The recent parliamentary events in Bucharest (the political declaration of MP Kulcsár-Terza József on October 29, 2025, and the subsequent interventions) have once again demonstrated that serious misunderstandings persist around the interpretation of Article One of the Constitution of Romania, leading to political distortions.
These misinterpretations not only distort the issue of autonomy but also weaken the very idea of civic equality and modern Romanian democracy.
Therefore, our dispute is not with the Constitution itself, but with that “tacit interpretation” which, in political practice, distorts its spirit.
The time has come to clarify these misunderstandings.
1. Romania is a national state… – What does “national state” correctly mean?
Article One of the Constitution of Romania states:
“Romania is a national, sovereign, independent, unitary, and indivisible state.”
This formulation is unique, as in today’s Europe no other state defines itself as a national state.
For this reason, the interpretation of this constitutional phrase places a special responsibility upon the Romanian state and its political elite.
In the correct, European sense, “the Romanian nation” refers to the community of the state’s citizens, not to a single ethnic group.
Sovereignty, therefore, belongs not to ethnic Romanians, but to all the citizens of Romania, who are equal in rights within the same state.
In political practice, however, a tacit interpretation has spread according to which the expression “national state” is understood as the exclusive domination of the Romanian ethnic group.
Although no one openly declares this, such an interpretation permeates much of the political class and public opinion.
It distorts the spirit of the Constitution, contradicts European values, conflicts even with other constitutional provisions, and hinders the modernization of the Romanian state.
It is worth noting that Romanian legal scholarship generally adopts the correct, civic interpretation.
Thus, Ion Deleanu, in his Instituții și proceduri constituționale în dreptul român și în dreptul comparat (2006), clearly states that the notion of “nation” refers to the community of citizens, not to an ethnic community.
This demonstrates that the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland is not in conflict with the Constitution itself, but only with its misinterpretations and the distortions of political practice.
2. Romania is a sovereign and independent state – Sovereignty belongs to the community of Romanian citizens
Sovereignty and independence are fundamental principles of the state.
In their proper sense, the bearer of sovereignty is not the state apparatus, but the community of Romanian citizens, who exercise power within the limits of the Constitution.
Sovereignty is not an ethnic concept, but a political one: it expresses the unity of the civic community, not its ethnic homogeneity.
Nevertheless, Romanian political discourse often interprets sovereignty as the exclusive right of the central government – thus opposing demands for decentralization or autonomy.
This is a mistaken interpretation.
In modern democracies, the exercise of sovereignty is multi-level: both central and local authorities participate in it.
The examples of Italy, Spain, or Finland show that autonomy does not weaken sovereignty – it represents its democratic form.
The territorial autonomy of Szeklerland does not limit the sovereignty of the Romanian state; it strengthens it in substance, giving every citizen – including the Hungarian community – the opportunity to participate responsibly in public life.
3. Romania is a unitary state – Unity means coherence, not uniformity
In political rhetoric, the concept of a “unitary state” is often equated with centralized power, as if unity could only be maintained through uniformity.
This is a misunderstanding: unity does not mean uniformity, but coherent cooperation.
From a legal point of view, the term “unitary” simply means that there is one constitutional system and a single source of sovereignty – not that all decisions must be made in Bucharest.
Italy offers a clear example: it is a unitary state but has five regions with territorial autonomy (Sicily, Sardinia, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Valle d’Aosta, Friuli-Venezia Giulia).
These autonomies have not weakened the state but have strengthened it, deepening civic loyalty and increasing stability.
The autonomy of Szeklerland follows the same logic: it does not abolish unity but renews it in a European spirit.
A truly unitary Romania is one in which the central and regional levels reinforce each other – not exclude, but complement one another.4. Romania is an indivisible state – Indivisibility concerns territorial integrity, not rigidity of competences
The phrase “indivisible state” in the Constitution protects the territorial integrity of the country, not the exclusivism of political and administrative centralization.
Indivisibility is a geographical and legal concept: it means that the country’s territory cannot be alienated or subjected to the sovereignty of another state.
In public discourse, however, “indivisibility” is often used as an argument against autonomy, as if autonomy would lead to the dismemberment of the state.
This is a legal error. Autonomy does not mean the division of sovereignty, but its decentralized exercise.
Many European states – Spain, Italy, Finland, Denmark – have territorial autonomies without their indivisibility being endangered.
True loyalty does not arise from central compulsion, but from voluntary identification.
The territorial autonomy of Szeklerland does not contradict the indivisibility of Romania; it strengthens it: it enhances the internal stability of the citizen community, deepens democracy, and strengthens the bond with the Romanian state.
Conclusion
The Constitution of Romania – when correctly interpreted – is not an obstacle but can serve as the very foundation of the territorial autonomy of Szeklerland.
The problem lies not in the text of the Constitution but in its tacit, ethnically biased interpretation.
Constitutionalism, in the European sense, is founded upon the community of citizens, not on ethnic exclusivism.
Therefore, the autonomy of Szeklerland is not against the state, but for the state – for peace, security, and prosperity – for everything proclaimed also in the Manifesto of the Szekler National Council.
Izsák Balázs
President of the Szekler National Council
Târgu Mureș, November 3, 2025
Our symbols 
Autonomy
Szekler National Council