Hungary’s outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that his party, Fidesz, requires "full renewal" following its electoral defeat last weekend, but he also confirmed he intends to remain in his position as president of the party and oversee its reorganisation, liberal Hvg.hu wrote on April 17.

In his first interview since the election, given to the right-wing Patriota YouTube channel, Orban acknowledged that Fidesz had suffered a significant loss and said he bore responsibility for the outcome.

Hungary’s longest-serving prime minister was voted out on April 12 by a convincing majority, bringing an abrupt end to his 16-year rule. Fidesz secured just 38% of the popular vote, down from 54% in the previous election. Under Hungary’s electoral system, this translates into just 28% of parliamentary mandates, or 56 seats, giving winner Tisza a two-thirds majority.

The results are expected to be finalised this weekend, as the counting of hundreds of thousands of votes cast abroad from foreign consulates is concluded. These votes could affect the poll outcome in two to three constituencies in favour of Tisza.

Despite the huge setback at the ballot box, Orban stated he did not intend to resign as party leader, but stood ready to lead the Fidesz rebuilding efforts if he is reappointed as chief of the party at its congress. He recalled earlier post-defeat reorganisations, including after the 2002 election.

Orban said he would propose calling a party congress precisely to elect new leadership, including the president and vice presidents. "By the end of June, we will have completed the first phase of this renewal."

Using a football analogy, he also indicated a willingness to serve in any role the party assigns, even as a kit man, as he put it.

Orban said the scale of the election defeat was not anticipated and noted that he would have conducted the campaign differently had he foreseen the result.

He rejected claims of systemic internal collapse but admitted that communication failures and strategic misjudgements must be examined in detail.

He said it would be wrong to interpret the result as the country rejecting the government’s entire previous record, noting that the party still has around 2.3mn voters, and that voters cast their ballots based on expectations about the future rather than evaluations of past achievements, which is why policy successes such as utility price reductions were less prominent in the campaign.

He added that the opposition Tisza party had conveyed a stronger message to voters.

Commenting on the party’s parliamentary group, Orban said, "Those who have now made it into the Fidesz faction are not the people we will need," signalling that changes may be necessary.

Political analyst Szabolcs Dull said that Orban effectively signalled the dismissal of some MPs to gather supporters for his agenda from the Fidesz list.

Commenting on corruption allegations, Orban said they certainly played a role in the Tisza Party’s "two-thirds" victory. He emphasised, however, that he had never tolerated any form of corruption and had always supported the authorities’ actions. He added that corruption was not the same as "living the high life", as that was a lifestyle choice, and continuing it would be "suicide".

When asked about the biggest failure during his term, he pointed to the Paks II nuclear project, which, if implemented, could have led to lower utility prices. The project, which began with the 2014 intergovernmental agreement between Hungary and Russia, was initially supposed to be completed around this time. With the first concrete poured only in February, the €12.5bn project could be completed in the early 2030s. The question of Paks barely featured in the campaign, analysts said.

One of Hungary’s most prominent political scientists, former liberal MP of the 1990s Peter Tolgyessy, described the election outcome as a historic and dramatic turning point for the country, arguing that the shift was not accidental but rooted in long-term demographic change, an economic slowdown and a profound collapse of political credibility within the system. Fidesz was crushed by younger voters who became engaged and active in the campaign, he said.

The last polls before the vote showed that only 14% of under-30s supported Orban, and previous polls showed that the rate was even lower among those with a higher education. The conservative nationalists thus have another major issue going forward: an ageing electoral base. Reconnecting with younger generations looks particularly challenging for Fidesz under Orban.

Tolgyessy added that in a typical Western parliamentary democracy, such a significant electoral defeat would lead a prime minister to resign from all positions, including the party leadership and even his parliamentary seat, as a final act of responsibility towards the country.

The political scientist argued that the governing system has entered a phase of decline, in which internal corrective mechanisms have broken down, leaving no effective channels to signal mistakes or recalibrate leadership decisions.

He attributed this in part to long-term political success, which led to hubris: leaders began to believe that political will alone could shape reality, losing sensitivity to constraints and feedback, a pattern he sees as recurring in Hungarian politics.

As a result, he said he considered the decline of Fidesz not just likely but essentially irreversible, following a trajectory similar to earlier dominant political formations that eventually disappeared.

Tolgyessy argued that if Viktor Orban remained party leader, it would be a strategic “jackpot” for Peter Magyar, as the outgoing prime minister could become a polarising figure that could mobilise the opposition. He compared the situation to when Fidesz used former socialist-liberal prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany as a scapegoat.

Gyurcsany, blamed for violent attacks on protesters in the autumn of 2006 and the mismanagement of the economy during his term from 2004 to 2009, became one of the most rejected politicians after 2010.