The following is a press release kindly provided to us by MCC Brussels.
The Democracy Interference Observatory (DIO), a project of MCC Brussels dedicated to documenting election interference in Europe, expresses serious concern about the emerging media and political narrative surrounding Hungary’s forthcoming parliamentary election.
In recent days, a cluster of high-profile reports and commentaries has pushed several overlapping claims into the centre of election coverage: that Russia is covertly working to keep Fidesz in power, that AI-generated content has created an exceptional democratic emergency, and that the election may already be so distorted that its credibility is in doubt.
These are profound allegations that require serious evidence. Yet too often that evidence has not been presented.
Recent reporting has alleged Kremlin-linked efforts to influence the Hungarian election, but such claims rely heavily on anonymous sources and assertions that are not substantiated by publicly available evidence. POLITICO has also recycled opposition claims that Russian intelligence is involved in the creation of AI-generated smear content—claims which Fidesz denies—while also alleging, without clear evidence, the existence of a coordinated Hungarian–Russian disinformation campaign.
At the same time, some media coverage has uncritically treated partisan, pro-opposition polling as independent analysis, while wider commentary has escalated towards suggestions that Hungary could face a coup-like refusal to honour the result.
Several developments illustrate how this narrative environment is forming.
First, claims of Russian electoral interference have been prominently promoted by the investigative outlet VSquare, particularly through reporting by journalist Szabolcs Panyi. These reports rely primarily on anonymous intelligence sources while presenting little publicly verifiable evidence of coordinated electoral manipulation. VSquare itself operates within a network of organizations supported by Western governmental and quasi-governmental funding channels, including programmes connected to USAID and the German Marshall Fund, raising legitimate questions about the role of externally financed actors in shaping campaign-period narratives.
Second, a growing moral panic around alleged AI-generated ‘deepfakes’ has intensified in recent months.
This narrative has been notably advanced by Lakmusz, a Hungarian fact-checking outlet that forms part of the EU-financed Hungarian Digital Media Observatory (HDMO), itself within the wider European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) network. While isolated manipulated images circulating online deserve scrutiny, the available evidence does not demonstrate a systematic disinformation campaign capable of influencing a national election.
Third, several widely reported opinion polls have presented large leads for the opposition Tisza Party. Two of the most visible pollsters publishing these figures—Republikon and 21 Research Center—operate within funding ecosystems linked to European institutional sources. While polling is a legitimate part of democratic politics, headline figures produced within externally funded research environments risk becoming part of a narrative battle over what election outcome is considered plausible or legitimate.
The Democracy Interference Observatory closely monitors any potential foreign interference in the Hungarian elections. But there is a decisive difference between documenting the existence of online satire or manipulated content and constructing a pre-emptive narrative that the election itself is illegitimate or decisively shaped by Russia.
Richard Schenk, Research Fellow at MCC Brussels, working on the DIO initiative, said:
‘Claims of Russian interference in the Hungarian election are cynical, hypocritical and, above all, dangerous.
They are cynical because anonymous sourcing, speculation and politically aligned commentary are being recycled as though they were established facts. When claims this serious are made about a national election, the burden of proof should be extremely high. They are hypocritical because many of the same voices now warning about interference are far less candid about the extent to which EU institutions and EU-linked actors are already shaping the election environment—through public narrative management, digital regulation, institutional pressure and pre-election coordination around online speech.
And they are dangerous because they risk invalidating the election before it even takes place. Europe has already seen how expansive and weakly evidenced interference narratives can be used to justify extraordinary action, including the cancellation of democratic processes. That makes reckless speculation in Hungary especially irresponsible.’
The Observatory is also concerned by efforts to inflate an atmosphere of exceptional crisis around campaign communications. AI-generated content should be investigated carefully and proportionately, not folded into a wider moral panic in which satire, propaganda, misinformation and foreign interference are blurred together for political effect.
Equally, polling should not become part of an information war. Highly publicized figures can shape perceptions of what election result is deemed plausible or legitimate, particularly in a climate already saturated with claims of manipulation and foreign influence. A clear narrative is emerging that the Hungarian opposition is far ahead in the electoral race. Yet this claim rests on polling of questionable rigour. Already, this is being presented as presumptive evidence that any possible Orbán victory would be inherently suspicious.
‘Polling should not become part of an information war’
The central democratic principle is simple: Hungarian voters must be free to choose their government without covert interference—but also without organized attempts to poison trust in the result in advance through anonymous allegations, media sensationalism, institutional signalling and narrative policing.
The Democracy Interference Observatory, a project of MCC Brussels, calls on all parties, including media outlets, political actors, EU institutions, NGOs and foreign officials, to publish evidence when making serious claims, to refrain from speculative narratives that pre-emptively discredit the vote, and to uphold the democratic norm that elections are judged by transparent evidence and lawful procedure, not by atmosphere.
Related articles: