Abstract
The theory and practice of national cultural autonomy (NCA) are examined from the perspective of national minorities’ linguistic rights in four countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE): Hungary, Estonia, Serbia and Russia. The idea of NCA dates back to the end of the nineteenth century and is based on the principle of ethnic communities’ autonomy—within a multi-ethnic state—to manage their own linguistic and cultural affairs. The notion of NCA was rediscovered in the 1990s and incorporated into the law and practice of the said four countries. Using a comparative approach, the chapter reflects upon NCA’s potential contribution in advancing the linguistic rights of national minorities in CEE. It concludes that, while the actual autonomy afforded to minority institutions in CEE is often restricted, NCA may serve as a platform to articulate concerns of great salience to national minorities, encompassing minority participation and multilingual education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The research for this chapter was largely carried out under the project “National Minority Rights and Democratic Political Community: Practices of Non-territorial Autonomy in Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe” (2014–2017), supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/L007126/1]. The data will be deposited with the UK Data Service, Collection Number 852375. The research used semi-structured, in-depth interviews, mostly conducted in 2015 and 2016, with representatives ofNCA institutions and NGOs, academics and public officials (76 inRussia, 19 inEstonia, 37 in Hungary, 18 in Serbia).
- 2.
See Lapidoth (1997: 37–40).
- 3.
The theory was later developed by Otto Bauer ([1907] 2000).
- 4.
As noted, theAustro-Marxists based their theory on the circumstances surrounding theAustro-Hungarian empire.
- 5.
Ethnically mixed districts would have a requirement ofbilingualism for civil servants.
- 6.
Renner conceded that the language of communication between the multiple nations’ institutions would be German.
- 7.
Similarly, the (Council of Europe) Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection ofNational Minorities (ACFC) has recommended that education in minority languages be provided up to university level so as to enable students to consolidate their language skills. See, for example, ACFC (2002: §105; 2012b: §75). See also the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Article 8(1)(e)(i).
- 8.
Post-Soviet states were striving to promote (newly declared) state languages while distancing themselves from Russian (Pavlenko 2013).
- 9.
2010 Census. Available at: http://www.perepis-2010.ru/results_of_the_census/results-inform.php
- 10.
The census gathered data generally on “knowledge of languages by the population of the Russian Federation”, so this number encompasses languages other than minority languages. See the 2010 census, Part IV, Item 5. Official figures refer to 130–160 minority languages in Russia(government data supplied for the 2009–2011 project—with the European Union (EU) and Council of Europe—“Minorities in Russia: Developing Languages, Culture, Media and Civil Society”, and cited in Oeter 2013: 38).
- 11.
No 74-FZ, 17 June 1996.
- 12.
On the introduction of NCA in post-Soviet Russia, see Osipov (2004). The ethnic groups that were “assigned” a territorial unit during the Soviet period became known as “titular nationalities”.
- 13.
Another network of institutions that can be characterised as a form ofnon-territorial culturalautonomy is that of peoples’ congresses (see Osipov 2011), such as the World Congress of Tatars.
- 14.
Article 1.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
Interviews held inRussia in 2015–2016; 76 persons were interviewed (in Moscow, St Petersburg, Saransk, Kazan, Petrozavodsk and Ufa). Respondents were civil society activists (from national culturalautonomies, peoples’ congresses and minority NGOs), academics and public officials from a range of ethnic backgrounds (see also note 1).
- 18.
Some textbooks were funded through initiatives of inter-governmental organisations, such as the 2009–2011 project “Minorities in Russia: Developing Languages, Culture, Media and Civil Society”, implemented by the EU andCouncil of Europe in cooperation with the Russian government.
- 19.
Since 2001, there have been several programmes for the promotion of the Russian language, both at the federal and regional levels (see Prina 2016: 102–105).
- 20.
According to Russian government data from 2012, 39 minority languages were languages of instruction and 50 were taught as subjects (ACFC 2012a: 6).
- 21.
The exception is Karelian in the Republic of Karelia.
- 22.
For example, the ACFC (2006: §90) stated that minority advisory bodies in Russia’s regions are in some cases “expected to implement rather than contribute to the preparation of minority-relevant legislation”.
- 23.
The study of and through the medium of minority languages has tended to decrease since 2000 (see Prina 2016: ch. 6).
- 24.
Tatars are a numerical majority within the Republic of Tatarstan. On the situation of the Tatars, see also Bowring (this volume).
- 25.
At the same time, such resources are generally scarce, particularly when a titular nationality amounts to a small numerical minority within a republic
- 26.
Interviews withminority education specialists, Kazan, 2015.
- 27.
Lagerspetz (2014: 458 & 465).
- 28.
Interviews with Ülo Kalm, Chair of the Swedish Cultural Council; Aleksandr Aidarov, Advisor to the Ministry of Culture (both 2015); and Toivo Kabanen, former Chair of Ingrian Finnish Cultural Council, 2012.
- 29.
VII Riigikogu Stenogramm, 30 September 1993, p. 221.
- 30.
Hobby schools provide instruction and activities in sports, technology, culture, nature, music or otherarts. They can be established by individuals and associations, and those attending are entitled to a subsidy from the local authority. See Regulation of the Minister of Education and Research ‘Standard for Hobby Education’, 21 March 2007.
- 31.
Interview with Kalm, 2015 (note 28); and Aidarov and Drechsler (2013: 111–121).
- 32.
Interviews with Vladimir Vogi, Head of the Ingrian-Finnish Society of Tallinn and Taisto Raudalainen, Editor of Inkeri journal, 2015.
- 33.
Strictly speaking, this contravenes the terms of the NCA Act, but (at least until 2016) the Swedes were exempted from the requirement that citizens be resident inEstonia. Interview with Kalm, 2015.
- 34.
A former Head of the Swedish NCA claimed that an autonomy body has a more legitimate and officially recognised voice compared to an association since “we carry out democraticelections and … have citizens, not members”. Cited in Lagerspetz (2014: 469).
- 35.
Interviews with Kalm, 2015, and Kabanen, 2012 (note 28).
- 36.
- 37.
Vabariigi Presidendi Ümarlaua istungite protokoll 1/2000, Tallinn, 11. veebruaril 2000.
- 38.
Interviews with Aleksey Semenov, Director of the Legal Information Centre for Human Rights and Yuri Polyakov, Director of the Russian Cultural Centre, 2015. See also Semenov (2006).
- 39.
Unlike in Russia andEstonia, theMinority Law was not devoted exclusively to NCA but related to minority protection more generally;NCA (in the form of NSGs) has, however, been its main mechanism.
- 40.
The Act repealed the 1993Minority Law.
- 41.
There are 13 such nationalities (Article 61, 1993 Law; Appendix 1, 2011 Act).
- 42.
Interviews with representatives of Roma and German Nationality Self-Governments (NSG). Language and education were mentioned less often than culture and tradition by the respondents. InHungary, 37 in-depth interviews were held in 2015 with members of the Roma and German NSGs (at three levels: local, county and national levels) and with politicians and political activists involved in minority issues. Roma and Germans are the two largest minorities inHungary, although their characteristics are very different.
- 43.
Hungary’s 2011 Election Law allows the 13 officially recognised minorities to appoint a designated spokesperson, who has the right to address parliament but not to vote.
- 44.
Interview data revealed the view, among some respondents interviewed in 2015–2016 (see note 1), that the new system has enabled the discussion of issues relating to language andminority-language teachers.
- 45.
Interviews in Hungary, 2015–2016 (see note 1).
- 46.
Some respondents referred to the lack of an obvious relationship between activities implemented and the monies received. Additionally, the ACFC (2016: §67–70), while welcoming the funding allocated to NSGs and their activities, has noted shortcomings linked to delays in transferring funds for the management of cultural and educational institutions run by NSGs.
- 47.
“Official Gazette of the RS”, No 72/09, 20/14—CC and 55/14.
- 48.
Minority NCs were established already in 2002 under Article 19 of a former Yugoslav Law on the Protection of Rights and Freedoms ofNational minorities. However, it was only in 2009 that a Serbian Law of the same name clearly determined their competences,funding mechanisms and election procedures (Korhecz 2014: 3).
- 49.
In particular, the Court rescinded the provision that NCs could designate “institutions of particular importance” for the national minority, such as educational institutions, and which gave NCs “founding rights”, allowing them to nominate or approve candidates for management positions within these institutions. Even with thesechanges, Malloy et al. (2015) classify the Serbian NCA model as one that confers “voice through self-governing institutions” (see also Surová 2015).
- 50.
Some contradictions were later rectified (ACFC 2013: §137).
- 51.
Interview with Ernő Németh, President of Information Committee of the HungarianNational Council, 2016.
- 52.
The ACFC (2013: §196) states that they play “an overwhelmingly dominant role” in the realisation of minority rights in Serbia. Korhecz (2014) notes that, in the case of the Vojvodina Hungarians, theNC Law—at least in its initial incarnation—heralded a “new quality of life” for the minority in question.
- 53.
Compiled in Serbia or imported from minorities’kin states.
- 54.
Although directelections to NCs are only held if a number of voters equivalent to 40% of the relevant minority population enrols on an electoralregister; otherwise, autonomy bodies are created indirectly by nominated electors. In 2014, 17 out of 21 NCs were directly elected, and 4 created indirectly.
- 55.
Legally, there is an obligation to do so when the local minority population amounts to more than 15%.
- 56.
Article 115,NC Law.
- 57.
This was the view expressed by Bálint Pásztor, MP and Chair of the Hungarian Party VMSZ, in an interview in 2016.
- 58.
See above (“Non-territorial Cultural Autonomy and Linguistic Rights”).
- 59.
As per the interviews carried out under the project (see note 1).
References
Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC). (2002, September 12). First Opinion on Albania. ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)004.
ACFC. (2006, May 11). Second Opinion on the Russian Federation. ACFC/OP/II(2006)004.
ACFC. (2012a, July 25). Comments of the Government of the Russian Federation on the Third Opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Russian Federation. GVT/COM/III(2012)004.
ACFC. (2012b, May 24). Thematic Commentary No. 3: The Language Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities Under the Framework Convention. ACFC/44DOC(2012)001 rev.
ACFC. (2013, November 28). Third Opinion on Serbia. ACFC/OP/III(2013)006.
ACFC. (2016, February 25). Fourth Opinion on Hungary. ACFC/OP/IV(2016)003.
Aidarov, A., & Drechsler, W. (2011). The Law and Economics of the Estonian Law on Cultural Autonomy for National Minorities and of Russian National Cultural Autonomy in Estonia. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 12(1), 43–61.
Aidarov, A., & Drechsler, W. (2013). Estonian Russification of Non-Russian Ethnic Minorities in Estonia? A Policy Analysis. Trames, 17(67/62)(2), 103–128.
Alòs i Font, H. (2014). Chuvash Language in Chuvashia’s Instruction System: An Example of Educational Language Policies in Post-Soviet Russia. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 13(4), 52–84.
Bauer, O. (2000). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Beretka, K. (2014). Fragile Autonomy Arrangements in the Republic of Serbia: The Territorial Autonomy of Vojvodina and the National Minority Councils. In L. Salat et al. (Eds.), Autonomy Arrangements Around the World: A Collection of Well and Lesser Known Cases (pp. 247–273). Cluj: Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities.
Bowring, B. (2005). Burial and Resurrection: Karl Renner’s Controversial Influence on the “National Question” in Russia. In E. Nimni (Ed.), National-Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics (pp. 191–206). London: Routledge.
Bowring, B. (2007). The Tatars of the Russian Federation and National-Cultural Autonomy: A Contradiction in Terms? Ethnopolitics, 6(3), 417–435.
Bowring, B. (2013). Russian Legislation in the Area of Minority Rights. In O. Protsyk & B. Harzl (Eds.), Managing Ethnic Diversity in Russia (pp. 15–36). Abingdon: Routledge.
Chevalier, J. F. (2012). Multilingual Education in South Siberia: National Schools in the Republics of Altai and Tyva. Heritage Language Journal, 9(2), 1–17.
Coakley, J. (2016). Introduction: Dispersed Minorities and Non-territorial Autonomy. Ethnopolitics, 15(1), 1–23.
Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (CoE). (2016, April 27). Application of the Charter in Serbia. ECRML(2016)1.
Demeter Zayzon, M. (2003). A magyarországi kisebbségek nyelvi jogai [Language Rights of the Minorities in Hungary]. In O. Nádor & L. Szarka (Eds.), Nyelvi jogok, kisebbségek, nyelvpolitika Kelet-Közép-Európában. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Dobos, B. (2013). Nemzetiségi nyelvhasználat Magyarországon: Jogok és tapasztalatok [Minority Language Use in Hungary: Rights and Experiences]. Létünk, Vol. 43: különszám (Special Issue), pp. 26-43. Available at: http://letunk.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Letunk-2013-k.pdf
Fishman, J. (1972). Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays. Rowley: Newbury House.
Gellner, E. (1987). Culture, Identity, and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, L. (2016). Crowding Out Civil Society: State Management of Social Organisations in Putin’s Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, 68(9), 1553–1578.
Grin, F., & Moring, T. (2002). Support for Minority Languages in Europe: Final Report. Dublin\Flensburg: European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages\European Centre for Minority Issues.
Hannum, H. (1990). Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Horvath, R. (2011). Putin’s ‘Preventive Counter-Revolution’: Post-Soviet Authoritarianism and the Spectre of Velvet Revolution. Europe-Asia Studies, 63(1), 1–25.
Hroch, M. (2007a). From Ethnic Group Toward the Modern Nation: The Czech Case. In M. Hroch (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Modern European History: Nation, Nationalism and Social Change (pp. 95–107). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hroch, M. (2007b). The Social Interpretation of Linguistic Demands in European National Movements. In M. Hroch (Ed.), Comparative Studies in Modern European History: Nation, Nationalism and Social Change (pp. 67–96). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Kamusella, T. (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Korhecz, T. (2014). Non-territorial Autonomy in Practice: The Hungarian National Council in Serbia. In Z. Kantor (Ed.), Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges (pp. 151–164). Budapest: L’Harmattan.
Korhecz, T. (2015). National Minority Councils in Serbia. In T. Malloy et al. (Eds.), Managing Diversity Through Non-territorial Autonomy (pp. 69–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W., & Grin, F. (2003). Assessing the Politics of Diversity in Transition Countries. In F. Daftary & F. Grin (Eds.), Nation-Building, Ethnicity and Language Politics in Transition Countries (pp. 1–27). Budapest: Open Society Institute.
Kymlicka, W., & Patten, A. (2003). Language Rights and Political Theory: Context Issues, and Approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory (pp. 1–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lagerspetz, M. (2014). Cultural Autonomy of National Minorities in Estonia: The Erosion of a Promise. Journal of Baltic Studies, 45(3), 457–475.
Lapidoth, R. (1997). Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Malloy, T. H. (2015). Introduction. In T. H. Malloy et al. (Eds.), Managing Diversity Through Non-territorial Autonomy: Assessing Advantages, Deficiencies and Risks (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malloy, T. H., Osipov, A., & Vizi, B. (2015). Managing Diversity Through Non-territoral Autonomy: Assessing Advantages, Deficiencies and Risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nimni, E. (1999). Nationalist Multiculturalism in Late Imperial Austria as a Critique of Contemporary Liberalism: The Case of Bauer and Renner. Journal of Political Ideologies, 4(3), 289–314.
Nimni, E. (Ed.). (2005). Natural Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics. London: Routledge.
Nimni, E. (2007). National-Cultural Autonomy as an Alternative to Minority Territorial Nationalism. Ethnopolitics, 6(3), 345–364.
Nimni, E., Osipov, A., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2013). The Challenge of Non-territorial Autonomy: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Nootens, G. (2006). Liberal Nationalism and the Sovereign Territorial Ideal. Nations and Nationalism, 12(1), 35–50.
Oeter, S. (2013). International Norms and Legal Status of Minority Languages in Russia. In O. Protsyk & B. Harzl (Eds.), Managing Ethnic Diversity in Russia (pp. 37–61). Abingdon: Routledge.
Osipov, A. (2004). Natsionalno-Kulturnaya Avtonomiya: Idei, Resheniya, Instituty [National Cultural Autonomy: Ideas, Decisions, Institutions]. St. Petersburg: Centre for Independent Sociological Research.
Osipov, A. (2011). The ‘People’s Congresses’ in Russia: Failure or Success? Authenticity and Efficiency of Minority Representation. Working Paper No. 48. http://www.ecmi.de/uploads/tx_lfpubdb/Working_Paper_48_Final.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2016.
Osipov, A. (2013a). National-Cultural Autonomy in Russia: A Matter of Legal Regulation or the Symbolic Construction of an Ethnic Mosaic? In O. Protsyk & B. Harzl (Eds.), Managing Ethnic Diversity in Russia (pp. 62–84). Abingdon: Routledge.
Osipov, A. (2013b). Non-territorial Autonomy During and After Communism: In the Wrong or Right Place? Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 12(1), 7–26.
Paulston, C., & Peckham, D. (Eds.). (1998). Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2008). Multilingualism in Post-Soviet Countries. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Pavlenko, A. (2013). Multilingualism in Post-Soviet Successor States. Language and Linguistic Compass, 7, 262–271.
Petsinis, V. (2012). Minority Legislation in Two Successor States: A Comparison Through the Lens of EU Enlargement. Baltic Worlds, 1, 31–35.
Poleshchuk, V. (2013). Changes in the Concept of National Cultural Autonomy in Estonia. In E. Nimni et al. (Eds.), The Challenge of Non-territorial Autonomy: Theory and Practice (pp. 149–162). Oxford: Peter Lang.
Poleshchuk, V. (2015). Russian National Cultural Autonomy in Estonia. In T. Malloy et al. (Eds.), Managing Diversity Through Non-territorial Autonomy (pp. 229–248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prina, F. (2016). National Minorities in Putin’s Russia: Diversity and Assimilation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Purger, T. (2012). Ethnic Self-Governance in Serbia: The First Two Years of the National Minority Councils. South-East Europe International Relations Quarterly, 3(2), 1–17.
Ra’anan, U. (1991). Nation and State: Order Out of Chaos. In U. Ra’anan et al. (Eds.), State and Nation in Multi-Ethnic Societies: The Breakup of Multinational States (pp. 3–32). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Renner, K. (2005). State and Nation. In E. Nimni (Ed.), National Cultural Autonomy and Its Contemporary Critics (pp. 15–47). London: Routledge.
Roach, S. C. (2005). Cultural Autonomy, Minority Rights, and Globalization. Burlington: Ashgate.
Semenov, A. (2006, April 26). Komu zhe eto vygodno? [Whom Does This Benefit?] Molodezh’ Estonii.
Sloboda, M., Laihonen, P., & Zabrodskaja, A. (Eds.). (2016). Sociolinguistic Transition in Former Eastern Bloc Countries: Two Decades After the Regime Change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Smith, D. J. (2000). Cultural Autonomy in Estonia: A Relevant Paradigm for the Post-Soviet Era? One Europe or Several? Working Paper 1901. Brighton: Economic and Social Research Council.
Smith, D. J. (2014). National-Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Estonia. In L. Salat et al. (Eds.), Autonomy Arrangements Around the World: A Collection of Well and Lesser Known Cases (pp. 299–320). Cluj: Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities.
Smith, D. J. (2016). Estonia: A Model for Interwar Europe? Ethnopolitics, 15(1), 89–104.
Smith, D. J., & Cordell, K. (Eds.). (2008). Cultural Autonomy in Contemporary Europe. Abingdon: Routledge.
Smith, D. J., & Hiden, J. (2012). Ethnic Diversity and the Nation State: National Cultural Autonomy Revisited. Abingdon: Routledge.
Stokes, G. (1974). Cognition and the Function of Nationalism. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 4, 525–542.
Suksi, M. (Ed.). (1998). Autonomy: Applications and Implications. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Surová, S. (2015). Exploring the Opportunities for Trans-Ethnic Cooperation Within and Across Serbia Through the National Minority Councils. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 14(2), 27–50.
Weller, M., & Wolff, S. (Eds.). (2005). Autonomy, Self-Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative Approaches to Institutional Design in Divided Societies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wright, S. (2001). Language and Power: Background to the Debate on Linguistic Rights. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 3(1), 44–54.
Zamyatin, K. (2012). From Language Revival to Language Removal? The Teaching of Titular Languages in the National Republics of Post-Soviet Russia. Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, 11(2), 75–102.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Prina, F., Smith, D.J., Sansum, J.M. (2019). National Cultural Autonomy and Linguistic Rights in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Hogan-Brun, G., O’Rourke, B. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54066-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-54066-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-54065-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-54066-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)