The Orbán-Roral Divide is Far Too Simple

What is the Orbán-Roral Divide? It is the Manichaean yin-yang binary of the simplistic political imagination, which supposes that, on one side, we have Orbán, Putin, Trump etc., and that, on the other side, we have von der Leyen, Merz, Starmer, Carney, Zelensky and of course the man after whom I name the category: Rory Stewart.

It has some truth in it, but it is bewildering when we see the binary exalted as if it is the only truth of politics. The downfall of Orbán illustrates this almost perfectly.

The subject today is Orbán Developments. And the Roral Response.

News.

As you all know, Orbán, after 16 years of power, fell in the recent election.

• Viktor Orbán = Fidezs = 37.8% = 55 seats
• Peter Magyar = Tisza = 53.6% = 138 seats

“Who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out,” quoth King Lear.

Orbán lost.

Now, I like Orbán, symbolically. I don’t know about actually: never studied him. I read one of his speeches once, and it read as more intelligent than any equivalent political speech. I have one thing in common with him, which is that he was present at the funeral of Norman Stone. Anyhow, like him or loathe him, we have to be philosophical. And we have to respect him, even if he is an Oxford man.

• Oxford: Obsessed with power. Corrupt. Cecil Rhodes, Lord Milner, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Viktor Orbán etc.
• Cambridge: Lord Acton: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

So let us look at what people say. The amusing thing is that people immediately editorialise. Twitter, X, Whatyouwill.com, turns everyone into William Rees-Mogg. Look at all these Editors.

Here is Ferenc Horcher, a very important Hungarian scholar:

Time to face reality: the Hungarian electorate ousted the ruling power. The electoral system Fidesz introduced gave its opponent a two-thirds majority. Orbán established a one-man rule, tailored the campaign to himself, he is responsible for the defeat, he has to resign.

That’s grim talk from a conservative. So here on the jolly side is Sam Moyn, a very important Yale Law School professor:

Yay for Hungary. What if the answer to illiberalism is democracy?

Ho hum. I sigh a bit over the innocence of making a contrast between illiberalism and democracy, as if liberalism = democracy. 

Here is Ozgur Ozel, leader of the major opposition party in Turkey:

In the Hungarian elections, the symbol of authoritarianism in Europe has been defeated. Democracy has won in Hungary. Those who use the tools of democracy to become authoritarian will ultimately be defeated. Those who consider themselves above democracy and the rule of law have been defeated.

This sort of thing is standard European Union chunter. Also found in the United States of America. But I feel a lecture coming on, as it is rubbish.

As everyone who has ever read a book or thought for even half a minute has realised, 1. democracy and 2. the rule of law are not the same. They are not even brothers. Or, if they are brothers, they are Cain and Abel. They are antagonists: they fight to the death. Any politician or academic who equates or associates democracy and the rule of law should be taken out and – shit: I deliberately misspelt that word so no one can accuse me of recommending violence. I absolutely behoove violence, I abscond it in every way.

I must stop joking.

Let me continue the lecture. Simplified:

• Democracy = rule of all
• Rule of law = rule of law
• Not only: is the rule of law not rule since, as Aristotle noticed, rules cannot rule,
• But also: the rule of all (which can rule, since it supplies a ruler, i.e., all) is always in conflict with the rule of law
• The rule of all = the general will = majorities = governments. The rule of law = law = an idealised system of justice = the imaginings of lawyers.
• In short, democracy is about power, and the rule of law is about avoiding or ignoring or limiting power, as if without using power.
• Footnote: even A.V. Dicey never managed to square the circle of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.

Turkish politicians are obviously using Orbán’s fall to point their own moral. Consider this from Ekrem Imamoglu, the jailed opposition leader:

Hungary chose hope over fear, democracy over autocracy. Tonight, the Hungarian people reminded Europe and the world that no strongman is invincible when citizens refuse to surrender their freedom.

Notice again the symbolic value of Orbán. His name invokes binaries that resemble Zack Polanski’s hope not hate. You know, Reform = Hate, Greens = Hope. Orban = Hate, Rory = Hope. Here, in Imamaoglu’s post, we see a similar binary: hope versus fear, democracy versus autocracy. And, in fact, many, many commentators, naïvely, as it seems to me, seem to think that Orbán was, simply, autocratic, authoritarian and therefore opposed to democracy, rule of law, peace, paradise, eternal beatitudinousness, pride marches etc.

Here is the man himself, Zack Polanski, on hearing his name:

Orbáns defeat shows that when we stand together against the politics of hate and division, hope wins and the far Right friends of Farage can be defeated.

Here is Alastair Campbell:

What fantastic news from Hungary. Proof that if you stand up to it Right wing kleptocratic populist authoritarianism can be beaten. Orbán will now flee somewhere with his wealth. But this is more than a bad night for him. It is a bad night for Putin. … It is a bad night for Trump. It is a bad night for Vance and Rubio. … It is a bad night for Farage, the AfD and Le Pen because it shows that when their brand of politics is exposed to serious opposition and scrutiny it collapses. … The people of Hungary deserve our thanks for showing these people can be beaten.

See what I mean? Orbán is a symbol.

Here is Obama:

The victory of the opposition in Hungary yesterday, like the Polish election in 2023, is a victory for democracy, not only in Europe, but all around the world.

Hang on. Is it a victory for democracy or for liberalism? Here is Nathalie Tocci:

Orbán’s defeat does not guarantee an immediate return to democracy in Hungary, but it does mark a victory for liberalism in the world, even more than in Hungary itself.

Need I say that, just as democracy and the rule of law are Cain and Abel, so democracy and liberalism are, at best, at cross purposes. Read a book of you disagree. (Clue: liberalism is aristocratic and individualistic and dim about power; democracy is not dim about power, is not aristocratic and is not individualistic.)

One gets tired of typing. But here are some more. Alex Soros says Donald Tusk says “Welcome back to Europe!” Friedrich Merz says the result shows Hungarians are “resilient against Russian propaganda”. Ursula von der Leyen said “Hungary has chosen Europe”. Starmer said it was a victory not just for Hungary but for “European democracy”.

The doltishness of all this is quite absurd. One would almost think there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of fools to bleat in similar ‘Three Bags Full’ manner.

On the other hand, as if they know no better, some on the other side, like Michael Knowles and Tommy Robinson, imagine that Hungary has now collapsed and now will become entirely absorbed into the monolith of boring liberal Europe. This sounds a bit as if they are falling for the standard Orbán-Roral divide whereby

• Orbán, Trump, Putin = bad (or good, according to taste)
• EU, Democrats, Labour, Greens, Net Zero, Rory = good (or bad, according to taste)

This is baby Manichaeanism. The binary is far too simple. Black and white. Can we stop? Not everything is a football game.

Everyone who has read about this for more than a minute knows that Magyar is a former crony of Orbán, that he might be even more Right-wing in some respects, that the victory was about corruption more than it was about policy, that, no matter how many liberals voted for him, this could never be 1997.

There may be more EU funds unlocked, there may be support of Ukraine, but there may not be any change to the marital and migrating policies introduced by Orbán. Who knows? (The real question is whether the Central European University will return to Budapest.)

Orbán is gone. And though I have argued against it here, I am sure we are going to hear about the Orbán-Roral divide for years to come.

James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.