Srl | Item |
1 |
ID:
138181
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse,” as Edmund Burke warned us, and sure enough the recentralization of political and economic power in Hungary under the post-2010 governments of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has reversed many of the gains of the 1989 revolution. The Polish anticommunist dissident Adam Michnik, a great hero to the younger, more liberal Orbán, once argued that nationalism was the last stage of communism: Both could deploy demagogic language denouncing “the enemies of the people,” but the prioritization of national pride was a far more malleable proposition than the achievement of communism. What needs to be explained, therefore, is how, over 20 years after becoming the first country to cut a hole in the Iron Curtain (by allowing East Germans to cross the border into Austria), Hungary has been returned to authoritarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
ID:
177849
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
This article focuses on the challenge of illiberalism to democracy, even though the nature of this contestation is ambiguous. The illiberal critique of liberal democracy is contextualised using conceptual history and two major ‘political credit ratings’, namely the Democracy Index and the Freedom in the World Report. Empirically we concentrate on Hungarian politics, which we consider to be an example of soft authoritarianism, drawing on two key speeches by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: his launch of the idea of the ‘illiberal state’ in 2014 and his emphasis on ‘Christian democracy’ after the 2018 election campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
ID:
185752
|
|
|
Summary/Abstract |
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán rails against migration from countries outside of Europe, yet he has been eager to grant citizenship to Hungarian-speakers from countries in the near abroad. Like other populist conservative leaders in the region, he promotes a fortress mentality, based on fear of an “uncertain world,” to remake his country—renewing strategies pursued by Hungarian governments in the early twentieth century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|