Search results

The following paper will focus on the issue of the Hungarian minority protection in Slovenia. The first section introduces the Hungarian national minority, its main features and historical evolution. The second one gives a historical view on the practice of minority protection towards Slovene Hungarians, from Communist Yugoslavia to the'Europeanization' process in the country. Further on, the level of minority protection will be analysed both at theoretical and empirical level: firstly, through the theoretical analysis of the legal status of the Hungarian minority, taking into account five main headings (education, use of language, political participation, cultural life, information and the media); secondly, through the results of a field research carried out among minority members, in order to find out the nature and extent of possible discrepancy between theory and practice. The main research hypothesis is that Slovenia has established a successful model of minority protection in what regards the Hungarians. This statement is to great extent confirmed by the analysis of minority policies and legal provisions and, with some specifications, by the analysis of opinions and feelings of 'qualified witnesses' belonging to the Hungarian community. Keywords: Hungarians, integration, minority, protection, Slovenia. (Romanian Journal of European Affairs / SWP)

2010/2011 ; La tesi è uno studio interdisciplinare e comparativo sul regime di protezione delle minoranze autoctone in Slovenia e Svezia. L'ipotesi di ricerca è che i due paesi abbiano scelto dei regimi di protezione molto efficaci ed avanzati che sperimentano un grado relativamente basso di tensione interetnica. Grazie ai loro sistemi fortemente sociali, hanno sviluppato un sistema di protezione delle minoranze nazionali che si spinge, per certi versi, oltre agli standard esistenti all'interno della UE. Ad esempio, il diritto all'istruzione ed all'informazione nella madre lingua – che nella maggior parte dei paesi difettano di base legale – risultano ben assicurati. Inoltre, entrambi includono i Rom tra le minoranze territoriali, creando così dei prerequisiti per un'effettiva non discriminazione. La bontà del regime di protezione viene valutata, da un lato, attraverso l'analisi dei vari campi di tutela, prendendo in considerazione sia le fonti legali che le politiche pubbliche volte ad implementarle; dall'altro, attraverso la rilevazione delle opinioni dei membri delle minoranze stesse. L'analisi degli standard esistenti mostra che entrambi i paesi possiedono un sistema di protezione relativamente completo, sebbene vengano sottolineate notevoli differenze tra un settore e l'altro. A tal riguardo, sono stati utilizzate varie fonti – legislazione esistente, report ufficiali, discussioni con esperti – al fine di redigere un tabella di valutazione riassuntiva per ogni singolo campo di protezione. L'affermazione viene poi ridimensionata alla luce dei risultati della ricerca empirica, condotta tramite questionari strutturati: le minoranze nazionali esprimono un giudizio positivo limitatamente a certi campi di tutela, ma danno, nel complesso, valutazioni poco generose sul sistema generale di protezione, tanto che emergono chiaramente sentimenti di esclusione. Le fonti dell'opera comprendono: analisi della letteratura rilevante, analisi della legislazione, analisi delle statistiche nazionali, visione di progetti e studi settoriali in corso, discussioni informali con ricercatori e interviste con 'testimoni qualificati', essenziali nel ricostruire un quadro sintetico della situazione data la carenza di letteratura in materia. La tesi si articola in 3 parti distinte. La prima intende fornire una cornice teorica sul tema della protezione delle minoranze nazionali, attraverso la presentazione delle definizioni più illustri elaborate dalla letteratura internazionale e di alcuni concetti chiave nel dibattito, come origine, natura, manifestazione esterna del fenomeno, differenze nel concetto di ethnos tra nord e centro Europa, etc… Nel secondo capitolo viene brevemente analizzata la storia della protezione delle minoranze per soffermarsi poi sui principali documenti elaborati all'interno della UE, dell'OSCE e del Consiglio d'Europa al fine di individuare alcuni standard universalmente riconosciuti da tutti i membri UE. La seconda parte si concentra sulla protezione delle minoranze territoriali in Slovenia (capitolo terzo) e Svezia (capitolo quarto): vengono analizzate la struttura etnica del paese, le caratteristiche delle varie minoranze e le politiche governative adottate, prendendo in considerazione anche l'evoluzione storica di queste ultime. I campi di tutela analizzati nel dettaglio sono: istruzione, uso della lingua, partecipazione e rappresentanza politica, vita culturale, informazione e media, cooperazione transfrontaliera. Di seguito vengono sottolineati i punti forti e quelli deboli dei rispettivi sistemi. La terza parte presenta le caratteristiche fondamentali dei due regimi in chiave comparativa (capitolo quinto) ed i risultati della ricerca sul campo (capitolo sesto), che è stata limitata a due minoranze per paese al fine di rendere più agevoli delle considerazioni comparative: una minoranza tipo transnazionale, i Rom, e due minoranze di confine, gli ungheresi in Slovenia e i finlandesi tornedaliani in Svezia. Il questionario, somministrato attraverso un metodo di campionamento di tipo snowball, o meglio, respondent driven, indaga sulle seguenti tematiche: percezione della tutela nel campo del linguaggio; percezione della tutela nel campo dell'istruzione; percezione della tutela percepita nel campo della partecipazione politica e della rappresentanza; percezione della tutela nel settore della vita culturale; percezione della tutela nel settore dei media e dell'informazione; percezione della tutela nel campo della cooperazione transfrontaliera; percezione della tutela globale; percezione dello status della minoranza rispetto alla maggioranza; percezione dell'uguaglianza dei diritti in confronto alla maggioranza e alle altre minoranze. Non è stato possibile raccogliere un numero sufficiente di risposte da parte di tutte le minoranze nazionali presenti nei due paesi a causa sia delle grandi difficoltà incontrate nel reperire soggetti disposti a collaborare che a causa dei tassi di risposta molto bassi. L' indagine svolta tra le suddette minoranze sembra suggerire che l'affermazione secondo la quale entrambi i paesi hanno un buon sistema di protezione deve essere circoscritta: anche se la protezione globale appare sufficiente, le minoranze nazionali non sembrano essere soddisfatte dell'implementazione dei loro diritti, se i risultati vengono comparati con quelli della tabella riassuntiva teorica. I Rom, paradossalmente, pur avendo un punteggio più basso sia a livello empirico che teorico, sembrano essere relativamente più soddisfatti dei loro diritti. Questo può essere dovuto al fatto che essi considerano effettivamente la recente introduzione di leggi ed atti in favore della loro minoranza come un importante progresso. Se le minoranze prese in considerazione danno valutazioni piuttosto positive per quanto riguarda alcuni settori di tutela, la sensazione di essere tutelati non sembra essere data semplicemente dalla somma di tali valutazioni ma ne include altre che hanno ha che fare con la dimensione sociale, in particolare il rapporto con la maggioranza, lo status all'interno della società, l'attenzione data alla minoranza da parte delle politiche di Stato. L'ipotesi di ricerca iniziale è quindi solamente in parte confermata: dall'analisi emerge un modello gerarchico nel trattamento delle minoranze nazionali, suscettibile di creare nuovi confini e tensioni tra a) le varie minoranze nazionali, b) le minoranze nazionali e altre minoranze, c) diversi sottogruppi della stessa minoranza. ; The dissertation is a comparative and interdisciplinary study dealing with the protection systems of autochthonous minorities in Slovenia and Sweden in a comparative key. Slovenia and Sweden were chosen as a focus of the research because of some similarities which may be found in relation with minority issues. In spite of their experience of recent migrations, they can be considered as two historically relatively homogeneous states both of which experience a low degree of interethnic tensions (even though it has not always been so). Thanks to their strongly social systems, they in fact developed a system of minority protection which, in some aspects, at least on the paper, goes even beyond E.U. existing standards; among them, the right to information and the right to public education in the mother tongue of minorities- which in most of countries lack legal basis or are simply not applied- are well assured. Moreover, their national minorities have intense relations with the neighbouring mother state. And last but not least, they both include the Roma among their territorial minorities, creating also for them legal prerequisites for the non- discrimination of the members and formal equality for all the legal aspects. Both countries chose a model of integration of their minorities which has resulted quite effective, especially after the latest improvements. Nevertheless, in both countries, even though in different manners, it is still possible to notice a hierarchy of treatment of different kind of minorities, where some fall behind the others in spite of their demands (and recognition) of autochthony. Sweden, for example, did that by excluding ethnic groups that were already present in the country and by denying substantial language rights to those national minorities whose languages were deemed to be non territorial ones, whilst Slovenia did that by introducing a difference between those groups who enjoy single or dual political subjectivity and by breaking the in- group unity of Roma. The thesis can be roughly divided into three main parts. The first part aims to provide a theoretical framework on minority issues and their protection. I first illustrate some definitions of ethnic minority and national minority taken from the literature and international fora as well as some related key arguments present in debates, such as the origin, the nature and the different manifestation of this phenomenon. The difference of perception of the concept ethnos in Central European and Western - North European world will be mentioned. The aim of the first chapter is to provide an almost legal definition to be used as a guide line in the analysis. It will be underlined that minority protection is only an empty concept in absence of a clear and universally or regionally accepted definition. In the second chapter the focus will be on the protection of minorities in Europe in historical perspective, taking into an account four main phases of development: from the peace of Augsburg until World War I; the period between the wars; after World War II until 1989; after 1990. The main documents elaborated within the Council of Europe, the OCSE and the European Union will be analysed, in order to get to point out some existing standards generally recognized by E.U. members even though differently applied. The second part deals with the protection of territorial minorities in Slovenia and Sweden, giving an overview on the ethnic structure of the country, on the main features of the minorities and on the governmental policies pursued since the last century. The content of the chapters will be enriched by the contribute of some minorities' representatives who accepted to be interviewed. In the third and last part, the main characteristics of these two systems will be analysed in a comparative key. Later on, the results of a small field research dealing with the practice of minority protection in the two countries will be presented. The main research hypothesis is that Slovenia and Sweden chose a successful and effective model of minority protection. This statement had to be assessed, on one hand, through the analysis of specific minority policies and, on the other hand, through the collection of opinions and feeling by behalf of minorities' members. The first and second part of the research aim in fact to assess minority protection in Slovenia and Sweden on the paper, analyzing field by field and underlining similarities and differences, strong and weak points of the two models and applicability. We have therefore tried to assess the level of protection for each minority within the two countries, giving an evaluation for each single field with a score ranging from 0 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The evaluation was drawn on the basis of existing laws, degree of application, State reports, relevant literature and discussions with experts. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the in depth analysis, it does not demand to have scientific accuracy due to the too many variables to take into consideration for every single field, but constitutes only a general orientation with regard to the interpretation of minority protection. The analysis of existing standard show that both countries actually have a relatively good protection system, although significant differences can be noted amongst different fields. The third present the results of a small scale survey conducted through questionnaires. The survey has been limited to two minorities for each country: one minority which enjoys the status of autochthonous in both countries, i.e. the Roma; and two minorities, the Tornedalian - Finnish one in Sweden and the Hungarian one in Slovenia, which present some common characteristics – first of all being a border minority - and appear therefore comparable. The aim is to identify the perception of protection by submitting some structured questionnaires to the members of these minorities through a kind of snowball method (in particular, a respondent – driven sampling), in order to find out any discrepancy between the policy goals and the everyday life level and compare the level of protection not only on theoretical but also on practical base. In particular, the questionnaire investigates opinions about the following topics: perceived protection in the field of use of language; perceived protection in the field of education; perceived protection in the field of political participation and representation; perceived protection in the field of cultural life; perceived protection in the field of media and information; perceived protection in the field of cross – border cooperation with the mother state (or with the communities in other states in the case of Roma); overall perceived protection; perceived position of the minority in comparison to the majority; perceived inequality of rights in comparison to the majority and the other minorities. It was not possible to collect a sufficient number of answers from all the protected minorities present in the countries due to the serious difficulties encountered in order to establish initial subjects who may be willing to cooperate and to the very low response rate. Some difficulties have been encountered also with regard to above mentioned minorities, i.e. the Roma, the Hungarians in Slovenia and the Tornedalian- Finnish in Sweden; however, they have shown a more collaborative spirit with regard to the present research. The survey carried out among the above mentioned minorities seems to suggest that the statement according to which both countries have a relatively good protection system has to be circumscribed: even though the overall protection appears as sufficient, the analysed national minorities seem not to be quite satisfied of the implementation of their minority rights. By contrast, Roma in both countries, in spite of having lower scores both at the theoretical and at the empirical level, seem to be relatively more satisfied about their rights. This may be due to the fact that national minorities are more conscious about the rights they should enjoy as historical minorities; whilst the Roma, although not being very satisfied about their condition either, consider the newly introduced laws and acts in their favour as an important progress. If the minorities taken into consideration give positive evaluation regarding certain fields of protection, the overall feeling of protection is not purely given by the sum of such fields but obviously include discretional elements which are more closely linked with a social dimension including the relationship with the majority, the status within the society, the perceived attention and importance given the minority issues by behalf of State policies. The research hypothesis has to be in the end further specified: all analysed minorities evaluate positively certain fields of protection, but surprisingly (of course with many differences among the various groups), when asked explicitly how much protected they feel as a minority, answers are less flattering: in certain sectors they feel indeed excluded from the majority society. The initial research hypothesis appears therefore to be only partly confirmed: from the analysis results the emergence of a hierarchic model with regard to the treatment of national minorities, which is likely to create new boundaries and tensions among the various national minorities, the national minorities and other minorities which did not receive recognition and different subgroups within the same minority. ; XXIV Ciclo

For social scientists interested in the problems of cross-border cooperation, the Swedish - Finnish border may seem unattractive and uneventful. But in spite of being located at the periphery of Europe, this area offers one of the most interesting case studies in the field of cross-boundary regionalization and city twinning, that of Haparanda - Tornio. Through the establishment of Provincia Bothniensis they were able to create one of the most integrated Euroregions and an archetype of the United City of the future, constituting a unique example of city twinning beyond ethnic, cultural and political divisions.