By Matt Underwood It’s certainly looking like a pivotal moment is approaching in Hungary, with the opposition party Tisza seeing its lead widen considerably ahead of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party. This shift in the political landscape is generating a significant amount of hope and discussion, as many observers express a strong desire to see a change in leadership after years of Fidesz rule. The prevailing sentiment seems to be one of cautious optimism, with a deep-seated wish for Hungary to regain its freedom and break away from what some perceive as a Russian-aligned path.
For those less familiar with Hungarian politics, a natural question arises: how does Tisza differ from Fidesz? While Orbán is often characterized as a figure with strong ties to Russia and a supporter of “MAGA” ideologies, Tisza is presented as a distinct alternative. Its program, broadly described as “The Foundations of a Functioning and Humane Hungary,” suggests a move towards a more centrist, pro-European Union stance. Tisza aims to rebuild systems that have been, in its view, dismantled or deregulated under Fidesz, with a particular focus on anti-corruption initiatives aligned with EU standards.
A key differentiator highlighted is Tisza’s alleged lack of deep entanglement with Russia, in stark contrast to Fidesz. This pro-EU orientation is seen as crucial, with many hoping that a Tisza victory would allow Hungary to assert a stronger, independent voice within the EU, perhaps even enabling it to tell Russia to “go f*** himself,” as one perspective puts it. The party also proposes reforms like term limits for the Prime Minister and limitations on politicians’ personal income, alongside the potential introduction of a wealth tax on billionaires to fund education and public health. While still holding a generally anti-immigration stance and not being overly strong on civil rights by some non-American standards, Tisza is considered a significant improvement over Fidesz in these areas.
However, the prospect of election rigging remains a significant concern for many, casting a shadow over even the most encouraging poll numbers. While the actual counting of votes within Hungary is reportedly open to observers from various parties, NGOs, and the EU, ensuring a level of transparency at the ballot box itself, the rigging is perceived to be more insidious and systemic. This “rigging” isn’t necessarily about stuffing ballot boxes or forging votes in a crude manner, but rather a comprehensive manipulation of the political environment over years.
This systemic manipulation takes several forms, creating an uneven playing field long before any votes are cast. For instance, laws have been altered to require two-thirds majorities for certain decisions, effectively limiting the power of future governments. Key public officials are appointed to long-term positions, ensuring loyalists remain in place regardless of election outcomes. Public assets, including universities and state shares, are transferred to private foundations controlled by government allies. A “winner compensation” mechanism in the electoral system disproportionately benefits the largest party, making it easier to achieve a supermajority.
The electoral map itself is a significant point of contention, with gerrymandering favoring the ruling party by creating opposition-leaning districts with larger populations, thus diluting the impact of opposition votes. Furthermore, constituencies with lower socioeconomic status and education levels, which tend to have smaller populations, have their votes carrying more weight, aligning perfectly with Fidesz’s core voter base in rural areas. Public resources and state advertising funds are also selectively channeled to pro-government media and NGOs. The prosecution service is seen as a politically motivated tool, used to launch investigations that criminalize and discredit opposition figures during campaigns.
In the lead-up to elections, budgetary resources are often distributed in a highly targeted manner to sway voters. The postal voting system is particularly flagged for its lack of regulation, allowing pro-government organizations to collect ballots en masse, and the registry has included deceased individuals, leaving their ballots vulnerable to misuse. Cross-border voters are sometimes organized and registered at fictitious addresses to influence crucial swing districts, and financially vulnerable voters, especially those reliant on public works programs, face pressure and direct vote buying.
Despite these concerns about systemic rigging, it’s important to note that once votes are cast within Hungary, they are generally considered secure. The fear is that if Fidesz were to lose, they would immediately cry foul, claiming fraud influenced by Brussels, Soros, or Zelensky, in a manner reminiscent of Trump-style rhetoric. The stakes are perceived as incredibly high, suggesting that Orbán and his party will “go all in” to maintain power. This deeply felt concern about election integrity leads some to believe that Orbán will not willingly let the opposition win, questioning whether having the most votes would even matter.
The comparison to past elections, particularly the 2022 Hungarian elections, is frequently drawn. In 2022, major pollsters accurately predicted a 10% lead for Fidesz by February, and the opposition was fractured. This time, however, the situation is starkly different. The same pollsters are reporting a substantial 20% lead for Tisza, indicating a strong, competent, and well-positioned opposition. This significant swing suggests that even with the existing structural advantages for the incumbent, Tisza’s current momentum could be a game-changer. The hope is that this lead is not only real but substantial enough to overcome any potential attempts to manipulate the outcome, leading to a genuine transfer of power and a more hopeful future for Hungary.