本文探讨了匈牙利总理奥尔班的政治风格，作者认为奥尔班虽然通过选举上台，但其个人权力极大，且拥有广泛的公众支持，这使得他既是民主选举的产物，又拥有独裁者的特征。作者还指出，现代西方自由主义思维可能无法理解奥尔班这种民粹主义领导人的现象，并认为奥尔班的成功并非偶然，而是匈牙利社会整体趋势的体现。

🤔 奥尔班的政治风格：民主与独裁的混杂体 虽然奥尔班通过选举上台，但他的权力很大，几乎不受约束。他利用权力建立了一个由支持者组成的个人派系，来巩固自身权力并削弱竞争对手。这种现象表明，民主和独裁并非截然相反，而是可以共存的。 奥尔班获得了广泛的公众支持，他的政策也得到了大多数匈牙利选民的支持。这表明，匈牙利民众希望一个强势领导人来解决他们面临的问题。 奥尔班的成功并非偶然，而是匈牙利社会整体趋势的体现。匈牙利民众希望一个强势领导人来解决他们面临的问题，而奥尔班恰好满足了这种需求。

🤝 为什么匈牙利人会支持奥尔班？ 奥尔班在90年代曾是一个反对派领袖，并通过民主选举的方式成为了议员。他曾赢得过选举，也曾输掉过选举。在输掉选举后，他并没有采取暴力手段，而是调整策略，试图赢得下一场选举。这种行为或许可以解释为什么匈牙利人会支持他。 奥尔班的政治风格与匈牙利民众的期望相符。匈牙利人希望一个强势领导人来解决他们面临的问题，而奥尔班恰好满足了这种需求。

🤔 现代西方自由主义思维的局限性 现代西方自由主义思维可能无法理解奥尔班这种民粹主义领导人的现象。西方自由主义者倾向于将民主和独裁视为截然相反的两种制度，而奥尔班的例子表明，这两种制度并非完全对立。 西方自由主义者需要认识到，民主制度并非完美无缺，它也可能被用来维护独裁统治。奥尔班的例子就是一个很好的证明。

🤔 对奥尔班的评价 奥尔班是一个复杂的人物，他的政治风格既有民主的成分，也有独裁的成分。他的成功并非偶然，而是匈牙利社会整体趋势的体现。现代西方自由主义思维需要认识到，民主制度并非完美无缺，它也可能被用来维护独裁统治。

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-orban

Lyman Stone on Twitter:

Twitter avatar for @lymanstonekyLyman Stone 石來民 ??? @lymanstoneky Here's the @slatestarcodex piece: astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-boo… Overall, I agree with a lot of his assessment of Orban. But I want to quibble on two points: 1) The relationship between dictatorship and democracy 2) "Why admire Orban?" Dictator Book Club: Orban...astralcodexten.substack.com

November 5th 2021 7 Likes

I won’t make you read it all in tweet format. He continues:

1) Dictatorship and democracy. The arguments about Orban cheating in elections might be totally true. I dunno. But that's sort of irrelevant. Neutral opinion polls nobody disputes show he would have gotten 2/3 under almost any system. Image

His crude poll share was about 60% before the 2010 election, but given the threshold effects, he'd likely have ended up at a supermajority under almost any system. And as @slatestarcodex [says], a lot of the initiatives that the EU most despises under Orban are initiatives that *everyone agrees* have supermajority public support among Hungarian voters.

Moreover, I agree with @slatestarcodex that if public opinion turned in Hungary, Orban would probably turn on a dime too. The dude loves power. But that should inform our read of what's going on in Hungary. *Hungarians wanted* a right-nationalist authoritarian leader, *and so they voted for one*, and the electorate has *wanted* recurrent intensifications of that regime. So is it a dictatorship? Or is it a democracy?

This gets at the problem with "democracy" as a concept. Hungary is undeniably Democratic: there is widespread public support for the regime, which is selected by elections, the results of which are a decent approximation of trustworthy and neutral opinion polls. But I think it's still possibly reasonable to call Orban a dictator. He wields enormous *personal* power, there are few checks on his power, and he uses power to create a *personal* clique of supporters to perpetuate that power and enfeeble the competition.

But this is the point: Democracy and dictatorship aren't opposites. In fact, they are natural companions! So much so that before the 20th century, "democracy" was often used *literally as a synonym* for "authoritarian and demagogic rule"! Orban is a great example of why the word "democracy" came into ill repute in the past: because it was widely understood that "the people" (often pejoratively "the mob") will often vote for a strongman to stomp his boot on the face of disliked others. That's not so much a disagreement with @slatestarcodex as just a comment where I think the modern western liberal mindset obscures understanding the phenomenon of populist leadership.

2) Why admire Orban? Here I think @slatestarcodex misses some important stuff, perhaps because his biographies miss it. Yes, Orban was incompetent in the 90s. So were MOST immediate post-Soviet leaders! And while Orban may have been corrupt, you can compare the personal wealth of the Fidesz clique to the cliques that looted Russia or Ukraine and realize that Hungary got a better class of corrupt leaders than much of eastern Europe. Moreover, Hungary actually had competitive elections with changes of power and leaders who *respected* those results! Maybe they were dirty but, like, it happened! This wasn't universally true!

So why might Hungarians admire a dissident-cum-parliamentarian who competed for their votes and when defeated responded democratically by adapting to try to win the next election? Because.... duh?