This article was downloaded by:[Isik Universitesi]On: 24 July 2007Access Details: [subscription number 770060734]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Middle Eastern StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673558

Turkey's Roma: Political participation and organizationSuat Kolukirik

Online Publication Date: 01 September 2007To cite this Article: Kolukirik, Suat and Toktaş, Şule (2007) 'Turkey's Roma: Politicalparticipation and organization', Middle Eastern Studies, 43:5, 761 - 777To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00263200701422675URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00263200701422675

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

© Taylor and Francis 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

Turkey’s Roma: Political Participationand Organization

SUAT KOLUKIRIK & SULE TOKTAS

There are now many Roma populations in various countries, predominantly on theEuropean continent. In accordance with this diversity in settlement places as well asliving, Roma people have taken different names in different regions and at differenttimes; hence they have been attributed with either pejorative or positivecharacteristics. However, despite all these attributions as well as their being markedas ‘alien’, the Roma have been successful in altering or reformulating theseconfigurations and stereotypes and, to a large extent, have preserved their culturesand group characteristics.

The early literature on the Roma as an ‘alien’ category has primarily dealt withtheir language, roots and immigration. The nineteenth century literature started tofocus on the ways to homogenize these populations. The literature in the twentiethcentury on the Roma mainly follows the reinvention of the Roma as alien.1 It wasonly within the last couple of decades that they have been identified as ‘Roma’ incultural studies. All this historical processing in the literature points at the same timeto the process leading from calling the Roma successively Athingoni (in theByzantine Empire), Gitan (in Spain), Chigan (in Hungary) and Zigeuner (inGermany) to their renaming as Roma.

Studies of the Roma have come from various sources.2 Some of these studiesfocused on the state and laws and dealt with the question of political authority.Others were mainly academic in nature and used anthropological methods ofinvestigation. There were also studies that reflected the common knowledge orstereotypes and values among the public. The common denominator of all thesestudies, which are mainly of Western origin and are part of the Western literature, isthat they conclude with generalizations without acknowledging the diversity of theRoma. There is very little research, for instance, on the Roma of the OttomanEmpire or those in Anatolia.

It is widely acknowledged that the Roma historically originate in India.3 Researchon the immigration of the Roma points to major migration flows which occurredbetween the fifth and eleventh centuries. These studies hypothesize that famine,poverty and ethno-religious conflicts were the possible push factors of these Romamigrations to Europe from sub-continental India via Iran, Turkey and Armenia.4 Inhis linguistic immigration map, Sampson puts the Roma immigration at the end ofthe tenth century and early eleventh century into three categories: the Dom group(speaking the Phen dialect, and settling in various migration waves in Syria and

Middle Eastern Studies,Vol. 43, No. 5, 761 – 777, September 2007

ISSN 0026-3206 Print/1743-7881 Online/07/050761-17 ª 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00263200701422675

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

Palestine, with some moving on to Egypt, northern Africa and Spain); the Lom(destination north, settling in modern-day Armenia and Georgia, with some movingon to the Balkans, Romania and Central Europe); and the Rom (the largest group,moving to the west, to the Balkans, and Central and Eastern Europe via Anatolia).5

As the result of these migratory movements, today Gypsies live in nearly 50countries. There is a lack of concrete, concise data on the demographiccharacteristics of Gypsies worldwide. However, estimates point to a total populationof around 8–10 million living in various countries.6

Although there are very few studies on Turkish Roma, it is widely acknowledgedthat the Roma in today’s Turkish lands have a long history.7 The dominant Romagroup in this context is the Rom group which migrated from Anatolia to theBalkans. In the Ottoman Empire, there was a large Roma group that settled inthe Thrace region with the name ‘Liva-i Cingane’ (region of the Gypsies).8 In theOttoman administrative system which rested on Millets, or religious groups, themain differentiation within society was between Muslim and non-Muslim Millets.9

The Roma, with their Islamic faith, were in the dominant Muslim Millet.10 Yet,although the Roma came under the category of the Muslim Millet, they were notgranted full rights and privileges, and discrimination against them occurredfrequently, especially in their relations with the Ottoman state.11

This approach of seeing the Roma as belonging to the dominant group –Muslims – within society continued in the Turkish Republic. For instance, in the1923 population exchange agreement with Greece, Turkey allowed the Muslims ofGreece, among them the Roma, to immigrate to Turkey. In this agreement, therewere no ethnicity or language criteria; religious faith alone – Islam – was consideredsufficient to be accepted into Turkey.12 However, similar to the experiences in theOttoman era,13 Turkish Roma continue to face economic and social hardship intoday’s Turkey. Turkish Roma have low socio-economic status with low levels ofincome and education, and they furthermore face disrespect from other peopleand are subject to pejorative and discriminatory practices in every aspect of theirlives.

Turkish Roma compose nearly 14 per cent of the total population. Although thereis no official data regarding the exact population figures of the Roma living in Turkey,it is estimated that out of a total population of around 72 million, there are around 1million Roma.14 Most of these Roma live in Istanbul, and there are Roma com-munities in other provinces and regions, mainly in the Thrace and Aegean regions.According to some estimates, there are 120,000 Roma in Istanbul, 27,000 in Tekirda�g,50,000 in Edirne, 26,000 in Bursa, 45,000 in Izmir and 20,000 in Eskisehir.15

Turkey is a country which mainly prioritizes territorial integrity and unity abovegroup rights, minority rights or identities, be they ethnic, religious, linguistic orcultural in nature. By the same token, Turkish citizenship is universal. Article 10 ofTurkey’s Constitution states, in full:

All individuals are equal without any discrimination before the law, irrespectiveof language, race, colour, gender, political opinion, philosophical belief, religionand sect, or any such considerations. Men and women have equal rights. TheState shall have the obligation to ensure that this equality exists in practice.No privilege shall be granted to any individual, family, group or class. State

762 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

organs and administrative authorities shall act in compliance with the principleof equality before the law in all their proceedings.

In accordance with the citizenship context that safeguards basic rights and libertiesconstitutionally, Turkey does not recognize the existence of minorities in the countryapart from the non-Muslim communities of the Armenians, Greeks and Jews.16 Asset by the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, Turkey granted official minority status tothese three groups, all former major Millets of the Ottoman Empire. Turkish Roma,because of their Islamic identity, which in the Ottoman Empire brought them underthe category of the Muslim Millet, were not granted such a minority status.Therefore no specific rights are given to Roma.

With respect to citizenship, there are problems concerning the Roma communityof Turkey. Out of the 1 million Roma, it is estimated that around 100,000 do nothold Turkish identity cards. This situation of the Roma has been the subject ofwritten question motions in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Parliament). Ina parliamentary question of early 2006 submitted by Enis Tutuncu, a member ofParliament from the main opposition Republican People’s Party, to the rulingJustice and Development Party, the issue of the Roma without official identity cardswas discussed.17 The question not only demanded policies from the governmentdesigned to recruit these people without IDs into the citizenship system but alsopointed to the need for amending Law on Settlement No. 2510. This law, enacted in1934, specifies the groups allowed to settle in Turkey due to immigration. It furtherstipulates, ‘Anarchists, spies, nomadic Roma and people who were expelled from thecountry cannot be accepted as immigrants to Turkey’.

The lumping in of the Roma immigrant communities with some other groups as‘unwanted’ has been brought up in the European Commission’s regular progressreports on Turkey. For instance, the Commission’s 2001 regular report on Turkeystated that there had been positive developments in the treatment of the Roma overthe year, such as the ban on sales of an official book published by the TurkishMinistry of Culture in 2000 which used degrading and offensive language in relationto the Turkish Roma. In addition, the Ministry of Education issued a circular toeliminate pejorative words used in definitions of the Roma in dictionaries publishedby the Ministry of Education. The circular called for all official dictionaries to becorrected. However, the same year’s report was also critical at the Law on Settlementstill applying to nomadic Gypsies and their listing among the categories of peoplewho are not accepted in Turkey as immigrants.18 The same criticism regarding theLaw on Settlement’s coverage of the nomadic Roma was repeated in the sub-sequent reports by the Commission released in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.19 The 2003Commission report also mentioned that some Roma communities were reporting thepersistence of strong prejudice leading to social exclusion. The 2004 report welcomedthe adoption of a circular in December 2003 on the Law on Citizenship whichremoved the requirement to state on citizenship applications whether the applicant is‘Gypsy’. In a similar vein, the 2004 Commission report said that Roma werereportedly socially excluded and face difficulties finding adequate housing.

Today’s Turkish Roma are still predominantly of the Sunni sect. As for language,the older generations speak Romani (the Roma tongue) and use it frequently in theirdaily lives in the private sphere and among other old people. Turkish is the mother

Turkey’s Roma 763

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

tongue of the younger generations, though they understand but cannot speakRomani.

This study aims to draw a profile of the Turkish Roma in the specificity of theircurrent political participation, organization, perception and experience of citizen-ship, their views on Turkey’s prospective European Union membership and theirself-perception as identity and world view. Using an individual-centric approach, thestudy aims to investigate how Gypsies are organized as an ethnic minority and howthey express themselves within the Turkish public sphere. As Turkey is currently inthe accession process for the European Union, this study also tries to understandTurkey’s Gypsies’ perceptions of the EU and of the impact of possible membershipon Turkey and Gypsies in particular. The study aims to understand the politicalparticipation of Turkey’s Gypsies and the level and dimension of their integration toTurkish political society in general.

In all the EU countries, the Roma take an active and organized role in publicaffairs. Various UN, World Bank and EU sponsorships have provided the Roma themeans and opportunity to get organized. This interest in the Roma coincided with anincrease in literature on the Roma. New departments and research centres have beenestablished in universities, and in recent books and journals scholarship on theRoma has increased.20 As for the organization of the Roma, one example of aRoma protest demonstration dates back to fifteenth century Switzerland. In laterstages, in 1872, The Times of London reported on a conference organized by theGerman Roma; while a Pan-European Roma Conference was held in 1879 inHungary.

Another meeting of Roma leaders in 1905 in Sophia, Bulgaria demanded equalrights and representation in the national Bulgarian Parliament. The American Romaalso tried to get organized. The Adams (Adomovic) family applied for the establish-ment of the American National Roma Association in 1907. The main aim of theassociation was to resolve the educational and housing problems of the US Roma. In1927 Steve Kaslov, an advocate of Roma rights, demanded of the Presidency theresolution of the same problems. The Romanian Roma Association held an inter-national conference under Gheorge Nicolescu’s leadership in Bucharest, Romania in1933 which discussed the opportunities for unity under the same flag.21 Therefollowed various associations and organizations in European countries such asBritain and Germany. One of the most effective Roma organizations is the GermanSinti and Roma Centre.22 In 1965, the Committee of the Roma was founded in Paris.This committee, composed mainly of intellectuals, was founded by 71 organizationsfrom 21 states and has held three international conferences, the last one in 1979.23

The committee also prepared a programme that contained several issues such associal rights, war crimes, standardization of language, culture and education. Theprogramme was followed to a large extent in EU member countries. In addition tothese organizational activities, the Indian Roma Studies Centre was founded in the1970s.24 In 1971, the World Roma Congress was held by representatives from14 countries who identified themselves as Roma and emphasized the importance oflobbying for better treatment and equal rights. Other world congresses followed in1978, 1981, 1990 and 2000.25

764 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

In the 1980s and 1990s there was growing concern over the status of the Romaowing to developments in democratization, human rights and political participation.In a similar vein, as the EU specified the integration of the Roma in candidatecountries as a condition and allocated budgets and funds towards this aim, TurkishRoma found themselves in a more tolerant and fertile environment to express theirgroup rights. The process of globalization also empowered local cultures and diversegroups to make their voices heard.

The Roma of Turkey, increasingly organized since the 1990s, founded communalassociations such as the _Izmir Roma Association in 1996, the National RomaConfederation in 2000 and the Edirne Roma Association in 2004. Especially since2005, there has been a proliferation in the number of associations founded by theRoma. The legislative reform packages passed to fulfil EU requirements, in parti-cular constitutional amendments in 2002 and 2003 that expanded the freedoms ofopinion, expression and association as well as the Law on Associations amended in2004 in accordance with EU demands allowing associations to be founded oncultural and ethnic grounds, played the major role in this rise in the number of Romaassociations. Various Roma associations established national federations – one inThrace, and another in the Aegean region – yet there still remain problems in theorganization of the Roma.26

This study reflects on primary data gathered in field research in the Tarlabasıneighbourhood of the Bornova district of _Izmir, a western province of Turkey.Tarlabası is located in central Bornova and is home to a significant homogenousRoma population who originated in Greece and migrated to Turkey in the 1923population exchange agreement between the two countries. The Roma living inTarlabası mainly speak Romani in addition to Turkish.

The study utilized anthropological methods such as participant observation andinterviews. In addition, questionnaire surveys were conducted. The field researchtook two years between 2001 and 2003. During this period, house visits, traditionalcoffeehouse visits, attendance at weddings, spring advent and funeral ceremonies,and ad hoc interviews in the street were all used.

In the study, household interviews were also conducted. In total, 90 surveyinterviews were done – one household member per household. The shortest interviewtook 45 minutes and the longest took 80 minutes. The survey interviews covered 48questions which not only addressed the issues of the identity, integration andpolitical participation of the respondents but also their gender, age, education, placeof birth, marital status, literacy status, income and occupation.

Out of the total 90 respondents, 22 were women and 68 were men. There was anattempt to represent a diversity of ages, with an almost equal number of respondentsfalling into the categories of young, middle-aged and elderly. The youngestrespondent was 19 years old and the oldest was 67. Out of the total 90 respondents,nearly all identified Bornova as their birthplace. As for marital status, the majority ofthe respondents (80 of them) were married and nearly half of them stated that theyfavoured marriage among the Roma rather than intermarriage. The families of therespondents were mainly composed of three or four household members. As foreducation, a quarter of the respondents were illiterate; half were graduates of onlyelementary school; and another quarter had middle school education. In terms ofoccupation, the male respondents were mainly involved in unskilled labour on the

Turkey’s Roma 765

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

streets such as garbage collection, shining shoes, carriers, selling fruit, collecting oldor unused furniture, or performing music. Some of the male respondents, albeit insmaller numbers, held full-time positions working for example as state officials in themunicipality or service positions in the private sector such as cleaning personnel. Thefemale respondents, on the other hand, were mainly housewives, but there were a fewwho worked as seasonal agricultural labourers. Nearly one-third of the respondentswere not covered by any kind of social security scheme. In terms of income, themajority of the respondents earned less than US$ 345 per month.

In the survey interviews, data regarding identity, citizenship, political participa-tion, organization, self and other perceptions were gathered. In the analysis of thedata, the technique of categorical-content perspective was used.27 In the analysis ofthe research results, the open-ended questions were codified according to a codeguide prepared by the researchers. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)was used to categorize the results, which were then turned into tables. The tableswere listed categorically and then interpreted. Subsequently, common themes wereidentified and analyzed in light of the research questions. The reliability of the dataanalysis was enhanced as much as possible through: a) lengthening the time of theinterviewing and observation, and increasing the number of interviews by anadditional 15 in-depth interviews; b) during the data collection, data diversity as wellas coherency were targeted; and c) the results of the research were shared with therespondents towards the end of the field research.

In addition to the survey questions, 15 additional in-depth interviews wereconducted with the Roma living in the Tarlabası neighbourhood. These interviewswere mainly unstructured and were conducted spontaneously in the houses orcoffeehouses. The aim of these interviews was to understand better the data obtainedin the surveys and to clarify some of the points raised during the survey interviews.During the interviews, notes were taken which were later turned into concrete andcoherent texts by the researchers. After scripting interview notes, interviews werecoded and the interview abstracts/quotations were classified and categorizedthematically. The themes were analyzed comparatively. These in-depth interviewswere conducted in the early months of 2004. The research results are as follows.

Historically, the first Turkish Roma association was founded in 1996 in _Izmir.However, due to economic problems, the association was unable to survive long andwas closed down after three months. The same members founded anotherassociation in 1998, but this successor was also closed by the state authorities dueto its bankruptcy. In 2003, the Ankara Chamber of Commerce provided the funds toopen a Roma association but because of disagreements among the Romacommunity, it was only in 2005 that the _Izmir Roma Culture Social Cooperationand Solidarity Association was founded. The association still survives today, but itsuffers from financial problems. In addition, it has few members and a limitedaudience.

The field research conducted in the Tarlabası neighbourhood reflects the diversityof opinion over organizing the Roma in an association (see Table 1). The surveyinterviews showed that most of the respondents (66 out of the total 90 respondents)would take part in the activities of a future Roma group. However, there was alsohesitancy towards such an organization. The questions of who would chair theassociation and how its funds would be raised seemed to discourage the interview

766 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

respondents. The position of chair represents political power and therefore isprestigious in the eyes of the respondents and what family the chair comes from, inthis regard, is considered important. As a result, the Roma hesitate to agree on apossible name and decline to support possible candidates belonging to families otherthan their own extended families.

On the other hand, the respondents who would participate in a Roma association(66 out of 90 respondents) listed the following main reasons for taking part: to helpone another (57.6 per cent), power in unity (10.6 per cent), to publicly defend theRoma (7.6 per cent) and to give the Roma a voice. These responses show, in a way,that the respondents who favour a Roma association and who would participate insuch a group see it as a means of cooperation and solidarity. Four out of 90respondents called for a Roma association to be founded since other groups inTurkish society have their own associations, so why not the Roma? However, therewere also people who were hesitant about a Roma association or organization ofsome form (see Table 2).

The main reason for not supporting a prospective Roma association seems to bethe idea that it would not be helpful (20.8 per cent of the respondents stated thispoint). Out of the total 90 respondents, 24 respondents who held negative opinionstowards the organization of the Roma in an association believe, by and large, thatthe Roma would not be successful in getting organized in this way. Reasons such asthe association would not be helpful, it would not be respected, the Romacommunity cannot unite, the founding members would serve their own interests, thelack of trust towards the Roma community and the reluctance to act with the Romacommunity seem to be the reasons for the failure of a possible Roma group. Thepoint made by some of the respondents that a Roma association would not bevaluable but, rather, pointless can be interpreted as the reflection of being ‘other’ andthe felt isolation of the Roma community.

A majority of the respondents also said that they would support non-governmental organization activism and would participate in civil society activitiesif there was an NGO in the neighbourhood. Despite the strength of the valueattributed to existence of NGOs and their activities, it was observed in the fieldresearch that these supportive/positive values do not translate into activism or result

Table 1. Support for a Roma association

Reasons for taking part in its activities

Would take part

in Roma association’s

activities (‘Yes’ responses)

To help one another 38 (57.6%)Power in unity 7 (10.6%)To publicly defend the Roma 5 (7.6%)To give the Roma a voice 5 (7.6%)Everybody has an association 4 (6.1%)To tell the truth about the Roma 1 (1.5%)The group should not include Roma in its name 1 (1.5%)

Total ‘Yes’ responses 66 (100%)

Turkey’s Roma 767

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

in concrete acts. In other words, activism surfaces as a desired value but not asbehaviour or concrete acts. The problems that cause disagreement and difference ofopinion arise mainly on the issues of leadership in the NGO to be founded and thelack of necessary funds or people willing to pay for the costs of the NGO. Familiesvie for leadership in the intended NGO, and there arises a power struggle amongfamilies in the community.

The in-depth interviews also add to the results obtained in the survey question-naires. The interviewees were mainly of the view that there was no unity among theRoma for organisations. In the words of one:

Our people [Roma] think of their own interests. There is no unity. They foundedan association but it didn’t work out because there was no money. How will youprovide money to an association? Everybody expects help, but is the associationa bank that distributes money? Nothing will change due to this. (Male, 64 yearsold, elementary school graduate, musician in bars)

Some of the interviewees want service, initiation and activities from the state andcriticise the lack of interest in the Roma by state authorities: ‘If the state gives usopportunities, everything will be better for the Roma. First of all, there is noeducation. Who am I? What conditions I am living in? What are my individualfreedoms? What can I do? The state should see to these. The state doesn’t support us’(Male, 35, high school graduate, shoe repairman).

Although there are views that attribute solutions to problems to the state, thereare contrary views that see resolutions lying in the Roma community itself. Thefollowing quotation illustrates the tendency towards the involvement of Roma inNGO activities:

Our path is drawn by people, not the state. The state can’t solve everything.Things can be done only through unity and solidarity. We can come togetherand teach our younger Roma how to get jobs. When I suggest this to the peoplesitting in the coffeehouses, they laugh at me. Once I offered to nominate a Roma

Table 2. Hesitancy towards a Roma association

Reasons for not being involved in a Roma association

Would participate in

a Roma association

(‘No’ responses)

The founding members would serve their own interests 1 (4.2%)Don’t trust the idea 2 (8.3%)It wouldn’t be helpful 5 (20.8%)It would not be popular 9 (37.5%)Roma community can’t unite 2 (8.3%)Lack of desire to be with other Roma 2 (8.3%)Roma should keep a low profile in society 1 (4.2%)Such an association would be discriminatory 1 (4.2%)

Total ‘No’ responses 24 (100%)

768 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

candidate for local elections but nobody agreed to run. Only a woman retiredfrom the Population Registry Office accepted my offer, and she became acandidate from our street in the local elections. She was the first Romacandidate from our neighbourhood. I spent lots of money for her campaign butwe lost by 80 votes. What’s more, nobody thanked me for taking this initiative.We always expect help from outside. We have 2,000 Roma votes from ourneighbourhood but we can’t use them. We don’t have unity. Since we don’t haveunity, I fear for the future. What will young Roma do? How will they find jobs?(Male, 55, elementary school graduate, fruit seller on the streets)

Another reason for the low level of organization seems to be the low profile of theRoma. They do not want to be singled out by society for being Roma, so they remainsilent on most issues. In the words of one: ‘I love my country, my state. The oldergenerations of Roma have suffered a lot for being Roma. They were denied jobs. TheRoma aren’t brave. They fear something bad will happen to them if they stand out.In the end, they are discriminated against’ (Male, 53, elementary school graduate,porter).

One of the interviewees also pointed to the low level of organization among theRoma, but at the same time he drew a contrast with other minority groups:‘The discrimination is partially due to us. We also remain silent in the face ofdiscrimination. The Kurds and the Armenians speak openly of their discrimination.We’re not so open. Actually rights are not given but taken. Nobody thinks this wayamong the Roma’ (Male, 53, elementary school graduate, van driver).

One-third of the respondents are members of a political party. Membership inpolitical parties mainly came at the request of a candidate running for the nationalParliament. This is the result of the relationship of the Roma with other people andgroups. Currently, there are no Roma sitting on the executive board of any politicalparty in the Bornova district. Although for the political parties the Roma com-munity is part of the party member pool – what can be called fake/false membershipor membership on paper – for the Roma community, political party membership is asource of social prestige. In addition, the political party controlling the municipalityrecruits some Roma to positions in the municipal offices. Furthermore, politicalparties from time to time distribute small gifts to the Roma who are members of theirparties. Despite such benefits of party membership, two-thirds of the respondents arenot members of any political party, nor do they want to become members. Theserespondents do not trust the political parties. They also believe that political partieswould not provide them with opportunities to express themselves or to defend theirparticular interests. Membership in a political party is important for receivingpatronage benefits – the spoils system – which is common in the Turkish politicalparty system.28 The respondents, in this regard, can be considered to be bothcontributing to the traditional patronage relations in the political party system aswell as benefiting from them.

Among the respondents who are members of a political party (33 out of 90),membership in Young Party is the highest (see Table 3). Memberships in True PathParty were upon the request of a Roma family in the neighbourhood. Membershipsin the Republican People’s Party date back to the previous elections when the partyheld the municipality and recruited some Roma to the municipality offices. In light

Turkey’s Roma 769

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

of these responses, we can see that membership in political parties is closely relatedto the expectations of personal interest from the political parties and the benefitsderived from them.

Most of the respondents saw the Young Party as the only party that can solvetheir problems. The Young Party’s distribution of small gifts and food packages tothe neighbourhood seems to be the major reason behind this perception. Otherpolitical parties also distributed small goods such as cell phones, prepaid phonecards, food packages and bread in the last general elections (November 2002). Otherthan the Young Party, the True Path Party and the main opposition RepublicanPeople’s Party were also seen as parties that can solve problems. As the YoungParty’s leader faced charges of corruption after the last general elections in which theparty was unable to pass the 10 per cent threshold at the national level, in the localelections of 28 March 2004, the Tarlabası neighbourhood voted for the RepublicanPeople’s Party and the ruling Justice and Development Party.

The rate of respondents who are not members of a political party can beconsidered high (57 out of 90 respondents). These respondents told of their distrustof political parties and their concern about not being able to express themselves inthese established party organizations as major reasons for not pursuing membershipin the parties active in their district/neighbourhood. Therefore they refrained fromjoining any political party.

One of the respondents of the in-depth interviews was a candidate for represen-tative in the municipality assembly of the Bornova district. He neatly summarizes therole of political parties in the Tarlabası neighbourhood and for the Roma:

I was a candidate for the municipality assembly. My words are followedthrough at the True Path Party. They respect me. I helped sick people whoneeded surgery. I helped people find jobs in the municipality. I helped people getmedication at the hospitals and drugs from pharmacies. I don’t do all that formyself. I’m here to help people. During the elections, I made a speech atTarlabası. The candidate for member of the Parliament from the same partypraised me for the speech . . . Our children [Roma from the Tarlabasıneighbourhood] are very talented. They can work in any job. But I can’t bringthem together. (Male, 57, elementary school graduate, retired, former foodseller on the streets)

In response to questions seeking to understand the Roma’s level of access to publicinstitutions, it was observed that most of the respondents were dissatisfied with

Table 3. Political party membership

Party Member in a political party

Young Party 16 (48.5%)Republican People’s Party 5 (15.2%)True Path Party 11 (33.3%)Motherland Party 1 (3.0%)

Total 33 (100%)

770 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

organizations and institutions in general (53 of the 90 respondents). They believedthat organizations and public institutions were not working well or being efficientlyrun. In the words of some, ‘Nobody cares for the Roma’.

On the other hand, 47 respondents were of the idea that organizations andinstitutions were working well and were serving the public effectively. Among these,hospitals are favoured the most, as 20 of the respondents said they were satisfied withthe medical services provided. The main reason for the satisfaction with the publichospitals is free healthcare. In the field research, it was discovered that most of theRoma community in Tarlabası were using health centres located on various streets inthe neighbourhood. These public health centres are preferred as they are bothcheaper and less bureaucratic compared to public hospitals. Some of the Roma alsogo to pharmacies and take medicine or pills upon the recommendation of thepharmacists. The Roma not covered by any social security scheme and who thereforeface economic hardship over illnesses and health matters are supported by theirrelatives, neighbours and friends, or they receive a ‘proof of indigence document’from the local administrative office which proves that the bearer is poor enough toreceive free healthcare at public health centres and hospitals. The respondents alsolisted the Bornova municipality, the military, banks, police forces and town publicadministrations as the most favoured institutions. Roma who saw the Bornovamunicipality as the most liked institution those working full time at the municipalityoffices. The military is not only liked but also respected for it represents, in the eyesof the Roma, an institution of ‘power and authority’ that ‘treats everybody equally’.

The following excerpt from one of the in-depth interviews illustrates the commonview among the Roma towards relations with the state and state institutions:

We’re also part of this country but we’re not protected. I see it that way. We’reseen as third class citizens. When we go to official institutions, they don’t serveus. We’re not accepted as Turks. Our children also die for this country. Theyserve in the military. Do we have another country? The laws don’t protect ourrights. (Male, 50, elementary school graduate, street flower seller)

One of the interviewees mentioned in the in-depth interview that problems in theservice of state institutions emanate not only from the difference of attitude towardsthe Roma but also towards people in general of lower classes:

I wish I hadn’t been born in Turkey. People don’t respect each other. When yougo to a state office, they look at your clothes and give service according to hownice your clothes are. If you don’t know somebody from the office, you can’t getanything done. People generally mistrust you if you’re a Roma. People usuallythink you shouldn’t buy anything from a Roma or eat anything from a Roma.(Male, 64, elementary school graduate, cobbler)

Forty-one of the 90 respondents see the European Union positively and favourTurkey’s EU membership (see Table 4). They support membership in the EU forreasons such as that membership would bring better standards of living, economicand social rights, enhanced employment opportunities, welfare services, and freemovement of people. One of the respondents was of the view that Turkey is already a

Turkey’s Roma 771

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

European country so it should be in the European league. The idea that future EUmembership would bring better employment opportunities and standards of livingseems to be what dominates the will for membership. Especially those respondentswith a monthly income in the US$173–344 range are in favour of Turkey’s EUmembership. This reflects the tendency that those holding lower socio-economicstatus are more pro-EU than other respondents.

With respect to age, the research indicated that younger groups are more in favourof EU membership than others. A total of 8.9 per cent of the respondents betweenthe ages of 19 and 25, 11.1 per cent aged 26–32, 4.4 per cent aged 33–39, and7.8 per cent aged 40–46 support EU membership. Put another way, there is anegative correlation between age and the desire for membership. As the respondentsget older, they seem to have more hesitation towards EU membership. The supportfor EU membership seems to drop gradually with middle-aged and olderrespondents. In general, EU membership is valued and wanted for economic reasons.

Ten of the respondents who do not want Turkey to become a member of the EUwere of the opinion that the EU would not accept Turkey anyway. Out of the total49 respondents who do not favour Turkey’s membership, five do not thinkmembership would be beneficial for Turkey and another five thought Turkey was aself-sufficient country so it could survive on its own without getting involved in theEU. The suspicion that the EU would be exploiting Turkey after membership wasalso expressed. Seven of the respondents thought Turkey was not ready formembership (see Table 5).

The interviewees identified unemployment as their biggest problem (see Table 6).Out of the total 90 respondents, 50 interviewees thought that the authorities shouldfind a solution to this major problem. The lack of education and the need for bettereducational policies were also mentioned by 15 of the respondents in the surveyquestionnaires. In line with previous studies on the low level of education of theRoma in Europe,29 Turkish Roma live in extreme poverty and they lack adequateknowledge regarding the educational services provided, and their preparation forschool is insufficient.

The middle-aged respondents criticized younger Roma for failing to work inregular jobs. The young Roma, according to them, do not work regularly but on atemporary or sporadic basis so turnover rates among Roma youth is very high. Thereason for this work pattern among the youth, according to the middle-aged

Table 4. Reasons to favour Turkey’s EU membership

Why want EU membership? EU membership (‘Yes’ responses)

Social services 3 (7.3%)Free movement of people 2 (4.9%)Employment opportunities 7 (17.1%)Better standards of living 16 (39.0%)We are European 1 (2.4%)Better economic and social rights 12 (29.3%)

Total ‘Yes’ responses 41 (100%)

772 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

respondents, is low wages. However, it must be noted that middle-aged respondentsthemselves also do not work on a stable basis and their turnover rates are also high.This point brings to mind the problems that the Roma face in adapting to newmarket forces and structures. The competition for jobs and the increasing flexibilityin working hours seem to be bringing further problems to the Roma, who alreadyexperience high unemployment. The respondents also mentioned that these problemsof unemployment and the deficiency in necessary skills for jobs due to lack ofeducation are not specific to the Roma, as they are national problems squeezingsociety in general.

Some of the respondents spoke of discrimination as a major problem for theRoma. Four of the respondents were of the view that the Roma, collectively, were agroup discriminated against. For instance, employers do not employ Roma for openpositions because they think that a Roma would soon quit and the position wouldhave to be filled again. Furthermore, some of the respondents stated that they werelooked down upon by society in general.

The in-depth interviews also confirmed the tendencies highlighted in the surveyquestionnaires. The interviewees frequently correlated being Roma with being poor.Most of the respondents characterize Roma as ‘being in need of help, passive and oflower classes’. ‘A Gypsy is a poor person’ was a frequent statement from the

Table 5. Reasons for resisting Turkey’s EU membership

Why not want EU membership? EU membership (‘No’ responses)

We’re a self-sufficient country 5 (10.2%)We’re not ready 7 (14.3%)They will exploit us 5 (10.2%)I don’t think it’s necessary 8 (16.3%)Nothing would change with membership 7 (14.3%)

Total ‘No’ responses 49 (100%)

Table 6. Biggest problems

Problems Number of respondents Percentage

Lack of education 15 16.7Unemployment 50 55.6Poverty 6 6.7Lack of organization 1 1.1Discrimination 4 4.4Being looked down upon 5 5.6Inability to express oneself 1 1.1I don’t have problems 3 3.3Community life 2 2.2Housing 3 3.3

Total 90 100

Turkey’s Roma 773

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

respondents. The following interview quotation summarizes the common view in theTarlabası neighbourhood on the perception towards the problem of the Roma ingeneral:

Roma don’t express their problems. Nobody protects us and this will continueuntil we get education. We’re outsiders. Our children aren’t protected in theschools. The parents are poor. Even the teachers discriminate against ourchildren. Good, qualified teachers aren’t appointed to our schools in theneighbourhood. Normal, ordinary teachers are allocated. We have to getorganized. Since the laws don’t protect us, we have to protect ourselves.Otherwise we’ll remain in this class. We’re neither of the rich class nor the poorclass. We’re classless. I don’t steal, but how will I earn my living? They force usto make donations to the schools when registering our kids for school. Theydon’t ask if we have money to donate. I’ve never seen a 100 euro banknote inmy entire life. We have to play music so people dance. But I want to see mychild wearing a suit and a tie. (Male, 48, elementary school graduate, musicianin bars)

Until recently, among the countries where Roma were unable to formally createpolitical organizations based on ethnicity was Turkey, in addition to Albania,Bulgaria and Russia.30 However, there have been significant steps in the politicalorganization of the Turkish Roma. The main reason behind this development issurely the changes in the legal framework that regulates the establishment ofassociation and foundations. Turkey enacted several reforms and showed steadyprogress in the 2000s towards accession to the EU. It was only after these reformsin the legal, political and economic areas that Turkey was considered to havefulfilled the Copenhagen criteria (stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy,human rights and respect for and protection of minorities), and its EUmembership negotiations started on 3 October 2005. Among these reforms, themost influential ones regarding political organizations and cultural associationswere the 2002 and 2004 reform packages. With various constitutional and legalamendments in the packages, forming associations on the basis of ethnicity andculture was allowed in addition to further liberties that regulate the functioning ofthe associations and foundations such as the right of community foundations toobtain property. As these new laws and amendments to existing laws liberated thefunctioning of the NGOs and sped up the effective functioning of civil society,Turkey’s Roma started to show signs of collective political organization in 2005and 2006.

It is acknowledged that the Roma are a non-homogenous socio-cultural unit thatis hierarchically structured on a different taxonomical level.31 In a similar vein, thisresearch showed that the biggest hurdle to the organization of the Turkish Roma islack of common stance or unity among them. In the words of the chairman of the_Izmir Roma Association, ‘Problems can’t be resolved by individual efforts alone’.There seems to be a lack of trust among the Roma community in Tarlabası whichblocks the development of working together for a common purpose. In a similarvein, this lack of trust also hinders the Roma from actively working in an associationor getting organized under an association. Since the Roma community, by and large,

774 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

is part of the lower class of the society, this low socio-economic status alsocontributes to the low levels of organization. In is in this context that the existingRoma associations are limited in scope and membership diversity, and areparticipated in and run by a small group of Roma.

Another point that the research results indicated is that the Roma community ingeneral is alien to working in institutional bodies such as non-governmentalorganizations and associations. Although by 2005 there were 12 Roma associationsin total in various regions of Turkey, there is no federation of associations that hasthe consent of each of these associations. Each of the associations in _Izmir, Soke,Edremit, Balıkesir, Kusadası, Edirne, Malkara, Mersin, Luleburgaz, Adana,Kırklareli and Muratlı follow different policies and organizational structures fromeach other. Although the seven associations in the Thrace region (those in Edirne,Malkara, Mersin, Luleburgaz, Adana, Kırklareli and Muratlı) established theTurkish Roma Federation in 2006, the associations in the Aegean region did notsupport this federation and set up another one called the Anatolian RomaFederation. The main reason for this segregation of federations is disagreement overwhich association would use the funds coming from the European Union. Despitethese problems in getting organized under one federation roof, the election of twoRoma representatives to participate in the Roma Platform of the European Unioncan be considered a positive sign for the future.

There is also the problem of a lack of cooperation of Roma associations withother NGOs, associations and public or private institutions of Turkey. The Romaassociations seem not to be acting together, whether among themselves or with otherorganizations. This situation also negatively impacts the institutional structure ofRoma associations, as they do not benefit from the accumulation of experience andknowledge that the other NGOs develop.

Some other factors that negatively affect the (dis)organization of the Romaassociations are lack of organizational culture, distance from bureaucratic cultureand ways of doing work, and a consciousness of being historically isolated. In arelated point, the low socio-economic status of the Roma, both in education andemployment levels, also contributes to the lack of organizational unity among thecommunity. In Turkish society, the Roma are usually associated with pejorativestereotypes. Such perceptions not only squeeze the Roma identity but also result indiscrimination.32

Notes

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of the Department of International

Relations at Isık University and the Department of Sociology at Akdeniz University during the research

and writing of this article. The research was funded by the Scientific Research Project Programmes of Isık

University and Akdeniz University.

1. A. Schutz, ‘The Stranger: An Essay in Social Psychology’, in A. Brodersen (ed.), Collected Papers

(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964), p.105.

2. W. Willems, In Search of the True Gypsy: From Enlightenment to Final Solution (London: Frank Cass,

1997), p.7.

3. I. Hancook, We Are the Romani People (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2002).

4. A. Fraser, The Gypsies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); G. Lewy, ‘The Travail of the Gypsies’, National

Interest, No.57 (1999), p.47.

Turkey’s Roma 775

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

5. E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire

Press, 2001), p.12.

6. H. Kyuchukov, ‘A Comparison of Bulgarian and Turkish Muslim Roma’, paper presented at the First

International Romani Studies Conference (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute, 10–12 April 2003).

7. For some of the studies on Turkish Roma, please see N. Alpman, Trakya Cingeneleri: Sınırda

Yasayanlar [Thracian Roma: Those Living on the Borders] (Istanbul: Bilesim Yayınları, 2004);

U. Mischek, ‘The Neighbourhood Identities of the Roma’, paper presented at the First International

Romani Studies Conference (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute, 10–12 April 2003); E. Strand,

‘Gypsies and Ethno-Religious Identity in Turkey: A Comparative Perspective’, paper presented at the

First International Romani Studies Conference (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute, 10–12 April

2003); S. Kolukırık, ‘Aramızdaki Yabancı: Cingeneler’ [Alien among Us: Gypsies] (Ph.D. thesis, Ege

University, 2004).

8. M.T. Gokbilgin, ‘Cingeneler’ [Gypsies], in _Islam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: MEB Yayınları, 1977), p.423.

9. Ottoman Empire was administered by the Millet system. In the Millet system, which formed the basis

of the Ottoman administrative structure, individuals were not recognized, and subjects were defined

according to their faiths and only within the religious groups to which they belonged. Millets had

separate administrative rules for marriage, divorce, inheritance and tax collection under the authority

of their own ecclesiastical leaders who represented the community in the Ottoman Palace and had

important administrative, judicial and financial responsibilities. The dominant Millet was the Muslims

and the three major non-Muslim Millets were the Greeks (Orthodox Christians all, including Arab,

Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian and Serbian Orthodox Christians), the Armenians (non-Orthodox

Christians such as eastern Armenians, Georgians, Assyrians, Protestants and Catholics) and the Jews.

The non-Muslim Millets were exempt from the military draft but in return were made to pay the

exemption tax called ‘jizya’. For more information on the Millet system, see K. Karpat, ‘The Ottoman

Ethnic and Confessional Legacy in the Middle East’, in M.J. Esman and H. Rabinovich (eds.),

Ethnicity, Pluralism and the State in the Middle East (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988),

pp.35–53; K. Karpat, ‘The Ethnicity Problem in a Multi-Ethnic National Islamic State: Continuity

and Recasting of Ethnic Identity in the Ottoman State’, in P. Brass (ed.), Ethnic Groups and the State

(Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Nobles, 1985), pp.95–114.

10. Pops argues that ethnic origin usually dictates nominal religious affiliation among various Roma

communities. As Spanish Roma are likely to be Catholic, Turkish Roma are mainly Muslim. See

G. Pops, ‘The Hidden Gypsy Minority’, PA Times, Vol.23, No.2 (2000), p.8.

11. E. Ginio, ‘Neither Muslims nor Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman State’, Romani Studies,

Vol.14, No.2 (2004), pp.117–44.

12. P.A. Andrews, Turkiye’de Etnik Gruplar [Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey] (Istanbul: Ant

Yayınları, 1992), p.28.

13. E. Ginio, ‘Neither Muslims nor Zimmis: The Gypsies (Roma) in the Ottoman State’, Romani Studies,

Vol.14, No.2 (2004), pp.117–44.

14. The European Commission regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession in 2005 estimates

the Roma population in Turkey being at between 500,000 and 2 million. See European Commission,

Turkey 2005 Progress Report, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2005/pdf/package/

sec_1426_final_en_progress_report_tr.pdf, 2005. Similarly, Arayıcı estimates Turkey’s Roma popula-

tion to be around 280,000–540,000; see A. Arayıcı, Cingeneler [The Roma] (Istanbul: Ceylan

Yayınları, 1999), p.52.

15. See Zaman Daily, 23 Feb. 2006.

16. See S. Toktas, ‘Citizenship and Minorities: A Historical Overview of Turkey’s Jewish Minority’,

Journal of Historical Sociology, Vol.18, No.4 (2005), pp.394–429.

17. For a detailed assessment of the question addressed in the Parliament, please visit http://www.

nethaber.com/?h¼46523 (accessed 23 Feb. 2006).

18. European Commission, 2001 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s Progress Towards

Accession, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2001/tu_en.pdf, 2001.

19. European Commission, 2002 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey’s Progress Towards

Accession, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/tu_en.pdf, 2002; European Commis-

sion, 2003 Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey’s Progress Towards Accession, http://

europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2003/pdf/rr_tk_final.pdf, 2003; European Commission, 2004

Regular Report From the Commission on Turkey’s Progress Towards Accession, http://europa.eu.int/

776 S. Kolukirik & S. Toktas

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Isi

k U

nive

rsite

si] A

t: 11

:10

24 J

uly

2007

comm/enlargement/report_2004/pdf/rr_tr_2004_en.pdf, 2004; European Commission, Turkey 2005

Progress Report, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2005/pdf/package/sec_1426_final_

en_progress_report_tr.pdf, 2005.

20. For instance the journal Romani Studies is devoted to research and dissemination of knowledge on

Roma. Similarly, in Turkey there has been increasing political and academic interest in the Turkish

Roma. A recent book by Adrian Marsh and Elin Strand is an outcome of this growing interest in the

Turkish Roma; see A. Marsh and E. Strand (eds.), Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual,

Constructed and Contested (Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transaction Series,

Vol.17, 2006).

21. Hancook, We Are the Romani People, p.113.

22. Lewy, ‘The Travail of the Gypsies’, p.47.

23. N. Martinez, Cingeneler [Gypsies] (trans. S. Aktas) (Istanbul: _Iletisim Yayınları, 1994), p.119.

24. Hancook, We Are the Romani People, p.121.

25. The congress of 1990 was formerly composed of representatives from the Eastern European countries;

see Hancook, We Are the Romani People, p.316.

26. E.O. _Incirlio�glu, ‘Secaat Arzederken Merd: Turkiye Cingenelerinin Orgutlenme Sorunları’ [The

Organization Problems of the Turkish Roma], in G. Putlar and T. Erman (eds.), Turk(iye) Kulturleri

[Cultures of Turkey] (Istanbul: Tetragon Yayınevi, 2005), p.168.

27. A. Lieblich-Tuval and T. Zilber, Narrative Research, Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation, Applied

Social Research Methods Series, Vol.47 (New York: Sage Publications, 1998), pp.112–14.

28. A. Ayata-Gunes, ‘Roots and Trends of Clientelism in Turkey’, in A. Gunes-Ayata and L. Roniger

(eds.), Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994), pp.51–63.

29. K.R. Forray, ‘Results and Problems in the Education of the Gypsy Community’, European Education,

Vol.34, No.4 (2003), pp.70–90.

30. D. Petrova, ‘The Roma: Between a Myth and the Future’, Social Research, Vol.70, No.1 (2003),

pp.111–61.

31. E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, ‘Segmentation vs. Consolidation: The Example of Four Gypsy

Groups in CIS’, Romani Studies, Vol.14, No.2 (2004), pp.145–91.

32. S. Kolukırık, ‘Turk Toplumunda Cingene _Imgesi ve Onyargısı’ [Prejudice towards the Gypsies in

Turkish Society], Sosyoloji Arastırmaları Dergisi, Vol.8, No.2 (2005), pp.16–23.

Turkey’s Roma 777