Search Results (2)

This paper studies the views of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on religion and Christianity, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The analysis is based on Viktor Orbán’s speeches in Băile Tușnad, at Bálványos Free Summer University and Student Camp (commonly known as Tusványos), which are suitable to sensitively trace the evolution of his thinking from 1990 to 2022. The analysis shows how the concept of Christianity has changed in meaning in the speeches, how it has been linked to political issues, and in what ways Orbán’s thinking has been similar to and different from political Christianity and religious Christianity. Orbán’s concept of Christianity can be understood within the theoretical framework of populism developed by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe: in the discursive struggle for political hegemony, there is a continuous construction of ‘the people’, of society, in which ‘empty markers’ play a key role. Orbán’s concept of Christianity can thus be adequately interpreted in terms of the discourse of the permanent creation of the ‘nation’. The political emphasis on Christianity is related to the wounded collective identity of Hungarian society. The paper argues that because of the collective woundedness, society requires an overarching narrative symbolizing unity, of which Christianity is a key concept. Full article

In this paper, I hope to shed light on the social and institutional transformation processes in Brazil in the 21st century, contrasting what can be understood as two populist waves. The first is the one led by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as a left-wing leader whose government has been internationally recognized for implementing distributive economic policies (inclusion of the poorest majority) and inclusive social policies (inclusion of racial and sexual minorities). The second is the right-wing wave led by Jair Bolsonaro, internationally recognized, but rather for embracing a discourse contrary to the inclusive practices adopted by their predecessor. Thus, the question I want to answer is: How can the same concept fit into such different phenomena? My hypothesis is that we are facing two patterns of representative relations. An inclusive one that aims to expand the number of groups that can be properly represented within the political collectivity, increasing its pluralism, and an exclusive one that aims to restrict them, shortening the plurality of groups and identities that forms the people. In both, the theme of racial and sexual minorities becomes a priority. Through this discussion, I want to emphasize the substantive and existential quality of the differences between these two representative patterns that are sometimes neglected or reduced by those who use the concept of populism to attribute some kind of symmetry or ideological convergence between them. Full article