What does it actually mean when people warn Israel is ‘turning into Hungary’

T. Belman.  This is a very long article so I extracted the key paragraphs which are enough to give you a clear picture.

By Eldad Beck, ISRAEL HAYOM

Hungary has become in the last few weeks one of a symbol. At the protests against the proposed judicial reforms and on television studios, people have been discussing how Israel is becoming like Hungary and comparing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán. Orbán is presented as an unrestrained political leader who consistently works to destroy Hungary’s democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime, a kind of dictatorship.

Hungary is described as a country whose judicial system’s independence was eliminated through a provision of the constitution adopted under Orbán’s government in 2011. The Opposition has attacked Netanyahu in the past for his good relations with Orbán, who has been accused of antisemitism. The conservative Hungarian government, which has served continuously since 2010, has created many legislative initiatives in different fields – related to law, media, or rights of the LGBT community – and has been greatly criticized by the European Union. Over many years this criticism has strengthened the anti-Orbán movement and many see Hungary under his rule as a country that is entering a dark period. However, is that truly the situation in Hungary and can it even be compared to Israel?

[…]
“My main consideration was the good of the country. After the right won the election in 2010, the Opposition refused to participate in the process of drafting the constitution. The constitution that existed at that point had been adopted under the communist regime in 1949 and amended several times. Some 20 years after the democratic revolution in Hungary, the constitution from a completely different regime was the base of our society and our entire judicial system. Therefore, it is understandable that the right-wing political parties in power made use of the two-thirds majority they had in parliament, which was required in order to make changes to the constitution according to the previous constitution.

“The country needed a completely new social contract as a stable base for Hungary in the 21st century. The new constitution created completely new regulations, even regarding basic spiritual principles, and has provided a modern cohesive structure in a country with 1,000 years of history. The basic law includes clauses that are crucial today, that in addition to the separation of powers, ensure the country is viable.”

Q: Since the constitution was adopted about a decade ago, Hungary has been criticized for losing its democratic nature in favor of an authoritarian regime. Does the claim truly reflect the situation in Hungary?

“There is no authoritarian regime in Hungary. Hungary did not lose its democratic character. That claim is heard from the opposition – they try to hide their weaknesses in Hungary and abroad. The reason that the opposition constantly looks to the neo-liberal community is that they are unable to change their policies to become accepted in Hungarian society. The fact that since 2010 the Fidesz coalition and the Christian Democrats in Hungary and Viktor Orbán succeeded in gaining the support of more than two-thirds of the public and has been consecutively voted in for four election periods, speaks for itself. I will emphasize again: This criticism is simply criticism from a very divided opposition who are unable to speak to the people and regain the public’s trust, so they feel helpless”.

Q: How does the parliament currently influence the judicial system? How are judges appointed here?

“The judicial system carries out its activities based on the legislation of the parliament. The parliament elects the president of the Constitutional Court, the role includes being the highest in the judicial hierarchy as well as the president of the Supreme Court. The other judges are appointed by the President of the Parliament. The judges’ independence is guaranteed in two separate ways. The constitution explicitly states that judges are independent and subject only to the law and it is forbidden for others to dictate how judges perform their role. Judges cannot be members of any political party or be involved in any political activity.”

Q: What is the effect of the Constitutional Court on laws passed in parliament and on government decisions?

“I can quote the relevant constitutional clauses, that discuss the role of the constitutional court as a guarantee for the protection of the constitution. Therefore, it is possible for the constitutional court to discuss laws that have been adopted but have not yet taken effect either at the initiative of a judge or based on a constitutional complaint that can come from the government, members of parliament, the attorney general or the president of the Supreme Court. The regulation also promises that the constitutional court will not only examine the compatibility between new laws and the constitution but also ensures these laws are not in conflict with international treaties.”

[…]
The current confrontation between the European Union and Hungary stems from the bureaucrats in Brussels’ assumption that there is a state of democratic devaluation in Hungary, devaluation of the independence of the courts, and accusations of corruption regarding funds received from the European Union”, Beinert explains, “and I must add a personal element to this: we have a very charismatic prime minister, who has been in office for many years. This is his fifth term in office, and he will not accept large countries in the EU – like Germany and France – patronizing small countries.