DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION PROCESS PROTECTION AND INTEGRATION OF MINORITY GROUPS IN CENTRAL EASTERN...

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.mfa.gr/gpap/july99/synklik27799.html


“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


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.amazon.com/Will-Kymlicka/e/B000AQ1ZJY/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


BIBLIOGRAPHY

24


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

https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ASa%CC%82n-Giorgiu%2C+Ion.&qt=hot_author


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

DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION PROCESS PROTECTION AND INTEGRATION OF MINORITY GROUPS IN CENTRAL EASTERN...

Documents

Transcript of DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION PROCESS PROTECTION AND INTEGRATION OF MINORITY GROUPS IN CENTRAL EASTERN...