Has Hungary become an authoritarian state? In their first of three articles on the Hungarian government, Tamas Dezso Czigler and Izolda Takacs argue that the country has become a distorted democracy on the brink of autocracy. Worryingly, the vast majority of Hungarians do not seem to be alarmed by these developments

Dezso Czigler, Tamas

Takacs, Izolda

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/05/15/hungary-distorted-democracy/Hungary is now a distorted democracyMay 15 2012Has Hungary become an authoritarian state? In their first of three articles on the Hungariangovernment, Tamas Dezso Czigler and Izolda Takacs argue that the country has becomea distorted democracy on the brink of autocracy. Worryingly, the vast majority of Hungariansdo not seem to be alarmed by these developments.Hungary underwent a major power change in 2010: The right-wing governing party Fidesz andits ally KDNP (in practice an extension group of Fidesz, rather than an independent party)control more than two thirds of the seats in the Hungarian Parliament. Consequently, theynow govern the country by themselves, without the need for a coalition with others. For addedhelp, far right-wing party Jobbik, with a further 16% of sets in the parliament, also generallysupports Fidesz. This means that around 80% of votes in the house come from right-wingpoliticians, which has given rise to a legislative tsunami and a “re-interpretation” of theprinciple of checks and balances in the country.There are three ways to interpret this new regime; that these changes are legitimate withindemocratic framework, that the current system is a transition to autocracy, and that adictatorship is already in place.First of all, there are those who think that the government can make such legislative changes within theframework of a democratic state. The numerous supporters of the government share this view. Adam LeBor,a journalist of The Economist also believes that the country remains a democracy. He aired this view in anarticle published in The Times, stating that the Hungarian prime minister:“Orban seems to be not Vladimir Putin but Margaret Thatcher. She too was elected on a waveof hope after years of rule by a weak and ineffective left-wing government; centralized power toan unparalleled degree; waged cultural warfare against those she considered dangerousliberals and tolerated no dissent in her party”.Secondly, there are those who think, as we do, that the current system may be a transition to autocracy. It isa system that is formally democratic, but wherein several fundamental rights are curtailed. We would call it adistorted (limited) democracy, were this not a paradox. Some of the key points in this regard are that theelectoral system was reformed and the constitution amended without any discussion. While we did not livethrough the Thatcher era, we believe that the comparison would hold up only if Thatcher had thrown out thehistorical constitutional traditions of the UK and introduced a new basic law with anti-democratic measures,had fired 300 judges, cut up Oxford University into arbitrary pieces, directly paid large sums of money to theDaily Telegraph and to her clique – and had started a fight with EU (at the time called the EEC).The gravity of the above-mentioned circumstances notwithstanding, we do not agree with the third view that adictatorship is already in place, because such a view is imprecise and patently untrue. Several democraticrights such as the freedom of speech still exist in Hungary. On the other hand, it is also true that – contrary tocertain Western European stereotypes – this freedom was also granted by the state in certain areas underthe Hungarian “soft” version of dictatorship during Communist times. A good example was popular comedianGéza Hofi, who for decades made jokes about the Communist regime. Furthermore, the freedom of speechwas formally guaranteed by the Communist constitution.Imre Vörös, a former Judge of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, recently stated that the parts (new laws) ofthe regime can be viewed as gears. The gears are connected, and in their complexity, they may wellconstitute a heavily anti-democratic regime. Even if some of the individual “gears” cannot be shown to beunlawful, the system as a whole can still be argued to lack legitimacy, because it could allow the unlawfulacquisition of power, which is prohibited by both the former and present constitutions. In fact, this is a kind ofabuse of the law. Consequently, what the leaders of the governing party have carried out was a sort of “coupd’état”. Based on this idea, some of the lawyers, including former ombudsman László Majtényi – who is alsoa university professor and director of an independent NGO – pronounced that not all laws adopted by thisgovernment may be regarded as laws in the strict sense: some of them are only “illegal artefacts” of thestate.More recently, Gábor Halmai, former chief counsellor of the President of the Hungarian Constitutional Court,asked the present Ombudsman for Fundamental Rights, Prof Máté Szabó to appeal to the HungarianConstitutional Court in order to annul part of the new “constitutional package”. The ombudsman agreed toengage Constitutional Court for verification of the legislation. In answer to this, the government wants to vestseveral of the new laws with “constitutional power”. As a result, the Constitutional Court would not have theauthority to examine whether they are unconstitutional or not – which is a legal nonsense.We are sceptical about the reversibility of this process. If it is done, it will be done in an irregular way: theConstitutional Court could curtail some of the laws, and theoretically, so could a new parliament. However,even if there were a majority of democrats elected to the next parliament, there is unlikely to be a two-thirdmajority because of changes to the election laws. This means that their actions could also become cause forconcern since desperate, extraordinary measures are unlikely to return the country to democracy.Please read our comments policy before commenting.Note:  This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics andPolicy, nor of the London School of Economics.Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/JB3uRA_________________________________________About the AuthorsTamas Dezso Czigler- Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre for Social Sciences,Hungarian Academy of SciencesTamas Dezso Czigler is a research fellow at the Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre forSocial Sciences at theHungarianAcademyof Sciences. Furthermore, he is an assistantprofessor at National University of Public Service. He is particularly interested in Europeancommercial law, private international law and comparative contract law.Izolda Takacs - University of Pécs, HungaryIzolda Takacs is a permament visiting lecturer and PhD student at the University of Pécs(Hungary). She has published studies in gender studies, specifically on womens’ role inpolitics, women rights, and the effect of history and art to the present society.Related posts:1. In Hungary Viktor Orban adds the EU to his lengthening list of ‘enemies of the state’

Hungary is now a distorted democracy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online