The preambles of constitutions are not a typical subject for legal analyses; the law experts are probably more attracted by “ exact” and mainly binding rules of behavior anchored in laws or agreements, than general and a bit rhetoric texts of preambles, the introductory part of constitutions preceding its binding articles, and which are not legally binding, but anchor a general value orientation of a country and its basic legal principles. The examination of preambles could – right because of being general and “open” an indication of not very frequent presence of value orientation of a country- provide a very interesting view on the particular constitution, since the preamble could serve as a basis for the interpretation of the binding text of the constitution.

This presumption is certainly confirmed in the case of constitutions of the countries of the Višegrad group- the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Except for the preamble of the Hungarian constitutions these documents are relatively extensive, including the basic values and orientation of the particular countries, referring to certain historical or cultural heritage and include also legal principles. Therefore we will analyze these three typical elements in cross-section in all constitutions in order to compare and point out the common features of these constitutions and also show some significant differences between them on the basis of this analysis.

Before the analysis itself it is necessary to mention some introductory remarks. It is important to realize that preparing this material we have based it on theory of law and constitutional law in a form that is applied in Slovakia. According to this approach, the preamble of constitutions is not a part of the normative text and it is not a source of law. This presumption also applies in the Czech Republic (taking into account the common development of law in the past) but we have no opportunity to verify this presumption in the case of Hungary and Poland. Principally an authority entitled to adopt an amendment to constitution should have also a competence to change its preamble, however, we have not found any literature dealing with this issue, maybe due to the fact that it is not very likely that a constitution-making authority would change the preamble without changing the laws of the constitution. In Hungary there has been changed the preamble along with the normative content of the constitution- the Hungarian constitution from 1949 had originally a different preamble from the present one. In the past this issue was also discussed in Slovakia from time to time, but it was rather focused on issues of content (concretely the omitting of the national principle from the preamble) and has not concerned the formal and legal aspects of this issue.

Another important note concerns Hungary- the preamble of the Hungarian constitution differs from the other ones with its briefness. The answer to this anomaly is the preamble itself, since it was written in the period when there was expected the adoption of a new constitution, which should not have reminded by any means, even by the year of adoption, the years of the communist regime. However, it has not happened so far, moreover the constitution-making process launched during the rule of the socialist and liberal cabinet between 1994 and 1998 has wrecked and the adoption of a new constitution since than has not been included among the priorities of the political parties. Thus it is probably a not quite representative document- it is assumed that the new constitution should have a new preamble as well. Until it is changed we will have to handle the present version.

According to the preamble of the Slovak constitution, the Slovak Republic should endeavor for democratic form of government, guarantee of free life, development of spiritual culture, economical prosperity, while the country should cooperate peacefully with other democratic countries. The Czech constitution in the first place emphasizes “ the untouchable values of human dignity and freedom”, which should be adopted by the citizens of the country, who will then found “ a free and democratic country, based on respect for human rights and on principles of a civil society”. This country will be a part of democracies in Europe and all around the world.

From this point of view the preamble of the Hungarian constitution is more concrete, including the following basic values of the Republic of Hungary: state of law, including the plurality of the political parties, parliamentary democracy and socially oriented market economy. In contrast, the Polish constitution indicates the orientation of the country only vaguely – to the general, rather historical principles there are immediately linked principles, which due to their being detailed and regulating rather qualified as legal principles than declaration of the basic value orientation of the country. This preamble, however, refers to the equality of believers and non-believers, declares God as source of truth, justice, good and beauty, what could also mean a theocratic orientation of the country (the creators of the constitution admit their responsibility “ before God” and their consciousness) what, however faces the equality of all citizens in rights and obligations. The Polish constitution in its preamble refers to need of cooperation with all foreign countries and also the need to care after the Polish compatriots living outside Poland.

All constitutions- except for the Hungarian one- are full of references to historical and cultural heritage. The Slovak Republic, for example, recalls to “ political and cultural heritage of ancestors and many centuries of experiences of fights for national survival and sovereignty”, while it builds on bases of the spiritual heritage of Cyril and Method and the historical testimony of the Moravian Empire. The Czech constitution declares to be faithful to all good traditions of the statehood of the countries of the Czech and Czechoslovak Crown.

The Hungarian constitution does not refer to any historical and cultural heritage. In contrast, the Polish constitution presents the citizens “ grateful to our ancestors for their working and fighting for independence achieved at expense of huge sacrifices, for our culture anchored in the Christian Heritage of the Nation and in general human values,” while they refer to “ the best tradition of the First and Second Republic,” and also recall times when the human rights and freedoms were violated in Poland.

From this point of view it is also interesting to take a look at the issue of national or civil principle included in the preambles. In this issue the Slovak constitution is dual: although the introduction reads “ We the Slovak nation”, after this the preamble makes it clear that the constitution is adopted by the Slovak nation and the ethnical minorities and groups, i.e. “ we, the citizens of the Slovak Republic.” From this construction it is clear, that “ we, the Slovak nation” refers to an ethnical nation and not a political one which could include all the population of the country- in other case it would be unnecessary to add anything to come to the concept of “ the citizens of the Slovak Republic” including also other nationalities and ethnic minorities. On the other hand the Czech Republic refers only to citizens of the Czech Republic living in Czechia, Moravia and Silezia.

The preamble of the Hungarian constitution does not treat this issue. The polish preamble construes the Polish political nation by adding a conjunction between the concepts of Polish nation and citizens of the republic, but this political nation later will be attributed with some characteristic features: its culture is based on Christian inheritage and bound into a community with the compatriots living all around the world and at least the same part of people of Hungarian nationality believes in God as a source of truth, goodness and beauty that this statement would deserve to be placed as a sentence directly following the introduction of the preamble.

The preamble of the Slovak constitution explicitly refers only to one legal principle, that of the natural right of nations for self-determination. The Czech constitution refers to all well-tried principles of a state of law. The preamble of the Hungarian constitution also refers only to the state of law. The most detailed in this aspect is the Polish preamble: it anchors the principle of equality in rights and duties, the principle of cooperation between the public authorities, effectiveness and hard working of the public authorities, social dialogue, principle of strengthening the right of citizens and their societies, dignity of human individual, right of individual for freedom and principle of solidarity with others.

As it has been already mentioned, each preamble includes references to historical and cultural heritage. It is interesting, however, that even this are neighboring countries with a history of long-term mutual relations, the aforementioned historical traditions are rather focused on distinguishing them from others, than identifying themselves with the common roots (this approach is, of course, excusable to some degree with the fact that its purpose is rather legitimating of a concrete country and not objective evaluation of history). The Slovak preamble does not mention either centuries of the Hungarian Kingdom or the common country of the Czech and Slovak nation, but it returns to the times of the Great Moravian Empire and builds on the tradition of Cyril and Method. The Czech preamble only refers to the good traditions of the statehood of the Bohemian Kingdom and the statehood of Czechoslovakia. The Hungarian preamble omits any references on this issue. The Polish preamble does not refer to medieval Poland at all, only views the best traditions of the First and Second Republic and the fight for independence. From this point of view the only common element is the mentioning of Czechoslovakia in the Czech preamble.

In this respect it is of special interest how the historical event in 1989 are reflected in the particular preambles. The Slovak preamble does not refer to the events in 1989 at all. The Czech preamble refers to the times “of renewal of the independent Czech state”, what is a reference rather to events in 1992 than reference to regaining of the (still Czechoslovak) sovereignty of the country in 1989. The Hungarian preamble explicitly mentions the transition to the state of law, which unambiguously refers to 1989. According to the Polish preamble in 1989 Poland regained its chance to decide independently and democratically on its own fate. We can see that even the end of the communist era is not generally reflected in these preambles.

A more united attitude can be identified in the issues of general values. Each preamble mentions the need for a democratic form of government and, except for the Hungarian one, on need for cooperation with others (according to the Czech and Slovak preamble only with the democratic) countries (maybe an indirect reference to integration ambitions?). The freedom is also mentioned in all preambles apart from the Hungarian one. This issue is most developed in the Czech preamble: its tells about equal and free citizens, aware of their duties and responsibilities for them. The Polish preamble also mentions the duties of the citizens and also the principle of solidarity. The reference to the state of law also can be found also in all preambles except for the Slovak one, while the Polish one also mentions many concrete legal principles.

The Slovak preamble says on the economic orientation of the country only that the government should endeavor to be economically prosperous. The Czech preamble says on watching and developing of material wealth. The Hungarian preamble exactly points out that its goal is socially oriented market economy, while the Polish preamble says nothing about this issue, what is quite surprising taking into account that all these countries were in the time of adoption of these constitution in the stage of transition from socialist to market economy.

The constitutions of the countries of the Višegrad Group have the following common features:

Since the preambles themselves, as we have stated in introduction, are not normative documents, let us state some rather personal than strictly professional impressions. It seems as if all four preambles had their own individual character. The Hungarian preamble reflects the situation in the early 1990s and the beginning of the transformation to a state of law, while this transformation is declared as primary goal for the state. The Czech preamble declares the establishment of a new state and builds on historical traditions connected with this statehood, but at the same time it declares a civil principle and insists on general human values. The Slovak preamble carries the idea of an ethnic nation- the preamble celebrates the victory of the Slovak nation in the fight for the national emancipation, the civil principle is only secondary. The Polish preamble represents the political Polish nation essentially and fatally connected with the Catholic religion. It is a true picture of the self-identification of four neighboring countries.