For years, a conflict has been brewing between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and the European People’s Party (EPP), the supranational organization of Christian democratic and center-right parties in EU member states. After much hesitation, the EPP suspended Orban’s party, Fidesz, in March last year, and is now deciding whether to expel it.
It has plenty of good reasons for doing so. Fidesz has not only dismantled democracy and the rule of law in Hungary, but also demonized the EU as a tyrannical institution that is supposedly robbing Europeans of their freedom.
Since Fidesz’s suspension, Orban has hit back by saying that he alone is the real defender of Christian democracy, and that his EPP critics are sellouts to liberalism.
Orban’s posturing has seduced conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, but the image he is projecting is false advertising.
It would be a mistake to think that the Fidesz-EPP conflict is mainly about political principles; it is about power, plain and simple. Still, the question of who will claim the legacy of Christian democracy matters a great deal to Europe. Historically, Christian democracy has been the most important political force behind the project of European integration.
Yet, despite its enormous historical significance, Christian democracy — its ideas and institutions — are not well understood. The ideology has no obvious founders or canonical thinkers, and unlike liberalism, it lacks a conceptual anchor that distinguishes it clearly from other strands of political thought.
Christian democracy was born in the 19th century as a means of reconciling Christianity — particularly Catholicism — with modern democracy. Its protagonists accepted French aristocrat and Catholic Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal insight that democracy was an unstoppable world-historical force.
The question, then, was how to make it safe for religion.
One answer was through political parties committed to defending Christian — and again, particularly Catholic — interests.
Yet the creation of such parties did not signal a full acceptance of pluralist representative democracy. A religion that claims universal validity could not allow itself to become just another interest group among many. That is why, for a long time, the Vatican openly criticized Catholic politicians’ efforts to play the parliamentary game.
However, things changed after World War II. Christians who had trusted fascists to save them from godless communism had learned the hard way that allying with the forces of the extreme, anti-democratic right was a disastrous mistake.
They would go on to embrace democracy and human rights wholeheartedly, as the Catholic Church eventually did at the Second Vatican Council in 1962.
During the Cold War, Christian democrats came to be known as the quintessential anti-communists, but they also had an ambitious social agenda. In Germany, Italy and elsewhere, they established welfare states designed to strengthen families and reward behavior informed by traditional values.
It is not particularly surprising that some of these policies would qualify as “illiberal.” After all, some leading Christian democratic thinkers remained explicitly opposed to liberalism, which they identified with secularism, materialism and selfish individualism.
However, unlike today’s far-right populists such as Orban and League party leader Matteo Salvini in Italy, these earlier Christian democrats relentlessly criticized the idea of the nation state, too. Owing to their religious perspective, they regarded nation or state-based claims of sovereignty as a form of hubris.
As Giorgio La Pira, one of the founders of Italian Christian democracy, said in 1945, the Catholic conception of society is “opposed to every nationalist, racial, or class-based conception of the political order.”
Moreover, German and Italian Catholics still remembered how newly unified nation states had oppressed religious minorities in the late 19th century.
Given this suspicion of nation state sovereignty, it is no accident that Christian democrats played a critical role in advancing European integration.
They endorsed pluralism and federalism for the sake of dispersing power across the continent, and they were instrumental in creating the European Convention on Human Rights, which was designed to provide a check on the power of nation-states.
They saw society as a pluralistic community of communities — not least the family. They also understood that minority rights and civil society — including, of course, religious institutions — must be protected.
It is thus a travesty for today’s self-declared “national conservatives” and far-right populists to claim the mantle of Christian democracy. Unlike true Christian democrats, Orban and other aspiring authoritarians pretend to be the only authentic representatives of a homogeneous people. In pursuit of power, they do not hesitate to reject pluralism and trample on minority rights.
To their mind, says social scientist Olivier Roy, Christianity is purely about belonging to a tribe, not belief, let alone ethical conduct.
As the Orban-aligned Bishop of Szeged-Csanad Laszlo Kiss-Rigo said: “In Europe, even an atheist is a ‘Christian.’”
The concern is not with Christianity but with Christendom, understood as a civilization inherently hostile to Islam.
The sad, sordid truth is that Orban and his ilk are trying to wage an EU-wide culture war because they have found this to be an effective way to distract domestic and international attention from the kleptocratic autocracies they have created.
By portraying their critics as crazed progressives pushing for same-sex marriage and ever-more scurrilous forms of identity politics, they avoid any discussion of their cronyism, politicization of the judiciary and stifling control of the media.
For its part, the EPP has, one hopes, finally understood that “protecting the family” hardly matters if it means giving a regime a license to destroy democracy.
Whether one cares about the fate of Christian democracy in particular, or about democracy in general, it is important to call Orban and his confederates what they are: exponents of a far-right politics that has never cared about Christianity or democracy.
Jan-Werner Mueller is professor of politics at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.