EU's Moral Flexibility on Display
Before you scroll past, consider: The Financial Times reports the EU has toned down its criticism of Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán, a notable shift just before an election. For years, European institutions, most notably in 2018 when the European Parliament launched a Article 7 procedure against Hungary, openly condemned Budapest for alleged democratic backsliding, judicial interference, and media
control. Critics within EU bodies often framed Orbán’s Fidesz government as a threat to fundamental European values, publicly lambasting his policies as illiberal. However, this shift is not unprecedented. The historical record shows a recurring pattern: official condemnation often wanes when strategic interests come into play. Recall Washington’s embrace of Saudi Arabia despite undeniable human
rights abuses, or the EU’s own quiet diplomacy with authoritarian regimes in North Africa for migration control. The EU’s budgetary wrangling, where Hungary’s veto power over critical aid packages to Ukraine and other significant decisions became a leverage point, strongly suggests this 'toning down' is a calculated move to secure cooperation, not a sudden change of heart regarding democratic
norms. Around €20 billion in EU funds remain frozen, yet Budapest still holds significant sway. This dynamic reveals a deeper truth: the much-touted commitment to democracy and human rights by Western institutions frequently operates on a sliding scale. Principles appear firmest when there is little to lose, yet become remarkably pliable when faced with realpolitik considerations. The EU's initial