Hungarian constitutional law, the role of the Constitutional Court and of course the whole constitutional process are understandably the subject of public debate. At the same time, it is no surprise that most of the more comprehensible debate is developing around more ideological issues. The most keenly debated point is the plan to mention the Holy Crown and God, which is already being commented on by the foreign media as an example of the incumbent state's ideology slipping back into the past, and moreover, as irredentism.

The connection to the crown divided political public opinion at the time of the 2000 millennium too. And even if parading the Holy Crown down the Danube was a superfluous element of style, and moving it to the Parliament's vaulted hall bestowed the status of national symbol upon a museum artefact, it will hopefully lend a greater degree of protocol to everyday political discussions. Unfortunately, little can be heard about the fact that the Doctrine of the Holy Crown forms an integral part of Hungarian constitutional traditions, in which the curbing of powers, stipulated by the resistance clause of the Holy Bull, plays an important role. A constitutional lawyer with close ties to the former government did refer to this in the columns of an ultra-liberal publication, which should go some way to easing modernist concerns from abroad.

The mention of God in the preamble is a deeper and more complex issue. The standpoint of the Church is not unified either on whether the evocation of a higher power or a "mere" mention of the Christian tradition as a point of reference would be more desirable. The latter of these - if not applying the formula of "Jewish-Christian tradition" - would obviously provide reason for numerous base discussions but at the same time would also "bring down to earth" the moral, cultural value of the invocatio dei of the Hungarian National Anthem.  Knowing our attitudes, the usefulness of such should not be doubted. The transcendence described with appropriate circumspection in the text of the fundamental statute would be appropriate for providing a wider context for Hungary and its nation.

Of course it is exactly the acknowledgement of this "wider context" that is increasingly difficult throughout Europe. The findings of recently published research clearly demonstrate that in Europe barely half the percentage of people attend church and regard religion as important as in the United States. The only exception to this in Europe is Poland but according to reports secularisation is increasingly makings its effect felt even there. There are numerous examples of the name of God being mentioned in the constitutions of the old continent, but it is certain that the charge of clericalism would soon be made against the makers of the new constitution, even though they are in the majority.

In the public consciousness the United States is seen as the land of freedom, and although it is one of the cradles of the modern world "In God We Trust" is still inscribed on their one dollar bills. In the texts of a secularising Europe's constitutions the wording evoking God harks back to an earlier, more religious time. It is almost a miracle that the pious wording of the Hungarian National Anthem has survived the times most fraught with danger in our history. However, if transcendence now finds its way into the Constitution, ‘the land of freedom' will hardly come to Hungary as far as religiousness is concerned. However, if mentioning God's name does not appear merely as a tool of political rhetoric but rather as a genuine standard, then - no doubt - even the non-religious majority will be able to perceive its redeeming quality. And the authors of the Constitution will not be breaking the second commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.