Institution-Building in Hungary [antikvár]

INTRODUCTIONThe birth of Hungary's 'new democracy' was a peaceful, yet complex process. Depending on one's perspective, the period of gestation could be seen as being either as long as the nation's centuries-long struggle for freedom and independence, or as less than a year (June 1989-April 1990). It took roughly ten months for the outgoing and the incoming political elites to deliver the packaged product: the National Roundtable Agreement (NRTA), a revised constitution, and free parliamentary elections. Although the NRTA was subsequently amended by political pacts, the essential elements of the new institutional architecture were in place before the formal launching of parliamentary democracy in May 1990.The purpose of this paper is to rethink and reflect, from the vantage point of the 'historical institutional' approach to the study of political change and institution building, on the regional context, national pohtical dynamics, key accomplishments, and institutional outcomes of the NRT process and subsequent political agreements of 1989-1990. This objective is justified by three propositions. First, that the substantive legal and institutional products of these founding events, though intended as improvised solutions to current policy dilemmas, have, by the late 1990s, become core elements of the nation's new political architecture. Secondly, that unbeknownst to the elite negotiators and pact makers of 1989-1990 the long-term outcome of their agreements, unwritten understandings, and personal expectations laid the foundations of a newRudolf L. Tőkés is Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA. His books include: ]iéla Kan and the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 (1967); Dissent in the USSR (1974); Eurocommunism and Détente (1977); Opposition in Eastern Europe (1979); Hungary's Negotiated Revolution (1996) [in Hungarian: A kialkudott forradalom (1998)].Note: Parts of this study were written during my tenure as Fellow of Collegium Budapest, Institute for Advanced Study, in 1998-1999. I should like to take this opportunity to express my tlianks to Professor János Kornai for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this study, as well as to Professor Gábor Klaniczay, Rector of Collegium Budapest and Fred Girod, the Collegium's Secretary, for their generous support of my work at the Collegium.1