Since the conclusion of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet influence in Central and Eastern Europe, many countries embraced liberal democracy as the ultimate stage of political development. Among them, Hungary was often considered a model of successful democratic transition. Yet in recent years, Hungary has increasingly been cited as a prominent example of democratic erosion within the European Union. What factors have contributed to Hungary’s democratic backsliding under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and how can democratic theory help us interpret these developments? This question not only sheds light on Hungary’s trajectory but also challenges the broader assumption that democratization is irreversible once consolidated.

    Hungary’s post-communist transition appeared to affirm the claims made by Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl (1991), who argued that democratization represents the culmination of a long process of social and institutional differentiation. Following the fall of communist rule in 1989, Hungary adopted multiparty elections, constitutional protections for civil liberties, and institutional checks and balances. For two decades, democratic consolidation seemed firmly underway. However, the return of Orbán and his party, Fidesz, to power in 2010 marked a decisive turning point. With a constitutional supermajority, Fidesz began restructuring Hungary’s political institutions in ways that gradually weakened liberal democratic safeguards. To better understand this trajectory, we can turn to the framework developed by Daniel Waldner and Ellen Lust  whose work on democratic backsliding provides key theoretical tools for analyzing Hungary’s regression.

Legal Democratic Backsliding and the Gradual Capture of Institutions

    According to Waldner and Lust (2018) , democratic backsliding refers to the deterioration of democratic institutions and practices, regardless of whether the country remains formally democratic.   In Hungary’s case, backsliding has largely occurred through legal and constitutional means rather than overt coups or violent repression. After securing a two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2010, Orbán’s government enacted a new constitution in 2011, reshaping the judiciary, media oversight bodies, and electoral laws. These changes were presented as lawful reforms, yet they concentrated power in the executive branch.

    Waldner and Lust identify “agent-based theory” and “political institutions” as central mechanisms in democratic erosion. Agent-based theory emphasizes the strategic decisions of political leaders who exploit institutional vulnerabilities to entrench power. This perspective echoes the work of Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe C. Schmitter (1986), who argue that transitions are shaped by elite interactions and strategic maneuvering. In Hungary, Orbán’s consolidation of control over the Constitutional Court, the appointment of loyalists to key judicial positions, and restrictions on independent media outlets demonstrate how agency can drive systemic change.  To view more visit Waldner & Lust, 2018

    Equally important is the erosion of vertical and horizontal accountability. Vertical accountability – citizens’ ability to hold leaders responsible through free media and fair elections – has been undermined by the centralization of media ownership and changes to electoral district boundaries. Horizontal accountability – the capacity of institutions such as courts and legislatures to constrain executive power – has weakened as judicial independence declined. Reports by organizations such as Freedom House have documented Hungary’s steady decline in democratic ratings, ultimately reclassifying it as “Partly Free.” This decline exemplifies how lawful institutional reforms can mask deeper authoritarian tendencies . Visit Freedom House  

    Given that Hungary continues to hold regular elections, some scholars question whether it should still be classified as a democracy. Here, O’Donnell’s (1994) concept of “delegative democracy” becomes relevant. Delegative democracies are systems in which presidents or prime ministers claim a personal mandate from electoral victory and govern with minimal oversight, sidelining other institutions. Although Hungary retains multiparty elections, the dominance of Fidesz and the marginalization of opposition parties suggest a system where executive authority overshadows institutional pluralism.

    While Hungary remains formally within the EU framework, tensions have escalated between Budapest and Brussels over rule-of-law concerns. The European Parliament has triggered Article 7 proceedings against Hungary, citing systemic threats to judicial independence and media freedom. These developments further support the argument that Hungary exhibits characteristics of a delegative or even hybrid regime.

Democratic Restoration 

    Returning to the original question , what explains Hungary’s democratic backsliding, and how can theory illuminate its causes? we find that a combination of strategic political agency, institutional restructuring, and weakened accountability mechanisms has facilitated the erosion of liberal democratic norms. Schmitter and Karl’s optimism about democracy as an endpoint appears challenged by Hungary’s experience, suggesting that democratization is not inherently irreversible.

    At the same time, theories by Waldner and Lust (2018) and O’Donnell (1994) remind us that democratic erosion often unfolds incrementally and legally, rather than through abrupt authoritarian takeover. Hungary demonstrates that elections alone do not guarantee democratic governance; robust horizontal and vertical accountability are equally essential.

Conclusion

    The future of Hungarian democracy may depend on the reestablishment of judicial independence, media pluralism, and competitive electoral conditions. As argued by scholars such as Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi (1997), democracy persists not because it is inevitable, but because political actors and citizens continue to defend it. Whether Hungary will experience democratic restoration or further entrenchment of illiberalism remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that Hungary serves as a critical case study in understanding how democratic systems can erode from within , through ballots, laws, and institutions that once symbolized democratic triumph.