Post on 22-Apr-2023
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION PROCESSPROTECTION AND INTEGRATION OF MINORITY GROUPS IN
CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE AFTER 1989
1
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
NICA HORATIU
MCP
I
Introduction
After the collapse of the communist regime network in the
Eastern European countries, a process of reconstruction
throughout all aspects of life had begun. These former communist
countries were faced with tremendous volume of work laying the
new foundation based in most of the cases on a democratic
framework thus the democratic transition process had begun. This
process would have to touch every aspect of the state from
government, state apparatus, economy, legal system, institutions,
culture and ideologies to name a few. The paper at hand will
follow the lines of the democratic transition regarding minority
rights, minority groups and their dynamic within this framework
and also their evolution in non-post-communist countries in
comparative perspective namely the case of Greece and Romania.
The conditions in each of these cases must be created in order to
2
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
elaborate a framework that is placing notions such as minorities,
nations and national identity as important aspects of democratic
consolidation. In the East Central European countries this
process is a slow one and it requires the development of a
liberal political culture. This will require both the adaptation
of constitutions to engulf a multicultural dimension and the
establishment of stable and operational institutions that
promulgate pluralism and democratic values. This process must
evolve around the creation of a new civil society that is
autonomous and is able to guarantee that no majority or ethnic,
national, religious, linguistic, economic or political minority
would dominate or limit the rights of individuals or minority
group.
In current times, the majority of East Central European
countries are opposing, sometimes in a hostile manner, the
implementation of a liberal and democratic strategy on the basis
of inability to liberate themselves from the burden of
authoritarian traditions. In many of these cases, the process of
democratic transition is immobilized when having to transform an
authoritarian model into a democratic compatible system that will
allow new definitions and currents such as multinational or
multicultural states that will open the way to ethnic and
cultural diversity.
3
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
Greek Context
One of the countries that are facing a lot of difficulties
regarding minority rights is Greece. The country has followed an
ideological path acknowledging a religious minority, that of the
Muslims but does not recognize any ethnic, national or linguistic
minority counterpart. The intellectual community accepted and
supported this ideological line as a pre-decided politically
correct national approach. In addition, the state does not only
negates the existence of any ethnic-national group inside its
boarders but goes as far as not recognizing the ethnic-national
identity of minority groups of the neighboring countries even
though they are officially recognized by those countries. The
Kosovo crisis in 1999 has put some light on the general opinion
of the media and overall politicians regarding the minority
tensions referring to the Albanian minorities as “albanofons”.
Even though Bulgaria recognized a Turkish minority group, Greece
preferred to limit their definition to “Muslims”. Bulgaria
stands out as a peculiar case. The country officially does not
recognize that it contains in its territory, minorities but only
minority groups. The argumentation behind this approach is that
is thought that this method will keep a low risk of secessionist
tendencies. Macedonians are not included in this group in the
4
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
same way as Bulgarians are not included in Macedonia’s minority
groups.
Although Greece is not a post-communist country in
transition to democracy, it is facing the same difficulties
related to ethno-cultural diversity that other central and east
European countries with an accent on the Baltic countries. Greece
is the only country in Central and east Europe that does not
acknowledge the presence of an ethnic-national minority or
minority group within its boundaries. Even though the country has
been a member of the majority of the international conventions
and institutions that are responsible for human rights and
minority rights, Greek culture remains separate from a cultural
stand point from these principles. Never the less, it enjoys the
stability and progress guaranteed by the liberal democratic
institutions of modern occidental states but this transformation
has maintained a superficial stance. The Greek society still
lacks a civil culture to sustain the rule of law. For a long
period of time it seemed that Greece followed a model closer to
the non-liberal ethnic nations rather than civic liberal nations.
Moreover, even though the country enjoys the same statute of the
majority of the European Nation, it is the only country with a
high density of emigrants and individuals with no political and
land ownership rights.
The policy for granting citizenship in Greece stands for a
very demanding, complex process based on cultural aspects. Not
only the fact that individuals requesting such a status would
5
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
have had to stay in the country for an extended period of time,
they would also be required to prove they assimilated the Greek
culture. This process contained elements such as taking a Greek
name, accept, know or learn Greek language as a native language,
adherence to orthodox religion and usually provide Greek
descendent qualifications. The immigrants that came from
countries that over time developed tensions with Greece were
excluded from the naturalization process. Countries such as
Albania, Macedonia and Turkey were not mentioned to have minority
groups in Greece. In the late 90’s the country faced a difficult
situation. They experienced a high rise in immigrant population
coming into the country, in excess of 500 000, together with a
lowering of native population. This crisis has led to the
creation of a naturalization plan in 1998 and in July 1999 the
conditions for acquiring citizenship were analyzed and became
more open, accessible and transparent.
Towards the end of 1999 we witness for the first time in
modern Greece history, the complete modernization of the
country‘s polices for minority rights and granting citizenship.
Greece minister for External Affairs, G. Papandreu, stood out as
a well-known supporter of multiculturalism that has put pressure
on the representative institutions in order to be able to inform
the population that Greece will start applying the principles of
ethno-cultural equality. He declared that “As long as our
national boarders are not threated, I am not concerned of who
6
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
thinks of himself as Turk or Bulgarian.”1 The process of
providing ethno-cultural equality was presented by Will Kymlicka
as - a process that will ensure the availability of the state instruments and institution
for the minority groups in the same way and to the same extent as are available for the
native inhabitants of a certain state.2 The aim was to open the way for
democratic institutions and a more transparent approach to
minority groups and immigrants without creating a state of unrest
among Greek citizens. The newly formulated plan took an abrupt
turn for the good in the fact that it allowed immigrants to
acquire citizenship after only a few years of living in Greece,
lowered conditions for acquiring it and one of the most important
aspects was the absence of any limitation regarding immigrants
from neighboring countries or with Muslim religious beliefs.
The outcome of the radically different and open structure
has generated a vast wave of opinions in the media in Greece. The
public opinion viewed the new plan as impossible to apply and
also carrying the risk of undesired implications. The verbal
reaction was an aggressive one, discourses tendency consisted of
xenophobic elements and also hate towards those who signed and
agreed the new plan. Negative reactions appeared at the local
level and also high ranking politicians demanding the resignation
of the External Affairs Minister. It was presented as a
“mistake”3 or “slip”4 of the decision making process. 1 Klik, July 1999 in an review of policies announced by the Greek Minister for External Affairs - http://www.mfa.gr/gpap/july99/synklik27799.html).2 Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.3 Kathimerini, July 30, 1999, p. 2.4 Idem 3
7
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
“There cannot be a single Greek citizen, regardless of how open minded, that can
agree to even discuss the presence of racial minorities. The Greek nation is an undivided
one and the religious differences that the individuals have does not affect its unity. The
government should immediately correct its mistake, even if involuntarily committed,
that can left unattended can lead to obvious and hidden tensions alike.”5
Another Greek publication - Kathimerini presented in an
article of Stavros Lygeros the dimensions of the historical
impact that such a proposal can create.
“[...] tries with a tendency of a narrow fanatic approach to apply the model of a
multicultural society in a national state. Nevertheless, Greece is not a country created
by immigrants such is the case for The United States or Australia and it is also not a
former empire that has engulfed his former servants such is the case for the United
Kingdom. At the end of the day, these countries do not recognize the existence of
minorities. Greece is the country of an historic nation that evolves in a region full of
prejudices and ethnic conflict and has to face direct threats. This is way it cannot be run
by the wizard’s servants.”6
The case of Greece demonstrates the difficulty and
complexity of the process of liberation from the historical
regional roots even though the country is integrated in the
European apparatus of liberal, pluralistic and democratic
institutions. Greece continues to interpret the present through
the lens of the costly policies of the past.
Panayote Elias Dimitras is the Director of the Documenting
and Information Center for Minorities in Southeastern Europe and
one of the first individuals that spoke openly about the
5 To Vinna, July 30, 1999, p. 1.6 Stavros Lygeros, in Kathimerini, July 30, 1999, p. 1.
8
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
existence of a Macedonian minority group in Greece has tried in
his article “The Minority Rights Paradox” to explain why the
process of opening and constructing a pluralistic liberal and
democratic framework for minority groups and their rights is a
complex and sometimes overwhelming challenge in Central and
Eastern Europe.
He identifies two types of nationalism when it comes to the
tensions between a home land country and a minority group or
faction. The majority of the components of the home land will
adopt an aggressive type of nationalism that excludes the
“others” and only acknowledge the ones that share the same
culture, language, values and so on. The second type identified
is the defensive nationalism stance that is mainly adopted by the
minorities in order to defend against high pressure of the
majority. In both cases, it is obvious that an important element
is missing, Panayote argues. He identifies the need for a
culture of human rights that includes minority rights or a
culture of the rights of minorities derived from a human rights
culture. In any case, the presence of such a structure would
consist of a considerable aid in lowering the tensions between
the two sides. In other words, there is a lack of a pluralistic
liberal democratic perspective on the issue of minorities and
their rights.
“[…] the culture of minority rights has evolved in an unprecedented rhythm. (…)
Nevertheless, we are far away from an Era of Human rights for minorities. The interest,
apparently wider and wider, for human rights and minorities is rarely deprived of
9
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
hidden interests and thus it is opened to later limitations based on these obscure
interests. It would be naïve to believe that there is any country that views the
implementation and consideration for human rights as a priority both internally and
externally without firstly considering its own internal narrow interest national agenda.
(…) Nevertheless, the lack of a clear engagement for the cause of human rights and
minorities rights is not the only motive for which the minorities cannot expect a better
future (…). In spite the development of a culture for minority rights in the society as a
whole, there is virtually no political culture based on minority rights not even at the core
of minority groups themselves.”7
This is the “paradox of minority rights” as defined by
Panayote. He also argues that the organizations that are
preoccupied with the minority rights and the leaders that
formulate strategies regarding the implementation of such
platforms are motivated to a greater extent by an ethnic-national
drive rather than the inherent respect for the civic rights. For
such actors human rights are just an instrument for reaching
personal ends as is for the majority of states. A vivid example
of such a behavior is the Kurdistan Labor Party (PKK).
The problem going forward is presented at the level of
institution, political views and decision making processes but it
does not stop at that point. The issue lies also within the
minority groups and their interactions. The various minorities
have mainly one important element in common: their general
requests, aims and purposes inside a mother state. The dimension
changes at this point and aims at analyzing the relations between
7 Panayote Elias Dimitras, „The Minority Rights Paradox”, War Report, no. 58 (Febfruary), pages. 64-65.
10
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
minority groups and communities. The lack of communication and
willingness to unite and become a stronger voice for the
government of the respective country is presented by Panayote as
a major obstacle in achieving their goals. It is underlined that
even the trans-minority official parties like the ones in Albania
and Bulgaria do not honor their statute and function on the lines
of spokesman for the interest of one minority. To give an
example, the case of the Greeks in Albania and the Turks in
Bulgaria; the leaders of the Greek and Turkish minorities
declared that there is no Macedonian nation and no Macedonian
minority in Greece and Bulgaria, aligning themselves to the
hegemonic nationalism of Greece and Bulgaria. The minority groups
in Greece hope that by accepting the nationalism of the relative
state, their situation will improve in Greece. On the other hand,
aromanians refuse to unite their resources with the Macedonians
and Turks to push Greece to support the establishment of a
national bureau of the European Bureau for less spoken languages.
Even the Romma population has joined the struggle supporting the
Greek nature of Macedonia.
Panayote discovers three main reasons for the former defined
paradox of minority rights. The first one is that the minorities
tend to copy the behavior of their suppressors. To give an
example of the types of nationalism in motion, when facing a
behavior of aggressive hegemonic nationalism of the host state,
minorities usually reply with different forms of defensive
nationalism and sometimes with radical terminations with
11
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
intolerant values. One explanation for this would be that in most
of the cases, Balkans minorities are less educated than the
majority and do not possess the means to access the knowledge
necessary to approach certain issues and tensions in the
political arena. At the same time, the leaders of both majority
and minority would rather opt for non-liberal and nationalistic
policies rather than develop new ones based on rights and a
liberal foundation.
The second argument is based on the regional, geographic and
most importantly, political systems in which this ecosystem
operates. The behavior opted by such groups is deeply entrenched
in the way that the Balkan countries developed their political
system. All these state were formed on the basis of a non-liberal
process that generated by itself a harsh reaction of intolerance
towards its minorities. On this basis, the minority groups main
tend to leave the impression of nationalistic behavior even
towards their native home lands. Moreover, this association with
the home country will increase the risk of accusations on the
lines of separatism and even acts against the state as
informative agents.
The third and final argument is the absence in the region of
a civil society in the true meaning of the word. In developed
democratic societies, non-governmental organizations and the
intellectual elite of the majority is aiding minorities to obtain
the instruments with which to defend and hold their rights. At
the same time, they tend to advocate and protect minority rights
12
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
as the process is considered of major importance in consolidating
an open and stable democracy. In the case of the post-communist
countries, civil society is only in the early stages of
development. Its evolution is slower, having to cope with the
large period of time of suppression. The lack of an independent
civil society is characteristic to Greece. Even though it has not
been under the pressure of a long reign of an authoritarian
regime, almost all previous 1967-1974 governments have been
characterized by a paternalistic democracy in which the
parliament was incapable of functioning independent of the
arbitrary interventions of the army and the royal power. It this
obvious that the last 25 years of Greek democratic transition
have underlined the absence of substance when it came to a
democratic, pluralistic liberal culture in its political arena.
One exception appears to confirm the earlier presented
paradox and that is the fact that Hungarian minorities in South-
Eastern Europe tend to show a lower degree of nationalistic
behavior than other minorities even though they co-exist in
sometimes very intolerant countries – the example of Romania and
Yugoslavia are taken into consideration. This peculiarity is
rooted in the fact that Hungary, having to cope with a smaller
number of minorities in its own territory, had the time and
resources to protect and advocate for the rights of their
minorities in other countries. It has been proven that this
strategy was a successful one since the Hungarian minority has a
strong representation in Romania, for example. This element
13
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
reaches out to confirm Kymlicka’s argument that national minorities
should benefit from the same tools of national development as the majority nation,
both being regulated by the same liberal limitations”.8
Romanian Context
Although Romania is a country in which almost 90% of the
population is declared of Romanian origin, it has a long history
of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural intertwinement. Inside its
boarders there are many ethnic minorities out of which 20 are
officially recognized and have parliamentary representation and
their contribution to the economic and cultural development is
not be ignored. In the process of adherence to the European
Union, Romania had to develop and implement a consolidated plan
for the protection of its minority groups and that has been split
into two categories: the installment of anti-discrimination norms
and protecting the rights of minorities in such a manner that
they will keep their characteristics and at the same time not to
be assimilated by force. Even though considerable progress has
been recorded in this direction and a system of protecting
fundamental human rights has been implemented together with the
protection of ethnic identity, the right of education and culture
in the native language, there are still issues that need further
clarification and gaps that need to be covered by consolidated8 Will Kymlicka, The Rights of Minority Cultures, Oxford University Press; 1st edition (November 23, 1995) – adaptation.
14
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
patterns. The two most important minority groups that have proven
to be most problematic when discussing issues of inter-cultural
interactions and managing resources within the state apparatus
are the Hungarian community and the Romma population. These are
also the biggest minority groups in Romania. Presented below are
the results from two censuses, both after the collapse of the
communist regime.
Nationality Census 1992 % Census 2002 %
Romanians 20.408.542 89.47 19.409.400 89.50Hungarians 1.624.959 7.12 1.424.377 6.60Romma 408.087 1.76 525.250 2.50Germans 119.462 0.52 60.088 0.28Ukrainians 65.764 0.28 61.353 0.28Russians 38.606 0.17 36.397 0.17Turks 29.832 0.13 32.596 0.15Tatars 24.596 0.11 24.137 0.11Serbians - - 22.518 0.10Croatians - - 6.786 Under 0.10Slovenians - - 175 Under 0.10Slovaks 19.594 Under 0.10 17.199 Under 0.10Bulgarian 9.851 Under 0.10 8.025 Under 0.10Jews 8.955 Under 0.10 5.870 Under 0.10Checks 5.797 Under 0.10 3.938 Under 0.10Polish 4.232 Under 0.10 3.671 Under 0.10Greeks 3.940 Under 0.10 6.513 Under 0.10Armenians 1.957 Under 0.10 1.780 Under 0.10
15
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
Rutens - - 257 Under 0.10Italians - - 3.331 Under 0.10Albanians - - 477 Under 0.10Macedonians - - 695 Under 0.10TOTAL 22.408.542 21.698.1819
Immediately after the breakdown of the communist regime in
December 1989, the issue of national minorities appears vividly
in the first draft of the public debate and political agenda.
Various factors have contributed to such a reaction. Firstly we
have to underline the activity and initiative of the Democratic
Union of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) together with the pressure
applied by the European Union and the international community to
the Bucharest government to immediately adopt a trajectory
towards democratic standardization and institutional
modernization. UDMR did not only embark on the protection of
Hungarian minority rights but also the creation of new
legislative projects and public policies that will help
consolidate the ethnic community. As examples, we can underline
the use of native language in justice and public administration,
informational billboards in two languages for the regions with
minority group inhabitants, the restitution of properties or
common goods and even a governmental proposal for improving
development of the romma minority group.10 9 PHC v1.0 National Institute of Statistics – ref: EuropeAid/123275/D/SER/RO PHARE 2005/017-533.03.07.0110 According to the presented UDRM policy program, available at www.rmdsz.ro
16
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
The second element that helped aid the ethnic minority
consolidation in Romania was the constant international pressure
during the 90’. In this period The European Union and the United
States had as a priority maintaining the stability in Eastern
Europe in the context of the tensions in the former Yugoslavian
territory.11
Another element that has helped consolidating the flourishing
development of organization aimed at minority rights was the
establishment in April 1993 of the National Minorities Council
(CMN). It had in its constituency all the organizations that had
parliamentary representation. The Council was operated under the
rule of the Government and its main purpose was to mediate the
negotiations of the distribution of financial resources provided
by the executive body for the ethnic minority groups.12 Finally,
in 2001 a government decision is put in motion, the 430 decision
regarding the governmental strategy of improving the romma
population situation. This was not a 100% efficient law but it
successfully managed to ensure romma representation on certain
local and central levels.13
Definition
11 Dan Oprescu, “(Presque) Quinze Ans Apres: Minoritatile Nationale – report, Sfera Politicii, no. 107, pp. 26-30.12 Idem 1113 “O necesara schimbare de strategie” – report on the stages of applicabilityof the Governmental strategies for improvement of the situation of the Romma polupation in Romania.
17
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
Even though it is said that practice makes perfect, in the
case of political development, a pattern must be first developed
and analyzed from all its angles and then put forward in order to
test it in a real environment. Unfortunately in the Eastern
European countries, the process of democratic transition,
although well defined, it was forced in some cases to be build
either in a rush or on an instable platform and even on the pre-
existent framework of the defunct regime. This has led to the
emerging gaps between the theoretical materials and policies and
the practice itself. For the Romanian case there are multiple
international documents, juridical policies and bilateral
treaties that address the issue of minorities but there is no
explicit definition. The authors that have touched the subject
are divided into two categories. The first one is supporting the
argument that there is no need for a definition nor does it hold
any utility. The second category consists of authors who argue
that is necessary to define them on the basis of a few terms such
as “ethnic minorities”, “national minorities”, “linguistic and
religious minorities”.
Immigrant protection
As discussed earlier in the case of Greece, the respect for
the protection of minority rights is a crucial element to be
followed in any democratic consolidation process. This requires
18
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
the creation and implementation of legislative initiatives and
public policies regarding the overall improvement of racial and
ethnic minorities in such a manner that it will not discriminate
and to grant all rights with no limitation. Romania has proven to
overcome this obstacle and the legal framework for these
developments have been implemented. The problems appear though
when considering the quality of applying these laws. The National
Council for Preventing Discrimination14 has continued its line of
policy implementation regarding the prevention of discriminatory
actions with the adoption of new legal acts that show a general
improvement. Despite these efforts, there are still elements for
an efficient mechanism of anti-discriminatory statistics and
identifying indirect discrimination.
Parliamentary minority representation
The representation element is a defining pillar of democracy
itself and ensuring representation for all minority groups on the
highest level of political participation also represents a
defining characteristic of the democratic transition. One of the
methods to ensure such a representation could be the organization
of free democratic elections but this method does not always14 CNCD – administrative branch under Government administration founded in 2002, focused on the identification and administrative sanctioning of various forms of discrimination.
19
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
guarantee the desired effect. This is due to the fact that there
are minority groups that are relevant from an economic or social
stance but lack the political force. In many of the Eastern
European countries there is a use of the so called positive
discrimination of ethnic and national minorities through which all
minorities are granted access in the Parliament based on
affirmative measures. Even though the system recorded an overall
progress in the protection and representation of the rights and
interests of minority groups, Romania faces, as in the case of
Greece, a constant battle with its history. Different from the
Greek past experience, the similarities regarding the link itself
with the roots of a non-liberal approach can be seen in the
Romanian case materialized as the element of corruption. To give
an example where the legal framework succeeded but was altered by
unorthodox practices is the case of Vasile Savu, representative
in the Deputy Chamber of Macedonian minority group and former
syndicate leader from Valea Jiului. It was believed that the
position as representative was given as a reward for betraying
and reporting Miron Cozma during the last Romanian Miners
Revolts. 15
Material compensation of the common good
15 Publication Gazeta Vaii Jiului, presenting the cases in which Vasile Savu was implicated in association with the Macedonian minority organization.
20
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
The interwar period stands as an example of development of
certain ethnic and national minorities. In this period we can
identify o constant growth of the number of schools for minority
groups16, theaters and cultural institutions, publications made
in the native language of the minorities but also communication
institutions such as professional organizations, care centers for
the elderly and food camps for the poor. After the instauration
of the communist regime after August 1944, a radical process of
nationalization is launched aiming at eradicating any form of
social establishment based on ethnic consideration. The vast
majority of the earlier mentioned together with other
institutions are moved under the direct control of the government
and strictly limited to basic functions parting away from their
initial purpose. After 1989, the complex process of restitution
started but experienced a slow development due to its very
nature. This process by association, affected minority groups as
well since the nationalization process engulfed the entire
population. On the topic, we can underline an example of
confiscated goods from the Romma population. This issue has not
been regulated since present days as the process itself depends
almost exclusively on political will. This reveals an even more
intricate situation where the Romma population is considered
oppressed by a strong sentiment of rejection hence the lack of
political and social will to approach this subject even though it
16 “Minoritatile nationale din Romania”, Arhivele Statului din Romania, 1918-1925, p. 12.
21
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
has been raised by the representatives of the Romma minority in
the Parliament. In a democratic transition, the resources should
be invested firstly towards resolving the issue at a perception
level and then the restitution of the goods confiscated. The
reality showed that the issue has been comfortably ignored based
on nationalistic, non-liberal beliefs.
Conclusions
After analyzing the two countries and their development
regarding democratic consolidation through the means of
representation, protection and integration of minority group
rights, we can outline two different outcomes. The two countries
did not share the same past, only Romania being suppressed by the
communist regime, we can identify common ground in the fact that
Greece also faces democratic consolidation obstacles due to its
historical roots of a non-liberal, non-democratic, authoritarian
government. However, the obstacles facing each state are
different. They belong to the same area of interest that is the
protection, representation and integration of minority rights and
objectives but there is a clear time gap in the evolution of the
two. Greece has been identified as having to face difficulties in
elementary aspects of ethnic and national life and the immediate
implementation of a liberal and democratic foundation regarding
the acknowledgment of the immigrant groups and minorities within
its boarders and leaping forward from its historical past that
22
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
appears to block the process of democratization. After the
ideological path is cleared, the state can then advance on
creating a legislative framework through democratic
institutionalization and appointing representatives for the
different minority groups and begin negotiations for
representation in the state apparatus. On the other hand, the
Romanian case has shown that the country, even though emerging
from a more radical political system characterized by strong
nationalistic views, has overcome most of the non-liberal, non-
democratic discrepancies and has moved forward in structuring an
almost complete framework for the representation of minority
groups. The issue here is, again, the roots in the country’s
communist past that still leaves gaps in the representation
process, gaps that lead the way to corruption and the risk of
hampering the entire structure. In both cases, the road to a
successful democratic representation of minority group rights is
a long one and there are still many issues to be solved but what
is the most important aspect is that there should be no other
priority on both states political agenda than the protection of
basic human rights and the rights of minorities. This will always
remain the pillar of the democratic state.
23
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
1. Kymlicka, Will: “Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory
of Minority Rights”, Oxford University Press; Reprint
edition (October 17, 1996).
2. Lijphart, Arend: Democracy in Plural Societies: A
Comparative Exploration, New Haven: Yale University Press,
1977.
3. Kymlicka, Will: “The Rights of Minority Cultures”, Oxford
University Press; 1st edition (November 23, 1995).
4. Linz, Juan J, Stepan, Alfred: Problems of Democratic
Transition and Consolidation. Southern Europe, South Africa
and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore–London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press. 1996.
5. Chousein, Sule: “Minority Rights in Europe and the Muslim
Turkish Minority of Greece: Evolution of Minority Rights in
Euurope and the Case of Muslim Turkish Minority of Greece”,
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (July 5, 2011).
6. Hadden, Tom: „Integration and Separation: Legal and
Political Choices in Implementing the Minority Rights”, în
Nazia Ghanea, Alexandra Xanthaki (eds.) Minorities, Peoples
and Self-Determination, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
2005.
7. Tsitselikis, Konstantinos: “Old and new Islam in Greece:
From Historical Minorities to Immigrant Newcomers”, Martinus
Nijhoff (May 2012).
8. San-Giorgiu, Ion: “Problema Minoritatilor din Romania”,
Bucuresti : Impr. Independenta, 1932.
25
Nica Horatiu, MCP I Comparative Ethno politics
9. Ruegg, Francois; Poledna, Rudolf; Rus, Calin:
“Interculturalism and Discrimination in Romania: Policies,
Practices, Identities and Representations”, LIT Verlag
(August 7, 2006).
ARTICLES/STUDIES
1. Catherine, Lovatt: “Romania's Partial Progress in
Minority Issues”, Central Europe Review, Vol 1, No 2, 5
July 1999.
2. Caluser, Monica: “Regimul drepturilor minoritătilor în Europa
Centrală si de Est”.
3. Chirita, Radu; Sandescu, Anca: “Analiza actelor normative
privind drepturile minoritătilor nationale în Romania”.
4. Janosi, Dalma: “Cadrul institutional privind protectia
minoritătilor nationale din Romania”.
26