Peter Magyar’s government is moving rapidly toward far-reaching changes to Hungary’s Constitution, thanks to the two-thirds majority it holds in parliament. However, the confrontation with the old power network has also sparked debate over respect for the rule of law.
Viktor Orban had believed he was prepared for the possibility of losing power. For years, his cabinet had placed loyalists in a range of key state and administrative positions, while making their removal conditional on a two-thirds vote in parliament. In this way, Orban sought to give certain institutions a permanent existence. The idea was to obstruct any subsequent government as much as possible in its work, while preserving his influence behind the scenes even without serving as prime minister.
Të lidhura
None found
What the autocrat, ousted on April 12, had not anticipated was the crushing defeat of his Fidesz party, the Alliance of Young Democrats, and the opposition Tisza party’s historic victory with two-thirds of the seats. Tisza stands for Respect and Freedom. The new prime minister, Peter Magyar, and his parliamentary group are making extensive use of this majority to rapidly dismantle the structure built by Orban. Magyar has named the process “Operation Purgatory.”
The main step in this operation was taken on Monday, July 13, 2026, just two months after the new government came to power. That evening, the Hungarian parliament approved a broad package of constitutional amendments, presented by Magyar and his cabinet at the end of June.
The changes provide for the removal from office of several prominent figures in Orban’s system, including President Tamas Sulyok and four Constitutional Court judges. During the campaign, Peter Magyar repeatedly described Sulyok, Constitutional Court President Peter Polt and others as “Orban’s puppets,” promising to secure their dismissal.
At the same time, the package seeks to undo some of the most serious violations of the rule of law ordered by Orban. The Constitutional Court will regain its original powers, while the independence of the justice system will be strengthened overall. The number of laws that can only be amended by a two-thirds majority will also be reduced. An agency will also be established to recover illegally acquired assets. Meanwhile, members of parliament will be able to serve for no more than three legislative terms.
How far is it permissible to go?
Since Orban came to power in 2010, there has been intense debate in the European Union over whether populist and autocratic regimes can be dismantled and whether democracy can be restored. The debate also concerns the limits of action: how far is it permissible, or necessary, to go in order to eliminate injustices?
After two months in government, it is clear that Peter Magyar’s cabinet is not showing restraint. It is rapidly demonstrating how action can be taken, since, unlike Donald Tusk’s government in Poland, it has the necessary parliamentary majority. Within Tisza, as well as among a large part of Hungarian society, there appears to be political will for a fundamental confrontation with Orban’s regime.
The atmosphere resembles that in several Central and Southeastern European countries during the year of change in 1989. In Hungary, there is frequent talk of a “system change.” This is seen as understandable, since Orban and his inner circle had ruled for 16 years with a self-confidence and arbitrariness that, for many Hungarians, ultimately became increasingly unbearable. In such a context, the deep dismantling of Orban’s state is perceived differently than it would be under normal circumstances.
On Monday, Peter Magyar rejected all reservations regarding the constitutional amendments. According to him, it would be “a betrayal of the Hungarian nation if we did not touch the current Constitution,” because it constitutes “the basic document of Cosa Nostra,” the mafia system built by Orban’s Fidesz and its allied small Christian Democratic People’s Party, KDNP.
Over the past decade and a half, Orban had adapted the Constitution to his own needs, down to details that, according to many constitutional law experts, should not be included in a basic law at all.
Orban Declares the End of Democracy
Fidesz and KDNP boycotted Monday’s parliamentary session and did not take part in the vote. For several days, Orban and other Fidesz figures had warned that the constitutional changes would bring “the end of democracy and the rule of law in Hungary.”
Only a few thousand people joined Fidesz’s call for a protest in Budapest last Thursday, July 9, 2026. This stands in stark contrast to the tens or even hundreds of thousands who had previously attended Fidesz rallies, often compelled to do so by Orban’s state apparatus.
The disintegration of Orban’s camp is continuing rapidly in other respects as well. Shortly before Monday’s vote, Fidesz parliamentary group leader Gergely Gulyas, once regarded as number three in Orban’s power hierarchy, resigned. Gulyas said he was no longer able to lead the group. Viktor Orban himself, who had relinquished his parliamentary mandate following the crushing defeat but was re-elected Fidesz leader several weeks ago, was on his way to the FIFA World Cup in the United States.
Former Prime Minister Out of the Game
For this reason, many observers said the former prime minister had abandoned his party and supporters. “Viktor Orban is pushing himself straight out of the political game,” the Telex portal wrote. Political scientist Gabor Török commented on Facebook: “Orban should not have travelled to the World Cup if he believed that democracy in Hungary had come to an end.” According to Török, what has truly come to an end is rather Orban’s political myth.
At least for the moment, almost no independent observer in Hungary believes that Peter Magyar’s rise to power will pave the way for a second autocracy. However, some legal experts and civil rights organisations have raised concerns over several points in the constitutional amendments, as well as the speed at which they are being adopted.
The Helsinki Committee and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, TASZ, oppose, for example, limiting MPs’ terms to three legislative periods. TASZ has also raised concerns that the constitutional provisions targeting sexual and ethnic minorities have not been changed.
Criticism of the Campaign Against the President
Public opinion remains divided over Magyar’s campaign against the president. Tamas Sulyok is not popular, and he himself had remained stubbornly silent even in the face of the most serious abuses of Orban’s regime. For this reason, many observers consider the demand for his resignation morally legitimate. However, Amnesty International Hungary, among others, warns that Magyar should not use the same methods as Orban, such as constitutional amendments drafted specifically against particular individuals.
Sulyok now essentially has two options: he can sign the constitutional changes within five days and, by doing so, formalise his departure from office. If he delays the signature, Peter Magyar’s government may seek to launch impeachment proceedings. In that case, parliamentary speaker Agnes Forsthoffer would automatically assume the president’s duties on an interim basis and could sign the constitutional changes, which would then enter into force.
Peter Magyar warned that the amendments now adopted, another campaign promise, represent only a temporary but highly necessary step. A detailed debate on an entirely new basic law for Hungary is expected to begin in the autumn.
/DW
