Speech by Dr András Baka, President of Hungary, on the occasion of his election

Madam Speaker, Prime Minister, Prosecutor General, Madam Deputy Speaker, Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Honourable Members of the National Assembly, Distinguished Guests, My Fellow Hungarians,

The decision of the National Assembly to elect me as President of Hungary is a great honour, a mark of recognition, and a sign of exceptional trust. Even my nomination came as a surprise to me; it was somewhat unsettling and, at the same time, a great honour. It was unexpected because, after a long professional career, one does not usually seek out new challenges. I accepted the invitation because I believe Hungary has reached a period in its history when serious reflection is needed on the functioning of the state, constitutionality, and our country's unity.

I thank you for your decision, just as I thank all those who, knowing me, my work, or my public statements, have considered me suitable for this role among the many worthy candidates.

With recent years now behind us, the majority of society feels a sense of liberation and hope. Others, however, feel disappointment and uncertainty. These feelings coexist in Hungary today. In a democratic society, this is not an anomaly, but a natural state of affairs. That is precisely why, at the dawn of this new era, we cannot avoid facing up to the past; we must know and understand how we have arrived at this point. This nation has squandered an entire generation's worth of time, falling from being a model pupil of the transition to democracy to one of the countries lagging furthest behind. Over the past two decades or so, Hungary has fallen into a severe crisis affecting the rule of law, society, the economy, public finances, energy supply, water management, environmental protection, and transport alike. The healthcare, education, and child protection sectors have long been in a tragic state. Let us be clear: almost every area that directly shapes our daily lives is in crisis.

In recent times, a significant proportion of our common wealth has been placed at the service of private interests. The system of public procurement, the restructuring of state assets, the concentration of land ownership, and the lack of transparency in the use of public funds raise issues to which a democratic state must provide clear responses. The rule of law functions not only because rules exist, but also because people believe that these rules apply to everyone, without exception. However, the state of our institutions is only one part of the legacy we must confront.

I see the most serious consequence of recent years in the deep divisions within Hungarian society. Budapest has been pitted against the countryside; the young against the old; the religious against the non-religious; the right against the left; conservatives against liberals; minorities against the majority; the rich against the poor; and different social groups have been set against one another. Civil society organisations, journalists, minorities, foreigners, and citizens who think differently have become the targets of hate-mongering political campaigns. We have reached a point where we ascribe not only a different opinion to those who disagree with us, but also a different moral standing. They wanted us to believe that anyone who thinks differently is not simply mistaken, but an enemy. However, this country cannot build a shared future while its citizens view one another as enemies. Therefore, the task before us demands both justice and self-restraint. Violations of the law must be exposed, and the use of public funds must be scrutinised. Where there is a suspicion of a breach of the law, authorities have a duty to take action, while it is for the courts to determine guilt. There is one thing, however, that we certainly cannot do: we cannot build the new Hungary on revenge.

Those who are disappointed today, those who did not want change, need not renounce their faith or their political convictions in order to have an equal place in the Hungary of the future. Political change cannot mean that, from now on, others must live in fear, remain silent, or feel like outsiders in their own country. Of course, responsibility for our current situation is not shared equally. Those who exercised power, those who served the centre of power, and those who remained silent all bear different degrees of responsibility. However, the lessons of this period are not for those who exercised power alone to learn. No one can be exempt from learning these lessons. It is easy to say that others did this to us. But a democracy is not only damaged when someone abuses their power, but also when a society becomes accustomed to the idea that this can happen.

Honourable Members of the National Assembly! My Fellow Hungarians!

The recent period calls for self-examination, but most importantly, it also gives us cause for optimism. Something extraordinary has happened in Hungary. Something that is rare in the life of a nation. The demand for freedom, which for a long time had appeared sporadically and in isolation in the voices of thinkers, journalists, lawyers, civil society organisations, artists, and many others, suddenly resonated widely among the most diverse segments of society. Whereas previously it had been the criticism, protest, or courage of a few individuals, it has now become a broad social consensus. An important factor in this was that it was becoming increasingly difficult to conceal the reality of the situation. Unusually, information, opinions, and experiences that differed from what people had been hearing for a long time finally reached even the smallest villages. Reality ultimately proved stronger than the image that had long been constructed of it. Young people, who are showing an ever-increasing interest in the fate of our country, played a major role in this process. For the future of a democracy does not simply depend on whether the next generation goes out to vote, but also on whether they regard our common affairs as a matter of personal concern, and whether they are willing to ask questions, debate, get involved, and take responsibility.

The recent change has demonstrated that a society is capable of reclaiming its self-determination. The question for the coming years will be what we make of this opportunity. It would be a grave mistake to think that an election result alone can restore the rule of law. Of course, we need a proper constitution, free elections, independent courts, an effective constitutional court, a free press, and accountable government. But alongside all this, a democratic and functioning constitutional culture is also required. A culture in which limits on power are not obstacles, a political opponent is not an enemy, criticism is not treason, and compromise is not a sign of weakness. In this context, the way in which the President of Hungary interprets his own role is also of particular significance.

Allow me, therefore, to speak about the most fundamental constitutional duties of the President of Hungary. The Fundamental Law currently in force states that the President of Hungary embodies the unity of the nation and safeguards the democratic functioning of the state. What does the embodiment of national unity mean to me? First and foremost, it means party-political neutrality, but by no means does it imply a neutrality of values. A modern democratic society is necessarily diverse. Different world views, political convictions, ways of life and interests coexist within it. There may well be deep, and at times irreconcilable, conflicts between them. In representing such a diverse community strained by these conflicts, the President of Hungary must always recognise the legitimacy of differing views and the right of both majority and minority positions to be expressed. It is not his task to create artificial consensus where none actually exists. Rather, it is to represent the fact that citizens holding differing views are equal members of the same nation. For me, therefore, national unity does not mean that we all think the same way. It means that, regardless of our political and ideological differences, we all belong to the same nation with equal dignity and rights. I also consider it crucial that the President of Hungary uphold and strengthen the fundamental values historically rooted in our constitutional order and established over time by the European Union and the Hungarian nation.

The Fundamental Law entrusts the Head of State with a further task: to safeguard the democratic functioning of the state. The significance of this has been made particularly clear by the experiences of recent years. A system has developed in Hungary in which a single party has taken the state and its institutions hostage, culminating, towards the end of that period, in years of governance by decree, largely bypassing Parliament. The state failed to meet one of the most fundamental requirements of a democratic state governed by the rule of law, namely, the effective separation of powers and a functioning system of checks and balances. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that such a system never arises again in Hungary. The President of Hungary can contribute to this by exercising his own constitutional powers consistently, transparently, and independently. He must not sign laws as a mere formality; he must not regard himself as an extension of the current parliamentary majority or the government; and he must not remain silent when fundamental issues of constitutional functioning are at stake. At the same time, a genuine safeguard can be provided by a constitutional order that clearly defines the limits of the exercise of public power. It safeguards fundamental rights and creates an institutional balance that no single political majority can reshape to suit its own interests.

Honourable Members of the National Assembly, My Fellow Hungarians,

I must also speak about the constitutional issues before us. The stability of a constitution is ensured, above all, by the fact that a broad segment of society regards it as its own. If we once again draw up the constitution solely as the constitution of the current majority, we shall be repeating the very mistake whose consequences we are now trying to rectify.
For this reason, too, the process of drafting it must necessarily be more than a matter of parliamentary legislation. It requires wide-ranging social and professional debate, genuine political consultation, and a process which, in itself, embodies the democratic culture that the new constitution must subsequently safeguard. The constitution is not merely a set of rules governing the functioning of the state. It establishes the limits of power and thereby safeguards the freedom of us all.

The President of Hungary is not a constituent power; it is not his role to determine the content of a new constitution. His role, however, is to encourage social and professional debate, to embody its openness and impartiality, and to consistently advocate that the process of drafting the constitution must not once again become the preserve of a single political force. There is also a personal reason why I consider this so important. Throughout my own career as a judge, I have learnt that the value of institutional independence becomes most apparent when it is put to the test. Both in Strasbourg and subsequently as President of the Supreme Court, I found that the authority of a democratic institution does not stem from its functioning without conflict, but from its ability to remain true to its own remit even in situations of conflict. I wish to follow this principle as President of Hungary as well.

However, the Head of State's role is not limited to the constitutional decisions taken at Sándor Palace. That is precisely why I would not want the activities of the President of Hungary to be confined too strictly within the walls of that building. I am well aware that the President of Hungary cannot find a solution to every social problem. He has neither the authority nor the means to do so. But he does have the opportunity to draw attention to issues and social groups whose voices are less readily heard. Through his presence, he can signal that the Republic does not belong solely to those who have power, influence, or a voice.
Naturally, representing the country does not end at Hungary's borders. Representing Hungary abroad likewise calls for the President to fulfil this independent role as Head of State. While recognising that shaping and determining foreign policy is the responsibility of the government, the Head of State has a distinctive opportunity to help strengthen Hungary's international relations. All the more so because, in recent years, Hungary's relations with many of its allies have deteriorated. Playing a role in restoring these relations is not a matter of courtesy, but a matter of national interest. Our country's ties to Europe are a historical and cultural reality that goes far beyond being merely a matter of foreign policy. Hungary's place in Europe is not a temporary decision made by the government of the day, but the consequence of our history, culture, and interests.

While we affirm Hungary's place in Europe, we must not forget those who belong to the Hungarian nation beyond our borders. As President of Hungary, I feel a sense of responsibility towards all members of the Hungarian nation living beyond our borders. The protection of our cultural, linguistic, and community rights is in the long-term interest of the Hungarian state. This task can be carried out effectively in cooperation with our neighbours, with mutual respect, and within the European framework.
All the matters I have spoken of here may appear to be separate tasks. The defence of the rule of law, social dialogue, helping to restore international relations, or looking after Hungarian communities beyond our borders. For me, however, they all stem from the same conviction. During my career as a judge, I have often found that the law rarely seeks a perfect solution. Rather, its task is to create a framework within which people with different interests and convictions can live together peacefully, and settle their disputes not by force but within the bounds of the law. Perhaps the role of the President of Hungary is similar.

Honourable Members of the National Assembly! My Fellow Hungarians!

Throughout our history, we have often had to start afresh. In Hungarian history, it is easy to see only the losses and failures, yet our survival is just as much a story of how, following severe historical upheavals and defeats, there have always been generations capable of rebuilding institutions, communities, and the nation. Now, once again, such a task lies before us. Sometimes we try to rebuild what once was, but there is no going back in history. We cannot return to the Monarchy, or to the Horthy era, or to the Hungary that existed after the change of regime. The passage of time has changed the country, Europe, and the world as well. We live in a different economic, social, technological, natural, and security environment. Change is therefore not an opportunity to restore a lost past. We have been given the chance to learn from what we did well and also from what we got wrong - from what others did to us, and also from what we allowed to happen. We do not need to reclaim an old Hungary. The question now is whether we are capable of becoming a country where, for example, a child's future is not determined by their place of birth; where the work of a teacher or a nurse is held in high regard; where an entrepreneur seeks opportunities rather than connections; where a young person does not have to go abroad because they see no future at home; where Hungarians living abroad are happy to return; and where the elderly do not feel superfluous. Because the state does not exist for its own sake; the state exists for the people.

Thank you for your attention!

(National Assembly - Budapest, 11 August 2026)