Abstract
This chapter analyzes the political claim-making of the Transylvanian Hungarian elites after 1989. The first part of the chapter deals with Romania’s minority policy regime and the attitudes of the majority population toward Hungarian ethno-political demands. The second section details the strategies of minority political claim-making, also providing a periodization of the post-1989 era and a discussion of two core elements of Hungary’s influence as a kin-state, namely the relationship of the minority elites with the political actors in Budapest and the issue of Hungarian citizenship. The third section illustrates the limits of the strategy of unequal accommodation (that has been central to Hungarian minority political claim-making in the past two decades) on the example of two core ethno-political goals, political autonomy , and language rights .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
As used by Csergő and Regelmann (2017).
- 3.
In Hungarian, Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség; in Romanian Uniunea Dem ocrată Maghiară din România. We use the Hungarian abbreviation.
- 4.
See Brubaker (2009).
- 5.
In the majority of cases, internal RMDSZ meetings are not documented, which also indicates a strong inclination toward informality in the Transylvanian Hungarian political culture.
- 6.
Bourdieu defines fields as social domains with their own organizing rules. The actors in such fields share a common frame of reference and compete for resources and positions with each other. As for the (always relative) autonomy of different fields, Bourdieu used the metaphor of “prism” and “refraction” (Bourdieu 1993a, p. 164). The question is to what extent an institutional structure is able to transform external influences “according the specific logic of the field”. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion.
- 7.
In Romania, the terms ethnic group and national minority are used interchangeably in official contexts. For instance, until 2002 the census asked about individuals’ “ethnicity”, not their “nationality”. Further, the Romanian Government has Department of Interethnic Relations. However, in parliament, there is a fraction of “national minorities”. The Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities was established as a governmental body in 2007. Also, several official documents use the term “national minority”.
- 8.
The “ethnicity-without-groups” thesis is of central importance here (Brubaker 2004). Brubaker reinterprets the old distinction between category and group, which he traces back to Marx and Weber and which plays a central role in the sociology of Bourdieu (1991, pp. 229–252) and Jenkins (2008). Categories are created by (powerful) external observers, while members of categories do not necessarily share any sense of belonging to them. On the contrary, groups need an internally shared sense of belonging and solidarity. Brubaker took a rather radical step by suggesting to avoid considering ethnic categories to be groups at all. He argues that by considering ethnic categories groups, we reify the perspective of ethnic elites (ethnic entrepreneurs) who seek to (re)present these entities as mobilized, internally solidary, and ready to act collectively. Brubaker’s analytical perspective obviously deconstructs and delegitimizes the position of ethnic elites and treats them (along the majority political actors) as external observers.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
According to Lijphart (1977, p. 106), plural societies have two main distinct features. First, divided societies are organized in distinct segments or pillars (zuilen in Dutch). Second, despite these deep cleavages and the lack of a unitary political culture, political elites behave in an accommodative way.
- 12.
For a detailed account of this debate, see Székely (2011, pp. 157–168).
- 13.
As we will see in the last section of this volume, institutional asymmetry has serious demographic consequences. It is the principal factor driving assimilatory processes, and it is among the key factors causing emigration. These institutionalized asymmetries also have a serious impact on the system of ethnic stratification.
- 14.
Bulgaria, Turkey and, until 2001, Albania are contrasting examples in this respect in the Southeastern European region.
- 15.
With a Westminster-type electoral system, the political representation of the Hungarian community could be reduced to the Székely Land (an area inhabited overwhelmingly by Hungarians but home only to slightly more than one-third of the Transylvanian Hungarian community).
- 16.
Law No. 35/2008.
- 17.
Law No. 208/2015.
- 18.
The sole notable exception was Traian Băsescu , president of Romania from 2004 to 2014, who tried to communicate directly with the Hungarian electorate during his campaigns. His attempts were rather successful as the majority of the Hungarians supported Băsescu in the 2009 presidential election and in the two referenda aimed at his dismissal (in 2007 and 2012).
- 19.
Deconcentrated institutions refer to the county-level offices of the institutions of the central (governmental) administration (as opposed to decentralized institutions, which are subordinated to local- or county-level administrations).
- 20.
Law No. 1/2011, art. 45(5).
- 21.
In 1995 and 1996, one of the major polling companies in Romania, the Institute of Marketing and Polls (Institutul de Marketing și Sondaje, IMAS; http://www.imas-inc.com), conducted quantitative studies concerning ethnic relations in Romania. In 1995, a total of 1376 subjects were interviewed, while in 1996, this number had increased to 1582. The number of ethnic Romanian respondents was 1032 and 1098, respectively (IMAS: Relații interetnice în România. Sondaje de opinie 1994–1996. Aprilie 1996). We did not succeed in acquiring the databases; only the research reports were accessible in the archive of the Ethno-cultural Diversity Resource Center (Centrul de Resurse pentru Diversitate Etnoculturală, CRDE, a Cluj-based NGO engaged in promoting inter-cultural peace and justice; http://www.edrc.ro/). The 2000, 2001, and 2002 surveys were part of the Etno barometer project run by CRDE. In 2000, the Research Centre on Interethnic Relations (Centrul de Cercetare a Relatiilor Interetnice or CCRIT, a Cluj-based research center run by the Sociology Department of Babeș-Bolyai University, http://www.ccrit.ro/) was in charge of the fieldwork, while in 2001 and 2002, Metro Media Transilvania (a major public opinion polling company based in Cluj; http://www.mmt.ro/) took over this role. In 2000, a total of 2051 people were interviewed, including 1253 ethnic Romanians. Different subgroups (ethnic Hungarians, and ethnic Romanians living in Hungarian-majority counties) were represented by separate subsamples. In 2001 and 2002, the national representative sample was 800 respondents. Separate subsamples for Roma (600) and Hungarian (600) populations were created, and an additional 200 Transylvanian ethnic Romanians were interviewed. The 2006 survey was carried out by CCRIT and financed by the Department for Interethnic Relations of the Romanian Government. The survey was carried out using a sample representative for Romania of 1170 respondents. In 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2016, the Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities (Institutul pentru Cercetarea Problemelor Minorităților Naționale, ISPMN, a Cluj-based research institute subsidized by the Romanian Government; www.ispmn.gov.ro) carried out empirical studies concerning the same issue. In 2008, the national sample consisted of 1189 respondents, and a sample of 537 Transylvanian Hungarians was added. In 2012, the size of the national sample was 1200. Transylvanian Hungarians were represented by a separate sample of 1991, and an additional 491 Transylvanian Romanians were interviewed. In 2014, there was a national sample of 1200 and a Transylvanian Hungarian sample of 668 respondents. In 2016, the national sample included 1138 respondents with interviews with an additional 1023 ethnic Hungarians.
- 22.
For a useful typology of minority rights/claims, see Bauböck (2007).
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
The “Romanian model of inter-ethnic relations” was an expression prevalent at the turn of the millennium in Romanian public discourse. See, for example, Nastasă and Salat (2000), a volume sponsored by USAID about the “Romanian model” of interethnic peace and stability.
- 26.
By this term, we mean the professionalized part of the Hungarian political elite, which can be differentiated from the broader stratum of intellectuals and activists, who are busy mostly with operating and developing the Hungarian institutional network and to a lesser extent with political claim-making.
- 27.
This is not true regarding local elections. In the ethnically compact Hungarian-majority Székely Land region, RMDSZ had to face much stronger intra-ethnic challenges from other Hungarian ethnic parties and independent (Hungarian) candidates. It not true with regard to elections to the European Parliament either, which we will discuss briefly in a subsequent section.
- 28.
Bourdieu conceptualized habitus as “a system of dispositions acquired by implicit or explicit learning which functions as a system of generative schemes, generates strategies which can be objectively consistent with the objective interests of their authors without having been expressly designed to that end” (1993b, p. 76). The habitus of the actors and their positions acquired in the political field are interrelated. On the one hand, some positions need a certain set of dispositions, on the other hand actors and their dispositions can be shaped by the positions they find themselves in. All in all, the relationship between the two—habitus and position—will shape the space of possibilities of each actor within the field (Bourdieu 1993a, pp. 63–64).
- 29.
These ideas were most clearly emphasized by Béla Markó, president of RMDSZ between 1993 and 2011, in an article about the post-1996 period of Transylvanian Hungarian politics (Markó 2009).
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
See Domokos (1991). The article sparked heavy debates among the Transylvanian Hungarian political elite and intelligentsia at the time.
- 33.
See, for a detailed presentation, Toró (2016, pp. 87–90).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
Csigó (2016) argues that the lack of intra-party democracy and meso-level institutions for bridging the gap between civil society and politics are more general problems in Eastern Europe.
- 39.
RMDSZ provided parliamentary support to the government between 2000 and 2004 and was part of governing coalitions between 2004 and 2008, 2010 and 2012, and most of 2014.
- 40.
See Toró (2017b) for a detailed analysis.
- 41.
See Chapter 5 for details.
- 42.
RMDSZ regularly announces calls for grants for NGOs through the Communitas Foundation, but it can also control the flow of resources meant for NGOs from the Department of Interethnic Relations and many local councils.
- 43.
In Hungarian, Erdélyi Magyar Nemzeti Tanács ; in Romanian, Consiliul Național Maghiar din Transilvania.
- 44.
In Hungarian, Magyar Polgári Párt; in Romanian, Partidul Civic Maghiar.
- 45.
In Hungarian, Erdélyi Magyar Néppárt ; in Romanian, Partidul Popular Maghiar din Transilvania.
- 46.
See Kiss et al. (2017) for a more detailed analysis of voter motivations and links between Hungarian elites and their constituency.
- 47.
In the model, it is not the consociational arrangement per se that is important, but the fact that ethnic boundaries are relatively rigid and politically salient and, consequently, voting across ethnic lines is absent (or not significant).
- 48.
MPP was supported by László Kövér , EMNP by Zsolt Németh .
- 49.
The term “constitutional patriotism” has its roots in post-World War II German political philosophy and was elaborated by authors such as Jaspers, Sternberger, and Habermas. These philosophers argued against the so-called normalization of German national identity (implying a return to its form preceding the Nazi regime). Instead of this, they fostered a new (post-national and post-ethnic) form of identity rooted in supportive relations with democratic institutions and critical publicity.
- 50.
The law was evaluated and criticized by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission (2001) and was cited by influential scholars of citizenship as a form of ethnic quasi-citizenship (Liebich 2009, p. 39) or even as one of the most important developments toward the re-ethnicization of the citizenship regimes in Europe (Joppke 2005, p. 245). For a collection of different perspectives, see Kántor et al. (2004).
- 51.
- 52.
The collapse of the left-liberal block was certainly not caused primarily by debates concerning the status of trans-border Hungarians. However, it put a definitive end to the expectations that constitutional patriotism might become a mainstream national discourse in Hungary.
- 53.
The Law on Citizenship was modified with a quasi-consensus, while the enfranchisement of extra-territorial citizenship was opposed by left-wing parties as they were suspicious about the attempts of right-wing parties to promote political rebalancing (Waterbury 2014). See also Kovács and Tóth (2013).
- 54.
The proportion of applicants among the Hungarians of Slovakia is significantly lower than in the other countries neighboring Hungary. This is due to the fact that in 2010, in response to the Hungarian “simplified naturalization” process, Slovakia abolished the possibility of dual citizenship for its citizens who voluntarily acquire foreign nationality (Bauböck 2010; Kusá 2013).
- 55.
The group was led by (then) young politicians socialized in Hungary who returned to Transylvania after finishing their studies.
- 56.
Hungarian Cards were connected to the Status Law; they took the form of official documents “proving” that the holder is a trans-border Hungarian.
- 57.
- 58.
In Hungarian, Romániai Magyar Pedagógusok Szövetsége .
- 59.
Since 2012, the support for the two smaller parties together is approximately 15% of all votes cast by ethnic Hungarian voters.
- 60.
Of these four types of resources, only the last two can be measured with a satisfactory precision. Funding from the kin-state can be documented relatively well for the 1990–2012 period. See, Bárdi (2004), Bárdi and Misovicz (2010), and Papp (2010). After the 2014 shift, subsidies become less transparent. We have relied only on data about the funds allocated by the Hungarian state budget to kin communities. We thank Nándor Bárdi for providing the tables for the 2013–2016 period, which is critical for our argument.
- 61.
See the analysis on the topic by Zoltán Sipos (2017), an independent fact-finding journalist.
- 62.
Governmental Ordinance 2061/2017 (http://www.kozlonyok.hu/nkonline/index.php?menuindex=200&pageindex=kozltart&ev=2017&szam=227).
- 63.
It seems that the most powerful actor is Béla Kató , the bishop of the Transylvanian Reformed Church District , who has a close personal relationship with Viktor Orbán . For a general account of the system of political patronage in Hungary, see Magyar (2016).
- 64.
Brubaker (1996) used the notion of minority field in a Bourdieusian sense of a social field composed of different actors struggling for definite positions and sharing a common frame of reference. In our understanding, the Transylvanian Hungarian minority field includes not only the political class but also a subelite level of ethnic activists (teachers, clerics, journalists, etc.) interested in the maintenance of minority institutions, the internal solidarity of the group and the program of ethnic parallelism.
- 65.
Garzó Ferenc: Kettős állampolgárság – vegyes a megítélés. szatmar.ro, 5 January 2011. Available at: http://www.szatmar.ro/Kettos_allampolgarsag__vegyes_a_megiteles/hirek/37445 (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 66.
Markó Béla egyelőre nem igényel magyar állampolgárságot. Népszava, 4 January 2011. Available at: http://nepszava.hu/cikk/380701-marko-bela-egyelore-nem-igenyel-magyar-allampolgarsagot (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 67.
Markó a magyarországi szavazati jog ellen. szatmar.ro, 10 June 2011. Available at: http://www.szatmar.ro/Marko_a_magyaorszagi_szavazati_jog_ellen/hirek/42622 (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 68.
Also, worth underscoring is the fact that in Slovakia Hungarian citizenship legislation is a much more divisive issue within the Hungarian community. See Ravasz (2013).
- 69.
In 2004, the electoral slogan of RMDSZ was “Together, for autonomy!” (Együtt, az auonómiáért!).
- 70.
- 71.
The full text of these documents (in Hungarian), with the exception of the 2014 draft statute of RMDSZ, is available in the collection Autonomy Conceptions in Romania (Romániai autonómia-elképzelések) at: http://adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.php?alk=48&k=5. The 2014 draft of RMDSZ can be accessed at: http://rmdsz.ro/uploads/fileok/dok/A_romaniai_Szekelyfold_autonomia_statutuma.pdf.
- 72.
- 73.
Bill on national minorities and autonomous communities (Törvény a nemzeti kisebbségekről és autonóm közösségekről), RMDSZ-SZKT, 1993.
- 74.
The bill was a reworked version of an earlier draft from 1995.
- 75.
In Romania, public schools are subordinated to the mayor’s office, thus the minority language usage on their premises is regulated both by Law No. 1/2011 on National Education and by Law No. 215/2001 on Local Public Administration.
- 76.
Ha lehet, akkor miért nem? Akadályozzák a kétnyelvű iskolai feliratok kifüggesztését. kozpont.ro, 11 April 2011. Available at: http://www.kozpont.ro/uncategorized/ha-lehet-akkor-miert-nem/ (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 77.
A very similar strategy was used by RMDSZ to avoid exiting the governmental coalition in 1997. After creating an ultimatum concerning the formation of an independent Hungarian state-funded university, RMDSZ accepted a proposal for the founding of a multilingual German-Hungarian university which never came to fruition. For details, see Horváth (2002).
- 78.
See Decision no. 172/2011 of the NCCD.
- 79.
Diszkriminál Florea. 3szek.ro, 6 February 2014. Available at: http://www.3szek.ro/load/cikk/67520/diszkriminal_florea&cm=114627 (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 80.
See NCCD Decision no. 477/2011.
- 81.
Clujul, fără controversatele plăcuţe bilingve! Primăria a câştigat definitiv procesul. Ziua de Cluj, 6 February 2015. Available at: http://ziuadecj.realitatea.net/administratie/clujul-a-scapat-de-controversatele-placute-bilingve-primaria-a-castigat-definitiv-procesul--134976.html (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 82.
Musai-Muszáj means “must” in Romanian and Hungarian.
- 83.
See the declaration of Emese Oláh, vice-mayor of Cluj: Oláh Emese: jövő héten kikerülnek az újabb többnyelvű kolozsvári helységnévtáblák. kronika.ro, 26 June 2017. Available at: https://kronika.ro/erdelyi-hirek/olah-emese-jovo-heten-ujabb-tobbnyelvu-kolozsvari-helysegnevtablakat-allitanak (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 84.
The text of the petition can be downloaded from the webpage of CEMO: http://www.cemo.ro/hu/erdekervenyesites_ketnyelvuseg_2012.html (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 85.
On both the visit and the letter, see an article in the local newspaper (Villámlátogatás a Liviu Rebreanu iskolában. Népújság, 10 May 2013).
- 86.
Leváltják a Liviu Rebreanu iskola vezetőit. Marosvásárhelyi info, 25 June 2013. Available at: http://marosvasarhelyi.info/hirek/levaltjak-a-liviu-rebreanu-iskola-vezetoit (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 87.
Horváth Anna és Vákár István is csatlakozott a Musai-muszájos Ezer per tavaszához. transindex.ro, 26 May 2015. Available at: http://itthon.transindex.ro/?cikk=25199 (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 88.
The Mayor of Cluj-Napoca Highlights the City’s Multicultural European Character. Interview with Emil Boc, The European Times, 29 June 2015. Available at: http://www.european-times.com/emil-boc-mayor-cluj-napoca-interview/ (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 89.
The whole text of the letter in Romanian can be accessed here: http://www.presalocala.com/2016/08/27/musai-muszaj-emil-boc-pune-in-pericol-succesul-proiectului-de-capitala-culturala-europeana-intra-se-vezi-de-ce/ (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 90.
Csoma Botond a táblaügyről: a kulturális főváros cím felgyorsítaná a folyamatot. kronika.ro, 11 September 2016. Available at: https://kronika.ro/erdelyi-hirek/csoma-botond-a-tablaugyrol-a-kulturalis-fovaros-cim-felgyorsitana-a-folyamatot (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 91.
https://www.facebook.com/musaimuszaj/videos/1890566064560911/ (Accessed 18 February 2018).
- 92.
The key figures in the leadership of the Department for Interethnic Relations (DIR) and the NCCD have been ethnic Hungarians during the last one and a half decades.
References
Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. American politics and political economy series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Alonso, S., & Ruiz-Rufino, R. (2007). Political representation and ethnic conflict in new democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 46(2), 237–267.
Bakk, M. (2000a). 1989–1999: az RMDSZ első tíz éve. In B. Bodó (Ed.), Romániai Magyar Évkönyv. Kolozsvár: Polis.
Bakk, M. (2000b). Modellviták – rejtett stratégiák. Magyar Kisebbség, 6(1), 8–12.
Bakk, M. (2004). Az autonómia-tervek két szakasza Erdélyben 1989 után. Magyar Kisebbség, 9(1–2), 39–60.
Bakk, M., Horváth, A., & Salat, L. (2004). Az RMDSZ 2003-ban – útkeresés integrációs határpontokban. In É. Blénesi & K. Mandel (Eds.), Kisebbségek és kormánypolitika Közép-Európában, 2002–2004. Budapest: Gondolat–MTA Etnikai-Nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet.
Bárdi, N. (2004). Tény és való. A budapesti kormányzatok és a határon túli magyarság kapcsolattörténete. Problémakatalógus. Pozsony: Kalligram.
Bárdi, N. (2017). Álságos állítások a magyar etnopolitikában. A külhoni magyarok és a budapesti kormányzatok magyarságpolitikája. In A. Jakab & L. Urván (Eds.), Hegymenet. Társadalmi és politikai kihívások Magyarországon (pp. 130–155). Budapest: Osiris.
Bárdi, N., & Misovicz, T. (2010). A kisebbségi magyar közösségek támogatásának politikája. In B. Bitskey (Ed.), Határon túli magyarság a 21. Században ( pp. 66–76). Budapest: Köztársasági Elnöki Hivatal.
Bauböck, R. (2007). The trade‐off between transnational citizenship and political autonomy. In T. Faist & P. Kivisto (Eds.), Dual citizenship in global perspective: From unitary to multiple citizenship (pp. 69–91). Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bauböck, R. (2010). Dual citizenship for transborder minorities? How to respond to the Hungarian-Slovak tit-for-tat? (EUI Working Papers No. 75).
Birnir, J. K. (2007). Ethnicity and electoral politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Biró, Z. A. (1998a). Intézményesedési folyamatok a romániai magyarság körében. In Z. A. Biró (Ed.), Stratégia vagy kényszerpályák? Tanulmányok a romániai magyar társadalomról (pp. 16–47). Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.
Biró, Z. A. (1998b). Stratégia vagy kényszerpályák? Tanulmányok a romániai magyar társadalomról. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.
Bíró, A., & Pallai, K. (2011). Public financing of national minority organisations: Policy paradigms, policy regimes and good practice. Study prepared for the committee of experts on issues relating to the protection of national minorities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Bognár, Z. (2006). Romániai magyar autonómiakoncepciók. Az 1989 és 2006 között kidolgozott törvénytervezetek. In M. Ludassy, Z. Bognár, G. Egry, L. Salat, & F. Fejtő (Eds.), Autonómia, liberalizmus, szociáldemokrácia. Fejtő Ferenc, Salat Levente, Ludassy Mária, Egry Gábor és Bognár Zoltán írásai (pp. 85–117). Budapest: Európai Összehasonlító Kisebbségkutatások Közalapítvány.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993a). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993b). Sociology in question: Theory, culture & society. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bozóki, A. (2002). The roundtable talks of 1989. The genesis of Hungarian democracy: Analysis and documents. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1995). National minorities, nationalizing states, and external national homelands in the new Europe. Daedalus, 124(2), 107–132.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brubaker, R. (1998). Migrations of ethnic unmixing in the “New Europe”. International Migration Review, 32(4), 1047–1065.
Brubaker, R. (2000). Accidental diasporas and external “homelands” in central and eastern Europe: Past and present. IHS Political Science Series, 71, 1–19.
Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1), 1–19.
Brubaker, R. (2009). National homogenization and ethnic reproduction on the European periphery. In M. Barbagli & H. Ferguson (Eds.), La teoria sociologica e lo stato moderno: saggi in onore di Gianfranco Poggi (pp. 201–221). Bologna: Il mulino.
Brubaker, R. (2011). Nationalizing states revisited: Projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(11), 1785–1814.
Brubaker, R., Feischmidt, M., Fox, J., & Grancea, L. (2006). Nationalist politics and everyday ethnicity in a Transylvanian town. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Budge, I., & Farlie, D. (1983). Party competition: Selective emphasis or direct confrontation? In H. Daalder & P. Mair (Eds.), Western European party systems: Continuity & change (pp. 267–305). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2009). Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics, 62(1), 87–119.
Cercel, C. (2017). Postwar (west) German-Romanian relations: Expanding Brubaker’s analytic triad. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 23(3), 297–317.
Chandra, K. (2004). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. Cambridge studies in comparative politics. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chandra, K. (2005). Ethnic parties and democratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 3(2), 235–252.
Chandra, K. (2012). Introduction. In K. Chandra (Ed.), Constructivist theories of ethnic politics (pp. 1–50). New York: Oxford University Press.
Choudhry, S. (2008). Bridging comparative politics and comparative constitutional law: Constitutional design in divided societies. In S. Choudhry (Ed.), Constitutional design for divided societies: Integration or accommodation? Oxford (pp. 3–40). New York: Oxford University Press.
Csergő, Z. (2007). Talk of the nation: Language and conflict in Romania and Slovakia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Csergő, Z. (2013). Kosovo and the framing of non-secessionist self-government claims in Romania. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(5), 889–911.
Csergő, Z., & Goldgeier, J. M. (2004). Nationalist strategies and European integration. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 21–37.
Csergő, Z., & Goldgeier, J. M. (2006). Virtual nationalism in comparative context: How unique is the Hungarian approach? In I. Osamu (Ed.), Beyond sovereignty: From status law to transnational citizenship? (pp. 281–302). Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.
Csergő, Z., & Regelmann, A.-C. (2017). Europeanization and collective rationality in minority voting. Problems of Post-Communism, 64(5), 291–310.
Csigó, P. (2016). ’89 mint társadalmi csapda. In G. Földes & A. Antal (Eds.), Holtpont. Társadalomkritikai tanulmányok Magyarország elmúlt 25 évéről (pp. 106–145). Budapest: Napvilág.
Domokos, G. (1991, February 12). Az irreális azonnaliság nem lehet kenyerünk. Válasz Eva Maria Barkinak. Romániai Magyar Szó.
Domokos, G. (1996). Esély I. Csíkszereda: Pallas-Akadémia.
Fearon, J. D. (1999). Why ethnic politics and ‘pork’ tend to go together (Working Paper). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights law. Duke Law Journal, 54(3), 621–703.
Gorenburg, D. P. (2003). Minority ethnic mobilization in the Russian Federation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horowitz, D. L. (1991). A democratic South Africa?: Constitutional engineering in a divided society perspectives on southern Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horváth, A. (2015). Inkább gazda volnék, mint politikus. In J. Szántai (Ed.). foter.ro.
Horváth, I. (2002). Facilitating conflict transformation: Implementation of the recommendations of the OSCE high commissioner on national minorities to Romania, 1993–2001 (Working Paper). Hamburg: CORE.
Horváth, I., & Lazăr, M. (2001). Dinamica relațiilor interetnice din ultimul deceniu. Altera, 16, 120–136.
Horváth, I., & Scacco, A. (2001). From the unitary to the pluralistic: Fine-tuning minority policy in Romania. In A. Bíró & P. Kovács (Eds.), Diversity in action: Local public management of multiethnic communities in central and eastern Europe (pp. 243–271). Budapest: OSI.
Järve, P. (2000). Ethnic democracy and Estonia: Application of Smooha’s Model (ECMI Working Papers 7).
Jenkins, R. (2008). Rethinking ethnicity (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jenne, E. K. (2007). Ethnic bargaining: The paradox of minority empowerment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Joppke, C. (2005). Selecting by origin: Ethnic migration and liberal state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kántor, Z. (2000). Kisebbségi nemzetépítés. A romániai magyarság mint nemzetépítõ kisebbség. Regio, 11(3), 219–241.
Kántor, Z. (2014). A nemzet intézményesülése a rendszerváltás utáni Magyarországon (p. 298). Budapest: Osiris.
Kántor, Z., Majtényi, B., Ieda, O., Vizi, B., & Halász, I. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond sovereignty: From status law to transnational citizenship? Sappuro: 21st century COE program Slavic Eurasian studies.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89–101.
Kiss, T. (2015). Increasing marginality, ethnic parallelism and asymmetric accommodation. Social and political processes concerning the Hungarian community of Transylvania. Minority Studies, 18, 33–69.
Kiss, T. (2017). Beyond the ethnic vote: Shifting determinants of the electoral behavior of Transylvanian Hungarians. Problems of Post-Communism, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2017.1336422.
Kiss, T., & Székely, I. G. (2016). Shifting linkages in ethnic mobilization: The case of RMDSZ and the Hungarians in Transylvania. Nationalities Papers, 44(4), 591–610.
Kiss, T., Székely, I. G., & Barna, G. (2017). Factors affecting turnout among ethnic minority voters: The case of Hungarians in Transylvania. Intersections-East European Journal of Society and Politics, 3(4), 87–119.
Kitschelt, H. (2001). Divergent paths of postcommunist democracies. In L. J. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 299–326). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kopecký, P., & Scherlis, G. (2008). Party patronage in contemporary Europe. European Review, 16(3), 355–371.
Kovács, M., & Tóth, J. (2013). EUDO citizenship observatory country report: Hungary. Florence: EUDO.
Kusá, D. (2013). EUDO citizenship observatory country report: Slovakia. Florence: EUDO.
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys: Navigating the new international politics of diversity. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2011). Beyond the indigenous/minority dichotomy? In S. Allen & A. Xanthaki (Eds.), Reflections on the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (pp. 183–208). Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Laitin, D. D., & Van der Veen, M. A. (2012). Ethnicity and pork: A virtual test of causal mechanisms. In K. Chandra (Ed.), Constructivist theories of ethnic politics (pp. 341–358). New York: Oxford University Press.
László, M., & Novák, C. Z. (2012). A szabadság terhe. Marosvásárhely, 1990. március 16–21. Csíkszereda: Pro-Print.
Liebich, A. (2009). Altneul€ander or the vicissitudes of citizenship in the New EU states. In R. Bauböck & B. Perchinig (Eds.), Citizenship policies in the New Europe (Expanded and updated ed., pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Magyar, B. L. (2016). Post-communist mafia state: The case of Hungary. Budapest: Central European University Press, in association with Noran Libro.
Markó, B. (2008). Egy elmaradt egyezség története. Élet és Irodalom (no. 38).
Markó, B. (2009). Kormányból ellenzékbe. A romániai magyar politika tizenkét éve. Élet és irodalom (no. 3).
Márton, J., & Orbán, B. (2005). Elemzés a 2005-ös kisebbségi törvénytervezetről. Magyar Kisebbség, 9(1–2), 5–38.
McGarry, J., O’Leary, B., & Simeon, R. (2008). Integration or accommodation? In S. Choudhry (Ed.), Constitutional design for divided societies: Integration or accommodation? (pp. 41–88). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Medianu, N. (2002). Analysing political exchanges between minority and majority leaders in Romania. Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(4), 28–41.
Melvin, N. (2000). Post-imperial ethnocracy and the russophone minorities of Estonia and Latvia. In J. Stein (Ed.), The policies of national minority participation post-communist Europe: State-building, democracy and ethnic mobilisation (pp. 129–166). New York: East-West Institute.
Merry, S. E. (2006). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. Chicago series in law and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, P., Evans, G., & O’Leary, B. (2009). Extremist outbidding in ethnic party systems is not inevitable: Tribune parties in Northern Ireland. Political Studies, 57(2), 397–421.
Nastasă, L., & Salat, L. (Eds.). (2000). Relații interetnice în România postcomunistă. Cluj: Fundația CRDE.
OSCE-HCNM. (1999). The Lund Recommendations on the effective participation of national minorities in public life & explanatory note. OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.
OSCE-HCNM. (2012). Ljubljana guidelines of integrating diverse societies. OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities.
Papp, A. Z. (2010). Határon túli magyar oktatási támogatások és hasznosulásuk 2006–2010 között. Educatio, 11(1), 88–110.
Pettai, V. (2007). Explaining ethnic politics in the Baltic States: Reviewing the triadic nexus model. Journal of Baltic Studies, 37(1), 124–136.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.
Pogonyi, S. (2011). Dual citizenship and sovereignty. Nationalities Papers, 39(5), 685–704.
Pogonyi, S. (2017). Extra-territorial ethnic politics, discourses and identities in Hungary. New York, Berlin, and Heidelberg: Springer.
Posner, D. N. (2005). Institutions and ethnic politics in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 337.
Rabushka, A., & Shepsle, K. A. (1972). Politics in plural societies: A theory of democratic instability. Merrill political science series. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Ram, M. H. (2009). Romania: From laggard to leader? In B. Rechel (Ed.), Minority rights in central and eastern Europe (pp. 180–194). London and New York: Routledge.
Ravasz, Á. (2013). Szlovákiai magyarok mint választók, 2009–2013. Magyar Kisebbség, 18(2), 42–68.
Rechel, B. (2009). Introduction. In B. Rechel (Ed.), Minority rights in central and eastern Europe (pp. 3–16). London and New York: Routledge.
Risse, T. (1999). International norms and domestic change: Arguing and communicative behavior in the human rights area. Politics & Society, 27(4), 529–559.
Risse-Kappen, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic change. Cambridge studies in international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
RMDSZ. (2016). Benkő Erika az ENSZ Ember Jogi Tanácsának Fórumán: a magyar közösség folyamatosan támadásoknak van kitéve.
RMDSZ. (2017). ÁLLÁSPONT - a magyar nyelv használata az egészségügyben és a szociális szolgáltatásokat nyújtó intézményekben.
Saideman, S. M., & Ayres, R. W. (2008). For kin or country: Xenophobia, nationalism, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.
Salat, L. (2003). Kisebbségi magyar jövőképek esélyei és buktatói Erdélyben. Kisebbségkutatás (3).
Salat, L. (2011). A politikai közösség kérdése a többség–kisebbség viszonyának a nézőpontjából. Magyar Kisebbség, XVI(3–4), 159–190.
Salat, L. (2014). Az RMDSZ tervezete az autonómia látszatát próbálja kelteni. In M. Kertész (Ed.), transindex.ro.
Salat, L., & Novák, C. Z. (2015). Ethnicity, nationalism, and the minority regime. In L. Stan & D. Vancea (Eds.), Post-communist Romania at twenty-five: Linking past, present, and future (pp. 63–86). Lanham: Lexington Books.
Salat, L., & Székely, I. G. (2014). Conclusions. In L. Salat, S. Constantin, A. G. Osipov, & I. N. G. Székely (Eds.), Autonomy arrangements around the world: A collection of well and lesser known cases (pp. 443–478). Cluj: Romanian Institute for Research of National Minorities.
Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sipos, Z. (2017). Határon túli támogatások 2: Az állandó tételek és a legjobb barátok. Átlátszó Erdély, 20 March. Avaialble at: https://erdely.atlatszo.hu/2017/03/20/hataron-tuli-tamogatasok-2-az-allando-tetelek-es-a-legjobb-baratok/ (Accessed 18 February 2018).
Smith, D. J. (2002). Framing the national question in central and eastern Europe: A quadratic nexus? Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 2(1), 3–16.
Smooha, S. (2001). The model of ethnic democracy (ECMI Working Papers 13).
Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.
Stroschein, S. (2011). Demography in ethnic party fragmentation: Hungarian local voting in Romania. Party Politics, 17(2), 189–204.
Stroschein, S. (2012). Ethnic struggle, coexistence, and democratization in eastern Europe. Cambridge studies in contentious politics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Szabó, T. (2017). Semmi sem garantálja a magyar nyelvű ellátást a kórházakban. foter.ro, 18 April. Avaialble at: http://foter.ro/cikk/20170418_semmi_sem_garantalja_a_magyar_nyelvu_ellatast_a_korhazakban?utm_source=foter_ro&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=foter_ro_201712.
Székely, I. G. (2011). Democraţie consociaţionistă sau împărţirea puterii în societăţi multietnice. Cadru teoretic şi patru studii de caz. Cluj: Institutul pentru Studierea Problemelor Minorităților Naționale and Kriterion.
Székely, I. G. (2014). Dynamics of party politics, electoral competition and cooperation within the Hungarian minorities of Romania, Serbia and Slovakia. PhD thesis, Central European University, Budapest.
Székely, I. G., & Horváth, I. (2014). Diversity recognition and minority representation in central and southeast Europe: A comparative analysis. Nationalities Papers, 42(3), 426–448.
Szilágyi, N. S. (1991). Mi lesz veled, RMDSZ? Korunk, 2(2), 159–166.
Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369–404.
Tőkés, G. (1999). A szétszedett végrehajtás. Az RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnökségének szervezetei elemzése. WEB, 4–5, 52–63.
Toró, T. (2013). A romániai magyar nyilvánosság alakulásának diskurzusa politikai filozófiai megközelítésben. Ph.D., Babeș-Bolyai Tudományegyetem, Kolozsvár.
Toró, T. (2016). Hungarian minority politics in post-socialist Romania: Interests, strategies, and discourses. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies, 10(1), 79–106.
Toró, T. (2017a). Detached implementation. Discourse and practice in minority language usage in Romania. Manuscript.
Toró, T. (2017b). Ethnicization or de-ethnicization? Hungarian political representation in the Romanian parliament. Nationalities Papers, 46(2), 219–236.
Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. California series on social choice and political economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
UN-CCPR. (1999). Summary record of the 1768th meeting: Romania. 1 November 1999: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsCCPR/C/SR.1768.
UN-CCPR. (2017). Summary record of the 3428th meeting. Consideration of reports submitted by Romania: International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsCCPR/C/SR.3428.
Vasi, I. B. (2004). The fist of the working class: The social movements of Jiu Valley miners in post-socialist Romania. East European Politics and Societies, 18(1), 132–157.
Veres, V. (2008). Analiza comparată a identităţii minorităţilor maghiare din Bazinul Carpatic. A Kárpát-medencei magyarok nemzeti identitásának összehasonlító elemzése (ISPMN Working papers 44).
Vermeersch, P. (2011). Theories of ethnic mobilization: Overview and recent trends (RPD Working Paper 3).
Volintiru, C. (2012). Institutional distortions, clientelism and corruption: Evidence from Romania (CCREI Working Papers 1).
Waterbury, M. A. (2010). Between state and nation: Diaspora politics and kin-state nationalism in Hungary (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Waterbury, M. A. (2014). Making citizens beyond the borders. Problems of Post-Communism, 61(4), 36–49.
Waterbury, M. A. (2017). National minorities in an era of externalization: Kin-state citizenship, European integration, and ethnic Hungarian minority politics. Problems of Post-Communism, 64(5), 228–241.
Wimmer, A. (2002). Nationalist exclusion and ethnic conflict: Shadows of modernity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wolczuk, K. (2010). History, Europe and the “national idea”: The “official” narrative of national identity in Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 28(4), 671–694.
Wolff, S., & Cordell, K. (2003). Ethnic Germans as a language minority in central and eastern Europe: Legislative and policy frameworks in Poland, Hungary and Romania. In G. Hogan-Brun & S. Wolff (Eds.), Minority languages in Europe: Frameworks, status, prospects (pp. 99–119). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiss, T., Toró, T., Székely, I.G. (2018). Unequal Accommodation: An Institutionalist Analysis of Ethnic Claim-Making and Bargaining. In: Kiss, T., Székely, I., Toró , T., Bárdi, N., Horváth, I. (eds) Unequal Accommodation of Minority Rights. Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78893-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78892-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78893-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)