Constitutional Mob Rule in Hungary
It is absolutely essential for those of you who think that EU membership will save us from what George Kopits, in yesterday’s The Wall Street Journal, calls ‘constitutional mob rule’, to read the piece he wrote about what is happening in his native Hungary.
Hungary’s Constitution, like Malta’s, was the highest ‘institution’ in the land – it was the Constitution, via the Constitutional Court, that had authority over parliament’s decisions and not the other way round.
Now the Hungarian government, which has two-thirds of the seats in parliament, has made several changes to the Constitution which include the reversal of that: it has given parliament the power to overturn decisions taken by the Constitutional Court, even retroactively, effectively making nonsense of the Constitution and its purpose in safeguarding individuals from majority-rule abuse.
Now imagine the situation in Malta, where the government clearly envisages having a referendum vote on changes to the Constitution. We shall have a vote on such a serious matter by people who believe blindly in what Labour says, those who don’t believe blindly but should know better and instead put their heads in the sand and hope for the best or think positive, and those who are disadvantaged in some way and so unable to analyse certain kinds of information and understand the implications.
We shall have our Constitutional mob rule, and Labour will have pulled off the ultimate Mintoffian trick: getting us to vote with enthusiasm against our own rights and interests.
The link to The Wall Street Journal article is below.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578384151859408738.html?mod=rss_Opinion?mod=hp_opinion
We shall have our Constitutional mob rule but first Joseph is silencing all future criticism by silencing all those who may not agree with him on certain issues in the future.
Just look at the latest news – Michael Falzon on oil procurement committee.
The first time I read one of his articles I will have no shadow of a doubt that his is constructive, unbiased criticism.
All lines are going to be blurred in this administration. Falzon will be on this committee and also president of the Malta Developers Association. Will it be a question of give -and-take?
The blurring of the lines.
A creaseless society.
Minds frosted over.
Complacency next.
Puppets in place.
Disdain championed.
A President who isn’t.
A Prime Minister who sits on the table not at it.
Who is in a position to stop them now?
I see a double deception. He doesn’t.
Movement down to a screen.
I still have faith that, no matter the outcome of any referendum, the PN will vote against any changes that become permanent for decades and that limit our freedoms. If I led the PN, I’d rather risk self-destruction than vote for anything which is anti-European in spirit.
And how many within PN are truly European?
All those who voted against the outcome of the divorce referendum. All those who would see a woman die and not allow her a life-saving abortion.
Surely the opposite?
Baxxter, surely you’re used to me by now. Of course the opposite.
Well there you go. I’m not the only one who frets about these things, and I suppose it’s something of a consolation.
It’s as if the PN fought for EU membership simply because its leader at the time, Eddie Fenech Adami, was for EU membership but there the trail becomes hazy. Was it a deuced “Latinità” thing, or a yearning for Enlightenment?
Our intellectuals, on whom I cast my scorn, seem to follow in the Oliver Friggieri tradition of completely missing the wood for the trees, harping on about how “we were always European”. Meaning what?
More pointedly, what does it mean to us in 2013? How do we translate this fabled sempiternal European identity into concrete action?
I, for one, am disgusted by those who put on the mantle of Latin Europe and refuse to acknowledge basic European rights.
I did not vote for Europe to turn Malta into a theme park of Sicilian provincialism within Europe. I voted to open wide the windows and tear down the walls of the mind, to let Europe impregnate Malta.
Malta may be the whore of the Med, but boy is she frigid in her relations with Europe.
In these matters, compared with us, the Sicilians are a beacon of light. They’ve had abortion legislation since the late seventies.
And if any good soul writes in to tell me that this is another step on the slippery slope, my reply would be, damn it yes, I strongly support the introduction of a decent euthanasia bill, a la Netherlands.
I need not bother suggesting it, though, I know, for inclusion in Vanni Bonello or Franky Debono’s reforms.
I don’t think you ive in Malta, S. And what about the majority needed?
You’re disregarding the possibility of latent quislings who might still be lurking in the PN.
Examples in the previous legislature were Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullivino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett. Others, like Robert Arrigo, found no difficulty in hovering on the border-line and may well have followed suit had John Dalli’s scheming not been cut short by his being sacked from his European Commission post.
PL only need to suborn seven Opposition MPs to obtain the two-thirds majority (46 seats of 69; PN have 30 and Labour 39). The potential rewards for them would be great. The cost to the nation would be disastrous.
Baxxter is right. I despair when I see how my co nationals and people who ought to know better reason. Mass migration for the rational thinking ( might not be mass given the dwindling numbers) may be the only solution.
It is the rule of the majority. This is the essence of democracy.
[Daphne – David, you strike me as a lost cause. The essence of democracy is not majority rule but the safeguarding of basic freedoms, human rights and minorities. Democracy is the rule of the majority only insofar as this does not impinge on or restrict the rights of minorities. Example: you cannot have majority rule on a decision to corral black people in ghettos. The Constitution over-rides that. What happened in Hungary is that this situation has been reversed, with parliament now over-riding the Constitution and minorities left unprotected while basic freedoms are eroded.
Read my column in The Malta Independent today, where I quote the King of Jordan, who is particularly good on the subject of developing a proper understanding of democracy in countries which, like ours and his, have no real democratic tradition: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-03-31/opinions/so-now-we-are-going-to-sort-out-the-me-crisis-1295548427/%5D
I prefer an an objective and unbiased analysis of the Hungarian constitution as found here
http://eclj.org/pdf/eclj_memorendum-hungarian-constitution_20110519.pdf
[Daphne – That report is exactly two years old, David. You should have looked at the date. The Constitutional amendments we are talking about, the ones discussed in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, have just been made. That’s why they are in the news now and the subject of street demonstrations now.]
David, you write quite well, however you must keep up. Try to think, also.
One must read and anayses a constitution as a whole and not just bits and pieces of it. The view from Hungary’s government http://www.politics.hu/20130314/orban-says-constitutional-court-has-lost-none-of-its-powers-to-assess-laws/
[Daphne – Yes, David. They would say that, wouldn’t they? They were the ones who did it.]
“The time has come for European authorities to consider taking action, with a view to enforcing good practices for the welfare of Hungarians, and to deterring governments in other EU states from following Mr. Orban’s example.”
Perhaps the EU can step in?
Daphne, is your whole “constitutional referendum” hypothesis actually based on anything, or is it just wild supposition?
[Daphne – I’ve been too long in this game for wild supposition, TL. I observe, notice things and make deductions based on observation and experience. Sometimes I miss something completely, but in this case I haven’t. And bang on cue, in The Sunday Times today and straight from the horse’s mouth (he’s the man behind it all): http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130331/opinion/A-new-constitution.463573 Now the question you have to ask is this: the scrapping of the current Constitution and its replacement with an entirely new one, and a ‘Second Republic’, is clearly and obviously Kevin Aquilina’s baby. But Aquilina was appointed to Vanni Bonello’s justice reform team while Franco Debono got to head Constitutional reform. Why? Simple: to keep the Opposition out of the equation.]
Kevin Aquilina’s piece contains too many insights into the prime minister’s mind.
1. Kevin Aquilina is making a clear argument for a completely new Constitition, not amendments to the existing one.
This means that the two-thirds Parliamentary majority safeguard contained in the existing Constitution in respect of AMENDMENTS TO the existing Constitution would not even come into it. Because it will be a new Constitution, Parliament can approve it with a simple majority.
The new Constitution may contain a final clause stating “This Act of Parliament hereby supersedes any previous Constitution.”
2. Joseph Muscat is planning to go down in history as The Father of the Second Republic. However, I now expect a fierce battle between Joseph Muscat and Frankie Tabone as to who will claim the fatherhood.
3. It is also clear why Giovanni Bonello (or some other independent mind) was not chosen to head the Constitutional Reform. He would never accept a position like this and then have a fait accompli draft of a constitution shoved down his throat.
So, what is well-respected ex Sunday Times of Malta, page 13, former ECHR Judge Vanni Bonello doing there, heading a commission where he is outvoted? Lending credibility to Joseph Muscat’s dangerous game?
If Kevin Aquilina thinks that he’s going to obtain a REAL consensus on Constitution Day, he’s either naive or living in cuckoo-land.
I will never celebrate Constitution Day even if all Malta celebrates it. Our national day is Independence Day. Full stop. If Mintoff had accepted this simple fact we would not be discussing our national day after fifty years.
Which reminds me. Mintoff’s intention was to change the Constitution in a way that would give Parliament supremacy over the Constitution – which is exactly what we are seeing in Hungary now.
Mintoff’s objective was only thwarted by the strongresistance put up by the PN under the leadership of Eddie Fenech Adami, visibly and publicly backed by all right-thinking people. Mintoff for all his bluff and bluster ultimately had to toe the line, settling for amendments about which there was cross-party consensus.
Mintoff’s disciple, Joseph Muscat, is set to implement all that Mintoff failed to achieve – dragging Malta into a one party state, with curbs on individual freedoms and all the ugly implications resultant therefrom.
The PN Opposition in Parliament is now Malta’s final line of defence. If the Opposition is outmanoevoured by government, or is rendered powerless by internal strife, that would be the end of democracy as we know it.
The situation rapidly developing today is worse than that in place in 1981, when Labour had jerrymandered itself back into power.
The PN must be given full support to enable it to stand up in the defence of the freedoms that were only attained 25 years ago, when the Malta Labour Party was ousted from power after 16 long years of escalating abuse.
Henry Frendo’s previous piece puts this into perspective.
Henry Frendo has already been given far too much lee-way with his rewriting of history.
Constitutional amendments should be done by sane people.
And why should the 21st of September not be the national day, I may ask?
It is clear that the Second Republic is Aquilina’s baby and why his animosity towards the PN? In 2008 he was the BA chairperson.
Constitution Day will just be an invented national holiday to try and please everyone.