MACARİSTAN’DA POPÜLİST SİYASETİN YÜKSELİŞİ VE DIŞ POLİTİKAYA YANSIMALARI: VİKTOR ORBÁN DÖNEMİ

Öz

Macaristan, Viktor Orbán liderliğindeki Fidesz hükümetleri döneminde köklü bir siyasi ve idari paradigma değişimine uğramıştır. Bu süreç, literatürde sıklıkla tartışılan "illiberal demokrasi" modelinin kurumsallaşması ve devlet-toplum ilişkilerinin yeniden yapılandırılması ile karakterize edilmektedir. Bu çalışma, Fidesz’in pragmatik bir merkez partiden radikal popülist bir harekete evrimini; salt konjonktürel siyasi manevralarla değil, 1990’ların post-komünist geçiş sürecinin getirdiği yapısal sancılar ve Avrupa Birliği entegrasyonuyla eş zamanlı ortaya çıkan sosyo-ekonomik dengesizliklerin yarattığı toplumsal zemin üzerinden okumaktadır. Analiz kapsamında, 2010 sonrası dönemde yürürlüğe konan anayasal reformlar ve yasal düzenlemelerin, yürütme erkinin yasama, yargı ve medya üzerindeki denetimini artırarak merkezi iktidarı nasıl konsolide ettiği irdelenmektedir. Araştırma ayrıca, Budapeşte’nin dış politikasındaki stratejik dönüşümü; Avrupa Birliği ile yaşanan normatif gerilimlerin ötesinde, "Doğu’ya Açılım" ve "Bağlantısallık" (Connectivity) doktrinleri çerçevesinde ele almaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Rusya ve Çin gibi küresel güçlerle geliştirilen pragmatik ilişkilerin, Batı ittifakından ideolojik bir kopuş olmaktan ziyade, ulusal çıkarları maksimize etmeyi amaçlayan bir "stratejik otonomi" ve jeopolitik çeşitlendirme arayışı olduğu savunulmaktadır. Nitel araştırma yöntemiyle desenlenen bu çalışmada Macaristan vakası, liberal demokrasinin küresel ölçekteki erozyonunu ve çok kutuplu dünya düzeninde orta ölçekli devletlerin adaptasyon stratejilerini anlamlandırmak adına ampirik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Macaristan
• Viktor Orbán
• popülizm
• Doğu’ya açılım
• bağlantısallık
• Fidesz

Hungary's Shift to the Far Right and the Viktor Orbán Era (1998-2025)

Öz

Hungary has undergone a profound political and administrative paradigm shift during the era of Fidesz governments led by Viktor Orbán. This process is characterized by the institutionalization of the "illiberal democracy" model, frequently discussed in the literature, and the restructuring of state-society relations. This study examines the evolution of Fidesz from a pragmatic centrist party to a radical populist movement; not merely through conjunctural political maneuvers, but through the lens of structural challenges inherited from the post-communist transition of the 1990s and the social context created by socio-economic imbalances emerging simultaneously with European Union integration. Within the scope of the analysis, it is scrutinized how constitutional reforms and legal regulations enacted in the post-2010 period consolidated central power by increasing the executive branch's control over the legislature, judiciary, and media. Furthermore, the research addresses the strategic transformation in Budapest's foreign policy within the framework of the "Eastern Opening" and "Connectivity" doctrines, extending beyond the normative tensions experienced with the European Union. In this context, it is argued that the pragmatic relations developed with global powers such as Russia and China represent a quest for "strategic autonomy" and geopolitical diversification aimed at maximizing national interests, rather than an ideological rupture from the Western alliance. Designed using a qualitative research method, this study presents the case of Hungary as an empirical framework for understanding the global erosion of liberal democracy and the adaptation strategies of middle powers in a multipolar world order.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hungary
• Viktor Orbán
• populism
• eastern opening
• connectivity
• Fidesz.

Kaynakça

1. Ágh, A. (2017). Cultural war and reinventing the past in Poland and Hungary: The politics of historical memory in East–Central Europe. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 45, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2016003
2. Ahmed, R. & Pisoiu, D. (2020). Uniting the far right, s. How the far-right extremist, new right, and populist frames overlap on Twitter – A German case study. European Societies, 23(2), 232–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1818112
3. Anghel, V., & Jones, E. (2024). What went wrong in Hungary. Journal of Democracy, 35(2), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2024.a922833
4. Arato, A. (2010). Post-sovereign constitution-making in Hungary: After success, partial failure, and now what? South African Journal on Human Rights, 26(1), 19-44.
5. Bakke, E. W., & Sitter, N. (2020). The EU’s enfants terribles, s. Democratic backsliding in Central Europe since 2010. Perspectives on Politics, 20(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592720001292
6. Balázs, O. (2023). Huszárvágás: A magyar konnektivitás stratégiája [The Hungarian Strategy of Connectivity]. MCC Press.
7. Bánkuti, M., Halmai, G., & Scheppele, K. L. (2012). Hungary’s Illiberal Turn: Disabling the Constitution. Journal of Democracy, 23(3), 138-146.
8. Beger, P. (2023). Hungary's asylum and migration policy, s. Transformation in three phases. (Ed. In E. Bos & A. Lorenz), Politics and society in Hungary, s. (De)Democratization, Orbán, and the EU (189–206). Wiesbaden, s. Springer.

9. Benczes, R., & Szabó, L. P. (2020). Brussels – Boss, bully or the big brother? Jezikoslovlje, 21(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.29162/jez.2020.11
10. Bíró‐Nagy, A. (2016). Hungarian asylum law and policy in 2015–2016, s. Securitization instead of loyal cooperation. German Law Journal, 17(6), 1033–1082. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200021581
11. Bíró‐Nagy, A. (2021). Orbán’s political jackpot, s. Migration and the Hungarian electorate. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(2), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183x.2020.1853905
12. Bobbio, N. (1996). Left and right, s. The significance of a political distinction (A. Cameron, Trans. & Intro.). University of Chicago Press.
13. Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2012). Capitalist diversity on Europe's periphery. Cornell University Press.
14. Bozóki, A. (2015). Broken democracy, predatory state and nationalist populism. Athenaeum. Polish Political Science Studies, 48, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2015.48.16
15. Bozóki, A., & Hegedüs, D. (2018). An externally constrained hybrid regime, s. Hungary in the European Union. Democratization, 25(7), 1173–1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2018.1455664
16. Closa, C. (2018). The politics of guarding the treaties, s. Commission scrutiny of rule of law compliance. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(5), 696–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1477822
17. Cornelius, D. S. (2011). Hungary in World War II, s. Caught in the cauldron. Fordham University Press.
18. Deruelle, T. & Engeli, I. (2021). The COVID‐19 crisis and the rise of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). West European Politics, 44(5–6), 1376–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1930426
19. Durakçay, F. A. (2023). The European Union’s policies to protect the rule of law in the case of democratic backsliding in Hungary. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 10(22), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.58884/akademik-hassasiyetler.1295652
20. Emmons, C. & Pavone, T. (2020). The rhetoric of inactivity: Failing to enforce European Union law. Journal of European Public Policy.
21. Fabry, A. (2018). Neoliberalism, crisis and authoritarian–ethnicist reaction, s. The ascendancy of the Orbán regime. Competition & Change, 23(2), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024529418813834
22. Gattinara, P. C., & Froio, C. (2023). When the far right makes the news, s. Protest characteristics and media coverage of far-right mobilization in Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 57(3), 419–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231169029
23. Gómez, R., Mustillo, T., & Vercesi, M. (2023). Political developments and data in 2022, s. Introducing the 2023 political data yearbook. European Journal of Political Research Political Data Yearbook, 62(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-8852.12431
24. Goniewicz, K. vd. (2020). Current response and management decisions of the European Union to the COVID-19 outbreak, s. A review. Sustainability, 12(9), 3838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093838
25. Goodman, S. (2020). The rhetorical use of the threat of the far‐right in the UK Brexit debate. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3), 1012–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12432
26. Greskovits, B. (1998). The political economy of protest and patience: East European and Latin American transformations compared. Central European University Press.
27. Gyöngyösi, G. & Verner, E. (2021). Financial crisis, creditor-debtor conflict, and populism. Journal of Finance. (Forthcoming). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289741
28. Hajnal, G., & Hajnal, Á. (2023). Economics, ideas or institutions? Agencification through government-owned enterprises in illiberal contexts, s. The case of Hungary. Public Policy and Administration, 39(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221144346
29. Halikiopoulou, D., & Vasilopoulou, S. (2016). Breaching the social contract, s. Crises of democratic representation and patterns of extreme right party support. Government and Opposition, 53(1), 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2015.43
30. Halikiopoulou, D., & Vlandas, T. (2020). When economic and cultural interests align, s. The anti-immigration voter coalitions driving far right party success in Europe. European Political Science Review, 12(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s175577392000020x
31. Halmai, G. (2018). The possibility and desirability of rule of law conditionality. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 11(1), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0077-2
32. Hoffmann, T. & Gárdos-Orosz, F. (2022). Populism and Law in Hungary – Introduction to the Special Issue. Review of Central and East European Law, 47(1), 1-11.
33. Hoxhaj, A. (2021). The CJEU in Commission v Hungary higher education defends academic freedom through WTO provisions. Modern Law Review, 85(3), 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12686
34. Jenne, E. K. & Mudde, C. (2012). Hungary’s illiberal turn, s. Can outsiders help? Journal of Democracy, 23(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2012.0057
35. Jonge, L. de. (2018). The populist radical right and the media in the Benelux, s. Friend or foe? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 24(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218821098
36. Jost, J. T., & Kende, A. (2019). Setting the record straight, s. System justification and rigidity‐of‐the‐right in contemporary Hungarian politics. International Journal of Psychology, 55(S1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12631
37. Kelemen, R. D. (2017). Europe’s other democratic deficit, s. National authoritarianism in Europe’s democratic union. Government and Opposition, 52(2), 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.41
38. Kende, A., Hadarics, M., & Szabó, Z. P. (2018). Inglorious glorification and attachment, s. National and European identities as predictors of anti‐ and pro‐immigrant attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12280
39. Korkut, U. (2020). Hungary’s Viktor Orbán now rules by decree in troubling example of how coronavirus fear enables authoritarians to tighten their grip. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/hungarys-viktor-orban-now-rules-by-decree-in-troubling-example-of-how-coronavirus-fear-enables-authoritarians-to-tighten-their-grip-135252
40. Körösényi, A., Illés, G., & Gyulai, A. (2020). The Orbán regime: Plebiscitary leader democracy in the making. Routledge.
41. Lendvai, P. (2017). Orbán, s. Europe’s new strongman. New York, s. Oxford University Press.
42. Lindstrom, N. (2020). Aiding the state, s. Administrative capacity and creative compliance with European state aid rules in new member states. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(11), 1789–1806. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1791935
43. Lorenz, A. & Bos, E. (2023). (De-)Democratization in Hungary, party competition, and structural constraints. (Ed. In E. Bos & A. Lorenz), Politics and society in Hungary, s. (De-)Democratization, Orbán, and the EU (1–21). Wiesbaden, s. Springer.
44. Molnár, G. & Whigham, S. (2019). Radical right populist politics in Hungary, s. Reinventing the Magyars through sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 56(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219891656
45. Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.
46. Müller, P. & Gazsi, D. (2022). Populist capture of foreign policy institutions, s. The Orbán government and the de‐Europeanization of Hungarian foreign policy. JCMS, s. Journal of Common Market Studies, 61(2), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13377
47. Naím, M. (2022). The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century. St. Martin’s Press.
48. Ozer, S., Gunes Gulal, A. G. & Polat, Y. K. (2023). The Rule of Law in the Grip of Populist Authoritarianism: Hungary and Poland. Politics & Policy, 51, 936–959.
49. Öner, S. (2015). Different manifestations of the rise of far-right in European politics, s. The cases of Germany and Austria. Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 22(2), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.29228/mjes.86
50. Palonen, E. (2013). Millennial politics of architecture, s. Myths and nationhood in Budapest. Nationalities Papers, 41(4), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2012.743509
51. PASOS. (2023). Hungary’s future: anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism and anti-Roma?. Policy Association for an Open Society.
52. Pech, L. (2010). ‘A union founded on the rule of law’, s. Meaning and reality of the rule of law as a constitutional principle of EU law. European Constitutional Law Review, 6(3), 359–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1574019610300034
53. Popping, R. (2012). Democratic transformation in Hungary 1990–1997, s. A cross examination. Quality & Quantity, 47(5), 2415–2424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9661-z
54. Popping, R., & Roberts, C. W. (2020). Political rhetoric in the Hungarian press during the communist regime. Journalism, 21(10), 1502–1521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917728595
55. Pospieszna, P. & Weber, P. (2020). Amplifying and nullifying the impact of democratic sanctions through aid to civil society. International Interactions, 46(5), 724–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050629.2020.1791108
56. Priebus, S. & Anders, L. H. (2023). Fundamental change beneath the surface, s. The supranationalisation of rule of law protection in the European Union. JCMS, s. Journal of Common Market Studies, 62(1), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13489
57. Richardson, J. & Wodak, R. (2022). Anti-Sorosism. In Discourses of the Populist Radical Right (pp. 395–420). https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.17ric
58. Scheiring, G. (2020). The retreat of liberal democracy: Authoritarian capitalism and the accumulative state in Hungary. Palgrave Macmillan.
59. Sebők, M., Horváth, A. & Balázs, Á. M. (2018). Electoral reforms, entry barriers and the structure of political markets, s. A comparative analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 741–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12309
60. Sedelmeier, U. (2016). Political safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU, s. The limits of material sanctions and the scope of social pressure. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(3), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1229358
61. Szabó, Z. P. & Lönnqvist, J.‐E. (2021). Who’s in power matters, s. System justification and system derogation in Hungary between 2002 and 2018. International Journal of Psychology, 56(5), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12747
62. Şahin, K. (2007). Bir ideoloji olarak “Milliyetçilik”. Akademik Bakış, s. Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler E‐Dergisi, (12), İktisat ve Girişimcilik Üniversitesi – Türk Dünyası Kırgız – Türk Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
63. Tok, G. C. (2018). Göçün siyasallaşması ve Macaristan’da rekabetçi otoriterliğin yükselişi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (2018), 88–117. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.420805
64. Treaty on European Union. (2012). Article 7 – Suspension clause. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/suspension-clause-article-7-of-the-treaty-on-european-union.html
65. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (2016). Article 354. OJ C 202, 7.6.2016, p. 197. https://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/art_354/oj
66. Vidnianskyi, S. (2024). ‘This is not our war’, s. The position of Hungary on Russia’s war against Ukraine and its impact on regional security. Diplomatic Ukraine, XXV, 717–730. https://doi.org/10.37837/2707-7683-2024-28
67. Waters, K. & Call, S. (2024). The European Union as a target, s. When do democratic backsliders rhetorically challenge the EU? JCMS, s. Journal of Common Market Studies, 63(3), 683–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13641
68. Williamson, S. R., Jr. (2014). 1914, s. Austria-Hungary, the origins, and the first year of World War I. (Ed. In G. Bischof & F. Karlhofer), Contemporary Austrian studies, s. Vol. 23 (pp. 22–24). UNO Press; Innsbruck University Press.
69. Winslow, A. (2016). Shifting immigration policies in response to the Syrian refugee crisis across the European Union, s. A case analysis of Germany, Hungary, and Lithuania. Claremont-UC Undergraduate Research Conference on the European Union, 2016(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.5642/urceu.201601.09
70. Wondreys, J. (2023). Putin’s puppets in the West? The far right’s reaction to the 2022 Russian (re)invasion of Ukraine. Party Politics, 31(2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231210502
71. Yılmaz, E. (2024). 1780’den günümüze Milletler ve Milliyetçilik “Program, Mit, Gerçeklik”. Milliyetçilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 133-139. https://doi.org/10.53425/madergisi.1448024