During the holiday season, I watched an interview on Deutsche Welle with Marta Kos, the European Commissioner for Enlargement, in which she was asked about the obstacles surrounding Ukraine’s EU accession. One particular exchange caught my attention. The reporter asked whether Hungary had a point in saying that it had consulted the population in a “referendum,” and that the Hungarian population had spoken “very clearly” against Ukraine becoming a member state of the EU.
This statement is, at best, misleading. Not because there are no anxious or even critical views on Ukraine’s EU accession among the Hungarian public, but because this “referendum” was not an official vote according to Hungary’s Fundamental Law. Rather, it was one of the Orbán regime’s most effective propaganda instruments: the National Consultation (nemzeti konzultáció).
Although successive Orbán governments regularly refer to the results of these consultations—both domestically and abroad—as official referendums, the reality is that they cannot credibly represent the position of “Hungarians.” Instead, they primarily reflect the political views of the regime itself. Through this mechanism, the government has found a way to legitimise its own decisions and vetoes, both at home and at EU level.
A propaganda tool dressed up as democracy
The roots of the National Consultation date back to the 2000s. Viktor Orbán, then leader of the opposition, introduced this purportedly direct-democratic format in his 2005 annual review speech. The stated goal was that consultations would help the party better understand voters’ needs and opinions—and, with that knowledge, win the next parliamentary election.
Although Fidesz lost the 2006 elections, the consultation became a popular format. After returning to power in 2010, the new government institutionalised the National Consultation as an instrument for communicating directly with voters. The first consultation was held shortly after the elections, asking citizens about planned pension reforms and the new Fundamental Law. Initially, the government was relatively open about the initiative’s links to the governing party. Over time, however, officials began referring to these exercises as governmental questionnaires and identifying their results with the “will of the Hungarian people.” This narrative fits perfectly into the plebiscitary logic of the Orbán regime, which presents itself as the direct representative of the people and the sole embodiment of the national will.
National Consultations differ fundamentally from democratic referendums. First, there is no law or legal framework regulating them. Second, each consultation typically consists of several questions that follow a specific political narrative of the Hungarian regime—whether concerning migration, family policy, or Ukraine’s EU accession. The questionnaires normally begin with a personal letter from the Prime Minister, which frames the topic and implicitly suggests the “correct” answers. The questions themselves are introduced with short descriptions reflecting the government’s political position. Response options are often designed so that the choice favourable to the government appears to be the only rational one.
It is therefore unsurprising that results consistently show overwhelming support for the government’s stance. Afterwards, the regime communicates these results as the opinion of the Hungarian people—especially in the international arena, where, as the Deutsche Welle interview demonstrates, they are often accepted as facts.
The Ukraine consultation and what it obscures
In 2025, the government—and personally the Prime Minister—launched a new and distinctive consultation on Ukraine’s accession to the EU, asking citizens to state their opinion so that he could defend the Hungarians’ position in “Brussels.” This time, the consultation contained only one question: Do you support Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union? The response options were simply yes and no. It also received a different name: “VOTE 2025” (VOKS 2025).
According to government figures, more than 2.2 million people participated, and 95 per cent of them rejected the EU accession of their neighbour. This data alone may give the impression that Hungarian society is clearly opposed to enlargement. However, the picture is considerably more complex.
Around the same time, the opposition party TISZA conducted its own consultation in response to the National Consultation, under the name “Voice of the Nation” (Nemzet Hangja). This exercise drew responses from 1.1 million people, among whom supporters of Ukraine’s EU accession were in the majority at 58.2 per cent. Moreover, several independent opinion polls—from Medián, Publicus and Republikon—have shown division rather than a clear national consensus.
The real danger of the National Consultation does not lie in the consultations themselves but in how the Orbán regime utilises them. Their purpose as quasi-democratic instruments is to mobilise and consolidate the electoral base of the governing parties, while supporting the regime’s international legitimation and concealing the realities of authoritarian governance.
The fact that these exercises resemble democratic referendums does not make them such. They function merely as a façade. It is therefore particularly important that the media and actors in international discourse critically examine the communications of Hungary’s government and other authoritarian-leaning regimes. Otherwise, they may unwittingly amplify the misleading propaganda of such governments.
