‘Welcome to Family-Friendly Hungary’ is the first message you see when you land at Budapest Airport. Written in multiple languages, it is understandable to all travellers—and, after all, it concerns them all.

In France, upon arrival at the airport, one can take a high-speed train; but beware of trains that prohibit children. These ‘no-kids’ areas caused a minor scandal in France, but the SNCF has maintained this discrimination between users; the only form of discrimination still authorized in France.

France: Enemy of the Family

On 25 February 2026, France voted to legalize euthanasia, almost two years to the day after the constitutional law enshrining abortion in the Constitution was passed. The logic of death prevails at both extremes of human life.

At the same time, in the 2026 budget, family allowances are being cut, and property prices are rising everywhere, making the price per square metre in France the country’s leading form of contraception.

For the brave French people who decide to have children in this climate, the nightmare is just beginning, between the lack of places in nurseries and, for those who do find places, the violence children may suffer at the hands of educators. This violence is far from trivial or exceptional; on the contrary, the most recent surveys show that it represents a systemic danger.

The logical consequence of this anti-family policy, perfectly consistent with the modern secular and individualistic atmosphere, sprinkled with paranoia about ‘global warming’, is the fall in the birth rate, which has led to a serious generational crisis. France has opted for a pay-as-you-go pension system, which means that working people do not contribute to their own pensions, but finance the pensions of current pensioners. Without children, today’s working people will have no one to finance their pensions, and they cannot capitalize because a significant portion of what they earn is used to finance the generations already in retirement. This is a huge Ponzi scheme that will not collapse quietly. The fall in the birth rate is the painful demise of a system designed after the Second World War, when the Trente Glorieuses meant that there were far more working people than pensioners.

Hungary: A Cultural Shock

I recently arrived in Hungary. I came here as a visiting fellow at the Danube Institute, after completing my PhD in law in France and teaching for almost ten years at several universities in France and abroad.

At first glance, Hungary is reminiscent of France in the 1960s. That is to say, it is a calm country, deeply European and attached to its Christian identity.

‘Hungary is reminiscent of France in the 1960s…it is a calm country, deeply European and attached to its Christian identity’

Clearly, maintaining such a way of life cannot be left to chance, but it is the result of consistent policy.

In contrast to the policy of death promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron, the Hungarian government is resolutely committed to defending Hungary and the interests of Hungarians. This involves defending the basic unit of the nation, the first place of socialization: the family.

‘To govern is to plan ahead,’ Clemenceau Said

This saying is perfectly embodied by Hungarian Prime minister Viktor Orbán. Hungary anticipates and resists the harmful progressive movements that are poisoning almost the entire Western world.

France is characterized by the destruction of the family at every level: from conception, which can be aborted—now a constitutional right (2024)—to euthanasia (2026), via increasingly simple divorces (2017: it is possible to divorce without going before a judge) and the destruction of marriage, with the opening of marriage to same-sex couples (2013) and, in parallel, the removal of the requirement for sexual relations in marriage (2026).

We are also seeing a sharp acceleration in this destruction. It is a bit like an object in free fall: the more time passes, the faster it falls—and the more damage it will cause when it hits the ground.

In the end, from the cost of a childminder to the narrow sidewalks that do not even let you push a stroller through, everything seems designed to discourage prospective parents.

Some Hungarians question family support policies, citing positive but insufficiently significant results. This overlooks the fact that, in this area, the state can only encourage. The result remains the consequence of citizens’ free choices. It also fails to recognize that the absence of public support for families is much more quickly apparent and has disastrous consequences.

In France, the ‘remedy’ for the declining birth rate is even worse than the problem itself, as it consists of bringing in immigrants (increased insecurity and crime, cost to public finances, Islamisation, etc).

Hungary is therefore very consistent, as it combines a family policy with a policy of refusing non-European immigration. It is a healthy combination that should guide all other Western countries.

What do the French President and the Prime Minister of France have in common? Neither of them has children.

‘Rather than looking two weeks ahead, or to the next election, family policy means looking 30, 50 or 100 years ahead’

How can you make effective policy if you are not immortal? Rather than looking two weeks ahead, or to the next election, family policy means looking 30, 50 or 100 years ahead. It is therefore real politics, in the most noble sense of the term.

Another Possible Step Forward?

Here, I would simply like to put forward two ideas to strengthen the defence of the family. The first is to invest more in education, particularly in teaching the importance of the family in Hungarian tradition and for its future. To a certain extent, and paradoxically, the best thing to do would be for the state to ‘divest’ itself. The task of educating young people should be left to private initiative, primarily to families and the Church. In France, the largest item in the budget after interest on the debt is the Ministry of National Education, and the situation is probably not very different in Hungary. However, the task of educating children falls to parents, who must be trusted. In this way, the state can save money and focus on its essential functions.

I also think it would be appropriate to communicate more about the assistance available to families, so that young people can learn about it, understand it and take advantage of it.

Related articles: