Of all the nations on earth, which two do you suppose Barack Hussein Obama recently singled out as standing on democracy’s front lines?
North Korea? China? Iran? Afghanistan? Eritrea?
No.
Instead, the former president pointed to Hungary and Poland.
That choice is revealing.
In a video circulating online, Obama warns that authoritarianism is spreading across the globe. He laments governments that undermine civil society, suppress the press, and weaponize the legal system:
‘I’ve become increasingly concerned about the rising wave of authoritarianism sweeping the globe. We’re seeing politicians target civil society, undermine freedom of the press, weaponize the justice system. And no one is being spared.’
On the surface, those concerns sound entirely reasonable. One could easily imagine Obama describing the state of free expression in parts of Western Europe, where citizens have increasingly found themselves investigated, fined, or prosecuted for criticizing Islam or mass migration. Or perhaps he is referring to governments and supranational bodies that selectively enforce the law against critics of immigration, globalism, or progressive orthodoxy while shielding politically favored causes.
But that is not what Obama meant.
Rather than naming countries where elections are meaningless and dissent is ruthlessly crushed—North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, China, Eritrea, or dozens of other regimes that are genuinely anti-democratic—he singled out Hungary and Poland as ‘two countries on the leading edge of confronting autocracy.’
That immediately caught my attention.
Readers of my work know that I also frequently mention Hungary and Poland together—but for precisely the opposite reason. They have spent the last decade resisting mass Muslim migration and, in doing so, have remained among Europe’s few large nations to preserve much of their historic demographic, cultural, and Christian identity.
Neither government has hidden its reasoning.
In 2015 Viktor Orbán bluntly argued that Europe is rooted in Christianity and that Hungary had every right to reject the large-scale settlement of Muslims after witnessing the social consequences elsewhere in Europe. If France or Belgium wished to pursue that path, he said, that was their decision—but Hungary should be equally free to decline it:
‘We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see.’
‘We, Poland, are learning from the mistakes of others…’
Polish leaders reached similar conclusions. Former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki warned that Muslim migration from the Middle East and Africa was ‘destroying European culture’ and posed a threat to European civilization. After another Islamist terror attack in London in 2017, MEP Ryszard Czarnecki declared: ‘We, Poland, are learning from the mistakes of others…and we will not open our doors to Islamic migrants.’
More than a decade has now passed since mass migration into Europe began. Far from weakening Hungary’s and Poland’s case, time has only strengthened it.
Across much of Western Europe, countries that embraced mass migration have experienced rising violent crime, terrorism, sexual assaults, growing social fragmentation, and increasingly extraordinary security measures surrounding public life.
Orbán highlighted the contrast last December. Defending Hungary’s refusal to comply with EU migration quotas—even while paying fines exceeding one million euros per day—he argued that preserving public order and allowing Hungarians to celebrate Christmas in peace was well worth the cost.
Meanwhile, Christmas in many Western European countries now routinely requires concrete barriers, armed police, vehicle checkpoints, and heightened security around public celebrations. In some places, Christian symbols have also become recurring targets of vandalism, with Baby Jesus’s head beheaded.
Political change has nevertheless reached Hungary. After 16 years in office, Orbán has been succeeded by Péter Magyar, whose government appears considerably more receptive to Brussels than its predecessor. Otherwise, why did many of the same EU officials who spent years financially punishing Orbán enthusiastically welcome Magyar’s victory?
‘Increasingly, “defending democracy”…has become shorthand for enforcing ideological conformity’
Which brings us back to Obama.
Why, out of nearly 200 sovereign nations, did he single out Hungary and Poland rather than North Korea, China, Iran, Eritrea, Belarus, or the many states where genuine authoritarianism is beyond dispute?
The answer seems obvious. Hungary and Poland became targets not because they endangered democracy, but because they most visibly resisted the political and demographic transformation favored by much of the Western establishment.
Increasingly, ‘defending democracy’ appears to mean something quite different from defending free elections, free speech, or the rule of law. It has become shorthand for enforcing ideological conformity. Those who reject mass migration and seek to preserve Europe’s historic civilizational identity are no longer treated as participants in democratic debate, but as threats to democracy itself.
Related aticles:
At a time when public debate is increasingly polarized and superficial, Hungarian Conservative remains committed to depth, intellectual honesty, and independent conservative thought.
Producing high-quality journalism requires resources. Your contribution helps us expand our coverage, reach new audiences, and keep our content accessible.
Please consider supporting our mission.