Chapter 7: The Slovak question and the Slovak answer: Citizenship during the quest for national self-determination and after 1
Dagmar Kusá

Rainer Baubock, Bernhard Perchinig, Wiebke Sievers, eds. (2007) Citizenship Policies in the New Europe. IMISCOE Research, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 185-206

Citizenship is both a status and a praxis. As a status, it is defined by a collection of laws and regulations. In Slovakia, these have been shaped by both principles of ius soli and ius sanguinis, the latter gaining importance especially after the First and the Second World War. The praxis involves the civic and political participation by citizens as well as the policies of governments concerning the implementation of the law in relation to its citizens as well as to non-citizens. The latter depend strongly on the political situation of the times. The first two turbulent decades of the Czechoslovak Republic were marked by attempts to ethnically homogenise the ‘Czechoslovak’ nation, targeting primarily the German and Hungarian minorities (but also Roma and others) as unwanted elements, culminating in three years of ‘homelessness’ after
the end of the Second World War. Only the communist Government restored their civil and political rights. Yet it was unable to do away with the national sentiments of the Slovaks, striving to achieve national self-determination within or without Czechoslovakia. The Federation of 1968 (and the Warsaw Pact tanks that preceded it) quieted the nationalist voices until 1989, when they echoed through the public squares with all the more vigour. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia, which followed in 1993, made for a messy transition period in citizenship policy with the need to address both issues related to the end of the communist regime and its victims, as well as to the status of Czech nationals in Slovakia.
The last decade has also brought new challenges connected to the integration of Slovakia into the European Union and marked by general globalisation processes. Slovakia is figuring out its relationship towards an influx of newcomers from parts of the world with which it had no cultural contact in the past. International institutions shape these policies to a large degree, although the careful observation of Hungary’s – the closest neighbour and historic adversary – citizenship policies seems to have just as much impact on shaping the public debate and legal provisions taken in Slovakia. While we will be focusing in this chapter primarily on citizenship as a status, the political praxis of governments does need some attention to complete our understanding of what shaped citizenship policies at different times.

7.1 History of Slovak citizenship
7.1.1 History of citizenship policies since the first Czechoslovak Republic

Czechoslovak citizenship was created with the first Czechoslovak Republic on 28 October 1918. The collective identity to which it referred was cumbersome, to say the least, and was a result of the historical path of the Czech and Slovak nation-building processes as well as of the peculiar nature of the new state that had resulted from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and from the peace treaties following the First World War. The Wilsonian principle of self-determination
influenced the understanding of the concept of citizenship and contributed to the growing role of ethnicity in its legal definition. Concepts of citizenship and ethnic nationality are often difficult to set apart neatly. They influence each other, and both depend heavily on political interpretations. The Czechoslovak Republic consisted of a multitude of ethnic groups and the leadership struggled with asserting the dominant position of the Czech and Slovak nations in their newly established
Republic. National minorities, especially the three million Germans and close to a million Hungarians, formed 44 per cent of the total population. The Czechoslovak Government thus enforced an official Czechoslovak nationality2 (instead of separate Czech and Slovak nationalities). The sovereign nation needed to be propped up by some ‘objective’ quantifiable measures of dominance. Population censuses helped to provide these measures and also allowed citizens to be distinguished from foreigners.3 The power of numbers as represented in the census was becoming apparent to national leaders prior to the foundation of Czechoslovakia. With the growing turbulence over what was then called the ‘nationality question’ within the Habsburg Empire the census was becoming more and more powerful as an expression of ‘real’ power, as a ticket to future control over territory and as one of the determinants of state formation and boundaries. In 1900, for example, the German newspaper in Bohemia appealed to its readers: ‘Dear fellow citizens! Please pay close attention to column 13 Umgangssprache) in the census form. The future of our nation depends on this minor entry. 1. What is the language used on a daily basis? It is the language most commonly used by an individual. Daily use means the communication
in the family, among people that live together, in their employment, with an employer. Wherever this communication happens in the German language, no other language should be entered into column 13. Is the language used on a daily basis identical with the mother tongue? Absolutely not. Czech employees […] use in their German employment the German language instead of their mother tongue. German is their language of everyday use.’ (Zeman 1994: 37). In a similar manner Czech, Slovak and Ruthenian leaders appealed to their respective constituencies to enter their mother tongue. Data were collected by census
officials, often with the aid of the army and police and accompanied by threats, blackmail or violence.
The census remained important, especially in border disputes after 1918. The northern part of the Czech Teschen-Silesia region as well as the southern part of the Slovak borderlands with Hungary were heavily disputed after the war and nationality was used as a tool for demarcation policies. Polish representatives based their arguments on census
data from before 1918, which showed a clear majority of ethnic Poles in those territories. As the populations here were ethnically mixed and their mother tongue was often Polish or Hungarian, the question in the 1921 census carried out by the Czechoslovak Government was promptly changed to ask directly about nationality. A Silesian nationality was created (besides Polish and Czechoslovak). Respondents in this category were then automatically counted among Czechoslovak nationals.
This resulted in a complete change of population proportions. While the percentage of Poles fell to 25 per cent (from 139,000 to 69,000), the percentage of Czechoslovaks grew from 40 per cent to 65 per cent (from 123,000 to 177,000) (Paul 1998: 163).
The fate of Teschen-Silesia was decided at the Paris Peace Conference. Polish representatives succeeded in their demand for a plebiscite.If this had been carried out, Czechoslovakia might have lost some of these economically strong territories. However the international commission overseeing the plebiscite could not agree on the conditions, the Red Army was quickly invading Poland, and legal norms in Czechoslovakia were confusing due to the existing state of legal dualism where Czech lands inherited the legal system from Austria, and Slovakia that of Hungary. A plebiscite was to be carried out not only in Silesia,
but also in the northern Slovak areas of Spisˇ and Orava, which would result in implementing two plebiscites regulated by differing sets of laws. The northern boundary was therefore finally decided upon the recommendation of the Allied Powers. Poland was compensated for much of Silesia with 25 settlements in Orava and Spiš (Klimko 1980; Peroutka 1991).
Legal dualism was caused by differing practices in granting citizenship and domicile before 1918 following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. While in Austria domicile, i.e. a legal title of residence in a municipality (Heimatrecht), was closely registered, it was not in the Hungarian part of the empire that included Slovakia.4 Even though domicile was granted to all those born and residing in a municipality, the gentry had a right to deny some people domicile even if they were born or had resided in the locality for a long time. Jurová (2002) maintains this was the fate of many Roma who moved from village
to village. This was due to arts. 8-15 of the municipal law (XXVII/ 1886) that tied the acquiring of domicile of those who move and/or marry to fulfilling certain duties towards the municipality, thus giving the authorities opportunities for convenient interpretation. Furthermore, Act No. 222/1896 amended some provisions of the 1863 municipal law that specified conditions under which a Roma could be granted domicile.
The Roma and Hungarians were groups that succeeding Czechoslovak governments sought to minimise statistically after 1918. The census of 1921 shows a remarkable number of ‘foreigners’ without Czechoslovak citizenship that still have domicile on Slovak territory. The extent to which these groups were affected by citizenship policies has unfortunately not been extensively researched and quantitative data in this area are missing (Jurova´ 2002).
Czechoslovakia’s citizenship regulations were further disturbed by the events of the Second World War. Slovakia experienced its first (debatably) independent statehood as a Nazi puppet state, while the Czech lands were occupied under the Third Reich’s Protectorate. The end of the Second World War and the restoration of Czechoslovakia led to the adoption of ad hoc laws that introduced the criterion of ethnicity into citizenship legislation. The new legislation was linked to the post-war
massive emigration and population exchange. Under the President’s Constitutional Decree No. 33/1945 Coll. (Collection), Czechoslovak citizens of German and Hungarian ethnic origins were deprived of Czechoslovak citizenship.5 This also meant their exclusion from official institutions (Order 99/1945 of the Slovak National Council), as well as from reimbursement for war damages, and implied other practical consequences. 6 Further decrees also disbanded German and Hungarian
associations and organisations.
The transfers of ethnic Germans were agreed to by the Allied Powers at the Potsdam Conference in 1945. They did, however, not approve of applying the same policy based on a principle of collective guilt to Hungarians. The alternative solution found by the Benesˇ Government was a ‘voluntary exchange of populations’ between Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This plan resulted in the removal of 89,660 ethnic Hungarians, who were moved into Hungary, in return for receiving 73,273 ethnic
Slovaks (Vadkerty 2002: 32). Oral history projects document that the nature of the exchange was in many cases coercive. Another wave of transfers, labelled by the Czech historian Karel Kaplan as an ‘internal colonisation’ (Kaplan, 1993: 9), was based on the Presidential Decree No. 88/1945 on universal labour service. Ethnic Hungarians were recruited for ‘voluntary agricultural work’7 into the then vacant Sudetenland. Age limits imposed by the Decree were also frequently ignored
and property left behind was confiscated (in direct violation of the Decree) (Kusa´ 2005). These policies were accompanied by a programme of re-Slovakisation, passed by the Slovak National Council in
June 1946. This policy gave ethnic Hungarians an opportunity to ‘reclaim’
Slovak citizenship (based on the premise of previous coercive
Magyarisation of Slovaks) within the time span of one year. Some
320,000 Hungarians were granted Slovak citizenship on this basis.
However, as the census of 1960 shows, many returned to claiming
Hungarian ethnicity in the census as soon as the political situation allowed
for it.8
This era has been dubbed by the Hungarian authors as the ‘homeless
years’. Citizenship was eventually restored to the Germans and
Hungarians remaining in Czechoslovakia in 1948 by the newly established
communist government; most Hungarians who had been transferred
to Sudetenland have returned. Many, however, never recovered
lost properties. The Benesˇ Decrees and their legal and practical consequences
remain a painful open wound in Czech and Slovak political
memory to this day and have been repeatedly debated, especially in
connection with possible compensation for those affected and their
descendants. Representatives of German and Hungarian communities
sometimes call for an annulment of the Benesˇ Decrees, yet due to the
complexity of the political situation of interwar and post-Second World
War years and a lack of political will in the Czech and Slovak Republics,
it is unlikely that such a measure would be adopted. Some conciliatory
steps were taken by the Czech and Slovak Governments in the
past decade on the level of bilateral declarations (the Czech-German
Declaration of 1997) or public speeches (e.g. Hrusˇovsky´ 2003).

7.1.2 Regulation of Czechoslovak citizenship in 1949-1968 and the ‘Slovak Question’
The rise of communist monopoly rule meant, ironically enough, the end of ‘homelessness’ for the Hungarians and Germans in Czechoslovakia. Citizenship laws were, however, misused for other political purposes, as one of the tools to keep the lid on the population, as a sort of preventive blackmail of those who might think of publicly voicing their disapproval of the communist regime. The legal process of acquisition and loss of Czechoslovak citizenship in the period following the February putsch of 1948 was governed by the Act on the Acquisition and Loss of Czechoslovak Citizenship No. 194/1949, as amended by the Act No. 72/1958 Modifying the Regulations on the Acquisition and Loss of Czechoslovak Citizenship.9 The Czechoslovak citizenship could be acquired in four ways: 1) by birth: Czechoslovak citizenship was transferred to the child by his or her parent citizens regardless of whether the child was born in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic or abroad. If the child was born in the territory of the Czechoslovak Republic, it was sufficient if one of the parents
was a Czechoslovak citizen;10 2) by marriage: A foreigner could acquire Czechoslovak citizenship on demand upon marrying a Czechoslovak citizen. This acquisition needed to be investigated and approved by a district National Committee within six months; 3) by grant: A foreigner could be granted Czechoslovak citizenship upon request after meeting two principal conditions: residing in the Czechoslovak territory for five consecutive years and abandoning his or her previous citizenship.
There was no legal entitlement to be granted citizenship; 4) by reacquisition: This applied to the acquisition of citizenship by the‘homeless’ persons of German and Hungarian nationality ex lege after taking a citizenship oath without the need to apply or to fulfil other conditions.1111
The loss of Czechoslovak citizenship was possible by 1) renunciation
upon request,12 2) revocation by the state due to hostile acts against the
Republic, illegal emigration, or not returning to the homeland for the
period of five years or upon request of the Ministry of the Interior, 3)
marrying and acquiring citizenship in another country (with a possibility
to request retention of Czechoslovak citizenship), 4) a court decision
as a penalty for ‘high treason, espionage, desertion of the Republic,
military subversive activities, war treason, assassination of a state
official’,13 5) naturalisation in the United States of America, and 6) as a
consequence of agreements on dual citizenship.14
During this period of time, and especially during the de´tente period
of the 1960s, when literature and arts were flourishing after the denunciation
of the Stalinist doctrine, Slovak leaders and intellectuals
voiced their desire for self-determination of the Slovak nation in a federative
arrangement. They did not wish to be Czechoslovak citizens,
but Slovak citizens of Czechoslovakia. While the Czech elite focused on
market liberalisation and democratisation of the regime, Slovaks called
for ‘first federalisation, then democratisation’ – a slogan that reappeared
repeatedly in public squares after 1989 in a much more malevolent
form. This issue divided Czech and Slovak intellectuals during the
entire duration of the communist regime, as the Czech cultural leaders
failed to see the urgency of this issue for the Slovaks. The Soviet leadership,
however, duly noted Slovak aspirations for federation. Thus when
the tanks rolled into Prague and Bratislava on the 21 August 1968 it
brought with it different realities for the two nations. While the oppression
following the Warsaw Pact invasion was equally suffocating in
190 DAGMAR KUSA´
both parts of the country, it also brought the desired federation for the
Slovaks. Dissent in Slovakia was therefore more muted compared to
the Czech region. The Soviets poured investment into the Slovak industry
in the post-1968 era further contributing thereby to different
perceptions of the ‘normalisation’ period between the two nations.
What was an era of darkness for most Czechs, was seen by many Slovaks
as a repressed society, but with real industrialisation and federation
at least on paper. While this reality itself may not have had an immediate
impact on citizenship laws and practice, it certainly reverberated
on the political scene after 1989, when the cultural divide
between Czechs and Slovaks escalated into the ‘Velvet Divorce’.
7.1.3 Regulation of Czechoslovak citizenship in 1969-1992: Czechoslovak
Socialist Federative Republic
Until 1968, when the Czechoslovak Federation was established, Czechoslovakia
was a unitary state with a single Czechoslovak citizenship.
The establishment of a federation also resulted in the creation of Czech
and Slovak citizenships. Constitutional Law No. 143/1968 Coll. on the
Czechoslovak Federation, which came into force on 1 January 1969, is
based on the principle of individual preference when determining the
citizenship of the two constituent republics.15
The original text contains a provision according to which every citizen
of one of the republics is also a citizen of Czechoslovakia (art. 5).
Citizenship was regulated by the Constitutional Act of the National
Council of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic No. 165/1968 Coll. on
the Principles of Acquisition and Loss of Czech and Slovak Citizenship,
followed by the Act No. 206/1968 Coll. of the Slovak National Council
on Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship of the Slovak Socialist Republic.
Normally citizenship at the level of the two republics was determined
by the place of birth or by the citizenship of the parents, if that
could be identified. Czech or Slovak citizens could however choose a
different citizenship until 31 December 1969. The Act precluded dual
citizenship, one had to choose one or the other. The Slovak National
Council passed Act No. 206/1968 Coll. to apply these rules in domestic
legislation.
Between 1969 and 1992 it was possible to acquire Slovak and Czech
citizenship by birth,16 by choice (within one year after the establishment
of the federation), by marriage, or by grant (after five consecutive
years of residence for foreigners and two years for Czech citizens with
permanent residence in Slovakia).
Loss of citizenship in the ‘normalisation’ era was similar to previous
regulations. It could be renounced, lost due to acquiring Czech citizenship,
or one could still be deprived of it on the basis of art. 7 of Act No.
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 191
194/1949 Coll., naturalisation in the US, or according to agreements
on dual citizenship.
After the fall of communism, both Czech and Slovak national elites
struggled to assert the position of their nations within Europe. National
identity had to be reconstructed and to a large extent even re-invented.
Both elites turned to their past to seek linkages and justification for
steps towards self-determination. Czechs and Slovaks, however, sought
friendship with very different animals from their past. Czechs built on
Masaryk’s democratic ideals from the first interwar republic, while Slovaks
viewed this era suspiciously with a memory of the Czech ‘Pragocentrism’
17 and of the refusal of the Czechoslovak Government to grant
Slovakia a right to self-determination or autonomy in a federation. Instead,
Slovaks referred to the legacy of the Slovak puppet state created
by the Nazis.18 The discrepancy in perceptions of the post-1968 era
added to the rift between the two nations. This ‘failure to find a decent
past’ together, as Igor Lukes (1995) coined it, contributed to the choice
of separate paths for the future by the political elites, whose sentiments
were, however, not reciprocated by the majorities of populations on
either side of the new border.
In the confused atmosphere of rampant nationalism that had anti-
Czech, anti-Hungarian, anti-Semitic, and even anti-Western traits in
the years prior to the Velvet Divorce, Slovak representatives raised
many issues that seemed to be frivolously escalating the conflict into
what popularly became known as the ‘hyphen war’, i.e. the war about
the spelling of ‘Czechoslovakia’. Slovak delegates claimed that the term
Czechoslovakia was discriminatory to the Slovaks, who are commonly
mistaken for Czechs abroad. Claims were backed by invoking the
myths of one thousand years of suffering by the Slovaks under the
Hungarian yoke, only to be replaced by the Czech yoke in 1918. The
Federative Assembly finally settled on ‘Czech and Slovak Federative Republic’
as the name for the post-communist state.
The Slovak Prime Minister Vladimı´r Mecˇiar conducted a policy of
blackmail, threatening the Czech leadership with the possibility of secession
over each major political issue. The Czech Prime Minister
Klaus eventually called his bluff and startled Mecˇiar by accepting the
proposal for separation. The divorce was decided at the top political level
without being ratified by popular participation, but also without
strong protests from the Czech and Slovak public. Over half of the respondents
in public opinion surveys voiced their desire to remain in
the common state and/or to have an opportunity to decide its fate in a
referendum (Nemcova´ 1992). It was instead decided by political elites.
On 1 January 1993 the two nations started a new period in their history
and had to determine their identities and related policies anew. Even
before the dissolution, the citizenship laws had been growing in signif-
192 DAGMAR KUSA´
icance, and many Czechs and Slovaks were using their right to choose
their republic-level citizenship.
In Slovakia, the nationalist craze played out directly in many legal
provisions that concerned anybody ‘other’ than ethnic Slovaks.19 Such
was the case with the ‘Sign Law’ (a law regulating public inscriptions
such as topographical names of towns, villages, streets and store signs),
the Act on the Official State Language, which was passed without any
provisions for the use of languages of the national minorities (which
were adopted only in 1997), the ‘Territorial Arrangement’ that redrew
district boundaries to lessen the percentage of ethnic Hungarians in
areas where they were concentrated, and other legislation. This policy
has also affected the practice of allowing access to those seeking asylum,
with possible hopes for eventually acquiring citizenship in the
Slovak Republic. While the legislation regulating the asylum procedures
was not markedly different from other countries, the political environment
was palpably hostile. During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Slovakia, just as many other countries, received an influx of refugees.
The Migration Office of the Ministry of the Interior was at that
time particularly untoward in granting anyone the status of a refugee.
Many, if not most, displaced persons had to contend with a protective
status of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office
in Slovakia, and most were turned back after a few months, not always
into safe conditions.
7.2 Current regulations of acquisition and loss of Slovak
citizenship
In the first years of the Slovak Republic, Slovak citizenship was either
determined by law or could be individually chosen. Those who were citizens
of the Slovak Republic before 31 December 1992 automatically
became citizens of independent Slovakia, as stipulated in Act No. 40/
1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic. Czech citizens could
apply for Slovak citizenship until 31 December 1993 by way of a written
request to the District Office in the territory of the Slovak Republic or
to the Diplomatic Mission or Consular Office of the Slovak Republic
abroad. This option was open freely to all citizens of the former Czech
and Slovak Federative Republic. Those applying for Slovak citizenship
had to provide proof that they were Czechoslovak citizens as of 31 December
1992 and state their place of birth and permanent residence
(art. 7).
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 193
7.2.1 Acquisition of citizenship
Slovak citizenship can be currently acquired by birth, by adoption, or
by grant. The laws regulating citizenship are comparatively generous
towards individuals with Czech or Slovak roots, allowing for a plural citizenship
and extending considerable citizenship rights to the Slovak
expatriates living abroad.
Acquisition of citizenship by birth is firmly based on ius sanguinis
except in those cases where a child would otherwise become stateless.
In current legislation a child acquires Slovak citizenship only if at least
one of the parents is a citizen of the Slovak Republic or if the child
was born in the territory of the Slovak Republic to parents who are stateless
or whose citizenship is not transmitted to the child iure sanguinis.
20 If citizenship cannot be established, a child is considered to be a
citizen of the Slovak Republic if he or she was born or was found in
the territory of the Slovak Republic and his or her parents are not
known. If one of a child’s parents is a citizen of another country and
the other is a citizen of the Slovak Republic, then the child is a citizen
of the Slovak Republic even if it is later established that the child’s parent
who is a citizen of the Slovak Republic is not the child’s natural
parent. A child can also acquire citizenship when he or she is adopted
by a Slovak citizen. In case of disagreement between the parents, Slovak
citizenship can be determined by a court judgement on the basis
of one parent’s or a legal guardian’s request.
Citizenship of the Slovak Republic can also be granted upon request
to a foreigner. This requires consecutive permanent residence and physical
stay in the Slovak territory for at least five years immediately prior
to submitting an application for citizenship. Slovak law also requires
sufficient basic proficiency in the Slovak language. Applicants must
also have a clean criminal record, which means that they must not
have been prosecuted for an intentional crime during those five years
before the application, must not be under an administrative expulsion
order from the country of residence or subject to extradition proceedings.
21
Facilitating factors in the application procedure are if an applicant is
stateless or voluntarily renounces his or her previous citizenship.
Furthermore, citizenship can be granted upon request to those who
have entered into marriage with a Slovak citizen (after living in the Slovak
Republic for a period of three consecutive years), or those who have
made special contributions to the Slovak Republic through their
achievements in the field of economy, science, culture or technology.
There are also special provisions for the restoration of citizenship to
those who lost it according to previous legislation. A person whose former
Czechoslovak citizenship expired or who lost the Czechoslovak ci-
194 DAGMAR KUSA´
tizenship due to a long absence or on the basis of citizenship law during
the communist regime, may be granted citizenship of the Slovak
Republic even if the above-mentioned condition of five years consecutive
permanent residence has not been met. Former Slovak citizens returning
to live in Slovakia have to have permanent residence in the Slovak
Republic for two years prior to filing an application for citizenship.
22
7.2.2 Loss of citizenship
Slovak citizenship can be lost, only upon the holder’s own request, by
releasing the person from the state bond. Only those can be released
who already possess another citizenship, or who will acquire another
citizenship as soon as they are released from Slovak citizenship.
A Slovak citizen cannot be released if he or she is being prosecuted,
is currently serving a sentence or is due to serve a sentence or has outstanding
taxes or other debts to pay to the state. The District Office,
Diplomatic Mission or a Consular Office of the Slovak Republic makes
the final decision on the loss of citizenship. Citizenship is lost on the
day of receipt of the document stating his or her release from the state
bond of the Slovak Republic.
7.2.3 Procedure
Slovak citizenship acquired by naturalisation is awarded by the Ministry
of the Interior of the Slovak Republic based on a written application.
This application has to be filed in person at a District Office, Diplomatic
Mission or Consular Office of the Slovak Republic. It must include
personal data about the applicant and must be accompanied by a
dossier of documents including a brief curriculum vitae, an identification
card, a birth certificate, a personal status certificate, and a certificate
of residence in the Slovak Republic. Former Czechoslovak citizens
that qualify for restoration of citizenship have to provide a document
stating the release from the state bond of the Czechoslovak Republic,
the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic or the Slovak Socialist Republic
(whichever applies). Former Slovak citizens applying for citizenship
after two years of residence in Slovakia can submit a Slovak Status ID
as a form of identification. The Ministry of the Interior can ask for
other documents if required to render a decision.
The application is accompanied by a questionnaire on the basis of
which the authorities evaluate the applicant’s Slovak language skills.
Verification has to be done in a way that takes the applicant’s circumstances
into account. The District Office has the right to request a
statement from the police and will then forward the complete applica-
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 195
tion with all documents and statements to the Ministry of the Interior
for a final decision. When making its decision, the Ministry of the Interior
has to take into account the public interest as well as statements
of state institutions and of the police. It has nine months from receipt
of an application to issue a decision. If statements of state institutions
and of the police are required, the processing period is prolonged to
one year.
Slovak citizenship is acquired by obtaining a Certificate of Acquisition
of Slovak Citizenship at the District Office, Diplomatic Mission or
Consular Office of the Slovak Republic and after taking the obligatory
oath. The citizenship oath reads: ‘I promise on my honour and conscience
that I will be loyal to the Slovak Republic, I will respect the Slovak
Constitution, laws and other legal rules and will duly fulfil all duties
of a Slovak citizen.’23
If the applicant doesn’t pick up the Certificate of Acquisition within
six months of receiving a written notification the Ministry will stop the
procedure. If the Ministry rejects the application then the applicant can
apply again after a minimum waiting period of one year.
7.2.4 International treaties
Slovakia is party to many international multilateral and bilateral treaties
that impact on domestic citizenship regulations. International treaties
take precedence over domestic law – if they differ from the provisions
in the Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic,
the legal regulations of international law outweigh domestic law
(art. 17).
As in the case of the Czech Republic, the treaty with the United
States that precluded naturalised American citizens of Czech and Slovak
origin from holding dual citizenship (the 1928 Naturalisation
Treaty) expired in 1997. This allowed many former citizens and their
descendants to restore their Slovak citizenship and to file claims for
restitution of property with the Slovak state.
Among the other important bilateral treaties was the Agreement on
Slovak-Hungarian Neighbourly Relations from 1995, which had implications
for the practical implementation of certain cultural and educational
rights of ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia. Many international provisions
– including this one – were passed only due to extensive pressure
from European institutions dangling the carrot of EU accession in
front of the Slovak leadership. The Slovak-Hungarian Treaty was
passed at the peak of the Mecˇiar Government era, to the bewilderment
of his followers and perhaps of himself, after Slovakia had received demarches
from the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
and other international institutions regarding its practices concerning
196 DAGMAR KUSA´
national minorities and foreigners. The international community thus
played a key role in shaping domestic policies in this transition period
keeping the ugly dragon of nationalism and xenophobia on a somewhat
shorter leash.
7.2.5 Dual and multiple citizenship
Slovak legislation tolerates dual citizenship. Regulations of dual and
multiple citizenship on a European level are, however, developing
slowly and with obstacles. The regime changes and successive creation
of new states after 1989 created a need to come up with common regulations
regarding citizenship policies that resulted in the European
Convention on Nationality (ETS No. 166), which entered into force on
1 March 2000. It was the first international document to establish core
principles and rules applying to all aspects of citizenship to which the
domestic law of the parties to the treaty should conform. The Convention
was opened for signature to Member States of the Council of Europe
as well as non-members on 6 November 1997. Slovakia signed
and ratified the Convention, as did the Czech Republic.
Among other issues the Convention covers questions of multiple citizenship.
Art. 14 directly stipulates the right to dual citizenship in the
case of acquiring citizenship of another country by marriage. The force
of the Convention is however softened by arts. 15 and 16, which give
the parties the right to determine whether their nationals who acquire
or possess the nationality of another state retain or lose their citizenship;
and the right of state parties to make the acquisition or retention
of their citizenship conditional upon renunciation or loss of another citizenship
(unless it is not possible or cannot reasonably be required).
These articles are often used in practice to preclude multiple citizenship.
There have been speculations as to whether Slovakia could use
them in this way if the Hungarian Parliament passes the law on dual
citizenship for ethnic Hungarians living abroad (see Kova´cs and To´th
in this volume). This would not be possible without amendments to
the current law, which stipulates that the loss of Slovak citizenship results
only from a person’s own request to be released from the state
bond. The state cannot on its own initiative deprive any person of their
Slovak citizenship. It is, however, possible that some ethnic Hungarians
residing in Slovakia could be released from the state bond upon
their own request after gaining Hungarian citizenship, thus becoming
Hungarian foreign nationals living in Slovakia. This status would, however,
bring more inconveniences than benefits to the applicants. It is
far more probable that, if Hungary passed the dual citizenship law,
most ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia would hold on to their Slovak citizenship.
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 197
As was already mentioned, Czech and Slovak nationals could choose
their citizenship for a period of one year after the dissolution of the
Czechoslovak Federative Republic. This situation was not without complications.
It rendered tens of thousands of Roma living in the Czech
Republic stateless due to improper documentation, permanent residence
in Slovakia (many migrated from Slovakia to Czech lands before
1989), lack of information about the procedure (and the need to apply),
a criminal record or other reasons.24 Furthermore, from 1994 it became
harder for Czech or Slovak citizens to live and work in the other
part of the former common republic. In 1999, after years of continuous
pressure from European institutions and non-governmental organisations,
and following a Czech Supreme Court decision of 1997,
which ruled that the Czech citizens who chose Slovak citizenship in
1993 did not lose their Czech citizenship, the Czech citizenship laws
were amended to allow for reacquisition of the Czech citizenship for
certain groups of people within a stipulated period. Further revisions
of the Czech law were passed in September 2005 to allow for dual citizenship
for Czechs living in Slovakia, who had lost their Czech citizenship
by acquiring the Slovak nationality between 1 January 1994 and
September 1999.25 Applications for dual citizenship can be submitted
to the Consular Office of the Czech Embassy in Bratislava. The application
process takes up to two months. Approximately five thousand people
requested dual citizenship in 2005.26
7.3 Current political debates and reform plans
7.3.1 The Hungarian Status Law and referendum on dual citizenship
Slovak-Hungarian relations have been an inflammable issue on the
Slovak political scene since the fall of communism. Much nationalist
rage was directed against the former dominant nation, the Hungarian
part of the dual monarchy. Policies of forceful Magyarisation in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century and the turbulent dissolution of
the empire that left one third of the ethnic Hungarians outside the borders
of the Hungarian state, provide historical memories that shaped
mutual relations in a controversial fashion. The myth of a thousand
years of suffering under the Hungarian yoke has long been nurtured
by Slovak nationalists and after 1989 it often served as a useful rallying
point.
The question of Hungary’s relationship with ethnic Hungarians living
abroad, especially in the areas immediately bordering on Hungarian
state territory, was therefore watched closely and suspiciously. The
issue exploded in the Slovak media in 2001 when Hungary passed the
Status Law (the law on Hungarians living abroad) and again in 2004
198 DAGMAR KUSA´
when a referendum was held on allowing ethnic Hungarians to acquire
dual citizenship. The content and impact of these Hungarian initiatives
are described in detail in Ma´ria M. Kova´cs’s and Judit To´th’s chapter on
Hungarian citizenship in this book, so I will focus here only on the repercussions
in Slovakia.
The Hungarian Status Law
The question of ethnic Hungarians living abroad was not used for a nationalist
agenda in Slovakia alone. It also polarised the political scene
in Hungary and deepened the left-right divide. Viktor Orba´n’s FIDESZ
played on national sentiments of Hungarians about co-ethnic minorities
in neighbouring countries and produced a bill on benefits for ethnic
Hungarians living abroad, passed by the Hungarian Parliament in
2001.
The first version of the law, which entered into force on 1 January
2002, provided for financial stipends for students of Hungarian ethnic
origin abroad. Members of Hungarian minorities could also apply
for Hungarian identity cards (Status ID), with which they can access
further benefits such as discounts in Hungary for public transportation
and entrance fees for museums and cultural and
educational events. The Status ID was handed out on the basis of a
recommendation from local cultural organisations representing Hungarian
minorities abroad by the newly established Office for Hungarians
living abroad with its seat in Budapest. After the refusal of the
Slovak and Romanian Governments to allow implementation of the
Status Law in their states’ territories and after criticism by the Venice
Commission that was asked by the Council of Europe to examine
the matter,27 the law was amended in summer 2003. Since then
the education stipend is no longer addressed to individuals, but to institutions
that offer education in the Hungarian language or on Hungarian
culture. The financial aid is thus accessible not only to ethnic
Hungarians but to anybody who wishes to study Hungarian culture
and history.
The amended version was approved by a majority of the Hungarian
Parliament, with the exception of the FIDESZ party, the originator of
the law, and the FKGP, the Smallholders’ Party, which had lost seats
due to a large corruption scandal involving its president. It was also
accepted by the Venice Commission and Romanian Government. Slovak
representatives, however, remained opposed to it, and the political
parties of the ruling coalition (apart from the Party of Hungarian Coalition
SMK) contemplated passing an ‘anti-law’, which would prevent
the implementation of the Status Law in the territory of the Slovak
Republic. The lengthy, emotionally charged squabble between Slovak
and Hungarian leaders was finally resolved in December 2003 by the
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 199
Slovak-Hungarian Agreement on Support for the National Minorities
in the Areas of Culture and Education. An article on the Slovak-Hungarian
Agreement in the daily paper SME summarises its key
points.28 The treaty identifies two specific cultural foundations that are
permitted to distribute financial aid to cultural and educational institutions
only (some university students qualify as an exception). It establishes
a principle of reciprocity, and the distribution of funds will be
subject to annual control by a Slovak-Hungarian commission of experts.
The crux of the tensions, however, was apparently not in the law itself.
Old historical grievances were voiced in the circles of the law’s
critics, accusing the political representation of Hungary of ‘soft irredentism’,
i.e. attempts to recreate the Hungary of the times of the Hungarian
kingdom on a psychological level, and of lurking historic revisionism
among the Hungarian minorities themselves.
Frantisˇek Miklosˇko, one of the most prominent Christian Democrats
and the former Speaker of the National Council of the Slovak Republic,
expressed views that can be attributed to Slovak representatives in general:
‘I voiced my opinion even on TV, and my Hungarian Colleagues
hold it against me. I would say that the Status Law psychologically creates
the concept of a Great Hungary. The Slovak side made mistakes
too, when the Law was debated we were sleeping and suddenly we
were confronted with a done deed. There is one serious problem however:
Hungary is passing a law that is implemented in the territory of
the Slovak Republic. We don’t mind if Hungarians have some advantages,
but it seemed to be a precedent that would not be good, and the
Venice Commission has also denounced it.’29
The representatives of the Party of the Hungarian Coalition in Slovakia,
which had seats in the Slovak coalition Government, found themselves
between the grindstones as it were of the two national leaderships.
Both sides looked to them for resolution and they drew fire from
Slovak nationalists for being ‘irredentist Hungarians’, as well as from
Hungarian leaders in Hungary for being too passive. La´szlo´ Nagy,
member of the SMK Presidium and chair of the Committee for Human
Rights, Nationalities, and Status of Women of the NCSR, laments:
‘One problem of the Law is that it became a part of the internal political
game. We are not affected by it, but Dzurinda and others assume
that the voter expects rejection of the Status Law by the Slovak political
leaders, which may be an erroneous assumption. It has played a negative
role in Slovak-Hungarian relations that got decidedly chilly in
2002.’’30
The subject of the Hungarian Status Law is divisive among the Slovak-
Hungarian population of the Slovak south as well. Although tensions
between Slovaks and Hungarians in this ethnically mixed region
200 DAGMAR KUSA´
are usually less than in the rest of the country, they have been palpable
in the topics related to the quasi-citizenship of the Status Law and the
question of dual citizenship, which emerged shortly afterwards.
The question of dual citizenship for ethnic Hungarians
The question of dual citizenship for ethnic Hungarians living abroad
emerged as a hot political issue in 2003. The first requests to the Hungarian
leadership came from the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, later
accompanied by similar demands from Hungarians in Romania.
The World Federation of Hungarians prepared a petition for a referendum
about dual citizenship. Its goal was to achieve Hungarian citizenship
for all applicants who already were holders of a Status ID under
the Hungarian Status Law.
This initiative was supported by the opposition political parties in
Hungary – the Young Democrats (FIDESZ) and the Hungarian Democratic
Forum (MDF), which managed to rally enough support to get
the required number of signatures on the petition for a referendum
that would decide whether to grant Hungarian citizenship to ethnic
Hungarians from abroad. The referendum took place on 5 December
2004, but, since over 60 per cent of eligible voters decided to stay at
home, the referendum results (in favour of dual citizenship by a small
margin) were invalid.31
Dual citizenship for ethnic Hungarians was justified mainly on the
basis of empathy with ethnic kin. The press again debated attempts to
repair the ’Trianon Injustice’ that truncated the Hungarian nation after
the First World War. On the other hand, the initiative was also designed
to give practical advantages resulting from Hungarian nationality.
This would be relevant especially for Hungarians living outside of
the EU borders. The ruling parties MSZP and SZDSZ stood firmly
against the referendum, appealing mostly against the costly consequences
that implementation of the law would have. The situation was
further complicated by the fact that Romanian and Ukrainian legislations
preclude dual citizenship, thus ethnic Hungarians acquiring
Hungarian citizenship would have to renounce their original citizenship,
which could lead to an untenable situation for the Hungarian
Government.
The Slovak leadership watched the development leading to the referendum
with a heightened sense of insecurity and antagonism. According
to diplomatic sources (report of Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Slovakia
was prepared to protest in the EU if the referendum was successful,
based on its inconsistency with the Agreement on Slovak-Hungarian
Neighbourly Relations from 1995, as well as with the principles of the
EU of non-discrimination and democratic governance.
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 201
The SMK was once again caught in the middle. While the executive
Vice-President of the SMK, Miklo´s Duray, supported the idea of the referendum,
the official SMK position, as represented by its chairman
Be´la Buga´r, was to support policies that will help ethnic Hungarians to
stay in the country where they were born. He warned that the initiative
might antagonise Hungarians living in Hungary and members of
Hungarian minorities. ‘We find ourselves unwillingly amidst the Hungarian
internal political struggle and are receiving one slap after another.
We have not received such slaps even in our native country. We
want to remain in our native country, pay taxes there, etc.’32
The heated debate ended up in Court in Slovakia. The Slovak National
Party (SNS) sued the Vice-Chairman of the SMK, Miklo´s Duray
(one of the more radical leaders of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia),
for treason because of his speech in favour of the dual citizenship
initiative in the Hungarian Parliament.33 The ethnically charged debates
about the Status Law and the referendum on dual citizenship
have probably also contributed to support for Slovak nationalist and populist
platforms, which has grown over the past two years.
7.3.2 Comparison of the Slovak Act on Expatriate Slovaks with the
Hungarian Status Law
The Hungarian Status Law is not a unique invention without parallel
(as it sometimes appeared to be from the indignant reactions in the
Slovak press). In 1997 the Slovak Republic passed Act No. 70/1997
on Expatriate Slovaks. Prior protection of Slovak nationals living
abroad was guaranteed by a declaration of support in the Slovak Republic’s
constitution. The House of Expatriate Slovaks, founded by the
Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic, has also been in existence
since 1995 focusing on cultural cooperation and support of expatriate
Slovak institutions. According to the Act No. 70/1997, it is sufficient
to apply for the status of an expatriate Slovak or to be a direct descendant
of a Slovak national. If the applicant cannot provide any documentation
certifying his or her ethnic origin, a letter from an institution representing
Slovaks abroad or two witnesses that have the status of expatriate
Slovaks will do. Application is submitted to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs (MFA) of the Slovak Republic and the application process
takes two months. If it is successful the MFA issues an Expatriate
Slovak Certificate. Among the benefits that this status brings is the permission
to reside ‘for a long time’ in the territory of the Slovak Republic
and the opportunity of applying for permanent residence in Slovakia.
It is likewise possible to apply for studies at any of the Slovak universities
or to apply for a job without the permanent residence in
202 DAGMAR KUSA´
Slovakia or employment authorisation required by other foreign nationals.
34
The Hungarian Status Law has inspired changes in the Slovak Status
Law. In 2005 the National Council of the Slovak Republic passed an
Amendment to the Act on Expatriate Slovaks35 (now properly labelled
‘Slovaks living abroad’) that established the Office for Slovaks Living
Abroad, which is funded from the state budget and is responsible for
carrying out the official state policy towards Slovakia’s external citizens.
The Office also issues Certificates of Ethnic Slovaks Living Abroad (Slovak
Status IDs) that make the process of claiming benefits related to
the status easier. Financial support is tied to the areas of culture, education
and research, information, and media. Individuals and institutions
can apply for funding in ‘activities that further the development
of Slovak identity, culture, language, or cultural heritage in these countries.’
36
Hopefully the amended law will help to provide assistance to Slovaks
living abroad at the place of their residence. Some representatives of
the Slovak institutions abroad complain that the direct result of the Slovak
Status Law is a brain drain of young people who leave to study and
work in Slovakia rather than financial support for Slovak publications
and cultural events in the areas where Slovaks living abroad are concentrated.
37 The most remarkable difference between the Slovak and
Hungarian Status Law in their current form is the territorial limitation
of the latter, which restricts the implementation of the law to neighbouring
countries with a large proportion of Hungarian minorities.
The Slovak counterpart has no such stipulation. This is easily explained
by the fact that most of the Slovaks living abroad reside in the United
States (over 1,200,000 Slovaks).
7.4 Statistical trends (acquisition of Slovak citizenship since
1993)
After the fall of communism, Slovakia experienced tumultuous shifts
in population, largely in connection with the dissolution of the Czech
and Slovak Federative Republic, but undoubtedly also as a result of its
strategic position as a bridge between Western and Eastern Europe.
There have been shifting migration trends, too. In the early 1990s, the
Slovak Republic was losing its citizens to the Czech Republic. This
trend ceased after 1994 when Slovakia started gaining population from
abroad and increasingly so, from the East. Most migration is temporary
and circular with migrants returning after short stays in Slovakia. The
number of those who actually ask for Slovak citizenship changes with
domestic and international events, circumstances and legislation. The
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 203
following tables and graphs show the numbers of successful applicants
who acquired Slovak citizenship.
Table 7.1: Number of persons who acquired citizenship of the Slovak Republic (1993 –
2005)
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Czech
citizens
64,834 20,612 1,379 575 416 399 849 3,903 175 805 942 2,262 2,439
Other
citizens
1,550 1,393 910 768 1,519 535 417 623 1,362 3,539 3,100 1,508 539
Total 66,384 22,005 2,289 1,343 1,935 934 1,266 4,526 1,537 4,344 4,042 3,770 2,978
Source: Ministry of the Interior, Slovak Republic
As can be seen from Table 7.1, in 1993 and 1994, the vast majority of
those who acquired Slovak nationality were Czech nationals. Due to
the possibility to choose citizenship in 1993, the proportion of Czech
nationals among the successful applicants for citizenship was overwhelming.
This proportion has gradually declined thereafter and was
lowest in 1996 to 1998, which is probably due to the political situation
in Slovakia. The numbers of Czech applicants rose again especially
after the amendments to the citizenship law in 1999, and have also
been growing in recent years.
For other than Czech nationals the trends in the acquisition of citizenship
are quite different. Notable is again the decline in numbers in
the years 1995 and 1996, followed by an increase due to the influx of
refugees fleeing from the countries of former Yugoslavia. There is a
marked increase in the naturalisation of foreigners from outside former
Czechoslovakia especially since the year 2000, when more applicants
from Asia and the Near East sought to settle in the Slovak Republic.
Figure 7.1 illustrates the diverse trends in the two populations who
have acquired Slovak citizenship over the past decade. (The years 1993
and 1994 have been excluded here due to the high number of Czech
applications for citizenship resulting from the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.)
We can clearly see the impact of the Czech amendments to
the citizenship law in 1999 in the resulting increase of Czech nationals
applying for and receiving Slovak citizenship. The rapid increase in citizenship
granted to other foreign nationals cannot be readily explained
on the basis of legislative changes, but rather on the basis of new migration
patterns. Compared to previous times, many more foreigners
looking both for asylum and for citizenship have settled in Slovakia.
204 DAGMAR KUSA´
Among those that seek Slovak citizenship are people fleeing from persecution,
violence, civil war, or other conditions threatening their lives
and security in their home countries. Close to 46,000 foreigners have
applied for asylum in Slovakia since 1992. However, asylum status had
been granted only to 575 of them by the end of August 2005. This tendency
makes Slovakia a country with one of the lowest rates of refugee
recognition in Europe (Vanˇo 2005: 60). The highest number of applicants
was recorded in 2004. Increasingly, they come from countries
such as India, Russia (especially Chechnya), Pakistan or China.
Table 7.2: Refugees and asylum seekers in the Slovak Republic
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Asylum applications 359 415 645 506 1,320 1,556 8,151 9,734 10,358 11,395
Persons granted
refugee status
68 129 65 49 27 11 18 20 11 15
Refugees granted
Slovak citizenship
0 4 14 22 2 0 11 56 40 15
Source: Vanˇo 2005: 59
7.5 Conclusions
The evolution of policies relating to the definition, granting and withdrawal
of citizenship in Central Europe was closely tied to turbulent
events on the international and regional political scene. More than in
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
19 95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
20 01
20 0 2
20 03
20 04
20 05
Czechs Acquiring Slovak
Citizenship
Other Foreigners
Acquiring Slovak
Citizenship
Figure 7.1: Czechs and other foreign nationals who acquired citizenship of the Slovak Republic
in 1995-2005
Source: Ministry of the Interior, Slovak Republic
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 205
the West, the ideals and practices of citizenship were marked by struggles
for national self-determination, as well as power struggles between
the small neighbouring states squeezed in between the warring superpowers
during the Cold War period.
Slovak national development had not run its course in the period before
1948. The Slovaks had not achieved a truly independent statehood
and were not content to be submerged in a centralised Czechoslovak
state after the Second World War. The Slovak Question emerged as a
dominant issue at several turning points in history. It impacted on citizenship
policies within the common state of Czechs and Slovaks in
1968, when the Slovaks received the gift of federation from the invading
Soviet troops, and then again after 1989, when it led to the Velvet
Divorce between the two nations.
Citizenship practices as well as the understanding of what citizenship
entails and should entail were murky due to frequent changes in
policies prior to 1989, due to their ad hoc nature and inconsistencies
in the first years of the post-communist regime, as well as because of
the tumultuous political scene in Slovakia and new challenges resulting
from Slovak independence in 1993.
Slovak citizenship policies were strongly shaped by international influences,
especially by pressures from the European Union and binding
treaties with the Council of Europe. On the other hand, they also
reacted to the heated, historically and emotionally charged political debates
on the status of Hungarians living abroad and the possibility of
their acquiring dual citizenship in Hungary. Central European reality
shows us how closely citizenship and identity are intertwined and how
easily they are misused for political machinations that further the egoistic
agendas of parties and leaders.
Citizenship policies are being gradually simplified and fitted to the
new migratory trends that result from membership in the EU. Central
European neighbours have not quite yet abandoned nationalist appeals
and contentious policies that seek easy enemies to rally supporters. At
the same time, they have to quickly figure out how to absorb inflows
from parts of the world very different from theirs. All these developments
occur in the context of an enlarging European Union with the
common citizenship of the Union linking the nationality policies of its
Member States to each other.
206 DAGMAR KUSA´
Chronological list of citizenship-related legislation in Czechoslovakia/the Slovak Republic
Date Document Content Source
1945 President's Constitutional
Decree No. 33/1945 Coll.
Concerning Czechoslovak
Citizenship of Persons of
German and Hungarian
Ethnicity
One of the ``Beneš
Decrees'' that deprived
most ethnic Germans and
Hungarians of
Czechoslovak citizenship.
From the ``Website of the
Sudeten Germans'':
sudetengermans.
freeyellow.com
1948 Act No. 245/1948 on the
Citizenship of Persons of
Hungarian Ethnicity
Return of Czechoslovak
citizenship to ethnic
Hungarians who were
Czechoslovak citizens on 1
November 1938 and were
not subject to the
``voluntary exchange of
population'' between
Slovakia and Hungary in
1946.
In the Slovak language:
www.centrum.usd.cas.cz
1949 Act No. 194/1949 on the
Acquisition and Loss of
Czechoslovak Citizenship,
amended by the Act No.
72/1958 Modifying the
Regulations on the
Acquisition and Loss of
Czechoslovak Citizenship
New citizenship code
adopted after the
communist coup d'etat in
February 1948.
In the Czech language:
www.portal.gov.cz
1952 Act No. 59/1952 on
Contracting Marriage with
a Foreigner
Stipulated a requirement to
obtain permission from the
Ministry of the Interior to
marry a person of non
Czechoslovak citizenship.
In the Czech language:
www.lexdata.cz
1953 Act No. 34/1953 Coll. on
the Acquisition of
Czechoslovak Citizenship
by Particular Persons
Return of Czechoslovak
Citizenship to ethnic
Germans who were
deprived of it by the
Presidential Constitutional
Decree No. 33/1945 and
are permanent residents of
the Czechoslovak Republic.
In the Czech language:
www.centrum.usd.cas.cz
1968 Constitutional Law No.
143/1968 Coll. on
Czechoslovak Federation
New citizenship code
adopted after the
communist coup d'etat in
February 1948.
See a brief description on
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org
1968 Act No. 165/1968 Coll. on
Acquisition and Loss of
Czech and Slovak
Citizenship
Provided a framework for
the introduction of
republic-level (Czech and
Slovak) citizenship.
1968 Act No. 206/1968 Coll. of
Slovak National Council on
Acquisition and Loss of
Citizenship of the Slovak
Introduced republic-level
Slovak citizenship.
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 207
Date Document Content Source
Socialist Republic
1990 Act No. 88/1990 Coll.
Amending Regulations on
Acquisition and Loss of
Czechoslovak Citizenship
Setting regulations for reacquisition
of Czech or
Slovak citizenship by
emigrants or others who
were deprived of Czech or
Slovak citizenship prior to
1989.
In the Slovak language:
www.zbierka.sk
1991 Constitution of the Slovak
Republic
Contains the provision that,
'no one shall be deprived of
his or her citizenship
against his or her will', and
the Bill of Fundamental
Rights and Freedoms,
including the 'right to
choose one's nationality'
In the Slovak language:
www.government.gov.sk
Excerpts in English: www.
legislationline.org
1993 Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on
Citizenship of the Slovak
Republic
New citizenship code
which entered into force in
the Slovak Republic after
the dissolution of
Czechoslovakia.
In English:
www.coe.int
In the Slovak language:
www.minv.sk
1997 Act No. 70/1997 Coll. On
Expatriate Slovaks and
Changing and
Complementing Some
Laws
Slovak status law defining
rights and benefits of the
Slovaks living abroad.
In the Slovak language:
www.gszs.sk
2002 Act No. 480/2002 Coll. on
Asylum, amended by Act
No. 1/2005 Coll.
Law defining key terms and
regulating asylum
acquisition procedure.
In the Slovak language;
www.unhcr.sk
2005 Act. No. 265/2005 Coll.
Amending the Act on
Citizenship of the Slovak
Republic
Introduced remedial
provisions with regard to
pre-1989 Czechoslovak
nationals, regulates
acquisition of Slovak
citizenship by Slovaks living
abroad.
In the Slovak language:
www.zbierka.sk
2005 Act. No. 474/2005 Coll. on
Slovaks Living Abroad and
on Amendments and
Additions to Certain Laws
Established the Office for
Slovaks Living Abroad and
regulates the competencies
of the state administration
regarding state support for
Slovaks living abroad.
In the Slovak language:
www.gszs.sk
208 DAGMAR KUSA´
Notes
1 The author and the editors thank Lucia Mokra´ for her research contributions on legal
and statistical developments.
2 Nationality in this context is not a synonym for citizenship, but refers to
membership of an ethnic nation. The idea of a Czechoslovak nation did not take root
– it was popular neither with Czech and Slovak political representatives nor with the
general population and was eventually abandoned in favour of separate Czech and
Slovak nationalities.
3 For a detailed history of census taking and practices see Kertzer & Arel 2002.
4 For a more detailed description of the development in the Czech part of
Czechoslovakia see Barsˇova´ in this volume.
5 The Presidential Decree exempted from loss of citizenship those citizens of German
and Hungarian ethnicity who had joined in the fight for liberation or were victims of
Nazi persecution. The legislation also established a possibility to apply for the (re-)
granting of Czechoslovak citizenship (a policy called ‘Re-Slovakisation in Slovakia’)
within six months after the Decree entered into force.
6 For decades, the topic of the transfers of ethnic Hungarians was taboo in Slovak
literature. The few texts that were written were from the pen of Hungarian authors
in Slovakia – Zolta´n Fa´bry’s The Accused Speaks Out (written in 1946) was published
in the 1960s, and in 1982 Ka´lma´n Janics’s Czechoslovak Policy and the Hungarian
Minority, 1945-1948 was published in the US in a small edition of a few hundred copies.
After 1989 the topic was grudgingly picked up. The most comprehensive analysis
and documentation was published by Vadkerty (2002).
7 The voluntary part was secured by leaflets promising return of Czechoslovak
citizenship in return for being recruited as agricultural labourers. Leaflets also
reiterated that this was the very last chance for Hungarians to reacquire
Czechoslovak citizenship.
8 The Czechoslovak census of 1947 records 390,000 Hungarians in Slovakia, the 1961
census records 518,782 (data from Kocsis & Kocsis-Hodosi 1998).
9 See also Barsˇova´ in this volume for the same pieces of legislation from a Czech
perspective.
10 Children born from mixed marriages, where one parent was a Czechoslovak citizen
and the other was the citizen of the Soviet Union, Poland or Hungary, represented
an exception. In that case citizenship was determined by an agreement of the
parents at the time of inscription in the book of births. In case agreement wasn’t
reached, the child acquired the citizenship of the parent in the state of birth. If the
child was born in the territory of a third state, it acquired citizenship of the state on
whose territory the child’s parents had resided before they went abroad.
11 Act No. 34/1953 Coll. Concerning the Acquisition of Czechoslovak Citizenship by
Particular Persons and Act No. 245/1948 on the Nationality of Hungarian Nationals.
12 Stipulated by art. 6 of the Act on Czechoslovak Citizenship.
13 This provision was defined by Act No. 86/1950 of the Penal Code. Such penalty
included the loss of citizenship rights, expulsion from the army, and forfeiture of
property. Act No. 63/1965 abrogated this penalty and the next codification of the
Czechoslovak Penal Law did not include this kind of penalty.
14 Most socialist states had concluded bilateral agreements that excluded dual
citizenship among them.
15 See also Barsˇova´ in this volume.
16 A child whose parents were Slovak citizens acquired Slovak citizenship. If one of
them was Slovak and the other Czech, and the child was born in the Slovak territory,
then the child acquired Slovak citizenship. If the child was born abroad, it acquired
THE SLOVAK QUESTION AND THE SLOVAK ANSWER 209
the mother’s citizenship. Parents could also agree on the child’s citizenship by
statement until six months after birth.
17 Pragocentrism was a term used by the Slovak leaders to denote the tendency of the
Czech representation to rule the country from a strong unitary centre, Prague.
Slovak elites had qualms with Pragocentrism ever since the creation of the first
republic in 1918.
18 This claimed heritage is a controversial and complex one. Though perhaps only the
Slovak National Party would fully claim the legacy of the Slovak Republic of the war
period, together with the persona of its President, Jozef Tiso, responsible for
sweeping anti-Semitic measures, all parties and most leaders do recognise at least its
partial validity as the first form of official Slovak statehood.
19 For a description of the developments in the Czech Republic see Barsˇova´ in this
volume.
20 Art. 5 of Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic.
21 Art. 7 of Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic.
22 Art. 7 of Act No. 40/1993 Coll. on Citizenship of the Slovak Republic.
23 Art. 8a, sect. 9 of Act No. 40/1993.
24 See European Roma Rights Center report ‘Personal Documents and the Threat to the
Exercise of Fundamental Rights Among Roma in Former Yugoslavia’, www.errc.org,
retrieved in May 2006.
25 See also Barsˇova´ on Czech citizenship in the present volume.
26 Embassy of the Czech Republic in Slovakia, www.mzv.cz.
27 Among the main objections was the charge of ethnic discrimination concerning
access to the benefits of the law. The Status Law is also territorially limited in
implementation to certain neighbouring countries where the Hungarian minority is
numerous and where the standard of living is not higher than within Hungary itself.
Austria was therefore not included among the countries where the Status Law was to
be implemented.
28 I. Stupnˇ an, ‘Schva´lili dohodu s Madˇarskom’ [Agreement with Hungary Approved],
SME, 12 December 2003.
29 The interview with Frantisˇek Miklosˇko was conducted by the author in Bratislava on
13 June 2003.
30 The interview with La´szlo´ Nagy was conducted by the author in Bratislava on 18 June
2003.
31 Only 37.5 per cent of registered voters participated in the referendum. 51.5 per cent of
the voters were in favour of dual citizenship, 48.5 per cent against. 50 per cent of
eligible voters have to participate for a referendum to be valid in Hungary (or an
equivalent of over 25 per cent of all eligible voters must select the same answer on
the referendum). Source: ‘Neplatne´ madˇarske´ referendum o dvojitom obcˇianstve
[Invalid Hungarian Referendum on Double Citizenship], BBC Slovak.com, 6
December 2004. www.bbc.co.uk.
32 Peter Stahl, ’Mad ˇ ari hlasuju´ o dvojitom obcˇianstve’[Hungarians Vote on Double
Citizenship], Hospoda´rske noviny [daily newspaper], 3 December 2004. hnonline.sk.
33 The SNS sued Miklo´s Duray many more times afterwards for treason, libel,
damaging the name of the Republic, and more. Each charge was dismissed by the
court. SNS leader Jan Slota called the representatives of the Hungarian minority
‘radioactive extremists’ (Slota: ‘Politici z SMK su´ ra´dioaktı´vni extre´misti’ [Politicians
from the Party of Hungarian Coalition are Radioactive Extremists], 6 June 2005,
www.sns.sk). Shortly before the parliamentary elections of June 2006 SNS popularity
climbed to almost 10 per cent in public opinion polls. In the June 2006 elections,
the populist left-leaning party SMER-SD came out on top with 29 per cent of the
votes. SNS came in third with almost 12 per cent of the votes. The former leader of
210 DAGMAR KUSA´
the Government coalition SDKU´ received 18 per cent of the votes (Source: SITA
[Slovak Press Agency], 18 June 2006).
34 Arts. 5 and 6 of the Act No. 70/1997 Coll. on Expatriate Slovaks and Changing and
Complementing Some Laws.
35 Act No. 474/2005 Coll. on Slovaks Living Abroad and on Amendments and
Additions to Certain Laws.
36 Art. 5 of the Act No. 474/2005 Coll. on Slovaks Living Abroad and on Amendments
and Additions to Certain Laws.
37 Ondrej S ˇ tefanko, ‘Slovenska´ republika a zahranicˇnı´ (dolnozemskı´) Slova´ci’ [Slovak
Republic and Foreign (Hungarian) Slovaks],C ˇ esky´ a slovensky´ svet [Czech and Slovak
World], www.svet.czsk.net, accessed in May 2006.
Bibliography
Drgonec, J. (1997), Za´kladne´ pra´va a slobody podlˇa U´ stavy SR. Bratislava: MANZ.
C ˇ erny´, J. & Cˇ ervenka, V. (1963), Sta´tnı´ obcˇanstvı´C ˇ SSR. Prague: ORBIS.
C ˇ erny´, J. & Valasˇek, M. (1996), C ˇ eske´ sta´tnı´ obcˇanstvı´. Prague: LINDE.
Fa´bry, Z. (1994), Obzˇalovany´ prehovorı´: Dokumenty z dejı´n Mad ˇ arov na Slovensku. Bratislava:
Kalligram.
Hrusˇovsky´, P. (2003), Face of a Country; Address of the President of the National Council of
the Slovak Republic Pavol Hrusˇovsky´ on the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the Slovak
Republic, 1st January 2003. Bratislava: Vydavatelˇstvo Michala Vasˇka.
Janics, K. (1982), Czechoslovak Policy and the Hungarian Minority, 1945-1948. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Jurova´, A. (2002), ‘Historicky´ vy´voj ro´mskych osa´d na Slovensku a problematika vlastnı
´ckych vztˇahov k poˆde (‘‘nelega´lne osady’’)’, C ˇ lovek a spolocˇnostˇ 4. www.saske.sk.
Kaplan, K. (1993), ‘Prˇedmluva’, in S ˇ . Sˇutaj (ed.), Akcia Juh, Odsun Madˇarov zo Slovenska
do C ˇ iech v roku 1949. Prague: Sesˇity U´ stavu pro soudobe´ deˇjiny.
Kertzer, D. & D. Arel, (eds.) (2002), Census and Identity; The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and
Language in National Censuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klı´ma, K. (2002), U´ stavnı´ pra´vo. Prague: FINIDR.
Klimko, J. (1980), Vy´voj u´zemia Slovenska a utva´ranie jeho hranı´c. Bratislava: Obzor.
Kocsis, K. & E. Kocsis-Hodosi (1998), Hungarian Minorities in Carpathian Basin. Budapest:
Simon Publications.
Kusá, D. (2005), ‘Historical Trauma in Ethnic Identity: the Years of Homelessness of the Hungarian Minority in Post-War Slovakia’, in E. Breuning, J. Lewis & G. Pritchard (eds.), Power and the People; A Social History of Central European Politics, 1945-56, 130- 149. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lukes, I. (1995), ‘Czechs and Slovaks: The Failure to Find a Decent Past’, Cultural Survival Quarterly 2, 19-24.
Matoušek, S. & S. Zdobinský, (1984), Štátne občianstvo socialistických krajín. Bratislava: Obzor.
Nemcová, K. (1992), Continuity and Change in Slovakia. Bratislava: Slovak Archive of Social Data SASD.
Očovský, Š . (1992), ‘Interpretácia štatistických údajov o národnostiach na Slovensku’, in J. Plichtová (ed.), Minority v politike, Kultúrne a jazykové práva, 82-91. Bratislava: Československý výbor Európskej kultúrnej nadácie.
Paul, E. L. (1998), ‘Czech Teschen – Silesia and the Controversial Czechoslovak Census of 1921’, The Polish Review 43 (2), 161-171.
Peroutka, F. (1991), Budování státu. Prague: Lidové noviny.
Plichtová, J. (ed.) (1992), Minority v politike, Kultúrne a jazykové práva. Bratislava: Československý výbor Európskej kultúrnej nadácie.
Posluch, M. & Ľ . Cibuľka (2003), Štátne právo SR. Šamorín: Heuréka
Sack, R. D. (1986), Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Svák, J. & Ľ . Cibuľka. (1999), Ústavné právo SR. Bratislava: APZ SR.
Svetoň , J. (1970), Vy´voj obyvatelˇstva na Slovensku. Bratislava: Epocha.
Ther, P. & A. Siljak (eds.) (2001), Redrawing Nations; Ethnic Cleansing in East-Central Europe,
1944-1948. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Tichý, L., R. Arnold, P. Svoboda, R. Kra´l & J. Zema´nek. (1999), Evropské právo. Prague: C.
H. Beck.
Vadkerty, K. (2002), Maďarská otázka v Československu, 1945-1948; Dekréty prezidenta Beneša a ich dôsledky na deportácie a reslovakiza´ciu. Bratislava: Kalligram.
Vaňo, B. (ed.) (2005), Populačný vývoj v Slovenskej republike 2004. Bratislava: Akty.
Zdobinsky´, S. & S. Matousˇek. (1985), Státní pra´vo ČSSR. Prague: Panorama.
Zeman, Z. A. B. (1994), ‘The Four Austrian Censuses and Their Political Consequences’,
in M. Cornwall (ed.), The Last Years of Austria-Hungary, 31-39. Exeter: University of
Exeter Press.