Hungarian Judges’ Attitudes Towards the “Illiberal State”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62355/ejels.26458Keywords:
judicial independence, democratic backsliding, illiberal democracy, Hungary, survey of judgesAbstract
The goal of this paper is to explore the attitudes of Hungarian judges towards the “illiberal democracy” project of Victor Orban - twelve years into its development. To this end, 778 anonymous responses of Hungarian judges to the 2022 ENCJ Survey of Judges have been analyzed to classify judges in terms of their attitude towards Orban cabinet. As survey lacked any explicit politics- or ideology-related questions, the perceived “respect” towards judges’ independence as paid by (i) the government and (ii) the Council for the Judiciary (opposing the government of judicial independence grounds) were applied. It turns out that over one third of the judges declared “respected” by both selected institutions (group dubbed “Sanguine” Judges). Another 30% of judges declared feeling “respected” by the Council and “disrespected” by the government (group dubbed “liberals”) while one in twelve judges declared the opposite (group dubbed “illiberals”). Similarities (demographics) and differences (self-assessed independence, irregularities in the case allocation, enforcement of judgments unfavorable to the government, EU membership impact on independence, disciplinary proceedings) between the groups were examined. Paper points to the frequently overlooked aspect of illiberal assaults on judicial institutions: the problem of insider cooperation — or “illiberals within” the judicial branch.References
Bailey, Michael. 2017. “Measuring Ideology on the Courts.” In Routledge Handbook of Judicial Behavior, edited by R. Howard, K. Randazzo, London, New York, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315691527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315691527-5
Bencze, Mátyás. 2021. “Judicial Populism and the Weberian Judge—The Strength of Judicial Resistance Against Governmental Influence in Hungary.” German Law Journal 22, no. 7 (2021): 1282–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.67
Bojarski, Łukasz. 2021. “Civil Society Organizations for and with the Courts and Judges—Struggle for the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence: The Case of Poland 1976–2020.” German Law Journal 22, no. 7 (2021): 1344–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.72
Cameron, Charles and Kornhauser, Lewis. 2024. “What Do Judges Want? How to Model Judicial Preferences,” Asian Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 167-208. https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2023-0142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2023-0142
Consultative Council Of European Judges. 2022. “Opinion 25 on freedom of expression of judges, CCJE(2022)4.” Accessed March 10, 2025 https://rm.coe.int/opinion-no-25-2022-final/1680a973ef%0A%0A .
Corso, Lucia. 2022. “Anti-Elitism and the Constitution – Some Reflections on Populist Constitutionalism.” In Anti-Constitutional Populism, edited by Martin Krygier, Adam Czarnota, and Wojciech Sadurski, 67–98. Cambridge Studies in Law and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009031103.004
Drolet, Aimee and Morrison, Donald. 2001. “Do We Really Need Multiple-Item Measures in Service Research?” Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050133001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050133001
European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary. 2022. “ENCJ Survey on the Independence of Judges.” Accessed March 10, 2025 https://www.encj.eu/node/620.
Fleck, Zoltan. 2012. “Judicial Independence in Hungary.” In Judicial Independence in Transition, edited by Anja Seibert-Fohr. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_19
Garoupa, Nuno and Ginsburg, Tom. 2011. “Hybrid Judicial Career Structures: Reputation Versus Legal Tradition.” Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 2, Winter 2011, Pages 411–448, https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/lar004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/lar004
Georgakopoulos N Nicholas. 2000. “Discretion in the Career and Recognition Judiciary.” The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8, Accessed March 10, 2025 http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/roundtable/vol7/iss1/8.
Gimbel, Kinsey, and Jocelyn Newsome. 2018. “Using Qualitative Methods in a Quantitative Survey Research Agenda.” In The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Survey Methods, edited by Lonna Rae Atkeson, and R. Michael Alvarez . Oxford Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213299.013.8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190213299.013.8
Gyöngyi, Petra. 2024. “The Role of Judicial Associations in Resisting Rule of Law Backsliding: Hidden Pathways of Protecting Judicial Independence Amidst Rule of Law Decay.” International Journal of Law in Context 20, no. 2 (2024): 166–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552324000107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552324000107
Harris, Allison and Maya Sen. 2019. “Bias and Judging.” Annual Review of Political Science 22: 241-259, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1897. “The Path of the Law, 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897)” In The Canon of American Legal Thought edited by David Kennedy and William W. Fisher, 19-44. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691186429-003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691186429-003
Kim, Yujin. Dykema, Jennifer. Stevenson, John. Black, Penny. and Moberg, Paul. 2019. “Straightlining: Overview of Measurement, Comparison of Indicators, and Effects in Mail–Web Mixed-Mode Surveys.” Social Science Computer Review. 37, 2 (Apr 2019), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317752406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317752406
Kovács, Ágnes. 2022. “Defective Judicial Appointments in Hungary: The Supreme Court is Once Again Embroiled in Scandal.” VerfBlog, 2022/9/27, DOI: 10.17176/20220927-230658-0.
Kovács, Kriszta. Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2018. “The fragility of an independent judiciary: Lessons from Hungary and Poland—and the European Union.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 1 September 2018; 51 (3): 189–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2018.07.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2018.07.005
Kovács, Ágnes. 2023. “Taking Revenge for Dissent: Hungary’s Chief Justice to Fully Eliminate Judicial Autonomy.” VerfBlog, 2023/12/13, DOI: 10.59704/a82592bde1176b48 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59704/a82592bde1176b48
Kurczewski, Jacek. 1971. “The Penal Attitudes and Behaviour of the Professional Judges.” The Polish Sociological Bulletin, 23, 121–129. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44808576, accessed 10 March 2025.
Kreuter, Frauke. 2013. “Introduction.” In Improving Surveys with Paradata: Analytic Uses of Process Information, edited by Frauke Kreuter. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118596869.ch1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118596869
Krzyżanowska, Katarzyna. 2024. “Legal Mobilisation within the Populist Supreme Court in Poland.” International Journal of Law in Context 20, no. 3 (2024): 324–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552324000247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552324000247
Lührmann, Anna. Maerz, Seraphine. Grahn, Sandra. et al. 2020. “Autocratization Surges – Resistance Grows, Democracy Report 2020.” Varieties of Democracy Institute (V-Dem), Accessed March 10, 2025 https://www.v-dem.net/publications/democracy-reports/.
Mak, Elaine. Graaf, Niels. Jackson, Erin. 2018. “The framework for judicial cooperation in the European Union: unpacking the ethical, legal and institutional dimensions of “judicial culture”.” Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 34(1), 24-44, DOI: 10.5334/ujiel.452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.452
Martin, Andrew. and Quinn, Kevin. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10, no. 2: 134–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134
McGuire, Kevin. Vanberg, Georg. Smith Jr, Charles. and Caldeira, Gregory. 2009. “Measuring Policy Content on the U.S. Supreme Court.” The Journal of Politics. 71 str. 1305 - 1321. 10.1017/S0022381609990107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990107
Moliterno, James. and Čuroš, Peter. 2021. “Recent Attacks on Judicial Independence: The Vulgar, the Systemic, and the Insidious.” German Law Journal. 2021;22(7):1159-1191. doi:10.1017/glj.2021.63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.63
Posner, Richard. 1993. “What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does).” Supreme Court Economic Review 3: 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.3.1147064. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.3.1147064
Puleo, Leonardo and Coman. Ramona. 2023. “Explaining judges’ opposition when judicial independence is undermined: insights from Poland, Romania, and Hungary.” Democratization 31 (2023): 47 - 69. DOI: 10.1080/13510347.2023.2255833. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2255833
Roznai, Yaniv. 2022. “Constitutional Transformation: Hungary.” In Constitutionalism in Context, edited by David S. Law. 136–56. Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/9781108699068.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108699068.008
Schenk, Patrick., Reuß, Simone. 2024. “Paradata in Surveys.” In Perspectives on Paradata. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning edited by Isto Huvila, Lisa Andersson, Olle Sköld. Pp.15-43 vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53946-6_2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53946-6_2
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2015. “Understanding Hungary’s Constitutional Revolution.” In Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area Theory, Law and Politics in Hungary and Romania, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Pál Sonnevend. pp. 111–124. London: Hart/Beck. doi:10.5040/9781474202176.ch-003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474202176.ch-003
Segal, Jeffrey. and Cover, Albert. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), str. 557-565, https://doi.org/10.2307/1962405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1962405
Szwed, Marcin. 2023. “Fixing the Problem of Unlawfully Appointed Judges in Poland in the Light of the ECHR.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 15, 353–384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-023-00191-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-023-00191-3
Walker, Nigel. 2022. “Hungary: 2022 general election.” Research Briefing House of Commons Library, Accessed March 10, 2025 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9519/CBP-9519.pdf.
Wood, Dustin. Harms P.D., Lowman, Graham. DeSimone Justin. 2017. “Response speed and response consistency as mutually validating indicators of data quality in online samples.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 454–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703168
Yan, Ting. Tourangeau, Roger. 2008. “Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 22(1): 51-68, https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1331
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Frans van Dijk, Kamil Jonski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
