![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This study is a critical analysis of the Romani Opening in Turkey that was initiated by the government in the late 2009 as a project aiming to end discrimination against Roma in Turkey. Although this is a very important move considering the long-lasting ignorance of the problems of Roma in Turkey, there are important problems related with the presentation of the project and discussions revolving around it. As an outcome of these problems this project has become a case where one can observe how antidiscrimination initiatives/strategies/policies can be discriminatory in their implementation. This study also argues that this paradoxical situation can only be figured out by reflection on the notion of power. A reflection on power, in turn, will necessarily lead to a re-thinking on democracy.
Notes
“Roman” is the name preferably used by the majority of the Roma in Turkey to define themselves while however, some of them insist on calling themselves Gypsies (Çingene). This was a hot topic among the participant associations at the First Roman Workshop as well. For instance, while Şükrü Pündük, the head of the Association for the Development of Romani Culture and Solidarity of Sulukule, declared that they are not offended by the name Çingene, Erdoğan Şener, the head of the Akhisar Modern Romans Association, went as far as arguing that he takes the name Çingene as an insult. “Roman Açılımında ‘Çingene’ Ayrılığı”, Milliyet, 11 December 2009. This division in Turkey can be viewed as part of a debate going on amongst Romani communities across Europe about the efficacy and the accuracy of the term ‘Roma’. See, Larry Olomoofe, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Perceptions of Roma in Europe”, European Roma Rights Center, 2007. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2881 (16 December 2010). Olomoofe points out that“[p]rior to the mid-90s, the term Roma was not widely used to denote or refer to Romani communities. The term ‘Gypsy’ was widely accepted as the generic term to refer to Romani communities, and due to its long, historical deployment, is a loaded term. However, currently Roma has increasingly gained currency as the lingua franca and is widely perceived by many as the politically correct way to refer to those people previously characterized as ‘Gypsy’ … [Nevertheless] the term ‘Roma’ is not wholly accepted by the group as the correct reference for them and many people still prefer to refer themselves as ‘Gypsy’ since this term has deeper, historical, socio-cultural roots than the term ‘Roma’ …”. Being aware of these discussions, I prefer to use the term Roma in this paper.
Katherine Simhandl, “Western Gypsies and Travelers—‘Eastern Roma’: The Creation of Political Objects by the Institutions of the European Union,” Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2006), pp. 97–115.
Ibid.
European Commission, “Promoting Policies in Favor of the Roma Population, Reference Document,” Second European Roma Summit Cordoba 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=88&langId=en&eventsId=234&furtherEvents (21 December 2010).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Joanna Richardson, “Talking about Gypsies: The Notion of Discourse as Control,” Housing Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2006), pp. 77–96.
Ágnes Kende, “The Hungary of Otherness: The Roma (Gypsies) of Hungary,” Journal of European Area Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2000), pp. 187–201.
Henry Scicluna, “Anti-Romani Speech in Europe's Public Space—The Mechanism of Hate Speech,” European Roma Rights Center, 2007. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2912 (16 December 2010).
Ibid.
Hancock (2006) cited in G. Lloyd and G. Mccluskey, “Education and Gypsies/Travellers: Contradictions and Significant Silences,” International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 12, No. 4 (2008), pp. 331–345. http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/romani.html (18 December 2010), pp. 332–333.
Lloyd and McCluskey (2008), p. 332.
Larry Olomoofe, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Perceptions of Roma in Europe,” European Roma Rights Center, 2007. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2881 (16 December 2010), p. 3.
Scicluna (2007).
Claude Cahn, “The Unseen Powers: Perception, Stigma and Roma Rights,” European Roma Rights Center. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2870 (16 December 2010).
Ibid.
Suat Kolukırık, “The Perception of Gypsies in Turkish Society,” Roma Rights Quarterly, No. 3 (2007), pp. 31–36.
Suat Kolukırık and Şule Toktaş, “Turkey's Roma: Political Participation and Organization,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5 (2007), pp. 761–777.
Ibid., pp. 768–769.
Adrian Marsh, “A Brief History of Gypsies in Turkey,” European Roma Rights Center Country Reports Series, Issue 17, pp. 5–20. http//www.ceeol.com (5 January 2011), p. 13.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Adrian Marsh and Melike Karlıdağ, “Study of Research Literature Regarding Turkish Gypsies and the Question of Gypsy Identity,” European Roma Rights Center Country Reports Series, No. 17, pp. 143–164. http//www.ceeol.com (5 January 2011), p. 156.
Ibid.
It is estimated that over 10,000 Romans participated that meeting. According to some observers there were nearly 20,000 Romans. See Ömer Ekşi, “Buçuk Değil Birinci Sınıf Vatandaş”, Star, March 21, 2010.
As of September 2011 two steps have been taken so far by the government in this respect: one is the starting of a social program of low-cost housing designed specifically for Roma in several different provinces and the other is the amendment of the Law on the Movement and Residence of Aliens. The law in question (Law No 5683) stated before the amendment “Ministry of Internal Affairs is authorized to expel stateless gypsies [sic.] or gypsies who are citizens of another state as well as the alien nomads not bound to the Turkish culture.” The term “gypsy” has been removed from the text with the amendment.
Full text of Çelik's speech is available at Bugün (Turkish daily), December 11, 2009.
Ali Çalışır, Speech given at the Seventh International NGOs Congress, December 3–5, 2010, Çanakkale, Turkey.
Ryan Powell, “Understanding the Stigmatization of Gypsies: Power and the Dialectics of (Dis)identification,” Housing, Theory and Society, Vol. 25, No. 2 (2008), pp. 87–109.
Dilek Hayırlı and Yasemin Budak, “Açılımın Roman'I,” Aksiyon (Turkish weekly), March 22, 2010.
Ibid.
Kende (2000), p. 199.
Adrian Marsh and Melike Karlıdağ (2008), p. 145, remind their readers of the Prague 2000 Declaration of the Roma as a “nation without a territory”. For a detailed analysis of “the claim to non-territorial, or non-state, nationhood by members of the international Romani leadership” from the point of view of international law see Morag Goodwin “The Romani Claim to non-territorial Nation Status: Recognition from an International Legal Perspective,” European Roma Rights Center. http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=1849 (7 January 2011).
Meltem Yılmaz and Fatma Köse. “Açılımın içi doldurulsun,” Cumhuriyet, March 18, 2010.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Michel Foucault, “Concluding Remarks,” in Joseph Pearson (ed.), Discourse and Truth: The Problematisation of Parrhesia (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 1985). http://foucault.info/documents/parrhesia (4 January 2011).
Powell (2008), p. 97.
In a similar vein, Yılmaz Özdil, a popular columnist from daily Hürriyet, refers to some complicated issues such as unemployment, Armenian issue and the discussions on the 1915 events, the relationship between Turkish Armed Forces and civilian politics, Turkey-European Union relations and argues that these somehow “bigger” problems are waiting for effective solutions while the government focuses its time and energy over Roma for the sole purpose of gaining more votes. See his “Roman'tizm”, Hürriyet, March 17, 2010.
Michel Foucault, “Power and Strategies,” in Colin Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge, Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (New York, London, Toronto: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1980), pp. 134–145.