Human rights watchdog Amnesty International Hungary has sharply criticized the haste with which Prime Minister Péter Magyar nominated chess icon Judit Polgár for the presidency of the country.
On social media, AI clarified that its objection is not directed at Polgár herself, but rather the rushed and non-transparent process in which she was nominated.
The events at the centre of the controversy unfolded over the weekend. On Saturday, shortly after President Tamás Sulyok signed the amendment to Hungary’s constitution, thus effectively removing himself from office, Magyar stated that he wanted to avoid finding a candidate in ‘cigar rooms’ and promised a broad social consultation. However, by Sunday evening, following a hardly-spontaneous open letter by 16 prominent Hungarians recommending Polgár for president, the prime minister announced he would officially ask her to accept the role the very next day, leaving no time for meaningful public or parliamentary debate. Critics also note that it is very unlikely that the entire exercise had not been planned and coordinated beforehand, as opposed to what is officially communicated.
According to Amnesty International, this rapid, unilateral decision-making mimics the exact governing style of the previous Orbán administration, which the majority rejected in the last election. The watchdog urged the government to utilize the legally mandated 30-day window to interview multiple candidates, consider different viewpoints, and facilitate a transparent national discussion. By rushing the nomination, the NGO warned, the prime minister has placed Polgár in a difficult position and failed to deliver on the Tisza party’s promise of a cleaner, more democratic transition.
This is not the first time the pro-EU Tisza government has faced criticism from the liberal human rights organization. Amnesty International previously slammed the administration over rule-of-law violations when it used a constitutional amendment to forcibly remove Sulyok from office. At the time, the watchdog declared that the government’s solution was “not okay,” arguing that the amendment ignored Sulyok’s fundamental right to a fair trial. The group also criticized the government for allowing only five days for public consultation on the sweeping constitutional reforms—which include retroactively banning long-serving MPs from running for office—violating the legal minimum of eight days.
Amnesty emphasizes that while Sulyok’s political alignment was controversial, any transition of power must be conducted with strict legal guarantees to prevent the executive branch from operating without checks and balances. The group warned that without a clear, transparent, and legally sound process, the presidency risks remaining a tool of the ruling majority rather than representing national unity.
