The ethnic question has been one of the most potentially dangerous in post-communist Romania, in particular the relationship between the two most numerous ethnic groups - Romanians and Hungarians caused concern. Events in 1990 in Tirgu Mures showed a high potential for an ethnic conflict.
The article analyzes the interethnic relations between the two ethnic groups, reviews the driving force of positive change in this area, and studies the national policy of Romania in the context of protection of political rights of national minorities.
Events in the world allow us confidently say that the ethnic issue is relevant today than ever. Moreover, an ethnic conflict not only cause instability within the country but also poses a threat to regional security. Therefore, the regulation of the national policy is one of the most important components to maintain stability not only in a country, but also in the whole region.
In Romania ethnic question also plays an important role in the politics of the country. One of the most potentially dangerous questions in post-communist Romania was relationships between two main ethnic groups – Romanians and Hungarians.
The focus of the article is ethnic issue in Romania, namely past tensions between Hungarians and Romanians as a potential instability factor for the future, the improvement of the situation and the main leitmotif of it, the way of national minorities protection.
Hungarians: a potential source of instability
Hungarian issue in Romania deserves attention as Hungarians are the largest ethnic group in the republic, constituting more than six percent of the population (2002 census).Moreover, Hungarian minority in Romania represent distinct issue not only because of its large number, but also due to the fact that it is “a time bomb that might explode” (Van Marle & Paul, 1997).
There was such ‘explosion’ in Romanian history, which increases the probability of ethnic conflict and of new clashes in the future.
The case in hand is violent clashes between Romanians and Hungarians in Tirgu Mures in March 1990. The fact that events would occur at that city was quite predictable and understandable, as there is a great number of Hungarian population there, which was initially the dominant ethnic group, and only during the communist Ceauşescu regime influx of Romanian population in the city began that led to its almost equal proportion of Romanians and Hungarians nowadays.
Serious clashes began on 19 March 1990, when armed with sticks and bottles crowd of Romanians had gathered near the headquarters of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), attempting to penetrate the building, which resulted in injury of several Hungarians. The next day, about 15,000 Hungarians and their supporters among Romanians came to the main square of the city as a response to what happened the day before, and were attacked by Romanians, and the violent clashes between two lasted until the next morning of March, 21. Despite the fact that the Romanian government has accused Hungary in contributing to the tension, where, among other things, was mentioned provision of “the Hungarian minority with maps and textbooks in which Transylvania was presented as Hungarian territory” [1], some scholars concur (Kostecki, 2002; Gallagher, 2005) that the real force that provoked the violence to take place were circles in Romania and not in Hungary.
The significance of these events is undeniable, as it was the first ethnic clashes not only in the republic, but also in the post-communist Balkans, and that is why solution of the ethnic issue in Romania is of great importance.
The ethnic issue in Romania is also complicated by the migration processes. There was a big outflow of Hungarians and other non-titular nations from the territory of the state. Between 1989-1998 periods more than 46 thousands of Hungarians left the country, where the biggest rate of migration was at the first post-communist years (10,099 people in 1989 and 11,040 in 1990) [2, p.16]. Reasons of such emigration are willingness to return to their homeland, where they won’t be a minority (so-called ‘psychological burden of minority status’); worsening economic situation, and discriminatory policy of the Romanian state [3].
In this respect, Brubaker’s “triangular relationship among incipient nation-state, national minority, and external national homeland” is of great importance (Brubaker, 1994: 64). The kin state plays a crucial role in ethnic situation of Romania, as elites in neighboring Hungary monitor the situation of their coethnics for the purpose of prevention of their discrimination. Moreover, official policy of Hungarian authority is also important for understanding emigration processes in Romania. One of the most outstanding figures in Hungarian ruling circles is the former Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, who repeatedly supported the idea of Hungarian autonomy in Romania. In October 1998, for instance, he claimed that “the Hungarian nation’s border does not coincide with Hungary’s borders”, indicating for the autonomy of Hungarians in Romania as a preferred option [2, p.51]. Such claims continued throughout the years, and in his speech at the Summer University at Balvanyos, in Romania in July 2004 he declared that “Now is the right time to ask for autonomy because now the European Union looks with sympathy towards this idea, - [adding that] - Autonomy could be achieved here only with support from the masses” [4].
Romanian government rather negatively reacted to such statements, which is fully demonstrated in Crin Antonescu’s answer:
“We are firmly telling Viktor Orban that he has a country to run and that country is called Hungary alone and it’s good for him to evaluate whatever the divinity wants only on Hungarian territory, – [and] – It’s unacceptable for a Hungarian high official to tell us how we should organize our country’s territory in order for Viktor Orban and the divinity to be satisfied [5].
Uneasy relationship between two countries improved after the signing of a bilateral agreement in September 1996 – “Treaty of understanding, cooperation and good neighbourliness”. This treaty is of great importance in the sphere of ethnic groups protection, as it grants a lot of rights for national minorities (namely for the Romanian minority in Hungary and the Hungarian minority in Romania), which are fully described in Article 15 of the Treaty:
(2) […] the right to create and maintain their own educational, cultural and religious institutions, organizations or associations; (3) … the right to freely use their mother tongue, in private and in public, orally and in writing; (5) … the right to effectively take part, individually or through their political parties or organizations to the political, economic, social and cultural life and to resolution of issues of national or local interest, through their elected representatives in bodies of central or local public authorities [6]..
This Treaty is of great importance for Romania not only in case of Hungarians, but also as a demonstration of ethnic sphere regulation and improvement.
It was signed by the influence of the EU enlargement process, according to which Romania had to promote good relations with its neighbors by “respecting borders and rights of minorities”.
This Treaty allowed Hungarians to integrate fully into the Romanian society, and to reduce tension between two main ethnic groups of the republic.
European Union as a driving force
Romanian attempts to enter in the EU succeeded after 17 years of mutual relations, which began in October 1990 with the signing of an Agreement on Trade and Commercial and Economic Cooperation, and ended with official accession of Romania to the European Union in January 1, 2007.
It can be said with certainty that the leitmotif of democratic transformations in Romania is its orientation and accession to the European Union, which is also true for the ethnic sphere. The creation of a propitious climate for ethnic minorities is one of the main conditions for EU membership.
As Melanie Ram rightly noted, “the extensive legal harmonization requirements stipulated by the EU have guided and even directed or catalyzed the choice and development of new, sometimes unpopular domestic laws and institutions in the EU-Associated post-communist states and thereby influenced domestic politics and the speed and success of these countries in achieving their reform goals” [7].
Thus, for instance, the signing of the mentioned above Treaty was also as a result of European integration since its came after the Pact on Stability in Europe, signed in March 1995, also known as Balladur Pact, “which combined conflict prevention with minority problems solution”[8].
This bilateral agreement has not gone unnoticed by the Commission, which in its Opinion in 1997 noted that situation with the Hungarian minority have improved appreciably since the signing of this Treaty.
There was also development in the minority sphere due to the Law on Local Public Administration, which gave linguistic minorities, in localities where they represent more than 20% of the population, the right to receive services from local authorities in their mother tongue. That provision was also harmonized with European legislation, namely with the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and Recommendation 1201 (Ram, 2001).
In general, there were adopted and ratified many legal and official documents, international minority rights conventions and recommendations, were established new institutions during the pre-accession period as a result of the EU enlargement process, which served as a driving force behind all these transformations.
The investigation of the ethnic issue in Romania won’t be complete and full without analysis of ethnic groups’ inclusion to the political life of the country, where political representation is of great importance.
Political and Legal framework
It is important to provide a chance for all ethnicities to be involved in the political life of a country. First of all, rights for political participation should be prescribed by legislative action. The basic law of every country is Constitution. The Constitution of Romania is comprehensive about rights of national minorities, it “recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity” [9, Art.6, p.1].
Rights for political participation are realized through voting and serving in public office, and also include assembling and protesting rights. All these rights are enshrined in the main Romanian Law. The right to vote is based on the constitutional principle of equality and is guaranteed to everyone who has attained the age of eighteen. This provision is complemented by Article 3 of the Law No. 35 of 13 March 2008, which states that “Romanian citizens shall have the right to vote and to be elected, regardless of the race, sex, nationality, ethnic origin, spoken language, religion, political opinion, wealth, or social origin” [10]
Assembling and protesting rights proscribed in Article 43 of the Constitution of Romania: “Citizens may freely associate into political parties, trade unions, employers' associations, and other forms of association; [and] The employees have the right to strike in the defence of their professional, economic and social interests.”
Type of electoral system is also important for effective inclusion of minorities to public sphere. It is regulated in our case by the Constitution of Romania and the Electoral law [11]. There are three types of electoral system – majoritarian, proportional and mixed one. Romania represents the latter type of electoral system, which has changed from purely proportional to mixed one in 2008: “Deputies and Senators shall be elected by uninominal vote, according to the principle of proportional representation, in uninominal colleges” [10, Art.5, p.1]
In general, the previous party list-based PR system, has changed to a similarly proportional representation system, yet based on voting for a single candidate. It was assumed that these changes would “increase the accountability of the elected representative, who becomes identifiable to the electorate” [12].
In Romanian case type of an electoral system did not affect significantly the representation of national minorities. The more important were special clauses in the Constitution and Electoral law for positive discrimination of such groups.
Thus, the Constitution not only allows the creation of ethnic-diverse parties, but even stipulates ‘positive action strategies’, namely reserving seats for minorities in Parliament:
“Organizations of citizens belonging to national minorities, which fail to obtain the number of votes for representation in Parliament, have the right to one Deputy seat each, under the terms of the electoral law. Citizens of a national minority are entitled to be represented by one organization only” (Art.62, p.2).
On the basis of that, Romanian minorities are represented in the Parliament. So, for instance, in 2008 parliamentary elections, the UDMR won 22 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 9 seats in the Senate, while other 18 organizations representing minorities in Romania, which failed to obtain a sufficient number of votes to win parliamentary representation, were given one seat each. On the one hand, that policy enables different parties to be represented in the parliament and stimulates competition between different groups; but, on the other hand, positive discrimination could lead to holding a post by ‘silent group’ of MPs (mainly non-Hungarian minorities that received one seat each), who hardly participate in legislative or other initiatives of the Parliament. Although, there is a problem of “hijacking of minority representation by individuals who either pretend to represent non- existent minorities (like Vasile Savu) or do not belong to the minority they allegedly represent”, advantages of that system are obvious.
Concluding remarks
Ethnic issues hold a prominent place in almost every modern democracy, where Romania makes no exception. One of the most potentially dangerous questions in post-communist Romania was relationships between two main ethnic groups – Romanians and Hungarians. The events in 1990 showed the fragility of national security and the ethnic sphere’s high conflict potential. Nevertheless, tensions between two groups decreased significantly, and the important role in this process belongs to EU’s accession requirements.
In order to avoid interethnic conflicts, it is necessary to provide not only cultural, linguistic rights, but also political opportunities and equal access for all ethnic groups to civil services. There are positive actions regarding Hungarians in Romania and their political rights. However, Hungarians are not the only ethnic issue in Romania. Roma are also a very important case for future investigation.
- KOSTECKI, Wojciech. “Prevention of Ethnic Conflict: Lessons from Romania”, Berghof Occasional Paper Nr. 19, 2002, 17, available from: http://www.berghof-conflictresearch.org/documents/publications/boc19e.pdf
- HORVÁTH, István. Facilitating Conflict Transformation: Implementation of the Recommendations of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities to Romania, 1993-2001, CORE Working Paper 8, Hamburg 2002, available from: http://www.core-hamburg.de/CORE_english/pub_workingpapers.htm
- GÖDRI, Irén. “A Special Case of International Migration: Ethnic Hungarians Migrating From Transylvania to Hungary”, Yearbook of Population Research in Finland, 40, 2004, pp. 45-72
- Viktor Orban Asks for the Autonomy of Transylvania, 26 iulie 2004, available from: http://www.jurnalul.ro/jurnalul- national/jurnalul-national/viktor-orban-asks-for-the-autonomy-of-transylvania-print-64307.html
- Opposition Condemns Hungarian Parliament Speaker’s Statements, March 2011, available from: http://www.nineoclock.ro, accessed on 20/05/2011
- 33604 Hungary and Romania: Treaty of understanding, cooperation and good neighbourliness (with appendix), Signed at Timisoara on 16 September 1996, United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1966.
- RAM, Romania’s Reform through European Integration: The Domestic Effects of European Union Law. Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/kokkalis/GSW1/GSW1/20%20Ram.pdf
- FERRERO, Ruth. The forgotten issue? Eastward enlargement and national minorities, available at: http://www.iuee.eu/pdf-publicacio/117/3ztnA7XR5Bcmz6FD7ne8.PDF
- Constitution of Romania (2003)
- LAW 35 of 13 March 2008 for the election to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate and for the amendment and completion of Law No. 67/2004 for the election of local public administration authorities, of Law No. 215/2001 on the local public administration, and of Law No. 393/2004 on the Statute of local electees, Published in OJ No. 196 of 13 March 2008
- The Electoral System in Romania is governed by three election laws: Law 68 of July 15, 1992 for election of the members of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate, Law no. 69 of July 15, 1992 for the election of the President of Romania and Law no. 70 of November 26, 1991 for local elections
- The Electoral Reform and Electoral Surveys, available from: http://www.soros.ro/en/program_articol.php?articol=141