Ethnic Identities in East-Central Europe: The Results of the Census 2011 in Comparative Perspective Paper presented at workshop “Whither Eastern Europe? Changing Political Science Perspectives on the Region” Gainesville, FL, January 9-11, 2014 Dr. Christoph Schnellbach (Andrássy University Budapest/ LMU München) Email: [email protected] Abstract This article reviews the results of the EU-wide census 2011 in a comparative perspective. The author focuses on Hungary, Slovakia and Romania – EU Member States, which have been prone to bilateral conflicts on national minorities. Census results are very illuminating for those Central and Eastern European states, having significant ethnic and national minority populations, including an increasing number of Roma. The article reflects upon the way in which census data has informed both research and politics since 1989. The author draws on Brubaker’s ‘triadic nexus’ to explore the interactions of several ‘nationalisms’ (national minorities, nationalizing states, external national homelands) in post-socialist Europe. The methodological discrepancies between states reflect political preoccupations among a multitude of actors, (scientific) interests and the legal implications by anti-discrimination policies, minority rights and data protection. However, census results provide for an analytical starting point and empirical tool for further research. The author argues that the data does not stand for itself but needs to be supplemented by other research methods to fully understand the evolution and impact of ethnicity in East-Central European societies. Keywords: census, data collection, Roma, East Central Europe, ethnicity

Introduction Minority research is based on censuses – they provide an indispensable source for empirical studies, surveys, ethnographies and other research methodologies. Censuses were carried out in Central and Eastern Europe in the years 1990/91 and 2001/02 and were used to reorient policies on minorities. However, the results only partially reflected the actual demographic situation. Although the censuses covered criteria such as nationality, language or cultural identity, many people did not use these options in the surveys. Thus, the estimated numbers of minorities provided by nongovernmental and international organizations were much larger than the official data collected.

1

The EU-wide census of 2011 underlines this discrepancy in numbers and reaffirms the necessity to put the censuses in East-Central Europe in a comparative perspective. This article examines the question of how nationality is conceptualized and categorized. Likewise, when we compare the practice in the different countries two essential questions are raised: What kind of questions on ethnicity are included in questionnaires? Is there an obligation (and willingness) to provide information on nationality and mother tongue?

The results of the 2011 census were posted in spring 2013. These data sets provide for a longterm view of the demographic trends in the post-socialist area. Special attention in the academic literature has been given to two minority groups recently: the Hungarian minorities living outside Hungary’s borders in the Carpathian basin and the ‘transnational’ Roma minority across Europe. The first case led to a considerable political dispute, as the relations between Hungarians and the majority populations in Slovakia and Romania in the past two decades have frequently been a major issue in bilateral affairs. The figures provided by the census will affect both internal policies on minorities and the external national politics (nemzetpolitika) of Hungary. Since the early 1990s, the number of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania has been gradually decreasing. Hungary, for its part, sometimes resorts to unilateral action to promote its own minorities abroad, such as the “Status Law” of 2001. The Roma, on the other hand, have been one of the most vulnerable groups during the recent economic crisis and are still subject to widespread marginalization and discrimination.

This article interprets the results of the EU-wide census 2011 in light of the research perspective of the “triadic nexus”.1 The three elements of Brubaker’s triadic nexus (national minorities, nationalizing states, external national “homelands”) should be treated not as finished entities but as dynamic, interconnected concepts. These three forms of nationalism intertwine and interact. In addition, there is a fourth dimension, which can be described as Europeanization or EU-ization. The influence of the European Union on the minority policies in the Central and Eastern European countries can be seen as an indicator of a “quadratic nexus” which emphasizes the role of international organizations.2

Censuses in the European Union

At the national and at the subnational (NUTS 1 and NUTS 2) levels, censuses gather information on education and employment – but not on ethnicity or religion.3 However, in the 2

states of East Central Europe (CEE), the question of nationality or ethnicity is usually requested in the census forms. Comparing the censuses in CEE, the design of the questionnaires is very different. The census forms of Hungary, Slovakia and Romania were examined for the following features:

1. the importance of ethnicity as judged by the placement of the subject on the form; 2. the relation of ethnicity to other topics; 3. the number of issues related to ethnicity; 4. mandatory information on confession and ethnicity; 5. the terminology in the questionnaires used to identify ethnic origin; 6. the language of the questionnaires.

In 2011, the European Commission published methodically detailed explanations for censuses with the aim of increasing the value of the results and to improve comparability of data (1980, 1990 and 2001). Recent developments on the EU side (enlargement to the East, the Eurozone crisis, Treaty of Lisbon) gave impetus to a desire for more detailed and comparable data at European level.

Interestingly, there are very few EU guidelines on the subject of ethnicity. The position of the European Union is characterized by the policy of non-discrimination in questions of ethnic identity. This attitude is also reflected by two principles. First, the EU rejects the transmission of confidential information for reasons of data protection. 4 Second, the EU Regulation on censuses (Regulation No 519/2010) allows Member States, in some cases, to make decisions about the wording of topics or specific sub-categories.5

Hungary

The demographic situation in Hungary reflects tendencies that have been ongoing since the political turn in 1989. Whereas the total population has only diminished slightly (from 10,374,823 in 1990 to 9,937,628 in 2011), the number of people who declare themselves ethnic Hungarians decreased significantly. Many respondents did not tick the “nationality” box in the latest census in 2011.6 At the same time, the Roma population increased from 142,683 in 1990 to 308,957 in 2011. This number is still beneath the estimates of international organizations and NGOs (see table 4). Nevertheless, there seems to be a new readiness from 3

Roma minority members to identify with their ethnic group. This can also be seen among Germans, whose number rose from 30,824 in 1990 to 131,951 in 2011. Likewise, Slovaks, Croats and Romanians are increasingly willing to declare their nationality in the population census. Table 1: Demographic Situation in Hungary7

Total population

Hungarians Roma Germans Slovaks Croats Romanians Ukrainians Serbs Slovenes Poles Greeks Bulgarians Ruthenians Armenians

1990 10,374,823

2001 10,198,315

2011 9,937,628

Nationality Mother tongue 10,142,072 10,222,529 (97.8%) (98.5 %) 142,683 48,072 (1.4 %) (0.46 %) 30,824 37,511 (0.3 %) (0.36 %) 10,459 12,745 (0.1 %) (0.1 %) 13,570 17,577 (0.1 %) (0.17 %) 10,740 8,730 (0.1 %) n/a n/a 2,905 2,953 1,930 2,627 n/a 3,788 n/a 1,640 n/a 1,370 n/a 674 n/a 37

Nationality Mother tongue 9,416,045 9,546,374 (92.3 %) (93.6 %) 190,046 48,685 (1.9 %) (0.48 %) 62,233 33,792 (0.6 %) (0.33 %) 17,693 11,817 (0.17 %) (0.01 %) 15,620 14,345 (0.15 %) (0.01 %) 7,995 8,482

Nationality Mother tongue 8,314,029 8,409,049 (83.7 %) (84.6 %) 308,957 54,339 (3.1 %) (0.5 %) 131,951 38,248 (1.3 %) (0.4 %) 29,647 9,888 (0.3 %) (0.1 %) 23,561 13,716 (0.2 %) (0.1 %) 26,345 13,886

5,070 3,816 3,040 2,962 2,509 1,358 1,098 620

5,633 7,210 2,385 5,730 3,916 3,556 3,323 3,293

4,885 3,388 3,187 2,580 1,921 1,299 1,113 294

3,384 3,708 1,723 3,049 1,872 2,899 999 444

In the census questionnaires, the subject of ethnicity came up in in the second part. This means ethnicity is not the most prominent issue. The Hungarian questionnaire presented the topic of citizenship in the first part and ethnicity almost at the end. Nevertheless, the subject is placed in a separate block, introduced by the note – “Answering the following questions is not compulsory!” – underlining the voluntary nature of giving information on ethnicity and religion. 4

In all Hungarian census forms since 1990, questions on ethnicity are followed by questions on religion. This indicates a very close relationship between ethnicity and religion, as both characterize community cohesion of a nation, a national or ethnic group or a (religious) minority.8 Past censuses support the strong correlation of ethnic, linguistic and religious characteristics.

The Hungarian questionnaire addressed these issues in three different ways:

A. Direct questions about the ethnicity of the respondent, commitment to membership in a particular ethnic group; B. Direct questions on mother tongue; C. Specific questions on ethnicity.

Direct questions on membership of a particular ethnic group seem to be simple. However, to respond to a direct question on ethnicity in Central and Eastern Europe is not always an easy task as the answers reflect subjective feelings, hopes and fears, which may be independent of country and native language of the respondent.

Even responses to the mother tongue can be considered as a relatively subjective criterion. This is an indirect method of defining ethnicity as it is about the origin and the context in which that language has been learned – at least in the case of a predominant language in the population. Many minority rights are associated with the use of the mother tongue. The right to mother-tongue education, the right to use the minority language in newspapers, television, etc. only applies to those who consider a particular language as their mother tongue. It is possible in some cases to define mother tongue based on objective criteria: it is not a matter of choice for the individual, since it is the first language to be transmitted and learned as a child. However, in other cases a child might have learned two or more languages and can later hardly distinguish which one was the first.

Native language is often not the only language that is used by respondents from an ethnic minority, as they are usually bilingual. This is why questionnaires include other languages to get a better understanding of the situation of the ethnic group in a country. Thus, the Hungarian questionnaire contains more specific questions about ethnicity. Referring to 5

language, question 36 asks: “What is your mother tongue?” (A maximum of two answers). Question 37 follows up on this topic: “Which language do you usually speak with family members or friends?” (A maximum of two answers). In addition to the languages of recognized minorities such as Bulgarian, Gypsy (Roma), Greek, Croatian, Polish, German, Armenian, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian and Ukrainian, Further languages including Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Vietnamese, i.e. languages spoken by the largest migrant groups in Hungary, complete the list.9 The notion of ethnicity in the questionnaire does not refer to the term “minority”, but literally “nationality” (nemzetiség). In the 2001 census, the question was: “Which of these nationalities do you feel you belong to?” (Here were a maximum of three to tick or to fill in a text box). However, the 2011 census asked: “What nationality do you feel you belong to?” (Question 34) and “Do you think you belong to any other nationality in addition to what you marked above?” (Question 35). As selection options, Hungarian as well as all recognized ethnic minorities are listed, but also Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Vietnamese. This implies to Hungarian citizens that they “should” commit to a major ethnic identity.

Finally, the language of the questionnaire has to be taken into account. Providing the census forms in many languages can encourage people belonging to minorities to fill in the questionnaire. First, this promotes compliance directly by linguistic clarity. Second, it does so indirectly as a concession of the state towards its minorities regarding language use. In Hungary, questionnaires were traditionally provided in all state-recognized minority languages.

Slovakia

The demographic situation in Slovakia is starkly different from Hungary. Whereas the total population is relatively stable, there is a significant decrease in minority populations such as Hungarians (567,296 in 1991, 458,467 in 2011), Bohemians and Germans. On the other hand, there is slight increase of the Roma population from 75,802 in 1991 to 105,738 in 2011 – which only reflects a fraction of the real numbers.

6

Table 2: Demographic Situation in Slovakia10 1991 5,274,335 Nationality

2001 5,379,455 Nationality

Moravians / Silesians Croats Poles

4,519,328 (85.7 %) 567,296 (10.8 %) 75,802 (1.4 %) 52,884 (1.0 %) 17,197 (0.3 %) 13,281 (0.3 %) 5,414 (0.2 %) 6,442 (0.1 %) n/a 2,659

4,614,854 (85.8 %) 520,528 (9.7 %) 89,920 (1.7 %) 44,620 (0.8 %) 24,201 (0.4 %) 10,814 (0.2 %) 5,405 (0.1 %) 2,348

Russians12 Bulgarians

n/a 1,400

1,590 1,179

Total population

Slovaks Hungarians Roma11 Bohemians Ruthenians Ukrainians Germans

890 2,602

Mother tongue 4,512,217 (83.9 %) 572,929 (10.7 %) 99,448 (1.8 %) 48,201 (0.9 %) 54,907 (1.0 %) 7,879 (0.2 %) 6,343 (0.1 %) n/a 988 3,119 (0.1 %) 1,004

2011 5,397,036 Nationality 4,352,775 (80.7 %) 458,467 (8.5 %) 105,738 (2.0 %) 30,367 (0.6 %) 33,482 (0.6 %) 7,430 (0.1 %) 4,690 (0.1 %) 3,286 (0.1 %) 1,022 3,084 (0.1 %) 1,997 1,051

Mother tongue 4,240,453 (78.6 %) 508,714 (9.4 %) 122,518 (2.3 %) 35,216 (0.7 %) 55,469 (1.0 %) 5,689 (0.1 %) 5,186 (0.1 %) n/a 1,234 2,731 (0.1 %) 132

The Slovakian questionnaire used a pre-coded list and asked for information on nationality (národnosť), mother tongue (materinský jazyk) and religion (náboženské vyznanie).13 In the 2001 census, only six options were available for either question. Furthermore, there was a place to fill in, if the nationality or mother tongue was not Slovakian, Hungarian, Czech, Roma, Russian or Ukrainian. In the 2011 form, other options were available, such as German, Polish, Croat or Bulgarian. In contrast to the Hungarian version of 2011, respondents are supposed to tick only one option. Yet another difference from the 2001 form, the 2011 questionnaire asks for most frequently used language (najčastejšie používaný jazyk) in public and at home. Regarding the placement of the questions, they were “downgraded” from number 10-12 in 2001 to number 20-23 in 2011. 7

Romania Table 3: Demographic Situation in Romania14

Total population Romanians Hungarians Roma Ukrainians Germans

1992 22,810,035 Nationality 20,408,542 (89.5 %) 1,624,959 (7.1 %) 401,087 (1.75 %) 65,472 (0.28 %)

2002 21,680,974 Nationality 19,409,400 (89.5 %) 1,434,377 (6.60 %) 535,250 (2.46 %) 61,091 (0.28 %)

2011 20,121,641 Nationality 16,792,868 (83.5 %) 1,227,623 (6.50 %) 621,573 (3.29 %) 50,920 (0.27 %)

119,462 (0.52 %)

60,088 (0.28 %)

36,042 (0.19 %)

In Romania, the demographic development since the early 1990s is quite dramatic: The total population decreased from 22,810,035 in 1992 to 20,121,641 in 2011. The collected number of ethnic Romanians shrank to only 16.792.868 in 2011, due to massive emigration. At the same time, the number of persons belonging to the Hungarian minority dropped from 1,624,959 in 1992 to 1,227,623 in 2011. Likewise, the Germans in 2011 were only on third of their population in 1992 (119,462), due to a massive emigration to Germany after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The number of Roma increased steadily to 621,573 in 2011.

In Romania, the 2001 census collected information on citizenship, nationality and mother tongue with a binary choice ‘Romanian’ and ‘other’, religion with a binary choice ‘Orthodox’ and ‘other’. In 2011, the census form had an open-ended question, leaving respondents to indicate their origin or ethnic affiliation. The form asks in question 23: “What ethnic group does the person consider he/she belongs to?” Question 24 then asks: “What is the person’s mother tongue?” Unlike the Hungarian and Slovak questionnaires, one has to fill in a box with an abbreviation of the ethnicity or language that needs to be looked up in an appendix to the form. In addition, it is only possible to fill in one answer, multiple answers about ethnic identity or native language are not allowed. The recent census questionnaire was somewhat more inclusive; the forms were distributed both in Romanian and Hungarian.

8

Roma

An estimated population of 9-12 million Roma live in Europe, over half a million each in at least five EU countries respectively (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain). With the accession of 10 CEECs in 2004 and 2007, the Roma became the largest ethnic minority in the EU. The absence of a titular state and the socio-economic discrimination they face in many countries makes them one of the most vulnerable ethnic minority groups in Europe. While many Roma share the same cultural and ethnic roots, there is a debate over whether they share a collective identity. Some scholars argue that Roma have never been a cohesive transnational minority, whereas others argue that the Roma share the same interests due to their common identity as an oppressed, persecuted and marginalized group.15 The ‘construction’ of an ethnic group identity among Roma in Europe is further complicated by their wide geographic dispersion and the absence of any universally accepted organization or set of leaders.

The example of the Roma shows that they are stuck in an identity conflict: They do not emphasize their ethnic minority in censuses, as the following graph shows on the examples for Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. There are two reasons for this. First, the Roma often do not acknowledge their ethnic origin because of fear of discrimination and marginalization. Identification as Roma is often correlated with social stigma.16 Second, Roma often have no identity papers and therefore are not registered with the central statistical office. Consequently, such Roma are effectively “stateless” and thus are not recorded in the census data.

Table 4: Roma in East Central Europe17

Romania Hungary Slovak Republic

Total population

Roma: official number

Roma: average estimate

20,121,641 9,937,628 5,397,036

621,573 308,957 105,738

1,850,000 750,000 490,000

9

Brubaker revisited

Brubaker developed his theory of the triadic nexus since 1993 in a series of essays, which were republished (1997) in the book Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. His starting point was the examination of the contention that Europe would enter “post-nationalist era” after the Cold War. Brubaker instead argued for a resurgence of the nation state and the national idea in the first half of the 1990s. For Brubaker, the year 1992 is symbolic of the expected “transcendence” of the nation-state. However, nationalisms prevailed in Europe as the idea of institutionalized supranationalization in Western Europe itself was confronted with the realities, e.g. the outbreak of the war in the former Yugoslavia. In the new states of Central and Eastern Europe, the national question was not been solved, but reappeared in a form that resembled the early 20th Century (reframing of nationalism).

Brubaker identifies the three interactive components of the triadic nexus. First, the “nationalizing” state claims the role of a core or titular nation, defined by ethnic and cultural characteristics of the majority population, which sees itself as the legitimate “owner of the state”. Second, a national minority is not simply a group which is determined by ethnic criteria, but a dynamic political entity that is characterized by a number of features. These include: (a) the public claim to membership in another nation as the state of residence, (b) the demand for state recognition of ethnic otherness, and (c) the assertion of certain collective rights in regard to their own political and cultural nationality. Third, there is an “external national homeland”, which engages for “their” ethnic minorities and support its demands for collective rights. In Brubaker’s conception, the three elements of the triadic nexus should not be regarded as isolated entities, but as dynamic, interconnected components of nationalism that intertwine and interact. In his opening chapter “Rethinking Nationhood”, Brubaker challenges the longstanding view of nations as real entities, as substantial, enduring collectivities. The problem with this “substantialist treatment of nations”, he argues, is that it adopts categories of practice as categories of analysis. The reality of groups, he notes, has been called into question by a number of developments in social theory: the flourishing of network theory and of theories of rational action with their relentless methodological individualism; the shift away from 10

structuralism towards a variety of more “constructivist” theoretical stances; and “an emergent postmodernist theoretical sensibility which emphasises the fragmentary, the ephemeral, as well as the erosion of fixed forms and clear boundaries”.18 Brubaker’s own analysis treats the nation “not as substance but as institutionalised form; not as collectivity but as practical category; not as entity but as contingent event”.19 Thus, “nationhood is pervasively institutionalised in the practice of states and the state system. It is a world in which nation is widely, if unevenly available and resonant as a category of social vision and division. It is a world in which nationness may suddenly, and powerfully `happen`. But none of this implies a world of nations – of substantial, enduring collectivities”.20 Rather than asking the question “what is a nation?”, we should instead ask “how is nationhood as a political and cultural form institutionalised within and among states? How does nation work as practical category, as classificatory scheme, as cognitive frame? What makes the nationevoking, nation-invoking efforts of political entrepreneurs more or less likely to succeed?”.21

This approach is very useful for interpreting the census results of 2011. Population statistics not only aim to provide knowledge about demographic dynamics or a benchmark for public debates and policies. Censuses also play a key role in nation building and the (re)production of national identity.22 Interpreting census data therefore includes dealing with a multiplicity of actors who struggle “over that most basic of powers, the power to name, to categorize, and thus to create social reality”.23

Hungary is an example for both, the volatility and stability of the concept of the nation. While the incumbent FIDESZ-government uses identity politics both inside and outside Hungary’s borders, reinvigorating even dreams of “Greater Hungary”, there is – on the other hand – an increasing number of Hungarians unwilling to give information on their nationality in the census results. The reasons for this are not necessarily overtly political. It could be caused by sheer indifference.

Reservations based on historical grievances could also play a role here. Regarding censuses in the twentieth century, demographers came to the conclusion that the census results based on self-identification do not correspond to the actual situation.24 Such discrepancies are rarely a consequence of errors in data collection, but rather a caused by external, social and political factors. For example, after the territorial and political changes after the end of the First World 11

War, a significant part of the population where either afraid on giving ethnic date due to state persecution or did not believe that the declaration of ethnicity carried the same obligation as providing other personal data – such as age or family status.

The evidence presented here on the Roma are also illustrative. While mainstream society certainly identifies the “Roma” and attaches certain attributes to them, their self-identification remains embryonic. According to estimates, only one in four Roma is willing to associate with a Roma ethnicity in the census questionnaires. This again brings us back to Brubaker’s conception and the difficulties to define ethnicity in objective terms. Not only can no agreement be found in social science upon a generally accepted definition of ethnicity, but its conversion into a simple question on a census form seems to be a great challenge. One can conclude that “heterogeneity is still the dominant feature of the statistical landscape at the beginning of the twenty-first century”,25 even for a rather confined region such as East Central Europe.

After all, the census results can be taken as an indicator of demographic developments. However, the data needs to be interpreted cautiously and should be supplemented by other empirical findings, e.g. from ethnography.26 Surveys and censuses often assume that respondents had mutually exclusive, rather than overlapping, complementary or even reinforcing notions of homeland and ethnicity. This is a problematic assumption as could be seen in the case studies. Quantitative analyses therefore have only limited explanatory power. Qualitative interpretation of the historical, political and social situation, in which the censuses take place, can lead to valid results. The analysis of the importance of ethnicity by the placement of the subject, the style and the terminology in the questionnaires regarding ethnic origin sheds some light on discrepancies in the social construction of ethnic attributions and self-attributions in East Central Europe. However, a combination of methods – including the use of history, demography, surveys, primary source materials, content analysis and discourse analysis – has to be applied to fully comprehend the dynamics of ethnic identity.27

12

Notes

R. Brubaker, Nationalism reframed: nationhood and the national question in the new Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997) 2 D. Smith “Framing the Nationalities Question in Central and Eastern Europe: A Quadratic Nexus?”, Global Review of Ethnopolitics, September 2002, http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_II/issue_1/smith.pdf (accessed 1 December 2013). 3 The EU Regulation 763/2008 of 9 July 2008 obliged Member States of the European Union to collect data according to a fixed catalogue of features for the 2011 census. The goal was that the results should be comparable across the EU. It was up to the Member States on how the data should be collected. For definitions of the administrative units, the EU uses the systems Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) and Local Administrative Unit (LAU). Moreover, there was a distinction between derived and non-derived topics in the list of items for the population and dwelling section. 4 This is linked to data protection laws within the EU, which define ethnic and racial origin as ‘sensitive data’ and thus ban their collection, see J. Ringelheim and O. de Schutter Ethnic Monitoring. The Processing of Racial and Ethnic Data in Anti-Discrimination Policies: Reconciling the Promotion of Equality with Privacy Rights (Brussels: Bruylant, 2010). 5 European Commission, EU Legislation on the 2011 Population and Housing Censuses — Explanatory Notes (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011). 6 The strong deviation of the results in this category compared to 2001 reflects the fact that in 2011 altogether 1,455,883 respondents did not (wish to) answer, compared to 570,537 in 2001. This can also be observed to a lesser extent for the category “mother tongue”. 7 Data compiled from Hungary 1st Report “Report Submitted by Hungary Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. ACFC/SR(1999)010 Straßburg, 21 May 1999; Hungary 3rd Report “Third Report Submitted by Hungary Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. ACFC/SR/III(2009)007. Straßburg, 4 June 2009, Központi Statisztikai Hivatal: “2011. Évi Népszámlálás”, Budapest. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_orsz_2011.pdf, (accessed 1 December 2013). 8 See Anna Grzymala-Busse’s contribution on religion and politics in East Central Europe in this issue. 9 Official minorities as defined by the Minority Act of 1993 have lived on the territory of Hungary for at least one century. Only those groups are recognized, whose members hold Hungarian citizenship and have at least 1,000 citizens identifying with the group. The Act does not name any new immigrant minorities and deliberately excludes any recent immigrant groups from coverage under this law due to its criteria of at least 100 years of residence, see A. Krizsan, “Group self-determination, individual rights, or social inclusion? Competing frames for ethnic counting in Hungary”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35:8, (2011), p. 1396, accessed 9 September 2014, doi: 10.1080/01419870.2011.607501. 10 Data compiled from Slovakia 2nd Report (2005): “Second Report Submitted by the Slovak Republic Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities”. ACFC/SR/II(2005)001. Straßburg, 3 January 2005; Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky), http://portal.statistics.sk/showdoc.do?docid=50553 (accessed 1 December 2013). 11 At the 1991 census “Roma” was an ethnic option for the first time in Slovakia. However, apparently only reluctant use of this option was made – just the same at the 2001 census. The actual number of Roma is probably many times higher and is estimated by the Slovak government in 2001 to 380,000; cf. Slovakia 2nd Report, 2005, p. 60. 12 The Russian minority was officially recognized in 2003. 13 The Slovak Constitution distinguishes between national minorities and ethnic groups. A commentary on the 1997 Constitution states that the legal system of the Slovak Republic makes no definition of those terms. 14 National Institute of Statistics (INSSE): PRESS RELEASE No. 159 of July 4th, 2013 on the final results of Population and Housing Census– 2011 (demographic characteristics of population). 1

13

http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/statistici/comunicate/RPL/RPL%20_rezultate%20definitive_e.pdf, (accessed 1 December 2013) 15 A. McGarry, Who Speaks for Roma? Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community, (New York: Continuum, 2010), p. 158. 16 Roma are neither politically nor socially united due to their linguistic and communal diversity: there are countless Roma subgroups like the Boyash, Lovari or Sinti. 17

Data from Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/romatravellers/default_en.asp (accessed 9 April 2014)

Brubaker, 1997, p. 13. 19 Ibid., p. 16. 20 Ibid., p. 21. 21 Ibid., p. 16. 22 P. Simon, “Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: a review” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35:8 (2011):1368, accessed 9 September 2014, doi: 10.1080/01419870.2011.607507. 23 Kertzer, D. I. and Arel, D. (eds) Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 36. 24 I. Hoóz, “Population census and nationality” Minorities Research 3 http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/mr_03/cikk.php?id=1229, (accessed 1 December 2013) 25 P. Simon, “Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: a review”, p. 1376. 26 See Eleanor Knott’s contribution to this volume. 27 H. E. Brady and C. S. Kaplan “Conceptualizing and Measuring Ethnic Identity”, in: Measuring Identity: A Guide for Social Scientists, eds. R. Abdelal, Y. M. Herrera, A. I. Johnston, and R. McDermott 33-71, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 18

14