In a recent interview with Kossuth Radio, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán articulated his stance on the right to assembly, emphasizing the need to balance the freedom of expression with public order.

He denounced disruptions caused by protests, notably the blocking of key Budapest bridges, which he claimed hampered the daily lives and work of non-protesting citizens.

Orbán announced plans for legislative changes intended to protect the rights of those not participating in demonstrations.

This marks a continuation of Orbán's critiques regarding public protests, as he has previously asserted that the closure of bridges by protestors is not acceptable, stressing the rights of the majority to live their lives without hindrance.

Opposition figure Ákos Hadházy, a prominent organizer of recent protests alongside the Momentum party, has responded to Orbán’s comments by suggesting that they reflect government discomfort with current demonstrations.

Hadházy has called for sustained protests against the government's proposed restrictions on freedom of assembly, which they argue could increase public dissent.

Recent protests in Budapest have seen demonstrators blocking traffic on major bridges, including the Elizabeth, Liberty, Petőfi, and Margaret Bridges.

These actions aim to contest the government's recent legislative measures banning gatherings that promote gender change and homosexuality.

Such legislation has been backed by the ruling Fidesz-KDNP party and other right-wing factions, including Jobbik and Mi Hazánk.

Orbán's proposed legal amendments intend to classify protests that severely disrupt traffic as illegal, a measure previously enacted by Fidesz in 2018. The prime minister criticized the judiciary for approving protests against legislative acts that have generated significant public opposition, stating that while courts operate independently, the government has the authority to change laws to mitigate future disruptions.

The implications of potential restrictions on the constitutional right to assembly remain to be fully explored, but politically, they appear aimed at several objectives: appealing to previously undecided voters, stifling visible dissent in the lead-up to elections, and creating divisions among opposition groups.

The political landscape in Hungary has shifted considerably since the last European Parliament elections, where the fragmented opposition has begun to coalesce into a recognizable challenge for Fidesz in the upcoming 2026 elections.

Polls suggest a close contest between Fidesz and the recently formed Tisza Party, as the Orbán administration seeks to consolidate its voter base while attracting new supporters, including retirees, women, and small farmers.

Public sentiment among Budapest residents has been notably critical of the protests, with reports of angry drivers expressing their frustration over extended traffic delays caused by demonstrations.

Comments from government officials and pro-Fidesz media outlets have reiterated the narrative that the opposition is directly responsible for these disruptions, portraying protests as harmful to everyday citizens.

Legal perspectives have emerged regarding the justification for any modifications to the assembly law, with legal experts emphasizing the importance of upholding such rights within democratic societies.

The right to assembly has been a fundamental element of Hungary's constitutional framework for decades and is considered vital for public discourse.

Amidst these discussions, the forthcoming constitutional changes could exacerbate divides within the opposition, particularly on the issue of LGBTQ rights and the associated protests.

The recent proposal marks a significant moment in Hungary’s political landscape as the government navigates its response to mounting public dissatisfaction while attempting to manage opposition narratives.