Showing true illiberal colours – Rule of law vs Orbán’s pandemic politics. CEPS Policy Insights No 2020-10 / April 2020

This Policy Insight examines the Hungarian government’s responses to the coronavirus pandemic and their impacts on the rule of law. It argues that the pandemic does not create autocracies, but it shows more clearly their true illiberal colours. The paper assesses the scope of the so-called ‘Enabling Act’ granting the government the power to rule by decree and its damaging implications for the effective democratic control of executive actions and other checks and balances such as media pluralism and freedom of association. The analysis argues that the Hungarian government is unequivocally violating the EU founding principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and its current pandemic politics are making this ever more transparent. The paper recommends more EU centralisation and interinstitutional cooperation in the assessment and scrutiny of all member states’ compliance with the trinity of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. It concretely suggests first, the timely enforcement of EU standards by the European Commission and the Luxembourg Court through rule of law infringement proceedings, and second, the adoption of an interinstitutional EU Periodic Review (EUPR) on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights

The state of EU law-making now resembles a political ‘Harlem shake’

This week, the European Parliament rejected the European Council’s proposals on the EU budget for 2014-2020. While some believe this to be a victory for the Parliament in opposing budget cuts, negotiations are still to take place until a package deal is agreed between both institutions. Raya Kardasheva argues that while package lawmaking initially served as a flexible tool for negotiation among a select group of senior legislators, the process has now evolved outside institutional rules and it increasingly resembles the frantic group dance movements of this year’s viral YouTube meme ‘Harlem shake’

The Alternative for Germany’s radicalization in historical-comparative perspective

This article chronicles the AfD’s rightward repositioning and compares it with the programmatic development of three postwar German parties on the ideological wings. By highlighting factors that tilt the balance of power away from moderate reformers towards hardliners, this comparative analysis sheds light on the conditions that lead a relatively successful party on the ideological wings, such as the AfD, to radicalize its programme. Four variables stand out: whether party hardliners take the blame for the recent election loss; whether they offer a convincing programmatic and strategic alternative to the reformers; whether changes in party composition strengthen hardliners; and whether external factors enhance their weight within the party. The essay concludes that the AfD’s radicalization was unusual, but not exceptional. It is however too early to conclude that the Federal Republic’s distinctive institutions and political culture no longer impose significant costs on parties that shift their programmes away from the centre