The Development and Functioning of Cultural Autonomy in Hungary

Abstract

This case study considers the minority policy and cultural autonomy developed after the transition in Hungary as a complex process of decision making in which several interests and concepts compete with one other. From the point of view of minorities, it examines both the achievements and problems. It also examines whether or not the political–legal solutions of the two determinative laws, the 1993 minority law and its 2005 overall amendment, completely meet the demands of the minority communities. I argue that certain demands have been met whilst others have remained unfulfilled.

Notes

1. According to the relevant archival materials, the original draft law from 1992 was sent to several institutions and experts in order to obtain their opinions on the text. Among their number were at least 15 Hungarian minority politicians in the neighbouring countries, 12 Hungarian organizations operating in West European and overseas countries, some embassies in Budapest, the competent parliamentary committees in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Germany and Russia, the Council of Europe and more than 30 domestic and foreign experts dealing with minority issues received the document in 1992–1993.

2. I use the term ‘homogeneity’ according to Georg Brunner's terminology. He suggested calling states in which the proportion of minorities is under 10% ‘nation states’ (see Brunner, 1995, p. 12).

3. 2001. évi népszámlálás (2002). p. 10. In the 2001 census the responses to the minority- and identity-related questions were voluntary and anonymous and three different responses could be given to each question. With regard to estimates see Mayer (2004, Appendix 11).

4. The proportion of persons born abroad reached 55% of the total community among the Ruthenes, 50% among the Romanians and Ukrainians, 42% among the Bulgarians and Poles, 38% among the Serbs, 31% among the Armenians and 19.5% among the Greeks. These people are present in lesser proportions but in relatively great numbers among the Croat, German and Slovak communities.

5. See Spannenberger (2002).

6. That is why the head of the relevant ministerial department could inform the press about the result of the ‘election’ in a national alliance two days before it actually occurred (see Dobos, 2005a, p. 501).

7. See A Magyar Szocialista Munkáspárt Központi Bizottságának állásfoglalása a nemzetiségi politika továbbfejlesztéséről és a nemzetiségi törvény irányelveiről (1988. november 22.) (The attitude of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party on the development of nationality policy and on the guiding principles of the minority law (22nd November 1988)), (Balogh & Sipos, 2002, pp. 735–740)).

8. Act 63 of 1990 on the amendment of the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic. Magyar Közlöny, 78 (1990). 5.§. This regulation declared that “national and ethnic minorities have the right to form local and national bodies for self-government”.

9. These multiple policy goals emerged in the parliamentary resolution 46/1990 (24th May) on the situation of Hungarian national minorities living in the neighbouring countries. Magyar Közlöny, 51 (1990).

10. According to the amended constitution, two-thirds of the votes of representatives present (members of the parliament) were needed to pass and later to modify the law, so the support of the opposition parties was clearly needed in the framing processes. See Act 40 of 1990 on the amendment of the Constitution of the Hungarian Republic. Magyar Közlöny, 59 (1990), p. 45,§.

11. Act 77 of 1993 on the rights of national and ethnic minorities. Magyar Közlöny, 100 (1993).

12. See Brunner & Küpper (2002, pp. 26–32).

13. Article 1: “national or ethnic minority (…) is any ethnic group with a history of at least one century of living in the Republic of Hungary, which represents a numerical minority among the citizens of the state, the members of which are Hungarian citizens, and are distinguished from the rest of the citizens by their own language, culture and traditions, and at the same time demonstrate a sense of belonging together, which is aimed at the preservation of all these, and the expression and protection of the interests of their communities, which have been formed in the course of history”. See http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Hungary/Hungary_Minorities_English.htm See also http://www.nemzetisegek.hu/dokumentumok/kisebbsegitorveny/kisebbstorv2006angol.pdf According to the 1991 draft of the minority interest groups they would have extended these rights to those foreigners who had been living in the country continuously at least for 5 years. The inclusion of foreign citizens has remained a relevant minority demand, which was put on agenda during the further process of the amendment.

14. Article 61: “the following ethnic groups qualify as ethnic groups native of Hungary: Bulgarian, Gypsy, Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Romanian, Ruthene, Serbian, Slovakian, Slovene and Ukrainian”. See http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Hungary/Hungary_Minorities_English.htm

15. At least 1000 signatures of voters belonging to a certain new minority must be collected within a given time and, finally, the parliament votes on the initiation. The possibility for change arose from the activity of Jewish organizations that were unable to agree on whether Hungarian Jews constituted a religious or ethnic minority. Other groups, such as the Italians and Wends, have at various times also sought recognition. In 2001 the Aegean Macedonians from Northern Greece tried to distance themselves from the Greek minority but were not able collect the required number of signatures. In spring 2005 the Hun initiation was voted down by parliament (see Dobos, 2005a, p. 508). Later some Jewish and Russian activists could not collect enough signatures and the Bunjevtsi classified into the Croat minority were also voted down in December 2006.

16. Article 42: “the following languages are deemed languages used by minorities: Bulgarian, Gypsy (Romani and Beash), Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovakian, Slovenian and Ukrainian”. See http://www.minelres.lv/NationalLegislation/Hungary/Hungary_Minorities_English.htm

17. Act 61 of 1994 on the amendment of Act 20 of 1949 on the Constitution of the Republic of Hungary. Magyar Közlöny, 98 (1994), p. 2,§.

18. Act 64 of 1990 on the elections of majors and local governmental representatives. Magyar Közlöny, 78 (1990), pp. 49–50,§.

19. At the 1994 general and 1995 additional elections there were 817, in 1998 there were 1364 and in 2002 1842 local minority self-governments were established in Hungary (see Mayer, 2005, pp. 14, 179).

20. Recently another meaning of ‘ethno-business’ has been developed which suggests that certain minority activists do everything possible to get themselves re-elected but as representatives they do not really do much for their putative constituents (Eiler, 2004, p. 213).

21. According to an official estimation abuses occurred at 2% of local minority elections in 1998 (see Doncsev, 2001, p. 25).

22. The assembly subsequently reconvened and a national body was successfully elected.

23. Csefkó et al. (1999, p. 91). Surveys among Roma minority self-governments also came to a similar conclusion (see Kállai, 2005, p. 117).

24. See Waters & Guglielmo (1996, pp. 188–189), Kovats (1999), Schafft (1999, p. 94), Kállai (2005, pp. 124–125) and Koulish (2005, p. 317).

25. Act 61 of 2002 on the amendment of the Act 20 of 1949 on the Constitution of the Republic of Hungary. Magyar Közlöny, 161 (2002), pp. 7, 9,§.

26. Parliamentary resolution 30/2003 (27th March) on the necessity of revision of laws concerning minorities. Magyar Közlöny, 30 (2003).

27. Act 114 of 2005 on the election of minority self-government representatives and on the amendment of certain laws concerning national and ethnic minorities. Magyar Közlöny, 141 (2005).

28. It seems that the amendment threw the baby out with the bathwater in this respect: although one of the indirect forms proved to be unwanted, the other became quite popular for those settlements in which a minority population constitutes the local majority.

29. 34/2005. (29th September) resolution of the Constitutional Court. Magyar Közlöny, 130 (2005).

30. Meanwhile another draft law has been formulated concerning this crucial issue, but it was not enacted as the 2006 parliamentary elections neared. Since then the question has been removed from the agenda.

31. In his latest report from January 2007 the minority ombudsman also drew attention to the possibility of abuses that would have occurred at the 2006 local minority elections. See A nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségi jogok országgyűlési biztosának jelentése a 2006. évi települési kisebbségi önkormányzati választásokról (2007. január).

32. Vége az etnobiznisznek. 13 June 2005. http://www.radio.hu/index.php?cikk_id = 140638

33. Homepage of the National Election Office: http://www.valasztas.hu

34. Christoph Pan's (Director of the Southern Tyrolean Institute of Ethnic Groups) lecture in Budapest in October 2003, cited by Szabó (2005, p. 221).

35. See for example Balogh & Sipos (2002, p. 490).