From Dominance to Defensive Politics
For more than a decade, one of Europe’s longest-serving prime ministers has built a system of power based on control, stability, and electoral dominance. In recent years, his country has become a bastion against what he sees as global liberalism, with its command center in Brussels. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, whose political “house of cards” has dominated the past decade and much of Hungary’s political landscape, is now facing, for the first time, the real threat of losing his grip on power.
Political dominance has turned into defensive politics, aimed at protecting not only the stability of his government but also a system built on what he calls “illiberal democracy.” The term itself is not new. Over the past decade, however, the growing influence of supranational institutions has sparked concern among many voters who feel that decision-making has drifted away from national capitals and into distant bureaucracies. Orbán has positioned himself as a defender of national sovereignty, emphasizing traditional values, economic stability, and strict control over political opposition and the media.
This strategy has allowed him to maintain a firm grip on Hungary’s political landscape, but it has also drawn sustained criticism from the European Union and Western liberal democracies, which argue that such policies undermine democratic norms and the rule of law. For Orbán, however, this confrontation is framed as a struggle to protect his country from external interference and to preserve a model of governance that prioritizes the nation over supranational agendas.
Hungary Under Orbán’s Rule
Elites in Brussels, along with several national leaders, have often portrayed Viktor Orbán as a would-be dictator undermining the rule of law. At a summit in Riga, the then-President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, famously greeted him with the words, “Here comes the dictator.” But is Orbán truly holding Hungary back, or is this the judgment of unelected institutions confronted with a leader who openly resists their political vision?
To understand Hungary’s trajectory, we must examine several areas: the economy, domestic politics, social and cultural policy, and the country’s relationship with the European Union.
“Orbanomics”
Hungary’s economy under Viktor Orbán has been centered on what he considers the fundamental pillar of society: the family. Like many European states, Hungary, with its modest population of nine million, has struggled with declining birth rates. Under Orbán’s leadership, the government introduced sweeping demographic incentives, including lifetime tax exemptions for mothers of four children, subsidized housing loans, and interest-free loans that are partially or fully forgiven after childbirth.
These policies have increased marriage rates and reduced abortions. While they have not produced a demographic revolution, they have had measurable effects and are now being studied or replicated in countries such as Poland. Hungary’s fertility rate rose from 1.23 in 2011 to 1.61 in 2020, settling around 1.5 in 2023, with a stated target of 2.1 by 2030. The aim is to stabilize the native population without relying heavily on immigration, a challenge many European countries continue to face.
Beyond family policy, Orbán’s government reduced public debt and budget deficits before 2019, capped utility prices, lowered unemployment significantly, and attracted major foreign investment from China, Germany, and South Korea, particularly in battery and electric-vehicle manufacturing. Hungary’s growth peaked between 2014 and 2021, with a record 7.06% expansion in 2021.
In recent years, however, the war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russian energy, inflation, and the freezing of EU funds have slowed the economy. Supporters view these pressures as the cost of political independence. Critics see them as evidence of structural weakness. Either way, Orbán’s next electoral test will hinge on whether his economic model proves resilient under external shocks.
Domestic Politics
Compared with many European states plagued by frequent political crises, Fidesz has delivered notable governmental stability. Repeated parliamentary supermajorities enabled coherent, long-term policymaking, reinforced by a centralized governing structure and the 2011 constitution, which emphasized national identity and continuity.
Yet this strength has come at a price. Critics point to excessive centralization of power, reduced judicial independence, and weakened checks and balances - developments that led the European Parliament to label Hungary a “hybrid regime.” Corruption allegations have further damaged credibility.
Recent scandals illustrate the problem. In 2024, President Katalin Novák pardoned a deputy director of a state children’s home convicted of covering up sexual abuse. The decision, countersigned by Justice Minister Judit Varga, triggered mass protests and forced both women to resign, severely harming the government’s pro-family image. The same year, former Fidesz insider Péter Magyar released recordings suggesting interference by senior officials in a judicial corruption case. Earlier, the Elios affair raised serious concerns about irregularities in EU-funded contracts awarded to a company linked to Orbán’s son-in-law.
Whether fully proven or still under investigation, these incidents have eroded public trust, especially among younger voters, and given the opposition significant ammunition. Conservatives who value order and legitimacy must acknowledge that accountability is essential. Policies aimed at strengthening families or national cohesion cannot survive if corruption undermines moral authority. The broader question remains: can decisive, long-term governance be achieved without sliding into over-centralization? Orbán’s system demonstrates the advantages of stability, but also its democratic costs.
Social and Cultural Policy
At the core of Orbán’s cultural agenda lies a straightforward premise: the traditional family, national heritage, and Christianity are foundations worth defending. His government has invested heavily in family subsidies, education reforms rooted in national history, and symbolic efforts to reinforce Hungary’s cultural identity.
These policies resonate with many voters who feel alienated by rapid social change across Europe. At the same time, they have generated controversy, particularly regarding press freedom and media pluralism. Since 2010, pro-government ownership consolidation, uneven state advertising, and regulatory pressure have significantly reduced the space for independent outlets.
Supporters argue that such measures protect Hungary from ideological or foreign influence. Critics see them as an unacceptable constraint on free expression. The tension reflects a broader conservative dilemma: how to preserve cultural continuity without undermining democratic openness.
Between Vision and Governance
Orbán’s government has achieved tangible successes. Yet it also faces growing vulnerabilities. In recent years, his rhetoric has increasingly focused on ideological battles with Brussels and the broader liberal order. While vigilance may be necessary, this emphasis sometimes overshadows everyday concerns.
Healthcare, education quality, and rural development have not always received the same attention as cultural or constitutional disputes. In this sense, Orbán risks evolving from a pragmatic statesman into a permanent campaigner, more focused on defending a worldview than managing daily governance.
The challenge for any leader, and especially for Orbán after fourteen years in power, is balance: pairing long-term vision with practical competence. Grand narratives alone cannot sustain public trust. Hungary may soon discover whether the system he built represents a durable political model, or simply the last dance of a long-dominant era.
Roland-David Sólyom
Young Conservative
