Under Viktor Orbán’s leadership, Hungary has increasingly diverged from the core values of the European Union, raising questions about its continued membership in both the EU and NATO. Orbán’s government has implemented policies that many argue are at odds with the EU’s principles of democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Critics point to the erosion of judicial independence, restrictions on press freedom, and the curtailment of civil society activities as evidence of Hungary’s democratic backsliding. These actions have strained Hungary’s relationship with the EU, leading to ongoing debates about the appropriateness of its membership in a union that prides itself on upholding democratic values.
The EU has mechanisms to address member states that violate its fundamental values, but the effectiveness of these measures has been a subject of controversy. Despite numerous infringement procedures and critical reports from EU institutions, Orbán’s government has largely resisted pressure to reverse its contentious policies. This defiance has fueled arguments that Hungary’s continued presence in the EU undermines the union’s credibility and cohesion. If a member state can flout EU norms without significant repercussions, it sets a dangerous precedent that could embolden other countries to follow suit, potentially unraveling the fabric of the union.
Hungary’s alignment with NATO has also come under scrutiny due to Orbán’s foreign policy choices, which often seem at odds with the alliance’s collective security interests. Orbán has cultivated close ties with Russia and China, countries viewed with suspicion and concern by many NATO members. This rapprochement with authoritarian regimes raises doubts about Hungary’s commitment to the alliance’s foundational principles of collective defense and democratic governance. NATO relies on the trust and solidarity of its members, and Hungary’s actions could be seen as undermining these crucial elements, prompting discussions about whether it should remain a part of the alliance.
The argument for removing Hungary from the EU and NATO hinges on the belief that membership should be contingent upon adherence to shared values and objectives. Proponents of expulsion argue that allowing Hungary to stay despite its deviations sends a message that the EU and NATO are willing to tolerate behaviour that contradicts their foundational principles. This could weaken the moral authority and strategic coherence of both organizations. Moreover, expulsion could serve as a powerful deterrent to other members considering similar paths, reinforcing the importance of upholding democratic norms and collective security commitments.
However, removing Hungary from the EU and NATO is not without significant challenges and risks. Such a move would be unprecedented and legally complex, potentially causing political and economic instability. It could also push Hungary further into the orbit of rival powers, thereby weakening the influence of Western institutions in the region. Moreover, some argue that engagement and dialogue, rather than expulsion, might be more effective in encouraging Hungary to realign with EU and NATO values. Balancing the need to uphold principles with pragmatic considerations of geopolitical stability is a complex dilemma facing policymakers in both Brussels and Washington.
