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

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Hungary’s constitutional changes fuel new tensions

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 11 March 2013, updated 05 April 2013

Thousands of Hungarians protested in central Budapest on Saturday (9 March) against imminent changes to the country's constitution which they fear would curb democratic rights, echoing worries this week from the European Union and the United States.

 

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ruling center-right Fidesz party has used its unprecedented two-thirds parliamentary majority to make laws that critics say limit citizens' freedoms.

Parliament is scheduled to hold a final vote on the constitutional changes today (11 March).

Decisions of the country's top Constitutional Court made before the new constitution entered into force in 2012 will no longer be valid, discarding an important body of law often used as reference before. Restrictive new regulation may now appear in higher education, homelessness, electoral law and family law.

"We really have had enough of this," said 17-year-old student Luca Cseh, adding the changes limited her prospects of going to university as state subsidies would only be available to students who pledge to work in Hungary after graduation.

"They oppress students, but also the homeless or homosexuals," she said.

In a phone call on Friday, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso told Prime Minister Viktor Orbán that his government and the parliament should address concerns "in accordance with EU democratic principles".

The move came after the foreign ministers of Germany, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands asked Barroso in a letter dated 6 March that the Union would impose funding cuts on member states that violate the 27-nation bloc’s democratic values.

“At this critical stage in European history, it is crucially important that the fundamental values enshrined in the European treaties be vigorously protected,” they said.

Orbán sent a letter to Barroso after the phone call in which he pledged Hungary would conform to the norms and rules of the European Union, without offering specifics.

According to a statement by Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs János Martonyi, Orbán confirmed the full commitment of the Hungarian Government to European norms and rules and assured Barroso that “this commitment has been and is going to be reflected throughout the process of adopting the modifications to the Fundamental Law”.

The Hungarian Permanent Representation to the EU made available the letter by Martonyi to the foreign affairs ministers of the EU member states, in which he assures them of Hungary’s commitment to EU norms and values, and invites experts for providing them with more information on any possible concern.

Earlier this week the European institution responsible for defending human rights, the Council of Europe, urged Budapest to postpone the vote, fearing for Hungary's democratic checks and balances.

The government rejected that request, and Justice Minister Tibor Navracsics sent a detailed explanation of the laws to the Council defending the changes and offering further discussions.

The U.S. State Department and human rights organizations also expressed concern.

However, the leader of the Fidesz party's parliament group, Antal Rogán, told a news conference on Saturday that external pressure on Hungary was unacceptable.

Speakers at the protest said they would no longer tolerate being told what to do by the government.

Philosopher and opposition activist Miklós Tamás Gáspár told the crowd: "When they lay down in the constitution how those who have nowhere to go may or may not sleep on the street, how a student with no job prospects may or may not go abroad for work, then we need to ask whether it's us protesters that have gone crazy or those who write the constitution."

Hungarian Socialists launch election drive

About 12,000 Socialist supporters gathered in Budapest's biggest sport arena on Saturday to hear Chairman Attila Mesterházy say the party had been rejuvenated and a comprehensive programme had been drafted to take on Orbán.

Mesterházy also said the Socialists would work with grassroots groups and unions to rehabilitate the rule of law starting with the constitution which Fidesz overhauled.

He said a Socialist government would be cooperative not confrontational in foreign relations, repairing damaged ties with the European Union and other international partners.

"We must not wage a freedom fight against Europe, rather cooperate in an alliance so that we can represent our national interests better," Mesterházy said.

Speaking in Budapest, Sergei Stanishev, the European Socialist Party (PES) President, stated that “Orbán does not understand democracy”. He condemned the so called constitutional ‘mega-ammendment’ that Orbán is attempting to pass, which he called an “assault on democracy”.

Fidesz upset many Hungarians by nationalising pension fund assets, introducing new taxes on financial transactions and telecommunications and increasing influence over education, cultural institutions, the media and the judiciary.

But since Fidesz's landslide election victory in 2010, the left-wing opposition has been fragmented and unable to capitalise on Orbán's loss of about a million supporters and the undecided view of almost half the eight million electorate.

Positions: 

European Parliament President Martin Schulz made the following statement on the planned constitutional amendment in Hungary, following a telephone call with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán:

"There are concerns in the European Parliament about recent proposals to amend the Hungarian constitution. I conveyed this message to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a telephone conversation on 8 March.

“I recommended to the Prime Minister to urgently ask the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe for its Opinion before the Hungarian Parliament votes on those amendments.

“During our conversation, Prime Minister Orbán promised to send to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, to whom he had spoken only an hour earlier, and to myself a letter clarifying the matter.

“The Hungarian authorities promised last year not to make any legal changes that would be incompatible with European laws or standards. I expect those promises to be kept."

EurActiv.com with Reuters

COMMENTS

  • It would be much better if the people involved in Brussels were democratically elected, but they are not. Yet they presume to tell a democratically elected government what to do in the interests of the country it rules. The article states the government has an "unprecedented majority" but that is what the election gave it in order to effect change. The size of the majority reflects the reality at the time. How democratic is it for a relatively small, politically motivated group to call the agenda over the governing, duly elected party which obtained a massive show of support? There was a demonstration, they were allowed to express a view but that view is not sufficiently supported by the broader society. That is what democratic government is supposed to accomplish. Governments routinely appoint those they believe are supportive to important posts. That is what the previous government did and that is what the new government is doing. Usually this process sllows an elected government to carry out policy priorities. The issues in question are not how they are being represented. 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.? Much of the dialogue seems to involve substitutine on political view for that of the elected government. This belief that unelected bureaucrats can trump reasonable political action by elected political representatives underlies a lot of the discontent with the E.U., as we commonly hear in the debate about the E.U. in places such as Britain. A better balance is needed between centralised norms and individual member state rights and prerogatives. A better balance is needed between the privileges of large members and small memebers.

    By :
    Brian
    - Posted on :
    11/03/2013
  • Brian is making some valid statements on the rights and priviliges of democratically elected political leaders in his statement above. However, he is also simplifying a lot of the issues and is off on some others. First of all, it is easy to blame Eurocrats once again, but really the Foreign Ministers of Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and also the USA are not Eurocrats. They also represent democratically elected governments. Do you really think they all just want to mingle in poor oppressed Hungary's affairs because .. well why? What reason would they have to oppose this? Oil in Hungary? As for retiring judges: no problem to set retirement ages or terms in office, it really is common in many systems. However, it is not very productive to evaluate such reforms without looking at the political circumstances involved. As you mentioned in your post one major aim of this reform is to get rid off the old judges. But that these are still communist trained judges seems a bit unlikely. The communist regime in Hungary fell 22 years ago, since then many new judges have been appointed and they do know about market economies etc. They also seem to know more about the democratic values and standards upheld by the member states of the EU and therefore by the EU itself (you cannot separate these two), as they have repeatedly stopped Orban's reforms before. This simply points to the conclusion that the main idea behind this is to get rid off judges who are not inline. This is not a democratic method or attitude. You should also note that Hungary does not have a British system in which the next parliament can simply pass a new law to take these changes back. The only reason that this government can make these drastic constitutional changes is that it has an unusually high majority and it appears as if it is abusing this power to drive a onesided and democratically questionable agenda (and no this is not the exclusive opinion of eurocrats). Finally, the comment ends in a rant against centralized power in the EU that seems rather disconnected from the actual topic. The EU institutions such as the Commission and the EP actually seem to have very little power over what Orban is doing in Hungary. They condem it, so what? Seems to be their right as well. Moreover, I hope you do not claim that the protection of basic principles of liberal democracies is an elitist European project disconnected from the governments and the people who make up the EU. The basic rights and freedoms that the EU refers to and uses are the result of negotiations between all member states and involve long standing traditions and norms from all member states. For the very most post these norms and traditions are not controversial and they do not pose a threat to national sovereignty because they simply enshrine already existing norms and traditions in an EU framework. This may be different in the UK because of the long standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, however, the UK did opt out of the charter provisions to protect that (not to be able to abuse its citizens' rights).

    By :
    Hubertus
    - Posted on :
    12/03/2013
  • I appreciate that Hubertus is willing to have a rational discussion instead of indulging in namecalling and character assassination as so often seems to be the case in comments on such issues. I believe the issues in discussion here are both important and not settled and deserve informed debate and discussion. Some comments and responses are in order.
    I wish to take some offense at calling what I had to say at the end a "rant". It is not intended to be a rant but is intended to be a summation of the general principle that I see. 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. I feel my ending summary sets out a unifying principle and is not a "rant".
    The norms that Hubertus claims were negotiated by governments are not as clearly settled as he implies. 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.
    I have a problem with the idea that an appointed group that is not part of the accepted institutional framework such as the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe can be used to issue opinions with binding effect as proposed in this circumstance. Have Hungarians appointed this body to have this role in Hungarian affairs? Is this enshrined in a negotiated treaty or another improvisation? What other such bodies will be inserted into the process?
    Other 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. did opt 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 framork that respects individual political preferences of states that can evolve over time.

    By :
    Brian
    - Posted on :
    12/03/2013
  • Hubertas--the foreign ministers of the USA Germany etc are NOT elected officials of Hungary--it is not logical to have political leaders from another nation rule another sovreign independent naiton-- do to so is called--COLONIALSM- there is no middle ground-as the late Presidente Chavez stated many times-- no nation has the right to tell another what to do within its borders--its banks its culture etc--as you see he was revered by millions world wide-- there is even a monument to him in MOscow--who gives the USA Britian Germany etc the right to tell any nation of Europe or South America what ti do?? this is un acceptable--its high time the USA -Western Euro COLONIALSTS stop trying to impose their corruptions on sovreign nations--especially if they are smaller nations-- is this the "new world arder"?? it will not work-- it will only lead to bad relations or worse between the new colonailsts & those they are trying to re conquer

    By :
    lejos del usa 6
    - Posted on :
    28/03/2013
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