CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillmentIn the of requirements forthe The Political Integration Political The Case Multicultural Supervisor: Professor LeaSgier Department Political Science of Central University European s

of Budapest, HungaryBudapest, MacedoniaandSerbia Marina Vasi Submitted to 2013 By

S ć

ocieties

of of

degree of Masterdegree of Arts of the

Roma

in

CEU eTD Collection very latesystem, political totransformits which inn resulted started Serbia factors, these of Because poor. rather Serbia in integration Roma made conflicts) path outcomes ofparliamentary go donot elections of of political infavor theminority. integration pro Roma integration. political to contributenot did provision this of effects minority,nationalthe of status the obtained results successful less shows was Macedonia when time the country. independent an from as recognized elections the in participate actively parties political non numerous with sector, civil developed a has minority country, that implement certain action). affirmative to governments national on (pressure community international the from input the and groups the categorization proper a components: three It society. wider the within groups disadvantaged integrating for framework possible social of ABSTRACT hs ok t work This largest the as Roma, vn huh aeoi ad eba ae rsn rm h sm communist same the from arisen have Serbia and Macedonia though Even

s did not follow the same direction. The burden of other factors (authoritarian regime, ethnic regime, (authoritarian factors other of burden The direction. same the follow not did s show different results in political integration of Roma. Roma. of integration political in results different show

serves as an exemplar case where the Roma are substantially integrated substantially are Roma the where case exemplar an as serves and political and

ks no consideration into akes

integration. e o ae hi pltcl ate ad raiain bt oeo the somehow but organizations and parties political their have to ve and most disadvantaged most and

n eln wt clua diversity cultural with dealing in

The work of scholars on ‘multicultural citizenship’ provides a provides citizenship’ ‘multicultural on scholars of work The

w fre Ygsa rpbis Mcdna n Serbia) and (Macedonia republics Yugoslav former two In contrast, contrast, In -

status of national minorities, active participation from participation active minorities, national of status i

European minority, European Serbia ( - as a less ethnically unstable country) country) unstable ethnically less a as governmental organizations. Romani organizations. governmental Macedonia egligence cultural towards diversity. Ee tog te ru has group the though Even . are , as an ethnically unstable unstable ethnically an as ,

one of the hardest cases hardest the of one - in society. The The society. in ideology, their their ideology, explains

CEU eTD Collection my Access from friends Programs. the Roma about knowledgable less significantly was I when Vukelić Kristijan and Iunconditional support, work. would never this able be tofinish Memeti Albert Skenderi, Suad friends closest my to and support endless their ofbecause them, performance critically.and think ability to pat her sincerely am for I grateful CEU. the at life academic my of processes important all through me guiding ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks are expressed to Elvis Memeti Elvis to expressed are thanks Special Vasi Dragana and Dragan parents, my to gratitude special express I like would I

to

ec, upr, n criticism and support, ience, express special gratitude to my supervisor Professor Lea Sgier who was was who Sgier Lea Professor supervisor my to gratitude special express

carring. I would also like to express my frank gratitute frank my express to like also Iwould carring.

ii , who helped me in the first steps of steps first the in me helped who ,

which , the Roma issues. I would also like to thank all thank to like also would I issues. Roma

help ed

me

to ć. I dedicate this thesis to thesis this dedicate I ć.

mrv m academic my improve Wtot their Without . this

thesis

CEU eTD Collection BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX CONCLUSION SERBIA POLIT THE 3: CHAPTER CHAPTER THEORETIC 1: CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Contents 3.2. 3.1. 2.2. 2.1. 1.2. 1.1. 3.2.4. in Serbia) Inclusion Roma (Decade of Community International of involvement The 3.2.3. legislature the within mirroring their and parties ofpolitical Roma Development 3.2.2. minorities for rights groups: Extending minority Defining 3.2.1. Comments 3.1.4. Macedonia) in Inclusion Roma of (Decade Community International the of involvement The 3.1.3. legislat the within mirroring their and parties ofpolitical Roma Development 3.1.2. minority Defining 3.1.1.

T T L D HE MODEL HE MODELOF IMITATIONSTHEOF AN ATACOLLECTION

...... O T

Comments HEORETICALCONCEPTS 2: METHODOLOGY 2: N

...... R OMA

......

OF

...... I

R R NTEGRATION ...... OMA INTEGRATIONOMA IN INTEGRATIONOMA IN

...... ICAL INTEGRATION OF OF INTEGRATION ICAL ...... groups: Extending the rights for minorities thefor rights groups:Extending ALFRAMEWORK ALYSIS ......

......

......

...... S M ...... ERBIA ACEDONIA ......

......

...... iii ......

ROMA INPOST ROMA ......

......

......

...... - ...... YUGOSLAV MACEDONIA A MACEDONIA YUGOSLAV ...... ure ......

......

......

...... ND ......

69 65 63 61 59 54 52 48 47 44 36 34 30 26 25 22 22 18

7 7 1

CEU eTD Collection parliament representativesRomani Table 3: Number inthenineelections of the theSerbian in national Table 2: Presenceelective of Table 1: Figure Romaniparties to2006 from 1990 1:Developmentof OFLIST FIGURES TABLES AND Institutional arrangements for the Roma resulting policies from current public Romani representativesRomani (1991 iv

- 2011)

CEU eTD Collection Unity организација National Macedonian VMRO SRM Македонија на SDSM RIO PIR во Македонија) PCERM OSF OPE DUR ( DUI DSR Прогресивна Ромите на во Македонија Партија DPPRM DPA CEE OFLIST ABBREVIATIONS BDI ------) - -

Party for IntegrationParty ofRoma for

, Rom

OpenFoundations Society

Democratic ofRoma Forces Democraticof Albanians Party United Party for Emancipation United Party for Central Europe and Eastern

Democratic Union ofDemocratic Roma - Union of Roma in MacedoniaUnion of in Roma eortc no fr nerto (lain (Albanian: Integration for Union Democratic Macedonian:

- The Social Democratic Unionof Macedonia DPMNE - -

Democraticin Macedonia ProgressiveParty ofRoma (Macedonian: Party for Full Emancipation FullParty ofRoma for a Initiativea Office - Демократска единство национално партијазамакедонско )

-

nenl aeoin eouinr Organization Revolutionary Macedonian Internal

Демократска заинтеграција унија

(

Macedonian: Macedonian: ( (

( Macedonian: Macedonian:

Macedonian: Macedonian:

(Macedonian: (Macedonian:

( ( Macedonian: Macedonian: Albanian: Albanian:

(Партија за Целосна(Партија на Ромите Еманципација i

Partia DemokratikePartia Shqiptare Демократска Унија на Демократска на Унија Ромите на Демократски Сили Ромите Партија за Интеграција на Ромите на Партија заИнтеграција нтен мкднк револуционарна македонска Внатрешна ) Сојуз наРомитеСојуз во Македонија Обединетаза Еманципација Партија

( Macedonian: )

ahii eortk ë Integrim për Demokratik Bashkimi Социјалдемократски сојузСоцијалдемократски -

eortc at for Party Democratic )

Демократска )

) )

)

)

)

CEU eTD Collection for mechanisms special adopt to governments national pressed has community international the hand, other the On minority”. “national recognized officially an as them categorizing with many decades, two startin usually inclusion, Roma last support to provisions the special adopted have Over countries European change. to started Roma of status the multiculturalism, str and identity its declare to need no had group The status. their improving for legacies or rights special any having without group, ethnic an as identified been had they communism, Under continent. the w nomadic and culture diverse their of Because communitynational (pressure governments onimplement certain to action). affirmative th and groups the from participation active minorities, national It society. wider the within groups c 2003). (Fraser, subordination status overcome to needed enjoy and society in 1995) (Phillips, ‘struggle disadvanta or ‘oppressed’ conceptualizes also literature The societies. wider within people) indigenous immigrants, minorities; ethnic (national/ 1965 Parsons, 2007; ( work scholarly Most communism. of collapse the since cultures INTRODUCTION iti zenship’ (Kymlicka 1996, 2007) provide 2007) 1996, (Kymlicka zenship’ Roma, as the largest European minority, minority, European largest the as Roma, concepts important most the of one become has Multiculturalism s

for recognition’ ( recognition’ for uggle for exceptional position within societies. With the emergent era of of era emergent the With societies. within position exceptional for uggle ) discusses multicultural citizenship as a way to to way a as citizenship multicultural discusses ) Fras

er 2003, er explains three components: three explains equality of rights (Marshall, rights of equality

Habermas 1994, Szalai, 2002 Szalai, 1994, Habermas s

ged group and group ged a possible framework for integrating disadvantaged integrating for framework possible a are 1 ay of life, their presence is noticeable all across across all noticeable is presence their life, of ay

one of the hardest cases of social integration. integration. social of cases hardest the of one The

situates them in the wider context of context wider the in them situates

work of scholars on ‘multicultural ‘multicultural on scholars of work a proper categorization proper a Giddens 2009, Giddens ipt from input e

1950), disadvantaged groups disadvantaged 1950), of ). In order to order In ). nert ioiy groups minority integrate

deal ing

the with diversity of diversity with Kym

international be licka 1996, licka -

‘present’ status of status g

CEU eTD Collection actively as deputy and working aswithout even aportfolio. inadministration, ministers ministers are Roma numerous where level, government the at status considerable achieved has minority parliame within representatives descriptive capturing of importance the to contributes fact This body. legislative the within interests their voicing constantly been have they Moreover, (1991). country independent an as recognized was Macedonia when time th fromelections partiesthe activelypolitical Romani governmental organizations; in participate bottom the from Going specific integration. cases measures accountterms into in thatthe oftheRoma taken have 2012. to (1991) federation the of dissolution the from period results. same the demonstrate not do measures implemented the of effects and process the Nevertheless, community. societal the in minority Roma integrating for measures certain undertaken have countries These grounds. communist were values whose countries as context, Yugoslav specific the within chosen are cases The societies. multicultural established newly within inclusion of path a took group, Jovanović ( others than results positive more shown have countries some though, mechanism such it When structure. societal wider the within minority this integrating Macedonia serves as an exemp an as Macedoniaserves Thus, this research takes into consideration Macedonia and Serbia where Roma, as an ethnic ethnic an as Roma, where Serbia and Macedonia consideration into takes research this , 2010).

- up level, the minority has a developed civil sector, with numerous non numerous with sector, civil developed a has minority the level, up lar case where the Roma are substantially integrated in society. aresubstantiallyintegratedin Roma casewherelarthe 2 The re The

search takes into consideration a specific specific a consideration into takes search This time This

comes to implementation of implementation to comes nt. In this respect, the the respect, this In nt. - frame encompasses the the encompasses frame

exclusively built on on built exclusively

Müller, Müller, e -

CEU eTD Collection available). data (no Slovenia 2005 RomaInclusion 1 “peer of incapable and misrecognized rather are Serbia in Roma that indicate could This motivating. less as seen often are results the constellation, this with Even parties. Serbian mainstream the of agenda the on th that said be cannot it Nevertheless, results. similar demonstrate to failed has groups), minority other among relations burdening (less homogenous more is which in succeeded has minorities, prope other of constellation complex ethnically a less with and country, smaller homogeneous a Macedonia, regime. communist the under provisions similar b not would fact This minority.integrationthe ofpolitical favorof goin not parliamentarydo of outcomes elections the somehow but organizations and parties political their have to prove Roma results. substantial no minority national of status the obtained has group the though Even society. mainstream the within Roma integrating in results successful less shows Serbia of level sho Roma the have nor society, mainstream relevant the within Roma the including for mechanism neither have countries other Second, research. the for collection data facilitates perc higher a is there First, reasons. two for republics former other the than rather Serbia examines research this republics

Official data for the Roma (2005), according to the Data Collection in Countries Participating in the Decade of Decade in the Participating Countries in Collection the according Data to Roma(2005), thefor Officialdata h cnrsig eut o te oa poli Roma the of results contrasting The rly including the Romani minority within its societal structure. On the other hand, Serbia, Serbia, hand, other the On structure. societal its within minority Romani the including rly 1 oiia organizing. political

(Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). Nevertheless, Herzegovina). and Bosnia and Slovenia Montenegro, Croatia, (Serbia, nae f oa eiig n eba hn te fre republics. former other than Serbia in residing Roma of entage - 2015: Bosnia and Herzegovina (0.2%); Croatia (0.4%); Montenegro (0.4%); Serbia (1.4%); (1.4%); Serbia (0.4%); Montenegro (0.4%); Croatia (0.2%); BosniaHerzegovina and 2015: e extremely puzzling if these cases did not share a common perspective and perspective common a share not did cases these if puzzling extremely e

- to

- peer” p peer”

hl Mcdna eosrts sbtnil ee o inclusion, of level substantial a demonstrates Macedonia While olitics

(Fraser, 2003) (Fraser, ia itgain r smlr n te Yugoslav other in similar are integration tical 3

that could contribute to their integration. their to contribute could that , the effects of this provision show provision this of effects the , e interests of Roma are not put not are Roma of interests e 2

hs at also fact This wn some wn

CEU eTD Collection organization political adequate lack substantially Roma a as society in representation havescholars Romani 200 (2005, Friedman Eben action had important themost impact onpoliticalintegration of Roma. this that expected is it Thus, Roma. of status the empowering for action affirmative important (2005 Inclusion Roma of Decade The integration. Roma in assistance international of importance the indicates hypothesis third The groups. minority for outcomes suppo engineering.I highlightsrepresentation electoral hypothesis Proportional exclusively propose that citizenship full of status the E minorities. other to rights extending for provisions certain produce can minority dominant most the and majority between sharing Power Roma. the of integration social in results positive more show to tend diversity cultural of cultural that is hypothesis th Societies integration. first influences significantly country the diversityof The minority. Romani the of integration political of model second explanation(s) reasonable Furthermore, Serbia. in than Macedonia in results better demonstrates 1967 (Pitkin, of matter the that underlines case Serbian the Moreover, Many comparative studies have been done about the Roma from Central and E and Central from Roma the about done been have studies comparative Many multiculturalism, why showing at aims thesis This rts minority representation. Other electoral provisions can negatively impact electoral electoral impact negatively can provisions electoral Other representation. minority rts case .

) In this manner, this work tries to demonstrate what influences and builds an efficient andan builds influences what demonstrate In triesto thiswork manner, this is not seenis not as important.

discussed the discussed

for better better for 5 ) has done analysis on Roma, focusing on Western Balkans. Western on focusing Roma, on analysis done has ) ‘

pathway to progress to pathway Pros 1965) (Parsons, issue Roma Roma specially these rights help other minority groups to reach to groups minority other help rights these specially

of integration. They focused on active participation andparticipation active on Theyintegration. focused of integration 4

and better political integration. The second second The integration. political better and ’

( M

n h frt and first the in üller, Jovanović üller, “

group mirroring group Br, hoge n Kvt, 2013) Kovats, and Gheorghe (Biro, s wy f nertn minorities, integrating of way a as

- at deal with a higher level higher a with deal at 2015) ha 2015) , 2010). Needless to say, to Needless 2010). , os integration worse ” t ek to seeks it within the legislative the within s been the most the been s astern Europe. astern underline

n the in Some ,

CEU eTD Collection ou possible The republics. Yugoslav former of cases the in phenomenon the analyzing in gap a is there However, been mostly the of one is integration history political politics, minority with othergroups minority countries. resident their in Roma the accurate actual the Also, reasons legislature does say not becauseposition their2013). about (Ibid, their actions much and the societies into Roma including for rights andmechanisms political where example an are countries Balkan Western the Therefore, minority. group(Friedman, 2002). whic identity, Romani of expression which

This resear This Europe, in minorities other Unlike the of status political the improving in lies inclusion social of components crucial the of One Roma Kova on

. hinders

Central and Eastern Europe, comparing Macedonia with Albania, Hungary and Slovakia. Slovakia. and Hungary Albania, with Macedonia comparing Europe, Eastern and Central is, hi demographic their First,

integration t Roma substantially lack lack substantially Roma s, 2013). 2013). s, party of type specific a form ch gives a significant contribution to the field of political science, because it deals it because science, political of field the to contribution significant a gives ch

number. Second, there is a high trend of severe hostility and ignorance towards towards ignorance and hostility severe of trend high a is there Second, number. tcome of this research would be to set a ground for inquiring for ground a set to be would research this of tcome the

h Rm rpeettvs r otn en s smoi’ iue wti the within figures ‘symbolic’ as seen often are representatives Roma The the impacted significantly has Communism interests. their of voicing . of Roma Roma of

debated ae arisen have

dispersion documents identity h furthermore resulted in a weak sense of belonging to the the to belonging of sense weak a in resulted furthermore h Because of this, Roma usually Roma this, of Because the data on data the .

that n pltcl sociology. political and Several comparative analyses on Roma integration have integration Roma on analyses comparative Several is

makes

from from act 5

the Roma is not easily not is Roma the ive

either n cuae ttsia recording statistical accurate an only before the elections ( elections the before only wih hamp which , .

As

the post the inter Nowadays, the issue of Roma Roma of issue the Nowadays, - tnc ofit o different or conflicts ethnic declare themselves as part of part as themselves declare - communist countries communist r udrtnig f their of understanding ers accessible o pportunities

into Biro, Gheorghe Biro,

, for different different for ,

other former other

difficult

for the the for show, .

CEU eTD Collection thesis Inclusion Roma of (Decade Community International Roma of categories: settings. explanatio interviews). literature, secondary information, research. Romani chapter The more. many and Parsons Talcott Young, Iris concepts theoretical thesewithin societies. Roma the of status and Montenegro) and Slovenia Herzegovina, and Bosnia (Croatia, republics chapters. main three into divided is work present The summarizes findingsconcludes and thediscussion integration within socie within integration

political parties and their mirroring within the legislature the within mirroring their and parties political o te eea cnet f uolva n sau o te oa n post in Roma the of status and Yugoslavia of context general the of n (official information of types various of collection a on based is analysis The h catr otis w subchapters two contains chapter The 1) Definition of minority groups: Extending the rights for minorities; 2) D 2) minorities; for rights the Extending groups: minority of Definition 1) ,

relying on the discussion the on relying

ties. The second chapter explains the methodology used for this this for used methodology the explains chapter second The ties. s

6 of Will Kymlicka, Nancy Fraser, Anne Phillips, Anne Fraser, Nancy Kymlicka, Will of

T

e third he Mcdna n Serbia) and (Macedonia

in .

the two the finishes with finishes T

he chapter first chapter illustrates chapter first

cases). The final chapter of the of chapter final The cases). ; 3) ; (analysis)

a The involvement of involvement The brief discussion discussion brief

that analyze three three analyze that trs with starts evelopment -

Yugoslav the

about main

the an

CEU eTD Collection 4 2009); (Giddens, within differentsocieties get cultures embedded of diversity how demonstrates 3 en Citizenship” “Multicultural concept multiculturalism. conceptsof the across comereally not of work the why is This West. the in was it as Europe Eastern in practiced groups. diverse chapterfinishes witha discussion (196 Iri(1995), Phillips Anne 2007), (1996, Kymlicka Will are:scholars encompass framework this that stages grou these On excluded. socially been have that groups the for conceptualization appropriate find to tries chapter this on, Further status. such for importance crucial of are that components and particular. in integration Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework 1.1.

Kymlicka,1996; Mul gaged into the process of process the into gaged discus that theories the presents chapter This After the collapse of communism, most countries had to deal with integration of culturally culturally of integration with deal to had countries most communism, of collapse the After nds, further discussion develops around the framework of social and political integration andintegration political and social of framework the around develops discussion further nds, 7 ticulturalism, pr plurality of cultures, is a concept discussed mostly within the field of sociology. It It sociology. fieldof mostlywithinthe discussed concept isa of cultures, plurality pr ticulturalism,

, ae asrde 19, 03, act Pros 16) T H Mrhl (1950). Marshall H. T. (1965), Parsons Talcott 2003), (1999, Mansbridge Jane ), Theoretical concepts Theoretical became

Multiculturalism iey rmtd n h wr o cneprr the contemporary of work the in promoted widely

It starts starts It 4 , he , integration

discusses by

3 of variousabout scholars the Roma

as explaining Will Kymlicka`s idea of multicultural citizenship multicultural of idea Kymlicka`s Will explaining

es . a

Political integration of such groups groups such of integration Political . Along the line of the discussion, the most influential most the discussion, the of line the Along . sociological condition 7

sca itgain n general in integration social s s under which culturally diverse groups were groups diverse culturally which under s

concept

It was not before Will Kymlicka this that Will beforeIt not was a nt uh nw and known much not was

s Young (2000), Hanna Pitkin Hanna (2000), Young s

integration

Eastern scholars does scholars Eastern rss In orists. is an integrative part integrative an is

.

n political and his

book book little The

CEU eTD Collection social. and civil,political 5 groups’ ‘oppressed of concept the explains (1995:40) several raises This groups. other concepts hand, are usually m other the on homogeneity, cultural of degreehigher a with Countries treatment. equal of issues to attention greater pay to tend diversity cultural for allow that countries cultures: minority between inclusion. the influence could that factor crucial the is society multicultural one of diversity of extent the perspective, (1996) Kymlicka`s In 2003). (Fraser, community international the of influence the and history political country, of context general the are: integration Romani of favor elites Roma of forming and organizing political for possibility education, political Their employment, health. and in housing opportunities people`s Roma hamper still that stereotyping and discrimination of degrees high of because is This equal. as identified be never could Roma for Examples given. formally as 715) (1965: seen rather are rights civil this, on Based community”. author societal the in membership or citizenship The rights. f attain groups excluded social previously which by processes “the and is inclusion that conceptualizes political civil, citizenship: of components main whose of

T. H. Marshall wrote a famous piec famous wroteMarshalla H. T.

the same process. same the As Kymlicka deals with structurally disadvantaged groups, this this groups, disadvantaged structurally with deals Kymlicka As mt wtot qa opruiis o al iies Teeoe in Therefore, citizens. all for opportunities equal without empty . However, the main weakness of his work is that he pays less attention to Roma than to to than Roma to attention less pays he that is work his of weakness main the However, concepts came from the famous work of T. H. Marshall H. T. of work famous the from came concepts ore exclusionaryore ofminorities.

Components of equal citizenship are discussed by Talcott Parsons (1965), Parsons Talcott by discussed are citizenship equal of Components

are

brought from numerous countri numerous from brought e “Social Class and Citizenship” in 1950. He discusses three types of rights: typesthree of discusses He in 1950. Citizenship” and Class “Sociale sus ih eiig iavnae groups. disadvantaged defining with issues ihs r as often also are rights

What could ma could What 8

liberal democracy, political culture of the of culture political democracy, liberal

t n sae that states and ter h ter e fact de es ere is the actual scope of diversity of scope actual the is ere

. and o limited, which decreases the the decreases which limited, o The factors that seem to be in be to seem that factors The research

underline that opportunities that underline such such 5 . Parsons proposes three proposes Parsons . the

cs, hy r just are they case, a relies on some of his of some on relies way of living and and living of way ne Phillips Anne ull ull

CEU eTD Collection posses not do participants when question in is participation Equal equality. political of extent certain a implies participation in equality that states (1995:32) strength and status its improving by subordination overcome to needs group a injustices, past redress To 27). 2003: (Fraser, life social in participate fully to groups disadvantaged constrains significantly Misrecognitio processes. societal in participation societal of component important subordination to important is it but exist. they that mention number, small a in still are Examples recognition. social for struggle society. wider the with value equal of as recognized not is diversity cultural their if oppressed feel often groups society. wider the within groups social excluded previously include to measures special adopt countries policy public ( Young Iris this, to applied. support is treatment ‘equal’ an which under circumstances the are here matters what But soc is it when and equal as treated is group a the when is difference there substantial that indicates 36) (1995: Phillips Namely, equality. political of nature ambiguous it towards group Every respected. entirely be should group every of diversity cultural On these grou these On iety

in general in ening the possibility to play an active role in the society. In favor favor In society. the in role active an play to possibility the ening

s cultural identity should be treated as “oppressed”. “oppressed”. as treated be should identity cultural s ’ -

aes n re t scesul overcome successfully to order in makers Romani people in some multicultural societies have demonstrated higher level of level higher demonstrated have societies multicultural some in people Romani as nds, . It could not be said that all the groups have an equal treatment in the society. the in treatment equal an have groups the all that said be not could It . pr o te struggle the of part a Phillips (1995:40) discuss (1995:40) Phillips Nancy Fras Nancy 2000 integration ) er (2003 er discusse

:27 o recognition for . s A group is socially recognized if it gets to the full the to gets it if recognized socially is group A

) oppressed groups need a stronger support from from support stronger a need groups oppressed es the politics of recognition and states that some some that states and recognition of politics the es

9 explains explains

n implies the status of social subordination that subordination social of status the implies n the . s

oil exclusion social concept of of concept nec The concept concept The The same author also indicates the indicates also author same The essary resources to interact with interact to resources essary ‘ misrecogn of xcl te same the exactly that faces that . recognition hrfr, many Therefore, of

ition as status status as ition hs Phillips this,

disrespect s an is In as

CEU eTD Collection ethnic and wars after (usually agreements certain of consequence a as side” wrong the on the with misfit a also sub the is of conceptualization There rights. cultural and territorial to restricted were that people find to inability 66 2007: (Kymlicka, sub people, indigenous minorities: of types three propose histor and background the of mostly somewhererather enrichthan change the culture majority. the of s wider within assimilation rejecting (while society parallel a up set to seek not do who immigrants to exclusively attached is ethnicity processes. societal influence to power much have not do freedoms and rights of scope minorities Following 11). 1995: (Kymlicka, minorities’ ‘national form cultur mainstream the with together coexist cultures smaller where place a as seen is state for ground starting a as a have integration. successful of components three encompass societiesInrespect,multicultural this bycomponents. several imputing integration for framework as a‘self groups particular of absence systematic alarms equality political in lack a this, as well As others. With an identification of socially excluded group, Will Will group, excluded socially of identification an With Kymlicka (2007) explains that potential incorporation of different types of minorities depends depends minorities of types different of incorporation potential that explains (2007) Kymlicka

proper categorizati proper - evident failing of evident democracy’ failing(Phillips, 1995: 32). o o bln in belong not do a proper category for Roma. This minority does not belong to the indigenous the to belong not does minority This Roma. for category proper a - 1. oee, h polm ih ylcas ocpulzto i in is conceptualization Kymlicka`s with problem the However, 71). implementing on. Namely, Kymlicka proposes Kymlicka Namely, on. -

state minorities. Namely, those groups are identified a identified are groups those Namely, minorities. state h sm category same the (that Marshall and Parsons were widely di widely were Parsons and Marshall (that cey. nta, y nertn it sceis immigrants societies, into integrating by Instead, ociety). cl atrs f eti cutis Wsen democracies Western countries. certain of patterns ical

he st o rights of sets three 10 .

hl ntoa mnrte encompass minorities national While

is, oily xldd groups excluded socially First, - Kymlicka (1996, 2007) tries to make a make to tries 2007) (1996, Kymlicka His work explains that the concept of concept the that explains work His state minorities and immigrant groups immigrant and minorities state a

Mrhl, 1950). (Marshall, categorization of national minorities minorities national of categorization

Kymlicka, ethnic and national national and ethnic Kymlicka, scussing) h m The , ethnic groups ethnic , s “being left left “being s ulticultural

a

should wider e and and e

CEU eTD Collection nature. th and India, heritageof the to belong 6 Roma end, the sub the of country. the of stability to threat of kind any bringing without integration successful much them give not does status This citizens. class second a as just but countries resident their of part a certainly are Roma mother their is countries hosting their of none that implies This current. nevertheless is continent European the on presence their and India, from come had Roma do this of weakness substantial a Finally, culture. their of values essential s parallel a construct not do groups these before, noted As rights. special requesting without country certain a inhabit that groups Kymlicka immigrant that identifies proposes category third The majority. the with conflict serious into went minority this InKosovo. inMacedonia orbothcountries, either Albaniansthatdrawn reside in thecase from of country the of stability Nevertheless, citizens. majority the to comparison in treated equally be to and traditions and culture their keep to importance crucial of is it minorities, these For Albania). (Hungary/ country certain a to belongs groups state that is ground common The Macedonia. in Albanians or Romania and Serbia in Hungarians categories: these for examples many are there Nowadays, conflicts).

Nowadays, many debates were held about stateless nature of the Roma. ofthe nature stateless about held were many debates Nowadays,

not match any of the proposed contexts. Several explanations could be drawn from this. First, this. from drawn be could explanations Several contexts. proposed the of any match not

minority does not belon not does minority - state

minority could .

As well as this, Roma have been have Roma this, as well As e dniid s immigrant as identified be in

and indigenous people cannot be properly used for conceptualization properly for be used cannot indigenouspeopleand

which they currently reside. In this context, another example could be could example another context, this In reside. currently they which

pc t poli a ie soe f ihs ht s edd o their for needed is that rights of scope wider a proclaim to space

at their presence in Europe is an outcome of their nomadic and travelling travelling and nomadic isanoftheir outcome in Europe presence their at g to any of any to g iig wdr cp o rgt t tee rus a endanger can groups these to rights of scope wider a giving its its resident countries. resident 11

s bcue f h cret ted o asylum of “trend” current the of because , always identified as identified always - land Historical facts underlines that Roma Roma that underlines facts Historical

This further implies that categories that implies further This . 6

The However

cey bt hy ahr keep rather they but ociety, each of the mentioned sub mentioned the of each

cauterization is that Roma that is cauterization Roma minority originally originally minority Roma , it could be said t said be could it ,

a

peaceful minority, peaceful . At. hat -

CEU eTD Collection Co Securityfor and Organization Bank, Development Europe Council of ofEurope, Council the Program, NationsDevelopment United the Foundations, 9 8 etc; ofEurope, Council Nations, Union,United 7 Organizations International main improve to governments National of commitment political a is action affirmative of form a as Decade 2006 Inclusion Roma for “Decade the Roma. integration the for efforts more making towards them push to governments national on pressure significant a put Community International the that shows Kymlicka Europe. Eastern and community international this the context, In etc.). documents, government media, (schools, levels various at represented are they anti of enforcement the require this does only Not discrimination. and prejudices overcoming at effort strong a requires a96) pointsout, successfully integ them include (1995: Kymlicka As role. substantial a played to has factor international the politically, and socially governments national of will political of lack the and Roma the of position could factor and ratherfocuswhopermanently reside onRoma conceptualization, this avoid to tries work this Nevertheless, countries. Western the into seeking

The international partner organizations of the Roma Decade include: the World Bank, the Open Society Open theBank, World include: the Decade Roma ofthe organizations international partner The The enters: European Here community”. as “International organization ofInternational scope wouldentire the I name T e eod component second he initiative of the “Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005 ofRoma Inclusion “Decade initiativethe of the

hardly be categorized as national minorities. minorities. national as categorized be hardly of In

Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issue Sinti Romafor and ContactPoint

the integration

2005, the most significant initiative significant most the 2005,

social integration of Roma and Roma of integration social

(Kymlicka

- discrimination laws, but also significant changes in the ways in which in ways the in changes significant also but laws, discrimination

- o integration for operation in Europe, the in Europe, operation

, 2007 , 9

ration of disadvantaged minorities within thesociety, primarily disadvantaged ration within minorities of in overcoming past injustices toward the Roma population in population Roma the toward injustices past overcoming in 7 :19

- has paid much attention to the status of Roma Roma of status the to attention much paid has

2015” (often simply called “Roma Decade”). “Roma called simply (often 2015” ) s

. of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the of Rights Human and Institutions Democratic for ofthe Office

Unlike for other socially disadvantaged groups, Roma Roma groups, disadvantaged socially other for Unlike underlines - their socio their 2015” will be discussed throughout the work;the throughout willdiscussed be 2015” 8 12

was launched was European Roma Information Office Roma Information European

in Having in mind the mind in Having countries in the CEE region.countries in theCEE

nentoa community international - economic status. It is supported by the the by supported is It status. economic

by European governments, called governments, European by structurally disadvantaged disadvantaged structurally , the , s n influential an as

European Roma European

The in

Central

f the of Roma Roma

CEU eTD Collection (UNICEF) Fund Forum Traveler and t underlined case. this for accepted equally be not (2007 Kymlicka As Roma. the by threatened be would less is it case this in Therefore, conflict. Nevertheless, theRoma with somehow misfit this issue. They turmoil. m for treatment adequate that stated clearly potential of occurrence preventing reasons, security for mostly pressure such made Community International The modified. got minority’ ‘national term the of understanding obtain to (Kosovo) and Albanians (Vojvodina) Hungarians helped provision This (South). Kosovo and (North) Vojvodina to assigned was province autonomous of status Inthe Serbia, country. the of parts some for status special a assign to had countries that implied This majority. a in were minorities where regions for status special the of establishment the requested Commission European the minority’ modifications. required certain adequate ‘national no of concept the was societies, into them there including start because to order In country them. for the categorization of part legitimate a as Roma consider not did territory. their to migrate to minority same the prevent to was governments CEE the on pressure strong under previously were that countries of group the on put is Decade the of focus The countries. European twelve After the d the After The minority has been constantly identified as peaceful and not engaging in any kind of ethnic ethnic of kind any engagingin not and peaceful as identified constantly been has minorityThe hat because of non of because hat . More info at: info at: More . issolution of Yugoslavia, when former republics started proclaiming independence, proclaiming started republics former when Yugoslavia, of issolution ,

the Kymlicka regimes. communist

European Roma Rights Centre Rights Roma European

http://www.romadecade.org (Last access: 15/05/2013) 15/05/2013) (Last access: http://www.romadecade.org - threatening character of Roma to the wider stability, their issues their stability, wider the to Roma of character threatening

a

ihr cp o rgt. Acc rights. of scope higher T he OSCE`s High Commissioner on National Minorities National on Commissioner High OSCE`s he

plausible to claim that international peace and stability and peace international that claim to plausible for integrating for inorities is of crucial importance for regional stability.regional for importancecrucial of is inorities

,

UN 13 (2007:200)

- HABITAT :200

the minority into the society. Their aim aim Their society. the into minority the , ) identifies, )

UNHCR states that Western Europe has put a put has Europe Western that states Most of the post the of Most

rig o hs hne the change, this to ording and the and

these

United Nations Children's Children's Nations United

justifications could justifications - co mmunist states mmunist

autonomous

CEU eTD Collection catego belong Roma though framewo minority’ ‘national the into Roma include to governments Fro categorization. in strict less and inclusive more minority’ ‘national of definition the make and terminology the extend feasible most the of One 2007:220). (Kymlicka, Roma towards policies suitable most the finding in effort an put EU Therefore, conditions. working and living better towards aiming migrants Roma of number large and unwelcomed the with concerned was community international that appears it Rather, emerged, theWesternfear into ofthecontext. potential because of spillover for need the Thus, there. present been member EU`s the in Roma of status the improving for effort little show EU the hand, other the On Roma. EU, the into post for strategy stick” Union, European the by political marginalization. Therefore, seems it plau and prejudices racial serious with burdened often society, the of layer disadvantaged most the in as ofidentified are They discrimination. and sort stereotypes of kinds various overcoming a in protection requires indeed minority this 220). that 2007: state (Kymlicka: estimations organizations the right Furthermore, human the within better addressed be to have oevr te ua rgt prpcie os o se t b o be to seem not does perspective rights human the Moreover, rize themas minority. anational - states (e.g. Spain, Greece,Italy), of states Spain, though (e.g. even entrenched the forms

countries were expected to find suitable mechanisms for advancing the status of of status the advancing for mechanisms suitable find to expected were countries

to the group of stateless minorities, national governments widely started to started widely governments national minorities, stateless of group the to - communist countries. In order to fulfill the conditions for the accession the for conditions the fulfill to order In countries. communist have ti popc, t a ovos ht h ncsiy o te state the for necessity the that obvious was it prospect, this m used the case of Romani disadvantaged position, as a “carrot on the on “carrota as position, disadvantaged Romani of case the used outside

assistance for the post the for assistance 14

institutional mechanisms for monitoring state state monitoring for mechanisms institutional sible toclaim thatinternational community, led - communist countries highly countries communist f the primary importance. importance. primary the f rk largely emerged. Even Even emerged. largely rk

mechanisms discrimination has ternational

a to was the the

CEU eTD Collection occupation, class, gender, who their someone shares by ‘represented’ fully be only can people that presuppose to seems therefore, “ continues: and this representation. to comes it when group a define to difficult highly cross also but numerous, and dispersed much decision or decisions legislative all at present be cannot citizens because refuted, be hardly can representation of necessity the world, contemporary the In whole. a as representative truly assembly an makes group the of member effect. certain Furthermore, legislature. the within representation (2007:241) Kymlicka to according actual of degree some also but office, rights. political the regarding collected were data no consequence, a As forbidden. exercise their and oppressed strictly were su office. for run and advocacy in engage to cit that implies 240) 2007: (Kymlicka, participation’ ‘active in of concept discrimination The rights. face political fundamental not their exercising should minorities national of members the participation, active on depends mostly interests their voice politica comes participation active From country. the of processes the in participants active be to need They struggle they sata dabc fr h Rm: n h Ygsa pro, dniis te ta “Yugosl than other identities period, Yugoslav the in Roma: the for drawback bstantial Finally, the process of political integration also depends on the on depends also integration political of process the Finally,

Roma. The lack in lack The Roma. for recognition, minorities need to be politically organized in organized politically be to need minorities recognition, for l representation (Phillips, 1995; Kymlicka, 1996 Kymlicka, 1995; (Phillips, representation l On the other hand other the On o ol de atv priiain require participation active does only Not The claim that minority groups are not fully represented in the legislature, the in represented fully not are groups minority that claim The izens have the freedom to give a vote to the candidate/party of choice, of candidate/party the to vote a give to freedom the have izens identity documents identity , w , ,

- ‘active participation’ implies that participation should have a have should participation that implies participation’ ‘active hat defines representation is that representativeness of each of representativeness that is representation defines hat aigbde woeatos affect actions whose bodies making

tnct, agae etc language, ethnicity, the But the But

model of p of model 15 -

cutting between groups. Therefore, it appears appears it Therefore, groups. between cutting

circumstances from the communist period are a a are period communist the from circumstances

prevents the Roma Roma the prevents olitical representation. olitical

th e action of voting or running for for running or voting of action e ) .” . The way disadvantaged groups disadvantaged way The .

This implies the existence of of existence the implies This Kymlicka (1995:138) extends extends (1995:138) Kymlicka minority from properly exercising properly from their

the form the

When it comes to comes it When group as well. as group life. Interests are Interests life.

of parties. parties. of

av” As

CEU eTD Collection 1996:628). (Mansbridge, 12 well. as womeninterests, towards usuallydirected is representation the “mirror” Therefore, group. underrepresented as thus seen and extent the high the int However, minorities. as other labeled women canbe that incertain claiming be could representation that argue 11 would I moment. a entirely is representative if the as acceptable, considered for neglected be could characteristics visible perspective, constituency its to equal physically 10 hand, promotesgoods it are representation that unrelated 1999). (Mansbridge, tosubstantive other the On deliberation. of quality the improving by interests of representation substantive interests of representation substantive considering whengrounds four Thesegroup”. outward ofbelonging manifestations tothe that: explains she and “individuals contexts, gain these groups addresses disadvantaged 628) which (1999: Mansbridge in Jane contexts advantages. four least at in enhanced is representation groups’ for ‘disadvantaged important particularly is This electorate. their to loyal more be will representatives these that expected is it 629), (1999: Mansbridge to According legislature. the in presented m adequately gives group the of members the them. by among share Representation members group that processes social certain about you of point specific that mean not does perspective This represent. they whom persons also but characteristics physical only share representatives of class larger the of typical societal groups. ‘mirror’‘descriptive’ or

The four contexts are: group mistrust, uncrystallized interests, historical subordination and low de facto legitimacy legitimacy facto low de and subordination historical interests, uncrystallized mistrust, group are: four contexts The completely be cannot withthat one remark the women,but of representation the for inferred be also could It h tr ‘perspective’ term The The crucial notion of ‘dThe of crucial notion 10

who in their own backgrounds mirror some of the more frequent experiences and and experiences frequent more the of some mirror backgrounds own their in who ( Phillips, 1995: 137 1995: Phillips, However, this modelpositive hasits this However, and negativesides.

s lo sd n te crusacs I cud e nerd ht n de nt ae o be to have not does one that inferred be could It circumstances. other in used also is

, representation asrepresentation modelfor anattractive thewide scopeofdisadvantaged 11

uh s ainl r tnc ioiis Te atr f descriptive of matter The minorities. ethnic or national as such

escriptive representation’ , but still to be seen as an adequate representative. As long as there is a shared shared a is there as long As representative. adequate an as seen be to still but , ). Social perspective is especially important because it entails a entails it because important especially is perspective Social familiarized with the conditions in which constituency live. live. whichin constituency withthe conditions familiarized 16

states thatrepresentativessense are insome r cniec ta itrss il be will interests that confidence ore

experience 12

- contexts operate differentcontexts ontwo

on

erests of women are neglected to to neglected womenare of erests the , preferences

one han one d it enhances the the enhances it d

and particular and

CEU eTD Collection 1967) 14 wom 13 descriptive of extent higher acquire groups selective hand, other the On legislators. incapable the th choosing that likelihood strong a is there Nevertheless, constituency. entire the produce to calculated best be would lot by selection that arguing representation, by forms two capable more non declining for justification no is There interests. their mentally rep descriptive of capability the away explains representation descriptive of criticism common most The 1967:81). (Pitkin, representation of process the in involved activity no is there that argued representat action. descriptive of Identifying problem underlined the is representative descriptive a having of features essential (1967 repre descriptive against arguments crucial the of One t of role unnecessary the away explains which overlapping, constantly are groups different of interests this, with line In represented. substantively is group particular mentally 354), (1997: Young Iris

The further terms used for the purpose are either “selection by lottery” or “controlled random sample”.(Pitkin, sample”.(Pitkin, random “controlled or bylottery” “selection either are purpose the for furtherused terms The women represents and Blacks represent Blacks “Should article: her in forms these describes Mansbridge Jane

the the resentatives to perform a substantive representation of interests. If we take into consideration into take we If interests. of representation substantive a perform to resentatives

en” (Mansbridge, 1999). en”(Mansbridge, seby t adm from random at assembly However, this model this However,

:72 randomizing pro - - ) in her “Concepts of Political Representation”. Namely, she argues that one of the the of one that argues she Namely, Representation”. Political of “Concepts her in ) disabled persons, their presence within presence their persons, disabled of interest the that guarantee not does body legislative the in person disabled 13

of descriptive representation descriptive of of promoting of

cess ofselection cess

physical similarities physical

has been opposed by many scholars for several reasons. reasons. several for scholars many by opposed been has

interests of the electorate. This criticism rests on the confusion of confusion the on rests criticism This electorate. the of interests

the o a te sadn fr smtig r oen asn, she absent, someone or something for” “standing the as ion

ouain ol poue es aetd ucmitd and uncommitted talented, less produce would population 14 - . Pitkin (1967: 73) addresses the issue withmicrocosmic (1967:73)addresses theissue . Pitkin

microcosmic and selective. The first form is achieved is form first The selective. and microcosmic

say 17

the electorate does not as not does electorate the

little

about representative`s action. Having one one Having action. representative`s about - descriptive representatives if they are they if representatives descriptive sentation comes from Hanna Pitkin Pitkin Hanna from comes sentation he ‘mirro he sure representation of representation sure r

’ a

representation. representation.

e members of members e microcosm of of microcosm According to According that that

CEU eTD Collection 162 (638, Bulgaria (1,500,000), Romania it ispresented: higherthan much is population ofRoma number estimated the and data, updated not have and Macedoni Slovakia (98,170) (108,193), Serbia Hungary(205,720), 16 n 15 approximately numbers minority The Europe. of trustwhenminority issues ofagroup are inquestion. most is It representation. minority ethnic/national an of realm the within fit perfectly would argument The group. other any of interests as dispersed continuously are general) (in sharing group together, shoes else`s somebody in is there that presupposes Essentialism themselves imagining in good not are people world, the in will comment importance, this captured 53) (1995: Phillips Anne members. its by representation a requires group each that natural appears somehow It 637). 1999: (Mansbridge, to representation. descriptive of account the on implications further raises selection representatives. talented and skilled producing in chances w understanding in gap a is there considered, are forms both as long As population. the in percentage the to closer legislature operates form This systems. electoral woul they than design institutional the from representation 1.2. umber of seats for members of specific descriptive group (Mansbridge, 1999). 1999). (Mansbridge, group ofspecificdescriptive members for ofseats umber

According to official data from 2005, Roma are mostly concentrated in Romania (535,140), Bulgaria (370,908), (370,908), Bulgaria (535,140), in Romania mostlyRoma concentrated are from 2005, data official to According form” “selective of versions two discusses Mansbridge ad esnils i oe f raet ot o te eetv dsrpie representation descriptive selective the of costs greatest of one is essentialism wards The

On Roma minority is the largest the is minority Roma

Roma Integration Roma

a

common interest. This is a dilemma due to the reason that their interests their that reason the to due dilemma ais This interest.common - 815,313), Hungary (520,000 815,313), hich group is to be considered for representation and what are the are what and representation for considered be to is group hich

a 15 and most marginalized of marginalized most and

specific nature that binds each member of the descriptive the of member each binds that nature specific n wy o rn pootos f eti gop i the in groups certain of proportions bring to way a in

12 million people with the h the with people million 12 - 18

drawing geographical district lines and setting aside aside setting and lines district geographical drawing

- 650,000), Serbia (250,000 Serbia 650,000),

a (53,879). Unfortunately, the countries do do Unfortunately,countries the (53,879). a d be able to get from the existing existing the from get to able be d Moreover all

culturally diverse groups in groups diverse culturally te iem o group of dilemma the , - 500,000), Slova 500,000), ighest concentration ighest ing: “ ing: The t The With the best the With ly the issue the ly kia endency 16 ”.

CEU eTD Collection online: Available 2005 RomaInclusion of the Decade in Participating (320,000 of migration massive and 1989 after Nevertheless, Roma. the towards hostility open showing in resulted prejudices and stereotypes of reinforcement and scapegoating emphasized socio in found be could explanations the of One exclusion. t not was previously which identity, their freely express to opportunity an given were groups ethnic mind, in this Having 2003). Schafft; (Molnar, crisis in years the after place took that freedoms recogn demanding constantly were that parties political and organizations independent of establishment for possibilities brought period post the First, severalperspectives. traced from be could This rights. struggletheir for stronger a establishing in succeeded communities Romani communism, destiny li in went rather citizens all for treatment equal this Especially circumstances. same the under all for data topreserve culturallydi accurate officialsstate hampers significantly documentation Macedonia and data reliable provide Slovakia cannot countries these Nevertheless, Serbia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, in Central and Eastern Europe were for a long under communism, which presupposed equality presupposed which communism, under long a for were Europe Eastern and Central ne with assimilation than integration of marginalized groups (mostly ethnic minorities). This minorities). ethnic (mostly groups marginalized of integration than assimilation with ne he case. Nevertheless, even under these new circumstances, Romani groups still face severe severe face still groups Romani circumstances, new these under even Nevertheless, case. he - somewhat 380,000), Macedonia (135,490). Source: “NoData Source: (135,490). Macedonia 380,000), data about the group. On the other hand, the national governments need more reliabl more need governments national the hand, other the On group. the about data

an

areunable inability to defend own interests against the governments that were in many cases many in were that governments the against interests own defend to inability http://www.opensocietyf

befell the entire Roma community across the CEE region. CEE the across community Roma entirethe befell

to

target a grou atarget verse groupsareverse theRoma. such oundations.org/sites/default/files/no social inclusion of the Roma for at least two reasons. First, reasons. two least at for Roma the of inclusion social ition from the government. This is due to civil rights and rights civil to due is This government. the from ition p that is discriminated againstdiscriminated is that p - 2015; Roma Initiatives, Open Society Foundation, June 2010. June2010. Foundation, Society Open RomaInitiatives, 2015;

19

- No Progress”, Data Collection in Countries Countries in Collection Data Progress”, No for

- the minority. the cnmc ilcto, hc just which dislocation, economic - data

-

no without - progress

Jne 20: 189) 2000: (Jenne,

After the collapse of collapse Afterthe T ( oiia vie and voice political

en, 2000). Jenne, his obtain - 20100628.pdf

lack in official official in lack ing - communist

the most most the

; This

e .

CEU eTD Collection recognition and make just realm state the within organized poorly is politics Romani ( progress’ to ‘pathway a as society the in representation of voicing hinders that 2013) Kovats, and Gheorghe (Biro, organization political adequate lack substantially Roma say, to Needless 2002). (Friedman, group the to belonging of sense weak a in resulted impac significantly has Communism scapegoating. This and government. discrimination entrenched the overcome with to odds negotiate their and aggravates significantly interests their voice properly to chances small of position societal the enhancing for possibility politics. high in deeper engage and circles elite the enter to them for hard extremely appears it citizens, class second as perceived rather been have problem. this reinforces highly what is India) about claims historical for (except minorities.the casesMoreover, ofother fact that socio It identity. inheightening capacity, oforganizational alsoresulted group onthe basing it elites Romani to power a gave this Furthermore, support, international the of aware became minority the Once region. the in Roma of status the monitor launched (OSCE) Europe in Cooperation and Security favor in behavior governments` the on impact significant a made organizations external Europe, throughout Roma However, there are at least two factors that largely burden this. It could be argued that that argued be could It this. burden largely that factors two least at are there However, - economic positio economic h negotiation the

their interests. Some of the scholarly work has focused on the active participation and and participation active the on focused has work scholarly the of Some interests. their

harder. of

the status of Roma. Namely, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Organization the and Europe of Council the Namely, Roma. of status the n of Roma within the wider society is significantly different than it is in is it than different significantly is society wider the within Roma of n What What

ih hi hm governments home their with has

n nlec hr is here influence an ted the expression of Romani identity, which furthermore furthermore which identity, Romani of expression the ted 20

in expressing group demands group expressing in

h Rm. hs mle that implies This Roma. the the Roma

a h sau o sbriain idr any hinders subordination of status The

h caatr f h lbrl democracy, liberal the of character the Müller, Jovanović Müller, number of init of number became easier easier became

minority do not have a motherland minority do s this process of of process this s iatives to investigate and investigate to iatives , 2010). , Jne 20: 190). 2000: (Jenne,

more effectively. more

the Because Roma Roma Because The fact that fact The

oa have Roma integration integration

the

CEU eTD Collection substantial representation of interest t about much say not does position their because legislature the within figures ‘symbolic’ as seen often arerepresentatives Roma The 2013). Kovats, and Gheorghe (Biro, elections the onlybefore post the realm. International the within engagement the and history political culture, political er actions heir

- communist countries demo countries communist Tu, ht oa rl lc is lack truly Roma what Thus, . nstrate that Roma form specific type of parties that operates operates that parties of type specific form Roma that nstrate (Ibid, 2013). 21

a aal leadership capable

ht ol demonstrate could that Therefore,

CEU eTD Collection discussing studie are Serbia) and (Macedonia societies multicultural the within integration Roma and (1991) dissolution Yugoslav the of arguments and study of quality Minorities National of Council Serbia of Minorities National of Freedoms and Rights on Law 20 The interview referstointerviews data conductedtoobtain information aboutthecases. reporstate agreements, 2012 data. collection 2.1. Data It examination. an also discusses case. first the of model existing contrast to account into taken been has case second The case. major one of analysis an as but comparison, Chapter 02 To present how Roma are integrated in the society, the research refers to written and interview interview and written to refers research the society, the in integrated are Roma how presentTo research. qualitative of form a in modeled been has thesis This Official data give an insight into the legal provisions extracted from the Constitution the from extracted provisions legal the into insight an give data Official , O ), - A

a 21) Te rte d written The 2013). May nalysis is based on various types of information collected in a period o period a in collected information of types various on based is nalysis rd rmwr Areet 20) and (2001) Agreement Framework hrid break 2: Methodolog - p f uolva a acse fo te irr o te aut o Political of Faculty the of Library the from accessed was Yugoslavia of up ts) and ts) d

sn mil scnay aa sources. data secondary mainly using

secondary data sources (books, academic journals, Internet search). journals,academic (books, secondarysources data

alysis of the interviews and limitations ofthealysis ofthe andresearch. interviews limitations (2009) t refer ata most influential most . The advantage of collected secondary data data secondary collected of advantage The This chapter presents the kind of data collected for for collected data of kind the presents chapter This

y to

22 :

fiil nomto (h Constitution (The information official

ea pro Legal

researches in the field. field. the in researches visions on national minorities: minorities: national on visions The

(2002) It

is not written not is work work ; a o te National the on Law of the key scholars scholars key the of The period of period The f one year (May year one f as a as

lies in a a in lies

s p , parallel parallel

(1991 eace The The the ,

CEU eTD Collection Gheorghe Nicolae and Biro, András were: 20 19 18 in Belgrade. Sciences 17 Friedman Mr. research, this of purpose the For Friedman. in aform ofa contributors between debate and tothework. writers thekey Integration publish recently Roma of department Initiatives the with cooperation in OSF, OSF). (henceforth: Foundations Society within accessed is literature The 2003). (1999, Mansbridge Jane 2000), (1997, Young Iris (1967), Pitkin research the representation, political on work 2003 Eth and Race the 2012 (September catalogues groups. minority regarding context Yugoslav specific the of understanding enhance to necessary were “ (May Belgrade in Science Politica

The book launch took place in one of the offices of RIO OSF, on 9 on OSF, RIO offices of ofthe one in place booklaunch took The theat CEU; department Science within Political the 2011/2012 semester waswinter inheld course The wintersemester 20 in place took course The Political the Facultyof within requirements course ofthe wereparts which the readings, belongsto literature The Secondary sources specifying Roma specifying sources Secondary Library CEU the from accessed was Roma of status the on literature The Significant literature on Roma integration was obtained from one of the interviewees, Eben Eben interviewees, the of one from obtained was integration Roma on literature Significant

readers , Fraser 2003, Parsons 1965 Parsons 2003, Fraser ,

the course

l Sociology l

Office 18 ”

was launched within the framework of RIO OSF. The book launch book The OSF. RIO of framework the within launched was nicity: Roma in Central Europe Central in Roma nicity: of one of the courses the of one of d ok nmd “ named books ed 19 (henceforth: RIO) (henceforth:

“ ” (Orlović, 2008) and 2008) (Orlović, ” Political representation

- uut 2012). August -

May 2013). A significant contribution to the literature the to contribution significant A 2013). May , Szalai 2002, Szalai , Ž , has numerous published works on Roma issues. Roma on works published numerous has , held by Professor by held eljko Jovanović. The moderator was Izsák. moderator Rita The Jovanović. eljko 12/2013 within the Nationalism department at the CEU; at withindepartment the Nationalism 12/2013 rm itmod o Citizenship to Victimhood From

integration are studies using mainly database of the Open the of database mainly using studies are integration “ ” held byLea” held Professor Sgier Foreign policy of Serbia of policy Foreign oe f h literature the of Some ”, and r and ”, refers to concepts of Anne Phillips (1995), Hanna (1995), Phillips Anne of concepts to refers

23 Yogesh 1999 Yogesh

eferred to (e.g. to eferred

Julia Szalai: “ Szalai: Julia th

of May 2013. The key speakers on the event the event key on speakers The ofMay2013. ) shared . In order to look into the scholarly scholarly the into look to order In . , Jenne 2000, Jenne ,

17 oe f i wrs ih the with works his of some ”

Sociological Approaches to Approaches Sociological

a fud n h course the in found was (Simić, 2008). These data These 2008). (Simić, . -

h Pt o Roma of Path the

and CEU on CEU and 20 Molnár

was organized was

came One of the of One

& Schafft

from - line s

CEU eTD Collection компара Македонија, 21 semi the Roma Decade. Educati a is who Mustafov Senad Mr. with conducted was exploratory interview third The Decade. Roma the about discussion the contributed Ibrahimi Mr. with interview an conduct to allowed not was author the because Minister Deputy the with interview an have to important also policy Social and Labour of Ministry the in Minister Macedonia in parties Rom the about insight significant Macedonia. of government was respondent first The p the on commented also Roma respondents the of of Some issues Macedonia. key in integration the out point to made interviews exploratory mostly and unsystematic Integration.of Roma of Romainpost Roma. the regarding Macedonia was research the for used “ thesis`s Roma Integration in Slovakia and Slovakia in Integration Roma

This work is done in Macedonian language. The full title is: “ full titleis: The worklanguage. in Macedonian done This is There are two types of interviews conducted for the purpose of the research. There are three three are There research. the of purpose the for conducted interviews of types two are There

The second round of interviews was conducted with three respondents in a form of in of form a in respondents three with conducted was interviews of round second The - tutrd neves Te is itriwe a M. Re Mr. was interviewee first The interviews. structured

on Fund in Fund on author. The most relevant materials for this research were found researchwere this for relevantmaterials most The author. ” I gv a infcn contribution significant a gave It . - communist Macedonia communist

тивна тивна анализа Skopje Another piece of writing that Mr. Friedman shared is “ is shared Friedman Mr. that writing of piece Another

with the Minister without Portfolio Mr. Neždet Mustafa. The interview The Mustafa. Neždet Mr. Portfolio without Minister the with

Mr. “ . Mr. Mustafov shared his opinion about the provisions adopted within adopted provisions the about opinion his shared Mustafov Mr. . Electoral System Design and Minority Representation in Slovakia and Slovakia in Representation Minority and Design System Electoral hs epnet a o te ra iprac bcue t ae a gave it because importance great the of was respondent This

Edis Hasan Edis . ”

Macedonia ”. This work gives an adequate overview of the main steps mainsteps ofthe adequate givesoverview an Thiswork ”. , the cons - 24

Comparative Comparative to the understanding of electoral mechanisms mechanisms electoral of understanding the to

ultant of the Minister without Portfolio in the in Portfolio without Minister the of ultant

Интеграција на Ромите во Словачка и во и во Словачка Ромите на Интеграција in Macedonia, Macedonia, in . The second interviewee was the D the was interviewee second The analysis žp Ali džep onr facilit Country Mr. Ibrahim Ib Ibrahim Mr. ” . 21 in Mr. Friedman`s work: work: Friedman`sMr. in

Č Another book that was that book Another upi, Political Integration Political tr n h Roma the in ator rocess in Serbia. Serbia. in rocess h i working is who rahimi. - It was was It depth depth eputy

CEU eTD Collection also were important for thesecondcase (Serbia). interviews some that appeared it cases, the analyzing While Serbia. for necessary n was exploratory interviews of anotherset that assumed author The (Macedonia). case first the starts the period with theDecade when was planned. even not Decade the Moreover, end. the at results substantial no shows which factor, influential an as Decade Roma only takes research factor international analysis ofthe 2.2. Limitations interviews were Friedman Mr. that input substantial the of because choice cases both in used were (Friedman) interviewee period and integration Budapest in Foundations Jovanović Roma the about knowledgeable also is he countries Nevertheless, Macedonia. on both based is contribution academic in his of Most Serbia. and issues Macedonia Roma analysing been has who researcher academic an Friedman, a Education of Ministry Minorities, Ethnic the for Education the in Languages the of Development and Promotion for Directorate hr are There Another limitation comes from the interviews. Exploratory interviews were conducted only in in only conducted were interviews Exploratory interviews. the from comes limitation Another te urn dietr f h Rm Iiaie dprmn at department Initatives Roma the of deirector current the , two analyzed inaccordanceanalyzed thetheoreticalconcepts suggested from chapter. tomain

iiain o te research. the of limitations infcnl ipce te tts f ioiy rus Te uhr f the of author The groups. minority of status the impacted significantly s that were crucial for the minority in Serbia. The rep The Serbia. in minority the for crucial were that s .

The interviewee contributed to the discussion about the Serbian Roma Serbian the about discussion the to contributed interviewee The begins nd Science in Science nd

in 2005 in

issues in Serbia. The last respondent was Mr. Mr. was respondent last The Serbia. in issues

which seems less appropriate because the an the because appropriate less seems which 25 -

Skopje. Macedonia and Serbia. The author made this this made author The Serbia. and Macedonia First,

The second interviewee was Mr. Eben Mr. was interviewee second The hoeia faeok ugss that suggests framework theoretical put in analysing both countries. both analysing in put

o h Oe Society Open the nces of the second second the of nces

Željko These alysis ot -

CEU eTD Collection Roms). and Vlachs Jews, (e.g. life ofnomadic self categorization, national inwho concentration, sufficient lack people encompasses t outside state, a have who the citizens belongs to second the units); six constitutive (the Yugoslavia of Republic Socialist than other havestate a 24 23 Slovenia. and Montenegro 22 nature stateless their of Because 9). 2007, (Friedman, groups ethnic and minorities) national (or nationalities peoples), (or nations as: defined were categories the Yugoslavia, of character complex the of Because groups. certain of recognition no implied which values, core its of one was citizens the among Equality ideology. moment ofdissolution. i that, said be could It 1991. in (so Montenegrothe formed republics Yugoslav of most of chapters cases.analyze that two s main two into divided is chapter This federation. the of collapse the after enjoyed Roma Serbia. and Macedonia post Chapter 3:

Accor Afterthe referendum Yugoslavia(1945 1989 did 1989 ie n te CE onre, ni te al nnte, omns peald s leading a as prevailed communism nineties, early the until countries, CEE other in Like The Yugoslavia. of FederalRepublic Socialist to belonged once Serbiaand Macedonia chapter This ding to Friedman (2007, 9), the first category corresponds to people who belong to the majority and do not do majorityand the who to belong people to the first corresponds 9), category Friedman (2007, to ding - Yugoslav Macedonia and Serbia eventually also led to the to led also eventually - 1991) was made of six republics: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Macedonia, Herzegovina, and Bosnia Croatia, Serbia, was republics: of six made 1991) discusses , Macedonia declared its independence on theon 8 its independence declared Macedonia , The he federation (Hungarians, Romanians, Turks, Rusins and Ukrainians); the third category third the Ukrainians); and Rusins Turks, Romanians, (Hungarians, federation he

is, t xlis h gnrl otx o Ygsai ad oiin that position and Yugoslavia of context general the explains it First, -

called) Third Yugoslavia, Macedonia declared its full independence its Macedoniadeclared Yugoslavia, called)Third the

Political Integr 22

Each of these sub Each ofthese bt css mliutrls satd o e rsn fo the from present be to started multiculturalism cases, both n oiia itgain f oa in Roma of integration political otne o sprt pts Wie eba tgte with together Serbia, While paths. separate on continued

dissolution 26 -

chapters of the Yugoslavian federation Yugoslavian the of

and nomadic way of life, Roma were were Roma life, of way nomadic and th ation ation of Roma in encompasses discussion specific

of September 1991 (Simić, 2008) (Simić, 2008) 1991 ofSeptember

two - awareness and practice a sort sort a practice and awareness

post - Yugoslav states, states, Yugoslav in 1991, when 1991, in

advanced

events events .

ub 24 23 -

CEU eTD Collection 25 s strugg was Macedonia While same. the not was democratization of point starting the Serbia, and Macedonia of cases In life. of segment every in results same show not did democracy of consolidation the Therefore, in unprepared left were republics Yugoslav culture setting. multicultural new a faced republic Yugoslav g Friedman; Appendix were these because rights, targeted kind any excellen “an was Yugoslavia of reputation goodinternational and arrangements economic of advantages especially was This country. the within group other any like rights of scope same the enjoyed Roma hand, self of lack the in seen are this Today, practices. traditional and cultural proficiency, language of deal great a lost They ties. identity their weakened have groups minority many that implies constellation this of neit declaring in advantage no saw they First, Roma. on impacts two least at had This citizens. the between unity of level higher achieve to order in equality to credits many gave state The group. third the into included vr umi in turmoil evere

Jos When communist communist When ip Broz Tito was a ruler of Yugoslavia for almost 40 years(Simić, 2008); almostfor 40 was Yugoslavia of Broz ruler Tito ip a substantially present t place to live in, and all culturally diverse groups did not have to struggle for struggle to have not did groups diverse culturally all and in, live to place t

Bosnia. Even though, the country did not have an active role in the war, its its war, the in role active an have not did country the though, Even Bosnia. ne te eie of regime the under ) shifted from the communist to democratic values and principles. The post The principles. and values democratic to communist the from shifted

ling for its international recognition, Serbia was deeply involved in involved deeply was Serbia recognition, international its for ling

oiia structures political her their ethnicity nor identity in front of the state. the of front in identity nor ethnicity their her

- awareness and awareness (minimal wage was guaranteed for all Yugoslav citizens) Yugoslav all for guaranteed was wage (minimal

oi Bo Tito Broz Josip

were 27

rn o icmn poes f democratization. of process incoming of front a sense of sense a (

I

nterview elcd y oe libera more by replaced aate fr l. (Interviews all.” for uaranteed

ln te ie te sec o political of essence the line, the Along Jovanović 25 belonging to the group. the to belonging we ctzn gie substantial gained citizens when ,

, Appendix discourse, l The negative side side negative The ) . The federation federation The the results of results the On the other the On

Jovanović, former former to

the -

CEU eTD Collection regim theauthoritarian theWith fall of until 2000. reforms democratic down the slowed regime authoritarian the this, Aswellas thesociety. 26 for measures drastic undertook Serbia when 5th), (October Milosevic. Slobodan of regime authoritarian the of hand, other democra with started Macedonia conflicts. ethnic of outcomes the and democratization f pace the treatment: this influenced have not rights, which within offullcitizens contribute thewider tothe status society. social and political civic, gain minorities national the rights, of categorization (1950) meant minorities ‘ and social their to contribute would Roma for rights the extending that believed community International governments national by experienced also marg they but rights, demanding in them constrain worsening. significantly was Roma of status the situation, such In principles. democratic of consolidation prevented substantially that discourse with started case development societal further the on impact serious a had presence ainl minority national

Serbia was long under the burden of sanctions, which substantially prevented it to impose more radical reforms in reforms moreradical impose it to prevented whichsubstantially ofsanctions, wasunderthe burden Serbia long pressing Even though, both countries both though, Even inalization. Nevertheless, the engagement of international community impacted communityinternational of engagement the Nevertheless, inalization. the

had to had oiia itgain Kmik, 2007) (Kymlicka, integration political the same treatment in Macedonia as Macedonia in treatment same

governments

progressive progressive a wider scope of rights for culturally diverse groups. As it was in was it As groups. diverse culturally for rights of scope wider a ’ pass through dramatically long transitional period that lasted until the breakup the until lasted that period transitional long dramatically through pass e, this year brought substantial democratic reforms. democratic substantial broughtyear this e,

led i 19, eba ald o do to failed Serbia 1991, in already

had

o nld te oa no h catego the into Roma the include to

democratic reforms, while the later kept later the while reforms, democratic to implement suitable mechanisms for minorities. In this manner, manner, this In minorities. for mechanisms suitable implement to have tic transition in transition tic

a multicultural character, the character, multicultural a they 28

the first years of independence. of years first the o ol dd h lgly neonzd status unrecognized legally the did only Not

had in Serbia. There are several factors that factors several are There Serbia. in had Wie aeoi ctgrzd oa as Roma categorized Macedonia While . It w It as not until the regime change regime the until not as so

until the

implementation of democratic democratic of implementation ir culturally diverse groups did groups diverse culturally ir 26 2002 . As well as this, this, as well As .

severe y f ainl minority. national of ry with a with . The

iciiain and discrimination strong

tts f national of status

Serbia

this process, this nationalistic Marshall`s the former the

, in 2 in

on the the on While While 000

CEU eTD Collection 195); 2008: war(Simić, this outcomes of from recover the to Serbia yearsfor almost took It 10 paralyzed. almost entirely parliament national and government theon 24 27 societal their for measures special assigning Roma, of rights the enriched significantly have provisions of set minorities its for provisions and rights special address not did Serbia While Macedonians. and Albanians conflict ethnic when 2001, in was country the for point juncture the Namely, ‘symbolic’ 1965)and(Pitkin, does demonstrateany not substantial outcome. rat is legislature the representatives within presence their However, Romani time. first the for that parliament the entered 2007 before not was It results. poor numerically demonstrates 20 Kovats, and Gheorghe them makes elections, the between in actors, political elections. the before right operate usually they However, number. great number their of data reliable obtain official state the Therefore, documentation. personal in lack the of because captured be not could number actual their circumstances, specific disadvantageous more groupsminority Their inSerbia. status processes. important and turmoil Kosovo. in war the into involved deeply was o this, as well As values.

The Kosovo war started in 1998, and has continued with a severe bombing of Serbia. These happenings took place place took happenings These ofSerbia. bombing withsevere a has and continued warin 1998, started Kosovo The n h ohr ad Mcdna a a witness a was Macedonia hand, other the On th

of March, 1999 and lasted until the15 lasted and 1999 ofMarch, after the conflict conflict the after neto svr action severe undertook that came as an outcome of the of outcome an as came that The outcome of this process did not bring any substantial changes for for changes substantial any bring not did process this of outcome The due to the large number of immigrants who fled Kosovo. Because of the of Because Kosovo. fled who immigrants of number large the to due

ne of the crucial drawbacks for the case was in 1999, when the country country the when 1999, in was case the for drawbacks crucial the of ne 13). In terms of representation, the number of Romani representatives Romani of number the representation, of terms In 13). in 1999, Macedonia has empowered the status of minorities with the with minorities of status the empowered has Macedonia 1999, in

s . In terms of politic of terms In .

was, in fact, worsening. For Roma, these worsening. Roma, was, For infact, 27

th

against the country that that country the against of June. The Serbian infrastructure Serbian The ofJune. s

could not adequately target this group, because they because group, this target adequately not could In this period, this In 29

Ohrid Fr Ohrid

to

smlr cnro ih t ehi groups. ethnic its with scenario similar a

al integration, Romani parties exist in a in exist parties Romani integration, al a amework Agreement. These provisions These Agreement. amework

es motn pltcl atr (Biro, factor political important less int ernational usatal mo substantially

was destroyed, the destroyed, was

Poor presence of these these of presence Poor forces

events erupted interfered in interfered

iie all bilized were even

between

her her the se

CEU eTD Collection representatives Romani no are there Herzegovina and Bosnia and Slovenia Montenegro, Parliamentsof 29 http://faq.macedonia.org/politics/fram at: info More country. the minoritygroupsin all equalize to wanted Agreement ofthe the manner, creators Inthis minorities). (national/ethnic status theirlegal of anindication without 28 of residues the renouncing direction, good a in went democratization of process 3.1. level of inthecases Roma ofpolitical integration observation. theoreti the 2015. until lasts and Inclusion’ Roma of ‘Decade called is action The Roma. the of status subordinated issues. Balkan Western the from countries former republic. Yugoslav higher much is representatives Romani of number the However, Parliament. Macedonian the within Roma of representation the on impact any have not did Agreement the and administration public in Roma employed communities purpose this for designed especially was Ohrid in Agreement The groups. some of group specific the to them inclusion.

In Croatia, there is one representative that represents the interest of even twelve minority groups; In the minoritygroups;the In twelve ofeven interest the represents that representative isthereone InCroatia, most numerous the target to Agreement in the used is term “communities” The Macedonia The trace is community international of involvement The The model of Roma ofRoma model The

hs itrainl uhrte luce a afraie cin o vroe the overcome to action affirmative an launched authorities international Thus, following

In this manner, Kymlicka ( Kymlicka manner, this In cal conceptualization, the sub the conceptualization, cal 28

is among the first countries that seceded that countries first amongthe is n Macedonia. in

sub chapters chapters

Development parties also is higher ofRomani than inother republics.

people.

integration in Macedonia in integration The outcomes of these arrangements resulted in the high rate of rate high the in resulted arrangements these of outcomes The ework_agreement.pdf provide more substantial discussion about these cases. Based on Based cases. these about discussion substantial more provide

demonstrated

2007 These rights serve to empower the status of citizenship for citizenship of status the empower to serve rights These chapters ) explained the concept of ‘targeted rights’, assigning rights’, ‘targeted of concept the explained ) in 30

the other governmental branches. governmental other the

(Last access: 20/05/2013); 20/05/2013); (Last access: are divided into three sections that explain the explain that sections three into divided are

extre

from Yugoslavia. It could be said thatthesaid be Itcould Yugoslavia.from mely be n oh ae. ni 2005, Until cases. both in able

poor results in dealing with Roma Roma with dealing in results poor

ethnic groups in Macedonia, in Macedonia, groups ethnic

29

than in any other any in than -

to target to the Nevertheless, Nevertheless, . communist

certain the

CEU eTD Collection 31 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/no 2 June Foundation, Society Open 2005 ofRoma Inclusion Decade in the Participating Countries in Collection Data Progress”, 30 high significantly is number This report in Roma the coordinating for Ministry special a established legislat the in represented constantly been its within ‘communities’ all almost integrate to succeeded region. the of countries embraced certainrights scope integration. path of their towards thatfacilitated the societal th empowers significantly recognized. previously country. adva in resulted which Albanians, ethnic for rights upgrading in resulted conflict This status. their improve significantly to Roma helped that 2001 ethnic severe the before not was it Nevertheless, majority. the front in equality the the from (mostly that Constitution) mechanisms legal various from benefited substantially They Macedonia. co regional 53,879 numbering Macedonia, in minorities. its with deal to mechanisms suitable find multi those of one was Macedonia past.

Annual report; National attorney, Republic of Macedonia; Skopje 2011 Skopje ofMacedonia; Republic attorney, National Annualreport; Source: population. ofthe total Roma 2.6% account from2005, thedata official to According h mdl f oa integration Roma of model The 31

n 2011, in oa lo eeie rmtecnlc bcuetersau a ainl ioiis was minorities national as status their because conflict the from benefited also Roma nre, oa ucsfly on a ah o rahn te tts f iiesi in citizenship of status the reaching for path a found successfully Roma untries, Roma numbered Roma recognized

The country of 2 million inhabitants, with a complex ethnic structure, has structure, ethnic complex a with inhabitants, million 2 of countryThe As Kymlicka (1995) (1995) Kymlicka As sau ad erae h bre o mseonto. h Roma The misrecognition. of burden the decrease and status e 010. Available online: 010.

them as a national minority. This was an important step i step important an was This minority. national a as them er than in the previous year, when 576 Roma were employed were Roma 576 when year, previous the in than er 30 1304

people in -

cu the Macedonian society is different different is society Macedonian the people lturally and ethnically divided societies that needed to needed that societies divided ethnically and lturally

r b te m the by ure r .% f h oeal population overall the of 2.6% or indicates 31 cretyepoe n h ntttoa organs. institutional the in employed currently ,

- data Roma are one of the four largest minorities minorities largest four the of one are Roma cn psto fr te mnrte i the in minorities other for position ncing - no , the proper categorization of minorities minorities of categorization proper the , - progress mes f omnt. T community. of embers society lso.Acrigt tels s last the to According clusion. - 20100628.pdf . In this respect, Roma have have Roma respect, this In . - ; 2015; Roma Initiatives, 2015;

hn in than . “NoData nie n other in Unlike he state has has state he - ofit in conflict

- nto reach nto the No No

other tate

CEU eTD Collection are Roma Portfolio without (Minister currently Roma group. minority Roma the parliamentary for votes aggregate elections. substantially and municipality this from come (parties) is which Orizari, Shuto self a has Roma Macedonian that fact the is occurrence this for factors enter constituencies of number the of (because interest. that perform also but constituency, pawns just not are representatives political that seems that variables years. fifteen least at evolving been has that model complex puzzling howRomaachieved high this ofintegration. level in imaginable hardly still is This years. twenty for legislature the in present constantly been have Roma that means This independent. h (Sobranie) political authorities. state numerous the within Moreover, the main stages in the hierarchy of decision of hierarchy the in stages main the Moreover, ad an nor trend new a representatives Romani of presence the is Neither ing

vn huh aeoin lcoa design electoral Macedonian though Even parties h lgsaue rm the from legislature the

present within the Ministry the within present

as been capturing members of the minority ever since the country became became country the since ever minority the of members capturing been as contributed

occupy ht ciey atcpt i eetos Frhroe te aeoin Parliament Macedonian the Furthermore, elections. in participate actively that . a This shows that Roma have a place within the Macedonian government Macedonian the within place a have Roma that shows This

unique case where Roma are actually in majority in actually are Roma where case unique to - Table 1 Table

a coordinative body for the Roma Decade). Roma the for body coordinative a political integration political

the action that contributes to the substantial representation of representation substantial the to contributes that action the

ey onset very

demonstrates the structure of decision of structure the demonstrates

of Labor and Social Policy (a working body of the Roma Roma the of body working (a Policy Social and Labor of lo sne 1990, since Also, n other any

n coe lists closed and

of independence (1991). One of of One (1991). independence of 32

of the minority in the country. Furthermore, it it Furthermore, country. the in minority the of

somehow einl co regional

- making are held by the members of of members the by held are making oai ioiy has minority Romani , oa ae en succeeding been have Roma ),

It appears worth of inquiring the inquiring of worth appears It hampers minority representation representation minority hampers tn for stand untry.

- On governing municipality, municipality, governing eetees i i s is it Nevertheless, - making bodies, which which bodies, making . Main political actors actors political Main .

the Ministerial level, level, Ministerial the Pti, 95 their 1965) (Pitkin, - hoc situation, but a but situation, hoc the formed explanatory

their five till in

CEU eTD Collection ef%20Analysis%20of%20Roma%20Policies%20in%20Macedonia.pdf http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/General%20Resources/Chronic%20Deception%20A%20Bri source: 32 disadvantagedgroups fromcontributed such Čupi Ali (Interview groups minority between sharing power and society multicultural of character the on depends integration grou other for rights of scope the extending in resulted clearly has group of most for rights of scope higher a in resulted t Macedonia, in Nevertheless, authorities. state the of assistance proper a without integration of level this achieve to capacities have not do country, regional every for case hard a as Roma, 1995). (Kymlicka, branches state the within Roma employed of number on least at measurable, and visible are results table, the to According Centers. Information Roma and Networks NGO encompasses society civil Roma indicates, table o Roma numerous with teams Decade Roma local several demonstrates Unit. Implantation Decade a presents also Ministry The Decade).

Chronic Deception: A Brief Analysi Brief A Deception: Chronic

Table Roma Civil Society Civil Roma Local Government Government

1: institutional arrangement for the Roma resulting from the current public policies public from current the Roma resulting the for arrangement institutional 1: Ministries here is also a substantial influence of other minorities. The ethnic conflict conflict ethnic The minorities. other of influence substantial a also is here

s of Roma Policies in Macedonia in Policies Roma sof ,

Appendix Working Body Working power sharingpower inMacedonia aswas it (Roma Decade National Coordinator) Decade National (Roma 33 the ). There is no similar example when one of the the of one when example similar no is There ).

Local Roma Roma Local Roma Information Centers Information Roma minority groups. Dominance of one minority one of Dominance groups. minority Minister without without Minister Roma NGO Networks NGO Roma could indicate the status of full citizenship citizenship full of status the indicate could Coordinative Body Coordinative

Roma Officers Roma ;

Nadir Redzepi Nadir Decade Teams

Decade Implementation Unit Implementation Decade (Last access: 27/01/2013) Minister of Labor and Social Social and Labor of Minister

The level of Local governmentLocal of level The Portfolio Portfolio

the

; January 2011; Online; January 2011; ps. Thus, the level of the the of level the Thus, ps.

institutional level. High level. institutional fficers.

Policy

. Fin

ly a the as ally, 32

in

other other 2001

CEU eTD Collection when the by discussed are Macedonia. periods in integration Romani on theseliterature the and respondents of Both group. societal a as Roma the of identification Macedonia ‘oppressed’ of conceptualization (1995:40) Phillip`s valu equal an of were culture Roma the from respected been has Roma of diversity A Friedman, is status their because ‘marginalized’ as characterized rather be could they However, sen a in ‘oppressed’ signific has Roma Educ the forLanguages the Developmentof 3.1.1. aboutdiscussion international theprocess involvement in ofpolitical integration. explora in two encompasses se It which Roma. interviews, on had it impact of kind what and minorities national Redž first The categories. three into divided is analysis The There the new the Defining minority groups: oy neves ht ev as serve that interviews tory ep Ali ep

significantly lower lower significantly are two crucial two are n Roma pni) an ppendix), Constitution of Macedonia of Constitution Čupi antly empowered their position i position their empowered antly

, Romani activists and current and activists Romani , e ht their that se v t erc te ilg with dialog the enrich to rve moments

xet n oa sus o Ese Erp, indicates Europe, Easter for issues Roma on expert than than

utrl ihs r neglected are rights cultural n oprsn to comparison in in the recent Macedonia history that significantly contribute to contribute significantly that history Macedonia recent the in Extending e with other minority groups at that time. time. that at groups minority other with e background information. The third category presents a a presents category third The information. background

officially recognized the Roma as a national minority national a as Roma the recognized officially ation of Ethnic Minorities, indicates that Macedonianthat indicates Minorities, Ethnic of ation 34 start

the rights forminoritiesthe rights n many fields. He discusses that discusses He fields. many n director of the Directorate Directorate the of director

other

literature. f independence: of rus os o ral apy o the to apply really not does groups

re minorities. Eben Friedman (Interview (Interview Friedman Eben minorities. presents

(I It also includes another three three another includes also It triw Ali nterview

The first moment was 1991, was moment first The a discussion of the status of of status the of discussion a

h seiiiis f the of specificities the social and economic and social

for Promotion and Promotion for Čupi

Roma are not are Roma n h sense the In A , ht cultural that ppendix) - depth - , .

CEU eTD Collection Serbs. and Roma Vlaxs, Turks, Albanians, minorities:the to referred 33 indicating sphere political the in minorities of presence the guarantees Agreement the for provisions special out appendix) Čupi, Ali (Interview rights of scope wider of implementation Roma Ohrid. conflict in them. to referring equally w Roma the Because Albanians. adopted was Agreement Framework groups.disadvantaged societal certain advancing towards directed are that 2007) (Kymlicka, rights’ ‘targeted of part integral suit ( equalized officially were ‘peer the for opportunity an gave needed minority people nomadic fact the to due provision, unique a was “This Constitution first the was it

Macedonian government adopted fifteen changes to the Constitution in November 2001. The changes are mostly changesare The 2001. November in Constitution the to fifteen changes adopted government Macedonian a

able ground for implementation. In this manner, the category of ‘national minority’ ‘national of category the manner, this In implementation. for ground able The second crucial period period crucial second The that

serious armed conflict between Macedonians and ethnic Albanians in February 2 February in Albanians ethnic and Macedonians between conflict armed serious power sharing between majority and the most dominant minority (Albanians) resulted in resulted (Albanians) minority dominant most the and majority between sharing power lasted until until lasted The agreement substantially extended the extended substantially agreement The significantly to empower its empower to who uut 2001, August ere

do previously Parsons, 1965 Parsons, o hl ay id f ihs” (I rights.” of kind any hold not Being affected by affected Being

status in the world the in

eeie fo te conflict the from benefited

for

- status (achieved by the new and unique categorization) which categorization) unique and new the by (achieved status

to dacn sau o te oa a i 20, when 2001, in was Roma the of status advancing of

hn ersnaie o to ie sge the signed sides two of representatives when - identified as identified peer’ politics (Fraser, 2003 (Fraser, politics peer’

“other” o n te tnc ofit ewe Mcdnas and Macedonians between conflict ethnic the end to ) for Roma as for any other minority, their rights foun rights their minority, other any for as Roma for )

to do so so do to

the war in Kosovo in war the 33 that 35

minorities minorities a national minority national a

Roma were mostly pe mostly were Roma (Müller, Jovanović). Jovanović). (Müller,

rights

and freedoms and (Ibid, appendix). appendix). (Ibid, triw Ali nterview n hv srntee bss for basis strengthened have and

:30 ( 1999 ). Therefore, as opportunities as Therefore, ).

in 1991, this provision was provision this 1991, in ) , the country got involved got country the , .

Redžep rceived as travelers and and travelers as rceived

The respondent The for national minorities national for Čupi

A , ril 4 Article

Ali

ppendix) a reet in greement Čupi

the 001. The 001.

pointed pointed was an was

f the of states: Ohrid “non The d a a d - .

CEU eTD Collection Ibrahimi, (Interview administrators as public many Romaemployed are Also, there Projects. for Coordinator and Minister ofthe Deputy 35 34 the of parties. political country the of independence minorities its legislature 3.1.2. community. 1995). Phillips, 1965; (Pitkin, ‘symbolic’ 2000). (Young, group for especially Portfolio’ without ‘Ministry the addressed policies public Ministries state the within places the of distribution proportional a imposed have provisions legal these that explained He Roma. the of status the administration.” public govern that co concerning rules the respecting while bodies, such within employment of levels all at and bodies public local and central all in communities of representation equitable that 4.2 representation” equitable and discrimination

One of the most influential Ministries is Ministries most influential Oneofthe http://faq.macedonia.org/politics/framework_agreement.pdf The democratization The s se Romani parties as parties Romani se

Development ofRoma ed upr fo pbi plce i odr o vroe hi dsdatgd position disadvantaged their overcome to order in policies public from support need “Laws regulating employment in public administration will include measures to assure to measures include will administration public in employment regulating “Laws 35

n pbi amnsrto (neve Fida, pedx. lo te ucm of outcome the Also, Appendix). Friedman, (Interview administration public and

ihn h multicultural the within

The

oee, ae o te epne fo te neves ti psto i rather is position this interviews, the from responses the on based However, Appendix). Appendix).

constant presence in the political life of the country indicates the importance the country the indicates of life political the presencein constant

of

‘ the Republic of Macedonia created Macedonia of Republic the peer

(1991)

-

to political parties and theirpolitical partiesand mirroring the within - the Ministry of Labor and Social policy Social and Labor of Ministry the . Eben Friedman highlighted the outcomes of these Articles to Articles these of outcomes the highlighted Friedman Eben peer From ’

actors in mainstream politics (Fraser, 2003). 2003). (Fraser, politics mainstream in actors society

authorities. In this manner, Roma entered Roma manner, this In authorities. It demonstrates no substantial contr substantial no demonstrates It 1990 to 1990 34 . Moreover, it is specially guaranteed byguaranteed specially is Moreover, it . 36 Rm parties Roma .

today, the minority the today, (Last access: 22/05 (Last access: a space for space tre t emerge to started /2013); , where the Roma occupy a place place a Roma occupy wherethe ,

has Roma.

mpetence and integrity integrity and mpetence

political integration of integration political formed ibution to Romani to ibution

Socially excluded excluded Socially all in all in all in

the A the to several to However, However, since the the since rticle eight

CEU eTD Collection presence ofthe representat Romani 201 to 1991 from Roma the of representation political about discussion 2006. to 1991 from parties Romani the of development of line time the the legislature change Furthermore, visible. than more are outcomes the Roma, of case the In demon should groups the of participation that implies participation’ ‘active indicated previously (2007:241) Kymlicka As years. twenty past the in Parliament Macedonian poli the elections factor political influential dramatically as perceived not are they that, from apart sayingth discuss Friedman Eben society. of resemblance exact an is it when and equal as indic (1995:36) in Phillips ambiguities what is This notions. different two are decision process the on action substantial a having and present being that argued be could it The text The ia poes ic 19. hs s aiy rcal b loig no h srcue f the of structure the into looking by traceable easily is This 1991. since process tical ” (Interview Friedman, Appendix). Appendix). Friedman, (Interview ” at Roma politicalparties Roma at

bellow her

‘ Politics of presence of Politics

presents s

the general intheregion. imagethe ofthe Roma

descriptive data about data descriptive “bring ives inseven terms. election ’. Namely, there is a difference when the group is treated is group the when difference a is there Namely, ’.

a

great deal of v ofgreatdeal Romani political parties have been participating in participating been have parties political Romani 37

the

Romani Romani otes for the mainstreamthe parties”for otes

political parties political

their constant presence in presence constant their 1 The text resumes with a with resumes text The . Table effect. certain a strate ates as one of the the of one as ates . es 2 Figure

demonstrates demonstrates between two two between this issue by issue this … - making 1

“But, “But, gives

CEU eTD Collection 30/04/2013); 36 It branch. legislative the within mirroring successful of beginning the was it electorate, Roma the of behalf the On elections. first PCERM its held Macedonia independent (1991), year same the In parties. significantly This will text the in noted be a Mustafa PCERM Romani period this Thus,

More informationon: More 1991. , ),

oiia party political

Faik

nd Mr. nd h frt er o idpnet aeoi bogt upiig eut i mn ways. many in results surprising brought Macedonia independent of years first The was founded in 1991 by 1991 in foundedwas

Abdi was elected as a Member of Member a as elected was Abdi

Š rsns the presents aban Saliu aban http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=3D515E1DA2319B44871AB2AB83AA3761

bellow Figure

n Macedonia, in bt o tee oiia atr wl eetal fr nw political new form eventually will actors political these of both , 1 ,

: Development: of Romani parties from 1990 2006 to

Note: Note: destabilize

who were appointed as appointed were who crucial period for political organization of the Roma. Roma. the of organization political for period crucial

Mr. Faik Abdi. Two Abdi. Faik Mr. Names

Pry f "Party the unityimpo themost among

are presented 38

Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia. of Republic the of Parliament or Full Emancipation of Roma" (henceforth: (henceforth: Roma" of Emancipation Full or

general secretaries of the party. the of secretaries general

in of his first collaborators first his of

abbreviations

rtant politicians. Romani

were

Mr. Ne Mr.

(Last access (Last access As it will it As h first The 36 ž

For det

CEU eTD Collection Unity. National Macedonian за 40 39 38 37 p minority the all From system. electoral mixed to majoritarian from design electoral the changed 1998 in and elections the party established streams. ofthese All new ( party SRM i Therefore, PCERM. of leadership the between disagreement brought again term next The Bajram. Amdi again Abdi Faik Mr. alliance the closest Abdi of partners Faik Macedonia" in Roma the of Party party`s the among members disagreements certain demonstrated years proceeding the Nevertheless, fact This Sobranie. in seat a winsucceedto would community Romani aof member that period, that hardlywasin imaginable

VMRO informationon: More informationon: More informationon: More македонско национално единство национално македонско 1998. 1994. ) emerged from PCERM. from emerged ) Mr. Amdi Bajram Amdi Mr. . This resulted in the presence of two parliamentar two of presence the in resulted This . -

. This later resulted in a formation of the new Romani party Romani new the of formation a in resulted later This . DPMNE (Macedonian: (Macedonian: DPMNE

Mr. Amdi Bajram Amdi Mr. upiigy i Surprisingly, arties, SRM was the only one which one only the was SRM arties, n 1998 n 39 formed a coalition with coalition a formed .

the third Roma third the In the mandate 1998 mandate the In http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=20EE8BBFE4829E44A805F5F607473002 http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=FC90D9689809BC4EBB2563F21D8312E5 http://vlada.mk/clenovi/nezdet

won

) n

. partiesthe former were party. first byof Romani founded members the a

This meant that the initial Romani party (PCERM) broke into several into broke (PCERM) party Romani initial the that meant This h nx eeto tr, oai lcoae hwd get el of deal great a showed electorate Romani term, election next the seat won a parliamentary seat for the for seat parliamentary a won Внатрешна македонска револуционерна организација организација револуционерна македонска Внатрешна put the Romani issues back o back issues Romani the put

The former former The

) - in

- Mr. Ne

Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization Revolutionary Macedonian Internal (hencef ni the

poli legislature ž tical party "Union of Roma of Macedonia" of Roma of "Union party tical –

orth: orth: det Mustafa. the DPA (Democratic Party of Albanians). Macedonia Albanians). of Party (Democratic DPA the

2002, the leading coalition of VMRO of coalition leading the 2002, member - mustafa DPPRM 39

achieved to win a win to achieved , but now accompanied by another member, Mr. member, another by accompanied now but ,

of PCERM was now a now was PCERM of (Last access 30/04/2013) access (Last

) 37 . y members in Macedonian Sobranie Macedonian in members y

n the agenda of Macedonian politics. politics. Macedonian of agenda the n The president of the party was one of one was party the of president The

second time time second seat in the Parliament. Amdi Parliament. the in seat

"Democratic Progres "Democratic

on behalf of his newly his of behalf on -

Democratic Party For For Party Democratic president –

Демократска партија партија Демократска - DPMNE

(henceforth:

of the new new the of 40

won sive sive 38 .

CEU eTD Collection 47 27/12/ accessed: 46 27/12/2012); 45 27/12/2012); 44 43 42 Die San California, 41 new a of emergence the was conflict this of outcome The 2003. in scandal media the of actors were Hasan Edis of words 2002 In term the in Therefore, coalition coalition. same the within representatives Roma two had winning Macedonia the join to decided Bajram Amdi Mr. government, the created SDSM When competition. electoral the into entered independently Am Mr. of party the that was parties two the between difference the Nevertheless, Než of party renamed the (SRM), Emancipation" for Party "United into renamed Mr. of party yearthe same the In Parliament. the enter to succeed not did it competition, electoral the to entered party the though, Even Tetovo. of municipality the Mevail. Alil Mr. president the with Albanians. than other Macedonia in party Albanian largest 2002 the In coalitions. wasgreat andthis the opposition a party successfor theand electorate Romani for the in was party The party. the of leader current still and first the was party the of leader the Bajram,

Mr. Edis Hasan is an advisor of the Minister without Portfolio ofthe Minister advisor Hasan isEdis an Mr. informationon: http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=C7D More informationon: More informationon: More DUI SDSM (Macedonian: Friedman,Eben 2002.

political -

Albanian:

h nx svrl em wr a were terms several next The

2012) - "Democratic Forces of Roma" (h Roma" of Forces "Democratic

, “Explaining the Political Political the “Explaining , Bashkimi Demokratik për Integrim për Demokratik Bashkimi go, (2002) go, ;

Социјалдемократски сојуз наМакедонија сојуз Социјалдемократски http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=BF120A9A3A563549B20216BF4E4AB342 http In t In

://www.mia.mk/mk/Inside/RenderSingleNews/96/99282258?pageID=5 47 elections ; he same year, another Romani party emerged ("Party for Roma Unity"), Unity"), Roma for ("Party emerged party Romani year, another same he

( Interview Hasan, Appendix Hasan, Interview

, Macedonian party Macedonian , 44

I - This party firstly appeared at the local elections in 2005 in 2005 in elections local the at appeared firstly party This ntegration of Minorities: Roms as a Hard case” Hard a as Minorities:of Roms ntegration

det Mustafa successfully won the seat in Sobranie. Sobranie. in seat the won successfully Mustafa det DUI 43 ( BDI Ti caiin a as icue mnrt parties minority included also has coalition This . ccompanied with extremely contradicting party party contradicting extremely with ccompanied

(OPE) 40 enceforth: ) ,

Macedonian: - 00FA6B4FBED43B1564535ABF52411 (Last 00FA6B4FBED43B1564535ABF52411 - 45

Neždet Mustafa; Neždet SDSM ), .

Together with the party of Amdi Bajram Amdi of party the with Together ) Mr. A Mr. -

The Social Democratic Union of Macedonia Union of Democratic Social The DSR

42 Демократска унија за интеграција за унија Демократска

mdi Bajram and Mr. Š Mr. and Bajram mdi rae h gvrmn wt the with government the created ). The new party was led by led was party new The ). Neždet

that governed the country. the governed that

Mustafa (DPPRM) was (DPPRM) Mustafa

University of University

(Last access: di Bajram has Bajram di 41

(Last access: aban Saliu aban .

- ; 2006,

Mr.

46

CEU eTD Collection 27.12.2012) accessed: 52 27.12.2012) accessed: 51 27.12.2012) 50 49 27.12.2012) 48 mandate next the for government coalition The coalition. fo parties thatVMRO joinedthe ruling coalition Roma the of All Integration. for Union Democratic the of help the with government the created VMRO that coalition the joined parties political Roma the of both 2008 in elections early the On disobedience. civil to due Parliament, Macedoniaagain had2 Než while th coalition the joined and coalition the change to decided Bajram minority several with coalition VMRO Albanians. of Party Democratic the of help the with government Arifoski from Prilep register Berat Bajram Š

aban Saliu. aban More informationon: More informa More informationon: More informationon: More informationon: More a olto wt SS, hl al h ohr oa ate to pr i VMRO in part took parties Roma other the all while SDSM, with coalition a r 2011. 2008. 2006.

Early elections brought certain changes certain brought elections Early eetees atr ny w yas 20) te oenet a t dsov the dissolve to had government the (2008), years two only after Nevertheless, I det Mustafa’s party remained with the coalition that SDSM created. In 2006 2006 In created. SDSM that coalition the with remained party Mustafa’s det te lcin i 20, gi VMRO again 2006, in elections the n 48 tion on: http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=071CC8D16057A44599D1717A6C867A46 (last on: http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=071CC8D16057A44599D1717A6C867A46 tion

In 2006 two n two 2006 In

http://www.sobranie.mk/?ItemID=49C0D93849BD41449EDC0E0159A0718E http://www.netpress.com.mk/mk/vest.asp?id=4685&kategorija=7 http://pir http://sobranie.mk/?ItemID=C9BA51DC1 formed ed

representatives in the parliament but from different coalitions. fromrepresentatives intheparliamentbut different

the " the of

- VMRO

mk.blogspot.com/ the "Democratic ofRoma" DUR) Union (henceforth: Party for Integration of Roma" of Integration for Party

ew Roma political parties were established were parties political Roma ew

parties. The leader of the Union of Roma in Macedonia, Amdi Macedonia, in Roma of Union the of leader The parties. until - DPMNE DPMNE -

DPMNE created. VMRO created. DPMNE 2 1. n hs adt, two mandate, this In 015.

(last accessed: 27.12.2012) accessed: (last - eventually DPMNE created.DPMNE 41

in the in - DPMNE won the elections and created the the created and elections the won DPMNE EA407429324F2340E61E67F o te lcin and elections the won governing 49

(henceforth: 52 -

election the won DPMNE negotiated PCER coalitions. t VMRO at oa representativ Roma . In the same year, Mr. year, same the In .

(last accessed: PIR - DPMNE created a a created DPMNE - ) PN created, DPMNE

while Mr. Adem Mr. while thus (last accessed: accessed: (last

50

51 - created the the created (last DPMNE’s

s from es s and s

CEU eTD Collection Makedonija, 53 deputies. twenty Presently, the Co by and supported primarily Security was for solution Organization this that explains Friedman Eben negotiations. incumb the by imposed were system. proportional pure the with replaced Macedonia of Republic the of Assembly the fixed single the in system introduced even system majoritarian round a VMRO of parties different

part of theopposingcoalition. Službeni vesnik na Republika Makedonija (2002b) Zakon za izbor na pratenici vo Sobranieto na Republika na Republika Sobranieto vo na pratenici izbor Zakon (2002b) za Makedonija Republika na vesnik Službeni Roma F rom 1990 until the elections in 2002, in elections the until 1990 rom - list PR (Friedman, 2005: 386). After the ad the After 386). 2005: (Friedman, PR list

- Službeni vesnik na Republika Makedonija Republika na vesnik Službeni DPMNE’s, aeoi i dvdd in divided is Macedonia 1991

joined different joined 1 a

Table 1:Table Presence of the s Pip As mixed

- member districts, and the remaining 35 mandates by the newly introduced introduced newly the by mandates 35 remaining the and districts, member

the second Romani representative Romani secondthe

- system. Out of 120 mandates, 85 were elected by the majority the by elected were 85 mandates, 120 of Out system. p Nri (1997 Norris a 1994 with 2 ent party, the final one got in place as an outcome of international international of outcome an as place in got one final the party, ent

coalitions. coalitions. single to - operation in Europe (Interview Friedman, Appendix). Appendix). Friedman, (Interview Europe in operation

- 1998 i multi six ebr district member

elected 1

explained ) the While

, 42. , 53 Unlike the previous two electoral designs, which which designs, electoral two previous the Unlike

42 Macedonian electoral system operated as a two a as operated system electoral Macedonian

n 02 te at lcoa sse ws entirely was system electoral past the 2002, in Romani representatives (1991

-

ebr osiunis ec o wih elects which of each constituencies, member option of the of option

Amdi Bajram from SRM SRM from Bajram Amdi 2002 1

, proportional systems are designed to to designed are systems proportional , s

( .

Samka IbraimoskiSamka ewe 1998 Between Law on Elections of Deputies to Deputies of Elections on Law 2006 2

n 2002 and ) -

2008 2011) from PCER from joined the coalition the joined 1

, the country country the , 2011 became - runoff runoff 2

-

CEU eTD Collection 195) 2005: (Thelen, phenomenon’ ‘social as a municipality identify the 54 th from originated is Macedonia. of Republic the in strategy Roma National the and Decade Roma the on Coordinator National the of position the occupies also portfolio without Minister today`s is mayor former The 197). 2005: (Thelen, voters registered 12,330 of out votes 9000 with 1996, administ unique is municipality Orizari, Shuto municipality the countries regional orderfixed of candidates. bala more produce numerous representing (1997 Norris Pippa this, with self local result significant achieve are Roma Ro of votes disperses it because Roma for unfavorable somewhere Macedonia in parties incumbent the for only favorable “t that electorate. of composition the reflect accurately

The Roma from the municipality Shuto Orizari make to up Orizari Shuto municipality Romafrom the The xrml iprat o te oiin f th of position the for important extremely Either way, Either i eetrl ein os o gv lgtmc t te ate o communities of parties the to legitimacy give not does design electoral his ration and Romani language in the official use official the in language Romani and ration - oenet ol nt elect not could government the

minority. the presence of Romani parties within the Assembly is still higher than in some in than higher still is Assembly the within parties Romani of presence the . e municipality of Shuto Orizari Shuto of municipality e

nced party lists. The problem arises when parties present closed lists with a with lists closed present parties when arises problem The lists. party nced Furthermore, one of the favorable circumstances for the the for circumstances favorable the of one Furthermore,

oil rus I ti mne, nubn pry a a oiain to motivation a has party incumbent manner, this In groups. social

s i s for

Parties which are concentrating to one electoral district hardly can can hardly district electoral one to concentrating are which Parties n the election process. That is how many favorable parties from the from parties favorable many how is That process. election the n

en te ny n h wrd ht a a oa mayor Roma a has that world the in only the being idcts ht itit antd pas n motn rl in role important an plays magnitude district that indicates ) where Roma Roma where

(and the leader of OPE) of leader the (and

representative a minority. e Thus, it could be concluded that this development this that concluded be could it Thus, 43 constitute Red

where they capture the majority of voters. This voters. of majority the capture they where 80% ofthe 80% ž ep Ali Čupi puts this into debate into this puts Čupi Ali ep . The first The .

Itriw l Čp, Appendix) Čupi, Ali (Interview

, utemr, ot f oai parties Romani of most Furthermore,

majority a .” Mr. population. The literature literature The population.

Furthermore, Ne

mayor ž ma within the districts where districts the within ma det

f h population the of Mustafa. Furthermore, he he Furthermore, Mustafa.

was elected in the fall of fall the in elected was Macedonia the constellation is is constellation the on Romani issues issues Romani on … “ ”… n and states and

. Roma Roma Roma , 54

n li In .

This is It ne is

CEU eTD Collection line the between activities Coordinato National of position the for Minister Prime Vice the and Policy Social and Labor for Minister point, starting Decade`s the Before Plans. Action National the in forth set been have that activities implement and coordinate to task Strategyfor portfolio, without Minister the to given was place The Government. the from ministers the among Coordinator National a nominate to obligation an had Macedonia Decade, the of committee Steering first the Likepresidency m Decade. the inother over much change not did Roma the of situation economical and social Čupi, Ali Redžep to According Macedonia. against in Macedonia) 3. of case unique a is Orizari Shuto successful a within certain aggregation Roma society. multicultural of phenomenon social The system. political the within integrate to succeeded Roma Macedonian how understanding the to contributes significantly fact 1.3. Decade of Roma Inclusion, as Inclusion, Roma of Decade The involvement

the Roma, Roma, the r; the

whereas the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy was Policy Social and Labor of Ministry the whereas (Interview Ali Čupi, Appendix) Čupi, Ali (Interview Roma. Furthermore, the country had to appoint a certain Ministry that will have ahavecertaina will appoint Ministry that to had countryFurthermore, the Roma.

did not demonstrate substantial effect on the process the on effect substantial demonstrate not did r Ne Mr. ž

of ministries ministries e Msaa wo oriae te mlmnain f h National the of implementation the coordinated who Mustafa, det

the

International an n eebr20 aeoin Government Macedonian 2003 December in affirmative action action affirmative pone for appointed ember states, in compliance with theconclusion from ember states, with incompliance . From 44

Community

July 2011 July t e mlmnain f h Ntoa Action National the of implementation he that aims at aims that to

(Decade of Roma Inclusion (Decade of Inclusion Roma

June 2012, Macedonia held the the held Macedonia 2012, June

responsible for coordinating for responsible

overcoming past injustices past overcoming of political integration in integration political of appointed the appointed

CEU eTD Collection 55 society. into Roma of inclusion future the for step important highly is Decade the 1965). 19 (Phillips ‘symbolic’ simply is position his that implies portfolio without Minister Appendix) Friedman,(Interview decision 201 into after Roma Therefore, the include to mechanism a find to government affirmative had action. Macedonian ofa the part givenas place First, this were Roma action. P Hanna Appendix) Friedman, (Interview you!” answer to what know not would they for, without Minister the every their offor much mean not does portfolio position the Roma, Macedonian of perspective the from However, ( reasons two postulate Decade. Roma government Roma. the for Strategy National Body Plans. Mansbridge, 2003 Mansbridge,

The National Coordination Body was comprised Body Coordination National The According to the deputy Minister of Labor and Social Policy (Interview Ibrahimi, Appendix), Ibrahimi, (Interview Policy Social and Labor of Minister deputy the to According De the when 2005 of beginning the At 55

Further developments occurred at the beginning the at occurred developments Further

Thus, the exis the Thus, was established ti (95, hscl hrceitc o te ersnaie do representative the of characteristics physical (1965), itkin

of the Decadof the

O oe ad i gvs lgtmc o te rus o tn fr hi interests their for stand to groups the of legitimacy a gives it hand, one On . pone a iitr ihu Prflo epnil fr h implementation the for responsible Portfolio without Minister a appointed

Because ). On the other hand, it decreases the status of subordination (Frazer, 2003). 2003). (Frazer, subordination of status the decreases it hand, other the On ). , ti Mnsr mgt o ee eit n h Mcdna government.” Macedonian the in exist even not might Ministry “this 5, tence of this Ministry this of tence e: “from the Roma to the Roma” was fulfilled. This is important is important This fulfilled. was theRoma” “from to Roma e: the

in

r Ne Mr. coordination withthe Minis

Secondly, the fact that there are no special responsibilities of theof responsibilities special no thereare that factSecondly, the ž i Plan, Action Decade Macedonian the to According e Msaa a o the of was Mustafa det

of representatives from the line ministries and Roma NGOs. Roma and ministries line from the ofrepresentatives could be seen as ‘symbolic’ for at least two reasons two least at for ‘symbolic’ as seen be could cade officially started, started, officially cade - day life day 45

. “If you ask the Ro the youask “If . tryLabor ofand Policy. Social

of 2004, of Roma Roma - aig rcs fr h Decade the for process making

when tnct, h ms important most the ethnicity, h Gvrmn aotd the adopted Government the

the National Co National the

o sy much say not ma what is this Ministry this is what ma

According to According

The offici The n 2008 n for atfor least ordination 5 Pitkin 95; bu his about

f the of

the al . .

CEU eTD Collection sciences). natural to social (from profiles studentsofdifferent most importa Oneofthe Education. for Plan Action withinthe Roma thefor programs scholarship several are there Appendix), Mustafov, 57 Ibrah (Interview health. human endanger substantially living can conditions Poor health. and towardshousing improving directed are oflow rate high exclusivelypresupposes almost education that low claims witheducational ofemployment low rate connects He Roma. ofthe gap educational overcoming towards mostthe of projects directed has the Decade Roma, ofeducated rate ofthe low Because contexts. social main 56 MacedonianAssembly.Since the by adopted was which one only the was strategy the manners, these in Completed Strategy. the writing of process the in involved became Policy Social and Labor of Ministry the within p own write to Roma of inability potential reflected non that fact the Roma, the for government Macedonian the by that states Ibrahimi, Ibrahim Minister, Deputy Strategy. Nation the was it as document important an such writing in engage to able were who f many in progress significant a made Roma Macedonian Agreement, Framework Ohrid the of adoption the by 2001 in minorities for rights special the obtaining After Decade. the of outcome enrolled Roma post and graduate the on put is focus the by improved fields, successful most the of underline Decade the of aims ields. One of those was certainly education. By 2005, Macedonia had numerous educated Roma Roma educated numerous had Macedonia 2005, By education. certainly was those of One ields.

According to the to According IbrahimIbra Policy,Mr. Social and ofLabor DeputyMinister imi, Appendix) Appendix) imi, National Coordinator fo Coordinator National in

h university the nt programs is Roma Memorial University Scholarship Program that brings together together brings that Program Scholarship University RomaMemorial is programs nt

2005, it remainedunchanged.2005, it four

( - Interview Ibrahimi, Appendix Ibrahimi, Interview oa rt th wrote Roma . 56 However, the respondents do not agree that this was the the was this that agree not do respondents the However, r Macedonia in Roma Educational in Roma Educational Macedonia r

- fields that ne that fields graduate Romani Romani graduate 46 National Strategy for Strategy National numerous projects numerous Srtg ecutrd eaie reactions. negative encountered Strategy e

ed further improvement. further ed

himi, states that Roma need empowerment in four in empowerment need Roma stateshimi, that olicies. students

Thus - skilled workers. Third and fourth and context Third workers. skilled . Today, there is a number of 250 250 of number a is there Today, . ). Fund

, the group of Romani experts Romani of group the , 57 As

within the Decade the within

, Senad Mustafov (Interview Mustafov(Interview Senad , the Decade

Roma was Roma Education is still one still is Education

was actually made made actually was

firstly

. Still, the Still, . gap and and gap

made made

It

CEU eTD Collection sense). that in not least (at factor International the from much depend not did integration society. wider the within Roma include to government National the of effort demonstrate 2002 and 1991 Macedonia. in ‘communities’ diverse culturally all for freedoms and rights extended substantially Agreement R the facilsubstantially of integration social in results positive that highlights analysis this provisions. citizenship, electoral three the under Parliament, Macedonian outcome final the much change not did designs Electoralminority. the about perception different brings legislature the within presence their factor, political important mainstream country cultural diversity respectofcitizens. its showed towards progre integration. political their independence facilitated significantly of This years (1991). first the in even addressed was minority’ ‘national of categorization they contrary, In society. 3.1.4. o upr ti, aa eosrts ht an oa oiia atr wr peet n the in present were actors political Roma main that demonstrates data this, support To The h itrainl atr i nt ly mjr oe n nertn Rm. osiuin from Constitutions Roma. integrating in role major a play not did factor international The ssive pace of democratization that Macedonia demonstrated in that period. Either way, the way, Either period. that in demonstrated Macedonia that democratization of pace ssive Comments analysis implies analysis vn huh hy r mmes f h Dcd o Rm Icuin t Inclusion, Roma of Decade the of members are they though Even

politics from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Even though they are not substantially not are they though Even Yugoslavia. of dissolution the from politics itated Romani integration. The provisions that came from the Ohrid FrameworkOhrid the from came that provisions Theintegration. Romani itated

that Roma were never categorized as ‘oppressed’ within the Macedonian the within ‘oppressed’ as categorized never were Roma that were

always included in the main processes of the country. Their Their country. the of processes main the in included always higher level of cultural diversity tend to show more more show to tend diversity cultural of level higher 47

oma .

oe saig mn ohr groups other among sharing Power

hs ih b te ucm of outcome the be might This n upr t multicultural to support In -

R oma were present in the in present were oma er political heir

CEU eTD Collection 59 58 multicult of values accept to Serbia prevented past communist the of Residues 2000. until chaotic was society mainstream the of composition perc be could Serbia authoritar the against stand to power Anti values. new implement to country prevented significantly after regime communist a have to continued spheres many in subordination classes goods ofr went redistribution more and The visible inequalities became economicapproach data ( everywhere promoted largely regime socialist the turmoil the spheres. social many on impact an made years twenty past the in through gone has Serbia that changes Transitional society. wider the within 3 but hadnosubstantialrole intheaffirmative act Agreement, Ohrid the of provisions guaranteeing in role influential an played factor International

.2. Open SocietyFoundation.2010. Open 1999. in country the in situation warthe general and Kosovo to refer shall “turmoil” ByI Like in most of of most in Like 59 Themodel of Romaintegration Serbiain

concerning the number of Roma that resided the country. As neoliberal forces took forces neoliberal As country. the resided that Roma of number the concerning ( Atal, 1999 Atal,

58

in 1999, that Serbia had to introduce both political a political both introduce to had Serbia that 1999, in ) , the break of socialism made some serious changes within the political realm. realm. political the within changes serious some made socialism breakof the , , ethnic minorities had no need to declare their origin, because origin, their declare to need no had minorities ethnic , the . The ie a usal ad unpredictable, and unstable as eived

countries

previous status previous

No Data Data No

Atal

Fae, 2003) (Fraser, from the region the from , 1999 , –

No Progress No ianism of Slobodan Milošević. Milošević. Slobodan of ianism

). The consequence that arose out is the lack of reliable of lack the is out arose that consequence The ). of redistribution of the goods resulted in resulted goods the of redistribution of uralism. The empirical evidence empirical The uralism.

48 ion. ion. It was not before the break the before not was It , OSF online publication; online OSF , . 90. hs matd l scea shrs and spheres societal all impacted This 1990s. , Roma minority in Serbia Serbia in minority Roma ,

The country was one of the rare cases that that cases rare the of one was country The

considering - regime forces had no influential influential no had forces regime nd economic changes. Under changes. economic nd

ather within than between between ather than within Thus, political reality of of reality political Thus,

- the fact that political political that fact the

up of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia of up is poorly integrated poorly is

demonstrate ‘ equality

the status of of status the

on s ’

was that

an

CEU eTD Collection research social the of (2002). Goran Bašić, 62 statistiku. za zavod domać 0.3% over minoritieswithare that the accordance in fifteen is 61 2010.” June OSI; RomaInitiatives, Data “No 60 direct a is This Orthodox. Christian or Catholics either are Roma (Vojvodina), part Northern the region the on depends affiliation The sense. religious the in even united have reside, Roma where regions, Se Western in capital, the around concentrated mostly are they but country, the throughout spread etc. Kosovo; with border South the in live San Serbia); (Northern Vojvodina in live mostly Rusins and Slovaks Hungarians, (e.g.) respect, this In region. specific a in located usually are groups other Roma, to comparison approximately are There than indica an as the categorization minority’. of ‘national taken is Roma with 2002 the until made not was effort substantial that concluded be could it of then multiculturalism, status If spheres. many life in negligence severe important in resulted It minority. Romani of status the impacted developments seriously These regime. authoritarian the of dissolution the after just happened changes

Nationalities are counted based on the percentage that they occupy in the country. For this purpose, the list of purpose, this For the country. in occupy they that theon percentage based counted are Nationalities Data collected from the results of the social research of the Romani communities in Serbia. Jakšić, Božidar & Božidar Jakšić, Serbia. in communities Romani ofthe research social ofthe from the results collected Data The official number is published in the report of the Open Society Foundation, Department of Roma Initiatives. Initiatives. Roma of Department Foundation, Society Open the of report the in published is number official The rbia, Vojvodina and in few municipalities in the South. the in municipalities few in and Vojvodina rbia, Roma 1 ins 08.000 tava i stanova u 2002, Stanovništvo u 2002, tavai stanova -

No Progress; Data Collection in Countries Participating Participating Countries in Collection Data Progress; No live throughout Serbia throughout live 60

people.

- . Ethnic . Roma communities, living conditions and possibilities for Roma integration in Serbia; Results Serbia; in integration Roma for possibilities and conditions living communities, Roma atr p Eastern

The ethnic composition of composition ethnic The ity

fifteen In contrast, there are there contrast, In

Reseach Center Reseach r o te onr; lain ae oty n h Suh na t the to near South, the in mostly are Albanians country; the of art

61 . Out of the general population (7 million), Roma number more more number Roma million), (7 population general the of Out

minority groups minority a different ethnic an ethnic different - nacionalna ili etnička pripadnost, knjiga 1, (2003) Beograd: Republič Beograd: (2003) knjiga 1, pripadnost, etnička ili nacionalna , Belgrade; ,

49 593

the country the ,

of the general population. Source: Popis stanovništva, Popis Source: generalpopulation. ofthe

62 residing

Romani communities in Serbia. in communities Romani d religious structure. Thus structure. religious d n h Dcd o Rm Icuin 2005 Inclusion Roma of Decade the in

It should be highlighted that all these all that highlighted be should It

in different parts of the country. In country. the of parts different in

to some extent shows complexity. shows extent some to in which Roma live. In live. Roma which o fr accepting for tor , Roma are not are Roma , džak Muslims džak They are They - 2015; ki

CEU eTD Collection access: 23/05/2013); host (Last EBSCO Catalogue, 64 religion. Orthodox 63 possibility for elites. politicalandRoma organizing forming of often also are rights political Their given. formally just are in Therefore, 1965). (Parsons, citizens all for opportunities equal without empty doe chances of equality the stereotypes, Appendix). Jovanović: (Interview levels societal higher reach to capacity low uneducated, dirty, as seen are Roma a is There rights h Roma Officially, country. the in groups minority all for freedoms and rights of scope higher a includes minority’ ‘national of category s government political their the 2000, complicates in transformations systematic After Roma interests. of aggregation Serbian hence and organization of dispersion extreme The achievable. hardly co the of Because Macedonia. religious affiliations accept have part this in live who Christian exclusively are Roma Serbia, Western Roma Albanians. and Muslims Sandžak by populated is Serbia Southern the However, Orthodox. and Central the in tradition and culture influence

Roma in Serbia / [Translated by Dragan Novaković]. n.p.: Belgrade: Press Now; 2003, n.d. LiCEU Now; 2003, Press Belgrade: n.p.: byNovaković]. Dragan / [Translated Serbia Romain the of exclusively are Serbians (Catholicism); affiliation religious the same share Slovaks and Hungarians The model of political integration of Roma in Serbia is less successful than in the case of of case the in than successful less is Serbia in Roma of integration political of model The tl rmis n issue an remains still 63

high degree of discrimination in every social sphere, social every in discrimination of degree high f ugra, lvk n Srin cul Serbian and Slovak Hungarian, of tarted to put substantial effort substantial put to tarted

presuppose different tradition

.

h mnrt de nt ae qa opportunities equal have not does minority The pe gorpia cmoiin hge lvl f grgto is aggregation of level higher composition, geographical mplex d sai tradition Islamic ed s not apply to Roma. to apply not s - skilled workers who do not posses enough intellectual enough posses not do who workers skilled

s v otie sc st f rights of set such obtained ave

on Roma integration within the wider structure. The structure. wider the within integration Roma on 50

s ue Bcue f h hmgniy f Serbian of homogeneity the of Because ture.

(Hancock, 2002). s

n csos Ti ipis ht different that implies This customs. and de fact de

The civil rights are rather seen rather are rights civil The

from education to employment. to education from o limited, which decreases th decreases which limited, o

b t xriig these exercising ut Because of of Because

64 such

n h society. the in brary brary

a case, they case, a these

as e

CEU eTD Collection whose accurately physical characteristics resemble thewiderelectorate as seen rather are representatives descriptive that fact the reinforces This represented. account into taken are Appendix) Jovanović, Macedonia) (Interview (except republics Yugoslav former other if especially 2012). and (2007 twice only legislature the certain incapablegroups are simply social a constructs others by representation Furthermore, interests. own voice to actor (Mansbridge, group the minority. certain of identity minority other any or majority the either by group certain a of Representation endanger progressively can situation This groups. other results. substantial demonstrate not Roma where regions the all from parties Romani unite to attempts several were Serbia of regions electionsthe Serbia. parties. registered of The effect of effect The

Because their financial resources are limited, Romani parties usually operate only before before only operate usually parties Romani limited, are resources financial their Because

(Biro, Gheorghe and Kovats, 2013) Kovats, and Gheorghe (Biro, Roma

where interest where

The parties do not posses any influential role in the political processes in processes political the in role influential any posses not do parties The

p

arties in Serbia is rather poor, even though there are a significant number number significant a are there though even poor, rather is Serbia in arties 1999:

641 s of Roma significantly vary. B vary. significantly Roma of s . What matters here is the extent to which Roma interests are interests Roma which to extent the is here matters What . ). It demonstrates that minority does not see itself as an equal an as itself see not does minority that demonstrates It ). of voicing of

I nterests nterests

their own issues. their f oa r uuly ersne b mmes of members by represented usually are Roma of ttsial, h stain s o vr alarming very not is situation the Statistically, 51 . Furthermore, Roma parties come f come parties Furthermore,Roma

Up todate efore the elections in 2007, there 2007, in elections the efore

(Pitkin, 196 (Pitkin, , Roma , causes

reside. This did This reside.

were present in distrust within distrust 7 rom different different rom :81 stigma ) .

pawns

that ,

CEU eTD Collection es.pdf http://www.coe.int/T/DG3/RomaTravellers/archive/documentation/refugees/SaMsocialrights/law%20on%20minoriti 66 es.pdf http://www.coe.int/T/DG3/RomaTravellers/archive/documentation/refugees/SaMsocialrights/law%20on%20minoriti 65 direct guaranteed that provisions communication withthe government andNationalAss of because integration, political of measures improving towards step significant elect to serv or body relevant the of territory the in spoken language the in competence and representation appropriate population, the of composition national the to paid be shall “Attention that: states law This minority. national R on Law The minority’. ‘national of status the by guaranteed were that rights, their of negligence tha indicates Appendix) Friedman, killed. brutally were families Romani several where Hungary, in events that fact the to due ‘oppressed’ ra respondent The . diversity cultural their highly society neglects wider that sense a in ‘marginalized’ as minority the identifies He Appendix). Jovanović, (Interview Serbia in Roma of status legal the discusses Budapest, in Foundations 3

.2 Article 21, Law on Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities of Serbia (Web link available: link available: (Web ofSerbia Minorities Freedoms ofNational and Rights Law on Article21, link: theon Web available official is document The Željko Jovanović, the Jovanović, Željko .1.

); ;

Defining minority Extending forminorities rights groups: ainl Councils National

gt ad reos f ainl Minorities National of Freedoms and ights

ice”. current director director current a better better a

o te ups o eecsn self exercising of purpose the for 66

By applying the law, national minorities were given a possibility a given were minorities national law, the applying By no Roma were killed killed were Roma no oil nlso o te oa Mroe, t ae pc for space gave it Moreover, Roma. the of inclusion social t the minority could be considered as ‘oppressed’ as considered be could minority the t of

the Roma Initiatives department Initiatives Roma the 52

embly 2010) Jovanović; (Müller, hr ss h tr ‘agnlzd than ‘marginalized’ term the uses ther y h mjrt. He majority. the by 65

fiily eonzs oa s a as Roma recognizes officially - oenet rights. government

remn (Interview Friedman at compares

the Open Society Open the Since 2002, Since hs a a was This due to due .

hs with this

the

CEU eTD Collection pdf http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/ekspertske%20misije/protection_of_min 68 source: Online Slaviccommunity ( Bunjevci Slovaks, Croats, Romanians, Rusins, for: Hungarians, assigned was body This theiractivities. 67 autho of history recent than minorities other of interests the serve rather mechanisms these that seems it However, groups. suppor to made are provisions legal of and kind language the of standardization the stations). TV and(radio media Romani the of establishment around were engagements important most The position. was Councils authorities. legislati and executive to jurisdiction its from proposals submit to right the assigned was body became J (Müller, script and the language of use monitor official and education, and culture, of initiate areas the in to regulations and and laws of Council, implementation Education National the for candidates propose 2009 Council Council National

The official Web linkthe law: official of Web The wawith activities begin first to Council The

n 03 tgte wt other with together 2003, In (Last access: 10/04/2012); 10/04/2012); (Last access: . According to this law, National Council Council National law, this to According . those , the Serbian Parliament passed the passed Parliament Serbian However, t However, According to of Roma. Roma. of primary body for representing interests of minorities in law and policy and law in minorities of interests representing for body primary http://www.kas.de/upload/auslandshomepages/serbien/Gojkovic_pred.pdf

to ) , Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Roma, Bosniaks, Germans, Egyptians, Germans, Bosniaks, Roma, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, ,

. ie pca rights special give n re t rglt te adt ad lcin rcdrs f the of procedures election and mandate the regulate to order In he main accent of the Council was Council the of accent main he ritarianism in Serbia and states that Roma are still weak and unprepared to to unprepared and weak still are Roma that states and Serbia in ritarianism Eben Friedman (Interview Friedman, Appendix) Appendix) Friedman, (Interview Friedman Eben

Željko Jovanović

ovanović; 2010:33). By adding these functions, National Councils National functions, these adding By 2010:33). ovanović; ite mnrt groups minority fifteen

s Hungarian National Council. After, fourteen Councils started with Councilsstarted fourteen After, Council. National sHungarian o Roma to Law on the National Council of National Minorities National of Council National the on Law

(Interview (Interview t 53

the n re t epwr hi sbriae social subordinated their empower to order in was

oil nlso o peiul marginalized previously of inclusion social

eurd o establish to required Jovanović put on put 67 As Kymlicka (2007) discussed, these discussed,(2007) Kymlicka As

n eba Rm eetd the elected Roma Serbia, in

, Appendix), the ofthese , Appendix), purpose preservation of cultural heritage cultural of preservation orities/law_on_national_councils.

Greeks, Macedonians and Vlaxs. Vlaxs. and Macedonians Greeks,

oncs hs ih the with this connects (Last access: 23/05/2013); (Last access:

a

ioiy ei, to media, minority - making. South South National

68 first The The

ve ve in

.

CEU eTD Collection http://www.kas.de/up Germans. and Ukrainians Bunjevci, Croatians, Bosniaks, Roma, Rumanians, 71 ofEducation, Ministry the in one Health, and of Ministry in one the Office, in the four Roma are there this, on Based Rights. Minority 70 research social the of Results Serbia; in integration 69 of composition The Milošević. Slobodan of party two majoritarian the decades.almost two law electoral point, this From freedoms. and rights human legislature 3 of cultural diversitysubstantially influencedof theintegration Roma. o most because (Interview authorities state the of some in office the into get to succeeded also Roma minority, Hungarian for rights pa Northern the Vojvodina, in is situation Better unverified) informal to statestructure. According the national within minorities proportional presence of groups. lower still is education of level Their interests. own their voice

.2.2. Development.2.2. their partiesand political mirroring ofRoma the within

Out of fifteen national minorities, nine groups reside in Vojvodina reside 6 groups: Hungarians, Rusins, Rusins, groups: Hungarians, 6 reside in Vojvodina reside groups nine minorities, national fifteenOut of and Human for Officefrom the Roma ofthe employed withone conversation informal werefrom an obtained Data Jakšić, Božidar & Bašić, Goran (2002) & Bašić, Božidar Jakšić, Unlike The period The

aeoi, eba a n lgl rvsos ht ol gaate a guarantee would that provisions legal no has Serbia Macedonia, sources

f the minority groups reside in this region this in reside groups minority the f after 1990 after load/auslandshomepages/serbien/Gojkovic_pred.pdf

Science and Technological Development. Development. Technological and Science 70 - 1990,repre in elections From the first multiparty ol sx oa r crety mlyd n h ntoa sae institutions. state national the in employed currently are Roma six only , rounded system, which went still much in favor of the leading Socialistic Socialistic leading the of favor in much still went which system, rounded Jovanović

addresses

, Appendix). Cultural diversity in Vojvodina is on a high level, level, high a on is Vojvodina in diversity Cultural Appendix). , .

Roma communities, living conditions and possibilities for Roma possibilities Roma and for conditions living communities, Roma reconstruction of reconstruction . Ethnicity . 54 rt of the country. Because of the higher scope of scope higher the of Because country. the of rt

Reseach Center Reseach the

political pluralism political

seby i nt infcnl change, significantly not did Assembly 71 . Thus, it could be said that said be could it Thus,

(Last access: 23/05/2013); went 69 Online source: source: Online

, in comparison to other minorityother to comparison in Belgrade;

through

sentatives were elected with elected with were sentatives

, electoral design electoral ,

serious changes for for changes serious

minimal or or minimal

the

, basic basic , extent

(and (and

CEU eTD Collection member of current a is them of One Serbia. in scene political the on succeeded that leaders Roma few a are with leaders a problem (Interview activities.” their with continue to succeeded that parties Roma two only maybe are There Serbia. in party Roma Milošević. one of member He activities. their support would that resources financial have Jovanović Željko fail parties the until document, this on Based 2010. in registrationtheir extend to failed that activeparties previously of list ademonstrates also Ministry the of Documentation Serbia. in parties Romani active and registered seven are there Accor 2008). (Orlović, 2007 in held elections the until legislature the in present not were parties that is claim this for reason political parties of representing coalitions However one, in compete closed a through members 2000. in change regime the since operating been has to continued system electoral the because Roma Roma , there is there , oiia pris r hrl se a eul cos n Serbia in actors equal as seen hardly are parties political Since the ed Serbian Parliament.Serbian party that was involved in the demolition of the authoritarian regime authoritarian the of demolition the in involved was that party

nationwide district. There is a a is There district. nationwide the regime changed, the party the changed, regime the to to (Interview a natural a re hip hip - register (Biro, Gheorghe and Kovats, 2013) Kovats, and(Biro, Gheorghe - Jovanović list proportional representation system to serve 4 serve to system representation proportional list ding to data from the Ministry the from data to ding threshold Jovanović

2010, there were even 22 registered Romani political parties. After parties. political Romani registered 22 even were there 2010, , they were deleted from the Serbian register of political parties. political of register Serbian the from deleted were they ,

, Appendix) Besides permanent financial resources, there is there resources, financial permanent Besides Appendix) ,

(the total number is divided by the number of seats) of number the by divided is number total (the , Appendix) explains that Roma parties Roma that explains Appendix) , national

rdc single produce 55 ceased t ceased five

minorities.

ecn trsod o enter to threshold percent Thus, o exist o - at structure party of Justic of

. In the case of Serbian Roma, thereof Roma, Serbian case In the .

h Ntoa Assembly National the . “This is a usual destiny of every of destiny usual a is “This . states that he was previously a previously was he that states e and Public Administration, Public and e s oiia processes political ’s s Pootoa system Proportional . - year terms. year

in Serbia in the the

of Slobodan Slobodan of

parliament. elects

Parties do not do . The The .

250 for for

CEU eTD Collection 72 20 o method This T minorities. national pa for threshold natural a is there cast; vote total the of 5% is elections parliamentary parliament. the enter to order in parties shows the Table 2012). and (2007 terms two in parliament the enter to succeeded has he Nevertheless, out had 20 and 2009 In “ elections. the at effect substantial no showed also party this Nevertheless, “Unity”. party Roma the founded Saiti Ferhad Mr. 2007, in the with Serbia, Southern the in Party (United 2005 in emerged party Another politics. Serbian in visible loosely been Š Democratic

ain ( ain Roma The threshold for minority parties is lower (3%) than the threshold for mainstream parties (5%). mainstreamparties for thanthreshold the (3%) is lower minoritythresholdfor parties The 07

To ensure minority representation, Serbia has introduced a lower lower a introduced has Serbia representation, minority ensure To establishe was party successful most and first The n h poedn tx, hs edr a nvr n needn cniae n the in candidate independent an never was leader this text, proceeding the in certain influence in Romani politic Romani in influence certain

Mle, oaoi; 2010) Jovanović; (Müller, Roma Party Roma

presence ofRomani Table 2: 1990 Left of the Roma the of Left /

afraie action affirmative f ). In 2004, Mr. Tomislav Bokan Tomislav Mr. 2004, In ).

Number of Romani the representatives thein nine elections Serbiain otal number of seats in seats of number otal

199 /

2*

representatives ”

I ta peie oet the moment, precise that In . and leader Ramadan Demirovi Ramadan leader 1996

Note: Note: * “ / Union of the Roma from Serbia from Roma the of Union

a first was s was the Roma Party of Srdjan Š Srdjan of Party Roma the was s

h trsod o mainstr for threshold The anticipated

the in the Serbian 2000 56

/

nrdcd t h primnay lcin in elections parliamentary the at introduced

parliament is divided by total number of votes. of number total by divided is parliament

founded Roma Democratic Party Democratic Roma founded

d in 2003 by 2003 in d elections 2003 ć /

parliament . Before the parliamentary elections elections parliamentary the Before . 1 aohr w pris emerged parties two another 11,

cin epd oa ne the enter Roma helped action 2007 the current MP, MP, current the 2 ”. . a pltcl ate for parties political eam

threshold The only party that party only The

ain. As will be pointed be will As ain. 2008*

72 /

o minority for , which has which ,

Mr. Srdjan Mr.

of Roma of elections. te of rties 2012 1 has

3 - )

CEU eTD Collection 2008; monthsof few after just the government ministerdissolved the Prime 74 http://www.ipe.or.at/?art_id=46 73 substantial no are there However, Croatia. unnoticeable, rather is Serbia in Roma of representation the of effect The effect. certain a demonstrate should groups t of participation that implies participation’ ‘active indicated previously (2007:241) Kymlicka elected gets community inte political and social their for drawback significant a is it and face, Roma that issues mayor the of one is This documents.anyholdpersonal not do who Kosovo frommostly refugees are these city,capitalbut also votes their Thus, place. one on concentration high having without country the throughout dispersed extremelyare Roma First, this. for explanations two are There design. electoral such frombenefit single a favor in with goes district design proportional a having that debated be might It representation. while legislature the to enter to succeeded party” “Roma from representative the 2012, in elections which term, next the in happen Even votes). total of (0.36% votes 16995 in representatives legislature.

Parliamentary elections were conducted again shortly after the formation of the government in 2007. But, because because But, ingovernment 2007. ofthe formation the after shortly again conducted were elections Parliamentary link Web Economy; inPolitical Studies for site: Institutes Web from the Taken s hlis 19) icse pootoa sse i te ot prpit fr minority for appropriate most the is system proportional discussed (1995) Phillips As

in coalitionwiththe winning ProgressiveParty. Serbian

get Based on this change, the 2007 parliamentary election brought two seats for Roma for seats two brought election parliamentary 2007 the change, this on Based 73

(0.42% of total votes), and the second one from “Roma party” with 14568 votes 14568 with party” “Roma from one second the and votes), total of (0.42% ipre. eody Rm mi Roma Secondly, dispersed.

rto (neve Fida, pedx. vn hn mme o the of member a when Even Appendix). Friedman, (Interview gration h Asml. h frt eogd o h “oa no o Sri” n won and Serbia” of Union “Roma the to belonged first The Assembly. the though the number of Roma representatives is higher than in (e.g.) Bosnia or or Bosnia (e.g.) in than higher is representatives Roma of number the though of

minority groups (Norris, 1995). However, Roma people Roma However, 1995). (Norris, groups minority to

(Last access: 10/04/2012); (Last access:

h alaet hs oiin ssml `yblc Pti, 1965). (Pitkin, `symbolic` simply is position his parliament, the besides

was

the the in the early parliamentary elections parliamentary early the in natural

57 nori improvements as a result of having a Roma Roma a having of result a as improvements threshold for minorities, the same success d success same the minorities, for threshold

y has ty being in the office, elections were held again in again wereheld elections office, in the being

h hget ocnrto aon the around concentration highest the

available: available: 74

in 2008 in in Serbia do not not do Serbia in . I . n the latest the n - member member id not id As he

CEU eTD Collection words in him, support to community a have not does he Nevertheless, party. incumbent the of list community Roma Today, represented properly are interests the as long as minority, be not do says:Jovanović who representatives be also represented be cannot interests minority`s guarantee a yet not 354) legislature the in representative

we could understand that the simple simple the that understand could we

he was not electedhe because was Romavotes not (I of “ I do not see any problem in having a non havingany see problem in I do not

that these representatives will also act in favor of the minority nor that the that nor minority the of favor in act also will representatives these that

in Serbia in

(I nterview Jovanović, Appendix). Appendix). Jovanović, nterview

has a representative because of his position on the electoral the on position his of because representative a has presence 58

nterview Jovanović, Appendix). Appendix). Jovanović, nterview

of minority representative in the legislature is legislature the in representative minority of - Roma representing the int representing the Roma .”

(I triw oaoi, Appendix) Jovanović, nterview

Following

Iris Young (1997: Young Iris

erests of theerests of og o it. to long other

CEU eTD Collection (Last access:10/4/2012) http://www.osce.org/odihr/83547 77 country. withinthe Romapopulation 76 Spain. and Slovakia Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Macedonia, 75 the and Plans Action Decade the of implementation the with deal that ministries the in groups workin the through operates mechanism second The Strategy. National the and Plans Action inter the these, co the in and consultations in society civil Roma involve to mechanisms two established government Serbian the level, International the yetFurthermore, addresses somehow have it thatstereotypes not account. into aretaken present to Serbian “Romani elite action. affirmative Minister in position hierarchical highest the for someone to given 2009. June encompassed Serbia) 3.2.3.

This council meets twice per year. year. per meetstwice council This membe ofDecade`s Majority Twelve countries participating: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Hungary, Republic, Czech Croatia, Bulgaria, Herzegovina, and Bosnia Albania, participating: countries Twelve eae f oa nlso, s h ms iprat fimtv ato fr oa has Roma, for action affirmative important most the as Inclusion, Roma of Decade As - ministerial body in charge of coordinating and monitoring implementation of the Decade the of implementation monitoring and coordinating of charge in body ministerial Müller and Jovanović (2010: 43) noted 43) (2010: Jovanović and Müller The i

-

Bo Counc a problem, a Unlike in Macedonia, the role of the National Coordinator for the Decade was not was Decade the for Coordinator National the of role the Macedonia, in Unlike nvolvement of International Community (Decade of Roma Inclusion in nvolvementof Inclusionin Community Roma ofInternational (Decade ia Đlć ht a peet on present was that Đelić židar 75

Serbia as well. as Serbia il for il belonging

L wr oiin wr gvn o oa huh msl ietfe a pr of part as identified mostly though, Roma to given were positions ower taking into account into taking ”.

the This could also could This The inability to appoint a National Coordinator of Roma NationalTheappoint a Coordinator of inability to

rs have Roma representatives on the International level, and similar percentage of percentage similar and level, theon International Romarepresentatives have rs Improvement of the Position of Roma and the Roma Decade Roma the and Roma of Position the of Improvement

to Roma community. On the contrary, the On community. Roma to

Officialdocument The country held presidency held country The

be regards to the Roma Decade. It was a Deputy Prime Prime Deputy a was It Decade. Roma the to regards

an indicator of their poor integration wi integration poor their ofindicator an other countries` National Coordinators National countries` other - ordination of the Decade of Roma Inclusion. One of One Inclusion. Roma of Decade the of ordination

, in order to fill the gap in Roma representation on representation Roma in gap the fill to order in , and more informationis more and 59 teig committees steering ;

over the Decade from July 2008 to 2008 July from Decade the over been

available on the Web link: the Web on available a non a n cneecs ihn the within conferences and overcome. overcome. - Roma was designated was Roma ni 76

thin the society.the thin

origin appears of the Decade the of 77 , is an is , g

CEU eTD Collection seeks who significant results. citizen other any level institutional for the as on upgrade Roma professional for equal substantially are opportunities The ( poor.” rather are results the but Decade, the of country member other any as Serbia assigns equally action “This countries. other from than lower significantly integ within internship offer they Namely, development. professional their in graduates Roma young support to initiative an made Institutions. European not want engage to in do generations Roma fact new ofeducated isthe that totheissue alsoMoreover, contributes what 2013). Kovats, and Gheorghe Roma that indicated previously been has it However, minority. the of empowerment for possibility a is there manner, this In Appendix). Friedman, is Fund Education Roma that s various through done mostly is This education. certainly is improved most to need that fields important four covers officially and priorities propose to is mechanisms onthe level,allocating annual forfinancial resources. groups working these of aim The Roma. for Strategy National nentoa cmuiy a md a pca porm o Rm, o ae nenhp within internships have to Roma, for program special a made has community International H wvr te fet o te eae o a se t be to seem far so Decade the of effects the owever, ration in the twelve member countries. However, the number of Roma interns from Serbia is Serbia from interns Roma of number the However, countries. member twelve the in ration

politics oa ntaie eatet wti te pn oit Fudtos has Foundations, Society Open the within Department, Initiative Roma

(I the nterview Jovanović, Appendix). Appendix). Jovanović, nterview providing hs eut i ls sal pltcl ate ad organizations. and parties political stable less in results This European Commission as a part of the strategy for Roma Roma for strategy the of part a as Commission European , as part of the Action Plan of the Decade (Interview (Interview Decade the of Plan Action the of part as , 60 Nevertheless, .

be improved in regard to Roma. However, the However, Roma. to regard in improved be

generally lack competent leadership competent lack generally very

hs upiigy os o show not does surprisingly this

I nter

or n Serbia. in poor view Jovanović, Appendix Jovanović, view cholarship programs cholarship

h Decade The (Biro, )

CEU eTD Collection for requirements the of one fulfill to order in integration Roma the of issue the solve to needed Serbia that said be might It Union. European the of members potential for strategy stick” that work his in states 199) government. the from come mostly have provisions legal of scope matters here of level ishigh not is Parliament the within presence their representation, minority the of account goes that system electoral introduced on Serbia though Even parties. Serbian mainstream parliament the entered that figures symbolic as seen are Representatives of 2007:241) the on only influence negative a have not did events historical Certainly, minority. the of integration the diversewhere Serbia, regionare integrated of Roma inthesociety. better work. its of results substantial case self these of some indicated, (1965) Pitkin and (1995) Phillips As Roma. including groups, minority self special established authorities i minority 3.2.4. The analysis further demonstrates that resi that demonstrates further analysis The analysis The International factor did not play a substantial role in integrating Roma, because the entire entire the because Roma, integrating in role substantial a play not did factor International - governing bodies tend to have a have to tend bodies governing f the of

Comments Roma but also for the stability of the the of stability the for also but Roma n a sense that their cultural diversity is not respected. For this reason, Serbian national national Serbian reason, this For respected. not is diversity cultural their that sense a n

oa oni, s n o te responden the of one as Council, Roma

oa s ahr or wt lw ucms n pol ognzd oiia parties. political organized poorly and outcomes low with poor, rather is Roma hw ta Rm i Sri cud e ahr aeoie a ‘marginalized’ as categorized rather be could Serbia in Roma that shows

dispersion the of minority regions. throughout different pressure on national authorities have been made as a “carrot on the the on “carrot a as made been have authorities national on pressure oee, eti dfeecs r vsbe n h mr culturally more the in visible are differences certain However, - governing bodies as official representatives representatives official as bodies governing

more

symbolic role within the social structure. This is the is This structure. social the within role symbolic dues of the previous regime significantly impacted impacted significantly regime previous the of dues 61

entire s rsns bcue t eosrts no demonstrates it because presents, ts

oit. oiia atvs (Kymlicka, activism Political society. However

higher

, Kymlicka , .

Therefore, what what Therefore, of the fifteen fifteen the of

in favor to favor in

(2007: (2007:

the the

CEU eTD Collection used. been not have opportunities many minority, the empowering for programs status. Roma the of improvement substantial Union. European the accession. Nevertheless

hn t oe t te eae f oa nlso, h rsls hw no show results the Inclusion, Roma of Decade the to comes it When , Serbia has Serbia ,

more salient 62

Although issues to solve in order to become a candidate in candidate a become to order in solve to issues

h affirmat the ive cin has action

a many had

CEU eTD Collection concentrated exclusively not are they that sense a in unfavorable is this Serbia, in Roma to comes that is design electoral processes. making decision the in groups these include to Roma for which minorities, for impacts threshold natural a is There positive had has Orizari Shuto representatives. of municipality the in significantly not aggregation did representation Roma of level the and designs, electoral three changed country The representation. Roma to comes it when role, major a play favor are the wider society. poorly integratedwithin more In live. minorities fifteen) of Northernregion country, inthedifferences culturallycould ofthe diverse beseen Serbia, of case the In war. civil the ended that Agreement the from benefited significantly groups t from seen be could case explanation(s) reasonable Se in than Macedonia in results better demonstrates CONCLUSION The findings show that cultural diversity matters when it comes to Roma integration. This This integration. Roma to comes it when matters diversity cultural that show findings The The

Electoral engineering for minorities indicates that proportional design exclusively operates i operates exclusively design proportional that indicates minorities for engineering Electoral .

of

aim of this work was to show why multiculturalism, as a way of integrating minorities, minorities, integrating of way a as multiculturalism, why show to was work this of aim

minority representation. However, in case of Macedonia the electoral design does not does design electoral the Macedonia of case in However, representation. minority In contrast, In he outcomes of the 2001 the of outcomes he

h country the

for better integration better for

Serbia has had all the possibilities for better Roma representation. representation. Roma better for possibilities the all had has Serbia homogeneous

a a has proportional proportional

ethnic conflict in Macedonia in conflict ethnic 63

ntefrt and first the in

parts of Serbia (West, Central and East) and Central (West, Serbia of parts is introduced ba Furthermore, rbia. single

One -

ebr distric member interesting fact abo fact interesting as an effort from the government the from effort an as worse integration worse

change. t ek to seeks it , when four minority minority four when , t system. When it it When system. t where nine (out where nine

High level of of level High ut the Serbian Serbian the ut in the second second the in underline , Roma Roma , n

CEU eTD Collection in negligence cultural diversity. towards r which system, political its transform to late very started Serbia factors, these of Because ratherSerbiapoor. in integration Roma made conflicts) ethnicregime, factors(authoritarian other communist same the from society. wider the within integrated successfully high to due is to Roma, integration. minority for patters certain makes perspective Historical country. represent non a by led was coordination In region. the changes it symbolic, rather is position this though, Even countries. regional the to comparison in difference substantial demonstrates Decade, the within integration an was there that said be could it Decade, the of terms In rights. of set higher obtained Roma provisions, these of Because conflict. ethnic the managing in also visible throughoutthe Roma of status legal documents pop highly are Kosovo from refugees Roma in

other minority groups in Europe in groups minority other one place. In contrast, they show high levels of dispersion throughout the country. Ironically, country. the throughout dispersion of levels high show they contrast, In place. one nentoa cmuiy eosrtd infcn ifune n tt atoiis o improve to authorities state on influence significant demonstrated community International Ap aety mliutrls (s wy f nertn mnrte) ant ok n every in work cannot minorities) integrating of way a (as multiculturalism parently,

their own interests. . The existence of the Ministry without portfolio, which is the main coordinating body body coordinating main the is which portfolio, without Ministry the of existence The . the hampers possibility their toactively participateinelections. er ae f eba te fet o te eae are Decade the of effects the Serbia, of case

level of stereotypes and discrimination that prevent attempts of the minority to beminority the to of preventattempts that discrimination and stereotypes of level - ideology

- Roma reinforced the stereotypes of Roma as being less capable to capable less being as Roma of stereotypes the reinforced Roma , , their paths did not follow the same direction. direction. same the follow not did paths their , CEE region. region. CEE have

more substantial obstacles in te in obstacles substantial more ulated around the capital, but their lack their but capital, the around ulated 64 In case of Macedonia, international assistance is assistance international Macedonia, caseof In Even though Even

Macedonia and Serbia have arisen arisen have Serbia and Macedonia es significant less

mg o Rm truhu the throughout Roma of image

impact rms of integration of rms Te at that fact The .

on Roma Roma The burden of of burden The in contrast in of

political identity esulted . This the

CEU eTD Collection their impacted provisions legal these adoption and independence education. on policies of importance more speak to him allows Education of Ministry the in position current his this, as well As decades. two past in through went Macedonia that transitions legal and political the about speaker relevant be to appeared thus and studies, legal finished has Ali Mr. Skopje. Science, andEducation of Ministry Minorities, Ethnic the forEducation the 23 the Deputy of Minister offic the in done was interview last the restaurants; capital`s the of some in conducted were forth and third second, the Macedonia; in Education of Ministry the of office the in conducted willingness shown have they the of impact politics interior generations, incoming of education parties, political Roma of evolvement provis legal are: various perspectives The picture. from clearer obtain issues Romani on working to order time in angles several from situation the observe of to necessary was it Therefore, perspectives. deal great a spent have speakers five APPENDIX rd Five interviews were conducted in conducted were interviews Five

of May: of

Redžep Ali Čupi Ali Redžep Decade of Roma Inclusion. The speakers were contacted one month in advance and advance in month one contacted were speakers Inclusion. The Roma of Decade

Labour of the new Constitution in 1991. in Constitution new the of

to share information with the interviewer. The first interview was interview first The interviewer. the with information share to

, Directorate for Promotion and Development of the Languages in Languages the of Development and Promotion for Directorate , and Social Politics.

Interviews status within the wider society wider the within status

Macedonia (Skopje) (Skopje) Macedonia e began He Interviewees 65

in Macedoniain

h interview the

about the Decade of Roma Inclusion and and Inclusion Roma of Decade the about

ions in ions from 23 from

When it comes to comes it When

favour

by . As well as this, he explains he this, as well As . rd

explaining to 28 to

to Roma in Macedonia, in Roma to th

of

Roma minority Roma May 2012. All 2012. May the eid of period

and the and Čupi e of of e ,

CEU eTD Collection Roma. of status the for valuable still are positions these that considers he Nevertheless, citizens. ordinary the for understandable less and symbolic in working Roma of process the from benefit regime authoritarian of burden the explains the on experience origin with Development. Policy in on background advisor an as Skopje, in Fund Education economic didnotchange Roma of situation the much. Decade the discussing with The finishes representation. respondent minority towards support in go that provisions electoral on thoughts his shares also He rights. specific of kind any enjoy not do Roma when cases, other to comparison society. multicultural within integrated being of importance the about insight an gives he end, the At rights. political and social of scope wider be conflict ethic when Albania 2001, in situation critical the into insight an gives he Next, parties. ethnic towards support and system party pluralistic of evolvement the h scn itriwd was interviewed second The Roma civil society. Moreover, he ind he Moreover, society. civil Roma n h CE countries CEE the in bt s rsace hs en ciey novd n oa issue Roma in involved actively been has researcher a as but , ns occurred ns

the long history of authoritarian regime authoritarian of history long the political science and science political matter

. h gvrmn. e ocue ta sm o te oiin ae iwd as viewed are positions the of some that concludes He government. the Based on the on Based , the respondent the , . t s motn t idct ta M. remn s o o te Romani the of not is Friedman Mr. that indicate to important is It democratization

(after the break up). Thus, the Macedonian society could easily could society Macedonian the Thus, up). break the (after Ohrid Framework Agreement, several minority groups gained groups minority several Agreement, Framework Ohrid r Ee Freedman Eben Mr. eea years several also icates that Macedonian civil sector was not was sector civil Macedonian that icates . Mr. Friedman discusses the nomenclature of the the of nomenclature the discusses Friedman Mr. .

answers Mr. Ali Mr. 66

in Serbia as the reason the as Serbia in

of of Roma Inclusion stating that social and and social that stating Inclusion Roma of experience

the Čupi h rsodn udrie te lack the underlines respondent The who , questions

defined Roma defined urnl works currently on

about about analysing tween Macedonians and and Macedonians tween

for s h rsodn hs a has respondent The . Because of the rich rich the of Because . the Serbian the

poor as less oppressed in in oppressed less as

Roma Roma

development of development

n h Roma the in integration integration Roma under the the under . He He .

of

CEU eTD Collection explores first The questions. intervening of number a with the capture to way a Decade. the within involved are that bodies and mechanisms the into insight an gives He representation. international and inclusion minority of issues the about with talk to person right the was Ibrahimi partner a and Macedonia, in Roma of Ibrahimi effort made a advancing education the in contribution to the of and 2001, from agreementthe about explanation further a makes he law, backgroundin in facilitator placeits various within state branches. parties. political Roma P without the of advantage The Roma. Serbian Macedonian Orizari,when Shuto Roma is municipality Romaare inmajority. the for drawbacks crucial the of one as aggregation

rights that Roma obtained. Further on Further obtained. Roma that rights In h it itriwd a teDpt iitr of Minister Deputy the was interviewed fifth The was interviewed forth The was interviewed third The “Roma elite” in Macedonia. In his opinion, the agreement signed in Ohrid (2001) and the and (2001) Ohrid in signed agreement the opinion, his In Macedonia. in elite” “Roma - depth interviews were conducted with three respondents. The topic guide was guide topic The respondents. three with conducted were interviews depth inclusion of process the in involved significantly was Ministry the that mind in Having . ortfolio

h Rm Euain ud Skopje Fund Education Roma the -

Neždet main theoretical concepts. theoretical main Hence, he underlines the successful examples of Romani elite that found that elite Romani of examples successful the underlines he Hence,

Mustafa. Mr. Edis Hasan Edis Mr. r Snd Mustafov Senad Mr. The respondent The

, he , in coordinating the Decade of Roma Inclusion, Mr. Mr. Inclusion, Roma of Decade the coordinating in T opic guide opic explains , currently working as an a an as working currently , 67 The topic guide has guide topic The

( talks about evolvement and coalitions of coalitions and evolvement about talks rgnly iutd n Budapest in situated originally

the process of education and evolvement of evolvement and education of process the

, Labour inclusion of intosociety.inclusion Roma h crety ok a the as works currently who

and Social Politics, Politics, Social and tts f h Rm and Roma the of status three

sections, accompanied sections, dvisor to the Minister Minister the to dvisor

r Ibrahim Mr. built in such such in built ) Wt the With .

the scope scope the

Country legal

the the

CEU eTD Collection the processactionfar integration. is Roma toosmallon ofthe Inclusion.effecThe Roma of Deacde the of role the discussing concludeswith He integration. political the on effect substantial no has which right cultural with mostly deals th explains Jovanović Mr. Moreover, politics. Serbian the in position symbolic their explains and parties Roma the by marginalized extremely been have they interviewee The Budapest. in perspective. international the within career his built comes originally interviewee The issues. Roma to contribution indispensable Budapest in Foundations Society Jovanović DecadeInclusion ofRoma legis the within presence their and parties of development provisions 19

th

of May 2013 May of director current the is respondent The . finds Roma representation poor in terms of substantial representation of interests. He interests. of representation substantial of terms in poor representation Roma finds smoi cnrbto o Ntoa Council National of contribution symbolic e dpe fr moeig h Rm rights. Roma the empowering for adopted : The case of Serbia was covered by the interview conducted with Mr. with conducted interview the by covered was Serbia of case The

and impactintwocases its onRoma

starts with defining the status of Roma in Serbia, underlying that underlying Serbia, in Roma of status the defining with starts . The author decided to contact Mr. contact to decided author The . Interview(s) Serbia in the wider society. He discusses the poor visibility of visibility poor the discusses He society. wider the 68

at the Roma Initiatives department of the Open Open the of department Initiatives Roma the at The interview was conducted in Arena Plaza Plaza Arena in conducted was interview The

to the Roma integration. The Council Council The integration. Roma the to et eto eaie chronological examines section Next lature. The last section deals with the with deals section last The lature.

.

Jovanović

from Serbia but has has but Serbia from t of the affirmative the of , because of his of because , Željko

CEU eTD Collection Kymlicka,Multicultural Odyssey; (2007); Will Oxford Kymlicka,Multicultural Citizenship; (1995); University Oxford Will Press; Eric Jenne, Habermas Hancock Ian Eben Friedman, Eben Friedman, Eben Friedman, Friedman, Eben Nancy Fraser, Census ofPopulation Biró (2008). Florian Bieber, Yogesh Atal, Macedonia University California,San Diego,(2002); of Agency andPower In: Politics. Cultural (2003) Belgrade: statistical State office; Publishing Corporation; Path The Ebert Stiftung YogeshBerghahnBooks, Atal). pp.1 P. Stein). P. In: University pp.107 Press, In: GreatBritain. MacedonianSkopje: International for Center Cooperation; Macedonia , András

The Politics of National Minority Participation in Post in Participation Minority National of Politics The Recognition of Politics the Examining Multiculturalism: Jürgen , ( (2013). Martina Kovats, Nicolae& Gheorghe, & M.E. Sharpe, pp.189

2000 (2002). ; Ethnopolitics, Vol.4,No.4, ; Ethnopolitics, III, Vol. ; Southeast EuropeanPolitics, f oa Integration Roma of (1999). ( ,

2003

(2005) “Explaining the Political Integration of Minorities: Roms Integration ofMinorities: asaHardcase” the“Explaining Political University of HertfordshireUniversity (200 - )

(2002); (2002);

. The Roma of Central of Roma The . Office MacedoOffice ( 1994 )

5 and Households eAeteRmn Pol AeSmERoae Džene) Rromane E Sam (Ame People Romani the Are We

. (ed. ); nrdcin In: Introduction. ; ehnig eonto: vroig ipaeet n Riiain in Reification and Displacement Overcoming Recognition: Rethinking ) oiia Pris n Mnrt Participation Minority and Parties Political Electoral System Design and Minority Representation in Slovakia and Slovakia in Representation Minority and Design System Electoral eonto Srgls n Social and Struggles Recognition oa nerto i Soai ad Macedonia and Slovakia in Integration Roma . Barbara 21 Hobson). Cambridge pp. University Press, oiia Itgain f h Rmn Mnrt i Post in Minority Romani the of Integration Political

tuge fr eonto in Recognition for Struggles - 149 ;

- nia; Skopje, Macedonia; pp5 Macedonia; nia; Skopje, 212; Bibliography (d) il u; ai Erpa Rm Fn, Kossuth Fund, Roma European Pakiv Guy; Will (ed.) .

in 2002,Population

- oet i Tasto ad rniin n Poverty in Transition and Transition in Poverty 32

and pp. ;

Pres

381 69 Eastern Europe: Constructing a Stateless Nation. Nation. Stateless a Constructing Europe: Eastern

s;

- 396

No University Press; ;

. 2 - -

h Dmcai Cntttoa State Constitutional Democratic the national or ethnic origin,nationalBook orethnic 1, 3, pp.107

oeet: otse Identities, Contested Movements: -

Communist Europe Communist - rm itmod o Citizenship to Victimhood From 31;

e. Ay Gutmann). Amy (ed.:

- 126; Pbihd y Friedrich by: Published ;

-

oprtv analysis comparative

- 35 ,

(ed.: Jonathan Jonathan (ed.: Hertfordshire ;

- communist communist Princeton

. (ed. (ed. - ; ; ,

CEU eTD Collection Initiatives Roma (2010); Jakšić, Anne (1995).Phillips, HannaPitkin, (1967). 1965. Talcott Parsons, Orlović, Slaviša(2008); Novaković, Dragan (2003). (1997). P. Norris, Nat Stephan Müller, Emilia Molnár, H. T Marshall, Macedonia of Republic Policy, Social and Labor of Ministry Mansbridge, Jane(2003). (1999). Jane Mansbridge, International Science Political 18(3): Review 297 Budapest, Hungary; Balkans Western the in Inclusion Roma Vol. 30,Part 1,pp.53 Self Minority Roma University Press Republic ofMacedonia ‘Yes’Contingent Decade 2005 Inclusion ofRoma Belgrade Serbia;Roma in thesocial integration Results of research Sciences American Negro from ( ional attorney; report; Annual Republic ofMacedonia, ed .), Božidar 24 Status of National Minorities inSerbia:scientific ofNational collectionStatus of themeeting works from – ; 26. –

The riversidePress,The pp.709 & November – (1950). (1950). &

Bašić Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Proportional, Systems: Electoral Choosing

; caf, Kai Schafft,

. Jovanović,

( Journal of Politics Journal ofPolitics eds.: Talcott Parsons and Kenneth Clark). American Academy of Arts and Arts of Academy American Clark). Kenneth and Parsons Talcott eds.: The Concept Representation of The Politics of The Politics

Full Citizenship for the Negro American? A Sociological Problem Sociological A American? Negro the for Citizenship Full - , oenne n Hungary. in Governance Impact of the Parties of National Minorities theParties National Impact of - No Data No Goran iiesi ad oil ls: n Ohr Essays Other And Class: Social and Citizenship 75 Rethinking Representation ; Skopje ;

2005, SANU, Beograd;2005, str.153 Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women and Blacks Represent Blacks Should Roma inSerbia. ;

Ž

(2002) eljko (2010). eljko . 2003. A. - ; No Progress: Data Collection inCountries inthe Collection Progress: Participating No Data -

2015 Presence ; Roma livingconditions communities, for andpossibilities 61(3) :628 . Open Societ -

754 oil xlso, tnc oiia Mblzto, and Mobilization, Political Ethnic Exclusion, Social . Press Now, Belgrade;Press rpr cmisoe b OI oa I Roma OSI by commissioned report A ; Pathways to Progress? The European The Progress? to Pathways . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford . Oxford: Press

70

at eta Erp/’uoe u Centre du Europe/L’Europe Central East - 657 - . American Political 312 . Berkley:of California University Press y Budapest, Foundation; Hungary; ;

;

– Skopje 2011 Skopje 178; .

Ethnicity Majoritarian and Mixed Systems Mixed and Majoritarian

(2004)

; u: Vojislav Stanovčić ;

Reseach Center

; Science 97(4); Review

Represent Women ? A ? Women Represent taey o Rm in Roma for Strategy Cmrde [Eng.: Cambridge . ;

Union and Union nitiatives, ,

. In: .

; - The

Est

.

CEU eTD Collection Serbia of Minorities Macedonian 1991 Constitution National of Freedoms the on National of Law Minorities NationalCouncil and Rights on Law in Institutes Studies for Political Economy Macedonia of Government the of Republic Decade Roma of Inclusion www.osce.org/odihr/83547 (Last access: 10/4/2012) Improvement for Council the of Position of ofChronic Deception:Roma Analysis Brief Policies A in (120 4 ch. Press, University Oxford Oxford: Democracy. and Inclusion (2000). M. Iris Young, IrisYoung, Marion (1997). 2005. Peter Thelen, Si ( Júlia Szalai, i, rda (2008); Predrag mić, www.romadecade.org access (Last 03/11/2012) Brief%20Analysis%20of%20Roma%20Policies%20in%20Macedonia.pdf http://www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/General%20Resources/Chronic%20Deception%20A%20 153). Ebert Stiftung, Skopje Belgrade pp. 35 2/11/2012); (Link: http://www.uni on_national_councils.pdf (Last access: 10/04/2012); http://www.seio.gov.rs/upload/documents/ekspertske%20misije/protection 0on%20minorities.pdf (Last access: 11/04/2012); www.coe.int/T/DG3/RomaTravellers/archive/documentation/refugees/SaMsocialrights/law%2 http://www.ipe.or.at/?art_id=46 (Last access: 10/04/2012); http://vlada.mk/

- 53 ; ;

2002

)

(Last access 30/04/2013) . Social Outcasts in 21 in Outcasts Social . Roma in Europe; From Social Exclusion to Active Participation Active to Exclusion Social From Europe; in Roma - ; Tito Tito graz.at/opv1www_ustav_makedonija_mak.pdf;Lastaccess:

Feminism and the public sphereFeminism andthe public

and

NATO - st

Web links

Century Hungary. Century ; h r The

Roma theDecade Roma and 71

s ad al f eod Yugoslavia Second of fall and ise ;

; \

. Constellations 3(3):340. Constellations Macedonia \

Review of Review

(Last access: 27/01/2013); ; (Nadir Redzepi, 2011) Sociology

_of_minorities/law_

Vol. 8, No 2, No 8, Vol. - 363. ; Friedrich ; Novosti ;

- ,

CEU eTD Collection PresidencySerbian Decade the Roma in of Inclusion Party forRoma Integration of FrameworkOhrid Agreement 2001 Netpress Minority protection in JusticeMinistry and of Public Administration (Serbia) Macedonian Parliament, Sobranie Macedonian Information Agency ncy%20Program.pdf(Last access: 03/11/2012) www.romadecade.org/files/downloads/Decade%20Documents/Serbia%20Decade%20Preside http://pir 2/11/2012) (PDF online file: http://www.netpress.com.mk/ 23/05/2013) http://www.kas.de/upload/auslandshomepages/serbien/Gojkovic_pred.pdfaccess: (Last http://www.drzavnauprava.gov.rsaccess: (Last 1/05/2013); http://www.sobranie.mk http://www.mia.mk/

–

- Macedonian Newspaper mk.blogspot.com/ ;

http://faq.macedonia.org/politics/framework_agreement.pdf;Last access:

(Last access: 27/12/2012); Serbia

(27/12/2012);

(last accessed: 27.12.2012)

( L

ast access: 27.12.2012) ast access: (Official page) Web

72 ;

;