HUNGARY ELECTIONS: INSIGHTS FROM A CLOSED DISCUSSION SIX MONTHS LATER

04/14/2026 Remigijus Simasius

Photograph from a closed roundtable discussion held in 2025.

Last November, the Centenary Policy Institute organized a discussion in Vilnius with Márton Hajdú. The discussion was closed — one of those cases when we could not publicly disclose either the meeting itself or, even more so, its conclusions, as the topic was highly sensitive: the Hungarian elections and the possibility of political change in Hungary. Márton Hajdú is an election strategist. The lack of publicity was due to the extremely tense situation. Orbán’s regime closely monitored every move of the opposition and sought to portray them as part of a European Union conspiracy. At the time, it was still uncertain whether the elections could take place democratically at all, including issues related to vote counting, the use of law enforcement, and other factors. There was a significant risk of provocations and the use of legal instruments against the opposition.

Today, we can share the main insights from that discussion. First, it is clear that 16 years of “Orbánism” have left deep marks: Hungarian society has become highly polarized, many issues have turned toxic, and a large part of the public has been convinced by narratives about the country’s supposed uniqueness, external conspiracies, and Hungary’s alleged position as something between East and West.

It is also evident that this system — with its centralized control and kleptocratic tendencies — has reduced Hungary’s prosperity. A particularly significant moment for Hungarian public opinion came last year, when Hungary fell behind neighboring Romania in GDP per capita, despite Romania having long been viewed as the poorer neighbor. In Lithuania, this shift is also clear: before Orbán came to power, Hungary was wealthier than Lithuania; today, Lithuania is significantly richer.

In summary, economic factors played a major role in growing dissatisfaction with the Orbán regime. Another key takeaway is the role of the European Union. The EU became important both because it sought to defend the rule of law and democracy, and because this response came somewhat late. The defense of rule-of-law principles against the Orbán regime was portrayed domestically as total interference in internal affairs.

This offers an important lesson for the European Union and its member states on how to respond when a country drifts away from democratic standards. At the early stage, the EU clearly failed to learn this lesson and did not pass the test. Later, it began to act, though not always gracefully or effectively. In the final stage, however, the EU’s role became significant and effective, including restraint from direct political intervention and the use of indirect tools, such as proper election monitoring.

In conclusion, we can join those who welcome the fact that what seemed a cautious prospect in a Vilnius club six months ago has now become reality. We wish success to the new government. The Centenary Policy Institute will continue focusing on issues shaping European politics for the century ahead: not only Hungary, but also countries such as Slovakia; Ukraine’s struggle and its integration into the EU; Europe’s and its member states’ competitiveness in the modern world; and resilience against foreign influence. Among external actors, unfortunately, this includes not only Russia and China, but also the United States.