While minority policies formulated during the socialist era were explicitly assimilationist in an attempt to minimize distinct ethnic and national identities and incorporate minority populations into the larger "Hungarian" nation, the minorities law was written with cultural autonomy for all national and ethnic minority groups as its central organizing principle. What made this law truly distinct however, was its provision for minority self-government. This aspect of the law created the legal context for minority political representation and participation at two different levels: municipal minority self-governance, and a minority government at the national level serving as a liaison between the municipal minority governments and the Hungarian Parliament. As the law currently stands, representatives from minority communities within municipalities are elected at the same time as local government officials. Once formed, minority self-governments work with the established local governments on a primarily consultative basis, acting as a liaison between the minority community and the local government, and as an advocate for their minority constituency.

However, the law also states that "within the sphere of its authority, the minority governmen… .may establish and maintain institutions especially in fields such as local public education, local printed or electronic media… culture and general education. Within the limits of the available resources, it is (also) authorized to establish and run enterprises and other economic organizations; to announce competitions and to raise foundations1." Local governments are required by law to include minority representatives in all local council meetings. Minority self-governments can’t cast votes in local council meetings, but the law states that they have the power to veto decisions which have a direct impact on "local public education, local mass media, cultivation of traditions, culture and the collective use of language which affect the minority population as such."

In two rounds of elections occurring in December, 1994 and November, 1995, minority communities across Hungary took advantage of this new opportunity for entree into the Hungarian political system, forming over 700 minority self-governments, representing 12 different minority populations2. October 1998 marked the end of the first term of these self-governments and the election of representatives for the second term. This historical juncture provides an important opportunity to review and evaluate what this system has meant for Hungary’s minorities. This is especially the case for the Roma, which, at over 5% of the total population, is Hungary’s largest as well as its most socio-economically disadvantaged minority, and historically the most firmly entrenched within the political margins of mainstream Hungarian society.

As a way of assessing the results of the Minorities Law and the self-governance system over the past four years, rural so-ciologists from Cornell University in the United States and Godollo University in Hungary collaborated in the development and administration of a nation-wide survey3. In March, 1998, 420 surveys were sent out to leaders of Roma self-governments which were identified by the Hungarian Office of National and Ethnic Minorities as still being in operation. Two hundred thirty two responses from Budapest and 18 of Hungary’s 19 counties comprised a response rate of nearly 60%. Using the survey data, this article addresses the political emergence of the self-governance system in Hungary and what it has meant for the Roma. At the end of the article, the most recent 1998 round of elections is discussed as a way of further suggesting how minority self-governance has begun to reconfigure the shape of local politics.

Controversy Over the Minorities Law

The advent of the Minorities Law was quickly hailed as an innovative response to the needs of its minorities, and the Council of Europe called the provisions for self-government "rare" and the achievements of the law "highly progressive4." Despite its "progressive" nature however, the Minorities Law has been the focus of controversy since its inception. Hungary’s Law on National and Ethnic Minorities was passed in 1993 after three years of negotiation between the Hungarian government and a coalition of minority groups called the "Minority Roundtable." The Minority Roundtable was in fact modeled after the Opposition Roundtable which negotiated the political transition with Hungary’s socialist government in 1989. This was thus an important symbolic appropriation of the moral authority held by the opposition groups which managed the larger processes of political and economic transformation in 1989. Yet, the law was originally conceived as a law on national minorities, a move which effectively excluded the Hungary’s Roma, an ethnic minority.

This exclusion produced strong and sustained criticism that the concern of the government was primarily oriented towards demonstrating progressive de jure legal policies to the West in order to facilitate the acquisition of international aid and ease Hungary’s political and economic integration into Western Europe. Other critics argued that the law was a way of leveraging neighboring countries into passing similar legislation benefiting populations of ethnic Hungarians living outside Hungary’s borders, particularly in Romania, Slovakia and the former Yugoslavia. Advocates of both arguments pointed to the initial exclusion of Roma from the law’s drafting, arguing that this was clear evidence that the intent of the law had little or nothing to do with improving the social and political status of Hungary’s largest minority and the group which would have the most to potentially benefit from a law of this type. Vocal protest from assorted Roma groups led the government by 1993 to rewrite the law and include ethnic as well as national minorities, with the guarantee that individual and collective legal rights would remain identical for both minority group classifications. However, evidence has continued to accumulate that the law has been inconsistently enforced, particularly with regard to the Roma.

[...]

The Roma Self-Government/Local Council Relationship

	Strongly			Strongly
	Disagree			Agree
The concerns expressed by the Roma	1	2	3	4	5
minority self-government have made	17,3%	18,1%	30,0%	17,3%	17,3%
the local council more sympathetic to
the needs of the Roma minority. (N=226)
Relations between the Roma minority	1	2	3	4	5
self-government and the local council	12,5%	13,4%	32,15	21,4%	20,55
are generally friendly and cooperative.
(N=232)
The Roma minority self-government can	1	2	3	4	5
depend on the local council for advice,	17,5%	9,6%	21,9%	21,5%	29,4%
technical assistance and information to
help make the minority self-government
a stronger, more effective organization.
(N=228)
The Roma minority self-government	1	2	3	4	5
can depend on the local council for	22,3%	15,7%	19,2%	16,25	26,6%
financial and material support to help
make the minority self-government a
stronger, more effective organization.
(N=229)
The local council is generally interested	1	2	3	4	5
in the opinions of the Roma minority	23,3%	15,0%	25,6%	18,9%	17,2%
self-government. (N=227)
The Roma minority self-government	1	2	3	4	5
has an important role in local politics	26.3%	14,9%	26,8%	14,9%	17,1%
and decision-making. (N=228)

[...]

What does the future hold?

Particularly for East-Central Europe, where there are large concentrations of national and ethnic minority populations throughout the region, the issue of minority rights and political representation will continue to demand attention and, more importantly, progressive policy formation. For this reason Hungary’s minority self-governance system is important to examine closely. Nicolae Gheorghe11, Roma scholar and activist, has written that East-Central Europe’s Roma population is currently undergoing a process of ethnogenesis in which its status is shifting from one of fundamental political and economic marginalization, to that of an acknowledged ethnic minority with specific legal rights. This process is occurring as ethnic communities simultaneously assert new political voices, and national governments come to realize that minority communities cannot be ruled out of the political process. Gheorghe argues that this process can play itself out within two political contexts: a "democratic political context" in which a pluralistic state effectively promotes a sense of shared identity for all citizens, or an "ethnic political context" in which identity and rights are framed primarily for those who identify with one another in terms of a common culture and ancestry. While there are enough Roma leaders reporting positive experiences to produce a cautious hopefulness, there are still many more who have complained bitterly about the lack of human and economic resources, uncooperative and sometimes hostile local governments, and helplessness in the face of severe and worsening socio-economic conditions. The minority self-governance system is an important step towards local democratization, political participation, minority self-determination and even local development. It is not and cannot be, however, the primary solution to problems affecting Hungary’s minorities, and particularly the Roma.