Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

INTRODUCTIONSearching for Common Grounds:National Identity and Intercultural Researchin an East-Central European ContextAfter the breakdown of the communist regimes, Central and SoutheastEuropean countries were faced with two interrelated, but conflicting,processes. On the one hand, a process of political democratization andintegration into Western economic and security institutions was initiated,stimulating a certain level of intra-regional collaboration as well. On theother hand, the difficulties of the transition to market economy and parliamentarismled to a radicalization of ethno-populist movements, creatinga space for political groups who seek to exploit inter-ethnic tensions. Furthermore,in spite of the cultural-political reorientation, inter-ethnic relationsand mutual perceptions have not been essentially modified: conflictinghistorical myths, prejudices, and negative stereotypes have survived unalteredand continue to characterize the collective identity discourses in theregion.The relationship between Romania and Hungary is illustrative inthis respect. At the interstate level, their bilateral relationship has undergonea spectacular evolution in the last decade, from intense diplomaticconflict to diplomatic collaboration and politico-military partnership. Thetwo countries have overcome their acute confrontation over the status ofthe Hungarian minority in Romania that reached its climax in the late1980s, the inter-ethnic violence in Tîrgu Mureº in 1990, as well as thefreezing of diplomatic contacts between 1990 and 1994, and have managedto build a more positive framework of cooperation. This process of reconciliationbegan with the signing, in September 1996, of the “basic treaty”between the two countries, stipulating the acceptance of the existing bordersand the implementation of the European standard of the rights ofethnic minorities. Even if one can witness a certain setback in political collaborationin the late-1990s, there are indications that the political elitesof the two countries have significantly restrained the nationalist side oftheir political agenda as far as foreign policy is concerned.9