Magyar külpolitika, 1930 (11. évfolyam, 1-7. szám)

1930 / 2. szám - The Hungarian Regency and its present Holder

22 HUNGÁRIA LLOYD July 1930 into being by the political Lnsagacity of the Paris Treaty-makers and the „bull-in-a-china shop" attitűdé of the ncw States created by a want of political rationalism withoul a parallel in history. Once more Bungary found the man she wanted; once more the waves of insidious hatred andiof the lust of conquest — lashed into fury by a political [agoism which completely overshadowed the petty intrigues of Bunyadi's persona! enemies'and rivals — were kepi at a distance by the finn hand and cautious circumspection of an able soldier who proved equal to the ordeal. Admiral Nicholas Horthy de Nagybánya was the man chosen to receive the mantle of John Hunyadi; and the wisdom of the choice of the Hungárián National Assembly has been documented on many critical occasions during the pasi ten years. Both the .national Assembly and the nation at large were fully conscious of the symbolical character of the office to which Admiral Horthy had been elected; bul the Regenl himself must have been equally conscious of the delicacy of the situation in which he had been placed by the l'act that there was still a King whose brow had been touched by the Holy Crown. Here Lndeed was need of an unequivocal appreciation of the purely symbolical significance of the dignity which in the XV. century had been accompanied with onrestricted power ín militaryj and administrative matters. And those who are only too ready and too apt to misunderstand and misinljerpret the position of the second Regent who has fii led that office as the Vicar of the people and the first to act as Regent during the lifethne of a s|overeign already endowed with the peculiar properties originating from the touch of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, will do well to pause a moment and consider that in a country which bases its whole public Luigi Valii, Italian-University Professor at Budapest. To the right: A Berzeviczij and Antal Radó: tó the lejt Count Durini di Monza, Jtilius Pékár and Ladislas Bárdossy. life and ihs constitutional existence on the strength of symbolical traditions there is a special difficulty attending an endeavour to reconcile the apparent inconsistency latenl in the oo-existence of two personalities vésted with the symbolica] power inherenl in the Boly < Irown. lt would be a far cry to trace the development in the constitutional evolution of Hungary of the conception of the Boly Crown as the symbolical representative of the nation and of the power which thai nation is alone entitled to grant; yet a clear understanding of thai conception is essential to an appreciation of the delicacy of the position in which the presenl Regenl of Hungary found himself on his election to that office in L920. Today the situation is other; for the last sovereign whose brow was touched with tbc Holy Crown is resting in a(humble burial-place on an island far removed from the country which should have been his last home. And yet — we are often askcd the question, „How can there he a Regent, if there is no King?" I repeat; the office of Regent is essenflially symbolical in character: and it would be inconceivable that the Hungárián people should ever choose any other form of government than that of a kingdom And the Holy Crown will for all time symbolise to all true Hungarians that royal power which to them denotes the ne plus ultra of constitutional government. Stripped of the paraphernalia and glamour of its symbolism, the Hungárián State would to Hungarians cease to be a State and would he devoid of all that patina! of tradition which is 'the very foundation of the essentially conservative national consciousness of the Hungárián people. The Holy Crown to Hungarians represents as definitely the inherent presence in their midst of royalty in the abstract as the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist represent to all true Christians the presence and sanctifying influence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Under such circumstances the Hungárián does not see in the absence in the body of a personal sovereign any cause for wonder or for a consciousness of an inconsistency as hetween the symbol hnd the reality. The presence of the Holy Crown is to the Hungárián proof enough of the existence de facto of the royal power; and that power may he wielded | actually by any person upon whom the nation has conferred the prerogatives inherent in the symbol, Thus to the Hungárián Admiral Horthy as Regent occupies precisely the', same position as< tiliat occupied five centuries ago by John Hunyadi: and there is perhaps no more striking proof of thejsymbolical significance attaching to the Holy Crown than the fact that, when he fled from'Hungary after the débacle of August 1849, Louis Kossuth — who alsó used the title of „Gubernátor", though his tenurelof that office was not based upon the constitutional symbolism which placed Hunyadi and has placed Admiral Horthy at the head of the public affairs of Hungary — took care to provide in the very last moment that the Holy Crown should be buried, thus — as he hoped — anticipating any attempt on the part of the Emperor of Austria ever to obtain recognition as King of Hungary. As compared with the quiet retirement at his country seat at Kenderes in the Count y of Szolnok,