Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nationhood and Identityball match, the national anthems of both states are performed, the nationalflags of both states are displayed, and the players wear the colors oftheir respective flags.One of the means by which the Romanian state secures the loyaltyof its subjects (be they Romanian or Hungarian) is compulsory militaryservice. When drafted, the recruit must take an oath of allegiance to “hiscountry.” In this way, the Hungarians, as much as Romanians, pledge todefend the unity, the sovereignty and the independence of their country.But what would happen in the hypothetical situation of a conflict betweenthe two countries?The reasons why Romanians would question the loyalty of Hungariansare historically constructed. Narratives of the past relations betweenthe Romanian and the Hungarian nations and of the collective memory ofinteraction prevail in the interpretative schemes of Romanians. In situationscharacterized by a certain sensitivity with respect to Hungarian loyaltytowards the Romanian state (such as the request for specific forms ofautonomy), the discourse of the Romanian majority is often structured interms of historical episodes and past experiences of Hungarian politicaland cultural domination, of symbolic territorial claims, and so on. 33 Hungarianclaims for collective rights (or group-differentiated rights 34 ) areproduced in a discursive space where the driving force is not the rationallanguage of the benefits of the self-administration of one’s own ethnicgroup, but the language of the historical contest between the two nations.The sentiment of distrust with respect to a Hungarian’s loyaltycomes from a perception of the relationship between the symbols andingredients necessary for constructing loyalty towards the Romanianstate, and the symbols and ingredients implied by the ethnoculturalidentity-building of the minority. There are several figures that couldjustify Romanian doubts regarding the loyalty of their fellow citizens –they refer, for example, to sentiments involving symbolic celebrations ofthe Romanian and Hungarian states. To the question “How importantis the first of December for you?” only 20.0% of the Hungarians inTransylvania answered that it was “very important” or “important.”Conversely, to the question “How important is the twentieth of Augustfor you?” 63.0% of Hungarians in Transylvania declared that it was“very important” or “important.” 35 I suggest, however, that these figuresdo not reflect disloyalty; as these elements are rather consistentwith the Hungarians’ conception of the nation. Obviously, they couldnot celebrate the integration of Transylvania into a Romanian nationalizingstate, which meant also a demotion of the Hungarian populationin both symbolic and material terms. At the same time, the other eventsignifies the “birth” of the Hungarian nation, and is cherished as such.239