EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Brussels struggles to bring Hungary back into line

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 13 March 2013

Hungary's decision to change its constitution and limit the power of its top court is a forthright challenge to the European Union, and the uncomfortable truth in Brussels is that little can be done to rein Budapest in quickly.

The Hungarian parliament, dominated by supporters of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has voted overwhelmingly for a set of constitutional amendments that opponents, including the EU, the U.S. government and human rights groups, fear will undermine the country's 24-year-old democracy.

The concern is that the enlargement of the EU since 2004 has brought into the bloc central and east European countries that do not fully share the same norms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law as Germany, France, Britain or other powers.

If left unchecked, that could undermine the values that have bound the EU together since its founding, officials warn.

Orbán and senior Hungarian officials have lined up to offer reassurances about Monday's constitutional shake-up, denying there is any threat to democracy or judicial independence.

But it is not the first time Orbán has rattled the EU's cage and there is alarm in Brussels at the latest move, which follows changes last year to other sensitive media and banking laws.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso issued a statement immediately after the Hungarian vote saying the amendments "raise concerns with respect to the principle of the rule of law", and EU legal experts have begun examining the changes to see where Hungary may have violated EU law.

Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament, said time was running out for Orbán.

"Orbán has been warned many times that the values of the union he joined are not to be abused or ignored," he said. "It is time to see the Orbán regime for what it is, a government set on imposing the will of a majority over a minority."

Stormy meeting

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who had what officials described as a stormy meeting with Hungary's president in Berlin on Tuesday, said he could not hide his concern at the way Orban and his government were operating.

"It is important that every country in the EU understands that we belong to a community of values," he told a group of reporters on the sidelines of a meeting in Brussels on Monday.

"I do not have to deny that I am concerned about these latest developments in Hungary. I express my concern."

But for all the frustration and denunciation, there is little the European Union can do with any alacrity or immediacy that might make the mercurial Orbán sit up and listen.

The way the EU operates is based largely on consensus among the 27 member states. If a country is deemed to have fallen out of line there are legal and other steps that can be taken, but it takes time to build support for them and make them bite.

In the case of Hungary, and similar stand-offs with Romania and Bulgaria in recent years, the first response from fellow member states and the European Commission, the EU's executive, tends to be political pressure or moral persuasion to try to make the government in question alter its behavior.

While that can have an impact, as was the case in Romania last year when the prime minister sought to oust the president, in tricky cases of law backed by democratically elected parliaments, as in Hungary, it is much more difficult.

"There's a shortage of what the EU can do to ensure that democratic practices, or democracy itself, is not reversed," said Corina Stratulat, an expert in the politics of central and eastern Europe at the European Policy Centre, a think tank.

"There is an awareness that something has to change in terms of enhancing the tools that the EU has at its disposal to influence situations like we've seen in recent years."

Legal channels

Beyond political pressure, the Commission can launch what is known as an "infringement proceeding" against a country. But that relies on having hard evidence that EU law has been breached and pursuing the case through tortuous legal channels.

Even under a best-case scenario, infringement proceedings can take up to a year. While the Commission may already have evidence to move against Hungary in the latest incident, it is not going to deliver any change in Budapest anytime soon.

"To prove that they've breached a law is very difficult," said an EU official familiar with the process. "Infringements can and do work, but it is not a quick-reaction tool."

One article of the treaty that binds EU member states together does allow for the near-immediate sanctioning of a member country, but it requires unanimous backing of all other member states and is considered a "nuclear option".

In a letter last week, Westerwelle said the EU needed a way of taking more immediate action against countries that do not respect EU "norms", without referring to any country.

Barroso made a similar call in a speech last year, saying threats to the "democratic fabric" in some EU states meant an alternative was needed between the soft power of political pressure and the "nuclear option" of article 7 of the treaty.

But any move along those lines is a long way off. For now, the EU needs to find a way to bring pressure to bear on Hungary, possibly by working with the International Monetary Fund to withhold financial assistance, and make it shift course.

Otherwise, analysts say, it will find itself with a growing problem of trying to enforce democracy in some of the central and Eastern European countries that the EU was so keen to draw into the heart of Europe after the fall of communism.

"What all this has shown is that the assumption that once you become a member you are fully democratized and there's no going back has been completely questioned," said Stratulat of the European Policy Centre.

"Democracy and democratization are forever a work in progress."

Positions: 

General Secretary Bernadette Ségol of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) said in a statement:

“The purpose is to concentrate powers in the same hands and to silence all criticism. It is anti-democratic and unacceptable. We support the protests of the European Commission and of the Council of Europe. The rule of law, the law of the European Union and the standards of the Council of Europe must be respected.”

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • The issue of state rights vs centralised power is not clearly settled in the E.U., just as in so many federal systems. How to allow for the differences within a federated area while promoting norms is a hot issue everywhere and the balance is hard to set and even harder to maintain over time as circumstances change. The norms that were negotiated by E.U. governments are not clearly settled, as this article makes clear. There are general principles that lack enough detail that reasonable people can differ on the application. The political process is designed to "work out" reasonable differences. At what level within a federal system this "working out" happens defines the flexibility that is permitted and determines what latitude for free political expression and alternative political discourse will exist. In other words, it will restrict or permit open democratic processes. It also will permit or restrict regional differences.
    Other E. U. governments are involved because they have their own political agendas. Groups of differing political stripe stand to gain by getting rules and principles that contain their political positions adopted and implemented at the E.U. level. This is a battle for home country advantage. What is decided for Hungary will not only fix aspects of the political geography in Hungary but also do so in other member states. Political parties are using this process to battle for the high ground. As so often happens, those who are accusing the Hungarian government are saying it intends to do in Hungary what these groups are engaged in doing at the E.U. level and in other countries within the E.U.. It is ingenuous to say only hard assets, such as oil, count as worthy prizes. The arguments posed against Hungary so clearly define what is being sought (only in a mirror image) by those who complain.
    The view just expressed emphasizes why centralised authority, which permits one group to gain a powerful position over many political systems, should be suspect and why I believe there should be room for individual differences and tolerance of dissenting views that are within broad ranges of tolerance.
    The U.K. opted out of the E.U. Charter of Rights, a good example of the negotiated and enshrined principles of the member states. That opt out right is often a good thing and has not resulted in action against Britain nor grievous harm to the E.U. It is a case that demonstrates the value of balancing state rights against centralised norms in a flexible framework that respects individual political preferences of states. Such flexibility respects individual differences and allows political processes to respond to differing circumstances.
    Much of the dialogue seems to be about substituting one political view for that of a duly elected government. In the case of Hungary, the current government was elected with a massive majority because of a desire for change. the E.U. seems to be taking a narrow interpretation of what is happening and seeking to apply it, effectively locking in certain rules, procedures and requirements that should be, and commonly are, within the spectrum of normal political activity. Let me give what I see as examples.
    Governments routinely appoint those they believe are supportive to important government posts. That is what the previous Hungarian government did and that is what the new government is doing. Usually this process allows an elected government to carry out policy priorities.
    The retirement of judges is a rational way to ensure that many current judges appointed during the previous communist regime, who do not have training in market economics and market practices, step aside in favour of new blood. The measures are not arbitrary by world standards since retirement is general for all judges, not for some only and applies to current as well as future appointments.
    The recent Italian election featured a ban on political advertising and rallies during the days before the election. How is this a constitutional problem in the E.U.?
    It is problematic to me that larger members of the E.U. seem to throw around their weight and attempt to impose their views on what is politically correct in another part of the E.U. This becomes evidence that provides fuel to those who think the E.U. is an instrument for political domination by a few countries.
    I have much more to say but this is only a comment, so I will stop here.

    By :
    Brian
    - Posted on :
    13/03/2013
  • "Democracy and democratization are forever a work in progress." Correct!

    But he ought to recognizze the need for "Democracy" (however you describe it) to be HOMEGROWN. Imports or enforcement from outside do not work; they inevitably collapse and leave the situation as bad as it ever was before the "regime change" was effected.

    By :
    david tarbuck
    - Posted on :
    13/03/2013
  • "Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament, said time was running out for Orbán.

    "Orbán has been warned many times that the values of the union he joined are not to be abused or ignored," he said. "It is time to see the Orbán regime for what it is, a government set on imposing the will of a majority over a minority."

    Well I suppose that Verhofstadt prefers something other, like a minority imposing it's will on a majority, or perhaps people "who know better" imposing their will on the rest of us.

    By :
    Jack
    - Posted on :
    14/03/2013
  • I don't agree with many of the changes, but it is a fact the the Constitutional Court has violated basic human rights norms starting in 1990. It is the direct cause of the fact that Hungary has never been able to face the Communist past; that alleged war criminals and criminals against humanity walk freely on the streets while their victims commit suicide in desperation.
    The simple truth is that reforming an existing legal system, made up largely of ex-Communists, many with much to hide personally, is very difficult and the EU is making it harder, not easier.

    By :
    Christopher
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • I don't understand why they still have a parlament for? If Orban and his assslicker particamerades decide everything even change the constituton than there is no need for it.
    Isn't the nacis begin that way?

    By :
    Frank
    - Posted on :
    15/03/2013
  • Dear Frank:
    Since I live in Budapest I have the ability to see first hand the political give and take. If you think Orban runs things by himself, you have it wrong. There are many within the ruling Government who would go much further with many measures and many others who want more compromise. Members of Parliament are not "asslickers" as you so elegently put it, but they do believe in party discipline. Once a position is worked out, the Party acts with one voice. Rather like party politics in most democratic nations. There will be elections next year and a new Parliament will be formed with a different composition and it will work accordingly, That is the way parliamentary democracy generally works. Over time, many differing views will have an opportunity to form a Government and set its policies. That is why they still have a parliament.

    By :
    Brian
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • @Jack: ironically, and sadly, back home Verhofstadt's party (OVLD) is part of a minority government!

    By :
    Jason
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Brian
    I never lived in Hungary and hopefuly never had to live under a regime like the Hungarian one.

    Well Brian where is your brain? You wrote: "Members of Parliament are not "asslickers" as you so elegently put it,but they do believe in party discipline"

    Meaning of course when the top decides they all vote on it because they are a affraid to rise their voice. Otherwise their well paid job is finished by the day.

    And of course controlling the high court and the media like TV stations and newspapers is your idea of the democracy. In this country the large amount of Hungarian immigranrs criying, They just dont understand how their country become a one party state.

    Isn't the naci boys did the same thing? Assimilated themself to the party diciplines? Well I beleive the Hungarians don't have a clue what democracy is.

    By :
    Frank
    - Posted on :
    16/03/2013
  • Frank
    You admit your ignorance of what is going on in Hungary yet still feel you have the rigtht to judge. Who is the party guilty of following the party line? The articles you are reading are written by people who have not troubled to read the original documents and to investigate the facts. It is easier to pick up copy from somewhere, reliable or not. You should perhaps examine more closely your own version of "asslicking", that is blindly following whatever you last read without bothering to look at how correct or thorough it is. I have lived in many countries around the world, including those that call themselves first rate examples of democracy and I can vouch that Hungary and Hungarians understand democracy every bit as well as people elsewhere. Try reading the source documents. Take a look at how press freedom works. Take a look at what what the Levenson Commission reported in Britain about press regulation and compare it with what is being done around the world, including Hungary. Don't follow blindly, as seems to be the case with you in this instance.

    By :
    Brian
    - Posted on :
    17/03/2013
Background: 

Following general election held in April 2010, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that voters had carried out a "revolution" by giving his party Fidesz two thirds of the seats in parliament to rebuild Hungary after a near financial collapse. Fidesz is affiliated to the centre-right European People's Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament.

A new Hungarian constitution was passed in April 2011 without much debate. It was severely criticised by civil liberties groups and the Socialist and Liberal European political families, for being contrary to EU norms and values and for strengthening the Fidesz one-party rule.

However, the EU commissioner responsible for institutional relations, Maroš Šefčovič, who is affiliated to the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES), said in July 2011 that the new Hungarian constitution does not raise issues of compatibility with European Union law. 

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

EU Treaty and Institutions News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

EU Treaty and Institutions Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising