On Hungary
On 18 March 2025, Hungary’s parliament passed a controversial law banning LGBTQ+ Pride events and authorising the use of facial recognition technology to identify and fine participants up to $500 (£420). Supported by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party and its coalition partner, the Christian Democrats, the legislation sailed through with a vote of 136-27 under an expedited procedure. The measure amends Hungary’s assembly laws, aligning them with its 2021 Child Protection Act, which prohibits the “depiction or promotion” of homosexuality to minors. Orbán has framed this as a defensive stance against what he terms the “international gender network,” accusing liberal Western institutions, including the United Nations (UN), of imposing “woke” ideologies on sovereign nations. Predictably, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) swiftly condemned the law, with spokesperson Liz Throssell expressing “deep concern” over its “arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions” on the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. This clash between Hungary and the UN exemplifies a broader, intensifying global struggle over gender politics—a battleground where the UN has increasingly positioned itself as a champion of progressive ideals, often aligned with the interests of liberal Western elites.
The UN’s Evolution into a Gender Politics Vanguard
The UN’s engagement with gender issues has deep roots, beginning with its 1945 Charter, which pledges to promote human rights “without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Over decades, this mandate expanded to encompass gender equality, notably through the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). However, the past two decades have seen a marked shift, with the UN increasingly embracing a broader, more progressive interpretation of gender that includes sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).
This shift became pronounced under the Millennium Development Goals (2000–2015) and their successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), launched in 2015. SDG 5, aimed at achieving gender equality, has been interpreted by UN agencies to include not just women’s rights but also the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. The OHCHR, alongside bodies like UN Women and the Human Rights Council (HRC), has spearheaded this agenda, issuing reports, resolutions, and statements condemning discrimination based on SOGI. For instance, the HRC’s 2011 resolution on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity—followed by the appointment of an Independent Expert on SOGI in 2016—marked a turning point, embedding these issues firmly within the UN’s human rights framework.
Data underscores this focus. Between 2016 and 2023, the OHCHR issued over 150 statements addressing SOGI-related discrimination, a sharp rise from the 20 recorded between 2000 and 2015. The UN’s Free & Equal campaign, launched in 2013 with a budget exceeding $20 million by 2024, promotes LGBTQ+ acceptance globally, targeting both policy reform and public perception. Such initiatives are often framed as universal human rights imperatives, yet their execution reveals a distinct Western liberal imprint.
The Liberal Western Elites and UN Soft Power
Soft power, as coined by Joseph Nye, is the ability to shape preferences through appeal and attraction rather than coercion. The UN’s gender politics increasingly serve as a conduit for this, reflecting the values of liberal Western elites—namely, governments, NGOs, and corporate entities from North America and Western Europe. These actors dominate the UN’s funding and influence its agenda. In 2024, the top five contributors to the UN’s regular budget were the United States (22%), Germany (6.1%), the United Kingdom (4.6%), France (4.4%), and Canada (2.7%), collectively accounting for nearly 40% of the total. When voluntary contributions to agencies like the OHCHR are factored in, this share rises, with the U.S. alone providing $607 million to human rights programmes in 2023.
This financial leverage translates into ideological sway. The UN’s SOGI initiatives often mirror the priorities of these donors, who champion individual liberties, secularism, and progressive social norms. For example, the Free & Equal campaign’s messaging—emphasising rainbow flags, pride parades, and gender fluidity—echoes the cultural exports of Western metropolises like New York, London, and San Francisco. Its partnerships with corporations like Google and NGOs like Human Rights Watch further entrench this alignment, raising questions about whose values the UN truly represents.
Critics, including Hungary’s Orbán, argue that this constitutes a form of cultural imperialism. In a 15 March 2025 speech, Orbán accused the UN and EU of “dehumanising” dissenters, likening their rhetoric to “Nazi and Stalinist” tactics—a charge echoed by conservative voices globally. The UN’s response to Hungary’s Pride ban, with Volker Türk’s call to repeal it and combat “intolerance,” exemplifies this dynamic: a universalist stance that critics see as dismissive of local norms. Hungary’s law, rooted in a conservative Christian ethos prioritising parental rights and child protection, clashes with the UN’s cosmopolitan framework, highlighting a deeper tension between global liberalism and national sovereignty.
Hungary as a Case Study: Resistance to UN Influence
Hungary’s recent legislation is not an isolated act but part of a broader pushback against what Orbán calls “gender madness.” Since 2010, his government has enacted policies reinforcing traditional family values, including a 2020 constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman and restricting adoption to heterosexual couples. The 2021 Child Protection Act, which the new Pride ban builds upon, banned LGBTQ+ content in schools and media accessible to minors, drawing condemnation from the EU and UN alike.
The Pride ban itself, enacted on 18 March 2025, prohibits public events featuring “queer symbols” like rainbows or promoting “sexuality as an end in itself.” Violators face fines up to €550 (£460), with proceeds redirected to child welfare—a move Orbán frames as a moral necessity. The use of facial recognition technology, condemned by the UN as a privacy violation, underscores Hungary’s willingness to adopt authoritarian measures to enforce its stance, a tactic that has sparked protests, including a bridge blockade in Budapest on 19 March and rainbow smoke bombs in parliament.
Public sentiment in Hungary supports Orbán’s position. A 2024 poll by the Nézőpont Institute found 67% of Hungarians favoured restrictions on “LGBTQ+ propaganda” in schools, with 54% backing limits on public Pride events. This reflects a cultural conservatism at odds with the UN’s advocacy, which critics argue is tone-deaf to Hungary’s context. The OHCHR’s 21 March statement, decrying “discriminatory restrictions,” assumes a universal applicability of SOGI rights that many Hungarians reject, viewing it instead as an imposition by Western elites via the UN.
The UN’s Double Standards and Selective Outrage
The UN’s gender politics reveal inconsistencies that fuel accusations of bias. While Hungary faces swift rebuke, nations with far harsher anti-LGBTQ+ laws—such as Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death—receive muted criticism. In 2023, the OHCHR issued just 12 statements on Saudi human rights abuses, compared to 28 on Hungary, despite the latter’s violations being less severe. This disparity is partly geopolitical: Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth and strategic alliances with Western powers, including the U.S., grant it leeway, while Hungary, a smaller EU member, is an easier target.
Moreover, the UN’s focus on SOGI often overshadows other pressing issues. In 2024, only 8% of OHCHR statements addressed women’s rights in conflict zones like Yemen or Afghanistan, where Taliban policies have erased female education, compared to 22% on SOGI. This skew suggests a prioritisation of issues resonant with Western liberal audiences over those with broader global impact, reinforcing perceptions of the UN as a tool of elite agendas.
Soft Power or Coercion? The UN’s Leverage Tactics
The UN lacks direct enforcement power, but its soft power is formidable, wielded through moral authority, public shaming, and coordination with Western-led institutions. Hungary’s Pride ban has already drawn threats from the European Commission, which on 21 March 2025 vowed to “respond” via legal action, echoing the UN’s stance. In 2022, the EU withheld €7.5 billion in funds from Hungary over rule-of-law concerns, including its 2021 law—a precedent suggesting economic pressure may follow this latest move. The UN amplifies such efforts, lending them a veneer of international legitimacy.
NGOs amplify this further. Amnesty International’s 18 March statement labelled Hungary’s law a “full-frontal attack” on LGBTQ+ rights, aligning with the UN’s narrative and pressuring Budapest globally. This synergy between UN bodies, Western governments, and NGOs creates a pincer effect, isolating dissenting nations culturally and economically—a soft power strategy with coercive undertones.
Implications for Global Governance
The UN’s role in gender politics raises profound questions about its legitimacy as a neutral arbiter. If its human rights agenda increasingly reflects the priorities of a liberal Western minority—representing just 12% of the global population per 2024 UN demographic data—its claim to universality weakens. Nations like Hungary, Russia, and much of Africa and Asia, where traditional values dominate, may further disengage, fracturing global consensus.
Orbán’s alignment with Donald Trump, re-elected in 2024, signals a countervailing bloc. Trump’s 20 January 2025 inauguration speech, decrying “gender ideology” and pledging to end diversity initiatives, mirrors Hungary’s rhetoric, suggesting a transatlantic conservative resurgence. This could embolden resistance to UN influence, with Hungary as a test case.
A Tool of Liberal Elites?
The UN’s condemnation of Hungary’s Pride ban is not merely a defence of human rights but a manifestation of its evolution into a vehicle for liberal Western soft power. Its gender politics, steeped in the language of universality, often mask a specific cultural agenda—one shaped by elite donors and disconnected from the diverse realities of its 193 member states. Hungary’s defiance, while illiberal and heavy-handed, reflects a broader pushback against this dynamic, exposing the UN’s vulnerabilities. The UN’s moral stance may rally liberal allies, but it risks alienating swathes of the globe, undermining its mission. Whether it can adapt to this backlash—or doubles down on its current path—will determine its relevance in an increasingly polarised world. For now, the battle over gender politics reveals the UN less as a neutral guardian and more as a contested arena where power, not principle, often prevails.
——————
Rajeev Ahmed
The Editor of Geopolits.com and the Author of the book titled Bengal Nexus
———————-