János Vékás

I suppose many of you are familiar with the short story by Frigyes Karinthy about the violinist who, in order to present his artistic skills joined a circus, mastered the skills of acrobatic stunts, and then, having put the tables and chairs on top of each other on the stage, climbed on top of them, and in front of the amazed audience, took his violin and very quietly began playing a song.

I have known this story for a long time and I have always liked it. It has given me rise to various associations of ideas. Nowadays, it reminds me of the minority politician, especially when 1 should speak about the relation between minority and liberalism.

In the rough reality of Eastern-Central-European politics, the old rules of the games have ceased, and new ones are in the process of developing. The status of elite’s is uncertain, that is why they take every possible chance to retain, or get hold of the power. The freedom-scale has widened, but the conditions are inadequate for the exploitation of the possibilities. Because of financial problems and unstable moral degrees, people often want to escape from freedom, since the uncertainty brings them pressure to bear. The public opinion is very susceptible to influence, therefore the majority of people stick to simple formulas.

The national division is the simplest formula according to which the voters - if from time to time the elite has to ask for their mandate - may be classified.

This is the point where the procedure described in Karinthy's story begins: a table is put on the stage, but its legs are very shaky on the political ground. The artist - or acrobat? - puts a chair upon it - perhaps even a barrel - and climbs on top of it. The various cubes, cones, prisms are put on top of the chair, not in the best order, but he has no choice. When he is on top, he looks for his instrument: has he perhaps forgotten it below? When he finds it, he can start playing, that is, he can tell his opinion which is the following.

Nobody is pleased with the minority politicians in the region. To be more precise, more or less, everybody is displeased with them. Rightly, since they cannot completely satisfy the various expectations, but as a result of former experiences which still exist, it has not been realized yet that the minority communities strive for political subjectivity, and an increasing number of their political representatives do not want to satisfy expectations but, though with modest means, they wish to participate as political subjects in the creation of the global social status. This new status is manifested in the national policy, state policy and party policy, not only for the successor states, but also for the motherland and for international factors.

Witnessing the uniting of Europe, the aspirations for national states have strengthened in Eastern and Central Europe. The small nations in the region are worried: the opinion that joining the integration would mean great advantages has become widespread, however, at the same time they suspect that integration would mean assimilation, they fear for their identity and strive for strengthening their initial position by stabilizing their national statehood. This process may easily deteriorate into chauvinist excesses or even into bloody ethnic cleansing we have seen in the Balkans. When the global national political homogenizing strategy reaches the bottom, it will infect the everyday human relations, even if the majority of people have made great efforts in trying to retain tolerance. There are series of events in Vojvodina where in getting employment the national affiliation of the applicant will get an emphasized significance, or when the Hungarian children are molested, harassed and struck by Serb children at schools, and there is not any reaction, or not firm enough either by the state bodies or by the educational authorities. The fact that the state, if it does not urge it in all the cases, undoubtedly tolerates it, proves that the state considers homogenity, ideal. But now, the state would not be able to stop these processes even if it wanted to: the national political strategy is showing its results, and the process is kept alive by the sultry atmosphere of isolation.

In this situation, in order to preserve the national community, the best measures must be found in preserving the ethnical distance which is somewhere between being a total outsider and total abandonment of the national identity. The variety of the political means is modest, and the implementation greatly depends on the endurance of the minority collectivity: the great majority of the Hungarians of Vojvodina find even the psychological pressure difficult to bear, and as a result, the most extreme reactions occur, starting with migration or raising the question of the border, to the situation in which the person refuses to use his mother tongue.

In these circumstances the Democratic Community of the Hungarians of Vojvodina consideres that its three-stage autonomy concept is the best solution from national political viewpoint which will be supported by the Hungarians of Vojvodina, in a degree necessary for legitimity.

The idea of autonomy is strange for all states striving for national homogenity. The states with national minorities dislike the idea, because the autonomy will hinder the assimilation of minorities, and in this way it will hinder the strengthening of the sovereignty of the national state. But the idea is also strange for the motherland which is following the idea of homogenous national states, because it decreases the secessional aspirations of parts of its nations beyond its borders. For the motherland, the territory is really the thing that matters, the national interest is just an excuse.

The autonomy is not suitable for any side which considers the national interest a mere instrument of state interest. Thus, who is the autonomy good for?

Above all, for the minorities. It enables them to direct their lot according to their own way of life, thus being someone's instrument less and less. But the autonomy is also good for the state in which the minority lives, because it decreases the national tensions, and in this way the social energy may be directed towards economic prosperity and developing general democracy. At the same time, it is good for the homeland because it will guarantee the preservation of identity of the part of the nation beyond the borders, and at the same time this problem ceases to be its surplus concern. Thus, the autonomy is good for everybody who does not think that national affiliation is an instrument of imperialistic aspiration.

Since the minority problem has been unsolved, from state political viewpoint, the problem may be manipulated and instrumentalized, thus hostage-status might develop, harming both the minority and the motherland.

There have been several examples in history, when parts of nations living beyond the borders of the motherland got into hostage-status. Their lot often depended on the relation between the two states. This happened not only between bordering countries, and not only because of possible frontier conflicts, but also between geographically very distant countries in case of more serious conflicts, like state of war.

According to the, present principles of fairness and equity, which have at least been declaratively adopted, such status is, beyond doubt, antidemocratic. According to the generally adopted liberal moral principles, the individual! may be held responsible only for actions and events which have been accomplished by his contribution. That is why we were totally shocked some years ago when a leader of a Serbian opposition party declared all members of the Croatian nation guilty for the genocide against the Serbs in World War Ii, and when a Croat journalist asked how he could be freed from the responsibility, since he had not even been born then, the answer, given by the leader of the Serbian opposition who is today considered the most democratic one, was: withdraw from the Croat nation.

No matter how dominant the nation's strength for organizing the society is, it is neither the only one, nor absolute. There is no doubt that the national state aspirations are the cohesional factors of the society all over the world, since it is indicated by the present reality, that in Europe for instance, only a small fraction of the population lives outside the motherland. Thus, the state utilizes the nation successfully as an integrating, so to say, zero-level category of al! the other social institutions, and the national minorities feel its detriment when they have to face the assimilational aspirations of the government. At the same time, however, the problem of minorities in interstate relations, not often with national political but with state political tendency, is raised because of other political interests of the motherland and not because of the minorities themselves.

This is the way the members of the minorities may get into hostage-status.

However, all this may also turn the other way round. The proclamation of the idea of belonging to universal national community involves bilateral obligations, at least on moral level, but in many countries, arising from constitutional provisions, on juristic level too. However, when the motherland develops a system of relations with the country where part of its nation lives, among various interests it must decide what position is intended for questions concerning the minority. If certain exaggerated ideas occur while the idea of universal national cohesion is being proclaimed, very often the minority communities in question, especially its elite, want to get solution of such problems which are unrealistic for accomplishment. This is how the political leadership gets into hostage-status. In the internal affairs, the national interest is a significant trump, but it is not the only one. The difficulties begin when other internal and foreign policy affairs must be coordinated. It may happen, however, that the retinent conduct of the minority communities, which have become a political factor by the support of the government of the motherland, might disturb the concerning governmental circles in the implementation of their strategies.

Well, then what might be the solution? It is the following: the interstate relations should develop an atmosphere of cooperation and inspiring confidence in which the national minorities are not the means of interstate conflicts. This is the situation which offers a real chance for the national minorities to gain greater political independence within the particular state. The institutional frame of this independence is the autonomy. This would be a solution which might prevent the minorities from becoming hostages of interstate relations, and at the same time, when the minority communities appear on the political stage of the motherland seeking for the solution of their problems, the autonomy would prevent the governments of the states concerned get into hostage status. These are the two viewpoints and by the coordination of the two, long-lasting peace may be guaranteed in Eastern and Central Europe.

Great many minority organizations in Eastern and Central Europe are not only organizations of interest aiming for representing the national interest, but they are also parties participating in elections, they are present in parliaments, thus they must develop certain relations with other parliamentary and political factors both in the state which citizens they represent and in the motherland. In the meantime, the national-political and party-political reasons should be often paralelly considered.

There is no doubt that under normal! circumstances the minority communities are politically divided exactly like the majority ones, thus ideologically based buds of political organizations are present. Nevertheless, because of external pressure, these organizational aspirations are pushed into the background for the benefit of the uniform representation of national interests. However, if the minority organization of interest, having become conspicuous in this way, is not partyneutral, that is, if it turns towards a certain ideological platform, alternative organizational forms will inevitably arise. All this will go on, as long as the minority citizens do not decide that their national interests should become conspicuous in the elections. Supposedly, this situation will come to an end when a legal and institutional framework is developed for the satisfactory solution of minority problems,

which legitimity, legality and effectiveness is not doubtful. Moreover, when it is not necessary to justify the legitimity of the minority claims any longer, but the minority citizens will be able to vote for their parliamentary delegates, who will represent not only their national, but any other interests.

For the time being, this status is just an ideal in the region. The practice shows for instance, that in Serbia all considerably supported political information regards the national-state or state-national viewpoint, the most significant in all fields of social practice.

In this respect, a tactical question may be raised, whether a minority organization should form an alliance with someone for more effectual accomplishment of its aims, but as far as the strategic viewpoint is considered, it is obvious that such coalition will be limited by pretensions for the preservation of the political independence of the minority organization. Cooperation, but not assimilation is the essence of the minority strategy.

At the same time the motherland will also manifest its demand for clearer expression of the preferential party by minority organizations. Someone who has gone through several sudden changes as a minority politician, has also experienced the various forms of intentions for influence, beginning with persuasions, through humiliations to political diversions. But it is not good if emotions take hold of him. It must be clear: whatever grave chauvinistic excesses we have to bear at home, sooner or later we have to find the way to live side by side with the members of the majority nation. At the same time, we have only one motherland, and democracy will develop a fair system of relations between the motherland and the political factors of its nation beyond the borders, decreasing in this way the misgivings of the party in power of the motherland concerning autonomy.

April 24, 1994.