Article by Eva Bordos: “Periods of major political transformation confront governments with an unusual combination of opportunity and responsibility. Democratic reconstruction after a period of backsliding, accession to the European Union, post-war reconstruction, or other moments of systemic change may require governments to undertake multiple large-scale reforms within a relatively short period of time. Constitutions may need to be rewritten, electoral systems reconsidered, public administrations reorganized, and healthcare, education, or social protection systems substantially reformed. These are not ordinary policymaking moments. They are periods in which countries make choices not only about individual policies and institutions, but about the kind of state—and, ultimately, the kind of society—they want to build.
Such moments present governments with two closely connected challenges. The first is a policy challenge: how can far-reaching reforms be designed so that they are workable, sustainable, and capable of being implemented in complex institutional environments? The second is a democratic challenge: how can societies be meaningfully involved in decisions that may reshape their institutions and collective future, generating democratic legitimacy and a sense of ownership over the direction of change? Large-scale reform, in other words, requires governments to think simultaneously about the substance of reform and about the democratic process through which reform is developed.
This democratic challenge is particularly important in societies where policymaking has historically been dominated by political, administrative, and professional elites and where citizens have had relatively few opportunities to participate meaningfully in public decision-making. Democratic renewal cannot be achieved solely through institutional repair or the restoration of electoral competition. Rather, renewal also requires rebuilding the relationship between citizens and public decision-making itself[1]. Moments of systemic transformation can therefore be understood not only as opportunities for institutional reform but also as opportunities for democratic development. Inviting citizens to participate in shaping major reforms can strengthen their capacity to engage with complex public questions, create a greater sense of democratic agency, and potentially contribute to rebuilding both trust in institutions and trust among citizens themselves. The question is therefore not simply what institutions and policies should be built, but how societies can be involved in building them.
Hungary today provides a particularly compelling setting in which to consider this question. For more than a decade, the country occupied a central place in political and scholarly debates about democratic backsliding. Under Viktor Orbán and his governing coalition, Hungary became one of the most frequently cited examples of contemporary democratic erosion, variously described as an illiberal democracy, competitive authoritarian regime, electoral autocracy, or hybrid regime. As the country enters a potentially transformative political period, however, a different question comes to the foreground: how should democracy be rebuilt after a prolonged period of democratic backsliding?..(More)”.
