Speakers of the Seminar:
- Peter Kruzslicz, senior lecturer
- Jázmin Perneki, Master student in International Relations
- Dorottya Molnár, Master student in International Relations
- Daniil Golossenko, Master student in International Relations
- Anna Frankó, Master student in International Relations
Participants of the Seminar: students of the University of Szeged, enrolled in diverse programmes in International Relations (BA, MA, in Hungarian or in English), thanks to the Zoom meeting generated for the seminar online participation was also possible and the seminar has been recorded for further use.
MA students following a lecture on Comparative Constitutional Law and Governance Theory volunteered to prepare presentations in a ten-minute duration under the supervision of their lecturer of the national and state symbols of one European state. Before the seminar, during a special course, the lecturer explained the role and the place in constitutional law of those symbols for which special constitutional provisions are adopted in different states. Even though this constitutional role and the provisions can be similar as they usually define and then, in some cases, protect the national, state or even community symbols, the comparative approach allows to see even important or major differences between the national constitutional rules about symbols.
Four students decided to participate to the seminar as speakers and they prepared respectively their presentations on Hungarian, French, Russian, and Spanish national and state symbols that they have performed in an open class for other students. To make possible to succeed to the above-mentioned comparative conclusions a common methodological background was given to the student so that they can follow the same steps and logical structure once again to make their presentations adequate for further comparison. Also, to allow the public to understand even though finally, they did not participate with comments and questions, the logics behind those presentation but also the timely and important character of the matter a short introduction was presented by the lecturer.
The choice of the national examples was very fortunate, even though only oriented as students were free to choose the country of their interest. On one hand, the presentation of Hungarian model was obvious not only because students are, even if some of them are foreigners, following their Master courses in a Hungarian university, but also because Hungary is a very interesting example of a historically developed and complex State giving a special importation in its constitution for symbolic matters once again because of its historical evolution. Then, France is the best example for a country where symbols are also of great interest as the history of Revolution and the so-called republican approach always wanted to highlight the importance of the symbols.
On the other hand, two federal State with also complicated history, because of the late and constitutional monarchy by political movements leading to totalitarian and authoritarian regime, of course, with very important differences among those, but also because of the great importance of common national symbols so that the national identity of a federal state could be centralised and shown as common. The history and the structural nature of the State is reflected by the national and state symbols and community symbols are not getting so much importance in the case of those two countries.
As mentioned, students also prepared presentation materials. Those could have been reviewed by the lecturer, helping him to harmonise the structure of presentations but also giving an opportunity to corrections if needed in the substance of the presentations. As symbols are often images, colours, thanks to those presentation materials, participating students could also learn easier about symbols.
At the beginning of the seminar, the lecturer of the class and researcher of the project introduced quickly those presentations highlighting the constitutional role and importance of national, state but also community symbols.
This short and only introductive speech was followed by the presentation. The first presentation was about Hungarian symbols as developed during the national history and consecrated in the Fundamental Law. Even though, there is a complexity of symbols and as Fundamental Law tried to put forward the importance of symbolic matters, a nuance and sometimes complicated constitutional regulation about those, presenting the Hungarian symbols first was helpful for the participating students, as the Hungarian case is the most well-known by them so they could get easier familiar with the topic by a first presentation about Hungary.
The second presentation was about France. It has well described the sophisticated but very generalised symbolics of the French Republic. Also, it could point out the meaning and the importance of those symbols that are not only signs or decorative elements, but also politically and constitutionally important definition of what is France and what does it want to declare as the very foundation of its national political and constitutional community. When it seems that those symbols became mostly figurative, one should not forget the sense that they reflect about the historical change to a republican constitutionality.
The third presentation about Russia was very interesting for the students not only because they have less knowledge about the very special historical self-definition of the Russian Federation but also because of some confusions that can be erased even by presenting the symbols of the State, on the federal structure and its relationship to Soviet history. Thanks to the presentation, even though historical matters were not as much detailed, this special Russian identity with its own definition of its history and even historical mission could have been also highlighted.
Finally, the last presentation was about Spain. It gave a huge importance, and of course, the choice was justified, to the historical evolution of the country, reflected by the symbols that developed and became truly official after the change of regime during the seventies. On one hand, a difficult but glorious history is reflected by those symbols, but also, constitutional matters like the monarchy related question as much as for the importance of the institution than for its main characteristic. And of course, the federal structure of the State is also represented by its symbols.
After the presentation, the lecturer took the floor for a short, ten minutes long conclusion on some general remarks especially from a comparative perspective of the definition and the protection of symbols in national constitutional laws. As already mentioned, the presentation of those very different yet comparable constitutional regulations about mostly national and state but also community symbols allow the students to think, in a more abstract way, about the interest that a political community can have when constitutionalising its symbols. But, also this abstract reflection about symbols can be followed by a very concrete approach when it comes to their definition and especially to their protection in constitutional provisions.
