Even Hungarian-majority localities could disappear in the administrative reform – why is the RMDSZ staying silent?

The RMDSZ's behavior regarding the territorial-administrative reform floated by Grindeanu is becoming increasingly strange. After the news first broke, a deep silence surrounded the matter — maintained not only by our one and only party, but also by its lackey press. Then Hunor said something to the effect that they would wait and see, that they might support it or might not, but in any case no clear and unambiguous position was issued. But what do we know so far, and what new information do we have today?

We know that the plan did not come out of nowhere – it is also referenced in the government program, and the RMDSZ gave its support to that very program under an agreement signed by Hunor, the content of which remains unknown to us.

Grindeanu intends to get the law passed by having the government assume responsibility before parliament, which amounts to very serious political blackmail. The method works like this: the government submits its proposal on the territorial-administrative reform to parliament – opponents then have three days to file a motion of no confidence. If they fail to do so, the law is automatically adopted. If they succeed, a vote follows in which the government's fate is once again at stake. In other words: if you want to block the PSD's bill, you also have to bring down the government along with it.

In the first round, the measure affects localities with fewer than 1,500 inhabitants. There are 429 such localities in Romania altogether.

The concept is being drawn up by Development Minister Alexandru Stoica. Another interesting detail: even before the government vote, at the committee hearings, Stoica had already said that this measure was among his priorities. The RMDSZ also supported his appointment as minister in committee – and we don't know whether they pressed him on the issue, but until Grindeanu stepped forward and announced his big plan, we didn't know about any of this either.

Today, however, HotNews published an interview with Alexandru Stoica, from which we learn several more details.

We summarize the main points of the interview, and then continue with our own analysis

• As a first step, the Romanian government is preparing to merge 429 administrative units with no more than 1,500 inhabitants, initially on a voluntary basis, through local referendums and financial incentives. Alexandru Stoica, the minister of development, public works and administration, said that communes choosing to merge could receive five-year tax breaks and separate investment support. However, he did not yet present concrete plans for the later stages, such as the possible reorganization of towns and counties.

• The reform would be built from the bottom up: first they would assess which of the smallest local governments are willing to merge voluntarily, and then those involved would themselves initiate the referendum required for this. Stoica justified the choice by saying that most of these communes can no longer sustain themselves from their own revenues, need government assistance to function, and that their public services fall short of what could be expected. He said it is conceivable that one or two communes with a thousand or twelve hundred inhabitants have sufficient revenue to operate independently, but in his view there are few such exceptions.

• To prepare for this, a working group has already been set up within the Ministry of Development, which would also involve local and county actors. In addition to county council presidents, prefects and the county leaders of the Romanian Association of Communes, national local-government advocacy organizations would also be consulted, and later a separate committee would be formed in each county. The minister promised ongoing consultation, but made clear that the final decision would be made at government level, and that a draft law would be prepared for the reorganization.

• Voluntary participation would be made more attractive through tangible benefits. Stoica spoke of a five-year exemption from taxes and fees, which would also include local taxes, although the exact scope of the benefits would still be negotiated with representatives of the communes. In addition, a new nationally funded investment program called "Start Reforma Administrativă" would be launched, with a commitment framework of four billion lei, allocating two billion lei in budgetary funds for both 2027 and 2028. According to the plan, the merger should be followed by better services and a noticeable rise in living standards.

• The minister called the improvement of public services one of the most important aspects of the reorganization, citing as an example two neighboring localities each operating their own separate wastewater treatment plant. In his view, a shared facility could serve the residents of both communes while saving public funds. However, he did not give a detailed answer as to how the merger would help small localities that lie far apart from one another and lack numerous basic services. He said that solutions were being sought and that every county and every situation would have to be examined separately.

• The interview repeatedly returned to the tension between voluntary participation and mandatory reorganization. PSD chairman Sorin Grindeanu had previously called for the government to assume responsibility before parliament in order to pass the reform, whereas Stoica consistently described the first phase as a voluntary process. When the journalist confronted him with the fact that Grindeanu had spoken of mandatory mergers, he replied that the reorganization had to be carried out because there was no more time to wait, and that the residents of the communes concerned could not be left without investment or European Union funding. He did not, however, explain how a possible mandatory merger would follow the voluntary phase, or what would happen to local governments that resisted.

• Stoica said it would be good if PSD mayors set an example by committing to the merger, but regarding the question of what would happen to local leaders who refused, he only held out the prospect of case-by-case consideration. He stressed that because counties have different characteristics, the same rules cannot be applied to everyone.

• Regarding consultations with the RMDSZ, the minister said he had already had a preliminary discussion with Mr. Cseke. According to him, Cseke is also examining the possibilities, but it remains an open question whether the RMDSZ will designate him to lead the negotiations. Stoica, in any case, promised that they would also consult with the Alliance and take its position into account.

• As for the timeline, the minister expects rapid progress: the support program would likely be presented as early as November, after which the intention to join would be assessed. He also called feasible the deadline by which the government would assume parliamentary responsibility for the reform before the budget is adopted, but no later than March; and he answered affirmatively when asked whether the matter needs to be settled by 2028. According to him, the 2021 population figures were used as the basis for identifying the 429 administrative units in question.

• There is, however, no similarly defined plan yet for the reorganization of larger communes, towns and counties. According to Stoica, the first phase would be carried out first, the experience gained would be examined, and decisions about the continuation would be made on that basis. When asked what guarantees that the reform would not stop at the 429 small local governments, he again said that they would see how things develop along the way.

Based on the interview given to HotNews, then, what is taking shape for now is the encouragement of mergers among the smallest independent administrative units: a financial offer, a consultation system and a rapid political timetable are being prepared for this, while the limits of voluntariness and the details of a broader territorial reorganization remain open. The minister was also unable to say whether Prime Minister Luca Niculescu had been informed in advance about Grindeanu's Monday announcement, in which the PSD chairman asked him to have two reform packages adopted by the government assuming responsibility before parliament.

That concludes the summary of the interview,

and from this we can already draw certain conclusions, but perhaps the most important is that the intent exists, the political will is there too, but the plans are still very unclear, still taking shape – that is, we are precisely at the stage where our interests could most effectively be built into the future bill. The March 2027 deadline – at the latest! – however demands a very fast pace, and this is something that has so far not been visible at all among the elites representing Transylvanian Hungarians. In fact, no pace at all seems visible, because the issue is not even on the agenda. Stoica, in the first round, is talking about independent localities with fewer than 1,500 inhabitants, 429 of which exist in Romania in total – not a huge number, yet so many particular interests and proposed solutions will surface that the debate and bargaining ought practically to be broadcast live, so that we could learn something from it. If we take as a basis the 2021 population figures also mentioned in the interview, the affected localities in Mureș, Harghita and Covasna counties are the following:

Harghita County:

• Dârjiu (Székelyderzs): 851

• Ulieș (Kányád): 1,068

• Săcel (Székelyandrásfalva): 1,140

• Merești (Homoródalmás): 1,243

• Ocland (Homoródoklánd): 1,270

• Corbu (Gyergyóholló): 1,282

• Băile Tușnad (Tusnádfürdő), town: 1,372

Covasna County:

• Comandău (Kommandó): 822

• Dalnic (Dálnok): 896

• Valea Mare, with a Romanian majority: 1,066

• Estelnic (Esztelnek): 1,111; Malnaș (Málnás): 1,024

• Moacșa (Maksa): 1,239

• Mereni (Kézdialmás): 1,268

• Brateș (Barátos): 1,409

• Vârghiș (Vargyas): 1,472

Mureș County:

• Cozma (Kozmatelke): 515

• Băla (Bala): 618

• Bichiș (Magyarbükkös): 715

• Vețca (Székelyvécke): 753

• Crăiești (Mezőkirályfalva): 755

• Papiu Ilarian (Mezőbodon): 827

• Tăureni (Mezőtóhát): 919

• Zagăr (Zágor): 1,080

• Hodoșa (Székelyhodos): 1,179

• Bereni (Bere): 1,188

• Neaua (Havad): 1,231

• Cucerdea (Oláhkocsárd): 1,293

• Stânceni (Gödemesterháza): 1,325

• Coroisânmărtin (Kóródszentmárton): 1,330

• Măgherani (Nyárádmagyarós): 1,332

• Mădăraș (Mezőmadaras): 1,475

• Șincai (Mezősámsond): 1,499

If, however, we look beyond Szeklerland and examine the independent administrative units of Transylvania where a significant number of Hungarians live, the picture is chilling. Merging is not a simple administrative operation: a new administrative unit is created, and the 20% threshold ensuring a Hungarian majority and language-use rights is then calculated for the entire population of this larger unit. If a Hungarian commune merges with a Romanian-majority neighbor, the Hungarian population could become a minority overnight, or fall below 20% — and then the law would no longer guarantee the use of the Hungarian language in offices, on signage, or in administrative dealings.

Here are a few examples, compiled with an aim toward completeness, though some missing links may remain:

• Rimetea (Torockó): 1,015 inhabitants, of which 881 Hungarian, 86.8% (Alba County)

• Zerind (Nagyzerind): 1,299 inhabitants, of which 1,040 Hungarian, 80.1% (Arad County)

• Viișoara (Érszőllős): 1,269 inhabitants, of which 1,019 Hungarian, 80.3% (Bihor County)

• Miceștii de Câmpie (Mezőkecsed): 915 inhabitants, of which 193 Hungarian, 21.1% (Bistrița-Năsăud County)

• Izvoru Crișului (Körösfő): 1,424 inhabitants, of which 1,133 Hungarian, 79.6% (Cluj County)

• Buza (Búza): 1,138 inhabitants, of which 481 Hungarian, 42.3% (Cluj County)

• Pălatca (Magyarpalatka): 1,133 inhabitants, of which 244 Hungarian, 21.5% (Cluj County)

• Aiton (Ajton): 1,061 inhabitants, of which 173 Hungarian, 16.3% (Cluj County)

• Ciumești (Csomaköz): 1,193 inhabitants, of which 924 Hungarian, 77.5% (Satu Mare County)

• Urziceni (Mezőfény): 1,407 inhabitants, of which 1,002 Hungarian, 71.2% (Satu Mare County)

• Pir (Szilágypér): 1,413 inhabitants, of which 880 Hungarian, 62.3% (Satu Mare County)

• Cămin (Kálmánd): 1,250 inhabitants, of which 644 Hungarian, 51.5% (Satu Mare County)

• Săcășeni (Szakasz): 1,134 inhabitants, of which 534 Hungarian, 47.1% (Satu Mare County)

• Petrești (Mezőpetri): 1,388 inhabitants, of which 542 Hungarian, 39.0% (Satu Mare County)

• Cehal (Oláhcsaholy): 1,279 inhabitants, of which 410 Hungarian, 32.1% (Satu Mare County)

• Săuca (Sződemeter): 1,477 inhabitants, of which 288 Hungarian, 19.5% (Satu Mare County)

• Carastelec (Kárásztelek): 1,044 inhabitants, of which 839 Hungarian, 80.4% (Sălaj County)

• Coșeiu (Kusaly): 1,110 inhabitants, of which 562 Hungarian, 50.6% (Sălaj County)

• Benesat (Benedekfalva): 1,354 inhabitants, of which 333 Hungarian, 24.6% (Sălaj County)

• Fildu de Jos (Alsófüld): 1,280 inhabitants, of which 194 Hungarian, 15.2% (Sălaj County)

• Balinț (Bálinc): 1,489 inhabitants, of which 342 Hungarian, 23.0% (Timiș County)

• Beba Veche (Óbéba): 1,328 inhabitants, of which 302 Hungarian, 22.7% (Timiș County)

What would happen to them after a merger can be calculated based on the 2021 census data: we add together the population of a commune and its Hungarian population with those of its nearest neighboring communes, and see what the share of Hungarians would be in the new unit. The result is frightening.

In the Transylvanian Plain (Mezőség), there is almost no way out. Papiu Ilarian (Mezőbodon) is 57.2% Hungarian today, but all its neighbors have a Romanian majority: merged with Sânger (Mezőszengyel), Iclănzel (Kisikland), Șăulia (Mezősályi), Grebenișu de Câmpie (Mezőgerebenes) or Zau de Câmpie (Mezőzáh), the Hungarian share would fall to between 16.5% and 19.5%. In other words, not only would the majority be lost, but so would the right to use the language. Șincai (Mezősámsond)'s current 35.5% Hungarian population would plunge to 12.1% if merged with Râciu (Mezőrücs), or to 16.2% if merged with Pogăceaua (Mezőpagocsa); it would stay above 20% only if merged with the similarly small Mădăraș (Mezőmadaras), which would yield a combined share of 55%. Bichiș (Magyarbükkös) still has a Hungarian majority today (52.2%), but merging with Ațintiș (Cintos) would reduce that to 39%, and merging with Luduș (Ludas) to 20.4% — a hair's breadth from the threshold. Ațintiș itself would reach 20.1% if merged with Luduș, and 20.6% if merged with Cuci (Kutyfalva).

The situation is no better elsewhere. Miceștii de Câmpie (Mezőkecsed)'s 21.1% Hungarian population would fall to between 7.6% and 11% when merged with any of its neighbors. Beba Veche (Óbéba)'s 22.7% would drop to 8.3% with Dudeștii Vechi (Óbesenyő), and to at most 12.8% with other nearby villages. Balinț (Bálinc)'s 23% would fall below 20% with every neighbor, reaching at best 18.9%. Pălatca (Magyarpalatka)'s 21.5% Hungarian population would fall to 15.8% with Geaca (Gyeke), and to 14.5% with Mociu (Móc). Benesat (Benedekfalva)'s 24.6% would shrink to 8.4% with Năpradea (Náprád), and to 9% with Someș-Odorhei (Szamosudvarhely).

Hungarian presence is at risk even where it is still strong today!

Rimetea (Torockó) is 86.8% Hungarian, but all its neighbors are overwhelmingly Romanian: merged with Livezile (Úrháza), the Hungarian share would be 43%; with Sălciua (Szolcsva), 38.5%; with Poșaga (Podsága), 47.6%. A Hungarian majority would survive only if merged with the small villages of Ocoliș (Alsóaklos) or Râmeț (Remete), each with just a few hundred inhabitants. Zerind (Nagyzerind)'s 80% Hungarian population would not retain a majority with any neighbor: 27.6% with Chișineu-Criș (Kisjenő), 32.5% with Pilu (Nagypél), and even with the sizeable Hungarian minority of Sintea Mare (Nagyszintye), only 47.1%. Viișoara (Érszőllős)'s 80.3% would fall to 38.7% with Marghita (Margitta), and to 28.8% with Abram (Érábrány). Izvoru Crișului (Körösfő) merged with Huedin (Bánffyhunyad) would drop to 31.1%, and with Mănăstireni (Magyargyerőmonostor) to 48.5%. Carastelec (Kárásztelek)'s 80.4% merged with Bobota (Nagyderzsida) would fall to 18.6%, i.e. below the 20% threshold. Buza (Búza)'s 42.3% Hungarian population would drop to 15.7% with Cămărașu (Pusztakamarás), and Coșeiu (Kusaly)'s 50.6% would drop to 19.1% with Chieșd (Szilágykövesd).

At the same time, where Hungarian villages merge with other Hungarian villages, the consolidation could actually strengthen the community. Izvoru Crișului (Körösfő) merged with Sâncraiu (Kalotaszentkirály) would remain 77.9% Hungarian. Pălatca (Magyarpalatka) merged with Sic (Szék) would become part of a unit with a 67.7% Hungarian majority. Carastelec (Kárásztelek) merged with Camăr (Kémer) would reach 84.2%. The Satu Mare villages near Carei (Nagykároly) — Ciumești (Csomaköz), Urziceni (Mezőfény), Cămin (Kálmánd) — are surrounded by Hungarian-majority neighbors: Cămin merged with Căpleni (Kaplony) would reach 79.7%, and Urziceni merged with Foieni (Csanálos) would reach 74.4%. Săuca (Sződemeter), which is already below 20% today, would reach a 40.4% Hungarian share if merged with Pir (Szilágypér), putting it back above the threshold. Coroisânmărtin (Kóródszentmárton) in Mureș County, whose Hungarian population currently stands at 18.2%, would fall to 10.8% if merged with Zagăr (Zágor), but would become part of a 71.2% Hungarian-majority unit if merged with Acățari (Ákosfalva) — the latter is a good example of why, right now, everybody and anybody should be looking into population geography — if nothing else, so that public opinion forces the RMDSZ to do something.

The government program submitted by Niculescu does contain some faint reference to the fact that, in a time of sweeping reforms, the opinions of minorities must also be taken into account, but this can mean many things — for instance, they might be heard out, and then things will be done exactly as originally intended anyway. A dedicated fight should be waged to ensure that the ethnic composition of localities is taken into account during mergers, so that existing language-use rights are preserved in the new unit as well; otherwise a mere statistical reorganization could quietly dismantle what the dispersed Hungarian communities have preserved over decades. These conditions should be built into the bill now, while the plan is still taking shape — not afterward, when all that remains is to protest, not to mention the fact that the administrative reform will sooner or later reach the counties as well, which would be reorganized based on the experience gained now. If we stay silent now, later there will be no reason and no one left to speak for!

(The calculations are based on the ethnic data of the 2021 census and the 2021 population figures. The changes in the Hungarian population share resulting from the mergers were modeled with the help of the Claude artificial intelligence.)

Anna Karczag