My post on the election of the four new members of the Hungarian Constitutional Court ended on a pessimistic note. I was of the opinion that all four nominees are legally conservative and thus would strengthen the already overwhelmingly one-dimensional, pro-government character of the court. Since then I read András Schiffer’s lengthy self-justification of his role as the principal architect of the deal that allowed all the positions on the court to be filled. Unfortunately, the article gave me no reason to change my mind.
Schiffer is very proud of his achievement. As opposed to other opposition parties, he said, LMP brokered a deal that is a sensible compromise. In fact, he believes the democratic opposition came out ahead.
Schiffer suggests that with the four new judges the court will be less lopsided. He convinced himself that the selection of constitutional judges prior to 2011, when all parties participated in the selection, was nothing more than political pillage by which each party pitted its own candidate against all others. He broke with this tradition. His candidates, he said, are independent scholars not attached to any party who will judge each case on its merits. It’s hard to imagine that Schiffer actually believes his own propaganda.
Schiffer gave a glowing account of the four new judges. According to him, they are all internationally known scholars. This may be true of Balázs Schanda and Marcel Szabó, but on the basis of my research it is certainly not true of Marosi and I also have my doubts about Attila Horváth, whom I will introduce today.
As I noted earlier, Horváth was Fidesz’s choice. He is, as index.hu pointed out, the only new judge who “is being accused of far-right sympathies.” We wouldn’t know that from Schiffer’s article. Schiffer was a student of Horváth in the early 1990s, and “on the basis of his lectures one would have had difficulty identifying his political views.” As you will see later, however, there are plenty of signs that Horváth leans far to the right. In Schiffer’s version, it was Gergely Gulyás, who represented Fidesz in the negotiations, who pointed out the necessity of having a legal historian on the court. Schiffer accepted his argument. There is no question, says Schiffer, that today Horváth is the “best known legal historian of the socialist period.” I’m sure this is the case because Horváth seems to be the obvious person to consult every time there is a controversial case involving the sins of the communists, be it the Hungarian Soviet Republic or the guilt of Béla Biszku.
One reason for Horváth’s reputation as a man of far-right views was his participation in the Civil Legal Committee, an organization created by Krisztina Morvai of Jobbik to investigate the “police terror” that allegedly took place in the wake of the disturbances in the fall of 2006. Morvai’s extremism defined the tone of the report the Civil Legal Committee published. Six lawyers were involved in writing the report, five of whom are well-known right-wingers, including another Jobbik member, Tamás Gaudi-Nagy. Attila Horváth was also a member of this committee, although his role was restricted to writing a chapter on “the history of the theory and practice of the right of assembly in Hungary until 1989.” But the very fact that he agreed to be part of this group says something about the man.
Since Horváth doesn’t seem to keep his curriculum vitae up to date, I don’t have a complete list of his publications. His early work focused on the reform period of the 1820s. The center of his attention was the modernization of Hungarian legal thinking and the ideas of István Széchenyi. It was only in the 1990s that he left the safety of the pre-1848 period and moved on to the much more politically charged topic of the legal system of the socialist system. Horváth doesn’t confine his activities to legal studies. He also writes short non-legal pieces, for example on the causes of the outbreak of the revolution in 1956.
Horváth usually has strong opinions on controversial issues. Here is one example. In the spring of 2015 a huge controversy broke out over the dictum, coming from the ministry of human resources, about a required name change in Szeged. The Ságvári Gymnasium, one of the best in the country, had to shed its name because Endre Ságvári was not only a communist, he also killed a gendarme on July 27, 1944–that is, after the German occupation of Hungary. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences, at the request of the Orbán government, recommended not naming any public place or institution after him because of his communist past. Given Horváth’s reputation as the legal expert on such matters, Magyar Hírlap asked his opinion on the issue. Horváth said: “Ságvári did nothing significant. Just because he is less of a negative character than, let’s say, Rákosi, it doesn’t mean that he is worthy of having an institution named after him.” In Horváth’s opinion, the resistance of other organizations was much more important than the communists’ struggle against the German invaders.
Horváth can often be seen side by side with total amateur “historians” whose “fame” is due entirely to their political connections. For example, Ildikó Kassai, whose good fortune is due to her friendship with János Lázár. In no time after 2010, her career soared. She became an adviser to Ferenc Papcsák (Fidesz) of Zugló, and after 2014, one of the directors of the Holocaust Memorial Center, where she wreaked havoc. She kept organizing historical conferences, and she gave a lecture on the 1956 revolution that was full of stories I had difficulty believing. At the same conference Attila Horváth told equally dubious stories about the “pesti srácok.” It seems to me that Horváth, for ideological reasons, is ready to travel far from his real expertise, legal history.