Itt-Ott, 1992 (25. évfolyam, 1/119-3/121. szám)

1992 / 2. (120.) szám

were performed by “others.” Similarly, whenever the miners from the Jiu Valley wreak havoc in Bucharest, the press depicts the events as having been brought about by obscure manipulations; the violence and cruelty displayed during these events are also projected onto the same manipulative forces, for such behavior does not fit the well-known stereotype.

Such an approach easily leads to the perception that any foreign opinion, point of view, or assessment is automatically wrong (especially when it contradicts one’s own opinion). It is according to this pattern of thought that the “free” political debates and controversies use nationalism as a favorite and most effective weapon. Anyone who voices critical, or simply different, opinions is instantly discredited by the sensational revelation of his or her alien affiliations, meaning that the person in question is to be rejected from the very outset, for what he or she says or does is very much susceptible of being harmful to “the Romanian people.” Doina Cornea, a reputed dissident in Ceau§escu’s time, and an opponent of the present regime, has been constantly insulted once it was discovered that she was married to a Hungarian. All the personalities and groups opposing the official policy incur similar treatment, with the additional charge of being on the payroll of different foreign powers and agencies. This is the kind of attitude endorsed by the ruling National Salvation Front and its satellites, and by the Party of National Unity (the political expression of Vatra románeasca,, which together form a disproportionate majority in the Parliament, ca. 80 percent).

In a lecture held at the University of Michigan on September 19, 1991, speaking about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf warned against the reemergence of tribal feelings where there was hope that a civil society would supplant the obsolete communist dictatorship. In Romania, the resurgence of nationalist-chauvinist feelings is certainly due to the absence of any form of grassroots opposition movement. Even after December, 1989, there has been no serious public debate on the issue of minorities, its place having been taken by an endless series of attacks and counterattacks. “Human rights” and “minority rights,” have been desemanticized, for they are used as phrases by which one could show how modem or European one is. The approach to these issues can best be illustrated by the remarks of Conor Cruise O’Brien: “People who are all in favor of human rights generally speaking are very likely to sit up and look suspicious where there is any question of minority rights. Human rights is a pleasing abstraction impregnated with our notion of our own benevolence. But minority rights evoke a sudden sharp picture of ‘that lot’ with their regrettable habits, extravagant claims, ridiculous complaints, and suspect intentions. Special rights for them? Not likely.” (6)

The new democratic parties have included minority rights in their platforms, but these remain in a vague, general wording. On the other hand, these parties do not involve themselves in solving concrete, specific issues when they occur. The “frailty” with which these issues are tackled can be put down to the fear of losing popularity, and ultimately, votes. It is just another way in which prejudice works: their fear is based on suppositions, for no scientific study was made to test the public opinion’s response in an open discussion of majority-minority relationships.

The only Romanian party that has a more comprehensive agenda on minority rights is the Civic Alliance. The press supporting this party (22, Románia literara, Timisoara) has repeatedly and forcefully countered the nationalist propaganda with wellgrounded, intellectual arguments. However, that party is slow in putting forward alternative, specific measures designed to diffuse the ethnic tensions and conducive to a stable compromise. The latest upheaval of nationalist, anti-Hungarian hysteria was occasioned by the suggestion made by some local Hungarian activists that a referendum be held on the issue of autonomy for two Székely counties: Harghita and Covasna. The PNUR (i.e., Vatra romäneascä) retaliated by presenting to the Parliament, during a special session televised nation-wide, a six-hour long report which concluded that Hungarians are bloodthirsty, barbarian, anti-Romanian, and separatists. The HDUR did not endorse the autonomy initiative, but stated that it had expected a greater degree of solidarity expressed by the other parties which are its allies in the Coalition for Democracy, all of which chose to keep quiet.

The Gypsies, a very large ethnic group in Romania (over one million), deserve special attention. Having a different, non-European way of life and mentality, they have never been fully understood, nor were efforts ever made in that direction. Until the 1870’s they had been slaves, and afterwards they were “promoted” to the status of pariahs. Their condition as outcasts has not been overcome in the years of socialism, when the authorities preferred to ignore or use them. After December, 1989, the government seemed to court the Gypsy communities, for the first time offering them the right to express themselves as a definite ethnic entity. The Gypsies responded as they were expected to, and massively voted for the NSF. However, soon after the election day, a large campaign was launched against them, by openly fanning the fire of racial prejudice and equating all the social evils with them. The “order-restoring” raid of the miners in Bucharest last summer climaxed in an anti-Gypsy pogrom applauded by most people all over the country. Occasionally, dozens of Gypsy homes are burned down here and there. Fearing future persecutions, a lot of Gypsies have emigrated and have been filling the refugee camps in several European countries.

While it has become obvious that belonging to Europe cannot be achieved by a divorce between what is said and what is done in the field of human rights, Romania drifts toward marginalization and subsequent isolation by managing the rights of the minorities improperly and heavy-handedly. Yielding to the misconception of protecting the nation against the illusive foes embodied by the minorities, Romania clearly ignores the rich assets that each ethnic group may bring to the common good. Such an outlook can only bring about the deepening of the divergence between the majority and the minorities, and further damaging conflicts. What has not been understood in Romania

ITT-OTT 25. évf. (1992), 2. (120.) szám 29