The myth of populist constitutionalism in Hungary and Poland: Populist or authoritarian constitutionalism?

The article critically examines whether the concept of "populist constitutionalism" accurately describes the constitutional changes enacted by Hungary's Fidesz government since 2010 and Poland's Law and Justice Party (PiS) since 2015. It finds that while both countries exhibit populist political characteristics, their constitutional reforms largely reflect an authoritarian transition rather than a distinct form of populist constitutionalism. Key features commonly attributed to populist constitutionalism—such as enhanced popular sovereignty, direct democracy, and anti-elitism—are largely absent in constitutional practice, whereas extreme majoritarianism, legal instrumentalization, restrictions on minority rights, Euroscepticism, and clientelism prevail. The article concludes that labeling these constitutional developments as populist constitutionalism obscures important differences and may hinder understanding, as the changes align more closely with semi-authoritarianism than with a novel constitutional paradigm.