The European Union and the NATO have faced the democracy development problem for one of their member states. This issue is hampered to solve by null legal or negotiated schemes within the organizations, as well as by risks the crisis could be used by the enemies from without.
On Monday, March 29, Hungarian Parliament granted Prime Minister Viktor Orbán the power to rule by decree indefinitely. Opposition parties tried to set a time limit on those powers, but Orbán’s ruling Fidesz party pushed through his motion without restriction.
The measure’s putative rationale was to strengthen the government’s hand in fighting the coronavirus, which has infected 447 Hungarians and killed 15. But Orbán can cite the law to justify any measure on any subject. In 2015 he declared a state of emergency to stave off the flow of refugees entering his country, and those emergency powers—which included shutting down media outlets critical of his policies—are still in force.
All of these steps violate the tenets of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. As the charter puts it, the whole point of the European Union was to build “a peaceful future based on common values,” including “freedom, equality,” as well as “the principles of democracy and the rule of law.” This includes the freedom “to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.”
Orbán’s steps violate the precepts of NATO. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is principally a security alliance, originally joining the United States and the Western European powers to deter and fend off an attack by the Soviet Union. However, Article 2 of the 1949 Washington Treaty—which created NATO—states that the members “will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions.”
Moreover, the treaty’s Membership Action Plan—signed in 1999, as several central and Eastern European countries (including Hungary) petitioned to join NATO—stated the point much more firmly and set forth some rules, which Orbán is now breaking.
“Future members,” the document stated, “must conform to basic principles embodied in the Washington Treaty such as democracy [and] individual liberty.” Aspirants, it added, “would also be expected … to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law and human rights.”
Orbán is violating these principles and expectations.
In such a way, Hungary has set a unique precedent. It was previously thought that the country that had joined the EU and the NATO met the democracy standards. The possibility that this country would lean toward the autocracy or dictatorship was not considered as a probable scenario, thereafter neither EU not NATO had schemes to counteract or block such processes at their disposal. Orbán’s behavior pattern might be borrowed by the right political groups in Europe that hold affection for Russia’s autocracy and are backed by Moscow in every possible way. The options to impose sanctions against Budapest are being discussed in Brussels but such measures are likely to stir the Orbán’s government into blackmail, blocking the work and threats to withdraw out of the organization. Orbán’s partners in Moscow would prod Budapest to make such actions, thus deepening the EU crisis and augmenting Alliance’s problems.
