Speakers of the Discussion:
- Norbert Tribl, senior lecturer at the University of Szeged
- Peter Kruzslicz, senior lecturer, director of the College of Excellence István Bocskai
Participants of the Seminar: students of the Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church engaged in the different workshops of the István Bocskai College of Excellency, especially of its Public Law Research Group. The event was registered by Zoom so that the video could be used for further dissemination.
Norbert Tribl was invited to be the lecturer of the workshop on public law for the talent-management programme of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Károli Gáspár University, organised in the framework of the Bocskai István College of Excellence. For this very last meeting before the end of semester, especially for students interested in public and constitutional law, the general constitutional question of national and state symbols was raised from two main aspects: the role of history in the development of symbols and the role of symbols in creating identity. For both aspects, the conclusions were about how constitutional regulation on national and state symbols reflect those two elements.
The members of the Public Law Workshop and other interested students of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary could participate to the discussion held by the director of the College as the host of the event, and his invited research fellow on the constitutional functions of national and state symbols.
At the beginning of the presentations, it has been recalled that national and state symbols are determined and protected by constitutional law and a small chapter of every handbook on constitutional law is always about this topic, however, every student skip or go through very quickly this part of the study materials as there are very few analyses about the issue and it is rarely invoked during exams. To make a difference, the director invited the participants to think deeper on the constitutional role and place of those symbols. It is under this aspect that symbols become interesting for constitutional analyses. Why are constitutions addressing these questions of symbols and how they are handling those?
The invited lecturer developed an interesting thesis on the identity-creating role of the constitutional symbols defining the concept of constitutional identity and highlighting the apport of the symbols to it. First, of course, the concept of constitutional identity had to be defined correctly. Even though the term of constitutional identity is used more and more, especially with relation to the supranational law to create a tool of resistance to its absolute primacy, constitutional identity is a more general concept that can be used in many ways, however it is very difficult to be defined.
First, constitutional identity became interesting when one would like to give a special character to a constitutional structure. In this sense, the term was first used by American scholars. However, constitutional identity is not easy to understand, as usually, it does only appear when a constitutional legal order meets another legal order. It is under comparison and even in that way only very carefully that such special characteristics of a constitutional legal order can be discovered.
On the other hand, as above-mentioned tools of constitutional resistance against the supranational law, the different elements of national constitutional legal order are more and more cited when one would like to make obstacle to the application of supranational law. In this perspective, more and more European constitutional and supreme courts are using the concept and tries to find the elements that can be composing part of such a constitutional identity.
However, it is not for noting that such essential elements – they are essentials because they are giving the very own shape and content to a constitutional structure – are so important that states would like to preserve them even before the European supranational law as it is stated about the respect of national constitutional identity in the founding treaty of the European Union. Those elements of a national constitutional identity have special and important value as they are creating coherencies for all the national constitutional structure.
But as such, they must come from somewhere, or it is difficult to find the source of a constitutional identity, with the exemption of history and even history is a complicated source and identity is dynamically changing, there is not easy to know where to find its elements. According to the first lecturer, national symbols can play such a role. Under those national symbols, we can also find constitutional identity creating elements. And even the constitution can become a symbol with its special nature thanks to its own identity.
The host lecturer, during the second part of the presentation, proposed the students to think about the role of history with regards to constitutional symbols. According to his hypothesis, history and symbols or symbols and history are related at least in three different ways. First, symbols came from history, they are produced by a historical evolution, and they are developing parallelly to constitutional history of a country. But also, they are reflecting the history not as an objective past, but as the sings of a voluntarily subjective historical narrative. They are telling a historical myth of a political community. Finally, more than a simple myth, they can become source of constitutional normativity not because of their historicity or as part a national narrative but as identity-creating elements which appear as constitutional principles.
The first part of the hypothesis is the easiest to be proved. Especially for Hungary which is a very old state even in a European context, it is obvious how history made the national and constitutional symbol. The best example is the coat of arms. It is a true product of the feudal history of Hungary, from the first royal house of the Árpáds, through the period of hesitations between Eastern and Western Christianism, until the arrival of Anjou kings. All those periods added their own symbolic elements which are also reflecting – it is already the question of the second relation – their vision about the country and its history.
Because, as the second part of the hypothesis states, symbols are not only result of a very real political history of the country but became also sings of a very subjective national narrative. This narrative is important to create a strong political community in a state that was often occupied by foreign empires. That is the reason why, just as in many other countries, for example, special historical events are chosen to be part of constitutional preamble, or several dates are consecrated in a constitutional provision as national holidays. Those are symbolic elements in the constitution, however, their role is not to recall a true history but to create once again a special narrative, a national myth.
At last, historical symbols even though cannot change the constitution which means that political history is producing the symbols and not the symbols are producing the political reality, not only they are creating special historical narratives, but they can become source of constitutional normativity as part of constitutional identity or simple as constitutional principle. In this sense, when for example, the Fundamental Law speaks about the historical constitution as guideline for constitutional interpretation, some historical principles which are essentials and symbolics, can be the source of the normative content of contemporary constitutional provisions.
As summarised by the end of the presentations, constitutional symbols are more important than they can look like from a first view. They are part of national constitutionality, but they are also apport to national constitutionality because of their identity creating role and when they are linking in different ways history and contemporary constitutional normativity.
