Although Hungary now has its own home-made constitution instead of a patch- quilt of others either adopted or imposed on them, it is now an item of national contention and, perhaps, a good example of how-not-to draft a constitution. Many see it as a throwback to bygone days which hardly reflects modern society. Protests have erupted in Budapest and other parts of Hungary challenging its contents, the process used to draft the instrument and, even more damaging, its legality.
Drafting a constitution is always difficult, but in this day and age of more liberal, social attitudes and wider interpretations of modern life, it is extremely difficult. Trying to please everyone with such an all-encompassing national instrument requires as much balancing skill as the The Great Wallendas performing high wire acts over hard concrete.
The new constitution, The Fundamental Law of Hungary - only several weeks old - lost its balance early in its development and is now being challenged by various segments of society which have found it riddled with faults. Many see it as backward looking and hardly progressive which includes strict 18th and 19th Century restrictions over areas of Hungarian life thought to have been "sorted out" decades ago.
The constitutional process was flawed from the beginning and all the normal, expected procedures for drafting such an important document were completely ignored.
The first misstep was the fact that it was introduced by the majority government which provided it with a sense of arrogance. As a result, there was little or no consultation with opposition parties, the general public, scientific and non-governmental agencies nor any debate on social policies which were included in the constitution yet require rigorous, social debate.
One would expect all of the above to be considered as well as several drafts to be made public for thoughtful consideration and debate but nothing of the kind was done. In the end, most Hungarians felt deeply betrayed and that the constitution was rammed through Parliament without proper public consultation and debate.
Most citizens wanted and/or expected a national referendum on the final document but none was held. The reason was simple; the sitting majority in Parliament was responsible for the document and a referendum vote was refused.
The text of the final document was divisive to say the least and did not have the support of the Hungarian people. Several articles were deemed to be offensive and not representative of Hungarians and how they wished to live their lives, and especially how their nation was to be seen by others.
One of the social laws by which Hungarian citizens were taken aback is seen in Article L which clearly states that "marriage" is "the union of a man and a woman". It makes no provision for same-sex marriages, whose participants can legally register their union, but falls outside the legal definition of marriage. In the modern, main stream of Hungarian life, this was not acceptable.
Another article states that the life of a fetus is protected from the moment of conception which makes abortion technically illegal. Such a reversal of ongoing practise was not accepted kindly and opened up old wounds.
The above are but two of many offending items within the new constitution.
The highly-flawed document is perhaps the worst example of democracy-in-action where the rights of a majority government can run rampant over the spirit of democracy.
