H.E. Dr. Tamás Magyarics:

I will address the questions asked by members one by one. Deputy Dooley inquired about the protection of minorities, especially the Roma people. The new constitution pays special attention to the protection of minorities, especially disabled women and children, the foetus and also ethnic minorities. I remind the committee that it was during the Hungarian Presidency of the European Union that a Europe-wide Roma initiative and programme was introduced in order to integrate the Roma people and give them opportunities for education and work.

Let me be honest, it is a very difficult issue. Hungary has approximately 600,000 to 700,000 Roma people. Unemployment is very high among them, which is attributed to their not being able to compete on the labour market with others due to a lack of adequate skills. Many different programmes have been initiated to try to adopt certain models, even the US Magnet schools. Once again to be honest, the results have not been adequate. We must work on it in the future but we also believe that this problem can, to a certain extent, be solved internationally, so we expect European Union advice and assistance to address the problem.

Senator Reilly referred to the liberal state and Mr. Orbán's statement which has been very widely discussed. To a certain extent, it has been misrepresented, especially in the American press. What Mr. Orbán was talking about was the failure of the liberal economic policies. To put it into context, when the new Government took over in 2010, the Hungarian state was in an economic straitjacket. We had to go hat in hand to the IMF. The first Orbán Government stepped down in 2002 and for two terms, there was a Socialist Government and Free Democrats Government, which was a liberal Government. In these eight years, the sovereign debt skyrocketed from approximately 58% of the GDP to 82%. During the eight years, the current account deficit was always above 5% or 6% but in one year, it was 9%. The treasury was empty. What the Hungarian Government and Mr. Orbán concluded from this situation was that the so-called liberal or neoliberal economic polices did not work.

The Hungarian position and that of Mr. Orbán can better be described as a Christian emocratic or a social democratic one rather than a liberal democratic one. These are very different types of approaches but that is how I would characterise this approach.

It is written into the constitution that in addition to rights, there are also obligations and responsibilities which individual citizens have to meet. The rights and the responsibilities go hand in hand. One cannot separate the two. That includes special attention to the minorities.

I would like add one thing in regard to this approach to illustrate it. Last weekend an American racist and extremist organisation wanted to hold a conference in Budapest. The Government banned the meeting because of its overly racist attitude. As a result of banning the meeting, the Government was attacked by NGOs and by the political opposition which said the Hungarian Government had broken the right of free speech and that it should have let this racist organisation organise and have its meeting in Budapest. The Government's attitude was that the community should be protected from racist and extremist views. If one has to balance protection of the community and minorities with extremist interpretations of the liberal rights, including freedom of speech, under all circumstances, priority should be given to the protection of the minorities and the community and not to some abstract liberal interpretation of the freedom of speech.

A question was asked about homelessness and homeless people. The Hungarian law is clear. The municipal authorities have the right to assign certain venues and certain neighbourhoods as off limit for people begging or sleeping on the streets, including, for example, sites of world heritage. At the same time, in order to address the problem of homeless people, the government had quite a number of homes for homeless people built. More places are at their disposal than registered by the individual municipal authorities. We should give them the opportunity to have a decent place to sleep and to have some hot food instead of sleeping and begging in the streets. One could say that an abstract individual right is that if one wants to be a homeless person, one should have the right to enjoy one's right even in the middle of the parliament, although the government states that certain sites are off limit. Again this is not without precedent. Members might remember, for example, that the former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, had a zero tolerance policy in New York. Perhaps the novelty of the measure created debate.

Deputy Kyne referred to the constitutional convention. The constitutional convention was not organised and held, even though in hindsight it would have been better if it had been held at the time. Unfortunately, Hungarian political life is extremely polarised. Polarisation means the political parties treat each other as enemies not as opponents. As I said, a two thirds majority was required by the old constitution. There was no consensus to call a new constitutional convention into session. The first time a political force had gained a two thirds majority was in 2010 and that is why a new constitution was written after 2010 and not before it.

In regard to the judiciary, 260 judges were affected by the judiciary law. Under the new legislation, the majority continued to serve. Some preferred to opt for early retirement with compensation packages while one died.

This is not a problem any more because the legislation comes into force in 2023. The judges can decide in the next ten years or so what to do.
I turn to the constitutional court and transparency. The constitutional court originally had 11 members, which has increased to 15. The members are elected to the court by a two thirds majority. It was mostly as a result of a bargaining between the political forces as none of them enjoyed a two thirds majority. Right now, most of the judges nominated to the court enjoy the support of the governing party. First, I do not want to prejudge how they would behave once elected because there have been many cases where judges have behaved differently from the way in which they had been expected to behave. So-called liberal judges turned out to be quite conservative and vice versa. I do not want to have parallels from all over the world, but I note that in the USA, it is well known that Supreme Court judges are nominated by the President in accordance with their political outlooks. A liberal President nominates liberal judges while conservative Presidents nominate conservative judges. After that, who is going to do what? Transparency International came to the conclusion that the judiciary was independent, transparent and without political interference. So far, not a single case has been found of political interference. That is exactly what the Hungarian expert on Tuesday told this committee.
Senator Hayden asked why Hungary was the last country. She touched a raw nerve and has entered dangerous waters because I come from the academic world. In the university, people are given 90 minutes to talk about certain issues, but I do not want to entertain the Senator with the constitutional history. The major reason was that there was a deadlock between the political forces and the old constitution required a two thirds majority to change. Between 1990 and 2010, no political force was able to garner a two thirds majority to initiate a new constitution.
The question was asked whether Hungary was unfairly treated. It was not unfairly treated, especially when one considers the various organisations of the European Union. If one talks about the European Commission, the Council of Europe or the Venice Commission, there was a very professional, sophisticated debate and discussion with Hungary. It was a different matter sometimes with the press where it was not that informed and emotions were running high. I separate the expert and the professional side from the press. To give one example, one of the most prestigious magazines in the world ran a lead article in 2010 by a grand old man of British politics discussing the Hungarian electoral results. His whole thesis was based on the assumption that certain people running on the Fidesz ticket had racist views. These people had been kicked out of Fidesz before the election, however, and clearly he missed the whole point. Nevertheless, that was published in one of the most prestigious and most renowned magazines in the world. The press was one thing but the family of the parliamentarians and the bodies of the European Union treated Hungary fairly.
If one has a debate, views will clash, but I emphasise that all disputed issues have been settled for the benefit of both parties. Mr. Orbán and the Government believe a strong European Union needs strong member states. Whatever he is doing in economic life, he tries to strengthen the European Union because he believes that without strong member states, the EU cannot compete with other centres of power in the world and will lag behind.