The Historic Origins of the National Assembly in Hungary
| Autor | Zoltán Szente |
| Cargo | Investigador del Hungarian Institute of Public Administration |
| Páginas | 227-244 |
-
Zoltán Szente: Investigador del Hungarian Institute of Public Administration, Budapest, y del Departamento de Historia del Derecho húngaro en la Facultad de Derecho de la Eötvös Loránd University, de Budapest. Tiene como principales campos de investigación la Historia constitucional europea, la Historia del Derecho parlamentario y, las relaciones entre el gobierno central y local. Es autor o coautor de cinco libros, y más de 50 capítulos de libros y artículos publicados en seis idiomas.
Page 227
-
When faced with the task of defining early legislative assemblies that can be seen as roots of the modern parliaments, we might have at least two different strategies. Firstly, our conceptualization can be based on certain institutional issues, identifying those characteristics which were common features of all legislative chambers as they existed in the time we study, or, as parliaments exist now. On the ground of the features of the modern parliaments, these can be that the legislature
Page 228
- is a corporate body
- having a representative character (at least in limited extent)
- being convened regularly (on schedule), which
- is an institute of the state
- exercising public authority.
-
But why should we use the present definition of parliaments seeking their institutional roots? It is hardly doubted that the power institutions of the state, as they stand today, are the products of the last decades or centuries, so, presumably, the modern legislatures can also be regarded as result of a long development. Supposedly, the representative nature of a deliberative body (whatever function it had), its national character (convening delegates from all regions or parts of the country), or, the place in hierarchy of power institutions can be taken into account as minimum institutional standards of early legislatures.
-
The other way is to define legislative chambers by their functions which are conventionally ascribed to the national parliaments. In doing so, we can refer to what is perhaps the most authoritative definition to date in the field, given by Walter Bagehot in his famous book on The English Constitution, where he noted the primary functions of Britain's House of Commons to be elective, expressive, teaching, informing as well as legislative.1 Public law experts and political thinkers in the 20th century mostly accepted Bagehot's classification in their writings, and drew up similar registers of general parliamentary functions. Some of the most important mentioned, alongside the legislative and elective, include the legitimative function, whereby political views are openly expressed and political wills consolidated, as well as popular representation, integration, and self-government.2 Others have drawn attention to the controlling powers of national assemblies, or have defined certain specifics to groups of tasks - which nevertheless play highly significant roles in their respective domains of public law - as parliamentary functions (e.g. federal powers). According to another, perhaps equally well-established definition, the prime constitutional functions of parliament are legislation and exercising restraint over executive power. In this view, these two main functions constitute the very reason for the existence of parliaments, and all individual powers of legislation can be hence grouped around them.3
Page 229
-
That said, if however, we extend our inquiries further to include the period of the emergence of national assemblies, we soon find that modern definitions of parliamentary functions are hardly suitable for our purposes. As with almost every other constitutional institution of the state, parliaments have evolved over a long period of gradual development until finally reaching their present form where, in line with their intended purposes, they have been incorporated into the system of the overall power of the state. Therefore, to provide a conceptual framework for our topic, we are forced to rely on the so-called "historic national assemblies" for definition. We need a characterization which allows us to examine the entire constitutional development of the assemblies themselves, i.e., one inclusive enough to allow for the interpretation and explanation of institutional and functional alterations in early national assemblies as well.
-
In the following, then, the term "historic national assembly" will be used to mean the existing Hungarian state body which was created and upheld by the historical so-called "thousand-year-old" constitution of Saint Stephen,4 the first king of Hungary. This heritage, although its functions have changed over time, was at all times vested with a specific scope of powers and functions, and had a definite composition. Furthermore, it was (at least to a limited degree) always a representative body, set up and operated according to more or less undeviating rules of procedure, which had a nationwide competence, and was granted powers of consultation and rule-making.
-
Some researchers have traced the roots of the Hungarian institution of national assemblies as far back as the 11th century. This based on documentary evidence that, on certain occasions under the reigns of King László I and King Kálmán "the Book lover", assemblies were held on a national scale where both ecclesiastic and secular dignitaries made appearances. These gatherings, it is claimed, "strongly resembled a genuine national assembly [...] decisions were made here and rules created."5 However, we should be prudent in handling those claims with caution, and in viewing such 11th century assemblages as only the "antecedents" to the Hungarian national assembly. These early forms of Page 230 the 11th and 12th centuries, which demonstrably served as the direct predecessors and perhaps even the preliminary conditions of the institution type defined above, and were the prototypical vehicle of its activities, are best regarded as but the precedents of the institution of national assemblies if we are to adopt the above definition of the "historic national assembly".
-
Early consultative assemblies of a nationwide character were, on the other hand, no longer simply the occasional meetings of the ecclesiastic and secular aristocracy, but were instead assemblies summoned annually - pursuant to the provisions of the Golden Bull of 12226 - to discuss matters of common interest, or the "affairs of the state", and to advise the king on such matters, or even to hand down decisions concerning various issues.7
-
Hungarian legal historians generally hold that the institution of national assemblies evolved from the days of the royal courts. The Golden Bull of 1222 stipulated that nationwide assemblies be held "on the day of our sacred king" in the city of Székesfehérvár, the coronation city of Hungarian kings, in the presence of the supreme ruler. Here the king exercised his prerogative of jurisdiction, which stated that the supreme judicial power rested at all times with the king. On such occasions, royal jurisdiction was not limited strictly to passing judgments in individual cases, for it soon became customary for the king to interpret, and sometimes to confirm, various laws of his kingdom at these court days.8Since court days also offered an opportunity for those present to state their grievances to the king, we may regard them as one of the tools whereby control was exercised over the power of the king.
-
Still, the assemblies that gathered on the court days held at Székesfehérvár originally had no legislative functions. Their powers were merely that of jurisdiction, or the administration of justice, and the first documents evidencing their rule-making competences date from as late as the end of the 13th century.
Page 231
-
After that point in time, we find numerous pieces of evidence for the continuous existence of a national consultative body, since the role of the national assembly is mentioned in several royal decrees. Thus for example, a decree from 1231, and another one from 1290,9 stipulates that the king's officials must render an account of their activities before the national assembly.10 Another decree worth mentioning is that of King Endre (Andrew) III from 1298, which entitled the national assembly to appoint two of the royal counselors. Such decrees show that the functions of national assemblies were continuously extended beyond that of the administration of justice, to cover various "modern" parliamentary activities, including first of all certain functions of controlling and calling to account related to the system of government, as well as some functions concerning the appointment of officials. In these respects, the Hungarian history of public law shows a pattern of development quite similar to the emergence of Western European parliamentary assemblies. Despite the fact that, in some Western European countries, the institution of the parliament evolved during the 12th to the 14th centuries simply as a body of representation for the estates, the national assemblies of such Western countries resembled that of Hungary, inasmuch as they could also trace their origins back beyond the emergence of a feudal state organization. This is evidenced by the fact that in many countries, consultative bodies similar to the one in Hungary were set up beside the Curia Regis (or, alternatively, the Curia Regis was itself transformed into a consultative body...
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba