Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Citizenship Rights of Gypsies in Turkey: Roma and Dom Communities

2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 49; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00263206.2013.798310

1743-7881

Selİn Önen,

Romani and Gypsy Studies

Abstract This article compares two different Gypsy communities, the Roma community in Edirne and the Dom community in Diyarbakır, in terms of their access to citizenship rights (civil, social, political and cultural). The main argument is that in Turkey the Roma community has more access to citizenship rights than the Dom community due to the fact that the Roma community lives with Turks, the ethnic majority in Turkey, whereas the Dom community lives with Kurds, who are the majority in Diyarbakır but a minority group in Turkey. Further, the Roma community has closer connections with state and transnational space. The article explains how for both communities ethnicity is a common barrier to benefiting from full citizenship rights and why the equality principle of citizenship is ruptured for both communities. Notes The author thanks Ayşe Gündüz- Hoşgör and Mesut Yeğen for their invaluable criticism and suggestions during the research for this study. The author also thanks Irmak Ertuna-Howison for her critiques and suggestions in the writing of this article. The research was funded by Scientific Research Projects Coordination Centre of Middle East Technical University. 1. I will apply the label Gypsy as a common term instead of various self-identifications employed by sub-groups. Although the name Roma was chosen by a Romani NGO, the International Romani Union, as a self-designator at the First World Romani Congress in London in 1971, Gypsy (Çingene) seems a more inclusive term in Turkey. I will also use ‘Roma’ (Roman) and ‘Dom’ group names with regard to multi-layered and diverse features in their historical origins, language, traditions and self-identification. On the other hand, since the official name of Romani community is accepted as Roma, I will use the word Roma when I discuss the European case because the term Gypsy is regarded as pejorative. 2. Vermeersh argues that there is a difference between Roma and Romani identity. Although the term Roma represents an attempt to break away from social stigmas and is connected with the process of Romani political mobilization, Romani identity can be conceptualized in three ways: ‘The first defines the Roma as a historical diaspora. Scholars such as David Crowe (1995), Angus Fraser (1995; 2000), Ian Hancock (1992; 1997), and Donald Kenrick (1978) … have usually viewed the Roma as the descendants of a population that travelled from the Punjab region in northwestern India and arrived in Europe at the end of thirteenth century … The second conceptualization of Romani identity has focused on lifestyle and behavior … The third conceptualization focuses on the biological kinship.’ P. Vermeersch, The Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006), pp.13–16. 3. M. Diler, ‘The Survivors: Roma University Students in Turkey’ (MA thesis, METU, Ankara, 2008); A. Kaya, ‘Avrupa Birliği Perspektifi ve Türkiye’deki Azınlıkların Kamusal Alandaki Görünürlüğü’ [European Union Perspective and The Visibility of Minorities in Turkey on the Public Sphere] (First International Romani Symposium, Edirne, 2005). 4. E. Uzpeder, ‘Türkiye’de Roman Hakları Hareketinde EDROM Deneyimi’ [EDROM Experience in Roma Rights Movements], in E. Uzpeder et al. (eds.), Biz Buradayız! Türkiye’de Romanlar, Ayrımcı Uygulamalar ve Hak Mücadelesi [We are Here: Discriminatory Exclusion and Struggle for Rights of Roma in Turkey] (İstanbul: Mart Matbaacılık, 2008), pp.109–27. 5. E. Sobotka, ‘Human Rights and Roma Policy Formation in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland’, in R. Stauber and R. Vago (eds.), The Roma: A Minority in Europe (Budapest and New York: CEU Press), pp.136–7. 6. Gypsy identity received public attention with the demolition of Gypsy districts under urban renewal projects in various cities, among which Sulukule in İstanbul is the most well-known case. 7. European Commission Turkey 2009 Progress Report (COM 2009 533), p.29. 8. Marsh suggests that ‘officially data regarding ethnic minorities is not recorded in Turkey. Since the mid-1960s, there are no questions regarding ethnicity included in population counts. The academic research on numbers in Turkish Gypsy groups is limited and fairly recent … During the ERRC/hCa/EDROM research [Promoting Romani Rights in Turkey] (2006–2007) which covered parts of each of Turkey's seven regions, researchers suggested a figure of 4.5–5 million. The percentage of Roma in European provinces of Turkey has been estimated as 6–7% of the total population, and Roma, Dom and Lom, with small groups of Travellers in Anatolia, as about 2% of the population’. See Marsh, ‘Ethnicity and Identity: Who are the Gypsies’, in E. Uzpeder et al. (eds.), Biz Buradayız!, p.24. 9. G. Delanty, Citizenship in a Global Age, T. May (ed.) (Buckingham, PA: Open University Press, 2000), p.14. 10. T.H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class (London: Pluto Press, 1992). 11. Becoming a minority does not necessitate only religious, linguistic or cultural differences from the majority. In this respect, I agree with Kaya and Tarhanlı's conceptualization of minority, that is, when an individual compares his/her position to the majority and feels disadvantaged in terms of civil, social, political and cultural rights, they are regarded as a minority with regard to group affinity. See A. Kaya and T. Tarhanlı, ‘Türkiye’de Azınlıklar ve Anayasal Yurttaşlık’ [Minorities in Turkey and Constitutional Citizenship], in A. Kaya and T. Tarhanlı (eds.), Türkiye’de Çoğunluk ve Azınlık Politikaları [Majority and Minority Politics in Turkey] (İstanbul: TESEV, 2005), pp.15–32. 12. Mukhtar is the elected head of a village or of a neighbourhood within a town or city. 13. Menziliahir is the oldest neighbourhood in Edirne. This neighbourhood is dramatically different from other neighbourhoods and has the worst socio-economic and housing conditions. Inhabitants separate this neighbourhood symbolically as Yukarı Kıyık or Çadırcılar (tenters), where agricultural labourers reside, and Aşağı Kıyık. Other Roma people call the Roma inhabitants of this neighbourhood Poşa, which has a pejorative meaning. In general, Roma people also call neighbourhoods according to people's occupations. For example, paper collectors generally reside at Menziliahir. Çavuşbey is located in the city center and the socio-economic status of people there is higher than in Menziliahir. There is a model primary school which develops different courses for Roma children. According to inhabitants of Yıldırım Beyazıt and Yıldırım Hacısarraf, these neighbourhoods contain mostly Roma labourers who work at the municipality. They are mostly employed as garbage men. Kurdish people who migrated from the east of Turkey also generally reside in the Roma district of this neighbourhood. Turkish people also inhabit this neighbourhood but not near Roma houses. Binevler is generally inhabited by non-Gypsy people. 14. Alipaşa, Cemal Yılmaz and Hasırlı are neighbourhoods where a considerable number of Dom people live in Sur municipality. It is estimated that between 60 and 70 per cent of inhabitants of Cemal Yılmaz and Hasırlı neighbourhoods are Dom people who settled in Diyarbakır after the 1990s. Most households survive on women's begging and temporary seasonal agricultural labour. Hasırlı neighbourhood is near the city walls. Its socio-economic level and housing conditions are very limited among other Suriçi districts. In Hasırlı, social interaction between Kurds and Dom people is very limited even though they live side by side. Because of the reconstruction of the city walls, some houses were demolished. For this reason, the inhabitants of this neighbourhood moved to Benusen or Bağlar neighbourhoods. People generally called Hasırlı a Kore neighbourhood, where ex-panel houses used to be. Yeniköy is a totally new district. Before the 1990s, Dom people lived in tents. Afterwards, when they understood they could not be nomadic any more, they built gecekondus (shacks). Most of the inhabitants came after the forced migration of the 1990s and settled in Bağlar. In this neighbourhood, Dom inhabitants came from towns such as Lice and Hazro, therefore, outside Diyarbakır. Although other Dom inhabitants of different neighbourhoods know Dom people in Bağlar, their interaction is low. Benusen is another neighbourhood where socio-economic conditions are deprived. 15. The process of forced migration in Turkey with different stages from the 1980s until the end of the 1990s is completely different from rural to urban migration in the 1950s. In this regard, Jongerden focuses on resettlement in the south-east area of Turkey and how Kurds were affected by this internal displacement. Kurds were internally displaced from their villages to the cities in the 1990s. Jongerden suggests that resettlement was reinvented to create a population regarded as appropriate to a nation-state. Resettlement in a cultural sense to create a political entity has been considered as an instrument of modernization on Gellnerian premises. This resettlement policy had a close relationship with the growing strength of the PKK after the 1980 military coup and the depletion of villages. The background of this resettlement policy can be traced back to the Settlement Law of 1934 where the aim was to invent a nation based on Turkishness and it was believed that villagers of Anatolia should define themselves as Turkish to become a part of this political creation. See J. Jongerden, Türkiye’de İskan Sorunu ve Kürtler: Modernite, Savaş ve Mekan Politikaları Üzerine Bir Çözümleme [The Settlement Issue in Turkey and the Kurds: An Analysis of Spatial Policies], trans. M. Topal (İstanbul: Vate Yayınevi, 2008), p.89. 16. Bruinessen indicates that there are three main social strata: the people belonging to a tribe, the people who do not belong to any tribe and Gypsies (Dom). Also, each stratum has a hierarchical system within itself. M.V. Bruinessen, Ağa, Şeyh Devlet [Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan] (İstanbul: İletişim, 2006), pp.186–97. 17. Dengbej means storyteller in Kurdish society. Important events in Kurdish society, love, battles, feudal resistance and conflicts between tribes, are narrated in the stories. Oral stories symbolize the Kurdish society's needs and wishes, hopes and fears. Dengbej generally narrate their stories during the winter because summer is the time for tilling the soil and cropping. Moreover, a dengbej narrates his story at the house of the person with the most authority in the village. See A. Parıltı, Dengbejler: Sözün Yazgısı [Storytellers: The Fate of Word] (İstanbul: İthaki, 2006). 18. A.G. Hoşgör, ‘Kadın Vatandaşlık Haklarındaki En Temel Sorun: ‘Nüfus Cüzdanım Yok ki!’ [The Basic Problem for Woman Citizenship Rights: ‘I Have No Identity Card’], Toplum ve Demokrasi, Vol.2, No.4 (2008), p.28. 19. Hidden population includes persons who are not registered to the family for any reason until they are18 years old or people who are not citizens of any foreign country. 20. ‘Promoting of Romani Rights Project’ was implemented by EDROM, ERRC and Helsinki Citizen's Assembly in Turkey between 2005 and 2008. The aim of the project was ‘to build capacity of Roma and other civil society actors to engage in effective advocacy for the Rights of Roma and to raise awareness in Turkish society about the human rights problems facing the Romani population’. See http://www.hyd.org.tr/?pid=371 (accessed 30 Nov. 2010). 21. A. Marsh, ‘Eşitsiz Vatandandaşlık: Türkiye Çingenelerinin Karşılaştığı Hak İhlalleri’ [Human Rights Violations Against Turkish Gypsies], in Uzpeder et al. (eds.), Biz Buradayız!, pp.53´105. 22. Çeribaşı is a leader of the Gypsy/Roma community who is selected by election. His term lasts for five years and he has a ‘Çeribaşı’ Card, which is provided by Muhtarlık. 23. In the Ottoman Empire, people were classified into two different groups according to their religion: Muslim and non-Muslim. However, Gypsy people were not considered to be part of either group. They were registered as Kıpti, which was a religious affiliation. 24. Almost all the data presented here is taken from the 1990 and 2000 Census Population and 2008 New Population Based Registration System, conducted by the Turkish Statistical Institute. Data regarding the socio-economic position of the cities are taken from State Planning Organization. All the data are presented at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr and http://www.dpt.gov.tr (accessed 28 Jan. 2010). 25. Diyarbakır Development Centre, Forced Migration and Its Effects Diyarbakır (Ankara: UNDP, 2006), pp.41–55. 26. I do not apply the term ‘underclass’ to both communities. The concept of underclass is very problematic in Romany studies. This concept was applied in America and indicated the American poor spatially concentrated in big cities, particularly in the Black ghettos of traditional industrial cities before the 1980s. It also indicates long-term unemployment, the persistently poor, and disadvantaged ethnic groups. However, this term might threaten and criminalize ethnic minorities. See M. Stewart, ‘Deprivation, the Roma and the Underclass’, in C.M. Hann (ed.), Postsocialism: Ideals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp.133–55. In order to avoid such problems, I use the concept of social exclusion. 27. F. Parkin, Max Weber (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), p.100. 28. S. Cornell and D. Hartman, Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World (London and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998), p.58. 29. As Gilbert suggests, this term was coined by Diana Pearce (1979) to highlight the fact that poverty disproportionately affects women and their children. This situation results from an increasing disengagement of the state from responsibility for welfare and the greater burden on women working at casual jobs and unpaid domestic work. See M.R. Gilbert, ‘Identities, Difference and Geographies of Working Poor Women's Survival Strategies’, in K.B. Mirenna and A.H. Young (eds.), Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000), pp.65–88. 30. The Dom community also consider themselves to be Kurdish Roma/Gypsy.