Péter Magyar goes against the constitution and European democratic values

Péter Magyar is facing criticism for actions that opponents claim run counter to Hungary's constitution and European democratic principles, particularly concerning the protection of public officials' mandates. The article suggests that any pressure or attempt to terminate the terms of public office holders, including the president and constitutional judges, must adhere strictly to the procedures outlined in Hungary's Fundamental Law.

Critics contend that Magyar's rhetoric, which reportedly questions the consensus-based appointment of the head of state, operates in a state of "blissful ignorance." They point to international precedents, such as opinions from the Venice Commission and European Court of Human Rights rulings in cases like Baka v. Hungary, which safeguard the independence of public officials against political pressure. Undermining these institutions, the article argues, could violate Article Q of the Fundamental Law concerning international cooperation and European rule of law standards.

The article further challenges Magyar's reliance on public opinion polls and claims of widespread support, stating that such backing cannot legitimize actions outside the constitutional framework. It draws a parallel to Austria's 1938 referendum on the Anschluss, highlighting how majority will cannot justify the dismantling of the rule of law or the persecution of minorities. Citing Article I, Paragraph 3 of the Fundamental Law, it emphasizes that restrictions on fundamental rights must be legally prescribed, necessary, and proportionate, conditions that intimidating political minorities allegedly fails to meet.

Experts consulted by Tűzfalcsoport advise that the eight public officials should not resign voluntarily but should engage in legal battles both domestically and internationally. The article concludes that if Magyar's true objective is institutional dismantling leading toward a one-party system, it could erode his movement's legitimacy. Protecting democracy, it asserts, requires the consistent application of legal tools against overreach, regardless of whether it originates from the majority or a minority.