Here is the inconvenient reality.
Viktor Orbán, whom you spent 16 years portraying as a “dictator,” lost an election and peacefully handed over power, despite your sustained efforts to discredit and politically isolate both him and Hungary - a country that, in the end, proved right on almost every major civilizational debate, from migration onward.
By contrast, the increasingly erratic political actor you have supported has moved quickly to destroy democratic competition. He has sought to exclude political opponents from elections, attacked constitutional institutions, and caused what is widely regarded as Hungary’s most serious constitutional crisis since 1989.
The story is simple: Hungary has moved from an illiberal democracy - which may not have been liberal, but remained a democracy - to an authoritarian liberal system. Across Europe, authoritarian liberal systems are increasingly working against the democratic will of the majority.
The central question, therefore, is this:
When democracy and so-called liberalism diverge, which one do you ultimately defend?
I think your answer to that question will reveal far more about you than it does about Hungary.
Hungary's longtime strongman Viktor Orbán spent 16 years building one of the world’s most prominent illiberal democracies.
Now, the country’s new prime minister, Péter Magyar, is trying to tear that old system down.
Can he do this while sticking to democratic norms?
My thoughts: