Democratic Backsliding in Hungary: The 2013 Constitutional Crisis
Democratic backsliding occurs when the political institutions and norms that sustain a democracy are systematically weakened. A prominent example of this phenomenon took place in Hungary in early 2013, when the ruling Fidesz party, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, pushed through a series of sweeping constitutional changes known as the "mega-amendment" or the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary.
These changes sparked an international outcry, as legal scholars and global powers warned that the amendments threatened the core principles of the rule of law—the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]The Impact of the Fourth Amendment
According to Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton University scholar specializing in international constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment was designed to re-introduce several measures that had previously been nullified by the Constitutional Court or altered due to pressure from European bodies. The amendment had far-reaching implications across multiple sectors of Hungarian society.
Judicial and Legal Erosion
The amendment significantly undermined the independence of the judiciary. Most notably, it annulled all decisions made by the Constitutional Court prior to January 1, 2012. This meant that citizens, human rights groups, and ordinary courts could no longer rely on two decades of legal precedents that had previously protected fundamental human rights.
Social and Institutional Control
- Education: Universities were brought under increased governmental control.
- Human Rights: Guarantees for human rights were weakened across the board, and homelessness was criminalized.
- Religion: The recognition of religious groups became dependent on their cooperation with the government.
- Legal Accountability: The amendment opened the door for political prosecutions.
Financial Buffering
In a strategic move to protect the state budget, the constitution was altered to allow the government to pass any fines resulting from noncompliance with the constitution or European law directly to the Hungarian population as special taxes.
International Reactions and Diplomatic Pressure
The proposed amendments triggered a wave of warnings from the international community throughout March 2013, focusing on the lack of checks and balances—the system that ensures no single branch of government becomes too powerful.
| Date | Entity/Person | Key Concern/Action |
|---|---|---|
| March 5 | Michael Link (German Foreign Ministry) | Called for an effective separation of power between legislative and judicial branches. |
| March 6 | Thorbjorn Jagland (Council of Europe) | Warned of incompatibility with European legal principles; requested a postponement. |
| March 8 | United States Government | Expressed concern over threats to institutional independence and the rule of law. |
| March 8 | EU Member States (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland) | Proposed new EU powers to freeze budget funds for states breaching fundamental values. |
| March 8 | Jose Manuel Barroso (European Commission) | Argued the amendments contravened EU rules regarding the judiciary. |
Despite these warnings, the Hungarian Parliament, dominated by the Fidesz party, adopted the changes on March 11, 2013. The legislation passed with 265 votes in favor, 11 against, and 33 abstentions.
Key Facts
- The Fourth Amendment wiped out over 20 years of Constitutional Court decisions protecting human rights.
- The amendment allowed the government to shift EU noncompliance fines onto citizens as special taxes.
- The Venice Commission and the European Parliament issued official critiques of the Hungarian government's actions.
- The legislation passed with a massive supermajority of 265 lawmakers in a 386-seat chamber.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the primary purpose of the "mega-amendment"?
The amendment sought to consolidate power by removing judicial independence, increasing government control over universities and religious groups, and nullifying previous court decisions that protected human rights.
How did the amendment affect the Hungarian Constitutional Court?
It annulled all decisions made by the Court before January 1, 2012, effectively removing the legal basis for many existing human rights protections.
Why did the United States and the EU object to these changes?
They argued that the amendments threatened the principles of institutional independence, the rule of law, and the necessary checks and balances essential for democratic governance.
What was the proposed penalty from some EU member states?
Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Finland suggested that the European Union should be granted the power to freeze budget funds for any member state found to be in breach of Europe's fundamental values.
Who were the main critics of the Fidesz party's actions?
Key critics included Professor Kim Lane Scheppele, the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission, the European Commission, and the governments of the United States and Germany.