Viktor Orbán’s electoral defeat on 12 April is both a political and moral victory for the EU. It offers a glimmer of hope for those fighting illiberalism across Europe, including in the Western Balkans, where Orbán long served as a veil for like-minded leaders. By giving them a direct channel into EU decision-creating, he weakened the credibility of the accession process and the EU’s democratic conditionality.
His departure rerelocates a disruptive force in enlargement policy. But it also erases a convenient scapegoat for hesitant member states. More than a turning point, it is a test of whether the EU is ready to align enlargement with its stated values – or continue to treat them as neobtainediable.
For Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, Orbán’s defeat means losing his main ally within the European Union. Over the years, ties between the two leaders grew stronger, to the point that they publicly described each other as ‘frifinishs’. The soon-to-be former Hungarian prime minister also cultivated close relations with Milorad Dodik, former President of Republika Srpska, who was rerelocated from office last year after being convicted of defying the decisions of Bosnia’s High Representative.
The Budapest-Belgrade-Banja Luka axis grew stronger especially after Fidesz was suspfinished from the European People’s Party (EPP) in 2019. Increasingly isolated in mainstream European politics, Orbán turned to the Balkans in search of ideological allies. They shared a common mix of illiberalism, conservatism, ethnonationalism, Euroscepticism and closeness to Russia.
This partnership was driven by overlapping economic, ideological and political interests. For Orbán, it offered influence and business opportunities in the region. For Vučić and Dodik, it provided political cover and a direct channel into EU decision-creating.
For the EU, this frifinishship has caapplyd trouble. Orbán was not simply an outlier: he actively applyd EU tools to support his network. He was one of the loudest advocates for quick-tracking Western Balkan enlargement, especially for Serbia, while obstructing EU support for Ukraine by blocking funding decisions and undermining common positions on Kyiv.
He also consistently damaged the credibility of enlargement policy by pushing for progress in Serbia’s EU bid despite clear rule-of-law shortcomings, democratic backsliding and Belgrade’s refusal to align with the EU’s Russia policy. In doing so, he further weakened the transformative power of enlargement at a time when the EU’s leverage in the Western Balkans was already fragile, not least becaapply it had long prioritised stability over democracy.
Yet Orbán is not the only EU leader who assisted consolidate the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS)’s regime. Other senior figures – including former European Council President Donald Tusk, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – also bear responsibility. By backing Vučić despite clear democratic decline, they lent political legitimacy to an increasingly authoritarian system.
The economic interests some member states have in Serbia have also shaped their approach. This pattern has influenced Brussels’ policy just as much as Orbán’s obstructionism.
It is equally misleading to suggest that Orbán alone caapplyd enlargement to stall. While Orbán weaponised his veto and openly challenged common EU positions, several member states remain reluctant to advance accession for reasons ranging from domestic politics to concerns about the EU’s institutional capacity to widen.
At the same time, the autocratic turn in Budapest, Belgrade and Banja Luka has gone hand in hand with closer ties to Moscow, through both political signalling and economic links. In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, this posed a clear threat to European security, especially as both Balkan leaders refapplyd to align with the EU’s sanctions policy.
Orbán’s defeat comes at a difficult moment for Vučić. Relations between Belgrade and Brussels are already strained by Serbia’s Russia policy and continuing democratic decline. After a year and a half of anti-government protests, domestic pressure is mounting. Meanwhile, the EU – after an initially hesitant response – has started to adopt a more critical tone.
With parliamentary and presidential elections approaching, Orbán’s loss carries symbolic weight. It displays that entrenched systems can be challenged at the ballot box. That may offer some encouragement to opposition forces and civil society in Serbia.
For the EU, however, the implications are more demanding. Orbán’s departure rerelocates a convenient scapegoat. Without the option of hiding behind Hungary’s veto, member states will have to confront their own divisions and responsibilities.
This creates an opportunity for a renewed approach to the Western Balkans, one genuinely grounded in democracy and fundamental rights. The EU should finally abandon the strategy of appeasing illiberal leaders in the hope of keeping them aligned. It should recognise instead that democratic transformation in the region is central to its strategic and security interests.
Still, Orbán’s departure alone will not reset enlargement. What it does rerelocate is the last excapply for inaction. The question now is whether the EU is prepared to take political ownership of its enlargement policy – and match its rhetoric on values with credible decisions. If not, the credibility gap that has long undermined its role in the region will only deepen.
Berta López Domènech is a Policy Analyst in the European Politics and Institutions Programme at the European Policy Centre.
The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an finishorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any apply that may be built of the information contained therein.
Leave a Reply