JANUS 2015-2016

2.8 • Nacionalismos e separatismos The Hungarian minority in post-Communist : political activity and claims for autonomy Andrea Carteny

The main political player to support the standing, cooperation and good neighbourhood”, Hungarian environments and inside the UDMR: autonomy for in Romania is the which involved the governments to keep the only the radical criticism of László Tökés faced Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania boundaries and to protect respective minorities to moderate approach of Béla Markó. This first (Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség, RMDSz in their own countries. phase at government is considered a “lost round” in Hungarian, in Romanian Uniunea Democrată by UDMR (Stroschein, 2012). Maghiară din România, UDMR) (Stein, 2010). Hungarians in the Romanian government A general weakness of government political action The three November 1996 elections meant a his- caused the change of prime minister, at the begin- The Hungarian party vs. Romanian torical turning point for political parties, marked ning of 1998: re-launched the privati- nationalists by the opposition victory (Biagini, 2005). The for- zation processes and policies for containing inflac- Founded by Hungarian leaders of December mer rector of the University, Emil tions of the “Lei” national currency. Against the Revolution, as Lászlo Tökés, at the end of 1989, Constantinescu, became head of the State and the government action the miners, from the , this party was protagonist in the ethnic clash of Romanian Democratic Convention, in coalition called to the general strike and to march to Bucha- Târgu Mureș “Black March” 1990, target of the with Social-Democrats and the Hungarian Union, rest: in January 1999 this last “mineriade” (as called, Romanian nationalist attacks. The first con- launched the government of Victor Ciorbea. Together like the previous manifestations and clashes of these gress of the party elected his political elite: at with the priority of Euro-Atlantic integration workers against governments), with ten thousands the general elections of May, the UDMR collect- process, the new government tried to work for of participants, revealed a country in transition ed all the Hungarian votes of Romania (6-7%), distension in the international relations of still on the edge of a coup d’état, in this occasion meanwhile the majority of former Socialist Romania with bordering countries. In May 1997 organized by former Communists and Nationalists political elite contributed to the victory of the State visit in Romania of the Hungarian presi- (as those of Great Romania Party). The collapse of National Salvation Front (receiving two thirds dent, Árpád Göncz, was the historical opportuni- the government parties, mainly of Christian Demo- of the votes), with and . ty to consolidate the bilateral relationship: but cratic National Peasants, was expected for the next The collaboration of the Hungarian Union with the government action about the Hungarian elections: on 26th November 2000 the 65% of the historical democratic parties (Nation- autonomy did not change the centralist approach. citizens expressed disaffection to the political al-Liberals, National-Peasants, Social-Democrats) action of government in the first presidential round, allowed to launch a national Convention for the giving 28% of the votes to the Great Romania’s instauration of democracy. In May 1991 the UD- nationalist leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor, at the ballot MR’s congress elected president Lászlo Tökés In the political life of Romania’s behind the former president, Ion Iliescu: after two and the Union formed, with other opposition Hungarians, UDMR practically weeks, facing the risk of a nationalist statement in parties, the Democratic Convention of Romania: gained more right for minorities the second round, Iliescu collected the not enthu- in this period (June 1991) the coagulation of in the language’s administration siastic support of Liberals, Democrats and Hun- nationalist environments gave the opportunity garians too. The new leftist prime minister, Adrian of some fields (mainly education for the constitution of the “Great Romania” Năstase, opened to the collaboration with other Party (Partidul România Mare, PRM, originated and justice) being well parties, firstly the Hungarian one. This new phase by the nationalist newspaper with the same integrated in the power, of UDMR’s involvement in the governmenent was name), whose leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor but nothing about territorial marked by a soft approach to the most important marked the political discourse with “anti” key- autonomy. targets and a step-by-step strategy with a perma- words (against Hungarian, Hebrews, Gipsies). nent presence in the cabinet and local administra- With the affirmation of the Iliescu’s Democratic tion: under the strong leadership of Markó Béla Salvation Front (against the Roman’s one), in (deputy prime minister in the government), the the elections of September 1992, all these na- During 1997, several issues were pointed out by Hungarian Union was accused to become a sort of tionalist parties (the Party for Romanian National Hungarian party: minority laws for language in the Hungarian “section of the former Communist Unity, rooted in and in the nation- education and re-constitution of the Hungarian party” (so called the Social-Democratic party of alist associations protagonist of the ethnic clashes university in Transylvania caused debates and Iliescu and Năstase) (Carteny, 2007). in March ’90, the recently founded Great Romania tensions inside the Parliament, in the Romanian About the initiative for the Hungarian university Party, and the former Communists of Socialist society and in the Hungarian Union too. The main in Romania, between 1999 and 2000 the support Labour Party) governed together in a so called result was the provision (in fact, not everywhere of Hungarian government and the coordination “red quadrilateral”, red four-sided (G. Andreescu, respected) for bilingual public inscription in lo- of Hungarian churches in Romania (Catholic, Cal- 2003). calities with at least 20% of minority population: vinist, Unitarian and Evangelical Lutheran one) In June 1995, however, the statement of Snagov but the refusal of an autonomous Hungarian uni- allowed to launch the Sapientia Foundation and – signed by almost all Romanian parties – indi- versity in Cluj (that was the “Bolyai” University, the Hungarian “Sapientia” University in Transyl- cated the main goal of adhesion to the European unified in the Communist period within the vania, from 2001 in function in three cities Union, and in October Romania was accepted Romanian “Babeș-Bolyai” State University) and (Miercurea Ciuc/Csíkszereda, Târgu Mureş/Ma- within the Central European Initiative: but the later of the “multicultural” definition too for the rosvásárhely, Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár) and the Par- simultaneous opening for a friendship treaty with same Babeș-Bolyai University, and the stop of all tium Christian University (in /Nagyvárad). was stopped by the nationalist parties the Hungarian parliamentary initiatives to main- The Hungarian Churches and respective confes- of government. Finally, only in September 1996, tain their own language in schools and educa- sional communities (mainly Catholics, Calvinists, before the general elections, Romania signed tion (in teaching plans of history and geography) Lutherans and Unitarians) are considered the with Hungary the Timișoara agreement “of under- meant disappointment and frustration within pillars of solidarity and identity of minorities life,

70 Votes (%) Votes (%) Hungarian parties in local Votes (%) for Votes (%) for Council in the case of the Romanian ban for the display of the for Presidents for elections - 2008 Municipal Council of district (jude) of district (jude) Mayors regional Szekler flag on the local administrative UDMR 419.028 (5,26) 378.413 (4,28) 404.657 (4,75) 429.329 (5,13) buildings. For this reason, recently re-claimed forms PCM 79.135 (0,99) 61.282 (0,69) 79.238 (0,93) 84.620 (1,01) of territorial autonomy disassociated themselves Trends and comparison of Hungarian parties. from the government. Source: http://www.becparlamentare2012.ro. In this last period and in the present time, in Roma- nia among main Hungarian politicians again László UDMR Chamber Senate In this same period in Transylvania, while UDMR T kés has to be mentioned, Member of the European trends ő of Deputies votes (%) in national was more and more involved in the Romanian gov- Parliament (MEP) designed in 2007 and elected in votes (%) elections ernment strategy and action, different organizations 2009 with the support both of UDMR and Hungarian 1990 991.601 (7,23%) 1.004.353 (7,2%) emerged among Hungarians, mainly in Szeklers’ National Council of Transylvania. The strong feeling 1992 811.290 (7,46%) 831.469 (7,58%) counties, to mark stronger claims for autonomy and with Viktor Orbán makes him the most important 1996 812.628 (6,64%) 837.760 (6,82%) independence of Hungarians in Romania. In July Hungarian leader from Romania, until his re-election 2000 736.863 (6,8%) 751.310 (6,9%) 2003, the Hungarian Civic Alliance was founded and as MEP in 2014 for Orbán’s political party, FIDESZ 2004 638.125 (6,2%) 637.109 (6,2%) began a process to be recognized as Hungarian party – Magyar Polgári Szövetség, in the European Peo- 2008 425.008 (6,17%) 440.449 (6,39%) with the political project of territorial autonomy: this ple’s Party-Christian Democrats group. Tőkés is ac- Trends and comparison of Hungarian parties. process finalized in 2008, with the participation of tually considered even the “mentor” of another activ Source: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romániai_Magyar_Demokrata_Szövetség. Hungarian Civic Party to the local elections in Tran- political formation, the Hungarian People’s Party of sylvania in opposition to UDMR, under the leader- Transylvania, launched in December 2010 by the Hungarian parties Chamber Senate ship of Jen Szász (mayor of / Hungarian National Council of Transylvania: the in national of Deputies votes (%) ő elections – 2012 votes (%) Székelyudvarhely). In October 2003 a Szekler Na- PPMT, led by Tibor Toró, presented a platform of UDMR 380.656 (5,14) 388.528 (5,24) tional Council was launched in Sfântu Gheorghe/ Transylvanian autonomy based on the Swiss model, PPMT 47.955 (0,65) 58.765 (0.79) Sepsiszentgyörgy, as a civic organization represent- and in the presidential election of 2014 candidated Trends and comparison of Hungarian parties. ing the national interests of Hungarian Szeklers, his young leader Zsolt Szilágyi, with a federalist pro- Source: http://www.becparlamentare2012.ro. with the main goal of the Szeklerland autonomy; in gram for Romania and the Hungarian regional au- December of the same year the Hungarian National tonomy for Szeklerland and Partium. Council of Transylvania was established as civic or- But the absolute protagonist for Hungarians, even also for Germans (Lutherans and Catholics): ganization that represents the project for the Hun- in Romania, is again Viktor Orbán, from 2010, when these institutions are still claiming back all the garian autonomy in Transylvania, under the leader- the elections in Hungary consigned a two-third properties expropriated and nationalized by the ship of László Tőkés (who in 2003 left the UDMR). majority in the Budapest parliament to Orbán Communist regime (Doe, 2011). party: the new Hungarian Constitution, approved From one to many Hungarian parties in April 2011, supports the Hungarian nationality Strategies of Viktor Orbán In the political life of Romania’s Hungarians, UDMR for Hungarians outside Hungary (Tóth, 2012): for Transylvania practically gained more right for minorities in the more than six hundred thousands Romanian citizens In Hungary, in 1998 the 35 years old Viktor Orbán, language’s administration of some fields (mainly ed- (till September 2014) are granted Hungarian citizen- leader of FIDESZ (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége, ucation and justice) being well integrated in the pow- ship. The dual citizenship actually is a successful the Alliance of Young Democrats), was the winner er, but nothing about territorial autonomy: UDMR strategy in certain conditions (Dumbrava, 2014): at the elections and the new Hungarian prime was with Năstase government until his presidential undoubtfully it has many results among ethnic minister of a center-right coalition government. campaign in 2004, and after the victory of his an- Hungarians of Carpathian bassin, mainly in coun- His policy towards Hungarian communities outside tagonist with the new coalition government of tries, as Romania, where the claims for cultural and Hungary was to protect strongly the Hungarian center-right “Justice and Truth”, with some ministers territorial autonomy are until now unsuccessful.■n identity and language: the main tool launched and the deputy prime minister in the Romanian cab- was the Hungarian Status law, whose debate began inet. From February 2005, by UDMR initiative, Bibliography in 2000 and whose final draft was approved in a new draft law on national minorities was debated June 2001. This provision aimed to state a kind of in the public opinion and in the parliament: this pro- G. Andreescu, Extremismul de dreapta in România, “cultural federation” between motherland and ject prospected the status of “cultural autonomy” (in Cluj-Napoca 2003. R. Bauböck, Th. Faist (eds), Diaspora and transnationalism: Hungarian minority’s communities out of Hungary, the sphere of education, religion, language, media, concepts, theories and methods, Amsterdam 2010. mainly from bordering countries as Romania, etc.) only for the historical minority’s communities A. Biagini, Storia della Romania contemporanea, Milano 2005. Slovakia, former Yugoslavia States, Ucraine, Austria living in Romania more than one hundred years ago A. Carteny, I partiti politici in Romania (1989-2004), Cosenza- (Kántor et alii, 2004): the Status law recognized (and not for emigrants and refugees) (Decker-McGar- Roma 2007. D.Ch. Decker and A. McGarry, Enhancing Minority as ethnic Hungarian many citizens of other coun- ry, 2005). For so-recognized national minorities, this Governance in Romania. The Romanian Draft Law tries, but it encountered their criticism because of the proposal previewed that the management of the au- on the Status of National Minorities: Issues of Definition, ingerence in their domestic affairs (Bauböck-Faist, tonomy was carried out by minority’s councils organ- NGO Status and Cultural Autonomy, ECMI Report # 54, May 2005 (available at http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/ 2010). With Romania, after the December meeting ized by the minority’s parties, which was strongly Publications/Detail/?lang=en&id=25945). of Orbán with Romanian prime minister Adrian criticized by minorities’ civic organizations. Although N. Doe, Law and religion in Europe: a comparative Năstase, Hungary reached an agreement. However, the debate was long and complex, this draft law was introduction, Oxford 2011. the process to recognize ethnic Hungarians among refused, as other projects for territorial autonomy, by Z. Kántor et alii (Z. Kántor, B. Majtényi, O. Ieda, B. Vizi, I. Halász, eds), The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building Romanian citizens was put in doubt by the following the Romanian parliament: even comparative per- and/or Minority Protection The Hungarian status,: Slavic events: in 2002, Hungarian Socialists gained the spective, as the model of French-German reconcilia- Research Center-Hokkaido University, Sapporo 2004. government and changed the Hungary’s approach tion, resulted very hard to realize (Salat-Enache, J.P. Stein, The Politics of National Minority Participation in Post-communist Europe, New York 2010. to this issue. In December 2004, at the referendum 2004). In all the cases, UDMR – with both center- Sh. Stroschein, Ethnic struggle, coexistence, and called to give the Hungarian nationality as second right government, from 2008, and from 2012 So- democratization in Eastern Europe, Cambridge 2012. citizenship for ethnic Hungarians, few voters to cial-Democrat government – passed to the opposi- G.A. Tóth (ed.), Constitution for a Disunited Nation: support the initiative meant the end of this first tion and re-entered in the government majority, but on Hungary’s 2011 Fundamental Law, Budapest 2012. M.A. Waterbury, Between State and Nation: wave of a wider Hungarian citizenship for diaspora without big results for a greater autonomy and al- Diaspora Politics and Kin-state in Hungary, (Waterbury, 2010). ways with occasion for old and new civic conflict: as New York 2010.

71