By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Tamás Sulyok has signed the 17th amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law, which will end his presidential term the day after its publication. Sulyok stated that his decision stems from a deep respect for law, acknowledging that the amendment, despite his constitutional concerns, was passed through a lawful parliamentary procedure, leaving him with no legal recourse to challenge it. He believes this action diminishes the presidency’s role as a check and balance, signaling a shift away from the democratic rule of law. The amendment also includes provisions such as a 12-year term limit for Members of Parliament and the reinstatement of the retirement age for Constitutional Court judges, while Sulyok’s departure prompts the need for a new presidential election within thirty days.
Read the original article here
The Hungarian president has signed an amendment to the Fundamental Law, a pivotal move that effectively ends his own mandate. This significant legislative action, driven by the newly ascendant Tisza party, ushers in a wave of constitutional changes, impacting not only the presidency but also the judiciary, parliament, and oversight bodies. The amendment specifically states that the president’s term of office concludes on the day following the entry into force of this seventeenth amendment to the Fundamental Law. Faced with a stark choice—either sign the amendment and vacate the office, or refuse and face impeachment for failing his duties—President Tamás Sulyok opted for the former. This decision swiftly removes him from his presidential role, a position some have described as that of an “Orbán puppet” who served to maintain a passive presence, especially in the lead-up to recent elections.
The amendment’s provisions extend far beyond the presidential office. A key change involves reinstating the upper age limit of 70 for Constitutional Court justices. This immediately impacts several justices currently over the age limit, whose terms will expire within two months. Looking ahead, the president of the Constitutional Court will once again be elected by its members from among themselves, and judicial terms will be shortened from twelve to nine years. Furthermore, judges will now play a more substantial role in the selection and removal of the presidents of the National Judicial Office and the Supreme Court. These high-ranking judicial figures will now serve six-year terms instead of nine, with the Fundamental Law stipulating they cannot be re-elected, aiming to prevent entrenchment and foster greater accountability.
The legislative landscape is also being reshaped by the introduction of a twelve-year term limit for members of the National Assembly. This means that individuals who have served at least three terms will be ineligible to run in subsequent elections, a measure intended to inject fresh perspectives and prevent career politicians from monopolizing legislative power indefinitely. Concurrently, the scope of laws requiring a two-thirds majority, known as cardinal laws, has been reduced. This adjustment aims to streamline legislative processes and reduce the potential for obstruction, while also restoring the Constitutional Court’s ability to review certain budgetary and tax matters, a power that had been previously curtailed.
A new constitutional basis has been established for the creation of the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office. The leadership of this new body, including its president and vice presidents, will be elected by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly for six-year terms. In parallel, the Budget Council’s veto power has been abolished, and the National Assembly Guard has been disbanded, signifying a restructuring of governmental and security apparatus. These sweeping changes reflect a deliberate effort to dismantle what many perceive as the self-serving constitutional framework established under the previous Fidesz government. The irony is noted that the Tisza party is now employing the very system and tools crafted by Orbán to enact reforms and, in effect, undo the legacy of his administration.
The immediate aftermath of the president’s signing sees the speaker of the parliament, Ágnes Forsthoffer, also a vice president of Tisza, taking over presidential duties for a period of 30 days. This interim arrangement highlights the swiftness with which the new government is moving to implement its agenda. The departure of President Sulyok is seen by many as a necessary step to clear the path for investigations into alleged corruption cases from the previous government. The president’s power to pardon individuals without justification, even in secret, was viewed as a potential obstacle to such investigations. By removing a figure perceived as an “Orbán puppet” and lacking a strong independent mandate, the current government aims to foster transparency and accountability.
The broader context of these changes is framed by a palpable sense of optimism that Hungary is reversing a trend towards authoritarianism. The recent electoral success of the Tisza party, attributed to a charismatic challenger and a widespread grassroots mobilization effort, is seen as proof that such a reversal is possible. This is contrasted with situations in other countries where opposition parties have lost elections but retained significant popular support, leading to prolonged political instability. The Hungarian situation is viewed as a unique and positive development, offering a potential model for democratic renewal.
The designation of the Fundamental Law as a “Frankensteined constitution” that has been repeatedly altered to serve political interests underscores the perceived need for a complete overhaul. The intention is to move beyond the “Fundamental Law” and establish a new Constitution, following a year-long constitution-making process beginning in the fall, which will ultimately be put to a public referendum. This methodical approach to constitutional reform aims to create a robust and widely accepted legal framework for the future. The current amendment, while extensive, is seen as a necessary stopgap measure to enable immediate reforms while the more comprehensive constitutional process unfolds.
The changes introduced are viewed by many as positive steps towards a more democratic and accountable governance. The reinstatement of judicial review for certain matters, the term limits for parliamentarians, and the increased role of judges in judicial leadership are all cited as evidence of a commitment to strengthening democratic institutions. The narrative is one of a nation healing and actively working to prevent a regression into authoritarianism, with the current government being empowered by the people to address the perceived shortcomings of the past. The speed and decisiveness of these actions, while potentially controversial, are seen as indicative of a strong mandate to fundamentally reshape Hungary’s political and legal landscape.