What Kind of Constitution Would I Like?

A broad public debate has emerged in Hungary over the latest amendment to the Fundamental Law and the prospect of a comprehensive constitutional process in the future.

In this article, I would like to contribute to that discussion from my own perspective as a citizen.

Modern societies cannot function without an extensive and comprehensive legal system.

Yet legal systems have become so complex that the very people they were created to serve—the average citizen—can sometimes feel unable to understand them. The rule of law may no longer seem to protect the individual’s equality before the state, but rather the interests of an impersonal and intangible power.

It is as if Mikszáth Kálmán’s anecdote about the law professor were true. He remarked that someone looking down from Gellért Hill would no longer see trees, people, or houses, but only legal subjects and legal objects.

Today, many citizens may feel that they have been reduced to legal entities, their humanity gradually consumed by the machinery of the modern age.

As democracy evolves, elected political leaders may begin to employ new instruments of power, reshaping the legal order while constantly invoking the law itself, all in pursuit of their own political and economic interests, excluding many from meaningful democratic participation.

The law itself is not to blame. Responsibility lies with those who apply it fairly, lawfully, and in good faith. Numerous institutions are entrusted with safeguarding the proper application of the law: the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court, the Prosecution Service, and the judiciary.

But what happens when these institutions look the other way? What happens when they collaborate with a political leadership that has legitimately gained power through elections but has no intention of respecting the very rules that are meant to limit its authority?

In my view, most Hungarian laws were fundamentally capable of protecting society against political abuse. The real failure came when those responsible for enforcing them were simply not there when society needed them most.

The leaders of Hungary’s new political majority made it clear during the election campaign that, if given the opportunity, the newly elected Parliament would replace those public officials who failed to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities when they were expected to defend the public interest.

In my opinion, Hungary needs a new Constitution—one capable of reducing the social divisions that have existed since 1989 and one that the overwhelming majority of society can genuinely regard as its own.

But what kind of Constitution do we need?

To me, a Constitution is a short, clear, and accessible document that expresses the agreement of Hungary’s citizens on the fundamental principles that shape our common life.

I would like a Constitution that states, beyond any doubt:

• Human dignity is inviolable.
• Freedom of mental and cognitive integrity is inalienable.
• Communities always have the right to express their decisive will on matters concerning them.
• Every Hungarian citizen has the right to meaningful and dignified work.
• Equal access to knowledge and education may never be restricted.
• Environmental sustainability is a fundamental social responsibility.
• Capital and profit carry social responsibilities.
• Transparency and the integrity of information are obligations for every political and economic actor.
• The State has a permanent duty to cooperate in preserving our cultural and community heritage.
• The Constitution may be amended only through a valid national referendum.

Some may find these ideas naively idealistic. Nevertheless, I believe that a constitution adopted by a new democratic majority should also become a new covenant between those who govern and the citizens they serve.

There may well be other values that deserve a place in the text of a new Constitution. Yet I believe it is essential that every citizen should be able to quote its principles without having to struggle through pages of sophisticated legal language.

These reflections are entirely my own and deliberately subjective. They are open to debate—and they should be. Given the importance of this subject, many other perspectives deserve to be heard as well.

Perhaps, in the end, such a process could lead to a new social covenant that will protect and serve Hungarian citizens for generations to come.

By: Viktor Szentkiralyi