No. 2

February 1998

Miklós Bakk

The Democratic Alliance

of Hungarians

in Romania

Occasional Papers 2.

Miklós Bakk: The Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania

Original title: "Az RMDSZ mint a romániai magyarságönmeghatározási kísérlete 1989 után"

Published in Pro Minoritate Autumn 1996, pp. 11-30.

Translation by Gorka Sebestyén Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell

Editors

Diószegi LászlóGyertyánfy András

Teleki László FoundationH-1125 Budapest, Szilágyi Erzsébet fasor 22/c.

(36-1) 275 25 00 E-mail L.DIOSZEGI@TLA.HU

1. Pre-conditions for Development and evolution after December1989

At every significant moment in their history, the politicalself-definition of the Hungarians in Romania has been dependent onthe prevailing circumstances, the inherited institutions and thestance and actions of the particular elite in power.In December 1989, when, seemingly at least, the whole politicalpower structure was collapsing, new and unique opportunitiesappeared to open on the political horizon. In its firstdeclaration issued on 22 December, the National Salvation Front (NSF), anewly created state authority, announced the principle of legalequality for national minorities, so aligning itself with thehorizon of expectations inherent in this historical turning point.1

The legal framework for political pluralism was establishedby a decree released by the NSF which included the right toassembly and to self-organisation. The registration of theDemocratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (DAHR)2 as a legal entity tookplace on 26 January, in accordance with the requirements of thedecree issued by the NSF Council on 3 January 1990, and of aninter-war law, dating from 1924, on the establishment ofassociations and foundations. The most comprehensive guaranteefor the pre-conditions for political evolution came with adeclaration made by the NSF on 5 January 1990, which recognisedthe individual and collective rights of minorities and madereference to the future reform of governmental institutions toreflect this attitude, and also to the Alba Iulia/GyulafehérvárResolutions of 1918.

2. The creation of the DAHR

Three relatively independent initiatives should be mentioned asleading up to the creation of the DAHR, the representative bodyfor Hungarians in Romania: the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration,the Bucharest Declaration and the Timişoara/Temesvár initiative.3

1Point 7 of the 22 December Communication by the NSF : "The respect for therights and freedoms of national minorities and the guarantee of their equalstatus to that of Romanians". A Hét 28 Dec. 1989.2 Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség (RMDSZ).3The authors of the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration gave its title as the"Hívó Szó" [Rallying Cry]. The Timişoara/Temesvár Declaration, issued on 23

Of the three, it was the Bucharest Declaration which proveddefinitive — the decisive events after 22 December took place inBucharest, where such famous individuals from the Hungarianminority as Géza Domokos and László Tőkés (who, at the time, wasbeing hailed nation-wide as the hero of the "Timişoara/TemesvárRevolution") were invited to the National Council of the NSF. TheBucharest Declaration, dated 25 December, can therefore beregarded as the "founding charter" of the DAHR.4 In this document,the DAHR is defined as the "organisation for the minorityrepresentation and for the protection of the common interests" ofthe Hungarians in Romania. (This definition has proved to be alasting one, as can be seen from later versions of the DAHR’sregulations and programme.) The DAHR invited Hungarians inTransylvania to create their own related organisations at"village, town and county" levels, a decisive step towardscreating an essentially regionally-based organisational structure.

From a political point of view there are two importantaspects to the document. Firstly, it announced the DAHR’s co-operation with the NSF ("We declare that we adopt as our own theprogramme of the legal state authority, the National SalvationFront"). Secondly, it gave a programmatic summary of the rightsto be accorded to Hungarians in Romania. In the Declaration, theDAHR insisted "on the fundamental right of Hungarians in Romaniato self-determination".5 The Declaration also stated the need forDecember, is significant since it expressed a different, regional approach, anapproach which was to make itself forcefully apparent right up to the Congressin Oradea/Nagyvárad. (The desire to register the Banat/Bánság Association ofHungarian Democrats as an independent organisation was made apparent at theDelegates' Meeting of 24 and 25 February at Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy.On 26 February, the organisation announced that it would continue to functionas the Timiş/Temes County body of the DAHR.) The Bucharest Declaration wastitled "Kiáltvány".4A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Ideiglenes IntézőbizottságánakKiáltványa. [The Declaration of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians inRomania’s Temporary Council for Organisational Matters.] Magyar Szó 26 December1989, A Hét 28 December 1989. The first draft of the Declaration was written byLajos Demény and János András. Its final form was influenced by the work ofJános Szász, Andor Horváth, Gábor Cseke and many others. (See: Domokos, Géza:Esély I.. Csíkszereda, Pallas - Akadémiai Kiadó 1996, pp. 16-21. Also LajosDemény's review of Károly Király's book entitled Nyílt kártyákkal, MagyarKisebbség 1-2, 1996.)5There was an argument over the use of the phrase "self-determination" amongstthose formulating the document. In the piece by Lajos Demény quoted above hementions that the text which appeared on 26 December differed from the onewhich had been voted on the previous day: "the passage on self-determinationwas missing as were two other important sections" (see the review by the authormentioned above, p.344). These were erased at Géza Domokos' special request by

constitutional protection for collective minority rights,detailing the most important rights and the steps to be takentowards them. These included the formulation of a new Statute onMinorities, the guarantee of minority representation withinlegislation, state administration and justice, the establishmentof a network for mother-tongue education from kindergarten touniversity level, the creation of Hungarian cultural andscientific institutions and Hungarian radio and televisionservices, the right to use the Hungarian language in jurisdictionand administration and the creation of a Ministry for MinorityAffairs.

An organisational structure and programme for the evolvingDAHR were established after a number of national meetings. On 7January 1990, the first meeting of the Provisional Executive Committee washeld in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár. This was followed by meetings ofdelegates in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely and SfântuGheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy on 13 January and 24-25 February. Bythe time the second meeting took place, the requirement that theassociation be centred in Transylvania had already been put intowriting. (Previous to this, the Declaration of 25 December hadbeen written by the Hungarian intelligentsia in the capital, theorganisation had been registered in Bucharest and had itsheadquarters there.) In addition, the DAHR was to act as anumbrella organisation encompassing "all organisations representingspecialist, cultural and religious interests".6 The meeting ofdelegates held in Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy elected aTemporary Presidium of 15 members (the president being GézaDomokos, honorary president László Tőkés with Károly Király, whowas already chairman of the Minority Committee of the TemporaryCouncil 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-organisationcame with events which took place in March. The incitement toanti-Hungarian feeling which had began in the second half ofFebruary had by this time become permanent: the Bolyai Líceumaffair in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely had become a national issue;László Tőkés and Károly Király were vilified during a mass meetingof Vatra Românească in Alba Iulia; on 7 March, demonstratingstudents from the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Medical Universitywere abused; and on 15 March, Hungarians celebrating the Hungarianthe committee compiling the text. This marked the beginning of the discussionson "internal self-government" and autonomy. 6A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Szándéknyilatkozata. [Statement of Intentby the DAHR.] Romániai Magyar Szó 18 January 1990.

national holiday in Satu Mare/Szatmár and TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely were disgracefully provoked. Tension mountedto a climax on 19-21 March, with violent disturbances in TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely. Events such as these made it clear to themajority of the DAHR leadership that there were increasinglydominant forces within the NSF which were attempting to gainpolitical legitimacy and electioneering capital for the NSF party(the “temporary state authority” had announced on 23 January thatit would itself be competing in the elections) and which wereblocking the reform of public institutions by means of incitingnationalist feelings.

The First DAHR Congress, held on 23 April inOradea/Nagyvárad, concluded that there was a need for a unifiedand independently acting organisation within the contemporaryRomanian political arena. This meant in practice a completepolitical split from the NSF and the acceptance of theTimişoara/Temesvár Declaration, the first joint oppositionplatform. These ideas were, at the same time, formulated inideological terms: the DAHR was to avoid being seen as a "neo-communist" organ (Éva Cs. Gyímesi), and its leadership as a shadeof "reformed communists" (Ádám Katona). 7 The key figures at theCongress represented the kind of polarisation which reflected theway events were developing, as well as those divisions which wouldlater lead to the creation of distinct factions. The candidacy ofthe dissident poet Géza Szőcs for the office of president wasprimarily supported by the radical youth of the Federation of HungarianYouth Organisations (FHYO), whilst that of Géza Domokos was backed bythe cultural elite of the newly organised local and county bodiesof the DAHR. The election did not, however, take place. Instead,a compromise was reached: alongside the president, Domokos, Szőcswould be secretary-general of the organisation, a duality whichwas in line with the Congress' decision to establish two separateheadquarters, one in the capital and one in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár.Tőkés played a conciliatory role during the Congress, facilitatedby the great respect in which he was held, and by his position ashonorary president. After the Congress, however, Király wasmarginalised within the Alliance. 8 In accordance with the adopted

7Varga, Gábor ed.: A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség I. Kongresszusa. [The FirstCongress of the DAHR.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Bihar megyei szervezete. [Published bythe DAHR's Bihar County office.]8His later radicalisation - leaving the parliamentary session during the 1991vote on the Constitution - can be seen as an appropriate response to the givensituation.

regulations, the Congress elected a 101 member National Council whichin turn voted on the members of the 15-strong Presidium. 9

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 February1990. Half of its members were drawn from the National SalvationFront, with the other half being made up of representativesdelegated by the newly formed parties. Romania's constitutionalParliament and the president of the Republic were elected on 20May, in accordance with Act 92 /1900 as ratified by the Council.The House of Representatives of the dual chamber Parliamentcomprised 387 seats, while 119 senators made up the Senate. Theelectoral system was based on proportional representation withcandidates listed per region; the minimum number of votes requiredfor election to the Parliament had not yet been defined. Senatorswere elected from seven parties with one additional independentmember; eighteen parties – amongst them the DAHR and the GermanDemocratic Forum – gained seats in the House of Representatives,while a further nine seats were allocated, as a constitutionalright, to members of the ethnic minority organisations. Votescast for the senatorial candidates of the DAHR resulted in themwinning 10.08% of available seats, i.e. 12 seats in the Senate. Atotal of 29 (7.46%) seats were won in the House ofRepresentatives.10 In both the upper and lower chambers, theNational Salvation Front gained the two-thirds majority requiredfor passing legislation. Although the DAHR constituted the secondlargest political force in Parliament, its scope was limited bythe National Salvation Front's majority and by the fact thatpolitical legitimacy was based on nationalist rhetorics.

9The members of the Presidium were: Géza Domokos, President, Géza Szűcs,Secretary-General, András Béres, Béla Markó, Ferenc Formanek, Zsolt Szilágyi,Éva Cs. Gyimesi, István Csutak, Barna Bodó, Lajos Kántor, Attila Zonda, TiborT. Toró, Péter Erőss, Béla Nagy, Attila Verestóy, Lajos Sylvester, Gyula Vida,Gábor Kolumbán, István Káli.10 See: Székely, István: Választottunk... Az 1990-es és 1992-es parlamenti ésönkormányzati választások megyei eredményeinek értékelése. [We have chosen...An appraisal of the 1990 and 1992 parliamentary and local government electionresults at county level.] Magyar Kisebbség No. 1-2/1996.

Following the general election, the political direction ofthe DAHR was defined by the Presidium (mainly the president and thesecretary-general), as well as the Parliamentary Group. TheNational Council met on only three occasions: on 21 July 1990 atMiercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda (when a statement regarding the re-founding of Bolyai University was accepted); on 5 October in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár (this meeting accepted the programme proposalsentitled: "The DAHR for a Democratic Romania – Principles and Expectations" andlistened to the report of the DAHR representatives who hadattended the Strasbourg assembly of the Council of Europe); and on2 March 1991 at Satu Mare/Szatmár, when a decision was maderegarding a second Congress, and decision-making rights weretransferred to the Presidium in political matters, and to theParliamentary Group in constitutional questions. The resultingdecision-making mechanism seemed initially satisfactory, since thepolitical scope of the DAHR had by that time become extremelyrestricted. In 1990, the organisation’s main areas of activitywere in matters of education, in opposing nationalist provocation,and in protesting against proposals for discriminatorylegislation.11 The National Salvation Front and the VatraRomânească succeeded in restricting the political scope of theDAHR by retaining on the parliamentary agenda such issues as theHarghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovászna Report, or the results ofcommittee investigations into the events in TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely. However, opportunities for increasingpolitical scope arose when on 6 August 1990, several oppositionorganisations, together with the DAHR, established the DemocraticAnti-Totalitarian Forum. The new body (called the Democratic Conventionfrom 26 October 1990) entered into numerous joint representationswhich allowed the DAHR to be seen to be committed to democraticvalues, an important step towards political integration within theRomanian political arena.

The Second DAHR Congress, held between 24 and 26 May 1991 inTârgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely, preserved, in practice, an11 On 10 September the licence of the Hungarian high-school in Arad waswithdrawn (György Tokay member of Parliament began a sit-in, and later a hungerstrike), on 11 September the DAHR protested against the restrictions introducedin university admission processes in the mother-tongue, on 3 October astatement was published concerning the case of the No. 33 Bucharest School,followed by several similar protest actions. In October 1990 the DAHR Group ofMPs left the parliamentary debate in protest against the clause in Company Lawaccording to which the head of a trade enterprise may only be a person ofRomanian origin, not merely a citizen of Romania. Similar protest measures wereresorted to in 1991 on the occasion of the ratification of the Veterans' Lawand the National Security Law.

organisational structure suitable for the prevailingcircumstances. Although the new organisational statutes definedthe Alliance as "a consultative, representative and conciliatorycoalition of the organisations of Hungarians in Romania" andensured a free platform for all members, the constitution of itsgoverning body, the National Council of Delegates (made up of NationalPresidium members, the leaders of the Parliamentary Group,presidents of member organisations and other delegates) did notensure an equal say for all shades of opinion. Clashes of opinionsuch as those witnessed during the Oradea/Nagyvárad Congress,began to gain a higher profile, and were referred to in Congressstatements such as the following: "the recent past has seen theemergence of differing attitudes within the Alliance, with more orless radical stances being adopted with regard to the acceptedprogramme."12 Press reaction to the radical versus moderate clashwas significant, even prior to the Congress, and opposing viewswere voiced at public meetings. One important divisive issue interms of strategy concerned the legal definition of Hungarians inRomania. It was proposed to include in the programme the demandfor "co-nation status", a proposal which attracted radicalsupport.13 The Domokos-Szőcs opposition emerged as a conflictbetween a co-operative wing — ready to compromise and efficient atachieving results in Bucharest — and a radical one which pre-supposed definite rights based on the Euro-conformity of theRomanian political system (i.e. on international pressure). GézaDomokos had been re-elected as president of the Alliance, althoughwith a very narrow majority, ahead of Géza Szőcs who became vice-president, an office he shared by Gábor Kolumbán. Differenceswere only superficially resolved by the Congress. In addition tothe two vice-presidents, the Alliance's new Articles ofAssociation required the election of twelve members of theNational Presidium.14 László Tőkés was again unanimously electedas honorary president.

In the local government elections held on 9 February 1992,3.130 DAHR members were elected as councillors or mayors. Membersof the Alliance thus won 6.53% of local government seats and 4.41%

12 Az RMDSZ II. Kongresszusának határozatai. [Resolutions of the second DAHRcongress.] Romániai Magyar Szó, 27 May 1991.13 It was Imre Borbély who lodged a motion for the inclusion in the programmeof the term "co-nation status".14 The members of the National Presidium elected at the TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely Congress were: László Tőkés, Géza Domokos, Géza Szőcs,Gábor Kolumbán, Tibor Beder, András Béres, Imre Borbély, József Csapó, MiklósPatrubány, Csaba Takács, György Tokay and Tibor T. Toró.

of all mayoral offices. The number of seats gained on countycouncils was even more substantial, totalling 7.12%. This timethere was more at stake than an advantageous distribution of localgovernment seats: the local elections laid the foundations for abreak-through by the opposition in the autumn general election.Another significant development was the widening of the politicalmarket place — the appearance of party politics within the contextof local government. This was particularly important for theAlliance, since gaining and exercising power at a local levelopened up a vastly different perspective from that of being aparliamentary party in long-term opposition. The tensions thatevolved between the two perspectives could only be resolved byradical organisational reform that was to be the task of the ThirdCongress, to be held in Braşov/Brassó.

Following the general election held on 27 September 1992, thecomposition of the Romanian Parliament underwent a completechange. This was partly due to alterations in the electoralsystem: the number of MPs was reduced from 396 to 328 plus theadditional representatives of ethnic minorities, while the Senatenumbered 143 instead of the previous 119; the minimum number ofvotes necessary for parliamentary representation was introduced at3% of those cast which resulted in a reduction of the number ofparties and the stabilisation of the party system. Participationdecreased from 86% in 1990 to 76% in 1992. Eight parties wererepresented in the Senate, while the House of Representatives wasmade up of seven parties and thirteen additional membersrepresenting ethnic minority organisations. DAHR candidates won27 seats in the House of Representatives and 12 in the Senate,7.91% and 8.39% respectively. The new distribution of power didnot substantially affect the position of the Alliance. Thevictorious National Salvation Front – which gained 34% of seats – couldnot enter into a coalition with the second-placed DemocraticConvention. It was therefore formally forced to govern inminority although it already enjoyed – and in return rewarded –the support of post-communist and nationalist parties with whichit eventually formed a formal coalition in 1995. The nationalistand post-communist bloc continued to limit the Alliance'spolitical role, the scope of which was further restricted by itsexclusion from the Democratic Convention. It did, however,acquire greater political freedom at the international level: on20 May 1993 it was admitted as a full member of the EDU (EuropeanDemocratic Union), the international alliance of Europeanconservative parties) and also became a member of the FUEV (FederalUnion of European Nationalities) at its Flensburg Congress held at the

same time. On 31 July 1994, the Alliance became a member of theUNPO, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation. Events precedingRomania's admission into the Council of Europe — the 1993 DAHRMemorandum regarding Romania's Council membership, György Frunda'ssignificant participation in the sessions of the EuropeanParliament and, by no means least, László Tőkés's visit to the USA— all seemed to prove to the members of the DAHR that in the newlyemerging field of the European integrational process, the Alliancehad gained a greater scope. This also heightened expectations inrelation to the Basic Treaty to be signed between Romania andHungary.

4. Internal pluralism: The self-government model of the DAHR1993-95

a) Internal features of pluralism

The period between 8 December 1991 when Romania'sConstitution entered into force, and the local governmentelections held on 9 February 1992, witnessed a further, thoughless obvious, crisis in the history of the DAHR. By that time ithad become obvious that within the existing constitutionalframework, any reform of the legal and political situation ofHungarians in Romania could only be achieved in the long-term, andthat the newly fledged political elite would have to begin theprocess of preparation. Within the Alliance, organisationalinterests began to be articulated along the lines of politicalpositions. Among the newly prestigious and advancing politicalelite, the process prompted the creation of specific links withthe general membership and with minor officials who were involvedin maintaining the broad base of the movement, as well as a newrelationship with those intellectuals who were leaving theAlliance for various civic initiatives. These relationships,based on vested interest, were further complicated by theappearance of the new elite in local government representation. Atthe same time, the Romanian electoral system necessitated thedefending of common interests via a single political body, sincethe minimum number of votes (3%) required for parliamentaryrepresentation provided opportunities for only one politicalorganisation. "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 thetwo World Wars.

The formulation of political fields of interest and theirpluralistic articulation were initially related to groupsrepresenting different regional specificities and organisationalresources, and were characterised by debate between differingcultural policies. The conflicts which arose in the course ofdebate were in no way manageable within the existingorganisational structure. They included for instance the October1991 initiative taken by the Szekler Land Political Group of the DAHRwhich, at a meeting held to commemorate the anniversary of theSzekler National Assembly of Lutiţa/Agyagfalva of 1848, first putinto writing the principles of radical political autonomy whichclashed with the prevailing views held by the Alliance .15 Thesecond crisis, which heralded a division into various factions,was triggered by the drawing up of the list of candidates forHarghita/Hargita County for the autumn 1992 elections. Since thecommittees of the three districts of Odorhei/Udvarhely, Ciuc/Csíkand Giurgeu/Gyergyó failed to reach an agreement in time on thedistribution of candidates for the joint list, the issue had to beresolved by the National Presidium. This resulted in an insolubleconflict between members of the Presidium (honorary presidentLászló Tőkés, vice-presidents Gábor Kolumbán and Géza Szőcs andmembers Imre Borbély, József Csapó, András Béres, MiklósPatrubány, Tibor Beder and Tibor T. Toró) who compiled the finallist, and Géza Domokos who, having been absent from the meeting ofthe Presidium, included revisions which were supported only byGyörgy Tokay from among the members of the Presidium.

b) Co-organisations, platforms

Although accepted in theory, organisational solutions insupport of the development of internal pluralism did not inreality exist until the Third Congress. Definite proposalspreviously made concerned only the integration of the Federation ofHungarian Youth Organisations. The Federation was formed in order tounite the various local youth organisations set up at the time ofthe foundation of the DAHR. The idea of a single umbrella youthorganisation was mooted as early as the beginning of January 1990.The Federation was founded on 18 February 1990 at SfântuGheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy, with the participation of twenty-one15 The two alternatives may also be interpreted along these dividing lines. See:Bakk, Miklós: Pluralizmus és törésvonalak. [Pluralism and Dividing Lines]. A Hét31-32, 1995.

organisations. Its First Congress was held at TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely. The representatives of thirty organisationssigned a Statement of Intent and the Articles of Association.Within a short space of time, a representative of the Federationwas given a seat on the Provisional Executive Committee of theAlliance. The programme of the Alliance's First Congress definesthe Federation as a "partner organisation", while young radicalpoliticians such as Zsolt Szilágyi declared that the Federationwas to play the role of a constructive opposition within theorganisation. While the programme of the Oradea/Nagyvárad Congressmerely invited the participation of youth organisations in theleadership of the Alliance, the Second Congress incorporated theconcept in the Articles of Association. The TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely Congress decided to reserve 15% of seats onthe National Council of Delegates for members of the FHYO, while theBraşov/Brassó Congress assured 15% of seats for the Federation andthe National Hungarian Students' Association on the Council of AllianceRepresentatives. A decision passed at the FourthCluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Congress, held between 26 and 28 May 1995,reiterated the statement. Tibor T. Toró, the Federation'spresident between 1990 and 1993, played a significant role duringthis period as a focus for young politicians conscious of the needfor the participation of a new generation in politics. The issuebecame the Federation's fundamental dilemma: should it continueto represent the interests of a single group, or should it evolveinto a high-profile political movement? This dilemma was resolvedat the Federation's Fourth Congress held at Baile Felix/Félixfürdőbetween 10 and 12 December 1993, when the organisation's politicalwing set up the Reform Bloc to represent "liberal views committed tonational interests". The new bloc became a platform within theAlliance and elected Tibor T. Toró as its president. TheFederation's depoliticised wing remained as a movement and agreedon new Articles of Association and elected a new president in theperson of László Tamás from Miercurea–Ciuc/Csíkszereda in January1994. Both the Reform Bloc and the reconstituted movement electedGéza Szőcs as honorary president. The choice was a demonstrationof the unity between the two separate wings. Political partnersof the Alliance which are registered as legal entities are: theHungarian Christian Democratic Party in Romania, the Hungarian Smallholders Partyin Romania and the Association of Hungarian Workers in Romania. 16 Prior tothe Braşov/Brassó Congress, partnership between the co-16 Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Dokumentumok 2. [Democratic Alliance ofHungarians in Romania. Documents 2.] Kiadja az RMDSZ ügyvezető elnöksége[published by the Executive Presidium of the DAHR], Kolozsvár 1994.

organisations and the DAHR was realised by means of jointmembership of both bodies and participation in the Alliance'spolitical activities. According to a resolution of the ThirdCongress, the partner organisations — termed "associate members" –were granted rights of representation on the Alliance's decision-making body, the Council of Alliance Representatives; this allowedJózsef Mihály, president of the Smallholders Party, and KálmánKiss, secretary-general of the Christian Democrats, to be electedto the Council. However, it was only the Hungarian ChristianDemocratic Party in Romania which played any key role in Alliancepolitics, as a result of the activities of its two members ofParliament: Ferenc Bárányi, president of the ParliamentaryCommittee on Health Care, and Senator Gábor Hajdú. The ChristianDemocrats' Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress, held between 6 and7 February 1993, elected Ferenc Bárányi as vice-president. TheAssociation of Hungarian Workers in Romania worked in co-operationwith 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 theAlliance prevented them from developing an independent image andspecific political identity. Moreover, the March 1996 Act relatedto party organisation can be seen to question the very existenceof the Smallholders and Christian Democrats, since the newconditions laid for the registration/re-registration of partiesbecame somewhat difficult to fulfil.17

Independent political image was more successfully developedby platforms operating without being legal entities. Following anearlier proposal and the theoretical acceptance of pluralism, theactivity of platforms began in earnest only after the October 1992Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár meeting of the National Council ofDelegates, which mooted the concept of a Consultative Political RoundTable. Its task was to prepare for the Braşov/Brassó Congress byreconciling the views held by different Alliance groupings inorder to facilitate decision-making at the Congress. Among thegroupings were blocs which assumed the role of platforms (such asthe Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative), inaddition to groups which actually had a decisive role, such as themembers of Parliament and senators who were in practice thesupporters of Géza Domokos.

The platform called the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative wasfounded by politicians and DAHR officers who belonged to the

17 At least 10,000 founding members must be certificated throughout fifteencounties.

Alliance's Szekler Land Political Group (which was dissolved atthe end of 1991). Following several preparatory meetings in theSzekler Land, the statutory meeting was convened for 14 March 1992in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár. According to the Statement of Intentissued by the parties involved,18 the Initiative was to function asthe "Christian-national" platform of the Alliance: initiating the"establishment of national autonomy". One political aim wasupheld consistently: throughout the debate on autonomy, theInitiative continued to support the Csapó programme directly basedon the principle of self-government. The platform focused on theSzekler Land and advocated its regional autonomy. Within theAlliance, its political strategy was characterised by an abilityto shed new light on seemingly marginal issues in effective ways.Its activities were based on co-operation with the churches.Following the Braşov/Brassó Congress, the Initiative set up itsown faction within the Council of Alliance Representatives.

The Liberal Circle originated in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár, where thefirst "liberal meetings" were held in 1992. It was the liberalgroup that initiated setting up the Political Consultative RoundTable at the end of 1992 and which played an important role in thedrafting and acceptance of the institutional reform programme putforward at the Third Congress.19 The platform's first meeting washeld at Miercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda between 25 and 27 March 1994 inorder to draft the Circle's programme. The principles acceptedincluded the place of collective rights in liberal thinking. TheArticles of Association were also signed. Officials elected were:president Péter Eckstein-Kovács, vice-presidents László Zsigmond,Gábor Kolumbán, Zsolt Szilágyi, Ákos Birtalan and Péter Egyed. TheLiberal Circle's strategy was directed at local government at bothtown and county level and aimed to improve their efficiency.Members of the Circle were predominantly councillors, as well asintellectuals involved in local government issues. Liberalsregard autonomy as a "principle of social organisation" which wasto be put into practice. The Circle saw its primary role as apragmatic 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

18 Útjára indult Kolozsvárott az Erdélyi Magyar Kezdeményezés! [TheTransylvanian Hungarian Initiative is Launched in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár!]Romániai Magyar Szó 20 March 1992.19 See: Magyari, Nándor László: Szabad gondolatok a Szabadelvű Körről [LiberalThoughts on the Liberal Circle] and András, Péter: A saját jogrend, azigazságszolgáltatás és a belső reform [The Legal System, Jurisdiction andInternal Reform]. Szövetség September 1994.

affect on the platform's subsequent position : members wanting amore 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 1993at the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár statutory meeting. While operatingwithin the manifesto of the DAHR, the bloc intended to place agreater emphasis on the "socially disadvantaged groups such as theunemployed and pensioners, in order to defend politically theirsocio-economic interests."20 President of the platform was TiborDáné. Its political strategy has yet to be clearly defined.

c) The autonomy model

The Third DAHR Congress, held between 15 and 17 January 1993in Braşov/Brassó, brought about a fundamental change in the lifeof the Alliance. This change resulted from reforms inorganisational 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 followingthe Congress21 – pre-supposed that the political will of Hungariansin 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 structureseparating the various branches of power within the Alliance. Theprimary legislative organ of the Alliance was the Council ofAlliance Representatives, while operational responsibility wasvested in the Executive Presidium as a governing body. Thepresident of the Alliance – elected by the Congress – was torepresent the organisation, propose a candidate for the post ofExecutive President to the members of the Council ofRepresentatives, and participate – if he so wished - in the workof the Council, enjoying full negotiating and proposal rights.Internal elections would have completed the organisational reformprocess, but the Congress decreed that they be held within twoyears.22

20 Szándék [Intent]. Az RMDSZ - Szociáldemokrata-Újbaloldali Tömörülésbrosúrája. [Pamphlet of the Social Democratic New-Left Bloc of the DAHR.]21 See: Bíró, Zoltán: Valami történik... [Something's going on…] Csíkszereda.(Interdialog füzetek I.)22 Article 2 of the "Határozat szervezetünk önkormányzati modelljénekalapelveiről" [Resolution Regarding the Basic Principles of the Self-GovernmentModel of the Organisation]. RMDSZ Közlöny [DAHR Gazette] 1, 1993.

Béla Markó was elected president by a clear majority – he wasopposed only by the president of the Braşov/Brassó CountyOrganisation, László Mina. The election result – following thewithdrawal of Géza Domokos and Géza Szőcs from all future office –promised a new balance of political power. The Congress yet againelected László Tőkés as honorary president, a post which carriedrepresentation rights similar to those of the president, andensured the opportunity of participating in the work of theleading decision-making bodies with full negotiating rights. Thisoutcome, however, served to re-establish the conditions forpolarisation.

In addition to the twenty-one members elected by theCongress, the Council of Representatives consisted of DAHR membersof Parliament, as well as local government representatives electedby conferences at county level. The electoral mechanism practisedat local government level triggered significant changes in as muchas it brought into the Alliance fold the new stratum of the eliteelected to local authority representation a year earlier. The 134members of the Council attempted to establish formal conditionsfor the operation of the Alliance's internal political marketplace. As early as February 1993, at its first meeting held atGheorghieni/Gyergyószentmiklós, it regulated the establishment andoperation of factions, while regulations accepted at the followingmeeting included the creation of a Consultative Round Table (drawing onthe positive experiences gained by the Political ConsultativeRound Table in the course of preparations for the Congress) whichwas meant to be an effective instrument in consensus-orientateddecision-making. Finally, when electing the Council's leadingbody, the Permanent Committee, the necessity of politicalrepresentation was also borne in mind. At the same time,involvement in the privatisation preparations also featuredamongst the first decisions made by the Council (Resolution No. 3)although this could only have been carried out with the activeparticipation of local organisations. The fact that the resolutionremained unexecuted highlighted the paucity of instruments at thedisposal of the Executive Presidium and the lack of localresources in the organisational structure developed on the linesof the "model state".

Béla Markó, Alliance president, proposed the Hunedoara/HunyadCounty MP, Csaba Takács, for the post of Executive President.Members of the Executive Presidium, elected in secret ballot bythe Council, were: Barna Bodó vice-president for policy, JózsefSomai vice-president for organisational matters, Nándor LászlóMagyari vice-president for local government, Ildikó Fischer Fülöp

vice-president for youth and education, József Kötő vice-presidentfor cultural and ecclesiastical matters and Béla Zsolt Györgyvice-president for economics.

The departments of the Executive Presidium regarded it astheir primary task to prepare and execute the political programmesdefined by Congress resolutions in their various fields. TheCouncil of Representatives ensured political direction andintegration in this consultative work. Resolutions regardingorganisational reform, however, continued to be postponed — a factbest illustrated by the almost two-year long process surroundingthe resolution regarding the regulation of internal electoralprocedures. The first studies for internal election procedureswere produced by the Executive Presidium in June 1994.Preparations were explored by the Self-Government and PolicyDepartments.23 The concept of the internal electoral system was thesubject of numerous meetings attended by representatives of thepublic platforms (for the discussion of political basics) and byofficials of regional organisations (who discussed practicalmatters.) The issue was included on the agenda of meetings of theCouncil of Representatives on several occasions. The Reform Bloc,the Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative allurged the regulation of the electoral system in the form of directballot and the holding of elections within the period defined bythe Braşov/Brassó Congress. Decision-making was, however,hindered by those with a vested interest in the status quo, such aslocal government officials at municipal and county level who weresupported by the majority of the DAHR Parliamentary Group. Theissue thus became a political one, particularly due to the factthat it was the faction in favour of the acceptance of autonomystatutes which now urged the holding of direct internal elections.

The work of the Council of Representatives was furtherhindered by the need for it to issue statements and declarationson a wide range of questions. It was, of course, essential forthe leadership of the Alliance to make its position clear onissues 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/KovásznaCounty prefect issue, and the conflict surrounding the TârguMureş/Marosvásárhely Antonescu statue) should, however, have beendealt with at local level and only became national issues whenregional organisations felt themselves inadequate to resolve suchmatters.

23 See: Szövetség 6, June 1994.

A number of statements and declarations were made public onlyto confirm those issued by the Alliance's president or theExecutive Presidium, – and, on some occasions, by way ofcorrection. The DAHR Memorandum regarding Romania's admission tothe Council of Europe issued by president Béla Markó and executivepresident Csaba Takács on 26 August 199324 was confirmed inprinciple in a statement issued by the Council of Representativeson 25 September 1993.25 Confirmation of the DAHR statementregarding the Romanian-Hungarian Basic Treaty was issued in asimilar way.

In addition, the Council of Alliance Representatives was, toa significant degree, occupied by the management of internalconflicts. In this regard, mention should be made of theconflicts that erupted between honorary president László Tőkés andrepresentatives grouped around leading personalities of theParliamentary Group (Attila Verestóy, György Tokay, Károly Szabóand György Frunda), over the debate on "ethnic cleansing"26, overthe so-called Neptune affair and the matter of Benedek Nagy. Thelongest running of these was the Neptune affair which arose inconnection with the East European conflict management activitiesof the US-based Project on Ethnic Relations Foundation. The Foundationwas present in the region not only as a civic initiative, but also– as it emerged later – as a representative of Americangovernmental interests. PER organised two "special meetings" inRomania during 199227 which were followed by a further two in 1993,following the Braşov/Brassó Congress. These took place inGerzensee, Switzerland, and the Romanian coastal resort ofNeptune. These unofficial events were attended by three DAHRpoliticians, György Tokay, György Frunda and László Borbély, aswell as by influential members of the Romanian government and thepresidential office: presidential spokesman Traian Chebeleu andgovernmental secretary-general Viorel Hrebenciuc. Proposals putforward at the meetings were referred to in the American press as"Romanian-Hungarian agreements". The Alliance's honorarypresident László Tőkés — whose attitude was, in the words ofGyörgy Tokay quoted in American press articles, an obstacle toagreement — severely criticised the three politicians for causing"political damage" to the DAHR. A statement of criticism was alsopublished by the Executive Presidium as well as the Federation of24 See: RMDSZ Közlöny 6, 1993.25 See: RMDSZ Közlöny 7-8, 1993.26 SZKT Nyilatkozat. [Statement of the Alliance's Council of Representatives.]RMDSZ Közlöny 3, 1993.27 Project on Ethnic Relations Bulletin 2, 1992.

Hungarian Youth Organisations and the Transylvanian HungarianInitiative. The protracted war of declarations made it clearthat: 1. the Alliance's informal decision-making centre hadshifted outside the Parliamentary Group following theBraşov/Brassó Congress (during Géza Domokos’s presidency,attendance at such meetings did not cause a "crisis oflegitimacy"); 2. a markedly right-wing faction had been formedwithin the Alliance's leading bodies around the person of LászlóTőkés, which differed, even in its political style, from thosegroups which believed in pragmatism and 'one small step at a time'tactics. At the same time it became clear that these conflictswere not merely due to the ideological pluralism apparent in theorganisation, but were the result of jockeying for positions ofpower within the Alliance and the struggle to maintain that power.

Amendments made in the Alliance's Articles of Association atits Fourth Congress held in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár between 26-28May 1995, essentially reflected the consequences of this in-fighting, while satisfying internal groups with a vested interestin the status quo, for example the mid-level leadership in thecounties28rather than the public platforms.5. The issue of autonomy

The issue of the legal status of the Hungarian Community inRomania and the political will for its definition were in essencevoiced at the foundation of the DAHR. The 25 December Declarationurged the preparation of a "new National Minority Statute"(doubtless meaning an Ethnic Minority Law constructed on the linesof the 6 February 1945 Minority Statute) although this would not bedrafted until much later. The programme accepted by theOradea/Nagyvárad Congress defined its aim as: "including in theConstitution collective rights and the right to freedom of allgroups of society and minorities". A "most effective safeguardfor this is the formation of the system of local self-government"within the framework of which opportunities would be provided forthe use of mother tongue in public authorities and public life, aswell as for the organisation of mother-tongue education fromkindergarten to university. The programme also defined as a long-term goal the "plan for a National Minority Parliament as the

28 The Congress set up the Consultative Council of Regional Presidents withrights to voice opinions on all important resolution preparations. At the sametime, the financial dependence of the regional organisations on the ExecutivePresidium was established.

supreme body for self-government."29 The programme accepted by theTârgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress contained some general aspectsregarding autonomy: on the one hand, it introduced terms fromconstitutional law in order to provide a self-definition forHungarians in Romania (who saw themselves as a "state constituententity"), while on the other hand, it sought to ensure minorityself-organisation based on “the principle of local self-government". Although it referred to "personal and culturalautonomy" as a principle leading towards the self-government ofHungarians in Romania, it defined as its concrete goal merely the"development of the Hungarian minority's autonomous network ofcultural institutions".30

It was also at the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress thatthe programme "Nationality Draft Bill" by Géza Szőcs was aired as anunofficial document. The package contained proposed additions toRomania's constitution – the right to preserve identity, theautonomy of minority communities and the right to information, aswell as a draft bill which is in fact an enabling act concerning"national, ethnic and language communities and persons belongingto them". It dealt with collective and individual rights,31 whileat the same time defining some principles regarding autonomy.From a conceptual point of view, as far as later drafts areconcerned, the package included two important points: 1) autonomyis established through bodies of public law; 2) the Statute is alegal rule brought about by autonomous public bodies, worked outby the elected representatives of a given national/ethnic orlanguage community and ratified by Romania's legislature, theParliament. The "co-nation debate" played an important part in thematuration of the public/constitutional law concept of autonomy.The concept of "co-nation" first surfaced in debate prior to theTârgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress and was put into anideological context by the series of articles by Imre Borbély.

Divisions within the DAHR were further deepened by variationson the concept of autonomy and by political initiatives based ontheir pursuit. The appearance of the Alliance's Szekler Land

29 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség I. Kongresszusa [First DAHR Congress], Vol. I.30 Románia Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Alapszabályzat. Program 1991. [DAHR Articles ofAssociation. Programme 1991.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Országos Titkársága [Published bythe DAHR National Secretariat], Kolozsvár 7th June 1991.31 According to the proposal, collective rights include: the right to establishpublic bodies, the right to the preservation of identity, the right to defendedresidential space, the right to establish parties, the right to education inthe mother tongue, the right of mother-tongue usage in public life and theright to maintain contact with the motherland.

Political Group constituted a watershed in this respect. The Groupwished to combine the celebration of the anniversary of the 1848Szekler National Assembly with the organisation of a referendum tobe held in October 1991 regarding Szekler regional autonomy basedon the principle of self-government. The initiative was debated atthe meeting of the Alliance's National Council of Delegates heldin Arad on 5 October 1991. The initiative's timing coincided withthe Draft Constitution debate in Parliament, held between 10September and 14 November 1991, the anti-Hungarian press campaigntriggered by the "Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovászna Report", theparliamentary debate on the local government bill and thecoalition proposal made to the opposition parties - amongst themthe DAHR - following the fall of the Petre Roman government (atthe Arad meeting of the National Council of Delegates,participation in government was an item on the agenda). DAHR MPsand senators grouped around Géza Domokos, who regardedparliamentary politics as the only expedient way towards theirgoals, branded the referendum initiative as inopportune and overlyradical.32 The Romanian press brought the debate into the opencountry-wide and, as a consequence, the government banned theplanned celebrations, even resorting to a show of militarystrength in the district concerned in Harghita/Hargita County,while the "radical-moderate" rivalry within the Alliance broadenedin scope, reappearing in subsequent debates on autonomy in thecontext of questions on strategy.

When the new Romanian Constitution came into effect on 8December 1991, it was clear that a new situation had evolved:aspirations to autonomy now had to fit into the existingconstitutional framework. This further polarised thecontradictions which existed between concepts: while an approachbased 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 undoubtedlyenriched by the contributions of the local elite which took up itsrole in local government at town and county level following theFebruary 1992 local government elections. The Declaration Regarding theNational Question, the so-called Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration, acceptedat the 25 October 1992 meeting of the National Council ofDelegates, meant that the autonomy strategy based on the conceptof "internal self-determination" overtook the approach founded onminority rights and local self-government. The32 See: Az RMDSZ Székelyföldi Politikai Csoportjának epilógusa az autonómiárólés egységbontásról. [The DAHR Szekler Land Political Group's epilogue onautonomy and disunity.] Limes 5-6, 1992.

Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration regarded the "principle ofinternal self-determination" as "universally forward-looking" — aview proved by the practice of European democracies as well as byTransylvanian tradition.

Although the Memorandum on the Self-Determination of the HungarianNational Community in Romania, written by József Csapó and published on31 December 1992, is based on the Cluj-Napoca/KolozsvárDeclaration, it has not yet become an official DAHR document. As afirst attempt at establishing the concept of "internal self-determination", the draft summarises and draws on the mostimportant international documents, and in addition proposes someconstitutional revisions. It was here that the three autonomytypes 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 languageusage. However, it clearly does not deal with questions connectedto the Romanian power structure and the internal legal system.

Although the programme accepted by the Alliance's ThirdCongress held in Braşov/Brassó appears to contain a retrogradestep when, in the debate on self-determination it uses the term:"the Hungarian national minority of Romania", it also refers toits right to "internal self-determination" as well as to the factthat the Hungarians living in Romania "regard themselves as anindigenous community and thus a state constituent element, anindependent political entity and, as such, a partner of theRomanian nation with equal rights".33 The first significantpolitical document issued following the Congress dealt withdefinitions of the legal status of Hungarians in Romania. It waspublished on 26 August 1993 under the title: "DAHR MemorandumRegarding Romania's Admission to the Council of Europe".34 The document, whichcreated a storm in Romanian party politics, also demanded therecognition of "national minorities as state constituent elements"and, as far as institutional solutions are concerned, it advocatedthe establishment of power structures such as ministries and statesecretariats with " responsibility for controlling the nationalminorities' institutional network under minority direction". Anindependent network of schools using the Hungarian language as the

33 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Programja. [DAHR Programme.] RMDSZKözlöny 4, 1993.34 See: Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Dokumentumok 1. [DAHR Documents 1.] Kiadjaaz RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnöksége [Published by the DAHR Executive Presidium],Kolozsvár 1993.

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 RomanianHouse of Representatives was accepted by the Alliance's Council ofRepresentatives on 14 November 1993. It concerned nationalminorities and autonomous communities.35 The draft bill is ineffect an enabling act which defines individual and communalminority rights. The right to "internal self-determination"belongs to the latter. The basic concept of the bill is that itdifferentiates between national minorities and autonomouscommunities: "an autonomous community is a national minority thatexercises its rights of its own accord based on the principle ofinternal self-determination"(Article 1). "Persons belonging tonational minorities that define themselves as autonomouscommunities are to enjoy personal autonomy based on individualminority rights"(Article 2). Articles 51-53 of the draft dealwith personal autonomy in greater detail: "the community is toenjoy rights of self-government and execution in the areas ofeducation, culture, telecommunication and social activities in theframework of personal autonomy." Bodies and officials involved inthe various fields of self-government are to be elected by theautonomous community "in free elections at regularintervals"(Article 52). The resulting self-government is todevelop its own statutes which have legal force. In addition topersonal autonomy, the draft bill defined two further forms ofautonomy. The autonomy of local self-government was to bepractised through "self-governments of special status". Thisstatus is awarded by law to local self-governments of communities,whose members belong to a national minority or an autonomouscommunity(Article 54). The third form of autonomy, regionalautonomy, results from the association of local governments ofspecial status; such association is the right of entities ofspecial status in public administration – for instance localgovernments. According to Article 59 "an autonomous communitypractising regional autonomy defines the regulations for itsgovernment's organisation and operation."

An alternative to the draft bill regarding autonomouscommunities and national minorities was simultaneously prepared bySándor N. Szilágyi under the title: "Bill of Rights Appertaining to NationalIdentity and Regarding the Fair and Harmonious Co-existence of National Communities".Although, as the author himself admitted, "the Bill of Rights was35 Törvény a nemzeti kisebbségekről és autonóm közösségekről (tervezet). [DraftBill regarding national minorities and autonomous communities.] In: ibid, Vol.I.

influenced by the previously compiled Minorities Draft Billdeveloped by the Alliance's Working Group ",36 its basic conceptdiffers from that of its model since it tries to break with theconcept of "attempting the reform of rights related to nationalidentity whilst remaining within the paradigm of the traditionalhegemony of the nation-state", while assuming that "the majorityautomatically enjoys all rights".37 The Bill of Rights thereforebases the detailed regulations regarding the exercising of rightsrelated to national identity on the fact that there is more thanone national community living in Romania.38 The situation of thevarious communities needs to be legally defined according toregional and demographic factors which should serve as a basis forthe development of regulations.

An examination of the debate around the DAHR draft bill, anda comparison of the alternative proposals put forward, make clearthe conflicting views which form the backdrop to the variousconcepts of autonomy. Since the DAHR draft bill - officially filedas such - steered internal political debate towards publicautonomies operating on the basis of the Statute, controversiesbegan to unfold around the substance of the statutes and theirrole in the definition of institutions. The second half of 1994saw the emergence of two initiatives. József Csapó published hisdraft statute for the three autonomy models in the Erdélyi Napló,39

while a second initiative was written by Barna Bodó, executivevice-president, and backed up by the Alliance's Policy Department.The aim of the latter was to define the professional basis for thestatutes debate, and to raise questions which required decisions36 Szilágyi N. Sándor bevezető sorai a Törvény a nemzeti identitássalkapcsolatos jogokról és a nemzeti közösségek méltányos és harmonikusegyüttéléséről című tervezethez [Sándor N. Szilágyi's Introduction to the DraftBill of Rights Appertaining to National Identity and Regarding the Fair andHarmonious Coexistence of National Communities.] Korunk 3, 1994.37 Ibid.38 Articles 2-10 of Chapter 1 of the Bill include the following definitions andoperational concepts: national majority, national minority, local nationalcommunity, local and regional national majority, local and national regionalminority, legal capacity of a national community, political nation, culturalnation and persons living outside national communities.39 Csapó, József: Belső önrendelkezést kiteljesítő autonómiák. A Sajátosstátusú helyi önkörmányzat statútuma, a Romániai magyar nemzeti közösségszemélyi autonómiájának statútuma és a Sajátos státusú helyi önkormányzatokregionális társulásának autonómia-statútuma. [Autonomies Fulfilling InternalSelf-Determination. Statute of Local Self-Governments of Special Status,Statute on the Personal Autonomy of the Hungarian National Community in Romaniaand the Autonomy Statute of the Regional Association of Local Self-Governmentsof Special Status.] Erdélyi Napló 28th September 1994.

on the political level and which would serve as a basis for thelegal codification of the statutes. According to the resolution ofthe meeting of the Council of Alliance Representatives held on 1October 1995, a Consultative Committee was commissioned to dealwith the two initiatives.40 Although no consensus was arrived atamongst the committee members regarding several fundamentalpolitical issues — including the definition of a “statute”; who,in the case of differing autonomy models, should be regarded asthe subject of law; and how institutions of self-government shouldbe connected to governmental institutions and constitutionalstructures, etc. — it was József Csapó's three proposals whichwere taken as a starting point. They were revised and submitted tothe Council of Alliance Representatives at the meeting heldbetween 25-26 February 1995. The political debate did not lead tothe resolution of differences within the committee: any decisionwas therefore deferred by the Council which simultaneouslyresolved to ask for the opinions of other bodies such as theParliamentary Group and the Executive Presidium. At the sametime, an opportunity was opened up for the submission of furtherproposals at the suggestion of the chairman of the PermanentCommittee. At the meeting of the Council held between 8-9 April1995, three additional drafts were presented: a proposal forautonomy based on individual right written by Miklós Bakk, asecond one compiled by the Policy Department (written by AlpárZoltán Szász and Barna Bodó) under the title: "The Statute of PersonalAutonomy for the Hungarian National Community in Romania", as well as arevised version of Sándor N. Szilágyi's earlier draft. TheCommittee’s draft, submitted under the name of József Csapó, wasbased primarily on the concept of internal self-determination;Miklós Bakk approached the autonomy statutes via internalpossibilities for constitutional development that would provide abasis for negotiation with Romanian political forces, while thePolicy Department's draft attempted to communicate between thesetwo alternatives. Sándor N. Szilágyi's version was a revision ofhis previous proposal augmented by directives regarding thestatus of "self-administrating national communities."

During the draft debate, the dividing line between theprofessional and the political level was never clearly drawn,41 nor

40 See: RMDSZ Közlöny 12, November 1994. According to resoultion No. 32, themembers of the Committee were: József Csapó, György Tokay, Attila Varga, AndrásBéres, Barna Bodó, Sándor Balázs, Miklós Bakk, Előd Papp, Gábor Hajdú, ÁdámKatona, Lázár Madaras, Attila Markó, István Szabó, Sándor N. Szilágyi. 41 See: Bodó, Barna: Összefoglaló a statútumtervezetek előkészítéséről. [Summaryof Statute-Draft Preparations.] ÜE belső irata. [Internal paper of the

was the deeply divided Council able to clarify unambiguously whichstrategy corresponded to the individual drafts, and it wastherefore almost inevitable that decision-making had to bepostponed. The resolution of the meeting of the Council ofRepresentatives held on 7-8 April 1995 merely stated that theresults of the ongoing debate were to be incorporated in theprogramme proposal compiled for the coming Congress.

The Fourth DAHR Congress incorporated in its programmeseveral theories of autonomy (according to which autonomy meant aprinciple in the development of a legal system in which the rule oflaw prevails, the right of the National Community exercised in theinterests of upholding its identity, an instrument in the economicand cultural survival of Hungarians in Romania and a strategic goalset for the DAHR in its political activities and in its links withthe organisations of civil society42) and defined the autonomyalternatives which the Alliance was to strive towards vialegislation. The three alternatives were: personal autonomy, localself-government with special status, and regional autonomy"realised as the collaboration between local self-governingauthorities with joint interests".43

The deferment of a decision on the codified text for autonomymeant that the Council of Representatives was once again polarisedalong a "radical-moderate" dividing line. According to "radical-autonomists", the political weight of the Statute was of greaterimportance than its professional thoroughness, therefore it wasnot valid to defer the decision for professional reasons. It wasin this polarised situation that, following the Congress, theissue of personal autonomy appeared on the agenda supported bymore than one third of the members of the Council ofRepresentatives. The political support of József Csapó's newdraft, finalised in August 1995, did not however speed up theproduction of a codified version for approval by the Council. Infact, the situation following the signature of the Hungarian-Romanian Basic Treaty may lead to the redefinition of thepriorities of autonomy politics by the various Alliance factions.The rudimentary nature of the concept of autonomy also defined thedevelopment of the political discourse. The effect of theautonomy debate can be traced along three separate lines: 1. Inthe internal Alliance debate the "radical-moderate" oppositionbecame coloured by new contextual elements: the division wasExecutive Presidium.] Csíkszereda 7th April 1995.42 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Programja. Alapelvek. [The DAHRProgramme. Basic Principles.] RMDSZ Közlöny 16, June 1995.43 Ibid.

widened by the ideological opposition in the "autonomist" versus"minority" debate; 2. It introduced into the system of Romanianpolitical debate the denial of "ethnically based autonomies" andthis argument in turn defined the relationship of the Romaniangovernment and the majority of the opposition parties vis-á-visthe Recommendation 1201 of the Council of Europe; 3. Itrepresented a challenge to political experts and those from civilsociety in the face of international law and practice and in thepolitological analysis of autonomy rights. The DAHR was unable toestablish the necessary professional support, but, following theTuşnad/Tusnád meeting, the group of experts (the so-called"Gabriel Andreescu Group"), which operated in conjunction with theRomanian Helsinki Committee, published some critical analysesregarding DAHR minority autonomy draft bills and aspirations thatwere well received internationally.44

44 The Tusnad/Tusnád consultative meeting (13-14 May 1994) was initiated by theDAHR Policy Department and organised jointly with experts of the RomanianAssociation for the Protection of Human Rights (Romanian Helsinki Committee).The meeting debated the DAHR Memorandum submitted to the Council of Europe aswell as the Draft Bill regarding Minorities and Autonomous Communities. Theparticipants in the consultative meeting were: Gabriel Andreescu, Renate Weber,Valentin Stan, Smaranda Enache, Annamária Biró, Gábor Kolumbán, Miklós Bakk,Barna Bodó, Ernő Fábián, Attila Varga, Sándor Balázs, István Horváth, PéterEckstein-Kovács, György Nagy.