Keywords

1 Introduction

National minority councils in Serbia are organisationsFootnote 1 entrusted by law with certain public authorisations to participate in decision-making or to decide independently on issues in the field of culture, education, information and official use of language and script (Law on National Councils of National Minorities, art. 1a, para. 1). Although the Law on National Councils of National Minorities sets general rules on the elections, functioning and financing that should be applied equally to all 22 national minority councils in Serbia,Footnote 2 there are definite differences among national minorities themselves and their councils, depending on both internal and external factors that (might) justify their various performances in practice. Besides their political position in the state’s institutional framework, their relationship with public authorities (the ultimate decision-makers in minority issues in Serbia) and the general political and social climate in the country (external factors), the functioning, success and effectiveness of the national minority councils are also heavily dependent on various internal factors (Đorđević-Vidojković, 2021, pp. 224‒225). These include the level of their organisation, their approach to future plans and whether they think and act in a coordinated manner, instead of simply reacting ad hoc. This raises the question of whether national minority councils need to adopt a strategic approach to their activity in general, and if yes, whether they are ready to draft their own strategic plans.

This paper aims to answer these questions by presenting, comparing and evaluating the main parts of the HNMC’s two strategies for official use of the Hungarian language and script. This is seen in the context of preserving the Hungarian language in official use in Serbia by a body of non-territorial autonomy (NTA), in order to establish a set of conclusive principles that might also be relied on by other national minority councils in their strategic language planning. For the sake of simplifying the text, the two documents are referred to as linguistic rights strategies even though their main focus (especially within the first document) is on only one aspect of the minority-language rights: use of minority language in various forms of so-called official communication.

2 The Importance and the Uniqueness of the HNMC’s Linguistic Rights Strategies

Notwithstanding its size; political history; developed, diversified, enduring institutional regime; support from the kin-state and strong political representation at almost each level of governance, the Hungarian minority has also been shown to be the first among the national communities in Serbia to recognise the importance of strategic planning. As Prof. Korhecz, the president of the HNMC in the period 2010–2014, said: ‘Professional strategic planning is one of the fundamentals of effective and successful policy making and good governance generally. It is a tool, by and upon which problems might be systematically resolved, and public interest protected’ (Korhecz, 2014, p. 157). Although it was not a legal obligation, during its first mandate—according to the first democratic elections (2010–2014)—the HNMC adopted eight mid-term development strategies covering almost each area of public life of Hungarians living in Serbia: education, including nursery and university education (2010–2016), culture (2012–2018), information/media (2011–2016), official use of language (2012–2017), NGO and civic engagement (2012–2018), adult education and life-long learning (2012–2017), family support (demography) (2013–2017) and science (2014–2020).Footnote 3 As the then president and the members of the council summed up the first four years in the final report on the HNMC’s activity, the goal was to enable more efficient use of resources and turn the social reality in a positive direction in order to elicit greater public interest and move the reality closer to the generally accepted values and goals (Várkonyi & Kókai, 2014, p. 25).

As the economic strength of a community is equally important, the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians (Vajdasági Magyar Szövetség), together with various economic operators and experts, prepared the Territorial and Economic Development Strategy of the Vojvodina Hungarian Communities in 2015, aimed at promoting improvement and growth of Hungarian enterprises in Vojvodina, especially in the fields of agriculture, tourism and other knowledge-based economic sectors, such as electrical and electronic, vehicle and mechanical engineering (Nagy et al., 2015). Although the HNMC was not directly involved in elaborating this strategy, the (governing) majority of the council members has always been on the list supported by the Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians since the very first democratic elections (and even before 2010 when the HNMC was elected through an electoral assembly).

Following the annulment of many provisions of the Law on National Councils of National Minorities by the Constitutional Court of Serbia in 2014, the councils’ room for manoeuvre has been significantly reduced. The Courts found, among other things, that the Serbian constitution-maker determined the areas that were important for the preservation of the identity of every national minority. These areas are listed in the provision of Article 75, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (in particular, culture, education, information and official use of language and script), and thus the field of action of national minority councils cannot go beyond the framework of the guaranteed collective rights established by the Constitution. In other words, they cannot act in other areas of social life (Constitutional Court of Serbia, 2014). As a direct consequence of this Constitutional Court decision, and due to the changed composition of the second mandate (2014–2018),Footnote 4 the HNMC integrated its programmes of adult education, science and civic strategy into the four main, remaining strategic areas (education, culture, information and official use of language), where this was relevant and possible, and entrusted the implementation of the demographic strategy to a non-governmental organisation (HNMC, 2017, pp. 6‒7). In the meantime, the legal environment has changed, and Serbia has also adopted its national strategic documents in the fields of culture, education and the media, to which the HNMC has adapted. The HNMC later revised its strategy on education and on the official use of the Hungarian language (called, for the purposes of this paper, the second Linguistic Rights Strategy).

The question may rightly arise as to why the Linguistic Rights Strategy is the subject of this study, as all of HNMC’s strategies could be seen as meriting deeper analysis. The answer is complex, regardless of the personal interest of the author.

First, the Law on National Councils of National Minorities does not regulate the duty of national minority councils to adopt a Linguistic Rights Strategy. This was done entirely on the initiative of the HNMC itself. However, the idea of strategy-making is no stranger to the Law. The Law requires national minority councils to create a strategy to develop the culture of the given ethnic group (art. 18, para. 2), and to adopt a strategy for improving information broadcast in the language of the given national minority, in accordance with the media strategy of the Republic of Serbia (art. 21, para. 1). The Law does not contain any sanctions in the case of non-implementation of these provisions by the councils. It is rather a suggestion to help them carry out their competencies in a more coordinated way, as has also been emphasised by the National Ombudsman of Serbia: ‘Council strategies are of great importance, and they indicate that these bodies design their activities for preservation and nurturing both traditional and contemporary cultural creation in a planned and systematic way’ (Protector of Citizens, 2019, p. 20). However, only a small number of councils define their work in a strategic way. In their replies to the Ombudsman’s questionnaire, the Albanian, the Vlach, the Macedonian, the Slovenian, the Croatian, the Hungarian and the Ukrainian councils claimed to have devised a special strategy for developing national minority culture for the period 2014–2018, yet the Bosnian and the Ruthenian councils developed a comprehensive strategy for all four areas. In the field of minority information, only six minority councils had their own strategy in the mentioned period: the Albanians, the Hungarians, the Bunjevacs, the Slovenians, the Macedonians, and the Ukrainians (Protector of Citizens, 2019, pp. 20, 26).

The Ombudsman’s above-mentioned questionnaire did not cover the language strategies specifically, as it is not a special duty prescribed by the Law. As was previously mentioned, the Bosnian and the Ruthenian councils adopted comprehensive strategies; but almost every council has an annual work plan in which they are free to determine their fields of action, including the sphere of official use of their mother tongue. For a long time, the HNMC was the only council with its own Linguistic Rights Strategy that served as an exemplar for the others; but finally, in 2021 the Croatian National Minority Council adopted its Linguistic Rights Strategy as well. Without presenting and analysing this strategy, it is important to note that it places much more emphasis on situation assessment and presentation of rights and obligations than on strategic planning itself (Croatian National Minority Council, 2021, pp. 114‒118).

Second, Serbia does not have its own language strategy, even though the (official) use of both Serbian and minority languages is subject to numerous laws in the country. There are national strategies on education, information and culture, but from the perspective of the official use of minority languages, the national strategies on the judiciary, public administration and e-governance are much more interesting. However, none of them contains explicit programmes to improve the language rights of minorities in official use. The Public Administration Reform Strategy in the Republic of Serbia for the Period from 2021 to 2030 says that the focus of the reforms is to create a flexible public administration that ‘provides integrated user-oriented services in a short period of time, at reasonable cost, especially taking into account minority and vulnerable social groups’. But what this special strategic goal means is not concretised through any of its programmes, especially regarding the possible ways in which the public administration on minority languages should function. In this aspect, the HNMC’s Linguistic Rights Strategy is a pioneer not only among minorities but at a national level.

Third, the HNMC’s Linguistic Rights Strategy preceded even the adoption of the Hungarian (kin-state) national language strategy. For a long time, Hungary itself has been trying to create its own language strategy, which would include a separate sub-strategy (or several) for the Hungarian-inhabited areas of the Carpathian Basin (Péntek, 2012, pp. 15‒16). The HNMC’s strategy-making fits in well with this plan. In addition to setting an example for Hungarian communities living in neighbouring states, it actually summarises all the problems and solutions that are common in official use of minority languages, despite the different national laws (Eöry, 2021, pp. 18‒20). The national language strategy is still at draft level and its content is not public. However, based on preparatory workshops, it became clear that the Hungarian (kin-state) language strategy approaches language strategic planning in a complex way, examining the language in its function, its role in social life and treating it as a part of culture; in other words, it ‘interprets the language and the community that speaks it in a socio-cultural context’ (Tolcsvai, 2017, p. 489). Although a different approach is required when considering the use of Hungarian as a minority language rather than the language of the Hungarian nation-state, the HNMC’s second Linguistic Rights Strategy adopts a similar method: as well as covering the classic fields of official communication between citizens and the state, its programmes attempt to ensure the presence of the Hungarian language in all areas of public life, thereby creating an ideal environment for its widespread use (HNMC, 2021, p. 7). In this form and with this concept, the strategy undoubtedly approaches both the problem of official language use and the proposed solutions in a broader context than its predecessor.

And finally, in general, a strategic response to minority issues has recently become increasingly important in the country. Serbia was the first candidate in the history of European integration that was required during the negotiation process to adopt a special action plan on the realisation of the rights of national minorities, in order to set its strategic orientation towards improving the institutional and legislative framework in the field of minority rights and freedoms (Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2016). This medium-term strategic plan was indeed necessary given that Serbia was constantly criticised for its lack of a systemic approach towards national minorities, as ‘reflected primarily in the absence of a strategic document that would determine the basic principles and principles of minority policy and defined the roles of many actors at all levels of government who deal with this topic within their own competencies’ (Marković & Pavlović, 2019, p. 91). This does not mean that no minority strategic plans have been drafted before, but they have usually been drawn up by independent expert groups, separate from the national minority councils, rather than the state. For example, the Strategy Platform for Integration of National Minorities in the Republic of Serbia was designed to respond to ‘requests in areas of minority politics [having] come from the political, economic, legal, technical-infrastructural, cultural and social environment’ (Forum for Ethnic Relations, 2016, p. 2). However, for the present study, it is important to note that this document did not specifically address minority-language rights in official use.

The contents of Chapter 5 on the use of minority language and script (Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2016), are more or less in line with the HNMC’s strategic objectives in the field of official language use, even though the action plan takes into account and unifies the needs and potential of all minority groups in Serbia: those whose language is in official use in many municipalities across the country, and those whose language is not even taught in schools, or who do not have a standardised language, or who have only a spoken version of their mother tongue. For this reason, the action plan prefers general programmes with minimum requirements.

In view of all these circumstances, the HNMC language planning policy is unique both within and outside Serbia’s borders and merits in-depth analysis in all respects. This will be carried out in the following sections.

3 The First Hungarian Linguistic Rights Strategy (2012–2017)

Both of the HNMC’s linguistic rights strategies were elaborated by a narrower group of experts (lawyers, linguists, officials in public administration and judiciary, translators), supported by the members of the council’s committee for official use of language and script.Footnote 5 Once the draft was completed, a public debate was held in which literally anyone could have their say. Before its adoption by the HNMC in 2011, the final version was presented at a closing conference. The policy of the council was to include all comments, critical views and proposals in the text, thus supporting the position towards the uniform use of the Hungarian language in official communication. This attitude was also observed when the second strategy was adopted ten years later, in 2021 (this statement is supported by comparing the draft version and the final version published after the public debate).

The first Linguistic Rights Strategy adhered to the classic structure of strategies: the situation assessment was followed by the strategic goals and programmes, with an implementation timetable at the end. Sources of financing, responsible agents and supervision were subject to separate HNMC decisions.

Serbia belongs to the group of states that limits the official use of (minority) languages primarily to the use of language by public authorities; therefore it does not consider language use in media, education, health and social care, or business to be part of official communication (Korhecz, 2009). The only exceptions are visual use of the language in some cases (e.g. issuing certificates, keeping records, inscriptions and signs in minority language). The legal determination of the official use of languages also defines the structure for the content of the strategy, and the first Linguistic Rights Strategy did not really move away from this framework.

In accordance with Serbian laws, the Hungarian language is in equal official use with the Serbian language in the entire territory of 28 local self-governments and in a further 11 settlements (in five more local self-government units) (Provincial Secretariat for Education, Regulations, Administration and National Minorities—National Communities, 2021). However, for the official status to be more than a provision in the statute of a municipality, Hungarian-speaking clients, lawyers, prosecutors, registrars and officials are required, as well as a supportive legal environment and the necessary technical and, of course, material conditions. This was true when the strategy was adopted in 2011, but it is more or less the same today.

In addition to official statistics, the strategy relied on reports of the competent secretary of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina examining the use of minority languages, such as Hungarian in offices and courts, in various titles and in written and oral communication. Thus, the drafters got a realistic picture—although not a complete one. Furthermore, the strategy contained a separate subchapter on legislative tendencies in the field of official use of minority languages.

In 2011 the following conclusions were made: (1) the relevant legal background was contradictory in content, divergent in enforcement and lacking enforcing, controlling and implementing provisions; (2) additional costs of multilingualism and specific needs were not adequately taken into consideration by central management (e.g. the judiciary or local municipalities usually gave priority to other issues, due to their limited financial resources); (3) instead of language-rational internal organisation (job schedule in accordance with the language knowledge of employees) and proportional employment of minority-language speakers, the dominance of purely Serbian-speaking employees was typical in certain public bodies; (4) as most laws and regulations were not translated into official minority languages, their use in minority languages was difficult for the authorities, especially in court proceedings; (5) the acting bodies often conducted the proceedings in Serbian and issued decisions in Serbian, due to concerns about the extra work required to translate them, for which no additional funding was received; (6) officials who spoke Hungarian well did not know the correct legal terminology in Hungarian; (7) due to their minority status or/and the state’s preferential treatment of the Serbian language, minority clients often chose Serbian as the language of administration instead of their mother tongue, which meant that knowledge of the Hungarian language has become undesirable in some places, even among the members of the Hungarian community.

3.1 Strategic Goals and Programmes

According to the above-mentioned findings, the first Linguistic Rights Strategy summarised three comprehensive strategic objectives: (1) improving the legal framework for the official use of minority languages; (2) until the first goal is achieved, (more) effective application of the existing legislation by public authorities; and (3) powerful enforcement of the language rights of the Hungarian community, to include developing the linguistic awareness of the Hungarian national community and improving its attitude towards language rights.

With regard to the first objective, the strategy made proposals for what the legislator should consider when regulating certain relations in the field of official use of minority languages: (1) effective control mechanisms; (2) use of unique terminology, clarity of legal texts; (3) technical achievements of e-government, efficiency of electronic communication in exercising the right of national minorities to use their mother tongue (especially in written communication); (4) distinguishing the right of persons belonging to national minorities to use their language—introduced into official use—and the right of foreign nationals to use their mother tongue before courts; (5) taking into account the additional costs of minority-language use (e.g. translation, printing of forms) and determining the financing obligation of bodies with public authority in order to cover possible expenditures of official use of national minority languages (because without this element of budgetary planning, the given body could not meet the demands of persons belonging to national minorities even under threat of sanctions).

The HNMC has consistently presented these expectations at various round tables and conferences and to international monitoring bodies, and has formulated recommendations and resolutions for harmonisation and interpretation of minority legislation. For overall realisation of this strategic programme, however, the HNMC required (external) political help and support from the parliamentary representation of Hungarians in the National Assembly of Serbia. This was notwithstanding the authorisations of the national councils to participate in the preparation of laws and other regulations, or initiate the adoption or amendment of laws and other regulations (Law on National Councils of National Minorities, art. 10, para. 10).

The second strategic goal was no simpler than the first, as its essence was to change and improve the attitude within the offices both towards the language rights of the Hungarian community and the quality of Hungarian language use. For this purpose, the HNMC provided technical conditions (translation of forms, internal documents, web pages) through individual applications or tenders; provided interpreters or Hungarian-speaking experts when it was necessary; financed the publication of a Serbian-Hungarian/Hungarian-Serbian legal and administrative dictionary that was freely distributed to almost every public body in the AP of Vojvodina (where the Hungarian language is in official use); and frequently organised translation courses and seminars on legal terminology for Hungarian-speaking lawyers. The goal was to help with day-to-day work in order to make working in the Hungarian language as straightforward as possible. Within the strategic programme Projects Supporting Professional Translations, dozens of laws and international conventions have been translated and published through a national legal software (as well as on the HNMC webpage), local and state forms and other document samples were translated into Hungarian and digitalised in order to be compatible with the national e-administration platform, the Hungarian language versions of all secondary school subjects were completed, as were the names of public institutions. The official Hungarian names of local municipalities and other settlements were codified much earlier (immediately after the HNMC was initially elected through an electoral assembly in 2002).

But these programmes are worth nothing if there are no Hungarian-speaking officials whose work might be facilitated by pre-made translations, or who can improve their knowledge of Hungarian legal terminology. For this reason, a special strategic programme dealt with the teaching of the Hungarian language to adults, for which a textbook package was prepared, supplemented with a teacher’s manual. Furthermore, a pocket dictionary was distributed among the most customer-focused bodies (police, social insurance companies, tax office) which contained the most frequently used terms and expressions in everyday communication.

‘There is no doubt that the approach of a national community to its mother language can be improved only by parallel improvement of material, technical conditions of official use of the minority language in both quantitative and qualitative terms, including professional development of staff’ (Beretka, 2015, p. 139). However, the education of the public cannot be overlooked. Various informative campaigns were organised: an information booklet, Our Language Rights in Serbia, reached tens of thousands of households as part of the only Hungarian daily newspaper (Magyar Szó), and its electronic version was uploaded to the webpage of local municipalities; Serbian and Hungarian informational posters were also distributed to public authorities, to be displayed in customer reception offices. But the most popular information programme was undoubtedly the eight-part TV cartoon series that processed all the major language rights and was broadcast several times a day on regional TV and radio. Thanks to the series, the number of infringement complaints increased exponentially, and the HNMC had to intervene several times a day because of the alleged violations.

According to the Law, the national councils may submit complaints to the competent bodies, when the council assesses that there has been a violation of the constitutionally and legally guaranteed rights and freedoms of members of national minorities (art. 10 para. 12). The free legal aid programme for official use of minority language provided multilayered help, ranging from consultations and sending notifications, to making a complaint to the appropriate bodies (usually the Ombudsman; rarely the courts). On the one hand, the programme was based on individual announcements, while on the other hand, the HNMC itself initiated changes, usually following multi-round meetings with competent authorities. Thanks to the rapid response, a relationship of trust has developed between citizens and the council over the years. During this period, the number of registered language rights violations in the Ombudsman’s reports also increased, as did the number of (successful) interventions.

3.2 Critical Analysis

The first strategy certainly brought changes, or at least initiated changes. Setting up an effective coordination and cooperation with public bodies required time before the actual results could be seen. There have also been projects that were not specifically included in the strategy but have been in demand over the years, especially due to accelerated digitalisation and the normative changes (suffice to mention the decision of the Constitutional Court to revoke the powers of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in the field of official language use). Overall, the strategy has been successful with a fundamentally positive shift in almost all areas of intervention, even if some strategy programmes have not yet been implemented. To give an example, the Vojvodina Hungarian Language Office (as a completely new institution under the HNMC’s control) has not been established, where the primary goal would have been to take over certain tasks from the HNMC, such as promotion of language rights, organisation of linguistic conferences and conduct of research, establishing a database on language and language use, creation of dictionaries and consulting.

The main shortcoming of the first strategy is, in fact, its invisibility. Although the Hungarian community received continuous information about the various programmes through several channels and Hungarian-speaking lawyers and translators were regularly invited to professional events, the strategy itself was not expressly presented in municipal offices and state bodies. Other national minorities knew about its existence, tried to copy it or at least take over some of its programmes due to cooperation with the HNMC, but this does not change the fact that the strategy was not translated into Serbian (or any other foreign language), was not the subject of (scientific) analysis and its implementation remained primarily an internal matter for the HNMC. Of course, this was not necessarily a real weak point, as it was primarily a guide to the work of the council, but without active cooperation of the ‘target audience’ (primarily Hungarian and Serbian officials, judges, translators, local decision-makers) any well-intentioned effort is doomed to failure, especially in official use of minority languages.

4 The Second/Valid Linguistic Rights Strategy (2021–2026)

As already mentioned, the second Linguistic Rights Strategy approaches the issue of language rights from a much broader perspective and is more akin to a classic language strategy, although its title has remained Strategy on the Official Use of Language and Script. Besides the official use of the Hungarian language, it contains programmes on Hungarian education, media, culture and even on religious practices in Hungarian. This is explained in the introduction to the strategy itself: ‘The mother tongue (of any language community) is born only in the community, only the community can use, build, and maintain it. The official use of the mother tongue can only be of value if it is used as an extension of this common, natural use of mother tongue’.

While the expansion of strategic planning in this form is certainly to be welcomed, it also placed a greater responsibility and burden on the drafters, and they, in turn, had to carry out a much more detailed assessment of the situation. In the analysis of the situation, background and processes, the results of which are summarised in two chapters called Opportunities and Chances and Processes, the authors tried to find a balance between the presentation of linguistic rights in official communication and evaluation of language use in other spheres of social life, including even the specificities of spoken Hungarian language in Vojvodina. However, despite all efforts, it was not possible to get a realistic picture of the situation of the Hungarian language in public offices and the judiciary. The strategy mainly concerns the presentation of the legislation; it mentions some problems that occur in practice, but it does not provide supporting data on how many local government names appear on signs in Hungarian, how many court appeals were in Hungarian or how many initial court proceedings were conducted in Hungarian, etc. In the field of education, for example, the second strategy provides complex tables on the number of children attending a Hungarian language class in elementary and secondary schools in Vojvodina. However, it would be equally important to quantify the situation of minority-language rights in official communication. Without this, there is no starting point from where the strategy can move on, from where it can develop further. On the other hand, the findings of the first strategy have remained largely valid, notwithstanding the efforts made during its mandate.

4.1 Strategic Goals and Programmes

As this is a relatively new strategy, we cannot yet really talk about its successful implementation. Instead, its innovations will be demonstrated from a critical perspective. Undoubtedly, the most obvious difference in relation to the first Linguistic Rights Strategy lies in the extension of the goals, the naming of the target group and partners and the determination of indicators. Although a separate deadline has been set for each measure, in most cases the deadline is continuous, which makes it difficult to monitor the implementation of the programmes. Also, it should be noted at the beginning of this summary that some tasks appear more than once under several titles. This is especially true for publishing terminological dictionaries, programmes of language planning and consulting, support for translations, various informational or educational campaigns, competitions and research. In any case, the six strategic priorities are maintained by detailed explanations, sub-goals and measures in a tabular form that is easy to follow.

Due to the broader subject matter of the second Linguistic Rights Strategy, the objectives also cover a wider range. This is evidenced by the first strategic priority called Language and Community and the measures assigned to it. The long-term survival, preservation of the autonomy of the Hungarian language, maintenance and increase of its specifics, potential and performance in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina should be achieved through the following programmes: (1) enforcing individual and community language rights; (2) strengthening national cohesion and identity by preserving and developing linguistic-cultural heritage and traditions; (3) professional, moral and financial support for Hungarian education in Vojvodina; (4) strengthening linguistic, cultural, educational and economic positions in cities and (5) professional, moral and financial support for Hungarian information services. Most of the tasks within this group do not have a direct relationship with minority-language rights, but rather they indirectly contribute (sometimes very tenuously) to the preservation of the Hungarian language: organising thematic excursions and summer language schools, developing the educational infrastructure and a school-bus programme, urban institution building that encourages business and helps the capacity development of Hungarian businesses, technical support for the exchange of information in the mother tongue. Some programmes have been taken over from other HNMC strategies or are more in line with the profile of other strategies. To give an example, the strategic priority called Language and Value formulates strategic measures mostly to preserve Hungarian education and culture, such as increasing the appeal of the Hungarian language when choosing the language of education and the school; promoting Hungarian theatres in Vojvodina among the national majority; hosting teachers, writers and other public figures; supporting existing language-cultural prizes being awarded, etc. However, there are media strategy-specific measures, as well, within other priorities: state support for journalists reporting in Hungarian; more media reports on national minorities in the public service media; increasing the number of Hungarian journalists in the public service media, etc.

A special value of the strategy is that it devotes a separate section to the language use of the Hungarian community living scattered over Vojvodina (outside the Hungarian bloc that lives mainly along the Tisza River). The strategic priority called Language and Diaspora aims to make Hungarians living in the diaspora interested in belonging to the Hungarian community, in maintaining and passing on their Hungarian mother tongue and in preserving their ‘Hungarianness’. In this project, the Hungarian historical churches in Vojvodina have a significant role through the educational work of priests, deacons and religious studies teachers. However, regardless of the importance of this goal, it does not affect the official use of language at all. It focuses on language development and revitalisation tasks primarily in the kinds of surroundings where Hungarian is not introduced into official use or has only nominal official status without practical implications.

The programmes regarding the official use of the Hungarian language are mostly defined within the goal State and Citizens. Some programmes are a continuation or repetition of existing ones (from the previous strategy), but there are also very innovative ideas such as the Hungarian online administration guide (including the digitalised form of the Serbian/Hungarian-Hungarian/Serbian legal-administrative dictionary); the accreditation of training programmes on minority-language rights at the National Administration Academy; financial support for Hungarian law students by creating a legal scholarship programme (in order to secure ‘supply’ for Hungarian-speaking officials and judges); a ‘pocket mirror’ mobile application for reporting infringements; introducing Hungarian proceedings into the agenda of the e-administration platform, etc. Besides the classic fields of official use of a language, the strategy makers were convinced that public use of Hungarian language could take place in many other spaces, contexts and ways; and within this strategic priority, they initiated elaboration of local conceptions of language use that could be realised without the need for cooperation from the Serbian side: e.g. promoting those entrepreneurs and commercial chains that serve everyone in Hungarian; culturally sensitive marketing; use of Hungarian in events of great interest or in very commonly used captions and texts (restaurant menus, parking spaces, bus tickets, user interfaces of ticket machines); promoting practical multilingualism in trade and in all areas of the hospitality and creative industries.

The last two strategic goals, Language and Science and Language and Nation, deal with preserving the autonomy and coherence of the Hungarian language community in Vojvodina through recognition and utilisation of qualitative language performance (publishing the large online Serbian-Hungarian dictionary, standardising Hungarian geographical names in the Carpathian Basin, acknowledging local dialects and the value of bilingualism, online competitions in grammar).

Because it is a relatively large document (88 pages long), there is no space to recount its contents in detail; but even on the basis of the above, it can be concluded that the strategy encompasses a number of measures, the implementation of which is not traditionally one of the tasks of an NTA but depends on the state, local or regional authorities. Significantly more resources are needed in all respects to deliver on commitments on time (till the end of the strategy’s mandate in 2026). While some programmes can be implemented according to a relatively simple formula (translations, publishing new Serbian/Hungarian-Hungarian/Serbian dictionaries, organising various events), most of them require structural changes or developments, large utilisation of human resources, serious financial investments and intense cooperation with both the kin-state and Serbia (at each level of governance). In the first strategy, the council’s own staff was almost entirely responsible for the implementation of the programmes, but in the case of the second Linguistic Rights Strategy the HNMC is primarily assuming a managerial role to connect the institutions, NGOs and field activists, distribute the necessary funding and monitor the realisation of the strategy as an umbrella organisation. The latter undoubtedly requires a well-developed infrastructure and a complete team of experts/professionals in all the settlements concerned; but for most Serbian national minorities, it would be probably beyond their capacities.

5 Conclusion

Developing an ambitious strategy is not enough to preserve a minority language in official use. Even with an intense, coordinated and inclusive execution, the strategic programmes should be monitored, evaluated and graded as successful only when making progress. However, in the current circumstances (large numbers of Hungarians emigrating, natural decrease of the Hungarian-speaking population, the Hungarian language disappearing from the courts, poor knowledge of legal Hungarian, etc.), the overall goal is to stop the process getting any worse, and keep any progress at the very least at the same level.

National minority councils can make a significant contribution to the development of this area, but only if the following conditions are met: (1) there is an appropriate legal environment—for which the councils need political support in order to initiate necessary legal changes; (2) there are built-in mechanisms for contact with the community as part of the process of developing and enforcing policies, strategies and activities aimed at preserving collective identity (Protector of Citizens, 2019, p. 55); (3) there is a clear consensus in society on the main emphases and strategic directions, regardless of the political affiliation and fragmentation of the given community (Gecse, 2015); (4) additional costs of multilingualism are part of the annual budget planning (of the state and other levels of governance); (5) inter-sectorial cooperation exists within the government, especially the ministries that have human and minority rights in their jurisdiction, with capacity from state and public administration officials for managing multicultural processes (Marković & Pavlović, 2019, p. 91); and finally, (6) there are (competent) persons within the community itself who are (and feel) responsible for implementing the strategy and preserving the given minority language. Because ultimately, it does not matter how good relations are with the state, if the members of a national minority do not instinctively greet each other in their mother tongue when entering an office (Beretka, 2015, p. 145).