Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

ZOLTÁN KÁNTORalso by the Hungarian government, but, logically, it evaluates the situationdifferently. In 1999, the Hungarian government included in itsbudget a 2 billion HUF (approx. 7 million USD) sum for establishinga Hungarian private university in Romania.As for the participation in Romanian political life, in 1990-1996, theHDUR was in opposition and attempted to achieve the above-describedgoals, but it had neither state support, nor the political means to achievethem. The nationalization process was financed by internal and externalresources, the latter coming from the external national homeland. In 1996,when the HDUR entered the government, the political setting changedand, thereafter, certain state resources were also deployed for this project.In this context, one can easily understand why the HDUR decided to participatein the Romanian government. One can also grasp, however, whythe internal opposition within the HDUR opposed such participation.The debate was between different conceptions of minority nation-building.The leaders of the HDUR reckoned that participating in the governmentand occupying administrative and political positions were more likelyto secure several rights and resources that could help their project.At the same time, these decisions were also rooted in the leaders’ conceptionthat they had to integrate the members of the Hungarian minorityinto the Romanian society on an “individual basis.” In the view of theinternal opposition, however, Hungarians should integrate into the Romaniansociety only in “collective” terms. They argued that the strengtheningof Hungarian society within Romania could be accomplished better inopposition, without making any – even tactical – concessions to the governingparties. To make the picture complete, one must mention that theinternal opposition of the HDUR does not make distinctions between theRomanian parties in view of their attitudes toward Hungarians. 18 Theyclaim that such differences are only ephemeral and not of any real substance.In light of the positions described above, one can conclude that thedebate concerning participation was basically a debate regarding minoritynation-building.The Hungarian State and its “External Homeland Politics”The Hungarian state influences the nationalization of the Hungarianminority in Romania, and, as such, one may analyze it as an external factor.I analyze only one aspect of this relationship: the law concerning the Hungariansliving in neighboring states. Hungary, as a state concerned with thefate of Hungarians living abroad, considers it a political and moral duty tohelp Hungarians, especially those who live in the bordering countries. Untilrecently, the Hungarian state supported principally the institutions of the260