Julita Agnieszka Rybczyńska
Righting Wrongs? Problems of
Protecting National Minorities in
East-Central Europe
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio K, Politologia 8, 157-169
A N N A L E S
U N I V E R S I T A T I S M A R I A E C U R I E - S K Ł O D O W S K A L U B L I N - P O L O N I A
VOL. VIII SECTIO К 2001
Zakład Praw Człowieka W ydział Politologii U M C S
JU L IT A A G N IE S Z K A RY BC ZY Ń SK A
Righting Wrongs? Problem s o f Protecting National M inorities
in East-C entral E urope
1
Popraw iać za pom ocą praw ? Problem y ochrony mniejszości narodowych w Europie Środkowej
In the new democracies o f East and Central Europe, the debate over the status of national minorities has focused on “m inorities’ rights” . Both on the national and international levels new legal documents and instruments were introduced to secure these rights. Countless N G Os dealing with minorities rights were created. The m inorities’ rights became a part o f the political agenda o f political parties and social movements, became an issue de jour in the media. A num ber o f conflicts involving the status o f national minorities have sprouted up throughout the region.
M y paper has three goals. First - it is an attem pt to summarize the m ain trends in the political debate over the rights o f national m inorities in the post-com m unist democracies. It focuses on Central-Eastern Europe th at is on Czech Republic, E stonia, H ungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia as the countries which are m ore advanced in the process o f institutional and legal transform ation. Second - the paper will briefly review dilemmas o f the institutionalization o f the national m inorities status as well as some legal and political instrum ents available to national minorities in these countries to see how the political debate over national m inorities rights have actually changed their status. Third - the paper will conclude with some propositions concerning relations between political and legal institutionalization o f national m inorities and the construction o f national identities in East-Central Europe after 1989.
1 The lecture delivered a t the Conference Constructing Identities: National Minorities in the
"N ew " Europe organized in N ov. 1999 by the Centre o f Studies on Russia, Central and East Europe
R IG H T S F O R N A T IO N A L M IN O R IT IE S IN EA ST-C EN TR A L E U R O PE - M A IN POINTS A N D Q U E ST IO N S IN T H E D EBA TE
I am n o t (or n o t only) talking here about formal parliam entary debates, which took place in m ost post-com m unist countries during the constitutional or legislative process. R ather, I am trying to summarize the m ain trends in the public debate th at took place in all the states m entioned above, both in formal and inform al fora; as well as the debate th at took place am ong national m inorities, their leaders, policy m akers, hum an rights activists and lawyers.
There are three groups o f questions to be posed (and answered) during the debate over the status o f national minorities in the new democracies of East-C entral Europe.
First comes questions ab o u t actual m ode o f protection, that is, about the choice between individual and collective rights models o f protection or more realistically - ab o u t the balance between the two models in the actual policies of the state. There is a duality o f know n and practiced models of legal protection of national m inorities. T he first one is based on the non-discrim ination principle and gives every individual (or every citizen in case of some legal systems) the right not to be discrim inated against because o f her/his nationality, ethnicity or language. T he second m odel is based on rights granted to the groups that share distinctive n ational, ethnic or linguistic features th at partake in their concept of group identity (so called collective rights). Both models o f legal and institutional arrangem ents have their historical traditions. Each has its disadvantages and strong points. They are not inherently antagonistic, so m ost East-Central E uropean governm ents and national m inorities opt for some sort of combination of the two. Finding the balance between them seems to require very long, difficult and n ot always successful negotiations between m inority and m ajority groups.
The second group o f questions is about level of m inorities’ protection (international, regional, national o r local) and the relations between them. This is connected with the developm ent o f the local governments and local politics in East-C entral E urope and with the possibilities of addressing the national m inorities’ problem s on the local level. A t the same time a considerable part of the debate is ab o u t the role o f international law and standards in the protection o f m inorities on n ational level. These issues are particularly sensitive in Eastern and C entral E urope where state sovereignty is still seen as very fragile. Positive opinions ab o u t the system o f protection based on the supremacy o f international law are sometimes countered by those who suggest the idea o f constructing regional, consensual solutions to the question o f how to protect minorities. They argue th at this approach should soften the present reluctance of m any governm ents to adhere to the universal construction o f the national minorities rights, and thus bring under protection m any groups that are not even recognized as m inorities now. This p a rt o f the debate has also included considerations about
feasibility and scope o f autonom y (be it territorial or cultural) for m inorities, and about regionalization as a m eans o f securing national m inorities rights.2
Thirdly, the debate concerns the concept o f citizenship in post-com m unist democracies o f East-C entral Europe. This theme was very evident during the constitutional proceedings in m any new democracies. Here very difficult question arise about how to accom m odate national m inorities needs in the states where national state building is a core dynamic.
D ILEM M A S O F T H E IN S T IT U T IO N A L IZ A T IO N O F T H E N A T IO N A L M IN O R IT IE S STATUS
The states of East-C entral Europe present mosaic of institutional solutions to the problem o f national m inorities, their political practices are very diversified as are forms o f activities am ong the minorities themselves. It seems too early to speak o f the emerging m odel o f regulating the national minorities status in that region o f Europe. In all these newly constituted and/or democratized states the process o f shaping m inorities status is still in progress. It would be risky to say that this process will lead to the developm ent o f one m odel of national m inorities protection th at is “ typical” o f this p art of the European continent and typical of the post-com m unist states. The differences are due to the varying num ber and size of the m inorities; w hether o r not there is a diaspora of the state-form ing nation; the scope and intensity o f the historical conflicts and grievances; the activities and the political agenda o f national m inorities, the extent of trans-border m inorities; and the level of internal organization of national minorities in the respective states. The m ost im portant factor, on the other hand, is the crystallization o f the international standards regarding national minorities within Council o f Europe and U N in the 90-ties.
Development o f the status o f national m inorities’ in Central Europe shows several tendencies.
Every Central and E astern E uropean state has national m inorities but their situation differs greatly in num ber, size, diversity of ethnic and national groups in the country. We see it clearly com paring such minorities as R om a in practically all of Central and E astern E urope, Russians in the Baltic states, H ungarians in Slovakia, R om ania as well as in Vojvodina and U kraine, Poles in U kraine, Belarus and L ithuania, U krainians and Lithuanians in Poland, Germ ans in Poland an Czech Republic and Rom ania; Turks in Bulgaria, Serbs in C roatia and Bosnia. These m inorities are not only different demographically and culturally, with a different history, but their num ber, m obilization and internal
2 See e.g. J. Plichtova (ed.), Minorities in Politics. Cultural and Language Rights, The Bratislava Symposium II, B ratislava 1992
organization are very different. They m ake different dem ands on the states in which they live and have different possibilities o f applying political pressure to exert these dem ands. On the other hand, attitudes o f national majorities versus m inority groups in these countries create varied political environments for the introduction o f a system o f national m inorities rights. All o f these needs to be taken under consideration when looking for the m odel solutions in the Central and Eastern E urop e.3
The status o f national m inorities is shaped not only by institutional developments, b ut also by attitudes o f the public and politicians in theses countries, by the policies o f the governm ent, and by the attitudes and aspirations o f the m inorities. We should rem em ber th at m inority issues are usually part of m uch bigger political picture. Some governments m ight give them priority not (or n o t only) o u t o f respect for m inorities’ rights but because of other reasons. A good example was a very prom pt nom ination o f ethnic H ungarian politician Pal Csaky for the office o f M inister for M inorities and H um an Rights by the Slovak Prim e M inister M ikulas D zurinda in 1998. This nom ination was not only connected with participation o f the ethnic H ungarian party in the government coalition but also indicates recognition by the new Slovak cabinet that a poor record in national m inorities policies was one o f the reasons Slovakia was not included in the first group o f future m em bers of EU. In other cases governments give broad rights to m inorities in their own country hoping for reciprocity vis à vis their diaspora in other countries. Entrance into Council of Europe was another reason why a lot o f post-com m unist countries (Slovakia, Estonia, Rom ania, Bulgaria) were determ ined to improve standards of national m inori ties protection.
The status o f national m inorities depends also on the general hum an rights infrastructure in a given state. Such institutions as constitutional review, civil rights (m ost notably right to association, freedom of speech, right to a cons titutional petition by citizens) developed public interest law and a dew process of law have a decisive influence on the situation o f persons belonging to all m inorities. I f the institutions are strong and effective, they can counterbalance discrim ination against m inorities. U nfortunately, in post-comm unist societies lack of respect for the law has become ram pant; m any courts have proven partial, politicized o r/an d inefficient. M any lawyers have not been trained in or are not interested in hum an rights law .4
On the o th er hand, we can see a strong influence exerted by international laws and standards on the national regulations emerging within every state in Central
3 J. F. Brown, Hopes and Shadows. Eastern Europe after Communism, D uke U P, D urham 1994, pp. 172-229.
4 See D . Petrova, Political and legal obstacles to the development o f public interests taw, “ East E uropean C onstitutional Review” 1996, vol. 5, no. 4.
and Eastern Europe. Standards o f m inorities’ protection within the Council of Europe (especially Fram ew ork C onvention on the Rights of M inorities), U N (D eclaration on Rights o f Persons belonging to N ational, Ethnic, Religious and Language M inorities) and OSCE (Copenhagen Docum ent) are the basis for constitutional provisions, and for parliam entary acts and government regula tions concerning m inorities. We can safely say that Council o f Europe as well as U N and OSCE standards were used as a com m on denom inator in both internal legislation and bilateral and regional treaties throughout East-Central Europe. M em bership in the Council of Europe had an immense effect on the hum an rights law in these countries. One o f m any examples is Czechoslovakia drafting constitutional Bill o f Rights to m ake its laws comply exactly with the Council’s standards. Generally, in all the countries o f the region we can see the very strong influence o f Council o f Europe legal standards; not only the Fram ew ork Convention on Protection o f N ational M inorities, but first of all the European Convention o f H um an R ights.5 In some countries like Slovakia and the Baltic States pressure from the Council o f Europe in the form of recom m endations had a decisive influence in the improving the status of minorities, especially language laws. A t the m om ent similar mechanism is used to improve the situation of national m inorities in the states negotiating their entry into the European U nion (e.g. Czech Republic and the situation o f Czech Roma).
The com m on feature o f m inority’s situation in the East-Central European states is very im portant role o f bilateral agreements between neighboring countries containing provisions on protection of minorities. Bilateral agreements between the states became a very popular regional way to guarantee m inorities rights in the 90-ties. This is connected with the fact that m ost national minorities in Central and E astern Europe are trans-border minorities. Governm ents in the region try to solve the problem o f minorities by including provisions regarding m inorities in the bilateral treaties with their neighbors. F or example, Poland’s treatises with G erm any, U kraine, Belarus, Russia, and Lithuania include this kind o f provisions. U kraine and H ungary also joined in a m utual declaration regarding the principle of co-operation for guaranteeing the rights of minorities. Slovenia and H ungary signed agreements in 1992 assuring protection of M agyar m inority in Slovenia and Slovene m inority in Hungary. Slovak-H ungarian and R om anian-H ungarian bilateral treaties, signed after long and difficult negotia tions, were very im portant for easing tensions around the status of H ungarian m inorities in Slovakia and Rom ania. This way o f regulating m inorities’ rights creates some potential dangers as it does not foreclose the possibility of unequal treatm ent o f different national groups, especially in the absence of internal legal protection. F o r example Poland, who signed an agreement with all neighboring countries still lacks a N ational M inorities Act.
Some countries hesitate to participate in these kinds o f agreements, using principle o f non-interference in the internal affairs o f the state as an argument. Others are afraid th a t the m other country o f their minorities will become involved in m atters o f national groups living within their state borders. N egotiations around the Polish-Lithuanian treaty, as well as conflicts between H ungary and Slovakia and R om ania over M agyar m inorities in these countries provide examples o f this kind o f situation. We can safely foresee that Central E uropean states with m inorities th at are linked ethnically to dom inant ethnic groups in the neighbouring countries will keep signing bilateral political agreements with these countries regarding am ong other things, the status of national m inorities. T he rights granted to minorities in such agreements will be based on the reciprocity principle. Their practical application in every given country will depend on the particular aspirations o f minorities group, its history o f coexistence or conflict with other national groups in the country, state relations with the particular m other country and the legal, political and economic instrum ents available to the group. F or example the G erm an m inority in Poland m anaged to negotiate m uch better terms of im plem entation o f the provisions in the Polish-G erm an treaty then other national minorities in Poland. Situation o f G erm an m inority in Poland is strongly influenced by the economic and cultural support provided by G erm any as well as by the concentration o f this m inority in the Opole region.
E laboration and strengthening o f universal international standards of m inorities protection becomes even m ore im portant in this situation, as it not only provides the legitimacy of m inorities’ aspirations but also provides equality o f protection. N o t only equality m ight be infringed by the establishment of different standards during bilateral negotiations but also bilateral agreements m ight prove insufficient for small, dispersed m inorities th at lack political organizations o r a m other country to speak up for them. Recognizing these dangers, m any countries include provisions in bilateral agreements regarding com patibility w ith E uropean law as a lowest possible standard. T hat still does not solve the problem o f m inorities that, like the Rom a, cannot bargain for special rights in bilateral treaties and agreements.6
Let us tu rn now to the “ individual versus group rights” dilemma. There are differences both in tim e and location o f both practices in the Central European states. Initially (1989-93) an individualist approach was dom inant in the regulations concerning m inorities. Post-com m unist governments generally showed aversion tow ard group rights and extensive regulations on religious and ethnic m inorities. Some states (Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic) tried to introduce the form ula o f m inority protection within general hum an rights
e See Public Policies Concerning Rom a a n d S in li in the O SC E Region, OSCE H um an Dimension Im plem entation M eeting, O ctober 1998, background paper.
protection. In the later period (1993-99) m ost o f the states introduced some instrum ents based on group rights. In some countries it took the form o f cultural autonom y (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania); elsewhere minorities self-government (Hungary) while Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic introduced some group rights into their constitutions and legislations (in such areas as education, electoral rights, language laws and culture). It was generally connected with the progress o f the international standards for national m inorities protection based on the group rights and with the relative lessening o f the national conflict in these countries, which m ade introduction of such legislation feasible. Nevertheless collective rights for national groups in East-Central Europe are still a source of m any conflicts and suspicions. Questions of loyalty of members o f ethnic m inorities tow ard the state are raised by nationalist politicians. Irredentist claims and dem ands o f territorial adjustm ents are feared. Possibility o f unequal status of different m inorities groups in the system o f collective rights is noticed by some analysts, they claim th at this can be contingent on the different bargaining power of different m inority groups.
Very visible tendency in the region is the presence of the national minorities issue during the constitutional debate and providing for the national minorities rights in the new constitutions. Looking at the East-Central European consti tutions, we can distinguish between two categories. Almost unanim ously non-discrim ination clauses based on all-national and ethnic origin have been introduced into constitutions (e.g., Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania). M any post-com m unist states introduced constitutional provisions for special “ positive rights” for m inorities (H ungary, Slovakia, Estonia). Constitutions, especially newer ones, often repeat norm s from the international instrum ents of national m inorities protection. In addition, m any constitutional preambles contain provisions concerning the definition o f the nation and the place of national m inorities in th at state. We can divide the countries into two groups. In the first group (Poland, H ungary, Czech Republic) constitutions describe the nation in the civic term s and regard national minorities as a p art o f the political nation in th at state. In other states (Slovakia, Baltic Sates) constitutional provisions contain nationalist vision o f the state and the ethnic concept o f the nation.
In the internal legislation concerning national minorities m ost East-Central E uropean states emphasize constitutional guarantees. A t the same time m any have problem s with the im plem entation o f these provisions. Fully effective adm inistrational protection also rem ains a problem in the new democracies. Constitutional guarantees are not accompanied by the implem entation in the lower level regulations and in the policies in the state. In states such as Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, Poland citizens have a right to the petition to the constitutional courts th a t give m em bers o f the national m inorities the o ppor tunity to question the state agencies unconstitutional decisions.
Some post-com m unist states did n ot limit legislation concerning minorities’ rights to their constitutions and introduced parliam entary acts on national m inorities. The character o f these acts varies from country to country. The Polish bill (still in the parliam ent) protects rights of persons belonging to national and ethnic m inorities in the strictly non-discrim ination mode with very few collective rights acknowledged (only educational and elections). By contrast, The H un garian Law on the Rights o f N ational and Ethnic M inorities grants both individual and collective rights. T he m ost im portant collective one is the right to the parliam entary representation. M inorities may also set up m inority local governm ents th a t will participate in the work o f regular local government. Furtherm ore, each m inority group (separately or with the others) has a right to establish a countryw ide self-government. In these ways the H ungarian law is designed to safeguard the interest o f minorities on the national, regional and local level.7
Passing laws is hardly the equivalent o f implementing them. Effective protection of rights requires not only constitutional provisions and legislative acts but also regulations and adm inistrative policies, for it is usually the executive branch th at deals with the particular problem s and conflicts. The administrative decisions and regulations usually concern such questions as m inority education, religious practices, use o f m inority languages, education, m inorities’ access to public adm inistration, use o f traditional names, participation in public media, holidays etc. It is on this level th at differences in minorities status in different East-C entral E uropean states occur. W hat m ight be im portant, especially for small or highly dispersed m inorities who do not have chance for representation in the legislature, is the possibility o f representation o f their interests in some kind o f adm inistrative body. Exam ples here are the Polish N ational Minorities Bureau in the M inistry o f Culture or the R om anian Council for N ational M inorities, b o th adm inistrative bodies th at despite their very controversional beginning as a smokescreens - play an im portant role in m oderating national conflicts and providing for the m inorities needs and interests.
Typical o f the postcom m unist states is the infrequent use o f judicial tools for the protection o f m inorities’ rights. Constitutional review had become a very im portant tool in the reform o f the judicial and legal system in Central and Eastern Europe. In m any countries o f the region constitutional tribunals began to play an im p o rtan t role in assessing constitutionality of the legislative and adm inistrative decisions. In Bulgaria and H ungary constitutional courts ad judicated cases connected with the status of national minorities, thereby establishing certain legal practice o f solving m inorities’ problems this way. In some C entral E uropean states citizens obtained a right to petition to consti
1 See Self-government in Hungary: The G ypsy/Rom ani experience and the prospects fo r future', report published by T he Project on Ethnic Relations, Princeton 1998
tutional courts o r judicial courts in general if their constitutional rights are infringed. Now the question rem ains how can it work in the states with little or no legal background in hum an rights. T he constitutional review is not widely used by national m inorities. F o r example H ungarian Constitutional T ribunal (the m ost active in the region) dealt with the national minorities rights only couple of times since 1996.
Dissem ination o f inform ation on national and international hum an rights standards and possibilities o f com plaints either by individual or N G O seems very im portant. In the case o f national m inorities even m ore im portant as these communities often live on the fringes o f society with little access to the m ainstream inform ation sources. In some C entral-East European states (Po land, H ungary) the office of om budsm an became very im portant for implemen ting hum an and m inority rights. The H ungarian A ct on the Rights of N ational and Ethnic M inorities created a special om budsm an office th at along with the local om budsm en for m inorities’ deals with the infringements on national m inorities rights.8
D em ocratization in Central E urope states m eans political involvement of national m inorities. M any national minorities parties participate in elections and win seats in legislatures. The new political freedoms granted in the new constitutions have given national m inorities m uch bigger chance to organize and express their interests. There has been an explosion o f m inority’s organizations in the region. M inorities’ political parties were formed and participated successfully in national elections (G erm an m inority group in Poland, M ovement for Rights and Freedom s in Bulgaria, H ungarian Parties in Slovakia, Polish Electoral Action in Lithuania). C ultural freedom for minorities greatly increased with the end of com m unist policies o f assimilation.
U nfortunately there is a darker side to the changes too. Paradoxically, adoption o f the system o f citizen’s political rights and freedoms has exacebarated some problem s o f m inorities in the region. Freedom of expression allows verbal abuse o f m inorities. R om a in R om ania say “ Now we know what it m eans to be a Gypsy” . M any nationalist politicians use m inorities as scapegoats knowing th at protecting m inorities is often unpopular am ong the general public. In an ideological vacuum in post-com m unist societies the attem pts at the social consolidation around the nationalist agenda became quite frequent (e.g. Slovakia, R om ania, L ithuania, H ungary, Poland). Furtherm ore, abandonm ent o f economic and social rights by post-com m unist states has often disadvantaged minorities, especially R om a, who are usually at the bottom end o f the society. F o r example in Poland where there are no other serious threats to R om a existence at the m om ent; R om a suffered heavily from the economic transfor m ation, as they are first victims o f unemployment and poverty.
8 F or the very detailed description o f the institutional developm ent o f minorities protection in post com m unist states see J. K ranz (ed.), Law and Practice o f Central European Countries in the Field
A nother area o f legal protection for minorities has been in the electoral laws introduced and form ed all across post-com m unist Europe. N ot only persons belonging to national m inorities there enjoy the same as other citizens rights of participation in the dem ocratic elections. Certain states in East-Central Europe started prom oting representation of national m inorities by special provisions in electoral laws. Polish electoral laws lowered num ber of signatures required for the successful registration of m inorities candidates and electoral lists and exempted m inorities lists from the 5% threshold. Other measures m ight include lowering the num ber o f votes needed for election o f the m inority candidate (preferential m andates); o r reservation o f the certain num ber of parliam entary seats for m inority representatives. Some com m entators express concern that this kind o f arrangem ent m ight force “ethnic parties” to focus solely on the ethnic interests while failing to give m inorities a sufficient num ber of seats to affect decision m aking process in legislatures.
W ithin the legislature itself the representation of m inorities and their interests m ight be organized in num ber o f ways, n o t just through the participation of minorities parliam entarians. O ther examples are the parliam entary committees form ed to deal with the national m inorities issues. F o r example Polish committee played a very im p o rtan t role in drafting N ational M inorities Act and provided very im p o rtan t forum for the national m inorities, experts and political parties to express their opinion’s during the phase in which the bill was hammered out.9
There are two m ajor form ulas, which can (but need not) accommodated territorial claims o f m inorities within the democratic state: federation and territorial autonom y. N one o f the post-com m unist states in East-Central Europe has chosen federation m odel o f state. The split o f Czechoslovakia and the Yugoslav tragedy seem to be an indication of the ineffectiveness o f that model in contem porary post-com m unist Europe. As for autonom y we can observe cultural autonom y granted to m any national minorities (Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia). In m any cases there is an ongoing conflict between minorities and governm ents ab o u t actual scope o f autonom y. Silesian region o f Opole is an example where regional interest were defended during the administrative reform by b oth G erm an m inority and Polish m ajority. In general territorial autonom y is very difficult to attain, as contem porary states in East-Central Europe are still very worried ab o u t their sovereignty and possibilities o f irredentism in au to nom ous regions. D uring the conflict between Polish m inority in Lithuania and the newly independent state o f L ithuania - the dem ands of autonom y for Poles became an obstacle to any sort o f agreement. Once it was dropped, the relations began to im prove and in fact cultural autonom y for Poles granted.10
9 See G . Janusz (ed.), Raport o sytuacji osób należących do mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych w Polsce, H elsińska F undacja Praw Człowieka, W arszawa 1994.
10 J. Sozański, Prawa mniejszości narodowych w niepodległej Litwie, Łotwie i Estonii, Fundacja Prom ocji P raw a Europejskiego, W arszaw a 1998, pp. 49-103.
W ith the developm ent of the local government and local politics in post-com m unist states, the question arises abo u t possibilities o f dealing with the ethnic and national conflicts on the local level. Can local government be a forum for the national conflict resolutions? Very little in fact has been know n so far as the local level is new in post-com m unist states. It looks like a very promising arena for realization o f national m inorities rights, especially in the areas where m inorities live in a com pact comm unities, in the border areas or in the close proxim ity to people o f the same nationality across the border. As explosive as this kind o f situation can be, it also creates possibilities o f trans-frontier cooperation, Euroregions and citizens diplomacy, all of which m ight become an arena o f m inorities’ activities. So far it seems th at different countries o f the region relegate m inorities protection to different level o f government. While H ungarian Act on the Rights o f N ational and Ethnic M inorities decentralizes the system allowing for the local institutions and mechanisms; Polish d raft Act on N ational and Ethnic M inorities clearly sees the central government as a chief protector and guarantor o f m inorities rights.
R EL A TIO N S B ETW EEN IN S T IT U T IO N A L R E FO R M A N D T H E FO R M A T IO N O F N A T IO N A L ID E N T IT IE S
Two issues should be considered here. How the dynamics of transform ation (for instance, the debate on citizenship, the state building process, democratic institution-building) shapes the identities of national minorities (and m ajorities) in East-Central E u rop e?T o what extend has participation in democratic political process changed identity o f national groups in post-com m unist states. T o what extent has the debate and legislation on hum an and m inority rights on the international and national level in Central and Eastern Europe influenced process o f constructing national minorities identities after 1989?
The area where I see decisive changes is a debate on international standards of protection. A process o f internationalization of protection (international laws, organizations and instrum ents) is going on. In m ost cases of conflict over the status, national m inorities would like to base protection o f their rights within their countries on the basis o f the international standards. In m ost cases governments followed although they m ight well interpret international stand ards differently. Generally though we can observe standardization o f protection. European m odel o f protection based on the Council o f Europe institutions and to some extent on the docum ents and standards introduced by OSCE is emerging. It is based predom inantly on individual rights o f persons belonging to national m inorities; requires citizenship as a basis for that protection; includes “ security” clauses; concentrates on language and education as the m ost im portant rights. T here was political pressure from Council o f Europe and other
international fo ra to regulate the situation o f national m inorities according to these standards. M inorities having no possibility o f using national instruments (given their weakness and ineffectiveness) identify their rights through inter national standards and instrum ents. Bilateral treaties were also com m on way to regulate and m anage national conflicts. This reinforce and strengthen the image o f national m inorities as “the others” . The m ajority starts to see them as those who seek foreign protection and assistance in securing their interests.
We can also see some interesting differences in the perception of m inority rights am ong m inority and m ajority groups. In post-comm unist states suspicion against group rights and also social and cultural rights has surfaced for they are associated with the com m unist state practices and unfulfilled promises of com m unist constitutions. T he practice and experience of hum an rights activists in com m unist states was very pro-individual rights (prisoners rights, political rights, along with other fundam ental freedoms were their m ain focus under comm unism ). G ood example here is provided by Polish and Czech Helsinki Com m ittees by far the m ost active hum an rights organizations in the region within the pre-89 history. They both were very involved in the battle for the national m inorities rights b ut wanted to limit them to the form ula “persons belonging to national m inorities” . In the activities of Polish Helsinki Committee one can still see preference for the individual rights in their agenda. On the other hand, national m inorities perceive individual rights as ineffective and not som ething th at can influence their political status as a group.
The third phenom enon th at I w ant to m ention is a clash between the political m obilization o f national m inorities and “cultural” concept of minorities favoured by the m any post-com m unist policy m akers. N ational minorities in new democracies participate in the political process through political parties of m inorities, the electoral process, governm ent coalitions, lobbying and organized interests, public law advocacy and activism in international organizations. These possibilities for the m inorities are greater when a m inority is well-organized. F or example G erm ans in Poland are the best organized and also the m ost successful politically, as opposed to U krainians in Poland. New m inority elites have been m uch m ore interested in the political process than in traditional cultural and social activities o f national m inorities. T h at transform s, in my opinion, the identity o f m any national m inorities in new democracies into something more political and activists. A t the same tim e m any policy m akers belonging to m inorities will see them as cultural m inority; realizing their national identity through cultural activities and being a passive recipient o f government policies. Even those th a t allow for rather substantial cultural autonom y for minorities have problem s with acknowledging the position of national m inorities as political players rath er than the subject o f cultural policy.
STR ESZC ZEN IE
A rtykuł om awia główne trendy debaty publicznej na tem at praw mniejszości narodow ych trwającej od 1989 roku w „now ych dem okracjach” E uropy Środkowej. Przedstawione zostały dylematy związane z instytucjonalizacją statusu mniejszości narodow ych: kwestia wyboru pomiędzy modelem ochrony przy pom ocy praw indyw idualnych lub grupowych, problem poziom u ochrony (międzynarodowy, państw ow y, regionalny, lokalny) oraz obecny w trakcie debaty konstytucyjnej w wielu państw ach post-kom unistycznych problem opartej w ypracowania koncepcji państw a w kategoriach obyw atelskich a nie narodow ych lub etnicznych. Omówione zostały również instrum enty praw ne i polityczne dostępne mniejszościom narodow ych w Czechach, Estonii, Litwie, Łotwie, Polsce, W ęgrzech i Słowacji. W konkluzji w skazano jak omówione procesy instytuc jonalizacji wpłynęły n a proces konstruow ania tożsamości narodow ych zarówno mniejszości jak i większościowych grup narodow ych.
