{"title":"Courts and Populist Electoral Politics – the Case of Hungary","authors":"János Mécs","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00218-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Elections are devices, through which the abstract concept of representation gains its specified institutional form, therefore they are highly relevant for populists. The paper examines the illiberal-populist project of redesigning the legal framework of elections in Hungary after 2010, focusing on the role of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) in reviewing electoral law as well as interacting with the ordinary courts through electoral adjudication. It is argued that although a distinct ‘populist imagination’ (Müller) of elections is discernible, there is no special populist electoral politics, rather the ‘inherent authoritarianism of democracy’ (Pildes) is exacerbated. In Hungary the electoral legislation was shrewdly tailored to the governmental parties’ needs, and electoral politics is constantly subjected to instrumental changes. It is argued that although apex courts could be key players in checking electoral manipulation, the HCC did not protect effectively the integrity of electoral law, and at a later stage it even intervened in an arbitrary and arguably politically biased manner. The paper argues that the Hungarian example underscores the need for enhanced court activism in terms of electoral law, especially when populists already came to power.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"149 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00218-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Elections are devices, through which the abstract concept of representation gains its specified institutional form, therefore they are highly relevant for populists. The paper examines the illiberal-populist project of redesigning the legal framework of elections in Hungary after 2010, focusing on the role of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (HCC) in reviewing electoral law as well as interacting with the ordinary courts through electoral adjudication. It is argued that although a distinct ‘populist imagination’ (Müller) of elections is discernible, there is no special populist electoral politics, rather the ‘inherent authoritarianism of democracy’ (Pildes) is exacerbated. In Hungary the electoral legislation was shrewdly tailored to the governmental parties’ needs, and electoral politics is constantly subjected to instrumental changes. It is argued that although apex courts could be key players in checking electoral manipulation, the HCC did not protect effectively the integrity of electoral law, and at a later stage it even intervened in an arbitrary and arguably politically biased manner. The paper argues that the Hungarian example underscores the need for enhanced court activism in terms of electoral law, especially when populists already came to power.
期刊介绍:
The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.