The recent ousting of President Tamás Sulyok from office in Hungary marks a significant shift in the country's political landscape. This event, orchestrated by Prime Minister Péter Magyar's Tisza party, has sparked intense debate and raised questions about the future of Hungarian democracy. With a two-thirds majority, the Tisza party has successfully pushed through a 17th amendment to the constitution, targeting both Sulyok and the head of the Constitutional Court, Péter Polt. This move has been hailed as a dramatic and decisive action by the new government, which came to power in early May after a landslide victory against Orbán's Fidesz party in April.
The amendment's implications are far-reaching. It not only removes Sulyok from office but also introduces provisions that could reshape the country's political landscape. One of the most notable aspects is the removal of Constitutional Court judges over the age of 70, a move that has sparked concerns about the independence of the judiciary. Additionally, the amendment forbids deputies who have served three terms in parliament from standing again, which applies to more than half of the current Fidesz deputies. This provision has been criticized by András Baka, a former head of the Supreme Court, who argues that it limits the public's right to vote for their preferred candidates.
The political dynamics in Hungary have been dominated by the Fidesz party, led by the enigmatic Viktor Orbán, since 2010. During this period, Fidesz reshaped the Hungarian state to align with its own vision, filling supposedly independent state positions with party loyalists. The 2011 constitution, crafted by Orbán's government, enshrined the principle of 'the winner takes all,' giving Fidesz a significant advantage. However, the recent election results have dealt a severe blow to Orbán's party, with a shock defeat and a growing sense of anger within the remaining Fidesz ranks.
The removal of Sulyok from office has been justified by the new government as a necessary step to restore the rule of law in Hungary. Since 1989, Hungary has been governed by the rule of law, but after 2010, Fidesz captured state institutions and established an authoritarian regime. András Baka argues that breaking up this sophisticated authoritarian structure is now extremely difficult, even after electoral defeat. The amendment package, which includes the removal of Sulyok and the Constitutional Court judges, is seen as a strategic move to guide the country until a new constitution can be adopted in the next two to three years.
However, the amendment has not been without controversy. The Fidesz party, now in opposition, has accused the Tisza party of building a tyranny, arguing that the amendment grants the government arbitrary power to dismiss public officials. Péter Rona, a former opposition presidential candidate, highlights the irony of Fidesz's position, given their past advocacy for the 'winner takes all' principle. The amendment's provisions, such as the restriction on deputies serving three terms, have also sparked debates about the balance between political stability and democratic principles.
As Hungary navigates this political transition, the ousting of Sulyok serves as a pivotal moment. It reflects the new government's determination to reshape the country's political landscape and address the legacy of the previous administration. However, the challenges of maintaining a balance between political stability and democratic ideals remain. The coming months will be crucial in determining the trajectory of Hungarian democracy and the extent to which the country can move away from the authoritarian tendencies of the past.
