DOCSLIB.ORG

The Political Empowerment of Roma Youth in Bulgaria: Challenges and Perspectives Atanas Stoyanov243

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Political Empowerment of Roma Youth in Bulgaria: Challenges and Perspectives Atanas Stoyanov243 The Political Empowerment of Roma Youth in Bulgaria: Challenges and Perspectives Atanas Stoyanov243 This paper was written by the author, a young Roma activist, for the Roma and Sinti Youth Conference: Activism, Participation, Security, organized by the OSCE/ODIHR Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues. The opinions contained herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the OSCE, ODIHR, or any participating State. Introduction 243 Despite these efforts, a number of reports pub- lished by local and international non-governmental Bulgaria is the country with the highest percentage organizations (NGOs) suggest that these and other of Roma in Europe. Although not reflected in official integration strategies remain ineffective.246 A partic- statistics, numerous international organizations and ular problem with such strategies is that they are of- studies estimate that Roma make up approximate- ten developed without the full participation of Roma. 244 ly 10 per cent of the total population of Bulgaria. This paper is premised on the view that the only way Over the past twenty years, the country has witnessed to assist Roma in dealing with the challenges they face a series of efforts to improve the living standards of is to provide for their political empowerment; Roma Roma. Since the fall of communism, organizations must be afforded a place at the decision-making ta- such as the Open Society Institute in Sofia and the ble in order to shape their own future. The political Human Rights Project, among others, have been participation of Roma in Bulgaria has been neglected established with the aim of improving the situation for many years and continues to limit the capacity of of Roma and of promoting democratic values more Roma to realize their full potential. broadly. To this end, the focus of such work has been This paper analyses the main barriers to the active to combat the social exclusion and marginalization political participation of Roma in Bulgaria from the of Roma, including by improving literacy and school standpoint of Roma youth. It applies the definition of attendance rates, ensuring the provision of adequate “political participation” used by the Roma scholar and housing and health care and preventing ethnic dis- researcher, Dr. Iulius Rostas, who defines the term crimination. Consequently, Roma issues have been as “participation in electoral processes for local de- made part of the government agenda. In 1999, stra- cision-making institutions”.247 In the main, the paper tegic documents such as the “Framework Program considers traditional forms of political participation, for Equal Integration of Roma in Bulgarian Society” including running for election as a politician and vot- 245 were adopted for the very first time. In 2005, Sofia ing as a citizen. From the outset, the paper studies the hosted the launch of the Decade for Roma Inclusion overall picture regarding the political participation of 2005-2015, signalling the country’s commitment to Roma in Bulgaria, and presents data on their political improve the situation of Roma. representation at the local and national levels. The pa- per includes data on Roma political participation col- lected following the local elections held in 2003, 2007 243 The author is currently studying for an MA in Public Poli- and 2011, as well as data on Roma representation in cy at the Central European University (CEU), Budapest, and is a Municipal Councillor in the Municipality of Strazhitsa, Bulgaria the Bulgarian Parliament. In addition, the paper ex- (2011-2015). 244 “EU Platform for Roma Inclusion – frequently asked ques- tions”, European Commission website, Memo 11/795, 17 Novem- 246 “Millions don’t help Roma integration in Bulgaria”, dw.de, 21 ber 2011, March 2013, <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-795_en.htm>. <http://www.dw.de/millions-dont-help-roma-integration-in-bul- 245 “Roma Political Participation in Bulgaria – National Demo- garia/a-16691459>. cratic Institute”, ndi.org, 2003, 247 Iulius Rostas, “Roma and Sinti political participation: Oppor- <http://www.ndi.org/files/1611_romaassess_020803.pdf>. tunities and risks of local-level engagement” (unpublished), 2014. Activism, Participation and Security among Roma and Sinti Youth 103 plores two case studies presenting the experiences of who skipped the questions related to ethnicity250 young Roma who have been elected at the national was 683,590, or 9.3 per cent of the total population. and municipal levels. Focusing on Roma youth, the In addition, the number of those who responded but report also examines the number of young educated preferred not to indicate their ethnicity was 53,391. In Roma in Bulgaria who could in future come to repre- total, 736,981 respondents, or 10 per cent of the total sent any political party. Finally, based on interviews population, did not answer the question on ethnicity. with young Roma, the report concludes with recom- It is perhaps unlikely that ethnic Bulgarians would not mendations for the Bulgarian government, for the indicate their ethnicity on the census. It is more likely country’s political parties and for international, inter- that those who do not self-identify do so because they governmental and non-governmental organizations, belong to an ethnic minority. Thus, it would appear including the OSCE/ODIHR. that the Council of Europe estimate of approximately 700,000 Roma is reasonable. Based on this figure, 24 Roma political participation in Bulgaria members of parliament, 517 municipal councillors and 530 mayors or deputy mayors should, ideally, be Ethnicity in Bulgaria and the 2011 National Census Roma. This paper explores the extent to which the In order to obtain a more accurate measure of the political participation of Roma falls short of this pro- political participation of Roma in Bulgaria, it is nec- jection. essary to establish the number of Roma as a percent- age of the country’s population. Data collected by the Roma political representation in Bulgaria in the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria (NSI) in the 2011 local elections most recent national census from 2011 puts Bulgaria’s The voluntary nature of questions pertaining to eth- population at 7,364,570. Of these, the number of peo- nicity also make it difficult to obtain comprehensive ple who self-identify as Roma is 325,343, or 4.7 per information on Roma political representation.251 248 cent of the total population of Bulgaria. However, during the 2003 and 2007 local elections, However, this data is highly disputed for a num- organizations such as the National Democratic Insti- ber of reasons. According to Article 21, paragraph 2, tute (NDI)252 and the Centre for Interethnic Dialogue of the Bulgarian Act on Statistics, individuals cannot and Tolerance “Amalipe”253 collected data in order to be required to provide the statistical office with any analyse the Roma political representation. Research 249 information on their race, ethnicity and religion. into the local elections of 2011 was conducted by the In accordance with this legal norm, in the censuses author of this paper. of 2001 and 2011, questions on ethnic origin, reli- By comparing data from these three election years, gion and mother tongue were answered on a volun- it is evident that the number of locally-elected coun- tary basis. As such, the ethnicity of many individuals cillors nominated by “Roma parties” (i.e., those parties was not recorded. In 2001, 1.1 per cent of respon- dents did not answer questions on ethnicity. In 2011 census, however, the total number of respondents 250 In the census, respondents were asked four questions relat- ing to ethnicity (questions 10 to 13), namely: “10. Your ethnic group is: 1) Bulgarian; 2) Turkish; 3) Roma; 4) Other: (please state); 5) I don’t self-identify. 11. Your mother tongue is: 1) Bulgarian; 2) Turk- ish; 3) Roma; 4) Other: (please state). 5) I don’t self-identify. 12. Are you religious? 1) Yes; 2) No; 3) I don’t self-identify. 13. Your reli- gion is: 1) Orthodox; 2) Catholic; 3) Protestant; 4) Muslim Sunni; 5) Muslim Shia; 6) Other: (please state); 7) I don’t have a religion; 8) I don’t self-identify. See: 2011 National Census form, National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, <http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/ 248 “2011 Population Census: Main Results”, National Statistical PDOCS2/karta_Census2011.pdf>. Institute Bulgaria, 2011, p. 23, <http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_ 251 “Law on Protection of Personal Data”, lex.bg, Article 5, para. en.pdf>. 1, item 1 para. 2, <http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135426048>. 249 Bulgarian Law on Statistics, Article 21, para. 2: “Individuals 252 “Roma Political Participation in Bulgaria”, NDI, op. cit., cannot be required to provide statistical data on race, nationality, note 242. ethnicity, religion, health, privacy, party affiliation, committed legal 253 Teodora Krumova, “Местни избори 2007: някои факти” offenses, philosophical and political beliefs.” The Bulgarian original (Roma after local elections 2007), Center Amalipe, 2007, is available at: <http://amalipe.com/files/bulletin/091207_newsletter_No8_2007_ <http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2134668297>. bg.pdf>. 104 Activism, Participation and Security among Roma and Sinti Youth whose leaders openly self-identify as Roma) has seen • Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS): 15 a drastic decline in numbers, from 126254 in 2003 to Roma councillors elected in total (one in Dubnik, 96255 in 2007 and 17 in 2011. These results are alarm- one in Zavet, two in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Populism, Voters and Cleavages in Bulgarian Politics*
    56 POLITOLOGICKÝ ČASOPIS / CZECH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 1/2017 Populism, Voters and Cleavages in Bulgarian Politics* EMILIA ZANKINA** Abstract The growing success of populist parties from across the political spectrum in Europe calls for an examination of the link between populist parties and voters and the new (if new indeed) cleavages that such parties exploit. Scholars have pointed to the erosion of traditional cleavages as one rea- son for the success of populist parties. Such analysis fits well with the established democracies of Europe but has little application in the East European context. Traditional cleavages have taken root in few places in Eastern Europe before communist takeover and became even less relevant follow- ing four and a half decades of communist rule. With the fall of communist regimes across Eastern Europe, the only meaningful division within society was that of anti-communists and supporters of the old regime. Similarly, concepts of Left and Right had (and to a great extend continue to have) lit- tle relevance in the East European context where the Left came to be dominated by former commu- nist parties and the Right engulfed an ideologically incoherent opposition. The stronger the former communists were (such as in Bulgaria and Romania) the more fragmented the Right was, as it was the only available space for political competition. The present paper aims to examine voter support for populist parties in Bulgaria and analyze on the cleavages that those parties exploit or create. Thus, the paper examines the impact of populist parties on the political landscape in terms of the changes that those parties result in in voter behavior and cleavage formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ess4 - 2008 Documentation Report
    ESS4 - 2008 DOCUMENTATION REPORT THE ESS DATA ARCHIVE Edition 5.5 Version Notes, ESS4 - 2008 Documentation Report ESS4 edition 5.5 (published 01.12.18): Applies to datafile ESS4 edition 4.5. Changes from edition 5.4: Czechia: Country name changed from Czech Republic to Czechia in accordance with change in ISO 3166 standard. 25 Version notes. Information updated for ESS4 ed. 4.5 data. 26 Completeness of collection stored. Information updated for ESS4 ed. 4.5 data. Israel: 46 Deviations amended. Deviation in F1-F4 (HHMMB, GNDR-GNDRN, YRBRN-YRBRNN, RSHIP2-RSHIPN) added. Appendix: Appendix A3 Variables and Questions and Appendix A4 Variable lists have been replaced with Appendix A3 Codebook. ESS4 edition 5.4 (published 01.12.16): Applies to datafile ESS4 edition 4.4. Changes from edition 5.3: 25 Version notes. Information updated for ESS4 ed.4.4 data. 26 Completeness of collection stored. Information updated for ESS4 ed.4.4 data. Slovenia: 46 Deviations. Amended. Deviation in B15 (WRKORG) added. Appendix: A2 Classifications and Coding standards amended for EISCED. A3 Variables and Questions amended for EISCED, WRKORG. Documents: Education Upgrade ESS1-4 amended for EISCED. ESS4 edition 5.3 (published 26.11.14): Applies to datafile ESS4 edition 4.3 Changes from edition 5.2: All links to the ESS Website have been updated. 21 Weighting: Information regarding post-stratification weights updated. 25 Version notes: Information updated for ESS4 ed.4.3 data. 26 Completeness of collection stored. Information updated for ESS4 ed.4.3 data. Lithuania: ESS4 - 2008 Documentation Report Edition 5.5 2 46 Deviations.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgaria 2013 Human Rights Report
    BULGARIA 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Republic of Bulgaria is a parliamentary democracy. The constitution vests legislative authority in the unicameral National Assembly (Narodno Sabranie). A coalition government headed by a prime minister led the country. Observers characterized the parliamentary elections in May as complying “with the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and assembly” but also noted pervasive allegations of vote buying and a lack of transparency. Authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. Security forces committed human rights abuses, including excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest, and harassment and intimidation. There were allegations of unlawful wiretapping. The marginalization of the Romani minority remained the country’s most pressing human rights problem. The continued deterioration of the media environment and increase in media self-censorship due to corporate and political pressure were also problematic. Corruption continued to be a drag on the government’s capabilities and undermined public and business confidence in the judiciary and other government institutions. Other human rights problems included overcrowding and harsh conditions in prisons and detention facilities. There were also long delays in the judicial system; reports of abuse of wiretapping; religious discrimination and harassment; harsh conditions in refugee centers; violence and discrimination against women; violence against children; increasing online anti-Semitism; trafficking in persons; discrimination against persons with disabilities; discrimination against members of the Romani and Turkish ethnic minorities; and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons and persons with HIV/AIDS. The government took steps to prosecute and punish officials in the security services and elsewhere in the government who committed abuses, but their actions were insufficient, and impunity was a problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Roma Participation in Elections in South-Eastern Europe 2003 – 2005
    Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues Briefing Paper Joint European Commission and OSCE ODIHR Programme: “Roma use you ballot wisely!” Country Profiles: Roma Participation in Elections in South-Eastern Europe 2003 – 2005 Warsaw, December 2006 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3 COUNTRY PROFILES ............................................................................................................. 5 Albania ............................................................................................................................... 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina..................................................................................................... 8 Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................ 11 Croatia .............................................................................................................................. 16 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ....................................................................... 19 Moldova ........................................................................................................................... 23 Romania ........................................................................................................................... 26 Serbia and Montenegro ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook
    1 Codebook: Comparative Political Data Set, 1960-2019 Codebook: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2019 (CPDS) is a collection of political and institutional data which have been assembled in the context of the research projects “Die Handlungsspielräume des Nationalstaates” and “Critical junctures. An international comparison” directed by Klaus Armingeon and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. This data set consists of (mostly) annual data for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU- member countries for the period of 1960 to 2019. In all countries, political data were collected only for the democratic periods.1 The data set is suited for cross-national, longitudinal and pooled time-series analyses. The present data set combines and replaces the earlier versions “Comparative Political Data Set I” (data for 23 OECD countries from 1960 onwards) and the “Comparative Political Data Set III” (data for 36 OECD and/or EU member states from 1990 onwards). A variable has been added to identify former CPDS I countries. For additional detailed information on the composition of government in the 36 countries, please consult the “Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019”, available on the CPDS website. The Comparative Political Data Set contains some additional demographic, socio- and economic variables. However, these variables are not the major concern of the project and are thus limited in scope. For more in-depth sources of these data, see the online databases of the OECD, Eurostat or AMECO. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorising Return Migration
    ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES TOLERANCE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY DISCOURSES IN BULGARIA Marko Hajdinjak and Maya Kosseva with Antonina Zhelyazkova International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations (IMIR) Sofia, Bulgaria 2012/21 5. New Knowledge Country Synthesis Reports EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES TOLERANCE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY DISCOURSES IN BULGARIA Marko Hajdinjak and Maya Kosseva (with contribution of Antonina Zhelyazkova) IMIR Work Package 5 – New Knowledge on Tolerance and Cultural Diversity in Europe D5.1 Country Synthesis Reports on Tolerance and Cultural diversity - Concepts and Practices © 2012 Marko Hajdinjak, Maya Kosseva, Antonina Zhelyazkova This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the research project, the year and the publisher. Published by the European University Institute Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Via dei Roccettini 9 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole - Italy ACCEPT PLURALISM Research Project, Tolerance, Pluralism and Social Cohesion: Responding to the Challenges of the 21st Century in Europe European Commission, DG Research Seventh Framework Programme Social Sciences and Humanities grant agreement no. 243837 www.accept-pluralism.eu www.eui.eu/RSCAS/ Available from the EUI institutional repository CADMUS cadmus.eui.eu Tolerance, Pluralism and Social Cohesion: Responding to the Challenges of the 21st Century in Europe (ACCEPT PLURALISM) ACCEPT PLURALISM is a Research Project, funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation Report on Bulgaria Incriminations (ETS 173 И 191, GPC 2), GRECO, Strasbourg, 2010, Greco Eval III Rep (2009) 7 E , P
    NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT - BULGARIA National Report 2011 Sofia Prevention of and Fight Against Crime With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight Against Crime Programme European Commission – Directorate – General Home Affairs 2 This project has been funded with support from Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme European Commission – Directorate General Home Affairs. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT – BULGARIA NATIONAL REPORT 2011 ISBN: 978-954-2999-02-7 Authors : Daniel Smilov PhD, Milena Stefanova PhD., Rumyana Kolarova PhD., Ruzha Smilova PhD., Dimitar Dimitrov, Stoycho Stoychev PhD., Georgi Ganev PhD. External Reviewer : Nikolai Naidenov PhD. Project Director : Katia Hristova-Valcheva PhD., Vanya Kashukeeva-Nusheva Project Coordinator : Aleko Stoyanov TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL - BULGARIA 1000 Sofia 3 Bistritza Str. 4 fl. tel. 02/9867713, 9867920 tel./fax 02/9867834 е-mail: [email protected] www.transparency.bg 3 BULGARIA NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERVIEW The problem of corruption became a central political and social concern in Bulgaria towards the end of the 1990s, and since then has topped the governmental agenda. Despite the prioritization of the issue, Bulgaria has systematically demonstrated very high levels of perception of corruption: according to the TI Corruption Perception Index (2011) it is the lowest scoring country in the EU. If there is a trend in this regard, it is rather negative, which is formally paradoxical since, due to internal and external pressures, successive governments have introduced a series of institutional reforms and innovations in the field of anticorruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019
    Codebook: Government Composition, 1960-2019 Codebook: SUPPLEMENT TO THE COMPARATIVE POLITICAL DATA SET – GOVERNMENT COMPOSITION 1960-2019 Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann The Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set provides detailed information on party composition, reshuffles, duration, reason for termination and on the type of government for 36 democratic OECD and/or EU-member countries. The data begins in 1959 for the 23 countries formerly included in the CPDS I, respectively, in 1966 for Malta, in 1976 for Cyprus, in 1990 for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, in 1991 for Poland, in 1992 for Estonia and Lithuania, in 1993 for Latvia and Slovenia and in 2000 for Croatia. In order to obtain information on both the change of ideological composition and the following gap between the new an old cabinet, the supplement contains alternative data for the year 1959. The government variables in the main Comparative Political Data Set are based upon the data presented in this supplement. When using data from this data set, please quote both the data set and, where appropriate, the original source. Please quote this data set as: Klaus Armingeon, Sarah Engler and Lucas Leemann. 2021. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960-2019. Zurich: Institute of Political Science, University of Zurich. These (former) assistants have made major contributions to the dataset, without which CPDS would not exist. In chronological and descending order: Angela Odermatt, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, Sarah Engler, David Weisstanner, Panajotis Potolidis, Marlène Gerber, Philipp Leimgruber, Michelle Beyeler, and Sarah Menegal.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 4, 2002
    Bulgaria Page 1 of 21 Bulgaria Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 4, 2002 Bulgaria is a parliamentary republic ruled by a democratically elected government. A coalition government headed by former King Simeon Saxe-Coburg took office in July following the victory of his National Movement Simeon II (NMS) party in June parliamentary elections which observers agreed were generally free and fair despite some media irregularities. The governing coalition consists of the NMS and the mainly ethnic Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF). A predominantly ethnic Roma political formation, the "EuroRoma" party, was an electoral partner of the MRF and thus is technically a member of the governing coalition, although it has no representatives in the Cabinet or the Parliament. Incumbent President Petar Stoyanov of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF), who had been elected to a 5-year term in 1996, was defeated in the November presidential elections by Georgi Purvanov of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), whose term begins in January 2002. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, the judiciary suffers from corruption and continued to struggle with structural and staffing problems. Internal security services are the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior and include the National Police, the National Service for Combating Organized Crime, the National Security Service (civilian domestic intelligence), the National Gendarmerie Service (paramilitary police), and the Border Police. Although government control over the police is improving, it still is not sufficient to ensure full accountability. The Special Investigative Service (SIS), which provides investigative support to prosecutors on serious criminal cases, is a judicial branch agency and therefore is not under direct executive branch control.
    [Show full text]
  • Latest EU Report
    ACFC/SR (2003) 001 REPORT SUBMITTED BY BULGARIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES (Received on 9 April 2003) R E P O R T Submitted by the Republic of Bulgaria Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Part l Part l Article 1 Article 7 Article 13 Article 19 Article 2 Article 8 Article 14 Article 20 Article 3 Article 9 Article 15 Article 21 Article 4 Article 10 Article 16 Article 22 Article 5 Article 11 Article 17 Article 23 Article 6 Article 12 Article 18 Article 30 Annexes: (published separately) 1. Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria 2. Constitutional Court Decisions 3. Legislation 4. Latest periodic reports of Bulgaria in compliance with international human rights conventions: Fourteenth Periodic Report of the Republic of Bulgaria in compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Bulgaria Periodic Report of the Republic of Bulgaria in compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Bulgaria Concluding Observations of the Committee Against Torture on Bulgaria 5. Latest reports by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on Bulgaria 6. International Human Rights Instruments ratified by Bulgaria 7. Population Census, 2001 2 PART l A general outline of the current State policy concerning the protection of national minorities The Republic of Bulgaria pursues a policy of ensuring the enjoyment of the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Part III. Countries in Transition
    Part III. Countries in TRANsITION • CHAPTER 12. BULGARIA Antonina Zhelyazkova, Maya Kosseva and Marko Hajdinjak • CHAPTER 13. HUNGARY Aniko Horvath, ZsuzsaVidra and Jon Fox • CHAPTER 14. POLAND Michal Buchowski and Katarzyna Chlewinska • CHAPTER 15. ROMANIA Alina Mungiu-Pippidi and Sinziana-Elena Poiana • CHAPTER 16. TURKEY Ayhan Kaya and Ece Harmanyeri 295 CHAPTER 12. BULGARIA Antonina Zhelyazkova, Maya Kosseva and Marko Hajdinjak International Center for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations (IMIR) Introduction From the very moment of the formation of the modern Bulgarian state in 1878, the Bulgarian society and the state institutions had to face the problem of balancing between the accommodation of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity in the country and the aspiration for building a unitary nation-state. For more than a century (until 1989), Bulgarian legislation practically ignored the existence of different minority groups in the country and did not explic- itly protect their rights. The process of changing the legislation to recognize the diversity and multiculturalism in the Bulgarian society and to protect the rights of minorities has started only after 1989, as an inseparable part of the democratisation of Bulgaria and its aspiration to join the EU. In addition to the legal recognition, different ethnic and religious groups were also “discovered” by the scholars from various fields in social sciences. The avalanche of studies dedicated to the ethno-cultural situation in Bulgaria fol- lowed soon, including the first
    [Show full text]
  • The Determinants of Ethnic Minority Party Formation and Success in Europe
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository THE DETERMINANTS OF ETHNIC MINORITY PARTY FORMATION AND SUCCESS IN EUROPE BY DANAIL L. KOEV DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Carol Leff, Chair Professor Robert Pahre Professor William Bernhard Associate Professor Milan Svolik ii Abstract Why do some ethnic minority groups in Europe form political parties of their own in order to obtain political representation, whereas others choose to work within the confines of established, mainstream political parties? Further, why do some ethnic minority parties (EMPs) achieve electoral success, whereas others fail? In addressing these questions, I incorporate insights from history and social psychology to develop an original theory of EMP emergence and success. I argue that an ethnic minority group’s historical background influences its political engagement strategies through sociopsychological processes. I propose that native groups (those that inhabited the territory of the modern-day state in which they reside prior to that state’s establishment) and groups with historical experiences of autonomous self-rule are more likely to form ethnic minority parties, and that EMPs formed by such groups are more likely to enjoy electoral success. I argue that groups possessing one or both of these characteristics are more likely to exhibit the traits of positive distinctiveness and shared grievances, contributing to the development of a salient collective political identity.
    [Show full text]