Viktor Orbán wrote the modern autocrat’s playbook: Capture 80% of the media space. Tilt the electoral system in your favour. Use state power to strengthen party power. Reward loyalists. Punish critics. Make change feel impossible.
Therefore, for democratic opposition forces, it was a nearly impossible campaign landscape.
Yet, Orbán lost.
I was on the ground in Hungary as an election observer. Those days ahead of the election felt like a country holding its breath. After years in which Orbán’s rule felt permanent, many people were wondering whether election day would go smoothly at all. The surprise was not only that Péter Magyar won, as the appetite for change was clearly there, but that he won by such a landslide - and that Orbán actually conceded defeat.
The Hungarian election should be studied far beyond Budapest. Here are three lessons for democrats everywhere.
Following a major 6-3 Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who served as a House Impeachment Manager during the first trial of Donald Trump in 2020, heavily criticized the Court, labeling it an "illegitimate" and "corrupt conservative majority." Furthermore, he joined other Democrats in calling for a structural overhaul of the Supreme Court, stating that "everything is on the table," including the potential expansion of the Court or the imposition of term limits, because it "is an extension of Donald Trump's influence". For the American people in the upcoming mid-term elections, this situation presents a choice: to have the next potential Speaker of the United States declaring the Supreme Court illegitimate because he disagrees with its interpretation of the law. Jeffries has thus suggested, among his proposals, that court expansion is a serious option under consideration if Democrats regain control of the House, adding six additional judges in a move that would be seen as a massive partisan shift.
Jeffries failed to acknowledge the reasons behind the majority vote in the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais that took 36 pages to explain that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act focuses on combating intentional racial discrimination, rather than permitting racial gerrymandering. In this Louisiana case, Democrats attempted to base redistricting on racial boundaries, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting the application of different standards to white and black voters in federal elections, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting by gerrymandering on racial boundaries. The law specifically outlaws map-drawing techniques such as "packing," which involves concentrating voters of a particular race to form a majority that dilute minority voting strength and prevent them from ever electing candidates of their choice.
Just for the record, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2, as falsely alleged, but said that neither the law nor the Constitution allows legislators to manipulate district lines to guarantee that candidates of a particular race will be elected.
El teólogo, filósofo y paleontólogo francés, Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) ha sido muy admirado, pero también muy incomprendido. La obra clásica de este sacerdote jesuita que reconcilió la fe con la ciencia y la evolución y uno de los descubridores del cráneo del hombre de Pekin, fue censurada por su Orden y la Iglesia Católica. Cuando sus libros salieron publicados, después de su muerte, el Santo Oficio emitió una advertencia (monitum) condenando sus ideas.
Pero como el tiempo está de parte de todo pionero que contribuye a alumbrar el camino de la verdad y el conocimiento, la obra de Chardin cobra dimensión mientras la sombra de sus críticos se desvanece. Varios papas recientes han citado con admiración, su visión cósmica, plena de belleza teológica y poder eucarístico.
Su teoría teológica-filosófica de que el hombre sigue evolucionando, mental y socialmente, hacia una unidad espiritual final, combina ciencia y cristianismo y declara que la experiencia humana emula "el camino de la Cruz."
El visionario
En su libro "Rompiendo con el Evangelio: la solución a la evolución" (1987), el investigador y filósofo futurista Neil Freer (1947-2016) se refiere a Teilhard como ejemplo del visionario cósmico, a la vez que señala el dilema de este erudito a la hora de emitir sus ideas. ¿Qué tan grande hubiese sido su obra científica y filosófica, de no haber tropezado con los remilgos religiosos de ese entonces?
John F. Haught, teólogo experto en el pensamiento teilhardiano, y autor de "La visión cósmica de Teilhard de Chardin”, compara las ideas de Teilhard con la de pensadores, filósofos y científicos religiosos significativos, como Kant, Whitehead, Barbour, Moltmann y Tillich. En su libro, Haught se centra en el futuro cósmico y las implicaciones del pensamiento de Teilhard para este siglo y más allá.
La Iglesia católica siempre ha sido objeto de interés. No faltan quienes se consideran expertos conocedores de la Iglesia, pero para ellos, la Iglesia se reduce al Vaticano, o quizás, la Santa Sede.
En la prensa prevalecen los textos de quienes observan esa maquinaria administrativa de la Iglesia que opera desde una de las colinas romanas. Se conocen como “vaticanistas”. Se fijan en las relaciones más o menos atinadas de la Santa Sede con los gobiernos con los que tiene relaciones diplomáticas, y sobre todo, subrayan las fragilidades humanas de los prelados. Se quedan en lo visible, y, por tanto, en la superficie de la Iglesia.
Para comprenderla se necesita la exposición del eclesiólogo. “Ecclesia” significa Iglesia en Griego y Latín. Hay una disciplina teológica llamada Eclesiología, porque la Iglesia pertenece al Credo. Recordemos que los creyentes la proclamamos “una, santa, católica y apostólica”. Quienes estudian la Iglesia como una reflexión desde la fe se llaman eclesiólogos. También hay otras especialidades teológicas, como la Cristología, la Mariología, la Antropología teológica, la Pneumatología, entre otras.
A la mayoría de los medios de comunicación no les interesan los estudios eclesiológicos. Posiblemente piensen que exponen subjetividades por no tratar de realidades al alcance de los sentidos corporales.
We are living in times of change in the Americas and the world. In Venezuela, elections are urgently needed to carry out a transition of power, not one manipulated by a criminal group; in Bolivia, the restoration of the essential elements of democracy, which are currently nonexistent, is urgently needed; the end of the Cuban dictatorship, not its modernization, is an ongoing ultimatum; and the Nicaraguan regime can no longer be protected by its bourgeoisie.
The first Summit of the Americas in 1994 initiated the goal of full democracy. This initiative, proposed by President George W. Bush after he lost the election to Bill Clinton, was accepted and implemented in both content and personnel, giving rise to a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America.
To survive the defeat of capitalism’s triumph over communism, the only dictatorship in the Americas, Cuba, created the Sao Paulo Forum, advocating the "multiplication of axes of confrontation," regionalism, indigenism, sexism, generational clash, racism, and more.
With Hugo Chávez’s rise to the presidency of Venezuela in 1999, he immediately offered support to the Cuban dictatorship and became Castro’s capitalist partner, giving rise to "Castro-Chavismo." This facilitated the expansion of the Cuban dictatorship, and under the guise of anti-imperialism, they seized dictatorial control of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador, establishing a structure of "narco-states."