¡Juramos

*

الإصلاح

La Réforme

#

La population hongroise vivant sur les territorires attachés en 1920 à la Roumanie, a composé une société aux couches différentes.

Les changements survenus en Roumanie après 1945 dans les rapports de propriété – la réforme agraire, les nationalisations, le collectivisation – puis l’industrialisation à un rhytme forcé ont fondamentalement transformé aussi la structure sociale et celle de l’emploi de la minorité hongroise. Les couches des grands propriétaires fonciers et de la grande bourgeoisie ont disparus et ont également commencé à disparaître les couches moyennes des Hongrois de Roumanie, bien que celles-ci aient toujours joué un rôle important dans la représentation des intérêts nationaux et dans la conservation de la culture nationale.

Les données statistiques, qui sont à la disposition, prouvent que la proportion des ouvriers est plus élevée au sein de de la minorité hongroise que chez les Roumains; à propos de cet indice, ce ne sont que les Allemands qui devancent les Hongrois. La population hongroise en Roumanie était traditionellement moins agraire que les Roumains. D’autre part, l’augmentation du nombre des ouvriers de nationalité hongroise est également expliquée par la fait qu’une partie des paysans, privés de leurs terres d’abord par la réforme agraire, plus tard par la collectivisation de l’agriculture – sont allés chercher du travail dans l’industrie; en majorité du travail qui n’exigait pas une formation spéciale.

Ces tendances eurent pour conséquence qu’au cours des dernières 40 années, la société hongroise en Roumanie est devenue de plus en plus bipolaire. L’un des pôles est composé des travailleurs industriels et agricoles de plus en plus appauvris, et ce sont eux qui représentent la majorité des Hongrois. La formation de cette couche est en corrélation étroite avec le rétrécissemment et la liquidation de l’enseignement en hongrois et avec la discrimination préjudiciable qui frappe les Hongrois dans tous les domaines de la vie, à la suite de laquelle 70 pour 100 des élèves Hongrois ne peuvent pas continuer leurs études après avoir terminé l’école primaire.

A l’autre pôle de la société hongroise en Roumanie se trouve une couche de plus en plus mince des intellectuels. La proportion des Hongrois dans la catégorie des intellectuels diminue continuellement. La raison de ce processus: la liquidation presque complète de l’enseignement supérieur en hongrois et l’émigration d’une partie des intellectuels hongroise en Hongrie.

Les dirigeants de nationalité hongroise ont été relevés de leurs fonctions dans les organes du parti et de l’administration roumaine, des postes occupés dans la direction de l’économie nationale et au sein des corps des forces armées et ont été remplacés par des Roumains; ceci fait partie de la politique centrale pour déclasser la minorité hongroise. Ce processus est en train de s’étendre de plus en plus sur le fonctionnaires responsables des institutions de l’enseignement et de la culture. Seuls pouvaient rester en fonction ceux qui étaient prêts de renoncer à leur identité nationale et servent avec zèle de néophyte le pouvoir, éxécutant les instructions discriminatoires de caractère anti-nationalité.

&

In the process of state-formation, in the process of building relations between civil society and the state, we face issues that involve relations between the individual and the community in its most various forms (family, clan and society). There are different opinions about the changes Kosovar society underwent in the last century, especially the aspects of the transformation of its patriarchal structure, intertwining and coexistence of elements of traditional societies and modern societies.

In order to shed light on these matters I find it necessary to take into consideration the course of relations between the individual and the community within European thinking. For this case, I would briefly mention some ideas that shed light on these relations.

The birth of the modern figure of the individual, as a “value” and as a “category” {L. Dumont}, in the area of political and theoretical notions, led to the downfall of the unity built hierarchically between the integrity and parts, of the divine purpose and individual actions. Discussions about the individual and about the foundations of social connection involve the very birth of social sciences. Two various philosophical traditions stress the difference between the subject and the individual. A rationalist and voluntarist (theories of the natural right and theories of the social contract, by Rousseau, for example) and on the other hand the empiric conception {D. Hume}. The difference between a metaphysical philosophy of the subject {Descartes} and the empiric and utilitarian philosophy {Locke}. Some definitions of the individual make it difficult to think about society, namely the relation between the individual and society. Liberalism will try to solve this problem by supporting the idea of “an invisible hand”, which should establish a harmony between the opposite interests of individuals. Whereas the subject addresses the issue of the reciprocal establishment of the ego and the world, the rational self-limitation of individual liberty, considering the liberty of others. The theory of the contract, for example by Rousseau, aims to think about the transformation of the individual, into a subject of a political society. The contract considers the law as a key condition of co-existence and the objectivity of this expresses the effectiveness of its establishments: inter-subjectivism.

Thus, the contradiction between metaphysical and empirical opinions makes up the initial plan of the modern discourse about the individual: the key tension between these two traditions is about the possibility of establishing inter-individual relations. But the theories and the contract, including the ones about empirical individualism, ask a common question: how to perceive the connection between nature and the artificial (for example the connection between the nature of man and the state as an artificial product).

Between the French and German politics there is another contravention – in addition to the one about the definition of nation – about the definition and evaluation of “community” and “society”. The German Romantic Movement will promote values of natural communities (family, clan or people) where individuals are united with each other through feelings, customs and relations of dependency. The community, seen as a fruit of history that unites several generations through the harmony of interests, contravenes society, as an area of socialisation where individuals follow their legitimate interests and objectives.

In late 19^th century and early 20^th century, the book that emphasised this confrontation was the work of Ferdinand Tönies “The Community and Society” (1887). Durkheim, with all the critiques against Tönies, develops a systematic difference between the two forms of social integration: between “organic” and “mechanical” solidarity; sees a continuation of the process of uniterrupted individualism.

The concept of “community” will undergo CHANGES in a series of anti-democratic movements, but also during romantic anti-capitalism and the conservatory cultural critique. This concept will be used to define the people (Volksgemeinschaft) with the common biological forms of a “race”, separated from the legal setting of liberal society.

On the other hand, in the U.S. the evolution of this concept had a completely different path: the discourse about the “community” immediately found room within the political conception of liberal society. There, the establishment of a democratic society emerged as a “communautaire” project which involved the active participation of several communities that often fed from the cultures of immigrants. Thus, in the U.S., the tradition of political philosophy which defined constitutional democracy as a community of communities stretched from John Dewey to John Rawls. Within this liberal reinterpretation of the concept of community, the individual verifies his identity as a member of the community.

The rich debate between the modern communautaries and liberals is linked to the tradition of conceptual European confrontation about the community and society.

By criticising the radical contravention between the communautaries and liberals (Sandel and Rawls, for example) Will Kymlicka thinks there is no room for dichotomy because justice cannot substitute either love or solidarity. But at the same time he adds that justice does not prevent anyone to give up from their rights in order to help someone.

The communautaries criticise the liberals for elevating justice to a non-historical norm and for criticising the ways of life of every society. Ronald Dworkin, however, thinks that justice enables us to make our beliefs into issues, to verify if they are only prejudices of our culture; political theory helps to fight the limitations of our culture and to lead us to a general scale and a base for reflection which enables us to differentiate which traditional opinions and customs are authentic and which are illegitimate.

&

Nimic mai emoţionant decât spectacolul acestor sărmani necăjiţi care şi-au potcovit boii ca pe cai şi i-au înhămat la nişte căruţe cu două roţi, unde şi-au îngrămădit tot bagajul lor sărac, aşezându-şi deasupra odraslele mai mici.

De fiecare dată când se zăreşte un castel sau când se vede un oraş, aceşti oameni simpli întreabă dacă nu cumva este Ierusalimul. Pentru a-şi face curaj, ei intonează imnuri religioase, mai ales pe acela al Tărâmului de peste mări şi ţări:

Sfântul mormânt să ne ocrotească!

În secolele al XII-lea şi al XIII-lea, la îndemnul unor schimnici care cheamă poporul să ia cu el crucea, au loc curioase migraţii. Se ţin predici şi cuvântări pe care pelerinii, atunci când biserica nu îi încape, le ascultă aşezaţi jos pe pajişte: aşa s-a întâmplat la Frise, în 1214. Înflăcărate de predicatori desculţi şi doar cu o tunică de lână pe ei, cetele acestea de felahini, mai mult sau mai puţin în zdrenţe, dar oricum ajunşi în această stare după câteva săptămâni de marş, înarmaţi doar cu topoare, lopeţi şi ţepuşe cu vârf de fier, merg înainte. De obicei, asemenea gloate sunt încadrate de câţiva clerici şi cavaleri; iar acea extraordinară tentativă a unui astfel de marş spre Ţara Sfântă o constituie -Cruciada Copiilor- din anul 1212.

Toate aceste impresionante şi vrednice de milă armate improvizate, aşternându-se la drum hrănite cu un misticism rudimentar, se pierd una câte una în mirajul cântărilor religioase şi degenerază câteodată în hoarde de aventurieri şi de jefuitori fără scrupule.

Alternând cu marşurile acestea nebuneşti, armate adevărate se năpustesc şi acestea vreme de două secole asupra Pământului Sfânt, străbătând în majoritatea cazurilor toată Europa centrală. Aşa au fost expediţia lui Godefroy de Bouillon, care pune stăpânire în 1099 pe Ierusalim, şi cea a lui Frederic Barbarossa, din anul 1187, cu ocazia celei de-a Treia Cruciade. Când Saladin recucereşte, în acelaşi an, Ierusalimul de la creştini, împăratul se hotărăşte să ridice o armată cu care să ajungă, pe uscat, în Orient. Astfel emite un edict stabilind măsuri prin care, astăzi, înţelegem practicile acelor mari expediţii militare; au fost interzise blestemele, jocul de zaruri (pe bani), îmbrăcămintea somptuoasă, purtatul blănurilor şi bijuteriilor, acompaniamentul femeilor, cu două mici excepţii: spălătoresele, pentru că sunt indispensabile, şi -bătrânele-, pentru că prezenţa lor nu-i mai poate duce în ispită pe bărbaţi. Cât despre luptători, aceştia nu era înrolaţi decât dacă aveau cu ce să-şi procure arme şi provizii pe timp de doi ani, pentru ei înşişi şi pentru servitorii lor şi, de asemenea, pentru meseriaşii necesari completării unor cerinţe materiale.