Two sides on Hungary
An election crucial to Europe's future divides Christians
Hungary premier Viktor Orban and US vice president JD Vance at yesterday’s rally. Source: NBC News.
This Sunday, April 12, Hungarians will vote in national elections. Polls indicate that Viktor Orban, Hungary’s premier since 2010, and his Fidesz party are likely to lose to upstart Peter Magyar, who defected from Fidesz two years ago, and the Tisza party.
Just about everything I read about Hungary suggests that banishing Orban and Fidesz from power would be good for Hungary and for Europe. One article described the country as “an autocratic, kleptocratic mafia state, where all the levers of power are controlled behind the scenes by a single man.” An assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies describes in depth the actions that have caused the Orban government to be called a “patronage state” and the first regime in the European Union to be widely classified as an autocracy.
Moreover, Orban has become a thorn in the democratic West’s side by continuing to purchase Russian oil and blocking European Union aid to Ukraine.
US vice president JD Vance spoke on Orban’s behalf in Hungary yesterday; if I needed any further motivation to hope for Orban’s defeat, Vance’s support for him provided it. While visiting a foreign nation five days before its election, Vance amazingly stated, “We want you to make a decision about your future with no outside forces pressuring you or telling you what to do.” He was intending to criticize alleged European Union interference in the Hungarian election, but I’ve learned that when you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.
So one might assume that all people of good will are hoping and praying for a Magyar victory this Sunday. But some people of good will have highlighted positive features of Orban’s work. In 2024, the International Journal of Religious Freedom published an article on Hungary Helps, an international development program started in 2017. Hungary Helps assists members of communities facing humanitarian crises, including persecuted religious minorities, so that they can continue to live in their native country. Cynics might say this initiative is conveniently aligned with Orban’s attempts to control immigration into Europe, but the author of the IJRF article viewed it as a positive model.
Recently, an excellent Christian scholar who lives in Hungary told me he was generally supportive of Orban, so I asked him to explain further. My acquaintance said that although some Hungarian Christians see signs of corruption and favoritism in their government, many appreciate his affirmation of Christian identity, his pro-marriage family policy, and his opposition to illegal immigration. (I realize that some of my readers would not be enthusiastic about Orban’s policies even if they were enacted by purely democratic means.) Another European friend told me evangelicals appreciated Orban’s support for pro-life education in schools.
My Hungarian acquaintance added that Magyar, Orban’s opponent, has a right-of-center orientation and would likely retain many of Orban’s policies, although he would pursue closer collaboration with the European Union and be less friendly to Moscow. A shift from Orban to Magyar would not be as dramatic ideologically as what happens when power shifts from Republicans to Democrats or vice versa in the US.
Some lessons from this example:
No politician is perfect and almost no politician is the embodiment of pure evil. We should expect that even when we think the right choice is clear, other Christians may see things differently.
Making honest, responsible political assessments requires us to acknowledge when a regime we don’t like does something good. It also means not turning a blind eye to the evils of a bad regime because it does some things we like.
Liberal democracy is not the highest ethical principle. Permitting citizens to participate in their government is generally good, but there are times when other values might reasonably claim precedence. Few have complained that Zelensky has declined to hold elections while Ukraine is under siege.
The use of authoritarian means to achieve political victory is rarely if ever justified, especially for Christians. If we are widely perceived as using force, cheating, or changing the rules in our favor in order to retain political power, what lasting good can we possibly achieve with that power? Unless you think the Inquisition was good for Christianity, why would you want to replicate it today?