Last week in Brussels European Union ministers of 17 member states decided to apply Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) by initiating a hearing to sanction Hungary for serious violations of the EU founding values—the safeguarding of democracy and fundamental rights, including those of persons belonging to minorities. If finalized, Hungary’s EU membership rights, such as that of voting in the Council of the EU and the European Council, can be suspended.
Of the accusations raised against Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government are targeting foreign-funded media and NGOs and, most notably, its recent constitutional amendment that allows the government to ban public events organized by LGBTQ+ protagonists, equating such prohibitions to fascism.
‘We are highly alarmed by these developments which run contrary to the fundamental values and human dignity, freedom, equality, and respect for human rights, as laid down in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union,’ the declaration said.
This is not the first time Mr. Orbán has been accused by the EU of disregarding the rule of law. Just last year, the European Commission initiated disciplinary proceedings over legislation concerning interactions between foreigners and Hungarian citizens. While not minimizing the seriousness of these allegations, such conflicts are often part and parcel of political life. Nevertheless, this raises important questions about Hungary’s—and, indeed, any member state’s—sovereignty within the framework of the European Union.
Sovereignty is the capacity of a regent to achieve an end or to assert his or her will, that is, the exercise of supreme authority over the land and subjects to which there is no other higher authority. Under this understanding, it is a freedom in which the nation state cannot be coerced to do what others want to do. In other words, when a country is recognized as an independent and sovereign state, it can create its own laws and political infrastructure, having the authority to develop education and health-care systems, and religious and social norms.
‘When a country is recognized as an independent and sovereign state, it can create its own laws and political infrastructure’
Self-governance within the EU, given the interdependence between the member states on issues of national security and economic cooperation, or lack thereof, is complex. And the fact that there is absolutely no agreement on first principles, i.e., socio-cultural issues, like those that touch LGTBQ+ agenda, sovereignty becomes more intricate, if not complicated. In such cases, it ceases to be uniform, by that enticing certain aptitudes that are ipso facto posited unto the supranational level, thus creating a divisible sovereignty.
The alternative to divisible (or shared) sovereignty with the EU is its rejection on the part of right-wing nationalists. Characterized as Europhobic populists, they accuse the EU of depriving their state’s prerogative to rule. Subsequently, they appeal to its respective populace to regain national sovereignty. The classic example of this was seen when British conservatives developed the slogan ‘Take Back Control’, which eventually led to Brexit, the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU—there was also ‘Lexit’ that was championed by the left, which emphasized socio-economic goals as a reason for the UK to leave the EU.
The peril of such an appeal—namely, that regaining national sovereignty requires the uncontested, absolute exercise of power over a state’s citizenry—is significant. All things being equal, as seen with the election of Donald Trump to a second term, those who are legally under the jurisdiction of the state are almost willing to forfeit their rights and freedoms under a liberal democracy for a social contract as envisioned by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes.
The state, objectively speaking, is a divinely ordained entity that is to promote, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, the common good of society. At times this requires that rulers not just punish the evildoers but refine the righteous, as seen with the aforementioned Hungarian constitutional amendment to protect children or Mr. Trump’s executive order that recognizes only two biological sexes: male and female—I personally find it surreal, as evident by the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, that this could ever be contested, let alone be redefined by the left.
‘Any attempt by the EU to censure or penalize Hungary’s policymaking simply for referencing its Christian roots…constitutes a direct violation of national sovereignty’
The fact that Hungary, as stated in the preamble of its Constitution, ‘recognize[s] the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood,’ means that any attempt by the EU to censure or penalize Hungary’s policymaking simply for referencing its Christian roots—particularly in relation to socio-cultural legislation—constitutes a direct violation of national sovereignty.
As St. Augustine of Hippo explains, the State is meant to serve as a remedy for the effects of the Fall, maintaining such a modicum of peace and order as is possible for fallen man to enjoy in this world. This stands in stark contrast to the actions of supranational entities like the EU—or the United Nations through its soft law—which increasingly coerce individuals to act against their moral conscience and punish those who refuse to conform.
When countries collectively decide to form a permanent institutional body where divisible sovereignty is the norm, like the EU, it attenuates the ability of those states to make decisions regarding the governance of their own economies and other associated policies. In essence, Hungary must realize that so long as it is a member state of the EU, it delegates certain decision-making to it. And, in the process, it does not necessarily lose sovereignty, it simply does not retain it.
Related articles:
