DOSSIER nº 10 - HUNGARY OR THE INHERITED DIVERSITY
Unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragille est
Saint Stephen of Hungary, XIth C.
The present-day existence of Hungarian ethnic minorities outside Hungary,
plus the already existing presence of non-Hungarian minorities within
its current state territory, has lead the present dossier to intend
to deal with both of them, specially after the promulgation of the
so-called Status Law and the ongoing political debate around it.
Such shared presence
of ethnic and linguistic minorities between the different Central
and Eastern European states- a historical fact of which Western Europe
has been increasingly reaware ever since the former countries manifested
their will to integrate into the EU- has made that the requisites
put forward by the EU itself deal with the respect towards human rights,
and therefore towards linguistic rights as well. Accordingly, the
governments from these states have progressively strived to adapt
their national legislation in order to comply with such demands. The
Hungarian case, however, does not fully fit into this paradigm given,
as we will see, its historical familiarity with the treatment of either
the domestic or national minorities (i.e., those officially recognized
non-Hungarian ones) and those Hungarian-speaking ones present in neighbouring
countries. Before we go into details a very brief historical contextualization
is needed.
After the end
of World War I (1918), the Treaty of Trianon (1920) (1) and other
parallel treaties mainly with Austria, Romania, Czechoslovakia and
Yugoslavia (originally the Serb-Croat-Sloven Kingdom), stated the
breakup of the thus far Austrian-Hungarian Empire, as well as its
dismembering and subsequent split of Hungarian-speaking territories
between the neighbouring states, leading to the formation of newly
formed states (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) or the recovery of full
political sovereignty (as is the case of Poland). These facts entailed
the nowadays presence of Hungarian ethnic communities in Austria,
Slovakia, Ukraine, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia,
and specially in Romania (as a matter of fact, Hungary lost the 67,8%
of its territory at that time).
In Hungary there
is to a certain extent a historical tradition of acknowledgment (in
the sense of acceptance or tolerance) concerning cultural diversity,
which has been reflected in the big amount of past and present related
legislative production, from which we would like to provide in this
dossier a summary of the most relevant modern documents in this respect
(2).
Hungary was during
the preceding centuries a semi-independent country with its own constitution
at the same time as was part of the Habsburg monarchy. Latin was used
for official matters until 1784 when King Joseph II introduced, by
a decree, German as the official language in Hungary (though Latin
was reintroduced after the king's death in 1790). Parallely to the
social and political processes that were taking place throught Europe,
Hungarian slowly gained ground to Latin as regards official matters
until in 1848-1849, during the independence war against the Habsburg
forces, when the first minority language protection act, the Act on
Nationalities of 1849, was adopted in Hungary. After the Hungarian
defeat, however, German became again the language used for official
purposes.
One should also
bear in mind that, some years later, the so-called Ausgleich
(3) -the constitutional reforms by which the Austrian Empire became
the Dual Monarchy of Austria and Hungary-, envisaged in its wording
(Article 19) the equality between the diverse peoples that formed
it as well as their right to maintain their own language and to use
them at school and in public life. On the other hand, the parallel
compromise (Nagodba, 18684) between Hungary and Croatia inasmuch as
semi-autonomous members of that dual monarchy, also contemplates the
official status and use of the Croatian language, for instance, in
the fields of administration and political representativeness (Articles
56-59).
A historical precedent
among nearly all of the European states is the approval of the Act
on Equal National Rights, also of 1868, in which the equality
of all citizens speaking a language other than Hungarian was also
envisaged. It also ensured, for example, the right to receive instruction
in the mother tongue. These mesures were subsequently complemented
by the adoption of other acts which touched upon the language question,
in this case mainly in relation to the use of Hungarian: the Act
XVIII on the Teaching of Hungarian in Elementary Schools (1879), the
Act XXVI on Salaries of Teachers in Municipal Elementary Schools (1893),
the Act XXXIII on Juries (1897), etc. which gave rise to political
tensions since they were partly perceived as assimilationist measures.
In this respect, it must be underlined that the 1868 Act did not include
any reference to the use of Hungarian in elementary schools where
the languages of teaching were others.The whole of the aforementioned
measures were in force until practically the end of the Dual Monarchy.
During the interwar
period, the treatment towards minorities in Hungary, as well as in
neighbouring countries, became established by the provisions of the
international minority protection under the auspices of the League
of the Nations, quite similar to those previously in force in Hungary,
which have been described above.
 |
| Hungarian
banknote (1920) in six languages. |
The
current Constitution of Hungary (1), promulgated in 1949 and
with a new consolidated version with amendments from 1997, establishes
the right for national and ethnic minorities to form self-governing
bodies as constituent parts of the state, besides establishing the
figure of an Ombudsman or mediator, directly elected by two thirds
of the Parliament, in order to watch over the rights of these minorities
in case of litigation. Moreover, the Constitution never mentions the
officiality of the Hungarian language.
Although during
the communist regime (1948-1989) national minorities underwent an
ethnic and political assimilation through industrialization processes
and the corresponding migration towards urban centres -plus the neglicence
with regard to their collective rights-, during the period of the
so-called "soft dictatorship", i.e. from the late 1960-ies,
the minority policy of the Hungarian goverment became more supportive
and even attempts were made to stimulate the development of similar
trends in neighbouring communist countries as well. After the new
democratic period, and as a result from the political and economic
opening, an intense legislative wave took place in Hungary pursuing
a restitution of its image after the years of the cold war.
Thus, the Act
LXV on Local Governments of 19905, opens the door to the setting up
of such autonomous bodies at different levels (local, regional, national),
which have the possibility to participate and intervene in those political
decisions that directly affect them, despite the fact that the document
does not strictly mention language matters. Similarly, they can also
take on if they will certain state competences in matters concerning
education, culture and the preservation of their own indentity.
It was also around
that time when the Decree 71/1989 on Official Geographical Names
in Hungary (2) was approved, and by which local goverments
are given the responsibility, depending on each case and language,
to give names to certain areas as well as a consultuive role while
establishing the local toponomy in each autonomous goverment.
One more relevant
legal document concerning linguistic minorities in Hungary after the
communist era was the Government Decree on the Office for National
and Ethnic Minorities of 1990, subsequently replaced by Decrees
128/1998 and 125/2001 (VII.10) (3), being the latter
the one in force at present. According to this decree, the government
sets up this autonomous public body (under control and supervision
of the Ministry of Justice) so that it may watch over the compliance
of the rights of Hungarian national minorities, to monitor the implementation
of government actions in this respect, to coordinate the relations
between minority self-governments and the parliamentary mediator,
etc. On the other hand, the financial autonomy of minority public
bodies or self-governments is guaranteed by means of specific endowments
from the general state budget.
One should not
forget that, according to the figure from the official 1990 census
of population (either on mother tongue as on nationality), the communities
we are dealing with do not surpass in total a 10% of the Hungarian
population, and that some of them do not have more than 5.000 people
(Serbians, Bulgarians, Ruthenians and Ukrainians) and live in scattered
small villages. According to other sources (Oltay, 1993:58), such
figures would be considerably higher than those corresponding to the
official census. It is expected that throughout the current year more
recent and updated data from the recent 2001 census will be be made
public.
The framework
document that regulates the competences of such bodies and which represents
the real text of reference as regards the rights of language minorities
in Hungary, is the Act LXXVII on the Rights of National and Ethnic
Minorities (4) or Minorities Act, of 1993 (6). Its
general principles are based on the consideration of minorities as
the subjects of the law, that is to say, they go beyond the exclusive
appointment of individual rights for persons speaking minoritized
languages (Articles 7-14), and contemplate the diverse collective
rights for these minoritites founded at different levels as autonomous
political bodies (Articles 15-20).
Accordingly, the
act recognizes for all communities whose presence in Hungarian territory
have a history of at least one century (thirteen are mentioned thereby
(7)), the possibility to maintain contacts with their original countries,
to have parliamentary representativeness as well as, amongst others,
to participate in the undertaking of decisions that affect them.
Besides, the LXXVII
Act regulates as well on the presence of the languages of national
minorities in several fields, from which a great legislative production
has derived: in the Parliament (Article 52 of the Act, apart from
the provisions of the Parliament Decree 46/1994, Article 40), in public
administration (Articles 51, 53 and 54), in education (Articles 18
and 43), etc.
As previously
pointed out, Hungary may boast about such legislative production in
relation to the state undertakings as regards language matters for
national minorities. The right to use everyone's mother tongue is
regulated by means of minor laws and decrees in fields such as the
judiciary (Act on the Civil Code of 1952, the Act on Civil Procedures
of 1957, or the Act on Criminal Procedures of 1973) or the army (Act
CX of 1993 on National Defence, the Act XLIV of 1996 on the Conditions
of the National Military Service), which place the Hungarian states
among the leading ones in this respect: though these are, after all,
instruments for the promotion of the equality principle.
Parallel to the
LXVII Act on Minorities, during the same year 1993 two principal acts
came into force in the educational field in Hungary, which develop
the former one: the Act on Public Education (5) and
the Act on Higher Education. There is also in this field the
Decree 32/1997 on the Guidelines for the Pre-School Instruction
and School education of National and Ethnic Minorities (6).
As regards the
access to media and the presence of the languages of minority groups,
the main document is the Act I of 1996 on Radio and Television
Broadcasting (7), in which it is envisaged that radio and
television public services should have at the minorities' disposal
the use of a limited amount of broadcasts.
The treatment
of linguistic and ethnic minorities at a national level is, as we
can note, far more extensive than in some EU member state. This fact
should not in principle hinder Hungary's way to accession, at least
as regards the minority question. Hungary, however, has been during
the last months a target in the eyes of international observers as
a result of the complaints issued by those states where Hungarian
minorities dwell, after the approval in June of the Act LXII on
Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries (8), or the
so-called Status Law. Despite the fact that controversies have rather
been of a political nature and in relation to a possible Hungarian
interference in the sovereignty of such countries, as regards our
field of study the Status Law envisages the possibility for either
teachers and students to go to Hungary in order to extend their training
in the Hungarian language, apart from other financial advantadges
(Articles 10-14). By means of the law, the Hungarian state may recognize
and give support to all those cultural organisations within the countries
mentioned by the law8 and which promote the preservation of the Hungarian
language and culture (Article 18).
The financial
support offered to all these communities through foundations depending
on the Hungarian state is perhaps one of the most difficult questions
arisen in the complaints made in this respect by some of the neighbouring
states, mainly Romania (where around one and a half million people
declared to be of Hungarian nationality in the Rumanian 1990 census
of population).
Although the full validity of the law has been corroborated by some
international institutions, its practical implementation in the neighbouring
countries is a hot issue whose resolution becomes highly interesting
if one takes into account that it might represent an antecedent regarding
other language communities separated by administrative borders. As
an example of the counteracting positions with regard to the implementation
of the Hungarian Status Law we propose both Motions for a Resolution
by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, respectively presented
on June 28th9 and July 3rd (10), or the Opinion of the Council of
Europe Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission) (11).
Prior to the approval
of the law, the Hungarian government had already focused on this item
by envisaging the creation, by means of the Decree 90/1992 (V.29)
on the Government Office for Hungarian Minorities Abroad (9),
of a public body commissioned to manage such application as well as
to function as a political link with Hungarian-speaking organisations
outside Hungary.
Accordingly, and
provided the importance allocated to minorities living outside their
borders by the successive Hungarian governments ever since the democratization
of most Eastern European countries, Hungary has signed a battery of
bilateral treaties with nearly all the states12 within the law's scope
of action, among others.
So far, the implementation
of the Status Law is being carried out in all countries concerned,
though Slovakia still has some reservations which have not refrained
the Hungarian government from acting in accordance with the law. Besides,
Hungary and Romania have recently (December 2001) reached an agreement,
in the form of a joint declaration, in this respect.
In the international
field one should not forget that, in the same trend of formal compromises,
Hungary was the first state to sign the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities (in force since February
1998) as well as one of the first to sign the European Charter
for Regional and Minority Languages (in force since March 1998),
both Council of Europe's documents and which represent the main general
protection instruments at a European level. Hungary is also a signatory
state of all international treaties dealing with human rights for
national minorities, including the Protocol nº 12 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As regards the
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Hungary undertook
to apply all the provisions of Part II, although most of the previously
existing legislation amply dealt with the promotion of minority languages
in many fields.
Nevertheless,
the same international institutions have also repeatedly criticized
the current (and historical) situation of marginalization and stigmatization
regarding the Roma minority in Hungary. This one is, on the other
hand, the largest minority population in the country: according to
the 1990 census, nearly 50.000 people had Romani or Beas languages
as their mother tongue, whereas more than 140.000 declared themselves
of Gypsy nationality (other estimates, though, state that the figure
would be around half a million people). It is acknowledged, on the
other hand, that a progressive concern is shown by the Hungarian government
during the last few years aimed to reverse such unequal situation,
namely the 2001 amendments introduced in the Decree on the Office
for National and Ethnic Minorities, or for example, its Resolutions
No. 1047/1999 about Medium-Term Measures to improve the Living Standards
and Social Position of the Roma Population (10), No. 1048/1999
on the Establishment of an Inter-Departmental Committee of Gypsy Affairs
(13), or the 1121/1995 on the Establishment of the Public foundation
for the Gypsy Minorities in Hungary (14). Notwithstanding all
the advantages provided for the other minorities in Hungary by means
of the promulgation of the Minorities Act of 1993, the Roma community
continues to be the one with a highest unemployment rate and the worst
living conditions. This is also to a certain extent the tendency as
regards the linguistic question in practical terms for the Council
of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Recommendation RecChl(2001)4
on the Application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages by Hungary (published in the present Bulletin) stresses
on need to stimulate the use of both Romani and Beas languages in
the public field and specially in the educational one; besides, and
also by the Council of Europe, the situation of Gypsies is dealt with
in its Resolution ResCMN(2001)4 on the application of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (15).
Finally, and in
relation to the Hungarian accession to the European Union (expected
to take place in 2004), one should also take into consideration the
2001 Regular Report on Hungary's progress towards Accession
(16) issued by the European Commission, where an evaluation on the
role of the Hungarian state as regards its minorities, specially the
Roma one, is included
Acknowledgements:
We would like to thank Professor Andrássy György (Head
of the Department of Political Science and Social Theory and Director
of the Centre for European Studies, University of Pécs, Hungary)
for his revision of contents and improvement of the text, as well
as for the documentation provided and his generous attention. Nagyon
köszönöm.
| (1) |
|
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm |
| (2) |
|
For general
information on the principal legislation in force, consult: http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/6.htm |
| (3) |
|
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~habsweb/sourcetexts/auscon.htm |
| (4) |
|
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~habsweb/sourcetexts/nagodba1.htm |
| (5) |
|
http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/6-1990-65.htm |
| (6) |
|
Previously
published in Mercator-Legislation Bulletin, n. 9 (http://www.ciemen.org/mercator/index-gb.htm
- "Publications"). |
| (7) |
|
German, Armenian,
Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Slovakian, Slovenian, Polish, Roma,
Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian and Ukrainian
(http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/5-2.htm). |
| (8) |
|
Croatia,
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and
Ukraine (article 1). Austria decided not to apply the law within
its territory. |
| (9) |
|
http://stars.coe.int/doc/doc01/edoc9153.htm |
| (10) |
|
http://stars.coe.int/doc/doc01/edoc9163.htm |
| (11) |
|
http://press.coe.int/cp/2001/754a(2001).htm |
| (12) |
|
http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/7_en.htm |
| (13) |
|
http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/6-1999-1048.htm |
| (14) |
|
http://www.meh.hu/nekh/Angol/6-1-23.htm |
| (15) |
|
http://cm.coe.int/stat/E/Public/2001/adopted_texts/resCMN/2001xn4.htm |
| (16) |
|
http://www.euport.hu/oismerteto/orszagjelentes.pdf
(pp. 19-25) |
