Chapter in Turkey

CEU eTD Collection In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in THE ROMANI MOBILIZATION IN TURKEY MOBILIZATION THE ROMANI Supervisor: Assistant Professor Matteo Fumagalli Department of Political Science Political of Department Central European University European Central Budapest, Hungary Political Science Political Ayca Arkilic Submitted to Submitted 2008 By CEU eTD Collection constitute mainthe constitute explaining factors of theweakness Romani inthe mobilization Turkey. fragmentation, inframings,andidentify factthatthe clashes they primarily themselves as Turk lacklack prejudices,financial of of organizational solidarity,experience, problems, lack education, that of leaders, Iconclude of Romani the framings Basedon the mobilization. Romani Turkish the to threat and anopportunity both as acts EU the Furthermore, Roma. a sense they the appearas leadamong since of an to solidarity opportunity renovation projects Turkish legislation minorities ison hindering main the mobilizationthreat this whereas urban a strong case,at Iaim display why to Turkishthe is Romani mobilization weak. Iarguethatthe inmobilization Turkey with Romanithe mobilization in isHungary included. by Thus, looking Romani the of comparison brief a Roma, Turkish the on focuses thesis this although Moreover, in April in 2008. interviewsand Budapest Izmir,These wereconducted Edirne, Istanbul withfour five experts. interviews leaders and Romani in-depth conducted research relies on Romani leaders find to outintrinsic the reasons of weaknessthe of mobilization.this This EU) onthe Romani mobilization in Turkey. examine Ialso theframing done bythe Turkish (the andstructure structure domestic the opportunity supranational political opportunity political whichmobilization. factors the hinder Insodoing,spur or this impactof the Ianalyze the and mobilization Romani Turkish the of weakness the of reasons the explore to seeks thesis This Abstract i CEU eTD Collection thank himfor being thatpatient, and for making my life more meaningful since wemet. interviews but also byMoreover, his tothiscontributions research,notonly by meaccompanyingmy in allof collecting any kind goes my Finally,Serdarinspiring gratitude Sahfor to deepest me make to this research. of material he can find, are hard to express.supporting me in every decision in my life. I also Uyan, Erhan Uyan, Derin Uyan, Günça Ark I also would like tothank myfamily: Ay Budapest apleasant memory. thank Eminefor Aksoy her endless encouragement and andsupport, for making my life in also I thesis. my on suggestions and comments contributions, valuable their for interviewees I am indebted toDavid Stefania Ridout, Milan,Rovid, Marton Turan Omer my and all an field extensive metoconduct enabled research. Central Europeanlot to my knowledge UniversityI alsolecturing and for Judit thank Sandor JuliaSzalai courses on a Romathe whichcontributed on the Roma Department and stimulated one. incomplete an be would thesis this comments, and insights generous of my Politicalinterest inmyformy valuablehis his and Without excitement topic throughout this guidance inthesis. this Science field. expressFirst of tomy mygratitude Fumagalliall, Iwouldliketo forsharing supervisor Matteo I am forgrateful the researchtoAcknowledgements grant which ú e and Necati e andNecati Ark ÕOÕ ç Göksel, Muharrem Göksel and R ii ÕOÕ ç, Güven Arkç, Güven To Derinand R ÕOÕ ç, Tunca Ark ç, Tunca Õ fat Göksel for Õ fat ÕOÕ ç CEU eTD Collection oaiMblzto...... 62 Romani Mobilization...... Chapter Five: The Comparison of the Turkish Romani Mobilization andtheHungarian Chapter Four: Turning to the 49 Roma: The Framing of ...... the Romani Leaders Chapter Three: The Supranational Political 34 Opportunity Structure ...... Analysis Chapter Two: The Domestic Political 21 Opportunity Structure ...... Analysis Chapter One: The Minority 11 Regime and the Roma in Turkey...... 1 Introduction...... Table of Contents ..Hnay...... 63 ...... 5.1. Hungary 4.3. Problem Framing 54 of the Romani Leaders...... 4.2. Identity 51 Framing of the Romani Leaders...... 49 4.1. Framing...... 48 ...... 3.5. Conclusion 3.4. 46 The EU as a Threat to the ...... Romani Mobilization 3.3. The EU as an Opportunity 36 to the Romani Mobilization...... 3.2. 35 Turkey and the EU: How ...... It All Started? 3.1. The Supranational 34 Political Opportunity Structure...... 2.3. Urban Renovation Projects as an 28 Opportunity to the Romani ...... Mobilization 2.2. The Turkish Legislation on Minorities as a Threat to the Romani 22 Mobilization...... 21 2.1. The Political ...... Opportunity Structure 15 1.3. The Roma in Turkey...... 13 1.2. The Minority ...... Regime in Turkey 1.1. The Minority 11 Regime in the ...... Ottoman Empire 10 9. The Structure of the Thesis...... 8 6. Methodology...... 8 5. Delimitations and Scope...... 6 4. Clarifications ...... on the Terminology 3. The 5 Significance ...... of My Research 2. Literature 2 Review on ...... the Romani Mobilization 1. The Purpose 2 and the Research Questions...... 5.1.1. The Domestic Political Opportunity 63 Structure in Hungary...... 45 ...... 3.3.4. Funding 3.3.3. 45 The Extension of ...... the Public Discussion 3.3.2. 40 The Changes in ...... the Legislation 36 3.3.1. Monitoring The Mechanism EU:Thethe of RegularReportsonTurkey 1998- 2007 25 2.2.1. The Turkish Legislation ...... on the Roma 18 1.3.2. The Roma in Turkey...... 1.3.1. 15 The History of the Roma...... 7 4.2...... “Roma” or “Çingene”? 4.1. What Does 6 Mobilization Mean?...... iii CEU eTD Collection ilorpy...... 81 Bibliography...... 76 ...... Conclusion oiiain...... 71 Mobilization...... 5.2. The Comparison of Turkish the Romani Mobilization and the Hungarian Romani 5.1.3. Identity and Problem 70 Framing of the Hungarian ...... Romani Leaders Hungarian 67 Romani Mobilization...... 5.1.2. TheSupranational The Opportunity ImpactPolitical Structure: of EUon the the iv CEU eTD Collection UYD Ulasilabilir Yasam Dernegi [Accessible Life Association] UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UN United Nations TGNA Turkish Grand National Assembly SIDA Swedish International DevelopmentAgency PHARE Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies OSI Open Society Institute OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe NGO Non-governmental Organization MP Member of Parliament MEP Member of European Parliament IGO Inter-governmental Organization ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ICCPR International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights hYd Helsinki Yurttaslar Dernegi [Helsinki Citizens Assembly] EU European Union ERRC European Roma RightCenter EDROM Edirne Romani Association Freedoms ECHR The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental CEECs Central and Eastern European countries List ofAbbreviations v CEU eTD Collection the national and European national parliament. the and European political scene sometoday, except like countries Hungary has memberswhich Romani in both in makingvoice heard or the inbeing their Romaare the that represented successful assert likesome ithard Allinis Poland countries (Klimova-Alexander Romania and to 2005,15). all, in more form incollective function a to regularly started Romani organizations 1920s- 30sthat was it Yet, Nations. of at League the directed was representation international for aspiration Nevertheless, apathetic. mostly are they politics; or in institutions participate it hardly they importantly, isMost argued that Romani inferiority. and feel likely pessimism, more littlemarginality, to They are wealth. receive very activism dates 14). They are often of deprived jobs,education, housing, social back or andbenefits. They produce to 19th century.collective exploitation, history elimination,through assimilation and 2005, (Klimova-Alexander The first Romanidiscrimination, racist violence, havebeen subject to people. populations integrated Roma numberis deemed tobe 10-15millionaround in world.the Romani Congress, the Fourth According(Vermeersch their to 2005,13). inKlimova-Alexander lifestyle andcommon race (nomadism cultural abiologicalpractices); or and as kinship, group by characterized and culture a typical asagroup inpatterns); migration andcommon roots India 13). The Roma canbe As defined inthree (witha historicalways: diaspora common historic 2005, the entire world throughout (Klimova-Alexander nation scattered UN sees Roma asa the extremely subgroupshave features. The allRomani own cultural and theirdiverse, ethnic and community itis 1960s.since the acknowledged However, is Romani thatthe community Introduction The Roma are among the world’s most disadvantaged, most persecuted and least and most persecuted most disadvantaged, world’s the among are The Roma ethnic Romani the of members all for umbrella an as used term is apolitical “Roma” 1 CEU eTD Collection Romani movementin Central Europe, and he traces the reasons forits successes and failures. He establisha to attempts been thereany have answer question whether the to aims Vermeersch byhis Vermeersch in book, (2007).In Mobilization Peter Central Contemporary Europe” 2. Literature Review on the Romani Mobilization my thesis. of center the in is inTurkey mobilization Romani the mentioned, as Nevertheless, mobilization. Turkish the Romani weakness of the of reasons intrinsic Therefore, my 8). 2004, (Vermeersch CEECs the country among other than any rights minority collective aim is to compare in of codification further the Hungary much has gone liesinthat fact the Hungary chose a successful I why reason The Hungary. in mobilization Roma the with Turkey in mobilization Romani the case and a weak include of is abrief a comparative Ishall comparison study, anot Although Turkey.this thesis case in order framingthe to of Romanithe leaders understand weaknessthe to Romaniof the mobilization in display the Moreover, theinternal among factors the Romani activists should also be by analyzed looking at indiscern mobilizationfactors thatRomani Turkey. fosterandhinder be the to the examined should namely in EU the opportunity structure, structure political supranational the and Turkey andinternal should factors factors beIn sodoing, domestic analyzed. the opportunity political understand both that external Istate in to that, mobilization In isRomani Turkey?” order weak the “why mobilization?” and Romani theTurkish stimulate hinder or “which factors asks this Europe.Therefore, thesis and Eastern thatof Central the particularly Romani mobilizations, other to mobilization compared has beenaweak mobilization Romani Turkey. Turkish The 1. The Purpose and the Research Questions This research draws on the book “The Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic The main purpose of this research is provide astudy to mobilizationon Romani the in 2 CEU eTD Collection 3). I find this study interesting since it displays how the level of political mobilization of the of mobilization political of level the how displays it since interesting study this find I 3). Romanithe mobilization,political status, identity the marginality and Romathe of (Barany 2001, differentdenote minority policies on Roma,the andhowthese regime changes have influenced regime countries these of different types how traces The book as cases. andPoland, Macedonia Czech chooses Bulgaria, the and Hungary, (2001) Slovakia, Romania, Republic, Ethnopolitics” Roma. European and Central the Eastern of mobilization political on the studies already previous are there sees that also one contribution, his in appreciating However, of Roma. the role political on the written been much has not thatalso with I book, Vermeersch agreed Whilereading this case. Romanithe mobilization sincethis book findI the use of movementssocial literature very innovative and interesting for my on thesis based Iparticularly movements. Romani European andCentral OSCE on Europe of Council EU, of the impact the anddiscusses context, international political the to also turns issue.He frame the how inthesecountries activists Romani the out and points electoral politics non- and electoral both he explores Moreover, contexts. political domestic post-communist Moreover, they all have seen risethe of activists and organizations since 1990s. research since they for his a political andHungary Poland intoHechose CzechRepublic, mobilize movement. mass seem to be similarto havefailedyet, organizations, international of attention the in attracting Roma succeeded in terms of their 2). Hepoints out that hasthe (Vermeersch 2007, neglected been communisthighly actors Roma political as past and sincerecent the emphasis has been on the economichistories. and social movement apolitical as conditions Roma the examined have of the scientists Roma.social few Thevery role that of striking itthe finds Zoltan Barany’s book entitledZoltan Barany’s Gypsies: “The book Regime East European Marginality Change, To analyze the Romani movement in these countries, he looks at their communist and 3 CEU eTD Collection participation participation and organization” by KolukirikandSuat (2007)is Sule Toktas important another “Turkey`s itRoma:Turkish Political and problems organized. the ingetting states of Roma the Turkish the Roma] (2005)appearsasavital toaddress.Thisissource published article in Cingenelerinin Arzederken [Organization Problems Sorunlari of “SecaatMerd: Turk Orgutlenme study shall solely rest on the analysis of the EU. my scholars, three these unlike interesting, equally is perspective UN the although Moreover, using a global non-state Romani activism,than rather as I mentioned, thesis, my in yet study my I to aimuse to analyze great of is also book the This Roma in activism. Turkey. Romani global investigates how the political structureopportunity atthe UN levelinfluences non-state the author The action. non-state to example an as given are Roma the since standpoint global a from mobilization Romani the takes book This UN. the with interact activists Romani the The essence of the book is devoted to how the Romani issues UNfora. the at analyzesrepresentation theRomani book of The Romani activism. literature the are dealt with at the UN and how (2005)shouldNations Actors” and Non-State be also mentioned in pioneering asanother source hand, has stimulated my interest to make a research on the Turkish Roma. the on other fact, This Roma. Turkish the of to that irrelevant quite actually are experiences whose Roma European Eastern and Central the of analysis the to devoted is also book this relevant example to my thesis ofsince the IGOs it andis NGOsone affectof the the few state studies activities asthe policies aswell mobilization, political on andefforts conditions Roma the what extent to on towardsRomani the activism.Roma. This book However, also constitutesRoma differ/ remain the same as they are dispersed in different countries. Barany also wonders a When we look to the literature on the Turkish Romani mobilization, the book chapter book the mobilization, Romani Turkish the on literature the to look we When Ilona-Klimova “The Alexander’s book RomaniVoicein World Politics: The United 4 CEU eTD Collection Progress Report reiterates the same number (2006, 23). (2006, number same the reiterates Report Progress study Bilgiin University suggest that the Roma population inTurkey is around two million. The EU 2006 Turkey InternationalRomani Conference, whichwas2005 cooperationthe in with held EDROMof UYD and arecent and Suat10). Kolukirik and Sule Toktas argue that Roma the population inTurkey is around 1 million(2007, 763). The 1 itisvery this in overtly, biggestRomathe theworld.respect, hosts one Turkey of In populations study Emineof OnaranIncirliogluandKolukirik (2005), Suat (2007). andToktas Sule foreign scholars despiteand Turkish theconsiderablenumber of in Roma the except the Turkey Roma, Turkish Roma as an ethnic mobilization group has been almost totally overlooked both by 3. TheSignificance of My Research studies; yet, it is solely conducted with local Roma in one district. Turkish the Romani immensely to contributes research Admittedly, this organization tendencies. and theirparticipation demonstrate political to local Roma people with interviewsconducted the from findingsderived to the is study devoted of the since briefly very core the these are covered yet addressed, are also legislation domestic and participation Roma the EUon impactof the the article provides valuable hints on thelow mobilization of the Roma. Moreover, some remarks on advent andin funeral adhoc interviewsinterviews. and ceremonies, thestreet household This in in districtthis house visits, traditional visits,coffeehouse attendance atweddings, spring with conducted of Roma surveysthe andinterviews living districtwere Izmir. The questionnaire study isan individual-centric conductedon is approach and based gatheredin on data Tarlabasi This 2007, 764). viewperception andToktas analyzed(Kolukirik arealso identity worldandas membership, European self- Moreover,views Turkey’s Union their their on prospective Roma. theTurkish of citizenship of experience and perception and organization, participation, political the of profile the display to aims study This in English. published is which source TheERRC statesreport estimated that the Romapopulation inTurkey is between300.000- 500.000 (Petrova 2004, Although there are some significant studies on the socio-economic approaches to the to approaches socio-economic the on studies significant some there are Although 5 1 As seen CEU eTD Collection distribution of distribution (Vermeerschof power 2007,28). adherents in toattemptorder to bring political about change, attempt and to influence political is mobilization by organize process the which actors political andcollective efforts find Vermeersch, Peter 280). According of andorganized”2002, demonstrations (Barany to protests the established, number programs accumulated, of amountresources of itaction can and into commitment a transforming requires Mobilization standing”. social and conditions collective’s given the of improvement the discrimination; economic and social, political, of cessation “the realizeas political goalsbecome such their activeindividuals agroupof to words, 69). In other active an to individuals of collection passive a being from ends.” (Olzak in 2002, mobilizationBarany 280). Political is“the processby which a identity feature of example,language, inpursuitskin color, (for collective of ethnic customs) 4.1. What Does Mobilization Mean? 4. Clarifications on theTerminology analysis. elite-level an make to aims it therefore, with in my Romani the cities, leaders three isconducted research Moreover, consideration. supranational and structures) internal the Romani leaders)(the dynamics influenceitinto which the and domestic (the external the both takes which analysis broad a making by mobilization provide literaturemy the is adetailed Romani to to contribution on study Turkish the Therefore, be solved. should which puzzle a theoretical also but empirical an only not constitutes mobilization. I believe that most Romani the notably Turkish tothe see a Roma, in regarding gap interesting literature to the analyze the reasons of the weakness of the Romani mobilization Ethnic mobilization isEthnic defined as“the mobilization process by which organizegroups around some be measured “by the active membership the be created, “bythe activeof organizations measured the 6 participant in life.”participant 1978, public (Tilly and the number and size and number the and the existing the group goes group CEU eTD Collection Russian “tygane”,“zingari”, Spanish “gitano” Italian are wordsthe used “ciganyok”, to address the RomaHungarian (Petrova 2004,11). “zigeuner”, German “gitanes”, French “tsigani”, Bulgarian specifically, 3 ideas. exchange and basis ona regular Roma the on conferences national attend associations these from representatives Furthermore, associations. Romani many are there since 2 asabetter been hasprefered “Roma” few a for years, whereas refer Roma people tothe to in mobilization isTurkey a weak one. Romani the agreed that most of them “mobilization”, define their to how on researchers having very history. a short During when myinterviews, leadersI askedtheRomani and process of Romani political mobilization (Vermeersch 2007, 13). mobilization (Vermeersch of process Romani political Romani language (Petrova2004,7).The usage term“Roma”the of ishighly with connected the masculinein “people” plural in gender means negative “Roma” the has connotations. often 4.2. “Roma”or “Çingene”? change. political astrong than rather rights demanding and awareness, raising breaking prejudices, associations, establishing aprocess of israther Turkey” politicalis what Therefore, impliedchange. inthis by mobilization in thesis “the Romani almostfor adream the Turkish Romabe to granted political bringrepresentation and about is it hence rights, basic even lack still Roma the importantly, Most in Turkey. Roma the for and protests organized for and by the Roma intoconsideration. These all remain very insufficient established, programs numberof the associations, the the membershipRomani of organizations, mobilization”“weak inthis study, shouldthe one take past of mobilization,the active the defining years. while for of Thus, acouple only areactive decade,andthey inestablished this In various languages, the words “cigan”, “cikan”, “cigany”, “gypsy” are used to define the Roma. More Roma. the define to used are “gypsy” “cigany”, “cikan”, “cigan”, words the languages, various In Only my interviewee Adrian Marsh (2008) argued that the Roma mobilization iscurrently weaknot inTurkey When we look at the Roma in Turkey, we see that their mobilization is a very infant one infant very is a mobilization their that see we in Turkey, Roma the at look we When The term The “Roma”,isterm the by ethnocultural preferedself-appellation many “Gypsy” since 2 The Romani associations have only started to be to started only have associations Romani The 7 amount of resources accumulated to Romani and the number and size of demonstrations of size and number the and 3 In “çingene” is Turkey, used CEU eTD Collection in these migration waves in the next chapter. next the in waves migration these in Central and Eastern Europe viaAnatolia (Sampsonin Kolukirik and Toktas 2007, 762).More detail shall be given 5 4 2008). thethat Roma in belongTurkey “the to Rom”and group thus shouldbe named as so(Marsh for names Roma local the inTurkey. are numerous used “Roma”word distracts them from identity their very ethnic 2006,127).Furthermore,(Aksu there the that claiming “Gyspys” as themselves identify still Roma some Yet Roma. the by substitute Helsinki Citizens Assembly Turkey and who has been working in the ERRC. I chose three cities three chose I ERRC. in the working been has who and Turkey Assembly Citizens Helsinki was in February with2008 inBudapest Mr. Sinan Gokcen, who wasone of foundersthe of the interview goingmy Before toTurkey, first interviewson conducted. research in-depth the rests 6. Methodology Roma, therefore, provisions or amendsments on other minorities are left out. Turkish legislation the regarding Moreover, Six. in Chapter added be shall inHungary mobilization Romani the with on minorities,brief comparison a mobilization, Romani Turkish the of weakness of the reasons the illuminate this thesis seeks Thesole in to Greece. is in of or this Romaresearch focus the living However, Bulgaria Turkey. to focus on the provisions aim beprovideshould thisthat study not noted living Roma astudy does to on, say,Turkish the relatedit Yet, Roma”. Turkish “the phrase the across mightcome with reader the study, ofthe parts certain the 5. Delimitations andScope international terminology, Ishall utilize the umbrella term “Roma” throughout my thesis. “The Rom” is the names. largest local of these list the for Turkey” Romain immigrating “The section the One, Chapter see Please group among the Roma, moving from India to the west, to the Balkans, and 5 However, in agreeing with this statement, in order to keep the entirety of the This study This study shall drawinformation from primary and secondary sources. The core of this isThis study shed attempt to lighton an Romanithe mobilization solely in Turkey. In 8 4 In addition to that, some scholars argue some scholars that, to Inaddition CEU eTD Collection 9 2008). 8 7 6 of my interviews. Myfieldwork and interviews in Turkey were conducted in April 2008 and all inall ask follow-upquestions had achance to in advance,I had preparedquestions Although I shortest of my interviews lasted fifty andminutes, longest the lasted around two and a half hours. The ERRC. in the working been has who Danka Anita Mrs. expert and lawyer with Roma interview Hungarian ane-mail the on conducting conducted Ialso Roma. studies Turkish on the andscholar researcher isaprominent Marsh, who Adrian Mr. was interviewee last My Istanbul. (hYd) Assembly Citizens Helsinki the from Uzpeder Ebru Mrs. with interviews my continued Romani activist andjournalistMrs. Hacer Foggo regarding the forced evictions. In Istanbul, I is Mr. SukruPunduk Associationwho headof the Sulukulethe Romani interview,an in-depth Ihadattend theaninternational chanceto inmeeting andtalk Sulukule to Abdullah Cistir, whois the head of the Izmir Romani Association inFederation Turkey. My second and interviewsthird in were conducted IzmirMr. with (EDROM). Association Romani Edirne time. of period short in this interviews conduct me to enabled each which other to located areclosely they Thirdly, active. quite are cities inthese associations Romani Secondly, reside biggest the cities. the population inthese Romani First, threefold: for my interviews in Turkey: Edirne, Izmir and Istanbul. The reason why I chose them is Association. Mr. Zafer Sulukculer who are the founders and the co-heads of the Izmir Contemporary Romani Its full name is“Sulukule RomaSocial Cooperation andSolidarity Association” (Punduk 2008). Itsfull is“Izmirname Contemporary RomaSocial Cooperation and Solidarity Association” (Keser Sulukculerand Its full name is “IzmirRomani Social Cooperation and Soldiarity Association” (Cistir 2008). Its full name is“Edirne Romani Culture and Solidarity Association” (Cekic 2008). My first interviewee in Turkey was Mr. Erdinc Cekic, who is the founder and head of the 8 I then moved to Istanbul where I made a field trip to Sulukule. Although itwas not 6 He is also the head of the first and the biggest Romani 9 7 , and with Mr. HalitKeser and 9 and the prominent the and CEU eTD Collection comparison of Turkishthe Romani mobilization and the Hungarian Romani mobilization. Five abrief framings. theirprovides Chapter leaders and of internalto the Romani the dynamics turning by analyses external the completes Four Chapter in Turkey. mobilization Romani the on influencing mobilization theRomani inTurkey. Threeimpact Chapter focuses on of the EU the examinesandhistory. Two in thedomestic their Chapter political opportunity structure Ottoman Empire and in Turkey. Later on, this chapter takes a closer9. TheStructure of the Thesis look at the Turkish Roma case. of Turkish the clarify weakness to itthe is caseselection Therefore, agood strongest. why I chose reason The of casecomparison”. in in “extreme context the the HungaryHungary mobilization Romani is that make inFinally, Romani ofthe Turkey. acomparison Turkey mobilization and the Iaim to Hungary in Romani of the associations bulletins andpublications booklets, pamphlets, articles, academic is a countryother sources consist of reports of the ERRC and human rights organizations,where books, newspapers, the Romani mobilizationused. be shall interviews the from derived and information names their agreedthat my interviewees is the The structure of this thesis is as follows: Chapter One analyzes the minority regime in the benefit Ireports In additionon Turkey. from My tothat, progress greatly EU regular the 10 CEU eTD Collection (Karpat in(Karpat Ozalay 2006, 5,Kirisci andWinrow 1997,1).There existed nosub-division, and oftheSultan subjects and of Islam” “nation members of were as united Muslim inhabitants The non-Muslims. and Muslims as divided were people which to according system, millet (DavisonWithin inIcduyguandSoner2006,449). diversity, this Ottomans the established the identified itself firstly as a Muslim,Greek aJewa Christian, beinga before aKurd,or or Turk, way of identification. Therefore, despite the ethnic,main religious the was andreligion linguistic rule, Sharia to Due diversity, empire. one Islamic multi-linguistic and multi-religious multi-ethnic, the whichwasa Christians. Ottomon Turkey to greatly Empire, diversity this owes and Catholic Protestant and Bahais, Africans, Arabs, Bulgarians, Bosnians, Jews, Caucasians, Kurds, Armenians, Alevis,1.1. The Minority Regimethe in Ottoman Empire Ezidis, Assyrians,chronological order. factual Laz, information Caferis, with Romareader acquainted the in tomy Turkey prior Thus, mobilization. analysis ontheir on the Roma isRoma, provided.importance LaterRum to discern on,(Greek particular is of thethis I that movetreatmentbelieve I Turkey. modern of regime tominority in the to a undergone thehistory minorities Orthodox), in ofTurkey. alterations the the demonstrate then and Secondly,Empire, Roma Ottoman the of regime minority inI the intendexamine a to make the includedmy starting before the analysis mobilization inRomani firstly,on Therefore, Turkey. I fulfil this goal, Ibelieve that,brief information ontheminority in regime Turkey should be introduction,introduce aims chapter this to Romathe more inTurkey to elaborately.order In Turkey in Roma the and Regime Minority The One: Chapter Turkey hosts both in hosts minorities andconsiderable numberof its Turkey ethnic religious territory: Having chosen Romathe inTurkey as my in focal the of research asstated the 11 CEU eTD Collection and citizenship of the Western Europe began to alter the millet system into a new form of form a new into system millet the alter to began Europe Western the of citizenship and century, the impacts of economic, scientific and political revolutions and the concepts of equality 450). an of identity Ottoman appointed his/subject hersocio-political andlegal religious position (Icduygu andSoner2006, or classifications millet community, political same the to belonged they treatmentfrom taxes. Thus, exemptextra burden andmilitary and political affairs although of an inegalitarian to yetget this, they weresubjected to systems, belief their to and tolerance compared legal Muslims.political bestowed and status them TheOttoman to Empire a protection a lower socio- subject to non-Muslims were specifically, More and 552). 2006,449, Soner (Icduygu “other” the rule to instrument an Islamic but policy” a “minority not was system millet the Accordingly, ruled”. the of sections different the among nor ruled the and rulers the between “neither equality no was there words, In other concepts. “non-discrimination” or “equality” with donothing Yet,this alegal had to thesestatus. groups whichgave “justice” of version a certain and fiscal affairs as long as they pay their taxes (Helvacioglu 2007, 7). Be that as it may, this was juridical educational, social, religious, in autonomy communal granted were They communities. 2006: 449). Soner and Icduygu in (Ortayli them to extended was autonomy communal millet-system-like and The heterodox granted Ottoman 1985). Muslims notofficial recognition Empire were (Karpat in the term the Turk with becameidentical term Muslim the Therefore, inclusive category. all- an under uniformized were subjects Muslim the all and Islam, Sunni with themselves identified rulers Ottoman them. among differentiations sectarian and linguistic ethnic, Until the nineteenth century, this minority understanding prevailed. In the late eighteenth late the In prevailed. understanding minority this century, nineteenth the Until asGreekOrthodox, Armenian MuslimsfurtherNon- and separated Jewish were 12 CEU eTD Collection integrity integrity withinwas sought imagined the unity of Muslim the Therefore, non-Muslim elements. national Instead, Turkism. ethnic of policy exclusivist an with substituted means no by was apoliticalpromote definition Turkish of national still,identity. Yet policy the “ittihad-i of anasir new ceased Thus,the basedleaders andnational to minorities principles. onegalitarian unity of treatment of ideal the different trusting longer no newleaderswere The intellectuals. 1.2. The MinorityRegime of Turkey separation (Icduygu and 2006,450). Soner asamatter butof asamatter of in ethnic way;not freedom and equality rights a very precarious minority minorities and issueof Turkey the regarded successorstate ending, teh unfortunate followingminority disintegrationalong this with problem. the respect, this Empire the In of Montenegrin, Bulgarians, AlbaniansandArabs. Treaty The of Sevres in the 1920 furthered followed byRumanians, werewaves GreekandSerbiannationalism circumstances. the changed minorities non-Muslim of states national the in hatred growing the with nationalism egalitarian these 450-1). Onewouldthat expect 2006, (Icduygu Soner and ethno-cultural distinctions sentiments and instate acommunity notion individualsof integrated the Ottomanism equal of transcending significance to the civil, political and legal equality. The eventual goal was a classical centralized wouldethno-linguistic pleasecivil and political equality universally granted irrespective of one’s religious, sectarian and of basis the the on nation Ottoman an build affiliation. to aimed which elements) of (union anasir” minorities“ittihad-i The project of political egalitarian by milletan was replaced system Accordingly, the classical 450). Ottoman in reformsthe minority based treatment on an of a project egalitarianism (Lewisin and Icduygu 2006, Soner empire.of modernization However, (Tanzimat) alsothe attachedrise of The failure of policythe of ethnicegalitarianism spurred Turkism among some 13 CEU eTD Collection 10 form in the denied. Inthis existence them for nationality established of the was respect, Turkish shared a long history in common legal and cultural unity; as a result, national aseparate LazhadKurdsor likeCircassians, minorities ethnic asserted linguistic the and that Ataturk ethno–lingual and sectarian of differences citizens.Muslim In confirming their existence, treatment. of policies the equality set aharmoniouscitizenship and compromisedifferential between 453-4). Besides,theTurkish Lausannethe commitments, failed to 2006, to contrary authorities wasmade,citizenship” and non-Muslims in were placed category latter the (Icduygu and Soner and“Turkish (milliyet) nationality” “Turkish between astrictdistinction Moreover, minorities”. personality corporate non-Muslim but“Turkishnationalsnon-Muslimof belonging to groups to minorities. of particularities aimedframework reconcile to thenotion citizenshipof equality with group-specificthe egalitarian framework of Turkish citizenship(Oran 2004,56). Moreover, the Lausanne linguistic minorities. ethnic or recognizenot authorities republicandid the Turkish to thenational country,the unity of and athreat pose not they did as as long respected be would their rights that itwas stated minorities, citizenship equality As and differential treatment. regardstherights of non-Muslim the of principles in basedon agreedwhich PeaceTreaty of the war, was was Lausanne 1923, in aftermath national the In the of groups the andSoner2006,452). Muslim population (Icduygu sub-religious account into taken having without minorities non-Muslim to referred regulations egalitarian and issues minority and process nation-building in the involved not were minorities The Treaty of Lausanne will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. next the in detail in bediscussed will ofLausanne Treaty The The Muslim-inclusive formulationnationality homogenized ofTurkish (orassimilated) The education,Treaty granted religious and tonon-Muslimscultural rights within the 10 Therefore, minority provisions of the document referred not to the 14 CEU eTD Collection present-day Armenia and Georgia, and again the Phen-speaking Rom Western the Armenia Phen-speaking and again who took Georgia,present-day Rom and the in settled and north the to went who Lom Phen-speaking the Africa, Northern the and Palestine, in Syria, settled and route southern the took who Dom Ben-speaking The groups: migration into three separated and century tenth the endof the towards Empire theByzantine of boundary eastern Romathe the reached Popov, Vesselin and Marushiakova line scholars Elena some believed be to aprocess which longtook years (Marushiakova and2000, Popov 11). is migration their Moreover, century. fifteenth the to fifth the from ranging researchers, among from issue isahighly departure debated Huns of the TheIndia date theirand the Arabs. exact India famine,allegedly due to poverty, ethno-religious and conflicts invasionsseveral like thatof place from took migrations in These immigration various waves. involved RomaIndia, the were 1.3.1. TheHistory oftheRoma 1.3. The Roma in Turkey accommodation of Muslim (Toktas 2006, 490,Icduyguparticularities and454-6). 2006, Soner in dominant politics. legal Yet,thisindivisibleunity culture Turkish Turkish the of prohibited discrimination for Muslimcitizens. The principle of equality andcitizenshipbecame universal within theindivisible unity of national entity Turkish which aimed formal equality and non- giving everymember of Turkish-Muslimthe legal population equality beingof alike treated Lausanne conditionhas beendelimitedtheofnon-Muslimcitizens traditional rights while with Although there is no consensus on the arrival of the Roma to Byzantium, according to It is acknowledged that the Roma historically come from India (Hancock 2002). From 15 CEU eTD Collection 13, 16,Cekic 2008). dialects. Moreover, word the “Egyptian” was oftenused identical withthis word (Marushiakova Popov Persian ofthe and one 2000, in blacksmith meaning “asinkar” word or the “untouchables”, meaning “atsinganoi” word Greek 12 “Phen” (Marushiakova andPopov 2000, 12). and “Ben” dialects: two into divided was language their on, Later language. aseparate as developed it centuries, 11 Turkey on Report Rights Human for Federation Helsinki (International population the of rest the of the Romain the Ottoman Empire was based on ethnic criteria, unlike the religious criterialike allowednon-Muslim Roma mixwere not Muslimthe to Yet, with Roma groups. civilstatus the 2007, 762). It is known that the with namemajoritythe “Liva-i Cingane” of (region Gypsies)the (Gokbilgin inKolukirik and Toktas of the Roma in the region in theThrace Ottomansettled that group Roma large was a there Empire, Ottoman the In Balkans. rule were Muslims. The invasion. Ottoman In 2000, 21). addition many existingthe to Roma, moved Balkans the Roma to during the Popov and (Marushiakova in Balkans Roma already some the were there century, fourteenth in place the invasion took the Ottoman itis when that clear fact, In from Constantinople. stated thattheRoma lands Balkan the alsopenetrated fourteenth fifteenth duringthe or centuries 2004, isit11). Althougharrival back several earliercenturies dates controversial, (Dimitrova Roma.of the ancestors the to referred “atsingani” name the centuries, fourteenth the and twelfth the between from “atsingani” and is derived word“tsingani” the that bymany Roma researchers admitted “Atsingani” whocame toByzantium in 1054(Soulis in 2004,11).Dimitrova Today,itis Marushiakova andPopov 2000, 13). androute settled inAsia Minor and the (SampsonBalkans in Kolukirik and 2007, 762, Toktas There are also many theories on the origin of the word “atsinganoi” such as the name ninth eight- the of from starting a holyand century riverseventh or the sixth the in informed get India, to started language Roma The the The Roma in fallsTurkey under Rom the whichgroup migrated from Anatolia to the a heretic refer authors equippedOther magical named allegedly to sect with skills 12 . According to some. According the to arrival authors, was in 13 11 16 th century, yet, for others, the CEU eTD Collection 14 (Marushiakova and Popov 2000, 33). 13 Muslin Roma and the Christian Roma (Marushiakova and Popov 2000, 27-9). the by paid taxes the between difference substantial no was there however Roma, Christian the from distanced were Roma Muslim the above, stated as Moreover, non-Muslims. only from regardless of a disctinctionrelating of being Muslimthe werein In1475,lawsandregulations was in collected which431Roma wererecorded. 1430 or Christianpopulation Roma the concerning mention documentation tax first The paid circumstances. with changing beliefs, a poll-tax, their of ofcharacter syncretic the which reflects which thenames, Muslim and Christian wasboth used Roma The provincecollected of Rumelia. of Valachie and secure Moldavia to themselves inthe Ottoman Empire (Oprisan 2002). This principalities vassal the from collection escaped slaves Roma many that fact is the example important An treatment. European Western the to comparison in century, showseighteenth and sixteenth the during Roma the that to tolerant more was Empire Ottoman the that out point theresearchers Nevertheless, Roma, privileges, beingdiscriminationsubject to in(Ginio Kolukirik and2007, 762). Toktas and rights full lacked they and minorities as regarded not were They faith. Islamic their with Oprisan2006, 12, Notwithstanding,2002). theRoma were placedMuslim inthe dominant Millet choose a Roma “Ceribasi”, a leader to collect the taxes collect to leader a “Ceribasi”, aRoma choose Suleyman in “LawLeader 1530,andthe Concerning of issued Gypsy the the Sandjak”, in1541 status. The“Law Concerning the Gypsiesinissued the of Province Rumelia”, by Sultan theirreferences about by religion, areapopulated the theirlegal and Roma, the occupations their households, Roma the number of recorded These 34). registrations 2000, 28, Popov “Ceribasi” also refers to Roma leaders who used to lead the Roma during the migrationwaves (Cekic 2008). The Muslim Roma used to pay twenty-two akche, whereas the Christian Roma used to pay twenty-five akche During the Ottoman time, the Roma werenamed “Kibti” (Copts), “Cingene”, or“Cigan”. It is seen in the 1574 and 1638 decrees that the Ottoman leaders obliged the Roma to 17 14 (Oprisan 2002, Marushiakovaand 13 CEU eTD Collection 15 Popov, served in the Ottoman army (Oprisan 2002). For a detailed content of these laws, please see Marushiakova and Sakarya ve Corum (Minority Rights Group International Report on Turkey “Kocer”, Turkey International Reporton 2007, 12). Group SakaryaRights veCorum (Minority “Dom” in “Sihbizinli”Diyarbakir, in Erzurum, and in“Haymantos” Kayseri,Adana, Osmaniye, “Mirti/Sinop, Mutrib”and inHakkari,Mardin,of “Cano” inAdana, southern Siirt part Van, and Kastamonu Anatolia, Cankiri, livein north-east and who “Kipti” Anatolia, “Posa” across heading, local names prevail as well, such as “Roma” in Eastern Thrace, “Teber/Abdal” who live 1.3.2. The Roma in Turkey because ofbeing of consideredas“spies” Turkey. who moved wasforcedhad back tomigrate Turkeyfrom toEurope already to Balkansthe Itisof notably in firstquarter Europe. 20 the the arguedthat in Turkey fascism was to mass the of led Roma migrations the factor One to that other 2007, 3). Turkey population the between after exchange Turkey and Greecein inKolukirik 1923 (Ari Roma duetotheir living. way of the insociety despised life. Ottoman general, the a settled Yet, to in converting them succeeded These legal attempts aimed of rights self-and government relativeindependence legal (Marushiakova2000, 34). andPopov to change the nomadic certain they were granted Moreover, identity. ethno-cultural lifestyle their preserve importantly, moreand of the Romani people,With these laws, the Roma andwere entitled in to regular fact income. They were able to serve in the army legal regarding (Oprisan Ottoman 2002). are significant inthe Empire documents the Roma Sandjak is not a territorial and administrative unit, but is used inthe sense of a group of the Roma populationwho Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire The Roma in Turkey are namedas “Cingene” most commonly. this Under general In the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a high Roma population immigrated to (Hertfordshire: The University of Hertfordshire Press,2000). 18 th century, vast number of Roma 15 CEU eTD Collection Edirne, Tekirdag, Istanbul, Duzce, the fact is that the Roma in Turkey are spread all acrossworld, hosting 4-6million Roma (Marshin Yezdani 2005). the country. Nevertheless,in the Romani has largest population is that Turkey thecountry that Adrian Marshargues 23). Kirklareli, numberreiterates samethe (2006, million. Report Progress twoaround EU2006Turkey The is in in thethat Roma Turkey suggest BilgiUniversity population EDROM, andarecentstudy International Romani in heldConference, which was 2005 with cooperation the UYD and of not identity 763). The 100,000do holdisTurkish thataround cards (2007, Roma, estimated it argue Toktas thethat Roma in is population Turkey around1million and out of 1million the ashamedidentity hiding of declaring theirKolukirik and it prefer 2006,87).Suat (Aksu andSule and many do not possess identity cards. What is even more striking, yet tragic is, many Roma are by factnumber households most stated ERRCdueto the of liveinovercrowded that Roma the manyHowever, scholars claim population the of that Romathe far inTurkey beyondgo the (Petrova 2004,10). in 500.000 between Romais estimated the 300.000- Turkey population However, there exists also asmall number of Rum Orthodox and Protestant Roma in Turkey. currently, majority the of Muslim Romathe areSunni 2007,763).(Kolukirik andToktas language ismixed with Kurdish,Turkish, Greekand Persian(Oprisan 2002). Furthermore, Romani the Moreover, another. areato one from differences dialectical despite languages, Turkey “Abdoltili” Altaicuse Romani, (an languageby spoken Teber)and Turkish the in “Balamorons” named Roma,of Roma 2002). The group (Oprisan a differentGreek Christian “Arabaci” “brunetteand citizen” are other names used while referring to the Roma. There is also Despite the general perception that the Roma in Turkey reside mainly in Eastern Thrace, in mainly Eastern inreside Roma the Turkey that perception general the Despite The exact number of the Roma in Turkey is highly disputed. The ERRC report states that ø zmit,Ankara, Afyon, Izmir, Denizli, Tokat, Sivas, Samsun, 19 CEU eTD Collection settlements in the context of urban renovation projects. renovation urban of context the in settlements most currenteducation, health maltreatment and The Roma, segmentsof to other compared society,the problems housing, inadequate experience employment (The EU Progress in Turkey likereside. They, elsewhere,discrimination, aresubject to exclusion stereotyping.and Reports population Romani the that cities major the against are Mardin and Gaziantep on Kahramanmaras, Turkey Adana, 2005-7). Whatthe is the Roma is their removal and displacing from their 20 CEU eTD Collection 39). Framing concept will be furthered in the chapter.next opportunity the structure) and symbolic discursive and dimensions of (framing)mobilizations (Vermeersch2007, 16 iselement animportant of structure” approach.” “political process “political the opportunity of concept The and of (Kriesi 2004). action outcomes collective course explain emergence, the 2.1. ThePolitical Opportunity Structure Turkish Romani mobilization in light of domesticthe political opportunity structure theory. the asregards projects renovation andurban legislation the of role the analyzes this chapter Ultimately, mobilization. Romani the on impact an also have projects renovation urban ongoing the minorities and then move to the legislation on the Roma. In addition to that, I believe that the on legislation the by describing start shall I respect, this In mobilization. Romani the influencing factor main the is minorities regarding legislation the that argue I shall Turkey. in mobilization examine thischapter I shallthis One, inChapter Turkey in regime minority the aims to Empire Ottoman the of regime minority discuss to display the domesticwhere theAnalysis Structure Opportunity Political Roma Domestic The Two: Chapter reasons, are placed which in stimulatethe minority or impederegime inthe Turkey. Romani To structure asprovideincentives“consistent people offor to that structure dimensions political environment givenTarrow defines national political 1996, 3). system” (McAdam politicalet al. opportunity movementon basis the in of changes institutional or informal the structure relations of power a movements. Inother they words, explainsought to emergence the of a particular social (1983)Tarrow firmly establishedinstitutionalized link between the politics and social McAdam and Doug Sidney (1982), (1978), American like Charles emerged scholars Tilly when The political process approach attaches crucial importance to the institutional environment (the political The political process approach concentrates on the features of the political context to context of political the features on the concentrates approach process The political Having introduced minority the in conception Turkey and howit from evolved the 21 16 It CEU eTD Collection Meyerstate, opportunities open the way politicalfor action, but movements also make opportunities (1996, 276). 17 mobilization. Romani the for room little very leaves which discriminatory, is legislation main reason hinders that mobilization success the minority of the in Turkey. existing The 2.2. The Turkish Legislation on Minorities as aThreat to the Romani Mobilization projects. renovation urban and Roma, the on legislation minority The issues: two on solely focus the formal institutional structure. Thus, as regards the domestic political contextin Turkey, Iwill to refer only will I analysis, in my Yet, system. a given of structure informal the emphasize can repressionAs (McAdam seenintwo and 1996, 27). items politicalthree, structure opportunity for capacity propensity and state’s elite andthe allies of presence/absence the alignments, of elite dimensions: the openness/closure institutionalized of an political system, stability/instability the act on this shared definition of the situation” (McAdam et al. 1996, 8). becomes an opportunity when defined as sufficientlysuch byagroup of actors well organised to 283). all”(1996, opportunity at opportunities if perceived with along come they mobilization, and canstimulate values interests actors’ for action.constraintsIn (Gamsonand277). Meyereven sense,this opportunities 1996, social or to threats As Gamsonopportunities for ethnicthe mobilizations. and and threats closure, or and provide openness can system institutionalized the Therefore, 18). Meyer state, 1994, by failure” collective(Tarrow their action forsuccess or undertake expectations affecting “an opportunity unrecognized is no Yet, it should also be noted that there is an interactionbetween opportunities and movements. As Gamson and I start my analysis with the Turkish legislation on minorities since I believe that it is the it that believe I since minorities on legislation Turkish the with my analysis start I McAdam takes political as opportunity structure a combination variables four of with Thus,“perception” is vital importance inof thisprocess:“Itonly 17 Increased opportunity Increasedimplies opportunity more space and less 22 CEU eTD Collection 37 to 45 of the treaty stipulate basic rights for these minorities, such as educational minorities, suchas 37 to45of for these stipulate basicrights rights, educational treaty the only minority Armenians, aregranted protection: Greeks,andthree Articles from Jews. groups Therefore, One. Chapter in discussed as government, Turkish the by minorities as non-Muslims Slovene” State on one part and Turkey on the other. 18 and Powers between Turkey. Entente signedthe on 24July 1923 Constitution 1982). These articles put minorities in aprecarious situation. state, with its territory isand nation, indivisiblean entity. Itslanguage is Turkish” (Turkish Turkish state through bondthe of iscitizenship aTurk”.Moreover, Article 3states,“The Turkish indivisible integrity of the state. Moreover, according to Article 66, “everyone is bound to the and the Republic, the of basic characteristics public the safety, public order, security,national protecting of purposes the for berestricted may freedoms itis these that However, declared in by opinion pictures, orthrough writingspeech,media, individually or collectively.other or Article that: 24declares 10 stipulates equality the before law: the This Treaty was signed between British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the “Serbo-Croat- the and Romania, Greece, Japan, Italy, France, Empire, British between signed was Treaty This The legal basis for the minorities in Turkey basisThe legal isfor minorities the in is It Lausanne. Treaty Turkey of the a peacetreaty Article 1982. of Constitution in Turkish minorities the to reference direct no exists There Articles 25 and 26 are on freedom of expression, and dissemination of thought and his religious beliefs and convictions (Turkish Constitution 1982). Constitution (Turkish convictions and beliefs religious his of because or accused be blamed or convictions, and beliefs religious reveal to rites, and ceremonies provisions of the Article. No violate one shall not bedo they compelled toworship, that or to provided participate freely, in religiousbe conducted shall worship, ceremonies of and Acts services, religious conviction. and belief religious conscience, of freedom to right the has Everyone theirproceedings (Turkish Constitution1982). administrative authorities shall act in compliance withthe principle of equality before the law inall practice. No privilege shall be granted to any individual, family, group orclass. State organs and women have equal rights. The State shall have the obligation to ensure that this equality exists in political opinion, philosophical belief, religion and sect, orany suchconsiderations. Men and All individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law, irrespective of language, sex, 23 18 This Treaty only recognizes ThisTreaty CEU eTD Collection 20 for Minority Federation notRegional ratifiedor Helsinki are byTurkey Languages (International for Charter European the and in general, minorities national of protection the to devoted Minorities, which into force inentered legally1998 asthefirst binding multilateral treaty National of Protection the for Convention Framework the Yet, in 1954. Turkey by ratified Law on Foreign Language Education and the Law of Associations. Law on the Fight against Terrorism (amended in June 2006), the Law of Political Parties, the or to address the existence of minorities. These are These minorities. of existence address the to or that do not directly relate to minorities buthave been usedby individuals to promote their rights, identities duetothe fear falling of further37). apart(Oran 2004, ethnic other to notolerance Turkey showed Therefore, a trauma. ledserious to territory of the Yildiz, 19 Muslims. heading: under one werehomogenized and minorities others the Muslims wereregarded system, groups were characterized religiously,not ethnically millet or linguistically. the In senses. many in Thus, Empire only non- Ottoman the of successor isthe Turkey Historically, from are threefold: of of Treaty Lausanne the scope the linguistic, beit or ethnic Roma, Human Report Rights Turkey on 2006, 1). de facto entitlednoformal to recognition and they lack protection of as their rights communities, despite (Oran equality religious andcultural 2004, 56). rights, rights rights ChapterOne already discussed in this detail. The focus of this study is not non-Muslim minorities. Yet, for a detailed work on these articles, please see Ilhan Minority Rights in Turkey Turkey does not possess a comprehensive anti-discrimination law. ECHRwas The possess anti-discrimination acomprehensive not Turkey does While there are no laws specifically addressing minority issues, Turkey has several laws several has Turkey issues, minority addressing specifically laws no are there While Baskin Oran argues that the reasons for the exclusion of Muslim minorities like the minorities exclusionMuslim for the reasons of the that Baskin Oran argues tolerance of some of their communal activities (International Helsinki Federation for Federation Helsinki (International activities communal their of some of tolerance 20 Ideologically, the shrink of the gigantic empire with the nationalist revolts and losses and revolts nationalist the with empire gigantic the of shrink the Ideologically, (Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007). 24 inter alia the Turkish Penal Code, the 1991 Turkishthe the PenalCode, 19 Other minority groups are CEU eTD Collection 12). public authority suchonany as thoseground paragraph inmentioned 1.”(Council of Human Europe RightsProtocol associationwith a national minority, property, birthorother status. No one shall be discriminated against by any any on ground suchas sex, colour, race, language, religion,political orotheropinion, nationalorsocial origin, 21 excluded minority in Turkey. The journalist Caner Canerik this finds (2006)also ironic very theRoma since arethemost the non-recognizedonly minority involved in thelegislation yetin avery discriminatory way. states are Roma the that (2008) Hacer Foggo activist Roma The Roma. the provisions regarding indiscriminated ethnic group legislation The Turkish Turkey.its in exclusion this reflects most they are the fact, In in employment. and education against discriminated are highly they maltreatments, social and political to addition In notes. (2008) Cekic Erdinc interviewee my 2.2.1. TheTurkish Legislationthe Roma on basic rights. certain lack they a minority, even as recognized not theare Roma as minority regime, overall Inthe mobilizations. successof ethnic for the obstacle thebiggest constitutes minority regime limited Turkey’svery state and specific ontheoutmoded laws Roma,that Ishould tothe moving Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne andits Appendices (Tsitselikis 2004,5).Before the of of Constitution the rules and provisions related the with in accordance been reserved signed. The provisions agreements of Articleinternational to reservations forth 27 of putting by the ICCPRinterpretation narrower a and even exercises Article 13 of the ICESCR of the UN has (ERRCReport). discrimination for prohibition general the of aschema Rightswhich European on provides Human Convention yet the ratified12 to Protocol not also has Turkey Turkey Report on 2006, 6). Human Rights According to Protocole 12: “The enjoyment of any right set forthby law shall be secured without discrimination In Turkish society, the Roma generally perceive themselves as second-class citizens, as 21 In other words, the Treaty of yet Inotherwords,theTreaty Turkey is narrow, Lausanne of 25 CEU eTD Collection unchanged and it hindered the Romani mobilization inTurkey. changes in the EU reform process thoroughly. Yet, my argument is, until its abolishment in 2006, this law remained 2006. However, the amendment took place as apart of EU the reforms. Chapter Three shall look atthe legislation 22 Keser, and 2008)mentioned Sulukculer how offended they are duetothe “The Regulation on the (Danka2008). Turkish culture” the to bound not are that aliens and gypsies citizen non-Turkish and stateless expel to authorised Moreover, Article 21 of the the Law on Movements Roma. to the a threat andposed lawmany unchanged remained for years, Roma, this the states: “The Ministry of Internalreforms, this law wasAffairs amended. However, until the amendment of the discriminatoryis reference to accession EU the of context the in Consequently, Demirel. Suleyman time, that of President resolution for the amendment of this clause tothe TGNA,yet this resolution was declinedby the duringstated in my interview, former 1993, the MP from a Erdal Edirne, Kesebir submitted immigrants into Turkey” (Aksu2006,87,Bedard As2003). Erdincfrom Cekic (2008) EDROM Anarchists; C. Spies;D:ItinerantPersonsGypsies; E. shall deported, beand not accepted as “A. 2005).Article Report attachedEurope Turkishnot 4states: Those who to are B. culture; Turkishimproving culture and and the establishment of distribution (Councilof population” the with program the beto made by Councilthe of Ministers with ensuringa view to theirloyalty to accordance in Assistance Social and Health and Affairs Internal of Ministries the by be arranged “The settlementof immigrants, refugees, nomads andGypsies itinerant thewithin countryshall 1states: andArticle “AreasSettlement” on The chapter of differential treatment. to be subject settlement of the Roma in Turkey. This Law lists “itinerant Gypsies” among groups of persons to 2510 of most1934 hasbeen for problematic the theRoma. law explicitly forbiddens It the One can argue that this law does not pose a threat to the Romani mobilization anymore since it was amended in During my interview, the heads of AssociationsheadsDuring myinterview, of Izmir the Romani EDROMand the (Cekic, ActNo. theSettlement from stated, Cekic(2008) EDROM As myinterviewee Erdinc 26 22 CEU eTD Collection dictionaries. Therefore, his personal attempts and contriburions should not be overlooked. be not should contriburions and attempts personal his Therefore, dictionaries. To Be A Gypsy in Turkey 23 initiatives. take to be reluctant makesthem which their self-confidence threatens legislation also the Moreover, they Thus, forare highly getdiscriminated. chancesmobilized them to arehighlyrestricted. laws on the Roma overtly exclude them. There exists no such protection for their rights, andthe even Secondly, minorities. as recognized even not are they context, overall in the Firstly, Roma. after“beggars”. Yet, criticisms, was this withdrawn 2006,121). (Aksu the and “Roma” the with relations have applicants the whether out find to applications forcitizenship apreliminary the research whichrequested PublicOffice, the Registration with the EU reforms. in2001 only removed was “Gypsy” word the of pejorativethe use concluded that Association interviewees HalitKeser andZafer (2008) from Sulukculer IzmirRomani Contemporary “Gypsy” synonymous “immoral”, with “impudent” and“greedy” (Aksu 2006,34).My (Radikal 2006b). by Republicanthe People’s Party MP from EnisTekirdag Tutuncu, regulationthis is still inforce people who are friends with the mentioned groups (The Regulation). Despite the resolution given jobs”,have refugees, beggars, convicts, drugaddicts, vagrants, qualified and benignlunatics, that measuresnot134 states take police“thethe againststruggledo with and should Roma who Article Roma. the regarding provisions segregationist comprises regulation this underlined that They Stations”. Police of On and Organization the Groups and in Ceremonies Police Rolethe of In addition to the EU reforms, Mustafa Aksu, who is a very prominent Roma activist and authorstates in his book As seen, minority legislation in Turkey poses a severe threat to the mobilization of the in which Moreover,Culture adictionary,of word published the used 1995, Ministry 23 Furthermore,in 2002, Ministry of InteriorAffairs sent acircular note to (Istanbul: Kesit, 2006) that he sent severalpetitions requesting thechange in the 27 CEU eTD Collection in 2005. The Cabinet issued a decree in 2006 which authorised the Municipality to proceed with in authorisedissued Municipality the 2006which to in adecree 2005. The Cabinet plan renovation urban an introduced Municipality Fatih the renovation, for areas new for looking comes to our minds. Romanithe identity in image significant Turkey,cultureRomani and most the that perhaps for itis vital hand,symbol a other Roma.On the the income for itis of source a vital Therefore, of city.the entertainment touristicfor andmusical the Sulukule spot Moreover, isapopular jobs. totheir access have they for them,easier an is since very also in advantageous center the in periphery whichor further outskirts, the would otherwise isolation their(Cekic 2008).Being atsituated the in Romaarenot in the Roma Istanbul CEECs, city.the the of other center Unlike Sight.is it Moreover, Sulukuleunique nature, isaUNESCOWorld atthevery located Heritage its historical and to city Byzantine walls. Due historical nearby located the 1050s. Theareais 2008). Asmy interviewee Erdinc Cekic (2008)stated, Roma the have beenliving there since the in many, world Group according Romanisettlementthe (Everyone to istheoldest Sulukule altogether and one of oldestthe Romani in settlements (ERRC Europe 2007). Allegedly, Romais population. It thebiggest Romani in settlement Turkey with 5000 Roma living other. the after one triggered been have districts in these demolishments projects, renovation Asfor acoupleyearsKustepe) (Ntvmsnbc partof these 2008). and of Kucukbakkalkoy urban Kagithane, (Sulukule, Istanbul and Yali), Kadifekale, (Kahramanlar, Izmir (Kamberler), historical inAnkara districts (Cincin),Zonguldak (Eregli), Bursa Mersin (Turgutreis), 2.3. Urban Renovation Projects as an Opportunity to the Romani Mobilization As Hacer Foggo (2008) stated during our meeting, with the setting up of the meeting, duringrenovation of with (2008) stated up setting the our As Hacer Foggo Amongbe Sulukule theseRomani to thedistricts, most important one for appears the The Roma people are exposed to forced evictions through urban renovation projects of 28 CEU eTD Collection 2008). the for Roma since they apartment-typeare unsuitable of buildings with totally no place are fortheir carriagesTasoluk orother in tools (Punduk Foggoand apartments The carriages. their for convenient is which gardens huge and 24 Housing Development Administration, which is almost 30 km away from the city. Tasolukneighbourhoodin orrelocate builthousingby Primeto the renovated Minister’s the house owners in Sulukule2007). Thisreplace plan housesaims of to old the Sulukule new and ones. with The tenants can have a leasing (ERRC Survival ofHistorical WhichAre andCultural ImmoveableReport Objects Eroded” agreement with in quarters of “The 5366 Lawthe context the on Protection byRenewal No. and UseThrough the Municipality Sultan Hatice and Neslisah namely inSulukule parts certain of expropriation immediate the to buy or rent interest from inmobilization leadingTurkey, tomassive solidarity amongalso the huge Roma. It attracted the media, civil society,appropriately, and the alternatives offered by the government are not suitable for the Roma. politiciansconducted not are evictions states these EU that The of EU. the likethose consideration and thecriticismsinto nottake Municipality the does that andSukru Punduk(2008)argue ordinary haseverfacedRoma. beentheby worstthreat This indecree Roma HacerFoggo Sulukule. the citizens. the to left is alternative no thus, reconciliation, of absence in the municipality the authorizes Accordingly, 5366 (2008) addedthat LawNo. the moveTasoluk. Foggo agree to Hacer households to didnot Roma Sukru Punduk(2008)stated (ERRC so far2007). householdssold, that were 450 100 and area renovated the in housing rent or buy to afford cannot they hand, other On the settlement. likely for Roma the togetdistanced from jobs physicallytheir if movethey tothis new of Sulukulethe Romani Association Sukru Punduk(2008) stated during meeting,it our is very Oneother remark is; the Roma people Sulukulein have a certainmode of living in houses withone or two flats Nevertheless, itis clear that this “threat” has appeared as an utmostimpetus for the Roma 29 24 As head the CEU eTD Collection worldwide have requested the government to halt the demolitions and urge people to sendhalt demolitionsthe the worldwide governmentto urgepeople to haverequested and of representatives and ERRC variousthe human organizations international domestic and rights appropriateand action take to risks”natural 2008,againstdisaster 15).Moreover, (UNReport immoveablepreserve development, cultural to historical andrenew areas in properties and such urban in with accordance erosion, or of extinction risk the areasfacing protected registered was “agoodopportunity municipalities andrestore to to reconstruct thestructures of the standard ofliving.inrightThe Governmentreplied toanadequate LawNo.5366 the July that Governmentof Turkey, with SpecialRapporteurthe onadequate housing acomponent as of the plans. demolition the andmeeting,Hacer Foggo SukruPunduk halt lawsuit duringour (2008) explained this not did of Cultural Assets” and Natural andmany international (hYdagreements 2008).However as the “Protection LawNo2863on No 5366, the demolitions Law the Constitution, areagainstthe Roma Rights”, Sulukule Romani Association “Promoting sued the entitled Fatih EDROM and ERRC Municipalitythe hYd, the by launched with the project the of claim context thatthe the event heard through news reports, press releases and several campaigns on internet. Moreover, in Save Sulukule”.Being ajournalist, also HacerFoggo played afundamental inrole making this “We Must called campaign anraising awareness started Platform Sulukule The Association. Sulukule Romani Culture Protection Cooperation Associationand and the Human Settlements it formation, ofthe wassetupwith (2008) states as being participation the founder of this the united against demolitions the various through demonstrations. media have and society civil non-Roma people, local the residents, Roma associations, activists, On 31 July 2006, the UN independent expert sent a joint allegation letter letter to the joint sent a allegation independent expert UN 2006,the On 31July One of the most influential formations is the “Sulukule Platform”. As Hacer Foggo 30 CEU eTD Collection protests and demonstrations are influential ways of collective action. Erdinc Cekic (2008) from (2008) Cekic Erdinc of action. ways collective influential andare protests demonstrations in organizing interest theRoma minority petitions, andpeople’s media’s to Turkey. Sending politicians’,the haveattracted These projects associations. Romani the among andcooperation has alsoasanopportunity solidarity enhancing context.However,this appeared threat structure people for action. also many personal blogsare There petitions. or signatures collect campaigns, organize and Sulukule newson the update which either solely express“Sulukule“40“Sulukule Yasasin”, Gun Gunlugu”, 40 GeceSulukule” and“Romanistanbul” their anger and anxiety,alternativejournals medialike Indymedia Bianet, andBirgun Turkey, blogs. like Blogs or call the other heard,mobilization notably theafter Sulukule incident. This has mostly been achieved by the onRoma make attempts and the Romathe on issue interest in the escalating big impact a had has media alternative Turkish that note should I Sulukule. of demolition the oppose who rights. Rights Commission although the commission reported that Human forced evictionsAssembly’s National dothe not to violate petitions human eighty sent they that stated (2008) Foggo Hacer painting on the walls of the Romani slums, workshops on the Romani culture, movies and music. children, Roma for the projects education asawareness-raising, weremadesuch several projects 40 Nights Sulukule” wasanother civic campaignlaunched in in Sulukule 2006. Everyday, been launched in cooperation with ERRC,withthe its likehYdpartners and EDROM.“40 Days petitions, like the human rights NGO “Everyone Group”. “Save Sulukule” petition campaign has Law No 5366 poses a bigitin whileLaw threat weanalyze domestic No5366poses a political opportunity the Moreover, Ihave also come across many communal and personal blogs written by people 31 CEU eTD Collection common goals. Adrian Marsh (2008) stated in despiteAdrian the highcommon degreeof (2008)stated Marsh interview that, the goals. in Izmir. demolitions the against combat to is goal first their Izmir, adds sincethat the demolitions havebeen continuing inmanyincluding cities, his own city recent Sulukuleisthat too incident tounite all Abdullah immediately. Roma the Cistir (2008) successful in uniting Sulukule againstthe demolitions because localof their Headds thinking. not that Romaniare associations thatthe admits Cekic(2008) regionspeople. andown Erdinc expressed that the primary started to talk theirSulukculer andexperiences.(2008) problems about own They (Izmir) goal Zafer and ofKeser Halit (Izmir), their Cistir Abdullah (Edirne), Cekic Erdinc associations associations; Romani is to launch region Sulukule, specificand this region’s fourWhen Iasked about heads problems. the of projectsown their about care primarily they relatedwords, other In Roma. the among locally think to tendency to their own and awareness. sense ofnational consciousness leada communalfailed he to these Yet, addedthat haveengenderedcampaign. demolitions a thus demolition the on solely focused process the that stated also He driven. externally been have campaign since much that tenants the involve not did campaigns that argued he first Yet, been Adrian changing recently.my Marsh (2008) confirmed this duringstatement interview. impetusmobilizing for the Roma and even peopleordinary startedto observe thatsomethinghas 2008. Although outcomethe wasvery this threathasdiscouraging, been a very effective isattacting attention for abig thefuture of step Romanithe mobilization. in EDROM my interviewstated they are veryhappy that andhethinksthat of attention drawing However, having admitted that, these Romani leaders agree the Romacluster around agreethe leaders also theseRomani that, having However, admitted serious a is there that saw I research, my during that state should I hand, other the On February by started demolitions the President, the by enactment the after Unfortunately, 32 CEU eTD Collection tied them together and have made them show their reaction in an organized way. many in Romani lives, appeared this tragedy has enabledunite them to for have one common goal, whichin haveturn, demolitions the tragically how matter no conclusion, In initiative. renovation projects Romathe in news.EbruUzpederthe (2008)from hYdthe in also stated my interview thaturban to place more devote to gatheredstarted media the and solidarity Romani the buttressing events current the Roma aroundin the first place.a common Yet, he also stated that it goalshould not beregarding theSulukuleadded thatit case.Abdullah Cistiris (2008) unusual not thinklocally to overlookedand that Sulukuleenabledsorrow and is anger feel one leaders of these the of all cities, Romani many in prevail demolitions them since to take an 25 dilemmas: Housing, employment, education,low social income. exclusion, conferences on thedisunity among the Romani Romaassociations; representatives from theseon associations attenda nationalregular basis and exchange ideas as they cope with the same The problem of disunity among the Roma associations shall be furthered in the next chapter. next the in furthered be shall associations Roma the among disunity of problem The 33 25 Ina vein,similar CEU eTD Collection such as the ERRC, Helsinki Citizens Assembly, the OSI, and the SIDA have been influencing been have SIDA the and OSI, the Assembly, Citizens Helsinki ERRC, the as such (Keck and Unquestionably,“transnational several NGO advocacy network” 1998,8). Sikkink set a way, this policy through changes and whichadvocate “advocacy organizations” as act can NGOs Similarly, opportunities. and threats both are they activities; movement actors from different countries with similar claims” (Tarrow 2005, 32). coalitions transnational of formation the and institutions international onto contention domestic of externalization of process the to domestic political opportunity structure interacts highly with the transnational one. Tarrow refers 1994, 18).Having domestic explored the politicalopportunity oneshould structure, also notethat provides openness and and closure, or threats opportunities for ethnic mobilizations (Tarrow 3.1. The Supranational Political Opportunity Structure structure. opportunity opportunities andthreatsfor the Romain Turkey definingafter supranational the political Thus, thisstructure. the shallanalyzehow bothpolitical EUhas chapter opportunity created in interacting forwith mobilization anddomestic Romani the the opportunities threats creates political opportunity structure analysispolitical opportunity by lookingstructure atthe other it: aspect of The supranational namely, the EU. structureWhat I aim in this part is into showTurkey how the EU on the RomaniAnalysis Structure Opportunity mobilization. Political The Supranational Three: Chapter This chapter is in will of completing the In linking local issues with the international dimension, IGOs can act as arenas for actasarenas can IGOs dimension, international with the issues local In linking As discussed in politicalChapter Two, opportunity impliesstructure thatthe system demonstrate aimedinfluences the Chapter Two domesticto of opportunity political the meaning “horizontal formation of common networks among 34 CEU eTD Collection process andprocess a crisis this led to for theirin Helsinki relations. Summit 1999 appearedasa In progress. 1997 Luxembourg EUdecidedTurkey not totake Summit,in the enlargement Bac Except Agreement Customsthe 2000, 161-2). Union signed in had little 1995, Turkey posed Turkey’s human record crucial rights for membership Turkey’sobstacles full (Muftuler- ind’etats 1980,its 1971 and economic backwardness, Kurdish the and problems Cyprus and fullapplied for however the democraticmembership; in situation Turkey, military the coup establishmentthe of uniona customs by In 1995 (Muftuler- Bac1999,241). 1987, Turkey stage, afinal stage would be enable afullmember.Turkey to 1970Additional foresaw Protocol apreparatory and atransitional after thisAccording member. Treaty, to becameandan associate 94).(2004, modern of utmost Turkey Westernization acts two they that are the andasserts importance, reform of and1920s andprocess the 1930s EUreform of 2000s asidenticalintheir process significantinforeignhallmarks Turkish Oranseesthepolicy Kemalist 2003).Baskin (Aydin 3.2. Turkey and theEU:How It AllStarted? Dueits very decision-making process. EUisthe nature, asupranational formation. memberyet interactin other common around with they unite states thegoals and them EU since in the EU, member states elect representatives. In this sense, member states have power while be the “supranational” referring more“transnational” appropriate to shall word insteadof the utilizing that believe I Therefore, mobilization. in this EU the by played role the analyze is yet anattempt to study IGOsandNGOs,this of Inacknowledging role these the projects. Turkishthe Romani mobilization with various awareness-raising campaigns,funds and several Turkey’s in started EU adventure 1963 when signedTurkey anAssociation Agreement ups Despite numerous and downs, Turkey’s tothe EUhas path become one mostthe of 35 CEU eTD Collection that thesethat areof importancereports utmost for mobilization Romani in the Thesereports Turkey: Romathe since inits in reports agreeing myinterviewee with Sinan Gokcen I believe(2008), Commission came up with ten progress reports. Now I shall demonstrate how the EU referred to Between weaknessesthe ofminority andrights. strengthsand in European 2007,the 1998 terms opinion, constitute these aconsiderablereports for further impetus reforms by rightly underlining by monitoringregularly the madeprogress in human rights and minority issues in Turkey. Inmy 3.3.1. TheMonitoring of theEU: Mechanism The Regular Reports onTurkey 1998-2007 3.3. The EU as an Opportunity to the Romani Mobilization inevitably stimulates domestic political reforms in Turkey (in Rumford 2001,97). the notes,KeyderCaglar As proximity8). EU the the (andof possibility of future accession) constitutional legislative and reform laws regarding minoritieshave been enacted (Ozgen 2007, several inCopenhagenCriteria, out toabide setrules by Inorder political Criteria. the new in the EU acquis by adressing minority rights explicitly. The Copenhagen Criteria states:brand was initiation whose EU, the join to in order Criteria Copenhagen the fulfil to expected are states Thecandidate of EU. the norms political and economic follow the to for Turkey impetus hadbeenavital which negotiations off kicked inDecemberlater, years 2004,accession Five status. is forwhere givencandidate EUrelations, Turkey- Turkey historical opportunity First and foremost, EUinstitutionsthe importantplay an role in pushing for reforms the By the same token, Turkey is subject to the conditionality rules stated in stated is conditionality rules to the Copenhagen the Turkey By subject token, same the the aimsthe of political, economic & monetary union (Copenhagen Criteria 1993). market forces within the Union; and the ability pressure to takecompetitive on the with cope obligationsto capacity the as of well as membership economy market including ofafunctioning adherenceexistence to the of minorities; protection and for respect and rights human oflaw, rule the democracy, guaranteeing Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions 36 CEU eTD Collection Report on Report on Turkey 2006: 2001: 29,Toktas 495). The problem of social of exclusion Romathe and educationaddressed into the restrictions onthelanguages right than other (RegularTurkish also reports these lawin of Moreover, this 2006. amendment the accelerated its criticisms monitoringis 2006,504).It obvious EUthus the thatthe of Toktas Report on Turkey 2003, 39, of 1934LawonSettlementthe (Regular ReportonTurkey 2006,495,2001, 29,Toktas Regular language Turkish regardingthe Roma (RegularReport Turkey on 2001, 29,Toktas2006, 495). by sellingthe book Ministry, samean of offensive official containingdegradingand the ban address on from inby to Culture the 2001and Roma published Ministry the dictionaries of Turkey The2001, 29). 2001Reporthowever, welcomed the removal of discourse used pejorative on Regular and19, Turkey Report Report (Regular on basic2000, rights certain cultural rights Regular Report RegularTurkey on 1999, 14, onTurkey Report 2000: 19). of Human Rights whichare tominority related issues (Regular Reporton Turkey 1998, 14-20, Minority Languages, and the Protocols 4, 6, and 7of the European Convention for the Protection Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter for Regional or Roma.to the Thefirstreports criticized Turkeyfor notratifying the Framework ICCPR, is devoted space and attention more year, by year is, reports in these I observed what Moreover, them. to relevant are which remarks some include they however explicitly; Roma the address not until andother minorities.minorities Thereports 2001 do officiallybetween recognizedthe subtle way to attract the attention to the Roma. a also Roma, for but the change legal the that context for reforms further are notonly a call The Reports startingThe Reports from criticized 2001 until 2006report the thediscriminatory articles lack ethnicminorities thatthe manifested of and 2001also The RegularReports 2000 forits criticized from 2007constantly All 1998 to treatmentdifferent Turkey reports the 37 CEU eTD Collection associations were also eased extendedand to include non-profit organisations. Penalties forfailing to obtain by the Ministrybe given of would Interior insteadprocedure of the Council permission the of Ministers.since eased Restrictions further were on internationalTurkey in cooperation associations between offoreign activities the associations established inTurkey the and activities in Turkey of foreign associations were eased. Restrictions on and otherpublications should be confirmed by a judge within48 hours. The restrictions on the activities abroad of by the provincial administrative authorities regarding the confiscationof associations’ declarations, announcementsRestrictions on making announcements or distributing publications by associations were eased. Any decisiontaken competence of the the policefrom to the newly transferred were established Department ofassociations ofprocedures Associations related Various within eased. were the crimes Ministry certain for of Interior.convicted a confirmation required by publications a judge withinother 48 and hours. Moreover,announcements, the restrictions ondeclarations, the establishment ofof associations’ associations by confiscation The people associations. non-official correspondence and allowed legal entities (inaddition to individuals) to become members of 27 26 Turkey (RegularReporton 32). in2003, criticized reports the on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sect, region,26 or any other minorityProgressProgress onTurkey onTurkey Report Report 20- 1, 2006, 506, 2007, 21–3). 2006, 10, group were strictly Toktas Turkey:on 44-9, RegularReport EU 25,87, Turkey on 2003: Report EC Treaty (Regular warned to transpose and implement the EU anti-discrimination acquis based on Article and against discrimination legal framework 13 lack acomprehensive to of was said Thus, Turkey the ICCPR tothe reservation Turkey’s criticized also Minorities, for andtheEuropean Regional Charter Minority and 2005report Languages. The discrimination and did not sign the Framework Convention for the Protection of National ECHRof the ratifyprohibition on general the 12to not Turkey Additional the No. did Protocol that asserted constantly Union European the in2007, untilitslastreport Yet, Turkey 2003, 39). and on rights (Regular inminority Report welcomedlanguages was education inthe 2003report Turkey Report on 39, EURegular 2003, Report Turkey on 44, 49).2004, adequate housinganother wasalso issue pointed out in of reports the 2003 and 2004(Regular The Law on Associations reports”. “progress was named are 2005 amended with starting reports The in 2002 and 2003. The revisions enabled the use of any language in their Despite revisions in 2002 and 2003, the limitations of the establishment of associations establishmentthe of limitations of Despite in2002and2003,the revisions The ratification of the ICCPR and the ICESCR despite reservations made on minority 38 regarding the rights of minorities and ICESCR. 27 These criticisms led Turkey ledTurkey Thesecriticisms to CEU eTD Collection 28 reduced was (EU Regular Report on Turkey 32,associations 2003, of Aydin Keyman and 2004, activities 30). the in interference State reduced. were possession in estate real declaring and permissionfor contacts withforeign associations and organisations and to fulfil the obligations concerning auditing discriminatory provisions remain Law unchanged in the onMovements and residenceof aliens that 2007 stated of Roma,the the 2006 and discriminatory reports provisions against welcomed although repealing Law the amendmentstothe 2006report the Settlement on Report in minorities international(Progress onTurkey with accordance standards 2006, 23). littlefor taken and and cultural promotingon diversity steps ensuring protection respect of also Turkey has that stated facedby andcombattingthem.Roma problems the It organisations two Roma Federations as well as numerous NGO projects working for capacity building of and organisations advocacy more Roma-led of establishment the appreciated report This rights. the of andsocial ineconomic nodiscrimination stipulates which Charter Social ratification revised European the welcomed yet Commission The Turkey. in minorities national of situation unchanged and since previous report, made no the has beenprogress in onthe starting adialogue was also welcomedin 2006, 2005reportthe (Toktas 504). on Turkey 49). The Law2004, 44, onAssociations openingfor anewwindow many associations Regular(EU religion belief, Report language, or ethnicity,race, religion,philosophical gender, of basis the on discriminate not should books text school that stated which issued Regulation the Turkish began forand Radio TVin2004.One mentionedwas progress other in 2004 the report restrictions. constitutional associations on ratify in new LawonAssociations 5231) the (Law No. 2004 which the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sect, region or minority group yet with Further detail on this law will be given in the next section which analyzes the changes in the legislation. inthe changes the analyzes which section next the in be given will law this on detail Further The reports The reports of 2006 and 2007 raised concernsinterms of Moreover,cultural rights. dated 2006stated remains Turkey’sThe report that to minority approach rights 28 Moreover, broadcasting in, Moreover, broadcasting languages than of, and other teaching 39 enabled the establishment of enabled theestablishment CEU eTD Collection Now I shall turn to the changes made in the EU reform process. legislation Turkish Abdullah asmyinterviewee theRoma, Cistirregarding (2008)confirms. Associations. Themonitoring of EUhowever has many ledthe to positive in amendments the on Law the and aliens, of residence and Movements on Law and Settlement, on Law the as such Roma the against discriminate which legislation Turkish the and issues facilities economic and social in housing, plight exclusion, social on focused Roma the concerning criticisms Roma.EU The the consideration significantto devoted published 2001 after reports the that We iscan see in criticized also all reports. the majorinternational sign documents to reluctance Turkey’s Moreover, Treaty. the scopeof the fall outside that andcommunities religious groups Treaty isLausanne, of to provide inefficient for a ethnic, other framework protective cultural and demolitions Report (Progress Turkey on 2007, 21–3). the after provided not were services economic and social other or facilities sanitary basic haveneighbourhoods in demolished been it Istanbul particularly and was shelter,that stated Roma duetothe Inclusion.decision Moreover, by CouncilofMinistersthe in Roma2006, the Turkey Report Progress 2006, 20-3, Turkey on 2007, 21–3). Report on (Progress inAnkara-Cincin,Zonguldak-Eregli, Istanbul-Sulukule historical districts education,health and evictions employmentforced urban through of regeneration projects housing,adequate Romainthe to towards discriminatory access treatment the referred to which contains discriminatory provisions on the Roma, notably on extradition. These reports also Overall taken, all the EU reports state that Turkey's minority regime, as set out in the participating for of in of not criticized Turkey The the 2005–2015Decade 2007 Report 40 CEU eTD Collection easened. on on Human Rights PracticesIn addition, 2007). Report submit(Uzpeder 2008,USCountry government tothe on each activity to reports detailed required are still they However, for each activity. ministry from interior the permission separate conductlonger receive inforeignno programs associations Turkey to to willing required are and membership of them.Furthermore, asmy interviewee from UzpederEbru hYd (2008)states, of hindering associations the Thislaw establishment vitiates restrictions notify alsoauthorities. longer no Associations associations”. and activities of “prohibited scope the restricted law also This associations. Associations in was adopted 2004whichrestricts interference state the inthe of activities thenew in Lawon reports, regularthe stated Constitution424). As 1982,Griogoriadis 2007, removed. fundamental Moreover, andrights inArticle freedoms 13were (Turkish expanded were Constitution the of Preamble in the thought of freedom of protection constitutional in detail. legislation in the changes the summarize shall I Now breakthrough. significant hasbeenthemost EUaccession of process Turkish the the Roma, process organization the of in terms that think I vary. contribution this of extent the on opinions their although in Turkey, Romani the mobilization of EUto on considerablecontribution the the agreed also highlycontributed the hastening mobilizationto of Romani the in Turkey.All myinterviewees instandards, my EUreforms the opinion, in undergone concerningTurkey theminorities have diversity for andand respect of promoting minorities in international protection with accordance 3.3.2. TheChanges in theLegislation First andforemost, with reform the package of 2001,limitationsOctober inthe conclude little Although lastTurkey made the reports progress on ensuring that cultural They are no longer required to inform local government officials of the day /time/ have permission take to foundingbefore an association,still but have to 41 the establishment of foreign foundations was foundations CEU eTD Collection organizations across the country, particularly in 2005 and 2006. As the head of inheadAs and country,the 2005 of EDROM the organizations across the particularly 2006. and Keymanand 2004, 31). to notifications by replaced and abolished are localcountries government officials.foreign in Moreover, the fundraisingindividuals or capabilities of associationsorganisations are furtheredfrom withfunds this law (Aydin receive to longerbe restricted to “beneficial”and “reciprocal” activities. The permission required from the Ministry of Interior immovable assets(Ozbudun andYazici2004,21).Furthermore, funding formanagement. and NGOs will ofmembers be able toform temporary accountability ensure to platforms/ up initiativesupgraded been have to pursue standards common audit to goals. Government internal The associations. 50%establish of NGO provisions and projectsrestrictions forstudent associations have been totally removed, andchildrenfrom the age of 15 can internationally; andsecuritywill forces are no longer allowed on premises of associationsbe without a court order. Specificpossible,29 and NGOs will be allowed to buy and sell necessary associations and identify themselves freely. Thisinevitably cultivates Romanithe identity. Romanithe mobilization since itenabled Romathe tousethe word “Roma” in setting up fields.my In opinion,first of isall, new lawof2004 the important in particularly strengthening religious, ethnic, cultural linguisticand connotationsconduct and they activitiescannot in these have that names possess cannot associations that stipulated law This 1983. of Associations were set up in Izmir and Edirne. However, they were closedRomani (2008), in1996two associations interviewees Uzpederreport andEbru Erdinc Cekic down due to the restrictive Law on Romani haveorganizations first burgeoned since thesecond halfof 1990s.Asmy the a boom in Infact,the to minority ThisRomani associations. any hasled region,group. other or sect, religion, ethnicity, race, of basis the on associations of establishment the on limitations and been have in fact, cancelled supported. beengreatly have none of theirhe projects addsthat surveillance. However, to subject arestill associations Yazici 2004,21). general assembly meetings. Auditofficials mustonly 24hourgive prior notice (Ozbudunand location of meetingsgeneral assembly longer andno required invite to agovernmentofficial to Furthermore, Secondly, this modification has paved thepath for mushroomingthe of many above, law all In addition mostimportantly, stated to the this revisions removed the according to the new law, NGOs can open representative offices for federations and confederations and federations for offices representative open can NGOs law, new the to according 29 Despite these revisions, Erdinc Cekic (2008) claims that in theRomani fact, that Cekic (2008)claims Erdinc revisions, Despite these 42 with the new law, scope the of cooperationwill no Romani CEU eTD Collection exchange of exchange of andviews. experiences to benefitlotnot onlyinternational from funding but a opportunities several and also trainings started has mobilization Romani that believe I organizations, international with activities funding since for Romani impetus cooperation Moreover, thenewmobilization. and lawfacilitated law most that thissignificant isthe stated Zafer Sulukculer (2008) Keser and Association Halit Romani the to contributes highly in turn which action, mobilization. collective of a sense form to and Roma the among and solidarity inbuilding cooperation importance argues, they are of Uzpeder (2008) crucial During my AsEbru of Roma. the andeducation problems health, unemployment, accomodation, the interview,cure to endeavour Thesestudents. forpoor associations scholarship programmes activities, and the heads of the Izmir a leader. or be activist madeapotential Roma every ordinary this skill, and professional Contemporaryinterviewee Ebru Uzpedersetting (2008)argues, upRomani associations nolonger required a RomaniRomaninamely Federation, Anatolian Romani Federation the (Radikal As my 2006a). members. In the same year,Tekirdag Muratli, Kirklareli,Kesan Edirne, Luleburgaz, and with Lalapasa almost 5000 Canakkale, Izmir,establishedby Bartin, 13 members:Adana, Mersin, Balikesir Izmir, Ivrindi, Tekirdag Malkara, Dikili, Aydin and are active. Kusadasi formed the second than 40 Romani in associations accordingTurkey. Yet my to interviewee, only one third of them more Diyarbakir are Istanbul. and Today,there Manisa, Zonguldak, Canakkale, Aydin, Samsun, founded in Edirne, Tekirdag, K Tekirdag, founded in Edirne, interview, 2004 since inthe concluded Erdinc (2008) Cekic The main activities of these associations can be listed as vocational training, cultural training, vocational as listed be can associations these of activities main The Consequently in Consequently February 2006, the Federation Associationsof Romani was Õ rklareli, Balikesir, Izmir, Mersin, Adana,Ankara, Bartin, Mersin, Balikesir, Izmir, rklareli, 43 , Romani associations have been CEU eTD Collection protection of discrimination against the Roma. andits signing the revised 1996 European Social Charter in legal 2007 expandedthe scope of with reservations, andthe ICCPReven ICESCR of the Turkey’s ratification Furthermore, future. paved also wayforthe Roma programming the broadcast in to in language Romani the the 1994Law to the Establishmentthe on of and bytheRadio Broadcasting and Television Channels Learning Differentthe of Languagesof and Turkish Dialects Citizens and asecond amendment mobilization. for theRomani areof importance crucial amendments society. Mythus interviewees reclaim growththeir of the for the importance self-esteem, vital of Romani are Halitchanges these opinion, my In mobilizationlegislation. in the changes utmost Keser since but theyand notalso only basis of race, religion,language, gender, ethnicity, philosophical belief, religion or are other Zafer ameliorategive the on discriminate not should them books text theSulukculerschool that stating image a regulation and , legal“gypsy” a was of the Roma applicant the tools whether andapplication citizenship the on state to requirement the (2008)toremoving Settlement be more assertrepresented acircular Moreover, Lawthe note. on on Keser and (2008) Zafer Sulukculer HalitErdinc Cekic, that in allthe language developments, important Romaare asmyinterviewees Turkish other regarding the of these by sellingthe book Ministry, samean of offensive official containingdegradingand the Romathe dictionaries from publishedby Ministry the inCultureof baning the 2001 andalso of address used to discourse pejorative removal of Roma, the againstthe provisions discriminatory The 2004 amendmentto 1983Law the onTeaching Foreign of Languages and the repealing inSeptember2006 adopted Settlement Lawon the to The amendments 44 CEU eTD Collection NGOs like hYd or UYD are funded by the EU. The contribution of these NGOs is also crucial. or associations Romani by the Roma either the concerning out carried all projects the almost contribution of beenthebiggest EU totheRomaniactually mobilization.the Headdedthat fundinghas my According Cekic to Erdinc interviewee (2008), international organizations. on Associations of has 2004 facilitated fundingthe andcooperation withopportunities funds given to Roma-related projects and associations. As discussed extensively above, the Law 3.3.4. Funding Roma.the TheRoma haveto discuss started this issuemore among too. themselves wrong to conclude that, as my interviewee Abdullah Cistir (2008) says, the EU has also “shaked” is not It Roma. the on interest increased the and country in the atmosphere liberal due tothe is Roma the on work that NGOs established newly the of abundance the my opinion, In society. not only deal with buildingcapacity and legal butalsoprojects with awareness- rising in the NGO which numerous projects and Federations Roma organisations, more advocacy Roma-led of establishment the facilitated has EUprocess the indicates, of 2006 Report As theProgress more. heard voice andhave madetheir problems on Roma interestandtheir the have attracted Therefore, issues. ethnic atmosphere in country the haswhich enabledliberal more andpublic media discussions on democratic the extensively to has contributed Put differently,EU the (2008). notes hYd shaping the public and discourse proliferating public in discussion Turkey, asEbru Uzpederfrom 3.3.3. The Extension of the Public Discussion One other important aspect that stimulates the Romani mobilization in Turkey in is EU the Turkey mobilization Romani stimulates the aspectthat important One other Apart from the legal revisions, it should be borne in mind that the EU has a crucial rolein I belive that,in addition to the serious reforms undertaken, these reports 45 CEU eTD Collection http://www.uyd.org.tr/roman1.htm 32 http://www.hyd.org.tr/?pid=303. 31 Democracy Humanand Rights Programme on Turkey EU Commission 2008, 12–4). and of Social Development Cultural Lifethe fight Turkey”social the exclusionfor to of Roma the communities inTurkey Instrument(European for “Association NGO the to given was 53,545 € People”, of Roman Favor in € 360,956.5. Additionally, for another project named “Projectfor Initiating Local Social Policies of Reconciliation 30 society. legalconferences, lawyers, fortrainings andinforming and awareness-raising campaigns forthe andhuman tranings forrights Romani the associations, meetings organizing regular Romani and building capacity- as listed beorganization, can this project of major activities since 2004.The theRoma rights. Turkey concerning counterparts. activities. its one should note that it has sometimes appeared as a “threat” too. One can easily ask whether the askwhether Onecaneasily too. a“threat” appearedas it has sometimes note that should one 3.4. TheEU as aThreat tothe RomaniMobilization itsmobilization, future prospect,and possible solutions. opportunity to the speakers discussto the major weaknesses and strengths of the Turkish Romani the gave conference this Moreover, Roma. the on interest international and national both working on Roma.the Theyareof vital importancetodiscuss the Roma issueopenly and attract and leaders, journalists and Romani activists, international scholars manygathered domestic and conferences These held. was conference Romani international second the in Istanbul, time conference by was inTurkey. This UYDin organized conference the this year after, 2005. One For the summary of the findings of the conference, please see: please conference, ofthe findings the of summary the For Forfurther information, please see the website of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly Istanbul at The EU is the mainsponsor to this project and forinstance, total grant given to the ERRC forthis programme was EDROM is mostthe experienced and the mostRomani prominent in association terms of Having EUhas discussedhowthe acted as“opportunity”an for Romani mobilization, the The EU funding has also enabled the organization of the first international Romani 31 “Promoting inis Turkey” important Rights most Roma currently in project the It hasIt beeninvolved invarious projects with its domestic and European 30 It has been conducted by the ERRC, hyD and EDROM 46 32 CEU eTD Collection cause tensions and rivalry among the associations, but also water down the very goal of funding of goal very the down water also but associations, the among rivalry and tensions cause several Roma-related projects aredone by solely goals money-oriented pursuing whichnot only interviewees Sinan AbdullahGokcen, Cistir,Keser Halit and Zafer Sulukculer (2008)put, my As mobilization. Roma the for threats create also might EU by the brought opportunities Funding for harder beinvolved them intheseprojects. itis andexperience, to education thus sometimesCistir many (2008)argues, like heldby projects thehYdNGOs by areconducted non-Roma, the might exclude the in of which suit Roma us”. from CEECs the experiences hardly are derivedthe the Roma in the uniqueness policies and thusor inTurkey, that sometimescomesupwith Roma the projects of very process. interview,During our Abdullah asserted: alsoCistir“The (2008) is discern unable EU to the Since the of and differentextents the of scopes problemsthe ineach 2007,195). country (Vermeersch Roma lackRomaissue and serve a common policy and solutionproper for the protection of Roma rights regardless the generalize to inappropriate be actually might it Therefore, country. to from country differ might not be the right thing since the EU cannotcope with the threat itself. in do Roma of the Turkey case to proposes EU what the canarguethat one UK.Therefore, the and CzechRepublic the Romania, in theEUnotably Roma the within degree of towards racism is andin Roma ahigh the fact, there towards inEurope, weak in discrimination combatting EUremains the share this CistirAbdullah Erdincargue that They and concern. Cekic(2008) the legitimacy of the hard question not is to minority successand the Hence, itpolicy Budd 2008,84). (Spirova and EU in terms ofclearly-defined a lacks EU The minorities minorities. own its treating in enough successful is itself EU by looking at its own deeds. My interviewees One threat brought by the EU is the exclusion of the Roma in the projects. As Abdullah As projects. the in Roma the of exclusion the is EU by the brought threat One One other striking argument is that, the questions and problems to be dealt with might 47 CEU eTD Collection believe that opportunities created by the EU outnumber the threats. the by outnumber EU the created opportunities that believe mobilization in Turkey. Althoughtheirvoiceheard more. Finally,fundingfrom EUconstitutes a majorimpetus forthe the Romani I also discussed the cases I putforwardMoreover, thatthewhere EUspurredthepublic Roma,the on made discussion which the EU can act as threats, EUaccession reforms. to legislation inminority due place the many havetaken I changes in theopen minority urgedTurkey more and regime to for Consequently, room Roma the rights. reforms duetotheirmonitoring function. guided These reports Turkey adjustto theshortcomings As regards regular contributions,the Iarguedthat reports of further EUpavedthe the pathfor mobilization. Romani Turkish the to threat and opportunity a possible as acting been has EU the importancegreat inits influence onthe Turkish legislation. Inthischapter,Iaimed how toshow is of theEU respect, In this era. Kemalist the of those alongside Turkey of act Westernization 3.5. Conclusion by requested EUduethedependencethe funding. on are which projects the of initiation refuse the not might in Turkey NGOs or associations the Romani of interests and objectives the associations shape even might this and institutions funding the on dependence and NGOs accordingheavy Uzpeder (2008)rightly might dependence onfundingis burdenwhich argues, acause to that of the perspectiveAsthe normativeagenda(Barany of their myinterviewee Ebru own 2002,276). EU. In other words,hinders the Romani inmobilization mightTurkey be thefact the EU that sees theissue only from the that Romanithreat other one Finally, culture. and identity Romani the cherishing than rather assistance financial of expectations the established dueto aregetting many Romani associations that as well as solidarity HalitandKeser cooperation. and Sulukculer Zafer even (2008)have claim As stated inAs stated beginningthe my of Turkey’s chapter, bidEU hasbeen important mostthe 48 CEU eTD Collection means that they are not only interpretative, but movement leaders use them intentionally to intentionally them use leaders movement but interpretative, only not are they that means mobilization.are partof This processes that theorganizational and collective framing within in Soon, framing,understanding focus the oncognition power shifted the of to deliberative (Benford and 1998,198). Snow demobilize antagonists andto adherents mobilize potential claims to into frame issues to leaders which meaning is in reproduced society 2007, 42).Framing(Vermeersch is done bymovement Therefore, isimportant discursiveisframing dimension ofmobilization since a process through interpretation.signifybeen has useda schema(Benford 1988,197).Framing of to and Snow of action” and sequences experiences, situations, events, objects, encoding punctuating and byselectively there’ out ‘world the andcondenses simplifies that schema “interpretative 4.1. Framing in tofindmobilization order theweaknessmobilization. of their out one. Ininternal the with analysis external this the complete to aims chapter this Accordingly, mobilization. respect, I shallRomaimpact is tothe tantamount political of the structure on Turkishthe opportunity Romani illuminate Turkish the of dynamics internal the of impact the that mind in borne be should it Nevertheless, how the Romani andpolitical opportunity the EU underpinstructure hinderor mobilization. Turkish the Romani leadersbeen the Romani influencing in mobilization discussedTurkey. Thesechapters howdomestic see and frame the Romani Leaders Romani the of Framing The Roma: the to Turning Four: Chapter Erving Goffman, who introducedErving “framing”in it who Goffman, sociology, as understood cognition. an is A frame mobilization. ethnic of study in the concept vital a is Framing In Chapter Two and Chapter Three, I aimed shedto light on the external factors that have 49 CEU eTD Collection “identity “identity framing”: need Activists to define group to be mobilized the by promoting certain is seek: leaders core framing Thefirst movement thatsocial two between tasks distinguish encourage of change to “we”toreact. meaning possibilities the is collectiveThird “agency”,political1992, 31). consciousnesssupports (Gamson action” that ininjustice fora“strong the component andit areunjust accounts existing the that conditions for“injustice fact problem.meaning the “them” blaming referstothe frame” “injustice”The is frameidentity (inframing,is an “us” and“them” McAdam of created Second etal. 1996,261). is oppositionalfirst frame “identity”:CharlesGamson’s Tilly of element Through (2003), “them” (Tilly 2003). “cultural construction frames” of and “identity frame”“us”, as and frame” “oppositional as At it toreferis 43). this(Jenson in point, very the 2007, much to Vermeersch appropriate identities collective and reproduces constructs creates, Framing al. 6). (McAdam et 1996, understandingfashion ashared of to bygroups people is strategicefforts theconscious It experiences. of the world, action toattribute them motivate meanings it totheir individualsand groups and to allows and of themselves by facilitated processes “interpretativeof frame alignment” (della and Porta Diani 1999, 82). that legitimateis action Thus, collective 35). 2000, Stratham and (Koopmans action a collective basis of andbecome be in defined,“framed” to public a or mediated discourses, and perceived, constructed, mobilizebe to have but world, external in the there out simply not are resources interests, theopportunities, movement mobilizeinIn otherwords, adherents(Goffman and 42). Johnston 2007, Vermeersch In identifying the process of frame alignment, Benford and Snow (2000) proposed In identifying offrame and Benford (2000) proposed to alignment, the process Snow and identity the Like frame: a of elements basic three identified Gamson William Framing is hence the way activists perceive and “make sense” of the situation that 50 CEU eTD Collection achieved if they absentare too (Barany 2002, 281, 288). communications, and symbols are also important formobilization, but positive mobilizational outcomes canbe profile are the most important prerequisites formobilization. He argues yet thatideology, resources, 8)symbols.and politicalFor him, opportunity,strong ethnic identity,effective leadership, and organizationalan leadership, 4)organizational capacity,ideology, 5) profile, and program, 6) financial resources, 7)communications, prerequisites,order in tosucceed. are: These 1)political opportunity,ethnic identity 2) itsformation,and 3) 33 (Barany 2002, 282-3). outside andcircumstancesin identity forces copingstrengthening with adaptation to ethnic of preservation and attention the to significant in Baranyattaches and others”. diminished “ethnicity is one of a cluster of identity options whose value is in enhanced some circumstances many,for belonging ethnic is one of mostthe important markers ofidentity. Headds that hethat states Morever, andlanguage”. culture, traditions, likeshared history, of attributes several mobilization. 4.2. Identity Framing of the Romani Leaders in Istanbul Edirne. and leaders Izmir, focus on framingthe doneby Romanithe leaders based myon interviews done with five Romani (Benford in and Snow 2007,151).InVermeersch lightof these arguments, this shall chapter problem “prognosticforand framing” identifying meaning the perceived solutions problem framing canbe donein ways: “Diagnostictwo framing” meaning identifying causethe of the bemobilized. Problem would and berequired activists action would way a collective that insuch a a particular problem explain attention the problem and to “problem framing”:Todraw views on identity group’s the collectiveand bydefiningidentity. limits the of that Thesecond is Zoltan Barany argues that ethnic mobilizationdoes not occur in a vacuum, and it needs numberof ingredients, or Zoltan Barany lists ethnic identity as one of the fundamental prerequisites for ethnic fundamental prerequisites the of as one identity lists ethnic Zoltan Barany 33 He argues that “ethnicity attests to an awareness of collective identity consisting identity collective of an awareness to attests “ethnicity that Heargues 51 CEU eTD Collection instance despite severe exclusion and not even thatthis asminority. being and accepted not agrees despite severe exclusion instance Cekic into Muslimmillet. incorporated the where were Roma Empire the Ottoman living together. Cekic also argues that of thisproblems no had identification and sense that in identical rests felt have heavilycommunities two on these the that millet claims systemCekic of the nomadism, of have Roma life.the atradition also Since form haveanomadic of used to society Turkish Romani.Cekic (2008)argues the that speak inaddition to are Muslimsthey Turkish and being aware of their identity, are perfectly integrated to the Turkish society. They are Turks, they in Roma, the that shows quote This rights”. Romani improve and raise awareness to ‘Roma’ use name the pushedhard to I this, with agreeing deepcommitment In country. tothis our association,to use ‘Roma’ some opposed friends instead of Roma word the even ‘Turk’ dueto “Whileculture andAbdullah characteristicalso notes: Cistir (2007,761). our establishing (2008) a large havepreservedtheir own Roma, that the also to extent, states Kolukirik Toktas Sule and identity The study since theSuat Romaassimilation still and traditions. of their preserve Roma have been granted more freedom than the European Roma. Cekic says that the case is not belong Turkey of area genuinepartTurkish thattheTurkish to nation.and asserts they Healso isidentification importanceof utmost in analyzing the Romani inmobilization Turkey. Turkish the confirmsbelieve finding(Marshin Roma this Yezdani thatthis 2005). I Muslim and lastly as Roma. Yet, in addition to my interviews, unlikethat, the Romathe inEurope, identify in Turkey firstly themselves as then Turk, as the research of Adrianstate to talked I Marshleaders Romani the all on limited, very is sample the Although clearly. this showed One mayOne ponder easily why identified Roma havethe as in themselves Turk first the they feel that or concern,any doubt they without expressesthat Erdinc (2008) Cekic interviews andnation, asmy tothis country committed The Romaare deeply inTurkey 52 CEU eTD Collection solely on religious criteria (Kolukirik and Toktas 2007, 763). the Roma could immigrate to Turkey. This agreement ignored any ethnicity orlanguage criteria, but was based 34 “shared symbols likeflag,monuments, and public spaces endowed with historical meaning, that Barany argues Zoltan society. of this part” “inherent butan as “minorities” not themselves frame TheRoma says Cekic. be eliminated”, to violations rights human and ameliorated that we are notRoma. We are Roma, but we are fine with this. We just need ourconditions beto never argue we However, same thing. wewould claim same the to conditions, inhumane subject ethnicity,itbut is a problem of humanity: “Even if werewe not Roma butPatagonian, but were requested separation. Erdinc Cekic and HalitKeser claim that the problem has nothing todo with ethnic identity. AsZafer Sulukculer (2008)mentions, they never askedfor a territory, nor beRoma seen should as amodel been have they neverrebels. since Therefore, Cistir exchange, creation whichledtothe of fora Turkish theRoma identity (Marsh 2008). adds that the Roma population Turkey Roma1923 with to the Moreover, came century. since the 11th territory embrace this countryimportantly, that theMost KeserRoma sincerely.Halitareinthis this (2008)asserts they do deeply. In thishaveRoma antagonisticsentiments to against Turkey, flagorMustafa Turkish Kemal Ataturk. sense, for him, the veryTurkey feelings.with it All leadersisgenuine Romani the very forargued that unlikely the be dangerous for us”. However, they emphasized strongly that they are now deeply committed to Alevis constitute a good example. By looking at these cases, we saw what way of behaviour can“For experiences us,the by Abdullah Cistir confronted shares Kurdsand the this: (2008)also the exclusion:further for room any “Ifleave to not inorder way one clever very in a and isintentionally done been has strong, the smartest way is to act with the strong. That is what we did”. Turkey, with the 1923 population exchange agreement with Greece, agreed that the Muslims of Greece as well as well as ofGreece Muslims the that agreed Greece, with agreement exchange population 1923 the with Turkey, What is very striking is that the Roma leaders do not pursue to reveal and highlight their highlight and reveal to pursue not do leaders Roma the is that striking very is What 53 34 CEU eTD Collection During my interview, they stated immense interview, andknowledge, they During stated their despite that experience my they least language bespeak at foreign to with one ableto be in Romani other touch associations. Sulukculer (2008)stress Romani that educationleaders should haveaproper and they should Romani families due to their illiteracy and a vicious circle is created. HalitKeser and Zafer cannotguide hurdle biggest parents that inmobilization. for their Hestates theirchildren many of theirfathers, so the profession passes from one generation to another. maintain jobs the to atradition Romahave Roma.The for the model a roleis there not adds that He problems”. these all rid of get Roma will the up,then brought is oneteacher or doctor, one lawyer, one district, Romani If in here. every each and lies problem “The of the core adds that: has later, He been years federation. the degree this who evenearned chairing school secondary modestly hefinds federation expressedironic biggest Romani itthat he,as of that a graduate of Romani the isleaders, lack of education. Erdinc Cekic (2008)asthe head of EDROM and the for theweakness by andforemostfirst cause Turkishthe mobilization,of asdepicted Romani all 4.3. Problem Framing of the Romani Leaders identity. ethnic their on awareness raise to try nevertheless associations these distinction, an us/them to of tongue youngthe (2007,763-4).Yet, generations although identity their framingnotlead does primary identification. Moreover, as Kolukirik and Toktas argue, Turkish has becometheir the mothernot is Roma the as identification the since them for strong very not is this identity, ethnic In 2002, 287). casethe Turkish of the Roma, although canconclude that, one they preserve their poems, anthems, andanniversariesofhistorical strengthen events group’s the cohesion” (Barany Abdullah Cistir (2008)from Izmir Romani Association also agreesthateducation is the Concerning the“diagnostic meaning identifying framing” causeof the problem,the the 54 CEU eTD Collection political activism itsunderpins ethnic identity and successthe ofmobilization (Barany 2002, thatan experience Barany in inadequate. prior argues themselves very community’s ethnic find even they may,that as it they emphasize Be that Association. such Solidarity as Gurcesme years for in ten associations have worked various Keser andZafer Sulukculer experience. Halit Punduk, head the of Sulukulethe RomaniAssociation also possessed neither nor prior education before.in Sukru trade wasinvolved He experience. andnohas organizational no education importance of profession the ininfluencingof parents the likewise, lives.Abdullah Cistir, Roma Edirne and hisskills haveand reputation passedfrom his father. This example shows the and he owned cafés and trade with Cekic dealt instance, Erdinc For associations. theirestablishing to organization prior restaurants. He concludesin experience nopast Halit they stated Keserthat andexceptpossessed ZaferSulukculer, that his father in isRomani mobilization history. very with infant Turkey All a short leadersinterviewed,the I was an influential person in as the primary seeeducation leadersalways requirement. Romani tobealeader, notenough and are Turkish the except qualifications education, these features leaders possessall although case that, Turkish in Wesee the 2002,284). background (Barany political and standing, social position, economic qualifications, have academic a leadershould failure Hethinks that of organization. may the the success or leadership determine quality the of leadershiphe of for successfulethnicmobilization asone and arguesthat vital the prerequisites lists youngBarany they howZoltan unexperienced areseenor matter are. as leaders no graduates university and education to importance significant attach Roma the how seen be can it example, With this graduate. young university a association, head the of asthe OzcanPurcu elected The Romani leaders are also unexperienced in organizational sense. As stated, Asthe sense. stated, inorganizational leadersThe unexperienced arealso Romani 55 CEU eTD Collection haveget awill organized. AbdullahCistirto argues fear (2008) the that of beingfurther excluded or in politics participate opinions their express hardly they Therefore, Roma. the among prevail they suppressedhave been years, and excluded for many asense andmistrust of disappointment get Since organized. afraid very to Roma majority isthe weak asthe are of society civil sense children that they will get proper jobs”. All these leaders also argued that in their community, the mobilization in Turkey (2005, 187). 35 prejudices in lack since themselves they self-esteem. sense, the Romani leaders make“injustice framing”. In isthis ignored. often plight socio-economic yet their labelled as“musicians” Roma are that the smugglers,yet Cekic asserts that these generalizations are very ruthless. Cistir (2008) also argues or Romavagrants inclined the majority peopletothinkthat thieves, the areusually are of the Moreover, troublemakers. as are seen Roma the and generalizations leads to Roma one just by misdeedcommitted that convincingly argues inthesociety. He be hardly Romaactive can achieve he duetoprejudicesand labelling, the enough administration and iscompetentto that, in involved be to willing is a Roma if Even administration. local in the Roma a single not is in there Edirne, that Heexemplifies scene. in exist political to the incompetent Romathe are seen as musicians, dancers, flower-sellers, and there is a wicked mentality among non-Roma that succeed in cannot Roma any the that believe people profession, non-Roma of majority overwhelming the that argues except the entertainment business. community in Turkey lacka communalalso experience. organizational He continues that the 283). In addition shortcomingsto inbeing experienced in individual the sense, the Roma Roma are Emine Onaran Incirlioglu similarly argues that this is one of the reasons for the weakness of the Romani One other point that Erdinc Cekic highlights is that, the Roma themselves also have also themselves Roma the that, is highlights Cekic Erdinc that point other One The for ismobilization problem third as“prejudice”. their stated Erdinc Cekic (2008) 56 35 He says: “The Roma do not trust their CEU eTD Collection extent (2005, 183). 36 defines and ofits profile the activities.goals Putdifferently, when identificationthe the of are blamed to ignore the Roma in this sense. financial Thisframingbe alsodifficulties. in includedframing can injustice authorities the since (Barany Therefore2002, 286). in moremoreTurkey and associations aregetting closed due to employees pay and communication, and offices maintain materials, campaign and journals ethnic need TheRomapublicize mobilizations. groups money accelerate print to activities, to improve housing, health joband conditions andfight for their rights and equality. aim associations these ”.Therefore, conditions’ ‘humane least at but people, their for standards of their associations, asErdinc Cekic (2008)discusses: “Wedonotrequest luxury higher or establishment the of goal the and motive main the been has problems socio-economic combating this. on depends much very Roma Turkish of weakness the Therefore, members degree and and the inof engaging collective (Barany coordinated 284). activities 2002, among “socialcommunity mobilization trust the degreeof capital”; success alsodepends on of incase Turkey, issimilarvery Roma Turkish in the are thisethnicsolidarity. forming weak The likefactors policies prejudicial state in housing, welfare, education, andAlthough taxation. the identity.in Hearguesthat general ethnic fellowshipmay develop result asthe of numerous of ethnic aspect fundamental is Barany,another solidarity ethnic to According self-esteem. led apathy weaknessmobilizationthe is ofthe tothis mainreasons of and their lack one of of Emine Onaran Incirlioglu also states that financial problems hinder the TurkishRomani mobilization to a great Barany believes that mobilization mobilization clearly whenan morebecomes successful Barany believes thatgroup ethnic The last is problem financialZoltan resources. Barany sees this as ato factor significant problems. economic and social is problem fifth The 57 36 All the leaders stated that stated leaders Allthe CEU eTD Collection 37 (Middle Eastern Studies, 2007) for the ofreasons lowthe organization among Romathe individuals. launch centres and programmes which offer vocational training. Izmir Contemporary Romani Izmir Contemporary training. vocational offer which andprogrammes centres launch Onewith by locals,the public solution offered leaderseducation and municipalities”. is these to meetings by arranging raise Wetry lot. awareness increasedto a has Ourresponsibility projects. inefficient in solvingAbdullah “Asopportunities states that: for governmentremains Cistir Roma. the the (2008) our problems, we, theas most effective solutions,Izmir and thus one of the main goals of these associations is Romanito provide job Association have to embarkschool. on new high finearts they establish that Abdullah for a stated Cistirwill also adults. various trainings Therefore, their association activities include scholarship programmesfor Romani children and education salvation. thesoleto way also pointZafer Sulukculeras and of SukruPunduk(2008) Romamore duetothe lack is marginalized Keser, Halitexcluded of s/hebecomes. the education, a andthe more Romathe society, integrate inthe to is solution the major education that argues Cistir horizonsexpandeducation”. (2008) need through our We to play violin street. the on need toshow that the Roma do not only sell fruits on the street, do business with the carriages, or problem, isseen education “Our asolution.fightis (2008) states: Weas Cekic based on this: Roma,lack of solidarity among them, socio-economic problems and lack funding.of the lack towards prejudices of experience, education, Thelack of theiradherents: mobilize 286). In a nutshell, the Romani leaders in Edirne, Izmir and Istanbul identify six problems to 2002, action onunited (Barany caneasily take group iscertain, shared objective collectivity’s Please see the study of Suat Kolukirik and Sule Toktas, All the Romani leaders also refer to the socio-economic solutions. They state that one of one that state They solutions. socio-economic the to refer also leaders Romani All the As regards the “prognostic framing” meaning for identifying theperceived solutions 58 Turkey’s Roma: Political participation and organization 37 CEU eTD Collection evidence of the severe disagreement among Romani associations in Turkey is inTurkey of theexistence among Romani associations of evidence disagreement severe the other one that believe I congruent. was federation a for timing that argues Cistir Abdullah these regions. Halit manyquick, cover cameabitthat too associations andtheyhave in all difficulties Keseraccessing and to decision the Zafer problems, region’s own their handling Sulukculerbefore that, admits He federation. one agree with thisin be clustered to ripe enough not were associations the that underlines federation the head of the statement. On the other idea the oppose being whereasall federations this. Cekic,despite of Erdinc others up the setting hand, favours Abdullah instance,Cistir For might differ too. leadersby framingthese done note that Romathe bein to involved hencetheir bringaboutchange. projects, leaders encourage Roma, needs forthese the most crucial the By underlining collective action. providingscholarships vocational and Roma. tothe trainings associations Moreover, require for work associations their that out spell leaders Romani these action, collective sense of job anda lack in Romatoact.Since theRomaencourage the education, opportunities Turkey their problems. In sense,this theymake framing”, “agency meaning possibilities of change to andfor action.call acollective they associations these to of Roma the for participation the leaders ask these Therefore, society”. of the segment every from altogether…Everyone combat to have we is “Solution framing: Cekic’s Erdinc to year. aged branches.16-40 in several programme isforThis ninemonths and willbe launched next women Roma the to vocational training provides which aproject has conducted also Association However, based on my observations, despite the common framings stated above, I should to solutions as action and collective opportunities job leaders use education, The Romani Torefer altogether. act to leaders isthenecessity by these underlined solution One other 59 CEU eTD Collection offering solutions to mobilize potential adherents. Their problem framings are very Theirmobilize framingsimportant arevery problem adherents. offering to potential solutions awareness make on Moreover, they their identity. framings problem byidentifying problems and On the other hand, although their identification is not very strong, these associationsexplain aim to raisethe weakness of their mobilization since they do not recognize themselves as a minority. appear tobevery EUprojects the skeptical andto funding. Cistir like Abdullah of them Some assistance. EU the concerning notreach aconsensus do also leaders These first. from local the start Roma should the likely that it more appears Therefore, and successful mobilization makeimportantBarany, to According are ethnic goals realistic for to their self-distrust. a MP sounds very unrealistic for acommunity like the Roma. Yet, Cistir blames the other leadersbe to aiming fact, In firstly. local in the active being start should Roma the that claim hand other nothing buta pipe dream. EDROM and Izmir Contemporary Association leadersRomani on the goals. Abdullahagree Cistir on basic problems. desires least thebasicYet, goals andtactics of Theseprocess (Barany mobilization leaders the 284). 2002, oneto otherbe a disagreementMP, yet amongthe theseother leaders leaders also Turkishthe Roma whichhinders theirmobilization. arises claimin their thatlikely succeed Organizational fragmentation(Barany isto 2002, 284-5). for aserious problem this aspirationcommunity. division Thus, and rifts within ethnicelites make theirmobilization becomes less is being most of asthe representative sole probablyincreasesin ethnicgroup the cohesion the one of the vital issues is place takes a mobilization that context institutional the states Barany federations. Romani two to be decided. He points out that a single or an umbrella organization In this chapter, I aimed to show that the identity framing of the Turkish Roma might Roma Turkish the of framing identity the that show to aimed I chapter, this In ifat compromises on should is leaders negotiate that Barany states divided, group the for the achievement of forof achievement2002,286). the (Barany these objectives 60 CEU eTD Collection success of Romani the mobilization gravely. framings, organizational fragmentation and clashes on objectives impedeamong them the ismobilization weak. Yet,although Turkishthe leadersRomani agree onbasic problem solidarity,socio-economic problems funding lack and of explainwhy Romani Turkish the lack lackand framings as thelack these such prejudices, of education, of ethnic of experience, 61 CEU eTD Collection detailed as my research mobilization is in andmy Romani the Hungaryisnotasrigorous Turkey. research on Hence, on Turkey. thesis this of focus the that note should one It However, first mobilization. of in terms latter the behind and foremost lacks a lag why formerilluminate case and that Roma) to weak (Turkish(Hungarian Roma) the astrong detailed empirical compareresearch.isundergone progress the the In toa inRoma chapter respect, this aim this of rights. I to attest MEPs ad MPs Romani and parties, Romani of existence the Roma, on the programmes Roma. Theestablishment of national self-government, medium-term Gypsy long-term and getmobilizedsuccessful Romain protect level. the to national the seeks to diligently Hungary most arethe Additionally,Roma since Bank2008). Roma Hungarian 1990 (World projects have taken place in Hungary on Roma issues than in any other country in Europe, with over 1300 andprogram thatmoreactivities more projects and states The World Bank since thelate1980s. of and Europe Roma inCentral Hungary activity 86). Moreover, on Eastern asacenter stands in representing Europe, between 1.9–5% of populationthe in Hungary (Spirova andBudd 2008, is 8-10million (Majtenyi Hungary hosts and Vizi 2007, 9). one ofRoma biggest the populations this region attach more importance to Roma rights. The estimated number of the Roma in Europe in countries thinkthat to more plausible is it Therefore, region. European andEastern Central inis in the world the Romani population biggest Turkish case.The of the of weakness the reasons highlight the to in mobilization in order of terms a example successful which constitutes However, I believe that is mobilization weak. alsorevealedRomani the why inchapters mobilization Turkey. These the case of the Turkish Roma should be compared with another Mobilization Romani Hungarian and the caseMobilization Romani Turkish the of The Comparison Five: Chapter Previous chapters dealt with the the factors that stimulate and slow down the Romani 62 CEU eTD Collection paragraph that: declares paragraph of ethnic minority rights. 9). The Constitution established by Act XX of 1949 is avery comphenesive constitution in terms 2004, (Vermeersch policy “cultural of differentiation” in wasallowed context the mother tongue and use of their rights the cultural religious and minorities weregranted a yearlater, Moreover, transformation. ofassociation andassemblywereDecember rights established. In 1988,the half second in the justified legally became of ethnicity of basis the on interests group of theformulation the Hungary, In 1980s Roma. the to rights profound grants Hungary in regime minority The extent. a great when the state 5.1.1. TheDomestic Political Structure Opportunity in Hungary was undergoing5.1. Hungary a process period.post-1989 Roma EUonthe the the Roma Hungarian framing inthe mobilization,Hungarian and of the of economicchapter shall first briefly outline of theimpact domesticthe political opportunity and structure, and nevertheless believea comparison that would beuseful.moving Before to conclusion,the this political (Hungarian Contitution). ethnic minorities whichcome to his attentionand initiating general orspecific measures fortheir remedy investigating or initiating the investigationof cases involving the infringement of the rights of national or The Parliamentary Ombudsman forthe Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities is responsible for up their ownlocal and national government organizations (Hungarian Constitution). and ethnic minorities living in the territory national the of for the country. Nationalrepresentation andensure ethnicHungary of minorities Republic the of may laws The set language. own their in pronounced and spelled as names their use to freedom and tongue, mother the in instruction school receive tongue, mother use the culture, own their foster to them enables and life, public national and ethnic minorities, itensures to the possibilities protection for theirgrants collective Hungary of Republic participation The State. the in in factors constituent are they people; of the power the share Hungary of Republic the in living minorities ethnic and national The In theArticleaddition to entitlesfreedoms, various 68which Article 32Bsecond to legislation Hungarian the to mobilization in success their owe Hungary in Roma The According Article to 68of Hungarianthe Constitution: 63 CEU eTD Collection 119). spectrums 2007, in(Vermeersch broader people fail inmobilizing parties.parties Thirdly, these with the small portionisFirst related failure arethreefold: of their The reasons 2007,115). (Vermeersch successful of the electorate. them was of noneyet arena, in thepolitics appeared Roma Hungarian of Party Secondly,Democratic thresholds Party, the Romani Democratic the Party, Romani Forum, Hungarian andNationality Gypsies hinder the participation Hungarian Party of Democratic Party, Gypsy Solidarity Hungarian the Party, Democratic of small 2005). wereelectedtotheNationalAssembly House four(Freedom Roma candidates only in1.4% of vote the his individualconstituency In (Vermeersch 2002 elections,2002, 161). polled who candidate, had asuccessful Gypsies (MCDP) Hungarian of the Party Democratic There werenoRoma in National the Assembly between 1998 and 2002.In 1998, the failedhaving gainrepresentation. and elections yetparties to candidatesin1990,1994 1998 they Among them,one of them only could keepherseatuntil Romani 1998. There wereseparate which is a noteworthy very makeopportunity to their voice heard. highvery Nevertheless,(Vermeersch 2007, 114). Romani membersin exist Parliament,the mainstream and parties, proportion the of Romathe included inmainstream lists arenot party on legislatures national to elected activists Romani of number total and in politics well very isrepresented can Roma not the It be that population 162). claimed be2002, passed(Vermeersch should threshold 5% representation, proportional of principle the on lists party regional through parliament toenter In order seats. has386 Assembly National Hungarian The representation. As seen, according to the Constitution, every minority isminority Constitution, the ensuredpolitical every to As seen, according In addition to this, Hungary has Romani parties. The Hungarian Gypsy Social Gypsy Hungarian The parties. Romani has Hungary this, to addition In The AssemblyNational had members Romani three inof 1990-1994. parliaments 64 CEU eTD Collection Foreign Foreign Affairs FactSheet on Roma 2004,11). of Ministry (Hungarian collectively organize to them enables and representation political Roma 11). The minority self-governmentsystem isimportance of utmost since it grants Hungarianthe andRomafour representatives Romaelected at mayors were local the levels in 2006, 2002 (Blais governments passingfrom in412 1994, to 753in 1998 andfinally 998 into 2004. Moreover, 545 in many self- wereself-governments were 2007,72).There elected 1994-1995 (Vermeersch local and minority Thefirst rights. Roma regarding government the of ethnic official partner matters” (Hungarian andcultural traditions written field media, preserving the the and of localelectronic education, Ministry of Foreign decide Affairs Roma the “the …especially in to which scopeof the righttheir within granted powers, Fact Sheet on Roma 2004, 5). It became 10). of Roma “integration” the the society 2004, the to (Vermeersch the J/3670, preparedby report governmentof Horn 1994-1998 stated that this aimed actprimarily autonomy and localnationwide establishmentthe self-governing Government of bodies. or 2007,66).Thisrepresentation”is (Vermeersch law allowing uniquein Europe personal the right to achieve cultural autonomy through self-governmental bodies and the right to political activity, educational theirown toorganize language, right use their the “the to right guaranteed self-governments: She states that the minority self-government does not have that strong powers, and its operation is 66). 2007, (Vermeersch 39 Ukrainians and Slovaks, Serbs, Ruthenes, Romanians, Poles, Greeks, Germans, 38 National and Ethnic minoritiespoliciesas amonitoring towards andact office.LXXVII of Act 1993 on of Rights the Minorities National and set the fundamental Ethnic foundedis out Minorities to in1990s was for principles one of the cornerstones of Roma rights. Anita Danka from the ERRC (2008) stated during ourinterview that one should also be critical about the minority Croatians, Bulgarians, Armenians, Roma, The minorities: historical thirteen recognized 1993 of Act The With the Act of With of Act the 1993, National GypsyMinority was Self-Government established, The Hungarian government has also been working to improve Roma rights: Office for Office rights: Roma improve to working been also has government Hungarian The 39 65 38 The Roma were CEU eTD Collection vital progress. a as vital appear self-govrnments minority case, Turkish the to compared shortcomings, its with agreeing in Nevertheless, Cahn in 2002, 168). (Vermeersch landscape political the polarise actually self-governments the and one, marginal a is place reduces Romani politics to the participationof the Roma in one group-specific domainof political life, the grantedneglect the inclusionof Roma inregularpolitical institutions (Vermeersch2007, 210). Inother words, this system are not included in the self-government system. Moreover, withthe establishment of system,this the state is said to government is said to illegitimize alternative Romani advocacy organizations that seeks to affect the policy which is said that this opennessit leads Therefore, to manipulationRoma. or aminority and misrepresentation. being of s/he regardless Oneelections otherlocal in argumentvote can is, Gypsyeveryone self-problem, legitimacy financial basis of the system, and the inability of the systemto cope with the real problems of the Roma. As to the at the mercy of the self-government. Otherproblems may be listed as the questionof legitimate representation, the implementpolicies for Roma.the Office Government for Equal hadOpportunities been set upin callingdevelop(2005-2015) governmentsto and is project domestic Hungary. aten-year It (Resolution 1078) (HungarianMinistry Foreignof Affairs FactSheet onRoma 2004,5-6). long-termthe minority by Roma social strategy and political was adopted government the Self-Government Body which givesfree legal advice were set up. In 2001, a discussion paper on Legal Advice Network, the creation the Anti-Discrimination Inter-Ministerial Committee onRoma In of an Affairs. 2001, Office for National and 1999witnessed integration Roma. the forof social requirements the Decree 1093/1997)defined Ethnic Minorities and the equal promote medium-term In firstopportunities. 1995, the measures package of (Government National Gypsy Council and the for Foundation Public Gypsies in Hungary, havebeen which working to (Resolution Thus, government1120/1995). established the Gypsy AffairsCoordination the provide program to funds additional through governmental a comprehensive approach draw upa medium-term requirementto the launchedwhich prompted short-term was program abusesrights (Hungarian Ministry AffairsForeign of on FactSheetRoma 2004,5-6).In 1995, National and Minority Rights appointedEthnic anOmbudsman human who would investigate for Commissioner Parliamentary the on 1993 ActLIX of Moreover, in schools. segregation Act LXXIX of combatinAct LXXIX and1993 on Education, amended 2003,aimed of to Public 1996 In 2003, “Decade of Roma Inclusion” project was launched having been hosted in having been hosted waslaunched“Decade project ofRomaIn Inclusion” 2003, 66 CEU eTD Collection Foreign MinisterJános Martonyi asserted in 1999 (Vermeersch2002, 165). Similarly, itisoftenstated by represent. to the politiciansseek they people that of the it isRoma’s purity and unity own responsibility “ethnic” the stress they to and be that backwardstance as Hungarian extremist more have (MIÉP) reluctant to cooperate withthe Roma. In the worst cases, political parties such asthe Party of Justice Lifeand Eliminationof All Forms of Discriminationagainst Women in2006 (ERRC 2006). The Roma politicians are also Also, as regardslawsuit a filed theFoundation” rightsChildren against the Miskolc Municipalityfor the practice alleging of schoolof segregation children Romani “Chance (ERRC 2006). NGO of Hungarian the the 2005, June RomaIn Furthermore, women, Roma. against CEDAW condemned Hungary for40 violating the Convention on the of number the of flow the and communism of fall the since Roma the of plight escalating the on concerns the to is due This Europe. in Central minorities national of protection the for in thefall world. Since Sovietruleof the and1990s,the EUhasshown interesta profound Hungarian RomaniMobilization 5.1.2. TheSupranational Political Opportunity Structure: TheImpact oftheEU on the acrucial for themobilization constitutes opportunity of Hungarian the Roma. Romathe enoughin national level,the in all all, domestic political opportunity structure forcombatrights, remainingto discrimination, insufficientnot representing widespread andfor ministerial Committee on Roma Issues and the Roma Council. bodies: Inter- The earlier existing two replacing founded Roma Integration was Council of (Vermeersch 2007,114).According2006 Government to decision, anewnamed body the MEPs Romani two first have to country first the became Hungary elections, Parliament Ministry AffairsSheetForeign Factof RomainMoreover, on 2004,7-9). 2004 European (Hungarian minorities ethnic and national on acts certain of amendment the and representatives March introduced government2004, the a bill for election the minority of self-government OpportunitiesCXXV (Act Act of 2003). Thelast medium-term inpackage was adopted 2004. In and of Equal Promotion the followed January Treatment bytheEqual 2004, which was Forinstance, according to the ERRC (2002)public report officials inHungary were inracist speechengaged As stated As stated above, Central Europe the and Eastern hostsRomani thebiggest population Roma of protection in the shortcomings the for criticized times at is Hungary Although 67 40 CEU eTD Collection European norms”. Moreover, another government report referred to the role of the European ofthe role the referredto report government another Moreover, norms”. European in with minorities accordance rights of the fully ensure undertaken to 1990s haveclearly “the governmentreport in programmes that stated thebeginning governmentsince the 1999 of A too. impactHungary on hugehadhave a recommendations and EUcriticisms the Yet, before Criteria. Copenhagen the beenundertaken hadimpressive already may progress that think to large the size of external minorities (Schimmelfennig and Schwellnus 2006,12).Thus, one sinceEastern Europe 1989 and avery inunproblematic state fieldthe of minority protection due case. Roma the on emphasis further placed has EU the region, in this states EU embraced the of process enlargement since Eastern Moreover, the “namingshaming” strategy. good and for Roma the in notably Central (Vermeersch This hasEuropean countries 2007, 196). beena situation to the which publish point reports to regular annual and started states Commission the monitor in the Roma more closely these to case EUstarted the 1993.Therefore, dated minorities 2000 referred Convention Framework the Council to and Europe’s Recommendationof on about the problems Romathe that faceinmember states.In1997,the Commission’s Agenda awareness toraise created People” was A European “TheTruly Roma: document the later, years influencemore direct onminority policies thanany IGO(Vermeerschother Three2007, 195). important mechanism to further reforms in candidate countries. Due to this clause, the EU has a Balkans and the will maintainto stabilitypolitical (Vermeersch 2004,7). 2007, 198).Thus, theissue to was related failureinthe preventing theoutbreak of violence in the (Vermeersch region in this conflicts ethnic of blast the from also stem minorities on concern EU from the 2004,8).The EU(Vermeersch Romani countries European asylumseekers to Central Hungary is seen among the front-runners of democratic transformation in Central and Central in transformation democratic of front-runners the among seen is Hungary inThe “conditionality”1993asan of Summit Copenhagen wasdecided clause 68 CEU eTD Collection facing” (Spirova and Budd 2008, 87). the implementationof national actionplans to improve the difficult situation the members of these communities areeducational autonomy” Sasse(Hughes and 15). 2003, The 2002 statedreport that“progress beenha[d] made with “well developed institutional framework protecting the interests of its minorities and promoting theircultural and 41 minority in Sasse between 1989provides 2003,20).Moreover, 1994 and protection (Hughes and established programme heading,PHARE and democratization” policies. “civil society Under the (Schimmelfennig and Schwellnus 2006,15,Hughes and Sasse2003,15). acquis The 2003 report declared that “[a]ttention is beto given to alignment with the anti-discrimination 118). local and 2005, national medium-term at the level program Roma action the (Spendzharova launched the Commission’sdiscrimination legislation”.pressure, Hungary a In2001,dueto there Moreover, (...) is fragmented legislation anti-discrimination The current (...) anti-discrimination is no the to transpose in order legislation comprehensive highlightedadopt from reports thenecessity the to Moreover,lives” 2001 onwards (1999,13). Roma intheirimproved prejudicedaily markedly(...) suffer discrimination and widespread systempartnership. stated The1999 report “whilethat theirworsened, situation has not it has not living conditions and rights of the Roma, and this was madeto a short-term priority in the accession effectively protection system Hungary of largestthe minority in Hungary. addressAlthough reports the uniquenessthe of minority the areactually The Roma andSasse2003,16). (Hughes addressed minority Roma only the are enforcesituation in candidate countries. In the first reports on Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, the implementation inCommission putting the issue onthe domestic agenda (Vermeersch 2004, 12). of anti- For instance, the 2001 report stated that minorities are “well integrated into Hungarian society” and Hungary has a has Hungary and society” Hungarian into integrated “well are minorities that stated report 2001 the instance, For , and considerable efforts should aim at improving the situation of the Roma minority” Roma the of situation the improving at aim should efforts considerable and , Apart from Apartfrom conditionality, EUfundingHungary the to considerably influences minority From monitor Commission’s the minority 1997 onwards, Regular the annual Reports 41 , progress reports constantly, progress reports improve needsthe to referred to the acquis by saying “Hungary have not does a unified law on 69 CEU eTD Collection 2007, 13). onchallenging issues; 5) raise public awareness onthe situationof Roma throughactive communications (Bunescu policy making on matters concerning them; 4)bring in international experience and expertise to makehelp progress regional and politicalEuropean agendas; 2)learn andexchange experiences; 3)involveRomameaningfully all in 42 Hungarian the Romani leaders is“the Roma as a national minority” (Vermeersch 2007, 161-4). status for the Roma as a European nation without a state. Therefore, the identity framing used by legal special ideaa of the supported of them none Yet, people. atransnational as Roma of the idea the of importance symbolic the acknowledge they although minority national a as position their defend to wanted activists Hungarian the of most Yet, nation. European nonterritorial thatthe Romalikewisebe in Romani should consideredasa Prague proposed Congress andhence history, theyshould be a granted Thespecial legal fifthEuropean status. World haveacommon culture Romathe communities that Roma.forclaim the They framing nation” 5.1.3. IdentityandProblem Framing of the Hungarian Romani Leaders 13). 2007, Romania, and Slovakia (Bunescu Serbia, Montenegro, Republic, Hungary,Macedonia, Czech the in Croatia, Bulgaria, society civil NGOsandRomani IGOs, governments, together brings which initiative, international an as one prominent most the is Inclusion” Roma of Decade for Romani communities in post-accession the countries (Mirga 2005,5). big chance a fundings Structural represent andBudd2008,83-7). (Spirova candidate countries Roma-relatedand over77million granted to in projects program 2003,PHARE euro the then milliondevelop 2001, Hungary 16 around to received programs. Between 2001 Roma-specific The aims of this programme are to 1) launch initiatives tostrengthenRoma inclusion asa high priority onthe 42 As regards the identity framing, international “aAs international prefer identity Romani regards the framing, activists nonterritorial Moreover, is Hungary involved invarious programmes by conducted EU.“Thethe 70 CEU eTD Collection in Hungary cultural,were alsogranted religious andlinguistic in rights 1989. Secondly, the yetin Hungarianallowed Roma the after 2004, 1988.TheRoma tothis wereentitled only right inwas Turkey associations Romani of instance, establishment the For Roma. the Hungarian than inlegislation minority be Turkey.have The Turkish Roma rightsto granted years started later is in the Turkey mobilization weaknessof Romani the the to whichleads factor primary the that Romani Mobilization 5.2. The Comparison of the Turkish Romani Mobilization and the Hungarian (Vermeersch 2007,156-9). Hungarian Romahave also demands for Romani language inand education Romani Moreover, rights. granted minority them that in legal framework a as anationality protected and be“recognized Roma should andarguesthatthe for Roma rights “Phalipe” advocates Hungary independentminority rights The first Roma. should tothe in beentitled Romani organization then rights, social and basic firstly Therefore, rights. individual to supplement necessary a are minority rights that states Horvath Aladar leader Romani the Similarly, protected. arenot rights their as long as improved be cannot Roma the of plight the that asserting by frame “rights” the framing, Hungarian prognostic Asthe (Vermeersch attitudes Roma 2007,154). use regards the social blames Romatheir for framing hencethe also geteducation. Thelatter to unwillingness The otherdiagnosticbeing and (Vermeersch 2007,152). framings arepoverty, uneducated, mobilization. Thus, the Roma desireget to organized to cope with discriminations and prejudicestheir in motivation core the been has authorities” and citizens non-Romani the by discrimination Romani leadersis ethnic discrimination and prejudice. The injusticeframing of“intentional Concerning framing, diagnostic most the prominentframing doneby Hungarian the Having examined the domestic political opportunity structure initis structure Having Hungary, obvious thedomestic political examined opportunity 71 CEU eTD Collection getting organized compared to Turkey. to compared organized getting in experienced more much are Roma European Eastern and Central that stating in point a have my interviewees collective form. first The globalaspirations took in place Poland and Romania (Klimova-Alexander2005, 15). Thus, 43 means here Credibility isrules. adoption forpolitical the member states condition anecessary the equal both Atof thison itthem. point, can be thatacredible membershipargued for perspective impactconditionalityreformson had their EU to were subject and the been candidacy during biggest minority. Therefore, they are also more influential than the Turkish Roma. intense more inHungary they arethe and Roma are consideration, the is into taken percentage although theand thusitis very likely for Romathe in tobe experiencedHungary in mobilization. numberand in 1950s has started in Europe Keser Roma organization the the of argue that (2008) Zafer Sulukculer of Halit Association the Romani Contemporary Izmir Romafrom interviewees My organized. in these countriesconcludenot wrong ismore to HungarianRoma thatthe experienced areinterms of getting is more or lessandTreatment Promotionthe of Equal (HughesOpportunities and Sasse2003,21). the same,the Framework Convention, Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and the Law whileon Equal as such minorities on documents international major ratified already has Hungary is, the point other Roma in Hungary have already possessed social, educational, cultural and political rights. One many for Turkish the legislations years, the beenstrugglingRoma have with discriminatory While organizations. national local andgovernment own setuptheir asthey can representation political them ensures also but minority as Roma the recognizes only not Constitution Hungarian the Moreover, Hungary. of legislation minority the to in comparison in scope limited minoritiesthe referring is Treaty Lausanne to onlylegal extremely the remains text which of Ilona Klimova-Alexander Ilona arguesin the1920s-30s, that Romani organizations started to function regularly a in Regarding the EU impact on the Roma mobilization, one can argue that both countries both that argue can one mobilization, Roma the on impact EU the Regarding it associations, Romani Hungarian with research empirical an make not did I Although 72 43 Moreover, CEU eTD Collection countries is out of scope of this thesis, it should in isolated sense. this more TurkishRomaremains the Hence, nevertheless be stated Romanithat influential populations Romani to significant with countries exampleis Theaccession this. the of to Inclusion” agood project the EU in 2004 and 2007experiences also attracted or thebe change inhave views, andopportunitiessharingEU Hungarian to Roma more experiences, past similar interestinteraction in this withregion.member. I also believe that since Centraltheir European Roma are located very closely and have been fellow Roma asaEU andconferences programmes projects, partin documents, European take forto Hungary in the region. “The goes faras amemberit state beyondis toTurkey. funding the granted more Furthermore, likely Decade of Roma interviewee Anita Danka(2008)notes, EU the funding grantedtoHungary for Romani projects my andas above exemplified As criticisms. in and of rewards terms member states the EU hasmorecase, itthe think In surprisingimpactis directa still acandidate. on that notto that criticisms. after 2001reports.the Hence, Hungary has benefited more from EUsuggestionsthe and refer interest only totheRomaHungary to Romawhereas the instarted inattracted 1997, Turkey on regular well reports Its Europe inbeinterested Central advance. in to Roma the started behind Hungarian Additionally, vaguenessof reformsthe dueto prospect. future the EU the inmembership in 1987 Therefore, reformslag mightand 1996). in Hungary Turkey undertaken for applied like(Turkey thatof Turkey doubts neverled serious has to EUmembershipthe is Hungary’srule adoption 2006,3). candidacyfor refused”(Schimmelfennig and Schwellnus if process from accession the of beingexcluded thethreat membershipand of promise “both the Although the impact of other IGOs and NGOs on the Romani mobilizations in these is Turkey whereas EU the of a member now is Hungary conditionality, the from Apart 73 CEU eTD Collection in detail, Roma,being Turkish not although the recognizednotalso asminority, do haveaclaim identity framing is the most vital element shaping the success of their mobilization. As discussed in their difference the that believe I However, superficial. and inefficient more remain projects narrow down the scope of the problems due to the vast number of these problems, therefore, their fail to Turkish associations Romani the leaders, Romani compared European tothe argues that Ebru Uzpeder leaders. (2008) Romani Yet, framingproblem Turkishthe of the Hungarian and successful in mobilizing. belikely in Hungarian aremore to chapter, Roma Turkish Roma asstated previous the the for big obstacle standsasa education Roma. Since European from Central the greatly lack that them education the Romadifferentiates of (2008) from among Turkish EDROM states Hungary benefit morefrom EUtrainingsthe aswell as educational Erdincprogrammes. Cekic fellow Roma innon-member (Spriova andBudd2008,94-6).Therefore, countries Roma the in their than ineducation equality greater have countries in EU-member Roma the importantly, states and reduces theAffairsSheet Fact on RomaVermeersch 2004,11, 2007,45). unemploymentGypsy Organisations, rate Roma Civil Rightscompared Foundation, Forum of Gypsy Organisations, the National Federation of and associations toor organizations are active since the firstthe half of 1990sthe such as Roma Parliament, the Roma Roma Civilassociations in non-EULaw Foundation assist thestates. Hungarian Roma and toconduct EU-funded programs in Hungary. Therefore, (Hungarianand Mostorganizations like the ERRC and OSI are NGOssituated in Budapest. Therefore, they are more likely to Ministryrelated of Foreignto the Roma seem to be more vivid in Hungary. These Last but not least, concerning their framings, there are not major differences in the member Roma in for the conditions ameliorates process EUaccession the Furthermore, 74 CEU eTD Collection therefore their claims remain mild compared to the European Roma. such TheRomadefining orgenocide, event. inTurkey have neverbeensubjectto persecutions asanidentity-united appeared Holocaust historical The that a strong narrative them together: Adrian also thattheEuropean interviewees Marsh CistirAbdullah (2008) argue Romaand have my Roma. Moreover, Roma European andthe Turkish the between main of differences one the frame minority”. as“national themselves Myinterviewee Erdinc Cekic arguesthat is (2008) this they Therefore, Hungarian. as then Roma first as themselves identify Roma Hungarian the Yet, as Roma. and as Turk, then Muslim then as first They identify themselves so. be recognized to 75 CEU eTD Collection Law on Movement. These laws impede the Romani involvement in society and attack inLaw Romani involvement Theselaws impede the theirself- onMovement. society and attack Role of the Police in Ceremonies and Groups and On the Organization of Police Stations, and the the on Regulation The Act, Settlement The the as such laws, several the in way discriminatory not recognizing them minoritiesas due Treaty to the of Lausanne, andaddressing themina mobilization. Theminority in legislation Turkey poses a severe threattotheirmobilization by Romani the of success the hinders that reason main the is minorities on legislation Turkish analysis. elite-based an conducting and mobilization, by making a thorough analysis involving external influencingand internal factors this tothe literature contribute In this Iaimedto supranationalstructure. sense, political opportunity analyze andthe the domestic Iaimed to mobilization, influencing this factors the understand in conducted Edirne, Izmir, five with Istanbul and Budapest Romani To leaders and four experts. in-depth interviews onthe rested research of Thecore this sources. primary and secondary Turkish Romani mobilization remains weak? remains mobilization Romani Turkish questions: this “recentof analysis the my opinion, In stronger. change” become to started has Roma Turkish the of mobilization is a crucial area to explore. is Turkey an whichdeserves moreunderstudiedfor topic attention. afewyears, Thirdly, the In this respect, in mobilization Secondly, Roma the Europe. Roma Eastern and the inCentral compared to this research focusedTurkey, despite highly theirsignificant number,remains weak inmobilized,getting notably on two in Romathe interesting that foundit I First, study threefold: was this on embarked reason why I Conclusion Regarding the domestic political opportunity structure analysis in Turkey, I stated the inthat analysisstated structure Turkey, I political opportunity Regarding domestic the This thesis aimed to focus on the Roma in Turkey and their political mobilization. The “ What factors spurWhat orhinder the Romani mobilization in Turkey? ” To trace these questions, I tracethesequestions, ” To 76 drew information from ” , and , “ why the why CEU eTD Collection other threats created by created mobilization. threats EUtoTurkishother the Roma solely due funding the EUfunding to hence pursuits, anddependency normative are agenda on in inRoma theRomani Turkey. projects, establishment of associations Exclusion Roma the of the suit hardly which and Roma Eastern and Central the of experiences the from derived are that legitimacy itsof recommendations.Moreover, the EU is also said togenerate projects orpolicies difficultiscombatborders, it question against Romanot the its discrimination to the within henceto fails minority policy full-fledged lacks a EU the Since mobilization: to this threat a become also can EU the Yet, funds. granting and Roma the on discussion public extending expanded Romarights. TheEUalso an poses opportunity Romanimobilizationthe to through and discourse pejorative removed associations, Romani of establishment the which easened to the EU accession process, many essential amendments have been undergone in the legislation inmade issues via human in Inlightand minority Turkey rights due its reports. reports, these of by monitoring firstly EUactsas the this mobilization opportunity regularly an to the progress creating well asfor opportunities Romani mobilization the inas threats Turkey.that Idisplayed to Romathe in minority Turkey, whichis a big stepfor future the of Romanithe mobilization. interest media’s andcivil society’s politicians’, the attracted have also projects Roma.the These general, threathas into this an turned opportunity enhancing solidarity and cooperation among in locally more think to tend Roma the that fact the despite and instance, first in the Roma the have to thesedemolitions thatalthough appearedasathreat I argued immense reaction. demolitions in Sulukule whichis biggest the Romani settlement in haveTurkey attracted projects renovation urban through evictions forced ongoing the that stated I inHowever, confidence. Romani districts have led to a deep concern among the Roma. Particularly the I then looked at the EU as a clear example of supranational political opportunity structure political opportunity of supranational EUasaclearexample looked atthe I then 77 CEU eTD Collection differences in the problem framing of and Turkish the the HungarianRomani leaders. However, contributehas also positively amelioratedHungarian conductEU-fundedRoma andto inHungary. programs EUaccession process The assistlikelyinmore also the are to Budapest likethe OSIsituated organizations ERRCand tothe theiremployment Romamobilization. in thisfellow their with in interaction be to andregion opportunities more have Roma Hungarian the that educationdiscussed due to the similar haspast a morelevels direct impactFinally, on Hungary in terms of rewards and criticismsand as well as funding. I also experiences. of thelegislation in these countriesI I addedHungarian is the main concludedfactor leading thatto a difference. I also influentialarguedin minority the thedifference that thatI asserted case. of Turkish the of weakness thethe reasons the EU Roma Romani thatwhich theremobilization. are not impeding factors of fragmentation success the their other are framing organizational and major while makingsolution framings. Iconcluded thatserious amongclashes themin terms of action collective job and opportunities education, to leaders Romani the refer that I also argued towards lack Roma,the of solidarity among them,socio-economic problems andlack of funding. six lack prejudices education, lackof of noted framings the used:The experience, problem identification as Romathe isnot their primary identification.As regards the problem framing, I Although very they preserve their for ethnicidentity, isnot this strong them since the claim be recognized minority to identify as andthemselves asTurkand they first. Muslim have no identity. They their ethnic reveal highlight pursueand to not leaders Romani the that do weakness mobilization inAs framing,of Romani the Turkey. identity the Iconcluded regards I finally compared the Turkish Romani mobilization with the Hungarian one to highlight to one Hungarian the with mobilization Romani Turkish the compared finally I The leaders’analysis framingmany hintsof Romani the provided me concerning the 78 CEU eTD Collection to education, and for him, the Roma shall be more educated to be more active. Abdullah Cistir Abdullah bemore active. educatedto bemore shall him, Roma the education, for and to importance crucial attaches before, he stated as Cekic, mobilization. Romani the for importance projects such as scholarship and vocational which programmes, training is fundamental of solidon to take started Romani associations have he that states Furthermore, step. which isabig mightmobilization turn into a Romani inmovement future”.the This association seeks to organize the Roma, and promote Roma rights and human rights. 44 future. the in mobilization Romani the to lot a contribute will associations in active become to started recently have who Roma young that believes also Uzpeder authorities impeding mobilization shallan the Romani come to end through this process. foresees that,She way. influential very in a yet thisperiod short very a in be taken is not shall only progress the that a start, andcontinues she Thus, rivalryovernight. undergone been not have changes these that argues amongalso (2008) the Roma as well as the toblow for Roma”. “the the has nowstarted Ebru Uzpeder Abdullah asserts wind Cistir (2008) prejudices of the projects haveAs theother. or after one come via programmes in publicsphere conferences, the intensifying solidarity among theRoma, emancipation the of discussion the of issue Romani the a The forcedevictionsmanythe of haveinitiated process: establishment Romani organizations, forvitalize afewyears.in made vital The EUprocess the amendments legislation the and due to to started has mobilization Romani theTurkish factthat the rule out not should one above. Yet, recognized so. the Turkish Roma, although the difference in theiridentity framing in isvital shaping thesuccess of their sincemobilization not being recognized as minority, do not also have a claim to be Forinstance, Romankara (Ankara Romani Association) is established by seventeenRoma university students. For Erdinc Cekic (2008), first and foremost, the interest has been drawn on beenhas on Roma, the drawn interest the firstand foremost, (2008), For Erdinc Cekic The Turkish Romani mobilization has been a week one due to the reasons explained reasons the to due one aweek been has mobilization Romani Turkish The 79 44 She concludes: “This CEU eTD Collection very interesting research. Therefore, my brief comparison in be researches. future mybrief can furthered Therefore, comparison research. very interesting comparison Turkishof the Romani movement Hungarianand the movementRomani would be a programmesAs should beconducted. regardsthefuture study,believea I that thorough and gatherings international more Thus, experiences. their from benefit to Roma European the with cooperation and in contact be should Roma Turkish the that believe I Secondly, standards. international with line in legislation domestic put to firstly, is recommendation my biggest Therefore, remainsa bigobstacle. documents as ratify international the or sign to reluctance Turkey’s Yet, rights. more be granted shall minorities member, a becomes crucial importance in Turkey’sameliorating minorities, stance towards andonce Turkey be of to continue shall reports these that think I legislation, its in shortcomings the overcome to of criticismsthe involved in reports progress on Turkishthe legislation, and Turkey’s endeavours more serious, the reforms are undertaken more rapidly and seriously too. Having seen the impact developmentstimulating the Romani mobilization in As the Turkey.Turkey’s bid tothe EUgets of mobilization.this Moreover, Turkey’s full accession the EUshallto be a groundbreaking for future the fundamental importance areof Romankara) and Roma (like young, active educated breakagree with I alsoEbru Uzpederthat its society prejudices. for the to experienced, and andmore educated get Romanileadersto the shallplay for thisa bigrole process believe that with my interviewees thatthe future of Turkishthe mobilization Romani is very I promising. time. inbeelectfiveyears Roma the rightto inaddition(2008) the elected use to a shall their right out are key for a stronger Romani mobilization.be have mentions,to carried vocational started which and likewise (2008) trainings educational According to Halit Keser and Zafer Sulukculer In takingintoconsideration achieved progress the in limitedthis period of time, Iagree 80 CEU eTD Collection Aydogan, Doga. 2007. Entry of Foreign Gypsies into Turkey, Their Freedom of Movement and Ayd Bedard, Tara. 2003. Bedard, Tara. ______. 2002. Ethnic Without Prerequisities. Mobilization Barany, Zoltan. 2001. Aydin, 2003.TheDeterminants of Mustafa. Turkish Foreign Policy and Turkey’s European Blais, Emilie. 2006. European Integration and Ethnic Minority Mobilization: The cases of Latvia, ______. 2000.Framing Processes and Social Movements: An andOverview Assessment. Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participatory Alpman, Naz Aksu, Mustafa. 2006. Acton, Thomas1997. (ed.). Residence and Expulsion from Turkey. ion%20of%20Turkish%20Democracy.pdf (accessed May 12, 2008). http://tobb.org.tr/abm/raporlaryayinlar/European%20Integration%20and%20the%20Transformat 92-9079-513-1. Democracy. 307. University Cambridge:Press. Cambridge aydogan.pdf (accessed May 10, 2008). (: 3-51. http://auhf.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/auhfd-arsiv/AUHF-2007-56-01/AUHF-2007-56-01- Vocation. [To Be A Roma]. 2008). Toronto, June2006, Hungary and Romania. In the Annual Review Sociology of Mobilization. http://lists.errc.org/rr_nr4_2003/field1.shtml (accessed May 9, 2008). Hertfordshire Press. Bibliography Õ n, Senem, and Fuat E.Keyman. 2004. European Integration and the Transformation of Turkish Õ m, Thomas Acton, Adrian Marsh, and Emine Incirlioglu Onaran. 2006. The Review International Affairsof Centre EuropeanPolicy for StudiesEU-Turkey Working Papers International Sociological Movement Research International Roma in Roma in Turkey Pamphlet of the EDROM. Edirne: EDROM Press. Türkiye’de ÇingeneOlmak The East European Gypsies. Regimechange, Marginality and Ethnopolitics. 1-24. Gypsy politics and Traveller identity http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Blais.pdf April http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2006/Blais.pdf (accessed 10, Vol. 26(August): 611-639. Annual Meeting theof CanadianPolitical ScienceAssociation, . ERRC Field Report. . ERRC Ankara University FacultyLaw of Journal [To Be A Gyspy in Turkey]. Vol. 3No.2: 306-331. 81 . Hertfordshire: University of 1:197-218. World Politics Istanbul: Kesit. No. 2: 1-48, ISBN 54 (April): 277– Roman Olmak Vol Vol 56 No.1 CEU eTD Collection ______. 2004. ______. 2005. ______. 2006. ______.2007. European European Commission. 2008. della Donatella Porta, andDiani, 1999. Mario. ______. 2005. Council 2008. of Europe. Cahn, Claude. 2002. Bunescu, Iona. 2007. EU Eastern Enlargement “Conditionality” of Minority Protection as a Political 1996.Brubaker, Rogers. Borislavova, SpendzharovaBorislavova, 2005.The Aneta. Road toEuropeI:Legacies, Normsand Strategies, the (accessed March2008). 12, Accession. ress_report_tr_en.pdf (accessed March 12, 2008). http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2005/package/sec_1426_final_prog Accession. (accessed March2008). 12, Accession. (accessed March2008). 12, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2007/nov/turkey_progress_reports_en.pdf Progress Towards Accession. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/intro/criteria.htm (accessed May 12, 2008). Blackwell. ecri/2-country-by-country_approach/Turkey/Turkey_CBC_3.asp (accessedApril ecri/2-country-by-country_approach/Turkey/Turkey_CBC_3.asp 12, 2008). April 15, 2008). http://www.humanrights.coe.int/Prot12/Protocol%2012%20and%20Exp%20Rep.htm (accessed Society. Association Debate International spire.org/articles/ib02062007_Romanian_Roma.pdf spire.org/articles/ib02062007_Romanian_Roma.pdf (accessed April 12, 2008). Opportunity for Romanian Roma. http://www.in Europe. Rights. Development of the Rule of Law in Hungary and Bulgaria after 1989: The Case of Human Southeast EuropeanPolitics New York: Cambridge University Press. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2004/rr_tr_2004_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2006/Nov/tr_sec_1390_en.pdf Roma Rights: Race, Justice, andStrategies For Equality 2004 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards Report onMinorities inTurkey 2005 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 2006 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood andthe National Question inthe New 2007 RegularReportFrom theCommissiononTurkey's Human Rights Protocol 12. Copenhagen Criteria. Vol.2 (November): VINo. 109-125. Social Movements: AnIntroduction 82 . http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/1- . New York: . Oxford: CEU eTD Collection Everyone Group.2008. ______. 2006. ______. 2008. 2008. European Roma Center. Rights European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights Programme on Turkey. 2008. ______. 1998. ______. 1999. ______. 2000. ______. 2001. ______. 2002. ______. 2003. ______. 2007. ______. 2006. ave_Sulukule.html ave_Sulukule.html May 12,2008). (accessed http://www.everyonegroup.com/EveryOne/MainPage/Entries/2008/1/25_Urgent_campaign_to_s (accessed April 02, 2008). http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2254 (accessedApril 18, 2008). Enlarged EuropeanUnion. http://www.avrupa.info.tr/Files//EIDHR_Projects_English.pdf May (accesed 02, 2008). turkey_en.pdf 12, 2008). (accessed March Accession. (accessed March2008). 12, Accession. (accessed March2008). 15, Accession. (accessed March2008). 12, Accession. Accession. (accessed March2008). 13, Accession. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2625 (accessedApril 09, 2008). http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2484 (accessedApril 22, 2008). http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_l l_98/pdf/en/ http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/1999/turkey_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2000/tu_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2001/tu_en.pdf http://ekutup.dpt.gov.tr/ab/uyelik/progre02.pdf (accessed March 12, 2008). http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/2003/rr_tk_final_en.pdf Urgent Campaign to Sulukule. Roma inWest BalkansandTurkey, Issues Brief: RomaRightsinTurkey. 1998 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 1999 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 2000 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 2001 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 2002 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards 2003 Regular Report From theCommission onTurkey's Progress Towards United Nations: Hungary Coercively SterilisedRomaniWoman. First Instance Court UpheldSegregated Education http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2119 (accessed April 18, 2008). European Union Report:TheSituation of Romain an 83 http://www.errc.org/News_index.php . CEU eTD Collection Icduygu, Ahmet, and Ali B. Soner. 2006. Turkish Minority Rights Regime: Between Difference and Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2004. http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/cd/86/39b1e5cc4b9b9b6a97c2830f3608.htm Hungarian Constitution. n.d. Hughes, James and Gwendolyn, Sasse. 2003. Monitoring the Monitors: EU Enlargement Helvacioglu, Banu. 2007. Minority Rights in Turkey: A Historical Rem(a)inder. In ______. 2008. Helsinki Yurtta Hancock, Ian.2002. Grigoriadis, Ioannis N. 2007. Türk or Türkiyeli? The Reform of Turkey’s Minority Legislation and Goffman, 1975. Erving. Gamson, William A. 1992. Gamson, William A.,and David, Meyer.1996.Framing political opportunity. In 2005.Freedom House. Equality. 210344C02B1A/0/Roma_en.pdf (accessed April 2008). 20, http://www.kulugyminiszterium.hu/NR/rdonlyres/05DF7A51-99A5-4BFE-B8A5- (accessed April 08, 2008). Issues inEurope CEECs. the in Protection Minority and Conditionality (accessed April BHelvacioglupaper.pdf 02, 2008). Governance MCRIproject,Montreal,QC, Canada, October25-27. Minorities andMulticulturalism In Democracies Ethnicityand Conference Democratic (accessed March2008). 22, the Rediscovery of Ottomanism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Cambridge University Cambridge University Press. Framings, Prospective inSocialMovements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Strutures, andCultural fiw.cfm?year=2005&country=6752 (accessed April 18, 2008). http://www.freedomhouse.org/modules/mod_call_dsp_country- Middle EasternStudies Middle eds. ú lar Derne McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald, 275-291.Cambridge: Issue 1. We Are theRomani People Country Report on Hungary. Frame Analysis: An EssayontheOrganizationofExperience. http://www.hyd.org.tr/?pid=303 (accessed March 23, 2008). ÷ i Citizens[Helsinki Assembly].http://www.hyd.org.tr/?pid=579 2008. Talking politics. 42No. 3(May): 447–468. Middle EasternStudies Cambridge: Cambridge University. Fact SheetGypsies/Roma inHungary. . Hatfield: The University of Hetfordshire Press. 84 Journal onEthnopoliticand Minority Vol.3 43No. (May): 423–438. http://www.edg-gde.ca/6- Comparative Immigration, CEU eTD Collection Kriesi, 2004.Political Hanspeter. contextandopportunity. In Koopmans, Ruud,andStatham Paul (eds).2000. Kolukirik, Suat andKolukirik, Toktas,Sule. Suat Turkey’s 2007. Roma: Political andparticipation organization. Kirisci, Kemal, and Gareth M. Winrow. 1997. Keyder, Caglar.1997.Whither project the modernity? of inTurkey 1990s? the In Keck, andKathryn Margaret, Sikkink. 1998. Karpat, Kemal. 1985. International forHelsinki Federation Human 2006. Rights. Kolukirik, 2007. Geçmi Suat. Klimova-Alexander, Ilona.2005. Gamson, William A.,and David, Meyer.1996.Framing political opportunity. In Gamson, William A. 1992. Incirlioglu-Onaran, Emine. 2005. Blackwell. movements, Politics: ComparativeEuropeanPerspectives. Middle EasternStudies Middle April (accessed 12, 2008). http://www.sdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/suatk.pdf [Lausanne Gypsies in the Mirror of the Past: Immigration, Memory and Experiences] trans-state ethnic conflict Seattle: Washington Kasaba,37-52. ResatPress. University of Rethinking modernity andnational identity in Turkey Networks inInternationalPolitics Wisconsin: The University Wisconsinof Press. 02, 2008). Negation. Cambridge University Press. State Actors. Framings, Prospective inSocialMovements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Strutures, andCultural Putlar, andTahire Erman, Ankara: 167-188. Tetragon. Sorunlar Õ [Organization Problems of the Turkish Gypsies]. In http://www.ihf-hr.org/viewbinary/viewdocument.php?doc_id=7081 (accessedApril eds. Aldershot: Asghate. Aldershot: eds. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald, 275-291.Cambridge: Ottoman Population 1830-1914: Demographic andSocial Characteristics. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Kriesi,Oxford: Sarah Soule Hanspeter and 67-90. David A.Snow, Volume 43,Number 5:761-777. Talking politics . London: Frank Cass. Frank London: . ú in Aynas ù The RomaniVoice inWorld Politics: TheUnitedNationsand Non- ecaat Arzederken Örgütlenme Merd: Türkiye Çingenelerinin . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. University . Ithaca:Cornell Õ nda Lozan Çingeneleri:nda Lozan Hat Göç, . Cambridge: Cambridge University Activists BeyondBorders: Transnational Advocacy The Kurdish question andTurkey:Anexampleof a Oxford: Oxford University Press. 85 Challenging Immigration andEthnicRelations , eds. Sibel Bozdogan and Turkey: AMinority Policy of Systematic The Blackwell companiontosocial Türkiye Kültürleri Türkiye Õ ra ve Deneyimler . Comparative , eds. Gönül CEU eTD Collection Ozalay, Eren. 2006. Minorities in Turkey: The Identity of the Alevis in Accordance with the EU Oran, Baskin. 2004. Oprisan, Ana.2002. NTVMSNBC. 2008. Quarterly ______. 2000.The Impact of European the Turkishon Union Politics. Muftuler-Bac, Meltem. 1999. The Never-Ending Story: Turkey and the European Union. In Turkey in communities Union. enlargedEuropean the Mirga, Andrzej.2005.Making the EU’s anti-discrimination policy instruments work for Romani Minority RightsInternational. Group 2007. John McAdam,Mayer (eds).1996. Doug, D. McCarthy, N.Zald McAdam, 1996. Conceptual Doug. Origins,problems, currentfuture directions. In 2000. Popov. Marushiakova, Vesselin, and Elena, Majtenyi, SelectedA Balasz, Vizi. in Balasz, and Minority Europe: 2007. International Documents – 23,2006. Legislation. In the [Minorities in Turkey: Concepts, Lausanne, Acquis, Implementation]. Istanbul: TESEV. http://www.domresearchcenter.com/journal/17/overview7.html March (accessed 20, 2008). Festival] (accessed http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/442080.asp March 28, 2008). before and Internal afterAtatürk: and External Affairs, ed.Sylvia Kedourie,24-259. 2005, http://www.per-usa.org/Reports/Andrzej%20Mirga%20_2.PDF (accessed April 12, 2008). reality?” organized bythe Committee onCivil Liberties, Justice andHome Affairs “Promoting Policy: EUFundamentalRights from words to deedsor how to makerightsa 2008). http://www.avrupa.info.tr/Files/File/MRGTurkeyReport%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed April 02, Cambridge University Press. Movements: PoliticalOpportunities, MobilizingStrutures, andCultural Framings. Cambridge University Press. Framings, Prospective inSocialMovements: Political Opportunities, Strutures, Mobilizing andCultural Press. of Hertfordshire The University Gondolat. Regarding Roma. Budapest: the XXXIVNo.2:159-179. eds. http://www.euroculturemaster.org/pdf/Oezalay.pdf April http://www.euroculturemaster.org/pdf/Oezalay.pdf (accessed 8, 2008). Türkiye’de Az Overview inTurkey.on theRoma McAdam, Doug, JohnCambridge: McAdam,McCarthy, 23-41. MayerN.Zald, Doug, D. Sulukule`de BayramDegilMatemVar Master ofArts in Euroculture Intensive Program, SanSebastian,February 13 Õ nl Õ klar: Kavramlar, Lozan, A Quest for Equality: Minorities in Turkey. In the In 86 Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire Gypsies inthe European Parliament’s Public Seminar [There is Sorrow in Sulukule, not ø ç Mevzuat, Comparative Prospective inSocial ø çtihat, Uygulama East European . Hertfordshire: , 25-26April Comparative Cambridge: CEU eTD Collection Tarrow, Sidney.Tarrow, 1994. Spirova, Maria, and Darlene, Budd. 2008. The EU Accession Process and the Roma Minorities in Translating Copenhagen the Rights: andMinority Sasse, Conditionality Gwendolyn. 2005.EU Sikkink, Kathryn. 2005. Patterns of Sikkink, of Kathryn.dynamic multilevel 2005.Patterns governance the and insider-outsider Schimmelfenning, FrankandGuido, Schwellnus. 2006.Political Conditionality and Convergence: Rumford, Chris. 2001. Human Rights and Democratization in Turkey in the Context of EU ______. 2006b. Talimatnamede ola ______. 2006a. Radikal. 2005. Roman Meclisinde Petrova, Dimitrina. 2004. The Roma: Between A Myth and the Future. In Ozgen, Zeynep. 2006. Change and Resistance: EU Conditionality on Minority Rights in Turkey. In Ozbudun, and Ergun SerapYazici. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University University Cambridge:Press. Cambridge New and Soon-to-be Member States. New andSoon-to-be Lanham:Tarrow, Rowman andLittlefield. Policy. into Criterion coalition. In coalition. April 28, 2008). (accessed http://www.eup.ethz.ch/people/schwellnus/papers/Schimmelfennig_Schwellnus.pdf In Europe. The EU’s Impact on Democracy, Human Rights, and Minority Protection in Central and Eastern Candidature. 20, 2008). (accessed March http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=189237 regulation: TheRoma]. http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=191601 (accessed March 28, 2008). http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=169661 (accessed March 12, 2008). Cahn, 7-33. Number 1 of .pdf (accessed March 28, 2008). http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/cges/docs/Docs_Grad_Conference_Page/CGES_paper_Ozgen Georgetown University,Washington,February DC, 10-12,2006. Graduate10th Annual of StudentConference“RippleEffects” Project theEuropean (accessed April 28, 2008). 2004. ISBN975-8112-47-3, http://www.tesev.org.tr/projeler/demokratiklesme_kitap.pdf CEEISA Conference, Tartu,Estonia, 25-27June2006, Roma RightsQuarterly Journalthe ofEuropean RomaRightsCenter Transnational protestandglobalactivism Journal ofEuropeanArea Studies Power in Movement: SocialMovements, Collective Action and Politics European University InstituteWorking Papers ø lle deÖrgütlü Olsun [ItShould be Organized InAny Case] ø ki Türk Comparative Politics European Democratization Reforms in Turkey. [Two Turks in the Romani Assembly]. Romani inthe Turks [Two ÷ an an ú üpheli: Romanlar [Usual in Suspects the 87 Vol.9 93-105. No.1: , eds. della Porta, Donatella and Sidney . RSCAS No.2005/16. 6:81–101. What IsRoma Rights? Istanbul: TESEV, , ed. Claude . , CEU eTD Collection ______. 2004. Minority inPolicy Central ExploringEurope: theImpact of EU’s the Recent on Reflections Racism: and Romani Participation 2002. Political Peter. Vermeersch, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTROMA/0,,contentM World Bank.2006. Ula http://www.anayasa.gov.tr/images/loaded/pdf_dosyalari/THE_CONSTITUTION_OF_THE_REPUB Turkish Constitution. n.d. Tsitselikis,Konstantin. 2004. How far have EU policies affected minority issues in Greece and Toktas, Sule. 2006. EU Enlargement Conditions and Minority Protection: A Reflection on Turkey’s The United 2008. Nations. The Regulation on the Role of the Police in Ceremonies and Groups and On the Organization of ______. 2003. Tilly, 1978. Charles. The USCountry onHumanReport Practices.2007. Rights ______. 2005. úÕ Enlargement Strategy. Enlargement Equality Developments in Hungary and Slovakia. In l March 25, 2008). (accessed DK:20333806~menuPK:615999~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:615987,00.htm (accessed April 03, 2008). LIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf LIC_OF_TURKEY.pdf (accessed March 22, 2008). March 28, 2008). (accessed http://www.euborderconf.bham.ac.uk/case/GreeceTurkey/Gr-Ttsitselikis.pdf Turkey? Minorities. Non-Muslim Press. %20DAIR%20TALIMATNAME.htm %20DAIR%20TALIMATNAME.htm (accessed April 15, 2008). LEMLERI/POLISIN%20DISIPLINE%20MERASIM%20VE%20TOPLULUKTA%20VAZIFE. DAVA%20KONULARI%20ILE%20BUNLARA%20ILISKIN%20MEVZUAT/MEMUR%20IS http://www.egm.gov.tr/hukuk/EMNIYET%20TESKILATINDA%20GORULEN%20IDARI%20 Police Stations. n.d. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78844.htm March (accessed 12, 2008). March 20, 2008). –(accessed www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-23-Add1.doc labilir Ya ed. Cahn,New York: Claude, 160-175. International Association Debate Press. ú am Derne World RomaInvolvement in Bank Issues. From Mobilizationto Revolution. The Politics of Collective Violence. The new transnational activism ÷ The GlobalReview of Ethnopolitics i (Accessible Life Association) n.d. http://www.uyd.org.tr/roman1.htm Report of theindependent expert onminorityissues. East EuropeanQuarterly Roma Rights: Race, Justice, and StrategiesJustice, Roma Rights:Race, for 88 XLNo.4(December):498-518. New York: Random New York: Random House. . NewYork:Cambridge University. Cambridge: Cambridge University Vol.no. 2 3 (January): 3-19. CEU eTD Collection Yildiz, Ilhan. 2007. Minority Rights in Turkey. Yezdani, 2005. Ipek. ______. 2007. 14, 2008). March (accessed http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200701/ai_n21033499/pg_17 http://www.politikcity.de/forum/showthread.php?p=157363 (accessed April 21, 2008). Contemporary CentralEurope First Turkish ThenRoma. The Romani Movement: Minority Politics & Ethnic Mobilizationin . NewYork:Berghahn. Brigham Young University Law Review 89 . CEU eTD Collection 90 CEU eTD Collection 91