The Discourse of Christianity in Viktor Orbán’s Rhetoric

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study examines a very interesting question with the potential to inspire the professional community: the theme of religion (Christianity) in V. Orbán's speeches over the last more than 30 years. The authors chose an appropriate sample (annual Tusványos speeches) and an appropriate combination of two methods (quantitative: keyword frequency and thematic clusters, qualitative: content analysis).

They bring interesting and useful findings; a clear description and analysis of Orbán's references to religion and the development of his religious rhetoric, especially depending on whether he was in the opposition (until 2009) or in the government (since 2010).

However, I am missing in this analysis:

- Clearer formulation of research questions in the introduction (such a sentence is in 56-57, but it is necessary to explicitly set aside space for research questions).

- A real discussion at the end (not only a new description from a new point of view and own analysis, but a return to the very stimulating ideas of Ch. Mouffe and others from the introduction: confirmation/refutation of theoretical knowledge about the relationship between religious rhetoric and democracy, the nation, wounded collective identity).

- Reasoning why only part of the sample (2002-2017) and not the whole sample (1990-2022) was used in the qualitative analysis.

- Explanation of the relativity of data from graph no. 4: relative to what percentages are calculated (which is the set of 100%).

I also identified several possible minor errors:

- L. 329, description of fig. 3: the time range from the previous graph (2002 – 2009) was probably left by mistake.

- L. 660: synonyms against/against are mentioned, but it is the same word. Maybe in Hungarian they are two different words with the meaning against. It might be appropriate to list the original prepositions and explain this linguistic phenomenon.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for the detailed and constructive feedback on our research article.

It is great to read that you found topic of our article interesting, potentially inspiring for the professional community, and the methods used appropriate for the analysis.

Based on your feedback, we have added a section related to the research questions. Thank you for the comment on that important section.

We have updated the conclusions in order to close to your suggestions regarding the "real discussion" and be well-aligned with the recommendations of the other reviewers as well. We do hope that you find the modifications sufficient.

According to your feedback, we have also included a more thorough reasoning on why we analyze the subset of 2002-2017 during the quantitative analysis. Please find it under the Data section.

Thank you for pointing out the issue around figure 4. We have updated the figure and the description, we do hope that with these changes, the figures and their interpretation are easier to read.

Yes, indeed, we have left unintentionally a mistake in the description of figure 3 that we have corrected according to your feedback. Thanks for that!

You're right with the synonyms against/against. We have updated the text so that the difference between the words become clearer.

In general, we plan to have an additional round of language proofreading and -editing to avoid linguistic mistakes and make the article easier to read.

Thank you for reviewing our article thoroughly and providing us with constructive critique. We are grateful for your contribution!

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The choice of the text’s topic is extremely interesting, especially considering that the Hungarian Prime Minister has been a significant actor in the scene of international, especially European, political communication for several years. On the other hand, the interdisciplinarity of the topic is also remarkable: the intersection of political science, communication science and religion holds great potential for practitioners of the social sciences.

The theoretical-scientific context of the study is appropriate, as is the concept of the research. Tusványos speeches are all-time displays of the prime minister's long-term political-ideological vision, a kind of creed, and strategy. (Another such interface is the Prime Minister's interview given every Friday on public radio, which is actually more a controlled press statement. In a further investigation, it might be worthwhile to expand the data collection in this direction as well.)

I consider the study to be methodologically well-founded (NLP + content analysis), the qualitative and quantitative components complement each other synergistically.

I found the study interesting and useful, thank you for the opportunity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for the positive feedback on our research article!

It is great to read that you found 1) the topic extremely interesting, 2) the interdisciplinarity of our research remarkable, 3) the theoretical-scientific context and the concept of the research appropriate.

You're right that studying the public radio interviews of the Prime Minister would also be exciting and it would be worth to expand the data collection in this direction as well for a future research. We will consider doing that in the future.

Thank you for reviewing our article and being positive and supporting about publishing it!

Best wishes,
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the study raises an exciting issue. It seeks to answer the question of what political messages Viktor Orbán's speeches in Tusványos conveyed. These texts seem to be a relevant tools for understanding the changes in the political thinking of the Hungarian Prime Minister ( between 1990-2023). 

The choice of a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative) was an exciting solution, as the authors' understanding of these two methods reinforces each other. The main focus of this research has been on the changing concept of religion and Christianity, and the use of these concepts in the service of populism. 

Through qualitative content analysis, they have been able to sensitively and profoundly point to the time and content of these changes. 

I would like to draw the attention of the author(s) to one point: the acceptability of the mixed method from an epistemological point of view is disputed by some. It would have been worthwhile to elaborate in the methodological section on the authors' own understanding of this aspect in a later study. 

On another note, would it be worthwhile to continue this exciting research in a form that would examine what the hungarian christian churches have to say about the populist-political content of the exploitation/use of "Christianity"? As far as I know, there is no research on this at the moment, it is not a secondary issue for the future of the churches. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for reviewing our article and being positive and supporting about publishing it!

We are pleased to read that you found the subject of our article exciting, the examined data appropriate and the mixed method - reinforces qualitative and quantitative techniques - used "an exciting solution".

Thank you very much for pointing out the issue on the acceptability of mixed methods. We have elaborated those aspects slightly further in the current article as well, and as you suggested we would discuss those aspects in a future study in a more detailed manner to cover the epistemological questions coming up when applying mixed methods.

We are happy to read your suggestion on the future possibilities related to our current article. We do agree with you, it would be worth to continue the research and examine the communication of Hungarian Christian churches about Christianity in the populist-political content observed in the country. 

Best regards,
Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors conduct an analysis of Viktor Orbán's speeches delivered at Băile Tușnad and the Bálványos Free Summer University and Student Camp. These speeches provide important insights into the evolution of his thoughts from 1990 to 2022. In their study, the authors explore the changing meaning of Christianity as portrayed in Orbán's speeches, its connection to political issues, and the similarities and differences between Orbán's ideology and both political Christianity and religious Christianity.

 

The article is well-structured with clear sections and subsections, making it easy to read. It is well-written, and the objectives and research questions are clearly defined.

 

However, it seems that the methodology was described as a reminder for the authors themselves, which may make it difficult for those unfamiliar with these approaches to understand the mechanism of the analysis, both qualitative and quantitative.

 

In Section 4.1, there are doubts about the real usefulness of this section as it does not provide a detailed description of the observations presented in the figures. Enriching this part with additional information could be crucial to validate the results.

 

In Section 4.2, at line 353, the authors refer to "soybean models" without having previously mentioned them. It would be helpful to clarify what they mean by this expression.

 

The conclusions are clearly insufficient and lack content. This section should serve to summarize the entire article, from the introduction to the discussions. Expanding this section would be appropriate.

 

Minor comments:

1. In line 264, "In this chapter...": perhaps you meant to say "In this section..."?

2. In line 270, "6...": it would be preferable to write "sei" (six) in full.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for detailed and constructive feedback on our research article!

It is great to read that you found the article, well-structured and easy to read. We are happy that you confirm that the objectives and the research questions are clearly defined.

Thank you for your valuable comments on the methodology section, we have reworked that according to your points. Eventually, we have added more details to the material and methods chapter in general, extended to content of it in order to help the reader understand the data used and the methods applied for the analysis.

We are happy for you guidance on the Section 4.1. as well, we have improved chapter 4. Results to enrich the part with additional information that could support the understanding of the results.

Thank you for pointing out a mismatch in the article in section 4.2. We have corrected that as well to be well-aligned with the Material and Methods chapter and make the article easier to follow. 

Based on your feedback, we have extended the Conclusions as well, summarizing the main take-away message of the article.

Thank you for reviewing our article thoroughly and providing us with constructive critique. We are grateful for your contribution!

Best regards,
Authors