INACTION OR ACTION ON DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING IN HUNGARY : A QUESTION OF WHICH TYPE OF RHETORIC IS MOST COMMON IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Sammanfattning: The thesis studies the most recent debate on the issue of democratic backsliding in Hungary, and more specifically, if a rhetoric of inaction was dominant in the plenary debate of the European Parliament. Democratic backsliding is a crucial topic to research in the context of the European Parliament’s recent attempts to take a more active role in defending the European  Union’s fundamental values. The different type of rhetoric used by the European Parliament’s eight party groups makes the political clash over Hungary even more interesting. In this thesis, the type of rhetoric and empirical basis used by the party groups will be described. The study finds that the majority of party groups in the European Parliament use a rhetoric of action towards the democratic backsliding in Hungary despite prior research arguing against such a pattern. Moreover, the most common empirical basis being used, is democracy and rule-oflaw. These results are intriguing because they address an important research gap in the literature on EU institutions and action on Hungary.