Die Obstruktion in der ungarischen Rechtsgeschichte

• Barna Mezey ^[1]
  1. [1] ELTE Law School, Budapest, Hungary
• Localización: Parliaments, estates & representation = Parlements, états & représentation, ISSN-e 1947-248X, ISSN 0260-6755, Vol. 23, Nº. 1, 2003, págs. 97-122
• Idioma: alemán
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Procedural delaying tactics (Obstruktion), including filibustering, have been used by parliamentary minorities overwhelmed by large majorities supporting a government. English in origin, they were widespread in Europe by the turn to the twentieth century as a consequence of liberal interpretations of the right to freedom of speech. Apart from England and the United States, the practice was especially prevalent in Austria and Hungary. Barna Mezey examines this issue in Hungary from 1846 until 1939, reviewing the historical, constitutional and legal aspects of obstructive measures and the steps taken against them within a comparative context. The Hungarian manifestation may be divided into simple obstruction (filibustering for several hours per speaker, days for the whole operation), technical (procedural delays, for which frequent lengthy votes were needed), and violent forms such as shouting and the throwing of objects. Only in the last case did Hungarian Speakers not hesitate to take countermeasures, including summoning the police.

    After the Dual Monarchy was established, the minority in the Hungarian parliament claimed that its blocking actions were justified as the Compromise of 1867 led the government of Austro-Hungary to pursue policies not in the national interest. The Hungarian parliament was divided between those favouring the dynasty's attempt to create a more unified kingdom and those adhering to the principles of 1848. The latter were deprived of the chance of ever achieving office by the powers granted to the monarch in the Compromise. They felt driven to employ delaying tactics in an organized manner from 1872 onwards, when a proposed change in voting criteria would have greatly restricted the franchise. Another major conflict from 1896 was over measures to reduce the influence of the Church on marriage and to widen freedom of religion, including that for the Jews. An attempt to impose more discipline on debates in 1904 led the opposition to destroy all the furnishings of the debating chamber and precipitated the fall of the government. In 1912 the Speaker, acting for the government, used the police to remove the opposition from the chamber and push through a law introducing a two-year term for military service and other army reforms. Legislation at that time also prohibited procedural delaying measures, and in 1928 severe restrictions were placed on filibustering. The author also analyses the debate at the time among legal experts over the validity of these tactics, at the heart of which lay disagreements on the nature and limits of freedom of speech.