Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Stawomir Kapralski Małgorzata Kołaczek Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska DIRECTION: FUTURE 25 YEARS OF FREEDOM AND THE ROMA P eople DIRECTION: FUTURE Sławomir Kapralski Małgorzata Kołaczek Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska DIRECTION: FUTURE 25 YEARS OF FREEDOM AND THE ROMA PEOPLE

JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY PRESS

REVIEWER prof. dr hab. Tadeusz Paleczny

COVER DESIGN Jadwiga Burek

TRANSLATION, TRANSCRIPTION, AND PROOFREADING Alicja Bednarska, Katarzyna Ciurapińska, Jadwiga Jarczyk, Maciej Jarczyk, Sławomir Kapralski, Małgorzata Kołaczek, Dawid Leszczak, Raf Uzar

Th e project “Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People” was implemented by the Dialog-Pheniben Foundation and was fi nanced with the support of the European Commission in the framework of the Europe for Citizens Programme.

Th e European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which refl ects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Th is publication or any part of it may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods and may not be stored in any informatic system without the prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978-83-233-4525-1 ISBN 978-83-233-9886-8 (e-book)

Jagiellonian University Press Editorial Offi ces: ul. Michałowskiego 9/2, 31-126 Krakow Phone: +48 12 663 23 80, Fax: +48 12 663 23 83 Distribution: Phone: +48 12 631 01 97, Fax: +48 12 631 01 98 Cell Phone: +48 506 006 674, e-mail: [email protected] Bank: PEKAO SA, IBAN PL80 1240 4722 1111 0000 4856 3325 Contents

Introduction. Th e Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement Márton Rövid ...... 7 Chapter 1. Between Nazism and Communism: Th e Origins of the International Roma Movement ...... 39 Chapter 2. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Th eir Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years ...... 75 C hapter 3. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders ...... 93 Karel Holomek ...... 95 Ágnes Daróczi ...... 105 Stanisław Stankiewicz ...... 111 Roman Kwiatkowski ...... 123 Gejza Adam ...... 131 Margareta Matache ...... 145 Tímea Junghaus ...... 155 Orhan Galjus ...... 161 Grattan Puxon ...... 167 Romani Rose ...... 175 Soraya Post ...... 183 Chapter 4. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders ...... 191 Literature ...... 219 About the Authors ...... 229

Márton Rövid

INTRODUCTION The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement

Over the past two decades, in the wake of the post-communist transition, the emergence of Romani activism has been an important development accompany- ing political changes in Central and Eastern Europe. As well as the emergence of Romani associations, international NGOs have been increasingly involved in the struggle against the discrimination of Roma. A special microcosm, specialised in the so-called “Roma issue” has developed, comprising non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations, expert bodies, foundations, and activists. Th is text discusses the emergence of the transnational Roma movement and the genesis of the “Roma issue” in international politics. In the framework of a historical overview, the main actors speaking on behalf of Roma are presented, from the medieval Gypsy Kings to the contemporary European Roma and Traveller Forum. First, the controversial issue of the identity of the Roma is discussed. Far from being a purely ethnographic problem, it has a direct and profound impact on the issue of political representation. Next, the origins of Romani activism are outlined, focusing in particular on the World Romani Congresses. Th e second part examines the emergence of the “Roma issue” in international politics. Th ree developments which opened up political opportunity structures and contributed to the emergence of a transnational advocacy network are analysed: the increasing migration of Roma, the inadequacy of a minority rights regime, and the changing role of the EU. Th e fi nal part discusses the contemporary struggle for recognition and self-determination, studying key organisations and their manifestos. Particular attention is given to the emergence of the notion of a non-territorial nation and the quest for legitimacy. 8 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

1. Who are the Roma?

Several scholars and activists argue that Romani people form a stateless, dispersed nation, potentially numbering 9 to 12 million people from all over the world and trace their origins (based on linguistic evidence) to the Indian Subcontinent.1 It is assumed that Roma left India in several waves, beginning around 1000 AD, and crossed the Bosporus into Europe in the late 13th century.2 However, some scholars and activists dispute the assertion that Romani people constitute such a diaspora and argue that certain allegedly Ro- mani groups neither belong to nor identify with the Roma nation.3 It is debated – for instance – whether Gitano, Kale, Manouche, Sinti, and Traveller groups belong to the Romani diaspora. Academic defi nitions and conceptions permeate political and civic activism. Th e roots of the nation-building project, unifying various ethnic groups under the label “Roma,” can be traced back to the First World Roma Congress held in 1971 near London. Delegates from Western, Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Asia and North America, agreed on the dissemination of the term “Roma” to replace such, typically pejorative, appellations as cigány, cikan, Zigeuner, tzigane, zingaro.4 It is diffi cult to assess the success of this nation-building. On the one hand, transnational forms of Romani solidarity have emerged; on the other, (sub-) group diff erences remain important, even within one village. However, the majority of (non-Roma) society is generally not aware of those diff erences.5

1 Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Social Construction of Romani Identity. In: Th omas Acton (ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press; Will Guy (2001), Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press; Ian Hancock (2002), We Are the Romani People. Ame sam e Rromane džene. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. It should be noted that there are alternative ethnomythologies; for instance, some communities trace the roots of Roma to Egypt. 2 Th e fi rst evidence of a Romani presence in Europe is from 1283 in a document from Constantinople referring to taxes collected from “the so-called Egyptians and Tsigani.” 3 Paloma Gay y Blasco (2002), Gypsy/Roma Diasporas: Introducing a Comparative Perspective. “Social Anthropology” Vol. 10, No. 2; Judith Okely (1997), Some Political Consequences of Th eories of Gypsy Ethnicity. In: Alison James, Jenny Hockey, Andrews Dawson (eds.), Aft er Writing Culture. London: Routledge; Wim Willems, Leo Lucassen (2000), Gypsies in the Diaspora? Th e Pitfalls of a Biblical Concept. “Histoire Sociale/Social History” Vol. 33, No. 66; Michael Stewart (1996), Th e Puzzle of Roma Persistence: Group Identity Without a Nation. In: Th omas Acton, Gary Mundy (eds.), Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. 4 All of them are derived from the Greek term athinganos meaning ‘an outcast’. 5 For instance, in Hungary, very few gajo (non-Roma) are aware of the fact that three diff erent Roma communities live in their country: Romungro (speaking only Hungarian), Vlax Roma (speaking both Romani and Hungarian) and Boyash (speaking Hungarian and an old dialect of Romanian). The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 9

To further complicate matters, the group of people who identify themselves as “Roma” does not usually overlap with the group stigmatized as “cigány,” “tsigane,” etc. In general, the number of people perceived as Roma is much higher than the number of people who self-identify as such (in the context of sociological research or offi cial censuses). Ethnic boundaries are more rigid in certain countries: in Bulgaria, almost three quarters of those perceived as Roma also identify themselves as Roma, whereas in Hungary it is only one third.6 It must be noted that, although in several countries Roma are still associated with an itinerant way of life, only fi ve percent of all “Roma” lead a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle. Furthermore, administrative, occupational, and legal categories such as Travellers, Gens du Voyage, Camimanti, and Nomadi are ethnicised under the umbrella term of “Roma,” yet they also embrace sedentary communities nowadays. For instance, Italian authorities label immigrant (sedentary) Eastern European Roma “nomads” and put them in caravans in campi nomadi. Accordingly, the common answer to who the Roma are – i.e. who is perceived to be Roma – depends on local and national contexts. For instance, in largely ethnically homogeneous Hungary, Roma form the only visible ethnic minority, and thus the darker skin colour is an important marker. In more heterogeneous countries, such as the UK, where skin colour is irrelevant, Roma are identifi ed with caravan occupations, self-employment, knowledge of the Cant or Romani language, and observation of certain taboos.7 Activists and scholars alike argue that people perceived to be “Gypsies”(cigány, cikán, etc.) face racism and a range of prejudices in contemporary Europe and beyond. Physical, symbolic, and epistemic8 forms of anti-Roma violence persist in both Eastern and Western Europe and have deep historical roots.9

6 Iván Szelényi, János Ladányi (2001), Th e Social Construction of Roma Ethnicity in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary During Market Transition. “Review of Sociology” Vol. 7, No. 2. 7 Andrew Ryder, Margaret Greenfi elds (2011), Roads to Success. Economic and Social Inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers. London: Bucks New University. 8 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, the postcolonial theorist evoked the term “epistemic violence” which refers to the domination of western ways of understanding in contrast to non-western ways of acquiring knowledge. Th e destruction and marginalisation of one’s way of understanding always distorts the subaltern reality. Spivak’s concept is based on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence accounting for the tacit, almost unconscious, modes of cultural/social and gender domination or racism occurring within everyday social spaces. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1988), Can the Subaltern Speak? In: Cary Nelson, Lawrence Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana–Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 9 Colin Clark (2004), “Severity Has Oft en Enraged but Never Subdued a Gipsy”: Th e History and Making of European Romani Stereotypes. In: Nicholas Saul, Susan Tebbutt (eds.), Th e Role of the Romanies: Images and Counter-Images of “Gypsies”/Romanies in European Cultures. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; Hancock, op. cit.; Herbert Heuss (2000), “Anti-Gypsyism” is Not a New Phenomenon. Anti-Gypsyism Research: the Creation of a New Field of Study. In: Th omas Acton (ed.), 10 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Similarly, it is widely accepted and documented that the transition from state socialism to capitalism had dramatic consequences for most Roma.10 With the collapse or privatisation of state companies, a signifi cant number of Roma lost their legal and stable source of income and sank from decent working-class living conditions to the margins of society. Th eir massive impoverishment was coupled with an increase of anti-Roma sentiments, leading to more segregation (in education and housing), and even physical violence.

1.1. The origins of Romani activism

Th e history of Roma organisations is not linear and the organisations’ roots, although deep, are thin. In 15th century France, in order to adapt to and imitate the surrounding society, Romani groups claimed to be led by comtes or ducs; later, the terms changed to capitaine and lieutenant. Common equivalents in Hungary and Poland were voivode, vajda, wojt and vataf; in Scotland, “lord” was occasionally used. Gypsy “chiefs” could be created or appointed by local princes wanting someone to take charge of keeping order, getting families to work, or collecting taxes. Gypsy “kings,” for their part, belong to the realm of myth, although some have tried – both for personal ends and in an eff ort to elicit respect from those around them – to draw on the myth and boost cred- ibility with the outside world.11 Th e fi rst grassroots Romani organisations emerged in the fi rst half of the 20th century on the Balkan Peninsula, where Gypsies had civil rights from the times of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century – unlike the Gypsies in Central and Western Europe, whose rights were recognised much later – and possessed civil consciousness and the ability to fi ght for their rights.12 By the 1920s–30s, Romani organisations of a more collective nature started to function in Bulgaria, Yugoslavia,13 Romania, and Greece. Th ese organisa-

Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press; Angéla Kóczé (2011), Gender, Ethnicity and Class: Exposing Contemporary Romani Women’s Issues and Political Activism, Sociology and Social Anthropology. Budapest: Central European University. 10 Dena Ringold, Mitchell A. Orenstein, Erika Wilkens (2005), Roma in an Expanding Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle. Washington, D.C.: World Bank; Andrey Ivanov (2003), Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Th e Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: United Nations Development Program; Iván Szelényi, János Ladányi (2006), Patterns of Exclusion: Constructing Gypsy Ethnicity and the Making of an Underclass in Transitional Societies of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press. 11 Jean-Pierre Liégeois (2007), Roma in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, p. 207. 12 Elena Marushiakova, Vesselin Popov (2004), Th e Roma – a Nation without a State? Historical Background and Contemporary Tendencies. In: Bernhard Streck (ed.), Segmentation und Komplementarität. Organisatorische, ökonomische und kulturelle Aspekte der Interaktion von Nomaden und Sesshaft en. Halle: Orientwissenschaft liche Heft e, p. 72. 13 More precisely the “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes,” at the time. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 11 tions published their own periodicals, off ered mutual assistance in illness and death, and promoted the education of Gypsy youth.14 In the second half of the 19th century and the fi rst decades of the 20th century, ample waves of migration changed the landscape of Gypsy politics. In Wallachia and Moldavia, the founding principalities of Romania, Roma communities – Kalderash and Vlax Rom – were enslaved until the 1840s and 1850s. Th e subsequent abolition resulted in a massive migration of Gypsies. It is among the Kelderara settling in Poland that the idea of a Gypsy state arose for the fi rst time in the 1920s. Th is idea is related to the so-called “Gypsy kings” from the dynasty (or rather family) Kwiek. Th e institution of the so-called “Gypsy kings” (or rather an imitation of the institution for the sake of the surrounding population) is a phenomenon that is well known in history. Since Gypsies came to Western Europe in the 15th century, the historical sources noted their “king Sindel, the dukes Andrash, Mihali and Panuel,” and other “princes of Little Egypt.” Th is is a case of presenting their leaders according to the general terminology in order to mislead the European rulers into granting privileges to Gypsies. Later on, the institution of the “Gypsy kings” appeared in the Polish Commonwealth in the 17th and 18th century. It was most oft en headed by non-Gypsies responsible to the state for collecting taxes from Gypsies.15 Th e Kwiek dynasty was something completely new in the history of Roma. It was closely related to the ideas of an independent state, Romanestan (land of Roma). Initiatives were undertaken in search of a territory for the state. In 1934, the newly elected Gypsy king Jozef Kwiek sent a delegation to the United Nations to ask for land in Southern Africa (Namibia), so that the Gypsies could form their own state there. At the same time, the “alternative” king Michal II Kwiek travelled to India in order to specify the location of the future Gypsy state (somewhere along the shores of the river Ganges). Aft er his trip, he became a supporter of the idea that the state should be located in Africa (Uganda) and travelled to Czechoslovakia and England, seeking additional support. In 1936, the next king, heir to Jozef, Janusz Kwiek, sent a delegation to Mussolini asking for some land in Abyssinia (at that time occupied by Italy), where Gypsies could establish their own state.16 In the interwar period, the leaders of the General Union of Roma in Romania fathered the idea of creating a permanent international body in the form of an international pan-Romani Congress. Th e Union decided to form committees and affi liated societies in every country, and planned to obtain travel grants

14 Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 74. 15 Ibid., p. 76. 16 Ibid., p. 77. 12 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People for Romani delegates to attend international Romani congresses. However, these congresses never took place in the interwar period.17 Both national and international Romani political aspirations were crushed during the Second World War. Th e systemic persecution and extermination of Roma left the nascent modern Romani activism paralysed for over a decade aft er the war.18

1.2. The World Romani Congresses

From the 1960s, the UN has inspired the creation (although oft en only on paper) of a number of international Romani umbrella organisations that wanted to advance the interests of the world’s Roma population through discourse, instruments, and structures within the UN. Th ese organisations enlisted mostly European but also some Middle Eastern and North American members. Th e main goal of the early organisations was to establish a Romani state with the help of the UN and using money that was to be gained from collective Holocaust reparations or, at least, to secure an internationally recognised status for Roma, with the issue of international Romani passports. In addition, the organisations worked towards the legitimisation of the Roma as a nation, with the right to its own state, by creating and promoting a national culture. Although the goals of improving living standards and the cultural and moral uplift ing of Roma were usually professed, they always remained secondary to nationalist aspirations.19 By the 1970s these attempts crystallised into the First World Romani Congress held in April 1971, near London, attracting participants from Western, Central and Eastern Europe as well as from Asia and North America.20 Th e Congress was formally organised by the Comité International Rom (an organisation

17 Ilona Klímová-Alexander (2005), Th e Romani Voice in World Politics. Th e United Nations and Non-State Actors. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 15. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., p. 16. 20 According to Acton and Klímová, representatives of 14 countries participated, whereas Maru- shiakova and Popov argue that “documents of the congress listed delegates from 8 countries, 2 of which were from Eastern Europe (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia), and observers.” Th omas Acton, Ilona Klímová (2001), Th e International Romani Union: An East European Answer to West European Questions? Shift in the Focus of World Romani Congresses 1971–2000. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future…; Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 78. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 13 founded in 1965 in Paris), and was funded by the World Council of Churches21 and the Indian government.22 Th e delegates of the First World Romani Congress adopted a national fl ag and hymn and agreed on the dissemination of a new ethnic label. Henceforth the term “Roma” was used as the offi cial name to encompass a variety of community-based identities across diff erent countries. Th e leading concept was the principle of amaro Romano drom (our Romani way) and the phrase “our state is everywhere where there are Roma because Romanestan is in our hearts.”23 Expressing a powerful feeling of unity, they declared that “all Roma are brothers.”24 In addition, commissions for social aff airs, war crimes, language stan- dardisation, and culture were established.25 It was also decided that 8th April, the date on which the Congress had opened, should become Roma Day and be celebrated annually. A single slogan summed up the Congress: “Th e Roma people have the right to seek out their own path towards progress.”26 Aft er the death of its president, Slobodan Berberski, the role of the Comité International Rom was taken over by a new organisation, the International Romani Union (IRU) founded in 1977 to hold a new congress. Th e Second World Romani Congress, organised by IRU, was held in 1978 in Geneva.27 Th e Second World Romani Congress was marked by the reinforcement of relations and mutual recognition between the Roma and India. On the one hand, the Congress declared that India was the “mother-country” of the Roma.28 On the other hand, India expressed its support for the demands of the Roma at the United Nations. As a result, in 1979, IRU was granted observer status in the “Roster” category, which periodically brings together non-governmental organisations, so as to enable them to contribute their expertise to the Economic and Social Council and to other bodies within the UN system.29

21 Th e fi rst congresses were organised “with the support of Evangelical churches working among the Gypsies, the Pentecostal church in particular. Later on the diff erent Evangelical churches lost interest in the world Romani movement though they are still active among the Gypsies.” Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 79. 22 Acton and Klímová, op. cit., p. 158; László Fosztó (2003), Diaspora and Nationalism: An Anthro- pological Approach to the International Romani Movement. “Regio” No. 1, p. 112. 23 Marushiakowa and Popov, op. cit., p. 78. 24 Liégeois, op. cit., p. 213. 25 Fosztó, op. cit., p. 112. 26 Liégeois, op. cit., p. 214. 27 Acton and Klímová, op. cit., p. 160. 28 Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 79. 29 Fourteen years later, in March 1993, its status was upgraded to Category 11: Consultative. Th is category consists of NGOs with acknowledged international expertise in their fi eld, and grants them ongoing participation in the Economic and Social Council: the weight that their proposals to the Council carry is enhanced accordingly. Liégeois, op. cit., p. 214. 14 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

In 1981, the German Sinti League in Göttingen organised the Th ird World Romani Congress, with the support of the Society for Th reatened Peoples. Th e main topic of discussion was the fate of Roma under the Nazi regime and problems related to reparation demands. Organisations from Germany shared their experiences with the German government and administration.30 Aft er the Congress, the activities of IRU became practically non-existent until the end of the Cold War and the changes in Eastern Europe.31

2. The emergence of the “Roma Issue” in the international arena

International actors play a crucial role in the codifi cation, dissemination, and acceptance of norms in relation to Roma. International governmental and non-governmental actors can promote three kinds of norms: the protection of fundamental human rights, generic minority rights, and Roma-specifi c norms. First, aft er the Second World War, the human rights regime emerged, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Next, a comprehensive international legal and institutional framework developed, aiming to protect the rights of minorities. Up until the 1990s, European international organisations paid little attention to Roma. Th e few documents produced by these organisations referred to Roma as “travellers,” “nomads” or “a population of nomadic origin.”32 However, within less than a decade, Roma turned from “nomadic people” into “a true Euro- pean minority.”33 Specialised committees and organs were set up within European organisations to deal specifi cally with Roma,34 and one of the central issues in the process of the EU’s Eastern enlargement was the position of Roma in the candidate countries. By the mid-1990s, a separate network of institutions dealing specifi cally with Roma emerged, comprising special bodies under the auspices of international

30 Fosztó, op. cit., p. 113. 31 Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 79. 32 See, for instance, the following documents of the Council of Europe: Assembly Recommendation 563 (1969) on the situation of Gypsies and other travellers in Europe; Committee of Ministers Resolution 13 (1975) on the social situation of nomads in Europe; Recommendation 1 (1983) on stateless nomads and nomads of undetermined nationality; Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe Resolution 125 (1981) on the role and responsibility of local and regional authorities in regard to the cultural and social problems of populations of nomadic origin. 33 Council of Europe, Assembly Recommendation 1203 (1993) on the Gypsies of Europe. 34 Such as the Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues within the OSCE and the Group of Specialists on Roma within the Council of Europe. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 15 organisations such as the Council of Europe (CoE), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the EU, as well as international NGOs such as the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and the European Roma Information Offi ce (ERIO). At least three developments contributed to the emergence of the “Roma issue” on an international level, thus opening political opportunities: (1) the increasing migration of Roma, (2) the inadequacy of the minority rights regime, (3) the changing role of the EU.

2.1. The fear of Roma immigration

Above all, the fear of Romani immigration prompted European governments to promote their integration in their home societies. In the early 1990s, Roma migrated primarily from Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia to escape discrimination, persecution, and economic hardship. Th ey sought asylum principally in Poland and Germany.35 In the late 1990s, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, and Canada also received Romani asylum-seekers. Th e response of many of these governments was to reimpose visa requirements for citizens of the sending countries and repatriating illegal Roma immigrants. Meanwhile, skinhead and neo-Nazi groups regularly attacked Roma immigrants, while Western European tabloids envisioned the invasion of the “Gypsy hordes” following the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU. With the enlargement of the European Union, most Eastern European Roma became European citizens, whose movement cannot be controlled by visa regulations. Th ey enjoy the freedom of movement and can freely stay for up to 3 months in any EU member state.36 Th e repatriation of Roma immigrants, however, continues. In particular, the expulsion of Roma immigrants from Italy in 2007 and from France in 2010 attracted international attention. In both cases – similarly to the Kristallnacht – a homicide committed by a person of Romani origin led to the persecution, police harassment, and deportation of a signifi cant number of Roma. In Italy, the perpetrator was a Romanian Roma immigrant; however, in France, it was a clash between a group of French gens du voyage (French travellers) and the police that led to the offi cial stigmatisation of all Roma and the increased expulsion of Roma immigrants.

35 Zoltán Bárány (2002), Th e East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 243. 36 And longer with a residence permit. 16 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Several international actors – including the Vatican, the Commissioner of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, and the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship – called for ending the openly discriminatory French rhetoric and expulsion of Roma. However, the French state was not sanctioned for breaching EU law (the Charter of Fundamental Rights): the European Commission did not refer the case to the Court of Justice in Luxemburg. Th e European Commission merely informed France that it did not fully implement the so-called Citizenship Directive into its domestic law,37 which France recognised and corrected within half a year. Nonetheless, the well-publicised “French aff air with Roma” opened a window of opportunity for Roma and pro-Roma activists to push for the European Roma Strategy, which is discussed below.

2.2. The inadequacy of the minority rights regime

In addition to the general human rights regime based on the Universal Dec- laration of Human Rights, a comprehensive international legal and institutional framework was developed in the last 15–20 years, aiming at the protection of the rights of minorities. In 1992, the United Nations adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities, and other intergovernmental organisations, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the International Labour Organisation, and the World Bank, have also developed norms concerning minority or indigenous rights. Declarations have also been draft ed by organisations at the regional level, such as the Council of Europe’s 1995 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, or the Organisation of American States’ 1997 draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All Romani individuals’ right to culture is guaranteed by Article 27 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.38 In addition,

37 According to a report of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, not a single member state has “transposed the Directive eff ectively and correctly in its entirety” (34). “In the thirty months since the Directive has been applicable, the Commission has received more than 1,800 individual complaints, 40 questions from the Parliament and 33 petitions on its application. It has registered 115 complaints and opened fi ve infringement cases for the incorrect application of the Directive.” European Commission (2008), Report on the Application of Directive 2004/38 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Th eir Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States. COM (2008) 840 fi nal. Brussels, 10th December 2008. 38 “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 17 on the European level, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention applies to countries that ratifi ed the treaty and recognise the Roma as ethnic or national minority.39 However, the “right to enjoy one’s culture” is clearly not suffi cient to promote the social inclusion of Roma. Th e Roma-specifi c bodies and recommendations discussed above have grown out of a realisation that the present minority rights regime is not suffi cient to fi ght against the discrimination of Roma or for their social integration.

2.3. The special role of the European Union

As an international organisation, the European Union has had a signifi cant leverage on Eastern European governments, as it has measured “the progress” of Eastern European candidate countries against the Copenhagen criteria.40 Aft er the fall of the Berlin Wall, the European Community promoted democracy and human rights externally as a way of ensuring stability in neighbouring countries that were experiencing, or could be subject to, violent transitions.41 Th e European Economic Community was transformed into the European Union when the Treaty of Maastricht entered into force in 1993. From the common European market and economic cooperation emerged the European political community that aims to uphold human rights. Th e EU’s growing preoccupation with Roma, from the mid-1990s, is supposed to demonstrate its changing identity. Its concern over the plight of the marginalised, stateless, European minority group is supposed to simultaneously demonstrate and justify the political role and commitment of the European Union. In the course of the Eastern enlargement of the EU, NGOs prepared for the European Commission well-researched and focused submissions on the situation of Roma communities, which sometimes transposed verbatim passages from the NGO reports to the so-called EU country reports.42 More importantly, the Commission explicitly formulated the improvement of the situation of Roma communities as criteria for joining the EU. In response, the Eastern European

39 It is to be noted that Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Moldova, and Turkey have yet to ratify the Framework Convention. 40 Th e Copenhagen criteria are the rules, laid down at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, that defi ne whether a country is eligible to join the European Union. Th e criteria require that the state has the institutions to preserve democratic governance and human rights, a functioning market economy, and that it accepts the obligations and intent of the EU. 41 Melanie H. Ram (2010), Interests, Norms and Advocacy: Explaining the Emergence of the Roma onto the EU’s Agenda. “Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics” Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 208. 42 Th e ERRC continues to prepare for the European Commission submissions on the situation of Roma in the current candidate countries, such as Croatia, who joined the EU in 2013, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey. 18 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People governments produced medium- and long-term “Roma strategies” as a sign of political commitment; however, in the daily lives of Roma, little has changed. Relying on the by-now classic schema of Risse-Ropp-Sikkink, the following chart recapitulates the fl ow of norm socialisation in the case of the Hungary – the thicker the arrow the stronger the infl uence43:

Council of Europe

OSCE European Union

Hungarian government NGO

Hungarian associations

Figure 1. Transnational norm socialisation in the course of EU enlargement

Paradoxically, aft er their adhesion to the EU, the infl uence of pro-Roma international actors on Eastern European governments decreased. To maintain the governments’ political commitment, the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005–2015 programme (hereaft er Decade) was launched. Th e Decade is a unique international initiative, formulated by the most important non- -governmental and intergovernmental actors,44 whose states were encouraged to join on a voluntary basis.

43 Th omas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (1999), Th e Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Márton Rövid (2004), L’ i n fl uence des acteurs internationaux sur la position des Rom en Hongrie: analyse critique d’un segment de la société civile mondiale. Paris: Mémoire de DEA, Relations Internationales, Institute d’Etudes Politiques. 44 Namely the Open Society Institute, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, the Council of Europe, the Council of the European Development Bank, the Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues, the European Roma Information Offi ce, the European Roma and Traveller Forum, and the European Roma Rights Centre. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 19

Th e Decade member states have to demonstrate political commitment to improving the socio-economic status and social inclusion of Roma by developing a national Decade Action Plan, specifying goals and indicators in four priority areas: education, employment, health, and housing. Learning from the failures of national Roma strategies draft ed by the Eastern European governments in the enlargement period, the Decade incorporated a “transparent and quantifi able” review of the progress of the Decade Action Plans. However, the Decade Secretariat realised halfway into the programme that

a lack of data about Roma communities remains the biggest obstacle to conducting any thorough assessment of how governments are meeting their Decade commitments, despite widespread agreement among participating governments about the crucial need to generate data disaggregated for ethnicity in order to assess and guide policies.45

Moreover, sociological research results revealed deterioration, not progress, in certain priority areas in the Decade countries.46 By 2008–2009, the very limited achievements of the Decade became apparent,47 and the pro-Roma microcosm turned its attention and vested its hopes in the EU again. Th e most infl uential NGOs in this fi eld48 – with the support of the Open Society Institute – formed the European Roma Policy Coalition and called for more active involvement of the EU. Th e EU, as a sui generis international actor, possesses legal and fi nancial means, unparalleled by any other international organisation, to coordinate and facilitate common policies. As for the former, the EU provides a comprehensive legal framework complementing regular international public law. Th e so-called Anti-discrimination49 and Citizenship50 directives are of particular importance in relation to Roma.

45 No Data – No Progress. Country Findings. Open Society Foundations, 2010. 46 For instance, a survey carried out by the Open Society Institute suggests that in some member states, only a limited number of Roma children complete primary school and that Roma children tend to be over-represented in special education and segregated schools. Open Society Institute (2008), International Comparative Data Set on Roma Education. http://www.romadecade.org/egy- cikk.php?hir_id=8546 (accessed on 14 April 2009). 47 Nikoleta Popkostadinova (2011), Little to Celebrate Halfway through Europe’s “Roma Decade.” “Balkan Insight” 11.07.2011. 48 Amnesty International, European Roma Rights Centre, European Roma Information Offi ce, Open Society Foundations, European Network Against Racism, Minority Rights Group International, European Roma Grassroots Organizations Network, Policy Centre for Roma and Minorities, Roma Education Fund, Fundación Secretariado Gitano. 49 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. 50 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. 20 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Th e EU also possesses substantial fi nancial instruments overshadowing those of intergovernmental organisations. Th e Structural and Cohesion Funds redistributed €347 billion in the period 2007–2013. Within the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund – with an overall budget of €76 billion for the same period – is supposed to endorse the social integration of Roma. In addition, the EU provides an institutional framework for policy coordination and learning in such crucial areas as social inclusion, employment, health care, and education. In 2008 and 2010, top level politicians expressed their commitment to the cause at the EU Roma Summit. In 2011, aft er several resolutions and recommendations, under the Hungarian EU Presidency, the main EU bodies (the Parliament, the Commission, and the Council) launched the EU Framework for National Integration Strategies up to 2020. Th e recent eff orts represent the third wave of Roma strategies developed by Eastern European governments under the pressure of the pro-Roma actors and the EU. Similarly to the fi rst EU pre-accession phase, joining the recent initiative is quasi-mandatory for Eastern European states, but at the moment it seems unlikely that Western European states with signifi cant Roma populations (UK, France, Italy) will get on board. Th e EU Framework strategy can be seen as a revival of the Decade of Roma Inclusion which now will be transformed into an EU policy agenda.

EU Pre-Accession Decade of Roma EU Framework Inclusion Strategy

• from the late • 2005−2015 • the result 1990s to the early • voluntary of long lobbying 2000s (ongoing commitment by pro-Roma for countries of member states actors of the Western • low influence (2008−2011) Balkans) of NGOs • only EU member • major leverage • encompassing states but unclear of pro-Roma actors Western Balkans whether Western by incorporating and Spain European states the “Roma issue” in addition will join in the criteria to Eastern Europe for EU accession • only Eastern Europe EU candidates

Figure 2. Three waves of external pressure on national governments to tackle the plight of Roma The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 21

2.4. The emergence of a transnational advocacy network

Th e democratic transition of the early 1990s and the factors discussed above opened political opportunities for mobilisation. Roma activism boomed aft er the collapse of the state socialist regimes, which had limited the rights of assembly and association. Aft er 1989, Roma themselves could establish various associations, foundations, political parties, and even minority self-governments in certain countries.51 At the same time, pro-Roma NGOs, run by non-Roma but lobbying on behalf of Roma, burgeoned. Aft er the fall of the Berlin Wall, well-established NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch began publicising violations of Romani people’s human rights. By the mid-1990s, national human rights NGOs had emerged – such as the Human Rights Project in Bulgaria, the Citizen’s Solidarity and Tolerance Movement in the Czech Republic, the Union for Peace and Human Rights in Slovakia, and the Offi ce for the Protection of National and Ethnic Minorities in Hungary. Th eir determination to pursue legal cases has led to dismissals and criminal proceedings against corrupt or abusive policemen and other offi cials, and the prosecution of those responsible for attacks against Roma, etc.52 A key pro-Roma actor is the Open Society Institute (OSI). Th e OSI provides fi nancial and institutional support for Roma-related activities and organisations, operates its own programmes aimed at building Romani representation and leadership directly, and plays a key role in international initiatives, such as the Decade of Roma Inclusion and the EU Roma Framework Strategy.53 Th e leading international NGO dedicated specifi cally to combating human rights abuse of Roma, the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), was founded with the fi nancial support of the OSI in 1996. Th eir activities comprise strategic litigation to reverse patterns of human rights abuse, submitting shadow reports to international bodies monitoring international conventions, and organising various forms of human rights education. Th e US-based Project on Ethnic Relations (PER), operating in Eastern European countries, has organised roundtable discussions on key issues (self- -government, governmental policies, migration, etc.), brought together activists, experts, and politicians, and thus played a vital role in the emergence of pro-Roma network of organisations.

51 Márton Rövid, Angéla Kóczé (2012), Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting Out For, With or Instead of Roma? In: Mary Kaldor, Henrietta L. Moore, Sabine Selchow (eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Refl ection. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 52 Bárány, op. cit. 53 Both are discussed below. 22 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Due to both the advocacy activity of the strengthening pro-Roma microcosm and the fear of westward mass migration of Roma, international organisations have turned their attention to the “plight of Roma” as well. First, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe produced reports, made recommendations, and established special bodies in order to tackle the “Roma issue.” Initially, so-called expert bodies were created, such as the Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues within the OSCE and the Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers within the Council of Europe (both were founded in 1995). Later, attempts were made to create more “representative” bodies comprising Roma themselves, and thus the European Roma and Travellers Forum was created under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 2004 and the Platform for Roma Inclusion within the EU in 2008. Local, national, and international NGOs alongside the special bodies formed a transnational advocacy network, aiming at infl uencing government policies vis-à-vis Roma.54 In the last 10–15 years, the engaged international organisations produced a myriad of reports, declarations, recommendations, and resolutions in relation to Roma (or nomads – as they were called until the 1990s).55 Th ese, oft en inconsistent,56 documents attempt to identify specifi c problems that Romani communities face and make non-binding propositions and general recommendations to remedy these problems.

54 Margaret Keck, Kathryn Sikkink (1998), Activists Beyond Borders. Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 55 Balázs Majtényi, Balázs Vizi (eds.) (2006), A Minority in Europe. Selected International Documents Regarding the Roma. Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó; Anna Marchand (2001), La protection des droits des Tsiganes dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui: éléments de l’approche internationale. Paris: Harmattan; Helen O’Nions (2007), Minority Rights Protection in International Law: Th e Roma of Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate. 56 Early documents, such as the 1995 Report on Th e Situation of Gypsies (Roma and Sinti) in Europe prepared for the Council of Europe contained romantic and essentialist views such as “the increasing mobility since 1990 […] is merely a return to the normal mobility of Gypsies.” Later documents were more balanced; although, they also talk about Roma in general (usually recognising their heterogeneity only in a footnote). The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 23

3. Contemporary struggle for transnational recognition and self-determination

In the 1990s and 2000s, Romani actors continued to struggle for the transnational recognition of the Roma nation. Th e International Romani Union elaborated its concept of a Romani non-territorial nation, while new actors – namely the Roma National Congress (the RNC) and the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) – emerged, challenging IRU’s monopoly on representing “the Roma of the world.”

3.1. The emergence of the notion of a non-territorial nation

Th e Fourth World Romani Congress in 1990 was symbolically placed in Eastern Europe. It was held in Serock, near Warsaw, and was sponsored partially by UNESCO. According to diff erent sources, Roma representatives from 18, 20, 24 or 28 countries attended the Congress. An important presence was the great number of Roma from Eastern Europe. Th e majority of Roma live in Eastern Europe and, in socialist times, a new Roma elite was formed in these countries, more or less distant from Roma in Western Europe. Th e infl ux of this fresh power gave new dimensions to the international Roma movement. Among the materials approved by the Fourth Congress of IRU, of interest to us is the concept that Roma are citizens of the countries they live in and, at the same time, they have to look for their own place in a future united Europe. Th e fi rst part of this concept was determined by the relatively higher degree of social integration of Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, while the second part is a response to the Euro-Atlantic integration of the region. Th e process of searching for a place for Gypsies in European integration saw the emergence of the concept of Roma as a “trans-border/national minority.” Th is concept was introduced for the fi rst time in 1991, at a meeting in Ostia near Rome (Italy). At that time, a great deal of hope for improving the social status of Roma and solving their numerous problems in Central and Eastern Europe, which arose or were aggravated as a result of the diffi - cult transition period, was vested in international law and European institutions in particular. When the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined the Framework Convention for National Minorities and Roma were given the status of a national minority in most of these countries, yet no considerable positive change followed for Roma, the disappointment led them to seek new 24 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People ideas for the development of the Roma community.57 Th e concept of Roma as a “nation without a state” was a logical consequence of these developments.58 Aft er the Fift h Congress of IRU in July 2000 in Prague, this concept became the leading one. Th e programme of future activities of the organisation is dedicated to the concept of Roma as a “nation without a state.” IRU offi cially presented itself as a leading institution representing the Roma nation before international institutions. Recognising that only states represent nations in international fora, IRU attempted to transform itself into a state-like body by establishing such organs as a Congress, Parliament, Presidium, and Court of Justice.59 Moreover, IRU demanded a seat in the General Assembly (GA) of the UN. Although they did not get the seat, IRU did achieve Permanent Observer Status at the GA and consultative status at various other UN bodies (Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, Children’s Fund, treaties supervisory bodies).60

3.2. The role of the Roma National Congress

In the 1980s, activists and organisations opposing the deportation of Polish and Yugoslav Roma refugee families from Germany formed a network. A prominent fi gure of the network was Rudko Kawczynski (himself a stateless Rom, who migrated from Poland to Germany) and his Hamburg-based organisation Rom & Cinti Union.61 Th eir activist repertoire featured marches, the occupation of churches and former concentration camps, hunger strikes, and border blockades. Members of this network criticised the main Roma and Sinti organisation of Germany (Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma) for advocating only on behalf of German Roma and Sinti, but neglecting Roma immigrants. Th e Zentralrat maintained that Roma and Sinti were ethnic German communities, whereas their critics fought for granting “de facto stateless” Roma the right to apply for residence permits outside the formal framework of asylum or immigration procedures.62

57 Marushiakova and Popov, op. cit., p. 81. 58 Th e concept of the Roma as a nation without a state was suggested and developed in many articles by a non-Roma, Paolo Pietrosanti from Italy, an infl uential member of the Transnational Radical Party co-opted in the IRU leadership as early as in the mid-1990s. Others trace the idea of a “transnational or non-territorial minority” back to the French sociologist Jean-Pierre Liégeois. Guy, op. cit.. 59 See the International Romani Union Charter cited in Acton and Klímová, op. cit. 60 Klímová-Alexander, op. cit. 61 Yaron Matras (1998), Th e Development of the Romani Civil Rights Movement in Germany 1945–1996. In: Susan Tebbutt (ed.), Sinti and Roma in German-Speaking Society and Literature. Oxford: Berghahn, p. 57. 62 Ibid., p. 55. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 25

Th e main division between Zentralrat and their critics was that the former advocated the integration of Roma and Sinti into German society as equal citizens, whereas the latter argued that Roma were “de facto stateless” and developed a “pan-European Romani nationalism which crossed the traditional boundaries of clan-structure, tribal affi liation, and country of origin.”63

Th e new movement sought outside intervention from European, American, and Israeli politicians, international human rights organisations and multilateral institutions, such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations, declaring itself to be in opposition to state policy and even to some key constitutional concepts in Germany, such as the combination of nationhood, citizenship, and ethnicity.64

Zentralrat, on the other hand, “regarded the statelessness argumentation as a setback and return to the undesirable image of Roma as «homeless nomads,» and as one which, in eff ect, challenged the reintegration ideology upon which the Zentralrat was founded.”65 Matras notes that “in Germany pan-European Romani nationalism did not emerge via the intellectual channel of the International Romani Union or the World Romani Congress in Gottingen in 1981, but ultimately through independent, local grassroots work with refugees.”66 In 1990, at a congress in Mülheim/Ruhr, there was an attempt to create a European Romani umbrella organisation under the name EUROM. In 1993, the RNC called for a European Romani Rights Charter which would grant Roma political representation as a European nation.67 Kawczynski, however, had no connection with IRU, since Nicolae Gheorghe notes that with his followers he broke away from IRU as early as in the mid- -1980s. In May 1990, he openly confronted the IRU leadership during the Fourth World Roma Congress held in Serock, near Warsaw. In the same year, he initiated the establishment of the Roma National Congress (the RNC), i.e. the Rom & Cinti Union renamed itself for international purposes.68 Only in the late 1990s was Kawczynski able to develop the RNC into an international umbrella organisation. In 1997–1998, as the director of the Open Society Institute’s Roma Participation Programme, “he turned the RNC into

63 Ibid., p. 58. 64 Ibidem. 65 Ibid., p. 59. 66 Ibid., p. 60. 67 Ibid., p. 62. 68 Ibidem; Nicolae Gheorghe (2013), Choices to Be Made and Prices to Be Paid: Potential Roles and Consequences in Roma Activism and Policy Making. In: András Bíró, Nicolae Gheorghe, Martin Kovats et al., From Victimhood to Citizenship. Th e Path of Roma Integration. A Debate, Will Guy (ed.). Budapest: Kossuth. 26 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People a broader international network comprised mostly of activists whose NGOs were funded by the same OSI offi ce.”69 It is important to highlight that the roots of the RNC go back to advocating on behalf of Roma asylum seekers who do not enjoy citizenship rights, being de jure or de facto stateless. Transnational recognition and protection is of particular importance to such groups.70 Gheorghe argues that, in the 1990s, the main role of the radical RNC was to remind the Roma movement of its initial rights-oriented, militant agenda. Th e RNC contributed to the reform and revitalisation of IRU, as well as the reinforcement of political symbolism and the adoption of the manifesto Declaration of Nation at the Fift h World Romani Congress.71

3.3. The Declaration of Nation

Th e Fift h World Romani Congress adopted a document entitled Declaration of Nation.72 Th e manifesto advances three interrelated claims. Firstly, the document calls for the international recognition of the stateless Roma nation. Th e manifesto pronounces that “we are the Nation of individuals”, who share the same origin, traditions, culture, and language.73 Th e text also alludes to a shared history of discrimination, marginalisation, and persecution, as well as the “forgotten Holocaust.” Th e Declaration calls for a new way of representation of Roma “apart from their belonging to one or to another nation.” In other words, the authors deem the representation of Roma by the states in which they live to be insuffi cient. Th e manifesto declares that Roma want to make their voice heard and wish to participate in international politics. Secondly, the manifesto claims that the Roma nation off ers to the rest of humanity a new vision of stateless nationhood that is better suited to a globalised world than affi liation to traditional nation-states. Th e authors explicitly refer to contemporary debates on the “adequacy of the State to the changing

69 Jud Nirenberg (2009), Romani Political Mobilisation from the First International Romani Union Congress to the European Roma, Sinti, and Travellers Forum. In: Nidhi Trehan, Nando Sigona (eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization, and the Neo-Liberal Order. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 101. 70 Lukas H. Meyer (2001), Transnational Autonomy: Responding to Historical Injustice in the Case of the Saami and Roma Peoples. “International Journal on Minority and Group Rights” Vol. 8, No. 2–3. 71 Gheorghe, Choices to Be Made… 72 Although according to Acton and Klímová, the manifesto was issued aft er the Congress itself so the delegates did not approve it. Acton and Klímová, op. cit., p. 198. 73 More than half of the population considered in general Roma by the International Romani Union is excluded as they do not speak any dialect of Romani. Yaron Matras (2002), Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 27 needs of the global society” involving “prominent personalities in Europe and in the entire UN Community.” Furthermore, the manifesto points out that the coupling of state and nation “has led and is leading to tragedies and wars, disasters, and massacres.” Th e Roma nation off ers an alternative vision of stateless, non-territorial nationhood, demonstrating that national identity can be maintained and cultivated without creating a nation-state.74 Th e manifesto implies that all (trans-border) stateless nations should have the right to international recognition and representation. Th irdly, the manifesto envisions a cosmopolitan order which is able to “assure democracy, freedom, liberty to each and everybody”, i.e. a “world in where the international Charters on Human Rights are Laws, are peremptory rules, providing exigible [sic!] rights.” Th e manifesto claims that the Romani experience testifi es to the need for creating a truly global – not interstate – law, since the international community has not been able to implement their individual and collective rights when unmediated by states. Th e Declaration does not specify what institutions should protect the exercise of human rights, but the authors believe that the Romani request for representation as a stateless non-territorial nation could become a catalyst for the debate on the reform of the existing international institutions and rules, in a quest for a world in which the rights of all individuals are ensured by laws enforced by adequate supranational institutions.

3.4. The quest for legitimacy

Th e discourse of Roma representing a unique non-territorial nation has gradually been embraced by scholars, activists, and policy-makers. Th e prominent pro-Roma activist-scholar Th omas Acton with the key Romani activist and policy-maker Nicolae Gheorghe declared in 2001: “Unlike the common situation of ethnic minorities who are more or less confi ned to certain territories or regions, Romani communities are dispersed both within and across the boundaries of countries, states and continents in a world-wide diaspora.”75 Similarly, Zoltán Bárány, the author of a monograph on Romani activism, maintains: “Th e uniqueness of the Gypsies lies in the fact they are a transnational, non-territorially based people who do not have a «home a state» to

74 It is to be noted that this claim is based on the dubious declaration that Roma have never looked for a territory or their own state. As discussed earlier, several (self-appointed) Roma leaders actively sought the creation of an independent state, Romanestan, the land of Roma. 75 Th omas Acton, Nicolae Gheorghe (2001), Citizens of the World and Nowhere: Minority, Ethnic and Human Rights for Roma. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future…, p. 63. 28 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People provide a haven or extend protection to them.”76 In 1993, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe declared:

A special place among the minorities is reserved for Gypsies. Living scattered all over Europe, not having a country to call their own, they are a true European minority, but one that does not fi t into the defi nitions of national or linguistic minorities. As a non-territorial minority, Gypsies greatly contribute to the cultural diversity of Europe.77

Th e proliferation of recommendations and resolutions on Roma has been coupled with the mushrooming of private and public bodies advocating on their behalf. By the end of the 1990s, such private bodies included the International Romani Union, the Roma National Congress, and the European Roma Rights Centre; public bodies included the Contact for Roma and Sinti Issues (within the OSCE) and the Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers (within the CoE). Th e democratic legitimacy of these bodies has been increasingly questioned. On whose behalf do they speak and on what grounds? Concerning IRU, few of the “delegates” at the World Roma Congress were democratically elected; it remains unclear who they represent and on what grounds. Furthermore, the delegates’ role in the World Congresses is limited: it is a small circle of activists who deliberate and make decisions.78 Jud Nirenberg claims that IRU “has always had an engaged membership limited to less than one hundred persons [...] as the organisation has gone years at a stretch without meeting for its general membership, its active members were typically less than ten people.”79 Concerning pro-Roma NGOs, their overwhelming majority do not have membership, they are funded by private foundations (mostly the Open Society Institute), and they comprise of professionals. Furthermore, the hegemonic human rights approach of pro-Roma NGOs was criticised for neglecting the real needs of Romani communities. Critics pointed out that such NGOs are accountable to their donors, but not to the communities on whose behalf they advocate; consequently, they have no mandate to speak for Roma.80 As it was pointed out in the report of the Project on Ethnic Relations, “[i]n the place of political organisations, rapidly developing Romani civil society groups are oft en taken to represent the community’s interests. A variety of advocacy networks

76 Bárány, op. cit., p. 2. 77 Council of Europe, Assembly Recommendation 1203 (1993) on Gypsies of Europe. 78 Bárány, op. cit., p. 258. 79 Nirenberg, op. cit., p. 99. 80 Bárány, op. cit.; Nidhi Trehan (2001), In the Name of the Roma? Th e Role of Private Foundations and NGOs. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future…; Nidhi Trehan (2009), Th e Romani Subaltern Within Neoliberal European Civil Society: NGOization of Human Rights and Silent Voices. In: Nidhi Trehan, Nando Sigona (eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe… The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 29 have been substituting for genuine political representation that is accountable to its constituency.”81 Th e public bodies are administrative units within international organisations comprised of international public servants. Although such experts are appointed public offi cials, they are still oft en seen as providing “the voice of Roma” in policy-making processes. A lack of accountability of these pro-Roma bodies resulted in an increasing demand – on the part of Roma activists, international policy-makers, and scholars – for the creation of a legitimate body. Project on Ethnic Relations (PER), a US-based NGO, on several occasions brought together Romani activists and politicians to discuss the main challenges of Romani political participation and representation.82 Two prominent Romani activists, Gheorghe and Mirga, wrote in 1997:

Th e Romani movement itself will need to create a legitimate representation that can bridge the gap between the narrow and oft en self-appointed Romani elites and the inactive Romani masses. Democratic procedures off er a possible solution; the Romani community should select representatives at all levels via democratic elections. And legitimate representation at the international level should be drawn from among those elected to national parliaments. Such a core group of Romani parliamentarians can be rightly recognised as legitimate partners for international organisations.83

In addition to the primary objective of creating an elected representative body, some people wanted a new organisation to redistribute aid to the poor, whereas

Kawczynski believed the end goal to be the establishment of a European-wide charter that would commit all European governments to aff ording the Roma certain collective rights. He saw a unifi ed and legitimate (elected) European-level body of Roma as the best means of draft ing and arguing for such a charter.84

81 Project on Ethnic Relations (2004), Roma and EU Accession: Elected and Appointed Romani Representatives in an Enlarged Europe. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. 82 Project on Ethnic Relations: Self-Government in Hungary: Th e Gypsy/Romani Experience and Prospects for the Future (1997); State Policies Toward the Romani Communities in the Candidate Countries to the EU: Government and Romani Participation in Policy-Making (1999); Roundtable Discussion of Government Policies on the Roma in Romania (1999); Political Participation and the Roma in Hungary and Slovakia (1999); Roma and Elections in Romania (2000); Leadership, Representation, and the Status of the Roma (2002); Romani Representation and Leadership at National and International Levels (2001); Roma and the Question of Self-Determination: Fiction and Reality (2003); Roma and EU Accession: Elected and Appointed Romani Representatives in an Enlarged Europe (2004); Romani Politics Present and Future (2006). 83 Nicolae Gheorghe, Andrzej Mirga (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. 84 Nirenberg, op. cit., p. 103. 30 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

3.5. The European Roma and Travellers Forum

In the 1990s, two organisations competed for representing Roma: IRU and the RNC. In 2000, at the initiative of the CPRSI (and Nicolae Gheorghe), the International Roma Contact Group was set up, involving representatives of both IRU and the RNC, as well as other prominent Romani fi gures and experts.85 Th is structure began negotiations with the Finnish authorities concerning the creation of a pan-European Roma body. Since 2001, the Finnish government has represented the cause before various bodies of the Council of Europe, which resulted in the creation of the European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) in 2004. Although some wished for the ERTF to become a European Parliament of Roma, akin to the Saami Parliament whose members could join on a voluntary basis in order to be eligible to vote,86 eventually – under the infl uence of the French diplomacy – ERTF was registered as an international NGO, being a “special partner” of the Council of Europe and aiming to establish similarly close relations with the EU, OSCE, and UN.87 Th e ERTF “represents the populations of Roma, Sinti, Kalé, Travellers, and related groups in Europe.”88

Th e Forum is based on the principle of representative democracy where national umbrella organisations and international Roma NGOs selected their delegates who represent their interests at the plenary assembly in Strasbourg. Th eir decisions are enacted by the Executive Committee and the Forum’s President who sets the guidelines of the Forum’s work.89

In practice, each Council of Europe member state having a Romani population can delegate one national umbrella organisation to the ERTF. Th ose national umbrella organisations are supposed “to represent at least 75% of all established and offi cially registered and representative structures [of Romani] populations.”90 Each umbrella organisation has up to three delegates, depending on the size of Romani population in a given country. Since representative umbrella organisations or elected Roma leaders exist in few countries, the democratic legitimacy of several present national delegates is dubious. It was hoped that the ERTF created standards and precedents for

85 Liégeois, op. cit., p. 250. 86 Nicolae Gheorghe (2010), Activism, Advocacy and Research: Roma, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK and Europe. Paper given at the conference “Romani Mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary Perspectives,” University of Oxford, Refugee Studies Centre, 15 January 2010. 87 http://www.ertf.ro/viz/About%20ERTF/1-0/en (accessed on 14 September 2011). 88 Article 1.2. of the Statute available at http://www.ertf.ro/viz/Statute/4/en (accessed on 14 Septem- ber 2011). 89 Ibidem. 90 Article 5.1. of the Statute of the ERTF. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 31

Romani associations on how to form a national forum appointing a select number of people to attend the general assembly of the ERTF.91 In addition, there are international members, which are International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) “whose aims are compatible with those of the Forum, which have been active for at least four years, have affi li- ates/members in at least 10 member States of the Council of Europe and are fi nancially independent of government funds.”92 Today, the ERTF is the single largest and most representative Romani institution in Europe. Several hundred local organisations spread over almost every CoE country chose to affi liate with it.93 However, the ERTF suff ers from various defi ciencies. First and foremost, being a consultative partner of the CoE, its powers are limited. It can only exert infl uence on an international organisation whose leverage over national governments is very limited compared to that of the European Union. Moreover, not even the Council of Europe seeks its expertise, let alone bases its work upon its recommendations. In practice, CoE policies towards Roma are still made by the Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers. “Th e ERTF is formally recognised as nothing more than one of many Romani NGOs out there which may at times be asked for an opinion.”94 Second, the unique shape of the forum remains unclear, even to many of the delegates. Nirenberg notes that

members of the RNC and IRU oft en misunderstood or misinterpreted their role in and in relation to [national umbrella] organisation. […] Most ERTF participants do not know the structure, the rules or terminology of the organisation […]. Many ERTF participants fi rst joined the organisation assuming that the ERTF had money to distribute; they had little formal education that would help them make sense of European politics and institutions.95

Th ird, the ERTF, similarly to other Romani international bodies, “rapidly developed honorary titles to every ego,”96 and also granted permanent seats in the general assembly to the original founders and board members who were meant to hold their special status only until the day of the ERTF’s fi rst general assembly. Although the general assembly is supposed to be made up of rep-

91 Gheorghe, Activism, Advocacy and Research…; Nirenberg, op. cit. 92 Currently, the ERTF has the following international members: the International Romani Union, Roma National Congress, East Meets West – Roma Youth Network, Forum of European Roma Young People, International Roma Women Network, Gypsies and Travellers International Evangelical Fellowship, Th e Romani Churches of the International Roma Evangelical Mission. 93 Nirenberg, op. cit., p. 107. 94 Ibidem. 95 Ibid., pp. 106, 112. 96 Ibid., p. 106. 32 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People resentative national delegates, “in practice it is made up largely of individuals with a kind of emeritus status.”97 Fourth, democratic deliberation and decision-making, as determined in the statute, are not functioning properly. “Th e policies and statements of the ERTF are mostly decided by a small circle of top function-holders, such as the president, two deputies, treasurer, and secretary general. […] Th e ERTF usually chooses its policies, advocacy strategies and priorities without its membership.”98 Similarly to the earlier international Romani bodies, there is a perverse “reverse legitimacy”: the ERTF delegates’ legitimacy is not based on their national constituency, but Romani leaders seek “the title” of the ERTF to gain prestige and the attention of governments, donors and journalists:

At the 2006 annual assembly, delegates repeatedly asked the ERTF’s top leadership to give out identity cards that delegates could use to prove that they «represent the ERTF.» Th e board members explained again and again – without success – that delegates do not represent the ERTF. Th ey represent their national fora to the ERTF.99

3.6. The ERTF Charter on the Rights of the Roma

One of the main achievements of the ERTF was the adoption of the Charter on the Rights of the Roma100 in 2009. Such a charter was fi rst proposed by the RNC in 1994.101 Th e Charter follows the structure of human rights declarations being divided into a preamble and a list of rights, although several claims are formulated in both parts. Th e text affi rms that Roma form a “pan-European national minority, without a kin-state”102 having roots in the Indian subcontinent. Th e Charter defi nes a Roma in the fi rst article as one “who avows oneself to the common historical Indo-Greek origin, who avows oneself to the common language of Romanes, who avows oneself to the common cultural heritage of the Romanipe.”103 Th e text highlights the right to self-determination including

the right to cultivate one’s cultural autonomy, the right to freely promote our economic, social, and cultural development and to select our partners, projects, and programmes

97 Ibid., p. 107. 98 Ibid., p. 109. 99 Ibid., p. 110. 100 ERTF (2009), ERTF, Charter on the Rights of the Roma. http://www.ertf.org/index.php/documents/ charter-on-the-rights-of-the-roma (accessed on 18 May 2013). 101 Aidan McGarry (2010), Who Speaks for Roma? Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community. New York: Continuum, p. 144. 102 Charter on the Rights of the Roma, Preamble, point 23. 103 Ibid., Article 1. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 33

on our own and, where appropriate, implement them as well; the right to decide on our representation free of any kind of obstruction or discrimination and to vote on it democratically.104

Th e Charter explicitly criticises the view of Roma “as a social fringe group, as a social problem that is to be «integrated» by means of disciplinary measures and state repression.”105 On several occasions, the Charter stresses that “the traditional adherence to experts and specialists deciding on our fate constitutes a blatant infringement of any kind of peoples’ right of self-determination.”106 Most articles request states to guarantee the fundamental rights of Roma, such as the physical and mental integrity, liberty, and security of Roma,107 the right not be subjected to forced assimilation or to abandonment or destruction of their culture,108 measures that counteract stereotypes, prejudices, and hate campaigns,109 the right to establish their own media in their native tongue,110 including Roma history and culture in mainstream school curricula,111 ending school segregation112 and discrimination in employment.113 Furthermore, some articles call on the EU, OSCE, and CoE to support member states and guarantee the fundamental rights of Roma,114 as well as to act as role models by employing more Roma.115 Th e Charter appeals to the EU “to ensure that Structural Funds, as well as Social Funds, are used to support disadvantaged regions of the EU in which particularly large numbers of Roma live.”116 Th e Charter calls upon Roma “to actively participate in the political processes in their states”117 and upon states to ensure the formation of a national Roma umbrella alliance/forum which should be granted a seat in the national state’s parliament.118 In brief, similarly to the Declaration of Nation, the ERTF Charter embraces the vision of a unifi ed, stateless, non-territorial Roma nation. However, as

104 Ibid., Article 6. 105 Ibid., Preamble, point 4. 106 Ibid., Preamble, point 20. 107 Ibid., Article 8. 108 Ibid., Article 9. 109 Ibid., Article 11, 12. 110 Ibid., Article 14. 111 Ibid., Article 15. 112 Ibid., Article 18. 113 Ibid., Article 19. 114 Ibid., Article 16. 115 Ibid., Article 17. 116 Ibid., Article 16. 117 Ibid., Article 20. 118 Ibid., Article 24. 34 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People opposed to the radical cosmopolitanism of the Declaration, the Charter perceives the state as the main guarantor of the rights of Roma and recognises the importance of state-level policies and politics.

3.7. Participation in drafting the EU Framework Strategy for Roma Inclusion

Although the ERTF appears to be the most representative European Roma body, its role has been very limited in the most important recent development, which was the adoption of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies. Neither in the minutes of the fi rst fi ve platform meetings119 nor in the annual reports of the ERTF120 was I able to fi nd any evidence suggest- ing that the ERTF was offi cially represented at any of the platforms121 even though, at the Second European Roma Summit (held in Cordoba in April 2010), the President of the ERTF urged the European Commission to “cooperate with the ERTF in the draft ing of a comprehensive European Roma Strategy with the aim of placing Roma on the same footing as their fellow non-Roma citizens.”122 Th e EU did not recognise the ERTF as a special negotiating partner representing the Roma of Europe, but rather signed a partnership framework agreement with the European Roma Information Offi ce (ERIO), a Brussels- -based pro-Roma advocacy organisation, and created its own consultative structure, the EU Platform for Roma Inclusion. Th e Platform was described as

an open and fl exible environment organised by the Commission and the EU Presidency at the request of the Council in which key actors – EU institutions, national governments, international organisations, NGOs and experts – can interact and formulate strategic advice for decision-makers on the eff ective inclusion of Roma aspects into European and national policies. It is not a formal body, but rather a process driven by participants.123

119 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma/roma-platform/index_en.htm (accessed on 18 September 2011). 120 http://www.ertf.org/en/documents/reports-position-papers.html (accessed on 18 September 2011). 121 Th e 2009 Annual Report of the ERTF confi rms that the President of the ERTF was not invited to the second platform meeting, held in September 2009 in Brussels. Annual Report on the European Roma and Travellers Forum Activities (2009). http://www.ertf.org/images/stories/documents/ ERTF_Annual_Report_2009.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2011). 122 Annual Report on the European Roma and Travellers Forum Activities covering the period from 1st November 2009 to 30th September 2010. Annual Report on the European Roma and Travellers Forum Activities (2010). http://www.ertf.org/images/stories/documents/ERTF_Annual_REP_2010_EN.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2011). 123 EU Platform for Roma Inclusion (2009), Press Release, MEMO/09/193, Prague, 24 April 2009. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 35

In 2008, the most infl uential NGOs in this fi eld124 formed the European Roma Policy Coalition (the ERPC) to advocate for more active involvement of the EU. Th e ECPR has been involved in the work of the Platform since its meeting held in April 2009 under the Czech presidency, where the 10 Common Principles of Roma Inclusion125 were adopted. Th e second of these principles has implied “focusing on Roma people as a target group, but not the exclusion of other people who share similar socio-economic circumstances.”126 Th is essentially means that the EU subscribed to the social inclusion approach concentrating on “the poverty of geographically concentrated post-transitional rural and suburban underclass to which the majority of EU’s Roma population is directly subject to or indirectly threatened by.”127 Th e EU bodies evaded the Europeanisation of the “Roma issue,” i.e. proclaim- ing the primacy of a European solution, for instance, in the form of a European Roma policy. Rather, the Platform affi rmed the primary responsibility of the member states for Roma inclusion and designated a more restrictive role for European bodies in supporting and coordinating the member states in the process of implementing policies to improve the situation of Roma.

Th is coordination of national policies supports benchmarking and mutual learning and considerable resources in the framework of the EU Structural Funds can be mobilised to implement these policies. Also, the European Commission is determined to act where it has the competence, in particular by ensuring that the legislation already in force (the Race Equality Directive) is properly applied.128

124 Amnesty International, European Roma Rights Centre, European Roma Information Offi ce, Open Society Foundations, European Network Against Racism, Minority Rights Group International, European Roma Grassroots Organisations Network, Policy Center for Roma and Minorities, Roma Education Fund, Fundación Secretariado Gitano. 125 1. Constructive, pragmatic, and non-discriminatory policies; 2. Explicit but not exclusive targeting; 3. Intercultural approach; 4. Aiming for the mainstream; 5. Awareness of the gender dimension; 6. Transfer of evidence-based policies; 7. Use of community instruments; 8. Involvement of regional and local authorities; 9. Involvement of civil society; 10. Active participation of the Roma. 126 Employment and Social Aff airs Ministers of the EU (2009), Conclusions on the Inclusion of the Roma, 10394/09, 28 May 2009. 127 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Aff airs (2010), Working Document on the EU Strategy on the Social Inclusion of Roma, Rapporteur: Lívia Járóka, 28 September 2010. 128 EU Platform for Roma Inclusion (2009), Press Release, MEMO/09/193, Prague, 24 April 2009. 36 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Conclusion

Th is chapter provided an overview of the emergence of the “transnational Roma movement” and presented the main actors speaking on behalf of Roma from medieval Gypsy Kings to the contemporary European Roma and Traveller Forum. Th e present “movement” is dominated by professional NGOs and consultative bodies under the auspices of international organisations, while grassroots Romani associations remain weak and fragmented. A very thin layer of transnational Romani activist and professional elite has emerged, but an educated and well-off Roma middle class that could serve as the backbone of an autonomous Roma civil society is hardly perceptible. Th e self-appointed “delegates” of the International Romani Union lack democratic legitimacy; however, their main message cannot be dismissed. Th e Roma are second-class citizens in their home countries and within the EU: they are not equal before the law, as their human dignity and fundamental rights are violated on a daily basis without any sanctions; they are not equal members of the political community, as their values and interests are not represented at the local, national, or international level; and the noble ideal of an equally motivated and gift ed Roma having the same chance of realising their life plans as a non-Roma (in terms of profession, living conditions, leisure, etc.) remains a utopia. Th e pro-Roma movement plays a crucial role in raising awareness of the legal, political, and social marginalisation of Roma. However, Roma actors must lead the struggle for equality. Pro-Roma allies may support them in various ways, but replacing or outweighing Roma activists is counterproductive; it can only result in further marginalisation and demobilisation of Roma. The Genesis of the “Roma Issue” and the Transnational Roma Movement 37

List of abbreviations

CEE Central and Eastern Europe CoE Council of Europe CPRSI Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues within the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe EP European Parliament ERIO European Roma Information Offi ce ERPC European Roma Policy Coalition ERRC European Roma Rights Centre ERTF European Roma and Travellers Forum EU European Union INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation IR International Relations IRU International Romani Union MG-S-ROM Committee of Experts on Roma and Travellers within the Council of Europe MEP Member of European Parliament MP Member of Parliament NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSI Open Society Institute PER Project on Ethnic Relations RNC Roma National Congress UN United Nations

CHAPTER 1 Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement1

1 Trying to meet postulates of many Romany organizations and to be in accordance with recommendations of the European Union’s institutions, we generally use in this publication the term “Roma/Roma people,” understood as a political category, comprising the number of groups determined from the outside as “Gypsies” (which term is perceived by many Roma activists as pejorative and stigmatizing). It is irrespective of self-determinations preferred by these groups at any moment, provided they are coming from common ancestors, who migrated from India and in 10th–11th century arrived to Europe where the essential foundations of their culture were formed, however having a lot of local varieties. Such a convention emphasizes a sense of solidarity and community of groups diff erent in many respects, and also a sense of connection of contemporary Roma with those they believe to be their ancestors. Both of these feelings are stimulated by the Roma international movement.

1. Introduction

Th e new order that emerged in Europe aft er the First World War became a landmark for Roma. Th e processes linked to the downfall of empires and their replacement with national states, as well as the establishment of the communist Soviet Union, all aff ected the living conditions of Roma. New states, oft en formed in the peripheries of the fallen empires, were rapidly modernised, resulting in increased control of Roma by authorities, limited mobility (also as a result of the new political geography), and the disappearance of economic niches that formerly provided a livelihood. Th ese processes were exacerbated by ethnic nationalism that promoted the homogenous state, with political and territorial boundaries of particular communities matching their ethnic and cultural background.2 Within this model state, the existence of groups whose members defi ned themselves diff erently from the majority of society was a manifestation of the world’s defi ciencies. It meant that the unifying state and national strategies failed to work properly. Minorities, therefore, always constituted a problem for the nationalist vision of the world, even if they were small, non-threatening, and loyal to the dominant political structure.3 Simultaneously, the growing popularity of racist doctrines, searching for the hidden roots of specifi c social and cultural features of particular groups in their apparently distinct biological nature, resulted in reduced pressure on assimilation policies, increasingly perceived as, in principle, ineffi cient: if Roma identity is grounded in biology, it cannot be changed. Th e economic crisis in the years 1929–1933 rapidly raised unemployment rates and greatly encumbered social welfare systems. It also increased com- petitiveness in economic branches traditionally associated with Roma and heightened social tensions, as ethnic and national stereotypes spread and were increasingly more oft en accompanied by racist sentiments. However, the national revival in Central and Eastern Europe inspired Roma leaders to establish such organisations as the Popular Roma Association, created in 1926 in Romania and subsequently transformed into the General Union

2 Ernest Gellner (1983), Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 1. 3 Arjun Appadurai (2006), Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. Durham: Duke University Press. 42 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People of Romanian Roma People, or the Pan-Hellenic association of Greek Gypsies Ellinon Athinganon, established in 1939, as well as to publish literature in the Romani language. Unfortunately, their eff orts could not be fully successful due to a lack of experience of the activists, fi nancial problems, persisting anti-Roma prejudice, and a lack of understanding demonstrated by state authorities, which would rather control Romani people than cooperate with them. On the other hand, communism/socialism in its Marxist guise was based on an ideology that promised to solve all political, economic, and social problems; however, this approach ignored ethnic and national issues. Marxists were deeply convinced that divisions of the national kind generally belonged to the sphere of false consciousness, cynically abused by the ruling classes. According to Marxist ideology, the only signifi cant factor dividing people was their relation to the means of production, while ethnically-based divisions only served to conceal this economically-defi ned, worldwide antagonism. As a consequence, Marxists believed that divisions and confl icts of the national and ethnic kind would gradually vanish with the progress of the proletarian revolution and eventually cease to play any role once the perfect communist idea in the form of a classless society is implemented. Th ese beliefs could be construed as reasons behind the negative attitude to national movements in orthodox Marxism. Th e policy of the Soviet Union – and subsequently of the countries within its sphere of infl uence – demonstrated that the Marxist doctrine was wrong also in this aspect. Communist leaders, aware of the fact, soon ceased to employ ideological statements and treated national issues with pragmatism instead. Th is resulted in a widely diversifi ed policy towards ethnic groups, which comprised of eff orts to create good living conditions for various communities, defi ning themselves in the ethnic and national context, and a symbiosis of Marxism and nationalism, leading to a homogenisation of the state and elimination of all internal divisions other than those enforced by the authorities. Within the ideological framework of the communist system, Roma constituted a problem. On the one hand, as an economically marginalised group persecuted by the former system, they were a perfect example of “oppressed masses,” in whose name communists were supposed to fi ght, justifying the extent of their power. On the other hand, Romani people, with their lifestyle and traditional culture, were obstacles in the process of building a perfectly homogenous society. Th us, the main goal of the communist authorities was assimilation, which was to transform Romani people into productive citizens of their socialist homeland, while preserving selected features of traditional Romani culture in the form of a folklore show.4

4 Zoltán Bárány (2002), Th e East European Gypsies. Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 114. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 43

2. Romani movement in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1940

Roma in Russia were the fi rst to experience this new political system. Among Ro- mani activists and intellectuals, opinions on the system are divided: until 1991, the majority (the ones supported by communist authorities, to be frank) argued that it was by the communist system that Romani people had been recognised as full citizens for the fi rst time; however, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prevalent view has been that the October Revolution radically disrupted the gradual improvement of the situation of the Roma community that had begun before the Revolution.5 Undeniably, the fi rst decade of post-revolutionary Russian history meant that Roma – not unlike other ethnic and national minorities – were granted new rights and off ered possibilities with respect to their culture, education, and literature. However, it was at the price of loyalty to communist authorities. Th e Soviet government started to implement programmes of settlement and the so-called “productivisation” of Roma, whose legal basis was a decree of 1926 titled “On Measures for Aiding the Transition of Nomadic Gypsies to a Working and Settled Way of Life” and a decree of 1928 – “On the Allotment of Land to Gypsies for the Transition to a Working and Settled Way of Life.” Land in selected republics was assigned specifi cally for the use of Roma, especially those already settled in villages. Th e fi rst Roma collective farms were also established, e.g. in 1925, in Krikunovo Khutor near Rostov, which provided horses for the Red Army.6 Processes of sedentarisation and fi nding employment in agriculture were important for new Roma organisations, sponsored by communist authorities. In this context, we should mention the All-Russian Association of Gypsies established in 1925, as well as the offi cial recognition of the Gypsy nationality (1925) and the development of a Cyrillic alphabet for the Romani language, in which the fi rst Romani papers were published: “Romani Zoria” (since 1927) and “Nevo Drom” (since 1930).7 Th ese publications played an important role in fi ghting so-called “linguistic denationalisation” that alarmed Roma elites. According to the 1926 census, only 64.2 percent of Roma declared Romani as their native tongue, compared to 87.1 percent on average in the case of representatives of other nations in the Soviet Union. In consequence, numerous

5 Nikolay Bessonov (2008), Kiszyniowcy. Studium historii i zwyczajów. “Studia Romologica” nr 1. 6 David M. Crowe (1996), A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 7 Ibid., p. 176. 44 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People schools with the Romani language were opened for the purpose of combatting illiteracy. However, both education and publications in the Romani language were used for political purposes, so as to popularise communist worldview; for example, articles published in “Nevo Drom” dealt with issues such as the fi rst fi ve-year plan and labour procedures in production cooperatives, as well as off ering guidelines on becoming an atheist. Ideological content was also present in textbooks for Romani children. Roma activists strove to introduce Romani music into state institutions, which resulted, among other things, in the creation of Gypsy bands that appeared on the stage of the State Th eatre of the Russian Ethnography Museum, Leningrad Division (1929). Th eir success prompted a petition to create a Romani theatre, which was eventually established in 1931 as the Gypsy Th eatre “Romen.” Th e offi cial goals of the Th eatre refl ected the ambiguous situation of Romani elites: on the one hand, it was supposed to preserve the national Romani culture, while, on the other, it was to help in the processes of assimilation, sedentarisation, and education of nomadic people as well as improve living conditions of Roma by raising political awareness and disseminating information on the possibilities off ered by the new system. To these ends, theatrical performers were charged with “pedagogical tasks,” such as visiting encampments of the nomadic Roma, handing out textbooks and medicines, and performing at fi replaces. Th ese trips also allowed them to recruit new artists for the Th eatre. As the candidates were oft en illiterate, special classes were organised in Moscow.8 Consolidation of power by Stalin, collectivisation, suppression of peasant uprisings, and the purge in the communist party resulted in a change in state policy towards Roma. One of the elements of the new policy was putting an end to the support of national cultures and introducing a variation of Soviet multiculturalism, related to the idea of so-called “korenisation,” i.e. promotion of the communist ideology within various ethnic and national groups with the use of their own culture. In the mid-1930s, it was superseded by an assimilation policy, which eventually turned into cultural Russifi cation. As a result, Romani language schools were closed and, aft er 1937, Romani publications ceased to exist. Th e “Romen” Th eatre survived. In that period, there was increased pressure on Roma to settle down and towards further collectivisation. For many Roma, noncompliance meant losing their lives or being sent to forced labour camps; for example, during the Great Famine in Ukraine, Roma who moved to large cities, hoping to survive, became victims of a manhunt for people without required travel and registration

8 Alaina Lemon (2000), Between Two Fires. Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory. From Pushkin to Postsocialism. London: Duke University Press. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 45 documents. In 1937, revolutionary tribunals sometimes sentenced women to 10 years in forced labour camps for fortune-telling. Simultaneously, authorities fi ghting “nationalist deviation” dissolved some Romani collective farms and sent their members to work in multinational ones, in order to facilitate their integration into Soviet society.

3. Road to extermination

While the Soviet authorities tried to forcibly incorporate Roma into mainstream social life, so as they would not diff er from other Soviet citizens, Roma in Germany were becoming increasingly excluded. Th is process included a continuation of anti-Gypsy measures by the authorities (dating back to the times of the German Empire), the criminalisation of the Romani way of life, creating new regulations that limited Romani rights, the isolation of Romani people from non-Romani inhabitants of Germany – for example by forbidding mixed marriages, implemented by executive decrees to the Nuremberg Laws – labelling Romani people as socially and intellectually defi cient, denouncing them as belonging to a separate (inferior) race, and, eventually, deporting them. Fuelled by racist ideology, exclusion became more radical transforming into a genocidal policy: from forced sterilisation of people considered to be intellectually defi cient due to their genetic makeup to physical extermination of all recognised as “Gypsies” under the Nazi racial criteria.9 Th e racial criterion found as a point of reference for the policy towards Sinti and Roma was clearly defi ned in the “Decree on Fighting the Gypsy Plague” from December 1938. Executive regulations to this Decree clearly defi ned the goal of the state policy towards Sinti and Roma as the racial separation of the Gypsies from the German nation and prevention of race mixing.10 Racial separation was enforced through the deportation of German Sinti and Roma to concentration camps and – aft er the outbreak of the Second World War – to Polish territories under German occupation. Between 1940 and 1942, the idea of separation by means of isolation and deportation transformed

9 Henry Friedlander (1995), Th e Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: Th e University of North Carolina Press, p. 21. 10 Donald Kenrick, Grattan Puxon (1972), Th e Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Chatto-Heinemann, p. 29. 46 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People into the physical extermination of Romani people,11 both in the Th ird Reich and in the occupied territories. An example of this tendency was the murder of almost 5,000 Austrian Roma and Sinti in the Kulmhof camp in 1941, and the mass executions of Romani people, fi rst in occupied Poland and later in the Soviet Union. Th is genocidal policy reached its climax with the so-called Auschwitz Command (Auschwitz-Erlaß), issued by Heinrich Himmler on 16 December 1942, condemning German Sinti and Roma to the Auschwitz- -Birkenau camp. Soon, similar decisions were issued with regard to Sinti and Roma living in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, regions of Poland, and Western European countries under occupation.12 In states allied with the Th ird Reich, the persecution of Roma was carried out by local institutions and, generally, took a less drastic form; although, it was dependent on the changing situation on the front, local anti-Gypsy policies, and relations of local governments with Berlin.13 Th e symbol of the Romani genocide is the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, in which a special Gypsy sub-camp, Zigeunerfamilienlager, was created. Almost 23,000 people were deported there, most of them from Germany, Austria, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and Poland. Additionally, a number of Roma were held in Auschwitz outside the Gypsy sub-camp. In total, approximately 19,000 Roma and Sinti died in Auschwitz-Birkenau in gas chambers and as a result of starvation, disease, and experiments conducted by Dr Mengele.14 A particularly important event in the memory of Roma was the liquidation of the Gypsy sub-camp, which resulted in the death of approximately 3,000 people in gas chambers, mostly women, children, and the elderly. In addition to Auschwitz, Roma were also murdered in other death camps in occupied Poland, concentration camps in Germany and Austria, and in the Jasenovac camp, located in the fascist Croatian state, where over 25,000 people are thought to have been killed.15 Th e Roma murdered in death camps came mostly from Germany and Austria, as well as from Czechoslovakia and Croatia (in Jasenovac). In addition,

11 Ian Hancock (1988), “Uniqueness” of the Victims: Gypsies, Jews and the Holocaust. “Without Prejudice” Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 53–54. 12 Michael Zimmermann (1998), Die Deportation der deutschen Sinti und Roma nach Auschwitz- -Birkenau. Hintergründe und Verlauf. In: Wacław Długoborski (eds.), Sinti und Roma im KL Auschwitz- -Birkenau 1943–44. Vor dem Hintergrund ihrer Verfolgung unter der Naziherrschaft . Oświęcim: Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, p. 261. 13 Brenda Davis Lutz, James M. Lutz (1995), Gypsies as Victims of the Holocaust. “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” Vol. 9, No. 3. 14 Vlasta Kladivová (1998), Sinti und Roma im “Zigeunerlager” des KL Auschwitz-Birkenau 1.3.1943– 2.8.1944. In: Wacław Długoborski (ed.) Sinti und Roma im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau 1943–44…, p. 318. 15 Dragoljub Acković (1995), Roma Suff ering in Jasenovac Camp. Belgrade: Th e Museum of the Victims of Genocide, Roma Culture Center, p. 19. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 47 a number of Roma who lived in Poland, France, and the Netherlands were murdered in the camps. In the case of Germany and the territories incorporated into the Th ird Reich, the extermination of Roma was generally carried out in accordance with the following pattern: identifi cation and registration, isolation from society by means of legal regulations and forced resettlement to special Gypsy or concentration camps, deportation, and demise in death camps.16 In the case of most Roma from Poland, the Soviet Union, and the occupied Serbia, the manner of extermination varied. It generally took the form of mass executions performed by the German police and gendarmerie, supported by the local police and units of the Wehrmacht and SS, the Einsatzgruppen, in particular, murdered Jews, communist offi cials, and Roma in occupied Soviet territories.17 Th e extent and character of the persecution of Roma signifi cantly varied depending on the location, the type of institutions responsible, the actual network of interests, power relations, and ideological factors. Th e attitude of the Nazis to Roma was diverse: although it was generally based on the racial ideology, on the level of particular decisions and legal acts the reason given for persecution was their apparent “social maladjustment” or “anti-social behaviour.” Internal distinctions made by the Nazis between diff erent groups of Romani people and the changing policy towards them additionally complicate the picture of Roma as victims of the genocide. Finally, the fact that decisions related to Roma were made on various levels of the Nazi hierarchy makes it diffi cult to precisely reconstruct the process leading to their extermination.18 Th us, in the case of the Nazi genocide of Roma, we should reconsider the intentionalist approach to the Holocaust, which states that genocide is performed in an organised and systematic way and that it is realised coherently with the previously determined murderous intention. Th e Nazi persecution of Roma shows that the eff ective genocidal crime can result from various ideological justifi cations, the arbitrary application of law, and incoherent persecution that had many locally diversifi ed variations, and that was carried out with the use of various means and controlled by diff erentiated mechanisms.19 Th e specifi c character of the genocidal persecution of Romani people makes it diffi cult to calculate the exact number of Romani victims of extermination;

16 Th us, fi tting in the well-known system of the persecution of Jews. See: Raul Hilberg (1985), Th e Destruction of the European Jews. Revised and Defi nitive Edition. New York: Holmes & Meier, pp. 53–54. 17 Michael Zimmermann (2008), Die nationalsozialistische Zigeunerverfolgung in Ost- und Südosteuropa – ein Überblick. In: Felicitas Fischer von Weikersthal et. al. (eds.) Der nationalsozialistische Genozid an den Roma Osteuropas. Geschichte und künstlerische Verarbeitung. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, p. 25. 18 Michael Zimmermann (2001), Th e Wehrmacht and the National Socialist Persecution of the Gypsies. “Romani Studies” Vol. 11, No. 2. 19 Michael Stewart (2007), How Does Genocide Happen? In: Rita Astuti, Jonathan Parry, Charles Staff ord (eds.), Questions of Anthropology, Oxford: Berg. 48 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People although, there are very probable estimates available for some countries.20 Authors of papers published in the 1970s and 1980s estimated that approximately 200,000–250,000 Roma were killed; however, selected German historians of that time estimated the actual number at 500,000. Th is number was made available to the public in the 1990s, and nowadays it is virtually regarded offi cial and oft en cited in public speeches and political documents. Michael Zimmermann, a diligent and cautious German historian, stated that, on the basis of archival sources and assuming only the lowest estimated numbers, we could be certain of approximately 100,000 killed.21 However, he admitted that this number would have to be changed as further research would progress, especially with reference to the territories of the former Soviet Union, where, as some authors say, several hundred thousand Roma could have been killed.22 Th us, according to Ian Hancock, we can reasonably assume that there could have been as many as 1–1.5 million Romani victims.23 Assuming only verifi ed data, we can say we certainly know about approximately 200,000 victims, and, although we will never know the exact number, we can treat “half a million” as a “symbolic number” pointing to Romani suf- fering and the feeling of subjective loss. Nevertheless, the latter number may be closer to the truth than we think. We can also assume, as many authors do, that if all Romani people would have been exterminated, had the history of the war been diff erent.24

4. Consequences of extermination

For many Roma communities the period of extermination was a catastrophe and threat to their physical existence. Many Romani groups were entirely annihilated and the surviving ones lost many members, especially elderly people and children, which oft en meant the destruction of familial and kin relations,

20 Romani communities were almost totally annihilated in Bohemia, Austria, Croatia, and the Netherlands. In Germany, it was 60–75% of the population of Roma and Sinti of 1939. 21 Michael Zimmermann, Die nationalsozialistische Zigeunerverfolgung…, p. 23. 22 Joachim S. Hohmann (1988), Geschichte der Zigeunerverfolgung in Deutschland. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 174–178. 23 Por. Zoltán Bárány (1998), Explaining Marginality: Portrayals of East European Gypsies. Budapest: Central European University, p. 14. 24 Michael Stewart (2010), Th e Other Genocide. In: Michael Stewart, Márton Rövid (eds.), Multi- disciplinary Approaches to Romani Studies. Budapest: Central European University Press, p. 173. See also: Donald Kenrick (2010), Th e Genocide of the Gypsies: What We Know and What We Still Don’t Know. “Th e Holocaust in History and Memory” Vol. 3. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 49 i.e. complicated networks of dependencies in which Roma people lived. War persecutions shattered the structure of Romani communities, resulting – among others – in a crisis of the traditional cultural transfer between generations, especially as many older members of Sinti and Roma communities, responsible for passing on tradition, became victims of the Nazi genocide. We should add that many survivors, mostly German Sinti and Roma, were sterilised by the Nazi regime, which additionally threatened the biological continuity of the group. However, the long-range psychological and cultural consequences were even more severe. Survivors exhibited various symptoms of trauma: depression, apathy, the feeling of being in danger, helplessness, survivor’s guilt in the face of the deaths of other people, pains (somatic and neurological), phobias, and personality changes.25 Th ese symptoms were related not only to being confronted with death, but also to feelings of shame, loss of dignity, and destruction of traditional values, characteristic of the situation in concentration camps, and, in general, the living conditions of persecuted groups.26 Th e situations encountered by Sinti in the camps undermined their moral code and traditional behavioural patterns and resulted in a permanent mental shock, related to breaching a cultural sense of shame.27 As examples, we can mention a lack of intimacy with reference to physiology, contact with visible nudity, especially with respect to family members of the opposite sex, breaching taboo – e.g. with respect to sexual abuse and forced prostitution, undermining hierarchy in families – for example, by means of granting young prisoners power over elderly people, inability to observe ritual purity with reference to food as well as in contacts among Roma from diff erent groups. If the entire system of laws, bans, orders, and ritual regulations constituting traditional Romani identity applied during the times of the Th ird Reich, then we can arrive at only one conclusion: “each and every adult Gypsy survivor had lost his or her honour.”28 All these events resulted not only in decimating Roma and Sinti but also irrevocably damaging their culture as well as impoverishing their tradition. It became clear that there are situations in which Romani people may not survive in the cultural sense of preserving their traditional rules of behaviour, and to which they cannot give any adequate meaning within the framework of their own culture. Th us, one of the crucial aspects of the traditional vision of being a Rom – i.e. the belief that Roma may be destroyed physically, but it

25 Julia von dem Knesebeck (2011), Th e Roma Struggle for Compensation in Post-War Germany. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 151. 26 Ibid., p. 233. 27 Heike Krokowski (2001), Die Last der Vergangenheit. Auswirkungen nationalsozialistischer Verfolgung auf deutsche Sinti. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag, pp. 52–53. 28 Kirsten Martins-Heuß (1989), Refl ections on the Collective Identity of German Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) aft er National Socialism. “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 207. 50 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People is impossible to deprive them of their “cultural body” that always will make them Roma – collapsed. Th is resulted in the weakening of a system of internal cultural coherence, i.e. the mechanism which decides whether, in traditional communities, everyday behaviour refl ects the crucial values of one’s culture.29 Romani life became less organised, more uncertain, chaotic, and susceptible to changes. Th ese phenomena were accompanied by the feeling of loss of own cultural stability and an emotional stupor (in the psychological context), resulting from the situation of endangering one’s existence by behav- ing in accordance with own cultural code, i.e. “being oneself.”30 Th ese are the reasons why the Roma who survived extermination were oft en unwilling to revisit the traumatising events and document their persecution, and oft en failed to unite in the aft ermath of their shared experience and why some of them, in order to avoid similar persecution in the future, adopted one of the two mutually exclusive strategies: assimilation or isolation. Th is changed only aft er the emergence of a new generation of leaders, having fewer traumatic memories, and in the context of German Sinti and Roma, the struggle for compensation.

5. Struggle for compensation and the beginning of the Romani movement in Germany

Th e seizing of power by Hitler and the intensifi cation of persecution of Sinti and Roma meant the interruption of the spontaneous process of social integration that was then taking place in Germany, despite negative stereotypes, legal regulations, and police practices.31 Th e Second World War put an end to Romani mobility in countries that fell under German occupation.32 In Germany, it was only aft er the war that Sinti and Roma organisations began to be established, as part of the struggle for compensation for the Nazi persecution, when it became

29 Lech Mróz (2000), Niepamięć nie jest zapominaniem. Cyganie-Romowie a Holokaust. “Przegląd Socjologiczny” R. XLIX, z. 2, p. 107. 30 Heike Krokowski (2006), Th e Eff ect of Persecution on the German Sinti. In: Donald Kenrick (ed.), Th e Final Chapter. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 218. 31 Wolfgang Wippermann (2005), „Auserwählte Opfer“? Shoah und Porrajmos im Vergleich. Eine Kontroverse. Berlin: Frank & Timme, p. 73. 32 Ilona Klímová-Alexander (2005), Th e Development and Institutionalization of Romani Re- presentation and Administration. Part 2: Beginnings of Modern Institutionalization (Nineteenth Century–World War II). “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 33, No. 2, p. 187. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 51 obvious that the matter of Sinti self-organisation (or, to be frank, a lack thereof) greatly impinged on their attempts to secure reparations. Th e fi rst structures of the compensation system helped the better organised Jews and political prisoners, while Sinti did not benefi t from them and had no suitable contacts. Aft er the war, a signifi cant part of German society was under the infl uence of Nazi ideology, which justifi ed the persecution of Roma and Sinti on the grounds of their apparent social incompatibility and represented anti-Roma policy as battling crime and something that Sinti and Roma brought onto themselves with their own actions.33 Th is belief was also characteristic of the existing organisations for survivors, which did not treat Roma and Sinti in the same way as Jews and political prisoners, oft en dissociating themselves from them, as the organisations did not wish for people they represented to be identifi ed with “socially incompatible criminals.”34 In particular, German society was not generally aware that Roma and Sinti had been persecuted on racial grounds.35 A lack of Romani organisation and prejudice against existing organisations established by the Nazi victims were key factors deepening the marginalisation of Romani victims and making it more diffi cult for them to secure compensation. Sinti were aware of this and tried to establish such organisations, e.g. Komitee Deutscher Zigeuner established in Munich in 1946. Th is organisation demanded the recognition of persecution against Roma and Sinti as racial in its nature and wanted Romani survivors to be treated in the same way as political prisoners. However, it proved to be marginal and ceased to exist within a year, as a result of a lack of support combined with internal confl icts.36 An equally short existence characterised an organisation established in the mid-1950s by brothers Oskar and Vincenz Rose, which was called the Association and Interest Community of German Citizens of Non-Jewish Faith who Have Been Racially Persecuted (Verband und Interessengemeinschaft rassisch Verfolgter nichtjüdischen Glaubens deutscher Staatsbürger), which fought for compensation. In the 1970s, Romani Rose and Vincenz Rose established Association of German Sinti (Verband deutscher Sinti)37. It turned out to be a stable organisation and – changing names – aft er a time, became the main institution fi ghting for recognition of Sinti and Roma as victims of national socialism. Since the early 1980s, it has been using its present name Central Council of German Sinti

33 Gilad Margalit (1999), Th e Representation of the Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies in German Discourse aft er 1945. “German History” Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 222. 34 Knesebeck, op. cit., p. 79. 35 Ibid., p. 90. 36 Ibid., p. 97. 37 Th ere are two other names of this organisation in literature: Verband des Sinti Deutschlands and Deutscher Sinti Verband. 52 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People and Roma (Zentralrat deutscher Sinti und Roma). Contrary to its name, it does not represent Roma living in Germany, who do not have seats on its board.38 Th is organisation has already been active in a diff erent historical context, where generational change played a crucial role. On the one hand, new Romani leaders emerged, free of the fear experienced by the survivors’ generation and passiveness related to a lack of faith in state institutions. On the other hand, within the societal majority group, there was a new generation, unrestricted by the Nazi narrative and thus more eager to perceive Sinti and Roma persecution in the categories of racially-based persecution.39 One of the fi rst initiatives of the new German Sinti organisation was a commemoration of Sinti and Roma murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau. In 1973, in the area of the former “Gypsy family camp” in Birkenau, the organisation initiated the erection of a memorial in honour of the exterminated prisoners. Th e memorial became a meeting place for people visiting the camp and a focal point of commemorative ceremonies. Th e fi rst offi cial event of international reach took place in 1993 and commemorated the fate of the fi rst transport of Romani prisoners brought to Auschwitz. In the following year, Romani people from all over the world gathered in Birkenau to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the annihilation of the “Gypsy family camp.” In 1995, Romani representatives participated in the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the camp. Th e participation of many Romani leaders in the anniversary events in the years 1993–1995 resulted in increased interest in the Roma genocide among scholars and institutions commemorating the Holocaust. In 2001, a permanent exhibition dedicated to Romani people was inaugurated in Block 13 in the Auschwitz camp. Th e exhibition was created by the organisation of Romani Rose in cooperation with the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and other Romani organisations from all over Europe. For German public opinion, however, more important were events organised by Zentralrat in former concentration camps in Germany. In 1979, an international event commemorating Romani victims of extermination was held in the former concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen. Th is event had a political dimension too: its goal was, among others, to draw attention to the continued persecution of Sinti and Roma in West Germany. Romani representatives from France, England, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Italy participated in the event. It was also the fi rst time that Romani victims of the Th ird Reich were honoured by a delegate of the German authorities and the rank of the

38 Gilad Margalit, Yaron Matras (2007), Gypsies in Germany – German Gypsies? Identity and Politics of Sinti and Roma in Germany. In: Roni Stauber, Raphael Vago (eds.), Th e Roma. A Minority in Europe. Historical, Political and Social Perspectives. Budapest: CEU Press, p. 112. 39 Knesebeck, op. cit., p. 97. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 53 event was highlighted by presence of Simone Veil, President of the European Parliament and former prisoner of Bergen-Belsen.40 On 4 April 1980, in the former Dachau concentration camp, a group of about a dozen German Sinti started a hunger protest. Th eir main demands were related to the offi cial recognition by the authorities of the Nazi crimes against Sinti and Roma, the disbursement of suitable compensation, establishment of a cultural centre for Sinti in Dachau, and closing down special police units in charge of “travellers” (which, albeit under a diff erent name, continued the operations of the former “Gypsy departments”) as well as the destruction of data on Sinti and Roma collected by Nazi researchers and administration. Th ough the protesters failed to achieve their goals, German Sinti, nonetheless, benefi tted indirectly from the protest in terms of the consolidation of the political movement and drawing attention to their problems. Th e occupation of the archive department of the University of Tübingen in 1981 was symptomatic of the aspirations of German Sinti. Th e archive contained over 20,000 fi les of data collected during Nazi times by Robert Ritter’s Institute of Research on Racial Hygiene and Population Biology. Th ey contained fi ngerprints, photographs, genealogies, medical records, and personal histories from the times of the Th ird Reich. Romani victims of persecution had no access to this documentation and could not use it when fi ghting for compensation. Th is changed only aft er the protest. In 2012, Romani Rose and Zentralrat fi nally ended their 20-year-long campaign to erect a monument commemorating the fate of Sinti and Roma in Berlin. Th e monument, designed by Israeli sculptor Dani Karavan, is known as Memorial for European Sinti and Roma Murdered During Nazi Times (Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma Europas). Th is remarkably designed and impressive memorial is currently an important site for commemorative events, while its location, close to the German parliament, suits the vision of German Sinti as an integral part of German history, which was popularised by Zentralrat. Th e emergence of German Sinti organisations was therefore related to the mobilisation of this group with reference to the issue of compensations and also meant the establishment of a grassroots social movement related to a certain policy of self-identifi cation. Initially, Sinti fought for compensation individually, hoping to draw the attention of existing organisations of survivors to their fate and become included in their actions. Later, following the example of institutions established by other groups persecuted by the Nazis, they started

40 Gabrielle Tyrnauer (1990), “Mastering the Past”: Germans and Gypsies. In: Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn (eds.), Th e History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 369–370. 54 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People to develop their own associations. Th ey began by representing the interests of particular families and, later, of the entire Sinti community, at fi rst in one region and then across the whole country. Simultaneously, the scope of their actions was also enhanced: from fi ghting for compensation to more general issues of human rights and social justice.41 When the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma started to focus on the entire community, it adopted a new perspective, developing the Romani identity as the identity of victims. Th is meant a departure from the assimilationist trends of the 1950s and 1960s, when Roma and Sinti were trying to emphasise their German character – which was, at the time, required in order to be eligible for compensation – and to expunge the Nazi segregation and exclusion of Roma from the German nation. At the same time, one of the reasons of the success of the Central Council was highlighting the ethnic individuality of Roma and Sinti that caused them to be persecuted in the Th ird Reich.42 Consequently, German Sinti started to identify themselves as members of a group that had presently a specifi c and distinct identity, shaped among others by the Nazi persecution they had suff ered in the past. Th e integrative self-identifi cation of Sinti as part of the German nation still plays, however, an important role, not only on the level of individual defi nitions but also in the form of political actions undertaken by the Central Council and announcements made by its president, contributing to the somewhat incongruous identity of German Sinti.43 Organisations bringing together Roma also participated in the fi ght for compensation and recognition of their members as victims of the Th ird Reich, for example, the fi rst organisation of German Roma, Central Gypsy Committee (Zentral Komitee der Zigeuner), established by Walter Strauss and Wilhelm Weiss in 1960, or Union of Roma and Sinti (Rom und Cinti Union) established in 1975 by Rudko Kawczynski, a Roma immigrant from Poland. However, organisations comprising exclusively of Roma were obviously less interested in highlighting the German affi liations of their members and more interested in emphasising the unity of all Romani people (in the political context), regardless of their country of residence. Th us, while the Central Council of German Sinti tried to have Romani people recognised as a German ethnic group of an equal status to Sorbs and Danes living in

41 Ilona Klímová-Alexander (2006), Th e Development and Institutionalization of Romani Rep- resentation and Administration. Part 3a: From National Organizations to International Umbrellas (1945–1970) – Romani Mobilization at the National Level. “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 610–611. 42 Knesebeck, op. cit., p. 184. 43 Ibid., pp. 238–239. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 55

Germany “for ages,” Rudko Kawczynski acted on behalf of all Romani people in Europe, whom he believed to be a “non-territorial European nation.”44 Although the thesis of Margalit and Matras that German Roma have a national identity, while Sinti have a tribal one,45 is an oversimplifi cation, it nevertheless shows a diff erence of emphasis present in the identity-related policies of the organisations representing the interests of both groups. However, as it has already been mentioned, the identity of Sinti is ambiguous. On the one hand, the Central Council highlights the German character of Sinti, their German pat- riotism, participation in German culture, and even service in Wehrmacht, but on the other hand, when the narrative of identity refers specifi cally to the Nazi persecutions, the issue of the exclusion of Sinti from German society arises along with intimations of solidarity with Roma, who shared the same fate as Sinti.46

6. International Romani movement

Outside Germany, the beginning of the self-organisation of Romani people was related to practical issues, such as campaigning against anti-nomadic laws and attempts to limit mobility, especially in France and the United Kingdom.47 However, even this practically-oriented activity undertaken by Romani people in particular countries had, simultaneously, its symbolic and international dimension. For example, Ionel Rotaru, a Romanian Rom living in France who is also known as Vaida Voevod, started an international organisation supported, among others, by various members of the Kwiek family, dispersed around the world. Within this organisation, he developed the idea of a “Gypsy state” and printed special Romani passports; however, he also campaigned for war compensation, the abolition of anti-Romani legal regulations, the improvement of the educational situation of Romani children, and the development of literature in the Romani language. Rotaru’s organisation was banned in 1965 by the French authorities who were concerned with Romani claims with reference to compensation for war crimes.48

44 Ibidem. 45 Margalit and Matras, op. cit., p. 113. 46 Ibid., pp. 113–114. 47 Huub van Baar (2015), Enacting Memory and the Hard Labor of Identity Formation. In: Aidan McGarry, James Jasper (eds.), Th e Identity Dilemma: Collective Identity and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 162–163. 48 Ian Hancock (2002), We Are the Romani People. Ame sam e Rromane džene. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 119. 56 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Th e Gypsy Council has been active in the United Kingdom since 1966. Th is organisation – changing its name several times and transforming into other bodies – has protected British Gypsies and Travellers against the overzeal- ousness of police and disadvantageous legal solutions related e.g. to the use of roads and parking lots. Aft er Rotaru’s organisation had been banned, the International Gypsy Committee led by Vanko Rouda was established in France in 1965. Th e Committee brought together Romani organisations from various countries, published a magazine, and started cooperation with a number of international organisations, including the Council of Europe and UNESCO.49 It was this organisation that held a meeting of Romani activists and non-Romani supporters from various countries in 1971, in Orpington, Greater London. Th is meeting was later known as the First World Romani Congress. We can say that this Congress started the process of creating an institutional framework for the international Romani movement, which resulted in the establishment of the International Romani Union (IRU) in 1977.50 By “the Romani movement” the author understands the complex network of Romani political representations, as well as organisations and institutions created by them, cooperating with non-Romani organisations on various levels in order to improve the social, economic, and political situation of Romani communities in Europe.51 It is also worth mentioning that the Congress was one of the fi rst opportunities to hold a meeting for Romani activists from Eastern and Western Europe, due to a relatively large and active group of delegates from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. At the Congress, the participants adopted the Romani national symbols: an anthem and a blue and green fl ag with a red wheel shaped in the form of 16-spoked Indian chakra. Th e history of the fl ag begins in 1933, when its fi rst version, without the wheel, was adopted at the “United Gypsies of Europe” conference held in Bucharest. In 1969, the International Gypsy Committee presented a similar fl ag to the Council of Europe. Th is shows a continuity of eff orts to create national symbols and an early understanding of their importance on the part of Roma people.52

49 Eva Davidová (2011), O początkach międzynarodowego ruchu romskiego (na 40-lecie Światowego Kongresu Romów – 1971). “Studia Romologica” No. 4, p. 186. 50 Th omas Acton, Ilona Klímová (2001), Th e International Romani Union: An East European Answer to West European Questions? Shift in the Focus of World Romani Congresses 1971–2000. In: Will Guy (ed.) Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, pp. 158–160. 51 Huub van Baar (2008), Scaling the Romani Grassroots. Europeanization and Transnational Networking. In: Fabian Jacobs, Johannes Ries (eds.), Roma-/Zigeunerkulturen in neuen Perspektiven. Romani/Gypsy Cultures in New Perspectives. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, p. 218. See also Peter Vermeersch (2006), Th e Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe. New York–Oxford: Berghahn Books. 52 Davidová, op. cit., p. 189. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 57

Th e participants of the Congress were active in four panels. One of them dealt with compensation for persecution suff ered by Roma during Second World War.53 Th e Congress condemned the external labelling of Roma as Gypsies, Zigeuner or Gitanos, which later resulted in a name change, from the International Gypsy Committee to the International Romani Committee. Th e Congress also decided that 8th April was to be celebrated as International Roma Day in commemoration of the most important event of the Congress. Th e next Congress was held in Geneva in 1978 without signifi cant participation of Romani people from communist states, who had not been allowed by authorities to leave their countries. At the Congress, participants emphasised the connections between Romani people and India and condemned the policy of assimilation enforced by the communist authorities. Prior to the Congress and directly aft er its conclusion, Romani activists intensifi ed their eff orts to have IRU recognised internationally, securing its membership in a group of NGOs affi liated with the UN with observer status.54 Th e Th ird World Romani Congress took place in 1981, shortly aft er protests by German Sinti in Dachau. It was held in Göttingen, Germany, and it was the fi rst (and only) Congress with a large participation of German Sinti.55 Sinti embraced their distinctiveness to a too great extent to be able to identify themselves with the movement represented by IRU. Th ey also did not trust various ideas of “pan-Romani unity,” preferring minority identifi cation within German society. Th ese and other reasons, e.g. those related to the perception of IRU as an institution representing mostly Romani people from Central and Eastern Europe, prevented Sinti from becoming involved in the international Romani political movement.56 Th e main problem debated at the Göttingen Congress was the issue of compensation for the Nazi persecution. Attention was drawn to the diffi cult situation of Sinti and Roma survivors and further steps were taken in order to change the attitude of the German government, which, however, turned out to be unsuccessful. When it comes to negotiations with the German government, the organisation representing German Sinti was more effi cient. IRU became partially successful in this matter almost 20 years later, when it started to monitor some compensation funds coming from funds belonging to Holocaust victims and deposited in Swiss banks.57 Th is success resulted in a short revival of IRU.

53 Th ere were three other commissions: social, educational, and cultural. 54 Davidová, op. cit., p. 191. 55 Tyrnauer, op. cit., p. 373. 56 Yaron Matras (1998), Th e Development of the Romani Civil Rights Movement in Germany 1945–1996. In: Susan Tebutt (ed.) Sinti and Roma. Gypsies in German-Speaking Society and Literature. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 57 Acton and Klímová, op. cit., p. 163. 58 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

7. Roma people in communist Eastern Europe

For most Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe, fi rst contact with communism took place aft er the Second World War, which left that part of Europe in economic, political, and social decay. For almost six years, it witnessed carnage that killed millions and determined the identity and reality perception of those who survived. Post-war reconstruction took place in entirely changed political conditions: even before the war was over, it was obvious that the independence of the Central and Eastern European states, reached in the aft ermath of the First World War, would not be regained. For the next 45 years, the entire region fell under the control of the Soviet Union. As a result of war and post-war deportations, ethnic purges, and economic migration, the geography of Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe has changed. Th is change, the emergence of the “iron curtain” splitting the continent, and the communist policy of strict border control led to a destruction of traditional bonds among groups. Ties linking Romani people with the non- -Romani world have also been destroyed, as the genocide made Roma aware of the fragile foundations of such bonds and their limited value in times of need. Moreover, the communist economy shattered the foundations of a symbiotic economy linking Romani people with the non-Romani world: for most Roma the collectivisation of agriculture as well as industrialisation and the liquidation of small-ranged craft smanship and trade meant the end of traditional ways of earning money or their signifi cant limitation. On the other hand, due to its ineffi ciency, shortages, and inability to meet the basic needs of people, the communist economy did not entirely annihilate the economic foundations of the traditional Romani lifestyle. Simultaneously, new job opportunities opened for Roma in Central and Eastern Europe; however, in order to take advantage of them, the Romani ethos had to be signifi cantly transformed. Aft er the Second World War, the Soviet Union reintroduced the repressive national policy. For Roma, it meant increasing oppression and the inability to continue their traditional lifestyle. However, it was then that many Roma enrolled in universities, received education, and started professional careers in various areas. Stalin’s death marked the end of the bloodiest repressions, but his national policy was largely continued by his successor, Nikita Khrushchev, who implemented regulations bringing an end to the traditional nomadic life of Romani people in the Soviet Union (the decree of the Supreme Council of October 1956 “On Reconciling Vagrant Gypsies to Labour”). Th is decree forced Roma people to settle down in the location they were at the moment it went into force, while local authorities were obliged to provide them with employment and accommodation as well as control whether their children went to school. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 59

Th e opinions of historians and Roma themselves on the role of this decree vary. Some criticise it as an act of discrimination, putting an end to the old Romani culture and identity, while others argue that radical economic changes related to the communist system resulted in a relatively painless transformation to the settled way of life, as traditional jobs that required nomadism practically ceased to exist. Th us, in fact, the Decree on settlement was generally compatible with the naturally occurring process of sedentarisation.58 It also transpired that the settlement policy of Roma and their partial integration by means of education did not have to result in a loss of ethnic identity. Censuses conducted in 1970 and 1979 showed growing numbers of people identifying themselves as Roma and declaring the Romani language as native.59 In the times of Gorbachev and perestroika, the Soviet Union witnessed a signifi cant ethnic renaissance which stimulated various aspects of Romani cultural activity. At the same time, Roma people were increasingly oft en mentioned in mass culture. Th is, on the one hand, resulted in highlighting their problems, while, on the other, it popularised traditional stereotypes. Much valuable Romani-related literature also appeared during these times. Reactions to the growing presence of Roma in culture and society varied. Research conducted at the time proved the existence of many negative stereotypes and anti-Romani attitudes; however, they were not as strong as those concerning people from the Caucasus or Central Asia. Th ese attitudes became stronger aft er the downfall of the Soviet Union, as a result of the activity of nationalistic parties. As in the case of other minorities, the communist policy towards Roma was incoherent. It combined eff orts aiming to create good living conditions with a symbiosis of Marxism and nationalism, whose objective was to achieve state homogeneity. In the early stages of the communist system in the Central and Eastern European countries, some communist leaders seemed to show a degree of compassion for the grim fate of Romani people. Th e initial Romani cultural and political renaissance that occurred in some countries (e.g. Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Romania) was, however, either rapidly curtailed or signifi cantly limited by the new policy promoted by Moscow. Th e main goal of the authorities was assimilation, which was supposed to turn Roma into politically loyal citizens, while preserving selected features of traditional Romani culture in the form of a folklore show.60 Aft er the Second World War, Bulgarian Roma – the only Romani group in the region to survive the war and persecution virtually unscathed – were given a short-term opportunity for organisational and cultural development

58 Bessonov, op. cit. 59 Crowe, op. cit., p. 190. 60 Bárány, Th e East European Gypsies…, p. 114. 60 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People as part of the new policy of the communist authorities. It was then that they established the Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria, which had a country-wide reach of over 200 local branches. Th e “Romen” Th eatre opened in Sofi a; Romani press also emerged. Some Roma, like Shakir Pashov, became prominent members of the communist authorities.61 Th e situation started to change in 1949, when the communist government began a campaign against religion, which was, in fact, a cover for the oppres- sive policy of authorities, mostly focusing on the Islamic Turkish minority and ethnically Bulgarian Muslims called Pomaks. Muslim Roma also became victims of this policy. Many of them were forced to emigrate to Turkey in the years 1950–1951. It is estimated that in the early 1950s the Bulgarian authorities forced ca. 5,000 Romani people to leave the country. Forced migration marked a shift in the attitude of the Bulgarian authorities to Roma. As a result of internal factors, such as the successful destruction of the political opposition, and external factors, including the pressure applied by the Soviet Union, the policy of supporting cultural distinctiveness of Roma was superseded by a policy of assimilation. Th e assimilation campaign started in the early 1950s and – as in other countries – focused mostly on the forced settlement of nomadic Roma (some of whom continued their traditional lifestyle). Th is policy was part of a general strategy of ensuring social homogeneity by eliminating any signs of ethnic diversity. It was applied to Romani people when the authorities concluded that Roma spontaneously assimilate into the Turkish rather than Bulgarian culture. In order to counteract the infl uence of the Turkish culture on Romani people, in 1964, the authorities started to open boarding schools for Roma. At the same time, they started to persecute any independent forms of Roma self- -organisation and cultural expression, including closing organisations and even football clubs, established by Romani people. In the 1970s, the Bulgarian authorities offi cially announced that the “national issue” was solved and that they managed to create an ethnically homogenous “Bulgarian socialist nation.” As a result, aft er 1974, Roma disappeared from statistical data and were seldom mentioned in offi cial speeches. In the 1980s, the Bulgarian communists started another operation against Bulgarian citizens of Turkish origin and Muslims in general. Its consequences aff ected Roma people as well, mostly Muslims. At the time, public use of the Romani language was persecuted, and it was forbidden to play Romani music and publish literature in the Romani language. Th e Romani theatre was closed. Increased anti-Roma sentiments in society were an indirect consequence of these actions.62

61 Crowe, op. cit., p. 20. 62 Ibidem. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 61

Nearly the entire Romani population on Bohemian territory was murdered during the Second World War. As a result (and also of the post-war displacement of the Sudeten Germans), the Czechoslovak authorities led the campaign encouraging Slovak Roma to settle down in the industrial areas of northern Bohemia, where there was a shortage of labour. Many Roma living in Slovakia in very diffi cult conditions decided to migrate, thus going through an intense process of acculturation. Later, the same people went through another transformation, as they lost their jobs with the downfall of the communist economy, becoming an “urban underclass” of sort, migrating from working class districts to larger cities, where they searched for prospects to make ends meet. In 1948, communist Czechoslovakia deprived Roma of their status as a nationality, which they had enjoyed between the World Wars. Government experts supported the policy of total assimilation, stating that Roma were not – nor could they ever become – a nationality; consequently, during censuses, Romani people were forced to choose one of the offi cially recognised nationalities. In the years 1968–1969, a short-term renaissance of Romani life in Czechoslovakia occurred. Due to limited censorship and the liberalisation of internal policy, it was possible to establish the fi rst Romani organisation called the Union of Gypsy-Roma People, numbering 20,000 members, in 1969. It was one the fi rst instances when the term “Roma” was used in offi cial nomenclature in Europe. Th e union focused on the improvement of economic and social living conditions of Roma, actions aiming to secure for them the status of nationality, and improvement of the image of Roma in society by popularisation of Romani culture. In these new circumstances, it was possible to argue with the theses of government experts pointing to unconditional assimilation as the only way to “solve the Gypsy issue” and leading, among others, to a change in the offi cial terminology: Roma people in Czechoslovakia began to be referred to as “citizens of Gypsy origin.” However, the end of the liberalisation period marked a return to the repressive policy of total assimilation aiming to eliminate “the Gypsy problem.” Its hallmark was a programme of sterilisation of Roma women, which started in 1966. Its goal was to limit the Romani population, although Roma were not offi cially mentioned in the description of the programme. Statistical data show, nevertheless, that in the late 1980s, Roma women constituted half of all sterilised women, even though the percentage of Roma in the entire population was only 2.5%. It seems that the sterilisation programme and campaign against Romani organisations were related to the fact that Roma started to be included in offi cial statistics (for the fi rst time in 1965), which showed a rapid growth in the Roma population, and to Romani cultural and political activism 62 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People in the years 1968–1969 that increased the “visibility” of Roma in society and presented a challenge for the assimilating policy of the authorities.63 Th e fi nal years of communism in Czechoslovakia were characterised by an incoherent government policy that boasted about the achievements of assimilation (for example, highlighting cases of Roma making careers within the communist authorities), while, at the same time, it mentioned Roma mostly in the context of crimes they had committed and did nothing to combat anti- -Romani, oft en racist, stereotypes which became increasingly prevalent in society. Th e stereotypes and anti-Romani sentiments erupted in the aft ermath of the downfall of communism in Czechoslovakia and led to several acts of violence, and became the foundation for discriminating practices that Roma subjected to in Bohemia and Slovakia aft er 1989. In Romania, the seizing of power by the communists occasioned offi cial declarations of all citizens being equal, regardless of their ethnic origin, which was supposed to indicate the withdrawal of the new government from the antisemitic and antiziganist policy of the former regime, allied with Hitler. Roma were even encouraged to join the new political elite, as – in accordance with Marxist ideology – they were perceived as the most oppressed part of the exploited classes. However, at the same time, there circulated secret instructions ordering to appoint only ethnic Romanians to senior posts in areas inhabited by minorities. Romani organisations established aft er the First World War and revived aft er the Second World War were dissolved, and soon Roma people were formally removed from the offi cial list of nationalities living in Romania. Th e authorities conducted an incoherent policy towards Roma. At times, they tightened anti-Romani legal regulations; at other times, they did not pay much attention to Roma. As in other countries of the region, the authorities wanted to achieve a state of full employment of Roma people at state-controlled plants or in agriculture, which sometimes led to passing laws enabling the authorities to put people under their regime into forced labour. However, these regulations were implemented inconsistently. Th e assimilation campaign re- intensifi ed in the late 1970s only to become loosened again. Among the reasons for this incoherent policy of the Romanian government were the ideological declarations of the party authorities, referring to the apparent solving of ethnic problems in Romania and the offi cials’ disregard of the fact that Romania had the largest Romani minority in Europe. However, the growing Romani population made Romanian authorities develop several integration programmes, including, among others, the creation of Romani cultural associations in the 1980s. Unfortunately, these initiatives turned out to be unsuccessful, especially

63 Ibid., pp. 59–60. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 63 with reference to projects aiming to improve the education and accommodation of Roma in Romania.64 Initially, communists in post-war Poland did not pay attention to Roma, who attempted to rebuild their social and family bonds while continuing their traditional lifestyle. Only in the early 1950s did the authorities make an eff ort to control nomadic Roma communities (constituting over half of the relatively small Romani population in Poland) by off ering them housing and employment, especially in the western territories abandoned by the Germans. However, these eff orts were generally limited to persuasion without resorting to the use of force and proved ineffi cient: most nomadic Roma either did not settle down or settled only periodically, in particular for winter, and moved on in spring.65 Th e assimilation campaign started in 1964. It included the process of the registration of the Romani population with the local authorities, restrictions on the nomadic lifestyle, and strict control over Roma organisations established at that time. Th e campaign turned out to be generally successful, at least with respect to placing limitations on the nomadic way of life (although, it was not entirely eliminated). At the same time, Carpathian Roma – who had never lived the nomadic life – left their impoverished highland villages and moved to cities, where they had more opportunities to fi nd employment and improve their living conditions. We should also highlight features specifi c for Polish communism (leaving trade and small craft smanship in private hands, especially in agriculture) which allowed Roma to remained employed in their traditional professions (such as horse trade and smithery). At the same time, industrial development and enhanced production of commonly available goods resulted in the progres- sively deteriorating conditions in “Romani” economic niches, beginning in the 1970s.66 Roma needed new jobs and had to change their traditional economic practices. Th ey started to trade fabrics, gold, and jewellery, as well as foreign currencies, cars, and antiques, using their contacts in Western Europe, and taking advantage of the facilitated communication resulting from the liberal passport-issuing policy. Most of the aforementioned forms of commercial activities were deemed illegal by the communist system. Th e Polish policy towards Roma was disjointed. It was characterised by poorly developed legislation with respect to Romani matters and inconsistent implementation of decisions made by the authorities. Th is is the reason why

64 László Fosztó, Marian-Viorel Anăstăsoaie (2001), Romania: Representations, Public Policies and Political Project. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future… 65 Adam Bartosz (1994), Nie bój się Cygana. Sejny: Wydawnictwo Pogranicze. 66 Lech Mróz (2001), Poland: Th e Clash of Tradition and Modernity. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future…, p. 252. 64 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Polish Romani people resisted assimilation to a much greater extent than their peers in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe.67 A lack of a state- -enforced integration policy also contributed to this outcome. Roma were not given the opportunity to live in decent conditions; there was no work for them, and there were no reasonable measures undertaken in order to help them reshape their lives. It oft en led to confl icts with indigenous people in areas where Roma people settled. A lack of Romani organisations, which could mediate in contacts with the authorities, did not improve the situation either. Unlike in the abovementioned communist countries, the problem lay not in such organisations being banned, but in the reluctance of Roma, who did not want to have any contact with the authorities. Th is was the case in particular with former nomadic groups, which perceived contacts with state institutions as collaboration and a betrayal of Romani interests. A few Romani organisations established in communist times were only of local importance and consisted almost exclusively of Carpathian Roma, which additionally limited their signifi cance, due to the prevalent aversion towards that group expressed by members of nomadic groups and enhanced by traditional ritual barriers. Th ese organisations, however, performed a very important role in their communities, working to ameliorate the situation of Roma and improve their relations with the non-Romani majority.68 Th e economic and social crisis that characterised the early 1980s led to the emergence of a widespread social protest movement, foreshadowing the collapse of the communist system in Poland. Th is was a challenging time for Roma people: it was then that a number of assaults on Romani communities took place, in which Roma played the role of “scapegoats.”69 Th is is why for them the enforcement of martial law in December 1981 marked a period of relative freedom and peace. Society’s aggression against Roma was curbed as social life became strictly controlled by the authorities, which, in turn, decreased their interest in Romani people, as those in power focused on persecuting political opposition. Th us, in the summer of 1982, one could see the fi rst Romani encampments in many years.70 Of course, this did not mean that Polish Roma returned to the nomadic lifestyle, it rather meant that they remained fl exible and were able to make use of advantageous situations. Aft er the ultimate downfall of communism in Poland, these skills facilitated the process of development of several Romani organisations, which had to face diffi culties inherited from the

67 Bárány, Th e East European Gypsies…, p. 120. 68 Adam Bartosz, Natalia Gancarz (2014), Tarnowscy Romowie. Półwiecze osiedlenia – pięćdziesięciolecie Stowarzyszenia. Tarnów: Regional Museum in Tarnów. 69 Sławomir Kapralski (2009), Refl eksje o pogromach. Na marginesie wydarzeń w Oświęcimiu w 1981 r. “Studia Romologica” nr 2. 70 Mróz, Poland: Th e Clash of Tradition and Modernity…, p. 259. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 65 former system in addition to the new ones emerging as a result of the post- communist transformation. Aft er the war, the communist authorities in Hungary executed the communist ideal of an ethnically homogenous state, which was not favourable to the manifestation of Romani identity. As a result, many Roma tried to hide it, declaring themselves to be ethnic Hungarians. In accordance with offi cial doctrine, the problem of nationality was supposed to disappear with the development of socialism. Th e authorities did not consider Roma to be a national or ethnic group, but rather a marginalised social community, excluded from society. Th is approach began to shift aft er the 1956 Hungarian revolution. In 1958, the new party authorities announced a policy of active support of culture and education for minorities, including Roma, highlighting the role that Romani organisations played in these areas. Assimilation, however, was still the priority, and Romani people were not treated as other national minorities, but rather as a group in diffi cult social conditions. At the same time, we must admit that the authorities emphasised the need to eradicate antiziganist prejudice, prevalent in Hungarian society, and several articles were printed in the state-controlled press that condemned the negative stereotypes and discriminating practices against Roma people.71 Th e policy of the Hungarian authorities allowed for the existence of Romani organisations, cooperation with Romani intellectuals, and even the existence of Romani newspapers as well as bilingual education in regions where Romani children were a majority. Such an attitude led to a withdrawal from the policy of strict assimilation in the late 1970s, which coincided with the recognition of the existence of the Romani ethnic identity and specifi c social and economic problems of this group. As a consequence, the Political Bureau of the communist party started to announce offi cial statements promising to increase Romani presence in politics. However, these statements were fi rmly rooted in the communist discourse, as they spoke only of Roma “deserving” recognition. In 1979, a resolution of the Council of Ministers granted Hungarian Roma the offi cial status of an ethnic group; however, this did not include awarding Romani people any of the privileges enjoyed by other national minorities, e.g. assistance with the development of organisations or in publishing their own literature. Th e declaration of the party authorities of 1984 referred to Roma being given a free choice between diff erent methods of social integration, including voluntary assimilation as well as integration, allowing for the preservation of their distinct culture, tradition, and ethnic identity. In these conditions, several Romani initiatives – mostly related to culture – developed in the years 1985–1986, in addition to organisations and associations. Romani publications were also blossoming.

71 Crowe, op. cit., p. 93. 66 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Nevertheless, even in the face of this (relative) fl exibility of authorities, the situation of Roma in Hungary improved only sluggishly, and, in 1984, two thirds of Hungarian Roma lived in poverty, while assistance programmes of- fered to them were negatively received by society, whose frustration was taken advantage of by populist movements, following the downfall of communism. With the internal confl icts of the Second World War still fresh in mind, the creators of post-war Yugoslavia focused on minimising the role of the ethnic factor. At the same time, the constitution, adopted in 1946, formally granted minorities the right to have their culture and language protected, while ban- ning acts of hate related to race, nationality, and religion. During the war, many Roma actively participated in the armed resistance, and aft er the war, they supported the new system that appreciated their participation in the fi ght with the enemy. Th e words of Yugoslavian leader Josip Broz Tito regarding the possibility of creating a Gypsy autonomous region in Macedonia were popular among Yugoslavian Roma and, though these ideas were never implemented, Roma in Yugoslavia in the times of Tito had much greater possibilities to develop than in many other communist countries. It could be seen in cultural, organisational, and political aspects – for example, in 1948, Roma people were elected to the city council in Skopje. Aft er 1948, the situation of Roma was partly determined by Tito’s independence from the Soviet Union and attempts to work out a national model of communism with a focus on decentralisation and local administration, which refl ected the ethnic diversifi cation of Yugoslavian society, and simultaneously implemented the policy to erase ethnic divisions within the country. For Roma, it was a time of uncertainty, which led many to hide their identity, as they declared membership in other ethnic and national groups or simply “the Yugoslav nationality.” Th e new 1963 constitution liberalised the migration policy and enabled many Yugoslav citizens, including Roma, to leave their country in search of employment, mostly to West Germany. Although the new constitution was unsuccessful with respect to inextinguishable confl icts within the multinational republic, it had some positive eff ects for Roma. Th e policy of “open doors” for minorities, exercised by the authorities, allowed more Roma to participate in political activities. Th e Romani activist and delegate to Macedonian parliament Faik Abdi managed to infl uence an amendment to the Macedonian constitution in 1971. Th e amendment granted Roma the status of an offi cially recognised ethnic group. As a consequence, they were given the right to use their own fl ag, publish literature in the Romani language, and have their own TV and radio programmes. In 1981, Roma in Yugoslavia offi cially received the status of a nationality. At the same time, it was a diffi cult period for Yugoslavia, as various economic, political, and social problems arose, producing social frustration. It transpired Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 67 that the new Romani status was not widely accepted in all Yugoslav republics. Only the constitutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro followed the Yugoslav one in recognising Roma as a nationality. In the remaining republics, Romani people were still treated as an ethnic group. It was one of the symptoms of the progressing disintegration of the state, which continued to escalate aft er Tito’s death in 1980, until the growing nationalist trends of particular republics culminated in bloodshed ten years later. As a result, many Roma left Yugoslavia, torn by wars, and joined the masses of refugees leaving the country. Within Yugoslavia many Roma were displaced as a result of ethnic purges during which they oft en lost everything they had.72 If we try to fi nd any general pattern in the policies of various communist states towards Roma, we can say that initially, generally until the mid-1950s, they were not a target of the organised state policy, whereas, in time, they were all, more or less forcibly, assimilated, albeit to a varying extent and by means of diff erent methods. Th e situation of Roma in the Soviet Union, where they encountered communism for the fi rst time, is a special case. In other countries, we can distinguish four patterns of activities towards Roma: a policy of permanent control and forcibly implemented solutions, typical for Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria; a policy of chaotic interventions, typical for Polish and Romanian authorities; the Hungarian policy of gradually decreased oppression, and a policy of positive impact, applied by the federal government of Yugoslavia.73

8. After the downfall of communism and in the united (but not for everybody) Europe

If we were to look at post-communist times in Central and Eastern Europe from the Romani point of view, the dominant impression would be of an increased feeling of danger. Th is does not refer exclusively to the loss of economic and social safety. Many, not only ethnic, groups were pushed to the fringe of society, although, even in this context, the situation of Roma was oft en worse. Th is also refers to racially and ethnically motivated acts of violence. While Roma appreciated the benefi ts of the political transformation, in particular the fact that they could organise themselves and voice their problems via the independent

72 Ibid., pp. 220–230. 73 Bárány, Th e East European Gypsies… 68 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People media, in other areas, they merely saw the old forms of discrimination being replaced by new ones. Initially, the downfall of communism was greeted by Roma, and especially by Romani activists, with enthusiasm. As an example, we can point to the Fourth World Romani Congress held in Jadwisin near Serock in April 1990. Th e greatest number of both invited and uninvited delegations from all over the world participated in the Congress, when compared with all the previous Romani Congresses.74 However, the main issue discussed was not politics but culture, particularly with regard to issues of the Romani language and its transcription. One of the ideas borne at the Congress was to create a Romani encyclopaedia, so it was, in fact, a Congress of intellectuals, as evidenced by the list of working panels organised during the Congress: they were dedicated to education, culture, the Holocaust, the encyclopaedia, and the language.75 Th e initial optimism of Romani activists, which at the Fourth Congress was palpable, started to gradually wane in the face of the continuing neoliberal post-communist economic transformation, increasing unemployment rates, frustration of marginalised social groups, and the aggression it produced, oft en targeted at members of ethnic and national minorities. However, the downfall of communism terminated the state-controlled eff orts to destroy traditional Romani culture, ways of life, economic background, and the structures of Romani communities. However, communist strategies of forced assimilation generally turned out to be eff ective, as in many Central and Eastern European countries Roma were gradually losing their ethnic distinctiveness, without gaining the status of accepted members of society. On the other hand, in Western Europe the downfall of communism resulted in the “Europeanisation” of Romani problems, which transformed them into a matter of security (with reference to fears of opening borders the Central and Eastern European countries) and neoliberal governmentality.76 It was then that the network of European organisations and NGOs dealing with Roma- -related issues started to develop, and human rights activists focused on the situation of the Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe, which had not been of much interest to them when Eastern European Roma were separated from the West by the “iron curtain.” At the same time, the opening of borders enabled Romani activists from Central and Eastern Europe to be more active in Romani international organisations, especially IRU, led by the Polish Rom Stanisław Stankiewicz in the

74 Adam Bartosz (2010), IV Światowy Kongres Romów w Warszawie. 6–8 kwietnia 1990 roku. “Studia Romologica” No. 3. 75 Acton, Klímová, op. cit., p. 162; Davidová, op. cit., p. 192. 76 Huub van Baar (2011), Th e European Roma. Minority Representation, Memory and the Limits of Transnational Governmentality. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, p. 5. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 69 years 2004–2013. Th e international Romani movement was formed mostly by activists from Central and Eastern Europe, for whom the matter of recognition of Romani identity was always important – for example, in their relations with the communist authorities – and because, in this region, the role of national identities, generally understood as homogeneous and defi ned in ethnic and cultural categories, was always signifi cant.77 When we focus on the problem areas of the fi rst Romani Congresses, we notice that discussions were mostly related to general issues of Roma identity: Romani national symbols, history, and high culture based on the literary language. Some authors think that we can speak here about a transformation of the political movement of the Western European Romani people into a national movement inspired by the views of Roma from Central and Eastern Europe, whose role in the movement was constantly growing.78 Undoubtedly, the process of Romani mobilisation marked the beginning of a new consciousness of the historical and cultural bonds that connect Roma people, despite and in opposition to the traditional Romani worldview that underlies diff erences and divisions.79 As a consequence, the Romani political movement faced the need to “re-imagine” Roma people as a collective subject and as foundations for groups and institutions that declared they would represent Romani interests. A great role in this process was played by national rhetoric, even if it took very diff erent forms.80 We must say, however, that the national identity of Roma people remains merely a “project identity,”81 in which Romani elites (and not all of them, at that) try to redefi ne the social position of Roma by means of available cultural assets. Th e concept of a project identity appropriately describes the purpose of the process called by one of its main actors an ethnogenesis, which includes eff orts to improve the social conditions of Roma and their self-perception, and social prestige, by changing the perception of their identity.82 In other words, we can say that Romani ethnogenesis strives to achieve the status of a recognised non- -territorial ethnic and national group.83 First of all, this process is based on the

77 Ian Hancock (1991), Th e East European Roots of Romani Nationalism. In: David Crowe, John Kolsti (eds.), Th e Gypsies of Eastern Europe. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. 78 Acton and Klímová, op. cit. 79 Angus Fraser (1995), Th e Gypsies. Malden: Blackwell. 80 Andrzej Mirga, Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations, p. 18. 81 Manuel Castells (1997), Th e Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 2: Th e Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 8. 82 Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Social Construction of Romani Identity. In: Th omas Acton (ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, pp. 157–158. 83 Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Roma-Gypsy Ethnicity in Eastern Europe. “Social Research” Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 831. 70 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People eff orts of Romani activists, battling externally imposed defi nitions that deny the existence of ethnic or cultural Romani identity. Secondly, this process is a reaction to the downfall of communist strategies aiming to assimilate Roma people and deprive them of the status of a distinct group. Finally, the process is based on employing various traditions of Romani nationalism and activities for the purpose of creating new projects of identity. All these forms of activism of Romani elites are connected by their search for elements that are either common to all Romani communities or, at least, could be accepted by most of them. Such elements include, for example, a common historical experience and perspective for the future, especially the experience of the Roma Holocaust during the Second World War, a cultural community based on the Romani language, common social conditions, and, fi nally, the very concept of the Romani nation defi ned as a political idea, accepted by the elites despite a lack of consent regarding its content.84 Th e Declaration of the Romani Nation, published by the International Romani Union in 2000, includes the same elements; although, they are described in a more assertive way that linguistically alludes to the Constitution of the United States and the famous speech by Martin Luther King:

We, a Nation of which over half a million persons were exterminated in a forgotten Holocaust, a Nation of individuals too oft en discriminated, marginalised, victims of intolerance and persecutions, we have a dream, and we are engaged in fulfi lling it. We are a Nation, we share the same tradition, the same culture, the same origin, the same language; we are a Nation.85

Th e Declaration emphasised that the “transnational” Romani nation did not demand to have its own country and that the authors treated this historical withdrawal from seeking a statehood as the Romani contribution to the contemporary history of the world, characterised by the diminishing role of nation states, a growing signifi cance of transnational subjects, and new forms of representations based on transnational institutions. Nevertheless, we may wonder if self-identifi cation in national categories has any use in the case of Roma. Some human rights activists say that the matter of identity divides Romani communities, and thus it cannot be practical for them. For example, Dimitrina Petrova thinks that “for the Roma of Europe, Human Rights seem to be a uniting principle, a universally acknowledged tool for positive change,” whereas the “Roma struggle is oft en weakened by the abysmal question of ‘Who is real Rom.’”86 Martin Kovats concurs and emphasises that the Romani politics of identity results in the deepening of the

84 Mirga and Gheorghe, op. cit., p. 18. 85 International Romani Union (2001), Declaration of a Roma Nation. http://www.hartford-hwp. com/archives/60/132.html (accessed on 18 December 2010). 86 Dimitrina Petrova (1999), Competing Romani Identities. “Roma Rights” No. 3, p. 4. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 71 ethnic and economic divisions.87 André Liebich highlights the dangers of both approaches: when social and economic problems start to be represented in an ethnically-related discussion, then Roma people may become “scapegoats” for Central and Eastern European nationalisms. When the Romani political movement resigns from highlighting ethnic and national matters entirely, then Romani problems are reduced to social welfare, in which there is no place for issues of Romani identity and agency.88 Currently, the identity policy is repudiated by some younger Romani intellectuals (Gregor Dufunia Kwiek, Damian Le Bas, and Brian Belton), who do not agree to the defi ning of the Romani identity by means of a single, fi xed shape. In their opinion, the genuine Romani identity requires a rejection of such ready-made patterns adopting an individual approach, dependent on the context and needs of particular individuals. Th us, they approach the post-modern idea of the identity as a “suit” – freely chosen, depending on the occasion and used when it is needed. In this context, identity is a cluster of various and partial identifi cations, none of which attempts to dominate the remaining one for a long time.89 Another approach was proposed in the last publication of Nicolae Gheorghe, who distinguishes two opposing paradigms of Romani mobilisation. One of them is ethnical-national and focuses on the recognition of Roma as a European diaspora which should be granted the rights of a national minority guaranteed by European institutions. Th e second one, related to the issue of citizenship, focuses on the rights of Roma people as citizens of particular states, guaranteed by their governments.90 Th e beginnings of international Romani movements are linked to the fi rst of the above-mentioned paradigms. According to Gheorghe, in the 1970s and 1980s, Romani activists were inspired by romantic nationalism and believed that Roma formed a separate group with its own specifi c culture, which is supposed to win this recognition by the whole of society, thus evolving into a nation. In

87 Martin Kovats (2003), Th e Politics of Roma Identity: Between Nationalism and Destitution. “Open Democracy” 29 July 2003. www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1399. jsp (accessed on 10 April 2015). 88 André Liebich (2007), Roma Nation? Competing Narratives of Nationhood. “Nationalism and Ethnic Politics” Vol. 13, No. 5. 89 See e.g. Gregor D. Kwiek (2010), Aft erword: Rom, Roma, Romani, Kale, Gypsies, Travellers, and Sinti… Pick a Name and Stick with It, Already. In: Damian Le Bas, Th omas Acton (eds.), All Change! Romani Studies through Romani Eyes. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. It should be noted that in their papers the abovementioned authors also refer to the memory of the genocide as the extremely signifi cant frame of reference, within which they identify themselves as Roma. 90 Nicolae Gheorghe (2013), Choices to Be Made and Prices to Be Paid: Potential Roles and Con- sequences in Roma Activism and Policy Making. In: András Bíró, Nicolae Gheorghe, Martin Kovats et al., From Victimhood to Citizenship. Th e Path of Roma Integration. A Debate. Will Guy (ed.). Budapest: Kossuth Kiado, p. 81. 72 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People the 1990s, another paradigm became popular, as it started to be used in the activities of new organisations interested in more specifi c, practical problems in such areas like infrastructure, housing, and education. At the same time, the national paradigm remained vital for Romani activists, which – according to Gheorghe – was highlighted as early as in the abovementioned Declaration of the Romani Nation of 2000 and in the general acceptance of national symbols by many activists coming from diff erent groups. Th is paradigm, however, was deprived of its earlier romantic language and radical proposals, such as the right to self-determination, focusing instead on working out a compromise with governments of particular European Union member states.91 Nicolae Gheorghe took a confusing approach with reference to the clash of these paradigms. On the one hand, he was rather supportive of the idea of the Romani identity as “the political nation in the Ancient Greek meaning of the term,” as he expressed in his penultimate paper,92 in which Roma people were presented as fi rst of all citizens, simultaneously active within two legal and institutional frames of reference: local (country of residence) and European. In his last text, Gheorghe clearly explained the role of the fi rst of these frames, saying that being a citizen and making use of a number of benefi ts it off ers is based on the appropriate performance of duties and on the contribution to the development of the place in which one lives.93 On the other hand, although Gheorghe knew that such a programme, as well as the practical project-oriented approach in order to solve the social problems of Romani communities, has lesser mobilisation potential and fails to arouse such enthusiasm and emotions as the early emanations of the national paradigm.94 Th us, he believed in the “affi rmation of Roma as a nation in the cultural sense, as an etnie unrelated to territorial units or nation states but sharing a common set of cultural values.”95 At the same time, he rejected the vision of cultural homogenisation of Roma people and thought that Romani diaspora, even if called a nation, would become a diversifi ed conglomerate of many groups.96 It seems that Gheorghe would like to see Roma people mostly as citizens of countries they lived in, with all due rights and obligations,

91 Ibid., pp. 75–76. It becomes particularly noticeable when we compare early concepts of the Romani National Congress with the programme of the European Roma and Travellers Forum and its Chart of Romani Rights. 92 Nicolae Gheorghe (1994), Gaining or Losing Together: Roma/Gypsies and the Emerging Democracies of Eastern/Central Europe. In: Human Right Abuses of the Roma (Gypsies). Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Aff airs House of Representatives. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce. 93 Gheorghe, Choices to Be Made…, p. 70. 94 Ibid., p. 75. 95 Ibid., p. 81. 96 Ibid., p. 76. Between Nazism and Communism: The Origins of the International Roma Movement 73 simultaneously participating in the Romani cultural community, which would take diverse shapes in the case of particular groups. According to Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, the cultural and social diversity of Roma cannot be reconciled with the idea of a Romani nation. Th ese authors fi nd the concept to be unrealistic and intellectually fragmented; they also note that it is oft en employed instrumentally by certain groups of activists, fi ghting for their own particular interests and infl uence in their countries. Marushiakova and Popov agree that Roma have common origins that may potentially unite diff erent Romani groups (together with the negative attitude of the surrounding society). Unfortunately, these common origins rarely become widely discussed and honoured, and a positive identity project cannot be built solely on the basis of external negative attitudes. According to the authors, the Holocaust is probably the only historical event that – if commemorated – could reinforce Romani identity and unity. However, they think that Romani memory of the extermination is limited to a small group of activists. Moreover, the nation-building potential of this memory is overshadowed by the pragmatic concerns of compensation for the victims.97 Nevertheless, the growing number of commemorating and anniversary events, educational initiatives, etc. proves that the experience of the genocide increasingly becomes an element of the cultural memory, or framework, as well as of the collective memory of various Roma communities in Central and Eastern Europe,98 regardless of whether this framework serves pan-Romani identity projects of national character or coexists with other, local or group- -related, identity projects. Undoubtedly, the growing interest of Central and Eastern European Roma in their past, especially in persecution during the Second World War, is a reaction to communist censorship with respect to the Holocaust, as well as a sign of the growing importance of placing one’s own communities in historical categories. It is also related to the experience of the downfall of communism, which became traumatic for many Romani communities in this region, as it radically changed the social context of their existence. To some extent this “trauma of the social change”99 freed the memories of the Nazi genocide which started to serve as a cognitive frame of reference for the present time, allowing

97 Elena Marushiakova, Vesselin Popov (2004), Th e Roma – a Nation without a State? Historical Background and Contemporary Tendencies. In: Bernhard Streck (ed.), Segmentation und Komplementarität. Organisatorische, ökonomische und kulturelle Aspekte der Interaktion von Nomaden und Sesshaft en. Halle: Orientwissenschaft liche Heft e. 98 See e.g. Sławomir Kapralski (2015), Polskie publikacje i działania upamiętniające zagładę Romów – w kontekście międzynarodowym. In: Adam Bartosz, Piotr Borek, Bogusław Gryszkiewicz (eds.), Romowie w Polsce i w Europie. Od dyskryminacji do tolerancji. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne. 99 Piotr Sztompka (2000), Cultural Trauma. Th e Other Face of Social Change. “European Journal of Social Th eory” Vol. 3. No. 4, p. 450. 74 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People to assign its signifi cance as a time of threat to the existing forms of Romani life. Th is mechanism is reminiscent of the link between “structural trauma” and “historical trauma” put forward by Dominick LaCapra,100 according to whom, anxieties related to the structural transformation of living conditions in society take shape of a specifi c fear that refers to past situations in which the group’s life was in danger.101 Now, we can clearly see the relation between the two historical events that determined the emergence and the current form of the Romani movement: the Roma extermination during the Second World War and the experience of communism and its downfall. Th e fi rst one was a founding event for Romani organisational activism in Western European countries, especially in West Germany. Th e latter played the decisive role in the formation of the organisational structures of Central and Eastern European Roma. Following the downfall of communism, both events constituted the historical framework in which European Roma are active and shape their future.

100 Dominick LaCapra (2001), Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore: Th e Johns Hopkins University Press. 101 Th is mechanism has been described as “traumatic retrospection.” See Sławomir Kapralski (2012), Naród z popiołów. Pamięć zagłady a tożsamość Romów. Warszawa: Scholar. CHAPTER 2 Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years

owadays, the Romani community is the most populous ethnic minority in Europe. Th ey live in all European countries, and their number is Nestimated by the European Commission at 10–12 million1. Although they have been living in Europe for several hundred years and, as a result of the natural cultural infl uence of countries they live in, remain considerably diversifi ed, Romani people are still perceived as a homogenous ethnic group, living in compliance with a binding system of values and reluctantly entering into relations with outsiders. Other connotations with Roma include diffi cult social conditions and an inclination towards nomadic life, the latter – according to many people – constituting an intrinsic part of the Romani way of life. Additionally, their ethnographic, sometimes romanticised, perception is as people who greatly appreciate music, dance, and life in accordance with nature. Th is view of Romani people is confusing, and it certainly disregards diffi culties in understanding the complexity of Romani identities and social and cultural processes related to the diaspora. Such perception is prevalent also in the fi eld of research, among others, as well as being displayed by journalists and other commentators on events related to Romani people, due to the fact that it is much easier to speak or write about Romani culture without delving into so complicated and intricate diff erences. Regardless of this, processes related to globalisation coupled with the migration of Romani people complicate matters and pose a serious challenge for researchers. In this context, one of the main problems is the complexity and changeability of human identity, because – as Zygmunt Bauman said – it is not constant and developed for longer, on the contrary, it is elusive, changeable, and hybrid.2 Which is why it is so diffi cult to defi ne precisely what the contemporary British or French culture is and what the typical features of its representatives are. Although there are some characteristic or common features, there are also signifi cant deviations from standard patterns, resulting from the internal diversity of human populations. Th ese assumptions also pertain to Romani communities. Migration processes and the great number of contexts in which Romani people appear, greatly aff ect the internal diversity of this community, both internationally and nationally.

1 Komisja Europejska, Walka z marginalizacją. Europejski Fundusz Społeczny. http://ec.europa.eu/ esf/main.jsp?catId=63&langId=pl (accessed on 7 April 2015). 2 Zygmunt Bauman (2000), Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 78 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Assimilation, migration, diff erent social status, and education have all made the Romani community equally heterogeneous to the rest of society. However, existing generalisations sustain the perception of Romani people as a cohesive, transnational ethnic group with a common history and culture. It must be admitted that this image has also been strengthened by the Romani people themselves, namely their leaders who have been fi ghting for equal rights and an improvement of the social situation of Romani people. In order to aid these actions, they have strived to establish an international representation of all Romani people. Th e originators of these actions believed that it would facilitate dialogue with representatives of states and international institutions and – as a result – give Romani people a voice. Th is polyphony of the Romani movement in the 20th and 21st century is the inspiration of this text and the project that culminated in this book. However, before we start describing the evolution of the mobilisation of Romani communities in Europe and the assumptions of our research and the educational project, we need to have a closer look at the phenomenon of diversity, as it is ubiquitous in Romani-related issues. When analysing all processes in Romani societies, both at the national and international level, it is necessary to consider crucial divisions and the diversity of experience within the Romani community, which is comprised of various groups. Among others, these groups diff er with respect to their standards and values, defi ning patterns of behaviour, and ways of perceiving the world. Experience with respect to way of live is also of signifi cant importance (nomadic or settled way of life) and – as a result – tendencies to work in certain professions that are typical for both ways of living, as well as their internal organisation. Living for hundreds of years in diversifi ed political and economic surroundings, but also in culturally diff erent ones, obviously has its consequences. We should add that Romani people are a minority group, regardless of where they live, and, as a result, their social and economic situation has always depended on the majority. Th e status of a minority group carries a danger for Romani groups losing their distinctiveness or even disappearing in confrontation with the dominant culture. Th is danger is related to the existence of culturally diverse groups living in close proximity to each other, which may give rise to the phenomenon of syncretisation when such cultures “mix” and become homogeneous. An additional danger for Romani culture is the allure of other cultures. Adopting selected patterns may seem to be superfi cial; however, it may also result in signifi cant cultural changes. Despite many adverse external conditions, Romani people have managed to preserve their cultural distinctiveness in various countries. It became possible due to the development of methods for interaction with majority groups and the ability to live on the verge of two worlds: their own and the external one. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 79

It is worth mentioning a concept by Michael Stewart, who stated that Romani identity is “constructed and constantly remade” and a result of internal emigration which creates a place where Roma people can feel safe and at home. Th is place is a social sphere dominated by Romani rules and values. In this context, being a Rom is a defence mechanism, used against hostile environments.3 Strong internal organisation, solidarity within the group, and binding standards constitute the border separating the Romani world from the non-Romani one, and crossing it may result in serious consequences for the individual concerned. Th e harshest penalty is exclusion from the Romani community, resulting in severing all ties with the excluded individual. Th e abovementioned factors are supposed to counteract the infl uence of the surrounding environment, which is occasionally perceived as a threat to the culture of Romani groups. However, this does not mean that Romani people are immune to external infl uences. As Will Guy justly concluded, “Romani culture is not a unique and isolated entity, in spite of characteristic elements, but rather arises out of and is a response to the nature of the symbiotic rela- tionships between Roma and the wider majority communities on which they have always depended for their livelihood.”4 Being surrounded by other societies has led to the enormous diversifi cation of Romani people with respect to their language, way of life, habits, professions, and religion, among others. If only because of this diversifi cation, we cannot speak of a single ancient or model Romani culture, but rather of a multitude of cultures specifi c to particular Romani communities. Th ere are also no general criteria that can be used to describe all Romani people. Th eir presence in a given country is related to adaptation processes within majority societies, as the majority shapes the conditions and circumstances to which minorities, up to an extent, adjust. Such adaptation processes take diff erent forms and create part of an external context. Th e attitude of local populations and the present political and economic situation signifi cantly impact on these processes. Th e way of life of certain Romani groups is also of great importance, as the settled way of life (typical for most Romani people in Europe) and the resultant infl uence of the surrounding environment, also with respect to cultural and social patterns, intensifi ed the adaptation processes.5 Focusing on the internal divisions, we should note that they occur both internationally and nationally. Th ese divisions are related to the existence of Romani groups that diff er in various respects and self-identify using specifi c

3 Michael Stewart (1997), Th e Time of the Gypsies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, p. 28 4 Will Guy (2001), Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 5 5 Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska (2013), Wpływ aktywności fi nansowej Unii Europejskiej na położenie społeczne Romów w Polsce. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, pp. 121–122. 80 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People names. One classifi cation used for this purpose, and related to group divisions within the Romani community at the international level, was developed by Ian Hancock, who believes that the Romani minority in Europe can be divided into several basic groups. Th ese are: ● Roma – live in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in central Italy. Since the 19th century, as a result of migration, they have also lived in other European and non-European countries. It is the most populous Romani group in Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, and Lithuania. According to Hancock, approximately 5 million Roma live in these countries, based on the estimates of Romani organisations; ● Iberian Cale – live mostly in Spain, Portugal, Southern France, and Latin America. Th ey speak the Caló language, which is a dialect based on the grammar of Castilian (Spanish) language and a substrate of the Romani language. In Spain, it is spoken by approximately 40,000 people, i.e. 6% of the Kale population in Spain. In other countries – Brazil, France, and Portugal – it is used by approximately by 30,000 people; ● Finnish Kaale – live in Finland and Sweden – currently, it is estimated that 10,000 live in Finland and 3,000 in Sweden. Kaale use their own Romani dialect; nevertheless, the number of native speakers of this language is waning; ● Welsh Kale – live in Wales. Kale use Welsh Romani, which is closely related to the dialects used in France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Northern Russia, and the Baltic States. Th e similarities between these dialects date back to the fi rst wave of migration of Romani people to Western, Northern, and Southern Europe in the late Middle Ages; ● Romanichal – members of this group live in the United Kingdom, the USA, and Australia. In the UK alone, their population is estimated at 90,000 people, and, aft er including the other countries, it probably exceeds 200,000. Th e dialect used by Romanichal is a mix of English and Romani. In fact, it comprises of few Romani words adapted to the English language. Romanichal live a nomadic life and, up until the 1960s, they had been working as seasonal workers on farms, picking hop, and spending winters in city suburbs. Aft er the industrialisation of farming and as a result of legislative changes, most British Romani settled down. ● Sinti – live in German-speaking European countries and in the Nether- lands, Belgium, France, and Italy. Th is community strongly emphasises both their relation to and distinctiveness from Roma people. Sinti have nomadic traditions; however, presently, only a small part of their community continues to live this way. As a group they are characterised Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 81

by signifi cant cultural separateness. Sinti use a dialect of the Romani language, Sinti-Manouche, which is strongly infl uenced by German: it is a mix of Romani words and grammar based on the German language; ● Manush – live in French-speaking regions of Western Europe. In Sanskrit, the word “Manush” means “a human being,” while in France the term “Manush” (Manouche) is used to denote local Romani people; ● Romanisael – live in Sweden and Norway. Th is community has especially strong ties, historically and culturally, to the Romani groups of Sinti and Romanichal. Th e linguistic diversity of the Romani community is a consequence of the processes of adaptation to the external world. Living in a particular area requires bilingualism, which is conducive to the presence of loanwords. New cultural phenomena added to the context of Romani experience oft en have no equivalents in their language, so terms from national languages are borrowed and modifi ed in accordance with Romani grammar. Th is is the reason for the great infl uence of national languages on the languages of various Romani groups. Highlighting the importance of this linguistic diversity, we should add that Romani people from diff erent countries may experience communication problems if they are not familiar with the basics of the language spoken in the country of their interlocutor. Th ere are also Romani groups that have entirely adopted the language of their country of residence and do not speak the Romani language at all. Religion is another area in which Romani people have become a refl ection of their surroundings, as they generally adopt the prevalent religious beliefs, following a prolonged stay in a given country. Consequently, there are Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Muslims among Romani people. A relatively new phenomenon has appeared in the form of Pentecostalism, mostly among Romani people from Romania and Slovakia, Spanish Gitanos, and in a comparatively small group of Carpathian Roma in Poland. It aff ects the perception of business ethics as well as the development of a new community based on a heightened sense of dignity.6 When it comes to work, the main division is seen between former nomads and those Romani people who have been settled down for a long time. Th e way of life determined the development of particular professional skills. Nomads worked mostly as traders, blacksmiths, coppersmiths, and musicians, and were usually self-employed, while settled Romani people sought more

6 Marti Marfa Castan (2007), Identity as Religious Performance. Evangelical Pentecostalism amongst Catalan Gitanos of Barcelona. Paper read at the Gypsy Lore Society meeting. Manchester; Sławomir Kapralski (2008), Kierunki transformacji tradycyjnych tożsamości romskich w globalizującym się świecie. In: Tadeusz Paleczny, Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska (eds.), Tożsamość kulturowa Romów w procesach globalizacji. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, p. 68. 82 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People permanent employment and performed such work as cleaning of various facilities or rock-breaking in road construction. Nowadays, with traditional ways of earning a livelihood superseded by highly technical professions, the former nomads have retained their deeply-rooted tendencies to work alone, while settled Romani people show a preference for paid labour. As we have already mentioned, Romani people are not a homogenous group. Assimilation, migration, emancipation, and diff erent social status have internally diversifi ed this community to such an extent that we can go as far as to assert that Romani people nowadays are as heterogeneous as the rest of the society. Th e Romani community is dispersed all over Europe. Cultural diff erences, as well as those related to standard of livings and social conditions, oft en make it diffi cult to fi nd similarities and relations between Romani groups living in European countries. When we compare the circumstances of Romani people in rural Romanian settlements – whose ancestors lived in slavery, who were forcibly assimilated, and whose living conditions are much worse than the average European – with well-educated German Sinti – who are, in addition, well-integrated with the rest of society – we must conclude that the diff erences are enormous. Oft en, the disparate groups cannot even communicate with each other. At the same time, they are perceived as an ethnic group most oft en mentioned in the context of the social problems of contemporary Europe. Th is is an alarming phenomenon, which leads to a situation where issues concerning a particular ethnic group are discussed in a way that does not account for the consequences of processes typical of globalisation (such as migration), historical issues related to state policies, and the previously mentioned process of the migration of Romani groups. What makes it such a critical issue is the fact that, despite their intergroup diff erences, there is something that unites all Romani people: it is not their origin or birthplace, but rather the aversion borne towards Romani people, the stereotypical image of a Rom/Gypsy as a thief, criminal, and fraud, and the diffi cult relations with the rest of society. Th is was confi rmed by opinion polls in all Europe. In 2015, in the most recent poll on the issue, 72% of Danish respondents stated that Romani people were the most disliked group, while only a slightly lower percentage of Britons and Frenchmen (58% and 55% respectively) had very negative opinions on this group.7 Research conducted in 2009 by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights clearly shows that in such countries as Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece,

7 Research on perception of minorities: Romani people, Muslims, News, homosexuals and black people in societies of 7 countries: United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, YouGov Survey Results (2015). https://d25d2506sfb 94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/ document/g96awulgzv/Eurotrack_Minorities_W.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2015). Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 83 and Poland, 76–90% of people of Romani origin encounter discrimination in their daily lives.8 Relations between Romani groups and the rest of society have always been complicated, and the deepening rift , in various countries, constitutes one of the most serious challenges for both Romani leaders in particular states and the entire international Romani movement. Th is applies both to traditional authorities and so-called young and modern leaders who must exist in both worlds, the Romani and the non-Romani, in order to be able to fi ght for better conditions for their community and to remain in contact with the group, which must grant its consent to their acting on behalf of Romani people. So, how could we characterise both the traditional and modern leaders? We can derive some clues from the defi nition of a leader in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, describing leaders as: “individuals who exercise decisive infl uence over others within a context of obligation or common interest. […] Leadership, like power and authority, is a universal dimension of human society. All peoples arrange themselves into leaders and followers.”9 Basing on Kurt Lewin’s typology, three types of leadership can be distinguished:

received leadership, or leadership over an ethnic group – leader derives from preceding structures of authority a traditional claim upon the group; internal leadership, or leadership that arises within the group and remains there – the leader is rooted in his ethnic group and addressing the external world as its representative and advocate and projective leadership, or leadership from an ethnic group – leader acquires a following outside of the group with which he or she is identifi ed and thus aff ects its reputation without being directly subject to its control.10

In most cases, when we analyse the leadership of groups or Romani communities, we encounter either the second type of leadership – in the case of elders or traditional leaders of Romani groups, especially in a local context – or a combination of the fi rst and third type, where the leader is strongly linked to traditional structures or strives to secure their acceptance for their actions, without which they either do not want to or cannot act. On the other hand, it is the leader’s image among the rest of society, and not the perception of traditional authorities, that can infl uence the perception of the group itself. Th e authority of elders arises from their knowledge and experience, both of which are valued immensely in the culture and tradition of Romani

8 Agencja Praw Podstawowych (2009), Sprawozdanie „Kluczowe dane”. Część 1: Romowie. Wiedeń. fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_ROMA_PL.pdf, p. 7 (accessed on 15 November 2014). 9 Stephan Th ernstrom (ed.) (1980), Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Cambridge, Mass.–London, England: Harvard University Press, p. 642. 10 Ibidem. 84 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People communities. Traditional leaders are greatly respected within their families and local communities: they ensure the observance of Romanipen – the un- written law (customs) observed by certain Romani groups – by pronouncing judgments of temporary or lifelong exclusion from the community, and to protect the harmonious cooperation of all members of local and national Romani communities. In some groups, the function of a superior can only be performed by a single person – like Szero Rom in the Polska Roma group – in others, by a group of people, e.g. Romani Kris among the Kelderari or Lowari. Th ey are supported by local authorities, for example by Romani commune leaders. Th ough these traditional power structures were suffi cient to protect the culture and identity of Romani groups, the challenges and opportunities brought by globalisation and integration processes in the second half of the 20th century required active leaders who would represent their communities, especially externally. Th ese contemporary activists gave rise to a process known as the ethnic mobilisation of Romani people in Europe; although, it would be much more appropriate to defi ne it as a movement of Romani leaders, as the group on the whole has yet to experience any positive eff ects of the movement’s activities. Jean-Pierre Liégeois, the French sociologist and the researcher of Romani communities, analysed this activism of new Romani leaders in chronological and geographical contexts. He distinguished 5 stages in the development of Romani movement: – the 1960s – establishment of many organisations in Western Europe, ratifi ed by the World Romani Congress in London in 197111; – At the First World Romani Congress, the national symbols of all Romani people were designed, i.e. the Romani fl ag and anthem. Because of linguistic diversity and communication diffi culties, it was announced that some actions aiming to standardise the language would be commenced.12 We should add that, despite the initiatives undertaken in this respect,13 this goal has not been reached; – the 1970s – continuous development of Romani organisations and the establishment of the International Romani Union (IRU) in 1977, offi cially recognised by the World Romani Congress held in Geneva in 197814; Th e most signifi cant event of this period was the establishment of the fi rst genuinely worldwide international Romani organisation, namely the International Romani Union (IRU), with its seat in Prague. Other

11 Jean-Pierre Liégeois (2007), Roma in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 218–219. 12 Project on Ethnic Relations (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy. Princeton, NJ. http://www.per-usa.org/1997-2007/21st_c.htm (accessed on 14 February 2015). 13 Particularly, we should mention Marcel Courthiade, the Romani linguist and polyglot from France. 14 Liégeois, op. cit., pp. 218–219. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 85

actions were related to determining the status of European Romani people. Some leaders avowed to secure the status of a transnational minority for Romani people, on the basis of shared experience, social status, culture, or suff ered discrimination;15 – the 1980s – stabilisation period, Göttingen Congress and recognition of IRU by the NGO United Nations Economic and Social Council; – the 1990s – this period was strongly infl uenced by the situation in Central, Eastern, and South-Eastern Europe, related to the downfall of communism and the political transformation of this region – plenty of Romani organisations were established within a short time; – since 2000 – the consolidation of Romani NGOs in the political arena; participants of the World Romani Congress in Prague launched the idea of Romani nation; Romani representatives are present in public institutions is some countries; consideration of the Roma-related issues as part of integration processes in Europe.16 Th e participants of the aforementioned Fift h World Romani Congress (held in Prague in 2000) decided to establish the IRU Parliament and to promote the status of Romani people as a transnational Romani nation17 or a European minority. Th ese initiatives have not been accepted by all Romani groups and leaders; in particular, the representatives of the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma, led by Romani Rose, who expressed an opposing view in the 1990s. Rose thought that the interests of Romani groups should be won at the national level, considering their dissimilar experiences and contexts.18 Objections were also voiced with respect to the fact that Romani people lived not only in Europe, and the idea of a transnational minority with reference to Romani groups residing in Europe obviously excluded Romani people who lived in the Middle East, Central Asia, North and South America, and Australia.19 At the Fift h World Romani Congress, the Declaration of the Romani Nation was passed. It reads:

We, the Roma nation, individuals belonging to the Roma Nation call for a representation of their Nation, which does not want to become a State. We ask for being recognized as a Nation, for the sake of Roma and of non-Roma individuals, who share the need to deal with the nowadays new challenges. We, a Nation of which over half a million persons were exterminated in a forgotten Holocaust, a Nation of individuals too oft en discriminated, marginalized, victims of intolerance and persecutions, we have a dream, and we are engaged

15 Project on Ethnic Relations, op. cit. 16 Małgorzata Kołaczek (2014), Etniczna mobilizacja Romów a Unia Europejska. Polska, Słowacja, Węgry. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, p. 170. 17 Liégeois, op. cit., p. 215. 18 Project on Ethnic Relations, op. cit. 19 Ibidem. 86 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

in fulfi lling it. We are a Nation, we share the same tradition, the same culture, the same origin, the same language; we are a Nation.20

Th e declaration clearly alluded to the famous speech by Martin Luther King and was submitted before the UN state governments and the UN Human Rights Committee; although, it was not discussed during the Congress. Th e Prague Congress revealed confl icting approaches of delegates with respect to goals, possibilities, and methods of activism within the international Romani movement, and although three more Congresses were held (the last one in 2013), it was hard to reach any signifi cant decisions on a par with those made at the Congresses held in London or Geneva. Th e 2004 accession to the European Union of ten Central, Eastern, and South-Eastern European states with a much larger Romani population than in the “old fi ft een” and further enlargement of this organisation certainly weakened the ability of Romani people to self- -organise. For a long time, the EU allowed member states to make decisions regarding minority issues, thus the chances of being granted funds for Romani people were much greater in the case of Romani organisations active at the national level and not internationally. Th is factor, combined with the gradually increasing activism of the EU with respect to Romani issues, undoubtedly dominated the last decade of the Romani movement. Based on the activism of Romani leaders in the last ten years, it seems that another, sixth, phase of the Romani movement should be added to Liégeois’ classifi cation, with the following characteristics: – signifi cantly decreased activity of international structures within the Romani movement; – establishment of institutions and Romani organisations or organisations affi liated with international and intergovernmental organisations, aiming to increase the social inclusion of Romani people; – increased number of local and national Romani organisations depending on external funding; – greater professionalism of Romani organisations; – establishment of a network for international cooperation between organisations acting in various countries locally and with international partners; – signifi cantly increased activism of young, educated Romani people representing their communities, particularly female leaders; – increased activism of Romani artists, who simultaneously work in their artistic fi eld and participate in social and non-governmental organisations.

20 Th omas Acton, Ilona Klímová (2001), Th e International Romani Union: An East European answer to West European questions? Shift s in the focus of World Romani Congresses 1971–2000. In: Guy, Between Past and Future…, p. 216. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 87

Let us focus on the two fi rst features of the latest phase, namely on the weakened activism of the international Romani movement and on the establishment of organisations and institutions affi liated mostly with the Council of Europe and the European Union. When it comes to the fi rst feature, a lack of success of the aforementioned initiatives proves how heterogeneous the Romani community is (also with reference to politics and issues of representation). As it transpired, the establishment of transnational representations did not exclude those who do not match fi xed categories or do not believe in common interests, and point out that Romani initiatives on behalf of the entire community should consider the national context – including historical, cultural, and economic aspects – in a given country. Initiatives aiming to establish consulting bodies, institutions, or initiatives, realised with the support of Romani and non-Romani groups within the Council of Europe and the European Union administration are slightly diff erent; although, they are still of the international type. Unquestionably, one of the fi rst such initiatives was the establishment of the European Roma and Traveller Forum (the ERTF) in 2004. Th is organisation is an independent international institution, which cooperates with the Council of Europe and was established following a speech made by the then Finnish President Tarja Halonen. At the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, held on 24 January 2001, she said that it was necessary to establish a consulting body comprising of Romani people, which would represent this community at the pan-European level.21 Although this was generally seen as a positive development, some commentators and researchers opposed the establishment of such an institution. Martin Kovats, the political scientist, even stated that the ERTF would become the voice of Romani nationalists and a platform of activity for a few activists and not many leaders.22 Nevertheless, the ERTF was eventually established, with Rudko Kawczyński from Germany (the RNC) as its fi rst president and Stanisław Stankiewicz (IRU) of Poland and Miranda Vudasrante of Finland as its deputies. Th e Executive Committee and the Special Committees on Youth People and Gender Issues were established.23 Th e fi rst of Kovats’s fears was, to some extent, realised, and presently, we can witness the establishment of a new organisation, namely the European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture, supported by the Open Society Institute and the Council of Europe. Th e ERTF is vehemently protesting against this initiative.

21 Peter Vermeersch (2006), Th e Romani Movement. Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe. New York–Oxford: Berghahn Books, p. 193. 22 Martin Kovats (2003), Th e Politics of Roma Identity: Between Nationalism and Destitution. “Open Democracy” 29 July 2003. www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1399.jsp (accessed on 16 January 2015), p. 6. 23 Aidan McGary (2008), Ethnic Group Identity and the Roma Social Movement: Transnational Organizing Structures of Representation. “Nationalities Papers” Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 460. 88 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Th e European Union also strives to become more involved in the issues of Romani communities living in its member states. Th ese actions have been intensifi ed in the last fi ve years, due to frequent migrations of Romani people from new member states to the countries of the “old EU,” e.g. to France or Italy, which consequently tightened their policy against Romani immigrants. Th e spreading of anti-Romani sentiments and xenophobic tendencies in the whole of Europe was not without signifi cance, resulting in the worsening of the already dramatic situation of some Romani people in Europe. Apart from the adoption of various regulations, resolutions, decisions, and statements,24 in 2007, the EURoma (the European Network on Social Inclusion and Roma under the Structural Funds) was established. It is a body comprising governmental experts from twelve EU member states. Nearly a year later, the European Platform on Social Inclusion of Roma was established. It is strictly linked to EU activities. A member state holding presidency in the Council of Europe selects the date of and presides over the meeting of the Platform members. During such meetings, the representatives of EU member states and international NGOs, as well as Romani people themselves are present and the goal is to promote cooperation, good practices, and involvement in activities undertaken on behalf of Romani people. To this day, nine meetings of the Platform have taken place (the last one in Brussels on 16th and 17th March 2015), and one of the most important achievements is the proclamation of 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion that are supposed to defi ne the new goals in order to integrate Romani communities in Europe. Regulations discussed during the meeting in Prague in April 2009 and passed by the Council of the European Union in June 2009 set forth the following activities to be performed in order to implement the strategy and programmes on behalf of Romani people: 1. constructive, pragmatic and non-discriminatory policies; 2. explicit but not exclusive targeting; 3. intercultural approach; 4. aiming for the mainstream; 5. awareness of the gender dimension; 6. transfer of evidence-based policies; 7. use of European Union instruments; 8. involvement of regional and local authorities; 9. involvement of civil society; 10. active participation of

24 Among many documents, we certainly should mention Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of April 5, 2011. EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2011)173) (2011). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/?uri=URISERV:em0049 (accessed on 12 October 2014) – the European Commission developed guidelines on national strategies on behalf of Romani people in Europe. Th e Commission recommends that member states should realise programmes on behalf of Romani people up to 2020 in order to provide them with equal access to education, employment, health care, and accommodation, so they could live in better conditions and integrate without segregation. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 89 the Roma.25 Particularly rule no. 10, on the inclusion of representatives of Romani communities in every stage of planning, implementation, and evaluation of programmes and strategies targeted at them, is supposed to increase the effi ciency of undertakings. Support for the full participation of Romani people in public life, while encouraging them to become involved in civil issues and developing human resources are equally important. Th is led, among other things, to social consultations with reference to draft documents prepared by state and EU authorities, in particular Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of April 5, 2011. EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2011)173 (although, it lasted less than a week). Speaking about the involvement of Romani people at the European level, we must mention the Romani Summits that were organised on three occasions: in 2008, 2010, and 2014, for the purpose of discussing on the highest levels priorities and issues related to the process of integration of Romani people in Europe. Representatives of EU institutions, parliaments, and governments of member states and Romani organisations participated in these summits. However, we should note that, even though this initiative met with a positive response, the last meeting gave rise to serious controversy among Romani people themselves, as the community was scarcely represented. Protests were organised. On the day before the meeting, the European Roma Grassroots Organizations (ERGO) organised a meeting for the representatives of Romani NGOs in a protest against the too small involvement of Romani people in the planning and organisation of the Summit as well as inviting representatives of Romani communities at the last moment. Th is is a paradoxical situation, as the platform, established at the First Romani Summit in Brussels on 16 September 2008, had vowed to include Romani people at every level of activity only to exclude them from one of the most covered and promoted in the media events, organised by the EU on their behalf. Th ese diffi culties, related to the involvement of Romani people at the European level, once again raise doubts as to whether the Romani movement and activism should focus chiefl y on national contexts and local and regional activities, as – not that long ago – was the preference of the EU decision-makers themselves. Considering the abovementioned factors, we can specify several features of the Romani movement of the last 50 years: great dynamism, adaptation to

25 Vademecum – Th e 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion. https://rownosc.info/media/ uploads/biblioteka/publikacje/vademecum10_tekst.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2015), p. 2; Council of Europe (2009), Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma – Annex. Luxembourg, 8 June 2009. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/108377.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2015), pp. 4–6. 90 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People shift ing external conditions (poor eff ectiveness of activities in the international environment since the beginning of the 21st century and transferring pressure to activism at the national level; making use of opportunities resulting from membership in the European Union), and enormously diversifi ed approaches and courses of action adopted by particular leaders in order to achieve goals of the organisations – and, occasionally, the society – they represent. Despite the recognition of their role and importance, none of the organisations achieved tangible results with respect to the most important issues, namely the recognition of Romani people as a nation and the establishment of an association that would be something more than only a consultative body affi liated with international organisations, especially in Europe. Th e main diff erence between international initiatives and Romani organisations at the national level lies in the diff erent defi nitions of the recipients of their activities. International organisations would like to have infl uence over the decisions of organisations and worldwide or transnational institutions, while Romani associations in particular countries strive to participate in decisions with reference to Romani people that are made by institutions in these countries. Considering the aforementioned role of the European Union in the process of limiting activities undertaken by international Romani organisations, increasingly more publications and research papers focus on the national context and national ethnic mobilisation of Romani communities. Although it would certainly be easier, maybe even for the majority, if Romani people were to act as a cohesive unit – as is the belief of Aladár Horváth, a Romani activist from Hungary, who said in his speech at the inauguration of the European Romani Parliament in 1992 in Budapest26 that “there are 15 million Roma in European countries and sticking together is the only answer to their problems”27 – presently, such statements can only be construed as wishes. At the same time, even when we investigate Romani movements in certain countries, they are still mostly analysed in separation from other social movements and activities, with a focus on barriers and diffi culties in social existence. It was clearly noticeable at the 25th anniversary of the downfall of communism in Poland and in Central, Eastern, and South-Eastern Europe, in 2014. Th e anniversary of the establishment of the Solidarity movement or the fall of the Berlin Wall is not mentioned in any public debate in the context of minorities, including Romani people, who were equally or even more aff ected by the political transformation than the non-Romani inhabitants of the former Eastern Bloc. 25 years of freedom allowed Romani leaders

26 EUROM – Th e European Romani Parliament was established by leaders of 22 organisations from 10 countries. 27 Zoltán Bárány (2002), Th e East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 261. Diff erent Roads to One Goal? – Roma and Their Mobilisation in the Last 25 Years 91 from the former Eastern Bloc to make use of democratic values, particularly those grounded in human rights, promoting cultural diversifi cation and non-discrimination in their actions on behalf of their communities. Social awareness of the existence and activism of this movement, being an integral part of the recent history of Europe and the European Union, is extremely poor, and Romani people are oft en perceived as a social problem and not as valuable citizens of Europe who contributed to the history of our continent. Spotting “invisible” Romani people in these crucial processes of the last 25 years in Europe became the inspiration behind the project “Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People.”28 Th is book comprises of texts examining the ethnic mobilisation of Romani people, their identities and identifi cation, as well as the diversifi cation among Romani groups in the last 25 years, but – above all – it is a forum for sharing opinions between readers and 11 of the most active and distinguished Romani activists, interviewed for the purpose of this project. Th ey come from post-communist countries and from Western Europe, sharing their experiences, which are as diverse as their national and political contexts. Th e following people were invited to give interviews (in alphabetical order): – Gejza Adam – co-founder of many Romani organizations and political parties, including Party of the Roma Coalition, academic scholar and headmaster of high schools in Košice, Slovakia; – Ágnes Daróczi – Romani women rights activist, founder of the Romedia foundation, vice-president of the Phralipe Independent Roma Association established in 1990, Hungary; – Orhan Galjus – journalist, director of the Romani radio Patrin, Romani activist, Kosovo, Netherlands; – Karel Holomek – founder of the Moravian Romani Association (Společenství Romů na Moravě), member of the Honorary Committee of Founders and Friends of the Museum of Romani Culture in Brno, editor-in-chief of the magazine Romano Hangos, Czech Republic; – Tímea Junghaus – art historian, curator of the fi rst Romani Pavillion at the Venice Biennale in 2007, director of the Cultural Foundation of European Romani People, Hungary; – Roman Kwiatkowski – chairman of the Roma People Association in Poland, Poland;

28 Th e project entitled “Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People” was realised from October 2014 to March 2016, and co-funded by the European Commission as part of the “Europe for Citizens” programme. Activities within the project included, among others, development of e-learning, conducting workshops for young and talented leaders as well as the preparation of a documentary and book with interviews conducted with Romani leaders. 92 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

– Margareta Matache – former executive director of Romani CRISS (Romania), director of the Roma Program and instructor at Harvard University (USA), Romania; – Soraya Post – Romani MEP from Sweden, elected as the fi rst woman, and on the feminist ticket, Sweden; – Grattan Puxon – Romani activist, fi ghting for Roma and Travellers’ rights for almost 50 years, author of many publications about the Roma, e.g. ground-breaking book about Roma and Sinti Holocaust – Th e Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies (1972), co-authored with Donald Kenrick, co-founder of Gypsy Council and co-organizer of the First World Roma Congress near London (1971), United Kingdom; – Romani Rose – President of the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma, Germany; – Stanisław Stankiewicz – long-time President of IRU and President of the World Romani Parliament, Poland. Furthermore, in the last chapter we provided a short commentary to the interviews, which off ers predictions as to the future of the Romani movement in Europe. It will be a future shaped by the actions of Romani leaders and activists, at the national and international level, rather than by world-wide structures established by Romani people. CHAPTER 3 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders

KAREL HOLOMEK

First of all, I would like to ask you to introduce yourself and say a few words about the organisation you represent, the Moravian Romani Association (Společenství Romů na Moravě). Please, tell us something about your background.

Karel Holomek: My name is Karel Holomek. I graduated from the Mechanical Department of the Military Academy in Brno and worked in my profession, though not without disruption. In 1968, aft er the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops, I was deprived of my post at the Academy and had to work as a labourer for some time. First, I was a lorry driver and then a construction site manager. Th is went on until the Velvet Revolution in November 1989. At that time, I was involved in the events taking place in Brno, my city, right from the outset. I became the leader of the Civic Forum at the company I was working for, and, in this way, was introduced into the very centre of revolutionary processes encompassing the entire city. I was then elected to one of the parliamentary bodies, namely the Czech National Council (Česká národní rada), i.e. the parliament of the Czech Republic within the federal parliamentary assembly of Czechoslovakia. First of all, selected members of the Czech National Council were replaced; all of them were communists, so some had to be supplanted by non-communists. Th en, I successfully ran in the 1990 election and became an MP for a shortened term of 2.5 years. So, in fact, I was an MP for three years, and it was then that the rules and regulations regarding the issues of coexistence or inclusion of Romani people into society were taking shape. At the time, we simply referred to them as the programme of integration and inclusion of Romani people into society. Even then, it was clear that, despite it being a revolutionary time and in spite of the fact that Romani people embraced the revolutionary euphoria and were active participants of the movement, as soon as the revolutionary mood abated, Romani people would need a representative in their relations with the newly-formed municipal authorities. As it later transpired, such a representative would also prove useful in relations 96 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People with local authorities – which would subsequently become regional authorities – and with the state as a whole. Such were the origins of the idea of establishing the Moravian Romani Association, a non-governmental Romani organisation founded and registered in 1991, only a year aft er the Velvet Revolution. I still call it a velvet one – maybe I will have an opportunity to elaborate on this later – because it was smooth when it perhaps should have not been. In any case, we established the Moravian Romani Association, and it still exists, 24 years later. It turned out to be an outstanding and valuable Romani instrument in relations with municipal, regional, and state authorities. Th is “Moravian” connotation, referring to half of the area of the present Czech Republic, meant only that maintaining the activity of the organisation over a large area was a challenge, and limiting it to Czech Moravia matched our possibilities and resources. Th e organisation we established for the purpose of implementing the programme of integrating Romani people into society is still active. Th is is what we have been doing for all these years. Th e programme changed several times, but its core remains as it was at the very beginning, in particular with respect to the integration of Romani people or – if you prefer to call it – their inclusion. Th e programme is based on two pillars, i.e. the preservation and cultivation of Romani identity, while striving to make Romani people active members of society. Of course, there are also more tangible results of our work: this interview is being recorded at the Museum of Romani Culture, a place charged with maintaining and preserving Romani identity, lineage, and history as well as the Romani language, and the Moravian Romani Association was one of the factors that contributed to the establishment of this institution.

As the history of the Moravian Romani Association is quite long, I would like to ask you to give examples of specifi c activities undertaken by the organisation. If you could mention some projects that you are particularly proud of, some success stories from recent years.

KH: When it comes to specifi cs, the programme focused on sending fi eld activists to work with Romani children, which was of vital importance. It was clear that it would be diffi cult to change the older generation of Romani people, that it would be hard to infl uence them, but there was hope in children. Since the very beginning, we have been implementing this programme, free-of-charge, in our seven or eight branches in Moravia, from Northern Moravia through the larger city of Olomouc, Rýmařov, and Šternberk, to Southern Moravia, here in Brno, as well as in Hodonín and Břeclav. Eventually, we also managed to open a kindergarten for Romani children. Later, the focus of the project shift ed to secondary schools pupils. Th is is something that we can be proud of; although, to me, all of this is in the past. We introduced auxiliary pedagogical workers 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 97 into primary schools and classes with a large number of Romani students. Back then, segregation-related issues were not as serious as nowadays when, here in Brno, we have separate schools for Romani children, but we introduced these Romani assistants nevertheless. Th is was a very expensive project; it was supported by the Open Society Foundations, among others, and, if I remember correctly, by the Civil Society Development Foundation. Th e sheer amount of money required nearly killed us, but we believed it to be a crucially important and far-reaching project. We hoped for some support from the Ministry of Education, from the government, but we simply were not given any, and had to do our best to move on from this serious drawback. It was curious that only two or three years later, the Ministry of Education decided that the Romani assistants project was a splendid idea and presented it as their own. However, for the following fi ve years, we could not proceed with the project, due to a lack of fi nancial support from the government. Th is was one of those moments that make it clear how much a lack of stability aff ects the functioning of NGOs, especially Romani organisations. So we were active as an organisation whenever we managed to collect suffi cient funds; although, I do remember that in 1995, 1997, and 1998, we hired people despite the diffi cult conditions. Presently, we have 25–30 employees. Notwithstanding the fi nancial burden, it was a fantastic project, one of our fi rst. Th e next important project was increasing Romani representation in the media, which took the form of a bi-weekly magazine titled Romano Hangos (Romani Voice) that has been published for 18 years, replacing Romano Vodi, which went bankrupt for reasons that I am not going to go into right now. Nowadays, our activity focuses on working in the fi eld, addressing social issues, being active in the media, and tackling political issues, but only within the scope of grassroots initiatives aiming to draw the attention of politicians of municipal, regional, and state authorities. Th is is what we aspire to achieve. If I were to add anything of signifi cance, it would be the following: I think that we are the only Romani organisation in this country to uncompromisingly, continuously, and repeatedly highlight the issue of the Romani identity and be equally dedicated to both this aspect and to our work with respect to social issues and other activities, such as publications. We oft en encounter great obstacles and a lack of understanding, even in relations with governmental institutions, when we propagate these issues. Occasionally, this is even refl ected in some documents, for example in governmental programmes of Romani integration in the Czech Republic, which exist in our country but still require a great deal of work. Th e truth is that while the government reaches out to employees of the Museum of the Romani Culture and the Moravian Romani Association for their support, I must admit, that it also makes use of other NGOs which could be construed as pro-Romani. 98 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

You decided to work for your community and it seems to be a direct result of your origins. Was that the only reason?

KH: Th ere were three reasons. Th e fi rst one was a consequence of the fact that I come from a Romani family. Before the Second World War, my father graduated in Law from Charles University, setting a reasonably good example to follow. However, it was not the only one I had to choose from, as there were other educated people in my family as well as craft smen and blacksmiths. My grandfather, who died in a concentration camp, was a horse trader. My uncles and aunts were pedlars. In our village, Kyjov in Moravia, we had blacksmith and other professions that indicated respect for our origins. I think this was one of the main reasons for my activism. So this is the fi rst reason. Th e second was that for a short time in 1968, I was actively involved in the Association of Gypsies-Romani People, as part of the Prague Spring, which was a time of great elation and an awakening of Romani people, striving to make life for themselves in Czechoslovak society. I had this short-lived opportunity because I had just been fi red from the Higher Military Academy. For over 20 years, I was forced into contact with dissidents. I became a dissident myself, which, in fact, was like a second university for me. From an educated technocrat, I evolved into a man who understood human rights issues, freedom, and a free society, which gave me the ability to choose where to focus my attention at that revolutionary time. I was reaching a pensionable age. Following forty years of labour in technical jobs and a vocational education system, I was looking for something sensible to do in other areas. Th is led me to what I am doing now. I had no idea how hard and demanding my role would be, that it would simply be the role of a friar, but fi nally, as an old man, I can see that it allowed me to become a fulfi lled person.

You have just touched on the answer to the next question: what obstacles and diffi culties have you encountered, and what achievements have you had since you began working for Romani people in 1989? Would you like to add anything?

KH: Yes, I would. Th ese achievements and successes were already visible in the fact that such an organisation even existed and that it endured, while constantly developing. Th e accomplishment was not mine only: it was a collective eff ort of a number of people. I must say that our Moravian Romani Association was always very closely interlinked with the Museum of the Romani Culture, and we always off ered each other support and help in overcoming obstacles. Together, we have created programmes and prepared statements to be submitted before our state and regional authorities. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 99

Th ere were plenty of obstacles. For example, we faced diffi culties in the process of establishing the Museum of the Romani Culture. In 1997, I miraculously managed to procure the building we are currently in, despite the fact that the authorities in Brno had previously announced that they “would not be inviting Gypsies into their town.” Th ey identifi ed the Museum of the Romani Culture with Gypsies. Of course, we have to realise that the statement was not directed exclusively at the Museum – at the time also an NGO; however, such was our shared experience. It is only a sign: a symbol of these past obstacles and, in fact, a symbol of success because, despite everything, we managed to accomplish something that was not widely supported; on the contrary – it met with strong opposition. Moreover, it was not merely a question of doing our job. For some people, it became a mission, where the only law that bound us could be summed up as “if you persist, you will succeed.” Indeed, this endurance, supported by a vision of the future, must be seen as the main reason for our success in realising programmes.

How are your job and activities related to the commemoration and remembrance of the victims of the Roma and Sinti Holocaust? How important was this issue in your activism aft er 1989?

KH: I want to be fair. When we examine these issues, we must always distinguish between approaches taken by diff erent authorities, as authorities change. Some are more concerned with the problems of minorities and, thus, with the memory of Romani and Jewish victims who died fi ghting for freedom. I would not distinguish between the two, I will explain why in a moment. We must consider the government’s policy, including any fi xed programmes, separately from the infl uence of the European Union, which also plays a very important role, as it required that certain conditions be met by candidate countries, including Czechoslovakia. Th e conditions were related to human rights, minorities, and so on. Another issue is the attitude of society to these matters, and this is an enormous problem. If we take account of the gradually deteriorating situation, we will see that the percentage of people averse to Romani people has risen from 65% to 80%, clearly communicating the attitude of these 80% towards Romani people and their problems. Th is, in turn, aff ects society’s approach to the commemoration of murdered Romani people. For them, it is a Romani problem which has no bearing on the rest of society. As for the commemoration of victims, I believe that it must not be divided: the annihilation of Romani people happened for the same reasons as that of Jews’. Furthermore, there is also the issue of various political dissidents or people who were targeted because of their sexual orientation, which remains a great problem for people in 100 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People many countries as well as in people’s minds. Somehow, all these people, and I include Romani people among them, took part in the fi ght for freedom. Many lost their lives – albeit not in vain – never even knowing what they achieved. And what did they achieve? Most of all, they showed how dangerous certain views can be. Th at Romani people and Jews could be deprived of equal rights or become second-class citizens is a preposterous thought. I fi nd this to be a crucial issue and I feel bad when someone says: “Th is is a Roma tomb; we are not going there.” It should not be this way. We have managed to make people commemorate Roma; we will move past this.

What would you identify as a positive and negative infl uence of the European Union on the situation aft er 1989?

KH: It was an enormous infl uence! Without the European Union we would not have even progressed this far; although, we cannot grow complacent. On the contrary, the criteria established by the European Union initially forced us and our authorities to respect and fulfi l requirements related to human rights. I remember that in the 1990s, almost up to the year 2000, I used to attend meetings of bodies deciding on the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, both as an observer and in an offi cial capacity. I assessed how well the Czech Republic performed its duties with reference to respecting human rights on the whole and with regard to Romani people, as a minority deprived of rights to the greatest extent of all minorities and living in the worst social conditions. At the time, I was one of a few who could communicate in English without an interpreter, and it was of great benefi t to me. It was an incredible experience because I visited the whole of Europe, from Lisbon to Uzhhorod, as they say, from the northern countries, such as Norway or Sweden, down to the Balkans. It allowed me to see all the developed countries, including the United Kingdom and Ireland. I learnt a lot; although, it was exhausting, obviously. I hope that I was the right person to accurately judge the situation in the Czech Republic. We are now talking of the Czech situation as it was in 1993, aft er Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist. Relations between Czech and Slovak Romani groups remain virtually unchanged to this day; their bond is both aff ectionate and enduring. In the end, it can be explained by the fact that 95% of Romani people in the Czech Republic have Slovak ancestors if one goes back three or four generations. On the one hand, I could examine Romani issues from the perspective of a man who has worked here his entire life. Please note that 40 years of experience gave me the ability to look at this community with fresh eyes. I found it provincial and backward; however, I graduated from good Czech schools at a time when no one even mentioned segregation, so I could see certain social values being implemented in society, with all due criticism of communist times. On the other hand, I could see how the communist authorities oppressed 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 101

Roma, not recognising their identity and way of live, which did not match the authorities’ goals. As a result of migration to industrial centres, Slovak Romani people started to lose touch with their roots, not unlike the local inhabitants. It was a great fl aw in their characters, which has been highlighted in a very negative way ever since. Nevertheless, I dealt with all these issues and managed to assess the Czech Republic quite favourably, noting that there was still time for it to resolve Romani-related problems more eff ectively prior to the possible Czech accession to the EU. I still stand by my assessment, despite the fact that the situation is oft en far from ideal and the aversion to Romani people is much more prevalent here than in other post-communist countries. At the same time, the Czech Republic adopted a particularly demotivating policy with regard to “its” Romani population, off ering excessively profi table social benefi ts. However, considering the great progress in this sphere, we can now say that the economic conditions – which, as we would do well to remember, aff ect the development of human- ist values, attitudes towards minorities, etc. – are perfect. Th erefore, I still believe that the situation of Romani people will continue to improve, which may culminate in a qualifi ed success in about two generations. It will never be ideal, and we must not expect it but it will become satisfactory, resulting in a perception of Romani people as equal citizens, both in our country and elsewhere in Europe. Th e European Union has a vital role to play in that regard. I fi nd it diffi cult to agree with our great leaders, if we can call them “great” at all, as some are downright unimpressive. I think that one of such personalities is president Klaus, an Eurosceptic. Indeed, he does not support the programme that I have just described, but even Klaus cannot hold a candle to our current president – a genuine populist, leading to the destruction of the integration programme instead of providing support. Th is is a very quick assessment of mine, which gives some idea of the Czech situation within the international context. I am including it in this interview because I have recently participated in an international conference on the programme for levelling out chances for children at the pre-school age, which, in fact, means to admit Romani children into mixed groups with other children at kindergarten. During this conference, I gave a speech, stressing how diffi cult it is to implement such solutions when a person in high authority voices populist sentiments and citizens think: “He is our president; he must be right.” He is obviously wrong and – regrettably – I am criticising Mr Zeman here. He knows me well, and I know him, too, and let it be duly noted that I said these words. Why am I saying all of this? I am saying this because at the conference I was directly followed by an Englishman who addressed me with: “Peter Mercer sends his regards.” (Mercer was also English, and we cooperated for a while within 102 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People the Helsinki Civil Assembly with respect to a project that was implemented in England.) I replied and asked if he understood what I had just said about our president: “I do not know your president at all. I only know your prime minister, Sobotka. Is he really like that?” I said: “Indeed, he is. He is worse than you can imagine.” Th is is the situation in the world and in the European Union.

How would you describe the last 25 years of the Romani movement in the Czech Republic and internationally? Could you tell us, very briefl y, how the situation will evolve, based on those 25 years? What do you think the future holds?

KH: I remember the times when I could travel around Europe, when my health and age permitted. In the late 1990s, there was something that I would call the European Romani representation, where issues related to the integration of Romani people into the rest of society were discussed in great detail. Th e attitude of the European Union was very positive. I remember that there were dozens of summits, organised under the auspices of the EU, in Brussels and in other places, where these issues were debated. I noticed then that there was a very signifi cant, even slightly shocking, diff erence between Romani people from France, England, or Belgium and Romani people from post-communist countries. My points of reference, of course, were mainly from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Romani people from well-developed parts of Europe, representing their communities, were mostly educated people of great ambition. Instantaneously and categorically, they identifi ed themselves as Romani people, actively working on behalf of their communities, whereas our representatives were a bit overwhelmed, oblivious, and always passively accepting, even of undesirable solutions, which they would later criticise. Th ey generally exuded apathy and resignation and were reconciled to their position in society. Of course, a group of Romani people managed to escape this negative process and remained very active. However, there was also a group that experienced increasingly more serious social problems, falling into poverty. It was clearly visible in the children of what we currently refer to as “the lost generation.” Th is phenomenon impeded the implementation of the programme of Romani integration. I think this is extremely important. In free societies, the attitude to minority issues is diff erent: people accept others more readily. Th ey also look at integration-related issues objectively and understand the problem to extend beyond a simple “I like you,” “I do not like you,” “I help you,” or “I do not help you.” Instead, they see that it is an entirely economy-related issue, one that strongly infl uences the functioning of the state. What it means is that if I can encourage Romani people to become involved citizens, the state will automatically allocate less resources to social care, the cost of which is borne by tax payers. Th e crux of the matter 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 103 is that even this rational approach is not generally accepted in our country. People do not say: “Yes, all right, we should accept this.” Th is is what I fi nd to be a critical diff erence, which is diffi cult to eradicate. Some steps to that end have been taken, obviously, but such eff orts, in general, prove to be fruitless. I think that the greatest problem lies in the way Czech society evaluates the ability of Romani pupils to follow the education programme of Czech schools, when we compare this attitude to Western societies. We need to educate an entirely new group of young Roma, who will be treated on a par with other society members.

What are your hopes and ideas for the future? You have already spoken a little about this, but maybe you would like to add something.

KH: Yes. Th is certainly is a diffi cult and demanding job, day in day out. I have been retired for 15 years now, but I must remain active. First of all, if I want to live at all, in the biological sense, I must follow some rules. Th is means that I get up, spend a certain amount of time working, consider going to the offi ce, even though I do not have to. Th at is where I have my computer, where I work and read mail from all over the world. I receive numerous emails in English, from across the whole of Europe. It is simply a job; whether paid or unpaid, it does not matter. I am driven by the vision that all of it serves to accomplish something good, that we will manage to overcome the social obstacles of Romani people not being accepted by others and not accepting others in return; however, the latter tendency is not as strong as it used to be. Romani people have a lot to consider, and they have to fi nd the energy to integrate. I think that this situation has to change within one or two generations. It is not such a short time; it is about 20 years. Right now we are being confronted with a situation that proves how imperfect we are when it comes to understanding these issues. I am talking about immigrants and about the refugee crisis, which, in the Czech Republic, is not a crisis at all. While Germany provides shelter for tens or hundreds of thousands of refugees, as does Sweden, and has reached its capacity, we have admitted a few hundred, without experiencing any problems. Instantly, however, such slogans as “No to Islam” or “Watch out, Islam is a threat to us” have appeared. While the latter can certainly be true, this is why we have state security institutions, the police, the government, and, of course, programmes that clearly defi ne methods for integrating immigrants into society and solutions to be implemented. I do not underestimate the danger, but we can see that the attitude in Germany or Sweden is vastly diff erent from ours. Where is the solidarity? Europe, look what you have done to us, it can be seen everywhere… And we are rebelling now when we should be uniting. A crisis is a test for democracy; only through facing obstacles can you understand how democracy works. Th e United Kingdom faced similar problems in 104 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

1997 when Czech and Slovak Romani people were fl eeing to the British Isles. Th en, we had offi cials at British airports singling out people with darker skin who might pose a threat to the state. Even this mother of democracy showed it had limits when it came to following her own democratic principles. Now is the time to discuss how to uphold democracy and solve this problem. Once we have achieved this, we will be alright. I will see it with my own eyes; it is only a matter of a year or two, but I will see it. I do not know how the situation of Romani people will be resolved, but I choose to believe that my dreams will come true, and this keeps me alive. Ágnes Daróczi

Could you tell us a little bit about yourself. Who is Ágnes Daróczi?

Ágnes Daróczi: I was born into a Roma family. I have four siblings. On both sides my parents were deeply aff ected by the Romani Holocaust. My grandfather on my father’s side was one of the fi rst slave labourers who tried to escape and managed to hide with his brothers. Th ey told him to leave them behind but he didn’t. My grandmother had to bring up the children on her own with some help from the village she lived in. Th e majority of the village were Romanians, so my identity is not only Hungarian and Roma but also Romanian. I attended a Romanian language school. On my mother’s side, my grandma helped a Jewish family; she fed them and gave them shelter. Later they went to my grandma’s sister to the village where I was born. Aft er the war my father who was then about 12 or 13 years old had to work to help raise and support his siblings and family, so he was not able to attend school. My mother’s situation was similar – she only went for two years. Th ey were so poor that they didn’t have enough shoes so not everyone could go to school even. Th ey were smart and clever, but school was only a dream for them. Because of that my parents decided that their children would go to school. As a child I wanted to become an engineer or a chemist. Aft er primary school I went to Debrecen, a city 60 kilometres from my village. It was hard to commute but my parents supported me although for the fi rst month I wanted to come back. I cried every weekend when I came home. Every Monday I cried and did not want to go back, but my mother told me: “You wanted this, you decided to do it, so go ahead and do it and fi nish it.” I realized there was no coming back. My grandmother saw my struggle and she travelled to Debrecen and told me: “My dear, you will become an elegant lady with lots of great skills and knowledge.” But she also said: “You will learn and become a gadje. You will see me and turn your back on me and I, a Romni, will be an embarrassment for you.” It was like a knife in my heart. From that moment on I became an aware Romni, who would never forget that she was from the Roma community. I was only 15. 106 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

During my middle school I started to recite poems – Hungarian and Ro- mani poems. I won a lot of regional competitions and went off to a national competition. My mother’s cousin started to send me his own poems in Romanes and that was a revelation for me – poems in my own language! So I went to the national competition and became the fi rst person in Hungary who publicly spoke Romanes in an open competition. It was in 1972 and Roma were considered a forbidden nation without their own language or own culture. Th ere was only one TV channel in 1972 in Hungary and such a competition was watched by almost everybody. So I became a well-known personality in Hungary at the tender age of 17. Th en I went to university and became the fi rst Romani girl who ever graduated. I did not become a chemist, though, and instead chose to study literature and culture management. During my studies I started performing poems with students all over Hungary – we began a movement right then and there, we showed everyone our Romani culture, language, values. We presented it from the stage. In 1978 we founded a music group, Kalyi Jag. Th e fi rst leader of the group was my husband, János Bársony. He was the fi rst Roma who played the mandolin. He popularized the instrument in the Roma folklore. He studied law. In 1984 Kalyi Jag was already well-known not only in Hungary but also abroad. Earlier, just aft er graduation, I started working at the Hungarian Institute of Culture and Art and I worked with Romani art. In 1979 I organised the fi rst ever exhibition of Romani art with the help of the Institute and some well-known curators. In 1984 my husband decided to leave Kalyi Jag and started to work as a lawyer. But I still helped Kalyi Jag prepare their fi rst record. In 1975 I also prepared some teaching materials for primary education, although the materials were published many years later. I wanted Romani children to feel welcome and comfortable and safe at school. I’m still deeply convinced that if the school system off ers a positive image of Roma, the identity of Roma will remain intact and full of pride. We need more skills and competences to be able to cultivate and manage our identity, it is natural.

You said that there was no recognition of the Roma as a minority in Hungary at that time. How did you manage to convince Hungarian institutions to support your work?

ÁD: International connections and acceptance helped. Th e Hungarian institutions didn’t help us but they let us do what we wanted even though Romani culture was forbidden. We also cooperated with other movements such as the Hungarian dance movement, huge at the time. Th ey understood that you cannot understand Hungarian heritage without Romani culture. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 107

You started with culture: music, poetry, art but then somehow you became involved in politics. Why?

ÁD: Even when we were promoting culture, we had politics in mind very strongly. My daughter Katalin Bársony analyses the beginning of the Romani movement and the fi rst stage of the so-called cultural paradigm. We had no minority rights and no acceptance, no institutions and so on, and we used the cultural power of our heritage to be recognised and noticed. Th is heritage is extremely valuable and, what is even more important, accepted. So we started with something acceptable and tried to become accepted in other areas through the back door. During communist times, there were structures and laws instructing the police to build and sustain the idea of “Roma crime.” Th ey wanted to fi nd the so-called Romani genes for criminality. Th ey conducted research in Romani settlements using social workers. Th e democratic transformation put an end to all of that. According to my daughter’s analysis, the fi rst stage of the movement was determined by a cultural paradigm and was very successful. Aft er the transformation, the human rights paradigm took place. And it still exists today, but it has not been so successful and it did not change the perception of Roma for the majority of society. Th e fi rst sign was that society did not recognise the Romani Holocaust as it did recognise the Jewish Holocaust. Roma have never been part of a winning group. We were only survivors. Our struggle was not accepted and recognised. Th at is the reason why I fi nd the European Parliament’s resolution from 2015 to be extremely important because it recognises anti- Gypsyism as a specifi c form of racism which is also connected with the Romani Holocaust (Pharrajimos). It is time to face the past and prevent it from happening again. Th e other sign is that the idea of equality has never become a reality in Hungary and other post-communist countries. During communism, Roma had jobs, went to school, had a place in society. But at the same time there was a huge pressure to assimilate and to leave Romani culture behind. But Romani culture is fi rst of all adaptable: the more they pushed us out, the more we looked for a niche, so we could work and make a living. We found metal work, music, entertainment, and went with these services to our customers. Now we have the right to preserve our culture but we do not have the institutions, structures, or space to do it. Now it is time for the Romani movement to fi ght for emancipation and to use both these paradigms. We need political representation. Our voice needs to be heard fi rst on a national level because of the diff erent national contexts and structures and then on an international level. Th e need for Roma participation in initiatives of the majority of society is only on paper, it does not exist in reality. 108 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

We have three issues and questions we need to deal with. Firstly, the poverty issue, which is not a Roma issue, but one belonging to mainstream politics. We need to press governments about this. Secondly, the issue of racism, again a mainstream issue and fundamental for democracy. Th irdly, the issue of identity, which has two sides: the development of education and competences but also the modernity of our identity. Th ere is no space to use our language and demonstrate our culture in many countries. We have been in Europe for more than 700 years yet still many people know nothing about us, and are only aware of the stereotypes. Romani NGOs on a national level should come together, build structures, defi ne their problems, and talk about them with their governments. At the same time they need to propose cultural and social initiatives using good practices and be the owners of their own identity. We need a permanent structure with fi nancial security in order to work on our problems. But we need to defi ne them ourselves. We need a place when we can show the values of our culture but also a place where Roma can learn modern skills, be competitive and be partners.

Let’s play devil’s advocate: Roma leaders were fi ghting segregation in education and now you are proposing a place which is not focused on integration.

ÁD: But it will be integrative. If we organize an exhibition about the Holocaust or the Second World War, we do not have to do it only about Roma. Educational workshops can be integrative too. But at the same time we will have our space, a permanent place, where we can implement such initiatives. And this will boost our pride as a people, as a nation with its own culture, language and history – an integral part of European history and the present. Moreover, such institutions would help us infl uence policy and become leaders responsible for a positive Romani image. Research on Romani issues is oft en used by state politics without any Romani input. If we provide analysis and resources, it will be harder to manipulate such data. We need to oppose decision makers’ ignorance and sometimes ill intentions. Th e decision makers choose “Roma faces” that are useful to them. Th ey do not care about Roma but rather their own political career. Th at is the reason why we need a structure, transparency, an electoral process. It will make it so much harder for them to divide the Roma community and to use Roma for their own benefi t. We need to be greatly involved in mainstreaming and targeting our issues and solutions. For many years the focus on human rights allowed state authorities to name the symptoms of exclusion and the problems, but it did not tell us the source of these symptoms and problems. Th ey are caused by a fear that politicians do not want to face or fi nd the real problems and solve them. Neo-Nazi groups are rising and are getting increasingly more social acceptance. But the political elites don’t know how to stop this. But they need to because there is a real danger in many countries that successive governments will be led by fascists. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 109

What about all the programmes and projects for the Roma community?

ÁD: Perhaps on paper they were for Roma, but who made sure those funds went directly to the Roma? In Hungary less than 10% of those funds were managed by Roma. At the same time the government announces time and time again how much it spent on Roma. And that creates hate. Hate against us. And I know about projects where a non-Roma organisation received €600,000 and were supposed to hire just one Roma person. One Roma for €600,000? An audit is essential and Roma need to be involved in that, too.

What is your opinion about the Romani movement and its progress over the last 25 years?

ÁD: We have a rapidly growing group of well-educated young Roma nowadays who can support the movement which we started in the 1970s. But still, as I said before, we do not have any structures to develop, to grow, to be autonomous. We have self-governments but they are not autonomous, we are still dependent on others. Of course the movement achieved a great deal during the last 25 years and the fall of communism really sped up the process, but we are still stuck. Th ere is the initiative of the European Roma Institute. It is a good initiative, but we need to start with local, national structures in every country and then have a European structure, which is both well-funded and stable. Th e same goes for representation – we need to start with a strong representation on a national level and then send these national representatives to the ERTF and the EU.

What about the next 25 years? Where is the Romani movement heading?

ÁD: I hope that such initiatives as using modern technology to fi ght poverty can be led by Roma organisations in the future. We can work not only for the Roma but for the whole of society. Our experiences could help the majority of society, for example, in being bilingual. We have this experience and increasingly more children are being brought up this way. We can off er our expertise. We do not have to be people who are given something, we can also give Europe a great deal. Roma have the potential to be equals in European societies. But right now we are afraid of growing extremism and violence against us and other minorities. Europe fi rst needs to deal with that. Extremists are enemies – not only ours, but also the enemies of democracy.

STANISŁAW STANKIEWICZ

Let’s start with some personal issues related to your life. As a young boy you travelled with a caravan. How did a young boy from a Romani caravan become a great, internationally recognised Romani activist?

Stanisław Stankiewicz: I have asked myself that question lots of times. I can say the things that my dead grandfather and father would have said. My grandfather had a long life, and lived to over 100. My dad was a very open-minded man, so my life’s journey was so much easier. Great social and political upheavals and transformations have taken place in my lifetime. I have met many great leaders on many occasions: the Czech President Václav Havel, President Tarja Halonen of Finland, the Bulgarian President, many prime ministers, Pope John Paul II in Rome as well as Kofi Annan. I always say to myself that it was my destiny that, “you are from a caravan, but you have some skills, and you will have to serve your nation, because the person who is above us all knew that such changes would happen.” And I have always known that someone above us said that there would be people doing things in ways diff erent from our tradition.

It was destiny, but destiny needs some help.

SS: Well, yes. It just happened that way. Some facts from my life might make things interesting for other people. I’ve always liked meeting new people. When our caravans stopped across Poland, my father had a kind of a register book, which, as the leader of the group, he had to take to the authorities, where he had to report our stay. It was then I saw a completely diff erent world out there. Th ey asked, “Why did you stop over there, Gypsies?” Th ose were the regulations before we could stop somewhere. So I saw a world that treated me as an alien and I was curious why that was the case. As a young man, I was not aware I was diff erent, but because I was a typical Gypsy the authorities obviously treated me diff erently. So not only did I want to get to know the world that surrounded me on a daily basis, but also this other world, the authorities, administration, and police that would come and destroy 112 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People our campfi res. As a young man I wondered why this is the case and surely I’m just like everyone else. Also, let’s remember that there were not many literate Romani people then and the old Polish administrative system had ceased to exist. Aft er the Second World War, there were many people in administration that had only managed four or fi ve years of school. I went to school during the winter so as not to be bored (despite all the work we had with the horses), but on the other hand, everyone was astonished that I went to school while living in a caravan. Of course, I had to make arrange- ments with people in the caravan to know where they would be. Th ey left me signs (called śpera) so I could get to them at the weekend. Sometimes I visited them, sometimes I did not, but I always found them thanks to these signals. And my world got wider and wider. You know, the more you read, the more you understand, and the world becomes more interesting. But this also gene- rated problems. Romani people get married at a young age and I was already “assigned” to a girl by my parents and the other party kept asking when I was fi nally going to fulfi l my obligations. My father just shrugged his shoulders and said: “What can I do? He studies, he wants to study, I can’t stop this.” And this saved me every time. I remember one winter our caravan stopped in a few places, and from time to time we played music at some parties in the country. Th ere was an older Rom that I and my brother worked with. I learnt to play the instruments myself and we were spotted by some man, Mr Szymański. He was a concertmaster at a symphonic orchestra and he also had his own big band. He wanted me and my brother (a self-taught drummer) to join his band. We couldn’t read music, but he hired us anyway. He spoke to our parents and told them that he would pick us up and bring us back to the caravan. We couldn’t read sheet music and all the band members could. I was sitting at the front during a rehearsal and he said to me: “Listen, there are some parts when you play and some when you do not” and because I had a little musical talent, I knew when to play and when not to, because when you’re in a big band all the instruments don’t actually play the melody, but only some fragments, phrases, and bars. I continued with his band and he said one day: “I can’t just leave you like this. You have to pass the entry exams to get to music school. I’ll show you how.” We were interested, of course, and we went along but were unprepared. It was a strange experience for us because all the people there belonged to some music group or other. Although we couldn’t read sheet music, we had to focus on understanding rhythm, which thankfully we both excelled in. We were worried about having to know triads or understand the tones someone else played and counting how many there were, but generally our skills turned out to be decisive. I decided I would go to two schools: secondary school and music school. I still had to lie about being a Rom (and this is a Romani 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 113 stereotype), make use of loopholes and continue to avoid getting married, despite graduating from schools and going to university. In 1986 I was spotted by Vania de Gila-Kochanowski, a professor from the Sorbonne. Th e International Romani Union board had then just held a meeting in the French Senate and they were looking for young educated people, so he made me an off er to come to France. Th ere were some problems because it was impossible then to get a visa to France immediately. Th ere was also a quarantine period of around 7 days. Somehow, I managed to get there and I was elected a member of the board of IRU as they had no one from Poland. It was 1986. I met lots of educated people, professors of nuclear physics and the suchlike, and this gave me a boost. I was happy that I was mingling with such people. I felt compelled to do something with my life. Later came the Fourth Congress in Jadwisin near Warsaw and I was one of its organisers. It was magnifi cent, attended by many people, among others Adam Bartosz and Andrzej Mirga. We decided then to promote younger people, so in 1990 I was elected one of four vice-presidents. I was fully aware of my obligations so I started to get to learn as much as possible and aft er the conference in Snagov, Romania in 1993 I began meeting new people, more politicians. I was spotted and became the director of the Soros program for Romani people in 24 countries. Its offi ce was in Zurich, Switzerland where there were 4 or 5 of us. We launched all many initiatives including the “Roma helproma” slogan, amongst others. We also began participating in various trips, as the IRU was affi liated to the UN.

Associations.

SS: Yes, we have our representatives in Geneva, Vienna, in UNESCO, and the world just continued to open up for this boy from the tabor. I met lots of diff erent people and tried to listen and learn (which I still do). Being elected and possessing titles do not prove anything, you have to gain prestige. If you want to gain prestige among Romani people, it is not only enough to observe tradition or to have an interest in it, you have to work hard to get it. I was lucky, through my time serving in the foundation, I directly helped Romani people. I also visited plenty of countries, towns, villages; I built wells for Romani people in Carpathian Ruthenia beyond Uzhhorod in Ukraine; I repaired houses for older people in the Romani district of Vilnius. Of course I didn’t do it on my own, I did it using our traditions, as I always worked with young Romani people and they always kept their word and helped. And this means a lot in Romani culture. I have travelled across the whole of Europe where there were various Romani issues and tragedies, in Russia, the Balkan states, Italy, and I always went there as a representative of both our foundation and IRU, so that made my job easier. 114 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

I think I managed to gain some trust and respect among the European Romani people.

Such activism would have been impossible in communist times. Its downfall undoubtedly made it possible to open doors for that Romani boy from Poland. Could you tell us what the consequences of the end of communism were for the Romani movement?

SS: It was a shock. It was a shock even before I returned from France for the fi rst time, when I was elected, so the communist regime suspected me of many things, like having contacts in the West, which meant I was constantly under surveillance. It was only when I was granted access to some of my secret service surveillance fi les from the Institute of National Remembrance that I discovered the reason why I had not been granted visas, why someone had said that my fi les had been sent to Warsaw, and so on and so forth. Th e communist authorities saw me as a threat and were constantly wondering why “that Rom was meeting someone from UNESCO.” I’ll give you an example: when I was in Paris in 1986, I met the Polish consul who told everybody, including the representative of UNESCO, that I had been elected without any consultations with the government. But he was replied that the IRU is an independent organisation, for Romani people, and Roma people know whom to elect. However, at the time nothing could be done without the approval of authorities. As I mentioned earlier, Romani people had no opportunities to develop at all, only aft er the downfall of communism, the social and political transformation, and the establishment of “Solidarity” did the situation change for the better, even though there had been some Romani organisations, like the one of the Carpathian Roma in Tarnów. Romani people had their naturally emerging leaders and that was all. Th at was fi ne until they encountered this diff erent, organised world and an administration where they could not prevail as leaders. And they knew it. Th ey were a folklore curiosity and were not treated seriously. As we know full well, the various obligations of the authorities on behalf of the Romani people, adopted during the settlement of Romani people aft er 1964, were a pure fi ction. However, Romani people understood that if the nation is in danger, it is necessary to work and do something to protect it against destruction from this new danger, and this is exactly what the Romani people did. Th ey did not know the political mechanisms that were used by non-Romani people and they did not want to understand them, as it was not their world. Th ey did not know the law and oft en breached it as they had not participated in its development. As a result, they were confused by many of the activities of non-Romani people, and at the same time, non-Romani people were confused with Romani habits, customs, traditions, cooking and the suchlike. […] 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 115

Aft er the war, Roma tried to fi nd their relatives. Somebody asked me: “Why didn’t you look in the archives?” Firstly, we had no professional archivists and secondly, it was unthinkable to have access to state documents, especially so for Romani people. […] We knew something had to be done. During communist times, everything was based on offi cial stamps, on offi cial documents and not on words and the Roma law was based on given word. With the gadje, with the institutions one could not deal in this way. One would have to have some offi cial documents, some confi rmations and that is why in the 1950s and later it happened that some pseudo-leaders were nominated or, like in Czechoslovakia, that someone was crowned etc. It was absurd, they copied habits from the 15th and 16th centuries when Romani kings were crowned in the royal chancery.

Th e problem was that the person contacting the authorities was not the actual leader.

SS: Yes. When contacting the authorities he was generally submissive which everyone knew about. Some of them closed their eyes and said: “I’ll make a fool of them but you know that I’ll sort some things out for us to make our life easier, I’ll get you that coal for heating, for example.” It is not true that Romani people, even the uneducated ones, did not understand the mechanisms at work here, they had their intuition. Th ey understood that more important institutions were needed and that’s why the IRU emerged in the aft ermath of the 1971’ Congress and other minor organisations. Many such organisations were established in other countries much earlier than in Poland, which was the last country where Romani people lived a nomadic life, until 1970s and even later. Because of this fact, Romani people were suspicious of the authorities, and it was believed that contacting them was wrong and would not bring any good. Th ey felt that the authorities were not friendly towards them, because they wanted to force them into a new system that they did not know or recognise. Romani people had a dilemma: how to respect their own law and how to respect a law that excludes their own. It is a dilemma that persists until today. And because Romani people have not passed any laws, then things that are odd for them are simply treated as being wrong, impossible to understand. So with this in mind, Romani people used the emergence of these various leaders to make their claims more understandable for non-Romani people. Having a president, commissioner, and our own parliament meant Romani people were treated more seriously. Th ey also began to understand that the growing internal integration of the Roma, facilitated by their organisations, changes the perception of Romani people by non-Roma and makes Roma voice heard. However, we soon discovered in the IRU and other institutions, like the Central Romani Council and the editorial offi ce of Rrom p-o Drom, that the situation was diffi cult. I remember, before the Congress in 1990 in 116 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Poland it had been clear that representatives of various countries would attend and something should be done in connection with that. So we came up with an idea, actually suggested by a friend of mine, a journalist, who said: “Listen, you have to write something.” So we developed the idea of the Rrom p-o Drom newspaper. Th e fi rst edition came out and we took it to the Congress. It was only 8 pages long, but we were able to tell everyone at the Congress that the Roma in Poland were at the same level as the other participants who brought their publications to the Congress. Th is was, I believe, the beginning of the change of the way Roma in Poland think.

So Romani people established various organisations in order to be able to live in a non-Romani world, to adapt some rules and be treated as partners.

SS: Yes. Th ey became aware that the puzzles put together by non-Romani people didn’t contain any Romani pieces. Firstly, if we are not going to be an important piece of the puzzle, we will be perceived as nobodies, people will not respect our demands, our requests, or anything we believe in. Secondly, establishing organisation will develop our internal solidarity, makes us more successful and strengthens our social standing, we will not be deprived of our old cultures and traditions. Romani bands may have played an important role in preserving not only the Romani language, music and singing, but much more.

You’re talking about music bands?

SS: Yes. Th ey propagated the Romani cultural heritage and were a kind of a positive showcase for non-Romani people in the times when mass media were not on such a level as today. In the past there was not much on TV, so every show had a huge audience. Even now, for example aft er the Ciechocinek Roma Festival, people react with sympathy and say: “I like Romani music.” I wonder if they just like the music or the Roma people as well but it is enough that this positive feeling emerges.

Let’s return to your earlier work in the IRU. One of your fi elds of activity were the issues of the Holocaust, the extermination of Roma. You were actively involved in research about the Porajmos, the Romani Holocaust. What are your thoughts on the role of the experience of extermination in the self-organisation of the Romani people? How important is this experience for contemporary Roma?

SS: Th is issue was mentioned at the First Congress and then in Göttingen where Romani Rose was present, because for some time aft er the war, Romani people were in the so-called unnatural world. It is diffi cult to explain the tragedy they suff ered. Th ey still hoped someone had survived. In Romani culture one must 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 117 not say they do not know if someone is dead, because there was no evidence. So people kept searching for the ones they had lost, some people were found, most were not. Th is not only refers to Poland but also to Germany, to Sinti in particular and to others. We wanted the Romani people to become aware that in contemporary world everyone was trying to claim the Holocaust, so to speak to appropriate it in order to pass the message: “Here, look at us, how many millions perished, how many of us had been killed.” I saw this with my own eyes. I was nominated by the Polish Minister of Culture and later by Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek to be a member of the International Auschwitz Committee led by Władysław Bartoszewski (former Auschwitz prisoner and Polish Minister of Foreign Aff airs), so I heard many things. I saw a Russian/Soviet exhibition there but I didn’t see a Romani one. But Romani people noticed that even before I did. We made a huge mistake by not revealing to the world that this was one of the greatest tragedies in history. In that sense, we see the outside world as a danger to us to some extent, because of all these totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. Are Romani people making use of this moment in time? I don’t think so because the Romani people were not focused on making all of these issues public. Th ey have too great a respect for the dead to think of organising events commemorating these issues. However, I think the need to highlight the massacre was underestimated which led to the idea of the “forgotten Romani Holocaust.” It was forgotten because it started to be mentioned only aft er the political transformation in Poland and other countries. Th ere is no information about what actually happened. Th ere are no commemorating plaques in my city, on the prison walls in Białystok. Th anks to our eff orts and media coverage, research has been conducted regarding this site. Th e conclusions may be distressing for some. I have now been allowed to install a commemorating plaque, but we must wait until the Institute of National Remembrance fi nishes its work. In connection with this question, Romani Rose started it earlier as a member of family that had experienced persecution. I and my family had similar experience. German Sinti started to speak about it much earlier, making use of the fact that aft er the war Germans were more acquiescent. Th e Romani people in Poland travelled for a long time and we discussed it only amongst ourselves, but then our organisations realised what was going on and we began to discuss the issue of compensation for victims. It all started in the IRU as its members were better educated, and had great respect for the culture and traditions. Th at is why they were respected outside: because they did not have a private interest, they interest was in working on behalf of the Romani community. I’m only sorry that we do not include our young people in organising commemorating events in Auschwitz, like the Jewish community does. Th is kind of affi rmation would show that we do not forget. If an event takes place, there 118 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People always seem to be some misunderstandings, every leader wants to promote himself by showing everyone what he has achieved, but I hope this will soon end. Th e consolidation regarding matters important to the community increases because there is greater awareness that we should organize these anniversaries together. I am optimistic that we can do it.

Do you think this will be the fi rst step to building a common platform for various Romani movements? We all know that the community is extremely divided and confl icted.

SS: I think that with reference to tradition and habits, Romani people try to behave appropriately to each other, because oft en people say they are extremely confl icted people. It’s not like Stankiewicz is arguing with Kwiatkowski or someone else, we just have diff erent opinions. We have the right to dif- ferent opinions. Everyone thinks that all Roma are talented musicians but that’s simply not true. Th ey think that all Roms are dark skinned, and all Romani women are fortune-tellers but these are all stereotypes. We don’t want to fi ght these stereotypes, that’s the role of education. Romani people also have their own stereotypes. Our actions may appear to be chaotic, and it oft en looks as though Romani do completely diff erent, uncoordinated things in diff erent countries. Let me compare the situation to what happens to animals when they are confi ned in small spaces for a long time. I feel a great bond with horses so I’ll use horses as an example. When we keep horses enclosed in a pen, they stay close together and they get used to not wanting to go out. When they are fi nally set free they run around chaotically in diff erent directions, but give them time and they’ll start grouping together again. I think it’s the same with Romani people. Th ey’ve lived for years in a system that didn’t allow people freedom, even though it’s a value Romani people care deeply about. Now that they’re free, the ego runs wild, as is the case with every human. As an analogy, people living in communist times rarely argued about fences and borders, but when they became owners of their own land and property they started putting up fences, installing surveillance cameras and telling their neighbours not to trespass on their property. Th is will disappear in time and become more like the US, where people do not need to erect fences to respect borders. Romani people will evolve in the same way. And I’m saying that not because I’m a Rom, but because I objectively admire the fact that they oft en see things more quickly than people around them and this will contribute to the better understanding their place in this peculiar, institutionalised, modern world. I’ve not noticed it in Poland but it’s a process that is happening in other countries. Th ere are increasingly more hackers among young Romani people. In Kosovo George Soros launched an 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 119 innovative satellite communication system, which Romani people were the fi rst to use, they adapt to new things quickly. We are in a situation right now that we realise that our activity, not only IRU but also the European Roma Forum that I, not to brag, was a co-founder, brought results. But we have also noticed that had we not had an organisation like IRU we would have had diffi culties fi nding an international or state advocate. Finland has agreed to act in this capacity. I met Finnish President Tarja Halonen at her home, which resulted in the development of contacts and relations. Th ere is not such term as “lobby” in Romani, because it implies having an infl uence on someone, making them “be on your side.” It is a little more ambiguous in Romani culture, but we have realised that unfortunately in this world such a thing exists and it can be very helpful. At present, our international activities have resulted in a change in perception in both Romani people and also in states and politicians. Even though Romani people were indiff erent to begin with, they now notice this approach is necessary. Th anks to our contacts and relations with the European Parliament and UNESCO, 8th April was made International Romani Day and 5th November Romani Language Day. Institutions are necessary.

You mentioned a point in the future that awaits Romani people. What is it? What will the Romani future look like? Who will they be in 50 years’ time?

SS: It all depends on the majority of society. We’re realistic and we know that our Romani way passes through the lands of non-Romani people and we have to respect their rules. Th e point in the future you mentioned is related to the ideas, plans, and strategies that are supposed to make people happier. Th is all depends on how people defi ne happiness. Some people think for a country to be happy it needs to possess lots of territory or have a large army. But Romani people realise that the time of territorial claims, wars, and revolutions is now over. Today’s world is all about money and the economy. Th is is all that matters today and a human being is there only to carry it out. In connection with that, our point, the Roma point of view, is to think about the threat to our existence as any other nation. Perhaps not all nations pay attention to their existence, to the existence of their culture, whether their languages will continue to exist, etc. But we do care because we love what we have, actually, in comparison with other we have almost nothing, but we have ourselves, we have that language and in a limited way we can enjoy what we have. Th is world could be a little diff erent, more understandable and free for everyone. Romani people have always said that the world was created for us all and it shouldn’t be divided by borders or into countries. Th ere is an old legend that tells us that when God gave the land to all the people of the earth, the Roma were sleeping. I expanded on this legend in Budapest. A Rom 120 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People went to God and told him he had received no land. God said: “I do not have any more land, but you will not need it. I will give you a sharp mind and sharp wits, and if you make use of your Romani brain, you will survive and succeed.” Perhaps this story is inadequate for today’s world, but Romani people, like everyone else, have their needs. Th ey also want to live in peace, to bring up their children, cultivate their culture, and cherish their language. A Rom cannot suddenly become assimilated and become something he is not. You cannot suddenly become Polish, American, or French, people can’t simply transform into something they’re not.

Will there be Romani people 50 years from now?

SS: Yes, in 50 years and 100 years. Maybe they will perceive themselves slightly diff erently. Romani people have never been overenthusiastic about education, because they saw it as a form of forced assimilation, which they fear. However, they also see some advantages. Without knowledge about the future’s newest electronic and digital technologies, we will not be able to go into this future, and to understand it. If we do not understand it, we won’t be able to traverse this world. We are a minority, but it’s both a European and global minority. We need to have relations and contact with other people. In order to establish these relations we need to achieve a satisfactory level of education and this is why our children now go to school. But there is another problem. Many of us believe this enlightenment will also enlighten others and that the majority of society will begin to understand certain things because nowadays the majority does not have time or does not want to understand. Th e majority of society is happy with their lives and do not think it is necessary to understand Romani people or their ideas and way of life. Perhaps this enlightenment will create a situation in which we would not have to become adapted but could adopt the majority’s wisdom that would help us to develop. Perhaps the majority might then be able to develop appropriate tools, available for everyone. Th is kind of enlightenment could shine for us all. It’s a question for everyone, a question about the direction humanity should go.

Finally, what is your vision for a Romani identity in the future? Th e question is related to the idea of a Romani passport that IRU recently put forward. Rotaru had similar ideas 60 years ago, but they were more general. IRU has a more detailed concept for Romani people as a Romani nation. Does this herald a transformation of the Romani identity?

SS: Th is is a fascinating issue as all these things began to develop when I was in charge. We found out that the Romani Union had some symbols: a fl ag, an anthem, etc. In some ways these symbols are the reason we can now say 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 121 that we have an identity, that Romani people can be more proud, that we are a non-territorial nation and land is the only thing that we do not have. We have all the other attributes that defi ne us as a nation. In a way, we anticipated the current situation in Europe, including the immigration of all these refugees or economic migrants, as some people put it, from the South to Europe. We envisioned this might happen some 5 years ago. We concluded that IRU also had to focus on social or humanitarian issues. We wondered what we could do in order to include IRU in the process of helping Romani people and families in Europe that lived in extremely diffi cult conditions. So by 2013 we had signed 13 agreements with International Red Cross organisations in Poland, Sweden, Russia, Romania, to name a few. We needed this in order to begin offi cial cooperation with the organisations. We wanted to participate in the process as a partner, but not only as a partner. So it was all agreed and we signed these agreements in Poland and other countries. We asked ourselves what we need to know to implement this? Th ere are lots of intelligent people out there who know all the regulations related to social care for Romani people abroad. And they’re not Romani, but they apply for social care and whatnot. Th e authorities in these countries start to realise they are not Romani and sometimes demand that they prove they are Romani. Who can provide such proof? Of course, some institutions can. Th at doesn’t mean that someone comes along and says: “Yes, I’m a Rom, so I want to make use of the available benefi ts.” What’s more, we thought that the Indians in Florida or elsewhere in the US had been recently granted so-called ethnic passports; they even wanted to go to England for some sporting event as ethnic Indian participants, but it did not work out the way they wanted. But when we mentioned the idea of the Romani passport there was a great fuss with people saying it is illegal and wrong. But the most interesting thing for us is that we secured for ourselves certain certifi cates and authorisations when we were developing this idea. We prepared everything in the utmost professional way and we explained to them that this was not a typical passport which might be needed to cross borders. I’m quite astonished that neither non-Romani people nor various institutions were against this idea, but only several Romani people who, to be honest, were lured into objecting by people who didn’t like the idea. But we concluded that if the Indians in the US have their ethic passports, why shouldn’t we have ours. And there was a real reason for it – we wanted to integrate the Romani people. It shouldn’t only be about the fl ag or the anthem, it should be about Romani saying: “I belong to a large, worldwide community.” According to our calculations there are 50 million of us. Some people maintained there were 8 million Romani in Europe, but currently we know that it’s about 15 million, as in Turkey alone there are about 4 million. Th ere 122 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People were people who feared there were even more. We started to notice there would be Arabs and other “unwanted guests” in Europe, who would be perceived stereotypically and who would not be able to prove who they were and would be deported. And as a result of these stereotypes, Romani people would be deported, too. Generally speaking, Romani people usually do not carry any documents so they cannot prove they are European Roma and that is why they are black. Th is echoes the situations of the two blond Roma children who were taken away from their parents in Ireland. Th e passport would make it easier for genuine Romani people. What is more important, it would be an example of national solidarity, because, as President Václav Havel told me, “if you think of yourself as a nation, you do not have to ask.” When we submitted our charter to Kofi Annan we were aware that the defi nition of “nation” developed in the 19th century said that a nation should possess land. Consequently, if you have no land, you have no right to be a nation and this was our problem. So, once again I focused on the idea of the passport, but at one point we stopped developing the idea as we have to wait for society to grow up a little and mature to the idea, in order to see if it is really needed. Will this idea bring positive results? Or will they be negative? We do not know what lies in the future, but I just want to say that apart from factors like a Romani culture, an anthem, we belong to a particular nation that some call an “ethnic group,” but we do not use this term because some European countries recognize us as a national minority. Th ese are the origins of the idea of a Romani passport. ROMAN KWIATKOWSKI

We meet today to speak about how the situation of the Romani people and the Romani movement has changed aft er the fall of communism in the last 25 years. It is an important anniversary. If we go back 25 years, what did the fall of communism mean for the Romani people, especially in Central and Eastern Europe? What hopes and expectations did it bring? Were they fulfi lled?

Roman Kwiatkowski: First of all, when it comes to all the political transformations aft er 1989, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, we can say that Romani people started to dream of a better future for their children as did the majority of all people living in the region. Very soon it turned out that Romani people had to remind themselves where they are from and where their place is. Romani people hoped that many positive things would happen aft er the transformation – that there would be a democracy, that they would have equal rights in their countries like the rest of society, and that they would not be discriminated against. Although discrimination in communist times was slightly diff erent from what it is nowadays, it still took place, for example, in the form of settlement programmes in Poland and other countries. Frankly saying, from my point of view as a young man in those times, I had much high hope for changes aft er what we had gone through here in Poland, for example as a result of the anti-Romani riots in Oświęcim. It took a very long time to try to get closer to non-Romani people, but when we managed to become friends, all these riots exploded. I think that Romani people were quite successful then, especially the Polska Roma community, compared to other Romani communities. Th ey didn’t expect any help from the state, but relied on themselves, so they worked in trade. Th is trade was then perceived as profi teering, something illegal, and indeed it was illegal then. Nowadays, people call it enterprising. Romani people tried to make ends meet when there was literally nothing in the shops. Th ey became the victims because of being so fl exible, buying cars, acting diff erently, they were seen as a problem. Aft er 1989 Romani people did have their 124 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People hopes for a positive change but our hopes were soon shattered. It turned out that it was still the wrong time for higher expectations. And then came the new, capitalist reality.

But there was a positive aspect of this. Romani people began organising themselves on their own. Do you think this was odd for more traditional people that Romani organisations were acting in a non-Romani environment?

RK: I just wanted to say that aft er 1989 we had only one possibility. First of all, we could register as an organisation that would protect the rights of our own minority. Th ere had been no such organisations of this nature before. Th ere were one or two Roma organisations in Poland, maybe more, but they were not accepted by the Romani community. On the contrary, it was forbidden to even contact them. We were not allowed to cooperate with them. Th is also resulted from some kind of culture, tradition of the Romani people who did not accept these settlements and the state policy as we had our own policy and we lived in our own community in accordance with our rules and Romanipen standards. However, we then became aware that Romani people, like everyone else, have the right to fi ght for their future, to care for their culture, their education, etc. Th at’s why we established this organisation and made it work. Obviously, it was not easy then, and that’s why so many Romani people did not agree with it. Th ankfully, I had a lot of support and respect from my family. Besides, someone had to take responsibility for my family and their ancestors and we managed to do it. First me, then my family. Th at’s how we established the organisation and started to operate.

So, it turns out that traditional bonds, traditional leadership can go hand in hand with new forms of self-organisation of Romani people.

RK: Of course, it can. Nothing, neither Romanipen, nor Romani culture prevents us from establishing outside organisations. We live in a common European home, in the same country, we have non-Romani neighbours, we have to somehow get by on a day-to-day basis. Romanipen does not forbid us to organise ourselves, it just needed to be done without harming our own community. And we know that some of those organisations were established to settle and assimilate us but there was no consent for that among Romani people.

Aft er 1990 two trends in the Romani movement emerged. Th e fi rst one vied for transnational representation of Romani people, all European Romani, while the second said that they should fi ght for their rights within their own countries and states as citizens of those countries. Do you support any of these trends or do you think they can coexist? 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 125

RK: I support professional activism. We made a great leap into democracy, everything we did on a local level was not enough, it was supposed to be regional, national, or international. Of course, I would like Romani people to self-organize transregionally or transnationally, but most of all, we have to be better organised locally, as this is most crucial. If we are better organised, it will be much easier for us to operate transregionally and transnationally, too. Th ese two things do not interfere with one another, however the real problem was dispersion. Romani people had no experience in organising themselves outside their own communities. Most of our leaders had no such experience. It was all very limited, with no support from more signifi cant groups of Romani people. Despite having no great support, it was important that those organisations were offi cially registered. Th is will require many long years to be able to judge whether the process was a success.

And what is your opinion of the Romani political agency in Central and Eastern Europe, perhaps you can give some examples. To what extent are Roma able to realise their aspirations? Are they realised through Romani organisations or through more easily accessible structures, like local governments?

RK: First of all, I think the mentality of the whole Romani community has signifi cantly changed in the last 20 to 25 years. It might seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme of things it’s very short, isn’t it? Especially in terms of changing mentalities. I think Romani people are increasingly more aware of their needs, on how to be mutually responsible for the fate of their own community. We do not want to be granted anything without local activism, without shared responsibility. We want to achieve something with a purpose in order to act on behalf of our community. However, in order to do this we have to be better organised, be more aware and not believe that someone can do something for us. We must do it ourselves. Th ere’s no point in creating new ghettos and Romani fi ghting only for Romani rights as this just amounts to a new form of nationalism. We must build partnerships. We must feel we are fully valuable partners.

Where does this produce the best results comparing countries in our region with a large Romani population?

RK: I think that it has worked out best in Hungary, because they have a signifi - cant intellectual elite, relatively large numbers of artists, plenty of musicians, and well-educated younger generation. Th is kind of awareness took place a little faster there. Th e Romani people have just joined the process of developing self-governance, which is an important step. Th ey now have some infl uence on the things that are going on, even though this was not fully accepted by all the country’s politicians and various political parties. 126 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

In Slovakia in the early 1990s, a Romani village mayor and councillors were elected in local elections, but the authorities did not accept this. Th e European Commission and European Parliament protested against this. Th ankfully, the situation is better now. Romani people can freely decide on their future. You could say that many things have worked out like in Hungary because a political electorate has emerged. Th ere always seem to be two leading parties – one left wing, the other right, but this changed in Hungary when Orbán became Prime Minister. His party did not have enough votes so they came to the Romani people. Likewise, the Hungarian Romani are divided into two groups: the left and the right. When Orbán’s party needed 100,000 votes, they came to the Romani. Th is resulted in the Romani people participating in the process of governance and that is why we had our own secretary in the Prime Minister’s Offi ce. We had directors, deputy directors, special departments, etc. Obviously, things are not completely as we would have expected them to be, but this is a starting point for better future.

Would you agree with the statement that we already have a developed Romani elite that can perform political duties and represent Romani people outside their community?

RK: I defi nitely would. When we compare the present with 20–25 years ago, we see well-educated young people, but also people of our generation have much greater experience. I think they are and will be good Romani representatives. Let us not forget what recently happened in Slovakia. I look to the future with great optimism when I think of our 27 Romani village mayors, local mayors, nigh on 200 councillors elected 4 or 5 years ago in the fi rst local elections. It was a great revolution, a mental transformation of the Romani people themselves, who had no fi nancial support like the other parties. It was an amazing success. I was a little worried during the last elections and if we would get fewer people and still be able to operate. We actually gained even more village mayors and we have 34 or 35 right now, compared to 27 back then. We had 200 councillors, we now have nigh on 400. Awareness is on the rise in the Romani community on a daily basis. And I hope this awareness will transfer not only to the local level but also to the regional and national level.

And what are the relations between the older generation of Romani activists, leaders and the younger, better educated Romani generation? Is there continuity, are there any confl icts, diff erent visions for the future?

RK: For the most part, the community does not vary. But we must remember that we will not succeed if the older generation of Romani people still wants to play a crucial and deciding role in our future. We have to rely on the 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 127 well-educated young generation now. If we do not do this, if we do not take a step back, the future of Romani people in Europe is in doubt.

When talking about the future, researchers or Romani activists have diff erent opinions on what the main goal of Romani activism should be: political, Romani representation, fi ghting for equal rights, fi ghting antiziganism and prejudice, welfare, education, healthcare. Some believe this to be mutually exclusive development perspectives of Romani politics. Do you agree?

RK: First of all, both our and successive generations have to fi ght as strongly as possible for Romani people to be perceived in Europe as Europeans. We must be perceived as citizens of their countries, not immigrants. Th is is one of our greatest failures. We have been stigmatised from the beginning of history, and we no longer want this. We want to be citizens in our own countries and want to be perceived as citizens. If this happens, then a positive chain of events will follow. Th is is our basic and fundamental need. What is happening to Romani people in Europe right now? Even though we’ve been living here for centuries, we are still treated as immigrants. We cannot allow for this anymore. At present, European offi cials do not even respect their own constitution or acts, and these are the fundamental problems facing Europe now.

When talking about Romani people as citizens one may wonder if there is any contradiction between the idea of Romani people being an integral part of the countries they live in and the model of “assistance” for Romani people, adopted by the European Union. It is known that you have a very negative approach to some of the EU methods for helping Romani people. Do you think that some aid programmes stigmatise Romani people, separating them from the rest of society?

RK: I think that help for national and ethnic minorities in Europe should be the same as for other minorities. It must not be diff erent, it must not be inconsistent with the adopted and respected constitutions and acts resulting from them. First of all, they should be respected by all, shouldn’t they? Unfortunately, this is not so. Th e law is not respected in Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, or anywhere else. Romani people are treated like immigrants. And this is the greatest danger, though the European Union, as stipulated in the latest directive, implies that Romani people should be helped, but as citizens, without violating their fundamental rights. But what actually happens in these countries? Th ey present the Romani people as being benefi ciaries of these programmes. Let’s be honest, that’s not the way it should be. If I want to do something for my community and if I have an organisation, then I have the right to apply for funds and implement this idea. Th is is how I wish to be perceived. If you have 128 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People a plan to help, for example, blind people, you have the right to do so. But we’re not allowed. We should avoid anything that has an ethnic label attached to it. Th ese are people, fi rst and foremost, their origins do not matter. Can you be responsible for someone who is unsuccessful in their life? What would happen if you had such programmes for Poles in the United States, I mean, only for Poles? Well I’d be ashamed to be Polish. If I am a US citizen, then I should be treated as a US citizen by all Americans. All I want is for them to respect my rights. And this is the crucial problem – Romani people encounter a lack of respect for their fundamental rights in Europe and beyond.

And other problems? If we looked closer at Poland or our region which are the most crucial problems?

RK: Well, you know, social problems, which apply to all citizens. Th is has been partially ignored and this is where we need to intensify our work. We shouldn’t show this to be an ethnic problem because this would do more harm. But one important question is how many Romani people do we have that live normally, that are Europeans? We have to learn to treat people as people, as citizens, and not look at their ethnic origin. We have these programmes for the Romani community, but please tell me how they should be implemented if we’re not allowed to collect ethnic-related statistical data. So how do we know who will be the benefi ciary of this project? But it’s the same in Poland where it’s also forbidden to collect such data. So, who is breaking the law? If they say: “a right-wing councillor is screaming that 2 million PLN was spent on Romani people in some Polish city.” And this is social care, for example. And that Romani people have been given lots of money. Th e discussion in Maszkowice was about how much social care is granted to Romani people and how much is granted to non-Romani people. Who do they think they are? Aborigines? Why are Romani separated from non-Romani people? Into Poles and Romani? Who’s responsible for this? Th e same thing goes for the local authorities. Th at’s why I say that Romani people are needed in these local authorities. If there is anything done about it here in Poland, then what can be done in countries like Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic? Why should we be divided? We currently have a huge problem with immigrants in Europe. Romani people from Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are just looking for a better life, like everyone. Let us do not forget how Polish people also looked for a better life, and a better future for their children. If someone is jobless, they have no life, no education, literally nothing. You do not need to be a Rom to end up in a ghetto. If I am jobless, if I have no possibilities, then what happens to me, what happens in my mind? I am not able to support my children, pay the rent, I cannot provide my children with anything. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 129

Focusing back on programmes for Romani people, what should they be replaced with? Should they be addressed to local authorities, without any divisions?

RK: You know what, I would not address them to anyone at all. Local authorities are responsible for their city, they have obligations towards their citizens. Rom, Czech, Slovak, Pole, German, everyone has their rights and demands as a citizen. Certainly, no privileges, there shouldn’t be any. Nowadays, Romani people do not need fi sh, they need a fi shing rod. We need a fi shing rod, not fi sh.

Th ey say that some part of the Romani community has been in some way incapacitated. Th is stems from communism. Th ey have lost their agency and have became dependent on state institutions. Th is is slowly changing into dependence on EU institutions now.

RK: Well, in this regard Romani people are very successful both in Western and Central and Eastern Europe and know how to fi ght for their rights, don’t they? We know the reason for these anti-Romani riots in Eastern Slovakia several years ago, don’t we? Th ey limited funds for Romani, so they got together and took to the streets as they did not have anything to eat. Th ey cut benefi ts, so the Romani demanded what was theirs, went to social care institutions, and fought for what was theirs. So why were they not so successful in other fi elds? Today Romani cannot say they are jobless, that they are discriminated against for being a Rom. Forgive me, but this is not true. If I want to have a job, I will get it. I was asked by Romani people from Limanowa why is that we can’t fi nd jobs in our professions. Someone’s fi nished a training course, graduated from a vocational school and is a hairdresser or mechanic. And I told them that you have hundreds of other possibilities. You can leave, take your chances elsewhere. Some go to England, where they won’t be seen as Romani, it’s a multicultural society there. You will be like the Pakistanis, the Turks or something else. But Romani people want to be citizens in their countries, that’s how they want to be perceived. We do not want to be the immigrants of Europe. We want to be its citizens.

GEJZA ADAM

Please tell us something about yourself, your work, and your organisation.

Gejza Adam: My name is Gejza Adam, and I was born into a family of Romani musicians. I am head of the Social Work Department at the Medical and Social Work University in Košice. I am both an academic and a politician, and I have been a Romani activist for 25 years. I started when I was a student, just as Romani organisations were being established. One such organisation was the Union of Gypsies and Roma in Slovakia, in which I was active. I gradually became involved in the revival of the Romani community. In 1990, while working as a teacher, I was selected as a parliamentary candidate by the then Democratic Party. At the time, Slovakia had two parliaments, the Slovak National Council and the Federal Assembly, due to the fact that it was still a part of Czechoslovakia. Since leaving the Federal Assembly, I have been a member of various associations and non-governmental organisations, and together we managed to establish the Romani theatre and launch an educational programme ranging in its scope from kindergarten to university studies. I am also a political party leader. Th is year – with the support of the Romani intelligentsia – we are going to run in the elections independently, as Romani people. Eventually, we hope to participate in the government rather than be a minority in the traditional sense. We want to enable Romani people to be active in politics, educational institutions, and wherever else our community needs us to be present. We do not want to live in ghettos anymore; we want to be active in various fi elds, not only in education but also wherever we can positively infl uence the economic and social development of the Romani national minority, as we are recognised in Slovakia. Th e only problem is that even though we were granted democratic rights, they are not respected, not unlike acts passed by the Slovak National Council, impinging on the economic and social development of Romani people. 132 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

You have accomplished so much in your 25 years of activism. What made you turn to politics in your plight to help Romani people?

GA: Until we are elected to Parliament, we will have no infl uence on the state budget, which defi nes the economic and social development of Romani people. Culture, social care, healthcare, safety, and education cannot fl ourish without fi nancial backing. We have to be elected Members of Parliament in order to secure the funding necessary for further development.

What are the origins of your activism?

GA: Th e Velvet Revolution was a time of great elation. Representatives of the Romani intelligentsia – myself included – established a political party that supported the democratic transformation. We ran in the parliamentary elections and won 12 seats: one in the Slovak parliament, seven in the Czechoslovak National Council, and four in the Federal Assembly. It gave us a degree of infl uence on political decisions. We established cultural institutions such as the Romatan Th eatre; we founded schools; we had representatives in ministries and a means of infl uencing policy and public opinion. We genuinely wanted Romani people to be perceived positively.

Did many Romani people become socially active at the time?

GA: Yes, nearly 80,000 Romani people joined the movement and voted for us, so we were elected to Parliament. Aft er 2015, we entered yet another such period, with Romani people fi nally realising that they ought to vote for those who represent Romani interests rather than the majority’s, and that we need Romani MPs in order to infl uence policy-making in the Republic of Slovakia.

Why now? What is so special about the year 2015?

GA: Our 25th anniversary. I think that Romani people fi nally realised that they have to help themselves and, rather than voting for money and eff ectively selling themselves, they will vote for their own people, supporting each other also on the political level.

Was it due to joining the European Union in 2004?

GA: Yes, indeed. We also want to run in the elections to the European Parliament; however, everything depends on our result in the parliamentary election.

Has accession to the European Union had any infl uence on the situation of Romani people? 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 133

GA: Th e infl uence was enormous. We are now able to travel to other European countries where we can compete in the labour market, while the prevalence of discrimination continues to negatively impact our job prospects in Slovakia. When it comes to education, we can study at various universities, also in parts of Europe where social attitudes are less extreme than in Slovakia, where you can still encounter racism. Although racism is not exclusive to Slovakia, Romani people fi nd it easier to achieve success abroad.

You are talking about 2005, one year before the reforms of Dzurinda’s government resulted in a wave of Romani street protests. Was it an impulse for your community? What was the infl uence of the riots on relations between the social majority and the Romani minority?

GA: At the time – as the Romani community protested against social benefi ts cuts, among other things – the Romani community leaders were used to provoke these riots. I do not think this is the way to accomplish anything; we have to abide by the rules of democracy and act through Parliament and elections.

For several years, Romani protests and marches have been organised in Slovakia. Th ere was also this situation with an empty pot, intended to demonstrate that Romani people wanted to work but had nothing to eat. What is the current situation? On the one hand, we have the EU convincing us that Romani people can fi ght for their rights and win seats in Parliament, but on the other, we see images of Romani protests, indicating that the living conditions of their community in Slovakia are deteriorating.

GA: Presently, this lack of sensitivity among the majority, including some entrepreneurs, is being exposed, together with their racism and reluctance to hire Romani people. We know of Romani people who moved to England and found their place in society, employment, and found better fi nancial conditions than they had had in Slovakia. Some action must be taken in social matters. It is crucial to do away with nationalism and open the labour market to Romani people, so that they can develop new technologies as well as their traditional craft s and other fi elds they excel in. Basically, they need to be given the opportunity to succeed in the labour market.

Is this traditional craft smanship still needed? Can it be profi table in Slovakia?

GA: What we need is to reinforce democracy, as there is no other way to ameliorate the situation. Th e only solution is to participate in parliamentary elections. We also need the European Parliament and the European Commission to watch what is going on in Slovakia and control how structural funds are used, 134 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People as not all of them are made available to Romani people. 25 years has passed, and we, Romani people, still have to futilely beg for money for our projects.

Why? Can you fi ght this tendency?

GA: We will not be granted these funds. Th ey will be awarded to the majority because, unlike us, it is represented in Parliament and in the government.

Are NGOs looking for alternative funding sources?

GA: Th ey are, but this is a complicated issue. I have already spoken with the ombudsman about this, and even he can do nothing to help. We must do it on our own.

Is there no one who will support you?

GA: No one. For example, I was just granted government authorisation and funding to be used for specifi cally defi ned purposes; however, this is not a systemic solution that the Romani national minority is waiting for. We need houses, education, jobs, healthcare, social care, and a law that will protect us against discrimination. Until such a law is adopted, the democratic transformation of post-communist countries will not be complete, and the living conditions of Romani people will not improve.

You are referring to 25 years of freedom and democracy, the fruits of the downfall of communism. Democracy rewards those who speak up by granting them visibility and power to act, both of which are universally available. What stands in the way of Romani people making the most of the new system?

GA: Aft er the Velvet Revolution, Romani people did not take their chance when they were elected to Parliament for the fi rst time. Th ey let themselves be manipulated by various Romani political parties, believing that the politicians had no fi nancial backing and were in the same situation as the rest of society, which was in no position to fi nance its political representatives. Th e parties began to disappear one by one until only two, including mine, remained, and now we have decided to merge and run in the elections together because there is no other chance to have an infl uence on democratic and political processes.

In 2010 and 2012, as a result of local elections in Eastern Slovakia, a signifi - cant number of Romani people were elected to municipality councils and became mayors. Has it changed anything in this region?

GA: I think many things have changed, but we still have a long way to go. Roma are being subjected to discrimination, and people in our community are afraid, so a change is needed. Without parliamentary elections, representation, 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 135 and legal regulations, Romani people will not be able to defend themselves against discrimination and will have to depend on state support, not unlike refugees coming to Europe. Th e diff erence is that Roma are refugees in their own country.

Th ey are in their own country, yet they choose to leave it.

GA: Th ey do, but sometimes they are forced to come back because not every country accepts them. Roma struggle to fi nd employment abroad, but it is not much easier in Slovakia: there is unemployment benefi t, but you will not feed anyone on 60 euros. Romani people became accustomed to living on benefi ts, and the rest of society started to treat this as normal. Roma who cannot af- ford to go abroad cannot improve their living conditions or fi nd employment and living on benefi ts becomes their only option. Families take advantage of child benefi t, and plenty of children are born. Th ese children then cannot go to school because their parents are unable to cover accommodation and travel expenses. If you spend 60 euros to buy four tickets for your children, you have nothing to eat for the entire month.

What is the solution?

GA: Th e social security system needs reforming. First of all, it should support people by helping them fi nd employment and housing. Something must change in the living conditions of Romani people in order for them to succeed in the labour market.

Maybe more attention should be paid to employment and loans for new business development.

GA: We do not want to rely on social care; we want to succeed in the labour market. We want to be able to support our families, educate our children, and participate in shaping our country; otherwise, there is no way for us to become a part of society, and we will never be anything more than an obstacle and a burden. Th is is what we want to change by running in the upcoming elections. Th is is not just about gaining access to new technologies, job opportunities, and better living conditions, but also about changing our way of thinking, which is crucial. We need to stop being satisfi ed with 60 euros. Young people need to have access to education, and they need to be able to fi nd employment. Some young Romani people go to study abroad. Th e university where I teach has 180 Romani students. Th ere are about 1,200 Romani students in secondary schools. It is also necessary to establish educational institutions for lifelong learners, which is what I did. We want to support not only those who work in education, but also entrepreneurs and people 136 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People from other branches; however, no change is possible without state funding, grassroots work, and, in particular, without parliamentary elections.

You are saying that an increasing number of Romani people receive proper education, whether in your school, at universities, or in secondary schools, with many of them choosing to study abroad. At the same time, there are politicians who appear in the Slovak media and propose solutions straight from the 18th century, such as taking Romani children away from their families. How do Romani people react to that? How does society?

GA: In the Romani community, the idea was met with great resistance. Roma will not agree to boarding schools taking away their children. We are also against segregation. We want to live as part of society and learn alongside the majority; we do not want to be separated from them. However, we cannot achieve any of this without fi nancial backing from the European Union.

You say that you want to cooperate with the rest of society. Does it go both ways? What is the situation?

GA: I think that cooperation will be possible if our mindset changes. We need to have more power if we are to infl uence the majority’s way of thinking. It is also a matter of coexistence; for example, at our university, there are both Romani and non-Romani students. We teach the Romani language to most of our students, but we also teach the Slovak language. Students help each other because they have a common goal: they want to graduate. I think that Romani people should follow their example. Th ey must be fair and abide by the law; they must fi nd work and live in such a way that they are not a burden to anyone.

Are ordinary Romani people aware how important the activism of their leaders and NGOs is? Is it important to them?

GA: I think that the situation has changed for the better; for example, various social centres were established. At the same time, this is not enough. What we need is a systemic solution supplied by the state. Romani people are in no position to provide education, solve environmental issues, or build houses, to name but a few examples. Th is has to change because the EU provides subsidies for all of the above, but the funds are being wasted, falling into a black hole. We do not know what, exactly, is happening to the money because we are not the ones in power: we are not part of the legislative process. It is crucial that members of the Romani community take part in the parliamentary elections. Th ey know where fi nancial help is needed and will be able to make the appropriate decisions. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 137

Are they willing to vote? GA: Yes, they are. Next year, they are going to participate in the elections. We are talking about the elections, and you keep mentioning the systemic transformation, as well. Changes are necessary, and it has been a long time since anything changed.

GA: Do you know why the systemic change takes so much longer in this country than anywhere else? Th at is because non-Romani people are responsible for eff ecting the transformation, and they have yet to invite us to the discussion.

Why? Th e EU recommends that all issues be consulted with Romani people or leaders of Romani organisations.

GA: Th ey select particular Romani people and use them instrumentally, ignoring both public opinion and the intelligentsia, the very people who know best what needs to be done. Th ey have their instructions. Funds from the European Union go to the majority. Th e money that was meant for Romani people has been used to renovate castles, build new roads, and bicycle lanes. Meanwhile, Romani settlements have remained unchanged for the last 15 years: virtually nothing has been built or demolished. In these settlements, we have bricklay- ers and carpenters, so it would be enough to provide them with materials, and they would do the work, yet this is not what is happening. If anything is to be built in a Romani settlement, an external company is hired and Romani people are not given any work.

Have you been trying to draw the attention of European institutions to what is going on?

GA: Yes, we have. We have been writing letters, and we have discussed the situation, but whenever offi cials arrive in Slovakia, they have so much to do that they only hear what they want to hear. We need at least one Romani MEP or an ombudsman for Romani issues. We once off ered to nominate Mr Romani Rose as our representative to the European Parliament, where he could keep an eye on how money is distributed in particular member states and whether Romani people have access to the funds. I do not think that the last 25 years has been particularly propitious for Romani people.

Would a single member of the European Parliament be able to change anything?

GA: He would have connections to Romani political parties across the whole of Europe, so the situation would be diff erent. However, nothing will change without Romani people fi nding their place on the political scene. 138 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

We have freedom and democracy. What else do Roma need to fi nd their place in politics?

GA: Romani political parties need democratic support because, with the budget that we have, we cannot compete with parties that have been subsidised for the last 20 years.

Are major political parties willing to extend support to Romani people? What is the situation before the elections?

GA: Political parties buy the support of Romani people, which is not something our party can aff ord to do, for fi nancial reasons. It is unavoidable. If a person is off ered the equivalent of their monthly benefi t, divided into 10 parts, they will sell their vote because otherwise they cannot aff ord to buy food. Th is is our complicated system of social care at work. We should look to America for guidance. Th e US can infl uence the political situation in other countries and could help us take part in elections, too. Romani people would run in the elections, but without fi nancial support, TV and radio coverage, and an internet presence it is impossible to achieve anything. Th is year, we are organising a fundraiser because in order to participate in the elections we have to pay 15,000 euros.

Is it a joining fee?

GA: Yes, a joining fee. Additional money will be needed to cover travel, fuel, and car expenses as well as promotion, posters, billboards, and other costs of running in the election. We have been wondering whom to approach for help, since I think that Slovakia is the only country in the world with a Romani population large enough to be elected to Parliament. Th ere are nearly 560,000 Romani people in Slovakia. If all of them voted, we would have garnered 10% of all votes in the country, giving us 16 seats. A group of 16 MPs would be able to infl uence the budget, as it could not be passed without its support.

At the beginning, you mentioned the euphoria of the 1990s, when you began.

GA: It was a time of elation. We ran in the election, together with the VPN and Civic Forum. Th ere were six of us, and we won three seats.

Is there anything left of that elation aft er 25 years?

GA: Th e VPN later divided into diff erent political parties that had fi nancial backing, which they used to buy Romani political leaders. Romani people no longer had candidates representing their interests running in parliamentary elections. Presently, we already have 360 people, my former university students. All of our candidates are university graduates. Th ey represent a certain 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 139 intellectual level and have received an education that will allow them to fi nd their footing in society. We would not want to introduce ignorant or illiterate people to Parliament. We want our candidates to represent a particular level and be well-educated, so that they will be able to represent Ro- mani people properly as well as understand the legislative process in the European Parliament.

Is that why you mix politics with education?

GA: Yes, I mix the two because it is necessary to educate future political leaders. I think that 25 years is long enough, and now the time has come to turn theory into practice.

Do you think there is any country in Western or Central and Eastern Europe with a strong and well-organised Romani movement?

GA: Yes. My political party numbers close to 12,000 members, and they put some pressure on me with respect to how they want the organisation to be run because it is important that we do not sell ourselves anymore. Finally, we have a chance to do something for ourselves.

What about other countries?

GA: In other countries, except for Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria, there are not as many citizens of Romani descent to successfully run for election. We have such a chance now. Maybe not in the Czech Republic, as there are not enough Romani people left anymore, but here, in Slovakia.

What about Western Europe? Are Romani people well organised in Germany or the UK?

GA: No, there are not enough Romani people there, less than 1% of the population. In Slovakia, it is 10%, offi cially.

Are there any Romani leaders in those countries? Does any other country have an active Romani population, successfully achieving their goals? Is the Romani movement in Germany well organised, for example, and are there any countries where Roma have managed to accomplish something specifi c?

GA: No country in Western Europe has a Romani representation in its parliament. Only Hungarian law requires that a member of a national minority is elected to parliament, and, regardless of the outcome of the elections, candidates are nominated on behalf of the Romani national minority. In Slovakia, there is a discriminative 5% electoral threshold. 140 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Is there any systemic solution, anywhere in Europe, that you would like to implement in Slovakia?

GA: We do not want anything from any other country. What we want is for European law to be applied and observed with respect to Romani people.

It is respected, though. In 2011, the European Commission issued a memo instructing all member states to create a strategy for Romani people. Slovakia was one of the countries to adopt such a strategy.

GA: Yes, the strategy was developed but not implemented; it was ignored. Recently, for example, a memo on education was issued and sent to the Ministry of Education. Th ere are still people who do nothing and remain unpunished. It has been 25 years already, not just one year, yet despite the fact that we are permanently cooperating with the European Parliament and various other European institutions, indolent political leaders have never paid any price for the misuse of European funds by Parliament and the government. I am talking about enormous amounts, and nobody has been punished.

Just before Slovakia’s accession to the EU, reports criticising the situation were published, but it did not stop Slovakia from joining.

GA: Th at is correct. It only goes to show that the EU is inconsistent. According to the current attorney general, the former government of Iveta Radičová misused 70 million euros that was meant for Romani people. Radičová has yet to suff er any consequences. We sent a letter to the EU, explaining the situation. Th ere was no reaction.

On the other hand, when European funds were misused in Bulgaria, the European Commission suspended subsidies for two years.

GA: It’s neither here nor there if their subsidies were suspended: Romani people receive even less money when these funds are withheld. Do you understand the problem? Not a single project is going to be approved. In the case of European projects, co-funding by the government is important, and if it declares that it is not going to subsidise Romani projects, Romani people will not be granted money and will not be able to develop. Nothing will change unless we are elected to Parliament.

Th e EU organises Romani summits, platforms for Romani people, various activities, including the European Roma and Travellers Forum, all of which are institutions established to advise, help, and support Romani people. What is your opinion on the matter? 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 141

GA: I will tell you something about that. You know how much money has already been allotted to these kinds of organisations? Th ey have been misus- ing all of it, and nobody has been held responsible. Th e European Union is glad to be rid of the Romani problem for the time being. What diff erence does 300 million euros make when there are billions left to be spent? What have they accomplished? Th ey devised a systemic solution for the European Roma, a solution that has not been implemented. Literally nothing happens. In Slovakia, there is no single cultural institution that belongs to the Romani minority. Th ere is only the Romani theatre, which is on the brink of bankruptcy. Th ere is no single public school for Romani people. Th ey say schools are for everybody, but they do not accept Romani students. Th is is why we had to establish private schools for Roma.

Has accession to the EU changed anything?

GA: Th ey are not helping us at all. When offi cial reports are being drawn up, nobody considers Romani people. Meanwhile, we educate 2,000 students each year, mostly Roma.

Th e EU supports Roma in preserving their identity and commemorating their extermination during the Second World War. Can you see such activities in Slovakia? Is Romani culture supported despite a lack of public funding?

GA: Th e preservation of Romani culture is something that Roma need to do on their own. Th ey must want to do it, and their mindset has to change, but they should be allowed to maintain their culture.

Is there a diff erence between the way of thinking of Romani and non-Romani people?

GA: Yes, there is, in both groups. Democracy cannot exist without such dif- ferences nor can it survive without people’s ability to bridge these diff erences. Romani people consider themselves discriminated because this is what they experience when they are looking for work or going to see a doctor, also when they graduate and nobody wants to hire them. Th ey believe it to be a consequence of their skin colour. Recently, the unemployment rate has been so high, aff ecting the majority as well, that everyone was happy if they could provide employment to their own family members. Romani people have their weak- nesses, and some of them do not want to improve their living conditions nor do they want to work; they do not want to learn. At the same time, there are no vacancies for Romani people looking for employment. 142 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

You paint a dramatic picture.

GA: It is dramatic because in some settlements 90% people are unemployed, and little children eat one meal a day. If they are given 60 euros, they can eat for four days but have nothing to eat for the next 24.

When you consider the level of education…

GA: I will ask you one question… If you were hungry, would you be interested in education?

What is more important to educated Romani people: the question of identity or improving living conditions?

GA: We try to help all the Romani people we can. Th ese days, there is a tendency for Romani people to be more mobile, work in diff erent locations and social institutions, among other things, but they use only 10% of their potential. Th e system must be changed and so does the way of thinking of both Romani and non-Romani people. Democracy was a mixed blessing to us. It gave us freedom and a chance to travel to diff erent countries, but the social security system deteriorated, and Romani people have nowhere to live, being forced onto the streets and becoming homeless. Th ey cannot, and will not, obtain an education and are unable to travel because they do not have the money. Th e entire system needs reforming, and we should focus on such issues as accommodation, education, and employment. If these are provided, Romani people will get back on their feet. However, they need a strong, political party that will point them in the right direction and will ensure education for future generations, so that the segregation is over, and the separate schools for Romani children are no longer needed. Roma must be given a chance, like other national minorities. We have been living in Europe for 700 years, yet we still fall victim to discrimination.

You are right, but the situation has been changing over the last 25 years.

GA: What is 25 years? Do we need to wait another 675? Th e foundations are there, but without help from outside, we are doomed to fail. Th ere are countries like Greece that receive economic support. Why not help Romani people in Europe?

Greece is a state.

GA: Th at is all the more reason to off er assistance to Romani people. Th ey do not have their own state to support them fi nancially.

Looking back over the last 25 years, including the newly-gained freedom as well as your own activities, many things look positive. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 143

GA: Of course, it is not all bad. We achieved a lot. We established non-governmental organisations as well as educational and cultural institutions, such as the Romatan Th eatre, among other things. However, when you juxtapose this with the achievements of the majority of society, benefi tting from better conditions for both social and economic growth, this is but a tiny part of what needs to be done. Th is is my opinion, but it seems to me fully justifi ed, as I have experienced all of this myself. Do you think there is a chance for an international or European Romani movement to be established? GA: Th ere are various international organisations whose leaders are primarily focused on enriching themselves. We cannot judge them, as there is nothing wrong with the idea per se, but what we need are people eager to help other Roma rather than focus on improving their own fi nancial standing. Young people are becoming increasingly more involved. GA: We need to include young, university-educated people in our activities. Th ey will provide appropriate representation, both to Romani people and the rest of society. I see great potential in high school and university students.

Is there a Romani-related project, whether in a particular country or in Europe as a whole, that you consider especially successful?

GA: Recently, we developed a project under the auspices of the European Centre of Culture and Education, which is part of the science and research department at my university operating under my supervision. Our project was entitled “Change in Th inking.” We held an international conference, during which we demonstrated that it was possible to modify one’s behaviour. Both governmental and local institutions were invited. It is possible to be active; we just need fi nancial backing and the support of the European Commission, without which we cannot succeed. Any project developed by a poor, local government does not stand a chance.

Th at is true, but on the other hand, about six years ago, the consensus was that many educated Romani people, in particular in Slovakia, did not want to work on behalf of their community because of the prevailing hostility towards such activists.

GA: Th is opinion was not necessarily true. I never heard from any Roma that they did not want to work. My words are evidenced by Romani people from various municipalities leaving for England only to return and settle here. In England, Roma work 18 hours a day, and they would be working here, as well, if they were paid suitable wages instead of 60 euros. 144 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

I am talking about educated, young people who were too ashamed and afraid of discrimination to admit to being Roma.

GA: Of course, there are such cases. People who cannot fi nd their place in society do not admit to being Roma. On the other hand, there are non-Romani people who claim to be Roma in order to be accepted into Romani organisations.

You have been active for 25 years. What would you like to achieve in the next quarter of a century?

GA: I wish all Romani people, not only in Slovakia but also in other countries, that their human rights be respected and they can enjoy good health, living conditions, and education, as well as success in the labour market. If my wishes are to become reality, Roma need to be given access to education and the support of the European Union, but, most of all, they need good leaders. MARGARETA MATACHE

Could you introduce yourself?

Margareta Matache: My name is Margareta (Magda) Matache and I am Roma activist from Romania. In 2012, I was awarded a Hauser Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University and I am currently an instructor for the Harvard University. Before going to Harvard, I was the Executive Director of Romani CRISS, a Roma NGO from Romania for about seven years. I also worked as a community worker, youth worker, trainer on cultural diversity and minority rights, election observer for OSCE observation missions in the Balkans. I was born in Romania in a village near Bucharest where both Roma and non-Roma were living together. I was born during the communism period and part of my childhood was a time when our Roma identity, language, and culture were prohibited by the assimilationist establishment. And immediately aft er the fall of communism the situation changed, and Roma activists have started to reclaim their identity, meet, and mobilize; I was lucky enough to grow up around them, learn from them, and eventually join the movement later on.

What inspired you to work for the Roma community?

MM: I grew up in the family where activism was a big thing because at the beginning of the 1990s my father was one of the local organizers of the Roma community in the village near Bucharest where we lived. Also, my house became the place were activists from all over the country met quite a few times in order to discuss their tactics, their strategies and therefore I met some of the previous generation of activists there. Th en, when I became a student, I think that naturally I chose to volunteer and provide some support for Romani children in marginalized communities in Bucharest. So basically, in Romania I worked for about 15 years. I started to work with Emilian Nicolae, a vocal and strong young activist back then, but also a victim of the violent confl ict against Roma in Bolintin. So I joined the Roma Students Association and then 146 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People a larger NGO, Romani CRISS. In that period, I had done grassroots work with children and then families to support them in getting IDs and birth certifi cates for their children. And then I moved to another level and I worked with young people from diff erent parts of Europe– both Roma and non-Roma – to create intercultural dialogue and intercultural activities. Th e next step was working again with Romani CRISS where aft er a few years of project management I became the director. Th at was a place where I conducted a lot of strategically oriented work – we were looking at projects that supported families to get out from the segregated environments or to create steps in our advocacy and partnership work to, in the end, have for example the Ministry of Education to forbid segregation through a Desegregation Bill or to include the abusive diagnosis of Romani children as children with mental disability based solely on their ethnicity as an issue prohibited in the Law of Education. So, at Romani CRISS we worked mostly strategically, but prior to that I think I was mostly experimenting and getting to understand the meaning of activism.

What are your memories about communist time and the situation of the Roma people?

MM: Well, you could probably hear some Roma saying: we were not discriminated against back then and we had employment. And yes, I do agree with the fact that we did have houses and Roma were allowed to work along with non-Roma. But when it comes to education I remember from my own experience and experience of the people around me that in the classes where we were taught by Romanian teachers, the Roma children were sat in the back of the classroom and they were not given attention. So, they were discriminated against as they are now, but it was not so evident, not expressed by teachers as an explicit bias. When we look at the time just aft er the communism we had a small self-declared Roma elite – meaning in this context, people who had at least university degree. Although the Roma had access to education, the quality of the education was as bad as it is nowadays for Roma. As said, we had a small strata of self-declared Romani intellectuals in the beginning of the 1990s, and that is the eff ect of the communism, being either the poor quality of education or the rejection of Romani identity. In my family, I am one of the fi rst who went to the university and, in a way, I opened the doors for the younger generations in my family. But to be honest my mother didn’t trust the educational system in Romania for so long based on the experience of my siblings. My mother didn’t want me to go to a kindergarten, because my sister had a very bad experience. Avoiding, staying away from unwelcoming, stigmatizing environments was a tactic my family and other Roma families have oft en used. But I think that the moment my mother saw that the primary school teacher was open to me and she was 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 147 willing to treat me similarly to the other children, she started to believe a lot in my education opportunities and my sister became my mentor and my su- pervisor at home. Th e most important factor in that context though was that my mom received a confi rmation that the educational system is open and is welcoming Roma children. Yet, the system welcomed me and not necessarily all the Roma children in my classroom, as I remember them all sitting in the back of the classroom and getting little or no attention from the teachers. Now, when I look at my nephews and nieces, there is an expectation from my family for them to do well at school; there is still fear they will be treated unfairly and my family is better equipped now to respond, knowing the legal framework. Unfortunately, that is not the case of hundreds of thousands Romani children exposed to discrimination, bullying, and stigma in the school environments.

What about special schools and the overrepresentation of Roma children? Do you encounter such cases in Romania?

MM: As I said before, I used to work for Romani CRISS, which is an organisation which defends Roma rights in Romania. One of the priorities that we had, and they still have, was to identify cases of school segregation. One of the most important cases that we looked at was a case in Sibiu, where 90% of the Roma children in the community were sent to a school for children with learning disabilities. We went to discuss this issue with families and teachers and we noticed several issues. For one – some of the parents were aware of the fact that those were special schools, and therefore most children were placed abusively in those schools as they didn’t have a learning disability. But parents did say that in that environment they felt better and safe and that nobody would discriminate against them. Th ey understood that the quality of education was bad but on the other hand they were happy to know that their children are in the safe environment. And I think this is also a tactic that parents use in order to provide their children with some level of education, and at the same time make sure that their children are not bullied in school. Safety is an important issue for minority families constantly exposed to racial violence. We talked with teachers, parents and children and we made a complaint before the Equality Body in Romania, but even aft er its decision acknowledging the discrimination of the Roma and their abusive diagnosis, the situation of those children remained the same. More broadly, the special education system in countries in Central and Eastern Europe needs to be seriously addressed, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. When it comes to segregation in the educational system, on the one hand we deal with the resistance from non-Roma parents to have Roma children in the classroom with their children, resistance from teachers who believe that 148 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Roma are inferior to non-Roma, but most of all we deal with ineff ective laws and policies. In some countries, such as Croatia, the governments and local authorities invest money and instead of providing bilingual education, they provide translation to Romani children by Roma assistant. Speaking about activists, the response of the Roma Rights movement to segregation involved advocacy and litigation tactics and techniques targeting governments, communities, and schools. So far, they have focused to a minimal extent on protest tactics, but to a larger scale on advocacy for the development of a solid desegregation institutional framework, strategic litigation, intercultural schools, and community empowerment. So, yes, I strongly believe we need to be more creative and more focused on protest tactics in every single school that discriminates Roma against, so that we can put an end or at least diminish signifi cantly the segregation phenomenon.

If you compare the Romani movement in Romania 25 years ago and right now, what is the main achievement and main challenge of it? Is it a revolution or evolution?

MM: As Nicolae Gheorghe, one of the greatest Romani leaders and the mentor of the Romani movement in Romania, used to say, in the beginning of the 1990s we had no words in the policies and laws at national level and only a few mentions in the international documents about Roma. If we look now, we have national Roma strategies, some of the laws and mainstream policies at the national level refer to Roma, and we also have attention of intergovernmental and international organizations. If we are looking only at the empty side of the glass, we can say that we do not see much change in the Roma communities and people in these communities never heard about Roma strategies or developing governmental or intergovernmental initiatives, because those initiatives never translated into fact for them. And that is true! But if we look diff erently at this period which was in a way a coming-of-age period for the Romani movement, we can see also the success. Th e movement succeeded in developing a policy and in making sure that Romani people are included into mainstream policies sometimes. Overall, we can say that these 25 years were a period when Romani movement was in a stage of developing policies. Th e second stage of our work now is more challenging – it means we need to demand policy makers to translate those policies and documents into practice to make sure that people in the Roma communities have access to them. But this requires even more eff ort. We also missed having a movement that had tactics of protest though – we focused so much on social inclusion, on poverty, on sending children to schools, and in a way on replacing the role of state institutions. At least this is our experience in Romania. We didn’t really have a very concrete agenda on protesting against segregation and abuse against Roma. Instead we used litigation and 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 149 advocacy. One issue that I would really like to see it becomes a focus for the movement is to train advocates and identify tactics of protest. But for that we need a lot of capacity strengthening strategies, also at the local level. It is not enough to send an attorney in the community to fi le a complaint, because when the community criticize the authorities, they fi ght back, especially locally. So the community needs constant support when fi ghting for their rights.

You are talking about schools and still many Romani children do not get the attention they should. But you are a Romani woman and activist with PhD in early childhood development, working at the Harvard University and you are breaking all the stereotypes that exist in many societies. Th ere is quite a lot of young Roma intellectuals right now – well-educated, active and visible in their communities, but not so visible for the majority society. Do you see any channel or outlet that such tendencies could be shown and be a part of a change?

MM: I think that we do have a group of Romani activist and scholars, who are very active and visible. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which media, politicians and citizens do not want to look at that part of our society. Th ey only want to look at beggars, those who commit criminal acts, etc., generally at the issues that make us look bad or help them suggest sensational stories. And this is how they see and represent us. You may have experienced that as well, but many non-Roma told me: You are not Roma, you don’t behave like one. Th ey think they are giving me a compliment, not even realizing how off ensive and racist such a statement could be. In a society where politicians, journalists, and teachers do not have any intercultural education and don’t have any ideas about past injustices that Roma suff ered, they do not see the moral responsibility and duty to understand and address otherness. So they think they talk and write about real Roma – and the real Roma for them are those who fi t the stereotype. In Romania politicians make discriminatory statements against Roma all the time without any shame or sense of responsibility and without any accountability and consequences during the elections. In Romania, if you say something bad about Roma it is not being held against you by most citizens; it rather gives you more support. In US we were seeing until the recent election competition more implicit bias, but in Europe we see predominantly explicit bias regardless of political views, explicit discrimination against Roma. And structural, institutional discrimination continues to be a big part of the problem. For example, when we look at the events in Hungary, where Roma were killed, and their lives were threatened, we didn’t see a lot of support from the institutions, we couldn’t say that Roma were protected, supported, and secure. Safety of minorities seems to be one of the main issues nowadays that needs to be addressed. It is a pity that we 150 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People need to discuss security and safety in Europe, which pretends to be a promoter of human rights, rule of law, and democratic values.

Could you describe the current situation of the Roma people in Romania?

MM: It is of course a long story, but in the 1990s we succeeded to develop some legal and policy frameworks, that are, to a certain extent, well-designed and include Roma people. But Romanian politicians and institutions were also very good at pretending that those laws and regulations were translated into reality. One shameful aspect in the Romanian government’s work is that every time they have to report about the situation of the Roma, they claim there were not many issues remaining to be solved. Th e waves of migration of Roma from Romania to the West and to the North showed a diff erent reality though. At the same time those migrations contributed a lot to have Roma as a topic now at the European level. It is a game that is not fair to the Roma. If the Romanian government said: we do have a problem, we do not have suffi cient funds to implement national strategy, we are not able to hire experts who know how to deal with these problems, there would be a lot of issues that Romania could have contribution to and the lies would stop. And you don’t need money for everything – you don’t need money for stopping segregation in schools, you need to form classes that are mixed and provide the same quality of education as to the non-Roma children. In a result of the advocacy by Romani CRISS, the Ministry of Education forbade the segregation in schools and in classes in 2007. But the attitude of headmasters and teachers is a totally diff erent issue. If the authorities were honest, a real discussion on desegregation steps could start. We are living in this continuous lie of how much we want to integrate Roma and how much they resist the integration, but in fact the reality is, and we’ve seen it in so many countries, that as much as Roma try to be part of a society and the whole system, there is so much resistance against that. You can look at the European Roma Strategy – it was approved and developed a few years ago and each member country has adopted national strategy. Th e Romanian government adopted such a strategy in 2012 and it was highly criticized by the Roma NGOs, which by the way were not invited to the discussion about it. Th e document was subjected for public consultation only for a few days. Th e comments that NGOs sent to the government were not taken into consideration. Th e accepted document was very similar to the strategy we developed in 2001, which was in eff ect till 2011 and had almost no results for the Roma community. So the new strategy was really created by copying and pasting regulations and recommendations from the previous strategy. But under the pressure of NGOs, at the beginning of 2015 the Romanian government changed the strategy and it is better than it was, but it is still not good enough. And we are halfway through the European Strategy implementation, which will end 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 151 in 2020. Th e European Commission should be aware of that but at the same time we need to remember that it is not only the issue of Roma inclusion but also a lot of political angles and interests that are hard to combine.

What about Romani representation at the governmental level? Do coopera- tions between educated Roma and politicians exist?

MM: I think that before Romania joined the EU in 2007, we really had had a great momentum and Romani NGOs knew how to use it. A lot of things that we achieved so far are due to understanding that was an opportune moment for advocacy and activism – antidiscrimination and zero tolerance to discrimination against Roma was very clearly stated in the European Commission’s report about Romania. Th e government tried to take some steps towards that and in a way they used us – the Roma civil society. And we knew that. But at the end of the day, we got some good results. From this perspective, there was a momentum of Roma participation in developing policies. But aft er 2007 the participation of Roma NGOs in creating policies kept getting lower and lower every time. It got to a point that the communication between the government and the Roma civil society was not very good until recently when a new government was formed in 2015. We do have elected Roma representatives in the Romanian Parliament, but we have to be honest – they did not achieve much and they did not push the Roma agenda in a way that politicians around them would notice the need for change. Of course, a very simple factor in that is a small number of these representatives. Aside from that, in the Romanian context in order to be elected as a member of the minority group, you don’t need to be in competition with other organisations, because that is how the election law is designed. So, the Roma member of the Parliament doesn’t have any pressure to show results to the Roma community, because at the end of the day no matter how many votes he receives, he will still be in the Parliament. Th e lack of accountability and responsibility of the Roma politicians needs to be discussed at least. More broadly, in Romania and in other European countries, I think there is an important role that Romani scholars and activists can play in challenging the „integration” agenda that states have delivered to the Roma over the past few decades. Th ere is a need for a critical look at the studies on the Roma by gadje researchers, which have long served as the basis for policy development. In many instances, Romani scholars and advocates have embraced initiatives proposed by the states or well-known scholars to “integrate” the Roma, to send them to primary schools but not necessarily to university. An entire package of paternalistic, power discourse and practice were delivered to the Roma. And of course, most of these top-down, from powerful to powerless policies and initiatives taken over the past 25 years, have failed. 152 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

And indeed, a new discourse is slowly emerging from the Romani scholars and leaders themselves as well. Roma have started to question and challenge governments’ ideas and policies “on Roma.” And a movement has been seeded – one with a more critical view towards existing Romani studies and Roma policies. And I think a key part of the discourse and arguments we want to build here is the question of how to emancipate the non-Roma – including state institutions, scholars, and citizens. How do we help them change their attitudes, their ways of thinking, and their actions towards the Roma? How can we ensure that meaningful numbers of Roma participate in policymaking, research design, teaching, and projects?

We have a small number of Romanian Roma migrants in Poland, in Wrocław. Th ey live almost on the streets. Norway and Sweden are experiencing cultural shock with Romanian Roma beggars. Nobody knows what to do next, how to help, how to solve this situation. Where should we start?

MM: I think there is a tendency in the European Union’s institutions to resist mobility instead of trying to address mobility by integrating diff erent populations. To give an example – for years, the French government had provided fi nancial support to ensure the voluntary return of Romanian Roma to Romania. If we look how much money French government spent on that, we will see that results are disastrous. First of all, many of the Roma who returned to Romania very soon came back to France or other country because their situation in Romania was unbearable. Th ose resources were spent for nothing. Th e question is why the French government didn’t invest the money in ensuring the inclusion of Roma in France. Th ere are some examples in small cities in France, in which municipalities decided to support the families and to provide them with employment. And they have great results. So, money should be spent for inclusion and the European Union member states need to be more open to inclusion rather than putting an end to mobility within the EU. Th at’s one example. Th e second example is with Germany. A lot of Kosovo’s Roma were pushed to travel to Germany due to the war. In the past few years we have seen the eff ort of some German institutions to send the Roma back to either Kosovo or Serbia. We had situations in which children who were born in Germany and only spoke German had to go back to Kosovo or Serbia – countries they did not know. Th ey had no home, no language, no social networks. And the question occurs – what was the reason to send to Kosovo those people who integrated very well into German society? When it comes to the West, countries are very reluctant to receive Roma. We can speculate that some of them are afraid that Romani mobility to their countries will cause more migrations. But we also should not forget that many of the Romanian Roma in these countries do work there – in services, construction, 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 153 agriculture, hospitals, schools, etc; unfortunately, many without contracts. So, there is a need for their work and skills, but they do not have any security and work-related rights. If there were contracts for 6 months for example, a lot of Roma would come, work and go back to Romania, because a lot of Romani mobility is not oriented to create a life in the West, but to provide for their families in their own country.

TÍMEA JUNGHAUS

Could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Tímea Junghaus: My name is Tímea Junghaus and I am art historian and contemporary art curator. I live in Budapest, Hungary and I work for the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Institute for Art History. My father is from a Sinti family of circus performers. He was the fi rst to settle down and he became a famous boxer and a Hungarian boxing champion. My mother came from a family of Hungarian Roma musicians. Aft er divorcing my father when I was two, my mother raised me alone. She raised me not to be a Roma but to be a well-educated girl. Our apartment was all white and she dressed me in white. But we lived in a ghetto, because that was the only place she could aff ord. I was very nerdy and I was a very good student in order to please her. At the age of 10 I went to my fi rst competition in art history and I won at every level. Aft er that, the school sent me every year, and that’s how I became an art historian. I decided to work with the topic of Roma when I was writing my MA thesis in art history and I basically arrived at the art collection of the Hungarian Roma Parliament which was then a major non-profi t organisation in Budapest. It was in 1997 when I fi rst considered a paper on Roma art. I visited that art collection. Th e whole collection was contextualised as naïve art and I had a completely diff erent view, even then as a young art history student. Th at fi rst engagement into Roma art gave me a lot of inspiration and I was very committed to the Roma Parliament, because they were very happy to have me there and work with the collection. So, I somehow got stuck in the community, because there was so much to do and there was no one else to take up the task, which was extremely important. And of course, I also enjoyed engaging in Roma art, so naturally I continued. My research is not exclusively on Roma visual production, but I write, publish, and curate very successful Roma visual artists even more successfully than when I curated in modern or contemporary art in general. I curated the Roma Pavilion in 2007. 156 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Could you tell us more about the exhibition during the Venice Biennale and Roma Pavilion that you curated? It was a breakthrough for Roma art.

TJ: Th ere were many breakthroughs in Roma art before the Venice Biennale, but Venice was important because it is the most prestigious art event in the world. But we should remember that these breakthroughs are also achieved during small festivals and community events breaking into mainstream institutions and they are just as important as the Venice Biennale. Venice became such a big deal because it opened its gates in 1985. And from 1985 to 2007 there was not one Roma person presented – not as curator, artist, or cultural organiser at the Venice Biennale. In 2007 we brought 16 artists from 8 European countries at a time when it was extremely important to critique national representation at the Biennale. And we, the Roma people, managed to do it. With this criticism we also presented a new vision – a transnational vision of Europe – which was very avant-garde, state-of-the-art and very contemporary. It was something unexpected from Roma at the time and the art was amazing! Putting the politics aside, the artists were fantastic.

Surely there are some obstacles in promoting Romani art not as naïve but as art that is relevant in the contemporary art world. What was the main obstacle you encountered?

TJ: Th e biggest obstacle was that the whole notion of Roma art is questioned, and we will always be questioned, and that is completely normal. Sometimes when I talk about Roma art, I start with projecting a photograph of a black hole: it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t have any substance to it but at the same time it sucks everything in. Th at is how I demonstrate what Roma art could be or how it could be imagined. Perhaps there is no such thing as Roma art, because Roma art will exist only when Roma themselves achieve equality and freedom. Th is moment is so far or so close, we don’t know, but it is diffi cult to even imagine. Like with a black hole. And until then perhaps it is better fi rst to approach the question of Roma and Romani identity.

What is Roma art?

TJ: Some people say there is no such thing, because art is universal and needs to have quality or that the notion is racist. Th e Romani movement from the 1960s has been using the notion of Roma art as the biggest celebration of our most precious moments. For me the notion of Roma art in itself is nothing else than the recognition of the oppressed and the hidden genealogy of these precious moments. Roma art also has an aesthetic quality which is expected from artists on the art market. Th e biggest names in the art world have legiti- matised Roma art, believing it to be something specifi c, autonomous, aesthetic, 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 157 and with character. But that was all very diff erent before 2007. Th e fi rst Roma image was created in 1493 and since then the monopoly on Roma representations had been in the hands of non-Roma and it is extremely important to add that when Roma enter the world of image creation of Roma, they usually intervene positively countering racism and stereotypical representations. Th e fi nal and perhaps winning argument is the notion of Roma art as our cultural right, because minority rights legislate cultural rights, which means we have the right to culturally produce, present, and interpret.

When a lot of people hear “Romani culture,” they think: music and dance. Not the fi ne arts.

TJ: Yes, the term “Roma contemporary art” is already in itself so political that it breaks the stereotype of Roma who are only dancing and playing folk music. For many years Romani art was researched only by folklorists. Now its artists can be recognised.

Roma are also perceived as a social problem by some. For others, fi nancing Roma art when Roma communities have to deal with so many fundamental social and economic diffi culties is simply wrong. What is in your opinion the role of Roma art and artists in promoting a positive image of Roma communities?

TJ: I think that Roma culture and art are the only fi eld that we can discuss in a positive light in Europe. If we focus on social aff airs exclusively like European institutions are doing on a regular basis, concentrating on housing, education, employment, and access to healthcare, we fi nd that although these areas focus on social inclusion, social inclusion is impossible without cultural inclusion. So we begin with an expectation of failure when we develop social programmes. We need to benefi t from culture as the only fi eld which talks about Roma and presents Roma in a positive context. Social fi elds show the problems that Roma face as by-products of their own situation. It basically says that the low level of education, unemployment, and poverty are part of Romani culture, which is unbearable and off ensive. Th is is both unfair and absurd. We need to fi ght against such essentialisation of Roma culture and begin to present Roma culture in the way we know it. What Europe is forgetting is that they devoted the last 25 years to educating Roma and creating a Roma intelligentsia – people with two or three PhDs, because it is easier to get a PhD than to get a job. So we have well-educated and competitive people, leaders and top-notch experts. What about these people? Should they be waiting for humanitarian help? Th is is deadly serious. I do not want to joke about it. It is extremely important and a huge paradox. None of the European institutions have a cultural agenda for 158 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Roma apart from a few initiatives of the Council of Europe. Th ey just focus on social problems and intervention in these areas. Th ere is an argument that by supporting Roma culture, we may create a cultural ghetto. Th e whole question of assimilation and integration still lingers in European minds. Th e question of cultural recognition will never become a priority. And without that integration will not happen. We are basically set for failure.

Who should take care of Roma art? When and how should it be presented? Is cooperation between the minority and majority successful in this fi eld?

TJ: When we talk about the need for space, institutions, museums, a proper and competitive infrastructure to create cultural products, the non-Roma say that is a cultural ghetto. And they ask: why do you not want to collaborate with the majority, exhibit in mainstream spaces? Because we have tried to collaborate since the 1960s. Th e fi rst Roma painter was discovered in 1968. Ágnes Daróczi curated the fi rst exhibition in 1979. She was the fi rst person in Hungary to initiate the erection of a museum to keep the exhibition she curated together. Since then, in Hungary alone, 22 concepts of museums or cultural centres have been created and to date there is no such institution. We are waiting for a mainstream institution to give us some space, some infrastructure, to open their gates to us. It hasn’t happened. And the occasional collaborations that ensure us short-term visibility on International Roma Day for example are not what we need, I’m sorry. We need long-term solutions, a proper infrastructure and up-to-date technical environment for our artists, theorists, critics, intellectuals. Honestly, looking at the map of the Romani art institutions in Europe at the moment, we should just give up and cry. We have the Brno Museum of Romani Culture, which is a state institution, and Jana Horváthová and her team are doing a fantastic job. However, they have to remain quite conservative in their choice of selecting exhibitions, because they are dependent on the state, which fi nances them. So they have an ethnographi- cal and anthropologic focus. We also have Galerie Kai Dikhas in Berlin, which is a commercial space and its job is to sell artwork and as such is working as another Western gallery and has little impact on what is happening in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. And then we have Gallery 8 in Budapest. When our government closed the last space for Roma art, we decided to open something independent and we rented a vegetable shop, 45 square metres. Th at was the fi rst space for Roma contemporary art in Europe and since then we have been doing our best to prepare exhibitions and we have one a month. It is extremely hard, because we do the theoretical work and prepare the installations one aft er another and try to compete with the best galleries in Europe. We want to be innovative and cutting-edge, but also political and critical. We invest whatever we have for the next generations 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 159 to change the dramatic epistemic context that we as Roma inherited. Th is means that none of the existing knowledge and educational systems were produced by us. We are trying to change that and transfer the knowledge that we produced – the exhibitions, texts, critical theories to the next generations through our work.

Th e situation in Hungary does not make it easy to do that right now, does it?

TJ: Our Gallery 8 is an independent gallery and so far, we haven’t received any national funding although we have tried nine times. It leaves us in a miserable position because international funding is even more unpredictable. But we have managed to stay sustainable thus far. Every single exhibition of ours is extremely political and critical. We work with critical theories of postcolonial theory, feminist theories or with trauma studies. All these concerns the current situation in Hungary. But we are not alone. Th ere is a segment of the cultural sector which supports us. We also cooperate with Romani organisations from the Visegrad countries and received several grants from the Visegrad Fund. We also received some funds from the EEA Funds. Every year we need to win art competitions just to get by. We need to be exceptional.

Is there any interest in the Roma community in your work?

TJ: Gallery 8 is located in the 8th District of Budapest, which is basically the area mostly populated by Roma. We have 4 senior clubs there and 6 schools, and seniors and pupils visit it quite regularly for guided tours and workshops. We also have guided tours for tourists who visit the 8th District – the Romani Harlem of Budapest for them. Apart from all this, we have free coff ee. I am not sure if I could do the same in the 2nd District in Buda, in a nicer gallery. Th e gallery is part of the neighbourhood.

Is there any pressure on Romani artists right now to be activists and leaders at the same time? Many contemporary Romani artists are very active in the social fi eld and express the issues of the Romani community. Or maybe there is such a void and lack of representation that Romani artists feel the need to connect these two spheres?

TJ: I think there is. Th ere is some kind of opposition and activism in Roma art, which is extremely important, but there are also artists, who do not want to be political in any way. I am very interested in the part of Roma art, whose purpose it is to “make ourselves anew,” to quote Jacquelyn Dowd Hall. And it is not about being political but being innovative. Occasionally I do not mind strategic essentialism in the community to some extent. We’ve been so demonised and so strongly destroyed, our confi dence has really suff ered, 160 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People so this strategic essentialism or maybe Roma empowerment, the Roma movement and Roma pride is crucial. It is a sign of taking power and responsibility.

We are talking about Roma art and the Romani image in the majority of society, but one more important question begs: what is the role of Roma art in mobilising Roma communities?

TJ: I think Roma artists are able to innovatively critique the status quo. Social research is not that innovative in this area. And these innovative solutions can go viral and can take risks which provoke debate and discussion. As a curator, I always look for something that has the potential of changing perception not only in the majority of society but also among Roma themselves.

You were talking about the Roma movement and Roma empowerment. What did the last 25 years change in this and how did Romani art infl uence it?

TJ: Th e whole discourse of assimilation, integration, participation, and leadership describes what happened in the last 25 years. First of all, it is a great achievement and we should celebrate it, but we have arrived at a point where I think it is impossible to do some things without the Roma in Europe. It is also obvious that when considering Roma involvement, one also has to consider that Roma are capable of leadership now, which is one of the results of this movement, not just the education of the non-Roma. We have strong Roma leaders and female leaders. We have fought the silly discourse of assimilation and now we have leadership and we have to really treasure this moment. On the other hand, tolerating anti-Roma sentiment during the economic crisis has led European societies to racism, antiziganism, and antisemitism and this is a problem of the majority and humankind, not only Roma. Perhaps without the economic crisis we would have arrived at this point because we as Europeans have tolerated such racist statements hiding behind freedom of speech. Now it is the responsibility of states and EU institutions to prohibit such behaviour and to introduce a zero tolerance policy regarding these issues. ORHAN GALJUS

What was it like growing up in Kosovo in the 1960s?

Orhan Galjus: I learnt how to be a revolutionary. One of my uncles, who also happened to be a delegate at the First World Roma Congress in 1971, would come to our home and always tell my brothers and me that “we had to be the best in school.” He simply said that we have to be better than the gadje, learn more and learn better. He was so serious. Th at was 1967 and I was 11. Aft er several years, I became an active scout in my hometown of Prizren, a town of Albanians, Serbs, and Turks. And Roma, of course. Th e scouts taught me that I could have an impact on society, regardless of who I am and where I come from. Th ere were Roma organisations in Prizren as well. Th ey staged concerts and other events, showing Roma culture. When I left Prizren for Belgrade in 1974, the emancipation of Roma had already begun. It was being talked about. At the time, I believed that it should be more of a revolution than emancipation. My uncle, the fi rst ever lecturer of Albanian in Yugoslavia to hold the title of professor, decided to accompany me to university to see how I would manage. I went with him the very next day. An elderly man, whom I did not know, tagged along with us. I later discovered that he was none other than Slobodan Berberski, the fi rst President of the International Romani Union (IRU). We met with the vice-chancellor and both convinced him that I would do everything I could to be the best student.

And were you?

OG: Yes, one of the best. But that was not what was the most valuable thing at the time. While studying at the university, I fi nally understood the nature of nationalism: why the Serbs do not like the Albanians, why the Albanians do not like the Serbs, and so on. My uncle told me to write a paper about the situation of Roma in my hometown and present it during a meeting of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. I was in two minds as I was only a freshman! But I felt responsible for how my nation was being represented. Th e scholars 162 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People received me well, but not because of my presentation, but due to the fact that I was a Roma openly telling the Serbian Academy that they are not focusing enough on minority issues in Yugoslavia.

You said that Roma did not need emancipation but rather revolution. What was their situation in Yugoslavia before the war?

OG: We lived in a fascinating country. Tito’s Yugoslavia certainly off ered more freedom to its citizens than neighbouring countries. We were the Americans of the Balkans. I should highlight the fact that many revolutionary ideas came from Yugoslavia, including Roma. When we look at the statistics from the years 1969–1975 we can clearly see that Roma were very well-organised. Th ey fought for their place in society and established associations that promoted Roma culture. Th at was so inspiring. I at once thought about wanting to join this movement. Th e Yugoslavia of the time was federal and there was decidedly more understanding for the specifi cs of minorities than in other countries of the communist bloc. Society was more open for dialogue with Roma, more fl exible than the societies of Czechoslovakia or Romania. We also had more possibilities to fi ght for our rights, and Roma intellectuals made use of this and eagerly supported the emancipation of their fellow compatriots. Th e majority of the leaders of the International Roma Union came from the states of former Yugoslavia. Despite this, I left the country in 1990 because of rising ethnic tensions. It was like being on the Titanic… I saw it all so clearly while I was working as a journalist in Pristina. Censorship was established. Th ey didn’t like the fact that I was discussing the increasing level of xenophobia in the country. I also talked about the situation of Roma, that they were either being accused of being pro-Serbian by one side or pro-Albanian by the other. On a single day, I was fi red at fi rst by my Serbian boss and then by the Albanian one. I had a Turkish name and I knew that either the Serbs would accuse me of colluding with the Albanians or the Albanians would see that I was educated in Serbian schools and become suspicious. Th at is why I left the country. Alone. To Amsterdam. My parents didn’t want to, they didn’t believe that what later happened would come to pass. My family then left , one aft er the other, to Germany and the Netherlands.

Th ere’s a certain paradox here. It is said that the fall of the Berlin Wall brought freedom to Europe. However, it seems to have brought hate and war to the nations of former Yugoslavia. Why?

OG: I am European. I am Roma. But Roma do not think like other Europeans. An European thinks: my country, my home, my city. I felt at home in Pristina and I feel at home here, now, in Amsterdam. Roma do not think: have, have, 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 163 have; to them feeling at home, belonging to a group and being free is most important. Europeans just want to have more and more. Th at is why Kosovo, Catalonia, the Frisians, and many others want to have their own country and autonomy. Th at’s how wars started in the past and continue to break out every dozen or so years, if you look at history.

Leaving could not have been easy?

OG: It wasn’t, but the opportunity came along. Th e very next Roma Congress was being organised and this time in Poland, near Warsaw. I didn’t have any money for a ticket, so I convinced the airline that I would give them some publicity during the World Congress. And so I fl ew over. While I was in Poland, I met Roma from the Netherlands who urged me to come and help them in their activities, particularly in education. I thought to myself: but they’re from the West, surely there are lots of educated Roma there, and they want me to go there and teach? But I went in the end. From Warsaw to Berlin and then to Amsterdam. I arrived in the Netherlands and learnt a new word which became one of the most important words in my life from then on: “project.” Everything was so pretty and colourful there, as opposed to Warsaw, the ter- ribly grey Warsaw of the time.

It must have all been a shock to you?

OG: Yes, but I soon learnt to take advantage of the opportunities available to me and use my know-how. I started working with Roma. What surprised me was that those Roma, even Koko Petalo, the former Roma King who had worked with the Queen of the Netherlands and the airline KLM, had no formal education. Th ey were surprised that I wanted to send children to school. I later met with non-Roma activists and began a project publishing the Roma magazine „Patrin.” A few Roma helped me, but the Dutch Roma were not at all organised, not in the way we were in former Yugoslavia. Many of them didn’t work and were on benefi t. Some of them lived in camps, without water and without showers. In one of the richest countries of the world.

Th at was the 1990s. How about now?

OG: It has changed somewhat. Th e government is increasingly more open towards Roma and aft er years of assimilation Sinti and Roma are organising themselves into groups increasingly more oft en and they increasingly more oft en talk about their problems and the political directions that support their communities. Th e last three years have seen many meetings and discussions about the change in the situation of Roma in the Netherlands. However, decades of stigmatisation and living on the margins of society, almost parasitically, has 164 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People meant that the whole process is taking a long time to gain ground, in small steps. So, it was not the case that Roma had fewer rights during communism than Roma in Western Europe. Fascism and neo-Nazism have begun to claw back in Western Europe. Th e Roma here had to travel, keep moving, and live in camps. But not in Central and Eastern Europe.

But in Central and Eastern Europe years and years aft er the Kosovo war, there are still lots of Roma living in refugee camps in Macedonia and Montenegro, a country with pretences to be a member of the EU. No one is helping them.

OG: Th ere were 200,000 Roma in Kosovo. Today there are fewer than 30,000. What happened to the rest? What happened to all the international organisations? What happened to the Red Cross? I got lots of text messages from Roma in Kosovo asking me, as a journalist, to write about their situation so they can use the article to try and get refugee status in a Western European country. I’ve done it of course, but I also ask the question: where are all the organisations? Where is the EU? Why is this situation not being talked about by anyone? Th ere are many conferences, but no one seems to be interested. And Germany, despite allegedly needing workers, continues to deport Roma back to Kosovo.

What is the situation like for Roma in Ukraine?

OG: As soon as I discovered what was going on, I jumped on a plane and immediately fl ew over. I’m a journalist and it’s my job to inform people about what is going on. I have friends there. Th e situation is analogous to that in Kosovo: Roma are once again caught between two sides. Th is time between the Russians and Ukrainians. Roma asked the Tatar representatives to discuss the position of Roma and their protection during a meeting with EU representatives. Roma migrate to Kyiv and then have to escape further still. Th ey need shelter, food, and water. Basic things. Th ey’re not allowed to rent fl ats, people don’t trust them. Th ank goodness that the Embassy of the Netherlands supported Radio Patrin which reports what is happening to Roma in Ukraine. Perhaps then people will take notice.

You understand many of the local contexts involved: the Balkans, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany…

OG: Th at’s my job.

Th at’s become your life. Looking through these diff erent lenses, what is the attitude to Roma migrants in Western Europe?

OG: Th ere are many reports found both in particular countries and international organisations. But they are all based on stereotypes. Romanian Roma are seen 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 165 as street beggars. Why don’t we show Romanian Roma who run their own busi- nesses? It’s because beggars are more visible and newsworthy, of course. Why don’t we talk about the drunks in the street or aggressive, young Islamophobes? Human rights should be for everyone but they’re not when it comes to Roma. Th at’s why we cannot stop talking about these issues and our identity.

GRATTAN PUXON

What inspired you to do so much politically and socially for the Roma and Travellers community? Not every person from this community is willing to act so persistently for this group.

Grattan Puxon: I was working as a junior reporter in the local paper in my hometown which is Colchester and I was called up for the military service. It was in 1960. I tore up my military papers and run away to Ireland. I was just 19 at the time. And when I got to Ireland the people I began to live with were the Travellers. As you may know there is about 40,000 Travellers in Ireland and they belong to the very old group of people who call themselves Pavees who probably go back to prehistoric times as metal workers. And alongside them is about perhaps 10% of Roma who came over from England over the centuries in order to deal horses and so on. I took refuge with the Travellers, they took me in, I was living with them and in a way, they saved me because there was no extradition order between England and Ireland. Th e British authorities could not take me back to England for military service. So, I started my life with the Travellers in 1960 and with no intention particularly in the civil rights. But I began to see that the situation was very bad – I was myself evicted together with other families 10 times and eventually we took over a piece of land on the outskirts of Dublin which became known as Cherry Orchard Camp. In English measurements it was 26 acres of land and there were 72 families there eventually. Together we built a school, but we were faced also again with a very big eviction by hundreds of police and hired men. We built fences, we refused to go, and I told the police there would be bloodshed if they attempted to come into the camp. Th e eviction was abandoned and eventually aft er 3 years of living on that land with very poor conditions – we had no sanitation, no water, no electricity – the local council granted another piece of land. Th ose families were eventually given real accommodation. Aft erwards I left Ireland, came back to England, military service was ended, there was no more military service, but my life was taken over then by the whole campaign and in 1966 I helped found the Gypsy Council – the word 168 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

“Roma” was not being used that commonly. Th e Gypsy Council still exists till today and things went on from there. I became a member while in Ireland of Comité International Rom based in Paris. I was visited by the voivode who was the head of CIR and made a member, and I went to Paris for meetings. Th ere was a lot of talk about there should be an international congress, but 1968 passed and there still was no congress. In 1971 the Gypsy Council decided to host that congress in London. So that’s how the First World Romani Congress came about in 1971 and at that Congress I was elected General Secretary. Quite soon aft er I went to Yugoslavia and started living in Macedonia and I stayed with fi rst Roma MP in Macedonia and his wife. So, the world Romani movement took over my life. I was expelled from Yugoslavia partly on political grounds and I had to come back to England for a couple of years. I continued to campaign for civil rights here – we had a very notable demonstration by taking the caravans outside the Queen’s Palace, Buckingham Palace and we were arrested for that for a night. Th en I lived in Greece. And then was the Second Congress in Geneva and the Th ird in Göttingen and that is how my life took off . From Greece I went to America and along with Ian Hancock we organized the representation of Roma for the US Holocaust Council. Th en I came back to Greece and eventually came back to my hometown in 1992.

What was the impulse for the Romani movement as you call it to start in the 1960s?

GP: A lot of it was because of the voivode from Romania Ionel Rotaru. He was a writer and very keen to expose the story of the Holocaust and what happened to Roma during that time. He was trying to make a claim against West German government initially for reparations. He thought if such payment was made it would be possible for the Romani movement to establish a homeland – Romanistan. Romanistan became a very impractical aim but I think that today it still has validity as we are able to have a virtual Romanistan on the Internet. All Roma people can communicate through the Internet.

What about the term “Holocaust” you mentioned? We have genocide, Porajmos, Holocaust and diff erent views on each term. You are one of the fi rst people in Europe along with Donald Kenrick to write about the Roma people plight during the Second World War. What was the road that led you to that and did you have any diffi culties research it and talking about that?

GP: Original motivation was to support the idea of the claim against Germany and Austria, so the fund could be set up for the Romani movement. Th e book came out in 1972 as Th e Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies which eventually 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 169 got published in a number of languages and later I myself translated it into Romanes. Th e diffi culty was that it was not easy in that time to get a lot of information from the East European countries. Th e research since then have shown much greater numbers. Th e original book was criticized for relatively low numbers but that was because that was all we could document. We did not say that only 300,000 had died but that was the number that was possible to document at that time. Now it is estimated to be 500,000 but I think it will never be possible to know what our losses were.

What do you think about commemoration of Roma and Sinti Holocaust nowadays? What has been achieved, what still needs to be done?

GP: In Europe it is pleasing to see that a lot of new research is being done and a lot of books are being published about Holocaust. Recently there is growing attention to commemorating Jasenovac – the place were about 80,000 were killed. As far as the payments go, they are still very small, and the number of individual victims is now very small because many of them already died without receiving any compensation. In the UK we have been commemorating here since 1967. Each year we have a gathering at Holocaust Memorial in Hyde Park, London. What we are up against there is not a great interest and one of the biggest issues at the moment is that our Prime Minister David Cameron in 2013 established a 26-member Holocaust Commission and no Rom is represented on this Commission. We approached and requested to include the Roma representation and the answer that we got is that they feel that the current representation is adequate.

In Great Britain and Ireland there is a very specifi c situation regarding Roma and Travellers. But in Poland there is a huge confusion about these two groups, nobody is distinguishing them. Do these two groups have common goals?

GP: I would be positive in my views about the European Roma and Traveller Forum as having the best structure in order to bring us all together, but we are not unifi ed unfortunately. And I think that to a degree we fi nd that in England there are people who are against us who try to divide us and emphasize the diff erences and hostility between diff erent groups. Th e biggest confrontation we have had in recent years has been the Dale Farm and many people had not understood that the Dale Farm was originally established by Romani families who have been evicted from another large encampment in Romford in London. Later Travellers joined Dale Farm as well. And there was a lot of media exploit – the news said that they were Travellers who belong in Ireland and they shouldn’t have rights in England. 170 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

You are the great supporter of Dale Farm and participate in many protests. Did it somehow help to solidify the movement of Roma and Travellers in Great Britain?

GP: It did bring us together. Travellers came from other parts to support Dale Farm. It also demonstrated the futility of spending something like 15 million euros for evicting families and leaving them with nowhere to live rather than using much less a sum of money to solve the problem by giving another piece of land. Th at battle by the way is not over. We built a cooperative which may get funding to renew the Dale Farm itself.

Why do you think the authorities are so persistent in evicting Roma and Travellers?

GP: Unfortunately, because Roma and Travellers in Britain generally speaking are not registered to vote and there is no political weight whatsoever. Add to that the magnifi cation of the anti-Gypsy feelings. Many villagers are saying: we don’t want Roma, we don’t want Travellers living in the village. It is played upon by the politicians to build their local support. Th is is unfortunate. And of course, racist. And it is getting worse. Basildon in particular and around Essex we have very strong support for UKIP party (UK Independence Party) which seems to be going further and further towards the right. When the Gypsy Council was founded in 1966 we said that we would physically oppose evictions and we many times built barricades, sat in the way of bulldoggers until we were rewarded by the government adopting the policy that every town should provide caravan park for Travellers and that was done and 400 of such caravan parks were built. But it is unfortunate that in recent years that legislation is being taken away. And the situation is being reversed. What we are attempting to do now in the UK is to establish caravan parks through the formation of cooperatives. And I have some faith in the idea that a cooperative movement among Roma around Europe could go a long way to helping with the accommodation problem. Because it is very hard to get the government and local councils to make awards to individual families but if you are in the cooperative you have much better expectations of getting what you want.

What do you think about EU’s role in all of that?

GP: On paper the progress has been made but unfortunately like many other people I can see that very little of practical help is reaching the people who most need it, because the funding does not go to Romani organizations or Romani NGOs but goes through local governments and a lot of the aid that should reach the Roma is used up for administrative purposes by local councils 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 171 and governments. Th ey absorb a lot of the funding into their own administration which means that very little gets to Roma who live in inadequate housing and so on. It partly goes to the problem of our own representation – we are not adequately represented to be able to negotiate with EU offi cials and political representatives. Our side is not strong enough to put our case and follow through and I don’t know why it is like that. I think we started very well in 1971 up till the 1980s and then the certain fragmentation seemed to take place. I think this is partly due to the multiplication of the NGOs in a way that there are perhaps too many small NGOs and we need to be brought together. A few years ago I was very hopeful when Roma parliamentarians got together in Istambul to establish pan-Romani Parliamentary Group. Th at was a point of hope that the Roma in parliaments of diff erent countries can act together as a single voice. We certainly need stronger representation in order to have full representation within the EU.

You were talking about the divisions in the 1990s but when we look at the reports of the EU, Council of Europe or Decade the main problems of the Roma communities in diff erent countries are similar. Th e scale is diff erent, but the problems are the same. So where did the division come from? Why is it so diffi cult to set common goals and fi ght for them?

GP: I suppose it is a matter of aims. With the Gypsy Council we decided to be a group that would take direct action. It is very diffi cult for new NGOs to make a decision to either be working alongside their sponsors which causes dependence for the fi nancing by the very people they need to oppose – if they are getting EU money they must work within the criteria expected of them. Whereas the Gypsy Council is totally independent of such fi nancing. Th e Gypsy Council was always fi nanced by about 500 families – its members – so it could act more independently and in more militant and direct fashion. And I think that it is maybe needed today. You get a lot of talk about young people being prepared for civil rights action, for civil rights campaigning. Th ere is a lot of people willing to educate young people and enable them to take action but they never get to the point when they actually are taking action. Th e action seems to come from people who are desperate because their houses and homes are under threat. Like in Athens where families got together to protect their camp. Th ey barricaded themselves against the people who would evict them. We don’t want to see that kind of confrontation – that confrontation is enforced upon us, we have to take that kind of action. In other words – rights are on paper, but they will not be realised until you are prepared to stand up for them and that means standing in front of bulldozers and that means protesting, and that means negotiating with a strong voice. 172 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

And do you think that Romani youth is prepared to do that – to act rather than to talk?

GP: It needs to happen spontaneously in diff erent places. It happened already in Greece, in Slovakia, in Bulgaria, but it needs to be joined up for mass action. I always hope that one day the Romani Day on April 8th will be the day we rise up together with one voice in very large numbers which would impress the politicians with the ability to organize and take action. It will happen sooner or later out of desperation because we are pressed so hard. In the 1970s the Europe was divided but now you have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands Roma who are set on the move. People who were sedentary, lived in houses for hundreds of years but because of the presence of the downturn in economy aft er 1989 they needed to go on the road. Th ey never dreamed that they would need to become like the Travellers and travel in caravans and try to fi nd some place to make a living. Th at huge wave with more than a million people were set on the move out of desperation. Out of this must come stronger action.

Th ese people are also coming to Great Britain. Th ere has been a huge wave of migrants, also from Poland. How are they being received here by the Roma and Travellers in UK?

GP: To take Dale Farm as an example we have Roma from Bulgaria, Hungary, and Bosnia and they supported us, stayed a little bit and joined the demonstrations. At least 200,000 came to the UK for over last 20 years from Europe. Th ey are very diverse group – from Poland, Czech Republic, Macedonia, but we came together. Th ere are several organizations, for example European Roma Network, Roma London and Roma Support Group, with a lot of Roma from Poland. Th ey are doing pretty well. Roma Support Group is a welfare organization not so much political organization. Th e Polish Roma are doing pretty well. Th e Roma from Romania have the worst time – there is a lot of poor people who are sleeping on the grass even in the winter time in Marble Arch in Hyde Park on the area of Westminster Mayfair which is the richest part of London. Th ey started the campaign to drive the Roma out. Th ey cooperated with Romanian embassy on that. So you have the poorest Roma sleeping on the ground among the richest millionaires’ houses. But there are also good examples – Roma from Slovakia in Darby founded Roma Community Care – they are helping each other, working on education, welfare, and so on.

Nowadays there is a huge increase in anti-Roma sentiment in Europe and we read about your personal experiences with police raids although you are a very well-known and respected leader. What do you think about the context of that – how is the EU policy towards Roma connected to that? 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 173

GP: I am not particularly well-respected – I might be respected by my own people but not by the authorities. Aft er the Dale Farm eviction my house was raided by the police on September 11th, 2013. I was held in my house for 8 hours and all the computers, telephones, address book, my documentation – it all has been seized by the police. Some of it has been returned but not all of it yet. A lot of my papers and documents belonging to the Romani movement and my address book is still being held by the police. I suppose it is the refl ection of the increase of racism and the level of oppression on Romani activists around Europe. It has been very severe in Bulgaria for example. I am trying to get from the police what was the reason and evidence that they presented to the magistrate that they could obtain a warrant to make a search. But so far, they give no explanation and I am still trying through solicitors to get proper explanation what evidence was set before magistrate in Colchestershire. I don’t know. We are in a very vulnerable situation and that means we need to come together.

So, what are the main challenges of the Romani movement in the nearest future?

GP: I wish I had the answers. Th ese are the answers that we are all searching for. I can only say that we need to come together, we need to act together, we need to somehow legitimize our own representation. It goes back to the question of having legitimate democratic election of representation which will earn us the respect of the EU. On the other hand, we do have the strength of our own communities and the tradition of helping each other. However, we do not have a great experience in acting together politically and face that kind of racism we’ve got at the moment. I’ve been very impressed for instance by the Kurdish national movement which was able to organize demonstrations in capital cities around Europe simultaneously and that should be possible for Roma to do something similar. We should be able to coordinate between us such action, to demonstrate simultaneously on one day around the capitals of Europe. I hope this will happen.

And if you would need to sum up the last 25 years of freedom in Eastern and Southern Europe and the Roma, what would you say?

GP: Initially there was a great optimism and a lot of expectations aft er the end of communist and socialist regimes in Europe. But the years have proved in most instances we only went downhill. Unemployment has become worse and the rise of nationalism has pushed Roma even further down the social ladder. Th is I know from my own experience living in Shutka. I am quite convinced it is very similar in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. When EU talks 174 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People about integration I am rather suspicious because before we were talking about emancipation as being our aim and the conditions only got worse in the last 25 years. I suppose we partly can blame this on the fi nancial crisis. We need some forum to bring us all together and improve our own representation. And we should do this independently. One needs to be active rather than to talk during conferences which lead nowhere. But that is my point of view. Some optimism can be found in the virtual Romanistan – through Internet, especially for young people. ROMANI ROSE

Please, introduce yourself and tell us about the organisation you represent.

Romani Rose: My name is Romani Rose. I was born soon aft er the end of the Second World War, in 1946, in the German city of Heidelberg. Since 1982, I have been the managing director of the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma. It is an umbrella organisation located in Heidelberg, acting on behalf of the Romani minority in Germany, as well as taking a stand and campaigning on global issues.

What were the origins of the Central Council? What kind of obstacles did you encounter, and what response did you receive from society?

RR: I think I should start by explaining why I took this job. I lost 13 relatives in the German concentration camps, including my grandparents. My grandfather was murdered in Auschwitz, my grandmother in Ravensbrück. I also lost 11 close relations. Th ese events had a signifi cant impact on me. I grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. My father was consumed with persistent guilt over the fact that his parents had been killed in concentration camps, while he had been using forged documents to hide in various parts of Europe, unable to help them. He thought he had left them for dead, and that, had he joined them in Auschwitz, he could have done something to help. My father’s guilt over his parents’ fate infl uenced me greatly when I was growing up. In 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was established. Th e country was quick to admit its responsibility for the Shoah, as this was a crucial condition under which Germany could be reinstated as part of the community of civi- lised states, aft er the barbarities suff ered by Europe at the hands of the Nazis. Conversely, the genocide of 500,000 Sinti and Roma in Europe, during the National Socialist occupation, was of no political signifi cance to the German state, since it failed to be noticed by the Allies. It was treated as a “side eff ect” of the Shoah rather than a separate crime, organised and executed on the basis of ideological assumptions, formulated by the Racial Hygiene and Demographic 176 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Biology Research Unit at the Reich Main Security Offi ce in Berlin, to the same extent as the Shoah. Th e Unit registered all Sinti and Roma in the Th ird Reich on the basis of their lineage. Relevant data was compiled using parish registers as well as baptismal and marriage certifi cates, among others. Th e Catholic Church – our Church – betrayed us. Th ese documents served as a foundation for so-called racial expertise. According to the Nazis, even a person who was one-eighth Gypsy belonged to an “inferior race” and had to be exterminated. It was enough to have a single Gypsy great-grandparent to qualify for what in Nazi jargon was referred to as “evacuation.” We all know that “evacuation” meant deportation to a death camp. Due to the fact that this genocide was not widely recognised, racial prejudice against our minority was free to spread through German institutions, especially the police and other security forces. Generations of Sinti and Roma born aft er the war were still being subjected to registration and harassment as well as unjusti- fi ed checks and arrests at the hands of the police. Aft er the war, state institutions continued the vilifi cation of the Romani minority, claiming that Sinti and Roma were genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour. Th ey used the same slogans that had been propagated by the Nazis, saying that a particular race exhibited certain negative characteristics. At the time of national socialism, similar assertions were made about Jews, leading to their persecution; however, with the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, negative sentiments towards the Jewish community waned. On the other hand, we, the survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants, had to hide our Romani identity lest we be treated like criminals and have no chance to be a part of the society. I also had kept my origins a secret for many years. Th e Germans did not rehabilitate us, nor did they admit to the evil they infl icted on us. Our minority has been refused any moral or fi nancial compensation. By fi nancial compensation I mean reparations for the survivors. Th ose born aft er the war have been withheld the right to compensation, even though among 500,000 victims of the Sinti and Roma genocide in Europe were oft en entire families. Th ese experiences became the foundation of my political activity. At present, Germany is a democratic state under the rule of law. We have various political parties: the Free Democratic Party, Green Party, Christian Democratic Union, Social Democratic Party, and Left Party. All of them are democratic parties. German society is deeply engaged in dealing with Nazi crimes. Th is is what allowed Germany to go through the process of the democratic transformation, which enabled our minority to seek compensation for the evil we endured. As early as in 1956, my father and uncle initiated the establishment of the fi rst organisation representing the interests of survivors; however, it had no chance of success at the time. In 1971, my uncle’s eff orts 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 177 resulted in the unveiling of a monument commemorating Sinti and Roma murdered in Auschwitz. Nazi crimes against our minority were recognised only aft er human rights movement had gained momentum. In the late 1970s, the aforementioned movement, comprised of representatives of post-war generations, initiated various campaigns aiming to attract public attention to issues of importance to us. Nowadays, the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma is a well-known institution, both in Germany and worldwide. In 1982, the Sinti and Roma genocide was recognised, and in 1995, we were granted the legal status of a national minority. What is more, Nazi crimes are discussed in school, albeit not as extensively as we would want. In many towns and municipalities, there are memorial plates and monuments commemorating the deportation of Sinti and Roma who had lived there before the war. Germany is a federal republic, and we have 17 local associations across various states. Th e Central Council operates at a federal level, whereas local associations act at the level of particular states. Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse, Bremen, and Baden-Württemberg have already signed agreements with local associations concerning the protection and support for our minority, and Bavaria is to join them soon. In Schleswig- -Holstein, we have been mentioned in the constitution, the supreme act of a federal state. Th e constitution declares us to be a national minority entitled to the protection and support of the federal state. Th is sets an example for Europe and shows what needs to be done in order to equate our minority rights with those of other communities partaking in social life in Germany. Th is is not to say that there is no racism or discrimination in Germany. Nowadays, when facing the economic crisis and growing infl ux of refugees, we can observe increased violence originating from the far right. Th is violence is directed not only at refugees but also at Romani people, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Th is is what happens in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia; in Hungary, there were even murder attempts. Assaults on Sinti and Roma occur in Germany, too. On 2nd August 2015, we were in Auschwitz to commemorate 3,000 Sinti and Roma murdered during the night of 2nd/3rd August 1944. Among those 3,000, there were elderly people, women, children, and men. In total, over 21,000 Sinti and Roma were killed in Auschwitz, and this number includes only those registered and marked with a tattoo of their prisoner number. However, there were also unregistered transports, which were immediately diverted to the gas chambers. On the anniversaries of such events, politicians produce noble speeches about assuming responsibility and remembering the past. Unfortunately, at the same time, many of them, pro-democrats included, practise populism and denigrate our minority in order to attract far-right voters. Considering 178 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People recent history, this is both dangerous and reckless, and the Federal Republic of Germany should be held responsible by the international community. However, this will not happen unless the United States ask Chancellor Merkel why there is antiziganism in Germany. Indeed, if President Obama asked the chancellor about the genocide of the Romani minority and antiziganism, people in Germany would begin to tread more carefully.

You have mentioned that it took an extremely long time for the extermination of Sinti and Roma to be recognised. Even now, they are still denied the status of victims of the same category as Jews. Some experts, such as professor Yehuda Bauer, say that the persecution of Sinti and Roma was not racially motivated. Th e question is how we should refer to the extermination of Sinti and Roma. Was it Holocaust, genocide, or the Porajmos? Th e prevalent view seems to be that the term “Holocaust” is reserved for Jewish people, as it refers to a very specifi c kind of a crime committed against Jews on racial grounds. How would you comment on this?

RR: On 15 April 2015, the European Parliament offi cially recognised the Holocaust of Sinti and Roma, making “Holocaust” the offi cial term for Nazi crimes against our minority. In this discussion, we use various labels: genocide, the Porajmos – the name introduced by the Romani minority itself – and the Holocaust, which is a term derived from the Greek language and expressing exactly what Nazi crimes were: systematic extermination, planned at the state level and performed across the whole of Europe on both Jewish and Romani minorities. You mentioned Yehuda Bauer. He was the director of the Yad Vashem Institute in Israel. Th is discussion between two groups of victims on who received greater attention from Hitler or Himmler is ridiculous. Our minority would have surely wanted to avoid any such “attention.” If the term “Holocaust” includes an obligation on the part of the European and global community towards Jewish people to fi ght all forms of anti-Semitism – as anti-Semitism was the reason for this unprecedented tragedy – then this term should also include us. Th e extermination of Sinti and Roma was due to the same reasons as the extermination of Jews – because of their ethnic identity, just because they were Sinti or Roma – and that was the case within the entire Nazi sphere of infl uence. Jews were the ones to introduce the term “Shoah.” Th is is a Jewish term and they can use it; we have no objection to that. However, the term “Holocaust” is not reserved for Jews, as it expresses something that aff ected both of our minorities. We share a history of persecution and have always been used as “scapegoats” by European authorities. Arguing over who suff ered worse because of Hitler only makes us look foolish. Among Jews, there were exceptions too; a half-Jew could, in principle, be Germanised. Field Marshal Erhard Milch 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 179 was a Jew, but when Göring found out, he just said: “I decide who is a Jew!” Th e Nazis made arbitrary decisions on the matter. However, in general, they planned to annihilate the Jews, along with Sinti and Roma. If Jews wish to have their own term to describe these events, they can use “Shoah,” but we are not going to stop referring to it the Holocaust. When it comes to the term “Porajmos,” I doubt that it is known to President Obama, Chancellor Merkel or the Polish and French Presidents. We do not need a term in our own language. We need a universal term showing Nazi crimes against our minority for what they were, and “Holocaust” is such a term, so we will be using it, and everyone who wants to be historically correct should use it, as well.

Th anks to your eff orts, a monument commemorating Sinti and Roma was unveiled in Berlin. Could you describe the process leading to this?

RR: It was a long process, one which I cannot and will not describe in detail. A group of people came up with the idea of unveiling a monument commemorating Jewish victims of the Holocaust, at the heart of Berlin. We spoke up, reminding everyone that the term “Holocaust” also meant the extermination of 500,000 Sinti and Roma, so if the state wanted to commemorate Jewish victims of this crime, then the monument should also commemorate representatives of the Romani minority who had fallen victims to the Holocaust. Th is process took many years, but, eventually, we arrived at an agreement to the extent that there would be two separate monuments. Th e one commemorating murdered Sinti and Roma is situated at the very heart of Berlin, close to the Bundestag and the Brandenburg Gate. Th is monument symbolises Germany’s acknowledgment of this part of their history. Unveiling the monument, Chancellor Merkel made a very important speech, and nearly 800 guests from Germany and abroad, including the German President, were there to witness the event. Th e purpose of this monument is to make us remember that the crime of the Holocaust was committed also against our minority and that contemporary democracies are obliged to fi ght antiziganism with equal determination as they do anti-Semitism. Th e monument was unveiled in 2012, 20 years aft er we had fi rst spoken up. It was a very long road, and I am glad that it ended in success; however, this example shows that even in a democratic state people have to fi ght for their rights. Th e democratic process can be used to win such rights by means of public debate on people’s demands and signs of discrimination, eventually leading to appropriate decisions being made at a political level.

You are a forerunner of the Romani movement, focusing on protecting the rights of Sinti and Roma. How can you describe the Romani movement in contemporary Europe? Can we speak of mobilisation or cooperation among 180 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

European Sinti and Roma or are those only separate campaigns of particular leaders? What can be done to make Sinti and Roma become more active in fi ghting for their rights, also at the international level?

RR: I would like to begin by emphasising that Sinti and Roma have been citizens of various states for centuries. We are not a single, Europe-wide minority: our languages and cultures vary because Romani culture has been infl uenced by numerous national cultures, and it infl uenced those cultures in turn. What would have European classical music – Beethoven, Brahms, Händel, Liszt – sounded like without the infl uence of Romani music? Where cultural identity prevails over national identity, racism begins. I am a Rom, but that does not mean I cannot be a Pole or a German at the same time. I have my own taste in music, but it does not stop me from appreciating a polka, Wagner, or Beethoven. None of these distinctions matter because culture belongs to all humanity, and everyone identifying with a particular culture should have the right to partake in it. It is crucial, for the sake of our future, that we secure for ourselves rights equal to those enjoyed by other members of society, in whichever country we live. Th e Romani minority consists of 10–12 million people and is the largest in Europe. It includes people completely integrated with majority communities, labourers, white collar workers, university graduates, and artists. Among us, there are numerous great personalities, slowly beginning to openly admit their ethnic identity. Few people know that Charlie Chaplin was an English Rom or that the famous actor Michael Caine has Polish and Romani roots. Th ere are many sportspeople of Romani descent, too. However, pressure resulting from racist tendencies in society forces us to hide our identity. Th e public opinion, both German and international, sees only a discriminatory and intensely stereotyped image of our minority. We are equated with poor people – and this is wrong. In the past, Jews were taken to represent the rich – and that was wrong, too, as it was one of the reasons they were targeted by the Nazis: they were affl uent, and there were people who wanted to deprive them of that wealth. Each time something goes wrong, society blames the minorities. Europe has no future with such an attitude. We must live in accordance with our values. Every human being is responsible only for their individual deeds. We, the German Sinti and Roma, show our solidarity with the Hungarian Romani, who are being persecuted. We show it for Romani in Central and Eastern Europe, who suff ered from Nazi barbarity and became Holocaust victims in their countries, as well. However, I would like to highlight, once again, that Sinti and Roma are, fi rst and foremost, citizens of countries in which they have been living for centuries. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 181

It seems to me that this is the most signifi cant diff erence between Central and Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Aft er the war, Western Europe enjoyed 70 years of freedom. We have gone through a process of democratisation, and now, we are allowed to freely criticise Chancellor Merkel, here in Germany. I am not so sure that similar behaviour would be tolerated in some Eastern European countries. First of all, Eastern European Romani must be aware of their rights in order to be able to start fi ghting the discrimination they are facing. Th ere is a kind of apartheid in Eastern Europe. Like black people in South Africa, Romani are closed in ghettos and are denied participation in the educational system. It is said that they do not want to be educated nor do they want to have nice houses; they want to live modestly as such is their culture. Th is is racism: we are being deprived of equal rights, and, adding in- sult to injury, our cultural identity is used to justify such treatment. We must not agree to this. Democracy is our weapon: it gives us the ability to criticise without restrictions. Th e Western world propagates certain values, but if it really wants to respect those values and if they are to be authentic, then we have to be granted equal rights within the democratic systems in our homelands.

Nowadays, the discrimination of Sinti and Roma is placed in the wider context of aversion to immigrants and refugees. How should we interpret the initiative to establish the European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture in this context? What role would it play in fi ghting discrimination and stereotypes related to Sinti and Roma?

RR: It is not as if we have Romani on one side and non-Romani on the other. We want to protect democracy and thus ensure a safe future for Europe. Th is idea should unite all Europeans. Ostensibly, far-right groups are always on the lookout for “scapegoats” and blame Jews, Roma, Sinti, and refugees for everything, but their real goal is to abolish democracy. For 70 years, we have had peace, both in Europe and on its peripheries. Our generation grew up knowing peace, welfare, and freedom. Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than dictatorship, as the latter pushes people into the abyss. Th e Nazis murdered 6 million Jews and 500,000 Sinti and Roma, but they also dragged Europe down with them, which is why we should face these far-right tendencies together with young generations of Europeans. Every human being is unique and responsible only for their own individual choices. It is easy for us to speak of terrorism, when it aff ects other countries, but no one uses this term with reference to far-right groups, when they perform terrorist acts at the very heart of democratic Europe. We have to end this, and the only way to do it is by educating people.

SORAYA POST

Could you tell us a little bit about your inspiration to start your work for and with the Roma community?

Soraya Post: My name is Soraya Post. I belong to the Sinti community in Sweden. I was born in 1956 and of course I experienced huge discrimination while growing up. Also, my parents lived under huge pressure in Sweden. We were considered second-class citizens. We were oft en told that we didn’t belong to society and we should have been pleased that we even existed. I had light skin and even as a child became spokesperson for my family and relatives, because they were much darker skinned. I used my colour to be a spokesperson. My mother had a lot of diffi culties speaking with the authorities, with doctors and the suchlike, because she was much abused as a child and also as an adult. When I became a mother, I decided I will work on human rights to spare my children such experiences. I don’t know whether I was successful – I have four children, the youngest is 28, but I do not think they consider themselves fi rst-class citizens. Th ey do not have such light skin as I do because their father has darker skin. Ever since I was born I felt the need to do this. My house was always open for relatives and friends and I was usually with the adults, hiding under the table, listening to their conversations. I was always quick to speak my mind and try to fi nd reasons why people do what they do. My father always told me: “Be quiet. You are going to be a lawyer” and he threw me out. But I was quick to get inside again. It was my mission as a child.

But your journey as an activist was not so straightforward, was it?

SP: Th e fi rst exhibition I did was in 1987. Before that I worked in a school as a mother tongue teacher – Swedish and Romani for Roma children. I also had a fast food business and I took care of my father-in-law. We had a very traditional life. With time I grew stronger. I am also a feminist and I cannot stand the injustice between men and women purely because of gender. When somebody can’t explain inequality to me, I can’t accept it. So that’s how it 184 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People started. I became an advisor for diff erent authorities such as Discrimination Ombudsmen or ministers on Roma and their rights as human rights, not Roma rights. Authorities oft en violate the rights and conventions that they themselves adopted and they can’t use the “I didn’t know” argument because they do. I always wanted to tell them what they are doing wrong. Th ey do not take the same responsibility towards Roma or other excluded groups as they do towards the majority. In 2001 I went to my fi rst international conference in Vienna organised by the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Th at was the fi rst time I went abroad without my husband. I was allowed to do so because I had just lost my father and, seeing my sadness, my husband told me to go. I spoke hardly any English and I was very nervous. But my best friend is Jesus Christ and I asked him for guidance on the fl ight. When I was there I suddenly raised my hand and started speaking. In English. I used words I didn’t know I knew. Th ere were about 25–30 Romani women there from all over Europe and I said: “We should organise ourselves. We can’t wait for men to do it.” Th e next meeting was in Strasbourg several months later; we wrote a charter and they asked me to be the president, but I refused. But they insisted. So, when I came back home all of the Roma community had heard about it and they were against it saying: “Who do you think you are? A woman president?” But then the Romani Kris gathered, and it went well for me, they gave me their support. Aft er that I was invited to the Council of Europe to give a speech before the Council of Ministers along with other male Roma leaders. All of a sud- den, I got into an argument with one of the representatives from Spain about the social situation of Roma. He said that we have so many social problems that we should deal with that fi rst and I said to him: “Who do you think you are?” Later that day there was a banquet and he approached me and said: “In Spain we love blonde Swedish women.” Of course, I got even more frustrated and told him to keep his mouth shut. Th e Finnish Ambassador heard me and said: “You have to be in our working group.” So, we started to work together and our organisation signed an agreement with the Council of Europe and the European Roma and Traveller Forum. And I became its vice-president. I started a school for adults with government support and I taught politicians about their obligations towards implementing laws and conventions on human rights which Sweden adopted. I got my university degree in 2010 as a teacher. I was quite active and was asked to join diff erent political parties, but my strategy was to not get involved in party politics because I was a lobbyist. In 2014, the Feminist Initiative, with which I cooperated before, asked me to be their candidate in the elections to the European Parliament. I went home, asked my family and agreed. With growing support for right-wing and extremist parties in Sweden I had to do it. As an anti-racist and feminist activist. And I was elected 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 185 which made me so proud because I am the fi rst person to become a member of any parliament on the feminist ticket. Th e more I am there, the more I see the need for a feminist approach in politics. Maybe aft er the future elections it will be possible to organise a feminist political group in the Parliament which should have representatives from at least 7 countries.

It is remarkable that you are from a traditional family, you are a feminist and at the same time you speak very openly about the horrifi c experiences of your family. Does your family support you in this and how are you able to talk about this publicly, especially since Roma history in Sweden which includes practices of forced lobotomy and sterilisation is still rather taboo?

SP: I think it is because I had lived and still need to live three lives and roles. One role was in school. I always struggled to be Lucia. Th ere is a tradition in Sweden that every December 13th all over the country, in lot of schools, a typical blonde Swedish girl is elected to be Lucia. It was very important for me to be Lucia – I even bought votes so I could be her, but I never was. I was also the fi rst female football player in Sweden which is also not typical for a traditional family, but my mother and father left me alone and let me be myself. Th ey supported me. My late mother always said: “Soraya, do your thing. You are crazy.” My husband and children are also very supportive. Th ey know it is my mission and I can’t abandon it. Of course, I am sometimes tired – I have had to fi ght my own Roma community, and the non-Roma community on many things, but you cannot fi ght the will of God. I strongly believe I am his tool for my people, to give voice to those who are shy or afraid to speak up. And human rights are crucial for our society as a whole. If you have knowledge, you have to spread it, you can’t be silent. Of course, it costs my family a lot. Th ere were times that I wasn’t present when I was needed. But when you respect other people and when you love other people you have to be there and I cannot keep silent when there is a discussion about weak groups in society. My mission is to try to look at things from another perspective. My mission is to keep people awake and to show them how to use their civic, political and cultural rights. Th e power is in all of us. I would like to open the doors for a democratic forum. It has been closed for a long time. Antiziganism is very deeply rooted in the system. Th ere are a lot of people who are not mean but do not understand that they are doing something wrong. It is not a Roma responsibility to correct it, it is society’s political responsibility. I work 10–12 hours a day and I will do so to fi ght for equality: gender equality, for Roma and for all of us. When I pass Marine Le Pen in the corridors with her bodyguards or Korwin-Mikke from Poland, or Lega Nord I know that we are living in dangerous times and it is not a time for rest. I have a lot of hope for the youth: Roma, Sinti, non-Roma, and non-Sinti. My generation failed. It is a shame, I am 186 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People ashamed that we didn’t do better, that those people who survived the Second World War have to once again listen to racist and romophobic language. It is not acceptable. It is so painful for me.

You are a feminist who came from a conservative and patriarchal society. Some people say that Romani women are victims of double discrimination. Do you agree with this opinion?

SP: Th e patriarchal system exists in a lot of communities, also in the Roma community. In some Roma groups it is worse than in others. Of course, we had many thousand years of patriarchalism but because it is old it doesn’t mean it is right. And if we want to change something we need to stand up and do it. Who now accepts that because of our gender we should be treated as second- -class citizens? Yes, Roma women face double or triple discrimination: from society in general, from other non-Roma women and in their own community. Because of their gender, ethnicity, and living conditions. Th ey are not valued. I think that if you want to change your own community the best way is through women. I was always taught by my mother to be economically independent. When I was a child, we were travelling a lot and I was selling carpets and pictures. I gave some of my income to my family, but I kept part of it for myself. My mother always said that one of the pockets in the wallet is for me, for my money. And I was never dependent on anybody. Th at is a great danger with young Roma girls. Th ere is now no need for traditional work that Roma once provided, and these girls do not go out to sell or tell fortunes, yet they are completely dependent on their husbands.

Th e European Commission and European Parliament created a lot of documents and strategies regarding Roma that should help them integrate into mainstream society. Do you think it is possible to create one strategy when the situation of Roma communities depends on the national context?

SP: What the Commission did was to recommend national strategies which means that each member country should have such a plan and should defi ne their own national strategy. What I would like to see from the Commission is that I would like to have a Special Envoy for Roma issues who will coordinate the work between diff erent DGs in the Commission. I have a close relationship with the European Jewish Congress and they also want a Special Envoy against antisemitism. I think there is a need for a European strategy, but there is also a need for national ones. And there is also a need for Special Envoys in diff erent issues. It will probably be diffi cult so my latest proposal is to have a Special Envoy at least against racism. Th e good thing about the resolution by the Commission is that at least now they are using the terminology and they understand the term 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 187 antiziganism. For so many years we tried to explain to them that discrimination is just one eff ect of antiziganism and there would never be a solution to the situation of Roma in Europe when you focus only on social and political issues. Because mainstream society also has to be educated about the history of Roma, so they would understand why the contemporary situation is like it is today. Th ere is a lot of work to be done. But Frans Timmermans (fi rst vice-president of the European Commission) and Martin Schulz (president of the European Parliament) are very open-minded and committed. Frans Timmermans gave me his word that I can count on him. It is top on the agenda. Also, the Social Democratic Group, which I belong to, is giving me support as a spokesperson for Roma issues. I have faith but it’s not easy, it’s a long process.

But don’t you think that the strategy of the European Commission is kind of a cop-out? It is the same agenda as in the Decade of Roma Inclusion. Minimal goals in education, employment, healthcare, and housing and nobody is willing to go further and higher. Th ere is also no sanction for a lack of results, no responsibility for things they are not willing to do.

SP: I spoke to the Commission and DG Justice and they say that now it is the time to implement, and aft erwards the states will be obliged to report on their eff ects. Th at is something new. Also, the structure of social funds will change and the monitoring of them will be strengthened. You are right, there are no sanctions. I asked for them many years before I became a politician. Th ere are some tools for them in Article 7 of the Treaty, but they are never used. For example, Orbán is challenging the European Union and the shift to the right is visible in Europe in general. Th e Commission and the Parliament are not a problem, it is the Council. Just look at the migrant crisis. Th e Council is stopping everything. And one opposing member state is enough. Oft en the member states who enjoyed earlier support like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic are not supportive now. And who is the winner in all of this? Th e National Front, Jobbik, UKIP and the suchlike. We are seeing a new wave of antiziganism. Please remember, that we have had 700 years of antiziganism and only a few years of strategy, so we need to be patient because centuries of dehumanization will not be changed overnight.

Some people say that it is diffi cult to help for example Roma from Romania because they are poor, have a lot of social problems and beg on the streets of Europe and do not want to do anything with their life. What do you think about this and how we can help them?

SP: We need to put pressure on the Romanian government and I put pressure on the Swedish government to use diplomatic tools to share their experiences. 188 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Th e Swedish and Romanian governments signed a cooperation agreement, and the Swedish government should help Romania in organising administrative work regarding Roma and the sharing of good practices. I will try to do something similar in Bulgaria also, but we will see how it works in Romania fi rst of all. Th e world today is like those three wise monkeys, who see, hear, and speak no evil. We need to fi nd our humanity, human dignity and start to act on that. But a lot of people are full of antiziganism. Th ere is a need for a more socialist and feminist approach.

And how do you see the role of Romani organisations in this?

SP: I would like to see more solidarity. Th ere are about 10 to 12 million of us in Europe and that’s a strong force. We could cooperate. Of course, not only Roma need to change, public opinion needs to change too. No society will stay healthy if there are groups excluded like the Roma are at the moment. It will have an eff ect on the general majority of society in the future. Before they understand that there will be no change. Th e strangest part, which also frustrates me, is the question of how they could be so stupid. How do they not understand what kind of eff ect this will have on society in general? Non-Roma governments and authorities claim that Roma consist of many diff erent groups, that they have no common goal, that Roma can’t cooperate, and they use these arguments in their own favour. Th ey give money to one group and not to the other and they create confl ict. And then they say: “You are in confl ict!” Who should we listen to? Th at is the strategy. We Roma need to see this strategy and overcome it and be smart. We have lost a great deal of our Romani smartness. If you go as a beggar, you’ll be treated like a beggar. If you go as a lady, you’ll be treated like a lady. If you go with a common goal, then they will have to listen. And we do not have to like one another to do that. We can at least have one common goal – to cooperate.

Do you see any changes in the Romani movement in recent years?

SP: Th at’s diffi cult to answer because of the attitude of non-Roma governments. Th ey want to use Roma as marionettes and there is always a Roma who wants to be used as a marionette. We need to put an end to such daily survivor strategies. But it is easy for me to say that because I live in Sweden. I can’t compare my life with the life of Roma people in Romania living on the streets. I can’t ask them to share my vision, but I can get angry at the offi cial Roma leaders when Roma themselves oft en do not benefi t from the money their leaders get and the projects they implement. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People – Interviews with Romani Leaders 189

Do you agree that Roma people in Europe right now are a mirror of the problems concerning human rights in Europe? Do you think that sharing their experiences could change and shift something in the attitudes of mainstream society towards human rights violations?

SP: I think that Roma can show Europe its own failures. And I hope it is not too late. Extremism is on the rise and the language of extremism is changing too. We need to go out, talk, show, and convince other people. And young leaders are doing that. And we have to show them that we have this capacity, that we are empowered and that we need to create more role models for young people.

CHAPTER 4 Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders

the previous chapter, we presented the views of Romani leaders from various countries, a mosaic of standpoints regarding the Inpresent state and future perspectives of the Roma movement and Roma communities in Europe. Th e voices of activists – men and women, both Western and Eastern Europeans, representing diff erent generations – have been heard. Now, from this interesting polyphony, we will attempt to single out certain recurring motifs.

1. Roma movement and history

Nearly all our interlocutors place the problems currently faced by the Roma movement in a historical context, presenting the movement itself as a reaction to past events, part of the historical process, or a creation of an autonomous Roma history. For some of them, the past is of particular importance. According to Romani Rose, for example, the past – in particular the Roma genocide during the Second World War and the struggle for the recognition of Romani people as victims of racial persecution and awarding them appropriate compensation – plays an enormous role. It could be argued that the historical context is what made him an activist and determined his priorities. Another important factor is the continuation of the anti-Roma policy by the post-war authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany, which forced Roma to relive the Holocaust whenever they came into contact with the authorities, denying the survivors any respite from their memories. Aft er the war, the German authorities and judiciary created obstacles for Roma and Sinti seeking compensation by demanding that they submit comprehensive evidence in support of their claims, including, for example, proof of German citizenship. Th e offi cials delegated to process such claims were oft en the very same people who, in the previous regime, had taken part in the persecution of Roma and Sinti, which was a source of additional trauma for the survivors. One can mention in this context the victims of forcible sterilisation who, in order to obtain a medical certifi cate aft er the 194 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People war, had to go through a medical examination, oft en performed by the same doctors who sterilised them.1 In Rose’s view, the key to understanding Roma identity and political aspirations lies in the fact that Roma (and Jews) were the main victims of Nazi Germany. Th is is also why he is critical of any attempts to introduce a word derived from the Romani language into the discourse on the Roma genocide during the Second World War (for example, the neologism “Porajmos,” put forward by Ian Hancock2) and emphatically argues for the term “Holocaust” to be used with respect to Jews and Roma alike. Rose refers, therefore, to two streams in Roma history: the fi rst is directly related to the Holocaust, while the second comprises the processes of self- -organisation of German Sinti and the fi ght for their rights. Connecting these two streams is very useful from a political point of view. On its own, the narrative describing Roma as victims, although advantageous in some respects through appealing to the sense of guilt and responsibility on the part of the state authorities, can nevertheless lead to the dangerous internalisation of victimhood, permanently paralysing activities, as evidenced by what happened in Germany immediately aft er the Second World War.3 Th e tradition of Roma self-organisation can neutralise the negative consequences of the memory of persecution. When combined, these two streams have the power to create an eff ective political discourse, as it can increasingly be observed with respect to the discourse that organises Roma collective memory.4 Stanisław Stankiewicz takes a similar position. In his opinion, Roma interest in the Holocaust should be interpreted in the context of the dominant perception of genocide, according to which the most important, if not the only, victims were Jews. Stankiewicz views the Roma silence about their tragic fate as a crucial mistake, despite the fact that in his opinion it can be easily explained by Roma tradition, which demands showing respect to the dead,

1 Gabrielle Tyrnauer (1990), “Mastering the Past”: Germans and Gypsies. In: Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn (eds.), Th e History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 373. 2 Ian Hancock (2002), We Are the Romani People. Ame sam e Rromane dzene. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 34. Th e criticism of this concept and of the way Hancock uses it can be found, for example, in: Lev Tcherenkov, Stéphane Laederich (2004), Th e Rroma. Vol. 1: History, Language, and Groups. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, p. 184; Ágnes Daróczi, Janos Bársony (2008), Preface to the English Edition. In: Janos Bársony, Ágnes Daróczi (eds.), Pharrajimos: Th e Fate of the Roma During the Holocaust. New York–Amsterdam–Brussels: International Debate Education Association, p. X. 3 Project on Ethnic Relations (1992), Th e Romanies in Central and Eastern Europe: Illusions and Reality. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations, p. 20. On the negative consequences of the trauma suff ered by Roma see Heike Krokowski (2001), Die Last der Vergangenheit. Auswirkungen nationalsozialistischer Verfolgung auf deutsche Sinti. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag. 4 James Fentress, Chris Wickham (1997), Social Memory. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 129. See also Sławomir Kapralski (1997), Identity Building and the Holocaust: Roma Political Nationalism. “Nationalities Papers” Vol. 25, No. 2. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 195 eff ectively excluding certain types of public ceremonies that we may fi nd in the commemoration of the Holocaust. However, this situation is changing, among others thanks to the activity of the International Romani Union and other organisations that mobilise Roma in diff erent countries to fi ght for compensation. Th anks to this activity, not only does the non-Roma world learn more about Roma history, but also Roma themselves become more aware of the threat posed by totalitarian regimes. Th e collapse of communism played a crucial role in Roma history, as did the subsequent reexamination of historical records, which allowed for the ethnicity of the Nazi genocide victims, including Roma, to be disclosed. Preserving the memory of the genocide is a source of confl ict and controversy, caused by ambitions of particular leaders. Nevertheless, Stankiewicz is optimistic and claims that activists are becoming increasingly more aware of the necessity of joint organisation of anniversary ceremonies and the elimination of internal confl icts. Meanwhile, internal confl icts are not the most important matter, according to Stankiewicz, as the situation where leaders have diff erences of opinion is normal and can be seen as a symptom of the new-found freedom, following the fall of communism. In the longer perspective, however, the issue of personal ambitions will have to be resolved in the view of a growing need for a consolidation of eff orts. Karel Holomek also fi nds the Roma genocide to be an important frame of reference. According to him, since Roma shared the fate of Jews, the commemoration of Holocaust victims should not be divided, yet it is precisely such a division that marks the situation in the Czech Republic, where the memory of the victims of Nazi persecution as well as the tragic history of Roma are important only to their own community, while the rest of society remains uninterested in commemorating the Roma Holocaust. Th is is a dangerous phenomenon because such segregation of victims prevents Nazi crimes from being rightfully identifi ed as racially motivated. In Holomek’s opinion, a joint commemoration of the victims would have important practical implications, constituting a step forward toward social integration. Grattan Puxon, co-author of the fi rst monography on the Roma genocide during the Second World War,5 also assigns great importance to the memory of the Holocaust. His approach can be described as instrumental: the historical research conducted by him was supposed to strengthen the position of Roma who fought for compensation, thus improving the fi nancial situation of the Roma movement. Similarly, the contemporary commemorative activities and Roma struggle to be involved in the bodies dealing with the

5 Donald Kenrick, Grattan Puxon (1972), Th e Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Chatto-Heinemann for Sussex University Press. 196 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Holocaust have practical meaning as a factor that supports initiatives improving the situation of Roma. In this process, the historical experience inevitably becomes mytholo- gised or starts to be treated instrumentally, as it is used as building blocks for various political projects concerning the Roma identity, where that identity is approached from a historical perspective. According to Lech Mróz, the new Roma history, written by Roma themselves, emerges precisely in such an institutional context of Roma organisations and is an expression of the national aspirations of Roma intelligentsia and political activists – the “awakeners of national consciousness” who “more than history need national mythology.”6 Myth-making of this kind is, however, nothing strange: according to Mróz, many nations and states engage in similar practices, and, as for Roma, it signifi - cantly contributes to the forming of a new, national consciousness.7 Th ose who fi ght against the discrimination and marginalisation of their community face diff erent problems from those encountered by a critical, academic historian, even if all of them work with the same material. Th e second stream of Roma history to which Roma activists pay attention is the history of the Roma movement. According to Stankiewicz, it is the ability to begin self-organisation that has been the most important achievement of Roma aft er the fall of communism. It required a radical change of perspective: Roma, who had previously rejected the non-Roma world in order to ensure their own safety and protect their identity, had to learn to function in it, become acquainted with its rules and abide by them. Initially, this adaptive process followed a strategy of mimesis: emulating non- -Roma institutions and procedures to make Roma activities comprehensible to non-Roma. Th is, incidentally, resembled the 15th century’s “big trick” performed by Roma newcomers to Western Europe, who employed the mimetic principle to maintain their relations with the non-Roma environment.8 In the course of time, Roma realised that the organisations, originally developed for contacts with the external world, are important also for Roma themselves, as they contribute to the integration of diff erent groups of Roma and help to aff ect a change in the social perception of the community. Moreover, such organisations make it easier for the voice of Roma people to be heard by the authorities.

6 Lech Mróz (2001), Dzieje Cyganów-Romów w Rzeczypospolitej XV–XVIII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, p. 12. 7 Lech Mróz (2008), “You Can’t Eat with Two Spoons.” Gypsy Leaders in the Face of Contemporaneity. In: Lech Mróz, Aleksander Posern-Zieliński (eds.), Exploring Home, Neighbouring and Distant Cultures. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, p. 121. 8 Th e “trick” was based on the knowledge of European culture and habits, used to create such a form of self-presentation that would be comprehensible and acceptable (and even positively valued) by non- Roma. Cf. Angus Fraser (1995), Th e Gypsies. Malden: Blackwell; Mróz, Dzieje Cyganów-Romów…, p. 10. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 197

It could be argued that Roma organisations function in a twofold way: externally oriented, allowing Roma to be present and effi cient in the non-Roma world, and internally oriented, increasing the cohesion of Roma communities. Both ways, according to various opinions, are either in tune with Roma traditions or help modify them. For some of our Eastern European interlocutors, Roma history predating communism and its fall does not play a signifi cant role; consequently, their narrative usually begins with the description of the situation of Roma in communist states or with the fall of communism. Th e latter event constitutes an important temporal threshold, especially for Roma from Eastern Europe, as it contributed to their political mobilisation, particularly visible in the 1990s. According to activists from the region, this mobilisation waned as initial enthusiasm for the economic and political transformation, accompanied by great hopes for the future, turned into disappointment when the economic situation of Roma failed to markedly improve, and the minority became an increasingly more frequent target of aggression against which the weak institutions of the state could not off er suffi cient protection. Generally speaking, according to our interviewees, Roma in the post- -communist Europe have yet to be recognised as equal citizens by their states; they are not treated fairly by legal systems and still fall victim to discriminatory practices. Th e consensus seems to be that the fall of communism has brought about the opportunity to self-organise and travel freely; however, the constant threat of violence combined with social insecurity makes it diffi cult to take advantage of these opportunities. Th e attitude of activists towards the post-communist transformation remains ambiguous, not unlike their perception of communism itself. Th e communist period is remembered by many Roma with nostalgia, as a time of relative security, both physical and social; nevertheless, it was also a time of forcible assimilation and invasive control by authorities. Some activists argue that the communist period should not be treated as monolithic or homogeneous. At times, the policy was being temporarily liberalised, oft en due to social resistance and protests, which played an important role in forming the political consciousness of Roma. For Karel Holomek, one such event was the Prague Spring of 1968, when the Association of Gypsies-Roma was established, and Czechoslovak Roma were given a taste of equality, if only for a short time. Margareta Matache, on the other hand, presents a radically diff erent approach to the communist period. Unlike many Roma, who praise communism for being a system in which there was no discrimination, and which provided people with jobs and housing, Matache claims, on the basis of her own experience, that the discrimination was there, only less visible. To name but one example, 198 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People the negligible percentage of educated Roma in post-communist Romania suggests the presence of discriminatory practices in education. Her attitude to the change in the situation of Roma in the last 25 years is ambiguous. On the one hand, she admits that signifi cant progress has been made since the beginning of the 1990s, when Roma were not even given the chance to formulate their postulates, not to mention form any strategies or legal and institutional framework in which to carry out Roma activities. On the other hand, not much has changed with regard to the situation of Roma communities: the existing strategies, institutions, and programmes have yet to produce tangible results. It could be said that the last 25 years constituted the fi rst phase of the Roma movement, during which programmes of activities were created. Now, in the second phase, these programmes need to be implemented, and Roma communities should be given access to them. Another historical frame of reference (aft er the Holocaust, communism, and post-communist transformation), as identifi ed by our interlocutors, is the accession of Eastern European countries to the European Union. Also, in this case, the opinions of Roma leaders are divided. Some, as Gejza Adam, claim that joining the EU changed nothing in the situation of Roma because European funds are either misappropriated or spent contrary to their purpose, while the authorities, both local and European, are reluctant to consult representatives of Roma communities. Others, for example Karel Holomek, evaluate the impact of accession on human rights issues and the economic situation much more favourably. Nevertheless, even these optimists realise that it would be unrealistic to expect rapid improvement and that the full eff ect of EU membership on the betterment of the situation of Roma can only be assessed in the long term.

2. Identity: civic or national?

Th e second motif recurring in the interviews was the issue of Roma identity, understood mostly in terms of a project identity which, according to Manuel Castells, is created “when social actors, on the basis of whatever cultural materials are available to them, build a new identity that redefi nes their position in society and, by so doing, seek the transformation of overall social structure.”9 In the interviews, three basic projects of Roma identity were put forward, all of them lacking clearly defi ned boundaries and oft en

9 Manuel Castells (1997), Th e Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 2: Th e Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 8. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 199 coexisting within the same political programmes. Th ese are civic, national, and territorial identity. Roma self-defi nition in civic terms found an ardent supporter in Nicolae Gheorghe, the eminent Romani intellectual and activist. In accordance with this project identity, Roma should form a political community “in the Ancient Greek sense of the term,” as Gheorghe phrases it, and the main task of Roma organisations would be to prepare Roma for being responsible citizens of their countries and to control whether their governments respect Roma citizenship rights.10 Roma identity is thus defi ned in legal and political, rather than ethnic, terms and understood as both individual identity (particular Roma individuals as citizens) and collective identity (Roma as a politically organised agent). Romani Rose agrees with the aforementioned project of Roma identity. He claims that Roma are, fi rst and foremost, citizens of the countries in which they live and do not constitute a European minority. While this does not exclude acts of solidarity by Roma people who live in diff erent countries, nor does it preclude cultural similarities between various groups of Roma, to assume a common cultural identity and joint political agency would be, according to Rose, unadvisable. Adopting a cultural identity is dangerous because it may provoke negative reactions and lead to confl ict. In Rose’s view, racism begins when cultural identity becomes more important than national identity (understood as citizenship). It would be diffi cult to dispute this claim, especially if we take into account the peculiar, Eastern European version of nationalism, which emphasises the idea of an ethnically homogeneous state and the concept of nationhood based on “objective” criteria, such as a common culture, language, ethnicity, and religion.11 Th e importance of national identities in Eastern Europe, while quite understandable in the view of long time eff orts by communist regimes to eradicate such identities and appropriate their manifestations and symbolism, infl uences the situation of Roma in a twofold way. Firstly, the concept of a homogeneous national identity may lead to Roma being excluded from nations that implement such an idea, which, in the case of Eastern Europe, may be synonymous with second-class citizenship. Secondly, however, the importance of national identities in their surroundings contributed to the fact that the Romani elites

10 Nicolae Gheorghe (1994), Gaining or Losing Together: Roma/Gypsies and the Emerging Democracies of Eastern/Central Europe. In: Human Right Abuses of the Roma (Gypsies). Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations, and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Aff airs House of Representatives… One Hundred Th ird Congress, Second Session, April 14, 1994. Washington: Government Printing Offi ce, p. 5. 11 Wolfgang J. Mommsen (1990), Th e Varieties of the Nation State in Modern History. Liberal, Imperialist, Fascist and Contemporary Notions of Nation and Nationality. In: Michael Mann (ed.), Th e Rise and Decline of the Nation State. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, pp. 213–214. 200 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People began to attach greater importance to the issue of Roma identity. In the presence of strong nationalist movements, national identity oft en appears to be the safest and most respectable choice. Rose’s standpoint is understandable in the context of the history of German Sinti and their ambiguous identity, which oft en took the form of a dual identity, which came easily to that group since most of them felt German as well as Sinti.12 Aft er the Second World War, this led to a peculiar contradiction: on the one hand, German Sinti applied for compensation for the Nazi persecution because the German government, as well as their fellow citizens, excluded them from society as a distinct and inferior race with no right to exist. On the other hand, in order to receive such compensation, German Sinti had to present themselves as members of the German nation, concealing their ethnic distinctiveness. It must be pointed out, however, that distinguishing between national identity, built with reference to citizenship, and identity created through an ethno-cultural affi liation raises several important analytical problems that make it virtually impossible to speak of civic identity as distinctive from cultural identity. Consequently, Rose’s claim would require that we recognise all Sinti living in Germany as Germans and dismiss their dual identity. Th ese problems could partially be solved by replacing the dichotomy of civic identity and national identity with that of state-framed and counter-state understanding of nationhood, as recommended by Rogers Brubaker.13 State nations are indistinguishable from the states in which they are institutionally and territorially embedded, whereas non-state nations perceive themselves as entities distinctive from states and oft en existing in opposition to institutional and territorial structures. Non-state nations do not have to be built on the basis of strong cultural identity and their existence does not have to give rise to confl icts – something that Romani Rose fears in the context of the collective memory of German Sinti. In fact, the two concepts introduced by Brubaker could describe a situation of being simultaneously in possession of many identities: Roma could belong to state nations, as citizens of the country in which they live, while, simultaneously, being members of a non-state nation, bounded by the ties of solidarity with Roma who live in other countries. Another version of identity described by Nicolae Gheorghe would designate Roma as a national minority to be treated on a par with members of the recognised national minorities. In this way, Roma would be granted the protection extended to other minorities and their identity would be defi ned in national

12 Krokowski, Die Last der Vergangenheit…, pp. 109–111. 13 Rogers Brubaker (1999), Th e Manichean Myth: Rethinking the Distinction Between “Civic” and “Ethnic” Nationalism. In: Hanspeter Kriesl et al. (eds.), Nation and National Identity. Th e European Experience. Chur–Zürich: Verlag Rüegger, p. 67. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 201 categories.14 However, due to the fact that Roma do not have a “homeland” in the sense of their own nation-state where they would be the dominant group and which would protect Roma who live abroad, such identity must be based on a diff erent concept of the “Roma nation.” Recent eff orts undertaken by a number of Roma activists and intellectuals have been aimed to formulate such a non-territorial and non-state defi nition of a nation. Roma activists are aware of diffi culties associated with building a generally acceptable national self-identifi cation of Roma. In their prominent policy paper on the present and future situation of Roma, Andrzej Mirga and Nicolae Gheorghe wrote that

Romani political elites were never driven to demand their own territory and state. Th us, to legitimise their claim, they advanced other elements of the concept of nation – the common roots of the Romani people, their common historical experiences and perspectives, and the commonality of culture, language and social standing. Th e experience of the Porajmos – the Romani holocaust during World War II – played an important role in providing the Romani diaspora with its sense of nationhood. Th e concept of a Romani nation as a political idea is accepted by the Romani elites themselves, despite the fact that in reality this recalled commonality varies enormously.15

More recently, a motif of transnationalism started to appear with increasing frequency in various Roma discussions and identity projects. One can distinguish at least three aspects of the transnational character of Roma identities. In the fi rst place, we can list the development and deepening of ties between various Roma groups in diff erent countries. Aft er the fall of communism, this aspect of the transnationalisation of Roma identity became especially important for Roma in Eastern Europe. Secondly, the supranational character of Roma organisations contributes to the transnational dimension of their projects and activities. Th ese organisations are becoming a signifi cant frame of reference for various forms of Roma activity carried out in nation states or at a local level. Th irdly, both the defence of their rights and various other Roma activities at a state level are becoming increasingly dependent on rapidly developing non- -Roma networks and institutions, whose infl uence allows them to supersede personal interactions as the main force shaping the image of Roma. Stanisław Stankiewicz endorses the idea of Roma as a transnational or non-territorial nation, meaning a group possessing all the attributes of a nation except for territory. Th e Roma nation understood that way is, in his opinion, at the forefront of the historical process characterised by the decreas- ing importance of nation states – something that is overlooked by political

14 Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Social Construction of Romani Identity. In: Th omas Acton (ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 160. 15 Andrzej Mirga, Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations, p. 15. 202 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People decision-makers, who keep interpreting the nation in the intellectual categories of the 19th century. Scholars, on the other hand, have noticed this phenomenon and write about “the role of Roma activism” that would amount to “nothing less than the abolition of the nation-state” or “the deconstruction of the idea of majority nations.”16 According to Stankiewicz, it was of vital importance that the Roma movement adopted national symbols in the form of a fl ag and an anthem, as well as anniversaries and celebrations that emphasise the unity of Roma, such as International Roma Day, International Roma Holocaust Remembrance Day, and the newly-established International Day of Roma Language (5th November). It is in this context that we should view the action of issuing Romani passports, initiated by the International Romani Union (Stankiewicz was President of this organisation between 2004–2013). Th e action, although currently suspended, is reminiscent of the ideas propagated by Ionel Rotaru in the 1960s. Th e meaning of Roma passports is not merely symbolic; according to Stankiewicz, they would help identify non-Roma who apply for help to such institutions as the International Red Cross under the pretence of being Roma. Moreover, such passports could guarantee the security of Roma at a time of a crisis related to the infl ux of refugees into Europe. Th e passports would allow Roma to prove that they are Europeans (in addition to the documents provided by particular states) and avoid being mistakenly identifi ed, thus es- caping the threat of deportation. Roma passports could also signify national belonging and help integrate diff erent Roma communities. Grattan Puxon also refers to the ideas of Ionel Rotaru and, in particular, to the concept of the Roma state – Romanestan. Although he believes the idea to be impractical, he fi nds it to be a signifi cant mobilising factor. Moreover, taking into account the contemporary means of communication, this idea acquires a new meaning and can be employed as a concept of a virtual Romanestan on the Internet, as it becomes a space of unrestricted communication for young Roma. Th e idea of building the Roma nation has not made spectacular progress in recent years. Th e vision of the world presented by diff erent Roma communities is not homogeneous and contains a number of disparate viewpoints that resist political unifi cation. Th e majority of activists are not convinced that Roma can be united with the help of a unitary narrative of identity and, with some exceptions, do not see the need for such unifi cation. Th e idea of a (trans)national Roma identity includes interesting elements (for example, the separation of the

16 Nicolae Gheorghe, Th omas Acton (2001), Citizens of the World and Nowhere. In: Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 69; Will Guy (2001), Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy. In: Will Guy (ed.) Between Past and Future…, p. 22. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 203 idea of a nation from the concept of a state) but, as Th omas Acton17 observes in his criticism, they are introduced in a rather erratic way; what is more, there is no concrete plan of activities that would turn these ideas into a reality. Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov agree with Acton as to the concept of the Roma nation being intellectually underdeveloped, while adding that it is oft en treated as a tool serving the particular interests of groups of activists who want to strengthen their position in their own countries.18 One would be hard-pressed not to agree with the aforementioned assess- ments. As a matter of fact, however, the situation of today’s Roma activists resembles that of their predecessors, back in the glory days of nationalism; they also had to develop their concepts of national identity in a socio-cultural environment fi lled with disparate identities. What makes the task of present- -day activists more challenging is the fact that the “market” is saturated with identities of all kinds, whereas national identity has lost much of its erstwhile glamour, even if its advocates attempt to adapt it to contemporary realities, for example by putting forward the idea of the Roma nation as a transnational movement. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning here the words of a classic author on the theory of nationhood, Florian Znaniecki, according to whom: “in every instance hitherto investigated, the formation of a national culture society starts with a relatively small social nucleus whose infl uence slowly spreads until it eventually reaches millions of people.”19 Th is nucleus consists of individual leaders who construct national culture as a synthesis of diff erent traditions.20 Roma communities have already created such a group of leaders, but it remains an open question whether their activities will be successful and, indeed, what form they will take. Between the idea of Roma as citizens and the concept of the Roma nation, there are the views of Roma activists working at a local level. According to Roman Kwiatkowski, the attempts to establish international or country wide

17 Th omas Acton (2006), Romani Politics, Scholarship, and the Discourse of Nation-Building. In: Adrian Marsh, Elin Strand (eds.), Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested. Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute. 18 Elena Marushiakova, Vesselin Popov (2004), Th e Roma – a Nation without a State? Historical Background and Contemporary Tendencies. In: Bernhard Streck (ed.), Segmentation und Komplementarität. Organisatorische, ökonomische und kulturelle Aspekte der Interaktion von Nomaden und Sesshaft en. Halle: Orientwissenschaft liche Heft e. A similar conclusion follows from the research on the leaders of Roma organisations from Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia, see Małgorzata Głowacka- -Grajper (2005), Idea narodowa w oczach liderów romskich z krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. In: Ewa Nowicka, Barbara Cieślińska (eds.), Wędrowcy i migranci. Pomiędzy marginalizacją a integracją. Kraków: NOMOS. 19 Florian Znaniecki (1952), Modern Nationalities: A Sociological Study. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, p. 24. 20 Ibidem. 204 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People representation are oft en symptoms of infl ated ambitions, while the most professional and eff ective campaigns are conducted locally, in the immediate surroundings of particular Roma communities. Ágnes Daróczi is of a similar opinion and claims that Roma should begin by creating local structures, and only then proceed to building national and, eventually, European ones. Th e same applies to Roma representation: only strong national representation of- fers hope for eff ective participation of Roma representatives in supranational structures. According to Daróczi, there are two paradigms of Roma activity: cultural and political. Th e fi rst is usually employed at the early stages of a minority movement, when the minority in question is yet to be granted rights, establish its own institutions, and win social acceptance. Th e cultural infl uence of its heritage is used to attract notice and earn recognition. To this end, the Roma movement uses the traditional, and generally accepted, presence of Roma culture in arts to reach, as if through the backdoor, the areas of social life that remain restricted to Roma and fi ght to aff ect a change. Subsequently, the political paradigm is employed, at which point the minority begins to build structures and institutions with the aim of achieving social emancipation. Th is, according to Daróczi, is a stage presently occupied by the Roma movement, with the most pressing concern being a lack of political representation. In her view, this representation should be formed starting at the level of nation states, due to the specifi city of the Roma situation in particular countries, and then at the international level. Th e basis for such activities is created through local initiatives, which, of course, does not exclude the possibility of simultaneous international activism and can even support it. To many Roma activists, the local level is the most important, as it provides the foundation for other forms of Roma activities. In these activities, one should avoid emphasising the issue of ethnic distinctiveness and act to the benefi t of all people in need, regardless of their origin. According to Roman Kwiatkowski, the local activism of Roma should be coordinated with the activities of local governments, with which Roma should collaborate. Collaboration and co-responsibility are, according to him, the most important rules that should guide the organisation of Roma activism. Instead of engaging in a lonely fi ght for Roma rights and forcing authorities to “do something for the Roma,” one needs to cooperate with the non-Roma world to solve local problems, including those that are of the utmost importance to the Roma community. Roma should be perceived as an integral part of society rather than a separate group that deserves special treatment. Programmes that single out the Roma community as a sole benefi ciary give rise to negative sentiments in society and stigmatise Roma. According to results of research conducted in Southern Poland by Ewa Nowicka, local non-Roma communities perceive the assistance Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 205 given to Roma as inconsistent, conducive to fraud, and unfairly privileging the minority, which, in turn, increases social frustration and aversion to Roma.21 Such programmes are rooted in the contemporary neoliberal strategy of “managing social problems” that emphasises “integration” and thus the one- -sided inclusion of Roma into the majority society, carried out according to measurable criteria of economic rationality, while failing to signifi cantly improve the situation of Roma.22 Th ese processes bear the mark of “adverse incorporation” that divests Roma of their agency and, in fact, increases the very social inequalities that turn Roma into dependants of social welfare institutions or, at best, into a reserve army of an easily exploitable labour force.23 In post-communist states, the Roma civic or political movement falls victim to the contradiction between two competing political ideologies: participant democracy and individualist neoliberalism. Th e reconciliation of the neoliberal economy with the process of building a civic society, based on involving various groups in decision-making regarding important public matters, proved to be impossible in the long term.24 Th is was confi rmed by a number of reports negatively evaluating the progress of governmental agencies and NGOs in fi ghting the marginalisation of Roma within the constraints of the neoliberal economy.25 Studies on the participation of Roma in political life at a local level validate such concerns and do not instil optimism. According to Offi ce for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) research, despite a growing number of educated and competent Roma activists, the majority parties remain reluctant to put them forward as candidates in local elections, and the system of minority representation, introduced in some countries (Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia), does not compensate for this. Moreover, it is at the local level that we may encounter pathologies such as buying votes, which, exacerbated by corruption amongst Roma leaders, lead to divisions within Roma communities, weakening their position.26 Th is situation is further aggravated by the weakness of the Roma representative democracy, associated, among others, with divisions within the Roma

21 Ewa Nowicka, Michał Witkowski (2013), Retoryka antydyskryminacyjna w zmieniających się relacjach społeczeństwa większościowego z Romami. Przypadek Bergitka Roma we wsi karpackiej. “Studia Socjologiczne” No. 4 (211), p. 157. 22 Ibid., pp. 151–152. 23 Enikö Vincze (2015), Adverse Incorporation of the Roma and the Formation of Capitalism in Romania. “Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics”, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 16. 24 Huub van Baar (2013), Travelling Activism and Knowledge Formation in the Romani Social and Civil Movement. In: Maja Miskovic (ed.), Roma Education in Europe: Practices, Policies and Politics. London–New York: Routledge, p. 193. 25 Nowicka, Witkowski, p. 150. 26 OSCE/ODIHR (2016), Roma and Sinti Political Participation: Opportunities and Risks of Local-level Engagement. Warsaw. 206 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People movement and a low degree of Roma political mobilisation, as well as with the politics of state authorities that avoid systemic solutions to ethnic problems and try to delegate them to non-governmental institutions dealing with human rights instead.27 As a result, the most developed forms of Roma activity can be found, fi rstly, in the fi eld of designative participation, which carries with itself the danger of Roma activists becoming dependent on the non-Roma institutions that designate them, and secondly, in the sector of NGOs, which operate on a small scale and are oft en ineffi cient.28 What this indicates is that, although Roma political mobilisation has signifi cantly grown since the 1990s and is more dynamic than the average for an ethnic or national minority, “its general level… is still unsatisfactory and remains behind the mobilisation of other ethnic groups.”29 Th e multitude of options concerning the Roma identity constitutes a part of the contemporary cultural landscape, which is characterised by the coexistence of diff erent cultural proposals and their social manifestations. In a globalised world, where the role of the nation state diminishes proportionally to the growing importance of transnational agents, in a world of unstable and fl uid interdependencies between diff erent elements of the global system, identity, including ethnic identity, also begins to destabilise and evolve, entangled in the global network.30 For groups that, until recently, have been marginalised or even persecuted, this is a mixed blessing. On the positive side, the process of globalisation makes it possible to construct multiple identities, preserving those already existing while adding new ones, and diminishes the importance of institutions that used to be in control of the identity creation process. On the negative side, globalisation simultaneously weakens the legitimising power of identities and diminishes the importance of cultural material traditionally used to construct them. As a result, in a globalised world, it is not the creation of an identity that is an issue but rather its preservation, engaging emotionally people united behind it, and making it powerful enough to win recognition in the world. In addition, it seems that we will encounter an increasing number of eclectic or hybrid identities, which draw upon diff erent sources and function on various levels of culture simultaneously. Th is situation can appeal to many Roma who experience their identities as ambiguous and are not particularly interested in eliminating this ambiguity

27 Aleksandra Górska (2005), Podmiotowość polityczna Romów i formy jej realizacji. In: Ewa Nowicka, Barbara Cieślińska (eds.), Wędrowcy i migranci..., p. 57. 28 Ibid., pp. 60–62. 29 Ibid., p. 63. 30 John F. Stack Jr. (1981), Ethnic Groups as Emerging Transnational Actors. In: John F. Stack Jr. (ed.), Ethnic Identities in a Transnational World. Westport: Greenwood Press, p. 28. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 207 or acquiring an unequivocal self-description in terms of a specifi c collective identity. Th ey believe there to be many diff erent variants of being Roma and consider this pluralism to be a good thing. Th ey also notice that boundaries separating diff erent identity discourses are permeable and allow for the emergence of interesting hybrids.31 Such views are represented by a group of Roma intellectuals of the younger generations. One of them, Gregor Dufunia Kwiek, claims that Roma diff er so vastly with respect to values, traditions, and interests that fi nding anything that would lead to their spontaneous and objective unifi cation is impossible.32 Another representative of the group, Brian Belton, writes that defying any given “truths” by questioning it is a Roma trait, also when it comes to not accepting such “truths” in regard to Roma identity as given, unquestionable, and unchanging. According to him, it is precisely such a sceptical lack of acceptance that constitutes a crucial part of Roma identity. He fi nds it to be a form of “travelling” – a refusal to “stop in one place.”33 Th e three levels of Roma self-identifi cation discussed by our interlocutors – (i) (trans)national, (ii) civic, and (iii) territorial – are not mutually exclusive and can coexist with one another. However, this coexistence is marked by two oppositions that, in practice, take the form of diffi cult choices faced by the Roma movement. Th e fi rst of them is the opposition between cultural activities in the fi eld of identity and practical activities in the fi eld of social policy. Th e second opposition is between emphasising ethnic distinctiveness and concealing dif- ferences for the sake of common undertakings within the framework of a civil society. Th ese are but two examples of problems with forming a strategy for Roma activism. Th e following section will feature further examples.

3. Paradoxes of Roma activism

One of the internal dichotomies of the Roma movement is the issue of the elitist vs mass character of Roma activism. Some of our interviewees, for example Romani Rose, represent the elitist perspective of successful Roma, or, at least,

31 On the concept of hybridity in the context of Roma identities see Ioana Bunescu (2014), Roma in Europe: Th e Politics of Collective Identity Formation. London: Ashgate. 32 Gregor D. Kwiek (2010), Aft erword: Rom, Roma, Romani, Kale, Gypsies, Travellers, and Sinti… Pick a Name and Stick with It, Already. In: Damian Le Bas, Th omas Acton (eds.), All Change! Romani Studies through Romani Eyes. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 80. 33 Brian A. Belton (2010), Knowing Gypsies. In: Damian Le Bas, Th omas Acton (eds.), All Change!…, p. 44. 208 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People such is the picture that they would like to present to an external audience. Th ey want to portray Roma as successful in order to avoid being labelled poor and inferior. Th is, in a sense, is a form of political marketing. According to Rose, the majority perceives his organisation as representing the poor, which he fi nds objectionable since it does not refl ect reality and constitutes an obstacle on the way to the desired state of aff airs, i.e. having Roma recognised as equal members of society. Th ere is nothing wrong with political marketing provided that it does not happen at the cost of ignoring the situation of the poor and excluded members of the Roma community or introducing divisions that would negatively impact relations, for example, between Roma of Western Europe and Roma immigrants from post-communist states. Th e history of the German Roma movement confi rms that such a confl ict can indeed pose a serious threat: German Sinti and Roma who lived in Germany for a long time treated post-war Roma immigrants from Eastern Europe in a way reminiscent of that in which German Jews had perceived their Eastern European kin prior to the Second World War. German Sinti and Roma were afraid that the presence of these newcomers could cast a shadow over the entire community, further complicating the fi ght for recognition and fi nancial compensation.34 According to Gilad Margalit and Yaron Matras, “since the presence of the Roma, with their pan-Romani and international orientation, is a constant reminder to the Sinti of their distinctiveness, they fear that in the eyes of the gadje, association with the Roma will strengthen the view that they, the Sinti, are also not an integral part of German society.”35 Similarly, elitist views characterise the position taken by Stanisław Stan- kiewicz, who neglects to mention economic problems experienced by a great many Roma and presents the fi ght for Roma rights as political strife fought behind closed doors between Roma activists and powerful actors in world politics. Gejza Adam and Soraya Post, in contrast, advocate the interests of Roma masses. Th ey are very critical of the international Roma movement, the leaders of which do not work, in their opinion, for the Roma masses, safeguarding their own interests instead. In consequence, the grassroots do not benefi t from the funds secured by Roma leaders for local projects. Th e second dichotomy is associated with relations between Roma from Western and Eastern Europe. For Romani Rose, the division of Europe into two parts continues to aff ect the situation of Roma, due to signifi cant diff erences

34 Julia von dem Knesebeck (2011), Th e Roma Struggle for Compensation in Post-War Germany. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press, p. 233. 35 Gilad Margalit, Yaron Matras (2007), Gypsies in Germany – German Gypsies? Identity and Politics of Sinti and Roma in Germany. In: Roni Stauber, Raphael Vago (eds.), Th e Roma. A Minority in Europe. Historical, Political and Social Perspectives. Budapest: CEU Press, p. 115. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 209 on the level of democracy and respect for human rights. Western Europe is characterised by a developed democracy, which Roma can use to fi ght for their rights and criticise the policy of the authorities. Eastern Europe suff ers from a democracy defi cit, and Roma who live there have to fi ght for basic rights, such as the right to criticize, to be recognised, as well as counter racism of what Rose refers to as apartheid. Rose is, without a doubt, correct in criticiz- ing the Eastern European democracy defi cit, but one has the impression that he overlooks the presence of racism and discrimination in Western Europe, where it oft en attracts the focus of Roma organisations, as noted by Orhan Galjus, among others. It would, perhaps, be an exaggeration to say that Romani Rose is mentally trapped in a Europe still divided by the iron curtain; however, his standpoint is characterised by a tendency, exhibited also by the European Union, to divide Roma into the “integrated” citizens of Western Europe, who do not present any particular problems, and Eastern European Roma, who are the ones with issues and, not unlike immigrants, could create problems for the “old continent.” In a sense, Rose’s position is very much in line with that of Western Europe and rests on the exteriorisation of the problem and depicting Eastern European Roma as a problematic group. Activists from Eastern Europe, in particular those who perceive Roma as a nation, approach Roma problems comprehensively and in the context of Europe as a whole; at the same time, their main frame of reference remains the situation of Eastern European Roma. Th ose who are interested predominantly in the everyday living conditions of Roma communities refer to the “East- -West” diff erentiation only to highlight the fact that Roma in Western Europe, including immigrants from Eastern Europe, encounter a comparatively lower level of racism and fi nd themselves in a better position on the labour market. Karel Holomek, while reminiscing about his European travels, notes an important distinction between activists from Western and Eastern Europe whom he encountered in the last years of the 20th century. Whereas the Western Europeans were well-educated, had a strong ethnic identity, and actively worked for their communities, the Eastern Europeans proved to be ill-prepared for political activity, inconsistent in their fi ght for Roma rights, and quick to give up in the face of obstacles. Another diff erence between Eastern and Western Europe involves the way in which the societal majority approaches “the Roma issue.” According to Holomek, in Eastern Europe, a lack of a rational approach is prevalent, and the majority fails to understand that the integration of Roma is not some annoying and costly obligation or a “gift ” to Roma but rather an investment into improving the functioning of the state with respect to social policy: when Roma become full citizens, they will no longer require fi nancial assistance. 210 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Orhan Galjus, on the other hand, argues that the situation of Roma was oft en worse in Western Europe than in the east of the continent, where Romani people had more rights and, to some extent, became integrated into the majority society. In Western Europe, Roma were marginalised and forced to live outside mainstream society. In addition, it was Western Europe that saw the re-emergence of fascism and neo-Nazism and whose governments still attempt to eliminate the “Roma problem” (for example by means of deportation) rather than solve it or realise that it is in fact the problem of the majority Th e third dichotomy involves the issue of cooperation between Roma and non-Roma. On the issue of Roma fi ghting for their rights in the context of the situation of non-Roma minorities, our interlocutors are divided into universalists and particularists. Th e former emphasises the necessity of all groups falling victim to discrimination working together to build solidarity among the excluded. Th e latter express little to no solidarity with those who presently follow in the footsteps of the ancestors of contemporary Roma and migrate to Europe. Particularists claim that, unlike this new wave of immigrants and refugees, Roma are Europeans, which gives them the right to be here and undertake necessary action to prevent negative sentiments towards refugees from spilling over onto Roma, still stereotypically perceived as “non- -Europeans.” Th e interviewees who do not fall into either of these groups concede that a joint fi ght for the rights of the excluded would have benefi ts and focus on positive examples of such cooperation. For example, Gejza Adam sees the seeds of change in the majority’s attitude towards Roma in relations between the Roma and non-Roma students of the school he operates, whereas Karel Holomek cites cooperation between Roma organisations and the Museum of Romani Culture in Brno as an example of a concerted eff ort to improve the social perception of Roma as well as their overall situation.

4. Main problems and the future of Roma

According to Ágnes Daróczi, Roma face three types of problems. Th e fi rst is poverty, which aff ects society in general and should be solved by introducing new social policies, without specifi cally targeting Roma, who, nevertheless, must exert pressure on governments so that the authorities perform their duties. Th e second is racism, which poses a fundamental challenge for the democratic organisation of mainstream society. Th e third problem encompasses identity-related issues, such as education and the transformation of identities Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 211 in the spirit of the modernisation process. Daróczi emphasises, on the one hand, the necessity of safeguarding the Romani language and providing Roma with opportunities to promote their culture (which, according to her, are not given in many countries), and, on the other hand, the necessity of combating stereotypes, which propagate a false image of Roma, seemingly impossible to eradicate despite the centuries-long presence of Romani people in Europe. Daróczi also stresses the need to create Roma institutions that would be an equal partner for governments and non-Roma NGOs, as well as the necessity of establishing transparent and democratic electoral procedures for choosing Roma representation to supersede leaders licensed by the authorities, who legitimise governmental policy towards Roma with no regard for the well- -being of Roma communities. Roma research institutions could, for example, control the process of the production of knowledge about Roma and prevent the manipulation of data, as well as counter the ignorance and ill will of political decision-makers. Th ey must, however, be authentic, in the sense of having a mandate from their communities, and operate in a transparent, democratic way. Th e issue of representation is of paramount importance also to Gejza Adam. He is, however, more interested in social welfare issues, and, in this context, he touches upon the important question of responsibility for the improvement of the situation of Roma. Should actions taken in this regard fall exclusively into the domain of the state, whose obligation would it be to provide Roma with jobs and accommodation? Should it be the preserve of the EU, or ought Roma to take matters into their own hands? Similar problems were touched upon by Grattan Puxon. In his eyes, the main problem of Roma is that only a fraction of funds designated to improve their situation reaches Roma organisations, while most of them are used to cover the administrative expenses of local governments, which are supposed to be distributing these funds. Another, deeper reason for this situation is the problem with Roma representation: it is too weak to successfully negotiate with the European Union. It is diffi cult to identify the cause of the current state of aff airs, especially in light of the promising beginnings of the Roma movement; the fact remains, however, that aft er the 1980s, the Roma movement lost its momentum, and the establishment of several weak Roma NGOs and decisions made by these institutions were a contributing factor. Th e fundamental task would be to reunify the Roma movement and increase its effi ciency, something that could be accomplished through creating joint representation of all Roma, for example by calling democratic elections, which would legitimise Romani representatives in the eyes of EU institutions. Another important issue is fi nancial independence. Puxon off ers the example of the English Gypsy Council as a model institution, fi nanced exclusively from 212 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People membership fees, and juxtaposes it with organisations relying on EU funding, forced to function within the restrictions placed on them by their benefactor. Th is, in turn, excludes certain forms of effi cient action and makes Roma act only in the face of a direct threat. Also, Soraya Post believes that creating unity among Roma and developing their solidarity are the two most important tasks facing the Roma movement, especially since divisions between Roma communities are eagerly exploited by the authorities. She does not deny the fact that Roma are divided but argues that, in order to function in the non-Roma world, they should bridge their internal diff erences and present themselves as a group united by a common goal. Th is would make exploiting internal divisions by non-Roma authorities less likely, while simultaneously forcing policy-makers to respond to Roma claims in earnest. In a similar spirit, Tímea Junghaus speaks of the need for “strategic essentialism” in Roma activity, which would involve self-ascribing certain collective attributes or features to Roma, as, according to Junghaus, it could be benefi cial to the community, regardless of whether such characteristics were true. An important role in “strategic essentialism” is played by Roma culture, as an important means of building bridges between Roma and the majority society. Social integration is impossible without the integration and recognition of Roma culture, especially since it is the only area in which Roma are represented favourably rather than as a discriminated group of the poor, whose opportunities in life are limited. One has to fi ght against the underappreciation of Roma culture and negative depiction of Roma by the culture of the majority. Without the recognition of Roma culture, the recognition of Roma as equal members of society will be impossible. With respect to the future, Stanisław Stankiewicz is adamant that Roma will remain a distinct group, choosing to preserve their identity over blending into society. At the same time, they will have to adjust to the demands of the external world and put more emphasis on education. Th e Roma movement is young and has yet to go through the stages that other nations have already moved beyond. Stankiewicz hopes that the attitude of the majority towards Roma will improve over time. Very specifi c goals have been outlined for the Roma movement by Gejza Adam. According to him, Roma should, fi rst and foremost, fi ght to be elected to parliaments because only then will they be able to infl uence state budgets and secure the means to ameliorate the situation of Roma communities. Th e mobilisation of Roma is of vital importance here, as is their appreciating the need to vote for their own candidates rather than for those who represent the majority and oft en resolve to buying Roma votes. Political mobilisation, on the same scale as following the collapse of communism, is necessary. Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 213

Roman Kwiatkowski claims that an optimistic scenario for the future of Roma would entail their recognition as fully-fl edged citizens of their own countries and of Europe, whose problems need to be solved as a matter of fundamental human rights rather than minority-specifi c privileges. To achieve such a state, signifi cant changes are required, not only in the standpoints of governments and societies but also with regard to Roma themselves. Th ese changes need to encompass, in particular, the issue of leadership: a generational change is necessary, with young, educated Roma taking the lead. Karel Holomek looks into the future with moderate optimism. He views any improvement in the situation of Roma as conditional on the minority taking the initiative, changing their mindset, and displaying more interest in working towards the goal of social integration. Th e majority must change its attitude, as well, and abstain, for example, from discriminatory practices in education. A lot depends on the general political situation in Europe, as it is experiencing a crisis in connection with the infl ux of refugees. Th is crisis is a litmus test for European democracy, and its satisfying conclusion will have positive, albeit indirect, consequences for European Roma. Ágnes Daróczi, on her part, notes the enormous potential of Roma and a chance for their experience to enrich the majority society. Th is is particularly evident with respect to bilingualism, with which Roma have substantial experience. Th e fi ght against anti-Roma prejudices can also be seen as a test for European democracy. In this way, through their very existence and a history of falling victim to racist attacks, the treatment of Roma has become a litmus test for contemporary Europe, to paraphrase Holomek, evaluating the attitude of the majority towards Roma and European society’s potential for combating extremism, which is not only an enemy of Roma but, even more importantly, of democracy. Finally, for Grattan Puxon, the most important change in recent years is the increased mobility of Roma, related to the unifi cation of Europe and recent economic crisis. In his opinion, more than one million Roma are now “on the road,” looking for a place to stay. Th is is an important political issue, one that must be actively addressed by the Roma movement, displacing the organisation of new conferences as its priority. For this purpose, the movement must unite and become independent of other institutions, as well as suggest its own solutions to Roma problems. Almost all our interlocutors highlight the importance of the unifi cation of the Roma movement and express great hopes for the educated new generation of Roma who are willing to cooperate, and who are familiar with opportunities off ered by various non-Roma institutions. Increasingly more important is the tendency, and the need, for creating and taking responsibility for structures, institutions, and systems managed by Roma themselves; consequently, for the 214 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People fi rst time, it is becoming conceivable to change the perception of Roma communities in Europe and infl uence the dominant discourse on Roma. Roma leaders emphasise that Roma communities should not be seen as a social or economic problem but as an asset to European societies, facing the problems of re-adaptation and acculturation in the context of increased immigration. To make it possible, however, one has to create space, in which history, culture, and experience in handling the challenge of functioning in an alien and/or hostile cultural environment could be analysed and communicated. For that reason, many of our interviewees advocate the creation of Roma institutions, both local and European, whose role would be to educate the majority society on the subject of Roma life in an attractive and modern fashion, as well as to cultivate a new generation of Roma intellectuals and become a place for Roma activists to exchange their views and experiences. In such institutions, members of the Roma minority would be able to work together towards improving the position of Roma communities in Europe. Th is kind of activity has recently been on the rise, as evidenced by Rom- Archive and the European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture (ERIAC). Both institutions were created by Roma in collaboration with non-Roma institutions, such as the Open Society Foundation or the Council of Europe. Th e creation of ERIAC is supported by the German government, which resulted in the proposal to situate this institution in Berlin. According to Romani Rose, President of the Documentation Centre of German Sinti and Roma in Heidelberg, the choice of that particular location is crucial because Berlin, considered to be the European capital of culture, is a place where the vitality and creativity of Roma communities is recognised and deep-rooted prejudices and stereotypes about Roma can be challenged there.36 Th e decision to establish ERIAC was made on the 45th anniversary of the First World Roma Congress, held in 1971 near London, which, as the Roma leaders involved in creating the new institution emphasise, has symbolic meaning. According to them, ERIAC represents a continuation of the fi ght for Roma rights and against stereotypes and prejudices constituting a barrier in relations with the non-Roma environment. Nevertheless, the most important aspect of this initiative seems to be the fact that it came from Roma themselves, which is crucial because, as one of the main driving forces behind ERIAC, Tímea Junghaus, notes,

making images about Roma has been the monopoly of non-Roma for over six centuries. Th e past testifi es that the cultural institutions of our majority societies alone were not eff ective in taking up the mission of making the European Roma and Roma arts and culture visible

36 European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture: Building the Future by Honoring the Past (2015). http://www.romea.cz/en/news/world/european-roma-institute-for-arts-and-culture-building-the- future-by-honoring-the-past (accessed on 16 May 2015). Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 215

in our societies… Th ere is now a critical mass of educated Roma artists, creative producers, scholars and intellectuals who can lead the discourse and practice of Roma representation. Th e Institute will be a hub for Roma to nurture and spark this movement in the fi eld of arts and culture and, in the process, to challenge long-held assumptions and prejudices.37

Michaela Zatreanu, co-founder of ERIAC, similarly stresses the fact that it is an institution made for Roma and by Roma working in the fi elds of fi ne arts, culture, history, media, and linguistics. According to her, ERIAC will help people to better understand Roma, and this, in turn, will have an impact on fi ghting prejudices, which, especially now, pose a great obstacle in relations between Roma and non-Roma.38 Th e purpose of the second of the aforementioned initiatives, RomArchive, is to create a positive image of Roma and work towards increasing the presence of Roma artists in the public sphere. One can say that it is yet another undertak- ing which prioritises handing over to Roma the responsibility for shaping the image of their community. Both initiatives are relatively new but suffi ciently visible to provoke a debate, not only in academic circles (i.e. among non-Roma scholars working on Roma issues) but also among Roma themselves. Among many voices of support, there are also those of disapproval, some attempting to denigrate the importance of these organisations. Questions emerge regarding the modus operandi of Roma institutions with respect to creating a positive image of Roma in an environment that, as even the founders of these organisations admit, is hostile to Romani people. Th is is further confi rmed by polls indicating that the Roma minority, along with Muslims, is the least tolerated minority in Europe.39 A question emerges, therefore, on how to uproot stereotypes and prejudices that have endured in European society for centuries and, thus far, resisted any eff orts to expunge them. Th is is especially true now, as the rise of xenophobia in Europe combined with the growing popularity of extreme nationalist parties does not bode well for this fi ght. Th is is a particularly daunting task but not a hopeless one. It requires, however, especially in this diffi cult period for Europe, the cooperation of several groups: academia, journalists, activists, politicians, etc. Will Roma institutions support these activities? Have the actions undertaken hitherto proved ineffi cient because they were not initiated by Roma themselves? Why have non-Roma scholars been unable to successfully fi ght against stereotypes about Roma? Is the fact that they are not Roma themselves important in this context? Maybe the answers to these questions

37 Ibidem. 38 Ibidem. 39 YouGov Survey Results (2015). https://d25d2506sfb 94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ g96awulgzv/Eurotrack_Minorities_W.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2015). 216 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People will be revealed in time, as we learn more about the activities, strategies, and ideas of Roma institutions. At the same time, it needs to be mentioned that there are several worrying tendencies regarding the plans, realisation, and hopes for Roma institutions. Problems do not seem to be limited to their establishment (Roma organisations have existed for a long time without giving rise to much controversy) but include a sort of exclusivism related to the ethnic identity of their creators, which permeates these institutions. It may cause a sense of exclusion or lead to downplaying the work of scholars and activists who are not Roma. It must be noted that doubts and critical opinions are not something unique to Roma initiatives. Critical voices are more than just a source of confl ict, they are also an encouragement to conduct necessary discussions, which are an integral part of the processes that occur within the Roma movement. Concerns or even criticism expressed by non-Roma activists and scholars who spent most of their lives studying and writing about Roma issues come, therefore, as no surprise. Non-Roma may be under the impression that initiatives emphasising Roma-only activism exclude or even discredit their work, especially since these new tendencies may be perceived as having a nationalist tinge, as they clearly separate the world of Roma from the non-Roma environment. Another important element related to the development of Roma institutions is the activity of Roma leaders, most of whom started their careers working at a local level and had several achievements of crucial importance to the Roma community. In this context, one can mention Romani Rose or Ágnes Daróczi, who support the abovementioned initiatives. It could be said that, in this way, such projects connect diff erent generations of Roma: accomplished activists, whose presence legitimises and gives credence to Roma institutions, and younger Roma who establish new organisations. It would be, however, naïve to assume that such initiatives unite all Roma. Such is not the case, and it would be diffi cult to expect it to be, taking into account the substantial diversifi cation of Roma communities. In this context, the diversity of experiences and ideas about the course of action and ways of creating the image of Roma is something natural. Roma communities are not, and have never been, monolithic, and arriving at a common position poses a signifi cant challenge, if it is even possible. It is, however, clear that, along with the commemoration of the Roma and Sinti genocide during the Second World War, prioritised by most Roma leaders since the 1980s, the propagation of Roma culture as something contemporary and competitive in today’s world becomes another common thread that unites many Roma activists. Despite the doubts or even critical remarks levelled at the initiatives discussed here, they are vital to the future of the Roma movement in Europe. Th e need to create Roma institutions and, in consequence, give Roma a chance to Roma Movement: Its Past, Present, and Future, as Seen by Romani Leaders 217 shape the perception of their own community is not something new, and in the past, attempts to the same end were also being made. It seems, however, that the new generation of educated Roma, active in various fi elds, is effi cient not only with regard to the creation of Roma institutions but also in engaging non- -Roma partners, including, in particular, institutions that can provide funding necessary for Roma ideas to be implemented. Time will tell if the initiatives discussed here prove successful, accomplish a greater and uncontroversial presence of Roma in the so-called mainstream, and manage to change the image of this highly underappreciated European minority as well as what infl uence this period in European history, particularly non-propitious to diversity, will have on the effi ciency of undertaken actions. When debating the goals of the aforementioned institutions, it is important to take into account the voices of those who do not participate in Roma projects, Roma and non-Roma alike, but have been involved in the fi ght for Roma rights for a long time. A compromise would be the most benefi cial solution, even if slightly unrealistic. Is it possible? Do Roma-only initiatives, which are meant to fi ght prejudice and exclusion, exclude others who, for various reasons, are not part of the aforementioned projects? Do these initiatives, which are to serve integration, simultaneously negate their own message by emphasising ethnic belonging? Does a project that promotes better understanding and disseminates knowledge about Roma simultaneously strengthen Roma nationalism, which has thus far been marginal? Th ere are many such questions and doubts that, as it was already mentioned, are naturally associated with such initiatives, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing can undermine the validity of creating Roma institutions, which have constituted an important aspect of the activities of Roma leaders for a number of years. However, having in mind the diversity of Roma and of people who are, for various reasons, linked to them (scholars, activists, etc.), the debate on these issues seems to be a natural ally and an integral part of Roma initiatives and can only increase the eff ectiveness of Roma institutions and support their mission, which, according to their creators, is to make space for dialogue and integration, free of barriers and divisions.

Literature

Acković, Dragoljub (1995), Roma Suff ering in Jasenovac Camp. Belgrade: Th e Museum of the Victims of Genocide, Roma Culture Center. Acton, Th omas (2006), Romani Politics, Scholarship, and the Discourse of Nation- -Building [in:] Adrian Marsh, Elin Strand (eds.), Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested. Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute. Acton, Th omas, Ilona Klímová (2001), Th e International Romani Union: An East European Answer to West European Questions? Shift in the Focus of World Romani Congresses 1971–2000 [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Acton, Th omas, Nicolae Gheorghe (2001), Citizens of the World and Nowhere: Minority, Ethnic and Human Rights for Roma [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Agencja Praw Podstawowych (2009), Sprawozdanie „Kluczowe dane”. Część 1. Romowie. Wiedeń. fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-MIDIS_ROMA_PL.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2014). Annual Report on the European Roma and Travellers Forum Activities (2009). http:// www.ertf.org/images/stories/documents/ERTF_Annual_Report_2009.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2011). Annual Report on the European Roma and Travellers Forum Activities (2010). http:// www.ertf.org/images/stories/documents/ERTF_Annual_REP_2010_EN.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2011). Appadurai, Arjun (2006), Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. Durham: Duke University Press. Bárány, Zoltán (1998), Explaining Marginality: Portrayals of East European Gypsies. Budapest: Central European University. Bárány, Zoltán (2002), Th e East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartosz, Adam (1994), Nie bój się Cygana. Sejny: Wydawnictwo Pogranicze. Bartosz, Adam (2010), IV Światowy Kongres Romów w Warszawie. 6–8 kwietnia 1990 roku. “Studia Romologica” nr 3. Bartosz, Adam, Natalia Gancarz (2014), Tarnowscy Romowie. Półwiecze osiedlenia – pięćdziesięciolecie Stowarzyszenia. Tarnów: Muzeum Okręgowe w Tarnowie. Bauerdick, Rolf (2015), Cyganie. Spotkania z nielubianym narodem. Warszawa: WAB Terra Incognita. Bauman, Zygmunt (2000), Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 220 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Belton, Brian A. (2010), Knowing Gypsies [in:] Damian Le Bas, Th omas Acton (eds.), All Change! Romani Studies Th rough Romani Eyes. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Bessonov, Nikolay (2008), Kiszyniowcy. Studium historii i zwyczajów. “Studia Romo- logica” nr 1. Brubaker, Rogers (1999), Th e Manichean Myth: Rethinking the Distinction Between “Civic”and “Ethnic” Nationalism [in:] Hanspeter Kriesi et al. (eds.), Nation and National Identity. Th e European Experience. Chur–Zürich: Verlag Rüegger. Bunescu, Ioana (2014), Roma in Europe: Th e Politics of Collective Identity Formation. London: Ashgate. Castan Marti Marfa(2007), Identity as Religious Performance. Evangelical Pentecostalism amongst Catalan Gitanos of Barcelona. Paper read at the Gypsy Lore Society meeting, Manchester. Castells, Manuel (1997), Th e Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 2. Th e Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, Colin (2004), “Severity Has Oft en Enraged but Never Subdued a Gipsy”: Th e History and Making of European Romani Stereotypes [in:] Nicholas Saul, Susan Tebbutt (eds.), Th e Role of the Romanies: Images and Counter-Images of “Gypsies”/ Romanies in European Cultures. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Aff airs (2010), Working Document on the EU Strategy on the Social Inclusion of Roma, Rapporteur: Lívia Járóka, 28 September 2010. Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of April 5, 2011. EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2011)173) (2011). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/ ?uri=URISERV:em0049 (accessed on 12 October 2014). Council of Europe (2009), Council Conclusions on Inclusion of the Roma – Annex, Luxembourg, 8 June 2009. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/ docs/pressdata/en/lsa/108377.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2015). Crowe, David M. (1996), A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Czacki, Tadeusz (1992), Rozprawki Tadeusza Czackiego, Oświęcim: Stowarzyszenie Romów w Polsce. Daróczi, Ágnes, Janos Bársony (2008), Preface to the English Edition [in:] Janos Bársony, Ágnes Daróczi (eds.), Pharrajimos: Th e Fate of the Roma During the Holocaust. New York–Amsterdam–Brussels: International Debate Education Association. Davidová, Eva (2011), O początkach międzynarodowego ruchu romskiego (na 40-lecie Światowego Kongresu Romów – 1971). “Studia Romologica” nr 4. Davis Lutz, Brenda, James M. Lutz (1995), Gypsies as Victims of the Holocaust. “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” Vol. 9, No. 3. Employment and Social Aff airs Ministers of the EU (2009), Conclusions on the Inclusion of the Roma, 10394/09, 28 May 2009. Etnografi a Polska (1978), t. XXII, z. 2, Wrocław–Warszawa. EU Platform for Roma Inclusion (2009), Press Release, MEMO/09/193, Prague, 24 April 2009. Literature 221

European Commission (2008), Report on the Application of Directive 2004/38 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Th eir Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States. COM(2008) 840 fi nal. Brussels, 10th December 2008. European Roma Institute for Arts and Culture: Building the Future by Honoring the Past (2015). http://www.romea.cz/en/news/world/european-roma-institute-for-arts- and-culture-building-the-future-by-honoring-the-past (accessed on 16 May 2015). Europejskie Forum Romów i Wędrowców (2009), Karta o Prawach Romów. http:// www.ertf.org/index.php/documents/charter-on-the-rights-of-the-roma (accessed on 18 May 2013). Fentress, James, Chris Wickham (1997), Social Memory. Oxford: Blackwell. Ficowski, Jerzy (1964), Cyganie na polskich drogach. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Fosztó, László, Marian-Viorel Anăstăsoaie (2001), Romania: Representations, Public Policies and Political Project [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Fosztó, László (2003), Diaspora and Nationalism: An Anthropological Approach to the International Romani Movement. “Regio” No. 1. Fraser, Angus (1995), Th e Gypsies. Malden: Blackwell. Friedlander, Henry (1995), Th e Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: Th e University of North Carolina Press. Gay y Blasco, Paloma (2002), Gypsy/Roma Diasporas: Introducing a Comparative Perspective. “Social Anthropology” Vol. 10, No. 2. Gellner, Ernest (1983), Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Gheorghe, Nicolae (1994), Gaining or Losing Together: Roma/Gypsies and the Emerging Democracies of Eastern/Central Europe [in:] Human Right Abuses of the Roma (Gypsies). Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Aff airs House of Representatives. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce. Gheorghe, Nicolae (1997), Roma-Gypsy Ethnicity in Eastern Europe. “Social Research” Vol. 58, No. 4. Gheorghe, Nicolae (1997), Th e Social Construction of Romani Identity [in:] Th omas Acton (ed.), Gypsy Politics and Traveller Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Gheorghe, Nicolae (2010), Activism, Advocacy and Research: Roma, Gypsies and Travellers in the UK and Europe. Paper given at the conference “Romani Mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary Perspectives,” University of Oxford, Refugee Studies Centre, 15.01.2010. Gheorghe, Nicolae (2013), Choices to Be Made and Prices to Be Paid: Potential Roles and Consequences in Roma Activism and Policy Making [in:] András Bíró, Nicolae Gheorghe, Martin Kovats et al., From Victimhood to Citizenship. Th e Path of Roma Integration. A Debate, Will Guy (ed.). Budapest: Kossuth. Gheorghe, Nicolae, Th omas Acton (2001), Citizens of the World and Nowhere [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2005), Idea narodowa w oczach liderów romskich z krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej [in:] Ewa Nowicka, Barbara Cieślińska (eds.), Wędrowcy i migranci. Pomiędzy marginalizacją a integracją. Kraków: NOMOS. 222 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Godlewska-Goska, Marta, Justyna Kopańska (2011), Życie w dwóch światach. Tożsamość współczesnych Romów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG Seria Studia Ethnologica. Górska, Aleksandra (2005), Podmiotowość polityczna Romów i formy jej realizacji [in:] Ewa Nowicka, Barbara Cieślińska (eds.), Wędrowcy i migranci. Pomiędzy marginalizacją a integracją. Kraków: NOMOS. Guy, Will (2001), Romani Identity and Post-Communist Policy [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Hancock, Ian (1988), “Uniqueness” of the Victims: Gypsies, Jews and the Holocaust. „Without Prejudice” Vol. 1, No. 2. Hancock, Ian (1991), Th e East European Roots of Romani Nationalism [in:] David Crowe, John Kolsti (eds.), Th e Gypsies of Eastern Europe. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Hancock, Ian (2002), We Are the Romani People. Ame sam e Rromane dzene. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Heuss, Herbert (2000), “Anti-Gypsyism” is Not a New Phenomenon. Anti-Gypsyism Research: the Creation of a New Field of Study [in:] Th omas Acton (ed.), Scholarship and the Gypsy Struggle. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Hilberg, Raul (1985), Th e Destruction of the European Jews. Revised and Defi nitive Edition. New York: Holmes & Meier. Hohmann, Joachim S. (1988), Geschichte der Zigeunerverfolgung in Deutschland. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag. International Romani Union (2001), Declaration of a Roma Nation. http://www. hartford-hwp.com/archives/60/132.html (accessed on 18 December 2010). Ivanov, Andrey (2003), Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Th e Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. Bratislava: United Nations Development Program. Kapralski, Sławomir (1997), Identity Building and the Holocaust: Roma Political Nationalism. “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 25, No. 2. Kapralski, Sławomir (2008), Kierunki transformacji tradycyjnych tożsamości romskich w globalizującym się świecie [in:] Tadeusz Paleczny, Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska (eds.), Tożsamość kulturowa Romów w procesach globalizacji. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kapralski, Sławomir (2009), Refl eksje o pogromach. Na marginesie wydarzeń w Oświęcimiu w 1981 r. “Studia Romologica” nr 2. Kapralski, Sławomir (2012), Naród z popiołów. Pamięć zagłady a tożsamość Romów. Warszawa: Scholar. Kapralski, Sławomir (2015), Polskie publikacje i działania upamiętniające zagładę Romów – w kontekście międzynarodowym [in:] Adam Bartosz, Piotr Borek, Bogusław Gryszkiewicz (eds.), Romowie w Polsce i w Europie. Od dyskryminacji do tolerancji. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne. Katalog stałej wystawy w Państwowym Muzeum KL Auschwitz-Birkenau – Dokumenta- tions und Kulturzentrum Deutscher Sint und Roma (2003). Heidelberg–Oświęcim: Stowarzyszenie Romów w Polsce. Keck, Margaret, Kathryn Sikkink (1998), Activists Beyond Borders. Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kenrick, Donald (2010), Th e Genocide of the Gypsies: What We Know and What We Still Don’t Know. “Th e Holocaust in History and Memory” Vol. 3. Literature 223

Kenrick, Donald, Grattan Puxon (1972), Th e Destiny of Europe's Gypsies. London: Chatto-Heinemann for Sussex University Press. Kladivová, Vlasta (1998), Sinti und Roma im „Zigeunerlager“ des KL Auschwitz- Birkenau 1.3.1943–2.8.1944 [in:] Wacław Długoborski (ed.), Sinti und Roma im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau 1943–1944. Vor dem Hintergrund ihrer Verfolgung unter der Naziherrschaft . Oświęcim: Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau. Klímová-Alexander, Ilona (2005), Th e Development and Institutionalization of Romani Representation and Administration. Part 2. Beginnings of Modern Institutionalization (Nineteenth Century–World War II). “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 33, No. 2. Klímová-Alexander, Ilona (2005), Th e Romani Voice in World Politics. Th e United Nations and Non-State Actors. Aldershot: Ashgate. Klímová-Alexander, Ilona (2006), Th e Development and Institutionalization of Romani Representation and Administration. Part 3a. From National Organizations to International Umbrellas (1945–1970 – Romani Mobilization at the National Level). “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 34, No. 5. Knesebeck, Julia von dem (2011), Th e Roma Struggle for Compensation in Post-War Germany. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kóczé, Angéla (2011), Gender, Ethnicity and Class: Exposing Contemporary Romani Women’s Issues and Political Activism, Sociology and Social Anthropology. Budapest: Central European University. Kołaczek, Małgorzata (2014), Etniczna mobilizacja Romów a Unia Europejska. Polska, Słowacja, Węgry. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Komisja Europejska (2008), Sprawozdanie o stosowaniu Dyrektywy 2004/38 w sprawie prawa obywateli Unii i członków ich rodzin do swobodnego przemieszczania się i pobytu na terytorium Państw Członkowskich, COM(2008)840 wersja końcowa, Bruksela, 10 grudnia 2008. Komisja Europejska (2010), Walka z marginalizacją. Europejski Fundusz Społeczny. http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=63&langId=pl (accessed on 7 April 2015). Komisja Europejska (2011), Komunikat Komisji do Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady, Europejskiego Komitetu Ekonomiczno-Społecznego i Komitetu Regionów z dnia 5 kwietnia 2011 roku. Unijne ramy dotyczące krajowyc strategii integracji Romów do 2020 roku (KOM(2011)173). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PL/TXT/ ?uri=URISERV:em0049 (accessed on 17 May 2014). Kovats, Martin (2003), Th e Politics of Roma Identity: Between Nationalism and Destitution. “Open Democracy” 29 July 2003. www.opendemocracy.net/people- migrationeurope/article_1399.jsp (accessed on 16 January 2015). Kowarska, Agnieszka (2005), Polska Roma. Tradycja i nowoczesność. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG Seria Studia Ethnologica. Krokowski, Heike (2001), Die Last der Vergangenheit. Auswirkungen nationalsozialistischer Verfolgung auf deutsche Sinti. Frankfurt–New York: Campus Verlag. Krokowski, Heike (2006), Th e Eff ect of Persecution on the German Sinti [in:] Donald Kenrick (ed.), Th e Final Chapter. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Kwiek, Gregor D. (2010), Aft erword: Rom, Roma, Romani, Kale, Gypsies, Travellers, and Sinti… Pick a Name and Stick with It, Already [in:] Damian Le Bas, Th omas 224 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Acton (eds.), All Change! Romani Studies through Romani Eyes. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. LaCapra, Dominick (2001), Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore: Th e Johns Hopkins University Press. Lemon, Alaina (2000), Between Two Fires. Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory. From Puszkin to Postsocialism. London: Duke University Press. Liebich, André (2007), Roma Nation? Competing Narratives of Nationhood. “Nationalism and Ethnic Politics” Vol. 13, No. 5. Liégeois, Jean-Pierre (2007), Roma in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Marchand, Anna (2001), La protection des droits des Tsiganes dans l'Europe d'aujourd’hui: éléments de l'approche internationale. Paris: Harmattan. Margalit, Gilad (1999), Th e Representation of the Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies in German Discourse aft er 1945. “German History” Vol. 17, No. 2. Margalit, Gilad, Yaron Matras (2007), Gypsies in Germany – German Gypsies? Identity and Politics of Sinti and Roma in Germany [in:] Roni Stauber, Raphael Vago (eds.), Th e Roma. A Minority in Europe. Historical, Political and Social Perspectives. Budapest: CEU Press. Martins-Heuß, Kirsten (1989), Refl ections on Th e Collective Identity of German Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) aft er National Socialism. “Holocaust and Genocide Studies” Vol. 4, No. 2. Marushiakova, Elena, Vesselin Popov (2004), Th e Roma – a Nation without a State? Historical Background and Contemporary Tendencies [in:] Bernhard Streck (ed.), Segmentation und Komplementarität. Organisatorische, ökonomische und kulturelle Aspekte der Interaktion von Nomaden und Sesshaft en. Halle: Orientwissenschaft liche Heft e. Majtényi, Balázs, Balázs Vizi (eds.) (2006), A Minority in Europe. Selected International Documents Regarding the Roma. Budapest. Gondolat Kiadó. Matras, Yaron (1998), Th e Development of the Romani Civil Rights Movement in Germany 1945–1996 [in:] Susan Tebutt (ed.), Sinti and Roma. Gypsies in German-Speaking Society and Literature. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Matras, Yaron (2002), Romani: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGarry, Aidan (2008), Ethnic Group Identity and the Roma Social Movement: Transnational Organizing Structures of Representation. “Nationalities Papers: Th e Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity” Vol. 36, No. 3. McGarry, Aidan (2010), Who Speaks for Roma? Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community. New York: Continuum. Meyer, Lukas H. (2001), Transnational Autonomy: Responding to Historical Injustice in the Case of the Saami and Roma Peoples. “International Journal on Minority and Group Rights” Vol. 8, No. 2–3. Mirga, Andrzej, Nicolae Gheorghe (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy Paper. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. (1990), Th e Varieties of the Nation State in Modern History. Liberal, Imperialist, Fascist and Contemporary Notions of Nation and Nationality [in:] Michael Mann (ed.), Th e Rise and Decline of the Nation State. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Literature 225

Mróz, Lech (2000), Niepamięć nie jest zapominaniem. Cyganie-Romowie a Holokaust. “Przegląd Socjologiczny” R. XLIX, z. 2. Mróz, Lech (2001), Dzieje Cyganów-Romów w Rzeczypospolitej XV–XVIII wieku. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG. Mróz, Lech (2001), Poland: Th e Clash of Tradition and Modernity [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Mróz, Lech (2008), “You Can’t Eat with Two Spoons.” Gypsy Leaders in the Face of Contemporaneity [in:] Lech Mróz, Aleksander Posern-Zieliński (eds.), Exploring Home, Neighbouring and Distant Cultures. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG. Nirenberg, Jud (2009), Romani Political Mobilisation from the First International Romani Union Congress to the European Roma, Sinti, and Travellers Forum [in:] Nidhi Trehan, Nando Sigona (eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization, and the Neo-Liberal Order. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. No Data–No Progress. Country Findings (2010). Open Society Foundations. Nowicka, Ewa, Michał Witkowski (2013), Retoryka antydyskryminacyjna w zmieniających się relacjach społeczeństwa większościowego z Romami. Przypadek Bergitka Roma we wsi karpackiej. “Studia Socjologiczne” nr 4 (211). Okely, Judith (1997), Some Political Consequences of Th eories of Gypsy Ethnicity [in:] Alison James, Jenny Hockey, Andrews Dawson (eds.), Aft er Writing Culture. London: Routledge. O’Nions, Helen (2007), Minority Rights Protection in International Law: Th e Roma of Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate. Open Society Institute (2008), International Comparative Data Set on Roma Education. http://www.romadecade.org/egy-cikk.php?hir_id=8546 (accessed on 14 April 2009). OSCE/ODIHR (2016), Roma and Sinti Political Participation: Opportunities and Risks of Local-level Engagement. Warsaw. Parcer, Jan (ed.) (1994), Los Cyganów KL Auschwitz Birkenau. Oświęcim: Stowarzyszenie Romów w Polsce. Petrova, Dimitrina (1999), Competing Romani Identities. “Roma Rights” No. 3. Popkostadinova, Nikoleta (2011), Little to Celebrate Halfway through Europe’s “Roma Decade”. “Balkan Insight” 11.07.2011. Project on Ethnic Relations (1992), Th e Romanies in Central and Eastern Europe: Illusions and Reality. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (1997), Self-Government in Hungary: Th e Gypsy/Romani Experience and Prospects for the Future. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (1997), Th e Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy. Princeton, NJ. http://www.per-usa.org/1997-2007/21st_c.htm (accessed on 14 February 2015). Project on Ethnic Relations (1999), Political Participation and the Roma in Hungary and Slovakia. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (1999), Roundtable Discussion of Government Policies on the Roma in Romania. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (1999), State Policies Toward the Romani Communities in the Candidate Countries to the EU: Government and Romani Participation in Policy-Making. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. 226 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Project on Ethnic Relations (2000), Roma and Elections in Romania. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (2001), Romani Representation and Leadership at National and International Levels. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (2002), Leadership, Representation, and the Status of the Roma. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (2003), Roma and the Question of Self-Determination: Fiction and Reality. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (2004), Roma and EU Accession: Elected and Appointed Romani Representatives in an Enlarged Europe. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Project on Ethnic Relations (2006), Romani Politics Present and Future. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations. Rada Europy (1969), Zalecenie Zgromadzenia 563 o sytuacji Cyganów i innych nomadów w Europie. Rada Europy (1975), Uchwała 13 Komitetu Ministrów o sytuacji społecznej nomadów w Europie. Rada Europy (1981), Uchwała 125 Konferencji Końcowej Lokalnych i Regionalnych Władz Europejskich o roli i odpowiedzialności lokalnych i regionalnych władz w odniesieniu do kulturowych i społecznych problemów ludności pochodzenia nomadycznego. Rada Europy (1983), Zalecenie 1. o nomadach bezpaństwowych i o nieokreślonej naro- dowości. Rada Europy (1993), Zalecenie Zgromadzenia 1203 o Cyganach w Europie. Rada Unii Europejskiej (2000), Dyrektywa 2004/38/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z 29 kwietnia 2004 roku w sprawie obywateli Unii i członków ich rodzin do swobodnego przemieszczania się i pobytu na terytorium państw członkowskich. Rada Unii Europejskiej (2000), Dyrektywa Rady 2000/43/WE z 29 czerwca 2000 roku wprowadzająca w życie zasadę równego traktowania osób bez względu na rasę i pochodzenie etniczne. Ram, Melanie H. (2010), Interests, Norms and Advocacy: Explaining the Emergence of the Roma onto the EU’s Agenda. “Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics” Vol. 9, No. 2. Risse, Th omas, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (1999), Th e Power of Human Rights. International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ringold, Dena, Mitchell A. Orenstein, Erika Wilkens (2005), Roma in an Expanding Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Rövid, Márton (2004), L’ i n fl uence des acteurs internationaux sur la position des Rom en Hongrie: analyse critique d’un segment de la société civile mondiale. Paris: Mémoire de DEA, Relations Internationales, Institute d’Etudes Politiques. Rövid, Márton, Angéla Kóczé (2012), Pro-Roma Global Civil Society: Acting Out For, With or Instead of Roma? [in:] Mary Kaldor, Henrietta L. Moore, Sabine Selchow (eds.), Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Refl ection. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ryder, Andrew, Margaret Greenfi elds (2011), Roads to Success. Economic and Social Inclusion for Gypsies and Travellers. London: Bucks New University. Šmaus, Martin (2013), Dziewczynko, roznieć ogieniek. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Czeskie Klimaty. Literature 227

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988), Can the Subaltern Speak? [in:] Cary Nelson, Lawrence Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana– –Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Stack Jr., John F. (1981), Ethnic Groups as Emerging Transnational Actors [in:] John F. Stack Jr. (ed.), Ethnic Identities in a Transnational World. Westport: Greenwood Press. Stewart, Michael (1996), Th e Puzzle of Roma Persistence: Group Identity Without a Nation [in:] Th omas Acton, Gary Mundy (eds.), Romani Culture and Gypsy Identity. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Stewart, Michael (1997), Th e Time of the Gypsies. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Stewart, Michael (2007), How Does Genocide Happen? [in:] Rita Astuti, Jonathan Parry, Charles Staff ord (eds.), Questions of Anthropology. Oxford: Berg. Stewart, Michael (2010), Th e Other Genocide [in:] Michael Stewart, Márton Rövid (eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Romani Studies. Budapest: Central European University Press. Szelényi, Iván, János Ladányi (2001), Th e Social Construction of Roma Ethnicity in Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary During Market Transition. “Review of Sociology” Vol. 7, No. 2. Szelényi, Iván, János Ladányi (2006), Patterns of Exclusion: Constructing Gypsy Ethnicity and the Making of an Underclass in Transitional Societies of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press. Sztompka, Piotr (2000), Cultural Trauma. Th e Other Face of Social Change. “European Journal of Social Th eory” Vol. 3, No. 4. Talewicz-Kwiatkowska, Joanna (2013), Wpływ aktywności fi nansowej Unii Europejskiej na położenie społeczne Romów w Polsce. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Tcherenkov, Lev, Stéphane Laederich (2004), Th e Rroma. Vol. 1: History, Language, and Groups. Basel: Schwabe Verlag. Th ernstrom, Stephan (ed.) (1980), Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Cambridge, Mass.–London, England: Harvard University Press. Trehan, Nidhi (2001), In the Name of the Roma? Th e Role of Private Foundations and NGOs [in:] Will Guy (ed.), Between Past and Future: Th e Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hatfi eld: University of Hertfordshire Press. Trehan, Nidhi (2009), Th e Romani Subaltern Within Neoliberal European Civil Society: NGOization of Human Rights and Silent Voices [in:] Nidhi Trehan, Nando Sigona (eds.), Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Mobilization, and the Neo-Liberal Order. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tyrnauer, Gabrielle (1990), “Mastering the Past”: Germans and Gypsies [in:] Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn (eds.), Th e History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Vademecum – Th e 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion, p. 2. https://rownosc. info/media/uploads/biblioteka/publikacje/vademecum10_tekst.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2015). Van Baar, Huub (2008), Scaling the Romani Grassroots. Europeanization and Transnational Networking [in:] Fabian Jacobs, Johannes Ries (eds.), Roma-/Zigeunerkulturen in neuen Perspektiven. Romani/Gypsy Cultures in New Perspectives. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. 228 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Van Baar, Huub (2011), Th e European Roma. Minority Representation, Memory and the Limits of Transnational Governmentality. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Van Baar, Huub (2013), Travelling Activism and Knowledge Formation in the Romani Social and Civil Movement [in:] Maja Miskovic (ed.), Roma Education in Europe: Practices, Policies and Politics. London–New York: Routledge. Van Baar, Huub (2015), Enacting Memory and the Hard Labor of Identity Formation [in:] Aidan McGarry, James Jasper (eds.), Th e Identity Dilemma: Collective Identity and Social Movements. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Vermeersch, Peter (2006), Th e Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe. New York–Oxford: Berghahn Books. Vincze, Enikö (2015), Adverse Incorporation of the Roma and the Formation of Capitalism in Romania. “Intersections. East European Journal of Society and Politics” Vol. 1, No. 4. Willems, Wim, Leo Lucassen (2000), Gypsies in the Diaspora? Th e Pitfalls of a Biblical Concept. “Histoire Sociale/Social History” Vol. 33, No. 66. Wippermann, Wolfgang (2005), „Auserwählte Opfer“? Shoah und Porrajmos im Vergleich. Eine Kontroverse. Berlin: Frank & Timme. YouGov Survey Results (2015). https://d25d2506sfb 94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/ document/g96awulgzv/Eurotrack_Minorities_W.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2015). Zimmermann, Michael (1998), Die Deportation der deutschen Sinti und Roma nach Auschwitz-Birkenau. Hintergründe und Verlauf [in:] Wacław Długoborski (ed.), Sinti und Roma im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau 1943–1944. Vor dem Hintergrund ihrer Verfolgung unter der Naziherrschaft . Oświęcim: Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau. Zimmermann, Michael (2001), Th e Wehrmacht and the National Socialist Persecution of the Gypsies. “Romani Studies” Vol. 11, No. 2. Zimmermann, Michael (2008), Die nationalsozialistische Zigeunerverfolgung in Ost- und Südosteuropa – ein Überblick [in:] Felicitas Fischer von Weikersthal et al. (eds.), Der nationalsozialistische Genozid an den Roma Osteuropas. Geschichte und künstlerische Verarbeitung. Köln: Böhlau Verlag. Znaniecki, Florian (1952) Modern Nationalities: A Sociological Study. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. About the Authors

Sławomir Kapralski

PhD, Professor of the Pedagogical University in Krakow and a Recurrent Visiting Lecturer at the Lanca ster University’s MA program operated by the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw. Sociologist, working in the fi eld of theory of culture, ethnic relations and nationalism, memory and identity as well as on antisemitism, the Holocaust and Jewish-Polish relations, and – for more than 20 years – on Roma communities in Eastern Europe. He started his academic career at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow (where he had been studying and obtained his PhD) and then for several years has been associated with the Central European University in its all campuses: in Prague, Warsaw, and Budapest. Ha has also been working at the Warsaw University of Social Sciences and Humanities and at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. In 2013–2014 Senior Fellow at the Vienna Wiesenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies and in 2016–2017 Senior EURIAS Fellow at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in Uppsala. He is a member of Gypsy Lore Society and of the Editorial Boards of “Romani Studies,” “Studia Romologica” and “Studia Sociologica.” Th e author of Values and Sociological Knowledge (1995, in Polish) and A Nation from the Ashes. Th e Memory of Genocide and Roma Identity (2012, in Polish); the co-author of Roma in Auschwitz (2011, with M. Martyniak and J. Talewicz-Kwiatkowska); the editor of Memory, Space, Identity (2010, in Polish) and Th e Jews in Poland (1999), the co-editor of fi ve other books, including Beyond the Roma Holocaust: From Resistance to Mobilisation (2017). 230 Direction: Future. 25 Years of Freedom and the Roma People

Małgorzata Kołaczek

PhD in political sciences – assistant professor in the Institute of Intercultural Studies at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland; co-founder of the Dialog-Pheniben Foundation (since 2012); managing editor of the socio-cultural quarterly “Dialog-Pheniben” (2009–2016); she has an MA in International Relations of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Th e scholarship-holder of the Socrates/Erasmus at the University of Göttingen. Author of the book entitled Ethnic Mobilization of the Roma People and the European Union. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary (2014, in Polish). A graduate of the postgraduate studies in public relations of the Tischner European University in Krakow. For over 14 years, she focuses on the problems of the Roma community with a special interest in the ethnic mobilization of Roma people, its leaders’ activity and non- -governmental Roma organizations and in the socio-political situation of Roma people in the Central and Eastern Europe. She is an author of many publications in scientifi c and popular scientifi c periodicals. She took part in many national and international scientifi c conferences. She was a scholarship-holder of the Marie Curie grant at the Central European University in Budapest. She is an alumna of the prestigious US Department of State Program – International Visitors Leadership Program. Member of many research programs dealing with the Roma community. For many years she has been creating educational and cultural projects funded by public and private donors. She also leads workshops and classes with students and representatives of Roma community about the Romany history and culture, public relations and obtaining resources from the EU.

Joanna Talewicz-Kwiatkowska

PhD in cultural anthropology, graduate of the Institute of Ethnology and Cul- tural Antropology at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. Currently she works as an assistant professor at the Jagiellonian University in the Institute of Intercultural Studies. She cooperates with Th e Polish University Abroad in London. Lecturer in the postgraduate studies program: Totalitarianism – Nazism – Holocaust created by the State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau with the cooperation of the Pedagogical University in Krakow (since 2010). Grantee of the Fulbright scholarship (2015–2016 Fulbright Visiting Scholar, Center for About the Authors 231

European Studies, Rutgers University), grantee of the European Commission’s program – Marie Curie Conferences and Training Courses: Multi-Disciplinary and Cross-National Approaches to Romany Studies – a Model for Europe (Central European University, 2009) and of the U.S. State Department Program – International Visitor Leadership Program. Grantee of the Gypsy Lore Society. Member of European Academic Network on Romani Studies. Author of the book Th e Infl uence of the EU Financial Activities on the Social Situation of the Roma People in Poland (2013, in Polish); co-author of the book entitled Persecution and Mass Holocaust of the Roma People during World War II in the Light of Reports and Memories (2008, in Polish) and of the book entitled Th e Roma and Sinti in Auschwitz (2011). Author of scientifi c and popular scientifi c articles dedicated to Roma and Sinti issues. Chairwoman of the Dialog-Pheniben Foundation. Editor-in-chief of the socio-cultural quarterly “Dialog-Pheniben.”

Introduction by Marton Rövid

Policy expert and political scientist. He earned a PhD in political science at Central European University in Budapest. In the course of his doctoral research, he studied cosmopolitan theories and the notion of transcendence of national citizenship in the light of the case of Roma. His research interests include: theories of cosmopolitan democracy, global civil society, transnational social movements, international politics of multiculturalism, and the Romani movement. His recent publications include “Solidarity, Citizenship, Democracy: Th e Lessons of Romani Activism” in European Yearbook of Minority Issues, edited by Dieter Halwachs (2012); (with Angéla Kóczé) “Pro-Roma global civil society: acting out for, with or instead of Roma?” in Global Civil Society 2012: Ten Years of Critical Refl ection, edited by M. Kaldor, H.L. Moore and S. Selchow (2012). In 2012–2015, he was the coordinator of the civil society monitoring of National Roma Integration Strategies and Decade Action Plans of the Decade of Roma Inclusion Secretariat Foundation. COPY EDITOR Karolina Wąsowska

PROOFREADER Helena Piecuch

TYPESETTER Marian Hanik

Jagiellonian University Press Editorial Offi ces: ul. Michałowskiego 9/2, 31-126 Krakow Phone: +48 12 663 23 80, Fax: +48 12 663 23 83