A Message from John O'Sullivan, President of the Danube Institute

Why the Danube Institute Exists

In 2013, my wife Melissa and I arrived in Budapest with little more than a contact book, a telephone, and an idea.

I had visited Hungary several times since I first came to Budapest on a student tour in 1971. The country had changed greatly since then but it struck us both as a country that  believed in itself. It possessed a confidence, optimism, and sense of purpose that had become increasingly rare elsewhere in the West.

Having worked for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I learned that history is often shaped by people and nations that know their own minds and have the courage to act upon their convictions. Hungary appeared to be one such country.

The Danube Institute was founded to introduce Hungary to the wider world, and the wider world to Hungary. We wanted to build understanding between a linguistically unique, historically distinctive nation and an international audience often unfamiliar with its history, culture, and political debates.

Over the past decade, that mission has grown far beyond anything we initially imagined. In 2014 we defined ourselves politically as supporting classical liberalism in economics, conservatism in culture and society, and Atlanticism in foreign policy. A few years later we added the defence of democracy and the nation-state to our objectives. And we declared throughout that we would subject all these objectives and every controversy to the test of open debate with critics and opponents among conservatives, liberals, and social democrats. And that’s what we have done. 

Today, the Institute has hosted hundreds of public events, welcomed distinguished fellows from around the world, published research papers and books, crit hundreds of podcasts, and become a meeting place for conversations about conservatism, democracy, culture, economics, foreign policy, patriotism, and the future of the West.

***

On Criticism

As a conservative think tank based in Central Europe, the Danube Institute has long been accustomed to criticism.

This does not surprise us.

Think tanks exist to advance ideas. Any institution that participates seriously in public debate will inevitably attract disagreement, especially when it challenges prevailing assumptions or orthodoxies.

We have not always agreed with the criticisms directed toward us. Nevertheless, we welcome scrutiny as part of a healthy intellectual environment.

Indeed, we believe that disagreement can be productive. Friction often produces illumination. Debate dissolves rigid partisanship. Conversation persuades us to consider what others think. When our ideas are challenged, we are given an opportunity to explain them more clearly, or perhaps, even learn something new and revise them. When critics engage our arguments, readers and listeners are able to hear competing perspectives and arrive at their own conclusions.

For that reason, we have always preferred open debate to silence, argument to caricature, and discussion to dismissal.

***

What the Danube Institute Actually Does

In recent months, a number of articles and commentaries have raised questions about the Institute’s work, our fellows, our activities, and our purpose.

We believe the most useful response is simply to present the facts.

Since its founding, and as of the time of writing, the Danube Institute has, among many other things:

• Hosted more than 404 public events, conferences, lectures, and panel discussions, most of which are available to review on Youtube. 
• Produced approximately 198 podcast episodes featuring leading scholars, journalists, policymakers, and public intellectuals.
• Published 243 research papers at an average rate of roughly one per week in recent years.
• Welcomed 86 Resident and Non-Resident Visiting Fellows from Europe, North America, Australia, Asia, and beyond, from anything from a few weeks to several years. 
• Produced two documentary films, on migration, and on Hungarian culture and identity. 
• We also informally publish a popular informal Substack, Based in Budapest, tracking the life of Budapest as a centre of conservative life and culture. 
• Maintained an office of Hungarian Research Fellows. 
• Maintained a vibrant internship programme, bringing in up to 30 young people a year to serve in and support our research, comms, events, and operations departments. 

Every conference, lecture, podcast, and panel discussion is publicly recorded and available for review.

Every research paper is commissioned, edited, reviewed, formatted, and published through an established editorial process.

Every fellow is invited because of their expertise, experience, or contribution to public debate.

***

On Our Fellows

Some recent commentary has questioned what visiting fellows do during their time at the Institute.

The answer is straightforward.

Fellows conduct research, write papers, participate in seminars, mentor younger scholars, contribute to conferences, appear on podcasts, engage with Hungarian institutions, and help build intellectual networks between Hungary and the wider world. 

Many relocate significant distances to participate in these programmes. Some move not only themselves but their families.

Their compensation reflects the reality of attracting internationally recognised scholars and public intellectuals to Budapest. In many cases, individuals have accepted terms substantially below what they could command elsewhere because they believed in the mission of the Institute and wished to contribute to it.

The value of a fellowship cannot be measured solely by a single paper, or podcast, or participation in an event. It is reflected in the broader intellectual life of the Institute: the ideas exchanged, relationships formed, events organised, young people mentored, and public conversations advanced.

***

On Political Independence

The Danube Institute was established with support from individuals associated with the Hungarian conservative movement, and we make no secret of our broadly conservative outlook.

However, we are not a political party.

Nor are we a government ministry.

The Institute has hosted scholars and speakers representing a wide range of views within conservatism and beyond it. Fellows regularly disagree with one another on questions of economics, foreign policy, religion, immigration, technology, and international affairs.

For example, commentators have sometimes attempted to portray the Institute as holding a single position on the war in Ukraine. In reality, our fellows and contributors have expressed a variety of perspectives on that conflict, as they have on many other subjects. For evidence, look no further than the film, Erase The Nation, made with Institute funding by our Visiting Fellow Tomasz Grzywaczewski, a Polish war journalist. His piece is sharply critical of Russia in almost every dimension. Or go back to the video of our 2014 conference on Ukraine, held jointly with the Hudson Institute in Washington, which critically examined the first stages of Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Or consider the several major speeches by former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who as a fellow was consistently hostile towards Putin’s war.  

Others took a less critical view. We promoted the debate between them. Our role is not to impose ideological uniformity but to provide a forum where serious ideas can be developed, debated, challenged, and refined.

Many have tried to insinuate that the Danube Institute was some sort of organ of the Fidesz government. In fact, the Institute is an organ of public diplomacy which—along with other think tanks rooted in different political traditions—can be useful for any Hungarian government. They are a means by which Hungary can explain its thinking at a deep policy level to the wider world—but only if they retain their independence.   

Down the years, the Institute’s thinking has broadly tallied with the government’s broad agenda on a number of points, though hardly all. A conservative think tank and a conservative government should have at least some level of congruence. But our work has been in explaining Hungary’s national interest and the differing interpretations of that by different Hungarians, not explaining or justifying the policies of Fidesz. The distinction matters. 

As a quasi-public body, our day to day function has always been at arms length from government. 

This is hardly a novel arrangement. The British Council is funded by UK taxpayers. Yet its board would always proclaim their independence. Is the British Council the slave of whoever holds power in Westminster? Hardly. 

In America, The Smithsonian receives substantial federal appropriations from Congress, yet has its own board and fiercely guards its curatorial independence. The idea that it  reflects the views of whomever holds the White House would strike most Americans as absurd.

Likewise, our board, the BLA, has been put in place to safeguard both sides of the arrangement. Firstly, to safeguard the public funds disbursed and to make sure they are rigorously accounted for (and every penny is notarised, believe me: we spend a vast amount of time filling in long reports to justify every train ticket to Miskolc). 

And then, secondly, the board is there precisely to protect the Institute from claims of political interference. They are the clutch that allows the system to function. 

***

A Decade of Work

Perhaps the simplest way to judge the Danube Institute is to examine the record itself.

Our papers can be read.

Our podcasts can be heard on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. 

Our events can be watched.

Our fellows can be evaluated by the work they produced.

Everything we have created over the past decade exists as a public archive open to supporters, critics, journalists, researchers, and interested citizens alike.

We encourage anyone with questions about the Institute to explore that record directly.

***
Looking Forward

No institution is perfect.

Building an international think tank in Budapest has been a continual process of experimentation, learning, adaptation, and growth.

Like any organisation, we have made mistakes. We have also achieved more than many believed possible when Melissa and I first arrived in Hungary over twelve years ago.

Whatever the future may hold, everyone associated with the Danube Institute can take pride in what has been built: a genuine intellectual community that has connected Hungary to important debates across Europe, North America, and the wider world.

We invite supporters and critics alike to engage with our work.

Attend an event.

Read a paper.

Listen to a podcast.

Challenge our arguments.

The purpose of a think tank is not to close down debate, but to contribute to it.

John O’Sullivan 
President, Danube Institute