Questions over how far a new Hungarian government can go in dismantling its predecessor's political legacy have come into focus after Prime Minister Péter Magyar's administration pushed through sweeping constitutional changes that supporters say are essential to restoring the rule of law but critics warn could establish troubling precedents.

The reforms, adopted by parliament on July 13 using the government's two-thirds constitutional majority, form the centrepiece of Magyar's pledge to reverse what his administration describes as the institutional legacy left by Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party after 16 years in power.

The changes have reignited a debate extending well beyond Hungary over whether democratic governments can use extraordinary constitutional powers to undo what they see as the erosion of democratic institutions without undermining constitutional principles themselves.

"The paradox," analysts at Poland's Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) wrote, "is that this process relies on tools similar to those for which Fidesz was criticised for years: using a constitutional majority to introduce rapid, ad hoc constitutional changes."

Magyar's government argues that such measures are unavoidable because Orbán's governments fundamentally reshaped Hungary's political system during their years in office.

According to the OSW report, the government believes that "16 years of Fidesz rule has reshaped Hungary's constitutional framework in a way that prevents meaningful political change even after the party has left office."

It therefore presents the latest constitutional amendment as a constitutional "reset", designed to "dismantle the institutional framework and personnel arrangements that have entrenched the previous governing camp's influence" while creating conditions for "restoring the rule of law".

At the heart of the reform package is the early termination of President Tamás Sulyok's mandate, one of the most controversial measures in the legislation. The amendment also restores elements of the Constitutional Court's pre-2012 structure, including allowing judges once again to elect the court's president, reducing judicial terms from 12 years to nine without reappointment, reinstating the retirement age of 70 and removing previous limits on the court's ability to review legislation relating to public finances.

The reforms also strengthen judges' influence over appointments to the Supreme Court and National Office for the Judiciary, shorten the terms of senior judicial officials and significantly reduce the range of policy areas requiring two-thirds parliamentary approval through so-called cardinal laws. Those changes affect areas including taxation, public finances, management of state assets and agricultural land transactions.

The legislation also removes the Budget Council's veto over the annual budget, a power the government argued could otherwise have been used by Fidesz-appointed members to block government policy and potentially trigger new elections.

Separately, lawmakers introduced a constitutional limit of three parliamentary terms, or 12 years, for members of parliament. The restriction will apply from the next election but will also count previous service, meaning several veteran politicians will become ineligible to stand.

The package also establishes the National Asset Recovery and Protection Office, tasked with tracing and recovering public assets allegedly obtained or used unlawfully.

Supporters argue the reforms fulfil voters' demand for fundamental political change following Orbán's defeat.

According to OSW, backers believe several provisions "strengthen institutional independence while limiting the powers of the current governing majority".

They point in particular to restoring the Constitutional Court's ability to choose its own president, expanding judicial independence and creating what they describe as a lasting anti-corruption mechanism through the new asset recovery office.

Critics, however, question both the content of the reforms and the manner in which they were adopted.

They argue the legislative timetable was rushed and public consultation insufficient despite the government's insistence that the measures are only transitional pending adoption of a completely new constitution.

The greatest concern centres on removing the president before the end of his constitutionally fixed term.

OSW noted that opponents warn that "if such a mechanism can be used against the head of state, it could also be used in future to shorten the terms of other constitutional officeholders".

The introduction of parliamentary term limits has also generated criticism because, according to opponents, comparable restrictions do not exist elsewhere in the European Union and may limit citizens' right to seek elected office.

Several legal and human rights organisations have also expressed reservations.

The Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Rule of Law Clinic at Central European University and Human Rights Watch all accept that "restoring the rule of law and reversing the changes introduced under Fidesz are legitimate objectives”, according to the OSW report.

"The new Hungarian government’s plan to make sweeping changes to key institutions through a rushed 17th amendment to the constitution, risks halting advances to restore the rule of law,” Human Rights Watch wrote ahead of the vote, on June 26. The rights watchdog added that the plans to remove both Sulyok and the head of the constitutional court "lack due process safeguards”.

“Hungary’s new government has a mandate to set right the damage done to the rule of law during 16 years of Fidesz rule, including reversing its arbitrary stacking of key state institutions with Fidesz loyalists,” said Benjamin Ward, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch in a statement.

“But restoring the rule of law requires respecting due process and taking time to ensure genuine consultation before enacting sweeping constitutional changes.”

Fidesz has denounced the reforms as "constitutional revenge", organising demonstrations and accusing Magyar's government of exploiting its constitutional majority to sideline political opponents.

The new parliamentary term limits would prevent 22 of Fidesz's current 52 MPs from seeking re-election because they have already served at least three terms.

Sulyok also criticised the reforms. Under Hungary's constitutional procedures he has five days after parliamentary approval to promulgate the amendment or refer it to the Constitutional Court. The government has said that if he refuses to sign the legislation or seeks judicial review it will begin proceedings to remove him from office.

OSW said the long-term significance of the reforms would depend on whether the government follows through on its promise to replace the current constitution after extensive public consultation, distinguishing its approach from the drafting of the existing Fundamental Law under Fidesz.

The think tank said the constitutional changes would also be closely scrutinised by European institutions. "Its significance also extends beyond domestic politics," the report said, adding that the reactions of "the EU institutions, the Venice Commission and international organisations working on the rule of law will influence efforts to rebuild trust between Budapest and its EU partners."

For Magyar's government, OSW concluded, the reforms will ultimately test "whether its declared commitment to restoring the rule of law is seen as consistent with European constitutional standards."