By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hungary’s Parliament has voted to pass a constitutional amendment that will remove President Tamás Sulyok from office and enact political reforms. This move by the new pro-European Tisza party, holding a significant majority, aims to dismantle the autocratic system previously established by former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The amendment, intended to “restore rule-of-law democracy,” also introduces judicial reforms and term limits for lawmakers, signaling a significant shift in Hungary’s political landscape.
Read the original article here
Hungary has recently passed a significant constitutional amendment, effectively ushering in a new era by removing the president appointed during the Orbán administration. This move, achieved through a parliamentary vote, signifies a pivotal moment for the nation, with many viewing it as a step towards a more democratic and transparent government. The amendment stipulates a specific timeframe for the incumbent president’s term to conclude, ensuring his departure from office. This legislative action is being seen by many as fulfilling the will of the people, a sentiment echoed by those who voted for this change and who have been advocating for a shift in governance since the election of Tisza. The underlying sentiment is one of decisive action, akin to “removing administrator privileges,” and a strong desire for a fresh start after what is perceived as years of authoritarian rule.
The path to this constitutional amendment was not a sudden development. It followed a series of demands for the president’s resignation, initially suggested for the country’s benefit, then escalated to outright demands, and finally, a clear ultimatum: step down or be removed. When the president ultimately refused to resign, the parliament exercised its power to implement the amendment, leading to his forced removal. This sequence of events suggests a clear trajectory towards holding leaders accountable. For those who believed the president should have acted as a true protector of national interests and a legal overseer, his refusal to leave when initially asked is seen as a failure to act with dignity, cementing his status as a “disgraced Fidesz puppet” rather than a statesman.
While many are celebrating this as a victory for democracy, there are also voices of caution and concern. The Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law has initiated an investigation into the matter, highlighting that such significant constitutional changes, even when driven by popular will, can prompt scrutiny. Some observers point out that the ability to alter the constitution so readily with shifts in power can undermine the very concept of a constitution, suggesting that such fundamental laws should not be subject to constant reinterpretation based on political expediency. This perspective raises important questions about constitutional stability versus adaptability.
A common point of discussion is the nature of amending a constitution, particularly in Hungary’s recent political landscape. It is noted that a super-majority, specifically a two-thirds majority, is required for such changes, indicating that this was not a simple party-line decision but one that garnered significant parliamentary support. This process is seen as the legitimate way to enact constitutional change, especially when undoing what is perceived as years of an authoritarian government reshaping the fundamental law to its advantage. The argument is made that the previous government extensively reworked the constitution to consolidate its power, and these amendments are intended to rectify that, aiming to establish institutions like an independent judiciary and clear term limits.
The context of Hungary’s political history is crucial here. Unlike systems where power regularly alternates, the previous ruling party held absolute control for sixteen years. This lengthy period allowed for extensive constitutional alterations to serve their interests. The current amendments are thus viewed by many as a necessary purging of Fidesz loyalists and puppets to restore a functional democracy. The idea that constitutions should evolve with changing societal values, rather than remaining static, is also put forth. The current amendments are seen as a response to a specific historical period of harmful governance, with the expectation that once this dismantling of the previous regime’s work is complete, the constitution can settle into a more stable form.
However, concerns linger about the potential for such frequent constitutional changes. Some argue that the ease with which the constitution was amended by the previous government might indicate a flaw in the amendment process itself, potentially making it too susceptible to political manipulation. The critique that changing a constitution to remove a specific individual is an act of party politics rather than legitimate institution building is also a significant counterpoint, emphasizing the need for enduring principles over short-term political gains.
Despite these debates, the sentiment among many Hungarians is one of profound relief and hope. The departure of the Orbán-era president is seen as a clear signal that change is possible, even when a party seems unstoppable. The message of not giving up hope, even in the face of challenges, resonates deeply. While some caution against premature celebration, highlighting that this could be the start of a new political alignment rather than a purely democratic restoration, the overwhelming feeling is that this is a step in the right direction, a move away from a perceived authoritarian past towards a more hopeful future for Hungary. The popular sentiment expressed is a clear and decisive “good riddance” to the previous era, with many eagerly anticipating further positive changes.