Petőcz Kálmán (szerk.): National Populism and Slovak - Hungarian Relations in Slovakia 2006-2009 (Somorja, 2009)
Annex
Annex - Kálmán Petőcz should enjoy minority rights only up to the extent that is guaranteed for ethnic Slovaks in Hungary. Even if we admit that the philosophy of reciprocity is fair (which we do not), we should compare the actual situation in the field of minority rights in Slovakia and in Hungary before jumping to any conclusions. Perhaps the most frequent misunderstanding is the assertion that national minorities in Slovakia are represented in parliament while national minorities in Hungary are not. But does this assertion correspond to reality? It must be clearly said that not if phrased like that. It is true that the Party of Hungarian Coalition, which between 1998 and 2006 regularly received votes from approximately 80% to 90% of all ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia, is represented in the National Council of the Slovak Republic; however, it is not the result of some specific legislative privilege (e.g. special minority law) but of the plain fact that the quorum for parliamentary representation is 5% of the popular vote and that ethnic Hungarian voters make up more than 5% of all eligible voters in Slovakia. So, parliamentary representation of SMK-MKP is the result of freely exercising ‘regular’ civil and political rights and freedoms (i.e. the freedom of association, the right to vote and be elected) as well as of the fact that Slovakia’s legal system exercises the principle of nondiscrimination. Discrimination would be if SMK-MKP or parties representing the country’s Roma were outlawed on the ethnic basis.3 The fact that ethnic Hungarians are the only national minority represented in the National Council of the Slovak Republic shows that Slovakia’s legislation does not automatically guarantee parliamentary representation of national minorities. In Slovakia, the issue of guaranteeing minority representation by law has never been seriously discussed or even considered, as no legislative initiative in this sense has ever been proposed. From the formal viewpoint, the situation is completely opposite in Hungary whose Minority Act of 1993 envisaged parliamentary representation for all 13 officially recognized national minorities. So far, though, Hungary has not been able to pass procedural regulations that would stipulate legislative and technical rules of exercising minority mandates. There are two reasons for this state of affairs. One is political, as most relevant parties fear that minority deputies could tilt the scales in disputes between the government and the opposition (and chances are they would side with the former purely for gain). The other - equally important - reason is legal as minority candidates would need incomparably fewer votes than candidates from ‘regular’ parties’ tickets to clinch parliamentary seats, which provokes protests from legal purists. That, however, should not constitute an obstacle to enforcing the said provision of Minority Act, especially once it has already been passed. 286
