Thousands march in silence in Budapest to protest against 'transparency bill'
After a series of protests in the Hungarian countryside, Budapest was the scene of a silent protest organised by aHang.
View on euronews
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Autocrats don't act like Hitler or Stalin anymore − instead of governing with violence, they use manipulation
President Donald Trump's critics often accuse him of harboring authoritarian ambitions. Journalists and scholars have drawn parallels between his leadership style and that of strongmen abroad. Some Democrats warn that the U.S. is sliding toward autocracy – a system in which one leader holds unchecked power. Others counter that labeling Trump an autocrat is alarmist. After all, he hasn't suspended the Constitution, forced school children to memorize his sayings or executed his rivals, as dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Mao Zedong and Saddam Hussein once did. But modern autocrats don't always resemble their 20th-century predecessors. Instead, they project a polished image, avoid overt violence and speak the language of democracy. They wear suits, hold elections and talk about the will of the people. Rather than terrorizing citizens, many use media control and messaging to shape public opinion and promote nationalist narratives. Many gain power not through military coups but at the ballot box. In the early 2000s, political scientist Andreas Schedler coined the term 'electoral authoritarianism' to describe regimes that hold elections without real competition. Scholars Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way use another phrase, 'competitive authoritarianism,' for systems in which opposition parties exist but leaders undermine them through censorship, electoral fraud or legal manipulation. In my own work with economist Sergei Guriev, we explore a broader strategy that modern autocrats use to gain and maintain power. We call this 'informational autocracy' or 'spin dictatorship.' These leaders don't rely on violent repression. Instead, they craft the illusion that they are competent, democratic defenders of the nation – protecting it from foreign threats or internal enemies who seek to undermine its culture or steal its wealth. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán exemplifies this approach. He first served from 1998 to 2002, returned to power in 2010 and has since won three more elections – in 2014, 2018 and 2022 – after campaigns that international observers criticized as 'intimidating and xenophobic.' Orbán has preserved the formal structures of democracy – courts, a parliament and regular elections – but has systematically hollowed them out. In his first two years he packed Hungary's constitutional court, which reviews laws for constitutionality, with loyalists, forced judges off the bench by mandating a lower retirement age and rewrote the constitution to limit judicial review of his actions. He also tightened government control over independent media. To boost his image, Orbán funneled state advertising funds to friendly news outlets. In 2016, an ally bought Hungary's largest opposition newspaper – then shut it down. Orbán has also targeted advocacy groups and universities. The Central European University, which was registered in both Budapest and the U.S., was once a symbol of the new democratic Hungary. But a law penalizing foreign-accredited institutions forced it to relocate to Vienna in 2020. Yet Orbán has mostly avoided violence. Journalists are harassed rather than jailed or killed. Critics are discredited for their beliefs but not abducted. His appeal rests on a narrative that Hungary is under siege – by immigrants, liberal elites and foreign influences – and that only he can defend its sovereignty and Christian identity. That message resonates with older, rural, conservative voters, even as it alienates younger, urban populations. In recent decades, variants of spin dictatorship have appeared in Singapore, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez and the early Vladimir Putin consolidated power and marginalized opposition with minimal violence. Data confirm this trend. Drawing from human rights reports, historical records and local media, my colleague Sergei Guriev and I found that the global incidence of political killings and imprisonments by autocrats dropped significantly from the 1980s to the 2010s. Why? In an interconnected world, overt repression has costs. Attacking journalists and dissidents can prompt foreign governments to impose economic sanctions and discourage international companies from investing. Curbing free expression risks stifling scientific and technological innovation – something even autocrats need in modern, knowledge-based economies. Still, when crises erupt, even spin dictators often revert to more traditional tactics. Russia's Putin has cracked down violently on protesters and jailed opposition leaders. Meanwhile, more brutal regimes such as those in North Korea and China continue to rule by spreading fear, combining mass incarceration with advanced surveillance technologies. But overall, spin is replacing terror. Most experts, myself included, agree that the U.S. remains a democracy. Yet some of Trump's tactics resemble those of informational autocrats. He has attacked the press, defied court rulings and pressured universities to curtail academic independence and limit international admissions. His admiration for strongmen such as Putin, China's Xi Jinping and El Salvador's Nayib Bukele alarms observers. At the same time, Trump routinely denigrates democratic allies and international institutions such as the United Nations and NATO. Some experts say democracy depends on politicians' self restraint. But a system that survives only if leaders choose to respect its limits is not much of a system at all. What matters more is whether the press, judiciary, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, churches, unions, universities and citizens have the power – and the will – to hold leaders accountable. Wealthy democracies such as the U.S., Canada and many Western European countries benefit from robust institutions such as newspapers, universities, courts and advocacy groups that act as checks on government. Such institutions help explain why populists such as Italy's Silvio Berlusconi or Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, although accused of bending electoral rules and threatening judicial independence, have not dismantled democracy outright in their countries. In the U.S., the Constitution provides another layer of protection. Amending it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states – a far steeper hurdle than in Hungary, where Orbán needed only a two-thirds parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution. Of course, even the U.S. Constitution can be undermined if a president defies the Supreme Court. But doing so risks igniting a constitutional crisis and alienating key supporters. That doesn't mean American democracy is safe from erosion. But its institutional foundations are older, deeper and more decentralized than those of many newer democracies. Its federal structure, with overlapping jurisdictions and multiple veto points, makes it harder for any one leader to dominate. Still, the global rise of spin dictatorships should sharpen awareness of what is happening in the U.S. Around the world, autocrats have learned to control their citizens by faking democracy. Understanding their techniques may help Americans to preserve the real thing. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Treisman, University of California, Los Angeles Read more: US swing toward autocracy doesn't have to be permanent – but swinging back to democracy requires vigilance, stamina and elections I watched Hungary's democracy dissolve into authoritarianism as a member of parliament − and I see troubling parallels in Trumpism and its appeal to workers Trump's promotion of an image of strength after assassination attempt borrows from authoritarian playbook Daniel Treisman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Budapest police deny LGBTQ+ march request, citing Hungary's legislative Pride ban
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Police issued an order on Tuesday denying a request to hold an LGBTQ+ event later in central Budapest, a consequence of recent steps by the right-wing populist government aimed at banning the popular Budapest Pride march. The police's decision to prohibit the planned event later this month came after Hungary's parliament passed legislation in March, and a constitutional amendment the following month, that allowed the government to ban public events by LGBTQ+ communities — moves that legal scholars and critics have called another step toward authoritarianism by the autocratic government. In its justification for prohibiting the Budapest event, which organizers requested to take place on June 28, the city's police argued that 'it cannot be ruled out, or is even inevitable, that a person under the age of 18 will be able to engage in legally prohibited conduct' if attending the proposed march. The police also contended that the march could result in 'passive victims,' who, 'because of the assembly's march-like nature, did not wish to attend the assembly but, because of its public nature, nevertheless become a bystander.' In a statement, the organizers called the police decision 'a textbook example of tyranny.' The ban on LGBTQ+ events — which the government says ensures children's rights to moral, physical and spiritual development — allows for fines on people organizing or taking part in Pride events, and the use of facial recognition software to identify them. Hungary's contentious 'child protection' legislation prohibits the 'depiction or promotion' of homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Hungarian officials have given contradictory statements as to whether or not the new policies amount to a full ban on Budapest Pride. In a speech to supporters in February, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán advised organizers 'not to bother organizing this year's parade,' calling it 'wasted money and time.' The Budapest Police attached photographs and videos to its statement depicting scenes from previous Budapest Pride events — ostensibly evidence to corroborate its view that the march was likely to violate the new laws banning public displays of homosexuality. France, Germany and Spain were among at least 20 European Union nations who last month called on Hungary to revise its legislation banning LGBTQ+ events, expressing concern that it runs contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, freedom, equality and respect for human rights enshrined in EU treaties. Organizers of Budapest Pride, which draws tens of thousands annually and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, have vowed that the event will go on as planned despite the threat of legal sanctions.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Budapest police deny LGBTQ+ march request, citing Hungary's legislative Pride ban
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Police issued an order on Tuesday denying a request to hold an LGBTQ+ event later in central Budapest, a consequence of recent steps by the right-wing populist government aimed at banning the popular Budapest Pride march. The police's decision to prohibit the planned event later this month came after Hungary's parliament passed legislation in March, and a constitutional amendment the following month, that allowed the government to ban public events by LGBTQ+ communities — moves that legal scholars and critics have called another step toward authoritarianism by the autocratic government. In its justification for prohibiting the Budapest event, which organizers requested to take place on June 28, the city's police argued that 'it cannot be ruled out, or is even inevitable, that a person under the age of 18 will be able to engage in legally prohibited conduct' if attending the proposed march. The police also contended that the march could result in 'passive victims,' who, 'because of the assembly's march-like nature, did not wish to attend the assembly but, because of its public nature, nevertheless become a bystander.' In a statement, the organizers called the police decision 'a textbook example of tyranny.' The ban on LGBTQ+ events — which the government says ensures children's rights to moral, physical and spiritual development — allows for fines on people organizing or taking part in Pride events, and the use of facial recognition software to identify them. Hungary's contentious 'child protection' legislation prohibits the 'depiction or promotion' of homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Hungarian officials have given contradictory statements as to whether or not the new policies amount to a full ban on Budapest Pride. In a speech to supporters in February, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán advised organizers 'not to bother organizing this year's parade,' calling it 'wasted money and time.' The Budapest Police attached photographs and videos to its statement depicting scenes from previous Budapest Pride events — ostensibly evidence to corroborate its view that the march was likely to violate the new laws banning public displays of homosexuality. France, Germany and Spain were among at least 20 European Union nations who last month called on Hungary to revise its legislation banning LGBTQ+ events, expressing concern that it runs contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, freedom, equality and respect for human rights enshrined in EU treaties. Organizers of Budapest Pride, which draws tens of thousands annually and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, have vowed that the event will go on as planned despite the threat of legal sanctions.
