Talk:Constitution of Hungary

Official text of the new constitution

Please somebody add the link to the official text of the new constitution: [1]. Thanks. 193.224.79.8 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. How can there be an article about the 2011 Constitution without an English translation of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.159.59 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Tüzes fal, I appreciate your edits, but let me express certain objections.

• I cut down the section on the 1990s-2006 proposals to what was sourced. Also, since they came to nothing, they probably don't deserve that much attention. Anyway, whatever is re-added should be cited.
• Verifiability, not truth. Several sources stress that judges' retirement age is lowered, but don't talk about other changes.
• Why remove Slovakia's reaction?
• What actually happened in November concerned an amendment to the existing 1949/89 Constitution. I'm not sure when the boycott began, nor if the specifics are that important.
• The "boycott politics" bit may be relevant, but we may as well wait till the sarkalatos törvények process is over.

I think that's it for major differences. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I have to say your edits are of generally high quality. Will bring a source at once for the judges part. It was a last minute change put into the final text on April 18th, modifying an earlier modification (the first modification being about the judges) I'll try to respond to other issues if I have time. Tüzes fal (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the final text had a few changes in this regard it is important that sources used are from after April 18th. I found this source [2] from April 19th. A hétfőn elfogadott és január 1-jén hatályba lépő alaptörvény rögzíti, hogy a bírák - akik a jelenlegi szabályok szerint 70 éves korukig dolgozhatnak - 30 éves koruktól az általános öregségi nyugdíjkorhatár betöltéséig állhatnak szolgálati jogviszonyban. A nyugdíjkorhatár-betöltéssel megszűnő jogviszony vonatkozik majd az ügyészekre is, akik eddig ugyancsak 70 éves korukig végezhették munkájukat. A Kúria elnöke és a legfőbb ügyész ugyanakkor mentesül az alól, hogy szolgálati jogviszonya az öregségi nyugdíjkorhatár elérésekor az alaptörvény erejénél fogva megszűnjön. The more important points from this: the new minimum age for judges is at 30 maximum age is the general retirement age (and not a fix 62, GR age is currently at 62 but already set by law to increase to 65), the attorneys- prosecutors have no changes in minimum age, but maximum age is the same GR age. The head of the Kúria (Supreme Court) and the Prosecutor General are exempt from this rule, so they can serve as old as they like (or as old as they are elected, since these are elected positions, they need a two-thirds majority in Parliament). Hope this cleared this issue up, can you reinsert this part into the article, with source? Tüzes fal (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

set by law to increase to 65. Actually, the increment will be gradual, ending in 2021. 193.224.79.8 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dans, I must object to the text you've reintroduced:

• The one-paragraph sections and long heading titles go against the Manual of Style.
• The list of articles in the 1949/1989 constitution adds clutter and breaks the flow. It's also directly accessible through the external links.
• Changing "2011 constitution" to "The new 2011 Fundamental Law of Hungary" is a bad idea on several fronts. For one, we tend to avoid "the" in section headings. For another, a constitution by another name is still that, and its name is recorded in the lead. For a third, it won't be "new" forever, will it?
• I'm a bit skeptical of using EurActiv, because it does tend to be rather slanted, though not absolutely opposed.
• Must we quote Verhofstadt in full? References to discontent by European liberals will probably suffice, particularly as he's no longer prime minister. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Biruitorul;

• I understand the need for short titles, but having only three sections might risk making it not easy enough to find information through the ToC. Would you propose a compromise on this?
• Ok for removal the list of chapters of the 1949/1989 text;
• Ok for "2011 constitution". I just wanted to highlight its wording as fundamental law, but it is not so important.
• Which sources do you use to evaluate EurActiv? It is surely a EU-focused source, but I don't find it slanted; I think that unless disproved it can be used. Anyway, if other sources can be found, I'd most welcome them. Unfortunately I cannot read Hungarian (yet :).
• A full quote from Verhofstadt is probably not necessary, but I'd rather quote some of his words, since he's pretty tough on it; he's not premier anymore, but still leader of an important EP faction. Something on the line of what has been done for Werner Hoyer would be fine.
• Some minor edits have also been removed. May I ask you why? (1) Socialist opposition leader Attila Mesterházy called the new constitution "a Fidesz party constitution" (2) The new constitutional process in Hungary sparked controversy also because it was finalised during the Hungarian rotating Presidency of the Council of the European Union. --Dans (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, I'd like to add a paragraph with opinion of constitutionalists, to begin with Andrew Arato [3]. What do you think?--Dans (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I may be wrong about EurActiv and may have been thinking of a similarly-named site, but anyway, most of what you cited from there is now in the article, through other sources. I've added another mini-section, and Verhofstadt, and restored the minor cuts, and quoted Arato as well as Solyom. Let me know how you like the current version. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and collaboration, the present version is very good. I think I'll try to add something about the 1989 constitution now, feel free to edit and discuss.--Dans (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I do have to express my objection to having the paragraphs on Arato for two reasons:
  • The text is an exact duplicate of what is found at Arato's biography. Rephrasing or paraphrasing is one thing; duplicating is pointless.
  • He is Hungarian, but his commentary is not specifically on what happened in Hungary. Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia adopted constitutions in 1991, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1992, Poland a small constitution that year as well, Russia in 1993, etc. From what I can tell about the two cited works, he talks as much about Poland, South Africa and even post-Saddam Iraq as he does about Hungary.
• Given this, and given how it sort of throws the text off balance, I think we can probably remove the three added paragraphs and leave them for his biography. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'll work for rephrasing and making the text more appropriate to this very page. Thanks for informing me about the standard on footnotes & references. Last thing, I think that a fullstop would be better between the Soviet Hungary period and Interwar Hungary, to have it appreciated that it refers to two different periods. --Dans (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still unconvinced about the Arato/Majtényi material, but will need a little time to sort through it. Meanwhile, I did cut the material on Poland for two reasons. First, we have and link to a separate article on the Hungarian round table, where the Polish influence is duly noted. Second, I'm not sure the Polish round table's constitution-making — the relevant part for this article — impacted what went on in Hungary. It may well have, but we do need a source making that connection. Absent that, simply mentioning the Hungarian round table is probably enough here.

I also removed some internal links: see WP:OVERLINK ("avoid linking plain English words"). This is to some extent subjective, but I'm pretty sure terms like independent and judiciary are plain English words. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok for the overlinks (I may exagerate with them sometimes :). I'll come back on the Polish influence on the Hungarian constitution-making process as soon as I have precise sources. I've heard about it from the lectures of Georges Mink and Edmund Wnuk-Lipinski, and I deem it important to understand how a deep constitutional review was possible even before a formal transfer of power.--Dans (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed Arato's paper and distilled it down to its essentials, and also rephrased it in understandable language. I removed Majtényi, first, because he doesn't actually cite Rawls' writing about parties negotiating concerning their future balance of power, but about how ethnic minorities should have an equal stake in the political process; and second, because the point isn't all that illuminating. After all, pretty much every European country makes an effort at protecting minority rights, and our goal here is not to mention every paper written on Hungary's constitution (imagine doing that for the American Constitution!), but rather to give the reader an informed overview of the topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Retirement vs compulsory ending

I find Biruitorul's claim, namely that the statements

"Judges' retirement age is lowered from 70 to the general retirement age"

and

"Judges' service always (with the single exception of the Chairman of the Kuria) ends at the general retirement age"

are identical, outrageous. The moment judges become eligible to retire, they are fired, independently what the judges or their bosses want to do. That does not hold for the general population. B. simply vandalizes the article by forcing false and mesleading statements in place of the correct ones. 193.224.79.8 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, calling a perfectly logical claim "outrageous" and accusing someone who's written probably 80% of this article of "vandalism" is not a way to win over adherents. That said, source after source after source after source after source after source uses a similar phrasing to what I used (which is, of course, why I used it). In an effort to allay your concerns, I've added in the word "mandatory". I trust this makes what was clear to the average reader before even clearer now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The flag

According to the Flag of Hungary article the Coat of Arms will be returned to the flag. Should this be added to the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecad93 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we can find a secondary source (not the constitution itself) mentioning this fact and thus validating its significance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've gone through Tüzes fal's recent changes. Many of these are fine, and I made only slight, non-substantive changes. I did make some larger changes, though, so let me mention them.

• I tightened the coverage of the 1990 pact: it's still mentioned, but doesn't go into as much detail.
• I kept mention of Arato in one place, first of all for convenience, second because the fact that the "temporary" constitution lasted 20 years is already mentioned at the end of the Arato paragraph, and third because there's no reason to assume politicians in 1989 or in 2010 were conscious of following Arato's theory.
• I tightened the passage on abortion: that the law is unchanged remains, but everything else strays (in my view) from the article topic.
• I cut the bit on life imprisonment, as it's unsourced.
• I also cut the bit on "Hungary" being previously used, again as it's unsourced.
• I partly restored the passage on Slovakia. I could see further cuts to this, but I think it's important to give readers a little context - not everyone may know how closely connected the two countries are.
• By the way, what exactly is the Curia? We have an article on the Constitutional Court of Hungary; I put in a link to Curia (Hungary), and would be very glad to see that become an article.

Anyway, good edits, and it's probably best to discuss any further changes here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all I wanted to discuss one thing, you changed "Prosecutor General" to "Chief Prosecutor", because this is one thing I was not sure about when I wrote it. I took Prosecutor General (you have to click little English flag) from the website of the office, I was unsure which term is proper to use on wikipedia for this office.

• I'll try to get a source for life imprisonment, it is a minor issue. It was also one of the consultation questions and responders wanted it, but this is probably not worth to mention.
• "Hungary" previously used; you can check the text of the old constitution and search for the term, it was used multiple times. But I'll try to research this, find some sources.
• The Curia is a higher court, which is established/mentioned by the new constitution. As the new constitution is not in force yet (from 2012) and yet there is no Cardinal law, outlining details about it yet, there is not much known about the Curia. Except being mentioned in exactly this way (leader of Curia exempt from general retirement rules). Since the Supreme Court is not mentioned in the new constitution it is speculated that the Curia will somehow replace the present Supreme Court some time in 2012 Tüzes fal (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• I used Chief Prosecutor of Hungary because that's what our article is called. However, if you think Prosecutor General of Hungary is more appropriate, you should move that article there, or request a move.
• About "Hungary" being previously used: I don't doubt this is true, because other countries do the same a lot of the time. Not every British law refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and "United States" is far more common in practice than "United States of America". So this is probably not worth emphasizing more than at present - the name change occurred, and that's about all the significance the sources attach to it, at least the ones I found. But if you do find more comment about it, feel free to add it in. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Split?

Now that Hungary has had two written constitutions (the former one and the one that went into force on January 1), I'm wondering what anyone else thinks about possibly creating a separate article on the 1949 Constitution of Hungary, leaving this article with just a short summary on that, plus background and content on the 2011 constitution. There are pros and cons to each approach:

• We have multiple articles as needed for other countries (Category:Constitutions of France, Category:Constitutions of Chile, Category:Constitutions of Spain)
• The article is getting a little long

On the other hand,

• The article isn't that long
• Keeping everything in one place, at least for now, is a more coherent approach

Myself, I'm slightly against a split at this time, as I don't see an urgent need for it, but I did want to hear other opinions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Split" seems like the wrong word; "duplicate" seems better. The 1949 Constitution obviously deserves its own article. It has its own history, features, and defined structures. It will probably be small, yes. But it will mostly contain information related to that constitution, and allow this article to focus on the new one. Int21h (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Created I have created a new article. The 1949 Constitution information here should be slimmed and summarized to give more focus to information regarding the new constitution. Int21h (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Professor Scheppele's analysis and the government's supermajority

‎Biruitorul deleted the following direct quote from Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele saying "how about waiting until the amendment actually passes, and then using a source that isn't alarmist soapboxing?"

I re-instated it, and Koertefa re-deleted it.

Do Biruitorul and Koertefa consider writings by constitutional law scholars to be soap-boxing? In whose interest is it to suppress scholarly analysis and criticism of a proposed constitutional mega-amendment with enormous consequences until after it has been passed by a government with the supermajority sufficient to have passed the constitution itself plus every one of hundreds of subsequent amendments in the ensuing years?

In March 2013, Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele writes:

"[T]the government is… introducing into the Parliament a 15-page constitutional… mega-amendment... a toxic waste dump of bad constitutional ideas, many of which were introduced before and nullified by the Constitutional Court or changed at the insistence of European bodies. The new constitutional amendment (again) kills off the independence of the judiciary, brings universities under (even more) governmental control, opens the door to political prosecutions, criminalizes homelessness, makes the recognition of religious groups dependent on their cooperation with the government and weakens human rights guarantees across the board. Moreover, the constitution will now buffer the government from further financial sanctions by permitting it to take all fines for noncompliance with the constitution or with European law and pass them on to the Hungarian population as special taxes, not payable by the normal state budget.

"For good measure, the mega-amendment adds a new and nasty twist. It annuls all of the decisions made by the Court before 1 January 2012 so that they have no legal effect. Now, no one in the country – not the Constitutional Court, not the ordinary courts, not human rights groups or ordinary citizens – can rely any longer on the Court’s proud string of rights-protecting decisions...

"The amendment reverses virtually all of the concessions that the government has been forced to make over the last year, and it provides further evidence that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán recognizes no limits on his power."

Stevan Harnad 19:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Stevan Harnad 19:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I cannot speak for Koertefa, but as for myself, I would say there is absolutely no contradiction between on the one hand being a constitutional law scholar and having papers published in academic journals, and on the other hand engaging in soapboxing/diatribes/screeds on what is, after all, an explicitly political blog called "the conscience of a liberal". "Toxic waste dump of bad constitutional ideas"? That kind of language has no place in an encyclopedia.

Second, there's absolutely no harm in waiting until the amendment is duly enacted before mentioning it. Sure, it may well pass unchanged, but there's always a chance it'll be watered down or even withdrawn. In spite of his detractors' claims, Orbán isn't Putin or Nazarbayev; there are domestic and external constraints on him. I refer you to this article: it's both non-alarmist, something we could quote; and it indicates the thing isn't a done deal.

Finally, I have no stake here except to ensure that the subject is presented objectively. I'm not out to "suppress" anything, but only to maintain a balanced view. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Inserting the following shorter excerpt, removing non-neutral language:

In March 2013, Princeton University international constitutional law scholar and Hungary specialist Kim Lane Scheppele writes:

"[T]the government is… introducing... constitutional… many [amendments] which were introduced before and nullified by the Constitutional Court or changed at the insistence of European bodies. The new constitutional amendment (again) kills off the independence of the judiciary, brings universities under (even more) governmental control, opens the door to political prosecutions, criminalizes homelessness, makes the recognition of religious groups dependent on their cooperation with the government and weakens human rights guarantees across the board. Moreover, the constitution will now buffer the government from further financial sanctions by permitting it to take all fines for noncompliance with the constitution or with European law and pass them on to the Hungarian population as special taxes, not payable by the normal state budget…. It annuls all of the decisions made by the Court before 1 January 2012 so that they have no legal effect. Now, no one in the country – not the Constitutional Court, not the ordinary courts, not human rights groups or ordinary citizens – can rely any longer on the Court’s proud string of rights-protecting decisions."

Stevan Harnad 05:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk

I agree with Biruitorul's remark. Plus, we should leave politics out of Wikipedia, as much as possible. We could cite hundreds of opinions about the new constitution (positive and negative arguments) or about its new amendment, why this one? It is not hard to find quotes that say *very* bad things about current political leaders, parties, events, documents, etc. For example, there were US newpapers which saw George Bush as worst than a fascist dictator (!) [4]. Still, I don't see this quote on the Wikipedia page about GWB. Here, we should stick to facts and should not give too much emphasis to individual (potentially politically motivated) opinions. However, if the EU/UN/US/etc. would raise *official* concerns about the new amendment to the constitution (after it was accepted), then these EU/UN/US/etc. concerns should be mentioned in this Wikipedia article, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have compressed and re-inserted Professor Scheppele's summary. I do not see how any fair-minded person can dismiss the careful analysis of a mutating and highly controversial constitution by an international constitutional scholar as "soap-boxing". This is an evolving current historical event. The Hungarian constitution is not a revered centuries-old document: It is something that has been created in the past year and half by one government with a supermajority that leaves it free to write it any way they see fit, with more amendments within a few months than the US constitution has had in over 200 years. Surely Wikipedia readers are entitled to know more about world reaction to the Hungarian constitution than what the current supermajority government sees fit to decree. Please do not delete this passage again.

Stevan Harnad 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Harnad (talk