Orbán's fall: It's the economy, stupid

For 16 years straight, Viktor Orbán was one of Europe's most enduring and controversial political figures; a leader who not only reshaped Hungary but also influenced the global rise of nationalist populism. But that long chapter has finally ended.

With record turnout, Hungarian voters ousted Orbán and his party, Fidesz, giving a decisive victory to Péter Magyar and his Respect and Freedom Party (Tisza). As Magyar declared to jubilant supporters in Budapest, "You have empowered us to build a functioning and humane country, for all of us."

With more than 5.9 million voters participating, the highest turnout since the fall of communism in 1989, Tisza secured 138 out of 199 seats, comfortably crossing the two-thirds threshold needed to amend the constitution. Fidesz, once politically dominant, was reduced to just 55 seats.

This was not just an electoral loss; it was a structural rupture in a system Orbán had spent over a decade and a half constructing.

How Orbán built power and why it collapsed

Orbán's political journey has always been in transformation. Once an anti-communist reformer, he returned to power in 2010 with a markedly different vision, which he called an "illiberal democracy."

From that point, his government systematically consolidated authority. 

Loyalists were installed across the judiciary, media, academia, and public administration. Electoral districts were redrawn, institutions reshaped, and the constitution rewritten to favour Fidesz dominance. The European Union would later label Hungary an "Electoral autocracy."

But the very mechanisms that secured his rule contributed to his downfall.

Orbán's manipulation of the electoral system, particularly gerrymandering designed to reward the largest party, amplified Magyar's landslide. With just over 53% of the vote, Tisza translated its support into a two-thirds parliamentary majority.

The deeper reasons were rooted in everyday discontent.

Economic stagnation, inflation, and declining public services eroded public trust. Growth had slowed to just 0.4% last year, while unemployment reached a decade high. Healthcare systems faltered, education weakened, and wages lagged behind rising costs.

At the same time, allegations of corruption became impossible to ignore. Orbán's government was accused of favouring loyalists and enabling a system of patronage. 

Sarah de Lange, an expert on the far right at the Netherlands' Leiden University, said in an interview with The Guardian, "Voters were reacting to anger at corruption benefiting Orbán's cronies; frustration with high prices, low wages and deteriorating public services."

Magyar's campaign capitalised on this frustration. He reframed democratic decline not as an abstract concern, but as a lived economic reality, contrasting stagnating living standards with the conspicuous wealth of the Fidesz elite.

Gábor Győri, a political analyst at the Policy Solutions research organisation in Budapest, told New York Times, "Tisza's supporters were very diverse and probably divided on many issues, but they all long for normalcy, meaning moving away from constant hysteria and toward a governmental focus on everyday issues."

Failure and foreign influence

Orbán's final campaign relied heavily on familiar tactics: portraying external threats and leveraging international alliances.

He warned voters that Ukraine and the European Union posed existential dangers. He claimed Kyiv was undermining Hungary's energy security. Yet these arguments failed to resonate.

More striking was the failure of unprecedented international support.

The Trump administration actively intervened. It granted Hungary a one-year exemption from US sanctions to allow continued Russian oil purchases. The White House publicly highlighted bilateral partnerships to boost Orbán's standing.

Five days before the vote, US Vice President JD Vance travelled to Hungary to campaign for him. Donald Trump himself called into a Budapest rally, offering lavish praise.

None of it mattered. Nor did support from Moscow. 

Vladimir Putin signalled continued oil deliveries, while concerns emerged in the European Parliament about potential Kremlin interference.

Again, it failed.

Daniel Hegedüs, director of Central European policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told NYT, "Orbán's defeat might come with the lesson learned, that what other illiberal, radical-right politicians consider to be a blueprint is not necessarily functioning."

Key takeaways from Orbán's defeat

Economic concerns ultimately outweighed ideological loyalties in shaping voter behaviour. Rather than being driven by nationalist rhetoric or identity politics, many Hungarians cast their ballots based on material realities. 

Rising inflation, economic hardship, and the deterioration of public services created a sense of urgency that ideological messaging could not override. This shift highlights how, even in politically polarised environments, everyday economic pressures can become the decisive factor in elections.

Anti-corruption narratives also played a crucial role in influencing the outcome. Péter Magyar's campaign strongly emphasised issues of corruption and governance, striking a chord with voters who had grown disillusioned with long-standing allegations against the ruling establishment. 

The new leadership must demonstrate tangible reforms and prove to voters that their demand for accountability and transparency will translate into real change.

With more than 5.9 million voters participating, the highest turnout since the fall of communism in 1989, Tisza secured 138 out of 199 seats, comfortably crossing the two-thirds threshold needed to amend the constitution. Fidesz, once politically dominant, was reduced to just 55 seats.

The election further showed the limitations of fear-based politics. Viktor Orbán's attempts to mobilise voters by framing external threats, particularly relating to Ukraine, did not generate the level of support his campaign had anticipated. 

While such strategies have been effective in the past, this time they appeared insufficient against the pressing domestic concerns facing the electorate, suggesting that fear-driven narratives may have diminishing returns when economic dissatisfaction runs deep.

Finally, the results underscored that external political backing does not guarantee electoral victory. Despite perceived support from major global powers, including Washington and Moscow, Hungarian voters remained primarily focused on internal issues affecting their daily lives. 

What this means for the EU

Orbán's defeat marks a turning point for the European Union, politically, institutionally, and symbolically.

For years, Hungary under Orbán had obstructed EU initiatives, particularly on foreign policy and Ukraine. His government vetoed sanctions packages and delayed a €90 billion loan for Kyiv.

Magyar's victory changes that equation.

His government is expected to unblock support for Ukraine and align more closely with NATO allies. He has pledged to restore relations within the alliance and increase defence spending to meet NATO's 5% target.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's push to eliminate national vetoes in foreign policy may also gain momentum, a reform partly inspired by Orbán's obstructionism.

Yet the implications go beyond policy. Still, caution remains.

Magyar himself is not an uncomplicated ally. He has opposed fast-tracking Ukraine's EU accession and insists on a referendum. Moreover, possessing a two-thirds majority raises concerns about how Tisza might use its power.

A blow to the far right, but not its end

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk hailed it as proof that the world is no longer "Condemned to authoritarian and corrupt governments." 

Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz called it "A clear signal against rightwing populism" showing "the pendulum is swinging back."

But experts urge restraint.

Sarah de Lange described the moment as symbolic, "Europe's longest-serving far-right leader, the inspiration for them all, was defeated — even when the system was rigged in his favour."

Yet she added a crucial caveat: "not the defeat of his illiberal ideological model."

Gabriela Greilinger, a doctoral researcher specialising in Europe's far right at the University of Georgia, shared the same warning  in a report of The Guardian, "We really shouldn't overestimate the impact… this wasn't the defeat of the far right, it was the defeat of Orbán's kleptocratic, clientelistic, corrupt government."

Voters were reacting to anger at corruption benefiting Orbán's cronies; frustration with high prices, low wages and deteriorating public services.

Sarah de Lange, expert on the far right at the Netherlands' Leiden University

Indeed, the structural conditions that fuel far-right support, economic dissatisfaction, and distrust in institutions remain intact.

Leonie de Jonge, an expert on the far right at the University of Tübingen in Germany, also reinforced this caution in the same report, "The undoubted short-term symbolic impact… doesn't mean there's going to be some kind of domino effect."

Ripple effects in the US

Orbán's defeat also carries significant implications across the Atlantic.

For years, he has been a political icon for US conservatives, particularly those aligned with Donald Trump. His governance has often been cited as a model.

The Trump administration's overt support during the election only deepened that connection.

Yet the result exposed clear limits. As Steven Levitsky, a politics professor at Harvard, noted, "Oppositions can win despite a tilted playing field." The outcome also highlighted the constraints of US influence abroad, particularly amid global instability.

Republican Congressman Don Bacon said, "Don't fiddle-paddle in other democracies' elections."

Senator Roger Wicker framed the result differently: "The freedom-loving people of Hungary have voted decisively in favor of democracy and the rule of law."

For Democrats, Senator Chris Van Hollen argued, "He was essentially doing what Donald Trump is trying to do… My read of the election is that the people of Hungary rejected that."

Russia's waning influence

Perhaps the most geopolitically significant outcome is in what this election means for Russia.

Orbán had long been Moscow's closest ally within the EU. He blocked sanctions, delayed aid to Ukraine, and maintained Hungary's dependence on Russian energy.

His defeat alters that dynamic.

Magyar has pledged to end Russian influence and restore alignment with NATO and EU partners. This could enable new sanctions and strengthen Europe's unified stance against Moscow.

Orbán's loss also reflects a broader trend: far-right parties closely aligned with Russia are underperforming compared to those maintaining distance.

At the same time, Hungary's dependence on Russian hydrocarbons remains a challenge. Transitioning away will require both domestic reform and EU support.

Still, the direction is clear. Orbán's fall does not just open a door for Europe, it closes one for Russia.