Divergent Perspectives: Budapest vs. Brussels
The state of affairs between the government in Budapest and Brussels can be characterized as quite complicated. The view of Budapest on the internal and international EU policy significantly differs from the Brussels perspective. For quite a long time, Orbán and his government were criticized for the policies that undermined the founding EU values. For instance, the European Parliament came up with strong concerns about the violations of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights in Hungary, additionally, the Parliament highlighted the danger and inadmissibility of the recently adopted in Hungary so-called ‘national sovereignty protection’ package.
Coupled with the criticism regarding the erosion of democracy and the rule of law, Budapest is constantly questioned about its relations with Russia and China. Even though the affairs between Brussels, Moscow, and Beijing are on a very low level, Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary, seems to conduct fairly tight relations. Such a state of relations cannot be maintained for a long period, the membership of Hungary in the European Union was questioned many times, as the Budapest policy is often seen as a threat to the EU and its founding values. So, what is the nature of Orbán’s policy, and to what implications can be brought on relations between Hungary and the EU?
Orbán’s Political Strategy: National Interests vs. EU Values
The nature of the Orbán policy and Fidesz is very unique. Despite being represented in the European Parliament; the party tends to abandon the founding European values in its own policy. For instance, the human rights and the freedom of the press principle. Despite being leaned towards Moscow and Beijing, the Hungarian prime minister managed to form the image of a strong conservative leader, whose policy is led by national interests, rather than directives from Brussels. What is crucial, to mention is that such a political strategy is quite successful, Viktor Orbán, can rely on the national support and the support from the far-right conservatives inside the European Union. The image of the “Brussels bureaucrats” developed by Fidesz happens to be the perfect antagonist for the political strategies pursued by the leading Hungarian party.
The EU membership status and the principle of unanimity in the European decision-making process, gave the possibilities for Hungary to raise the stakes in the European legislative process. For instance, the case of EU military and financial support became the culmination of the tense relations between Brussels and Budapest. Since the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Orbán has opposed the new waves of anti-Russian sanctions and military help to Ukraine. The process of the adoption of EUR 50 billion in financial support for Ukraine did not become an exception, official Budapest held the strong position of vetoing the grant of the financial sources. Orbán stepped back under the pressure of the European leaders, however, the whole process of negotiations showed, how the crucial decisions in the EU may be used for the extraction of as many concessions as possible in exchange for Orbán’s support.
Similarly, Orbán was blocking the accession of Sweden to NATO. As a reason, the ruling Fidesz party was referring to what they describe as unjustified Swedish accusations that they have undermined Hungary’s democracy. In such a way the political behavior of Hungary is seen in Brussels as anti-European and pro-Russian. However, the way the Orbán’s policy is conducted may be described as totally pro-Hungarian. Despite being a member of the Union, which condemned the Russian aggression and continuously introduced the sanctions packages, the Hungarian prime minister is not willing to end the cooperation with the Russian Federation.
Challenges to EU Unity: Orbán’s Veto Power
To give an illustration, official Budapest stated that, Hungary will veto the nuclear energy-related EU sanctions, as the Russian fuel is used in Hungarian nuclear plants. It can be seen, that Brussels’s widespread allegations of the pro-Russian policy of Orbán are not very correct, Budapest is rather trying to benefit from the partnership no matter what side, whether it is Europe or the Global South. Contemporary Hungarian international policy is completely driven by the national interest, which quite often stands on the opposite side of what the official EU is pursuing. The case of the negotiations on the financial aid to Ukraine revealed to what extent the policy of Budapest is distant from the unified EU perspective, when Petteri Orpo, the Prime Minister of Finland, declared: “No one can use blackmail to coerce 26 EU members.” He stated that European principles were not negotiable. Moreover, the idea to apply Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union to Hungary, which would enable Brussels to strip Budapest form its voting rights, started to appear more frequently.
At the moment, the European Union is using financial instruments to lower the capacities of Budapest to conduct the policy, which poorly affects media freedom and human rights. For instance, Brussels used tools, such as to freeze the development funds, intended for Hungary. However, I would doubt the effectiveness of such measures, as the negotiations of the granting of EUR 50 billion aid to Ukraine, revealed that the principle of unanimity became the Achilles heel of the European Union, The Hungarian prime minister can successfully bargain his voice and manipulate his decision. As a result, Brussels decided to release a 10 billion share out of the frozen Hungarian funds. This case raises even more questions, if Orbán successfully managed to oppose the whole Union and exchanged his voice for the significant concessions of Brussels, what can stop him in the future, from doing these more and more? Furthermore, unblocking the assets of the Orbán government, Brussels turned a blind eye to its principles and the highly important founding rules of the European Union.
The chosen strategy of Budapest, to raise the stakes and the value of the own voice during the decision-making process, most likely will be also used in the future. The Hungarian prime minister found a very effective way to bypass the limitations put on Budapest due to the suppressed democracy and rule of the law in the country. It is quite obvious, that Brussels will work on the highly mentioned issue, and a certain strategy for the relations between Budapest and Brussels should be developed. Otherwise, the chance of the new sanctions against Budapest significantly rises. One of the possible restrictive measures may be the application of the highly discussed Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union to Hungary, but most likely it will fail, as the Hungarian prime minister enjoys the wide support of Slovak leader – Robert Fico, who declared that Slovakia would not accept the elimination of member states’ veto power over decisions made by the majority under his direction. He also emphasized Slovakia’s and Hungary’s alliance in this regard. Also, the plan of sabotage of the Hungarian economy may be used in a very difficult scenario. It was previously discussed at the time of negotiations on aid for Ukraine, but it can be also used in the future to influence Orbán’s policy. It presumes, that Hungary’s economy will be the focus of this strategy, which will also aim to devalue the country’s currency and erode investor confidence.
Such restrictive measures of Brussels may bring opposite effects. Orbán and his party are supported by more than half of the Hungarian voters, therefore who support his anti-Brussels policy. The implementation of stronger sanctions on Budapest may give the Orbán carte blanche to form the final image of the evil Brussels in the eyes of the common Hungarians. Moreover, Budapest may even develop more controversial policies, which originally were the target of the sanctions. This, in turn, will not weaken the position of the Hungarian prime minister, but will increase the tensions between Brussels and Budapest, as Viktor Orbán will receive the image of the main fighter with “Brussel bureaucrats”.
Hungarian Opposition
Another important factor to mention is the effects of restrictive measures on the level of Hungarian opposition support. The Fidesz party has very specific supporters, who are in favor of national-interest policies and the constant fight with Brussels for national sovereignty. The current support of Fidesz, which has only slightly changed since the elections, reveals that even though the EU funding is restricted and Budapest is in constant opposition to the European Union, Orbán is still the most supported figure in Hungarian politics.
In case, some more restrictive measures are introduced, it is very likely that the change in the support of opposition parties will have a marginal effect. The current prime minister and the ruling party are controlling most of the media, therefore the news and the political situation would most probably presented in the light of Fidesz’s position. Even if the rise in support of opposition will be rising, it may be corrected and controlled by pro-government media. It is very unlikely, that supporters of Orbán, will change their side only because of the restrictive measures from “Brussels bureaucrats”, most likely the opposition will receive more support from the neutral voters, however, the government media will be used to marginalize both the opposition and Brussels.
The implications of Orbán’s policy on the affairs of Budapest and Brussels may be very different, given the current political strategy of Hungary will be used in the future, the European Union may witness a new wave of political crisis, as the major and open confrontation between Budapest and Brussels may significantly destabilize the internal politics of the European Union.
The contemporary policy of Viktor Orbán is very unique in different terms. Firstly, Hungary despite being a member of the European Union quite often fails to abide by its founding rules. Nonetheless, Budapest successfully managed to overcome Brussell’s financial disciplinary actions. To reduce the impact of the limitations put by the EU, Orbán is bargaining for his voice in the crucial decision-making process. Such political strategy is rather national-interest oriented than pro-Russian.
Conclusion
The common concept of the hostile policy of Hungary to the EU is slightly incorrect, as the national interests of Hungary are put in the very first place, and they quite often ignore the common position of the Union. In the light of such Hungary policy decisions, we can see how the relations between Budapest and Brussels are becoming tight, as it becomes harder and harder to find a consensus between the EU and national Hungarian interests. Viktor Orbán has a chance to become, the reason for the future political crisis in the EU, as no matter, what sanctions Brussels would implement as a response to his policies, the Hungarian prime minister may use them to finally unify his image of the opposition to the Brussels and enormously raise the price of the compromise between European Union and Budapest.