Orban vs Madyar: Former MP Outlines Three Scenarios Following Hungarian Elections

In her analysis for the think tank Carnegie Europe, Zsuzsanna Selényi, a research fellow at the Central European University’s Institute for Democracy and a former member of the Hungarian Parliament, examines three possible scenarios for the political landscape in Hungary following the parliamentary elections set for April 12. According to Selényi, the opposition party 'Tisa', led by Peter Madyar, currently enjoys a substantial lead over the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, 'Fidesz'. In a typical democratic political system, such a gap would usually indicate an inevitable transfer of power; however, for Hungary, this is no longer a conventional political system.

Selényi emphasizes that during Orban's 16 years in power, he has dismantled the separation of powers and institutional neutrality. She points out that state institutions, budgetary funds, regulatory bodies, and government-affiliated media no longer function as neutral arbiters but have become tools for the political survival of 'Fidesz'. This, in her view, significantly complicates the possibility of a change of power in the country.

Regarding the election outcomes, Selényi outlines three potential scenarios. The first scenario envisions a dominant 'Tisa', which could transform a relatively modest electoral advantage into decisive institutional control. She believes this is the clearest path to a transfer of power, as many levers of governance remain under the control of 'Fidesz' appointees. She notes that a victory for 'Tisa' without such a mandate could lead to paralysis in governance and a struggle between electoral legitimacy and entrenched state power.

The second scenario suggests that the opposition could secure a simple majority but become nearly ineffective. This could result in political stagnation, as the opposition would be unable to implement its programs without sufficient support from state institutions. The third scenario posits that 'Tisa' could receive more votes, but 'Fidesz', along with the far-right movement 'Our Homeland', could form a coalition and achieve a parliamentary majority. This would also complicate matters for the opposition.

Selényi believes that even in the event of an opposition victory, the desired changes may not occur swiftly. She notes that issues related to the rule of law, corruption, and relations with Brussels could be resolved quickly, as Hungary under 'Tisa' would likely begin cooperating with the European Union, join the European Prosecutor's Office, and attempt to unlock frozen funds. However, matters concerning migration, energy, and support for Ukraine would require more time to address.

Selényi also highlights that years of anti-Ukrainian messaging and the opacity of Hungary's relations with Russian energy complicate any shift in position in the short term. Meanwhile, regardless of the election outcomes, Hungarian politics will not revert to a normal agenda. Even if 'Fidesz' wins again, it may no longer be able to govern with the same confidence or authority, as it appears to no longer enjoy the active support of a majority.

In this context, Selényi notes that the elections are not just about changing the government but also about undermining the social legitimacy of the regime. She has previously stated that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban portrays Ukraine not as a victim of Russian aggression but as a source of danger to his country. Orban has once again resorted to claims of alleged Ukrainian interference in Hungary's internal affairs and has criticized the Ukrainian government and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Peter Madyar, the leader of the Hungarian opposition party 'Tisa', also emphasized that the upcoming parliamentary elections will serve as a de facto referendum on the country’s foreign policy—whether to return to democratic Europe or move towards an authoritarian regime. These elections could prove decisive for Hungary's future and its place in European politics.