For who? Of course us. It is obvious from the pronoun as well. And I think it is out of question, who is to be understood by "us", still before long in our home town Hungarian press this world means unambigously the Hungarians in Romania, embracing without any selection everybody whoever is a Hungarian. You just cannot take breath because of the vast number of the first person plurals which actually is to become a very special category from the grammatical point of view. It is not the princely plural, but a kind of normative one which, according to its nature, is excluding as well.

For instance the sentence that "WE act on behalf of this point of view", means not only that all of us who are Hungarian, regardless of age, sex, and opinion declare it, but at the same time it suggests that if there is somebody who thinks about it in another way, he actually is not even a real Hungarian. For he automatically excludes himself from the big WE.

Thus what else can a man do but adjust to the rules of the language. If it means this, may it be so. I cannot change it personally by giving other meanings to the word since I might be misunderstood. Consequently, the Reader is also covered in this wideranging WE and he had better give a second thought before trying to back out of it. If he would do this, he is to be blamed.

Let's see, where to begin it? There is a famous book of Eric Berne entitled Games People Play. The famous American psychologist calls games all those situations in which they are not in the least sure that a man enjoys himself, yet in spite of every trouble he won't step gladly out of it, since the situation ensures him a certain psychological advantage. In these situations, several rules of the game prevail, this is why they are called games and easy to be identified with well-determined roles. According to these rules the different games can be ranked among types, so much so that the writer gives a proper name to the certain types. For instance the game called Alcoholic usually consists of five main characters, namely: (1) the central character, the alcoholic, (2) the suffering spouse, (3) the friend of the spouse (or a neighbour), who is listening faithfully to the spouse's complaints,(4) the rescuer, who wants to convert the alcoholic to the good way, (5) the sucker, who, inspite of all his bad experiences gives money again and again to the alcoholic.

As in every game the interesting thing here is, that although the situation for most of the participants is highly uncomfortable, there is no real benefit for any of them to come out of it in case they should lose the psychological benefit which comes from the game. The spouse for example could not easily do without blaming the alcoholic for every defeat and failure of his / hers ("I wouldn't look like this if my spouse didn't drink." – or: "What on earth could be expected from such an unfortunate mate?"). Neither could the friend do without being provided with a new bit of gossip day by day, since disparaging the others assures her of her own (and her family's) consciousness and moral superiority, consequently heightening his / her self-estimation. The rescuer also finds his / her benefit in his / her unimpressive preachings during which he / she can be assured again and again of his / her own prominence. The sucker interprets it a sign of his / her own generosity that he / she is disgracefully taken advantage of day by day. This is why – as it has been often observed – if the central character, the alcoholic is raised out of the game (for example, submitted to a detoxication program), the other participants of the game will be totally irresoluted, and they either begin a new game or will also stand in need of psychological treatment being absolutely perplexed in this new situation.

Games also differ from each other by the intensity of the character's participation, namely on how much is at stake. There are gentle games and very hard ones, as well. Furthermore, there are such games in which only a few people take part, but there are other ones, in which a whole community is involved.

The experiences of the last two years goes to show that we also are the participants of a so called game as quite hard players. This game might be called, according to the title of Dan Greenburg's book: How to be unhappy? This book has appeared in Hungarian as well and I recommend it warmly to all those who want to find unhappiness more and more perfectly on a personal level. It contains excellent recipes about how to become really unhappy. For those more seriously interested in the question, I also suggest the book of Paul Watzlawick as well. It also appeared in Hungarian with the translated title of "The Situation Is Hopeless But Not Grave". For it would do no harm if the art of our private unhappiness were acquired by many us since by this our great national unhappiness might be also ranked to a higher level. And a little bit of professionalism could bring new colours in our lives. The habitual schemes are becoming routine while a game is interesting only if new elements appear in it time and time again.

Our game of unhappiness also has several charachters. You can hardly even identify all of them at once; since this game takes place on the most different playing grounds.

One of these playing grounds is the "pact" between the press and the readership. The more severely kept agreement of us with the journalists, that they should fulfill our most beloved desire, which sounds like this, "Give us today our daily bad news!" to tell the truth, nowadays such a desire is not difficult to be completed, bad news, thank God, is not hard to find. There is no lack of it. And if we expect that a journal shouldn't be a newspaper but a bad-news paper, our desire can easily be fulfilled indeed. The papers are really filled with everything which can make sad the heart and soul. Whoever doesn't believe this, let him leaf through any of opur papers.

Now let's see, how can they carry out to fulfill our thirst for bad news on a most perfect way? First and foremost it is recommended to have something referring to our troubles already in the title of the article. Thus we can be sure that this article will be the first to be studied over by the reader. Furthermore, we have to be careful that whatever is intended to be a news item would not be a plain description of the facts. We cannot indulge in this luxury. It is the privilege of the journalists of developed democracies. We are at the beginning of the democracy, aren't we? Thus we have to seize every opportunity to train the reader. We cannot entrust him to draw the moral out of the naked news, for he cannot see the connections as clearly as we do, and by chance he might happen to come to a wrong conclusion. Furthermore, what if he doesn't notice by himself that it was actually a bad news? In this case he won't be satisfied with us, or he starts to become foolishly optimistic. Thus if you have an any kind of news, you have to examine it very closely till you hit upon something which could have several unfavourable consequences for us. This issue has to be walked around thoroughly. Let us not be disturbed in case the bad thing might not even happen: it is our duty even then to call the reader's attention to be prepared for the worst. If there is also something encouraging to be gathered from reading the news, it has to be hidden carefully or rendered somehow harmless in case somebody should accuse us of foolish optimism.

It renders good service to the sad public climate if bad news is introduced by something like this: "And again..." or: "It is confirmed again, that...", or perhaps: "We shall continue to...". For in this context everything gets a perspective, suggesting that this is not only simple, incidental bad news, but it fits into a whole system, it has something regularly repetitive in it. Thus the reader can be resigned that this bad news is not at all the last of its kind, yet the likes of it he will still meet again many times.

However, what can we do if there is no real bad news near at hand? I mean something which would be a real novelty as well. Either way, we needn't be driven to despair since the most important thing for the reader is not only to read news but also to read something bad. Consequently, in this case you have to write a nice, heart-stirring article about the terrible economic situation, about how long the queues are, that we are cold, that we are hot, that the trains are not heated, and so on. Let's not be bothered by the fact that everybody knows it just as well as we do: that little bit of sadness which will overcome the reader is worth the trouble and the printer's ink.

Actually, we shall get to a really difficult situation when somebody who is not fully aware of the rules of our game of unhappiness happens to bring an piece of unambigously good news to the editorial office. What can we do in this case? First and foremost, let's ponder over the scenario that the person in question is a good Hungarian or just a saboteur trying to intrude among our lines. If we find sufficient arguments for the latter alternative, the article needn't be published. A paper which lays stress on itself can really afford that much. But if we consider that the man is just simple-minded, it is more difficult to turn down the article. However, there is an efficient solution even in this delicate situation.

In the newspaper called Freedom of Cluj, in the 6th of December's issue we can find an exemplary form of this case worth popularizing and following. This is why I'm going to quote almost the whole text so that everybody can learn from it.

It so happened that Inczefi Géza, who took part in the Ady-ceremony at Érmindszent on the 3rd of November, was a witness to such a gesture that he, as a simple-minded man, interpreted it in good faith as something noble, taking it down in the following way:

"I'd like to write about an interesting personal experience noticed by the driver's eye, which I didn't observe so far from the part of the police and which, I can gladly say, was a pleasure for me. After the ceremony was over a long row of cars were trudging belong the minor road from the village. When we arrived at the arterial road, the police stopped the otherwise low trafic of the main road and they assured free departure for those who went home from the ceremony. Let this article be a means of expressing my thanks for this gesture to the police of Satu Mare County, in the name of my fellow-drivers and myself. It should happen like this."

I think it is obvious that the editor started to scratch his head from this article. This account not only doesn't fit the generally distributed image, but it also falls short of the reader's expectations. What will he be sad about, if we start to publish things like this in the paper? Therefore it must be helped somehow. This is why at the end of the article appears the Editor's comment, in which the editor, who, according to his job, knows everything better than everybody else even if he was not there, puts it right in the following way:

"It is not malice which makes me write my opinion, but presumably the police made every effort to get rid of the undesired though tolerated celebrating company by helping them to scatter as early as possible. Nevertheless every coin has two sides, thus the lack of likeability was favourable for both parties. For emotions cannot be forced on anybody but if it is manifested in a civilized manner, then it really might as well have happened like this."

It's a happy thought. Thus even the editor can be sure that the reader won't get it wrong since the editor himself made clear the main point, namely that the police were apparently decent, but this is the very fact which indicates what kind of villains they are. And not even the reader gets confused, for by now everything seems to be correct. He may safely lose hope. It won't even occur to him that if the police were really malicious, but not crazy at the same time, they could have shown it more naturally by letting them not enter the main road even if there was only one car half a kilometre away. (Another advantage of this solution is, that the author can be protected from doing another thoughtlessness: vamped up like this he will hardly send the article to the police of Satu-Mare County not even if he was up to it at the beginning.)

We are apt to say right that the reader would be better off reading good news instead of bad news, but what can the journalists do if there is nothing good happening around us? However, this is not quite true. Let's remember for a moment, how we, readers are used to reading paper. We usually have a glance at the article to see if it is bad or not. If we notice that it is not bad, we won't even read it further. But if we see that it is bad, we hurl ourselves on to it and examine it thoroughly. For this will be a good topic of conversation at parties, while queuing up and at other places, as well. Since the worse new is, the better as a subject of conversation is. For what could one actually say about good news? It is neither typical nor characteristic, it is not worth mentioning either. Let's forget it hastily. The bad news, that's the real thing!

And if it is not the bad news for which we spend our money on papers (the editorial staff tries to recompense it to the best of their knowledge) then why ever did we, the Hungarian minority from Romania buy a year ago thousands of the issues of România Mare (a Great Romania – on extreme right newspaper) with the ardour worthy of the good cause so much so that at that time a general opinion got around that it was us who maintained this paper? (The reason for buying less of it at the moment, is very simple: we've run out of money. Thus we are just looking longingly at the heaps of them. What delicate matters should be in them!) All of us had known very well what was to be expected from the paper even before we had bought it. But of course this was the very reason for which we bought the journal so steadfastly, in oder to revel in it with high enjoyment and make each other unhappy.

But it is not only the press that participates in this game. Other institutions also make efforts to gain popularity in such a way that they try to satisfy our huge hunger for unhappiness. For instance man goes unhappily to the church on Sunday, and he knows well in advance that he will be deep in dispair when he goes home. Actually you receive here your sorrow-dose beforehand for a whole week. Because you certainly won't hear any encouragement from the pulpit, not even a sermon but a kind of minilecture about our great misery, about our hopeless situation, about the terrible danger ahead of us, about our shrinkage which starts to grow to huge dimensions, about a Mohács Disaster threatening our national existence, about our defenselessness and other horrors, and all this expressed by hyperbolizing, exaggerating style of religious rhetorics. And if a preacher didn't want to treat us to such things, we would shortly turn away from him since we didn't get whatever we were expecting. And by all means, the preacher sould be happy if he can get away with that much, for we have a ready tongue to say that he is not even a true Hungarian-hearted man. How many times can we hear sentences like this from the pulpit: "Here, where a harrowed little remainder struggles for its survival..." – and we listen to it delightedly without remembering that this is in its form quite an exaggeration. For even if it is not determined exactly what should be meant by "remainder", we can all agree that it is fewer than half. Well, we have to admit that we are still very far from being a "remainder". But who gives it a second thought when it sounds so effective?

Either way, this game of unhappiness speaks of a failure-seeking community or at least of a success-avoiding one. It is well-known, that from this point of view there are four attitudes to be separated. One alternative of the success-oriented attitude is the success-seeker, the next one is the success-avoider, and it is the same as concerns the failure-oriented one: there are failure-avoiders and failure-seekers as well.

It is needless to say that the most effective attitude is that of the success-seeker's: Such a man is able to extract the utmost from everything because even in the most hopeless situation he concentrates on how to get away easily, on how to assure the greatest success available in a given case. The failure-avoider is far less effective because he just doesn't take risks. He is more cautious than necesarry when sizing up a situation and since he is afraid of failure, many times he doesn't even attempt to take steps which would lead to good chances of success. His main point is to not get into trouble.

The success-avoiding and the failure-seeking attitudes are in close connection with the human games. Being outside of a game, there would be nothing to induce man to avoid success or especially to look for failure. For what would be the use of it? However in a game all this acquires a meaning, no matter senseless it is otherwise. If we are careful not to be successful by any means we assure ourselves the opportunity to lament happily all day long. Sometimes we are even looking for failure, lest we should give up this game of unhappiness after a while. Since in this game we have a great psychological benefit: we can cultivate the conscience of our own eminence even if there is almost nothing to be seen in our performance. This is why it doesn't cause too much trouble to prove our magnificence – for I hope all of us agree that we are great – by worthly deeds and achievements: after all what can be expected from us while living among such terrible circumstances! Thus we can save lots of energy, and it can be invested into lamentation. Of course we are not responsible for anything as we are all at the mercy of our circumstances. We are apt to shift all blame onto the conditions. And it is the better case if we shift it only to the conditions in general and not to THEM concretely. (or to "THESE" 1.8.1.) The process is in fact a special and quite cunning way of making the scapegoat, however well hidden by our artfulness of making it smartly, in a lamenting way and not spitefully as certain people do. (This is another evidence of how superior "we" are as compared to "them".)

There are different ways for a man (or for a community) to get involved in these games of unhappiness, but in every game, a common factor is that it is quite difficult to get out of them. There were several factors in the formation of our game and I'm afraid that the ideology of suffering between the two world wars also had a certain role. I wouldn't say that it cannot be understood if a community which suddenly became minority tried to make virtue of necessity in such a way that it tried to put a favourable construction on its disadvantageous position by turning it into an advantageous one with tricks of the mind and morale. However, such attempts are not at all without danger. For it is impossible that those who have the courage to try and think normally, wouldn't notice the huge number of opportunities for morbid masochism which lies behind such an ideology which has the basis that suffering is a splendid thing for it gives rise to our wonderful values (someday), our oyster-pearls, our Transylvanian palm-trees which become muscular under weight, and so on. (The most delightful in these metaphors is that they carry the whole absurdity of the theory. Since it is well-known that in Transylvania neither the pearl-oyster nor the palm-tree is native, these things exist only idealistically for us in the world of ideas. In the same way, it is only in our fairy dreams where our values which derive from suffering are so splendid – in reality we cannot truly see them.)

However such an ideology is perfectly adequate to draw a community into a hard game of unhappiness. For if we consent to suffering as something good, the source of our eminence, this view turns soon into the following: the token and proof of our eminence is suffering and only suffering. Let's suffer then as conspicuously as possible, because thus the more eminent we can consider ourselves, and if we got into such a situation where suffering would be hard for us, let's take it on at least, don't give it up, for it would lead to the detriment of our quality. This leads almost automatically to the success-avoiding, moreover, to the failure-seeking attitude. Thus we can assure ourselves easily the apparent decrease of effectiveness and it is here where the feedback comes into being: the lack of effectiveness in itself will be enough of a reason to lose hope, our suffering will be even more justified and thus the conscience of our eminence can also step up to a higher level.

How does our success-avoiding attitude work in reality? Let's look at perhaps an exemple because we are better off with practical examples than with lofty theories. It happend in November of 1991 that to our greatest surprise The Declaration of the Romanian Goverment about the National Minorities appeared. Of course it is slightly an exaggeration to say that it "appeared": in fact it appeared and it didn't appear. The Hungarian Voice of Romania published it in the 23–24th of November's issue, but the Romanian press was not ardent to make it well-known, not the TV editors, who only spoke about it rather than setting forth the text. All of us knew by and large that this declaration was made not for us but for the foreigners who had to be reassured somehow after the scandalous parliamentary debate on the Harghita-Covasna Report. However, it is a fact, and this is the point, that the text was born and from our point of view it turned out really well. Moreover, in the given case it was surprisingly good for us.

What would the success-seeking man do in this case? He acctually would say the following: although we suspect what is behind this, but since the government hasn't said that it is not intended for us, we are going to take this text very seriously. For the text is a text, no matter what king of intention is behind it. We can lose nothing and actually we may abtain something further on. The next day he already knocks at the government's door saying: we are satisfied to read the declaration and according to our appreciation the new government at last has the right attitude towards this question which waited for a long time a solution. Therefore let's agree just now, when we are able to meet and discuss the details, to make the schedule of the neccessary measures in the order of importance. Moreover, let's settle it now, who is to carry out the measures and when. In the meantime we draw up a list of the most urgent problems and make our proposals as concerns the solution.

Frankly speaking: not only does he (the success-seeking man) strikes while the iron is hot but anywhere he comes across a hot iron, he doesn't pass by without striking at it. He makes every attempt to take the government at their word. Even if the government didn't mean the declaration for us we have to put them in such a situation that they should tell it to us straight, at least for our own information. And if – for comprehensible reasons – they wouldn't willingly tell us such a thing, let us take a position to this question which is also more than nothing. And what if we can make a step forward at least? Moreover, what if the government has thought it out more seriously than we had thought? Since we cannot form any opinion about the government on the basis of parliament's attitude; it has happened many times that there was a great difference of opinion between a government and a parliament. Because the government doesn't say clearly whom they meant the text for, we might have only conjectures but hardly can we say anything for sure.

Therefore this is how a success-seeking man would behave. And now let's see, what we do. Actually there is not too much to be seen – we do most of all nothing. It is not this which is interesting here, but the method by which we make it impossible in advance to set about to anything which could hold out promises of even the slightest success.

The articles published in connection with the declaration are very instructive from this point of view. First of all, there is a very annoying situation that the article was published in Hungarian and in addition the text was not that bad either. Thus it is possible that the reader could misunderstand and thus start being optimistic. It's high time then for the journalists to do something. And the explanatory articles indeed appear immediately on the 26th of November both in the Freedom and in the Hungarian Voice of Romania, and maybe in other papers as well. I couldn't check all of them. (Intentionally I won't mention the names for it would suggest that I'm speaking about two journalists while these articles mirror not only the opinion of two men but a characteristic attitude. Thus the same could have been written by any number of authors as concerns the essence of it. Therefore let's take it as if WE had written them.)

Let's first look at the article from the Hungarian Voice of Romania. Here the author describes effectively, that after the first surprise which derived from the fact that the text of the declaration couldn't fit easily in the former image, the journalist, according to the above presented recipe, started to rummage through it thoroughly, if after all there was something in it which could be omitted in order to prevent every kind of optimism: "I've read it several times, then I patiently examined this document sentence by sentence, and if it hadn't happened only a few days ago that those "outrageous and sacrilegeous" paragraphs referring to the usage of the mother tongue were "voted out" from the Constitution, I would have labelled the text with the classification of brilliant without thinking."

Thus: you needn't look at what the text is like and foremost you cannot say that it is brilliant, even if it had been in itself, if once the parliament made that dirty attempt against us. The fact that the declaration is of the government not of the parliament, can be totally omitted according to the author of the article. That is already a bit of bad news, but later on we come to find out that the rummaging about was not in vain either: he managed to find those three little words on the basis of which we can peacefully throw away the whole declaration. We needn't deal with it any more: "Since according to the declaration as concerns the policy of the minorities the Romanian government adjusts to the "relevant European standards in the future as well." Thus it means that this is the way they have done it so far (it was only us, ever displeased, who didn't notice it!) therefore his attitude remains unchanged. And if we get just the same in the future, as we have up to the present (...), then who missed this declaration or whom had it been made for?"

We can see, can't we, what the point of the procedure is: we consider most important those three words of the text which the success-seeking man deliberately wouldn't even notice even if he had discovered them. Though he would keep them in his mind and in his acts, he proceeds as if these words were not even there. However, for us these words are the most important ones, because it is through them that we gain assurance that the declaration is an irresponsible thing, it is not worth dealing with. Thus nobody can blame us that we didn' try anything which could have been succesful. Well now, the lack of success is assured most securely if we don't even try to achieve it.

The author of the article in the Freedom is more inventive. He doesen't bother with the analysis of the text, since he has a far better method to discredit with a masterly stroke the whole text as it is. He begins his article entitled Birdline by declaring indignantly: "What bothers me is not the fact that take me for a fool, but it is much more revolting when they want to make me also believe, talking me into believing it. (...) Of course I know, I'm not the single one, who reacted in the same way on this bluff which is called by certain people an "important document". For eye-wash is this, I beg your pardon, from the best part of it." In order to prove this it is not necessary to examine the content of the text, since we know it in any case.... Should it contain anything, if once it is given by the Romanian government, it cannot be anything than bluff, and it is our national duty to be disgusted with it, whether wrong or right. Because "we have no reason at all to believe in the promises of the Romanian state authority..." We've already known for a long time, we've been convinced, we've learnt throught our own skin the emptiness of their promises." According to this the man who might try to initiate something, would prove only his naivity and would deserve to be deprived of our confidence. Let's notice how much more effective this method is that the text-analyzing one: for not only does it disarm from the beginning every attempt, but it gets into a spot all those, who actually would be apt to at least try the dialogue. For after this article who would have the courage to undertake any kind of initiation, risking to become laughed at in front of us? Thus the attitude from the quoted article is one of the most fruitful ones for all those who try to avoid success.

The article from the Hungarian Voice of Romania ends with this passage: "But because my friends encourage me, in order not to lose my "hopelessness", now I restrain myself and reassure the reader. (But anyway he cares to be not too encouraging, since the reassurance for which the author has to restrain himself, from doesn't sound too authentic. – S.N.Sz.) I believe that soon the time will come when we can interprete the documents discussing our rights word for word, and moreover, we can live every sentence by experiencing them day by day."

But there is a hitch somewhere. It's really true, that while we never run out of complaints we assert obstinately that, come what may, we are going to fight for our rights until the Romanian government assures them to us entirely. If we take it seriously and believe in whatever we say, it has to mean that once the nice day comes when the government brings out a completely well-meant declaration with the firm intention keeping it till the last iota. Just as the author of the quoted article hopes, let he do it so timidly. That's all very well but what shall we do then? I'm afraid we shall know even then whatever we know now – according to the writer of the article in the Freedom – in this moment (let me quote it again: "we have no reason at all to believe the promises of the Romanian state authority"), and at the appearance of the long expected declaration we fill our papers with indignant, fist-shaking articles, saying: Let them leave us alone, we are already fed up with their promises, what kind of bad joke is this? Aren't they ashamed of themselves yet? And the DAHR – if it exists yet – won't even have the courage to go and discuss the details being sure that if they go, an extraordinary congress will be called together to relieve the entire leadership. Since we cannot entrust the destiny of Hungarians to such credulous, naive people as themselves.

For those who don't know it, let me tell them the short story of the Rabbit and the Bear with the ladder, for we can see in it just this type of success-avoiding, failure-seeking attitude I have been talking about.

Decoration is going to take place at the Rabbit's, and thus a ladder is needed. The Rabbit sets out to borrow one from the Bear. On the way there he broods over and over to himself: "I don't know, what this Bear is going to say, he is always so peevish, he certainly won't give me the ladder heartily, because he is so proud of it, that he has a wretched ladder, but I will show him what I am made of, so what, he surely won't wipe his boots on me, I will..." And when he arrived at the Bear's and the Bear opened the door smiling, the Rabbit throws in his face foamingly: "Do you know what, Bear? Blow up your ladder!")

All this we are talking about is not only a problem for the distant future: we are not too satisfied with the DAHR but let's not be unfair: what on the earth could a poor fellow do with such mournful membership and with such a press whose main occupation is not to help him find good solutions to the problems but to prove repeatedly, at every step, that here everything is lost indeed and whoever presumes to trust, has his head in the clouds and thus cannot be taken seriously?

But let's speak about something else. The analysis of our attitude of the governmental declaration shows only one form of our success-avoiding position. Apart from this we can meet many other forms. Let's take an example of the case of when we behave as a failure-seeking group. Since we are in great need of failure, for one can truly lose hope because of failure, not because of the lack of, such a success was not even really expected.

Whoever wants to fail, can hardly succed with doing merely nothing. Failure, as a higher classified form of sorrow, must be deserved: energy must be put into it. For in order to fail we have to begin something, we have to wander all over, and only after this can we get our reward of defeat. The most secure way to achieve failure is if we choose with infallible sense – and thank god, we possess this sense – from the possible ways that one, which leads nowhere one-hundred-per-cent, and focus every bit of our energies on walking this road all over. This way has to be chosen carefully; at first sight it must have the appearance of leading somewhere for if it is clear from the beginning that it won't take us too far, it will be more difficult to persuade people to choose this way. It's better if they consider it only at the end of the case when we've already invested an awful lot of energy in it. Then we'll already have the proper moral basis to draw the following conclusion: "Well! We are doing everything on earth but in vain. Might we try with anything the world over, we won't ever succed."

One of these unfortunate ways is the so called "terminological revolution". The point here is that we leave everything unchanged except the name. For example if we were a coexistent nationality before 1989, the 22th of December, it might not remain unchanged. So, we changed it. Nobody forced us, it was us who announced that henceforth we were going to be a national minority instead of coexistent nationality. For thus we go by the "European standards", the vocabulary of international law and our traditions between the two World Wars. At that time many press articles appeared referring to the advantages of this term and everybody accepted the new name. Well, in not more than one and a half year we realized that it was an incorrect choice since the root of all misery and impotence of ours was the fact that we were called a national minority. People feel the term of minority is degrading for it suggests in a way our inferiority (while we know that we are not inferior to them, sooner as is the contrary!), and if they wouldn't feel so, we have to insist upon it till they learn it for sure. Finally at this moment we can come forward with the great invention – and this is the genuine "terminological revolution" –, namely: we are not a national minority but a co-nation! And because people are generally susceptible to the magic of words, it's easy to make them believe that this transformation of the name means a radical change in the near future, may it be invisible at the moment. Thus it's simple to win the general approval of this idea. Thus we have to stand on this road encouraging people that this name will be the solution to our problems; if we succeed in making other accept the idea that we are a co-nation then we get to knock on heaven's door.

This way is attracting at first sight, so we have hope that lots of people will put their energies into it – energies deserving a better life – and at the same time you needn't be afraid that this way acctually leads somewhere, namely that a non-expected success might confuse your game. For it was said long ago by the late Dezsô Pais, an excellent linguist that terminology was dry angling. For what can be changed of reality if we give ourselves another name? Nothing, of course. If we have to fight for our rights, schools and so on as a national minority, we have to do it exactly the same way as a co-nation. Neither our partners, nor our opponents, nor the general situation is going to change. Nor will our chances get better. But there is an undeniable advantage so introducing the term of co-nation; it assures far better failure for us than the former name since every difficulty of ours remains unchanged and untouched, but now there appears a new one to be added. Thus the problem becomes far more complicated than before, so the chances of a solution will decrease and thus the failure will be more likely.

The next difficulty consists of the fact that it is insufficient to hang this name only on ourselves: in order to use it we have to make the international authorities and mainly the Romanian politicians accept it. Should we get on somehow with the former, we could hardly manage this case with the latter one. In order to succeed, we should put in it so much energy and competence that we wouldn't even have it all as much of both. However there is a special advantage of this way: when it comes to light that the way doesn't lead anywhere, nobody is to be called to account for the chosen direction, for at that moment we can say, it was not fault of ours. We proposed a magnificent solution but what can we do if the other party proved to be unworthy of us? And if miraculously we managed to make them accept it and we proved to remain in the same bad position, for problems would remain unchanged, there would be yet another gain: while we are struggling for terminology, the troubles would be preserved, since it is impossible to deal with everything at the same time. Thus we can assure ourselves for a long time of this deep Hungarian melancholy.

But this way acctually remains to be seen, and still lots of energy has to be put so in it so that the effect should be perceptible. However there is another way, similar to this, which we've already walked over. That was the experience which showed indeed how distressing, moreover, paralysing a carefully prepared failure can be. Now I think about the constitutional debate, namely the question of the integral national state. We noticed at once the great opportunity in it of a way of ending in failure and we did everything, to avoid missing it. Thus we stood on the view that come hell or high water, this term – namely the integral national state [ This technical term may sound tantologically – it serves the insistence on the Romanian national identity. (The concept is not used in the classical social sciences.) – editor's note] – must be omitted from the constitution. Previously the press made every effort to assure people that our whole future depended on the success or defeat of this case so that the failure might be a widespread fiasco of the masses.

It certainly is an instructive example for we cannot even say that aside from this there were no other alternatives in front of us. Nor can we assert that nobody knew beforehand the result of this way. I was there at the session of the State Committee of the DAHR (Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania) in Cluj in the fall of 1990, when a member of the committee predicted the outcome of this way and, as it turned out later, he was not alone in his opinion. However it is true that according to the atmosphere of the session he presented his opinion in almost the same way as the one-time Uncle John did in a (social) party meeting when he was asked about his opinion on a ticklish affair. He said: "Comrades, I have an opinion about this but I have to admit that I don't agree myself with it."

For it could be felt that in spite of anything he said we could not imagine any other way for ourselves but the one we chose at last.

The alternative mentioned by the speaker was the following; It's true that we would like to omit the definition of integral national state from the constitution and our claim is rightful. It's obvious that we have appropriate rational arguments for this. However by now we can be dead certain that such kind of proposals will be supported by no one at all in the Parliament since in the Romanian conscience, regardless of party affiliation, the qualification of integral national state bears a sacred content, being an essential part of the notion of Romania. As their arguments are irrational we can hardly shake them with rational reasoning. (How it proved to be so was shown unanimously later in the parliamental debate, when a representative of the govrnment party was stunned to describe that he just didn't understand how we dared to question the notion of the integral national state when it was obvious that it was such an inevitable part of Romania as the cross is for an orthodox church.)

Thus if we have no chance at all to realize our conception in its original form then – it would be a mistake to put any energy into it provided we know that the same result can be achieved without the slightest effort. For whether we do something or not, it is sure that the final form of the constitution will contain the notion of integral national state. Consequently, we had better direct our energies to the right place for we don't have too much of it, and let's see if we could bridge somehow this uncomfortable situation. Since after all what is the so called integral national state? It's a name only, and a name in itself is neither good nor bad. Everything depends on the content of the word, on its practical meaning. Let's concentrate then on the practical connections and mainly on the further paragraphs of the constitution, for if the constitution is going to guarantee our rights and they can be put into practice as well, then who cares what the name of this country is?

Thus the submitted alternative would have been that we needn't chose at all the term of integral national state but let's see instead why it is so important for us. Let's try to find the word not sense of it and make a motion for an amendment in connection with this only, for thus we have better chances to win approval. It's obvious that from practical point of view this term carries only one danger; namely, that referring to this they can later say to us, according to the good national habit, the following: "you cannot demand an independent educational network, cultural autonomy and the likes of these, for Romania is an integral national state". Although this argument doesn't go on all fours, it is actually to be feared since it could turn up later. This is what somehow should be fended off in order to take the sting out of the term. After this it has no importance for us: both us and the Romanians can calm down about the question. On the behalf of this the author of the idea proposed that the parliamental group of the DAHR might ask with adequate diplomacy that after the paragraph containing the term of integral national state the following sentence should be inserted: "The definition of integral national state cannot be the basis of either the source of law or the restriction of civil rights as concern the relation of the Romanian national majority and the national minorities:." Since this could have meant a guarantee provided they want to get around the term against us.

For a success-seeking man it would have certainly been enough. But not for us. Though it was dead certain that the original idea would end up in failure, we decided – maybe just because of this – that "still we have to try it by hook or by crook". The parliamental group of DAHR out of their fear of us didn't dare to choose the right way which could have basically solved our problem provided it was successful, and which might have had far better chances even afterwards looking at it, than the way we chose at last. (One might say that it would have had no use anyway since we never succeed in anything at all. However we shall never know for sure whether it is so or not since we didn't try it. Instead of this we chose the strategy of the loser from the beginning.)

The result is well-known. Immediately at the beginning we managed to create such a tension against ourselves in the constitutional debate that wiped out definitely our chances in the further rounds of the dispute. They made the best use of this small incident about the notion of integral national state against us not only in the Parliament but also in the nationalistic press propaganda. And other complications derived from this case as well. For instance our "obtuseness" around the integral national state was the very circumstance which helped us gamble away the most part of the opposition's confidence that would have certainly been useful during the parliamental debate of the Harghita-Covasna Report. And if we realize that this result could been achieved without any effort!

But never mind, since the bleak and aimless trouble was highly compensated by the great national sorrow which followed the passage of the constitution. At this point you can really measure the fantastic effect of an authentic, well-constructed failure. We abandoned ourselves to grief saying that it is all done with, our coffin has already closed on us, we are put out to grass, we won't have the ball either at our feet any more. We might as well pack up.

The press of course arranged for even the smallest village to be affected by this national grief.

Either way methodologically these press articles are highly instructive since they concern such a recipe for our saddening which can be used any time successfully. It sounds like this: you should never notice what is involved in a text, intead what is not involved. Of course you might mention something that is concerned, but only if it is bad. Thus we could keep everyone from reading the text with their own mind in case they realize that there are many things missing. It includes several good things as well and if only these good ideas could be carried into effect it would be great in itself and easier for us to step forth. Since nothing is eternal, not even a constitution. To our greatest pleasure the press actually reckons with such strayers as well and assures their readers that whatever is good will never be kept since we know for long that here no constitution has ever been respected. However this argument must be handled with care in case it finally should click to the reader: if they don't keep it by any means the what's the use of such a huge despair that the constitution is so and so? Either way, it is the same for us whatever they don't keep, isn't it?

Come and see it, my fellow – this is our national, excuse me: co-national carnival...