Nemzeti Együttmuködés Rendszere
The System of National Cooperation in Hungary
English: System of National Cooperation
Period: 2010–present
The comparison with Gleichschaltung reveals both important structural similarities in techniques of institutional capture and coordination, and critical differences in ideology, methods, and extremity. NER employs some of the same mechanisms of social coordination that characterized Nazi Germany's consolidation of power, but does so within a fundamentally different ideological framework and without the systematic violence and totalitarian ambitions that defined Nazism. The comparison is analytically useful while requiring careful attention to what makes NER different from historical totalitarianism.
The comparison with Trump-era initiatives and proposals reveals that elements of the NER playbook have resonance in American politics, particularly within the Trumpist movement. While American institutions proved more resilient during Trump's first term, the systematic planning evident in documents like Project 2025 suggests that more comprehensive capture could be attempted. However, structural differences between Hungary and the United States—including federalism, separation of powers, institutional complexity, and deeper democratic traditions—make comprehensive NER-type capture significantly more difficult in the American context.
Understanding NER: Definition and Scope
What is NER?
NER is the term used to describe the comprehensive system of political, economic, and social control established by Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party in Hungary after 2010. It encompasses:
- A constitutional and legal framework designed to entrench Fidesz's power
- An extensive patronage network connecting government, business, and civil society
- A media ecosystem dominated by pro-government outlets
- An economic model that rewards political loyalty
- A cultural and educational apparatus promoting nationalist-conservative ideology
- A system of informal rules and expectations that govern behavior beyond formal law
The term itself is revealing. "Nemzeti Együttmuködés" (National Cooperation) suggests unity, collaboration, and shared purpose—presenting the system as bringing Hungarians together rather than dividing them. However, critics argue that this cooperation is coerced rather than voluntary, requiring acceptance of Fidesz's worldview and political dominance. Those who refuse to "cooperate" face marginalization, economic pressure, or worse.
The word "Rendszer" (System) is particularly significant in Hungarian political discourse. It evokes memories of the "Kádár rendszer"—the communist system that governed Hungary from 1956 to 1989. By using this same terminology, both supporters and critics acknowledge that NER represents a comprehensive reordering of Hungarian society, not merely a change in government policy.
NER versus Illiberal Democracy: The Relationship
While often conflated, NER and illiberal democracy are distinct but related concepts. Understanding their relationship is crucial for grasping the nature of Orbán's project.
Illiberal democracy is an ideological concept and political philosophy. It describes a form of governance that maintains electoral mechanisms while rejecting liberal constraints on power, constitutional checks and balances, and the protection of minority rights. It is a theoretical framework that can be articulated in speeches and policy documents. Orbán's 2014 Baile Tu?nad speech introduced illiberal democracy as an ideological vision—a normative claim about how democracies should organize themselves.
NER, by contrast, is the practical implementation—the machinery, the networks, the actual system of governance. It is the concrete institutional reality of how Fidesz maintains power and organizes Hungarian society. While illiberal democracy provides the ideological justification, NER is the operational framework.
The Theory-Practice Relationship
Illiberal Democracy: The ideological blueprint—what Orbán says he is building
NER: The actual construction—what Orbán has built in practice
Think of illiberal democracy as the architectural design and philosophical justification, while NER is the actual building with all its foundations, structures, wiring, plumbing, and the people who inhabit and operate it.
NER goes far beyond what is implied by "illiberal democracy." While illiberal democracy focuses on constitutional and institutional questions, NER encompasses an entire patronage system, a redistribution of economic wealth to political allies, and networks of informal power that extend into every corner of Hungarian life. You can have illiberal democracy without the comprehensive clientelism and corruption that characterizes NER, though in practice they often go together.
The Architecture of NER
NER is built on several interconnected pillars, each reinforcing the others to create a resilient system of control. Understanding these pillars is essential to grasping how NER functions as a totality rather than as discrete policy choices.
Constitutional Engineering
The 2011 Fundamental Law and subsequent amendments created a legal framework that entrenches Fidesz's power, limits judicial review, and makes it difficult for future governments to reverse key policies without a supermajority.
Patronage Networks
An extensive system connecting government contracts, EU funds, business opportunities, and public sector positions to political loyalty, creating economic dependence on the regime.
Media Domination
A coordinated media ecosystem where pro-government outlets dominate coverage, opposition voices are marginalized, and critical journalism faces economic and political pressure.
Judicial Subordination
Courts packed with loyalists, prosecutors who selectively enforce the law, and an administrative court system designed to favor government interests.
Economic Redistribution
Massive transfer of wealth and assets from opposition-linked or independent businesses to government allies, creating a new class of Fidesz oligarchs.
Civil Society Control
NGOs, universities, cultural institutions, and civic organizations brought under government influence through funding restrictions, legal harassment, and institutional capture.
Ideological Apparatus
Education system, cultural institutions, and public discourse shaped to promote nationalist-conservative values and delegitimize liberal alternatives.
Electoral Manipulation
Gerrymandering, changes to electoral rules, manipulation of voter registration, and use of state resources for campaigning that tilts the playing field heavily toward Fidesz.
The Patronage Network: The Heart of NER
At the core of NER lies an extensive patronage network that binds together government, business, and civil society through relationships of mutual dependence and benefit. This network is what distinguishes NER from a simple case of democratic backsliding or constitutional manipulation—it represents the construction of an entire parallel economy and society organized around loyalty to Fidesz.
The patronage system operates through several key mechanisms. Public procurement contracts, worth billions of euros annually, are systematically directed toward companies owned or controlled by individuals close to Fidesz. These contracts often lack genuine competitive bidding, and prices are frequently inflated, allowing contractors to extract enormous profits while kicking back portions to the party through campaign contributions or other means.
EU funds represent another crucial resource. Hungary receives substantial funding from the European Union for development projects, infrastructure, and agriculture. Under NER, the distribution of these funds has been systematically skewed toward regime-friendly actors. Oligarchs close to Orbán have received disproportionate shares of agricultural subsidies, development grants, and infrastructure contracts. This has created a situation where EU money intended to develop Hungary instead enriches a small circle of politically connected individuals.
Business regulation and state intervention have been weaponized to reward friends and punish enemies. Companies that support the opposition or maintain independence face sudden tax audits, regulatory obstacles, and loss of government contracts. Meanwhile, regime-friendly businesses receive favorable treatment, regulatory exemptions, and access to lucrative opportunities. This creates powerful incentives for businesses to align with the government or at minimum to avoid opposition.
Key Patronage Mechanisms
- Public Procurement: Non-competitive contracts awarded to politically connected firms at inflated prices
- EU Fund Distribution: Development funds, agricultural subsidies, and infrastructure money channeled to regime allies
- Banking and Finance: State-owned banks provide favorable loans to friendly businesses while restricting credit to opponents
- Media Advertising: State-owned companies direct advertising spending to pro-government media outlets
- Real Estate: Valuable state properties sold or leased at favorable terms to political insiders
- Professional Licenses: Regulatory agencies control access to lucrative professions and industries
- Public Employment: Government jobs and positions in state enterprises distributed based on political loyalty
- Foundation Assets: Formerly state-owned assets transferred to politically controlled foundations nominally independent but actually subservient to Fidesz
The Oligarchic Structure
A defining feature of NER is the creation of a new oligarchic class—individuals who have become enormously wealthy through their connections to Fidesz and Orbán personally. These are not traditional businessmen who accumulated wealth through entrepreneurship and then entered politics. Rather, they are political actors who accumulated wealth through their political connections.
The most prominent example is Lorinc Mészáros, a former gas fitter from Orbán's hometown of Felcsút who became one of Hungary's richest men after Orbán returned to power. Mészáros's companies have won billions in public contracts despite limited prior business experience. His rise epitomizes the NER model: political proximity translates directly into economic opportunity, and economic success requires political loyalty.
Other members of this oligarchic circle include individuals like István Tiborcz (Orbán's son-in-law), Árpád Habony (a political consultant and advisor), and various businessmen who have prospered through government contracts, favorable regulations, and access to EU funds. These individuals form an interlocking network of business relationships, with ownership structures often deliberately obscured to make it difficult to trace ultimate control and responsibility.
This oligarchic system serves multiple purposes for NER. Economically, it ensures that wealth generated in Hungary flows to regime supporters rather than potential opponents. Politically, it creates a class of individuals whose personal fortunes are tied to Fidesz's continued rule, giving them strong incentives to support the regime through campaign contributions, media ownership, and mobilization of resources. Socially, it demonstrates the rewards of loyalty and the costs of opposition, encouraging others to align with the system.
Media Coordination and Message Control
NER's media system is characterized by unprecedented coordination and centralization. While Hungary still has some independent media outlets, the pro-government media ecosystem operates with a level of synchronization that is remarkable even by authoritarian standards.
The creation of KESMA (Central European Press and Media Foundation) in 2018 represented the culmination of years of media consolidation. Approximately 500 media outlets were "donated" to this single foundation by their oligarch owners, creating a massive pro-government media conglomerate. The government immediately declared KESMA to be of "strategic national importance," exempting it from antitrust regulations that would normally prevent such concentration.
What makes NER's media system particularly effective is not just ownership concentration but operational coordination. Pro-government media outlets regularly publish identical or near-identical articles, often with the same headlines and phrasing. Daily talking points appear to be distributed across the entire ecosystem, ensuring that government messaging is amplified consistently. This coordination extends to the timing of stories, the framing of issues, and even the selection of which news events to cover or ignore.
Public broadcasting has been transformed into a state propaganda apparatus. MTV (Magyar Televízió) and other public broadcasters provide uncritical coverage of government activities while largely ignoring opposition politicians except when attacking them. Coverage is so one-sided that opposition parties sometimes refuse to appear on public television, arguing that the format is designed to make them look bad rather than to facilitate genuine debate.
The Legal-Constitutional Framework
NER's legal foundation rests on the 2011 Fundamental Law and the extensive amendments that have followed. This constitutional framework was designed not merely to reflect new policy priorities but to entrench Fidesz's power and make it difficult for future governments to reverse the system.
Key constitutional provisions include supermajority requirements for changing certain fundamental laws, making it nearly impossible for any non-Fidesz government to reform the system without building an improbably broad coalition. The definition of what constitutes a "cardinal law" (requiring a two-thirds majority) was expanded to include areas like electoral rules, media regulation, and family policy—precisely the areas where Fidesz has made controversial changes.
The Constitutional Court, once a powerful check on governmental power, has been neutralized through expansion (allowing Fidesz to appoint new judges), jurisdictional limitations (removing its ability to review certain types of decisions), and the appointment of loyalists to key positions. While the court occasionally rules against the government on minor issues, it consistently upholds the fundamental elements of NER.
Lower courts have been influenced through mandatory retirement ages that forced out older judges, reorganization of court administration that gave government appointees control over judicial assignments, and the creation of parallel administrative courts designed to handle cases involving government agencies. Although the separate administrative court system was suspended under EU pressure, the administrative cases are now handled by regular courts that have nevertheless been staffed with government-friendly judges.
Comparing NER and Gleichschaltung
The comparison between Hungary's NER and Nazi Germany's Gleichschaltung (coordination/synchronization) is both illuminating and fraught with controversy. Gleichschaltung refers to the process by which the Nazi regime brought all aspects of German society under party control between 1933 and 1934, eliminating independent institutions and creating a totalitarian system. While there are significant differences in ideology, methods, and extremity, examining both similarities and contrasts helps us understand NER's nature and limits.
Analytical Caution
Comparing any contemporary system to Nazi Germany requires careful analytical distinctions. The comparison here is structural and procedural—examining techniques of institutional capture and social coordination—not moral or historical equivalence. Nazi Germany represents a uniquely evil regime that committed genocide and waged aggressive war. NER, whatever its antidemocratic features, operates on a fundamentally different scale of oppression and violence.
Structural and Procedural Similarities
1. Legal Revolution Through Legal Means
Both Gleichschaltung and NER involved revolutionary transformations of the state accomplished through ostensibly legal procedures. Hitler used the Enabling Act of 1933 to grant himself dictatorial powers while maintaining a façade of legality. Orbán used Fidesz's two-thirds parliamentary majority to rewrite the constitution and pass cardinal laws that fundamentally restructured Hungarian institutions. In both cases, legal formalism masked authoritarian substance—the letter of the law was followed while its democratic spirit was violated.
2. Capture of Independent Institutions
Both systems systematically captured institutions that should provide checks on power. Gleichschaltung brought trade unions, professional associations, cultural organizations, media outlets, and civic groups under Nazi control through a combination of coercion, voluntary coordination, and institutional reorganization. NER has pursued a similar strategy, albeit with different methods: judicial institutions packed with loyalists, civil society organizations pressured through funding restrictions and hostile legislation, media outlets purchased by government-friendly oligarchs or starved of advertising revenue, and universities brought under government control through administrative reorganization.
3. Ideological Conformity
Both systems promoted ideological conformity and marginalized alternative viewpoints. Gleichschaltung enforced Nazi ideology through censorship, propaganda, and persecution of dissidents. NER promotes its conservative-nationalist ideology through media domination, educational reform, and delegitimization of liberal alternatives. While NER does not approach the totalitarian control of Nazi Germany, it nevertheless creates strong pressure for public conformity and penalties for visible dissent.
4. Creation of Parallel Elites
Both systems created new elites whose status and wealth depended on loyalty to the regime. Gleichschaltung elevated party members to positions of authority and economic advantage, displacing traditional elites who were insufficiently loyal. NER has created a new oligarchic class whose wealth comes from political connections rather than entrepreneurship or traditional business success. In both cases, this creates a class of individuals with strong incentives to maintain the system.
5. Coordination of Messaging
Both systems achieved remarkable coordination of public messaging. Nazi propaganda, under Goebbels, synchronized media outlets, cultural productions, and public discourse to promote regime narratives. NER's media system, particularly after the KESMA consolidation, demonstrates similar coordination, with pro-government outlets regularly publishing identical or near-identical content and amplifying government talking points in unison.
6. Economic Reorganization
Both systems involved significant economic reorganization favoring regime supporters. Gleichschaltung brought labor unions under Nazi control, coordinated business associations, and directed economic resources toward party priorities. NER redistributes wealth through public procurement, EU fund distribution, and regulatory favoritism toward politically connected businesses. Both created economic systems where political loyalty became economically valuable.
Critical Differences
1. Ideological Extremism and Violence
The most fundamental difference is the extremism of Nazi ideology and the centrality of violence to the Nazi project. Nazism was built on racial hierarchy, aggressive militarism, and genocidal antisemitism. It employed systematic violence, terror, and ultimately industrial-scale murder. NER, by contrast, is built on conservative nationalism and has not employed systematic violence against its opponents. While Fidesz promotes ethnic nationalism and has scapegoated minorities (particularly Roma and immigrants), this does not approach Nazi racial ideology in extremity or murderous intent.
2. Totalitarian versus Authoritarian Ambitions
Gleichschaltung aimed at totalitarian control—the complete subordination of every aspect of life to party and state. Nazi Germany sought to control not just political institutions but private behavior, personal relationships, cultural life, and even thought. NER, while authoritarian, does not pursue totalitarian control. Hungarians retain significant private freedoms, can travel freely, access foreign media, and express private dissent without state intrusion (though public dissent may have consequences).
3. Competitive versus One-Party System
Nazi Germany eliminated all opposition parties and established a one-party state. Elections became meaningless rituals with predetermined outcomes. NER maintains competitive elections, even if the playing field is heavily tilted. Opposition parties exist, contest elections, control some municipalities, and occasionally win seats. While the system is deeply unfair, it is not a one-party dictatorship.
4. Speed and Comprehensiveness
Gleichschaltung was accomplished rapidly—the main institutional capture occurred between 1933 and 1934. NER has evolved more gradually over more than a decade, though with periodic accelerations. Nazi coordination was also more comprehensive, extending into areas of private life that NER does not reach.
5. International Constraints
Nazi Germany operated with increasing freedom from international constraints, ultimately pursuing aggressive war. NER operates within the European Union and NATO, which impose limits (however imperfect) on Hungarian behavior. EU membership provides both economic benefits Hungary depends on and legal/political constraints that occasionally force policy changes. These international constraints significantly limit how far NER can go.
6. Methods of Control
Gleichschaltung relied heavily on violence, intimidation, and terror, including concentration camps for political opponents from 1933 onward. NER relies primarily on economic incentives and disincentives, social pressure, and manipulation of democratic institutions. While there are isolated cases of violence or intimidation, systematic terror is not a feature of NER as it was of Nazi Germany.
Analytical Synthesis: What the Comparison Reveals
The comparison with Gleichschaltung reveals that NER represents a form of authoritarian institutional capture that shares certain structural features with historical totalitarian systems while differing fundamentally in ideology, methods, and extremity. The similarities lie primarily in techniques of institutional control: using legal mechanisms to consolidate power, capturing independent institutions, creating economic dependencies, and coordinating public discourse.
However, the differences are equally important. NER operates in a democratic context (however degraded), maintains electoral competition (however unfair), refrains from systematic violence, and faces international constraints. It represents what political scientists call "competitive authoritarianism" or "electoral autocracy" rather than totalitarianism.
The Gleichschaltung comparison is useful not because NER is "like Nazi Germany" in some comprehensive sense, but because it illuminates specific mechanisms of institutional capture and social coordination that NER has employed. Understanding these mechanisms helps us recognize how democratic institutions can be subverted from within through ostensibly legal means, creating systems that maintain democratic forms while eliminating democratic substance.
Comparing NER and Trump-Era Initiatives
The comparison between Hungary's NER and political developments in the United States during and after the Trump presidency presents a complex analytical challenge. While there are concerning parallels in rhetoric, tactics, and objectives, there are also significant differences in institutional context, implementation, and outcomes. Understanding both similarities and differences is crucial for assessing democratic threats in comparative perspective.
Trump Administration (2017-2021): Attempted Elements of NER
During his presidency, Donald Trump pursued various initiatives that bore resemblance to elements of the NER playbook, though with mixed success due to stronger American institutional resistance.
Media Attacks and Alternative Ecosystem
Trump relentlessly attacked mainstream media as "fake news" and "enemy of the people," similar to Orbán's delegitimization of independent media. However, Trump could not replicate NER's media capture. He lacked the ability to force media consolidation or direct advertising revenue systematically to friendly outlets. Instead, an alternative media ecosystem of Fox News, right-wing websites, and social media created parallel information streams without achieving NER's level of dominance or coordination.
Institutional Loyalty Testing
Trump demanded personal loyalty from officials who should maintain independence, particularly in law enforcement and intelligence. His firing of FBI Director Comey and attempts to pressure investigations resembled NER's subordination of prosecutors and courts. However, institutional resistance was significant—career officials, inspectors general, and eventually congressional oversight provided checks that have no equivalent in NER.
Judicial Appointments
Trump appointed numerous conservative judges, including three Supreme Court justices, similar to Orbán's court-packing. However, the appointments followed existing constitutional procedures and were not part of a systematic plan to subordinate the judiciary to political control. American judicial independence, while strained, proved more resilient than Hungary's.
Executive Power Expansion
Trump tested limits of executive power through national emergency declarations, aggressive use of executive orders, and attempts to bypass Congress. This echoed NER's concentration of power in the executive. However, courts blocked many initiatives, Congress provided occasional oversight, and the basic constitutional structure held.
Attacks on Election Integrity
Trump's false claims about the 2020 election and attempts to overturn results represented the most serious parallel to NER's electoral manipulation. However, these efforts ultimately failed due to institutional resistance from election officials, courts, and eventually Congress. The January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol demonstrated the danger but also the resilience of American institutions.
Political Purges
Trump fired officials he viewed as disloyal and installed loyalists where possible, similar to NER's patronage system. However, the scale was limited compared to NER. Career civil service protections, Senate confirmation requirements, and the sheer size of the federal bureaucracy prevented comprehensive capture.
Post-2021 Developments and Project 2025
After leaving office, Trump and his allies have articulated more comprehensive plans for a potential second term, detailed in documents like the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" and various think tank proposals. These plans bear even more striking resemblance to NER's comprehensive approach.
Project 2025 and NER-Style Plans
Project 2025 and similar proposals outline plans that would, if implemented, move the United States significantly closer to an NER-type system. Key elements include:
- Schedule F and Civil Service Reform: Reclassifying tens of thousands of civil servants as political appointees, allowing wholesale replacement with loyalists—directly paralleling NER's capture of the bureaucracy
- DOJ and FBI Restructuring: Bringing law enforcement under direct presidential control, eliminating independence that constrained Trump—mirroring NER's prosecutor subordination
- Regulatory Capture: Installing loyalists in regulatory agencies to favor political allies and punish opponents—echoing NER's use of regulation as reward/punishment
- Media Licensing Threats: Proposals to challenge broadcast licenses of critical media and use regulatory power to pressure platforms—similar to NER's media control strategy
- Retribution Agenda: Explicit promises to investigate and prosecute political opponents, using government power for revenge—paralleling NER's selective prosecution
- Ideological Purges: Plans to eliminate "woke" policies and personnel from government, military, and education—reminiscent of NER's ideological conformity
Comparing Structural Conditions
Understanding why NER succeeded in Hungary while similar efforts have (so far) been less successful in the United States requires examining structural differences between the two countries.
| Factor | Hungary (Enabling NER) | United States (Constraining NER-Type Systems) |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Structure | Parliamentary system with no separation of powers when one party has supermajority; easier to rewrite constitution | Presidential system with separated powers; amendment requires extraordinary majorities across multiple bodies |
| Political Parties | Weak party system still developing after communism; Fidesz achieved organizational dominance | Two established major parties with deep institutional roots and competing bases |
| Federal Structure | Unitary state; central government controls all levels | Federal system with state and local governments controlling key functions including elections |
| Civil Service | Smaller bureaucracy; easier to capture and transform | Massive federal bureaucracy with civil service protections and institutional culture |
| Media | Smaller, more concentrated media market; oligarchs could purchase outlets systematically | Vast, diverse media landscape that cannot be easily consolidated or captured |
| Civil Society | Weaker civil society still recovering from communism; easier to pressure or coopt | Deep, diverse civil society with independent funding and institutional strength |
| Economic Size | Small economy; few major corporations; easier to control through procurement and regulation | Massive, complex economy; corporate sector with independent power bases |
| International Context | Small EU member state; can often be ignored or worked around | Global superpower; actions have worldwide consequences and face intense scrutiny |
| Democratic History | Democracy only since 1989; weaker democratic norms and institutions | Continuous democracy since 1788 (with caveat of slavery/segregation); deep-rooted democratic culture |
| Judicial Independence | Judiciary could be reorganized and packed with supermajority; less institutional resilience | Stronger tradition of judicial independence; life tenure; harder to capture comprehensively |
Key Similarities in Approach
Populist Rhetoric and Enemy Construction
Both Orbán and Trump employ classic populist rhetoric dividing society into "the people" versus "elites," "globalists," or "the establishment." Both position themselves as authentic representatives of the people against corrupt, out-of-touch elites. Both use nationalist appeals and cultural grievance to mobilize supporters.
Delegitimization of Opposition
Both systematically delegitimize opposition as not merely wrong but illegitimate. Orbán frames opposition parties as servants of foreign interests (particularly George Soros). Trump similarly questions the legitimacy of opponents, claiming Democrats "hate America" and that opposition represents treasonous forces trying to destroy the country.
Attack on Institutional Independence
Both attack institutions that should be independent when those institutions constrain their power. Orbán subordinated courts, prosecutors, and regulatory agencies. Trump attacked courts that ruled against him, demanded loyalty from law enforcement, and sought to bring regulatory agencies under direct political control.
Media Strategy
Both seek to create alternative media ecosystems where their supporters receive only regime-friendly information while delegitimizing mainstream media as biased or fake. While methods differ due to structural constraints, the strategic objective is similar: information dominance within their political base.
Cultural Grievance Politics
Both tap into cultural anxiety about rapid social change, immigration, and shifting cultural norms. Both position themselves as defenders of traditional values and national identity against cosmopolitan elites who allegedly disdain ordinary people and traditional culture.
Personalization of Power
Both systems center on a strong leader whose personal authority transcends institutional roles. Loyalty is to the leader personally rather than to party, principles, or institutions. This creates systems where the leader's preferences determine policy and personnel rather than institutional processes.
Key Differences in Implementation and Results
Comprehensiveness and Success
NER represents a comprehensive, successful transformation of Hungary's political system. Orbán has built a resilient system that has survived multiple electoral cycles and extends into every corner of Hungarian society. Trump's efforts, by contrast, were partial, contested, and ultimately unsuccessful in fundamentally transforming American institutions, though they revealed vulnerabilities.
Patronage and Corruption
NER involves systematic corruption with a clear patronage structure directing government resources to political allies. While Trump's administration faced numerous corruption scandals, it did not establish the comprehensive patronage system that characterizes NER. American institutions, media, and civil society provided more resistance to such efforts.
Institutional Capture Depth
Orbán successfully captured Hungarian institutions—courts, prosecutors, media, regulatory agencies—in ways that have proven durable. Trump's institutional capture was superficial by comparison, limited primarily to appointments within constitutional bounds and easily reversible by subsequent administrations.
Electoral Manipulation
NER has successfully manipulated Hungary's electoral system through gerrymandering, constitutional changes, and media domination, making it difficult for opposition to win despite maintaining competitive elections. Trump's attempts to manipulate the 2020 election failed due to institutional resistance from election officials, courts, and Congress. American electoral administration remains largely in state/local hands, making comprehensive capture far more difficult.
Legal-Constitutional Changes
Orbán rewrote Hungary's constitution and passed numerous cardinal laws entrenching his system. Trump made no comparable constitutional changes. American constitutional structure proved far more resilient to executive power grabs, and Trump's inability to change the fundamental legal framework limited his impact.
Opposition Space
While Hungary maintains some opposition space, it is severely constrained. Opposition parties struggle for resources, media access, and ability to compete on equal terms. In the United States, opposition remains robust with independent funding, media platforms, control of some state governments, and ability to win elections and exercise power.
The 2024 Election and Beyond: Potential Scenarios
The 2024 presidential election and its aftermath present several potential scenarios for U.S. democratic development in relation to NER-type systems:
Scenario Analysis
If Trump Wins: A second Trump term with more systematic planning (as outlined in Project 2025) could move the U.S. significantly closer to an NER-type system. Key factors would include:
- Whether Schedule F or similar civil service reforms are implemented
- Whether DOJ/FBI independence is eliminated
- Whether courts continue to provide meaningful checks
- Whether Congress maintains oversight
- Whether state governments resist federal overreach
- Whether civil society and media maintain independence
If Trump Loses: Democratic resilience would be demonstrated but Trumpist movement would likely persist, with potential scenarios including:
- Another Trump run in 2028 or alternative Trumpist candidate
- State-level implementation of NER-type elements where Republicans control government
- Continued efforts to delegitimize elections and institutions
- Persistence of alternative media ecosystem and polarized information environment
State-Level NER Elements
While federal NER-type capture has been constrained, several states have seen elements of the NER approach implemented at the state level. This includes systematic gerrymandering that creates nearly impregnable legislative majorities, limitations on direct democracy and citizen initiatives when they threaten party power, state preemption laws that prevent local governments from passing progressive policies, attacks on academic freedom and curriculum control in public universities, restrictions on peaceful protest and civil society organizations, and consolidation of power in governorships at the expense of legislators and courts.
States like Florida, Texas, and others have implemented policies that, while operating within American constitutional constraints, borrow from the NER playbook in terms of concentrating power, marginalizing opposition, and subordinating institutions to political control.
Implications and Lessons
The comparison between NER, Gleichschaltung, and Trump-era initiatives reveals important lessons about how democracies decline and what factors make them resilient or vulnerable.
How Democratic Systems Are Captured
All three cases demonstrate that democratic decline typically follows certain patterns. It begins with a leader or movement gaining power through democratic means—elections, constitutional procedures—and claiming democratic legitimacy. This initial democratic mandate is then used to justify subsequent antidemocratic actions as expressing "the will of the people." Independent institutions are captured or neutralized through legal means, maintaining a façade of rule of law while eliminating institutional checks. Opposition is delegitimized as not merely wrong but illegitimate, foreign-influenced, or treasonous. Media is either captured directly or delegitimized to the point where supporters only trust regime-friendly sources. Patronage systems are created that bind supporters' economic interests to the regime's continuation. And constitutional or legal changes entrench the system and make it difficult for future governments to reverse course.
Factors That Determine Vulnerability
Comparing these cases reveals what makes democratic systems more or less vulnerable to capture. Institutional complexity and federalism create multiple veto points and make comprehensive capture harder. Strong civil society with independent funding and deep roots can resist governmental pressure. Diverse media ecosystems that cannot be easily consolidated or captured maintain information pluralism. Professional bureaucracies with civil service protections resist politicization. Deep democratic culture and norms create informal resistance beyond formal institutions. Economic complexity and size make it harder to control business through patronage. International constraints and interdependence limit how far regimes can go without consequences. And established opposition parties with institutional strength and independent resources can maintain resistance.
The Gradual Nature of Democratic Erosion
Modern democratic backsliding is rarely sudden or complete. Unlike 20th-century coups or revolutionary transformations, contemporary erosion is gradual, legal, and often incremental. Each step can be justified or dismissed as within normal bounds of democratic politics. The accumulation of many small changes eventually reaches a point where the system has fundamentally transformed.
NER illustrates this perfectly. No single Fidesz action definitively ended Hungarian democracy. Each change—a constitutional amendment, a judicial reorganization, a media purchase—could be individually rationalized. Only viewing the totality shows the comprehensive transformation. This gradualism makes resistance difficult because each step seems insufficiently serious to warrant major confrontation, yet the accumulation is transformative.
The Importance of Vigilance
The comparison teaches that democratic defense requires vigilance at every level. Formal institutions matter and must be protected, but so do informal norms, civil society, media independence, and civic culture. Democratic systems are complex ecosystems where health depends on many interconnected elements. Allowing any single element to decay makes the whole system more vulnerable.
Americans and others concerned about democratic decline cannot afford to be complacent about U.S. institutional resilience. While American democracy has thus far proven more resistant to capture than Hungary's, the vulnerabilities revealed during the Trump era remain. Project 2025 and similar plans show that there are organized efforts to overcome the institutional barriers that prevented more comprehensive capture during Trump's first term.
Conclusion
The Nemzeti Együttmuködés Rendszere represents a comprehensive system of political, economic, and social control that goes well beyond simple authoritarianism or illiberal democracy. It is a carefully constructed architecture of formal institutions and informal networks designed to entrench power, reward loyalty, and make opposition increasingly difficult. While it maintains democratic forms—elections, a parliament, courts, media—it has hollowed out their substance, creating a system where these institutions serve regime maintenance rather than democratic accountability.
Ultimately, NER demonstrates how democracies can be subverted from within using ostensibly legal means, how institutional capture can be comprehensive and durable once achieved, and how economic incentives and patronage can bind diverse actors to an antidemocratic system. It serves as both a warning about democratic vulnerability and a case study in the techniques of contemporary authoritarianism. Understanding NER's architecture and mechanisms is essential for anyone concerned with defending democracy against similar threats, wherever they may emerge.
The system's resilience—surviving multiple electoral cycles and maintaining both domestic support and international relationships despite its antidemocratic features—suggests that once such systems are established, reversing them is enormously difficult. This makes prevention of democratic backsliding far more important than remediation after capture is complete. By the time a comprehensive system like NER is fully established, the institutions and resources needed to challenge it have been captured or neutralized, making democratic restoration far more difficult than democratic defense would have been.
For defenders of democracy worldwide, NER represents both a worst-case scenario and a roadmap. It shows what can happen when institutional capture proceeds systematically over many years, when opposition is weak or divided, when international constraints prove insufficient, and when economic incentives align with political control. But it also reveals the mechanisms and patterns, allowing vigilant democrats to recognize warning signs and resist early, before capture becomes comprehensive and irreversible.
