
How a democracy was hacked in Hungary - 3am
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/
======
zalew
_Fidesz, got 53% of the vote. This translated into 68% of the seats in the
parliament under Hungary’s current disproportionate election law_

in case anyone is curious, it's not actually a Hungarian thing
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method>

~~~
sakai
Interesting, though picking on that one sentence sort of misses the point --
via long-term political appointments, supermajority requirements,
constitutional reforms, and a host of other measures, Fidesz has critically
wounded the ability of any political opposition to complete _within the
system._

~~~
winestock
I am curious as to whether anyone saw this vulnerability ahead of time. Fidesz
has essentially hacked the Hungarian constitution. Did anyone see this coming?

More fundamentally, would it have mattered if anyone had? A modern
constitution needs to be written down. A democratic process must be agreed
upon by all participants. By virtue of that, this set of political procedures
is vulnerable to hacking. The hacker (or cracker, take your pick) can cycle
through different attacks more quickly than the procedures can be hardened
against them.

------
stoolpigeon
And how did Fidesz get that 53%? The answer to that question tells so much.
What would happen in a country like the US if a tape were leaked of Obama
talking about "Lying day and night" just to win elections.

Drive around anywhere in Hungary and notice how many cars have "Big Hungary"
stickers on the back. The history here is long and people remember. Brittain
and France kicked the crap out of the Magyars with Trianon and the
repercussions of that decision echo into today. They play rap songs on MR2
about it. Should anyone be surprised?

------
balsam
Greg Wilson cited a "Barnes and Phillips 2002" study saying that true power is
always concentrated in shadow committees. @1:00:40 <http://vimeo.com/9270320>
Anybody has a link to the paper?

------
winestock
So the Fidesz party of Hungary has passed changes to the Hungarian
constitution that will solidify their power even in the face of future
electoral defeats. They have done all of this above the table, using the
procedures and process of the current constitution. If this is okay, then it
means that limitations on democracy are legitimate.

If this is not okay, then such power-solidifying measures must be disallowed,
_even if they are passed above the table using democratically agreed-upon
processes and procedures._ Therefore, limitations on democracy are legitimate.

What Krugman and his friend object to, then, is not the limitation of
democracy, but who is doing the limiting. Note that they have no trouble
contemplating that the Jobbik party could be outlawed by these new laws, but
they are crestfallen that this could happen to the Socialists.

Quote: "According to a proposed constitutional amendment, the crimes of the
former communist party will be listed in the constitution and the statute of
limitations for prosecuting crimes committed during the communist period will
be lifted. The former communist party is branded a criminal organization and
the current opposition Socialist Party is designated as their legal successor.
It is still unclear, legally speaking, what this amendment means. But it is
probably not good for the major opposition party."

So the Reds may finally face justice for running the secret police, the
concentration camps, the brainwashing, and other forms of oppression?
Democracy or no democracy, that's payback.

~~~
po
I think you're taking a lot out of context to make a point that I'm not sure I
understand.

First, the democratic constitution allows an amending process so naturally it
makes sense that you can repeal it. Transitioning from a democracy with checks
and balances to an authoritarian one-party system is 'legitimate' if you want
to use that term. The end result is _not_ a democracy.

Secondly, don't let your apparent dislike of Krugman cloud your reading of
this.

 _Under laws that preceded Fidesz’s election last year, political parties that
are anti-constitutional may be banned. Some have suggested that Fidesz could
eliminate Jobbik in this way. In fact, Europe probably would not mind if
Jobbik were excluded from public life because other European countries can ban
extremist parties also. But what about Fidesz’s primary competition – the
Socialists?_

Scheppele's concern with this is not that socialists will get punished, but
that the only two viable parties will be eliminated.

 _Democracy or no democracy, that's payback._

This statement is so ridiculous I don't know if you mean it seriously or not.
Do you mean to say that you would rather have no democracy with revenge than a
functioning democracy with unpunished crimes from the past? The laws of a
country are not where you go to get 'payback' against people you don't like.
You take it to the courts... if you have any left.

~~~
zalew
>This statement is so ridiculous I don't know if you mean it seriously or not.

he probably did, I only don't know if it's lack of knowledge or personal
political views.

I'm not an expert in Hungarian politics, but at least there is common stuff
that we 'neighbors' share and happen to understand these situations a bit
better than someone on the other side of the ocean. Our second major political
party here in Poland are fans of Fidesz agenda, who said that wants Warsaw to
be like Budapest. Well, luckily for the moment our nation spoke (during recent
elections) that we certainly don't. Being an eastern block country citizen who
happens not to be a right wing lunatic, one will probably understand that even
post-communist nations need a strong left wing, even if only just to remain
sane. This 'payback' stuff is mainly a far-right-wing agenda all around the
region, european politics are not a cold war movie and the world is not black
and white.

