16. 09. 2017
In Romania de dupa 1989 s-a inventat, intretinut si propagat mitul respectiv minciuna, conform carora,
autonomia conferita unui minoritati etnice (sau unei regiuni a tarii) ar insemna “separatism” (adica o miscare de ‘rupere de la trupul tarii’) si ca ar fi incompatibila cu caracterul “national si unitar” al statului roman, stipulat in articolul 1 al
Constitutiei Romaniei. Nu incape dubiu pentru cei informati pe aceasta tema ca cei care se opun unor forme de autonomie, mai ales in favoarea celor aprox. 1,2 milioane de maghiari din Transilvania, o fac deseori neinformat, strident, patriotard sau chiar …retard.
Printre cele mai recente, bizare si chiar instigatoare manifestari anti-autonomie tine, in mod cert,
apelul la boicotal benzinariilor
MOL al fostului presedinte de stat, Traian Basescu, in urma postarii unor fotografii pe reteaua Facebook de la o asemenea statie de benzina, aratand o banala si, in sine chiar simpatica
harta de promovare turistica a Tinutului Secuiesc, pe care se putea vedea conturul regunii in cadrul Romaniei, suprapus peste actualele judete Harghita, Covasna si Mures. In actualul context de tensionari interetnice artificiale (vezi
cazul provocarii esuate de la magazinul KAUFLAND Odorheiu Secuiesc, in 31. 08. 2019)
Cum se prezinta realitatea, foarte pe scurt, din punct de vedere legal, constitutional? In ciuda faptului ca subiectul starneste patimi si dispute POLITICE in mai multe state (de regula centraliste, etnocratice) din Europa si din lume – mai ales datorita pericolului (aparent sau real) ce se asociaza cu statutele de autonomie, conferite unor etnii sau regiuni, creand impresia gresita ca ar fi vorba de chestiune ce ar intra in competenta EXCLUSIVA a fiecarui stat in parte, drepturile minoritatilor nationale, printre care si autonomia, fac obiectul mai multor documente ale unor tratate sau institutii internationale la care Romania a aderat – cu drepturi si obligatii depline: ONU, CSCE, CE (vezi art. 12, 12, 20 ale Constitutiei Romaniei).
Citind si analizand cateva dintre documentele cheie ale acestor organisme de
dept international, putem constata ca ele fac referire explicita si pozitiva la diferitele forme de autonomie teritoriala, culturala, locala resp. la statute speciale pentru apararea existentei si drepturilor minoritatilor etnice. Nu este loc in aceasta postare pentru elucidarea relatiei complexe intre dreptul la autodeterminare al popoarelor (mai generoase) si drepturile conferite asaziselor minoritati nationale (mai limitate) – se poate constata insa ca exista interpretari si tendinte favorabile ce admit, in anumite conditii, invocarea dreptului la autodeterminare interna si externa si unor grupuri apartinand minoritatilor nationale.
Cum se va arata mai jos, perceptia si abordarea EXPLICIT NEGATIVA, DOGMATICA din Romania, cu privire la formele de autonomie, ESTE IN CONTRADICTIE cu POZITIILE EXPLICIT POZITIVE, exprimate in cadrul Consiliului Europei (CE), Organizatie Natiunilor Unite (ONU) si a Conferintei/Organizatiei pentru Securitate si Cooperare in Europa (CSCE/OSCE). Din contra, unele documente CE sustin chiar ca statutele speciale sau de autonomie SUNT COMPATIBILE cu UNITATEA NATIONALA si cu formele unitare de organizare statala. Mai mult, autonomiile pot contribui la stabilitatea si integritatea teritoriala a statelor, prin eliminarea unor surse de potential conflict etnic din interiorul acestuia.
Mai jos o scurta enumerare a documentelor, cu citarea unor pasaje explicite. Important: Este vorba, de regula, de documente cu caracter de RAPORT, RECOMANDARE – fara caracter explicit obligatoriu (
ius cogens). Intrepretate insa prin filtrul unor CARTE, PACTE sau TRATATE internationale ce impun semnatarilor respectarea drepturilor omului, de care tin, in mod explicit, si drepturile minoritatilor nationale, putem AFIRMA CU CERTITUDINE ca respectivele recomandari si rapoarte DESCHID CALEA ROMANIEI pentru implementarea unor asemenea forme de AUTONOMIE/autoguvernare.
Mai mult: Nu gresim daca afirmam ca, in baza Constitutiei sale – vezi art. 20/1, ce acorda prioritate reglementarilor internationale in caz de neconcordanta cu cele interne – Romania are chiar …OBLIGATIA sa puna in practica solutii specifice membrilor unei minoritati etnice pentru realizarea drepturilor omului, din care fac parte si drepturile minoritatilor etnice – solutii ce incud si autonomiile de diferite tipuri.
Ce se intampla daca Romania NU isi schimba pozitia in chestiunea autonomiilor? In esenta …NIMIC – cel putin teoretic si pe moment – asa cum nici in ultimii 27 de ani de dupa Revolutie nu s-a intamplat nimic. Dar lucrurile NU sunt deloc atat de simple si batute in cuie, cum lasa sa inteleaga atitudinea oficiala transanta a guvernelor romanesti (sau ale altor state centraliste/etnocratice). Despre asta insa intr-o postare viitoare, ca sa nu incurcam subiectele AUTONOMIE si AUTODETERMINARE.
Iata mai jos lista textelor ce fac referire pozitiva la autonomia (teritoriala, culturala, locala) sau chiar recomanda aceasta ca solutie pentru asigurarea exsitentei minoritatilor nationale – a se vedea mai ales doc. nr. 2, 3. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12. In texte vati gasi, hasurata, articolele in cauza.
Article 7 Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to develop and discuss new human rights ideas and principles and to advocate their acceptance.”
………………………………………………………………….
CITATE CHEIE:
1. (CARTA DE LA PARIS – 1990)
We affirm that the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of national minorities will be protected and that persons belonging to national minorities have the right freely to express, preserve and develop that identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.
2. (REPORT OF THE CSCE MEETING OF EXPERTS ON NATIONAL MINORITIES, GENEVA – 1991)
They recognize that such measures, which take into account, inter alia, historicl and territorial circumstances of national minorities, are particularly important in areas where democratic institutions are being consolidated and national minorities issues are of special concern.
Aware of the diversity and varying constitutional systems among them, which make no single approach necessarily generally applicable, the participating States note with interest that positive results have been obtained by some of them in an appropriate democratic manner by, inter alia:
advisory and decision-making bodies in which minorities are represented, in particular with regard to education, culture and religion;
elected bodies and assemblies of national minority affairs;
local and autonomous administration, as well as autonomy on a territorial basis, including the existence of consultative, legislative and executive bodies chosen through free and periodic elections;
self-administration by a national minority of aspects concerning its identity in situations where autonomy on a territorial basis does not apply;
decentralized or local forms of government;
bilateral and multilateral agreements and other arrangements regarding national minorities;
3. (COMMENTARY OF THE WORKING GROUP ON MINORITIES TO THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO NATIONAL OR ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS AND LINGUISTIC MINORITIES – 2005)
While the Declaration does not provide group rights to self-determination, the duties of the State to protect the identity of minorities and to ensure their effective participation might in some cases be best implemented by arrangements for autonomy in regard to religious, linguistic or broader cultural matters. Good practices of that kind can be found in many States. The autonomy can be territorial, cultural and local, and can be more or less extensive. Such autonomy can be organized and managed by associations set up by persons belonging to minorities in accordance with article 2.4.
4. (Recomandarea nr. 1201 cu referire la un protocol adi ţional la Convenţia European ă a Drepturilor Omului, privind drepturile persoanelor apar ţinând minorit ăţilor naţionale – 1993)
Art. 11: În regiunile unde sunt majoritare, persoanele apar ţinând unei minorităţi naţionale au dreptul
de a dispune de administraţii locale autonome adecvate sau de un statut special, corespunzător situaţiei istorice si teritoriale specifice si conforme cu legislaţia naţională a statului.
5. (ADUNAREA PARLAMENTAR Ă A CONSILIULUI EUROPEI - Recomandarea No. 1735/ 2006 - Conceptul de „naţiune”)
(…)direcţia generală de evoluţie a statului-naţiune este către transformarea, de la caz la caz, dintr-un stat pur etnic sau etnocentric într-unul civic şi dintr-un stat pur civic într-unul multicultural, unde anumite drepturi sunt recunoscute, nu doar persoanelor fizice, dar şi comunităţilor culturale şi naţionale.
6. (Recommendation 43 (1998) on territorial autonomy and national minorities) Considering that the principle of subsidiarity takes concrete form in the recognition and the institution of territorial autonomy, which may consist in local or regional selfgovernment;
Bearing in mind the fact that the concept of territorial autonomy does not necessarily imply that the powers assigned to a particular level of government – local, provincial or regional – are the same, but that, in relation to the same level of self-government, powers may be distributed differently in accordance with economic, geographical, historic, social, cultural and linguistic requirements;
Affirming that the use of the subsidirity principle to assist in solving the problem of national minorities is not detrimental to the unity of the state, but should be an opportunity to strengthen that state’s cohesion and solidarity, while, at the same time, having regard to the growing interdependence within national populations and the peoples of Europe;
7. (Recommendation 70 (1999) on local law/special status – 1999)
7. Under certain circumstances, special status may provide appropriate protection for regional and minority cultures;
8. This type of status, introduced specifically for a particular part of the territory of a state, can be incorporated into the traditional forms (federal, regional, or unitary) of territorial organisation of states ;
9. It is possible to provide for the setting up of territorial authorities that would bring together the members of minority groups within administrative sub-divisions, enabling them to be more effectively protected;
10. The recognition of special status is an appropriate response by states to the existence of specific cultural, historical or geographical situations in part of their territory ;
11. The granting of special status is a means of ensuring, on the one hand, that cultural diversity within a state is not considered a threat to the state and, on the other hand, that the state is not perceived as a threat by every minority living on its territory ;
12. The existence of forms of special status reflecting specific requirements in terms of the values involved can be compatible with the rules of ordinary law and lead to greater integration than that produced by uniform or symmetrical unitary systems ;
13. Where they exist, these forms of special territorial autonomy remain compatible with the unity of the state and may also help to preserve its territorial integrity;
14. The existence of local law or forms of special status is not at variance with the principle of quality provided it is designed to take due account of a particular situation and differences which need to be respected;
15. The process of European integration has highlighted the need to counterbalance the trend towards legislative standardisation with greater consideration for the particular situations experienced by certain population groups;
16. The existence of different forms of special status in a number of European states has demonstrated that it is possible and feasible to manage the differences within a state through legislation without undermining that state’s unity and coherence;
quod erat demonstrandum
Hans Hedrich, politolog, activist civic
