Snap Analysis: The Transition Enters the Law

I spent today with the 17th amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law.

I read the text. I followed the parliamentary debate. I watched Péter Magyar’s press conference. The package is large, direct and politically historic.

For the first time, Hungary’s post-Orbán transition has a legal text.

That is significant.

The proposal has two parts. One amends the Fundamental Law. The other creates the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office, known in Hungarian as the Nemzeti Vagyon-visszaszerzési és Védelmi Hivatal. Magyar has given the wider operation a name: Operation Purgatory.

The amendment would end the mandate of the sitting president the day after entry into force. It would require Constitutional Court judges to retire at 70. It would bar anyone who has already served at least 12 years as an MP from standing again for Parliament. It would change how the heads of the National Office for the Judiciary and the Kúria, Hungary’s supreme court, are selected. It would reduce the reach of cardinal laws. It would restore broader Constitutional Court review over budget and tax laws. It would reopen the legal meaning of public money. It would also prepare the ground for a new Constitution.

This is the first serious legal map of the transition.

It identifies the specific offices that anchored the system: the presidency, the Constitutional Court, the prosecution service, the courts and the network of protected institutions built around cardinal laws. It names the legal mechanisms that made those positions difficult to change. And it creates concrete tools for tracing, challenging and recovering public assets that were allegedly diverted through politically connected networks.

The package treats Orbánism as a system embedded in law, personnel, institutions, and money flows. It focuses on the offices, legal mechanisms, and institutional arrangements that, according to its authors, enabled corruption to become entrenched over time.

Magyar’s case is simple and severe. He argues that Orbánism functioned as a political-economic mafia protected by constitutional design. In his account, the system worked through public contracts, EU funds, friendly companies, propaganda ownership, intimidation, captured legal institutions and loyal officeholders.

The argument is most persuasive when it focuses on how the system operated. It describes a state in which laws, appointments, prosecutors, foundations, companies and public money worked together to channel wealth into politically connected networks and shield those networks from scrutiny.

The moral case is just as important. Magyar pointed to children facing winter without proper clothing or shoes, families lacking access to healthy food, stolen public money, pressure on judges, journalists, artists and civil society, and a country made poorer from 2010 to 2026.

That is the real meaning of the corruption argument. Corruption shapes the quality of public services, the resources available to families and the opportunities people can expect in their lives. When public wealth is diverted, the consequences are felt across society, leaving the country less prosperous and less able to meet its citizens’ needs.

The asset-recovery office is the most important institutional innovation in the package.

It is designed to follow the money, challenge suspect transactions and recover assets that Magyar says were diverted through politically protected networks. It would work across cases, registers, asset routes and legal categories.

The office would have one president and four deputies, each elected for a single six-year term. It would report to Parliament. It would draw on prosecutors, police, the National Tax and Customs Administration, auditors, tax experts, IT specialists and analysts.

Its powers appear extensive. It could begin with risk analysis, access registers, site inspections, and the collection of banking data and other records, where legally justified. It could initiate criminal proceedings. It could support civil public-interest claims, including cases involving unjust enrichment and gross disparities in value.

Magyar gave the example of a state purchase involving István Tiborcz, Orbán’s son-in-law and one of the emblematic businessmen of the Fidesz era. If the state paid far above market value in a politically connected transaction, the office could ask a court to annul the contract and seek recovery of the loss.

That is a major shift.

The state would not stop at exposing corruption. It would also seek to recover assets and public funds that were improperly diverted.

The amendment also removes the prosecution service’s exclusive constitutional monopoly over public prosecution. That may become one of the most consequential parts of the package. Hungary’s problem was never only that public wealth moved into protected networks. The institutions responsible for following it often failed to act.

This proposal tries to create another route.

Magyar also told existing authorities, including the police, prosecutors, the State Audit Office, the Government Control Office and the National Tax and Customs Administration, that they should not wait for the new office. His message was blunt: they can work freely.

Operation Purgatory is meant to end that hesitation.

The personnel changes follow the same logic.

President Tamás Sulyok would go quickly. Magyar said Sulyok should no longer be president by around 20 July, with a new president ideally elected before 20 August. If Sulyok refused to sign the amendment, Magyar said a deprivation procedure could be launched, after which the Speaker of Parliament could temporarily exercise presidential powers and sign the text.

This will be one of the loudest political fights. Sulyok is not only an officeholder. He is a symbol of the post-2010 constitutional order. Removing him would send a clear institutional signal: the transition will not leave the highest constitutional offices untouched.

Magyar also raised a larger question about the presidency. He argued that an interim president should have real independence and that Sulyok had failed the duties of the office: embodying national unity, defending the rule of law and democracy, and safeguarding Hungary’s sovereignty.

The new Constitution may revisit how the president is chosen and what powers the office should have. Magyar treated a direct presidential election as a serious possibility. A president elected by millions would have a stronger democratic mandate. That mandate would require meaningful powers, including a more serious veto.

The Constitutional Court would also change quickly.

The draft restores a 70-year age limit for judges. Magyar said this would affect four or five constitutional judges, including Péter Polt, the former chief prosecutor and a long-time Fidesz appointee. A new court president could be in place by September. The court would once again choose its own president from among its members.

The Constitutional Court has been one of the central institutions in Hungary’s post-2010 order. Its composition, leadership and jurisdiction all affect the limits of government power. Restoring broader review over budget and tax laws is equally significant. Those areas were restricted under Fidesz, weakening constitutional control over some of the most politically sensitive parts of government.

The 12-year MP rule is also striking.

Anyone who has already served at least 12 years as an MP would be unable to stand again. Magyar said this is intended to affect the next election. Many figures from the former governing side would be caught by it.

His argument is clear: public office should not become a permanent profession. Politicians should come from ordinary life and return to ordinary life. A political class that stays in power too long becomes closed, insulated, and self-protective.

The judiciary section is more technical, but important.

The presidents of the Kúria and the National Office for the Judiciary would still be elected by Parliament with a two-thirds vote, after judges first choose the shortlist. This gives judges a stronger voice in selecting court leaders.

That is a crucial topic. Court leadership shapes administration, careers, discipline and pressure inside the judiciary. If Hungary is serious about restoring judicial independence, the judiciary’s own members need greater control over their institutions.

The reduction of cardinal laws may prove to be one of the most consequential structural changes in the amendment. Under Fidesz, an unusually wide range of policy areas was placed behind two-thirds voting requirements, allowing decisions made by one governing majority to remain insulated from future electoral outcomes. The amendment would return several of these areas to ordinary legislation, allowing elected governments to govern and for voters to see the practical consequences of their choices at the ballot box.

Fidesz placed too many areas under two-thirds legislation. That meant a future government could win an election and still find large parts of policy locked away from the ordinary majority. The amendment would return several areas to ordinary law.

Magyar argues that this is basic democratic governability. Voters must be able to change policy by changing government. A defeated political order should not continue governing through voting thresholds it wrote for itself.

The public-money clause lies at the heart of the Orbán model.

The draft repeals the current constitutional definition of public funds. The reason is straightforward: the system often moved public assets into complex legal structures, such as foundations, companies, contracts, boards and other friendly legal forms.

The principle should be simple. Public wealth keeps its public character when it passes through those structures.

If that principle is restored, asset recovery becomes more than a slogan. It becomes legally possible to trace wealth across the forms used to distance it from public control.

The amendment also points toward a new Constitution. Magyar said the interim presidency arrangement would remain in place until the current Fundamental Law ceases to have effect, with a maximum term of five years. He suggested a new Constitution could ideally be ready by next summer and approved by referendum.

That is the larger horizon. The 17th Amendment marks an early stage in Hungary’s constitutional transition and lays the groundwork for the broader changes that may follow.

Magyar is actively inviting Hungarians to read the amendment and submit their opinions, criticisms, and suggestions. He has already said that many thousands of people have written with comments and proposals.

Constitutional politics in Hungary has largely been driven from above. Governments rewrote rules, reshaped institutions, extended mandates, and reallocated public assets, while citizens were left to react to decisions already made.

This time, citizens can read the text and respond.

That does not make the process perfect. It does make it politically meaningful. The significance lies in the scale of the proposal. Hungarians are being invited to weigh in on changes that would remove a sitting president, reshape the Constitutional Court, alter judicial governance, limit the tenure of long-serving politicians, redefine public money, create a powerful asset-recovery authority, and prepare the ground for an entirely new Constitution. Public consultation on a package of this magnitude is not routine politics.

It is participation in the redesign of the state itself.

This invitation is significant because the amendment reaches into the deepest parts of political life, shaping who may hold office, how courts are led, how public money is defined, how stolen assets may be recovered, how presidents are removed and how future constitutions are made.

For the first time, the post-Orbán transition is being translated into concrete law, with clear proposals, named institutions and a public invitation for Hungarians to take part in shaping what comes next.

There will be debate, and there should be. The government is putting its plans on the table and asking citizens to respond before the process moves forward. That is a positive sign of transparency and democratic participation.

I will be submitting my comments and thoughts. I encourage other Hungarians to do the same.

The transition has entered the law. Now, we Hungarians have the chance to help write the next chapter together.

---

Source: Draft text of Hungary’s 17th amendment to the Fundamental Law and Péter Magyar’s press conference on 22, June 2026.

---