- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
April 13, 2026
On Sunday, it happened: Viktor Orban was defeated. In an election with the highest voter turnout in Hungarys democratic history, Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party won a two-thirds supermajority, enough to alter the constitution that Orban had rewritten to shore up his power.
Some admirers of Orban have argued that the fact that he lost proves he was never an autocrat to begin with. What it really demonstrates, however, is that opposition to Fidesz was so strong it was able to overwhelm all the structures Orban put in place to protect his rule: wildly distorted voting districts, a captured media, state-sponsored propaganda, local patronage networks, and widespread threats and intimidation.
You’re right on all fronts about me, but in my defense, I’ve given up on the War Crimes Times. So I take it that’s it’s a bad, which is better than worse? And Orban supporters think that he lost because Orban wasn’t bad/authoritarian enough?
He’s not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good. Sometimes a small w is all you’re going to get.
Which is what my initial question was. Is he actually “good” or is just “Not Orban”?
Not being Orban with different ideas on key points is certainly a big part of it. He does have political experience, says he wants to tackle corruption, is more pro-EU and perhaps Ukraine as well