Yet another Freedom House report has been released that is based on a number of incorrect arguments. It is proof of the fact that the Washington-based organisation measures democracies in Central- and Eastern-Europe with double standards. The report reveals that the organisation shows not the slightest sign of empathy or understanding towards the region, and specifically Hungary, that left communism behind twenty years ago but is still in need of a number of changes and reforms on account of the deficiencies of the inherited constitutional system.

Reforms have been launched in a number of areas in Hungary and changes have begun; the elementary demand of Hungarian society for change was amply testified to by the results of the 2010 democratic elections. A strong government and a two-third parliamentary majority came into being as a result of these democratic elections and not in consequence of the construction of some „superpower”. Thanks to this majority, Hungary today has one of Europe’s most stable and most predictable political leaderships.

We wish to remind Freedom House that Hungary was the only country in Central-Europe that was unable to create a new fundamental law since the change of regime; the rest of the former socialist countries managed this feat in the nineties (mostly at the beginning of the nineties), Poland being the last in 1997. Our country had a Stalinist-type, transitional constitution dating from 1949.

We likewise must make mention of the fact that the report contains a number of arguments that reveal that the authors are far from being thoroughly familiar with Hungarian internal political events and the statutory environment. FH claims, for instance, that the Constitution was passed without extensive consultation; by contrast, the truth is that the passage of the new fundamental law was preceded by a series of national consultations and extensive parliamentary preparations.

FH claims incorrectly that right-wing paramilitary organisations have gained in significance; by contrast, the truth is that the Government has curbed and prohibited their existence. FH claims incorrectly that there is some kind of decline in the electoral process. By contrast, the truth is that the new election law remedied a constitutional omission known to all parties concerned for a number of years by re-drawing the country’s constituencies in accordance with the earlier recommendations of the Constitutional Court. The election system has changed, indeed; instead of the current 2 rounds, there will only be a single round in the future. The essence of the single-round system is that the mandate goes to the candidate who obtains the most votes in the given constituency. This is not at all unusual in the European electoral systems; furthermore, most electoral systems outside Europe are single-round. However, the result of the elections as at any time is determined by the electorate at the end of the day, whether the elections are single-round or are held in two rounds.

It is also unacceptable that the organisation identifies the franchise granted to Hungarians beyond the borders as the reason for the decline, while there are similar arrangements in a number of other western democracies, and the franchise is a civic right that is inseparable from citizenship. By granting the franchise to Hungarians beyond the borders, Hungary finally eliminates a discriminatory situation that has existed for too long as almost all EU Member States allow their citizens living beyond their borders to cast their votes in parliamentary elections.

As regards the remarks concerning the freedom of the media, which we are by now only too familiar with, we wish to repeatedly draw attention merely to the facts. The freedom of the press, speech and opinion is guaranteed by the Hungarian Constitution as well as by Hungary’s media constitution and media law. Neither the Hungarian Government, nor any other political or civil organisation has the right or the scope to interfere with the day-to-day activities of the electronic or conventional media and editorial boards. The printed and electronic press is supervised in Hungary by autonomous professional organisations based on an agreement entered into with the authorities. As regards the supervision of television channels and radio stations, similar to the European practice, these are monitored by an autonomous state administration agency that is independent of the Government, the Media Council of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority, within the boundaries of the Constitution and the legal rules on media administration. All decisions of the Media Council may be appealed against before the independent Hungarian courts.

In the context of the evaluation of Hungary’s anti-corruption measures, we wish to draw the attention of FH to the fact that there is an anti-corruption programme in place and, in actual fact, the Government has done much more than merely create a programme. See the Government’s anti-corruption measures.

The administration of justice is independent in Hungary; furthermore, thanks to the judicial reform, courts will be able to operate much more effectively and will, in consequence, be able to restore the faith of Hungarian citizens in the administration of justice. Not a single judge has been removed from office before the end of their mandate; judges have only been released due to the completion of the retirement age, as is customary in the case of all other Hungarian citizens.

We agree that the operation of local governments is jeopardised by financial difficulties. It is regrettable, however, that the reasons for these financial difficulties have been omitted from the report; namely, the accumulation of dramatic debt rates during the previous governments, the bad allocation of responsibilities, the ongoing withdrawal of funds from the system and the lack of reforms.

(kormany.hu)