The Lessons of Budapest
By: Beatrice E. Rangel - 15/04/2026
Share:
Peter Magyar's resounding victory in Hungary brought an end to the political career of Viktor O'Orban, whose authoritarian vision was beginning to destroy the foundations of the liberal democracy established by the Hungarian people after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This achievement of the Hungarian people had its roots in October 1956, when their rejection of the Sovietization of the country was expressed in mass protests that led Prime Minister Imre Nagy to abolish the one-party system, demand the withdrawal of Soviet troops, and reject membership in the Warsaw Pact, declaring neutrality in the East-West conflict. By November, the country had been invaded and reoccupied by the Soviet Union.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Hungary dedicated itself to achieving its democratic ideals, which had been brutally suppressed in 1956. From 1989 to 2010, Hungary laid the foundations for the development of a liberal democracy. It established free elections, the rule of law, and civil liberties, becoming one of the most successful post-communist transitions. Hungary joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2000, sending strong signals of democratic consolidation. However, beginning in 2010, when Viktor O'Orbán was elected prime minister, Hungary experienced a process of steady democratic decline. His party, Fidesz, won a constitutional supermajority, which allowed for profound institutional changes. The reforms weakened judicial independence; granted government oversight powers over the media; and altered electoral rules in ways that critics say favored incumbents. In summary, from 2010 onwards Hungary lost its democratic caliber, mutating into a hybrid or "illiberal" regime, which, although it maintains elections, has weakened liberal-democratic checks and balances.
But the Hungarian people decided to put an end to this deterioration and voted overwhelmingly for a center-right political option that guarantees them greater and better understanding with the European Union and a break from the burden of the relationship with Russia, whose foreign policy had achieved the historic victory of making Hungary the spearhead against the European Union and the weapon used to destroy Ukraine. Therefore, his departure from power has been widely celebrated throughout Europe.
In Latin America, we are also experiencing a democratic backsliding. Driven to despair by the inefficiency and corruption of our governments, we have taken to celebrating "cool" dictators and any political leader who claims to oppose the São Paulo Forum. We seem unconcerned that these opponents of the São Paulo Forum intend to destroy the very foundations of democracy, which are summarized as freedom of expression and political association, and strong institutions capable of limiting the power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In short, we are witnessing the reemergence of an observation made by Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick when military dictatorships began to flourish in Latin America, operating in the name of anti-communism with the same practices as the Soviet Union. On that occasion, Ambassador Kirkpatrick observed that ideological affiliations were meaningless because, ultimately, both Soviet totalitarianism and Latin American authoritarianism thrived on the suppression of freedom.
We continue to behave like tribes instead of citizens. And we find it normal that any despot can be corrupt as long as the economy grows; that he can control the media as long as he allows sporting championships; and that he can be repressive as long as he beats, kills, or imprisons other people's children.
This is why we have paper democracies that cannot withstand the first blow of an economic or political crisis. Because a true democracy is built, as the Hungarians, Poles, Czechs, and Lithuanians have proven, through the organized and collective effort of civil society, which first organizes its cities, then its provinces, and finally creates and sustains central power with limits to its authority. This power is limited by that of the municipalities and provinces and by the interaction between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In other words, like any good building, the secret of democracy lies in its balances. This is why the Hungarians got rid of Urban, who tried to destroy these balances to establish a kind of authoritarianism with Russian leanings.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».