After sixteen years in power, the political era that began in 2010 can rightly be called the Orbán system, especially since during this decade and a half, the Fidesz-KDNP governments built a completely new system in Hungary, both legally and politically. Although there is common agreement that the new system that emerged in 2010 marked the end of the world that had been built up since 1989 through competition between successive governments; opinions differ on what kind of system has been built in its place over the past decade and a half, and what it should be called. Many define the Orbán system in different ways, and the prime minister himself has introduced several definitions into public discourse: NER, illiberal democracy, national sovereignty. Political science has used many different names and definitions to describe today's Hungarian political system, such as hybrid regime, electoral autocracy, or mafia state, a term introduced by sociologist Magyar Bálint in his 2013 book Magyar Polip (Hungarian Octopus). Fidesz's political opponents have not shied away from extreme definitions, sometimes calling the Fidesz-KDNP governments a dictatorship and a fascist system.
In a nutshell: there are many ways to describe the Hungarian political system, and several studies have examined public opinion on this issue. Our current analysis compares two sets of data: Medián's 2023 research on the topic and Republikon's recent 2026 survey, in which we asked respondents which term best describes the Hungarian system. Respondents could choose from 7 different terms with negative and positive connotations, selecting the one they felt was most accurate.
The full study can be read through this link.