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 magyarság önmeghatározási 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 December 1989

At every significant moment in their history, the political self-definition of the Hungarians in Romania has been dependent on the prevailing circumstances, the inherited institutions and the stance and actions of the particular elite in power.In December 1989, when, seemingly at least, the whole political power structure was collapsing, new and unique opportunities appeared to open on the political horizon. In its first declaration issued on 22 December, the National Salvation Front (NSF), a newly created state authority, announced the principle of legal equality for national minorities, so aligning itself with the horizon of expectations inherent in this historical turning point.1

The legal framework for political pluralism was established by a decree released by the NSF which included the right to assembly and to self-organisation. The registration of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (DAHR)2 as a legal entity took place on 26 January, in accordance with the requirements of the decree issued by the NSF Council on 3 January 1990, and of an inter-war law, dating from 1924, on the establishment of associations and foundations. The most comprehensive guarantee for the pre-conditions for political evolution came with a declaration made by the NSF on 5 January 1990, which recognised the individual and collective rights of minorities and made reference to the future reform of governmental institutions to reflect this attitude, and also to the Alba Iulia/Gyulafehérvár Resolutions of 1918.

2. The creation of the DAHR

Three relatively independent initiatives should be mentioned as leading up to the creation of the DAHR, the representative body for Hungarians in Romania: the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration, the Bucharest Declaration and the Timişoara/Temesvár initiative.3 Of the three, it was the Bucharest Declaration which proved definitive — the decisive events after 22 December took place in Bucharest, where such famous individuals from the Hungarian minority as Géza Domokos and László Tőkés (who, at the time, was being hailed nation-wide as the hero of the "Timişoara/Temesvár Revolution") were invited to the National Council of the NSF. The Bucharest Declaration, dated 25 December, can therefore be regarded as the "founding charter" of the DAHR.4 In this document, the DAHR is defined as the "organisation for the minority representation and for the protection of the common interests" of the Hungarians in Romania. (This

1Point 7 of the 22 December Communication by the NSF : "The respect for the rights and freedoms of national minorities and the guarantee of their equal status 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 December, is significant since it expressed a different, regional approach, an approach which was to make itself forcefully apparent right up to the Congress in Oradea/Nagyvárad. (The desire to register the Banat/Bánság Association of Hungarian Democrats as an independent organisation was made apparent at the Delegates' Meeting of 24 and 25 February at Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy. On 26 February, the organisation announced that it would continue to function as the Timiş/Temes County body of the DAHR.) The Bucharest Declaration was titled "Kiáltvány".4A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Ideiglenes Intézőbizottságának Kiáltványa. [The Declaration of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania’s Temporary Council for Organisational Matters.] Magyar Szó 26 December 1989, A Hét 28 December 1989. The first draft of the Declaration was written by Lajos Demény and János András. Its final form was influenced by the work of János Szász, Andor Horváth, Gábor Cseke and many others. (See: Domokos, Géza: Esély I.. Csíkszereda, Pallas - Akadémiai Kiadó 1996, pp. 16-21. Also Lajos Demény's review of Károly Király's book entitled Nyílt kártyákkal, Magyar Kisebbség 1-2, 1996.)

definition has proved to be a lasting one, as can be seen from later versions of the DAHR’s regulations and programme.) The DAHR invited Hungarians in Transylvania to create their own related organisations at "village, town and county" levels, a decisive step towards creating an essentially regionally-based organisational structure.

From a political point of view there are two important aspects to the document. Firstly, it announced the DAHR’s co-operation with the NSF ("We declare that we adopt as our own the programme of the legal state authority, the National Salvation Front"). Secondly, it gave a programmatic summary of the rights to be accorded to Hungarians in Romania. In the Declaration, the DAHR insisted "on the fundamental right of Hungarians in Romania to self-determination".5 The Declaration also stated the need for constitutional protection for collective minority rights, detailing the most important rights and the steps to be taken towards them. These included the formulation of a new Statute on Minorities, the guarantee of minority representation within legislation, state administration and justice, the establishment of a network for mother-tongue education from kindergarten to university level, the creation of Hungarian cultural and scientific institutions and Hungarian radio and television services, the right to use the Hungarian language in jurisdiction and administration and the creation of a Ministry for Minority Affairs.

An organisational structure and programme for the evolving DAHR were established after a number of national meetings. On 7 January 1990, the first meeting of the Provisional Executive Committee was held in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár. This was followed by meetings of delegates in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely and Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy on 13 January and 24-25 February. By the time the second meeting took place, the requirement that the association be centred in Transylvania had already been put into writing. (Previous to this, the Declaration of 25 December had been written by the Hungarian intelligentsia in the capital, the organisation had been registered in Bucharest and had its headquarters there.) In addition, the DAHR was to act as an umbrella organisation encompassing "all organisations representing specialist, cultural and religious interests".6 The meeting of delegates held in Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy elected a Temporary Presidium of 15 members (the president being Géza Domokos, honorary president László Tőkés with Károly Király, who was already chairman of the Minority Committee of the Temporary Council 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-organisation came with events which took place in March. The incitement to anti-Hungarian feeling which had began in the second half of February had by this time become permanent: the Bolyai Líceum affair in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely had become a national issue; László Tőkés and Károly Király were vilified during a mass meeting of Vatra Românească in Alba Iulia; on 7 March, demonstrating students from the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Medical University were abused; and on 15 March, Hungarians celebrating the Hungarian national holiday in Satu Mare/Szatmár and Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely were disgracefully provoked. Tension mounted to a climax on 19-21 March, with violent disturbances in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely. Events such as these made it clear to the majority of the DAHR leadership that there were increasingly dominant forces within the NSF which were

5There was an argument over the use of the phrase "self-determination" amongst those formulating the document. In the piece by Lajos Demény quoted above he mentions that the text which appeared on 26 December differed from the one which had been voted on the previous day: "the passage on self-determination was missing as were two other important sections" (see the review by the author mentioned above, p.344). These were erased at Géza Domokos' special request by the committee compiling the text. This marked the beginning of the discussions on "internal self-government" and autonomy. 6A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Szándéknyilatkozata. [Statement of Intent by the DAHR.] Romániai Magyar Szó 18 January 1990.

attempting to gain political legitimacy and electioneering capital for the NSF party (the “temporary state authority” had announced on 23 January that it would itself be competing in the elections) and which were blocking the reform of public institutions by means of inciting nationalist feelings.

The First DAHR Congress, held on 23 April in Oradea/Nagyvárad, concluded that there was a need for a unified and independently acting organisation within the contemporary Romanian political arena. This meant in practice a complete political split from the NSF and the acceptance of the Timişoara/Temesvár Declaration, the first joint opposition platform. These ideas were, at the same time, formulated in ideological terms: the DAHR was to avoid being seen as a "neo-communist" organ (Éva Cs. Gyímesi), and its leadership as a shade of "reformed communists" (Ádám Katona). 7 The key figures at the Congress represented the kind of polarisation which reflected the way events were developing, as well as those divisions which would later lead to the creation of distinct factions. The candidacy of the dissident poet Géza Szőcs for the office of president was primarily supported by the radical youth of the Federation of Hungarian Youth Organisations (FHYO), whilst that of Géza Domokos was backed by the cultural elite of the newly organised local and county bodies of the DAHR. The election did not, however, take place. Instead, a compromise was reached: alongside the president, Domokos, Szőcs would be secretary-general of the organisation, a duality which was in line with the Congress' decision to establish two separate headquarters, one in the capital and one in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár. Tőkés played a conciliatory role during the Congress, facilitated by the great respect in which he was held, and by his position as honorary president. After the Congress, however, Király was marginalised within the Alliance. 8 In accordance with the adopted regulations, the Congress elected a 101 member National Council which in 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 February 1990. Half of its members were drawn from the National Salvation Front, with the other half being made up of representatives delegated by the newly formed parties. Romania's constitutional Parliament and the president of the Republic were elected on 20 May, in accordance with Act 92 /1900 as ratified by the Council. The House of Representatives of the dual chamber Parliament comprised 387 seats, while 119 senators made up the Senate. The electoral system was based on proportional representation with candidates listed per region; the minimum number of votes required for election to the Parliament had not yet been defined. Senators were elected from seven parties with one additional independent member; eighteen parties – amongst them the DAHR and the German Democratic Forum – gained seats in the House of Representatives, while a further nine seats were allocated, as a constitutional right, to members of the ethnic minority organisations. Votes cast for the senatorial candidates of the DAHR resulted in them winning 10.08% of available seats, i.e. 12 seats in the Senate.

7Varga, Gábor ed.: A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség I. Kongresszusa. [The First Congress of the DAHR.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Bihar megyei szervezete. [Published by the DAHR's Bihar County office.]8His later radicalisation - leaving the parliamentary session during the 1991 vote on the Constitution - can be seen as an appropriate response to the given situation.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, Tibor T. Toró, Péter Erőss, Béla Nagy, Attila Verestóy, Lajos Sylvester, Gyula Vida, Gábor Kolumbán, István Káli.

A total of 29 (7.46%) seats were won in the House of Representatives.10 In both the upper and lower chambers, the National Salvation Front gained the two-thirds majority required for passing legislation. Although the DAHR constituted the second largest political force in Parliament, its scope was limited by the National Salvation Front's majority and by the fact that political legitimacy was based on nationalist rhetorics.

Following the general election, the political direction of the DAHR was defined by the Presidium (mainly the president and the secretary-general), as well as the Parliamentary Group. The National Council met on only three occasions: on 21 July 1990 at Miercurea-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 proposals entitled: "The DAHR for a Democratic Romania – Principles and Expectations" and listened to the report of the DAHR representatives who had attended the Strasbourg assembly of the Council of Europe); and on 2 March 1991 at Satu Mare/Szatmár, when a decision was made regarding a second Congress, and decision-making rights were transferred to the Presidium in political matters, and to the Parliamentary Group in constitutional questions. The resulting decision-making mechanism seemed initially satisfactory, since the political scope of the DAHR had by that time become extremely restricted. In 1990, the organisation’s main areas of activity were in matters of education, in opposing nationalist provocation, and in protesting against proposals for discriminatory legislation.11 The National Salvation Front and the Vatra Românească succeeded in restricting the political scope of the DAHR by retaining on the parliamentary agenda such issues as the Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovászna Report, or the results of committee investigations into the events in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely. However, opportunities for increasing political scope arose when on 6 August 1990, several opposition organisations, together with the DAHR, established the Democratic Anti-Totalitarian Forum. The new body (called the Democratic Convention from 26 October 1990) entered into numerous joint representations which allowed the DAHR to be seen to be committed to democratic values, an important step towards political integration within the Romanian political arena.

The Second DAHR Congress, held between 24 and 26 May 1991 in Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely, preserved, in practice, an organisational structure suitable for the prevailing circumstances. Although the new organisational statutes defined the Alliance as "a consultative, representative and conciliatory coalition of the organisations of Hungarians in Romania" and ensured a free platform for all members, the constitution of its governing body, the National Council of Delegates (made up of National Presidium members, the leaders of the Parliamentary Group, presidents of member organisations and other delegates) did not ensure an equal say for all shades of opinion. Clashes of opinion such as those witnessed during the Oradea/Nagyvárad Congress, began to gain a higher profile, and were referred to in Congress statements such as the following: "the recent past has seen the emergence of differing attitudes within the Alliance, with more or less radical stances being adopted with regard to the accepted programme."12 Press

10 See: Székely, István: Választottunk... Az 1990-es és 1992-es parlamenti és önkormányzati választások megyei eredményeinek értékelése. [We have chosen... An appraisal of the 1990 and 1992 parliamentary and local government election results at county level.] Magyar Kisebbség No. 1-2/1996.11 On 10 September the licence of the Hungarian high-school in Arad was withdrawn (György Tokay member of Parliament began a sit-in, and later a hunger strike), on 11 September the DAHR protested against the restrictions introduced in university admission processes in the mother-tongue, on 3 October a statement was published concerning the case of the No. 33 Bucharest School, followed by several similar protest actions. In October 1990 the DAHR Group of MPs left the parliamentary debate in protest against the clause in Company Law according to which the head of a trade enterprise may only be a person of Romanian origin, not merely a citizen of Romania. Similar protest measures were resorted to in 1991 on the occasion of the ratification of the Veterans' Law and the National Security Law.12 Az RMDSZ II. Kongresszusának határozatai. [Resolutions of the second DAHR congress.] Romániai Magyar Szó, 27 May 1991.

reaction to the radical versus moderate clash was significant, even prior to the Congress, and opposing views were voiced at public meetings. One important divisive issue in terms of strategy concerned the legal definition of Hungarians in Romania. It was proposed to include in the programme the demand for "co-nation status", a proposal which attracted radical support.13 The Domokos-Szőcs opposition emerged as a conflict between a co-operative wing — ready to compromise and efficient at achieving results in Bucharest — and a radical one which pre-supposed definite rights based on the Euro-conformity of the Romanian political system (i.e. on international pressure). Géza Domokos had been re-elected as president of the Alliance, although with a very narrow majority, ahead of Géza Szőcs who became vice-president, an office he shared by Gábor Kolumbán. Differences were only superficially resolved by the Congress. In addition to the two vice-presidents, the Alliance's new Articles of Association required the election of twelve members of the National Presidium.14 László Tőkés was again unanimously elected as honorary president.

In the local government elections held on 9 February 1992, 3.130 DAHR members were elected as councillors or mayors. Members of the Alliance thus won 6.53% of local government seats and 4.41% of all mayoral offices. The number of seats gained on county councils was even more substantial, totalling 7.12%. This time there was more at stake than an advantageous distribution of local government seats: the local elections laid the foundations for a break-through by the opposition in the autumn general election. Another significant development was the widening of the political market place — the appearance of party politics within the context of local government. This was particularly important for the Alliance, since gaining and exercising power at a local level opened up a vastly different perspective from that of being a parliamentary party in long-term opposition. The tensions that evolved between the two perspectives could only be resolved by radical organisational reform that was to be the task of the Third Congress, to be held in Braşov/Brassó.

Following the general election held on 27 September 1992, the composition of the Romanian Parliament underwent a complete change. This was partly due to alterations in the electoral system: the number of MPs was reduced from 396 to 328 plus the additional representatives of ethnic minorities, while the Senate numbered 143 instead of the previous 119; the minimum number of votes necessary for parliamentary representation was introduced at 3% of those cast which resulted in a reduction of the number of parties and the stabilisation of the party system. Participation decreased from 86% in 1990 to 76% in 1992. Eight parties were represented in the Senate, while the House of Representatives was made up of seven parties and thirteen additional members representing ethnic minority organisations. DAHR candidates won 27 seats in the House of Representatives and 12 in the Senate, 7.91% and 8.39% respectively. The new distribution of power did not substantially affect the position of the Alliance. The victorious National Salvation Front – which gained 34% of seats – could not enter into a coalition with the second-placed Democratic Convention. It was therefore formally forced to govern in minority although it already enjoyed – and in return rewarded – the support of post-communist and nationalist parties with which it eventually formed a formal coalition in 1995. The nationalist and post-communist bloc continued to limit the Alliance's political role, the scope of which was further restricted by its exclusion from the Democratic Convention. It did, however, acquire greater political freedom at the international level: on 20 May 1993 it was admitted as a full member of the EDU (European Democratic Union), the international alliance of European conservative parties) and also became a member of the FUEV (Federal Union of European Nationalities) at its Flensburg Congress

13 It was Imre Borbély who lodged a motion for the inclusion in the programme of the term "co-nation status".14 The members of the National Presidium elected at the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress were: László Tőkés, Géza Domokos, Géza Szőcs, Gábor Kolumbán, Tibor Beder, András Béres, Imre Borbély, József Csapó, Miklós Patrubány, Csaba Takács, György Tokay and Tibor T. Toró.

held at the same time. On 31 July 1994, the Alliance became a member of the UNPO, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation. Events preceding Romania's admission into the Council of Europe — the 1993 DAHR Memorandum regarding Romania's Council membership, György Frunda's significant participation in the sessions of the European Parliament 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 newly emerging field of the European integrational process, the Alliance had gained a greater scope. This also heightened expectations in relation to the Basic Treaty to be signed between Romania and Hungary.

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

a) Internal features of pluralism

The period between 8 December 1991 when Romania's Constitution entered into force, and the local government elections held on 9 February 1992, witnessed a further, though less obvious, crisis in the history of the DAHR. By that time it had become obvious that within the existing constitutional framework, any reform of the legal and political situation of Hungarians in Romania could only be achieved in the long-term, and that the newly fledged political elite would have to begin the process of preparation. Within the Alliance, organisational interests began to be articulated along the lines of political positions. Among the newly prestigious and advancing political elite, the process prompted the creation of specific links with the general membership and with minor officials who were involved in maintaining the broad base of the movement, as well as a new relationship with those intellectuals who were leaving the Alliance for various civic initiatives. These relationships, based on vested interest, were further complicated by the appearance of the new elite in local government representation. At the same time, the Romanian electoral system necessitated the defending of common interests via a single political body, since the minimum number of votes (3%) required for parliamentary representation provided opportunities for only one political organisation. "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 the two World Wars.

The formulation of political fields of interest and their pluralistic articulation were initially related to groups representing different regional specificities and organisational resources, and were characterised by debate between differing cultural policies. The conflicts which arose in the course of debate were in no way manageable within the existing organisational structure. They included for instance the October 1991 initiative taken by the Szekler Land Political Group of the DAHR which, at a meeting held to commemorate the anniversary of the Szekler National Assembly of Lutiţa/Agyagfalva of 1848, first put into writing the principles of radical political autonomy which clashed with the prevailing views held by the Alliance .15 The second crisis, which heralded a division into various factions, was triggered by the drawing up of the list of candidates for Harghita/Hargita County for the autumn 1992 elections. Since the committees of the three districts of Odorhei/Udvarhely, Ciuc/Csík and Giurgeu/Gyergyó failed to reach an

15 The two alternatives may also be interpreted along these dividing lines. See: Bakk, Miklós: Pluralizmus és törésvonalak. [Pluralism and Dividing Lines]. A Hét 31-32, 1995.

agreement in time on the distribution of candidates for the joint list, the issue had to be resolved by the National Presidium. This resulted in an insoluble conflict between members of the Presidium (honorary president László Tőkés, vice-presidents Gábor Kolumbán and Géza Szőcs and members Imre Borbély, József Csapó, András Béres, Miklós Patrubány, Tibor Beder and Tibor T. Toró) who compiled the final list, and Géza Domokos who, having been absent from the meeting of the Presidium, included revisions which were supported only by György Tokay from among the members of the Presidium.

b) Co-organisations, platforms

Although accepted in theory, organisational solutions in support of the development of internal pluralism did not in reality exist until the Third Congress. Definite proposals previously made concerned only the integration of the Federation of Hungarian Youth Organisations. The Federation was formed in order to unite the various local youth organisations set up at the time of the foundation of the DAHR. The idea of a single umbrella youth organisation was mooted as early as the beginning of January 1990. The Federation was founded on 18 February 1990 at Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy, with the participation of twenty-one organisations. Its First Congress was held at Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely. The representatives of thirty organisations signed a Statement of Intent and the Articles of Association. Within a short space of time, a representative of the Federation was given a seat on the Provisional Executive Committee of the Alliance. The programme of the Alliance's First Congress defines the Federation as a "partner organisation", while young radical politicians such as Zsolt Szilágyi declared that the Federation was to play the role of a constructive opposition within the organisation. While the programme of the Oradea/Nagyvárad Congress merely invited the participation of youth organisations in the leadership of the Alliance, the Second Congress incorporated the concept in the Articles of Association. The Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress decided to reserve 15% of seats on the National Council of Delegates for members of the FHYO, while the Braşov/Brassó Congress assured 15% of seats for the Federation and the National Hungarian Students' Association on the Council of Alliance Representatives. A decision passed at the Fourth Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Congress, held between 26 and 28 May 1995, reiterated the statement. Tibor T. Toró, the Federation's president between 1990 and 1993, played a significant role during this period as a focus for young politicians conscious of the need for the participation of a new generation in politics. The issue became the Federation's fundamental dilemma: should it continue to represent the interests of a single group, or should it evolve into a high-profile political movement? This dilemma was resolved at the Federation's Fourth Congress held at Baile Felix/Félixfürdő between 10 and 12 December 1993, when the organisation's political wing set up the Reform Bloc to represent "liberal views committed to national interests". The new bloc became a platform within the Alliance and elected Tibor T. Toró as its president. The Federation's depoliticised wing remained as a movement and agreed on new Articles of Association and elected a new president in the person of László Tamás from Miercurea–Ciuc/Csíkszereda in January 1994. Both the Reform Bloc and the reconstituted movement elected Géza Szőcs as honorary president. The choice was a demonstration of the unity between the two separate wings. Political partners of the Alliance which are registered as legal entities are: the Hungarian Christian Democratic Party in Romania, the Hungarian Smallholders Party in Romania and the Association of Hungarian Workers in Romania. 16 Prior to the Braşov/Brassó Congress, partnership between the co-organisations and the DAHR was realised by means of joint membership of both bodies

16 Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Dokumentumok 2. [Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania. Documents 2.] Kiadja az RMDSZ ügyvezető elnöksége [published by the Executive Presidium of the DAHR], Kolozsvár 1994.

and participation in the Alliance's political activities. According to a resolution of the Third Congress, the partner organisations — termed "associate members" – were granted rights of representation on the Alliance's decision-making body, the Council of Alliance Representatives; this allowed József Mihály, president of the Smallholders Party, and Kálmán Kiss, secretary-general of the Christian Democrats, to be elected to the Council. However, it was only the Hungarian Christian Democratic Party in Romania which played any key role in Alliance politics, as a result of the activities of its two members of Parliament: Ferenc Bárányi, president of the Parliamentary Committee on Health Care, and Senator Gábor Hajdú. The Christian Democrats' Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress, held between 6 and 7 February 1993, elected Ferenc Bárányi as vice-president. The Association of Hungarian Workers in Romania worked in co-operation with 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 the Alliance prevented them from developing an independent image and specific political identity. Moreover, the March 1996 Act related to party organisation can be seen to question the very existence of the Smallholders and Christian Democrats, since the new conditions laid for the registration/re-registration of parties became somewhat difficult to fulfil.17

Independent political image was more successfully developed by platforms operating without being legal entities. Following an earlier proposal and the theoretical acceptance of pluralism, the activity of platforms began in earnest only after the October 1992 Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár meeting of the National Council of Delegates, which mooted the concept of a Consultative Political Round Table. Its task was to prepare for the Braşov/Brassó Congress by reconciling the views held by different Alliance groupings in order to facilitate decision-making at the Congress. Among the groupings were blocs which assumed the role of platforms (such as the Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative), in addition to groups which actually had a decisive role, such as the members of Parliament and senators who were in practice the supporters of Géza Domokos.

The platform called the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative was founded by politicians and DAHR officers who belonged to the Alliance's Szekler Land Political Group (which was dissolved at the end of 1991). Following several preparatory meetings in the Szekler Land, the statutory meeting was convened for 14 March 1992 in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár. According to the Statement of Intent issued by the parties involved,18 the Initiative was to function as the "Christian-national" platform of the Alliance: initiating the "establishment of national autonomy". One political aim was upheld consistently: throughout the debate on autonomy, the Initiative continued to support the Csapó programme directly based on the principle of self-government. The platform focused on the Szekler Land and advocated its regional autonomy. Within the Alliance, its political strategy was characterised by an ability to 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 its own faction within the Council of Alliance Representatives.

The Liberal Circle originated in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár, where the first "liberal meetings" were held in 1992. It was the liberal group that initiated setting up the Political Consultative Round Table at the end of 1992 and which played an important role in the drafting and acceptance of the institutional reform programme put forward at the Third

17 At least 10,000 founding members must be certificated throughout fifteen counties.18 Útjára indult Kolozsvárott az Erdélyi Magyar Kezdeményezés! [The Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative is Launched in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár!] Romániai Magyar Szó 20 March 1992.

Congress.19 The platform's first meeting was held at Miercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda between 25 and 27 March 1994 in order to draft the Circle's programme. The principles accepted included the place of collective rights in liberal thinking. The Articles 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. The Liberal Circle's strategy was directed at local government at both town and county level and aimed to improve their efficiency. Members of the Circle were predominantly councillors, as well as intellectuals involved in local government issues. Liberals regard autonomy as a "principle of social organisation" which was to be put into practice. The Circle saw its primary role as a pragmatic 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 affect on the platform's subsequent position : members wanting a more 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 1993 at the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár statutory meeting. While operating within the manifesto of the DAHR, the bloc intended to place a greater emphasis on the "socially disadvantaged groups such as the unemployed and pensioners, in order to defend politically their socio-economic interests."20 President of the platform was Tibor Dáné. Its political strategy has yet to be clearly defined.

c) The autonomy model

The Third DAHR Congress, held between 15 and 17 January 1993 in Braşov/Brassó, brought about a fundamental change in the life of the Alliance. This change resulted from reforms in organisational 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 following the Congress21 – pre-supposed that the political will of Hungarians in 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 structure separating the various branches of power within the Alliance. The primary legislative organ of the Alliance was the Council of Alliance Representatives, while operational responsibility was vested in the Executive Presidium as a governing body. The president of the Alliance – elected by the Congress – was to represent the organisation, propose a candidate for the post of Executive President to the members of the Council of Representatives, and participate – if he so wished - in the work of the Council, enjoying full negotiating and proposal rights. Internal elections would have completed the organisational reform process, but the Congress decreed that they be held within two years.22

Béla Markó was elected president by a clear majority – he was opposed only by the president of the Braşov/Brassó County Organisation, László Mina. The election result – following the withdrawal of Géza Domokos and Géza Szőcs from all future office – promised a new balance of political power. The Congress yet again elected László Tőkés as honorary president, a post which carried representation rights similar to those of the

19 See: Magyari, Nándor László: Szabad gondolatok a Szabadelvű Körről [Liberal Thoughts on the Liberal Circle] and András, Péter: A saját jogrend, az igazságszolgáltatás és a belső reform [The Legal System, Jurisdiction and Internal Reform]. Szövetség September 1994.20 Szándék [Intent]. Az RMDSZ - Szociáldemokrata-Újbaloldali Tömörülés brosúrája. [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 modelljének alapelveiről" [Resolution Regarding the Basic Principles of the Self-Government Model of the Organisation]. RMDSZ Közlöny [DAHR Gazette] 1, 1993.

president, and ensured the opportunity of participating in the work of the leading decision-making bodies with full negotiating rights. This outcome, however, served to re-establish the conditions for polarisation.

In addition to the twenty-one members elected by the Congress, the Council of Representatives consisted of DAHR members of Parliament, as well as local government representatives elected by conferences at county level. The electoral mechanism practised at local government level triggered significant changes in as much as it brought into the Alliance fold the new stratum of the elite elected to local authority representation a year earlier. The 134 members of the Council attempted to establish formal conditions for the operation of the Alliance's internal political market place. As early as February 1993, at its first meeting held at Gheorghieni/Gyergyószentmiklós, it regulated the establishment and operation of factions, while regulations accepted at the following meeting included the creation of a Consultative Round Table (drawing on the positive experiences gained by the Political Consultative Round Table in the course of preparations for the Congress) which was meant to be an effective instrument in consensus-orientated decision-making. Finally, when electing the Council's leading body, the Permanent Committee, the necessity of political representation was also borne in mind. At the same time, involvement in the privatisation preparations also featured amongst the first decisions made by the Council (Resolution No. 3) although this could only have been carried out with the active participation of local organisations. The fact that the resolution remained unexecuted highlighted the paucity of instruments at the disposal of the Executive Presidium and the lack of local resources in the organisational structure developed on the lines of the "model state".

Béla Markó, Alliance president, proposed the Hunedoara/Hunyad County MP, Csaba Takács, for the post of Executive President. Members of the Executive Presidium, elected in secret ballot by the Council, were: Barna Bodó vice-president for policy, József Somai vice-president for organisational matters, Nándor László Magyari vice-president for local government, Ildikó Fischer Fülöp vice-president for youth and education, József Kötő vice-president for cultural and ecclesiastical matters and Béla Zsolt György vice-president for economics.

The departments of the Executive Presidium regarded it as their primary task to prepare and execute the political programmes defined by Congress resolutions in their various fields. The Council of Representatives ensured political direction and integration in this consultative work. Resolutions regarding organisational reform, however, continued to be postponed — a fact best illustrated by the almost two-year long process surrounding the resolution regarding the regulation of internal electoral procedures. The first studies for internal election procedures were produced by the Executive Presidium in June 1994. Preparations were explored by the Self-Government and Policy Departments.23 The concept of the internal electoral system was the subject of numerous meetings attended by representatives of the public platforms (for the discussion of political basics) and by officials of regional organisations (who discussed practical matters.) The issue was included on the agenda of meetings of the Council of Representatives on several occasions. The Reform Bloc, the Liberal Circle and the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative all urged the regulation of the electoral system in the form of direct ballot and the holding of elections within the period defined by the Braşov/Brassó Congress. Decision-making was, however, hindered by those with a vested interest in the status quo, such as local government officials at municipal and county level who were supported by the majority of the DAHR Parliamentary Group. The issue thus became a political one, particularly due to the fact that it was the faction in favour of the acceptance of autonomy statutes which now urged the holding of direct internal elections.

23 See: Szövetség 6, June 1994.

The work of the Council of Representatives was further hindered by the need for it to issue statements and declarations on a wide range of questions. It was, of course, essential for the leadership of the Alliance to make its position clear on issues 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/Kovászna County prefect issue, and the conflict surrounding the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Antonescu statue) should, however, have been dealt with at local level and only became national issues when regional organisations felt themselves inadequate to resolve such matters.

A number of statements and declarations were made public only to confirm those issued by the Alliance's president or the Executive Presidium, – and, on some occasions, by way of correction. The DAHR Memorandum regarding Romania's admission to the Council of Europe issued by president Béla Markó and executive president Csaba Takács on 26 August 199324 was confirmed in principle in a statement issued by the Council of Representatives on 25 September 1993.25 Confirmation of the DAHR statement regarding the Romanian-Hungarian Basic Treaty was issued in a similar way.

In addition, the Council of Alliance Representatives was, to a significant degree, occupied by the management of internal conflicts. In this regard, mention should be made of the conflicts that erupted between honorary president László Tőkés and representatives grouped around leading personalities of the Parliamentary Group (Attila Verestóy, György Tokay, Károly Szabó and György Frunda), over the debate on "ethnic cleansing" 26, over the so-called Neptune affair and the matter of Benedek Nagy. The longest running of these was the Neptune affair which arose in connection with the East European conflict management activities of the US-based Project on Ethnic Relations Foundation. The Foundation was present in the region not only as a civic initiative, but also – as it emerged later – as a representative of American governmental interests. PER organised two "special meetings" in Romania during 199227 which were followed by a further two in 1993, following the Braşov/Brassó Congress. These took place in Gerzensee, Switzerland, and the Romanian coastal resort of Neptune. These unofficial events were attended by three DAHR politicians, György Tokay, György Frunda and László Borbély, as well as by influential members of the Romanian government and the presidential office: presidential spokesman Traian Chebeleu and governmental secretary-general Viorel Hrebenciuc. Proposals put forward at the meetings were referred to in the American press as "Romanian-Hungarian agreements". The Alliance's honorary president László Tőkés — whose attitude was, in the words of György Tokay quoted in American press articles, an obstacle to agreement — severely criticised the three politicians for causing "political damage" to the DAHR. A statement of criticism was also published by the Executive Presidium as well as the Federation of Hungarian Youth Organisations and the Transylvanian Hungarian Initiative. The protracted war of declarations made it clear that: 1. the Alliance's informal decision-making centre had shifted outside the Parliamentary Group following the Braşov/Brassó Congress (during Géza Domokos’s presidency, attendance at such meetings did not cause a "crisis of legitimacy"); 2. a markedly right-wing faction had been formed within the Alliance's leading bodies around the person of László Tőkés, which differed, even in its political style, from those groups which believed in pragmatism and 'one small step at a time' tactics. At the same time it became clear that these conflicts were not merely due to the ideological pluralism apparent in the

24 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.

organisation, but were the result of jockeying for positions of power within the Alliance and the struggle to maintain that power.

Amendments made in the Alliance's Articles of Association at its Fourth Congress held in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár between 26-28 May 1995, essentially reflected the consequences of this in-fighting, while satisfying internal groups with a vested interest in the status quo, for example the mid-level leadership in the counties28rather than the public platforms.5. The issue of autonomy

The issue of the legal status of the Hungarian Community in Romania and the political will for its definition were in essence voiced at the foundation of the DAHR. The 25 December Declaration urged the preparation of a "new National Minority Statute" (doubtless meaning an Ethnic Minority Law constructed on the lines of the 6 February 1945 Minority Statute) although this would not be drafted until much later. The programme accepted by the Oradea/Nagyvárad Congress defined its aim as: "including in the Constitution collective rights and the right to freedom of all groups of society and minorities". A "most effective safeguard for this is the formation of the system of local self-government" within the framework of which opportunities would be provided for the use of mother tongue in public authorities and public life, as well as for the organisation of mother-tongue education from kindergarten to university. The programme also defined as a long-term goal the "plan for a National Minority Parliament as the supreme body for self-government."29 The programme accepted by the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress contained some general aspects regarding autonomy: on the one hand, it introduced terms from constitutional law in order to provide a self-definition for Hungarians in Romania (who saw themselves as a "state constituent entity"), while on the other hand, it sought to ensure minority self-organisation based on “the principle of local self-government". Although it referred to "personal and cultural autonomy" as a principle leading towards the self-government of Hungarians in Romania, it defined as its concrete goal merely the "development of the Hungarian minority's autonomous network of cultural institutions".30

It was also at the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress that the programme "Nationality Draft Bill" by Géza Szőcs was aired as an unofficial document. The package contained proposed additions to Romania's constitution – the right to preserve identity, the autonomy of minority communities and the right to information, as well as a draft bill which is in fact an enabling act concerning "national, ethnic and language communities and persons belonging to them". It dealt with collective and individual rights, 31 while at the same time defining some principles regarding autonomy. From a conceptual point of view, as far as later drafts are concerned, the package included two important points: 1) autonomy is established through bodies of public law; 2) the Statute is a legal rule brought about by autonomous public bodies, worked out by the elected representatives of a given national/ethnic or language community and ratified by Romania's legislature, the

28 The Congress set up the Consultative Council of Regional Presidents with rights to voice opinions on all important resolution preparations. At the same time, the financial dependence of the regional organisations on the Executive Presidium was established.29 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség I. Kongresszusa [First DAHR Congress], Vol. I.30 Románia Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Alapszabályzat. Program 1991. [DAHR Articles of Association. Programme 1991.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Országos Titkársága [Published by the DAHR National Secretariat], Kolozsvár 7th June 1991.31 According to the proposal, collective rights include: the right to establish public bodies, the right to the preservation of identity, the right to defended residential space, the right to establish parties, the right to education in the mother tongue, the right of mother-tongue usage in public life and the right to maintain contact with the motherland.

Parliament. The "co-nation debate" played an important part in the maturation of the public/constitutional law concept of autonomy. The concept of "co-nation" first surfaced in debate prior to the Târgu Mureş/Marosvásárhely Congress and was put into an ideological context by the series of articles by Imre Borbély.

Divisions within the DAHR were further deepened by variations on the concept of autonomy and by political initiatives based on their pursuit. The appearance of the Alliance's Szekler Land Political Group constituted a watershed in this respect. The Group wished to combine the celebration of the anniversary of the 1848 Szekler National Assembly with the organisation of a referendum to be held in October 1991 regarding Szekler regional autonomy based on the principle of self-government. The initiative was debated at the meeting of the Alliance's National Council of Delegates held in Arad on 5 October 1991. The initiative's timing coincided with the Draft Constitution debate in Parliament, held between 10 September and 14 November 1991, the anti-Hungarian press campaign triggered by the "Harghita/Hargita-Covasna/Kovászna Report", the parliamentary debate on the local government bill and the coalition proposal made to the opposition parties - amongst them the DAHR - following the fall of the Petre Roman government (at the Arad meeting of the National Council of Delegates, participation in government was an item on the agenda). DAHR MPs and senators grouped around Géza Domokos, who regarded parliamentary politics as the only expedient way towards their goals, branded the referendum initiative as inopportune and overly radical.32 The Romanian press brought the debate into the open country-wide and, as a consequence, the government banned the planned celebrations, even resorting to a show of military strength in the district concerned in Harghita/Hargita County, while the "radical-moderate" rivalry within the Alliance broadened in scope, reappearing in subsequent debates on autonomy in the context of questions on strategy.

When the new Romanian Constitution came into effect on 8 December 1991, it was clear that a new situation had evolved: aspirations to autonomy now had to fit into the existing constitutional framework. This further polarised the contradictions which existed between concepts: while an approach based 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 undoubtedly enriched by the contributions of the local elite which took up its role in local government at town and county level following the February 1992 local government elections. The Declaration Regarding the National Question, the so-called Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration, accepted at the 25 October 1992 meeting of the National Council of Delegates, meant that the autonomy strategy based on the concept of "internal self-determination" overtook the approach founded on minority rights and local self-government. The Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration regarded the "principle of internal self-determination" as "universally forward-looking" — a view proved by the practice of European democracies as well as by Transylvanian tradition.

Although the Memorandum on the Self-Determination of the Hungarian National Community in Romania, written by József Csapó and published on 31 December 1992, is based on the Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár Declaration, it has not yet become an official DAHR document. As a first attempt at establishing the concept of "internal self-determination", the draft summarises and draws on the most important international documents, and in addition proposes some constitutional revisions. It was here that the three autonomy types 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 language

32 See: Az RMDSZ Székelyföldi Politikai Csoportjának epilógusa az autonómiáról és egységbontásról. [The DAHR Szekler Land Political Group's epilogue on autonomy and disunity.] Limes 5-6, 1992.

usage. However, it clearly does not deal with questions connected to the Romanian power structure and the internal legal system.

Although the programme accepted by the Alliance's Third Congress held in Braşov/Brassó appears to contain a retrograde step when, in the debate on self-determination it uses the term: "the Hungarian national minority of Romania", it also refers to its right to "internal self-determination" as well as to the fact that the Hungarians living in Romania "regard themselves as an indigenous community and thus a state constituent element, an independent political entity and, as such, a partner of the Romanian nation with equal rights".33 The first significant political document issued following the Congress dealt with definitions of the legal status of Hungarians in Romania. It was published on 26 August 1993 under the title: "DAHR Memorandum Regarding Romania's Admission to the Council of Europe".34 The document, which created a storm in Romanian party politics, also demanded the recognition of "national minorities as state constituent elements" and, as far as institutional solutions are concerned, it advocated the establishment of power structures such as ministries and state secretariats with " responsibility for controlling the national minorities' institutional network under minority direction". An independent network of schools using the Hungarian language as the 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 Romanian House of Representatives was accepted by the Alliance's Council of Representatives on 14 November 1993. It concerned national minorities and autonomous communities.35 The draft bill is in effect an enabling act which defines individual and communal minority rights. The right to "internal self-determination" belongs to the latter. The basic concept of the bill is that it differentiates between national minorities and autonomous communities: "an autonomous community is a national minority that exercises its rights of its own accord based on the principle of internal self-determination"(Article 1). "Persons belonging to national minorities that define themselves as autonomous communities are to enjoy personal autonomy based on individual minority rights"(Article 2). Articles 51-53 of the draft deal with personal autonomy in greater detail: "the community is to enjoy rights of self-government and execution in the areas of education, culture, telecommunication and social activities in the framework of personal autonomy." Bodies and officials involved in the various fields of self-government are to be elected by the autonomous community "in free elections at regular intervals"(Article 52). The resulting self-government is to develop its own statutes which have legal force. In addition to personal autonomy, the draft bill defined two further forms of autonomy. The autonomy of local self-government was to be practised through "self-governments of special status". This status is awarded by law to local self-governments of communities, whose members belong to a national minority or an autonomous community(Article 54). The third form of autonomy, regional autonomy, results from the association of local governments of special status; such association is the right of entities of special status in public administration – for instance local governments. According to Article 59 "an autonomous community practising regional autonomy defines the regulations for its government's organisation and operation."

An alternative to the draft bill regarding autonomous communities and national minorities was simultaneously prepared by Sándor N. Szilágyi under the title: "Bill of Rights Appertaining to National Identity and Regarding the Fair and Harmonious Co-existence of National Communities". Although, as the author himself admitted, "the Bill of Rights was influenced by the previously compiled Minorities Draft Bill developed by the

33 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Programja. [DAHR Programme.] RMDSZ Közlöny 4, 1993.34 See: Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség. Dokumentumok 1. [DAHR Documents 1.] Kiadja az RMDSZ Ügyvezető Elnöksége [Published by the DAHR Executive Presidium], Kolozsvár 1993.35 Törvény a nemzeti kisebbségekről és autonóm közösségekről (tervezet). [Draft Bill regarding national minorities and autonomous communities.] In: ibid, Vol. I.

Alliance's Working Group ",36 its basic concept differs from that of its model since it tries to break with the concept of "attempting the reform of rights related to national identity whilst remaining within the paradigm of the traditional hegemony of the nation-state", while assuming that "the majority automatically enjoys all rights".37 The Bill of Rights therefore bases the detailed regulations regarding the exercising of rights related to national identity on the fact that there is more than one national community living in Romania.38 The situation of the various communities needs to be legally defined according to regional and demographic factors which should serve as a basis for the development of regulations.

An examination of the debate around the DAHR draft bill, and a comparison of the alternative proposals put forward, make clear the conflicting views which form the backdrop to the various concepts of autonomy. Since the DAHR draft bill - officially filed as such - steered internal political debate towards public autonomies operating on the basis of the Statute, controversies began to unfold around the substance of the statutes and their role in the definition of institutions. The second half of 1994 saw the emergence of two initiatives. József Csapó published his draft statute for the three autonomy models in the Erdélyi Napló,39 while a second initiative was written by Barna Bodó, executive vice-president, and backed up by the Alliance's Policy Department. The aim of the latter was to define the professional basis for the statutes debate, and to raise questions which required decisions on the political level and which would serve as a basis for the legal codification of the statutes. According to the resolution of the meeting of the Council of Alliance Representatives held on 1 October 1995, a Consultative Committee was commissioned to deal with the two initiatives.40 Although no consensus was arrived at amongst the committee members regarding several fundamental political issues — including the definition of a “statute”; who, in the case of differing autonomy models, should be regarded as the subject of law; and how institutions of self-government should be connected to governmental institutions and constitutional structures, etc. — it was József Csapó's three proposals which were taken as a starting point. They were revised and submitted to the Council of Alliance Representatives at the meeting held between 25-26 February 1995. The political debate did not lead to the resolution of differences within the committee: any decision was therefore deferred by the Council which simultaneously resolved to ask for the opinions of other bodies such as the Parliamentary Group and the Executive Presidium. At the same time, an opportunity was opened up for the submission of further proposals at the suggestion of the chairman of the Permanent Committee. At the meeting of the Council held between 8-9 April 1995, three additional drafts were presented: a proposal for autonomy based on individual right written by Miklós Bakk, a second one compiled by the Policy Department (written by Alpár Zoltán Szász and Barna

36 Szilágyi N. Sándor bevezető sorai a Törvény a nemzeti identitással kapcsolatos jogokról és a nemzeti közösségek méltányos és harmonikus együttéléséről című tervezethez [Sándor N. Szilágyi's Introduction to the Draft Bill of Rights Appertaining to National Identity and Regarding the Fair and Harmonious Coexistence of National Communities. ] Korunk 3, 1994.37 Ibid.38 Articles 2-10 of Chapter 1 of the Bill include the following definitions and operational concepts: national majority, national minority, local national community, local and regional national majority, local and national regional minority, legal capacity of a national community, political nation, cultural nation and persons living outside national communities.39 Csapó, József: Belső önrendelkezést kiteljesítő autonómiák. A Sajátos státusú helyi önkörmányzat statútuma, a Romániai magyar nemzeti közösség személyi autonómiájának statútuma és a Sajátos státusú helyi önkormányzatok regionális társulásának autonómia-statútuma. [Autonomies Fulfilling Internal Self-Determination. Statute of Local Self-Governments of Special Status, Statute on the Personal Autonomy of the Hungarian National Community in Romania and the Autonomy Statute of the Regional Association of Local Self-Governments of Special Status.] Erdélyi Napló 28th September 1994.40 See: RMDSZ Közlöny 12, November 1994. According to resoultion No. 32, the members of the Committee were: József Csapó, György Tokay, Attila Varga, András Béres, Barna Bodó, Sándor Balázs, Miklós Bakk, Előd Papp, Gábor Hajdú, Ádám Katona, Lázár Madaras, Attila Markó, István Szabó, Sándor N. Szilágyi.

Bodó) under the title: "The Statute of Personal Autonomy for the Hungarian National Community in Romania", as well as a revised version of Sándor N. Szilágyi's earlier draft. The Committee’s draft, submitted under the name of József Csapó, was based primarily on the concept of internal self-determination; Miklós Bakk approached the autonomy statutes via internal possibilities for constitutional development that would provide a basis for negotiation with Romanian political forces, while the Policy Department's draft attempted to communicate between these two alternatives. Sándor N. Szilágyi's version was a revision of his previous proposal augmented by directives regarding the status of "self-administrating national communities."

During the draft debate, the dividing line between the professional and the political level was never clearly drawn,41 nor was the deeply divided Council able to clarify unambiguously which strategy corresponded to the individual drafts, and it was therefore almost inevitable that decision-making had to be postponed. The resolution of the meeting of the Council of Representatives held on 7-8 April 1995 merely stated that the results of the ongoing debate were to be incorporated in the programme proposal compiled for the coming Congress.

The Fourth DAHR Congress incorporated in its programme several theories of autonomy (according to which autonomy meant a principle in the development of a legal system in which the rule of law prevails, the right of the National Community exercised in the interests of upholding its identity, an instrument in the economic and cultural survival of Hungarians in Romania and a strategic goal set for the DAHR in its political activities and in its links with the organisations of civil society42) and defined the autonomy alternatives which the Alliance was to strive towards via legislation. The three alternatives were: personal autonomy, local self-government with special status, and regional autonomy "realised as the collaboration between local self-governing authorities with joint interests".43

The deferment of a decision on the codified text for autonomy meant that the Council of Representatives was once again polarised along a "radical-moderate" dividing line. According to "radical-autonomists", the political weight of the Statute was of greater importance than its professional thoroughness, therefore it was not valid to defer the decision for professional reasons. It was in this polarised situation that, following the Congress, the issue of personal autonomy appeared on the agenda supported by more than one third of the members of the Council of Representatives. The political support of József Csapó's new draft, finalised in August 1995, did not however speed up the production of a codified version for approval by the Council. In fact, the situation following the signature of the Hungarian-Romanian Basic Treaty may lead to the redefinition of the priorities of autonomy politics by the various Alliance factions. The rudimentary nature of the concept of autonomy also defined the development of the political discourse. The effect of the autonomy debate can be traced along three separate lines: 1. In the internal Alliance debate the "radical-moderate" opposition became coloured by new contextual elements: the division was widened by the ideological opposition in the "autonomist" versus "minority" debate; 2. It introduced into the system of Romanian political debate the denial of "ethnically based autonomies" and this argument in turn defined the relationship of the Romanian government and the majority of the opposition parties vis-á-vis the Recommendation 1201 of the Council of Europe; 3. It represented a challenge to political experts and those from civil society in the face of international law and practice and in the politological analysis of autonomy rights. The DAHR was unable to establish the

41 See: Bodó, Barna: Összefoglaló a statútumtervezetek előkészítéséről. [Summary of Statute-Draft Preparations.] ÜE belső irata. [Internal paper of the Executive Presidium.] Csíkszereda 7th April 1995.42 A Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség Programja. Alapelvek. [The DAHR Programme. Basic Principles.] RMDSZ Közlöny 16, June 1995.43 Ibid.

necessary professional support, but, following the Tuşnad/Tusnád meeting, the group of experts (the so-called "Gabriel Andreescu Group"), which operated in conjunction with the Romanian Helsinki Committee, published some critical analyses regarding DAHR minority autonomy draft bills and aspirations that were well received internationally.44

44 The Tusnad/Tusnád consultative meeting (13-14 May 1994) was initiated by the DAHR Policy Department and organised jointly with experts of the Romanian Association for the Protection of Human Rights (Romanian Helsinki Committee). The meeting debated the DAHR Memorandum submitted to the Council of Europe as well as the Draft Bill regarding Minorities and Autonomous Communities. The participants 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, Péter Eckstein-Kovács, György Nagy.