Are There Lessons for Democracy in Budapest’s Pride March?

The path Viktor Orbán took from liberal democracy to democratic illiberalism was neither abrupt nor improvised. It was a cold and calculated march—along the ground cleared by the political merits of populism and the rising tide of illiberal values that Orbán anticipated and, by embracing, helped consolidate.

Broadly and clearly, democratic illiberalism rests on a reversal of the principles of political liberalism that once defined the rule of law, democratic pluralism, and constitutionalism. These principles include respect for institutional checks and balances, the safeguarding of political pluralism as a mechanism of representation, and the protection of fundamental rights as the constitutional bedrock of modern democracies.

Illiberal democracy, by contrast, elevates what might be called hyperdemos—a symbolic and operational hypertrophy of “the people” (demos) as the sole and ultimate source of political legitimacy. In this model, constitutional, institutional, and liberal frameworks that normally balance popular sovereignty are hollowed out. The people are invoked as a homogeneous and infallible entity, whose direct will justifies the dismantling of counterpowers, the marginalization of minorities, and the erosion of the deliberative public sphere.

Orbán—and other populist politicians, whether from the radical right or left—claim to be the “voice of the people,” but their definition of the people is narrow. It is the “pure people,” or “righteous citizens,” whose values align with their own narratives. Everyone else is suspect.

In the case of right-wing illiberal democracy, the people are equated with the national body—majoritarian by nature and intolerant of dissent. This includes structural machismo, radical moral conservatism, and significant doses of xenophobia and racism. Sexual, ethnic, racial, and national minorities are cast as the other—the threat to the sacred values of the nation.

And yet, on Saturday, June 28, something remarkable happened. In Budapest, approximately 200,000 people took to the streets to mark the 30th anniversary of the city’s Pride March—defying police restrictions and Orbán’s illiberal agenda. Whether one personally supports Pride or not is beside the point. What mattered was the symbolic weight of the event: it was a mass act of resistance against moral uniformity and the assault on pluralism that the Hungarian government so clearly embodies.

There are lessons to be learned here. Western societies may be increasingly polarized, fed by populist narratives and social media-driven echo chambers, where outrage and alienation thrive. But the defeat of liberal democratic values is far from inevitable.

Resisting illiberal regimes—whether Orbán’s or Trump’s—is not about denying majoritarian will. It is about opposing those who, under the guise of representing the “authentic people,” unravel societies and corrode institutions in pursuit of autocracy.

The people of Budapest understood that the Pride March was not just about LGBTQ+ rights. It was about democratic diversity, political pluralism, and the foundational pillars of constitutional democracy.