No.

2
February 1998
Mikls Bakk
The Democratic Alliance
of Hungarians
in Romania

Occasional Papers 2.

Mikls Bakk: The Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania

Original title: "Az RMDSZ mint a romniai magyarsg nmeghatrozsi ksrlete 1989
utn"
Published in Pro Minoritate Autumn 1996, pp. 11-30.
Translation by Gorka Sebestyn
Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell

Editors
Diszegi Lszl
Gyertynfy Andrs

Teleki Lszl Foundation

H-1125 Budapest, Szilgyi Erzsbet fasor 22/c.
(36-1) 275 25 00
E-mail L.DIOSZEGI@TLA.HU

1. Pre-conditions for Development and evolution after December 1989

At every significant moment in their history, the political self-definition of the
Hungarians in Romania has been dependent on the prevailing circumstances, the
inherited institutions and the stance and actions of the particular elite in power.
In December 1989, when, seemingly at least, the whole political power structure was
collapsing, new and unique opportunities appeared to open on the political horizon. In its
first declaration issued on 22 December, the National Salvation Front (NSF), a newly
created state authority, announced the principle of legal equality for national minorities, so
aligning itself with the horizon of expectations inherent in this historical turning point.
The legal framework for political pluralism was established by a decree released by
the NSF which included the right to assembly and to self-organisation. The registration of
the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (DAHR) as a legal entity took place on
26 January, in accordance with the requirements of the decree issued by the NSF Council
on 3 January 1990, and of an inter-war law, dating from 1924, on the establishment of
associations and foundations. The most comprehensive guarantee for the pre-conditions
for political evolution came with a declaration made by the NSF on 5 January 1990, which
recognised the individual and collective rights of minorities and made reference to the
future reform of governmental institutions to reflect this attitude, and also to the Alba
Iulia/Gyulafehrvr Resolutions of 1918.
1

2. The creation of the DAHR

Three relatively independent initiatives should be mentioned as leading up to the creation
of the DAHR, the representative body for Hungarians in Romania:
the ClujNapoca/Kolozsvr Declaration, the Bucharest Declaration and the Timioara/Temesvr
initiative. Of the three, it was the Bucharest Declaration which proved definitive the
decisive events after 22 December took place in Bucharest, where such famous
individuals from the Hungarian minority as Gza Domokos and Lszl Tks (who, at the
time, was being hailed nation-wide as the hero of the "Timioara/Temesvr Revolution")
were invited to the National Council of the NSF. The Bucharest Declaration, dated 25
December, can therefore be regarded as the "founding charter" of the DAHR. In this
document, the DAHR is defined as the "organisation for the minority representation and
for the protection of the common interests" of the Hungarians in Romania. (This definition
3

1Point

7 of the 22 December Communication by the NSF : "The respect for the rights and freedoms of national
minorities and the guarantee of their equal status to that of Romanians". A Ht 28 Dec. 1989.
2 Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg (RMDSZ).
3The authors of the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr Declaration gave its title as the "Hv Sz" [Rallying Cry]. The
Timioara/Temesvr Declaration, issued on 23 December, is significant since it expressed a different, regional
approach, an approach which was to make itself forcefully apparent right up to the Congress in Oradea/Nagyvrad.
(The desire to register the Banat/Bnsg Association of Hungarian Democrats as an independent organisation was made
apparent at the Delegates' Meeting of 24 and 25 February at Sfntu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyrgy. On 26 February, the
organisation announced that it would continue to function as the Timi/Temes County body of the DAHR.) The
Bucharest Declaration was titled "Kiltvny".
4A Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg Ideiglenes Intzbizottsgnak Kiltvnya. [The Declaration of the
Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romanias Temporary Council for Organisational Matters.] Magyar Sz 26
December 1989, A Ht 28 December 1989. The first draft of the Declaration was written by Lajos Demny and Jnos
Andrs. Its final form was influenced by the work of Jnos Szsz, Andor Horvth, Gbor Cseke and many others. (See:
Domokos, Gza: Esly I.. Cskszereda, Pallas - Akadmiai Kiad 1996, pp. 16-21. Also Lajos Demny's review of
Kroly Kirly's book entitled Nylt krtykkal, Magyar Kisebbsg 1-2, 1996.)

has proved to be a lasting one, as can be seen from later versions of the DAHRs
regulations and programme.) The DAHR invited Hungarians in Transylvania to create
their own related organisations at "village, town and county" levels, a decisive step
towards creating an essentially regionally-based organisational structure.
From a political point of view there are two important aspects to the document.
Firstly, it announced the DAHRs co-operation with the NSF ("We declare that we adopt as
our own the programme of the legal state authority, the National Salvation Front").
Secondly, it gave a programmatic summary of the rights to be accorded to Hungarians in
Romania. In the Declaration, the DAHR insisted "on the fundamental right of Hungarians
in Romania to self-determination". The Declaration also stated the need for constitutional
protection for collective minority rights, detailing the most important rights and the steps to
be taken towards them. These included the formulation of a new Statute on Minorities,
the guarantee of minority representation within legislation, state administration and justice,
the establishment of a network for mother-tongue education from kindergarten to
university level, the creation of Hungarian cultural and scientific institutions and Hungarian
radio and television services, the right to use the Hungarian language in jurisdiction and
administration and the creation of a Ministry for Minority Affairs.
An organisational structure and programme for the evolving DAHR were
established after a number of national meetings. On 7 January 1990, the first meeting of
the Provisional Executive Committee was held in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr. This was
followed by meetings of delegates in Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely and Sfntu
Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyrgy on 13 January and 24-25 February. By the time the second
meeting took place, the requirement that the association be centred in Transylvania had
already been put into writing. (Previous to this, the Declaration of 25 December had been
written by the Hungarian intelligentsia in the capital, the organisation had been registered
in Bucharest and had its headquarters there.) In addition, the DAHR was to act as an
umbrella organisation encompassing "all organisations representing specialist, cultural
and religious
interests".
The meeting of delegates held in Sfntu
Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyrgy elected a Temporary Presidium of 15 members (the
president being Gza Domokos, honorary president Lszl Tks with Kroly Kirly, who
was already chairman of the Minority Committee of the Temporary Council of National
Unity, the emergency Parliament of the time, being chosen as the head of the Advisory
Body).
The first critical moment in the process of self-organisation came with events which
took place in March. The incitement to anti-Hungarian feeling which had began in the
second half of February had by this time become permanent: the Bolyai Lceum affair in
Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely had become a national issue; Lszl Tks and Kroly
Kirly were vilified during a mass meeting of Vatra Romneasc in Alba Iulia; on 7 March,
demonstrating students from the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Medical University were
abused; and on 15 March, Hungarians celebrating the Hungarian national holiday in Satu
Mare/Szatmr and Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely were disgracefully provoked. Tension
mounted to a climax on 19-21 March, with violent disturbances in Trgu
Mure/Marosvsrhely. Events such as these made it clear to the majority of the DAHR
leadership that there were increasingly dominant forces within the NSF which were
5

5There

was an argument over the use of the phrase "self-determination" amongst those formulating the document. In
the piece by Lajos Demny quoted above he mentions that the text which appeared on 26 December differed from the
one which had been voted on the previous day: "the passage on self-determination was missing as were two other
important sections" (see the review by the author mentioned above, p.344). These were erased at Gza Domokos'
special request by the committee compiling the text. This marked the beginning of the discussions on "internal selfgovernment" and autonomy.
6A Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg Szndknyilatkozata. [Statement of Intent by the DAHR.] Romniai
Magyar Sz 18 January 1990.

attempting to gain political legitimacy and electioneering capital for the NSF party (the
temporary state authority had announced on 23 January that it would itself be competing
in the elections) and which were blocking the reform of public institutions by means of
inciting nationalist feelings.
The First DAHR Congress, held on 23 April in Oradea/Nagyvrad, concluded that
there was a need for a unified and independently acting organisation within the
contemporary Romanian political arena. This meant in practice a complete political split
from the NSF and the acceptance of the Timioara/Temesvr Declaration, the first joint
opposition platform. These ideas were, at the same time, formulated in ideological terms:
the DAHR was to avoid being seen as a "neo-communist" organ (va Cs. Gymesi), and
its leadership as a shade of "reformed communists" (dm Katona). The key figures at
the Congress represented the kind of polarisation which reflected the way events were
developing, as well as those divisions which would later lead to the creation of distinct
factions. The candidacy of the dissident poet Gza Szcs for the office of president was
primarily supported by the radical youth of the Federation of Hungarian Youth
Organisations (FHYO), whilst that of Gza Domokos was backed by the cultural elite of
the newly organised local and county bodies of the DAHR. The election did not, however,
take place. Instead, a compromise was reached: alongside the president, Domokos,
Szcs would be secretary-general of the organisation, a duality which was in line with the
Congress' decision to establish two separate headquarters, one in the capital and one in
Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr. Tks played a conciliatory role during the Congress, facilitated
by the great respect in which he was held, and by his position as honorary president.
After the Congress, however, Kirly was marginalised within the Alliance. In accordance
with the adopted regulations, the Congress elected a 101 member National Council which
in turn voted on the members of the 15-strong Presidium.
7

3. Elections, political scope, organisational structure

1990-92
The Temporary Council of National Unity, the interim post-revolutionary Parliament
of Romania, was set up on 1 February 1990. Half of its members were drawn from the
National Salvation Front, with the other half being made up of representatives delegated
by the newly formed parties. Romania's constitutional Parliament and the president of the
Republic were elected on 20 May, in accordance with Act 92 /1900 as ratified by the
Council. The House of Representatives of the dual chamber Parliament comprised 387
seats, while 119 senators made up the Senate. The electoral system was based on
proportional representation with candidates listed per region; the minimum number of
votes required for election to the Parliament had not yet been defined. Senators were
elected from seven parties with one additional independent member; eighteen parties
amongst them the DAHR and the German Democratic Forum gained seats in the House
of Representatives, while a further nine seats were allocated, as a constitutional right, to
members of the ethnic minority organisations. Votes cast for the senatorial candidates of
the DAHR resulted in them winning 10.08% of available seats, i.e. 12 seats in the Senate.
7Varga,

Gbor ed.: A Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg I. Kongresszusa. [The First Congress of the DAHR.]
Kiadja az RMDSZ Bihar megyei szervezete. [Published by the DAHR's Bihar County office.]
8His later radicalisation - leaving the parliamentary session during the 1991 vote on the Constitution - can be seen as an
appropriate response to the given situation.
9The members of the Presidium were: Gza Domokos, President, Gza Szcs, Secretary-General, Andrs Bres, Bla
Mark, Ferenc Formanek, Zsolt Szilgyi, va Cs. Gyimesi, Istvn Csutak, Barna Bod, Lajos Kntor, Attila Zonda,
Tibor T. Tor, Pter Erss, Bla Nagy, Attila Veresty, Lajos Sylvester, Gyula Vida, Gbor Kolumbn, Istvn Kli.

A total of 29 (7.46%) seats were won in the House of Representatives. In both the upper
and lower chambers, the National Salvation Front gained the two-thirds majority required
for passing legislation. Although the DAHR constituted the second largest political force in
Parliament, its scope was limited by the National Salvation Front's majority and by the fact
that political legitimacy was based on nationalist rhetorics.
Following the general election, the political direction of the DAHR was defined by
the Presidium (mainly the president and the secretary-general), as well as the
Parliamentary Group. The National Council met on only three occasions: on 21 July 1990
at Miercurea-Ciuc/Cskszereda (when a statement regarding the re-founding of Bolyai
University was accepted); on 5 October in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr (this meeting accepted
the programme proposals entitled: "The DAHR for a Democratic Romania Principles
and Expectations" and listened to the report of the DAHR representatives who had
attended the Strasbourg assembly of the Council of Europe); and on 2 March 1991 at
Satu Mare/Szatmr, when a decision was made regarding a second Congress, and
decision-making rights were transferred to the Presidium in political matters, and to the
Parliamentary Group in constitutional questions.
The resulting decision-making
mechanism seemed initially satisfactory, since the political scope of the DAHR had by that
time become extremely restricted. In 1990, the organisations main areas of activity were
in matters of education, in opposing nationalist provocation, and in protesting against
proposals for discriminatory legislation.
The National Salvation Front and the Vatra
Romneasc succeeded in restricting the political scope of the DAHR by retaining on the
parliamentary agenda such issues as the Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovszna Report, or
the results of committee investigations into the events in Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely.
However, opportunities for increasing political scope arose when on 6 August 1990,
several opposition organisations, together with the DAHR, established the Democratic
Anti-Totalitarian Forum. The new body (called the Democratic Convention from 26
October 1990) entered into numerous joint representations which allowed the DAHR to be
seen to be committed to democratic values, an important step towards political integration
within the Romanian political arena.
The Second DAHR Congress, held between 24 and 26 May 1991 in Trgu
Mure/Marosvsrhely, preserved, in practice, an organisational structure suitable for the
prevailing circumstances. Although the new organisational statutes defined the Alliance
as "a consultative, representative and conciliatory coalition of the organisations of
Hungarians in Romania" and ensured a free platform for all members, the constitution of
its governing body, the National Council of Delegates (made up of National Presidium
members, the leaders of the Parliamentary Group, presidents of member organisations
and other delegates) did not ensure an equal say for all shades of opinion. Clashes of
opinion such as those witnessed during the Oradea/Nagyvrad Congress, began to gain a
higher profile, and were referred to in Congress statements such as the following: "the
recent past has seen the emergence of differing attitudes within the Alliance, with more or
less radical stances being adopted with regard to the accepted programme."
Press
10

11

12

10

See: Szkely, Istvn: Vlasztottunk... Az 1990-es s 1992-es parlamenti s nkormnyzati vlasztsok megyei
eredmnyeinek rtkelse. [We have chosen... An appraisal of the 1990 and 1992 parliamentary and local government
election results at county level.] Magyar Kisebbsg No. 1-2/1996.
11 On 10 September the licence of the Hungarian high-school in Arad was withdrawn (Gyrgy Tokay member of
Parliament began a sit-in, and later a hunger strike), on 11 September the DAHR protested against the restrictions
introduced in university admission processes in the mother-tongue, on 3 October a statement was published concerning
the case of the No. 33 Bucharest School, followed by several similar protest actions. In October 1990 the DAHR Group
of MPs left the parliamentary debate in protest against the clause in Company Law according to which the head of a
trade enterprise may only be a person of Romanian origin, not merely a citizen of Romania. Similar protest measures
were resorted to in 1991 on the occasion of the ratification of the Veterans' Law and the National Security Law.
12 Az RMDSZ II. Kongresszusnak hatrozatai. [Resolutions of the second DAHR congress.] Romniai Magyar Sz,
27 May 1991.

reaction to the radical versus moderate clash was significant, even prior to the Congress,
and opposing views were voiced at public meetings. One important divisive issue in terms
of strategy concerned the legal definition of Hungarians in Romania. It was proposed to
include in the programme the demand for "co-nation status", a proposal which attracted
radical support. The Domokos-Szcs opposition emerged as a conflict between a cooperative wing ready to compromise and efficient at achieving results in Bucharest
and a radical one which pre-supposed definite rights based on the Euro-conformity of the
Romanian political system (i.e. on international pressure). Gza Domokos had been reelected as president of the Alliance, although with a very narrow majority, ahead of Gza
Szcs who became vice-president, an office he shared by Gbor Kolumbn. Differences
were only superficially resolved by the Congress. In addition to the two vice-presidents,
the Alliance's new Articles of Association required the election of twelve members of the
National Presidium. Lszl Tks was again unanimously elected as honorary president.
In the local government elections held on 9 February 1992, 3.130 DAHR members
were elected as councillors or mayors. Members of the Alliance thus won 6.53% of local
government seats and 4.41% of all mayoral offices. The number of seats gained on
county councils was even more substantial, totalling 7.12%. This time there was more at
stake than an advantageous distribution of local government seats: the local elections
laid the foundations for a break-through by the opposition in the autumn general election.
Another significant development was the widening of the political market place the
appearance of party politics within the context of local government. This was particularly
important for the Alliance, since gaining and exercising power at a local level opened up a
vastly different perspective from that of being a parliamentary party in long-term
opposition. The tensions that evolved between the two perspectives could only be
resolved by radical organisational reform that was to be the task of the Third Congress, to
be held in Braov/Brass.
Following the general election held on 27 September 1992, the composition of the
Romanian Parliament underwent a complete change. This was partly due to alterations in
the electoral system: the number of MPs was reduced from 396 to 328 plus the additional
representatives of ethnic minorities, while the Senate numbered 143 instead of the
previous 119; the minimum number of votes necessary for parliamentary representation
was introduced at 3% of those cast which resulted in a reduction of the number of parties
and the stabilisation of the party system. Participation decreased from 86% in 1990 to
76% in 1992. Eight parties were represented in the Senate, while the House of
Representatives was made up of seven parties and thirteen additional members
representing ethnic minority organisations. DAHR candidates won 27 seats in the House
of Representatives and 12 in the Senate, 7.91% and 8.39% respectively. The new
distribution of power did not substantially affect the position of the Alliance. The victorious
National Salvation Front which gained 34% of seats could not enter into a coalition
with the second-placed Democratic Convention. It was therefore formally forced to govern
in minority although it already enjoyed and in return rewarded the support of postcommunist and nationalist parties with which it eventually formed a formal coalition in
1995. The nationalist and post-communist bloc continued to limit the Alliance's political
role, the scope of which was further restricted by its exclusion from the Democratic
Convention. It did, however, acquire greater political freedom at the international level:
on 20 May 1993 it was admitted as a full member of the EDU (European Democratic
Union), the international alliance of European conservative parties) and also became a
member of the FUEV (Federal Union of European Nationalities) at its Flensburg Congress
13

14

13

It was Imre Borbly who lodged a motion for the inclusion in the programme of the term "co-nation status".
The members of the National Presidium elected at the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Congress were: Lszl Tks,
Gza Domokos, Gza Szcs, Gbor Kolumbn, Tibor Beder, Andrs Bres, Imre Borbly, Jzsef Csap, Mikls
Patrubny, Csaba Takcs, Gyrgy Tokay and Tibor T. Tor.
14

held at the same time. On 31 July 1994, the Alliance became a member of the UNPO, the
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation.
Events preceding Romania's
admission into the Council of Europe the 1993 DAHR Memorandum regarding
Romania's Council membership, Gyrgy Frunda's significant participation in the sessions
of the European Parliament and, by no means least, Lszl Tks's visit to the USA all
seemed to prove to the members of the DAHR that in the newly emerging field of the
European integrational process, the Alliance had gained a greater scope. This also
heightened expectations in relation to the Basic Treaty to be signed between Romania
and Hungary.
4. Internal pluralism:
The self-government model of the DAHR
1993-95
a) Internal features of pluralism
The period between 8 December 1991 when Romania's Constitution entered into
force, and the local government elections held on 9 February 1992, witnessed a further,
though less obvious, crisis in the history of the DAHR. By that time it had become obvious
that within the existing constitutional framework, any reform of the legal and political
situation of Hungarians in Romania could only be achieved in the long-term, and that the
newly fledged political elite would have to begin the process of preparation. Within the
Alliance, organisational interests began to be articulated along the lines of political
positions. Among the newly prestigious and advancing political elite, the process
prompted the creation of specific links with the general membership and with minor
officials who were involved in maintaining the broad base of the movement, as well as a
new relationship with those intellectuals who were leaving the Alliance for various civic
initiatives. These relationships, based on vested interest, were further complicated by the
appearance of the new elite in local government representation. At the same time, the
Romanian electoral system necessitated the defending of common interests via a single
political body, since the minimum number of votes (3%) required for parliamentary
representation provided opportunities for only one political organisation. "Unified political
representation" is, in any case, a matter of tradition for the DAHR: it was on this principle
that the activities of the National Hungarian Party were based between the two World
Wars.
The formulation of political fields of interest and their pluralistic articulation were
initially related to groups representing different regional specificities and organisational
resources, and were characterised by debate between differing cultural policies. The
conflicts which arose in the course of debate were in no way manageable within the
existing organisational structure. They included for instance the October 1991 initiative
taken by the Szekler Land Political Group of the DAHR which, at a meeting held to
commemorate the anniversary of the Szekler National Assembly of Lutia/Agyagfalva of
1848, first put into writing the principles of radical political autonomy which clashed with
the prevailing views held by the Alliance . The second crisis, which heralded a division
into various factions, was triggered by the drawing up of the list of candidates for
Harghita/Hargita County for the autumn 1992 elections. Since the committees of the
three districts of Odorhei/Udvarhely, Ciuc/Csk and Giurgeu/Gyergy failed to reach an
15

15

The two alternatives may also be interpreted along these dividing lines. See: Bakk, Mikls: Pluralizmus s
trsvonalak. [Pluralism and Dividing Lines]. A Ht 31-32, 1995.

agreement in time on the distribution of candidates for the joint list, the issue had to be
resolved by the National Presidium. This resulted in an insoluble conflict between
members of the Presidium (honorary president Lszl Tks, vice-presidents Gbor
Kolumbn and Gza Szcs and members Imre Borbly, Jzsef Csap, Andrs Bres,
Mikls Patrubny, Tibor Beder and Tibor T. Tor) who compiled the final list, and Gza
Domokos who, having been absent from the meeting of the Presidium, included revisions
which were supported only by Gyrgy Tokay from among the members of the Presidium.
b) Co-organisations, platforms
Although accepted in theory, organisational solutions in support of the development
of internal pluralism did not in reality exist until the Third Congress. Definite proposals
previously made concerned only the integration of the Federation of Hungarian Youth
Organisations. The Federation was formed in order to unite the various local youth
organisations set up at the time of the foundation of the DAHR. The idea of a single
umbrella youth organisation was mooted as early as the beginning of January 1990. The
Federation was founded on 18 February 1990 at Sfntu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyrgy, with
the participation of twenty-one organisations. Its First Congress was held at Trgu
Mure/Marosvsrhely. The representatives of thirty organisations signed a Statement of
Intent and the Articles of Association. Within a short space of time, a representative of the
Federation was given a seat on the Provisional Executive Committee of the Alliance. The
programme of the Alliance's First Congress defines the Federation as a "partner
organisation", while young radical politicians such as Zsolt Szilgyi declared that the
Federation was to play the role of a constructive opposition within the organisation. While
the programme of the Oradea/Nagyvrad Congress merely invited the participation of
youth organisations in the leadership of the Alliance, the Second Congress incorporated
the concept in the Articles of Association. The Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Congress
decided to reserve 15% of seats on the National Council of Delegates for members of the
FHYO, while the Braov/Brass Congress assured 15% of seats for the Federation and
the National Hungarian Students' Association on the Council of Alliance Representatives.
A decision passed at the Fourth Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr Congress, held between 26 and
28 May 1995, reiterated the statement. Tibor T. Tor, the Federation's president between
1990 and 1993, played a significant role during this period as a focus for young politicians
conscious of the need for the participation of a new generation in politics. The issue
became the Federation's fundamental dilemma: should it continue to represent the
interests of a single group, or should it evolve into a high-profile political movement? This
dilemma was resolved at the Federation's Fourth Congress held at Baile Felix/Flixfrd
between 10 and 12 December 1993, when the organisation's political wing set up the
Reform Bloc to represent "liberal views committed to national interests". The new bloc
became a platform within the Alliance and elected Tibor T. Tor as its president. The
Federation's depoliticised wing remained as a movement and agreed on new Articles of
Association and elected a new president in the person of Lszl Tams from Miercurea
Ciuc/Cskszereda in January 1994. Both the Reform Bloc and the reconstituted
movement elected Gza Szcs as honorary president. The choice was a demonstration
of the unity between the two separate wings. Political partners of the Alliance which are
registered as legal entities are: the Hungarian Christian Democratic Party in Romania, the
Hungarian Smallholders Party in Romania and the Association of Hungarian Workers in
Romania.
Prior to the Braov/Brass Congress, partnership between the coorganisations and the DAHR was realised by means of joint membership of both bodies
16

16

Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg. Dokumentumok 2. [Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania.

Documents 2.] Kiadja az RMDSZ gyvezet elnksge [published by the Executive Presidium of the DAHR],
Kolozsvr 1994.

and participation in the Alliance's political activities. According to a resolution of the Third
Congress, the partner organisations termed "associate members" were granted rights
of representation on the Alliance's decision-making body, the Council of Alliance
Representatives; this allowed Jzsef Mihly, president of the Smallholders Party, and
Klmn Kiss, secretary-general of the Christian Democrats, to be elected to the Council.
However, it was only the Hungarian Christian Democratic Party in Romania which played
any key role in Alliance politics, as a result of the activities of its two members of
Parliament: Ferenc Brnyi, president of the Parliamentary Committee on Health Care,
and Senator Gbor Hajd. The Christian Democrats' Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely
Congress, held between 6 and 7 February 1993, elected Ferenc Brnyi as vicepresident. The Association of Hungarian Workers in Romania worked in co-operation with
the Alliance's Social Democratic New-Left Bloc.
Examining the history of the partnership between co-organisations, it is clear that
their co-operation with the Alliance prevented them from developing an independent
image and specific political identity. Moreover, the March 1996 Act related to party
organisation can be seen to question the very existence of the Smallholders and Christian
Democrats, since the new conditions laid for the registration/re-registration of parties
became somewhat difficult to fulfil.
Independent political image was more successfully developed by platforms
operating without being legal entities. Following an earlier proposal and the theoretical
acceptance of pluralism, the activity of platforms began in earnest only after the October
1992 Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr meeting of the National Council of Delegates, which mooted
the concept of a Consultative Political Round Table. Its task was to prepare for the
Braov/Brass Congress by reconciling the views held by different Alliance groupings in
order to facilitate decision-making at the Congress. Among the groupings were blocs
which assumed the role of platforms (such as the Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian
Hungarian Initiative), in addition to groups which actually had a decisive role, such as the
members of Parliament and senators who were in practice the supporters of Gza
Domokos.
The platform called the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative was founded by
politicians and DAHR officers who belonged to the Alliance's Szekler Land Political Group
(which was dissolved at the end of 1991). Following several preparatory meetings in the
Szekler Land, the statutory meeting was convened for 14 March 1992 in ClujNapoca/Kolozsvr. According to the Statement of Intent issued by the parties involved,
the Initiative was to function as the "Christian-national" platform of the Alliance: initiating
the "establishment of national autonomy". One political aim was upheld consistently:
throughout the debate on autonomy, the Initiative continued to support the Csap
programme directly based on the principle of self-government. The platform focused on
the Szekler Land and advocated its regional autonomy. Within the Alliance, its political
strategy was characterised by an ability to shed new light on seemingly marginal issues in
effective ways. Its activities were based on co-operation with the churches. Following the
Braov/Brass Congress, the Initiative set up its own faction within the Council of Alliance
Representatives.
The Liberal Circle originated in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr, where the first "liberal
meetings" were held in 1992. It was the liberal group that initiated setting up the Political
Consultative Round Table at the end of 1992 and which played an important role in the
drafting and acceptance of the institutional reform programme put forward at the Third
17

18

17

At least 10,000 founding members must be certificated throughout fifteen counties.

tjra indult Kolozsvrott az Erdlyi Magyar Kezdemnyezs! [The Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative is Launched
in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr!] Romniai Magyar Sz 20 March 1992.
18

Congress.
The platform's first meeting was held at Miercurea-Ciuc/Cskszereda
between 25 and 27 March 1994 in order to draft the Circle's programme. The principles
accepted included the place of collective rights in liberal thinking. The Articles of
Association were also signed. Officials elected were: president Pter Eckstein-Kovcs,
vice-presidents Lszl Zsigmond, Gbor Kolumbn, Zsolt Szilgyi, kos Birtalan and
Pter Egyed. The Liberal Circle's strategy was directed at local government at both town
and county level and aimed to improve their efficiency. Members of the Circle were
predominantly councillors, as well as intellectuals involved in local government issues.
Liberals regard autonomy as a "principle of social organisation" which was to be put into
practice. The Circle saw its primary role as a pragmatic intermediary in the political life of
the Alliance. However, this aspiration resulted in its members being regarded as "experts"
rather than ideologists, which had a disadvantageous affect on the platform's subsequent
position : members wanting a more decisive presence left the Circle.
The Social Democratic New-Left Bloc came onto the scene in June 1993, and its
Articles of Association were finalised on 18 December 1993 at the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr
statutory meeting. While operating within the manifesto of the DAHR, the bloc intended to
place a greater emphasis on the "socially disadvantaged groups such as the unemployed
and pensioners, in order to defend politically their socio-economic interests."
President
of the platform was Tibor Dn. Its political strategy has yet to be clearly defined.
19

20

c) The autonomy model

The Third DAHR Congress, held between 15 and 17 January 1993 in
Braov/Brass, brought about a fundamental change in the life of the Alliance. This
change resulted from reforms in organisational structure which followed the acceptance,
in theory, of the concept of the political autonomy of Hungarians in Romania, as
incorporated in the Alliance's programme. The concept criticised for its ideological
character immediately following the Congress pre-supposed that the political will of
Hungarians in Romania was backed by a de facto separate society.
The concept of organisational reform was based on the so-called "state model
theory" which resulted in a structure separating the various branches of power within the
Alliance. The primary legislative organ of the Alliance was the Council of Alliance
Representatives, while operational responsibility was vested in the Executive Presidium
as a governing body. The president of the Alliance elected by the Congress was to
represent the organisation, propose a candidate for the post of Executive President to the
members of the Council of Representatives, and participate if he so wished - in the work
of the Council, enjoying full negotiating and proposal rights. Internal elections would have
completed the organisational reform process, but the Congress decreed that they be held
within two years.
Bla Mark was elected president by a clear majority he was opposed only by the
president of the Braov/Brass County Organisation, Lszl Mina. The election result
following the withdrawal of Gza Domokos and Gza Szcs from all future office
promised a new balance of political power. The Congress yet again elected Lszl Tks
as honorary president, a post which carried representation rights similar to those of the
21

22

19

See: Magyari, Nndor Lszl: Szabad gondolatok a Szabadelv Krrl [Liberal Thoughts on the Liberal Circle] and
Andrs, Pter: A sajt jogrend, az igazsgszolgltats s a bels reform [The Legal System, Jurisdiction and Internal
Reform]. Szvetsg September 1994.
20 Szndk [Intent]. Az RMDSZ - Szocildemokrata-jbaloldali Tmrls brosrja. [Pamphlet of the Social
Democratic New-Left Bloc of the DAHR.]
21 See: Br, Zoltn: Valami trtnik... [Something's going on] Cskszereda. (Interdialog fzetek I.)
22 Article 2 of the "Hatrozat szervezetnk nkormnyzati modelljnek alapelveirl" [Resolution Regarding the Basic
Principles of the Self-Government Model of the Organisation]. RMDSZ Kzlny [DAHR Gazette] 1, 1993.

president, and ensured the opportunity of participating in the work of the leading decisionmaking bodies with full negotiating rights. This outcome, however, served to re-establish
the conditions for polarisation.
In addition to the twenty-one members elected by the Congress, the Council of
Representatives consisted of DAHR members of Parliament, as well as local government
representatives elected by conferences at county level. The electoral mechanism
practised at local government level triggered significant changes in as much as it brought
into the Alliance fold the new stratum of the elite elected to local authority representation a
year earlier. The 134 members of the Council attempted to establish formal conditions for
the operation of the Alliance's internal political market place. As early as February 1993, at
its first meeting held at Gheorghieni/Gyergyszentmikls, it regulated the establishment
and operation of factions, while regulations accepted at the following meeting included the
creation of a Consultative Round Table (drawing on the positive experiences gained by
the Political Consultative Round Table in the course of preparations for the Congress)
which was meant to be an effective instrument in consensus-orientated decision-making.
Finally, when electing the Council's leading body, the Permanent Committee, the necessity
of political representation was also borne in mind. At the same time, involvement in the
privatisation preparations also featured amongst the first decisions made by the Council
(Resolution No. 3) although this could only have been carried out with the active
participation of local organisations. The fact that the resolution remained unexecuted
highlighted the paucity of instruments at the disposal of the Executive Presidium and the
lack of local resources in the organisational structure developed on the lines of the "model
state".
Bla Mark, Alliance president, proposed the Hunedoara/Hunyad County MP,
Csaba Takcs, for the post of Executive President. Members of the Executive Presidium,
elected in secret ballot by the Council, were: Barna Bod vice-president for policy, Jzsef
Somai vice-president for organisational matters, Nndor Lszl Magyari vice-president for
local government, Ildik Fischer Flp vice-president for youth and education, Jzsef Kt
vice-president for cultural and ecclesiastical matters and Bla Zsolt Gyrgy vice-president
for economics.
The departments of the Executive Presidium regarded it as their primary task to
prepare and execute the political programmes defined by Congress resolutions in their
various fields. The Council of Representatives ensured political direction and integration
in this consultative work.
Resolutions regarding organisational reform, however,
continued to be postponed a fact best illustrated by the almost two-year long process
surrounding the resolution regarding the regulation of internal electoral procedures. The
first studies for internal election procedures were produced by the Executive Presidium in
June 1994.
Preparations were explored by the Self-Government and Policy
Departments. The concept of the internal electoral system was the subject of numerous
meetings attended by representatives of the public platforms (for the discussion of political
basics) and by officials of regional organisations (who discussed practical matters.) The
issue was included on the agenda of meetings of the Council of Representatives on
several occasions. The Reform Bloc, the Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian Hungarian
Initiative all urged the regulation of the electoral system in the form of direct ballot and the
holding of elections within the period defined by the Braov/Brass Congress. Decisionmaking was, however, hindered by those with a vested interest in the status quo, such as
local government officials at municipal and county level who were supported by the
majority of the DAHR Parliamentary Group. The issue thus became a political one,
particularly due to the fact that it was the faction in favour of the acceptance of autonomy
statutes which now urged the holding of direct internal elections.
23

23

See: Szvetsg 6, June 1994.

The work of the Council of Representatives was further hindered by the need for it
to issue statements and declarations on a wide range of questions. It was, of course,
essential for the leadership of the Alliance to make its position clear on issues vital to the
Hungarian community in Romania as a whole such as the Education Act and the Basic
Treaty with Hungary. Local crises, (for example the Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovszna
County prefect issue, and the conflict surrounding the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely
Antonescu statue) should, however, have been dealt with at local level and only became
national issues when regional organisations felt themselves inadequate to resolve such
matters.
A number of statements and declarations were made public only to confirm those
issued by the Alliance's president or the Executive Presidium, and, on some occasions,
by way of correction. The DAHR Memorandum regarding Romania's admission to the
Council of Europe issued by president Bla Mark and executive president Csaba Takcs
on 26 August 1993 was confirmed in principle in a statement issued by the Council of
Representatives on 25 September 1993. Confirmation of the DAHR statement regarding
the Romanian-Hungarian Basic Treaty was issued in a similar way.
In addition, the Council of Alliance Representatives was, to a significant degree,
occupied by the management of internal conflicts. In this regard, mention should be made
of the conflicts that erupted between honorary president Lszl Tks and representatives
grouped around leading personalities of the Parliamentary Group (Attila Veresty, Gyrgy
Tokay, Kroly Szab and Gyrgy Frunda), over the debate on "ethnic cleansing" , over the
so-called Neptune affair and the matter of Benedek Nagy. The longest running of these
was the Neptune affair which arose in connection with the East European conflict
management activities of the US-based Project on Ethnic Relations Foundation. The
Foundation was present in the region not only as a civic initiative, but also as it emerged
later as a representative of American governmental interests. PER organised two
"special meetings" in Romania during 1992 which were followed by a further two in 1993,
following the Braov/Brass Congress. These took place in Gerzensee, Switzerland, and
the Romanian coastal resort of Neptune. These unofficial events were attended by three
DAHR politicians, Gyrgy Tokay, Gyrgy Frunda and Lszl Borbly, as well as by
influential members of the Romanian government and the presidential office: presidential
spokesman Traian Chebeleu and governmental secretary-general Viorel Hrebenciuc.
Proposals put forward at the meetings were referred to in the American press as
"Romanian-Hungarian agreements". The Alliance's honorary president Lszl Tks
whose attitude was, in the words of Gyrgy Tokay quoted in American press articles, an
obstacle to agreement severely criticised the three politicians for causing "political
damage" to the DAHR. A statement of criticism was also published by the Executive
Presidium as well as the Federation of Hungarian Youth Organisations and the
Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative. The protracted war of declarations made it clear that:
1. the Alliance's informal decision-making centre had shifted outside the Parliamentary
Group following the Braov/Brass Congress (during Gza Domokoss presidency,
attendance at such meetings did not cause a "crisis of legitimacy"); 2. a markedly rightwing faction had been formed within the Alliance's leading bodies around the person of
Lszl Tks, which differed, even in its political style, from those groups which believed
in pragmatism and 'one small step at a time' tactics. At the same time it became clear that
these conflicts were not merely due to the ideological pluralism apparent in the
24

25

26

27

24

See: RMDSZ Kzlny 6, 1993.

See: RMDSZ Kzlny 7-8, 1993.
26 SZKT Nyilatkozat. [Statement of the Alliance's Council of Representatives.] RMDSZ Kzlny 3, 1993.
27 Project on Ethnic Relations Bulletin 2, 1992.
25

organisation, but were the result of jockeying for positions of power within the Alliance and
the struggle to maintain that power.
Amendments made in the Alliance's Articles of Association at its Fourth Congress
held in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr between 26-28 May 1995, essentially reflected the
consequences of this in-fighting, while satisfying internal groups with a vested interest in
the status quo, for example the mid-level leadership in the counties rather than the public
platforms.
5. The issue of autonomy
28

The issue of the legal status of the Hungarian Community in Romania and the
political will for its definition were in essence voiced at the foundation of the DAHR. The
25 December Declaration urged the preparation of a "new National Minority Statute"
(doubtless meaning an Ethnic Minority Law constructed on the lines of the 6 February
1945 Minority Statute) although this would not be drafted until much later. The
programme accepted by the Oradea/Nagyvrad Congress defined its aim as: "including in
the Constitution collective rights and the right to freedom of all groups of society and
minorities". A "most effective safeguard for this is the formation of the system of local
self-government" within the framework of which opportunities would be provided for the
use of mother tongue in public authorities and public life, as well as for the organisation of
mother-tongue education from kindergarten to university. The programme also defined as
a long-term goal the "plan for a National Minority Parliament as the supreme body for selfgovernment." The programme accepted by the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Congress
contained some general aspects regarding autonomy: on the one hand, it introduced
terms from constitutional law in order to provide a self-definition for Hungarians in
Romania (who saw themselves as a "state constituent entity"), while on the other hand, it
sought to ensure minority self-organisation based on the principle of local selfgovernment". Although it referred to "personal and cultural autonomy" as a principle
leading towards the self-government of Hungarians in Romania, it defined as its concrete
goal merely the "development of the Hungarian minority's autonomous network of cultural
institutions".
It was also at the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Congress that the programme
"Nationality Draft Bill" by Gza Szcs was aired as an unofficial document. The package
contained proposed additions to Romania's constitution the right to preserve identity, the
autonomy of minority communities and the right to information, as well as a draft bill which
is in fact an enabling act concerning "national, ethnic and language communities and
persons belonging to them". It dealt with collective and individual rights, while at the
same time defining some principles regarding autonomy. From a conceptual point of view,
as far as later drafts are concerned, the package included two important points: 1)
autonomy is established through bodies of public law; 2) the Statute is a legal rule brought
about by autonomous public bodies, worked out by the elected representatives of a given
national/ethnic or language community and ratified by Romania's legislature, the
29

30

31

28

The Congress set up the Consultative Council of Regional Presidents with rights to voice opinions on all important
resolution preparations. At the same time, the financial dependence of the regional organisations on the Executive
Presidium was established.
29 A Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg I. Kongresszusa [First DAHR Congress], Vol. I.
30 Romnia Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg. Alapszablyzat. Program 1991. [DAHR Articles of Association.
Programme 1991.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Orszgos Titkrsga [Published by the DAHR National Secretariat], Kolozsvr
7th June 1991.
31 According to the proposal, collective rights include: the right to establish public bodies, the right to the preservation
of identity, the right to defended residential space, the right to establish parties, the right to education in the mother
tongue, the right of mother-tongue usage in public life and the right to maintain contact with the motherland.

Parliament. The "co-nation debate" played an important part in the maturation of the
public/constitutional law concept of autonomy. The concept of "co-nation" first surfaced in
debate prior to the Trgu Mure/Marosvsrhely Congress and was put into an ideological
context by the series of articles by Imre Borbly.
Divisions within the DAHR were further deepened by variations on the concept of
autonomy and by political initiatives based on their pursuit. The appearance of the
Alliance's Szekler Land Political Group constituted a watershed in this respect. The Group
wished to combine the celebration of the anniversary of the 1848 Szekler National
Assembly with the organisation of a referendum to be held in October 1991 regarding
Szekler regional autonomy based on the principle of self-government. The initiative was
debated at the meeting of the Alliance's National Council of Delegates held in Arad on 5
October 1991. The initiative's timing coincided with the Draft Constitution debate in
Parliament, held between 10 September and 14 November 1991, the anti-Hungarian
press campaign triggered by the "Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovszna Report", the
parliamentary debate on the local government bill and the coalition proposal made to the
opposition parties - amongst them the DAHR - following the fall of the Petre Roman
government (at the Arad meeting of the National Council of Delegates, participation in
government was an item on the agenda). DAHR MPs and senators grouped around Gza
Domokos, who regarded parliamentary politics as the only expedient way towards their
goals, branded the referendum initiative as inopportune and overly radical. The
Romanian press brought the debate into the open country-wide and, as a consequence,
the government banned the planned celebrations, even resorting to a show of military
strength in the district concerned in Harghita/Hargita County, while the "radical-moderate"
rivalry within the Alliance broadened in scope, reappearing in subsequent debates on
autonomy in the context of questions on strategy.
When the new Romanian Constitution came into effect on 8 December 1991, it was
clear that a new situation had evolved: aspirations to autonomy now had to fit into the
existing constitutional framework. This further polarised the contradictions which existed
between concepts: while an approach based on minority rights fitted into the constitutional
framework, one based on the demand for autonomy fitted only partially. Attempts to
define the concept of autonomy were undoubtedly enriched by the contributions of the
local elite which took up its role in local government at town and county level following the
February 1992 local government elections. The Declaration Regarding the National
Question, the so-called Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr Declaration, accepted at the 25 October
1992 meeting of the National Council of Delegates, meant that the autonomy strategy
based on the concept of "internal self-determination" overtook the approach founded on
minority rights and local self-government. The Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr Declaration
regarded the "principle of internal self-determination" as "universally forward-looking" a
view proved by the practice of European democracies as well as by Transylvanian
tradition.
Although the Memorandum on the Self-Determination of the Hungarian National
Community in Romania, written by Jzsef Csap and published on 31 December 1992, is
based on the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvr Declaration, it has not yet become an official DAHR
document. As a first attempt at establishing the concept of "internal self-determination",
the draft summarises and draws on the most important international documents, and in
addition proposes some constitutional revisions. It was here that the three autonomy types
often included in later DAHR documents were first mentioned: personal autonomy, local
community autonomy and regional autonomy. As well as constitutional amendments, the
Memorandum package contains the elements of a law on minorities and on language
32

32

See: Az RMDSZ Szkelyfldi Politikai Csoportjnak epilgusa az autonmirl s egysgbontsrl. [The DAHR
Szekler Land Political Group's epilogue on autonomy and disunity.] Limes 5-6, 1992.

usage. However, it clearly does not deal with questions connected to the Romanian
power structure and the internal legal system.
Although the programme accepted by the Alliance's Third Congress held in
Braov/Brass appears to contain a retrograde step when, in the debate on selfdetermination it uses the term: "the Hungarian national minority of Romania", it also refers
to its right to "internal self-determination" as well as to the fact that the Hungarians living in
Romania "regard themselves as an indigenous community and thus a state constituent
element, an independent political entity and, as such, a partner of the Romanian nation
with equal rights". The first significant political document issued following the Congress
dealt with definitions of the legal status of Hungarians in Romania. It was published on 26
August 1993 under the title: "DAHR Memorandum Regarding Romania's Admission to the
Council of Europe". The document, which created a storm in Romanian party politics,
also demanded the recognition of "national minorities as state constituent elements" and,
as far as institutional solutions are concerned, it advocated the establishment of power
structures such as ministries and state secretariats with " responsibility for controlling the
national minorities' institutional network under minority direction". An independent network
of schools using the Hungarian language as the teaching medium constituted part of this
institutional network, guaranteed at every level by the Education Act.
The Alliance's only draft bill to be recorded by the Romanian House of
Representatives was accepted by the Alliance's Council of Representatives on 14
November 1993. It concerned national minorities and autonomous communities. The
draft bill is in effect an enabling act which defines individual and communal minority rights.
The right to "internal self-determination" belongs to the latter. The basic concept of the bill
is that it differentiates between national minorities and autonomous communities: "an
autonomous community is a national minority that exercises its rights of its own accord
based on the principle of internal self-determination"(Article 1). "Persons belonging to
national minorities that define themselves as autonomous communities are to enjoy
personal autonomy based on individual minority rights"(Article 2). Articles 51-53 of the
draft deal with personal autonomy in greater detail: "the community is to enjoy rights of
self-government and execution in the areas of education, culture, telecommunication and
social activities in the framework of personal autonomy." Bodies and officials involved in
the various fields of self-government are to be elected by the autonomous community "in
free elections at regular intervals"(Article 52). The resulting self-government is to develop
its own statutes which have legal force. In addition to personal autonomy, the draft bill
defined two further forms of autonomy. The autonomy of local self-government was to be
practised through "self-governments of special status". This status is awarded by law to
local self-governments of communities, whose members belong to a national minority or
an autonomous community(Article 54). The third form of autonomy, regional autonomy,
results from the association of local governments of special status; such association is the
right of entities of special status in public administration for instance local governments.
According to Article 59 "an autonomous community practising regional autonomy defines
the regulations for its government's organisation and operation."
An alternative to the draft bill regarding autonomous communities and national
minorities was simultaneously prepared by Sndor N. Szilgyi under the title: "Bill of
Rights Appertaining to National Identity and Regarding the Fair and Harmonious Coexistence of National Communities". Although, as the author himself admitted, "the Bill of
Rights was influenced by the previously compiled Minorities Draft Bill developed by the
33

34

35

33 A Romniai

Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg Programja. [DAHR Programme.] RMDSZ Kzlny 4, 1993.

See: Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg. Dokumentumok 1. [DAHR Documents 1.] Kiadja az RMDSZ
gyvezet Elnksge [Published by the DAHR Executive Presidium], Kolozsvr 1993.
35 Trvny a nemzeti kisebbsgekrl s autonm kzssgekrl (tervezet). [Draft Bill regarding national minorities and
autonomous communities.] In: ibid, Vol. I.
34

Alliance's Working Group ", its basic concept differs from that of its model since it tries to
break with the concept of "attempting the reform of rights related to national identity whilst
remaining within the paradigm of the traditional hegemony of the nation-state", while
assuming that "the majority automatically enjoys all rights". The Bill of Rights therefore
bases the detailed regulations regarding the exercising of rights related to national identity
on the fact that there is more than one national community living in Romania. The
situation of the various communities needs to be legally defined according to regional and
demographic factors which should serve as a basis for the development of regulations.
An examination of the debate around the DAHR draft bill, and a comparison of the
alternative proposals put forward, make clear the conflicting views which form the
backdrop to the various concepts of autonomy. Since the DAHR draft bill - officially filed as
such - steered internal political debate towards public autonomies operating on the basis
of the Statute, controversies began to unfold around the substance of the statutes and
their role in the definition of institutions. The second half of 1994 saw the emergence of
two initiatives. Jzsef Csap published his draft statute for the three autonomy models in
the Erdlyi Napl, while a second initiative was written by Barna Bod, executive vicepresident, and backed up by the Alliance's Policy Department. The aim of the latter was to
define the professional basis for the statutes debate, and to raise questions which
required decisions on the political level and which would serve as a basis for the legal
codification of the statutes. According to the resolution of the meeting of the Council of
Alliance Representatives held on 1 October 1995, a Consultative Committee was
commissioned to deal with the two initiatives. Although no consensus was arrived at
amongst the committee members regarding several fundamental political issues
including the definition of a statute; who, in the case of differing autonomy models,
should be regarded as the subject of law; and how institutions of self-government should
be connected to governmental institutions and constitutional structures, etc. it was
Jzsef Csap's three proposals which were taken as a starting point. They were revised
and submitted to the Council of Alliance Representatives at the meeting held between 2526 February 1995. The political debate did not lead to the resolution of differences within
the committee: any decision was therefore deferred by the Council which simultaneously
resolved to ask for the opinions of other bodies such as the Parliamentary Group and the
Executive Presidium. At the same time, an opportunity was opened up for the submission
of further proposals at the suggestion of the chairman of the Permanent Committee. At the
meeting of the Council held between 8-9 April 1995, three additional drafts were
presented: a proposal for autonomy based on individual right written by Mikls Bakk, a
second one compiled by the Policy Department (written by Alpr Zoltn Szsz and Barna
36

37

38

39

40

36

Szilgyi N. Sndor bevezet sorai a Trvny a nemzeti identitssal kapcsolatos jogokrl s a nemzeti kzssgek
mltnyos s harmonikus egyttlsrl cm tervezethez [Sndor N. Szilgyi's Introduction to the Draft Bill of Rights
Appertaining to National Identity and Regarding the Fair and Harmonious Coexistence of National Communities. ]
Korunk 3, 1994.
37 Ibid.
38 Articles 2-10 of Chapter 1 of the Bill include the following definitions and operational concepts: national majority,
national minority, local national community, local and regional national majority, local and national regional minority,
legal capacity of a national community, political nation, cultural nation and persons living outside national
communities.
39 Csap, Jzsef: Bels nrendelkezst kiteljest autonmik. A Sajtos sttus helyi nkrmnyzat stattuma, a
Romniai magyar nemzeti kzssg szemlyi autonmijnak stattuma s a Sajtos sttus helyi nkormnyzatok
regionlis trsulsnak autonmia-stattuma. [Autonomies Fulfilling Internal Self-Determination. Statute of Local
Self-Governments of Special Status, Statute on the Personal Autonomy of the Hungarian National Community in
Romania and the Autonomy Statute of the Regional Association of Local Self-Governments of Special Status. ] Erdlyi
Napl 28th September 1994.
40 See: RMDSZ Kzlny 12, November 1994. According to resoultion No. 32, the members of the Committee were:
Jzsef Csap, Gyrgy Tokay, Attila Varga, Andrs Bres, Barna Bod, Sndor Balzs, Mikls Bakk, Eld Papp, Gbor
Hajd, dm Katona, Lzr Madaras, Attila Mark, Istvn Szab, Sndor N. Szilgyi.

Bod) under the title: "The Statute of Personal Autonomy for the Hungarian National
Community in Romania", as well as a revised version of Sndor N. Szilgyi's earlier draft.
The Committees draft, submitted under the name of Jzsef Csap, was based primarily
on the concept of internal self-determination; Mikls Bakk approached the autonomy
statutes via internal possibilities for constitutional development that would provide a basis
for negotiation with Romanian political forces, while the Policy Department's draft
attempted to communicate between these two alternatives. Sndor N. Szilgyi's version
was a revision of his previous proposal augmented by directives regarding the status of
"self-administrating national communities."
During the draft debate, the dividing line between the professional and the political
level was never clearly drawn, nor was the deeply divided Council able to clarify
unambiguously which strategy corresponded to the individual drafts, and it was therefore
almost inevitable that decision-making had to be postponed. The resolution of the meeting
of the Council of Representatives held on 7-8 April 1995 merely stated that the results of
the ongoing debate were to be incorporated in the programme proposal compiled for the
coming Congress.
The Fourth DAHR Congress incorporated in its programme several theories of
autonomy (according to which autonomy meant a principle in the development of a legal
system in which the rule of law prevails, the right of the National Community exercised in
the interests of upholding its identity, an instrument in the economic and cultural survival of
Hungarians in Romania and a strategic goal set for the DAHR in its political activities and
in its links with the organisations of civil society ) and defined the autonomy alternatives
which the Alliance was to strive towards via legislation. The three alternatives were:
personal autonomy, local self-government with special status, and regional autonomy
"realised as the collaboration between local self-governing authorities with joint interests".
The deferment of a decision on the codified text for autonomy meant that the
Council of Representatives was once again polarised along a "radical-moderate" dividing
line. According to "radical-autonomists", the political weight of the Statute was of greater
importance than its professional thoroughness, therefore it was not valid to defer the
decision for professional reasons. It was in this polarised situation that, following the
Congress, the issue of personal autonomy appeared on the agenda supported by more
than one third of the members of the Council of Representatives. The political support of
Jzsef Csap's new draft, finalised in August 1995, did not however speed up the
production of a codified version for approval by the Council. In fact, the situation following
the signature of the Hungarian-Romanian Basic Treaty may lead to the redefinition of the
priorities of autonomy politics by the various Alliance factions. The rudimentary nature of
the concept of autonomy also defined the development of the political discourse. The
effect of the autonomy debate can be traced along three separate lines: 1. In the internal
Alliance debate the "radical-moderate" opposition became coloured by new contextual
elements: the division was widened by the ideological opposition in the "autonomist"
versus "minority" debate; 2. It introduced into the system of Romanian political debate the
denial of "ethnically based autonomies" and this argument in turn defined the relationship
of the Romanian government and the majority of the opposition parties vis--vis the
Recommendation 1201 of the Council of Europe; 3. It represented a challenge to political
experts and those from civil society in the face of international law and practice and in the
politological analysis of autonomy rights. The DAHR was unable to establish the
necessary professional support, but, following the Tunad/Tusnd meeting, the group of
41

42

43

41

See: Bod, Barna: sszefoglal a stattumtervezetek elksztsrl. [Summary of Statute-Draft Preparations.] E

bels irata. [Internal paper of the Executive Presidium.] Cskszereda 7th April 1995.
42 A Romniai Magyar Demokrata Szvetsg Programja. Alapelvek. [The DAHR Programme. Basic Principles.]
RMDSZ Kzlny 16, June 1995.
43 Ibid.

experts (the so-called "Gabriel Andreescu Group"), which operated in conjunction with the
Romanian Helsinki Committee, published some critical analyses regarding DAHR minority
autonomy draft bills and aspirations that were well received internationally.
44

44

The Tusnad/Tusnd consultative meeting (13-14 May 1994) was initiated by the DAHR Policy Department and
organised jointly with experts of the Romanian Association for the Protection of Human Rights (Romanian Helsinki
Committee). The meeting debated the DAHR Memorandum submitted to the Council of Europe as well as the Draft
Bill regarding Minorities and Autonomous Communities. The participants in the consultative meeting were: Gabriel
Andreescu, Renate Weber, Valentin Stan, Smaranda Enache, Annamria Bir, Gbor Kolumbn, Mikls Bakk, Barna
Bod, Ern Fbin, Attila Varga, Sndor Balzs, Istvn Horvth, Pter Eckstein-Kovcs, Gyrgy Nagy.