Defiant Hungary

“There are times when it seems as if nothing else is necessary for government than to thoroughly despise the people”

Baron József Eötvös de Vásárosnamény, Hungarian writer and statesman (1813 – 1871)

Immediately after Hungary took over the EU presidency recently, stunting querulant Viktor Orbán flew to Moscow and Peking for a courtesy visit to dictators Putin and Xi Jinping. Disguised as a 'peace initiative', the Hungarian leader embarrassed the European Union with his unannounced trip and unmandated mission. Other EU member states reacted furiously; the free West defends itself with all possible means against these dictatorial superpowers and obstructionist Orbán pays them a friendly visit. It was yet another clash between the Hungarian government and the EU institutions. And it won't be the last. What drives the Hungarian prime minister, how harmful is his political course to the European cooperation and what can the European Union do about it?

Victor Orbán co-founded Fidesz in 1988, a political party then called the League of Young Democrats. Hungary was still a satellite state of the Soviet Union, but Orbán’s party opposes Soviet dominance and advocates free citizenship, liberal economic and social policies. In 1989, even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Orbán publicly called for free elections and the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Hungary was the first East European country to literally open the Iron Curtain by allowing citizens from Eastern Europe a free passage to the West. A year later, on March 25, 1990, what was unthinkable during 40 years of communist rule, happened. Hungary held free democratic elections for the first time since World War II. Orbán wins a seat in parliament and leads the opposition party Fidesz. In the 1990s, Hungary's left-wing government became embroiled in corruption scandals. Fidesz runs strong opposition and wins the 1998 elections. Orbán became the new prime minister at the age of 35. Orbán wants Hungary to join the EU, because he considers the country as European. That happens in 2004, when the Socialists are ruling the country again. In 2010 Fidesz manages to win more than a two-thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament through a list connection with the Christian Democrats. Orbán then uses this position of power to amend the Constitution and introduce controversial reforms. He started his career as a liberal, but under his leadership Fidesz has gradually become more and more conservative and nationalistic. He curtails the power of the Supreme Court, interferes with the appointment of judges, significantly reduces the number of parliamentarians and reforms the electoral system. While retaining the absolute majority he rails against the EU, introduces laws that affect the freedom of the press and democratic principles. Viktor Orbán's government is also accused of corruption, which his camp denies. Among other things, Orbán is accused of channeling public funds into private hands to benefit oligarchs and family members. He resists calls to investigate these allegations.

Let me first try to interpret Hungary's attitude from a historical perspective. During the Middle Ages, Hungarian tribes who lived as nomads took possession of the Carpathian Basin. In the year 1000, Stephen the Holy was crowned the first king of Christian Hungary. In 1241 a Mongol invasion led to massive destruction. Under King Béla IV, the country was rebuilt and the borders strengthened. The fortifications kept new attackers out for a long time, but could not prevent the country from being occupied by the Turks less than 3 centuries later and becoming part of the Ottoman Empire for 150 years. After the expulsion of the Turks in 1686, Hungary was dominated again, this time as part of the Habsburg Empire. This caused tensions with Austria. which led to a revolution in 1848. Although it was suppressed, twenty years later the so-called Dual Monarchy was created, in which Hungary took an equal position compared to Austria. Hungary, like Austria, sided with Germany during the First World War. It cost Hungary large parts of its territory. When the Nazis conquered France during the Second World War, Hungary again joined Germany. When the Russians defeated the Germans, Hungary, like all Eastern European countries, was ‘liberated’ by the Russian Red Army and became a satellite state of the Soviet Union, headed by a communist puppet government.

This turbulent history with numerous foreign dominations has left its mark on the country and its national identity. An identity that differs both culturally and linguistically from the many countries bordering Hungary. Hungarians consider themselves neither Slavic nor Germanic, but rather Magyars, a proud people with a rich tradition in art, music and literature. The Hungarian language belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family and is not similar to the Germanic, Slavic and Latin languages ​​common in Europe. This might explain the country's nationalist course and the EU's playing off against Russia and China. But that is certainly not the only explanation. With a shrinking population of barely 10 million and an economy that accounts for only 1.2% of total EU GDP, Hungary is not a dominant player. Hungary relies heavily on Russian energy imports, with around 80% of its natural gas and 65% of its oil coming from Russia. The relatively low prices that the Russians charge for this are important for a country where citizens are plagued by extremely high fixed costs and 20% of the population lives in poverty. At the same time, EU subsidies are of great importance for Hungary's economic development and modernization. Orbán tries to have it both ways by exploiting Hungary's position within the EU and reaping the benefits of his Russian and Chinese relationships at the same time. So far Orbán's policies have strengthened Hungary's economy and won him favor among Hungarian voters. However, the question is how long Orbán can maintain his 'tap dancing policy'. Tensions between the West and the Sino-Russian alliance are increasing and could escalate quickly. Hungary's balancing act could then simply end in a split.

Many EU member states criticize Orbán for his authoritarian leadership and his conservative nationalist course. Rightly so, because the rule of law has eroded under his rule and that is contrary to the values ​​that the EU stands for. But it is those same Member States that allow him to play his own game. Hungary's deviant attitude within the European Union exposes a fundamental weakness of the European unification process. The current decision-making procedures hamper Europe's ability to act as a single supranational power. National interests weaken the influence and ability of the EU to act on the world stage. Europe simply can no longer afford that, given the current international tensions. The Sino-Russian alliance aimed at a new world order is emerging as a shameless attempt by dictatorships to undermine Western democracies by all available means, including a bloody war, in violation of the international rule of law. In the light of this crisis, Hungary's friendly ties with Russia and China are plainly inappropriate and intolerable.

The EU treaty does not provide for the possibility of suspending Hungary or depriving it of membership. The EU is exerting maximum pressure on Hungary and is suspending the payment of subsidies. In extreme cases, the EU could even deprive Hungary of its voting rights. However, this requires unanimity among all other member states. That will not happen, because the leaders of some Member States, like Hungary, are positioning themselves as the Union's biggest enemy if proposals do not directly benefit them.

The solution to tackle deviant member states is not difficult to come up with, but is virtually impossible to implement under the current treaty. European unification is in urgent need of drastic reforms, including abolition of the veto and a single foreign policy implemented by a European government. Hungary, as well as other EU member states, will not want to go along with this because they do not want to give up their alleged sovereignty. And that's fine, if countries continue to deny the existence the 'global village' and want to maintain the illusion of independence. Two types of Member States will then necessarily emerge; core countries and peripheral countries, as former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstad called it. The core countries will choose to work together on the basis of one policy, in which national interests are subordinate to the common interest. My assessment is that the periphery will quickly recognize the benefits of increasing (geo)political influence and economic strength, once the core countries have built a true federation. Ultimately, most European countries will want to join the United States of Europe, just as they wanted to join the existing EU at the time.