change drastically as a result of this election – is not the root problem. The deeper issue is structural.

Unanimity was intended to protect smaller member states. In a union of 27 countries, however, it increasingly hampers decision-making. At the same time, the zeal for excessive centralization undermines one of Europe’s greatest strengths: regional competition.

The push toward an ‘ever closer union’ ignores one of the continent’s biggest strengths – the variety that can be found within its people.

 

Competition between national systems encourages innovation, efficiency and accountability. It is not a zero-sum game – better solutions in one country can benefit others. By contrast, overregulation and harmonization stifle this dynamic, allowing bureaucracy to expand without delivering proportional value. This provides some comfort, but no pressure to improve.

This trend is often reinforced by moralistic and ideological attitudes. Claims of moral or social superiority ignore a basic reality: Sustainable social systems depend on strong, competitive market economies and the freedom to innovate.

A path to reform

Europe now faces a dual problem. It has become less competitive due to overregulation and large public sectors, while remaining weak in foreign and security policy – areas that largely remain outside Brussels’ effective control. The EU’s response to crises, from Ukraine to Iran, highlights these shortcomings.

There is a clear institutional contradiction. A coherent foreign and security policy cannot function efficiently under unanimity. Calls to abolish unanimity in this area are therefore understandable. However, without parallel reforms to restore competitiveness and limit centralization, such a move carries significant risks.

This presents an opportunity for a strategic trade-off. Brussels could return many competencies to member states while focusing on core functions: safeguarding the four freedoms (goods, services, people and capital), maintaining the internal market, and managing foreign and security policy. In areas such as energy, coordination may be appropriate, but taxation, budgets and legislation should largely remain national responsibilities.

Such a rebalancing would revive competition within Europe, encouraging deregulation where necessary and strengthening overall economic performance. The Swiss model offers a useful reference point in this regard.

This is not a “chicken-or-egg” dilemma. Greater internal competition and a more focused EU could develop simultaneously, reinforcing each other. Europe could become both more competitive globally and more effective in international affairs.

If, however, the current trajectory toward greater centralization continues – with EU rules overriding national laws across most areas – then unanimity retains its value as a safeguard.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/eu-hungary-elections/