The Strasbourger
newsstand sales: £ 0,83 Monday, 20 May 2013. The circus is in Brussels.

Europe(ans), Tear Down that Constitution


Go to comments
1 ratings
With the entry into force of the new Hungarian constitution, the European Union is hosting an official "democrature", a merge between democracy and dictatorship. 
by Bernard Naron
With a two third majority in the national parliament and the support of the nationalist extreme-right Jobbik party, M. Orban is to be seen as the person closest to God in a democracy. Orban's refusal to undo any of these measures makes Hungary ineligible as a member of the European Union. Europe should thus start an infringement procedure and threaten to take away Hungary's voting rights when it refuses to comply with Europe's core values.    
After a failed Socialist leadership, Hungary finds itself marginalized in the world economy. The country failed to overcome its historical traumas and still seems to be entangled in a debate over Communism and the collapse of the Great Hungarian empire.
Victor Orban, a very famous and known dissident under Communist rule, demagogically played on the country's nationalist sentiments and promised to change the humiliation and economic turmoil in prosperity and success.
However, M. Orban has been more concerned with his nationalistic insanity than with helping his country overcome economic turmoil. Hungary is broke, but Orban still claims he wants to cut the hand that wants to feed him, its lenders of last resort.  
What most Hungarian voters, tragically, could not predict is that by giving him an absolute majority, they would have deprived themselves of some of their fundamental rights and be stuck with Orban longer than just the democratic term.
On January 1st, the new Hungarian constitution entered into force. Besides the absolute ban on abortion,besides the homophobic rhetoric and a disgusting reference to pre WWI "Great Hungary", the constitution should be seen as an instrument to perpetuate Orban in the Hungarian society.
Hold your breath. The constitution reduces the independence of the judiciary, the public prosecutor, the media, the central bank, the constitutional court, the human rights, minority affairs and data protection ombudsmen and the state audit office.
The politicization of these independent societal cornerstones gives the Orban administration the power to ban free media and appoint key figures in these institutions. The terms of office for these "officials", like the public prosecutor, the head of the national judicial body, the head of the media board, the head of the state audit office and many more, have been extended to sometimes 12 years. All positions will be filled with Fidesz loyalists. Consequently, this new constitution makes it impossible for Hungarians to undo these steps in the next elections, other than by a two third majority.  
By violating the rights of its citizens and putting a halt to democracy, Hungary is in breach of the core values of the EU, which states in article 2 of the Treaty that "The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities". When substantial breaches of EU core values occur, the European Treaty provides for an infringement procedure to force a Member State into line. This so-called "article 7 procedure" is a nuclear weapon, designed for extreme situations.    
The values of the European Union serve as the foundation of our cooperation. These values are and should be a constant reminder of our bloody past. Like the constitution in the United States, the European Treaty has been heavily influenced by the Enlightenment philosophers, amongst whom Montesquieu and his trias politica. This separation of powers has been exactly introduced to prevent dictatorship via the people, the Achilles heel of democracy.  
Now it is time for the European Parliament and the Member States to instruct the European Commission to prepare an article 7 procedure for Hungary. Dictatorship via democracy is not acceptable within the Union, let's thus send this clear signal to "Democrator" Orban.

Picture Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fkehren/5925416297/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Comments (7)

Mon, 16 Jan at 17:47certenotti wrote:
Dear Gentleman of Leisure,

Your comment is really good.

As I share many of your remarks, I ask you permission to publish it as an "article", to start a discussion on the points you come out with.

I agree with you: no more European voice, that's why we need people like you. People who think out of the box, who provoke and know what they are talking about.

I therefore thank you for having fired this.

Tue, 17 Jan at 09:16 Gentleman of leisure reacted:
Dear certenotti,

Feel free to use my comment as you please.
Sat, 14 Jan at 11:20pi wrote:
Dear Bernard,
Above all, let me make clear that I am not a supporter of any measures that might, even if just theoretically, lead to the weakening of the democratic structure of any state.
The problem is however that you, not out of malignity but due to the lack of information I presume, mix different issues up, and echo factual errors, undermining thereby the credibility of valid criticism.
I don't know to whom you spoke, or whom you call "the Hungarian opposition", but I still have to stress that you fail to present any evidence that would undepin your arguments. I can only recommend you to either read the texts you are so outraged about or try to talk to people who have _really_ read them.
Now:
Do I understand well that in your opinion the fact that the country's name is "Hungary" is "a disgusting reference to pre WWI Great Hungary"?
I hope not, as if it was so, I would have to think that it is your piece that is a real "insantity". I believe I'd better give you a third chance to think this over and explain to me again.
On "Orban's nationalistic retorics". Again, would you please elaborate a bit on this one, specifying the differences between e.g. M Sarkozy speaking about la France and the "identité nationale" or Mr. Cameron's immigration policy and Mr. Orban's nationalistic rhetoric.
On giving voting rights to Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania. Again, I fear you are not well informed. It is not the Hungarian minorities that are given voting rights, but Hungarian citizens living in other countries. Yes, just like in any other country, there are Hungarians holding double citizenship.
You might not agree with this, and if so, I am looking forward to reading your next peace on citizens of Moldova with voting rights in Romania, Slovak citizens living abroad but electing Slovak MPs, Bosnian passport holders voting in Croatia etc. I would very much appreciate an in-depth analisys about these countries and also about Britain, France etc. "by this way expanding".
Under the topic of nationalism I would also love to read more from you about ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia who recently acquired Hungarian citizenship and were in return stripped of their Slovak citizenship just weeks ago.
Yes, history, politics and law are complex subjects, each of them deserving much much more attention, respect and studying from you before writing cool articles about topics you are not familiar with.
(If you allow me a last piece of advice: to use someone else's writing as a tool of convincing instead of answering questions and referring to your sources might give the impression of the lack of self-confidence in your qualities as a blogger and in what you wrote.)
Best regards
Sat, 14 Jan at 14:25 bnaron reacted:
Dear Pi,

Thank you for your comments and thank you for finding my article cool.

Let us stick to the subject of the article, i.e. Hungary. There is absolutely no proof in in the blog that I would justify nationalist rhetoric in France or Slovakia. As might be derived from the article, I absolutely denounce any form of nationalism, be it in France, the Netherlands or North Korea. I read in your argumentation that Hungarian nationalism is justified because other EU leaders make use of this despicable tool. If there is one thing that our European history shows us, it’s that nationalism leads to tensions. Expensive tensions.

Hence my focus on the subtlety of the Hungarian constitutional changes, in combination with Orban’s political discourse on the old Hungarian constellation.

I do not object the concept of dual citizenship. I, however, have problems with the concept of granting dual voting rights when countries do not get along very well (understatement). This is a cause for tensions and conflict. Also I think that there is something wrong with the system that you vote in a country where you do not pay taxes. Again, just because it happens in other countries (most of the ones you mention are ethnic zones of conflict), does not justify the recent action by Hungary. And as you know, tensions started to rise. Minorities are now being used for Orban’s political goals. I would like to ask you why you think that this granting of voting rights has been effectuated. You seem to stick to the legal discussion, but fail to explain the politics behind it. Having interpreted Orban’s statements, I come to the conclusion that this is because he wants to get Hungarian minorities in neighbouring countries closer to Hungary or get Hungary closer to them. I am sincerely worried for this, since this stems from nationalism and not from enlightened ideas.

Kind regards
certenotti reacted: Sun, 15 Jan at 15:38
http://www.corriere.it/gallery/esteri/01-2012/ungheria/1/ungheria-jobbik-piazza-bruciano-bandiera_4c2dec6a-3f71-11e1-8779-a112fb36ee96.shtml#1

Jobbik...
Fri, 13 Jan at 17:10Gentleman of leisure wrote:
If the author still believes that the EU is the true, pure and pristine bastion of democracy, human rights and so on, then he is either very naive, blissfully asleep in his comfortable and well paid EU job or just a hypocrite.

You condemn and brand as a dictator a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, while nothing is being said about the fact that Greece and Italy are being run by UN-ELECTED, ex-bankers on a clear mission to carry forward the direct orders of the ECB, IMF and the core EU (Germany - France) at the obvious expense of the people (as economic, societal and health indicators clearly show). I am not really sure about what your idea of democracy is, but last time I checked elections and popular consent are essential components of it.

You mention that "Dictatorship via democracy is not acceptable within the Union". I presume Dictatorship via appointment is?

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy with the electoral results in Hungary either...but let's not be hypocrites and show off our democratic fervour only when it is easy to do so.

There is a massive democratic deficit within the EU, I was promised a Union of the European people for the European people...but all we have today is an EU that blackmails nations, defies sovereignty, by-passes democracy and works for the benefit of corporations and the banking sector. That IS truly sad, problematic and worth writing about.
Sat, 14 Jan at 16:15 certenotti reacted:
Your statement on Italy is factually incorrect.

Italy is a Parlamentarian Republic, and the Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament and not directly by the citizens. You seem to have superficially studied the Italian Constitution and to believe blindly to what Mr Berlusconi has said for years.

Your statement is also wrong, as nobody here is saying the EU is a bastion: we are actually calling it to action.

History shows that democratically elected governments are not necessarily a guarantee for peace and stability (i.e. Hitler and Mussolini, who were both elected): and that the EU in 60 years has helped growth and stability in Europe more than ever in the history of our troubled continent.

But what do we want from the future is the real issue: do we want to go back to national states or do we want more integration?

If you want to write about this, The Strasbourger is happy to offer you a platform.
We are not Orban's Hungary...
Gentleman of leisure reacted: Mon, 16 Jan at 12:48
Dear Certenotti,

The "bone picking" game is a very useful method if one wishes to avoid confronting the main thesis of an argument. It is a tricky one to employ though, as it may uncover one's lack of argumentation.

The fact that I haven't studied (I admit it...not EVEN superficially,shame on me!) the Italian Constitution does not mean that my argument is wrong. Would you care to name a single elected member of the Monti cabinet? Is a government run by appointed bankers,diplomats and business men a true example of a healthy democracy? And since Italy's is obviously a more complicated issue, or rather easier to debate on, what about Greece's case then?

As for your second point, actually the author of the article does imply this by stressing the core values of the EU. The fact that you are calling Europe into action does not negate the fact that you consider the EU to be the bastion of certain values, which is not a negative thing obviously, in fact I believe it should have this role...the problem is that the Union has proven lately how these values are just beautiful words on pieces of paper.

I did not argue against the idea of a European Union at any point of my comment and I am well aware of its beneficial role on the continent over the past half century. I don't know where and how you got this impression...

As for your alarming statement that "History shows that democratically elected governments are not necessarily a guarantee for peace and stability", I can only argue that I'd rather take my chances and vote rather than give away my rights as a citizen! I have never been a fan of Plato's idea calling for a "philosopher-king" who will provide for the common good due to people's inability and limited perception of what is best for society. This is a dangerous and highly undemocratic concept which you seem to aspire to (as so many dictators around the world and throughout history have).

I will agree with you on what you define as the real issue, but I would pose a different question: Do we want a truly democratic, egalitarian and inclusive Europe striving for the well-being of its citizens (and not only)? Or a Europe willing to sacrifice its core values for the sake of competitiveness thus the interests of the business and banking sector?

All I am trying to say is that instead of worrying and employing our democratic fervour on an elected politician, we should be terrified about the gradual erosion of the democratic pillars and values of our Union which is taking place before our very eyes! Thus the use of the word hypocrite in my previous comment.

Finally I would like to tell you and your friends on this website that we haven't witnessed the end of history, let's not be afraid to turn the page. Look for alternatives to this unsustainable structure and challenge it, if we the "youth" don't do this then who will?! Don't emulate the generations that brought us here, strive to be different. We don't need more "European Voices", "New Europes" and "Charlemagnes" (see Economist)...we need polyphony, to hear something different!

P.S.
I didn't see anyone being particularly troubled about the fact that the new unelected government of Greece is composed of some ministers belonging to the fascist party LAOS. If Orban bothers you, then you should check their manifesto!



Fri, 13 Jan at 16:31certenotti wrote:
http://www.wave-network.org/start.asp?ID=23496

Hungarian Women’s Rights Group Worried about Stricter Abortion Law

The Hungarian women’s rights group PATENT Association sent lobby letters to Hungarian MPs last week about the country’s new constitution proposed by the conservative government. The group explained that the protection of the fetus from conception in the planned constitution is likely to lead to a stricter abortion law.
Fri, 13 Jan at 16:03 certenotti reacted:
It's true that it's not an absolute ban, though..
Fri, 13 Jan at 16:20certenotti wrote:
Amnesty International believes the document "violates international and European human rights standards", citing the clauses on fetal protection, marriage and life imprisonment, and sexual orientation not being covered in the anti-discrimination clause.

That's on wikipedia which is pretty basic, but can be verified.

Fri, 13 Jan at 16:12Mikes Kelemen wrote:
Sir,

Could you please specify where did you find that “disgusting reference to pre WWI Great Hungary” and the “absolute ban on abortion” in the Hungarian Constitution? Also, hold your breath. The constitution does not reduce the independence of the judiciary, the public prosecutor, the media, etc. Though, you might have heard about the adoption of fundamental laws and recent appointments within these institutions that actually do so.
The problem with the current fashionable debate on Hungary is that it helps little to the Hungarian democracy. Being just as demagogue as the rhetoric of the government itself, deprived of accurate information but rich in factual mistakes, such “objective analysis” only strengthens the forces of the “dictatorship”.
I reckon we all appreciate the good intention behind this article and looking forward for your future pieces after you have studied the issue just a tiny bit more in substance.
Fri, 13 Jan at 15:31pi wrote:
Dear Bernard,
You seem to have absolutely no clue about Hungary. The current Hungarian government can, and on many occasions, must be criticised, they offer indeed several measures to be questioned but not on completely false grounds.
I wonder where you get your information from. I really regret to presume: from the hot air.
Your "article" as it is is nothing but factually uninterpretable rubbish.
"support of the nationalist extreme-right Jobbik party" this is simply not true. Could you pls explain why would a govt of 2/3 majority need any support from Jobbik?
"nationalistic insanity" could you please refer to any events or facts that can justify your statement.
"disgusting reference to pre WWI Great Hungary" could you please show to us this reference? This is a simple lie.
"constitution reduces the independence of the judiciary" could you please refer to the paragraph in question? This, again, is a lie.
And this is just to name a few factual errors.
I hope you don't claim to be a "lawyer". If you do so, you bring shame to your institution, I must say.
Please read more and refer to your sources before joining the recently very fancy group of those criticising Hungary on completely illegitimate grounds, which also undermines the credibility of the very much needed legitimate complaints.
Fri, 13 Jan at 15:48 Arsène Lupin reacted:
"It is indeed an unprecedented event in the history of the last 20 years of the Hungarian democracy that a Member of the Hungarian Parliament, who is at the same time a former member of the National Judicial Council, dares to call the judges, whose independence is granted by the law, as "political commissars", and - on the pretext of the safeguard of justice - threatens to hold them responsible".
bnaron reacted: Fri, 13 Jan at 20:26
Dear Pi,

Thank you for your reaction. I was hoping for a debate on the Hungarian republic and the way to deal with it in the EU. Instead, you question the validity of the statements. Having only 700 words for an article, I could not specify all my statements, but they are valid. Therefore:

The reference to the nationalistic insanity comes from the change in the constitution with regard to the country's name (and Orban's retorics). The constitution changed "Hungarian republic" into "Hungary", referring to the old Hungary. The subsequent changes in the electoral system, giving Hungarian minorities in countries like Slovakia and Romania voting rights in Hungary, started to cause conflict with these countries. It looks like Hungary is by this way expanding. I framed my opinion after having had discussions with people from the Hungarian opposition. This article might clarify more: http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2011/05/hungary-versus-hungarian-republic-magyarorsz%C3%A1g-v-magyar-k%C3%B6zt%C3%A1rsas%C3%A1g.html.
Or try this reference from Wikipedia with regard to the reaction of Slovakia: "In neighboring Slovakia, which has a significant Hungarian minority, at least three parties, including the governing Slovak Democratic and Christian Union, expressed concern about clauses that afford certain rights to ethnic Hungarians abroad, including the right to dual citizenship and the right to vote, and critics there fear that the move has expansive and nationalist objectives."

With regard to the judiciary, I quote Paul Krugman from the New York Times, since it is concise - a lot more info is available if needed, but you can all find it on the net!:

'" the government expanded the number of judges on the bench and filled the new positions with their own political allies (think: Roosevelt’s court-packing plan). Then, the government restricted the jurisdiction of the court so that it can no longer review any law that has an impact on the budget, like laws pertaining to taxes and austerity programs, unless the law infringes particular listed rights. Finally, the government changed the rules of access to the court so that it will no longer be easily able to review laws in the abstract for their compliance with the constitution. Moreover, individuals can no longer challenge the constitutionality of laws without first going through a lengthy process in the ordinary courts. The old Constitutional Court, which has served as the major check on governmental power in a unicameral parliamentary system, is now functionally dead.

The ordinary judiciary has suffered a similar fate. The government lowered the retirement age for judges from 70 to 62, giving judges only a few months to adjust to their new futures. More than 200 judges will be forced to retire from the bench starting on January 1, including most of the court presidents who assign cases and manage the daily workings of courts. The new law on the judiciary requires that the Supreme Court president have at least five years of Hungarian judicial experience. The current president of the Supreme Court is disqualified because his 17 years of experience as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights do not count. Therefore, he must leave office on January 1 also.

The law on the judiciary also creates a new National Judicial Office with a single person at the helm who has the power to replace the retiring judges and to name future judges. This person also has the power to move any sitting judge to a different court. A new constitutional amendment – to the new constitution! – will permit both the public prosecutor and the head of this new National Judicial Office to choose which judge will hear each case.

The independence of the judiciary is over when a government puts its own judges onto the bench, moves them around at will, and then selects which ones get particular cases to decide."

For the whole article, go to: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/




for new string hit SPACEBAR