Today Easter Monday April 25th 2011, the Hungarian President Pal Schmitt signed the new Hungarian Constitution which will come into effect on Jan 1st 2012. To get a political analyst’s perspective on the document I caught Andras Biro Nagy of Policy Solutions Consultancy Institute.
The Prague Post [TPP]: The Constitution has been signed into law today, can I just ask for your immediate reaction to the document?
Andras Biro Nagy [ABN]: I for one believe that the conditions in which a constitution is born, matters. I would just like to mention the case of the previous constitution, against which the most important argument was that it was accepted as a pact of the elite and those who drafted it had no popular support behind the process. The fact that the new constitution was voted only by Fidesz, might have a long-lasting effect on the new document. Its popularity might not be the same if Fidesz falls significantly in the opinion polls.
TPP: What aspects of the Constitution do you find most worrying?
ABN: Regarding the content, I find the most worrying aspects to be those that complicate the tasks of any future government. Fidesz decided that some very crucial policy decisions – regarding the tax and pension systems plus the introduction of the euro – will require two-thirds majority in the Parliament. In other words, it is quite likely that without the support of Fidesz, the elbow-room of any non-Fidesz government will be limited seriously. With this process Fidesz tries to fix several political initiatives for decades that might favour them now but has less relevance on the long-run. Hungary has missed a huge chance: Fidesz’ basic law does not seem to be a document that could unite the nation, but rather a new, massive symbolic battleground between the government and opposition.
TPP: What aspects are most positive?
ABN: Regarding the positive points, the public finances chapter is progressive by all standards, however I find it unfortunate that the curtailment of the original rights of the Constitutional Court is cemented in the new basic law until Hungary’s state debt goes below 50% of the GDP – a level Hungary will surely not reach for many years.
TPP: A constitution is generally viewed as a rather neutral document around which the nation can unite, should this document be interpreted in the same fashion, as one that represents a consensual vision of the nation?
ABN: The new Hungarian basic law was not only voted by one party but the values it supports also reflect a one-sided vision of the nation. Ideologically speaking, this is certainly not a big tent constitution. It does not offer any soothing reassurances to the – still relatively small and politically largely dazed – left and liberal segments of the population. The new basic law features lots of fiery language designed to please the right-wing hearts, and there is little to nothing in it to do the same for the left-wing and liberal citizens. Most of the obligatory rhetorical and symbolic issues of the Hungarian right made it into the draft: references to the Holy Crown, Christianity, the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the sanctity and importance of the family and the commitment to Hungarians across the borders are all there.
TPP: The government distributed 8 million questionnaires to citizens on the Constitution on which 900, 000 citizens responded. Did these responses of the people have an impact on the end product?
ABN: It is without precedent in the post-communist countries that a constitution would be accepted by only a one party-alliance, without the backing of any opposition party. Bearing this in mind, Fidesz launched several initiatives to broaden the support for the new document: with a national consultation sending out questionnaires to all citizens being one of them. The government tried its best to sell this PR move as a serious consultation; however its real purpose was to hide that public engagement and opinions from outside the Fidesz-world were almost completely missing from the process. The results of the questionnaires had no serious impact on the content of the basic law either, but it must be also mentioned that the questions themselves were rather vague and inappropriate to discuss the most important issues
TPP: The Constitution is generally interpreted as being a conservative one containing Christian roots. It contains a paragraph on the protection of the unborn child. Does this paragraph have the potential to set limits on abortion?
ABN: The expression ‘defending the embryo’ leaves some space to future governments for interpretation. However, it became clear that in spite of the pressure of the Christian Democrats, PM Orbán does not support a stricter law on abortion. The Prime Minister also made it clear that „his government could easily fall” if limits on abortion were set. Orbán is well-aware of the potential dangers, I do not think that Fidesz would take the risk of a new, stricter abortion law.
Andras Biro Nagy is co-director of Policy Solutions Institute a Hungarian think tank dedicated to Hungarian public administration and the European Union. More information on Policy Solutions can be accessed here http://www.policysolutions.hu/magunkrol
In connection with the Prague Post interview with Andras Biro Nagy: Hungary’s New Constitution (April 25, 2011.) I call attention to Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s article published in the February 17, 2010. Issue of Nagyitas, a magazine supporting him, in which he presented his vision of Hungary’s future for the next 15-20 years:
“Political power seems to take a new form (in Hungary). Currently the system’s duality apparently ends, partly as the result of the development of favorable circumstances for right wing political ideology and rhetoric, and partly as the result of our party’s gaining strength. There is a realistic possibility in Hungary that politics in this country for the next 15-20 years will be defined not by a dualistic field of force, which with constant debates generates divisive, captious and unnecessary societal consequences. Instead of these debates one big governing party, a central political field of force will become in existence, which will be able to define the national agenda. It will do that not by participating in constant debates but with presenting that agenda with the party’s own creativity”
The words and actions spoken and implemented by the Orban led Hungarian government, including the controversial media law and the enactment of the new contentious constitution were and are to shape Hungary in accordance with Orban’s perverse vision of democracy and to establish an autocracy under his rule. Without recognizing Orban’s aim and effectively rejecting his aggressivity and arrogance the European countries, especially the members of the European Union, will continuously face additional challenges to their principles and values by the power-obsessed leader of one of its members.
The new Constitution was written in haste wthout competence and diplomatic sensitivity and was enacted without national consensus. As the result it is full with contradictions.Its-self – adulatory Preamble reflects a unique interpretation of history. for all of the listed reasons this Constitution will not survive the test of time. It is difficult to govern with a constitution contested by the governed It is impossible to maintain peaceful economic, political and military relations with fellow members of the European Union by constantly questioning the value of membership of that organization.
Istvan Gereben
(Former Executive Secretary,
Coordinating Committee of Hungarian Organizations
In North America)