Orbán's new constitution

Remove all ads!

I called it clearly left-liberal, because only left-liberals who can't accept their political defeat are able to write such nonsense. For everyone else, it was pretty evident that there was national consultation.

The ruling party (Fidesz) has a 2/3 majority, and Fidesz emphasized even before the 2010 elections that they would change the constitution as well. People who didn't like the program of Orbán's party and found the current constitution fine did not vote for Orbán's party. Of course, the constitution should be universal and should defend minorities as well, which the new one does as well. Among many other things, the protection of ethnicities and the protection of religious plurality is included, etc. etc.

Also, when thinking about what should be needed to change a Constitution, don't forget that Hungary's constitution (the current one, i.e. the constitution before the newly accepted one) is an amendment of the 1949 communist constutition; all governments since 1989 were planning to make a brand-new one, but only this one had the 2/3 to actually perform it. Even though the "bad" parts of the 1949 version were removed, it is still based on a communist constitution. So changing the constitution of Hungary is not like changing the constitution of the USA... If I were an American, I surely wouldn't be glad if the US constitution could be changed "easily".

So, first of all, this constitution finally is not based on the communist 1949 version any more. It is a modern European constitution, which also preserves several conservative values that I favour (such as the classical definition of marriage as a consensual relationship between a man and a woman). A quote (source):

Moreover, it defines stricter budget rules. Hungary has fallen into an economic crisis due to Socialist government between 2002-2010. (Until 2002, there was an economic growth, this is not a partisan view, a lot of objective data can be found about it.) When Orbán ended his first governing in 2002, state debt was 53% of GDP, which got increased to 80% by 2010. Relevant quote:

Regarding what I like personally in the new constitution (apart from the above), I also like the part about taking responsibility for the whole nation:

This is about something that only Hungarians can truly understand. Millions of Hungarians live outside the border of Hungary nowadays, and a significant part of them lives in Central Europe in the neighbour countries of Hungary. Some of these countries (e.g. Slovakia) discriminates Hungarians with the approval of the government. The support of Hungary is invaluable for these people.
Moreover, the divided Hungary is a real tragedy for the whole nation. The Treaty of Trianon, a very stupid treaty in 1920, is responsible for this. A quote (source):

(Author of source: Geza Cseri, President of CIC, Inc., Former Science and Technology Advisor to Supreme Allied Commanders of NATO, Member of American Hungarian Federation.)
And another quote from the same source:

The winners (such as France and England) forced a totally stupid treaty in Trianon, absolutely lacking any ethnic considerations when setting the borders of new countries. A further quote (from wikipedia):

Our new Constitution does not state or encourage territory revision (i.e. taking back the area from countries such as Slovakia or Romania), but it clearly gives a basis for a stronger union of the whole nation. A peaceful revision of the shameful Treaty of Trianon.

So most non-Hungarians might not understand this national tragedy of Hungary, and may wonder "why the hell you can't close the past?". How can it be closed when the Hungarian citizens of the neighbour countries are treated as secondary citizens (e.g. in Slovakia or in Romania) ?! Taluntain's homeland (Slovenia) is a great counter-example: Slovenia treats its Hungarian citizens fairly without any doubt. For some reason, the Slovak and Romanian governments are unable to do so... Many Slovaks, for example, seem to suffer from some inferiority complex that makes them particularly allergic to Hungary. Ethnic tensions will not stop until equal rights are guaranteed for everyone in Central Europe. As Geza Cseri (same person who I quoted in the above) says:

So without providing a true solution to the Hungarians who lost their home in 1920 in Central Europe, there will be no true stability in this part of Europe. Hopefully, the new constitution of Hungary will enable the Hungarian state to provide much more support to improve the situation of Hungarians in Central Europe.

The first source I used is Wall Street Journal, here is the complete text, written by Tibor Navracsics (it lists all important novelties of our new Constitution):

 

Baronius - That is certainly a fair response. Obviously voters knew they would be getting a new Constitution and voted in favor of it with their votes. They also seemed to know in advance largely what kind of constitution they would be getting, so that seems fair enough as well, at least to me, even though I'm a "left-leaning liberal."

 

By the way, I'm not against liberals or liberal thinking.

- When I'm criticizing liberalism, I'm referring to what I can see in Hungary and Europe: that some things are just getting "too" liberal. For example, in several things, I'm more liberal than conservative; in other things, however, I'm conservative. But listing these things would be beyond the scope of this thread (and I don't have time for it anyway), just wanted to emphasize that I'm not against liberalism out of principle at all.

- When I'm mentioning "left-liberals", it is because in Hungary (and probably not just here), left and liberal parties cooperated and still seem to cooperate. And in Hungary, they caused much damage to the country, and even now, they keep trying to harm the international reputation of Hungary by making various international hypes.

 

Now that makes a lot more sense. Clearly, if Orb- er sorry, Viktor - and his party ran on a platform in which reforming the Constitution was a centerpiece, then clearly those who voted in support of them were in favor of a new Constitution. Furthermore, if they were upfront with how they wanted to reform the Constitution, and the end product was similar to what they initially proposed, I don't see a problem with it.

Like it or not, that's a democratic way to go about it. Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said (and I'm paraphrasing here), that democracy ensures people get the kind of government they deserve?

This is shocking - not that there are millions of Hungarians who no longer live in Hungary - hell, the people living there existed long before the current borders were drawn 90 years ago - but rather that those living outside Hungary still consider themselves Hungarian.

Allow me to explain this. I can certainly understand that the people living outside of the borders in 1920 would be rightfully pissed off at this happening. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that they would be pissed off for the rest of their lives. However, there are very few people living today that were alive in 1920. In most cases, the people that this currently affects are 3rd or 4th generation people.

It seems very likely that many of these Hungarians (or their children and/or grandchildren) went on the marry Romanian or Solakian people, and so at this point, you'd not be able to tell which people are Hungarian just based on how they look, or based on their last name. Furthermore, I imagine most Hungarians born in the last 50 or so years outside of Hungary also learned the Slovak or Romanian language, since that is where they were living. It would seem to me that we should have reached the point by now that it would be hard to differentiate between the two groups (those that are ethnically Romanian or Slovak, compared to those Hungarians who are geographically Romanian or Slovak).

And it would seem part of this is due to human nature. My grandparents were immigrants. In fact, my last name is based on a bastardized version of a Slovak name that was my paternal grandfather's. Given the proximity of my grandfather's home town of Czechosolvakia is so close to the Hungarian boarder, and the fact that he immigrated after 1920, it is possible that he and his family were among those displaced Hungarians.

That said, while my grandparents still considered themselves to be Slovak (or Italian as the case may be), my parents don't, and neither do I. I think that it is human nature to eventually adopt the language, culture, etc. of the land in which you have lived your entire life. Such is even the case among the modern African American population in the US whose ancestors were brought to the US against their will. They consider themselves Americans, and today are treated exactly as that - even though you can tell by looking at them that they are not from European descent.

I would think such would be the case on modern Slovakia and Romania today, especailly considering you can't tell someone is Slovak, Hungarian, or Romanian, just by looking at them, right? Discrimination in the US was easy, as you could tell by appearance. If you cannot tell someone is Hungarian by the way they look, the way they talk, or by their last name, ummm... how do you?

 

The concept of nation and nationality here is different than how you approach it. An expert in the topic could give you a better and more scientific overview than what I'll do (I even don't know the exact terminology here, so I'll just try to explain some basic points).

There are two terms confused here: nationality and citizenship. E.g. international passports use the term "nationality" incorrectly: it actually means citizenship.

Your citizenship has to do with the country where you have citizenship. It is a legal status, nothing more. My ancestors were often forced to change their citizenship (e.g. when a disgusting international treaty such as the Treaty of Trianon forced them to become citizens of newly created countries). Your nationality, on the other hand, is what you tell/feel you are; your national feelings, your mothertongue, your roots, your culture (folklore, food, tales etc.).

E.g. imagine that Maryland and half of the USA suddenly becomes the area of Cuba (!). You become a Cuban citizen. Will you stop speaking American English, will you give up your family traditions, will you stop educating your child in your American spirit, with American values etc.? Obviously not. Your nationality stays American. Just they took your rights, took your home, took your citizenship. This is what they did to millions of Hungarians in 1920. But they can't take your soul and culture. Not immediately, at least. In decades, however, a good assimilation policy can make your children/grandchildren forget the spirit you've given to them; they forget their native language, they forget where they came from; they become Cuban, in a land that was once the area of the proud USA. In their own former homeland, they were converted into Cuban patriots who will not know (or not care) that their grandfather was a great American citizen in Maryland.

In fact, they had no chance usually. They were forced to learn it (it is mandatory in schools e.g. in Slovakia). But you are right, it is also advantageous for you if you learn the language of the country where you live (so that is OK). The terrible is, however, that these countries (e.g. Slovakia, Romania) has had governments which tried to assimilate Hungarians, i.e. to make Hungarians give up their own culture, and forget their own mothertongue. They have created laws to support assimilation, i.e. to make Hungarian people forget their culture and language, and become Romanians/Slovaks/etc. This makes sure that the number of Hungarians decrease, their children won't follow their culture and won't speak their language -- and eventually, Hungarians simply disappear from these countries.

Language, culture, folklore etc. In Europe, national identity and feelings are very important to every individual; in a certain meaning, more important than in the USA, I suppose. In other words, I suppose the meaning of "national feelings" is different for an US citizen than for a European citizen (and, of course, even inside Europe, it differs from nationality to nationality). You have a different approach there in the USA about these things, and that comes from the fact that USA is the land of many nations (nationalities). Here in Europe, the USA is often referred to as the melting pot. Unfortunately, I think I can't clarify this point to you properly, because I don't know the terminology and I'm not professional in this field.

Yeah, they consider themselves Hungarian in nationality. Legally, they are Slovak citizens. But that doesn't convert their heart and soul to a Slovak heart. They are Hungarian inside. And the goal of Slovak governments (or at least, many government politicians) is to assimilate Hungarians totally. To convert them to Slovak identity.

On a side note, when I say that Slovakia negatively discriminates Hungarians with the approval of government, it must also be noted that it does it very silently but properly. There are European Union regulations and international treaties, so the Slovak government usually tries to be careful to maintain the external appearance that Slovakia respects these regulations/treaties. But it does not.

For example, due to the chauvinistic politics of some Slovak politicians, a really big part of the Slovak-nationality population hates Hungarian people (regardless whether these Hungarians are Hungarian citizens or Slovak citizens, legally). The aforementioned Slovak people have never talked to a Hungarian in their life, and they are brainwashed by the media and by the speech of certain politicians. So they hate Hungarians. On the other hand, those Slovaks who lived together with Hungarians for a long time (e.g. this is typical to South-Slovakia) know that Hungarians are not devils at all. To sum up, the "Hungarian card" is a known political weapon in Slovakia; politicians even win votes with it in elections. It is a very sad situation. And before some member of the Sorcerer's Place forums would say that I'm biased, let me remind everyone about the letter of U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos to the Slovak Prime Minister in 2007.

 

That's why I used the term ethnicity. Nationality certainly has the connotation of being the country where you live. To use myself as an example, my nationality is American. My ethnicity (or heritage if you prefer that term) is Italian and Slovak.

That was exactly my point. By the time you get to the 3rd and 4th generation, I'm surprised many of these Hungarians still consider themselves Hungarian. They may keep their culture alive - in my family we still eat traditional foods around the holidays - but we considers ourselves Americans. I will concede the point that most people of European ethnicity (or heritage) came to the US willingly, and thus the process of assimilation was probably a lot easier. I would also state that assimilating a minority population into the majority is typically in a nation's best interest.

But how is this done? If you live in Slovakia, how do you know the person walking past you on the street is Hungarian or not? The discrimination seems practically directionless. If you are going to hate a particular group it would seem like you'd need a means of identifying that group. The reason that segregationist policies worked in the US was because it was easy to identify someone as being black. If many formerly Hungarian people have been integrated into the native populations of Slovakia or Romania, how can you tell they aren't Slovak or Romanian? Do they dress differently? It seems exceedingly difficult to hate a group of people when you cannot even differentiate them from other people you don't hate.

 

Yes, but it it tries to do it against the will of the minority, e.g. via discriminatory laws and practices, it is unacceptable.

In my culture, the term nationality/nation (nemzetiség, nemzet) is not associated with the country where you live; rather, with the country where you originate from (if it has to be associated with a country at all). So in your dictionary, this is ethnicity. Citizenship (állampolgárság) is what I already told (it is a legal status, basically). If Cuba occupied USA permanently and USA became the part of Cuba's area, your ethnicity wouldn't change, but your citizenship would (because they would force you to become a Cuban citizen). In your dictionary, this would mean that your nationality would become Cuban, then. In Hungarian dictionary, we would still say that you still belong to the American nation, "only" your area was taken by another country.

Unfortunately, many people stop doing so. But I think you miss a major point: nations who faced many perils (or their parts which lost their home) keep together very strongly. They do not want to assimilate; they do not want that their children lose their native language and culture. Of course, this is not just about keeping together; it is also part of human nature -- you want to preserve your own culture (of course, unfortunately, certain liberal ideologies teach the opposite nowadays, and prefer individual happiness to everything else). So while you seem to talk about assimilation as a natural (and acceptable) process, in this part of Europe, it is a source of great conflicts -- because the ethnicity that is tried to be assimilated refuses it.

Assimilated Hungarians who are not Hungarians anymore are no problem for chauvinist Slovaks (note that I'm talking about chauvinist Slovaks here; there are many nice, non-chauvinist Slovaks as well, so my words do not apply on them). That is exactly what they want: that Hungarians living in Slovakia lose their language and culture, and become Slovaks in everything.

How to identify a person who is a Hungarian? (remember, I'm not talking of citizenship, I'm talking of whether the person is a Hungarian who talks Hungarian and preserves the culture etc. -- regardless if he is the citizen of Hungary, or the citizen of Slovakia.) So how to identify? E.g. based on the language he/she is using during a talk. In many cities and towns of Slovakia, if you talk Hungarian, groups on the street might insult or beat you because you spoke Hungarian. Police either investigates the case, or just pretends so. If you have the time, please take a look at the letter linked in my previous post -- the girl mentioned there, Hedvig Malina, was beated by extremist Slovaks because she talked Hungarian with her mobile phone.

There is no need for per-individual identification. There are collective methods to restrict the rights of ethnicities. E.g. take a look at the restriction of language rights:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/culture/german-mep-slams-slovak-language-law/article-183982

Finally, a very important note: sometimes certain countries (such as Slovakia) try to misrepresent Hungarians as some sort of immigrants, or people who came there as outsiders. The reality is, Hungarians have been native dwellers for more than 1000 years in this area (including the current area of Slovakia).

 

I agree with that. In fact, I said that one of the reasons assimilation of many immigrant groups happened rather easily in the US is that most people came voluntarily. If you are forced into another nation against your will, that's a whole different story.

Not so much natural and acceptable, as it is inevitable.

 

It is not inevitable in every case. Fortunately. E.g. if Hungarians get equal rights to Slovaks in Slovakia, the assimilation can be stopped to an extent. For example, cultural autonomy is a good goal for a start.

From Wikipedia:

(Sorry for the unfinished parts of my previous post at the time you were reading it. Later, I noticed them and corrected them properly.)

The last sentence from the above quote is very relevant (besides other relevant parts):
"[..] matching the specific historical and territorial situation and in accordance with the domestic legislation of the state"

Millions of people should not suffer just because some fat French officials decided to draw totally illogical borders of new countries while drinking coffee and eating cookies in the Trianon Castle in 1920...

 

Resistance is futile.

 

lets start at the beginning the kingdom of hungary was not a nation-state and i will not go into details so lets just say that in 1910 about 50% of the population of hungary was made of hungarians the rest of the population was made out of ppl form conquered nations .
lets take transilvania
in 1869 the Hungarian population of transilvania was 24.9% that is oficial hungarian census data
in 1910 it was 31.6%
so while hungarians may see the Treaty of Trianon as a great cause for sorrow many more people see it as a great victory for our nations in freeing our people from oppression , the romanian population in transilvania was subjected to a process of forced magyarization and forced conversion to catolicism if it weren't for the treaty a truly great tragedy would have happened .
and i will not even go into comments about the hungarians being treated as secondary citzens when the hungarian party is part of the government and there are zones in Romania in with ppl speak just hungarian and don't know a word of romanian

 

Can a brotha get a definition? I have no idea what the hell that means.

 

Magyar is the Hungarian language and used to describe ethnic Hungarians. Magyarization means the policy to assimilate minorities by force in Hungary by legislating against their culture and language. It was a common policy after the Napoleonic wars to quell the revolutionary tendencies in Europe. The multi-ethnic nations of Russia and Austria-Hungary were particularly notorious with such policies.

@Aldeth. The united states is a melting pot while Europe is not so much. People who have lived in a place for hundreds of years tend to resist to all sorts of attempt to destroy their culture and language. They marry amongst themselves and usually prefer to associate only with each other. It's really quite difficult to justify why people who have spoken the same language for hundreds of years should suddenly change just because they are suddenly within the borders of another nation.

These sort of ethnic tensions have sparked separatism. countless uprisings and wars in Europe so they are not to be taken lightly. The best solution is in my opinion for the government to support minority cultures and languages while at the same time teaching the majority language for practical reasons in order to integrate the minorities to society. In some cases the minorities distrust the government so much that such integration might be extremely difficult and usually in such cases (such as aforementioned Slovakia) the government is not making it much better with nationalistic policy.

 

I'm grateful to Morgoroth for his compact and immensely good post.

I do not deny this, and Hungary does not deny this either. When Slovakia and other countries use it as an argument (as a reaction to justified criticism they receive for their assimilation processes), however, then it is unacceptable. Unacceptable because as Morgoroth wrote, it was 'after the Napoleonic wars' and not in the 20th/21st century. Slovakia was doing it at the end 20th century, and is still doing it now -- at the beginning of the 21st century. The world has changed a bit since the Napoleonic era. It is like renewing slavery e.g. in a European country and then saying: "Ah, USA had slaves too". Yes, but when?!

This is practically what I wanted to express, but was not able to (or just partially). In Europe, losing your nationality (in the meaning of 'ethnicity', culture, folklore etc., not in the meaning of 'citizenship') is considered as a negative thing. Especially for the 'small' nations. And it's no wonder -- imagine that if there wasn't resistance against it, a nation could just disappear very fast! And Hungary (which was -- long ago -- one of the most influential kingdoms of Europe) must not die like that. My ancestors protected Europe from Turks and other invaders, and it would be a shame if Hungarians just disappeared from the world.

The funny is, most Hungarian people of Slovakia talk the Slovak language very well (and they are integral part of the society as lawful citizens). Despite of this fact, Slovak government(s) try to restrict language and other rights of the Hungarian minority. That is unacceptable. (On the other hand, unfortunately, e.g. Gypsies (Roma) do not want to integrate at all, and most of them does not teach their children to respect the law and accept the basic rules of society.)