The Unruly Member: Orban, Hungary, and the EU Opposition Narrative

The recent debate around Viktor Orban and his opposition to EU policies has brought to light a tangled web of political maneuvering, economic realities, and national pride within the European Union. While some have labeled Orban as the epitome of an “unruly” member state, the truth is more nuanced, reflecting complex political tactics, historical narratives, and economic considerations.

Private Profits: Hungary's Financial Reality

Money and Budgets: The idea that Hungary is opposed to the EU purely because of a denial of financial support is a mischaracterization. Hungary has actually benefitted significantly from EU funding in the past and is set to do so in the future. According to data, Hungary received approximately 2 billion Euros in the 2014-2020 budget period, a sum that is not negligible for a country of its size. Moving forward, it is projected to receive around 102 billion Euros over the next years. This means that Hungary is negotiating with the EU very wisely, taking only as much as is necessary to maintain its financial health.

The upcoming EU Parliament will have a very different composition. With several parties closer to Fidesz (Orban's party) gaining a larger proportion, Hungary is set to thaw all its frozen funds effectively. This is a strategy that aligns with its economic interests, emphasizing the pragmatic nature of Hungary's dealings with the EU.

Orbán and the EU: A Dispute of Narratives

The Narrative of Resistance: Viktor Orban’s opposition to EU policies is often seen as resistance, but it is not so much a rejection of the EU as it is a political manipulation aimed at consolidating power within Hungary. Orbán’s rhetoric about being opposed to “everything” within the EU is a way to rally support and maintain control over the electorate. His narrative plays on a mix of historical grievances and contemporary issues to create a powerful discourse that resonates with parts of Hungarian society.

Orbán’s strategy is not about creating a dictatorship, but rather about leveraging nationalist sentiments to hold onto power. While his elections are not perfect, Hungary does have a semblance of democratic processes. The real challenge lies in the effectiveness of his narrative and the emotional appeal it holds for many Hungarians. This narrative serves to pit the nation against an external symbol of power, often represented by Brussels and its policies, thus creating a sense of unity and purpose.

Under the Surface: The Reality of Power in Hungary

Power Structures and Control: Beneath the surface of nationalist rhetoric, Hungary operates under a complex system of power. It is not a dictatorship, but rather a regime that uses personal loyalties, corrupt practices, and vague legal frameworks to maintain control. Personal loyalties to the political elite and their inner circles are prioritized over formal legal rules, and patriotic slogans often serve as a smokescreen for the accumulation of assets and power.

While there are no open acts of violence, the covert use of money as a tool for corruption is extensive. The system is designed to maintain a tight grip on the nation, with close to half of the population (his electoral base) seeming to accept or ignore these practices.

Historical and Modern Context

A Historical Legacy: Orban's narrative of national resistance is rooted in a historical legacy of foreign domination. Hungary has indeed been subject to various conquerors throughout history, including the Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Monarchy, and the Soviet Union. The current criticism from the EU can be seen as a continuation of this narrative, representing the triumph of Western hegemony and a loss of national autonomy.

However, it is important to note that Hungary's membership in the EU is a choice, and one that is not dictated by formal logic or external enforcement. It is a product of emotions and national pride, not formal agreements or legal frameworks.

Conclusion: A Balancing Act

Orban’s approach to the EU reflects a complex balancing act between nationalist sentiment, economic pragmatism, and the use of power to consolidate control. While there are questions about the true nature of his regime, it is clear that his strategy is effective in maintaining support from a significant portion of the Hungarian electorate. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for appreciating the complex interplay of politics, economics, and national pride in the European context.

In conclusion, the debate around Orban and Hungary’s opposition to the EU is not merely about official policies or economic disagreements. It is a story of national narrative, political pragmatism, and the intricate power dynamics that shape modern Europe.