ECPR General Conference, 2011, Reykjavik, Iceland

Section: ID 43, Themes and Challenges to Multi-Level and Regional Politics

Panel: ID 313 Minority Politics within the Europe of Region

Authors: István Csernicskó (Transcarpathian Hungarian College, Ukraine) and Viktória Ferenc

(University of Pécs, Hungary)

SIX LESSONS FROM HISTORY: REGIONAL, MINORITY AND LANGUAGE POLICY IN TRANSCARPATHIA/ SUBCARPATHIA BETWEEN 1900 AND 2010

During the 20th century Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia region belonged to several different states: the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, Czechoslovakia, the independent Carpatho-Ukraine, the Hungarian Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and finally to Ukraine. Today Transcarpathia borders on four member states of the European Union (Poland, the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania) and due to its history several ethnicities and languages, several religions and many cultures live side by side in the region. However, as a consequence of the different language and minority policies in Transcarpathia we cannot find a common language that everybody knows independently from age, gender, education, religion or place. The lack of the lingua franca makes the dialogue between ethnicities difficult, even impossible. In practice it means that Ukrainians do not interested in the high-class performances of the Hungarian Theatre, while Hungarians do not read poems and novels of the Ukrainian writers. Russians do not pay attention either the Ukrainian or the Hungarian culture. And unfortunately each of the ethnicities estranged from the Roma community. In our paper we would like to outline the main features of the regional, minority and language policies of the different states with the purpose of prevention. We hope that the in-depth analysis of the history of this region can help us to avoid further mistakes and can find a model that could be useful not only in the region but also in the wider context like such multinational, linguistically diverse, culturally colourful territories as the Carpathian Basin and states in East-Central Europe.

1.The geographical position of Transcarpathia/ Subcarpathia

Borders of the present-day Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia is on the one hand are natural, however on the other hand they are artificial (Map 1). From the geographical point of view the territory borders on the Carpathian Mountains from north-east, and partly the river Tisza from the south. This natural border separates the borderline of Ukraine and Poland (33 km) and a part of the Ukrainian-Romanian border too (the entire length of the border between Ukraine and Romania in Transcarpathia is 190 km). This natural border separates the region from two other neighbouring administrative regions of Ukraine: Transcarpathia borders on the county of Lviv (85 km) and the county of Ivano-Frankivsk (180 km) from the north-east. The Ukrainian-Slovak border (98 km) and the Ukrainian-Hungarian border (135 km) were drawn artificially. A shorter part of the Ukrainian-Romanian border was also formed artificially (Molnár 2009: 107). According to historians in the formation of the artificial borders railway networks had played the most important part (Botlik 2005a, 2005b, 2008). The territory of the county of Transcarpathia is 12,8 thousands km2 (Baranyi 2009: 19).

Map 1. Geographical map of Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia

2.The outlined history of the region One hundred years ago the administrative region today known as Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia did not exist neither as a geographical, nor as a geopolitical unit. It had belonged to several states during the twentieth century. Due to that several names of it are known. Until 1918 Hungary’s Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros counties made up a bigger territory than the present-day Subcarpathia (Map 2). In 1918 – during the period of the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy – the People’s Republic of Hungary made a law on the autonomy of Rusyns in Hungary and called it Ruska Craina (in the literal sense of the words Ruska Craina means ‘Rusyn country’; the word Craina also means ‘border country, frontier region’).

Map 2. Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros counties and the territory of the present day Subcarpathia/Transcarpathia

The northern part of the historical Hungary, the Slovak and Rusyn territories (together with significant Hungarian population) were annexed to Czechoslovakia under the peace-treaty of Saint-German and Trianon. From that time the official name of the territories of Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros counties annexed from Hungary to Czechoslovakia became Podkarpatska Rus. The meaning of the official, Czech name Podkarpatská Rus is: Subcarpathian Russia. In the Hungarian everyday language Rusinsko was also used besides Podkarpatska Rus, further on in the 1930-ies the expression Subcarpathia became more and more used referring to the whole region. By the First Vienna Award (2 November, 1938) Hungarian-populated territories annexed from Czechoslovakia to Hungary administratively were given back to the counties to which they have been belonged to in the period before the Treaty of Trianon. On 15 March 1939, after the declaration of the independent Slovak Republic, Podkarpatska Rus with Hust as a chief town, proclaimed its independence too under the name Carpathian Ukraine [in the original Карпатська Україна]. The small state however was not long-lived. On the same day, 15 March the Hungarian Army took military action to reoccupy its former territories and in three days succeed to capture it. At the time the territory annexed to Hungary by military action, had not already become the part of the former counties, to which these were belonged before Trianon. Instead of it a new administrative unit, the Subcarpathian Province [Kárpátaljai Kormányzóság] was established. In 1944 autumn the region was liberated by the Soviet Red Army. Behind the passing front a quasy-state was established, which was existing a few months only under the name Transcarpathian Ukraine [in the original Закарпатська Україна].

In 1946 as a consequence of the Soviet-Czechoslovak agreement in 1945 the region became the part of the Soviet Union, within it the Ukrainian member state. The name of it was newly formed according to the political centre’s geographical viewpoint, and the soviet way of naming administrative regions (‘oblast’, in the original ’область’, means district). In that way the present name of the region Закарпатськая область [Transcarpathian district] was developed. In literary translation it refers to the territory over the Carpathian (mountains). The territory was the most western district of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian member state too. From that time it was obligatory to refer to the country as Transcarpathia in any language. Ukraine, which gained its independence in 1991 inherited the region from the Soviet Union. The name of the region Закарпатська область [Transcarpathian district] was taken over from the former period. In everyday language the accepted name in Ukrainian is Закарпаття [Transcarpathia], however local people, like Hungarians refer to it as Kárpátalja [Subcarpathia] (in Ukrainian Підкарпаття). The usage of the name of Transcarpathia versus Subcarpathia (in Ukrainian Закарпаття–Підкарпаття, in Hungarian Kárpátontúl–Kárpátalja) indicates geographical and political views at the same time. Seen from Moscow and Kyiv the region is situated over the Carpathian Mountains, that is why Ukrainians and Russians use the name Transcarpathia (in Ukrainian Закарпаття, in Hungarian Kárpátontúl). The region seen from Budapest, Prague, and in the views of the local population it is situated at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains. Therefore in Hungarian context the term Subcarpathia (in Ukrainian Підкарпаття, in Hungarian Kárpátalja) is used. The name used for the region is not unified either in the international literature. In the English language the terms Subcarpathia and Transcarpathia exist side by side. In the German language most frequently the terms Karpato-Ukraine and Transkarpatien are used. Papers in French mostly refer to it as Ukraine Subcarpathique. Karpato-Ukraine reflects the political reality for the most part, however the raison d’etre of Subkarpatien as a historical term is considered as indisputable.

Table 1. Status of the region between 1867 and 2010 State affiliation Period Name of the region Status of the region The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

1867–1918 Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa, Máramaros counties

In geographical and administrative sense it was not a unified region, but four counties of the Hungarian Kingdom, the member state of the Monarchy.

People’s Republic of Hungary and the Hungarian Soviet Republic

1918–1919 Ruska Craina (1918.XII.25.); Hucul Republic (1919.I.8.); Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa, Máramaros counties

The autonomy named Ruska Craina was not realised practically. The Hucul Republic referred to the eastern part of the country; however the Romanian Army winded it up in a short time. In reality the region was not an independent administrative unite.

(the first) Czechoslovakian Republic (the second) Czech-Slovak Republic

1919–1938 Podkarpatska Rus (Podkarpatská Rus)

The autonomy existed just in theory; its sphere of authority was restricted.

1938–1939 Podkarpatska Rus (Podkarpatská Rus, Подкарпатська Русь)

It was an autonomous territory within the federal Czechoslovakia.

Carpathian Ukraine 1939.III.14–15.

Carpathian Ukraine (Карпатська Україна)

Declared itself as an independent state, however it was not recognised by the international public.

Hungarian Kingdom 1939–1944 Subcarpathian Province The territory was ruled by a ’temporary’ central direction until giving the autonomous status (however the Rusyn autonomy did not realised)

Transcarpathian Ukraine

1944.XI.26.–1946.I.22.

Transcarpathian Ukraine (Закарпатська Україна)

It was a temporary state without international recognition.

The Soviet Union 1946–1991 Transcarpathian district (Закарпатская область)

It was a simple administrative region within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic without any kind of autonomy.

Ukraine From 1991 Transcarpathian district (Закарпатська область)

It is a simple administrative region within the independent Ukraine without any kind of autonomy.

Compiled from: Fedinec 2002, Fedinec–Vehes eds. 2010, Vehes–Fedinec eds. 2010, Панчук et al eds. 2008 and Vehes et al 2011

Map 3. Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia within the Soviet Union

Map 4. Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia in Ukraine

3.Population of the region From ethnical, linguistic and denominational point of view the region has mixed population. Rusyns/Ukrainians made up the absolute majority. Until 1945 the majority population was referred as Rusyns, Ruthenians, Hungarian-Russians. The usage of the ethnonimia Ukrainians became more frequent in the 1930-es. After 1945 the Soviet Union prohibited the usage of the ethnical name Rusyn. The Soviet Authority explained the annexation of Subcarpathia to the Soviet Union as the “reunion” of the ancient Ukrainian land, therefore the local Slavic inhabitants were declared as Ukrainian, and their language stated as the dialect of the Ukrainian language. This view is shared by the Ukrainian politics too. Therefore the Slavic settlers of Subcarpathia were registered as Rusyns until the middle of the twenties century, and then as Ukrainians in the database of the Soviet and Ukrainian Censuses. Hungarians made up the biggest minority group. They are living mainly in the southern part of the region. Russians appeared after the Second World War as a result of the soviet migration policy.

The majority of the Romanian minority community lives in some of settlement alongside the Romanian-Ukrainian border. The ratio of Germans, who had settled mainly during the 18th century, became insignificant for today. The number of Slovaks is also small. They live in the western part of the region, mainly in the town Uzhgorod and in its surroundings. Hungarian censuses did not indicate Jews as a separate ethnic group; they were listed to Hungarians and Germans on the bases of Jew’s native language. Until their deportation in 1944 they were present in large numbers in the cities, however today hardly any of them left. Experts estimate the number of Roma population significantly above as it appears in the census. In their estimation in reality the Roma ethnic group made up approximately the 2,5% of the total population in Subcarpathia.

Table 2. Changes of ethnic and national relations in the territory of the present-day Transcarpathia/ Subcarpathia in %

(1880-2001)

1880 1900 1910 1921 1930 1941 1959 1970 1979 1989 2001 Rusyns/Ruthenians 59,80 58,91 55,54 60,79 60,80 58,81 Ukrainians 74,60 76,42 77,75 78,41 80,51 Hungarians 25,47 28,18 30,66 18,13 15,93 27,41 15,89 14,37 13,71 12,5 12,08 Russians 3,22 3,33 3,61 3,97 2,47 Germans 7,59 9,43 10,54 1,57 1,74 1,55 0,38 0,40 0,32 0,28 0,29 Romanians 1,86 1,88 1,90 1,83 1,99 2,22 2,35 2,37 2,56 (Czecho)slovaks 1,96 1,30 1,05 3,21 4,73 0,80 1,34 0,97 0,77 0,59 0,45 Jews 13,08 12,51 9,25 1,32 1,03 0,33 0,21 0,04 Roma people 0,14 0,54 0,56 0,48 0,97 1,12 Other 3,32 0,28 0,31 3,23 4,29 0,19 0,72 0,71 0,67 0,69 0,48

Figure 1. Ethnic and linguistic relations of the present-day Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia in %

(1880-2001)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1880 1900 1910 1921 1930 1941 1959 1970 1979 1989 2001

Rusyns/Ruthenians Ukrainians Hungarians RussiansGermans Romanians (Czecho)slovaks JewsRoma people Other

Compiled from the following works: Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1902.; Kocsis–Kocsis-Hodosi 1998.; Kárpátalja településeinek nemzetiségi (anyanyelvi) adatai 1996.; Ільтьо ed. 2003.

Map 5. Ethnic map of Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia according to the 2001 census

Map 6. Roma-inhabited settlements in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia (the size of the circles is in direct proportion of the settlement’s estimated Roma population, the

thickness of circles referred to the ratio of Roma people within the total population) Source: Braun–Csernicskó–Molnár 2010: 49

From religious point of view the majority of the Ukrainians is Orthodox and in smaller part they are Greek Catholic. Hungarians mainly belong to the Reformed (Calvinist Protestants), Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic denominations. Russians and Romanians are Orthodox too. Slovaks are mainly Evangelists (Lutheran Protestants). Majority of the Roma people live in the southern part of the region, next to Hungarians, therefore they are reformed too. The Soviet and Ukrainian censuses do not contain data referring to denominations.

Figure 2. The denominational composition of the population in Transcarpathia/ Subcarpathia based on census data from 1921 (in %)

49,5

15,4

14,1

10,2

9,5

1,3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Greek Catholic

Orthodox

Jewish

Reformed and Evangelical

Roman Catholic

Other

4.Ethnic and regional policy in the territory of the present-day Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia Every state, to which the region was belonging to during the twentieth century, made promises to develop some kind of autonomy in order to maintain the status quo. However explicitly in order to maintain the status quo – the practical realization of the promises have never took place. After the First World War in 1918 Hungary standing on the beaten side offered autonomy to the region under the name Ruska Craina. However by the time it could be realised, the territory had been annexed to the newly established Czechoslovak Republic. The new state got the territory under the terms that it will prove the region wide autonomy. However the first government of the autonomous territory formed only in 1938. The autonomy was realized only when the Second World War were approaching, and Europe’s political borders were redraw according to the new power relations. In 1939 the international political situation resulted in an autonomy which leaded to the declaration of the only few hours existed state Carpathian-Ukraine’s independence. In 1939 the region became Hungary’s part repeatedly. The Hungarian Authority formed a special administrative unite here (Subcarpathian Province), however they pull out of the establishment of the autonomous unit, the Subcarpahian Voivodina. In the Soviet Union the self-determination of the 15 member states and the autonomous republics was restricted too. Everything was ruled by Moscow and the Communist Party. The strongly centralised Soviet Union suppressed attempts towards autonomy. In the independent Ukraine the idea of declaring the Subcarpathian autonomy aroused too. Local peoples’ supporting intention was shown on referendums. However the Ukrainian state insists on centralisation as well. After that the Ukrainian state has strengthened its positions, all kind of autonomy ambitions were valued as separatist crime against the state’s integrity. The region is situated far from all that capitals, from which the territory was ruled during the twentieth century. Despite this the political elite of the capitals had made decisions on the local peoples’ fate, life and autonomy instead of the local population.

Figure 3. Distances between the chief town (Uzhgorod) of Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia and the capitals of some states in the surroundings (in kilometres)

330

555

720

820

1600

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Budapest

Vienna

Prague

Kiyv

Moscow

Changing the ethnical picture of the territory was an important aim of the central political elite’s Subcarpathia-politics. Czechoslovakia getting the region in 1918 settled Czech and Slovak officials, solders in large numbers to the region. Many Subcarpathian inhabitants did not get the Czechoslovak citizenship. In the southern part of the territory, inside of the homogeneous Hungarian territories several Slavic settlements were established (Map 7). These ethno political steps put the region’s aborigines at a disadvantage because the implementation of the linguistic and ethnic rights was defined to the 20% threshold of the minority.

Map 7. Colonies established by the Czechs in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia Source: Fedinec–Vehes eds. 2010: 56, Vehes–Fedinec eds. 2010: 65

In 1939 March by a short military action the Hungarian Army annexed the whole territory of Subcarpathia to Hungary and liquidated the mini state of Carpathian Ukraine, which declared its independence at the same time. The territory belonged to Hungary only until 1944. The year 1944 is a tragic one in the history of Subcarpathia. In the spring and summer of 1944 the Hungarian authorities under the pressure of the Nazi Germany at first close the Jews to ghettos, and then deported them to concentration camps. According to different sources 85 000 people, the three-

quarters of the Subcarpathian Jewish community were dragged (Stark 2010a: 191, 2010b: 221). In autumn 1944 the Soviet Army – preparing the region to join to the Soviet Union- deported Subcarpathian Hungarian 8-50 year old men and the local German population to Stalinist lagers. The Soviet Union influenced the ethnical composition of the region not only by this way. After the Second World War Russians, Ukrainians and representatives of other soviet nationalities were settled in Subcarpathia. Rusyn as a nationality became prohibited; Rusyns were registered obligatory as Ukrainians. Subcarpathian Romanians in administrative way were declared to be Moldavians. As a consequence of it the Romanian community of the region appeared not as a national minority attached to the neighbouring Romania. Until the fall of the communism Subcarpathian Romanians were registered in statistics as members of the soviet community of newly established Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (on the territory of Bessarabia annexed from Romania).

Table 3. The promise and realization of autonomy in different historical periods

State The promise of autonomy The practical realization of the autonomy

Violent intervention into the region ’s linguistic, ethnic and

national relations The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

(1867–1918)

The planed autonomy is Ruska Craina.

In reality it did not function. During the twentieth century such kind of politics is not characteristic in the region.

Czechoslovakia (1918–1939)

The planed autonomy is Podkarpatska Rus.

In reality it did not function. At the end of 1938, before the First Vienna Award, at the time of establishing the Second Czechoslovak Republic Prague gave permission to carry out the autonomy.

The settlement of Czech and Slovak officials, establishing Czech colonies (settlements) in the framework of the land reform. Refusing the citizenship from many Subcarpathian people.

Carpathian Ukraine (1939)

The process of becoming independent this little and short-lived state could be happened due to the autonomy movement.

There were no claim to the autonomy in the little and short-lived state.

Such kind of politics is not characteristic in the short-lived state.

Hungarian Kingdom

(1938/39–1944)

The planed autonomy is Subcarpathian Voivodina.

It was not realised. Refusing the citizenship from many Subcarpathian people. Settling Hungarian officials, intellectuals. Deportation of local Jews (Holocaust). Giving political support to the concept of independent Rusyn ethnic group and language.

The Soviet Union

(1945–1991)

Despite the federal structure of the state it was strongly centralised.

In comparison to the Russians Ukrainians in the USSR have restricted practical rights both from linguistic and ethical point of views.

Settlement of Russian and other nationality officials, intellectuals, experts and solders. The deportation of the Hungarian and the German men, making the Rusyn ethnic group and language disappeared in administrative way. The registration of Romanians as Moldavians.

Ukraine (since 1991)

The population of Subcarpathia voted positively to the autonomy of the region in a referendum in 1991.

Despite the referendum in 1991 it was not realised.

Ukraine does not maintain politics in that direction. The existence of Rusyn ethnic group and language is not recognised by Ukraine.

Compiled from Fedinec–Vehes eds. 2010, Vehes–Fedinec eds. 2010 and Панчук et al eds. 2008

5. Language and education policy in the territory of the present-day Transcarpathia/ Subcarpathia Kloss (1967:15) distinguishes the following five stages speaking about the status of languages: 1. The language is official in country-wide measures. 2. It is the official language of a larger regional unit (area, district, land, etc.). 3. Minority language use permitted by authority in public education, public advertisements, though

the minority language does not have an official status. 4. Tolerance towards the language in the private sphere (in the press, church and private schools,

etc.). 5. Prohibition of the language. There are such cases, when the existence of a language is not recognised. We take it as the sixth stage. In the last 110 years the state language was changed six times in the region. In that function four different languages appeared: the Hungarian (two times: until 1918, and between 1938 and 1944), the ‘Czechoslovak’ (between 1918 and 1938), the Ukrainian (in 1939, and from 1991 until now) and the Russian (between 1945 and 1991). Besides the state language the Rusyn language has got the official status two times in the region: between 1918 and 1938 in Czechoslovakia besides the Czech language, and between 1939 and 1944 in Hungary besides Hungarian. If we consider Rusyns as an independent nation and Rusyn as an independent language, then none of the state languages have matched the language of the majority group of the region. The existence of the independent Rusyn language is not recognised by nether the Soviet nor the Ukrainian state. Between 1939 and 1944 in the Hungary-belonging Subcarpathia the Rusyn (according to the wording of the age „magyarorosz/угроруська” [means Hungraian-russian]) language enjoyed support and Ukrainian was prohibited by the authorities. Between 1938 and 1944 the Hungarian state endeavoured to strengthen national identity of the Rusyns with significant political, ethical and material supports. The aim of the Hungarian policy was to strength the identity of the local Slavic population which differs from the relative Slavic nations (Russian, Ukrainian, Slovaks and Polish). In that a central role was given to the standardisation and codification of the Rusyn dialect and the possibility to use the Rusyn in official functions.

Table 4. The status of larger languages used in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia in different historical periods on the bases of Kloss’ classification (1967)

Ruthenian

Руська Ruszin

Ukrainian Українська

Ukrán

Hungarian Угорська Magyar

Russian Російська

Orosz

Czechoslovak Чехословацька

Csehszlovák

Romanian Румунська

Román The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867–1918)

3. – 1.

State language

3 4. 4.

(the first) Czechoslovakian Republic (1918–1938)

2. (Podkarpatska

Rus) 3. 3. 3 1.

State language 3.

(the second) Czech-Slovak Republic (1938–1939)

4. 2.

(Podkarpatska Rus)

3. 3 1. State language 3.

Carpathian Ukraine (1939)

– 1. State language 3. – 4. 4.

Hungarian Kingdom (1938/39–1944)

2. (Committee of

Transcarpathian Province)

5. 1.

State language

4. 4. 4.

The Soviet 6. 2. 3. 1. 3. 3.

Union (1945–1991)

(Ukrainian Soviet

Socialist Republic)

State language (the status

not codified by law)

Ukraine (since 1991) 6.

1. State language

(from 1989) 3. 3. 3. 3.

Compiled from the followings: Nádor 2002, Csernicskó 1998. See for further information Csernicskó–Melnyk 2010b: 556, Melnyk–Csernicskó 2010c: 631. Language policy of a state determines which languages and in what kind of quality will be present in education. When the state language was changed, the obligatory taught languages in school education were also changed. The following table tries to summarise that which language or languages were obligatory to learn by everybody in the different historical periods. Besides the obligatory taught state language in the period 1918-44 the region’s majority language, the Rusyn also takes place. During the existence of the Soviet Union teaching Ukrainian was not obligatory in schools where the medium were other language than Ukrainian. In the passing 110 years between 1901 and 2010 Rusyn language was obligatory to learn for every schoolchild for 24, Hungarian language for 23, Ukrainian for 21, Czechoslovak for 19 years. In Subcarpathian schools Russian was taught the longest time (during 45 years). Changing from the obligatory teaching of one language to another always went together with a transition period. For a while (even through several years) there were no suitably trained teachers; curricula, course books, teaching aids were missing. The generation who had already finished school did not get any organized possibility to learn the new state language. In that way for example those who left the school before 1990 in the Soviet Union, and have not attend a Ukrainian-medium school did not learn Ukrainian language at all during the school education. Ukraine which is independent since 1991 still has not created all the necessary conditions for that the state language can be learned in minority schools too (Beregszászi–Csernicskó 2009, Csernicskó 1998, 2005, Csernicskó–Ferenc 2009, 2010, Csernicskó–Melnyk 2010a, Csernicskó–Orosz 1999, Melnyk–Csernicskó 2010b).

Table 5. The obligatory taught languages in the region during the twentieth century

Obligatory taught state language

Obligatory taught regional official language

Languages taught as foreign language

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (1867–1918) Hungarian – Latin, German

Czechoslovakia (1918–1939) ’Czechoslovak’ (Czech) Rusyn Latin Hungarian Kingdom

(1939–1944) Hungarian Rusyn Latin

Soviet Union (1945–1991) Russian – English, German,

French (one of them is optional)

Ukraine (1991-től) Ukrainian –

English, German, French (one of them is

optional) Compiled from Csernicskó–Melnyk 2010b: 562, Melnyk–Csernicskó 2010c: 637.

Figure 4. How many years was it obligatory for everybody to learn the given languages in the region?

(1900-2010)

05

1015202530354045

45

24 23 21 19

Compiled from Csernicskó–Melnyk 2010b and Melnyk–Csernicskó 2010c.

Table 6. Changes of the state language and obligatory school medium on the example of 5 generations of a Subcarpathian family

Generations Year of birth

Place of birth (town, country in

English)

Place of birth (town, country in the

original)

Years of 1-6 grades in

school

Language taught as state language

1. 1896 Hust, Austro-

Hungarian Monarchy

Huszt, Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia 1902–1907 Hungarian

2. 1925 Hust, Czechoslovakia

Chust, Československo 1931–1936 „Czechoslovak” (Czech)

2. 1930 Hust,

Czechoslovakia Chust,

Československo 1936–1941 „Czechoslovak” (Czech), then Ukrainian, finally Hungarian

2. 1933 Hust, Czechoslovakia

Chust, Československo 1939–1944 Ukrainian, then Hungarian

2. 1940 Hust, Hungarian Kingdom

Huszt, Magyar Királyság 1946–1951 Russian

3. 1955 Hust, Soviet Union Хуст, СССР 1961–1966 Russian 3. 1960 Hust, Soviet Union Хуст, СССР 1966–1971 Russian 4. 1982 Hust, Soviet Union Хуст, СССР 1988–1993 Russian, then Ukrainian 4. 1986 Hust, Soviet Union Хуст, СССР 1992–1997 Ukrainian 5. 1995 Hust, Ukraine Хуст, Україна 2005–2010 Ukrainian 5. 2000 Hust, Ukraine Хуст, Україна 2006–2011 Ukrainian

It is characteristic to the language policy in the region that every state endeavoured to strengthen the position of its own state language in the territory. The language of the local majority (the Rusyn) was used as official only between the two world wars. In other periods the state language itself filled a part of the (only one) official language too. Even though in the soviet period, when Subcarpathia was belonged to the USSR, where the Ukrainian language was also in official status, this role remained symbolic. In every historical period the state language policy owed the comforting settlement of the status of minority languages.

In every period education was seen as one of the most important means of extending the functions of the state language. Every state recognised the multilingual and multiethnic character of the region. However in all cases states tried to develop asymmetrical bilingualism in the territory. Peculiarities of this type of bilingualism is that learning the state language is obligatory for minorities living in the territory, but the linguistic group, which get the power does not have to learn the minority languages. Only the period between 1949 and 1944 can be seen as an exception, when authorities required from officials to learn and use the language of the local majority (the Rusyn).

Table 7. Characteristic features of the language policies of the different states

States Insistent spread of the

majority/ state language

The usage of minority languages in official

status

Insistent spread of the state language in

education

Type of the developing

bilingualism Austro-

Hungarian Monarchy

(1867–1918)

Gradual strengthening of the positions of the Hungarian language.

Only Hungarian (and German) was used as official language.

Insistent spread of the Hungarian language in the sphere of education (e.g.. Lex Apponyi).

Asymmetrical.

Czechoslovakia (1918–1939)

Moderate strengthening of the positions of the ‘Czechoslovak’ language.

Rusyn was obligatory used official language. Other minority languages should have been used where the ratio of minority was above 20%.

Teaching Czechoslovak language was obligatory, but the right to study in ones mother tongue works as well.

Asymmetrical.

Carpathian Ukraine (1939)

Strengthening the situation of the Ukrainian language.

The state has only one official language the Ukrainian.

The medium of education is the Ukrainian language.

Asymmetrical.

Hungarian Kingdom

(1938/39–1944)

Strengthening the state language status of the Hungarian language.

Hungarianrussian (Rusyn) language was obligatorily used official language in administration and in offices.

There were schools where the medium was minority languages, however authorities made Hungarian medium education gradually spreading,

Symmetrical: it was obligatory to learn the local Slavic population’s language for Hungarian officials, executives, officers, teachers.

Soviet Union (1945–1991)

Forcing the use of Russian language as ‘the language of international communication’ (язык межнационального общения).

In the territory of the USSR it was possible to use the Ukrainian language besides Russian.

There were schools instructed in minority languages, however the power supports Russian medium education.

Asymmetrical.

Ukraine (From 1991)

Gradual strengthening the state language status of the Ukrainian language, extending its sphere of applicability.

In those territories, where national minorities make up the majority besides the state language the use of the mother tongue is also permitted. However the country has only one state and official language, the Ukrainian.

In the beginning the minority school system developed rapidly, however recently the strengthening of the status of the state language is characteristic in the education.

Asymmetrical.

Compiled from Csernicskó 2010a, Csernicskó–Fedinec 2010, Csernicskó–Melnyk 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, Melnyk–Csernicskó 2010a, 2010b, 2010c.

As a consequence of the above mentioned language and education policy today there is no common language in Subcarpathia: there is not a single language that- independently from education, place and nationality – everybody knows in the region. This statement was valid at the beginning and at the end of the twentieth century, and it is still valid at the beginning of the twenty-first century. At the beginning of the twentieth century in Hungary’s counties Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros the majority of the population did not speak the state language. On the bases of the 2001 census Ukrainian is clearly the most wide-spread language in Subcarpathia: 82, 57% (more than one million people) of the population speaks it. However 17,43% of the Subcarpathian population (more than 200 000 people) does not speak Ukrainian. Between the period of the two latest censuses (1989 and 2001) the ratio of people who can speak exclusively their mother tongue (and not speak any other languages) was not reducing, but increasing. The statement is valid in all the historical periods that the ration of monolingual speakers is the highest among the ethnic group which is in power. However the stat language of the given period is used by many people. Table 8. The ratio of state language speakers in the total population of the region on the bases

of census data (in %)

In 1910 In 1989 In 2001 State language Speaks (%) State language Speaks (%) State language Speaks (%)

Hungarian

Ung 48,6

Russian 58,8 Ukrainian 82,6 Bereg 63,5 Ugocsa 59,1 Máramaros 24,1

Table 9. Hungarian language knowledge of the non-native Hungarian population of the

counties Ung, Bereg, Ugocsa and Máramaros between 1881 and 1910 (in %)

Year of the census County

The ratio of people whose mother tongue is not Hungarian

Ratio of people who can speak

Hungarian but their mother tongue is

not that

Total number of people who speak

Hungarian

1890 Bereg

57,6 14,6 50,8 1900 55,4 7,3 49,2 1910 52,2 30,1 63,5 1890

Ung 72,5 10,1 34,8

1900 70,0 12,9 39,0 1910 67,0 23,1 48,6 1890

Máramaros 87,5 7,1 18,8

1900 86,3 6,9 19,5 1910 85,2 10,9 24,1 1890

Ugocsa 61,8 18,1 49,4

1900 57,1 20,1 54,2 1910 53,5 23,5 59,1

Figure 5. The ratio of people who besides their mother tongue speaks Ukrainian and Russian in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia in case of different nationalities based on the censuses in

1989 and 2001 (%)

0102030405060708090

100

58,9

42,2

0

28,3

51,0 51,5

38,3

53,7

26,5 30,5

0 11,7

37,6

31,1 33,827,2

0

11,3

44,1

10,23,3

28,3

45,4

3,00

46,7

80,9

39,5

24,3

93,5 93,3

47,4

Speaks Russian In 1989 Speaks Russian In 2001

Speaks Ukrainian In 1989 Speaks Ukrainian In 2001

Figure 6. The ratio of people who speaks exclusively their mother tongue in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia in case of different nationalities based on censuses in 1989 and

2001 (%)

010203040506070

40,146,3

52,861,0

40,0

19,8 16,1

41,3

68,8

41,3

18,9

56,6 49,1

12,2 17,3

63,0

In 1989 In 2001

Table 10. Language knowledge of the population of Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia on the bases of the census in 1989 and 2001 (person)

Languages Speaks as mother tongue Speaks as a second language Total number of speakers Number of those,

who cannot speak In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001

Ukrainian 972827 1016268 48106 19699 1020933 1035967 224685 218647 Hungarian 166700 158729 12500 38694 179200 197423 1066418 1057191

Russian 62150 36412 670046 32877 732196 69289 513422 1185325

Table 11. Language knowledge of the population of Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia on the bases of the census in 1989 and 2001 (as the % of the total population)

Languages Speaks as mother tongue Speaks as a second language Total number of speakers Number of those, who cannot speak

In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001 Ukrainian 78,10 81,00 3,86 1,57 81,96 82,57 18,04 17,43 Hungarian 13,38 12,65 1,00 3,08 14,39 15,74 85,61 84,26 Russian 4,99 2,90 53,79 2,62 58,78 5,52 41,22 94,48

Figure 7. The ratio of speakers/non-speakers of Ukrainian, Hungarian and Russian language

in the region on the bases of the census in 1989 and 2001

0102030405060708090

100

In 1989 In 2001 In 1989 In 2001

Speaks Does not speak

81,96 82,57

18,04 17,43

14,39

15,74

85,61 84,26

58,78

5,52

41,22

94,48

Ukrainian

Hungarian

Russian

6. Summary, lessons Today Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia borders on four member states of the European Union (Poland, the Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania) and behind of it we can find the 46 million inhabited enormous Ukraine. Due to its history several ethnicities and languages (Ukrainian, Rusyn, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Roma), several religions (Orthodox, Roman and Greek Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) and many cultures live here side by side. The region lies on the border of the western and the eastern Christian civilization and culture. In the lasted 110 years the regional Subcarpathia-policy of the different states was guided by the aim of strengthening power positions of the majority elite. Every state makes promises to the development of some kind of autonomy; however the population of the region has experienced real autonomy not once. Decisions concerning the region’s future, the existence or non-existence, development or oppression of local people, languages, cultures and denominations were made not by the local people, but the political elite living in distant capitals. Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia however is situated far from Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Moscow and Kyiv too. Seen from the

capitals it looks like a distant, dusty province. In order to use out the reach natural resources of the region the main aim of the state regional policy is to preserve public order among the local population, without involving them to the real practice of power. Every state has similar attitude towards people living in the territory. The majority nation dealt minorities living in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia from the position of the power. The consequence of this kind of regional, cultural, nationality and language policy is that today in Subcarpathia we cannot find a common language that everybody knows independently from age, gender, education, religion or place. The lack of the lingua franca makes the dialogue between ethnicities difficult, even impossible. In practice it means that Ukrainians do not interested in the high-class performances of the Hungarian theatre, while Hungarians do not read poems and novels of the Ukrainian writers. Russians do not pay attention either the Ukrainian or the Hungarian culture. And unfortunately each of the ethnicities estranged from the Roma community. All of the ethnic groups in Transcarpathia/Subcarpathia get information primarily from printed matters published in their own language, in everyday practices use their own language. However the majority in power always endeavours to force its own language and culture to the minorities. In our paper we tried to outline the main features of the regional, minority and language policies of the different states with the purpose of prevention. We hope that the in-depth analysis of the history of this region can help us to avoid further mistakes. Since the end of the Second World War ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural conflicts avoided the region. However it is not the result of the state ethnic, linguistic and regional policy, but the merit of local people’s tolerance. Although as long as power centres see the region as a distant, ethnically, linguistically and culturally strange region, and as a modern, twenty-first century colony, tensions will not reduced, but increased.

References Baranyi Béla 2009. Bevezetés. In: Baranyi Béla szerk. Kárpátalja, 19–24. Pécs–Budapest: Magyar

Tudományos Akadémia Regionális Kutatások Központja – Dialóg Campus Kiadó. Beregszászi, Anikó – Csernicskó, István 2009. The Linguistic Aspects of Current Ukrainian

Educational Policy. In: Tarnóczy, Mariann and Kövér, Alexandra eds., 20 Years: Report on the Activities of the Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund in Hungary 1989–2009: A Selection of 20 Studies from the Past 20 Years, 1–9. Budapest: HAS-Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund.

Brenzovics László 2009. Kárpátalja történetének korszakai és gazdasági-társadalmi helyzete a XX. században. In: Baranyi Béla szerk. Kárpátalja, 75–106. Pécs–Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Regionális Kutatások Központja – Dialóg Campus Kiadó.

Botlik, József 2005a. Közigazgatás és nemzetiségi politika Kárpátalján I. Magyarok, ruszinok, csehek és ukránok 1918–1945. Nyíregyháza: Nyíregyházi Főiskola Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszéke–Veszprémi Egyetem Tanárképző Kara.

Botlik, József 2005b. Közigazgatás és nemzetiségi politika Kárpátalján II. A Magyarországhoz történt visszatérés után 1939–1945. Nyíregyháza: Nyíregyházi Főiskola Ukrán és Ruszin Filológiai Tanszéke.

Botlik, József 2008. Eduard Beneš and Podkarpatská Rus: Hungarians, Rusins and Czechs in Subcarpathia 1919–1938/39. Budapest: Corvinus Publishing.

Csernicskó, István – Fedinec, Csilla 2010. Csehszlovákia nyelvpolitikai törekvései (1918–1939). In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 572–583. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Csernicskó, István – Ferenc, Viktória 2009. Ukrainian Educational Policy and the Transcarpathian Hungarian Higher Education. In: Horváth, István and Tódor, Erika Mária eds., Nemzetállamok, globalizáció és kétnyelvűség, 330–331. Kolozsvár: Nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézet–Kriterion.

Csernicskó, István – Ferenc, Viktória 2010. Education as an ideal means of achieveing a nation state in Ukraine. In: Róka, Jolán ed. Concepts & Consequences of Multilingualism in Europe, 329–349. Budapest: Budapest College of Communication and Business.

Csernicskó, István – Melnyk, Svitlana 2010a. A független Ukrajna nyelvpolitikai törekvései. In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 606–627. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Csernicskó, István – Melnyk, Svitlana 2010b. A nyelvpolitika fogalma. In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 553–562. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Csernicskó, István – Melnyk, Svitlana 2010c. A Szovjetunió nyelvpolitikája (1945–1991). In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 593–605. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Csernicskó, István – Orosz, Ildikó 1999. The Hungarians in Transcarpathia. Budapest: Tinta Publishers.

Csernicskó István 1998. A magyar nyelv Ukrajnában (Kárpátalján). Budapest: Osiris Kiadó – MTA Kisebbségkutató Műhely.

Csernicskó, István 2005. Hungarian in Ukraine. In: Anna Fenyvesi ed. Hungarian Language Contact Outside Hungary. Studies on Hungarian as a minority language, 89–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Csernicskó, István 2010a. Nyelvpolitika a területi revízió idején (1938–1944). In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 584–592. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Csernicskó, István 2010b. Мовна політика в часи територіальної ревізії (1938–1944). In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 660–668. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Fedinec, Csilla 2002. A kárpátaljai magyarság történeti kronológiája 1918–1944. Galánta–Dunaszerdahely: Fórum Intézet–Lilium Aurum Könyvkiadó.

Fedinec, Csilla – Csernicskó, István 2010. Мовно-політичні устремління Чехословаччини (1918–1939 роки). In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 648–660. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Fedinec, Csilla – Vehes, Mikola eds. 2010. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 584–592. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Kárpátalja településeinek nemzetiségi (anyanyelvi) adatai (1880–1941). Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest, 1996.

Kloss, Heinz 1967. Types of Multilingual Communities: A discussion of ten variables. In: Stanley Lieberson ed., Explorations in Sociolinguistics, 7–17. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Kocsis, Károly – Kocsis-Hodosi, Eszter 1998. Ethnic Georgarhy of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest: Geographical research Institute and Minority Studies Programme.

Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények: A Magyar Korona Országainak 1900. évi népszámlálása. I. rész. A népesség általános leírása községenkint. Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1902.

Melnyk, Svitlana – Csernicskó, István 2010a. Мовна політика Радянського Союзу (1945–1991). In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 668–681. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Melnyk, Svitlana – Csernicskó, István 2010b. Мовна політика в незалежній Україні. In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 681–703. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Melnyk, Svitlana – Csernicskó, István 2010c. Поняття мовної політики. In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 629–638. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Molnár József 2009. Földrajzi fekvés. In: Baranyi Béla szerk. Kárpátalja, 107–108. Pécs–Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Regionális Kutatások Központja – Dialóg Campus Kiadó.

Nádor Orsolya 2002. Nyelvpolitika. A magyar nyelv politikai státusváltozásai és oktatása a kezdetektől napjainkig. Budapest: BIP.

Stark, Tamás 2010a. Gettók és haláltáborok (1944). In: Csilla Fedinec and Mikola Vehes eds. Kárpátalja 1919–2009: történelem, politika, kultúra, 187–193. Budapest: Argumentum–MTA Etnikai-nemzeti Kisebbségkutató Intézete.

Stark, Tamás 2010b. Гетто і табори смерті (1944). In: Mikola Vehes and Csilla Fedinec eds. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 217–224. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Vehes, Mikola et al 2011. Хроніка Закарпаття 1867–2010 / Kárpátalja évszámokban 1867–2010. Uzhgorod: Hoverla.

Vehes, Mikola – Fedinec, Csilla eds. 2010. Закарпаття 1919–2009 років: історія, політика, культура, 648–660. Ужгород: Поліграфцентр „Ліра”.

Ільтьо І. В. ed. 2003. Національний склад населення та його мовні ознаки (статистичний бюлетень). Ужгород: Закарпатське обласне управління статистики.

Панчук, М. et al eds. 2008. Закарпаття в етнонаціональному вимірі. Київ: Інститут поліетнічних досліджень ім. І. Ф. Кураса НАН України.