The article by Zsolt Enyedi examines the ideological nature of the Hungarian regime under Viktor Orbán, arguing that it is ideology-centered. The regime promotes a particular worldview through discourse, policies, and resource allocation. Enyedi identifies three principal ideological modules: illiberal conservatism, civilisationalist ethnocentrism, and paternalist populism. - **Illiberal Conservatism**: Promotes traditional family structures, social order, and religious (Christian) legacies, but is hostile to checks and balances, state neutrality, rule of law, and civil society. It divides society into deserving and undeserving groups and advocates for resource reallocation. - **Civilisationalist Ethnocentrism**: Emphasizes the benefits of organizing the world around small, homogeneous, ethno-cultural units, defined by lineage and patriotic attitudes, not citizenship. It combines anti-globalist ideas with loyalty to culturally similar nations, portraying Islam as a threat to individual freedoms. - **Paternalist Populism**: Addressing the interaction between citizens, elites, and the state, it sees the state as a guardian and educator of citizens, emphasizing redistributive policies and social transformation. It combines people-centeredness with qualified anti-elitism, speaking on behalf of the people against corrupt international elites. Enyedi demonstrates that these ideological modules are not only theoretical constructs but are implemented through policies and discourse. The regime's actions, such as citizenship laws, church laws, border controls, and family support schemes, are ideologically driven and have long-lasting consequences. The article also highlights the regime's efforts to establish an ideological discourse and infrastructure, including think tanks and educational institutions, and its international relations adjusted to its ideological profile. The article concludes that the recent democratic setbacks are often explained by social crises or idiosyncratic leaders, but ideological layers, though less spectacular, are equally important in motivating citizens and politicians, weakening democratic resilience, and undermining the liberal democratic world order.The article by Zsolt Enyedi examines the ideological nature of the Hungarian regime under Viktor Orbán, arguing that it is ideology-centered. The regime promotes a particular worldview through discourse, policies, and resource allocation. Enyedi identifies three principal ideological modules: illiberal conservatism, civilisationalist ethnocentrism, and paternalist populism. - **Illiberal Conservatism**: Promotes traditional family structures, social order, and religious (Christian) legacies, but is hostile to checks and balances, state neutrality, rule of law, and civil society. It divides society into deserving and undeserving groups and advocates for resource reallocation. - **Civilisationalist Ethnocentrism**: Emphasizes the benefits of organizing the world around small, homogeneous, ethno-cultural units, defined by lineage and patriotic attitudes, not citizenship. It combines anti-globalist ideas with loyalty to culturally similar nations, portraying Islam as a threat to individual freedoms. - **Paternalist Populism**: Addressing the interaction between citizens, elites, and the state, it sees the state as a guardian and educator of citizens, emphasizing redistributive policies and social transformation. It combines people-centeredness with qualified anti-elitism, speaking on behalf of the people against corrupt international elites. Enyedi demonstrates that these ideological modules are not only theoretical constructs but are implemented through policies and discourse. The regime's actions, such as citizenship laws, church laws, border controls, and family support schemes, are ideologically driven and have long-lasting consequences. The article also highlights the regime's efforts to establish an ideological discourse and infrastructure, including think tanks and educational institutions, and its international relations adjusted to its ideological profile. The article concludes that the recent democratic setbacks are often explained by social crises or idiosyncratic leaders, but ideological layers, though less spectacular, are equally important in motivating citizens and politicians, weakening democratic resilience, and undermining the liberal democratic world order.