Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the Fidesz party, Hungary faced years of gradual erosion of its democracy. By rewriting the constitution, a power granted by a ⅔ majority over parliament, Orbán was able to legally undermine democratic values and institutions, such as increasing his own authority while controlling and weakening the courts, taking control over the media through a new agency, suppressing freedom of the press, and dismantling checks and balances. By appointing loyalists to the courts and other institutions, as well as creating the budget council, Orbán believed that his party could persevere even after a potential electoral defeat. With this being said, it is safe to say that his priority of being reelected often took precedence over what policies were actually good for the people of Hungary. 

However, on April 12, Peter Magyar, leader of the Tisza party, won against Orbán with a  ⅔ majority. He also intends to use the powers granted to him to change the constitution, with the goal of regaining democratic integrity, in addition to keeping Orbán out of office in the future. These new changes to the constitution are also said to advantage religious minority groups that had been unrecognized by Orbán. 

Despite an incumbent advantage and executive aggrandizement, which includes gerrymandering implemented to increase the chances of Orbán getting reelected as well as control over the electoral commission and election coverage in the media, Magyar managed to succeed. This election saw an unprecedented voter turnout of almost 80%, and specifically an increased participation among young voters. This victory symbolizes the significance of civic participation in democratic reforms, and specifically, the importance of free and fair elections. Orbán’s amendment of the constitution after being elected in 2010 created unfair election outcomes for the several elections that followed; however, the increased voter turnout as a result of an intensely competitive election this year changed that pattern.

The success of Tisza has Hungarians hopeful for a real change. Thus far, citizens have shown their support by gathering in the streets and cheering on the new Prime Minister, who demonstrates his gratitude for believing in him and his goal of freedom for Hungary, which means fixing their relationship with the European Union and stepping away from Russia by decreasing its dependence on Russian energy. In the weeks leading up to the election, citizens who had been continuous supporters of Orbán were also found protesting in Budapest, including a large rally on April 10, urging a removal of the incumbent. This is significant as the freedom to peacefully protest was something that was frequently shut down by Orbán and is now encouraged by the new Prime Minister, who hopes to reinstate human rights that had been recently undermined.

The great difficulty in reversing democratic backsliding comes down to the fact that Orbán’s loyalists still maintain power in several institutions, such as the media and the courts, which makes it harder to agree on new legislation. Thus, as a result of the Tisza having to work alongside Fidesz loyalists, there is an increasing threat of heavy partisan polarization due to extremely divided beliefs. This often causes difficulty in decision-making and can contribute to political violence, which may threaten democracy further. As a result, the Tisza party can expect to struggle to implement its new reforms. However, polarization can sometimes benefit democracy when more people get involved in politics due to having stronger feelings about the outcomes. This was true in helping Magyar win, as there was a strong dislike for the incumbent, increasing support for Tisza as a means of removing Orbán.

With this in mind, Hungary could expect more societal and political tension in the near future as a result of a deeper interest in policy outcomes. This idea of a shift in societal behavior due to a divided government is questioned by Iyengar et al., who state the effects of affective polarization and suggest that political disagreements can affect behaviors outside of the political environment and create animosity within social relationships and daily interactions. 

The outcome of this past election suggests that the people of Hungary saw certain things wrong with how the government was being run and needed a change. Magyar’s victory provides optimism that democratic backsliding in Hungary can be reversed. Magyar has goals of fighting the corruption that has occurred during the 16 years of Orbán being in office, stating, “We will do everything to restore the rule of law, plural democracy, and the system of checks and balances.” Despite the hardships Tisza can expect in reinforcing democratic values, the support and participation that the party already has will continue to help them in their fight for Hungary’s freedom.