Peter Magyar
According to Reuters, the government of Prime Minister Péter Mádjár has proposed sweeping changes to the Hungarian Constitution, including the early termination of President Tamás Szujók’s term, term limits for members of parliament, and a number of other institutional reforms.
As the agency notes, the authorities justify the initiative by citing the need to restore democratic institutions following Viktor Orbán’s long-standing rule.
Human rights activists warn of risks to democracy
However, the very method of introducing these changes has sparked a mixed reaction. Several reputable Hungarian and international organizations have stated that even reforms declared to be democratic must be carried out in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.
In particular, Amnesty International Hungary emphasized that while the issue of removing the president may have merit, such decisions must be made through the impeachment procedure provided for in the Constitution, rather than by amending the Constitution itself.
The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ) expressed similar concerns. The organization believes that such far-reaching constitutional changes should not be adopted on an expedited basis without broad public debate and sufficient time for expert review. These positions were reported by Reuters.
The Venice Commission Joins the Discussion
Following criticism from legal experts and civil society organizations, the Hungarian government invited experts from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission to assess the proposed changes.
The Venice Commission is traditionally regarded as one of Europe’s key advisory bodies on constitutional law. Its conclusions are not binding, but they are often used by EU institutions and the Council of Europe when assessing whether national legislation complies with democratic standards.
The very fact that the government has turned to the Commission indicates that the issue has taken on pan-European significance. However, the Commission’s conclusions have not yet been made public.
The European Parliament Is in a Bind
Reports that the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament allegedly refused to include a debate on the Hungarian constitutional reform on the plenary session’s agenda have sparked further political debate.
This was reported by the publication European Conservative, citing a statement by Kinga Gal, deputy chair of the Patriots for Europe faction. According to the publication, representatives of the European Parliament’s largest political groups rejected the proposal, prompting the author of the article to speak of “double standards” within the European legislature.
The situation surrounding Hungary shows that the debate on the rule of law in the European Union did not end with the departure of Viktor Orbán’s government.
Today, the discussion is no longer limited to the content of the reforms, but also extends to the procedures for their adoption. Human rights organizations are calling for the same democratic standards to be upheld regardless of the political orientation of the current government, and the involvement of the Venice Commission indicates that the dispute extends beyond the realm of Hungary’s domestic politics.
This situation also demonstrates how sensitive the relationship remains between the national sovereignty of member states and the mechanisms of pan-European oversight to ensure compliance with the principles of the rule of law.
Follow our updates
