Sinziana-Elena Poiana Ioana Lupea Irina-Madalina Doroftei Alina ...

Amplified by the political entrepreneurs, this leads to an environment of intolerance and distrust
manifested on every occasion.
Salat considers that Hungarians failed to self-revise their status within the Romanian State, to find the
alternative forms of "self-assertion" that would have been more appropriate to the minority's current
situation. The self-pity for the loss of majority status after the separation of Transylvania from
Hungary due to the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, the self victimization as a people who suffered throughout
history, "the attempts of institutionalized "separateness" within the state" (Salat, 2006), the misuse of
the dominant position in regions where Hungarians are in majority by excluding Romanians from the
decision-making process at the local level, these are all evidence supporting the argument. The
Hungarian political elite, supported by Budapest, makes use of ethno-symbolism and keeps alive the
traumatic memory of Trianon, the cancellation of the Hungarian Autonomous Region, and the fear of
assimilation. The rhetorical exercises of certain Hungarian politicians, from within and outside
Romania, multiplied by the Hungarian media, contribute to the consolidation of ethnic identity, as
means of protection against a potentially aggressor state, to the detriment of the civic identity.
Although the Romanian state and the majority had a bigger responsibility, the minority nationalism,
whose extremist exponent is Csibi Barna as well, contributes to the creation of a vicious circle in terms
of identity fears and mutual incriminations. The young Hungarian Csibi Barna, as well as the young
Romanians who profaned the statue of Gabor Aron, did not come from out of nowhere, their hard
feelings were fed by media and the politicians. The recognition of the multiethnic character of the
Romanian state was dismissed by the Romanian political elite and by the Romanian majority.
Constitutionally, Romania is a nation-state, and this nature cannot be changed by revision, the 1991
Constitution states. The constitutional text is considered by Hungarians as an "exclusion agent" (Salat,
2006).
The majority, through the Romanian media, political representatives and state institutions show
intolerance towards what it considers to be the lack of loyalty toward the Romanian state with its
national symbols, The National Day and Anthem, the national heroes. Csibi Barna's case showed the
capacity of the Romanian political elite to cynically instrument the identity competition of the two
communities for electoral purposes. The arbitrary decisions of the Tax Authority’s president, a proeminent
member of the ruling party, were investigated for discrimination and they were about to
generate an actual inter-ethnic conflict by transferring Csibi Barna to Abrud, a city historically
connected to the life of Avram Iancu. The objectivity of the public institutions, reacting differently in
similar cases, such as the hanging of Avram Iancu’s doll and the profanation of the monument
representing Gabor Aron, is also questionable.
The Hungarians’ claims for collective rights, including cultural autonomy and autonomy for Szekler
Land, expressed in the language of the historical contest between two nations, and not in the rational
language of the benefits of the self-administration of one’s own ethnic group (Culic, 2001), revive the
memories of the majority and their fears of Hungarians domination, as it was cultivated by the
political elite. The autonomy issue can be construed as a "societal security dilemma" as Paul Roe
described. Autonomy viewed by the Hungarian elite as an instrument meant to preserve the
community’s identity and security, or, in its rhetoric use, a piece of discourse meant to mobilize the
ethnical electorate, is perceived by the majority as a threat to national identity, to the state’s
sovereignty and unity.
In conclusion…
The last two decades were characterized by a continuous development of human rights infrastructure
and import of EU institutions of tolerance. As the first case study from chapter 2 shows (the Roma
case study) these institutions work: rights are enforced in practice when active citizens demand them,
Courts apply the law without discrimination and problems stem rather from the extreme politicization
of each and every situation. However, as it is shown in the first two chapters, such positive
80