Populism is a nebulous concept that has almost as many definitions as scholars engaging with the concept that has a paradoxical relationship with law. On the one hand, populist politicians generally oppose the liberal ideal of separating politics and law, i.e. accepting that legal rules should limit political power, claiming that it would impede the expression of the popular will, yet they use legal regulation as their most important instrument to implement their policies. The chameleonic nature of populism and its instrumentalist approach to law presents a special challenge for lawyers that try to assess its impact on the domestic legal system. Populist legislation, after all, is seemingly indistinguishable from legislation adopted under non-populist regimes as populist regimes always claim to strictly adhere to formal procedural requirements and often justify the dramatic overhaul of previous rules invoking foreign examples. Hungary is a perfect litmus test for the examination of legal changes under populist leaders, because in 2010 the right-wing Fidesz-Kdnp party coalition won two-thirds majority in Parliament – a self-described “revolution in the voting booths” -, which gave it the power to completely overhaul the Hungarian legal system, even changing the constitution. In the past 10 years, virtually every significant branch of Hungarian law was recodified, adopting inter alia new criminal, civil, administrative and labor codes. The authors of this special issue attempted to analyze some of the most pertinent changes, in the field of constitutional law, adjudication, tax law, labor law, criminal regulation and asylum legislation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract