By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Orbán’s public appearances have been notably scarce, including a refusal to attend parliamentary sessions. Following this, he departed Hungary on Monday to attend the World Cup finals in the US.
Read the original article here
The political landscape in Hungary is undergoing a seismic shift, with the nation’s parliament voting to remove the president from office. This significant development signals a dramatic turn of events, potentially reshaping the country’s governance and its relationship with the broader European Union. The move, driven by a new political force that is shaking up the established order, has been met with a mixture of anticipation and apprehension both within Hungary and internationally.
At the heart of this political maneuver lies a crucial amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary. The president is constitutionally obligated to sign such amendments into law. However, the nuances of this obligation are being closely scrutinized. While the president can refer amendments to the Constitutional Court for a review of procedural compliance, the substantive provisions themselves are generally beyond such review. This presents a complex situation where the president’s signature is, in essence, a formality, especially if all procedural rules have been followed.
However, if the president were to refuse to sign the amendment, the government has a clear contingency plan. This involves initiating impeachment proceedings against the president and having the acting president, who is the President of the National Assembly, sign the amendment into law instead. This preemptive strategy highlights the government’s determination to see its legislative agenda enacted, leaving little room for presidential obstruction.
This entire situation has drawn parallels to political developments in other countries, particularly the United States. There’s a palpable sense among many observers that Hungary might be setting a precedent for how to address perceived far-right influence in government. The emergence of Péter Magyar and his new party is seen by some as a bold move, inspiring hope for similar political transformations elsewhere. The sentiment is that this party is “shaking things up” and is receiving “big approval,” with a wish to see similar actions taken in the U.S. soon.
The current Prime Minister is being described with considerable “D” energy, a characteristic that is seen as beneficial for Hungary and Europe. This admiration comes with a cautious hope that this leader will remain safe and free from harm, a sentiment perhaps tinged with awareness of political risks. It’s a stark contrast to recent memories of far-right political groups, like CPAC, holding conventions in Hungary, a period that now feels remarkably distant given the current political trajectory.
For political parties in democratic nations, particularly in the U.S., there’s a strong recommendation to learn from Hungary’s experience. The hope is that similar dismantling of far-right ideologies and movements, such as MAGA, could occur post-Trump. The energy around this idea is significant, with a desire for a “total repudiation and dismantling.”
There seems to be some initial confusion regarding who was defeated. It’s important to clarify that Péter Magyar is credited with defeating Prime Minister Orbán, not the President. The President holds a distinct position, and the current move is specifically targeting the President, who is perceived as a loyalist to Orbán. This distinction is crucial in understanding the dynamics at play. Magyar is reportedly prepared to take decisive action, including impeachment, if the president doesn’t resign, especially given the president’s constitutional obligation to sign amendments.
The Hungarian constitution, in fact, mandates that the President must sign the Fundamental Law or its amendment within five days of receipt and arrange for its promulgation. While the president can refer it to the Constitutional Court if procedural requirements are deemed unmet, in this specific scenario, it is understood that these requirements have been fulfilled. The potential for an amendment to abolish elections, while theoretically possible from a domestic legal standpoint, would likely clash with international human rights conventions and EU treaties.
The political climate in Hungary is viewed by some as a potential model for what could happen in the U.S. if the Democratic party achieved a similar two-thirds majority in Congress. Such a mandate, it’s argued, would enable them to remove figures like Trump. The current perception of the Democratic party, however, is one of weakness and disorganization, with a criticism that they are too easily swayed by reconciliation and representing “all Americans” rather than taking more decisive action.
There’s a sentiment that more direct action, akin to “show trials,” is needed against those perceived as treating the global stage like a “casino.” This perspective suggests that a focus on compromise is insufficient when facing deeply entrenched issues. The idea of a “blue wave” in the U.S. is discussed, with some hoping for it to improve international relations, which they feel have been negatively impacted by the current administration.
The complexity of the situation is acknowledged, with a need for a significant political mandate, such as a two-thirds majority, to enact such changes. The current government in Hungary is seen as having achieved this, allowing them to pursue this path. The removal of the president is framed as a choice between voluntary resignation, essentially “digging his own grave,” or being forcibly removed. His perceived loyalty to Orbán suggests he has already made his political allegiances clear, potentially leading him to be seen as a “puppet” who is being given a stark choice.
The inaction or delay from political figures, like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, is criticized by some. There are accusations that his priorities lie elsewhere, particularly with funding for Israel, and that he is not as focused on removing figures like Trump as some would wish. This suggests a perception of complicity or a lack of genuine commitment to certain political goals, fueling a cycle of criticism and political debate. The intensity of these discussions highlights the deep divisions and strong opinions surrounding the political developments in Hungary and their potential global implications.