Hungary’s new Constitution

Monday 18, 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted a new Constitution that gave rise to vehement criticism, both in Hungary and abroad. As it was, the bill passed with 262 yeas, 44 nays, and one abstention, with two of the three opposition party members walking out during the vote.

Hungary’s new Constitution provides for a supervisory authority to monitor the performance of justice organs. The official in charge of this authority is to be appointed by the parliament. There will be fewer MPs, with the head of state being authorized to dissolve parliament unless the budget is passed before March 31. If and when the Hungarian government decides to join the eurozone, this will have to be approved by two-thirds of MPs. The new Constitution of Hungary reads:

“We the representatives of the Parliament elected on April 25, 2010, recognizing our responsibility to God and people, hereby declare the first, integrated basic law of Hungary…” The Hungarian state reserves itself the right to protect its citizens’ life: “Human dignity is inviolable. Everyone has the right to life and human dignity. The life of a fetus will be protected from conception.” This constitutional clause bans abortions. Families with three or more children will receive additional ballots during elections. Under the new Constitution, Hungary will be officially referred to as “Hungary” or Magyarorszag [rather than Magyarorszag Koztarsasag, the Republic of Hungary]. Article 37 (2) reads: “The Central Budget – with the exceptions set forth in paragraph (5) of Article 36 – will have to ensure that the level of the state debt does not exceed half of the value of the gross domestic product of the previous calendar year.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and his supporters explain the need to upgrade the Constitution, considering that the original one was adopted back in 1949 [when Hungary was under Soviet rule], with the Cold War going full blast. The authors of Hungary’s new Fundamental Law believe that this instrument will accomplish the transition from totalitarianism to democracy.

Last weekend thousands of Hungarians took part in rallies against the new Constitution in Budapest. Ex-Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany addressed a rally saying that Orban was limiting the freedom of the press, and that he wanted to use the prosecutor’s office to his own political ends. Critics say the new Constitution of Hungary allows Orban and the ruling party more room for power play and reinforces their position: even if Orban loses the next election (2014), he will be in a position to order the parliament dissolved and set early parliamentary elections.

Hungary’s new Constitution has caused concern within the international community, including the United Nations, the EU, and Germany. Minister of State at the German Foreign Office Werner Hoyer said, “The fears that arose at the start of this year, in conjunction with the new law on the media, have not slackened off; they are mounting after the adoption of the new Constitution.”

The EU pointed to the Hungarian Constitution’s restrictions on the Constitutional Court as one of its numerous drawbacks. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has recently visited Hungary and urged its political leadership to consult with international institutions, saying that the international community was concerned about Hungary’s new Constitution. He further voiced his appreciation of the Hungarian government’s decision to seek expert recommendations at various European organizations and at the United Nations.

Hungary’s NGOs insist that the new Constitution is heavily influenced by rightist Christian ideology, which restricts the rights of atheists, homosexuals, and single parents. “No one has authorized the Hungarian political leadership to work out this kind of Constitution,” said Gyurcsany, who now leads the opposition. His criticism was echoed by experts from the Venice Commission. The original Constitution of the Republic of Hungary was enacted in 1949, thoroughly amended in 1989 [still under Soviet rule], until a new Constitution of Hungary was adopted by the parliament, to take effect on January 1, 2012, if and when approved by the head of state.

Below is an interview with Gyula MATE, head of Magyar Hirlap’s foreign policy department:

“I believe that everyone can interpret the Constitution in his/her own way. The reason behind the new Constitution of Hungary is that the original one, drawn up based on the Stalinist standard, remained effective for 20 years. I hear the opposition say that the new Fundamental Law will allow the incumbent government to enhance its authority. The new Constitution makes it possible for Hungary to become more democratic. It is also true that the guarantees laid down in the original Constitution are still valid in the new text.”

How would you explain all that criticism over the new Hungarian Constitution from the United Nations, the European Union, and German government?

“People in Eastern Europe have grown accustomed to trusting opinions abroad rather than their own — the way anything Moscow said [as the USSR’s capital city] had to be done and would be done, no questions asked — except that it is now Brussels and Washington. I have to respect this ‘public opinion,’ considering that there are political forces and individuals who support this concept, yet the constitution issue should be resolved by Hungary, by the Hungarian people.”

What about the media law, with the Hungarian government heeding all that criticism and making concessions?

“The original [basic] law contained a number of blunders and the Hungarian government recognized them. I believe that the laws on the press can hardly be compared with the Constitution because then latter allows more opportunities and principles.”

Doesn’t the situation in Hungary remind you of Ukraine, when the Verkhovna Rada adopted amendments to the Constitution, simply to gain more authority?

“It doesn’t. In fact, I wouldn’t make any comparisons to this end. The [Hungarian] Constitution doesn’t allow anyone, the president or the cabinet, to have any authority other than under the law. On the other hand, the ruling coalition has a two-thirds majority in parliament. They don’t have to worry about strengthening their position.”