Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:19:44.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes towards Roma Minority Rights in Hungary: A Case of Ethnic Doxa, and the Contested Legitimization of Roma Inferiority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Robert E. Koulish
Robert E. Koulish*
Affiliation:
Goucher College, U.S.A. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1994, after the enactment of Hungary's Minority Rights legislation (herein the Act), representatives from India rather than Roma themselves were invited to represent the Roma at the signing ceremony, against the request of Roma leaders. During an interview in August 2000, former member of Parliament and Roma leader Aladar Horvath describes the events this way:

[t]hey invited all the representatives of the nationalities, and the representative of the Hungarian Gypsies was someone from India … Antall Jozsef made a speech in which he said he wouldn't prevent that Hungarian Gypsies consider India as a mothercountry, and India considers the Hungarian Gypsies as children. In the Indian Embassy, they didn't say a word, and I said, as a member of Parliament: we very much appreciate this gesture that the politicians made, but thank you very much but that's not really what we want. We have very thin roots in Iridia, but they are much stronger here in Europe and Hungary.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 327 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Interview with Horvath, Aladar, 15 August 2000.Google Scholar

2. Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990).Google Scholar

3. Stewart, Michael, The Time of the Gypsies (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997), p. 5.Google Scholar

4. Crowe, David M., A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St Martin's Press, 1994), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., pp. 70–106.Google Scholar

6. Human Rights Watch, Rights Denied: The Roma of Hungary (London: Human Rights Watch, 1996), p. 8.Google Scholar

7. IREX, “The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe,” March 2000.Google Scholar

8. See Doncsev, Toso, Measures Taken by the State to Promote the Social Integration of Roma Living in Hungary (Budapest: Office for National and Ethnic Minorities, 2000), p. 31.Google Scholar

9. Ibid. Google Scholar

10. Cohen, Claude, “Smoke and Mirrors: Roma and Minority Rights Policy in Hungary,” Roma Rights Quarterly, No. 4, 2001. Online Journal, http://www.errc.org/rr_nr4_2001/notebb.shtml Google Scholar

11. Ibid. Google Scholar

12. The Act, Article 1, Section 2.Google Scholar

13. It is important to note that the Roma comprise Hungary's sole recognized ethnic minority under the Act.Google Scholar

14. The Act, Article 1, Section 2.Google Scholar

15. The Act, Chapter 3, Article 18(3)(a)(b).Google Scholar

16. The Act, Chapter 2, Article 13(a).Google Scholar

17. The Act, Chapter 2, Articles 11–13.Google Scholar

18. See the Act, Chapter 4, Article 26(1)(a).Google Scholar

19. See the Act, Chapter 4, Article 26(1)(b)(c).Google Scholar

20. See the Act, Chapter 4, Article 26(1)(d).Google Scholar

21. Ibid. Google Scholar

22. See the Act, Chapter 4, Article 27(3)(b).Google Scholar

23. Ibid. Google Scholar

24. Ibid. Google Scholar

25. Cohen.Google Scholar

26. Kovats, Martin, “Minority Rights and Roma Politics in Hungary,” in Cordell, Karl, ed., Ethnicity and Democratization in the New Europe (New York: Routledge, 1999).Google Scholar

27. Cohen.Google Scholar

28. Koulish, Robert, “Opportunity Lost? The Social (Dis)Integration of Roma Minority Rights in Post Transition Hungary”, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Cohen.Google Scholar

30. This paper is presented as part of a larger project investigating local civil society, in Hungary.Google Scholar

31. Although our sample size is 1,000, because of missing values the sample size at times gets as low as 950.Google Scholar

32. Twenty-two respondents were categorized as non-self-identified Roma. They were part of the sample but not part of this analysis.Google Scholar

33. It is important to note that the terms “MSG” and “minority rights” are used interchangeably.Google Scholar

34. These seven questions are discussed in the Lund Recommendations. The Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life, convened by the Foundation on Interethnic Relations at the request of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM), offer concrete guidelines taken from commitments made by the OSCE in the 1990 Copenhagen Document on the meeting of the Human Dimension, the 1995 Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, Article 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2. Specifically, the Lund Recommendations provide “concrete activities, including the elaboration of the various concepts and mechanisms of good governance with the effective participation of minorities, leading to integration of diversity within the State.” The purpose of these guidelines is to encourage and facilitate the adoption by states of specific measures related to national minorities. Drafted by jurists, political scientists and sociologists under the chairmanship of the Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, these measures attempt to clarify international efforts to ensure minorities (1) have their interests represented in government; (2) participate directly in public life; (3) gain skills in order to participate effectively.Google Scholar

35. The data show that Hungarians, regardless of educational achievement levels, incorrectly feel that the MSG has a positive role to play in providing social benefits.Google Scholar

36. Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), p. 20.Google Scholar

37. Kosztolanyi, Gusztav, “Hungarians: Different yet Tolerant,” Central Europe Review, August 1999. Online Journal, http://www.ce-review.org/99/7/gusztav Google Scholar

38. Bourdieu, Pierre, “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction,” in Brown, R., ed., Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change (London: Tavistock Press, 1973).Google Scholar

39. McIntosh.Google Scholar

40. Terdiman, Richard, “The Marginality of Michel deCerteau,” South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2001, p. 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. See “Hungary Index,” website of the European Roma Rights Center at http://errc.org/ publications/indices/hungary.shtml, as well as the “White Booklets” published yearly by the Legal Defence Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI).Google Scholar

42. Bourdieu, Pierre, Practical Reason (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 56.Google Scholar

43. Bartolome, L. and Macedo, D., “Dancing with Bigotry: The Poisoning of Racial and Ethnic Identities,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1997, p. 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. Galfarsoro, Imanol, “Symbolic Violence and Linguistic Habitus in Pierre Bourdieu: An Instance of the ‘Language is Power’ View Revisited,” in Galfarsoro, Imanol, ed., The Basque Case: Readings in Language, Culture, Identity and Politics (1998).Google Scholar

45. Kostolonyi, Gusztav, 1999 (see note 37).Google Scholar

46. Koulish, Robert, “What Roma Want: An Analysis of Roma Civic Attitudes in Post Transition Hungary”, in Partners Hungary Foundation, ed., Partners Studies, Vol. 4 (Budapest: Partners Hungary Foundation, 2001).Google Scholar

47. Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar