Latest news with #CentralEuropeanUniversity
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show
At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants his country to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship". - 'Open-air museum' - "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," Enyedi said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," the researcher added. US author Rod Dreher, who lives in Budapest and promotes the "Hungarian model" in the United States, praises the two leaders' common fight against the "ideological left". "It does matter a lot to ordinary Americans when their little children are being sent to schools and being taught about transgenderism," the 58-year-old told AFP. - 'Strongman' tactics - In a recent discussion hosted by the Hungarian-government-financed Danube Institute, where he works, Dreher cited the example of the University of Pennsylvania, which agreed to ban biological males from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint. "Pure Orban," Dreher says. "We would not have gotten that out of a normie Republican president. "When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre." The Trump administration has threatened to cut funding to prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia, criticised federal judges who suspend its decisions and is in open conflict with major media outlets. By limiting access to certain journalists and replacing them with fringe media loyal to his cause, Trump is very similar to Orban, according to Enyedi. "Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge," he said. This week, the CBS network announced the end of Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show", long a staple of late night US television, saying it was "purely a financial decision". It came days after the comedian blasted parent company Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump as "a big fat bribe". But, for now, dissenting voices remain much stronger in the United States than in Hungary. While Orban has not yet been invited to the White House in Trump's current term, envoy Palladino foresees that a visit by the US president to Budapest is "hopefully not too far off". Such a "historic visit" would, he said, be "a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity. "But that moment won't happen on its own. It will require vision, effort, and commitment -- on both sides of the Atlantic."
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show in Hungary
BUDAPEST: At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants the European nation to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship." 'Open-air museum' "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," the researcher said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," Enyedi added.
The Sun
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Orban's illiberal model in Hungary draws Trump comparisons
BUDAPEST: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has positioned himself as a pioneer of far-right governance, earning comparisons to former US President Donald Trump. With a self-proclaimed 'illiberal state' model, Orban's policies have reshaped Hungary's political landscape, drawing both admiration and criticism. At a recent US Independence Day celebration in Budapest, American charge d'affaires Robert Palladino noted the shift in diplomatic tone, stating, 'No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums.' Orban, who calls Trump 'a great friend,' hopes for a US presidential visit to solidify their ideological alliance. Over his 15-year rule, Orban has been accused of suppressing judicial independence, academia, media, and civil society while restricting minority rights. Former US President Joe Biden once accused him of 'looking for dictatorship.' Zsolt Enyedi, a democracy researcher at Central European University, described Hungary as 'an open-air museum' where illiberal ideas have been institutionalised. Both Orban and Trump have targeted minorities, including the LGBTQ community, leveraging public divisions for political gain. US author Rod Dreher, a Budapest resident, defends Orban's policies, arguing that the 'Hungarian model' counters left-wing ideologies. He praised Trump's hardline stance, stating, 'When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre.' Trump's tactics—such as threatening university funding and sidelining critical media—mirror Orban's strategies. Enyedi noted, 'Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge.' Despite similarities, dissenting voices remain stronger in the US than in Hungary. While Orban awaits a White House invitation, Palladino hinted at a potential Trump visit to Budapest, calling it 'a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity.' - AFP
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Full Text: How Did Anger Over a Roof Collapse Trigger Serbia's Democratic, Student-Led Protests?
In this episode of her fortnightly podcast Democracy in Question, Shalini Randeria, rector at the Central European University, Vienna, hosts Ivanka Popovic, professor with the Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, a scholar of polymer engineering and sustainable development. She was rector of the University of Belgrade (2018-2021) and has been actively involved with the civic initiative ProGlas, which she co-founded in 2023. Their conversation recorded in April 2025 addresses the expanding wave of societal mobilisation in Serbia since November 2024, when a newly renovated railway station roof collapse killed 16 people in Novi Sad. With demands for investigating the culpability of high-ranking politicians being stonewalled by the government, the protests now threaten to shake the foundations of President Aleksandar Vucic's regime, as a student-led movement has recently demanded new elections. The following is an edited excerpt of part 1 (of 2) of the conversation: § Ivanka Popovic (IP): Shalini, I'm grateful for the opportunity to present to a broader audience what is going on in Serbia because it's not getting enough attention. Shalini Randeria (SR): Were you surprised that the collapse of the canopy could ignite such sustained protests all over the country? Or is it that the Novi Sad tragedy can be seen as the last straw, the anger against the cronyism of the Vucic regime? IP: Novi Sad sparked the realisation that all of us are potential victims. It is the shock that no one is safe anywhere because of the shoddiness of the work that is being done all over Serbia, because of the mass corruption, because the money going into any construction is minimal compared to what is formally being invested. The initial response was of deep sorrow and condolences to the families of the victims. Some students who were paying their respects were attacked by a group of hooligans that were later recognised to be active members of the ruling party. That was the trigger when the students said, enough is enough. They drew back into their faculties. They blocked the buildings. They said they would not attend classes, and they came out with four requests. They wanted accountability for those who participated in the project of the Novi Sad reconstruction, accountability of those who attacked them, and of those who have been arresting peaceful protestors and students and jailing them and charging them with criminal charges. So, it was the students' cry for a normal functioning of the state with rule of law and independent institutions. These demands have been massively supported by the population. The students have kept it a nameless protest just to keep themselves safe from persecution. They don't want to give a face to the protest, they want to have everyone participating in it. SR: But it isn't easy to mobilise citizens in Serbia as the Vucic regime maintains complete control of the media. Could you describe how the students have nevertheless managed to spread their message so successfully throughout the country? And how did they bridge the urban-rural divide to garner the support of villagers, farmers? IP: Initially, everything that the students were doing was only covered by the independent press and media [which] in Serbia do not have national coverage. The media with national coverage are controlled by the government. People outside of Belgrade in smaller towns and villages didn't know what was going on. This changed when the students started marching from town to town taking the local roads and speaking to villagers to explain what they were doing and why. And they were cheered on and very well received. The turning point was when some of the students went home for the Christmas-New Year break. Many of their parents or grandparents, who only watched state-controlled TV, didn't know what was going on or were disturbed that their children were engaged in anti-state activities. But when the students started elaborating, things started to change. And when these marches started, a broader base of support was developing. And it wasn't just Belgrade and Novi Sad that were protesting, but also other cities with universities, smaller towns. You really had a mass uprising of discontent. And this was not something led by opposition political parties. It was truly a citizens' movement asking for change. SR: Remarkably, the momentum of protests has been sustained undeterred despite severe, brutal repression by government forces. What has this broad countrywide mobilisation been able to achieve during the past half a year? IP: Six months into this, none of the demands of the students have been met. There have been only some cosmetic moves by the government. The ruling party has also stooped to violence. Students have been beaten, they have been rammed by moving cars and threatened and there have been some very serious injuries. A young female student was bludgeoned with a baseball bat; this did provoke the resignation of the Serbian prime minister. Now in April there is a new government, but it is just a continuation of the old. But it is even more clear in its message that no dissent will be tolerated. Prolonged protests are becoming an embarrassment to the president because the students have clearly stated that the president is acting outside of what he's legally [allowed] as president to do. SR: Nevertheless, the demonstrations have only grown in size and number. In March alone, there were some 400 protests across Serbia and the largest demonstration in Belgrade on March 15 saw more than 300,000 people on the streets demanding justice, transparency and punishment for the culprits. IP: It was a very peaceful protest that was interrupted by use of a sonic weapon. The exact origins of this sonic weapon are not clear. There has been a really farcical explanation by the government; the forensics have been done by the Russian FSB, the security services. And these security services have claimed that no sonic weapon was used, but that this was a very well-orchestrated group performance using mobile phones. This is nonsense. More than 3,000 people have reported either psychological or medical issues after this incident. SR: Let's situate the current protests in a broader historical context. Serbia has a long tradition of societal mobilisation, and also of student protests. The current wave is being compared to the student-led protests in 1968. And then again in the late 1990s, Serbia saw mass rallies by students against the Milosevic regime. It took almost three years to topple the Milosevic regime and send him to trial for war crimes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Could you talk about this longer history of student-led protests and the role of universities in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia as focal points of social protests? Is there anything distinctive about the current protests? IP: You're right that there is a tradition. Once in a generation or a generation and a half, the students play a very important role in societal events in Serbia. In 1968, this was not a reflection of what was going on in Paris or Berlin. It was something that was related to a call for justice within a socialist regime. And this was a very important time. It also formed a generation of young people with open minds. They were the parents of those who demonstrated in the nineties against the Milosevic regime. There the trigger was election fraud. Opposition parties and the students together eventually brought about the change in October 2000. The students have not currently pointed toward irregularities in elections. Students are talking about potential elections and what we have seen in the past few elections. Vucic likes to hold elections every two years. He shows that he's in control and that he has majority support. But it's also a practical exercise because every time his grip and control of the electoral machine are becoming stronger. He has gone deeply into the electoral software where he can control the voting lists. He also has very good control of the polling stations. And we have seen a massive movement of voters within Serbia where people are being reinstated in another municipality. He has also been importing voters from Bosnia, from Montenegro, giving them citizenship, so they can vote. There has been a lot of manipulation, and some investigative NGOs realised the extent of how this scheme of rigging elections functions. And that's why any future election in Serbia is pointless unless we have a significant change in conditions of voting. Vucic will allow elections only if he's sure that he can win them. SR: Let me turn to the question of what university life has been like over the last six months. Decision-making on the course of protests by students has been the result of open discussions in a very democratic fashion in various faculties across universities in the country. Could you describe the daily assemblies, where decisions are being made? IP: They're practicing direct democracy through the operation of a plenum, which means that students gather, they discuss and make majority decisions. But because each has the right to speak and propose, these meetings take a long time. It's a slow process for making decisions and sometimes there is a time limit to these protests. If there's an incident where it's very important that the students should go to the national TV station and block it, they will be there within hours. But in order to make these political articulations, these are really long, tedious talks. First at the faculty level, then at the university level and if we're going to make a unanimous decision at the national level, that means amongst universities there must be agreement. So, the students are going through a wonderful education in democracy and active citizenship in life. I think it's commendable, it's wonderful. But I would say for some of the citizens, it's nerve-wracking because people who are older, with more experience, who remember the previous protests and the fact that they were not successful are really worrying. SR: If I understand correctly, normal life in universities has come to a standstill. Students have received a lot of support from faculty members and have been blocking faculties at state universities from functioning. And it seems as if this academic year may have to be written off. Schoolteachers also supported the countrywide protests. And unsurprisingly, the government has declared the students 'foreign agents' to discredit them. Could you say something about harsh punitive measures imposed by the government on faculty members? It looks as if this will also turn into a very important struggle for academic freedom and for the autonomy of universities. IP: Universities in Serbia have played very important roles in societal changes. This ruling party is anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual, anti-elite. They would like a very submissive population. In primary and secondary schools, you have short-term contracts. And there have been cuts in salaries for teachers, but they have been carrying this with great dignity. But it's not easy for months to receive no salary or only part of the salary. And this has also happened now with the university, but in a way that cuts into the essence of what a university is. The government has passed regulation that 85% of university professors' time should be devoted to teaching and 15% to research. And as there is no teaching going on (which is not true, there is no formal teaching but within the faculties, you've had workshops, panel discussions) salaries are cut to 15%. University professors are living from salary to salary. It's something that will undermine the protests. SR: So, the government is trying to turn universities into mere teaching machines to impart technical skills, but it no longer wishes to support independent research. What are the other legal changes introduced by the government to undermine institutional autonomy and to pressure faculty into submission? IP: Being turned into teaching institutions alone severely undermines the definition of being a university. Teaching and research together are extremely important. I'm really worried that this is a systematic approach to having complete control over universities. The ruling party since 2017 has been tweaking laws related to university operations. There's a law on student organising, there are laws on higher education that have endangered the autonomy of the university as we know it. Universities and faculties have councils, which now have a majority of representatives of the state. Before these student protests, students were also the weak link and were being utilised by the government to form a coalition against the academic part of these councils. So, it was sort of a stranglehold over universities. Now, of course, with the students playing a different role, this is not as easy. But the government is willing to strangle and starve the university out of operation. The previous minister of education even called on deans to invite police into the faculties so that they could kick students out of faculties. The government wants to break the back of universities. They want to put them in a position of submission that [one where] their only job is to do some teaching that will provide maybe skills, but not the capacity of critical thinking. The academic community wholeheartedly supports the students. But if you deprive them of their livelihood for a longer period, you're putting them in an impossible position where they have to choose between the wellbeing of their children and the wellbeing of their institution. It's a very nasty game that is being played now. Faculties are being bullied across the board in any way that the government thinks is possible. SR: And the latest episode in the series of attacks against universities and their leadership took place on Easter, when charges were brought against the rector of your university. Could you talk about the background to this latest attempt to quell the protests? IP: In its inability to pinpoint student leaders, the government has turned toward the rector of the University of Belgrade. It labeled him the leader of the protests! A very small group of government-influenced students have brought criminal charges against the rector. He was held in the police station for almost three hours, and in the meantime, thousands and thousands of members of the academic community gathered in front of this police station to show their support. After this, the rector was invited by the prime minister for talks, which again implies that the rector is the head of the protest. Being a responsible man, the rector complied and went with two of his vice rectors to this meeting. This meeting didn't bear any fruit and there was a statement issued by the University of Belgrade after this meeting saying that it was an unproductive meeting that did not lead to any constructive dialogue toward the overcoming of the students' requests and demands. One day later the prime minister wants to continue these talks. But there is a second criminal charge brought against the rector, so he had to inform the prime minister that he cannot come to this meeting because he, again, has to report to the police. SR: So, the government seems to be trying to delegitimise the protestors and divide the students by instrumentalising some of them to file a case against the rector of their own university for violating their right to education? How has this tactic by the regime affected the course of the protests? IP: It's clear that the protesting students have a very democratic way of making decisions. And if the majority of the students wanted to stop the blockade, they would vote for this. Students that are cooperating with the government are a very tiny minority, and they're being well rewarded for their efforts allegedly. Meanwhile, the students have realised that there must be a political articulation to their demands. Obviously, the way they set it up as a citizens' and student protest, requiring the system to work according to law and the constitution, is not bearing any results. Their first demand has been that the national broadcasting authority should renew the members of its board because it is this authority that is allowing the national media to support the government and not allowing independent media to be heard at a national level. SR: Mundane, though tragic events can act as a trigger for citizens to mobilise against the rampant corruption of soft authoritarian regimes marked by cronyism and lack of accountability. The courageous Serbian students have shown that principled commitment to the cause of democracy combined with creativity and the refusal to compromise on ideals can be a formidable weapon of the weak against even a well-entrenched regime and its repressive apparatus. It remains to be seen whether students, professors and other social groups that have stood with them, including schoolteachers, lawyers and farmers, will have enough strength to resist economic pressures, punitive measures and state violence. Opposition parties' involvement in fresh elections remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: by choosing solidarity and tenacity over submission and apathy, the Serbian protestors have rekindled the utopian spirit of radical democracy in an age when many have thought it had been snuffed out by soft authoritarian rulers using a mix of legal measures and police brutality.
Japan Today
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
Autocrats don't act like Hitler or Stalin anymore − instead of governing with violence, they use manipulation
By Daniel Treisman 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. The softer power of today's autocrats 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. Hungary's democratic facade 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. A global shift in autocrats 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. America too? 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. Preserving democracy in the US 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. Daniel Treisman is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. External Link © The Conversation
