Minorities and Integration in Romania

In the current global scale, the prospect of minorities as articulated in scholarly literature is inconclusive and pervasive especially in developed nations of the world. But even as this prospect is highly debated amongst historians, geographers, sociologists and others before the advent of the two World Wars, it was less given attention during the Communist era when all persons regardless of their ethnic extraction were formally regarded a like; Ceausescu often referring to them to national structures such as Hungarians, Romanians, Germans and many more so that there was nothing much to say or argue about this (Neaga, 2016). In particular, the issue of economic, educational, social, and security discrepancies between the minority and majority groupings are eloquent especially in the developing economies became more conspicuous after the disintegration of communism. This section examines the major issues in the integration of minorities in social, political and economic jurisdictions in Romania. As Cinpoes (2010)’s work reveals; Romania has tested an extended political dispensations in the two last centuries. Further, Romania as a case study has after the collapse of communism taken a sequence of strategies and measure to sort out her minorities and national challenges especially for the Hungarian minorities which has been seen active in claiming religious, political Social and economic rights. The concept of minority as it is pervasive in the constructs of Romania’s historical progress has been anchored on national territorial hinges, and this discussion intends to spell out why it is fundamental put reference to national territories when defining the concept of minorities.

Iordachi et al., (2001) write that in the global context where ethnic intermingling and multinational states are the norm, it is observable that territorially dispersed minorities do not proceed well in the aspects of political representations. Provided this perspective, it is easy for eruptive chaos seeking to balance the status quo between the majority and minority groups. In the context of Romania, the huge discrepancy in political representations alongside the long suppression the minorities are subjected to induces fundamental pressure which many years later conceive the democratic rule.

The ramifications of ethnic geography for mechanisms of conflict resolution are well known and constitute an extended history, write Laven and Baycroft (2008). From the first constitution promulgation to the end of the Second World War, Romania’s political, social and economic aspects were greatly controlled by ethnicity, whereby the minority groups were highly disadvantaged for lack of proper representation in matters which affected them the most.

According to Cinpoes (2010), the rise and fall of the Romanian ERPs is a narrative two major political formations namely the PRM and the PUNR. Further, Cinpoes reiterates this narrative is an extraction from the previous success in the PUNR during the 1990 years which is consequently succeeded and greatly supersede by its major competitor PRM that later on became the most successful party in Romania for a long time. Cinpoes (2010) maintains a view that the breakdown of PRM is founded on two main premises, first that was the mass movement of members from PUNR to PRM, and secondly was the transition in the parties’ political inclinations.

Based on the Western understanding, the concept of “nationality” is used to imply citizenship, which also implies to ethnicity or belonging to a particular national orientation as an identity grouping (Stewart, 2013). Many European scholars seek to distinguish between ethnic demographics which are extractions from the medieval roles ethnicity played in describing persons within the Soviet bloc. In ethnic definition, the concept of territory is important because it confers an individual a sense of national attachment, before assimilation into a new country to become a minority group (Lee et al., 2014).

For instance, the Roma and Hungarians in Romania are not indigenous in Romania but are the product of humanitarian intervention which provided them a space to occupy. In order to integrate with the indigenous Romanians, the prospect understanding the incoming “aliens” is crucial for the understanding of how best to integrate the different culture into a single, harmonious and utopia people living in peace.

Different territories and countries have different characterizations of values, norms, philosophies, customs and taboos which are deeply grounded in people’s conducts, ways of expression and culture. According to Baycroft and Hewitson (2006), in-depth mastery of the component of territory in the definition of minorities is important because it provides a basis of understanding the cultural discrepancies between the majority and minority representations as an avenue for incorporation and freely mixing to produce a viable continuity of a nation.

Evidence in social science literature demonstrates that the condition of ethnic minorities is different from country to country. Besides, the conditions amongst ethnic minorities do vary based on economic indicators under examination. However, literature offers strong evidence concerning the pervasive presence of labour market limitations for ethnic minorities, which normally resumes the form of higher levels of unemployment and low labour incomes. Moreover, ethnic minorities are confronted with huge barriers in tracing economic incentives relative to the majority groups and even as they secure these incentives, they are less likely to retain them. Dumbrava (2017) suggested that integrating economic aspects of the minorities and giving them a voice in all aspects affecting them and the entire nation speeds up national prosperity and development.

A study of the Roma people in Romania demonstrates this minority group is at high risks of losing their jobs than non-Roma. The study contends that during Romani’s political. Social and economic transformation the unemployment gap between the Roma and majority groups was huge. Furthermore, the 2006 reports by the Human Rights, Bureau of Democracy and Labour identified that the Roma group was relatively less educated, has low life expectancy and survived without income. The unemployment scale was estimated to be 70% more than 10 times countrywide average. The Roma also were identified as leading poor lives.

Amongst the major reasons why such discrepancies are noticeable in Romania is attributed to low educational levels with the minorities have access to. Roma professionals and scholars maintain that because of poor access to quality education, the minority group is lagging behind; social, economically and politically. Despite the fact that higher education do not assert the minorities better market placement it only expounds on peoples’’ awareness and consciousness on what they can do to salvage themselves from the chains of political, economic and social wants.

Egry (2013) explores how nationalism and ethnicity underscore three major elements namely minority nationalism, state nationalism and minority ethnicity. Alongside these three elements, Lee et al., (2014) add yet another element to the list; migration ethnicity which unravels the relationship between minority ethnicity and state nationalism and normative political theory which explore the intrigues of minority ethnics, minority nations and state nations. Egry (2013) suggested that states tend to place more emphasis on the tools of coercion, boundary demarcation and government within a boundary. Ethnic groups constitutes of communities with common ancestry normally accompanied by notions of ancestral homeland and cultural demarcations. In contrary, nations constitutes a complex hybrid of elements ascending from ethnics whereas modern state are more excellent in their way of integration and more elevated in their political consciousness but yet can apply political ideologies on origins which are not genealogical. The description of minority ethnicity therefore gives preference to territorial element in its definition based on the premise that nations by nature have high sentimental attachment to her territorial demarcations, tools of coercion and its government within a territory. It is through such preferences that a nation easily finds it easy to define her ethnic representations based on minorities and majorities (Rughiniş, 2010).

There are different ways through which an ethnic group can be pervasive and therefore dominant including cultural, demographic, economic and political. In contemporary era, most of the ethnic minorities do control local economies but yet are politically weaklings (Lee et al., 2014). Minority groups have therefore have ascended to specialize in some areas despite the unfavourable conditions prevailing which deny them an opportunity to develop holistically in economic, social and political aspects. The most dominant combination historically has been ethno-political dominance relative with culturally diverse countries.

Whereas majority groups seem to be more confident, resting on the precept of majority rule there is a diffusing inclination toward equity in ethnical representation in all spheres of development. In Romania for instance, the long walk of freedom and political inclusivity was attainable from a collateral goodwill which saw through discrediting of ethnic supremacy, and ushered in a new dispensation of democratic leadership. Further, the attachment between a country ethnicity and territorial boundaries is an avenue through which understanding and mutual understanding can be attained through the appreciation of differences characterizing different ethnic groups. In this view, the role of attaching a country with territorial boundaries is instrumental in underscoring how the differences amongst ethnic groups can be tapped and maximized for the essence of national prosperity.

Minority and majority ethnicity form a basis for which two or more cultures are vilified in accordance to the nation’s founding values. Through elemental sharing of that which is good, and abandoning outdated value system, a robust mix of ethnic precepts are extracted which when combined together gives a nation a spirit to merge and push forward towards economic, political and social developments.

Neaga (2016) informs in the boundary theory that populations can flow through a territory and assimilate, consequently leaving an ethnic boundary intact. As a result, immigration should not impose a challenge for dominant ethnic representatives when the new minority group assimilate and consequently disappear. Ethnic assimilation demands a big degree of transition than economic and cultural assimilation because the former coexist with a robust minority ethnic border.

An increasingly porous society is deemed to hamper the initiation of dominant ethnic groups, political unions and collective memories. As the state safeguards the various elements of majority ethnic group through practices such as promotion of official language, public architecture, and political history, there is a blank space of vernacular language, political interests and collective memory. Without associational life to cover this blankness, a lack of social capital emerges that places the majority group at a suppressive position.

A mania (2013) maintains that it is through territorial references that one can properly view his/her nation. The challenge with this conception lies on how to shape this view without traces of prejudiced identity. A cohesive and integrated nation is easily conceptualized from the lens of territorial references provided there are no skews and ethnical prejudices given one ethnicity an elevated advantage over the other. In this view, the strength which territorial references holds in defining a country is too important to be integrated in the universal definition of ethnic minorities.

Through constant reference to their conflicting visions about a nation, various actors safeguard the interests of the reality of a state. For instance, the Romanians consequently turned out to reinforce the conviction of Romania as a country, by putting aside various ideological discrepancies between them as the majority and the minority groups such as Hungarians and Roma. The majority Romanians therefore reflected on unified politico-geographic referent.

According to Trencsényi (2001) ethnic nationalism can potentially form as an inhibitor for expansion. This is observable and applicable to the scenario of Romania in which the country was subjected to redundancy in all spheres of development; thus constricting the country against expansion and development. Integrating this prospects into the conceptualization of ethnicity both majority and minority therefore is an overstatement of how ethnicity is in inculcating the foundations for national growth.

Creţan, Kun and Vesalon (2014) interrogate whether the concept of dominant ethnicity and dominant nationhood is justifiable morally. Normative political models on ethnicity and nationalism have conspicuously been developing since 1980s. The classes of scholars operating within the pedestal of liberal culturalist have opted to recognize politics which collective identities are given cognition through policy formulation. Kaufmann (2009) observes value in national and ethnic identities which they perceive as core enhancers of self-worth and liberty amongst the people and therefore contributing towards the actualization of liberalism. The management of ethnical dominance is important in enhancing the respect and adherence to minority rights and liberal norms.

Dominant nationhood in its nature is at times a less clear construct comparing to dominant ethnicity based on the reason that a nation will tend to become more elastic in its conceptualization than an ethnie. In a general view, state nations are dominant nations but yet it is possible to bring out a sub-state nation discharging dominance over particular polices areas in her borders as in Romania. The Romania context present a suitable case study from which the enthusiasts of history get to understand the role and potentials of ethnicity not only in nation building but also destruction (Rigó, 2017).

References

Baycroft, T. and Hewitson, M. eds., 2006. What is a nation? Europe 1789-1914. Oxford University Press.

Cinpoes, R., 2010. Nationalism and identity in Romania: a history of extreme politics from the birth of the state to EU accession (Vol. 40). IB Tauris.

Creţan, R., Kun, P. and Vesalon, L., 2014. From Carasovan to Croat: The ‘ethnic enigma’of a (re) invented identity in Romania. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 16(4), pp.437-458.

Dumbrava, C., 2017. Reproducing the nation: reproduction, citizenship and ethno-demographic survival in post-communist Romania. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(9), pp.1490-1507.

Egry, G., 2013. Navigating the Straits. Changing Borders, Changing Rules and Practices of Ethnicity and Loyalty in Romania after 1918. The Hungarian historical review: new series of Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 2(3), pp.449-476.

Hungarian minorities between nationalism and regionalism in Romania and Czechoslovakia, 1918–1944].

Iordachi, C., Kántor, Z., Petrescu, C., Petrescu, D. and Balázs, T., 2001. Nation-Building and Constantin, M., 2011. Artisanship and Ethnicity in the 2000s Romania. Canadian-American Slavic Studies, 45(1), pp.1-35.Contested Identities. Romanian and Hungarian Case Studies.

Kaufmann, E., 2009. Dominant ethnicity and dominant nationhood: Empirical and normative aspects. Dominant nationalism, dominant ethnicity: Identity, federalism and democracy, pp.35-56.

Laven, D. and Baycroft, T., 2008. Border regions and identity. European Review of History—Revue européenne d'histoire, 15(3), pp.255-275.

Lee, E.J., Keyes, K., Bitfoi, A., Mihova, Z., Pez, O., Yoon, E. and Masfety, V.K., 2014. Mental health disparities between Roma and non-Roma children in Romania and Bulgaria. BMC psychiatry, 14(1), p.297.

Manias, C., 2013. Race, science, and the nation: reconstructing the ancient past in Britain, France and Germany. Routledge.

Neaga, D.E., 2016. Empowering Roma women in Romania–gender or/and ethnicity. AnALize: Revista de studii feministe, (7 (21)), pp.27-37.

Rigó, M., 2017. Etnicitás, identitás, politika: Magyar kisebbségek nacionalizmus és regionalizmus között Romániában és Csehszlovákiában 1918–1944 [Ethnicity, identity, politics:

Rughiniş, C., 2010. The forest behind the bar charts: bridging quantitative and qualitative research on Roma/Ţigani in contemporary Romania. Patterns of prejudice, 44(4), pp.337-367.

Stewart, M., 2013. Roma and Gypsy “ethnicity” as a subject of anthropological inquiry. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, pp.415-432.

Trencsényi, B. ed., 2001. Nation-building and contested identities: Romanian and Hungarian case studies. Regio Books.