Two and a Half Years of Parliament

Teljes szövegű keresés

Two and a Half Years of Parliament
Although the coalition led by Fidesz Hungarian Civic Party, which won the 1998 elections, was unable to amend any regulation to possibly change the operation of Parliament itself, the activities of Parliament have nevertheless been fundamentally altered. With the definite validation and exercise of its intentions and by overwriting the customary law of the previous two cycles, the small majority of the government generally adopted new methods. For instance when it achieved that Parliament should hold its plenary sessions every three weeks (and thereby the opposition could put in a word on political issues less frequently), or when it prevented the establishment of the investigating committees initiated by the opposition.
The current government led by Fidesz is powerless to modify the statutory background of Parliament’s operation, primarily stipulated in the Constitution and in the Rules of Procedure, since owing to its inconsiderable majority, it has little chance of correcting any rules whose amendment is subject to a two-thirds majority. Recognizing this fact at the very first moment, the largest government party began to search the regulatory gaps immediately after its accession to power in the summer of 1998 and simultaneously it set to pushing the limits. In general, its coalition partners FKGP (Smallholders’ Party) and MDF (Hungarian Democratic Forum) embraced it in spite of some internal debates on certain issues.
The ‘couple’ comprised of MSZP (the Hungarian Socialist Party) and SZDSZ (the Alliance of Free Democrats), partly limiting its very operation owing to its over two-thirds majority - enjoyed in the previous cycle but now relegated to the opposition - first experienced the clear intentions of the coalition during the assignment of seats to the standing committees of Parliament. The efforts already distinguishable at that time led to transforming the working order of Parliament, formerly holding its sessions every week in the preceding eight years, in consequence of which - except for the periods of sessions on the current budget - the Members should only hold their plenary sessions every third week. The underlying interpretation gained wide grounds for the implementation of the above, which required the establishment of a new standing committee. This was a regulatory committee which, relying on its prior activities, always seemed to interpret the regulations in any significant issues according to the most topical government objectives. Consequently, by overwriting the originally two-thirds Rules of Procedure by a half majority of votes has virtually become and is still becoming a possibility and actual practice.
The new Rules of Procedure were actually adopted in September 1994 and the “constitution” of Parliament would be revised several times over the cycle ending in 1998. Nevertheless, ever since the change of the government, there has been no chance for any amendment, although along with the deletion of certain articles, the Constitutional Court called upon the MPs to make the necessary substitutions. Most of the missing articles contained rules that seem to be indispensable for the operation of Parliament. So, for instance and among other things, regulations on the conditions of faction foundation are still missing. Such reasons led to the foundation and - despite any resignations - to the continuing subsistence of a group of MPs forming MIÉP (Hungarian Justice and Life Party), which, in spite of having exceeded the five-percent Parliamentary limit at the elections, could only provide fourteen seats instead of the minimum fifteen stipulated. The lack of this very section also led to two attempts to establish a two-member faction initially with the participation of Sándor Cseh and Lukács Szabó, and later with Attila Szabó in the place of the latter. Several difficulties had to be overcome in order to prevent both initiations, which were achieved after all through fancy legal reasoning.
After all, the past two and a half years were characterized by the general lack of consensus between the government and the opposition, even if there were any exceptions. Examples are when the two parties managed to agree on filling the vacant seats of the Constitutional Court judges with expiring mandates in a relatively short time and when after long-lasting reconciliatory meetings a two-thirds regulation could be adopted on local government incompatibility, about the permission of military troop movements and about organized crime among others.
From the point of view of the parties the replacement of the constitutional judges was for that matter focused on the aspects of political balance, which is sometimes also manifested in the decisions of the renewed body. While the opposition turns to the Constitutional Court in almost every debated question, the answers when already incorporated in the resolutions quite often resemble the Prophecy of Dodona. This is how and why the coalition and the opposition could interpret the decisions about, among others, parliamentary sessions or the rules of faction foundation to their own particular liking. In one of its most important decisions, the Constitutional Court prevented a socially-backed initiative which would have incapacitated the parliament to elect a President of the Republic.
The first keen-edged debate about the session meetings erupted before the local government elections in the autumn of 1998, when the Speaker of Parliament János Áder ordered a two-week break in the sessions. It was actually established prior to this order that the Speaker could as well decide not only about the agenda of the specific day but also about the frequency and date of the sessions without considering the potential contrary opinion of any factions participating in the parliament committee. The concept based on this prevailed after all in early 1999, when a three-week working order was introduced. The consequences of the decision require greater discipline from the government party, since the majority of the coalition had to vote in favor of the agenda submitted without a consensus, in most cases. Nevertheless, in the beginning the opposition had a chance to hamstring the acceptance of the agenda, for instance in May 1999 by obstruction and abstention.
The new operating order pressed the opposition for new reactions. The result was that both MSZP and SZDSZ attempted to initiate question times and extraordinary meetings on several occasions, however, the government parties foiled most of these plans either by their absence or through the revision of the designated agenda or in other cases they diverted the actions to a totally different direction. So far, the coalition parties have prevented the establishment of opposition-initiated investigating committees on every occasion without exception. Whereas seven investigating committees had been established and three committee reports, also approved by Parliament, were drafted in response to 21 initiatives in the previous cycle, no committee established by MSZP or SZDSZ commenced its actual activity from the summer of 1998. Even so, the government parties also believe that the institution is viable, as committees were effectively established for issues of observation, oil adulteration and recently the investigation of the property growth of certain Members of Parliament. The former two already completed their work under equally scandalous conditions.
While the government party’s avowed intention was also to reduce the weight of the political debates in Parliament - less time to spend on speeches off the agenda - most of the scandalous issues which started outside the walls of Parliament led to decisions by the House and to debates preceding them. The latest example thereof was the house-building issue of the smallholder party’s president József Torgyán, which began in the press and - after a series of speeches before the agenda, as well as prompt questions and interpellations - was later continued by an attempt to amend the act and establish an investigating committee. The changes exercised the least influence on the numerically expressible legislative activity of Parliament. Whereas six hundred parliamentary decisions were made in the first two and a half years of the previous cycle, the number of resolutions adopted between the summer of 1998 and the turn of the millennium was 605. Yet we have to admit that the decisions related to international treaties represented a somewhat greater proportion of the actual regulations and the modifications thereof than before. The final result of the working order is that the beginning of the individual sessions is practically exclusively devoted to debates about the bills, whereas the adoption of the bills is mainly concentrated by the end of the “six-month periods”.
With regard to legislation one of the most important innovations of the present government was the attempt to modify the issues that in its opinion were related in a single “package”, which in cases led to the submission of bills such as the one on the operation of the state organization, containing hardly related - or non-related - corrections. The question of the taxation acts provides an extreme example of the “package plan”. Back in 1998, Parliament could still treat the issues of duties, personal income tax, or value added tax individually, whereas in 1999 and ever since, all the changes planned in this subject have been put forward to the MPs in just one bill. Consequently, the debates related to these regulations can only be held in narrow limitations. A likewise major “achievement” of the cabinet is the introduction of the three-year budget guidelines and - in particular - a two-year budget. Accordingly, the cabinet achieved that no debate can be held in Parliament on the subject of the budget all through the run-up period prior to the campaign of 2002, only in relation to the Act on Annual Accounts at the very most.
At the beginning of the cycle the cabinet made several attempts to have the two-thirds acts adopted and amended, however their number was later significantly reduced. The two most memorable attempts are interlinked with the Ministry of Justice. The portfolio led by MDF made a motion concerning the symbolic modification of the constitution (which would actually have transformed the basic act of 1949 to Act I of 2000) and the considerable diminution of the range of issues of any two-thirds provisions stipulated in the constitution, however both fell through. The government could also be characterized by the practice of “stealthy” act amendments, as it tries to amend certain regulations through other acts. An notable example was the amendment of the Act on the State Budget in the final account of the 1999 budget, which was designed to produce the legal background of adopting the two-year budget. It is now evident that the 2002 parliamentary elections will also be held according to the rules of the elective system achieved by the 1989 political meetings. Back in the beginning of the present cycle the parties made an attempt to lay down rules on the establishment of a Parliament working with significantly fewer MPs than today. Although each party publicly judged the adoption of a system which would delegate 200-250 MPs altogether to Parliament versus the present 386 as a necessary step, no agreement could be reached regarding methodology - notwithstanding the repeated attempts to put the topic on the agenda by the committee designated to prepare the elective reform.
Albert Gazda & Erika Tüske

 

 

Arcanum Újságok
Arcanum Újságok

Kíváncsi, mit írtak az újságok erről a temáról az elmúlt 250 évben?

Megnézem

Arcanum logo

Az Arcanum Adatbázis Kiadó Magyarország vezető tartalomszolgáltatója, 1989. január elsején kezdte meg működését. A cég kulturális tartalmak nagy tömegű digitalizálásával, adatbázisokba rendezésével és publikálásával foglalkozik.

Rólunk Kapcsolat Sajtószoba

Languages