This case study considers the minority policy and cultural autonomy developed after the transition in Hungary as a complex process of decision making in which several interests and concepts compete with one other. From the point of view of minorities, it examines both the achievements and problems. It also examines whether or not the political -legal solutions of the two determinative laws, the 1993 minority law and its 2005 overall amendment, completely meet the demands of the minority communities. I argue that certain demands have been met whilst others have remained unfulfilled.

Since the late 1980s, the interpretations of policy toward Hungary's minorities-most notably the country's 1993 minority law and the minority self-governments established as part of a system of nonterritorial autonomy (NTA)-have been the subject of debates in politics and academia in at least two critical respects. Aside from the declarative character of the law, foremost has been the question of Hungary's kin-state activism toward Hungarians abroad and the implications this has carried for domestic minority issues. A second-and related-question has concerned the extent to which cultural autonomy and minority rights are in accordance with the needs of the Roma, by far the country's largest ethnic minority group. A growing number of scholars have accepted the argument that the minority law was enacted because of concerns regarding Hungarian minorities living in the neighboring countries. In our view, it is more appropriate to ask instead how Hungary's kin-state policies have influenced the opportunities for domestic groups, and, in particular, how Hungary fits into the broader context of post-Communist state-and nation-building projects. This is the approach we take in this article, which aims to unpack and reconcile the complex and seemingly contradictory findings on the Hungarian case. Our conclusions are drawn from a content analysis of parliamentary debates on the minority law-something that has never previously been undertaken. This is supplemented by semi-structured interviews with former and current politicians and minority activists.

In managing ethno-cultural diversity, several countries in Central and Eastern Europe refer to the notion of nonterritorial/cultural autonomy in their legislation and policies, and in some of them, namely Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Serbia, and Slovenia, registered minority voters are granted the right to create their own representational, consultative, or decision-making bodies by direct or indirect elections. While a growing body of literature has examined the functioning of these elected minority councils/self-governments at various levels, numerous features of their elections have not been addressed. Elections, commonly understood as formal group decision-making processes, may fulfill various functions both in theory and practice, and these are highly context-dependent. In this regard, little is known about the role played by minority elections in intra-community relations, and whether and how these elections can contribute to increasing legitimacy and accountability and strengthening the political weight and influence of the respective minority groups. This article seeks to address these issues. Written from a theoretical perspective, but based on electoral statistics and country experiences, it comparatively explores the main issues related to the special minority elections in the five countries of analysis and assesses whether they can be considered successful forms of diversity management.

Non-territorial autonomy (NTA) is one of the methods designed to accommodate ethnocultural diversity and empower especially relatively small and territorially dispersed minority communities. However, the appellation involves rather a generic, multifaceted and shifting umbrella term that embraces a wide variety of practices and theories, including those notions explicitly used in several national legislations, such as “cultural autonomy” and “national cultural autonomy”, as well as a bunch of similar denominations in theory, like “segmental”, “extraterritorial”, “personal”, or “corporate” autonomy. Their common elements lie in the fact that as a general rule they are based on the individuals’ ethnic self-identification and seek to represent a specific ethnocultural segment of the society regardless of its size and place of residence in order to preserve their members’ identities and distinct features, without aspiring control over the territory. Compared to territorial autonomy, NTA usually has less competencies, fewer participation rights in those particular areas being important for the group members’ identities, typically culture, education, language and religion, is less surrounded by legal guarantees and is financially more dependent on state budget. Moreover, the existing arrangements labeled as some forms of NTA in various Central and Eastern European countries all lack legislative powers and decisive authority. NTA can range from unrecognized and informal, non-legal practices and arrangements to private law institutions and even to constitutionally entrenched, institutionalized and extensive structures of separately elected self-governments at various levels, while alternative and emerging examples stemming from legal pluralism and network governance tend to be also accepted as forms of NTA. This in turn raises not only the question of the different institutional forms NTA may take and the various public and private law approaches, in which NTA may be embedded, but also the questions of group membership, effectiveness and the degree of institutionalization. Which individuals belong to a given minority, who has the right to enjoy the benefits provided by NTA arrangements, and who should decide on these issues? Are the traditional cases with their strong institutional and legal background the most effective, is there fully institutionalization at all, and further, whether NTA really needs to be institutionalized in a top-down manner and officially recognized by the state to make an NTA durable and functioning? To what extent does agency affect effectiveness, and are there other models that build more on bottom-up activities? To address the issues above, the present chapter aims to provide an overview of the various types and institutional forms of NTA especially in the European context, including the sectors and scope of their activities and the degree to which power has been delegated to NTA bodies. In addition, it also summarizes the various acts that might appear as a legal basis and guarantees for NTA in practice, including some “bypasses” that would present the pros and cons of the mostly applied legal solutions. A case study about the national minority councils in Serbia is included to illustrate how NTA can be built and institutionalized in a legal order in a top-down manner.