Two parallel analyses, conducted in distinct but converging contexts, outline the historic scope of the government change in Hungary: on one side, the political reading by Hans Blomeier, director of the Budapest office of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Kas), a think tank close to the German CDU; on the other, the economic-financial interpretation by András Simor, former governor of the Hungarian National Bank between 2007 and 2013. The two interventions, presented respectively at an event organized by Kas in Brussels and in a discussion promoted by the Polish think tank Visegrad Inside in Warsaw, with both experts connected from the Hungarian capital, provide a detailed picture of the victory of the Tisza party led by Péter Magyar and the challenges awaiting the country.
AN UNPRECEDENTED POLITICAL TURN
According to Blomeier, the Hungarian parliamentary elections mark “a historic turning point” in the national political landscape. The turnout, close to 80%, represents an absolute record and testifies to an unprecedented level of mobilization. The result was clear: Tisza won 138 seats out of 199, obtaining a two-thirds majority never even reached by Fidesz in its best years. “The map of the country has almost entirely turned blue,” notes Blomeier, emphasizing how out of 106 single-member constituencies, 93 were won by Magyar’s movement.
The electoral campaign saw diametrically opposed strategies. Viktor Orban’s party focused on foreign policy issues and rhetoric centered on the risk of war (with Ukraine), while Magyar favored a grassroots and concrete approach, concentrating on health, education, economy, and pensions. For over a year he traveled the country meeting citizens directly, building a relationship that, according to Blomeier, “proved decisive.”
The new Parliament appears strongly homogeneous: besides Tisza and Fidesz, only the far-right party Mi Hazank managed to surpass the threshold. No left-wing or green forces will be represented, configuring a political setup entirely located in the center-right area.
THE ECONOMIC DIMENSION OF THE CHANGE
While Blomeier highlights the political significance of the vote, Simor underlines its structural character on the economic and social level. Tisza’s victory represents, in his view, “a true revolution,” matured after decades in which Hungarian democracy had not been fully internalized. The most significant data is the mobilization: over three million votes and 50,000 volunteers involved in the electoral campaign, a sign of the birth of a more active civil society.
Simor interprets the result as “the triumph of hope over fear,” referring to an electoral campaign dominated by the warlike rhetoric of the outgoing government. However, he points out that Fidesz maintains a consistent electoral base, with over two million votes, about 36-37%.
From an economic point of view, voters’ motivations appear clear: “high inflation, cost of living, state of public services, and quality of institutions.” Relations with the European Union, although relevant, rank “only secondarily” among perceived priorities.
THE CHALLENGES OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT
Both experts agree on the complexity of the phase ahead. Blomeier warns against the risk of excessive expectations: Tisza is still “more a movement than a structured party, with a leadership class lacking parliamentary and administrative experience.” After sixteen years of Fidesz government, many key positions in the state apparatus are occupied by figures linked to the previous executive, making the formation of an effective new government more complex.
Simor, for his part, highlights the nature of the Hungarian economic crisis, defining it as “no longer acute but chronic.” Unlike past crises – explains the former governor of the National Bank – there are no immediate macroeconomic imbalances, but “a persistent problem of growth, competitiveness, and trust.” The solution will require “a long time horizon, estimated between five and ten years,” and thus multiple legislative terms.
In the short term, some levers could favor a recovery: the return of confidence, the end of the “campaign of fear,” and a boost in investments, currently at their lowest in recent years. Fundamental will also be the change in economic policy, aimed at restoring fair competition conditions and “reducing the weight of distortions linked to public procurement and privileged relations with power.”
INSTITUTIONS, REFORMS, AND EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES
A central issue concerns the institutional system. Simor points out how many key positions are occupied by “figures appointed for political loyalty, compromising the independence of bodies such as the judiciary, the Constitutional Court, and the competition authority.” In this sense, the resignation demands advanced by Magyar represent, according to the former governor, a crucial step to restore citizens’ trust.
On the economic front, priorities include “a restructuring of public spending,” with increased investments in health and education, and “a revision of the tax system, currently characterized by sectoral taxes considered distortive.” Among medium-term prospects, Simor also indicates the possibility of “a credible strategy for adopting the euro.”
And still on the topic of relations with Brussels, Blomeier bets that the new government “will not limit itself to automatic alignment with the European Union but will seek an autonomous position, while aiming to unlock frozen European funds,” essential for the recovery of public accounts.
Finally, the two experts converge in outlining a delicate phase transition for Hungary: a transition full of expectations but also uncertainties. The scope of the political change will have to measure itself, according to both, against the depth of economic and institutional challenges, the inevitable inexperience of the new protagonists, and the risk of disappointments compared to the enthusiasm aroused by the regained political alternation.
