{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02106969205834684, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032414910858995136, 'mean_word_length': 4.8254716981132075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quality Drafting–The Case of Hungary

Abstract Proper legislation in a state of rule of law requires minimal rules on the drafting process. These rules of better regulation, among others, relate to the actual phrasing of a draft. More explicit political commitment towards better regulation leads to more extensive use of the elements of quality regulation, e.g., quality drafting. As for the required normative formulation of drafting rules, there can be two choices: detailed regulation for phrasing a draft could be laid down in a legal norm such as an Act or decree; or only main rules could be inserted in these measures, to be specified in a manual or guideline. Both have its advantages and disadvantages, and the state involved has to make its choice. At the end of 2009 the Hungarian minister of justice and law enforcement decided to issue a decree on drafting specifying the requirements of drafting, regarding phrasing and structuring. By summing up the main elements of the new Hungarian decree on drafting and putting it into a comparative perspective, the paper reveals failures the Hungarian legislature needs to face, on one hand, and on the other hand, offers “lessons” that may be learnt from the Hungarian example.