Below are some of the most significant activities from the series of events that marked the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico. The Lab’s launch is made possible through the support of VélezReyes+ and the Zampa Foundation.
 

Meeting with Minister Giovanni Figueroa — Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation

On October 29, the DAL delegation, led by Professors Magaloni and Díaz-Cayeros, along with Kim Juárez, a research affiliate at DAL, was received at Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice by Minister Giovanni Figueroa. Justice Figueroa is one of the nine Supreme Court judges, one of the first ministers to reach the bench under Mexico's new constitutional reform, which, for the first time in the country's history, requires all federal judges to be chosen by direct popular vote.

Minister Figueroa, a distinguished constitutional scholar, has long advocated for a judiciary that is accessible, socially responsive, and attuned to Mexico’s constitutional challenges. The dialogue examined the capacity of constitutional courts to defend democratic principles in increasingly polarized environments, with particular attention to Mexico’s new judicial reform that introduces popular elections for all judges. These developments echo the broader questions explored in DAL’s comparative work on the resilience and design of rule-of-law institutions. The visit to the Mexican Supreme Court also included a tour of the “Un clamor por la justicia. Siete crímenes mayores” by Rafael Cauduro.

For the DAL team, this meeting set the tone for the visit: connecting high-level constitutional debates to the Lab’s broader effort to fortify and reconfigure democratic institutions from within.

Roundtable on Security and the “Bukele Model” — Hosted by Lantia and Eduardo Guerrero

One of the trip’s most dynamic discussions took place at El Colegio de México on October 30, where DAL co-hosted a closed-door roundtable on security and authoritarian drift in Latin America. Organized by Lantia Consultores and security expert Eduardo Guerrero, the session convened some of the leading experts on security in Mexico.

Participants included public security policymakers of the highest level, including police chiefs, cabinet advisors, journalists, and scholars, who debated the appeal and risks of the so-called “Bukele Model” — the Salvadoran government’s aggressive anti-crime strategy — within the Mexican context. The conversation, held under Chatham House rules, examined how citizen demand for security can erode democratic checks and liberties if not balanced by institutional safeguards.

The security meeting discussion centered on Beatriz Magaloni’s presentation of her field research on El Salvador’s “Bukele model” of public security and its broader implications for Latin America. Magaloni explained how President Nayib Bukele’s approach — initially framed as a successful anti-crime policy — rests on prolonged states of exception, mass arbitrary detentions, and fabricated arrests incentivized through police quotas and bounties. She described widespread abuses inside Salvadoran prisons, where thousands of innocent civilians, many poor and rural, are detained without due process and subjected to inhumane conditions.

This exchange epitomized DAL’s commitment to generating cross-sectoral, evidence-based dialogue that bridges policy, academia, and civic engagement — helping Latin American societies navigate the tension between security and democracy.

Participants compared these dynamics to Mexico’s own prison system and warned that similar practices could take root in democracies under pressure. They discussed the popular appeal of punitive “mano dura” policies, the risk of their normalization in fragile democracies, and the absence of credible alternatives in citizen security policy. The group emphasized the need for rights-based, community-centered models of public safety, stronger rule of law, and social prevention measures. The conversation concluded with a shared concern that the Bukele model’s political success could inspire copycat versions across the region — including in Mexico — if democratic actors fail to deliver both security and justice simultaneously.

Inaugural Conference at El Colegio de México: “A Half-Century After the Third Wave of Democratization”

The centerpiece of the launch was the public inaugural conference, held in the Alfonso Reyes Auditorium at El Colegio de México (Colmex) on October 30, one of Latin America’s premier academic institutions.

The event was co-hosted by Colmex’s Centro de Estudios Internacionales (CEI) and featured welcoming remarks from Dr. Ana Covarrubias Velasco, President of Colmex, who highlighted that the partnership “marks a new chapter in the internationalization of our work and our shared commitment to the study and defense of democracy.”

Professor Alberto Díaz-Cayeros presented DAL's mission, describing it as “a response to the global democratic crisis — an initiative that seeks to co-create, alongside those on the frontlines of democratic defense, new analytical tools and strategic responses to authoritarian threats.”

Tamara Taraciuk, Vice President for Democracy at the VélezReyes+ Philanthropic Platform, one of the initial funders of DAL, emphasized the urgency of moving “from diagnosis to action,” and outlined the foundation’s support for DAL’s mission to connect academic rigor with democratic innovation in Latin America.

The center of the conference was the lectures of professors Adam Przeworski and Beatriz Magaloni, reflecting on “Authoritarianism and Democracy Half a Century After the Third Wave.” 

Adam Przeworski delivered a profound reflection on the conditions under which democracies survive or collapse, drawing on his intellectual journey from witnessing the 1973 coup in Chile to observing today’s democratic crises in the United States. He contrasted two conceptions of democracy: the maximalist vision, which aspires to equality and justice, and the minimalist or procedural one, centered on competition and the peaceful alternation of power.

Based on decades of comparative research, Przeworski explained that democracies tend to endure in wealthy societies with repeated peaceful transfers of power, where political stakes are relatively moderate. Yet, the U.S. case challenges this logic: despite meeting these conditions, its institutions show signs of internal erosion. He called this not only a political crisis but also an intellectual crisis for political science, since classical theories no longer explain contemporary fragility. Przeworski concluded that it is no longer enough to defend democracy; we must reform and reinvent it, combining rigorous inquiry with practical experimentation of the kind advanced by the Democracy Action Lab.

Beatriz Magaloni focused on democratic backsliding in Latin America, emphasizing the cases of El Salvador, Venezuela, and Mexico. She noted that although the region is living through its most democratic era in history, since 2013 it has faced a gradual erosion of liberal institutions — judicial independence, checks and balances, press freedom, and civil rights — driven by democratically elected leaders. Unlike the military coups of the past, today’s threats arise from within the system, through legal reforms and popular mandates that progressively concentrate power.

Magaloni identified the Bukele model in El Salvador as a regional turning point: a democratically elected leader who uses the promise of security to justify authoritarian practices and gains massive popular approval. She argued that citizens’ support for democracy depends not only on normative commitment but also on performance legitimacy — whether democratic regimes deliver security, justice, and economic opportunity. When democracies fail to meet these expectations, authoritarian alternatives gain appeal. Magaloni concluded that defending democracy in Latin America requires restoring citizens’ trust through tangible results, especially in the areas of security, inequality, and public services.

The keynote sessions concluded with a lively exchange between the speakers and the audience, reflecting the strong public interest in the themes of democracy and authoritarianism. Attendees noted that they had rarely seen the Sala Alfonso Reyes so full — an estimated 300 people packed the auditorium, underscoring the significance of the discussion and the enthusiasm surrounding the Democracy Action Lab’s launch in Mexico City.

Reception at Librería and Gallery Miguel Angel Porrúa: A Gathering of Scholars and Civil Society

After the inaugural conference, a special reception was held at Librería Miguel Angel Porrúa, one of the country’s most emblematic cultural spaces and a historic venue for intellectual and civic debate. The event brought together an extraordinary community of scholars, researchers, journalists, civic leaders, and members of civil society organizations working on democracy, human rights, security, and governance across Mexico.

The reception served as more than a celebratory gathering — it was a forum for substantive dialogue. Attendees engaged with DAL’s mission and shared reflections on the urgent challenges facing democracy in Latin America at a time marked by rising political polarization, institutional weakening, and escalating pressures on civic space. The discussions underscored the vital role that empirical research, cross-sector collaboration, and evidence-based policymaking must play in strengthening democratic institutions.

The atmosphere at Porrúa reflected both concern and hope: concern over the democratic erosion sweeping the region, and hope that networks such as DAL can help generate new knowledge, amplify local expertise, and support the resilience of democratic actors in Mexico and beyond. The reception marked an important first step in positioning DAL as a convening platform that listens to, learns from, and engages directly with those shaping the future of democracy on the ground.

Visit to Mexico’s National Electoral Institute (INE)

On October 31, the Democracy Action Lab delegation visited Mexico’s Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE), meeting with Electoral Councilors Carla Humphrey, Claudia Zavala, Martín Faz, Arturo Castillo, and Uuc-kib Espadas Ancon. The dialogue centered on the institution’s enduring role as a cornerstone of Mexico’s democratic transformation.

Created in the wake of Mexico’s transition from single-party dominance to competitive pluralism in the 1990s, INE (formerly IFE) emerged as one of the region’s most trusted electoral authorities — instrumental in ensuring free, transparent, and credible elections after decades of state-controlled contests. Its establishment marked a turning point in Latin America’s third wave of democratization, proving that institutional reform could anchor democratic legitimacy.

During the meeting, participants discussed how INE continues to safeguard electoral independence and citizen trust amid new challenges: political polarization, disinformation, and attempts to weaken autonomous institutions. For the Democracy Action Lab, the visit underscored the importance of institutional integrity as both a historical achievement and a living frontier in the struggle to sustain democracy across the region.

Academic Collaborations: Building a Network for Democratic Research

Later that day, the Democracy Action Lab held a working session with the Colmex–Stanford Research Group, bringing together scholars from Colmex. The conversation focused on identifying joint research agendas that could bridge theoretical insights and policy relevance in areas such as democratic resilience, social cohesion, governance, and state capacity. Participants discussed the design of comparative studies on democratic backsliding and institutional trust, as well as methodological strategies — ranging from survey experiments to subnational diagnostics — that could capture how citizens experience and respond to democratic erosion. The session reinforced the shared commitment of Colmex and Stanford to building evidence-based frameworks that inform both academic debate and practical reform.

The visit concluded with a working lunch at ITAM, where the discussion turned toward the economic and institutional dimensions of democratic performance. Faculty members reflected on the intersection between governance quality, inequality, and citizen trust, exploring opportunities for collaboration in the study of fiscal accountability and electoral behavior. These exchanges deepened DAL’s partnerships with Mexico’s leading universities — El Colegio de México and ITAM — and laid the groundwork for a regional academic consortium capable of producing comparative insights and applied tools for democratic renewal across Latin America.

Mexico as a Bridge for a Regional Effort

The Mexico City launch of the Democracy Action Lab marked more than the beginning of a new Stanford initiative: it represented a regional call to action.

As Professor Magaloni noted, Latin America today is both a region of growing democratic threats and extraordinary democratic courage. By starting in Mexico, DAL affirms its belief that the defense and reimagination of democracy must be both locally grounded and globally connected.

Through research, dialogue, and partnership, the Democracy Action Lab seeks to build the tools, coalitions, and evidence needed to confront authoritarian resurgence and renew faith in democratic governance, beginning in Latin America and reaching far beyond.

At the institute level, the partnership also reinforces Stanford’s broader role in advancing research and engagement on democracy.

“As the threats to democratic governance around the world multiply, so too must our commitment to the rigorous, interdisciplinary scholarship that seeks to understand and address them,” said Colin Kahl, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “Bringing the esteemed Journal of Democracy to CDDRL creates a powerful nexus for this vital work, strengthening FSI's role as a global leader in the study of democracy."

At the same time, the partnership comes at a moment of heightened global pressure on democratic institutions, underscoring the importance of the Journal’s role in the field.

“We are now in the twentieth consecutive year of global democratic decline — no longer just a ‘democratic recession,’ but a broader wave of authoritarian reversals,” said Larry Diamond. “Yet the struggle for democracy continues. Now more than ever, we need to understand both the causes of democratic decay and the conditions for recovery and renewal. The Journal of Democracy is unique in combining rigorous scholarship with timely, accessible analysis of developments around the world.”

For Stanford students, the partnership creates a more direct pathway into the world of ideas, publishing, and public scholarship. Through new editorial internships, undergraduates and recent graduate alumni can gain hands-on experience working with a leading journal that bridges scholarship and practice.

It also strengthens Stanford’s intellectual presence in democracy studies by giving CDDRL-affiliated faculty a more formal role in supporting the Journal’s work through serving on its editorial board. Stanford faculty will contribute to the Journal’s editorial mission, inspire new lines of inquiry, and help to identify emerging areas of research to be explored in its pages.

“This partnership with CDDRL is exceptionally exciting for the Journal of Democracy and its readers,” shared Will Dobson, the Journal’s co-editor. “CDDRL is not only the leading research center in the field, but its long history of collaboration with the Journal makes this a natural fit. We are thrilled to be working with CDDRL and with the possibilities this partnership will unlock.”

With a wide readership and growing digital footprint, the Journal of Democracy reaches audiences across academia, government, journalism, and civil society. It publishes roughly 100 online-exclusive essays each year alongside its quarterly print issues and engages readers through newsletters with more than 20,000 subscribers, across social media, in Apple News, and on leading podcasts. As the most-read journal in the Johns Hopkins University Press portfolio of more than 750 publications, it has become a central venue for ideas about democratic governance and political change worldwide. Through its partnership with CDDRL, the Journal is positioned to expand that reach even further — drawing on Stanford’s research community and global practitioner networks to bring new voices and perspectives into the conversation.

Corruption is typically understood as a sign of weak institutions and failed governance. But what if it is a deliberate political technology used to consolidate power, discipline rivals, and reshape political systems?

This is the argument advanced by University of Chicago sociologist Kimberly Kay Hoang in the latest episode of the APARC Briefing series. Drawing on years of ethnographic research across Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Myanmar, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as well as offshore tax havens, Hoang uses a comparative Asian lens to show how both democratic and authoritarian governments strategically align with private capital, reinforcing elite power. Hoang joined APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui to share core insights from her work.
 

Image

Kimberly Kay Hoang speaks on the APARC Briefing series with host Kiyoteru Tsutsui.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis >

She argues that corruption discourse often operates as a political tool, widely seen across Asian political economies and increasingly evident in the United States during the Trump era. This rhetoric, she says, tends not so much to dismantle institutions but to reshape them, concentrating authority in the executive and weakening checks and balances. According to Hoang, these patterns reflect a broader global shift toward more oligarchic forms of governance, where political power is increasingly concentrated among transnational elites.

"We often think of corruption as a failure of governance – that it's a weak state, and weak states can’t govern," Hoang says. "But in Southeast Asia and in other parts of East Asia, it has become an instrument for governance. It's a way of consolidating political power, weaponizing corruption."

From Vietnam's Hostess Bars to Global Finance

Hoang's research journey began in an unexpected place: working 12-hour shifts in Vietnamese hostess bars in 2009-2010, shortly after the global financial crisis. What started as an ethnographic study of the sex industry and human trafficking in Vietnam evolved into something far larger: a story of Asian ascendancy and Western decline playing out in micro-transactions.

"I started to witness local Vietnamese men turning down deals with Western businessmen and taking extraordinary deals from investors from China, parts of Southeast Asia – Hong Kong and Singapore – and Korea, Taiwan," Hoang recalls. When she examined foreign direct investment data, "the numbers lined up to what I was seeing at a micro level."

But when she presented these findings in the United States, the response was skeptical, even hostile. "People would say, 'Okay, yes, the economy is in decline, but America still has the strongest military,' or 'China is really dependent on the American economy, so if the American economy collapses, so will China's,'" she remembers. "It was a huge oversight of American arrogance to just believe that [Asian ascendancy] was impossible."

Her continued research led her to follow not just the money but "the people who move the money" – from Vietnam and Myanmar to Hong Kong and Singapore, and ultimately to offshore tax havens in the British Virgin Islands, Panama, the Seychelles, and the Cayman Islands.

The Architecture of Global Capital

What Hoang uncovered was what she calls an "architecture of global capital" – an invisible financial infrastructure built by "hidden engineers" including specialized wealth managers, lawyers, and financial advisors who coordinate across borders to move elite wealth beyond the reach of any single nation-state.

The scale is staggering: approximately $7.6 trillion in household wealth is hidden offshore globally, with the top 0.01% avoiding about 25% of their tax obligations through legal structures and shell corporations.

"We have to move beyond national boundaries," Hoang argues, "because global oligarchs choose the sovereigns and choose the jurisdictions that govern their financial transactions and activities."

This system creates what Hoang describes in her book, Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets (Princeton University Press), as a web of legal and financial gray zones that allow wealth to compound while evading accountability.

Corruption as Governance Mechanism

Hoang’s work exposes the connections between the rise of global elites, corruption, and the emergence of oligarchic governance. Across both Asia and the United States, she explains, corruption discourse operates as a mechanism for reshaping democratic governance by means of dissolving the boundary between political authority and economic power.

"What does that mean? It means that we no longer rely on institutions," she says. "People who have executive authority can just go after their rivals."

This creates what Hoang calls "anticipatory compliance," a situation in which political and economic elites preemptively align themselves with power centers. The mechanism works through strategic ambiguity: when corruption charges can be selectively deployed, everyone becomes potentially vulnerable, leading to self-regulation through fear.

While this pattern is well-established in countries like China and Vietnam, Hoang sees similar dynamics emerging in the United States. "Under the Trump administration, we've seen charges of corruption being weaponized as a tool of governance," she notes, while emphasizing that elements of this already appeared under the Biden administration.

Democratic Reordering, Not Collapse

When explaining the impacts of corruption discourse on democratic governance, Hoang is careful to distinguish between democratic collapse and what she terms "democratic reordering." Rather than overtly capturing the state, global oligarchs work through existing institutions, gradually redefining their function through moralized narratives, weakened oversight, selective enforcement, and strategic risk management. The outward forms of democracy remain intact, but the independence of courts, election fairness, and accountability mechanisms are steadily eroded. "They increasingly serve concentrated elite interests."

In comparing the United States to China, Hoang notes a crucial difference: "China has a long view. They're playing a 50-year view [...] If we're in this constant [electoral] cycle, and we've delegitimized oversight and political authority, [...] we need to have stronger independent institutions that outlast whoever is in office."

Finding Hope in Resistance

Despite her sobering analysis, Hoang sees reasons for optimism. "What gives me hope is that, if you look carefully, there are a lot of resistance movements," she says. "I think there's a growing battle between the millionaires and billionaires."

She points to resistance not just from grassroots movements but from millionaires who "don't want to live in a billionaire oligarchy world, who feel economically precarious vis-à-vis the extreme inequality."

The challenge, she argues, is that both mainstream and social media highlight extremes while missing the middle-level discourse and resistance movements that are actively organizing.

Kimberly Kay Hoang is Professor of Sociology and the College, and Director of Global Studies at the University of Chicago. In addition to Spiderweb Capitalism, she is the author of Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work (University of California Press). Her forthcoming work examines U.S.-China power relations in offshore financial centers.

The full APARC Briefing conversation with Hoang is available on APARC’s YouTube channel.

Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) is delighted to announce today, ahead of World Press Freedom Day, that Singapore-based investigative journalist Shibani Mahtani is the recipient of the 2026 Shorenstein Journalism Award for excellence in coverage of the Asia-Pacific region. The award recognizes Mahtani for her original, powerful reporting that has brought critical attention to the erosion of democracy and human rights across the region, particularly in Southeast Asia. She will receive the award at a public ceremony in the coming autumn quarter.

Until February 2026, Mahtani was an international investigative correspondent for the Washington Post. Her accountability-driven investigations across the Asia-Pacific have focused on the expanding economic and political influence of an increasingly assertive China and its implications in the region. Her work includes, among others, reports linking powerful criminal networks in Myanmar to the Chinese state and exposing brutal scam compounds in the country; examining Beijing’s influence on Chinese-language media in Singapore and its efforts to wield influence in Indonesia and elsewhere through vocational programs; scrutinizing China’s cross-national repression of Uyghur Muslims, especially in Central and Southeast Asia; and investigating how its promise of prosperity brought Laos debt and distress.

Mahtani joined the Washington Post in 2018 as the Southeast Asia and Hong Kong Bureau Chief. She reported extensively from Myanmar, the Philippines, Laos, and other parts of the region. Most notably, she chronicled China’s subjugation of Hong Kong, from the explosive protests in 2019, triggered by Beijing’s proposal to extradite locals to the mainland, through the systematic crushing of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, to the dismantling of the city’s autonomy and the many ways it is changing.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis and commentary >

Her searing coverage of Hong Kong’s struggle includes a multimedia investigative report into Hong Kong police misconduct during the 2019 pro-democracy demonstrations, for which she earned a Human Rights Press Award, and an exclusive on the alleged torture of a key prosecution witness in Hong Kong’s highest-profile trial of pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai. Mahtani continued to pursue that story, most recently reporting on Lai’s 20-year prison sentence, even after losing her job when the Washington Post sharply reduced its International team as part of mass layoffs.

Mahtani is also the co-author of the 2023 book, Among the Braves: Hope, Struggle, and Exile in the Battle for Hong Kong and the Future of Global Democracy, a narrative history of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement that explores it through the eyes of people on the ground, culminating in the 2019 mass protests and Beijing’s crackdown. 

Before joining the Washington Post, she was a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and reported from Singapore, Myanmar, and Chicago.

“Shibani Mahtani’s journalism is defined by a courageous and relentless pursuit of speaking truth to power,” said APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui. “Her work exemplifies the vital role of investigative reporting: to expose complex systems of repression and give voice to those who have been silenced. We are proud to honor her outstanding journalism with the Shorenstein Award.”

Sponsored and presented annually by APARC, the Shorenstein Award recognizes journalists and news media outlets that leverage a deep knowledge of Asian societies to share crucial insights with a global audience. The award carries a $10,000 cash prize and honors the legacy of APARC’s benefactor, Mr. Walter H. Shorenstein, and his twin passions for promoting excellence in journalism and understanding of Asia. It also demonstrates APARC’s commitment to journalism that persistently and courageously seeks accuracy, deep reporting, and nuanced coverage in an age when attacks are regularly launched against independent news media, fact-based truth, and those who tell it.

The selection committee for the award praised Mahtani’s investigations as groundbreaking and revelatory, noting that, in her coverage of Hong Kong, she has broken stories others would not – or could not – report.

The committee members are William Dobson, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy; Anna Fifield, a journalist and foreign affairs analyst, non-resident fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and recipient of the 2018 Shorenstein Journalism Award; James Hamilton, vice provost for undergraduate education, the Hearst Professor of Communication, and director of the Stanford Journalism Program, Stanford University; Louisa Lim, associate professor, Audio-Visual Journalism Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne; and Raju Narisetti, partner and global leader at McKinsey Global Publishing, McKinsey & Company.

Twenty-four winners previously received the Shorenstein Award. Recent honorees include Chris Buckley, the chief China correspondent for the New York Times; Emily Feng, international correspondent for NPR covering China, Taiwan, and more; Netra News, Bangladesh's premier independent media outlet; The Caravan, India's premier magazine of long-form journalism; and Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa, co-founder and CEO of the Philippines-based news organization Rappler.

Information about the 2026 Shorenstein Journalism Award ceremony celebrating Mahtahni will be forthcoming in the autumn quarter.

Hanna Folsz then took a closer, domestic look at the Tisza Party and how they triumphed over Orbán. As Kelemen discussed, Orbán's new electoral rules strongly favored large parties with rural bases, the characteristics of the Fidesz party. The Fidesz Party also controlled the media and enjoyed advantages in party financing. However, the Tisza Party, led by Peter Magyar, dominated the 2026 election, despite the electoral system being stacked against opposition parties. 

Economic woes, corruption, and scandals surrounding Fidesz created broad voter discontent and set the stage for the Tisza Party’s victory. Tisza worked to create a broad coalition through extensive group-level campaigning, messaging that focused on competent economic governance and anti-corruption, and the idea of reclaiming patriotism. Magyar also extensively campaigned, holding rallies all over Hungary in localities of all sizes. The district candidates within the Tisza Party campaigned in a similar manner. 

The Tisza Party focused its policy proposals on extensive welfare, public services improvement, the elimination of corruption, strengthening relationships with the EU and neighbors, and largely avoided divisive topics. The Party also distanced itself from the discredited and divisive established opposition parties, and they did not coordinate with past opposition parties. 

Folsz outlined the lessons Hungary’s electoral outcome shows for democratic resistance against autocratization. The Hungarian case demonstrated the importance of connecting with voters and building credibility by campaigning a lot and across the country, including in rural constituencies. The Tisza Party also smartly presented a vision for a better future with concrete proposals, rooted in citizens’ core concerns– in this case, the economy and corruption, and distanced themselves from divisive opposition politicians and parties. The Tisza Party focused its messaging on unity and reclaiming patriotism from the far right.

The 2026 Hungarian election offered a rare example of democratic recovery in a system widely considered entrenched, raising important lessons for opposition movements confronting democratic erosion.