[…] – Azt nyilatkozta, lát esélyt a kétharmadra. Ellenkező esetben viszont hiába ülnének önök a kormánynál, valójában a Fidesz irányítana, nem gondolja?
– Egyszerű többség esetén is marad mozgástér a kormányzásra. Jogi munkacsoportunk szerint a kétharmados törvények által szabályozott területeken is születhetnek majd jogállami megoldások.
– Mondana példát?
– Nem, mert akkor a Fidesz holnap bezárja az összes kiskaput.
– Korábban felmerült, hogy először meg kell változtatni az alaptörvényt, utána jöhetne az új választás.
– Ez azért nem életszerű, mert a politika nem szűkülhet le csak közjogi kérdésekre. Nem lehet halogatni a gazdasági és szociális válságkezelést Magyarországon.
– A jelenlegi alkotmány mellett lehet kormányozni?
– Igen. Ha más lehetőség nincs. […]
Updates from May, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
JELENTÉSTERVEZET az alapvető jogok helyzetéről Magyarországon / DRAFT REPORT on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary
A Nemzeti Művészetért Alapítvány (NMA) nem hagyhatja szó nélkül az elmúlt évek kulturális fordulatát.
A változás számos nagy múltú intézmény bezárását illetve átalakulását eredményezte.
AZ NMA minden e sorsa jutott kiállítóhelyet Nemzeti Kulturális Emlékhellyé nyilvánít és mécsesgyújtással emlékeztet az elmúltra.
Az eddig felavatott Emlékhelyek:
Dorottya Galéria, Budapest
Duna Galéria, Budapest
ICA-D Kortárs Művészeti Intézet, Dunaújváros
A következő Emlékhely avatás:
Műcsarnok, 2012. 12. 06. csütörtök, 19h
The National Foundation of the Arts (NMA) can not let it go without saying a word about the recent years cultural changes.
A number of important institutions with rich heritage are closing/transforming as a result of those very changes.
All the spaces who’s fate are up for closure are by the NMA named National Cultural Memorials and the ceremony of lightning candles recalls the past.
The memorial has been inaugurated at the following locations:
Dorottya Gallery, Budapest
Duna Gallery, Budapest
ICA-D Institute of Contemporary Art, Dunaújváros
Next inauguration of the Memorial:
Műcsarnok/Kunsthalle, 06. 12. 2012 Thursday 19h
We await you,
“The Commission has to play its role as the guardian of the treaties. I learnt that we lack effective mechanisms in the EU to enforce respect for the rule of law more generally and more systematically.” http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/hungary-romania.icf
[anon:] A hivatkozott cikkben nem esik szó gyámságról. Ellenben arról valóban beszél Reading, hogy erősebb, hatékonyabb eszközökre van szükség ahhoz, hogy az Unióban a jogállamiságot, a bíróságok függetlenségét a tagállamok tiszteletben tartsák. És valóban Magyarország és Románia kapcsán mondja ezt a biztos.
Mázsa Péter: FYI: […] http://szotar.sztaki.hu/search?searchWord=guardianship&fromlang=eng&tolang=hun&outLang […] na jó, kicsit hatásvadász
admin, Quitor, and Józsi are discussing. Toggle Comments
Hungarian far-right politician certified as ‘free of Jewish and Roma’ genes: http://www.nature.com/news/genome-test-slammed-for-assessing-racial-purity-1.10809
DK: liberal socialists
Jobbik: national socialists
Fidesz-KDNP: social nationalists [ruling, >2/3]
MSZP: red socialists
LMP: green socialists
Present situation [Tárki; blue: uncertain]:
Ágnes Vadai [DK]: It seems that we are witnessing a Horthy renaissance. Almost as if Miklós Horthy’s rehabilitation were a new fashion. (Tamás Gaudi-Nagy (Jobbik): “Yes, you are right.” Other Jobbik members: “This is so!”) They name a square after him, they set up a statue of him in Kereki, and in the Debrecen Reformed College with the assistance of the highest church leaders they dedicate a memorial plaque in his honor. (Interruption from Jobbik members: “This is so!”) So, not only is the extreme right promoting the introduction of a Horthy cult but Fidesz politicians and mayors are also taking part in the rehabilitation of the admiral on horseback. Fidesz parliamentary members agree to be patrons of a ball organized to collect money for a statue of Horthy on horseback.
I just want to be clear. Are we talking about the man who managed to seize power in the shadow of foreign troops? (Enormous noise caused by Jobbik and Fidesz-KDNP members.) About the man who consolidated his power with the assistance of paramilitary detachments creating a bloodbath? (Noise, the presiding speaker rings the bell.)
The Speaker: Madame Member, I would like to apologize in the name of the majority of the House because I myself cannot hear what you are saying. (Interruptions from Jobbik and Fidesz-KDNP.) I think that the television audience is in a similar situation. That’s why I suggest to the ladies and gentlemen to wait until the madame member finishes with her question because at the end they will not know what she wants to ask from the minister. We can wait until the House calms down, I have enough time and I think Madame Member also. Can we continue? (Előd Novák (Jobbik): “Get to the point!”) Thank you, please continue.
Ágnes Vadai: Let’s make it clear that we are talking about a man who seized power in the shadow of foreign bayonets. (Tamás Gaudi-Nagy: “What are you talking about?”) About a man who consolidated his power with the assistance of paramilitary detachments. (Interruption from a Fidesz MP: “Kádár.”) He was the man who agreed to sign the Treaty of Trianon that is called a national tragedy by the Hungarian right. It was during his reign that the first anti-Jewish law was enacted to be followed by three more. Horthy’s regime was rejected not only by writers of the left but also by the narodnik writers of the period who are greatly revered by the current Hungarian right. He is the man who led Hungary into the second world war and who allowed the deportation of almost half a million Hungarian citizens to perish in concentration camps. Finally, he passed power into the hands of the murderous hordes of Szálasi. I’m talking about the man who was saved only by Stalin from being labelled a war criminal.
The current government could have stopped the spread of the Horthy cult in the spirit of the Paris Peace Conference, but you didn’t do it because you didn’t want to do it. (Interruptions from Fidesz-KDNP members.) You for the sake of far-right votes (The speaker rings the bell again.) in a competition with Jobbik are ready to revive the heritage of Horthy. How long will that go on? At the end will you rehabilitate Szálasi? (Applause from MSZP and LMP members.)
The Speaker: Honored ladies and gentlemen of the government parties. When you look at the video of the last three and a half minutes you will be appalled by your own behavior. After all, the madame member’s interpellation has nothing to do with current politics (Tamás Gaudi-Nagy: “She insulted the governor and that’s enough!) and therefore one cannot understand why the Fidesz-KDNP members kept yelling. (Interruptions from Fidesz-KDNP members.) I will give Tibor Navracsics [Minister, Fidesz] the opportunity to answer the question in four minutes.
Tibor Navracsics: Let me start with a quotation that has nothing to do with current politics. “I, the undersigned, admit that I was a member of the Arrow Cross Party between such and such dates. I realize now that this was contrary to the interest of the people and I made a mistake. I would like to correct my mistake and therefore I promise to spend all my time and energy for the building of the people’s democracy. I swear that I will be a faithful member of the Hungarian Communist Party.” (Laughter from Jobbik and Fidesz-KDNP members.)
Ladies and Gentlemen! When we are talking about the rehabilitation of the Arrow Cross Party in this house there is only one party and some members of the independents who should have to explain a thing or two. (Applause from the Fidesz-KDNP and Jobbik members.) Here I’m talking about such independent members who chose such a leader [Ferenc Gyurcsány] who lives in a villa on Szemlőhegy Street that had been confiscated twice from its Jewish owner. Once by the Arrow Cross regime and once by the communists.
If Ágnes Vadai is seeking historical continuity then she should look into the Kratkii kurst of the Hungarian Communist Party and find out how many former Arrow Cross Party members ended up in the Communist Party. [The members of MSZP and DK [the liberal socialist party]] should ask themselves how they could possibly make common cause with the members of the Arrow Cross Party. (Long applause from Fidesz-KDNP and Jobbik. Interruptions.
István Józsa (MSZP): “Is this the answer on Horthy?” Long live Navracsics, Long live Horthy! You don’t know what you are doing!)
The Speaker: Most likely he didn’t hear the question but there was an answer. Madame Member has one minute to give reasons for her acceptance or rejection of the answer.
Ágnes Vadai: I consider you, Mr. Minister, a very intelligent man. (Laughter in the Fidesz-KDNP caucus.) But you just proved that your intelligence can be overwritten by party loyalty. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Minister. I asked you … (Indignation and interruptions in the Fidesz-KDNP caucus.) I asked you what you thought of the Horthy cult and whether there might be an introduction of a Szálasi cult. I had every right to ask these questions because in the last few days the Hungarian media were full of them.
You want to teach József Nyirő to the Hungarian youth when Nyirő was a member of Szálasi’s parliament and an admirer of Goebbels (Continuous interruptions from Fidesz-KDNP and Jobbik caucuses) and yet one of the prominent members of your party, the speaker of this house, a member of the Hungarian parliament in the last twenty-two years, takes part in the rehabilitation of this man. (Interruption from Fidesz-KDNP caucus: “He did the right thing!) You should be ashamed of yourself, my fellow members of parliament. I very much hope that your children will not have to answer one day for this abominable behavior you manifest inside and outside of parliament. (Further interruptions: Time! Time!) You should be ashamed of yourselves! I don’t accept the answer. (István Józsa (MSZP) pointing to Tamás Gaudi-Nagy (Jobbik): “Into the minutes! He said, ‘Start to get scared’” Tamás Gaudi-Nagy: “Go ahead!”)
The Speaker repeats again that Vadai didn’t accept Navracsics’s answer and then asks the House to vote. István Nyakó (MSZP) before the vote cried out: “Vote for Horthy!” Another MSZP member, Zoltán Lukács, said: “What a shame!” Navracsics’s answer was accepted by 239 members against 44.
At this point Zoltán Lukács (MSZP) said, “That at least is clear!”
[Translated and abridged by Eva S. Balogh]
Check out the mood [in Hungarian]:
“Egy évünk van arra, hogy felvegyük a tempót, hogy megteremtsük a sikeres magyar élet alapjait, és ismét emelkedő pályára állítsuk az országot.” Orbán Viktor, 2010. október 23. http://www.fidesz.hu/index.php?Cikk=154489
“The Hungarian fairytale or the Hungarian example will be a succesful one in a year time.” Matolcsy György, 2012. június 7. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2012/06/07/marketplace-europe-matolcsy-hungary-economy.cnn
Société Réaliste, State of Shades: Hungarian National Painting Grey. Average Colour of 684 Major Paintings from the Hungarian National Gallery’s Collection, 2012. Site-specific installation (detail). (Photo by Márton Mucsi)
Société Réaliste is an artists’ cooperative founded in 2004 by Ferenc Gróf (1972) and Jean-Baptiste Naudy (1982). Central to their activities is the exploration, subversion, and deconstruction of the specific devices of visual communication that have been developed and employed by institutions, governments, and rulers, i.e., the representatives of power—in the fields of religion, politics, culture, art, and finance—so as to position themselves. By exploring the representative and aesthetic roles of these agencies—including signs, logos, maps, symbols, typefaces, landmarks, emblems, statues or even buildings—in complex contexts of much broader time and space, the artists place them in a new light in the form of a “political cabinet of curiosities,” a critical, narrative implementation of design.
Through its title, empire, state, building primarily evokes the famous New York skyscraper, the “building/temple/work of art” that, ever since its completion in 1931, has been the mythological emblem of the United States and a source of artistic inspiration—from the 1933 movie, King Kong, to Andy Warhol’s 1964 silent film, Empire. At the same time, the use of punctuation generates a new perspective of meaning, highlighting the origin and functioning of power symbols, from empire through state to construction. How do buildings, public sculptures, and monuments express and perpetuate ideology? How do public spaces visualise the relation between the modern state and culture? Such questions are raised by Société Réaliste in its critical analysis of the connections between architecture and history, buildings, and political power.
Following this train of thought, the exhibition at the Ludwig Museum presents early and recent works, with State of Shades (2012) at its centre, a site-specific installation conceived for the Budapest show. Placed in the central exhibition space, the work visualises the colour average of masterpieces selected from the website of the Hungarian National Gallery, computed and juxtaposed using a computer program. The ambiguity of the title—state: condition and/or body politic, shade: tint and shadow—refers to a critical study of the discourse and direction of the official Hungarian culture that fosters painterly traditions, or in a wider sense, that of art and nation-state representation.
A Life to See (2012) is a film projection based on a processing of the complete cinematic œuvre of German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, known for her films put in the service of National Socialist propaganda. Planned to run for 101 years and 17 days, the age Riefenstahl lived to, the video is composed of all her films, from nature films to items of Nazi propaganda. The frames are projected randomly, each appearing for 59 minutes. This life-work dissected into its elements can be placed in parallel with Société Réaliste’s first feature-length film, The Fountainhead (2010). It is based on the 1949 eponymous film directed by King Vidor, itself inspired by the 1943 novel of Ayn Rand, the champion of radical liberalism, a prophet of contemporary capitalism, the founder of philosophical and political objectivism. In Société Réaliste’s version, the film has been emptied of all the characters and the soundtrack, reducing it to a 111-minute architectural décor and spectacle unveiling the political-economic web that surrounds each citizen/spectator. Made as a sort of palimpsest, The Fountainhead is to reveal its own underpinnings, woven from the links between capitalism and its ideological backdrop, architecture and modernism.
The artworks grouped around the State of Shades are similarly thematised through their colours. The colours of the walls of the various halls—Aether, Terra Irredenta, Watching over the Reichstag, Cult of She-manity, EU Green Card Lottery, and UN Mauve Taupe—are either chromatic symbols used in the respective artworks in specific historical, political, and geographical contexts, or ambient colours, belonging to the ever-expanding Société Réaliste colour scale.
Realised as a co-production with the Jeu de Paume, Paris, and in collaboration with acb Gallery, Budapest, and Anne Mosseri-Marlio Galerie, Zurich, the exhibition is supported by the National Cultural Fund of Hungary and the Institut Français.
Coordinator: Róna Kopeczky
Mélyi József kiállításmegnyitó-beszéde: http://amexrap.org/fal/societe-realiste-ludwig-muzeumban-melyi-jozsef-kiallitasmegnyito-beszede
It is entirely up to Hungarians how they want to organize their economy, whether they want to become even more integrated into the world or prefer to be more independent. If Hungary wishes to be more separate from the world economy, then it could decide to do so. It is hard to imagine how that would increase Hungary’s prosperity but I am not an economist. Europe’s experience is that open borders to trade have strengthened its prosperity and its security. A basic tenet of the European Union the French-German thought that achieving economic interdependence prevents the possibility of war has worked for 60 years now. That is what Hungary subscribed to and that has been the consensus among Hungarians for the past twenty years. Joining Europe equals joining an integrated economy. If now they decide this is no good for them, and want to go in a different direction, it is fully up to the Hungarian voters and their elected officials to do so.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas O. Melia http://www.humanrights.gov/2012/05/07/interview-deputy-assistant-secretary-melia-hungarian-democracy-is-an-american-interest
[Cf. “A hiába az Amerikaiakban való bízásról – Tóta W. figyelmébe” http://amexrap.org/fal/hiaba-az-amerikaiakban-valo-bizasrol in Hungarian]
[…] Putin, and Putin’s henchmen, did not believe these protests came about spontaneously, because the FSB does not believe that anything comes about spontaneously. Nor does the FSB believe that independent civic groups are really independent, that nongovernmental organizations are unconnected to foreign governments, and that “democrats” really believe in democracy. “Unfortunately,” he declared back in 2007, “there are still those people in our country who act like jackals at foreign embassies…who count on the support of foreign funds and governments but not the support of their own people.” This was a direct warning to Russia’s tiny community of human rights and trade union activists, and it was perceived as such at the time.
On the night of his third and most recent reelection on March 4, Putin repeated this charge, this time describing the protesters—the men and women of Gessen’s generation—in stark and one might even say hysterical terms. “We showed that no one can impose anything on us,” he declared with great passion, tears welling up in his eyes:
We showed that our people can distinguish between the desire for renewal and a political provocation that has only one goal: to destroy Russian statehood and usurp power.
Putin doesn’t merely dislike his would-be opponents, in other words, he believes that they are sinister agents of foreign powers. He doesn’t just object to the liberal political system they support, he believes they are plotting to “usurp power” and hand the country over to rapacious outsiders. In order to keep them well away from the levers of power, he allowed only officially sanctioned candidates onto the most recent ballot—all tired, familiar faces who have lost to Putin many times before, or who stood no realistic chance of victory. Thus does Russia’s president protect his countrymen from those who would “destroy Russian statehood.”
There is no reason not to take Putin at his word here, or to doubt that he means what he says. As work in Soviet archives in recent years has shown, Soviet secret policemen also usually meant what they said. They really did believe that their internal critics were “enemies,” that the forces of imperialist-capitalist bourgeois reaction were seeking to undermine the regime, and that only the fearless Chekists stood in the way of chaos and defeat. As Gessen demonstrates, Putin has proudly inherited those beliefs, and he runs Russia in accordance with them.
Viktor Orban: “Do we want to continue governing and political behaviors, which include the possibility of the reestablishment of the dual system?”
[…] Let us take a glance at the field of party power in Hungarian politics. Until most recently, a field of party power divided in two has dominated Hungary. This duality has naturally not left culture untouched. This does not mean that those who play a role in culture also had to take a position on the political field, although this is true, but that the necessary concomittant of such a division of power is a permanent argument about values. In this twofold field of power, there are no common values, common goals,which both parties can accept, but there are continuous battles about the most fundamental questions. If we mention a system of family support, then they want to abolish it; if we mention dual citizenship, then they say 23 million Romanians will flood the country. We are engaged in a constant argument about values, not just about politics.
Until most recently, this divided field of power characterized Hungary’s political life. Today, however, the duality of this system seems to be coming to an end, and a central political power- field is evolving, which is, on the one hand, the result of the ascendency of the right wing, and on the other, the growth of our strength. Whether the political field will look like this after the elections, I do not know, but I would like it to. One thing is certain, there is a realistic possibility that the next fifteen-twenty years of Hungarian political power will not be determined by this duality, which has produced continuous arguments about values, and has produced divisive, petty and unnecessary social consequences. Instead, a large, governing party, with a central political field of power will be established, one which will be capable of formulating national concerns, doing so without continuous arguments, naturally representing these in its own way.
In terms of the goals and responsibilities of government, the question is as follows: do we want to continue governing and political behaviors, which include the possibility of the reestablishment of the dual system? Do we consciously accept this? Do we continue the shattering of our arguments about values concerning Hungarian society in the interest of day-to-day political goals, the arguments which again and again divide the whole society, or do we relegate these to the narrow circles of the elite, where they belong? More simply put: either we try to construct a governing system, which reduces the chances of the reestablishment of a dual field of power, and instead, in the long term, settles political questions in a large, centralized poltical field of power, or we prepare for shadow-governing, and then the dual field of power will be reestablished.
It is my conviction that we should not engage in shadow-governing, but we must strive for the actual governing of our national affairs. Naturally, there will be many consequences of such a decision as far as the government’s program, its style, the extent of its structure and a number of other, direct political questions are concerned. I believe that it makes sense for the right to debate this question in the coming period, so that it can show in terms of what political power alignments it sees the guaranteeing of the country’s interests in the long, fifteen-twenty year, term. I for one propose that in this debate, rather than a stance which is designed for a continuous and constant political struggle, that we choose one which is designed for permanently governing; that our thinking not be determined by a continuous and constant struggle against the other side, but that it be based on the convincingly strong representation of certain national causes. Naturally, there will be competition, and in the end, the voters will decide. The question is only what kind of alternatives do we offer: the continuation of the two-party system in a dualized field of power with continuous debates about values, or do we direct those to an appropriate place, and represent to the public the actions and goals of a political power which strives for a permanent position in government.
And cotinuing with Bibó, the above has important consequences for the country’s elites. The literature of the elites clearly states: in order for the elites to meet their responsibilities by means of creating culture, they cannot choose certain means of livelihood, in so far as they wish to live a refined, carefully selective lifestyle. This is the example that is desirable to spread throughout society. It is not possible, however, to live a refined, carefully selective lifestyle, if the elites are in a state of self-assertion; neither in the state of self-congratulation, nor in one that is charging ahead to success, nor existing in a state of constant attack, nor even one of anxiety, and certainly not if their day to day existence is defined by a fear of being called to account, or by defensive reflexes, or the compunction for self-justification. All of this must be avoided. I believe therefore that the task of those who will be governing culture next is to provide the opportunities for Hungary’s cultural elites to avoid such lifestyles, and to establish the prerequisites for an unstressful spiritual state, which is required for creative endeavors, as well as to guarantee the conditions for a refined, and carefully selective life.
(Translation by Steve Polgar)
How much can the European Union, by law a club of democracies, actually do to stop a freely elected government within its borders from turning its democracy into an autocracy? […]
This is the real tragedy of Hungary—that economic peril has caused the country’s politics to curdle into chauvinism and score-settling. Fidesz supporters describe Mr. Orban’s legislative program as a belated rebalancing after communism. The Socialists, privileged with business and institutional connections inherited from the Kadar era, made government corrupt and ineffective. Only a wholesale tightening could restore efficacy.
But Fidesz’s ties to its own cast of oligarchs raise more than a few red flags. And some of Fidesz’s recent incursions into Hungarian political life seem impelled not by reorganization, but by retribution. […]
Mr. Orban is a Machiavellian, in other words, but one with no greater designs on Hungary than to remain the person who steers it. […]
Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States of America
Secretary of State
Budapest, 6th January 2012
Dear Secretary Clinton,
I received your letter sent in the days before Christmas, in which you followed up on our conversation during your visit to Hungary last summer. I appreciate your words regarding the close alliance between our nations. Indeed, speaking on behalf of my government and the Hungarian armed forces abroad, it is our honor to further the perseverance of our shared values, and to serve the cause of peace, democracy, and the rule of law shoulder to shoulder with our friends and allies both in Europe and across the seas, from Afghanistan to North Africa, from the Middle East to the Balkans.
We have recently celebrated the anniversary of the official establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries, even though the sympathy and affinity shared by our nations reaches back to the dawn of American independence. In this relationship a dividing line was the dissolution of the Soviet Union 20 years ago. l believe this historical event could not have come true without the unquenchable thirst for freedom of Central European nations, a struggle in which we have found the United States to be our unwavering partner. Lamentably Hungary failed until now to conclude the post-communist era. This term is to describe a political order without a new constitution and a truly free, competition based market economy. In the last 20 years Hungary – as the only post-communist Central European country – failed to introduce a new constitution, my government however was courageous enough to adopt a new Fundamental Law. The economy was dominated by old relationships and monopolies formed during the communist era; my government is devoted to transform it. The word ‘change’ can win elections but the actual transformation of old systems is bound to hurt several interests.
‘Two heads are better than one’ as the saying states. That is why we are in constant dialogue and close cooperation with all interested parties, especially the European Commission, religious groups and constituents, while continuously seeking consultations with opposition parties as well. The Venice Commission welcomed ‘the fact that this new constitution establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles’ and noted that ‘constitutions of other European States, such as Poland, Finland, Switzerland or Austria, have been used as a source of inspiration.’
In fact the cardinal laws and other significant pieces of legislation have been considerably impacted by these consultations. The new Media Law has been amended according to the recommendations of the European Commission in March, after which the legislation has been confirmed by the EC stating that they are in accordance with European norms and standards. The Media Law entered into force a year ago and looking back we can see that this piece of legislation did not realize the fears that accompanied its signing into law: the spectrum of media services in Hungary is as diverse as ever before. Without going into specific details l would like to dispel your doubts regarding the frequency-tender of the talk radio you mentioned. Although the Media Authority works independently from the government in Hungary, I requested information about the decision of the authority upon receiving your letter. On the basis of this, let me inform you that the competition has been conducted with full transparency, and the Media Authority has done its utmost in order to preserve this important news outlet: the applicant has received full marks on subjective criteria where deliberation was possible, but the applicant has not made a competitive financial offer. Therefore the Media Authority could not have declared the applicant you have mentioned winner without violating the theory and the practice of free market competition.
Accordingly, the former Law on Religious Organizations supposed to come into effect 1st January 2012 has been repealed by the parliamentary majority. The new text passed by the Parliament December 30, 2011 incorporates the opinion and concerns by the religious groups. Let me remind you nonetheless that freedom of religion in Hungary is guaranteed in the new Fundamental Law. The new law on religion was however a necessary step to curb the wide-spread abuse of the old system of church subsidies and registration. Out of the 350 or so entities registered, many have been in the business of helping themselves, not those in need of spiritual care. I agree that freedom of religion is a basic human right and this new law does nothing to diminish it. No subordinate law can therefore curb the fundamental right of individuals and communities to present, practice, or spread their beliefs. Accordingly the new law on religious organizations – just as the recently repealed law – will not have the power to recognize or deny recognition of religions. All religious groups – including those that do not wish to seek official recognition – are welcome, and will continue to be welcome to practice their beliefs, individually and collectively, openly or discretely. The new law sets a transitional period for all denominations during which they can decide whether to apply for a sustained status or continue their activities without it.
Parliamentary system – that l personally have been fighting for for decades against opponents coming from left or right – continues to be morally valued by the Fidesz-KDNP majority and the new constitutional system naturally includes this.
l understand that sometimes the speed with which work is being clone in the National Assembly surprises spectators. However in the current economic climate where Europe – and Hungary as a part of Europe – faces tremendous pressure by the markets to find swift solutions to its financial woes, I believe that the cost of hesitation is potentially greater than the risks of prompt action.
You can be sure that the Fidesz-KDNP government and l personally will continue to be open and attentive to all opinion, both internal and foreign. In this spirit several of my cabinet members and I myself have met with Ambassador Eleni Tsakopoulos Konualakis in Budapest, to provide interpretations of our work that may not necessarily reach Washington.
I encourage all friends and allies to have faith in the Hungarian people.
Wishing you a peaceful and prosperous New Year.
The following list of countries shows the increase (+) or decline (-) of the ‘very happy’ cohort compared with results for the same group measured in 2007:
Great Britain -3
Saudi Arabia -1
South Africa -5
South Korea -1
United States -1
An international sample of 18,687 adults aged 18-64 in the US and Canada, and age 16-64 in all other countries, were interviewed between November 1st and 15th, 2011. Approximately 1000+ individuals participated on a country by country basis.
Date: January 31, 2012 – 17:30 – 19:00
Building: Nador u. 9, Monument Building
Event type: Lecture
Event audience: Open to the Public
External presenter(s): Kim Lane Scheppele
CEU presenter(s): Gabor Toka
CEU host unit(s): Department of Political Science
The Department of Political Science cordially invites you to the first lecture in the series Hungary in the Spotlight, “The Unconstitutional Constitution”, by Kim Lane Scheppele. Introduction and Opening by Gabor Toka, Professor, Department of Political Science; the Discussant is Janos Kis, CEU University Professor.
Kim Lane Scheppele is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values, as well as Director of the Program in Law and Public Affairs, Princeton University. She joined the Princeton faculty in 2005 after nearly a decade on the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, where she was the John J. O’Brien Professor of Comparative Law. Before that, her primary appointment was in the political science department at the University of Michigan. From 1994-1998, Scheppele lived in Budapest, doing research at the Constitutional Court of Hungary and teaching at both ELTE and Central European University. Scheppele’s work concentrates on the intersection of constitutional and international law, particularly in constitutional systems under stress. After 1989, Scheppele studied the emergence of constitutional law in Hungary and Russia, living in both places for extended periods. Since 9/11, Scheppele has researched the effects of the international “war on terror” on constitutional protections around the world. In short, when the Berlin Wall fell, she studied the transition of countries from police states to constitutional rule-of-law states and after the Twin Towers fell, she studied the process in reverse. Her many publications on both post-1989 constitutional transitions and on post-9/11 constitutional challenges have appeared in law reviews, social science journals and in many languages (including Russian, Hungarian and French). Her new book is called The International State of Emergency: The Rise of Global Security Law. It will appear in 2013 (Harvard University Press). Her previous book, Legal Secrets, won Special Recognition in the Distinguished Scholarly Publication competition of the American Sociological Association, as well as the Corwin Prize from the American Political Science Association.
Scheppele was the Co-Director of the MA Program in Gender and Culture at Central European University, when the program was first accredited, and founder of the Conference Group on Jurisprudence and Public Law of the American Political Science Association and the section on the Sociology of Law of the American Sociological Association. She has held elective office in the Law and Society Association and the American Sociological Association, received multiple teaching awards over her career, and been awarded eight grants from the US National Science Foundation, including three for her own residential fieldwork abroad and four supporting the work of her PhD students.
RSVP by January 30, 2012 to email@example.com