Browsed by
Category: International Affairs

After Orban, the Real Test

After Orban, the Real Test

Comments 0 comment

Viktor Orban’s defeat is already being hailed as a setback for the illiberal right and an embarrassment for Donald Trump who had invested heavily in the Hungarian strongman’s re-election. But the real significance of this moment may not be the election result, as much as the kind of change it brings.

As a result of yesterday’s election, the coming months may offer an extraordinary teachable moment: a real-time look at what it takes to dismantle institutions that have been reshaped over years to serve personal political interests. In that sense, Hungary may provide an early glimpse of the kind of transition other democracies — including the United States — could one day face.

For more than a decade, Orbán positioned himself as one of the leading architects of an alternative to liberal democracy. Within the European Union, he repeatedly blocked collective action, including support for Ukraine. At home, he made opposition to immigration a defining political axis, reshaping public debate well beyond Hungary’s borders. Abroad, he cultivated ties with Moscow while aligning himself closely with the American right, presenting himself as a model for Trump-era politics.

His election loss, unthinkable a year ago, therefore, carries meaning far beyond Hungary. But the core question remains: Elections remove leaders, they do not on their own transform the systems that sustained them.

In Hungary, that system became deeply embedded over time through constitutional changes, media consolidation, and the development of dense political and economic patronage networks.

What is often described as “Orbanism” is not simply a political movement. It became an architecture of power, built deliberately and designed to endure.

There are clear parallels beyond Hungary. Comparisons between Orban’s Hungary and the United States under Donald Trump are not just about political affinity. They reflect a similar approach to power, one that bends state institutions to personal ends, running roughshod over established norms.

This is why this moment matters and why the real test begins now.

Hungary is entering a phase that is far more complex than the election itself.  The incoming prime minister, Péter Magyar, is not an outsider, he is a former insider who broke with Orban’s regime. As such he may be better positioned than most for the massive challenge ahead.

A fully functioning liberal system after years of eroded norms and weakened checks and balances cannot be restored by government decree. Institutions do not reset on their own. And the ecosystem of interests — political, economic, media, institutional — that formed around the regime does not dissolve with the defeat of its patron.

This is what makes Hungary a test case. Not simply for the defeat of an illiberal leader, but for what comes next.

Orban was not operating in isolation. He was part of a broader transnational network linking figures as varied as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Vladimir Putin. Yet that alignment did not protect him at the ballot box. The internationalization of illiberalism, it turns out, does not guarantee its durability.

That reality complicates a broader narrative that has taken hold in recent years: that the liberal democratic order is in irreversible decline. There is truth in that diagnosis. The vulnerabilities exposed over the past decade are real.

But Hungary points to something more nuanced and more historically relevant.

Democracies are not static systems. They absorb pressure. They bend. At times, they drift far from their own norms. But they also retain the capacity to course correct.

Recent developments — in Hungary, but also earlier in Poland and Brazil — suggest that such corrections are possible. They may be incomplete, fragile, and even reversible. But they are real enough to challenge the idea that democratic systems are simply on a one-way road to decline.

None of this means that liberal democracy is emerging strengthened from this period. It is not. But it does suggest that it is not as easily displaced as some have argued.

For observers beyond Hungary, the stakes go well beyond one election. The question is no longer whether systems like Orban’s can be defeated. It is whether they can be unwound.

The answer will take time. But it may offer valuable insight into the kinds of challenges other democracies will face.

Because while the fall of a leader is visible, the traps he leaves behind for his successor are not.

And that may be the true significance of this moment — not what it closes, but what it opens: a difficult, uncertain, but instructive process of political and institutional course correction.

The Davos Doctrine: A house of cards

The Davos Doctrine: A house of cards

Comments 0 comment

The past week has demonstrated that the so-called Carney doctrine, for all its rhetorical elegance, may be a house of cards.

Consider the sequence of events.

Last Saturday, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that Canada supported the United States in its strikes against Iran.

Two days later, in New Delhi, standing in for the prime minister — who had made himself unavailable to the media — Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand struck a noticeably different tone. She spoke of diplomacy, avoided the question of the legality of the strikes, and emphasized that Canada would not participate in military operations.

Tuesday, the prime minister returned to the spotlight, clarifying that Canada’s support had been given “reluctantly” and in a “limited” way —  insisting it was not a “blank cheque” while calling on all parties to respect international law.

A day later, the position shifted again. Speaking in Canberra on Wednesday, Mr. Carney said Canada could not categorically rule out military participation should allies be threatened.

Five days. Four shifting positions. Each one subtly recalibrating the last.

The consequences of this shifting narrative are now being felt inside the government itself. On Friday, Liberal MPs held a caucus call with Minister Anand after several privately expressed concerns about the prime minister’s initial statement and its silence on international law.

How quickly the shine has come off the Davos doctrine.

Only weeks ago, Mr. Carney’s speech in Davos was widely praised as a bold attempt to redefine Canada’s place in a fractured world — and a roadmap for middle powers to follow. It not only won him international applause but also supercharged his political fortunes at home.

Unfortunately for Mr. Carney, the events of the past week suggest that the framework may be far more flimsy than originally advertised.

In that address, Mr. Carney argued that the old rules-based international order was giving way to a harsher era of great-power rivalry. Middle powers, he said, would have to adapt.

His answer was what he called “values-based realism.”

Canada, he suggested, would accept the realities of geopolitics while remaining anchored in core principles: respect for sovereignty, consistent standards for allies and adversaries, and limits on the use of force except within international law.

It was an elegant formulation — realism without cynicism, pragmatism without abandoning principles.

But the value of policies and doctrines should not be measured by the elegance of their framing. They should be assessed by the clarity of the light they cast on the pathways they are meant to illuminate.

And the events of the past week suggest that the Davos framework sheds very little light on the decisions it is supposed to guide.

In the wake of the Iran strikes, Canada endorsed the use of force by an ally without explaining how that action aligned with the principles invoked only weeks earlier. As political pressure mounted, the government adjusted its position — first emphasizing diplomacy, then stressing legal constraints, then raising the possibility of military support.

In Davos, Mr. Carney described Canada’s approach as one of “variable geometry” –– coalitions formed according to circumstances, interests and evolving realities.

The events of the past week suggest that for Mr. Carney, this variable geometry extends well beyond alliances.

The evidence is there. Confronted with its first real test, the Carney framework bent as events unfolded and tensions changed.

Defenders of the Davos doctrine will argue that this is simply realism at work. They will say that middle powers must navigate a world defined by shifting alliances and unpredictable crises.

This is true. And there is no doubt that the stakes are high.

But realism is a moving target. It shifts with circumstances, alliances and political cycles. Untethered from bedrock principles, it becomes little more than a justification for improvisation — a polite way of saying that policy will be adjusted as events dictate.

And when a country’s foreign policy becomes a series of never-ending recalibrations in response to shifting perceptions of the real world, the framework meant to guide decisions collapses.

Like a house of cards.