One-size-fits-all Roma?

On the normative dilemmas of the emerging European Roma policy

Mrton rvid
The article discusses three moral and political dilemmas that arise in the context of the emerging European roma policy, and on which all concerned parties, including grassroots romani organisations, should be able to express their views. The first dilemma is whether anti-discrimination measures based on universal individual rights are sufficient to promote the social inclusion of roma, or whether policies based on groupdifferentiated minority rights are required to ensure the exercise of their fundamental human rights. Even though there appears to be a consensus on the insufficiency of the former approach, it is unclear exactly what kinds of minority rights should be promoted, which leads us to the second dilemma: generic versus targeted minority rights. The third dilemma is whether to recognise roma as a national minority or as a non-territorial nation. The article argues that the notion of non-territorial nation can be debated on anthropological, political and moral grounds. Keywords: roma policies, self-determination, anti-discrimination, desegregation, minority rights, non-territorial nation, normative dilemmas, recognition, integration

As i write this article in March 2009, the Hungarian public sphere is flooded with articles, reports, and demonstrations discussing crimes committed by or against roma. The former refers to Gypsy criminality1 and openly stigmatises an entire ethnic group, whereas the latter draws our attention to the increasing pervasiveness of racist discourses and a series of crimes committed against romani people since January 2008, including 15 incidents in which roma houses being firebombed and two attacks on roma homes with hand grenades in which at least five people of romani origin were killed (ErrC 2009).
1. in Hungarian, cignybnzs.

I benefited greatly from the opportunity to present earlier versions of this article at Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of the Nationalities in New York, the Annual Conference of the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies in Cambridge, the Romani Mobilities in Europe Conference in Oxford, and the Annual Conference of the Gypsy Lore Society in Helsinki. In particular, I am grateful for the comments I received from Thomas Acton, Stephen Deets, Martin Kovats, Yaron Matras, Aidan McGarry, Vera Messing, Mria Nemnyi, Guido Schwellnus, Eva Sobotka, Nidhi Trehan, Peter Vermeersch, as well as the reviewers of Romani Studies. Mrton Rvid is a PhD candidate at the Department of International Relations and European Studies of Central European University. Email: marton.rovid@gmail.com Romani Studies 5, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2011), 122 issn 15280748 (print) 17572274 (online) doi: 10.3828/rs.2011.1

mrton rvid

The tense atmosphere does not facilitate reflection on questions of social inclusion and self-determination in the context of an emerging European roma policy. The criminalisation of the problem drastically shrinks the space for moral argumentation on questions of justice (Kis 2009: 59). This article grew out of the conviction that democratic discussion of the dilemmas of social inclusion and self-determination diffuses discourses of fear and threat. The article aims to contribute to the discussion on the emerging European roma policy by highlighting and analysing some of the ethical and political dilemmas that policy-makers and civil activists face when promoting the social inclusion and self-determination of roma. These dilemmas can be translated into European policy options on which all concerned parties, especially grassroots romani organisations, will be able to deliberate. in particular, three dilemmas are presented (i) the relation of self-determination to anti-discrimination; (ii) the question of roma specific norms and policies; and (iii) the dilemma of whether the roma should be recognised as a national minority or as a non-territorial nation. Before discussing the dilemmas, their international context is presented. The international context international actors play a crucial role in the codification, spread and acceptance of norms in relation to roma. international governmental and nongovernmental actors can promote three kinds of norm: the protection of fundamental human rights; generic minority rights; and roma-specific norms. in addition to the general human-rights regime based on the Universal declaration of Human rights, a comprehensive international legal and institutional framework has developed in the last 15 to 20 years aiming at the protection of the rights of minorities. The United nations adopted a declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to national or Ethnic, religious and Linguistic Minorities in 1992 as well as other intergovernmental organisations, such as the United nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization (unesco), the international Labour organization and the World Bank, have developed norms on minority or indigenous rights. declarations have also been drafted by organisations at the regional level, such as the Council of Europes 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities and the organization of American States 1997 draft declaration on the rights of indigenous Peoples. Besides the general minority rights regime, a separate network of institutions has emerged dealing specifically with the roma comprising special bodies under the auspices of international organisations such as the Council of Europe, the oSCE and the EU, as well as international nGos such as the

one-size-fits-all roma?

European roma rights and the European roma information office. Until the 1990s, European international organisations paid little attention to roma. The few documents that these organisations produced referred to roma as travellers, nomads or a population of nomadic origin.2 However, in less than a decade, the roma developed from nomadic people into a true European minority,3 specialised committees and organs were set up within European organisations to deal specifically with roma,4 and one of the central issues in the process of the EUs Eastern enlargement was the position of roma in candidate the countries. The initiative of the decade of roma inclusion launched in 2005 seeks to integrate and coordinate these diverse declarations, actors and policies within one framework. By March 2009, 11 states joined the initiative on a voluntary basis. However, the participants of the programme demand that the EU play a more active role, as a result of which a European roma Summit was held on 16 September 2008 in Brussels, where, amongst others, Jos Manuel Barroso, Jacques Barrot, George Soros and vladimir Spidla expressed their views on the future of a European roma Policy. it is important to note the special role of the European Union in this constellation. As a sui generis quasi-supranational organisation, the EUs competencies and capacities stretch beyond that of all other inter-governmental organisations in at least three ways. (1) The EU provides a comprehensive legal framework complementing regular international public law. The so-called Anti-discrimination5 and Citizenship6 directives are of particular importance in relation to roma. (2) The EU has substantial financial instruments overshadowing those of inter-governmental organisations. The Structural and Cohesion Funds redistribute 347 billion between 2007 and 2013. Within the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund with an overall budget of 76 billion for the same period is supposed to endorse the social integration of roma.
2. See for instance the following documents of the Council of Europe: Assembly recommendation 563 (1969) on the situation of Gypsies and other travellers in Europe; Committee of Ministers resolution (1975) 13 on the social situation of nomads in Europe; recommendation (1983) 1 on stateless nomads and nomads of undetermined nationality; Standing Conference of Local and regional Authorities of Europe resolution 125 (1981) on the role and responsibility of local and regional authorities in regard to the cultural and social problems of populations of nomadic origin. 3. Council of Europe, Assembly recommendation 1203 (1993) on the Gypsies of Europe. 4. Such as the Contact Point for roma and Sinti issues within oSCE and the Group of Specialists on roma within the Council of Europe. 5. Council directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. 6. directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

mrton rvid

(3) The EU provides an institutional framework for policy coordination and learning in such crucial areas as social inclusion, employment, health care, and education. This article does not focus on the specific role and instruments of the European Union; rather it analyses general normative dilemmas that emerge in the broader European public sphere consisting of a network of the international organisations mentioned earlier, nGos, expert bodies, etc. Self-determination versus anti-discrimination The question of whether to focus (1) on the promotion of the civic equality and the protection of the fundamental human rights of romani peoples, or (2) on their self-determination and autonomy, poses a dilemma for activists, policymakers and scholars alike. (1) The first grassroots roma organisations struggling for civic equality for roma emerged in the first half of the twentieth century on the Balkan Peninsula because given that in the ottoman Empire Gypsies had been enjoying civil rights since the fifteenth century unlike the Gypsies in Central and Western Europe, who benefited much later and had the civil consciousness and ability to fight for their rights (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 72). By the 1920s, romani organisations of a more collective form started to function in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, romania and Greece. These organisations published their own periodicals; offered mutual assistance in sickness and death; and promoted the education of Gypsy youth (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 74). However, both national and international romani political aspirations were crushed during the Second World War. The systemic persecution and extermination of roma left the nascent modern romani activism paralysed for over a decade after the war (Klmov-Alexander 2005: 15). From the 1950s romani political activism gradually revived throughout Europe, and it boomed in the 1990s. The human-rights discourse was reinforced in the early 1990s by reports of such internationally renowned nGos as Amnesty international7 and Human rights Watch. in 1996 the European roma rights Centre (ErrC) was founded, the paradigmatic representative of the anti-discrimination approach. ErrC is an international public interest law organisation working to combat anti-romani racism and human rights abuse of roma through strategic litigation, research and policy development, advocacy and human rights education (see http:// errc.org/en-about-us-overview.php).
7. Torture and ill-treatment of Roma, 1993; Turning the blind eye to Racism, 1994; Broken commitments to human rights, 1995.

one-size-fits-all roma?

The strategy of anti-discrimination is often inspired by the AfricanAmerican civil-rights struggles and refers to the Uns 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of racial discrimination. Accordingly, civil rights and equality are interpreted in the context of anti-discrimination and desegregation. (2) As opposed to the anti-discrimination approach that stresses the civic equality and integration of roma into mainstream society, the discourse of self-determination underscores the importance of recognising that roma are different and of advocating various forms of autonomy. The roots of the international struggle for the self-determination of roma can be traced back at least to the 1960s, when the United nations inspired the creation of a number of international romani umbrella organisations to promote the interests of the worlds roma through Un instruments and structures. These organisations worked towards the legitimisation of roma as a nation with the right to a state by creating and promoting national culture. Although the goals of improving living standards and cultural and moral uplifting of the roma were usually declared, they have always remained secondary to the nationalist aspirations (Klmov-Alexander 2005: 16). By the 1970s these attempts crystallised into the First World romani Congress, held in April 1971, near London, attracting participants from Western, Central and Eastern Europe as well as from Asia and north America.8 The Congress was formally organised by the Comit international rom (an organisation that had been founded in Paris in 1965) (Acton and Klmov-Alexander 2001: 158); and it was funded by the World Council of Churches9 and the indian government (Foszt 2003: 112). The delegates of the First World romani Congress adopted a national flag and a hymn, and agreed on the dissemination of a new ethnic label. Hence the term roma was constructed as the official name to capture a variety of communal-based identities across different countries (Courthiade 2003). The main concepts were the principle of amaro Romano drom (our romani way) and the phrase our state is everywhere where there are roma because romanestan is in our hearts (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 78). Expressing a powerful feeling of unity, they declared that All roma are brothers (Ligeois 2007: 213).
8. According to Acton and Klmov-Alexander (2001: 78), representatives of fourteen countries participated, whereas Marushiakova and Popov argues that documents of the congress listed delegates from eight countries, two out of which from Eastern Europe (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and observers. 9. The first congresses were organised with the support of Evangelical churches working among the Gypsies, the Pentecostal church in particular. Later on the different Evangelical churches lost interest in the world romani movement though they are still active among the Gypsies. (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 79).

mrton rvid

in addition, commissions for social affairs, war crimes, language standardisation and culture were established (Foszt 2003: 112). it was also decided that 8 April, the date on which the Congress was opened, should become roma day, henceforth to be celebrated annually. A single slogan summed up the Congress: The rom people have the right to seek out their own path towards progress (Ligeois 2007: 214). Until now, six World romani Congresses have been held. of particular importance is the fourth Congress held in Poland in 1990, which adopted the manifesto declaration of nation to be analyzed in relation to the third dilemma. This dilemma, whether to promote the civic equality or the self-determination of roma, can be illustrated with the issue of education in the romani language. Some romani leaders support it because they believe it would strengthen the ethnic identity of roma communities, whereas others are opposed to classes in romani because they feel that they would further increase the social distance between Gypsies and gadje, diminishing the romas chances on the labour market (Brny 2002: 216). in general, the discourse of desegregation is adequate for minorities that were involuntarily excluded from common institutions on the basis of perceived race or ethnicity. However, numerous minorities are in the opposite position: they have been involuntarily assimilated and stripped of their own language, culture and self-governing institutions.10 These groups need counter-majoritarian protections, not solely in the form of anti-discrimination and undifferentiated citizenship, but also various group-differentiated minority rights (Kymlicka 2007: 90). At least three critiques have been raised against the self-determination approach. (i) it is often argued that the focus on self-determination leads to the neglect of problems of discrimination. Klmov points out that the remedy and prevention of human-rights abuses are secondary to the goal of recognition of political statues which the international romani Union sees as stepping stone for the rest of its goals.
Consequently, very little has been achieved in these areas. only miniscule financial and virtually no institutional support for romani culture and language and education of romani children and youth has been solicited directly from the Un system. The Un has not helped to further the cause of symbolic and financial Holocaust reparations. it only recently started encouraging states to address romani social and economic problems and its own funding of projects towards this end has been minimal. it is only the pro-romani ErrC that actually systematically brings concrete violations of the rights of roma in various countries to the scrutiny of the Un human rights treaty bodies. (Klmov-Alexander 2005, 151)
10. The most frequently cited examples are the Catalonians and the Hungarian communities living in Hungarys neighbouring countries.

one-size-fits-all roma?

(ii) Similarly, the discourse of self-determination may be easily interpreted as contributing to the ethnicisation of social problems, thus undermining inter-ethnic solidarity.
The promotion of some essential difference between roma people and everyone else in society exploits traditional prejudices and low expectations. difference is used to explain roma impoverishment, social tension and conflicts, migration, and the failure of integration initiatives. it conserves the political isolation of roma people and supports the ideology of segregation. (Kovats 2003)

(iii) Moreover, it is cheaper to promote the ethnic difference of roma than to improve the living conditions of the masses of roma who lost their jobs. in return, the human rights/anti-discrimination discourse are often criticised for neglecting economic and social processes other than discrimination that contribute to the marginalisation of roma. (i) Attributing social disadvantage to racism diminishes the elites responsibility by blaming popular prejudices for their failure to act (Kovats 2003). (ii) The accountability of human rights nGos can be debated, especially in the case of high profile nGos [. . .] that lack grass-roots constituencies, being founded or funded by nGo representatives and private foundations (trehan 2001: 134). These organisations are not accountable to any constituency apart from the limited number of Western donors, who often subscribe to agendas that may or may not reflect the most critical needs of the communities in question (138). (iii) The misery of large numbers of roma cannot entirely be explained by racism. Following the collapse of communism and the restructuring of national economies, most Eastern European roma suddenly fell out of the legal labour market and started gradually sliding out of the society. The neo-liberal transition led to the formation of an underclass, that is, both economically and socially excluded populations were locked out of civil society and class structure (Szelnyi and Ladnyi 2006). is it possible to weigh the relevance and (unintended) consequences of these discourses against one another? Are they inevitably mutually exclusive or can they complement or even reinforce each other? one can argue that the right to self-determination, that is, minority rights, will ensure equality in the exercise of human rights. in effect, minority rights11 remedy the discrimination of minorities resulting from the ethnic bias of legislation. For instance, the right to be educated in ones mother tongue guarantees the fundamental human right to education for members of linguistic minorities.
11. in particular, individual minority rights (accorded to members of minorities), not so much collective minority rights (accorded to minority groups).

mrton rvid

However, there are cases when minority rights cannot serve the purposes of anti-discrimination, since the two approaches determine its subjects from different perspectives. Self-determination presumes the freedom of choosing ones membership in a group, whereas discrimination is the imposed exclusion of someone from the group. The ideal of self-determination stipulates that the boundaries of the group roma are determined by the concerned individual or group. on other hand, anti-discrimination policies tackle the problem of exclusion of persons who are perceived as roma. in other words: who is inside and outside the group will vary depending on who makes the classification. nonroma may classify subjects as roma if they fit some stereotypes: being poor, demonstrating signs of a roma lifestyle, etc. (Szelnyi and Ladnyi 2001). Minority rights can ensure equality only in the exercise of human rights if the discriminated subject is the same as that of self-determination. However, Szelnyi and Ladnyis cross-national study found that in all the investigated countries Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, romania, russia and Slovakia only a proportion of people perceived as roma identify themselves as roma; for instance, 36.8 per cent in Hungary as opposed to 73.3 per cent in Bulgaria.

Perceived Self-identified roma roma Figure 1. romani exceptionalism

The right to establish special schools for romani children, such as the Gandhi High School in Hungary, does not remedy the segregation of those romani students who would like to have access to the same schools as nonromani children. in several policy areas it is a genuine dilemma whether to promote the civic inclusion of romani peoples in common institutions and opportunities struggling against racial exclusion or to protect the culture, language and customs of romani peoples from assimilation and majority institutions. it has to be noted that the thin line between accommodation and assimilation of minority cultures is necessarily debated. For instance, optional romani language lessons in majority schools could be seen as sufficient to protect romany language, whereas others may argue for separate schools for romani children where all the classes are held in romany and special emphasis is laid on romany history and culture (in regions where roma children speak first and foremost romany and could be disadvantaged when made to study in other languages).

one-size-fits-all roma? Generic versus targeted minority rights

if one argues that only minority rights can ensure equality in the exercise of the fundamental human rights of roma, the content of such group rights has to be specified. is it sufficient to refer to generic norms of minority protection or do we have to refer to roma-specific norms? Generic minority rights are intended to apply to all ethnocultural minorities, whereas targeted minority rights are intended to apply to particular types of minorities, such as indigenous peoples, national minorities and immigrants (Kymlicka 2007: 199). A clear example of the former is Article 27 of the Uns 1966 international Covenant on Civil and Political rights.12 on a European level, the Council of Europes Framework Convention refers to national minorities, which usually include all sub-state national groups except for immigrants.13 Are these legal instruments guaranteeing the right to enjoy ones culture sufficient to protect the rights of roma? neither the roma nor any other sizeable minorities are satisfied with such limited group rights.14 As noted earlier, a separate network of international bodies and policies has emerged dealing specifically with the roma, suggesting that the generic norms of minority protection are not sufficient. The Council of Europe, oSCE and EU all have their own roma-specific organs, such as the Coordinator for roma issues, Specialist Group on roma, Gypsies and travellers, and European roma and travellers Forum (Council of Europe), the Contact Point for roma and Sinti issues (oSCE), and the inter-departmental commission and steering group on roma (EU). As a result, in the last 10 to 15 years many reports, declarations, recommendations and resolutions have been produced in relation to roma (or nomads, as they were called until the 1990s) (Majtnyi and vizi 2006; Marchand 2001). These, often inconsistent, documents attempt to identify the specific problems that romani communities face and make non-binding propositions and general recommendations to remedy these problems. However, moving beyond general political declarations, the question remains: what specific group rights should roma enjoy? is it possible to formulate such rights, for instance in a new EU directive? Since the term roma refers to diverse groups such as Sinti, Gitano, Manoush, Musicians and travellers
12. in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, people belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. 13. it should be noted that Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Moldova and turkey have yet to ratify the Framework Convention. 14. Small and assimilated minorities not able or willing to exercise regional autonomy or to sustain their own institutions (such as universities) may be satisfied with limited cultural group rights.

10

mrton rvid

to name just a few who do not necessarily identify themselves as roma,15 there is likely to be disagreement on what to protect from majority institutions. one does not have to take sides in the debate on the common roots and origins of peoples labelled roma to recognise the present heterogeneity of those groups, having diverse customs, languages, church affiliations and legal status. once again: it is irrelevant whether the roma form a worldwide diaspora or a non-territorial nation (confronting racism and negative prejudice everywhere) from the point of view of spelling out what specific group rights if any can remedy the particular forms of discrimination that romani peoples face. indeed, the questions of nomadic lifestyle, language and asylum divide romani activists. As nicolae Gheorghe and Thomas Acton note,
the defence of a nomadic life-style which is the crucial issue for most Gypsy organisations in north-western Europe is explicitly repudiated by many Central and Eastern European [romani] politicians. [. . .] At the same time the struggles for cultural and linguistic rights (at least at the folkloric level), which were the most permissible form of group self-promotion in many former Communist countries, were little more than a pleasant but irrelevant dream to most West European romani leaders, for whom the language issue had little salience. Equally, the emergence of the asylum-seekers from Eastern Europe has divided the movement. [. . .] the majority of Western romani organisations [] have done whatever they can to support asylum-seekers and are sometimes disappointed to find that some romani leaders in Eastern Europe tend to regard the asylum-seekers as those who have run away from the struggle against the growing racist violence and discrimination in Eastern Europe. (Acton and Gheorghe 2001: 65)

European-level policy-makers and activists cannot neglect the significant differences in the social position of various groups considered to be roma and the forms of discrimination and exclusion that they face. The historic diversity of roma groups imposes serious constraints not only upon the formalisation of romani culture for the purposes of teaching and propagating it, but upon the formulation of anti-discrimination policies in the form of minority rights as well. Although nearly all scholarly and policy papers as well as official documents and recommendations contain a footnote on the heterogeneity of groups labelled roma, even a recent comprehensive EU document entitled Community Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion16 fails to recognise the importance of such diversity for social inclusion and anti-discrimination policies.17
15. That is, belonging to a unified roma nation as promoted, for instance, by the international romani Union. 16. Commission of the European Communities: Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Community Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion, CoM (2008) 420, Brussels 2008. 17. Footnote 3 in this document reads For the purpose of this article, the term roma is used similarly to other political documents of the European Council, European Parliament etc. as an umbrella term including also other groups of people who share more or less similar cul-

one-size-fits-all roma?

11

Alternatively, taking seriously the heterogeneity of romani groups can only lead to a rather mixed if not incoherent international policy proposals. in the Conclusions and Recommendations on the Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union and Its Member States in 2003, the EU network of independent Experts on Fundamental rights, promoting a specific EU directive aiming at the integration of roma, took the following position:
[The EU directive] should provide that effective accommodations will be made to ensure the roma/Gypsies will be able to maintain their traditional lifestyle, when they have chosen the nomadic or semi-nomadic mode of life, without being forced into sedentarisation. it should take account the need to effectuate the desegregation of the roma/Gypsy communities, where this is required, especially in employment, housing and education [. . .]. it should address the question of the inaccessibility of certain social and economic rights due to the administrative situation of roma/Gypsies to whom administrative documents are denied or who are considered stateless.18

Even though there appears to be a consensus on the inadequacy of the individual-rights-based EU anti-discrimination directive for guaranteeing the equality of roma in the exercise of their fundamental human rights,19 it is unclear whether it is possible and desirable to accord group rights for various communities labelled roma and, if so, what the content of such rights should be. to name a few proposals: roma/Gypsies should be able to have access to employment or obtain services without being prevented from doing so by the fact of them wearing traditional clothing, even where a justification may be given to support the prohibition of such clothing. What should require justification is the refusal to make an exception to a general prohibition measure, whereas this measure prevents the roma/Gypsies from preserving an essential element of their identity.20 The roma/Gypsies should be able to choose to lead an itinerant or semitural characteristics and a history of persistent marginalisation in European societies, such as the Sinti, travellers, Ashkali etc. The European Commission is aware of the recurrent debate regarding the use of the term roma, and it has no intention to assimilate the members of other groups to the roma themselves in cultural terms. Nonetheless, it considers the use of Roma as an umbrella term practical and justifiable within the context of a policy document which is dealing above all with issues of social exclusion and discrimination, not with specific issues of cultural identity (italics added). 18. EU network of independent Experts on Fundamental rights: Conclusions and Recommendations on the Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union and Its Member States in 2003. p. 64. 19. Council directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, oJ L 180 (19 July 2000). 20. Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities, opinion on Finland (ACFC/inF/oP/i(2001)002), para. 25; Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities, opinion on Sweden (ACFC/inF/oP/i(2003)006), para. 24

12

mrton rvid

itinerant lifestyle, even there where there are good justifications for country planning legislation which in principle denies them the availability of stopping places for their caravans.21 Educational policies for roma/Gypsy children should be accompanied by adequate resources and the flexible structures necessary to meet the diversity of the roma/Gypsy population in Europe and which take into account the existence of roma/Gypsy groups which lead an itinerant or semi-itinerant lifestyle. in this respect, it might be envisaged having recourse to distance education, based on new communication technologies.22 in order to ensure non-discriminatory access to health care for the roma/ Gypsies, health-care workers should become more familiar with roma practices relating to health care so that they can make the necessary accommodations for those practices.23 Such provisions are certainly relevant for some romani groups; however, it is doubtful whether a comprehensive list relevant for all roma can be made, taking into account their sometimes diametrically opposed needs. Consider, for instance, the demand of some itinerant Gypsies for separate stopping places for their caravans and the desire of sedentary roma to live in non-segregated neighbourhoods. National minority versus non-territorial nation without a state The third dilemma concerns the locus of romani self-determination and autonomy. Should romani peoples be recognised as national minorities in their respective home countries, or as a non-territorial nation? The idea of a roma/Gypsy nation was first advanced by self-appointed Gypsy kings24 from the Kwiek family in the second half of the nineteenth cen21. Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of national Minorities, opinion on the United Kingdom (ACFC/inF/oP/i(2002)006), 30 nov. 2001, para. 4042. 22. recommendation no r (2000) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the education of roma/Gypsy children in Europe (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 Feb. 2000 at the 696th meeting of the Ministers deputies) 23. Council of Europe (2003), Breaking the Barriers: Romani Women and Access to Public Health Care. 24. The institution of the so-called Gypsy kings (or rather an imitation of an institution for the sake of the surrounding population) is a phenomenon that is well known in history. Since the Gypsies came to Western Europe in the fifteenth century, the historical sources noted their king Sindel, the dukes Andrash, Mihali and Panuel, and other princes of Little Egypt. This is a case of presenting their leaders according to the general terminology in order to mislead the European rulers into granting privileges for the Gypsies. Later on, the institution of the Gypsy kings appeared in the Polish Commonwealth in the seventeenth and eighteens centuries. it was most often headed by non-Gypsies who were responsible to the state for collecting taxes from the Gypsies.

one-size-fits-all roma?

13

tury. The Kwiek dynasty promoted something totally new in Gypsy history: the idea of an independent state, Romanestan (land of the roma). initiatives25 were taken in searching for territory for the state (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 77). However, the idea of romanestan gradually faded away, giving way to a new form of nation-building strategy that was pursued in the above mentioned framework of the World Congresses. in the 1990s, the process of searching for a place for the Gypsies in European integration saw the emergence of the concept of the roma as a trans[border]national minority. This concept was introduced for the first time at the meeting in ostia near rome in 1991. At that time, it was hoped that international law and the European institutions could improve the social status of the Gypsies and solve their numerous problems in Central and Eastern Europe, which appeared or were aggravated as a result of the difficult period of transition. When the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the Framework Convention for national minorities and the roma were given the status of national minority in most countries without any considerable positive changes for them, their disappointment led them to seek new ideas for the development of the roma community (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 81). The concept of the roma as a nation without a state was a logical consequence of these developments.26 The Fifth World romani Congress, held in July 2000 in Prague, adopted27 the manifesto Declaration of Nation that confirmed and detailed the claim for non-territorial nationhood and international recognition. Moreover, the manifesto claimed that the romani nation offers to the rest of humanity a new vision of stateless nationhood that is more suited to a globalised world than is affiliation to traditional nation-states. As a result, the roma are increasingly seen as a group that challenges the principle of territorial democracy and the Westphalian international order. Most of the above detailed roma-specific bodies and documents subscribe to
25. in 1934 the newly elected Gypsy king Jozef Kwiek sent a delegation to the League of nations to ask for land in Southern Africa (specifically namibia) so that the Gypsies could have their own state there. At the same time the alternative king Micha ii Kwiek travelled to india in order to specify the location of the future Gypsy state (somewhere along the shores of the river Ganges). After his trip he began to support the idea that the state should be in Africa (Uganda) and travelled to Czechoslovakia and England to seek support for his idea. in 1936 the next king, heir to Joseph, Janusz Kwiek, sent a delegation to Mussolini asking for some land in Abyssinia (at that time occupied by italy) where the Gypsies could have their own state. 26. The concept of the roma as a nation without a state was suggested and developed in many articles by a non-roma individual, Paolo Pietrosanti from italy, an influential member of the transradical party, was co-opted into the international romani Union leadership (even though it was not very clear how this happened) as early as the mid-1990s. others trace back the idea of transnational or non-territorial minority to the French sociologist Jean-Pierre Ligeois (Guy 2001). 27. However, according to the Acton and Klmov-Alexander (2001), the manifesto was issued after the Congress itself, so the delegates did not approve it.

14

mrton rvid

such an approach by declaring the Gypsies to be a true European minority28 or a special minority with transnational character.29 Are the roma an exceptional nation, then? Following Baubck, the roma can be seen as special kind of transborder minority (Baubck 2007). Simple transborder minorities have been historically cut off from a neighbouring kin. Such is the case of the Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and romania. in addition, however, four complex cases can be distinguished that emerge from successively dropping, one by one, the following assumptions: (a) that the conflict is between a majority within a nationalising state and a minority with an external kin-state; (b) that the conflict occurs within a state with internationally recognised borders and a prima facie claim to territorial integrity and independence; (c) that for each group with strong external ties there is a kin-state with which it identifies; and (d) that each group has at least some territorial homeland where it can or could realise aspirations of national self-government. These four points will now be elaborated. (a) The first complex case is that of a divided minority with several external kin-states. Moldova and Cyprus are examples of such a constellation. (b) The second constellation relates to disputed territories. Kashmir and northern ireland illustrate this type. in both provinces, the population is deeply divided over the question into which of the neighbouring states it should be incorporated. in Kashmir there is no internationally recognised border and neither india nor Pakistan has renounced their claims to the province. northern ireland is different because it is recognised as part of the United Kingdom, but the British government itself has stated that it would respect a plebiscite in the province in favour of (re)unification with ireland. (c) There are transborder minorities without kin-states. Most of these stateless nations live in a traditional homeland that is confined within the borders of a state. Some diaspora groups, however, hail from ethnic and national minorities in their countries of origin and emigrated because they felt oppressed by the state institutions. instead of expecting external support from their state of origin, they themselves provide political support for co-ethnics remaining in the homeland. dropping the assumption that there is an independent external kin-state generates yet another type of transborder minorities. These are minorities whose culture has not been established in any state and who live in a traditional homeland that stretches across an international border. in Europe, the Catalans and Basques might be characterised in this way. (d) Finally, there are dispersed minorities that do not have a territorial homeland where they could realise aspirations of national self-government. What if the group has neither a kin-state that provides external support nor a terri28. Council of Europe: Assembly recommendation 1203 (1993) on the Gypsies of Europe. 29. decade of roma inclusion, Call for European Roma Policy, 25 Feb. 2008.

one-size-fits-all roma?

15

tory where it could realise aspirations to self-government? The simple answer is that these groups are unlikely to develop such aspirations in the first place. This answer is, however, not entirely sufficient because extreme forms of segregation and oppression might generate in such dispersed ethnic groups a sense that independent nation-building is their only hope for protection or even for sheer survival. This explains the attraction of the Zionist response to European anti-Semitism in the first half of the twentieth century. today, the roma populations fit most closely the description as a dispersed transnational minority. The vision of a non-territorial, dispersed, transnational nation was indeed taken up by a fraction of romani elite Unlike the common situation of ethnic minorities who are more or less confined to certain territories or regions, romani communities are dispersed both within and across the boundaries of countries, states and continents in a world-wide diaspora (Acton and Gheorghe 2001: 63) and some scholars: The uniqueness of the Gypsies lies in the fact they are a transnational, non-territorially based people who do not have a home a state to provide a haven or extend protection to them (Brny 2002: 2). However, the vision of a nation without a state can be criticised on several grounds. (1) numerous research projects point out that often either the communities labelled roma are unaware of the vision or they do not identify with it. (2) others consider the claim to be such a non-territorial nation, from a pol-

dispersed minorities Minorities without kin-state Minorities of disputed territories divided minorities with several kin-states transborder minorities Figure 2. types of minority

16

mrton rvid

itical perspective, to be harmful or counterproductive. (3) Finally, the moral standing of the claim may also be contested. (1) First, several anthropologists have pointed out that numerous Gypsy, Sinti, Gitano and other communities do not see themselves as roma. in other words, they claim that it is not possible to replace such pejorative exonyms as cikn in Czech, cygan in Slovak and cigny in Hungarian by an officially declared endonym, namely that of roma. Guy y Blasco claims that for over five hundred years, the Gypsy diaspora has been characterised by its extreme political and structural fragmentation, and by the weakness of any overarching Gypsy imagined community. She argues that the Gitano community in Jarana is not aware of the roma activist movement and would not identify with its aims. This community is characterised by the weakness of any frames of communal reference external to Gitano individuals themselves (Gay y Blasco 2002: 184). in brief, the diversity of groups labelled roma is quite a serious factor in the community. Some authors even ask the question how realistic it is to use the concept of community (let alone nation) for a group of people whose mother tongues are not only the various dialects of romanes but also Arabic, turkish, Greek, Albanian, romanian, Hungarian, Spanish and others, while, furthermore, groups with various preferred (i.e. publicly declared or even really experienced) different, non-Gypsy ethnic identities are quite common. Sometimes the awareness of community unity in some regions may be absent altogether (or it may exist on lower levels) and the Gypsies may not be aware of the existence of bigger community subdivisions (Marushiakova and Popov 2004: 89). And even amongst those groups that identify themselves as roma, existing studies suggest that they would like to integrate politically and socially in their respective nation-state and do not wish for the recognition of a nonterritorial nation (vermeersch 2006). (2) The vision of non-territorial nation may also be abused or lead to severe undesired consequences. national governments can take up this discourse to diminish their own responsibility by Europeanising the problem of the roma, national governments may seek to free their own nation from the burden of roma. The concept of a nation without a state may also contribute to ethnicisation of social problems and undermine inter-ethnic solidarity and cooperation. The propagation of roma nationhood may incite radical nationalism amongst roma and non-roma alike. Xenophobic and racist organisations can urge exclusionary and segregationist policies for members of the roma nation, if not their outright expulsion from the country. international governmental bodies (such as the Council of Europe) and non-governmental organisations (such as the European roma and traveller

one-size-fits-all roma?

17

Forum) may take up the discourse of non-territorial nation and true European minority in order to justify trans-European governance and their own role in such a structure (Kovats 2003). (3) Finally, the cosmopolitan or post-national vision advocated in the Declaration of Nation may not even be morally desirable. Kymlicka argues that liberal nationhood should be tamed not transcended in the form of post-national or cosmopolitan citizenship. The idea of unbundling rights from citizenship is not, in and of itself, a politically progressive position. For many on the right in Germany, it was a tool for avoiding the granting of full and equal citizenship. [. . .] temporary unbundling is politically progressive if and when it serves as a step towards rebundling in the form of full and equal citizenship within the framework of liberal nationhood.(Kymlicka 2006: 138) However, at least two arguments can be raised against Kymlicka. First, the nation-state is not the sole site of our democratic attachments. Even if formal transnational democratic institutions (such as the European Parliament) are premature, it is difficult to deny the existence and emergence of non-national modes of belonging, such as long-term residency, binationality, and transnationality as may be the case with roma. Secondly, modalities of non-national citizenship may arise along with rather than in place of national citizenship (Benhabib 2006: 172). Let us return to the original dilemma: should the roma be seen as a national minority or as a non-territorial nation? Are the two options mutually exclusive? The claim to be a non-territorial nation can be interpreted in at least two ways. (i) Some argue that the claim was made for strategic purposes; (ii) others stress the inherent value of the claim referring to the roma as an exceptional, avant-garde nation. The former may fit the present international order, whereas the latter seeks to transform it. (i) By raising the ethnic status of roma from minority to nation, with its own parliament, the international romani Union aims to increase its power of leverage with both national governments and international bodies. The hope is that this strategy will lead to increased funding to improve the material conditions of roma, thus strengthening their social identity (Guy 2001: 22). in addition, the claim to special status may also be the consequence of the inadequacy of the existing national and international legal instruments (such as the European Framework Convention for national minorities) for improving the social status of roma. in brief, one can argue that although the roma are striving for recognition as a nation, their real political motive is not roma statehood, but a greater say in how their own problems are solved, i.e. greater political participation (Thelen 2005: 46).

18

mrton rvid

(ii) More radically, in the context of an expanding and changing, multiethnic Europe, some believe that the role of romani activism is to spearhead the deconstruction of the idea of majority nations and, perhaps in consequence, bring about nothing less than the abolition of the nation-state:
romani activists are stuck with their cosmopolitanism; they cannot cop out from it with an imitation Zionism or any other kind of ethnic particularism. in fact, while Jews can still imagine that they have learnt from the Holocaust that only having a place of their own can protect them from a repetition, for roma the lesson is the opposite. For them the twentieth-century Holocaust abolished the protection of the mehalla, the ghetto, the segregated pariah nomadism, and the other sanctuaries that emerged as refuges after the holocaust of the sixteenth century. There is no substitute for having human rights everywhere; this is the logic of seeking to define roma as a transnational rather than a national minority. it is not so much that the rights of ethnic minorities must be protected, as that ethnic majorities must be in themselves deconstructed. The foundation of global human law must shift from the self-contradictory illusion of national self-determination to a new bedrock of individual human self-determination. The unfolding agenda of Gypsy activism may be nothing less than the abolition of the nation-state. (Acton and Gheorghe 2001: 68)

Conclusions This article has discussed three moral and political dilemmas that inevitably arise in the context of the emerging European roma policy, and on which all concerned parties, including grassroots romani organisations, will be able to express their views. The first concerns the matter of whether anti-discrimination measures based on universal individual rights are sufficient to promote the social inclusion of roma or whether those based on group-differentiated minority rights are required to ensure the exercise of their fundamental human rights. Even though there appears to be a consensus on the insufficiency of the former approach, it is unclear exactly what sorts of minority rights should be promoted which leads us to the second dilemma of generic versus targeted minority rights. Although populations labelled roma may confront similar forms of discrimination, for instance in education, housing or health care, which affirmative desegregation measures may counter, these groups also differ in many respects that do not only concern specific issues of cultural identity30 but are directly relevant for issues of social exclusion.
30. As opposed to the claim of a recent EU document: Commission of the European Communities, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Community Instruments and Policies for Roma Inclusion, CoM (2008) 420, Brussels 2008.

one-size-fits-all roma?

19

For instance, concerning questions of nomadic lifestyle, language and asylum there are genuine differences amongst romani populations on whether to promote the civic inclusion in common institutions or to protect the culture, language and customs from assimilation and majority institutions. These differences must be respected: one-size-fits-all-roma measures should be thoroughly debated. The third dilemma is whether to recognise roma as a national minority or as a non-territorial nation. The article has argued that the notion of nonterritorial nation can be debated on anthropological, political and moral grounds. Anthropologists have pointed out that often either the communities labelled roma are unaware of the vision of a non-territorial nation or they do not identify with it. others consider the claim politically harmful or counterproductive. Finally, the moral standing of such a post-national vision may also be contested. However, the claim to be a non-territorial nation may also be promoted for strategic purposes and this is where the three dilemmas converge. The present international and European legal framework guarantees only minimalistic generic rights to minorities: essentially the rights to enjoy their own culture. This framework is clearly insufficient to tackle the various patterns of exclusion that roma face. As a result, roma-specific international bodies and policies have emerged that try to exert pressure on national governments to promote the inclusion of roma. The real political motive behind the claim to be a non-territorial nation then is international recognition and greater political participation. nonetheless, the political participation of romani populations remains weak on local, national31 and international levels, but the normative assessment of these structures remains the subject of another inquiry. What conclusions can be drawn specifically in relation to the role of the European Union and its emerging roma strategy? The European Union has gradually recognised that anti-discrimination measures in themselves are not sufficient to promote the social integration of roma. A recent working document recommends EU bodies to focus on the poverty of geographically concentrated post-transitional rural and suburban underclass to which the majority of EUs roma population is directly subject to or indirectly threatened by.32
31. For instance, the Hungarian minority self-government system provides irrelevant, sometimes counterproductive, entitlements such as the provision for separate minority education justifying segregation while it does not provide legal protection to mistreated members of the community or enable them to have a say in the shaping of local welfare regulations and in weeding out their hidden discriminatory measures (Szalai 2003). 32. Working document on the EU strategy on the social inclusion of roma, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. rapporteur: Lvia Jrka, 28 Sept. 2010.

20

mrton rvid

(1) This is a legitimate and vital policy focus; however, it explicitly excludes the complex phenomena of ethnicity-based discrimination [and] issues of migration33 and implicitly the social difficulties of all other roma groups who do not live in impoverished post-communist regions. in my view, the European Union cannot leave behind irish travellers struggling for adequate stopping places or Ashkali immigrants forced into concentration camp like campi nomadi in italy to illustrate two problems not addressed by the emerging EU roma Strategy. (2) Furthermore, the social integration of roma can be successful only if it is coupled with their increasing recognition. Educational integration programs are doomed to fail as long as white parents prefer to put their children in allwhite classes. Moving roma families from slums to decent houses in white neighbourhoods will only lead to white-flight and new forms of ghettoisation while non-roma do not accept roma neighbours. integration programs will work only if both the majority and minority want to and are able to recognise each other and live together. (3) Finally, it is precisely associating roma with misery and extreme poverty that reproduces stereotypes preventing the recognition and integration of roma. The EU should foster all grassroots and national efforts aiming at the recognition of roma culture, history, art, films etc. For instance, accredited history textbooks in Hungary still ignore roma history, including the persecution of roma in the Second World War (rvid et al. 2007). There are still hardly any roma tv presenters, movie stars or other respected public figures that could be role models. These are only two examples of how stereotypes hindering the integration of roma could be broken down. in sum, anti-discrimination measures and the development of the poorest post-transition micro-regions cannot be efficient in themselves. A roma middle class has to emerge alongside a culture of equality and diversity. As the positive actions of the US Federal Government played a crucial role in the social integration and recognition of the African-American community from the 1960s, the European Union could be the catalyst for contesting the institutionalised forms of suppression roma face in todays Europe. References
Acton, Thomas, and Gheorghe, nicolae. 2001. Citizens of the world and nowhere: Minority, ethnic and human rights for roma. in: Guy, Will, ed. Between past and future: The roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 5471. and ilona Klmov-Alexander. 2001. The international romani Union. An EastEuropean Answer to West European Questions? in in: Guy, Will, ed. Between
33. ibid.

one-size-fits-all roma?

21

past and future: The roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 157227. Brny, Zoltn. 2002. The East European Gypsies: regime change, marginality and ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baubck, rainer. 2007. The trade-off between transnational citizenship and political autonomy. in: Faist, t. and Kivisto, P., eds. dual citizenship in global perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 6972. Benhabib, Seyla. 2006. Another cosmopolitanism with commentaries by Jeremy Waldron, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka. oxford: oxford University Press. Courthiade, Marcel. 2003. rom. Encyclopdia Universalis. http://www.universalis-edu. com/encyclopedie/rom/ ErrC. 2009. The European roma rights Centre calls for vigorous investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of hate crime in Hungary. Foszt, Lszl. 2003. diaspora and nationalism: An anthropological approach to the international romani Movement. regio (1). Gay y Blasco, Paloma. 2002. Gypsy/roma diasporas: introducing a comparative perspective. Social Anthropology 10 (2): 173188. Guy, Will. 2001. romani identity and post-Communist policy. in: Guy, Will, ed. Between past and future: The roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 333. , ed. Between past and future: The roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kis, Jnos. 2009. A cignykrds kriminalizlsa. HvG (8). Klmov-Alexander, ilona. 2005. The romani voice in world politics. Aldershot: Ashgate. Kovats, Martin. 2003. The politics of roma identity: Between nationalism and destitution. open democracy. July, 18. Kymlicka, Will. 2006. Liberal nationalism and cosmopolitan justice. in Benhabib, S., ed. Another cosmopolitanism with commentaries by Jeremy Waldron, Bonnie Honig, Will Kymlicka. oxford: oxford University Press. 12846. Kymlicka, Will. 2007. Multicultural odysseys: navigating the new international politics of diversity. oxford: oxford University Press. Ligeois, Jean-Pierre. 2007. roma in Europe. Council of Europe. Majtnyi, Balzs, and vizi, Balzs, eds. 2006. A minority in Europe. Selected international documents regarding the roma. Budapest: Gondolat Kiad. Marchand, Anna. 2001. La protection des droits des tsiganes dans lEurope daujourdhui: lments de lapproche internationale. Paris: Harmattan. Marushiakova, Elena, and Popov, vesselin. 2004. The rom: A nation without a state? Historical background and contemporary tendencies. Mitteilungen des SFB differenz und integration 6: Segmentation und Complimentaritt. orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 14. rvid, Mrton, Brczi Mikls, Szab, Kinga, and Kakucs, nomi. 2007. The representation of roma Holocaust in Hungarian high-school textbooks. in: recommendations for roma Holocaust Education. Szalai, Jlia. 2003. Conflicting struggles for recognition: Clashing interests of gender and ethnicity in contemporary Hungary. in: Hobson, B., ed. recognition struggles and social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 188214.

22

mrton rvid

Szelnyi, ivn, and Ladnyi, Jnos. 2001. The social construction of roma ethnicity in Bulgaria, romania and Hungary during market transition. review of Sociology 7(2): 7889. . 2006. Patterns of exclusion: Constructing Gypsy ethnicity and the making of an underclass in transitional societies of Europe. new York: Columbia University Press. Thelen, Peter. 2005. roma Policy: The long walk towards political participation. in: Thelen, P., ed. roma in Europe: from social exclusion to active participation. Skopje: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. 774. trehan, nidhi. 2001. in the name of the roma? The role of private foundations and nGos. in: Guy, Will, ed. Between past and future: The roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press. 134157. vermeersch, Peter. 2006. The romani movement: Minority politics and ethnic mobilization in contemporary Central Europe. oxford and new York: Berghahn Books.

Copyright of Romani Studies is published by Liverpool University Press, and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without Liverpool University Press's express written copyright permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.