The EU’s cautious steps forward
It seems that Viktor Orban has become a “vaccine” which strengthens the European Union, forcing it to act decisively whenever it appears adrift. A few weeks ago, in mid-December, the leaders of the other member-states urged the Hungarian prime minister to “go get some coffee” while they approved the start of Ukraine’s and Moldova’s EU accession process. In this way, Orban did not block the historic decision while still being able to boast that he opposes it. (Similarly, our more God-fearing New Democracy MPs plan to avoid voting for equal marriage rights when the legislation gets to Parliament.) And now, last Thursday, the Hungarian leader, idol of fans of “illiberal democracy” from the United States to Turkey and Russia, was forced to succumb to the pressures of his counterparts at the EU summit meeting and to agree to a 50-billion-euro aid package for Ukraine. This was not the result of a trick, like a momentary absence during the vote, but of the strong pressure that the EU exerted, up to the point of threatening to cause damage to the Hungarian economy. What made the Union wake up?
The relationship between the EU and its member-states is both simple and complex: On the one hand, the Union is made up of its members, each of which is strengthened by their collective power; on the other, cohabitation and cooperation between members is based on the domestic political dynamics in each country. These interior processes are affected directly by what happens at the European level and vice versa. Sometimes it is easy to see that the interests of the whole coincide with those of its members (as in the need for stability), while at other times there may be specific sensitivities and disagreements from countries on certain issues. There may even be instances when a country (or group of countries) may turn against the whole so that it can get what it wants out of the Union. It is through this democratic give-and-take, and through the need to deal with crises, that Europe moves ahead. We have seen this several times in the past years – from the debt crisis to the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.
When the threat is great, the group instinctively tries to protect itself, to prevent its dissolution. That is why the Union may tolerate all kinds of Orbans until their aggression against the whole becomes a direct threat. This tolerance is the result of the democratic process, which demands unanimity. That is why Thursday’s decision was so long in coming – because the Union has to remain faithful to its principles. But when a country undermines these principles of liberal democracy continually, and when its prime minister does not hide his admiration for autocrats such as Trump, Putin and Erdogan, the Union needs to show whether it is capable of solving problems or whether it will surrender to the destructive forces developing within it. These days, the threats are many – from the strengthening of extreme right-wing movements in many member-states to Russian belligerence and uncertainty over US policy. (Notably, American aid to Ukraine has been held up by extremist Republicans in Congress.)
This is why every hesitant EU decision needs to be examined to determine whether it is the product of caution or confusion. Its handling of Orban is an encouraging step.
