The Forbidden Fruit of Federalism: Evidence from Romania and Slovakia

Abstract

Territorial autonomy is one aspect of power-sharing in multi-ethnic societies. Nevertheless, the multi-ethnic countries of Central and Eastern Europe are still among the most centralised in the European Union. This article analyses the failure of any attempts to establish (symmetric) federalism or (asymmetric) autonomy, creating self-governed regions by the Hungarian minorities in Romania and Slovakia. The analysis focuses on the positions of the main parties of the ethnic majorities and the Hungarian minority parties in the two countries. In both cases, the parties representing the Hungarian minorities have favoured territorial autonomy along ethnic lines, but this demand has been rejected by the parties of the ethnic majority. Against the historical legacy of unstable borders, the parties of the ethnic majority argue that territorial autonomy or federalisation might be a first step for a revisionist agenda and separatism. Instead, supported by the European integration, the parties have been able to agree on decentralisation as a half-hearted compromise.

Institutional Outcomes of Territorial Contestation: Lessons from Post-Communist Europe, 1989–2012

“…Our findings indicate, however, that CEE states remain reluctant to grant minorities TSG-in line with arguments that fear of secession, reputational effects on other minorities' claims, and the economic, strategic or symbolic values of contested territories for majorities override whatever effect the EU has on minority policies in new and aspiring Member States (Bochsler and Szöcsik 2013;Toft 2001;Walter 2003). Thus, Europeanization has had little impact on state majorities' inclination to allow TSG arrangements to emerge ''democratically'' in processes of post-communist institutional restructuring.…”

“…According to our definition, de-facto power gained by an ethnic minority in local councils through the regular electoral process in an otherwise significantly centralized state does not qualify as TSG. Examples are: Russophone domination in city councils in Riga and Tallinn; Hungarian domination of local councils in the Szekler region (Bochsler and Szöcsik 2013). 11.…”

Territorial fragmentation in post-communist Romania: the not so curious case of a de-amalgamation reform

“…Territorial reforms have always been a difficult topic in postcommunist Romanian politics due to their association with ethnic politics (Bakk & Szász 2010;Benedek & Bajtalan 2015;Bochsler & Szöcsik 2013;Maxfield 2012). Mainstream political parties have avoided being associated with the territorial reform requests of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania (UMDR-RMDSZ).…”

“…Debates have centred on decentralisation, local autonomy and regionalisation (Maxfield 2012;Preda & Soare 2008), with few attempts to mention amalgamation. Moreover, debates on decentralisation and regionalisation have been partially driven by the perceived and actual conditionalities of the EU accession process (Benedek & Bajtalan 2015;Bochsler & Szöcsik 2013;Dobre 2009).…”

Does decentralisation turn minority parties into secessionists? Insights from Eastern and Western Europe

“…In Western Europe, the effects of regional authority are assessed on countries in which regional boundaries largely coincide with the settlement areas of minority groups. In contrast, most governments in Eastern Europe have shied away from using decentralisation to accommodate national minorities (Bochsler and Sz€ ocsik 2013). Seeking to prevent the mobilisation of territorial grievances, they have at times deliberately used decentralisation to split regions with strong historical or ethnic identities (Saarts 2019).…”