Why does the term ‘Felvidék’ spark debate in Slovakia and Hungary?
The term ‘Felvidék’ (Highlands) has recently re-entered public discourse in Slovakia and Hungary, provoking mixed reactions. While some see it as a neutral historical term, others see it as a crucial element of national identity, and still others find it controversial or even provocative. But what does Felvidék mean today, and why is its use so controversial?
Introduction
Felvidék is a Hungarian term that historically referred to the northern, mountainous regions of the Kingdom of Hungary. These areas are now part of Slovakia. The controversy surrounding the term has even led to legal action, such as the police interrogation of Zoltán Hájos, the mayor of Dunaszerdahely/Dunajská Streda. The Association of Slovak Intellectuals (Združenie slovenskej inteligencie/ZSI) filed a complaint, arguing that Felvidék had revisionist implications. The dispute arose after the term was used in the names of events such as ‘Felvidéki Vágta’ (Highland Gallop) and ‘Felvidéki Fesztivál’ (Highland Festival). Whether the mayor will face legal consequences remains uncertain, but the incident highlights an important question: is the term Felvidék problematic, or is it simply a matter of historical and cultural interpretation?
Historical context
Historically, Felvidék – along with earlier variants such as ‘Upper Hungary’ or ‘Upper Lands’ – was a geographical term referring to the northern regions of the Kingdom of Hungary. The ethnographer József Liszka notes that the earliest recorded use of Felvidék dates back to 1848, when the Hungarian politician Lajos Kossuth used it to describe these northern areas inhabited mainly by Slovaks and Germans.
In the late 19th century, the meaning of the term began to shift, acquiring political connotations. The Hungarian nationalist politician Béla Grünwald, in his 1878 pamphlet ‘A Felvidék. Egy politikai tanulmány’ (The Highlands: A Political Study), argued for a strong centralisation of Hungary due to the country’s ethnic diversity. At the time, there were about eight million non-Hungarians and seven million Hungarians in Hungary. Grünwald believed that the priority should be internal cultural assimilation rather than colonial expansion, famously stating that ‘we should not colonise somewhere in Africa or the Far East, but we should make the country Hungarian’.
This attitude contributed to the perception of Felvidék as an exclusionary term. Some Hungarian nationalists tried to present it as a region inhabited only by Hungarians, despite its historical multi-ethnic composition. These connotations were reinforced after the creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918, when the term came to symbolise the northern territories separated from Hungary. In 1938, as part of the First Vienna Award – a territorial arbitration led by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy – Hungary regained southern Slovak territories, and Hungarian media referred to this as the ‘return of Felvidék’, further politicising its meaning.
Contemporary usage and controversy
Today, Felvidék primarily refers to the Hungarian-populated regions of southern Slovakia. Historian László Szarka explains that while it serves as a territorial self-definition for Hungarians in Slovakia – particularly those from the Csallóköz and Bodrogköz regions – its wider use remains controversial. In Hungarian discourse, Felvidék is sometimes applied to the entire territory of Slovakia, which some Slovaks interpret as a continuation of historical Hungarian narratives or as a reminder of past Magyarisation policies (the efforts to assimilate non-Hungarians into Hungarian culture during the 19th and early 20th centuries).
Szarka argues that while it is perfectly legitimate for Hungarians in Slovakia to identify themselves as ‘felvidéki magyarok’ (Highland Hungarians), referring to all of Slovakia as Felvidék is historically inaccurate and can provoke negative reactions. He stresses the need for greater clarity in historical education to address these linguistic nuances.
The incident in Dunaszerdahely/Dunajská Streda
The controversy surrounding Zoltán Hájos, the mayor of Dunaszerdahely/Dunajská Streda, illustrates the sensitivities surrounding the term. The complaint against him was filed by the Association of Slovak Intellectuals, an organisation known for its critical stance on Hungarian minority issues. In previous cases, the ZSI has objected to symbolic gestures associated with Hungarian identity, such as the singing of the Hungarian national anthem at municipal events.
In contrast, the civic association Komunita Dunajská Streda, which has worked to promote Slovak-Hungarian relations, publicly supported the mayor. This incident highlights the continuing complexity of minority identity in Slovakia, where historical interpretations continue to shape contemporary political discourse.
‘Hungarian’ as a pejorative term?
The debate over Felvidék is part of a wider issue concerning attitudes to Hungarian identity in Slovakia. During recent anti-government protests, for example, comparisons between Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán were common. Some slogans, such as ‘Fico is a Hungarian pig’, suggest that ‘Hungarian’ is sometimes used pejoratively.
The problem is that there is no real dialogue between the two sides. I think we should make it clear that this term has a historical and a contemporary meaning. As of now, it is a word that unites all Hungarians in Slovakia.
Veroni Gyenge
Poet and activist Veroni Gyenge has criticised such rhetoric, particularly the way former Slovak Foreign Minister Rastislav Káčer used Felvidék, blurring the distinction between Hungarians from Hungary and Hungarians in Slovakia. She attributes the tension to a lack of dialogue and mutual understanding. ‘The problem is that there is no real dialogue between the two sides. I think we should make it clear that this term has a historical and a contemporary meaning. As of now, it is a word that unites all Hungarians in Slovakia,’ she argues.
Conclusion
The term Felvidék carries multiple layers of meaning, shaped by history, politics and personal identity. While it remains a valid self-identification for many Hungarians in Slovakia, its wider use can be politically sensitive. Understanding its historical development and acknowledging the different perspectives surrounding it is essential for promoting informed and respectful discourse.
Note: This article gives the views of the author and does not represent the position of the European Association of Daily Newspapers in Minority and Regional Languages (MIDAS) or Eurac Research.
Citation
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license except for third-party materials or where otherwise noted.
This blog is supported by the European Association of Daily Newspapers in Minority and Regional Languages (MIDAS). MIDAS was founded in 2001 to provide assistance to minority language newspapers and nowadays has members all over Europe. MIDAS serves as a platform for exchange, uniting minority language newspapers to present a collective voice to the European institutions.
My cookie preferences