Politicians decry 'authoritarianism' as president removed

Hungarian politicians are voicing strong criticism following the removal of President Tamás Sulyok, with some likening the current political climate to "open authoritarianism" and the spirit of former communist leader Mátyás Rákosi.

“

Hungary deserves more than for the lust for power to override respect, law, and national unity.

Pócs János, a representative, expressed disbelief that such tactics would return to Hungary 36 years after the fall of communism. He argued that a government which uses laws to obstruct political opponents and amends the constitution out of sheer arrogance to dismiss the president is unfit to lead the country. He reported receiving numerous distressed messages from both within Hungary and from Hungarians living abroad.

“

36 years after the change of regime, I never thought that open authoritarianism would return to Hungary. The spirit of Rákosi lives among us again!

One particularly concerning message cited by János highlighted a Hungarian from Transylvania considering renouncing his citizenship due to the "aggression" of Peter Magyar and the Tisza party, stating he would "rather be Romanian." This sentiment underscores the deep divisions and anxieties within the Hungarian diaspora.

“

When a Transylvanian Hungarian thinks about returning his Hungarian citizenship because of the aggression of Péter Magyar and Tisza, and says: 'I'd rather be Romanian' – there is a very serious problem!

Constitutional lawyer Béla Pokol suggested that if President Sulyok had sent the 17th amendment to the Constitutional Court for review instead of signing it, it would not have taken effect immediately. This delay, Pokol argued, would have allowed Sulyok and four removed Constitutional Court judges to remain in office until September 1. Consequently, the current composition of the court would have ruled on the 16th amendment, already submitted by 52 Fidesz representatives. While acknowledging that even then, resistance might have been minimal, Pokol believed there would still have been a chance for some opposition. He noted that his previously raised objection of absurdity could have succeeded in a five-judge panel, potentially sending the 17th amendment back for revision by the House's two-thirds majority.

“

If the head of state had sent the 17th amendment to the AB [Constitutional Court] for control instead of signing it, it would not have entered into force for a few more weeks, and thus not only he, but also the four removed AB judges, including the AB president, would have remained in office until September 1.