Orbán's new constitution

Remove all ads!

I cannot understand why nobody (yes, you) here has already stood up to celebrate Orbán's latest triumph in revolutionary change - the brand new Hungarian constitution, which is to come into power in 2012. It was enacted in parliament with the due 2/3rd (Fidecz) majority necessary for changing the constitution.

Some of the goodies (the list is incomplete) that describe the new constitution:

• The preamble is called "national profession of faith" (nemzeti hitvallás), and it elevates terms such as Saint Stephen's Crown, Pride on history, Christendom and the otherwise undefined 'historical constitution' into legal principles in Hungary.
• The constitution was hammered out without national debate or citizen participation. Why bother.
• The new constitution gives the prime minister, Orbán, the power, if, say, his party is defeated in the next election, to dismiss a new (non Fisecz?) parliament and to schedule new elections.
• It takes away from the parliament the power of the purse. A so-called budget council, appointed by ... yeah, you guessed right, and naturally, for nine years, has the power to annul the parliamentary budget bill by power of veto.
• etc pp

To the best of my knowledge it doesn't propose that the title of prime minister is to become King Elect (választották királlyá), but I may be wrong, and who says they're finished yet?

Why does Viktor Orbán need a new constitution?

Spoiler

 

You clearly don't understand Hungarian politics or the needs of the Hungarian people.

 

If you were Hungarian you'd understand why this is such a good thing.

 

Orbán likes pie.

 

Just let the hungarians dig in peace .

 

Is there a point to this thread, or is it just to tweak Baronius?

 

Ragusa - Thanks for the update, since it has become something of a topic on these boards. I was curious as how that situation was unfolding. It seems an odd thing to me that a simple 2/3 majority can overturn a Constitution anyway, without any input from the people [or local legislatures]. We only use a simple 2/3 in Congress to propose an amendment. The actual process requires much more.

I guess it pays to be the ruling party in Hungary.

 

Snook,
it's apparently nothing you would notice.

 

I can't remember the original source of the line, but is this something of a case of "democracy ending not with a bang, but a whimper"? Or is it "not with a bang, but with applause"?

 

That is a high bar - staying at home is essentially the same as voting no.

 

Yes, Natalie Portman delivered the line with about nil emotion. I was assuming, though, that they had ripped it off from another source.

 

Hey, did you know Viktor Orban invented Star Wars?

Not the Prequels, though. The Economist made those.

 

How will this work in practice? In a parliamentary system the prime minister is supposed to be accountable to the parliament but if what you state is true this will make the parliament accountable to the prime minister instead? I wonder what explanations have been used for this reform, and why it has been officially done. I could understand giving such powers to the president (semi presidential system) but giving them to the prime minister seems just idiotic and takes away the most crucial power of the parliament.

 

Morg,
it transpires that for Orbán, and his fervent followers, the problem with the socialist one party state was not the lack of freedom, the censorship or restricted parliament authority and the limited ability of the citizen to influence politics with their vote and or that it was a one party state - but that it was a socialist state. That's all. He, just like them, like the one party bit, the censorship and restricted parliament authority and the limited ability of the citizen to influence politics with their vote just fine - as long as Fidecz is in charge.

It is the only explanation why he would enact such an illiberal 19th century style constitution. The power to dismiss a elected parliament and schedule new elections for instance is one that constitutional monarchs gave to their prime ministers of the day. The ability of the citizen to influence politics with their vote by electing a new parliament and kick the bums out is a threat to that, that's why the new constitution cuts back on that.

IMO it bears the seed for future, cocoa republic style mischief.

 

I would just like to know what the wording of the reform is and how the prime minister is supposed to use this power. I mean in Finland the Prime minister together with the consent of the President has the power to dismiss the parliament and schedule new elections, it's just never used between elections. I assume the consent of the President would be difficult to find in such cases, and it would probably be deemed illegal as well.

 

As always, Ragusa's initial post is full with biased wording and it omits several important facts (I'll just mention one, below). I won't bother to correct/comment most of it, I already wasted too much time regarding Ragusa's crazy writings in the past (he seems just to parrot-repeat the words of what he reads on left-liberal press, actually). He presents everything from a view (and approach) that favours his judgement on the matter, only apparently maintaining objectivity (while twisting facts, showing them only from one angle etc.).

Before commenting a small part of Ragusa's writings, I would like to react to this:

There was an input from people: there were questionnaires delivered to the people, asking for their opinion about certain questions regarding the constitution. It was successful. Some ideas of Orbán were not added to the Constitution because the majority of responders voted 'No' for it. It is true, however, that it was a questionaire with predefined questions, not a referendum. Indeed, 2/3 majority is enough to change the constitution, and it is exactly the same in many other European countries (no referendum required, and in most of the post-communist countries who accepted a new constitution, no referendum was made in practice).

This is clearly left-liberal text. There was no referendum, but there was national debate and citizen participation (apart from the fact that Orbán's party already mentioned before the 2010 elections that they will change the constitution if they win). For example, the questionnaires I mentioned above are exactly a form of citizen participation. So there was a consultation.

This requires no comment, really. Probably noone here would take such a statement seriously, considering that it takes out something from context, and states false things about it. The lamentation of left-liberals, again... They miss the power they had in every year since 1989...

It's a question of time when Ragusa will open a thread here about how neonazi groups in Hungary are planning to slaughter poor Roma (Gypsy) families and thus they needed to be evacuated from a village recently to save them from neonazis (news e.g. here).

This occassional international theatre (probably initiated by left-liberals who just can't live with their terrible political defeat) starts to be so much fun. It is negative, because it hurts the reputation of Hungary, but mentally healthy people always eventually realize that all the "Hungary dictature" bullsh** is nothing else than hype made by left-liberals. It happened with the Media Law as well. If it had violated so many freedom of speech rights so terribly, how come the European Commission found 3 minor errors in it. Lol.

Let the fun begin.

 

Well, that certainly makes more sense to me. Still, for a new Constitution, I would rather have seen a Convention of some sort, instead of the ruling party turning one out. The important thing, at least in my mind, is how citizens, such as yourself, feel about the new Constitution. Putting aside the partisanship, a constitution should be far more universal for its citizens than just a party agenda. What do you feel are the strong points of your new constitution, Baronius?

That makes little sense to me, and seems somewhat revealing in of itself, rather than an explanation, I'm disappointed to say.....