European Union

For almost three years, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have been fighting each other relentlessly. In the process, both sides have also attacked the civilian population, destroyed infrastructure, and weakened civil society engagement, benefiting from the support of external actors. Against this background, the international Sudan conference in Berlin is of particular importance. 

Managing goals and expectations

On the third anniversary of the conflict’s outbreak on 15 April, the German government will host an international conference on Sudan together with France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU). Foreign ministers from key countries as well as representatives of the United Nations, humanitarian organisations, and Sudanese civil society are expected in Berlin. 

At the same time, it is important to note that this is not a peace conference. No one should raise their expectations too high. Even a humanitarian truce, which the United States wants to broker with its partners Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, is not currently in sight. It would already constitute some progress if the Sudanese representatives could agree on a declaration to de-escalate the conflict. A joint communiqué of the ministers is unlikely to materialise, given the experience with the lack of consensus at the previous meeting in London.

Placing civilian actors at the centre

Despite its limited scope, the international Sudan conference in Berlin offers the opportunity for a long overdue change in perspective: away from the warring parties and towards those who are already working for societal and political peace.

Of course, the SAF and the RSF themselves must silence the weapons. However, the military actors alone will not even be able to guarantee a permanent end to armed violence. At best, a power-sharing model would produce another fragile civil-military transitional government. Fighting within the armed coalitions would be likely given the divergent interests of their constituents; a renewed flare-up of violence would only be a matter of time. South Sudan has already taken a similar path: There, armed violence has become part of the political system.

Instead, Sudan needs a new, civilian-led political order. It will take time to develop, but creating the necessary framework for discussion is possible even during the ongoing war. This is precisely the goal of the quintet of five international organisations – the African Union, the European Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the United Nations, and the Arab League – which joined forces at the beginning of the year. The quintet is conducting consultations with numerous civil and political groups in Sudan. In contrast to earlier approaches, there is currently greater unity among the participating organisations as well as a coordinated process design. Different political blocs with ties to the conflict parties and independent civil actors are expected to agree on a Sudanese steering committee that sets the agenda and criteria for a political process. 

The conference should support this process. Participants should commit not to organise parallel initiatives and instead align existing projects with civilian actors – especially those from the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, and Switzerland – in support of this process. 

The civilian components of the conference in Berlin, which is to bring together 40 Sudanese representatives, can be an important step towards a common platform and convey its own messages to the international participants.

Finally, the humanitarian component of the conference should mobilise urgently needed funding. It should also strengthen the ownership, protection, and financing of mutual aid networks such as the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs). These networks are able to reach Sudanese regions where international aid organisations cannot operate, and their work strengthens social cohesion.

These civilian approaches could help to make the conditions for ending the war more favourable.

OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing Horizon Europe, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, for the period 2028-2034 laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/695
Committee on Security and Defence
Costas Mavrides

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Although I am currently immersed in the London local elections — speaking with residents, listening to concerns, and experiencing democracy at its most immediate level — I didn’t want to miss the chance to reflect on Hungary’s 12 April vote. I have analysed Hungarian politics for many years, and this election is among the most consequential in the country’s modern history. Balancing local campaigning with international analysis has been a reminder that democratic practice is both local and global, intimate and structural.

Tibor Illyés/EPA

Hungary will hold a parliamentary election on 12 April that many observers describe as the most significant in the country’s modern political history. After 16 years of uninterrupted rule by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz–KDNP alliance, a new political force has emerged to challenge the government’s dominance. The TISZA party, led by former Fidesz insider Péter Magyar, has rapidly reshaped the political landscape and introduced a degree of uncertainty not seen since 2010.

The stakes extend far beyond the composition of the next government. The election will influence Hungary’s economic direction, its approach to the rule of law, and its geopolitical positioning between the European Union and Russia. For many voters, the contest has become a referendum on the political model Orbán has built over the past decade and a half — a model critics describe as “illiberal democracy” and supporters defend as a sovereign alternative to Western liberalism.

How the system works

Hungary is a parliamentary republic with a unicameral National Assembly of 199 members. The PM is elected by a majority of the National Assembly members. The electoral system combines single‑member districts with proportional representation: 106 MPs are elected through first‑past‑the‑post constituencies, while the remaining 93 seats are allocated through national party lists.

Parties must cross a 5% threshold to enter parliament via the national list, although alliances face higher thresholds. A distinctive feature of the system is the “surplus votes” mechanism, which adds unused votes from winning constituency candidates to their party’s national list total. Analysts note that this tends to favour the largest party.

Recent amendments have also redrawn constituency boundaries. Budapest, where opposition parties have traditionally performed strongly, now has fewer seats, while surrounding areas that lean toward Fidesz have gained representation. These changes have prompted debate about the neutrality of the redistricting process.

The political actors 

Orbán’s Fidesz–KDNP alliance is seeking a fifth consecutive term, campaigning on themes of stability, national sovereignty and peace. The prime minister presents himself as the only leader capable of shielding Hungary from external pressures, whether from the EU, NATO or what he characterises as a “pro‑war lobby”.

Péter Magyar, left, of the Tisza Party, and Viktor Orbán from Fidesz, addressing rallies during the campaign (Balint Szentgallay and Akos Stiller via Getty Images)

The main challenger is TISZA, founded in 2024 and led by Péter Magyar. Once a high‑ranking diplomat within the Fidesz system, Magyar broke with the government and has since accused it of systemic corruption and institutional capture. TISZA positions itself as conservative, pro‑European and broadly inclusive, aiming to attract voters across ideological lines.

Other parties remain part of the landscape, though with reduced visibility. The Democratic Coalition, led by Klára Dobrev, continues to advocate for a full restoration of liberal democratic norms and closer alignment with the EU. To the right of Fidesz, the Our Homeland Movement appeals to nationalist voters dissatisfied with the government’s direction. Several traditional opposition parties — including Momentum, the Socialists and Dialogue — have withdrawn from the race to avoid splitting the anti‑government vote, effectively consolidating support behind TISZA.

The issues shaping the campaign

Foreign policy has dominated the campaign, particularly the war in Ukraine. Fidesz has framed the election as a choice between “peace or war”, arguing that the opposition and EU institutions favour escalation. The government emphasises continued cooperation with Russia, especially in the energy sector. TISZA condemns the invasion but has taken a cautious approach to questions of military involvement.

Hungary’s relationship with the EU is another central issue. Approximately €18 billion in EU funds remain frozen due to concerns about corruption and the rule of law. TISZA has pledged to implement the reforms required to unlock these funds, while Fidesz portrays EU pressure as interference in national sovereignty.

Economic concerns are also prominent. Voters face rising living costs, stagnant wages and deteriorating public services, particularly in education and healthcare. Opposition parties highlight the wealth accumulated by business figures close to Fidesz as evidence of systemic corruption. The government points to wage growth and family support schemes as signs of economic resilience.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance shakes hands with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán Tuesday in Budapest. (Denes Erdos / Associated Press)

The campaign has also been marked by allegations of external influence. Reports of Russian‑linked disinformation networks and the increasing use of AI‑generated political content have raised concerns about the information environment. A visit by US Vice President JD Vance in support of Orbán has further underscored the international attention surrounding the election.

What could happen after the vote

A party or alliance needs 100 seats to form a government. A two‑thirds majority — 133 seats — grants the power to amend the constitution and change “cardinal laws”, which govern key areas such as the judiciary, media regulation and electoral rules.

If TISZA were to win a simple majority but fall short of two‑thirds, it could form a government but would face structural constraints, as many institutional reforms require supermajority support. If no party reaches 100 seats, coalition negotiations would be necessary. Analysts note that Fidesz and the Our Homeland Movement share ideological overlaps, though no formal commitments have been made.

Depending on the margin, observers have also discussed the possibility of legal challenges or disputes over certification. These scenarios reflect the high stakes and polarisation surrounding the election rather than predictions about the outcome.

What to watch on election day

 Turnout will be closely monitored, particularly among younger voters who have been highly mobilised during the campaign. The urban–rural divide remains a defining feature of Hungarian politics: while TISZA is expected to perform strongly in Budapest, Fidesz retains deep support in rural areas, where constituency results often determine the overall balance of power.

The performance of smaller parties will also matter. Whether groups such as the Democratic Coalition or the Our Homeland Movement cross the 5% threshold will influence the distribution of list seats. Diaspora votes — particularly mail‑in ballots from ethnic Hungarians abroad — have historically provided several additional seats to Fidesz. Analysts are also watching the role of AI‑generated content and disinformation in the final hours of the campaign.

Why this election matters

The April 12 election is a watershed moment that will decide whether Hungary continues its trajectory as an “electoral autocracy” or returns toward a liberal democratic path within the European Union. The outcome will redefine Hungary’s relationship with Brussels and Kyiv, potentially removing a persistent “spoiler” to EU policy or further entrenching an illiberal vanguard in the heart of Europe. Regardless of the winner, the next government will face the daunting task of navigating an entrenched legal framework and a deeply polarized society.

The post Explainer: Your Guide to Hungary’s Election on 12 April appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 18 - 90 - Draft opinion Amending Decision (EU) 2021/1764 on the Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Union including relations between the European Union on the one hand, and Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark on the other
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Urmas Paet

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

AMENDMENTS 1 - 305 - Draft report 2025 Commission report on Georgia
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Rasa Juknevičienė

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP