The Muslim-Turkish Minority in Bulgaria

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Muslim-Turkish Minority in Bulgaria BULGARIAN HELSINKI COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL HELSINKI FEDERATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS The Human Rights of Muslims in Bulgaria in Law and Politics since 1878 Sofia November 2003 Contents: Brief Introductory Chapter: 1. Demographic data 2. Origins of the Bulgarian Muslims 2.1. Turks 2.2. Bulgarian-speaking Muslims (Pomaks) 2.3. Roma Muslims Chapter I: The Muslim community in post-Ottoman Bulgaria (1878 - 1944) 1.1. Religious rights 1.2. Immigration and assimilation problems 1.3. Muslim minority education 1.4. Muslim (Turkish) minority press 1.5. The impact of Kemalism on the rights of the Muslims in Bulgaria Chapter II: The Muslim community during the Communist era (1944 - 1989) and the first years of democracy in Bulgaria 2.1. The politics towards Muslims in the period 1944-1956 2.1.1. Legal basis of Muslims’ religious freedoms 2.1.2. Development of Muslim minority education 2.1.3. Immigration inclinations among Muslims and their consequences 2.2. The treatment of Muslims between 1956 and 1984 2.2.1. Limiting the religious freedoms and launching a policy of forced assimilation of Muslims 2.2.2. Renewed immigration waves 2.2.3. New forced assimilation of Pomak Muslims 2.2.4. Preparing the soil for the assimilation of the Turks and the Roma Muslims 2.3. The situation of the Bulgarian Muslims during the last years of the Communist regime (1984-1989) 2.3.1. The “Revival Process” in its apogee 2.3.2. The international reaction to the “Revival Process” 2.3.3. The “Big Excursion” phenomenon Chapter III: Protection of Muslims’ basic rights and freedoms in present day Bulgaria 3.1. Right to identity 3.2. Freedom of religion 3.2.1. Political climate after the 1989 changes 3.2.2. Demonstrations of discrimination on religious grounds 1 3.2.3. Arbitrary expulsions of Muslim preachers 3.2.4. Legal developments on freedom of religion 3.2.5. Vakuf’s property issues 3.3. Right to use one’s minority language before administrative authorities 3.4. Education and mother tongue 3.4.1. The study of Turkish language as a mother tongue 3.4.1.1. Legal basis and organisation 3.4.1.2. Turkish as a foreign language 3.4.2. Study of “Religion-Islam” 3.5. Media 3.5.1. Legal framework 3.5.2. Media coverage of Muslim minority-related issues 3.5.2.1. The image of Muslims in the press 3.6. Access to justice 3.6.1. Criminal justice and related issues 3.6.1.1. Legal changes 3.6.1.2. Excessive use of force and misuse of firearms by police and access to justice 3.6.1.3. BHC surveys on illtreatment of defendants and other monitoring initiatives in places of detention 3.7. Participation in public life 3.7.1. Muslims’ participation in local government 3.7.2. Involvement in law-enforcement bodies’ work 3.8. Access to effective medical care 3.9. Access to employment 2 1. Demographic data: The Muslim community in Bulgaria is represented by three main ethnic groups: Turks, Bulgarian-speaking Muslims (Pomaks)1 and Roma (Gypsy) Muslims. According to the last two population censuses from 1992 and 2001, the total number of Muslims (based on “religious belonging”) is 1,110,295 (out of 8,887,317 total population) in 1992, and 966,978 (out of 7,928,901) in 2001.2 The biggest ethnic constituent, according to “ethnic belonging”, of the Muslim community in Bulgaria--the Turks--enumerated 800,052 persons in 1992, and 746,664 in 2001. 762,516 persons indicated Turkish as their “mother tongue” respectively in the 2001 census.3 However, due to the fact that a substantial part (if not the greater part) of the Muslim Roma identify themselves as Turks to avoid the social stigma associated with the term “Gypsies”, the total number of Turks in Bulgaria has to be reduced. In addition, a certain number of Pomak Muslims also identify themselves as Turks. Thus, the number of the Turkish minority should be further lowered if one completely ignores the generally shared claim that the actual number of Bulgarian Turks is far greater than what is officially indicated.4 Considering this, the exact number of Turks in Bulgaria can only be speculated upon. No official census data on the number of the Pomak Muslims are presented in either the 1992 and the 2001 censuses. The reasons for this are complex, and the main claim goes that due to lack of a clear sense of self-identity, the Bulgarian-speaking Muslims are prone to point out either Turkish and/or Bulgarian ethic belonging. Many of them register as Turks, Bulgarians, or simply Muslims, because there is no appropriate column for them in the census papers. Failing this, not only the number of the Turks or ethnic Bulgarians artificially increases, but, what is more, one is unable to trust that the principle of free self-determination of Bulgarian nationals is properly applied to in the country—all the more that the idea of annulling the 2001 census results on grounds of “wrong ethnicity indication” among Pomak Muslims, Roma, and other communities, was rather close to implementation at the relevant time. In the initial publications of the 1992 census results based on a 2% sample, 65,546 persons were reported to have declared “Bulgarian Muslim” identity, which number represented the sum of Muslims who registered as non-Turks, non-Bulgarians, and non- Roma. This figure, however, does not reflect even the approximate number of Pomak Muslims in Bulgaria. Thus it should be accounted also that according to the 1992 census 70,252 persons declared “ethnic Bulgarian” identity, but Muslim religion; about 35,000 – Bulgarian-speaking Muslims from the Rhodopes registered as Turkish-speaking; and about 70,000 of them declared “ethnic Turkish” identity. In addition, there was a small 1 Both names of reference are used in the present study without being intended to be derogatory for reasons exposed bellow. 2 National Statistics Institute, at: http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Census-i.htm. 3 Ibid. Census results from 1992 and 2001. 4 On a number of occasions, Todor Zhivkov—Bulgaria’s head of state during Communism, and other senior “comrades” repeatedly emphasised that the Bulgarian Turks are well over a million, and that they increase with 15,000 per year. These statements were made on numerous meetings of Politburo, when future authorities’ plans related to the brutal “Revival Process” (1984-1985) and the “Big Excursion” (Spring-Summer 1989) had been adopted. This is reflected in details in the relevant section on Communism. 3 number of people considered by others as “Pomaks”, who in fact declared “ethnic Bulgarian” identity and “Orthodox Christianity” as their religion.5 In any event, the number of Bulgarian-speaking Muslims remains a matter of rough approximation at best. What happens during censuses is that their number is unevenly distributed among several groups, depending on the identity criterion: ethnicity, religion and/or mother tongue. As a result they are never indicated, and hence, never recognised thus far as a distinct minority group in spite of the fact that they perceive themselves and are seen by the others as a separate community.6 The exact number of Muslim Roma is also not known. According to the 1992 census the total number of Roma is 313,396 persons, and in 2001 they already enumerate 370,908--based on “ethnic belonging”, and 327,882--based on “mother tongue” indicators. According to the latest census Roma constitute about 4,6 % of Bulgaria’s total population, of which 180,326 persons (or 48.6%) registered as Orthodox Christians and 27.9% - as Muslims. The census data further point out that more than half of Protestant Christians in Bulgaria, whose total number equalizes to 24,651 people, are of Romani origin (i.e. more than 12,000 Roma Protestants). However, the opinion of different human rights organisations, and a number of authoritative international institutions such as the World Bank, is that the Roma in Bulgaria approximate 800,000.7 That might be true, especially against the background of the fact that the greater part of Muslim Roma identify themselves as Turks, and another significant part of the Christian Roma register as ethnic Bulgarians in order to avoid the mentioned social stigma associated with the Roma ethnic group. Thus, it is not yet definite whether Muslim or Christian Roma form a majority in Bulgaria. Each of the three basic groups--Turks, Bulgarian-speaking (Pomak) Muslims and Roma (Gypsy) Muslims--that form the Muslim community in Bulgaria, is a distinct minority group. This fact necessitates brief introduction into their origins (or at least the existing theories of their origins, because in the case of the Pomak Muslims--whose identity is still subject to great controversy generated by the multitude of competing theories and hypotheses--theories are all that is disposed of with certainty) without prejudice to any of the existing theories or convictions. 2. Origins of the Bulgarian Muslims 2.1. Turks8: 5 Alternative report submitted pursuant to Art. 25 (1) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, prepared by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, September 1999 (p.5), available at http://www.bghelsinki.org. 6 Recall the fact that more than 65,000 Bulgarian-speaking Muslims wished to have been referred to as “Pomaks”, “Pomak Muslims” in the 1992 census. 7 Study of the Centre for Social Practices entitled “Their Voices”, prepared within the project: “The voices of the rejected – more opportunities for minority groups through the media”. The projects, funded by the European Commission, were completed in 2002.
Recommended publications
  • А Г Р О С Т А Т И С Т И К А a G R O S T a T I S T I
    МИНИСТЕРСТВО на ЗЕМЕДЕЛИЕТО и ХРАНИТЕ СОФИЯ 1040, бул. “Христо Ботев” № 55 № 166 – декември 2010 А A СТРУКТУРА Г G НА ЛОЗЯТА В БЪЛГАРИЯ Р R О O юли 2009 година ОКОНЧАТЕЛНИ РЕЗУЛТАТИ С S Т T А A VINEYARD BASIC Т T SURVEY- BULGARIA И I С S July 2009 Т T FINAL RESULTS И I К C А S РЕЗУЛТАТИ И АНАЛИЗИ RESULTS AND ANALYSES МЗХ, ОТДЕЛ “АГРОСТАТИСТИКА” MAF, AGROSTATISTICS DEPARTMENT СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ CONTENTS І. Въведение ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 І. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ІІ. Основни дефиниции и понятия .................................................................................................................................................. 5 ІI. Basic definitions and terms ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 ІІІ. Резултати и анализи .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ІІІ. Results and analysis .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Issue
    Center for Open Access in Science Open Journal for Studies in History 2020 ● Volume 3 ● Number 1 https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsh.0301 ISSN (Online) 2620-066X OPEN JOURNAL FOR STUDIES IN HISTORY (OJSH) ISSN (Online) 2620-066X www.centerprode.com/ojsh.html [email protected] Publisher: Center for Open Access in Science (COAS) Belgrade, SERBIA www.centerprode.com [email protected] Editorial Board: Spyridon Sfetas (PhD) Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Letters, GREECE Ilya Evgenyevich Andronov (PhD) Moscow State Lomonosov University, Faculty of History, RUSSIAN FEDERATION Mirela-Luminita Murgescu (PhD) University of Bucharest, Faculty of History, ROMANIA Kostadin Rabadjiev (PhD) Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Faculty of History, BULGARIA Snezhana Dimitrova (PhD) South-West University “Neofit Rilski”, Department of History, Blagoevgrad, BULGARIA Nikola Zhezhov (PhD) Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Faculty of Philosophy, NORTH MACEDONIA Vojislav Sarakinski (PhD) Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Faculty of Philosophy, NORTH MACEDONIA Amalia Avramidou (PhD) Democritus University of Thrace, Faculty of Classics and Humanities Studies, Komotini, GREECE Eleftheria Zei (PhD) University of Crete, Department of History and Archeology, Rethymno, GREECE Boyan Youliev Dumanov (PhD) New Bulgarian University, School of Graduate Studies, Sofia, BULGARIA Boryana Nikolaeva Miteva (PhD) Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Faculty of History, Sofia, BULGARIA Florian Bichir (PhD) University of Piteşti, Faculty of Theology, Literature, History and Arts, ROMANIA Executive Editor: Goran Pešić Center for Open Access in Science, Belgrade Open Journal for Studies in History, 2020, 3(1), 1-24. ISSN (Online) 2620-066X __________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS 1 The Impact of 1918 on Bulgaria George Ungureanu 11 Influences of the East on Early Christian Iconography Maria Chumak Open Journal for Studies in History, 2020, 3(1), 1-24.
    [Show full text]
  • D E C L a R a T I O N We Are Bulgarian Citizens of Roma Origin
    D E C L A R A T I O N We are Bulgarian citizens of Roma origin with a constructively critical and active civil position. We try to contribute to the development of Bulgaria in different areas according to our own strength and abilities. We are sensitive to the topics concerning the human and citizen’s rights and responsibilities, the solidarity in modern societies, the debate on equal opportunities for development and growth of everyone. With the present declaration we strongly condemn all attempts to impose a public discourse in which we, the Roma people are represented entirely as a group of unsocialized, antisocial and even inhumane creatures! We express our profound outrage at the systematic efforts of some politicians, crumbling the democratic process in the country trying to oppose the Roma community to the other social groups, thus endangering the interethnic relations and peace in the country! We are particularly shocked by the pathetic attempt to oppose the situation of Roma to that of Syrian refugees. Statements as "Syrian refugees are putting their hands in the pot of Roma!" are intolerable violation of our dignity. We strongly and firmly declare that we do not share and do not endorse such kinds of statements! Let us make it clear to everyone: We are not against Syrian refugees! On the contrary, we show solidarity with them and believe that they deserve protection because people do not become refugees in their own wish and will! As part of the family of the democratic countries and societies with developed human values, Bulgaria and all of us need to provide the necessary support to the people of Syria, who have sought refuge in our country to deal with this tragic stage of their life.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Practices in Target Libraries from Plovdiv District
    Good Practices in Target Libraries from Plovdiv District 4 September 2011, Plovdiv, Ivan Vazov Public Library LIST OF MEETING PARTICIPANTS No. Name Organization/Institution Settlement 1. Ana Belcheva Municipal administration Rakovski Rakovski 2. Angelina Stavreva Ivan Vazov Public Library, Methodology Dept. Plovdiv 3. Ani Sirakova Library at Sts. Cyril and Methodius PC Parvomay 4. Anka Bekirova Library at Iskra Public Chitalishte Kaloyanovo 5. Apostol Stanev Library at Sokolov Public Chitalishte Panicheri 6. Valya Stoyanova Library at N.Y. Vaptsarov Public Chitalishte Stamboliyski 7. Vasilka Bahchevanska Library at Vasil Kolev Public Chitalishte Trilistnik 8. Vaska Mincheva Library at Probuda Public Chitalishte Krichim 9. Vaska Tonova Ivan Vazov Public Library, Children’s Dept. Plovdiv 10. Velizar Petrov Regional Information Center Plovdiv 11. Vera Endreva Library at Hristo Botev Public Chitalishte Zlatitrap 12. Vera Kirilova NAWV Plovdiv 13. Gergana Vulcheva Library at Ivan Vazov Public Chitalishte Iskra 14. Gyurgena Madzhirova Library at Lyuben Karavelov Public Chitalishte Kurtovo Konare 15. Daniela Kostova Municipal administration Asenovgrad Asenovgrad 16. Darina Markova Library at Hristo Botev Public Chitalishte Dabene 17. Dzhamal Kichukov “Zora” Library Laki 18. Dimitar Minev Ivan Vazov Public Library, Director Plovdiv 19. Dobrinka Batinkova Library at N.Y. Vaptsarov Public Chitalishte Kuklen 20. Donka Kumanova Library at Sts. Cyril and Methodius PC Shishmantsi 21. Elena Atanasova Library at Ivan Vazov Public Chitalishte Plovdiv 22. E lena Batinkova Library at Samorazvitie Public Chitalishte Brestnik 23. Elena Mechkova Library at N.Y. Vaptsarov Public Chitalishte Topolovo 24. Elena Raychinova Library at Ivan Vazov Public Chitalishte Sopot 25. Emilia Angelova Library at Sts. Cyril and Methodius PC Parvomay page 1 No.
    [Show full text]
  • CULTURAL HERITAGE in MIGRATION Published Within the Project Cultural Heritage in Migration
    CULTURAL HERITAGE IN MIGRATION Published within the project Cultural Heritage in Migration. Models of Consolidation and Institutionalization of the Bulgarian Communities Abroad funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund © Nikolai Vukov, Lina Gergova, Tanya Matanova, Yana Gergova, editors, 2017 © Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies with Ethnographic Museum – BAS, 2017 © Paradigma Publishing House, 2017 ISBN 978-954-326-332-5 BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES INSTITUTE OF ETHNOLOGY AND FOLKLORE STUDIES WITH ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM CULTURAL HERITAGE IN MIGRATION Edited by Nikolai Vukov, Lina Gergova Tanya Matanova, Yana Gergova Paradigma Sofia • 2017 CONTENTS EDITORIAL............................................................................................................................9 PART I: CULTURAL HERITAGE AS A PROCESS DISPLACEMENT – REPLACEMENT. REAL AND INTERNALIZED GEOGRAPHY IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MIGRATION............................................21 Slobodan Dan Paich THE RUSSIAN-LIPOVANS IN ITALY: PRESERVING CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS HERITAGE IN MIGRATION.............................................................41 Nina Vlaskina CLASS AND RELIGION IN THE SHAPING OF TRADITION AMONG THE ISTANBUL-BASED ORTHODOX BULGARIANS...............................55 Magdalena Elchinova REPRESENTATIONS OF ‘COMPATRIOTISM’. THE SLOVAK DIASPORA POLITICS AS A TOOL FOR BUILDING AND CULTIVATING DIASPORA.............72 Natália Blahová FOLKLORE AS HERITAGE: THE EXPERIENCE OF BULGARIANS IN HUNGARY.......................................................................................................................88
    [Show full text]
  • Do Public Fund Windfalls Increase Corruption? Evidence from a Natural Disaster Elena Nikolovaa Nikolay Marinovb 68131 Mannheim A5-6, Germany October 5, 2016
    Do Public Fund Windfalls Increase Corruption? Evidence from a Natural Disaster Elena Nikolovaa Nikolay Marinovb 68131 Mannheim A5-6, Germany October 5, 2016 Abstract We show that unexpected financial windfalls increase corruption in local govern- ment. Our analysis uses a new data set on flood-related transfers, and the associated spending infringements, which the Bulgarian central government distributed to mu- nicipalities following torrential rains in 2004 and 2005. Using information from the publicly available audit reports we are able to build a unique objective index of cor- ruption. We exploit the quasi-random nature of the rainfall shock (conditional on controls for ground flood risk) to isolate exogenous variation in the amount of funds received by each municipality. Our results imply that a 10 % increase in the per capita amount of disbursed funds leads to a 9.8% increase in corruption. We also present suggestive evidence that more corrupt mayors anticipated punishment by voters and dropped out of the next election race. Our results highlight the governance pitfalls of non-tax transfers, such as disaster relief or assistance from international organizations, even in moderately strong democracies. Keywords: corruption, natural disasters, governance JEL codes: D73, H71, P26 aResearch Fellow, Central European Labour Studies Institute, Slovakia and associated researcher, IOS Regensburg, Germany. Email: [email protected]. We would like to thank Erik Bergl¨of,Rikhil Bhav- nani, Simeon Djankov, Sergei Guriev, Stephan Litschig, Ivan Penkov, Grigore Pop-Eleches, Sandra Sequeira and conference participants at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the European Public Choice Society, Groningen, the 2015 American Political Science Association, San Francisco and seminar participants at Brunel, King's College workshop on corruption, and LSE for useful comments, and Erik Bergl¨ofand Stefka Slavova for help with obtaining Bulgarian rainfall data.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex REPORT for 2019 UNDER the “HEALTH CARE” PRIORITY of the NATIONAL ROMA INTEGRATION STRATEGY of the REPUBLIC of BULGAR
    Annex REPORT FOR 2019 UNDER THE “HEALTH CARE” PRIORITY of the NATIONAL ROMA INTEGRATION STRATEGY OF THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA 2012 - 2020 Operational objective: A national monitoring progress report has been prepared for implementation of Measure 1.1.2. “Performing obstetric and gynaecological examinations with mobile offices in settlements with compact Roma population”. During the period 01.07—20.11.2019, a total of 2,261 prophylactic medical examinations were carried out with the four mobile gynaecological offices to uninsured persons of Roma origin and to persons with difficult access to medical facilities, as 951 women were diagnosed with diseases. The implementation of the activity for each Regional Health Inspectorate is in accordance with an order of the Minister of Health to carry out not less than 500 examinations with each mobile gynaecological office. Financial resources of BGN 12,500 were allocated for each mobile unit, totalling BGN 50,000 for the four units. During the reporting period, the mobile gynecological offices were divided into four areas: Varna (the city of Varna, the village of Kamenar, the town of Ignatievo, the village of Staro Oryahovo, the village of Sindel, the village of Dubravino, the town of Provadia, the town of Devnya, the town of Suvorovo, the village of Chernevo, the town of Valchi Dol); Silistra (Tutrakan Municipality– the town of Tutrakan, the village of Tsar Samuel, the village of Nova Cherna, the village of Staro Selo, the village of Belitsa, the village of Preslavtsi, the village of Tarnovtsi,
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria Page 1 of 14
    2005 Country Report on Human Rights in Bulgaria Page 1 of 14 Facing the Threat Posed by Iranian Regime | Daily Press Briefing | Other News... Bulgaria Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 8, 2006 Bulgaria is a parliamentary democracy of approximately 7.7 million persons, and is ruled by a coalition government headed by Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev. Multiparty parliamentary elections in June were deemed generally free and fair despite some reported irregularities. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of law enforcement officers, there were some instances in which law enforcement officers acted independently of government authority. The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in several areas. The following human rights problems were reported: police abuses, including beatings and mistreatment, of criminal suspects, prison inmates, and members of minorities harsh conditions in prisons and detention facilities arbitrary arrest and detention impunity limitations on freedom of the press some restrictions on freedom of religion discrimination against certain religious minorities widespread corruption in executive and judicial branches violence and discrimination against women, children, and minority groups, particularly the Roma trafficking in persons discrimination against persons with disabilities child labor RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From: a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life Neither the government nor its agents committed any politically motivated killings; however, there were reports that police killed two persons during the year. On November 10, Anguel Dimitrov died while being arrested in a nationwide operation against organized crime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in Each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds” Prepared at the Request of the CONT Committee
    STUDY Requested by CONT Committee The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds PRE-RELEASE Policy Department for Budgetary Affairs Authors: Willem Pieter DE GROEN, Jorge NUNEZ, Daina BELICKA, Roberto EN MUSMECI, Damir GOJSIC and Silvia TADI Directorate-General for Internal Policies PE 679.107– January 2021 The Largest 50 Beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds PRE-RELEASE Abstract This report provides the preliminary findings of the study on “The Largest 50 beneficiaries in each EU Member State of CAP and Cohesion Funds” prepared at the request of the CONT committee. It provides the results of an assessment of almost 300 systems for the public disclosure of the beneficiaries of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and cohesion policy. Moreover, it provides the preliminary results for the analysis of about 10 million beneficiaries of the CAP in 2018 and 2019 and more than 500 000 projects receiving cohesion funds between 2014 and 2020. Finally, it assesses the barriers to more data transparency and the possibilities to enhance the transparency. NOTE: This is a pre-release version of the study. Changes may occur based on the final results of the research. For internal use only. This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control. It designated Ms Monika Hohlmeier to follow the study. AUTHORS Willem Pieter DE GROEN, CEPS Jorge NUNEZ, CEPS Daina BELICKA, CSE COE Roberto MUSMECI, CEPS Damir GOJSIC, CEPS Silvia TADI, CEPS The authors would like to thank Daniele Genta, Babak Hakimi and Xinyi Li for their valuable contributions to this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Society Institute Sofia
    Open Society Institute - Sofia 2015 Annual Report OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE SOFIA 2015 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS Mission 3 1 Report of the Executive Director 5 2 Financial Profile 6 NGO Programme in Bulgaria under the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009- 3 11 2014 4 European Policies Programme 23 Governance and Public Policies Programme 26 5 Project Generation Facility - 29 Making the Most of European Union Structural Funds for Roma Inclusion 6 Legal Programme 31 7 Public Debate Programme 33 8 Emergency Fund of the Open Society Institute 34 Roma Programme 35 9 Scholarship Programme for doctors and post-graduate medicine students 36 of Roma origin Traineeship Programme at the US Embassy “Bridging Roma and Career 36 Opportunities” with the financial support of the US Embassy 10 Project Design Unit 37 2 MISSION To develop and support the values and practices of the open society in Bulgaria - To support the democratization of the public life - To work for the extension and guaranteeing of civil freedoms - To support the strengthening of civil sector institutions - To support the European integration and regional cooperation of Bulgaria 3 Founder George Soros Board of Trustees Pepka Boyadzhieva, Chair Ivan Bedrov Lachezar Bogdanov Milena Stefanova Petya Kabakchieva Aleksandar Kashamov Executive Director Georgi Stoychev Financial Director Veliko Sherbanov Programme Directors Boyan Zahariev Valentina Kazanska Ivanka Ivanova Dimitar Dimitrov Marin Lesinsky Elitsa Markova Anita Baykusheva Senior Economist Georgi Angelov Sociological Analyses Unit Aleksey Pamporov Dragomira Belcheva Petya Braynova Project Design Unit Elitsa Markova Teodora Ivanova 4 1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR In 2015, the Open Society Institute – Sofia continued working on four main priorities: good governance, rule of law and human rights, European policies and civic participation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Migration Crisis: a Time for Solidarity Lessons?
    The Migration Crisis: A Time for Solidarity Lessons? MA Thesis in European Studies: European Policy Graduate School of Humanities University of Amsterdam Author: Kristina Dimitrova Student number: 11104120 Main supervisor: dhr. mr. dr. A.C.van Wageningen Second supervisor: dhr. dr. P. Rodenburg July, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 4 List of tables/figures .................................................................................................... 5 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7 1.1. Background and Current State of Affairs ........................................................... 7 1.2. Purpose and Research Question ...................................................................... 11 1.3. Outline ............................................................................................................ 13 2. Theoretical analysis and methodological approach ................................................ 15 2.1. Defining solidarity ........................................................................................... 15 2.2 Theories on EU solidarity ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethno-Cultural Belongingness of Aromanians, Vlachs, Catholics, and Lipovans/Old Believers in Romania and Bulgaria (1990–2012)
    CULTURĂ ŞI IDENTITATE NAŢIONALĂ THE ETHNO-CULTURAL BELONGINGNESS OF AROMANIANS, VLACHS, CATHOLICS, AND LIPOVANS/OLD BELIEVERS IN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA (1990–2012) MARIN CONSTANTIN∗ ABSTRACT This study is conceived as a historical and ethnographic contextualization of ethno-linguistic groups in contemporary Southeastern Europe, with a comparative approach of several transborder communities from Romania and Bulgaria (Aromanians, Catholics, Lipovans/Old Believers, and Vlachs), between 1990 and 2012. I am mainly interested in (1) presenting the ethno-demographic situation and geographic distribution of ethnic groups in Romania and Bulgaria, (2) repertorying the cultural traits characteristic for homonymous ethnic groups in the two countries, and (3) synthesizing the theoretical data of current anthropological literature on the ethno-cultural variability in Southeastern Europe. In essence, my methodology compares the ethno-demographic evolution in Romania and Bulgaria (192–2011), within the legislative framework of the two countries, to map afterward the distribution of ethnic groups across Romanian and Bulgarian regions. It is on such a ground that the ethnic characters will next be interpreted as either homologous between ethno-linguistic communities bearing identical or similar ethnonyms in both countries, or as interethnic analogies due to migration, coexistence, and acculturation among the same groups, while living in common or neighboring geographical areas. Keywords: ethnic characters, ethno-linguistic communities, cultural belongingness,
    [Show full text]