ČAČIPEN PAL O ROMA A Global report on Roma in Slovakia

��

��

ČAČIPEN PAL O ROMAA Global report on Roma in Slovakia

Edition SLOVAKIA IN MOTION

This publication appears thanks to the generous support of:

Office of the Public Affairs of The United States Embassy in BratislavaGrant No. SLO 10002GR083

Open Society InstituteLog−In ID: 40003951; Project Code: B9008Log−In ID: 40004699; Project Code: B9008

From the Departure From the Homeland to the First Assimilation Measures • The Roma fromthe Reign of Empress Mária Terézia until the First Czechoslovak Republic • The Roma Duringthe First Czechoslovak Republic, the Second Czechoslovak Republic, and the First Slovak State

• The Roma from 1945 until November 1989 • The Roma on the Verge of Transformation •The Ethnic Identity of the Roma • The Roma Language and its Standardization •

The Religious Life of the Roma and the Activities of the Church in Relation to the Roma •The Cultural Activities of the Roma • Roma Media • The Legal and Institutional Framework

of the “Roma Issue” • International Documents Concerning the Roma • Perspectives ofAffirmative Action in Slovakia • The Roma Issue in Local Social Policy • The Roma as

a Topic of Debate for Political Parties • The Roma Political Scene • The Roma and the ThirdSector • Approach to the Roma Issue by Local and Foreign Donors • Relationship of the

Majority Population to the Roma • Relationship of the Roma to the Majority Population •Depiction of the Roma in the Media • Forms and Scope of Roma Discrimination in Slovakia •

The Roma as the Target of Political Extremism • Roma Population Demographic Trends •The Roma Family: On the Border Between Tradition and Modernity • Social exclusion of

Roma in Slovakia • The Roma and the Labor Market • Roma Living Strategies • RomaHousing • Roma Health • The Roma in the Education System and the Alternative Education

Projects • Educational Attitudes and Aspirations of the Roma • Roma Migration from Slovakia• Multiculturalism and Inclusion as Solutions to the Roma Issue

Institute for Public AffairsBratislava 2003

ČAČIPEN PAL O ROMAA Global Report on Roma in Slovakia

Michal Vašečka, Martina Jurásková, and Tom NicholsonEditors

Katarína BezákováJán CangárStanislav CinaIvana ČernákováRoman DžambazovičMarek HarakaľEva HaviarováDaniela Hivešová−ŠilanováIvan HriczkoBalázs JarábikMartina JuráskováMilan JuríkAnna JurováZuzana KollárováStanislava Kompaníková

Eva KončokováAlena Kotvanová

Milan KováčElena Kriglerová

Zuzana KumanováNatália Kušnieriková

Jarmila LajčákováAdriana Lamačková

Tibor LoranMária Maczejková

Kristína MagdolénováJozef Majchrák

Alexander MušinkaKarel A. Novák

Peter Puliš

Iveta RadičováIngrid RepováSilvia Rigová

Eleónora SándorBoris Strečanský

Attila SzépPeter Šaško

Michal ŠebestaĽudmila Šimčáková

Anna TkáčováAdrián Tokár

Zdeněk UherekBoris Vaňo

Imrich VašečkaMichal Vašečka

4



5

The Global Report on the Roma in Slovakiais the product of the concentrated efforts ofmany people. The authors answered the edi−tors’ vision with high−quality content, whilethe assistants ensured that the data and inter−pretations were relevant. Yet the book wouldnever have been possible without the care−ful translation work of Katarína Kollárováand Marcel Hlbočan, who translated all thechapters, and Ben Novak, who carefullyproofread the final version.

We would also like to thank the Foundationfor the Support of Civic Activities and

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Zuzana Pobočíková, as well as the UnitedStates Information Service, who providedfunds to publish this book. Our thanks goalso to Gabriela Farnbauerová from Kal−ligram Computing for the excellent graphicdesign, and to Andrea Labudová from theMax & Friends Creative Studio for the book’scover design.

We should also thank Miroslav Kollár, whoprovided valuable technical assistance to theeditors, Zuzana Roy for handling the finan−cial agenda, and the entire staff of the Insti−tute for Public Affairs for their moral support.

Michal VašečkaMartina Jurásková

Tom Nicholsoneditors

6

7

This book is the result of the concentrated ef−forts of dozens of experts in minority issuesin Slovakia. It is published at a time when theEuropean Commission, after successfullywrapping up the integration process, is ask−ing Slovakia to increase its efforts to findpositive solutions for the problems of theRoma, as well as for the corruption that ex−ists in all walks of life. This pressure from theinternational community to solve the “Romaissue” is easy to understand. It is not just thatin failing to solve the important questionsrelated to the Roma, Slovakia will cast doubton the positive steps it has taken towards lib−eral democracy and a mature economy; nordoes the issue merely involve a utilitarianattempt by the European Union to force a de−manding solution from a future memberstate. The most important motive remains thefact that problems related to the ethnicizationof poverty, social exclusion, and themarginalization of minorities are very famil−iar in most post industrial countries. Slovakiatoo cannot avoid making fundamentalchanges in the approach it has hitherto takento the Roma issue. This book speaks of thepotential that Slovakia has to launch thesechanges.

The Roma issue is becoming one of themost serious social, cultural, and civiliza−tion problems of the 21st century in Slova−kia. Solutions to these issues require notonly political will and courage, but also avision of a multicultural Slovakia, and

PREFACE

deep knowledge of the past failures thatfollowed flawed solutions. Positive andsuccessful solutions require clear and com−plete data, expert opinions, and the resultsof research.

The aim of the Global Report on the Romain Slovakia is to make information on theSlovak Roma minority and the state’s Romapolicy available to the public. The work alsooutlines the prerequisites of a successful so−lution to the complex of problems jointlyreferred to as “the Roma issue”. Such infor−mation is very scarce in Slovakia, and manyexisting analyses do not deal with the topicin sufficient depth. In recent years, warningsthat Slovakia lacked complex sources of in−formation on the issue that would allow along−term approach in projects leading tochange were sounded mainly by interna−tional organizations. In addition to the gen−eral shortage of information, the informationthat is available is scattered, while someminor topics related to the Roma issue havenot been dealt with at all.

Thus, at the beginning of the 21st century,there was a clear need for a publication thatwould summarize what is known about theRoma in an academically precise form.Many Roma issue experts noted that vari−ous reports seeking to provide comprehen−sive coverage of the issue had already beenpublished; however, as this issue is excep−tionally broad, most of these reports, which

8

did not aim to create a complex analysis,were inadequate.

The Institute for Public Affairs (IVO), afterseveral years of experience in publishing theGlobal Report on the State of Society, aspiresto fill the gap with this book. The IVO lis−tened to the opinions of leading Roma issueexperts, while the concept and lineup ofchapters was prepared by sociologist andIVO analyst Michal Vašečka, the book’seventual editor. The Global Report on theRoma in Slovakia covers 8 broad topics, andincludes 34 chapters prepared by 45 differ−ent experts, whose work was reviewed by 18readers. That some Roma−related topics hadbeen neglected in the past was very apparentin the lack of relevant sources of information.This was also the case with Roma authors –despite the editors’ desire to include as manyRoma authors as possible, only five wereultimately represented in the book.

The Global Report on the Roma in Slovakiaaspires to be a complex report that will serveas a reader for everyone who is interested inthe Roma, and as a basis for the political andsocietal elites in Slovakia in the process ofEU expansion. This is what made the editors’work so demanding – it was extraordinarilydifficult to make the text suit both targetgroups: academic readers, and “policy−mak−ers” who do not want and do not have timeto look for information elsewhere. The au−thors thus emphasized the measures (poli−cies) taken to address the Roma issue, anddescribed the present situation and its causes.By interconnecting the individual topics, theeditors were able to stake out a commonground between the Roma and the majoritypopulation, bounded by the coordinates ofassimilation, integration, and segregation.

The authors of the Global Report sent a veryimportant, although at first glance trivialmessage to the reader: It is necessary to dif−

ferentiate between individual subgroups inthe Roma population. Although the Romaare perceived as a homogenous group by themajority population, which results in a uni−fied approach being taken to the Roma andtheir needs, the minority is in fact extremelyheterogeneous. The authors of the GlobalReport recommend that the complicated in−ternal structure of the Roma population betaken into account when preparing policy.Otherwise, Slovakia is bound to repeat themistakes of the past, thus increasing the frus−tration of both the majority population andthe Roma.

All chapters in the Global Report on theRoma in Slovakia have the same frameworkof values. The authors agree that:• the Roma issue represents a combination

of ethnic and social problems, which mustall be taken into account when preparingpublic policy;

• the Roma issue is extraordinarily difficultto grasp, but is one that can be solved;

• the approach to the Roma in Slovakiashould be based on desegregating theRoma;

• the Roma population is extremely hetero−geneous, and must be approached as such;

• coordination and mutual awareness are keyelements in preparing any public policy;

• all solutions to the Roma issue must focuson two target groups: the Roma and themajority population;

• considering the growing self−conscious−ness of the Roma, we must begin speakingof a Roma nation, not just a Roma ethnicgroup.

In recent years, the many publications of theInstitute for Public Affairs have become true“agents for change”. The authors of the Glo−bal Report on the Roma in Slovakia believethat their book will at least help to form a“critical mass of people” who are aware ofthe need to solve the Roma issue, who know

9

how to solve it, and who have the will to doso. To be able to solve a social problem, how−ever, one first must be familiar with all as−pects of it. The authors of the Global Reporttherefore consider it important that this pub−lication deals with several topics that werepreviously terra incognita for the Slovakreader.

If the future is to bring positive solutions tothe Roma issue in Slovakia, the people whoform public policy must be prepared to studythe background of the problems they arecalled on to address, and to learn a lessonfrom the failures of the past. If they do not,they are bound to repeat the mistakes thathave been made again and again.

10

11

Summary: This chapter notes the myths re−lating to the origins of the Roma, the proofsof their Indian origin, as well as the emerg−ing theories of Roma authors. Indian soci−ety is unique not only in its ethnic hetero−geneity but also in its social and culturalsystem. This chapter attempts to explaincaste diversity, the role of the Roma’s an−cestors in this system, and their ways of life.It also deals with the names of the Roma andthe origins of these names, and follows theirarrival in Europe, pointing out the differinghistories of the Roma in Western Europe,Hungary, the Balkans, Walachia, and Mol−davia.

Key words: India, Rajasthan, Kanaudj,castes (Jats), Varnas, Brahman, Ksatrija,Vajshija, Shudra, Dharma, castes, Doma,Loma, Roma, Asinkar, Atsingan, Aegupti,Egypt Minor, Modona, Sigismund of Lux−embourg, protective documents, expellingedicts, slavery.

INTRODUCTION

The Roma as an ethnic group are in a verydifficult situation at the moment, strugglingfor emancipation and their own identity.They have no common territory and no stateof their own; thus, they are increasing ef−forts to find their “birthplace”, the land oftheir ancestors. The Roma long to find theroots of their traditions and culture, of

ANNA JUROVÁ

FROM LEAVING THE HOMELAND TOTHE FIRST ASSIMILATION MEASURES

which they never heard a word in school.More and more Roma have begun to seekemancipation as a “super−caste” or a “super−clan” community, and have begun to searchfor their history.

Sources on the earliest history of the Romaare lacking, while general European historysources were written by the non Roma; re−search, too, was also largely done by“gadjos” (pronounced “gad−joes”, meaning“non−Roma”). An image of the Roma wasthus formed that traces the development ofthe Roma in Europe through the eyes of thenon−Roma. Today, the Roma are coming upwith new theories, which may be understand−able given that they are a vilified and dispar−aged nation, but which are unacceptablefrom the academic viewpoint.

ORIGIN AND POSITION OFTHE ROMA IN INDIA

The question of the Indian origin of theRoma has been debated in the fields of com−parative linguistics, history and cultural an−thropology since the 18th century. The Indianorigin of the Roma has been scientificallydocumented and is no longer disputed; how−ever, the task remains to locate the ancestorsof today’s Roma on the Indian sub−continent,to define their position in Indian society, andto isolate the time and causes of their depar−ture to Europe.

12 A n n a J u r o v á

FIRST ATTEMPTS TO DISCOVERTHE ORIGIN OF THE ROMA BYLINGUISTIC COMPARISON

The story of the Hungarian theology student,Stefan Vályi, who stumbled on the origin ofthe Roma after meeting some Indian univer−sity students and hearing them talk, is wellknown and often repeated. The students’ lan−guage and appearance reminded Vályi of theRoma living near Komárno (in current−daysouthern Slovakia), so he compared theirlanguage and the Roma tongue. He wrotedown more than a thousand words that thestudents used, most of which the Roma laterunderstood when he repeated them. TheWiener Anzeiger journal published Vályi’sreport on his discovery in 1763.

Shortly thereafter, Samuel Augustini abHortis published a series of articles in thesame journal under the title On the PresentState, Special Manners, Way of Life andother Properties and Gifts of the Gypsies inUgria (from 1775 to 1776) (ab Hortis, 1995).On the basis of their language, he too guessedthat the Roma had come from southwest In−dia. The scientific basis of Roma studies wasfinally laid by the philologists WilliamMarsden (England), Jacob Rüdiger andHeinrich Grellmann (Germany) who, aftercopying ab Hortis’ monograph without quot−ing the source, made a serious linguistic com−parison of Romany and the Indian languages.Their work ended a long period of doubt andspeculation on the origin of the Roma.

Comparative studies of Romany and the lan−guages of the Indian sub−continent devel−oped throughout the 19th century, duringwhich August Fridrich Pott (1844 to 1845)and Franz Miklosich (1871 to 1882) pub−lished basic works on the language of theEuropean Roma. Research has shown thatRomany is older than the new Indian lan−guages, because the Roma left India more

than one thousand years ago; Romany thusdeveloped earlier than Hindi. However, it isyounger than Sanskrit, the oldest Indian lan−guage, and younger also than the next stageof languages, known as Prakrit. Romany,besides being unique proof of the Indian ori−gin of the Roma, is also the only living proofof the existence of an intermediate stage be−tween “old” and modern languages (Hübsch−mannová, 1995).

Miklosich and Pott both identified the home−land of the Roma as the Punjab, which liesin the north of Pakistan and India; even to−day, this hypothesis is often quoted as a fact.Nevertheless, the Roma certainly passedthrough this region on their travels to Persiaand Byzantium. In 1927, the English linguistRalph Turner presented a hypothesis accord−ing to which the Roma originally lived inRajasthan in central India near the westernborder of Pakistan, from where they scatteredacross other areas in central, northeastern andnorthwestern India. In the absence of newevidence to the contrary, specialists acceptTurner’s argument (Hübschmannová, 2000).

Further linguistic research now suggests thatthe Roma arose from various groups livingin central, northeastern and northwesternIndia, and that they lived in these regions fora long time. Working from the fact that dia−lect forms of Romany do not have a commonbasis, the linguists Venceľová and Čerenkovconcluded that the Roma did not originatefrom a common Indian tribe, and that theywere not even members of a single caste (Ne−čas, 1999). Answering other questions fromthe earliest history of the Roma, such as thecauses of their diaspora and their exodusfrom the Indian continent, could help us de−termine their origin and pinpoint their home−land.

In his monograph, Ab Hortis summarized allthat was then known and believed about the

13F r o m L e a v i n g t h e H o m e l a n d t o t h e F i r s t A s s i m i l a t i o n M e a s u r e s

origin of the Roma. The best known was thehypothesis that the Roma came from Egypt,because one of the names used for the Romaoriginates from there as well. The town ofSingara (today Atulib in Diar Beku) in Meso−potamia was considered to have been thehome of the Roma, whence they were alleg−edly driven by the Roman emperor Julian.Another possible origin of the Roma was saidto be the province of Zenopitana in Africa,as the people from this region were verygood fortune−tellers; the roots of the Romawere also sought in Nubia, Abyssinia, andthe Caucasus mountains. In looking for theforebears of the Roma, some “researchers”even arrived at the Biblical figure of Cain, thereason being that the Roma too are perma−nently on the run. The Roma have also oftenbeen considered descendants of the Jews,who were persecuted harshly in Germanyand other countries in the 13th and 14th cen−turies (ab Hortis, 1994).

IDENTIFYING THE TERRITORYORIGINALLY INHABITED BYTHE ROMA

Following the discovery of the Indian originof the Roma, and especially of their low po−sition in the Indian socio−cultural system,which was viewed as insulting by the Romaintelligentsia, the search for a “better” ver−sion of the Indian history of the Roma con−tinued. Thus were the Roma said to havecome from the Gadulia Lohar Indian groupthat still lives a nomadic life in the Indianstates of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Their mainoccupations are as smiths and traders in draftanimals. Representatives of the EuropeanRoma, on the other hand, prefer to see theirforefathers in the Banjaras, who are nomadsliving off trade with cattle. Many Banjaraslive scattered across different Indian states(mainly Rajasthan and Punjab); they repre−sent a higher social class than the Gadulia

Lohar group (Mann, 1990). Besides lookingfor their forefathers in higher Indian castes,Roma researchers also dispute the clearlyproven Indian origin of the Roma, and lookfor common features between the Roma andIslam, the Arabic culture, or the Jews. Ama−teur historians place the homeland of theRoma in Canaan, in Palestine (Hancock,1991), on Delos Island, or connect it with theEtruscans (Hübschmannová, 2000).

The most groundbreaking theory was pre−sented by Marcel Courthiade, although hisideas flew in the face of centuries of scien−tific research. In an interview in the Romanoľil nevo Roma newspaper, Courthiade falselystated that no researcher had yet publishedevidence of the Roma remembering their In−dian origin (this was published in Forli in1422, in Italy in 1590, and in southern Francein 1630). These historical facts were broughtto public attention by Emília Horváthová1

and Bartolomej Daniel, who also noted thefirst linguistic attempts to prove the Indianorigin of the Roma, which were published inthe report of the Spanish writer Miguel Cer−vantes de Saavedra (Daniel, 1994). Theyoung Roma historian Jana Horváthová−Ho−lomková was also able to confirm that theIndian origin had been preserved in the clanmemory of the Holomek family (Horvátho−vá, 2000).

A text discovered by the Arabic chronicler AlUbdi (b. 961, d. 1040) recorded how duringthe winter of 1017 to 1018, Sultan Mahmudfrom Ghazni near Kabul (today Afghanistan)invaded a certain town between Benares andDelhi, named Kanaudj. He captured all itsinhabitants and sold them as slaves toChorasan and Iran. According to MarcelCourthiade, these were the forefathers of theRoma, who roughly 150 years later revoltedand escaped to Byzantium.2 The text alleg−edly recorded that they continued their jour−ney roughly 10 to 15 years later.


Courthiade characterized Kanaudj as the in−tellectual and spiritual center of northernIndia. To support his theory that the Romaoriginated from this town, he pointed to theabsence of a tradition of agricultural workamong the Roma (ignoring the question ofwhy people used to living a settled life in atown would suddenly choose for centuries topractice a nomadic way of life and activitiesrequiring permanent movement). Courthiadealso cited the unity of the Roma language, andnoted that the name of the town translated as“Kali”, a goddess worshipped by the Roma.Courthiade said the name “Roma” came fromthe Drombas (artists and musicians) who livedin Kanaudj in great numbers. It is debatablewhether further “proofs” of this theory willsurface, or whether it is just another misinter−pretation of history in an effort to raise theprestige of the oppressed and vilified Romaethnic group (Ale je…, 2002).3

ORIGINAL POSITION OF THE ROMAIN THE INDIAN CASTE SYSTEM

Even though there is no doubt about the In−dian origin of the Roma, it is easy to under−stand why Roma researchers strive to find newinterpretations of the position the Roma heldwithin the Indian caste system. According toa prominent Roma expert, Milena Hübsch−mannová, the word “caste” is of Portugueseorigin, and is used in this form by most Euro−peans. All new Indian languages, however,adopted the Sanskrit expression “Jat”. Theword “Jat” describes a kin community follow−ing the same profession for centuries (or sev−eral similar professions), which represent itstask (the “dharma”). Individual castes wereeconomically complementary, and kept a cer−tain social distance from one another. None ofthe castes was economically self−sufficient,and depended on the products and services ofthe other “Jats”. Strict social boundaries ex−isted between the castes, which could not be

crossed. Individuals were born into a caste,and found in it both their positions as well asrules that make it impossible to become mem−bers of another caste.

Ongoing research into the early history ofIndia has produced several possible explana−tions for the decline in the social status of theDoma caste, from which the European Romaoriginated. Historians agree that the Domawere among the original inhabitants of India,and lived there before the country was in−vaded by Indo−European (Aryan) nomadsfrom the north around 1,500 B.C. The con−querors found an advanced civilization inIndia, which happened to be disintegrating,but which was one of the oldest in the world.These facts were discovered in the 1920s,and the civilization was named Mohendjodaror Harrap. The Indo−European conquerorskilled part of the original inhabitants, whilesome were pushed out to the geographicalborders of India, and others were banishedto the outskirts of society. The forefathers ofthe Doma, who were also the forefathers ofthe Roma, were presumably among the peo−ple enslaved (Oláh, 1997).

In the ensuing millennia of Indian history, theforefathers of the Roma (the Doma) repre−sented one of the lowest castes in the com−plicated Indian caste system (“avarna”), andhad to obey many restrictions.

From the turn of the second and first millen−nia B.C., old Indian society was divided into“Varnas”. The four basic “Varnas” were thefollowing: the noble “Aryans”, includingpriests, scholars, and religious teachers,formed the highest caste – the “BrahmanVarna”. Then came the warrior class (the“Kshatria Varna”); the third level, the “VaisiaVarna”, consisted of crafts people, trades−men, farmers, and breeders, while the low−est – the “Shudra Varna” – included variousservants. The untouchables were the out−


casts, the lowest in the hierarchy, and couldnot touch any member of the four “Varnas”.They were called “Atshut” in Sanskrit,“Punjabi” in Hindu, “Doma” in Kashmiri,and “Paria” in Tamil, from which came theirname, “Pariahs”. Everyone who performed“unclean” jobs such as sweeping streets, re−moving garbage, washing laundry, preparingwood for burning corpses, carrying nets,skinning animals and processing the hides,along with executioners, nomadic black−smiths, musicians, dancers, ape and snaketrainers, and professional cattle thieves be−longed to this lowest “Pariah” category.

Each “Varna” had certain rights, duties andrules of behavior (the “dharma”). With theprogressive sub−division of work and the de−velopment of Hinduism, the “Varnas” subdi−vided into a variety of sub−castes (“Jats”) con−sisting of clans and tribes in which occupa−tions were inherited from generation to gen−eration. Among the individual Indian castes(there were over 3,000) an insurmountablesocial gulf existed. The caste into which aperson was born remained his for the rest ofhis and his descendants’ lives. The caste sys−tem determined one’s social and legal position,one’s choice of partner, form of participationin society, and future relationships. This meantthat a male member of one caste could notmarry a girl from another caste, and that peo−ple from one caste could not even touch a mealin a house whose inhabitants they consideredritually impure (who ate the meat of “forbid−den” animals). These caste barriers still exist to−day, and not just in India: They survive amongthe Roma in Europe (Hübschmannová, 1995).4

The professions that the forefathers of theRoma lived from remain among the nomadicor semi−nomadic in India even today. Throughtheir affinity to a caste, the Roma were fullydependent on other castes to provide themwith the basic necessities of life. The Romagroup contained no farmers, shepherds, or

craftsmen producing the basic crops, food,clothes, or footwear. Their way of life, whichin Roma studies literature is compared to adisintegrating primitive hunter−gatherer cul−ture, forced the Roma to remain permanentlyon the move across increasingly large territo−ries, and forced them to live in symbiosis withthe surrounding populations, especially thefarmers. The departure of the Roma from In−dia dates back to the 9th and 10th centuries B.C.The gradual departure of the Roma “Jats” (thefamily−occupational castes) from India seemsto have occurred some 2,500 years later, andpresumably began in the area of the presentIndian states of Rajasthan and Punjab. Duringthis period, the Doma fell in the Indian socialsystem to the lowest caste level – the untouch−ables. It is not known what happened to thecultural heritage of their forefathers. TheDoma seem to have reached the Europeancontinent through Persia and Armenia (theArmenian relatives of the Roma are called theLoma), from where their voyage continuedthrough present−day Syria (where they are stillcalled the Doma) and across North Africa tothe Pyrenees peninsula. Larger groups camethrough Asia Minor into present−day Greece(Greece is also the source of the first writtenhistorical mention of the Roma in Europe),from where they eventually moved to CentralEurope (in the 12th and 13th centuries A.D.).The field of linguistics explains how theDoma got their European name “Roma” asfollows: the rear palatal speech sound “d”,which has no analogy in European languages,became “l” in west Asia, and finally the Eu−ropean “r”: thus, Doma – Loma – Roma.

NAMES OF THE ROMA

NAMES FOR THE ROMA BASEDON GUESSES AND LEGENDS

Since the arrival of the Roma in Europe,various assumptions and legends about their


origin have circulated. This process, bywhich the Roma were given names and de−nominations by their surroundings – knownas exoethnonymes – had already broughtthem two types of names in Byzantinesources – Athingan and Aegupti (Romovév Byzanci, 1999).

“Asinkan” as craftsmen

The previous form of the name Gypsy was“Atsinkan”, “Asinkan” or “Atingan”. TheFrench orientalist J. Bloch believes that thisname was brought by the Roma from the Ira−nian language environment, where the word“Asinkar” denotes a craftsman who workswith metal, i.e. blacksmiths, ironmongers,tinsmiths, etc. In Greece, the name“Atsingan” was originally used to designatemembers of the wandering Manouches sectwho entered Byzantium in the 8th centuryfrom South Asia, and earned their living bymagic, fortune−telling, keeping snakes andswindling. The sect later vanished, but thesimilarity of the occupations and names ofthe Indian immigrants from Persia causedpeople to confuse them with the Manouches.The oldest written mention of the Roma inEurope came from a monastery on the Greekmountain of Athos (1068), where the Romawere named “Adsincans” – people who wereconsidered great sorcerers in Constantinople.The ethnic denomination “Atsingans” or“Acingans” was used for the first groups ofRoma coming to the Balkans and CentralEurope in the 12th century. Until the 14th cen−tury this name was in general use, with thefirst speech sound being increasingly omit−ted until it finally became the rule; neverthe−less, the spelling remained variable, espe−cially when it came to the “n” in the middleof the word. Individual languages thus useddifferent names, such as: “Acinganus”,“Cinganus”, “Cingerus” (medieval Latin);“Cingene” (Turkish); “Acigan”, “Cigan”

(Bulgarian); “Ciganin” (Serbian); “Tsigan”(Rumanian); “Czigány” (Hungarian); “Ci−gán” (Slovak); “Cikán” (Czech); “Cygan”(Polish and Russian); “Zigeuner” (Germanand Dutch); “Zeginer” (Swiss German);“Cingare”, “Cingar”, “Cinhan”, “Tsigane”,“Tzigane” (different stages in French);“Zingaro” (Italian); “Ciganos” (Portuguese);and so on (Horváthová, 1964).

“Gypsies” as Egyptian emigrants

The second group of names was related to thealleged Egyptian origin of the Roma. In thesecond half of the 15th century, several pil−grims traveling through Modona on thePeloponnesian peninsula noticed that nearthe town was a hill with an adjacent areacalled Gyppe or Gypte, which the Venetianscalled Egypt Minor, and where the Atsinganslived during the Middle Ages. They oftencame to Modona, which was the usual stopof European pilgrims on their way to Jeru−salem. In observing the pilgrims, theseAtsingans noted the behavior of groupstraveling to show penitence, heard variouslegends about the life of Christ, and modifiedthe Christian obligations connected withpenitence and repentance according to theirown ideas. And thus did a great wave ofRoma migration begin at the outset of the15th century – at a time when many cru−sades, the Hussite wars, and various reli−gious pilgrimages were underway. TheRoma migrated in large groups under theleadership of princes and dukes of EgyptMinor. Taking advantage of the Christianlegend of obligatory pilgrimage to showpenitence, they acquired various supportiveand protective documents from feudal mag−nates and rulers. In Europe their place oforigin was mixed up or identified withEgypt, and thus they were called Egyptians.The following versions existed in differentlanguages: “Gypthoi”, “Aigyptiaki” (Greek);


“Evgit” (Albanian); “Phárao népe” (Hungar−ian); “Egyptenarin”, “Gipten”, “Jipenessen”(Dutch); “Egyptians”, “Egyptions”, “Egyp−sies”, “Gypsies” (English); “Egyptianos”,“Egitanos”, “Gitanos” (Spanish); “Egypcios”(Portuguese) (Fraser, 1998).

The Germans and the northern nations firstconsidered the Roma to be Tatars, and thuscalled them “Tattare”. In the Netherlandsthey were considered pagans and called“Heydens”; in several countries the name“Saracens” was used, in Poland it was“Wlosi”. Some groups of Roma in Francemust have identified Bohemia as their landof origin, because as of the end of the 15th

century they were called “Bohems” or“Boimes”, while by the 17th century the name“Bohemians” had completely replaced theoriginal name “Egyptians”. This new namewas used until almost the end of the 20th cen−tury. The name “Tsiganes” is used today. Inparts of eastern Germany too, the names“Bemische Leit” and “Bohemische Leute”were used, proving that the Roma came toGermany from Bohemia. The name“Bohemiano” was used in 16th century Spain,where besides the prevailing “Egyptianos” orlater “Gitanos”, the name “Griegos” was alsoused, due to the fact that the Roma spokeGreek, and that Romany contained manywords of Greek origin.

In Ugria (which included the territory ofmodern−day Slovakia), the name “Egyp−tians” was used as of the middle of the 15th

century as an alternative to the older name“Gypsies”. In the 17th century, some groupsof Roma that had been banished from Ger−many sought refuge in Ugria, calling them−selves Egyptian Gypsies. In sources fromdifferent regions, in complaints of variousoffences that had been committed by thenomadic people, or “gens Egyptica vulgoCigani”, the two names for the Roma gotmixed up.5

WHAT DO THE ROMA CALLTHEMSELVES?

The Roma call themselves different namesaccording to which sub−ethnic Indian groupthey came from, and the wave and time oftheir migration to Europe. All European dia−lects of the Roma language include the word“rom”, meaning man or husband. The femaleform is “romni”, meaning woman or wife. Asfor the group name, the endoethnonyme“Rom”, the term “Roma” is used mainly bythe descendants of the first groups that spreadacross the Balkans and the eastern part ofCentral Europe before the 15th century.Groups in Western Europe from later migra−tory waves used their own names: the Sintilived in German territory, the Manusha inFrance, the Romanitsel in England, the Kalein Spain and Portugal, and the Kaale in Fin−land. The word “manush” is also included inall dialects of Romany. It means man, while“Manusha” equals people. This word has thesame form and meaning in Sanskrit as well,and is almost identical in other Indian lan−guages. The use of the term for “people” inthe form of an endoethnonyme is the oldestway in which ancient tribes and ethnicgroups were named (Hübschmannová,1995).

Most of the Roma living in Slovakia are“Rumungers”, i.e. Roma who have lived set−tled lives for at least 300 years now. Althoughthis name originally related only to the Hun−garian Roma (“Ungers”), it was later used forall settled Roma: the Slovak ones were called“Slovatshike Roma”, and the Hungarianones “Ungrike Roma”, according to the lan−guage of the majority population. The Romawho came to Slovakia in the 19th centuryfrom the Rumanian province of Walachiaand lived as nomads until 1959 call them−selves “Vlachi” or “Vlachika Roma”. Thesenomadic Roma specialized in certain profes−sions, according to which they received fur−


ther names: “Lovara” (horse smugglers),“Kalderasha” (pot−makers), and “Ritsharja”,“Ursari” (bear leaders). Individual kingroups of the “Vlachika Roma” in southernSlovakia (e.g. the “Bougeshti”) use their ownnames to further differentiate the group(“Kurkeshti”, “Bograneshti”, “Matshkeshti”,“Tshureshti” and others). However, thesenames are not ethnonymes. Remnants of theGerman Sinti groups also live in Slovakia(Hübschmannová, 1995).

Problems arise in the acceptance of the name“Rom” or “Roma”. Part of the Roma whohave accepted the name Gypsies assume thatthis is a translation of their name, or theyconsist of assimilated Roma mostly fromfamilies of musicians in southern Slovakiawho dissociate themselves from the ethno−identification and emancipation efforts of themajority of less advanced Slovak Roma. Onthe international level, conversely, the Romado not accept the derogatory name Gypsy,which especially in Slavic languages hasassumed a negative connotation (liar, fibber).The International Roma Union founded in1971 agreed to use the common name Roma,which is now increasingly accepted in Euro−pean countries, along with an acknowledg−ment of the Roma’s minority rights. The In−ternational Union of Roma is the generallyacknowledged representative of the Romawith representation at the United Nations.

ARRIVAL OF ROMA INEUROPE AND CE REGION

THROUGH THE BALKAN ANDPYRENEES PENINSULAS

Under the pressure of the Ottoman Empire,the Roma moved from Byzantium to Europein several waves and stages. The main migra−tion, which included many people, came inthe 10th century over the Balkan peninsula,

while another, smaller wave came from theshores of North Africa and through the Pyr−enees peninsula. The first wave was ofgreater importance, because the Balkan pe−ninsula became home to the European Roma,a base from which they constantly migrated,and to which they always returned. TheRoma population was ready to come to Eu−rope thanks to their long stay in the Byzan−tine Empire, where they learned differentlanguages and cultures, and became ac−quainted with different social relationships,the ideology of Christianity, and the manycrusades to the Holy Land.

THE OLDEST MENTION OFTHE ROMA IN EUROPE

As we noted above, the oldest mention of theRoma in Europe was by a monk in a monas−tery on the mountain of Athos (1068), andconcerned the Adsincans in Constantinople.In the 12th century, Roma clans advanceddeeper and deeper into the Balkan peninsula,and divided into settled and nomadic groups.Smithing and metal working, the traditionalRoma crafts, were very useful and much indemand in the economically undevelopedcountries of the Balkans. Musical and artis−tic performances with dance and animals alsobecame very popular; the Roma showed offtheir skills especially at feudal manors. Themany professions of Roma clans inevitablyled to their division and search for new sub−sistence possibilities.

The Roma advanced gradually and sporadi−cally into the Pannonian lowlands of EasternEurope, where the oldest reports of them re−main unverified and scarce. The first Romaallegedly came to Ugria during the reign ofKing Ondrej II in 1219, as he returned fromhis crusade to Jerusalem. Several mentionsof the existence of Roma tribes or clans, notincluding data on their precise location, were


also made during the reign of King LadislavIV at the end of the 13th century6.

We encounter the Atsingans and Acingans inthe 14th century as well: in 1378, the Venetiangovernor of the Peloponnesian peninsula,Nauplie, granted to Ján Atsingan the privi−leges that his ancestors already enjoyed.Corfu saw the establishment of “feudumAcinganorum” led by a Venetian governor in1383. In the same year, the Walachian DukeMircea I confirmed the validity of the gift ofhis uncle Vladislav, who in 1370 had given40 families of Atsingan slaves to the monas−tery of St. Anton in Vodica (Fraser, 1998).

HISTORICAL MENTIONS OFTHE ROMA IN THE SLOVAK REGION

Concrete mentions of the Roma in the regionof modern−day Slovakia dating from the 14th

century leave no doubt that the Roma werewidely known in Slovakia at that time. Thereeve of Spišská Nová Ves, Ján Kunch, men−tions the presence of wandering Roma on thelands of the Mariássy family in 1322, al−though this has never been confirmed. In1329, the Roma were mentioned in theSzabolcs−Szatmáry region, and in 1381 in thedocuments of the Leles convent in the regionof Zemplín. In the 14th century, reports ofdonated Roma slaves originating from thesouth Carpathian mountains were quite com−mon (Horváthová, 1964; Fraser, 1998). Theword Gypsy (“Cigán”) repeatedly appears inthe names of villages and given names re−corded in documents from the 14th and 15th

centuries.

While the first groups of Roma movedaround without arousing suspicion in ethi−cally heterogeneous Ugria, and integratedinto the majority population without prob−lems, at the beginning of the 15th century thePannonian lowlands were flooded by a new

huge migratory wave of Roma. Because theRoma leaders behaved very ostentatiouslyand brazenly demanded material support(being on a journey of penitence), many con−temporary reports by local chroniclers sur−vive. These groups had no problems with thelanguages they encountered on their voyage(in Transylvania they got to know Germanparticularly well), and addressed their ownclan patriarchs as members of the nobilityaccording to the area they were comingthrough – chief, duke, king, earl. In 1417, thelargest groups lead by King Sindelomus andDukes Panuel, Michal and Ondrej came fromBudín through Košice all the way to Press−burg (Bratislava), where they split into twogroups. At this point they produced a protec−tive document issued by Sigismund de Lux−embourg in south Germany’s Lindave. Indi−vidual groups that in the 1420s wanderedthrough several countries presented a protec−tive document from the emperor dated 1423and issued at Spiš castle for the group headedby Ladislav, as well as a protective documentissued by Pope Martin V. Undoubtedly, manyof these documents were forgeries or copiesof original documents valid for one grouponly (Horváthová, 1964; Fraser, 1998).

From the end of the 14th century, after Ser−bia was defeated on the fields of Kosovo,Ugria became the immediate neighbor of theTurks, who put increasing pressure on theentire Balkan region. This may have beenone of the reasons why craftsmen workingwith metal found more jobs here and moretolerance than in the more advanced WesternEurope. Smithing, repairing weapons, manu−facturing shot, helping with horses, and di−rect service in the army were the main rea−sons that large numbers of Roma werepresent in Central and Southeastern Europe.When they were awarded an important pro−tective document by Emperor Sigismund deLuxembourg in 1423 in Spiš, they gainedsecurity in a territory of strategic importance


and wealth, which they could then start set−tling.

The Roma are known to have taken up someof the obligations performed by the inhabit−ants of the village of Beharovce, and to haverendered various services to the castle7 (Hor−váthová, 1964). At that time, Slovakia wasfighting off the Hussites and their crusades,and after the death of Emperor Sigismund, afight began for the Ugrian throne. In the 15th

century the Roma were used by Matej Kor−vín, by the Polish house of Jagelov, and es−pecially by the Transylvanian Baron Ján Zá−poľský. Thanks to their participation in mili−tary campaigns against the Turks, the Romawere awarded several protective documentsfor their services to the town of Sibiu in 1476.Matej Korvín awarded several Roma with asimilar document in 1487, also for their par−ticipation in the wars. Vladislav Jagelovskyissued several protective documents in 1492and 1496 to a group headed by Tomáš Polgár,based on which 25 Roma blacksmiths wereable to freely practice their professionthroughout the country. This group alsoserved the bishop in Pécs, for whom theymanufactured musket shot, cannon balls, andother weaponry (Horváthová, 1964).

The metalworking skill of the Roma, andtheir quick orientation and mobility on theground, were abused the most by theTransylvanian Baron Ján Zápoľský. He firstused the Roma to suppress and “crown” thepeasant king Juraj Dóža after a failed crusadein 1514, which turned into a peasant upris−ing; a few years later, he used the Roma totake revenge on eastern Slovak royal townsthat refused to support him in his attempts totake the Ugrian throne8 (Davidová, 1965).

When Zápoľský became king in 1538, heissued documents ensuring support and re−spect for the ancient freedoms of the Roma.He introduced the function of noble Gypsy

dukes, whose primary task was to collecttaxes (these “vajdas” of Roma clans – theword is derived from “vojvoda”, duke – defacto belonged under the jurisdiction of in−dividual feudal manors). After the disaster ofthe battle of Moháč in 1526, when most ofUgria fell to the Turks, the Roma had noproblem adapting to the new situation. Theyserved as smiths, musicians, messengers,executioners, soldiers, etc. to anyone whorequired their services – the nobility, thetowns, the Turks. During the anti−Hapsburguprisings of the 16th and 17th centuries, theRoma also offered their abilities whereverthey could be used. These circumstancesprobably contributed to the fact that smithingand music making were still the most fre−quent occupations of the Roma in Slovakiaat the end of the 19th century. The Roma set−tled on individual feudal manors, and to−gether with their landlords battled imperialarmies (such as in 1557 when defending thecastle of Veľká Ida), and together with theirlords were banished. The feudal lords and thetowns awarded permits to them to settle andpractice their professions.9

In the 17th century, tolerance for the Romabegan to decline. The anti−Hapsburg upris−ings, the Turkish occupation, the arrivals anddepartures of nomadic groups, and the in−creasing slaughter of people in Western Eu−rope, totally exhausted the economicallystagnant Ungria. After the Thirty Years’ War,Europe was full of wandering, plunderinggroups, who having lost everything in thewar had nothing more to lose, and whom theRoma often joined. The number of “foreign”Roma grew considerably, and the possibili−ties of making a living were diminished.Complaints that the Roma were stealinghorses, food and crops, as well as spreadingdisease, began to pour in. As a result, theRoma were banished from an increasingnumber of towns and districts, such as min−ing towns.


The end of the Turkish occupation, and theSzatmáry peace treaty signed in 1711 afterthe last anti−Hapsburg uprising, allowed re−construction to begin in the devastated land,and saw attempts to introduce new methodsof administering the country and moderniz−ing the economy. In the end, the enlighten−ment Emperors Mária Terézia and Jozef IIalso tried to solve the Roma issue.

CONCLUSION

The history of the Roma – not just on theterritory of modern−day Slovakia – still con−tains many unanswered questions, such asthe origin of the Roma. Many are not will−ing to accept the answers that have been pro−vided, and thus keep creating new theories.The Roma have been stigmatized by themany years of discrimination they experi−enced, by the humiliating connotations oftheir name, and by the reluctance of the ma−jority to respect their own traditional endo−ethnonyme, which they ultimately decided touse on the international level.

Insufficient historical research makes it im−possible to reliably reconstruct the history ofthe Roma ethnic group on our territory sincethe Middle Ages. It will take great effort andan unprejudiced approach to achieve an ob−jective view of the Roma’s development andposition in Ugria and Slovakia.

ENDNOTES

1. Emília Horváthová (1964) mentions therecord from the town of Forli, and also theknowledge she acquired through her own re−search in southwestern Slovakia during the1950s.

2. The first document about the Roma in Europedates from 1068 (according to M. C.’s interpre−tation, the Roma should have been in Iraq andChorasan at that time).

3. This issue was also taken up by Anna Koptováin her work The Truth About the Roma? (2001).More information on the Roma in Byzantiumcan be found in the textbook The Roma in By−zantium, 1998.

4. The author often notes the tactlessness of non−Roma authors in describing the low position ofthe Roma “Jats”, and the relativity of notionssuch as high and low positions in the severalthousand years of Roma history on the Indiansubcontinent. She records that some Romaauthors argue that the Roma originated fromthe highest Brahman castes, which is ratherimprobable, as members of these castes had tobe familiar with very demanding and compli−cated texts and procedures used during differ−ent ceremonies, and they protected them fromunauthorized access. She tends towards theopinion that the Roma were members of sev−eral castes, not just the lowest ones, as can beseen from their ability to adapt so quickly in theEuropean Christian world (Fraser, 1998).

5. George Soulis mentions several authors in hisarticle who wrote about Modona and thenearby Gyppe – Egypt Minor hill, thus prov−ing that the Roma who came to Europe froma troubled Byzantium threatened by the Turkshad not lied when they said they came fromEgypt Minor. They really had come fromEgypt Minor – but from a location in Byzan−tium with the same name. More informationcan be found in The Roma in Byzantium(1999) on pages 18 and 19. On the other hand,August Fraser proves that the Roma abusedChristianity to repeatedly acquire new protec−tive documents even 100 years after they wereexcommunicated from the church by the arch−bishop of Paris in 1427. It was then that thereally drastic pursuit and slaughter of pagansbegan.

6. The experience that ethnologist Alexander Mu−šinka acquired in a long−term project in thevillage of Svinia (Prešov district) confirms thatthe Roma never use the word “Cigán” (Gypsy)when talking to one another. We can also men−tion the absurd conclusion of “historian” JozefDuchoň, who in an article called Gypsies – AnUnknown Ethnic Group published in the Ko−šický večer daily paper on August 23, 2002,maintained that: “We are not obliged to startusing the name Roma, as we have alreadygrown accustomed to the name Gypsy.”


7. Various services were provided during longhunts and driving beasts; the Roma were alsoexperienced dog trainers, prepared and servedfood, and supplied the castle with wood, for−est crops, etc.

8. On his order they torched the towns of Košice,Levoča, Bardejov, and Sabinov, and were pre−pared to do the same in other towns. Alreadybefore that they had been accused of espionage.

9. Several examples were mentioned by EmíliaHorváthová: in 1616 they received a writ ofprotection from Count Juraj Thurza in the townof Bytča; multiple permissions were awardedto the Roma by the towns of Ružomberok,Trebišov, and others.

REFERENCES

1. ab Hortis, Samuel Augustin: Cigáni v Uhor−sku/Zigeuner in Ungarn 1775 [Gypsies inUgria 1775], (Bratislava: Štúdio −dd−, 1995).

2. “Ale je tu niečo nové! Konečne sme objavilimesto v Indii, odkiaľ pochádzame!” [Here’sSomething New! At Last We Have Discov−ered the Town in India We Came From!],Romano ľil nevo, No. 526 – 532, 2002.

3. Daniel, Bartolomej: Dějiny Romů [The His−tory of the Roma], (Olomouc: PalackéhoUniversity, 1994).

4. Davidová, Eva: Bez kolíb a šiatrov [WithoutSheds or Tents], (Košice: Východoslovenskénakladateľstvo, 1965).

5. Duchoň, Jozef: “Cigáni neznáme etnikum”[‘Gypsies – An Unknown Ethnic Group’],Košický večer, August 23, 2002.

6. Fraser, August: Cikáni [Gypsies], (Prague:Lidové noviny, 1998).

7. Hancock, Ian: “The Ethnicity Destroying” inFraser, August: Cikáni [Gypsies], (Prague:Lidové noviny, 1998).

8. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku[Gypsies in Slovakia], (Bratislava: SlovakAcademy of Sciences, 1964).

9. Horváthová, Jana: “Kdo byli čeští Romové?”[‘Who Were the Czech Roma?’], in Černobílýživot [A Black and White Life], (Prague: Gal−lery, 2000).

10. Hübschmannová, Milena: Šaj pes dovakeras– Můžeme se domluvit [We Can UnderstandEach Other], (Olomouc: Palackého Univer−sity, 1995).

11. Hübschmannová, Milena: “Odkud jsme přišli,kdo jsme, kam jdeme?” [‘Where Did WeCome From, Who Are We, Where Are WeGoing?’] in Manuš, Erika: Jdeme dlouhoucestou [We’re Taking the Long Road],(Prague: Arbor Vitae, 1998).

12. Hübschmannová, Milena: “K počátkům rom−ských dějin” [‘On the Beginning of RomaHistory’] in Černobílý život [A Black andWhite Life], (Prague: Gallery, 2000).

13. Koptová, Anna: Pravda o Rómoch? [TheTruth About the Roma?], (Košice: GoodRoma Fairy Kesaj Foundation, 2001).

14. Krško, Miroslav: “Kanaanski kováči” [‘TheBlacksmiths of Kanaas’], Romano ľil nevo,No. 94 – 224, 1993 – 1996.

15. Mann, Arne. B.: “Odkiaľ prišli Rómovia?Najmladší Indoeurópania u nás” [‘Where Didthe Roma Come From? The Youngest Indo−Europeans in our Country’], Historická revue,No. 3, 1990, p. 7.

16. Nečas, Ctibor: Romové v České republice vče−ra a dnes [Roma in the Czech Republic Yes−terday and Today], (Olomouc: Palackého Uni−versity, 1999).

17. Oláh, Vladimír: “Gondolinav pal amari nacija(Zamyslenie sa nad naším národom)”[‘Thinking About Our Nation’], Romano ľilnevo, No. 293 – 294, 1997, p. 6.

18. Romové v Byzanci [The Roma in Byzantium],(Prague: Signeta, 1999).

23

Summary: This chapter deals with the po−sition of the Roma from the mid−18th centuryto 1918, with the problems related to theirnomadic or semi−nomadic way of life, andwith the solutions advanced to these prob−lems, especially during the phase of “enlight−enment absolutism”, when rulers, besidesother reforms, sought to regulate the nomadicRoma in particular. The extent to which suchregulation of the Roma was successful wasshown during the 19th and early 20th centu−ries, when stagnation occurred, and regula−tions from the second half of the 18th centuryhad to be constantly renewed.

Key words: assimilation, enlightenment,Mária Terézia, Jozef II, regulation of theRoma, listing, Hungarian listing, new peas−ants, new Hungarians, settled Roma, semi−nomadic Roma, nomadic Roma, Roma citi−zenship, deportation.

INTRODUCTION

The greatest “attention” paid to the Roma bythe rulers of the lands they inhabited cameduring the enlightenment period, when theruling class used regulations to attempt thefull assimilation of the Roma with the major−ity population. However, despite the effortsinvested, the plan did not bear fruit. Eventhough some of the measures taken by theenlightenment emperors Mária Terézia andJozef II may seem discriminatory and inhu−man today, at that time they presented posi−

ANNA TKÁČOVÁ

THE ROMA FROM THE REIGN OFEMPRESS MÁRIA TERÉZIA UNTILTHE FIRST CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC

tive steps, not just for Ugria but for Europeas a whole and its relationship to the Roma.1

Compared to the enlightenment period, theresponsible bodies in the 19th and at the be−ginning of the 20th centuries took only theminimum possible interest in the Roma. Themeasures they took, too, were unable toachieve the settlement of the nomadic Roma.

Listings, which were like an early form ofpopulation census, are an important sourceof information about the life of the Roma atthe time (even though the data presented arenot as precise as could be desired). Most list−ings were produced in the 18th century, anda few in the 19th. The most important listingof the 19th century was the 1893 Ugrian list−ing, which provides a fairly clear picture ofthe position of the Roma in Ugria. These list−ings are a rich source of information for spe−cialists such as ethnologists and sociologists.

THE ROMA DURINGTHE ENLIGHTENMENT

WAYS OF ADDRESSINGTHE ROMA ISSUE, ANDTHE POSITION OF THE ROMA INUGRIA IN THE 18TH CENTURY

The period of Roma persecution, which un−der the Hapsburg monarchy (especially in itswestern part) lasted until the late 18th century,was followed by a time of discriminatorymeasures (banishment, cruel treatment, mur−

24 A n n a T k á č o v á

der). Finally, the enlightenment brought adifferent approach to the nomadic Roma. Thefirst positive change in the period of enlight−enment absolutism was the 1744 edict ofEmpress Mária Terézia, according to whichthe country should get rid of the Roma bycasting them out, not by killing them (as washappening in Austria and Bohemia). TheAustro−Hungarian enlightenment rulers Má−ria Terézia (1740 – 1780) and Jozef II (1780– 1790) issued many decrees designed mainlyfor Ugria, as the number of Roma in Ugria wasfar higher than in Austria or Bohemia, duemainly to the discriminatory measures appliedthere. The decrees envisaged the full assimi−lation of the Roma with the rest of the popu−lation, and they pertained especially to thenomadic and semi−nomadic Roma.2

The first requirement was that all Romaabandon their nomadic way of life. Theywere also prohibited from keeping and trad−ing horses, and consuming the meat of al−ready−dead animals. They were ordered todress and farm like other people, or to choosea permitted craft and pay taxes in the propermanner. Their children were to be taken fromthem and sent to the peasants to be broughtup;3 all school−age children were to attendschool regularly, while the older childrenwere to learn crafts with local craftsmen orwork as servants. They were prohibited fromusing their own language and their secretnames. A Roma could not marry anotherRoma; they were obliged to marry membersof the majority population, accept the Chris−tian religion, and so on. In the drive to assimi−late the Roma as quickly as possible, veryharsh and violent methods were sometimesused. Talking in Romany and eating the meatof already−dead animals were punished bycudgeling – 24 blows for each offense (Hor−váthová, 1964).

According to the empress’ decree of Novem−ber 13, 1761, the settled Roma were not to

call themselves Gypsies but “new peasants”(“neocolonorum” in Latin, “neubauer” inGerman, “ujparasztok” in Hungarian), “newHungarians” (“ujmagyarok”), or “new citi−zens” (“ujlakosok”) (A pallas ..., 1893). Thefunction of the “vajda” was to be abolished.4

According to the decree, the settled Romawere no longer to be under the authority oftheir “vajdas”, but of the village reeves, whowould supervise their behavior. The reeveswere to visit the Roma every Thursday andcheck whether they were adhering to thedecrees (Horváthová, 1964). All decrees thatMária Terézia and Jozef II issued regardingthe Roma were published between 1760 and1784.5 They were sent from the Ugrian RoyalGoverning Council (hereafter URGC)6 toindividual districts, which were the executorsof the decrees. Until the middle of the 18th

century, the Roma belonged under the au−thority of the main regional governor, whilefrom that point on the landlords became theirmasters.

The aim of these regulations was to get allRoma to settle down permanently, and tointegrate them into the economic life of so−ciety so they could begin paying the feudalrent to their landlords, and well as state andregional taxes.7 Despite the great efforts ofthe enlightenment rulers, however, the ruleshad little effect, mainly because those whowrote them knew little about the lives of thecommon people, about the economic andsocial position of the Roma, and the histori−cal and social factors influencing the group.Finally, the economic and financial interestsof the state and the indifference of the nobil−ity in various regions towards enforcing theorders also played a negative role.8

Plans to regulate the Roma populationaroused skepticism, and many of the meas−ures were regarded with irony. People em−phasized the negative features of the Romaway of life, maintaining they were inherent

25T h e R o m a f r o m t h e R e i g n o f E m p r e s s M á r i a Te r é z i a u n t i l t h e F i r s t C z e c h o s l o v a k R e p . . .

and could not be changed. The offenses ofindividuals or groups were generalized andmagnified to absurdity, a typical examplebeing a court case in the region of Hont in1782, where 173 Roma were accused of can−nibalism.

APPLICATION OFENLIGHTENMENT REFORMS OFTHE ROMA IN PRACTICE

The success of the regulations and theprogress of the Roma population were meas−ured by the emperors using “listings” ofGypsies or new peasants. On December 10,17679, the URGC ordered that a listing ofGypsy families be performed.10 Later (April23, 1772), the URGC ordered that listingsalso include data on the payment of taxes(military and house tax). Thus, the listingfrom 1773, as well as the 1775 to 1779 list−ings, included the name of the head of thefamily, the number and age of the children(divided according to sex), the manner oftheir upbringing, the form of housing andclothing, legal position in society, occupa−tion, name of master, whether the family atealready−dead animals, whether they ownedhorses, and the amount of military and housetax they paid. The listings were modifiedslightly in the 1780s, as in 1780 the regionsreceived a new form for listing the Roma,according to which the following data had tobe collected: the names of married Roma orthe names of widowers and widows; thenumber of children under 2 years of age,under 12 years of age, and over 12 years ofage; the manner of their upbringing (differ−entiated according to sex); and the occupa−tion of the children. On top of that, the samedata as before were collected.

Because the listings were not carried outduring the same year in all regions, and be−cause of differences in the ways the forms

were filled in, it is not possible to numericallysummarize the data collected from all overSlovakia. The listings taken during the 1780sshow big differences in the number of Romain individual regions, due mainly to the mi−gration of Roma from regions where enforce−ment of the regulations was more strict, tothose where the officials were more lenient.The listings suggest that the regulation of theRoma population was relatively trouble−freeand in line with the plans of the enlighten−ment rulers. However, the reality was com−pletely different. By examining the numbersand comparing the names on individual list−ings, we quickly see that the number of set−tled Roma was insignificant. The rest movedaround within a single district, from one dis−trict to another, or between regions. Anotherproblem was that the data were often modi−fied by the census takers and embellished forthe emperor.

THE ROMA IN UGRIA INTHE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY

DECREES AND MEASURES AGAINSTTHE ROMA IN THE 19TH CENTURY

The death of Jozef II put an end to attemptsto regulate the Roma population. Certainefforts to assimilate the Roma appeared at theturn of the 18th and 19th centuries, but mostof these were unsystematic and uncoordi−nated, and thus had little impact on theRoma. The regulations issued in the 19th cen−tury aimed to outlaw the nomadic life of theRoma, but police regulations on issuing pass−ports were clearly not enough to eliminatethe problem. In 1853,11 the governor of Bo−hemia submitted proposals to regulate theRoma population and introduce the principleof equal treatment when issuing passports forthe Roma, in order to limit further increasesin the number of the Roma and to preventthem from wandering the country. Their iso−


lated position in the surrounding world wasconsidered the main cause of the Roma’snomadic way of life.

Proposals to change this situation containedthree points:1. The Roma were to be permanently settled

and integrated with the rest of the popula−tion. In disputed cases, the district authori−ties were to determine where individualRoma families had permanent residence,and filed such cases separately.

2. All Roma able to work were to be allowedto practice an occupation, and those notable to work were to receive suitable al−lowances. The Roma able to work were tobe employed with craftsmen. It was tobecome easier for the Roma to acquiretrading certificates, and initial financialsupport was to be provided (i.e. if theydecided to settle in a certain location, theywould be allocated a piece of land). Door−to−door trading was to be prohibited, aswere horse−trading, individual acrobaticperformances, puppetry, and wizardry.Roma who were unable to work were tobe provided for according to the poor law(i.e. receive poor allowances) under thestrict supervision of the municipalities.Special attention was paid to Roma chil−dren: school−age children were obliged toattend school, while grown−up childrenwere to become servants, and small chil−dren were to be taken from their familiesand put into foster homes. It was also rec−ommended that the quality of upbringingin Roma families be improved.

3. The issuing of passports to the Roma wasto be limited to a minimum. The only ex−ception was when the Roma applying fora passport could produce credible andstamped certificates confirming that theapplicant practiced a craft such as daylaborer, servant, or auxiliary worker. Oneach such passport the owner was to belabeled as a “Cigán” (Gypsy), so that “the

police take special care to check this per−son”. The employer had to report everyemployment or termination of employ−ment to the municipal board, which wasobliged to pass the report on to the districtauthority. It was forbidden to issue certifi−cates allowing the Roma to travel withgeneral formulations, such as: “to find ajob”. It was equally prohibited to issuepassports for entire Roma families (theonly exception being legal migrations) orfor people who had been returned home bythe authorities for wandering. Upon re−peated wandering offences, or when theRoma did not fulfill their work obliga−tions, they were to be placed in labor colo−nies (a kind of forced labor). Based onthese proposals, the URGC on January 18,1854 issued a decree calling for an expertopinion on the measures that had beentaken to achieve this goal (preventingwandering and enforcing the settlement ofthe Roma) and at the same time requiredthat statistical data be presented. The datawere to include precise information on thenumber of Roma living in a given district,how many of them owned a trading li−cense, what kind of activity they per−formed, how many Roma were unable towork, how many nomadic Roma with andwithout passports there were, and whatforms of subsistence activity prevailedamong them. This regulation, just as theprevious ones, was not fully enforced bythe authorities (the order was fulfilled, butthe listing did not contain all the requiredinformation about the Roma) (Tkáčová,2001).

Later, the wandering Roma were mentionedonly in the laws on deportations (1871 and1885) and the law on acquiring permanentresidence. According to an 1886 Ugrian law,every citizen of the state was granted perma−nent residence automatically. The site ofpermanent residence could be changed (i.e.


one could acquire permanent residence in anew village by paying taxes to the village forfour years). An Austrian law from 1896,however, made the rules far more strict,stipulating that permanent residence couldonly be acquired on the basis of explicit ac−ceptance of the applicant by the municipal−ity. Permanent residence, according to thelater law, was not to be withheld from anystate citizen who fulfilled the conditions setby the law, who had reached the age of 21,and who had resided in the municipality for10 consecutive years without receiving anyallowance from the poor fund. In reality,acquisition of permanent residence underthis law was very limited (Novák, 1924).

POSITION OF THE ROMA IN LIGHTOF THE 1893 HUNGARIAN LISTING

Formal Aspect of the Listing

At the end of the 19th century, more preciselyon January 31, 1893, a very detailed Hungar−ian listing of the Roma was carried out.13

According to Dr. Jekelfallussy, who at thetime was the director of the Hungarian RoyalStatistical Office, the aim of the listing wasto provide the data and information neces−sary to prepare a proposal to solve the issueof nomads (i.e. to abolish the nomadic wayof life). This proposal was closely connectedwith the attempt to find suitable ways forgradually forcing the nomadic Roma to set−tle down. The Interior Minister entrustedHermann Antal, an ethnologist known for hisresearch on the Roma, with preparing theentire listing, and analyzing and processingthe data acquired in this important ethnodemographic and statistical research. Thelisting was prepared and successfully carriedout on a single day (January 31). The reasonfor this was to acquire as precise data on theRoma in Ugria as possible, and to preventpeople from being counted twice or not at all

– this pertained particularly to the nomadicRoma. In cases where the listing could notbe performed on a single day, a ban on move−ment was declared. If complications oc−curred, the army or the police were to be usedto maintain order.

The acquired data were to record not onlythe precise number of Roma, but also thedemographic characteristics that would elu−cidate the process by which nomads becomesemi−nomads and finally settled Roma. Thebasic idea was that to be able to understandthe life of the nomadic Roma, one had toknow about the lives of all Roma living inUgria. The listing thus maintained a strictdivision of the Roma into settled, semi−no−madic, and nomadic. All Roma with perma−nent residence in a municipality were consid−ered settled (even if during the listing theywere somewhere else). The semi−nomadicRoma (partly or temporarily settled) werethose who, due to their jobs, remained in oneplace for several months or years withouthaving permanent residence there. All Romawho traveled together from place to placewith their families (or group) were consid−ered nomadic.

In places where few Roma lived, the listingwas performed by the employees of localauthorities. In locations with large numbersof Roma, special census officers were used.Information on the number of Roma in indi−vidual regions was drawn partly from thedetailed 1873 listing, partly from the 1850,1857, 1880 and 1890 head counts, and alsofrom estimates. The data were gathered onthe basis of questionnaires – there was aseparate questionnaire for men and forwomen. Another important part of the ques−tionnaire was a sheet filled in by the repre−sentatives of the various municipalities, fromwhich valuable information on the lifestyle,socio−economic position, education, andbehavior of individual groups of Roma (set−


tled, semi nomadic and nomadic) could bedrawn. The listing provided information onthe number of Roma, their religion, forms ofsubsistence, housing, age structure, maritalstatus, use of mother tongue and other lan−guages, education level (ability to read andwrite), whether their children attendedschool, etc.

The listing also dealt with the identificationof the Roma. It was the first time14 that sev−eral methods had been used to determineprecisely who was and who was not a Roma.Ethnic and anthropological features weretaken into account, while the listing alsoconsidered judgments on the ethnic back−ground of individual inhabitants by peoplefrom the municipality. Even though the peo−ple who helped to determine ethnic member−ship were not specified in detail, they werelikely formal and informal authorities of themunicipality, such as reeves, notaries, priests,and teachers. With this type of identification,it is entirely possible that the non−Roma part−ner and children in mixed marriages werealso identified as Roma (Džambazovič,2001; Horváthová, 1964).

Results of the Listing

Number of RomaAccording to the 1893 listing, a total of274,940 Roma lived in Ugria, or 1.8% of allinhabitants of the country15. Of the totalnumber of Roma in Ugria, 36,237 lived onthe territory of present−day Slovakia (13.2%of the Roma living in Ugria), of whom17,718 were men and 18,519 women. Ac−cording to listings, 160,000 Roma lived onthe territory of present−day Rumania, 65,000on the territory of present−day Hungary, and8 to 10 thousand on the territory of the formerYugoslavia. The largest number of Roma onSlovak territory lived in the Gemer region,and the fewest in Orava (Horváthová, 1964).

Table 1Number of Roma in individual regions accord−ing to the 1893 listing

��

�� !� ��"�� #�� $�%�� &�� '� ��(��

Source: Horváthová, 1964.

The largest Roma communities were locatednear the towns of Šamorín (Bratislava re−gion), Nitra and Nové Zámky (Nitra region),Komárno, Levice (Tekov region), Lučenc(Novohrad region), Rimavská Sobota andRožňava (Gemer region), Kežmarok (Spišregion) and Košice (Abov – Turňa region).The most numerous category, according tothe division into settled, semi nomadic andnomadic Roma, was the settled Roma, con−taining 243,432 people (88.5% of the totalnumber of Roma), of whom 33,655 lived onthe territory of present−day Slovakia (92.9%of the Slovak Roma population). There were20,406 semi nomadic Roma (7.4% of theoverall Roma), of whom 1,973 lived on theterritory of Slovakia (5.4% of Slovak Roma);and 8,938 nomadic Roma (3.3%), of whom609 lived in Slovakia (1.7% of all SlovakRoma).

Another 2,164 Roma could not be classifiedas belonging to any group. The listingshowed that the majority of the Roma livingon the territory of Slovakia and Ugria as awhole were settled. Of the total 12,693Ugrian municipalities, Roma lived in 7,962(63%), while settled Roma lived in 7,220. In


52% (3,750) of Ugrian municipalities, theRoma lived outside villages, while in 40%(2,874) they lived scattered throughout themunicipality. In 8% (596) of municipalities,the Roma lived both outside and inside vil−lages. As the numbers suggest, more thanhalf of the settled Roma lived separated orexcluded from the mainstream community.According to an additional comment in thebook version of the listing, the Roma tendedto lived separately especially in regions in−habited by the Slovaks (Džambazovič, 2001;Horváthová, 1964).

Age StructureThe age structure of the Roma population inUgria did not differ significantly from the agestructure of the overall population of Ugria.

Table 2Age structure of the Roma population accord−ing to the 1893 listing

�� )��

)��

*�+�,-�.�� ,/�+�01�.�� 2*�+�/1�.�� 3*��!��!��

Source: Horváthová, 1964.

If we compare the age structure of individualgroups of Roma (settled, semi nomadic, andnomadic) we find that children aged 0 to 14formed the largest proportion of the nomadicRoma (47%), a smaller share of the seminomadic Roma (40.1%) and less smaller ofthe settled Roma (39.1%). The second−larg−est age category within these groups waspeople aged 30 to 59, who represented a31.7% share of settled Roma, 29.9% of seminomadic Roma, and 26.8% of nomadicRoma. The 15 to 29 years age group formedthe largest proportion among the semi−no−madic Roma (25.6%), followed by the set−tled Roma (22.8%) and the nomadic Roma(21.8%). The smallest age category was thatof people older than 60, the largest percent−

age being among the settled Roma (6.4%).Semi nomadic and nomadic Roma had thesame percentage representation of the oldestpeople, namely 4.4%. The listing alsoshowed that the number of children in Romafamilies was higher than among the major−ity population, i.e. that the Roma birth ratewas higher, but that on the other hand, Romachild mortality was also higher. There werevery few single adults and very few deathsof children aged 6 to 14 among the Roma.

Marital StatusThe listing provided evidence of a differentform of upbringing and partnership relationsamong the Roma, influenced by the remnantsof tribal structures and their different culture.It also indicated stability in both legal andunrecognized marriages, and showed thatsexual life began at an early age, and thatfirst−time mothers were also very young.Attention should be paid to the remnants ofmatriarchy among the nomadic Roma. Here,in many cases, the mother owned the shel−ter, and the children belonged to her clan.

The data were organized not only accordingto categories of Roma, but also from theviewpoint of age and sex, meaning that theycan be compared with data for the entirepopulation of Ugria. The listing implied thatthere were more cohabitations/marriagesamong the Roma (43.9%) than within theentire population (41%), and a smaller ratioof single people and widows, and that legalmarriages prevailed (27.1%) over common−law partnerships (16.76%) in the Romapopulation.

When comparing categories of Roma, wefind more marriages and common−law part−nerships among the semi nomadic Romathan among the nomadic. Among the settledRoma, legal marriages prevailed, whileamong the semi nomadic and nomadicRoma, unofficial relationships had the upper


hand. The rate of legal marriages rangedfrom 28.2% among the settled Roma to14.1% among the nomadic Roma, while inthe case of “illegitimate” cohabitations, therate was the opposite, at 15.6% compared to23.3%, respectively. According to the listing,most couples living on the territory of mod−ern−day Slovakia were lawfully wedded. Asurprising finding was the 24 Roma who hadbeen lawfully divorced, all of whom werewomen (23 originated from Šariš region and1 from Novohrad). From the viewpoint ofage, most Roma aged 20 to 24 already livedin some form of cohabitation.

Among 15 to 24 year−olds, a higher propor−tion of illegitimate cohabitations was seenamong both men and women, although withincreasing age the ratio slowly turned infavor of marriage. Men dominated all dataconcerning legal marriages (except on theterritory of modern−day Slovakia), which,according to the authors of the listing, mightbe due to the fact that all marriages betweenRoma men and non−Roma women were le−galized, while most marriages betweenRoma women and non−Roma men were il−legitimate.

ReligionThe Roma usually adopted the religion of thepopulation on whose territory they lived, al−though this was usually just a formal adop−tion. Although the most widespread religionin Ugria was Roman Catholicism, there werefewer Roman Catholics and Protestantsamong the Roma than within the total popu−lation. Compared to the Ugrian population,the most frequent religion among the Romawas the Greco−Catholic and Orthodox faiths(the Orthodox was especially popular amongthe nomadic Roma). On the territory of Slo−vakia, according to the listing, most Romaclaimed the Roman Catholic confession, andonly a small share the Greco−Catholic faith(mostly in Zemplín and Šariš regions), the

Evangelical of the Augsburg Confession(Lutherans – especially in Gemer region), theCalvinist (mainly in Abov, Zemplín andGemer regions), or other confessions (espe−cially in Zemplín region).

LanguageAccording to the data, more than half theRoma population could not speak Roma, andconsidered the language of the local commu−nity to be their own. Some 29.97% of Romain Ugria considered Romany their mothertongue (especially the nomads – 62.12%).However, only a small percentage of theRoma could not speak another language:38.10% spoke Hungarian (72.98% of whomspoke no Romany), 24.89% spoke Rumanian(84.20% of whom spoke no Romany) and3.59% spoke Slovak (only 30.72% of thesespoke no Romany). The highest proportionof Roma claiming Slovak as their mothertongue lived among the settled Roma. As forsocial categories, young Roma settled intowns were particularly ignorant of Romany.

HousingMost of the Roma in Ugria lived in houses(61.74%), shacks (33.33%) or tents (3.25%).The smallest number of Roma lived in mudhouses16 or other types of dwelling. In com−parison with the totals for Ugria, on Slovakterritory almost one−third of Roma familieslived permanently in mud houses, while an−other one−third lived in tents in the summerand mud houses in the winter; the rest livedin houses (usually one or two room houses),shacks and shelters. The settled Roma livedmainly in houses and mud houses, while thesemi nomadic families used mud houses astemporary dwellings (during the winter), andthe nomadic Roma lived mostly in sheltersthat they transported on two− or four−wheelwagons. On a Europe−wide scale, the aver−age number of people sharing one room was5.7 with the settled Roma (similar to the 1890population census, when the figure was


5.75); among the nomadic Roma it was 7.9.This average was slightly higher in Slovakia.

PropertyStandard of living and property can be meas−ured in terms of the acreage of land ownedor used by the Roma. According to the list−ing, the number of Ugrian Roma who ownedland was very low (only 10,088). The Romafarmed 0.011% of available land. Given thatthe Roma represented 1.8% of all inhabit−ants, this figure is extremely low. However,it was related to the overall economic leveland geographic specifics of individual re−gions (for example, in the Liptov and Turiecregions not a single Roma land owner orfarmer was found). Given that the Romaowned very little land, they formed one of thepoorest classes at the time.

Means of SubsistenceRoma earned their livings in two or moreways. The listing included a total of 150forms of subsistence.17 Most Roma lived offmusic and smithery, professions that werepracticed by women as well. They were usu−ally paid for their work in kind (food, cloth−ing, etc.). On the territory of Slovakia, theRoma mostly lived from smithery and metalworking, music, and manufacturing bricks.Another group made rope, string andbrushes. Among the illegal forms of subsist−ence, the most frequent were beggary, theft,fortune telling, and card reading. The sourceof subsistence could not be determined forabout 1% of Roma living on Slovak territory.According to the listing, 78% of Roma liv−ing on Slovak territory had an occupation(including small crafts and seasonal work),while the remaining 22% of Roma older than15 years (mostly juveniles and women) wereunemployed.

EducationCompared to the population of Ugria as awhole, the Roma were considerably less edu−

cated: only 6.45% of Roma older than sixyears could read and write (among the over−all Ugrian population the figure was 53.4%).From the viewpoint of the sexes, 8.48% ofRoma men and only 4.58% of Roma womencould read and write. A similar differencewas also seen among the overall Ugrianpopulation, where the ratio was men –60.21%, women – 46.50%. The ability toread and write increased with improving liv−ing conditions and position in society. Some6.89% of settled Roma could read and write,while among nomadic Roma it was only0.39%. As much as 90.9% of settled Romamen and 93.92% of settled Roma womenwere illiterate, compared to 37.89% and46.89% within the entire Ugrian population,respectively. Illiteracy was even higheramong the nomadic Roma, at 98.25% amongthe men and 98.91% among the women. Thesituation was similar on the territory of Slo−vakia: less than 3,000 Roma were literate orsemi−literate, with the majority able neitherto read nor write.

School AttendanceAccording to the listing, few Roma childrenaged 6 to 14 attended school, the situationbeing even worse among the nomadic Roma.In Ugria there were roughly 60,000 school−age children, 69.15% of whom did not attendschool. In only in 23% of the Ugrian munici−palities inhabited by the Roma did Romachildren attend school regularly, while in10% the Roma attended irregularly, and in67% of municipalities the Roma children didnot go to school at all. On the territory ofSlovakia, 73 to 75% of all school−age chil−dren did not attend school. In comparisonwith the 14 to 15% of all school−age childrenwho attended school on Slovak territory, theaverage among Roma children was 10%. Theschool attendance figures for Roma childrenwere comparable to those of children of othernationalities. Teachers usually described theRoma children as physically more mature,


but less disciplined, less inclined to do home−work, and less blessed with teaching aidsthan other children.

POSITION OF THE ROMA ONTHE THRESHOLD OFTHE 20TH CENTURY

At the end of the 19th century, their very lowlevel of education and their traditional wayof life handicapped the Roma, at that timethe poorest social class, in successfullystarting the 20th century. The ruling classespaid little attention to them because theRoma did not threaten their political andeconomic interests, and because with thesurfeit of labor that existed at the time, theRoma were not much in demand. Closer at−tention was paid to the Roma in 1907 inconnection with a brutal murder in a tavernin Danošská pusta, in which the Roma werethe main suspects.18 The Roma were alsonoticed by the press, which ascribed manypejorative characteristics to them to supportthe idea that it was useless to try to changetheir way of life (especially the nomadicRoma). The unfavorable situation of theRoma worsened after the outbreak of theFirst World War.

A decree issued in 1916 by the Interior Min−istry was the last attempt to regulate the no−madic life of the Roma. The decree aimedto protect the domestic population from theRoma, i.e. to settle the nomadic Roma andinclude them in the labor process, not justto prevent begging and theft, but also to ac−quire further taxpayers and soldiers for thestate. This decree also formed the legal ba−sis for regulations on deportation. Wander−ing Roma were considered suspicious, andif they wandered about a municipalitywhere they had no permanent residence,employment, or pension, according to theInterior Ministry’s 1885 deportation order

they could be banished from the village orforced to work.

This regulation was intended to apply espe−cially to wandering Roma who had neitherthe money nor the means (i.e. a job) to sur−vive. Each municipality where the Romalived was obliged to keep a register of everywandering Roma. This evidence was to becollected according to family. For each fam−ily, a separate registration sheet had to befilled in, and two copies made (one copy tobe filed in alphabetic order with the munici−pality and kept updated, and the second copyto be sent to the Central Statistical Office).Even though this regulation did not pertainto the settled Roma, its unclear wordingcaused everyone to read it differently, and asa result, some municipalities applied the lawto the settled Roma as well. Besides that, theinstructions on integration into the laborprocess were very vague, and the issues ofhousing for the Roma and increasing theircultural level were completely avoided. Dueto the war, this regulation was forgotten forseveral years (Horváthová, 1964).

CONCLUSION

Despite enduring attempts by the state tosettle all nomadic Roma and change theirlifestyles, these efforts were ultimately fruit−less. Regulations that tried to change theRoma way of life failed largely due to the factthat the initiative always came from above,and the measures were always forced. Eventhough the regulations gradually became lessstrict, they always included discriminatoryand repressive items. Not a single regulationrespected the nature and cultural specifics ofthe Roma. Under these circumstances, theRoma were not interested in, or convinced ofthe need to change their lives, and they per−ceived the regulations as a necessary evil thatwas to be avoided as much as possible.


ENDNOTES

1. During the reign of Empress Mária Terézia itwas expected that the Roma reforms would beso efficient and fast that within several decades,the Roma would be completely integrated withthe majority population, and future generationswould only be able to learn about their lives,appearance, language, and characteristics frombooks (see ab Hortis, 1995).

2. Besides the group of nomadic and semi−no−madic Roma, there was also a small group ofsettled Roma. Being few, these settled Romadid not represent as large a problem for theUgrian emperors as the nomadic and seminomadic Roma.

3. During the reign of Mária Terézia, this was tobe the fate of Roma children from 2 to 12years of age. During the reign of Jozef II,Roma children were to be brought up by peas−ants from 4 years of age, and later from 8 to10 years of age. Once they were 10 years old,they had to serve these peasants for as manyyears as they had been taught by them (see Ša−lamon, 1992, p. 73).

4. Within one manor, the Roma fell under a com−mon “vajda” who had to be confirmed in hisfunction by the local squires, and who wasresponsible for all the offences of his people.It was his job to solve minor disagreementsand offences among his people. The organizedwandering groups lived under the authority ofthe “vajda”, while the unorganized groups didnot recognize any authority, and crossed notjust district but also regional borders; every−where they went they committed petty theftsand other offences. The settled Roma livedunder the authority of landlords or towns(Horváthová, 1964).

5. MOL: C56, 1783 – 1848, Elenchus NormaliaActorum 1760 – 1785.

6. The Ugrian Royal Governor Council was es−tablished in 1723 in Bratislava, and from 1783to 1785 it formed a special department fordealing with Gypsies, the DepartamentumZingarorum (see Horváthová, 1964; Tkáčová,2001).

7. Attempts by individual estates to make theRoma pay taxes began in the early 18th cen−tury. Landlords assigned administrative func−tions to some Roma, as can be see from adocument dated October 25, 1776. The holder

of such a letter from a landlord was entitledto collect taxes from other Roma (see Horvá−thová, 1964; Hancock, 2001).

8. Attempts by the Roma to settle in one placeoften failed due to the refusal of landlords toaccept the Roma on their land. The landlordswere willing to accept only those Roma inwhom they were confident that they would beof use (see Horváthová, 1964).

9. MOL: C56, 1783 – 1848, Elenchus NormaliaActorum 1760 – 1785.

10. The first listings from the territory of modern−day Slovakia originate from 1725 (Šariš andTekov regions) and 1766 (Zvolen region).Then there was the 1768 listing (Abov andTurňa regions), the 1769 listing (Zvolen re−gion) and the 1770 listing (Malý Hont region)(see Horváthová, 1964; State Regional Ar−chive (SRA) in Prešov: ŠŽ1: L. C. 1725/58−61; Tkáčová, 2000).

11. SRA Košice: ATŽ, krab. Cigáni, bezoznačenia, year 1853.

12. The 1886 law and the 1896 law on the rightof domicile were included in the Czechoslo−vak Constitution after the formation of theFirst Czechoslovak Republic.

13. It was also published as a book in 1895 afterthe results were processed (see Horváthová,1964).

14. In the previous population censuses, onlypeople whose mother tongue was Roma wereconsidered to be Roma. In the 1873 listingthere were no strict rules as to who was to beconsidered a Roma, or as to the characteris−tics on which the judgment would be based(see Džambazovič, 2001).

15. The actual number was slightly higher, around280,000, because despite the care taken, someRoma were left out, such as the Roma fromBudapest, whose number Kemény put atroughly 1,500.

16. Different kinds of mud houses were built forused either as permanent or seasonal dwell−ings. The mud house was a rectangular space(2 by 2 meters) dug in a slope, with wallsmade of wooden snags and thick twigs. Theonly opening was an entrance covered with asheet. Dwellings partially set into the groundwere called semi−mud houses, and they werea kind of transitional stage between the mudhouse and the one−room house (see Horvátho−vá, 1964).


17. Here are some examples of their occupations:musicians, smiths, locksmiths, and makers ofpots, bells, tubs, spoons, baskets, brooms,bricks, boots, shoes, rope, string, brushes, andlace. The Roma were also cobblers, clothes−washers, weavers, farmers, farmhands, daylaborers, attendants, carters, traders, middle−men, bricklayers, horse−doctors and servants.Among the illegal forms of subsistence theyresorted to were: prostitution, beggary, for−tune telling, reading cards, fake healing, theft,and vagrancy (see Horváthová, 1964).

18. At that time the police apprehended 37 groupsof Roma – a total of 400 people. To makethem confess the police used battery, and tor−ture by hunger and thirst. The public and thepress were full of the controversy, with somedefending and some accusing the Roma (seeHorváthová, 1964).

REFERENCES

1. A Pallas nagy lexikona. Vol. IV, (Budapest:Pallas, 1893).

2. ab Hortis, Samuel Augustini: Cigáni v Uhor−sku/Zigeuner in Ungarn 1775 [Gypsies inUgria, 1775], (Bratislava: Štúdio −dd−, 1995).

3. Džambazovič, Roman: “Rómovia v Uhorskukoncom 19. storočia: Výsledky Súpisu Ró−mov z roku 1893” [‘The Roma in Ugria at theEnd of the 19th Century: The Results of the1893 Roma Listing’], Sociológia, No. 5,2001, p. 491 – 506.

4. Hancock, Ian: Země utrpení. Dějiny otroctvía pronásledování Romů [Land of Suffering:The History of Slavery and Persecution of theRoma], (Prague: Signeta, 2001).

5. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku[Gypsies in Slovakia], (Bratislava: Veda,1964).

6. Komentované zákony Československé repub−liky. XXXIX. Československá ústava a zákony

s ní souvislé [Commented Laws of theCzechoslovak Republic, XXXIX: TheCzechoslovak Constitution and RelatedLaws], (Prague: Československý kompas,1935).

7. Novák, Ján: Rukoväť pre obecných starostov[The Handbook for Municipal Mayors], (Bra−tislava: Slovenská kníhtlačiareň, 1924).

8. Šalamon, Pavol: “Cigáni z Abovskej a Tur−nianskej stolice v období osvietenstva”[‘Gypsies from the Abov and Trenčín RegionsDuring the Enlightenment’] in Mann, Arne B.(ed.): Neznámi Rómovia [The UnknownRoma], (Bratislava: Ister Science Press,1992).

9. Tkáčová, Anna: “K problematike potulnýchRómov v päťdesiatych rokoch devätnástehostoročia v Abovsko−Turnianskej župe” [‘Onthe Issue of the Nomadic Roma in the 1850sin the Region of Abov−Turňa’], Človek a spo−ločnosť, No. 1, 2001, www.saske.sk/1–2001/html.

10. Tkáčová, Anna: “Súpisy Cigánov z osemnás−teho a devätnásteho storočia v Štátnom oblast−nom archíve v Košiciach” [‘Listings of RomaFrom the 18th and 19th Centuries Stored in theState Regional Archive in Košice’], Človeka spoločnosť, No. 4, 2000, www.saske.sk/cas/4–2000/html.

11. Tkáčová, Anna: “Život Rómov v Turnianskejstolici v 18. st. vo svetle súpisov” [‘The Lifeof the Roma in the District of Turňa in the18th Century in the Light of Listings’] inZborník z konferencie v Pilišskej Čabe, ko−nanej v dňoch 20. – 21. júna 2001 pod názvomNárod, spoločnosť, konfesia [Collected Docu−ments From the Conference in Pilišská Čaba,held from June 20 to 21, 2001, under the nameNation, Society, Confession], (Piliscsaba: Pe−ter Pázmány Catholic University, 2001).

12. Východoslovenskí Rómovia a II. svetová vojna[The Roma from Eastern Slovakia and theSecond World War], (Humenné: VihorlatMuseum in Humenné, 2001).

35

Summary: This chapter summarizes thepolitical and legal treatment of the Roma bythe state. It concentrates on the legislation ofAustria Hungary and the legislative measuresof the First Czechoslovak Republic and theFirst Slovak State against the Roma from1918 to 1945. It analyses the social rights ofthe Roma and their demographic develop−ment. It outlines the main problems in therelationship between the Roma and the ma−jority society, focusing on attempts to elimi−nate poverty. It examines the life of the Romain the interwar period.

Key words: political and legal treatment,legislation, laws, nomadic Roma, settledRoma, demography, crafts, school system,education, traditional way of life, ethnogra−phy, history.

INTRODUCTION

The growing number of Roma in Europe inthe 20th century forced the public to startdealing with their way of life. The interwarperiod from 1918 to 1945 was very difficult,not just for Slovak society but also for theRoma. Society became aware of the “Gypsyissue” or the “Gypsy problem”, caused by thepoor standard of living, lifestyle, thinking,and culture of the Roma, as well as the in−creased social gap between the Roma and themajority population, the Roma’s difficulty inadapting to the standards of society, and their

ZUZANA KOLLÁROVÁ

THE ROMA DURINGTHE FIRST CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC,THE SECOND CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC,AND THE FIRST SLOVAK STATE

resistance of the permanent attempts to “in−tegrate” them into society. The living condi−tions of the Roma were influenced mainly bythe laws adopted, their relationship to themajority population, and their willingness toadapt to the majority society (Bačová, 1994).

POLITICAL ANDLEGAL TREATMENT OFTHE ROMA BY THE STATE

ADOPTION OFAUSTRO−HUNGARIAN LEGISLATION

The period after the First World War was atest for the young Czechoslovak republic.One of the government’s main tasks was toprepare a new Constitution. While it was inthe end prepared according to the 1875French Constitution, several laws and regu−lations originating from Austria−Hungarywere also retained (Slovensko. Dejiny, 1978).

The most important legal norm pertaining tothe Roma was the official ruling of the Vi−enna Interior Ministry on nomadic Gypsies,dated September 14, 1888. Its repressiveprovisions pushed both the nomadic and thesettled Roma to the outskirts of society. Theruling was valid until 1927 in Bohemia,while in Slovakia and Ruthenia the relation−ship with the Roma was regulated accordingto the Ugrian body of law (with a Hungarianorientation); the provisions of the Vienna

36 Z u z a n a K o l l á r o v á

ruling applied from 1918 till 1927. The rul−ing was the formal basis for the modificationof legislation pertaining to the Roma issueafter 1921 (Nečas, 1981).

In 1918 the Interior Ministry took over a cir−cular from the Hungarian Royal InteriorMinistry on statistics and registration of theRoma after the Czechoslovak Republic hadalready been declared; however, it was stillnot clear how the situation in Slovakia wouldevolve.1

SOCIAL POSITION OF THE ROMAAFTER THE FORMATION OFTHE CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC

At the time the independent CzechoslovakRepublic was declared, the Roma were com−pletely indifferent to developments, duemainly to their inferior social position andlack of education. Archive documents regis−ter cases of abuse of the Roma by Hungar−ian government circles to instigate ethnichatred (Kollárová, 1988).

The growing economic crisis in Czechoslo−vakia was paralleled by the growth of thepoorest class of people, of which the Romaundoubtedly were part. Their population wasincreasing, as was crime and the number ofunhygienic Roma colonies. Many com−plaints were filed with the Ministry for theAdministration of Slovakia, demanding asolution to the Roma issue. The greatestproblems were caused by the nomadic andwandering Roma coming from Hungary andRumania.

MEASURES AGAINSTTHE NOMADIC ROMA

The Czechoslovak minister for the adminis−tration of Slovakia, in a circular dated August

31, 1921, advised all regional governors toproceed according to the principles set in theattached decrees. He stated that: “The situa−tion in Slovakia differs from the situation inCzech territory, because in Slovakia, unlikein the Czech Republic, there are many set−tled Roma (...) Despite that, we have to pre−vent the influx of Roma from abroad, espe−cially from Hungary.”2

In 1924, the Regional Political Administra−tion in Prague prepared an alphabetical listof Roma with permanent residence on Czechterritory. In 1925, the Interior Ministry tried– unfortunately to no avail – to prepare asimilar list for Slovakia. However, thesemeasures could not remove the causes of thebackward way of life and the criminalbehavior of the Roma, which included lackof employment, housing, and education.Every measure taken, rather than addressingthe basic problems, aimed to facilitate thework of the security forces.

New legal regulations were prepared inPrague from 1922 to 1926, but never enteredinto force. A definitive “listing” (a sort ofcensus) of the Roma was to be performed byJuly 1, 1927. To assure that the listing wasprecise, police stations were assigned addi−tional personnel in areas with many Roma.As 1926 gave way to 1927, the relationshipbetween the Roma and the majority popula−tion worsened. One of the reasons was “therevelation of Roma crime in the town of Mol−dava nad Bodvou” (Kollárová, 1992).

The evidence gathered was used to preparethe Law on Wandering Gypsies, which wasapproved on July 14, 1927. The law definedthe term “wandering Gypsy”, obliged theRoma to register themselves, allowed theauthorities to check their identities in differ−ent ways, introduced Gypsy identificationpapers for people older than 14, limited theterms of itinerancy and the use of the itiner−

37T h e R o m a D u r i n g t h e F i r s t C z e c h o s l o v a k R e p u b l i c , t h e S e c o n d C z e c h o s l o v a k R e p u b l i c . . .

ancy permit, prohibited the use of weaponsand itinerancy in groups larger than one fam−ily, obliged the Roma to build camps only inplaces allocated for this purpose by munici−pal mayors, prohibited the stay of foreignRoma in the Czechoslovak Republic, al−lowed the entry of the Roma to be prohibitedin certain places, introduced new rules per−taining to the health of people and animals,and allowed children younger than 18 yearsto be taken from their parents and placed inhomes.

An executive order was added to this law bythe government on April 26, 1928. The cabi−net order dealt in detail with the listing andkeeping of records on wandering Gypsies,Gypsy identification papers, itinerancy per−mits, the removal of children from their par−ents’ care, and the cooperation of municipali−ties. The law was also complemented by or−ders from the relevant ministries.3 The lawset an example for other countries in Centraland Southeastern Europe to follow. The factthat some concepts were not defined made itpossible to proceed not only against the no−madic Roma, but also against the settledRoma. The law expressed the huge gap be−tween the majority population and the Roma,the absence of political rights for the Roma,and the presence of discrimination againstthem (Nečas, 1981; Horváthová, 1964; Jam−nická−Šmerglová, 1955; Gecelovský, 1986,1992). An amendment to the governmentexecutive order dated May 15, 1928 estab−lished the Center for Records on WanderingGypsies in Prague.

The law was modified according to the needsof various regions by the orders of districtauthorities. In the Spiš region, the law’s pro−visions were modified to prohibit entry byRoma into:1. all municipalities in the area of the High

Tatras mountains;2. all spa health resorts.4

Exceptions were given only to Roma musi−cians. The Roma did not attempt to unite ingroups or political parties. Individual dis−plays of resistance were quickly put down,and the Roma were imprisoned far more fre−quently than members of the majority popu−lation (Kollárová, 1987). The regional courtin Bratislava, in an order dated March 31,1932, ordered all district authorities, policecommissariats and directorates to pay dueattention to the nomadic Roma, and to limittheir itinerancy in the interest of public safety(Gecelovský, 1992).

MEASURES AGAINST THE ROMAAFTER THE FORMATION OFTHE SLOVAK STATE

Under the influence of Nazi Germany, theSlovak WWII Nazi−puppet government un−der Jozef Tiso approached the Roma issue farmore vigorously than the interwar govern−ment. After the arrival of fascism in Slovakiain 1938, the position of the Roma remainedslightly better than in Bohemia. The law onstate citizenship, dated September 25, 1939,divided Slovak citizens into two groups –state citizens and foreign elements. Jewscould not hold state citizenship under anycircumstances, and as for the Roma, twoapproaches were taken:1. If it could be proven beyond a doubt that

the Roma lived an orderly family life, hada permanent abode and a job in the munici−pality, and if, based on their upbringing,moral and political reliability, and publicactions, they had achieved the level ofregular citizenship, then they could be apart of the Slovak nation.

2. If they did not meet the criteria, or metthem only partly, worked only occasion−ally, spoke Romany, and their moral andpolitical reliability were in doubt, thenthey could not be considered members ofthe Slovak nation.


The first regulations against the Roma dur−ing the period of the Slovak WWII State wereincluded in circular No. 190, issued by thedistrict authority in Bratislava on June 23,1939, and calling for the confinement of theRoma to their home municipalities, banningtrading with horses and the tapping, sale, andserving of alcoholic beverages to the Roma(Nečas, 1981).

On the basis of a motion by the GendarmeHeadquarters, an outline was prepared of agovernment bill on wandering Gypsies andvagabonds. The bill was based on the 1927Wandering Gypsy Law and the 1928 govern−ment order, and aimed to include the Roma inthe labor process. For various reasons, the lawwas not submitted for approval (Nečas, 1981).

Discriminatory measures continued with theadoption of the Military Law on January 18,1940, which deprived the Roma and Jews ofthe possibility to become soldiers. Those al−ready in the army were to be dismissed andstripped of their military rank.

On February 29, 1940, the National DefenseMinistry issued an order according to whichthe Roma and Jews were dismissed from thearmy. They received the designation “WorkerGypsy (Jew) out of active service” on theirfiles, which were stored with the district head−quarters or transferred to the records of infan−try regiments No. 1 and 9. The soldiers weredismissed on January 31, 1940 and transferredto special records by April 15, 1940. On April17, 1940, the National Defense Ministry is−sued an order with instructions on how todetermine who was a Gypsy (Roma). On June18, 1940, the Interior Ministry declared thatall people having two Gypsy parents and liv−ing a nomadic way of life, or those settled butavoiding work, were Gypsies (Nečas, 1988).

Interior Ministry Decree No. 163 on Regu−lating the Situation of the Gypsies5 dated

April 20, 1941 abolished itinerancy permits,and ordered all nomadic Roma to return totheir home municipalities, to remove anydwellings near busy roads, and to find work(Nečas, 1988; Kollárová, 1987). In 1944, theInterior Ministry prohibited the Roma fromtraveling by train.

May 29, 1940 saw the issue of Decree No.130/1940 Coll. With the Powers of a LawTemporarily Regulating the Labor Obliga−tion of the Jews and the Roma. This decreebecame – beside other things – the basis forthe definition of the notion of a Gypsy. Of thetypes of concentration camps proposed, onlycenters and labor units of “Aryan AntisocialElements” were actually set up.

The anti−Roma measures peaked when theRoma were sent to labor camps. Pursuant toan Interior Ministry decree dated April 2,1941, the country’s labor centers were re−served for Jews who had been excluded fromthe economy, while the labor camps weremeant mainly for the Roma. Using experi−ence that had been gained with Aryan Anti−social Elements labor units, the Slovak gov−ernment opened its labor units in 1942. Anew regulation on the organization of thelabor units was published in Úradné noviny(Official Newspaper) as Decree No. 419/1942. The first labor units were establishedin 1941 in the villages of Očová and Most naOstrove. The Roma were sent to concentra−tion camps in 1942, especially the “East Slo−vak labor units” headquartered in the townof Hanušovce nad Topľou. In 1942 and 1943,a Slovakia−wide selection and recording of“antisocial persons” was carried out (Nečas,1976; Fedič, 2001).

Political, social, and ethnic oppression en−couraged the formation of an antifascistmovement that near the end of the war trans−formed into the Slovak National Uprising.The Roma fought together with the army and


the partisans, but unfortunately, the onlysources proving this are lists of soldiers killedin action. The Roma were among those killedin the following municipalities: Kremnička,Nemecká, Kováčová, Štubňa, Dolná Bzová,Dolné Hámre, Dolný Turček, Kríž nad Hro−nom, and Slatina. In the village of Čierny Ba−log, the Roma were burned to death togetherwith their houses, and in the town of Krupi−na, the German troops slaughtered all theRoma. Several Roma were also executed inthe municipalities of Tisovec, Žiar nad Hro−nom, Lutila, and Poprad−Kvetnica (Nečas,1988; Davidová, 1965; Kollárová, 1992; Po−liaková, 1999).

DEMOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT

The exact number of Roma that lived in theCzechoslovak Republic is not known. Ac−cording to estimates, roughly 70,000 Romalived in the Republic in 1918 (Nečas, 1994).The results of official population censuseswere lower than the estimated numbers, aspeople could state basically any nationalitythey chose. The state administration at−tempted to perform a population census fo−cusing on the Roma before the Republic wasformed. The greatest problem was perform−ing an accurate count of the nomadic andforeign Roma.

The first population census was performedin 1921. Here, ethnicity was determined ac−cording to the respondent’s mother tongue.The results of the census were significantlybiased, as it provided completely differentdata than other censuses. As of February 15,1921, in the whole of Czechoslovakia, only8,028 people claimed Roma nationality, outof that 61 in the Czech Republic and 7,967in Slovakia and Ruthenia (Nečas, 1994).According to the Statistical Lexicon pub−lished in 1927, only 7,284 Roma lived onSlovak territory in 1921.

More precise data were provided by the reg−istration of the Roma according to their per−manent residence between 1922 and 1927.The listing was not completed in Slovakia,because the Roma from the XVI region werenot counted. According to the Regional Po−litical Administration in Prague, which com−piled the alphabetical list of Roma, Slovakiaalso strove to create a similar list. In a letterdated May 11, 1927, the Interior Ministry inBratislava informed the Interior Ministry inPrague that at the time there were 60,315settled and 1,877 nomadic Roma living inSlovakia. We may assume that the number ofsettled Roma was quite precise, but the lownumber of nomadic Roma is suspicious. Thenomadic Roma avoided these listings as bestthey could. Many had no identification pa−pers, and neither the state nor the ecclesias−tical registers kept a record of them. They didnot know the year or place of their birth, andstated several surnames (Horváthová, 1964).

As of December 1, 1930, 227 people claimedGypsy nationality in the Czech Republic, and31,148 in Slovakia and Ruthenia, for a grandtotal of 31,415 Roma (Nečas, 1994). Alleg−edly, 13,211 lived in eastern Slovakia (Da−vidová, 1965). It is estimated that before theRepublic broke up in 1938, around 110,000Roma lived in the whole of Czechoslovakia(Nečas, 1994); other historians report about100,000 Roma in 1945 (Horváthová, 1964).The war did not affect the Roma in Slovakiaas badly as it did in the Czech Republic. Therewere several reasons for this: many of theRoma in Slovakia lived a settled life, whileGermany considered Slovakia to be an ally.

RELATIONSHIP OFTHE MAJORITY POPULATION TOTHE ROMA

The relationship of the majority populationto the Roma evolved slowly, varying accord−


ing to time and location, and differing in re−lation to the settled and the nomadic Roma.While in 1921 the regional governor of Spišreported that most of the local Roma wereworking on farms, in forests, and in construc−tion, and that only a few Roma were prob−lematic, the region of Orava reported thatwandering Roma had not been seen in Oravaterritory since the upheaval. The region ofTrenčín, meanwhile, complained of nomadicRoma (Horváthová, 1964). Despite the vari−ations, most Roma remained on the outskirtsof society, especially due to their poverty,lifestyle, and the laws in force.

PROFESSION AS THE KEYTO ACCEPTANCE

Roma craftsmen had a special position insociety. Craft skills were often the reason thatentire families were permitted to settle.Blacksmiths, who performed a lot of work(shoeing horses, making chains, nails, etc.)in the villages, were much sought after. So−ciety also showed respect for Roma musi−cians (Mann, 1992; Drenko, 1997). As theRoma population grew, however, these tra−ditional crafts were unable to provide a liv−ing for all Roma. And so the Roma resortedto other, usually less skilled work. For exam−ple, in 1927, in 25 villages in the central Slo−vakia district of Levoča, the Roma workedas day laborers (26.2%), homemakers(23.8%), blacksmiths (6.2%), musicians(6.1%), farmers (4.68%), brick makers(2.4%) and miners (0.82%). Other occupa−tions were rare – the jobs of servant, painter,locksmith, barber, caretaker, school servant,pig herder, bricklayer’s helper, and horsemerchant employed a combined 2.6% ofRoma. Only 5.57% of the Roma lived frombegging.6

Based on archival documents, it appears thatthe Roma were making quite strenuous at−

tempts to integrate with the majority popu−lation at that time. The prejudices of thepopulation and of employers were the onlyhindrance to greater employment of theRoma. In the High Tatras, for example, theowners of recreational facilities traded wastefat and scrap food for eggs and forest cropsgathered by the Roma. “It is true that someGypsies work in the High Tatras all yearlong, they are polite, and it would be a pityto dismiss them. If the Gypsies are prohib−ited from working in the High Tatras, mostwill apply for welfare benefits, but if it isnecessary not to have the Gypsies and theirfamily members in the Tatras, then we mustcompletely bar them from this area.”7

MEASURES TO ADDRESSROMA POVERTY

Society tried to remove the most blatant andgrievous social shortcomings in differentways. According to the 1886 law, the munici−palities were obliged to take care of theirpoor, a duty they tried to shirk in a numberof ways. As of November 15, 1940, Slovakmunicipalities registered 32,575 people thathad to be taken care of (more than 12% of theentire population). Some 8,939 of these, ormore than a quarter, were Roma. To take careof the needs of these people, 10,471,283crowns were allocated, or a minute 88 halersper person per day. As the whole of Slovakiahad only 206 poorhouses for a total of 2,878people, they naturally could not shelter eve−ryone in need of help. There were two kindsof beggars – the poorest Slovak people, whohad no option, and those who did not needto beg, but did so because they consideredbegging their profession. In 1940, Slovakiaofficially registered 10,763 beggars, ofwhom 7,599 were Roma (more than two−thirds). It was mainly Roma beggars whowere classified as “professional beggars”(Straka, 1941).


Isolated attempts to solve the problems of theRoma came from the League for the CulturalElevation of the Gypsies, established in 1929in Košice, and later renamed the Society forStudying and Solving the Gypsy Issue. Thegroup was built around a nucleus of physi−cians from Košice, headed by Doctor Jaro−slav Stuchlík. The League performed mainlycultural and social activities, depending onthe financial support and subsidies it re−ceived. It organized medical checkups, vac−cinations, and treatments for the Roma, itestablished the first Roma schools in thetowns of Užhorod, Košice, Humenné and Le−voča, and it also established several theaterand musical groups. In the 1930s it even es−tablished a football club called ŠK Roma(Davidová, 1965; Horváthová, 1964).

The education of children presented a seri−ous problem. The oldest mentions of Romaschools come from Ruthenia from the year1926. Similar institutions were established inthe Spiš region in eastern Slovakia. On De−cember 15, 1927, the Ministry of Educationand National Culture passed a decree estab−lishing a special class for Roma children inthe village of Ľubica. This class used normalcurricula, but the demands on students weresomewhat lower. The first teacher of the classwas František Přikryl, who started to teachon January 16, 1928 in the presence of thegendarmes. Between 1928 and 1938, schoolswere established in Smižany, Levoča, Jablo−nov, Bystany, Levočské Lúky, Dvorce, Ma−chalovce, Jánovce, Gánovce and Nová Lesná(Kollárová, 1992).

THE ROMA WAY OF LIFEAFTER 1918

The traditional Roma way of life did notchange much after the formation of theCzechoslovak Republic. They lived dis−persed among the rest of the population, as

well as in large, isolated concentrations nearlarger towns and villages. Besides the settledRoma, Slovak territory became a populardestination for nomadic Roma.

The settled Roma usually built their dwell−ings out of whatever material was easiest toobtain – in mountainous areas it was wood,while elsewhere, shacks made of mud ormud−bricks, sheds with straw roofs, and sim−ple mud houses were used (dwellings setpartially into the ground). The interiors weresimple, and dirty. There were no sanitaryfacilities, toilets, garbage pits, or wells withdrinking water. The concentration of peoplewas extremely high in such dwellings, oftenone person per square meter (Davidová,1961). The nomadic Roma lived most oftheir lives in horse−drawn wagons coveredwith canvas. Only a few traveled on foot andcamped in tents (Nečas, 1981). Not all Romawere satisfied with their fate, and many askedpermission to build houses outside Romasettlements.

An important role in the Roma communitywas played by the “vajda”. Initially, thesepeople were the leaders of the group, theirpositions based on ability and property.During the First Czechoslovak Republic,the municipal authorities began to meddlewith the selection of the “vajda”, who wasremunerated for his work both in kind andfinancially. All information about this proc−ess was gathered by the Interior Ministry,which emphasized the subordination of the“vajda” to municipal mayors (Kollárová,1992).

Among the Roma population, just as amongthe entire Czechoslovak population, womenprevailed over men. The ratio between menand women was 1,000 to 1,044, respec−tively, in Slovakia, and 1,000 to 1,063 in theCzech Republic (Nečas, 1981; Kolláro−vá,1989).


Table 1Age structure of the Roma according to the1922 to 1927 head counts

��

��2�.�� -��3�.�� 4��,-�.�� ,/��,5�.�� ,5�.��

Source: Nečas, 1994; Kollárová, 1989.

Unsuitable living conditions caused manyparasitic and contagious diseases. This wasyet another reason for the majority popula−tion to exclude the Roma. Frequent illnessesincluded intestinal (typhoid fever), parasitic(scabies, lice), and infectious complaints (flu,tuberculosis), which were disseminated inschools. Doctors usually refused to visitRoma settlements, so the Roma usually hadto cure themselves. The death rate of Romachildren rose as a result (Horváthová, 1964;Kollárová, 1987; Lacková, 1988).

The Roma’s unfavorable social position re−sulted in crime. The most frequent offenceswere petty theft, fraud, burglary, and assault.Brawls among the Roma were also quitecommon.

The misbehavior of the Roma increased dis−content in the majority population, whichsometimes resulted in spontaneous reactions,such as murder. One example of this was “theSpiš massacre”, where in 1933, in the villageof Spišské Bystré, a rampaging crowd de−molished an entire Roma settlement becauseits inhabitants had refused to play music at avillage celebration. In 1924, Roma were at−tacked in the village of Markušovce for steal−ing crops (Kollárová, 1992).

Archival data show that 98 to 99% of theRoma were illiterate. They usually claimedthe same religion as the majority populationaround them. The Roma held no special cul−tural activities of their own, but participated

in celebrations, performed at festive events,acted, recited, sang, and so on. The mostsought after were Roma musicians, whowere a must at high−society balls and luxu−rious cafés, as can be seen from the adver−tisements in contemporary newspapers (Kol−lárová, 1989).

CONCLUSION

The interwar Czechoslovak Republic wasunable to integrate the Roma into the major−ity population in a satisfactory manner. The1927 Law on Wandering Gypsies continuedthe legal persecution used in Austria−Hun−gary at the end of the 19th century, and rep−resented the first anti−Roma law in theCzechoslovak Republic. The governmentfocused mainly on administrative and repres−sive measures against the Roma. The situa−tion peaked from 1938 to 1945, when theRoma were gathered into labor units. Theincreasingly repressive measures taken in theSecond World War further lowered the mis−erable quality of the Roma’s lives.

ENDNOTES

1. The letter of the Hungarian Royal Minister con−tained the following wording: “My predecessorsdefined the basic measures pertaining to thesettlement of the nomadic Roma and their obli−gation to work in circulars No. 1500/1916 and151041/1917 (Interior Ministry 1916 No. 5671and 1917 No. 18471). Besides the circulars, theyalso collected data important for solving theGypsy issue. In connection with the war andother reasons, the data are now outdated. Giventhat the urgent Roma issue can only be solvedif we know the current situation of the Gypsies,some of whom were registered, others unregis−tered, and during the last head count not in−cluded, I consider it important to statisticallyprocess and thoroughly check the status as ofNovember 1, 1918.” (State Regional Archive inLevoča: SŽ – hlav. žup. – adm. 2460/1918)


2. State District Archive in Levoča: OÚ Levočaadm. 4837/1921.

3. State District Archive in Levoča: OÚ Levočaadm. 10510/1928, 2149/1929.

4. State District Archive in Stará Ľubovňa: OÚStará Ľubovňa 176/1930.

5. State District Archive in Poprad: OÚ Poprad2702/1928.

6. State District Archive in Stará Ľubovňa: OÚPodolinec 1895/1941.

7. State District Archive in Levoča: OÚ Levoča5565/1927 adm.

8. State District Archive in Poprad: OÚ Poprad8197/1938.

REFERENCES

1. Bačová, Viera: “Etnické menšiny na Sloven−sku – Rómska menšina. Transformácia spo−ločnosti a etnické menšiny” [‘Ethnic Minori−ties in Slovakia – The Roma Minority. Trans−formation of Society and Ethnic Minorities’]in Zeľová, Anna et al: Minoritné etnické spo−ločenstvá na Slovensku v procese spoločen−ských zmien [Minority Ethnic Communities inSlovakia in the Process of Social Change](Bratislava: Veda, 1994).

2. Davidová, Eva: “K spôsobu bývania v cigán−skych osadách východného Slovenska” [‘Onthe Forms of Housing in the Gypsy Settle−ments of Eastern Slovakia’], Nové obzory, No.3, 1961, p. 289 – 312.

3. Davidová, Eva: Bez kolíb a šiatrov [WithoutSheds of Tents], (Košice: Východoslovenskénakladateľstvo, 1965).

4. Drenko, Jozef: Rómski – cigánski hudobníciz Lučenca a okolia [The Roma – Gypsy Mu−sicians from Lučenec and Surroundings], (Lu−čenec: Novohradské osvetové stredisko,1997).

5. Fedič, Vasil: Východoslovenskí Rómovia a II.svetová vojna [The Roma from Eastern Slo−vakia and the Second World War], (Humenné:Redos, 2001).

6. Gecelovský, Vladimír: “K niektorým aspek−tom perzekučných prejavov voči Cigánomv zákonodarstve buržoázneho Českosloven−ska s osobitným zreteľom na región Gemera”[‘On Some Aspects of Roma Persecution inthe Laws of Bourgeois Czechoslovakia with

a Special Focus on the Gemer Region], ObzorGemera, No. 1, 1986, p. 36 – 41.

7. Gecelovský, Vladimír: “Právne normy týka−júce sa Rómov a ich aplikácia v Gemeri (1918– 1938)” [‘Legal Regulations Pertaining tothe Roma and their Application in the Regionof Gemer (1918 – 1938)’] in Mann, Arne B.:Neznámi Rómovia [The Unknown Roma],(Bratislava: Ister Science Press, 1992).

8. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku[Gypsies in Slovakia], (Bratislava: Slovenskáakadémia vied, 1964).

9. Jamnická−Šmerglová, Zdeňka: Dějiny našichcikánů [The History of our Gypsies], (Prague:Orbis, 1955).

10. Kollárová, Zuzana: K cigánskej otázke na Spi−ši v rokoch 1918 – 1945 [On the Gypsy Issuein the Spiš Region from 1918 to 1945]. Mas−ter’s thesis, (Prešov: UPJŠ Philosophical Fac−ulty, 1987).

11. Kollárová, Zuzana: “K problematike cigán−skej otázky na Spiši (1918 – 1938)” [‘On theGypsy Issue in the Spiš Region (1918 –1938)’], Slovenský národopis, No. 1, 1988, p.137 – 147.

12. Kollárová, Zuzana: “K vývoju rómskej socié−ty na Spiši do roku 1945” [‘On the Develop−ment of Roma Society in the Spiš RegionUntil 1945’] in Mann, Arne B.: Neznámi Ró−movia [The Unknown Roma], (Bratislava:Ister Science Press, 1992, p. 61 – 73).

13. Lacková, Elena: “Ľudové liečenie olašskýchRómov na východnom Slovensku v minulos−ti” [‘Folk Medicine Among the VlachikaRoma in Eastern Slovakia in the Past’] inMann, Arne B.: Neznámi Rómovia [The Un−known Roma], (Bratislava: Ister SciencePress, 1992).

14. Mann, Arne B.: “Prvé výsledky výskumurómskeho kováčstva na Slovensku” [‘TheFirst Results of Roma Smithery Research inSlovakia’] in Mann, Arne B.: Neznámi Rómo−via. [The Unknown Roma], (Bratislava: IsterScience Press, 1992).

15. Nečas, Ctibor: “Pracovné útvary tzv. asociálůa cikánů na východním Slovensku v roce1942” [‘Labor Units of Antisocial Elementsand Gypsies in Eastern Slovakia in 1942’],Nové obzory, No. 17, 1976.

16. Nečas, Ctibor: Nad osudem českých a sloven−ských cikánů v létech 1939 – 1945 [About theFate of the Czech and Slovak Gypsies from


1939 to 1945], (Brno: J. E. Purkyně Univer−sity, 1981).

17. Nečas, Ctibor: Českoslovenští Romové v le−tech 1938 – 1945 [The Czechoslovak Romafrom 1938 to 1945], (Brno: Masaryk Univer−sity, 1994).

18. Nečas, Ctibor: “Pronásledování cikánů v ob−dobí slovenského státu” [‘The Persecution ofthe Gypsies During the Slovak State’], Slo−venský národopis, No. 1, 1988, p. 126 – 137.

19. Poliaková, Tatiana: Rómska populáciav procese historického vývoja [The RomaPopulation in the Process of Historical De−velopment], (Trnava: Trnava University,1999).

20. Slovensko. Dejiny [Slovakia: A History],(Bratislava: Obzor, 1978).

21. Straka, Ladislav: Ľudia odkázaní na verejnúpomoc [People Dependent on Public Help],(Bratislava, 1941).

45

Summary: This chapter is an overview of arelatively long period in the development andposition of the Roma in Slovakia. The sec−ond half of the 1940s was characterized byopen and permanent discrimination and per−secution of the Roma, despite isolated at−tempts to improve their situation. The sub−sequent era of communist social engineeringcan be divided into several stages, duringwhich the Roma were assimilated by oppres−sion disguised as a socially concerned andpaternal approach to the issue. The Roma hadan opportunity to form their own cultural andsocial structure only during the brief “re−vival” of communism, which, however, be−came merely another means of ethnic ma−nipulation.

Key words: assimilation, labor camps, list−ings, Gypsy identification papers, itinerancypermits, fingerprinting, social assimilation,forced assimilation, dispersal and relocation,socio−cultural integration, Union of Gypsies– Roma.

INTRODUCTION

The common features of the period examinedwere denial of ethnicity, political and legalrejection of the Roma community as an inde−pendent ethnic minority, and a split in aca−demic circles. State policy was not ready totackle this exceptionally important and sensi−tive issue, academic knowledge was lacking,and the attitudes formed in the interwar and

ANNA JUROVÁ

THE ROMA FROM 1945 UNTILNOVEMBER 1989

war period led to the “Gypsy issue” beingaddressed as a matter of elevating the socialand cultural level of a marginalized and basi−cally unwanted group of citizens. Post−wardevelopments led to the disintegration of theRoma’s cultural and moral values that hadbeen handed down within the family and clancommunity from generation to generation forcenturies. During the period examined, theRoma were never full citizens of the state,even though discrimination against them wasnot always visible from the outside.

CULMINATION OFREPRESSION AGAINST THE ROMAAT THE END OF THE 1940S

PERCEPTION OF THE ROMA’SPROBLEMS AS SOCIAL PROBLEMS

At the end of the war, the social, health, andhygienic situation of the Roma in Slovakiawas catastrophic, but unlike the CzechRoma, they had at least survived as a group,despite increasing anti−Roma measures andthe preparation of the “final solution”. Theenormous poverty, especially among the eastSlovak Roma, served to identify the prob−lems of the Roma as economic and social.The state administration certainly did notconsider the Roma issue a priority, but thecircumstances and the accumulation of theproblems of this ethnic group forced the stateto deal with the Roma sooner than it had in−tended. Expectations that the Roma would,


after being granted the same rights as othercitizens (Article V of the Košice GovernmentProgram), automatically integrate with thenew society, proved wrong. The Roma alsoentered the renewed Republic with manyexpectations and hopes of improving theirlives. As Milena Hübschmannová wrote,“phundriľa o Čechi – the Czech Republicopened”, and the migration of the Roma fromSlovakia, especially the country’s easternregion, to the Czech lands began immedi−ately after the war ended, or as other sourceswrote, the Roma followed the retreating frontline. The extent of the first spontaneous,uncoordinated movement of Roma into theCzech lands is not known, but the positivereports sent home by the first “reconnais−sance” journeys of Roma men led to the de−parture of a growing number of Roma(Hübschmannová, 1995).

USE OF ROMA INTHE POST−WAR RECOVERY

The attempts of the Interior Ministry to “in−clude the Roma in community work” (decreeof June 1945) forced the Roma to seek jobs,and encouraged the Slovak bodies to silentlytolerate the departure of the Roma for Czechterritory. The number of Roma in Slovakiagrew after the southern lands that had beenannexed by Hungary were returned to Slo−vakia. The Roma had been pushed out to thissouthern territory by the Decree of the Re−gional Authority of November 2, 1938.There is evidence that official Czech bodies,namely the Interior Ministry and the Minis−try of Labor and Social Care, from 1945 to1947 prepared a government order establish−ing a three−level system of labor camps forthe Roma, where the Roma were to be sortedinto groups, and alleged “foreign” Romawould be deported across the border. In con−nection with this plan, a listing (census) ofRoma was prepared in 1947. The Czech au−

thorities attributed all illegal activity that wastaking place in the cross−border area to “an−tisocial” Roma (smuggling, burglary ofhouses that had belonged to Germans whohad been sent packing). The authorities facedthe dilemma of finding a way to employ theSlovak Roma (they proved very useful inremoving debris in Prague) without havingto look after them permanently, and withouthaving to let them settle permanently in theCzech lands. Complaints poured in that“Gypsy trains” were still arriving steadily,when in reality the Roma were being forcedto move from place to place all the time.Preparation of an immediate ban on itiner−ancy was seen as the immediate goal.

TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TOTHE ROMA BY THE STATE

The attitude of official Slovak bodies and thatof the majority population to “their Gypsies”differed. On the one hand a social and chari−table approach was taken, according towhich the Roma as the direct victims of warpersecution received help from the state tosolve their employment, housing, and otherproblems. On the part of the state officers,their sympathy for the Roma occasionallyresulted in tolerance of offences by theRoma. Their mixed attitudes were also dueto their fear of being accused of racism. Thus,the Roma came to be accommodated in thehouses of dislodged Germans, such as inChvojnica (Prievidza district), Knešov (Krem−nica district) and in the region of Spiš; theyalso received food−coupons and clothes cou−pons, and political parties publicly took theirside because they were not allowed to par−ticipate in the 1946 elections – the reasonbeing their Gypsy nationality, which they hadvoluntarily claimed.

On the other hand, there is evidence thatongoing discrimination, persecution, enor−

47T h e R o m a f r o m 1 9 4 5 u n t i l N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 9

mous prejudice, and aversion prevailed overpositive approaches, and that the social andeconomic expulsion of the Roma from mu−nicipalities and regions continued. Thestate’s greatest problem was finding a wayto disguise this repression. The Roma wereautomatically credited with antisocialbehavior as one of their basic ethnic charac−teristics. With that in mind, several articlesof the 1927 Law on Wandering Gypsies wereput into practice (deportations, introductionof itinerancy permits, Gypsy identificationpapers, fingerprinting, limits on movement,prohibition of residence) (Jurová, 1996).Presidential decree No. 88/1945 on the mo−bilization of the labor force, the 1935 Law onthe Treatment of Unwanted Foreigners,many internal directives of the Interior Min−istry against illegal trade, begging, vagrancy,poaching, etc., and various measures by dis−trict authorities provided the basis for awhole range of measures against the Roma(Jurová, 1996).

THE LAW ON LABOR CAMPS ASA MEANS OF PRESSURINGTHE ROMA

Pressure was also exerted on the Roma pur−suant to order No. 105/1945 of the SlovakNational Council (SNC) on labor camps. TheRoma were duly assembled in camps in thefollowing municipalities: Megová Dolina,Ústie nad Oravou, Tichá Dolina, and Kraľo−vany (Jurová, 1993). Antisocial people and“layabouts” (meaning the Roma in particu−lar) were also assembled in camps after theirtransformation into labor units in 1947, andthe adoption of the 1948 Law on ForcedLabor Camps. Recent research of the crimesof the communist regime 247/1948 Coll. onForced Labor Campsorme Dolina, gainstKremnica) and in the region of Spiš), theahasshown that from 1945 to 1953, some 9,000to 10,000 people worked in these camps.

In the context of the Roma’s persecution inSlovakia, the results of the listing performedaccording to the Interior Ministry decree ofJuly 14, 1947, were very surprising to thenationalist Czech public, which accused theRoma of vagrancy, idleness and so on. Leg−islative proposals to assemble the Roma incamps had to be rejected as “politically un−acceptable” in the new political environment,but the listing was performed in the Czechlands in August 1947, and in Slovakia inearly 1948. The listing determined that101,190 Gypsies/Roma lived in Czechoslo−vakia as a whole, of that number 16,752 inthe Czech Republic and 84,438 in Slovakia.During the summer, when the Roma traveledfor work to the Czech Republic, employmentamong Roma men hit almost 95%, comparedto 81% among women (entire families wereemployed in demolition and removing de−bris, which was also a way for them to ac−quire building material). The employment ofRoma women in Slovakia was lower, espe−cially in families with many children, anddue to general lack of job opportunities (Ju−rová, 1996).

ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OFROMA SETTLEMENTS

In connection with the issue of allegedly il−legal Roma settlements, and to illustrate therepressive measures taken against the Romaby the state administration, we should lookat one of the first measures to be amendedfrom the war period. On May 24, 1945, theInterior Ministry published an amended de−cree named Regulation of the Situation of theGypsies, which ordered: “In municipalitieswhere the Roma’s dwellings are next to pub−lic and state roads, the dwellings are to beremoved and located outside the village in aremote place to be specified by the munici−pality”1 (Jurová, 1996). In the after−war pe−riod, the forced expulsion of the Roma from


municipalities continued, and state bodiesconvicted themselves of illegal practices af−ter some of the Roma lodged complaints.They summoned the courage to defend theirrights after houses were removed that hadbeen built legally on their own land.

REACTION OF THE ROMA TOTHE REPRESSION

Although the repression against the Romalasted until the end of the 1940s, the Romathemselves expected things to change, andwelcomed the events of February 1948,when the communists seized power. Littleresearch has been done of the participationof the Roma in anti−fascist combat, or of therole of the Roma in the army’s defeat of thefascists, but it is known that since the end ofwar, part of the Roma community supportedthe communists, and some even joined theCommunist Party (Lacková, 1997). TheRoma viewed the proclaimed task of “build−ing communism” as removing the wrongs ofthe past. Some Roma welcomed and evendemanded social support and charity fromthe state, but at the same time, this policycontributed to the growth of negative traitsamong the Roma, and led them to demandthings they were not entitled to receive.

As the assembly of the Roma into forcedlabor camps intensified, the Interior Minis−try received more and more complaints fromthe Roma alleging violations of their inten−tional rights, persecution, unfoundeddeportations, and constant pressure to acceptGypsy identification papers. The Ministry, ina decree dated October 4, 1948, warned itssubordinate bodies that the wartime decreeswere invalid, and prohibited the use of Gypsyidentification papers (the requirement thatthe Roma carry an identity card was to suf−fice for registration purposes and the protec−tion of the public interest).2

THE COMMUNIST REGIMEAND ITS RESPONSE TOTHE ROMA ISSUE ATTHE OUTSET OF THE 1950s

FROM DISCRIMINATION TOTHE FIRST ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESSTHE ROMA’S SOCIALBACKWARDNESS

In the early 1950s, at a time when ethnicpolicy inspired by Marxist theory about eth−nic groups began to be put into practice, statepolicy towards the Roma was defined, re−maining unchanged for several decades. Byabolishing the 1927 Law on Wandering Gyp−sies in 1950, the last piece of discriminatorylegislation against the Roma was removed;however, this did not make the Roma equalcitizens. In the showdown between the eth−nic and social approaches to the issue, thepossibility to form and develop a Roma com−munist ethnic minority was denied, and thepaternalist approach of social assistance,“protection” and “removal of Gypsy back−wardness” through state intervention andmanipulation carried the day.

In the early 1950s, the top state bodies enforceda demand for a universal solution to the Romaissue, despite resistance from municipal offi−cials, who expected the socio−economic posi−tion of Roma families and the Roma issue tobe solved in the process of the industrializationand socialization of Slovakia. The debateshighlighted the contradictory approaches to theRoma issue of the two opposing groups.

ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORTTHE ETHNIC DEVELOPMENT OFTHE ROMA

Advocates of support for the development ofthe Roma nation and language hailed mostlyfrom the fields of education, culture, and sci−


ence (which was the first to begin research−ing the Roma issue). The Department of Ori−ental Studies at the Czechoslovak Academyof Sciences established a committee for thedevelopment of Romany, while the NationalInstitute performed the first collection of ma−terials and field research on settlements andRoma culture. Many Slovakia−wide eventsorganized by teachers and various activistsengaged in cultural and educational assimila−tory work were held. Members of the Writers’Union also criticized the suppression of theRoma’s ethnic and language rights, and sup−ported the development and use of Romanyin schools and cultural activities, and the es−tablishment of a department for academic re−search into Romany (Jurová, 1966).

The argument used to support this approachwas that during the 1920s and 1930s, a simi−lar approach had been taken in the SovietUnion in connection with smaller nations andethnic groups, in which the national independ−ence of the Roma had been acknowledged aswell. In addition, Roma collective farms andsmall cooperatives had been established, landhad been allocated to them (this was not thebest idea), some Roma books and journals hadbeen published, and two Roma theaters hadbeen established. Supporters of the Roma eth−nic identity concept backed up their propos−als by pointing to the Stalinist ethnic policyof the 1920s. The consequences and damagesthat this policy in reality caused, as well as thebanishment of the Roma to gulags, were notdiscovered until much later, and were un−known to the defenders of the Roma.

CONSIDERATIONS ONTHE USE OF ROMANY ASA TEACHING LANGUAGE

The opening of the archives of the CentralCommittee of the Communist Party ofCzechoslovakia confirmed that the ideology

department had presented many proposalsand requests to different officials of the Com−munist Party to issue a textbook of Romany.Such a work had been prepared in 1953 bythe Moravian teacher Antonín Daniel (Juro−vá, 2000).

The cultural and social gap between the ma−jority population, the Roma, and other mi−norities in rural eastern Slovakia, as well asdifferences between their housing and hy−giene, were not so great in the early 1950s.Entire villages in northeast Slovakia that hadbeen destroyed in the war were rebuilt usingmud bricks made by the Roma (Jurová,1993; Jurová, 1989).3 If their ethnic and lan−guage differences had been accepted, Romachildren could have attended schools as suc−cessfully as any other children, as their en−vironment and knowledge were basically thesame at the time. The 1950s clearly show thatRomany could have been used in health edu−cation, cultural work, the activity of the firstensembles, the preparation of Roma journals,cultural and educational institutions, and theactivities of school employees.

In view of the content of school curricula atthe beginning of the 1950s, it would certainlyhave been possible to prepare text−books anduse Romany in the education of Roma chil−dren in school, and in academic research andsupport for the development of the language.Romany stood a real chance of being used asa means of communication, a medium ofteaching, and a tool in the ethnic identification,emancipation, and cultural development of theRoma. While political decisions prevented orexplicitly prohibited the use and developmentof this minority language, it is clear that ex−tensive ethnographic research was performed,and that linguistic research continued.

The language handicap of Roma children,which was increasingly confused with men−tal retardation, led a growing number of


Roma children to be transferred to “specialschools” for the mentally handicapped. As aconsequence of this policy, several consecu−tive generations of Roma attended specialschools. These people today represent anarmy of unskilled and unemployed membersof the Roma minority.

PROPOSALS TO CREATEINDEPENDENT TERRITORIES WITHROMA INHABITANTS

Debate in the early 1950s also touched onother solutions to the Gypsy issue. Propos−als were heard that independent territories becreated with Roma inhabitants, starting withthe creation of municipalities with their ownofficials and intelligentsia (of the sort thatsaid: “Let’s transfer the Roma near somebrick factory and keep them occupiedthere”), and ending with sending the Romato populate regions that were short of labor(such as the proposal of the Regional Munici−pality in Ostrava to settle the region of Oso−blažsko). Proposals like these envisaged thecreation of territories populated almost ex−clusively by the Roma (Jurová, 1996).

POLICY OF SOCIAL ASSIMILATIONDURING THE 1950s

CREATION AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE “UNIVERSAL SOLUTION” TOTHE “GYPSY ISSUE”

As we noted above, as of 1949 the InteriorMinistry operated a joint committee that heldregular sessions of ministers to prepare a uni−versal solution to the Gypsy issue. The min−isters used the argument of the backward wayof life of the Roma, their economic depend−ence, and overall social and cultural primitiv−ism over and over again. Since the end of thewar, of course, even if the Roma had wanted

and had been able to solve their housing andsocial problems, they had not been allowed todo so. Instead, they were concentrated in iso−lated settlements that did not allow them tocomplete the necessary changes to their wayof life. The committee, however, criticized thesteady migration of the Roma to the CzechRepublic, and the crimes committed in thecourse of this migration (Jurová, 1996).

By withdrawing the Roma’s trade certificates(which had allowed them to practice a tradeas self−employed people), canceling theirmusicians’ licenses, prohibiting them fromperforming wage labor for private farmers (inorder to speed up the collectivization andsocialization of the countryside), and prohib−iting small crafts in the early 1950s, the statedeprived the Roma of the last remnants oftheir material culture and their last forms ofsubsistence. After that, the Roma were usedin the state sector according to the labor re−cruitment needs set by the Five−Year Plans.They became unskilled laborers in physicallydemanding professions like construction,mining, and community work in towns. The“Vlachika Roma” did not respect the orderto settle permanently, and henceforth becamedoor to door salesmen, thus filling the gapleft by the insufficient infrastructure.

REJECTING THE IMPORTANCE OFLANGUAGE AND CULTURE

At inter−ministerial meetings, arguments werepresented against “overestimating the Gypsylanguage and culture, leading to the furtherisolation of the Gypsies, and encouragingthem to stick to their old way of life and think−ing”. As E. Bacíková from the Ministry ofInformation and Education said: “The crown−ing folly of the entire solution is the proposalthat the denomination ‘person of Gypsy orCentral Indian origin’ be used in official com−munications, because the Gypsies are


ashamed of their name.”4 Acceptance of theRoma’s identity and ethnicity was refusedagain, and the guiding principle for solvingthe “Gypsy issue” remained assimilation andchanging their primitive way of life.

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE“ON THE REFORM OF CONDITIONSFOR GYPSY PEOPLE”

The Roma assimilation concept finally tooklegal shape in the Interior Ministry directiveOn the Reform of Conditions for Gypsy Peo−ple, dated March 5, 1952. In accordance withthis directive, the Roma were to be assimilatedthrough municipalities and state enterprises,by integrating them into the labor process,providing them with suitable housing, increas−ing the school attendance of Roma children,preventing discrimination in everyday life,and through propaganda and agitation. Basedon this program, research began into Romasettlements, medical checkups were started,and activists were recruited for working withthe Roma. When the social program was putinto practice, however, it quickly ran intoproblems. People began complaining of the“Vlachika Roma”, and of the mass transportof Roma all over the Republic, from one dis−trict to another, with the assistance of the po−lice. The local inhabitants often feared evento go to work when large groups of Romawere passing through their districts, and no−madic groups of Roma were even attacked.

While Czech official bodies increasingly dealtwith the issues of “wandering people” and thedefinitive ban on itinerancy, the Slovak bodieswere confronted with deepening social, health,and hygiene problems in Roma settlements.Despite the worsening situation, the Romawere not allowed to build houses on the terri−tory of the majority population, and accordingto research by Milena Hübschmannová, therewere even cases of Roma houses being pulled

down, and Roma families attacked when theytried to integrate with the majority.

LIQUIDATION OFROMA SETTLEMENTS

At the urging of the Health Ministry, and onthe basis of a decree by the Committee ofRepresentatives, extensive research was car−ried out in Roma settlements in the mid−1950s. These settlements were classified asconcentrations of undesirable lifestyles, andhothouses of infectious disease. They werealso identified as the causes of the isolationand primitive development of the Roma.

Some 1,305 isolated settlements were sur−veyed, containing 14,935 dwellings and95,092 Roma. Instead of removing the rem−nants of the post−war discriminatory policythat had forced the Roma out of their homemunicipalities, and instead of recreating theoriginal, natural Roma communities, theCommittee of Representatives, in its DecreeNo. 39 dated September 18, 1956, ordered theRegional Flat and Civic Construction Admin−istration to reconstruct the most backwardRoma settlements using state support (loansand subsidies, state housing policy, the settle−ment of areas near the border, and the recruit−ment of men to work in the mines, which wasconnected with the departure of the entire fam−ily and the allotment of a state flat). Therewere also proposals to build houses for theRoma in places that had at first been rejectedas inadequate. In the later stages, the entire flatbuilding program had to be funded by thestate, and the social dependence of the Romafamily became the only criterion of eligibil−ity for these flats (Jurová, 1996).

This extensive program of liquidation of themost backward settlements was not evenstarted until the end of the 1950s due to lackof funds. The justification for such massive


assistance to the Roma was discussed as well,as those regions with the most primitive Romasettlements were full of non−Roma peoplewith similar problems, where almost everyonewho had a job had to travel long distances towork and back. Various earlier inquiries on“the integration of the Roma into society” hadproven that in regions with sufficient jobs anda lower proportion of Roma, there were nodifficulties in mutual relationships or in ad−dressing the socio−economic status of Romafamilies, whose status was seen as the mainindicator of their level of adaptation to and in−tegration into the majority population.5 On theother hand, many companies were criticized forneglecting their workers, for paying them lowerwages because they were illiterate, and so on.

Even though the Slovak organs tried to im−prove the situation by taking partial steps, andto prevent the spread of epidemics and thedecline of Roma health by adopting healthmeasures, no fundamental improvementswere achieved. A solution to the issue of thenomadic Roma, and plans for a meeting of thesupreme Communist Party body to deal withit, had been in the wings since the mid−1950s.The scarcity of positive results from the socialassimilation policy of the 1950s was said toconfirm the need for a radical solution to theRoma issue. The Roma, for example, had re−fused to attend courses for illiterates, becausetheir settlements were far from the villageswhere the courses were held. Various healthand education courses for Roma “hygienists”,organized by the Czechoslovak Red Cross,had been equally fruitless.

REJECTION OFETHNIC DEVELOPMENT, ANDTHE BEGINNING OFFORCED ASSIMILATION

The resolution of the Central Committee ofthe Communist Party of Czechoslovakia,

dated April 8, 1958 and called On Workingwith the Gypsy People, firmly rejected de−mands for the acknowledgment of the Romaidentity and their development as an ethnicgroup, which had started to crop up againtowards the end of the decade. Instead, thecommunist elite launched the forced assimi−lation of the Roma, although this was not putinto practice until 1970. To achieve its target,the resolution envisaged the creation of com−mittees for solving the problems of the Gyp−sies, which were to become tools of stateinstitutionalization. The aim was to achievethe overall social and cultural equalizationand inclusion of the Roma into the majoritypopulation as soon as possible. The Commu−nist Party was set the binding task of closelycontrolling the assimilation of the “ethno−graphic Gypsy group” (the term was selectedbecause it clearly denied the ethnicity of theRoma). The supreme party body confirmedthe correctness of the approach that had hith−erto been taken to solving the problems of theRoma as “a socially and culturally backwardpeople typified by their characteristic way oflife” (Jurová, 1996). The resolution enjoinedthe state to “refuse the artificial attempts ofsome educational workers to create a literaryGypsy language out of the different dialects,and to establish Gypsy schools and classeswith Gypsy as a teaching language” (Jurová,1996). Such activities were seen as furtherstrengthening the isolation of the Roma andslowing their re−education.

UNREALISTIC PLANS FORTACKLING SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS

To achieve the assimilation of the Roma andtheir identification with the majority popu−lation, all party, state and social organizationswere to focus on removing shortcomings inthe employment of the Roma, and in theirhealth, education, housing, and hygienicconditions. All companies, municipalities,


and the entire health sector were assignedunrealistic tasks. The state began to improvethe economic situation of Roma families bylaunching several programs. The employ−ment issue was the first to be tackled; Romaworkers, who had often been abused to fillthe quotas of organized recruitment drives,were now assigned jobs with various com−panies – a total of 11,000 people in 2 years.Many families were allotted state flats, hun−dreds of families were allowed to buildhouses, and the plan to liquidate Roma set−tlements was launched (the settlements inHôrka – Miklušovce and Kendice were thefirst to go). All of this was funded by thestate, frequently against opposition from theinhabitants of the municipalities where theRoma lived. Many measures were adoptedin the school system, such as the provisionof scholarships to Roma students. Therewere also absurd proposals, such as the im−mediate schooling of all children of thenomadic Roma in homes that were to beimmediately built (of course, the funds topay for the plan were missing) (Jurová,1993).

The 1958 Law on the Permanent Settlementof Nomadic and Semi−Nomadic People onthe one hand obliged all municipal commit−tees to provide help to nomadic people tofacilitate their transition to a settled exist−ence, and on the other prohibited the no−madic way of life under the threat of punish−ment. Section 3 on penal sanctions enteredinto force on March 1, 1959, meaning thatthe deadline for nomads to settle was effec−tively March 1; however, the Interior Minis−try issued a directive in violation of the Con−stitution and fixed the deadline at February3 to 6, 1959. In the end, as the municipalcommittees were unable to meet the condi−tions set by the law, i.e. to offer nomadicpeople “several housing and job options”, thesanctions in Section 3 could not be appliedin practice.

THE DISPERSAL ANDRELOCATION CONCEPT VS.THE UNION OF GYPSIES – ROMA

FAILURE OF ASSIMILATION TOACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULTS

Seven years after the passage of the On Work−ing with the Gypsy People resolution of theCentral Committee of the Communist Partyof Czechoslovakia, and the 1958 Law On thePermanent Settlement of Nomadic People,the decision makers realized that it was im−possible to achieve the socio−economic goalof including the Roma into the majoritypopulation and solving their problems. Al−though statistics showed that 1,000 Romahad been brought into the labor process, 45of the worst settlements and 2,500 shackshad been razed, and that efforts to improvethe housing, education, and health situationsof the Roma continued, the overall picturehad taken a turn for the worse. The Romaincluded in the “listings” had remained inplaces where it was impossible to find jobs.Their original family and clan relationshipshad broken down, and the ideologization andpoliticization of life that had been intendedto help “build the foundations of commu−nism” had in fact done great harm to theRoma, deprived as they were of the roots oftheir different, unwanted, and misunderstoodculture.

RELOCATION OF ROMAFROM PLACES WITHHIGH CONCENTRATION OF ROMA

Undaunted, in 1965 the state decided to useeven more violent methods to influence theRoma, this time dispersing and relocatingthem from places where they lived in thegreatest concentration. This was basically aprogram of aid for eastern Slovakia, whichcould not handle the situation and which


since the early 1960s had repeatedly de−manded that the accumulating problems besolved on a Slovakia−wide or nation−widelevel. These demands were certainly foundedon objective and logical reasons, but the fi−nal version of the dispersal and relocationconcept represented just another stage inforced assimilation and the solution of socio−economic problems using massive state sub−sidies. The concept was given concrete shapeby a government decree dated October 13,1965, pursuant to which a Government Com−mittee for the Issues of the Gypsy People wasestablished to guarantee a coordinated ap−proach to the issue across Slovakia. The so−lution was to be put into practice by the Com−mittee of the Presidium of the Slovak Na−tional Council for the Issues of Gypsy Peo−ple. The priorities it set showed the stronglypaternalistic approach that the Czechoslovakcommunist state took to the Gypsy issue andthe extent of Roma manipulation so far. TheGovernment Committee in Prague, and itsSlovak counterpart, the Committee of thePresidium of the Slovak National Council,prepared plans for the dispersal and reloca−tion of about 14,000 people, which includedthe number of settlements and shacks chosenfor destruction, the cost of the plan, and theregions where the Slovak Roma were to berelocated (Jurová, 1996).

The measures adopted also included the prin−ciples on which the dispersal was to be based,financial provisions for exceptions in buyingup Roma shacks and solving the housing is−sue of Roma families, and the means to ap−ply pressure on financial institutions to lendmoney to the Roma to build houses. Despitemassive loans and subsidies, many housesremained unfinished, gradually fell into ruin,and were finally reclassified as shacks. Sincethe only criterion for acquiring help from thestate was that the Roma family had to bedependent on social assistance, many fami−lies acquired loans and subsidies several

times over. In the 1960s, when the strongestassimilation measures against the Roma werein force, the largest amount of financial helpwas also provided. However, the situation ofthe Roma was not improved to the extentdesired, far less equalized with the rest ofsociety; among the Roma, this policy onlyincreased the abuse of state help.

The concept of dispersal and relocation waspoorly designed and mistaken. The short−comings of the program became evident assoon as it was put into practice. The reckless−ness of municipal officials who, in trying toget rid of the Roma as quickly as possible,sent families off to the Czech Republic un−der great pressure and with no preparation;the thoughtless and rapid purchase of shacksbefore sufficient flats were available; theabuse of the rules and the profiteering at theexpense of the Roma; the decision of Czechdistricts to reject the Roma and send themback to Slovakia – these were only a few ofthe problems that accompanied the process.The huge cost of the concept, and its even−tual failure, led the government in 1968 todissolve the Government Committee for theIssues of the Gypsy People, and to hand theRoma issues portfolio to the Ministry ofLabor and Social Affairs. This state of affairslasted until 1989, with the Slovak authoritiesoccasionally trying to send the Roma to theCzech Republic after 1968. The results of theconcept: a meager 3,178 Roma moved fromSlovakia in 1967, when the concept was atits height, while 1,043 people returned toSlovakia.

THE RESULTS OF DISPERSAL:GROWING SOCIAL DISTANCEAND CONFLICTS WITHTHE MAJORITY POPULATION

The Roma issue did not disappear, as envis−aged by the decrees and measures adopted.


Instead, it grew and spread to other places,and the growth of the unhealthy Roma popu−lation reached disturbing heights (especiallyin the settlements of eastern Slovakia). De−spite minor successes in addressing theRoma issue, the disputes and the gap be−tween the Roma and the majority populationkept growing. The demographic data col−lected for the Government Committee inconnection with the dispersal and relocationconcept showed that the Roma population inSlovakia had doubled since 1947, and hadgrown more than threefold in the Czech Re−public (due to the steady migration fromSlovakia). Allegedly, dozens of thousands ofRoma had not been included in the headcount, mainly those whose cultural and so−cial level was comparable to that of the ma−jority population (even though their level ofeducation was generally very low). MostRoma living in rural areas had barely fin−ished elementary school, and were classifiedas unskilled laborers. The fact that the third,most backward category of Roma in easternSlovakia represented the largest category inthe census foretold the problems that werelikely to remain in integrating the Roma inthis region, a task that was seriously compli−cated by the rapid population growth amongthe poorest groups of people. The impact ofmaking dependence on welfare the conditionfor the provision of state help to the Romahad finally become fully evident. On the onehand, negative and antisocial displays ofbehavior were spreading, undoubtedly as aconsequence of the failure of the state’s ap−proaches, requiring that more effective meas−ures be taken to cope with the situation. Onthe other hand, in keeping with political andsocial developments at the time, the Romaissue was gaining a new dimension, and newways of approaching the issue were takingshape. Voices were once again heard in sup−port of the previously suppressed socio−cul−tural, historical and ethnic identity of theRoma.

REACTION TO THE DISPERSAL:ACTIVATION OFROMA REPRESENTATION

Since the beginning of the 1960s, the Romaissue had also been addressed by Roma ac−tivists working in regional and district com−mittees, and employees of district state bod−ies who increasingly engaged in matters af−fecting their own ethnic group. In 1968,Roma representatives headed by Doctor J.Cibuľa and A. Facun proposed that the Un−ion of Czechoslovak Gypsies be established.They sent their proposal to the prime minis−ter of the Czechoslovak Republic, as well asto individual district and regional nationalcommittees in Slovakia, requesting supportfor carrying out their plan. The East Slovakdistrict national committee, at its meeting onJune 6, 1968, expressed support for all therequirements of the Roma representatives,and recommended that the Committee of theSlovak National Council for the Issues of theGypsy People accept their proposal.

REPEATED REFUSAL TO ACCEPTTHE ROMA

In 1958, refusal to accept the Roma as a na−tion had been based on a clear decision bythe supreme party body after debates inparty organizations in 1957 to 1958. In1968, however, when the Nationalities Lawwas prepared, and in 1969 when the Unionof Gypsies – Roma was set up, the Romanation was rejected by some academics,starting a serious disagreement. The Romain Slovakia were characterized as “anexterritorial, internally differentiated ethnicgroup living in a diaspora”, one that had noprospect of evolving into a nation, and thusone that was not entitled to the legal andpolitical status of a nation (Jurová, 1993,1999, 2000). This position drew criticismand statements by Czech Roma representa−


tives and Czech academic circles that theRoma were indeed a separate ethnic group,and that only fear of them was preventing thestate from admitting this. Failure to acceptthese opinions and demands thwarted theRoma’s chances of ethnic identification andpositive ethnic development for many years,while the split among the academics andwithin the Roma movement led to the forma−tion of two Unions. The Slovak Union ofGypsies – Roma was approved by the Inte−rior Ministry on November 19, 1968, thuspermitting it to function as a cultural andsocial organization.

CONSTITUTIONAL MEETING OFTHE UNION OF GYPSIES – ROMA

The founding meeting of the Slovak Unionof Gypsies – Roma was held in April 1969.Although some delegates demanded the abo−lition of decrees limiting the freedom ofmovement and the residence of the Romaplus other rights, materials from the officialmeeting did not include ethnic identificationissues or requirements that the Roma be ac−knowledged as a nation. The Slovak Unionserved as tool of manipulation, and was usedto prevent the ethnic identification of theRoma in Slovakia. Not only the foundingmeeting documents, but also the Union’sconcept of its activities confirmed its loyaltyto the political and ideological vision of thefurther integration of the Roma into commu−nist society. Nevertheless, the political aspi−rations of the Roma in the CzechoslovakRepublic endured, and local representatives,supported by academic circles, refused togive up the demand that the Roma minoritybe acknowledged as a nation, which in theend led to the abolition of all Roma organi−zations. Disputes between the two Unionsprevented them from overcoming their mu−tual barriers and cooperating in favor of theRoma.

The hostility of the majority population andthe state, as well as the political pressures onthe Union, have yet to be examined on thebasis of sources that just recently becameaccessible. However, it cannot be denied thatthe Slovak Union of Gypsies – Roma wasteda chance to participate in decisions on thedevelopment of the Roma ethnic group. In−stead of mobilizing support for the emanci−pation of the Roma, it turned into an admin−istrative, bureaucratic, and unwieldy organi−zation isolated from the ethnic group. On thetop level, the powers and organization of thegroup were the main problem, as well aspersonal quarrels between officials, who fre−quently informed on each other.

The Bútiker company was originally to havedeveloped traditional Roma crafts and pro−duction to the benefit of the Roma; however,it became essentially an operation for “sell−ing” workers to the Czech Republic, and wasto a large extent manipulated by its founder,the Central Committee of the Union of Gyp−sies – Roma. Several businesses under theBútiker went bankrupt, and there were manyfinancial shenanigans and machinations thatculminated in criminal activity. Besides thepolitical squabbles, the very activity of theUnion of Gypsies – Roma and the Bútikerwere cited as reasons to abolish these organi−zations in 1973.

“SOCIO−CULTURAL INTEGRATION”OF THE ROMA IN THE NEXTSTAGE OF COMMUNISM

REASSESSMENT OFCONTROLLED ASSIMILATION

The failure of the concept of controlled as−similation moved the state to reassess thepractices used in connection with the Roma.The alternation between forced, repressiveand re−educational assimilation, along with


the strong focus on the social/economic as−pects of the issue and paternalism towardsthe Roma, had not achieved the objectivesset. By constantly refusing to accept theirethnicity, and hampering the ethnic and cul−tural development of the Roma, the state hadmerely turned the Roma into passive recipi−ents of welfare. This was the main drawbackof the approach to the issue by the commu−nists: it did not permit the Roma to elevatethemselves to the level of the majority popu−lation, to adapt and assimilate, as they couldhave done through their own ethnic develop−ment. Instead, in evaluating the results of theregime’s assimilation of the Roma, only thesocio economic level and the “improvement”in the living conditions of Roma familieswere taken into account.

From 1965 to 1971, when the disperse−and−relocate concept was being applied to theRoma (in Slovakia is continued even after theabolition of the Government Committee in1968), Slovak bodies strove to get rid of theRoma. Some 4,750 shacks were destroyed,from which 23,700 Roma were moved to anew location. Approximately 6,000 Romawere assigned a job, and roughly 750 Romaboys and girls began to study at secondaryvocational schools. The results of the 1970census, despite confirming the apparentquantitative success of the concept, alsoshowed that some indicators had worsened:housing, socio−economic composition (com−pared to the Czech Republic), demographiccharacteristics, and education (Jurová,1993).

CONCEPT OF COMPREHENSIVESOCIAL AND CULTURALINTEGRATION

When setting out the future principles foraddressing the Roma issue, despite criticismof the previous approach and the discontent

of Roma organizations with the resultsachieved, the communist regime was stillunable to surmount the ideological and po−litical barriers that prevented it from seeingall aspects of the position of the Roma, in−cluding the possibility of their ethnic andcultural development. The future of this im−portant issue was now said to rest with thenew concept of “comprehensive social andcultural integration” of the Roma, and thegradual equalization of their average livingstandard and cultural level with that of themajority population. The programs thatflowed from this “new concept” did not in−clude terms like assimilation or integration,nor were there any direct bans on the use ofRomany. However, this did not spell a sig−nificant change from previous solutions tothe Gypsy issue in the area of ethnic culture.

The new social and cultural integration con−cept was still based on equalizing the socio−economic and material indicators of theRoma with those of the majority, and oneradicating everything felt to be “backward”and “Gypsy”, although in a more moderateway. The state envisaged its new plan as along−term, multi−generational approach thatwould integrate the Roma over several gen−erations. However, the development of themajority society (especially in the economicand social fields), and the continued growthof the Roma population, only deepened theirdifferences (especially in eastern Slovakia).The more advanced and educated Roma keptmoving away, while the size of the group liv−ing in the backward and isolated Roma set−tlements kept growing.

PRINCIPLES OF NATION−WIDESOCIO−CULTURAL MEASURES

The nation−wide socio−political measuresproposed by a 1972 government decree andamended by a 1976 government resolution


set the following priorities in addressing theRoma issue: employing all Roma able towork, educating and re−educating both Romayouth and adult Roma, addressing the hous−ing issue, and eliminating Roma crime. Un−til 1989, the state continued setting quotas forthe destruction of Roma settlements andshacks, and for schooling Roma children,within each Five−Year Plan. Assimilation inthe school system was camouflaged by theestablishment of many pre−school and schoolestablishments for Roma children, and by theeconomic advantages that were provided tothem. As for employment, the deformedwage policy of the communist regime robbedpeople of motivation to increase their levelof education and qualifications. Romalaborers were usually assigned to companieson the basis of quotas, and belonged to thecategory of unskilled laborers. The commu−nist regime’s intention was to put a generoussocial policy into effect, but many of thetasks set by this social engineering experi−ment were unrealistic. The proliferatingmeasures and resolutions often remained onpaper, and despite being distributed to thevarious levels of the state administration,could not alter the fact that it was impossi−ble to implement them. Although the ethnicand cultural characteristics of the Roma werenot suppressed as harshly as before, the en−suing decades brought few possibilities forthe Roma culture to develop. As communismfell apart, the Roma did not play an activerole in their own “socio cultural integration”into society.

Until the end of the communist era, the Com−mittee of the Government of the Slovak So−cialist Republic for the Issues of Gypsy Peo−ple played an important role in tackling theRoma issue. The central figure in this insti−tution, and its salaried secretary (1966 to1988), was a Roma named Imrich Farkaš,who helped prepare most Roma state policymaterials. Farkaš opposed the establishment

and existence of the Union of Gypsies –Roma (1969 to 1973), promoted the “aca−demic” definition of the Roma ethnic groupcreated by Emília Horváthová, and in the1980s advocated the assimilation of theRoma with the majority population. He alsoordered that the name “cigán” (Gypsy) bewritten with a lower case letter “c” insteadof a capital “C” at the beginning, prohibitedthe use of the phrase “Gypsy inhabitants” asit could evoke the idea of some nonexistentcommunity, and promoted the integration ofthe Roma without the creation of specialRoma cultural institutions.

NEW DEMANDS BYROMA REPRESENTATIVES

From 1981 to 1984, the Roma representa−tives Samuel Gergel, Dezider Oláh, andTibor Baláž appealed several times to thepresident of the Republic, Gustav Husák, tothe chairman of the Federal Assembly, An−tonín Jindra, and to the Secretary of the Cen−tral Committee of the Communist Party ofCzechoslovakia, Jindřich Poledník. Theirmissives were then forwarded to the SlovakNational Council and the Committee of theGovernment of the Slovak Socialist Repub−lic for the Issues of Gypsy People. In theirappeals, the Roma demanded that the deci−sion of the International Union of Roma, andthe UN resolution of August 26, 1977 onacknowledgment of the Roma nationality, beobserved. They also demanded the observ−ance of the appeal by the UN Cultural Com−mittee to the member states, asking them torespect the 1971 decision of the InternationalUnion of Roma on the use of the name“Roma”, and on the representation of theRoma in the UN’s NGO sector. In accord−ance with these international resolutions, thethree plaintiffs demanded that the rights ofnationalities in Czechoslovakia be observed,including greater room for self−fulfillment


(as other acknowledged nationalities en−joyed), the right to comprehensive educationand cultural development, the right to asso−ciate in the Union of Roma socio−culturalorganization, the right to publish press andreceive information in their own language,and the acknowledgment of the Roma as anational minority named “the Roma”.

Roma quisling Farkaš, on the other hand,drew up a long analysis of the appeal, and onAugust 15, 1984, a special session was heldwith the deputy chairman of the Slovak Na−tional Council, Dezider Krocsány. TheRoma, once again, were reminded of the factthat they lived in a diaspora, and that theystood no chance of becoming a nation. Theywere even accused of not helping to elevatetheir own ethnic group, and not cooperatingwith the committees for solving the problemsof Gypsies in their local districts. This dem−onstrates that even while the communist re−gime was beginning to fall apart, the Romawere unable to alter their position, or to al−ter the way the ethnic group was perceivedby the state. They were kept in the positionof objects that the state had to care for, andthe communists continued to present theirRoma policy as a success until the fall of thetotalitarian regime in 1989 (Jurová, 1993).

CONCLUSION

Historical, ethnologic, sociological, and lin−guistic research of the Roma ethnic group inSlovakia has shown that in the political, ideo−logical, and socio−economic conditions of thepost−war period and the formation of the com−munist totalitarian regime, the Roma had nochance at emancipation. Instead, they remainedan isolated ethno−cultural, caste−divided group,whose position as a stigmatized and margin−alized people with distinct anthropological fea−tures was very precarious. They constantlyfaced prejudice, hatred, and ignorance.

The process of differentiation that had begunin the Roma ethnic group was suspendedduring the war, and the expulsion of Romafrom the socio−economic system and theirindividual homes during the post−war periodculminated in the communist liquidation ofall forms of private ownership and undertak−ing, the mutual provision of services andcontacts between different cultures, and theadoption of positive role models.

The state spent several decades tinkeringwith the procedures and goals of assimilationand “integration”. Its solution to the “Gypsyissue” deprived the Roma of free will, inputand initiative, and disturbed their ethical andmoral values and ways of family and ethniclife. It did not permit the Roma to achieveself−fulfillment, and prohibited any displaysof different cultural standards. On the otherhand, it failed to replace these banned cul−tural supports with adequate role models andvalues, and forced the Roma to accept stateideas on how to integrate into “the new so−ciety” and eliminate “everything that is back−ward and Gypsy”. The result of the commu−nist regime’s “solution” to the issue was thetotal disintegration of the Roma ethnic group,which was pushed to the outskirts of society,and suffered massive socio−economic, cul−tural and ethnic damage that was exacerbatedby hostility from the majority population.The hopelessness of the situation has recentlyled to increased migration by the Romaabroad, to growth in crime, and to an escala−tion of aggression on both sides.

State measures to change the perception ofand approach to this ethnic group had littleeffect in the 1990s, and the problems had tobe shouldered by the third sector. True civicand ethnic equality for the Roma in our so−ciety are issues that have not been dealt withsufficiently. After years of transformation,the Roma issue has once again emerged as asocial issue, and the tendency to solve social


questions by “supporting” welfare−depend−ent and inadaptable people has increasinglypenetrated all strategies and short−term meas−ures. This return to the social policy of theformer regime, and to the former perceptionof the Roma issue, is very dangerous, bothfor the Roma and the entire country. If toogreat a burden is placed on the social benefitssystem, it will cause even more problems forthe Slovak economy, and cannot be sustainedfor long. On the other hand, increasing thenumber of Roma workers, and especially thequality of Roma labor, will have a majorimpact on the development outlook of indi−vidual regions. The development of easternSlovakia (where the proportion of the Romais the highest) over the past 100 years is clearproof of this (Jurová, 1998, 1999b; Mann,1999; Dostál, 1997; Vašečka, 2000; Vašečka,2001). The Roma issue must be treatedholistically by Slovak society, and their civicand ethnic rights as well as obligations mustbe guaranteed.

ENDNOTES

1. These measures were applied in the followingmunicipalities: Ľubiša (Humenné district),Lúčka (Giraltovce district), Beharovce (Levočadistrict), Močarmany (Prešov district), Štós(Gelnica district), Hadviga – Briešťa (Martindistrict), Richnava (Košice – environs district).Some cases were discovered as late as duringresearch in the 1950s, despite the order of theRegional National Committee in Košice pro−hibiting further construction in the settlementsand the expulsion of the Roma from the mu−nicipalities of Trstené pri Hornáde, Rybník,Batizovce, Spišské Bystré, Holomnica, Topo−rec, Rakúsy, Kecerovské Pekľany, Kechnec,Turňa, Nižný Medzev, Moldava nad Bodvou,Slanec, and Trebišov. SÚA Praha, Office of thePrime Minister, 1945 to 1959, File No. 3,409,ref. 257.

2. Slovak National Archive Bratislava, PoliceDirectorate in Bratislava, 1920 to 1945 (1950),File No. 31, Script No. 8/133.

3. For example, reports of hygienic and epidemio−logical stations from their examinations of set−tlements, activities to control tuberculosis.ŠObA Prešov, District National Committee inPrešov 1949 to 1960: safety reports and theDepartment of the Interior.

4. The Cultural and Educational Care of the Gyp−sies report, drawn up by E. Bacíková from theMinistry of Information and Education. In Vol−ume 2 of the quoted documents (Jurová, 1996).

5. ŠObA Košice, East Slovak Regional NationalCommittee, 1960 to 1969. Committee for Solv−ing the Problems of Gypsy People, File No. 19,Script No. 103. Transcript of the Interior Min−istry’s decision. Also, the Slovak NationalArchives, the Central Committee of the Unionof Gypsies – Roma (1969 to 1973). Documentsof the constituting meeting, card No. 1.

REFERENCES

1. Dostál, Ondrej: “National Minorities” in Bú−tora, Martin and Ivantyšyn, Michal (eds.):Slovakia 1997: A Global Report on the Stateof Society and Trends for 1998, (Bratislava,Institute for Public Affairs, 1998).

2. Holomek, Karel: “Současné problémy Cikánův ČSSR a jejich řešení” [‘ContemporaryProblems of Gypsies in the CzechoslovakCommunist Republic and Their Solutions’],Demografie, No. 3, 1969, p. 205.


4. Hübschmannová, Milena: Šaj pes dovakeras– Můžeme se domluvit [We can UnderstandEach Other], (Olomouc: Palackého Univer−sity, 1995).

5. Hübschmannová, Milena: “Inspirace pro roz−voj romštiny” [‘Inspiration for the Develop−ment of Romany’], A report presented at theinternational conference Language and Mi−norities held in November 1999 in Stará Les−ná, Človek a spoločnosť, No. 1, 2000, http://www.saske.sk/cas/1−2000/index.html.

6. Jurová, Anna: “Hospodársko−sociálne pome−ry na južnom Slovensku na začiatku 50. ro−kov” [‘The Economic and Social Situation inEastern Slovakia at the Beginning of the1950s’] in Národnostní otázka v Českosloven−


sku (po roce 1918) [The Nationalities Issue inCzechoslovakia (after 1918)], (Opava: Slez−ský ústav AVČR, 1989).

7. Jurová, Anna: Vývoj rómskej problematiky naSlovensku po roku 1945 [The Evolution of theRoma Issue in Slovakia after 1945], (Bratisla−va: Goldpress, 1993).

8. Jurová, Anna: Rómska problematika 1945 –1967 [The Roma Issue from 1945 to 1967],Study materials of the research projectCzechoslovakia 1945 to 1967, parts 1 to 4,(Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR,1996).

9. Jurová, Anna: “Vývoj situácie rómskej men−šiny na Slovensku” [‘Development of thePosition of the Roma in Slovakia’] in Prav−depodobné riziká a ohrozenia v strednej Eu−rópe a tendencie ich vývoja. Riziká vplývajúcena bezpečnostnú situáciu v SR [The LikelyRisks and Threats in Central Europe andTrends in their Development: The Risks In−fluencing the Security Situation of the SlovakRepublic], (Bratislava: Národná rada SR,1998).

10. Jurová, Anna: “Politika násilnej asimilácieRómov v 60. rokoch. (Pokus Rómov o zapo−jenie do demokratizačného procesu)” [‘ThePolicy of Forced Assimilation of the Roma inthe 1960s (An Attempt by the Roma to Jointhe Process of Democratization)’] in Pokuso reformu v roku 1968 (Historicko−politolo−gické pohľady) [The Attempted Reform in1968 (Historical and Politological Views)’],(Banská Bystrica: Inštitút vzdelávania,1999a).

11. Jurová, Anna: “Pokus o pohľad na niektoréproblémy vývoja Rómov na Slovensku v 90.rokoch” [‘An Attempt to Look at Some Prob−lems of Roma Development in Slovakia in the1990s’], Človek a spoločnosť, No. 3, 1999b,http://www.saske.sk/cas/3−99/index.html.

12. Jurová, Anna: “Otázky vzdelávania Rómovv období socializmu vo vzťahu k materinské−mu jazyku” [‘Issues in Roma Education Dur−ing the Communist Regime in Relation toTheir Mother Tongue’], Človek a spoločnosť,No. 1, 2000, http:/www.saske.sk/cas/1–2000/jurova.html.

13. Jurová, Anna: “Reakcia českých orgánov naživelný pohyb Rómov v rokoch 1945 – 1947”

[‘Reaction of the Czech Bodies to the MassMigration of the Roma from 1945 to 1947’],Etnologické rozpravy, No. 1, 2001.

14. Lacková, Elena: Narodila jsem se pod šťast−nou hvězdou [I Was Born Under a LuckyStar], (Prague: Triáda, 1997).

15. Mann, Arne B.: “ ‘Rómsky problem’ – prob−lém vzájomnej komunikácie” [“The RomaIssue”: A Problem of Mutual Communica−tion’], Romano nevo ľil, No. 378 – 383, 1999.

16. Pavelčíková, Nina: Romové na Ostravsku1945 – 1975 [The Roma in the Region of Os−trava, 1945 to 1975], (Ostrava: Ostrava Uni−versity, 1999).

17. Skutnabb−Kangas, Tove: Jazyk, gramotnosť,menšiny [Language, Literacy, Minorities],(Bratislava: Minority Rights Group Slovakia,1995).

18. Skutnabb−Kangas, Tove: Menšina, jazyk a ra−sizmus [Minority, Language and Racism],(Bratislava: Kalligram, 2000).

19. Srb, Vladimír: “Soupisy a sčítání Cikánů –Romů v Československu v létech 1947 – 1980a odhady jejich počtu do roku 2000 respektíve2020” [‘Listings and Head Counts of Gypsies– Roma in Czechoslovakia from 1947 to1980, and Estimates of the Number of Romauntil 2000 and 2020’] in Cikáni v průmyslo−vém městě (problematika adaptace a asimila−ce) [Gypsies in an Industrial Town (Problemsof Adaptation and Assimilation)], (Prague:ÚEF ČAV, 1986).

20. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Mesežni−kov, Grigorij and Kollár, Miroslav (eds.): Slo−vakia 2000: A Global Report on the State ofSociety, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 2000).


22. Vrabcová, Eva: “Pracovné tábory a tábory nú−tenej práce na Slovensku v rokoch 1945 –1953” [‘Labor Camps and Forced LaborCamps in Slovakia from 1945 to 1953’] inZločiny komunizmu na Slovensku 1945 –1989. 1. zväzok [Crimes of the CommunistRegime in Slovakia from 1945 to 1989: Vol−ume 1], (Prešov: V. Vaška Publishers, 2001).

62

63

Summary: The current position of the Romain Slovakia is influenced by both the coun−try’s pre−1989 history and its transition todemocracy and market capitalism thereafter.The communist regime’s policies regardingthe living conditions, education, and workpatterns of the Roma still determine thegrowth potential of these Roma communi−ties. The changes that took place after 1989have resulted above all in a social stratifica−tion of the Roma population that affects theirway of life. This study analyses the post−1989 changes in education, employment,health care, and housing, and explains theeffect of “double marginalization” and socialexclusion on the Roma. It identifies the ma−jor strategies for including the Roma in so−ciety.

Key words: family, education, work, demo−graphic structure, social structure, povertyduring the period of transformation, doublemarginalization, culture of dependence, lifestrategies, dependence traps.

INTRODUCTION – HERITAGE ONTHE VERGE OF CHANGE

The social, economic, and political changetriggered by the 1989 revolution started anunprecedented process of transformation inSlovakia. The communist regime had de−formed the understanding and observance ofcivic and political rights, and had signifi−cantly strengthened social rights. Unlike in

IVETA RADIČOVÁ

THE ROMA ON THE VERGE OFTRANSFORMATION

other totalitarian regimes, it changed the waythe economy functioned, ignoring supplyand demand rules until the economy reacheda dead−end street and was unable to compete.The most significant intervention in the func−tioning of society was the forcible change ofthe social structure and the natural stratifica−tion of society. The communist regime’spreferential treatment of the lower socialclasses disadvantaged the upper classes, withmany members of the pre−communist elitesuffering direct discrimination.

The Roma, as part of the lower social classes,were the object of various attempts by thecommunist regime to improve their socialstatus. The 1989 change, however, caught theRoma totally unprepared. The followingchapter describes the situation of the Romaon the verge of transformation.

LIVING CONDITIONS

The fundamental doctrine of the communistregime towards the Roma was based on theMarxist provision that by improving the so−cial conditions of the Roma, their behaviorcould be changed, and the negative phenom−ena connected with their membership in amarginalized group would be overcome. Thecommunist regime thus expected that if theRoma’s standard of living were raised to theaverage standard of living in the country, thesource of their inequality would be removed.To reach this goal, various measures were

64 I v e t a R a d i č o v á

taken that can be characterized as acts ofsocial engineering. Here are a few examples:• state policy controlled and advocated the

dispersal of the Roma, both throughoutSlovakia, and from Slovakia to the Czechlands;

• natural Roma communities were broken up;• the rural Roma population migrated from

Roma settlements to towns and industrialcities;

• the natural links between the Roma com−munity and the majority population brokedown;

• the Roma were insensitively and forciblyallotted flats, and those from a sociallydisadvantaged environment were forced tolive in them among majority society;

• the Roma were compelled to work underthreat of imprisonment;

• Roma children were forced to attendschool;

• the Roma were forced to participate inhealth protection programs.

These – seemingly positive – results wereachieved by force, and without the Roma’sconsent or participation. One result of this wasthat some Roma vandalized and destroyed theproperty they had been allotted by the state,drawing widespread public resentment.

Why should it matter that these measureswere forcible, and that they did not engagethe Roma? The reason is that even thoughstate policy resulted in far better living con−ditions for the Roma, many behavior patternstypical of the traditional Roma family sur−vived. The modernization of the Roma com−munity was thus largely one−dimensional,improving only the material aspects of life(Jurová, 1993).

The following patterns are typical of the sur−viving traditional Roma family traits:• life in extended families, i.e. no shift to−

wards the nuclear family;

• community−based way of life;• absence of a boundary between the private

and the public (no privacy in either the wayof life or the relationship to property);

• view of housing as temporary and provi−sional;

• division of roles (the man is the bread−win−ner and the woman is responsible for thehousehold);

• many children, large families (Mann, 1996).

The Roma community is a non−agrariancommunity unable to make a living on itsown resources, and thus traditionally enteredinto relationships with agrarian cultures.These agrarian cultures, along with privateownership of land and ties to a certain terri−tory, led to the creation of institutional andbehavioral norms among non−Roma popula−tions. As the Roma were never an agrarianculture, however, their relationship to theland was always weak, and they neverformed any mechanisms or institutions re−lated to agrarian−type private ownership. TheRoma never formed a link to a certain terri−tory, nor had any use for the accumulation ofproperty. On the contrary, their crafts onlyfound markets thanks to their territorial flex−ibility.

The different Roma view of property andterritory resulted in the creation of socialstructures among the Roma based on bloodties. These Roma cultural norms can be de−scribed as a “permanently temporary” strat−egy. Institutional education, in both form andcontent, limits this Roma “strategy of themakeshift”. Majority society educationalinstitutions have no equivalent in the Romacommunity, leading the two (Roma and ma−jority) social systems into conflict. From theRoma’s point of view, participating in workand education means confronting anotherworld. The integration of the Roma into thesetwo spheres is an asymmetric process, mean−ing that although the Roma are subject to

65T h e R o m a o n t h e Ve rg e o f Tr a n s f o r m a t i o n

rules and regulations they did not create, theironly option is to conform to these rules (Ju−rová, 1996).

The communist regime ensured that theRoma would conform by putting pressure onthem. It did not attempt the symmetrical in−tegration of the Roma in work and education,as might have been done through the use offamily teachers, holding school lessons in thehome, focusing on seasonal and casual labor,taking the “social age” of the Roma popula−tion into account, etc.

Undoubtedly, many measures adopted by thecommunist regime improved the standard ofliving of the Roma population. On the otherhand, these measures often harmed theRoma: For Roma families used to the primi−tive conditions of Roma settlements, beingthoughtlessly placed among the majoritypopulation in modern houses or housing es−tates often caused insurmountable problemsof adjustment and alienation, which eventu−ally became a source of mutual hatred be−tween the Roma and the majority population.Somewhere here lie the roots of today’s vio−lence and racism.

Furthermore, thanks to the state’s policy offorcible migration, dispersal and employ−ment, the Roma community became part ofthe welfare benefits program. While thesebenefits did help the Roma escape miseryand starvation, the Roma also grew used tostate paternalism, which gradually replacedtraditional family solidarity. A new culture ofdependence on state institutions was born.

The historical experience of the Romaprompted specific reactions and behaviortowards the majority population. Pushed tothe outskirts of society, the Roma behaved asa group in danger: solidarity within the com−munity increased, while prevailing strategiesincluded flight (the makeshift strategy –

readiness to leave), or attack and aggression.These responses further deepened the sepa−ration and marginalization of the Roma.

EDUCATION

The result of the Roma’s marginalization wasa clear inability to cope with the requirementsof the institutional school system, which ledto their facing unequal opportunities on thelabor market. This inequality was caused bythe Roma’s unfamiliarity with the schoolsystem, by differences in the social age of theRoma and that of the majority population,and by the type of education taught at Slovakschools. Education in Slovakia to this dayfocuses on encyclopedic knowledge, not onapplying knowledge, and thus demandsdaily, systematic study. An important ingre−dient in the success of students is help fromtheir parents in preparing for school. Clearly,this does not happen in Roma families, dueto the standard of living among the Roma andthe level of education of many Roma parents,as well as their belief that learning is a schoolbusiness that should take place at school.Nevertheless, there have been several suc−cessful projects to address the situation, suchas the “zero grade” scheme, a sort of prepara−tory year for elementary school to help Romachildren start normal school attendance (seethe chapter The Roma in the EducationalSystem and the Alternative EducationProjects in this book).

LABOR

Smithery and music making were the mostimportant occupations of the Roma in Slo−vakia during the pre−industrial period untilthe beginning of the 20th century. ManyRoma also earned a living by processingnatural materials. Because the Roma neverowned land, they were wholly dependent on


farmers for their basic food. On the otherhand, the farmers needed cheap labor to hoegardens, dig potatoes, harvest corn, cart hay,build houses, dig wells, chop wood, etc. Inreturn the Roma usually asked for food, oldclothes, old furniture, and household uten−sils. As this kind of coexistence benefitedboth sides, the Roma and the farmers main−tained close relationships. During the indus−trial age, however, these links gradually dis−solved, and the Roma were forced to startworking in heavy industry. Given their lowqualifications, after 1989 most Roma becamesuperfluous in the new economy. The oncestrong relationships between the Roma andthe majority no longer existed (Jurová, 1993).

The Roma’s lack of any relationship to prop−erty, and their “strategy of the makeshift”, inthe post−1989 society limited their access toopportunities as well as their chances in com−peting for valuable goods (such as educationand good jobs). The social exclusion of theRoma was under way on two fronts: margin−alization, and incorporation.

Marginalization involves a limiting of op−tions, frequently resulting in reproducedpoverty. During the communist regime andthe command economy, the state tried tosolve the problem of marginalization by in−corporating the rural population into thenewly built heavy industry sector, where thecountry folk worked in positions requiringfew or no qualifications. This form of incor−poration was illusory, as it did not improvepeople’s social position.

The poor social/economic position of theRoma had traditionally been improved by theinformal economy. Only those whose livingstrategies were based on participation in both(formal and informal) economies stood achance of improving their social position.The informal economy, however, requiresthe presence of domestic agriculture and

manufacturing, which in turn requires own−ership of land and production tools. The Slo−vak unskilled workforce, at least those thatworked outside the agrarian sector, tended towork in the factory during the day, and in thefields in the afternoon and evening. How−ever, this never held true for the Roma. Theirdependence on the formal economy causedthem to fall even deeper into poverty than themajority population.

Besides the informal economy, another im−portant factor in maintaining the standard ofliving of the majority population and incor−porating it into society was that both partnershad to have a job – the two income familymodel. However, many Roma families onlyhad one income, as Roma women usuallystayed home to look after their many chil−dren.

Differences in income and standard of livingin communist−era Slovakia were never indirect proportion to the level of educationachieved. Certain branches of industry, espe−cially manufacturing, received preferentialtreatment – achieving a certain social statuswas based on the principle of collective andnot individual mobility. Education was notseen as a tool for achieving a certain stand−ard of living and social position. Instead, itwas the chance to work in a certain industrialsector, and the type of education required toachieve this, that granted people a certainstandard of living. The entire educationalsystem in Slovakia had to conform to thisprinciple, with the majority of Slovak citi−zens having only elementary education orsecondary vocational education. After 1989,this became a trap, particularly for the Roma,who had been allowed to remain at a verylow level of education and qualifications. Asthe communist economy had needed un−skilled labor, the Roma had understandablynot been encouraged to change anything interms of their education and skills.


POST−1989 CHANGES

CONSEQUENCES OFTRANSFORMATION FORTHE ROMA COMMUNITY

The 1989 social, economic and politicalchange was launched in a situation that, withrespect to the Roma, was characterized bythe following:1. The relationship between the majority

population and the Roma was tense due tothe feeling that resources had been un−fairly redistributed.

2. The Roma had become fully accustomedto the rules and conditions of life under thecommunist regime.

3. The differences that existed between somegroups of Roma were termed “sociallypathological behavior”, and some Romacommunities were defined as unable toadapt to mainstream society. This was thespirit in which the state approached theRoma – their diversity was viewed as theresult of a diseased Roma society. Statesocial policy thus focused on “curing” thisdisease (Romové v České republice, 1999).

4. At the beginning of the transformationperiod, the job skills of the Roma were farinferior to those of the majority popula−tion. They also had many bad work habitsthat did not suit the requirements of atransforming economy.

5. The basic differences between individualmembers of the Roma community in Slo−vakia were due to the following variables:the status of the region in which they lived;the level of integration or segregation oftheir community; the level of concentra−tion of the Roma in that community; andthe proportion of Roma who lived dis−persed among majority society. The levelof integration or segregation was based onthe following criteria: ownership relations(whether the Roma had legal title to theirhouses and lots), and access to infrastruc−

ture (sewage system, waste disposal, wa−ter etc.). Other differentiation criteria in−cluded the proximity of roads, the pres−ence of electricity, the size of the flat, thesize of the family, and the equipment of theflat.

6. The Roma population is heterogeneous,with the level of poverty depending onthe level of segregation and the concen−tration of the Roma.

The greater the seg−

regation, and the more Roma that live inthe segregated settlement, the greater thepoverty.

7. The level of segregation is an importantfactor in the stratification of the Roma: theintegrated Roma, whether living in highconcentration in a certain area, or as partof the majority community, close ranks ina caste sense against those Roma who livein segregated settlements. The “inte−grated” Roma refer to these Roma as“Gypsies”, and strongly distance them−selves from this class of people. Segre−gated Roma living in marginalized regionsthus experience an absolute form of eth−nic poverty.

The social status of the Roma living in seg−regated settlements is far worse than that ofthe integrated Roma. In every region, Romafrom the settlements are the poorest of thepoor. Here again, the status of the regionplays an important role – the situation of thesegregated Roma in a marginalized region ismuch worse than that of the segregatedRoma in regions with better macroeconomic,social and cultural characteristics, and can bemeasured by the type of house – whethermade of brick or wood – the number of peo−ple sharing one bed, and the basic infrastruc−ture and household equipment.

The segregated settlements are also incom−patible with the majority when it comes tomaking rational choices about how to im−prove one’s status. The social structure of the


Roma, the inaccessibility of the Roma upperclass (the caste structure), and family ties arenot conducive to an improvement in the situ−ation of the Roma lower class. The socialdistance within the Roma population is notjust spatial (between individual settlements)but can also be found within the settlements.In all regions of Slovakia there are settle−ments with socially differentiated communi−ties of Roma, from the upper classes to thelowest. However, there is no social solidar−ity between them; the only solidarity thatexists is within the family. The situation ofthe poorest segregated Roma thus dependsdirectly on social networks between theRoma and the non−Roma.

Education and employment

After 1989, coercive tools stopped beingused so widely in education and the schoolsystem, children stopped being widely put inorphanages, and the means of social controland law enforcement were relaxed; the resultwas increased school absenteeism amongRoma children. During the communist re−gime, the police had had the authority tobring the parents of a hookey−playing childin for questioning, while the state could eventake children from their parents or withholdwelfare benefits if the children did not attendschool. Roma children from separated andsegregated settlements are now handicappedin three ways: first, during their enrollmentin elementary schools, then in entrance ex−aminations to secondary school. After con−sidering their chances, they usually choosea secondary trade school (the determiningfactor being the distance of the school fromtheir homes), which is the third limiting fac−tor. They find themselves trapped in the po−sition of unemployed trade school graduateswith no hope of finding jobs near theirhomes. If they complete their education, theytend to return to their original environment

and reproduce their parents’ behavior, usu−ally ending up on welfare, which the younggeneration now regards as normal. If they domanage to get a job, it is usually only infor−mal employment – either illegal work orshort−term labor – and even these opportu−nities are becoming fewer with increasingsegregation.

Health Care

The transformation of the Slovak health caresystem to an insurance system stressing in−dividual responsibility for one’s own health(e.g. the abolition of compulsory medicalcheck−ups) caused the health of the Romapopulation to deteriorate. This decline wasrelated to the tendency of the Roma to focusonly on the present and to neglect preventivemedical care. Their poor socioeconomic situ−ation, and the unsuitable housing and infra−structure that go along with it, also contrib−uted to the sharp decline in Roma health inSlovakia after 1989. All available data con−firm that Roma health is worsening, espe−cially in isolated Roma settlements. Since1989, the number of upper respiratory tractdiseases has increased significantly, andsome settlements have recorded cases of tu−berculosis. Due to the above factors, there isa constant threat of epidemics in Roma set−tlements. The most widespread diseases areskin and venereal diseases. Accidents arefrequent as well. Some infectious and para−sitic diseases occurring among Roma chil−dren are almost never seen among the ma−jority population. Brain fever poses a graveproblem. The frequent occurrence of vari−ous degrees of mental retardation amongRoma children is also related to their so−cially disadvantaged environment. Eventhough the mainstream population haseradicated typhoid fever and is still tryingto eliminate diseases such as trachoma (con−tagious eye disease), syphilis, and diseases


of the lower respiratory tract and the intes−tine, many of these illnesses can still be foundin Roma settlements. The most frequent dis−eases are scab (mange), pediculosis (lice in−festation), pyoderma (skin disease), andmycosis (disease caused by parasitic fungus),along with the various consequences ofchronic alcoholism, and accidents. Con−sumption of the meat of perished animals hasalso in some cases causing diseases of thegastrointestinal tract (see the chapter RomaHealth in this book).

Housing

Housing policy is one sphere that has beenalmost completely removed from statehands, as concerns both flats and houses, andthe land on which they are built. Some 90%of flats were put in private hands after 1989,while the land was given new owners. Ten−ants were allowed to acquire private title toland that they had occupied at no cost, pro−vided they met two basic conditions:1. The house built on the land had to have

been built on the basis of a valid construc−tion permit, or it must have had a validconstruction approval.

2. If no “restituent” (the former owner of theland before its nationalization by the com−munists) was interested in acquiring theland, it had to be registered in the landregistry.

If these two conditions were met, the tenantwas allowed to request that title to the landbe transferred to him or her. However, therewas a serious shortage of information aboutthese procedures among most Slovak people,all the more so among the Roma. Issues suchas the legality or the illegality of land own−ership had simply not existed during commu−nism. The changes that took place after 1989thus suddenly created a large group of Romaliving illegally on someone else’s land.

Moreover, legalizing one’s land has becomeincreasingly complicated, as the require−ments for securing a construction permit (to−day one needs 32 permits) and building ap−proval have increased as well. Many Romadwellings do not meet the legal standards, butthe Roma often do not have the money toreconstruct or complete their houses. Evenwhen they do, they often cannot use themoney because they do not own the land.

After 1989, the state cancelled its subsidizedloans, stopped building houses, and turnedthe entire housing issue over to the munici−palities and towns, who started to behave likeany other player on the market. Now, withdemand for flats far outstripping the supply,prices for apartments and houses have risento levels that are out of sight for the averagewage earner (to give the reader an idea, two−bedroom flats in Bratislava in early 2003were starting at around 2 million Sk, or about$57,000, which is approximately 150 timesthe average gross national monthly wage. Inother words, the average wage−earner wouldhave to work for almost 13 years, withoutspending any money or paying any taxes, toafford a modest apartment for his family).

The chances for the Roma to acquire andkeep a flat in this situation are thus minimal,as the competition is just too great, especiallyfor housing at prices the Roma might just beable to afford. Housing construction in Slo−vakia since 1989 has fallen far short of thepopulation’s needs. The public reacts verysensitively to any injustice, whether real orperceived, in housing policy, housing con−trol, the granting of loans, etc. The provisionof community (i.e. cheap) housing as a re−sponse to the situation on the housing mar−ket cannot even begin to meet the needs offamilies in crisis. While the Roma are not theonly ones in need, they are undoubtedly onthe bottom rung of the ladder (see the chap−ter Roma Housing in this book).


POVERTY AND LIFE STRATEGIES

The changes described above are part of a newtype of social stratification defined by newtypes of social relationships. The starting pointfor this new stratification comprised twostratification pyramids formed during thecommunist regime: the establishment pyramid(social capital) and the informal economypyramid (private capital). These two pyramidslater intersected, with social capital providingchances to create and access material capital.One only has to look at the Slovak businessregister to see how many former communistestablishment members have done exceed−ingly well in the free market.

The Roma did not belong to either of thesepyramids, and thus had no chance to join ahigher class. Without access to either socialor material capital, they stood no chance ofwinning a position or even participating inthe new market. This applied both to thelabor market as well as the market for priva−tized property – for example, when flats,houses, land, and small businesses were pri−vatized (Kusá, 1997).

During the communist regime, poverty ex−isted and pertained to the Roma, who tendedto make up a greater−than−average share ofthe poorest category of people. After 1989,the concept of poverty acquired a new mean−ing based on the inequalities between indi−viduals on the one hand, and entire socialcategories on the other.

The group characteristics of poverty havebeen dubbed the “new vertical poverty”, aphenomenon in which entire social catego−ries are made dependent on welfare benefitsbecause of changes in the structure of em−ployment. The main factor here is not thenumber of children, but inadequate educa−tion, and the decline of trade unions and en−tire branches of the economy, causing long−

term unemployment. The Roma are a specialcase in that they combine the “old” form ofdemographic poverty (i.e. many children),and the “new” vertical poverty implicit intheir lack of skills and their history of em−ployment in obsolete economic sectors. Indealing with group/vertical poverty, indi−vidual life strategies are of great importance,but are not in themselves sufficient. One’schances of escaping this form of poverty alsodepend on the system of social care andrights. Vertical poverty is the result ofchanges in the system, not of individual fail−ures. The depth and extent of Roma povertyis mainly a result of the scale and depth oftheir separation and segregation, and the in−come and asset inequality resulting from thissegregation.

From the viewpoint of economic structure,the Slovak Roma are largely homogenous inclass and qualifications. Most belong to thesocial and occupational category of “un−skilled labor”, which is why most Roma alsobelong to the group of low−income Slovakcitizens. As for the nature of work, under thecommunist regime a certain Roma family“monotype” was created, characterized byunskilled industrial or agricultural laborerswith neither vocational nor general second−ary education, low average income per fam−ily member, and the man usually workingoutside the village where he lives. Since1989, unemployment among Roma men hasconstantly increased, thereby also raising thenumber of Roma families in which both theman and the woman are unemployed (Džam−bazovič, 2000).

Among the Roma who live in poverty orthreatened by poverty, various forms of in−equality can be observed (Mareš, 1999):• income inequality (inequality of posses−

sions);• consumption and lifestyle inequality (in−

equality of chances);


• status inequality (the symbolic expressionof inequality);

• inequality of abilities and inequality on thelabor market (the theory of human capital);

• inequality in education and access to edu−cation (the theory of human capital);

• inequality in privileges and the strength ofshared social networks (the theory of so−cial capital);

• inequality in the distribution of influenceand power (theory of political capital).

After 1989, the state reacted to this situationby creating a system of social welfare, a so−cial safety net. The effect of this was to nar−row the view of poverty to material and so−cial need.

The state views poverty as an individual fail−ure and a matter of personal responsibility,and in turn conditions the provision of wel−fare benefits on testing, measuring, andmonitoring individual behavior and strate−gies. The culture of dependence is thus en−couraged and strengthened, with all the fea−tures of reproduced poverty: feelings ofmarginality, distress, fatalism, despair, pas−sivity, aggression, and impulsiveness, theabsence of planning and saving strategies,and distrust of the authorities.

The basic strategy used in Slovakia to solveproblems, by both the Roma and the major−ity population, is cooperation and mutual aidwithin the family and extended family. Thedifference lies in what kind of help the fam−ily and relatives provide, and whether theyare able to help at all. Family strategies aredetermined mainly by the cultural and his−torical background and living conditions ofindividual families. The prevailing familystrategy in settlements and villages dependson the social and cultural character of themunicipality, much more than on the demo−graphic characteristics of the family. Thesocial and cultural character of segregated

Romany settlements is one of collectivemarginalization and social exclusion with nopotential for mutual help. Family−orientedliving strategies are not effective, or ratherare impossible to use this environment. Themore homogenous the settlement, the lowerthe chance that supportive family networkswill be effective. These living strategies arecompletely absent in segregated Romanysettlements. Some NGOs are trying to com−pensate for the absence of supportive familynetworks and mutual help by creating com−munity centers.

Under the new social circumstances, tried−and−true family strategies are being revived.Besides the family network strategy, the tra−ditional majority population family also usesthe strategy of self−help and going abroad forwork. However, segregated Roma commu−nities never use the self−help strategy (thereis nothing to build on), unless one counts thetheft of self−help products belonging to themajority population. The fact that the Romado not use this strategy is not seen by themajority as traditional and typical Romabehavior, but instead as evidence of theirlaziness and inclination to steal – to take theeasiest way out rather than actively changetheir position. The more open the Roma com−munity and the more varied the environmentit belongs to, the more likely it is that a self−help strategy will be used.

There is basically only one active strategyleft for the Roma: departure. However, thisstrategy cannot be used in marginalized andsegregated settlements (to be able to leave,one has to have certain resources). Collectivedeparture is typical of the Roma, involvingthe departure of entire families from certainlocations (among the majority population,usually only one member of the family leavesto find a job). Higher welfare benefits are afrequent motive. The mass exodus of Romamultiplies the tension within society, as the


majority population is then “punished” fortheir departure by individual states that intro−duce a visa obligation for traveling Slovaksas a defense against the influx of Roma (Pro−file and Situation..., 2000).

All of the strategies mentioned above aremerely temporary and provisional solutionswith no prospect of significantly improvingpeople’s living situations. Strategies typicalof the pre−communist period, such as small−scale agriculture, breeding animals, andsmall handcrafts, which could have a longerlasting effect, have only been revived spo−radically and in isolated cases. Not only dopeople lack the experience in these areas, butthe country also lacks an efficient system ofstate support. Following the dissolution inthe 1990s of the agricultural cooperativesand the state−owned farms that used to em−ploy most of the majority population and theRoma, these cottage industry activities seemthe only way to find new job opportunities.The decline in agricultural production, how−ever, led to the departure of the majoritypopulation – its members either chose totravel to work in another location and back,or left their homes in the country altogether.Typical Roma crafts can no longer be usedin the villages, as they always complementedother types of production by delivering cer−tain products or services.

THE PHENOMENON OF“DOUBLE MARGINALIZATION”

In some Roma settlements there is 100%unemployment. These are Slovakia’s “val−leys of hunger”, territories with “visible is−lands of poverty”. They are places threatenedby total social disorganization and the forma−tion of a culture of poverty as the only wayof adapting to the situation. All of this is lead−ing to the formation of an urban and ruralunderclass.

The post−1989 transformation, besides itsstructural dimension, also had spatial, re−gional, and micro−regional dimensions.Some areas turned into marginal territoriesin terms of socioeconomic development.Marginalization has roots in the past – theperiod of “communist industrialization” andthe “industrial urbanization” of Slovakia.After 1989, the inherited marginalization ofregions deepened further, and also afflictednew regions. The affected regions tend to becompact areas in the extreme south, east andnorth of Slovakia. These are areas with eth−nically and nationally mixed inhabitants,thus giving marginalization an ethnic and apolitical dimension. Marginalized areas haveseveral things in common: a high unemploy−ment rate, a high long−term unemploymentrate, and a high rate of social dependence.These characteristics depend first of all onthe quality of human capital, infrastructure,and the social and spatial arrangement of theregion. These marginalized areas combinethe old demographic and the new verticalpoverty, with low entrepreneurial potentialand a low influx of capital and investments.A decline in living conditions, civilizationand cultural standards, and difficult access toeducation and cultural activities, are typicalin these areas. As a consequence, these re−gions have a limited ability to internally in−fluence their own social development, just asthey have a limited ability to adapt to thechanged conditions since 1989, and few peo−ple capable of actively, responsibly and crea−tively searching for ways to escape their mar−ginalized position.

The Roma who live in marginalized regionsand segregated settlements find themselvesin a situation of double marginalization. Thelimited possibilities of the marginalized re−gion, combined with the absence of self−help potential, require specific support anddevelopment programs that focus on boththe marginalized region, and the margin−


alized, segregated settlements within thatregion. No program can be successful in thelong term without making major changes inthe field of employment and housing policy.Double marginalization cannot be over−come by individual life strategies (unlessthe strategy involves moving away). Themultiple effects of disintegration andmarginalization show up amongst the Romain a long term lack of material security, andabsolute poverty. Material security (food,drink, clothing, housing, and heat) allowsbiological survival and the satiation of pri−mary needs, but also focus one on the needto have these goods. People begin to focuson survival rather than on living. Concen−tration on material security makes it impos−sible to improve one’s living conditions.Material security is in fact a bridge, a pre−requisite for achieving social security andtaking care of one’s secondary needs – es−pecially self−identity, self−affirmation, edu−cation, culture, etc. The basis for achievingsocial security is social contacts, and socialcontacts are the only possibility for beingincluded in the social order. The segregatedRoma are pressured to acquire material se−curity without having the chance to performother activities, neither for themselves norfor others. They are not capable of partici−pating in informal social networks by them−selves. Forming such networks for theRoma and with the participation of theRoma is the basic aim of all social players.The strategies of the segregated Roma aresurvival−oriented, and make them depend−ent and reliant. Their dependence is of amaterial nature, because their survival de−pends on welfare benefits and other institu−tions. However, there is an equal threat of theformation of social dependence – depend−ence on others. The double marginalizationof the Roma is accompanied by multipledependence, both material and social. Dou−ble and multiple dependence means the

Roma are unable to participate, and thus losetheir self−confidence and self−esteem.

REFERENCES

1. Bačová, Viera.: “Národ a etnicita – nahliad−nutie do niektorých koncepcií” [‘Nation andEthnicity – A View of Some Concepts’], So−ciológia, No. 1 – 2, 1992, p. 17 – 25.

2. Bačová, Viera and Zeľová, Anna: “Etnickémenšiny na Slovensku” [‘Ethnic Minorities inSlovakia’], Sociológia, No. 4 – 5, 1993, p. 417– 433.

3. Džambazovič, Roman: Premeny rómskej ro−diny [Metamorphosis of the Roma Family],(Bratislava: MŠ SR, Sociology Department ofComenius University, 2000).

4. Falťan, Ľubomír, Gajdoš, Peter and Pašiak,Ján: Sociálna marginalita území Slovenska[Social Marginalization in Slovakia], (Brati−slava: SPACE, 1995).

5. Hradečtí, Vlastimila and Ilja: Bezdomovství –extrémní vyloučení [Homelessness: ExtremeExclusion], (Prague: Naděje, 1996).

6. Chudoba ako sociálny problém: Teória a prax[Poverty as a Social Problem: Theory andPractice], Zborník príspevkov z medzinárod−ného seminára konaného v dňoch 13. – 14.novembra 1995 [Compilation of reports froman international seminar held on November13 and 14, 1995], (Bratislava: Ministerstvospravodlivosti SR, Statistical Office of theSlovak Republic, Ministerstvo práce, sociál−nych vecí a rodiny SR, 1995).

7. Jurová, Anna: Vývoj rómskej problematiky naSlovensku po roku 1945 [Evolution of theRoma Issue in Slovakia after 1945], (Bratisla−va – Košice: Goldpress Publishers, 1993).

8. Jurová, Anna: Rómska problematika 1945 –1967. Dokumenty 1. časť. [The Roma Issue1945 – 1967: Documents, Part 1], (Prague:Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 1996).

9. Kusá, Zuzana: Poverty in Family Lives andFamily Histories, in Past and Present Pov−erty, (Bratislava: Sociologický inštitút SAV,SPACE, 1997).

10. Kusá, Zuzana: Social History of Poverty inSlovakia. Final Report, (Bratislava: Sociolo−gický inštitút SAV, 1997).


11. Machonin, Pavol and Tuček, Milan et al: Čes−ká společnost v transformaci (k proměnám so−ciální struktury) [Czech Society in Transfor−mation (Changes in the Social Structure)],(Prague: SLON, 1996).

12. Mann, Arne B.: “Postavenie Rómov na Slo−vensku počas druhej svetovej vojny” [‘ThePosition of the Roma in Slovakia During theSecond World War’] in Neznámy holocaust[The Unknown Holocaust], (Prague, 1995).

13. Mann, Arne B.: Problém identity Rómov. Ró−movia v majoritnej spoločnosti na Slovensku(dynamika etnosociálnych a kultúrnych vzťa−hov) [The Issue of Roma Identity: The Romain Majority Society in Slovakia (Dynamics ofEthnic, Social and Cultural Relationships)],Academic dissertation, (Bratislava: SAV,1996).

14. Mareš, Petr and Možný, Ivo: Poverty in theCzech Republic: Transformation to Transi−tion, (Prague: Foundation for the Research ofSocial Transformation, 1995).

15. Mareš, Petr and Možný, Ivo: “Institucionali−zace chudoby v Čechách. Přehledová studie”[‘The Institutionalization of Poverty in theCzech Republic: A Survey’] in Pracovní se−šity školy sociálních studií [Textbooks of theSchool of Social Studies], (Brno: Social Stud−ies Faculty, Masaryk University, 1994).

16. Mareš, Petr and Možný, Ivo (eds.): Nezaměs−tnanost – nizozemská zkušenost a českoslo−venská realita [Unemployment – Experiencefrom the Netherlands and the CzechoslovakReality], (Brno: Masaryk University, 1991).

17. Mareš, Petr: Sociologie nerovnosti a chudoby[Sociology of Inequality and Poverty],(Prague: SLON, 1999).

18. Pongs, Armin: “V jaké společnosti vlastně ži−jeme?” [‘What Kind of Society Are we Liv−ing In?’] in Společenské koncepce – srovnání

[Social Concepts: A Comparison], (Prague:ISV, 2000).

19. Profile and Situation of Slovak Asylum Seek−ers and Potential Migrants to the EU Coun−tries, (Bratislava: International Organizationfor Migration, 2000).

20. Radičová, Iveta: Hic Sunt Romales. Bratisla−va: Fulbright Commission, 2001.

21. Radičová, Iveta, Woleková, Helena and Ne−mec, Juraj: Zdravie, práca, dôchodok [Health,Work, Pension], (Bratislava: CONSENSUSII, 1999).

22. Radičová, Iveta et al.: Sociálna politika v SR[Social Policy in Slovakia], (Bratislava:SPACE, 1998).

23. Roma and Statistics, (Strasbourg: PER,2000).

24. Romové v České republice [Roma in theCzech Republic], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

25. Romové – reflexe problému [The Roma: Re−flection of the Problem], (Prague: Sofis,1997).

26. Tang, Helena (ed.): Winners and Losers of EUIntegration, Policy Issues for Central andEastern Europe, (Washington D.C.: TheWorld Bank, 2000).

27. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma’” in Mesežni−kov, Grigorij and Ivantyšyn, Michal (eds.):Slovakia 1998 to 1999: A Global Report onthe State of Society, (Bratislava: Institute forPublic Affairs, 1999).


29. Vašečka, Imrich: Group Strategies of the Citi−zens in Selected Local Communities in Situ−ations of Social Menace, Summary of theConcluding Report, (Vienna: IWM, 1995).

75

Summary: This text explains the basic prin−ciples by which the Roma are grouped intosocial categories, both by themselves and bythe majority population. It addresses issuessuch as self−evaluation and socializationamong the Slovak Roma, and examines thestate of their social consciousness and nation−forming processes. The chapter looks at eth−nicity as a form of identity on a general level,and examines alternative forms of identifica−tion and the issue of ethnic identificationamong the Roma.

Key words: identity, ethnicity, ethnic iden−tification process, sub−ethnic groups, family,nation, nationalism, traditions, stereotypes,integration, historical consciousness.

INTRODUCTION

Anthropologist Claude Lévi−Strauss, in hisbook The Thinking of Natural Nations, statesthat all thought is based on order. He arguesthat people are only able to think about them−selves and their surroundings if they are ableto organize external and internal stimuli andexperiences, and provided they can verifywhether the qualities of things perceived bythe senses are related to their real qualities.These processes create a world that is or−dered logically. To keep their bearings in thisworld, people create “categories” by whichthey group the phenomena they encounter.Each group of people interprets the worldslightly differently, within the framework of

ZDENĚK UHEREK and KAREL A. NOVÁK

THE ETHNIC IDENTITY OF THE ROMA

the ideas and language systems they use.Because people who use different languagesorganize the world differently, they perceiveit in different ways as well (Carrol, 1956).

Just as people order the animate and inani−mate world according to their systems ofideas and language, so too do they structurehuman society. The criteria they use are gen−erally not invented by individuals but areinherited from the environment they functionwithin. Most of these criteria are absorbedduring childhood, through the process ofsocialization – becoming a part of society.This process is not passive: We constantlyalter the criteria and shape them according toour personal and social experiences. In cat−egorizing human society, we put ourselvesinto individual categories, and think aboutthe categories we belong to and those wedon’t. Some of these categories includeblondes and brunettes, pretty and ugly, goodand evil, poor and rich, clever and stupid,black and white. Individuals classify eachother arbitrarily, without either their consentor their knowledge of the results.

SOCIAL GROUPS AND THE ROMA

LANGUAGE AND THE ROMA

The language of the Roma in Slovakia is nothomogenous. It has a common root, but sev−eral offshoots, such as the language of theVlachika Roma and that of the Sinti, and the

76 Z d e n ě k U h e r e k a n d K a r e l A . N o v á k

tongue of the Slovak Roma, which can befurther divided into East−Slovak, West−Slo−vak, Central−Slovak and Hungarian dialects;finally, there is the dialect of the RumanianRoma who live in Slovakia (for details seethe chapter The Roma Language and itsStandardization). What characterizes theselanguages is that they were (and are) formedin close contact with the languages of themajority population. The different dialectsspoken by the Slovak Roma result from thefact that the Roma have lived in differentlocal environments in Slovakia. This indi−cates on the one hand that the language of theRoma is highly flexible, and on the other thatRoma culture is not ordained by independ−ent cultural institutions, which for examplemight try to codify a binding form of liter−ary Romany. In fact, the Roma began to es−tablish such cultural institutions only re−cently. In the absence of stable cultural insti−tutions, Roma culture tends to change spon−taneously and quickly, with both positive andnegative results.

One can see a trend in the language of theSlovak Roma to separate words with Romaand non−Roma origins, with the distinctionbetween the Roma and the rest of the worldbeing of primary importance. For the Roma,the human world is divided into two basiccategories – the Roma (or own group mem−bers – see below) and the non−Roma.

THE ROMA AS A SOCIAL CATEGORY

We form attitudes towards everything thatsurrounds us; we evaluate the known classi−fied world; we create scenarios for how todeal with things and people. We identify withsome groups of people and distance our−selves from others. If we find ourselvesamong people with a poor reputation in so−ciety, people who prevent us from develop−ing, or people who cause us physical or men−

tal pain, we may start to hate the category ofpeople we feel we belong to.

Slovakia’s Roma have a very ambiguousattitude to the category they have been as−signed to, either by themselves or by others.Both the 1991 and 2001 population censusesshowed that many ethnic Roma don’t offi−cially claim Roma nationality, but prefer toidentify themselves in a different way (ineach census, only about 20 – 25% of the eth−nic Roma believed to live in Slovakia iden−tified themselves as Roma, with many in−stead claiming Slovak or Hungarian nation−ality). In their local communities, however,the Roma often feel the impossibility of es−caping this category. After all, one does notask other people which categories theywould place themselves in, but instead oneautomatically classifies others according totheir speech, nonverbal communication, ap−pearance, etc. This causes the Roma to be ex−cessively sensitive to everything that relatesto the category in which they feel trapped.

In addition to people not putting themselvesin the Roma category and choosing to belongto a different nation instead, or of confusingthe terms nationality and citizenship, a largegroup of people in Slovakia regard the term“Roma” as denoting a social and politicalcategory expressing certain political attitudesand activities. Many thus refuse to be placedin this category, even though they feel theybelong to their local Roma communities.Such people might say of themselves thatthey are not Roma but Gypsies, and that theyhave nothing in common with the Roma whoappear on television. However, many othersstill consciously claim to be Roma; thisgroup is not homogenous, but includes Romaintellectuals, politicians and other membersof the Roma elite.

As we said, we all automatically classifyother people on the basis of the criteria we

77T h e E t h n i c I d e n t i t y o f t h e R o m a

adopt from the people we live with. We con−stantly compare notes with others, to seewhether our categorizations are similar, andwhether others agree with our concepts andunderstand them. Through communicationwe clarify the boundaries of our individualcategories and learn how to defend our ownideas. This kind of communication can alsoremind us that other people often put us indifferent categories than we do ourselves,however, and that people we thought to belike us may actually put us in a different cat−egory. We have all experienced those criseswhen our view of the world doesn’t corre−spond with the views of others around us,creating conflicts over categories such childand adult, rich and poor, young and old,clever and stupid, domestic and foreign.When the Roma communicate with the ma−jority population, they are rarely categorizedaccording to their abilities, talent, age, etc.,but usually according to their ethnic origin– Roma. This knee−jerk reaction complicatescommunication, and sets stereotypes on acollision course with the actions and at−tributes of the communicating parties.

SOCIAL GROUPS

The process of evaluation and categorizationtakes place in a world of real social relation−ships that an individual enters at birth. Theserelationships are partly determined by a per−son’s origin and abilities, while the rest maybe chosen. Social groups are formed on thebasis of these relationships. People in groupsinteract either face to face or implicitly, andthis mutual interaction, formation of alli−ances and interest groups influences the hu−man perception of the world and how it isstructured.

Social groups can be divided into primaryand secondary groups. Primary groups arethose whose members have frequent per−

sonal contacts, strong emotional ties, knoweach other well, and conduct their relation−ships according to unwritten rules that theymake up themselves. Secondary groups, onthe other hand, are those where mutual con−tacts are governed by reason rather thanemotion, where social ties are less tight, andcommunication is not always direct but maybe mediated; the social hierarchy is also moreformal, and social interaction is controlled byrules set outside the group. Observance ofthese rules is often supervised by a mutuallyrecognized authority. At any time, each in−dividual belongs to a variety of groups, andhas a certain status and role in each of them.

These groups shape both individual and col−lective constructions of reality (i.e. how theworld is perceived) on the basis of languageand categories. Individuals often find it easi−est to communicate on this topic with mem−bers of their own groups, as such communi−cation forms one’s ideas and language.Through communication individuals sharetheir social experiences, and create a worldmade up of common knowledge, experience,emotions and meanings, and predictablebehavior and environments – this becomesthe culture of the group and its members.That’s why we sometimes speak of the cul−tural construction of reality.

THE ROMA AS MEMBERS OFSOCIAL GROUPS

The Roma in Slovakia have very little expe−rience of either the creation of secondarygroups or existence within such groups.Their basic social links are family ties andface−to−face relationships within their localcommunities. The rules of formal communi−cation, and forms of solidarity based on otherthan family ties, are often extremely foreignto the Roma because of their limited accessto structures beyond primary links, and be−


cause the Roma themselves do not createthese secondary links. Even when the Romaparticipate in broader economic relation−ships, they are usually limited to the role ofwage−laborers ordered and remunerated byan employer (once again, a face−to−face re−lationship). The employer, furthermore, of−ten knows the Roma personally and asksthem to carry out a particular task or servicefor compensation (such as a meal). The workor service is then carried out by an individualor an entire family, which also consumes thecompensation. All of this takes place face−to−face within the local community, with formalrelationships having little influence. Whereasin the past majority population individualsoutside Roma families used to request workor services and give remuneration for them,many local communities have fallen apartsince the 1989 revolution, and these formalinstitutions have fallen apart with them orbeen transformed. All that has remained insuch places are family institutions, which iswhy it is so difficult for the Roma to cooper−ate in groups larger than a family or a localcommunity, to form secondary group insti−tutions or to interact in such groups.

THE HUMAN IDENTITY

DEFINITION OF IDENTITY

How we view ourselves is always somewhatdifferent from how others perceive us. Forthe sake of our mental health and our abilityto function in society, both points of viewshould be as similar and as complementaryas possible. If an individual’s idea of self issubstantially different from that of his soci−ety or his real abilities and possibilities, hemay experience mental problems and prob−lems in communicating with society. Thetask for all of us is to show others what weare really like and what we really think, in anattempt to bring both realities (our own view

and the world’s) closer together, and to livea life of harmony. However, this is notenough. Human society is varied, and everyindividual looks at others through differenteyes. In seeking our own identities we mustoften abandon the idea that we will succeedin harmonizing our perception of ourselveswith how everyone else sees us. Part of thesearch for identity is thus the quest for groupsthat confirm our own ideas. Berger andLuckmann wrote that “identity is formed bysocial processes” and that “history is writtenby people with clear identities” (Luckmannand Berger, 1999).

IDENTITY OF THE ROMA

The identities of individual Roma differ ac−cording to level of education, social status, andplace of abode. The identity of educated, ur−ban−dwelling Roma resembles that of mem−bers of the majority population. It consists ofa plurality of statuses and roles formed dur−ing negotiations between the self and the in−dividual’s social environment. Nevertheless,Roma face a constant threat of conflict be−tween their self−evaluations and the views ofmainstream society, with Roma individualsevaluating themselves according to the resultsof their interactions and how well they are ableto reach their objectives, and mainstream so−ciety using prejudices and stereotypes. Theself−evaluations of the Roma correspond withthe evaluations of their closest social sur−roundings (primary relationships within thefamily), but this is not enough to overcome thetension and uncertainty that results from con−flict with how the rest of society views theRoma. It is often very difficult to communi−cate even with educated Roma, as they al−ways assume that their counterparts are notspeaking with them as colleagues, equals, orprofessionals, but as “Roma”; differences ofopinion can easily be perceived as criticismand as personal attacks and failures.


Pavel Říčan has noted that this imbalancebetween self−evaluation and the evaluation ofthe social environment may provoke a wholerange of reactions from the Roma – from aloss of self−consciousness and an attempt toretreat into mainstream society, to self−pityand a deteriorating self−concept. The Romaoften now disguise their identities and disso−ciate themselves from the society they camefrom, which sometimes leads to open con−frontation. (Říčan, 1998). As for less−edu−cated Roma from rural environments, thedifference between their self−evaluations andthe evaluation of mainstream society oftenmeans that personal identity is forged in in−teractions between the individual and theprimary group, with contacts with the major−ity population being perceived as a necessaryevil and gradually being erased from the per−sonality forming process. On the other hand,mainstream society is sometimes perceived asan opposition group that has to be confronted.This may lead to double standards of ethicalor moral conduct, where actions criticized inone’s own group are allowed if committedagainst the mainstream population.

Besides the individual’s identity there is alsoa group identity formed on the basis of howthe group’s members think of themselves andhow they perceive their past, their impor−tance and their goals in contrast to how thoseoutside the group perceive them.

Each individual carries with him severalgroup identities that are in permanent flux inboth quality and quantity. The hierarchy ofthese identities is constantly changing aswell, with group identities being of varyingimportance to each individual. Some re−searchers speak of a central “basic groupidentity” with a determinant role for the in−dividual (Isaacs, 1975).

The group identity of the Roma is specific tothe historical consciousness typical for their

positions and habitat. The historical memoryof the Roma is very short and very precise,and is usually limited to local and familyaffairs. This confirms that the priority groupidentity of the Roma is based on their ex−tended families and local communities.

Another issue is the territorial position of thegroup. Although the majority of Roma inSlovakia are residents of the country, thenotion of home is not as firmly fixed to theirhouses, country, place of birth or abode as itis with the majority population. Instead, it istied to their relatives, families and extendedfamilies. Migratory groups like the Romaoften stress the identity of the individual withhis primary group instead of with the sur−rounding environment, which in turn leads torepeated migration.

ETHNICITY AS A SPECIFIC FORMOF IDENTITY

ETHNIC GROUPS ANDTHEIR CHARACTERISTICS

Social groups form boundaries between oneanother on the basis of innumerable criteria,including language, religion, origin, history,views on life, knowledge, skills, ancestors,shared territory, way of life, customs or hab−its, values, food, housing, style of dress. Setsof these or similar criteria are often used todefine the boundaries between social groupsknown as ethnic groups. Ethnic groups aresometimes defined as communities that dif−fer from one another in their way of life andculture.

As ethnic groups are social constructs, theymay take different forms and properties. Insome cases the decisive criterion is language,in others it is religion, the origin of the par−ents, genetic affinity, how long the group haslived in a given area, or hatred of a common


enemy. The ways ethnic groups define them−selves as distinct from other groups can dif−fer widely. While surrounding groups oftendefine themselves according to external,easy−to−identify features mixed with ethnicstereotypes, ethnic groups prefer genealogy,religion or cosmology. They often createmyths referring to a common origin, history,mutual affinity to the group, heroic deeds byancestors, lofty group morals, mutual soli−darity, or important contributions by thegroup to human culture, world order or hu−man civilization.

THE ROMA AND ETHNIC GROUPS

The term Roma denotes a number of migra−tory groups that originated in India, itself avast subcontinent inhabited by many ethnicand language groups. In the 21st century theRoma can be found on all continents. Indi−vidual groups of Roma differ from each otherin language, way of life, standard of living,and frequently also according to social andpolitical orientation. Some individuals andgroups that could have a common genetic orgeographic origin don’t consider themselvesRoma, for two main reasons: first, beingidentified with the Roma is not considereda social advantage, and second, people of−ten feel they belong to the majority culture,or choose another way of identifying them−selves. The pursuit of the nomadic or seminomadic way of life typical of many Romagroups in European countries among thesettled majority populations also compli−cates the creation of ethnic links and insti−tutions.

Many groups live in isolation, having littleor no contact with other groups of Roma.This clearly limits the effect of institutionssupporting mutual solidarity and the creationof social relationships based on a commonculture, way of life and solidarity. Clear so−

cial organization is often present only at thelevel of family and extended family struc−tures, and is not common in larger units.Nevertheless, some groups of Roma, mainlypolitically active elites, see the Roma as anation or a European minority. Such groupsattempt to create and maintain links amongthe Roma typical of ethnic groups and na−tions, as well as national and internationalnetworks. Non−Roma cooperating with theRoma elite often form parts of these net−works or even their organizational backbones(for details see Uherek, 1999, p. 38 – 45).

Systematic efforts to encourage a sense ofbelonging and national consciousness amongthe Roma have only been visible for severaldecades, and the results are meager. Bothmainstream society and the Roma havegradually come to accept the term Roma, adesignation that should be a symbol of Romaunification. However, the term has only beenin use for a little more than a decade, and thushas taken root only in some countries. Somegroups classified as Roma by experts or by thepublic prefer other terms, such as Manusha,Sinti, Kale etc. The slow process of socialstratification must take place before we seethe rise of social organization and socialelites capable of cooperating and represent−ing the interests of individual groups, codi−fying the language, etc.

THE ROMA, ETHNICITY,SUB−ETHNICITY AND CASTE

Studies of the Roma way of life and languageconfirm our hypothesis that the Roma livingin Slovakia today were not a compact ethnicgroup before they arrived in their currenthomeland. They included at least two sepa−rate groups – the Sinti and the VlachikaRoma – which differ from the “SlovakRoma” in their way of life and language. Thedialect spoken by the two groups is also dif−


ferent, although the differences are largelydue to the influence of the majority languageon the original Romany tongue. The desig−nation “Slovak Roma” (originally Gypsies)was created only recently by linguists to de−note a sub−ethnic group of Roma whose lan−guage had been influenced by the tonguesused by the Slovak population. The designa−tion was introduced into academic languagein the mid−1960s by Jiří Lípa (Lípa, 1965).Slovak Roma are considered a sub−ethnicgroup as a result of their five hundred yearsof coexistence with the Slovak majoritypopulation.

Individual migratory groups started to arrivein Slovakia gradually and haphazardly in the15th century from the Balkan peninsula. Thiswas a slow, successive, economic−based andsometimes even forced migration, with theRoma usually arriving in groups consistingof extended families. In the course of theirmigration the individual groups formed nosocial organization beyond cooperation be−tween several related families. As the entireRoma migration to Europe happened in thismanner, it is likely that these groups did notenjoy a close social organization in theircountries of origin either.

Milena Hübschmannová asserted that boththe Roma’s social organization and their wayof life were influenced by their having origi−nated in Indian society, which is divided into“jati” (castes) and “upjati” (sub−castes), eachforming communities with specific tradi−tional caste professions and with rigidly de−fined status, rights, obligations, and ways ofcommunication with other castes, which theycomplement economically within society.Individual “jati” maintain a certain socialdistance from each other; they differ in theirways of life, the food they eat, the clothesthey wear; and their existence is possibleonly if they can exchange their own goodsand services for those of other castes, as they

do not form economically independent units.According to Hübschmannová, this explainsthe different ways of life and traditional craftsof individual groups of Roma. Some craftswere absorbed during coexistence with themajority population, but others were im−ported from India. She also uses this exam−ple to explain the social distance, forms ofsocial contact, and economic behavior exhib−ited by individual groups of Roma to themajority population (Hübschmannová, 1993;Hübschmannová, 1999). The residue of thecaste system helps explain why the Romaidentify only with some other groups ofRoma, why individual clans maintain certaineating habits based on which they considerthemselves ritually pure or impure, why forsome groups it is degrading to live the waymainstream society does, to do physicalwork and so on.

THE SUB−ETHNICITY OF THE ROMAIN LOCAL SOCIETY

The Roma came to Slovakia as bearers ofspecific ways of life and strategies acquiredduring their migration and before, andproved successful in using them in their newsurroundings. Emília Horváthová notes thatthe Roma practiced smithing and makingmusic, baskets, brushes, paintbrushes andtubs, burning lime etc. (Horváthová, 1964).These and other activities are regarded byhistorians as typical and traditional for theRoma ethnic group. They defined the socialstatus of individual clans and allowed themto integrate into the rural or urban economies.However, not all Roma families were able tointegrate in this way. Some individuals man−aged to surmount the social barriers and wina full position in mainstream society. On theother hand, there were also groups that didnot manage to integrate into the system.Roma families that were able to integrateidentified with others in the municipality


where they worked and through their “ga−džo” – the patron or godfather of an indi−vidual family. This system fell apart duringthe Second World War and especially duringthe communist years. Pride in one’s socio−professional group – one’s “jati” – and theendogamous (marrying only within one’sgroup) nature of individuals, however, havelargely survived to the present day. TheRoma maintain a sub−ethnic differentiation,identify themselves as pure or impure, anduphold the principle of social distance.

Although some differences between groupshave ceased to divide individual families (seeLiégeois, 1997 or Marušiaková, 1988), theRoma have preserved the extended family asthe basic unit of identification.1 This wasconfirmed by Kumanová, who wrote: “Lo−cal allegiance and knowledge of tribal originform the basis of their ethnic consciousness.”(Kumanová, 1998) The extended family con−sists of the married couple, the father’s par−ents and siblings, the families of the father’ssiblings, the children of the married couple,the families of their sons and their children,and sometimes also more distant relatives(Davidová, 1965). The family is monoga−mous, patriarchal, patrilinear, and is led byits elders.2 It is quite common for severalRoma families to live in close quarters, all ofwhom have a different status, communicatewith each other but don’t visit, and maintaina certain social distance. These families usu−ally have relatives in several other places andmaintain lively social contacts with them. InSlovakia it is common to find segregateddwellings in parts of municipalities or out−side them (Roma settlements). Roma neigh−borhoods and housing estates perform thesame segregation function in towns. TheRoma family identifies with this environ−ment, but if many extended families (clans)live here, they will consider only the part bor−dering on their immediate dwelling as theirown.

If a problem has to be solved or some nov−elty introduced in a settlement or neigh−borhood, the heads of individual extendedfamilies must reach agreement on how toproceed. If municipalities want the areas in−habited by Roma to have some kind of self−government, they must help create institu−tions that promote negotiations between in−dividual families, such as the “Vajda coun−cil”. This type of institution does not alwayswork, as the Roma may not identify with anentire location or all its inhabitants. On theother hand, the Roma tend to settle theirproblems with each other, and use non−Romainstitutions only in extreme cases. The slowdeath of such institutions as Roma judges,vendettas, and highly ceremonial weddings,baptisms, and funerals also confirms thistrend (Davidová, 1965).

Individual territories, while not as importantto the self−identification of the Roma as theirextended families, are still organized accord−ing to a hierarchy. The Roma are well in−formed of where other Roma live, and havea good idea of the situation there. They knowwhere the “elite” lives, and where the situa−tion is bad; they would never enter some ofthese locations, or marry off their daughterto someone from these areas. Besides theclans living in certain areas, other importantevaluation criteria include way of life, thefood people eat, the state of infrastructure,etc. Urban Roma settlements are generallyrated higher than rural ones.

Besides where they live, the Roma sometimesidentify with parts of municipalities that theydo not inhabit, but whose institutions they use,i.e. shops, post offices where welfare benefitsare paid, municipal offices, schools, placesof work.3 Their ability to use these institu−tions often reflects their level of integrationinto society. Nevertheless, these institutionscontribute far less to the formation of groupidentity than the extended family.


ETHNICITY ANDFAMILY SOLIDARITY

The identity formed in endogamous clansscattered among the majority population onlypartly resembles ethnic identity as we knowit. This is because most authors associate theconcept with the industrialization, secu−larization, and modernization of traditionalagrarian society. The modernization of east−ern and central Slovakia (where most Romalive) is a relatively recent phenomenon, andin many places is not finished. Identity basedon extended family and location is common totraditional pre−industrial communities, includ−ing the traditional Slovak rural community.

ETHNICITY AND THE ROMA

Traditional societies are socially heterogene−ous, based on traditional statuses, and control−led by enforced solidarity. Gellner (1993)described pre−industrial societies as based on“a clearly specified social structure, and theaccentuation of cultural differences among itssubgroups – territorial, tribal, and occupa−tional groupings.” This type of structure is stillquite common in the Slovak countryside, es−pecially in Roma communities. Roma settle−ments have inner structures involving clanidentities, a clear hierarchy of individual clansin each area, and finally a hierarchy of loca−tions (settlements). These hierarchies some−times have a ritual nature, disturbing the rela−tionships between individual social groups.

In the pre−capitalist period, the naturalboundaries were formed by clan and localallegiances and by caste endogamy. Theseboundaries were hard to penetrate and al−lowed no common identity across social lay−ers to be formed. Such environments encour−aged the formation of identities other thanethnic identities. According to Petr Lozoviuk(1997), this “anomaly” was due to “the fact

that ethnicity is not a strong criterion ofgroup organization”.

For the Slovak Roma, the fact that the major−ity population sees the Roma as different inphysiognomy and culture, and applies the samestereotypes and behavior models to all Roma,has played an important role in the construc−tion of their identity. Lozoviuk notes that eth−nically neutral groups often feel they are heldback by their ethnically defined surroundings.The social environment itself puts pressure onneutral groups to show ethnicity. Ethnicity is amatter of relationships and interactions, and anethnically neutral group reacts on the basis ofstimuli coming from the majority environment.The result, however, is not always identifica−tion with the rest of the Roma.

Several field researchers have described situa−tions in which individuals say it is necessary tobe Roma to achieve a certain goal (which isperfectly legitimate, but at the same time clearlydoes not arise from individual conviction), orthat they feel disadvantaged or aggrieved be−cause they are Roma. On the other hand, un−der certain circumstances they feel allegianceto the Slovak state and nation. For example,after the Slovak ice−hockey team won theWorld Championship in 2002, many Romaspontaneously declared they were Slovak.

Some Roma specifics (the cornerstones forbuilding a common identity) are forged bythe majority from the outside, and may havenothing in common with being a Roma. Forexample, mainstream stereotypes of theprimitivism and laziness of the Roma aremixed with romantic stereotypes about themusical talent of all Roma and their need tobe nomadic, and with sophisticated construc−tions about the Roma’s different views oftime and space.

Pressure from different parts of society takesmany forms. In a world where individual


groups of people are categorized as ethnicgroups, it is members of these ethnic groupswho are being spoken to or on behalf of, forwhom social programs are being prepared,etc. These ethnic groups select spokesmen,form international networks and political or−ganizations, and are the subjects of interna−tional forums. To take an example from theCzech national revival period, it is certainlyno coincidence that Czech ethnicity becameof interest during the formation of politicalparties whose electorates were members ofthis ethnic group.

The non−Roma elite has always treated theRoma as an ethnic group and perceived themas an ethnic unit. During the totalitarian pe−riod, when the Roma did not represent agroup and were manipulated by those inpower, nobody cared whether there wassome social organization inside the group,and whether they formed a coherent whole.Under the system of representative democ−racy, however, ethnic groups are representedby individuals who speak for the entiregroup. Ethnic groups choose their repre−sentatives and delegate them to promote cer−tain policies agreed by all as ideal. Such pro−cedures require a high degree of social or−ganization that is typical of nations.

THE NATION ANDETHNIC IDENTITY

WHAT ARE NATIONS?

Nations are political groups formed toachieve power or economic, cultural andeducational objectives in a certain area. Na−tions begin to develop at the same time thatcivic society is being formed and inhabitantsstarting to divide political power. A singleeducational system means that all membersof the nation share similar knowledge anduse the same literary language. They usually

belong to the same political system (oftenhaving their own state or aspiring to formone), and espouse the same religion.

The national interest is usually advocated bynational representatives elected by the na−tion. Members of a nation usually inhabit acertain territory and feel mutual solidarityand solidarity with their nation. Ethnic ide−ology is often used to strengthen this solidar−ity, and attempts to show that all members ofthe nation have common ancestors, customsand knowledge, and that they share kinship.The nation, a large secondary group, is ideo−logically construed as a primary group, or atleast as a group derived from the primarygroup. The group’s “ethnic” homogeneity isachieved by a unitary educational system,socialization, the influence of the media andintellectual elites, and by face−to−face con−tacts and kinship ties.

THE ROMA IDENTITY ANDTHE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

The formation of national consciousness inrelation to the Roma identity was best de−scribed by Milena Hübschmannová in herstudy From an Ethnic Caste to a StructuredEthnic Community (Hübschmannová, 1999).In this work she demonstrated how part of theRoma population that regards its Roma her−itage as a symbol of belonging to a certainsocial class, changes its habitat (e.g. movingfrom an isolated settlement to a village), eth−nicity and even nationality as they climb thesocial ladder. When an originally Roma fam−ily acquires jobs, improves their social sta−tus, and adopts the lifestyle of mainstreamSlovaks, they move among the Slovaks andlabel themselves as such – directly the oppo−site of what nationalism would preach.Hübschmannová showed the contrast be−tween Roma who act in this way and eliteswho, their social status having improved, de−


cide to “invest” the social and cultural capitalthey have acquired into the group, claimingand retaining their membership in it.

This mechanism can work provided thegroup accepts the new elite as members of it.This happens only when the links betweenthe elite and the people whose social statusdid not improve remain very strong. Theelites that promote nationalism usually wantto preserve as much as possible in commonbetween the higher and lower classes. How−ever, these elements must not only be cre−ated, but also communicated and memorizedso that everyone regards this commonknowledge as unshakeable fact. The sharedknowledge of the Roma includes the con−sciousness of a common homeland (usuallya very strong motive in the nation−formingprocess) and of a common voyage to Europe,a common language whose codified form isnow being finalized4, a common fate in Eu−rope, a shared space and status as a Europeanminority, common ancestors who were greatsoldiers, musicians, blacksmiths and so on.It is historians, linguists and cultural work−ers who stimulate the creation of nationalmyths, and the Roma are in the midst of thisprocess now. Those who feel part of theRoma nation already have a thorough appre−ciation of the national consciousness.

ISSUES IN THE PROCESS OFROMA ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION

MAJORITY POPULATIONSTEREOTYPES

There are many obstacles to the creation of aRoma ethnic identity, some of which we havementioned above. Besides the diversity of theRoma and their division into many subgroups,one of the most limiting factors in the creationof ethnic identification is the image withwhich the Roma are asked to identify. The

stereotypes created by the Slovak majoritypaint the Roma as a people who cause prob−lems for others, refuse to work, sponge on thesocial system, live in ghettos, etc. Many Romaaccept these stereotypes, meaning that unlessthey are willing to live on the fringes of soci−ety, they will not claim membership in such agroup. Even Roma who do show some of theabove characteristics may not identify with theimage, as it could reduce their chances of im−proving their standard of living.

CULTURE OF POVERTY

The stereotyped perception of the Roma isconnected with the culture of poverty thatcharacterizes the Slovak Roma.5 At first sightRoma communities may be confused for tra−ditional societies, but in the culture of pov−erty there is very little solidarity; any simi−larity with traditional societies is purely su−perficial. Poverty afflicts large groups ofRoma living in socially and geographicallyisolated places. The majority forms its viewof the Roma on the basis of the Roma’s wayof life, without accepting joint responsibil−ity for their situation, and without under−standing that their behavior has nothing to dowith their being Roma – it is behavior that iscommon for all people living in extremepoverty and social isolation (Gellner, 1993).The environment of poverty is not only anunsuitable place to find one’s identity, it ac−tually creates an identity crisis. The way outof this crisis is to restore people’s dignity andconsciousness of self – in other words, torestore their “social identity”.

DISPERSAL AS A FACTOR LIMITINGTHE CREATION OFHIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES

The way the Roma settled Europe and othercontinents also limits the process of ethnic


identification. Scattered across large areas,the Roma are unable to form national struc−tures, nor do they have their own state. Oneof the prerequisites for the formation of anation is a monopoly over the education ofits inhabitants (Gellner, 1993). Without sucha monopoly, it is difficult to promote a uni−form interpretation of national myths. Atpresent it would be very difficult to establisha Roma national education system, as it coulddeepen the differences between the Romaand the majority population (and the qualityof their education) even more.

SHAPING OF NATIONS

Despite the many obstacles, the social con−struction of the Roma ethnic group and na−tion is slowly emerging with all the charac−teristics of European nations created on anethnic basis. The collection and reconstruc−tion of traditions is one of these characteris−tics. Traditions are often part of the multiethnic heritage, but in this case they shape theboundary between individual ethnic groups,reconstruct history, and create national he−roes, traditional meals and customs. Theseelements are gradually assembled into a logi−cal structure, with items imported into theSlovak environment from the country of ori−gin, such as language, ritual purity in eating,and the form of relationships with extendedfamilies.

The last major problem is that some stere−otypes created by the majority populationcome to define the characteristics of theRoma nation. Besides romantic images of theRoma, people often use purely negativestereotypes to explain the problematicbehavior of some Roma communities, stere−otypes that are also applied to Roma whodon’t behave in this way. This poses a cleardanger because neither the majority nor theRoma, even though they are affected by these

stereotypes, are willing to accept the Roma’sattributed “national habits”.

CONCLUSION

“Ethnicity is a universal phenomenon and atthe same time is a product of modern soci−ety. It is a kind of informal political organi−zation.” (Cohen, 1974) “Ethnicity is an in−separable part of an individual’s personalidentity.” (Epstein, 1978)

As the above quotations show, people con−sider ethnicity a natural part of their lives. Wehave noted some problems hindering theprocess of ethnic identification among theRoma in Slovakia. There are many ways inwhich these barriers can be overcome, someof which may seem bizarre; however, bear−ing in mind that ethnicity is a social con−struct, most solutions are feasible if they aresupported by a measure of social consensus.

The questions of purpose and legitimacy playan important role in ethnic identification andnation forming. Gellner holds that it is point−less to build new nations because there areno economic reasons for doing so – rather theopposite. Economic and political power re−main in the hands of the elite, while for othercitizens the new situation is not necessarilyan improvement. Furthermore, althoughevery nation strives for an independent state,few are able to bring nationalism to this fi−nal stage. With no room for the creation ofendless additional states, nation forming thuscan have little useful outcome.

One argument in favor of national and eman−cipation activities holds that the formation ofa nation brings equality to its members. Forthe Roma this would certainly be an impor−tant development, as the various Romagroups are just as closed to the outside as theoutside system is closed to the Roma. The


question remains whether internal perme−ability can solve discrimination problems forthe group as a whole. Another defense ofnation forming is that the Roma would be astronger political force in their own nationalstructures, allowing them to advance theirinterests more effectively. In developed de−mocracies, however, the formation of closedpolitical interest groups on the basis of eth−nicity tends to be frowned on because it canlead to violence between individual groups.We must therefore ask whether the ethnic andnational principle shouldn’t be rejected infavor of the civic principle. The Roma are ina state of flux, and it’s up to them what waythey choose.

We have mentioned some barriers to Romaethnic identification. This does not mean, ofcourse, that there is any crisis in the Roma’sgroup identity (with the possible exceptionof the “culture of poverty” examples above).Undoubtedly, the various Roma groups ex−hibit many cultural differences from themajority. Culture is the context into which anindividual is born, and each person’s iden−tity is something he chooses within the con−text of his own culture, even if this involvesa rejection of that culture. One of the signsof an independent Roma culture is their dif−ferent perception of group identity. By ex−pecting the Roma to create a nation, themajority population is at the same time urg−ing the Roma to accept one part of their cul−ture. In a sense, this national emancipationhas an assimilatory character – not assimila−tion into mainstream society, but into thestructure of political nations. It also has anintegration aspect – the Roma may figure asa nation among other nations – althoughthere is no guarantee that they will have allthe attributes of a modern political nation.

Part of the Roma population has alreadytaken this integration step. Of course, onemust ask how meaningful any nation−form−

ing process can be when it is accompaniedby the constant threat of nationalist excesses.Nevertheless, nation forming is underwaythanks to the efforts of the Roma elite, as wellas to pressure from that part of the majoritypopulation that perceives the world throughits contextually formed categories. However,this pressure from the majority is irrelevantbecause it assumes the Roma nation will bebased merely on ornamental features of theethnic group, without having the basic func−tions of a nation. The Roma continue to de−bate to what extent autonomy should be pre−served, what should be given up, and inwhich areas integration or assimilation areacceptable (Bělohradský, 1999).7 As thoseleading this discussion also form closed cat−egories, however, they often fail to noticethat many individuals have already chosenindependent, surprising and sometimes evenbizarre ethnic identifications – choices thatallow them to deal with the world aroundthem.

ENDNOTES

1. There is also an extensive terminology usedamong relatives and extensive knowledge ofvery broad relationship links.

2. This characteristic bespeaks a certain Romaconservatism, in which the younger Romamust obey the older, and men dominatewomen.

3. Considering the high level of Roma unemploy−ment, this factor lost a lot of its significanceafter 1989.

4. The language, even though it is spoken only bya part of the Roma population and is not uni−tary, is seen by the Czech and Slovak Romaelites as the most important element in ethnicidentification (see Zaplatílek, 2001). The studyalso showed that respondents accentuated iden−tity based on family ties.

5. This concept has many critics, although webelieve it adequately describes anomic commu−nities from the viewpoint of cultural change(see Novák, 2002).


6. Today’s primary task is to make the majorityeducation system more accessible to sociallyexcluded groups of citizens, mostly the Roma.The present system of education (as describedin field research carried out in eastern Slova−kia), in which Roma and non−Roma pupils areseparated using special schools and classes,only reproduces the lowest social class and theculture of poverty (see Willis, 1977).

7. The author compares the Czech Roma with thefate of African Americans, who chose integra−tion, and American Indians, who chose the pathof cultural autonomy.

REFERENCES

1. Allen, Tim and Eade, John (eds.): Divided Eu−ropeans: Understanding Ethnicities in Con−flict, (Amsterdam: Kluwer Law International,1994).

2. Banfield, Edward C.: The Unheavenly City:The Nature and Future of Our Urban Crisis,(Boston: Brown, 1970).

3. Barth, Frederik (ed.): Ethnic Groups andBoundaries, (Oslo: Oslo University Press,1969).

4. Barth, Frederik: “Enduring and Emerging Is−sues in the Analysis of Ethnicity” inVermeleuen, Hans and Govers, Cora (eds.):The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond “Eth−nic Groups and Boundaries”, (Amsterdam:Het Spinhuis, 1994, p. 11 – 32).

5. Cohen, Abner: Two−Dimensional Man, (Lon−don: Tavistock, 1974).

6. Davidová, Eva: Bez kolíb a šiatrov [WithoutSheds and Tents], (Košice: Východoslovenskévydavateľstvo, 1965).

7. Davidová, Eva: Cesty Romů [The Paths of theRoma], (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého,1995).

8. Epstein, Arnold Leonard: Ethos and Identity:Three Studies in Ethnicity, (London: Tavistock,1978).

9. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland: “Ethnicity and Na−tionalism” in Allen, Tim and Eade, John (eds.):Divided Europeans: Understanding Ethnicitiesin Conflict, (London: Pluto Press, 1993).

10. Gellner, Ernest: Národy a nacionalismus [Na−tions and Nationalism], (Prague: Hříbal,1993).


12. Hübschmannová, Milena: Můžeme se domlu−vit [We Can Understand Each Other],(Olomouc: Pedagogická fakulta UP, 1993).

13. Hübschmannová, Milena: “Od etnické kastyke strukturovanému etnickému společenství”[‘From Ethnic Castes to a Structured EthnicCommunity’] in Romové v České republice[Roma in the Czech Republic], (Prague:Socioklub 1999, p. 115 – 136).

14. Isaacs, Harold R.: “Basic Group Identity: TheIdols of the Tribe” in Glazer, Nathan (ed.):Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, (Cam−bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).

15. Jakoubek, Marek: Kacířská esej o kultuřerómskych osad [Heretical Essay on the Cul−ture of Roma Settlements], (Doctoral disser−tation, Prague: FF UK, 2002).

16. Kaźmierska, Kaja: “Konstrukce vyprávění oživotní zkušenosti války” [‘Construction of aNarrative About the Life Experiences ofWar’] Biograf, No. 26, 2001, p. 5 – 24.

17. Kumanová, Zuzana: “Etnická identifikáciaobyvateľov tzv. cigánskej/rómskej kolónie vPlaveckom Štvrtku” [‘Ethnic Identification ofthe Inhabitants of the Gypsy/Roma Colony inPlavecký Štvrtok’] Slovenský národopis, No.1, 1998, p. 42 – 59.

18. Lévi−Strauss, Claude: Myšlení přírodních ná−rodů [The Thinking of Natural Nations],(Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1971).

19. Lewis, Oscar: “The Culture of Poverty” Sci−entific American, No. 4, 1966, p. 19 – 25.

20. Liegeois, Jean Paul: Rómovia, Cigáni, kočov−níci [Roma, Gypsies, Nomads], (Bratislava:Council of Europe, 1997).

21. Lípa, Jiří: Cikánština v jazykovém prostředíslovenském a českém [The Language of Gyp−sies in the Slovak and Czech Language Envi−ronments], (Prague: Hříbal, 1965).

22. Lozoviuk, Petr: “K problematice ‘etnickéindiference’” [‘On the Issue of ‘Ethnic Indif−ference’’] Český lid, No. 3, 1997, p. 201 –212.

23. Luckmann, Thomas and Berger, Peter: Sociál−ní konstrukce reality [Social Construction ofReality], (Brno: CDK, 1999).

24. Lukšíková, Petra: “Naučená vzájomnosť.Vzťah majoritnej spoločnosti k Rómom a Ži−dom” [‘A Taught Mutuality: The Relationship


of Mainstream Society To the Roma and theJews’] Romano Džaniben, No. 1 – 2, 2000.

35. Marušiaková, Jelena: “Vzťahy medzi skupi−nami Cigánov” [‘Relationships BetweenGroups of Gypsies’] Slovenský národopis,No. 1, 1988, p. 58 – 79.

26. Novák, Karel: Stereotyp a integrace – případRomů (příspěvek k poznání integračního oče−kávání majority) [Stereotype and Integration– the Case of the Roma (a Contribution toKnowledge of the Majority’s Integration Ex−pectations)], (Prague: FF UK, 2001).

27. Říčan, Pavel: “The Lost Identity of the CzechRoma” in Uherek, Zdeněk (ed.): Ethnic Studyand the Urbanized Space in Social Anthropo−logical Reflections, (Prague: Institute of Eth−nology of the Academy of Sciences of theCzech Republic, 1998, p. 27 – 33).

28. Tönnies, Ferdinand: Gemeinschaft undGesellschaft [Community and Society],(Leipzig: Fues, 1887).

29. Uherek, Zdeněk: “Roma in the Council ofEurope” in Müller, Brigit (ed.): The Councilof Europe After Enlargement: An Anthropo−logical Enquiry, (Prague: CEFRES, 1999, p.38 – 45).

30. Vrhel, František: Úvod do etnolingvistiky[Introduction to Ethnic Linguistics],(Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství,1981).

31. Willis, Paul E.: Learning to Labor: HowWorking Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs,(London: Saxon House, 1977).

32. Zaplatílek, Martin: Skládání rozbitého zrcad−la. Biografická (re)konstrukce romské identityv autobiografických vyprávěních české rom−ské elity [Putting Back the Pieces of a BrokenMirror: A Biographic (Re)Construction of theRoma Identity in Autobiographic Narrationsof the Czech Roma Elite], (Bachelor’s thesis.Brno: Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykovyuniverzity, 2001).

90

91

Summary: Romany, the language of theRoma, is an integral part of their identity. Forages, only a few international linguists paidany attention to Romany, or tried to codifyits basic rules. This chapter describes the at−tempts of linguists to place Romany in thelanguage tree, surveys the development ofthe language, and describes the differencesbetween the European and Slovak dialects.The authors explain that it is difficult to de−fine the language, not just on the interna−tional level but even within Slovakia. In Slo−vakia, despite the constitutional right of theRoma to use Romany in public and inschools, not all Roma speak Romany, andmany do not want to use their native lan−guage in these environments. Many prob−lems thus arise which neither the Roma northe majority in Slovakia are prepared to dealwith.

Key words: history and development ofRomany, European and Slovak dialects,unique aspects of Romany, standardizationand codification of Romany, internationalorthography, position of Romany in Slova−kia, the European Charter of Minority andRegional Languages.

INTRODUCTION

Anthropological and linguistic studies havediscovered that the Roma originated in India,and have identified a close relationship be−tween Romany and some modern Indian lan−

STANISLAV CINA

THE ROMA LANGUAGE ANDITS STANDARDIZATION

guages, especially Hindi. The basis ofRomany is shared or at least closely relatedto these tongues, particularly in terms ofvocabulary. Romany has many common orsimilar basic expressions and words withnew Indo−Aryan languages, such as the termsfor “head”, “God”, “fire”, as well as somecolors, numbers and so on. Until recently,Romany was the language of a closed ethnicgroup bearing signs and relicts of the tribalsystem. During the 19th century, Romanythus remained an underdeveloped and non−literary language.

Now that the Roma nation, ethnicity, andculture have been acknowledged both inter−nationally and in Slovakia, the position ofRomany as a language is beginning tochange. Some new needed words are beingformed, and the language is being used ininternational political negotiations and atexpert conferences, in the press and in lit−erature. Romany is thus gradually acquiringnew tasks and functions. It is opening up tothe outside world, and is thus being increas−ingly influenced and changed. Thesechanges are related to the changing positionof the Roma and the opening of their tradi−tionally closed, endogamous, and (until re−cently) tribal system. As the Roma gradu−ally take on certain elements of the major−ity society’s way of life, they are becomingmore frequently bilingual and even trilin−gual. Recently, a new type of bilingualismhas been observed, especially in Romafamilies living scattered among the major−

92 S t a n i s l a v C i n a

ity population; besides Romany, these Romaalso speak a special ethnolect, or slang,which is a mix of different dialects. In thisslang one finds many Romany calques,which are verbatim translations of typicalRomany constructions, idioms, and ways ofexpressing things into the language of themajority.

The publishing of periodical and non−peri−odical press and fiction in Romany beganafter the 1989 revolution. The study of theRoma and Romany was launched followingthe establishment of the Roma Culture De−partment at the Faculty of Education ofConstantine the Philosopher University inNitra. The Roma theater Romathan usesRomany as its main performance language.Roma teaching assistants have begun work−ing in some schools, and the possibility ofoffering Roma children bilingual educationis being discussed ever more frequently.

PAST NOTIONS OFTHE ROMA TONGUE

At the end of the 19th century, the linguisticsbranch was overrun with various romanti−cized notions and unfounded hypotheses thatconfused the Roma with the Tatars, withJews from Egypt, or, vice−versa, which be−lieved them to have descended from theEgyptians who chased the Jews (and so on).Linguists first struggled to determine whichlanguage group Romany belonged to. Nowa−days, the theory of Ralph Turner is generallyaccepted; Turner showed that older forms ofRomany were similar to Central Indian lan−guages, whereas newer forms of Roma borethe influence of Northwestern Indian lan−guages.

The first linguistically substantiated hy−pothesis about the origins of Romany ap−peared in 1760, and was formulated by the

Calvinist priest István Vályi from Jabloňov−ce (Álmási) near Komárno in modern−daysouthern Slovakia. Vályi had become ac−quainted with three Indian students duringhis studies at the university in Leiden. Be−cause their language reminded him of thetongue of the Roma back home in Komárno,he wrote down more than 1,000 of the In−dian students’ words and their meanings.On returning home and reading out the tran−scribed Indian words to some local Roma,he found that the Roma were able to under−stand and translate the words with no diffi−culty. He also noticed a similarity betweenSanskrit and the language used by the Romain the Hungarian town of Györ. His findingswere published three years later in theWiener Anzeiger journal, in an article bySzékely von Dobo.

Independently of Vályi, the English philolo−gists Jakob Bryant and William Marsdencame to the same conclusion in 1785.Marsden compared the English and Turkishversions of Romany with Hindi. Severalyears before a seminal study of Romany bythe German linguist Jacob Rüdiger was pub−lished (1782), Rüdiger’s colleague Bac−meiser also published a brief study (1777),pointing out the close relationship betweenthe language of the Gypsies and Multani – alanguage of Northwestern India. Rüdiger’swork caught the attention of HeinrichGrellman, who in 1783 published a book onRomany and the migration and habits of theRoma.

Based on the information available to him,Grellman fixed on Hindustan as the originof the Roma, and believed they belonged tothe Shudra caste. He considered Gujarati tobe the language most closely related toRomany, and explained the differences be−tween these two languages as having beencaused by the influences on the Roma afterthey arrived in Europe. Although Grell−

93T h e R o m a L a n g u a g e a n d i t s S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n

man’s work inspired many India specialiststo study Romany, none was able to provemore than a similarity with Sanskrit. Aroundthat time, many different works were pub−lished describing different Romany dialects(by Bischoff, Puchmajer, von Heister, Graf−funder). Thanks to these works, AugustFridrich Pott had enough material to preparethe first scientific, historical, and compara−tive study of Romany (1844), a work thatearned him the title “the father of Romanylinguistics”.

DIVISION OF DIALECTSIN EUROPE AND IN SLOVAKIABASED ON GEOGRAPHY ANDLANGUAGE FEATURES

Two prominent Russian authors dealing withthe Roma attempted to classify the Europeandialects of Romany in their study Dialects ofthe Gypsy Language. According to the au−thors (Wentzeľová and Čerenkov), the twobasic factors governing the formation ofEuropean dialects were the following:a) The ancestors of the modern Roma spoke

different Central Indian languages anddialects long before they left India. Thiscan be seen in the lexical differences be−tween the Roma dialects from Asia Mi−nor and those in Europe, as well as in thedifferences that did not arise within Indo−Aryan languages, such as the phonetic al−ternation −h− and −s− in some forms ofnouns and verbs and in some pronounsand adverbs.

b) The European Roma began to divide intoindividual groups that ended up in differ−ent language environments and graduallylost contact with each other. The originallexicon of individual groups was pre−served to a varying extent, and the differ−ent dialects usually preserved only one ofseveral different synonyms.

CLASSIFICATION OF DIALECTS

1. a) The dialect of the Roma from the north−ern part of the former Soviet Union (rus−ka Romany, cheladitka Romany);

b) The dialect of the Roma from the west−ern part of Latvia and Estonia (lotfitkaRomany);

c) The dialect of the Roma from centralPoland (felditka Romany).

2. The sinti dialect in Germany, France, Po−land, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Yu−goslavia, Northern Italy, and Austria (thedialect prevails in German−speaking envi−ronments).

3. a) The dialect of the Roma from northernand eastern Slovakia (servika Romany);

b) The dialect of the Roma living in south−ern Slovakia and northern Hungary(ungrika Romany).

4. a) The erlides dialect (western Bulgaria,Macedonia, southern Serbia);

b) The ursari (bear−leaders) dialect (Ruma−nia, Moldavia);

c) The krymtika dialect (Crimean Roma)surrounding the towns of Kotel, Slivenand Plaven (central Bulgaria – theDrindars).

5. a) The dialect of the vlachika Roma (Ru−mania, Moldavia – Lingurari, Eletari,Kekaviari);

b) The dialect of the kalderasha (kettles−miths) Roma, concentrated in the mid−19th century on the Rumanian−Hungar−ian border in Austria−Hungary. Theynow live in the former Soviet Union, inPoland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, France,England, and Belgium.

6. a) The dialect of the vlachika Roma inYugoslavia, above all in parts of Bosniaand Herzegovina;

b) the servi dialect of the left−bank Ukraineand neighboring areas (Plashtshunaja,Volochuja).


7. The dialect of the Finnish Roma (fintikaRomany).

8. Volshenenge Kale – the Roma in GreatBritain, above all in Wales.

CLASSIFICATION OFROMA DIALECTS IN SLOVAKIA

The dialects of Romany spoken in Slovakiacan be divided into several groups. The mostwidespread dialect is that of the SlovakRoma, spoken by about 85% of the Romaliving in the country. Several regional dialectsubgroups can be identified within this dia−lect:

A1: The East−Slovak dialect – this is verywidespread and is similar to almost allother Slovak Romany dialects. It is thebasis of standardized Slovak Romany;

A2: The Central−Slovak dialect – sometimesalso called Hungarian Romany. Thisdialect is characterized by the use of thepast continuous tense with frequent useof the áhi ending, and other peculiari−ties;

A3: The West−Slovak dialect – this can beidentified by the use of palatal speechsounds with a hard pronunciation, andthe substitution of the “h” sound ofspeech for the “s”. This dialect also usesa lot of specific words that differ signifi−cantly from the words used in the East−Slovak dialect.

Other dialects of Romany spoken in Slovakiainclude:B1: The vlachika dialect. From 5 to 10% of

Slovak Roma speak this dialect, whichuses many Rumanian words;

B2: Romany dialects from the south of Slo−vakia – ungrika Romany. This is a dia−lect with many Hungarian words, whichthe Roma use to express modern, tech−nical, and abstract notions.

THE STANDARDIZATION OFROMANY

The need to codify Romany began to be feltstrongly during the 1990s. In reality, this is aprocess of standardization, as only the writ−ten form can be codified, and even that canhappen only if the development of the lan−guage does not require further changes. Themedia still mention the Romany codificationof 1971. However, this event did not happenas the media claim: all that occurred was thatthe Union of Gypsies – Roma adopted certainstandards of written Romany that to this dayare used in the Czech and Slovak Republics.

There are many unanswered questions con−cerning Romany. For example, are theRomany dialects used today truly dialects ofthe same language, or are we talking about afamily of related languages? Which of theselanguages or dialects is generally the mostunderstandable? Which is the most repre−sentative? Which should be selected as thelanguage of negotiation at important interna−tional conferences? Into which version ofRomany should important internationaldocuments be translated?

The idea of a common version of Romany firsttook concrete form at the 1st InternationalRoma Congress in London in 1971. The del−egates agreed that no one dialect of Romanywas better than another, and that it was nec−essary to create a common language thatwould be used to communicate at the interna−tional level, and in which international docu−ments and publications would be written. Atthe 2nd World Roma Congress in Geneva in1971, the Finnish linguist Vania de Gila –Kochanowski proposed that the everydaywords that various Romany dialects had ab−sorbed from “contact languages” be replacedby Sanskrit words, and that words related to“modern vocabulary and special terminology”be replaced by international words taken from


English or the romance languages. Althoughthis proposal was supported unanimously bythe congress, it was not put into practice.

Based on his field research, carried out es−pecially in the Balkans, the French linguistMarcel Courthiade divided the dialects orlanguages of the Roma into three groups. Hisanalysis led to the decision to try and stand−ardize Romany. Courthiade’s three groupswere as follows:

1. The group of mutually understandableRomany dialects spoken by the majorityof Roma around the world;

2. The strongly Germanized sinti−manouchedialects, which are difficult for othergroups to understand;

3. Roma ethnolects (pidgin versions) of otherlanguages, such as English, Spanish, orRumanian, which – even though they con−tain Romany words – are completely in−comprehensible to other groups of Roma.

Debate on this topic continued at the meetingof the Philological Commission of the Inter−national Roma Union (IRU) at the 4th IRU In−ternational Congress in Warsaw in April 1990.The commission presented two documents tothe delegates. The first one, entitled I Romanialfabeta – The Alphabet of the Common RomaLanguage, outlined the rules of writing for alldialects of Romany. The document wasadopted and was recommended by the generalmeeting – for a trial period of 10 years – asthe common written norm for all Roma dia−lects. This did not relate to the second andthird groups of Courthiade’s classification ofRoma dialects and languages, i.e. the dialectsspoken in Germany, France, and northern Italy,and the ethnolects spoken by the Roma inSpain, England, Scandinavia, Rumania, andArmenia. The aim of the common orthographywas to unify the different written forms, whichwould allow each dialect to read according toits own phonetic rules. The general principle of

the common orthography was: write as every−one else does, speak as you speak.

COMMUNICATION INROMANY AT PRESENT

THE STATE LANGUAGE LAW ANDTHE LAW ON THE USE OFMINORITY LANGUAGES

Just as in other European countries, not allSlovak Roma use Romany as their mothertongue. Since 1989, several books inRomany have been published, some literaryworks have been translated into Romany, andthere have also been attempts to establishbilingual schools for children speakingRomany. The issue of using Romany as anofficial language or a teaching language isnot considered problematic in Slovakia.According to the Slovak Constitution, Slo−vak citizens “who are members of nationalminorities have the right to be educated intheir own language” (Vašečka, 2000).

On November 15, 1995, however, the Slovakparliament adopted the State Language Law,which limited the use of minority languages.The law did not set rules for the use of minor−ity languages, and according to the Constitu−tional Court, at least one of its provisions wascontrary to the Slovak Constitution. The lawwas criticized by both Slovak and foreign spe−cialists, and drew an appeal from Slovakia’sparliamentary European Integration Commit−tee in 1997 that then−Deputy Prime MinisterJozef Kalman prepare a law on the use of mi−nority languages in contacts with official bod−ies (Vašečka, 1999). Despite verbal assurances,no steps were taken, and the absence of the lawplayed a large part in Slovakia’s disqualifica−tion from the EU integration process.

After the 1998 parliamentary elections thesituation changed, and the new parliamentary


Committee for Human Rights and Nationali−ties started preparing the Law on the Use ofMinority Languages. The bill was opposedby the Roma community, while the Office ofLegal Protection for Ethnic Minoritieslabeled it anti−constitutional. The originalproposal considered the following languagesto be minority languages: Hungarian,Ruthenian/Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, andGerman. The bill treated Romany as the lan−guage of an ethnic group, not a “nation”, andproposed that Roma students would learntheir mother tongue only when their parentsrequested it. The proposal was also based onthe premise that Romany had not yet beencodified, and thus could not be used in ad−ministrative and legal situations. The authorsof the law thus showed their ignorance of thebasic legal facts concerning the Roma minor−ity – the Slovak parliament had granted theRoma the status of a national minority in1991, while Romany had been codified in Slo−vakia in 1971. The chairman of the parliamen−tary Committee for Human Rights and Na−tionalities, Lászlo Nagy, in February 1999publicly apologized for the ignorance of theMPs who had prepared the bill, and said thata new version of the Law on the Use of Mi−nority Languages would include Romany(Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 371 – 377). The Lawon the Use of Minority Languages was passedby the parliament after a long and emotionaldebate in July 1999 (Vašečka, 1999).

According to the current Slovak DeputyPrime Minister for Human Rights, Minori−ties and Regional Development, Pál Csáky,Romany may be used in accordance with theLaw on the Use of Minority Languages.However, Csáky said the language should beused only on those levels and in those areasthat are capable of supporting it, and that ifno school textbooks and no laws have beenpublished in a given language, that languageshould not be used in education and in con−tacts with official bodies.

According to the 1991 population census,there are 57 municipalities in Slovakia (the2001 census put the figure at 52 municipali−ties) where the Roma make up more than 20%of the population. According to the law, insuch municipalities the Roma may use theirmother tongue in communications with pub−lic administration organs, and they are entitledto have all municipal signs written in Romaas well as Slovak. After the law came intoforce, it turned out that the Roma did not re−ally want the Law on the Use of MinorityLanguages to be applied in practice, for sev−eral reasons: first, they were largely ignorantof the law; second, they did not see why theyneeded such a regulation; and third, many ofthem did not know Romany, especially in itswritten form. Apart from the unreadiness ofthe Roma to use the law in practice, the ma−jority population was also unprepared for of−ficial communication in Romany. The stateadministration and municipal governmentsshould thus start preparing for the momentwhen the Roma become aware of their rightsand nationality, and start to demand that theLaw on the Use of Minority Languages beapplied in their daily lives (Vašečka, 2000).

THE EUROPEAN CHARTER OFREGIONAL OR MINORITYLANGUAGES

Slovakia signed the European Charter ofRegional or Minority Languages on February20, 2001. The Charter is the most far−ranginggeneral contract governing the protection anduse of the languages of national (ethnic) mi−norities in education, justice, state and publicadministration, media, culture, economic andsocial life, and cross−border cooperation. Thecharter was ratified by the Slovak parliamentat the beginning of July 2001. Romany wasamong the nine languages selected by Slova−kia in accordance with the Charter. Unlike inHungary, which ratified the Charter for all


minority languages except Romany, Slovakiapledged to fulfill the international agreement,even though its application was bound tocause serious problems for the Slovak stateadministration. This much at least could havebeen predicted from the country’s first expe−riences with the Minority Languages Lawpassed in July 1999 (Vašečka, 2000).

The school system, for one, was not preparedfor the use of Romany in education, and ex−perts debated the sense of taking such a step.It is expected at this point that Romany willbe used more as a taught language, and notas a language of instruction. It seems thatlegislation has outpaced the national eman−cipation of the Roma. The existence of suchrights allows the Roma to develop their ownidentity; on the other hand, however, it cre−ates grounds for conflicts between the Romaand the state administration and municipalgovernments (Vašečka, 2000).

Besides the constitutional right to useRomany in education, the use of Romany inschools is also encouraged by the positiveresults achieved by very young children whohave the chance to study in two languages.On the other hand, the results of research bythe Slovak Statistics Office in 1994, entitled“The Roma in 1994”, fuelled a serious argu−ment against using Romany in education.This is to date the only research in Slovakiathat deals systematically with the issue ofRoma ethnicity and self perception. Its mainfinding was that “the Roma identity” hadbecome an internal matter of the Roma, andthat from the outside it appeared that theRoma sought to assimilate into mainstreamsociety (Vašečka, 1999). The opinions of theRoma on the use of their own language ineducation and cultural contacts differed, buttended to be negative. According to theaforementioned research, only 11% of Romarespondents believed that all subjects in el−ementary school should be taught in Ro−

many, while 33% thought that only somesubjects should be taught in Romany, and45% wanted no subject to be taught inRomany. The opinions of the Roma on theuse of Romany in secondary schools anduniversities were even more negative. Al−though the research was criticized by Romaissues experts for having selected the re−spondents inappropriately, it remains theonly research dealing with the issue. TheRoma community and Slovak lawmakersshould take an interest in repeating the re−search (Vašečka, 1999; see the chapter Edu−cational Attitudes and Aspirations of theRoma in this book).

THE RECODIFICATION OF ROMANY

Based on a government resolution from2001, the Office of the Slovak GovernmentPlenipotentiary for the Roma Communitywas tasked with preparing a report calledInformation on the State of Preparations forthe Recodification of Romany. The recodifi−cation itself was one of the priorities set bythe Plenipotentiary Office in 2001. Sincethen a language committee for the recodifi−cation of Romany has been established, su−pervised by the Romany Culture Departmentof Constantine the Philosopher University inNitra. The language committee concludedthat the basis for the recodification should bethe Eastern Slovak Romany dialect. In orderto formally recodify Romany, the rules ofRomany grammar and a separate Romany−Slovak dictionary have to be issued. TheRomany Culture Department is consideringestablishing a special department for re−searching the language.

CONCLUSION

Romany ranks among the most importantelements of Roma consciousness. It belongs


to the group of Indo−European languages.Despite the Romany codification carried outin 1971 by the language group of the Unionof Gypsies – Roma, Slovakia needs a recodi−fication. This is due, among other reasons, tothe fact that most research and academic textswere published in Roma and Czech versions,as linguists dealing with Romany workedmostly in the Czech half of the Czechoslo−vak federation before 1989.

Differentiating between the concepts “codi−fication of written Romany” and “standardi−zation of the language” must start. The rulesof orthography may be set by an agreementor convention, and although they change fre−quently, they can be made binding for a givenperiod of time. It is not possible, however, tocodify a language. Standardization, on theother hand, is the process of spontaneousdevelopment of a language, which can beachieved through extensive communicationin practice. The formal act of declaringRomany a codified language should takeplace under the auspices of the Office of theSlovak Government Representative for Solv−ing the Problems of the Roma Minority.

REFERENCES

1. Cina, Stanislav: “Kodifikácia rómskeho jazy−ka?” [‘Codification of the Roma Language?’]Ternipen, No. 21, 2002.

2. Cina, Stanislav: História a osobnosti romistiky[History and Personalities of Roma Studies],(Spišská Nová Ves: Univerzita KonštantínaFilozofa v Nitre, 2002).

3. Horváthová, Emília: “Cigáni pred príchodomdo Európy” [‘Gypsies Before Their Arrival inEurope’] Slovenský národopis, No. 1, 1961,p. 3 – 24.

4. Horváthová, Emília: “Cigáni pred príchodomdo Európy” [‘Gypsies Before Their Arrival inEurope] Slovenský národopis, No. 2, 1962, p.210 – 226.

5. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku[Gypsies in Slovakia], (Bratislava: SAV, 1964).

6. Horváthová, Emília: “Z dejín Cigánov”[‘From the History of Gypsies’] Roma, No. 1– 8, 1991.

7. Horváthová, Jana: “Historické osudy Romůod jejich odchodu z Indie do 19. století” [‘TheHistorical Fate of the Roma Since Their De−parture From India Until the 19th Century’] inRomové – O Roma. Tradice a současnost [TheRoma – O Roma: Traditions and the Present],(Brno: Svan, 1999).

8. Hübschmannová, Milena: Základy romštiny[The Basics of Romany], (Prague: Academia,1973).

9. Liegeois, Jean Paul: Rómovia, Cigáni, kočov−níci [Roma, Gypsies, Nomads], (Bratislava:Academia Istropolitana, 1995).

10. Lípa, Jiří: Cikánština v jazykovém prostředíslovenském a českém [The Language of Gyp−sies in the Slovak and Czech Language Envi−ronments], (Prague: Československá akade−mie věd, 1965).

11. Lípa, Jiří: Příručka cikánštiny [A Handbookof Romany], (Prague: Štátne pedagogické na−kladateľstvo, 1963).

12. Mann, Arne B.: Rómsky dejepis [The Historyof the Roma], (Bratislava: Kalligram, 2000).

13. “Rómsky jazyk je na Slovensku kodifikovanýod roku 1971” [‘Roma language has beencodified from 1971 in Slovakia’], RomanoNevo Ľil, No. 371 – 377, 1999.

13. Tkáčová, Anna: “Rómčina ako alternatívnyjazyk” [‘Romany as an Alternative Lan−guage’] in Rómsky jazyk v Slovenskej repub−like [Romany in the Slovak Republic], (Brati−slava: Štúdio −dd−, 1995, p. 71 – 73).

14. Vašečka, Michal: “Rómovia” [‘The Roma’] inMesežnikov, Grigorij and Ivantyšyn, Michal(eds.): Slovensko 1998 – 1999. Súhrnná sprá−va o stave spoločnosti [Slovakia 1998 – 1999:A Global Report on the State of Society],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs,1999).

15. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár,Miroslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.):Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the Stateof Society, (Bratislava: Institute for PublicAffairs, 2000).

16. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár,Miroslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.):Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the Stateof Society, (Bratislava: Institute for PublicAffairs, 2001).

99

(Milan Kováč wrote parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5,while Milan Jurík wrote parts 6 and 7)

Summary: This chapter surveys the spiritualand religious life of the Roma, and describesRoma religious attitudes. It analyses the no−tions of God and sanctity, and the Roma’sunderstanding of these concepts. It examinesRoma attitudes towards religion within thecontext of their identity. It summarizes theactivities of individual churches and reli−gious organizations among the Roma in Slo−vakia, and notes the great, but hitherto un−used influence that the church and religioncould have on the Roma. It ends by assess−ing the influence of the missionary and pas−toral work that has been done by religiousorganizations.

Key words: Roma religious life, church,religious organization, confession, cult, sac−rament, eschatology, missionary work, pas−toral care, diocese, parish, ecclesiasticalbody, ecclesiastical community, denomina−tion.

INTRODUCTION

The religious life of the Roma is a relativelynew subject of research that received littleattention before 1990. As it turns out, themarginalization of Roma culture extendedalso to the spiritual life of the Roma, the of−ficial goal being the complete assimilation ofthe minority. When in 1991 the Roma were

MILAN KOVÁČ and MILAN JURÍK

THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THE ROMAAND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CHURCHIN RELATION TO THE ROMA

granted official minority status (Mann,2000), attitudes towards their language, cul−ture, and religious life began to change.Churches and religious organizations werethe first to react to the new situation. Theevangelization activities of both largechurches and smaller domestic and foreignreligious organizations began to focus onthe Roma, seeing an opportunity to acquirenew members. The Roma, whose religiouslife was often lax or entirely absent, becamea suitable target for massive missionary ac−tivity.

Academic study of the Roma’s spiritual andreligious life lagged far behind these practi−cal activities by the churches. Apart from thesporadic activities of several researchers, abreakthrough in this field did not come untila common project by the Department of Eth−nology and Cultural Anthropology atComenius University, and the EthnologyInstitute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences,conducted from 2001 to 2002 under the nameReligiousness of Slovak Romanies. Some 12scientists participated in the project, whosemain goal was systematic field research ofRoma settlements that followed differentfaiths across Slovakia. The results of thisresearch form the basis of all parts of thefollowing chapter that deal with “reli−gionistic” or ethnic views of the religious lifeof the Roma.1 The second part of the chap−ter will deal with the responses to the issueby individual churches and religious organi−zations.

100 M i l a n K o v á č a n d M i l a n J u r í k

FACETS OFROMA RELIGIOUS LIFE

In Slovakia, the majority of the populationclaims the Catholic religion, and this prefer−ence is reflected in the Roma population aswell. The assumption that the broad range ofsaints, the greater ostentation and the richsymbolism of Roman Catholicism were themain reason that the Roma preferred thisconfession, however, proved to be wrong.Roma attend church very rarely, and knowand worship almost no saints. The fact thatmost Roma prefer Roman Catholicism isthus probably due to the Roma’s assumingthe external characteristics of the majoritypopulation. It was not established whetherthis denomination is particularly close to theRoma mentality. Finally, the Roma fre−quently only declare that they are Catholic,while in reality they do not live an activereligious life, and do not know even the ba−sic principles of the religion. Especially forthis reason, many missionary groups of vari−ous denominations are gaining ground inRoma communities that are ostensibly Catho−lic. What is happening is not conversion froma former faith to a new one, but evangeliza−tion, in which the Roma without religion be−come religious. This is the view not only ofthe missionaries, but also of the Roma them−selves. The success of the missionaries amongthe Roma is usually not connected with thedenomination that comes to the Roma settle−ment, but with the interest and care the mis−sionaries devote to the Roma.

MULTILEVEL FAITH

For these reasons in particular, the Romaeasily modify or completely change theirfaith according to the current efforts of thenew missionaries. As the pastor of the Chris−tian Community church in Prešov, GabrielMinárik, noted: “It is really not difficult to

establish a group in a Roma settlement. Twoor three healings, and then a manifestation ofthe power of God, are enough to grab theirattention. It is more difficult to keep themwith God,” (Minárik, 2002) Roma “con−verts” thus often do not give up their origi−nal (also new, but at least earlier) confessioncompletely. And so a multilevel form of faithoccurs with the Roma, a virtually unknownphenomenon in the majority population.Three examples suffice to demonstrate thisprocess.

The Roma in the municipality of Rankovce(in Košice−environs district in east Slovakia)were originally Catholic, which was anotherway of saying they were religiously passive.At the same time, there was an Evangelistchurch in Rankovce, and the Roma did notwant to travel to another parish. After the1989 revolution, one of them converted tothe Seventh Day Adventists faith, and startedan active mission among his fellow−citizens.Around 1993, many converted to the Ad−ventists. A year later, however, some con−verted to the Evangelists of the AugsburgConfession, as the presence of the pastoratein their municipality permitted a more active(and convenient) religious life. Thus, prac−tically every current Evangelist in Rankovcestarted as a Catholic, then became an Ad−ventist, and finally converted to Evangelism.This explains the chaos in the forms of chris−tening in individual families, as well as in thesacraments and other aspects of local Romareligion. Many Roma do not even knowwhether they should go to church on Satur−day or on Sunday, so just to be sure they goto church on both days. As one local Romasaid: “We learned both [faiths], so we take apiece of each.” (Mináč, 2002)

A similar phenomenon was observed in themunicipality of Bôrka (Rožňava district ineast−central Slovakia), with the differencethat the new missionary activities of the last

101T h e R e l i g i o u s L i f e o f t h e R o m a a n d t h e A c t i v i t i e s o f t h e C h u r c h i n R e l a t i o n . . .

decade did not reach the area. However, theoriginal division of the local population be−tween Calvinists and Catholics is enough tosow confusion, in which climate the Catho−lics attend the Calvinist church, and the Cal−vinists to the Catholic.2

In the municipality of Plavecký Štvrtok(Malacky region in west Slovakia), the Romawent through a complex change in theirfaiths only recently. The original belief back−ground here was passive Catholicism. Afterthe revolution, the Jehovah’s Witnesses didsome successful missionary work, and manyRoma converted. In the mid−1990s, however,the same Roma converted “en masse” to oneof the communities in the Pentecostal move−ment – the Word of Life. Paradoxically, theseRoma visit the Christian Community churchin Bratislava to this day. Their original con−fession under the guidance of the Word ofLife missionaries inspired a group that hadnot originally converted to the Jehovah’sWitnesses, but had remained passive Catho−lics. Thus, despite the fact that these twofaiths are branches of the Pentecostal move−ment, the relationship between the support−ers of the Christian Community and the Wordof Life in the municipality is an antagonisticone. To add to the chaos, the dissenters fromthe Word of Life, together with the passiveCatholics, call the religious converts “Bap−tists” (and vice versa), which they considera pejorative religious synonym for “Satanist”(Podolinská, 2002). It is not necessary to addthat this multilevel faith among the unedu−cated Roma population has blurred theirunderstanding of the different notions andtraditions of individual denominations.

THE NOTION OF GOD,PRIVATE RITUALS, AND CULTS

The Roma notion of God – “O Del” – has aslightly different connotation than the major−

ity population concept, more or less regard−less of their denomination. First of all, theconcept of the Holy Trinity is usually whit−tled down to God the Father and God theSon, occasionally complemented by a thirdparty, the Virgin Mary. God the Father aloneis perceived as the supreme authority, and issimilar to the genealogical ancestor of theclan/humankind. The author personally en−countered people who said that God (theFather) was their direct ancestor, three gen−erations removed (Kovács, 2002). JesusChrist (who is mostly regarded as a judge)and the Virgin Mary enjoy almost the sameextent of worship. With the Roma, however,the Virgin Mary is not a cult figure to thesame extent as Jesus Christ or God the Fa−ther, due probably to the strongly patriarchalway of thinking among the Roma. Almost noother saints are cultivated; the Roma tend toprefer a single universal authority over lowerspecialized patrons.

Church attendance is a special issue with theRoma, as they generally go there very rarely.The more religious Roma (excluding theeager converts) go to church from two to fourtimes a year, on major holidays. Many, how−ever, do not go to church at all. When theauthors investigated the reasons, we foundtwo major ones. The first is that villagechurches are important social meeting andcommunication places for the majority popu−lation, which is off−putting for the Roma,who feel ill at ease in such an environment.The second reason is that in church they arebound by rituals and schedules – the sermonof the priest, the confession, and the overallpressure of institutional church machinery.All of this is foreign to their free way ofthinking, and they subconsciously avoid it.

On the other hand, the Roma visibly have astrong religious need and a genuine, authen−tic devoutness. This need is not satisfied inchurch, as it is with the majority population,


but mostly in private homes. The typicalRoma dwelling is full of various icons, tap−estries with religious images, statues, pen−dants, amulets, and so on. These objects,especially the pictures of Jesus Christ, areusually concentrated in one corner or on onewall of a room that represents a sacred zonewithin the dwelling. This is the place theRoma often pray, meditate, or talk to God.Most Roma that the authors asked about theissue gave the following reason: “God iseverywhere.” For this reason, too, they donot feel the need to go to mass and otherceremonies. “The House of God” for a Romais often his own house. The Roma not onlyprefer to worship God in their own dwell−ings, but also consider it a superior demon−stration of devoutness to going to church.They say: “God must be with us everywhere,with every step we take. We want him to livewith us, we see him every single minute,every second.” (Kovács, 2002) They areproud of the fact that they live their livespermanently “in front of God”, thanks totheir holy pictures.

Of the sacraments, christening is the mostimportant for the Roma, and few of them arenot christened. Most Roma who are active inminority churches and religious organiza−tions today were originally christened asCatholics. Besides christenings, funerals arethe only other religious event that is highlyimportant in Roma communities. In manyplaces, the traditional “sitting around thedead” has been preserved, although the formof the funeral itself usually depends entirelyon the local church.

Weddings enjoy a special position as well,although even in Catholic Roma communi−ties they are not perceived as a sacrament.The wedding and wedding ceremony aremore a matter of private religiosity with theRoma, being carried out at home, without apriest, the central ritual being the oath of

devotion. This promise is given in front of aholy image, by which the man and thewoman solemnly swear. The partners prom−ise mutual fidelity, while the act itself oftenincludes sanctions (curses) that take effect ifthe promise is broken (Kovács, 2002). Bondslike this are the most frequent form of wed−ding among the Roma, despite the fact thatfor state authorities, couples thus wed are stillofficially unmarried, as they did not use anyof the permitted forms of wedding (i.e. at alocal authority or in a church). The Roma, onthe other hand, regard such weddings asmore binding because they are concludedbefore God and sworn with oaths bearingsanctions.

ESCHATOLOGY ANDTHE SANCTION OF GOD

To understand the religious behavior of theRoma, one must understand theireschatological ideas. Eschatology – ideas ofthe afterlife – is very important especiallyfrom the viewpoint of regulating behaviorthrough permanent references to what mighthappen (good or bad) after one dies, accord−ing to the quality of the life one lived. Ac−cording to our research, the Roma’s es−chatological ideas differ slightly from thoseof the majority population. Almost all Roma,for instance, believe in “muls” – dead peo−ple who come back to harm living relatives(see Šebková, 2001). More importantly, theRoma generally assume that they will all goto heaven. The saying “Gypsies go toheaven” is remarkably widespread in all set−tlements across the country. The Roma saythat they are “the good people”, even if “thegadžos” (whites) often do not think so. Inother words, the Roma set great store by theirown morals and “good heart”, which aresupposed to be guarantees that after deaththey do not suffer punishment, but go directlyto paradise.


The idea of paradise or heaven differs aswell. According to our findings, most Romado not see the afterworld as particularly idyl−lic, but as a world similar or almost identi−cal to earth. People even have to work there,although for “an appropriate reward”. TheRoma do the same there as they do here onEarth. The burial equipment the Roma use isobviously connected to these ideas. In manyplaces, people put everyday objects into thecoffin, food and canned food with can open−ers, cigarettes, alcohol, and especially thefavorite objects of the dead person. Theynever forget to add some money, one of theexplanations being: “so he can buy some−thing there”. The transition from the earth−life to the afterlife is thus a fluid one, for allthat paradise resembles our world perhaps abit too much. According to several inform−ants, heaven is supposed to be a bit better.Some think that there is plenty to eat anddrink there, or that there is music is playingall the time. It is particularly interesting thatsome Roma say that the afterlife is an im−provement on the earth−life because there is“no discrimination” there. In sum, for theRoma the afterlife is rather a matter of coursethan a reward, which also flows from theirideas of life after death as a continuation oflife on earth.

Nevertheless, a parallel idea of hell and af−ter−death retribution for extremely wickeddeeds does exist among the Roma. They usu−ally imagine hell as boiling black pitch intowhich sinners are cast to suffer. Those Romawho commit the worst sins, such as murderor breaking a holy oath, go to hell. However,this is not necessarily the only punishmentfor such deeds. The Roma believe that God’spunishment can be suffered during life onearth as well. For this reason, serious ill−nesses and family disasters are often inter−preted as God’s punishment for serious sins,usually assigned without ceremony to thesuffering person or the members of his/her

family. These sinners are not punished in hellafter their death. Those who suffer for theirsins during their lives go to heaven or pur−gatory. Thus, the only people who go to hellare serious sinners who did not pay for theirdeeds during their earth−lives. The punishercan be a devil called “O Beng”, whom theRoma fear very much. They do not perceivehim as a “seducer to sin”, but rather as a sepa−rate personification of evil that comes as apunishment for sins and infractions againstGod’s order.

Speaking of sin, the Roma follow a modifiedversion of the Christian Ten Command−ments. Only the commandments “Thou shaltnot steal” and “Thou shalt not commit adul−tery” are modified. Theft is tolerated, or, asthe Roma told us: “God tolerates theft if itwas done out of hunger or need”. Adulterycomes from “the nature of the people”, andthus God does not condemn it; it is also of−ten justified as an act of love, which comesfrom God, and makes it impossible for Godto condemn it. Despite these exceptions, theRoma attitude towards venal sins is not laxat all. On the contrary, they tend to perceivesuch sins not just as a threat to the moralcode, but also as violations of the sacred codeordained by God (see Komorovský, 1995).In the end, the Roma have more respect fordivine punishment than secular.

NEW RELIGION AND ATHEISM

A frequent question connected with the re−ligious life of the Roma is the criteria ac−cording to which we define the Roma as re−ligious. Very often, no external characteris−tics of religious life can be found in the set−tlements. Going to church, praying, andother usual forms of devotion are absent.Life seems reduced to its bare essentials,corresponding to Štampach’s theory of“practical atheism” (Štampach, 2001). Only


a certain network of superstitions and cursescan be observed that have certain transcen−dental roots.

But are the Roma really atheists? We thinknot. First, most of the Roma are christened,although they do not live an active religiouslife. It is highly unlikely that even as adultsthe Roma would forego christening, whichis seen in their christening of their children.It is far more important to note that atheismgenerally assumes a certain active non−reli−gious attitude. However, among the Romaone finds only the absence of a religious at−titude, rather than a conscious or active nonreligious attitude. In the third case, the super−stitious ideas, curses and oaths one findsamong the Roma implicitly include the ideaof the sanction of God and the transcendentroots of being. However crude and rusticthese ideas seem, we can still see in themsome vulgarized features of folk Christian−ity (for more on folk religion vs. official re−ligion see Bělka and Kováč, 1999).

Roma in this spiritual state tend to be farmore accepting of missionary activities thanRoma with an established religious life. Forthis reason in particular, all missionary ac−tivities by churches in this direction havebeen successful over the last decade. How−ever, it must be emphasized that in mostcases they are not starting from scratch.Roma folk devoutness is deeply individual,family, or private, and is at the same timeneutral. Roma who start to live an active re−ligious life after a missionary visit are eagerbelievers. In these cases, we encounteredphenomena such as daily, lively, and spon−taneous Bible discussions in settlements,creative scenes with religious topics, spon−taneous composition of religious songs inRomany, and so on. We needn’t add that suchactivities (not organized but resulting fromactivities within the community) are veryrare in the majority population.

Modern times, however, are also ushering incompletely contradictory phenomena. ManyRoma refuse to live in the traditional way, andsee departure for the anonymous environmentof urban housing estates as the only way toescape the strict social bonds of home, whereunfortunately the standard of living is oftenvery poor. Probably the most anonymous ofsuch housing estates is the Petržalka suburbof Bratislava. Here, researchers discovered ahigh concentration of Roma who had com−pletely given up their original bonds on behalfof their vision of a new life.3 As we later ob−served, traditional forms of religion repre−sented an inseparable part of the bonds theyhad deliberately broken, which is why themembers of the new, segmented, and anony−mous Roma community in Petržalka ended upwith atheism. Roma who belong to variousinternal Roma ethnic groups, and who growup in a strict religious environment at home,are unable to create new religious bonds intheir new environment. Roma atheism is thusbecoming increasingly common for the scat−tered Roma populations of big towns.

If we look at the private religiousness of in−dividual Roma families on the one hand, andsocialization within the community as a pre−requisite for maintaining this religiousnesson the other, we come to a seeming paradox.If Roma religiosity is an individual matter,it should not cease to exist in the anonymous,every−man−for−himself environment of urbanhousing estates. The explanation for why itdoes, lies in the fact that practicing a privatereligiosity is only possible in the context ofa rich social life and local bonds that form thenecessary impulse for the religiosity.

ETHNICITY, CONFESSION, ANDIDENTITY

A key issue that is assuming special impor−tance in the consolidation of the Roma iden−


tity is the extent to which the ethnic identityof the Roma overlaps with their confessionalidentity (i.e. what religious denomination theyfollow). The previous section on multilevelfaith foretold that the answer would be diffi−cult to find. First, we have to realize that ahuge problem lies with ethnic identity, as mostRoma identify themselves as Slovak. Theyreason that as they were born in Slovakia andhave a Slovak identity card, they are thereforeSlovak. Clearly, they connect ethnicity tocitizenship in a geographically defined state.“They told us we came from India, so letthem give us Indian passports, and we willlive in India and be Indians. But now we areSlovaks; the Roma do not have a country oftheir own.” This primary “Slovak” self−iden−tification is followed by identification with“being Roma”, which is perceived more asa cultural trait than an ethnic category. Reli−gious identity is in third place.

In the interests of simplicity, we might de−scribe the self−identification process more orless the way Anna Botošová did in her re−search: “First I am the son of my father anda member of my family, then a member of mysettlement or municipality; then I am Slovak,and then Roma (Botošová, 2002), and finallyI am a Catholic.” In other words, ethnic iden−tity casts a long shadow over confessionalidentity. Moreover, the latter has undergonedynamic changes recently, which for mostRoma means that confessional identity is nota force for stability. The fact that the Romafrequently have various faiths makes the dualSlovak – Roma identity even more compli−cated. Not to mention the complications inthe Slovak south, where Attila Kovács ob−served that after the threefold Hungarian –Slovak – Roma identity, individuals still hadto deal with a dual Calvinist – Catholic con−fessional identity.4

On the other hand, it must be noted that thischaos causes greater problems for the major−

ity population than for the Roma themselves.We are used to thinking in definite catego−ries, whereas in real life, these categoriesoften overlap or merge. There are also Romalocations where religious identity is far moreimportant than elsewhere. For instance, theSalesian mission in Poštárka near Bardejov(northeast Slovakia) managed to make selfidentification as Roman Catholics more im−portant for the local Roma than their ethnicclassifications. These Roma claim to bemembers of the majority population accord−ing to their faith, and keep their distance fromthe nearest Roma settlement in Zborov,where no mission was performed and reli−gious life is very passive (Djurišičová, 2002).The Roma from Poštárka feel more Catho−lic than Roma, and regard the surroundingRoma in particular as “the others”.

In spite of this complexity, religious self−identification has great potential, as can beseen especially in places with active mis−sions. Regardless of which confession leadsthe mission, if it is conducted properly, itdoes not suppress the Roma identity but con−firms it, which is connected with overall self−determination and a higher quality of life.

EVALUATION OFROMA RELIGIOUSNESS

In evaluating the religious life of the Roma,we must bear in mind two completely differ−ent aspects. The first is the religiously passivecommunities that accepted the religion of themajority population long ago. Here, tradi−tional forms of ritual and faith prevail, of thetypes that eschew external displays. This kindof religion is strongly private, and takes placein Roma dwellings within families, and withinvery tight social bonds. A system of sanctionsbased on God’s holy order dominates here,and to a great extent determines the behaviorof the community. Here, the influence of reli−


gious institutions is negligible. This “implicit”faith is important for the life of the commu−nity, although in places where faith weakens,space is created for the activities of variousmissionary organizations.

And here we come to the second aspect ofRoma religious life – the religious fervor ofthose Roma who have recently been convertedor religiously activated. Communities that havebeen religiously activated are characterized byeagerness, with members of the communityoften becoming missionaries. All memberslive very spontaneous and active religiouslives, showing great interest in the practicaluse of individual articles of the new religionin their personal lives. On the other hand, thisinterest is often shaped by the social environ−ment, the personality of the preacher, or otherexternal factors that can change over time. Thefaith of the Roma often changes as well, andturns towards a new mission or new preach−ers in the neighborhood. The result is often amultilevel faith, as the Roma rarely disavowtheir original confession completely, and tendto lay one over another. For this reason, almostall the Roma who recently became religiouslyactive have undergone one or more conver−sions during the last decade. This fact, how−ever, does not impair the sincerity of theirpassion for the new religion.

In general, religiosity is one of the most im−portant parts of the Roma’s personal andsocial lives. If we approach this issue care−fully, we could gain a strong tool for trans−forming not only the spiritual but also thesocial life of Roma communities.

WORK OF CHURCHES ANDRELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONSWITH THE ROMA

The primary goal of Christian churches is tooffer a message about God and redemption

to people in a comprehensible manner (mis−sionary work), and to take care of people inthe religious community (pastoral work).People who accept this missionary messagethrough their faith find that a new philoso−phy of life is formed, and that their values,moral standards, and principles change, re−sulting in a change in their lives and actions.

In the discussion below, the authors disre−garded the Jewish Federation in Slovakia, theCzechoslovak Hussite Church, and theChristian Union in Slovakia, as none of thesehave done much work with the Roma.Churches and religious organizations are notranked according to their position in Slovaksociety, but according to the amount of workthey do with the Roma.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ANDGREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Roman Catholic Church reacted to the1989 changes relatively quickly. As early as1990, members of the pastoral group of theRoman and Greek Catholic churches beganpreparing to work with the Roma on the ba−sis of their own experience. The concept wasto respect the culture of the Roma ethnicgroup, and to assign each diocese a priest,entrusted with the care of the Roma.5 Thisrequirement, however, has not yet been met,as just half of the dioceses in Slovakia havea priest responsible for ministering to theRoma (mainly in eastern and central Slova−kia).

In 1993, a Committee for Ministering to theRoma was established at the Conference ofBishops of Slovakia (later renamed theCouncil for Ministering to the Roma), led bythe assistant bishop of the archdiocese of Ko−šice, Monsignor Bernard Bober. The task ofthe Committee was to map out the situationof the Roma, determine how many of them


there were in individual deaneries, and evalu−ate the possibilities of pastoral work. Thecommission also organized the publishing ofliterature used in catechization (instructionby question and answer) and missionary andpastoral work. In 1995 a primer of religiouseducation, called Deloreske čhave (God’sChildren) was published, while in 1997 abiography was issued of the first blessedRoma, Zefyrín Jimenéz Mallo6 – Un verokalň (The Blessed Roma, 1993) – as well asa Romany−Slovak version of the Bible forChildren (1998).

Since 1993, annual Slovak−wide Roma pil−grimages have taken place in the village ofGaboltov (Bardejov district in northeast Slo−vakia) every August, attended by foreignpilgrims as well. The pilgrimages are organ−ized by the Council for Ministering to theRoma, along with the Salesians and theRoma faithful. Besides the Way of the Crossand traditional services, the pilgrimage alsoincludes performances by Roma music andtheatre ensembles (e.g. from the municipali−ties of Varhaňovce, Toporec, Štrba, Bardejov,Hanušovce) and presentations of Romahandcrafts. This encourages the Roma intheir spiritual life and strengthens their iden−tity.

In emphasizing the need to help the Roma,the Iustitia et Pax (Justice and Peace) Com−mission at the Conference of Bishops ofSlovakia has been equally active. The sec−retary of the Commission, Jozef Mikloško,appealed to Christian entrepreneurs andlabor bureaus to create more jobs for Roma.He also appealed to Roma parents to sup−port their children’s education, arguing thatwithout education they would be lost(www.rcc.sk).

In 2001, the Conference of Bishops of Slo−vakia published the Pastoral and Evangeli−zation Plan 2001 – 2006, mapping the situ−

ation in all spheres of religious work, defin−ing goals, and making concrete suggestions.In the chapter on the Roma, it noted that thereligious behavior of the Roma is hard tounderstand for the majority population, andthus the church has only sporadically suc−ceeded in entering this environment witheffective evangelization. The Conferencethus advised that more be learned aboutRoma culture, that cooperation between theparishes and the Commission for Minister−ing to the Roma be improved, that lay peo−ple be involved in missionary work, and thatthe skills of priests in working with the Romabe increased.

Although the need to coordinate the work ofthe Council for Ministering to the Roma atthe Conference of Bishops of Slovakia isbeyond dispute, especially on countrywideprojects and support for local projects, themain point of the work is ministry activitiesconducted locally in individual parishes(Janto, 2000, p. 61 – 63).

Since the mid−1970s, a nun of Roma origin,sister Atanázia Holubová, has worked withthe Roma in Bardejov. Intense ministry workhere started in 1990 after the Roman Catho−lic Congregation of Salesians arrived. TheSalesians, led by Don Peter Bešenyi, startedworking with Roma children in their centerin Bardejov. Later they acquired a “house ofculture” (like a community center) for theiractivities that is located directly in the Poš−tárka Roma housing estate; they rebuilt it intoa Roma ministry center. At a ceremony onAugust 15, 1998, attended by BishopBernard Bober, the center was dedicated tothe blessed Roma Zefyrín Jiménez Mallo.The Salesians extended their work to almostall age categories. In the ministry center theyregularly celebrate masses at which theRoma meet the non−Roma, which contributesto a better social atmosphere in the town(Janto, 2000, p. 62 – 63).


EVANGELICAL CHURCH OFTHE AUGSBURG CONFESSION

The Evangelical Church of the AugsburgConfession (ECAV) started work with theRoma before 1989 thanks to several priestswho met the Roma daily and were not afraidto perform missionary work. In Slavošovce(Rožňava district in southeast Slovakia), forinstance, where pastor Miroslav Hvožďaraworked, the Roma were actively involved inparish activities. They had a choir, let theirchildren be christened and married in church,had regular meetings for children, and thepastor was even invited to visit families andattend family celebrations.

After 1989, coordination of work with theRoma was taken over by the ECAV Commit−tee for External Missions, led by Igor Mišina,the pastor in Rankovce (Košice−environsdistrict; Mišina is today the Bishop of theeastern district). In summer 1996, an Ameri−can pastor of Roma origin, Larry C. Merino,who comes from a family of nomadic Roma,visited the evangelical Roma at the invitationof the ECAV Evangelization Center for MassMedia. During his travels around Slovakia heorganized successful evangelization sessionsfor Roma. Merino visited Slovakia two moretimes: in November 1996 and summer 1997.He still cooperates with ECAV.

In 1997, the priest−missionary Hans MartinDern from Germany came to Slavošovce.From the outset he was very active in mis−sionary and ministering work with theRoma. All activities organized by thechurch body are common, with both Romaand non−Roma actively involved. Togetherwith the Roma, the priest−missionary cre−ated a group of Roma leaders/evangelistswith whom he also visits other locations andperforms missionary work, with the aim ofinspiring and strengthening the faith of theRoma.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH INSLOVAKIA

The Orthodox Church in Slovakia partici−pates in missionary and pastoral work withthe Roma, particularly through the activitiesof the spiritual administrators of the Ortho−dox communities in the eparchies (Orthodoxdioceses) of Prešov and Michalovce in east−ern Slovakia. In 2000, the Orthodox Acad−emy in Michalovce7 prepared a project tohelp ecclesiastical communities identifyRoma candidates who, after an activecatechetic preparation, could coordinate thework of church communities. In August2002, the Orthodox Academy in cooperationwith the International Organization for Mi−gration in Slovakia (IOM) opened the Com−munity Center of the Orthodox Academy.According to Orthodox Academy PresidentBohumil Vopršálek, the main work of thenew center should be “regular meetings withchildren and young people from the sociallyweaker classes, especially the Roma”. Theyshould mainly be concerned with education,such as tutoring elementary school children,helping parents select a secondary school,and informing people of the chances of find−ing a job in a given region with a given typeof education. The center also includes leisureactivities (Hušová, 2002).

The Saint Nikolai children’s home in Medzi−laborce, the biggest of its kind in Slovakia,takes care of juvenile Roma mothers withchildren. The children’s home was estab−lished and is run by the Philanthropy of theOrthodox Church in Slovakia.

THE REFORMEDCHRISTIAN CHURCH

The Reformed Christian Church in Slovakiadoes missionary work mainly among chil−dren and youth in southern Slovakia. In in−


dividual ecclesiastical bodies, local volun−teers and activists hold club and leisure ac−tivities.

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH INSLOVAKIA

The local ecclesiastical bodies of the UnitedMethodist Church do missionary and pasto−ral work among the Roma according to theneed and their abilities. In Slavkovce, theUnited Methodist Church has a chapel stand−ing right next to the Roma settlement. Sincethe mid−1990s, two members of the bodyhave devoted their time to local Roma, withthe chapel serving as a missionary house.The church also works with the Roma in Mi−chalovce and Lastomír (eastern Slovakia),and Trnava, Partizánske and Sereď (westernSlovakia).

THE UNITED BRETHREN OFBAPTISTS IN SLOVAKIA

The United Brethren of Baptists does mis−sionary work with children and young peo−ple in particular, mainly in club or evangeli−zation meetings. The ecclesiastical body ofthe United Brethren of Baptists in BanskáBystrica has worked since 1995 in severalRoma settlements near Banská Bystrica incentral Slovakia.

BRETHREN CHURCH

Since 1994, the Community of the BrethrenChurch in Košice has worked with Romastreet children from socially weaker and lessadaptable classes. Community volunteersorganize club activities twice a week, inwhich about 100 children participate. In thefirst part of the club session, the activists helpthe children with school duties and home−

work, and try to help them with their personalproblems. In the second part, they sing songsand through various activities learn the mes−sage of the Bible. At the end, the children geta simple meal – bread and butter and tea. Inthe summer the children join a one−weekBible study camp.

APOSTOLIC CHURCH IN SLOVAKIA

The Apostolic Church in Slovakia performsmissionary work among the Roma mainlythrough evangelization sessions and privateBible study groups. Members of the Apos−tolic Church work with children in the east−ern and northern Slovakia municipalities ofVranov nad Topľou, Soľ, Bystré, Rudlov, Ko−šice, Štrba, Bánovce nad Bebravou and Rož−ňava.

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS

In 1998, several volunteers from the SeventhDay Adventists Church in Slovakia startedworking with Roma children in Žiar nadHronom in central Slovakia. In voluntaryclub activities within the program Filip’sFriends, they gradually taught the childrenthe basics of the faith, as well as the basicrules of hygiene and a healthy lifestyle. Al−though they started working with just a cou−ple of children, more children and evenadults joined them later. The church thusextended its activities and added Bibleclasses for adults and the following coursesfor entire Roma families: cheap and healthycooking, and family budgeting and saving.The Roma also take part in the activities ofthe humanitarian wing of the church, theAdventist Development and Relief Agency(ADRA), which is known for its worldwidehumanitarian aid to people afflicted by natu−ral disasters, as well as for its help in institu−tional development.


JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

The Jehovah’s Witnesses in their missionarywork often focus on Roma communities,where they are particularly successful. Theirsuccess is due mainly to their sophisticatedsystem of organized visits and free Biblestudy sessions at home, in which most of theorganization’s members participate. Theypersonally visit almost every individual inthe community, providing them with freecolor magazines (Watchtower, Awake!),which in many cases represent the only lit−erature in Roma households. Roma fromneglected regions are often impressed by theidea of a new world (without illness, pain,suffering, or poverty – the exact opposite oftheir current situation) that is supposed toarrive soon (What Does God Require of Us?,1996). This new world is often depicted inthe missionary magazines, which seems to bethe best way to communicate these ideas tothe Roma.

Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses mustpromise to live an exemplary life after theirchristening, voluntarily respecting the rela−tively strict rules of the religious organiza−tion. In this way they gradually gain a repu−tation as honest, polite, and diligent people.The Jehovah’s Witnesses also help the Romaconverts, who thus become their representa−tives. In regions with a higher concentrationof Roma Jehovah’s Witnesses, we see a de−cline in some negative behavior and phenom−ena (e.g. theft, illiteracy, abuse of welfarebenefits, voluntary unemployment). On theother hand, in becoming members of the or−ganization, the Roma converts almost com−pletely lose their original Roma identity. TheJehovah’s Witnesses in Slovakia have 165bodies and work in almost all of areas of thecountry. Places with the highest proportionof Roma Jehovah’s Witnesses include Ulič(Humenné district in eastern Slovakia), Ko−šice, Fiľakovo (south−central Slovakia), Rož−

ňava and Plešivec (Rožňava district in thesoutheast).

OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCHES ANDDENOMINATIONS

The Old Catholic Church in Slovakia, withonly four ecclesiastical communities (Brati−slava, Nitra, Žilina, Košice), is trying to starta leisure activity program focused on Romayouth.

After 1990, in almost every district town,groups of people supported from abroadstarted to establish communities of the Pen−tecostal Movement – the Word of Life Inter−national and the Christian Community. Thesedenominations started intense missionarywork that also targeted the Roma. Their mis−sionary work was relatively effective, and therelatively dynamic communities of convertsreact very flexibly to the need to work withthe Roma, not only in education but also indirect practical help for Roma communities.

EFFECTS OF THE MISSIONARYAND PASTORAL WORK OFCHURCHES AND RELIGIOUSORGANIZATIONS ON THE ROMA

Individual churches were relatively unpre−pared to launch missionary and pastoral workwith the Roma after 1989, a state that haslasted until today. Most churches lack a sys−tematic approach to working with the Romaethnic group that would show a solid graspof the initial situation, define some sensiblegoals, and make concrete recommendations.8

In seminaries and theological schools, littleor no attention is paid to the special require−ments of ministering to the Roma, with theresult that priests and lay activists frequentlymisunderstand Roma religious life. Thechurch press is limited to information on the


activities of Roma missions, and academictheological periodicals also lack research onthe nature of Roma religiosity. Despite thesenegative circumstances, many parishes andchurch bodies perform effective missionaryand pastoral work among the Roma. About10% of the Roma in each location whereextensive missionary and pastoral work isperformed take an active part in religious life(regular visiting church services, Bibleclasses, prayer meetings, choirs, pilgrim−ages). The rest of the Roma usually claim tobe religious, and occasionally participate inchurch activities (Janto, 2000, p. 72).

The active religious life of all churches andreligious organizations is leading to positive,qualitative change. In adopting a new mean−ing of life, people’s attitude towards educa−tion and work gradually change as well.Family relationships, ties between husbandand wife, and relationships to other peoplealso improve. Common participation inchurch services and other events, as well asthe relationship with the majority population,are reducing ethnic tensions. Sometimespeople even quit smoking or drinking alco−hol. By taking part in pilgrimages, trips andother events, the participants overcome theirsocial isolation and broaden their horizons.9

Missionary and pastoral work, which thechurches are constantly trying to improve,may in future gradually bring positive resultsin activating and involving more Roma inreligious life, in the everyday life of localreligious communities, and through themalso in the local community.

CONCLUSION

After studying the problem through field−work, the authors came to believe that Romareligiosity is being unjustly neglected andunderestimated, not only by churches and

religious organizations, but also by the state,lower elected governments, and the thirdsector. Here are some of the reasons for thissituation, and some possible ways out.

First of all, churches and religious organiza−tions are underestimating the need to spe−cially prepare priests for working in Romacommunities. We very often encounteredcases when the local pastor ignored the Romaor did not understand their specific needs.Pastors often do not understand the Romalanguage or the specifics of their religiouslife, even in locations where the Roma rep−resent the majority. The misunderstandingsthat arise often become an obstacle not justto the Roma attending church, but also to agreater degree in the socialization of localcommunities. Priests and preachers do notundergo the needed preparation, and judgethe entire issue from the lay viewpoint of themajority population. One solution might beto increase the number of Roma priests, asthere are few at the moment. Above all, how−ever, we need a conceptual approach to min−istering to the Roma from individualchurches and religious organizations. Fewchurches take a thorough and integrated ap−proach to pastoral work that would increasethe educational, social and cultural level ofthe Roma communities they work in.

The state, lower elected governments, andthe third sector are underestimating the po−tential contained in the work that is beingdone with the Roma by churches and reli−gious organizations. If programs were cre−ated that emphasize cooperation betweensecular and religious bodies, social programscould be launched efficiently, the Roma iden−tity could be strengthened, and the Romaculture and language could be developed inindividual locations. Such cooperation couldresult in the launch of education programs forboth adults and children. Given that theRoma distrust state institutions, these pro−


grams of socialization, employment, andeducation could be far more acceptable tothem if promoted in close cooperation withlocal religious personalities that the Romatrust. The deep religiosity of the Roma couldturn out to be one of the key factors in chang−ing the problematic aspects of their sociallives.

ENDNOTES

1. The results of the project were published un−der the title: Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svetRómov na Slovensku [God Sees Everything:The Spiritual Life of the Roma in Slovakia](2002), including reports by those project par−ticipants to which the author refers below.

2. Information from a personal interview. See Ko−vács, 2002.

3. Information from research done in 2002 byRastislav Pivoň among the Roma in Petržalka.

4. Information from a personal interview. SeeKovács, 2002.

5. The work of the Roman Catholic and GreekCatholic churches was described in 2000 by Ju−raj Janto in the work cited below, from whichwe took some elements and completed themwith updated information.

6. Zefyrín Jimenéz Malla was born in 1861 inSpain’s Benavente de Segria, in a CatholicRoma family (Kalé). He lived as a nomad foralmost 40 years, trading in horses. He was alayman member of the Franciscan order and theSt. Vincent Society, which helped poor people.During the Spanish Civil War, he protected apriest, for which he was arrested. In August1936 he was shot with a chaplet in his hands.In November 1993, the process of his beatifi−cation started, and on May 4 1994, Pope JohnPaul II canonized him as a blessed martyr ofthe Catholic religion (Riboldi, 1993).

7. The Orthodox Academy in Michalovce is aneducational, cultural, social, and informationcenter that has been active since 1998 as anNGO. Its aim is to create conditions for peo−ple who want to contribute voluntarily to pre−senting Orthodoxy and eastern spirituality inthe ecumenical perspective.

8. The Pastoračný a evanjelizačný plán katolíckejcirkvi na Slovensku 2001 – 2006 [Pastoral and

Evangelization Plan of the Catholic Church inSlovakia from 2001 to 2006] is the first posi−tive exception. It includes the chapter Rómovia[The Roma], and can therefore be consideredthe first in this field.

9. The positive changes in the life of the Romacaused by the work of the churches in indi−vidual locations are also examined by Janto(2000, p. 69 – 73).

REFERENCES

1. Bělka, Luboš and Kováč Milan (eds.): Nor−mativní a žité náboženství [Normative andExperienced Religion], (Brno: Chronos1999).

2. Botošová, Anina: “Sociálny a náboženský ži−vot v rómskej obci Lomnička” [‘Social andReligious Life in the Roma Municipality ofLomnička’] in Kováč, Milan and Mann, ArneB. (eds.): Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svet Ró−mov na Slovensku [God Sees Everything: TheSpiritual Life of the Roma in Slovakia], (Bra−tislava: Chronos, 2002).

3. Hušová, Mária: “V Michalovciach otvoriaKomunitné centrum Pravoslávnej akadémienajmä pre rómske deti” [‘Community Centerof the Orthodox Academy Especially forRoma Children to be Opened in Michalov−ce’], August 30, 2002, www.rpa.sk.

4. Janto, Juraj: “Práca cirkví medzi Rómami”[‘Activities of Churches Among the Roma’]in Integrácia Rómov na Slovensku. [Integra−tion of the Roma in Slovakia.], (Trnava: Cyriland Methodius University, 2000, p. 57 – 73).

5. Komorovský, Ján: Mravný poriadok a jehonáboženská sankcia [The Moral Code and itsReligious Sanction], (Bratislava: ComeniusUniversity, 1995, p. 42).

6. Kovács, Attila: “Bôrka: komunity, identity anáboženstvo v hornogemerskom pútnickommieste” [‘Bôrka: Community, Identity, andReligion in the Pilgrim Site of the HornýGemer Region’] in Kováč, Milan and Mann,Arne B. (eds.): Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svetRómov na Slovensku [God Sees Everything:The Spiritual Life of the Roma in Slovakia],(Bratislava: Chronos, 2002).

7. Kováč, Milan: “Slnko pre spravodlivých. Po−svätnosť prísahy a božia sankcia medzi hore−hronskými Rómami z obce Telgárt” [‘Sun−


shine for the Just: The Sanctity of the Oathand Divine Sanction among the Roma ofTelgárt Municipality in the Horehronie Re−gion’] in Kováč, Milan and Mann, Arne B.(eds.): Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svet Rómovna Slovensku [God Sees Everything: TheSpiritual Life of the Roma in Slovakia], (Bra−tislava: Chronos, 2002).


9. Mináč, Jakub: “Rómske nové duchovné pies−ne v obci Rankovce” [‘New Roma SpiritualSongs in the Municipality of Rankovce’] inKováč, Milan and Mann, Arne B. (eds.): Bohvšetko vidí. Duchovný svet Rómov na Sloven−sku [God Sees Everything: The Spiritual Lifeof the Roma in Slovakia], (Bratislava: Chro−nos, 2002).

10. Minárik, Gabriel: “Služba Rómom – problémalebo príležitosť?” [‘Serving the Roma – AProblem or an Opportunity?’], Víťazný život,No. 2, 2002, p. 3.

11. Pastoračný a evanjelizačný plán katolíckejcirkvi na Slovensku 2001 – 2006 [Pastoral andEvangelization Plan of the Catholic Church in

Slovakia, 2001 – 2006.], (Bratislava: SlovakConference of Bishops, 2001).

12. Podolinská, Tatiana: “Boh medzi vojnovýmiplotmi” [‘God Between the Fences of War’]in Kováč, Milan and Mann, Arne B. (eds.):Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svet Rómov na Slo−vensku [God Sees Everything: The SpiritualLife of the Roma in Slovakia], (Bratislava:Chronos, 2002).

13. Riboldi, Mario: Un vero kalň (Zeffirino J.Malla). (Miláno: La Voce, 1993).

14. Šebková, Haba: “Střípky romské tradicev osadě v Hermasnovcích” [‘Fragments ofRoma Tradition in the Settlement of Hermas−novce’], Romano Džaniben, No. 3 – 4, 2001,p. 42 – 77.

15. Štampach, Odilo Ivan: “Kritika náboženstvía ateismus” [‘Criticism of Religion and Athe−ism’] in Horyna, Břetislav and Pavlincová,Helena: Dějiny religionistiky [The History ofReligonistics], (Olomouc: Olomouc 2001, p.405.)

16. What Does God Require of Us? (New York:Watch Tower Bible Tract Society, 1996).

17. www.rcc.sk

114

115

Summary: This chapter examines the Romanotion of self−expression in art and culturesince 1989, and looks at the practical aspectsof putting these notions into action during thetransformation of the former communist stateinto a market−based democracy, whichbrought changes to grant−supported cultureand art. The author studies state−subsidizedRoma institutions and the role of Roma NGOsin preserving, protecting and developing au−thentic Roma art and culture. The chapter endswith a discussion of Roma art and culture asthe basis of self expression and the buildingof Roma identity, self esteem, and confidence.

Key words: Roma nation, process of gain−ing self−consciousness among the Roma, leg−islation supporting the development of Romaculture, fund allocation system, Roma insti−tutions, Roma NGOs, Romathan, secondaryschool of arts, Roma literature, Roma music,films and radio programs about the Roma,Roma periodicals.

INTRODUCTION

While from the point of view of civic eman−cipation the Roma seem to be losing theirnational identity and ethnicity, in terms of self−recognition and self−identification in cultureand art as an expression of their cultural con−sciousness and national identity, they haveclearly managed to preserve their nationalcultural identity. However, this is less the re−sult of their need to identify ethnically witheach other than with a natural self−defense

DANIELA HIVEŠOVÁ−ŠILANOVÁ

THE CULTURAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ROMA

reflex. The Roma view their Roma identity(“romipen”) as supranational, and identifywith a worldwide Roma nation; in individualcountries they present themselves to the ma−jority population as citizens of that country.The culture and art of the Roma, which re−flects the spiritual world of their creators, areespecially based on their identity. Only herecan they express themselves fully and freely.

Until 1989 the Roma in Slovakia were al−lowed neither to develop their culture nor topresent it in public as the specific culture ofthe Roma minority. They could not establishRoma ensembles or interest groups, whileRoma fairy tales could not be shown on TV,and literature about the Roma could not bepublished (Snopko, 1992). In other words,the Roma were deprived of their nationalidentity and ethnicity. This deprivation hadnegative consequences not only for how theRoma were viewed by the majority, but alsofor their own community. The doubt that lin−gers among some Roma, especially those liv−ing in secluded communities, about theirown ethnic characteristics and identity isproof of this.

VISIONS AND FULFILLMENT OFTHE CULTURAL NEEDS OFTHE ROMA

ROMA SELF−REALIZATION

The Roma are naturally versatile and verysensitive when it comes to art. After 1989,

116 D a n i e l a H i v e š o v á − Š i l a n o v á

when they were finally allowed to publiclyidentify and present themselves as Roma,they entered the stage of mainstream societywith their art and culture. They made intenseefforts to present their culture by establish−ing civic associations and folklore ensemblesand organizing nationwide Roma folklorefestivals. The intensity of such presentationswas a natural reaction to their former spiritualoppression, and the Roma showed what hadkept their national identity alive.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the idea ofshowing that “we are no worse than the oth−ers” was more subconscious than consciousamong the Roma, but freeing themselvesfrom this motivation proved a long and hardtask because, even today, the Roma don’thave what they most need to boost their self−confidence and give them a real feeling offreedom: appreciation and acceptance by themajority Slovak population. Even now theyfeel a greater need to prove their worth to themajority than to themselves. This situation isperpetuated by the unwillingness of the ma−jority or the inability of the state to providethe conditions Roma culture needs to de−velop naturally: to rid the official image ofthe Roma of prejudice.

The presence of Roma culture – especiallytheir musical, creative and performance tal−ents – is visible in contemporary Slovakia inthree main areas:a) music performers; the Roma provide mu−

sic at social events, performing for kingsand aristocracy, at dances in villages, or incafés and restaurants;

b) carriers and caretakers of Slovak folkloretraditions;

c) carriers and caretakers of their own folk−lore traditions.

In all three areas one finds not only famousRoma names but also entire musical familiesand dynasties that have performed in Slova−kia until this day.

PRACTICAL SATISFACTION OFROMA DEMANDS BY THE STATE

The right of both the Roma and other minori−ties to equal rights, and to develop their lan−guage, culture, and art, is anchored in Slova−kia’s supreme law, the Constitution. Article12, paragraph 2 of the Constitution guaran−tees equality to all citizens regardless theirnationality, religion, beliefs and social affili−ations. Articles 34 and 35 protect the right ofminorities to learn the official state language,to establish and maintain educational andcultural institutions, to obtain information intheir mother tongues, to use their mothertongues in communicating with official statebodies, and to participate in decisions on is−sues affecting national and ethnic minorities.These rights are put into force through indi−vidual laws (see the chapter The Legal andInstitutional Framework of the “Roma is−sue” in this book).

As for the practical implementation of theRoma’s right to develop their own culture,the following steps were taken in the yearsfollowing 1989:• The Culture Ministry together with Roma

cultural organizations established the As−sociation of Roma Cultural Organizationsin Slovakia on May 21, 1991;

• At the initiative of the Culture Ministry, thegovernment approved 5,800,000 Sk (thenabout $220,000) for four existing Romacultural associations, and 3,500,000 Sk forother activities in extracurricular educationand spare−time artistic activities;

• Employees of the Culture Ministry’s De−partment for National and Ethnic Culturetook part in expert talks on establishing theRomathan professional Roma theatre(June to September 1991), while the Cul−ture Ministry established the theatre inMay 1992;

• The first Roma weekly, biweekly, andmonthly periodicals were published:

117T h e C u l t u r a l A c t i v i t i e s o f t h e R o m a

Roma/Rómovia (November 1990),Romano ľil/Rómsky list (August 1991),Romipen/Rómstvo (October 1991),Nevipen/Novosti (February 1992), andLuluďi/Kvietok (March 1992);

• The first books by Roma writers were pub−lished (fairy tales by József Ravasz, poemsby Dezider Bang, a reader by MilenaHübschmannová for elementary schoolstudents, and an anthology by ethnogra−pher Arne B. Mann called Neznámi Rómo−via [1992]);

• On January 28, 1992, the public STV chan−nel started broadcasting a weekly RomaNational Magazine in Bratislava, BanskáBystrica and Košice.

In April 1990, a Department of Roma Cul−ture at the Pedagogical Faculty in Nitra wasestablished, followed by the founding ofSecondary School of Art in Košice in 1992/1993, and the opening of a teacher−trainingcourse at the Pavol Jozef Šafárik Universityin Prešov for elementary schools specializ−ing in the Roma language and culture. Al−though their paths were not trouble−free, theinstitutions and initiatives founded duringthose early years (the theatre, schools, peri−odicals, publishing and other activities topresent Roma culture through Roma NGOs)still exist.

During the first two years after November1989, the Culture Ministry not only adoptedthe first Principles of the Government’sPolicy Towards the Roma (dated April 15,1991) but fulfilled most of its tasks as well.The following tasks remained: to draft a pro−posal for organizing regional and nationalRoma folklore festivals; to provide materialand financial aid to Roma cultural organiza−tions for extracurricular education and spare−time artistic activities; to establish a nationalminority culture department (includingRoma culture) at the National Center forContinuing Education; to draw up a method−

ology for educational activities among theRoma, the training of Roma leaders, and pro−viding aid for Roma ensembles; and to reachagreement with local cultural centers on thefree rental of premises for non−commercialeducational and cultural activities of localRoma organizations.

FUNDING FORMINORITY CULTURES

After the political changes in 1989, manyminority organizations were established.Every year, more organizations appeared torepresent other national minorities in Slova−kia, and to receive funding from the CultureMinistry. In 1993 the government’s Councilfor Minorities and Ethnic Groups was estab−lished (Kollár and Mrvová, 2002).

Since 1996, minority culture in Slovakia hasbeen funded in three ways:1. Through specific transfers from the Cul−

ture Ministry’s budget for projects sup−porting the development of national mi−nority culture, including cultural activities,and publishing periodical and non−periodi−cal press.

2. Through funding for minority cultural or−ganizations as state−subsidized organiza−tions at the regional level.

3. Through funding for activities to developminority culture within the framework ofsubsidized organizations under the juris−diction of regional authorities (museums,galleries, libraries, centers of continuingeducation).

A committee of experts at the Department forMinority Culture, appointed by the CultureMinister, assesses how Culture Ministrybudget money for special purposes is allo−cated. The members of this committee,which also acts as an advisory body for theCulture Minister, include representatives of


all national minorities and ethnic groups liv−ing in Slovakia. Each minority has one voteon the committee. One of the committee’sjobs is to establish subcommittees. Subcom−mittees established on an ethnic basis pro−pose funds to be allocated to selectedprojects; they also evaluate minority cultureprojects according to the following criteria:quality, and the importance and significanceof the culture activity for the members of theminority and for maintaining their identity.Final funding proposals are prepared by theCulture Ministry and approved by the Cul−ture Minister (Kollár and Mrvová, 2002).

Minority cultures in Slovakia grow throughthe publishing of periodical and non−periodi−cal press for minority members (in 2000, 40magazines were published), state theatreswith programs in minority languages (fourtheatres), state museums focusing on minori−ties (eight museums and departments of re−gional museums), civic associations promot−ing the culture of all 11 minorities, two semi−professional folklore ensembles, regionalcenters for continuing education, regionaland district libraries, and public media broad−casts in minority languages.

The public channel Slovak Radio broadcasts45 hours a week worth of special programsfor the Hungarian minority. Other minorities– Ruthenian, Ukrainian, German, Czech,Polish, and Roma – were allocated less timein the national−ethnic broadcasting scheme.Within its roster of national magazines, STVbroadcasts for the Hungarian, Roma, Czech,Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Polish, Jewish, Ger−man, and Bulgarian minorities, and also pre−pares a multi−ethnic magazine. Besides sup−porting projects submitted by minority mem−bers, the Culture Ministry through the De−partment for Minority Cultures also subsi−dizes civic associations representing handi−capped people, and multi−ethnic projects(Kollár and Mrvová, 2002).

Table 1Culture Ministry funding for Roma cultureprojects in Slovakia from 1999 to 2002 accord−ing to type of activity (compared to Hungarianand Ukrainian minority funding – in Sk)

6�� #�� 7��

8��'��

,111� ��

0***� ��

0**,� ��

0**0� ��

9��!�'��:�

,111� ��

0***� ��

0**,� ��

0**0� ��

��!�'��:�

,111� ��

0***� ��

0**,� ��

0**0� ��

Source: Slovak Culture Ministry.

Until 1996, most cultural institutions weremanaged directly by the Culture Ministry.Since 1996, in keeping with the Law on Lo−cal Administration, most have been manageddirectly by regional state offices. Some 38regional cultural centers were established,and 162 subsidized organizations were inte−grated within them. These changes did notinfluence minority culture funding, and thetransformation of culture continued. At thesame time, within its special purposes trans−fer, the Culture Ministry also supported sev−eral activities that fell flat (a supplement forminorities in the Slovenská Republika dailynewspaper that was seldom read by minor−ity members), or that did not meet minorityneeds (Kollár and Mrvová, 2002).

After 1999 the subsidized organizations thatwere under the authority of the state re−gional culture centers (and thus also minor−ity culture institutions, with the exceptionof minority museums, which remained un−der the control of the Slovak National Mu−seum) obtained their legal independence,


although they remained under the directmanagement of the culture departments ofthe regional authorities. After the 1998 par−liamentary elections, a separate Departmentof Minority Cultures was established at theCulture Ministry, and started to cooperatewith parliamentary committees and the De−partment of Intellectual and Social Develop−ment at the Government Office in support−ing minority culture. The role of minorityrepresentatives in making decisions on fund−ing for minority culture changed somewhatduring the decentralization of state powerfrom 2001 to 2003 and the establishment ofregional elected governments. WithinSlovakia’s structure of regional administra−tion, a system of enacting and guaranteeingminority policy is being prepared by theCulture Ministry to prevent ambiguities inthe devolution of power from the state ad−ministration to the self−governing regions(Kollár and Mrvová, 2002).

THE ENACTMENT OF ROMA IDEASON THE DEVELOPMENT OFTHEIR CULTURE – ACTIVITIES ANDINITIATIVES OF THE ROMA

From the outset, Roma movements and cul−tural initiatives were aware that they couldcommunicate with the government, the Cul−ture Ministry and other state departmentsonly as legal entities, not as individuals. Thiswas one reason why Roma cultural and so−cial organizations were first established;these bodies later became the bearers of cul−tural development and the implementers ofindividual projects.

In Slovakia, the first Roma cultural and so−cial organizations were established in 1990on the basis of the previous experience oftheir leaders (most had been active while theRoma began to gain self−consciousness in the1960s and 1970s), as well as according to the

Table 2Culture Ministry funding for Roma culture projects in Slovakia from 1999 to 2002, accordingto type of activity (with respect to the total number of applicants and projects, and the numberof subsidized applicants and projects – in Sk)

� ��'�� 9��;�'�� <��=�

6�� !�� !�� >��!� ��!�

8��'��

,111� �� 0***� �� 0**,� �� 0**0� ��

9��!�'��

,111� �� 0***� �� 0**,� �� 0**0� ��

��!�'��

,111� �� 0***� �� 0**,� �� 0**0� ��

Note: Beginning in 1999, cultural projects could be submitted to the Government Office through the Office ofGovernmental Plenipotentiary for Solving the Problems of the Roma Minority (later the Office of GovernmentalPlenipotentiary for Roma Communities). Through this channel the Government Office allocated funding for vari−ous Roma culture projects in the following amounts: 1,952,300 Sk in 1999, 3,254,800 Sk in 2000, and 7,000,000Sk in 2001 from the General Cash Administration section of the state budget.Source: Office of Governmental Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities.


model of other Slovak state−subsidized mi−nority organizations. Among the first to beestablished were:• The Roma Cultural Association (Prešov,

1990);• The Roma Intelligentsia Association in

Slovakia (Bratislava, 1990);• The Democratic Union of Roma in Slo−

vakia (Zvolen, 1990);• Romani kultura (Bratislava, 1991);• The Roma Community Cultural Union

(Humenné, 1991).

The founders of these organizations copiedthe activity model of existing Hungarian andUkrainian ethnic unions. They intended tofound and manage regional branches orclubs, found and support local and nationalfolklore ensembles, and organize regionaland national Roma folklore festivals and ar−tistic leisure activities in the regions wherethey operated. They also knew they had tocooperate if their activities were to be suc−cessful. For this reason, the first four Romaorganizations in 1991 united under the Asso−ciation of Roma Cultural Organizations inSlovakia (ARKOS), each of the memberskeeping its legal identity. ARKOS was meantto represent the Roma organizations in nego−tiations with the state; Dezider Banga waschosen its first chairman. ARKOS inspiredtrust in state representatives as it showed theunity of the Roma and offered a clear idea ofhow to promote Roma culture in negotiations.

Besides its unified approach to the state,ARKOS also represented its members pro−fessionally towards the Roma community.ARKOS expected that further cultural or−ganizations in Slovakia would be establishedunder its authority, according to the regionsin which the organizations united underARKOS operated, although it did not preventthe establishment of new organizations. Italso expected that it would coordinate thecultural needs and interests of the Roma, thus

forming a buffer between the state and indi−vidual Roma groups. For that reason,ARKOS offered Roma groups and individu−als the chance to apply to the unions associ−ated in ARKOS for the Sk 5 million in extrabudget funds allocated by the government(Romano ľil, 1991, No. 2).

At the same time, each of the groups associ−ated in ARKOS had its own ambitions (forexample, to publish its own periodical), aimsthat were fulfilled thanks to support from theCulture Ministry. From the outset, however,the activities and applicants outnumbered thefunds allocated for the promotion of minor−ity culture.

The most influential Roma cultural associa−tions naturally wanted to prevent the estab−lishment of new associations and organiza−tions, which they regarded as rivals for sub−sidies. These concerns about a possible lossof influence among the first establishedgroups were visible at the ARKOS meetingin Nimnica from October 2 to 3, 1991. Areport of the meeting, published in the Ro−mano ľil, said that ARKOS discussed theobjectives of the individual cultural unionsand prepared a financial plan for the follow−ing year. At the same time, ARKOS wasconcerned by the trend in some Roma cul−tural organizations towards assimilation and“Slovakization”, and thus denial of Romaidentity. The meeting resulted in a letter tothe Culture Ministry and the governmentdemanding that these Roma−denying organi−zations should be funded from money otherthan that earmarked for the support of Romaculture (Romano ľil, 1991, No. 2).

The year 1993 saw a sharp about−turn in sub−sidies, the approach of the Culture Ministry toRoma cultural NGOs, and the representationof Roma cultural organizations. The new Slo−vak government restricted support for culturein general, including minority culture.


COMPATIBILITY OF ROMA DEMANDSAND STATE SUPPORT

The results of the talks between Roma asso−ciations and unions and the Culture Minis−try’s Minority Culture Section in 2000 and2001 show the extent to which the ideas ofRoma of how to develop their culture arebeing matched in practice.

A) The recommendations from the work−shop, which was known as “The PresentSituation and Future of Roma Culture inSlovakia”, held in Rimavská Sobota on Oc−tober 17, 2000, included the followinggoals:1. to establish district Roma centers for con−

tinuing education;2. to ask the Slovak Government Representa−

tive for Solving the Problems of the RomaMinority to establish regional brancheswith power over cultural and social edu−cation;

3. to restore the legal independence of theRomathan state theatre in Košice;

4. to set up a subcommittee consisting en−tirely of Roma NGO representatives toassess Roma culture projects;

5. to establish a Roma artistic agency to co−ordinate and manage the presentation ofRoma culture in Slovakia and abroad;

6. to publish the following periodicals:a) a weekly in three languages: Slovak,

Roma, Hungarian;b) a magazine for children;c) a magazine for high school and univer−

sity students, and for civic associa−tions;

7. to prepare a radio and television broadcastproject for the Roma and allow more timefor broadcasting Roma TV and radio pro−grams on public media;

8. to propose criteria for funding Roma cul−ture to the Culture Ministry;

9. to establish a Roma culture museum inSlovakia;

10. to appoint a work group consisting ofRoma and non−Roma, experts in Romalanguage history and research, to codifythe Roma language.

B) The recommendations that came from theCulture Ministry Conference, called “TheProspects for the Development of RomaCulture in Slovakia at the Beginning of theThird Millennium”, held in Banská BystricaNovember 12 – 13, 2001, included:1. to establish a Roma Culture Documentation

Center at the Slovak National Museum, andfor this purpose to create a group of Romaexperts to found the institution;

2. to solve the financial problems of RomaCulture Departments at the museums inRimavská Sobota and Humenné, and su−pervise how funds are used at these insti−tutions (for example by controlling thepurchase of items for museum collections;

3. to establish more Roma Culture Depart−ments in regions with a high concentrationof Roma (personnel issues to be solvedusing graduates from the Department ofRoma Culture at Constantine the Philoso−pher University in Nitra);

4. to help Roma community representativesbecome more active in media institutionsand state administration and self−govern−ment bodies dealing with culture;

5. to re−assess the activities of the RegionalCenters of Continuing Education (with thehelp of the National Center of ContinuingEducation); to establish Roma centers forcontinuing education if necessary, financedfrom the state budget; to prepare a bill onfinancing the culture of minorities;

6. to establish a branch in Lučenec of theDepartment of Roma Culture of Constan−tine the Philosopher University in Nitra;

7. to fund the activities of the Romathantheatre in keeping with its importance asa representative art institution;

8. to provide funding in a reasonable time(i.e. as soon as possible after the commit−


tee of experts session) to bodies that havewon subsidies for their projects from theCulture Ministry;

9. to ensure regular and fixed deadlines forsubmitting applications to allow achange in the purpose for which allo−cated funds are used;

10. to ensure greater transparency in theCulture Ministry Conditions and Princi−ples for Granting and Stating CultureMinistry Funds;

11. to organize regular meetings of the Ad−visory Committee for Solving Problemsin Roma Culture at the Culture Minis−try’s Section for Minority Culture;

12. to organize a meeting of the AdvisoryCommittee for Solving Problems in RomaCulture to prepare the “Roma Day” pro−ject, and to appoint more members to theRoma subcommittee (all Slovak regionsshould be represented) and prepare newcriteria for the allocation of funds (itshould not be based exclusively on datafrom the Slovak Statistical Office);

13. to organize meetings between the authorsof subsidized projects to draw up a year−round schedule of cultural activities andmethods;

14. to support the publishing of a “Romasupplement” in a major periodical, ifnone of the publishing projects for adultpress submitted for 2002 is satisfactory;

15. to ensure long−term continuity in thefunding of a selected subsidized periodi−cal, in order to avoid subsidizing a dif−ferent periodical every year.

ROMA CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA

MUSIC

Music is the historically the largest domainof Roma culture. To the majority population,Roma music – the performing art of Romamusicians – is often a synonym for Roma art

as a whole. Although during communismRoma ensembles were banned (Mann, 1992,p. 7), including folklore and musical ensem−bles, Roma folklore ensembles in villages (orwithin local folklore ensembles) neverceased to exist. However, they were forbid−den to present themselves as Roma musicalensembles at official events.

After 1989, acknowledgment of the Romanation and its right to present and form itsown culture brought many changes to Romamusical life as well. It also meant a return ofRoma culture associations and unions serv−ing and promoting Roma culture, and was astep towards presenting their artists as Romapersonalities. Two Roma musicians wereamong the first Roma personalities acknowl−edged by the state, namely Ján Berky−Mre−nica and Rinaldo Oláh.

Interest in strictly Roma musical traditionsflourished among NGOs after 1989 in theform of initiatives to preserve, present andsupport Roma violin players. The Romanikultúra cultural association (Bratislava), ledby Dezider Bang, launched a new tradition,and since 1992 has organized the SlovakFestival of Violin Players in the village ofGemer, in eastern Slovakia’s Rimavská So−bota district. However, it is also true thatsince 1992 (apart from the establishment ofthe Romathan theatre and the Orchestra ofthe Košice Secondary School of Art), nomajor Roma culture project has been startedin Slovakia. This may be connected to theperception of top Roma musicians as Romarather than musicians.

Besides well−known orchestras in Slovakiasuch as the Violin Orchestra, the Diabolskéhusle (the Devil’s Violin) or the Grand Slo−vakia, and their leading talents Ján Berky−Mrenica (today also his son), Eugen Botoš andEugen Vizváry – who play professionally anddo not demand subsidies from the Culture


Ministry – there is also one Roma professionalorchestra which, as part of the Romathan thea−tre, is subsidized by the state. In Roma music,this ensemble does something that no inte−grated Roma collective has before – as a thea−tre orchestra it sometimes accompanies dramaperformances. In this regard, the founders ofthe theatre envisaged a dramatic role for theorchestra as well as an independent role as aseparate ensemble. Besides theatre perform−ances, the Romathan theatre also presents“solo” orchestra performances.

There are also several (especially children’s)choirs active in Slovakia and focused onspiritual and religious songs. The first andbest known (performing since 1993) is theDevleskere čhave (God’s Children) choirfrom eastern Slovakia’s Bardejov, led by Má−ria Holubová. Since 1995 there has also beena children’s spiritual choir in the village ofVarhaňovce, in eastern Slovakia’s Prešovdistrict, led by Mária Gáborová.

LITERATURE

Roma literature in Slovakia includes litera−ture written by Roma that does not alwaysdeal with Roma issues, as well as literaturewritten by non−Roma that does deal withRoma issues.

Unsystematic and uncoordinated publishingis hurting Roma literature and its develop−ment. There is no Roma publishing house tocooperate with all living and potential au−thors in Slovakia. In place of serious publish−ing, various interest groups publish bookswith small circulations and distribute them innon−traditional ways (i.e. to their friends andsupporters), or use them for their own pur−poses. As a result, most books never make itbeyond the publisher’s archives. The ab−sence of Roma books on the market suggeststhat Roma literature (or literature dealing

with the Roma) does not exist, or that theliterary community does not know how tohandle it. Roma authors thus remain un−known and neglected.

ROMA FINE ART

Roma fine art in Slovakia consists mainly ofthe fine art of talented amateurs and nativeauthors. Before 1989 there were several sig−nificant Roma artists associated in amateurart clubs at centers for continuing educationwho presented their work at exhibitions to−gether with non−Roma amateur artists.

After 1989, centers for continuing educationand cultural centers became less active,damping the enthusiasm of some amateurartists given the expense of pursuing theirartistic interests alone. Some took advantageof the new opportunities and began sellingtheir work or creating made−to−order work;others ceased working completely.

Both Slovakia and other countries have beenimpressed by the unusual inventiveness ofRoma children led by teacher Ján Sajko ineastern Slovakia’s Jarovnice village. Since1993, the work of Sajko’s students has beenadmired at all international children’s artis−tic competitions (Czech Republic, Macedo−nia, Hungary, Germany, Japan, Finland, etc.).They have presented their works at exhibi−tions in the US, Austria, Germany; they showregularly in Sabinov (Slovakia), and since2001 have sold their paintings at an auctionorganized by the Maľujeme pre vzdelanie(Painting for Education) project run by theS.P.A.C.E. Foundation.

PHOTOGRAPHY

It is still rather unusual for the Roma to bethe subjects of a photo report or artistic pho−


tographs taken by Roma photographers andpresented in periodicals or at exhibitions.More often, the Roma are photographed bynon−Roma photographers. However, withRoma periodicals starting to be published,this sphere of Roma creative work is begin−ning to develop as well. The first photo ex−hibition of a Roma artist in Slovakia was thatof József Ravasz, the Roma poet and writer.

Since 1993, Jozef T. Schön has started to bemore active, not just as an author but also asa photographer and documentary maker. In2001 his photographs made up a substantialpart of the exhibition Čie sú to deti?/Kaskereole čhavore? (Whose children are these?),prepared by BIBIANA, the international ar−tistic institute for children in Bratislava. Thiswas the first exhibition in the series Akí sme,takí sme (Dialóg o tolerancii) (We are whatwe are: Dialogue on Tolerance), subsidizedby the Culture Ministry.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Roma film in Slovakia today is dominated bycinematographic work about the Roma.Given the general stagnation in Slovak cin−ematography, films about the Roma arelargely limited to TV documentaries andexposés. Since 1989, only three non−ani−mated feature movies have been made aboutRoma issues – all of them fairy tales.

Most cinematographic work on the Roma isdone in co−production with STV’s documen−tary and current affairs departments, and isoften subsidized by foundations (e.g. theFoundation for the Support of Civic Activi−ties) or within the media projects of the Slo−vak government (such as subsidies from theEU’s Phare programs, for example the Tol−erance To Minorities program). They areoften presented as short films to introduce atopic for a televised debate or talk show.

Some films are made as part of exposé pro−grams, such as the minority show Rómskymagazín (Roma Magazine) or STV’s reli−gious program Božie deti (God’s Children).These cinematic works most often involvepresentations of the positive (educational orspiritual) activities of various foundations inRoma communities, artistic documentarieson Roma artists, or descriptions of crucial butlittle−known moments in modern Roma his−tory (i.e. the imprisonment of Roma in Slo−vakia by the state during the second worldwar to serve in labor camps).

In October 2002, People in Need Foundationorganized a one week international festivalof documentary film entitled Jeden svet/OneWorld, at which, in a special category calledThe Roma Today and Yesterday, films on theRoma that were made from 1950 to 1989were presented.

STATE INSTITUTIONS FOCUSING ONROMA CULTURE

1. The Romathan TheatreThe Romathan theatre was founded by theCulture Ministry in Košice in May 1992at the behest of Roma and non−Roma in−tellectuals who wanted a professionalRoma theatre. The proposal to found thetheatre was presented by a Roma MP, An−na Koptová, in the last session of the Slo−vak parliament in December 1991.

From 1993 to 2002 the Culture Ministrygave 75,439,000 Sk in subsidies to thetheatre. Up to September 2002, the thea−tre presented 29 premieres and 1,116 to−tal performances, 178 of which werestaged abroad and 500 across Slovakiaoutside of Košice. By the same date,Romathan performances had been seenby 325,666 people, of whom 137,799abroad.


2. Slovak Radio Programs for the RomaThe 1991 TV and Radio Broadcasting Lawallows “the production… of programs tomaintain and develop the cultural identityof Slovakia’s nations and ethnic groups”.Since 1991, minority programs have beenbroadcast by Slovak Radio’s MinorityPrograms Department in Prešov.

The Prešov department started to broad−cast programs for the Roma on December31, 1993 with the following programstructure:– news in the Roma language (30 minutes

per week);– Roma cultural revue (once every two

weeks);– Roma magazine (once a month).

Slovak Radio’s Department of Hungar−ian Broadcasting started broadcasts onJune 5, 1998 for Roma who spoke Hun−garian.

3. Slovak Television Programs for RomaMinorityThe 1991 Law on Slovak Television or−dains that STV, through television broad−casts in the mother tongues of minoritiesand ethnic groups living in Slovakia, al−lows these groups to promote their inter−ests. STV started broadcasting in Roma onJanuary 28, 1992, its plan being to broad−cast a rotating weekly 30−minute showfrom each region (Banská Bystrica, Bra−tislava, Košice). During the early years ofbroadcasting, the authors of programsstrove not only to work with Roma an−nouncers/hosts, but also to broadcast inRoma with Slovak subtitles. This coopera−tion was halted, however, and although thedepartments still work with Roma present−ers, they have no chance to check the ac−curacy of their translations.

In 1998, Slovak television started broad−casting a monthly, 13−minute exposé show

called Božie deti (God’s Children) on theSTV 2 Bratislava channel, created by theProduction Center for Spiritual Programs,and aimed at promoting relationships be−tween the church and the Roma. In 1999,the program was extended to 30 minutesa month. Within the show, several filmswere made in a documentary style. In 2002the program was almost cancelled due tomoney problems.

In 1999, a Minority Programs Departmentwas established at the Košice STV studio,as Slovakia’s central department for allminority programs (except the Hungarianone). There are now eight Roma currentaffairs programs broadcast on the STV 1and 2 channels (26 to 30 minutes each);four are produced in Košice, and four inBratislava. Moreover, the Roma issue isalso supposed to feature on four “minor−ity mixes” (mixed programs involving allminorities). Nevertheless, the extent ofminority programming remains unsatis−factory. This insufficiency is usually jus−tified by the lack of funds.

4. The Department of Roma Culture at theGemer Museum in Rimavská SobotaThis department was launched on January1, 1996. It was initiated by the museum in1993, and focuses on the documentationof Roma spiritual and material culture.

5. The Department of Roma Culture at theVihorlat Museum in HumennéThis department was founded by the Cul−ture Ministry on December 16, 1993; it be−came operational in April 1994, focusingon crafts and Roma history until 1945.

6. The Documentary Center of Roma Cul−ture at the Slovak National Museum atthe Ethnographic Museum in MartinThe Documentary Center of Roma Culturein Martin was established on January 1,


2002 as part of the Slovak National Mu−seum at the Ethnographic Museum of theSlovak National Museum in Martin. Thecenter works on a nationwide level, andits mission is to acquire, collect, andpresent documents on the physical andspiritual culture of the Roma.

7. The Secondary School of Art in Košice(founder: Košice District Office)

8. Faculty of Education of Constantinethe Philosopher University in Nitra(PF UKF), Department of Roma Cul−ture

9. Branch of the PF UKF in Spišská NováVes

10. Branch of the PF UKF in Lučenec

CONCLUSION

Despite assertions that conditions are poorfor the structured development of Roma cul−ture in Slovakia, according to the needs de−clared in two memoranda from 1991 and1994, the cultural activities that have beenlaunched since 1989, at first glance, suggestthat Slovak state authorities have honoredtheir commitment to enable and support thedevelopment of Roma culture. The conflictis one of appearance and reality, quality andquantity; of the real needs that the Roma havedeclared on several occasions, and the realchances that these needs can be satisfied.

At first glance, compared to other Easternand Western European countries, Slovakiadoes relatively well in supporting and pre−senting Roma culture, and boasts a relativelyhigh proportion of institutions (both state andnon−state) focused on promoting Roma cul−ture. At the same time, the fact that the basicprojects in this area continued to exist after1993 was due to the enormous efforts of the

groups directly involved (Roma NGOs, themanagements of various institutions) to pre−serve these projects and their original mission.

The following objectives have to be ensuredin the future:• to respect the fact that the Roma minority

– unlike others – did not have the right orthe chance to develop its culture until1989. Thus, institutions and activities (in−cluding existing ones) must be establishedand developed to compensate for the dis−proportion;

• to reassess the system of allocating fundsfrom the state budget for the cultural needsof the Roma minority, not according to of−ficial data on the size of the Roma popula−tion in Slovakia, but according to its realneeds;

• to draw up a concept for the overall andcontinuous development of Roma cultureand art, in cooperation with Roma NGOsthat deal with Roma culture and art, andthat since 1992 have been responsible forseveral major projects in Roma cultureand art;

• to reassess the system of allocating finan−cial subsidies for cultural activities fromthe Culture Ministry, so that the cultural ac−tivities can start to be implemented at thebeginning of the calendar year;

• to ensure that some conceptual and nation−wide projects for minority culture develop−ment are not supported by the governmentthrough the Culture Ministry with only apartial subsidy, but with a full subsidy cor−responding to real needs;

• to pass a Minorities Bill that would stipu−late the responsibility of the state to sup−port Roma periodicals;

• to involve the government and RomaNGOs and bodies dealing with Roma cul−ture in preparing Phare projects in the fieldof minority culture and media. The sameshould be achieved concerning tenders forthese projects and their implementation;


• to have the government and the third sec−tor cooperate with Roma NGOs in the fieldof culture and media, in drawing up andcommenting on government materials onthe overall development of culture andmedia (not only that of minorities) in Slo−vakia.

REFERENCES

1. “ARKOS v Nimnici” [‘ARKOS in Nim−nica’], Romano ľil, No. 2, 1991.

2. “Čo sa stalo?” [‘What Happened?’], Romanonevo ľil, No. 68 – 69, 1993.

3. “Dňa 13. 1. 1993” [‘January 13, 1993’], Ro−mano nevo ľil, No. 62 – 63, 1993.

4. Hivešová−Šilanová, Daniela: “Vznikol Kul−túrny zväz rómskej spoločnosti” [‘Roma Cul−tural Association Is Established’], Romano ľil,No. 9, 1991.

5. Hivešová−Šilanová, Daniela: “Predstavujemerómskeho fotografa Gabriela Hlaváča” [‘In−troducing Roma Photographer Gabriel Hla−váč’], Romano nevo ľil, No. 518 – 522, 2001.

6. Kollár, Miroslav and Mrvová, Zuzana (eds.):Národná správa o kultúrnej politike [National

Report on Cultural Policy], (Bratislava: Mi−nisterstvo kultúry SR, 2002).

7. “Kultúrny zväz občanov rómskej národnostisa neuspokojuje len so zakladaním súborov”[‘The Roma Cultural Association is not Sat−isfied With Just Founding Ensembles’], Ro−mano ľil, No. 21, 1992.

8. Mann, Arne B.: “Sú Rómovia neznámi?”[‘Are the Roma Unknown?’] in Mann, ArneB. (ed.): Neznámi Rómovia [The UnknownRoma], (Bratislava: Ister Science Press,1992).

9. “Nehodnoverní bez dotácií” [‘UntrustworthyWithout Subsidies’], Romano ľil, No. 64 – 66,1993.

10. “Päť miliónov rómskej kultúre” [‘Five Mil−lion for Roma Culture’], Romano ľil, No. 2,1991.

11. Radič, Ján: “Roma bašavel”, Romano nevo ľil,No. 448, 2000.

12. Snopko, Ladislav: “Kultúrna politika vo vzťa−hu k Rómom” [‘Cultural Policy Towards theRoma’] in Mann, Arne B. (ed.): Neznámi Ró−movia [The Unknown Roma], (Bratislava:Ister Science Press, 1992).

13. Zásady vládnej politiky Slovenskej republikyk Rómom [Principles of Slovak GovernmentPolicy towards the Roma], (Bratislava: Úradvlády SR, 1991).

128

129

Summary: This chapter offers a brief surveyof the development of the Roma media after1989. It evaluates the basic problems of theethnic Roma press after 1989. It follows thedevelopment of the oldest Roma periodical– the Romano nevo ľil newspaper – as wellas the fight for its independence. It analyzesthe way readers view the newspaper’s con−tent, as well as the way Romano nevo ľil’sstaff see the paper. It outlines new trends inRoma journalism, for example the RomaPress Agency. The chapter also deals withethnic broadcasting on TV and radio. Specialattention is devoted to the education of Romajournalists. Finally, the chapter compares thecurrent needs and opportunities of Romamedia.

Key words: ethnic press, grants, media mar−ket, remaindered copies, Internet journals,World Wide Web, ethnic broadcasting, edu−cation of Roma journalists, local correspond−ents.

INTRODUCTION

One of the signs of the growing self−aware−ness of the Roma after November 1989 hasbeen the increased demand for Roma press.Unlike other ethnic groups living in Slova−kia, which have seen the number of journalsserving them grow enormously, the Romahave had to address problems such as whichlanguage to use (i.e. whether to use Romanyor the Slovak language, which of the Ro−

KRISTÍNA MAGDOLENOVÁ and IVAN HRICZKO

ROMA MEDIA

many dialects to use, whether to translatetexts into Romany, into Hungarian etc.). TheRoma press have also had to identify theirtarget group, and take into account the pur−chasing power of the target group. Rapiddevelopment of the Roma press was heldback by the deepening social problems of theRoma, the concentration of the press in themost underdeveloped regions of Slovakia(the Košice and Prešov regions), the under−representation of Roma in state administra−tion and municipal government bodies, andthe absence of help from sponsors.

In evaluating the Slovak Roma press after1989, there is no detailed information at ourdisposal. The only source of information isthe number of journals published and infor−mation about the publishers. A more detailedstructural analysis of periodicals is not avail−able, making it impossible to compare themwith the non−Roma press and other mediainformation regarding the Roma.

THE MAKE−UP OFTHE ROMA MEDIA AFTER 1989

Before November 1989, 25 ethnic periodi−cals were published in Slovakia, none ofthem Roma media (for details see the chap−ter The Cultural Activities of the Roma in thisbook). After 1991, the database of the Jour−nalism Research Institute in Bratislava reg−istered 54 ethnic journals, of which 7 wereRoma journals (Čupíková, 1997).

130 K r i s t í n a M a g d o l e n o v á a n d I v a n H r i c z k o

The activities of the Government Council forEthnic Minorities and Groups commenced in1993, after the formation of the independentSlovak Republic. Based on a document en−titled The Principles of the Provision andAccounting of State Funds Provided for Eth−nic Minority Culture, the Council limitedsubsidies for ethnic press, which caused adrop in both periodicity and circulationamong individual journals, effects whichhave endured until today. As for the Roma,the situation was exacerbated by the lack ofinterest among the Roma in ethnic press, byinternal disputes as to the nature of this press,and the deepening social crisis of the Roma.Due to these factors, Roma newspapers andjournals are almost completely reliant onstate subsidies and grants from Slovak andforeign donors. The irregularity with whichRoma periodicals are published, and theirdistribution problems have prevented theRoma press from fulfilling its main function.

ROMANO NEVO ĽIL

The Romano nevo ľil (RNL) newspaper is theoldest Roma periodical in Slovakia. Foundedin September 1991, it was first published asthe Romano ľil (Roma letter – RL), in Slo−vak and Romany with a circulation of 5,000.The Romano ľil weekly arose from the per−sonal initiative of Anna Koptová. In 1992, asRL’s editor−in−chief, Koptová became amember of the Slovak parliament, andDaniela Hivešová−Šilanová was chargedwith the management of the editorial staff. Atthe beginning, RL was published on eightpages in a combination of Slovak andRomany. Between 1991 and 1993, RL builtup its own editorial department, four brancheditorial departments (in Prague, Bratislava,Banská Bystrica and Košice) and a networkof local correspondents. The object was toestablish outlets in all regional capitals. Theeditorial department won its legal independ−

ence in July 1992, after new legislation abol−ished the status of “civic economic associa−tion”, which the editorial office had had un−til then. At the time, RL was drawing fundsfrom the Culture Ministry. As the terms offunding for ethnic culture had not yet beenset, the only criterion for the provision offunds was the intended purpose for whichthey would be used. As a periodical servinga minority that had not received any subsi−dies before 1989, RL obtained a full subsidycovering the costs of operating the editorialdepartment. At the same time, however, theweekly faced one the most serious threats toits existence.

The periodical was attempting to addressboth the Roma (all social categories) andnon−Roma (professionals and employees oflocal municipalities and state administra−tion), resulting in dissatisfaction among in−dividual target groups with the quality andquantity of information provided. Despite thestruggle of the editorial department for pro−fessionalism and an independent view of theRoma, these reservations soon blossomedinto criticism that threatened the very exist−ence of the weekly. The reason that the week−ly’s management did not take radical stepsto change the concept, was that at the time,RL was the only Roma periodical that ex−isted, and it reserved the right to speak onbehalf of all Roma; furthermore, it did notsupport the creation of yet more niche Romamedia (the main reason being the shortage ofmoney for minority press publishing).

However, Roma politicians viewed theweekly as a vehicle for their ambitions, andcriticized the distinctly cultural orientation ofthe periodical: “I am very discontented withthe large amount of space reserved for poetryand fairy−tales,” wrote one Roma politician.“I think these type of articles belong in theRoma cultural journal. What the Romano ľilweekly should do is to look at both the good

131R o m a M e d i a

and the bad that are done by the Roma CivicInitiative, the Roma Intelligentsia Associa−tion, and other political parties and move−ments.” (Romano ľil, 1992, No. 24, p.3)

It was clear even at that time that the com−munity required a wider range of Romapress, or at least specialized journals. Theneeds expressed in various discussions anddebates included a political weekly coveringevents on the Roma and non−Roma politicalscenes, a cultural periodical, a literary peri−odical, and a periodical focusing on the prob−lems of isolated Roma settlements. SinceSeptember 1992, Romano nevo ľil (NewRoma Letter – NRL), an independent culturaland social weekly focusing on the Slovakand Czech Roma, has been published by theJekethane civic association based in Prešov.

The year 1993 was a watershed for the so−cial, organizational, and especially financialsupport of ethnic minorities. The ethnic is−sue gained a new dimension after the decla−ration of Slovak independence, due largelyto changed demographic ratios (for example,the Roma had been more concentrated in theSlovak half of the Czechoslovak federation).At this time, the Slovak Culture Ministrychanged its approach to funding ethnic press,and in 1994 began providing ethnic presssubsidies exclusively on the basis of submit−ted projects. This change was felt moststrongly by the Roma press, where due tolack of funds, Romano nevo ľil saw its pe−riodicity interrupted. For example, betweenFebruary and May 1993 only one issue ofRomano nevo ľil was published. On June 30,1993, the NRL hired a new editor−in−chief,Pavol Žiga, who held the office until the endof 1995. From 1996 until now, the editor−in−chief has been Daniela Hivešová−Ši−lanová.

Since 1998, Romano nevo ľil has becomeincreasingly professional both in content and

layout. Fields that readers and Roma leadershad said were poorly covered improved, andRomano nevo ľil began monitoring Roma−related events, thus filling the informationgap in this area.

The weekly has also played an educationalrole from the beginning. Intended for theRoma intelligentsia as well as the inhabitantsof Roma settlements, the weekly’s greatestproblem has been the heterogeneity of itsreaders, who in many cases had only basicreading and writing skills. For motivationalreasons, the weekly provided room to differ−ent civic associations and regional activiststo speak their minds. On the one hand, thisincreased the Roma community’s interest inits own press, while on the other it harmedthe quality and professional level of the pa−per. The weekly regularly violated the basicrules of journalism, such as how articles werecomposed, how they were presented in thepaper, and so on. Furthermore, from themarketing viewpoint, the weekly’s manage−ment was unable to come up with a plan forobtaining funds from other than donorsources.

Faced with the almost complete absence ofinformation and analysis concerning Romapress, the authors of this chapter analyzed thecontent of NRL/RL. The aim of this analy−sis was to determine how Roma and non−Roma information (and related communityproblems) were presented by a Roma me−dium, as well as to examine the structure,sources and nature of this information, andfinally how language was used.

The authors worked with a sample consist−ing of 12 issues of Romano ľil, three eachfrom 1992, 1994, 1997 and 2000, chosen atrandom. All information from these issueswas processed and divided into pre−set cat−egories. In their analysis the authors used thesame methods as in analyzing non−Roma


media. They analyzed a total of 310 textunits, i.e. an average of 25.8 text units perissue.

As for the type of information, content analy−sis showed that news pieces containing edi−torial comment and opinion were the mostcommon (40.9%), far outweighing inter−views, feature writing, and investigative re−ports. Even though the proportion of literarytexts and cultural information was quite low,it was still too high for this type of journal.

The human rights issue that so dominatednon−Roma media only started to gain groundat NRL during the last few years. Equallysurprisingly, the newspaper paid relativelylittle attention to public affairs and the politi−cal scene (9% of content) and social issues(20%), which are in fact the most importantsectors. Disagreements within the Romacommunity and on the Roma political scenewere covered only marginally, with the topicdominating only during elections and duringthe brief period of unification and subsequentbreakdown among Roma coalitions and par−ties. Community disputes (12.5%) prevailedshortly before and after the elections, aswell as during the formation and breakdownof coalitions and Roma political parties.These issues were left mostly to NRL’sreaders and correspondents, who appealedto politicians to unite. The most commontype of information presented by NRL wascultural (28.4%).

Journalists were the most frequent sources orbearers of information (61.2%), which is thesame ratio as in the non−Roma media. Stateadministration officials (2.7%), police(1.2%), independent experts (1.8%) and lo−cal municipalities (6.3%) were only margin−ally represented, as were representatives ofRoma political parties (6.9%) and non Romapolitical parties (0.9%). This breakdownconfirms the subjective nature of the infor−

mation provided, and shows that most issueswere presented exclusively from the view−point of the Roma community, and did notallow the competent people to express theiropinions. The standpoints of these peoplewere usually replaced by an editorial com−ment, which was not always either correct orprofessional. This approach creates the im−pression that the majority is not trying tosolve the problems of the Roma, as well asthat the editorial staff of NRL rarely use in−vestigative journalism.

The majority of the 310 text units from 1992to 2000 were neutral in tone (60.65%). Thefollowing types of information were includedin this category: texts describing an incident,informing of an event, and so on (i.e. “thishappened”, or “this will happen”). Most werereports by the editorial staff. They were clas−sified as neutral despite the frequent edito−rial comments they contained, which if pub−lished in non−Roma media would have beenassigned a positive nature.

The text categories commonly used in non−Roma media – information giving a positive,neutral or negative image of the topic inquestion – were in our analysis of NRL fur−ther subdivided into information giving posi−tive or negative images of the Slovak major−ity and of the Roma minority. Some 15.48%texts were found to give an explicitly posi−tive image of the Roma, while 10.65% textsgave a clearly negative image of the Roma(most of the latter criticized the Roma politi−cal scene). On the other hand, 12.58% oftexts gave a negative image of the non−Roma, usually criticizing the state adminis−tration, local elected governments, and thepolice. As it was noted above, the criticizedinstitutions were not given space to responddirectly (see Table 1).

The language used to present information wasa separately analyzed category, in view of the


struggle over the nature of the Roma media,in which language plays such a key role. Theauthors discovered that besides the 310analyzed text units in Slovak (100% of theanalyzed texts), the issues examined includedtwo other types of articles in Romany: textswritten originally and only in Romany (1%),and texts translated into Romany (6.9%).

OTHER PRINT MEDIA

Structure and Funding of Ethnic Pressin Slovakia

There were no significant changes regardingthe ethnic press from 1996 to 1999 (see Ta−ble 2).

The basics of the media market – supply anddemand – remained at about the same level.

Overall, there was a decrease of seven in thenumber of published titles, although Romapress titles increased by one when in 1998the Ternipen (The Youth) bimonthly beganpublishing.

The Culture Ministry’s minority funding cri−teria are quantitative and do not take intoaccount the subjective development of eachcommunity. The Roma, for example, did notundergo the process of unification (even onthe cultural level) as other minorities didfrom 1945 through 1989.

The Sam Adaj biweekly andthe Štvorlístok monthly.

Thanks to a significant Culture Ministry sub−sidy, 1999 saw the launch of the Sam Adajcultural and social biweekly published by the

Table 1Image given by articles

� ,110� ,11-� ,114� 0***� �� )�

9��

9��

��

��

��

Source: Author’s analysis of 12 issues of RL/NRL.

Table 2Survey of the ethnic press in Slovakia

��.� ��!�'��.�!��.� ?��.� ��?��.� �� .� �� .� ��

#��

�� 7��

��

8@�' � ��

A�� 8��

��

9��

B�?�� '��?��

��

Source: Čupíková, 1997, p. 48.


Good Roma Fairy Kesaj Foundation. Thisevent created healthy competition in the Romaperiodical environment. Anna Koptová be−came the editor−in−chief. The journal was pub−lished in bi−lingual (Slovak−Romany) fromuntil the end of 2000. However, it did not ob−tain the subsidy it requested from the CultureMinistry in 2001. The Good Roma Fairy Ke−saj Foundation also publishes Štvorlístok (TheFour−Pager) monthly for Roma children.

The Ternipen bimonthly

In 1999, the Ternipen bimonthly cultural andpedagogical journal began to be publishedregularly on a Culture Ministry subsidy byRoma Gemer, based in eastern Slovakia’sRožňava. Its first editor−in−chief was EmilSamko, but the post has been held by JozefČerveňák since 1999. According to Červe−ňák, the Culture Ministry subsidy only cov−ers printing costs and payment for contribu−tors. Besides these significant Roma periodi−cals, the Culture Ministry also subsidizes theĽuľudi monthly and the Roma bimonthly.

The Roma bimonthly andthe Ľuľudi monthly

The Roma cultural bimonthly has been pub−lished by the Roma Cultural Union in Slo−vakia since 1991. The focus of the bimonthlyis strictly intellectual, which obviously lim−its its readership. The Roma Cultural Unionin Slovakia also publishes the Ľuľudimonthly, intended for preschoolers. Despitethe expectations of experts, the monthly failsin its task of educating Roma children, as itis written in the dialect of western Slovakia,which makes it useless for Roma in easternSlovakia, where 55% of the communitylives, and where the educational problemsare the most serious. The publisher also hastroubles distributing the periodical.

The Híd – Most – Phurt biweekly

Besides the periodicals already mentioned,there are other more or less successful efforts.For example, the Roma poet Jozef Ravaszpublishes his own literary biweekly, Híd –Most – Phurt, intended for Hungarian speak−ing Roma.

The Romane Vasta monthly

This monthly was launched in 1998, pub−lished by the Bratislava Roma Office (itsheadquarters were the then−Office of theSlovak Government Representative for Solv−ing the Problems of the Roma Minority,headed by Vincent Danihel). Its editor−in−chiefwas Roman Estočák. The monthly attemptedto advise Roma entrepreneurs on the establish−ment and operation of small and medium−sized companies. It was published in 1998 inRomany with a Slovak supplement.

REMAINDERED COPIES

An interesting point regarding the ethnicpress is their specific approach toremaindered copies (i.e. those not sold). Withtitles that have longer periodicities, there isan apparent effort to make use of every sin−gle copy, so remaindered copies are practi−cally non−existent. They also do not use tra−ditional distribution channels through mediadistribution companies. This means that it isfrequently impossible to obtain some of thejournals.

THE ROMA PRESS AGENCY

Now we turn to a special Roma media case,the Roma Press Agency (RPA), which wasestablished in February 2002 in Košice. Itoperates as an Internet journal, and is a


project of the EccE civic association in Ko−šice. It publishes in Slovak, English, andRomany. The agency’s output is intendedprimarily for the non−Roma reader, whichaccounts for the majority of its content. FromApril until July 2002 (about 100 days), theagency released 125 texts in Slovak, ofwhich 43.2% focused on the social sphere,32.4% on human and civil rights, and 12%on the third sector. This structure brings RPAcloser to that of non−Roma media in terms ofcontent.

RPA’s overall effort to influence public opin−ion through the non−Roma media is also re−flected in its different article format structurecompared to NRL. The most frequent type ofreport released by RPA is a news article (with−out the added and inserted opinions of thejournalists and editors, in contrast with NRL);during the period examined, this category rep−resented 72% of all text released. The secondmost frequent type of text was comments andanalyses (7.2%). The ratio of this type of in−formation is gradually increasing, eventhough it is not a typical press agency genre.RPA uses this genre to explain certain aspectsof Roma life that are needed to give contextto its news pieces. This genre is intended toeducate the agency’s subscribers and readers,and is closely related to the agency’s publicopinion mission.

There are also differences between RPA andNRL in terms of information source. Themost frequent sources of information arejournalist (providing information in 52.8% ofRPA pieces), followed by individual, apoliti−cal community members, mostly communityleaders (44.8%), representatives of the thirdsector (20.8%), and municipal/local govern−ment representatives (20%). The police andvarious state bodies were sourced in almost25% of text units. A special feature of thisproject is the connection between the Romaand non−Roma element. The Roma Press

Agency functions as a Roma/non−Romaproject based on the principle of equal rep−resentation, thus symbolizing the need for amutual solution to the problems of the Roma.

TV AND RADIO BROADCASTINGFOR THE ROMA

In Slovakia, minority culture is supported byminority language broadcasting on SlovakTelevision (STV) and Slovak Radio (SRo)public service channels, in accordance withthe 1993 TV and Radio Broadcasting Law.The law calls for: “the production (…) ofprograms so the cultural identity of nationsand ethnic groups is maintained and devel−oped”. Clearly, in this case we are not deal−ing with typical Roma media as in the caseof the Roma print media described above.

STV has been broadcasting its “Roma Eth−nic Magazine – Romale” since 1991. In pastyears, the program was put together by“Roma issues professionals” in close coop−eration with the Roma. In 1998, however,problems were encountered with the expertlevel of the journalists responsible for theprogram. Given that the show is created bynon−Roma, and not seldom without profes−sional guidance, the majority of the reportsare oriented towards culture and society withno ambition to influence majority opinion.The way the Roma are presented here in theend just confirms prejudices – even if posi−tive ones – about the Roma.

SRo broadcasts a show called “National Eth−nic Broadcasting”. The programs divide timebetween minorities according to the ratio oftheir populations established by the 1991/2001 censuses. The Roma program depart−ment is headquartered in Prešov. SRo alsobroadcasts a program called O Roma vakeren(The Roma Speak), which is 30 minuteslong. In comparison, the Ukraine and


Ruthene minority gets 13.5 hours of broad−casts a week, while the German minority gets30 minutes a week, and the Czech and Polishminorities 30 minutes once every four weeks.In February 2002 another Roma programwas added – the “Roma Cultural Revue”.This program is broadcast twice a month andis 20 minutes long. Religious broadcasting isprovided by SRo’s studio in Banská Bystri−ca, which produces a program called Balva−jeskere Čahve. There is also another 30−minute program named Jekhetano drom (TheCommon Path) for Hungarian−speakingRoma, which is broadcast by Radio Patria,SRo’s main Hungarian editorial department.

EDUCATION OFROMA JOURNALISTS ANDTHEIR PROSPECTS

The Center for Independent Journalism inBratislava has run a training course for Romajournalists in Slovakia since 1999 (the RomaMainstream Media Internship Program). Overa period of three years, 27 young Roma havepassed the course, of whom two have founda professional job in the media: Ivan Hriczko,who worked as a full−time journalist for theTV NAŠA (later TV GLOBAL) regional tel−evision, and is now the head of RPA. The sec−ond was Denisa Havrľová, who works as ajournalist for Romano nevo ľil.

The establishment of the Roma Press Agencywas intended to create the opportunity forCenter graduates to be employed as full−timeand part−time journalists; however, the man−agement of the training course were unableto cooperate with the agency’s management.This resulted in moving the course from Ko−šice, where the agency is headquartered, toBratislava.

The RPA has a network of contributors andcorrespondents, and employs young Roma

from regions with the highest proportion ofRoma inhabitants – Košice, Prešov and Ban−ská Bystrica. The Roma selected are trainedby the RPA and work as local correspond−ents.

During its first three months of existence,RPA was able to place four of its scholarshipholders with regional media (weeklies andTVs). After their first positive experiences,regional media were willing to employ fur−ther trainees. As these journalists are em−ployed by the RPA, the chance for partici−pants to gain practical experience seems real,albeit costly. The financial situation of re−gional dailies does not allow them to hireabove their basic staff needs, regardless ofethnic origin.

CONCLUSION

It is vital that state support change from dec−larations to actual support of meaningfulmedia projects with an influence on theRoma, and on improved coexistence be−tween the Roma and the majority. On theother hand, Roma media must realize thatunless they accept new development trendsand modern marketing strategies, and unlessthey clearly define their target groups, theycannot fulfill their basic functions, no mat−ter how much subsidies they receive. Thestructure of the Roma media must reflect theinternal structure of the community. Thismeans, first of all, that new media must beestablished, and second, that the existingmedia must be extended to TV and radiobroadcasting, as these have a greater influ−ence on the Roma.

The professionals responsible for Roma TVand radio broadcasting should, just as withthe print media, clearly define the impact oftheir broadcasts on both individual Romatarget groups and the non−Roma. As regards


the Roma, broadcasts not only help developRoma culture, but also dispel social tension.This means that “Roma broadcasting” mustbe given a new structure and become part ofother programs intended for the majority.STV and SRo should try harder to find youngRoma journalists and integrate them intotheir editorial staffs. Above all, the Romamust be seen on non−Roma programs onSTV. This is the best way to increase themajority’s sensitivity to the minority.

The positive pressure exerted by the EU onSlovak institutions over the past few yearshas helped to address some of the most seri−ous problems facing the Roma. The Slovakgovernment has launched several programsto improve the housing, employment, educa−tion, and health of the Roma. Nevertheless,various opinion polls show that almost 90%of the majority population has an aversion tothe Roma. This is a signal that the majoritydoes not accept changes that are forced on itfrom the outside, which ultimately could leadto greater tension between the Roma and themajority. If the role of the media in chang−ing the way each side of the equation viewsthe other continues to be neglected, it couldjeopardize all that has been accomplished todate, and poison the relationship between theRoma and the majority in the 21st century.

REFERENCES

1. Čupíková, Zdena: “Národnostná tlač na Slo−vensku v rokoch 1989 – 96” [‘Ethnic Press inSlovakia from 1989 to 1996’] Otázky žurnalis−tiky, No. 1, 1997.

2. Hivešová−Šilanová, Daniela: “Ad: Nie ste s na−mi spokojní” [‘Re: You Are Not Happy WithUs’] Romano ľil, No. 20, 1992.

3. Hivešová−Šilanová, Daniela: “List ministrovikultúry SR alebo hra na rómskú tlač” [‘A Let−ter to Slovakia’s Culture Minister, or a RomaPress Game”] Romano nevo ľil, No. 164 – 167,1995.

4. Koptová, Anna: “Prípad rómskej totality” [‘ACase of Roma Totalitarianism’] Romano ľil,No. 55, 1992.

5. Koptová, Anna: “Noviny ako každodennýchlieb” [‘A Newspaper Is Like Daily Bread’]Romano ľil, No. 24, 1992.

6. “Od Rómskych tlačových agentúr k celosveto−vej sieti informačných kanálov” [‘From RomaPress Agencies to a World−Wide Network ofInformation Channels’] Romano nevo ľil, No.526 – 532, 2002, p. 8.

7. “Rozhovor s Jánom Kompušom” [‘An Inter−view with Ján Kompuš’] Romano ľil, No. 24,1992.

8. “Rozhovor s Ing. Františkom Piskorom” [‘AnInterview with František Piskor’] Romano ľil,No. 24, 1992.

9. “Štósy rómskych časopisov ostávajú nedot−knuté” [‘Piles of Roma Magazines Go Un−touched’] Romano nevo ľil, No. 164 – 167,1995.

138

139

Summary: This chapter deals with the legalstatus of the Roma in Slovakia. It considersthe principle of equality, which is anchoredin the Slovak Constitution as one of the ba−sic principles of a democratic state. Thechapter also addresses affirmative action andthe rights of ethnic minorities, as guaranteedby the Slovak Constitution and governed byvarious laws. It examines international hu−man rights documents in light of the Consti−tution, and the protection that the law affordsthe Roma. A survey of the concepts adoptedby Slovak governments after 1989 is alsoincluded, along with a list of public bodiesthat have dealt with the Roma after 1998,including the Office of the Slovak Govern−ment Representative for Roma Communi−ties.

Key words: Constitution, principle of equal−ity, ban on discrimination, affirmative action,rights of ethnic minorities, internationaldocuments, laws, protection afforded by thecorpus of criminal law, strategic documents,state institutions, Office of the Slovak Gov−ernment Representative for Roma communi−ties.

THE CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of the Slovak Republic isthe supreme legal act in Slovakia’s body oflaws. The special position that the Constitu−

ADRIÁN TOKÁR and ADRIANA LAMAČKOVÁ

THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK OF THE “ROMA ISSUE”

tion occupies is of great importance to ourexploration of the approach of the Romaminority to the Slovak body of laws. Themost important provisions in this regard arethose in the Constitution’s second chapter,which deals with fundamental rights andfreedoms, and those governing the relation−ship between Slovak and international law.

There seems to be a certain ambivalence inthese provisions of the Constitution: on theone hand, members of the Roma communityare guaranteed equality, while on the otherhand they are granted some rights andfreedoms that apply only to national minori−ties and ethnic groups, not to the majoritypopulation. We will deal first with the prin−ciple of equality and the ban on discrimina−tion anchored in the Constitution, then withthe rights of national minorities and ethnicgroups, and finally with the relationship be−tween international and Slovak law as an−chored in the Constitution.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLEOF EQUALITY

The Constitution anchors the principle ofequality in Article 12, Paragraphs 1 and 2 asfollows:

(1) All human beings are free and equal indignity and rights. Their fundamental rightsand freedoms are inalienable, irrevocable,and perpetual.

140 A d r i á n To k á r a n d A d r i a n a L a m a č k o v á

(2) Fundamental rights shall be guaranteedin the Slovak Republic to every person re−gardless of sex, race, color, language, faith,religion, political affiliation or conviction,national or social origin, nationality or eth−nic origin, property, birth or any other status,and no person shall be denied their legalrights, discriminated against or favored onany of these grounds.

Article 12 relates to the use of rights that theConstitution calls “fundamental rights andfreedoms”, and which include the rightslisted in the second chapter of the Constitu−tion – fundamental human rights andfreedoms, political rights and the rights ofnational minorities and ethnic groups, eco−nomic, social and cultural rights, the right toprotect the environment and cultural herit−age, and the right to judicial and other legalprotection.

Since the Constitution does not define dis−crimination, when Article 12 is applied thecomplete wording of the Constitution must betaken into account, as well as the texts of in−ternational legal norms. The cited Constitu−tional provision clearly states that fundamen−tal rights and freedoms are guaranteed to eve−ryone regardless of race, color, nationality orethnic origin (see below for more on the Romaminority as a racial or national minority).However, it remains unclear which acts can beclassified as discrimination, and who can com−mit them, i.e. who can violate Article 12, Para−graph 2 of the Constitution.

As for racial discrimination, the definitionprovided in Article 1 of the InternationalConvention on the Removal of all Forms ofRacial Discrimination, dated December 21,1965 (hereafter “the Convention”) is veryuseful:

“The expression ‘racial discrimination’ inthis Convention means any differentiation,

exclusion, restriction or favoring based onrace, color, social origin, nationality or eth−nic origin, the aim or consequence of whichis to restrain or limit the acknowledgement,enjoyment or implementation of humanrights and fundamental freedoms on the ba−sis of equality in political, economic, social,cultural or any other field of public life.”

The Convention thus defines discriminatoryacts very broadly, saying discrimination canbe a matter of both the aims and conse−quences of such acts. As for who can violatethe equality principle, the Convention saysthat the equality principle is usually imple−mented in public life, meaning that the mostlikely violator of the principle is the state.The state, however, is not only obliged to actin a non−discriminatory way, but it also hasto ensure (primarily through legislation) thatindividuals do not act in this manner.

Similar limits also apply to provisions on dis−crimination in the European Convention onthe Protection of Human Rights. The ban ondiscrimination relates only to the publicsphere, with certain exceptions concerningprivate relationships when such relationshipshave a public dimension, for example employ−ment. In this regard, the most important arti−cle of the European Convention is Article 14,on which the judiction of the European Courtfor Human Rights in Strasbourg is based.1

Besides the general provisions on equality inArticle 12, the Constitution emphasizes theequality principle in relation to other rightsas well, such as the right to own property(Art. 20, Paragraph 1), the right to vote (Art.30, Paragraph 3), and the equal rights of chil−dren born to married parents and those bornout of wedlock (Art. 41, Paragraph 3).

Affirmative action is dealt with as a separateissue in the Constitution. Such action usuallyinvolves the introduction of legislative or

141T h e L e g a l a n d I n s t i t u t i o n a l F r a m e w o r k o f t h e “ R o m a I s s u e ”

government measures favoring certain (e.g.ethnic) groups of inhabitants by giving thempreferential and unequal access to educationor job opportunities; the aim is usually tohelp the group integrate better into main−stream society. Article 12, Paragraph 2 of theConstitution suggests that this kind of posi−tive discrimination is prohibited: “no personshall be denied their legal rights, discrimi−nated against or favored on any of thesegrounds”, the document says, with “these”grounds including race, color, nationality orethnic origin. On the other hand, the Consti−tution also allows some exceptions to thisrule, such as in Article 38, Paragraph 1, ac−cording to which “women, minors, and disa−bled people shall enjoy more extensivehealth protection and special working con−ditions”, or Article 41, Paragraph 2, accord−ing to which “pregnant women shall be en−titled to special treatment, terms of employ−ment, and working conditions”. The presentwording of the Constitution, however, indi−cates that any affirmative action beyondthese specific limits defined by the Consti−tution would be contrary to Article 12, Para−graph 2, which bans positive discrimination.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTSOF NATIONAL MINORITIES ANDETHNIC GROUPS

The Constitution itself does not define theterms “national minority” or “ethnic group”;nor does it provide any list of “state acknowl−edged” national minorities, as was providedby a 1968 law. According to Article 12, Para−graph 3 of the Constitution, “every personhas the right to freely decide which nationalgroup he or she belongs to. Any influence orcoercion that could affect or lead to a denialof a person’s original nationality is prohib−ited”. Thus, in theory there is no limit to thenumber of national minorities and ethnicgroups in Slovakia.

The Roma minority has been de facto recog−nized as a national minority for some timenow, with Slovak citizens claiming this na−tionality in regular population censuses(1970, 1980, 1991 and 2001). The Slovakgovernment in 1991 acknowledged theRoma minority as a national minority, andthe Romany tongue is explicitly mentionedamong those regional or minority languagesacknowledged by Slovakia for the purposesof the European Charter of Regional or Mi−nority Languages. These facts suggest that inprinciple, a Roma national minority exists inSlovakia, enjoying all the rights guaranteedto national minorities by the Constitution.

The rights of national minorities and ethnicgroups in Slovakia are governed by Articles33 and 34 of the Constitution, as follows:

Article 33Membership in any national minority or eth−nic group may not be used to the detrimentof any individual.

Article 34(1) Citizens who belong to national minori−ties or ethnic groups in Slovakia shall beguaranteed their full [right of] development,particularly the right to promote their culturalheritage with other citizens of the same na−tional minority or ethnic group, the right toreceive and disseminate information in theirmother tongues, the right to form associa−tions, and the right to create and maintaineducational and cultural institutions.

(2) In addition to the right to learn the offi−cial [state] language, citizens who belong tonational minorities or ethnic groups shall,under conditions defined by law, also beguaranteed:

a) the right to be educated in a minoritylanguage;b) the right to use a minority language incommunication with official bodies;


c) the right to help make decisions inmatters affecting national minorities andethnic groups.

(3) The exercise of rights by citizens whobelong to a national minority, as guaranteedby this Constitution, may not threaten thesovereignty and territorial integrity of Slova−kia, or discriminate against other citizens.

Article 33 of the Constitution follows Arti−cle 12 in banning discrimination based onmembership in a national minority or ethnicgroup. It does not differentiate between thesetwo minority categories, implying that “na−tional minority” and “ethnic group” are syn−onymous from the legal viewpoint. Article33 does not introduce any special rights formembers of national minorities and ethnicgroups.

APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTSIN SLOVAKIA IN LIGHT OFTHE CONSTITUTION

A major overhaul of Slovakia’s original 1992Constitution (the amendments took effect onJuly 1, 2001) expanded Article 1 of the Con−stitution with the following wording: “Slova−kia acknowledges and adheres to general rulesof international law, international treaties bywhich [the country] is bound, and its otherinternational obligations”. This is the corner−stone of the entire constitutional approach tothe relationship between international andSlovak law. However, neither the text of theConstitution, nor the explanatory report thataccompanies it, says whether unwrittensources of international law such as “custom−ary international law” or “rules of courtesy”should be considered part of “the generalrules of international law” and “other inter−national obligations” that the document cites.

Article 1, Paragraph 2 does not contain anyconcrete information on the position of theinternational treaties by which Slovakia isbound, nor does it offer any classificationof these treaties. For this we have to turn toArticle 7, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution,which was added in the 2001 amendment,and according to which: “International trea−ties on human rights and fundamentalfreedoms, and international treaties forwhose application a special law is not nec−essary, as well as international treatieswhich directly confer rights or impose du−ties on physical or legal entities and whichwere ratified and promulgated according tothe law, have precedence over other laws”.This means that all treaties that the Consti−tution identifies as international treaties onhuman rights and fundamental freedomshave precedence over other laws (as well asover regulations such as statutory orders,decrees and by−laws); they do not, however,supersede either the Constitution or lawspassed by a three−fifths majority in parlia−ment.

Article 7, Paragraph 5 anchors the prec−edence of international treaties on humanrights and fundamental freedoms overSlovakia’s regular (i.e. non−constitutional)body of law. However, the only treaties toenjoy such a position are those that were rati−fied and promulgated after July 1, 2001, i.e.after the amendment to the Constitution tookeffect. Treaties ratified before this date aregoverned by Article 154c, Paragraph 1 of theConstitution, according to which: “Interna−tional treaties on human rights and funda−mental freedoms which Slovakia ratified andpromulgated according to law before thisconstitutional act took effect shall be a partof its legal order, and shall have precedenceover other laws as long as they provide agreater scope of constitutional rights andfreedoms”.


LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution’s regulation of human rights,which takes precedence even over interna−tional standards, is characterized by generalformulations that do not allow precise conclu−sions on certain rights to be drawn. Further−more, Article 51 of the Constitution envisagesthe use of some of the rights it grants onlywithin the framework of laws that will later beadopted to precisely define these rights. Thesetwo facts – the Constitution’s general word−ing and its reliance on other laws to define andenact its provisions – greatly increase the im−portance of lower laws and other legal regu−lations in implementing various articles of theConstitution.

The legal regulation of human rights that areespecially important to the Roma has severalcharacteristics. First, these laws enlarge on theprinciple of equality and the ban on discrimi−nation mentioned in the Constitution. Second,laws on national minority and ethnic grouprights grant these rights also to the Roma as anational minority. Finally, several provisionsof the Penal Code also pertain to the Roma,namely those specifying criminal sanctionsfor attacks on racial minorities. From theviewpoint of Slovak legislation, the Roma aretreated as citizens with the right to equal treat−ment, as members of a national minority hav−ing language and cultural rights pertaining tonational minorities and ethnic groups, and asmembers of a racial minority enjoying specialprotection under the body of criminal law.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY ANDTHE BAN ON DISCRIMINATIONIN SLOVAK LAW

Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the Constitutionguarantees equality for everyone regardless

of, among other things, race, color, language,nationality, or ethnic origin. As the contextsuggests, the ban on discrimination ex−pressed in this provision applies to all fun−damental rights and freedoms included in theConstitution’s second chapter, and the vio−lator of this ban is, according to the Consti−tution, primarily the state. The Constitution,however, neither specifies the legal relation−ships to which this ban applies, nor definesthe acts by which the ban could be violated,nor sets sanctions for such violations. Theidentity of the violator (i.e. mainly the state)can be deduced only from a logical interpre−tation of the entire Constitution. The consti−tutional ban on discrimination is appliedthrough separate laws.

An example of a law that applies the dis−crimination ban to a particular legal relation−ship, by defining the violator of the ban aswell as the unlawful act and the system ofsanctions, is the 1992 Consumer ProtectionLaw. According to Section 6, Paragraph 1 ofthis law: “The vendor must not act dishon−estly or discriminate against the consumer inany way; he must not refuse to sell to theconsumer any products exhibited or other−wise for sale, or deny any service which heis capable of providing; he must not link theprovision of a service to the purchase of otherproducts or the provision of other services,unless this limitation be usual in commercialrelations, and be related to all products.”

Section 112, Paragraph 1 of the 1996 Em−ployment Law also applies the ban on dis−crimination to specific legal relationships.According to this law: “The employer mustnot publish job offers that include any limi−tations or discriminatory statements concern−ing race, color, language, sex, social origin,age, religion, political or other conviction oraffiliation, trade union activity, membershipin a national or ethnic group, or any otherstatus.”


In this regard, Section 13 of the 2001 LaborCode is of great importance, as for the firsttime in Slovak history it introduced a defi−nition of indirect discrimination:

(1) Employees shall be entitled to the rightsarising from labor relations with no restric−tion whatsoever, and no direct or indirectdiscrimination on the grounds of gender,marital or family status, race, color, lan−guage, age, health, belief or religion, politi−cal or other conviction, trade union involve−ment, national or social origin, national orethnic group affiliation, property, lineage orother status, except in cases defined by law,or in cases involving tangible reasons relatedto the performance of the work, such as ap−titudes or requirements and the nature of thework that the employee is to perform.

(2) For the purposes of equal treatment pur−suant to Paragraph 1, indirect discriminationmeans an apparently neutral instruction, de−cision or practice that disadvantages a sub−stantial number of physical entities, if suchan instruction or practice is not appropriateor necessary, and cannot be justified by ac−tual circumstances.

RIGHTS PERTAINING TO MEMBERSOF THE ROMA MINORITYAS MEMBERS OFA NATIONAL MINORITY

At present there are more than 100 legal regu−lations in Slovakia dealing with the protectionof national minorities. It is impossible to dealhere with all of these regulations, so we willfocus only on those that apply the rights ofnational minorities as stated in Article 34 ofthe Constitution (the content of Article 33, themain provision on the prevention of discrimi−nation, has been dealt with above).

Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutionguarantees all national minority and ethnic

group members “their full development”,which includes the rights to promote theircultural heritage with other citizens of thesame national minority or ethnic group, toreceive and disseminate information in theirmother tongues, to form associations, and tocreate and maintain educational and culturalinstitutions. The Constitution says that thedetails of these rights will be set by otherlaws, meaning that their application in prac−tice is limited until the laws executing theserights have been adpoted.2 However, it isimportant to note that the individual rights ofnational minority members may also be gov−erned by laws not dealing exclusively withnational minorities: for example, the right toreceive and disseminate information in one’smother tongue is granted by the Press Law,the Law on Slovak Television, the Law onSlovak Radio, and the Law on Broadcastingand Retransmission, without the need for aspecial a law for national minority members.

The right to form associations is basically aspecial form of the more general right of freeassociation granted to all citizens of Slovakiaby a 1990 law. The creation and maintenanceof educational and cultural institutionslargely falls under the right to associate, orthe right to establish non−profit organizations(such as foundations, non−investment funds,not−for−profit organizations carrying outcommunity services, etc.). On the other hand,even if the state took a neutral approach tothe development of national minoritiesthrough general laws, the State Budget Lawstill allocates certain public money for thedevelopment of national minorities.

Article 34, Paragraph 2 governs the languagerights of national minorities as well as theright to participate in decision−making onmatters affecting national minorities and eth−nic groups. Language rights include the rightto learn the official state language and theright to be educated in a minority language


within the school system. A separate law –the 1999 Law on the Use of Minority Lan−guages – introduced a rule according towhich members of a national minority thatin the most recent population census repre−sented more than 20% of a given municipali−ty’s inhabitants, have the right to use theirmother tongue in that municipality. The rightto use one’s mother tongue in communica−tions with official bodies includes the rightto submit written documents in the languageof a national minority, and the right to receivean answer from a state body in both the offi−cial state language and the language of anational minority (except for public docu−ments); national minority members are alsoentitled to receive the rulings of administra−tive bodies in their own languages. In mu−nicipalities where a given national minorityrepresents more than 20% of inhabitants,street signs may be erected in the languageof that minority, and the local council mayhold proceedings in the language of the na−tional minority if all people present agree.The Law on the Use of Minority Languages,however, does not cover the use of nationalminority languages under all circumstances,only in communications with official bodies.New procedures are being prepared govern−ing language rights in communications withcourts.

Article 34, Paragraph 2, Section c), grantsnational minority members the right to par−ticipate in decision−making on matters affect−ing national minorities and ethnic groups.Again, the legislation does not specify howthis right is to be applied, and does not de−fine which “matters” pertaining to nationalminorities should involve their participation.The right to help make decisions thus usu−ally involves the right to vote in elections tomunicipal councils, regional parliaments andthe national parliament. Another importantform of participation in the administration ofpublic affairs is the right of petition.

PROTECTION AFFORDEDTO THE ROMA BYTHE CRIMINAL LAW CORPUS

An important tool for combating racism andprotecting the members of minority groupsfrom attacks is the corpus of criminal law.Criminal law is a branch of law that defines,prohibits and punishes the most serious un−lawful acts, which is why it uses the heavi−est sanctions – penalties that lay the most se−rious restraints on the rights and freedoms ofperpetrators of criminal offences, such asfines, prohibitions, forfeiture of property,banishment or imprisonment (the death pen−alty is forbidden under the Constitution andthe international treaties by which Slovakiais bound).

The 1961 Penal Code protects and punisheseveryone equally; however, it also containsprovisions affording special protection tominorities as the potential targets of raciallymotivated attacks. It both prohibits and pun−ishes some displays of racism, and prescribessevere sentences for some crimes if the per−petrator had a racial motive.

Laws Focused on Combating Racism

The Penal Code contains several provisionsthat protect members of national, ethnic andracial minorities from verbal or physical at−tacks. According to Section 198 of the PenalCode, anyone who publicly slanders a nationor its language, or any race or group, may beimprisoned for up to one year or fined. Ac−cording to Section 198a (the crime of insti−gating national, racial or ethnic hatred), any−one who publicly stirs up hatred of a nationor race, or calls for restraints on the rights andfreedoms of its members, may be imprisonedfor up to one year or fined.

As of January 1, 1992 the Penal Code hasalso included the crime of supporting and


promoting movements (i.e. fascism) thatsuppress the rights and freedoms of citizens.Anyone who supports or promotes a move−ment that evidently strives to suppress therights and freedoms of citizens, or thatpreaches national, racial, social, or religioushatred, commits a crime carrying a sentenceof one to five years in jail. Perpetrators faceimprisonment for three to eight years if theyuse press, film, radio, TV, or other media tocommit their crime; if they commit theircrime as members of an organized group; orif they commit their crime during a state ofmilitary alert. According to Section 261 ofthe Penal Code, anyone who expresses sym−pathy for fascism or a similar movementspecified in Section 260 faces six months tothree years in jail.

Racial Motives for Crimes

An equally important form of protection af−forded to members of national, ethnic andracial minorities by the criminal law is theprovision that in cases where a perpetratorcan be shown to have had a racial or similarmotive for a crime, this motive becomes a“qualifying moment”, i.e. an attribute of acrime that allows a court to impose a highersentence than if the attribute was not present.According to Section 196, Paragraph 2 of thePenal Code, anyone who uses violenceagainst a group of people or an individual, orthreatens them with assault, battery or griev−ous harm because of their political opinions,nationality, race, religion or absence of reli−gion, faces up to two years imprisonment;however, if the perpetrator of the crime is notshown to have threatened the victims for theirrace etc., the maximum sentence is one year.

The same is true of murder cases (Section 219,Para. 2, letter f): If someone commits a mur−der because of the victim’s ethnic, national orpolitical affiliation, religion or absence of re−

ligion, he faces a jail term of 12 to 15 years,or even an exceptional sentence; in cases of“unqualified” murder, however, the sentenceis 10 to 15 years. Other crimes that carry“qualifying moments” if they were commit−ted because of the victim’s ethnic, national orpolitical affiliation, religion or absence of re−ligion, include battery (Section 221 of thePenal Code) and grievous harm (Section 222).

STRATEGIC SLOVAKGOVERNMENT MATERIALSADDRESSING THE PROBLEMSOF THE ROMA AFTER 1989

Besides legislation, the position of the Romahas also been addressed in the conceptualmaterials of various governments. Post−1989approaches to the “Roma issue” began toaccept the situation of the Roma as an ethi−cal, economic, political, and social problem(Vašečka, 2000, p. 197)

The first strategic concept adopted by a Slo−vak government on the Roma issue was a1991 document called The Principles of theGovernment’s Roma Policy. This documentincluded some general ideas on how to ap−proach the Roma issue in terms of culture,education, economy, social security, and eth−nic matters. However, it failed to specifyconcrete measures, or to say how the planwould be subsidized.

In terms of ethnic matters, the document saidthat the basic task was to acknowledge theindependence of the Roma in the legislativeand legal system, thereby putting the rights ofthe Roma and other minorities living in Slo−vakia on an equal footing. The aim was toacknowledge the Roma as a nation, and thusto ensure their political and legal equality.

In the field of social and economic security,the document’s basic philosophy was not to


give the Roma special treatment or statefunds just because they were members of aminority. Instead, the document proposed tosolve the problems of Roma in need of spe−cial social or other care through a wide−rang−ing social policy available to all people re−gardless of their ethnic origin. This conceptwas not adopted until the 1992 parliamentaryelections, and the incoming cabinet led byPM Vladimír Mečiar did not take it further(Vašečka, 2001, p. 13).

In 1996, the third Mečiar government passeda document called Proposal of Tasks andMeasures for Solving the Problems of Citi−zens Requiring Special Help. Besides brieflydefining individual problems such as school−ing for children, unemployment, housing,upbringing and education, hygiene andhealth, and negative social behavior, the con−cept included measures to help people inneed of special help. However, neither themeasures nor the funding needed to put theminto effect were sufficiently spelled out. Al−though the title of the document suggested itwanted to address “citizens requiring specialhelp” without regard for their ethnic origin,the tasks it set suggested that the target groupwas the Roma.

The implementation of the concept was su−pervised by the Office of the Slovak Govern−ment for Solving the Problems of PeopleRequiring Special Help, which was estab−lished in 1995 as a special department at theMinistry of Labor, Social Affairs and Fam−ily. Branislav Baláž was appointed the gov−ernment’s representative to lead the Office,with the job of coordinating, regulating andsupervising the Office’s employment, social,housing, educational, health and sanitaryactivities.

Office employees worked on a new govern−ment approach to the Roma for the next twoyears. They analyzed the problems of the

Roma and possible ways of solving them, aswell as the approach other countries took tothe issue. Finally, in November 1997, thecabinet adopted the Concept of the SlovakGovernment for Solving the Problems of theRoma in the Current Socio−Economic Con−ditions (Vašečka, 2000, p. 198).

The basic principles of the plan were as fol−lows:• The civic principle – respecting the values

and way of life of the target group.• The solidarity principle – removing preju−

dices and eliminating displays of extrem−ism in society.

• The principle of allowing citizens to par−ticipate in solving their own problems.

• The principle of personal responsibility –solving the problems of the Roma notmerely by declaring their rights, but bysupplying aid provided the Roma them−selves take personal responsibility.

• The principle of positive encouragement ofpeople who, for various reasons, are unableto solve their own problems.

• The principle of solving the problemwhere it arises – in the natural social envi−ronment of the people the concept aims toassist (Conceptual Plan…, 1997, p. 6 – 7).

Money for solving social, housing and unem−ployment problems was not allocated to theRoma on the basis of their ethnicity, but waschanneled into concrete projects to help peo−ple in need. This was meant to preserve con−tinuity with the 1991 plan, which had alsorested on the civic principle. The documentbriefly defined problems in individual areas,and proposed measures to solve them, thedeadline being the year 2002. The measureswere to be funded from the budgets of indi−vidual ministries and regional authorities.

After coming to power, the Dzurinda admin−istration in 1999 scrapped the 1997 Concep−tual Plan of the Slovak Government and


adopted a new document, called Strategy ofthe Slovak Government for Solving the Prob−lems of the Roma and the Set of Implemen−tation Measures – 1st Stage. This was the firstconcept that attempted to find a long−termsolution to the Roma issue.

Action was to be taken in areas where thesituation was critical – unemployment, hous−ing, health, the social network and the schoolsystem – as well as in areas requiring im−provement, such as human rights, the rightsof national minorities, cooperation withNGOs, and regional development.

In its introduction, the 1999 Strategy de−scribed the state of society, taking into ac−count the position of the Roma minority, andproposed measures to solve individual prob−lems. Some measures (especially those con−cerning housing, unemployment and the so−cial system) were insufficient, even thoughthey had been classified as the most impor−tant. On the other hand, the Strategy was wellprepared in the fields of culture and educa−tion, and in naming areas of discriminationagainst the Roma and proposing solutions(Vašečka, 2000). The measures defined bythe strategy were to be funded from the budg−ets of individual ministries and regional au−thorities, which receive funds from the statebudget on the basis of their annual require−ments and concrete proposed measures.

Besides adopting measures, the strategy alsointended to support projects funded from theGeneral Cash Administration category of thestate budget. These projects are submitted tothe Office of the Slovak Government Rep−resentative for Roma Communities (theformer Office of the Slovak GovernmentRepresentative for Solving the Problems ofthe Roma Minority) by bodies dealing withthe Roma issue, and are reviewed by theCommittee for the Selection, Approval andEvaluation of Projects Solving the Issues of

the Roma Community, which was formed asan advisory body to the government repre−sentative in 2000. The projects selected forfunding are submitted for cabinet approvalby the Deputy Prime Minister for HumanRights, Minorities and Regional Develop−ment.3 In this way, the problems of the Romaminority are addressed not only by state in−stitutions but also NGOs and other bodiesdealing with the issue.

The Strategy requires individual ministriesand regional authorities to draw up a set ofmeasures and concrete tasks, including fund−ing for them from their own budgets. Themeasures and tasks that were scripted wereadopted by the cabinet under the name of TheDetailed Strategy of the Slovak Governmentfor Solving the Problems of the Roma and aSet of Concrete Measures for 2000 – 2nd

Stage.

This “detailed strategy” included 282 con−crete activities. The regional authorities andministries allocated 165 million Slovakcrowns (Sk – $4 million) to fund their pro−grams. The tasks and measures were pre−pared in more detail, and just as with the firststage of the Strategy, were built on the civicprinciple emphasizing positive stimulation ofthe Roma. According to sociologist MichalVašečka, the detailed strategy was the mostin−depth concept adopted since 1989; it in−cluded precise definitions of problems andtasks, and focused on remote regions andsub−regions and areas affected by economictransformation.

When it came to the implementation of in−dividual measures, however, the biggestproblem was lack of money, because, as thedetailed strategy stated, funding for indi−vidual measures proposed by the detailedstrategy could be assigned only in the Pre−liminary Draft of the 2000 State Budget. Thismeant that it was not possible to increase


state budget funding, and that funding for thetasks adopted was limited by individualbudget sections.

Besides the concepts mentioned above, onApril 12, 2002 the cabinet approved a docu−ment called Priorities of the Slovak Govern−ment in Relation to Roma Communities in2002, based on the foregoing strategy and thedetailed strategy. The document envisagedthe following priorities: education, supportfor the construction of municipal housingand services, influencing public opinion, theestablishment of a Roma House, research, acomplex program to develop Roma settle−ments, and a program of social fieldworkers.These individual programs aimed to helpRoma communities develop in socially andeconomically troubled areas with education,housing and health problems. Bearing inmind that in 2002 the state budget didn’t al−locate any money for independent programsto improve the position of the Roma, the2002 programs were to be funded from theGeneral Cash Administration – Reserve forProjects Addressing the Problems of theRoma Community and the Social and Cul−tural Needs of the Roma Community chap−ters of the state budget, and partly from thebudgets of various ministries (Priorities ofthe Slovak Government…, 2002). In terms ofdetail and the involvement of all players, the2002 priorities were the first document totake an integrated approach to improving thesituation of the Roma in Slovakia.

As can be seen in this brief summary of gov−ernment concepts, Slovakia’s post−1989 gov−ernments showed varying levels of interest insolving the Roma issue. Scrapping old plansand adopting new concepts every time thegovernment changed proved ineffective, how−ever, as given the depth of the problems theRoma face, the measures proposed by indi−vidual concepts could not be prepared andimplemented during a single electoral term.

STATE INSTITUTIONS DEALINGWITH THE ROMA ISSUEBETWEEN 1998 AND 2002

After the 1998 elections, the first MikulášDzurinda cabinet established the post ofDeputy Prime Minister for Human Rights,Minorities and Regional Development,which coordinated all issues related to na−tional minorities and human rights. The of−fice also administered sustainable develop−ment, regional development, drug control,personal data protection, and the third sec−tor through the Government Council forNon−Governmental Non−Profit Organiza−tions. Tasks related to national minorities,human rights, regional development andcoordination of the EU’s Phare project con−trolled by the Deputy Prime Minister forHuman Rights, Minorities and RegionalDevelopment were coordinated by theDeputy Prime Minister’s office and the Sec−tion of Human Rights and Minorities of theSlovak Government Office. The DeputyPrime Minister coordinated the preparationand review of projects dealing with the Romaissue, funded from the state budget on thebasis of the government’s 1999 strategy, andsubmitted them for the government’s delib−eration.

The aforementioned Section of HumanRights and Minorities was established in1998 in accordance with the Slovak govern−ment’s program declaration, and was inte−grated into the structure of the GovernmentOffice. In the first half of 2002 it had 17employees in three departments: the Depart−ment of Human Rights and Minorities, theDepartment of Project Coordination, and theDepartment of Regional Development. Asfor Roma issues, the Section coordinated theimplementation of the Action Plan for Pre−venting All Forms of Discrimination, Rac−ism, Xenophobia, Anti−Semitism and OtherDisplays of Intolerance adopted by the gov−


ernment for the 2000 to 2001 and 2002 to2003 periods. The Section was also respon−sible for implementing and monitoring Phareprojects and the improvement of the positionof national minorities in cooperation withother state bodies.

The Slovak government’s national policyadvisory, initiating and coordination body for1998 – 2002 was the Government Councilfor National Minorities and Ethnic Groups.The Council recommended solutions to theSlovak government for the problems of na−tional minorities in Slovakia. It also pre−pared, discussed and submitted to the gov−ernment reports on the position and livingconditions of national minorities and ethnicgroups. Its head office was at the Section ofHuman Rights and Minorities of the Govern−ment Office, and it was chaired by theDeputy Prime Minister for Human Rights,Minorities and Regional Development.Members of the Council included representa−tives of Slovak national minorities.

The Slovak parliament’s Committee forHuman Rights and Nationalities is author−ized to submit bills and other recommenda−tions on matters falling into its jurisdiction,to supervise the observance and implemen−tation of laws, and to submit proposals andstandpoints to the parliament and the govern−ment. The Committee has 10 members, all ofwhom are MPs.

At the end of 1998, the Office of the SlovakGovernment Representative for RomaCommunities was established. The cabinetappointed Vincent Danihel to the post ofGovernment Representative in February1999. One of Danihel’s first tasks was todevelop the Office and draw up a two−stagestrategy for the Slovak government to solvethe problems of the Roma national minor−ity, as well as to coordinate the activitiesenvisaged by the strategy. The Office was

integrated into the Government Office. Inthe second half of 2000 it had 10 full−timeand 2 part−time employees. It was funded bythe Government Office, while from May2000 to November 2002 the World Bankprovided a grant of $278,300. Danihel wasremoved from his post in May 2001 on thebasis of a human resources audit (Informa−tion on Strengthening…, 2002). The Gov−ernment Office then held a public competi−tion for the vacant post, with the participa−tion of Council of Europe and EU observ−ers, based on which the cabinet on June 1,2001 selected Klára Orgovánová as the newGovernment Representative (Evaluation ofthe Activities of the Slovak Government…,2001, p. 1).

The Slovak government, at a meeting onSeptember 19, 2001, approved a modifiedStatute of the Government Representative forRoma Communities, a change in the Office’sname, and a new organizational structure forthe Office.5 In accordance with its new struc−ture, the Office opened a new branch in east−ern Slovakia’s Prešov to help collect fieldinformation and study the effectiveness ofindividual measures pertaining to Romacommunities in eastern Slovakia. In the firsthalf of 2002, the Office employed 16 full−time employees (3 in Prešov).

The Government Representative’s maintask was to coordinate the work of differentstate institutions in keeping with the cabi−net’s 1999 strategy and detailed strategy.However, the activities and the way thefunds were spent remained largely uncoor−dinated and lacking in concept. To improvethe coordination function of the Govern−ment Representative, the cabinet estab−lished a Joint Committee for the Affairs ofRoma Communities (Evaluation of the Ac−tivities of the Slovak Government…, 2001,p. 2, Statute of the Joint Committee…,2001).


At the beginning of 2002, the Representa−tive’s Office established an Advisory Com−mittee to the Slovak Government Repre−sentative for Roma Communities, whichhelped prepare programs to solve the prob−lems of Roma communities. The AdvisoryCommittee employed mostly Roma repre−sentatives.

Other bodies that administer the field of na−tional minorities and ethnic groups includethe Culture Ministry (Section of MinorityCultures), the Education Ministry (Depart−ment of National Schools, State PedagogicalInstitute, methodical centers), the Ministry ofLabor, Social Affairs and Family (Depart−ment of Family Policy, Health Care Section),the National Labor Bureau, the Ministry ofConstruction and Regional Development,the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Departmentof Human Rights), the Ministry of Health(State Health Institute) and regional and dis−trict authorities.

ENDNOTES

1. In connection with the Convention it must beremembered that Slovakia also signed Addi−tional Protocol No. 12, which broadens dis−crimination protection to the rights granted bythe legislation of individual states (Article 14relates only to cases where discrimination con−cerns the rights granted by the agreement it−self). So far, Additional Protocol No. 12 hasbeen ratified by only one Council of Europemember state – Georgia.

2. In this connection we note the legal disputesthat arose from not adopting the Law on theUse of Minority Languages, and the ruling ofthe Constitutional Court on this matter.

3. In 1999, the state budget allocated 15 millionSk ($375,000) for projects from the GeneralCash Administration – Reserve for ProjectsSolving the Problems of the Roma Communitybudget category. Some 30 million Sk was al−located for the years 2000 and 2001 (15 mil−lion Sk into the Reserve for Projects Solving

the Problems of the Roma Community, and 15million Sk for the Social and Cultural Needsof the Roma Community). A total of 50 millionSk was allocated for 2002 (15 million Sk forthe Reserve for Projects Solving the Problemsof the Roma Community, and 35 million Sk forthe Social and Cultural Needs of the RomaCommunity).

4. In August 2002, the cabinet approved the re−lease of funds to implement these priorities.The field worker program was co−financed bythe National Labor Bureau.

5. In September 2002 the cabinet approved thenew Statute of the Slovak Government Repre−sentative for Roma Communities. In compari−son with the previous one, this statute was moredetailed, especially in specifying the main tasksof the Government Representative and rela−tionships with state bodies, regional govern−ments and other entities. The most importantchange was that the Government Representa−tive now reported directly to the Prime Minis−ter and not to the Deputy Prime Minister forHuman Rights, Minorities and Regional Devel−opment.

REFERENCES

1. Drgonec, Ján: Základné práva a slobody po−dľa Ústavy Slovenskej republiky [Fundamen−tal Rights and Freedoms According to theConstitution of the Slovak Republic], (Brati−slava: MANZ, 1997).

2. Informácia o plnení Rozpracovanej stratégievlády Slovenskej republiky na riešenie prob−lémov rómskej národnostnej menšiny – II.etapa za rok 2000 [Information on the Pursu−ance of the Detailed Strategy of the SlovakGovernment for Solving the Problems of theRoma Minority – 2nd Stage, Year 2000], (Bra−tislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2001).

3. Informácia o posilnení Úradu splnomocnen−ca prostredníctvom grantu Svetovej banky[Information on Strengthening the Office ofthe Slovak Government Representative forRoma Communities through a Grant by theWorld Bank], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR,2002).

4. Informácia vlády SR o stave riešenia problé−mov rómskej národnostnej menšiny za obdo−


bie november 1998 – máj 2000 [Informationof the Slovak Government on the State ofSolving the Problems of the Roma NationalMinority for the Period from November 1998to May 2000], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR,2000).

5. Informačný materiál o aktivitách vlády Slo−venskej republiky v oblasti riešenia problé−mov rómskej menšiny v Slovenskej republike[Information on the Activities of the SlovakGovernment in the Field of Solving the Prob−lems of the Roma Minority in the SlovakRepublic], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR,1999).

6. International Convention on the Removal ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination No. 95/1974 Coll., (New York: UNO, December 21,1965).

7. Koncepčné zámery vlády SR na riešenie prob−lémov Rómov v súčasných spoločensko−ekono−mických podmienkach [Conceptual Plan of theSlovak Government to Solve the Problems ofthe Roma in the Current Socio−Economic Con−ditions], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 1997).

8. Návrh úloh a opatrení na riešenie problémovobčanov, ktorí potrebujú osobitnú pomoc narok 1996 [Proposal of Tasks and Measures forSolving the Problems of Citizens RequiringSpecial Help for the Year 1996], (Bratislava:Úrad vlády SR, 1996).

9. Oznámenie MZV SR č. 588/2001 o uzavretíEurópskej charty regionálnych alebo menši−nových jazykov [Declaration of the ForeignMinistry No. 588/2001 on the Signing of theEuropean Charter of Regional or MinorityLanguages], (Bratislava: MZV SR, 2001).

10. Podpora vlády rómskym projektom [Govern−ment Support for Roma Projects], (Bratislava:Úrad vlády SR, 2000).

11. Priority vlády SR vo vzťahu k rómskym komu−nitám na rok 2002, Komplexný rozvojový pro−gram rómskych osád a Program sociálnychterénnych pracovníkov [Priorities of the Slo−vak Government in Relation to Roma Com−munities in 2002, Complex Roma SettlementDevelopment Program and the Program ofSocial Field Workers], (Bratislava: Úradvlády SR 2002).

12. Rozpracovaná stratégia vlády SR na riešenieproblémov rómskej národnostnej menšiny dosúboru konkrétnych opatrení na rok 2000. II.etapa. [The Detailed Strategy of the Slovak

Government to Solve the Problems of theRoma and a Set of Concrete Measures for2000 – 2nd Stage], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR,2000).

13. Stratégia vlády Slovenskej republiky na rie−šenie problémov rómskej národnostnej men−šiny a súbor opatrení na jej realizáciu, I. eta−pa [Strategy of the Slovak Government toSolve the Problems of the Roma and the Setof Implementation Measures – 1st Stage],(Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 1999).

14. Štatút Medzirezortnej komisie pre záležitostirómskych komunít [Statute of the Joint Com−mittee for the Affairs of Roma Communities],(Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2001).

15. Štatút splnomocnenca vlády Slovenskej re−publiky na riešenie problémov občanov, ktorípotrebujú osobitnú pomoc [Statute of the Slo−vak Government Representative for Solvingthe Problems of People Requiring SpecialHelp], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 1995).

16. Štatút splnomocnenca vlády Slovenskej re−publiky na riešenie problémov rómskej men−šiny [Statute of the Slovak Government Rep−resentative for Solving the Problems of theRoma Minority], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR1999).

17. Štatút splnomocnenca vlády Slovenskej re−publiky pre rómske komunity [Statute of theSlovak Government Representative for Solv−ing the Problems of Roma Communities],(Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR 2001).

18. Ústavný zákon č. 460/1992 Zb [Constitutionallaw No. 460/1992 Coll.] Ústava Slovenskejrepubliky v znení neskorších predpisov [Con−stitution of the Slovak Republic, as amended].

19. Vašečka, Michal: “Rómovia” [‘The Roma’] inKollár, Miroslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij(eds.): Slovensko 2000. Súhrnná správa o sta−ve spoločnosti [Slovakia 2000. A Global Re−port on the State of Society], (Bratislava: In−stitute for Public Affairs, 2000).

20. Vašečka, Michal: Country Report – Slovakia,EU Accession Monitoring Project on Minor−ity Rights, (Bratislava: Archívy Programumonitorovania vstupu do EÚ, 2001).

21. Vyhodnotenie stratégie vlády SR na riešenieproblémov rómskej národnostnej menšiny asúboru opatrení na jej realizáciu – I. etapa[Evaluation of the Strategy of the SlovakGovernment to Solve the Problems of theRoma and the Set of Implementation Meas−


ures – 1st Stage], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR,2001).

22. Vyhodnotenie aktivít vlády SR v oblasti rieše−nia problémov rómskych komunít za rok 2001[Evaluation of the Slovak Government’s Ac−tivities in the Field of Solving the Problemsof Roma Communities for the Year 2001],(Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2002).

23. Zákon č. 140/1961 Zb [Law No. 140/1961Coll.] Trestný zákon v znení neskorších pred−pisov [The Penal Code, as amended].

24. Zákon NR SR č. 387/1996 Z. z. o zamestna−nosti v znení neskorších predpisov [The Em−ployment Law of the National Council of the

Slovak Republic No. 387/1996 Coll., asamended].

25. Zákon č. 311/2001 Z. z. Zákonník práce v zne−ní neskorších predpisov [Law No. 311/2001Coll. – the Labor Code, as amended].

26. Zásady vládnej politiky Slovenskej republikyk Rómom a ich rozpracovanie v rezortoch škol−stva, mládeže a športu, kultúry, práce a sociál−nych vecí a financií [The Principles of theGovernment’s Roma Policy, and the Applica−tion Thereof by the Ministry of Education,Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Culture,Work and Social Affairs, and the Ministry ofFinance], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR 1991).

154

155

Summary: The author surveys the mostimportant documents drawn up by the UnitedNations, the Council of Europe, and the Or−ganization for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE) dealing with the position andthe rights of the Roma. An awareness of theunusually poor position of the Roma has ledto the drafting of wide−ranging documentsaddressing the legal status of the Roma andtheir struggle against discrimination. As canbe seen from some recent documents dis−cussed in this chapter, temporary measuresare increasingly seen as a suitable way ofachieving equality for the Roma. Such docu−ments often emphasize the importance ofgiving the Roma a voice in decisions on pro−grams that affect them.

Key words: United Nations, Council ofEurope, Organization for Security and Coop−eration in Europe, struggle against discrimi−nation, segregation, housing, education, so−cial exclusion, racially motivated violence,decision making role, affirmative action.

INTRODUCTION

The phrase “international documents pertain−ing to the Roma” refers to all binding inter−national legal or political human rights docu−ments, including those focused on discrimi−nation. It also covers all documents adoptedduring the past decade focusing on positivemeasures in favor of minorities. During thesaid period, several international organiza−

ELEÓNORA SÁNDOR

INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTSCONCERNING THE ROMA

tions devoted their attention to the Roma asa group whose standard minority rights (lan−guage and cultural) as well as almost all hu−man rights were being systematically vio−lated. This third group of documents focusedon the Roma tend not to define new rights,but instead to monitor the implementationand supervision of human and minorityrights regarding the Roma approved by theinternational community, as well as measuresintended to help the Roma achieve trueequality.1

The most important documents that are bind−ing on Slovakia have already been translatedinto Slovak. The following survey looks es−pecially at documents in the third group, i.e.related to Roma issues, as well as generaldocuments in which the Roma are high−lighted. The author also briefly summarizesthe standpoints of bodies monitoring theobservance of covenants by contracting par−ties, including Slovakia. The other docu−ments presented in this chapter are politicaldocuments that lay out moral and politicalcommitments.

THE ROMA INUNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS

The first mention of the Roma in the docu−ments of the United Nations (UN) occurredin the resolution of the Subcommittee for thePrevention of Discrimination and the Protec−tion of Minorities2 6 (XXX), dated August

156 E l e ó n o r a S á n d o r

31, 1977. The resolution includes an appealto all states inhabited by the Roma to ensurethe Roma have the same rights that otherpeople enjoy.The Roma were mentioned again in a UNdocument 14 years later, in SubcommitteeResolution No. 1991/21: “in many countriesthere are barriers preventing members of theRoma community from applying their civic,political, social, and cultural rights. Thesebarriers represent discrimination against theRoma, due to which this community is par−ticularly vulnerable”.

In Resolution No. 1992/65, entitled Protec−tion of the Roma, the Human Rights Commit−tee called upon the Subcommittee’s specialminority reporter to pay special attention tothe living conditions of the Roma (Yeung SikYeun, 2000).

In 1999, the Human Rights Committee’s spe−cial reporter for current forms of racism, racialdiscrimination, xenophobia and other formsof intolerance, Maurice Glélé−Ahanhanzo,went on a mission to the Czech Republic,Hungary and Rumania. In his report he founda similar level of prejudice against the Romain all three countries, however, he noted dif−ferences in displays of discrimination, aswell as each country’s methods of combat−ing it. The report contained no general rec−ommendations, but made recommendationsfor individual countries regarding their cur−rent problems (segregation of Roma pupils,depiction of the Roma in the media, police ap−proach to the Roma, absence of a far−ranginganti−discrimination law (Glélé−Ahanhanzo,1999).3

This special report was written during intensepreparations by all international humanrights organizations for the World Confer−ence Against Racism. The UN organized aseminar of particular importance for theRoma in July 2000 in Warsaw, naming it The

Central and Eastern European RegionalSeminar of Experts on the Protection of Mi−norities and Other Vulnerable Groups andStrengthening Human Rights Capacities atthe National Level. In the recommendationsadopted for the World Conference was aseparate section called Lingering RacismTowards the Roma (clauses 54 to 59). Theexperts pointed to the need for better coop−eration between individual governments andRoma organization leaders, and the need todevote special attention to the Roma duringthe World Conference. They also warned thatthe activities of individual governmentsshould be based on reliable statistics, andrecommended that the World Conferenceappeal to individual states to give Roma chil−dren equal access to education as recom−mended by the OSCE’s High Commissionerand the Council of Europe’s Group of Ex−perts (Report of the Central and EasternEuropean…, 2000).

The UN Council Against Racism held its firstdebate on the situation of the Roma at its 57th

meeting in 2000. The talks resulted in theadoption of General Recommendation No.27, headlined Discrimination Against theRoma,4 which together with the declarationand the action plan adopted by the WorldConference represents the cornerstone of theUN’s endeavor to improve the position of theRoma. In its six parts the document proposedthat the signatories to the Agreement on theElimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimi−nation adopt general measures to protectpeople from racially motivated violence, aswell as measures in the fields of education,social security, media, and public life.

The Agreement advised of the need to adoptanti−discrimination legislation, strategies andprograms to improve the position of theRoma and the relationship between the Romaand the rest of the population. It recom−mended measures in education (active coop−

157I n t e r n a t i o n a l D o c u m e n t s C o n c e r n i n g t h e R o m a

eration with Roma parents, preventing thesegregation of Roma pupils while leavingopen the possibility of bilingual education oreducation in the Roma’s mother tongue),Roma living conditions (adopting affirma−tive action measures regarding Roma em−ployment, preventing the segregation ofhousing, supporting Roma health). Thedocument also said the state must act if rac−ism, hatred, or incitement to discriminationand violence were spread by the media.Measures to boost the participation of Romain public life envisaged the participation ofRoma communities in designing, implement−ing and evaluating all projects and programsaffecting them, and the participation of theRoma at all levels of public administration.The UN High Commissioner was recom−mended to establish a department in his of−fice covering all Roma issues. The Agree−ment at the same time recommended that theWorld Conference pay attention to Romacommunities as among the most disadvan−taged and discriminated groups in the world(Discrimination Against the Roma…, 2000).

These recommendations drew a response inDurban. The Declaration of the World Con−ference included one clause devoted exclu−sively to the Roma (clause 68): “It is withdeep concern that we note the ongoing dis−plays of racism, racial discrimination, xeno−phobia, and similar intolerance, includingviolence, aimed at the Roma, and we recog−nize the need to adopt effective policies andimplementation mechanisms to achieve theirfull and effective equality.” (World Confer−ence Against Racism..., 2001a)

The action plan that was adopted invited allstates to ensure equal access to education atall levels, including complementary pro−grams of intercultural education, and the re−cruitment of Roma teachers and assistants,thanks to whom children and juveniles couldstudy their mother tongue. At the same time

it encouraged states to adopt suitable andconcrete policies and measures, to developimplementation mechanisms in cooperationwith Roma representatives, and in regionswhere such mechanisms are absent, to ex−change experiences in order to eradicate dis−crimination. It also recommended that inter−governmental organizations deal with theRoma issue in their help and cooperationprojects, and support their economic, social,and cultural development (World ConferenceAgainst Racism..., 2001).

The results of the UN World ConferenceAgainst Racism deservedly provoked con−fused reactions. However, from the view−point of the Roma, the documents that wereadopted were of great significance: for thefirst time, the minority was included on a listof groups considered the most vulnerable inthe world.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS OF UNCOMMITTEES ON SLOVAKIA’SPERIODICAL REPORTS

The submission of periodical reports on theimplementation of ratified agreements bycontractual parties to the respective UN com−mittees is one of the UN’s basic controlmechanisms. Four committees also acceptcomplaints by individuals. Slovak citizensrarely take advantage of this possibility, how−ever, and instead tend to submit complaintsto the European Court for Human Rights.

The Human Rights Committee

Slovakia’s initial report on the InternationalPact on Civic and Political Rights was dis−cussed by the Committee in July 1997. TheCommittee expressed concern, as the reportcontained evidence that the Roma were a


frequent target of racist assaults, and that theywere not being sufficiently protected by lawenforcement bodies. The Committee ob−served that Slovakia had not adopted anylegislation to allow the use of minority lan−guages in communications with official stateinstitutions. The Committee thus recom−mended that laws guaranteeing minority lan−guage rights be adopted immediately. TheCommittee also requested additional infor−mation on guarantees that school textbooksdid not include any materials supporting anti−Semitic or other racial opinions (ConcludingObservations…, August 4, 1997).

The Committee on the Elimination ofRacial Discrimination

This UN Committee reviewed Slovakia’sfirst, second and third periodical reports onthe International Agreement on the Elimina−tion of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,which were submitted as a single documentin August 2000.

The Committee saw the following acts bySlovakia as positive: creation of the post ofDeputy Prime Minister for Human Rights,Minorities and Regional Development; crea−tion of the post of Government Representa−tive for Solving the Problems of the Roma;approval of a document entitled The Strategyof the Slovak Government to Solve the Prob−lems of the Roma and the Set of Implemen−tation Measures; and adoption in 1999 of theLaw on the Use of Minority Languages.

On the other hand, the settlement structure ofthe Roma minority was criticized. The Com−mittee was extremely concerned that twomunicipalities – Ňagov and Rokytovce – hadbanned Roma from entering their villages,and that proceedings to revoke the decisionswere extremely lengthy. The Committee rec−ommended that Slovakia reassesses legisla−

tion on local residence permits, and promptlyand thoroughly examine cases of discrimina−tion regarding access to housing. The Com−mittee asked Slovakia to monitor the trendsunderlying racial segregation, and to presentits findings in ensuing reports. The Commit−tee also focused on recurring violent crimesagainst the Roma and other ethnic minorities,recommending that these crimes be investi−gated promptly and thoroughly, that racistorganizations be prosecuted effectively, andthat the state run prevention programs tocombat racially motivated violence.

Other recommendations concerned the educa−tion of Roma children (concern was expressedover the many Roma children not attendingschool, and segregation in the education sys−tem), and the position of the Roma on the labormarket (the Committee called on Slovakia toprohibit discrimination in the workplace, tointroduce special programs to cut Roma un−employment, and to focus on vocational edu−cation for the Roma within the framework ofthe National Employment Plan). The Com−mittee also discovered some negative phe−nomena related to Roma health (high mortal−ity, poor nutrition, poor knowledge of childand maternal health, inadequate access toclean drinking water and sanitary facilities).The Committee requested information on theinclusion of human rights education in thecurricula of schools, police academies, andcorrectional centers; on campaigns to increasepublic awareness; on the fulfillment of Reso−lution No. 110 of the Slovak parliament’sHuman Rights and Minorities Committee; oncooperation between the Attorney General’sOffice and NGOs in the detection of raciallymotivated crimes; and more detailed statisticson the number of racial offences (ConcludingObservations… May 1, 2001).

At the same meeting the Committee took upa complaint filed by Anna Koptová alleginga disregard for human rights in the decisions


of the Ňagov and Rokytovce municipalitiesto ban Roma from entering these villages.The Committee recognized the complaint aslegitimate: although the decisions concernedonly a certain group of Roma who had pre−viously resided in these villages, the contextin which they were adopted clearly suggestedthat other Roma were also prohibited fromsettling there. The Committee recommendedthat Slovakia take all necessary measures toensure the full and immediate removal ofdocuments limiting the freedom of move−ment and residence of the country’s Roma.5

Another complaint the Committee acceptedwas one by Miroslav Lacko, who had alleg−edly not been served in a restaurant at the Ko−šice railroad station. Given that the owner ofthe restaurant had been convicted of a crimi−nal offense following the intervention of thePublic Prosecutor’s Office, the Committeeconcluded that despite the length of the pro−ceedings, the Agreement had not been vio−lated. At the same time it recommended thatSlovakia amend its legislation to ensure ac−cess to public places, to provide sanctions forrefusing access on the grounds of race, andto speed up investigations of such offences.6

The Committee onthe Rights of the Child

The Committee discussed the Initial Report ofSlovakia on the Agreement on the Rights of theChild in October 2000. The concluding obser−vations that were adopted discussed the situ−ation of Roma children in six points (points19 through 24), stating that despite ongoingefforts by the state, Roma children were nev−ertheless exposed to discrimination as definedby several provisions of the Agreement, par−ticularly article 24 (the right to receive the bestpossible health care), article 27 (the right to astandard of living ensuring physical, mental,spiritual, moral, and social well−being), and

article 28 (the right to education). It recom−mended that Slovakia adopt all necessarymeasures to ensure that all the country’s chil−dren enjoyed all their rights in accordancewith the Agreement, without facing discrimi−nation. The Committee agreed with the Com−mittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimi−nation’s recommendations, and recom−mended that Slovakia adopt them.

The Committee took the view that Slovakiadid not fully protect children and their rightsfrom all forms of discrimination as called forin article 2 of the Agreement, as the statefailed to adopt affirmative action to supportvulnerable groups of children, especiallyRoma children. Roma children clearly re−quire more help and support from the stateto be able to enjoy their right to develop thesame way other children do. The Committeethus recommended that Slovakia review itsimplementation of this Agreement article.

Another source of concern was the huge re−gional differences in the accessibility ofhealth care, the extent of malnutrition amongchildren under five years of age and school−age children (particularly those from themost vulnerable groups). Despite the sophis−tication of state social policies, some groupsof children – the Roma, street children, andchildren in orphanages – live in social andeconomic exclusion. The Committee criti−cized the fact that a substantial portion ofRoma children attend “special” schools (forretarded children) due to language and cul−tural differences between the Roma and themajority, that the schools law does not pro−vide for education in the Roma tongue, andthat negative stereotypes of the Roma andtheir children are generally accepted – as wasalso noted in the initial report. The Commit−tee recommended that further measures beadopted to ensure equal access and opportu−nities for Roma children in relation to edu−cation, and called for extra classes to be cre−


ated if necessary. The state was also advisedto ascertain whether the Roma approved ofthe way the Roma language was taught inschool, and to consider the possibilities ofteaching entire curricula in Roma (Conclud−ing Observations…, October 23, 2000).

The Committee Against Torture

Slovakia’s initial report on the Treaty AgainstTorture and Other Kinds of Violent, Inhumanand Degrading Treatment or Punishmentwas taken up by this Committee in May2001. The Committee pointed to accusationsthat the police had participated in attacksagainst the Roma and other groups of inhab−itants, as well as accusations of police inac−tivity in cases where the police themselveshad failed to provide adequate protection tovictims of racially motivated attacks byskinheads or other extremist groups. TheSlovak authorities, the Committee noted, hadfailed to investigate such accusations rapidly,independently, or thoroughly, and had alsofailed to prosecute and sentence those re−sponsible for this behavior. The Committee’sadvice that measures be taken to ensure therapid, independent, and efficient investiga−tion of accusations of improper treatment ortorture by the police remain generally valid.One requirement pertaining to the Roma wasthat Slovakia in its next periodical reportpresent statistics on people placed in militaryand civilian state institutions for reasons ofdetention, correction, psychiatric treatment,special education etc., together with data ontheir ethnic origin (Concluding Observa−tions…, May 11, 2001).

THE ROMA IN COUNCIL OFEUROPE DOCUMENTS

Unlike the UN, the Council of Europe hasbeen adopting documents concerning the

Roma since the end of the 1960s. The firstimportant document dealing with the possi−ble admission of new countries with largeRoma minorities to the European Union wasRecommendation 1203 (1993) on Gypsies inEurope.7 In 1993, western countries experi−enced the first waves of immigrants fromSouth−Eastern Europe, which raised fears ofanti−Roma feelings and violence againstRoma settlements. The Recommendationcharacterized the Roma as a true Europeanminority without their own state, and as agroup requiring special protection in culture,education, equality of opportunities, andeveryday life.

October 1993 brought the first summit ofCouncil of Europe member states in Vienna.The meeting’s main topic – besides reformof the control mechanism of the EuropeanTreaty on Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms and the Protection of NationalMinorities – was the struggle against racism.The declaration and action plan that wereadopted triggered the establishment of theEuropean Commission Against Racism andIntolerance (ECRI), which was later asked bythe Council of Ministers to pay special atten−tion to discrimination, prejudice, and vio−lence against the Roma. Besides preparingreports on individual member states, theECRI also won a mandate to make generalpolitical recommendations for individualcountries.

The ECRI’s position was strengthened by thesecond summit of CE countries in 1997.After two general recommendations to com−bat discrimination, in 1998 the Commissionissued the ECRI General Policy Recommen−dation No.3: Combating Racism and Intol−erance Against Roma/Gypsies8, which wasendorsed by all top representatives of statesparticipating in the European ConferenceAgainst Racism in October 2000. The docu−ment opened by stating that the surviving


prejudice against the Roma had led to manyforms of discrimination, and that this dis−crimination was the main factor in the socialexclusion affecting many Roma.

The following international documents andmeasures were to be used to combat racismin individual member states: the GeneralTreaty on the Protection of National Minori−ties and the European Charter of Regionalor Minority Languages; suitable and unam−biguous provisions in penal, civil, and ad−ministrative law; the provision of legalcounsel to victims of discrimination; no tol−erance for perpetrators; training for the staffof investigative and judicial bodies to helpthem understand cultural differences andrecognize prejudice; dialogue between thepolice, local authorities, and the Roma; ac−tivities to help journalists understand theirown responsibility in the dissemination ofprejudice; preventing discriminationagainst the Roma in granting state citizen−ship and asylum proceedings; ensuring ac−tive and equal participation of the Roma indecisions at the local, regional, and nationallevels; educating the Roma about theirrights; special attention for Roma women,the most frequent victims of double dis−crimination (racial and sexual); combatingthe segregation of Roma children inschools, and ensuring equal access to edu−cation; incorporating Roma history and cul−ture into school curricula, and educatingteachers in this respect; supporting NGOsdealing with the Roma; encouraging Romaorganizations to participate in civic society;strengthening mutual trust in order to pre−serve and develop an open and plural soci−ety and peaceful coexistence.

In 1994 the General Secretary appointed acoordinator of activities concerning theRoma, and an intergovernmental Group ofRoma Issue Specialists was established toprepare an action plan in cooperation with

the European Committee for Migration. Co−operation with other international humanrights organizations9 intensified, and theCommittee adopted two important recom−mendations.

The first was entitled Recommendation No.R (2000) 4 of the Committee of Ministers toMember States on the Education of Roma/Gypsy Children in Europe.10 The main edu−cation principles listed in the addendum tothe Recommendation stemmed from theknowledge that present problems had beenlargely caused by past education policies,which had led either to the assimilation or thesegregation of Roma children.

Partnership cooperation was the main idea ofthe last recommendation of the CE’s Com−mittee of Ministers, entitled Recommenda−tion Rec (2001) 17 on Improving the Eco−nomic and Employment Situation of Roma/Gypsies and Travelers in Europe.11 Like theprevious text, this one also emphasized bothsides of the same coin: non−discriminationand affirmative action in the field of employ−ment should be suitably combined. Severalstatements in this document reflected theadoption of two anti−discriminatory direc−tives by the EU Council,12 for example itsemphasis on both direct and indirect dis−crimination against the Roma, or on improv−ing the efficiency of anti−discrimination leg−islation by shifting of the burden of proof tothe defendant. Special attention should bepaid to points 14 to 16, which proposed pos−sible affirmative action.

Recommendation 1557 (2002) 1: The LegalSituation of the Roma in Europe13 is so far thelast document prepared by the Council ofEurope. Its main innovation is its emphasison the group nature of rights, which may beconnected to the fact that there were no is−sues regarding the Roma (i.e. territorial au−tonomy etc.) that in the case of other ethnic


minorities had prevented the adoption offormulations resembling collective rights.

The unifying motive of the document is toacknowledge the Roma as an ethnic or na−tional minority in all member states. The rec−ommendations section identifies six basicconditions needed to improve the position ofthe Roma: definition of their legal status;design and implementation of programs tointegrate the Roma into society; guaranteesof the participation of the Roma in decision−making at all levels, including the pan−Eu−ropean; ensuring equal treatment for theRoma minority as an ethnic or national mi−nority in education, employment, housing,health, and public services; preparation andimplementation of affirmative action andpreferential treatment guidelines for sociallydisadvantaged communities, including theRoma, in education, employment, and hous−ing; adoption of special measures and theestablishment of special institutions for pro−tecting the Roma language, culture, tradi−tions, and identity, as well as combating rac−ism, xenophobia, and intolerance on the lo−cal, regional, and international levels.

CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS OF CEMONITORING BODIES

The ECRI, in accordance with its mandate,prepared and published two periodical re−ports on Slovakia: the first in 1998, and thesecond in 2000. The first dealt extensivelywith the exceptionally poor position of theRoma. It criticized the frequently passiveapproach of the police and judicial bodies incases of racially motivated violence, the in−effective implementation of laws (e.g. incases of discrimination on the labor marketor by state authorities), the absence of inde−pendent special institutions dealing with rac−ism and intolerance, and the low representa−

tion of the Roma in secondary schools anduniversities. The document also recom−mended that the possibilities of more exten−sive education in the Roma language be in−vestigated (The ECRI’s Country−by−CountryApproach…, 1998).

The second report was very similar to the firstas far as the Roma were concerned, and sin−gled out the following problems for specialattention: poor implementation of anti−dis−crimination legislation, the passivity of thepolice and other prosecution bodies, andhesitation by the courts when considering theracial motives of crimes. ECRI experts rec−ommended immediate steps be taken toeliminate discrimination in education, espe−cially the segregation of classes and the highrepresentation of Roma children in specialschools, as well as the lack of teaching in theRoma language. They again requested reli−able data on the number of members of mi−nority groups (The ECRI’s Country−by−Country Approach..., 2000).

The CE’s traditional monitoring body is theAdvisory Committee of the General Agree−ment on the Protection of National Minori−ties, although it usually passes its findings onto the Committee of Ministers for a finalstandpoint. Despite this mechanism, the re−ports of the Advisory Committee are not justrecommendations for the Committee of Min−isters, but as they are published together withthe reaction of the monitored states before theCommittee takes a decision, they have con−siderable authority. In accordance with Ar−ticle 25 of the General Agreement, Slovakiahas so far submitted one report on implemen−tation (the Advisory Committee adopted areport on this information in September2000). The findings and recommendationsregarding the Roma that were presented tothe Committee of Ministers for adoptionwere in many respects identical to the find−ings and conclusions of the ECRI: as signifi−


cant social and economic differences remainbetween the Roma and the majority popula−tion, attention must be paid to initiatives sup−porting full and effective equality; the gov−ernment’s strategies to solve the problems ofthe Roma minority should be implementedin close cooperation with the Roma; the stateshould support intercultural dialogue andtake steps to prevent negative stereotypes inthe media; lingering problems in the imple−mentation of anti−discrimination legislationmust be solved, and the relationship betweenthe police and minorities must improve; in−vestigations and prosecutions of raciallymotivated crimes must be speeded up. Thereport stated that the practice of placingRoma children in special schools was notcompatible with the General Agreement, andsaid the state should analyze to what extentRoma language education met the require−ments of the Roma.

In keeping with its usual practice, the Com−mittee of Ministers in Resolution No. 5(2001)14 on Slovakia’s implementation of theGeneral Agreement diplomatically softenedthe language used by the Advisory Commit−tee; however, in essence the report remainedthe same. The Committee stated that despitegovernment efforts many problems remainedwith the Roma and the implementation of theGeneral Agreement, especially discrimina−tion against the Roma, treatment of the Romaby police, and the enormous social and eco−nomic gulf between many Roma and themajority population.

The most powerful and best−known Euro−pean human rights protection tool – TheTreaty on the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms – contains noprovisions on minority rights, nor does itsarticle 14, banning discrimination, applyseparately – only together with another arti−cle of the treaty. Nevertheless, the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has passed down

several rulings on complaints by Roma alleg−ing the violation of rights enshrined in theTreaty. The number of such cases is expectedto grow as more member states ratify theAdditional Protocol No. 12 to the Treaty onthe General Ban on Discrimination. Evenafter the Additional Protocol takes effect,however, Geoff Gilbert’s warning will re−main valid: although the Treaty may undercertain circumstances protect minority rights,we must remember that it was not created forthis purpose, and the courts may still rejectcomplaints alleging violations of “minorityrights” as unjustified (Gilbert, 2002).

THE ROMA IN OSCE DOCUMENTS

Since 1990, the OSCE (formerly the Confer−ence for Security and Cooperation in Europe– CSCE) has recognized the Roma as a groupwith special problems. This phrase first ap−peared in a document from the CopenhagenMeeting on the Human Dimension of theCSCE, adopted on June 29, 1990. The Re−port from the Geneva Meeting of Experts onNational Minorities of the CSCE in July1991 again acknowledged the problems ofthe Roma, and the Report’s signatories ex−pressed readiness to take steps to achieve fullequality of opportunities between membersof the Roma minority legally residing in theircountries and the rest of the population. Theparticipating countries committed to improv−ing the enforceability of people’s rights withrespect to crimes motivated by racial, ethnic,or religious prejudice.

In a document from the Moscow Meeting ofthe Conference on the Human Dimension ofthe CSCE in October 1991, the Roma werementioned in connection with human rightseducation whose purpose was to help fightintolerance, prejudice, and hatred. In the1992 Helsinki document of the CSCE, theparticipating countries again acknowledged


“the need to prepare suitable programs focus−ing on the problems of Roma citizens andother groups traditionally designated as Gyp−sies, and to create such conditions for themthat give them equal opportunities to fullyparticipate in the life of society. The coun−tries also undertook to consider the possibili−ties of cooperation leading to the achieve−ment of this aim”. The document also con−tained a decision creating the post of HighCommissioner for Minorities. The HelsinkiMeeting tasked the Office for DemocraticInstitutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)with organizing special seminars on prob−lems related to the human dimension of theOSCE. One of the first of these seminars,held in September 1994 and organized incooperation with the Council of Europe, wasdevoted to the position of the Roma.

The OSCE saw a real breakthrough after theHigh Commissioner presented a report inSeptember 1993 stating that only someRoma issues fell under his jurisdiction. Romacommunities faced more complex problems,he said, which belonged to the human dimen−sion of the OSCE’s commitments, and re−quired long term program support, monitor−ing and assistance. These problems were tobecome a standard aspect of the human di−mension, creating a new contact point for theRoma within the ODIHR. The recommenda−tions of the High Commissioner wereadopted by the participating countries at theBudapest summit in December 1994. Thedocument adopted contained a resolution onthe proposed contact point, and laid out itstasks.

In 1998 the Council of Ministers in Osloadopted a resolution on strengthening theoperational power of the OSCE in relation tothe Roma. It strengthened the ODIHR con−tact point for Roma issues and charged it withnew tasks, such as cooperating with OSCEfield missions, collecting information on leg−

islation and other measures by participatingcountries, organizing seminars and work−shops, cooperating with the Council of Eu−rope’s coordinator for the Roma, etc.

The heads of the participating countries, ina declaration adopted at the OSCE’s Istan−bul Summit in November 1999 (clause 31),expressed regret for displays of racism andminority discrimination, and promised toensure that “all laws and policies will fullyrespect the rights of the Roma, and wherenecessary, support the adoption of anti−dis−crimination legislation”. They also under−lined the importance of dealing thoroughlywith the social exclusion of the Roma. Thenew European Safety Charter, adopted at thesame summit, in clause 20 restated the com−mitment of the participating countries toachieve full equality of opportunities for theRoma, and to redouble efforts to eradicatediscrimination against them.

Before his mandate expired, the first HighCommissioner, Max van der Stoel, presentedthe next Report on the Situation of the Romaand Sinti in the OSCE Area in March 2000.Here he recommended that the powers of theODIHR’s contact point be strengthened, andproposed four groups of measures to mem−ber states: discrimination and racial vio−lence (the adoption of complex anti−discrimi−nation legislation, the preparation and imple−mentation of affirmative action and preferen−tial treatment programs for qualified Roma,the adoption of internal discipline standardsand fast and appropriate sanctions for stateemployees, including policemen, who dis−criminate against a minority, training coursesfor policemen, prosecutors and judges focus−ing on international law), education (besidesrecommendations from similar documentsissued by other international organizations,the High Commissioner mentioned the cov−erage of school attendance costs, includingthe provision of food to children, as one of


the prerequisites for successful education),living conditions (a recommendation thatgovernments show greater readiness to guar−antee loans from international organizationsfor housing projects, to prevent segregationin housing, to solve the legal status of Romain their place of abode, and to pay specialattention to the situation of Roma women,especially to their health), and political par−ticipation (support for the political partici−pation of the Roma at all levels of the stateadministration (Report on the Situation of theRoma…, 2000).

As far as OSCE is concerned, in accordancewith the recommendations of the High Com−missioner, published in his first report on theRoma, the Roma issue really became part ofthe implementation meetings of the humandimension, and the third meeting held inSeptember 1999 in Vienna was devoted ex−clusively to this issue.

CONCLUSION

During the period leading up to Slovakia’sscheduled May 2004 entrance to the Euro−pean Union, the Slovak public focused on thefulfillment of the EU’s “Copenhagen crite−ria” as a precondition of EU membership.Documents related to Slovakia’s accessionas an EU candidate country – includingresolutions of the European Parliament, theEuropean Commission, and the Joint Com−mittee of the European Parliament and theSlovak parliament – all included statementson the need to improve the position of theRoma. These documents, however, do notrank among traditional international docu−ments, not least due to their validity, whichexpires with the country’s expected EUaccession.

As far as European rights go, it must beemphasized that the regulation of specific

minority rights is and probably will remainthe domain of member states. On the otherhand, when it comes to human rights in gen−eral (i.e. also the prevention of discrimina−tion), Europe’s common bodies have ac−quired some fairly significant powers in thelast few years. The situation of the Roma asa vulnerable and disadvantaged group is thuslikely to attract further attention by the Un−ion even after Slovakia’s EU accession.15

In conclusion we must stress that this chap−ter is by no means an exhaustive treatment.It does not, for example, include the partialresults of expert studies which in every in−ternational organization preceded the adop−tion of every single document – the manyresolutions and declarations of the UN’s spe−cial bodies, the evaluations of various inter−national action plans, etc. For practical rea−sons it was not possible to analyze Slovakia’simplementation policy here; instead, thechapter was meant as a brief introduction tothe issue, and attempted to give the readersome basic facts, as well as a starting pointfor further study. The links that can be foundin the references should provide access toother documents on the Internet.

ENDNOTES

1. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Councilof Europe pondered the adoption of an inde−pendent Charter of Roma Rights several times– the last time in its Recommendation No. 17(2002) – but without specifying what it shouldcontain. The opinions of Roma legal expertson the utility of such a document vary.

2. In 1999 this body was renamed the Subcom−mittee for the Promotion and Protection ofHuman Rights.

3. The special correspondent in the countriesmentioned also carried out the next missionand recorded the positive steps governmentshad taken since the first report was published.The report from the second mission is avail−able at:


http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/2848af408d01ec0ac1256609004e770b/4c609b38f502b1f6c1256a160044e837/$FILE/G0110888.pdf

4. The general recommendations and commentsof individual committees, such as interpreta−tions of treaties and individual provisions,serve as instructions for contractual parties onhow to prepare their periodical reports. See:Discrimination Against the Roma: CERDGeneral recom. 27. (General Comments)Dok. CERD/C/SR.1424, annex V, sect. CAugust 16, 2000;http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/11f3d6d130ab8e09c125694a0054932b?Opendocument

5. See Communication No. 13/1998. Jurispru−dence, August 25, 2000; http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/464937c637ce5c0ec12569d20033a961?Opendocument

6. See Communication No. 11/1998: Slovakia.Jurisprudence, August 9, 2001; http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/2daf63a7bf679e68c1256ae900513ec9?Opendocument

7. See:http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2Fadopted Text%2Fta93%2FEREC1203.htm

8. See: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecr i /1ecr i /3general_themes/1pol icy_recommendations/recommendation_n%b03/recommendation_n%b03.asp

9. One of the most important results of this co−operation was the Rules for Improvement ofthe Roma’s Position, adopted by the WorkGroup of the EU Council for Expansion dur−ing the 1999 Tampere Summit, which werebasically prepared by the Council of Eu−rope’s Group of Experts for the Roma andthe High Commissioner of the OSCE forMinorities. The pro−Roma activities of theCouncil of Europe as of 2000 have been de−scribed in detail in the MG−S−ROM reportNo. 17 (2000), entitled The Activities of theCouncil of Europe Concerning Roma/Gyp−sies and Travelers (http://www.coe.int/T/E/social_cohesion/Roma_Gypsies/Documen−tation/MGSROM_Documents/20001120_MG−S−ROM(2000)17_Activities.asp#TopOfPage).

10. See: http://cm.coe.int/ta/rec/2000/2000r4.htm

11. See: http://cm.coe.int/stat/E/Public/2001/adopted_texts/recommendations/2001r17.htm

12. The council’s Directive No. 2000/43/CEdated June 29, 2000 defines the policy ofequal treatment of people regardless of theirracial or ethnic origin, while Directive No.2000/78/CE dated November 27, 2000 fixesthe general definition of equal treatment atwork.

13. See:http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocuments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta02%2FEREC1557.htm

14. See: http://cm.coe.int/stat/E/Public/2001/adopted_texts/resCMN/2001xn5.htm

15. The best−known anti−discrimination direc−tives by the European Community – Nos.2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC – have alreadybeen partially adopted by Slovakia. Anotherimportant initiative is the proposal of theEuropean Commission to adopt a GeneralResolution on combating racism and xeno−phobia, which would harmonize the body ofcriminal law of individual member states inthis regard.

REFERENCES

1. Concluding Observations of the CommitteeAgainst Torture: Slovakia. A/56/44, paras. 99−105, 11/05/2001.http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/baaf18c64be5fd07c1256a4d002ba316?Opendocument

2. Concluding Observations of the Committee onthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Slo−vakia. CERD/C/304/Add.110. 01/05/2001.http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/aca296d404918a94c125693b004e75cd?Opendocument

3. Concluding Observations of the HumanRights Committee: Slovakia. CCPR/C/79/Add.79. 04/08/97.http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/9170cb598633783880256515005bf6ad?Opendocument

4. Concluding Observations of the Committeeon the Rights of the Child: Slovakia. CRC/C/15/Add.140. 23/10/2000.


http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/2ecbe6a9cf252e71c125697a00347438?Opendocument

5. The ECRI’s Country−by−Country Approach:Report on Slovakia Made Public on 15 June1998, CRI (98) 51.http://www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/5Archives/1ECRI’s_work/1Country_by_country/Slovakia/Slovakia_CBC_1.asp#TopOfPage

6. The ECRI’s Country−by−Country Approach:Second Report on Slovakia. Adopted on 10December 1999. Strasbourg, 27 June 2000,CRI (2000) 35.http://www.coe.int/T/E/human%5Frights/Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2DCountry%2Dby%2Dcountry%5Fapproach/Slovakia/Slovakia_CBC_2.asp#TopOfPage

7. Glélé−Ahanhanzo, Maurice: Racism, RacialDiscrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms ofRacial Intolerance. Mission to Hungary, CzechRepublic and Romania (19−30 September1999). Report by Maurice Glélé−Ahanhanzo,Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Formsof Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenopho−bia and Related Intolerance, submitted pursu−ant to the Commission on Human RightsResolution 1998/26. Addendum. (E/CN.4/2000/16/Add.1).http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/2848af408d01ec0ac1256609004e770b/c3cfe283fb91cab6802568b0004f1c36/$FILE/G0010626.pdf

8. Gilbert, Geoff: Jurisprudence of the Euro−pean Court and Commission of Human Rightsin 2001 and Minority Groups. E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2002/WP.2.

h t t p : / / w w w. u n h c h r. c h / H u r i d o c d a /Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/094d2a91153ef05ac1256bc8003363c4/$FILE/G0213852.pdf

9. Report of the Central and Eastern EuropeanRegional Seminar of Experts on the Protec−tion of Minorities and Other VulnerableGroups and Strengthening Human RightsCapacity at the National Level. Warsaw, July5 to 7, 2000. A/CONF.189/PC.2/2. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/( S y m b o l ) / A . C O N F. 1 8 9 . P C . 2 . 2 . E n ?Opendocument

10. Report on the Situation of the Roma and Sintiin the OSCE Area. Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe. High Commis−sioner on National Minorities, 2000.http://www.osce.org/hcnm/documents/reports/roma/report_roma_sinti_2000.pdf

11. World Conference Against Racism, RacialDiscrimination, Xenophobia, and RelatedIntolerance. Declaration. Durban 2001.http://www.un.org/WCAR/WCAR_media_form.pdf

12. World Conference Against Racism, RacialDiscrimination, Xenophobia, and RelatedIntolerance. Program of Action. Durban,2001.http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/Durban.doc

13. Yuen, Yeung Sik: The Human Rights Prob−lems and Protection of the Roma. Workingpaper prepared pursuant to Sub−Commissiondecision 1999/109. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/28.http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2000.28.En?Opendocument

168

169

Summary: This chapter deals with the termsand concepts of affirmative action, and sur−veys its application in practice. It evaluatesthe arguments most commonly used againstaffirmative action, and analyzes how affirma−tive action is treated in international docu−ments as well as in the legislation of differ−ent countries. It analyzes the position of af−firmative action in the relevant internationaldocuments, and deals with the legal and prac−tical aspects of affirmative action in Slo−vakia.

Key words: affirmative action, positive dis−crimination, reverse discrimination, prohibi−tion of discrimination, equal treatment, inter−national law, domestic legislation, decentrali−zation, EU Race and Employment Direc−tives.

INTRODUCTION

Within society, many minorities feel that theyare not heard in the public domain, that theyhave no access to services or education, thatbasically they have no chances or opportu−nities. Discrimination against neglectedgroups and their members occurs on threelevels: personal, institutional, and societal.Personal attitudes and beliefs make individu−als fear, dislike, and avoid groups of peoplebecause of vague differences between them,and encourage stereotypes about what thesepeople are like. Affirmative action, alsoknown as equal opportunity programs, is the

BALÁZS JARÁBIK

PERSPECTIVES OFAFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN SLOVAKIA

latest international trend in fighting discrimi−nation. However, affirmative action pro−grams are hindered by several factors: differ−ences between methods and concepts, differ−ences in the definitions of such programs,and above all varying degrees of politicaldetermination to put them into practice.Moreover, affirmative action is a conceptwithout a generally accepted legal definition.The UN Progress Report offers the follow−ing provisional definition: “Affirmative ac−tion is a coherent package of temporarymeasures aimed specifically at correcting theposition of members of a target group in oneor more aspects of social life, in order toachieve effective equality.” (Bossuyt, 1998,p. 3)

TERMINOLOGY

There are many definitions of affirmativeaction, and the difference between terms likeaffirmative action and positive discrimina−tion is not clear.

Affirmative action and other race−relatedremedies were created to erase differences inrights and opportunities influenced by skincolor (Curry, p. 1). Affirmative action isbased on the concept of socio−economicequality, which was popularized during the1960s in the United States. Access to “thebasics of life” (e.g. education, medical care)was at that time presented as the right ofevery American. One definition of the term

170 B a l á z s J a r á b i k

“affirmative action” is given by Rosenfeld,quoting Kent Greenawalt: “Affirmative ac−tion is a notion that refers to attempts to bringmembers of underrepresented groups, usu−ally groups that had to suffer discrimination,into a higher degree of participation in somebeneficial programs. Some affirmative actionefforts include preferential treatment; othersdo not.” (Rosenfeld, 1991, p. 42)

Reverse discrimination is an extreme formof affirmative action, one which runs coun−ter to the concepts of equal protection, dueprocess, and fundamental rights (see Peters,1999, p. 2). Reverse discrimination occurswhen a discriminatory structure that advan−tages some individuals/groups and disad−vantages others is merely “reversed,” so thatthe formerly disadvantaged individuals/groups enjoy privileges that are no longergranted to the formerly advantaged individu−als/groups.

As envisaged by the European Union,positive discrimination broadly encom−passes “all measures which aim to counterthe effects of past discrimination, to elimi−nate existing discrimination, and promoteequality of opportunities between womenand men, particularly in relation to typesor levels of jobs where members of one sexare significantly under−represented” (DeFeis,1999, p. 17).

Equal chances, or equal opportunities, arethe newest terms in use. In 1996, the Euro−pean Union adopted “gender mainstream−ing” as a strategy to ensure equal opportu−nity between men and women (Ryan, 1998,p. 1). This concept appeared in the debatesof the UN Third World Conference onWomen (1985), and was specifically en−dorsed as a strategy at the UN Fourth WorldConference on Women (Beijing, 1995) andincluded in the Platform for Action that wasadopted.

CONCEPT OFAFFIRMATIVE ACTION

In general there are three limits set by inter−national law with respect to affirmative ac−tion:• The foundation of affirmative action is the

prohibition of discrimination on anygrounds;

• Affirmative action may not lead to dis−crimination;

• Affirmative action has to be of limitedduration.

The passage of laws designed to create so−cial equality is inherently tied to whether thepublic accepts or rejects programs that pur−port to create equality. If the public rebelsagainst the laws, some equality may still beachieved, but a great deal of public resent−ment may arise, as was the case in the US.Therefore, popular arguments are the finalcrucial ingredient in the success or failure ofthese policies. Here are the most popular ar−guments against using affirmative actionpolicies, which are interesting when exam−ined in the Slovak context:• Stigma – If minorities are given preferen−

tial treatment in order to create greaterequality, they will be stigmatized; theirpeers will believe that the minority work−ers or students have achieved their posi−tions due to favoritism rather than merit(see Lax, 1996). One counter−argumentholds that stigma already exists in the per−petuation of segregated schools and caste−like work conditions, and that it is betterto move towards equality and risk somepeer stigma than retain structural stigma(Lax, 1996, p. 5).

• Innocent perpetrators – The currentmembers of “majority” groups who holdpower in society (i.e. white people, men)are not responsible for the historicalwrongs done to minority groups, andshould not be made to suffer from reverse

171P e r s p e c t i v e s o f A f f i r m a t i v e A c t i o n i n S l o v a k i a

discrimination. On this point Spannwrites: “Many members of the whitemajority concede that transgressions oc−curred in the past, but warn of the need forfairness in remedying these wrongs, as−serting that members of the present ma−jority rarely commit acts of overt dis−crimination, and that members of thepresent minority are rarely among the ac−tual victims of past discrimination.”(Spann, 2000, p. 1)

• Constitutionality – Some positive dis−crimination or affirmative action bills havefailed due to the fear that they will notstand up in court. Spann cites the exampleof a quite progressive Scottish bill thatfailed due to the fear that it was not “ECJ−proof” (Spann, 2000).

• Inherent subjectivity – Compensatoryjustice (remedies to make up for pastwrongs), may seek either to restore a pre−vious state of equality before some wrongwas done, or to create an entirely new situ−ation where each person is equal. How−ever, in the former instance, picking a ref−erence point from which to re−create aformer situation is a rather subjective mat−ter, while trying to bring everyone to thesame level is almost impossible, since thepositions of the advantaged classes inher−ently depend on their superiority to thelower classes. A new state of equality canonly be accomplished if the advantagedclasses give up some of their power or al−low their positions to be changed – and thatprobably poses the greatest challenge ofall. Social positions are intricately con−nected to our mindsets, our realities – howcan we expect to change that?

• Equality as individuality – Racial equal−ity requires that people be treated as equals,rather than as members of racial groups(Spann, 2000, p. 8 – 9). Opponents of af−firmative action often use the argumentthat approaches to social justice should becolor−blind.

INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION –PROHIBITION OFDISCRIMINATION ININTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

SLOVAK LEGISLATION ANDINTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

Various international conventions form animportant bulwark against discrimination.Slovakia is a member of several internationalorganizations whose goals include humanrights protection, and has signed and ratifiedseveral international conventions that setduties and obligations for their signatories inthis area.

The Slovak Constitution does not preciselydefine the status of international treaties bind−ing on Slovakia with regard to the rest of Slovaklaw. It merely assigns a privileged status to in−ternational treaties dealing with fundamentalhuman rights and freedoms.1 The amendmentto the Constitution that was approved in 20012

provides that all international human rightsand freedoms agreements that guarantee agreater scope of rights and freedoms than do−mestic law, and that have been ratified andpromulgated in the manner ordained by Slo−vak law, shall have priority status.

The legal acts of the European Union aregenerally not binding on Slovakia, as thecountry is not a member of the EU. But basedon the Europe (Association) Agreement, Slo−vak laws have steadily been brought intoharmony with EU laws.

PROTOCOL NO. 12 TOTHE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTSAND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMSCONVENTION

An important new document adopted withinthe framework of the Council of Europe is


the Supplementary Protocol No. 12 to theEuropean Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms Convention. Its most importantprovisions are worded as follows:“Article 1 – General Ban on Discrimination.1. The exercise of all rights stipulated by

law is safeguarded without discrimina−tion on any grounds whatsoever, includ−ing sex, race, skin color, language, reli−gion, political or other conviction, nationalor social origin, belonging to a nationalminority, property, gender, family or otherstatus.

2. No one may be discriminated against byany public authority on any of the groundsstated in paragraph 1.”

The Supplementary Protocol expands therange of rights whose exercise is protected,from the rights acknowledged by the Euro−pean Convention to “all rights stipulated bylaw”. Rights stipulated by domestic law arecovered by this formulation, as well as otherrights such as the right to equal treatmentfrom state administration offices in the exer−cise of their decision−making powers. Asarticle 1 of the Supplementary Protocol isclosely related to article 14 of the Conven−tion, the definition of discrimination is alsoidentical in both cases. According to an of−ficial commentary on the SupplementaryProtocol, there are not expected to be anybroad obligations for member states to pre−vent discrimination among private individu−als, except in relations between private indi−viduals in the public sphere where the statehas a certain responsibility, such as the ac−cessibility of jobs or services.

RECOMMENDATIONS OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONAGAINST RACISM

The Council of Europe’s European Commis−sion Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)

made two relevant recommendations regard−ing affirmative action:• To promote the active participation of

Roma/Gypsy communities in decision−making processes through national, re−gional, and local consultative mechanisms,on the basis of equal partnership;

• To encourage the training of Roma/Gyp−sies, to ensure full knowledge and imple−mentation of their rights, and the properfunctioning of the legal system.

Since the ECRI’s recommendations are non−binding, the member states of the Council ofEurope are not obliged to obey them.

DOMESTIC LEGISLATION

SLOVAK CONSTITUTION

In general, the Slovak Constitution is used tobuttress arguments against affirmative actionin Slovakia. Some politicians say that positivediscrimination contradicts article 12 section 2of the Constitution, which states: “Fundamen−tal rights shall be guaranteed in Slovakia toevery person regardless of sex, race, color, lan−guage, faith, religion, political affiliation orconviction, national or social origin, nation−ality or ethnic origin, property, birth or anyother status, and no person shall be deniedtheir legal rights, discriminated against orfavored on any of these grounds.” Similarly,article 34 section 3 of the Constitution states:“The exercise of the rights of citizens belong−ing to national minorities and ethnic groups (...)must not result (...) in discrimination againstother inhabitants.” Moreover, internationaldocuments that enable positive discriminationhave priority only over regular laws, not overthe Constitution itself (article 154c and article7 section 5 of the Constitution).

On the other hand, many articles of the Con−stitution seem to contradict these prohibi−


tions – for example, article 38 guaranteesspecial work conditions for women, disabledpeople, and young people. On the basis ofthese derogations, several “lower” legal stat−utes in Slovakia now entitle specific groupsto special treatment (the Labor Code, theEmployment Law, etc.). The use of positivediscrimination thus depends on one’s read−ing and interpretation of the constitutionalprinciple of non−discrimination. A more for−mal reading of the Constitution suggests aprohibition of positive discrimination (ex−cept for the instances cited in article 38).However, a more sympathetic view of thenon−discrimination principle would seem toallow positive discrimination in all areasunder certain circumstances.

As Corba, Jarabik and King pointed out intheir working paper, the Slovak Constitu−tional Court has given only one interpretationof the relationship between the general (for−mal) non−discrimination principle and theConstitution’s “positive discrimination” pro−visions. Although in past years various at−tempts have been made to introduce ethnicand nepotistic positive discrimination inhigher education, and ethnic and gender−based3 positive discrimination in elections,only one relevant case has reached the Con−stitutional Court in the last decade (Corba,Jarabik and King, 2002, p. 41). The case dealtwith ethnic quotas in municipal elections;under the 1996 Municipal Elections Law, acertain ratio of seats on local councils werereserved for ethnic Slovak representatives invoting districts where Slovaks were in theminority. The Court in 1998 abolished thisrule, referring to the general principle of non−discrimination, and reasoned that: “No mat−ter what legal force a law has, neither the lawnor its application by public administrationbodies may advantage or disadvantage cer−tain groups of citizens over other groups intheir access to elected and other public of−fices (...)”.4

PREPARATION OFNON−DISCRIMINATIONLEGISLATION IN SLOVAKIA

Various Slovak laws contain non−discrimina−tion provisions, but fundamental non−dis−crimination legislation and accessible proce−dures for filing discrimination claims arelacking. Also, discrimination in the sphere ofprivate law, where such practices are morecommon, is not covered (Hrubala, 2001, p.5 – 6). Nor has the EU Race Equality Direc−tive (2000/43/EC) been incorporated intodomestic legislation. In addition to the mostimportant documents on racial and ethnicdiscrimination that have been signed andratified, Slovakia recently signed the Addi−tional Protocol No. 12 to the European Con−vention on Human Rights (October 2001);however, this had not yet been ratified at thetime this chapter was written.5 Protectionagainst discrimination was also strengthenedby a June 2001 amendment to the LaborCode6, which incorporated definitions of di−rect and indirect discrimination.

A “non−discrimination legislation” proposalwas prepared under the auspices of the officeof the Deputy Prime Minister for HumanRights, Minorities and Regional Develop−ment in cooperation with the Center for Le−gal Analyses – Kalligram Foundation be−tween November 2000 and April 2002. Theconcept of special non−discrimination legis−lation was not an easy one to put through inthe Slovak context. The draft legislation in−corporated definitions of all forms of dis−crimination based on an open list of groundsinspired by the following international docu−ments: 2000/43/EC (EU Race Directive),2000/78/EC (EU Employment Directive) andthe Additional Protocol No. 12 to the Euro−pean Convention on Human Rights. Thesedocuments represent the most importantstage in the development of international(supranational) law in the field of combating


discrimination. They are of profound impor−tance to Slovakia, a member state of theCouncil of Europe and a country that expectsto join the EU in May 2004.

The proposed non−discrimination legisla−tion concept in Slovakia embraces two stat−utes: an Equal Treatment Law (a substantivelaw) and a Law Establishing the Center forEqual Treatment (a procedural law). TheEqual Treatment Law contains definitionsof discriminatory conduct (direct and indi−rect discrimination, harassment, and stalk−ing), based on the EU’s Race and Employ−ment Directives, which will apply to the en−tire legal system (public and private spheres).In order to provide victims of discriminationwith an adequate and effective remedy, itguarantees them access to the courts to suefor satisfaction and damages. The statuteneither rules out nor imposes positive dis−crimination. The procedural statute estab−lishes the Center for Equal Treatment, de−fines its organs and their powers, and regu−lates their functions.

However, non−discrimination legislation is tobe only part of a broader framework to com−bat discrimination in Slovakia. In the field oflegislation, the Equal Treatment Law willinclude binding definitions of discrimination,and will provide a much−needed bridge be−tween the constitutional non−discriminationprovision, which is very basic and limited tothe rights granted by the Constitution, andspecific laws that regulate certain narrowareas and lack proper definitions of discrimi−nation. On the institutional level, the estab−lishment of the office of the Ombudsman, asprovided for in the 2001 amendment of theConstitution, alters the current system ofprotection for human rights. Elected in 2002,the Ombudsman handles discrimination inpublic administration, while the Center forEqual Treatment covers discrimination in theprivate sector. These new institutions could

give new impetus to the fight against dis−crimination, and will cooperate with existingstructures, such as the courts, prosecutors andother state bodies, in helping to enforce thelaw more vigorously.

Although the Slovak government approvedthe draft Equal Treatment Law in May 2002,the Slovak parliament the following monthrejected the bill from its program of delibera−tions, thus dropping it without debate.

LEGAL ASPECTS OF AFFIRMATIVEACTION IN SLOVAKIA

Although the previous Slovak government’sRoma strategy (Strategy of the Slovak Gov−ernment to Solve the Problems of the Romaand the Set of Implementation Measures – 1st

Stage, 1999; and The Detailed Strategy of theSlovak Government to Solve the Problems ofthe Roma and a Set of Concrete Measures for2000 – 2nd Stage, 2000) contained the possi−bility of positive action, in general it is diffi−cult to advocate positive discrimination inSlovakia. Neither the Slovak political elitenor the general public tends to support legalsteps to solve the “Roma issue”.

Opinions differ on positive discrimination inSlovakia, but many experts doubt whetherany discrimination measures should betaken. Moreover, no body of legal theoryconcerning affirmative action exists, and le−gal debate on the issue is also lacking (Hru−bala, 2001, p.20).

According to a Foreign Ministry question−naire (Questionnaire on Affirmative Action inthe Slovak Republic), positive discriminationcan also be identified in paragraph 2/f of the1996 Law on Employment, which givesgreater access to jobs to disadvantagedgroups in Slovakia (Memorandum…, 2002,p. 3).


POSSIBLE FORMS OFAFFIRMATIVE ACTION INSLOVAKIA

The idea of affirmative action, as much as itmay be needed in Slovak society, has onlyincreased tensions between groups becauseit is perceived as producing unfavorable con−ditions for the majority population. For Slo−vaks who do not believe that discriminationexists in their country (see a survey by theMarkant agency for the People Against Rac−ism NGO, January 2001), affirmative actionseems unfair.

A kind of positive discrimination (affirmativeaction) was practiced under the communistregime in the form of quotas for minorities,starting in the 1950s. This practice, for ex−ample, helped to strengthen the Hungarianminority’s political position in communistCzechoslovakia. It also helped bring a hand−ful of Roma political leaders to the forefront.Many citizens, however, saw this practice aspolitically unfair (Vašečka, 2001, p. 227).

The Strategy of the Slovak Government toSolve the Problems of the Roma (1999; here−after referred to as “the Strategy”) empha−sized the need for positive stimulation of theRoma, insofar as the system allows for af−firmative action. The measures proposed inThe Detailed Strategy of the Slovak Govern−ment to Solve the Problems of the Roma anda Set of Concrete Measures for 2000 (2000;hereafter referred to as “the Detailed Strat−egy”) were drawn up in order of importance,so that the problems viewed as the most criti−cal by the authors of the Detailed Strategycome first. However experts stress that noaffirmative action has been taken in Slovakiarecently, nor has any case law on the issuebeen created (Hrubala, 2001, p. 20).

To understand the negative view of positivediscrimination in Slovakia, one needs to un−

derstand the irony of positive discriminationin the history of communist Czechoslovakia.This may also help one understand the recentneeds of disadvantaged groups in Slovakia.The perceived abuse of the concept of equal−ity by the communist political elite createda strong antipathy in society towards suchpractices. This perception, and the fact thatthe post−communist period provided no ef−fective control of or answers to the new eth−nic problems created, have fuelled misunder−standings toward minorities.

Positive discrimination also has negativeconnotations for those generations that grewup watching the communists give advantagesto “their” people. Slovak society needs to beshown that modern equal opportunity poli−cies have nothing in common with the posi−tive discrimination policies of communism.The Roma minority, which in principle hasan equal position in society, needs equal op−portunities in practice as well. The state musttherefore initiate policies in accordance withthe new European model, and learn its les−son from the practices of the communist re−gime. The aim must be to give equal oppor−tunities and access to employment, servicesand education to disadvantaged groups inpractice as well as theory.

Below are some examples of programs help−ing to empower the Roma minority, meas−ures which I believe could be a foundationfor future affirmative action policies.

SLOVAK GOVERNMENTPILOT PROGRAM OFSOCIAL FIELD WORKERS

The government’s new pilot program,known as The Social Field Workers Pro−gram, aims (1) to increase the number offield workers active in Roma settlementsaddressing the social needs of the Roma, and


(2) to increase the quality of the services theyoffer (Progam…, 2002, p. 13). The programwas devised to address the fact that Romaliving in settlements have almost no contactwith the majority population. The social fieldworkers are to advise on a whole range ofissues, including health and employment.They will be selected in cooperation with theRoma Culture Department at the Universityof Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra, andin connection with the Sándor Márai Founda−tion’s training program for Roma assistants.

The explanation for the program notes that,until recently, social field workers sharedfunctions with the social departments of re−gional state offices, meaning they were bur−dened with administrative duties connectedwith welfare benefits in regions with highunemployment (in such regions, each socialworker had to deal with anywhere from 400to 6,000 files). In line with the Detailed Strat−egy, the job descriptions of social field work−ers in regions inhabited by the Roma werechanged to allow them to focus on field workrather than office work, and to focus morespecifically on the Roma rather than on all“citizens requiring special assistance” (Stra−tégia…, 2000, p. 3). At the end of 2000, thesechanges were published in the journal of thegovernment in all regional state offices.

ROMA ADVISORS

There are no data on the number of Romaworking as public employees, as it is notpermitted to collect data based on ethnicity,but the Roma are clearly severely under−rep−resented in all areas. Indeed, the access of theRoma to employment is one of the mostimportant and sensitive issues in Slovakia.Roma leaders have been very critical of thestate regarding the lack of Roma working atministries, regional state administration bod−ies dealing with the Roma minority, and even

the Office of the Government Representativefor Roma Communities. No concrete stepshave been taken to increase the number ofRoma employed by the state, as state policyis based on the civic principle. Representativesof the NGO People Against Racism, however,questioned whether the police are seriousabout recruiting Roma, following a meetingwith Interior Minister Ivan Simko in 2002.7

The Strategy created the post of Advisor tothe heads of regional and district state admin−istration offices with responsibility for theproblems of the Roma minority (Stratégia…,1999, p. 35). Advisory Committees were alsoestablished to advise the heads of municipalcouncils on how to deal with the problemsof the Roma minority. However, few Advi−sor positions have been filled – there are onlythree Advisors at the district level (SpišskáNová Ves, Bratislava and Banská Bystrica)and three at the regional level (Prešov, Ban−ská Bystrica and Košice). While the Strategydoes not explicitly say that Roma should behired as Advisors, Roma actually occupy allthe positions. The post of Roma Advisor inSpišská Nová Ves was created as the resultof lobbying of the district state administra−tion by several Roma NGOs. As the OpenSociety Institute’s Minority Report 2001stated, some Roma experts maintain that theStrategy was drawn up without the partici−pation of the Roma community, and that it isexclusively the result of the work of the stateadministration (Zoon, 2001, p. 55).

NGO PROGRAM: ROMA ASSISTANTS

According to NGOs, ways to raise Romaparticipation can be found at the local level.Several programs exist to increase thenumber of Roma active at the local/regionallevel. The program of the Wide Open SchoolFoundation, called Roma Minority Educa−tion Programs, aims to create “effective


schools” and other institutions to prepareRoma students to participate in building ademocratic society. The program addressesthe educational needs of the Roma by push−ing for institutional change to eliminate insti−tutional oppression, and by building the capa−bility of the Roma to participate in education.The foundation developed an innovationcalled Roma Minority Education to trainRoma as assistant teachers. There are now 20Roma assistant teachers working in this area.8

Another program in this area was developedby the Sándor Márai Foundation, and is nowbeing put into practice. The program pre−pares “Roma assistants” to do various kindsof fieldwork in Roma settlements. Thecourse involves 300 hours of intense train−ing to allow Roma specialists to work as as−sistants in different fields. The programawards a diploma on the basis of whichRoma assistants may perform (state−funded)jobs in Roma communities. However, Romaassistants with a diploma are eligible forstate−funded positions only if they plan towork in their own communities, thus repre−senting a special and limited form of affirma−tive action. Despite the absence of a long−term legal status for the diplomas, the foun−dation has trained 46 assistants as part of apilot project, and the National Labor Bureauhas offered temporary positions to all gradu−ates (see Sedemmesačný tréning..., 2002).

The National Labor Bureau has created aNational Action Plan of Employment.9 Al−though it did not develop special programsfor the Roma until recently, this has becomean important part of the agenda and a sub−stantial source of funding. The Bureau hasstarted to implement comprehensive pro−grams (including training, micro−credit pro−grams, and job searches for participants intraining programs) for a small number ofRoma. The Bureau is running three types ofprograms for the Roma, including training

Roma assistants. The Bureau in 2001 assistedwith the employment of 116 people with to−tal budget of 24 million Sk ($600,000).

ACCESS TO EDUCATION –COMENIUS UNIVERSITYMEDICAL SCHOOL

In May 2002 the Academic Senate of theMedical School of Comenius University inBratislava approved a plan relaxing entranceexam conditions for Roma applicants to givethem easier access to the school. The publicreaction to this move provided an interestingwindow on the different understandings ofaffirmative action (in this case positive dis−crimination) among various interest groupsin Slovakia. According to the MedicalSchool plan, Roma applicants with testscores over 50% would be put into a specialgroup, with the top three in the group beingallowed to commence studies at the MedicalSchool. The rule was not to apply to thoseRoma applicants who gained a place at theschool under standard entrance exam criteria.

While Klára Orgovánova, the GovernmentRepresentative for Roma Communities, wel−comed the initiative, Roma political leaderAlexander Patkoló attacked it. After a furi−ous debate in the press, the Medical Schoolrescinded its decision. A student of Romaorigin filed a complaint with the Constitu−tional Court, alleging that his constitutionalrights had been violated (the Court has notyet decided the case). The debate showed thedepth of misunderstanding and the poor le−gal and functional awareness of affirmativeaction policies in Slovakia.

DECENTRALIZATION

Despite the strong (mainly financial) influ−ence of the central state on local and regional


governments, the reform and decentraliza−tion of public administration, launched in2001, opened the door to policy formulationat the local and regional levels. Since themedia and international institutions tend tofocus on regional administration, there is achance that new policies toward minoritiesmay be introduced at this level. The prob−lems that exist must be reformulated to facili−tate a better understanding of the steps thatmust be taken to aid such groups. The mem−bers of minority groups, whether they areRoma or handicapped people, for various rea−sons do not have equal access to education orjobs. Their lives are often more difficult be−cause of this lack of access; attempts to erasedifferences between levels of access is thelatest trend in Europe. In the EU, positiveaction/discrimination policies are based onoffers of education to disadvantaged groupsto reduce differences in access. The result isdebate over equal access and the building ofequal opportunity policies at the local level.The bottom−up approach can be a positiveexample for the state administration as well.

One of the best examples of equal opportunitypolicy at the local level is Great Britain. There,the first steps were taken in the late 1970s(Equality Opportunities Policy 1979 – 80),including legislative changes (Race and SexRelations Act, 1976), the implementation ofequality policy, the creation of communityconsultative committees, and the establish−ment of special equality units and specialequality officers in the mid−1980s. Due to theactive work of NGOs with the public, racerelations became a top political priority, withthe focus on employment and service deliv−ery. In the early 1990s, a new “mainstreamingequal opportunities” policy focused on train−ing programs for managers, while a main−streaming manual for business was written.

The second concept is “ethnic bias”, whichrefers to gaps in the political process that

result in a lack of government or public in−stitutions providing equal access to powerand public resources to various ethnic andnational groups in society.10 According toPetra Kovács, a policy is ethnically biased if:• One ethnic group has disproportionate (or

exclusive) power over defining politicalgoals and priorities;

• Structural arrangements favor the interestof one or another ethnic group in the courseof policy formulation; and

• Rules for the distribution of public re−sources are not neutral in their effects (Ko−vacs, 2001, p. 6).

Ethnic bias can be detected by the presence ofvarious forms of inequality between ethnicgroups (symptoms of ethnic bias). Kovácssuggests that ethnic bias can be identified invarious stages of the political cycle. Depend−ing on the stage of the political cycle in whichethnic bias occurs, different forms of ethnicbias can be identified. The identification ofvarious types of ethnic bias can be used to de−velop policy implications (Kovács, 2001, p. 9).

Ethnic bias, as Kovács labels it, has threemain components:• Decentralization and public participation;• Representation of diversity; and• New politics of welfare; borders of the

community (Kovács, 2001, p. 12 – 21).

The concept of ethnic bias is close to the con−cept of mainstreaming; however, it has beenadapted specifically to the conditions of Cen−tral and Eastern Europe. According to Kovacs,the concept proposes a neutral, de−politicizedapproach to highly sensitive issues. The ca−pacity of local governments to accommodateethnic diversity is key to gaining cooperationfrom any public bodies. Approaches that of−fer governments the opportunity to take anactive role in preventing discrimination aremore efficient than the introduction of newstandards (Kovács, 2001, p. 27).


CONCLUSION

Affirmative action may have to be introducedto address the lack of social cohesion of dif−ferent disadvantaged groups in Slovakia.Both US and more recent European experi−ences show that affirmative action is a pos−sible but limited answer to the problems theRoma minority faces in Central and EasternEurope. Since there exists no binding inter−national document or treaty on affirmativeaction, recommendations on various levelsshould be made to the Slovak administrationby its European counterparts.

However, due to bad experience with suchpolicies in the past, the attitude of both deci−sion makers and the public to the introduc−tion of such policies is either neutral or nega−tive. It will thus be important to show somepositive aspects of these policies, as well asto emphasize the main precondition for af−firmative action: the political courage to putit into action.

The Roma issue has became a priority forSlovak administrations since the election ofthe first Mikuláš Dzurinda government in1998. There have also been many efforts bythe government and NGOs to raise aware−ness and increase know−how on affirmativeaction and equal opportunity policies. De−spite the efforts of the state administration,however, attitudes toward minorities haveshifted little. It is thus vital that good policyformulation and implementation be strength−ened on the local level. The recent reform ofpublic administration, the growing powers oflocal governments and the creation of eightself−governing regions in Slovakia offer newsoil for the creation of good policy at thelocal and regional levels, and for better im−plementation of these policies in those areas.

Discrimination can be prevented and affirma−tive action policies built only if there is signifi−

cant public awareness within society. The taskis therefore to convince society that ethnic di−versity can benefit all members of society.

ENDNOTES

1. The corresponding provision of the Constitu−tion, Article 11, is worded as follows: „Inter−national treaties on human rights and funda−mental freedoms that have been ratified by theSlovak Republic and that have been promul−gated in the manner which is enacted by law,have priority to its (internal) legal acts, in casethey safeguard a greater extent of fundamen−tal rights and freedoms.”

2. More about the amendments of the SlovakConstitution see www.cla.sk

3. In 2002 the Interior Minister announced thatthe Ministry was preparing a statute that wouldguarantee a certain percentage of nominationson party candidate lists for women. This act inthe end was not submitted to parliament.

4. See decision No. PL.ÚS 19/985. The Additional Protocol No. 12 to the Euro−

pean Convention on Human Rights wasadopted on June 26, 2000 by the Committeeof Ministers of the Council of Europe. Itbroadens the scope of article 14 of the ECHRon non−discrimination.

6. The Labor Code was amended in June 2001(it took effect on April 1, 2002).

7. Press release, People Against Racism, May29, 2002.

8. For more information see www.skoladokoran.sk9. Approved by the government in 1999 for a

period of three years and updated annually.10. This concept was elaborated by Petra Kovács,

OSI−LGI, Budapest, Hungary.

REFERENCES

1. Amos, Merris: “Something Positive on Posi−tive Discrimination?” New Law Journal, No.6887, 1999, p. 688.

2. Bahl, Kamlesh: “Pride But Still Prejudice:The Government Must Make a Priority ofGender Equality by Bringing Forward FreshLegislation” Law Society’s Guardian Gazette,No. 32, 1998, p. 14.


3. Bossuyt, Marc: The Prevention of Discrimi−nation and Protection of Indigenous Peoplesand Minorities: The Concept and Practice ofAffirmative Action, (Progress report submit−ted by Marc Bossuyt, Special Rapporteur, inaccordance with Sub−Commission Resolution1998/5, 1998).

4. Čorba, Juraj, Jarábik, Balázs and King, TanyaM.: The History and Future of Positive Dis−crimination in Slovakia, (Bratislava: Centrumpre právnu analýzu – Nadácia Kalligram, 2002).

5. Curry, George E. (ed.): The Affirmative ActionDebate, (Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1996).

6. Defeis, Elizabeth: “The Treaty of Amsterdam:The Next Step Towards Gender Equality?”Boston College Journal of International Law,No. 1, 1999. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/23_1/01_TXT.htm

7. Exclusion, Equality Before the Law, and Non−Discrimination. Proceedings at a seminar organ−ized by the Secretariat General of the Councilof Europe, September 29 to October 1, 1994.

8. Hrubala, Ján.: Slovensko – Porovnanie Smer−nice EU o rasovej rovnosti & Protokolu 12 snárodnou antidiskriminačnou legislatívou[Slovakia: A Comparison of the EU RaceDirective and Protocol No. 12 with NationalNon−discrimination Legislation], (Brussels:European Roma Rights Centre, Interights,Spoločnosť Maxa Plancka, 2000).

9. Hrubala, Ján: Legal Analyses of National andEuropean Non−discrimination Legislation,Brussels: Spoločnosť Maxa Plancka, Inter−rights, European Roma Rights Centre, 2001).

10. Jarábik, Balázs: Equal Opportunities Policiesand Decentralization in Slovakia, (NISPAAConference Paper, Krakow, April 2002).

11. Kovács, Petra: Who Benefits? Ethnic Bias andEquity in the Access of Ethnic Minorities toLocally Provided Public Services in CentralEurope, (Paper Prepared for the 10th NISPAcee Annual Conference: Delivering PublicServices in Central and Eastern Europe:Trends and Developments, 2001).

12. Lax, Jeffrey: Equal Protection: Benign Dis−crimination, (Yale University Senior Essay1996, Manuscript).

13. McCrudden, Christopher: MainstreamingEquality in the Governance of Northern Ire−land, (22 Fordham Int’l L. J. 1696 1999).

14. Memorandum on Affirmative Action Poli−cies, (Bratislava: Centrum pre právnu ana−

lýzu – Nadácia Kalligram, 2002, www.cla.sk).

15. Národný akčný plán zamestnanosti [The Na−tional Action Plan of Employment], (Bratisla−va: Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a ro−diny, 2002).

16. Program sociálnych terénnych pracovníkov[The Program of Social Field Workers], (Bra−tislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2002).

17. Rozpracovaná stratégia vlády SR na riešenieproblémov rómskej národnostnej menšiny dosúboru konkrétnych opatrení na rok 2000. II.etapa. [The Detailed Strategy of the SlovakGovernment to Solve the Problems of theRoma and a Set of Concrete Measures for 2000– 2nd Stage], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2000).

18. Sedemmesačný tréning – vyhodnotenie [SevenMonths’ Training: Evaluation], (DunajskáStreda: Sándor Márai Foundation, 2002, http://www.marai.sk/sk/romsky_asistent.htm).

19. Spann, Girardeau: The Law of AffirmativeAction: Twenty−Five Years of Supreme CourtDecisions on Race and Remedies. (New York:New York University Press, 2000).


21. Szente, Veronika Leila: The Principal Ele−ments of the European Union Race EqualityDirective, (Presentation at the Recent Mecha−nisms & Principles for Protection AgainstDiscrimination on an Ethnic Basis and theBulgarian Legislation Seminar, Sofia, Bul−garia, February 22 – 23, 2001).

22. Ústavný zákon č. 460/1992 Zb [ConstitutionalLaw No. 460/1992 Coll.] Ústava Slovenskejrepubliky v znení neskorších predpisov [Con−stitution of the Slovak Republic, as amended].

23. Vašečka, Michal: “Vzťah majoritnej populáciek Rómom” [‘Relationship of the MajorityPopulation to the Roma’] in Gyárfášová, Oľ−ga, Krivý, Vladimír and Velšic, Marián (eds.):Krajina v pohybe [Country on the Move].Bratislava, Institute for Public Affairs, 2001.

24. Zákon č. 233/1996 Zb. o voľbách do miestnejsamosprávy [Law on Municipal Elections].

25. Zoon, Ina: Minority Report 2001, (Budapest:EUMAP Open Society Institute, 2001).

181

Summary: This chapter deals with currentRoma issues in Slovakia and with the differ−ent approaches to solving them that can befound in local communities. It examines thevague and fickle term “Roma”, and thendescribes what is understood by the term “theRoma issue”. The chapter examines the ex−clusion and segregation of the Roma. Theresult of this process since 1989 has been thelong−term mass unemployment of Romapeople, and the social decline of those whobefore 1989 were integrated into majoritysociety. Local governments are rated hereaccording to the degree and type of help theyprovide to the economically dependent andsegregated Roma.

Key words: social exclusion, Roma urbanenclaves, Roma settlements, Roma issue,local governments, strategies, public admin−istration, external and internal economichelp.

THE ROMA ISSUE AS A COMPLEX,LONG−TERM SOCIAL ISSUE

When speaking of the Roma issue,1 we can−not help noticing that it includes all of thecurrent serious problems of this minorityand of the country they live in. It is an is−sue combining many problems, such as highlong term unemployment, a high ratio ofillegal employment, low education andqualifications, inadequate housing, poorhygiene and health, lower life expectancy,

IMRICH VAŠEČKA

THE ROMA ISSUE INLOCAL SOCIAL POLICY

a lower standard of living, the failure ofchildren to attend school, extensive drugaddiction among young Roma, gambling,dependence on welfare benefits, usury, andthe scarcity of contacts with the majoritypopulation. The range of problems is sowide and their interconnection so strongthat it is not possible to isolate the mostserious challenge. If we want to tackle theRoma issue, we can start basically any−where. At the same time, it is largely a so−cial issue, because many members of boththe majority and minority populations per−ceive it as worrying.

The issue is a long−term one because solvingit will require a deep intergenerationalchange in both the majority and the minor−ity. As the issue is very complex and has asocial character, it must be tackled as awhole, and the public must be involved.Given the social exclusion of the Roma, thedegree of poverty in the Roma population,and the minimum time required to achievecultural and civilization change, solving theRoma issue will require an integrated ap−proach, social agreement, and a plan thatexceeds the four year election period.

WHOM DOES THE ROMA ISSUECONCERN?

The answer to this question appears simple– the Roma issue pertains to the Roma andthe majority population, although its form at

182 I m r i c h Va š e č k a

present is influenced by the majority. Butwhere is the line that divides the Roma fromthe majority population? If we do not ascribeRoma identity according to anthropologicalfeatures, we have only two possibilities – toassociate Roma identity with subjectiveRoma identity, i.e. voluntarily and individu−ally declared identity, or to associate it withRoma group identity, i.e. to arbitrarily con−sider everyone who lives in a Roma commu−nity and leads a “Roma way of life” as aRoma.2

The Roma group identity is in fact formedby everyday social relationships and the ac−tivities of the members of every local Romacommunity. The members of these commu−nities are in contact on a daily basis, theyinfluence one another, communicate, createtheir own world of meanings and symbols,form the language they use to describe theworld, take part in the same rituals and cer−emonies confirming their membership inthe community, form mutual attitudes, andevaluate the world and their past in the sameway. These people derive their individualidentity from the identity of the community,while the external world defines their indi−vidual identity on the basis of their member−ship in a certain group. When we speak ofthe Roma, we speak of those Roma whoform local Roma communities, and wholive in dwellings generally considered to beRoma housing. Local Roma communitiesare socially and territorially defined, and areoften segregated and separated. The major−ity excludes them, and the communitiesexclude themselves from the majority aswell.

In this chapter, when we refer to the Roma,we mean those Roma living in communitieswhich consider themselves Roma and areconsidered Roma by their surroundings, aswell as those who publicly declare them−selves to be Roma.

THE PRESENT FORM OFTHE ROMA ISSUE

The Roma issue takes the following forms atpresent:

• Social decline of that part of the Romapopulation that before 1989 became part ofoverall Slovak society (Vašečka, 2002a, p.233 – 234). This class of people gained aposition as the lower class in terms of ma−jority society before 1989. The economicand social transformation in 1989, however,put their position at risk, because most ofthem lost their jobs. At present they dependon welfare benefits and threaten to becomelong−term welfare benefit recipients. Theproblem is that after 1989, their access toopportunities such as education, work, andhousing was restricted. The loss of jobs, so−cial position and social contacts with themajority that resulted will be difficult for theolder members of this class to recover from.Some Roma are now solving their eco−nomic problems and their feeling of insecu−rity by moving back to Roma settlements orurban ghettos. If we cannot provide devel−opment opportunities to them (or at least totheir children) and encourage their mobil−ity, the social decline of this entire groupwill be assured.

• Delayed access to modern civilization,culture and state for that part of the Romapopulation that in the 1980s and the early1990s left Roma settlements, but which fordifferent reasons failed to integrate into so−ciety. Such Roma claim to recognize thevalues and way of life of the majoritypopulation, but they struggle to put theminto practice in their everyday lives. Theyare dependent on welfare, and both thenon−Roma and the Roma elite reject themas socially inadaptable, second−class citi−zens. Their behavior often violates thenorms of the majority society, which, when

183T h e R o m a I s s u e i n L o c a l S o c i a l P o l i c y

it concerns non−payment of rent, is a rea−son to move them into community hous−ing on the outskirts of towns. However, theRoma often move to these locations bythemselves to solve their economic prob−lems and overcome their feeling of endan−germent from the majority. Islands of pov−erty and resignation are formed where thechance to continue the process of civiliza−tion, cultural and civic emancipation isvery low. However, the second aspect ofthis process is that rural settlements andurban enclaves are the way out of this dif−ficult situation. Whatever the settlement orenclave may be, for the Roma it is a guar−antee of safety and survival. For mostRoma, the world, which stigmatizes andexcludes them, represents a threat.

• Despair of Roma youth. Young andmostly unemployed Roma, unlike theirparents, have no experience with a regu−lar job, and their contacts with the major−ity are scarce and one−sided. They realizethat their chances of acquiring a job andliving a dignified life are minimal in theSlovak environment of latent discrimina−tion. Members of this group need to breakout of the vicious circle of despair. Thisrequires specialized social work and morevisible opportunities.

• Social exclusion from the local and globalcommunity of those living in separated andsegregated Romany settlements and en−claves. These people are gradually becom−ing dependent on welfare benefits. As someresearches and analyses (Analýza..., 1999)show, there is a real threat that these peoplewill become victims of usurers. Based onthe situation in some segregated Roma set−tlements (such as Rudňany, Jarovnice,Svinia, etc.), we can expect further segre−gation of the Roma from the non−Roma en−vironment on the local level. The mainproblem is that communication between the

Roma and the non−Roma is not disturbedonly on the level of direct personal contacts,but also on the level of institutions and es−tablishments, which should form the basisfor multicultural contacts and communica−tion, such as schools, churches, medical es−tablishments, restaurants, etc. (Poverty…,2002). Without massive help from the out−side, the Roma stand no chance of chang−ing their situation.

• Latent discrimination and intolerancefrom the majority. In everyday life, this af−fects especially the Roma living in sepa−rated Roma colonies and enclaves, by lim−iting their access to opportunities and ad−equate help. The situation is further com−plicated by the fact that the Roma often donot pay sufficient attention to opportuni−ties and offered help. To improve theRoma’s access to opportunities and help,it is not enough to just change the laws andadopt administrative measures. What isneeded is mutual trust and positive com−munication between the majority and theRoma. Then there is also the practicalproblem of how to provide (and accept)help, so that all human rights and princi−ples of social equity are met, and at thesame time a dignified standard of living isguaranteed to all while.

• Insufficient potential and experience ofthe Roma community, which so far hasbeen unable to prevent exclusion. TheRoma as a community do not have suffi−cient potential and experience to look fordevelopment sources, either inside theirown community or outside it. While it mayseem that this is not a problem of the Romacommunity but of the majority population,society has to mobilize itself to providemassive and long−term support for chang−ing the behavior of the Roma in order toform a community capable of cooperatingwith other communities.


APPROACH OFLOCAL GOVERNMENTS TOTHE ROMA ISSUE

The communist regime applied a policy ofcentrally supervised assimilation against theRoma. This policy had several stages. For us,three things are important:

• This policy had both positive and negativeaspects. Among the negative aspects wasthe use of force to distribute the Roma allover Czechoslovakia, the destruction ofthe organization and morals of traditionalRoma communities, and the arbitrary iden−tification of people as Roma based on an−thropological features, which then servedas the basis of manipulation, social experi−ments, and criminalization of the Roma,who at that time were referred to as “so−cially unadaptable citizens”. The positiveaspects were that the inclusion of the Romainto the structure of overall society wasmuch faster than it would otherwise havebeen using the natural process of inclusionin eastern Slovakia. The inclusion poten−tial of eastern Slovakia was, and remains,very low.

• The Roma, as the only group in commu−nist Czechoslovakia, were able to make thecommunist leaders discuss meeting theirgroup interests before 1989. This bearswitness of the high development potentialof the Roma in Slovakia.

• The reckless and fruitless social experi−ment in which the Roma played the mainpart increased aversion to the provision ofhelp to a particular social group, and to in−terventions into the “Roma issue” to imple−ment some vision or concept.

When the situation changed after 1989, thefirst to confront the Roma issue were the lo−cal governments of villages and towns. They

were simply unable to deal with the task. Onthe state level, the issue was not tackled as acomplex social problem, but rather as a setof partial tasks for individual state institu−tions. The various post−1989 governmentsadopted measures to help the Roma only af−ter a problem had already occurred. Faith inthe ability of Slovak society to deal sponta−neously with the issue proved mislaid, as didfaith in the potential of the Roma communityto ensure its own development by itself. Oneexplanation might be that this communitywas forced to embark on the journey to mo−dernity, which deprived it of its internalstrength. Nevertheless, it is clear that theRoma will require help for some time tocome. The government was forced to dealwith the issue in a more serious manner onlyafter the occurrence of neo−fascist attacks onRoma, and after many protests were lodged bythe Roma and EU countries. Central statebodies are finally beginning to appreciate therole played by local communities in solvingthe Roma issue. Research into the causes ofRoma migration to EU countries has shownthat this migration was to a certain extent alocal strategy through which some groups ofRoma reacted to the situation in which theyfound themselves after 1989 (Vašečka, 2002a,p. 232 – 233) Nevertheless, the Roma issue isnot just a local issue. The central and localgovernments have to cooperate in solving it.If we categorize the help provided by localgovernments according to type, we get fivegroups of strategies: a wall against the Roma,inactivity and non−interference, normalizationof a problematic situation, provision of exter−nal help, and provision of internal help.

THE WALL STRATEGY

This strategy is based on building frontiersand obstacles between the Roma and the nonRoma. Its different forms have only one thingin common – they avoid solving the issue,


and they only react when the problem can−not be postponed any longer. The main meth−ods used within this approach are adminis−trative measures accompanied by long termwelfare. In the better cases they just postponeintegration for when the Roma “change”,while in the worse cases they rely on disper−sal of the Roma by either removing them ornot letting them into the municipality.

This strategy takes several different forms atthe moment:

• Application of discriminatory measuresthat cannot be challenged by law. The lo−cal government tries to prevent “strangeRoma”, i.e. those who do not have perma−nent residence in the municipality, to set−tle in the municipality, usually employingmethods that are difficult to prove. In ex−treme cases they simply ban the Romafrom entering the municipality.

• Endeavor to ban the Roma from certainareas that are regarded as highly importantby the majority population. This approachtakes the following forms:– Solving the issue of Roma who do not

pay rent by moving them into commu−nity housing or by privatizing the mu−nicipal housing in which they live andpermitting their subsequent eviction.The result of this approach is historicaltown centers and other lucrative townlocations with no Roma inhabitants. Onthe other hand, one gets streets andneighborhoods inhabited mostly bypoor and unemployed Roma who suf−fer from spatial, social and aesthetic iso−lation. A typical example is the LunikIX housing estate in Košice.

– Protecting certain area from thefts anddevastation by the Roma by moving theRoma away. This is how the project ofmoving the Roma away from the Slo−venský raj nature reserve came into

being (the Roma were moved to a set−tlement in Letanovce).

– Ignoring the actions of those who try todisplace the Roma, harm them, and getrid of them. This includes attacks onRoma by skinhead groups, banning theRoma from entering restaurants, etc.Public administration bodies either donot intervene, or their interventions arevery hesitant.

STRATEGY OF INACTIVITYAGAINST PEOPLE ABUSINGTHE ROMA SITUATION

Those who abuse the Roma to enrich them−selves have no concern for improving thewelfare of the Roma; their only concern is tomake a profit. Public bodies should thus actagainst them and arrange a remedy. If thestate and local governments do not act, theyonly encourage and strengthen this behavior.

Abuse of the Roma that is not opposed by thestate administration most frequently takes thefollowing forms:

• Illegal employment of the Roma underinferior conditions.

• Usury among the Roma. The issue ofusury in local Roma communities cannotbe solved simply by saying that without aplaintiff there is no defendant; municipalleaders know full well that people are ter−rified to give evidence, just as they knowwho the usurers are, and the terrible dam−age they do.

• Application of measures whose aim is toprevent abuse of welfare benefits. In somecases the municipalities have the right toprovide welfare benefits in the form offood vouchers, or providing food to chil−dren at school, etc. Unfortunately, some


municipalities were not able to use this toolproperly, and the money wound up in theusurers’ pockets.

STRATEGY OF “NORMALIZING”PROBLEMS

The strategy of normalizing a problem3

causes that the state administration does notconsider a situation as serious as it really is,and as a result uses simple solutions andmeasures. Reasons for playing the issuedown and using provisional solutions mayvary, but what is important is the result,which is that the situation of the economi−cally dependent Roma is being addressed butnot solved. Instead of effective but demand−ing solutions, the state often resorts to pro−visional and administrative solutions, whichare justified by the law, but which do not fixthe problem.

This strategy can take different forms:

• Illegal employment of the Roma, which isbeing addressed by an inefficient system ofadministrative controls.

• In some Roma housing estates, cases ofillegal destruction of property in devas−tated “houses of horror”, which raise theentire specter of housing for economicallydependent families, are handled by admin−istrative measures only.

• All Roma who do not pay their rent aremoved from the centers of towns to theoutskirts, where ethnic ghettos are formed.The important thing for the state bodies isto stick to the law, and ensure that thiscommonly used measure cannot be con−tested from the legal viewpoint.

• Neglecting social work, which is the keyto true help, and replacing it with welfare

benefits, even though it is clear in advancethat the benefits will be misused.

The common feature in all of these strategiesis that they postpone any solution of the is−sue by taking a flawed approach. A properapproach would involve demanding solu−tions that would have to be accepted by thepublic – which is very time consuming andpolitically and professionally demanding.This may be why the public administrationis trying to find less complicated and provi−sional solutions. Moreover, society thus farhas not called for demanding solutions (andit is questionable whether society could “af−ford” them at present). Yet the Roma issueis not about to disappear, and the lame solu−tions that are applied now only increase ten−sions and the cost of a real solution in thefuture.

STRATEGY OF EXTERNAL HELP

The aim of the social measures that the com−munist regime applied to the Roma was toeradicate their poverty and backwardness.The tool that was used to accomplish this wasspecial welfare benefits and economic ad−vantages; the idea was to level the results, notachieve equality of opportunities. This exter−nal financial help limited the poverty of theRoma on the one hand, but taught them in−activity on the other. They acquired a newphilosophy, according to which the state wasobliged to look after the standard of living ofthe country’s inhabitants. This philosophycan also be found among the non−Roma, butthere is one major difference – it is sharedonly by low income, non Roma families,while among the Roma it is used by almostall families. Thanks to the traditional stigma−tization of Roma, these attitudes andbehavior patterns are then attributed to theentire Roma ethnic group. The majoritypopulation then perceives this behavior as


typical for the Roma, and not for all low in−come households dependant on welfare ben−efits regardless of ethnicity.

At present, the Roma community as a wholeis unable to escape from its unfavorable situ−ation without the help of the majority popu−lation. What they need in the first place ishelp that will allow them to recover theirsocial sovereignty. The majority is not al−ways capable of providing this kind of help,but instead tends to address minor problems,helping to alleviate the unfavorable material(shipments of clothes, etc.) and financial situ−ations (welfare benefits). This kind of helpis needed, but cannot represent the main formof aid, because it deepens the dependence ofthe Roma on material and financial help fromothers. Moreover, the provision of this typeof help is problematic, as it is perceived as asocial injustice by the majority population.This may be why in some locations it its hardto muster support for helping the Roma wholive in Roma settlements and urban Romaghettos.

STRATEGY OF INTERNAL HELP

The Roma minority at the moment depends onexternal help from the majority population.This means that the minority as a whole is notcapable of solving its own problems by itself.

The basic precondition for effective internalhelp is that the majority perceives the help asits obligation, and as the repayment of a debtit owes to the minority; the minority mustalso be able to accept the offered help with−out suspicion.

Internal help should thus focus on strength−ening the Roma community’s ability toemancipate itself. This calls for projectswhose aim is to increase the human poten−tial of individuals and the social potential of

the minority as a whole. The minority mustbe able to solve its own problems independ−ently. Under the specific conditions of indi−vidual settlements, this means increasing theability of local Roma community membersto identify and define the problems they en−counter in their communities, to find solu−tions, and create conditions (social, demo−graphic, cultural, organizational, institu−tional, informational, and economic) forputting them into practice.

Only the NGOs have been able to providethis kind of help so far. The public adminis−tration, and especially local governments,have merely played the role of supporter ofsuch activities, or in the worst case have atleast not opposed them.

The common feature of such internal ap−proaches is their scarcity, and the fact thatthey are not used by the state but by NGOsand, to some extent, local governments. Ifthey are successful, they will become a posi−tive example for others, and will corroboratethe principle that a crisis does not necessar−ily represent a threat, but on the contrary maybecome an opportunity for change.

ENDNOTES

1. The Roma issue as such does not exist. It is an“issue” only from the viewpoint of the major−ity population, and it is defined by the majori−ty’s standards and values. This “issue” verylikely takes a different form from the viewpointof the Roma. We use neither of these view−points in this chapter. Our basis is the “objec−tive” criteria derived from the characteristicsof a well−functioning multicultural society.

2. This second approach is only possible if wewant to make social policy measures more ef−fective. Using this approach, social policy (orpublic policy) often slides towards discrimina−tion and anti Roma measures.

3. The “normalization” of a difficult situation oc−curs when people see how reality differs from


what they consider normal, but they do not con−sider this deviation a problem that needs to besolved, and thus in the end consider the situa−tion “normal”. They may also refuse to see thedeviation as a serious problem, and play itdown and use provisional, simplistic and nec−essarily ineffective solutions. This often hap−pens when people are sure that nothing can bedone about the problem, or because they haveexperienced a similar situation in the past andknow that the result is not worth the effort in−vested. When an issue is solved by “normaliz−ing” it, it may even become possible to livewith a problem that was originally unaccept−able, but that due to various reasons was im−possible to solve. The process of normalizationis thus an acceptable excuse for the weaknessof people who are unable to persuade state in−stitutions to meet their obligations. It also al−lows people to conceal a lack of faith in theirown abilities.

REFERENCES

1. Analýza vzniku, aktuální situace a možností ře−šení problémů obyvatel Matiční ulice [Analy−

sis of the Formation, Current Situation, andPossible Solutions of Problems Suffered byPeople Living on Matiční Street], Final reportof a project prepared for the Dagmar and Vác−lav Havel Vision ‘97 Foundation, (Prague –Ústí nad Labem: R−Mosty, Socioklub, 1999).

2. Poverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic. (Bratislava: The World Bank, theOpen Society Institute, INEKO, SPACE Foun−dation, 2002).

3. Vašečka, Imrich: “Migrácia Rómov z ČR a SR– príčiny a potreba intervencií” [‘Migration ofthe Roma from the Czech and Slovak Repub−lics – The Causes and the Need for Interven−tion’] in Sirovátka, Tomáš, (ed.): Menšiny amigranti v České republice [Minorities andImmigrants in the Czech Republic], (Brno:Masaryk University and Georgetown Publish−ers, 2002a, p. 227 – 244).

4. Vašečka, Imrich: “Utváranie sa problémovýchrómskych zoskupení v mestách ČR” [‘Creationof Problematic Roma Groupings in Towns inthe Czech Republic’] in Sirovátka, Tomáš,(ed.): Menšiny a migranti v České republice[Minorities and Immigrants in the Czech Re−public], (Brno: Masaryk University andGeorgetown Publishers, 2002b, p. 245 – 262).

189

Summary: The author analyzes the attitudesof various political parties to the problems ofthe Roma. The chapter catalogues the reac−tions of individual politicians and politicalparties to events related to the minority, andincludes a review of how the Roma issue wastreated in the declarations and election plat−forms of political parties since 1990. It endswith a look at how major political partiesaddressed, or rather failed to address, Romavoters.

Key words: Roma, Roma minority, Romaissue, political party, politicians, programdeclarations, election platforms, elections,election campaign, Roma candidates.

INTRODUCTION

The Roma issue is gradually becoming part ofthe national discourse in Slovakia. This isprobably because the issue has become a keytopic in the relationship between the EU andSlovakia, a prospective EU member. Both theSlovak public and European institutions arenow waiting to see how the Slovak politicalelite deals with the Roma issue. Political par−ties play a key role in this process, as it is theywho in parliamentary democracies have thetools to advance their ideas on both the execu−tive and legislative levels. The approach to theissue taken by those political parties with in−fluence on the government, parliamentary ormunicipal levels thus plays a major role inresolving the problems of the Roma.

JOZEF MAJCHRÁK

THE ROMA AS A TOPIC OF DEBATE FORPOLITICAL PARTIES

THE ROMA ISSUE AS PART OFTHE AGENDA OF MAJORPOLITICAL PARTIES

THE ATTITUDE OFPOLITICAL PARTIESTO SELECTED EVENTS RELATEDTO THE ROMA ISSUE:POPULISM VS. REALISM

The Roma issue begins to appear more fre−quently in debates between major politicalparties after 1998. Until then, the politicalminority agenda had focused primarily onthe relationship between the Slovaks and theHungarian minority. This shift in perceptionof the Roma issue by political parties wasdue to several factors. The most importantwas the exodus of the Roma to EU countries,especially England, Belgium, and Scandina−via. The Roma applied for asylum in thesecountries, whereupon the latter introducedvisa requirements for all Slovak citizens. TheRoma migration was accompanied by grow−ing pressure from the EU on Slovak politi−cians to take more radical steps to tackle theissue. Other incidents sparking the interest ofpolitical parties in the Roma issue were re−curring thefts of potatoes and wood in east−ern Slovakia, for which the Roma were al−legedly responsible.

In the reactions and statements of politicalparties on the Roma migration issue, antiRoma proposals prevailed over attempts tofind real solutions. We can identify two ba−

190 J o z e f M a j c h r á k

sic approaches taken to the issue by politi−cal parties: populism and realism. The pro−ponents of the populist approach hailedchiefly from the opposition Slovak NationalParty (SNS) and Smer party. Both tried tomilk the majority population’s negative viewof the Roma for all it was worth. Accordingto officials from these parties, the Roma exo−dus from Slovakia was caused by their de−sire to sponge off the generous welfare sys−tem of EU countries. Smer Chairman RobertFico called the Roma migration “economictourism”. Similarly, SNS member of parlia−ment (MP) Jozef Prokeš said that there wereno race problems in Slovakia, and that theroots of the Roma migration were “purelyeconomic” (Sme, December 16, 1999).

The measures proposed by these parties tosolve the problem were mostly repressive andoften in conflict with the law. In January 2000,SNS MP Rastislav Šepták said that all Romawho left Slovakia should have their passportsconfiscated for five years on their return. Fico,on the other hand, submitted a Welfare Ben−efits Bill to parliament, proposing to abolish aprovision giving all citizens the right to receivewelfare benefits for two months even whileabroad, and to allow the authorities to stop thewelfare benefits for one year of anyone who leftthe country and applied for asylum with the aimof obtaining unearned income.

The most realistic view of the Roma migra−tion issue was that of the Democratic LeftParty (SDĽ) and the Slovak Democratic andChristian Union (SDKÚ), both of which tookan unprejudiced and big−picture approach tothe issue. The two ruling coalition partiessaw the same causes behind the Roma exo−dus, namely the bad economic situation ineastern Slovakia, and the insufficient educa−tion of the Roma. The solution most fre−quently proposed by these parties was thecreation of new job opportunities using EUfunds, and improving the education of Roma

children by introducing preparatory classesfor elementary school.

The same populist/realist schema dividedparty approaches to the other main problem– the theft of wood and crops from public andprivate land in eastern Slovakia. The SNS,once again, proposed the most radical solu−tion. During a press conference on July 28,2000, the SNS asked the Interior and ForeignMinistries to protect crops by deploying thearmy. SNS Deputy Chair Dušan Mašlonkasaid: “The government should solve this ag−ricultural catastrophe – the plague of Gypsylocusts on our fields.” Smer, too, paid signifi−cant attention to this issue, although its vo−cabulary was not as radical as that of the SNS.In July 2000, Smer Chairman Fico presenteda draft amendment to the Penal Code, aimingto reclassify petty theft from a misdemeanor toa criminal offense (the so−called Farm Act).MPs from all parliamentary parties supportedthis act. The wood and crop theft issue formeda major part of Fico’s political agenda, andoften brought out his most populist vocabulary.

The opposition Movement for a DemocraticSlovakia (HZDS) also tried to capitalize on thesituation. HZDS Deputy Chair Jozef Kalmancriticized the police for treating the Roma dif−ferently than other citizens, which in his opin−ion prevented the application of the principleof non−discrimination in Slovakia.

A less prejudiced approach was taken by theChristian Democrats (KDH), who in summer2001 began a discussion on what forms of fieldprotection were acceptable from the legal view−point; the party recommended citizens protecttheir fields by legal means, such as formingfield patrols. KDH Deputy Chair VladimirPalko stressed several times that the Penal Codeamendment presented by Fico was useless.

SNS and Smer officials often manipulated de−mographic estimates of the current and future

191T h e R o m a a s a To p i c o f D e b a t e f o r P o l i t i c a l P a r t i e s

size of the Roma population in their commentson the Roma issue. In June 2000, Fico claimedthat by 2010 there would be 1.2 million Romain Slovakia, of which as many as 800,000would be dependent on welfare benefits. In hisopinion, such a development would destroy thecountry’s social system. He thus proposed tocap the payment of child allowance to threechildren per family at the most, and to makepayment of the benefits conditional on the chil−dren’s attending school. In September 1999,SNS Deputy Chair Anna Malíková claimedthat the number of Roma would reach onemillion by 2010, adding: “I consider it immoralthat my money and the money of working peo−ple is always used to subsidize people who cre−ate no value for this country.”

ABSENCE OF A MORECOMPLEX VIEW

The basic characteristic of the Roma issueapproach by the major political parties was astrong prevalence of frequently populist reac−tions to the current affairs over more complexproposals. No relevant political party has in−cluded solution of the Roma issue in theirdeclarations (not so in the election platforms).

The only political party to include a moreintegrated approach to solving the issue in itsagenda was Smer. The party’s priorities re−garding the Roma issue are as follows:• support for social field workers;• close cooperation with NGOs dealing with

the Roma issue;• respecting the freedom of choice of indi−

viduals and families, while advising themof the consequences of their demographicbehavior for themselves (i.e. limiting childallowance after a certain number of chil−dren is reached) and for society;

• conditioning the payment of welfare ben−efits and child allowance on the family’schildren attending preschool and school;

• finding a way to make the payment ofwelfare benefits more efficient, and to pre−vent their abuse;

• making the position of Roma entrepre−neurs more equal;

• using the special recipient status more con−sistently;

• educating the majority to show greater tol−erance for the unique nature of the Roma.

Disunity and shallow views on the Romaissue were also seen among political partiesduring the late 2001 election campaign forregional parliaments. The Roma issue was animportant topic in this campaign, especiallyin the Prešov and Košice regions. Almost allcandidates for regional governors consideredthe situation of Roma as a grave problemrequiring an immediate solution. However,the majority could not turn their proposalsinto solutions underpinned by their real pos−sibilities and powers as regional governors.

ON THE VERGE OF RACISM

One of the most negative features of Slovakpolitics is the fact that many politicians makeracist statements about the Roma. This isespecially dangerous because it is not fringeor extremist politicians saying these things,but representatives of parliamentary politicalparties. In many cases, these statements arepart of a strategy to increase popularity byusing the Slovak public’s negative view ofthe Roma. From 1998 to 2002, racist state−ments were most frequently used by SNSrepresentatives (and later, after the party splitin two, also by representatives of the RealSlovak National Party – PSNS); severalHZDS politicians also made use of similarstatements.

The best−known comments during these fouryears were the statements of SNS MP Vita−zoslav Moric and HZDS MP Michal Drobný.


In August 2000, Moric proposed at an SNSpress conference to establish American−stylereservations for Roma who were unable toadapt to Slovak society. He defended hisproposal with the following “reasoning”: “Ifwe don’t make them [reservations] now, theGypsies will build them for us in 12 years.The vast majority of mentally retarded peo−ple are born in Gypsy communities. What isso human about allowing a moron to begetanother moron, and thus increase the propor−tion of morons and blockheads in our na−tion?” (Sme, August 5, 2000). Moric’s state−ment aroused a wave of criticism, and boththe Civil Democratic Youth and the RomaInitiative of Slovakia parties filed a criminalcomplaint against Moric for inciting racialhatred and defaming a race or a belief. InSeptember 2000, the Slovak parliament with−drew the immunity from prosecution Moricenjoyed as an MP, opening the way for hiscriminal trial. During the parliamentary de−bate on withdrawing the immunity, HZDSMP Michal Drobný said in regard to theRoma: “How do you intend to punish them,if they are like animals from both the emo−tional and the human points of view? Theyare amoral, they live like pagans, and this isthe source of the massive aggression againstthem.”

A major risk of such racist statements bynational politicians is that they help legiti−mize the attitudes and opinions of variousright−wing extremist movements. Racismagainst the Roma is in fact a unifying bondbetween individual right−wing extremistforces in Slovakia.

THE ROMA INTHE ELECTION PLATFORMS OFPOLITICAL PARTIES

The analysis of the election platforms of in−dividual political parties and movements

presented in this chapter deals only withmajor political parties, i.e. those with over the5% voter support needed to get seats in par−liament.

1990 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Candidates in the 1990 parliamentary elec−tions paid little or no attention to the Romaissue. The Roma were mentioned most oftenin places where political parties declared theequality of Slovaks and members of ethnicgroups and minorities living in Slovakia. Thiswas the case of the Slovak Communist Party(KSS), the Democratic Party (DS), the SlovakGreen Party (SZS), and the Hungarian Chris−tian Democratic Movement (MKDH). Theelection platform of the KSS, for example,stated: “We support the coexistence ofCzechs and Slovaks with the Hungarians, theRoma, the Ruthenians, the Polish, and theGermans in a state guaranteeing their na−tional and ethnic independence, and provid−ing guarantees of their real political, eco−nomic and cultural equality.” Similarly, theDS, in part of its election platform entitledNation, Motherland and State, demanded alegal guarantee of full equality for all nationsand ethnic minorities living in Slovakia. TheChristian Democrats (KDH) criticized thefiction of the “Czechoslovak nation” and the“Czechoslovak people”, and called them anoffence to both the Czechs and the Slovaks,as well as to the Hungarians, the Ukrainians,the Germans, the Polish, and the Roma. TheKDH also declared its intention to create thepolitical and economic conditions for the self−development of all nations living in Slovakia.

The most comprehensive election platformstatement on the Roma was that of the Pub−lic Against Violence (VPN) party, whichcontested the 1990 elections in coalition withthe Hungarian Independent Initiative (MNI).In a chapter called The National and Ethnic


Pillar, the VPN “welcom[ed] the healthyefforts of the Roma to improve their culturaland living standards and contribute to a dig−nified life for the Roma in Slovakia”. Therewas no mention of the Roma in the SNS elec−tion platform.


Among the key political parties and move−ments, only the Movement for a DemocraticSlovakia (HZDS – a VPN splinter faction)and the Democratic Left Party (SDĽ – a KSSsplinter) included ethnic policies in theirelection platforms. The relationship betweenthe Czechs and the Slovaks was the mainissue discussed in the HZDS election plat−form chapter National and Ethnic Program.As for the remaining ethnic minorities, theHZDS expressed interest in guaranteeing fulldevelopment to ethnic minorities and groupsin compliance with international conven−tions. The SDĽ declared it would respect theright of minorities to be educated in theirnative languages, and support bilingualismin regions with significant ethnic minoritypopulations. However, the Roma minoritywas never explicitly mentioned in the HZDSand SDĽ platforms, and the declarations inthe SDĽ platform were mainly in responseto the political and cultural demands of theHungarian minority. The only political partyto directly mention the Roma in its 1992 elec−tion platform was the MKDH. This coalitionof political parties expressed support for theestablishment of Roma schools. It also prom−ised to support a review of the system of kin−dergartens, elementary, secondary and voca−tional schools to ensure they met the needsof ethnic minorities. No mention of ethnicminorities or the Roma was found in the elec−tion platforms of the KDH and SNS.

Before the 1992 elections, as before the 1990elections, political parties tended to focus on

the relationship between the Czechs and theSlovaks (the 1992 elections were key fromthe viewpoint of the future of the commonstate) and the Hungarian minority issue.


Most of the programs of major political par−ties competing in the 1994 elections includedstatements on ethnic policy, with the excep−tion of the KDH and the Union of Workersof Slovakia (ZRS). The Roma issue wasmentioned specifically only in the electionplatform of the SDĽ, which in its Rights ofEthnic Minority Members section undertookto address social, economic, and other prob−lems in ethnically mixed areas. The SDĽ alsodeclared support for improving the unfavor−able position of the Roma by “creating newjob opportunities and improving their educa−tion”. The SDĽ was thus the first Slovakpolitical party after 1990 to have included theRoma issue in its election platform and tohave outlined possible solutions, for all thatthey were very general in wording.

Some political parties, such as the HZDS andthe Democratic Union (DU), confined them−selves to declaring a general obligation toaddress the problems of ethnic minorities inaccordance with the Slovak Constitution andrelevant international treaties. Both parties atthe same time rejected autonomy and theconcept of collective rights, proving that theirview of ethnic policy was confined to theproblems of the Hungarian minority. A simi−lar concept was presented by the SNS, whoseelection platform was largely nationalistwhen it came to minorities, and focusedmainly on protecting Slovaks living in eth−nically mixed areas. The most complete con−cept of ethnic policy was presented by thepolitical parties competing within theMKDH coalition. Unfortunately, this wasrestricted to the Hungarian minority.



Of the major political parties, only the SDĽ,HZDS and the Hungarian Coalition Party(SMK) paid special attention to the Romaissue in the 1998 parliamentary elections.The closest attention to the Roma issue wasagain paid by the SDĽ, which is interesting,given that the SDĽ is a left−wing politicalparty that views the Roma issue as “an inter−nal problem of the Roma minority in thesearch for their own ethnic identity and waysto implant it in education, culture, language,and the improvement of the social situation”.According to the SDĽ, the basic solution tothe Roma issue was “greater activity, effortand willingness to improve the situation onthe part of the Roma”. According to MiroslavKusý, the wording of the SDĽ election plat−form suggested that the party “supports theanti−Roma prejudices of part of its voterbase” (Kusý, 1998).

The 1998 HZDS election platform was writ−ten in the form of demands by “virtual” citi−zens to whom the individual planks in theplatform were addressed. The platform con−tained no separate part devoted to ethnicpolicy, although two points pertained directlyto the Roma minority. In the first point,where the virtual citizens demanded “thepreservation and support of minority cul−tures”, the HZDS undertook “to increase theethnic awareness of the Roma, so they canfreely claim their own nationality in popula−tion censuses”. This wording has an appar−ent anti−Hungarian undertone, as many citi−zens who claimed Hungarian nationality inthe 1991 population census were Roma. Inthe second point, the citizens demanded that“the relationship between the state and thechurch be resolved and developed in favor ofthe citizens”. The HZDS undertook “to cre−ate conditions for the establishment of pas−toral centers for evangelizing to and guidingthe Roma”. The following point was also

indirectly related to the Roma: “in caseswhere groups of citizens are unable to adapt[to society], we demand that the provision ofwelfare benefits be tightened.” Here, theHZDS undertook, albeit indirectly, to takerestrictive measures against the Roma, prom−ising “to replace the payment of welfare inmonetary form with supplies of material”(i.e. food, clothes, etc.).

The SMK election platform focused on theHungarian minority before the 1998 elec−tions. The Roma were mentioned in only oneparagraph of the social policy chapter, wherethe SMK emphasized the need for “the rea−sonable involvement of Roma communitiesin solving the Roma issue”, stressing theprinciple of “suitable forms of integrationinstead of assimilation”.

The election platform of the Civic Under−standing Party (SOP) also contained a chap−ter on ethnic policy, although it only con−tained some general statements that omittedto specify the problems of individual minori−ties and how these would be solved.

Discussion of the ethnic minority issue wascompletely absent from the election plat−forms of the SNS and the Slovak DemocraticCoalition (SDK). The SNS presented a con−cept of a nation state based on the principleof “extensive rights for Slovaks”. As for theSDK, even though its election platform wasone of the most comprehensive of all parties,and included parts on the position of womenand youth, there was no mention of ethnicminorities.

Nevertheless, party platforms before 1998elections showed signs of positive change interms of the Roma issue compared to previ−ous elections. Half of the political parties thatreceived seats in parliament in 1998 (theSDĽ, HZDS, and SMK) had included theRoma issue in their election platforms. Al−


though they still lacked a more complex viewof the issue, compared to previous electionsthey represented a clear shift from generaldeclarations towards identifying problemsand possible solutions.


Among the major political parties, the non−parliamentary Alliance of the New Citizen(ANO) paid the greatest attention to theRoma issue. Its election platform included anindependent section devoted exclusively tothe Roma issue. The ANO platform was builtaround the premise that if the country as awhole did not tackle the Roma issue, it wouldbecome a threat to all Slovak citizens. ANOpromised to take a new approach to the is−sue based on the following steps:• centralizing money for tackling the Roma

issue;• creating a center for tackling the Roma

issue situated in eastern Slovakia;• establishing a program of so−called “mis−

sionary work” as defined by law and car−ried out by university graduates (includingpsychology, social work, etc.).

In comparison with other political parties, theSMK also paid close attention to the Romaissue in its election platform. The partyvowed to support programs based on theactive participation of the Roma, such astraining Roma assistants. After undergoinga training course, the task of these assistantswould be “to help the Roma organize bythemselves”.

The election platforms of some political par−ties, such as the HZDS, SNS, and SDKU,contained no mention of the Roma or theRoma issue. Nevertheless, proposals thatcould have a significant impact on the Romawere found in chapters on social policy. TheHZDS, for example, proposed to provide

welfare benefits to “groups of citizens whoare unable to adapt [to society]” in the formof material benefits. Similarly, the SNS sup−ported providing material benefits to peopleunable or unwilling to use the monetary pay−ments reasonably. The SDKU in its electionplatform promised to fight the abuse of childallowance, such as by the payment of allow−ances in kind, at shorter intervals, or by mak−ing payments conditional on the fulfillmentof certain obligations (e.g. children attend−ing school regularly, etc.).

The most repressive solutions to the Romaissue were proposed by Smer. In the sectionof its platform called Order in Unemploy−ment and the Social Sphere, the party wrote:“through its economic and social policy, andthrough special health education and welfarework, Smer is prepared to influence the un−controlled growth of the Roma population,which has been caused by the irrational statepolicy of supporting families with many chil−dren in which parents are not held responsi−ble for the quality of upbringing and stand−ard of living of their children.”

Solutions to the problems of the Roma wereonly a fringe topic in the election platformsof parties that won over 5% support in elec−tions, and thus qualified for seats in parlia−ment. However, the positive trend started inthe 1998 elections continued, and politicalparties gradually abandoned their generaldeclarations on the need to solve the prob−lems of the Roma in favor of more concretemeasures. Based on how the political partiesapproached the topic in their election plat−forms, they can be divided into two groups.The first consisted of ANO and the SMK,who proposed and supported innovative ap−proaches to the Roma issue (Roma assistants,state missionary work). The second consistedof political parties that advocated restrictivesocial policy measures, especially in the pro−vision of welfare benefits. This group in−


cluded the HZDS, SNS, SDKÚ, and aboveall Smer. There was no mention of the prob−lems of the Roma in the KDH election plat−form.

HOW THE MAJOR POLITICALPARTIES ADDRESSEDROMA VOTERS

Since the 1989 revolution, the major politi−cal parties employed no special strategies toaddress Roma voters. There have been nospecial campaigns focusing on the Roma asa target group, such as TV or radio spots, ad−vertisements or promotional material in theRoma language. Apart from the HZDS, nomajor political party has organized personalmeetings of their candidates with Roma vot−ers. Roma candidates on the HZDS ticket vis−ited Roma voters directly in Roma settle−ments even before the 1998 elections.

The most common way of addressing theRoma voter has been for the major politicalparties to enter into coalition with a Romapolitical party, or to offer positions on theirlists of election candidates to Roma leaders.In the 1990 elections, the Roma Civic Initia−tive (ROI) ran in coalition with the CivicForum in the Czech Republic, and with thePublic Against Violence in Slovakia. As amember of these coalitions, ROI obtainedfour seats in the Federal Assembly and onein the Slovak National Council, which washeld by Anna Koptová. Roma were alsopresent on the list of candidates for the Com−munist Party. In 1994, Roma were nominatedto the candidates’ list of the DemocraticUnion (DÚ). In the 1998 elections, two ROImembers were nominated to the HZDS list,while the SDK also sought cooperation withRoma minority representatives. This lattereffort culminated in the signing of a contracton pre−election and post−election cooperationbetween the SDK and the Roma Intelligent−

sia for Coexistence (RIS) (see also The RomaPolitical Scene chapter in this book).

Before the 2002 parliamentary elections, theHZDS offered three positions on its list ofcandidates to representatives of Roma or−ganizations. ROI Chairman Alexander Pat−koló was offered the 75th position on the listof candidates, even though under the origi−nal agreement he had been offered a positionamong the top 30 candidates, thus giving hima reasonable chance of being elected to par−liament. Three Roma candidates were on thecandidates’ list of the Democratic Party –Democratic Union (DS – DÚ). One Romacandidate stood for Smer.

On the basis of the results of the 2002 elec−tions, none of the Roma candidates captureda seat in parliament. In comparison withother candidates, the Roma candidates alsoobtained few preferential votes, by whichcitizens could indicate their preference thata certain candidate be given a seat. For ex−ample, Alexander Patkoló, a HZDS nomi−nee, obtained 365 preferential votes, whileSmer nominee Jozef Bastyur got 118, com−pared to hundreds of thousands of preferen−tial votes for the most popular Slovak politi−cians. Clearly, the Roma nominated to thelists of candidates of major political partieswere unable to address even a significantnumber of Roma voters.

CONCLUSION

After 1989, Slovak political parties focusedinitially on solving the constitutional ar−rangement of the Czechoslovak Federation.After Czechoslovakia split apart in 1993, theminority agenda of political parties wasdominated by the position of the Hungarianminority. The interest of major political par−ties in addressing the problems of the Romaincreased slightly in the second half of the


1990s, due largely to the mass migration ofthe Roma to several EU countries, followedby the introduction of a visa obligation forSlovak citizens on the part of the countriesaffected. However, the political agenda wasstill dominated by reactions to individualRoma minority affairs, rather than by sys−tematic proposals for solving Roma prob−lems. Some parties, such as the HZDS, SNS,PSNS, and Smer, tried to get the most out ofthe negative popular view of the Roma byusing various populist proposals and state−ments. As Imrich Vašečka wrote: “They at−tempted to pin the Roma exodus on the hid−den interests of political groups or of thosewho wanted to enrich themselves at the ex−pense of the Roma. They also pointed outthat the Roma were like tourists who sawtheir trips as an opportunity to earn money.Learning the truth required deeper thought,which neither the government nor any politi−cal party or NGO was willing to risk.” (Im−rich Vašečka, 2000)

The problems of the Roma are still notamong the main topics on the election plat−forms of major political parties. Since the1998 parliamentary elections a positive trendhas appeared, with the Roma minority ap−pearing more frequently on the election plat−forms of political parties, and general decla−rations giving way to concrete solutions.Considering the seriousness of the issue,however, the activity of political parties isinsufficient. The parties do not considerRoma voters an interesting target group, andthus their election platforms contain onlypartial or even restrictive proposals, bywhich they attempt to win over majorityvoters.

The Roma issue is not a topic on which indi−vidual political parties greatly differ. Indeed,if there is a visible difference, it is usually onlybetween parties taking a neutral approach tothe issue, and those using populism to makepolitical capital out of the Roma.

REFERENCES

1. Election platforms and agendas of selectedpolitical parties competing in the 1990 to 2002parliamentary elections.

2. Kusý, Miroslav: “Národnostná politika” [‘Eth−nic Policy’] in Mesežnikov, Grigorij (ed.): Voľ−by 1998: Analýza volebných programov poli−tických strán a hnutí [1998 Elections: AnAnalysis of the Election Platforms of PoliticalParties and Movements], (Bratislava: Institutefor Public Affairs, 1998).

3. Vašečka, Imrich: “Národnostná politika v čes−kej a slovenskej republike” [‘Ethnic Policy inthe Czech and Slovak Republics’] in Dančák,Břetislav and Fiala, Petr (eds.): Národnostnípolitika v postkomunistických zemích [EthnicPolicy in Post−Communist Countries], (Brno:Medzinárodní politologický ústav Masarykovauniverzita, 2000).

4. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár,Miroslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.):Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the Stateof Society, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 1999).

5. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár,Miroslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.):Slovakia 2000: A Global Report on the Stateof Society, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 2000).

6. www.changenet.sk

Monitoring of the Sme, Národná obroda andPravda dailies, the Romano Ľil Nevo weekly andthe SITA press agency was instrumental in puttingthis chapter together.

198

199

Summary: The author analyses the develop−ment of Roma political parties over the pasttwo electoral terms (1994 – 1998 and 1998– 2002), relations between Roma politicalleaders, and the attempt to unite the Romapolitical scene. He evaluates the likelihoodof a Roma political party receiving the 5%of votes needed to secure representation inparliament, describes the achievements andsetbacks of Roma political leaders in thecountry’s first elections to regional parlia−ments in 2001, and analyzes the electoralbehavior of the Roma across Slovakia withemphasis on Roma settlements. By way ofcomparison, he looks at the way ethnic mi−norities participate in the administration ofpublic affairs in Hungary.

Key words: Roma political representation,participation, cooperation, fragmentation,Roma political parties, election platforms ofRoma political parties, parliamentary, mu−nicipal and regional elections, electoralbehavior, election campaign, standardizationof the political scene, minority self−govern−ments.

INTRODUCTION

The Roma gained the opportunity to formtheir own political representation and asso−ciate in their own political parties after thechanges in November 1989. Over the past 13years, however, only two or three politicalparties have been founded that attempted to

MICHAL ŠEBESTA

THE ROMA POLITICAL SCENE

unite the Roma political scene. Several at−tempts to do so before the 1998 and 2002elections proved fruitless. No Roma politi−cal party ran in the 1998 elections as an in−dependent party, while two Roma politicalparties ran in the 2002 elections, and severalRoma appeared on the lists of candidates forparliamentary seats of non−Roma politicalparties. No representative of the Roma,whether standing as a candidate for the op−position Movement for a Democratic Slova−kia (HZDS) party or the ruling coalitionHungarian Coalition Party (SMK), receivedenough support to win a seat in parliament.

The last time the Roma had representativesin national politics was in the CzechoslovakFederal Assembly and the Slovak NationalCouncil after the first free parliamentaryelections in 1990, when they ran as candi−dates for the Civic Forum party in the CzechRepublic and the Public Against Violenceand the Communist Party in Slovakia. Whatpossibilities does the Roma political repre−sentation then have to participate in the ad−ministration of public affairs? Should theyattempt to run as members of a single politi−cal party, form pre−election coalitions withnon Roma political parties, or join standardmajority political parties? The creation ofparty lists of candidates before the 2002 par−liamentary elections showed that the major−ity of non−Roma political parties are not yetready to cooperate as partners with Romapoliticians. One of the reasons for this is thestance of the majority population – if a party

200 M i c h a l Š e b e s t a

put a Roma on its ticket, it could lose votesamong the majority population.

COOPERATION OFROMA POLITICAL LEADERS ANDATTEMPTS TO UNITETHE ROMA POLITICAL SCENE

After the 1998 elections, there was not a sin−gle Roma in the Slovak parliament. Jozef Ra−vasz, the most successful Roma candidate,received 3,110 “preferential votes” (a systemallowing voters to mark which of a party’scandidates they would like to see take seats

in parliament), which was not enough to winhim a seat in parliament. Indeed, seeded atnumber 88 out of 150 on the candidates’ listof the HZDS party, Ravasz would haveneeded many times more preferential votesto leapfrog his higher−seeded colleagues andwin one of the 43 seats the party captured.The Roma in municipalities with large Romapopulations tended to vote for the HZDS andthe united democratic opposition of the time,the Slovak Democratic Coalition (SDK)party. In the south of the country, the Romaembraced mostly the Hungarian CoalitionParty (SMK), the party of choice for ethnicHungarians living in the area.

The electoral behavior of the Roma in thefollowing municipalities cannot be used tomake general statements about the Roma,because the comparison does not cover theelectoral behavior of assimilated and inte−grated Roma, or of Roma living in largeragglomerations. The selected municipalitieswere characterized by a high rate of unem−ployment, increased levels of petty crime,a high birthrate, the absence of social con−tacts with the surrounding (majority) world,and other factors typical of poverty. In suchenvironments, where life is mainly aboutsurvival, no significant level of political mo−bilization or participation can be expected.According to a research project by theUnited Nations Development Program(UNDP), under the name Roma HumanDevelopment Project, carried out at the endof 2001 by the Institute for Public Affairson a sample of 1,030 Roma respondents,68% of them had voted in the 1998 parlia−mentary elections, compared to a nationalturnout of just over 84%.

Box 1Comparison of Roma Electoral Behavior in Three Municipalities Inhabited by Roma

According to data recorded after the 1992parliamentary elections, the Roma CivicInitiative (ROI) party received 56.46% ofvotes in the northeast Slovak municipalityof Lomnička in Stará Ľubovňa district (i.e.166 votes) and 5.61% (72) votes in Jarov−nice in eastern Slovakia (Mann, 1994).

Table 11998 parliamentary elections: Share of votesreceived by selected political parties in dif−ferent municipalities with significant Romapopulations (%)

A��'��.� #�C�� C$� �CD� �&9� �A$� ��

(��"�� B��'�� (��EF� ��

Note: Political party abbreviations used, and positionleading up to 1998 elections: HZDS (Movement fora Democratic Slovakia – government); SDK (SlovakDemocratic Coalition – opposition); SDĽ (Party ofthe Democratic Left – opposition); SOP (Civic Un−derstanding Party – opposition); SMK (HungarianCoalition Party – opposition); SNS (Slovak NationalParty – government).Source: Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, 1998.

201T h e R o m a P o l i t i c a l S c e n e

Table 1 does not contain data about voterturnout in the different municipalities. Inthe 1998 parliamentary elections, theRoma electorate cast their votes mostly fortwo political parties – the HZDS and SDK.The number of SDK supporters in the Lu−nik IX housing estate in east Slovakia’sKošice was surprisingly high; one wouldhave expected the Civic UnderstandingParty (SOP) of 1994 to 1998 Košice MayorRudolf Schuster to earn more votes.

JarovniceThe Jarovnice municipality was in a spe−cial situation before the 1998 elections. InJuly that year, the municipality had beenhit by flooding, in which 50 people haddied and massive damage had been causedto private property. Then−Prime MinisterVladimír Mečiar visited the municipality,and shortly thereafter, help was also of−fered by SDK Chairman Mikuláš Dzurin−da. Several NGOs were involved in remov−ing the damage caused by the flooding. Forseveral weeks, Gustáv Karika, a memberof the Roma Initiative for Coexistenceparty (RIS, which had signed a pre−elec−

tion cooperation deal with the SDK), alsoworked in the municipality. Althoughsome local Roma were members of bothRoma political parties, the activity of Ka−rika (and presumably also the death duringthe electoral campaign of Roma Civic Ini−tiative Chairman Ján Kompuš, who hadbeen on the HZDS candidates’ list) influ−enced the results of elections in this mu−nicipality.

As you can see from Table 2, voter turn−out in the 1994 and 1998 elections in LunikIX was almost identical. The SDK1 saw thebiggest gain in support. Most first timevoters likely chose the SDK, while someof the Democratic Left Party’s (SDĽ) vot−ers from 1994 probably voted for the SOPin 1998. A small improvement (exactly 20votes) was recorded by the HZDS.

Attention should also be paid to voter turn−out in municipal elections held the sameyear. Only 180 voters (i.e. 10% of the elec−torate) cast ballots in Lunik IX, eventhough local Roma Jozef Šaňa was runningfor office. His comment on the low partici−

Table 2Comparison of the results of the 1994 and 1998 parliamentary elections in the Lunik IX hous−ing estate in Košice (%)

� ��!�� G��)� #�C�� C$� �CD� �&9� A$H�A$� ��,11-� �� ,115� ��

Source: Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, 1994, 1998.

Table 3Number and share of votes received by two candidates for the presidency in May 1999 presi−dential elections

A��'��.� G��!��'�� G��'�� G��!��A�"��

G��'�� !�� ' ��

A�"��I��

�' ��I��

(��"�� B��'�� (��EF� ��

Source: Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, 1999.


pation: “Local people seldom go outsideduring the winter”.

The presidential elections of May 1999brought the best voter turnout in Jarovnice;in Lunik IX and Lomnička, less than 50%of voters cast ballots. Jarovnice and LunikIX voters confirmed once again their rejec−tion of authoritarian former PM VladimírMečiar. The strong support for Mečiar inLomnička in both elections was apparentlya relic of the high support the Roma CivicInitiative (ROI, a HZDS ally) enjoyed inthe 1992 elections. Since 1994, the mayorof Lomnička has been a member of theDemocratic Union (DÚ), a party thathelped found the SDK in 1998.

Generally, voter turnout is very low amongthe Roma electorate in settlements. These

settlements are typically marginalized ter−ritories with no social contact with the ma−jority population. The “promises, sau−sages, and beer” type of electoral cam−paign that is common among majorityvoters is ineffective here (for the parties,the result does not justify the time andmoney invested), because most voters de−cide on the day of elections which politi−cal party they will support. These choicesare influenced by the decisions made byother community members, by the moodof each voter, and last but not least by theweather.

A completely different type of electoralbehavior occurs among assimilated and in−tegrated Roma, who incline to Roma ornon−Roma political parties depending onthe degree to which they identify with them.

The behavior of Roma voters in southSlovakia can be analyzed from the resultsof three municipalities with an above−aver−age share of Roma inhabitants. The munici−palities of Rimavská Seč and Lenartovce inthe Rimavská Sobota district in southeast−ern Slovakia rank among the country’s“Hungarian” municipalities, while NižnýŽipov in Trebišov district is a “Slovak” mu−nicipality (the division is according towhether the area is dominated by ethnic Slo−vaks or ethnic Hungarians). Given the re−sults of the 1998 parliamentary elections inthese three municipalities2, it is clear that inplaces whose inhabitants are mostly ethnicHungarians, the Roma tended to vote for the

Box 2Electoral behavior of the Roma in south Slovakia

Hungarian Coalition Party. In RimavskáSeč, out of the 884 valid votes cast, 83%were won by the SMK, followed by theHZDS with 5% and the SDK with 3.5%. Asimilar result was recorded in Lenartovce,where out of the 331 valid votes cast, theSMK received 72%, the SDK 12.7%, andthe HZDS 8.8%. On the other hand, theSMK did not receive a single vote in the“Slovak” municipality of Nižný Žipov,where the elections were won by the SDK(46% of votes) followed by the HZDS(15.2%), SDĽ (14%) and SOP (11.4%).

In the three municipalities, the Roma rep−resent 41% to 57% of inhabitants. In Ri−


After the 1998 elections, Roma politicalparty representatives tried several times toform a common platform for the majority ofRoma political parties, so that they wouldstand a chance of succeeding in the 2002elections. First, a meeting initiated by theRoma Democratic Unity Party was held, atwhich five Roma political parties signed acoalition treaty. This was followed by talksamong the representatives of 14 Roma politi−cal parties, and an agreement to establish theCoalition Council of Roma Political Parties.The attempt by Roma politicians, led by theRoma Civic Initiative (ROI) and the RomaInitiative for Coexistence (RISZ), to uniteculminated in October 2000. The Agreementon a Common Electoral Platform for RomaPolitical Parties and Roma Non−Govern−mental Organizations for Preparation for theElections and the Entry of a Roma PoliticalEntity to Parliament, which was originallysigned by 13 Roma political parties and 25Roma NGOs, was seen as the most signifi−cant achievement in the process of unifyingthe Roma political scene so far. It was basedon a consensus that before the 2002 parlia−mentary elections, Roma political partiesshould team up under the banner of the old−est and most consolidated Roma party inSlovakia – the ROI. The only party not tosign this agreement was the Roma Initiative

of Slovakia (RIS), chaired by AlexanderPatkoló.

WHY NOT INDEPENDENTLY?

No form of integration of Roma political par−ties and NGOs into one entity guarantees en−try to the Slovak parliament, which involvesexceeding the 5% threshold of public supportneeded to qualify for parliamentary seats.Estimates by ROI representatives and otherRoma leaders that they stood a chance of re−ceiving 700,000 votes in the September 2002elections were absolutely unrealistic. Consid−ering the age structure of the Roma popula−tion, and assuming no Roma party would havebeen widely supported by the majority popu−lation, this estimate would have meant thatthere were about 1.4 million Roma living inSlovakia (the highest reasonable estimates setthe Roma population at around 385,000 – seethe chapter Roma Population DemographicTrends in this book).

Furthermore, the expectation that non−Romafrom the lower classes of society would sup−port a joint party was wrong−headed. Evenif, according to public opinion polls, thisgroup of people has more in common withthe Roma than with people of higher social

mavská Seč, however, out of 1,781 inhab−itants, only 106 people claimed Roma na−tionality (1,546 Hungarian and 84 Slovaknationality), while in Lenartovce, out of546 inhabitants only 81 people claimedRoma nationality (426 Hungarian and 19Slovak). In Nižný Žipov, meanwhile, outof 1,274 inhabitants, only 42 claimedRoma nationality (1,222 Slovak national−ity).4 We must also take into account thefact that children under 18 years of age

represent about 50% of the Roma popula−tion. It is thus hard to determine (especiallyin Nižný Žipov) which political party theRoma voted for, however, the Hungarian−speaking Roma tended to prefer the Hun−garian Coalition Party, and we can assumethat their decision was largely based ontheir ethnicity. The chance of Roma politi−cal parties of winning votes among theRoma without building political structuresin these regions is thus minimal.


and economic status, the ethnic gap is stilllarge enough to prevent them from becom−ing a Roma party electorate. Moreover, dueto the large social gulf between the majoritypopulation and the Roma, the assimilatedand integrated Roma tend to vote for major−ity political parties.4 There are also manyRoma, especially those living in south Slo−vakia, who vote for the Hungarian CoalitionParty (see Box 2), and there is also usually alarge proportion of invalid ballots among thevotes cast by Roma who live in settlements.As for these settlement communities, lowervoter turnout can generally be expected, asa certain number of Roma in the settlementshave their permanent residence outside themunicipality where they currently live,meaning they cannot vote. Some Roma livein settlements that are several kilometersaway from the nearest village and the near−est voting station. Finally, according to re−search by the Institute for Public Affairs car−ried out in May 2002, as much as 83% ofRoma respondents distrust all Roma politi−cal parties (Rómske hlasy, 2002).

THE ROMA PARLIAMENT

The next serious attempt to unite the Romapolitically was the Roma Parliament, whichhad been set up by Roma representatives inMarch 2001 as the supreme organ represent−ing the Roma nation in Slovakia. The Parlia−ment held its first sitting in Banská Bystricaon May 19, 2001, at which officials andstatutory representatives of the Parliamentwere nominated, and delegates adopted athree−member model of parliamentary com−mittees to advise Slovak government minis−tries. Some new Roma groups became mem−bers of the Parliament, thus increasing thebody’s total membership to 156. Until thenan informal organization, the Roma Parlia−ment now became the most representativeRoma body in Slovakia.

The speaker of the Parliament, Ladislav Fí−zik, suggested to the Slovak government andthe national parliament that they could stoplooking for a partner for addressing the Romaissue: “I hereby notify MPs and the govern−ment that we are their partner”, said Fízik.After its founding session, the Roma Parlia−ment worked hard to improve the politicalrepresentation of Roma interests in Slovakia.At the beginning of October, the Roma Com−munity NGO Council of the Roma Parlia−ment asked all Slovak Roma who “have notso far realized the need to change their wayof life, to recognize the need for such achange” (Vašečka, 2001).

During the lead−up to the country’s first re−gional elections, in September 2001, indi−vidual members of the Roma Parliament hada difference of opinion. The Roma Parlia−ment elected a new speaker at an extraordi−nary meeting, replacing Ladislav Fízik withMilan Mižič. The reason for the change wasthe refusal of Fízik and his RIS party to com−ply with the agreement between Roma politi−cal parties, according to which the Romashould run in the elections united under thebanner of the ROI. Fízik said the session ofparliament that replaced him was illegitimate,and in October 2001, several existing Romaparties applied to the Interior Ministry to reg−ister a new political party – the Roma Coali−tion Party (SRK), which aimed to unite theRoma before the regional and parliamentaryelections. This initiative went against theoriginal resolution of the Roma Parliament,according to which Roma parties were to haveteamed up with the ROI. Fízik argued that theROI had too many internal problems.

In May 2002, a meeting of 16 representativesof Roma political parties was held in Barde−jov, after which ROI Deputy Chairman Mi−lan Ščuka announced that Roma partieswould run in the parliamentary electionsunited under the ROI. There was only one


exception – the Roma Initiative of Slovakia(RIS), whose candidates were promised po−sitions on the HZDS party’s ticket. A monthlater it was decided that the Roma Civic Ini−tiative and the Roma Coalition Party wouldnot unite, as they were unable to elect a com−mon chairman. Only 12 Roma political par−ties thus teamed up with the ROI. Later on,the Roma Coalition Party, the Roma CivicUnion, and the Social Democratic Party ofRoma in Slovakia registered a new partycalled the Political Movement of Roma inSlovakia – ROMA with the Interior Minis−try. RIS Chairman Alexander Patkoló, mean−while, ran seeded number 75 of 150 on theHZDS party ticket, a virtually unelectableposition.5 Thus, despite the repeated attemptsby Roma politicians to unite, the September2002 elections again saw two independentlyrunning Roma political parties: the ROI,which united 12 Roma political partiesmostly from eastern Slovakia; and the Politi−cal Movement of Roma in Slovakia –ROMA, which united three Roma politicalparties from central and south Slovakia.

THE 2002 ELECTIONS

The election result was a complete fiasco forthe Roma leaders. ROI won 8,420 votes(0.29%), and the Political Movement of Romain Slovakia – ROMA gained roughly 2,000votes less. Alexander Patkoló, running for theHZDS, did not receive enough preferentialvotes to make it into parliament. ROMAachieved its best result in the southeasternSlovakia’s Rimavská Sobota district, where1,354 people (3.27%) cast ballots for theparty; ROI, despite taking 802 votes in eastSlovakia’s Spišská Nová Ves district, actuallywon its biggest proportion of votes (2.03%)in Kežmarok district in northeastern Slovakia.

The leaders of both Roma political partiesannounced they would resign, with Fízik

commenting: “I ask myself, why should they[Roma voters] vote for us? We have nopower, no means of ensuring that our objec−tives and plans are put into action. The non−Roma parties have the power and the means.Even if they do not, our people seem to be−lieve they do” (Romano nevo ľil, No. 557 –565).

ELECTION PLATFORMS ANDPRESENTATION OF ROMAPOLITICAL PARTIES

Considering the stance of the majority popu−lation towards the Roma, Roma politiciansare in a difficult position and have limitedchances to present themselves. Their presen−tations must be acceptable to both the Romaand majority society; they must be objective;and they must demonstrate a profoundknowledge of the problems, and respect forthe views of the Roma, although not in apopulist manner. Any Roma representativewho is unable to do all of this becomes un−trustworthy to the majority, and foregoes anychance of seeing his proposals accepted,even the reasonable ones (Holomek, 1999).The stances and presentations of Roma po−litical leaders are generally aimed at two tar−get groups – the Roma and the majority.Politicians who target only the Roma com−munity must use a more radical approach,and must forego cooperation with non−Romapolitical parties. Roma politicians thus usu−ally choose the first option.

After the founding of independent Slovakia,the Roma Civic Initiative remained the mostimportant Roma political entity in the coun−try. Apart from ROI, many Roma politicalparties emerged and perished, but their influ−ence was always (and still is) minimal, sincemost failed to take on more than a regionalor even local significance. Furthermore, theydo not coordinate their activities. Before the


1998 elections, however, another significantpolitical party emerged that claimed to be−long to the then−opposition – the Roma In−telligentsia for Coexistence (which during2002 transformed into the Political Move−ment of the Roma in Slovakia – ROMA).After the ROI quit its cooperation with theHZDS in 1998, and the Roma Initiative forCoexistence also suffered problems, the twoparties were joined by the Roma Initiative ofSlovakia.5

THE ROMA CIVIC INITIATIVE (ROI)

ROI claims to be a party on the left of thepolitical spectrum, and is striving to gainmembership in the Socialist International.ROI supported Slovakia’s EU membershipbecause it expects accession (due to happenon May 1, 2004) to bring an overall improve−ment in the life of the Roma. ROI’s electionplatform for 2002 was based on an analysisof the status of individual sectors. Its mainpriority was the school system, which it dealtwith in detail from pre−school education allthe way up to universities. In its election plat−form, ROI appealed to Roma parents to takeresponsibility for raising their children. Theparty’s proposals concerning housing wererather general, and the platform focused onsolving the issue of ownership of the land onwhich Roma dwellings are built. To solve theunemployment problem, the party suggestedincreasing construction activities – buildingflats, highways, and rebuilding Roma settle−ments. ROI demanded that the governmentand all state bodies combat all displays ofracism, and of racial, social and economicdiscrimination and intolerance. It proposedthat the post of advisor to the Interior Minis−ter be continued, and that similar advisors bedeployed in regional police headquarters,police inspection bodies, and the Office ofthe Ombudsman.

POLITICAL MOVEMENT OFTHE ROMA IN SLOVAKIA – ROMA

This Roma party was established onlymonths before the 2002 parliamentary elec−tions as a coalition of three Roma politicalparties from south and central Slovakia. Therepresentatives of the ROMA movementchose unification of the Roma in Slovakia astheir priority, a goal they viewed as key tosuccess in both parliamentary and municipalelections. The wording of their election plat−form was quite general, focusing on improv−ing the socio−economic position of the Romaand the poor by supporting small− and me−dium−sized enterprises, and adopting “devel−opment and revitalization programs”, whichit failed to specify in detail. The ROMAmovement rejected the construction oflower−standard community housing, anddeclared that it intended to solve the hous−ing issue through cooperative housing con−struction. The party declared it favored thecivic principle, and an uncompromising bat−tle against all displays of fascism, racism,discrimination, and intolerance. The ROMAmovement supported Slovakia’s NATO andEU accession.

THE ROMA INTHE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ANDTHE FIRST REGIONAL ELECTIONS

In the municipal elections held in December1998, the Roma were featured mostly on thecandidates’ lists of the ROI and the RIS, oras independent candidates. They also ap−peared on the candidates’ lists of non−Romapolitical parties, such as the HZDS, SDK,SDĽ, KSS (Communist Party), ZRS (Work−ers’ Party), and SMK. Altogether, 254 Romacandidates ran for municipal council posts,and 6 candidates ran for mayoral positions.In the end, 56 Roma were elected as coun−


cillors, and all 6 Roma candidates wereelected mayors (Vašečka and Džambarovič,2000) in the following municipalities andcity districts: Blatné Remety (Michalovcedistrict, east Slovakia); Jurské (Poprad dis−trict, northeastern Slovakia); Lomnička; Žeh−ra (Spišská Nová Ves district, east Slovakia)and Lunik IX (Košice city, east Slovakia).The sixth mayor−elect, Marián Billý of thevillage of Petrová (Bardejov district, north−east Slovakia) was thrown out of office aftera vote of non−confidence by the municipalcouncil immediately after taking his mayoraloath. ROI had also one non−Roma mayoralcandidate, who in the end was elected mayorof the village of Čičava (Vranov nad Topľoudistrict, east Slovakia).

In the December 2002 municipal elections,there was a clear shift in political participa−tion among the Roma. Some 756 Roma can−didates ran for city and municipal councilposts, 19 for mayoral positions in villages,and 2 for mayoral position in towns (Levočaand Medzilaborce). Some 158 Roma wereelected as councilors, while for the next fouryears, 10 municipalities will be representedby Roma mayors – five in the district of Ri−mavská Sobota (Romano nevo ľil, No. 572 –579).

Before December 2001 elections to newlycreated regional assemblies, the leaders ofthe Roma Parliament announced that theywould consider it a success if at least threeto five candidates were elected to regionalparliaments in Košice, Prešov, and BanskáBystrica regions. After the quarrel in theRoma Parliament in September 2001, how−ever, and the founding of the Party of theRoma Coalition (SRK) two months later, theleaders in the end did not run for election asone entity. SRK Chairman Ladislav Fízik ranfor the position of regional governor of theBanská Bystrica region, where he won 2,489votes (2.13%), while in Košice region ROI

Deputy Chairman Milan Ščuka ran for thesame position, receiving 2,158 votes(1.83%). The Roma ran for seats as membersof regional parliaments mostly on the tick−ets of the ROI, the Roma Coalition Party, andthe Roma Initiative of Slovakia. A total of sixRoma political parties ran in the elections,including also the Democratic Alliance ofRoma, the Roma Civic Union, and the Partyof Roma Democratic Unity. Several Romaran for the Regional Democratic Legion –East, and two ran as independent candidates.6

None won a seat as a member of regionalparliament.

THE FUTURE – THE ROMA ASMEMBERS OF NON−ROMAPOLITICAL PARTIES?

As the foregoing text may have suggested,the chances of the Roma qualifying for par−liamentary seats without cooperating with anon−Roma party are nil (see Box 3). In recentyears, all attempts to form a strong Romapolitical party have failed, although theyhave not been entirely fruitless. Where mi−norities are concerned, the fewer minoritypolitical parties that exist, the more effi−ciently their interests can be advocated; thisis a step that Roma politicians were trying totake before the 2002 parliamentary elections.At the moment, however, the Roma do nothave enough potential as an electorate to beable to catapult a single ethnic party intoparliament. Such a party, on the other hand,could be a strong and interesting politicalpartner for non−Roma political parties – pro−vided that the Roma are ever able to unitepolitically. Finally, a party established on thebasis of ethnicity can only succeed if it man−ages to persuade the entire ethnic group thatit is capable of defending its interests.

The stance of the Roma towards their ownpolitical parties shows that they are far from


Box 3Roma participation in the administration of public affairs in Hungary

In 1993, the Hungarian parliament, by a97% majority, adopted a Law on Minori−ties, on the basis of which minority self−governments were established in 1994.These self−governments have the right ofcomment (not the right of veto), whichmeans that without the comments of indi−vidual self−governments, decisions affect−ing minorities should not be taken (for ex−ample, when a new director of a minorityeducational institution is appointed, theminority self−government must approvethe candidate; the same holds true whenminority schools are merged or dissolved).

Roma minority self−governments were es−tablished in 738 municipalities in Hungary,involving 3,000 elected representatives. Insmaller municipalities, 50 votes areenough to be elected to a minority self−government, while in larger ones, 100votes are needed. Members of minorityself−governments elect a national minorityself−government, headquartered in Buda−pest. The chairman of the National RomaSelf−Government is Florian Farkas; hisdeputies are Lászlo Teleki and Béla Osz−tojkán.

Over the period from 1990 to 1998, theRoma always had representation in theHungarian parliament. In the 1998 elec−tions, however, no Roma politician madeit into parliament, due largely to lack ofinterest from majority parties, and to thefact that Roma parties were preoccupiedwith a remorseless struggle for power inthe National Roma Self−Government. Thestrongest party became the Lungo Drom(Long Voyage), which from 1994 to 1998had taken advantage of its contacts with

government structures; it later acquired anabsolute majority in the National RomaSelf−Government.

The majority political parties kept their dis−tance from the Roma political parties af−ter 1998 as well. In December 2001, theYoung Democrats Party – Fidesz madepublic an agreement on pre−election coop−eration it had signed with the Lungo Drom,which was valid for both parliamentaryand local self−government elections. TheHungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) alsodeclared it would cooperate with all Romaorganizations, within the Akácfa move−ment. This change of stance was caused bythe tight contest for voter support betweenFidesz and the MSZP, both of whichreached out before elections to Roma vot−ers especially from the right side of the po−litical spectrum. Fidesz’ strategy wasbased on research that showed the Romawere not a priori leftist party supporters,and that their willingness to vote did notdiffer significantly from that of the major−ity population, although it was somewhatlower. The elections confirmed this – gen−eral voter turnout was 71%, while Romavoter turnout was comparable, even in ar−eas where the Roma live in settlements (theeastern and northeastern parts of Hungary).Most of the votes cast by the Roma wentto the MSZP (the party put one Roma rep−resentative in the parliament – LászlóTeleki) despite the fact that the Fidesz can−didates’ list included three Roma repre−sentatives who qualified for seats in par−liament (Flórián Farkas, József Varga, andMihály Lukács). None of the candidateswho ran for Roma parties won parliamen−tary seats.


convinced. According to Godla (2002), theRoma do not automatically cast votes forRoma parties and candidates, but on thecontrary, distrust them. The experience ofRoma voters is that Roma political partiesare full of opportunists. Roma voters expecttheir candidates to perform what they prom−ise as MPs now, before they are even elected.The Roma also expect entertainment fromRoma political parties, even though theyknow that Roma parties, unlike their nonRoma counterparts, do not have the moneyto provide this.

So far, the only parliamentary political partyto have embarked on closer cooperation withRoma regional representatives is the rulingcoalition Alliance of the New Citizen(ANO). Thanks to the initiative of FrantišekGuláš, in April 2002 the Roma Council ofANO was established in the Košice region.

According to Guláš, 42 Roma NGOs oper−ating in the Košice region became membersof this Council. Although no one from theRoma Council ran as a candidate in the par−liamentary elections, representatives of theCouncil aspire to run in the next municipalelections.

Before the 2002 parliamentary elections, 20Roma political parties were to be found in theregistry of the Interior Ministry, althoughmost of these were temporarily inoperablebecause they had joined forces with one ofthe two largest Roma parties. The extent ofthe confidence of Roma leaders in non−Romaparties on the one hand, and the extent towhich Roma representatives were acceptedby non−Roma leaders on the other, can bejudged from the fact that fully six new Romapolitical parties were established between1998 and 2002 (see Appendix).

APPENDIX

List of Roma political parties registered with the interior ministry as of september21, 2002.

� 9�� C�� 9��.� ��!>��

,J� 9��.�� E�� <�E�=� �� 0J� 9��.� �� 9��'�� <�&9�=� �� 2J� ��8��'�E�� '�<�&E��=� �� -J� ��'��C��'��'�9��.�� <��C�=� !"� #�� $%�#��/J� 7�� 8��'�E�� '�<K��&E=� &�� 3J� 9��.�� (��!��'��.�<�9E=� '��(�� )*+�,-�� %�. /0� �01�4J� ��8�� '�<�$��=� !�2�/0�� )*+�5J� C��'��'�A�� '�<C#�=� !"� #�� 1J� 9��.�� I��<��L�=� &�#�� *�3��,4�"��.�. /0� �01�,*J� ��9��.�<��=� !�2�/0�� 5 ��.��,,J� 9��.�� C��'�� '�<��C=� 6�"0�� ,0J� C��'��'��'�� '�<C��=� 7�0�� )*+�,2J� ��E�� <�E�=� 7�0�� )��0 /#�%��

,-J� � ��#��C��'��'�A�� '�<AC#�=� &�� 8+�%/39�:(#��

,/J� 9��.�� I��C��'��'�7��.�<�CB�=� �� ;��%��.�-�"+��

,3J� ��8 ��C��'��'�A�� '� '��(�� (<�%��,' �(�#�%��. /0� �01�

,4J� A�� G��' �� <#&��=� !"� #�� =0>��%��,5J� ��8��'�7�� '�<�&B��=� &�� ? ��%/38�6��0��,1J� 9��.�� 8�� '�<��$=� 7�0�� $%�#��0*J� 9��'��A�� +��&A��<�&A�=� &�#�� $%�#��


ENDNOTES

1. In the case of the 1994 elections, the figurelisted for the SDK is the sum of the share ofvotes cast for the DU (11.16%), DS (6.4%) andKDH (3.42%); these three parties became thelargest members of the five−party SDK coali−tion in 1998.

2. The results of parliamentary elections in indi−vidual municipalities can be found at the fol−lowing web page: http://volby.statistics.sk)

3. These data come from the 2001 Census of In−habitants, Houses and Apartments.

4. The situation is similar regarding the claimingof Roma ethnicity: Roma with a higher socialand economic status usually claim Slovak orHungarian ethnicity.

5. One Roma candidate each was featured on thecandidates’ lists of the Hungarian CoalitionParty and Smer, while the Communist Partyfeatured two Roma candidates, and the Demo−cratic Party four (see Romano nevo ľil, No. 552– 556).

6. This analysis is based on the election platformsof the ROI and ROMA.

7. Out of all “Roma” candidates, independentcandidates took the most votes – Vojtech Kö−kény won 1,239 votes in the district of Rimav−ská Sobota, and Július Grulyo received 1,319votes in the district of Košice−environs.

REFERENCES

1. Godla, František: “O súčasných rozmerochrómskej politiky na Slovensku a o jej prognó−zach v predvolebnom období” [‘On thePresent Dimension of Roma Politics in Slo−vakia and its Prospects During the Pre−elec−

tion Period’], Romano nevo ľil, No. 533 – 541,2002.

2. Holomek, Karel: “Vývoj romských reprezen−tací po roce 1989 a minoritní mocenská poli−tika ve vztahu k Romům” [‘Development ofRoma Representation after 1989 and Minor−ity Government Policy in Relation to theRoma’] in Romové v České republice (1945– 1998) [Roma in the Czech Republic (1945– 1998)], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

3. http://volby.statistics.sk4. Mann, Arne B.: Rómovia a voľby 1992 [The

Roma and the 1992 Elections], Romano Dža−niben, No. 2, 1994.

5. Romano nevo ľil, No. 557 – 565, 2002.6. Romano nevo ľil, No. 572 – 579, 2003.7. Sčítanie obyvateľov, domov a bytov, Základné

údaje, Národnostné zloženie obyvateľstva[Census of Inhabitants, Houses and Apart−ments, Basic Data, Ethnic Composition ofPopulation], (Bratislava: Statistical Office ofthe Slovak Republic, 2001).

8. Szép, Attila: Rómovia a parlamentné voľbyv Maďarsku [The Roma and the Parliamen−tary Elections in Hungary], Unpublished ma−terial, 2002.

9. Vašečka, Michal and Džambazovič, Roman:“Roma’s Participation in Slovakia’s politicallife” in Social and Economic Situation ofPotential Asylum Seekers from the SlovakRepublic, (Bratislava: International Organiza−tion for Migration, 2000).

10. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár, Miro−slav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.): Slovakia2001: A Global Report on the State of Society,(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2001).

11. Vašečka, Michal, Jurásková, Martina, Krigle−rová, Elena, Puliš, Peter and Rybová, Jana:Rómske hlasy [Roma Voices], (Bratislava:Institute for Public Affairs, 2002).

211

Summary: The third sector in Slovakia de−veloped quickly after 1989. Non−govern−mental non−profit organizations – founda−tions, civic associations, non−profit funds etc.– responded swiftly to the major changes andthe new needs of society. Indeed, NGOs ini−tiated many of these essential changes. InSlovakia recently, much attention has beenpaid to the Roma and activities to help poorRoma communities; it would be impossibleto imagine these activities without the thirdsector. With the efforts of Slovak Roma com−munity representatives, Roma NGOs arebeginning to gain ground. This chapter de−scribes the position of NGO and non−profitorganizations in Slovakia, as well as some oftheir activities to help the Roma.

Key words: third sector, non−governmentalorganizations, the Roma, projects for theRoma, donors, foundations, civic associa−tions, Phare, InfoRoma, Open Society Fund.

THE THIRD SECTOR IN SLOVAKIA

Since the outset of post−1989 political andsocial change in Slovakia, non−governmen−tal organizations (NGOs) have formed aquickly developing network of institutionsactive in different areas of the country’stransforming society, and have become asymbol of Slovakia’s civic society. In 1993there were more than 6,000 NGOs registeredin Slovakia, that number reaching almost9,000 one year later. According to the Slovak

INGRID REPOVÁ and MAREK HARAKAĽ

THE ROMA AND THE THIRD SECTOR

Interior Ministry database, there are now18,000 NGOs registered in the country, ac−tive in areas such as the education of chil−dren, youth and adults, sports, tourism andculture, humanitarian and charitable activi−ties, environmental protection, human rightsand tolerance for minorities (see Info:Roma– Adresár mimovládnych organizácií …,2001).

One of the great advantages of NGOs overstate institutions is their flexibility, ability torespond quickly to problems that arise andthe needs of target groups, and their relativefreedom to try new approaches. This is alsotrue of programs to improve the position ofpoor Roma communities and the Roma eth−nic minority in general. Efforts to solve theproblems of these people have often beeninitiated by the third sector.

THE ROMA ANDTHE THIRD SECTOR

Members of various ethnic groups have beenfounding organizations focused on one orseveral nationalities since 1990. In 1991, theSlovak government adopted a documententitled The Principles of the Government’sRoma Policy, which confirmed the ethnicindependence of the Roma. The rights of theRoma to upbringing, education, press andother information in their own language,their right to develop their own culture, toassemble in associations and participate in

212 I n g r i d R e p o v á a n d M a r e k H a r a k a ľ

tackling issues pertaining to the Roma, wereconfirmed by the acknowledgement of theexistence of the Roma nation.

In the beginning, such organizations focusedon cultural activities, receiving subsidiesfrom the Culture Ministry to publish news−papers, magazines and books and to organ−ize cultural events. Only later did these foun−dations start providing scholarships to Romachildren studying at secondary school anduniversities, and to focus on different educa−tional programs, thus substantially broaden−ing the range of their activities.

According to the Culture Ministry, in 2001there were 130 NGOs focusing on the Romaand having the word Roma or a word in theRoma language in their names. TheInfo:Roma – Address Book, published bythe InfoRoma foundation and the OpenSociety Fund in 2001, lists 223 organiza−tions having Roma programs. It can be as−sumed that these organizations were estab−lished to do good, and that the majority ac−tually do so. However, there are many otherreasons that civic associations are estab−lished in Slovakia. In many communities,NGOs are the only means to initiate change,and offer the only way out of crises. ManyNGO founders also see their organizationsas one of the few possibilities to find em−ployment.

The influx of funds supporting Roma pro−jects (especially from foreign donors) and themultitude of training programs focused onthe development of Roma communities were

undoubtedly among the main reasons thatmany NGOs were established in recentyears. Most were established after 1998,while in some cases several organizationsmanaged by an existing NGO were estab−lished at the same time in different regions.

Table 2Breakdown of NGOs according to region

��%��.��'�� $��'�� 9�� "�� M��

Source: InfoRoma, 2002.

Table 3Breakdown of NGOs according to activity

'��.�!�� '��'�N�' ��.� ��'�� !��!'�� !�'��!� ��


Considering the recent changes – the estab−lishment and dissolution of organizations,changes in their orientation, legislativechanges, etc. – the above data cannot be con−sidered authoritative. Some organizations,for example, were registered but ceased ac−tivities after a short time due to lack of funds.It is difficult to obtain current information onthe activities or even the existence of someNGOs, as such data can often only be ac−quired through field research.

Table 1Breakdown of Roma organizations according to year they were founded

,11*� ,11,� ,110� ,112� ,11-� ,11/� ,113� ,114� ,115� ,111� 0***�

��


213T h e R o m a a n d t h e T h i r d S e c t o r

THE ROMA THIRD SECTOR –EFFORTS TO CREATEA COMMON PLATFORM

Since the early 1990’s, several attempts havebeen made to unite organizations focusing onRoma communities to create a common or−ganization or strategy. It is not easy to under−stand why these efforts have failed. Somebelieve it might be due to the different inter−ests of NGOs, the disunity caused by per−sonal leadership ambitions, or the destructivecompetition among individual organizationscaused by shortage of funds. Attempts atunity could often not be put into practice, orresulted in agreements between just a feworganizations.

An effort to create an independent Romathird sector was initiated in 1999 by RomaGemer, a Rožňava−based organization. Afterthe consequences of separation from theGremium of the Third Sector, an NGO um−brella group, were realized, however, theplan was abandoned. The first agreement onthe establishment of a special agency forRoma NGOs, and possibly also the creationof a separate Roma third sector, was reachedin Smižany in October 1999. Regional or−ganizations and associated special depart−ments were to have formed the Roma thirdsector.

The Council of Roma Community NGOswas yet another institution created to unitethe activities of various NGOs. The first callfor the establishment of the Council camefrom a founding member of the Roma Par−liament NGO and political party union inMarch 2001. After repeated rejections bydifferent Parliament members, the Congressof the Roma Parliament agreed to create theCouncil by separating its political partiesfrom its NGOs. The Council of Roma Com−munity NGOs became an official institutionin 2001. In the beginning it united 58 NGOs,

while today it reports 104 members. How−ever, the Council has yet to publish the namesof the organizations it covers. Several organi−zations have already officially abandonedcooperation with the Council, while othersremain only formal members.

In 2001 the Open Society Fund helped estab−lish a regional network of Roma informationand advisory centers. One of the objectivesof this network was to start partnership co−operation between NGOs and state adminis−tration and lower (regional and local) electedgovernments, education and social affairsdepartments, labor offices and other relevantinstitutions, leading to the creation of a com−mon strategy and the coordination of activi−ties at the regional level. The success of theseefforts usually depends on the capacities andactivities of the advisory centers, and thewillingness of state offices and local govern−ments to cooperate.

Another important mission of this regionalnetwork is to monitor the situation in variousregions, to advise individuals and organiza−tions on human rights protection, employ−ment etc., and to assist start−up NGOs. Thegoal is to create a network of organizationscommunicating on the local and nation−widelevels, which, thanks to their experience,would help solve Roma community prob−lems more effectively. The aim of furthereducation and assistance by experiencedNGOs is to improve the quality and profes−sionalism of third sector organizations sothey can become equal partners of Slovakand international organizations – donors,state and self−government institutions.

Other efforts to unite and coordinate the ac−tivities of organizations dealing with theRoma issue at the regional level resulted inthe formation of similar associations at theregional level. The best known are the Re−gional Center for Roma Issues in Prešov, and


the Regional Association of Roma Initiatives(RARI), founded in 2000 in Banská Bystrica.

RARI focuses on coordinating the activitiesof organizations dealing with the Roma is−sue in the Banská Bystrica region, and onpresenting and defending their interests inSlovakia and abroad. RARI also monitors thesituation of the Roma in Banská Bystricaregion, sets priorities and ways of tacklingthe most serious problems, and providescounseling and advice to all member andnon−member organizations dealing with theRoma issue. It also facilitates the access ofthe Roma community to information, pro−vides professional guidance in the creationof programs and projects focusing on theRoma, and offers education to help peopleacquire job and business skills. RARI’s aimis to increase the employment and entrepre−neurial spirit of the Roma by educating themand supporting them in employment and busi−ness. Some former RARI members have with−drawn from the group, however, and many ofits plans and aims have remained on paper.

Some representatives of Roma organizationsreject the participation of non−Roma organi−zations on projects for the Roma, and try tokeep responsibility and authority to them−selves. While it is vital that the Roma assumeresponsibility and participate in solvingRoma community problems at all levels, it isfortunate that most Roma representatives andleaders with practical experience admit theneed for partnership and cooperation be−tween the Roma and the majority populationwhen it comes to solving problems and im−proving mutual coexistence.

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Since 1990, NGOs have consumed majorfunds both for administration needs and con−crete activities and projects. According to a

monitoring team focusing on Roma projectsin Slovakia2, the total money spent can onlybe estimated, due to the diversity of fundingfor individual projects and difficulties inobtaining information. The funding sourcesof individual organizations have often de−pended on their field of activity.

Among the most important and permanentsources of funding for NGOs have been in−ternational institutions, foreign and Slovakfoundations, and foreign embassies inSlovakia. The state has contributed throughindividual ministries (especially the CultureMinistry), the National Labor Bureau, andstate administration institutions either inde−pendently or as a co−financer of the EU’sPhare projects. At the moment, the largestvolume of funds comes from the EU throughthe Phare program. The EU’s interest in sup−porting Roma projects has grown substan−tially since 2000. Of the total volume offunds spent during recent years on Romaprojects by the third sector, lower electedgovernments, schools etc., more than 50%has come from Phare. The rest were fundsdonated by international institutions, founda−tions, the state, and so on. The proportion offunds from each source has varied accordingto the type, region, and duration of projects.Funds from Phare and foundations have usu−ally been intended only for Slovakia−wideprojects, while a large proportion of fundsand grants have been awarded to all forms ofeducation, community development, em−ployment programs, etc.

MOST FREQUENT NGO ACTIVITIES

It is not easy to specify the orientation ofNGOs or classify their activities. NGO mis−sions range from political activities and pro−moting the ambitions of their representatives,to regional and national activities to changethe position of the Roma in Slovakia, to de−

215T h e R o m a a n d t h e T h i r d S e c t o r

fending the interests of local communities.The nature of projects often varies accordingto the current needs of Roma communitiesand regions, or to the donor’s priorities andorientation. On the one hand, this has al−lowed organizations to react swiftly to prob−lems that arise and to find new uses for theirfunds, while on the other it has demandedfundraising and the adjustment of projects tocurrent trends without taking into considera−tion the needs of the target group. ManyNGOs have thus become “professionalfundraisers”, dividing their strengths to thedetriment of continuity, quality, and profes−sionalism in one or several fields of interest.

Support of Culture

Most organizations dealing with the Romadevote part of their activities to support ofRoma culture as one of the most importantmeans of raising the national consciousnessof the Roma. Support by the Culture Minis−try, foundations and other donors is fre−quently earmarked for the preservation oftraditions and for cultural activities, as indi−cated by the many music and dance groupsin all of Slovakia’s regions. Thanks to thethird sector, many of these groups becomeprofessional ensembles.

Cultural activities have also increased amongthe young Roma generation thanks to differ−ent clubs and hobby groups for children andyouth that are emerging from civic associa−tions, foundations, and schools. The organi−zational efforts of the third sector has allowedmany of these groups to develop their activi−ties and take part in Roma culture shows bothin Slovakia and abroad.

Part of the importance of cultural activitiesis their educational benefit, as many includelectures on the history and traditions of theRoma. They also help increase understand−

ing between the Roma and the majority, andfoster the formation of a group of activistsand community leaders who later becameleaders of Roma community activities.

The organization of Roma festivals andRoma ensembles shows has become a popu−lar activity among Slovak NGOs. Several ofthese, without regard for the number of par−ticipating ensembles or their regional repre−sentation, are billed as Slovak wide or eveninternational. This fact, among others, be−trays the disunity and negative competitionthat sometimes exists in the third sector, aswell as the insufficient coordination of fi−nancing activities.

Education

Many Roma and non−Roma NGOs in coop−eration with schools focus on education.Their activities range from special methodsand approaches in pre−school education, tothe preparation of teachers’ assistants, spe−cial support and acceleration school pro−grams, scholarships for secondary school anduniversity students, and the education ofadults in communities. Education is not justin−school, but includes a number of out−of−school activities combined with tutoring andindividual approaches, interest groups, clubsfor children and youth, and special commu−nity education programs. Out−of−school ac−tivities and community education involvingentire families and communities under thesupervision of NGOs are helping to changeperceptions of and approaches to education,especially in communities dependent on so−cial aid.

It is vital that systemic change and the long−term experience of NGOs be incorporated inSlovak legislation and especially in schoolsystem legislation. However, this process is anexceptionally lengthy and complicated one.


Recent years have seen great interest fromforeign donors in supporting and shaping aRoma elite capable of representing the inter−ests of the Roma at all levels, as indicated bythe many training activities of various or−ganizations. In some cases, especially if thiselite becomes somewhat removed from theRoma population and its problems, it beginsto be seen as a preferred group, and becomesthe target of criticism within the Roma com−munity.

Human Rights, Racism andDiscrimination

Although the Slovak Constitution and variouslaws guarantee equal rights and obligations toall Slovak citizens, practice shows that theexperience of Roma individuals or groups isdifferent from that of the majority population,especially when it comes to finding work, andgetting access to schools, services and someestablishments. These differences are oftencaused by actual negative experiences andinvented prejudices on both sides.

The growing activities of different extremistgroups, increasing racially motivated attacks,and escalating tensions between the majoritypopulation and the Roma represent very dan−gerous phenomena. One response to the dan−ger has been different activities by NGOs fo−cusing on human rights protection and com−bating racism and discrimination. These in−clude especially regional and Slovak−wideprograms to increase legal awareness, providecounseling, and protect the rights of the Romaand other neglected and endangered groupssuch as foreigners, minorities etc.

Many NGOs offer prevention programs, aslatent racism, generalizations based on nega−tive experience, stereotypes and prejudiceare quite widespread in Slovakia. The aim ofsuch preventive action is to remove preju−

dices and provide facts about other cultures.Activities like these help increase tolerancetowards the Roma (and other minorities andethnic groups) through anti−prejudice educa−tion in schools, common activities, and thepresentation of positive examples.

Some NGOs focus on lowering the high rateof unemployment. Although this problem isof key importance, it is far harder to solvethan many other problems due to the pooroverall economic situation in Slovakia, Slo−vak legislation and other factors. Neverthe−less, many other problems are directly relatedto unemployment.

Other fields of NGO activity include health(hygiene, sex education, preparation for par−enthood, reproductive health, etc.), socialservices, sports, the environment, and pro−grams intended for specific groups of citizens(women, young journalists, etc.).

ENDNOTES

1. Formerly the Council of Non−GovernmentalOrganizations of the Roma Parliament, whichlater served as the basis for the establishmentof the Roma Parliament civic association (reg−istered on October 5, 2001) and the Council ofRoma Community Non−Governmental Organi−zations.

2. A common project for monitoring Romaprojects in Slovakia from 1993 to 2000 by theBritish Know−How Fund, the Delegation of theEuropean Commission in Slovakia, the OpenSociety Fund, and the Foundation for the Sup−port of Civic Activities.

REFERENCES

1. Info:Roma – Adresár mimovládnych organizá−cií, ktoré sa venujú rómskym programom[Info:Roma – An Address Book of NGOs Fo−cusing on Roma Programs], (Bratislava: Nadá−cia InfoRoma, 2001).

217

Summary: This chapter analyzes the notionof the “donor”, and looks at donors from thecontext of the Roma issue. It describes thebasic principles of donating and the factorsinfluencing the founding of donation pro−grams. The chapter also discusses positivediscrimination in donation, and deals withsome of the problems of creating donationprograms with relation to the Roma issue.

Key words: donor environment, foundations,grants, public resources, grant programs, posi−tive discrimination, operational programs,pilot projects, development of human and in−stitutional capacity, grant cycle, leadership.

INTRODUCTION

The launch of grant programs and the ap−proach of donors to the Roma is an unex−plored topic that has been insufficiently re−searched. Developments in this field are verydramatic, and keep presenting new pro−grams, approaches and strategies that have tobe evaluated. Donating as an issue also at−tracts attention concerning the efficiency ofthe money spent. Surprisingly, this form ofactivity is occurring in the public sector,which is only slowly getting used to the roleof private donors (local and foreign founda−tions), and where the principles of donorwork are not known.

Donors have to make various decisions thatdefine the parameters of their programs. The

BORIS STREČANSKÝ

APPROACH TO THE ROMA ISSUE BYLOCAL AND FOREIGN DONORS

nature of donor programs is influenced bypolitical factors, administrative limitations,the will of the donor, and the competence ofthe people implementing programs or ben−efiting from grants. Grant programs are justone of the development tools that allow tar−get groups to carry out their ideas and therebydevelop their capacities. This aspect is oneof the key factors in the success of develop−ment programs as a whole, not just those con−cerning the Roma.

DONOR ENVIRONMENT

If we are going to speak about local and for−eign donors, we must first make clear whatthese terms mean.

SLOVAK FOUNDATIONS

There are more than 500 Slovak foundationsin Slovakia, although only a few use theirown funds. In other countries, foundationswere in the past and are now perceived asinstitutions that have their own financial re−sources, which they gradually enhance byincreasing their equity capital (their endow−ment), and that use the returns from theirassets to carry out their public service role.Equity capital is generally created from thegenerosity of the founder or donors who arewilling to donate gifts to form the founda−tion’s endowment. This type of foundationactivity is in its infancy in Slovakia.

218 B o r i s S t r e č a n s k ý

A more common type of foundation in Slo−vakia is the kind that continuously raisesfunds from both the private and public sec−tors to carry out their public service calling.A typical example is the Hour for Childrencampaign, in which the organizing founda−tion raises funds from the private sector anduses them for the purpose intended. Anotherfoundation – Ekopolis – s also been admin−istering US public resources during the pastthree years, and distributing them in grantsto Slovak NGOs. During the past few years,much of the funds have been spent onprojects focusing on the Roma. In 2001 morethan 200 projects dealing with the Romawere funded, with about 50 million Sk ($1.4million) donated.

FOREIGN FOUNDATIONS

Besides local foundations (i.e. those regis−tered in Slovakia) there are also many foreignfoundations operating in this country, eitherthrough agencies as registered foreign foun−dations, or at a distance. As for the origin ofresources, these are mostly foundationswhose property originates in the private sec−tor, although there are also public−type foun−dations and foundations administering pub−lic resources (e.g. the C. S. Mott Foundation,the Ford Foundation, or Konrad AdenauerStiftung). In comparison with Slovak foun−dations or with the government, foreignfoundations are not an important donor, butare capable of providing forms of support theothers cannot (such as general organizationalsupport).

FOREIGN PUBLIC RESOURCES

Donors are not restricted to local and for−eign foundations, but also include foreignpublic resources flowing into Slovakiathrough different channels: the programs of

individual development agencies, such asthe United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) from the US, andthe Department for International Develop−ment (DFID) from the United Kingdom; thecommon programs of several countries,which in Slovakia’s case mostly involvesEU resources, i.e. the Instrument for Struc−tural Policies for Pre−Accession (ISPA) orthe Special Accession Program for Agricul−ture and Rural Development (SAPARD),Phare, Socrates and so on; the programs ofinter−governmental organizations, such asthe United Nations Development Program(UNDP), the United Nations Environmen−tal Program, etc.; multilateral institutionssuch as the World Bank; and programs im−plemented directly through the embassies ofindividual states. Unlike the endowmentfunds, these resources come from the tax−payers of individual countries and are un−der public control. The most importantamong these resources are those providedby the EU, the World Bank, and DFID.

SLOVAK PUBLIC RESOURCES

Donors also include Slovak public sectorinstitutions such as the Slovak government,institutions under various ministries, publicfunds such as the Housing DevelopmentFund, and special offices such as the Officeof the Slovak Government Representativefor Solving the Problems of the Roma mi−nority.

BASIC FIELDS OF DONOR ACTIVITY:GRANTS VS. OPERATIONALPROGRAMS

Essentially, donors may use the funds theyhave available (whether their own or pro−vided by other donors for a certain purpose)in two ways:

219A p p r o a c h t o t h e R o m a I s s u e b y L o c a l a n d F o r e i g n D o n o r s

1. Through grants (gifts) to third parties forpublic service purposes (grant programs).Here, the donor provides the gift (grant) onthe basis of a project submitted by anotherentity (another non−profit organization, as−sociation, etc.). The grant beneficiary as−sumes responsibility for the implementa−tion of the project. The grant program canbe either open, i.e. available to anyonewho meets certain conditions (e.g. beingregistered as a NGO) or closed. If the proc−ess is closed, the donor itself chooses therecipient of the grant. The advantage of thegrant approach is its democracy and plu−rality arising from the unlimited possibil−ity to compete for the resources available,along with its better external control, whilethe downside is the risk that the moneycould be spent inefficiently on a purposethat the donor may consider important, butwhich may not be regarded as importantby the applicants.

2. Direct implementation of communitywork (operational programs such as flatreconstruction, the operation of a kinder−garten, the purchase of schoolbooks, edu−cational programs, etc.). The donor itselfis responsible for carrying out the pro−gram. The upside of this approach is thatthere is greater control over how effi−ciently the resources are used, while thedisadvantages include the risk that theinitiative will miss its mark and actuallycreate a new need whose satisfaction inturn requires the continued existence ofthe institution and its operational pro−grams.

A whole range of possible strategies existsbetween these two approaches. Donors infact often combine several different ap−proaches, implementing some parts of aproject themselves, and launching an opengrant program for the remainder. Some grantprograms are more open, others less so.

FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE SETTING−UP OFDONATION PROGRAMS

There is no universal approach to setting updonor programs that work in every situation.The proper set−up depends on the donor, itspreferences and experience. The creation ofdonation programs is often influenced byexternal expectations, limits on the resourcesavailable, different accounting principles,time limits for spending the funds, the politi−cal priorities of the donor country and ben−eficiary country, and cultural factors (thedegree of formality and interest on the partof the donor, relevant experience, etc.).

DONORS AND “DONORS”

As the heading suggests, the term “donor”does not necessarily denote an entity decid−ing independently about how its funds arespent. The donor must frequently considerthe conditions that must be met so it can usethe funds provided by the original “donor”.Author will thus sometimes use the term“donor”, meaning the origin of the moneydonated, in quotation marks. From this it alsofollows that not all entities with the word“foundation” in their names carry out grantprograms by themselves, and may give thegrants to third parties, all the while carryingout their own programs. In this context, notall foundations are equal to donors.

For the purposes of this chapter, donors areinstitutions that provide significant resourcesto Slovak programs, and whose programs arenot exclusively operational, i.e. they actuallyprovide grants to third parties. The donationissue is very complicated and diverse, anddonors often use different rules when settingup their programs. In practice, several con−current programs with the same objective can


frequently be found. To the casual observerit may appear that the individual programsare competing with one another, not support−ing one another, and that they in fact over−lap. However, the situation is not alwayswhat it seems.

Minimizing inefficiency in the use of re−sources requires that donors have the inter−est and ability to agree on a common ap−proach. Even in Slovakia, individual pro−grams are often fine−tuned, coordinated andeven combined. Because of the institutionalbarriers in combining private and public re−sources, however, these efforts are often invain. Sometimes the cause lies simply in theincompetence of the people involved.

On the other hand there is an initiative by keydonors to provide an overview and a lookback at developments so far. The result ofthis initiative is a book by Mária Lenczováentitled Slovakia: Projects for the Roma.Findings, Recommendations, and Examples(2002). This book offers advice to donors onhow to carry out their activities in the mostefficient manner. If subjective factors in thedonor environment are disregarded, the fol−lowing holds true: the flexibility of privateresources is greater than that of public re−sources. On the other hand, when the degreeof coordination and the suitability of dona−tion program setups are evaluated, theamount of funds provided by individual do−nors also have to be taken into account. Natu−rally, those investing the most money shouldhave the greatest say in how it is used.

DONORS AND THE ROMA ISSUE

Considering the money that comes from in−dividual ministries and funds, the most im−portant Slovak donor is the government. Theimportance of this fact lies not just in theamount of funds spent, but also in what the

government does or does not do in this field.The government’s activities strongly influ−ence the way other donors set up their pro−grams. The disinterest or failure of the Slo−vak public sector to make efficient use ofpublic resources to improve the position ofthe Roma in Slovakia has led to a situationin which foreign donors are active in areasthat normally should be under the jurisdic−tion of the public sector. This situation wascaused by incompetence among the bureau−crats responsible for the use of budgetmoney, as well as by rigidity in the rulesgoverning the use of such funds, and politi−cal reluctance to discuss this important issue.These charges may be increasingly less de−served, but they still largely hold true.

After the Slovak government, the next mostimportant donor (see Table 1) from the view−point of the volume of funds invested is theEU with its Phare program, which in 2001,together with the Slovak Government Office,allocated 10 million euros in co−financingRoma minority support, education and infra−structure programs. The most important isthe Foundation for the Support of Civil Ac−tivities (NPOA), which administers EUfunds within the framework of the NationalMinority Development Program, providingover 48 million Sk in funding for 109 pro−jects focusing on the Roma.

The Slovak Open Society Fund (Nadáciaotvorenej spoločnosti, NOS – OSF) is a sig−nificant long−term donor of Roma programs,drawing funds from the American philan−thropist George Soros. Soros also providesfunds for Slovak Roma development pro−grams through the Open Society Institute inBudapest and New York. In 2001, the NOS– OSF provided 2.6 million Sk for 88projects. In the case of the NOS – OSF fund,the most important issue is the form and strat−egy according to which the money will bedistributed, not the amount spent. For a long


time, this has been the only significant foun−dation to systematically support Roma or−ganizations, Roma leaders, and changing theeducational system to make it more accessi−ble to the Roma. It was an initiative of thisfund that helped introduce Roma assistants,and encouraged the state educational systemto adopt procedures tested in pilot programsby the Open Society Fund.

Among other foundations supporting Romaprojects, sporadic help has come from theIntegra and InfoRoma foundations, as wellas some local foundations such as the com−munity foundation Healthy Town BanskáBystrica. These are just a few examples togive readers a better idea of the diversity ofinstitutions designated as “donors”.

The Roma issue has become a focal point forforeign countries due especially to the recentmigration of Slovak Roma to EU countriesand Slovakia’s efforts to become a memberof the EU, thus naturally attracting more andmore foreign donors. Slovak society, on theother hand, does not consider this issue to beas urgent as it should, and thus is not spend−ing more domestic private resources on this

Table 1Volume of funds from selected institutions allocated to solving the Roma issue in 2001

C��

O��!��

�9&�� 63��&��+�&�O�� 63�8J��J�A��O��!�� 63�P��9��<P�9=� ��63�P�� 8��<P��8=� ��63�� /2N5/2N/3/��

E��&��@��

P7�+�9 �� 63�� Q��!�� 63�E��&��@�� A��<E&A=� ��63�� -/-N,/5N,**��

��

��& �'��<��'��?�� 9 ��=� ��63�& �'�� 63�� -,,N,/*N***��

&�� 1,1N,3,N33/��

Source: Internal document of a thematic group dealing with the Roma issue at the Donor Forum, 2002.

area, even though the amount of Slovak pub−lic money spent on Roma programs is in−creasing from one year to the next.1 TheWorld Bank and the UNDP are the mostimportant fund providers cooperating withthe Slovak government.

FROM UNCONSCIOUSGHETTOISATION TO CONSCIOUSINTEGRATION

Donors dealing with the Roma issue inSlovakia face several dilemmas (these prob−lems are related to their level of autonomy increating grant programs, which again is de−termined by the will of the donor of thefunds; with donors operating in Slovakia, thelevel of autonomy varies and is always indi−vidually defined). One of these dilemmas iswhether to create a special program for Romaprojects, or whether to leave them to competefor grants in other, non−ethnic categoriessuch as justice and education.

The approach taken by independent pro−grams focused on the Roma is an example ofpositive discrimination towards this minor−


ity in the grant policy of individual donors,and creates equal conditions for all appli−cants. The disadvantage of this approach isthat the competing projects address vastlydifferent problems, which makes it harder tocompare them. Roma projects may also besimply lumped together and expected to ap−ply for money only from Roma programs,meaning that other programs that could sig−nificantly benefit the Roma community arenot open to projects from this community

We must note, however, that the actual suc−cess ratio of projects submitted by the Romain grant competitions is quite low, which isdue mainly to the poor quality of the projects.This is apparent especially in their unrealis−tic budget and activity estimates. However,the reason may be a simple lack of resources;there are several quickly developing Romaorganizations that are capable not just ofwriting but also implementing quality pro−grams. Thus, the optimal way seems to be tosupport the original Roma organizations.

There are several types of donor approachesto the Roma issue:a) Programs directly for the Roma.b) Programs for the Roma and for other mi−

norities or for the majority to which theRoma belong.

c) Programs focusing on the minority issuethat attempt to increase tolerance andchange the attitude of the majority towardsthe minority.

d) Programs whose target group is not ethni−cally specified (oriented towards educa−tion etc.).

The Slovak donor environment would cer−tainly benefit from the integration of Romaprojects into donation programs, and fromreflection on the merits each project has forthe Roma community, not just in the short ormedium term, but also in the long term. Con−crete policies (such as the length of the grant

cycle) will always depend on the individualdonors.

EFFICIENCY OF ROMA−ORIENTEDDONATION PROGRAMS

NATURAL DONOR LIMITS

If we forget about Slovak public resources, theability of the remaining donors to resolve thesocial problems of the Roma community arelimited, even though expectations remainhigh. What is the optimum role for private andforeign donors regarding the Roma issue?

First of all, we must realize that foundationsmust follow the instructions of their donors.No Slovak foundation decides autonomouslyon the way its funds are used; instead, as wasmentioned above, the vast majority of Slovakfoundations simply administer the funds pro−vided by their actual donors, regardless ofwhether they originate from abroad, fromforeign governments, or from private per−sons.

Foundations with their own property (endow−ments) are more the exception in Slovakia,and only a fraction use the income from theirassets to carry out grant activities. The onesthat do so obtain only very small amounts inthis way, ranging into the hundreds of dollars.

The administration of grant programs con−tains one very important indicator, namelythe indirect costs−to−grants−awarded ratio.Every donor strives to increase the ratio ofgrants to administrative costs. The Roma is−sue is a quite a challenge in this regard, be−cause based on the need that exists, donorsshould invest much more into visiting theorganizations they support, and into consul−tation and advice. In another words, donoractivity should not be limited to providingmoney, but should be preceded by intense


communication allowing the transfer of theknow−how, procedures and skills needed forthe long−term success of projects.

PILOT PROJECTS ASA DONOR APPROACH TO THE ISSUE

Slovak foundations are more successful inraising and distributing funds through grants,including grants focused on solving the prob−lems of the Roma. In comparison with pub−lic resources, foundations will never haveenough money to implement nationwide pro−grams such as housing and infrastructurereconstruction. Part of the programs of foun−dations is thus consciously and wisely fo−cused on pilot model solutions to selectedproblems, thereby narrowing the founda−tion’s scope of activities. This is essential, asdonors want to see how their donations arehelping. If donation programs are designed tobe too general – the “everything to everyone”type of program – the impact of these grantswill be impossible to see.

SUBJECTIVE FACTORS

The focus on solving general problemsthrough pilot projects is a practical and ra−tional approach in situations where the prob−lem exceeds all current financial and humanresources. Subjective factors, such as cour−age, leadership, the ability to see things dif−ferently, technical solutions, perseverance,ingenuity and enthusiasm are also of greatsignificance for donation programs.

NARROWING THE SCOPE OFGRANT PROGRAMS:AN UNDESIRABLE TREND?

The present trend is a steady narrowing ingrant programs to specific topics and specific

target groups. The Roma community natu−rally does not seem very grateful for such anarrowed orientation. Given the current situ−ation of the Roma in Slovakia, Roma−ori−ented grant programs should have a firmstructure and focus, but in order to narrow thedifference between the Roma elite and theRoma majority, at least several grant pro−grams should be general in nature, support−ing projects that affect a broad part of thecommunity, not just priority projects. Hope−fully, civil society among the Roma will bebuilt in the same way it developed in themajority society, in other words gradually,and through natural selection. In this proc−ess, general−purpose grants2 by foreign do−nors played an important role. These grantswere awarded to Slovak NGOs, whichgradually acquired the confidence of theirdonors and started implementing their vi−sions irrespective of the short−term projectcycle of most of the other foundations. Manyof these organizations play an important rolein their respective fields, and form the back−bone of the NGO sector in Slovakia.

THE SHORT−TERM NATURE OFTHE GRANT CYCLE

Yet another factor influencing the quality ofdonation programs is the short−term natureof the financial donation cycle. A muchlonger period is needed to test, prepare, im−plement and evaluate new solutions, anddevelop the abilities of individuals and or−ganizations, than it takes to spend the fundson miscellaneous activities. The interest ofdonors in seeing quick results usually has adevastating effect, and leads to the oppositeresult. Foundations that only administerfunds and focus on spending them on differ−ent activities, like the beneficiaries that re−ceive the funds, focus on producing reportson training courses, activities and events,while not bothering to answer the most im−


portant question: “Are we doing the rightthing?” If their efforts are to have meaning,building the potential of Roma leaders andorganizations is one of the key roles theyhave to perform. “Building potential” is aphrase one hears frequently, whose practicaluse often ends in the seminar room or thetraining course class. However, it is the re−sponsibility of donors to build the potentialof the Roma community in a sensitive man−ner. The short−term nature of the grant cycleis not suited to this goal.

Of course, there are risks on the other side aswell. People who work for foundations cer−tainly know the term “donor fatigue”, or theweariness that arises on long−term projects.It refers to a sort of “bad mood” that descendswhen the benefit of the grant for the targetgroup seems to be diminishing and donorsstart looking for new targets that have not yetbeen addressed by the state or the privatesector.

CONCLUSION

The common problem of donors and benefi−ciaries in Slovakia is the number of qualitypeople with vision, enthusiasm and leader−ship who keep leaving for other professions,or emigrating. The result is that the donorswith the necessary funds are afraid to riskthem, while the beneficiaries, having appar−ently got used to the money, offer no newideas or innovations. This is as true of Romaprojects and the foundation sector as of thewhole of Slovak society.

Several analyses (Projects..., 2001; Lenczo−vá, 2002) of the approach of donors to Romaprojects have observed that Slovakia lacksorganizations that steadily and systematicallybuilds up the potential of Roma leaders. Ithappens quite often that funds originally in−

tended for the Roma are channeled throughnon−Roma organizations, because the poten−tial of the Roma organizations is insufficient(there are many ambitious projects withmulti−million budgets, but few have beenimplemented; the unwillingness of founda−tions to risk in this regard seems justified).There has been no advance in this sphereduring the last few years. The task of build−ing human and institutional capacities re−mains a long−term one for both the founda−tion sector and the Roma themselves.

However, the possibilities of cooperationbetween the public and private sectors are farfrom exhausted. The Slovak foundationsadministering funds from foreign publicsources have the necessary experience andare ready to administer the funds provided bythe Slovak government. The Roma third sec−tor is also attempting to administer funds.These efforts are justified, but they fail dueto the limitations of the real world of finance,and due to a lack of trust. One might askwhether it is possible to build institutionaland human capacity without letting theseorganizations solve problems and challengeson their own, which in turn improve theirquality. It seems that this is the basic dilemmafaced by all people working in the donationbusiness: first of all, it is a question of trustand knowing your partner.

ENDNOTES

1. For example, in 1999, 15 million Sk was allo−cated from the state budget for tackling theRoma issue; in 2000 and 2001 it was 30 mil−lion Sk, and the estimate for 2002 was 50 mil−lion Sk. Together with the funds from otherministries allocated for this purpose, the totalwas even higher, but nowhere near the amountprovided for development projects by foreigndonors.

2. These are the so−called “general−purpose grants”.


REFERENCES

1. Lenczová, Mária et al: Slovensko: Projektypre Rómov 1993 – 2000. Zistenia, odporúča−nia a príklady [Slovakia: Projects for theRoma from 1993 to 2000. Findings, Recom−mendations, Examples], (Bratislava: OpenSociety Foundation, Foundation for the Sup−port of Civic Activities, Know How Fund,European Commission Delegation in Slova−kia, 2002).

2. Projekty v roku 2001 [Projects in 2001], (Bra−tislava: Partners for Democratic Change – Slo−

vakia, 2001, http://www.pdcs.sk/projekty/pro−jekty2001.html).

3. Vašečka, Michal: “Rómovia” [‘The Roma’] inMesežnikov, Grigorij and Kollár, Miroslav(eds.): Slovensko 2001. Súhrnná správa o stavespoločnosti [Slovakia 2001: A Global Reporton the State of Society], (Bratislava: Institutefor Public Affairs, 2001).

4. Zoznam udelených grantov za rok 2001. Róm−ska problematika [List of Grants Awarded in2001: The Roma Issue], Internal document ofa thematic group at the Donor Forum, (Brati−slava, 2002).

226

227

Summary: This chapter analyses the rela−tionship of the majority population to theRoma in Slovakia, reflecting the results ofpublic opinion polls. The author examinesthe considerable social gulf between themajority population and the Roma, and ex−plains how these prejudices arose. The au−thor analyzes the results of public opinionpolls in explaining the social gap between themajority and the Roma, criticizes misleadingstudies of social distance, and examines per−ceptions of the social standing of the Romain Slovakia. In conclusion, the author warnsof a rise in tension between the majority andthe Roma, and evaluates the danger of eth−nic conflict as social chasms continue todeepen.

Key words: public opinion, social distance,prejudice, stereotypes, relationships, anti−discriminatory attitudes, empathy, inter−ethnic conflict, types and stages of conflicts.

INTRODUCTION

The different culture of the Roma and theirdifferent way of life are viewed negatively bythe majority population, whose general opin−ion is that most Roma do not want or do notknow how to adapt to social standards. Thisview of the Roma’s “otherness” has led to asocial gulf between the majority populationand the Roma. According to all opinion pollsconcerning the relationship of the majoritypopulation to minorities, the social gulf, or

MICHAL VAŠEČKA

RELATIONSHIP OFTHE MAJORITY POPULATION TOTHE ROMA

“social distance”, is greatest between themajority and the Roma. Over the long term,the relationship and attitudes of the majoritypopulation to the Roma have been far worsethan the majority’s relationship to othergroups of inhabitants. On scales of socialdistance the Roma usually rank first, even ifrespondents can also choose other typicallyrejected groups, such as homosexuals, alco−holics, and drug addicts (Vašečka, 2001a).

Every opinion poll dealing with this issuesince 1990 has confirmed that the social gulfconcerning the Roma in Slovakia is equallygreat among all classes of inhabitants, re−gardless of age, sex, education, nationality,political sympathies, or the size of the mu−nicipality in which the respondent lives, andthat the size of this gulf has not changed overtime. A large part of the majority populationviews the presence of the Roma in Slovakiaas a burden, and this feeling intensifies whenthey are asked to imagine the presence of theRoma in their neighborhood or close prox−imity. The proportion of people who wouldreject having a Roma as a neighbor has re−mained steady throughout the 1990s at morethan three quarters of respondents (Vašečka,2001b).

A large part of the majority population formsits attitudes to the Roma under the influenceof prejudice and stereotypes rooted in ethno−centrism. The high degree of rejection andthe widespread prejudice directly influencethe behavior of the Roma, who often just

228 M i c h a l Va š e č k a

fulfill the image the majority population hasof them. The tension between the Roma andthe majority population keeps rising, andposes a real threat for the future of the lib−eral−democratic regime in Slovakia.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE ROMA AND THE REST

Is the rejection of the Roma in Slovakia theresult of prejudices and stereotypes? Is it theresult of the vicious circle described in the“Thomas theorem”, according to whichprejudices that are believed to be true actu−ally become true, and thus fuel new stere−otypes? Or is this rejection the result of nega−tive experiences that survey respondentshave had with the Roma? Clearly, the answeris a mixture of all these factors. People’sexperiences affect the formation of preju−dices, which are then reflected in the produc−tion of stereotypes; fully 50% of the respond−ents in a 1995 opinion poll conducted in Slo−vakia by the GfK agency had had no nega−tive experience with the Roma. The percent−age of people who have had a negative ex−perience with the Roma in Slovakia has not

changed much since 1995 – according to anopinion poll conducted by the Institute forPublic Affairs (IVO) in March 2000, 42% ofrespondents had had a bad or somewhat badexperience with the Roma, while only 17%had had a good or somewhat good experi−ence. Some 27.4% of respondents had hadboth good and bad experiences, and almost13% had had no personal experience withRoma at all (Vašečka, 2001a).

The negative relationship to the Roma andthe social gap between the majority and theRoma is not the result of the cultural“otherness” of the Roma in our modern so−ciety – attitudes to the Roma were equallynegative in the past. During the initial stagesof communism, the majority generallythought that the Roma could only overcometheir backwardness if they gave up their wayof life and adapted to the majority populationas much as possible. The Roma were per−ceived by the majority as a socially underde−veloped group of people with inadequatework habits. While there are no reliable dataon the social gap between the majority andthe Roma before 1989, we may assume thatthe Roma were fairly strongly rejected. This

Graph 1Evaluation of the relationship between the Roma and the rest of population (in %)

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

%��2��. ��0(��2��. ��0(��. %��. @�.��0�3��A

7�0��

'��(��

Source: Center for the Research of Social Problems, October 1990; IVO, March 2000.

229R e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e M a j o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n t o t h e R o m a

was fully displayed in the first opinion pollsafter 1989 (Vašečka, 2001a).

The declared relationship between the major−ity population and the Roma minority did notchange much in the 1990s. An opinion pollconducted in November 1990 confirmed thatthe relationship between the Roma and therest of population was very tense – over 90%of respondents assessed it as bad (somewhatbad or very bad) (Aktuálne problémy...,1990).

Further opinion polls confirmed that the viewof the relationship between the Roma and therest of the population has not changed, andremains very negative. According to an opin−ion poll conducted by the IVO in March2000, only 17% of respondents thought therelationship between the Roma and the ma−jority population was good or somewhatgood, while 80% called it bad or somewhatbad.good aothe Roma and the rest of popu−lation has not changed and the rea Only 4%of respondents had relatives among theRoma; 13% had Roma colleagues at work;21% had Roma friends; and 23% had someRoma living in their neighborhood. As forcasual forms of contact with the Roma, 61%of respondents knew some Roma well

enough to greet them on the street and occa−sionally speak with them, while 93% en−countered the Roma on the street, in theshops, or on the bus. Although most peopleassessed the relationship between the Romaand non−Roma as bad, only 43% of respond−ents said they had had a bad or somewhat badexperience with a Roma; 27% had had bothgood and bad experiences; 17% had had agood or somewhat good personal experience,and 13% had had no personal experience(Vašečka, 2001a).

People living in close contact with the Romausually have fewer negative experiences withthem than people without this kind of con−tact. For example, among those respondentswho live next to a Roma family, 27% indi−cated they had had positive experiences, 32%mixed, and 39% negative experiences. Onthe other hand, among respondents not liv−ing near a Roma family, only 14% said theyhad had a positive experience, 26% mixed,and 43% a negative experience. Among peo−ple working with the Roma, 29% had hadpositive personal experiences with the Roma,36% mixed experiences, and 33% negativeexperiences. The relationship between theRoma and the non−Roma population is as−sessed as poor not only by people who have

Graph 2“What is your personal experience with the Roma?” (in %)

�

��

�

��

��

��

�

� � ��

2��.

��0(��2��.

��0(�2��.��.��.

��0(��.�0(��2��.

��.

��B"��

@�.��0�3��A

Source: IVO, March 2000.


had negative personal experiences with theRoma (91% of them state that the relation−ship is bad), but also by 78% of those whohave had positive personal experiences withthe Roma (Vašečka, 2001a).

SOCIAL GAP BETWEENTHE MAJORITY AND THE ROMA

All opinion polls examining the social gapbetween the majority population and theRoma since 1990 have noticed that this so−cial distance in Slovakia is equally pro−nounced in all classes of the population, andthat it has remained constant over time. Theratio of people who said they would refuseto have a Roma as a neighbor remained con−stant during the 1990s at more than three−quarters of Slovak respondents. According tothe opinion polls conducted by the FOCUSagency over the past decade, the degree ofsocial distance (measured by the percentageof people who say they would refuse to livenext to a Roma) developed as follows: 80%in October 1990, 80% in May 1991, 82% inJanuary 1992, 94% in March 1993, 79% inOctober 1993, 78% in May 1994, 76% in

December 1994, 80% in October 1997, 76%in January 1999, and 78% in March 2000(Vašečka, 2001a).

An opinion poll conducted by the Institutefor Research of Public Opinion (IRPO, 1995)analyzed prejudices and stereotypes aboutthe Roma by finding out which characteris−tics were attributed to the Roma by respond−ents. Among the positive traits were the fol−lowing: musical talent (53%), talent for busi−ness (19%), carefree manner (16%), and loveof children and family (10%). However, 32%of respondents in the IRPO poll could notthink of any positive qualities. Among thenegative characteristics were the following:crime−prone, work−shy, poor hygiene, alco−holism, noisiness, and deviousness. The vari−ous negative characteristics attributed to theRoma by the public are stated far morestrongly and definitely than the positive ones.The IRPO researchers stated that this viewof the Roma prevails among all inhabitantsof Slovakia, and is very homogenous, notvarying from one socio demographic groupto another. Which traits are typical of theRoma from the viewpoint of Slovak respond−ents? According to a 1995 GfK Praha opin−

Graph 3“Which properties are typical for the Roma?” (in %)

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

� ��

6��/��C��

;�� 0�

7"��D� �.�.��//

-�#��0

6�#CD��C .��

4#��C�#��//

6"��0�� 0�

; �#��

E� / ��//

F�G ��//

Source: GfK Praha, 1995.


ion poll, negative characteristics clearly pre−vail (see Graph 3).

Most Slovak respondents mentioned dis−plays of antisocial behavior as the thing theydisliked about the Roma the most, includingespecially abuse of welfare benefits (84%)and criminality (89%). Opinion polls areconstantly pointing out that the social dis−tance between the Roma and the majority issignificant among all classes of people, re−gardless of age, education, sex, profession,religion, and economic or foreign policy ori−entation. The social gap is closely related topeople’s perception of the proper relation−ship between the majority and minorities: thegap is smaller among people who emphasizethe need to respect minority rights. On theother hand, people who show a greater de−gree of distrust towards “the others”, are alsomarked by a greater sense of social frustra−tion and injustice; they tend to expect thestate to used a paternalistic approach, theyoften reject democratic principles, they tendto favor the “strong hand” style of govern−ment, they believe that the majority shouldtake decisions even at the expense of minori−ties, and they show greater tolerance for ra−cial and national hatred (Bútorová, Gyárfá−šová and Velšic, 2000). Lower−than−averagesocial distance between the majority and theRoma was found among the inhabitants ofthe smallest villages, and among respondentsclaiming Hungarian ethnicity (FOCUS, De−cember 1994).

Opinion polls confirm that personal contactwith members of a minority decreases socialdistance. For example, among those whowork with the Roma, as many as 65% haveno objection to the presence of the Roma inSlovakia, while 44% would not mind theirpresence in their village or town district, and28% would be comfortable with the presenceof Roma in their immediate neighborhood.On the other hand, the greatest social gap

between the majority and the Roma is amongpeople with no close personal contact withthe Roma. For example, among respondentswho do not encounter the Roma at all, only34% accepted their presence in Slovakia,only 23% would accept them in their munici−pality, and only 12% would not mind havinga Roma as a neighbor (IVO, March 2000).According to this poll, 80% of respondentsconsidered the relationship between theRoma and the non−Roma to be poor, but only43% of respondents said they had had a badexperience with them (28% more bad thangood, and 14% bad); 27% had had both goodand bad experiences; 17% had had goodexperiences (5% good, 12% rather good);and 13% had had no personal experiencewith the Roma. Data on the frequency ofcontacts between the majority populationand the Roma show that most Slovak peoplehave had some contact with the Roma; thus,when people evaluate the Roma, both preju−dice and practical experience play a role.Some 4% of respondents had relativesamong the Roma, 21% friends, 13% col−leagues, and 23% close neighbors; 61% saidthey knew some Roma personally, and 93%said they regularly encountered the Roma onthe street, in the shops, on the bus, or else−where (Bútorová, Gyárfášová and Velšic,2000).

SOCIAL GAP BETWEENTHE MAJORITY AND“OTHER MINORITIES”

The relationship and attitudes of the major−ity population to the Roma have long beenfar worse than its relationship to othergroups. On the scale of social distance theRoma always rank first, even when otherrejected groups such as homosexuals, alco−holics or drug addicts are included. Com−pared to the Roma, even alcoholics and drugaddicts are perceived more positively. Ac−


cording to research conducted by the IRPOin 1995, the inhabitants of Slovakia gener−ally have the best attitude towards theCzechs, while the Roma top the other end ofthe scale. As many as 77% of Slovaks viewtheir relationship with the Roma as hostile orsomewhat hostile. This fact, and its con−stancy over time, has been confirmed by sev−eral ensuing opinion polls (FOCUS, 1999;IVO, 1999, 2000). The Roma are perceivedas the ethnic group that most frequentlyevokes a negative reaction among the major−ity population. On the other end of the scalewere the Jews (the Czechs were not includedthis time). Opinion polls conducted by theFOCUS agency and the Institute for PublicAffairs repeatedly confirmed that respond−ents with a negative attitude towards one eth−nic minority tend to reject other minorities aswell. This was confirmed by an opinion pollconducted by the Institute for Social Analy−sis at Comenius University in May 1991 –respondents who were intolerant of the Hun−garians were equally intolerant of the Roma,Jews, and foreigners (Vašečka, 2001a).

PERCEPTION OFTHE ROMA’S POSITION INSOCIETY

The huge social gap between the majorityand the Roma is related to the lack of empa−thy that the majority show for the difficultsituation the Roma are in. In 1999, accord−ing to IVO research, only 23% of respond−ents conceded that the social situation of theRoma had declined over the past two years,while 60% believed it had not (IVO, Janu−ary 1999). In March 2000, as many as 49%of respondents stated that the Roma hadequal conditions and chances for develop−ment as the rest of the Slovak population.Only 21% believed that the position of theRoma was worse; this opinion was more fre−quent among people with higher education

and those with friends, colleagues, and espe−cially relatives among the Roma. Some 27%of respondents, on the other hand, were per−suaded that the Roma were privileged in Slo−vakia. Several opinion polls looking at therelationship between the majority and theRoma have shown that even though respond−ents declare that all people in Slovakia shouldhave equal rights (e.g. in the 1995 IRPO opin−ion poll, 80% of respondents held this opin−ion), this insistence on equality varies accord−ing to which national, racial, or religiousgroup is in question (Vašečka, 2001a).

RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ONHOW TO ADDRESSTHE ROMA ISSUE

After 1989, the Slovak population began torealize that the “Roma issue” was becomingone of the greatest challenges Slovakia faced.According to research entitled Slovakia Be−fore the Elections, conducted by the Centerfor Research of Social Problems establishedby the Coordination Center of the PublicAgainst Violence party in May 1990, only3.2% of respondents, when asked “What isthe greatest problem Slovakia faces?” an−swered “the Roma issue”, putting the Romaissue in 10th place at the time. The “rating”of the Roma issue gradually increased, how−ever, and according to another opinion pollby the same Center in November 1990, theRoma issue ranked 7th (4.5% of respondents).This opinion poll warned that the intensity ofthe debate on coexistence between theCzechs and Slovaks was not warranted bythe real state of the relationship betweenthese two nations, and that far more seriousissues remained in the background, open toabuse by irresponsible forces – the Centerwas especially concerned with the tense rela−tionship between the Roma and the rest of Slo−vakia’s inhabitants (Center for Research…,May 1990). According to the Center’s May


1990 research, the political engagement andrepresentation of the Roma (in 1990 it wasthrough the Roma Civic Initiative – ROI)was viewed rather negatively by respond−ents, who regarded ROI as the political partywith the lowest intellectual potential, as aparty that was not trying to solve problems,and as an opportunistic party (it ranked im−mediately behind the Communist Party) thatwould cause an economic decline if it wonthe elections (Vašečka, 2001a).

The huge social gap between the majorityand the Roma in Slovakia is accompanied bysupport for anti−Roma legislation and a wide−spread refusal to consider positive solutions.The issue of discriminatory measures againstthe Roma was dealt with in an opinion pollconducted by the IRPO in 1995, in which52% of respondents agreed that stricter leg−islation and regulations should apply to theRoma than to the majority population, while66% of respondents thought that the Romashould live isolated from other inhabitants,i.e. in separate settlements.

The predilection of Slovaks for repressivemeasures as solutions to the Roma issue wasalso confirmed by the 1995 GfK Praha opin−ion poll. Some 74% of respondents thoughtthat welfare benefits should be capped, while46% supported limiting the high Roma birthrate; 50% supported stricter legislation forthe Roma, 25% their isolation from the restof the population, and 25% their banishmentfrom the country. Fully 21% said they wouldnot hesitate to take the law into their ownhands. On the other hand, only a small partof the population realizes the need to solveproblems that have been accumulating overdecades – only 25% of respondents called forincreased tolerance in society, and 21%thought that more should be invested into theeducation of the Roma. It was encouragingthat 50% of respondents supported harsherpunishment for displays of racism.

A large portion of the non−Roma populationrealizes the need to improve the education ofthe Roma and to allow them to form theirown intellectual elite. According to an opin−ion poll by the IVO in March 2000, 65% ofrespondents agreed that “the state shouldensure that more Roma acquire higher edu−cation and work as teachers, lawyers, doc−tors, and priests”. It is encouraging that com−pared to the previous year the proportion ofpeople who realized this need grew by ninepercentage points. Many people in Slovakiaview the insufficient preparedness of Romayouth to join the labor process as a handicap.In 1999, 76% of respondents opined that “thestate should ensure that many more Romachildren acquire vocational education”. Al−lowing Roma children to study in theirmother tongue had less support among themajority population: 39% supported it and53% rejected it. Even fewer people thoughtit could aid the educational and culturalemancipation of the Roma if some TV andradio programs were broadcast in Romany:34% of respondents supported this idea, 53%were against (Bútorová, Gyárfášová and Vel−šic, 2000).

In the opinion poll conducted by the Institutefor Public Affairs in January 1999, 89% ofrespondents agreed that the state was obligedto ensure that the Roma stopped avoidingwork and abusing welfare benefits. One ofthe key ways to achieve this goal is to reduceunemployment among the Roma, and manypeople realize this. In the same research, 58%of respondents agreed that greater effortsshould be made to lower Roma unemploy−ment. Many people who accuse the Roma ofabusing welfare benefits see the solution astaking an undefined “individual approach” tothe Roma. The discriminatory opinion that“different principles for the payment of wel−fare benefits should apply for the Roma thanfor others” was supported in March 2000 by50% of respondents and rejected by 44% of


them (Bútorová, Gyárfášová and Velšic,2000).

The lower engagement of the Roma in thelabor process is only one of several reserva−tions the non Roma have against the Roma.An even stronger component of the negativestereotype of the Roma in Slovakia is their“thieving and criminal activity”, which ac−cording to the IRPO opinion poll is attributedto the Roma by three−quarters of the major−ity population (74%). This is one of the keyreasons that more majority population mem−bers (53%) in March 2000 agreed with the(clearly discriminatory) opinion that “spe−cial, stricter laws should be applied to theRoma” than rejected it (42%). This trend waspresent in Slovakia at the beginning of the1990s: for example, in October 1993 in theFOCUS agency’s opinion poll, 48% of re−spondents agreed and 49% disagreed that“the Roma are a different group to whichspecial, stricter laws should apply”. It is thuseasy to understand why Slovak political par−ties keep offering repressive solutions to theRoma issue. Accommodating and positivesolutions would require a better social atmos−phere, and Slovak politicians know it (Búto−rová, Gyárfášová and Velšic, 2000).

ANTIDISCRIMINATORYATTITUDES OF RESPONDENTSAND THE DEGREE OF EMPATHYTOWARDS THE ROMA

Most people in Slovakia do not approve ofdisplays of racial and ethnic hatred, the tar−get of which are most often the Roma. Some65% of respondents in research conducted inMarch 2000 demanded that displays of racialhatred be punished more harshly than theyhad been in the past. The IVO opinion pollfrom January 1999 also showed that themajority of people condemn displays of rac−ism from skinheads – as many as 70% agreed

that skinheads are dangerous (I agree entirely– 40%, I somewhat agree – 30%), while only14% thought that skinheads were “doing theright thing” (I disagree entirely – 4%, I some−what disagree – 10%) (Bútorová, Gyárfášováand Velšic, 2000).

It would be wrong to say that Slovak soci−ety is intolerant on the basis of data showinga rejection of the Roma only. According tothe 1995 GfK opinion poll, respondentswould be willing to support a protest againstdisplays of racial hatred in the followingways: 11% would take part in a protestmarch, 43% would be willing to participatein a legal demonstration, and 70% wouldsign a petition. The majority population doesnot think that racial conflict and violencebetween skinheads and the Roma can bestopped or limited – only 16% think it ispossible, while 65% of respondents think theopposite. The 1995 GfK Praha opinion pollalso brought some interesting opinions tolight on what should be tolerated. It is clearthat Slovak inhabitants are not willing to tol−erate any behavior from the Roma that re−flects their level of integration into (or seg−regation from) society (Vašečka, 2001a).

CONCLUSION

The relationship of the majority populationto the Roma is poor, and is staying that way.The Slovak Roma are one of the most re−jected and despised groups in society. Thefact that solutions to the issues affecting theRoma minority that might alleviate the con−flicts between them and the majority are notmoving forward is increasing impatience onboth sides. The level of frustration keeps ris−ing, and could take dangerous forms in thefuture. There is certain reason for optimismin the relationship of the Roma to the major−ity – despite being frustrated by the failureto solve the problems that are collectively


referred to as the Roma issue, and despitepermanent displays of discrimination againstthem, the Roma view the majority society ina much better light than the majority popu−lation does the Roma. Given the crisis inRoma identity, the Roma are beginning toshow a much higher level of identificationwith the majority population. Although theRoma seem to get the rough end of the pine−apple in the mutual relationship, there is stillless of a threat that the Roma would start aserious conflict than the majority. The major−ity should realize this, because this situationcould quickly change, which is rather omi−nous for Slovakia’s future as a democraticand prosperous society.

There are at least three factors that lead us tosuspect that the relatively positive relation−ship of the Roma to the majority mightchange. First, the majority’s changing re−quirements of the Roma have the potential toincrease frustration among the minority, andpossibly to create conflict (Barša, 1999).Opinion polls keep showing that the Romaare viewed as inadaptable and unable to as−similate – despite that, they are permanentlyforced to do so. This inconsistent approachis like moving the goalposts – the require−ments of the majority keep increasing, whichallows the majority to keep postponing itsacceptance of the assimilating Roma. Thisnaturally increases frustration and breedsradical social and political attitudes.

Unless the approach of the majority to theRoma changes, the potential for conflict willincrease, as indicated by Arend Lijphart’stheory of the “horizontalization” of verticalethnic structures in post−industrial countrieswith large ethnic minorities (Lijphart, 1977).Lijphart wrote that conflicts intensify due tosensitivity over the inequality between eth−nic groups. Conflict may erupt when an eth−nic group (which otherwise has a verticalstructure of different income and status

groups) becomes horizontal – usually at thebottom of the social ladder. Loss of status andtotal deprivation can lead to serious conflicttriggered by the ethnic group.

The potential for conflict was increased bythe wave of democratization at the end of the20th century. This endeavor to change the Le−viathan and turn it into a “new democraticLeviathan” (Dahl) triggered radical attemptsby many – often repressed – groups to bringabout major social change. The question re−mains whether Slovak society will be able torespond to the cold smile of the “new” Le−viathan.

REFERENCES

1. Aktuálne problémy Česko−Slovenska [CurrentIssues in Czechoslovakia], (Bratislava: Centerfor the Research of Social Problems, 1990).

2. Aktuálne problémy Slovenska – december1994 [Current Issues in Slovakia – December1994], (Bratislava: FOCUS, 1995)

3. Aktuálne problémy Slovenska – január 1999.[Current Issues in Slovakia – January 1999],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999).

4. Aktuálne problémy Slovenska – marec 2000[Current Issues in Slovakia – March 2000],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 1999).

5. Barša, Pavel: Politická teorie multikulturalis−mu [The Political Theory of Multicul−turalism], (Brno: Center for the Study ofDemocratic Cultures, 1999).

6. Bútorová, Zora, Gyarfášová, Oľga and Velšic,Marián: “Public Opinion” in Mesežnikov,Grigorij and Kollár, Miroslav: Slovakia 2000:A Global Report on the State of Society, (Bra−tislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2000).

7. Lijphart, Arend: “Political Theories and theExplanation of Ethnic Conflict in the WesternWorld” in Esman, Milton (ed.): Ethnic Con−flict in the Western World, (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press, 1977, p. 55 – 60).

8. Problémy tolerance a intolerance v Českéa Slovenské republice [Problems of Toleranceand Intolerance in the Czech and Slovak Re−publics],( Prague: GfK Praha, 1995).


9. Rasizmus, xenofóbia, antisemitizmus a into−lerancia vo vedomí obyvateľov Slovenskej re−publiky [Racism, Xenophobia, Anti−Semitismand Intolerance in the Consciousness of theSlovak People], (Bratislava: Institute for theResearch of Public Opinion at the StatisticalOffice of the Slovak Republic, 1995).

10. Slovensko pred voľbami II [Slovakia beforethe Elections II], (Bratislava: Center for theResearch of Social Problems, KC VPN,1990).

11. Spomienky a vedomosti o holocauste na Slo−vensku [Memories and Knowledge of theHolocaust in Slovakia], (Bratislava: FOCUS,September 1999).

12. Vašečka, Michal: “Vzťah majoritnej populá−cie k Rómom” [‘Relationship of the MajorityPopulation to the Roma’] in Gyarfášová, Oľ−ga, Krivý, Vladimír and Velšic, Marián (eds.):Krajina v pohybe. Správa o politických názo−roch a hodnotách ľudí na Slovensku [Coun−try on the Move: A Report on the PoliticalOpinions and Values of People in Slovakia],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs,2001a).

13. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Mesežni−kov, Grigorij and Kollár, Miroslav (eds.): Slo−vakia 2001: A Global Report on the State ofSociety, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 2001b).

237

Summary: This chapter analyzes Slovak−Roma relationships and the atmosphere ofcoexistence in detail, focusing on how thesematters are viewed by the Roma. It analyzeshow the Roma perceive the majority popu−lation, the degree to which the Roma iden−tify with the majority, and how the Roma seethemselves. It stresses the diversity of theRoma, and looks at how different categoriesof Roma see the ethnic group’s internal dif−ferences. The chapter analyses ethnic con−flicts between the Roma and the majority,and presents a vision of the future.

Key words: relationships, attitudes, inter−ethnic conflicts, prejudice, stereotypes, iden−tification, self−identification, self−reflection,sub−ethnic groups.

INTRODUCTION

“Cultural diversity is the basis of the wealthof humanity, and it is particularly importantin the period of globalization. However, adiffering cultural identity is often the causeof crisis, conflict and tension. Interculturaldialogue, and knowing the opinions of othercultural groups and how they perceive us, isbecoming one of the greatest challenges ofthe 21st century.” (Kolosok, 2002)

This statement holds especially true in Slo−vakia, where interethnic tension is very high.However, at the same time we must note thatthe relationship between the Roma and thenon−Roma is marked by the clear dominance

MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁ

RELATIONSHIP OF THE ROMA TOTHE MAJORITY POPULATION

of the non−Roma culture; the interculturaldialogue between the two groups is actuallymore of a monologue.

We know a great deal about the stance ofmajority representatives towards the Romaminority, about what elements of the Romaculture they perceive as positive or negative,and about how much contact they have withthe Roma. But what do we know of theRoma’s stance towards the majority?

This is the question this chapter strives toanswer. When analyzing the attitude of theRoma to the majority population, and exam−ining how they view the mutual relationshipand coexistence, we are limited by the littleattention that was paid to the Roma and theirview of these processes in the past. Ignoranceof the other side’s opinions on coexistence ispar for the course with Roma issue experts,who are constantly in need of more preciseinformation about the Roma population, start−ing with basic demographic indicators. Nev−ertheless, the author will try to describe thestance of the Roma towards the majority, andevaluate the coexistence through the eyes ofthe Roma on the basis of the little informationthat is available from researches.

ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPBETWEEN THE ROMA ANDTHE MAJORITY

In trying to analyze the relationship betweenthe Roma and the majority, we are greatly

238 M a r t i n a J u r á s k o v á

limited by both a lack of data, and the irrel−evance of some of what is available. Still,several research projects exist, allowing usto reach certain conclusions. Among quali−tative research (in which people are inter−viewed and elements selected from the ses−sion by the researcher) there was the studyconducted by the InfoRoma foundation fromMay to June 1996, which used the oral his−tory method (68 interviews were conducted)to discover how the Roma perceived the keyhistorical events of the 20th century. Thestudy also focused on the relationships be−tween the Roma and the majority population.Another piece of research, organized by theWorld Bank and the SPACE foundation andentitled The Roma and the Labor Market,was conducted in three Slovak districts on asample of 356 respondents from November2000 through March 2001, and dealt prima−rily with the “ethnicization” of poverty, butalso touched on the relationship between themajority and the Roma.

Among the quantitative research that hasbeen done (involving more factual question−and−answer research, filling in question−naires), the United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP) sponsored a study con−ducted by the Institute for Public Affairs(IVO) in November 2001 on a sample of1,030 respondents from 10 districts of Slo−vakia, while the IVO did a study named TheRoma Before the 2002 Parliamentary Elec−tions in June 2002 on a sample of 323 re−spondents from 7 Slovak districts. All ofthese studies dealt only marginally with therelationship of the Roma and the majority.Soma data can also be drawn from the IVOproject entitled Training Program for LocalAuthorities and Opinion Makers of May2001, which dealt mainly with the Roma –non−Roma relationship; however, this wasonly the first attempt to study this unexploredissue. As this project included both Romarespondents as well as majority representa−

tives, it gives us a chance to compare theirattitudes.

ATTITUDES OF THE ROMA TOTHE MAJORITY POPULATION

The main finding of all studies so far is thatthe Roma’s relationship to the majority isfar better than majority’s attitude to theRoma, while their social distance from themajority is significantly smaller than viceversa. The Roma regard the majority as partof their world, and tend to want to see them−selves as part of the majority. This shows theidentity crisis that the Roma suffer from, onethat has deep historical and social roots.

When evaluating the majority population, theRoma usually do not take extremely negativepositions. Which majority population proper−ties the Roma regard as positive and which asnegative was measured in the IVO study ofMay 2001. The respondents were presentedwith human properties in opposing pairs, andwere asked to mark on a seven−degree scalewhat traits they believed were typical of theSlovaks. The results are shown in Table 1.

It was interesting that 63% of Roma consid−ered the Slovaks to be “our own”, that is,their own kind. This suggests a high degreeof identification with the majority popula−tion, and confirms the fact noted above thatthe degree of social distance that the Romafeel from the majority population is far lowerthan vice versa. By comparison, only 21% ofmajority population respondents perceivedthe Roma as “their own”, and 28% stated thatRoma were “strange” to them. The majorityoften state that the Roma do not possess posi−tive qualities such as cleverness, cleanlinessand industriousness.

However, we must differentiate between thosewhom the Roma consider the majority when

239R e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e R o m a t o t h e M a j o r i t y P o p u l a t i o n

in Šamorín [southwest Slovakia] that I wouldexercise with them free of charge for twohours every week – they refused. They refused– I don’t know why. However, I know whythey might have done so. This society’s aimis not to educate the Roma, because oppress−ing them is much better. That’s human nature– people like to oppress the weaker, it givesthem satisfaction. I have figured out that muchat least. The Slovaks oppress the Hungarians,the Hungarians the Roma, and because thereis nobody left for the Roma to oppress, theywant to make friends with the whites.”(InfoRoma, May – June 1996)

PERCEPTION OFMUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS ANDCOEXISTENCE

The second dimension of the issue examinedwas the Roma’s evaluation of their coexist−ence with the majority. Although the atmos−phere between the Roma and the majoritypopulation in society is tense, the two sidessee it differently. Despite the opinion of thegeneral public that the relationship with theRoma is confrontational, tense, and full ofconflict, the Roma see it as conciliatory,good, and peaceful. We can compare the dif−ference in these perceptions of coexistence onthe basis of the IVO research from May 2001.The results are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

On a scale where 1 is the most positive and7 the most negative, the overall score givento the relationship by the Roma was 3.6,

Table 1Slovak traits as perceived by Roma respondents

�� !��'�� '��!�� !��'�� .�R��?�S� ��

Source: IVO, May 2001.

stating their attitudes. They usually think ofthe person living closest to them, or theirfriends from the majority population, whenasked to imagine a majority population mem−ber. As soon as the relationship between theRoma and the majority society’s authorities ismentioned, however, the Roma’s attitudeschange dramatically. They often accuse indi−vidual mayors, welfare workers, doctors, orother representatives of the state administra−tion or local government of being responsiblefor all the wrongs and injustice in their lives.And their list of complaints is a long one: frompocketing the money which was to have beenused to help the Roma, to reluctance to pro−vide information and advice about the socialbenefits that represent their main income,unwillingness to pay the benefits, or disinter−est in and rejection of the Roma when they tryto obtain a dwelling by paying lower rent fora flat that has long been vacant.

The negative experience of some Roma withinstitutions and state bodies make the Romafeel as if the Roma issue and solutions to itwere only a smokescreen camouflaging so−ciety’s desire to control and manipulate thethinking of the Roma, and to oppress theminstead of elevating them to the level of therest of society. The following quote comesfrom a Roma woman who is highly recog−nized both among the Roma and among themajority:

“I would also like the Roma to do yoga. Itwould help them find themselves, to becomestronger. I proposed to the Labour Office here


while the majority’s score was 4.8. TheRoma tend to evaluate the atmosphere asneutral, while the majority tends to see it asnegative. We see a significant discrepancybetween evaluations of the same thing by thetwo sides.

If we look at individual elements of theevaluation, we notice even greater differ−ences. While 70.9% of majority populationrespondents judged the atmosphere of coex−

istence to be more or less one of conflict,only 31.5% of Roma thought the same. It wasalso interesting that more than half of theRoma think that the Roma and the majoritylive in unity, while among the majority onlyone−quarter share this opinion.

The differences in views of the relationshipbetween these two groups can be seen in theanswer to the following question: “In general,how would you characterize the relationship

Table 2The atmosphere in the relationship to the Roma (as perceived by the Roma)

��

��'� ��

�� .�� !��'��'��.� �� '�� '��!!��

'��'��!� �� E�!� ��.��


Table 3The atmosphere in the relationship to the Roma (as perceived by the majority)

��

��'� ��

�� .�� !��'��'��.� � �� '�� '��!!��

'��'��!� � �� E�!� ��

��.��


Graph 1Assessment of the mutual relationship by the Roma

��

��

��

��

��

��

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /�.�C � 0�#�2��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0(��2��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0��#

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0(��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /�.�C � 0�#��.



between the Roma and the majority popula−tion?” The results are in Graphs 1 and 2.

Graphs 1 and 2 suggest that more than halfof the Roma regard the mutual relationshipas definitely or rather good, while one−thirdsees it as neutral. The situation is the reversewith the majority population, where almost60% assess the mutual relationship as defi−nitely or rather bad, and only a fraction ofrespondents (2.7%) think it is definitelygood. The IVO research of June 2002, whichalso evaluated the relationship between themajority and the Roma, came to a similarconclusion. Even if the results cannot becompared with the majority opinion (becauseall respondents were Roma), the results forthe Roma were very similar – as many as63% of Roma thought the relationship wastrouble−free or quite good, while 25% as−sessed it as bad or unbearable, and 12% asneutral.

What are the causes of this discrepancy inassessments of basically the same thing? Oneexplanation could be that the research amongthe Slovak population tended to focus onviews of the relationship in general, whichviews are to a great extent formed by preju−dice and stereotypes anchored in public opin−

ion and not by practical experience (see thechapter Relationship of the Majority Popu−lation to the Roma in this book). On the otherhand, the IVO research (November 2001 andJune 2002) stressed the specific relationshipsdirectly in the community.

Despite this difference, which undoubtedlyinfluenced the final outcome, the variationsare huge. We can attribute them to the factthat the majority and the minority have dif−ferent views of what constitutes a good anda bad relationship. Hypothetically, we canassume that if the identification of the Romawith the majority population is high, it influ−ences their evaluation of the mutual relation−ship by somewhat alleviating the gravity ofconflicts in society.

The qualitative researches also suggest thatin cases where the Roma judge the coexist−ence in a negative way, they usually hold themajority responsible for this. Many re−searches examining the level of discrimina−tion and prejudice against ethnic minoritieshave shown that the majority populationshows the highest level of such behavior to−wards the Roma. The issue is regarded withequal intensity and sensitivity on the otherside as well – displays of discrimination,

Graph 2Assessment of the mutual relationship by the majority population

��

��

��

��

��

��

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /�.�C � 0�#�2��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0(��2��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0��#

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /��0(��.

0(��#�0 ��/( "� /�.�C � 0�#��.



racism, stigmatization, and the inability todifferentiate between a “decent” and “inde−cent” Roma are the most frequent issues theRoma bring up in relation to the majority.The IVO research (May 2001) suggestedthat half of the Roma respondents thoughtthat the Roma were discriminated against inSlovakia.

Besides evaluating the relationship and theatmosphere of coexistence, for the analysisto be complete we must also examine theintensity and types of relationships betweenthe Roma and the majority population. In theIVO/UNDP research (November 2001),87.5% of respondents, when asked “Do youmaintain some kind of relationship withmembers of the majority population”, an−swered “yes”, while only 12.5% answered“no”. We must realize, though, that “no” inthis case means the total segregation of theRoma. From this viewpoint, 12.5% is toohigh (Kriglerová, 2002).

The research focused on a broader scale ofinteractions between the Roma and the ma−jority in Slovakia. The respondents answeredthe question “what types of relationships dothe Roma maintain with the non−Roma” asfollows:

DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTIONOF THE MAJORITY ANDMUTUAL RELATIONSHIPSBY DIFFERENT CATEGORIESOF ROMA

Because the public tends to see the Roma asa homogenous population category, it mustconstantly be stressed that the Roma are char−acterized by great heterogeneity, causingdifferent views of the issue examined. Viewsof the mutual relationship and coexistenceare influenced by several factors. The mostimportant are:• socio−economic status,• degree of integration,• sub−ethnic differentiation.

On the basis of qualitative research by theWorld Bank and the SPACE foundation (No−vember 2000 – March 2001), three basicsocial classes of Roma can be identified: thehighest class are the rich “Vlachika Roma”and the intellectual and political elite fromamong the rest of the Roma groups. Theseare usually Roma from integrated urban en−vironments.

The middle class consists of the “Rumungers”as well as the Hungarian−speaking Roma liv−

Graph 3What type of relationship with the majority do you maintain?

��

��

��

��

��

��

��( #.��"#��0�2�0(��A�� % 0��(��0(��0��C�� #��#��0 ��/��.�A�.. �2/� B�.�� 2�/��0��#�(�#"� ��.��# �2�A 0(�0(��"�# ��0��"��/( "

Source: UNDP/IVO, November 2001.


ing in towns and larger villages in integratedor separated environments. The type of lo−cation determines the degree of contact theRoma have with the majority population,which indirectly influences their standard ofliving. From the viewpoint of the overallsociety, the Roma middle class is more on thelevel of a lower class. Within the Roma popu−lation, however, the denomination “middleclass” is appropriate.

The lowest class includes the poorest Romaliving in settlements. These Roma live inpoverty and in a state of perpetual materialneed; almost all of them are unemployed andshow the characteristics of an underclass anda culture of poverty. They live in communi−ties with very close relationships, rely exclu−sively on themselves, have limited contactwith the majority population, and due to theendogamous selection of partners, most ofthem are connected by kin relations.

DIFFERENCES IN NATURE,INTENSITY, ANDATMOSPHERE OF COEXISTENCE

Research has shown that views of the mutualrelationship, and the prevalence and forms ofrelationships differ largely depending on thesocial class to which people belong. Thegreatest differences were seen between theRoma living integrated among the non−Roma, the Roma who live in a part of a mu−nicipality which transits smoothly into a vil−lage or a town, and the Roma who live in acompletely segregated urban ghetto or ruralsettlement.

The relationship between the Roma and thenon−Roma was usually assessed as trouble−free in integrated locations, where there weremore frequent contacts and social interac−tions, and where relationships were friend−lier. In many of these locations, the Roma

respondents even said their relationship withthe non−Roma was better than their relation−ship with other Roma.

The following quotation comes from the re−search conducted by the InfoRoma founda−tion (May to June 1996): “Thank God, we’refine here so far, we haven’t had any problemswith each other. I can sit with them at thetable and have a chat. But there are alsoRoma here with whom they would not sit atthe same table. And it’s easy to understandwhy. You know, their clothes, their hygiene,their houses aren’t what they should be.There are people like this and people likethat. But we’re doing fine here, no com−plaints.”

The IVO/UNDP research (November 2001)also reported more intense, “socially close”relationships between the Roma and the non−Roma in integrated locations. If the Romaallow their children to play with non−Romachildren, invite the non−Roma to their wed−dings and celebrations, and agree to mixedmarriages, their trust in the majority must bevery high. However, the data may not becompletely reliable, because the Roma some−times (as confirmed by several studies) ex−press their desires instead of describing re−ality when asked research questions. Moreo−ver, it is not possible to confirm or disprovethe data by comparing them with data pro−vided by majority population members, asthis type of research has not yet been donein Slovakia. It can be assumed, though, thatthe figures on the types of relationships thatexist between the groups would be muchlower among the non−Roma (Kriglerová,2002).

Thanks to the community type of life in seg−regated settlements, the Roma who live inthese settlements identify strongly with thesecluded we−group (the local community)and separate themselves from the they−


group (the majority population). Their rela−tionship with their surroundings is alsomore confrontational, and they perceive allauthorities representing society in a nega−tive light. The differences between the re−lationships that are maintained between theRoma and the majority, according to thedegree of integration, are shown in Graphs4 and 5.

Graph 4The “our children play together” type of rela−tionship, according to the degree of integration

��

��

��

��

��

/�2��2�0�.��0��0�./�"��0�. �0�2��0�.

Note: The rest, up to 100%, comprise those who do notmaintain this type of relationship.Source: UNDP/IVO, November 2001.

Graph 5The “mixed marriage” type of relationship,according to the degree of integration

��

��

��

��

��

/�2��2�0�.��0��0�./�"��0�. �0�2��0�.

Note: The rest, up to 100%, comprise those who do notmaintain this type of relationship.Source: UNDP/IVO, November 2001.

DIFFERENCES IN THE DEGREE OFIDENTIFICATION WITH THEMAJORITY AND WITH THE ROMA

The degree of identification that the Romashow with the majority population is closelyrelated to the degree, intensity, and frequencyof relationships between the two groups, aswell as to the degree of integration of theRoma in question. These degrees are in di−rect proportion to each other: the higher theliving standard and spatial integration withthe majority society, the better the relation−ship with the non−Roma, the higher the de−gree of identification with the majority popu−lation and the lower with the Roma, and viceversa. Hypothetically, if the identification ofthe Roma with the majority population ishigh, it can influence evaluations of themutual relationship by somewhat alleviatingthe conflicts in society.

There is a tendency among the Roma livingscattered in larger cities to hide the fact thatthey are Roma. “I live like the Hungarians do.So what kind of Gypsy am I? Do I have acapital ‘G’ on my forehead? I live like theHungarian people do. I wash like them, shoplike them, hoe my garden like them, I talk likethey do to the authorities. If someone didn’tknow me, he would never guess that I am aGypsy. I was often surprised when I traveledto visit my children at the dormitory, andGypsies and other people traveled with me. Idon’t travel now, but those Gypsies didn’tbehave like they should have, and peoplewould whisper to me – look at how thoseGypsies are behaving. And I would reply,‘they will get better’. Of course, I didn’t let onthat I was a Gypsy too, but something in mysoul gave such a tug.” (InfoRoma, May toJune 1996)

The increased degree of identification withthe majority population among the integratedRoma can be seen also in Graph 6 (the data


come from the quantitative research by IVO/UNDP).

These data are not sufficient for us to deter−mine the degree of identification, or defi−nitely to accept the hypothesis on the identi−fication of the Roma with the majority; how−ever, they do indicate certain trends. That aRoma family is able to accept a representa−tive of the majority as a family member couldhave other explanations (especially amongthe integrated Roma), but given the crisis inthe Roma identity (see the chapter EthnicIdentity of the Roma in this book) and the lowproportion of Roma who claim Roma ethnic−ity, the hypothesis of a high degree of iden−tification with the majority populationsounds plausible.

Given the high correlation between the feel−ing of identity, the socio−economic situation,and the degree of integration, the extent ofidentification with the Roma ethnic groupfalls as the socio−economic status and thedegree of integration of the people in ques−tion increase. However, the middle and up−per classes of Roma can also be divided intotwo basic groups. On the one hand there is avery large group of Roma who, because of

their identification with the majority, are los−ing their Roma identity; on the other hand,there is also another large group that stillidentifies very strongly with the Roma mi−nority, as seen in their national awareness andattempts to emancipate the Roma nation.

EXPECTEDFUTURE RELATIONSHIPS

The present attitudes, mutual relationshipsand conflicts between the Roma and themajority influence the way the Roma and thenon−Roma see their future coexistence. TheAmerican sociologist W. I. Thomas (1927)considers himself the author of the theoremaccording to which if people define a certain(possibly illusory) situation as real, this situ−ation can also produce real consequences. Inour case this could mean that if the majorityand the Roma consider their present relation−ship to be bad and expect it to worsen, ag−gression, hatred and conflict could reallyincrease, as the Roma start reacting in a simi−lar way. Failure to solve problems in themutual relationship and other social situa−tions could in future increase the social gapand cause a further escalation of social ten−

Graph 6“I would not mind if my son/daughter married a member of the majority population” – % whoagree, according to the degree of integration

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�0�2��0�. /�"��0�. ��0��0�. /�2��2�0�.



sion between the Roma and the non−Roma(Kriglerová, 2002).

The general trend seems to be towards aworse relationship. While at present as manyas 63% of Roma respondents consider themutual relationship to be trouble free andquite good, only 45% expect the situation toremain the same or improve. This means thatthere is a large category of Roma who con−sider the present relationship good, but ex−pect it to worsen.

The integrated and separated Roma in par−ticular expect a better or equal relationshipwith the non−Roma. In general, the better thecurrent relationship, the higher the expecta−tions for the future. Among the respondentswho expect an improvement, 43% indicatedthat the present relationship was trouble−free,and 25% that it was good. On the other hand,half of those who now think that the relation−ship is unbearable expect tension to increase(Kriglerová, 2002).

The majority seems to have different expec−tations. In the IVO 2001 research, the opin−ions of Slovak people were marked by sig−nificant pessimism. As many as 85.5% ofrespondents thought it likely or rather likely

that Roma crime would increase; 87.8% ofthe majority population expected the size ofthe Roma population to grow rapidly, and82% thought that it was unlikely or ratherunlikely that the number of Roma with jobscould be increased (Kriglerová, 2002).

From the viewpoint of possible conflicts, itis important to know whether tension be−tween the Roma and the rest of the popula−tion will escalate. Some 76.1% of respond−ents think that this is probable or very prob−able, while only 13.2% think the opposite,and 10.7% of respondents are unable to judgethe matter. Because it is not clear what indi−vidual respondents understand by the term“conflict”, or whether they have personallyexperienced some conflict, we can only as−sume that Slovaks expect a gradual increasein crime and the number of Roma, and thusmore conflicts as well. However, this is al−ready a vicious circle – if the non−Romamaintain this attitude towards the Roma, thesocial gap will begin to grow. With the in−creasing social distance, the exclusion of theRoma from participation in the social life ofthe majority population also increases. Thispromotes apathy among the Roma and reluc−tance to adhere to the standards of the ma−jority society. The majority in turn perceives

Graph 7What kind of relationship do you expect in the future?

��

��

��

��

��

��00�� H��# A��/� 0��/� @�.��0�3��A

Source: IVO, June 2002.


the violation of its standards as proof that theRoma are unable or unwilling to adapt,which further increases its rejection of theRoma. In the end, this process can lead to anescalation of tension in the mutual relation−ship and a growing number of conflicts(Kriglerová, 2002).

CONCLUSION

The history of the Roma in Central Europe isone of interethnic tension sometimes result−ing in interethnic conflict. This is not uniqueto the culture of this region, as the situation isthe same with all cultures that differ enoughto have to seek forms of coexistence in suchclose quarters as exist in Slovakia. Interethnictension itself is not necessarily a problem, andmay even help the cultures find suitable formsof coexistence, if it can be regulated and ifextreme aspects that might cause open conflictcan be eliminated. For this to happen, bothparties must understand the past and try notto repeat the mistakes that were made. Thiscan only be achieved by using long−term strat−egies. Under certain circumstances, such strat−egies can best be created by the state, whichhas powerful tools such as the creation of leg−islation, the adoption of general politicalmeasures, repression, and public funding(Romové v České republice, 1999).

The present relationship between the Romaand the majority population, as presented inthis chapter, is not very positive, and shouldnot be overlooked. Above all, it presents athreat of conflict that could easily get out ofcontrol. We must remember that both sidesshow xenophobic tendencies, prejudice andintolerance, and contribute a roughly equalshare to the tension. Neither the majority northe Roma show much self−reflection, empa−thy, or understanding in the mutual relation−ship, and refuse to accept joint responsibil−ity for the negative situation.

As we mentioned several times above, thedifferent cultural background and the differ−ent ways of life followed by the Roma andthe non−Roma are the basic factors drivingthe escalation of tension between these twonations. The everyday life of some Roma inSlovakia is still driven by traditional Romahabits and standards, which in some areasclash with the standards of the majority so−ciety. The majority, however, tends to see theentire Roma minority in a negative light, andto generalize from the negative behavior ofthe “inadaptable” part of the Roma.

The prevailing opinion among the majoritypopulation is that the Roma do not want ordo not know how to adapt to social norms,and seem to resist the majority’s efforts tointegrate them into society. In this way themajority, either deliberately or unwittingly,shuts itself off from the rest of the population,and refuses to take the steps necessary toremove the tension and integrate the Romainto society (see the chapter Relationship ofthe Majority Population to the Roma in thisbook; Vašečka, 2001).

On the other hand, research shows that mostRoma identify very strongly with the major−ity, and try equally hard to be included. TheRoma usually maintain that all doors areclosed to them, which increases their frus−tration at their inability to satisfy their needsand desires. It thus could happen, if it hasnot already, that the assumption that theRoma cannot be integrated becomes reality,and the Roma give up trying to change thesituation.

REFERENCES

1. Kolosok, Taťjana: Dialog etnokultur: kulturo−logický aspekt [Dialogue of Ethnic Cultures:The Cultural Aspect], 2002, http://www.fsv.cuni.cz/konference/prispevky/2_Kolosok.doc.


2. Kriglerová, Elena: “Rómovia verzus majori−ta – postoje, vzťahy, konflikty” [‘The Romavs. The Majority: Attitudes, Relationships,Conflicts’] in Vašečka, Michal, Jurásková,Martina, Kriglerová, Elena, Puliš, Peter andRybová, Jana: Rómske hlasy. Rómovia a ichpolitická participácia v transformačnom ob−dobí. [Roma Voices: Roma and their PoliticalParticipation during the Transformation Pe−riod], (Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs,2002).

3. Romové v České republice [The Roma in theCzech Republic], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

4. Vašečka, Michal: “Vzťah majoritnej populáciek Rómom” [‘Relationship of the MajorityPopulation to the Roma’] in Gyarfášová, Oľga,Krivý, Vladimír and Velšic, Marián (et al):Krajina v pohybe. Správa o politických názo−roch a hodnotách ľudí na Slovensku [Countryon the Move: A Report on the Political Opin−ions and Values of People in Slovakia], (Bra−tislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2001).

249

(Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were written by J. Can−gár; part 6 by A. Szép and A. Kotvanová)

Summary: This chapter analyses the treat−ment of the Roma in major electronic andprint media since 1989. It describes the pub−lic image of the Roma since their arrival inEurope and in Slovakia, and examines therole of the media in depicting the life of theRoma in Slovakia as monitored by differentinstitutions and individuals. It also takes aclose look at the electronic media monitor−ing done by the non−governmental organiza−tion MEMO ‘98 in 2000 and 2001. The in−fluences shaping the image of the Roma inthe media are defined, including internationalconventions on how the media should por−tray ethnic minorities. The authors track theRoma media and their role in raising aware−ness of the Roma migration. Examples fromthe Czech Republic and Hungary are alsoconsidered. In conclusion, the authors sug−gest directions in which thought on the me−dia’s portrayal of the Roma and their exodusmight lead.

Key words: the Roma, historical determi−nants, stereotypes and myths about theRoma, position and role of the media, opin−ion−forming media, monitoring, MEMO ‘98,select broadcasts, media effects, ethics, prin−ciples of media activity, migration, mediadebate, prejudices, stereotypes.

JÁN CANGÁR, ALENA KOTVANOVÁ, and ATTILA SZÉP

DEPICTION OF THE ROMA INTHE MEDIA

INTRODUCTION

The state of post−1989 Slovak society hasbeen demonstrated in many public opinionpolls on the relationship between the Romaand the majority population. This relation−ship is not improving, rather the opposite. Towhat extent are the media responsible forthis, and is this ethnic−social crisis in partcaused by how the Roma are portrayed in themedia? Several studies, polls and analyseshave shown how the media shape or distortthe public image of the Roma, how certainforms of presentation make or break themajority population’s stereotypes about theRoma, and to what extent Slovakia’s mediapolicy corresponds to international mediaconventions and Slovakia’s commitmentsand ethical norms in multicultural and multi−ethnic Europe.

What sparked this increased interest in theRoma issue were attempts by the Roma,starting in the late 1990s, to gain asylum inWestern European countries, an event thatattracted both media and public attention.However, greater media coverage did notmean a deeper understanding of the phenom−enon, and did not reflect a determination tosolve it quickly. The media coverage in factwas often marked by a right−wing approachwith a hidden agenda, perhaps natural giventhe foreign policy implications of the Roma

250 J á n C a n g á r, A l e n a K o t v a n o v á , a n d A t t i l a S z é p

migration to Western Europe. This migrationwas perceived as a threat to Slovakia’s EUintegration goals, because in consequence ofthe increasing number of asylum seekers,Western European countries began to doubtthe human rights situation in Slovakia. TheRoma asylum demands also led to pressurefrom the EU on Slovakia to deal with theproblem at source, due partly to the fact thatthe asylum policies and asylum systems ofmany EU members were not prepared forsuch an influx, and partly to the increasinglynegative views of immigrants among theinhabitants of the affected EU countries.

THE ROMA AND THEIRPUBLIC IMAGE

The media image of the Roma has long beenidentical to their public image, both duringcommunism and after 1989 when peoplegained free access to information and the free−dom of speech. Social awareness, the overallatmosphere in society, and the political think−ing of the citizenry – in a nutshell, “the stateof democracy in people’s heads” – has alsoconstrained the consciousness of the media.In this regard, little has changed in Slovakiasince 1989; the level of democracy in a so−ciety is reflected in the level of democracyin its media. “A negative image of the Romais built up by the media, which depicts themas dirty, lazy, cunning individuals, whilethese negative properties are then attributedby society to the entire Roma nation as theirway of life, and as forming a value systemthat is unique to them.” (Říčan, 1988) Thishas occurred despite the fact that the Char−ter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, inchapter three entitled The Rights of Nationaland Ethnic Minorities, clearly states in arti−cle 24 that “membership in any national mi−nority or ethnic group may not be used to thedetriment of any individual” (Listina základ−ných práv a slobôd, 1992).

After 1989, however, the Roma issue beganto receive closer media attention, and to bedealt with from different points of view. Atthe beginning, the professional level of theinformation presented was low; tendentiousand sensational reporting prevailed. Slova−kia’s ambitions to join NATO, which broughtpressure from the US, EU and Council ofEurope (CE) to enforce the principles ofdemocratic pluralism and to combat racism,prompted the media to report on nationalminorities, including the Roma, in a moreintelligent and informed manner. Especiallyafter 1998, the media sought to analyze thecauses underlying the huge problems theRoma faced. The print media began to runmore editorials and opinion pieces on theissue, and more space was given to expertson various aspects of Roma life. In the lasttwo or three years, the second channel of thepublic service Slovak Television has beenbroadcasting documentaries that seek to pro−vide a more complex and objective pictureof the Roma issue; greater objectivity on theRoma has also become the aim of other ma−jor media. The way in which information ispresented, however, still varies according tothe liberality of the given media, and its ac−ceptance and knowledge of the opinions ofthe minority.

Slovakia is evolving into a multicultural andmultiracial society. Nevertheless, while themedia do not create racism, they may beguilty of ignoring or supporting racist views.Research has demonstrated that neutrality injournalism is often perceived by viewers orlisteners as a form of racism or xenophobia,and that people may mistake reporting onracism that is presented as “independent”news as actual approval of the racism. Themedia also often marginalizes racial and na−tional minorities. Information on the Romausually appears in the news only when some−thing is happening, when there are issues orproblems to inform audiences of. According

251D e p i c t i o n o f t h e R o m a i n t h e M e d i a

to a Council of Europe recommendation, “Ifwhite Europeans don’t see members of racialor national minorities on TV every day, itstrengthens their perception that minoritiesare not fully equal members of society” (Akosprávne zobraziť…, 1997, p. 5). Positivenews about minorities is completely absentfrom Slovak reporting, with the Roma inparticular being depicted as part of a prob−lem or as a problem in their own right. Peo−ple associate the Roma with crime, drugs,and terrorism, and perceive them as a prob−lematic social group. Regional ethnic broad−casts, when they exist, are usually aired atunattractive times, and do not meetmulticultural criteria. Many programs treatthe Roma as an exotic topic, for all that theRoma were born in Europe, and cannot beconsidered strangers. Racism and discrimi−nation, however, are leading to their exclu−sion from society and to their alienation, aprocess intensified by their generally lowlevel of education and the lack of job oppor−tunities in Slovakia.

IMAGE OF THE ROMA INTHE SLOVAK MEDIA

The Slovak Helsinki Committee (SHC) car−ried out two projects mapping the mediaimage of the Slovak Roma. The first project,called The Image of the Roma in SelectedSlovak Mass Media, ran from June 1, 1998until May 31, 1999, and represented the firstattempt to ascertain the image of the Romain Slovakia’s mass media. Conducting theresearch were two political science studentsfrom Comenius University in Bratislava, Bo−ris Benkovič and Lucia Vakulová. The sec−ond SHC project, Media Monitoring, wasundertaken as part of a project called Devel−oping the Practical Skills of Human RightsMonitoring and Advocacy, which was sup−ported by the European Commission. Theproject monitored the image of selected na−

tional and other minorities from March 1 tillDecember 31, 2001.

The two projects aimed to show how themajor print and electronic media were pre−senting the Roma nation and its problems,and which aspects and characteristics of theRoma were being emphasized and whichmarginalized. The main research method wasquantitative content analysis, supported byqualitative analysis of various aspects of themedia image of the Roma. The main criterionin the selection of media samples was howmany people read or watched the given me−dium. The first project – The Image of theRoma in Selected Slovak Mass Media –monitored the six most read national papers– Nový čas, Pravda, Slovenská Republika,Sme, Práca and Národná obroda dailies. Theelectronic media survey included the mainnews programs of Slovak Television (STV),the privately owned Markíza TV (Slovakia’smost watched channel), and the public serv−ice Slovak Radio. The Media Monitoringproject basically continued the previousproject and even used the same methods. Asit did not focus exclusively on the Roma, thenumber of media monitored was cut to threedailies – Nový čas, Nový deň and Sme – andthe main news programs of STV and Mar−kíza.

Every report in which the Roma (Gypsies) orthe Roma issue was mentioned orally or inwriting was included in the research. Everyreport was identified by medium, date, nameof information, placement in the medium,and length. Content variables included: typeof information1, nature of information, andcontent orientation (i.e. social sphere, educa−tion and culture, crime, social and psycho−logical characteristics of the Roma, publicand political sphere, human and civic rights).Individual categories had subcategories, al−lowing the contents to be processed in moredetail (Benkovič, 2001, p. 6).


The following further categories were iden−tified: information carrier, source of informa−tion2, quality of information (analytical, de−scriptive), etc. Evaluations of whether thereport gave the audience a positive or nega−tive image of the Roma were a crucial partof analyzing the information. Within the twoSHC projects, the authors described themood of each report as positive, neutral ornegative. If the report either directly or indi−rectly aroused negative feelings towards theRoma (through depictions of their behavior,social and psychological qualities, livingconditions, etc.) or if it confirmed traditionalmajority stereotypes of the Roma, it was clas−sified as negative. If there were no emotionsvisible in the reporting, if it was matter−of−fact with no judgments attached by the re−porter, and if the report painted the situationof the Roma as neither better nor worse thanit actually was, it was qualified as neutral. Ifthe report directly or indirectly improved theimage of the Roma, it was classified as posi−tive (Benkovič, 2001, p. 6).

The file included 1,304 units, reports that inone way or another dealt with the Roma or

the Roma issue. In 833 reports the Romawere the main topic, while in 470 the Romawere mentioned in some connection, butwere not the focus of the news item. Of thetotal, 212 reports (16.3%) were presented bythe electronic media, and 1,092 (83.7%) bythe print media. During the period surveyed,the most news on the Roma was carried bythe Nový deň daily (419) and the Sme daily(414) (Benkovič, 2001, p. 7). The prevailingtype of report on the Roma was an editorial(31.2%) followed by a news wire story(20.7%) and a commentary (18.2%). Theleast frequent was a genre of humor, a letterfrom a reader, and a re−published report. In−terviews were also surprisingly rare, eventhough they offer the reader great authentic−ity and unmediated opinions. Of the itemspublished, only 6.7% were interviews.

The most frequent carrier or source of infor−mation in the coding units3 was journalistsand press agencies. The second most fre−quent source was various state authorities.The third carrier of published informationwere the Roma themselves, their organiza−tions and political representatives. Foreign

Graph 1Content orientation of information about the Roma

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�!

" ��#�� !��

$��!

%�� !

" ��!�!

Source: SHC, 2001.


entities4 were the source of 9.6% of processedinformation. This relatively high proportion isrelated especially to the observance of theRoma’s human and civic rights and the issueof Roma migration (Benkovič, 2001, p. 9).

As for the sorts of topics presented in thereports, the public and political sphere domi−nated (46.4%), followed by human and civilrights and freedoms (42.9%). The third mostfrequently presented topic concerning theRoma community was social problems(33.8%). As for content orientation in thepublic and political sphere category, the mostfrequent reports concerned data on thenumber of Roma, and general reports on theRoma issue. This category also included re−ports on various Roma organizations, Romapolitical parties, and Roma candidates in re−gional elections. The human and civil rightscategory mostly included reports on dis−crimination against the Roma, racism andracial tensions, racially motivated attacksagainst the Roma, and various aspects ofmigration. In the social sphere category, thefollowing reports dominated: news on theliving conditions of the Roma, Roma hous−ing and settlements, Roma children and childcare, unemployment and social care, welfarebenefits, and help provided to the Roma(Benkovič, 2001, p. 13).

Information related to Roma crime usuallydealt with theft, fraud, usury, violent crime andsexual abuse, or Roma crime statistics in gen−eral. Information on the social and psycho−logical characteristics of the Roma was pre−sented in 127 coding units, including storiesabout the irresponsibility, arrogance, laziness,noisiness, etc. of the Roma. Mention of theartistic talents of the Roma, their cheerfulness,pride, and similar qualities was made in onlyone of five reports describing their social andpsychological characteristics. The content ofinformation reflected the real problems of theRoma nation (Benkovič, 2001, p. 15).

The structure of information about the Romapublished by the Sme and Nový deň dailieswas similar, with the exception of the publicand political sphere. Public and political is−sues were mentioned far more frequently inthe Nový deň daily. On the other hand, thehuman and civil rights issue was discussedmore frequently in the Sme daily. In contrast,Nový čas devoted far more attention to thesocial aspects of the Roma minority, andcarried about one−third more stories on“Roma crime” than Sme or Nový deň.

If we compare the structure of informationabout the Roma in the main news programsof the two key Slovak electronic media –STV and Markíza – we find that comparedto STV, Markíza broadcast about one−thirdmore information on “Roma crime”. Theshare of information on the social aspects ofthe Roma and their social and psychologicaltraits was similarly higher with Markíza thanon STV (Benkovič, 2001, p. 16).

The fact that the methodology used to col−late and process data in the Image of theRoma in Selected Slovak Mass Media andMedia Monitoring projects was virtuallyidentical allows us to compare the data ac−quired in these two projects. Changes in theinformation structure and share of topicspresented by the various media were to alarge extent determined by real−world devel−opments affecting the Roma, but also re−flected different subjective approaches to theRoma issue by journalists (Benkovič, 2001,p. 17).

From March through December 2001, bothelectronic media reduced their share of infor−mation concerning the social, public andpolitical spheres. Markíza also saw a slightdrop in the share of information concerninghuman and civil rights, whereas STV saw aminor increase in stories on this topic. Theposition of Roma crime in the overall struc−


ture of information presented on Markízarose more significantly in 2001 than it did onSTV, which saw only a small change in thisarea. Compared to STV and all other media,Markíza was marked by the relatively insig−nificant drop in information on the social andpsychological characteristics of the Roma.The trend in stories on education and cultureat Markíza was also contrary to that of STV(Benkovič, 2001, p. 20).

Of the 1,304 units of information recordedand processed from March until December2001, the majority (as much as 84%) wasneutral, describing matters concerning theRoma objectively without trying to influ−ence the emotions of the audience. Some14% of reports were negative, and only 2%were positive. Neutral and positive reportsusually concerned such topics as Romafolklore, language, religious and media ac−tivities. Information that gave a negativeimage of the Roma was linked to the socialand psychological traits of the Roma andRoma crime.

The highest ratio of negative informationamong the print media was published by No−vý čas (22.4%) and among the electronicmedia by Markíza (19.6%). The findingsshowed that little analytical information waspresented regarding the Roma issue, in otherwords few reports that identified not only theproblem itself, but also its causes and results,and even possible solutions. Descriptive in−formation outweighed analytical reports inthe surveyed material by 85% to 14.4%, re−spectively (Benkovič, 2001, p. 20).

In monitoring the image of the Roma in themedia, the authors identified two negativeand very common ways in which the Romawere presented. The first was to emphasizean affinity to an ethnic group in reports thatwere negative in themselves (stories oncrime, welfare benefits) and that concerned

topics considered typical of the ethnic groupin Slovakia. Indeed, in every single casewhen a perpetrator’s ethnicity was men−tioned, that ethnicity was Roma. Generaliza−tions were also commonly used, with insuf−ficient, if any, distinction being made be−tween the behavior of the individual and thatof the entire ethnic group. The reports thussounded as if the anti−social behavior auto−matically applied to the entire Roma nation(Benkovič, 2001, p. 23).

The way in which the media cover the Romahelps to shape the attitude of society towardsthe Roma, while at the same time the attitudeof the majority population influences the waythe media approach the problems of theRoma. The media image of the Roma isunique compared to its treatment of othernational minorities living in Slovakia, just asthe position of the Roma in our society is alsounique. The media take a unique approach toreporting on “Roma crime”, the social prob−lems of the Roma, and their ethnic charac−teristics (Benkovič, 2001, p. 45). The largelynegative attitude of the majority populationto the Roma is often brought out in situationswhen a news story on the Roma5 provokesotherwise balanced journalists,6 or politicianswith an image of tolerance to the Roma, tospontaneously criticize the Roma. Their criti−cism often includes stereotypes, prejudices,and generalizations that suggest intoleranceand racism.

One example was the statement of Pál Csáky,the Deputy Prime Minister for Human Rightsand National Minorities, who when speakingpublicly of the emigration of certain SlovakRoma used the phrase “Roma ethno−tour−ism”. Also controversial was a statement byJustice Minister Ján Čarnogurský, who whenasked what criteria could be used to find outhow many Roma prisoners were in Slovakpenitentiaries, said: “I can’t tell you, but I canassure you that the wardens are able to tell


who is and who isn’t a Roma.” (Sme, August4, 2000) Such statements by members of theSlovak elite show how deep prejudice to−wards the Roma really is, and how little sepa−rates the radical parts of society from themore conciliatory representatives of themajority (Benkovič, 2001, p. 48 – 49).

Based on the premise that the media imageof the Roma shapes the majority’s stancetowards the Roma and vice versa, it can beexpected that if conflicts between the Romaand the majority population escalate, we willsee a worsening of the image of the Roma inthe Slovak media. This has already been seenin the way the Roma migration was presentedin the Slovak media. Migration is not one ofthe factors determining the Roma situation inSlovakia, and has no influence on the socialand economic position of the Roma minor−ity, especially given the small number ofmigrants compared to the total number ofRoma living in Slovakia. Unfortunately, theissue is an especially sensitive one for mostSlovak citizens. In general, the way the me−dia present various Roma issues depends onhow sensitive the issue is for the majoritypopulation (Benkovič, 2001, p. 49).

Compared to 1998/1999, the year 2001 sawan increase in Roma−related reports in allmonitored media. This growth was apparenteven though the Media Monitoring projectcovered only 10 months, while the previousproject covered an entire year. Markíza, forexample, broadcast 58 reports on the Romaon its evening news programs from June 1,1998 to May 31, 1999 (a period of 12months). From March through December2001 (10 months), however, the stationaired 102 such reports, an almost 100% rise.This indicates growing interest among themajor media in the Roma and related issues.Audiences are thus being exposed to moreinformation about the Roma (Benkovič,2001, p. 49).

MONITORING OF PRINT MEDIA

In the last four or five years, migration by theRoma to EU countries became one of themain topics of political debate in Slovakia.The EU countries affected responded byslapping visa requirements on Slovak citi−zens wanting to visit, thus increasing inter−est among the Slovak public in the Romaissue – not just immigration, but other mat−ters as well. The media were no exception.

In 1999, Michal Vašečka and Bronislava Pin−terová in their project Monitoring RomaMigration to EU Countries, which looked athow the event was covered by the major Slo−vak dailies (January 1999 to April 2000),analyzed the work of the Slovenská Repub−lika, Sme and Pravda dailies. These periodi−cals had the greatest influence and most im−portant positions on the media market, wereamong the most read, and covered the Romaissue the most comprehensively. Several re−gional periodicals from eastern Slovakia alsohad a significant influence on readers in theirpresentations of the Roma migration issue,such as the Prešovský večerník, Prešovskýdenník, Korzár and Košický večer; the paperswere all published in areas where the Romawere the most concentrated.

The stances of the individual media variedaccording to their political orientation, andthe social class, occupations and ethnic back−ground of their readers. Reports on the Romaand Roma migration were published withincreasing frequency during the period ex−amined, with the migration issue indirectlysparking the interest of the media in otherRoma−related topics, especially the problemsfacing the minority. The majority populationtended to emphasize the economic causes ofthe Roma migration, calling it “ethno−tour−ism”, while the Roma themselves said thatracial discrimination was the main motive fortheir exodus. However, Roma representa−


tives were inconsistent in their opinions onthe causes of migration, while the liberalmedia pointed to the worsening situation ofthe Roma middle class as a possible cause.

Especially since 1998, most media have por−trayed the Roma differently than they haveother national minorities. The Roma havebeen directly labeled as a problem group, andempathy and tolerance for them has been farlower than for other minorities. Among theprint media, only the Sme daily sought toprovide in−depth analyses and expert opin−ions on the Roma issue, or to give more roomeven to sensitive topics such as discrimina−tion against the Roma and displays of latentracism. The paper treated the migration asboth a social issue and a moral problem fac−ing the majority. It analyzed its causesthrough the lens of human rights, discrimi−nation, and racism, and provided space forthe opinions of the Roma and Roma commu−nities. The Pravda daily, meanwhile, pre−sented the Roma issue as a social problem,and discussed migration especially in thecontext of its negative consequences for Slo−vakia. The Slovenská Republika daily pre−sented migration as a social problem of a partof the population that was unable to adapt,defended the repressive practices of the state,and cast doubt on discrimination against theRoma, regaling its readers with the myth thatthe Roma enjoyed above−standard rights.The frequency with which information waspresented by the individual media varied aswell, with the Sme daily tackling the issuesteadily and systematically, and Pravda andSlovenská Republika covering it only whenthe migration peaked in summer 1999 to Fin−land, and winter 2000 to Belgium (see Vašeč−ka and Pinterová, 2000, p. 10 – 11).

In general, the media (including the threemonitored dailies) lacked analysis, present−ing the migration issue in black and whiteterms and confirming the majority stereotype

that the Roma migration was just “economictourism”, or the pursuit of an easier life. Alldailies viewed economic reasons (especiallythe asylum allowances handed out by EUcountries) as the main cause of the exodus.Slovenská Republika even suggested a “con−spiracy” against Slovakia to endanger its EUaccession, while Sme and Pravda also al−leged the migration had been organized byshadowy actors. The language the mediaused to present the issue was also interesting;Slovenská Republika used expressive, sim−ple language, while Pravda and Sme did notuse expressive words. Although Pravda andSme strove for neutral terminology (depar−ture of the Roma, migration of the Roma,emigration of the Roma), all dailies also usedexpressions with emotional undertones thatcolored their presentations of the migration(exodus of the Roma, organized departure ofthe Roma, asylum adventure). Slovenská Re−publika even used derogatory expressions(Roma conspiracy, Roma ethno−tourism, offto the fjords, Roma scouting party, etc.).

The reporting of the monitored media can bedivided into several basic categories:1. Analysis of the reasons for migration –

reviews of the social situation of theRoma, racism and discrimination againstthe Roma, denial of the causes of the lan−guage (usury, commercial activity, abuseof asylum), reactions of Slovak politiciansand Roma representatives, proposals onhow to tackle the migration and otherRoma issues.

2. Reactions by the West to the Roma migra−tion – reactions from the EU, translationsof foreign press articles, appeals by desti−nation country representatives.

3. Reactions by the Slovak administration –the government, the Slovak secret service,analyses of proposals for improving thesocial position of the Roma.

4. Informative articles about the number ofRoma applying for asylum, reports on the


life of the Roma in their target countries,ways of going abroad.

5. The visa issue, introductions and cancel−lations of visa obligations.

6. Influence of migration on Slovakia’s EUambitions (Vašečka and Pinterová, 2000).

THE ROMA IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFROM 2000 TO 2002

The following conclusions can be drawnfrom the 2000/2001 monitoring of the newsprograms of the major Slovak TV and radiostations:1. In general, very little space was given to

the issue of national minorities by anymonitored medium. Minorities were dis−cussed most frequently on the news pro−grams of Slovak Radio and the privatelyowned Rádio Twist.

2. When information on minorities wasbroadcast, the Roma were clearly the mostdiscussed, receiving over 86% of airtimedevoted to minorities.

3. The news was usually dominated by scan−dals, campaigns, and sensational events. Itwas no coincidence that the Roma issuewas presented most frequently in August;in both 2000 and 2001, the summer monthssaw serious events that shaped the way theRoma (and minorities in general) werepresented the rest of the year. During thelate summer harvest in both years, theRoma were reported to be stealing pota−toes in massive amounts from Slovakfarmers; in both years, too, populist oppo−sition leader Robert Fico of the Smer partypresented some borderline racist ideasabout how to tackle the Roma issue (i.e.stop the social benefits of those whotraveled abroad to request asylum); andracial attacks on Roma saw the murder in2000 of Anastázia Balážová, a mother ofeight, and the beating and torture in 2001of Karol Sendrei, who died in police cus−

tody. These events dominated reports onnational minorities in all monitored media.

4. Another two issues that influenced theimage of the Roma were the migration ofthe Roma abroad and the desperate situa−tion of the Košice housing estate Lunik IX,a Roma ghetto in the east of the country.These two issues dominated the news incertain months in 2000 and 2001.

5. The news included few unattractive top−ics, such as how the state should tackle theproblems of national minorities; relation−ships between minorities or between theRoma and local and regional elected gov−ernments; minority culture; the socialsphere; and the school system. It seemedthat the media were not interested in deal−ing with the problems of national minori−ties in their main news programs.

6. More than 85% of all information waspresented neutrally. There was little posi−tive news: in 2000 there were 21 reportsand in 2001 28, representing a negligibleshare of the roughly 7,000 reports moni−tored each year.

7. The broadcasting of all monitored mediawas campaign−oriented, unsystematic,often based on happenstance or a searchfor scandal and sensation, and demon−strated a refusal to take responsibility, asseen in the neutrality of the reporting.When such reports are presented neutrallythey greatly contribute to the formation ofnegative views among the majority popu−lation towards the Roma. Somewhere herelie the roots of the racism latent in Slovaksociety.

8. In 2000 and 2001, the approach of staterepresentatives to Roma problems waswholly insufficient, and lacked any con−cept or system whatsoever. This waslargely the fault of Deputy Prime Minis−ter for Minorities Pál Csáky and thosepeople who held the post of GovernmentRepresentative for Solving the Problemsof the Roma Minority. In 2000, the Slovak


media devoted a total of only 6 minutesand 11 seconds to presentations by theseofficials (i.e. not even 19% of time devotedto representatives of the Roma nationalminority), and in 2001 only 13 minutesand 28 seconds (29%). The presentationsof these officials at the same time lackedregularity and method. During the yearsmonitored there were months when themedia did not mention the GovernmentRepresentative at all.

9. The main contributors to this situationwere the public media – STV and SlovakRadio. In some respects, STV’s coveragehad a significant negative impact on thepresentation of national minorities (theRoma in particular) in the media.

The tendency of the media to invent issuesand sensational events and information canbe documented from the transcript of somenews programs published on the MEMO‘98 media watchdog’s web page (http://www.memo98.sk) in the section Rómoviav elektronických médiách 2000 – 2001 (TheRoma in Electronic Media 2000 – 2001).Analysis of this information suggests thefollowing:1. The media create negative perceptions of

information by the way they present it, thecontent they choose, and the headlinesthey assign. The acts or attributes of an in−dividual or group are often attributed to theentire ethnic minority.

2. Headlines often suggest something notsupported by the content of the story.

3. News readers invite conclusions that a visaissue pertaining to one country actuallyapplies to the entire European continent.

4. The choice of words prefers the negative– “there was a massive attack” (evokesviolence), “they have complicated thelives of” (overstatement – the problemsaffect travel only), “other European coun−tries” (unjustified generalization regardingall European countries).

5. Reporters’ questions are suggestive, evok−ing a sense of threat and drawing a nega−tive answer.

6. Irrelevant information is broadcast whichshould not have been included in the newsin the first place. Interviews are manipu−lated by reporters, unverified informationis used, and the “facts” not backed up byproof. This amounts to a clear and con−scious misleading and manipulation ofviewers.

7. Unfounded negative consequences aresuggested for all Slovak citizens in theresponses of all EU countries to the of−fences committed by the Roma. Theseamount to absurd cases of assigning col−lective guilt on the basis of ethnicity.

8. Top state officials, including the president,present undiplomatic and questionablestances on some issues, especially Romaimmigration. As it turned out, EU coun−tries were able to solve the migration is−sue without blocking Slovakia’s EU ac−cession. Made−up “information” presentedon major news programs, however, stillhas the power to arouse negative attitudesand reactions in viewers towards the peo−ple found guilty in the news.

9. Information presented as “breaking news”is included in broadcasts at the last moment,out of order, and introduced in a dramaticway. In fact, the way such information ispresented, formatted and ordered containselements of conscious viewer manipulationand the incitement of public alarm.

MEDIA COVERAGE OFROMA MIGRATION

ROMA MEDIA AND THE MIGRATION

The Roma media in Slovakia show charac−teristics similar to those of Roma media inother central European countries, with thepossible exception of Hungary, where the


situation of the Roma is better. In Hungary,five Roma journals are published, the pub−lic TV and radio stations broadcast a Romaprogram every week, and about 10 regionalTV stations produce Roma programs. ARoma media center has been active for fiveyears now, and has been successful in plac−ing its stories in the media (Bernáth, 2000);since autumn 2001 there has also been aRoma radio station on the air (Sánta, 2002).

In Slovakia, on the other hand, the publicSlovak Radio channel broadcasts a Romaprogram in the Slovak language, whilewithin the framework of Hungarian−lan−guage broadcasting there is a 30−minuteRoma magazine broadcast twice a week.STV broadcasts for the Roma 26 minutes amonth in Slovak within the framework of aminorities magazine.

As for Roma print media, the migration is−sue was covered most intensely by RomanoNevo Ľil (published since 1991) and SamAdaj (published since 1999). An importantrole in informing the public could in futurebe played by the new (founded April 15,2002) Slovak Roma Press Agency, which issubsidized from non−governmental sourcesand is headquartered in Košice (www.rpa.sk).

The position of the Roma media in Slovakiais very weak, with the state failing to supportthem despite providing support for the me−dia of other minorities (Galjus, 1999). Theimportance of these media is thus very lowon the international stage, while their posi−tion and influence among the domestic main−stream media is also limited. In general, theRoma media are unable to set the topics anddecide the way information about the Romais presented in the mainstream media, or evento influence coverage of the Roma. Their im−potence is due to the fact that the majoritymedia usually don’t receive their informationfrom the Roma media, and almost never cite

Roma journals. The Roma media are not animportant opinion−forming force, evenamong the Roma.

Migration was one of the main topics in bothof the aforementioned Roma journals. Thetwo papers published agency news, short ar−ticles, interviews, and both factual and com−prehensive reports. The information publishedby Romano Nevo Ľil was the more objectiveand analytical of the two papers. This journalpublished many facts related to immigration,even the opinions of the International Organi−zation for Migration, which helped the Romareturn from abroad. This organization held aninformation campaign to prevent asylum mi−gration by explaining the differences betweenasylum−seeking and legal travel (especially inthe case of the exodus to Belgium). A debatewith the Belgian Ambassador to Slovakia,Francois del Marmol, was also published inRomano Nevo Ľil (No. 491 – 495), under theheadline Belgium will Welcome the Roma, butnot as Political Asylum Seekers. The emo−tional appeal Roma, Don’t Leave Slovakia!(Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 329 – 399) was alsoworthy of note. An attempt to investigate thecauses of migration, entitled New Devils areReturning From the Finnish Heaven was pub−lished in the same issue. A very thoroughmigration chronology was published inRomano Nevo Ľil, Nos. 329 – 399 and 400 –415, under the title Exodus 99.

The Sam Adaj journal published a compre−hensive report entitled About the Roma –Seriously and Warningly, or the Real Causesof the Exodus (Sam Adaj, 1999, No. 8). Thisand many other articles expressed the largelynegative emotions and attitudes of the Romatowards their situation in Slovakia. The mainblame was pinned on the state and its politi−cal representatives, which according to thepaper represent the majority and are not will−ing, or at best not able, to solve the problemsof the Roma. In general, the Roma media


failed to influence the migration debate in themedia despite attempts to do so.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE MEDIA AND THE MIGRATION –EXAMPLES FROMTHE CZECH REPUBLIC ANDHUNGARY

When discussing the influence of the mediaon Roma migration, we cannot ignore thecase of the Czech Roma and their applica−tions for asylum in Canada. The case itselfis often interpreted as a clear proof of theinfluence of the media on social processes,including migration. It all started when a re−port entitled Gypsies go to Heaven wasbroadcast on the Czech Republic’s Nova TVon August 5, 1997. In the report, some CzechRoma described the idyllic life they were liv−ing in Canada, causing a mass migration byCzech Roma to Canada. This migratorywave caused a serious international problem,both on the part of Canada, which was un−able to handle the acute influx of asylumseekers, and on the part of the Czech Repub−lic, which was slapped with a visa obligationfor its citizens (Janků, 2001). This event trig−gered debate on the causes of migration, theLaw on State Citizenship, and the overallposition of the Roma in the Czech Republic.The event led to a reevaluation of state policyand triggered a series of administrative andlegislative changes, such as in the Law onState Citizenship (Zpráva…, 1997).

One of the most watched cases Europe−widewas that of the Roma from Zámoly, Hungary.In July 2000 a group of Roma from that coun−try traveled to Strasbourg and applied for asy−lum in France. Most were granted asylum inMarch 2001. In addition, the Roma launchedan action against Hungary with the EuropeanHuman Rights Court, alleging violations ofhuman rights, persecution, and discrimination

by state institutions and lower elected govern−ments. Although the case was ultimately dis−missed on the grounds the Roma had not ex−hausted all legal avenues in the Hungarianjudicial system, it drew an exceptional re−sponse from the media not just in Hungary, butalso Europe−wide. For many it was an exam−ple of discrimination against the Roma inHungary. The group’s journey began in 1997as a trivial case and ended up as a typical ex−ample of everyday discrimination against theRoma and the failure of the many institutionsand mechanisms that should be addressing theproblems of the Roma in Hungary.

Hungarian government representatives sawthe issue as the result of unfair practices bythe Roma and an unprecedented discreditingof the country. In Hungary a media war wasunleashed, and the right−wing and publicmedia in particular stirred up anti−Roma feel−ings. This issue indeed differed from otherslike it in the way it was covered by the me−dia. The Roma from Zámoly were able tomuster the support of foreign media evenbefore they traveled to France, due largely tothe fact that they were supported by someMembers of the European Parliament andvarious human rights activists and organiza−tions. The entire move was well prepared,and cannot be compared to similar attemptsby the Roma to apply for asylum in othercountries. One of the most obvious conse−quences of the media coverage of the issuewere further attempts by Hungarian Roma(from Mosonmagyaróvár and Győr) to applyfor asylum after the success of the ZámolyRoma (for details see Hell, 2002; Laszlóová,2001; Miklósi, 2001).

MEDIA COVERAGE OFTHE ROMA MIGRATION ABROAD

Despite the absence of in−depth research onthe Roma migration, apart from media cov−


erage in Central Europe and Slovakia in par−ticular, media coverage was most intense inthe destination countries. Still, reactions tothis – at least initially surprising – phenom−enon appeared in all world media includingAustralia, Africa and the US (e.g. NationalGeographic, April 2001; New York Times,April 2 and 3, 2000; the South−Africanweekly The Sunday Independent, August 6,2000, a documentary broadcast by the SBSin Australia June 27, 2000, etc.). Media cov−erage of the migration and related issues wasnaturally much higher in Canada, the targetof mainly Czech asylum seekers.

In Europe, the asylum migration was seen asan unwanted by−product of the EU expansionprocess. Bitušíková (2001) wrote that West−ern Europe did not welcome the Roma withopen arms, and that the prospect of more than6 million Roma in EU candidate countriestraveling to find a better life in Western Eu−rope caused apprehension (Bitušíková, 2001,p. 72).

The initial phase of media coverage reflectedsurprise, was unbalanced and one−sided.Media experts later called such reports hys−terical. Individual reports usually focused onthe absolute poverty of Central EuropeanRoma, and presented shocking images suchas discrimination, skinheads beating upRoma and so on, without providing a broadercontext. Negative views of the migration,and resulting criticism of the attempts ofCentral European countries to improve theposition of the Roma (and thus prevent themfrom emigrating) were often exacerbated bythe problems that the immigration caused inthe target countries, especially in placeswhere refugee camps were established. Al−though the number of Roma asylum seekersfrom Central Europe was not high comparedto the total number of immigrants, it wasunpredictable (insufficient understanding ofthe phenomenon made it impossible to pre−

dict the future), raising apprehension amongthe local citizens. Naturally, the sensitivity ofthe issue was quickly reflected in the media.

This kind of information sporadically ap−peared in the media in the later stages as well,depending on individual developments.These reports were frequently very emo−tional, as can be seen from their headlines –e.g. Last Stop – The Ghetto (De Volkskrant,June 17, 2000), Gypsies in the Garbage Bin(Morgenavisen Jyllands−Posten, December3, 2000) or Discrimination Against the RomaKnows no Limits (Le Figaro, August 7,2000); all focused on the most visible prob−lems. Cases of racially motivated violence,the wall separating the Roma from the restof the population in the Czech Republic’sÚstí nad Labem, the Zámoly issue in Hun−gary, and other “offences” against tolerancewere cited as apparent proof of the existenceof discrimination. Politicians’ commentswere also frequently quoted, especially thoseexpressing intolerance; the “solution” pro−posed by Slovak politician Víťazoslav Móric(herding Roma onto reservations) was verypopular, while other comments were takenout of context and accompanied by emotivecomments. These media presentations weremarked by the one−sidedness of many jour−nalists.

As time passed, both the print and electronicmedia began publishing more analytical re−ports, which portrayed migration and theposition of the Roma minority in post−com−munist Central European countries in a morecomplex light, and with greater understand−ing for efforts to integrate the Roma intosociety. Representatives of both the govern−ments and institutions responsible for thisprocess, and the Roma themselves weregiven more space to present their opinions.They often reacted to the aforementionedcriticism, such as in a report published in theDutch periodical De Volkskrant entitled The


Fate of the Roma Requires a More CreativeApproach on the Part of Western Europe(June 21, 2000) or the article by the DanishSlavic expert Peter Ravn, published in theMorgenavisen Jyllands−Posten daily (Octo−ber 19, 2000).

The reports of the 5th World Congress of theInternational Roma Union (IRU) from July25 to 28, 2000 in Prague were mostly posi−tive. The French daily Libération publishedan interview with IRU President Emil Ščuka(July 15, 2000). The position of the Roma inSlovakia was compared with that in otherCentral European countries, and was praisedfrom the institutional viewpoint. The govern−ment’s efforts to combat discrimination werealso seen as positive. Excerpts from this in−terview were published in many other peri−odicals. These reports aimed to portray theRoma issue as a Europe−wide problem re−quiring far−ranging and systematic solutions.

The Roma asylum issue often came up inconnection with the policies of the targetcountries towards immigrants, especially inBelgium and Great Britain (La Libre Belgique,Le Soir, The Observer, The Guardian). Lo−cal human rights organizations criticized theactions taken by local authorities and thepolice in various cases, as well as tight im−migration and asylum rules. Local displaysof racism against immigrants, in which theimpact on real state and the consequences ofimmigration were stressed, drew a lot ofpublicity.

Media coverage of the Roma migration fromSlovakia in the Czech and Hungarian press,i.e. in countries coping with similar prob−lems, deserves special attention. Most reportspublished in the Czech Republic noted thatSlovak Roma had also applied for asylum inthe Czech Republic, and reported on attemptsto eliminate this practice. Despite a generalattempt by the Czech and Hungarian media

to report objectively, there was a clear ten−dency to describe the situation in Slovakia asworse than it actually was, presumably todistract attention from these countries’ ownproblems, or to improve their image byshowing that the situation was even worseelsewhere (see for example Népszabadság,December 29, 1999 and Magyar Hírlap,May 11, 2001).

Overall, the media debate concerning theRoma migration from Slovakia and otherCentral European countries was part of alarger discussion on the changing nature ofmigration, characterized especially by achange in attitudes. While until recentlymany European countries felt they benefitedfrom the rich culture and diversity that im−migrants brought with them, feelings havechanged now that asylum systems are beingswamped by economic refugees with littleeducation and other handicaps that lead totheir social isolation and displays of intoler−ance from their surroundings. This trend wasconfirmed by the EU Seville Summit, whichproposed steps to eliminate both legal andillegal migration through coordination withsource countries.

CONCLUSION –THE MEDIA AND ETHICS

It is not easy to evaluate the performance ofthe media in the public debate on the Romamigration. Concrete research and deeper con−tent analysis is sorely needed. Research thathas been done has shown that media coverageof the Roma migration often used interpreta−tions resulting in media stereotypes, with theRoma being depicted either as a problem oras victims. Both stereotypes are dangerous,given their negative connotations.

One of the first attempts to help journalistsbecome more tolerant and overcome their


prejudices was a workshop for journalistsfrom regional and national Slovak media, aswell as for journalism students, organized bythe International Organization for Migrationin September 2000. At this workshop, theIOM presented a handbook entitled Media asa Means of a Culture of Tolerance, or “ZeroTolerance” to Intolerance in the Media. Thishandbook was prepared on the basis of rec−ommendations of the second report of theEuropean Commission against Racism andIntolerance, adopted on December 10, 1999.The report recommended adopting a code ofethics for the media in dealing with racismand intolerance (for details see www.radaeuropy.sk).

Change in this area cannot be expected soon.One of the requirements for positive changeis support from political elites and the state.Material adopted by the government, calledThe Priorities of the Slovak Government inRelation to Roma Communities for the Year2000, identified changing public opinion asone of its priorities. The main targets ofchange were state representatives, the mediaand the public (Priority vlády..., 2002). Toimplement these intentions, in autumn 2001the government launched a campaign calledWe Are All Citizens of Slovakia – Coopera−tion as the Way to Finding Solutions to theRelationship Between the Roma and the Non−Roma. In April 2002, on International RomaDay, the Office of the Slovak GovernmentRepresentative for Roma Communitieslaunched the Čačipen (“Truth”) campaign.Within this campaign several different activi−ties were carried out around Slovakia, to−gether with a media campaign to present theRoma through the medium of both well−known Roma personalities and ordinaryRoma citizens. The Office of the Govern−ment Representative will also support gov−ernment projects in this field (Priority vlá−dy..., 2002). The public media must also playan important role in creating a tolerant envi−

ronment and eliminating stereotypes of theRoma.

Creating a set of ethics rules that journalistsaccept would be an important step towardsimproving the media discussion of Romamigration. Besides deeper knowledge of theoverall context, which is a necessary ingre−dient of independent journalism, journalistsmust also take responsibility for the conse−quences that the information they publish canhave. This means they have to accept ethi−cal principles and minimize the damage theirreporting can cause.

The societal change so needed in the case ofthe Roma minority must flow from the rejec−tion of confrontation to the creation of anatmosphere of cooperation and solidarity,and the condemnation of intolerance. Themedia must play a decisive role in this proc−ess. Their sensitivity to open displays of rac−ism, or the silent support and indifference ofthe public towards such displays, must in−crease. These campaigns cannot focus onlyon open racial hatred (which is very hard toinfluence) but also on “everyday” displays ofracism that the majority population does notnotice but which the Roma encounter fre−quently.

The development of the position of the Romain Slovakia, of a better relationship betweenthe Roma and the rest of the population, andof the overall position of national minoritiesin Slovakia, will depend on several factors.The degree of integration or assimilation ofminorities will influence how nationalist orradical they become, and how well they co−exist within Slovakia’s multicultural andmultiethnic society. Slovakia’s membershipin NATO and the EU, together with the ex−pected development of its economy and so−ciety, may influence the way in which civicsociety develops, and whether ethnic andother minorities become an integral part of


it. In the end, this may be a key factor in thesuccessful solution of Roma minority prob−lems.

The media have definitely contributed tonegative views of the Roma in Slovak soci−ety. By reporting on the Roma in a neutraltone, the media not only strengthen the latentracism that is virtually genetically fixed inthe thinking of mainstream society, but evenhelp create the basis for racial hatred andintolerance.• The present image of the Roma in the Slo−

vak media mainly represents the positionsand opinions of the majority population,which the media largely belong to. Thedominant features of the media image arelatent racism and intolerance towards theRoma.

• The characteristic feature of the Romamedia image is an emphasis on the preju−dices and stereotypes formed by the major−ity, and which the media don’t considerracist.

• The image of the Roma is unique in com−parison with other nationalities, ethnic orother minorities. The most frequent reportsconcern crime, social issues and the psy−cho−social characteristics of the Roma. Themajority of these news items present theRoma in a negative light.

• So−called “expert estimates” of the numberof Roma and the demographic develop−ment of this minority provoke negativereactions from the majority population,against both the Roma as a whole and in−dividual Roma.

• Negative stereotypes and prejudice againstthe Roma have been present throughouttheir history, and have been determined bythe political and socio−economic status ofthe societies the Roma lived in; they havealways been more or less merely tolerated,and the object of harsh repression. Thesenegative stereotypes and prejudices showfew signs of changing.

ENDNOTES

1. Agency report, commentary, report, interview,editorial report, reader’s letter, etc.

2. Individual Roma, Roma organizations, Romapolitical parties, different state bodies, independ−ent experts, journalists, foreign entities, etc.

3. In each report it was usually possible to iden−tify more than one source.

4. Above all foreign embassies, EU bodies, andvarious international organizations or govern−ments of other countries.

5. For example, information about the abuse ofsocial benefits during floods affecting thecountry, or the introduction of visa obligationsfor Slovaks as a consequence of Roma migra−tion, etc.

6. They usually strive to present the problem fromthe Roma viewpoint as well.

REFERENCES

1. Ako správne zobraziť etnické menšiny v eu−rópskych krajinách. Odporúčania pre rozhla−sové a televízne vysielanie [How to CorrectlyDepict Ethnic Minorities in European Coun−tries. Recommendations for Radio and TV],(Bratislava: Informačné a dokumentačné stre−disko o Rade Európy, Academia Istropolitana,1997).

2. “Belgicko prijme Rómov, ale nie ako žiada−teľov o politický azyl” [‘Belgium Will Acceptthe Roma, But Not as Political Asylum Seek−ers’], Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 491 – 495, 2001.

3. Benkovič, Boris: “Aký obraz Rómov pre−zentujú slovenské médiá?” [‘What Kind ofImage of the Roma do The Slovak MediaPresent?’] in Monitoring menšinových správ3 [Monitoring of Minority Reports 3], (Bra−tislava: Slovenský helsinský výbor, 1999, p.11 – 12).

4. Benkovič, Boris and Vakulová, Lucia: ObrazRómov vo vybraných slovenských masmé−diách [The Image of the Roma in SelectedSlovak Media], (Bratislava: Slovenský hel−sinský výbor, 2000, p. 83 – 113).

5. Benkovič, Boris: Predbežná správa k projektuMedia monitoring [Preliminary Report on theMedia Monitoring Project], (Bratislava: Slo−venský helsinský výbor, 2001).


6. Bernáth, Gábor: “Media” [‘Media’] in Kál−lai, Ernő and Törzsök, Erika (eds.): A Roma’sLife in Hungary, (Budapest: BECMIR,2000).

7. Bitušíková, Alexandra: “Rómovia v migrácii:ekonomický turizmus alebo nová šanca?”[‘Migrating Roma: Economic Tourism or aNew Chance?’], Etnologické rozpravy, No. 2,2001, p. 71 – 79.

8. Cangár, Ján, et al: Monitor 2000. Menšiny vovybraných médiách [Monitor 2000. Minori−ties in Selected Media], Analysis of news pro−grams broadcasting in Slovak Television, TVMarkíza, TV Luna, Slovak Radio and RadioTwist in regard to the Roma. (Bratislava:MEMO ’98, 2000. http://www.memo98.sk)

9. Cangár, Ján, et al: Rómovia v elektronickýchmédiách 2000 – 2001 [Roma in ElectronicMedia 2000 – 2001], (Bratislava: MEMO ‘98,2002. http://www.memo98.sk)

10. Červeňák Jozef (ed.): Správa o príčinách mig−rácie Rómov v SR [A Report on the Causes ofRoma Migration in Slovakia], (Vienna:OSCE, 2000).

11. “Discrimination Against the Roma has NoLimits”, Le Figaro, August 7, 2000.

12. Erlanger, Steven: “The Gypsies of Slovakia:Despised and Despairing”, New York Times,April 2, 2002 and April 3, 2000.

13. “Exodus ’99", Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 392 –3991999.

14. “Exodus ‘99", Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 400 –415, 1999.

15. Galjus, Orhan: “Stateless: Roma and the Me−dia Today”, Roma Rights, No. 4, 1999. http://www.errc.org/rr_nr4_1999/advo2.shtml

16. Godársky, Ivan: “Mediálne efekty” [‘MediaEffects’] in MEMO ‘98: Monitoring médií[MEMO ’98: Media Monitoring], (Bratislava:MEMO ’98, 1999, p. 34 – 36).

17. Godwin, Peter: “Gypsies: The Outsiders”,National Geographic, April 2001.

18. “Gypsies in the Garbage Bin”, MorgenavisenJyllands−Posten, December 3, 2000.

19. Hell, István: “Zámolyskí Rómovia. Prípado−vá štúdia” [‘The Roma from Zámoly: A CaseStudy’], in Rómovia v strednej Európe [TheRoma in Central Europe], (Bratislava: SIMŠ,2002).

20. Huggler, Justin: “World’s Gypsies Stand Upto be Counted”, The Sunday Independent,August 6, 2000.

21. Janků, Kateřina: “Přínos zkoumání aktérůromské migrace do Kanady metodami etno−grafické sociologie pro vysvětlení příčin mig−race středoevropských Romů na Západ” [‘TheContribution of the Examination of Roma Im−migrants to Canada Using Methods of Ethno−graphic Sociology to Explaining the Causesof the Westward Migration of the Central Eu−ropean Roma] in Predchádzanie rasovomotivovaným konfliktom v SR [Prevention ofRacially Motivated Conflicts in Slovakia],(Bratislava: SIMŠ, 2001).

22. “Last Stop: The Ghetto”, De Volkskrant, July17, 2000.

23. Lászlóová, Klaudia: “Rómovia z maďarské−ho Zámolyu pod ochrannými krídlami Euró−py” [‘Roma From the Hungarian Town of Zá−moly Under the Protection of Europe], Sme,March 17, 2001.

24. Listina základných práv a slobôd [Charter ofFundamental Rights and Freedoms], (Brati−slava: SPN, 1992).

25. MEMO ‘98: Monitoring médií [MEMO ‘98:Media Monitoring], (Bratislava: MEMO ‘98,1999).

26. “Migrácia slovenských Rómov sa nespoma−ľuje” [‘Migration of the Slovak Roma Con−tinues Apace’], Magyar Hírlap, May 11,2001.

27. Miklósi, Péter: “Výlet do Francúzska. Rómo−via z Győru a Mosonmagyaróváru v Štrasbur−gu” [‘A Trip to France: Roma From Győr andMosonmagyaróvár in Strasbourg’], Mosty,No. 25, 2001.

28. Mračka, Marek: “Monitoring médií, projektMEMO ‘98” [‘Media Monitoring, ProjectMEMO ‘98] in MEMO ‘98: Monitoring médií[MEMO ‘98: Media Monitoring], (Bratislava:MEMO ’98, 1999, p. 26 – 33).

29. News programs of STV, TV Markíza and TVLuna from November 1999 to April 2000.June 15, 2000. www.memo98.sk

30. “O Rómoch vážne a varovne, alebo o skutoč−ných príčinách exodu” [‘About the Roma –Seriously and Warningly, or the RealCauses of the Exodus’], Sam Adaj, No. 8,1999.

31. “Osud Rómov si vyžaduje viac tvorivého prí−stupu od západnej Európy” [‘The Fate of theRoma Requires a More Creative Approach onthe part of Western Europe’], De Volkskrant,June 21, 2000.


32. Prezentácia menšín v médiách [Presentation ofMinorities in the Media], (Bratislava: MEMO’98, August 11, 2000. www.memo98.sk)

33. Priority vlády SR vo vzťahu k rómskym komu−nitám na rok 2002, Komplexný rozvojový pro−gram rómskych osád a Program sociálnychterénnych pracovníkov [Priorities of the Slo−vak Government in Relation to Roma Com−munities in 2002, Complex Roma SettlementDevelopment Program and the Program ofSocial Field Workers], (Bratislava: Úrad vlá−dy SR, 2002).

34. Raven, Peter: “The Garbage of Europe”,Morgenavisen Jyllands−Posten, October 19,2000.

35. “Rómovia, neodchádzajte zo Slovenska!”[‘Roma, Don’t Leave Slovakia!’], RomanoNevo Ľil, No. 392 – 399, 1999.

36. Říčan, Pavel: “Integrace Romů do české spo−lečnosti” [‘The Integration of the Roma intoCzech Society’] in Romové a Evropa [TheRoma and Europe], (Zborník z konferenceRomske etnikum a multietnicita v zemíchstřední Evropy – evropský problém? Štiřín,December 10 – 13, 1998, p. 221).

37. Sánta, Erina: “Fehérek közt” in Magyar Narancsonline kiadása, July 2, 2002. www.narancs.hu

38. “Väčšina Slovákov podporuje izoláciu” [‘Ma−jority of Slovaks Support Isolation’], Népsza−badság, December 29, 1999.

39. Vašečka, Michal and Pinterová, Bronislava: Mo−nitoring problematiky migrácie Rómov do kra−jín EÚ v profilujúcich slovenských denníkoch(január 1999 – apríl 2000) [Monitoring ofRoma Migration to EU Countries in Major Slo−vak Dailies /January 1999 – April 2000/], (Bra−tislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2000, p. 20).

40. www.radaeuropy.sk41. www.memo98.sk42. www.rpa.sk43. “Z fínskeho neba sa vracajú noví pekelníci”

[‘New Devils Returning From Finnish Heaven’],Romano Nevo Ľil, No. 392 – 399, 1999.

44. Zpráva o situaci romské komunity v České re−publice a opatření vlády napomáhající její in−tegraci ve společnosti [Report on the Situa−tion of the Roma Community in the CzechRepublic and the Government’s Measures toHelp Them Integrate into Society], (Prague:Úrad vlády České republiky, 1997).

267

Summary: This chapter charts and analyzesdiscrimination against the Roma in Slovakiafrom 1989 to 2002 as recorded by local andforeign organizations monitoring humanrights in the country. It also addresses anti−discrimination legislation, especially in thecontext of European integration, and thestructure of the Roma rights protection sys−tem in Slovakia. The author identifies thebiggest problem as the scope of discrimina−tion against the Roma in Slovakia, notingthat the Roma experience discriminationevery day and in almost all areas of publiclife. The chapter summarizes the advice ofinternational organizations on the matter.

Key words: anti−discrimination law, directdiscrimination, indirect discrimination,Slovak Constitution, public defender ofrights, social security and social services,labor market, education system, health care,housing, police, the penal justice system,shops and services.

INTRODUCTION

The Roma in Slovakia face discrimination inalmost every area of their lives. This dis−crimination must be viewed in the broadercontext of the problems that the Roma en−counter on a daily basis, and which do notnecessarily represent violations of their rightsor discriminatory practices. These may con−sist of problems inherited from the commu−nist regime, problems associated with the

PETER PULIŠ

FORMS AND SCOPE OFROMA DISCRIMINATION IN SLOVAKIA

political, social and economic transformationafter 1989, and finally problems caused bythe social and economic situation of theRoma in Slovakia. In considering the formand content of discrimination against theRoma, we also have to examine Slovak leg−islation as it pertains to the protection of theRoma’s rights.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OFROMA PROTECTION IN SLOVAKIA

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OFTHE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS

According to the Slovak Constitution, mem−bers of the Roma community are guaranteedequality, but on the other hand they aregranted some rights and freedoms that arepeculiar to national minorities and ethnicgroups and do not pertain to the majoritypopulation.

An important part of the Constitution in re−lation to human rights protection is its defi−nition of the position occupied within theSlovak body of law by international treatiesratified by the Slovak Republic. The whole−sale amendment of the Constitution that tookplace in 2001 added § 2 to Article 1 with thefollowing wording: “Slovakia acknowledgesand adheres to the general rules of interna−tional law, international treaties by which itis bound, and its other international obliga−tions.” The wording of Article 7, § 5 anchors

268 P e t e r P u l i š

the precedence of all international treaties onhuman rights and fundamental freedoms“over the [Slovak] law”. However, the onlytreaties that enjoy such a position are thosethat were ratified and promulgated after July1, 2001, i.e. after the amendment of the Con−stitution took effect (see the chapter TheLegal and Institutional Framework of theRoma Issue in this book).

ABSENCE OF ANTIDISCRIMINATORYLEGISLATION

The cabinet submitted a bill to the Slovakparliament in June 2002 on enforcing thecountry’s equal treatment policy (also knownas the anti−discrimination law). The aim ofthis bill was to define terms such as “dis−crimination”, “indirect discrimination”,“harassment”, and “wrongful sanction”, asuntil that point there had been no integratedlegislation dealing with discrimination inSlovakia. The Slovak body of law containedonly isolated regulations dealing with dis−crimination, some of which1 (especially theSlovak Constitution) prohibit discrimination,but without defining discrimination and otherrelated practices. The bill was at the sametime based on EU legislation, and accordingto one of its authors, Jana Kviečinská, “itwould be a significant addition to and sim−plification of Slovak legislation when itcomes to combating discrimination” (Anti−diskriminačný zákon a Slovensko, 2002).

Unfortunately, despite considerable supportfrom EU representatives, NGOs specializingin human rights protection, and representa−tives of groups that are threatened by dis−crimination, the bill was not passed. At thesuggestion of current Interior Minister Vla−dimír Palko, a member of the conservativeChristian Democrats (KDH) party of the rul−ing coalition, it was not even included on theparliamentary agenda of debate. Palko, at the

time an MP, argued that such a law was notnecessary for Slovakia to be admitted to theEU, and said that the bill contained “a puz−zling notion – sexual orientation”, which inhis opinion was not a suitable topic of debatefor parliament. The failure of the anti−dis−crimination bill could also have been due tothe fact that it was submitted to parliamentshortly before the September 2002 elections,and at a time when the KDH was trying toadopt a more fundamentalist and traditionalChristian mantle (Antidiskriminačný zákona Slovensko, 2002).

THE CONCEPTS OF DIRECT ANDINDIRECT DISCRIMINATION

In connection with the definition of racialdiscrimination, we should note the definitionstated in Article 1 of the International Con−vention on Removal of all Forms of RacialDiscrimination, dated December 21, 1965:“The expression racial discrimination in thisConvention means any differentiation, ex−clusion, restriction or favoring based on race,complexion, social origin, nationality or eth−nic origin, the aim or consequence of whichis to restrain or limit the acknowledgement,enjoyment, or implementation of humanrights and fundamental freedoms on the ba−sis of equality in political, economic, social,cultural, or any other field of public life.”

The International Convention on Removal ofAll Forms of Racial Discrimination pointsespecially to the public sphere, naming thestate as the potential violator of the principleof equality.

As it was mentioned above above, Slovaklegislation uses the notion of discriminationin places, but lacks a precise definition of theterm that could be used in all spheres of pub−lic life. So far, discrimination in its broadestsense has been possible to define only on the

269F o r m s a n d S c o p e o f R o m a D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n S l o v a k i a

basis of a violation of the Constitution or ofthe treaties ratified by Slovakia2, which stipu−late the framework and scope of the human,civic, political, social, economic, and culturalrights of Slovak citizens. The bill on equaltreatment was an attempt to introduce ex−plicit definitions in this area.

PUBLIC DEFENDER OF RIGHTS(OMBUDSMAN)

The office of the public defender of rightswas established in Slovakia on the basis ofthe Public Defender of Rights Law approvedon December 4, 2001. According to Article151a of the Slovak Constitution, the publicdefender of rights is “an independent bodythat in the scope and manner ordained by thelaw shall participate in the protection of thefundamental rights and freedoms of physicaland legal entities in the proceedings, deci−sions, or inactivity of public administrationbodies, if their proceedings, decisions, orinactivity is inconsistent with the country’slegal order or with the principles of a demo−cratic state and the rule of law.”

Based on the Public Defender of Rights Law,the power of this office pertains to:a) public administration bodies;b) regional autonomy bodies;c) legal and physical entities that according

to a separate law decide the rights and ob−ligations of legal and physical entities inthe civil service.

According to Section 11, anyone can turn tothe public defender “who believes that by theactivity or inactivity of a public administra−tion body his/her fundamental rights andfreedoms were violated”. Section 13 stipu−lates: “the public defender of rights acts onthe basis of a motion by a physical or legalentity or at his/her own initiative.”

After the public defender of rights reviewsthe complaint, he informs the person whosubmitted it of how the bodies in questionshould have handled his/her request, files amotion with the appropriate prosecutor in ac−cordance with a separate law, notifies theappropriate state administration body that aviolation has occurred, and asks for a rem−edy.

§2 Definition of terms

(1) Discrimination can be divided into di−rect discrimination, indirect discrimina−tion, harassment, and wrongful sanction,including instigation of or incitement todiscrimination.

(2) Direct discrimination is treatmentbased on any of the reasons stipulated in§ 3 that is less favorable than it is, was,or would have been in a comparable situ−

Box 1The terms “direct” and “indirect” discrimination

ation with another physical or legal en−tity.

(3) Indirect discrimination is a seeminglyneutral regulation, criterion, or habit on thebasis of which any of the reasons stipulatedin § 3 disadvantage a physical or legal en−tity. This does not hold true if such a regu−lation, criterion or habit can be justified bythe pursuit of a legitimate goal, and if themeans of achieving this goal are appropri−ate and necessary.


DISCRIMINATION AGAINSTTHE ROMA IN SLOVAKIA

As we mentioned at the beginning, given thecriticism and recommendations from interna−tional human rights organizations, we cansay that the Roma in Slovakia face discrimi−nation in all areas of their lives.

It is very difficult to quantify the exact ex−tent of discrimination against the Roma inSlovakia in different areas. There are severalproblems in doing so:• the low legal awareness of those Roma

who are the most frequent targets of dis−crimination;

• the absence of organizations monitoringrights violations of the Roma in Slovakiain a purposeful and thorough manner overthe long term;

• failure of the monitoring that exists tocover all of Slovakia.

In trying to describe and analyze the scopeand forms of discrimination against theRoma, our conclusions can be supported bythe monitoring of international and domes−tic NGOs and the findings of non−representa−tive sociological research carried out amongRoma respondents.

Detailed and long−term monitoring of Romarights violations has been performed by theOffice for the Legal Protection of EthnicMinorities in Košice. So far, the Office haspublished three White Books describing in−dividual cases when the rights of Roma in−habitants of Slovakia were violated, and whatmeasures were taken to remedy the situation.

To get a better idea of the scope and forms ofdiscrimination against the Roma in Slovakia,we will divide the topic according to the areasof public life where discrimination is the mostdistinct – social welfare and social services, thelabor market, the education system, the health

care system, housing, the police and the penaljustice system, and shops and services.

SOCIAL WELFARE ANDSOCIAL SERVICES

In July 2000, an amendment of the 1998Social Welfare Law took effect, tighteningthe conditions of eligibility for welfare ben−efits, or rather dividing welfare recipientsinto two categories: those whose materialneed (i.e. poverty) was due to objective rea−sons beyond their control, and those who had“subjective reasons” for their condition,meaning they were to some extent responsi−ble for it or able to alleviate it themselves.

People applying for welfare benefits whowere in poverty due to objective reasons, andwho were registered at their local labor bu−reau as unemployed, were entitled to receivea welfare benefit equaling 100% of the “sub−sistence minimum”, or the monthly sum ofmoney that the state had decided was suffi−cient to afford the bare essentials of life.However, applicants in material need due tosubjective reasons were only to receive ben−efits equaling 50% of the subsistence mini−mum. The following reasons qualified some−one as having subjective reasons for beingpoor: being fired from one’s job for violat−ing the “working discipline”, usually a set ofrules on comportment, attendance etc.; quit−ting one’s job voluntarily; if unemployed,refusing to cooperate with the labor bureau;and being registered as unemployed with thelabor bureau for more than two years. Whilethese changes were being put into effect, theInfoRoma foundation launched a project toprovide economic and legal help to the Romain the villages of Hermanovce and Chmiňany(both in Prešov district in east Slovakia). Inthe course of the project, it submitted 29complaints to the Regional Authority inPrešov for suspected incorrect application of


the law (incorrect evaluations of the reasonsfor material need); 17 cases pertained to theRoma from Hermanovce, and 12 to the Romafrom Chmiňany. The Regional Authorityacknowledged 12 complaints from Herma−novce and 11 from Chmiňany as justified. Inthese cases, the material need of Roma wel−fare benefits applicants had been incorrectlyevaluated as due to subjective reasons, mean−ing that 23 Roma citizens in poverty had hadtheir welfare benefits unjustly cut in half.

The management of the Social Affairs De−partment of the District Authority in Prešovobjected that they had acted in accordancewith the orders of their superiors from theRegional Authority in Prešov, i.e. the samebody that later evaluated the same decisionsas wrongful (Biela kniha, 2000, p. 75, 76).

THE LABOR MARKET

The level of unemployment is very highamong the Roma (see the chapter The Romaand the Labor Market in this book), and inmany Roma settlements it is 100%. The maincauses of this runaway Roma unemploymentare the low qualifications of the Roma, thelack of job opportunities, the poor work ethicof the Roma, and the disinterest of employersin hiring Roma. According to the Roma, theyare massively discriminated against on thelabor market, especially by private employerswho refuse to employ them without giving areason, or after claiming that the Roma areunable to adapt to the work regime, or that theyhave had a bad experience with other Roma(EU Accession Monitoring…, 2000, p. 33).

Almost every study that so far has focused inone way or another on the economic situationof the Roma has presented this issue as sig−nificant. In the Roma Human DevelopmentProject conducted in November 2001 by theInstitute for Public Affairs (IVO) in coopera−

tion with the United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP),3 84.5% of respondents whowere having difficulties finding a job men−tioned the fact that they were Roma (i.e. eth−nic discrimination) as one of the three mainreasons they had been unsuccessful.

The standard EU regulation protecting peo−ple from racial discrimination on the labormarket is to a large extent based on experi−ence with the protection of the equality ofmen and women on the job and in their ac−cess to employment. Besides direct and in−direct discrimination, EU legislation alsoprohibits harassment, i.e. unwanted actionsrelated to one’s racial or ethnic origin thatoffend one’s dignity or create an intimidat−ing, hostile, derogatory, or offensive environ−ment. It is also forbidden to instruct a thirdparty to discriminate against someone.

Another very important EU directive is Di−rective No. 2000/43/EC which describes theterm victimization – actions that do not havea direct connection to the racial or ethnicorigin of the victim, but which are a reactionto a complaint or process begun with the aimof achieving conformity with the equal treat−ment principle.

An important means of protecting the com−plaint process is “shifting the burden ofproof”. Now, if the plaintiff can prove thatevents occurred, according to which it can bejudged that he/she was directly or indirectlydiscriminated against, it is up to the defend−ant to refute the claim and bring evidence toprove that he/she did not violate the equaltreatment principle (Máme brát diskriminacivážně?, 2001, p. 23).

EDUCATION SYSTEM

The Roma are granted equal access to el−ementary, secondary, and university educa−


tion. In reality, however, few Roma childrenattend nursery school, and Roma elementaryschool students progress far more slowlythan their non−Roma classmates. Few Romachildren attend secondary school, and thenumber of Roma university students isminute (EU Accession Monitoring…, 2000,p. 25) (for details see the chapter The Romain the Education System and the AlternativeEducation Projects in this book).

The Office of Legal Protection for EthnicMinorities in Slovakia considers the biggestproblem of the education system to be itsassimilation policy towards the Roma. Manyobligations from international treaties rati−fied by Slovakia are also ignored, especiallythe 1990 New Europe Charter, known alsoas the “Paris Charter”, which obliges ethnicminority rights to be incorporated into edu−cation legislation. Regarding the Roma, nota single obligation in the Agreement on theRights of the Child (particularly articles 24to 27 on the right to be educated in one’smother tongue) has been included in educa−tion legislation (The White Book, 2000, p.24). Implementation of this internationalobligation in Slovakia has been held up byseveral practical and technical problems,such as the need to re−codify the Roma lan−guage, the need for a standard textbook ofRomany, the need to prepare teachers toteach in Romany, and the fact that manyRoma children do not speak Romany, whilemany Roma parents do not want their chil−dren to study in Romany (see the chapterThe Roma Language and its Standardiza−tion in this book). In the IVO/UNDP re−search (2001), 87.5% of respondents re−jected the possibility that Roma teacherswould teach Romany as a way of ensuringthat Roma children have equal access toeducation.

One of the most frequent problems in rela−tion to ensuring the equal access of Roma

children to education and equal treatment inthe education process is the practice of con−centrating Roma children in certain schools,or sending them to “special schools” in−tended for mentally handicapped children,despite the fact that the Roma children are notmentally handicapped. Another problem isthe social backwardness of Roma children,which the Slovak education system is notcapable of handling. Due to this backward−ness, Roma children cannot be integratedinto the elementary and secondary schoolsystem to allow them to obtain the qualifica−tions needed to be successful on the labormarket (for details see the chapter The Romain the Education System and the AlternativeEducation Projects in this book).The placing of children in “special schools”is done on the basis of psychological testscarried out in the pre−school years. Thesetests focus on the abilities of children who areabout to enroll in school. However, they donot take into account the different culturaland language background of Roma children.As a side effect of the practice of dispatch−ing healthy Roma children to schools for thementally retarded is that they are automati−cally disqualified from secondary educationand tertiary educational and specialized in−stitutions (EU Accession Monitoring...,2000, p. 26). In the 2001 IVO/UNDP re−search, 18.3% of respondents stated thatthey had a child who attended a specialschool, while 12.3% said their child hadbeen placed in the special school automati−cally. Here it should be noted that 91.8% ofRoma respondents rejected the possibilityof having their children put in separateclasses in “mixed” schools, while 94.2%rejected specialized schools only for theRoma, as ways of ensuring equal access toeducation. The preferences of Roma parentsclearly highlight the urgent need to integrateRoma pupils into the standard educationprocess and to abandon all attempts to seg−regate them.


HEALTH CARE

The health of the majority of the Roma inSlovakia is worse than that of the non−Romapopulation (for details see the chapter RomaHealth in this book). Experts warn that con−tagious diseases are more prevalent amongthe Roma than among the majority popula−tion. The incidence of diseases caused byinsufficient hygiene, poverty, and externalfactors (hunger, inadequate housing, etc.)makes the situation particularly serious.

Information on the health care situationshows insufficient communication betweenthe Roma and the staff of medical establish−ments, and insufficient understanding of theimportance of prevention among certaingroups of Roma. All available data suggestthat the health status of the Roma is worsen−ing. This is especially true of large and iso−lated Roma settlements (EU AccessionMonitoring…, 2000, p. 28).

A common discriminatory practice in thehospitals of eastern Slovakia is keeping sepa−rate rooms for Roma and non−Roma patients.

HOUSING

The human right to adequate housing flowsmainly from the right to preserve one’s hu−man dignity, which is equal to a ban on de−rogatory treatment, to ensure which the non−discrimination principle must be upheld. Ifour aim is to achieve the goal of adequatehousing, this right must be implementedgradually; however, if our aim is to take ac−tion, we must do so immediately.

The right to adequate housing4 should applywithout regard to race, complexion, sex, lan−guage, religion, political and other convic−tion, national or social origin, property, lin−eage or other status.

In applying this right, the following has to betaken into account:• the legal security of the housing, including

legal protection from forced eviction anddifferent forms of harassment;

• access to services and infrastructure (esp.services and installations required forhealth, security, comfort, and nourish−ment);

• the price of the housing, and the relation−ship of the cost of the housing to income,as well as protection from exorbitant rentsand sudden increases in rent;

• habitability – whether the housing pro−vides sufficient room and protection fromthe cold, wet, rain, heat, wind, and otherhealth−endangering factors;5

• the availability of the housing – whether itcan be accessed by handicapped people,senior citizens, children, disabled people,victims of natural disasters, people livingin at−risk areas;

• appropriate location – whether it allowsaccess to work, health services, schools,nursery schools and other social establish−ments;

• the cultural adequacy of the housing – theway the houses are built and the materialsused should allow cultural identity andhousing diversity to be expressed (Mámebrát diskriminaci vážně?, 2001).

The issue of adequate housing is one of themost serious Roma−related issues in Slova−kia (see the chapter Roma Housing in thisbook). The poor housing conditions of theRoma in Slovakia are the result of the pooreconomic situation and insolvency of theRoma, as well as the inability of some Romafamilies to solve their housing problems.Another contributing factor is the inconsist−ent approach of officials to the distributionof flats, the destruction of flats (by tenants),and the non payment of rent and fees forhousing services (EU Accession Monitor−ing..., 2000, p. 30).


THE POLICE ANDTHE PENAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Slovak law does not permit the discrimina−tory treatment of ethnic minority members inthe penal justice system. However, accord−ing to the European Roma Rights Center, theRoma in Slovakia are treated differently inthis system when they are in the position ofdefendants.

According to research conducted in 2000 atthe order of the Justice Minister, which hassome problems with methodology, 40% ofall prisoners in Slovak penitentiaries areRoma. In 2002, the Justice Ministry webpage (www.justice.gov.sk) published data onpeople convicted of crimes for the first halfof 2002. The release of this information cameas a shock to many human rights activists.Acting at the request of the People AgainstRacism civic initiative, two experts from theSection of Human Rights and Minorities atthe Government Office explained why it isillegal to publish the ethnicity of convicts.“Affinity to a nation or ethnic group is basedon the free decision of every individual, asguaranteed by the Slovak Constitution (Ar−ticle 12, § 3). Based on this fact, statisticaldata on ethnicity related to convicts may notbe published, as the ethnicity of convicts isdetermined by the police or prison wardens.Keeping and publishing such records repre−sents a violation of the principle of equality,it is discriminatory, and is capable of incit−ing racial hatred. That is why it is contraryto Article 12, § 1 and 2 of the Constitution,and to several international treaties by whichSlovakia is bound (Ministerstvo spravodli−vosti porušuje..., 2002).

Roma leaders often allege that:• the courts punish the Roma more harshly

than the non−Roma;• the Roma are remanded in custody for

longer and more often than the non−Roma;

• courts inflict higher penalties on the Romaand do not use suspended sentences asoften as they do with the non−Roma.

These allegations cannot be statisticallyproven, as ethnic crime data cannot be kept.Certain disproportions, such as harsher pen−alties in the case of less serious criminal of−fences like petty theft, could be related towhether the defendant is a repeat offender;however, this too is just speculation.

SHOPS AND SERVICES

According to the International Conventionon the Removal of All Forms of Racial Dis−crimination, which Slovakia acceded to in1974, everyone must have equal access topublic premises and establishments, regard−less of race, complexion, or ethnic origin.

According to Section 6, § 1 of the 1992 Con−sumer Protection Law, the vendor must notact dishonestly or discriminate against theconsumer in any way whatsoever; he mustnot refuse to sell to the consumer any prod−ucts exhibited or otherwise prepared for sale,or deny any service which he is capable ofproviding; he must not link the provision ofservice with the purchase of other productsor the provision of other services, unless thislimitation be common in commercial rela−tions and related to all products.

In reality, the Roma face many limitations ontheir access to both public and private serv−ices (bars, restaurants, cinemas, sport stadi−ums, discos, hotels), especially in easternSlovakia. One problem is the growing ac−ceptance of this situation by both the Romaand by the majority population. The statefails to punish such practices, or to initiatelegislation that would allow it to take moreeffective action (EU Accession Monitor−ing..., 2000, p. 30).


DISCRIMINATION IN THE MEDIA

The results of media monitoring from 2000 to2002 suggest that the Slovak media share re−sponsibility for the negative attitude the major−ity population takes to the Roma (see the chap−ter The Depiction of the Roma in the Media inthis book). The media frequently reproduce thelatent racism that is deeply rooted in the atti−tudes of the majority population, and help dis−seminate racial hatred and intolerance.

The 2000 to 2001 report published by the RomaRights Center notes that journalists from ma−jor Slovak media are passive, and neither attacknor deny the stereotyped opinions and preju−dices of the majority population regarding theRoma. On the contrary, their choice of topicsand ways of presenting them tend to strengthenthese prejudices. One of the reasons for thiscould be the fact that non−Roma journalists areignorant of the Roma community.

The report sees the following negative trendsin the approach taken by non−Roma journal−ists to the Roma:• the media publish information on Roma

crime supplied by regional police stationswithout trying to gain more informationfrom the Roma community;

• the media analyze the way the Roma livein segregated settlements from the view−point of a financially secure person;

• most journalists fail to understand the opin−ions of the Roma, who may be angry in agiven situation; this failure to understand isthen reflected in the image of the Roma thatthe report presents to the public;

• newspapers frequently publish photo−graphs of Roma in emotional and extremesituations;

• in acquiring information about the Romafrom their non−Roma neighbors, journal−ists usually ask suggestive questions suchas: “What problems do you have with theRoma in your village?”;

• the media are more interested in negativestories (crime, migration, conflict) than inneutral or positive topics (Human RightsReport..., 2001).

SUBSIDIES FORCULTURAL ACTIVITIES

The Office of Legal Protection for EthnicMinorities in its 2000 White Book also dealtwith discrimination related to the funding ofRoma cultural projects. Subsidies for Romacultural activities are continually being cut(see the chapter The Cultural Activities of theRoma in this book). The question is whetherthis involves discrimination; state subsidiescould be falling because of a decline in thequality of projects presented, the lack ofprojects, etc.

CONCLUSION

The cases of suspected or confirmed dis−crimination against the Roma in Slovakiathat have been publicized so far confirm thealarming fact that the Roma face discrimina−tion on a daily basis and in almost all areasof public life. Many of these cases also indi−cate that the main reason for discriminationagainst the Roma is ignorance of rights andlegal obligations, both on the part of the vic−tims and the sources of discrimination. Also,the institutions that should act in alleged dis−crimination cases are not active enough, anddo not enforce Slovakia’s international hu−man rights obligations strictly enough. Themost effective way of removing this problemis educating people to enforce their ownrights and observe the rights of others,whether these involve human, civic, cultural,or national rights, or the rights of at−riskgroups. Education must also reach the em−ployees of institutions where discriminationis suspected of occurring.


Transparency in human rights protection andin evaluations of discrimination is notenough. Slovakia lacks quality anti−discrimi−nation legislation backed by the existingEuropean legislative framework for rightsprotection and combating discrimination.

Slovakia also lacks specialized organizationswhose activities and monitoring would coverthe entire country and all at risk groups. Aneffective system of protection against discrimi−nation requires the existence of bodies respon−sible for enforcing equal treatment regardlessof racial or ethnic origin; special agencies seemthe most efficient in this regard (Máme brátdiskriminaci vážně?, 2001). These can be de−signed as bodies providing legal advice toplaintiffs at court, having in some cases inde−pendent investigative powers6, or as investiga−tive and decision−making bodies whose ver−dicts can be reviewed by a court7. Whichevermodel is chosen, the independent body fulfillsyet another important task – it is established toprotect the victims of discrimination, to providelegal advice, and to offset the disadvantage ofthe victim’s lower economic and social posi−tion. This is the only way to build a self−regu−latory legal protection system for Slovak citi−zens without always having to handle discrimi−nation issues with the help and intervention ofinternational organizations.

ENDNOTES

1. The legal order of the Slovak Republic includesthe principle of equality and a ban on discrimi−nation, as well as an equal treatment policy inseveral legal regulations of varying legalstrength. Besides the general and special provi−sions on equality included in the Slovak Con−stitution (e.g. Article 12, Article 13, § 3, Arti−cle 20 Sect. 1, Article 30 Sect. 3 and 4, Article34 Sect. 3), which prohibit discrimination inregard to all subjects of the law and their fun−damental rights and freedoms, we can also findprovisions on equality and non−discrimination

in several generally binding legal regulationshaving the effect of law (for example: Section13 and Section 41, § 8 of the Act No. 311/2001Coll. – The Labor Code as amended by the ActNo. 165/2002 Coll.; Section 1, § 4 of the Act No.313/2001 Coll. on the Public Service asamended; Section 6 of the Act No. 634/1992Coll. on Consumer Protection as amended; Sec−tion 4 of the Act No. 277/1994 Coll., on HealthCare as amended; and so on). The regulationsof the Penal Code punishing discrimination anddisplays of intolerance represent a special group(e.g. Section 196, §§ 2 and 3, Section 198, Sec−tion 198a, Section 219, § 1 and 2 letter f) of theAct No. 140/161 Coll. On the Penal Code asamended) (Dôvodová správa..., 2002).

2. Slovakia’s obligations towards the EuropeanUnion represent a special category of the coun−try’s international obligations. EU regulationsare not binding on Slovakia, as it is not yet amember of the union. However, the Slovak bodyof law must be adapted to the EU’s body of lawin the extent and according to the schedule fixedin the association agreement. Obligations per−taining to human rights are of particular impor−tance, as according to the Copenhagen criteria,fulfillment of these criteria is required of allstates that aim to become union members, andone of the conditions of union membership isobservance of human rights and the protectionof minorities, which is the main purpose of anyanti−discrimination legislation. In this regard,Slovakia must adhere above all to Article 13 ofthe Agreement on the Establishment of the Eu−ropean Community (AEEC), which obliges theEU Council to adopt the necessary measures toprevent discrimination on the grounds of race,ethnic affiliation, religion, age, disability, orsexual orientation. Following the AEEC Article13, in 2000 two exceptionally important legalregulations of the European Community wereadopted amending the existing community lawin terms of equal treatment: The EU Council’sDirective No. 43/2000 dated June 29, 2000,which defines the policy of equal treatment re−gardless of people’s racial or ethnic origin, andDirective No. 78/2000 dated November 27,2000, which fixes the general framework forequal treatment at work and gainful activity.Both of these directives include some institu−tions that Slovak legislation so far does notknow. Considering the ongoing approximation


process, the inclusion of such institutions intothe Slovak body of law would be a sensible step.They include especially the institutions of indi−vidual forms of discrimination and their defini−tions valid for a wide range of social relation−ships except exclusively private relationships;and then the extension of reasons on the basisof which discrimination is prohibited (especiallydisability and sexual orientation). There is alsothe institution of reversed burden of proof whendeciding on whether discrimination did or didnot take place (Dôvodová správa..., 2002).

3. This research was conducted on a sample of1,030 Roma respondents.

4. Article 11, § 1 and Article 2, § 2 of the Eco−nomic, Social and Cultural Rights Pact.

5. It has also been recommended that the Princi−ples of Healthy Housing by the World HealthOrganization be considered, which identifiedhousing as one of the basic factors influencingthe formation of disease.

6. For example, the Commission for Racial Equal−ity in Great Britain.

7. For example, the Director of Equality Investi−gations in Ireland.

REFERENCES

1. “Antidiskriminačný zákon a Slovensko”[‘The Anti−Discrimination Law and Slova−kia’], OS, No. 10, 2002.

2. Biela kniha [The White Book], (Košice: Of−fice for the Legal Protection of Ethnic Minori−ties in Slovakia, 2000).

3. Dôvodová správa návrhu zákona o uplatňo−vaní zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania [Jus−tification Report to the Final Draft of the Lawon the Enforcement of the Equal TreatmentRule], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2002).

4. EU Accession Monitoring Project on Minor−ity Rights, (Bratislava: Center for Policy Stud−ies, 2000).

5. Human Rights Report on the Situation of theRoma in Eastern Slovakia, (Košice: RomaRights Center, 2001).

6. Máme brát diskriminaci vážně? [Should WeTake Discrimination Seriously?], (Prague:Advisory Center for Citizenship, Civil andHuman Rights, 2001).

7. Ministerstvo spravodlivosti porušuje právnenormy v oblasti ľudských práv [The JusticeMinistry Violates Legal Norms in the Field ofHuman Rights], (Bratislava: People AgainstRacism, 2002, http://www.tolerancia.sk/tlsprava.php?id=68).

8. Ústavný zákon č. 460/1992 Zb. Ústava Slo−venskej republiky v znení neskorších predpi−sov [Constitutional Law No. 460/1992 Coll.:Constitution of the Slovak Republic, asamended].

9. White Book, (Košice, Good Roma Fairy KesajFoundation, Office for the Legal Protection ofEthnic Minorities in Slovakia, 1997).

10. www.justice.gov.sk

278

279

Summary: This chapter discusses the treat−ment of Slovakia’s Roma by extremistgroups. It examines how the concept of“race” is used in public discourse, and de−scribes racism and the extremist scene in Slo−vakia. The author also evaluates the legaltools the police and courts have to combatracism, describes police bodies that special−ize in fighting racism, and documents ra−cially motivated attacks against the Roma.

Key words: political extremism, race, rac−ist prejudice/stereotype, skinheads, ideology,fascism, national socialism, racially moti−vated violence, the Center for MonitoringRacism and Xenophobia.

INTRODUCTION

The changes that took place in Central andEastern Europe after 1989 confirmed thatextremism is an inevitable accompanimentof a young democratic society. Democraciesthat try to eliminate this phenomenon byradical methods themselves face the threatthat they will turn into dictatorships wherethere is only one possible correct opinion(Chmelík, 2001).

The Roma are the general and the main tar−get of Slovak racist extremists. Thanks to anextremely wide social gulf between theRoma and the majority population (see thechapter Relationship of the Majority Popu−lation to the Roma in this book), the symp−

PETER PULIŠ

THE ROMA AS THE TARGET OFPOLITICAL EXTREMISM

toms of which are seen in all social groups,displays of racism are also common amongthe police. The Slovak public condemns radi−cal extremist activities, and sociological re−search confirms a high level of social dis−tance between the majority and the skin−heads. At the same time, however, due to thecomplexity of problems connected with theRoma, a large part of the public supports re−pressive solutions to the Roma issue.

Slovakia has seen a significant improvementin legislation combating racism and withinpolice bodies over the past two years. The es−tablishment of the Center for MonitoringRacism and Xenophobia in 2001 was also asignificant step.

However, right−wing extremist groups arenot only present in Slovakia, but their activi−ties are becoming increasingly visible. Thecountry has 14 well−established and activegroups that unite roughly 5,000 members andsupporters of racial extremism (Rasistickýextrémizmus na Slovensku, 2002). Theserightist extremists no longer represent sepa−rate and isolated groups. Especially over thelast three years, they have begun buildinginfrastructure and links abroad with an un−seen intensity. The most dangerous are thosegroups with connections to international or−ganizations, and of course the Slovak divi−sions of the “white power” movement.

None of the current parliamentary parties canbe labeled clearly extremist. With the Slovak


National Party (SNS) and the Real SlovakNational Party (PSNS) failing to win repre−sentation in the parliament in the last elec−tions (September 2002), there is now noopenly nationalist party in the Slovak legis−lature for the first time since the founding ofindependent Slovakia in 1993.

DEFINITION OFPOLITICAL EXTREMISM

POLITICAL EXTREMISM ANDDEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES

Political extremism is defined as “a deviationfrom the generally valid and currently ac−cepted standards. It takes the form of a po−litical platform with strong elements of ha−tred and the rejection of compromise. Itmanifests itself in a radical or militant rejec−tion of state policy or constitutional regula−tions, and does not shun the use of violence”(Chmelík, 2001, p. 8).

According to police methodology, one of thecharacteristic features of extremism is itsideological motivation, and in most cases theabsence of material motives. This means thatthe extremist does not want to get rich, buton the contrary is willing to make sacrificesto achieve his goals. This separates extrem−ism from other crimes based on egoism, sat−isfying one’s needs, profit, or acquiringpower and influence (Metodika odhaľova−nia..., 2001).

There are basically three stages in the devel−opment of extremism as a social phenomenon.

The first stage is characterized by the rule ofthe instincts, by irrationality or the total ab−sence of planning in one’s actions. It is of−ten based on the feeling of being threatened.Socially, racially, ethnically, or nationallymotivated acts are directed against people

which the aggressor perceives as represent−ing a group he views in a negative way. Ofcourse, this only holds true for those formsof extremism that choose violence as theirprimary vehicle.

The second stage is characterized by a sys−tematic attempt to achieve a partial or far−reaching change in the social and politicalsystem, by association in groups, and byplanning and promotion of these endeavors.These activities are typified by a high degreeof demagogy, disrespect for the law, dispar−agement of humanitarian principles, and apreference for radical methods.

The third stage – the peak of all extremistattitudes – is the formation of a politicalparty, which on the basis of a clearly formu−lated ideology and electoral platforms pur−sues the goal of seizing political power andchanging the political system. Extremist po−litical platforms tend to offer quick solutionsto complicated social issues, which are re−ceived positively by people who lack moreprofound knowledge of the issues at stake(Chlpík, 2002).

SOURCES OF SYMPATHY FOREXTREMISM

The sources of sympathy for and participa−tion in political extremism are usually con−nected with a feeling of failure and the lackof opportunities to achieve success and atten−tion in society in the standard way. Extrem−ist supporters may also be characterized byfeelings of uncertainty and a need to belong,may be in the process of maturing and find−ing their position in society, and may tendtowards a refusal to conform to systems ofthinking and behavior, as well as towardsradical attitudes and decisions; they may lackexperience, and almost always are unable toimagine the consequences of their acts. Ex−

281T h e R o m a a s t h e Ta rg e t o f P o l i t i c a l E x t r e m i s m

tremist movements provide such young peo−ple with a chance to satisfy their needs andsolve their present social situations(Chmelík, 2001).

RACISM

The basic ideological content of right wingor racially motivated extremism is racism.The basic display of this form of racism is theconviction of the exceptional nature anddominance of the “white” ethnic group.

THE CONCEPT OF RACE IN THESOCIAL DISCOURSE

Improper Use of the Term Originatingfrom Biological Anthropology

The term “race” comes from biological an−thropology, and while the field of biology re−jects the term, it has become a part of dailypolitical and social discourse. The concept ofrace has become a “social construct” that isused to justify privileges for one’s own groupand the deprivation of a strange group. Theperception of certain biological differencesbetween people leads to these differencesbeing perceived as constant and inheritedfrom generation to generation. This viewrelieves the members of society from respon−sibility for the social, cultural, and politicalmarginalization of other groups (Šmausová,1999).

Racist Thinking, Racist Prejudices andStereotypes

Thinking that interprets the differences be−tween people as biological or racial differ−ences – i.e. constant and inherent – tends tobe pronounced at times when certain groupsof people feel the need to explain some in−

justice in the social order. Races were neverperceived in this social discourse as “hori−zontal” and culturally differentiated groupsof people, but as a hierarchy at the top ofwhich was the “white race” (Šmausová,1999). Race at the same time belongs to whatare known as endogamous groups, i.e. attrib−uted and mostly inherent types of collective.This form of collectivity directly influencesthe nature of the concept of race. A race as acollective differs from collectives united bya common interest, which can be simplyformed and dissolved, and in which member−ship requires a rational calculation of one’sinterest; in themselves, interest groups do notevoke any great passion or debate.

The reason why people who interpret differ−ences between others as consisting in bio−logical differences between races are calledracists, with clearly negative overtones andimplying a violation of the standards ofdemocratic society, is that races representdiscriminatory social constructs. Judgingothers not according to their individual quali−ties but according to certain “racial” charac−teristics implies racial prejudice or stereotyp−ing (Šmausová, 1999).

ACTORS OFPOLITICAL EXTREMISM

THE SKINHEAD MOVEMENT

History of the Movement

This movement first appeared as a specificgroup in Great Britain in the early 1970s. Itarose in reaction to certain social events, suchas a rise in unemployment, immigration, andso on. An important impulse in the formationof the movement was the social tension cre−ated by the influx of a cheap labor force thatpushed young British people out of the labormarket.


Most of the members of the movement backthen were young workers. It was they whocreated the typical identifying characteristicsof the group that are known to this day. Theskinhead uniform consisted of heavy boots,jeans, and a bomber jacket. To appear evenmore different and to show their radicalismto the outside world, the skinheads shavedtheir heads.

What the members of the movement had incommon were a similar position in society,an awareness of “nation”, hatred of foreign−ers, and the use of “armed struggle” to ex−press their beliefs.

The Skinhead movement has since then be−come a political movement. Its objective isto create a fascist state similar to the Germanstate in the Second World War. The move−ment also sympathizes with German nationalsocialism, which during the interwar periodbrought about a radical turnaround in Ger−many as well as major social change.

In future, the movement will probably takethe form of an armed and propaganda−basedfight to achieve change in the political sys−tem. This armed struggle will include “organ−ized and spontaneous terrorism to threaten orliquidate all enemies” (Správna cesta, 1998).

Ideology of the Movement

Since it was formed, the aim of the move−ment has been to “retain and preserve a na−tional and racial society using a radical so−cial order”. The means of establishing thisorder is fascism,1 and the goal is national so−cialism.2

The skinheads regard the differences be−tween the races as too great for individualraces to be combined without negative con−sequences. According to the skinheads, the

most visible differences between the racesare physical (complexion, skeletal and skullstructure, shape of the nose, mouth, andeyes), on the basis of which each individualcan be grouped into a race. According to thisideology, differences also exist in the intel−lect. While the European and Asian races areconsidered intellectually similar, the Africanrace is said to be at a lower stage of evolu−tion. The white race has made an “over−whelming contribution to the development ofhumanity”. According to the skinheads, theother races have just taken the fruits of thewhites’ efforts.

The skinheads consider multiculturalism adangerous experiment, as a result of whichthe white race may “lose a large part of itscreative energy”. “The preservation of racialpurity is one of the most important means forthe preservation of the entire culture and civi−lization as an independent whole.”

The struggle against the weakening of thewhite race, and for the elimination of all for−eign influences, unites the Skinhead move−ment in individual countries and makes it aglobal movement. The common basis of allracial extremist movements in Slovakia isracism directed towards the Roma and theJews, and resistance against the leftists. Themovement’s opinions have slowly split, andtoday three main opinion groups can be de−tected among the skinheads (Rasistickýextrémizmus na Slovensku, 2002).

The Nationalists• inclination to the ideas and ideologies of

the Slovak Wartime State as the Slovakversion of fascism, attempts to rehabilitatethe officials of the Jozef Tiso – led WWIIgovernment;

• strong aversion to ethnic Hungarians,whom the nationalists accuse of trying tosecede and take with them the southernpart of Slovakia;


• anti−Semitism absent or not as apparent asin other movements;

• stress on moral and Christian values whichthey claim are being destroyed by modernculture;

• rejection of violence as a way to solveproblems;

• rejection of Hitler and Nazism;• attempts to enter the political scene;

The Neo−Nazis• national socialism as the social model;• admiration for the German Third Reich, its

ideology, army, and representatives(Adolph Hitler, Rudolph Hess, etc.);

• radical anti−Semitism – all world institu−tions are said to be controlled by Jews, whoare the primary cause of the majority ofproblems in the world, from economictroubles to wars, environmental pollutionand drugs;

• defense of Adolph Hitler and his policyagainst the Jews during WWII;

• denial of the Holocaust and downplayingits extent and meaning;

• proposal to solve the Roma issue by gath−ering the Roma in labor/concentrationcamps or deporting them to India;

• claims that the Aryan race represents thehighest stage of evolution and was chosento rule others;

• strong influence of Nordic mythology andsymbolism – Runes, Nordic gods, Odin.

White Power• white race is the highest evolutionary stage;• ideal social establishment is national so−

cialism;• Europe should become a racially pure ter−

ritory;• purification of Europe and North America

of other races and cultures;• achieving this through RAHOWA (Racial

Holy War), which will clear the areas in−habited by the white race of members ofother races;

• rejection of cultures with other than whiteand European origin;

• aversion to homosexuals;• claim that all world governments are con−

trolled by the Jews (“Zionist OccupationalGovernment”, or ZOG);

• besides other races, attacks targeting“white trash” – anarchists, drug addicts,homeless people, criminals;

• denial of Holocaust.

The Roma in the Ideology ofthe Skinhead Movement

In Central and Eastern Europe, the skinheadsuse the Roma as a substitute for immigrantsof African, Indian, or Asian origin, who arethe main targets of racial attacks in WesternEurope, but who are not as numerous in Slo−vakia as in Western Europe or the US.

According to the “historical explanation” ofthe skinheads, the Roma (“Gypsies”) tradi−tionally lived from horse and cattle theft,burglary, and murder. At the time of the Turk−ish raids in the 1500s, they were used by theTurks as spies. “The first written mentions ofGypsies in our region come from books ofexecutions, where punishments and thecourse of trials were recorded, and fromdocuments regulating the movement and therights of Gypsies.”

“History as written by the skinheads” furtherstates that during the communist regime, theGypsies transferred their parasitic way of lifefrom trailers into apartment buildings. Com−mon theft and burglary were replaced byanother form of subsistence – the legal abuseof all the advantages that society provided toworking people. After 1989, to everyone’sdismay, we discovered that during the 40years of communism, the original number ofRoma had gone through the roof – in theCzech Republic 250,000 Roma were counted


instead of the original 500, and in the SlovakRepublic a total of 400,000 instead of theoriginal 30,000 to 80,000 (Správna cesta,1998).

The Skinhead movement explains the “back−wardness of the Gypsies” as the result ofconditions within the ethnic group. Theyconsider the lack of upbringing in the fam−ily and the transfer of “the parasitic way oflife” to the younger generations as the mainproblem.

The Means of Propaganda

Propaganda is a very efficient tool in theskinheads’ struggle for “purity of nation andrace”. Besides the traditional leaflets,“skinzines” (skinhead magazines), and trans−lations of fascist books, another very effec−tive means is music. The movement is ableto recruit further members and supportersespecially thanks to the enormous influenceof music on young people (Správna cesta,1998).

The exchange of information among rightwing extremists takes place in the form of

“zines” or “skinzines”. The first magazinesof this kind appeared in Slovakia in the early1990s.

The main content of these magazines is his−torical documents from the WWII period,biographies of representatives of the SlovakState and the German Reich, local newspa−per clippings on Roma crime, reports fromconcerts, and interviews with members ofdifferent bands. There are also translations offoreign texts pertaining to racism, anti−Se−mitic articles and reflections.

Besides the zines, which focus primarily onthe racist skinhead community, there are alsonewspapers and journals of nationalist par−ties and groups that attempt to address thepublic. Their content includes a similar de−gree of racism and xenophobia as theskinzines of the Skinhead movement. Theyregularly include articles against the Romaand the Jews. The weekly Zmena (Change)has the highest circulation; its authors havebeen prosecuted for their anti−Semitic state−ments. The circulation and number of read−ers of other journals, such as the Nový Slovák,Slovenská Pravda, Slovenské novinky, Slo−vák and Národná jednota, are slowly declin−

The Skinhead movement offers a simplesolution to the “Gypsy problem”: “eitherthey adapt quickly (within two generationsat the most), or they will be eliminated(gradually or all at once).” (Správna cesta,1998)

“The most acceptable solution would be toget rid of all people who are unable toadapt (i.e. those who don’t work). How−ever, there is yet another problem – how to

Box 1Solution of the “Gypsy problem”

prevent this ethnic group from mixing withour Aryan population. Considering the in−tellectual backwardness (on the verge ofretardation) of the majority of this ethnicgroup, it is extremely dangerous for us tomix our advanced race with them. Thismixing must be prevented by strict segre−gation and the isolation of as large a partof this ethnic group as possible (ghettosand concentration camps).” (Správna ces−ta, 1998)


ing, and they are either falling out of print orare published irregularly.

The most important means of spreadingpropaganda at the moment is the Internet.Since 2000, the Internet has offered an in−creasing number of websites with racist, neo−Nazi, anti−Semitic and fascist content. Thetrend of publishing information in electronicform instead of in journals and zines is alsogrowing. These websites are usually locatedon servers offering free storage space both inSlovakia and abroad.

If such a website is uploaded onto a serverlocated in Slovakia, the administrators, afterbeing advised of the illegal content, areobliged to remove it. Problems occur if thewebsite whose contents are contrary to Slo−vak law is located on a server abroad, espe−cially in America, where the publishing ofsuch material is not a crime. Some of theAmerican servers were even established withthe aim of hosting the websites of right wingextremist and racist groups4 (Rasistickýextrémizmus na Slovensku, 2002).

Structure of the Skinhead Movementin Slovakia

The Skinhead movement has existed in Slo−vakia since 1990. In 1993, the first seriouscases of racially motivated violence wererecorded. At that time the first zines alsobegan to appear – usually slapdash photocop−ies produced by amateurs offering poorgraphics and content.

However, the right wing extremists havecome a long way from the beginning of the1990s. At that time, the groups were more orless haphazard, without a permanent struc−ture or character, their members presentingthemselves in public as hooligans, ruffians,and in recent years also as violent criminals

and murderers. Various foreign groups wereable to penetrate Slovakia and establishthemselves on the Slovak extremist scene,especially after 1995.

As for ideology, the individual groups ini−tially focused on the heritage and ideologyof the fascist Slovak State from WWII. Theglorification of people like Alexander Mach,Andrej Hlinka and Jozef Tiso was one of themost typical features of Slovak ultra−rightskinheads.

As for its opinions, the movement wallowsin the ideology of the extreme right. From1991 to 1993, several significant, but moreaccidental than purposeful meetings tookplace with foreign neo−Nazi activists devel−oping the ideology of the movement.

The list of racist and extremist organizationsmay suggest that they are legion. However,many of the names on the list are groupscomprising only several individuals. Somemay no longer be active, or they may havejoined other groups.

In 2001, the activities of these groupschanged – the right wing extremist groupsbecame more radical, and are now striving toacquire more members (Výročná správa...,2002).

The following racist extremist groups claim−ing to belong to the Skinhead movement areactive5 in Slovakia at the moment:1. Slovakia Hammer Skinheads6,2. Blood & Honour7 Division Slovakia8

(Bratislava),3. Blood & Honour Nitra9,4. Blood & Honour Tatras Slovakia10 (Pre−

šov),5. Blood & Honour Engerau11 (Bratislava –

Petržalka),6. Blood & Honour Cassovia12 (Košice),7. Combat 1813,


8. SS AG Slovakia – Security Service Ac−tion Group Slovakia14,

9. Biela slovenská jednota15 (White SlovakUnity),

10. Rytieri Slnečného klanu (Knights of theClan of Sun),

11. Bojovníci keltského kríža16 (Warriors ofthe Celtic Cross),

12. Celtic Tradition17,13. Christian Separatist Church Society Slo−

vensko18 (Rasistický extrémizmus na Slo−vensku, 2002).

Structure of Skinhead MovementSupporters

The age of members and supporters of theSkinhead movement is usually between 14and 26 years. The age and social structure ofextremist group supporters is closely con−nected with the activity they perform. Peo−ple committing violent crimes on the streetsare usually from this younger age group.

Most future skinheads get to know the ide−ology of extreme racism and neo−Nazismthrough skinzines and music. Young support−ers aged 14 to 16 are called “baby−skins” or“kinder−skins”. They prove their loyalty tothe movement and its ideas through violentattacks, sieg−heiling in public, and wearingthe signs and symbols of neo−Nazism.

The second group are the 17 to 21−year−olds.This is the group creating publications,skinzines and websites, while most of themembers of bands also come from this agegroup. A number of brutal attacks againstminority members or even murders werecommitted by people from this age group.19

After their social position changes (univer−sity studies, permanent jobs, etc.) many ofthem terminate their activity in the move−ment.

Those who remain represent the last and thesmallest category, the 22 to 30−year−olds.They organize concerts, distribute press and

Table 1Estimated number of people in extremist groups in Slovakia (as of December 31, 2001)

& �� :�

�T��?�� ?��'�� T��?�� ?��'�� C�'��

2,N�0**,� �'��U� ��UU� �'��U� ��UU�

�� "�� M�� %��.��'��

9�� $��'�� 2N-*3� -43� 0N**0� 13� 520�

Notes:* The police consider active extremists to be people who:

• take part in organizing events with mass participation;• publish or write articles for extremist journals or websites;• meet in extremist groups (or found them) and promulgate the ideology of the group.As for right wing extremists, active members also include those who have committed a racially motivated crime,and who are organized in some right wing extremist group.

** Supporters are those who by thought or appearance support some extremist movements or groups; however,their activities are usually limited to visiting live performances by extremist bands and reading extremist lit−erature; they are not organized in any of the existing groups.

Source: Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic, 2001.


music media, and build international contactsand local divisions of organizations. Theystop committing violent crimes, and becomemore the ideological and organizational lead−ers of the young. However, they representonly a small percentage of the total numberof neo−Nazis, because most quit the move−ment aged around 25.

As for the social composition of extremistgroup supporters, the majority are secondaryschool students (mostly of secondary tradeschools), while some are university studentsand others are unemployed. Nevertheless,the people who produce and distribute itemspromoting racial, national, religious andother hatreds often include people with jobsor entrepreneurs.

The skinhead scene is a male affair. Womenare rather scarce, and are often on the scenesimply because their partners engage in themovement. Despite that, the “skingirls” or“renees” play an important role and some−times even form women’s groups (in Slova−kia, for example, the WAU (The WhiteRose). They stress the need to create wom−en’s units to match the men’s groups (Rasis−tický extrémizmus na Slovensku, 2002).

The total number of people estimated to beengaged in extremist groups in Slovakia,according to police sources, was 3,406 as ofDecember 31, 2001. Of these, 476 peoplewere classified as active right wing extrem−ists, and 2,002 as supporters (Výročná sprá−va..., 2002).

REGISTERED CIVIC ASSOCIATIONSWITH LINKS TO EXTREMIST GROUPS

The rightist extremist scene is usually iden−tified with the Skinhead movement. How−ever, groups whose ideology is based on neo−

fascist and fascist ideas and traditions repre−sent a much greater risk to society. They unitepeople who on the outside live a normal,civic−minded life; they are also usually olderthan skinheads.

The majority of rightist groups are not reg−istered as movements or associations. Giventhis fact, it is not possible to estimate theprecise number of such groups and theirmembers in Slovakia (Chlpík, 2001).

SLOVENSKÁ POSPOLITOSŤ(SLOVAK COMMUNITY)

This Trnava−based organization maintainsclose contacts with a similar organization inthe Czech Republic – the Movement of Na−tional Unification – and is part of the inter−national neo−fascist organization called theInternational Third Position (ITP). It pro−motes the heritage of the fascist SecondWorld War state and its representatives.

Nové slobodné Slovensko(New Free Slovakia)

This is an extremist nationalist civic associa−tion with links to the extreme right and na−tional socialist groups. There is nothing in itsstatutes that is illegal, and thus the associationwas registered at the Interior Ministry on July27, 2000. The group organizes marches andpublic meetings and issues leaflets, whosecontent is usually on the verge of being ille−gal. Their website includes links to all signifi−cant right wing extremist groups in Europe.

Slovenská národná mládež(SNM – Slovak National Youth)

The youth movement of the Real SlovakNational Party. Originally a youth organiza−


tion of the Slovak National Party (SNS), af−ter the SNS split, most of the youth joined theReal SNS. It is a place where politically en−gaged skinheads can join the political partystructure. In some towns, the entire structureof the SNM division is built on skinheads,who are acquiring more room and support todevelop their activities (Rasistický extrémiz−mus na Slovensku, 2002).

POLITICAL PARTIES

The Slovak National Party (SNS)

A nationalist party that cannot be assessed asclearly racial and extremist, although its rep−resentatives have addressed many clearlyracist comments to the Roma, the Hungar−ians, and other minorities (Rasistický extré−mizmus na Slovensku, 2002).

The Real Slovak National Party (PSNS)

This party was formed after a group led byJán Slota of the SNS split from the motherparty. Its attitudes and statements are evenmore radical than those of the SNS. Manycomments by chairman Slota have been as−sessed as racist, and were widely publishedin the media. The party maintains goodcontacts with similar nationalist partiesabroad.

Other Political Parties

Besides the two parties mentioned above,there are also several small nationalist politi−cal parties (Slovak Folk Party – Movementfor the Liberation of Slovakia, The People’sParty, The Slovak People’s Party, The SlovakNational Unity) that are often represented byonly a small group of people or even just oneperson. Most spring into action on the anni−

versary of the declaration of the SlovakWWII State – March 14 – and organize com−memorative activities at the graves of its rep−resentatives, maintain contacts with groupsof emigrants abroad, and issue their ownpress. All are based on strong nationalism,populism, and advocacy of the Slovak WWIIState.

CRIMES BY EXTREMISTMOVEMENT MEMBERS INSLOVAKIA

The police use the terms “action showingextremist characteristics” and “racially mo−tivated crimes”. An action showing extrem−ist characteristics is any illegal act commit−ted by a person:a) who is a member of an extremist group;b) who is in the file of people suspected of

committing extremist crimes, or is in therecord of extremist groups;

c) who commits a crime whose motive wasracial, national, or another form of hatred;

d) who attacks a foreigner or a member of anational or ethnic minority without anapparent reason (Nariadenie MV č. 27/2001).

The definition of extremist crime is verybroad and subjective, and was intended to beso. It was designed to motivate people toreport all incidents of any significance re−lated to displays of extremism. If such inci−dents are reported, it could help the policeacquire an objective view of this type ofcrime in the future. Solving this type ofcriminal offences is also expected to buildconfidence among the victims and the pub−lic in the police. At the moment, many suchcases are not even reported. Complaintsoriginally filed as racially motivated also getchanged in the course of an investigation tocrimes without such a motivation (Chlpík,2002).


RACIALLY MOTIVATED CRIMESACCORDING TO POLICE RECORDS

The year 2002 (see Table 2) saw the largestnumber of crimes motivated by racial, na−tional or other type of hatred in the last sixyears, continuing a growth trend begun in2001 (this type of crime was not statisticallyrecorded before 1997). One of the reasons forthe increase is that since 2001, increased at−tention has been paid to extremism, and theSlovak police have adopted some aggressivecountermeasures.

From January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000the Slovak police recorded 35 racially moti−vated crimes, of which 25 (71.4%) were solved.Among racially motivated crimes, there wereno murders, 5 cases of assault (3 of themsolved), 19 cases of violence against an indi−vidual or a group of people (14 solved) and 11other racially motivated crimes (8 solved).

The most frequent victims of these crimeswere Roma. Of the 35 cases, the Roma were

victims in 7. However, xenophobia and ra−cial hatred does not focus only on the Roma,but also on other anthropologically distinctraces; police records documented 12 attackson African or Asian types of people.

A total of 33 people were accused of crimi−nal conduct, most of them originating fromthe majority population. The skinheads natu−rally played an important role in these statis−tics, although in some cases their member−ship in the movement could not be clearly de−termined on the basis of police records. Thepolice can have a major impact on eventsorganized and prepared by interest groupsthat can result in racial conflicts. On the otherhand, it is very hard to eliminate racial at−tacks by individuals or small groups ofskinheads. These incidents usually take placein public (e.g. on public transport), they aresudden, and the attack is brief. It is equallydifficult for people who witness these attacksto influence or prevent them. The fear of be−ing attacked themselves, the complicated le−gal position of a person joining such a conflict,

Table 2Crimes motivated by racial, national or other types of hatred committed from 1997 to Novem−ber 31, 2002

��'��.��!�'�� ,114� ,115� ,111� 0***� 0**,� B��.�,�+��2,�0**0�

��!�'�� !�'�� !�'��H��!�'��N��)� ��

��'��!��!��!�� '��.��!�'��

�� !�� +��,/�.�� ;��+��,5�.��

��!�� !��'��.��!�'��

�� "�� M�� %��.��'�� 9�� $��'��

Note: The data on number of crimes motivated by racial, national or other types of hatred for the year 2002 do not in−clude data from the military and railway police, or data from the penitentiary and justice police forces. Because of that,the data for individual regions are not identical with the total number of such offences committed across Slovakia.Source: Police forces of the Slovak Republic.


and the fear of revenge prevent people fromgiving testimony regarding such attacks, andthe skinheads naturally take advantage of thissituation. They feel relatively safe in this en−vironment, and they are confident of theiranonymity and the absence of recourse.

In 2000, such racially motivated crimes wereincreasingly committed by minors (5) andjuveniles (7). It is bewildering that more thanhalf of the solved racially motivated crimeswere committed by children younger than18. The skinheads usually recruit new mem−

Box 2The case of Ivan Mako

On April 27, 2000 the district court inBanská Bystrica convicted a skinhead ofracially motivated assault. The crime hadtaken place on June 11, 1996 in BanskáBystrica on Sloboda Square, where threemen spit on, and then verbally and physi−cally attacked a young Roma. The policemanaged to identify only one of the attack−ers after the incident. He was finally sen−tenced to two years in prison, with the sen−tence suspended for a period of three years(Rasové útoky na Slovensku, 2001).

The trial was rather complicated in thecase. At the beginning, the judge disre−garded the fact that this was a raciallymotivated assault. The plaintiff thus had toprove that the perpetrators had attackedhim deliberately because he was a Roma,i.e. because he belonged to a different eth−nic group. The district court judge, how−ever, was of the opinion that the Roma be−long to the same race as the perpetrators.

According to the victim’s attorney, JánHrubala, the court should have taken intoaccount that the skinheads attacked some−one just because they were different, whichhad to be regarded as an aggravating cir−cumstance.

In later proceedings, the attorney presentedproof that the perpetrator was a member ofthe Skinhead movement, and that his con−

tact address could be found in magazinesof the movement – skinzines.

The then−chairman of the Human RightsCommittee of the Slovak parliament noted:“It does not matter whether according tosome obsolete racial theory the Roma be−long to the Indo−European or other race.The gist of the problem is more that in thiscase, which certainly is not an isolated onein Slovakia, even if there was no racial mo−tive, then it was at least a case in which thefundamental human rights guaranteed bythe Slovak Constitution were violated.”

Because the judge refused to take the ra−cial motive into account, in ensuing pro−ceedings the attorney had to argue that in−ternational law treats the concepts of race,nation and ethnic group as closely related,and thus when it comes to protection, wecannot distinguish between an ethnicgroup and a race. Hrubala backed up hisargument with a decision by the EuropeanHuman Rights Court in Strasbourg, and bythe fact that according to the Slovak Con−stitution, international conventions towhich Slovakia is a signatory take prec−edence over Slovak law.

In the end, the court found the defendantguilty of racially motivated assault, andhanded down the aforementioned sus−pended sentence (Biela kniha, 2000).


bers from this age group. The other agegroups had only a minimal share of this typeof crime. We must realize, though, that thedata pertaining to minor and juvenile perpe−trators are by no means complete. The realnumbers are presumably far higher, as thistype of violence is quite frequent and it ispresent in latent form at elementary and sec−ondary schools or in dormitories (Bezpeč−nostná situácia…, 2001).

Most racially motivated attacks in 2000 wereconducted against people (11 cases) andagainst the property of the people attacked (3cases). In 10 cases the harm was not physi−cal – the offences involved insults due toracial or ethnic origin. There were also fourcases of mass dissemination of racial hatred,in two cases through mass communicationfacilities. The life of the victims was jeopard−ized in three cases – one case of mortal in−jury and two cases of grievous bodily harm.The two cases of grievous bodily harm in−volved a long−term disability of more than 42days or permanent consequences; nine of thecases of battery recorded involved a short−term disability of less than 42 days.

In eight cases in 2000, the physical attackswere committed by a group of perpetrators,in eight cases physical violence was used, ineight cases the attack was just verbal, and infive cases written. In one case the attackerwas armed, using a baseball bat (Bezpečnost−ná situácia…, 2001).

It should be noted that in 2000, the occur−rence of racially motivated violence in Slo−vakia was 133% higher than in 1999, whichmay be due to the fact that the victims re−ported the crimes more frequently.

From January 1, 2001 until December 31,2001, the Crime Statistics System registered40 crimes motivated by racial, national, andother forms of hatred. Of that number, 23

(58%) cases were solved; in four cases theperpetrator had been intoxicated, while threeoffences were committed by repeat offend−ers, two by minors, and five by juveniles. Themost crimes were committed in the Trenčínregion (12) and the fewest in the Nitra andBanská Bystrica regions (1 in each). As forthe structure of racially motivated crime in2001, the most (17) offences were crimes ofsupporting and promoting movements sup−pressing the rights and freedoms of citizenspursuant to Section 261 of the Penal Code.

From January 1, 2002 through December 31,2002, police statistics registered 102 crimesmotivated by racial, national, or other formsof hatred; 69 (68%) were solved. Of the 102crimes, nine were committed under the influ−ence of alcohol, 10 were committed by mi−nors, and 14 by juveniles. The most crimeswere committed in the region of Bratislava(23), the least in the region of Trnava (5).

CENTER FOR MONITORING RACISMAND XENOPHOBIA

On April 1, 2001, a decree by the InteriorMinistry on combating extremism and on theestablishment of the Center for MonitoringRacism and Xenophobia took effect. Thepurpose of the Center is:• to set tasks for the Interior Ministry’s units

and the police forces in protecting life,health, safety, and property while prevent−ing, detecting, and documenting crimescommitted by extremists;

• to make police activity more effective inpreventing, detecting and documentingcrimes committed by extremists, and to en−sure a more effective fight against racismand xenophobia,

• to establish a Center for Monitoring Rac−ism and Xenophobia working at the Inte−rior Ministry and among police forces, andsupervised by the Department of Violent


Crime of the Criminal Police Branch of theCriminal and Financial Police Administra−tion of the Police Forces Directorate of theSlovak Republic.

The Center for Monitoring Racism andXenophobia keeps records of extremistcrime, of people suspected of committingextremist crimes, and of extremist groups. Itstasks include:• monitoring and evaluating the current situ−

ation, and analyzing the most serious casesand trends in extremist activity in order toanticipate the future direction of extremismand to take measures to suppress it;

• to control and methodologically guide ac−tivities in maintaining records at criminalpolice units at the district and regional lev−els;

• collecting, recording and analyzing infor−mation on displays of racism and xenopho−bia referred to it by Interior Ministry units;

• providing objective, reliable, and compa−rable data at the ministry level on displaysof racism and xenophobia for the Slovakia−wide Center for Monitoring Racism andXenophobia established and operated bythe Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs andFamily;

• preparing an annual report on extremismin Slovakia;

• receiving information from people and le−gal entities concerning displays of extrem−ism, and in cases where the law may havebeen broken, submitting the cases to theresponsible bodies;

• providing information (pursuant to the2000 Law on Freedom of Access to Infor−mation) on the security situation in relationto extremism.

To strengthen dialogue between the InteriorMinistry and NGOs, in December 2000 agroup was launched for solving raciallymotivated crimes consisting of police head−quarters staff and activists of third sector

organizations (Citizen and Democracy, OpenSociety Foundation, People Against Racism,Zebra – Association of Afro−Slovak Fami−lies). This working group evaluates the pos−sibilities of solving current problems, consid−ers preventive measures, and handles thefurther education of police in the sphere ofhuman rights. The third sector activists en−gage mainly in programs to suppress racismand xenophobia.

THE COMMITTEE FORRACIALLY MOTIVATED CRIME

The Committee for Racially MotivatedCrime was established by police headquar−ters in 2002. Its members include representa−tives of the Interior Ministry, the departmentof computer crime, the department of organ−ized crime, investigators, the prosecution,and NGOs dealing with racism (PeopleAgainst Racism, Citizen and Democracy,League of Human Rights Activists, Zebra,and the Open Society Foundation).

The committee sits once every three monthsand examines the procedures used by thepolice to combat racism, the Interior Minis−try’s approach to combating racism, and theinvestigation of current cases of raciallymotivated crime.

CONCLUSION

The Roma are the principal target of politi−cal violence in Slovakia. The activity of in−dividual groups and organizations finds le−gitimacy among the Slovak populationthanks to its high degree of social distancefrom the Roma.

Whether it is a question of verbal or physi−cal attacks or the dissemination of racist in−formation, the Roma as a whole feel endan−


gered by this political extremism. The pointis not how many Roma have been the victimsof racially motivated attacks. Their feeling ofimperilment is based on the fact that peoplehave been and are attacked merely becausethey were Roma. As a consequence, allRoma justly feel exposed.

The attempts of extremist groups to acquirepolitical legitimacy and reach their goalspose a significant threat for the future. Thisis why repressive units of the state must takea zero tolerance approach towards all extrem−ist practices; they must also carefully inves−tigate all suspicions and strictly enforce thelaw when a racially motivated crime is com−mitted.

The fact that extremist groups recruit theirmembers among minors makes it necessaryto introduce and intensify activities and pro−grams in the first grade of elementaryschools.

ENDNOTES

1. The Skinhead movement understands fascismas a political doctrine that rejects the currentdemocratic order. It achieves unity and stabil−ity by concentrating all power in just oneparty. It enforces a system based on personalresponsibility for an assigned task. It relies onthe principle of a leader (“führer”) who hasabsolute power and absolute responsibility.

2. According to the skinheads, national social−ism protects the entire society, supports socialjustice, and protects national interests fromforeign influence.

3. The movement sees the race theory ofAdolph Hitler, who considered all races be−sides the German Nordic to be inferior, as anobsolete and impracticable display of racialidealism.

4. For example, www.odinsrage.com, where theSlovak Whitefront’s website is also stored.

5. Activity means that over the past year, someactivity by people belonging to these groups

was registered. The term “activity” includesthe group’s activity being mentioned in thepress or on websites with extremist content.It must be noted that some people are activein several groups at the same time.

6. Together with Blood & Honour DivisionSlovakia, they began to dominate the Slovakextremist scene in 1995. In that year, the Slo−vak division of one of the most radicalAmerican neo−Nazi organizations wasfounded with the aim of unifying the ideol−ogy of the Skinhead movement. This organi−zation brought to Slovakia a national social−ist line that is directly linked to the nationalsocialist heritage of the 1939 to 1945 Nazi−puppet Slovak State. Besides their primaryinterest – putting an end to Hungarian seces−sionism – they also glorify Rudolf Hess,whom they perceive as the peacemakeramong the Aryan nations, and worshipAdolph Hitler as the great man of nations,spread anti−Semitism, etc. They first demanda personal contact, and only later enablemembership. They feel they are the elite ofthe elite, preferring education, awareness,and drill. Their organization is a strictly mili−tary one, and new members are accepted onlyafter a thorough two to three−year trial pe−riod. Their main obligation is adherence tothe Code of Honor of the Hammer Skins.Their symbol is two crossed hammers in acircle with the Slovak double−cross in theforeground. The SHS also exist at present,but they are more or less a distribution serv−ice, although they occasionally organize con−certs and parties. They publish the WhiteVictory journal. “Orientation: Against theracial impurity of our Earth, i.e. the Gypsies,the Niggers, and the Asians flooding thewhite world, the lies about WWII and espe−cially the holocaust, sexual deviants(pedophiles, homosexuals) and their organi−zations, pornography, abortions (abortion =destruction of the white race), white trash:communists, anarchists, criminals, and trai−tors of the white race, the destruction of na−ture, the penetration of multicultural dirt intoour country (what will the MTV and Bravogeneration grow up to be), capitalism, andcommunism. The aim: national socialist so−ciety united under one leader. No capitalism,communism and exploitation of people. No


exploitation of nature – the racially pure andstrong society can only exist in a clean en−vironment.”

7. In 1987, Ian Stuart Donaldson founded theneo−Nazi organization Blood & Honour(B&H). Since then this organization has ex−panded, with divisions in France, Germany,the US, Slovenia, Serbia, Belgium, Australia,and since April 20, 1994, also in Slovakia.Since Donaldson died in a car crash togetherwith another Nottingham skinhead on Sep−tember 24, 1993, B&H has become for manyultra−right skinheads a worshipped cult, andStuart has been hailed as one of the greatestfighters ever for the white race. The Blood &Honour international neo−Nazi organizationhas several divisions in Slovakia. The aim ofthe organization is to unite both the active andso far passive members of the Skinheadmovement. The political platform they use todo so is national socialism and the heritage ofAdolph Hitler. The Slovak B&H divisionsmaintain close contacts with their foreigncolleagues. Those in eastern Slovakia in par−ticular have organized several events and con−certs, where bands not just from neighboringcountries such as the Czech Republic, Hun−gary, Poland and Germany, but also fromScandinavia have performed.

8. Blood & Honour – Division Slovakia, the firstSlovak division of this international organi−zation, was founded in Bratislava on April 20,1994. It published a well−prepared magazinenamed Krv a česť (Blood and Honor) with acolor cover, and the journal Zin 1939.

9. Blood & Honour Nitra is particularly activein distributing musical media and press. It or−ganized concerts of the Nitra−based groupsBiely Odpor (White Resistance) and Front 18,and several concerts with international par−ticipants. It also mediated the printing ofmaterials for foreign B&H groups.

10. Blood & Honour – Tatras was founded inOctober 1996, and focuses especially on theeastern part of Slovakia. This division coverswhite power bands such as DMS (DoctorMartens Skinhead) from Prešov and Edel−weiss from Poprad. They publish the maga−zine Krv a česť Tatry.

11. B&H Engerau (Petržalka) was founded in 1997.It publishes the magazine Biela Myseľ (WhiteMind). It maintains contacts with the other B&H

divisions world−wide, and distributes materialssuch as CDs, MCs, clothes, and zines. Its activi−ties have been investigated by the police.

12. This Košice division maintains very closecontacts with foreign groups. Its website hasbeen registered as www.bloodandhonour.organd all information on the site is in English.It includes links to all world B&H divisions.One of its leaders is at the moment being pros−ecuted for promoting fascism through thepress. This division organized a memorableconcert by Ian Stuart Donaldson on Septem−ber 29, 2001 with the participation of the USgroup Max Resist, one of the best−known neo−Nazi bands of its kind in the US.

13. So far, no activity has been noted with thisgroup, which is still in the preparation phase.It is a potentially dangerous group determinedto attack targets such as civic activists, jour−nalists, politicians, and other people who sup−port anti−Nazi activities in Slovakia. “Com−bat 18 is a militant division of Blood andHonour that was founded by a great man andmartyr, Ian Stuart Donaldson, who was killedin a car crash on September 24, 1993. Sincethen, the Combat 18 division was founded inSlovakia. At present the organization consistsof a small number of people who, however,are very rigorous in their approach, and verydetermined to reach their aims. We are deter−mined to fight the dirt of this world and stopthe machinery of returning communism andthe Z.O.G. system. We know that our journeyhas just begun, and that it will be a long andbloody journey full of defeats and victories,but we are ready to face it. Our strength, de−termination, and faith in the ideals of nationalsocialism are growing from day to day. Standup against the present world system and jointhe white revolution!” (Die Treue, http://www.geocities.com/spolecnost2002/treue/1−12.html)

14. The Slovak division of SS Action Group (Se−curity Systems Action Group – SS AG),which was founded in the US, was formed in1996, and it too professes national socialism,and places itself among those organizationscombating “non−White” crime and the presentgovernment system. Recruitment of mem−bers: two− to three−month trial period, written,phone and direct contact, and payment of amembership fee. SS AG, which operates


mainly in central Slovakia, also has outpostsin Bratislava and Košice.

15. Biela Slovenská Jednota (White SlovakUnity) was founded in 1996 in eastern Slova−kia. The aim of the organization is to unify thenationalist and national socialist streamwithin the Skinhead movement, and toachieve cooperation between the two groups.It was established as a distribution center forjournals, different nationalist and anti−Semiticpublications, music lyrics, T−shirts with neo−Nazi symbols and inscriptions, etc. Itlaunched activities in June 1997, when itstarted publishing and distributing two jour−nals (Ostara and Hlas Slobody).

16. Bojovníci keltského kríža (Warriors of theCeltic Cross) operate in the northwestSlovakia region of Žilina, and their main ac−tivity is organizing Skinhead movement meet−ings – so called White Power parties. Theseparties are also attended by skinheads fromthe Czech Republic.

17. This group operates in eastern Slovakia andhas a close relationship to B&H Cassovia. Ithas organized most of the major concerts byWhite Power bands in Slovakia, such as theconcert by the British Brutal Attack (October17, 1998), Razor’s Edge (March 1999) or In−timidation One and Max Resist from the USin Papradno in western Slovakia. It does notpresent itself in public in any way.

18. The person behind this organization tried tofound an outpost of the religious−neo−Naziorganization Aryan Nations in Slovakia. Af−ter some disagreements, an outpost of a simi−lar religious extremist organization – theChristian Separatist Church Slovakia – wasestablished. Its founder established contactwith the leaders of this organization during hisstay in the US, and was even granted the titleof priest, which he then began using in com−munications on Internet forums. He is one ofthe main ideologists of the racist−rightistmovement in Slovakia, has translated differ−ent foreign publications dealing with the de−nial of the Holocaust for the WhitefrontInternet server, and strives to have his textspublished in the mainstream media.

19. July 1995 – Mário Goral, a young Roma, wasburned to death by skinheads; the two mainperpetrators were 16 and 18 years old. August2000 – Anna Balážová, a mother of eight, was

battered to death in her own home; the attack−ers were 20 and 21 years old.

20. Law No. 140/1961 Coll,. the Penal Code, asamended.

REFERENCES

1. Bezpečnostná situácia na úseku rasovo mo−tivovanej trestnej činnosti v roku 2000 [TheSecurity Situation in the Field of RaciallyMotivated Crime in 2000], (Bratislava:Ministerstvo vnútra SR, 2001).


3. Chlpík, Miroslav: Extrémizmus, jeho korene,prejavy a možnosti riešenia [Extremism, itsRoots, Manifestations, and Possible Solu−tions], Doctoral thesis, (Bratislava: PoliceCorps Academy, 2002).

4. Chmelík, Jan: Extremismus a jeho právní asociologické aspekty [Extremism and its Le−gal and Sociological Aspects], (Prague:Linde, 2001).

5. Metodika odhaľovania, objasňovania a doku−mentovania trestnej činnosti motivovanej ra−sovou, národnostnou a inou neznášanlivosťoualebo páchanej priaznivcami extrémistickýchskupín [Methodology of Detection, Clarifica−tion and Documentation of Criminal ActivityMotivated by Racial, National or Other Formsof Hatred or Committed by Supporters of Ex−tremist Groups], (Bratislava: Police CorpsHeadquarters, 2001).

6. Nariadenie Ministerstva vnútra SR č.27/2001o postupe v oblasti boja s extrémizmom a ozriadení Monitorovacieho strediska rasizmua xenofóbie [Decree of the Interior MinistryNo. 27/2001 on Combating Extremism and onthe Establishment of the Center for Monitor−ing Racism and Xenophobia], (Bratislava:Ministerstvo vnútra SR, 2001).

7. Rasistický extrémizmus na Slovensku [RacistExtremism in Slovakia], Manuscript, (Brati−slava: People Against Racism, Institute forPublic Affairs, 2002).

8. “Rasové útoky na Slovensku” [‘Racial As−saults in Slovakia’], Romano nevo ľil, No. 509– 517, 2001.

9. Správna cesta. Skinheads [The Right Path:Skinheads], (Aryan publications, 1998, http:/


/members.odinsrage.com/wf88/publikacie/skinhead/sc1.htm).

10. Šmausová, Gerlinda: “‘Rasa’ jako rasistickákonstrukce” [‘“Race” as a Racist Construc−tion’], Sociologický časopis, No. 4, 1999, p.433 – 446.

11. Výročná správa o stave a vývoji extrémizmuna území Slovenskej republiky v roku 2001[Annual Report on the State and Developmentof Extremism in the Slovak Republic in2001], (Bratislava: Violent Crime Division ofPolice Corps Headquarters, 2002).

297

Summary: This chapter deals with the ba−sic demographic and geographic character−istics of the Roma, describing sources of dataon the Roma population and the variousways of defining this group. It follows theevolution of Roma headcounts in Slovakia,and focuses on the spatial distribution of theRoma, across both Europe and Slovakia, alsoexamining Roma demographic behavior (ac−cording to sex, age, marital status, as well asbirth rate and mortality). The chapter con−cludes with an outline of the expected evo−lution of Roma demographic trends and ofthe number of Roma in Slovakia.

Key words: birth rate, fertility, mortality,number of children, distribution, age struc−ture, Roma headcount, population estimate,census, prognosis, concentration, statisticalcount.

INTRODUCTION

Since the reproductive behavior of the Romain Slovakia is quite different from that of thecountry’s non−Roma population, demo−graphic issues play an important role in eachdeeper study of the Roma. Given that the re−productive behavior of the Roma breedsmyths that can cause serious political and so−cial problems, it is very important that we havea reliable demographic picture of the Roma.

Most problems and misunderstandings arisefrom the fact that the terms “ethnic group”

BORIS VAŇO and EVA HAVIAROVÁ

ROMA POPULATIONDEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

and “nation” are used interchangeably, with−out sufficient understanding of the differencebetween them. People’s ethnic and nationalaffinities differ in both content and in howthey are determined. In some cases, the eth−nic and national structure of a populationmay be similar, while in other cases they canbe very different. These categories must behandled very carefully, particularly when itcomes to the Roma. While members of otherethnic groups in Slovakia usually claim anationality based on their ethnic affinity,most ethnic Roma do not claim Roma nation−ality, but instead say they are Hungarian orSlovak. The number of Roma officially re−corded as living in Slovakia thus differs sig−nificantly from the number of Slovak citizensof Roma nationality, meaning that data oncitizens of Romany nationality do not pro−vide a true picture of the Roma ethnic group.

At present, there are no official statistics onthe ethnic structure of the Slovak population.This type of data stopped being collectedafter 1989, for human rights reasons. Theseethnic data have been replaced with data onthe national structure of the population. Un−like the ethnic affinity category, which isdefined according to set criteria and is inde−pendent of the will of the respondent (i.e. theperson is usually classified on the basis ofanother person’s judgment), national data arederived from the nationality that respondentsvoluntarily claim. We can thus only estimatedemographic indicators for the Roma ethnicgroup.

298 B o r i s Va ň o a n d E v a H a v i a r o v á

This chapter focuses on the demographiccharacteristics of the Roma. On the basis ofdemographic statistics and analysis, the au−thors sketch the reproductive behavior of theRoma ethnic group, estimating the size andstructure of the Roma population living inSlovakia today, and suggesting how it mightdevelop in the near future.

Variations between regions, and betweengroups of Roma according to their level ofintegration into mainstream society, are sig−nificant factors influencing the demographiccharacteristics of the Roma. Not only arethere considerable differences in Romapopulation sizes and reproductive behavioramong individual regions of Slovakia, butthere are also major demographic differencesbetween integrated and non−integratedRoma. Unfortunately, there is not enoughdata to permit a precise analysis of these dif−ferences.

This chapter seeks to fill gaps in the data onthe Roma. The demographic, socio−eco−nomic, and frequently also the human posi−tion of many Roma is very different from thatof the rest of the Slovak population today. Insome cases, the Roma are unable to improvetheir lot without the help of others. This help,however, must be based on accurate informa−tion to be fully effective. Exact data on thenumber of Roma living in Slovakia may alsohelp counter unprofessional and misleadingpopulation estimates. Therefore, this chapteralso contains a projection of the number ofRoma living in Slovakia at present, and in thenext 20 years.

SOURCES OFDEMOGRAPHIC DATA ONTHE ROMA

Painting a demographic picture of the Romais a demanding task, particularly given the

lack of reliable data and the diversity ofsources from which it must be gleaned. In−formation that is available may differ accord−ing to how the examined population groupis defined (Roma ethnic group, Roma nation,Roma dependent on social benefits, Romaliving in isolated settlements), or how theinformation is gathered (i.e. whether it issupplied by the people concerned them−selves, or whether it is submitted by anotherperson).

In the past, several official sources of data onthe Roma, based on ethnicity, were used. Inall of these data collations, individuals weremarked as Roma by other people, usuallythose administering or gathering the informa−tion. Today, such data are regarded as con−trary to human rights, and thus are no longercollected. These former “ethnic” data did noteven cover the entire Roma population, usu−ally omitting those Roma who lived inte−grated into the majority society; some dataalso focused only on one part of the Romapopulation (adults, nomadic Roma, problem−atic Roma etc.). Nevertheless, the ethnic datadescribe the Roma population more preciselyand in more detail than data on citizens ofRoma nationality. The main problem of theethnic data is that the information is older anddoes not cover the latest demographic trendsamong the Roma.

To determine the number of Roma living inSlovakia since the eighteenth century untilnow, all kinds of data have been used, rang−ing from listings, registrations, populationcensuses and estimates. The main source ofdata underpinning demographic analyses ofthe Roma has been the results of the 1970,1980, 1991 and 2001 population censuses.Concerning the demographic characteristicsof the Roma, the most useful data are thosefrom the 1970 and 1980 censuses, which, asfar as methodology is concerned (subjectiveassessments by another person), covered the

299R o m a P o p u l a t i o n D e m o g r a p h i c Tr e n d s

majority of the Roma ethnic group in Slova−kia. In the 1991 and 2001 censuses, peoplecould decide for themselves which national−ity they claimed. Only a small number ofRoma claimed Roma nationality (about 25%of the total estimated size of the ethnic group).As mostly entire families were involved, thedata offer a reasonably reliable picture ofpopulation structure (Finková, 2000).

ROMA NUMBERS IN SLOVAKIA

SLOVAK ROMA INTHE EUROPEAN CONTEXT

Exact data on the number of Roma living inindividual European countries and in Europeas a whole are not available. The number ofRoma has been measured in official censusesin many countries, particularly in EasternEurope; these data, however, do not matchthe estimates of experts.

On the basis of several estimates, 6.5 to 8.5million Roma lived in Europe in the 1990s.The highest number, in both absolute termsand relative to the rest of the country’s popu−lation, lived in Central and Eastern Europe,creating a region with significant Romanyminority concentrations from the Czech Re−public and Slovakia through Hungary, Roma−nia and Bulgaria to Macedonia and Greece.

The second, and less significant, area ofRoma concentration is southwestern Europe,i.e. Spain and France (see Map 1 for details).

The best−known estimate of Roma numberswas the “Liégeois” projection presented bythe Council of Europe in the mid−1990s.

The reliability of these figures is doubtful,given the inflated number for Slovakia, andthe fact the Roma count for the Czech Repub−lic does not correspond with the estimates of

Table 1European countries with the highest Romapopulations (estimate)

8��.� ��

��<)=�

�� #��.� �� 7�� O��'�� 8@�' ��'� �� A�'�!��

Source: Liégeois, 1995.

Czech experts. The Liégeois figures maythus in general have been overestimated, andthe number of Roma living in Europe actu−ally at the lower limit of this projection orbelow. Nevertheless, Slovakia ranks amongthose countries with the highest number, andespecially the highest population share, ofRoma in Europe, along with Macedonia,Romania and Bulgaria.

Comparisons can be made at the interna−tional level based on the results of popula−tion censuses performed in different coun−tries at the beginning of the 1990s (Kalibová,1998). Data from these sources indicate thatthe number and share of the Roma popula−tion is from three to eight times lower thanthe Liégeois figure, and are obviously under−estimated. Both sources, however, identifiedthe same countries as having the highestRoma counts in Europe. The Slovak and theCzech findings lead experts to the conclusionthat the actual number of Roma lies some−where between the results of the two datasources, and closer to the Liégeois estimatethan to the census data.

The census results allow us to compare theage structure of the Roma population in in−dividual countries. Among European coun−tries, the highest ratio of children in the Romapopulation is in Slovakia (43.3%), followed


by Romania (41.4%). It can be assumed thatthe growth of these populations is more dy−namic than in other European countries (seeGraphs 1 through 6).

DEVELOPMENT OF ROMAHEADCOUNTS IN SLOVAKIA

The first written record of the Roma in Slo−vakia dates from 1322, and comes from theSpišská Nová Ves region in the east of thecountry (Horváthová, 1964). However, thefirst data on the number of Roma living onthe territory of modern−day Slovakia werenot recorded until the end of the eighteenthcentury. According to these listings, about20,000 Roma lived on Slovak soil at that time(Jurová, 1995). In 1893, a Hungarian listingstated about 40,000 Roma (Džambazovič,2001).

During the first Czechoslovak Republic(1918 to 1939), the 1921 and 1930 popula−tion censuses provided data on the numberof Roma. In these censuses, the existence ofa Roma nationality was admitted, with thebasis for its determination being the Romalanguage. The Roma count in Slovakia was8,035 according to the 1921 census, and31,188 according to the 1930 census. How−ever, these censuses came nowhere near thenumber of Roma determined in the 19th cen−tury census. During the interwar period, anInterior Ministry record listed 26,000 Romaaged 14 and older in 1927, and by 1938 con−tained data on more than 60,000 adults.

After the Second World War, several listingsof Roma were performed. Some 84,000Roma were recorded in Slovakia in the firstpost−war listing in 1947. In 1959, a listing ofnomadic people, concerning the Roma inparticular, was performed, finding a total of27,933 people (Jurová, 1995). From 1966 to1968, a national Roma listing run by the Sta−

tistical Office was compiled, registeringmore than 160,000 Roma living in Slovakia.Listings by the Interior Ministry and Statis−tical Office in the 1950s and 1960s were fol−lowed by registrations by municipalities,which were used as the basis for the paymentof welfare benefits and the provision of so−cial care for the Roma. In 1989, according tothese records, 253,943 Roma lived in Slova−kia. Although these data traced the Romapopulation more exactly than previouscounts, they covered only those receivingsome form of welfare benefits. The last na−tion−wide information on the number ofRoma was the estimate of the Slovak Statis−tical Office from 1990, which claimed263,337 Roma (5% of the overall Slovakpopulation).

Between 1945 and 1990, the state did notofficially admit the existence of a Roma na−tion. In state censuses, the Roma had to claimanother nationality from among the “legiti−mate” nationalities, or register under the“other” category. In the censuses of 1970 and1980, however, data on the Roma ethnicgroup were gathered and then evaluatedseparately. Special methods were used, withcensus officers deciding whether respond−ents were members of the Roma ethnic groupon the basis of municipal records and theirown judgments, the “criteria” for these judg−ments being way of life, living conditions,native language, standard of living, physicalfeatures, etc. According to the 1970 popula−tion census, there were 159,275 Roma in Slo−vakia (3.5% of the overall population), whilein 1980 there were 199,863 (4%). It is esti−mated that these findings omitted about 15%of the Roma, mostly those who had absorbedthe habits of the majority population, whotended not to claim Roma ethnicity, andwhose reproductive behavior was differentfrom that of most Roma. The census datafrom 1970 and 1980 thus represent the mostcomplete source of data for demographic


analyses of the Roma populations in theCzech Republic and Slovakia.

On the basis of the data available, it is clearthat the country’s Roma population is grow−ing faster than the Slovak population as awhole. While between 1970 and 1980 thenumber of Roma increased by 25%, thenumber of Slovak citizens rose only by 10%.From 1980 to 1990, Roma population growthremained just under 30%, whereas the numberof Slovak citizens grew by only 6% overall.

After 60 years, the Roma finally had the op−portunity to claim Roma nationality andRomany as their native language in the 1991population census. Only some made use ofthis opportunity, however, with 75,802 peo−ple claiming Roma nationality and 77,269citing Romany as their mother tongue. Thesame happened in the 2001 population cen−sus, with 89,920 people claiming Roma na−tionality, about 25% of the Roma populationin Slovakia.

Another source of information on Romanumbers is data gathering efforts targetingsocially and culturally disadvantaged groups

(i.e. Roma living in settlements), which,however, cover only those Roma living inthese settlements. According to these data,123,034 people in 1997, 124,031 in 1998 and130,356 in 1999 lived in Roma settlementsacross Slovakia. In 1999, Roma living insettlements represented 2.4% of the overallSlovak population, with ratios ranging acrossthe country from 0.1% in the western Trenčínand northern Žilina regions to 8.6% in theeastern Prešov region. However, the reliabil−ity of these data is questionable.

Besides the data sources mentioned above,there are several Roma number estimates inSlovakia, some of which posit figures inexcess of 500,000. It is believed that such es−timates are unrealistic, and note that in mostcases no information on the origin of theseestimates is available. Given that the lastprecise information on the number of Romain Slovakia was the 1980 population census,and assuming that the Roma count of200,000 was underestimated by about 15%,we estimate that in 1980 not more than230,000 Roma lived in Slovakia. If we takeinto account the reproductive behavior of theRoma and the likely rate of increase of the

Table 2Development of Roma count in Slovakia

6�� C��'�� '��

��!�� ,5� �'��.� F /0 �2� ��,512� ��2�� # /0 �2� ��,10,� :��/�/� ��,12*� :��/�/� ��,125� 4�# ��./�,"��"#��# % �2��?��A��C�# C�1� ��,1-4� :��/�/� ��,1/1� F /0 �2��C��. ��.�/�� D��. ��"��"#�� ,135� ?��./��C�� "�#��.� � /0��0 ��/�� ,14*� :��/�/� ��,15*� :��/�/� ��,151� '�� "�#��./� ��,11*� I/0 ��0��,6#�%�3�60�0 /0 ��#�7CC ��1� ��,11,� :��/�/� ��,111� ?�"��0/��?��/�00#��0/� ��0***� I/0 ��0��,;�<�1� ��0**,� :��/�/� ��0**/� I/0 ��0��,��# ��%81� ��0*0*� I/0 ��0��,;�<�1� ��


Roma population, we arrive at a top estimateof 390,000 Roma in Slovakia in 2002, withthe actual number likely somewhere between370,000 and 375,000 people, or less than 7%of the total Slovak population. The numberof Roma is expected to grow, however, andto exceed half a million (9.5% of the Slovakpopulation) around 2020.

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTIONOF THE ROMA

The Roma are very unevenly distributedaround Slovakia. If we compare the resultsof the 1970 and 1980 censuses with the 1990Slovak Statistical Office estimate, however,we discover that the spatial distribution of theRoma around Slovakia did not change muchover the last third of the twentieth century.This conclusion is supported by the 1991 and2001 census results, despite the fact theycover only a small part of the actual Romapopulation.

The population censuses and the Slovak Sta−tistical Office estimate showed low numbersof Roma in western Slovakia and in thenorthern part of central Slovakia, especially

in the Orava, Kysuce, Turiec, central Považieand Ponitrie areas. The lowest absolute andrelative numbers of Roma, according to theSlovak Statistical Office estimate, were in theformer districts of Dolný Kubín, Čadca, Ži−lina, Považská Bystrica and Prievidza.

On the other hand, the Roma population tendsto be more concentrated in the south of cen−tral Slovakia and throughout eastern Slovakia,with the exception of the northeastern regionon the borders with Poland and Ukraine. Ac−cording to the Slovak Statistical Office esti−mate, around 60% of all Roma in Slovakialived in 11 of the 38 former districts in 1990,an area spreading across the east from Luče−nec and Rimavská Sobota through Rožňava,Spišská Nová Ves, Poprad, Prešov and Košiceto Vranov nad Topľou and Trebišov. Whereasin 1970 the Roma count exceeded 10,000 inonly three of the mentioned districts (Rimav−ská Sobota, Spišská Nová Ves and Poprad), all11 districts exceeded this limit in 1990. In1970, the Roma represented more than 10%of the population in only two districts(Rimavská Sobota and Rožňava), whereas in1990 it was nine districts. In 1990, the high−est overall Roma count was estimated in thedistricts of Spišská Nová Ves (20,115), Poprad

Table 3Roma in selected Slovak districts from 1970 to 1990

,14*� ,15*� ,11*��.�

�� <)=� �� <)=� �� <)=�

�� $��'��+�'��.� �� $��'��+�� ("��'� �� A�' ��'�� 9��!� �� 9�� %�� V�� %��%�G�� G��!��W��

Source: 1970: Sčítanie ľudu, domov a bytov 1970, 1973;1980: Sčítanie ľudu, domov a bytov 1980, 1983;1990: estimate of the Slovak Statistical Office.


(18,456) and Rimavská Sobota (18,026). Thehighest ratio of Roma was found in the dis−tricts of Rimavská Sobota (18.2%) andRožňava (15.9%) (see Maps 2 to 5).

In 1980 Slovakia had 2,724 municipalities;according to the population census results,Roma lived in 1,453 of them (53.3%). Thehighest ratio of Roma in a municipality was80% (see Table 4), while in 15 municipali−ties the Roma share was higher than 50%,and in 209 more than 20%. Municipalities indistricts with typically high Roma populations(Poprad, Spišská Nová Ves, Košice – envi−rons, Rimavská Sobota and Rožňava) fea−tured strongly.

Municipalities with the highest ratio of Romato overall populations tended to number lessthan 1,000 inhabitants. The ratio of Roma

reached 10% in only a few towns (Fiľakovo,Levoča, Trebišov, Rožňava, Rimavská Sobo−ta). The ratio of Roma did not exceed 5% inthose towns with the highest absolute numberof Roma (Košice, Bratislava, Prešov).

In 1980, up to 60% of the Roma in Slovakialived in the countryside, especially in agri−cultural districts such as Rimavská Sobota,Rožňava, Košice, Michalovce and Trebišov.The Roma were relatively sparsely settled inmountainous regions (Prešov, Spišská NováVes) with little surplus agriculture produc−tion, until 1948 or 1958. Roma populationsgrew especially in municipalities from whichthe Carpathian Germans had been expelledafter the Second World War (Lomnička, V.Slavkov, Kežmarok, Podolínec, Toporec),and also in rural areas following the popula−tion decrease caused by the abolition of pri−

Table 4Municipalities with the highest ratio of Roma in 1980

A��'��.� C��'�� 9�� '�� <)=�

(��"�� 60��8�J��%<�� G�%"��'�� % . �3� �� B��X� 4�"��.� �� %��!�� 4�"��.� �� GY��%� 4�"��.� �� !��'�� ? ��%/38�6��0�� Z�.� 4�"��.� �� $�'��'�� % . �3� �� G�� '�� 4��%� �� B��'�� 4��%� ��

Source: Sčítanie ľudu, domov a bytov 1980, 1983.

Table 5Municipalities with the highest number of Roma in 1980

A��'��.� C��'�� 9�� '�� <)=�

$��'�� )��0 /#�%�� 9�� 4��%� �� ("��'� F�K�� %�� ? ��%/38�6��0�� V�� ?�L<�%�� O�W�� F�K�� (��"�� 6" �/38�E�%8�;�/� �� -�� %� �� A�' ��'�� ' �(�#�%��

Source: Sčítanie ľudu, domov a bytov 1980, 1983.


vate land ownership and the ensuing migra−tion in search of industrial work opportuni−ties (Dubayová, 1994).

As far as the Roma were concerned, the 1991and 2001 census results differed from previ−ous censuses due to different data gatheringprinciples. In 1991, 75,802 citizens (1.4% ofthe total population) claimed Roma nation−ality in Slovakia. In 2001 that figure was89,920 citizens (1.7%). According to the2001 census, the ratio of Roma did not ex−ceed 10% in any district, with the highestratio reported in the districts of Kežmarok(8.8%) and Levoča (7.1%) (see Map 6).These results also differed from previousfindings in terms of Roma representation indistricts near the border with Hungary (espe−cially Rimavská Sobota and Rožňava). Thislower Roma representation was probablycaused by the Roma more frequently claim−ing other−than−Roma nationalities (not onlySlovak but also Hungarian).

ROMA POPULATION STRUCTURE

STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO SEX

The ratio of Slovak men to women was 966to 1,000 in 1980, with the number of menexceeding that of women only in the 30 to 34age group. The situation was quite differentamong the Roma, however, with the men/women ratio 1,033 to 1,000, and Roma menprevailing until the 40 to 44 age bracket. Sincethe death rate of Roma men at the age of 44in Czechoslovakia was only slightly higherthan that of men from the majority populationbetween 1970 and 1980, and the death rateamong Roma women at this age was signifi−cantly higher than that of the majority popu−lation (Kalibová, 1989), it can be assumed thathigher mortality among young and middle−aged Roma women is the reason that Romamen prevail over Roma women.

By 1991, the number of men per 1,000women had decreased to 953 for the entirepopulation, while among the Roma it hadfallen to 1,021 men per 1,000 women. Thisshift was related to the relative decline of theyounger age groups, which men tend todominate, and the relative increase in olderage groups, in which women prevail. Thisageing process is now characteristic for boththe non−Roma and Roma populations in Slo−vakia, although among the Roma this indi−cator remains at a level similar to develop−ing countries.

AGE STRUCTURE

In 1980, children up to 14 years of age madeup 26% of the Slovak population, while 50%of people were of a productive age (15 to 49years), and 24% of people were in their post−productive years (50 and older). The agestructure of the Roma, however, differed sig−nificantly: children made up 43%, people intheir productive years 47%, and post−produc−tive people 9%. The Roma child ratio was 1.7times higher than that of the overall Slovakpopulation, while the share of people of aproductive age was roughly the same, andthe ratio of people at a post−productive agewas far smaller than the overall population.

In terms of regional differences, in 1980 thegreatest proportion of children up to 14 yearsof age was in eastern Slovakia, both amongthe entire population (28%) and the Roma(46%). On the other hand, the smallest pro−portion of people in their post−productiveyears in both groups was also found in thisregion (see Graphs 7 to 10).

According to the 1991 census, the age struc−ture of both the Roma and the overall popu−lation was largely the same as it had been in1980 (see Graph 11). The 1991 census cametoo soon to register the significant changes


in reproductive behavior that occurred after1989, and which considerably influenced theage structure of the population.

Changes in the age structure of the Romapopulation can be seen in data from 1999 onRoma living in settlements, according towhich children already represented only 36%of the Roma population. Although these datado not include the entire Roma population,it can be assumed that if such a change oc−curred in the settlements, it certainly oc−curred also in the Roma population inte−grated into mainstream society, and probablyto an even a greater extent.

These data chart an unsurprising trend to−wards a gradual decline in the ratio of chil−dren to the overall Roma population. In spiteof the major decrease shown, from 43% in1980 to 36% in 1999, the Roma still have afar greater proportion of children comparedto the overall Slovak population, where in1999 the ratio of children aged 14 or less wasunder 20%. By region, the lowest ratio ofRoma children at the end of the 1990s wasfound in the central Nitra region (27.9%) andthe western Trnava region (28.5%), while thehighest share of children up to 15 years of agewas in the eastern Košice region (43.7%).

With their age structure, the Roma are amongthose progressive populations with a signifi−cant ratio of children and a low proportionof older people, the reason being their highbirthrate on the one hand and high mortalityon the other. The age structure of the Romais thus very different from that of the overallSlovak population, which is among the sta−tionary type populations, and showing signsof shifting to the regressive type populationcategory. A similar shift is also visible in theRoma population, where, according to esti−mates, the ratio of children will fall fromtoday’s 36% to 26% by 2020. However, thecurrent high ratio of children and young peo−

ple means that the size of the Roma popula−tion will continue to increase in the near fu−ture, and that changes in this sphere willshow up only in the long term.

STRUCTURE ACCORDINGTO MARTIAL STATUS

Data on marriage and divorce rates for theRoma are not available. Partnership behaviorcan thus be described only from data on themarital status of Roma men and women.According to the 1980 census, 14.3% ofRoma women aged 15 to 19 were married,compared to just 7.1% of all Slovak women.Between the ages of 20 and 24, 59.8% of allSlovak women and 66.7% of Roma womenwere married. A similar situation existedamong men, where 44% of Roma men aged20 to 24, and only 30% of all Slovak men ofthe same age, were married. Although theRoma tend to get married younger, however,the ratio of single people among the Romain older age groups is higher than that of theoverall population.

As for the ratio of divorced people in 1980,1.7% of Roma men older than 15 were di−vorced, compared to 2% of all Slovak men.Among women older than 15, 1.9% of Romawomen and 2.8% of all women in Slovakiawere divorced. The relative rarity of divorcein the Roma population may be related to ten−dency of partners to live together before mar−riage, as well as to different views on coex−istence between partners among the Roma.

REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOROF THE ROMA

Both the birth rate and mortality of the Romatends to be higher than among the non−Roma,meaning that the Roma population is increas−ing faster than the Slovak average. While no


specific data on the birth rate and mortalityof the Roma exist, census results and otherstatistics can help us chart these demographicprocesses.

BIRTH RATE

The fertility level of Roma women can bestbe seen in data from the 1970 and 1980 cen−suses. At that time, Roma reproduction waschanging significantly. The birth rate for allage groups decreased, with the largest de−crease occurring among women over 25. Theaverage number of live−born children permarried Roma woman fell by 15%, from 4.7in 1970 to 4.0 in 1980. However, it remained1.7 times higher than the average number oflive−born children per married woman in Slo−vakia overall (2.4).

By region, the average number of live−bornchildren per married Roma woman in west−ern (3.7) and central Slovakia (3.6) was be−low the national Roma average, while ineastern Slovakia the figure was 4.3. Regionaldifferences in fertility at the same timepointed to different reproductive behavioramong integrated and non−integrated Roma.The greatest differences between Roma andnon−Roma fertility levels were seen in re−gions with the most segregated Roma settle−ments, while in regions where the Romatended to be integrated or at least partly in−tegrated with the rest of the population, theirreproductive behavior resembled that of themajority population.

In the past, the higher birth rate among theRoma was often “addressed” by the use ofdiscriminatory measures. In 1972, the HealthMinistry issued a regulation on sterilization,pursuant to which any woman under 35 hav−ing four children, or any woman over 35having three children, could be sterilized. A1985 amendment to this rule lifted the age

restriction, and authorized the sterilization ofwomen having three or more children. In1988, a woman could receive up to 20,000Czechoslovak crowns from the state forundergoing sterilization. Although it was notdirectly stated in the law, these measures wereaimed at the Roma population. This projectwas halted in 1990, when sterilization becamea medical procedure not covered by insurance(Mann, 1995). According to the current prin−ciples of family policy in Slovakia, parents arefree to decide the number of children they willhave and the timing of their births.

A prognosis of the development of the birthrate among Roma women in Czechoslovakiauntil 2005 was included in a Roma popula−tion estimate made by Kalibová (1990). Ac−cording to her estimate, the average birthrate1 among Roma women would fall from4.3 to 3.1 between 1981 and 2005. The birthrate of Roma women from 2001 to 2005 (cal−culated for the whole of Czechoslovakia) wasto be similar to the birth rate of all women inSlovakia in 1960, and was pegged at about 2.4times the rate for all women in Slovakia in2000 (the total birth rate being 1.3).

Research and observed trends show that thebirth rate among Roma women is fallingmore quickly than expected; high and un−regulated birth rates are certainly no longertypical of Roma reproductive behavior. Nev−ertheless, the birth rate among Roma womenis still about twice as high as that of the over−all Slovak population. We can expect this gapto gradually narrow (by 2020 it is expectedto be only 1.4 times higher than the non−Roma population).

MORTALITY

Roma mortality can be charted only indi−rectly, by comparing age structures deter−mined in 1970 and 1980. Based on these


data, mortality charts were calculated for theRoma population of the whole of Czechoslo−vakia2 (Kalibová 1989, 1991).

Between 1970 and 1980, life expectancy forchildren born3 was 55.3 years for Roma menand 59.5 years for Roma women, or between12 and 15 years less than for the overallpopulation of Czechoslovakia (Kalibová,1997). A similar life expectancy was seenamong the Slovak population in the 1930sand 1940s. As average life expectancy in the1970s in both parts of the former Czechoslo−vakia for both sexes was about the same,mortality among the Roma in Slovakia waslikely not very different from the Czechoslo−vak average. Higher mortality and decreasedlife expectancy among the Slovak Romacould have resulted from their lower level ofintegration and standard of living comparedto the Roma in the Czech Republic.

In general, life expectancy among the Romais growing more quickly than life expectancyamong the overall Slovak population. This istypical of all developing populations, andresults from the potential amassed by theirhigher mortality in the past. The life expect−ancy of the Roma today is estimated to beabout 10 years less than that of the averageSlovak citizen; by 2020, this gap is expectedto shrink to six or seven years.

The total mortality of the population isgreatly influenced by infant mortality.Thanks to records kept by medical establish−ments in the 1980s, data exists on the numberof infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In 1985,an average of 35 out of 1,000 live−born Romachildren died before they reached the age ofone year, compared to 16.3 for the overallpopulation. Although infant mortality amongthe Roma fell from 1968 to 1985 by almostone−third, it remained 2.1 times higher thanamong the overall population, and matchedthe infant mortality level of the Slovak popu−

lation in the second half of the 1950s. Byregion, the lowest infant mortality among theRoma in 1985 was recorded in western Slo−vakia (22.7), and the highest in eastern Slo−vakia (37.1) (Kalibová, 1989).

NATURAL POPULATION INCREASE

Since migration by the Roma abroad remainslow, natural changes represent the decisivefactor in Roma population developments. Asnoted above, the reproductive behavior of theRoma gives them a higher natural increasein population4 than the non−Roma popula−tion. This is confirmed also by natural in−crease values per 1,000 people (see Graph12), which themselves are due to a higherRoma birth rate only partly offset by highermortality. Natural increase trends among theRoma and non−Roma also show differences.While the non−Roma are far more numerousthan the Roma, since 1994 the natural in−crease of the Roma population has beenhigher than that of the non−Roma in absoluteterms. Since 1998, in fact, the Roma havefuelled the total natural increase of the over−all Slovak population, as the natural increaseof the non−Roma has given way to a decrease(see Graph 13).

NUMBER AND STRUCTUREESTIMATES OF ROMAIN SLOVAKIA TO 2020

In estimating the number of Roma living inSlovakia over the next two decades, we basedour calculations on the assumption that thereare now 370,000 to 390,000 Roma living inSlovakia, an estimate we believe to be justi−fied. We further assumed that the reproductivebehavior of the Roma and the non−Roma willcontinue to dovetail, mainly because of theongoing social integration of the Roma, andthe likelihood this integration will accelerate


after Slovakia’s EU accession. Of course, wewill not see a single reproductive behaviormodel in Slovakia in the next 20 years, as thedifferences are so great that they cannot beeliminated in the course of one generation.

We estimate that the birth rate differentialwill shrink, from twice as high among theRoma as it is now, to only 1.4 times that ofthe overall population in 2020. As far asmortality is concerned, we expect a reductionin the difference in life expectancy from thecurrent 10 to 6 or 7 years in 2020. This meansthat the life expectancy of the Roma by 2020should equal the current Slovak average,with the birth rate of the Roma equaling thatof the overall Slovak population at the begin−ning of the 1990s. The expected develop−ment of the Roma birth rate and mortalitywill reflect an increasing convergence in thereproductive behavior of the Roma and non−Roma populations in Slovakia. In spite ofthis trend, in 2020 the difference will still beabout one generation. We do not expect sig−nificant decreases or increases in the Romapopulation due to foreign migration.

Should these expectations be fulfilled, thenumber of Roma in Slovakia should increasefrom today’s 380,000 to about 515,000,which will mean an increase in the ratio ofRoma to the total population from 7.3% toalmost 9.5%. Around 2020, the increase inthe Roma population should slow sharply.

The average age of the Roma in Slovakia willstill be lower than that of the non−Roma in2020. Although the ratio of Roma in theirpre−productive years will fall from the cur−rent roughly 35% to about 26% in 2020, itwill still be nearly two times higher than theSlovak average. By contrast, less than 5% ofthe Roma will be in their post−productiveyears, more than two times higher than atpresent, but less than one−third in compari−son with the overall Slovak population.

In spite of the growing similarity between thereproductive behaviors of the Roma and thenon−Roma, an increase in Roma numbersand a decrease of non−Roma is expected.Besides differences in reproductive behavioritself, the main reason for this scenario is thedifferent age structure between the groups,which causes certain demographic processesto continue. If current trends persist, theRoma by 2050 will not exceed 15% of thetotal population, and will probably reachonly 12%, far below the “doomsday sce−narios” recently presented by populist Slo−vak politicians, in which the Slovak major−ity would be outnumbered.

CONCLUSION

Less than 400,000 Roma live in Slovakia to−day, while by 2020 their number should ex−ceed 500,000. From the demographic pointof view, the Roma population is a develop−ing population characterized by a progressiveage structure with a high ratio of children.The increase in the Roma population, in thelong term, is substantially greater than theincrease in the non−Roma population, as theresult of different reproductive behavioramong the Roma characterized by a higherbirth rate and higher mortality than the restof the population. Although the reproduc−tive behavior of the Roma is expected to be−come more similar to that of the non−Roma,some differences are likely to remain in thefuture.

Changes in reproductive behavior amongdeveloping populations are connected witha change in living conditions, an improvedstandard of living and level of education. TheRoma will certainly follow this trend, al−though the changes will occur relativelyslowly due to their isolation. Indeed, the cru−cial factor in conforming the demographiccharacteristics of the Roma to those of the


non−Roma will be the integration of theRoma into mainstream society. If the state isto support the integration of the Roma, andto help improve their living conditions, un−biased information on the size and structureof the Roma population will be needed. Thesituation, however, is complicated by thelack of relevant data.

On the basis of the available data we can seethat the Roma birth rate and mortality arechanging. In spite of the decreasing birthrate, however, the age structure of the Romawill ensure an increase in the number of chil−dren born in the coming years as well. Theimproving health of the Roma will causemortality to fall and will increase the aver−age life span. The overall demographic situ−ation in Slovakia will also have an impact.The low birth rate in Slovakia will likelyprompt the state to take population measuresthat could modify the Roma birth rate aswell. Nevertheless, the rate of increase in theRoma population in Slovakia is likely to fallin future, confounding wild prognoses thatthe Roma will reach one million in 2010 andbecome the majority population in Slovakia.

ENDNOTES

1. The average number of live−born children perwoman during her reproductive period.

2. Given that data on domestic migration amongthe Roma is not available, these characteristicscannot be listed separately for Slovakia.

3. The average number of years that a person bornnow is likely to live.

4. The difference between the number of live−born and dead.

REFERENCES

1. Cigánske obyvateľstvo SSR [The Gypsy Popu−lation in the Slovak Socialist Republic], (Bra−tislava: Slovenský štatistický úrad, 1974).

2. Cigánske obyvateľstvo SSR [The GypsyPopulation in the Slovak Socialist Republic],(Bratislava: Slovenský štatistický úrad1984).

3. Džambazovič, Roman: “Rómovia v Uhorskukoncom 19. storočia” [‘The Roma in Hungaryat the End of the 19th Century’], Sociológia,No. 5, 2001, p. 491 – 506.

4. Finková, Zuzana: “Štatistika národností a Ró−movia” [‘Statistics on Nationality and theRoma’], Geografický časopis, No. 3, 2000, p.285 – 288.

5. Horecký, Marián: “Cigánske obyvateľstvoSSR” [‘The Gypsy Population in the SlovakSocialist Republic’], Správy a rozbory, No.38, 1984.

6. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku[The Roma in Slovakia], (Bratislava: Sloven−ská akadémia vied, 1964).

7. Jurová, Anna: “Niekoľko poznámok k prob−lémom rómskej populácie na Slovensku”[‘Notes on the Problems of the Roma in Slo−vakia’] in Piata demografická konferencia:Fenomén národnosti a náboženstva v demo−grafii strednej Európy [The Fifth Demo−graphic Conference: The Phenomenon ofNationality and Religiosity in the Demogra−phy of Central Europe], (Bratislava: Sloven−ská štatistická a demografická spoločnosť,1995).

8. Kalibová, Květa: Charakteristika úmrtnost−ních poměrů romské populace v ČSSR [Char−acteristics of Roma Mortality in the Czecho−slovak Socialist Republic], Demografie,1989, No. 3, p. 239 – 249.

9. Kalibová, Květa: “Prognóza romské populacev ČSFR do roku 2005” [‘Prognosis of theRoma Population in the Czechoslovak Fed−eral Republic Until 2005’], Demografie, No.3, 1990, p. 219 – 223.

10. Kalibová, Květa: Demografické charakteris−tiky romské populace v Česko−Slovensku [TheDemographic Characteristics of the Roma inCzecho−Slovakia] Academic dissertation,(Prague: Přírodovědecká fakulta UniverzityKarlovy, 1991).

11. Kalibová, Květa: “Demografické a demogeo−grafické charakteristiky romské populace”[‘The Demographic and Demo−GeographicCharacteristics of the Roma’] in Pavlík,Zdeněk (ed.): Populační vývoj ČR [Popula−tion Developments in the Czech Republic],


(Prague: Přírodovědecká fakulta UniverzityKarlovy, 1995).

12. Kalibová, Květa: Caractéristiques démo−graphiques de la population rom/tsigane enEurope centrale et orientale [DemographicCharacteristics of the Roma/Gypsy Popula−tion in Central and Eastern Europe]. Docu−ment da la 9−ieme réunion du groupe despécialistes sur la situation démographiquedes minorités nationale [A Document fromthe Ninth Meeting of the Specialist Group onthe Demographic Situation of National Mi−norities], (Strasbourg: Conseil de l‘Europe,1998).

13. Liégeois, Jean Paul: Rómovia, Cigáni, kočov−níci [Roma, Gypsies, Nomads], (Bratislava:Academia Istropolitana, 1995).

14. Mann, Arne B.: “Vývoj rómskej rodiny”[‘The Development of the Roma Family’] inRómovia na Slovensku a v Európe [The Romain Slovakia and in Europe] From the Docu−ments of an International Conference in Smo−lenice, June 5, 1994, (Bratislava: Informačnéa dokumentačné stredisko o Rade Európy,1995).

15. Pavlík, Zdeněk: “Způsob evidence romsképopulace v ČSSR z hlediska potřeb výskumu”[‘Methods of Roma Registration in theCzechoslovak Socialist Republic from thePoint of View of Research Needs’] in Teore−ticko−metodologické východiská výskumu ci−gánskej rodiny a cigánskych obyvateľov[Theoretical−Methodological Results of Re−search into Gypsy Families and Gypsy Citi−zens], (Košice: Spoločenskovedný ústav SAV,1988).

16. Romové v České republice [The Roma in theCzech Republic], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

17. Sčítanie ľudu, domov a bytov 1970 [Census ofPopulation, Houses and Apartments 1970],(Bratislava: SŠÚ, 1973).



20. Sčítanie obyvateľov, domov a bytov 2001[Census of Population, Houses and Apart−ments 2001], (Bratislava: ŠÚ SR, 2002).

21. Srb, Vladimír: “Kolik je Cikánů – Romův Československu?” [‘How Many Roma –Gypsies live in Czechoslovakia?’], Demogra−fie, No. 4, 1979, p. 321 – 324.

22. Srb, Vladimír: “Změny v reprodukci česko−slovenských Romů” [‘Changes in the Repro−duction of the Czechoslovak Roma’], Demo−grafie, No. 4, 1988, p. 305 – 309.

23. Srb, Vladimír: “Romové v Československupodle sčítání lidu 1991” [‘The Roma inCzechoslovakia According to the 1991 Cen−sus’], Demografie, No. 4, 1993, p. 282.

24. Srb, Vladimír and Vomáčková, Olga: “Cikániv Československu v roce 1968” [The Romain Czechoslovakia in 1968], Demografie, No.3, 1969, p. 221 – 230.

25. Vaňo, Boris: Demografická charakteristikarómskej populácie v SR [The DemographicCharacteristics of the Roma in Slovakia],(Bratislava: Infostat, 2001).

26. Vašečka, Michal and Džambazovič, Roman:“The Demographic Situation of the Roma inSlovakia” in Social and Economic Situationto Potential Asylum Seekers from the Slovakrepublic, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 1999).

311

Summary: The family is one of the basicsocial units and one of society’s most impor−tant institutions. In this chapter, the authorsexamine approaches to defining and study−ing the Roma family. They identify the char−acteristics of the Roma family, both in tradi−tional and modern terms. The chapter iden−tifies the most important factors behind thegradual changes in the Roma family, anddiscusses the reproductive behavior of tradi−tional Roma communities.

Key words: Roma family, extended family,nuclear family, traditional Roma family,Roma family today, family behavior, ap−proaches to family research, demographicrevolution.

INTRODUCTION

The family is a social institution that providesa structure for social relationships. Almost allsocial and cultural regulatory mechanismsrest on the family as an institution, meaningthat if one knows about the family, one willalso know a great deal about cultural tradi−tions, standards, values, and behavior pat−terns. Today the family has some very impor−tant functions and is perceived as very impor−tant both by the general population and theRoma. Through our families we find both ourpersonal and our group identities (familyhistory actually represents the history of itsmembers and the history of a particular mu−nicipality or community).

ZUZANA KUMANOVÁ and ROMAN DŽAMBAZOVIČ

THE ROMA FAMILY: ON THE BORDERBETWEEN TRADITION AND MODERNITY

In Slovakia and throughout Europe, theRoma family is unique. The Roma ethnicgroup is itself a unique and often secludedcommunity that differs from mainstreamsociety. Family is the key means of preserv−ing and passing on Roma culture. The mainfeatures of the Roma family greatly influenceall spheres of family life and family and re−productive behavior.

There is no one universal Roma family formand structure, nor has there ever been. TheRoma family types defined by the authors areideal types; in real life, we see a huge vari−ety of family behavior.

THE TRADITIONAL ROMA FAMILYIN SLOVAKIA

DATA ON THE ROMA FAMILY INTHE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY

One way of discovering the characteristicfeatures of the Roma family is special cen−suses that were conducted in Slovakia fromthe eighteenth century onwards. These pollsrepresent an important source of data andprovide information not only about popula−tion size but also age structure, number ofchildren, size of families, family status, hous−ing conditions, financial status, way of life,education, literacy, and religion. While everycensus is to some extent subjective, theseearly censuses still allow us to form someopinions about the family.

312 Z u z a n a K u m a n o v á a n d R o m a n D ž a m b a z o v i č

In 1893, a count of Gypsies in Hungary’sUgria (Czigányösszeírás..., 1895) was con−ducted under the auspices of the HungarianRoyal Statistics Office in Budapest. Com−pared to the rest of the population in Ugriaat the time, the census showed a highernumber of children in Roma families, ahigher birth rate, along with greater infantmortality, few independently living adults,and very few Roma child deaths between theages of 6 and 14 years. From the viewpointof age structure, children younger than 14represented 39.1% of the Roma population,15 to 29 year−olds 23.3%, 30 to 59 year−olds31.4%, and Roma older than 60 only 6.2%.Children under 14 were the most numerousage group in the entire population of Ugria.

It is interesting that the age structure of theRoma minority was not so different then thanit is now. We also find interesting differencesbetween the age structure of the nomadic, thesemi−settled, and the settled Roma in Ugria.

While there were more children among thenomadic Roma than the rest of the Roma,there was only a minor difference betweenthe number of children in the families of set−tled and semi−settled Roma. If we comparethe Roma minority with the entire popula−tion in Ugria, we see a difference in the pro−portion of people aged 60 and older. Thereis an obvious connection between standardof living and average life span. There werefewer people over 60 among the nomadicand semi−settled Roma than among the set−tled Roma.

The family characteristics and marital statusof the Roma were surveyed in the census aswell. The different cultural traditions of theRoma were taken into account in the census,and thus couples who lived together withoutbeing married according to the standards ofthe majority population were considered tobe living in wedlock. Indeed, the Roma didnot set much store by marriage; amongyoung people, “mangavipen” (courting) wasan organized affair, following which theywere regarded as a married couple. The mar−riage and big wedding celebration (“bárobivaj”) came later, often when the couplealready had one or more children.

Among the Roma there were more peoplecohabiting/married (43.9%) than among theoverall population (41.0%), and on the otherhand a lower proportion of single people andwidowed people. Among the Roma a whole,legal marriages (27.1% of the entire Romapopulation) prevailed over common−law re−lationships (16.8%). Marriages/cohabitationswere more frequent among settled and semi−settled Roma than the nomadic. Legal mar−riages prevailed with the settled Roma, whileamong the semi−settled and nomadic Romait was cohabitation without marriage; thepercent of people living in marriages rangedfrom 28.2% among the settled Roma to14.1% among the nomadic Roma, whilecommon−law relationships varied from15.6% (among settled Roma) to 23.3% (no−madic). These data suggest that the culturaland economic development of the localRoma community was/is connected with the

Table 1Age structure of the Roma population and the entire population of Ugria (in %)

�� !�� R��!S�� !�'�� P�� 7��

*�+�,-� � �� ,/�+�01� �� 2*�+�/1� �� 3*��!��!��

Source: Czigányösszeírás eredményei, 1893.

313T h e R o m a F a m i l y : O n t h e B o r d e r B e t w e e n Tr a d i t i o n a n d M o d e r n i t y

gradual evolution of the demographic andfamily behavior of the Roma community toresemble that of the majority population(Džambazovič, 2001b).

The 1924 census showed that of the totalnumber of partnerships in Ugria, 85.5% werelegal marriages and 14.5% cohabitations(Nečas, 1998), while in 1893 the ratio hadbeen 61.8% to 38.2%. This presumably re−flected the greater assimilation of the Romapopulation, a process which had been unfold−ing over the 30 years.

The data show that while among youngRoma (15 to 24) there was a higher rate ofcommon−law relationships among both menand women, as the Roma grew older legalmarriages began to dominate. Men of all agesshowed a higher rate of legal marriage thanwomen, perhaps because, as the 1893 censusauthors suggested, mixed couples involvinga Roma man and a non−Roma woman tendedto be married, while cohabiting Romawomen and non−Roma men tended not to bemarried.

When describing the life of the Roma fam−ily, the authors discovered different forms ofupbringing and a different kind of partner−ship, which was still influenced by tribalstructures, the Roma’s different culture andso on. The stability of legal and illegitimatecohabitations was also examined, togetherwith early sexual life and the young age offirst mothers.

The above historical and statistical sources,and the results of ethno−demographic re−search (Mann, 1992; Kumanová, 1999),show that the Roma family, compared to themajority population family, over more thana century differed in some marked ways,especially the high number of family mem−bers and the high number of children. Fromthe point of view of age structure, Roma

families still tend to have high proportion ofchildren and relatively few old people. Itwas/is also typical for women to bear manychildren throughout their reproductive years,during which infant and child mortalitygradually falls.

THE IMPLICATIONS OFETHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH ANDTHE TRADITIONAL ROMA FAMILY

We can learn more about the Roma familyfrom ethnological research. In the 1950s,Emília Horváthová defined the Roma fam−ily structure as follows: “A family consistedof several married brothers, their marriedsons and children. The Gypsies living in themunicipality of Rožkovany call such a groupa ‘partija’. The affairs of the entire family aredecided by a vajda, or local chief (also‘thute’, ‘mujalo’, ‘čibalo’).” (Horváthová,1954, p. 285)

A similar definition can be found in the workof Eva Davidová, according to whom mostRoma until recently lived in patriarchal ex−tended families that belonged to broadertribal endogamic (i.e. marrying within thetribe) groups. Family relationships and struc−ture, and the hierarchy of family members tosome extent still depend on the rules of thegroup (Davidová, 1995). The author alsonotes that the tribal bond is stronger than thefamily bond. Davidová says that besides theparents, the typical Roma family consisted ofseveral married couples, parents, grandpar−ents, married sons or daughters, and the chil−dren of young married couples.

Milena Hübschmannová identifies similarcharacteristics of extended Roma families. Inthe dialect of the Slovak Roma, the expres−sion “familia/famelia” means: a) extendedfamily, kinship, b) relative, relatives.Hübschmannová defines the Roma familia/


famelia as including relatives on both themother and father’s side, including four orfive generations. Each member of such afamily has their own place in the family com−munity, from which their specific rights andduties arise. The position and tasks of eachfamily member are internally differentiatedaccording to their relationship to other fam−ily members and subgroups in the familycommunity (Hübschmannová, 1996). Thehierarchy is determined by the specific com−bination of sexes, age and kinship. The bodyof patterns and standards of trouble free co−existence in a family community is called“paťiv” (respect, politeness, honor).

In the nuclear Roma family, not even thebirth of a child was reason to become inde−pendent. Segmentation occurred instead inrelation to the family’s ability to provide forall family members. The traditional Romafamily was patriarchal, with significant au−thority invested in the men (fathers, hus−bands, sons, brothers). Sons were preferredwhen children were born, and the status of afamily increased significantly as its malechildren grew up.

THE STRUCTURE OFTHE TRADITIONAL ROMA FAMILYAND THE POSITION OFITS MEMBERS

Several important roles existed in the ex−tended family, and each member of a “fame−lija” had their own specific rights and duties.The extended family was the basic economicand occupational unit, providing for the eco−nomic needs of its members. The entire bur−den of caring for the children lay with themother, who decided not only how thehousehold was run but also governed the fi−nances. If the man did not have a steady job,the duty of providing the family with foodfell to the woman. Among settled Roma in

eastern Slovakia, it was customary for Romawomen to make the rounds of the villagesand visit the non−Roma households. Thewomen performed various small tasks ontheir regular round (repaired stove chimneyswith mud, swept the yard, helped on thefarm, in rare cases begged) and usually re−ceived compensation in the form of goods(eggs, bacon etc.).

Men were usually employed only for sea−sonal work, although some performed a craftor were musicians; their contribution to thefamily was therefore irregular. The chores(fetching water, chopping wood) in someregions were also done by the women, or insome cases by the children. Cooking andcleaning was entirely the responsibility of thewomen, who gradually transferred theseduties to their children, especially daughtersand daughters−in−law, allowing the olderwoman to retain decision−making power. Ifany children in the family were employed,or if they obtained some food, they put eve−rything into the common household pot.This also applied to adult children who,with their partners, lived with their originalfamily. The position of the daughter−in−law(“terňi bori”) was interesting, as she usuallyfollowed her husband into the household ofhis family.

Marriages/partnerships were mostly patrilo−cal (a system of marriage where the wife goesto live with the husband’s group). Respon−sibility for the daughter−in−law devolved toher mother−in−law (“sasvi”), who raised herto womanhood and motherhood. The task ofthe mother−in−law was to teach the youngwoman the customs of the new family. Forexample, the young daughter−in−law was notexpected to know how to cook. She learnedto cook in the new family, which had its ownrules on hygiene and ritual purity when cook−ing; observance of these principles also de−termined the social status of the family. For


this reason it was extremely important thatthe customs of the family be kept, as this wasthe way the family maintained its identity.The position of the daughter−in−law in thefamily of her husband was the lowest in theentire family hierarchy. Besides her sex, herinferior position was cemented also by heryouth, and by the fact that she was a strangerin the family, which could lead to mistrust.However, the daughter−in−law’s positiongradually changed in accordance with thenumber of children she bore and her age.Children were highly valued in the Romafamily.

All household members helped provide forthe family according to their abilities. Boysat a young age played instruments and gavethe money they earned to their mothers, aprocedure that did not change even whenthey got married. Together with their wivesthey worked for the benefit of the family. Theoldest son in particular was brought up insuch a way that as soon as he started earningmoney, he gave it to his mother. The oldestson was also expected to contribute to theneeds of his younger brothers and sisters, tobuy them clothes and so on. The sons wereobliged to do the “men’s work” (i.e. chop−ping wood). Male family members had tohelp build a new house for a nuclear familythat was becoming independent.

The function of the traditional family, besidesraising children, was also to provide generaleducation and work skills. The mother hadto raise all young children, especially thegirls. Even at the age of 6 to 9, a girl had tobe able to take care of her younger siblings,and to help keep the house clean. While theboys were more or less just looked after, theyounger girls were ordered around far moreand given small household tasks. In thissense, a chain upbringing functioned in theRoma family, with the older children raisingthe younger ones.

The girls were brought up so that when theywere 14 or 15 year old they would be readyto enter a partnership. The father took overthe upbringing of the boys when they werefive or six. According to their age and physi−cal ability, the boys helped with the men’swork. The father gradually taught his sons hisown craft or profession. In musical families,boys of 12 or 13 often played with their fa−thers and uncles in a band. Children also hadto learn how to behave and to respect otherfamily members.

The way that families prepared and ate foodwas one of the features that served to iden−tify them. For example, the kinds of meat afamily eschewed determined whether theywere among the “žuže” (ritually pure) or the“degeša, dubki Roma” (ritually impure). Themeat of dead animals, as well as horse, dog,and rabbit meat was considered impure. Ifchildren did not behave according to thewishes of their parents or the wider commu−nity (the community also had a role in thechildren’s socialization), they were firstscolded, and if this didn’t help, they werepunished. Children younger than five or sixwere punished by their mothers; older boyswere punished by the father, and older girlsby the mother. Only if the mother was at herwit’s end with the daughters could they bepunished by the father. This seldom hap−pened.

The oldest brother (“baro phral”) had manyduties in the upbringing of his younger sib−lings, especially in cases where the father didnot take care of the family or when he died.The oldest brother had enormous responsi−bility for his sisters, especially during theiradolescence, when he watched over theirvirginity. He was also jointly responsible forselecting an appropriate partner for his sis−ters. Later on, the oldest brother also super−vised the upbringing of the children of hisbrothers and sisters.


Upbringing in the family was a complicatedprocess that ultimately prepared the Romafor life in the traditional community. MilenaHübschmannová claims that the “famelija”was the basic platform where social controlmechanisms that prevented the individualfrom dishonoring the family were strictlyenforced. Individuals was reminded of theirduty to behave at all times in keeping with“romipen”, or the body of Roma traditionand ethics, in various formal cultural ways(Hübschmannová, 1996). The family thusperformed acts that were ordained by thesystem of social control that governed allcommunity members. If a man did not takecare of his family, perhaps drank their moneyaway, his brothers and brothers−in−lawcould speak to him. The women could com−pose a song about his misbehavior, and criti−cize him in this way. If his behavior did notimprove, he lost respect, and was given aderogatory name that could be used even byhis children. The brothers−in−law and broth−ers could under certain circumstances evenuse violence.

The behavior of the mother was equally un−der social control. If she did not take care ofher children and the household, she was ex−posed to public gossip. The pressure of com−munity opinion was very strong. Infidelity inwives was particularly condemned. The“ľubňi” (easy) woman would be scolded, al−though nobody would object if her husbandbeat her up. She could even be banished fromthe house, and have her hair shorn as a signof disgrace. Her hair would be cut by eitherher husband’s family or her own, to showthat the family condemned what she haddone. Infidelity was more or less tolerated inmen, in particular if it occurred with a non−Roma woman. In the traditional community,violence by men against women was partlytolerated, although if a beating exceeded thelevel of tolerance the community reacted, forexample with a satirical song. The wife could

leave her husband for a certain time and livewith her parents, which was seen to bringshame on the husband and his family.

Research confirms that the traditional Romafamily was also the unit on the basis of whichits members were integrated into the widercommunity. If a family member did some−thing that was contrary to good manners, theshame for his lapse fell on all family mem−bers. The importance of the family was alsoevident in the selection of a partner. It wasconsidered important to choose a partner forone’s child who came from a family with thesame or a similar social status. This meant,for example, that a “žuže” Roma familywould see it as a dishonor if their son chosea bride from a locality they considered “de−geš”. The prestige of the entire family wouldsuffer from such an act.

In her research on the traditional meetingceremony, Hübschmannová (1996) noted theimportance of the family for the identifica−tion of the individual. The traditional meet−ing ceremony included the introduction ofthe “famelija” and the “fajta” (local commu−nity) that the individuals came from. In thepast, Roma had a rough idea of which Romalived in which region, whether according tothe crafts they practiced, or whether theywere considered “žuže” or “degeša, dubki”.On the basis of introductory questions aimedat learning the “fajta”, the individual wasclassified as a member of certain broadercommunity. The affinity to a “famelija” clas−sified him or her in a group of close relatives.At the end of the session, anonymity ceasedto exist. Blood ties created strong bonds re−quiring Roma to cooperate and help eachother, and marriage strengthened these evenmore (Fraser, 1998). Liégeois (1997) con−cluded that the bond between two people wasin fact the result of a social agreement be−tween extended families and the communi−ties these individuals came from.


Since the power and reputation of the fam−ily grew with its sons, whenever a child wasborn in the traditional Roma family, the de−sire that it be a boy prevailed. When the sonsgrew up, they could be expected to bring newlabor to the family – “terňi bori”. The physi−cal strength of the family was also used toresolve various disagreements, often endingup in brawls. In order to maintain the size andstrength of the family, the man might evenfollow his wife after their marriage to live inthe house of her parents, thereby becomingthe “pristašis” – the son−in−law. The concernfor protecting the family was also visible inthe saturation of the family’s basic needs, andin the provision of a living to all members,regardless of their contribution to the com−mon household. This can still be seen in pro−tection and care for the old or handicapped.The elderly also enjoyed great respect in thetraditional community and family. In eachfamily, the oldest men and women bothwielded great authority. From the point ofview of authority, we can therefore speak notonly of a patriarchy but also a “geriarchy”.

THE ROMA FAMILY TODAY

The Roma family today may show both tra−ditional and contemporary characteristics.There is thus still no unity in family and de−mographic behavior, or family patternsamong the Roma. Nevertheless, some char−acteristic features in Roma family behaviorcan be identified, and some possible reasonsfor the differences pointed out.

Davidová (1995) wrote that the Roma way oflife has developed in a unique way inSlovakia. Changes in the Roma way of lifeand thought have occurred in the individual(physical and spiritual dispositions), material(way of life, material conditions), social (so−cial relationships, communication betweenfamilies) and spiritual (spiritual culture, value

patterns) realms. These spheres are veryclosely connected. However, the family hasalso been shaped by political, economic, so−cial, and cultural processes. On the one handthe family has tried to adapt to the new con−ditions, while on the other it has resisted cer−tain changes and reacted selectively to exter−nal stimuli. The Roma population in Slovakiahas been exposed to institutional acts by theSlovak state that greatly influenced it. Theseacts have often disturbed and thus changedtraditional patterns of Roma family behavior.

The source material describing modern fam−ily behavior or today’s Roma family is farless rich than on the traditional family. Be−sides several research projects in past dec−ades aimed concretely at the Roma family(such as by the Socio−Scientific Institute ofthe Slovak Academy of Sciences in Košicein the 1980s, and by the Research Instituteof Work, Social Affairs and Family in Brati−slava in the 1990s), one finds only demo−graphic data and research that dealt indirectlywith the Roma family. Nevertheless, here toowe find evidence that family behavioradapted to the new conditions (whether at theend of communism or during the 1990s).

SPECIFICS OF ROMADEMOGRAPHIC BEHAVIOR

The demographic and reproductive behaviorof the Roma population differs strongly fromthat of the majority population; as a conse−quence of these dissimilarities, the structureand characteristics of the Roma family arealso different. These differences influencethe everyday life of the Roma; they maycause conflict between ethnic groups, or in−fluence the ability of the Roma to find a job,and consequently win a position in society.

The different demographic behavior of theRoma minority is also reflected in its differ−


ent age structure compared to the rest of thepopulation. The Roma population tends tocontain many children younger than 14, andfew older people in their post−productiveyears. As the last three population censusesfrom 1980, 1991 and 2001 show, children upto 14 years form the largest age group in theRoma population. The proportion of childrenin the Roma population is several timeshigher compared to Slovakia as a whole,while the ratio of people in their post−produc−tive years in the overall population is manytimes higher than among the Roma.

Yet certain changes are visible. While theproportion of children from 1980 to 1991was about 43%, by 2001 it had fallen to39.5%. Although the census results are onlyapproximate, it is clear that the reproductivebehavior of the Roma in Slovakia is gradu−ally changing.

However, despite the fact that the proportionof children in the Roma population is de−creasing, the age structure of the ethnic groupis still progressive, meaning there are morepeople in younger age brackets than in olderones. Experts connect this progressive agestructure mainly with massive reproductionand the many children women bear through−out their reproductive years, as well as withthe low lifespan of the Roma. While infantand child mortality among the Roma is fall−ing and life expectancy is growing, theseindicators are still far worse among the Romathan in the majority population. Compared tothe rest of the population, the Roma alsoshow a significant difference in their largeshare of first−time Roma mothers who areyounger than 18. Jurová (1993) noted that inthe more isolated regions of Slovakia, over30% of Roma mothers gave birth to their firstchild at the age of 15 to 17.

The ratio of the Roma population to the over−all population is growing especially quickly

in those regions of Slovakia where the repro−ductive rate of the non−Roma population islow, and there is negative migration (i.e. peo−ple are leaving, usually to find work, and notreturning). In such areas, the Roma populationtends to fill a certain demographic vacuumwith its reproductive behavior, and manySlovak regions are unable to maintain the sizeof their original populations without the con−tribution of the Roma (Džambazovič, 2001a)(for details see the chapter Roma PopulationDemographic Trends in this book).

ROMA FAMILY TYPES

According to Bačová (1990), the Roma fam−ily is a different demographic type than themajority family. Based on research by theSocio−Scientific Institute of the SlovakAcademy of Sciences in Košice (1988), atypology for Roma families in Slovakia wasdesigned. The Roma family has many chil−dren, while women have children at a youngage and give birth frequently during theirreproductive years, limited only by biologi−cal factors (high natality is seen as confirm−ing a woman’s fertility). This leads to greatdifferences in the age of children within asingle family, as well as to the relativelyyouth of grandparents. Roma children, ac−cording to Bačová (1990, p. 492 – 495), tendto be “provided for” with partners at 16. Thefew who are not provided for at that age areusually preparing for a profession.

There is a high ratio of three− or four−genera−tion families, and more than half of all Romafamilies are extended ones, which supportsthe hypothesis that the Roma socially dependvery heavily on the wider family (Bačová,1988). Acknowledged forms of partnership,parenthood and coexistence in the extendedfamily set specific standards and thus controlthe family behavior of individuals, especiallyin extended, multi−generation families


shielded from external forces. The biggestdifference from majority society seems to bein matrimony as an institution. Althoughpartners begin living together at a very youngage, their partnerships tend to last for a longtime; most Roma in one study were living intheir first partnerships. In the Roma popula−tion, sticking with the typical extended andmultigenerational family is a defense againstmajority society in which, as a minority, theyhave the lowest social status.

Mária Dubayová examined the formation andlapse of co−habitation arrangements amongthe Roma, and showed how the behavior ofthe Roma differs from that of mainstreamsociety in partnership and matrimony. AsKoteková (1998, p. 55) wrote, the formationof partnerships is a special process with theRoma. In most cases, partners begin cohabit−ing very early, often before they turn 18 (es−pecially among women with children). Withmen, cohabitation tends to begin later, mostlyfrom 18 to 24. One explanation of thisbehavior is that the sexual maturity of thepartners tends to coincide with their socialmaturity as individuals, with their being ac−knowledged by the community/society. How−ever, this partnership behavior also means thatthe individuals forego professional training,the adolescent acquisition of complex socialabilities, and the search for a partner throughseveral relatively non−binding relationships.

New partnerships begin at a very early age,and often with little or no financial security(including independent housing). The youngfamily often lives with relatives and onlybecomes independent some time later. Byliving in a common household, however, theupbringing of the still young partners can becompleted. More than half of Roma parentsbegin living together without getting for−mally married; marriage usually follows onlyafter several years of cohabitation. On theother hand, Roma partnerships are character−

ized by a low divorce and separation rate(first marriages ended in divorce among only3.7% of Roma men and 3.4% of Romawomen). Thus, although partnerships beginvery early, they last a long time. This knowl−edge, together with further information onemployment, education, family income,housing, and material possessions, com−pletes our image of the Roma family. Romasociety, to judge from selected indicators, hasbeen at least affected by the behavioral stand−ards of the majority population. The authorconsiders this to be both the cause and theconsequence of the situation of the Romapopulation at the end of the 1980s.

In the Roma population there is a high inci−dence of extramarital births; in 1993, forexample, 45.7% of all children born to Romamothers were born out of wedlock, a propor−tion that rose in the following years. A highextramarital birth rate was seen mostlyamong young mothers; 20% of such birthsoccurred among mothers younger than 18,while 13.2% of these women already had atleast one child. On average, women youngerthan 19 in Slovakia give birth to 40% of allchildren born out of wedlock, most beingmothers with elementary or vocationalschool education (Filadelfiová and Guráň,1997). There are almost twice as many live−born children per married Roma womancompared to the rate for all Slovak women(for details see the chapter Roma PopulationDemographic Trends in this book). The de−mographic behavior of the Roma in Slovakiaresembles that of the non−Roma populationseveral decades ago.

ASSUMPTIONS ANDDETERMINANTS OF THE COMINGDEMOGRAPHIC REVOLUTION

The Roma are not a homogeneous group, andRoma families in Slovakia differ according


to several criteria. The Socio−Scientific In−stitute of the Slovak Academy of Sciencesfound that the most significant factors affect−ing whether Roma families showed differentattributes than traditional families included:the level of integration of the Roma commu−nity in question; the size of the municipality(whether it was over 1,000 inhabitants); theconcentration of Roma in the overall popu−lation (if lower than 5%); the presence ofnon−Roma neighbors; and a higher level ofeducation among the Roma men (see Kote−ková, 1998). Others have also noted thatplace of abode, level of economic and cul−tural development, extent of positive con−tacts with non−Roma, and Roma concentra−tion in individual regions, are all factors de−termining variations in Roma familybehavior. As Kumanová (1998) and Mann(1992) stated, in the last two or three decadesa demographic revolution has begun espe−cially in the more socially and culturallydeveloped Roma communities, and amongmiddle−aged and younger Roma with at leastsecondary school education. This revolutionis characterized by a falling birth rate andinfant mortality, a falling average number oflive−born children per mother, fewer birthsamong women at the end of their reproduc−tive periods (over 35 years), and fewer first−time mothers younger than 18 (Kumanová,1998; Mann, 1999).

As Mann wrote, the decrease in births amongwomen older than 35 could be a major forcefor change in the structure and size of theRoma family. He predicted the emergence ofa more planned and responsible approach toparenthood. It is important to note that thisdemographic revolution also means gradualqualitative, not just quantitative changes,such as a more nuclear Roma family, inwhich the younger units of the extended fam−ily would become more independent in termsof housing, finances, and social conditionsfrom the parent family, the extended family,

the clan, and from family bonds. An increas−ingly egalitarian character in partnerships canbe seen as well. The manner of selecting apartner is also changing, from strict ethnic/sub−ethnic and local endogamy to exogamy(marrying outside the group) or to an en−dogamy that is socially determined, with thecriteria for the selection of a partner beingsimilar economic or cultural level (see Mann,1992). Indeed, with small exceptions, thefamily behavior of some Roma groups todayno longer differs from that of the majoritypopulation. We find characteristic features ofthe modern family especially among Romawho are integrated with the mainstreampopulation, and who are more wealthy andbetter educated.

However, another fact is also clear. ManyRoma live in traditional communities, knownas Roma settlements (“romane gava”), whichare concentrated, geographically segregated,and socially isolated from the local non−Roma population. In many cases, these seg−regated Roma settlements or segregatedtown and village districts are characterizedby inadequate living conditions. Other handi−caps are accumulating here as well, such asthe high proportion of long−term unem−ployed people and households dependent onwelfare benefits, a falling overall standard ofliving, and so on. These factors can make iteven harder to change traditional, time−testedand functional behavior patterns. Even todaywe find the characteristic features of the tra−ditional Roma family in such settlements.Tribal, family, and extended family relation−ships especially fulfill very important socialand other functions in traditional Roma com−munities (i.e. common law, economic, edu−cational, control, and identification func−tions).

During the last 50 years, researchers haveidentified two types of Roma family: thesurviving multigenerational, extended fam−


ily model, and the new nuclear family model,which is on the rise. Mann (2000) predictedthat Roma with a higher standard of livingwould come to resemble the non−Roma morequickly, while changes in the demographicand family behavior of the disadvantagedpart of the Roma population would beslower. In the end, this could drive a gradualwedge between the two Roma populationgroups.

CONCLUSION

The Roma family has been the object of sev−eral scientific studies; however, as differentresearch methods were used, the results can−not be generalized. In periods when ethnicidentity was denied and the Roma were as−similated, the traditional Roma culture wasseen as backward, unprogressive, and a dragon development. Only the acceptance of theRoma as a minority at the beginning of the1990s brought a change in the perception oftheir traditional culture and family. The issueof ethnicity, defined on the basis of language,local affinity, and anthropological features,shapes the notion of the Roma family.

The traditional Roma family was character−ized by a greater number of children, a higherand more constant birth rate throughout thewoman’s entire reproductive period, and alower average age of first−time mothers, thanamong the majority population. Cohabitationbetween partners was formalized in keepingwith majority society law only after severalyears of living together, although confirma−tion of the bond according to common lawoccurred at the outset of the cohabitation.The traditional Roma family was multi−generational (large) and did not tend to benuclear; authority was patriarchal and moreor less patrilineal. Old people enjoyed a highsocial status in the Roma community and theRoma family, with the family thus showing

elements of gerontocracy. The traditionalRoma family formed the economic and so−cial bedrock for all its members, regardlessof their economic contribution to it. The dif−ference between the private and the commu−nal was blurred, both in terms of earnings andthe objects of everyday consumption. It wasa platform for an individual’s socialization,education, and upbringing in traditional cul−ture. The function of social control was alsoperformed within the family. There was asignificant division of labor between menand women.

The family as such is a cultural universalwhose characteristics change according totime and space. Until 1989, the traditionalRoma culture and family were consideredbackward; manipulative approaches dis−turbed its traditional bonds from outside.Some of the family’s functions were trans−ferred to the state, such as economic securityand education. The state, however, ignored theethnic characteristics of the Roma family.

The Roma family is gradually starting tochange, and in some Roma communities theseeds of a demographic revolution can beidentified. Both quantitative and qualitativechanges are occurring in the Roma family,among them a falling birth rate and infantmortality, a falling average number of live−born children per mother, fewer births amongwomen at the end of their reproductive pe−riod (over 35 years), and fewer first−timemothers younger than 18. The Roma familyis also becoming more nuclear, and forms ofpartnership and methods of selecting a part−ner are changing. The family behavior ofsome Roma groups today in fact does notdiffer from that of the majority population.This gradual change in Roma familybehavior hinges on such factors as place ofabode (whether the family lives in an urban,rural or segregated environment), the level ofeconomic and cultural development of the


Roma community, the wealth of each fam−ily, the number of positive contacts with non−Roma, and the concentration of Roma in aspecific location. On the other hand, eventoday in traditional Roma communities wecan see the characteristic features of the tra−ditional Roma family.

REFERENCES

1. Bačová, Viera: “Spoločenská integrácia ci−gánskych obyvateľov a cigánska rodina”[‘The Social Integration of Gypsies and theGypsy Family’], Slovenský národopis, No. 1,1988, p. 22 – 34.

2. Bačová, Viera: “Typológia rómskych rodín naSlovensku” [‘The Typology of Roma Fami−lies in Slovakia’], Sociológia, No. 4, 1990, p.491 – 501.

3. Cikáni v prumyslovém městě (problematikaadaptace a asimilace): Materiály k problema−tice etnických skupin na území ČSSR [TheGypsies in an Industrial Town /Adaptationand Assimilation Issues/: Materials on theIssues of Ethnic Groups in Czechoslovakia],Zpravodaj koordinované síte vědeckých in−formací pro etnografii a folkloristiku, vol. 1,2, 3 – 1988.

4. Czigányösszeírás Eredményei (1893), (Buda−pest: Az Országos Magyar Kir. StatisztikaiHivatal, 1895).

5. Davidová, Eva: Cesty Romů/Romano Drom1945 – 1990 [The Travels of Roma/RomanoDrom 1945 – 1990], (Olomouc: UniverzitaPalackého, 1995).

6. Dubayová, Mária: “K problematike vzťahu ci−gánskej lokálnej a etnickej skupiny” [‘On theRelationship Between the Local and EthnicGypsy Group’], Slovenský národopis, No. 3,1990, p. 274 – 277.

7. Džambazovič, Roman: “Premeny rómskej ro−diny” [‘Metamorphosis of the Roma Family’]in Rodina v spoločenských premenách Sloven−ska [The Family in Social Change in Slova−kia], (Prešov: FF PU, 2001a).

8. Džambazovič, Roman: “Rómovia v Uhorskukoncom 19. storočia” [‘Roma in Ugria at theEnd of the 19th Century’], Sociológia, No. 5,2001b, p. 491 – 506.

9. Filadelfiová, Jarmila and Guráň, Peter: “Ro−dina a demografická skladba spoločnosti”[‘The Family and the Demographic Structureof Society’] in Slovensko a deti 99 (Situačnáanalýza o stave detí na Slovensku) [Slovakiaand Her Children 1999 /An Analysis of theSituation of Children in Slovakia/], (Bratisla−va: Slovenský výbor pre Unicef, 1999).

10. Fraser, August: Cikáni [Gypsies], (Prague:Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 1998).

11. Horváthová−Čajánková, Emília: “Život a kul−túra rožkovianskych Cigánov” [‘The Lifeand Culture of the Gypsies from Rožkova−ny’], Slovenský národopis, No. 1, 1954, p.149 – 175.

12. Horváthová−Čajánková, Emília: “Život a kul−túra rožkovianskych Cigánov” [‘The Lifeand Culture of the Gypsies from Rožkova−ny’], Slovenský národopis, No. 2, 1954, p.283 – 308.

13. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku(Historicko−etnografický náčrt) [Gypsies inSlovakia /Historical and Ethnic Outline/],(Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadé−mie vied, 1964).

14. Hübschmannová, Milena, Šebková, Hanaand Žigová, Anna: “Postavení snachy v tra−diční romské komunitě” [‘The Position ofthe Daughter−in−law Within the TraditionalRoma Community’], Český lid, No. 1, 1984,p. 81 – 85.

15. Hübschmannová, Milena: “Co napovídáo romské rodině tradiční seznamovací cer−emonial” [‘What the Traditional Acquaint−ance Ceremony Says About the Roma Fam−ily’], Romano Džaniben, No. 1 – 2, 1996,p. 19.

16. Jurová, Anna: “Snahy o sformulovanie štátnejpolitiky voči rómskym obyvateľom v povoj−novom období” [‘Efforts to Formulate StatePolicy Towards the Roma After the War’],Historický časopis, No. 4, 1993, p. 414 – 429.

17. Jurová, Anna: Vývoj rómskej problematiky naSlovensku po roku 1945 [The Evolution of theRoma Issue in Slovakia after 1945], (Bratisla−va: Goldpress Publishers, 1993).

18. Konečná, Katarína: História a súčasnosť róm−skej rodiny [The History and Present of theRoma Family], (Košice: Štátna vedecká kniž−nica, 1994).

19. Koteková, Rastislava: “Rómska rodina” [‘TheRoma Family’] in Koteková, Rastislava, Ši−


mová, Eva and Gecková, Andrea: Psycholó−gia rodiny [Psychology of the Family], (Mi−chalovce: PeGaS, 1998).

20. Kumanová, Zuzana: “Demografický výskumrómskej rodiny v Plaveckom Štvrtku” [‘De−mographic Research on the Roma Family inPlavecký Štvrtok’], Slovenský národopis, No.1, 1997, p. 87 – 105.

21. Kumanová, Zuzana: “Etnická identifikáciaobyvateľov tzv. cigánskej/rómskej kolóniev Plaveckom Štvrtku” [‘Ethnic Identificationof the Inhabitants of the So−Called Gypsy/Roma Colony in Plavecký Štvrtok’],Slovenský národopis, No. 1, 1998, p. 42 – 59.

22. Kumanová, Zuzana: “Veková štruktúra oby−vateľov Plaveckého Štvrtka s dôrazom narómsku populáciu” [‘The Age Structure of theInhabitants of Plavecký Štvrtok With Empha−sis on the Roma’], Slovenský národopis, No.1, 1999, p. 42 – 50.

23. Lenczová, Mária and Lenczová, Terézia: Vý−skum realizácie rodinných funkcií v rómskychrodinách [Research on the Performance ofFamily Functions in Roma Families], (Brati−slava: VÚPSVR, 1997).

24. Lenczová, Mária, Lenczová, Terézia and Reu−terová, Emília: Postavenie viacdetných rodínv demografickom vývoji na Slovensku: viac−detné rómske rodiny [The Position of Fami−lies with Many Children in DemographicDevelopment in Slovakia: The Roma Familywith many Children], (Bratislava: VÚPSVR,1998).

25. Liegeois, Jean Paul: Rómovia, Cigáni, kočov−níci [Roma, Gypsies, Nomads], (Bratislava:Academia Istropolitana, 1995).

26. Mann, Arne B.: “Rómsky problém – problémvzájomnej komunikácie” [‘The Roma Issue –A Problem of Mutual Communication’],Romano ľil nevo, No. 378 – 383, 1999.


28. Mann, Arne B.: “Výber manželského partnerau Cigánov, Rómov na Spiši” [‘The Selectionof Marital Partners Among the Gypsies andRoma in the Spiš Region’], Slovenský náro−dopis, No. 1 – 2, 1990, p. 278 – 284.

29. Mann, Arne B.: “Vývoj rómskej rodinyv troch spišských obciach” [‘Roma FamilyDevelopment in Three Municipalities of theSpiš Region’], Demografie, No. 2, 1992, p.118 – 129.

30. Nečas, Ctibor: “K sociální adaptaci Cikánu naStrážnicku” [‘On the Social Adaptation ofGypsies in the Strážnice Region’], Národopis−né aktuality, No. 1, 1982, p. 27.

31. Srb, Vladimír: Soupisy a sčítání Cikánu – Ro−mu v Československu v letech 1947 – 1980a odhady jejich počtu do roku 2000, resp 2020[Listings and Censuses of Gypsies/Roma inCzechoslovakia from 1947 to 1980, and Es−timated Population Until 2000], Zpravodajkoordinované síte vědeckých informací proetnografii a folkloristiku, vol. 2 – 1986.

32. Šebková, Hana, et al.: “Úloha nejstaršího synav tradiční romské rodině” [‘The Role of theOldest Son in the Traditional Roma Family’],Romano Džaniben, No. 1 – 2, 1996, p. 52.

33. Teoreticko−metodologické východiská výsku−mu cigánskej rodiny a cigánskych obyvateľov.[Theory and Methodology of Gypsy Familyand Gypsy Inhabitant Research], (Košice:SVÚ SAV, 1989).

34. Žigová, Anna, et al.: “Nejstarší sestra a jejípostavení v tradiční romské rodině” [‘TheEldest Sister and Her Position in the Tradi−tional Roma Family], Romano džaniben, No.1 – 2, 1996, p. 66.

35. Žlnayová, Edita, et al.: “Postavenie a úlohaženy – matky a muža – otca v rómskej rodi−ne” [‘The Position and Role of the Woman/Mother and the Man/Father in the RomaFamily’], Romano džaniben, No. 1 – 2, 1996,p. 29.

324

325

Summary: This chapter analyzes the contentand profile of poverty in Slovakia. It de−scribes the European concept of social exclu−sion, and finds links between this theory andRoma poverty in Slovakia. It analyzes themechanisms of social exclusion, and de−scribes the situation of poor, segregatedRoma communities from the viewpoint ofthese mechanisms. It considers the implica−tions of the social exclusion of the Roma, andproposes several inclusion strategies.

Key words: poverty, social exclusion, theRoma, unemployment, the labor market,dependency on welfare benefits, social dis−tance, segregation, settlements, urban ghet−tos, anomy, culture of poverty, underclass.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most visible consequences oftransformation in Slovakia has been thegradual creation of a new system of socialinequalities and social stratification. Thissystem is significantly different from thatwhich existed over the 40 years of commu−nist Czechoslovakia. The foundations of anew social structure are being laid down thatresemble the basic elements, features, andrelationships of social stratification systemsin Western countries.

The increase in socio−economic gulfs be−tween Slovak citizens, one of the products ofthe 1989 changes, has led to the “opening

ROMAN DŽAMBAZOVIČ and MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁ

SOCIAL EXCLUSION OFTHE ROMA IN SLOVAKIA

scissors effect”, i.e. the rise and existence onthe one hand of political and economic elitesfenced off from the rest of society, and on theother hand of a far larger group of peopledependent on state welfare and charity. Thelast decade has even seen an increase in in−dividuals or social categories that seem to lieoutside the social stratification system, andwho are not allowed to participate in runningsociety even to the minimum acceptablelevel.

As every individual’s position in the struc−ture of today’s society depends primarily onhis position on the labor market, the peoplewho are most threatened by poverty are thosewho for various reasons are discriminatedagainst (or excluded) on the labor market.This group includes the long term unem−ployed (i.e. people without jobs for over 12months), ethnic minorities, senior citizens,and people with few qualifications. This kindof poverty involves entire social categoriesand is known as “new” poverty. However,poverty in Slovakia still shows the character−istics of the old−style demographic poverty.Thus, families with many members, andfamilies with only one parent are among thegroups threatened by poverty as well as thosewho are marginalized on the labor market.

Many of these characteristics apply in spadesto a large portion of the Roma populationliving in Slovakia. Although official data andinformation on the situation of the Roma inSlovakia are insufficient, findings to date

326 R o m a n D ž a m b a z o v i č a n d M a r t i n a J u r á s k o v á

have proven a significant correlation be−tween ethnic affinity and poverty. The infor−mation available shows that the Roma forma significant share of poor households com−pared to the non−Roma population. TheRoma, in fact, are among the major victimsof the transformation process from the com−mand to the market economy. One of thegoals of this study is to identify the reasonsfor and consequences of the Roma’s fate.

It is characteristic of the poverty of the Romathat it is related to their social exclusion.Unveiling the connection between Romapoverty and their social exclusion, its formsand mechanisms, is another objective of thischapter. The authors also intend to exploresome possibilities of social inclusion, i.e.possible mechanisms and strategies for re−integrating the most endangered groups ofRoma into civil society.

CHANGES IN POVERTYAFTER 1989

Before 1989, the state tried to deny the ex−istence of poverty, as well as to eliminate it.1

In abolishing the legitimacy of wealth, thelegitimacy of poverty was eliminated as well.Poverty had no status, so society did not of−fer the poor any appropriate rules of behav−ior. Poverty at the time showed features of so−called old or demographic poverty (for de−tails see Mareš, 1999; Možný and Mareš,1994; Džambazovič, 2000). It consisted es−pecially of temporary, general poverty thatmost Slovaks experienced for short periodsof time. This poverty was mostly a private,individual, and temporary experience at acertain stage of a person’s life cycle (or justa brief episode in life). It usually did not in−volve entire social categories based on sta−tus or class, but on the other hand did involvenearly the entire population. It was more ofa poverty of society than poverty in society.

Long−term poverty affected only certain mi−nor social categories, altogether about 1% ofpeople in the former Czechoslovakia. Be−sides people living on the outskirts of soci−ety (released prisoners, alcoholics etc.), itaffected households with four or more chil−dren (especially in Slovakia), old pensionersliving alone, disabled people without workin their productive years, and single, di−vorced, or abandoned mothers with children.

After 1989, the poverty profile in Slovakiachanged and shifted as inequalities rose.Even though poverty among Slovak peoplestill shows signs of the old poverty, on canalready see the emergence of various char−acteristics of new poverty. This kind of pov−erty is usually connected with certain socialcategories and particular regions, and mayfor many people become a permanent state;it is usually related to one’s success on thelabor market.

In the competition between market forces,we see that certain social categories haveunequal chances of acquiring employmenton the labor market. For various reasons,many people occupy a marginal position onthe labor market, or are completely excludedfrom it. While work as a legitimate source ofincome gives people the greatest possible eco−nomic independence and self−fulfillment, hav−ing one’s access to the primary labor marketrestricted is one of the most significant riskfactors for poverty and social exclusion.

Different research and censuses have shownthat households where the main provider isunemployed face an almost five times greaterrisk of poverty than those with a breadwin−ner. Similarly, the highest poverty risk rateand the highest chance of finding oneself inthe lowest income bracket is among unem−ployed people, those with few or no qualifi−cations, families with many dependents, one−parent families, and families living in the less

327S o c i a l e x c l u s i o n o f t h e R o m a i n S l o v a k i a

developed regions of Slovakia (see SlovakRepublic…, 2001 for details).

These facts mean that the Roma ethnic mi−nority is gravely threatened by poverty.Many Roma in Slovakia are not well edu−cated, and face a high rate of (long term)unemployment. They are concentrated inmarginalized regions, and many live in seg−regated locations with many children (seeRadičová, 2001; Vašečka. and Džambazovič,2000; Slovak Republic…, 2001).

Even today, poverty is generally a tabootopic in Slovakia. In official documents andstatistics, the phrase “people in material needor social dependence” is used instead of themore direct term “poor people”. Poverty inSlovakia refers primarily to a lack of finan−cial and material resources, a situation inwhich one’s resources do not allow one tolive on the “subsistence level” affording themost essential needs as stipulated by law.Poverty represents an exclusion from accessto goods and services, and is connected witha lack or imbalance in one’s material re−sources. Social exclusion, on the other hand,is a far broader concept than poverty, anddenotes not only a lack of material resourcesand the inability to take part in consumersociety, but also insufficient, unequal or evenzero participation in social, economic, politi−cal, and cultural life (Radičová, 2001).

THE ROMA:THE SOCIAL CATEGORYMOST THREATENED BYSOCIAL EXCLUSION

As an ethnic group, the Roma have alwaysbeen among the poorest classes in society,even in the egalitarian communist society ofpre−1989 Czechoslovakia. This fact has deephistorical roots. The prevailing feature ofRoma poverty was and still is its link to so−

cial exclusion. The exclusion of the Roma inSlovakia stems from a combination of his−torical, cultural, social, and spatial factors.

Since the 12th century, when the Roma cameto Central Europe, they have met intoleranceboth from the common people and the law.The approach that the communist regimetook to the Roma ethnic group was stronglyideological. Because the Roma had differentcustoms, cultural traditions, values andstandards, and because they also lived at alow social and economic level, the regimeconsidered the Roma “unadaptable”, andthus subjected them to various strategies toeliminate their different culture and ethnicidentity. These strategies were supposed toresult in the gradual assimilation of the Romainto the majority society (Holecová, 2002).

“The basic doctrine of the communist regimetowards the Roma was based on the Marxistprediction that by improving the social con−ditions of the Roma, their behavior could bechanged, and the negative phenomena con−nected to their affinity to a marginalizedgroup of citizens would be overcome. Thecommunist regime thus expected that if theirstandard of living were brought into line withthat of the rest of the population, the reasonfor their ‘differentness’ would be removed.”(Radičová, 2001, p. 56)

Despite the fact that the economic and socialstatus of the Roma improved somewhat dur−ing the communist period (e.g. their rate ofemployment and education level increased,illiteracy was eradicated, their health caresituation improved, etc.), traditional values,standards, and behavior patterns still playedan important role in traditional Roma com−munities. The institutions of the majoritypopulation could not find an equivalent forthe arrangements of the Roma community,which were based on blood ties (Radičová,2001). The process of assimilation thus did


not lead to the Roma accepting and identi−fying themselves with the institutionalmechanisms of mainstream culture, but of−ten led to these mechanisms being used bythe Roma for their own benefit (Holecová,2002).

From the ideological point of view, the stateacted paternalistically towards all citizens.The regime’s effort to connect the citizendirectly to the state resulted in a strong de−pendence on the state. However, socialpolicy, by emphasizing the generosity of thestate as the basis for growing social security,encouraged passivity, resignation, and loss offaith in the purpose of personal strivingamong some individuals (Holecová, 2002).Under the influence of strengthening assimi−lation pressures, the Roma developed astrong client relationship towards the state,which became a partial substitute for tradi−tional and community solidarity.

The disintegration of this paternalistic sys−tem and the beginning of market democracyturned the Roma into the biggest victims ofthe transformation process. The Roma2 arenow poorer than any other group, and theirsituation is worse than that of any others fromthe viewpoint of any basic social indicator,including education, health, living condi−tions, and access to job opportunities on thelabor market and within civil society (Pov−erty and Welfare…, 2002).

SOCIAL EXCLUSION MECHANISMS

The concept of social exclusion is graduallygaining currency in the European social dis−course, and is becoming a dominant para−digm in discussions on poverty in EU coun−tries. This preference for the social exclusionconcept is part of an effort to capture thechange in character and the new features ofpoverty over the last decades of the 20th cen−

tury. These changes undoubtedly include thefollowing: the persistence of poverty overtime, its spatial concentration, and at thesame time dependence on the welfare stateand the disintegration of traditional social in−stitutions (Room et al, 1990).

The social exclusion concept thus offers a farmore complex and broad view than what hasgone before. The advantage of using it is thatpoverty is not reduced to the most frequentlyused monetary (insufficient income) or con−sumption dimensions (insufficient consump−tion). It shifts the emphasis from the finan−cial handicap to the multidimensional natureof poverty by identifying some of its differ−ent consequences (Abrahamson 1995;Atkinson 2000).

According to Strobel (1996), social exclu−sion is perceived as a systematic process ofmarginalization, isolation, and weakening ofsocial links, which can be felt both on thepersonal and social group levels. It meansexclusion from participation in the commonlife of society.

Berghman (1995) also draws attention to asignificant fact, stating that social exclusionis currently perceived as a consequence of thefailure of society rather than the failure of theindividual. Most at risk are those individualsor groups with weakened ties to at least oneof the four levels on which individuals andgroups are integrated into society: democracyand law (which support civil integration), thelabor market (supports economic integration),the social state (supports social integration),and the family and community (support per−sonal integration).3 Exclusion from one inte−gration element usually means exclusion fromthe other elements as well.

Social exclusion involves a very diverse set ofsocial realities. The following are some of theforms and mechanisms of social exclusion:


• Economic exclusion means exclusionfrom the standard of living and chancesthat are normal in society. Ways out of thissituation include the individual’s positionon the labor market, his consumptionlevel and the size of his income, theamount of property he has, his standard ofliving, etc.

• Cultural exclusion means denial of anindividual or a group’s right to participatein the culture of society and to share its cul−tural capital, education, and culture. Cul−tural exclusion can be identified on thebasis of the level of education achievedand the approach to education.

• Symbolic exclusion. Social and culturalidentities are, to a large extent, symbolicidentities. Group membership is symboli−cally confirmed or refused. Symbolic ex−clusion is associated with the stigmatiza−tion of individuals and social groups thatare perceived as different, deviant, orstrange. It can be identified on the basis ofthe level of social distance, and the exist−ence of prejudices or stereotypes.

• Spatial exclusion means the increasedconcentration of excluded persons in cer−tain geographical areas. Within Romacommunities we can identify segregatedRoma residential areas (settlements, urbanneighborhoods) as well as the phenom−enon of double marginalization.

• These forms and mechanisms of socialexclusion often manifest themselves inexclusion from access to social services,health care, and social welfare.

• It is possible to point out other forms ofsocial exclusion: political exclusion,which means the denial of civic, political,and fundamental human rights; exclusionfrom mobility in physical terms, and inthe social hierarchy; social exclusion,which in the narrower sense prevents peo−ple from sharing a certain social status orsocial institutions; and exclusion fromsafety and exposure to increased risk.

• Social exclusion mechanisms can be psy−chological as well, and be accompanied byfeelings of shame, diffidence, and indi−vidual failure, as well as uncertainty andvulnerability.

In the sections below, the authors deal withthose types of social exclusion that are themost relevant to the Roma in Slovakia.

ECONOMIC EXCLUSION

Economic exclusion is closely related toexclusion from or on the labor market. Thistype of exclusion is often the primary sourceof poverty, and in the end causes exclusionfrom the standard of living and the chancesthat are normal in a certain society.

The disintegration of the communist system,which required everyone to work and super−vised labor integration, caused the positionof the Roma to become even more marginaldue to market competition. Bearing in mindthat most Roma worked in jobs requiring noor few qualifications, the first stage of jobcuts at factories hit them much harder thanother social groups. Hanzelová (2000) statesthat from 1990 to 1991, Roma unemploy−ment grew almost tenfold.

One’s position on the labor market, togetherwith one’s status as an employee and thelevel of education achieved are the mostimportant factors shaping how an individualis incorporated into the structure of society.Several facts related to the Roma contributeto their marginalized position on the labormarket:• low education and level of qualifications;• latent discrimination against the Roma on

the part of the majority population or em−ployers (e.g. their reputation for beingunreliable, lacking work ethics, disciplineand motivation);


• poor housing, living conditions, and health;• high rate of (long term) unemployment and

the related devastation of Roma humancapital and the loss of work habits (fordetails see the chapter Roma and the LaborMarket in this book).

These handicaps are accumulating in manyRoma, and when combined with the fact theymay live in a marginalized region and a so−cially and geographically isolated settlement,neither individuals nor communities can beexpected to emancipate themselves fromtheir marginalized position. Roma who livein such locations generally lack job oppor−tunities, due especially to their limited socialcontacts outside the settlement, contacts thatmight help the inhabitants of the settlementfind a job. Social networks and links are verystrong in segregated communities, but thefact they are locally homogenous limits theinformation they can provide.

In some Roma communities, unemployment isvirtually 100%. These are Slovakia’s “valleys

of hunger”, territories with “visible isles ofpoverty” (Vašečka and Džambazovič, 2000).

Roma unemployment is usually long−termunemployment, and is accompanied by reli−ance on state help. According to an estimateby the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs andfamily (1997), in the second half of the 1990sroughly 80% of the entire Roma populationwas dependent on welfare benefits.

The high rate reliance on welfare benefitsamong the Roma was confirmed by researchby the SPACE foundation and the WorldBank.4 Research conducted by IVO/UNDP5

showed a significant share of welfare ben−efits in the overall income of Roma families(see Graph 1).

One of the economic results of Slovakia’shigh unemployment rate is that society has tocarry a heavier burden in the form of increasedtaxes. As the Roma make up a large numberof the unemployed, unemployment among theRoma is viewed very negatively by the ma−

Graph 1The most important sources of income in Roma households

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

6�� #��// /0��:( #.�/�""��0�, ��#�. �2�"� .��0�� 0��#��%�17��/ ��#�M��,/1�A 0(��0��0��04��/ ��/?�2�#��A�2��M��A 0(��0��0N��"#��0�)��C 0?�2�#��A�2��M��A 0(��0��0��070(��?�� 00��/�C��"��"#��0/ .��0(��(��/�(�#.4� %�0�� 0��,� 2 �C��BD/"��/��C�0(��C��( #.��17��/ ��#�M��,/1�A 0(��0��06�#CD��"#��0O�A��/ ��//

Source: IVO/UNDP, 2001.


jority, which further increases the social dis−tance between the non−Roma and the Roma.

Public opinion polls suggest that the Romaare regarded by the majority population as acategory of society that is itself responsiblefor losing their jobs because of their negativecharacter traits, such as laziness, lack of will−power, low work ethic, lack of interest ineducation, etc.

On the other hand, research focusing on theRoma has shown that the Roma claim to makegreat efforts to acquire satisfactory employ−ment. Radičová (2001, p. 129), for example,based on talks with Roma (World Bank/SPACE, December 2000 – March 2001),noted their willingness to work in their state−ments: “if you have a job, it is easier for youto live, you are healthier and have more en−ergy – life is better”; “when I had a job it hada good influence on the family, as there wasat least some certainty”; “we were glad to beable to do something meaningful during theday, after two or three years you become un−accustomed to working, and then it is reallyhard”. Many Roma labeled their permanentstate of unemployment and uncertainty as themost demoralizing aspect of their lives, andexpressed sadness at the lack of job opportu−

nities. The Roma themselves consider the fol−lowing as the most important reasons theycannot get a job: the fact that they belong tothe Roma ethnic group (discrimination fromnon Roma), and the generally poor economicsituation of the country, which they use toexplain the lack of jobs for people with lowqualifications (see Graph 2).

SPATIAL EXCLUSION

At present, the social exclusion and povertyof the Roma are accompanied by their spa−tial exclusion. This type of exclusion resultsin the concentration of excluded individualsand social collectives in certain, usually dis−advantaged geographical areas.

Slovakia has lingering regional disparitiesand marginalized territories (Falťan, Gajdošand Pašiak, 1995).6 which, compared to therest of the country, are significantly disad−vantaged. The distribution of the Romaacross Slovakia is also very uneven, with themajority (about two thirds) of Roma gatheredin these marginalized regions.

Another special feature of the spatial distri−bution of the Roma, unlike that of the major−

Graph 2Three main reasons for the Roma’s difficulties in acquiring a job

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

� ��

/�B

@�(�.��. CC ��#0 �/

"��(��#0(

�2�

��#��3

�/�CC � ��0�H��# C ��0 ��

"�� / 0��0 ��

�0(� ��CC � 0�



ity population, is the prevalence of settle−ments as the most common type of habita−tion. While most ethnic Slovaks live in cit−ies (at the beginning of the 1990s it was58%), the majority of Roma still live in thecountryside (Vašečka and Džambazovič,2000).

A frequent phenomenon in Roma communi−ties is the segregation (both geographical andsocial) of Roma settlements, some of whicharose naturally, others as the result of thestate’s policy of segregation, both during thecommunist period and at present. As a con−sequence of this segregation, several types ofRoma habitation were formed, differing intheir degree of isolation and geographicalposition (urban/rural).

Approximately 25% of all Roma live in seg−regated rural settlements, many situated inthe marginalized regions of southern andeastern Slovakia. The actual number ofRoma settlements is hard to estimate due toproblems in counting the Roma populationand defining the term “settlement”. At themoment, the number of Roma settlementsand villages where the Roma represent morethan half of the population is growing stead−ily for various reasons, such as the migrationof Roma from towns to the country where thecost of living is lower, and the movement ofRoma into originally non Roma villages.

The lack of access to utilities and public serv−ices is another typical feature of Roma set−tlements in marginalized regions. In geo−graphically isolated settlements, there arefrequently no public services, or access tothem is limited (i.e. shops, schools, pre−school establishments, health care, post of−fice, etc.). There is often no electricity, norunning water, no sewage system, no wastedisposal, and no proper access road. Thepoor and excluded inhabitants must over−come many obstacles in gaining access to

social services, due not least to the increas−ing cost and decreasing efficiency of theseservices (Poverty and Welfare…, 2002). Inmany cases, both the availability and thequality of services are limited. The causes aregeographic segregation, communicationproblems between the providers and users ofthe service, social isolation, mutual mistrust,and lack of information.

By living in marginalized regions and at thesame time in segregated and isolated settle−ments within such regions, the Roma experi−ence what we call “double marginalization”.This term denotes worse living conditions, asmeasured by economic and social indicators.The weakened and limited potential of themarginalized region, combined with the ab−sence of self−help, self−organization and ac−tivation practices (exacerbated by self−exclu−sion), demand that a special approach betaken, including support and social develop−ment programs focusing on both the margin−alized region and the marginalized, segre−gated settlements it contains. Double margin−alization cannot be overcome by individualliving strategies, as it is accompanied bymultiple dependence, both material and so−cial (Radičová, 2001).

Isolated and segregated areas inhabited bythe Roma can be found in both rural (Romasettlements) and urban environments. Theselatter consist of urban ghettos, which caninvolve an entire town district or neigh−borhood, or just a certain street. These seg−regated areas, whether located on the out−skirts or in the centers of towns, are treatedas pathological by the majority population,which fears and avoids them. This “environ−ment of the poor” (segregated and isolatedsettlements and parts of towns that at thesame time suffer economic and social isola−tion) becomes a habitat that society does notcontrol and does not want to control, a placethat “orderly” citizens (often including the


police) never visit. These are so−called “nogo” areas: “no go in” for the luckier peopleliving outside them, and “no go out” for theirinhabitants (Bauman, 1995). This is why wecan say that besides spatial segregation, theRoma also face social segregation. Thoseliving in the segregated settlements or urbanghettos find themselves in a state of socialisolation, and the effect of their concentrationfurther emphasizes and strengthens the bar−rier between them and the others (Dahren−dorf, 1991). To be restricted to a certain areawith no chance of escaping considerably lim−its people’s opportunities in the current glo−bal and mobile world.

The most frequent characteristics of segre−gated Roma locations include high (longterm) unemployment, dependence on wel−fare, inadequate housing and hygiene, poornutrition, an inferior living environment (e.g.ecologically contaminated), excessive con−sumption of alcohol and tobacco, and so on.In the end, all of these factors contribute tothe poor health of the inhabitants (lower av−erage life span, higher rate of infant mortal−ity, prevalence of infectious diseases, etc.).Another problem is the growing number ofdwellings within the settlements, as oftenneither the houses nor the land on which theyare built are owned by their inhabitants (seeVašečka and Džambazovič, 2000; Radičová,2001 for details).

Given the high degree of Roma segregation,their poverty is not scattered but is concen−trated in one area, and thus is highly visible.Their spatial segregation is closely related totheir minimal (or rather symbolic) contactswith the external environment. The morehomogenous and endogenous the commu−nity, the more it becomes fenced off from theoutside. On the other hand, individual fami−lies are more open to the influence of theRoma community, which becomes a controlmechanism. It specifies preferred living and

working strategies, everyday behavior pat−terns, and determines reproductive behavior.The place and location of abode also influ−ence the Roma’s education (or rather, theirperception of its importance), as well as theirsocio−economic and socio−occupational sta−tus (Vašečka and Džambazovič, 2000).

The cultural, social, and economic homoge−neity of the Roma also has other negativeconsequences, one of the most serious ofwhich is the absence of positive role modelswho could “destigmatize” the Roma’s mar−ginal status (Holecová, 2002). Poverty, (longterm) unemployment, and reliance on helpfrom the state often become the norm, andcontribute to the formation of a culture ofpoverty. The concentration of poverty, to−gether with segregation, causes social isola−tion, reduces direct links with the majoritysociety to a minimum, and strengthens thebarriers between the Roma and the majority.

As Radičová (2001) wrote, the basis forachieving social security is social contacts,which are the only possible way of beingincorporated into the social order. However,the segregated Roma are not capable of en−suring their participation in informal socialnetworks outside their communities. Theirinability to participate in informal networks(see Granovetter, 1973 for details) to a largeextent limits their access to basic resources.It makes them dependent, reliant on society.This dependency is of a material nature in thefirst place, as their survival depends on wel−fare benefits and other institutions. However,there is an equal threat of social dependence– dependence on others.

Double and multiple dependence preventsany activation and participation, and lead toa loss of self−confidence and self−esteem.This equation is strengthened and confirmedin everyday interactions with members of the(largely homogeneous) community on the


one hand, and on the other hand the impos−sibility of interaction with the majority(“their surroundings reject the Roma”) andthe tendency to self exclusion from such in−teraction (“the Roma reject their surround−ings”).

CULTURAL EXCLUSION

Cultural exclusion is the denial of an indi−vidual or a group’s right to participate in theculture of society, or to share its cultural capi−tal or education. The basic manifestations ofcultural exclusion include the impossibility ofusing the Roma language in education, at−tempts to culturally assimilate the Roma, andthe absence of a multicultural approach orethnocentric view of the group’s culture. Oneof the main indicators of the Roma’s culturalexclusion is their exclusion from access toeducation, which in the end has an impact ontheir low overall level of schooling.

The Roma tend to be less educated in com−parison with other segments of Slovak soci−ety. As for the level of education achieved, asignificant number of Roma have not com−pleted elementary school. While during thecommunist regime the level of Roma educa−tion slowly increased, a survey in 1990showed that as high as 56% of men and 59%of women among the Roma had not finishedelementary school (see the chapter The Romain the Educational System and the Alterna−tive Education Projects in this book). Thishurts their chances on the labor market. Re−search shows that the level of integration orsegregation plays an important role in thissituation.

The inclusion of the Roma into the cultural(education) system is limited by several bar−riers. One of the most serious is the languagebarrier. The Roma from segregated commu−nities usually speak some version of Romany

in combination with a certain Slovak dialect.Differences in their use and command ofSlovak are influenced by the level of thecommunity’s integration or segregation, i.e.the frequency of contacts with the majority.Ignorance or insufficient command of theteaching language, so frequent in segregatedcommunities, handicaps Roma children fromthe moment they enroll at school.

The frequent failures of Roma children in thefirst grade cause them to reject educationprovided by the Slovak school system. ForRoma children who live in settlements, com−ing to school means entering an unknown,strange, and highly formalized and institu−tionalized environment, an experience forwhich they have not been prepared by theirupbringing (Holecová, 2002). Moreover, thissystem puts great demands on them, requir−ing homework and help from the parents.The parents, however, are usually not able(having minimal education themselves andlacking money) or not willing (they do notunderstand the direct link between educationand finding a job) to help their children andmotivate them to become as educated aspossible. Their cultural exclusion deepens asthe Roma children are labeled incapable,incorrigible, and below average by theirteachers, non−Roma classmates, and the en−tire majority population.

Yet another barrier that children from segre−gated settlements have to overcome is thepoor quality and the ethnic homogeneity ofthe schools they attend. Ethnically homoge−neous schools arise as the result of a naturalprocess. If the proportion of Roma in a givenlocation or school is high, the majority popu−lation parents tend to send their children tomore distant schools attended by mostly non−Roma children. This means that schools inareas with large Roma populations are ho−mogenous, which denies the Roma frequentcontacts with the majority and positive social


role models. The equipment of such schoolsis also often below standard and unsuitable.On top of this, Roma children are increas−ingly placed in “special schools” for mentallyhandicapped children, often without justifi−cation.

Children from segregated Roma settlementsare thus handicapped many times over: bytheir absolute poverty, by the poor equipmentof their households and low standard of hous−ing, by the fact they are unprepared to attendschool (they lack the elementary skills,knowledge, hygienic habits, communicationskills, etc.), and by the low support (bothmaterial and spiritual) they receive from theirsurroundings and families. At the same time,they are entering an environment that viewsthem negatively, and we know that childrentend to express their dislikes very directlyand candidly. In their new environment, theyreceive no help to become acclimatized, andare thus often excluded and rejected (Hole−cová, 2002).

In a world that revolves around survival andmaterial security, education is seen by theRoma as an obligation towards the state,rather than an obligation towards their chil−dren. Especially in segregated settlements,where most people are long−term unem−ployed regardless of their education, there is

little proof that education does pay. As goodeducation is quite expensive nowadays, andis a cost that pays off many years later, manyRoma do not grasp the relationship betweenmaking the investment and the profit (a goodjob) it can bring.

However, failure to achieve the minimumrequired level of education eliminates thechance of success on the labor market. Thelower one’s education, the less opportunityone has of finding a job. Many Roma do notgrasp the direct relationship between educa−tion and employment because they see manyindividuals around them who were unable tofind a job despite having completed second−ary or higher education. Most Roma fromsegregated communities have only com−pleted elementary school, or failed to com−plete their secondary school education.These educational categories of people rep−resent the highest ratio of unemployed peo−ple in Slovakia (see Table 1). It is becomingincreasingly difficult for unskilled workersto find a job, partly because demand forlow−skills work is dropping, and partly be−cause employing an unqualified person ismore expensive than employing someonewith higher qualifications, due largely tovarious non−wage labor costs and lowerlabor productivity (Poverty and Welfare…,2002, p. 36).

Table 1Structure of registered unemployed according to level of education achieved (%, as of December31, 2000)

(�� !'��' ��!� )�� ;��''��!�� !'��' ��!�

��!'��N��'��.��!'�� '��!��.��!'�� !��' ��'�� '�� '��!��.��' ��<?�� =� � ��'��!��.��!��' ��<?�� !��'�� '��=�� '��!��.��' ��<?�� =� � ��'��!��'��' �� '��' ��

Source: National Labour Office, 2000.


SYMBOLIC EXCLUSION

Symbolic exclusion is an expression of themarginalization and stigmatization of somesocial groups by the public. It does not con−sist of real and active exclusion, but ratherverbal exclusion and exclusion through vari−ous degrees of rejection and repulsion. Ba−sically, any group perceived by the others asdifferent may become undesirable and beverbally rejected (Holecová, 2002).

An example of symbolic exclusion withpractical consequences is the differentiationbetween the deserving and undeserving poorat different times in history. This symbolicdesignation expresses:a) the level of solidarity with the people ex−

cluded;b) an opinion on the causes of their exclu−

sion. It expresses whether the exclusion isbelieved to be due to the nature of society(inequality, injustice, structure of owner−ship or power, etc.), to problems in itsfunctioning (failures in redistribution, de−cline in solidarity), or whether the fault isthought to lie with the victims (immoral−ity, laziness, irresponsibility).

Differences between the cultures and waysof life of the Roma and non−Roma are thecause of social tension between these groups.The everyday life of many Roma in Slovakia(especially in traditional segregated settle−ments) is still driven by traditional Romahabits and standards, which in some areasconflict with the standards of the majoritysociety. Problems related to coexistence be−tween the Roma and the non−Roma resultmainly from the special position of the Romaas an ethnic minority, one that visibly differsfrom the majority population and other mi−norities in its standard of living, lifestyle,thought, and culture. The differences exhib−ited by the Roma are viewed negatively byothers. A social gulf, deepened on both sides

by deep−rooted stereotypes and prejudice,thus forms between the Roma and the rest ofthe population. The prevailing opinionamong the majority population is that mostRoma do not or cannot accept social norms,and resist the majority’s attempts to integratethem. These factors lead to the social exclu−sion and social isolation of the Roma(Vašečka, 2001b).

Public opinion polls focusing on the attitudeof the majority towards the Roma were notheld until after 1989. All revealed a highlevel of social distance between the major−ity and the Roma minority, which does notseem to alter with time. Various research hasalso shown that this social distance towardsthe Roma is exhibited by all classes of peo−ple regardless of age, education, sex, type ofeconomic activity, religion, and economic orpolitical orientation (see the chapter Rela−tionship of the Majority Population to theRoma in this book).

Research suggests that society evaluates theRoma through the lens of prejudice, stere−otypes, and simplified categories encouragedby the media; personal experience with theRoma is not the principle source of majorityprejudices. This fact works as a self−fulfill−ing prophecy – i.e. a false statement thatbecomes true by being spoken, because it inturn influences the behavior of the people itconcerns. The non−Roma’s way of relatingtowards the Roma is one of the main barri−ers to their integration into society (Vašečka,2001b).

Latent forms of discrimination against theRoma on the part of employers, as well as thestereotypes and prejudices of majority soci−ety, are yet another factor increasing the riskof unemployment among the Roma anddeepening their marginalization on the labormarket. The anti−Roma mood in society isalso backed by the behavior of majority rep−


resentatives – state bureaucrats, municipalemployees, police, and medical personnel.These prejudices and negative attitudes areoften abused by Slovak politicians, whosepopulist statements are seen by the public asjustifying their own opinions. In the end, thisincreases the majority population’s rejectionof the Roma. Latent racism that takes theform of indifference to or silent approval ofopen forms of racism is socially far moredangerous (Holecová, 2002).

The absence of positive role models for theRoma is not real, but rather artificially cre−ated. In municipalities where the social gulfbetween the two groups is not so large, mu−tual acceptance and communication is muchbetter. As there are no conflicts in these lo−cations, neither local mayors nor the Romahave any interest in making the issue public.On the contrary, they consider it their successif the “Roma issue” is not mentioned in re−lation to their village, allowing the problemsto remain hidden. The public, on the otherhand, perceives the Roma mainly as prob−lematic and socially dependent individuals(Mann, 2000, p. 20).

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OFSOCIAL EXCLUSION

The communist regime to a large extent de−stroyed the country’s traditional Roma com−munities. The Roma lost most of their origi−nal values, traditions and habits. On the otherhand, the state through its repressive policy ofassimilation somehow prevented the Romafrom internalizing the culture of mainstreamsociety. The minority thus found itself in akind of cultural vacuum, where there were novalues, standards, or models of behavior theycould consider their own or lean on.

By weakening the links between the indi−vidual and the traditional community, the

communists at the same time strengthenedthe individual’s dependence on the state, asa client towards his patron. The breakdownof the communist regime and the socialchange that accompanied it were thus moredisorienting to the Roma than to the major−ity population. From one day to the next, theRoma lost the social security they had ac−quired during communism, and their socialstatus declined steeply. At the moment, thesocial exclusion concept is very helpful indescribing the position of Roma living insegregated communities.

One of the most notable and visible conse−quences of the social exclusion of the Romais their absolute poverty. This poverty in seg−regated settlements naturally causes theRoma to focus on mere survival and secur−ing their primary needs (food, drink, cloth−ing, housing, and heat). This focus on sur−vival comes at the expense of living, as con−centration on the bare necessities makes itimpossible to improve one’s living condi−tions. Basic material goods are at the sametime a bridge, a prerequisite for achievingsocial security and securing secondary needs,such as self−identity, self−affirmation, educa−tion, culture, etc. (Radičová, 2001).

The Roma’s income is usually insufficient tosatisfy even their basic needs (periods of star−vation are no exception), because the long−term unemployed receive only 50% of thesubsistence minimum benefit – that is, halfof what the government calculates the aver−age person needs to afford the strict necessi−ties of existence. Considering the prevalenceof long−term unemployment in Roma com−munities, welfare benefits are often the onlyincome.

The amendment to the 1998 Law on SocialAssistance, in cutting the benefits paid to thelong term unemployed to 50% of the subsist−ence minimum, aimed to motivate people to


look for jobs and prevent abuse of welfarebenefits. However, Roma from segregatedsettlements are extremely disadvantaged, dueboth to the absence of job opportunitieswhere they live, and to their reputation forbeing unreliable, which makes it impossiblefor them to find a job, despite their interestin working.

On the other hand, the amendment failed toreverse the demotivating effect of welfarebenefits, because the difference between theminimum wage and the subsistence mini−mum is still not large enough to make peo−ple start looking for jobs and accept work atthe minimum wage. In families where theeducation level of the adults is low and thenumber of children is high, the inclination ofthe adults to stay home without work is quiterational, as their total income is the samewhatever they do (i.e. child benefits andother welfare add up to the same income asworking wages; see Poverty and Welfare...,2002). The social network has no mecha−nisms that might allow it to reduce welfarebenefits gradually after those receiving themfind a job, which might stimulate them toremain on the labor market. On the contrary,the existing system actually penalizes thosewho do find a job.

The welfare system and the lack of job op−portunities rob people of motivation to lookfor jobs, and create a trap of dependence andpoverty. This is accompanied by feelings ofdespair, degradation, and marginality, whichare exacerbated by life in an isolated and seg−regated community fenced off from its sur−roundings, as there is no way escape. Thesituation is especially critical among youngRoma who have no work habits, and whosedescent into the social network has a culturaland ethical dimension. In an environmentwith 80 to 100% unemployment, dependenceceases to be a visible stigma, but instead

becomes the norm or even a rational behaviorpattern – the only possible way of adaptingto the situation. Thus are the conditionsformed for the creation of a subculture ofunemployed Roma juveniles who perceivethis status as normal. If the current situationleads to a transfer of poverty from one gen−eration to the next, the Roma could findthemselves in a permanently disadvantagedposition.

Many experts have warned (e.g. Radičová,2001; Vašečka and Džambazovič, 2000; Ho−lecová, 2002) that the creation of a culture ofpoverty and the feeling of being at risk mayincrease mistrust towards the majority popu−lation, may boost aggression and crime, andmay cause the Roma to lose respect for mor−als, values, and formal authorities, all ofwhich may ultimately lead to lawlessnessand the total breakdown of communities. Ifthese developments do occur, they couldcontribute to the formation of a special“underclass” of people.

The term “underclass” may be understood asdesignating people who are permanently orlong−term dependent on the welfare state.They have no job earnings, and their onlyincome is welfare benefits and poor relief;their position in society is more that of cli−ents of the welfare state than of citizens. Inthe broader and less ideological meaning ofthe term, the underclass also includes peoplewho are permanently active on the second−ary or informal labor market. The underclassenvironment is perceived by the majoritypopulation as lawless and characterized bytotal resignation, lack of respect for authori−ties, little social control, reliance on benefits,and loss of the work ethic.

As for crime, in general it is more commonamong minorities (with few exceptions), andmay be up to several times higher than


among the majority population. This is notsome kind of deviation expressing their eth−nic and psychological characteristics, but asociological and socio−psychological de−pendency (Šišková, 2001).

According to statistics published by the Cen−tral Police Evidence Body of the BanskáBystrica police force (CPEB BB PF), Romahave a significantly greater per capita shareof criminal offences than the majority popu−lation (see Table 2). However, the data arenot entirely reliable, as it is not known onwhat basis the police determined that theculprit was Roma. We should note, however,that among the Roma, misdemeanors andless serious crimes are the most common. Inkeeping with their low position in society, themost common type of crime among theRoma is petty property crime.

Considering the many disadvantages theRoma face, in explaining Roma crime we canuse Merton’s concept of anomy (anomy is astate of lawlessness characterized by druguse, heightened crime, teenage pregnancies,unstable families, lack of faith in authorities,inherited poverty, and marginalization). Ac−cording to Merton (2000), anomy can growin a society if there is a contradiction betweengenerally recognized objectives and timetested methods used to achieve them. A typi−cal adaptation strategy is innovation, whichis basically a deviant behavior by which in−dividuals try to find other ways to achievegoals than well established means that areunavailable to them.

Anomy is one way to explain increasedRoma crime. Other possible causes includethe following:• a high unemployment rate that leads to

“social crime”;• the 40 years of communist rule, which al−

most destroyed the Roma culture androbbed people of their sense of ethics andrespect for the law;

• the fact that the public expects the Romato be criminals; it is a known fact that peo−ple tend to behave (in both the positive andnegative senses of word) in accordancewith the expectations of their surroundings– with their behavior, the Roma are onlyfulfilling the expectations of the majoritypopulation;

• ignorance of the law among the Roma;• the permanent tension or even hostility

between the majority population and theRoma (see Vašečka, 2001a; Říčan, 1998;Vašečka and Džambazovič, 2000).

Despite the fact that the level of crime, as oneof the indicators of anomy, is much higheramong the Roma, we cannot say that theRoma environment is anomic solely on thebasis of this one indicator. We can only makecertain assumptions about this phenomenon.People who are socially excluded have noreason to be loyal to the values espoused bythe majority society, which after all has ex−cluded them. Pathologic behavior may result,which in turn can result in total anomy. Thisphenomenon is especially apparent in Romahousing estates and urban ghettos, where inthe anonymous environment of the city, tra−

Table 2Share of total crimes committed by the Roma

6�� ,151� ,11*� ,11,� ,110� ,112� ,11-� ,11/� ,113� ,114� ,115� ,111� 0***�

��'�� !�'�� '��

Source: CPEB BB PF.


ditional standards of coexistence and socialcontrol cease to be valid.

CONCLUSION –STRATEGIES OF INCLUSION

Poverty and social exclusion are becominga Europe−wide problem, as can be seen in thefact that the struggle against poverty andsocial exclusion has lately formed the mainpart of EU program documents. Strategicgoals have gradually been laid down thataccept the key role of social policy. The roleof social policy is to alleviate economic andsocial inequalities, support social cohesion,and connect the economic and social spheres.The strategic aim of addressing poverty andsocial exclusion is intended to support theprocess of social inclusion through the areasof social protection, employment, healthcare, housing, and education. Social inclu−sion should be supported through the follow−ing:• making employment a right and a possibil−

ity for all;• ensuring an income and resources that are

adequate for a dignified life;• removing disadvantages in the field of

education;• protecting family solidarity and children’s

rights;• providing suitable housing for all;• guaranteeing equal access to quality serv−

ices (health care, law, welfare, culture,transport, etc.);

• improving the quality of the services pro−vided;

• reviving areas with accumulated disadvan−tages (Valná, 2000).

In the end, social inclusion strategies shouldhelp ensure employment and access togoods, rights, and services for all. Theyshould prevent exclusion from society, aidthe most vulnerable individuals, and mobi−

lize the cooperation of all important parts ofsociety. It is clear that social inclusion in−volves a complicated system of measures inthose areas of social and economic life thatcarry the greatest risk of poverty and socialexclusion.

The analysis of the social exclusion of theRoma in Slovakia raises several questions,one of the most important of which is howto prepare an effective strategy of social in−clusion for the poorest and most threatenedsegments of the Roma population.

There is no simple answer to this question.The issue of social exclusion and poverty hasso many dimensions that solving them re−quires a whole range of strategies and meas−ures. Furthermore, identifying possible solu−tions to the issue is a complex task requiringmuch time and the cooperation of many ac−tors, both Roma and non−Roma, in all sec−tors and on all of levels of society.

One of the most important players in elimi−nating the social exclusion of the Roma is thestate. Besides the moral imperative of hav−ing the state participate in solving the prob−lems of the poorest part of the population, nosolution can succeed without the power andfunds of the state. Nevertheless, the govern−ment has only recently begun addressing thisissue. Activities bringing positive and con−crete results were launched only recently, andmost were related to the Office of the SlovakGovernment Representative for Roma Com−munities (for details see the chapter TheRoma as a Topic of Debate for Political Par−ties in this book).

However, the problem that the Office is grap−pling with is very complicated, and we can−not expect visible results soon. History hasshown that forced assimilation, in ignoringthe special characteristics of Roma culture,stands no chance of success, no matter how


altruistic the motive. The true integration andinclusion of the Roma, along with a tangibleincrease in their standard of living, can onlybe achieved through gradual, non−violentchange that takes into account the desire ofthe Roma to retain their cultural identity.

The effect of the various strategies dependson the availability of profound knowledgeand precise data on the social exclusion of theRoma. It is thus vital that social and scien−tific research be supported, culminating in adatabase of Roma settlements in Slovakiathat provides detailed information on infra−structure, degree of integration or segrega−tion, the social and economic potential of set−tlements, etc.

The question remains whether these strate−gies should focus on the entire Roma popu−lation, or just its poorest segment; on thepoorer parts of the population, or the popu−lation as a whole. Goal−directed programscan be tailored to the specific needs of theRoma; however, they can also divide com−munities and cause resentment, as somegroups receive preferential treatment. Themore general programs are easier to manage,are more popular with politicians, and canhelp integrate individual communities. Onthe other hand, these programs usually do notreach the poorest and the most isolated Romasettlements (Slovak Republic…, 2001).

The answer to this dilemma should be a com−bined approach. Strategies of social inclusionfor the Roma should be put into effect on alllevels of society, and include universal, re−gional, local and individual efforts. The vari−ous forms of poverty in Roma settlementsrequire close cooperation and interventionsthat go beyond the framework of individualministries.

The state should adopt measures to improvethe living conditions of the Roma and in−

crease the standard of living of the entirepopulation. The positive effects would thenbe felt especially in the poorest segments.

After examining the level and type of pov−erty in Slovakia, while focusing on the Romapopulation, the analysts of the World Bankproposed the following solutions:• lowering unemployment and increasing

demand for work through economicgrowth and the reforms that support it;

• lowering non−wage costs – high incometaxes and non−wage labor costs discourageemployers from employing unskilledlaborers, as the cost of employing suchworkers is much higher than the cost ofemploying highly qualified personnel.

• reforming the system of welfare benefits,which would increase the motivation towork and lower the risk of becoming de−pendent on the state. A change in the or−ganizational structure of social depart−ments is also required, to create more roomand time for social field workers to do theirjobs (this would require additional educa−tion and a more complex knowledge ofcommunities, as well as the creation of asemi−professional network of field andcommunity social workers, and the crea−tion of community centers providing spe−cial social services);

• reforming the state welfare system toequalize chances in pre−school prepara−tion, school dining halls, school attend−ance, etc.;

• completing public administration reform(decentralizing power in public and socialservices together with decentralizing fi−nancial and material resources, simplifyingthe basic agenda for the citizen, etc.);

• reforming the school system (changing theform of education, introducing multicul−tural curricula, etc.);

• making more effective use of the resourcesof individual ministries, the National La−bour Office, and NGOs;


• reforming general and vocational educa−tion to ensure that workers are better pre−pared (Radičová, 2001; Slovak Republic...,2001; Poverty and Welfare..., 2002).

ENDNOTES

1. The communist regime prevented the spread ofpoverty in many ways. Mass subsidies wereallocated especially to those industries with asignificant share of unskilled workers, and tothose social groups that are traditionally themost susceptible to poverty. Industries such asmining, metallurgy, heavy manufacturing, en−gineering, and, after collectivization, also ag−riculture were the main target of subsidies tocompensate their relative disadvantages (Ma−reš, 1999). Subsidies contributed to the crea−tion and maintenance of over−employment andhigh wages. The risk of poverty among work−ers was further reduced by the social benefitsinfrastructure. The state directly improved thesituation of low−income families through mas−sive universal welfare benefits that were gen−erally bound to employment. These acts legiti−mized the communist state and served as in−struments of social control. Along with macr−oeconomic interventions, infrastructure subsi−dies, and interference with wages, the commu−nist state also prevented the rise of povertyindirectly by improving the situation of low−income families through free health care andeducation and massive price subsidies for ba−sic foodstuffs, housing, and energy.

2. The authors discuss the poverty of the Romain general, which they assume pertains to themajority of the Roma. We must bear in mind,however, that the Roma are a very heterogene−ous community. Besides differences betweensub−ethnic and language groups, when exam−ining the poverty of the Roma we must alsotake into account variations in place of abode,whether they live in towns or villages, and theirposition and rank in the structure of society andtheir own communities. The socio−economiclevel of individual Roma communities is un−doubtedly influenced by the number of positivecontacts they have with the non−Roma popu−lation, the state of the region in general, thenumber and concentration of Roma, the pro−

portion of Roma in relation to the majoritypopulation, and the degree and type of integra−tion or segregation (Mann, 1992).

3. Immigrants occupy an inferior position in re−lation to the state, especially illegal immi−grants, who from the legal point of view do notexist in the host country. The link is also weakbetween the labor market and those who aredisadvantaged on it in various ways: juveniles,senior citizens, handicapped people, peoplewith few qualifications, etc. Finally, the link tocivic society is weak for people who are iso−lated, individuals with behavioral disorders,etc. (Kotýnková, 2000).

4. The research that this study also was partlybased on was ordered by the World Bank andconducted by the SPACE foundation. It beganin December 2000 and ended in March 2001,and became part of the World Bank’s globaleconomic and sector analysis of Slovakia. Byperforming a qualitative analysis of Roma set−tlements, the project intended to fill in the gapsin the data available, and offer a clearer pictureof the living conditions and social protectionof the Roma in Slovakia, as well as of the ac−cess of the Roma to social services. Field re−search was performed in 3 districts and 27 set−tlements that differed according to their levelof integration and the concentration of theRoma. The results of this research were pub−lished in two final reports, one by Iveta Radi−čová (2001), and one by the World Bank un−der the title Poverty and Welfare of the Romain the Slovak Republic (2002).

5. In November 2001, research sponsored by theUnited Nations Development Program (UNDP)and performed by the Institute for Public Affairs(IVO) was carried out. The study looked at asample of 1,030 respondents, with the aim ofacquiring and analyzing information about thestandards of living (the size, composition andsources of income, household equipment), fam−ily role−models, life styles and health of theRoma population, the opinions of the Roma oneducation, politics and political participation, aswell as the overall situation in locations wherethe respondents lived. This was part of an inter−national comparative research effort, in which,besides Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary,Bulgaria, and Romania also took part.

6. The marginalization of some regions, mostlylocated in the south, north, and east of Slova−


kia, became even more striking after 1989. Itfound expression in lower development poten−tial, lower infrastructure quality, falling eco−nomic production, and poor use of the work−force available. These areas were characterizedby a difficult social situation caused by long−term unemployment, poverty, and increasingsocial breakdown, which ultimately led topathological social phenomena.

REFERENCES

1. Abrahamson, Peter: “Social Exclusion inEurope: Old Wine in New Bottles?” in Tr−banc, Martina (ed.): Social Exclusion andPoverty, Družboslovne razprave, No. 19 – 20,1995, p. 119 – 136.

2. Atkinson, Rob: “Občanství a boj proti sociálníexkluzi v kontextu reformy sociálního státu”[‘Citizenship and the Struggle Against SocialExclusion in the Context of Social State Re−form’] in Sociální exkluze a nové třídy [So−cial Exclusion and the New Classes], (Brno:Social Studies Faculty, Masaryk University,2000, p. 46 – 65).

3. Bauman, Zygmund: Úvahy o postmoderní do−bě [Reflections on the Post−Modern Period],(Prague: SLON, 1995).

4. Berghman, Jos: “Social Exclusion in Europe:Policy Context and Analytical Framework” inRoom, Graham (ed): Beyond the Threshold:The Measurement and Analysis of Social Ex−clusion, (Bristol: The Policy Press, 1995, p.10 – 28).

5. Dahrendorf, Ralph: Moderný sociálny konflikt[Modern Social Conflict], (Bratislava: Archa,1991).

6. Džambazovič, Roman: “Metamorfózy chudo−by” [‘Metamorphosis of Poverty’], Slovo, No.49, 2000, p. 16 – 17.

7. Falťan, Ľubomír, Gajdoš, Peter and Pašiak,Ján: Sociálna marginalita území Slovenska[Social Marginalization in Slovakia], (Brati−slava: SPACE, 1995).

8. Granovetter, Mark: “The Strength of WeakTies” American Sociological Review, No. 6,1973, p. 1360 – 1380.

9. Hanzelová, Eneke: “Aktuálne otázky posta−venia Rómov na trhu práce v SR” [‘CurrentIssues in the Position of the Roma on the Slo−

vak Labor Market’], Práca a sociálna politi−ka, No. 3, 2000, p. 2 – 6.

10. Holecová, Martina: Možnosti aplikácie teórieunderclass na slovenskú realitu [The Possi−bilities of Applying the Underclass Theory inSlovakia], Master’s thesis, (Bratislava:Comenius University Philosophy Faculty,2002).

11. Kotýnková, Magdaléna: “Rozsah a průběh so−ciálního vyloučení v české společnosti” [‘Ex−tent and Course of Social Exclusion in theCzech Republic’] in Sociální exkluze a novétřídy [Social Exclusion and the New Classes],(Brno: Social Studies Faculty, Masaryk Uni−versity, 2000, p. 115 – 125).

12. Mann, Arne B.: “Rómovia – minulosť a prí−tomnosť” [‘The Roma, Past and Present’], Di−lema, No. 12, 2000, p. 3 – 22.

13. Mareš, Petr: Sociologie nerovnosti a chudoby[The Sociology of Inequality and Poverty],(Prague: SLON, 1999).

14. Merton, Robert King: Studie ze sociologickéteorie [On Theoretical Sociology], (Prague:Sociologické nakladatelství, 2000).

15. Možný, Ivo and Mareš, Petr: Institucionaliza−ce chudoby v Čechách. Přehledová studie.[The Institutionalization of Poverty in theCzech Republic: A Survey], (Brno: MasarykUniversity, 1994).

16. Poverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic, (Bratislava: World Bank, SPACEFoundation, INEKO, Open Society Institute,2002).

17. Radičová, Iveta: Hic Sunt Romales, (Bratisla−va: Fulbright Commission, 2001).

18. Room, Graham et al.: New Poverty in theEuropean Community, (London: McMillan,1990).

19. Říčan, Pavel: S Romy žít budeme – jde o to jak[We Will Live With the Roma – The Questionis How], (Prague: Portál, 1998).

20. Slovak Republic – Living Standards, Employ−ment, and Labor Market Study: Report of theWorld Bank, (Bratislava: World Bank, SlovakForeign Policy Society, 2001).

21. Strobel, Pierre: “From Poverty to Exclusion:A Wage−Earning Society or a Society of Hu−man Justice?”, International Labour Review,No. 133, 1996, p. 173 – 189.

22. Šišková, Tatiana (ed.): Menšiny a migrantiv České republice [Minorities and Migrants inthe Czech Republic], (Prague: Portál, 2001).


23. Valná, Silvia: “Chudoba a exklúzia – programich riešenia” [‘Poverty and Exclusion –Howto Solve Them’], Práca a sociálna politika,No. 7 – 8, 2002, p. 9 – 10.

24. Vašečka, Michal and Džambazovič, Roman:“Socio−Economic Situation of the Roma inSlovakia as Potential Migrants and AsylumSeekers in EU Member States” in The Socialand Economic Situation of Potential AsylumSeekers from the Slovak Republic, (Bratislava:International Organization for Migration,2000).

25. Vašečka, Michal: “The Roma” in Kollár, Mi−roslav and Mesežnikov, Grigorij (eds.): Slo−vakia 2001: A Global Report on the State ofSociety, (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 2001a).

26. Vašečka, Michal: “Vzťah majoritnej populáciek Rómom” [‘The Relationship of the Major−ity Population to the Roma’] in Gyarfášová,Oľga, Krivý, Vladimír and Velšic, Marián:Krajina v pohybe [Country on the Move],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs,2001b).

345

Summary: This chapter analyzes the posi−tion of the Roma on the Slovak labor mar−ket, and evaluates their chances of finding ajob on the secondary and informal labormarkets. It also analyzes the activities of thegovernment and the National Labour Officeto reduce Roma unemployment.

Key words: marginalization, segregated set−tlements, labor market policy, welfare ben−efits, employment, unemployment, long−term unemployment, labor market, second−ary labor market, informal labor market, ac−tive labor market policy, National LabourOffice.

INTRODUCTION

A person’s position on the labor market, oc−cupational status and level of education arethe most important factors determining howthat person will be incorporated into society.The position of the Roma on the Slovak labormarket can be described as marginal or ex−cluded. As a result of their exclusion fromwork, the Roma suffer from poverty andoverall social exclusion, and are among thesocially and economically weakest socialclasses. This low socio−economic status ispassed on among the Roma from generationto generation.

The economic situation of the Roma familyworsened sharply after the changes in 1989,a process that was marked by growing unem−

MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁ, TIBOR LORAN, and IVANA ČERNÁKOVÁ

THE ROMA AND THE LABOR MARKET

ployment and increasing dependence onwelfare. The Roma have definitely not beenthe winners of “transformation”.

The Roma encounter various barriers whentrying to find a job:• the steadily falling level of education and

qualifications among the Roma seems tobe the main reason the Roma lose jobs andsources of income. It is also a legitimatereason for discharging Roma from workand for refusing them vacant positions ifany are free;

• the Roma have long had a reputation asunreliable workers who lack morals, dis−cipline and motivation. Although this repu−tation is partly based on the experience ofemployers, it is largely just a stereotype,and one that most Roma suffer from;

• the Roma still experience latent discrimi−nation from the majority population andemployers – as the “queue theory” sug−gests (see Fligstein and Fernandes, 1988),the Roma will always be at the back of theimaginary queue of people interested inemployment with a certain employer whofollows market principles;

• there is a high ratio of long term unem−ployed people among the Roma, which hasdevastated the human capital of the minor−ity and led to the loss of work habits;

• the low quality of housing, poor living con−ditions and health status of the Roma im−pairs their ability to work. Roma dwell−ings, besides being overcrowded, are oftenunhygienic and lack adequate sanitation

346 M a r t i n a J u r á s k o v á , Ti b o r L o r a n , a n d I v a n a Č e r n á k o v á

equipment. This obviously impairs thehealth of the people living in these dwell−ings.

Besides these factors, the marginalized po−sition of the Roma on the labor market is alsoinfluenced by several “macro” factors thatpertain to the country as a whole:• under the previous regime, the majority of

Roma worked in heavy industry, which hasgone through radical workforce reduc−tions;

• agricultural cooperatives, which also em−ployed many Roma, have disintegrated;

• demand for unskilled labor has decreased(in 1998, only 11% of all vacant jobs re−ported by employers to the National LabourOffice were positions that could be filled byunskilled workers) (Hanzelová, 2000);

• the Roma, like many Slovaks, face grow−ing competition from cheap workforcesabroad – research shows that employersprefer to hire foreigners from the formerSoviet Union when filling unskilled jobs.The reasons are obvious – low wage de−mands, higher qualifications, better disci−pline (Hanzelová, 2000);

• the economy has suffered a partial break−down in some regions of Slovakia;

• the social welfare system does not moti−vate people to work.

These handicaps are piling up for the Roma,whose position is also influenced by severalother factors contributing to their margin−alization. When people with low qualifica−tions and poor health, who face discrimina−tion from employers and long−term unem−ployment, live in marginalized regions where

even the majority population struggles tofind work, they cannot be expected to extractthemselves from this unfavorable situationalone.

POSITION OF THE ROMA ONTHE LABOR MARKET

After communism, under which everyonewas required to work, disintegrated in 1989,society faced a new phenomenon – unem−ployment – that most affected people whohad been marginalized under the regime. TheRoma, despite efforts by the communists toassimilate them, clearly ranked in this cat−egory (see the chapter Social Exclusion of theRoma in Slovakia in this book).

There are no exact statistics on Roma unem−ployment. All we have are unofficial statis−tics provided by the National Labour Office(NÚP) and the Ministry of Labour, SocialAffairs and Family (hereafter the LabourMinistry), which were produced by labor of−fices that wrote the letter “R”, for “Roma”,on the files of all Roma job applicants. Thisprocedure was not founded in any law anddisadvantaged the Roma on the labor mar−ket. Data collection was stopped in 1998,and the NÚP no longer keeps track of theethnicity of job applicants (protection of pri−vacy legislation forbids the collation ofmost data related to ethnicity). As a conse−quence of the decision of the first MikulášDzurinda government (1998 to 2002) to endthis illegal practice, data on Roma unem−ployment are now completely absent. Basedon the unofficial data from the earlier pe−

Table 1The share of Roma on overall registered unemployment from 1991 until 1999 (%)

6�� ,11,� ,110� ,112� ,11-� ,11/� ,113� ,114� ,115U� ,111�

)�� ;��? ��?��

Note: No data are available for 1998.Source: National Labour Office.

347T h e R o m a a n d t h e L a b o r M a r k e t

riod, however, it is clear that the number ofunemployed Roma in Slovakia has grownsteadily (see Table 1).

High Roma unemployment was also shownby data from research finished in November2001, which was sponsored by the UnitedNations Development Program and carriedout by the Institute for Public Affairs. Thegoal of the research was to examine the de−gree of human development among theRoma (see Graph 1). The results of the re−search, which besides Slovakia was also per−formed in the Czech Republic, Hungary,Bulgaria and Rumania, were published in thebook Avoiding the Dependency Trap (2002).

Neither majority population unemploymentnor Roma unemployment is evenly distrib−uted across the country. There are huge re−gional differences in unemployment in Slo−vakia, with the jobless rate the highest inmarginalized regions, which at the same timeare home to a higher proportion of Romathan more developed regions.

The difference between the level of unem−ployment and the number of registered un−employed, which is the greatest between the

Graph 1Socio−economic status of the Roma

�

��

��

��

��

��

!�� #!�

��!��

��!��#��!��!

� ��!&�'!

�!�� !�

��!�� #!�

��!��!�� !�

!�� #!��(��' ��


western and eastern parts of Slovakia, is in−fluenced by several factors:• geographic position with respect to the

centers of economic growth;• the level of unemployment in different

sectors of the national economy;• the educational structure of the local popu−

lation;• the ethnic structure of the local population;• regional business activity and its diversity;• the standard of infrastructure.

Graph 2Level of Roma unemployment in different parts of Slovakia

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��!��)�

*��+#

, -.��

/�!��0 �

"��1+

"��0�+2�3 �2�4!�

,��+2�" � ��

5 0��!

6�!)�

"��



LONG−TERM UNEMPLOYMENT

Roma unemployment differs from jobless−ness among other social groups in Slovakiaprimarily in its duration – it tends to be “long−term” unemployment, i.e. continuous anduninterrupted unemployment lasting longerthan a year. The ranks of the long−term un−employed contain a high proportion of Roma(see Graph 3); the average duration for whichRoma are registered as unemployed with thelabor office is roughly 2.5 years.

Due to the typical duration of Roma unem−ployment, few Roma receive employmentbenefits (the entitlement to benefits ends af−ter six months without a job). According tothe National Labour Office, from 1991 until1998, the proportion of unemployment ben−efit takers who were Roma slowly fell from6.99% to 1.74%. The Roma thus becamedependent on welfare benefits and child al−lowance instead as their only sources of in−come (see the chapter Social Exclusion of theRoma in Slovakia in this book).

Long−term unemployment, besides being aburdensome social and political problem, has

many other negative consequences. In gen−eral, the longer the people are jobless, thelower their chance of finding a job again. Ithas been found that people unemployed formore than 15 months had a three times lowerchance of finding a job than people who hadbeen unemployed only three months. Thereare several reasons for this. Long−term unem−ployment wreaks havoc with the work ethic,and the unemployed person loses motivationto look for a new job, which ultimately re−sults in his/her complete exclusion from thelabor market. It also devastates the humancapital of the unemployed person: Peoplewithout jobs lose their labor skills, the dailyroutine and schedule that work provides, aswell as the social networks related to em−ployment. They become socially isolated andexperience psychic deprivation and stigma−tization. (see Mareš, 1998; Zelmanová, 1992for details)

In some segregated, geographically and so−cially isolated Roma communities, especiallyin the marginalized regions of eastern Slova−kia, unemployment is as high as 100%.These are Slovakia’s “valleys of hunger”,territories with “visible isles of poverty” (So−

Graph 3Share of Roma on the overall number of unemployed according to duration of unemployment (%)

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

�� !�� !�� !��

7��!��!��!�!�

��!�� #!�

/�!�, ��

Source: Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family, 1999.


cio−economic sitiation of the Roma..., 2000).In such communities there is the threat oftotal social breakdown and the formation ofa culture of poverty as the only way to adaptto the situation. As a result, a rural and ur−ban “underclass” has formed, which like inother post communist countries has a clearlyethnic character (for more information seeHolecová, 2002).

Besides that, long−term unemployment anddependence on the welfare system are begin−ning to be reproduced in succeeding genera−tions. The number of families where both theparents and the children are long−term unem−ployed is growing, with the children havingno experience of a permanent job. Romayouth are thus becoming one of the most at−risk social categories, and are gravely threat−ened by long−term unemployment. ManyRoma young people never have a job, andbecome unemployed without a single workexperience on the labor market. This is theresult of several concurrent factors such asage, little or incomplete education or quali−fications, the absence of job experience andskills, ignorance of labor market require−ments, the fact they belong to a minority, andso on (Džambazovič, 2002). Long−term un−employment among young people can leadto a sub−culture of unemployment, in whichthere is almost no effort to find official jobs.At the end of 1999, young Roma representedalmost 25% (62,532) of all registered jobapplicants; more than 60% of them had beenlooking for a job for longer than three years.

The inhabitants of segregated settlementshave an even greater disadvantage, as theirchances of finding employment are generallylimited to seasonal and casual labor inneighboring villages or towns in the informalsector. Roma from geographically isolatedand segregated territories generally havefewer opportunities to find a job, as theircommunities are to a large extent fenced off

from the outside world. The inhabitants ofthese communities maintain limited socialcontacts outside their settlements that couldhelp them find a job (Poverty and Welfare...,2002, p. 31 – 34). Social networks and linksare very strong in segregated communities,but the fact they are locally homogenous lim−its the information available.

SECONDARY LABOR MARKET

Even when the Roma do participate on theofficial labor market, they still tend to beemployed only on the secondary labor mar−ket, which is characterized by unstable jobpositions, the constant threat of unemploy−ment, inferior working conditions, lowerwages, etc. Various barriers between the pri−mary and secondary labor markets to a largeextent prevent the interchange of workersbetween them. Such barriers include differ−ences in required qualifications and relateddifferences in the cultural and social capitalof workers, discrimination based on race orsocial stereotypes, and so on.

Their insufficient education causes the Romato be locked out of the primary labor market,which again influences their socio economicstatus and social potential. In contrast to thepast, the Roma have begun to accumulatemore on the secondary labor market, as thedemand for cheap labor has dropped, as hasemployment in those branches of industrythat previously employed most of the Romapopulation. Roma job applicants are alwaysat the end of the “queue” for available posi−tions (Socio−economic sitiation of theRoma..., 2000).

INFORMAL LABOR MARKET

Due to limited job opportunities on the for−mal labor market, many Roma try to find jobs


in the informal sector. Through informalemployment they try to improve their stand−ard of living. Informal labor market activi−ties comprise various odd jobs such as self−help, collecting scrap, or activities that bor−der on illegal. As for self−help, the Romawere never an agrarian culture, which is whythis type of activity has no tradition or popu−larity among them.

The activities of the Roma on the informallabor market are usually semi−legal (as partof the “gray” or “black” economy) or includeshort−term seasonal jobs in agriculture andconstruction. Various studies (World Bank/SPACE, 2000 – 2001; IVO/UNDP, 2001)have shown that many Roma, especiallythose from segregated locations, improvetheir situations by collecting scrap (mainlyiron) and forest products, and working on theside. The studies also mentioned several il−legal activities, such as stealing potatoes,wood, metal, and building materials, illegalwork, and poaching. Roma women also fre−quently help local non−Roma, and receivepayment in the form of clothes or food ratherthan money. Most activities on the informallabor market are performed by men (Hole−cová, 2002).

Subsistence activities outside the officiallabor market are usually more intense thanofficial market activities. Of course, it de−pends on what informal work the Roma areoffered. Given that taxes and social fundcontributions do not have to be paid on ille−gal labor, this form of work is more attrac−tive than formal employment, both for theemployees and the employers (see Radičová,2001, p. 131 – 133).

However, Roma from geographically iso−lated and segregated territories generallyhave fewer opportunities to find jobs in theinformal sector, as their communities are toa large extent fenced off from the outside

world. Besides, these people maintain fewcontacts outside their settlements that couldhelp them find a job (Poverty and Welfare...,2002, p. 31 – 34).Activities on the secondary labor market (ifthe considerable sums originating from il−legal activity are ignored) can hardly sub−stitute for a real job, and can only multiplythe advantages of being on the formal labormarket.

STRATEGIES FOR REDUCINGROMA UNEMPLOYMENT

STRATEGIES OFTHE SLOVAK GOVERNMENT

In 2000 the Slovak government presented astrategy for solving the problems of theRoma ethnic minority, which was preparedby the Office of the Slovak GovernmentRepresentative for Solving the Problems ofthe Roma Minority. It included a set of ob−jectives and measures to lower unemploy−ment. The basic aims were as follows:1. to increase the role of retraining as a tool

of active labor policy for the Roma, andfor branches of industry which lack work−ers;

2. to support community service work in dis−tricts with high Roma unemployment andno other opportunities of acquiring a job;

3. to support Roma entrepreneurs in estab−lishing and operating small and medium−sized companies (Stratégia vlády Sloven−skej republiky..., 1999).

The government said it intended to create“suitable conditions for the Roma to acquirethe same position on the labor market thatmembers of the majority population have”.It is important that legislative provisions arecreated for public contracts that allow theRoma to participate on works that they arecapable of handling, thus gradually lowering


their dependence on welfare benefits andforming a work “conscience” and social re−sponsibility. The government promised tofocus on increasing the level of education ofjob applicants (especially young ones) whocan be expected to pass the retrainingcourses. It also intended to stimulate greaterpersonal responsibility among the Roma foracquiring a job.

The government also promised to supportcommunity service work in districts withhigh Roma unemployment and no other op−portunities of acquiring a job. These includeespecially districts in the Banská Bystrica,Prešov, and Košice regions.

The administration vowed to pursue a re−gional policy focusing on the economic de−velopment of the regions, the further devel−opment of small and medium−sized enter−prises, and attracting more foreign investorsto create new job opportunities.

Finally, the government intended to considerthe possibility of helping entrepreneurs andemployers with economic stimuli so that itbecomes more profitable to work than to takewelfare benefits, which was not only to in−crease employment among the Roma, butwas also expected to improve the relation−ship between the Roma and the majoritypopulation.

A program of community service work wasthe only visible result of the strategy. Itproved successful, providing the long−termunemployed with the chance of reacquiringwork habits and being classified at state of−fices as “unemployed for objective reasons”(rather than “subjective reasons”, anotherway of saying they could find work if theyreally tried). The reclassification meant that100% of the monthly welfare benefit would

be paid to them, rather than only a fractionas under the “subjective” category.

At the time this chapter was written, a newgovernment strategy was being proposed,which unlike the previous strategy paid spe−cial attention to Roma women, who are dis−advantaged on the labor market by both theirethnicity and their sex. The new employmentstrategy set the following objectives:1. to expand active labor policy programs, and

increase the role of retraining for Roma andbranches of industry which lack workers;

2. to continue the community work project indistricts with high Roma unemploymentand no other opportunities of acquiring ajob. These include especially the districtsof Prešov, Košice, and Banská Bystrica;

3. to use existing credit and loan programsfor small and medium−sized entrepreneursprovided by the National Agency for theDevelopment of Small and Medium−SizedBusinesses, and at the same time ensurethat potential Roma entrepreneurs haveinformation about the programs;

4. to prepare temporary measures givingadvantages to entrepreneurs hiring long−term unemployed Roma (tax breaks, etc.);

5. to pay special attention to creating job op−portunities for Roma women (e.g. by re−training them, or providing entrepreneurialguidance connected with granting smallloans);

6. to increase the proportion of Roma work−ing at labor offices, in order to remove oneof the many barriers;

7. to establish regional Roma entrepreneurialagencies and offices for mediating em−ployment in cooperation with the Agencyfor the Support of Small and Medium−Sized Businesses;

8. to involve young Roma in social and vol−unteer activities (Základné tézy koncep−cie..., 2003).


ACTIVITIES OFTHE NATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE TOCOMBAT ROMA UNEMPLOYMENT

The National Labour Office (NÚP) is a mem−ber of a joint committee established by theLabour Ministry to define and address prob−lems in the social sphere, including the prob−lem of unemployment. The joint committeeprepared a document entitled Poverty and theSocial Position of the Roma in Slovakia, andpresented it at a ministry meeting. The docu−ment included seven measures, two of whichfall under the purview of the NÚP:

Measure No. 5: To create possibilities foremploying Roma assistants in the compul−sory school education of Roma childrenwithin the community work project. Thisshould be partly funded from the state budgetmoney allocated for community servicework.

Measure No. 7: In locations with high con−centrations of Roma, to employ Roma atDistrict Labour Offices and the social affairsdepartments of district state authorities.

Since 1993, the NÚP has held many retrain−ing and advisory courses for Roma clients.The most frequent retraining courses havebeen sewing, bricklaying, starting a business,folk crafts, and welding. Most of thesecourses have been held in the Prešov, Košice,Banská Bystrica, and Nitra regions. The levelof education of the graduates of these train−ing courses is usually very low. Most havesome elementary school education, whilemany have no education at all.

As the retraining course graduates still hadlittle chance of finding a job, since 2001 theNÚP has tried to combine this activity withseveral other steps including motivationaland advisory programs, and advice on find−ing employment. The NÚP chose this strat−egy – i.e. step 1: motivation, step 2: retrain−

ing, step 3: employment – on the basis of itsexperience to date, knowing that if thesesteps were not taken together, the client usu−ally could not find a job, or could not keep ajob for long.

The year 2001 saw the creation of 116 com−munity service job opportunities for Romateaching assistants. In creating these vacan−cies, the NÚP cooperated closely with Romacivic associations.

In 2001, several negotiations were held onRoma employment pilot projects in coopera−tion with the NÚP leadership, such as theArion project, which was used in Hungaryfrom 1998 to 2000. The course material hadbeen provided by Denmark and adapted toHungary’s needs. The textbook had beenprepared after extensive research by an el−ementary school teacher who taught Romachildren. It included a dictionary containingseveral hundred words from the fields of law,economy, and sociology, and was illustratedby a Roma artist. The aim of the course wasto teach participants to read and write, andto help them participate in the life of society.The NÚP’s main aim was to increase aware−ness of the project and find a concrete wayto cooperate and participate in some of itsactivities. As Slovakia’s employment lawdoes not allow the NÚP to implement theentire project, the Slovak Government Rep−resentative for Roma Communities wasasked to supervise it. The Arion project hadnot been put into action by the time this chap−ter was written (Bertová, 2001).

In 2000 the NÚP carried out a project calledActive Help for the Roma on the Labor Mar−ket. This was a group advisory course focus−ing on young unemployed Roma registeredwith labor offices who had at least completedelementary school. The aim of the projectwas to motivate the Roma to go back toschool and change their social standing.


About 30% of those who passed the trainingcourse found a job within the communityservice work program. The training coursecontinued in 2002.

Since October 2001, three district labor of−fices (Vranov nad Topľou, Trebišov, Galanta)have participated in a project called Improv−ing the Position of the Roma. The main in−tention of the project was to mobilize theRoma. Its target group was long−term unem−ployed Roma younger than 30 who had com−pleted secondary technical or secondary Alevel education. Only those who were inter−ested in participating were included in theproject. The problems of the Roma wereidentified in cooperation with the Associa−tion of Towns and Municipalities of eachgiven region, Roma civic associations andfoundations. The procedure was as follows:1. identification of the target group;2. identification of employers interested in

employing some people in the professionsselected;

3. in the first stage of preparation, within theframework of active labor policy tools(hereafter “ALP tools”), retraining wasperformed according to how many peoplewere interested in certain professions;

4. using ALP tools in accordance with sec−tion 89 (in which job vacancies are createdin agreement with employers) of the Em−ployment Law, the successful graduates ofthe first theoretical preparation phase wereallowed to start work for the employerbased on a subsidy to create the agreed jobposition;

5. in the second phase, the successful candi−dates from the first part who were inter−ested in self−employment based on a reg−istration or a license could take a coursecalled Entrepreneurial Basics, which wasa training course for beginning entrepre−neurs;

6. using ALP tools in accordance with section88 (self−employment job vacancy) of the

Employment Law, the successful graduatesof the second part of theoretical preparationwere allowed to start their self employmentactivity based on a subsidy to create theagreed self employment position,

In 2003, a new Phare program was scheduledto start called Improvement of the Roma’sLabor Market Position. The project wasintended to meet the political criteria of theNational Program for the Adoption of theAcquis Communautaire – its aim was to im−prove the access of the Roma to educationand the labor market. The project was to in−clude advisory activities, motivationalcourses, and retraining for services and smallbusinesses focusing on handicrafts andwoodworking. The project intended to im−prove the employability of young Roma (15to 26 years old) through counseling and edu−cation. It was to have two parts: a) an offerpart oriented towards the client, i.e. regis−tered unemployed Roma, and b) a demandpart oriented towards the employer. Withinthe offer part, motivational and advisory pro−grams were to be carried out, in whichroughly 3,750 Roma were expected to takepart. An equal number of Roma clients wereto take part in further education and retrain−ing. As for the demand part (employer ori−ented), around 500 long−term and approxi−mately 3,000 short−term job positions wereto be created for the Roma. The results of theproject were expected to be: training for ad−visors and district labor offices, developmentand verification of special training modulesfor the Roma, the running of advisory andmotivational programs, and the holding ofretraining courses aimed at acquiring handi−craft skills. The entire project was to befunded by Phare with a contribution from theNÚP (Informácia o využívaní..., 2001).

On April 23, 2002 the NÚP approved aproject called Roma Assistant proposed bythe Young Roma Association (YRA) from


Banská Bystrica. The YRA is a non−govern−mental organization associating young peo−ple, mostly secondary school and universitygraduates, including the non−Roma. It wasestablished in 1999. The main aim of theassociation is to react to the needs and inter−ests of Roma children and youth, and to par−ticipate in solving the problems of youngpeople while accentuating the education ofboth young people and adults. The mainobjective of the project is to prepare 237young unemployed Roma so that they can doeducational and organizational work withRoma pupils, their families and the entireRoma community from which the childrenand juveniles come. The YRA project wasjoined by the Wide Open School Foundationheadquartered in central Slovakia’s Žiar nadHronom. The Foundation was to provide thetraining part. The project consists of twoparts, which were to be implemented simul−taneously:a) The retraining was expected to take 6

months (150 hours). After passing it, thegraduate would be ready to work with el−ementary school pupils, in out−of−schooleducational establishments, and to com−municate with the parents and the nonpedagogical public. The graduate was alsoexpected to be able to participate in creat−ing a supportive study environment andorganizing out of school leisure activities.

b) Participants in such training courses wouldbe employed as teaching assistants withinthe community work program pursuant tothe Employment Law. During school holi−days, the assistants would work as socialfield workers directly in Roma communi−ties.

On June 18, 2002 the NÚP approved theOffice’s participation in a project called So−cial Field Workers, which is part of a far−ranging development program. The Officeprovided 2.9 million Sk ($75,000) to create18 community service jobs for a period of 12

months. A contribution towards wages wasset at 7,439 Sk ($180) a month each to cre−ate 40 community jobs for long−term unem−ployed for a period of five months pursuantto the Employment Law.

CONCLUSION

The Slovak Constitution stipulates the rightto work in Article 35, § 3: “Citizens have theright to work”. Article 12, § 1 of the Consti−tution stipulates the following: “All humanbeings are free and equal in dignity andrights. Their fundamental rights andfreedoms are inalienable”, while § 2 says:“Fundamental rights shall be guaranteed inthe Slovak Republic to every person regard−less of sex, race, color, language, faith, reli−gion, political affiliation or conviction, na−tional or social origin, nationality or ethnicorigin. No person shall be denied their legalrights, discriminated against or favored onany of these grounds”. That means that theright to work is guaranteed to every personregardless of sex, race, color, language, faith,religion, political affiliation or conviction,national or social origin, nationality or eth−nic origin, property, birth or any other status(Constitution, Article 12, § 2). At the sametime, Slovakia is bound by some resolutionsof international organizations that have longpointed to the high level of social exclusionamong the Slovak Roma, and have long ap−pealed to Slovakia to reduce it.

All national and European reports and stud−ies so far that have dealt with the status of theRoma in Slovak society and especially on theofficial labor market have stated that thismarket is closed for them, which means theycannot exercise their right to work and are defacto disadvantaged.

Although evaluations by the European Com−mission clearly state the need to increase


efforts to address the Roma issue, the unsat−isfactory situation in this area itself is not anobstacle to Slovakia’s EU accession, whichis why concern among politicians at theRoma issue is slowly falling. The unspokenassumption that the Roma issue should nolonger receive so much attention because EUexpansion has already been decided is veryshortsighted. The ability of all Slovak citi−zens to find a job and be successful on thelabor market is one of the basic prerequisitesof social and occupational integration.

REFERENCES

1. Avoiding the Dependency Trap. The Roma inCentral and Eastern Europe, (Bratislava:United Nations Development Program,2002).

2. Bertová, E.: A Roundup of Information Fromthe Arion Seminar. Working material. (Ko−márno: National Labour Office, 2001).

3. Chudoba a sociálna situácia Rómov v Sloven−skej republike [Poverty and the Social Situa−tion of the Roma in the Slovak Republic],Report from the meeting of a ministerialworkgroup, (Bratislava: Ministerstvo práce,sociálnych vecí a rodiny SR, March 25, 2002).

4. Džambazovič, Roman: “Metamorfózy chudo−by” [‘Metamorphoses of Poverty’], Slovo,No. 2, 2000, p. 16 – 17.

5. Fligstein, Neil and Fernandez, Roberto M.:“Worker Power, Firm Power, and the Struc−ture of Labor Markets”, Sociological Quar−terly, No. 1, 1988, p. 5 – 28.

6. Hanzelová, Eneke: “Aktuálne otázky posta−venia Rómov na trhu práce v SR” [‘CurrentIssues in the Position of the Roma on the Slo−vak Labor Market’], Práca a sociálna politi−ka, No. 3, 2000.

7. Holecová, Martina: Možnosti aplikácie teórieunderclass na slovenskú realitu [Possibilitiesof Applying the Underclass Theory in Slova−kia], Master’s thesis, (Bratislava: ComeniusUniversity Philosophical Faculty, 2002).

8. Informácia o využívaní prostriedkov poskyto−vaných z Európskej únie v pôsobnosti Národ−ného úradu práce [Information on the Use ofEU Funds by the National Labour Office],(Bratislava: National Labour Office Directo−rate, 2001).

9. Mareš, Petr: Nezaměstnanost jako sociálníproblém [Unemployment as a Social Issue],(Prague: SLON, 1998).

10. Poverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic, (Bratislava: World Bank, Founda−tion S.P.A.C.E., INEKO, The Open SocietyInstitute, 2002).


12. Socio−Economic Situation of the Roma in Slo−vakia as Potential Asylum Seekers in EUMember States, (Bratislava: InternationalOrganization for Migration, 2000).

13. Stratégia vlády Slovenskej republiky na rie−šenie problémov rómskej národnostnej men−šiny a súbor opatrení na jej realizáciu, I. eta−pa [Strategy of the Slovak Government toSolve the Problems of the Roma and the Setof Implementation Measures – 1st Stage],(Bratislava: Úrad vlýdy SR, 1999).

14. Ústavný zákon č. 490/1992 Zb [Constitutionallaw No. 460/1992 Coll.] Ústava Slovenskejrepubliky v znení neskorších predpisov [Con−stitution of the Slovak Republic, as amended].

15. Základné tézy koncepcie politiky vlády SR vintegrácii rómskych komunít [The Basis of theSlovak Government’s Policy in the Integra−tion of Roma Communities], (Bratislava:Úrad vlády SR, 2003).

16. Zelmanová, Lýdia: “Ako sa vyrovnávame snezamestnanosťou” [‘How We Cope WithUnemployment’], Sociální politika, No. 1,1992, p. 12 – 13.

356

357

Summary: In this chapter, the authors high−light the various living strategies of Romacommunities over the past 60 years. Theyanalyze individual, family, collective, andlocal living strategies, describing the influ−ence of poverty and social exclusion on thesechoices. The chapter describes how the liv−ing strategies of the Roma differ betweenregions by comparing a neglected region, anaverage region, and a developed region (asdefined by the level of unemployment andthe ratio of people dependent on state sup−port).

Key words: integration, segregation, socialexclusion, poverty, individual, family, collec−tive and local living strategies, regional dif−ferences, active and passive living strategies,self−help, migration, social deviations, usury,crime, apathy, dependence, behavior pat−terns, rural settlements, urban ghettos, unem−ployment, informal employment, illegalwork, solidarity, living strategy models, seg−regated settlement.

INTRODUCTION

The Roma community is not a homogenouswhole, but varies internally according to sev−eral factors – regional and local differences,urban vs. rural environment, social status andlevel of education, occupation, number ofchildren, etc. While these factors also serveto separate the majority population into vari−ous groups, others are typical only of Roma

STANISLAVA KOMPANÍKOVÁ and MICHAL ŠEBESTA

ROMA LIVING STRATEGIES

communities – the degree of segregation andsocial exclusion of Roma settlements, theconcentration of Roma in a certain location,the ratio of Roma to non−Roma, the level ofassimilation into mainstream society, alle−giance to ethnic sub−groups of Roma (Vla−chika Roma or Rumungers), and divisionsinto Hungarian− or Slovak−speaking Roma.These basic characteristics may all influencethe living strategies pursued in a given Romacommunity.

In concrete terms, people who were assimi−lated into mainstream society under the to−talitarian communist regime, and who nowdo not consider themselves Roma, maychoose one type of living strategy, whilethose who live in isolated settlements or ur−ban ghettos may choose another. Differencesare also found among socially integratedRoma who live in villages and those who livein cities. The complicated internal structureof Roma communities thus requires an inte−grated approach to solving their problems.From the viewpoint of the economic andsocial position of the Roma, the level of de−velopment of various regions plays an impor−tant role. Only measures based on a thoroughknowledge of the needs and living conditionsof actual individuals in specific communitieswill be effective. If we want these measuresto be successful, they must also be acceptedby all Roma and non−Roma players, whilethe Roma must be convinced that the solu−tions offered are meaningful and effective(Radičová, 2001).

358 S t a n i s l a v a K o m p a n í k o v á a n d M i c h a l Š e b e s t a

TYPES OF LIVING STRATEGIES

People’s choice of living strategy depends onthe situation in which they and their familieslive, and on their feelings about this situation.Survival strategies, for starters, are involun−tarily “chosen” by people living in absolutepoverty. Such strategies, which may be un−sustainable and short−term (in some situa−tions only momentary), are typical of remoteregions and the segregated rural Roma set−tlements or urban Roma ghettos that exist inthese regions. On the other hand, when anindividual or a family moves up on the so−cial ladder, their objectives and strategies forachieving them focus on maintaining thesocial and economic position that has beenachieved, using mostly legal means. Thistype of living strategy is also short−term. Thelast stage is one of emotional satisfaction(measured not by income but by a person’sfeelings, which depend on whom he compareshis situation with). However, the basic goal isalways to improve one’s social and economicstatus and quality of life using mostly long−term strategies and legal means. An individu−al’s family, whether immediate or extended,and his or her ability to help plays an impor−tant role in all of these situations.

As stated earlier, the degree of integration orsegregation of Roma communities plays amajor role in people’s choice of living strat−egies. Many Roma live in communitiesmixed together with non−Roma. These in−clude people born from mixed marriages, theRoma “middle class” (formed mostly duringthe communist regime), the rich and nearlyrich, and the Roma intelligentsia. TheseRoma usually choose their living strategiesindividually, regardless of pressure from so−ciety (Imrich Vašečka, 2000) On the otherhand, Roma who live in separated and seg−regated communities have virtually no con−trol over their economic fate, meaning thattheir economic status is the lowest in Slova−

kia (Bačová, 1990). Having little control overone’s fate naturally influences one’s choiceof living strategies.

INDIVIDUAL LIVING STRATEGIES

The main factor influencing a person’schoice of a living strategy is his or her socialand economic status. The higher the person’sstatus, the more likely it is that he or she willchoose an individual living strategy. Curi−ously, the reverse is also true, with people inpoverty or of low social status often choos−ing deviant forms of behavior due to theirlimited choices. Among the Roma, family,collective, and local living strategies clearlydominate.

FAMILY LIVING STRATEGIES

The basic problem−solving strategy used byboth the Roma and the majority populationis to cooperate with and seek help from theimmediate and extended family. Differencesexist, however, in how this family solidarityis used, and how it is incorporated in specificfamily strategies, i.e. what kind of help thefamily and relatives provide, and whetherthey are capable of helping at all (Filadelfio−vá and Guráň, 1998). In separated and seg−regated Roma settlements, we see a collec−tive disenfranchisement and social exclusionwith no potential for mutual aid. Family−ori−ented living strategies are ineffective andeven impossible to use in these environ−ments. The more homogenous the settle−ment, furthermore, the less likely it is thatsupportive family networks will be effective.Such living strategies are indeed completelyabsent in segregated Romany settlements(Radičová, 2001).

During the social and economic troubles thatSlovak villages experienced after the 1989

359R o m a L i v i n g S t r a t e g i e s

revolution, we saw the revival of old, time−tested family strategies in these rural environ−ments: self−help and emigration to seek work(Filadelfiová and Guráň, 1998). Research byR. Bednárik (1996) showed that making upfor lost income through self−help strategiessuch as food growing and conservation,clothes making and repairs of different kindshad become a traditional feature of the ma−jority of Slovak households.

In segregated Roma communities, however,self−help strategies were never used in thepast (there being nothing to build upon) andare not used today. Perhaps the only form ofself−help in these communities is the theft ofself−help goods belonging to the mainstreampopulation.

COLLECTIVE ANDLOCAL LIVING STRATEGIES

Collective living strategies among the Romavary from region to region across Slovakia,with Roma communities in each area react−ing differently to their current situation. Froma local viewpoint, however, these collectivereactions to living conditions may appearidentical and based on mutual imitation.

This type of imitative living strategy is typi−cal of segregated rural settlements with fewinhabitants. As long as at least one modelliving strategy exists, it can be imitated by theother members of the community. The crea−tors of the model must be part of the commu−nity and must not be set apart from it, or theywill cease to be worthy of imitating. In or−der to be followed, model strategies mustalso be visibly successful; if an individual’squality of life visibly increases thanks to thechosen strategy, others will emulate it. Thistendency to imitate one or more modelswithin a community often shows up in theappearance of individual dwellings, in the

standard of living, the approach to the non−Roma environment, etc. In some communi−ties, certain “defensive” myths arise (forexample, skinheads in a neighboring town)which are usually based on real experiences.Eventually, the entire community adoptsthese myths and modifies its behavior ac−cordingly (e.g. by not sending their childrento school in the neighboring town).

As found by Imrich Vašečka (2000), theRoma prefer activities that raise the incomeof the family and help increase the local pres−tige of the Roma community. In rural settle−ments with less than 500 inhabitants, theRoma actively differentiate between “our”and “strange” Roma, consider how non−Roma perceive certain collective activities,and take care to be seen in a positive light.These collective strategies are contingent onthe existence of local models, whether Romaor non−Roma. Local Roma communities areusually segmented on the basis of ritual, kin−ship, and sub−ethnicity (Rumungers vs. Vla−chika Roma), as well as on the basis of eco−nomic differences that can be attributedmainly to usury. The concept of a generallyrespected traditional community authority(such as the vajda) is no longer operationalin most Roma settlements (Hirt and Jakou−bek, 2000)

FORMS OF LIVING STRATEGIES

EDUCATION

Feeling positive about education and beingaware of the need for education are longterm living strategies. Among Roma com−munities, such awareness depends on thedegree of integration into mainstream soci−ety – the greater the segregation, the lowerthe awareness of the need for education.Given their position on the outskirts of so−ciety, segregated urban and rural Roma


communities do not feel the need for edu−cation for two basic reasons: first, to survivein an environment where crafts were passedfrom father to son over the centuries, theRoma did not have to look for other kindsof education than that which existed; sec−ond, the constant harassment of the Romaby their enemies led to a way of life focusedon the present – the future was forever un−known (Kaplan, 1999).

Most of the Roma, thanks to their position onthe labor market, only come into contact withthat part of the mainstream population thatsets little store by education; besides, as un−skilled labor can be well remunerated, thereis sometimes no financial motive to sendchildren to universities. Of course, this isonly true of people in professions requiringfew qualifications, and even here exceptionsexist. In many families choice of professionis influenced mainly by practical concerns(“to learn something useful”), and by howthe skills acquired can be used in the house−hold or the shadow economy.

Education is also often a matter of finances.Many poor Roma families live in permanentneed, and their priority is to survive, hencethe focus on the present. Education, on theother hand, is a long term investment (Len−czová, 1999). Another important factor isthat higher education (such as a vocationalschool) does not guarantee a job. Also, sup−port for the education of juveniles usuallyfocuses on schools whose graduates havelittle chance of finding a job. This type ofeducation can bring the younger Roma gen−eration into mainstream society, providedthat they do not return to their original socialenvironment. In sum, education is a vitalprecondition for the social and cultural de−velopment of the Roma population, and is themost important variable influencing theirfuture social status and standard of living(Radičová, 2001).

UNEMPLOYMENT AND ITSINFLUENCE ON LIVING STRATEGIES

In many Roma settlements, people have be−come passive welfare benefit takers. In thesesettlements, a new generation of children isgrowing up who never saw their parents goto work or try to find a job. These childrenhave a distorted idea of the world of labor,of various occupations, of the labor marketand labor in general. The adults denounce thesituation verbally, but in reality accept thesocial order as something completely beyondtheir control – “this is our fate, and there isnothing we can do about it”. Their resigna−tion is apparent, as the Roma do not even tryto get a job or aspire to a higher level of con−sumption. Their time becomes elastic andfilled with inactivity. The welfare system isseen as something natural, as is dependencyon it.

As Mareš noted, unemployment is thesource of both well thought−out and intui−tive living strategies among unemployedpeople and those threatened by unemploy−ment. These strategies are influenced by theculture and the length of unemployment,with the longer the period without a job, thegreater the problems for the unemployedperson, until he finally begins to perceivethe situation as normal. This acceptanceusually changes the living strategy of theunemployed, as through apathy the personceases to embrace even those rare job op−portunities they are offered from time totime (Mareš, 1994). Some Roma have veryfew qualifications and a reputation forunreliability, which disqualifies them fromthe labor market. This in turn pushes theRoma towards the secondary labor marketand to the shadow and black market eco−nomy (where these handicaps play no role),where they are exposed to further risk ofunemployment and welfare dependency.This trend is intensified by the size of fami−


lies, clan ties, solidarity within the extendedfamily, and the poor situation of the entireethnic group (Mareš, 1999).

MIGRATION

One of the active strategies used by Romafamilies to solve their problems is departure.This can take two forms – emigration abroad,usually to Western Europe, or moving withinthe country, usually from town to country−side. The aim of migrating to Western Euro−pean countries is to improve social status,while the aim of moving from an urban to arural environment is reducing the cost of liv−ing and preventing a decline into total pov−erty. In some cases departure is involuntary,such as when a family is forced to move fornot paying rent.

Migration to WesternEuropean Countries

Migration to EU countries is a form of col−lective defensive strategy. According to re−search by the International Organization forMigration (IOM), during the 1990s almostall middle class Roma lost their jobs andtoday live on welfare benefits. A sharp de−cline in the standard of living they achievedand the real threat of lower welfare benefitshas pushed middle class Roma in the direc−tion of the lower classes. However, these arepeople who were able to help themselvesduring communism, and are also able to doso now. They seek and test different defen−sive strategies, one of which is migration.Thanks to their social intelligence andskills, and especially to help and informa−tion from the entire community, they knowhow to get their entire families to Finland,Belgium, Great Britain, or the Netherlands.They also know they stand a better chanceof retaining their previous level of income

and acquiring opportunities for their chil−dren there – whether getting a job or pros−pering from a generous welfare system, thelatter being the more frequent (Imrich Va−šečka, 2000).

Research of two municipalities from theSpiš region in eastern Slovakia has shownthat Roma from segregated settlements arenot potential emigrants. In the first case,these people are not interested in leaving therelative safety of their homes, while on theother hand they do not have the social con−fidence to leave a home environment that istransparent and comprehensible and shel−ters them from the hostile world of the non−Roma. Those who do leave are Roma whoseway of life most resembles that of the Slo−vak majority, but who are still not acceptedby that majority. Their departure, if un−checked, could have very negative conse−quences, as the country would loose thosepeople who demonstrate to both the major−ity and their own community that it is pos−sible to integrate successfully (Kepková andVíšek, 1999).

Return to the Countryside

When people return to the countryside, themain reason is usually to reduce the cost ofliving. However, such moves frequentlycause problems for both the newcomers andthe local Roma community they choose. Thenew arrivals often have problems acquiringpermanent residence in the village, as themajority population treats them as strangersand municipal officials try to get rid of them.The reason for the hostility is not just becausethey increase the number of Roma in the area– usually resented by the majority – and buildshanties in the village, but also because theyfrequently become petty criminals, as theydon’t feel any close ties to the local non−Roma.


LIVING STRATEGIES OF THE POOR

Membership in an ethnic group, and race ingeneral, are important features in the struc−ture of poverty and inequality in the Euro−pean population. Poverty is more frequentamong members of ethnic groups thanamong the majority population. It is morethan a matter of uncertainty of employment,low income, or unemployment, but includesa whole range of other disadvantages: feweropportunities and a lower quality of life, in−equality of access to health care, educationand so on. It is also often connected with dis−crimination against ethnic group members onthe labor market, in housing, education, etc.because of xenophobia, ethnic intolerance orracism from the mainstream population. Itsroots may lie in demographic (large families)differences or the cultural behavior of ethnicminority members (Mareš, 1999).

The social status of Roma living in segre−gated settlements is the lowest of all Romain Slovakia. Their absolute poverty and so−cial and geographic isolation significantlyinfluence their living strategies. The level ofdevelopment of the region they live in is yetanother important factor – the situation ofsegregated Roma in remote regions is farworse than that of segregated Roma in re−gions with better macroeconomic, social andcultural characteristics. Segregated Romasettlements also seek to improve their socialstatus in ways that are incompatible with themajority: only here do people steal electric−ity, not pay their utilities bills, and commitfrequent petty thefts. In places where theRoma live integrated with mainstream soci−ety, on the other hand, they attempt to over−come their poverty in ways typical of themajority population – planning their outlays,trying not to run into debt, reducing theirspending not related to food, and tryingharder to find a job (even though it may onlybe under−the−table work or begging abroad).

Many Roma agree that more children equalsmore money for the family, and while theymay not admit this to be the case with theirown families, they say it of the communitiesthey know so well. This behavior is naturallypassed on to the children, with new familiesbeing started by men who are not yet adultand, given the high unemployment rate inRoma settlements, are almost never eco−nomically independent. Nor can they rely onhelp from their parents, who are usually stillhaving other babies (Bačová, 1990).

One of the traditional strategies in this situ−ation is to limit consumption. In many Romasettlements people can only afford one warmmeal a day, with breakfast and dinner fre−quently being skipped. Cigarettes are re−placed by cheap snuff, and alcohol by “ap−ple wine”. People unwilling or unable to re−duce their needs sometimes resort to semi−legal or illegal practices.

CRIME

Crime is the most pathological of all indi−vidual living strategies, one that according toLubecová (1996) is caused either by wealth(usually in richer regions with entrepre−neurial potential) or by poverty severeenough to force people to seek illegal sur−vival alternatives. In the case of the Roma,the prevailing motive is poverty.

Analyzing crime statistics according to eth−nic or national groups is often seen as incor−rect; viewing crime through the prism of eth−nicity is very popular among racists andamong politicians eager to score “points” forsimplistic solutions to social problems.Members of ethnic groups in turn claim theyare being perceived and judged en masse bythe majority. It also contravenes civic rightsto note that the perpetrator of a crime is aRoma, especially if the person does not wish


to be so labeled (Říčan, 1998). As Večerka(1999) wrote, the theory of crime holds thatcertain behavior patterns are associated withspecific living conditions and experiences onthe one hand, and with socialization on theother. Physical and spiritual poverty, insuf−ficient education, antisocial models, valuesand standards, an absence of positive patterns,feelings of homelessness and inability to in−fluence one’s fate, alcohol and drug addiction,broken families – these characteristics arefound in the backgrounds of a majority ofdelinquents. The misfortune of the Roma isthat they usually live in conditions that en−courage antisocial behavior; small wonderthat they frequently imitate such behavior.

Among people living in poverty (the norm inthe majority of segregated or separated ruralsettlements and urban ghettoes), the prevail−ing crime is property crime. As noted by Šú−ryová (2001), the Roma have long been themost frequent perpetrators of property crime.In 2000, Roma perpetrators committed al−most 30% of solved property crimes, themost frequent being burglary, and the mostfrequent targets shops, recreational facilities,restaurants, kiosks and flats. An even morepernicious form of crime among the Roma,however, is usury.

USURY

Usury is the point where the living strategiesof two different types of people collide. Thoseunable to plan their spending, and who thusfell into poverty at the beginning of the 1990s,increasingly needed to borrow money fromthose who had funds and were better able toplan their finances. This more or less innocentrelationship later turned into an illegal way ofacquiring considerable amounts of money.1

Forms of extorting money are often drastic,with the usurer being backed up by his en−

tire family clan. Usury is often the only wayof acquiring money for Roma who want toimprove their standard of living in settle−ments with almost 100% unemployment.Despite their questionable morals, it shouldbe remembered that usurers usually feel re−sponsible for their own futures, and their il−legal activity ensures good living conditionsfor their children, who often rank among thebest in school. On the other side of the coin,the usurers are often twisted by power andarrogance, with their children showing thesame behavior.

Within the Roma community there are sev−eral ways to acquire power: to use one’s or−ganizational abilities, money or ability toenforce one’s will, which sometimes de−pends on the number of men in the family,sometimes on their position in local govern−ment bodies or their ability to influence thedecisions of such bodies. Such power hasnothing to do with the traditional community,but takes advantage of community relation−ships to manipulate and exploit others (Im−rich Vašečka, 2000). Usurers are frequentlythe main obstacle to attempts to change thestatus quo, as they are the only ones satisfiedwith the present situation.

THE SETTLEMENT AS SAFE HAVEN

Roma settlements, especially rural ones, pro−tect the Roma from the outside world andhelp them in times of need. The settlementdoes not confer any status on individualRoma, however, and by leaving it, a Romaloses not only the collective status of thesettlement, but also his own position withinit. The usurer, for example, is a baron insidethe settlement, and a nobody outside it. Sowhy should they leave the settlements? Notonly do Roma not tend to leave these envi−ronments, but on the contrary, some who leftduring communism are returning whenever


they feel their luck has run out elsewhere(Imrich Vašečka, 2000). Internal solidarity insettlements is strengthened by their negativerelationship with mainstream society. Inhab−itants’ awareness of their own identity isstrengthened and creates a basis for resistance,while resistance in turn shapes identity. Op−position to the majority (in some villages ac−tually the minority, but nevertheless still so−cially dominant) population is strengthenedby the uniqueness and unity of the Roma.2

EXAMPLES OFLIVING STRATEGIES INTHREE SLOVAK REGIONS3

To illustrate the different living strategiesused by the Roma we have chosen threetypes of regions: a neglected region (with thehighest unemployment and the greatest pro−portion of long term unemployed or peopledependent on welfare handouts), an averageregion (with average unemployment andaverage dependence on social benefits) anda developed region (with relatively low un−employment and social dependence). In allof these regions one finds segregated andseparated – mainly rural – settlements, aswell as Roma living together with the major−ity population, and Roma living concentratedin a certain location within a village. Of thethree types of region, developed regions havethe fewest Roma.

In all three types of region we find settlementswith socially differentiated Roma populations,from the highest class to the lowest. However,there is no social solidarity between them,only solidarity within each family.

The Neglected Region

What is common of all types of Roma settle−ments in this region is that the Roma expect

to receive many services free, and are notwilling to pay even a symbolic charge. Thispertains especially to Roma living in settle−ments, but the behavior pattern can be seenin all areas the Roma inhabit. In some casesthe Roma’s strategy is unclear –for example,they complain that their children cannot af−ford to study at secondary school, eventhough, as people taking welfare benefits,their children are entitled to study for free,including free room and board in schooldormitories (the only thing they have to payis transport, and even that is subsidized bythe state). Although the majority populationexpects help from the state and free or sub−sidized services, for most Roma this aid hasbecome a basic and predominant behaviorpattern.

The Average Region

Here, the Roma’s living strategies includeelements of an active approach to life: tak−ing seasonal work, working abroad (mainlyin the Czech Republic), doing under−the−ta−ble work for non−Roma, entrepreneurship,participating in community work, anticipat−ing help from the government (more moneyin the form of benefits), considering mov−ing to live among the non−Roma, urgingmayors to improve the situation in givensettlements, etc. The prevailing opinion inintegrated settlements is that it is necessaryto have a job and to give children a solideducation.

The Developed Region

Active strategies with an emphasis on edu−cation and acceptance of any work availableare the basic characteristics of this region.These active strategies, however, are notpeculiar to Roma inhabiting suburban re−gions. There are also many negative features


of the Roma’s behavior (aggression, theft,destroying housing, refusing to cooperateand communicate) that are typical of life ina ghetto.

Differences between generations are visiblein integrated communities: the younger gen−eration of integrated Roma is changing itsreproductive behavior, planning and consid−ering the number of children to have. Theintegrated communities also clearly accentu−ate education – everyone must at least havea vocational school certificate.

In segregated settlements, children and juve−niles imitate the behavior of their parents,become quickly dependent on the welfaresystem, and find that education is basicallyunattainable for them. This is a typical caseof reproduced absolute poverty. However,this social discrimination mainly reflects thedecisions of the parents, who consider edu−cation a waste of money, and believe thattheir children will never find a job when somany of the majority population cannot.

RELATIONSHIP TO LAND –SELF−HELP AS A LIVING STRATEGY

Ownership of land seems to be an importantdifferentiation feature, although for a major−ity of Roma farming is not a typical activity,and is practiced only if it is a tradition in thefamily.

The Neglected Region

Roma in some integrated and segregated ar−eas in this type of region may own smallacreages of farm land, although that does notnecessarily mean that they farm it. As forkeeping animals, Roma from segregated lo−cations do not practice animal husbandry.Roma from integrated and separated commu−

nities also do not consider farm animals asource of food.

The Average Region

Growing crops and keeping animals is anexceptional activity in this region. MostRoma do not grow anything and have neverasked that land be allotted to them. Thosewho do farm do so only because it is a tra−dition in their family. When asked why theydo not farm or ask for land, answers usuallyinclude: the soil is no good (although non−Roma farm on the same land); breeding ani−mals is not profitable and involves expensesfor fodder and agricultural machinery; it isnot our land; we have no land near thehouse; “that’s gadžo (a derogatory term forwhite people) work”. In some segregatedsettlements the reasons are more objective,and are related to the layout of the settle−ment (between a forest and a stream, wherethere is only room enough for dwellings) orthe position of it (on a steep hillside). Own−ership of land by Roma in segregated set−tlements remains the exception. In otherRoma−inhabited areas the situation is some−what different, with more than a half of allhouseholds owning land, usually a smallplot near the house. Only in integrated mu−nicipalities does almost every Roma familyhave some land.

The Developed Region

Farming is not a common activity among theRoma here either. Even in municipalitieswhere land is owned by almost every secondfamily, only half grow crops. Raising animalsin this region is more popular with the Roma;in segregated settlements, where almost no−body owns land, several families may keeppigs and poultry. It seems likely that certaingroups of Roma have acquired the know−


how to grow crops, while others have fo−cused on keeping animals.

SPECIFIC STRATEGIES OFTHE UNEMPLOYED

In the past, agricultural cooperatives, localfactories, smelting plants, mines, local con−struction companies and municipal or militaryforestry companies employed most of theRoma. Today, most young Roma have neverhad a job. In neglected regions, the living strat−egy of women after they finish elementaryschool is to get pregnant as soon as possible.Those with a job are usually unskilled laborers,skilled builders, cleaners or entrepreneurs.Those with jobs also tend to work near theirhomes; the Roma are unwilling to accept workoutside their municipality or settlement, reason−ing that after the cost of transport is subtractedfrom their earnings, their net income is the sameas they make from welfare benefits. Travel ex−penses are generally accepted only for seasonaljobs, casual building labor and similar work.Roma are extremely unwilling to travel towork in other districts with a lower unemploy−ment rate, much as the majority population,which is ready to travel for work on a daily orweekly basis, is not prepared to move to get ajob. The exception is employment in theCzech Republic, where many Roma workedduring communism. The number of Romaworking there today, however, is negligible.

The Roma make little effort to find a job onthe official labor market. Most say they arelooking for jobs through the National LabourOffice, but this is likely a formally acceptedstrategy, one that is ineffective in reality.

INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT

Given that most Roma are unemployed anddependent on welfare benefits, many try to

improve their income through informal em−ployment. The Roma usually do not peddleconsumer items, nor do they sell agriculturalproducts (when they sell produce, it is usu−ally forest products). It is more common forthe Roma to have small workshops wherethey manufacture items used in construction.However, the most frequent informal activ−ity is playing music. Many Roma, especiallythose from segregated areas, try to improvetheir situation by collecting scrap iron andpaper.

As for unofficial activities, collection of for−est products, side work and seasonal jobs arethe most common. The Roma also practiceseveral illegal activities, such as stealingpotatoes, wood, metal, and building materi−als, poaching, smuggling horses, and non−taxed work in construction companies and inthe forests. In most cases, the illegal work isdone by the men.

DEPENDENCE ONWELFARE BENEFITS

Poverty is a way of life passed on from gen−eration to generation. The children adopt itsvalue system, its attitudes and low hopesthrough the process of socialization, whichthen handicaps them in making the best oftheir own chances. A typical welfare benefittaker lives in a family where there is littlechance that positive attitudes will be passedon to the children. This type of family liveson benefits, and the children will as well(Mareš, 1999). The number of families re−ceiving welfare benefits increases as the levelof separation from mainstream society in−creases. Assistance in integrated settlementsis provided mainly by the extended familyand usurers.

Long−term unemployed Roma, especially insegregated settlements, are heavily depend−


ent on welfare benefits, and are part of aculture of dependence. The benefits they re−ceive represent their key income, allowingthem to live at a certain minimum level, eventhough most criticize the amount of the ben−efits. Even Roma with a satisfactory stand−ard of living regard welfare benefits as cru−cial to maintaining at least a minimum stand−ard of living.

The degree of dependence on welfare ben−efits is strikingly high – many Roma’s livesas well as the pace of their lives are control−led by benefits. The Roma are unable to savemoney, plan, think ahead, and are focused onthe present. Some realize this, and wouldwelcome it if their benefits were paid everytwo weeks, so they don’t spend everythingat once. However, few Roma actually sup−port this idea.

In integrated environments, unemploymentis usually not accompanied by the sameamount of welfare benefits as in segregatedsettlements. If families in integrated environ−ments turn for help, they usually turn to theirnon−Roma neighbors, and the help usuallycomes in the form of a loan. This help fromnon−Roma neighbors is a sign of mutual trustbetween these people, and is a sign that theseRoma families are generally accepted as apart of the municipality.

CONCRETE SOCIAL POLICIES

As the foregoing suggests, the Roma in Slo−vakia form a heterogeneous group, meaningwe cannot generalize about their situation orabout solutions that could help them. Thereis no universal solution for any of their prob−lems. The Roma’s different situations andwishes require us to create a mosaic of de−velopment micro−solutions in a frameworkof cooperation and effectiveness. Short−termactivities never bring long−term results or

significant progress. With a certain degree ofsimplification, we cab say that three mainplayers significantly influence the lives of theRoma – the state, lower elected governments,and NGOs. We believe that efficient solu−tions require that the activities of all threeplayers be combined.

CONCLUSION

The Roma represent a greatly heterogeneouscommunity that cannot be considered as asingle whole. No one Roma community islike any other, and we must take this intoconsideration when judging the Roma’sbehavior. The internal social structures ofRoma communities are not based on the dif−ferentiation criteria of mainstream society.

The living strategies of the Roma in Slovakiaare extremely varied, an inevitable result ofthe heterogeneity of the Roma community.The type of strategies and the means chosento solve various situations are both individual– depending on each person’s opportunitiesand abilities, socio−economic status, valuesand attributes – and social, set by externalconditions on the level of family (ability toprovide mutual help, family solidarity), com−munity and overall society (social and eco−nomic situation, politics, legislation, atti−tudes to minorities).

The choice of living strategy depends on thesituation the individual and his family are in,and on their perception of this situation. InSlovakia’s remote regions, and for Roma liv−ing in segregated rural settlements and urbanghettos, short−term and often anti−social andsurvival−oriented strategies are common.These types of strategy cannot increase anindividual’s or a family’s quality of life; theycan only maintain the current level, and theyoften lead to poverty being passed on fromgeneration to generation. As socio−economic


status increases, the objectives and means ofachieving life goals change, with people of−ten using legal but still only short−term strat−egies. It is only when an individual or a fam−ily enjoys a satisfactory standard of livingthat we see attempts to improve socio−eco−nomic status through long−term and legalstrategies. The ability of the immediate orextended family to help is always important,as is the presence or absence of positive liv−ing strategy models, either among the Romaor among the mainstream population.

Research by the World Bank found that thebasic differences that exist within the Romapopulation are due to the following factors:the status of the region; the level of integra−tion or segregation of the Roma; the degreeof concentration of the Roma, and the sizeratio between the Roma and majoritypopulations. These differentiation factors areimportant for three reasons. First, if we talkof the Roma and judge them together, regard−less of the situation they are in, we encour−age the Roma’s exclusion by the majoritypopulation, as well as self−exclusion, sepa−ration, misunderstanding and feelings of in−justice, all of which reproduce and multiplytensions within society. Second, the differ−ences between the Roma are very importantas they influence public opinion, especiallyamong the majority. And third, in choosinga policy towards the Roma, knowledge ofinternal differences among integrated, sepa−rated and segregated Roma communities isvital. If we pursue only one central adminis−trative policy, we cannot succeed (Radičová,2001).

Many of the Roma face an array of problemsthey are not able to solve by themselves with−out help from the majority population. On theother hand, positive changes are not possi−ble without their active participation andtheir determination to change their position.Both the Roma and the majority must state

their needs and goals, communicate, coop−erate and coordinate their efforts. The statehas an important role to play here, as does thestate administration, lower elected govern−ments, NGOs, and the Roma and non−Romathemselves.

ENDNOTES

1. The authors naturally do not claim that usurydid not exist during the communist regime,merely that it was less widespread.

2. Similar situations occurred during the migra−tion of the Roma from eastern Slovakia to theCzech Republic. As Hübschmannová (1999)wrote, one of the main reasons was that theywere unable to communicate with the “strange”Roma in whose neighborhood they suddenlyand unwillingly had to live. Many familiesfrom the village of Podskalka pri Humennomreturned home from České Budějovice be−cause, during the 1950s, there had been abloody battle between clans followed by theimprisonment of the participants. As theydidn’t want to be exposed to further threat, theRoma chose to return to where they felt“among their peers”.

3. The following sections are based on researchby the World Bank, the results of which werepublished in a report called Poverty and Wel−fare of the Roma in the Slovak Republic in2002, on the basis of which Iveta Radičovápublished her book Hic Sunt Romales, as wellas on interviews with respondents carried outduring the course of the research.

REFERENCES

1. Bačová, Viera: “Typológia rómskych rodín naSlovensku” [‘Typology of Roma Families inSlovakia’], Sociológia, No. 4, 1990, p. 491 –501.

2. Filadelfiová, Jarmila and Guráň, Peter: “Vi−diecka rodina deväťdesiatych rokov: hodnotya stratégie” [‘The Rural Family in the 1990s:Values and Strategies’] in Radičová, Iveta(ed.): Vieme čo odmietame a vieme čo chce−


me? Životné stratégie občanov Slovenska [DoWe Know What We Refuse and What WeWant? Living Strategies of the Slovak Peo−ple], (Bratislava: S.P.A.C.E., 1998).

3. Hirt, Tomáš and Jakoubek, Marek: “Monitor−ing situácie rómskych osád na Slovensku”[‘Monitoring of the Situation in Roma Settle−ments in Slovakia’] in Kužel, Stanislav (ed.):Terénní výzkum integrace a segregace [FieldResearch of Integration and Segregation], (Pl−zeň: Cargo Publishers, 2000).

4. Hübschmannová, Milena: “Od etnické kastyke strukturovanému etnickému společenství”[‘From an Ethnic Caste to a Structured Eth−nic Community’] in Romové v České repub−lice (1948 – 1998) [The Roma in the CzechRepublic (1945 – 1998)], (Praha: Socioklub,1999).

5. Poverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic, (Bratislava: The World Bank,S.P.A.C.E. Foundation, INEKO, 2002).

6. Kaplan, Petr: “Romové a zaměstnanost, nebo−li zaměstnatelnosť Romů v České republice”[‘The Roma and Employment, or the Employ−ability of the Roma in the Czech Republic’]in Romové v České republice (1948 – 1998)[Roma in the Czech Republic (1945 – 1998)],(Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

7. Kepková, Michaela and Víšek, Petr: “Romovév systémech sociální ochrany, zdroje sociálnídistance” [‘The Roma in Systems of SocialProtection, Sources of Social Distance’] inRomové v České republice (1948 – 1998)[Roma in the Czech Republic (1945 – 1998)],(Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

8. Lenczová, Mária: “Vzdelanie a zamestnanosť– kľúčové oblasti integrácie Rómov” [‘Edu−cation and Employment – Crucial Areas ofRoma Integration’], Práca a sociálna politi−ka, No. 3, 1999, p. 4 – 6.

9. Lubelcová, Gabriela: “Sociálna podmiene−nosť regionálnej diferencovanosti kriminalityna Slovensku” [‘Socially Conditioned Re−

gional Differentiation of Crime in Slovakia’],Sociológia, No. 6, 1996, p. 575 – 586.

10. Mareš, Petr: Nezaměstnanost jako sociálníproblém [Unemployment as a Social Issue],(Prague: SLON, 1994).

11. Mareš, Petr: Sociologie nerovnosti a chudoby[The Sociology of Inequality and Poverty],(Prague: SLON, 1999).


13. Říčan, Pavel: S Romy žít budeme – jde o to jak[We Will Live With the Roma – the Questionis How], (Prague: Portál, 1998).

14. Šebesta, Michal: Situačná správa o staverómskej komunity v obci Jarovnice [SituationReport on the State of the Roma Communityin the Village of Jarovnice] Manuscript, (Bra−tislava: 2000).

15. Šúryová, Eva: “Rómovia a kriminalita” [‘TheRoma and Crime’], Sociológia, No. 5, 2001,p. 473 – 491.

16. Vašečka, Imrich: “Profil a situácia žiadateľovo azyl a potenciálnych migrantov do krajín EÚzo Slovenskej republiky” [‘Profile and Situa−tion of Slovak Asylum Seekers and PotentialMigrants to EU Countries’] in Sociálna a eko−nomická situácia potenciálnych žiadateľovo azyl v Slovenskej republike [Social and Eco−nomic Situation of Potential Asylum Seekersfrom the Slovak Republic], (Bratislava: Inter−national Organization for Migration, 2000).

17. Večerka, Kazimír: “Romové a sociálnípatologie” [‘The Roma and Social Pathol−ogy’] in Romové v České republice (1948 –1998) [Roma in the Czech Republic (1945 –1998)], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

18. Víšek, Petr: “Program integrace – řešení prob−lematiky romských obyvatel v období 1970 až1989” [‘Program of Integration – Solving theProblems of the Roma from 1970 to 1989’]in Romové v České republice (1948 – 1998)[Roma in the Czech Republic (1945 – 1998)],(Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

370

371

Summary: This chapter deals with Romahousing in Slovakia, describing various typesof Roma dwellings from the historical view−point. The authors cover everything from thesimplest nomadic Roma dwellings (tents,wagons) to mud houses and simple shacks,to the modern houses of settled Roma. Itanalyses institutional attempts to improveRoma housing and related topics, the char−acteristics of Roma habitation, institutionalsolutions to improve Roma housing, etc.

Key words: housing, Roma dwellings,Roma residential units, traditional andpresent habitation of nomadic Roma, tradi−tional and present habitation of settled Roma,Roma housing in town and country, discrimi−nation.

INTRODUCTION –DIFFERENTIATION CRITERIA OFROMA HOUSING

The Roma are the only ethnic minority inSlovakia that does not inhabit a certain com−pact area. As a result, there has been no au−tonomous development in Roma housing;just as in other areas of Roma life, here alsowe have seen the influence of regional cul−tures. Nevertheless, the phenomenon ofRoma housing still has a whole range of spe−cific features and peculiarities.

In describing Roma housing we must con−sider several criteria that to a large extent

ALEXANDER MUŠINKA

ROMA HOUSING

determine this issue. First, we need to differ−entiate between traditional and current Romahousing. We also need to differentiate be−tween nomadic and permanently settledRoma. Finally, we must distinguish betweenRoma who live in urban colonies, and thosewho live in the countryside. This division isonly provisional; individual categories arenot closed entities, and often overlap andsupplement each other.

The term “traditional housing” denotes thehousing the Roma used from the time theyarrived on the territory of present−day Slova−kia until the end of the Second World War,when major changes occurred in both theirlives and the lives of the majority population.Besides the passage of the Law on the Per−manent Settlement of Nomadic People, datedOctober 17, 1958, these changes included astate housing policy towards both the Romaand the majority population that caused asignificant change in the housing situation inSlovakia. In this study, the period after theSecond World War is called the modern orcurrent period in Roma housing.

Bearing in mind that the Roma have lived asettled life in Slovakia since the 15th century,during the traditional period it is importantto differentiate between the habitation ofnomadic Roma and the housing of the per−manently or long−term settled Roma.

Objective descriptions in such a short treat−ment are not always possible, especially as

372 A l e x a n d e r M u š i n k a

the basic concepts in the field have not beenprecisely defined. For example, it is difficultto say with precision what is and what is nota Roma settlement, or a Roma shack; nor canwe be certain when a Roma street can beconsidered a residential one where the Romalive integrated with the non−Roma, etc.These notions differ from case to case – whatis considered a shack in the Roma settlementin the village of Ľubotín would be an above−standard house in the Roma settlement inSvinia. Author will try to compensate for thisshortcoming by describing the individualcharacteristics and specifics of the basic con−cepts used in each passage.

TRADITIONAL DWELLING OFNOMADIC ROMA

LIVING IN A TENT OR A SHELTER

The simplest types of nomadic Roma dwell−ings are tents or shelters (čater). In the past,this type of dwelling could have been usedby the Roma as their main dwelling, or thedwelling they inhabited in the long term. AsSamuel Augustini ab Hortis wrote: “Thosenot having a permanent residence live in atent together with their wife and children andeverything they possess.” (ab Hortis, 1995,p. 28) This type of dwelling endured until the20th century, when the nomadic Roma wereforced to settle. At that time, the tent wasused only as a temporary refuge in case ofbad weather. Even though we have relativelyearly information on the existence of sheltersamong the Slovak Roma, a more precisedescription is lacking. On the basis of infor−mation handed down from the past we knowthat canvas was the material most frequentlyused to build such shelters.

The presence of draft animals used to trans−port the entire household were an insepara−ble part of Roma life in tents and shelters.

The Slovak Roma almost exclusively usedhorses as draft animals. We have little infor−mation on the use of other draft animals, suchas cows, mules, asses, oxen, and so on. Pre−sumably, if they were used, it was only rarelyand for short periods of time.

LIVING IN WAGONS AND TRAILERS

The presence of the horse is closely relatedto the existence of another type of nomadicRoma dwelling, the wagon. This type ofdwelling endured in Slovakia until the forcedsettlement of the Roma in the 1950s. In somecountries in Central Europe (especiallyRomania) you can still encounter such Romawagons.

Drawing 1Wagon

Author: Sergej Pančák.

Wagons, like tents and shelters, variedwidely. The most frequent type were light“ribbed” wagons. Wagons with solid side−walls were also frequently used, almost al−ways for housing, and were covered by acanvas of cane mats stretched into a circularwicker construction. During stops, thewagon canvases were used as tents.

Unlike their tents, Roma wagons were oftendecorated with woodcarvings or, more com−monly, with paintings. Frequently, the entire

373R o m a H o u s i n g

wagon was painted a base color with deco−rations painted over it. These decorationswere usually various geometric shapes, butplant and animal motifs could be found aswell. This kind of wagon became one of thebasic images of Roma habitation in the ma−jority population’s culture, and survives assuch until today.

Trailers arrived among the nomadic Roma inSlovakia relatively late, in the 19th century.This type of dwelling was an important quali−tative improvement in the housing of no−madic Roma, because it provided them witha new standard of housing comparable withthe settled Roma.

Drawing 2Trailer


The use of trailers or larger wagons was lim−ited especially by the road network. Usingthem on inferior roads or off−road was verydifficult.

Trailers are now found only rarely inSlovakia, as almost all of them disappearedafter the forced settlement of the nomadicRoma in the 1950s. They are, however, stillfound quite frequently abroad. A special casein this regard is the use of trailers by someRoma families running carrousel shows, es−pecially from the Czech Republic. Neverthe−less, this type of dwelling is typical of allpeople in this line of work, regardless of theirethnic origin.

TRADITIONAL HOUSING OFSEMI−SETTLED ANDPERMANENTLY SETTLED ROMA

LIVING IN MUD HOUSES

Houses made of mud are generally the sim−plest type of dwelling. They tended to be builtas temporary dwellings for nomadic Roma inwinter, or during longer stops at times whenseasonal work was available. Sometimes theywere also used as permanent residences, dueespecially to the ease of building and the re−duced demands on construction material.

Drawing 3Mud house


The mud house was a single−room dwellingof a square or slightly rectangular shape thatwas built by making an excavation in theground or in a slope. The dimensions ofRoma mud houses varied, but the most com−mon size was 2x2 meters, narrowing slightlyagainst the slope. A space like this wouldthen covered with a simple roof of clumps ofgrass, straw, or in the southern regions withcane. The roof was either flat, oval, or sad−dle−shaped, and reinforced with a wood con−struction. This type of dwelling had no ex−ternal wall, so the roof of the mud house al−ways reached the ground. The height of mudhouses seldom exceeded 1.5 meters.

This type of dwelling has almost completelydisappeared in Slovakia. The author encoun−tered it only once – in the Roma settlement


in the village of Dlhé Stráže (Levoča districtin north−central Slovakia). The type of con−struction, however, is still used today, al−though not for living. It is commonly foundamong the majority population for storingcrops (most commonly potatoes).

SEMI−MUD HOUSE ASA TRANSITIONAL FORMOF DWELLING

The semi−mud house was a dwelling some−where between a mud house and a single−room house. It required a certain skill tobuild, but was still simple enough to be builtquite frequently in the past. The constructionwas set in the ground at a depth of 40 and 60centimeters. It could be entered with the aidof a single step down on the inside.

Drawing 4Semi−mud house


The above−ground part of the constructionresembled the mud house, the main differ−ence being that the semi−mud house had ex−ternal walls. The height of the walls usuallydid not exceed one meter. Wooden balks, orless frequently raw bricks or stone, were themain construction material. Individual mate−rials and construction techniques were oftencombined. The walls were almost alwayswipe−covered with mud. According to Emí−lia Horváthová, the external wall materialswere arranged horizontally in the front andback, while the side walls were constructedby ramming posts vertically into the ground

next to each other (Horváthová, 1964, p.272).

The semi−mud house was slightly bigger thanthe mud house, although the walls wererarely longer than 2 to 2.5 meters. The heightof the building was about 1.9 meters.

The last difference from the mud house wasthe existence of a simple window in the frontwall (usually next to the door), which, how−ever, was not used for ventilation (it couldnot be opened), but instead to brighten theroom (it was rarely washed).

THE MOST FREQUENT TYPE:SINGLE−ROOM HOUSE

The most common Roma dwelling in the pastwas a “step up” in development from the mudand semi−mud house: the single−room house.This was usually a simple construction withwall length not exceeding 3 to 3.5 meters, anda square or slightly rectangular ground plan.The construction itself consisted of one multi−purpose room surrounded by external walls.This type of dwelling was dependent on theconstruction styles, especially the construc−tion skills, of the surrounding population, aswell as the building materials that could befound in the surrounding area.

Drawing 5Single−room house



Log technology in the construction ofthe single−room house

In mountainous and wooded areas ofSlovakia, single−room houses were built oflogs. The main construction material wasbalks of softwood. In areas that lackedsoftwood, and in the southern areas of thecountry, blocks or bricks of clay were used.These were shaped by hand using woodenforms and clay mixed with straw. The sur−rounding walls were built either of thinnerwooden stakes rammed vertically into theground, or tied together and covered withmud to seal the spaces between them. Thistechnology was also employed whenwooden constructions were used, into whichthinner laths or hazel twigs were nailed.

Current construction material:slag−concrete blocks

The use of other construction materials, suchas stone, was rare in the past. Recently, how−

ever, bricks from demolition sites or slag−concrete blocks have become a very popu−lar construction material. The height of theexternal walls of a single−room house nowreach two meters.

Single−room houses were built almost exclu−sively without foundations. Only when builton a slope was the front part of the dwellingleveled out with stones. However, this wasthe case only with log dwellings.

The front of the house contained a woodenconstruction (frame) for the door. This con−struction tended to have a high doorstep thatfulfilled several functions:• it reinforced the structure of the door and

of the entire building;• it prevented water or snow from getting

inside the house;• it was used for sitting on.

These constructions almost always had win−dows, usually in the front wall. However, thewindows rarely had independent frames, and

Photograph 1Single−room houses in the village of Svinia

Author: Alexander Mušinka.


could not be opened. Sometimes the openingwas just fitted with a glass plate or old case−ments acquired from other people or fromdemolition sites. If a window was broken, itwas rarely glassed in again. The hole was justcovered with cardboard, a board, a piece ofcloth, or more recently plastic wrapping.

The interior of the house was very modest.Given the limits on space, no bulky furniturecould be placed inside. The furniture usuallyconsisted of an oven and a simple bed (usu−ally purchased from non−Roma or nailed to−gether from boards) on which the parents andthe smallest children slept. Sometimes a rackor cabinet for food could be found, or evena table and bench. Other members of the fam−ily usually slept on straw. The beds usuallyhad blankets and cushions that the Romaobtained from non−Roma. It is a traditionamong the non−Roma to give things that oncebelonged to deceased members of their fami−lies (including blankets and cushions) to thepoor or to the Roma.

The external walls of shacks and shanties wereoften covered with a plaster of clay, both fromthe outside and the inside. They were thenpainted with lime paint or colored. The choiceof color depended to a large extent on the tra−ditional colors used for this purpose by thesurrounding majority population. In indi−vidual cases, the external and sometimes alsothe internal walls were decorated with differ−ent ornaments and decorations.

Unlike mud and semi−mud houses, this typeof construction is still common today, and inthe poorest Roma settlements, it is the mostfrequently used type of dwelling. It is usu−ally called a shack, kher or shanty. It can bealso found in more advanced settlements,where mainly the poorest Roma use it.

Young families often use this type of houseas their first home, due largely to the low cost

and the speed of construction, and to the factthat living conditions in such houses are ac−ceptable. Later, couples may save money tobuild a better house.

These shanties almost always have electric−ity. However, electricity is usually the onlyutility that can be found, and Roma settle−ments without even electricity are still noexception. The author never found runningwater, plumbing/sewage, or gas in thesedwellings, but does not rule out the possibil−ity that such houses exist.

In many settlements, several single−roomhouses are joined together into one construc−tion unit. This usually occurs when, withinone family, the younger generation becomesindependent. The young then build a newhouse next to the old one, with an independ−ent entrance and roof. The reasons for thiscan vary, but the three most frequent are:1. the young have their own space to live in,

but remain an integral part of the family,i.e. they help take care of the children,cook and collect firewood together, etc.;

2. they reduce the cost of the new house byusing one wall of the existing house;

3. they solve the problem of a lack of spaceto build a house on an independent lot.

TWO−ROOM HOUSE

The next stage in the development of Romadwellings was the two−room house. Thiswas not a completely new type of dwelling;the two−room house was usually created byadding an additional room to an existing sin−gle−room house. However, many construc−tions were planned as two−room houses rightfrom the start.

Here we must differentiate between two sin−gle−room houses joined together into oneconstruction, and the genuine two−room


house. The main difference is that the two−room house had only one entrance. With two−room houses, the second room was usuallyan entrance hall. This was presumably ab−sorbed from the majority population, wherethe entrance hall was an integral part of thehouse. In the case of the Roma, such dwell−ings were probably just attempts to imitatethe standard of living of the majority popu−lation – in the beginning, the entrance hallwas not used at all, or was used to store woodor food (e.g. potatoes). Later, the room wasincreasingly used as a kitchen.

Photograph 2Two−room house in the village of Svinia


In constructions where the entrance hall wasjust added to an existing house (see Drawing6), it usually had an independent roof that wasnot connected to the original one, and thatformed a visibly independent construction. Incases where the house was originally built asa two−room house, the entrance hall was cov−ered by the same roof as the living room.

The dimensions and construction technolo−gies used were usually identical to those ofthe single−room house. The only differencewas in interior furnishings, which in two−room houses were far richer, usually consist−ing of at least two beds, a kitchen table, chairsor a bench. The kitchen contained a largestove, storage cabinets for food, or a simple

Drawing 6Two−room house with entrance hall added on


cupboard. In most cases, these houses alsoincluded an independent wardrobe for stor−ing clothes and textile accessories, and usu−ally had a ceiling.

MULTI−ROOM HOUSES

As for other types of Roma dwelling, it isdifficult to find significant elements that werespecific to the Roma. Multi−room housesinhabited by the Roma were acquired in vari−ous ways, but the majority population alwayshad an important share in such houses. Theywere only inhabited by Roma families whosestandard of living was relatively high, andthey were built in imitation of surroundingnon−Roma houses.

If Roma houses were not built by non−Romacraftsmen, they were usually built by Romacraftsmen who also built non−Roma houses,thus acquiring sufficient knowledge andskills to build identical (or very similar)houses for the Roma. Thus, the differencebetween Roma and non−Roma houses wasminimal.

The second way the Roma could acquire ahouse was to buy an older house from thenon−Roma. If the house was made of wood,it was often transported to a Roma settle−


ment. This occurred especially in the moun−tainous areas of Slovakia, where this type ofhouse was common. Other types of houses,such as those made of stone, were inhabitedby the Roma on their original site.

If the construction of a Roma house differedfrom that of majority population dwellings,the difference tended to lie in the decorationof the houses and various outbuildings. Nospecifically Roma multi−room houses areknown to have been built in Slovakia, unlikein Rumania, where the ornamental decora−tion of multi−room houses was clearly visiblein the very architecture itself.

PRESENT HOUSING OF ROMALIVING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

At present, nomadic Roma housing does notexist in Slovakia, having been destroyed in thewake of the 1958 Law on the Permanent Set−tlement of Nomadic People. The image of thenomadic Roma with their wagons remains oneof the many stereotypes cherished by themajority population as to how the Roma liveand dwell. The image is in fact so deeplyrooted in our minds that we still believe thatsome Roma practice a nomadic way of life.This notion is supported by the greater mobil−ity of the Roma compared to the majoritypopulation. This increased mobility, however,is due to social and cultural processes in Romasociety as well as to pressure from the major−ity population, and is absolutely not a relic ofthe nomadic way of life. This erroneous stere−otype is also disproved by Andrej Gic: “In1893, a detailed listing of Gypsies in Ugria[Hungary] was performed. The resultsshowed that the majority of Roma in present−day Slovakia (roughly 36,000 of them) livedsettled lives, while around 2,000 were semi−settled and only 600 were nomads.” (Gic,1999, p. 194) According to Arne B. Mann, thenumber of Roma directly affected by the 1958

law represented only 5 to 10% of the totalnumber of Roma in Slovakia, the 5% figurebeing the more likely.

These days, one finds a whole range of hous−ing and dwelling types among the rural Roma,just as among the majority population. Nev−ertheless, some dwellings are typical of Romacommunities. As we mentioned, mud housesor semi−mud houses no longer exist inSlovakia, with the most frequent Roma dwell−ings in poor Roma settlements being one ortwo−room houses. The construction of multi−room houses, as in the past, is influenced bythe majority population, and there are nomajor architectural differences between thesestructures. The quality of the houses is in di−rect proportion to the level of housing in theRoma community in the given municipality.

The development of Roma housing was sig−nificantly influenced by the housing policyof the state. The most significant improve−ment in Roma housing came in the post−warperiod, when during the 1960s Czechoslova−kia enforced a policy of building individualfamily homes. Many Roma took advantageof this opportunity to build standard familyhouses, the state providing them with build−ing lots and construction subsidies. Despitethe vast socio−economic changes after 1989,which completely abolished this system andminimized flat construction, the familyhouses built in the previous period are stillfunctional even in backward Romany com−munities (such as Jarovnice in central−eastSlovakia). This is due mainly to the fact thatthe Roma were not given the houses, merelyan opportunity to build one themselves. Theirrelationship to their houses was thus farstronger than if the house or flat had simplybeen assigned to them.

These days it is also possible to find newtypes of dwelling that did not exist in thecountryside in the past.


LIVING IN “HOUSING CELLS”

“Housing cells” can be found in the poorestRoma settlements, and are normally used astemporary dwellings for seasonal workers(shepherds, construction workers, etc.) or astemporary office premises.

The housing cell is a single−room, rectangu−lar construction whose walls measure 2.5x5meters, and which is covered with a flat roof.It is usually built around a metal frame,thanks to which the construction can be eas−ily transported if necessary. This form ofhousing appeared in Roma settlements afterthe Roma began buying them from the agri−cultural cooperatives and construction com−panies where they used to work; other Romareceived them from the state following vari−ous disasters, such as fires or floods. Forexample, in the eastern Slovakia municipali−ties of Jarovnice (Sabinov district) and Svinia(Prešov district), the government built sev−eral dozen housing units after disastrousflooding in 1998 to alleviate some of the lo−cal distress.

While at first sight the housing cells seemedan improvement on the single−room house orshack, experience from Svinia and Jarovni−ce proved the opposite. In comparison withthe single−room house, the housing cell hasseveral disadvantages for the unpreparedRoma. Life in the housing cell is limited byvarious factors, such as the wooden floor, thelarge windows, the poor insulation during thewinter months, and the use of ovens close towooden walls, all of which place completelydifferent demands on Roma used to living insingle−room houses. Despite that, the Romahave begun adapting housing cells to meettheir needs, reconstructing them from single−room into two−room units in basically thesame way as with their traditional houses, i.e.by adding an entrance hall used mainly forstoring wood and food.

Photograph 3Housing cell with an additional room in thevillage of Svinia


LIVING IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Another type of dwelling not found in ruralRoma communities in the past was apart−ment buildings. This type of dwelling ap−peared in Roma settlements after the SecondWorld War thanks to the liquidation of themost backward Roma settlements and theinclusion of the Roma into the majoritypopulation. The process started in the mid−1950s when, at the request of the RegionalFlat and Civic Construction Administration,a set of measures for the gradual liquidationof the most backward Roma settlements wasprepared. One of the ways in which thesemeasures were to be adopted was throughstate housing policy, under which severalhundred apartment buildings were built intowns and in villages containing Roma com−munities. The state carried out this policy inan insensitive manner and without preparingthe Roma for life in the new type of dwelling.

APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITHVARYING STANDARDS OF LIVING

Besides regular apartment buildings, hous−ing estates with differing standards of livingcan also be found in rural Roma communi−


ties. Four such apartment buildings werebuilt in the Roma settlement in the village ofSvinia. Each two−story building contains sixtwo−room flats and two 2.5−room flats. Theflats consist of a large kitchen, a living room,a bathroom, and a small entrance hall. The2.5−room flats have one more small room.Normally, these flats were connected to allutilities, including electricity, water, and sew−erage. If there was no public water supply, alocal water supply and sewerage system wasbuilt specially for the apartment buildings.1

The buildings have no cellars, and heat isprovided from local coal boiler rooms.

In recent years, i.e. after 1989, another cat−egory of Roma housing appeared, namelyrow−housing, usually built with the supportof state and municipal funds. These unitsrepresent community housing, and consist offlats of a different standard for poor people.It is debatable whether this represents an in−dependent type of dwelling, or merely anindependent form of urban planning. Consid−ering the substantial variation between theindividual houses, the author suggests thatthis phenomenon should be considered aform of planning. From the architecturalviewpoint, these are multi−room houses nor−mally containing a kitchen, a bathroom, anda living room; in some cases there is also onemore room (usually the bedroom). Houseslike this were built in the eastern Slovak vil−lages of Nálepkovo (Gelnica district) and Ri−mavská Seč (Rimavská Sobota district) aswell as in the northeastern town of Bardejov.

ROMA HOUSING INTHE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

DIFFERENT HOUSING RULES

Roma housing in urban settings, unlike in thecountryside, largely obeys different rules.

The basic difference is that in towns, theauthorities do not take such a personal ap−proach to Roma housing and the Roma wayof life. Towns tend, to a greater extent, toenforce cultural and social rules in writtenform (resolutions, laws, decrees). These rulesare also enforced with a less personal touch.For example, when community housing isallotted, in towns far less attention is paid towhether the recipient is Roma or non−Roma.It is also rare that the owner of a building lotwill refuse to sell it to a potential buyermerely on the grounds that the buyer isRoma. In the countryside, however, the op−posite occurs, with ethnic−based approachesoften playing a very important role and inmany municipalities forming an insuperablebarrier to the Roma.2

ABSORPTION OFHOUSING STANDARDS FROMTHE MAJORITY POPULATION

The Roma began to adopt the housing stand−ards of the surrounding majority populationfar earlier in towns than in the countryside.This trend was also far more visible amongsome occupational groups of Roma, such astop violin players. This was noted in the pastby several Roma researchers, such as Fran−tišek Štampach: “In the proximity of majorSlovak towns, large suburban Gypsy neigh−borhoods were formed that in some caseswere further subdivided into areas forwealthy Gypsies – the Gypsy nobility – andareas for Gypsies living equally as poor livesas semi−nomadic people. (…) In a Gypsyneighborhood or street, it is easy to distin−guish the houses of a Gypsy musician, a leadviolin player, a blacksmith, a laborer, or awandering beggar. The tidiness of eachhouse, of its interior and exterior, bear wit−ness to the way its inhabitants live. (Štam−pach, 1929, p. 40)


Photograph 4Scattered settlement in the village of Milpoš


URBAN GHETTOS

Besides the categories we have mentioned,in towns we also find typical urban ghettos,or urban agglomerations inhabited almostexclusively by Roma. The best−knownSlovak ghetto is probably the Lunik IX hous−ing estate in the eastern Slovak metropolis ofKošice. From the architectural viewpoint,these ghettos do not represent a separate cat−egory of habitation, as they consist mainly ofapartment buildings with sub−standard flats.

In recent years, new types of urban flats inSlovakia have appeared, known as “socialflats” (i.e. community housing). The best−known construction in this category is prob−ably the sub−standard rental flats located inthe eastern Slovak town of Prešov (this in−volves 176 largely two−room flats).

ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Roma settlements are an inseparable part ofRoma housing types. In the past, nomadic

Roma would usually settle in the proximity oftowns or villages. They preferred places nearflowing water or roads, or places providingsufficient space to graze their horses. If theywere stopping somewhere only briefly, no−body would issue any kind of permission tothem, as the owner of the land on which theywere staying would usually not learn of theirpresence until after they left. In the case ofregular stops, municipalities would usuallydesignate places where the Roma could staytemporarily. This was true especially of no−madic Roma who provided local citizens withvarious services, such as making washingtubs, rolling pins, working as blacksmiths, etc.

RURAL ROMA SETTLEMENTS

The situation was slightly different for Romawho were looking to settle permanently. Un−less they were invited by a nobleman or asquire to work on his manor or farm as hiredlabor, they usually found a place on the out−skirts of a town or village; these places wouldtypically not be used for farming, such as


riverbanks, stony fields, meadows near a for−est, slopes etc. The choice of terrain was notrandom, but was almost always determined bythe feeling in the municipality at the prospectof a permanent Roma settlement.

Photograph 5Traditional street type settlement in the village of Kravany


Photograph 6Street type settlement in the village of Ražňany


From the planning viewpoint, several typesof Roma settlement can be distinguished.The basic and oldest type of settlement wasthe scattered settlement, which was not anindependent planning unit. Individual houses


or dwellings were often 10 to 15 meters fromone another. The empty spaces in betweenwere later filled in with further dwellings,allowing the settlement to keep growing.According to Arne B. Mann, this was theform of development that the Grün settle−ment in the village of Nálepkovo (Gelnicadistrict) went through.

The second settlement type was the linearsettlement. These were established onriverbanks or along roads, with the dwellingsbeing built along the thoroughfare or water−way. The distance between houses was neg−ligible.

The last settlement type was the street set−tlement, in which Roma dwellings formedan independent street usually at the end ofvillage. This type is still very common andcan be found, for example, in the northeast−ern Slovak villages of Spišský Hrhov (Levo−ča district) or Kurima (Bardejov district).

Roma neighborhoods whose development islimited by natural obstacles are also a some−what special type: this may occur if there isa stream on one side and a steep rocky slopeon the other (like the Roma settlement in thevillage of Koláčkov, Stará Ľubovňa district),or if the settlement is on an island/promon−tory formed by two streams (the Roma set−tlement in the village of Hermanovce, Prešovdistrict).

In trying to define Roma settlement units,we encounter several theoretical problems.As we noted at the beginning of the chapter,it is impossible to arrive at an exact defini−tion because of the lack of precisely definedconcepts. One of the basic problems arisesin defining the concept of a Roma settlement.According to the Office of the Slovak Gov−ernment Representative for Roma Commu−nities, the Roma now live in more than 620settlements across Slovakia.3 This informa−

tion is misleading. In reality, the Roma inSlovakia live in roughly 620 municipalities;however, the fact these municipalities con−tain Roma dwellings does not mean theycan automatically be classified as having aRoma settlement. On the other hand, insome villages the Roma live in two or threedifferent places.

In general, in talking about Roma housing inSlovakia, we can say that in comparison withother Central European countries, the SlovakRoma tend more frequently to live in settle−ments on the outskirts of villages and towns.The precise number of Roma living like thisis hard to determine. Some sources put it atroughly 25% of the entire Slovak Romapopulation (Radičová, 2002), but the numberis likely higher. Individual types of settle−ment differ from one another on the basis ofthe overall social and cultural level of thelocal Roma community, its economic poten−tial, its degree of integration with the major−ity population, or its ethnic composition. Itis thus not possible to talk about Roma set−tlements as a single concept.

What kinds of Roma settlements can befound in Slovakia today? According to theirproximity to and relationship with the major−ity population center in each municipality,they can be divided as follows:1. Completely segregated Roma settle−

ments: This is an independent planningentity physically separated from a village,and forming an independent unit. It is fre−quently several kilometers from the vil−lage. Typical examples include the easternSlovakia Roma settlements in the villageof Letanovce (Spišská Nová Ves district)or the village of Rakúsy (Kežmarok dis−trict). In some cases these settlements arenot connected to utilities even if they areavailable. The settlement in the village ofOrtuťová (Bardejov district) does not evenhave electricity.


2. Segregated settlements: These are resi−dential entities that, while physically sepa−rated from a village, are located in closeproximity to it. What separates village andsettlement is usually a natural barrier, suchas a stream or a field, or a manmade one,like a road or a railroad track. Typical ex−amples include the eastern Slovakia Romasettlements in the village of Svinia (Prešovdistrict), which is separated by a stream;in the village of Kurov (Bardejov district),which is separated by a small field; and inthe village of Hunovce (Kežmarok dis−trict), which is located behind a railroadtrack.

3. Independent residential entities withina village: These are most often independ−ent streets or neighborhoods that, from theplanning viewpoint, represent an integralpart of a village, but that actually formindependent socio−cultural entities. Typi−cal examples include the settlements in thevillage of Hermanovce (Prešov district),located in the lower part of the village on

a separate island between two streams; inthe village of Ľubica (Kežmarok district);in the village of Kurima (Bardejov dis−trict); or in the village of Spišský Hrhov(Levoča district), where the Roma live ona separate street.

4. Scattered communities: These are vil−lages where the Roma live scatteredamong the majority population. A typicalexample of this is the village of Nová Les−ná (Kežmarok district) in northeastern Slo−vakia, where most of the Roma live scat−tered and at the same time fully integratedamong the non−Roma, with no differencebetween their houses and the houses of thenon−Roma. The fact that Roma live scat−tered across a village, of course, does notnecessarily mean that they are integratedwith the majority.

Villages with an absolute or dominant pro−portion of Roma are a special category. Thereare only a few such villages in Slovakia.Only one village (Lomnička, in eastern Slo−vakia’s Stará Ľubovňa district) has a popu−

Photograph 7Traditional and modern settlements in the village of Svinia (before the flooding in 1998)



lation that is almost 100% Roma. A distinctmajority of Roma also inhabit the village ofJarovnice (Sabinov district), the village ofJurské (Kežmarok district), and a few others.

URBAN ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Urban residential entities can be divided intoseveral categories:1. Urban ghettos whose populations are

either mainly or wholly Roma. Theseresidential entities occupy a limited space,and are frequently physically separatedfrom the surrounding town neigh−borhoods. The best−known urban ghettosin Slovakia are the Lunik IX housing es−tate in eastern Slovakia’s Košice, and theDužavská Cesta housing estate in easternSlovakia’s Rimavská Sobota. The housesin these locations are in very bad shape,with many virtually uninhabitable (thecommon rooms are demolished, the floorsripped up, and the sewerage, water mains,electrical installations, entrance doors etc.either damaged or missing). Experts usethe notion “stripped flats”4 to describehousing in this state.

2. Independent urban districts withabove−average concentrations of Roma.This category contains several typologicalmodels:5

• groups of substandard family housesfrequently built during the interwar pe−riod as worker colonies (e.g. ČapajevStreet in the town of Prešov). The Romausually acquired these houses as munici−pal or company flats after they becameunattractive to the majority populationdue to their obsolescence;

• lower−quality flats in houses built afterthe Second World War (Pod HrádkomStreet in Prešov) or formerly standardflats in older houses which, due to poormaintenance, were reclassified into alower category (Taras Ševčenko Street

and Majakovský Street in Prešov).1

These flats were allotted to the Romaonly when they became unacceptable tothe majority population due to their fall−ing standards (local heating, obsoleteutilities, lack of a gas supply, etc.);

• flats in old residential houses or inde−pendent family houses located down−town, and built during the interwar pe−riod or even earlier (Slovenská Street inPrešov). These flats were consideredless valuable before 1989 because theylacked some modern features such asmore modern toilets, central heating,warm water mains, gas supply etc., orbecause, given their age, they neededmajor reconstruction. The way the flatswere divided architecturally was alsounsuited to the needs of the day (flatsthat shared balcony entrances, that hadmutually connected rooms, etc.). In theeyes of the majority population, these“handicaps” could not be offset by thehistorical value of the buildings or theirdowntown location. Given that, follow−ing nationalization, these flats wereowned by the state or the municipality,they were often allotted to the Roma.The situation changed radically after1989 when the buildings were returnedto their original owners, who did notwant the Roma around, but consideringthe value of the flats agreed to purchasethem from the Roma;

• newly built “social flats” (communityhousing) in independent residentialhouses (Stará Tehelňa in Prešov). Theseare rental flats built within the state’sprogram of flat construction for poorpeople, under which the state can pro−vide a subsidy of up to 80% of the totalcost of construction.7

In the urban environment one naturally alsofinds standard flats and family houses inhab−ited by Roma. These are usually dispersed


among a normal built−up area, so we cannotspeak of a special architectural style or planof Roma housing. However, this is a socio−cultural phenomenon resulting from indi−vidual living strategies rather than from uni−versal processes.

SELECTED ROMA HOUSING ISSUES

SOCIO−CULTURAL INTEGRATION

When we described individual urban andrural residential units, we did not analyze thedegree of socio cultural integration of theRoma community into majority society. Thisissue is beyond the scope of this chapter;however, we can say that the greater the de−gree of socio−cultural integration of theRoma, the higher the quality of Roma dwell−ings and overall standard of living. This phe−nomenon is directly influenced also by theextent of Roma unemployment: the higherthe unemployment and the longer its dura−tion, the lower the quality of housing.8

LEGALITY OF BUILDING

An issue that has been frequently discussedrecently is the legality or illegality of build−ings inhabited by the Roma. There are twosides to this issue that have to be examined:1. the legality of housing in the context of

present laws and regulations;2. the legality of housing in the historical

context.

A considerable proportion of Roma dwell−ings, especially in the countryside, do notmeet current regulations. Roma shacks,shanties, and even standard family houses arefrequently built on lots with unclear owner−ship, without the correct building permit, inviolation of building regulations, etc. Thenumber of such cases is in direct proportion

to several factors: 1) the socio−cultural levelof the Roma community in the given settle−ment, and 2) the willingness of the localmunicipalities to help the Roma with the is−sue.9 In other words, the worse the standardof living of the community, the greater thelikelihood that constructions break the rules,and the lower the willingness of local munici−palities to help remove the shortcomings.

This situation gives the municipality a legalargument to ignore the desperate infrastruc−ture situation in Roma neighborhoods. With−out building permits, the houses of the Romade iure do not exist, so it is impossible to askfor state subsidies to build the infrastructurethe Roma lack. On the other hand, the unclearownership of the land does not allow theRoma to acquire a building permit, and so on.The result of this vicious circle are residen−tial entities (especially completely segre−gated Roma settlements, segregated settle−ments, and independent residential entitieswithin a village) in which there is no publicroad, no water mains, no sewerage, no pub−lic lighting, and so on, even in cases wherethese utilities are available in the non−Romapart of the village (for example, the Romasettlement in the village of Kurov, Bardejovdistrict, has neither water supply nor a tarmacroad, despite the fact the village itself has hadboth for a long time). We could fill an entirechapter with descriptions of the waste dis−posal situation. The disorder that reigns inRoma settlements is one of the most frequentarguments used by the majority populationwhen criticizing the Roma way of life.

The causes and consequences of this situa−tion are a topic for an independent study.Simply put, the situation is unbearable, andwithout help from the state no positivechange can be expected.

The situation is completely different in thecase of municipal flats and urban agglomer−


ates. Here, almost all building lots have clearowners, and the buildings have valid build−ing permits.

Legality from the historical viewpoint

The historical legality of Roma settlementsand other residential entities has not beenadequately researched. Historian AnnaJurová is now addressing the issue. As wementioned above, the way the Roma settledin the past was rarely spontaneous, but wasinstead followed and regulated very closelyby the local authorities. Roma families al−ways received precise instructions as towhether, where, and under what conditionsthey could settle. This process could be con−sidered a form of legalization of their stay ina certain area. The assertion that a permit tosettle is not the same as owning the land can−not be accepted; the land allotted was usu−ally not usable for farming or other activities,and thus usually had no owner or registra−tion. What is more important is the fact thatthe Roma were discriminated against for along time and were not allowed to own land.While during the reign of Austro−HungarianEmpress Mária Terézia and Emperor Jozef IIthe state attempted to change this situation,little changed in real life.

Legalizing and “de−legalizing”Roma habitation for ulterior purposes

Even when the Roma were legally entitled tostay in a given municipality, this did not pre−vent the local majority population from re−moving this permission when it suited them.During the 20th century alone, this happenedseveral times. For example, during the Sec−ond World War, the Nazi−puppet Slovak state(1939 to 1944) in some cases forced Romato move further away from villages (e.g. thevillage of Veľký Šariš in Prešov district, and

others).10 This trend continued after the War,although it took a different form. In somecases the Roma were “persuaded”, or other−wise forced to move to near the Czech bor−der. Their attempts to return to their originallocation were usually regarded very nega−tively by the local majority population, andthey were not allowed to settle there again.For example, in the village of Chmeľová(Bardejov district), the local non−Roma re−fused to allow the Roma to resettle there af−ter they returned from the Czech Republicfollowing more than 50 years in exile. Someof the Roma thus settled in the nearby Romasettlement in the village of Zborov (Bardejovdistrict). As part of a policy of atomizing andintegrating the Roma population, entireRoma settlements were liquidated. TheRoma were forced to live in newly built flats(e.g. in the village of Gerlachov, Bardejovdistrict).

HAPHAZARD GOVERNMENTACTIVITIES

The basic mistake made by almost all commu−nist−era government programs to improve theliving conditions of the Roma was that theyfocused on mitigating the consequences ratherthan tackling the causes of various situations.It thus often happened that state−fundedhouses were built in the most backward Romacommunities where the inhabitants were notprepared to use the new dwellings. The prob−lem was both one of technical equipment andsocio−cultural relationships. The use of a lightswitch, a water tap or a flush toilet may seema mundane matter, but for people who havenever seen such equipment, they can presentan insurmountable obstacle. In non−Romaculture, people learn these things through aprocess of socialization that lasts severalyears. Communities that have not gonethrough this process will clearly not be ableto use these things immediately.


The situation with this state housing wassimilar in terms of socio−cultural relation−ships. The change in the Roma way of lifewas too sudden, with several families nowhaving to live in one house without regard forfamily and social links, which led to conflictsand tension. The second mistake was not toengage the Roma who were to live in thehouses in the building of them. The Romalater destroyed the interior and exterior ofthese dwellings, clear proof of how little theyidentified with what they had been given.

On the other hand, activities that gave theRoma a chance to build their own houses weresuccessful. The aforementioned state policy ofthe 1960s, which focused on awarding build−ing permits and providing building subsidies,led to the Roma taking advantage of this sys−tem and building standard family houseswhich serve their purpose to this very day.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ROMAIN ACQUIRING HOUSING

At present, the Roma suffer considerablediscrimination if they want to build a dwell−ing. First of all, they are handicapped by theirrelative ignorance of economic matters,11

while they also have problems with the com−plicated process of acquiring a building lot,a construction permit, and the other neces−sary documents. To be able to handle all ofthis, one has to be part of a social solidaritynetwork (acquaintances, colleagues, rela−tives, etc.). Without such a network, it isimpossible to negotiate the process success−fully or in a reasonable time.12 The Roma, ofcourse, do not tend to have access to suchsocial networks.

Besides that, other handicaps include the reluc−tance of owners to sell a building lot to a Roma,the unwillingness of municipal authorities tosupport the Roma in the process, and so on.

CONCLUSION

What is the way out of this situation? In gen−eral, society must eliminate discriminationagainst the Roma in this regard. At the sametime, society should give the Roma a realchance to improve their socio cultural stand−ing by giving them a real opportunity to buildtheir own dwelling.

The actions that the Slovak government tookthrough the Office of the Slovak GovernmentRepresentative for Solving the Problems ofthe Roma Minority, whose aim was to im−prove infrastructure in Roma settlements (in−cluding the Phare 2000 project), were verypositive. The government’s support for theconstruction of substandard flats, wheremunicipalities could acquire a subsidy cov−ering up to 80% of the costs of such flats, wasalso enormously helpful. These activitieswere even more encouraging because theywere closely coordinated and mutually com−plemented each other. If the policy of the newDzurinda government continues in the samedirection, we can expect some positivechanges in the living conditions of the Roma.

However, the Roma housing issue cannot besolved by such measures, as they once againaddress the consequences and not the prob−lem. The Slovak government should adoptmeasures that would help Roma interested inbuying a building lot. The Slovak LandFund, for example, could play an active rolein this process, as could other institutions.The government should prepare the admin−istrative framework allowing houses to bebuilt legally without the need to use one’s“social network” (i.e. to make the processsimpler, faster, cheaper, etc.). If this does notwork, it might think about creating some−thing like an “artificial solidarity network”,i.e. institutions that would help the Roma(and the non−Roma) successfully negotiatethe bureaucratic process. In addition, a sys−


tem of subsidies for flat construction must becreated in such a way that the Roma have areal chance of being granted some of the al−located subsidies.

An example of this is the activity of theAmerican NGO Habitat For Humanity Inter−national (HFHI), which is preparing a projectto build several houses in the village ofSvinia (Prešov district). This organization isactive in more than 80 countries around theworld, and builds houses exclusively formarginalized groups of people. It followsseveral basic rules, which were also used inthe Svinia program. The first rule is that thepeople for whom HFHI is building thehouses must participate in the construction.The direct investments that the organizationspends on building the house are treated asan interest−free credit (or an investment withvery low interest), which the lessee has toreturn within 20 to 30 years. After repaymentof the entire amount, the lessee becomes theowner of the house. The installments paid areused to build other houses. An importantfeature of the HFHI program is the NGO’sactive presence and direct community work,not just during the construction but also dur−ing the “installment period”.

If the Roma are involved financially andphysically in housing construction, they canbe expected to have a far closer relationshipto their habitations, and to take good care ofthem. At the same time, the Roma who arereally interested in improving their livingconditions will be clearly separated fromthose who only declare their interest.

ENDNOTES

1. Fences are an interesting architectural acces−sory from the socio−cultural viewpoint aswell. The poorer and more segregated thecommunity, the fewer fences one finds.

2. So far, this has been the standard practicewhen building apartment buildings.

3. The author personally witnessed a situation inthe village of Svinia where nobody was will−ing to sell a building lot to a Roma (at anyprice) because anyone who did would havebeen exposed to considerable social pressureand criticism by the non Roma inhabitants,and would have found their continued exist−ence in the village very difficult.

4. See the following web page:http://www.government.gov.sk/orgovanova/dokumenty/zoznam_obci.doc.

5. Similar “stripped flats” can also be found inmunicipal apartment buildings in villages.Here the situation is often even worse than inurban ghettos.

6. In this part the author only cites examplesfrom the city of Prešov. The reasons for thisare mundane: He lives in this city and knowsit the best. The author does realize that theremay be similar examples in other towns, buthe does not know them well enough to say forsure.

7. In many cases these were “army flats” inwhich Czechoslovak soldiers were lodged.The flats were then transferred to the admin−istration of the municipality. This is the caseof Majakovský Street in Prešov, for example.

8. This is how flats in Prešov (Stará Tehelňaneighborhood), in the Roma settlement in thevillage of Čičava (Vranov nad Topľou dis−trict), and in the Roma settlement in the townof Veľký Šariš (Prešov district) were built.

9. Recently, two books were published dealingwith the issue and the typology of Roma pov−erty in Slovakia. The team of authors, led byIveta Radičová, published the results of themost extensive research conducted duringrecent years, a project known as Roma and theLabor Market, which was coordinated andfunded by the World Bank. The two bookswere: Hic Sunt Romales (Radičová, 2001) andPoverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic (2002).

10. In many villages, land ownership is also un−clear among the majority population. Thisissue was described by Roma writer ElenaLacková in her autobiography I Was BornUnder a Lucky Star (1997).

11. For more on the reasons for this situation seeRadičová, 2001, p. 242 – 244.


12. In this regard, the economic situation repre−sents secondary discrimination, because aforeign national striving to settle in Slovakiawould fail as well.

REFERENCES

1. ab Hortis, Samuel Augustini: Cigáni v Uhor−sku [Gypsies in Ugria], (Bratislava: Štúdio−dd−, 1995).

2. Davidová, Eva: Bez kolíb a šiatrov [WithoutSheds or Tents], (Košice: Východoslovenskénakladateľstvo, 1964).

3. Davidová, Eva: Cesty Romů – Romano Drom1945 – 1990 [The Travels of the Roma –Romano Drom from 1945 to 1990], (Olo−mouc: Palackého University, 1995).

4. Gic, Andrej: “Z dejín bývania Rómov na Slo−vensku” [‘From the History of Roma Hous−ing in Slovakia’] in Sopoliga, Miroslav (ed.):Tradície staviteľstva a bývania na Slovensku[Traditions of Building and Housing in Slo−vakia], (Bratislava – Svidník: Exco, 1999).

5. Horváthová, Alena: “Tradície staviteľstvaa bývania na Slovensku” [‘Traditions ofBuilding and Housing in Slovakia’] in Sopo−liga, Miroslav (ed.): Tradície staviteľstva a bý−vania na Slovensku [Traditions of Buildingand Housing in Slovakia], (Bratislava – Svid−ník: Exco, 1999).

6. Horváthová, Emília: Cigáni na Slovensku [Gyp−sies in Slovakia], (Bratislava: Veda, 1964).

7. Jurová, Anna: “Riešenie rómskej problema−tiky na Slovensku po druhej sve-tovej vojne”[‘Solutions to the Roma Issue in Slovakiaafter the Second World War’] in Mann, ArneB. (ed.): Neznámi Rómovia [UnknownRoma], (Bratislava: Ister science press,1992).

8. Lacková, Elena: Narodila jsem se pod šťast−nou hvězdou [I Was Born Under a LuckyStar], (Prague: Triáda, 1997).

9. Mann, Arne B.: Vybrané kapitoly z dejín Ró−mov [Selected Chapters from the History ofthe Roma], (Bratislava: Ministerstvo kultúrySR, 1995).


11. Poverty and Welfare of the Roma in the SlovakRepublic, (Bratislava: The World Bank, Foun−dation S.P.A.C.E., INEKO, The Open SocietyInstitute 2002).

12. Romové, bydlení, soužití [Roma, Housing,Coexistence], (Prague: Socioklub, 2000).

13. Romové ve městě [Roma in Towns], (Prague:Socioklub, 2002).


15. Štampach, Odilo Ivan: Cikáni v Českosloven−ské republice [Gypsies in the CzechoslovakRepublic], (Prague: Československá akade−mie věd, 1929).

16. Zákon č. 74/1958 Z.z. zo 17. 10. 1958 o trva−lom usídlení kočujúcich osôb [Act No. 74/1958 Coll. dated October 17, 1958 on thePermanent Settlement of Nomadic People].

391

Summary: The author draws a detailed pic−ture of the health of the Roma, focusing oninfectious, genetic, and cardiovascular dis−eases, the lifestyles and sanitary behavior ofthe Roma, and the living conditions in Romasettlements. The chapter offers anthropologi−cal data related to health, and examines casesof inbreeding among the Roma. A specialsection is devoted to the causes of slow men−tal development among Roma children, andto why these children are often placed in“special schools” without justification. Thechapter ends by describing the approach ofthe state to the health of the Roma, and dis−crimination in health care.

Key words: Roma health, perinatal and in−fant mortality, inbreeding coefficient andconsanguinity, infectious diseases, congeni−tal glaucoma, mental retardation, nutrition,cardiovascular and chronic diseases, Romasettlements, discrimination in health care,government’s approach to Roma health.

INTRODUCTION

The relatively poor health of the Roma isfrequently mentioned in the growing numberof books on Roma human rights in CentralEurope. Despite that, specific information onthe current Roma health situation in theCzech and Slovak Republics is scarce. Thereis a wide range of scientific reports from theperiod before 1989 dealing with this issue.After the revolution, however, research in

PETER ŠAŠKO

ROMA HEALTH

Slovakia turned its back on examinations ofthe health condition of individual ethnicgroups, because from today’s viewpoint,gathering such data is contrary to humanrights. This makes it even more difficult toobtain the information needed to improve thecurrent unfavorable situation.

Despite the limited information, there aremany signs emphasizing the need to deal withthe Roma health issue. Health is just one ofthe many problems influencing the overallsocio−economic situation of the Roma, whichin turn, along with poor housing and infra−structure worsen the poor health condition ofthe Slovak Roma. Bad health combined withlow hygiene, poverty and other external fac−tors (hunger, bad housing) and the geneticpredisposition of the Roma to certain diseases,makes for a particularly serious situation.Poverty among certain Roma leads to manyforms of deprivation, and is reflected in theirrelatively short life span, high rate of disease,chronic disease, and falling physical and men−tal performance. All available data show adecline in health, especially in the constantlygrowing and isolated Roma settlements. Therehas been a clear decline in Roma health since1989. This was at least one area where thecommunist regime achieved positive results,for example in reducing infant mortality, in−creasing the average life span, and eradicat−ing certain kinds of disease.

At present, the main factors influencing thepoor quality of Roma health are the following:

392 P e t e r Š a š k o

• the lower education level of the Roma, andtheir related low health and social aware−ness;

• low standards of personal hygiene;• low standards of community hygiene;• poor housing and ecologically unsound,

polluted, and devastated living environ−ments; the alarming condition of isolatedRoma settlements, where housing oftendoes not even meet basic sanitary require−ments, with no supply of clean drinkingwater, no sewage system or waste pits,dumps, waste disposal or sanitary facilities;

• the lingering overpopulation problem, withtoo many people often living in just oneroom;

• the bad economic situation of many fami−lies, which is frequently related to poornutritional habits, unsuitable food, and theunavailability of the necessary medicinesor adequate health care;

• increased consumption of alcohol and to−bacco;

• the relatively high genetic load of theRoma ethnic group, which causes a highincidence of congenital (inborn) diseases(Socio−Economic Situation..., 2000).

This chapter attempts to characterize theRoma health situation in Slovakia. It aims tosum up the results of research in the follow−ing fields: health condition, nutrition, life−style, biochemical condition, immunologicalstatus, and epidemiological parameters.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OFROMA HEALTH

Despite having lived in Central Europe formany centuries, the Roma have been able tomaintain an unusual specificity in anthropo−metric and genetic indicators. Differences ingene frequencies support the theory of theIndian origin of the Roma.1 At the same time,there is also a significant genetic variability

within the Roma population, which seems tobe even greater than the variability in non−Roma populations that have been compared.This means that we should not generalizefrom the results of research performed in acertain area and on a certain group of Roma.

The overall mortality level of any populationis significantly influenced by perinatal andinfant mortality. In the Roma PopulationDemographic Trends chapter in this publica−tion, the authors focus on the relatively highinfant mortality among the Roma. Althoughit fell by one−third from 1968 to 1985, it nev−ertheless remained 2.1 times higher than inthe rest of the population, and was equal toinfant mortality levels seen in the Slovakpopulation in the second half of the 1950s.In 1985, an average of 35 out of 1,000 live−born Roma children died before they reachedthe age of one year. The figure for the entirepopulation was 16.3 (Kalibová, 1989).

One of the reasons for such a high rate ofperinatal mortality among the Roma could below birth weight. Seres (1998) studied thelow birth weight ratio between the Roma andthe non−Roma in the vicinity of Rožňava insoutheastern Slovakia from 1995 to 1997.The prevalence of low birth weight was gen−erally lower among the non−Roma, and un−like among the Roma, it was decreasing.

Other studies have also documented the lowbirth weight, small stature, and smaller headand thorax circumference of Roma newbornsin comparison with the remainder of thepopulation. Based on data on births in Koši−ce and Prešov, and disregarding other pa−thologic syndromes, Bernasovská et al(1977) reported that from 1968 to 1972, theaverage difference between the Roma andnon−Roma children was 345g in birthweight and 1.5cm in birth length. In view ofthese differences, she proposed a new birthweight floor for the Roma – 2,250g – which

393R o m a H e a l t h

seems biologically correct. Despite the newstandard, the birth weight of Roma childrenis frequently too low.

In terms of the relationship between the ageof Roma mothers and the birth weight of theirbabies, the newborn weight gradually in−creased with the increasing age of the mother.A direct relationship was also discoveredbetween the height of Roma mothers, thebirth weight, and the length of newborn chil−dren (Bernasovský et al, 1981). In this re−gard, it is interesting that an almost threetimes higher ratio of Roma women give birthto a child between the ages of 14 and 16 years(6.1%), compared to 2.1% of Slovak womenbefore they are 17 years of age (Štukovský,1969).

Dejmek et al (1996) discovered a signifi−cantly higher incidence of premature birthsamong the Roma from the north of the CzechRepublic (the majority of Roma living in thisarea come from Slovakia), which may con−tribute to the high Roma infant mortality rate.The incidence of premature births (wheregestation is less than 37 weeks) was 13.4 outof 100 among the Roma and 5.0 out of 100in the majority population.

Roma women from the vicinity of Rožňavain 1996 were found to have an abortion ratethat was twice as high as among the major−ity population (Seres, 1998). Modern contra−ception was used by the women from this

area very rarely, far less than by non Romawomen. The authors noted that the Romaused contraception (especially sterilizationand the intra−uterine device) most frequentlyaround 1980, which could be related to thefinancial allowance paid during communismto women who underwent sterilization. Theuse of contraception among the Roma fellsharply after 1989. The authors argued thatgiven the high Roma unemployment rate inthe 1990s, one of the reasons for this couldhave been the social welfare benefits asso−ciated with childbirth.

Mortality among very young children seemshigher with the Roma as well. The death ratein three municipalities in eastern Slovakia’sSpiš region (Bystrany, Spišské Tomášovce,and Spišský Štvrtok) of children up to threeyears of age was 47.1, 40.9 and 32.0 perthousand Roma children, respectively. Thesedata pertain to the period from 1981 to 1990(Mann, 1992). This ratio is significantlyhigher than the mortality rate of all Slovakchildren up to five years of age, which was15.8 per thousand children in 1989.

Besides the characteristics we have noted ofnewborns and infants, differences can also befound among children of pre school andschool age. In comparison with the non−Roma, Roma children are smaller and weighless. The difference in height is more signifi−cant, and is simply an ethnic and anthropo−logical trait among the Roma (Bernasovský

Table 1Newborns with low birth weight among the Roma and the non−Roma in the district of Rožňavafrom 1995 to 1997

� ��

� �� ?��

�� ?��?�� ?�� ?�� <[0J/�$�=�

�� ?��

�� ?��?�� ?�� ?�� <[0J/�$�=�

,11/� �� ,113� �� ,114� ��

Source: Seres, 1998.


and Bernasovská, 1985). From the paediat−ric viewpoint, however, the slower psycho−motor development and low bodyweight ofRoma children represents a serious reason topostpone schooling by one year. In examin−ing a group of 5 to 6−year−old children, wediscovered that the children’s bodyweightswere far below the floor of 19Kg for boysand 17Kg for girls. In a control group of non−Roma children of the same age, the childrenusually hit the weight standard before theywere 6. Differences were also discoveredwhen we examined the bone developmentand sexual maturity of school age children(Hudáková, Bernasovský, and Bernasovská,1982). This late development is generallycaused by both inborn and external factors,such as poor socio−economic situation, lackof suitable parental stimuli in foster homes,and so on.

Bernasovský et al (1981) found when moni−toring the level of immunoglobuline (serumantibodies) that in comparison to the non−Roma, the Roma children had a markedlyhigher IgG level (class G immunoglobuline,the level of which increases in the late stagesof inflammations or when the body has beenrepeatedly exposed to infections) and a lowerIgM level (class M immunoglobuline, thelevel of which increases in the early stagesof inflammations or during the first infec−tion). This difference could be caused by theincreased frequency of infectious and para−sitic diseases among Roma children. HigherIgG levels among Roma adults could becaused by worse hygiene and permanentexposure to microorganisms.

Even though the present Roma gene pooldiffers significantly from the rest of the popu−lation, and is characterized by the incidenceof certain single−gene diseases (congenitalglaucoma, phenylketonuria, etc.), the causesare not known. A thorough analysis wouldrequire an in−depth knowledge of the history,

demographic characteristics, and structure ofthe population resulting from marriages (Si−váková, 1992).

In keeping with the Indian origin of theRoma, there is a strong tendency towardsconsanguineous marriages. According toDronamraj (1960), this is typical for most ofthe Indian subcontinent. The population fromthis region seems to have the highest inbreed−ing ratio worldwide (Siváková, 1992). Thiswas confirmed by a genetic analysis of con−genital glaucoma with a recessively auto−somal type of inheritance, performed on asample of Slovak Roma (Ferák et al, 1980).Some 46% of the parents of the patientsturned out to be related (consanguinity ≅46%).

The most consanguineous marriages oc−curred among the “Vlachika” (nomadic)Roma – 30.7%, among the Slovak Romafrom Ratková – 14.7%, and the Roma fromGemer – 10.1%. A substantial number ofsuch marriages were between cousins. Esti−mates of the inbreeding coefficient (F) arevery high among the “Vlachika” Roma (F ≅0.05). This is the highest value of this indexthat has been recorded so far in any Europeanpopulation (Ferák, Siváková et al, 1987).Such a high F coefficient increases thenumber of homozygotes, or the so−called“recessively inheritable diseases” (such ascongenital glaucoma), even if the number ofgenes responsible remains unchanged. To acertain extent it also increases the number ofmultifactor and threshold−conditioned dis−eases (e.g. phenylketonuria – a metabolismdisorder causing heavy mental retardation,convulsions, and increased activity).

On the other hand, some other autosomalrecessively inheritable diseases that are quitefrequent in the rest of the Slovak population(such as cystic fibrosis) are very rare amongthe Roma. This may be due to the long−term


reproductive isolation of the Roma. TheRoma thus did not acquire the genetic apti−tude for these diseases, while the diseasestypical for them remained. Tay−Sachs dis−ease, which occurs almost exclusively inorthodox Jews, and the Huntington’s choreatypical of the inhabitants of the Pacific is−lands, are examples of such diseases.

It is possible that the Roma inbreeding coef−ficient is now falling. Cohn (Cohn, 1973 in:Ferák et al, 1980), who examined the socio−logical aspect of consanguineous marriages,came to the conclusion that the Roma mayprefer this type of marriage because of thetradition of paying for the bride upon con−tracting the marriage. Because this habit islosing its importance as the Roma graduallymix with other cultures, we can expect con−sanguineous marriages also to lose their jus−tification. Unfortunately, so far there are noindications supporting this trend. For furtherinformation on this topic, see Ferák et al(1980, 1987).

INFECTIOUS DISEASES

The catastrophic living conditions in settle−ments and locations with high concentrationsof Roma, as well as the low health awarenessamong the minority, contribute to the fre−quent incidence of infectious disease amongthe Roma. Information on the infectious dis−eases of the Roma come from scientific stud−ies performed before 1989, and from severalmore recent epidemiological reports.

There are signs that diseases such as hepati−tis A, bacillic dysentery, giardiosis, scab(mange or fungal skin disease) and pedicu−losis (lice infestation) are a significant prob−lem in many Roma communities. As notedabove, a significantly higher level of IgGantibodies was discovered in Roma childrenaged 6 to 16 years compared to non−Roma

children, indicating a higher exposure togerms, viruses, and parasites. The same studyfailed to find significant differences in theIgG levels of Roma and non−Roma childrenup to three years of age living in foster homes(Bernasovský, Bernasovská, and Hudáková,1981).

Another study performed in west Slovakia’sNové Mesto nad Váhom (Krišlo, Sorf et al,1990) discovered a prevalence of splenom−egaly (frequently related to latent infection,even though the remaining symptoms mayremain clinically silent) among the asymp−tomatic Roma volunteers, compared with acontrol group (10.5% compared to 4.9%).

The most serious infections are those of therespiratory tract. The incidence of tubercu−losis decreased significantly in the formerCzechoslovakia after 1960. A study carriedout in west Slovakia, however, proved thatthe prevalence of active lung tuberculosishad remained higher and had decreased moreslowly among the Roma than among the re−mainder of the Slovaks (Pozdechová, Bada−lík et al, 1969). Old Roma men in particularwere susceptible to this disease, as a resultof their lower social status, lower educationlevel, and inadequate hygiene. A micro−epi−demic of tuberculosis was recorded amongRoma children in the Czech Republic in1990 (Krepela, Kubec et al, 1994).

Yet another frequent infectious disease isviral hepatitis (infectious inflammation of theliver, infectious jaundice). The most frequenttypes of viral hepatitis are the A and E types,which are usually related to poor hygiene.This is a typical “dirty hands” disease, dis−seminated through contaminated water andfood. The disease is usually acute, accompa−nied by typical clinical symptoms (jaundice,swollen liver, high temperature). Patientsusually develop permanent immunity. Theolder the patient, the greater the insuscepti−


bility, which is why children suffer from thisdisease most frequently. Unlike B and C typehepatitis, the A and E forms of the disease donot evolve into a chronic state, and thus areless serious. Hepatitis B and C are dissemi−nated by sexual intercourse, blood transfu−sions, and needles, and are often overlooked,becoming chronic and leading to cirrhosis orcancer of the liver.

Several hepatitis epidemics were reported inthe Czech and Slovak Republics during thepast decade. In 1990, there was a serioushepatitis A epidemic in Brno in the easternCzech Republic. The Roma were the mostafflicted, and the disease was unusually pro−tracted. In 1999, more than 40 children suf−fered from hepatitis A, most of whom livedin the Roma settlement near Prostějov in theCzech Republic (Mladá fronta Dnes, Octo−ber 16, 1999). In 2001 there was a wide−spread hepatitis A epidemic in Vrútky innorthern Slovakia. Within two weeks, 41cases of hepatitis were recorded, mostlyamong the Roma inhabiting the former rail−waymen’s flats with poor hygiene (Národnáobroda, March 15, 2001).

The majority of Slovak Roma live in over−crowded and unhygienic flats. A journalistwho recently visited the Košice housing es−tate Lunik IX, which is inhabited mostly byRoma, wrote: “A small flat consisting of tworooms was inhabited by 20 to 30 people.There were two families living in each room,all sharing one kitchen and one toilet. Insome houses there is no tap water and nonatural gas.” (Holomek, 1998) Such condi−tions are an ideal breeding ground for anepidemic caused by poor hygiene. The situ−ation is partly related to the inability of someRoma to pay rent, as well as to the fact thatthe Roma usually do not own the flats. Flatowners often refuse to provide basic utilities,such as water and waste disposal, to tenantswho are overdue on their rent.

Yet another problem in reducing infectiousdiseases is the low level of inoculationamong the Roma. In 1997 there was a poxepidemic in Košice; 10 Roma and 9 non−Roma fell ill. Five patients had been inocu−lated and three had not, because vaccinationshad not been required for their age group.The inoculation records of the remaining 11could not be found (Adamkovičová et al,1999). The authors of a study on the issuestated that: “the Roma patients are a problemgroup both from the viewpoint of inoculationand medical documentation, and some Romaparents completely ignore vaccination pro−grams.” However, they failed to mentionwhether the majority of patients with miss−ing records were Roma.

Measures to suppress disease among theSlovak population have always focused onthe entire population without distinguishingbetween individual members. Nevertheless,measures were gradually adopted focusingon tuberculosis and polio control, while com−pulsory inoculation against several infectiousdiseases was introduced, and research wascarried out in Roma settlements. Despitehaving eradicated typhoid fever, and despiteongoing efforts to nail down diseases such astrachoma (contagious eye disease), diseasesof the lower respiratory tract, intestinal dis−eases, and syphilis, Jurová (1993) states thatmany of these diseases can still be found inRoma settlements. Besides those we men−tioned earlier, the most frequent infectiousdiseases among the Roma are scab, pedicu−losis, pyoderma (bacterial inflammation ofthe skin), mycosis (diseases caused byfungi), enterocolitis (inflammations of theintestine such as salmonellosis, shigellosis),cowpox, and many others.

Many studies performed before 1989 providedata on the incidence of infectious diseasesamong the Roma. A 1967 study found thatthe proportion of Roma in−patients in Košice


and Bardejov hospitals was higher than ma−jority patients. An interesting exception issexually transferred diseases, suggesting thatthe Roma still practice conservative sexualvalues, and that promiscuity is a rather newphenomenon among them.

ROMA HEALTH BEHAVIOR ANDLIFESTYLE

Many scientific books issued before 1989and dealing with Roma health emphasize theimportance of healthy behavior, stressingespecially the importance of daily bathing,hand washing, fingernail cutting, and hygi−enic meal preparation. Further research con−firmed that the health of the Roma was verypoor, and that many diseases among themwere caused by malnutrition, an unhealthylifestyle, and unwillingness to cooperate.Many basic data come from a study monitor−ing the Roma in Prague’s fifth district (Brtní−ková and Zelenková, 1976). The report con−tains no concrete data or references to anyliterature, it just states that the Roma in thisarea suffer from a wide range of diseasescaused by their unhealthy lifestyle. Accord−ing to this report, the Roma are heavy smok−ers, and suffer chronic diseases of the respi−ratory system. It also refers to high alcoholconsumption, which causes frequent diseasesof the liver and the digestive system. Thepaediatric part of the report warns that Romamothers suckle their children only briefly ornot at all, and often smoke and drink alco−hol during pregnancy. The report also men−tions a higher (compared to other children ofthe same age) occurrence of injuries (espe−cially burns), diarrhea and skin diseases inRoma infants and toddlers.

Growing prostitution and drug addictionamong the Roma also presents a great healthproblem. They present an increased risk ofHIV, hepatitis B and C, and other sexually

transferred diseases, as well as an increase incrime and suicides.

ROMA NUTRITION COMPAREDTO THE REMAINDER OFTHE POPULATION

A variety of studies describe the lifestylesand nutrition of the Slovak population as awhole, but few examine the nutritional hab−its of the Roma. The Roma’s socio−economicposition is generally very poor, and there aremany reasons to expect incorrect nutritionhabits related to poverty on the one hand, andirresponsibility for one’s health on the other.Collecting information on Roma nutrition iscomplicated. First, there is a communicationbarrier; second, many parents refuse to an−swer nutrition−related questions because theyconsider such information to be private. Andthird, ethnic groups are usually not includedin official statistical data.

The impact of nutrition on health, the inci−dence of so−called “civilization diseases”(cardiovascular and cancer−related diseases,allergies, etc.), and life expectancy is wellknown. The quantity, composition andprocessing of food have a significant impacton one’s performance and one’s immunesystem. Nutrition is determined by habits,region, and many other factors, such as reli−gious rules, degree of education, and socio−economic aspects.

The following data comes from a study byKačala et al (2002), which was carried out inthe Zlaté Klasy municipality, situated to theeast of Bratislava. We should note that thelocal Roma community does not representthe Slovak average for the Roma, as it has anotably higher standard of living.

The food consumed was divided into severalgroups: animal foodstuffs, plant foodstuffs,


and drinks. The results are shown below inTable 2 and in Graphs 1 through 4. Consump−tion of food is broken up into daily and otherfrequencies in percent. As for the animalfoodstuffs, there were major differences, tothe disadvantage of the Roma, in the con−sumption of pork and smoked meat. As for theconsummation of pork fat, the result was againto the disfavor of the Roma. The Roma alsoconsume surprisingly large quantities of poul−try in comparison to the remainder of thepopulation. Roma women consume moreeggs than the rest of Slovakia’s women. Whileno such difference was recorded in men, thedata may be biased, as men usually do notcount the eggs used when preparing a meal.

The Roma eat a lot of fat meat and animal fat.Similar results were found in the Levice dis−trict in south−central Slovakia (Ginter, 1998).High food fat content is a factor in obesity,diabetes, and cardiovascular and cancer−re−lated diseases. On the other hand, the Romaconsume fewer fruit and vegetables than therest of the population. Plant foodstuffs are themain source of fiber, polysaccharides, bio−active substances, and vitamins (group B

vitamins, folacin, C, E, K, A and other vita−mins). Vegetable consumption was quite lowamong both ethnic groups, despite the factthey were from south Slovakia, an areawhere many vegetables are grown. The factthat the research was carried out at the begin−ning of spring may have had something to dowith this. Low vegetable consumption wasalso seen in the Levice district (Ginter, 1998).Lack of fiber and antioxidant vitamins (es−pecially the C, A and E vitamins) and groupB vitamins in food leads to the formation ofcarcinomas and cardiovascular diseases.

The Roma consume more soft drinks withlots of calories, which contribute to obesityand related diseases. They also drink morespirits. The consequences of drinking alco−hol are well−known – liver cirrhosis and re−lated (frequently fatal) diseases, carcinomasof the gastrointestinal (digestive) system, aswell as far−reaching social and economicconsequences (family neglect and break−up,unemployment, accidents, etc.).

An interesting dependence was discovered inthe Roma. After correlating mental well−be−

Table 2Daily or every−other−day consumption of food by different ethnic groups

� A�� Q��

� ��

�� !��

�� !�� .� ��

�� !��

��?��.��!'�� ? ��.��!'�� ?�� ?��U� �� U� ��

!��

��!��

Note: * With the commodities marked with an asterisk, a frequent answer was rarely or never.Source: Kačala et al, 2002.


ing and blood pressure levels, we obtained alinear dependence. High blood pressureequaled a poor mental condition, and viceversa. No such relationship was discovered inthe rest of the population, which may perhapsbe due to lifestyle and civilization influences.The increased acceptance of civilizationalhabits presumably causes a loss of “commu−nication between the body and the soul”.

In 1997 (Brázdová, Fiala et al, 1998) a studywas done of the nutrition of Roma childrenin the Czech Republic. The authors spokewith 650 children aged 9 to 13 from differ−ent regions of Bohemia, and tried to deter−mine their nutritional habits and their dailyintake of the most significant nutritional sub−stances. They discovered an inadequate con−sumption of vegetables (only 19% of the rec−ommended daily intake, or RDI), fruit (20%of RDI), milk and milk products (32% ofRDI), cereals, pasta, bread, and rice (63% ofRDI). On the other hand, Roma children ate4.5−times more fast food, containing loads ofanimal fat and sugar, than recommended.This could explain the high incidence ofobesity among Roma children (Brázdová,Fiala, and Hŕstková, 1998).

When asked what they liked to eat, 90% ofRoma children answered that they also likedhealthy food such as oranges, apples, ba−nanas, tomatoes, cucumbers, and potatoes,but said that they did not get to eat them veryoften. This seems surprising, given that mostfamilies modify their menu according towhat their children like to eat. The limitedfood selection in Roma families may stemfrom their bad economic situation. However,this is contradicted by the frequent incidenceof obesity among Roma children from cer−tain areas (Brázdová, Fiala, and Hŕstková,1998).

Many data confirm that poor nutrition mayhave an adverse effect on the stature of

Roma children. Bernasovský et al (1986)examined the physical stature of 300 Romachildren from eastern Slovakia. They foundthat these children grew up more slowlythan children from the majority population.The children matured later sexually as well.

Graph 1Frequency of pork consumption

4

2,N3

��

0,N,3N2

,*N/ ,0N4

��

��

��

��

��

��

-(��6#�%�3/ -(��?��

?��#��%��0��0 ��/��0(��0��0 ��/��A��3I%��.��%��0(��.��

Source: Kačala et al, 2002.

Graph 2Frequency of smoked meat consumption

,-N3

-2N,��

23N3

,,N501N2

,2N4

��

��

��

��

��

��

-(��6#�%�3/ -(��?��

?��#��%��0��0 ��/��0(��0��0 ��/��A��3I%��.��%��0(��.��



The authors emphasized that the growth anddevelopment of children are determined byboth genetic predispositions and environ−mental factors, an important part of which

is sufficient intake of certain foods. Theslow development of Roma children may becaused by insufficient intake of these sub−stances.

CONGENITAL DISEASES

Much research dealing with Roma healthfocuses on congenital (inborn) diseases.Some authors tend to look at all Romahealth problems in terms of inborn disposi−tions and high genetic load (inbreeding),which may be an over simplification of theissue. On the other hand, timely medicalintervention can prevent the formation of oralleviate the symptoms of certain congeni−tal diseases. It is thus very important toknow whether there is a risk of a child be−ing afflicted by a genetic disease even be−fore it is born.

According to Seres (1998), the incidence ofcongenital anomalies in the Rožňava districtfrom 1992 to 1997 was 2.15 cases per 100births in the majority population and 2.37 per100 births among the Roma. However, thevariety of diseases of Roma newborns dif−fered from the rest, and tended to be veryserious diseases causing permanent invalid−ity. The most typical inborn diseases of theRoma are: congenital glaucoma, phenylke−tonuria, congenital hypothyreosis, cranioste−nosis (inborn deformity of the skull) andmental retardation. Some authors have triedto find a link between certain blood groupstypical of the Roma and the increased inci−dence of certain parasitic diseases such asgiardiosis (Bernasovský, 1981).

CONGENITAL GLAUCOMA

The most frequent single−gene disease af−flicting the Roma is congenital glaucoma(CG). CG is a serious eye anomaly causing

Graph 3Frequency of white bread and pastry con−sumption – men

01N2

33

��

03N5

5

,4N, ,3

��

��

��

��

��

��

-(��6#�%�3/ -(��?��

?��#��%��0��0 ��/��0(��0��0 ��/��A��3I%��.��%��0(��.��


Graph 4Frequency of sweet drink consumption –women

,-

40N0

��

,4N/

4N3

-0N,

5N1

��

��

��

��

��

��

-(��6#�%�3/ -(��?��

?��#��%��0��0 ��/��0(��0��0 ��/��A��3I%��.��%��0(��.��



blindness. The disease is responsible forabout 10% of all blindness cases in children.The incidence of the disease in developedcountries is roughly 1 in 15,000 children, butamong the Roma it is 15−times higher, or 1in 1,000 children.

According to Gerinc and Ferák (1999), twoclinical forms of the disease are known:• autosomal recessively inheritable CG oc−

curring in the Roma, which has a severeclinical phase during which about 75% ofchildren go blind.

• sporadic, not inherited CG occurring in therest of Slovaks, having a less severe clini−cal phase during which about 75% of chil−dren are cured.

The differences between CG among theRoma and the non−Roma in genetic factorsand clinical indicators are shown in Table 3.

The main medical problem is represented byCG in Roma, who form an independent clini−cal unit from the rest of the population. De−spite progress in microsurgery, treatment isvery rarely successful, and roughly 10,000Slovak Roma children go blind every year(Gerinec and Ferák, 1999). This figure rep−resents a serious medical and socio−eco−nomic issue, because the state has to spend

about 0.5 million Sk ($12,000) in care foreach blind child every year.

The aforementioned authors were the firstto identify the mutation responsible forRoma CG in 1997. To identify the mutation,they prepared a PCR2 method test that wassensitive enough to be used in prenatal di−agnostics as well as to identify healthy car−riers of CG. Any marriage between Romacan be considered risky because of the highnumber of carriers. The said method can es−tablish whether someone is or is not a diseasecarrier.

Screening healthy CG carriers is the mosteffective prevention means. Using thismethod we could considerably lower the in−cidence of the disease in just a few years.Another means of prevention is prenatal di−agnostics in parents who are healthy but stillcarriers. If the fetus is diseased, the mothercan decide whether to abort the pregnancy ornot. If the results are negative, the mother canbe sure she will give birth to a child not af−fected by CG. Use of this screening is welljustified, as CG is a very serious diseasecausing life−long invalidity and trauma, notjust to the affected individual but also to his/her family, not to mention the expense thatscreening could save the state budget.

Table 3Statistically significant genetic and clinical indicator differences (incidence of congenital glau−coma) between the Roma and the non−Roma in Slovakia

9��E�!�'��

��

E�'�!��'��?�� .� �� A��:�Q�� '��!�� P�� P��8��.�� 8��'�!��'�� E� ��.� ��0�/��#��// %�� "�#�2��/�E�'�!��'�� 8��.� �� #�0��#� � �� #�0��#�9 ��!�� /�%�� 2��!��

Note: Bilateral means both eyes are affected.Source: Oláh et al, 1998.


PHENYLKETONURIA ANDCONGENITAL HYPOTHYREOSIS

These diseases are both metabolic disordersthat occur frequently in the Roma. If not di−agnosed and treated early enough, they cancause serious damage and life long invalid−ity.

Phenylketonuria is an inborn phenylalanineamino−acid metabolic disorder (phenyla−lanine is not transformed into tyrosine) char−acterized by the accumulation of phenyla−lanine and its metabolites in body fluids,whereby these substances act as toxins. Theincidence of the disease in Slovakia is 1 in10,000 newborns, but among the Roma it isroughly 1 in 1,000 newborns (Feráková, Fe−rák, Kádasi et al, 1991). The main symptomsof the advanced form of the disease are heavymental retardation, convulsions, and hyper−activity.

Congenital hypothyreosis (CH) is an inbornlack of hormones produced by the thyroidgland (thyroxine and triiodinetyronine).Advanced forms of CH affect the centralnervous system and the skeleton. Heavymental retardation is common, while thebody is disproportional and small; dwarfismcan also occur. Symptoms may be absent atbirth, and only evolve later. Late diagnosisand treatment can have serious conse−quences, which is why all newborns in Slo−vakia are checked for hypothyreosis (andphenylketonuria). Cretinism is hypothyreosis(thyroid deficiency) combined with irrevers−ible changes to the skeleton and nervoussystem. According to a study by Lescisinováet al (1989), Roma newborns in eastern Slo−vakia (1985 to 1988) were affected by CHalmost three times more often than othernewborns. The incidence of CH in non−Roma children was 1 in 6,284, while in theRoma it was 1 in 2,192.

SLOW MENTAL DEVELOPMENT

Kvasnicová (1992) studied the incidence ofslow mental development among 6 to 14−year−olds in the Banská Bystrica district. Theprevalence of this phenomenon amongRoma children was 21.5%, while among thenon−Roma it was only 0.9%. Other surveyshave also revealed a higher prevalence ofmental retardation among Roma childrencompared to the majority population. How−ever, we must make clear that these numbersdo not always reflect reality. So far, no testof sufficient validity has determined thatRoma children show slow mental develop−ment. A good example is the process of se−lecting and placing Roma children in schoolsand facilities for mentally retarded children– the so−called “special schools”.

The long−term and extremely high propor−tion of Roma children and young people inSlovak “special” schools and facilities is apermanent education sector issue. The prob−lem is being monitored, examined, and ad−dressed, but it remains a problem. Thereseem to be many errors made in the ap−proach, as well as in the selection and plac−ing of Roma children in special schools.Personality−forming factors such as inherit−ance, environment, and upbringing are oftenunder− or overestimated. A Roma childwhose parents attended a special school isoften automatically considered a potentialspecial school candidate. If the child’s sib−lings already attend a special school, thedecision is almost a formality. Thus, entiregenerations of Roma can be found attendingspecial schools, with the virtual certainty thattheir children too will be automaticallytreated as special school candidates.

The overestimation of environmental influ−ences significantly affects decisions made onRoma children. At the same time, the impact


of school or out−of−school education envi−ronments is underestimated, as is the influ−ence of mentoring. Teachers do not haveconfidence in their own pedagogical abilities,and do not have faith in the effectiveness ofmentoring in educating Roma pupils. Manyelementary school teachers give up on theirRoma pupils after the first failure, and try totransfer them to a special school as quicklyas possible. For the elementary schoolteacher, transferring the Roma is the easiestway to shift the responsibility for educatingthem to another institution.

Because of deprivation and retardation,Roma pupils are simply expected to fail incommon psychological tests for pre−schoolers. One of the causes of these selec−tion failures is the absence of an appropriatetest for Roma pupils. The test should be asvisual as possible, and should not expect alevel of knowledge or command of Slovakcommon among Slovak children. The men−tal development of 133 Roma pupils fromspecial schools was tested after nine years ofschool attendance. The initial diagnosis wascompared with the final one. The determinedIQ range was from 53 to 112, with the aver−age between 70 and 80.

Nevertheless, mental retardation is clearlymore frequent among the Roma than amongthe non−Roma. Naturally, racial factors arenot the determining ones. The main problemsare premature birth, the young age of themother at birth, and the fact that children,both before and after their births, are exposedto extremely poor sanitary conditions andnoxious influences (alcohol consumption,smoking, poor nutrition, filth, and high inci−dence of disease). The high inbreeding ratealso plays an important role, as well as thementioned frequent incidence of certain con−genital diseases (phenylketonuria, congeni−tal hypothyreosis, etc.), which may causemental retardation, sometimes very serious.

The incidence of slow mental developmentin the Roma exceeds the statistical averagein an ordinary population. However, the situ−ation is by no means as bad as the state ofSlovak special schools may suggest. Theindirect cause of this situation is the “contentreconstruction” of elementary schools after1976. Children from unstimulating environ−ments were naturally not capable of dealingwith the increased academic demands, andwere unable to keep pace with their mentallymore advanced peers. Teachers now do nothave time to occupy themselves with slowerpupils, and thus usually give up on them andtransfer them to special schools. However,most of these children do not belong there;they should instead receive proper educationand upbringing in regular elementaryschools.

CHRONIC ANDUNCLASSIFIED DISEASES

Thanks to the discovery of antibiotics, the20th century saw a sharp decline in morbid−ity and mortality caused by infectious dis−eases, which had been the most commoncause of death until then. Especially in indus−trial countries, these diseases were replacedby the “civilization diseases” caused by anunhealthy lifestyle, environmental pollution,improper nutrition, smoking and alcoholconsumption. These include cardiovasculardiseases (arteriosclerosis, heart disease, heartattacks), cancer−related diseases, allergies,diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease,chronic neurological diseases, mental disor−ders, and many more.

Information about these diseases in the Romais very scarce. Ginter et al (2001) believe thattheir high rate of early mortality has to dowith cardiovascular diseases, which affectthe Roma 2.5−times more often than the restof the population. Mortality from cancer−re−


lated diseases is about 1.8−times higher,while the number of deaths due to externalcauses (injuries, poisoning, crime, suicide,etc.) is about 2−times higher than among theSlovaks. The authors felt that the large−scalecardiovascular mortality could be related tothe high prevalence of diabetes and the highincidence of chronic infections. The Romashow a high prevalence of obesity, and lowlevels of HDL−cholesterol (the so−called“good cholesterol”).

Several reports exist on cardiovascular dis−eases among the Roma. Nozdrovický hasmonitored a Roma community in the north−east Slovak municipality of Rakúsy since1980. He has found that the most frequentcause of death in this community is cardio−vascular disease. Among the causes he iden−tified several lifestyle factors that could playan important role in the high rate of cardio−vascular disease and mortality among theRoma. These include high consumption ofanimal fat and minimal consumption of fruitand vegetables, obesity, heavy and wide−spread smoking (often from a very youngage), physical inactivity, and heavy drinking.Nozdrovický also noted the unwillingness ofthe Roma to help prevent and cure these dis−eases.

A study in Prague’s fifth district found thatmany elderly Roma were invalids sufferingfrom neurological, bone and joint diseases,and from chronic respiratory tract illnesses.

There are signs that chronic diseases (suchas cardiovascular diseases and diabetes) arebecoming a growing threat among adultRoma. The incidence of low birth weightamong the Roma is very high (see above),and some data show that people who had alow birth weight are more susceptible to car−diovascular diseases and diabetes in adult−hood.

THE ROMA ANDTHE HEALTH SYSTEM

ACCESS OF ROMA TOHEALTH CARE

There seems to be an urgent need to improvethe relationship between the Roma and thehealth system. Seres describes several spe−cific problems in the approach to the treat−ment of Roma women in gynecology andobstetrics wards. He mentions patients wholeft the hospital immediately after an essen−tial and life−saving treatment was finished.He also noted a failure to cooperate in treat−ments with medications, especially whenthese are prescribed preventively, or whenthe patient does not feel any symptoms of theongoing disease. The Roma are also reluc−tant to undergo regular outpatient examina−tions (Seres, 1998).

Jurová and Koptová state in their chapterRisk Groups – Roma Children and Youth thatRoma mothers often leave their childrenalone in medical establishments immediatelyafter their birth. The authors believe that thisis caused by the long−term disintegration ofthe positive value orientation of the Romafamily, and the weakening or even the lossof family cohesion and responsibility forraising children.

DISCRIMINATION INMEDICAL CARE

The Slovak Constitution, in Article 40, guar−antees everyone the right to protect his/herhealth, and assures Slovak citizens of theright to free medical care and medical aidson terms set by the law. Neither the Consti−tution nor the additional regulations on medi−cal care contain any specific anti−discrimina−tion measures. However, doctors are bound


to provide medical care to everyone, regard−less of their racial or ethnic origin (see TheEthical Codex..., 1992). Despite that, theRoma frequently meet discrimination in try−ing to gain access to medical care.

The incidence of infectious diseases amongthe Roma is higher than among the majoritypopulation. Epidemics of scab, pediculosis,pyodermatitis, mycosis, and ascariasis (manyof these are parasitic or fungal skin diseases)among the inhabitants of Roma settlementsare not rare. The periodic incidence of men−ingitis and typhus in Roma communities isused to justify requiring health passes fromRoma children at the entrances to publicswimming pools. Such health passes are notrequired from non−Roma children.3

Roma women often face discrimination bothwhen visiting the doctor and during treat−ment. Roma women in eastern Slovakia havebecome accustomed to segregated maternitywards, which in this region are more of a rulethan an exception; this segregation relates toall medical facilities, including showers andbathrooms (Zoon, 2001).

The Lunik IX Roma ghetto in east Slovakia’sKošice saw the introduction of discrimina−tory measures limiting the access of Romawomen to gynecological care. All Romawomen from this housing estate were regis−tered at one gynecological center, and couldhave a medical check−up only on Fridays.Only non−Roma women were served onother days.4

In 1990, a Košice NGO filed a complaintwith the Health Ministry against the wide−spread segregation of Roma women on sepa−rate maternity wards. The ministry repliedthat the Roma patients had been separated attheir own request, and because some of themwere insubordinate and constantly violatedhospital regulations (The White Book, 2000).

Based on the testimony of Roma asylumseekers in Finland and the findings of medi−cal workers cooperating with Finnish NGOs,serious allegations were made that Romawomen had been sterilized without theirconsent.5 In November 1999, nurses fromseveral Finnish refugee camps claimed thatvarious gynecological procedures appearedto have been performed on many SlovakRoma women. The Finnish office of Am−nesty International started to investigate theissue, stating that there were several worry−ing cases among the women. According tosome reports, some Roma women who hadhad caesarian sections or other medical in−terventions performed in Slovak hospitalsafter 1990 had never been able to becomepregnant again, despite not using any formof contraception (Zoon, 2001). The Humanand Minority Rights Section of the SlovakGovernment Office denied any informationon such practices (TASR press agency,March 9, 2000).

The Slovak Health Ministry has no data onRoma health, because according to its offi−cial line: “the ministry does not and cannotsee who is a Roma and who is not.”6 Moreo−ver, as the government recently noted, theministry had not received or noticed a singlecase of Roma discrimination in state medi−cal establishments in Slovakia.7

SUSPECTED STERILIZATIONS OFROMA WOMEN

The issue of alleged forced sterilizations ofRoma women in eastern Slovakia reverber−ated throughout the country and abroad at thebeginning of 2003. The allegations weremade in the report of the Center for Repro−ductive Rights and the Civic and HumanRights Advice Bureau, entitled Body andSoul: Forced Sterilizations and Other At−tacks on the Reproductive Freedoms of the


Roma in Slovakia. According to this report,which was based on interviews with 230Roma women from 40 eastern Slovakia set−tlements, hospitals in the area had forcedRoma women to undergo sterilization, or thewomen had been sterilized against their will.The authors of the report also noted racialdiscrimination in access to health care andtreatment, physical and verbal attacks againstRoma patients, and misinformation aboutmatters related to reproduction. Anotherproblem mentioned in the report was refusalof access to health records (Telo a duša…,2003).

According to the authors of the report, theirresearch unveiled at least 110 cases of forcedor constrained sterilization of Roma women,which, according to the authors, was only“the tip of the iceberg”. Roma women hadoften been given misleading or threateninginformation by doctors and nurses with theaim of pressuring and intimidating them intoconsenting to be sterilized, a process that wasthen performed during a caesarian sectionoperation. The physicians also frequentlyand irresponsibly performed caesarian sec−tions of Roma women, partly as a pretext forsterilizations. The Roma women affected didnot obtain precise information about the realchances that they would be able to becomepregnant in the future, and they were intimi−dated into consenting to sterilization bythreats that they or their child might die dur−ing delivery if the procedure was not per−formed. In other cases, the Roma womenwere not even informed of the sterilization,and were forced to give their consent after−wards. There were two cases of sterilizationof women younger than 18 without the con−sent of their legal representative, which isrequired by law. The report mentioned thehospital in the eastern Slovak town of Krom−pachy as the place where most forcedsterilizations had taken place (Telo a duša...,2003).

The government reacted to the report by fil−ing a motion for the criminal prosecution ofan unknown culprit for the suspected forcedsterilization of Roma women. However, italso filed a motion for the criminal prosecu−tion of the report’s authors, because, shouldthe information in their report prove true,then they had by the same token failed tomeet their legal obligation to notify the po−lice that a crime had taken place. On the otherhand, should the information prove false,they would be guilty of the crime of dissemi−nating false information. The chargesaroused a wave of criticism in the West. TheDeputy Prime Minister for European Integra−tion, Human Rights and Minorities, Pál Csá−ky, asked the appropriate ministers, the Pub−lic Prosecution Office, and the president ofthe police force to look into the issue.

The regional police in Košice launched acriminal prosecution for the crime of geno−cide according to Section 259, Paragraph 1,letter b) of the Penal Code, following theruling of the regional investigation authorityin Košice that grounds existed for thecharges. The authority also asked the Facultyof Medicine at Comenius University in Bra−tislava to prepare an expert report.

The authority also established a controlgroup consisting of a Health Ministry repre−sentative and various specialists and expertsin gynecology and obstetrics, and tasked itwith checking up on the gynecology andobstetrics ward of the hospital and policlinicin Krompachy. At the request of the investi−gator and on the order of the Health Minis−ter, the control group performed an inspec−tion of the said ward.

The group came to the following conclu−sions. The architecture of the hospital inKrompachy does not permit racial segrega−tion. The doctors and the other personnelhave the required qualifications and all hos−


pital records were without faults. The femalepatients present in the ward, including thehospitalized Roma women, had no com−plaints. All female patients (from 1999 to2002) on whom the sterilization procedurehad been performed had signed an applica−tion to permit sterilization, and all these re−quests had been discussed and approved bythe sterilization committee. Indications thatthe sterilizations should be performed werecorrect and in accordance with the directiveon sterilization. In two cases, Section 7 of thedirective, requiring the consent of both theperson in question (even if the person wascapable of judging the consequences of his/her decision) as well as the consent of thecurator, was not adhered to (Správa o výsled−koch šetrenia..., 2003).

Besides that, the control group also pointedout data suggesting that the number ofsterilizations among Roma women was sig−nificantly lower than among the rest of thepopulation. The number of caesarian sectionsamong the majority population was alsofound to be twice as high as among theRoma. These data were not felt to indicate thepresence of genocide in the hospital exam−ined (Správa o výsledkoch šetrenia..., 2003).The control group, after its work at theKrompachy hospital, was unable to confirmthe allegations brought forward by the Bodyand Soul report.

The Health Ministry’s gynecology expert,Karol Holomáň, in an interview with the Smedaily paper, pointed out what he called otherserious shortcomings in the Body and Soulreport, which further weakened the argu−ments of the report’s authors about the forcedsterilizations. For example, Holomáň said theassertion that more Roma women had under−gone caesarian sections merely because thephysicians wanted to perform a sterilizationat the same time was false and absurd. Ac−cording to the statistical data, majority popu−

lation women undergo caesarian sectionstwice as often as Roma women. Furthermore,a caesarian section is an operation, and mustbe indicated by some medical condition. Itis also more complicated for the physician,especially if a caesarian is being performedfor the second time on a patient. Caesariansections are technically demanding and con−nected with complications. According to Ho−lomáň, the only reason that a caesarian sec−tion can be performed in Slovakia is a medi−cal reason, unlike in the US, where it can beperformed at the wish of the female patient(Sme, February 24, 2003).

The ministry’s gynecology expert also notedthat the report’s authors did not have even abasic level of medical knowledge, as provenby their statement that the caesarian sectionson the Roma women in eastern Slovakia hadbeen performed vertically, which is an obso−lete method. The report stated that: “In mostof the caesarians, the abdominal cavity wasopened in the upper abdomen”, i.e. from thenavel upwards. This is not possible even intheory. The abdominal cavity can be open intwo ways during a caesarian section – byperforming an incision downwards from thenavel, or by a horizontal incision. However,the most important part of the caesarian sec−tion is how the uterus is opened. Nowadays,the most frequent method is to perform theincision on the least congested part. The tra−ditional corporal caesarian section, whichwas used 50 years ago, has been abandoned(Sme, February 24, 2003).

The report’s main objection was that thewomen had not been informed, and had beenforced to give their consent before an acutecaesarian. Unfortunately, the directive onsterilization does not stipulate low long inadvance a woman has to ask for sterilizationbefore medical help is provided. In the caseof an acute operation, it is not always possi−ble to adhere to a certain time schedule. If the


woman’s pelvis is narrow, all her pregnan−cies will inevitably end in caesarians, so shehas a right to know what her options are andwhat the risks are. Naturally, she should beinformed of these facts at a prenatal center,agreed Holomáň. However, statistics showthat only 25% of Roma women attended pre−natal centers often enough for such informa−tion to be ascertained and passed on; 25% donot visit a center at all before giving birth,and the remaining 50% only a few times. IfRoma women do not attend the prenatalcenter, it is also difficult to inform them ofother possibilities of contraception, some−thing that was also criticized in the report(Sme, February 24, 2003).

The Body and Soul report had many seriousconsequences for Slovakia’s image abroad,even though the government investigationproved the accusations of alleged steriliza−tions to be untrue. However, the report at thesame time pointed to serious shortcomingsin legislation and certain double standards inthe approach of health workers to Roma pa−tients.

Sterilization in Slovakia is governed by a 30−year−old law that has several shortcomings.One of the most serious is the absence of amandatory time period during which thewoman can decide whether or not the steri−lization should be performed. The law alsofails to define the conditions under which awoman may not take this decision (e.g. whenshe is under the influence of anesthesia, orprenatal stress). Given these flaws, doctorswho request a signature from the patient inthe operating theater itself, whatever themedical ethics involved, are not breaking thelaw.

Based on the report, the Health Ministryproposed a new law on sterilization accord−ing to which there should be a 72−hour pe−riod before consent is given. The law should

also regulate the sterilization of youngwomen.

The Health Ministry also issued an instruc−tion unifying sterilization procedures andsent it to all directors of health facilities itadministered, as well as to all self governingregions. Among other things, the instructionsaid that health facilities are obliged to ac−quire the consent of the legal representativesof all people with limited abilities to performlegal acts, such as minors (Správa o výsled−koch šetrenia..., 2003).

GOVERNMENT MEASURES INROMA MEDICAL CARE

The cabinet on September 27, 1999 approveda document entitled Strategy of the SlovakGovernment to Solve the Problems of theRoma and the Set of Implementation Meas−ures – 1st Stage (hereafter referred to as “thestrategy”).

In this document, the cabinet confirmed theneed to create conditions for solving Romaproblems in areas where the situation is con−sidered critical – unemployment, housing,the health service, the social sphere, and edu−cation; as well as in areas where there is stillroom for improvement, such as humanrights, ethnic minority rights, cooperationwith NGOs, and regional development.

The preparation of further steps includeddrawing up a strategy for individual depart−ments, regions, and districts, including cov−ering the costs from the 2000 state budget.A new document was created – The DetailedStrategy of the Slovak Government to Solvethe Problems of the Roma and a Set of Con−crete Measures for 2000 – 2nd Stage (hereaf−ter referred to as “the detailed strategy”).Strategies concerning Roma health includedthe following measures:


THE HEALTH MINISTRY

1. To continue implementation of the“Schools Supporting Health” project.

2. To prepare a preventive inoculation planfor Roma children aged 1 to 10 againsttype A hepatitis. The plan is to focus onchildren from environments with maxi−mum infection risk – Roma settlementswith very poor social and sanitary stand−ards.

3. To implement projects prepared by theInstitute of Health Education:a) increasing health awareness among

Roma children aged 6 to 9;b) increasing health awareness among

Roma children aged 10 to 15;c) preparing the Roma for planned matri−

mony and parenthood.

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

1. To obtain hepatitis A and B serum, andensure laboratory examinations of drink−ing water. To provide adult education onhygiene.

2. To carry out health education in coopera−tion with schools. The following topicsare to be discussed: healthy nutrition, per−sonal hygiene, parenthood, vaccinations,and the prevention of substance abuse.

3. To develop a project of peer education formunicipalities with large numbers ofRoma children.

4. To promote, via the media, health educa−tion focusing on the Roma.

5. To prevent the formation and dissemina−tion of contagious diseases in Roma set−tlements by adopting preventive meas−ures and increased hygiene control.

6. To establish home care agencies, espe−cially in the districts of Malacky, Pezinokand Senec.

7. To perform quality controls of watersources supplying the inhabitants of

Roma settlements. To take action if un−suitable water quality is discovered.

8. To implement educational programs, in−cluding promotions and lectures, focus−ing on basic hygiene habits in Romafamilies.

9. To continue educational programs fo−cused on planned parenthood and healthylifestyles.

10. State medical establishments will focustheir health education on districts andschools with a high ratio of children fromsocially weak and inadaptable families.This will involve all school types, andabove all classes with increased numbersof Roma pupils.

ROMA SETTLEMENTS

Life in Roma settlements (rural−type dwell−ings) is very risky. There is no suitable drink−ing water, sewage systems and septic tanksdo not exist, solid waste piles up and decom−poses, dwellings are overcrowded, and thereare few access roads.

According to the Slovak Health Ministry, thehighest share of people not having access tosafe drinking water live in settlements in thePrešov region (51.4%), followed by the Ko−šice and Banská Bystrica regions.

In 2001, the Slovak State Health Instituteprepared a document for the Slovak HealthMinistry called The Program of Improvingthe Environment and Sanitary Conditionsand Prevention of Infectious Diseases amongthe Inhabitants of Roma Settlements. Thisdocument attempted to improve health inRoma settlements, and emphasized the needto involve the Roma in public life by givingthem representation in local municipalities.It underlined the need for an active approachby the Roma to work, and the need to in−crease their educational level, while main−


taining a specific approach to selected Romatarget groups.

DISCRIMINATION

The cabinet adopted a document called AnAction Plan for Preventing all Forms of Dis−crimination, Racism, Xenophobia, Anti−Semitism and Other Displays of Intolerancefor the Period 2002 to 2003 (hereafter re−ferred to as “the 2002 – 2003 action plan”).The 2002 – 2003 action plan proposed aninformation campaign and various types ofhuman rights training, focused on preventingdiscrimination, racism, xenophobia and simi−lar forms of intolerance, and envisagedstrengthening the legal awareness of Slovakcitizens in the effective use of protectivemeasures.

The document states: “The Slovak HealthMinistry will educate health workers in pre−venting all forms of discrimination, racism,xenophobia, anti−Semitism and other dis−plays of intolerance. In preventing discrimi−nation, it is necessary to focus on ensuringequal treatment for patients regardless oftheir sex, race, complexion, language, faithand religion, political or other way of think−ing, national and social origin, ethnic affin−ity, property, class or position.” However, thedocument fails to specify what measures willbe used to achieve this.

The Office of the Slovak Government Rep−resentative for Solving the Problems of theRoma Minority, in cooperation with theInfoRoma foundation and the State HealthInstitute, prepared a project entitled “TheHealth Condition of Children and Womenfrom Poor Slovak Communities”. One of thepriorities of the National Health Support Pro−gram (in accordance with the fulfillment ofthe Health for Everyone in the 21st Centuryprogram of the World Health Organization)

is to improve the health of the entire Slovakpopulation. The project’s aim is to collectdata on the health of children from the lowersocial classes. The data is to be presented atthe UNO meeting on children’s rights, andshould provide the information needed tocreate a policy improving health and diseaseprevention, and stressing the need to providehealth care to the poorest people. The projectis to be funded by UNICEF.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that the health of the Roma is sub−stantially worse than that of the rest of theSlovak population. The main causes of thisare the long−term adverse socio−economicsituation of the Roma, their insufficient edu−cation and inappropriate lifestyle. WhileRoma health gradually improved during thecommunist regime, with infant mortality fall−ing and many infectious diseases almosteliminated, since 1989 it has gradually wors−ened.

Although prevention and medical measureswere well thought−out in the past, they werealso of a forced nature, thus demotivating theRoma to practice preventive medical andsanitary measures. At present, preventiveprograms with the participation of the state,health organizations, NGOs, and the Romaare preferred. The basic principles of suchprograms should be supported by the Roma,and should be familiar and appropriate tothem. The approach of NGOs to support “is−lands of positive deviation” within localcommunities is proving effective. Such is−lands may become positive examples worthyof following by other community members.

The detailed strategy focuses on vaccinatingRoma children against hepatitis A and B8 –according to government sources, the taskhas already been accomplished. The health


of Roma communities is still threatened byserious diseases such as poliomyelitis (cer−ebral palsy) and meningitis (brain fever).State health institutions sometimes suggestthat Roma parents should be blamed for thissituation, as they lack the discipline to havetheir children inoculated (TASR pressagency, February 16, 2000). As the Romapractice no systematic inoculation, there is aconstant threat of an outbreak of new epi−demics in Roma communities. In the springof 2000, there were four new cases of men−ingitis diagnosed in the Roma communitiesnear Michalovce in east Slovakia. Eventhough there were 300 children needing im−mediate vaccination in the area, only 10% ofthem received shots.10

Western specialists have already noticed thisnegative trend. Martin McKee warned in anarticle published in the British Medical Jour−nal that “at the end of the 20th century, Eu−ropean governments cannot be allowed toignore the needs of the multitude of theircitizens”. McKee criticized the scientific in−stitutions of countries with large populationsof Roma inhabitants for not paying sufficientattention to analyzing their health problems(McKee, 1997). Our objective in this chap−ter was to react to such criticisms by publish−ing a detailed report attempting to summa−rize the results of multiple epidemiologicalresearch on the health condition, nutrition,lifestyle, and inborn predispositions of theSlovak Roma.

ENDNOTES

1. The majority of documents examining thisissue confirm that the gene pool of the Romais different from that of the non−Roma, andthe gene frequencies determined in individualsystems are very similar to corresponding fre−quencies of different Indian populations (Si−váková, 1992). The best−known evidence is

the blood group distribution data. The Romashow increased frequency of the B−allele (i.e.the B blood group is the most frequent), asmall proportion of the A/B−allele, and highfrequency of the phenotype CCDee (Rh sys−tem), i.e. a high frequency of rhesus factor +.Similar findings are typical for the inhabitantsof the Indian subcontinent. The Roma showa very low incidence of the Hp1−allele (hapto−globine system), a low frequency of the Pa−allele (acidic erythroctic phosphatase, or ACPsystem) and the Pc−allele from the same sys−tem is completely absent. The frequency ofthe PGM1

1−allele from the phosphogluco−mu−

tase enzyme system is equally frequent (Sivá−ková, 1983). All of these findings support thehypothesis of the Roma’s Indian origin.

2. Polymerasis chain reaction (PCR) – a molecu−lar biology method – is one of the most fre−quently used techniques in gene defect diag−nostics.

3. Daniela Stabová, head of the Slovak office ofthe International Organization for Migration,quoted in Sobotka (manuscript, p. 20).

4. This procedure was introduced in 1997 andlasted until March 2001 (Zoon, 2001).

5. The Belgian NGO Roma Rights Leagueclaimed that several Roma women had testi−fied to being sterilized by Slovak physiciansafter childbirth. OPRE Roma, March 9, 2000.

6. Information from the Section of Public Healthof the Health Ministry, March 8, 2001.

7. The Slovak government’s comments on theAdvisory Committee’s Standpoint to the re−port on implementation of the National Mi−nority Protection General Agreement(FCNM), Para. 3, 2001. http://www.humanrights .coe . in t /minor i t ies /Eng/FrameworkConvention/AdvisoryCommittee/Opinions/Slovakia.Comments.htm

8. The cabinet entrusted this task to the regionalauthorities, allocating 800,000 Sk (18,675 8$)for inoculation, health education, and labora−tory tests of drinking water (see DetailedStrategy, 2000, page 39).

9. Information from the Section of PublicHealth, March 8. 2000.

10. According to a Košice epidemiologist, only39 out of 300 Roma children were inoculatedagainst hepatitis (see Korzár, February 16,2000).


REFERENCES

1. Adamkovičová, Eva (et al): “Osýpky – starý,alebo nový problém?” [‘Pox: An old or NewProblem?’], Slovenský lekár, April – May,1999, p. 182 – 184.

2. Bernasovská, Jarmila (et al): Proposal of LowBirth−Weight Limit for Gypsy Mature Babies:Anthropology of Maternity, (Prague: CharlesUniversity, 1977, p. 173 – 175).

3. Bernasovský, Ivan, Bernasovská, Jarmila, andHudáková, Tatiana: “Some Body Character−istics of Roma (Gypsy) Newborns and TheirMothers”, Antropologie, No. 19, 1981, p. 263– 268.

4. Bernasovský, Ivan, and Bernasovská, Jarmila:“Study of East Slovakian Gypsy (Roma)Child Body Development: Basic Anthropo−metrical Characteristics” in Zborník Lekár−skej fakulty [Textbook of the Faculty of Medi−cine], (Košice: P. J. Šafárik University, 1985,p. 219 – 233).

5. Bernasovský, Ivan (et al): “Skeletal Age inGypsy School Children from the East Slova−kian Region”, Anthropologie, No. 24, 1986,p. 119 – 123.

6. Brázdová, Zuzana, Fiala, Jindřich (et al):“Serving Equivalents of Food Groups as aTool for the Evaluation of Food Consumptionof Romany Children”, Hygiena, No. 43, 1998,p. 195 – 206.


8. Brázdová, Zuzana, Fiala, Jindřich, and Hrst−ková, Hana: “Diétne návyky romských dětí”[‘The Dietary Habits of Roma Children’],Československá pediatrie, No. 53, 1998, p.419 – 423.

9. Brtníková, M., and Zelenková, M.: Práces romskou populací. [Working with the RomaPopulation], (Prague: Social Affairs Ministry,1976, p. 106 – 137).

10. Dejmek, Jan, Selevan, Sherry G., and Srám,Radim J.: “Životné prostredie, životný štýl atehotenstvo” [‘Environment, Lifestyle andPregnancy’], Časopis lékařů českých, No.135, 1996, p. 510 – 515.

11. “Epidémiu žltačky spôsobila zlá hygiena”[‘Hepatitis Epidemic Caused by Poor Hy−giene’], Národná obroda, March 15, 2001.

12. Etický kódex Slovenskej lekárskej komory. Le−kári a zdravie [The Ethical Code of the SlovakChamber of Health: Physicians and Health],(Bratislva: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva SR,1992, http://www.doktor.sk/doktor/spolocnosti/slk/doc/05.rtf).

13. Ferák, Vladimír (et al): “Population−Geneti−cal Characteristics of Congenital Glaucoma inSlovakia”, Bratislavské lekárske listy, No. 73,1980, p. 295 – 306.

14. Ferák, Vladimír, Siváková, Daniela (et al):“Slovenskí Rómovia – populácia s najvyššímkoeficientom inbrídingu v Európe” [‘The Slo−vak Roma – the Population with the HighestInbreeding Coefficient in Europe’], Bratislav−ské lekárske listy, No. 87, 1987, p. 168 – 175.

15. Feráková, Eva, Ferák, Vladimír, Kádasi, Ľu−dovít (et al): A Unique RFLP Haplotype at thePhenylalanine Hydroxylase Locus in Czecho−slovak Gypsies with Phenylketonuria,(Prague: Short Communications, 1991).

16. Gerinec, Anton and Ferák, Vladimír: “Pro−gram medicínskej a sociálnej pomoci mino−ritám na Slovensku” [‘The Program of Me−dicinal and Social Help to Minorities in Slo−vakia’] in Hľadanie východísk. Súčasný stava perspektívy riešenia rómskej problematikyna Slovensku [In Search of Ways Out: ThePresent Condition and Perspectives of Tack−ling the Roma Issue in Slovakia], (Bratislava:Slovak National Center for Human Rights,1999).

17. Giboda, Michal and Bernasovský, Ivan: “Gia−rdiasis and ABO Blood Groups”, Journal ofHygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology andImmunology, No. 27, 1983, p. 461 – 464.

18. Ginter, Emil: “Governments and Roma Com−munities Must Help to Improve Outlook forGypsies”, Bratislavské lekárske listy, No. 316,1998, p. 1825.

19. Holomek, Karel: “On the Outskirts ofKosice”, Newsletter, No. 6, 1998, http://www.czechia.com/hcaroma/newlette.htm.

20. Hudáková, Tatiana, Bernasovský, Ivan, andBernasovská, Jarmila: “Pohlavný vývin a hla−diny gonadotropných hormónov u dospieva−júcich dievčat z okresu Humenné so zamera−ním na etnické rozdiely u Cigánov” [‘SexualDevelopment and Levels of GonadotrophicHormones in Adolescent Girls from the Dis−trict of Humenné with a Focus on Ethnic Dif−


ferences in Gypsies’], Československá gyne−kologie, No. 47, 1982, p. 169 – 175.

21. Jurová, Anna: Vývoj rómskej problematiky naSlovensku po roku 1945 [Evolution of theRoma Issue in Slovakia After 1945], (Brati−slava: Goldpress, 1993).

22. Kačala, O. (et al): “Porovnanie výživy Slová−kov, Maďarov a Rómov na národnostne zmie−šanom území Slovenska” [‘Comparison of theNutrition of Slovaks, Hungarians and Romain Ethnically Mixed Areas in Slovakia’], Me−dicínsky monitor, No. 1, 2002, p. 22.

23. Kalibová, Květa: “Charakteristika úmrtnost−ních poměrů romské populace v ČSSR”[‘Characteristics of Roma Mortality in theCzechoslovak Socialist Republic’], Demo−grafie, No. 3, 1989, p. 239 – 249.

24. Krepela, Václav, Kubec, Václav (et al): “Mic−roepidemie plícní tuberkulózy u patnácti rom−ských dětí v Praze v roce 1990” [‘Micro−epidemic of Lung Tuberculosis in FifteenRoma Children in Prague in 1990’], Česko−slovenská pediatrie, No. 49, 1994, p. 458 –461.

25. Krišlo, Vladimír (et al): “Výskyt asymptoma−tickej splenomegálie vo vybraných etnickýchskupinách v populácii” [‘Incidence ofAsymptomatic Splenomegaly in SelectedEthnic Groups’], Praktický lekár, No. 70,1990, p. 489 – 490.

26. Kvasnicová, Marta (et al): “Genetická men−tálna retardácia v oblasti Banskej Bystrice”[‘Genetic Mental Retardation in the Region ofBanská Bystrica’], Československá pediatrie,No. 47, 1992, p. 25 – 28.

27. Lescisinová, M. (et al): “Increased Incidenceof Congenital Hypothyroidism in Gypsies inEast Slovakia Compared With the WhitePopulation”, Endocrinologia Experimentalis,No. 23, 1989, p. 137 – 141.

28. Mann, Arne B.: “Vývoj rómskej rodiny na prí−klade troch dedín v Spišskom regióne” [‘De−velopment of the Roma Family Documentedon the Example of Three Municipalities in theSpiš Region’], Demografia, No. 34, 1992, p.118 – 129.

29. McKee, Martin: “The Health of the Gypsies”,British Medical Journal, No. 315, 1997, p.1172 – 1173.

30. “Michalovskí Rómovia sa odmietajú dať očko−vať proti meningitides” [‘Michalovce Roma

Refuse Meningitis Inoculation’], Korzár,February 16, 2000.

31. Oláh, Zoltán (et al): Očné lekárstvo. Učebnicapre lekárske fakulty [Ophthalmology: Text−book of the Faculty of Medicine], (Martin:Osveta, 1998).

32. Pozdechová, Emília, Badalík, Ladislav (et al):“Prevalencia pľúcnej tuberkulózy medzi róm−skymi občanmi v epidemiologickej a klinickejštúdii tuberkulózy na západnom Slovensku1963 – 1967” [‘Prevalence of Lung Tubercu−losis in Roma Citizens in the Epidemiologi−cal and Clinical Tuberculosis Trial in West−ern Slovakia from 1963 to 1967’], Bratislav−ské lekárske listy, No. 51, 1969, p. 201 – 208.

33. “Roma and Foreigners Testify to Racism andXenophobia in Slovakia”, OPRE Roma,March 9, 2000. http://opre.roma.uji.es/.

34. Rozpracovaná stratégia vlády SR na riešenieproblémov rómskej národnostnej menšiny dosúboru konkrétnych opatrení na rok 2000. II.etapa [Detailed Strategy of the Slovak Gov−ernment to Solve the Problems of the Romaand a Set of Concrete Measures for 2000 – 2nd

Stage], (Bratislava: Úrad vlády SR, 2000).35. Siváková, Daniela: “Antropologické výsku−

my Cigánov (Rómov) na Slovensku” [‘Anth−ropologic Research of Gypsies (Roma) in Slo−vakia’] in Mann, Arne B. (ed.): Neznámi Ró−movia [The Unknown Roma], (Bratislava:Ister Science Press, 1992).

36. Sobotka, Eva: Denied a Future? CountryReport on Slovakia for Save the Children,Manuscript, (UK – Slovakia: Save the Chil−dren Fund, p. 20).

37. Socio−Economic Situation of the Roma in Slo−vakia as Potential Asylum Seekers in EUMember States, (Bratislava: InternationalOrganization for Migration, 2000).

38. Správa o výsledkoch šetrenia MZ SR v súvis−losti so správou Telo a duša [Report on theResults of the Health Ministry’s InvestigationRelated to the Body and Soul Report], (Bra−tislava: Slovak Health Ministry, 2003, www.zdravotnictvo.sk).

39. “Správa Telo a Duša tvrdí, že lekári sterilizujúrómske ženy bez ich vedomia, ministerstvominulý týždeň poslalo do obvinených nemoc−níc kontrolu. Hlavný odborník: Lekári nepo−chybili” [‘Body and Soul Report Claims Phy−sicians Sterilize Roma Women Without Their


Consent. The Ministry Sent a Team of Expertsto Check on the Allegations Last Week. TheMain Expert: The Physicians Made No Mis−take’], Sme, February 24, 2003.


41. Seres, Igor: “Špecifické výsledky prenatálnejstarostlivosti u rómskej populácie” [‘SpecificResults of Prenatal Care in the Roma Popu−lation’], Slovenská gynekológia a pôrodníc−tvo, No. 5, 1998, p. 125 – 131.

42. Štukovský, Robert: “GeburtsgewichteErstgeborener und Alter der Mutter: eine

nichtlineare Abhängigkeit” [‘The BirthWeight of First−Born Children and the Age ofthe Mother: a Non−Linear Dependency’],Anthropologia, No. 14, 1969, p. 147 – 160.

43. Telo a duša: násilné sterilizácie a ďalšie útokyna reprodukčnú slobodu Rómov na Slovensku[Body and Soul: Forced Sterilizations andOther Attacks Against the ReproductiveFreedom of the Roma in Slovakia], (Humen−né: Center for Reproductive Rights and Ad−visory Center for Civil and Human Rights,2003).

44. Zoon, Ina: Minority Report 2001, (Budapest:EUMAP Open Society Institute, 2001,www.eumap.org).

45. “Žloutenka v Prostějove” [‘Hepatitis in Pros−tějov’], Mladá fronta Dnes, October 16, 1999,p. 1.

415

Summary: This part of the book deals withthe education of the Roma in the Slovakschool system. It takes a close look at thefailures of Roma students at elementaryschools, as well as how and why they are sentto “special schools” for retarded children.The chapter also deals with secondary andhigher education. The results of an inquiryin the Košice and Prešov regions are addedto the analysis. The authors also describealternative education projects.

Key words: segregation at schools, Romalanguage, attitude of parents towards educa−tion, concept of education of Roma children,school attendance, textbooks, kindergartens,elementary and secondary schools, highereducation, special schools, zero grades,Roma teaching assistants, alternative educa−tion projects.

INTRODUCTION

For several decades until the events of 1989,the Slovak education system developed inisolation from democratic education systems.Its management, goals, content, methods andorganization reflected the regime in which itwas formed. Since 1989, the Slovak educationsystem has been characterized by instabilityand uncertainty in both concept and program.

In 1990, several major legislative changeswere passed (in particular the Law on State

SILVIA RIGOVÁ, MÁRIA MACZEJKOVÁ, EVA KONČOKOVÁ,ĽUDMILA ŠIMČÁKOVÁ, and ELENA KRIGLEROVÁ

THE ROMA IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEMAND ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONPROJECTS

Administration in Education and School Self−Administration), creating conditions for thedemocratic development of the school system.Among the main principles of the changeswere the democratization and humanizationof the school system and education. A pathtowards decentralization of schools and in−creased autonomy was opened up.

The Constitution was changed as well. TheSlovak Constitution today fully respects hu−man and civic rights, as well as the interna−tionally codified rights of children, and out−laws any discrimination based on sex, mem−bership in a nation or an ethnic group, reli−gion, or other traits that could represent acause for segregation in education. It alsoacknowledges the right of minorities andethnic groups to receive education in theirown languages. Slovakia at the same timeratified the European Convention on theProtection of Human Rights and the Agree−ment on the Rights of Child, which anchor theright to education.

In 1991, a new approach to the education ofRoma children started to be used when thegovernment passed The Principles of the Slo−vak Government’s Policy Towards the Roma.According to these principles, the EducationMinistry had to ensure that the specific needsof the cultural and educational developmentof the Roma population were met to the sameextent as the needs of other ethnic minoritiesin Slovakia, in compliance with the Human

416 S . R i g o v á , M . M a c z e j k o v á , E . K o n č o k o v á , Ľ . Š i m č á k o v á , a n d E . K r i g l e r o v á

Rights Charter. The principles of the SlovakEducation Ministry’s approach to the educa−tion of Roma children in the state systemwere woven into the education process, intofacilities for educational counseling, thepreparation of teachers, and the financing ofschools. Since 1999, the Education Ministryhas emphasized the coordination of all edu−cational activities aimed at improving theeducation of Roma children and studentswithin the European Union’s Phare pro−grams.

In March 2001, the Concept for EducatingRoma Children and Students was passed,covering education at all levels of the schoolsystem according to age categories; however,it made only minor changes to the status quo.Attempts to create education concepts for theRoma have so far been poorly prepared. TheOffice of the Slovak Government Repre−sentative for Roma Communities in its 2001Roma Activities Evaluation criticized theEducation Ministry for not taking any realsteps to implement the Roma strategy in edu−cation, for not providing any funds from the2002 state budget for Roma education pro−grams, and for taking a chaotic approach tomajor education issues.

In the 1991 population census, 76.68% ofRoma reported that elementary school wasthe highest level of education they had com−pleted; only 8.07% claimed to have tradeschool education, and that without havingtaken final exams. A mere 0.60% of Romaclaimed to have secondary technical educa−tion, and only 0.84% had completed second−ary A−level education. Among all ethnicgroups in Slovakia, the Roma minority hadsmallest ratio with university education.

The low level of education of the Roma mi−nority shows up in all spheres of life. It hurtstheir chances of finding a job, and is one ofthe most serious causes of high Roma unem−

ployment. To increase their level of educa−tion, suitable conditions have to be createdin the education system to accommodate thespecific traits of the Roma in the content,form and method of pedagogy. This is a long−term process that cannot be undertaken with−out the participation of the Roma and theirfamilies.

The education handicap of the Roma hasroots in the past, as well as in the differentnature of Roma culture, in which culturaland spiritual wealth and heritage is passedfrom generation to generation through di−rect verbal communication only. Not evenduring their several centuries in Europe wasthis community as a whole able to reach ahigher level of ethnic and cultural develop−ment. The poor education level of the Romais also a consequence of their opinion of thevalue of and need for education in findingand defending their position in society (Ju−rová, 1994, p. 479).

ROMA STUDENTS INTHE SLOVAK EDUCATION SYSTEM

Roma children from their earliest years en−counter intolerance, scorn, and contemptbecause of their skin color, their differentview of the world, and their different under−standing of truth and justice: they receive thistreatment at school, in the street, in society,and when looking for a job. The languageeducation of Roma children is also different;many speak only Romany which, althoughit is sufficient for life in their communities,does not equip them for success in schooleducation. School, which as an institutionimposes education designed by the majoritypopulation, is regarded by the Roma as su−perfluous and undesirable in their lives.Schools represent the fear of everythingstrange. All school reforms, education pro−grams, projects and measures that have been

417T h e R o m a i n t h e E d u c a t i o n S y s t e m a n d A l t e r n a t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o j e c t s

passed “for the benefit of the Roma” havebeen done so without the involvement of theRoma. In a game whose rules they neitherunderstand nor helped to create, the Romahave only one possibility: to get accustomedto them. Otherwise they banish themselvesto the outskirts of the society.

Many school failures among the Roma donot issue from the basic mental inability ofthe students, but from the fact that these chil−dren do not have the basic social and workaptitudes needed for successful schooling,such as basic general knowledge and skills,command of language and vocabulary, basichygienic habits, etc. Under appropriate con−ditions, most children have a chance of at−taining a nearly normal level of mental de−velopment. However, the backwardness thatoccurs in the long−term absence of develop−ment stimuli, especially in early childhood,can never be fully compensated for, as canbe seen in the problems Roma children havein coping with school, work, and other lifesituations.

In school−based education, general intelli−gence and ability to comprehend are impor−tant. These, however, are not inborn traits –one is only born with the predisposition fordeveloping these abilities. From childhoodon, Roma children are often stimulated in adifferent way than majority population chil−dren, and thus their intelligence develops inanother direction, which while it may be lessuseful in a traditional school setting, may bemore appropriate for developing emotions,one’s relationship to nature, etc. When theystart attending school, Roma children areflexible, willing, and eager to learn in theappropriate school conditions. In highergrades, however, their results often changesignificantly for the worse, and they start tobe disobedient and lose interest in school.This can be partly explained by the onset ofpuberty, the greater academic demands, and

the fact that in the Roma family the childrentend to be more involved in the activities ofthe adults, which contrasts with their role asstudents at school. The older Roma studentsare often frustrated by their failures, humili−ated by the fact that they have to repeatgrades, and often become bored and behaveaggressively towards their teachers andschoolmates. In the situation as it exists atpresent, the Roma often emerge from schoolwith an inferiority complex, and feelings offrustration and hatred.

A particular problem with these children istheir social development, which in general isconditioned by habits, customs, taboos, andupbringing. Their upbringing gives them lit−tle stimulation and is of low quality, on thepart of both their parents and the environ−ment they live in. Because a neglected childwith poor upbringing finds it difficult toadapt, this social negligence can easily mush−room into delinquency. We must also beaware of the fact that Roma children are so−cially excluded. The position of school−agechildren is terribly difficult when their fami−lies are despised. Roma students are seldom−equal partners in communication with otherstudents, and this is not due only to their lan−guage handicap. They lack the usual socialroutine, they do not know how to communi−cate with the group, and so on. On the otherhand, Roma students have a good, intuitivesocial intelligence that help them satisfy theirbasic needs and intuitively find their way inhuman relationships.

The current school system is not prepared toaccommodate the specific needs of the Romarelated to education. In Slovakia, discrimi−nation from teachers, segregated classes andentire segregated schools are not rare. Seg−regation limits mutual learning and disablesmutual understanding. In such situations, itis society itself that holds back the people inthe disadvantaged position, and not their


(often imagined) defects. Differences be−tween people are natural, and schools shouldadapt their education methods to the needsof the child, not classify children into catego−ries that are defined by the methods of edu−cation.

The government’s strategy acknowledgesthe primary importance of education for ad−dressing other problems of the Roma com−munity. In spite of this, the government hasonly proposed a series of measures to im−prove the level of education, and is not tak−ing direct aim at the problem of segregatedclasses and schools in Slovakia.

In many cases, activities that should be per−formed by the state are done by NGOs thatbring new alternatives and approaches tothe education of the Roma, such as newtextbooks, training for teachers, and so on.Such NGOs include the Foundation for theRoma Child, the Orava Association for De−mocracy in Education, the Wide OpenSchool Foundation, the Schola Project, theAssociation of Young Roma, and others(see below).

THE ROMA CHILD INTHE PRE−SCHOOLPREPARATION SYSTEM

The pre−school years are an important pe−riod of intense development in children. Ac−cording to the findings of the 2000 surveyconducted by the Methodical Center in Pre−šov, only 5.35% of students who attendedeither nursery school or kindergarten beforethey started their compulsory educationwere Roma, compared with the 11.12% ofstudents attending first grade of compulsoryeducation in elementary school who wereRoma. This disproportion is due in part tothe fact that in most Roma locations thereis only an elementary or a special elemen−tary school for handicapped children (Szi−geti, 2002).

Education in kindergartens is provided bywomen teachers and kindergarten headmis−tresses. Roma mothers and Roma assistantsare virtually absent from pre−school educa−tion. This sphere has still not been adequatelyaddressed, and the absence of appropriateschool legislation is obvious as well.

Graph 1Age structure of children attending kindergarten in Slovakia in the 2000/2001 school year

��

� ��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��2��0(��

��/ ��/ ��/ ��/ �#.��0(��

0�0�#�C�0(�0��?��( #.��

Source: Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic.


As far as the methods of motivation used toencourage Roma parents to school their chil−dren in kindergartens (see Table 1), lecturesand debates in Roma settlements were theleast frequent.

Table 1Methods of motivation used to get Roma par−ents to send their children to kindergarten

A�� !�� )�

�� ?�?�� ?�?�� ?�?�� '�� !��

Source: Methodical Centre Prešov, 2002.

Children attending pre−school facilities com−municate mostly in the teaching language ofthe kindergarten.

Many Roma children come to kindergartenfrom environments with poor hygiene andsocial conditions, and cannot speak the lan−guage used. To improve their knowledge ofSlovak, bilingual aids with pictures that com−pare words in Slovak and the local Roma dia−lect, as well as fairy−tale books for Roma chil−dren are needed. Without them it is difficultto overcome the language barrier when help−ing children adapt to pre−school education.

The education program, which is based ongradual and unforced language preparationand the social adaptation of children to kin−dergarten conditions (often utterly differentfrom conditions in the family environment),is very difficult to apply in classes with Romachildren. The curriculum should focus moreon emotional, moral, and aesthetic educationwith an emphasis on hygiene, self−relianceand maintaining the culture of the naturalenvironment. Songs and music with ele−ments of Roma music, which are very closeto the mentality of these children, are rarelyused in education.

The goal of some of the projects within thePhare 1998 program Improving the Situationof the Roma in the Spiš Region was to acquireexperience from the first phase of the workof teaching assistants in kindergartens. Theseassistants worked in 10 kindergartens in theSpišská Nová Ves district that were attendedby many Roma children. The work was per−formed according to three methodologies:the “work in the kindergarten” educationprogram, the alternative methodology of theMother and Child project, and the alternativemethodology of the Step by Step pre−schooleducation program. The key task of theteaching assistants was to work individuallywith each child, helping it with social andlanguage integration. The childcare modelthat used the active cooperation of the motherwas employed in kindergartens involved inthe Mother and Child Project (Civic Associa−tion for Roma Children and Mothers, Rud−ňany, 1998). The mothers participated insome activities together with their children,or separately learned basic skills and helpedwith cooking.

THE ROMA CHILD INTHE COMPULSORYEDUCATION SYSTEM

Compulsory education in Slovakia usuallylasts 10 years until the child turns 14, unlessthe beginning of compulsory education ispostponed for the child. In the 2000/2001school year, 576,331 students, 47,701 ofwhich were Roma, attended elementaryschools managed by the school departmentsof the district authorities in Slovakia.

Looking at the data from district school de−partments and individual schools in Slova−kia, it is clear that the overall number of stu−dents is falling every year, although thenumber of Roma children starting their com−pulsory education is growing. The 62.44%


representation of Roma students in the tenthyear of compulsory education shows thatRoma students more often have to repeatsome elementary school grades. Based on thefigures, the year−on−year increase in thenumber of Roma students attending compul−sory education has averaged about 6% overthe past four years.

In 2000, the Methodical Center in Prešovconducted research to map out the situationin elementary schools regarding the structureof students and their school results, as wellas the staff situation in elementary schoolsfrom the viewpoint of teacher qualificationsand further education. The results were basedon data acquired in 78 elementary schoolsfrom the Košice and Prešov regions (Posta−venie rómskeho dieťaťa..., 2002).

Table 3Number of students in the monitored schools

�� & �� N�� ,�� 1�


In the 1997/98 school year, of the totalnumber of 644,796 elementary school stu−dents in Slovakia, 15,098 (2.44%) did notpass the year, of whom 8,605 (56.99%) werechildren from socially handicapped and ne−glected family backgrounds. In the first to

fourth grades such children made up 67.74%of failures, while from the fifth to ninthgrades it was 47.67%. This is a serious andalarming situation (Szigeti, 2002). If wecompare Roma children to other children, wefind that Roma children are almost 14−timesmore likely to fail a grade, 5−times morelikely to get a worse mark for their behaviorat school, 30−times more likely to leave el−ementary school before completing that levelof education, and 28−times more likely thannon−Roma children to be transferred to a“special school” for mentally handicappedstudents. The highest failure rate was foundin the first grade of elementary school, whereaccording to the data 22% of Roma studentsfail; in the fifth grade the rate is around 17%.These data are far higher than for the rest ofthe population.

In Prešov and Košice regions, where Romastudents make up 35.39% of elementaryschool students, they represent 93.63% of thenumber of students who have to repeat agrade.

The school attendance situation is alsounfavorable, with the concrete numbers fromindividual schools showing that the problemof school results is also connected withschool attendance. Roma students miss 55%of all missed lessons in schools, meaning that

Table 2Ratio of students in Slovakia according to year of compulsory education in the 2000/2001 schoolyear

6�� ' ��!'�� !�� & �� N�� )�

,��.�� '��.��!'�� 0�!�.�� '��.��!'�� 2�!�.�� '��.��!'�� -� �.�� '��.��!'�� /� �.�� '��.��!'�� 3� �.�� '��.��!'�� 4� �.�� '��.��!'�� 5� �.�� '��.��!'�� 1� �.�� '��.��!'�� ,*� �.�� '��.��!'�� &��(� ��



each Roma student misses one month of edu−cation per year on average. The situation iseven more serious with lessons missed with−out justification, where the Roma have a94.5% share. For every lesson that a non−Roma student misses, a Roma student missesa week (30 lessons) of school.

Table 5School attendance

�' ��!��'��

(��!�

(��!��?�� ;�� '��

�� & �� N�� )� ��


Given the seriousness of the findings, theEducation Ministry alone is not able tosolve the problems of school attendance andstudent truancy. This was also seen in theInformation on the Analysis of the Occur−rence of Truancy and Problematic Behavioramong Students in Elementary and Second−ary Schools in Slovakia, which was drawnup for the Government Council for CrimePrevention.

One can identify with the recommendationsthat were made in the paper:• to establish an interdepartmental work

group (Education Ministry, Interior Min−istry, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs,and Family, local governments) aimed atpreparing common procedures for dealingwith truancy;

• to intervene early with students at the firstsigns of problems with school attendanceand problematic behavior;

• to launch preventive and educational pro−grams for district and regional authoritiesconcerning the regional and ethnic charac−teristics of truancy in various districts ofSlovakia;

• to ensure general awareness of the findingsmentioned above in the selected groups(parents, schools, school departments, so−cial departments of district and regionalauthorities, Government Council for Mi−norities, Office of the Government Repre−sentative for Roma Communities, the me−dia, repressive organs, and courts);

• considering the seriousness and extent ofthe truancy, to make better use of the pos−sibilities afforded by misdemeanor courtproceedings, and to cooperate more effec−tively with local governments and repres−sive bodies.

Last school year, 25.52% of the students whocompleted their elementary education in theelementary schools monitored were Roma,but only 45% of these enrolled in a second−ary school. The research also pointed out thatthere are students who try to acquire a com−plete elementary education, in which attemptelementary school principals try to meet theirwishes by permitting an 11th year of schoolattendance.

It is positive that the position of Roma stu−dents in their classes and their relationship tonon−Roma students is in 94.87% of casesregarded as normal or very good. This meansthat the students communicate with eachother and influence, learn from and under−stand each other. With only 5.12% of Roma

Table 4Students repeating a grade

� �� !�� !�� )�

�� & �� N�� )� ��



students is this relationship evaluated as poor(Postavenie rómskeho dieťaťa..., 2002).• There was no bullying or expressions of

aversion found by the Methodical Centerresearch. Despite that, non−Roma studentsalso showed intolerance towards other cul−tures, value systems, religions and ethnicgroups, not just the Roma;

• The language problem of Roma students isalso serious, i.e. they do not have a propercommand of the Slovak language.

The research showed a very high proportionof disinterest and passivity among Romaparents towards school and teachers – asmuch as 83.33% expressed such feelings.Only 12.82% had an active and positive re−lationship with schools and teachers, and3.84% an actively negative relationship. Thisis a long−term situation that needs to besolved. Schools, teachers, the Roma and non−Roma NGOs have to get together to improvemutual communication.

A positive and supportive relationshipamong teachers towards Roma students pre−vailed (51.28%), but a relatively high ratioof teachers expressed passivity in their rela−tionship to Roma students (43.58%), whichis ominous. If we add the 5.12% of teacherswho have a negative relationship with Romastudents, we may have identified a possiblereason for Roma failures at school. The atti−tudes of these teachers have to be confrontedin the schools they teach at.

Regarding the results that Roma studentsreach at school, 78.2% of Roma parents showno interest in them, compared to the 5.12% ofparents who take a regular interest in theschool results of their children. More than51% of students have an average level of self−motivation, but with more than 29% the mo−tivation is very weak. Some 5.12% of Romastudents have no self−motivation whatsoever,and 14% have strong self−motivation.

The possible reasons for this situation mightbe the following:• the de−motivating character of the family

and social environment;• the de−motivating social system;• little or no interest from the parents, poor

intellectual preconditions;• absence of help from the family;• self−satisfaction;• low or no ambitions.

The following are considered the most com−mon difficulties Roma students face in study−ing:• insufficient command of the Slovak lan−

guage of instruction;• small vocabulary and failure to understand

many words;• high rate of absence from lessons;• no help or support from the family.

The level of upbringing, as characterized byadherence to school rules, the incidence ofasocial behavior and so on, is relatively goodamong Roma students. The research of theMethodical Center in Prešov identified thebehavior of as many as 66.66% of Roma stu−dents as normal. Minor lapses were observedamong 24.36% of Roma students, and grossviolations of school rules by 8.97% of stu−dents. The influence of the school must bestrengthened here, and it must positivelymotivate the students and try to influence theentire family. In the schools monitored,praise was rarely used as a motivating force,the questionnaires stating that only 7.69%of Roma students were praised by theteacher. Other forms of praise did not occur.On the other hand, 29.34% of students werepunished. This shows that schools are stillcoping with educational problems repres−sively, which is not effective. Some 23(29.48%) Roma students were given a badmark in the “behavior” category on theirreport cards, while 8 students (10.44%)were suspended and 1 (1.28%) was expelled


from school (Postavenie rómskeho dieťa−ťa..., 2002).

GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES TOACHIEVE A HIGHER LEVEL OFEDUCATION AMONG THE ROMA

Zero Grades

The “zero grades” project was started duringthe 1992/93 school year under the supervi−sion of the Košice I District School Admin−istration, with the aim of preventing failures,creating a positive relationship with schooland education, and other personal develop−ment goals. The project drew a positive re−sponse from both teachers and Roma parents,not only in Košice but also in other Slovakdistricts with high concentrations of Romastudents. The Czech Republic, whichadopted the project, even succeeded in an−choring it in legislation. The project wasbased on practical experience and the pro−posals of experts, mainly teachers and psy−chologists, who had been working withRoma students for a long time. The aim wasto prepare students from non−stimulatingenvironments who faced language and socialdisadvantages so that they could handle thefirst grade of elementary school. The toolsused to achieve this include intense, targetededucation activities under the lead of expe−rienced teachers over a period of two years.

After the zero grades project was approvedby the Education Ministry, the Pedagogical−Psychological Consulting Center of the Ko−šice I District School Administration, to−gether with a university lecturer from thePsychology Department of Pavol Jozef Ša−fárik University in Prešov, evaluated the ex−periment from the viewpoint of the changesin several psychological indicators amongthe students. The experiment was conductedat several elementary schools in Košice with

a high concentration of Roma students. Thebasic question was whether the system ofpreparation in the zero grades would lead todifferent results and performance thanamong the children in the regular first grades.A great acceleration in the development ofthe children schooled in the preparatory“zero” grades was expected.

The results of the experiment confirmed theeffectiveness of the zero grades in accelerat−ing communication abilities, the fluency andrichness of verbal expression, and vocabulary.

However, it was difficult to determine fromthe experiment what the decisive factor hadbeen in the improvement. Was it the lowernumber of students in each class, which al−lowed the teachers to individualize their ap−proach to the students, or the better techni−cal equipment of the zero grades? The moremotivating approach that was taken towardsthe children, which did not constantly em−phasize performance, could also have beenimportant, as well as the experience of theteachers and the intense support and helpthey received from other teachers and psy−chologists.

Besides praising the zero grade students forachieving better results, it is particularly nec−essary to recognize the positive changes thatoccurred in the socio−cultural area, changesthat were not measured by the psychologists,but which were recorded during their manyvisits to these classes and during their indi−vidual work with the children, as well as intheir interviews with the teachers and theparents.

On the basis of the empirical knowledgegained we can state the following:• the overall atmosphere in the zero grades

was more relaxed, friendly, and favorablethan in the regular elementary school class−rooms;


• the students mastered the curricula of thezero grade without significant problems;

• the behavior of the zero grade children wasbetter than in the regular classes;

• the zero grade children generally showeda more positive attitude towards school andthe school environment.

The organization, curriculum and content ofthe zero grades were designed with the aimof accomplishing the following tasks:• allowing children from non−stimulating

and disadvantaged language environmentsto prepare intensely for entering the firstgrade of elementary school;

• providing alternative and non−traditionalforms of teaching, to give the children achance to experience success and thus cre−ate early positive relationships with schooland education in general;

• developing cultural, social and hygienichabits in which the children get used tosystematic work, duties, routine, and or−ganizing their own work;

• using the specific traits of Roma children,their musical and locomotive talents, andviewing them as stimulating and motivat−ing factors in learning activities;

• involving the parents in out−of−class andextracurricular activities, raising their inter−est in schoolwork and the results, achieve−ments and problems of their children;

• reducing the high number of failures byRoma students in the first and the secondgrades of elementary schools.

The zero grades program did some thingsdifferently in the organization of lessons andthe selection of teaching methods. The stu−dents were at school from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.Each class was led by two teachers withequal positions who switched around, as theteaching and education had no precise sched−ule. The teachers were autonomous, organ−izing the education process and the activitiesof the group at school and out of school.

The lessons were not normal lessons (45−minute lesson followed by 10−minute break,etc.), and the timetable had no fixed days andtimes for individual lessons to occur. Thesewere modified according to the current dis−position and abilities of the students. Indi−vidual study topics were divided into weeks,not days. The role of the parents in the proc−ess was not traditional either. They were en−gaged in the whole process, and were al−lowed to be at school every day; once amonth, meetings of teachers, parents andchildren were organized. In these meetings,the parents could see the progress their chil−dren were making in behavior and knowl−edge. The main emphasis in the zero gradeswas on individual skills and individual ap−proaches. One of the 13 classes was in a spe−cial school for handicapped children, where,thanks to the personal qualities of the teach−ers and the special pedagogical approachtaken, the results achieved were very good.At this school, the tradition of such activitieshas survived until today (Maczejková et al,2000).

Textbooks in Romany

In 1993 the Education Ministry approved theRoma Spelling Book in Romany and Slovakfor the zero grades, and the Reading Book inRomany and Slovak. As of September 1,1993, curricula for elementary schools withRomany as a teaching language were ap−proved.

In 1995 the textbook Amari Alphabet (OurAlphabet) was approved and published inRomany and Slovak for the third and fourthgrades of elementary school. In the sameyear, the Education Ministry approved Se−lected Chapters From the History of theRoma as additional texts for teaching historyin the fifth to the eighth grades. However,these texts are not used in the educational


process, as the teachers do not know the ba−sics of Romany and the children (mainlythose from eastern Slovakia) do not under−stand the language either (or rather the Romadialect the textbooks are written in). In 2002the Forum Institute and the Schola Projectbegan trial use of two spelling books for thefirst grade of elementary school – the RomaniABC and the Pherasune Literi.

Flexibility of Curricula

According to the law, schools are obliged toinclude at least 60% of the content of thecurricula set by the state in their educationprograms. Individual schools can modifyonly the remaining 40% of the curricula. Thispossibility to modify the curricula is in factvery rarely used, which is a pity, especiallyin schools where more than half the studentsare Roma.

ROMA EDUCATIONDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The international EUROROM project – In−tegration of Roma Culture into School andOut of School Education – is being carriedout at four selected elementary schools as apart of the SOKRATES – COMENIUS pro−gram, funded by the European Commission.

The investment of 72 million Sk (about $2million) was used to support the elementaryschool education of the Roma through thebuilding of an elementary school in the LuníkIX Roma ghetto and the Ťahanovce elemen−tary school in Košice, the Ivan Krasko el−ementary school in Trebišov, and the elemen−tary school in Sečovce (all in eastern Slo−vakia).

Training courses and continuing educationfor the teachers of Roma children are also

helping to improve education at elementaryschools. These activities are organized by theMethodical Center in Prešov and the StatePedagogical Institute in Bratislava, in coop−eration with NGOs.

ROMA STUDENTS INSPECIAL SCHOOLS FORHANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Most Roma, both in Slovakia and abroad,complete their education in schools designedfor mentally handicapped children, known inSlovakia by the euphemism “special schools”.According to the statistics of the Institute forInformation and Prognoses in Education, inthe 2001/2002 school year, of the total numberof 32,244 students attending special elemen−tary schools, 3,176 were Roma.

Most of the special schools are in the Prešovregion, where the greatest number of Romasettlements can also be found. These specialschools are often located in unsuitable build−ings such as former elementary schools andgeneral−purpose buildings, only a fraction ofwhich have been modernized.

A new phenomenon is beginning to be seen,whereby Roma parents prefer to place theirchild in a special school for mentally handi−capped children rather than a regular elemen−tary school, even if the child obviously doesnot belong there. A certain family traditionis arising in which the younger children fol−low in the footsteps of the older. The parentsare often unaware of the consequences ofattending this type of school for the educa−tion of their children.

In cases where the Roma children placed inspecial schools do suffer from a mentalhandicap, this is often not genetically condi−tioned but based on social negligence and anon−stimulating environment at home. Post−


poning school attendance is not the way tosolve the problem; on the contrary, thesechildren need intensive schooling. They ar−rive at elementary school with no pre−schoolpreparation, they cannot communicate in theteaching language, and they do not have thebasic hygienic, cultural and work habits.Even if they are not mentally retarded, theabsence of these skills prevents them frommastering the learning tasks in the first gradeof elementary school. Their psychologicaland pedagogical diagnosis is thus a difficultone. Cases have occurred in which childrenwere placed in special schools without evenbeing given a psychological test. On the otherhand, while these tests can reveal a certainhandicap with children from the majoritypopulation, that does not necessarily meanthey are suitable for Roma children as well.The tests measure abilities and skills that areforeign to Roma children. The biggest prob−lem is their poor command of Slovak, theirinsufficient vocabulary and their inability toexpress themselves. Roma children also of−ten have deficits of attention, patience, endur−ance, fine motor skills, and experience andknowledge of the world, and also have dif−ferent interests and needs.

If children suffer from a disorder or a healthproblem that prevents them from learningwith the same ease as other children in aregular elementary school, however muchdevelopment time is provided, then theymust be given special pedagogical care. Theeducation system enables such children to beput into a special school, a special class in aregular school, or to be integrated individu−ally into a regular class at an elementaryschool. In all cases, the specific conditionsthe child needs to develop mentally andphysically according to the best of its abilitymust be provided. It is becoming increas−ingly important to individually integratehandicapped students into regular schools.However, if a skilled approach and other

conditions for successful integration cannotbe ensured in a given case, then specialschools provide the best form of educationto children with certain handicaps.

The procedure for placing or transferring astudent into a special school or a special classat an elementary school is the same. Accord−ing to Section 14 of the Decree on Special−ized Schools, the proposal to place/transfercan be filed by the legal representative of thestudent, the school the student attends, apedagogical or psychological consultancycenter, a health facility, state family andchildcare authorities, or a special pedagogi−cal consultancy center.

The headmaster of the individual school de−cides on the placement or transfer of the stu−dent into the special school or a special classof the elementary school. The decision ismade according to the recommendation of anexpert committee consisting of school teach−ing staff, a psychologist and a specialist phy−sician. A representative of the special peda−gogical consultancy center or the pedagogi−cal/psychological consultancy center may bea member of the committee, while the stu−dent’s legal representative can also bepresent. The commission is chaired by thehead of the school into which the student isto be placed or transferred. The committeemembers become acquainted with the dataon the student stated in the Proposal toPlace/Transfer a Child Into a Special Schoolor a Special Kindergarten. Besides personaldata on the student, the proposal includesdata on the student’s home environment, thestandpoint of the school, the psychologicalexamination report, the report from the doc−tor’s examination, and the minutes from theexpert committee meeting in which the legalrepresentative confirmed his/her approval ofthe placement or transfer of the child into thespecial school or special class of the elemen−tary school. The proposal form is usually


filled out by the pedagogical/psychologicalconsultancy center or the educational con−sultant of the school. Before the decision istaken, a diagnostic stay can be ordered for thestudent. According to a special pedagogicaldiagnosis, the student may be placed in ahigher grade than the one corresponding withthe age of the student, if the information be−fore the committee shows that the student’sabilities correspond with those of the stu−dents in the higher grade.

The experience acquired in educating men−tally handicapped students in regular classesof elementary schools shows that the handi−capped children are not well served becauseof the number of students in the class andabsence of an auxiliary teacher. Even if thecontent of the education can be adapted to themental handicap of the student, the teacherin the joint class does not have enough timeto approach the student individually. Weconsider “partial integration” to be a moreappropriate form of education of mentallyhandicapped students in elementary schools.The timetable is prepared so that the childrenin the special class can participate in subjectssuch as sports, arts, and music together withthe students of the regular classes. In thiskind of educational process, the studentsfrom the special class can participate in allschool events and visit school clubs togetherwith the regular class students.

Since 1993/94, zero grades have been estab−lished for these children in particular. Dur−ing their two years in this class, the childrenhave the chance to partly cope with theirhandicap, to master the first grade of elemen−tary school, and above all to experience suc−cess. This is one way to prevent a child frombeing placed into a special elementaryschool. It is very rare that students from spe−cial schools get put back into regular elemen−tary schools, due mainly to the absence ofspecial pedagogical care in elementary

schools and the absence of an individualapproach to these students.

The placement of children into special el−ementary schools can be prevented by theestablishment of zero grades. This approachhas proven especially effective with childrenwhose mental retardation is caused by a non−stimulating family and social environment.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS ANDROMA STUDENTS

The poor results of Roma students at elemen−tary schools mean that they are basically notprepared to pass entrance examinations tosecondary school, or for secondary schoolstudies were they to get there. Few Roma –around 3% – study at secondary grammarschools and secondary technical schools.Among secondary studies, Roma studentsmost often attend vocational schools andsecondary technical schools, but even thisrepresents only 8% of the total Roma popu−lation.

In the research conducted by the Methodi−cal Center in Prešov in 2000, a question−naire was prepared for secondary schoolsthat mapped out the position of Roma stu−dents in the education system of secondaryschools. Five secondary schools from thePrešov and Košice regions were involved inthe research.

The number of students at the five monitoredschools was 1,431, of whom 78 were Roma(5.45%). A positive phenomenon was thebalanced number of Roma boys (40) andgirls (38), which might indicate that the po−sition of the sexes in the Roma communityis slowly becoming equal. The number ofRoma students fell off from the first to thefourth grades, indicating that after complet−ing the first grade of secondary school, i.e.


completing their compulsory education,many Roma students do not continue theirstudies for various reasons:• their inability to master the more demand−

ing program, or their high rate of absence;• disinterest from the student’s parents and

insufficient care;• the efforts of the parents to involve these

children in the state welfare network im−mediately after they have completed theircompulsory education; we must think ofways of eliminating this phenomenon andpreventing the Roma students from leav−ing secondary school.

The fact that a high percentage of Roma stu−dents live in settlements to a great extent re−duces their motivation to educate them−selves. Living conditions are factors thatgreatly influence studying conditions and theoverall development of each child. For thisreason, this factor must be considered veryimportant. The research confirmed that mostRoma students (74.36%) live in unsuitable,i.e. non−stimulating social conditions, andonly 25.64% live in favorable conditions.The difficult conditions these students facein both studying and living is the main rea−son for their poor school results.

ROMA STUDENTS ANDHIGHER EDUCATION

In the current education system, the chancesof Roma students passing entrance examina−tions to university are very low.

The Roma Culture Department at the Peda−gogical Faculty of Constantine the Philoso−pher University in Nitra plays an importantrole in the education of the young Romageneration. The establishment of a Romaculture department enabled the school tooffer university education to both young andadult Roma, as well as enabling the prepara−

tion of a qualified Roma intelligentsia,mainly teachers. Yet the development of thedepartment was not easy, with frequent per−sonnel changes causing lasting harm. Thedepartment has not lived up to expectationsin the following spheres: research, publish−ing in the field of Roma studies, developingrelationships with similar institutions abroad,developing Roma culture, language, history,teaching etc., and boosting the short term andlong term development of the Roma nation.During its existence, the department has noteducated any students who later became itsexperts.

In 1995 the Education Ministry establisheda detached office in Spišská Nová Ves of thePedagogical Faculty of Constantine the Phi−losopher University in Nitra. In 2000/2001,a new study program entitled Social andMissionary Work Among the Roma wasopened at the Roma Studies Department ofthe Pedagogical Faculty of the same univer−sity. The task of the social and missionaryworkers is to work in Roma communities andhelp public administration bodies and edu−cational institutions overcome communica−tion barriers with the community throughmediation.

In 2002/2003, a new field of study wasopened in Lučenec at the detached office ofthe Roma Culture Department (KRK) ofConstantine the Philosopher University,where students can study social work fo−cused on the Roma community and teachingthe first grade of elementary school, special−izing in Roma children.

TEACHER TRAINING

TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

The 2000 research of the Methodical CenterPrešov also monitored the qualifications of


pedagogues teaching at the elementaryschools in the Prešov and Košice regionsattended by Roma students. The researchinvolved 78 schools.

Of the total number of pedagogues involvedin the research, 22.69% were not qualified(see Table 6). The situation in the first levelof elementary schools was very bad, as one−third of the teachers were not qualified,which obviously influences the quality of theeducation of first level students.

Regarding further education, the situation inthe monitored schools was very bad. Only10% of pedagogues had completed somekind of additional education. Educationalinstitutions, school managements and theEducation Ministry clearly have a great dealof room to create further education programsfor pedagogues.

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONPROJECTS FOR ROMA STUDENTS

ROMA TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Among the generally known reasons for thelow education level of the Roma, such astheir different culture, poor motivation, thelack of interest on the part of the parents, andtheir ignorance of the teaching language, thefact that Roma children are often put into

special schools because of their social back−wardness rather than any mental deficiencyalso plays an important role. Teaching assist−ants could help Roma children acquire thesocial skills and motivation they need foreducation. Some 220 Roma are preparing forthis job in retraining courses around Slo−vakia.

The Support for the Roma Minority in Edu−cation program, funded mainly by Phare, waslaunched under the auspices of the DeputyPrime Minister for Human Rights and Mi−norities, Pál Csáky. The Education Ministryhad prepared a draft law on education, but itdid not even get to the parliament, jeopard−izing the entire project. The MPs finally ena−bled teaching assistants to act as pedagoguesin elementary schools and special elementaryschools in June 2002, at the last momentbefore the parliament was dissolved ahead ofSeptember 2002 elections. After the programis launched, the EU funds will be allocatedamong the schools where Roma assistantsare working. At the moment, more than 200young people are participating in the TeacherAssistant retraining course conducted by theNational Labour Office in cooperation withthe Association of Young Roma. The asso−ciation selected suitable candidates, and theWide Open School Foundation selectedqualified lecturers. The teaching assistantsare expected to fully join the education proc−ess in 2003.

Table 6Teacher qualifications

O��<��!�� =� ��'��!��<��!�� =�

P��.��' ��+��8�� ' ��!��

�.��' ��!��!�>�� '��' �� )� �� )� � )� � )�

\�� !��!��' ��.�� ;�'��< ��!�� '��@��=� ��

\�� !��!��' ��;�'��!�� '��@��

\�� !��' �� ;�'�� '��@��

��>�� !� ��



THE STEP BY STEP PROJECT

The first attempt by the Wide Open SchoolFoundation to innovate in education andsearch for alternative approaches to improv−ing education was the Step by Step Project.This project was a significant step towardshumanizing and democratizing schools, andoffered a real chance for a multicultural con−cept to be used in pedagogical methods, forthe socio−cultural differences of Roma stu−dents to be accepted, and for their potentialto be developed based on the unique abilitiesof each student.

The philosophical and theoretical basis of theproject is viewing education as a process inwhich the cognitive, emotional, social, andphysical aspects of students have to be devel−oped. The pre−condition for optimizing thedevelopment and education process is to viewthe biological, psychological and social char−acteristics of each student as a whole. Theaspect of personality is the most important.The orientation towards each individual stu−dent’s personality in the project caused achange in the organization of education andthe control activities of the teacher. Theteacher does not teach in the traditional sense,but controls and organizes the activities of thestudents by preparing conditions for theseactivities. The teacher helps the studentsachieve the goals of education through clearlydefined expectations, and trusts the abilities ofthe students, enabling them to reach the goalin any way they like. Traditional classes andlessons as the basic organizational unit havein many ways proven their efficacy. To in−crease the effectiveness of the education, how−ever, the organization of the class environmentat elementary schools had to be changed, andthe work had to be divided between theteacher and the Roma teaching assistant.

The Step by Step Project resulted in twoprojects by the Wide Open School Founda−

tion: The Acceleration of the School Successof Roma Students and The Reintegration ofRoma Students from the Socially and Educa−tionally Handicapped Environments of Spe−cial Elementary Schools into the MajorityPopulation. The aim of these projects was touncover and deal with problems in the edu−cation of Roma students from the viewpointof their individual needs as well as the insti−tutional and professional problems of educa−tional facilities. The projects had four majorgoals:• to educate people participating in further

education;• to create learning environments based on

democratic principles and mutual respectbetween the teacher and the student, andamong the students;

• to ensure successive development and de−rive teaching methods from it;

• to ensure that all students acquire the sameknowledge, artistic and practical skills forsuccessfully integrating into a democraticsociety.

The basic idea behind the projects was torevaluate the existing situation and the suc−cess and failures of Roma students, the roleof the teacher and the parents, admitting theexistence of prejudice and stereotypes andthe ways in which they are manifested. His−torical, family and socio−political aspectswere gradually added to the projects and theirimplementation.

PROJECT TO ACCELERATETHE SCHOOL SUCCESS OFROMA STUDENTS

This project should support the education ofRoma students at elementary schools, and isbeing implemented in cooperation with theWide Open School Foundation and the Peda−gogical Faculty of Pavol Jozef Šafárik Uni−versity in Prešov (UPJŠ).


The theoretical basis of the project is to viewthe acceleration of the success of Roma stu−dents in Slovakia as part of multiculturaleducation. The goal of multicultural educa−tion is to integrate the individual into thebroader multicultural environment, and topreserve his/her personal and cultural iden−tity. The criterion of this integration is to re−spect basic human and civic rights and gen−eral values, with the goals of education fo−cusing on support for human and civic coex−istence. In human relationships especially,tolerance and understanding are strengthenedby this approach, and hatred, intolerance,fanaticism, racism etc. are suppressed.

The basis of multiculturalism is thus identitywith one’s own culture. In keeping with thisbroader multicultural aspect, the aim of theproject is to accelerate the school success ofminorities and ethnic groups by integratingtheir languages and cultures into the educa−tion process and changing the approach ofteachers to Roma students, which requireslearning about and respecting the individualcultural experiences of students.

Putting the project into action envisages helpfrom Roma teachers/Roma teaching assist−ants who can speak their mother tongue (thisapplies especially in pre−school education aswell as in the first grades of elementaryschools).

The project was put through a trial run whoseaim was to discover to what extent the workof the Roma assistant helped students toadapt to the class and the school environ−ment, contributed to the removal of the ini−tial language barrier and to the accelerationof learning success, and the extent to whichthe assistant’s presence improved the socialclimate in the experimental classes.

The research sample included 129 studentsfrom experimental classes. In the sphere of

cognitive development in non−verbal com−munication, which was determined throughthe CHIPS test, the final measurements in−dicated that the Roma assistant’s presence inthe class had a positive influence. The resultsfor speech development, which were deter−mined using the Heidelberg test, wereequally positive

The level of social competence and peerrelationships was determined by testing thesocial climate within the group. At the begin−ning of the experiment the climate in alltested groups was good, which was probablydue to the specifics of life in the Roma set−tlement and the fact that the children kneweach other before they enrolled in the school,and that their families were related.

A comparison of the differences in the per−formance of all students in the experimentaland reference classes showed that while af−ter the first year the experimental classeswere statistically much better only in wordtasks, after the second year these classes weremuch better in all monitored areas.

In determining the relationship of the stu−dent to the school, the teacher, and theRoma assistant, the questionnaire surveyshowed that most parents (83.0%) thoughtthat their children liked going to school, andthat they were not having any major prob−lems. According to the statements of theparents, only one child had a negative atti−tude towards school. The parents evaluatedthe relationship of their children to theteacher very positively: 100% of childrenrespected the teacher, 98.1% liked her, 96.2%trusted her, 94.3% had no conflicts with her,90.6% thought of her as fair. The parents alsoevaluated the relationship of their childrento the Roma assistant positively: 96.2% ofparents thought their children respected,liked and trusted the Roma assistant. Theparents expressed a similar relationship to


the teacher and the Roma assistants as thechildren.

In their evaluations of the cooperation be−tween the school and the family, more thanhalf of the parents (52.8%) considered coop−eration with the teacher to be very good,while 47.2% thought it irregular but gener−ally good; none of the parents thought thatcooperation with the teacher was poor. Theparents regarded their cooperation with theRoma assistant even more positively: 64.2%stated that their cooperation was regular andvery good. When parents cooperate with theteacher, they prefer personal meetings atschool, parent−teacher meetings, participa−tion in meetings organized by the school, andthe exchange of written information.

The students’ results in the first two gradesof elementary school showed significant dif−ferences in the number of lessons missedbetween the experimental and the referencegroups. While in the experimental groupthere were 1,269 missed lessons for the firstand second grades, in the reference group thefigure was 4,393 lessons. Big differenceswere also seen between the experimental andthe reference groups in the number of lessonsmissed without justification (Akceleráciaúspešnosti rómskych žiakov, 2000, 2001).

REINTEGRATION OFROMA STUDENTS FROMTHE SOCIALLY ANDEDUCATIONALLY HANDICAPPEDENVIRONMENT OF SPECIALELEMENTARY SCHOOLS INTOTHE MAJORITY POPULATION

This project focuses on the need for the hu−manization and equality of educational op−portunities and chances for all children. Afar−reaching and integrated educational ap−proach has to be ensured for the education of

Roma students, emphasizing versatility, theadoption of general values, national and cul−tural identity, gradual socialization, and anappropriate level of autonomy. To meet theserequirements, the appropriate conditionsmust be created for the systematic and effec−tive stimulation of the cognitive, intellectualand personality development of Roma stu−dents in mutual cooperation and balance.

The project, which is managed by the OpenSociety Institute in New York, has been up andrunning since the 1999/2000 school year, notjust in Slovakia but also in Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic and Hungary. In Slovakia the projectis being implemented under the auspices ofthe Department for Special Pedagogy of thePedagogical Faculty of UPJŠ in Prešov andthe Wide Open School Foundation.

The project tries to identify Roma studentswho were put into special elementary schoolswithout justification. The aim is to improvetheir school results and re−integrate them intothe elementary school system within threeyears, as well as to develop a functionalmodel of school success for Roma students.The project is based on the assumption thatif favorable conditions were created amongRoma students for teaching and learning,then most would be able to study at elemen−tary schools and achieve appropriate resultsaccording to the curriculum. The project at−tempts to implement the following:• changing special elementary school cur−

ricula using the curricula of regular el−ementary schools;

• using the Step by Step method as a way todeliver educational content;

• training teachers and administrative work−ers participating in the project in anti−prejudice methods;

• using appropriate methods to supportknowledge of the official language

• involving a Roma teaching assistant ineach class.


In keeping with the above goals, the teach−ers taught the children inner freedom, tosearch for their own identities, to accept re−sponsibility, to make decisions, as well associal skills such as tolerance, patience forpeople, respect for their own lives andRoma culture, etc. The essence of the teach−er’s work lay in taking an individual ap−proach to the students. The student is thecenter of attention, while the parents arepartners in educating their children. Theteachers and the Roma assistants created anenvironment that enabled the Roma commu−nity to feel closer to the educational processby showing the parents that they were wel−come at the school. Besides the work of theteacher, the Roma assistant’s role was alsovery important. The assistant helped in theclass by translating for Roma students whodid not speak the official language, servingas a role model, mediating between theschool and the family, and integrating theRoma language, culture and history into theschool setting. The teacher and the Romaassistant used various methods to educate thebilingual students.

The project was put through a trial run todetermine the extent to which the Step byStep method worked with Roma studentsfrom special elementary schools and the ex−tent to which the work of the Roma assistanthelped accelerate the school success of Romastudents, as well as whether the methodsimproved the social climate at the school orimproved cooperation between the schooland the family. The aim of the test was toacquire sufficient information so changescould be made in the practice of puttingRoma students into special schools.

The following methods were used in the trialrun: psychological testing to determine thelevel of cognitive development, written ex−ams, and questionnaires for teachers, Romaassistants and parents. The research sample

included 74 Roma students from five experi−mental and five reference classes.

The research data were summarized on twolevels – international and national. The writ−ten exams were prepared in the individualcountries, and then used to determinewhether the curricula requirements for el−ementary schools had been met; standardizedpsychological tests were also applied.

These were the results of the trials:• cognitive development – measured using

standard methods for gauging inborn intel−ligence. The degree of success in the ex−perimental classes was between 21.7% and51.7%, in the reference classes from 20%to 45%. Both groups contained studentswith excellent non−verbal skills, as well asthose who achieved very poor results.While in the first grade both groups wererelatively equal, the results after the secondgrade showed a natural growth in skills,especially in the students from the experi−mental classes.

• intellectual level – as many as 35.1% ofexperimental class students could be ex−pected to be able to cope with the require−ments of the regular elementary school,while in the reference classes, only 21.6%of the students would fulfill this criterion.

• evolution of speech – measured using theHeidelberg speech evolution test (H−S−E−T).The tests tried to determine how well theRoma students could remember and repro−duce various complex speech units, andform singular and plural constructions andderived words. The repeating of sentencesshowed a significant difference in favor ofthe experimental class. Compared to thestudents from the reference class, the ex−perimental class students showed a greaterability to reproduce sentences more pre−cisely.

• attitudes to selected objects (things,events or people, e.g. the school, mother,


father, work) – the test tried to show thesubconscious relationship to reality as de−fined through selected notions. Positiveattitudes (values over 20%) in the refer−ence classes were expressed only to twoobjects – teacher and father – while in theexperimental classes the values were sig−nificantly higher. Positive attitudes in ex−perimental class students were expressedtowards eight objects, of which four (love,father, mother, friend) reached more than30%. Positive attitudes towards school−mates, the teacher, the “gadžo” (whites)and the school ranged from 20% to 30%.The analysis showed that the attitudes ofthe students towards the objects selecteddiffered greatly in the monitored samples.Not only were the attitudes of the studentsof the experimental classes more positivethan those of the reference class students,but there was also a far lower occurrenceof negative attitudes than with the refer−ence class students.

• visual and auditory development, devel−opment of perception and motor skills,right−left orientation – statistically sig−nificant differences in favor of the experi−mental classes were seen in individual ac−tivities, emotional and social development,and in communication skills. The studentsin the experimental classes showed statis−tically much better perception skills afterboth the first and the second grades thanthe reference class students. While in po−sitioning in space (sense of direction) therewere no significant differences betweenthe experimental and the reference groups,in spatial orientation the experimental classstudents were statistically better, as theywere in auditory perception and auditoryrecognition.

• Slovak language and literature – afterthe second grade a significantly highersuccess rate was found in the experimen−tal classes – 77.9%. Besides their goodresults in written tests, the experimental

classes showed better communicationskills and positive social relationships.

• When knowledge and skills in mathemat−ics were evaluated, just as in Slovak lan−guage and literature, 80% of the experi−mental class students were successful. Ap−proximately 20% of the students were un−der the 50% success limit.

• attitudes towards the school – here, theparticipation of students in lessons andtheir evaluation of school activities weretested. Overall school attendance, as thebasic pre−requisite for school successamong the Roma students, was far betterin the experimental than in the referenceclasses. The average number of missedlessons was lower in the experimentalclasses (17.5 days), than in the referenceclasses (30.5 days). We can assume that thework in the Roma community as well asthe presence of the Roma assistant in theclass helped improve school attendance.The interviews showed that all Roma stu−dents (both from the experimental and thereference classes) had a positive attitudetowards school, with 95% of the experi−mental class students and 80% of the ref−erence class students saying they liked tobe at school very much.

• evaluations by teachers – among themethods that more than half of the experi−mental class teachers used in their work,and which they found helped students inthe lessons, were: cooperative learning,group work and pair work. The experimen−tal class teachers also preferred role play(40%), the use of Roma culture and songs(30%), morning meetings, and the use ofteaching aids (20%). They also mentionedthe involvement of the parents, usingbooks with real topics, the creation ofbooks, and group work.

• evaluations by the parents – all Romaparents (of students from both the experi−mental and the reference classes) consid−ered school and the school attendance of


their children to be very important. Mostof all, Roma parents thought it was impor−tant that their children attended school ona daily basis. Although everybody wasaware of the importance of education forthe future of their children, the parents ofthe experimental class students more oftencooperated with the school (by joining inschool and class activities, participating inpersonal meetings, visiting courses formothers, etc.) than the parents of referenceclass students. The high involvement of theparents correlated with the results of theexperimental class students in the Slovaklanguage, and with their overall schoolresults. The attitudes of the Roma parentssuggested that they considered the educa−tion of their children to be very important.More than half of the parents (57.2%)whose children attended the experimentalclasses said that the attitude of their childtowards the school was positive; amongthe parents of the reference class studentsthe figure was 35.1%. The parents (mostlyof the experimental class students –68.3%) were aware of the importance ofthe teacher’s work and wanted the teacherto be appropriately remunerated for thiswork. On the other hand, 41.5% of theparents of reference class students and29.1% of the parents of experimental classstudents thought that the most importantthing was to be literate and educated,which is what they appreciated about theschool the most. The visions and plans ofthe parents concerning their children wereimportant as well. More parents of experi−mental class students (41.6%) than of ref−erence class students (23.4%) wanted theirchildren to acquire qualifications and finda job. In both groups, 14.3% of parentswished that their child completed elemen−tary school and continued studying at avocational school. It was interesting thatonly the parents of experimental class stu−dents had considered higher education for

their children, and had thought aboutwhich field of study their children mightbe interested in (Reintegrácia rómskychžiakov..., 2000, 2001).

ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFPRE−SCHOOL EDUCATION FORROMA CHILDREN

This program is run by the Foundation for theRoma Child and aims to help talented andgifted Roma children and young people whowish to continue their education and developtheir personalities. The mission of the foun−dation is to support schooling through edu−cational and training programs, grantingscholarships to secondary school and univer−sity students, alternative education programs,publishing activities, and so on. The Foun−dation for the Roma Child’s main project isits “education centers”.

One of the main impulses for creating theproject was the significant reduction of thekindergarten network in Slovakia after 1989,the increase in kindergarten fees, and thedramatic growth in unemployment amongRoma parents. The result was a clear drop inkindergarten attendance by Roma children,and the subsequent higher failure rate ofRoma children in the first grade of elemen−tary school (Alternatívny program..., 1993).

The project began in November 1993. Theeducation centers are model pre−school fa−cilities designed for children aged 4 to 6. Theactivities of the centers focus on preparingthe children to enroll in elementary schoolwith the active participation of the parents.

In cooperation with the department of socialaffairs, the foundation addresses peoplethrough leaflets containing information onthe importance of enrolling children inschool, and on the enrollment dates. Together


with elementary schools, the foundationhelps place children in the first grade and thusprevents their segregation. The main goals ofthe project are:• to complement family upbringing with

education aimed at developing the child’sgeneral personality, and its social, emo−tional, physical and intellectual develop−ment in compliance with individual andage specifics;

• to improve the preparedness of Roma chil−dren for enrollment in elementary schoolthrough education and mentoring using anindividual approach;

• to improve Roma parents’ care of theirchildren by involving families and particu−larly mothers in educational activities;

• to add elements of Roma culture to theprogram and develop the children’s iden−tities;

• to create pedagogical approaches aimed atdeveloping the student’s personality;

• to launch educational activities for peda−gogues, parents, and members of localcommunities;

• to offer alternative programs in coopera−tion with other institutions (Alternatívnyprogram..., 1993).

Cooperation and partnership are the maintasks of the education centers. To achievethese goals, the parents have to realize theimportance of educating their children. Eachparent has the right to directly observe theactivities of their children. The environmentand the relationship of the teachers to thechildren ensure that the children easily adaptto the new environment. When the parentssee how the teachers work with their chil−dren, as well as the results the childrenachieve after a short time, they are usuallymotivated to take their children to the centerregularly.

One of the methods of cooperation used isdaily homework for the children. The home−

work tasks are put in the students’ books, andthe children can thus increase the knowledgethey acquire by doing homework with thehelp of their parents. This method of coop−eration leads the parents to act more respon−sibility towards homework assigned by el−ementary schools.

The initial position of the Roma children whohad visited the education centers was betterfrom the start of their school attendance.Their command of Slovak and their motorskills were better, they had adopted the ba−sic behavioral, hygiene and cultural habits,and they were also better prepared in termsof intellectual performance. As a result, theteachers and their schoolmates acceptedthem more quickly than they did other Romastudents.

The foundation’s main goal is to expand theprogram and offer it wherever appropriate.To achieve its goal during the 2002/03 schoolyear, the foundation in cooperation with theMethodical Center in Prešov organized con−tinuous education for teachers and peoplewho work with Roma children and are inter−ested in the education centers.

THE HEJ RUP PROJECT OFHOME PRE−SCHOOL EDUCATION OFROMA CHILDREN WITHTHE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OFPARENTS

The Hej Rup project, run by the Pro FamiliaNGO from Humenné, is based on two el−ementary social problems that affect theRoma population in particular. One problemis the increased rate of failure of Roma chil−dren in elementary school, caused by theirinsufficient preparation for school (espe−cially in terms of language), and the insuffi−cient care and support they get from theirparents. Experience shows that pre−school


education confers advantages that aid thedevelopment of the child. The second majorproblem is the high rate of unemploymentamong the Roma and in some regions in Slo−vakia, and the absolute impossibility of gain−ing qualifications or training to get a job.

The Hej Rup project came into being from1993 to 1994 as part of a more far−reachingprogram called Strengthening the PositiveAspects of Roma Families. The aim of theprogram was to change the perception of thecurrent problems in society, in a way thattreated these problems as interrelated, ratherthan in isolation. In this view, problems areperceived not as burdens but as positive chal−lenges. The project strives to connect threenegative and isolated phenomena:• the low number of Roma children attend−

ing pre−school facilities;• the growing number of Roma families with

pre−school age children, in which one orboth parents have been unemployed in thelong term;

• kindergarten teachers losing their jobs.

The project is based on the premise that eachindividual and family has the potential forpositive development, and that parents arecapable of acting in the interests of their chil−dren and of being responsible for them. In theeducation of a child, the role of the parent isirreplaceable. Parents are responsible for thepresent and future quality of life of their chil−dren (Pomáhame Rómom..., 1994).

In working with the family, this project re−jects compensation in favor of support anddevelopment. Instead of uniformity, it strivesfor the tolerance of diversity, and supportsindependent decision−making and responsi−bility. The basic goals of the project flowfrom the aforementioned premises:• to encourage Roma parents to positively

influence the development of their chil−dren;

• to improve the preparedness of Roma chil−dren for enrollment in school, and thusincrease their chances of success at school;

• to test a model of pre−school preparationfor Roma children who do not attend akindergarten, in which the schooling is car−ried out by Roma parents in the family en−vironment under the guidance of a pre−school teacher.

In this way, the project creates job opportu−nities for unemployed kindergarten teachers,offers an alternative activity to Roma parentsfor whom the loss of a job allows them todevelop and improve their parenting abilities,and at the same time provides pre−schoolpreparation to Roma children who do notattend a kindergarten.

The project also includes group meetingswith mothers and their children both outsidethe family and at home. The experience gath−ered during the project shows that the person−ality of the teacher is a substantial factor in−fluencing the course and results of theproject. The teacher’s primary role is not toteach the child but to stimulate the mother tosupport her child. This requires special train−ing of the kindergarten teacher to develop herability to work with the parents.

After completing the program, all childrenshowed an improvement in the monitoredaspects, yet the rate of improvement varied.Some 71.2% of the school−age children wereable to be enrolled in school as of the normaldate. While only 41.2% of children could beschooled whose “home part” of the programhad been weak due to insufficient coopera−tion, in the group whose parents had coop−erated well, 80% of the children were readyto begin.

In the future, the project could be carried outin several ways: as the only available possi−bility for a given child, as a supplementary


form of schooling to institutionalized pre−school education in kindergartens, and as apreparatory phase in the pre−school educa−tion process to be followed by kindergarteneducation (Pomáhame Rómom..., 1999).

SCHOOL AND THE ROMA CHILD

This project was carried out by the Chil−dren’s Hope civic association, whose targetgroup is children younger than 15. Theproject ran from May to September 2002,and was aimed at specific educational activi−ties for Roma children. The target group ofthe project was Roma children of differentages, and the activities were aimed mainly at:• preparation for entrance exams;• pre−school education;• sports and other hobbies;• work with computers;• interviews with parents and family visits;• running the healthy diet program;• counseling on the upbringing and educa−

tional problems of children.

The short duration of the project and its fo−cus on a small group of Roma children (onlyfour students were involved in preparationfor entrance exams) means that this did notinvolve a general concept of alternative edu−cation for Roma children; the aim was ratherto focus on the concrete problems of particu−lar target groups and help improve the situa−tion through an individual approach.

A worker from the district pedagogical−psy−chological consulting center was involvedin the pre−school activities, creating thebasic teaching materials. The project alsoinvolved a Roma assistant from among thetarget group children’s parents, who taughtthe children basic hygiene and various tasks(washing up, tidying up the educationcenter). Twelve children were involved in

the pre−school program, which took place inthe education center every morning. Ac−cording to the evaluation report, sports wereamong the favorite activities of the childrenand their parents. These activities resultedin a sports day, in which 49 children andparents participated. Other activities werean anti−drug program, teaching children towork with a computer, leisure time activities,and a summer camp (Rómske dieťa a škola,2002).

The success of the project depended largelyon the involvement and interest of the chil−dren in the individual activities. The hygienichabits of the children improved, they wereable to independently solve some problems,and they helped each other and participatedin creating further programs. A total of 81children participated in the program.

The project also taught the children whattheir rights, responsibilities and duties were.When explaining these issues to the children,methods were used in which the teacher wasnot dominant, such as discussions involvingthe knowledge of the children participatingin the program, making them co−implement−ers of the program. The project also usedmethods to influence willpower (exercisesand the creation of habits) and the emotionsthrough forms of moral encouragement (dis−plays of confidence, delegation of importanttasks, etc.). In cases of undesirable behavior,reminders, disagreement and rejection wereapplied.

Thanks to the project, cooperation was be−gun with children who are now preparing asimple education program for their peers, aswell as with parents and many volunteers.Cooperation with teachers and district au−thorities proved difficult, as their work com−mitments prevented them from working inthe field (Rómske dieťa a škola, 2002).


THE GANDHI SCHOOL

This project is the continuation of a com−pleted project of alternative education fromPécs, Hungary. It was initiated by the DistrictAssociation of Roma Initiatives at the re−gional office in Banská Bystrica with the aimof providing children aged 10 years and olderwith a study program at an eight−year sec−ondary boarding school. The result expectedwas that students would be prepared for uni−versity studies and other forms of post−gradual study, or for the opportunity to studyin various fields according to their interestsand results. The aim was to give the Romachildren a chance to succeed in their studiesby changing the teaching approach taken inkeeping with their ethnic culture and habits,involving mostly Roma pedagogues and us−ing their knowledge from the Roma Assist−ant Project. The project strives to introduceRoma language and literature and Roma his−tory and culture as compulsory subjects, andfocuses on out−of−school education aimed attraditional crafts, music, art and drama,which are close to Roma traditions and cul−ture. Another aim is to focus education on theposition of the Roma in society, joint respon−sibility for the future, tolerance, and to in−spire the Roma children to participate morein the civic life of the community and to en−courage their self−confidence and self−fulfillment in society (Gandhiho škola,2000). Children from socially disadvantagedenvironments have thus a chance to acquireA−level education and prepare thoroughly foruniversity studies.

The project is now in the preparation phase.The authors have succeeded in integrating theschool into the school system, while the cur−ricula, plans and out−of−school activities arebeing prepared. The school building is alreadyavailable, although the funds for its recon−struction still have to be found. The schoolshould open in the 2004/2005 academic year.

LET’S HELP THE ROMA HELPTHE ROMA

This project continues the long−term projectSupport for the Positive Aspects of the RomaFamily, which is run by the Pro Familia as−sociation. Every year, around 200 childrenand adults participate in the program, witharound 60 of them involved in regular andlong−term work. It is part of a new phase ofthe program focusing on job creation foryoung Roma and making their activitieswithin the projects more professional. Edu−cational and stimulating activities that havebeen launched so far allow some participantsto be prepared for involvement as assistants,semi−professional and professional workersin aiding Roma communities in the Pro Fa−milia projects.

The main goals of the project are:• to improve the professional preparedness

and skills of Roma for working in theRoma community;

• to create a job vacancy for a Roma assist−ant;

• to stimulate self−supporting initiatives andthe participation of the Roma in improv−ing the quality of their own lives (Pomá−hame Rómom..., 1994).

The project is expected to result in the profes−sional preparation of long−term unemployedRoma to work in the Roma community.

Alternative professional preparation is pro−vided through the training course Social andCommunity Work in Roma Communities. Theproject includes a self−supporting workshopfor women (sewing and mending clothes,knitting, filling in forms in contacts withauthorities, tidying up the household and thesurroundings) and for men (minor house−hold repairs and maintenance). Several newjob positions could be created for young un−employed Roma (two full−time jobs and one


part time job) who work in the Pro Familiacivic association. Some 8 mothers and 12children regularly attend the course for par−ents with pre−school age children. In coop−eration with the Methodical Center in Pre−šov, pre−school education workers were in−formed of the project. Information about theproject was also presented at official fo−rums, giving both the Roma community andthe majority society a positive image of theRoma.

The project confirmed the suitability of theprocedures applied: from voluntarism toemployment (course participant – volunteer– occasional remuneration – part−time job –full−time job). If the project is to succeed,new job opportunities at NGOs have to becreated for people who coordinate and super−vise the projects, etc. (Pomáhame Rómom...,1999).

CONCLUSION

Given the capabilities and opportunities ofthe Roma minority on the one hand and ofthe Slovak school system on the other, wemust support and launch effective alternativemethods of education with the help of NGOs,foreign partners and others. Interdepartmen−tal cooperation in tackling problems causedby the conditions, circumstances, and otheraspects of the Roma minority (health, social,economic, demographic) is also necessary.

During the decade in which the zero gradeprogram has existed, hundreds of childrenhave been given the chance to enroll inschool in a different atmosphere and accord−ing to a different philosophy. In spite of thepositive opinions of the teachers and parentsand the evident success of the children, how−ever, no social or political will has been cre−ated to integrate zero grades into educationlegislation.

At all levels of the Slovak school system, itis necessary to respect the rights of the indi−vidual – the child – to education accordingto his/her abilities, thus ensuring their future,independence, self−fulfillment, and satisfac−tion.

Alternative projects, in their conception,preparation, and realization, contribute to theeducation of Roma students and support theirgeneral growth and development. They sup−port effective cooperation between the Romafamily and the school, and enable their ownidentity and culture to be applied.

A key element in improving the effectivenessof education is the targeted and systematicpreparation of teachers and especially theirRoma assistants. The Roma assistantsclosely cooperate with the teachers in theclass and support the students in learning,help them translate from Romany into Slo−vak, integrate the Roma language, cultureand history into the education process, andsupport the meaningful involvement of theparents in cooperation with the school.

The effectiveness of the projects used wasdocumented by the results of students in allmonitored spheres. Statistically significantdifferences were recorded between the ex−perimental and reference groups (insignifi−cant after the first grade but significant afterthe second grade), especially in the knowl−edge and skills of the students.

The basic pre−requisite for the further devel−opment of Roma students is the use in prac−tice of the basic principles tested by the al−ternative education projects. This requiresfurther training of teachers and Roma assist−ants, support for the relationship between thefamily and the school, and the use of specificeducational methods, forms, and tools ena−bling the specific potential of Roma studentsto be identified and developed.


REFERENCES

1. Akcelerácia úspešnosti rómskych žiakov [Ac−celeration of the School Success of RomaStudents], Report on the First and SecondYears of the Experimental Verification of theEffects of the Presence of Roma TeachingAssistants on the School Success of RomaStudents in the First Grade of ElementarySchool, (Žiar nad Hronom: Wide OpenSchool Foundation, 2000, 2001).

2. Alternatívny program vzdelávania rómskychdetí predškolského veku [Alternative Programof Education of Roma Pre−School Children],Working paper, (Prešov: Foundation forRoma Children, 1993).

3. Gandhiho škola [The Gandhi School], DraftProject, (Banská Bystrica: Regional Associa−tion of Roma Initiatives, 2000).

4. Jurová, Anna: “Vzdelanostný handicap u róm−skeho obyvateľstva – spôsoby jeho dote−rajšieho prekovávania a perspektívne možnos−ti” [‘The Education Handicap of the RomaPopulation: Ways to Overcome it, and Perspec−tives’], Sociológia, No. 26, 1994, p. 479 – 486.

5. Krok za krokom. Alternatívna metodická prí−ručka pre I. stupeň základnej školy [Step byStep: An Alternative Methodology Handbookfor the First Grade of Elementary School],(Žiar nad Hronom: Wide Open School Foun−dation, 2000).

6. Maczejková, Mária et al: Prípravný – nultýročník v ZŠ pre šesťročné deti nepripravenépre úspešný vstup do školy [The Preparatory/

Zero Grade of the Elementary School for 6−Year−Old Children Unprepared for Success−ful Enrollment at School], (Prešov: Methodi−cal Center, 2000).

7. Pomáhame Rómom pomáhať Rómom [Let’sHelp the Roma Help the Roma], Workingpaper, (Humenné: Pro Familia, 1994).

8. Pomáhame Rómom pomáhať Rómom [Let’sHelp the Roma Help the Roma], Final Reporton the Implementation of the Project fromMarch to September 1999, Working paper,(Humenné: Pro Familia, 1999).

9. Postavenie rómskeho dieťaťa a žiaka v škol−skom výchovno−vzdelávacom systéme SR [ThePosition of the Roma Child and Student in theSlovak School and Education System], (Pre−šov: Methodical Center, 2002).

10. Reintegrácia rómskych žiakov zo sociálnea výchovne menej podnetného prostredia špe−ciálnych základných škôl medzi majoritnú po−puláciu [Reintegration of Roma Studentsfrom the Socially and Educationally Handi−capped Environment of Special ElementarySchools into the Majority Population], ReportFrom the First and Second Years of Research,(Žiar nad Hronom: Wide Open School Foun−dation, 2000, 2001).

11. Rómske dieťa a škola [The Roma Child andSchool], Final Report on Grant Fulfillment,(Banská Bystrica: Hope for Children, 2002).

12. Szigeti, Lázslo: Slovensko a Rómovia: par−tnerstvo a spoluúčasť [Slovakia and theRoma: Partnership and Participation], Aspeech dated May 2, 2002.

442

443

(Elena Kriglerová wrote parts 1, 3, 4, 5 and6; Natália Kušnieriková wrote part 2).

Summary: This chapter analyses the resultsof research on the relationship of Slovakia’sRoma to their own language, ethnicity, andeducation. The first part contains a brief de−scription of individual approaches to theeducation of Roma in the past, describingtheir level of education and outlining the fac−tors that influence this level, including theheterogeneity of the Roma population andthe attitudes of the Roma to education. Theaim of the chapter is to draw a complete pic−ture of Roma education and emphasize theneed to take the attitudes and opinions of theRoma into account when designing alterna−tive projects to improve their education.

Key words: education level, attitudes, tradi−tional values, community education,socialization, behavior models, educationsystem, social exclusion, social dependence,education as a value, Roma language, alter−native projects, segregation, discrimination,special schools, preparatory courses.

INTRODUCTION

The education of the Roma is a very compli−cated area of research, and is one of the mostserious problems connected with the currentsituation of the Roma. The position of theRoma on the labor market is characterized bytheir high rate of unemployment and their de−

ELENA KRIGLEROVÁ and NATÁLIA KUŠNIERIKOVÁ

EDUCATIONAL ATTITUDES ANDASPIRATIONS OF THE ROMA

pendence on state welfare; this position is tosome extent determined by their level ofeducation. While it is clearly necessary todeal with this phenomenon, this is not aneasy task, as one’s education level influencesone’s chance of finding a job on the onehand, while on the other hand, the educationlevel of the Roma is determined by theirsocio−economic position vis a vis the major−ity population. For this reason, the complex−ity and multidimensionality of the educationof the Roma must be monitored. One of theaspects that undoubtedly influence the Romaeducation level is their own attitude towardseducation and to the Slovak education sys−tem. Without the active participation of theRoma and the acceptance of their opinionsand attitudes, we cannot succeed in increas−ing the Roma’s level of education.

Despite this, we lack more profound analy−ses of Roma attitudes to education; recentsociological research of the social situationof the Roma has dealt with education onlyindirectly. This chapter aims to present ba−sic information on the topic, as well as theview from “the other side”; it also outlinesthe value that the Roma ascribe to educa−tion, what education they consider sufficientto succeed in life, and especially whichschool system they think is ideal for ensur−ing equal access of Roma and non−Romachildren to education. Here it is very impor−tant to isolate the factors that shape the at−titudes of the Roma to education. The me−dia and academic literature often allege that

444 E l e n a K r i g l e r o v á a n d N a t á l i a K u š n i e r i k o v á

the Roma lack interest in education, are in−capable of adapting to the education system,and that efforts to increase their level of edu−cation are ineffective. As research shows,1

however, the Roma population is very het−erogeneous, and attitudes to education differaccording to individual socio−demographiccategories.

To create a full picture of Roma attitudes, wemust briefly describe the education level ofthe Roma and outline the factors influencingit, as these factors also shape their attitudesand ambitions. One of the most importantfactors influencing the level and process ofRoma education is the approach taken to theRoma in the past, especially in the educationsystem. Many of the measures concerningthe Roma and education used in this coun−try since the 18th century have influenced thecurrent education level of the Roma as wellas their attitudes and ambitions. Thus, pastattitudes to Roma education must be at leastbriefly described.

EDUCATIONAL ATTITUDES OFTHE ROMA IN THE PAST

The Roma never had and still don’t havetheir own institutional education system.Their education in the past was influenced bythe lifestyle of the family and its relations tothe majority population. Institutional educa−tion aimed at increasing their standard of liv−ing was not one of their priorities. Romachildren learned all they needed to survivefrom their parents. It was not in keeping withthe lifestyle of the parents or of the overallcommunity for Roma children to leave thefamily for the purpose of education. Even ifan individual did reach a certain level ofeducation, he was often unable to find a jobin his original community. Acquiring educa−tion did not mean improving one’s financialsituation.

EDUCATION OF ROMA INTHE HABSBURG MONARCHY

The Habsburg Monarchy Empress MáriaTerézia (1740 – 1780) introduced assimilationmeasures in Austria−Hungary aimed at eman−cipating the Gypsies and merging them com−pletely with the domestic population. MáriaTerézia ordered Gypsy children aged 2 to 12to be taken from their parents and educated inpeasant families of the majority population.The parents naturally did not accept losingtheir children, so the authorities often had touse force. Children were placed in remotevillages and regions to further the assimilationprocess. Older children often ran away fromtheir “tutors”. During the reign of Jozef II,Roma children brought up in peasant familiesaged 4 and older, later 8 and 10, were alsosupposed to work as servants during the wholeperiod of their education (Šalamon, 1992).

Part of the policy of Mária Terézia and JozefII was the introduction of school reform in1777. Schools teaching writing, reading andarithmetic were established for very youngchildren. The reform also made educationcompulsory, although compulsory educationfor children aged 6 to 12 was not specificallyintroduced until a 1868 Act (Encyklopédiaľudovej kultúry Slovenska, 1995) that alsogoverned Roma children2 and provided foreducation in one’s mother tongue; however,this did not include Romany.

EDUCATION OF ROMA IN THE FIRSTCZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC

In the first Czechoslovak Republic (1918 to1939), the Roma were granted the status ofa nation, and the Constitution guaranteedequality to all citizens. On the other hand, theprovisions of the 1927 Anti−Nomadic Lawwere largely repressive and often conflictedwith the equality guaranteed by the Consti−

445E d u c a t i o n a l A t t i t u d e s a n d A s p i r a t i o n s o f t h e R o m a

tution. The education of Roma children wasstill compulsory.

A specific example of the approach taken toeducation was the independent “Gypsyschool” opened in Užhorod in 1926. Thisschool was founded at the initiative of theMoravian Roma Ján Daniel, who had inter−vened with Czechoslovak President TomášG. Masaryk. The Roma themselves helpedbuild the school and the schoolyard. Thanksto the support of the Head of the SchoolDepartment in Užhorod, the school fulfilleda broader mission, as it had a modified edu−cation system based on the needs and abili−ties of Roma children. One of the reasons forbuilding schools for Gypsy children at thetime was also the fact that “Gypsy childrenare segregated from non−Roma children”(Šotolová, 2000, p. 51). Non−Roma parentspreferred schools in which there were fewerRoma children than non Roma, or no Romachildren at all. On the other hand, teacherswanted all children to be educated.

ROMA EDUCATION DURINGTHE SECOND WORLD WAR,THE WARTIME SLOVAK STATE, ANDTHE PERIOD FROM 1945 TO 1948

During the Nazi−puppet Slovak State of theSecond World War, the Roma were treated intwo ways according to the State CitizenshipLaw of September 25, 1939. Those Romawho had a fixed address and a job belongedto Slovak society. The rest were “foreign el−ements” and could not become citizens of theSlovak State (Bačová, 1994). As many Romaparents could not document their place ofabode and employment, their children wereautomatically excluded from schools (Šoto−lová, 2000). This measure meant a temporaryhalt to their school education. Those who didnot obey the measure were placed in workcamps.

According to the Košice Government Pro−gram of April 1945 (a communist−inspireddocument mapping out the development ofthe Czechoslovak state after the war was overand Slovakia and the Czech Republic freedof the Nazis), racial discrimination of citizenswas forbidden. However, in the post−waryearning for “national purification”, theRoma were often exposed to haphazard andinhumane treatment. The basic attitude to−wards the Roma was that they were a dis−eased and socially inadaptable minority, andthe new regime began to return to the meas−ures used against the Roma during the war.This included concentrating the Roma inlabor camps where they were to be re−edu−cated to make them fit “to live independentlives”. The Law on Wandering Gypsies wasstill in force, and some municipalities usedit to prevent the Roma from entering themunicipality. All of this made school attend−ance very difficult for many Roma children.

EDUCATION OF ROMA DURINGTHE COMMUNIST REGIME FROM1945 TO 1989

The communist regime was also unable tohalt the deepening poverty, cultural back−wardness, exclusion, and isolation of theRoma from the rest of the society. The com−munists believed that the Roma’s problemsarose from their social backwardness andpoverty, which in turn had been caused by thewar and the capitalist political system. Thecommunist ideology denied the ethnic iden−tity of the Roma, their native language andvalues. Both the official ideology and themajority population categorized the Roma asa socially pathological group that the statehad to take care of, even if this meant violat−ing both the law and the principles of humaneconduct. A 1950 government decree abol−ished the highly discriminatory 1927 Law onWandering Gypsies and focused on improv−


ing the material conditions of the Roma. Thefirst binding directive, On Reform of theConditions of the Gypsy People, also in−cluded the schooling of Roma children andthe eradication of illiteracy (Bačová, 1992).

The Education Ministry and the School De−partment’s directives allowed special classesto be set up in regions with many “neglectedGypsy children”. In the mid−1950s, ethnicschools for Gypsy students were officiallyestablished at “special schools” for the men−tally retarded (Haišman, 1999).

Older Roma children who did not regularlyattend school and could not be classified intoan appropriate grade were schooled in “spe−cial classes” for the mentally retarded. Igno−rance of the Slovak language also played alarge role in this process. To change this, aca−demic requirements were reduced, and thecompletion of lower elementary school gradeswas taken into account; exceptions and allow−ances also applied to those Roma childrenwho continued in their studies (Jurová, 1991).

The 1960s confirmed the regime’s orienta−tion towards the Roma. They were perceivedas “a socially and culturally backward popu−lation with a typical way of life”. Assimila−tion concepts included eradicating Roma il−literacy. Teachers visited Roma settlements,and in some regions education was deliveredto students in military and penitentiary facili−ties. The education of army recruits throughliteracy courses also played a certain role. Inspite of such measures, illiteracy was notreduced to the desired level.

In the 1970s, the goal of integrating all Romainto the majority society and culture, andgradually increasing their average standardof living and culture to that of the rest ofsociety gained ground. Political measureswere taken to employ all Roma capable ofworking, to educate Roma juveniles and re−

educate adults, to solve the housing problemsof Roma families, and to reduce crime. Statepolicy controlled all important spheres of thelife of the Roma. This unnatural relationshipfostered dependency on state welfare. Withone hand the state gave the citizen “materialsufficiency” (the state determined who re−ceived help and when), while with the otherhand the state deprived the citizen of his in−terest and ability to take care of himself andothers. This state policy, paradoxically, ledto general isolation, segregation, and intol−erance. Tensions grew between the majorityand the Roma.

The nationwide social measures concerningcare for the Roma population, passed in1972, emphasized that the integration of theRoma was a long−term generational process,and that the top priority was thus the educa−tion of Roma children and juveniles. In thesphere of education, “special schools” andseparate and special classes in elementaryschools were established. Roma childrenfrom backward families were put in schoolclubs and involved in other extra−curricularactivities.

In the 1980s, compulsory education man−aged to reduce illiteracy, and the health sys−tem helped to reduce mortality among verysmall children. Despite government decrees,however, by 1985 the gap between the im−proving education level of all children andthe stagnant or falling education level ofRoma children had in fact increased – Romachildren failed 14 times more often, left el−ementary school before graduating 30 timesmore often, and made up 24% of the studentbody in special schools for the mentally re−tarded (Haišman, 1999).

The socialist education system taught chil−dren to write and read, but it did not givethem self−confidence. Many Roma childrenwere confronted with their Roma origin as


something negative, unwelcome, inferior.They learned a new language and new termsthat taught them that their culture and way oflife were undesirable and not valued by so−ciety. Of course, many thus learned to at−tribute personal failures to their ethnic origin.

EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE ROMA

The level of education achieved by the Romais significantly lower than that of the major−ity population (for details see the chapter TheRoma in the Education System and Alterna−tive Education Projects in this book). Graph1 compares the education levels achieved bySlovak citizens and the Roma population. Itshows the greatest differences in the highereducation categories, i.e. people with sec−ondary school or university education. In thegraph, the category “no education” is notincluded, although in the IVO/UNDP re−search (November 2001), the Roma in notless than 11% of cases said they had not fin−ished elementary school.3

FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE EDUCATION LEVEL OFTHE ROMA

The lower education level of the Roma com−pared to the majority population, and thepoor results of Roma children in schools,can be attributed to different factors. Aca−demic literature takes two different ap−proaches to interpreting this phenomenon.On the one hand, Roma values and culturaldifferences (for details see the chapterMulticulturalism and Inclusion as Solutionsto the Roma Issue in this book) result inRoma children not being able to adapt to theschool system (see Box 1). On the otherhand, the culture of poverty and the culturalexclusion of the Roma have an enormousimpact on their educational failures. Expla−nations of the ambivalence of the Romatowards education can be found in bothapproaches.

These arguments are based on the assump−tion that even today, the Roma live in tradi−

Graph 1Comparison of education level of Slovak citizens and the Roma

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��#

�!� ��#�9��!�!�

�!� ��#

!�!�!��#

/�!�"� ��+�

/�!�, ��

Note 1: The data on structure of education from the 2001 population census were not available at the time thischapter was written, so the data from the research of the Institute for Public Affairs in September 2001 had to beused.Note 2: To enable the data for the Roma to be compared with the data for the majority, some Roma education levelcategories had to be merged.Source: The Slovaks: Institute for Public Affairs, September 2001; The Roma: UNDP/IVO, November 2001.


of finding a job also shapes the attitude of theRoma to education.

The individual attitudes of the Roma towardseducation are thus determined by many fac−tors, often a combination of their differentvalues and unstimulating social environ−ment. In the next section we will focus onthree main types of attitudes:• attitudes towards education as a prerequi−

site for achieving success in life;• opinions on what level of education is

needed;• opinions on the ideal education system

from the point of view of the Roma.

tional communities and follow traditionalvalues in bringing up their children. How−ever, we cannot claim that all Roma inSlovakia live a traditional community−basedlife, and despite the fact that their valuesundoubtedly influence their way of life andthus their attitudes towards education, thereare other factors that have a much greaterimpact on their low level of education. Thesefactors include above all their poverty andsocial exclusion. One of the significant fac−tors in Roma poverty is their low level ofeducation (see Box 2), because this deter−mines the position of the Roma on the labormarket. At the same time, the impossibility

A child’s identity is formed by the stand−ards, values and behavior patterns of theculture it grows up in. Socialization withinthe Roma community is performedthrough extensive family links, which pro−vide the children with an emotional back−ground. The traditional Roma upbringingis a community upbringing. The childrenparticipate in daily community activitiesand learn values by watching and listeningto other community members (Smith,1999).

Roma children are brought up as littleadults, and each child has the same rightsas any other community member; they arenot used to asking for permission if theywant to do something. Relationshipswithin the family are very strong. In mostEuropean countries, the parents want theirchildren to grow up as soon as possible andbecome independent. In Roma families,the children often stay and live within thecommunity (Daróczi, 1999).

Roma upbringing thus differs a great dealfrom that of the majority population. Inmost western education systems, the chil−dren’s daily routine is highly structuredand is bound to the fulfillment of schoolduties. However, teachers expect the samefrom all children and their parents. Theyassume that the parents consider the edu−cation of their children important, and thatthey themselves are educated and thus ableto help their children with their homework,as well as give them enough time and spaceto do their homework.

This suggests that the value system inwhich the Roma children are brought up isnot compatible with the value system thatforms the basis of the education system inschools. The Roma are being asked to playa game whose rules they neither know norhelped to create. For Roma children,schools represent different habits and dif−ferent values, and force them to speak aforeign language (Cangár, 2002).

Box 1Differences between traditional education in the Roma community and the officialeducation system


teresting that 45.6% of Roma respondentsmentioned education as one of the three ba−sic prerequisites.5 There are many factorsinfluencing this attitude, however, on thebasis of which the attitudes of the Roma to−wards education can be differentiated.

A significant differentiation criterion is thelevel of education achieved. The higher theeducation of the respondents, the more oftenthey mentioned education as one of the pre−requisites for success in life (see Graph 2).Better−educated Roma were aware of its im−portance despite the fact that their higherqualifications had not allowed them to finda job.

Another differentiation criterion was the re−spondents’ age. Differences between indi−vidual age categories were not very big, buta certain trend could be seen. The only agecategory in which more than half of respond−ents ranked education as among the three

SPECIFIC ROMA ATTITUDES TOEDUCATION

EDUCATION AS A PREREQUISITEFOR SUCCESS IN LIFE

During communism, one’s level of educationwas not the main factor influencing one’sstandard of living, especially with the Roma,who were perceived on the labor market aspeople with no or few qualifications. At thesame time, education was not a channel ofmobility, and Roma could not rise to a higherrank in society by becoming better educated.

After 1989, most Slovak citizens realized theimportance of education when looking for ajob. However, the process took longer amongthe Roma, due to many of the aforemen−tioned factors. One of the aims of the IVO/UNDP research from November 2001 was tofind out which three conditions the Romaconsidered key to success in life. It was in−

Box 2Influence of the social situation on the education level of the Roma

The poor social situation of the Roma hasan especially great impact on the educationof Roma children from segregated settle−ments in the most marginalized regions ofSlovakia. These children are handicappedseveral times over before even enrolling inschool. They have no basic skills or evena basic ability to communicate. At thesame time, Roma children are frequentlyabsent from school, which they most oftenexplain as the result of their insufficientclothing, the difficulty of traveling toschool, the need to take care of theiryounger siblings, or illness. In segregatedsettlements there is no education−orientedsocial model to be followed (Radičová,

2001). Roma who live in poverty think firstand foremost of looking after their mate−rial needs, meaning that the education oftheir children takes a back seat. The chil−dren lack motivation to learn, and the par−ents do not learn with them because theyhave neither the skills nor the appropriateconditions.

In the segregated settlements there is alsoa lack of cultural and social capital, be−cause the Roma communities in such en−vironments are often isolated from themajority population, resulting in ignoranceof the different forms of supplementaryeducation available for the chidren.4


most important prerequisites was the young−est group, the 15 to 25−year−olds. The olderthe respondents, the less frequently theyranked education among the top three pre−requisites. This may have been due to the factthat the older Roma lived most of their livesin communism, when education had no in−fluence on the individual’s position on thelabor market. Another reason is undoubtedlythat even Roma with higher qualificationsare unable to find a job today, which is in−terpreted as evidence that education is not afactor in success in life (see Graph 3).

The region that respondents came from, andparticularly their degree of integration, wereother important factors in their attitudes toeducation. Integrated Roma in the most ad−vanced regions (for example, in Malacky dis−trict in western Slovakia) were aware of theimportance of education for their children, andoften had a clear picture of their child’s futureif the child succeeded in reaching a higherlevel of education. In the integrated environ−ment, the Roma are often part of broader so−cial networks, their material needs are met,and thus their view of the value of education,

Graph 2Importance of education according to education level of respondents

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

!�!�!��#

� ��

�!� ��#��

#!�

�


Graph 3Importance of education according to respondents’ age

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�

��:��

��:��

��:��

��:��

#!�

�



which was damaged during communism, isslowly being restored (Radičová, 2001).

Great differences can be seen in segregatedsettlements, however, where education is as−cribed almost no value. Elementary schoolsare today attended by a generation of childrenwhose parents never worked, meaning that thechildren see no positive role models in theirparents. A significant factor in the Roma’sdisinterest in the education of their children –particularly in segregated regions – is theireconomic situation. For parents, school at−tendance involves costs that they considerpointless. If a child, after finishing compulsoryeducation and turning 18, cannot get a job, itstarts to receive welfare benefits, while childrenwho continue their studies bring their parentsonly a dependent minor benefit (in the familyallowance scheme), which is a lower sum.

ROMA OPINIONS ON WHAT LEVELOF EDUCATION IS SUFFICIENT

Given that the Roma perceive the value ofeducation in various ways (respondents maystate that education is important for life, buthave in mind only elementary education), thenext goal of the IVO/UNDP research (No−vember 2001) was to find out how mucheducation the Roma believed their childrenneeded to be successful in life. This questionwas divided into two sub−questions for girlsand boys, because it was hypothesized thatfamily/gender differences in this case wouldinfluence judgments of the necessary educa−tion level. This hypothesis was only partlyconfirmed. Graphs 4 and 5 show the Roma’sanswers in the cases of boys and girls.

In both cases, more than half of all respond−ents stated that trade school education wasthe minimum necessary to succeed in life.“Today you have to have a certificate foreverything. When I look for a job, I have to

Graph 4What level of education does a boy need to suc−ceed in life?

��

��

��

��

��

6 #�

!�!�!��#

� ��

�!� ��#

��!��#

!��

�!�� !


Graph 5What level of education does a girl need to suc−ceed in life?

��

��

��

��

��

;��

!�!�!��#

� ��

�!� ��#

��!��#

!��

��!�� !


present my vocational certificate. That’s whyI want my children to acquire vocational edu−cation, so they have at least a chance to find ajob” (respondent from the Stará Ľubovňa dis−trict in northeast Slovakia; the World Bank,SPACE, December 2000 – March 2001).While the differences between the educationexpected of boys and girls were not great, thehypothesis that boys were expected to ac−


quire a higher level of education, and thatelementary education was regarded as suffi−cient for girls, was partly confirmed. Someparents do not consider qualifications impor−tant for their daughters. “If someone with acertificate finds a job, then it’s the man. If agirl finds a skilful husband, she doesn’t neededucation.” (respondent from the Malackydistrict; World Bank, SPACE, December2000 – March 2001)

Those respondents who stated that a childneeds higher education (secondary A−leveleducation or university education) did notdistinguish between girls and boys. TheseRoma likely consider education to be a veryimportant value, something needed to get ajob and be successful, regardless of one’s sex.

Just as the parents’ level of educationplayed an important role in whether theyregarded education as one of the prerequi−sites for success in life, so it was also a keyfactor in the level of education they ex−pected of their children – the higher the edu−cation level of the parents, the higher theeducation they expected from their children(see Tables 1 and 2).

In general, well−educated Roma are moreaware of the importance of their children’seducation. At the same time, Roma parentsfrequently expect their children to reach atleast the same level of education as they did.This was especially visible among the Romawho had completed vocational education,where the parents expected 64.35% of theboys 63.5% of the girls to acquire at least atrade school certificate. The situation was thesame with respondents with secondary edu−cation, more than half of whom expectedtheir children to achieve the same level ofeducation (IVO/UNDP, November 2001).

In cases where the parents considered educa−tion one of the top three prerequisites for suc−cess in life, they tended to expect their chil−dren to achieve a higher level of educationthan they had. Their answers were consistenton this point, and applied equally to boys andgirls: More than half of those who expectedtheir children to reach at least the voca−tional level of education ranked educationas one of the top three prerequisites forsuccess in life. On the other hand, up to80% of those who thought elementary edu−cation was enough did not rank education

Table 1Level of education expected of boys according to parents’ education (in %)

�!'��T��'��!�� ' ��!��

��.� ��'�� '��!��.� ��.� ��

�'��!��.� �� .� �� '�� 3-J2/� ��

�� ' ��' ��!��.��

��'��!��.�� /2J*2� ��


Table 2Level of education expected of a girl according to parents’ education (in %)

�!'��T��'��!�� ' ��!��

��.� ��'�� '��!��.� ��.� ��

�'��!��.� �� .� �� '��

�� ' ��' ��!��.��

��'��!��.��



as one of the three most important factors(IVO/UNDP, November 2001).

THE ROMA’S IDEA OFTHE IDEAL EDUCATION SYSTEM

Recently, efforts have increased to solve prob−lems in the education of Roma children. Alter−native education projects have begun to gainground, some of which have been very success−ful (especially ones involving parents in theeducation of their children); others, on the otherhand, have failed. The reasons for such failureslie in the hitherto low emphasis on the attitudesof the Roma to education. For example, effortsto introduce Romany as a teaching language atelementary schools should be based on the in−terest of the Roma in being educated in thisway. We must therefore focus on the identifi−cation of the Roma with their ethnic group, andon their relationship to Romany.

From 1996 to 1997, the State PedagogicalInstitute researched the attitudes of the Romatowards their ethnicity and language. Some45% of respondents considered the com−mand of Romany important, but 20%, on theother hand, thought that Roma children did

not need it at all. Attitudes here were influ−enced by the education level of the respond−ents, with the most positive attitude towardsRomany coming from the more educatedRoma, who, paradoxically, did not feel theirchildren should have a command of the lan−guage (Somorová and Kňažiková, 2001, p.52). These well−educated Roma tend to livein integrated regions where the use ofRomany is far more rare, which is why theydo not think their children need to speak it.

Among other Roma as well, a positive rela−tionship to Romany does not automaticallymean an interest in having children educatedin Romany (see the chapter The Roma Lan−guage and its Standardization in this book).This was evident in the May 1994 research bythe Slovak Statistics Office, which found thatthe Roma were not very interested in havingtheir children study in Romany (see Graph 6).

The negative attitude of the Roma towardsstudying in Romany showed up also in theIVO/UNDP research (November 2001), whereone of the questions dealt with how equal ac−cess to education could be achieved for bothRoma and non−Roma children. The researchwas conducted in five countries.6 In all of the

Graph 6Opinions of the Roma on education in Romany

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��!��#

��!� ��#��

��!�!�!��#��

��<!�� !��, ��# � �!��<!�� !��, ��#� ��<!�� !��, ��# =�� >��+� &

Note: The sample consisted of 682 respondents who claimed Roma ethnicity.Source: Statistics Office of the Slovak Republic, May 1994.


countries, the Roma said that the best wayof ensuring equal access to education was fortheir children not to be isolated from themajority in any way. The most frequent an−swer to this question was that Roma childrenshould attend the same schools as the non−Roma, without any special support. This an−swer was given most frequently in Slovakia,where 84.6% of respondents mentioned thisoption as ideal. The Roma are thus aware oftheir social and symbolic exclusion, and don’twant their children to be excluded within theeducation system in any way. “I don’t want mychildren to attend a Roma school and study inRomany under any circumstances. Even nowthey have problems with being Roma. If theyonly meet Roma children at school, they willnever be able to integrate into society as adults.I used to attend a school together with whitechildren, and since then I have had manyfriends among them.” (respondent from theRimavská Sobota district in southeasternSlovakia; World Bank, SPACE, December2000 – March 2001)

Another frequent answer was that childrenshould take preparatory language courses.

Roma children, especially those from segre−gated settlements where only Romany is spo−ken, come to school with no knowledge of theSlovak language. As a result, from the mo−ment compulsory education begins, they lagbehind the non−Roma children, which oftenlead to their being transferred to specialschools for the mentally retarded. The mostfrequent “special school” transfers involvechildren from segregated settlements. In theIVO/UNDP research from November 2001,as much as 30% of Roma from segregatedenvironments said that at least one of theirchildren attended a “special school”, whilethe figure was only 5.3% among the inte−grated Roma. As the results of Roma chil−dren often improve after they are transferredto special schools, and the parents feel in−creased interest on the part of the teachers intheir children, they automatically push to havetheir younger children sent to this type ofschool. “My son attended elementary schooland his results were very poor. Since he hasattended the special school, his results haveimproved, and the teachers spend more timewith him. So we decided to enroll our youngerdaughter straight into a special school.” (re−

Graph 7How should equal access to education be assured for both Roma and non−Roma children?

!?�� &��

��!��

, ��!��!��

, ��#��!

�!��!

��!�� +!

��!�� #��!

� ��!�

��, �� (

, ��

�!��!�� ' �

��!�, ��

��

��

��

��

Note: The sum of the percentage values exceeds 100, as the respondents were allowed to choose several options.Source: UNDP/IVO, November 2001.


spondent from Malacky district; World Bank,SPACE, December 2000 – March 2001)Nowadays, many projects are being con−ducted (see the chapter The Roma in the Edu−cation System and Alternative EducationProjects in this book) that address this issue.The support of the Roma in this regard is apromise that these projects will be effective.

CONCLUSION

This chapter aimed to show the heterogene−ity of the Roma population and the differ−ences in their attitudes towards education.Clearly, the attitudes of the Roma towardseducation are not as negative as frequentlypresented in the media and the academic lit−erature. Their attitudes are determined by theeconomic and social situations in which theRoma live, rather than by their traditionalvalues. Roma who live in marginalized re−gions in a culture of poverty show especiallynegative attitudes towards education,whereas Roma living in integrated regionsare aware of the need to educate their chil−dren because they maintain a closer relation−ship with the majority population, and seepositive models of people finding jobs thanksto their education. The school problems ofRoma children from integrated regions arelargely the same as those of non−Roma chil−dren. If Roma children have conflicts withteachers, it is usually because they have beendisadvantaged on the grounds of their ethnic−ity. Roma who live integrated with the ma−jority and have a higher level of education areparticularly hurt by this kind of discrimina−tion, because it leads to their children beingtransferred to special schools for no reasonexcept their ethnicity (Kriglerová, 2002).7

To gain a better understanding of the educa−tion of Roma children and Roma attitudesand aspirations, research must be conductedinto all aspects of the relationship between

the Roma and education. The knowledge thatsuch research would yield could help shakethe myths and stereotypes about the Roma’sopinions of education, and at the same timeraise many questions concerning the imple−mentation of various projects aimed at edu−cating the Roma. These projects should in−volve the needs and opinions of the Roma,so they do not again end up in a game whoserules they did not help to create.

ENDNOTES

1. Concerning the social situation of the Roma,research entitled The Roma and the LaborMarket was conducted recently by the WorldBank and the SPACE Foundation on a sampleof 356 Roma respondents, while researchcalled The Roma Human Development Projectwas carried out by the Institute for Public Af−fairs together with the UNDP on a sample of1,030 Roma respondents from 10 Slovak dis−tricts (the results of the research were publishedon the following web page www.ivo.sk/showvyskum.asp?Id=102).

2. Education was considered one of the ways inwhich the Roma could be helped to improvetheir living conditions. In Ugria (the part ofAustria−Hungary that included the territory ofpresent−day Slovakia), the ratio between liter−ate women and men was 77:100, while amongthe Roma it was 54:100 (Džambazovič, 2001).

3. To compare the data with data for the major−ity, some of the education level categories hadto be merged.

4. In the municipality of Lomnička in the north−eastern Slovak district of Stará Ľubovňa, wherealmost 100% of the population is Roma, theRoma School project has been in action since2001. As an experiment, a two−year course un−der the name Agricultural Production wasopened at the elementary school in the 1999/2000 academic year for those pupils who did notfinish elementary education. However, a signifi−cant problem occurred after 24 students enrolledin the first grade, but began to lose interest until11 of them left the school. The reason for theirdeparture turned out to be their parents’ igno−rance of the forms of support that existed for


children of welfare−dependent families. Thehead of the school continued the project in spiteof the initial failure, and improved cooperationwith parents. Today the school is ready to pro−vide boarding facilities for students who travelto school (Roma Press Agency, June 12, 2002).

5. The most frequently stated prerequisites, inorder, were: good health, good luck, education,job, state support, reliable friends with goodcontacts, special qualifications, and serious−ness or steadfastness in one’s attitude.

6. The research was conducted in Slovakia, theCzech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria and Roma−nia.

7. For example, in Kežmarok district in northeast−ern Slovakia, a female respondent gave thisexample: “When my daughter enrolled in thefirst grade, they automatically wanted to puther in a special school. I absolutely didn’t agreewith that, because I felt she was intelligent.Eventually I decided to enroll her in anotherschool, where she was accepted without prob−lems, and now she is doing very well.” (Insti−tute for Public Affairs, June 2002)

REFERENCES

1. Aktuálne problémy Slovenska – September2001 [Current Issues in Slovakia – Septem−ber 2001], (Bratislava: Institute for PublicAffairs, 2001).

2. Bačová, Viera: “Rómska menšina” [‘The RomaMinority’] in Minoritné etnické spoločenstvá naSlovensku v procese spoločenských zmien [Eth−nic Minority Societies in Slovakia in the Proc−ess of Social Change], (Bratislava: Veda, 1994).

3. Cangár, Ján: Ľudia z rodiny Rómov. Manušaandar e familia Roma [People From the RomaFamily], (Nové Zámky: CROCUS, 2002).

4. Čurejová, Lucia: V Lomničke hľadajú novécesty ako zlepšiť vzdelávanie Rómov [Look−ing for New Ways of Educating the Roma inLomnička], Roma Press Agency, June 12,2002, www.rpa.sk.

5. Daróczi, Jóysef: “School Success for RomaChildren”, The Roma Education ResourceBook, No. 1, 1999, http://www.osi.hu/iep/minorities/ResBook1/ResBook.htm.

6. Džambazovič, Roman: “Rómovia v Uhorskukoncom 19. storočia” [‘Roma in Ugria at the

End of the 19th Century’], Sociológia, No. 5,2001, p. 491 – 507.

7. Encyklopédia ľudovej kultúry Slovenska 2[Folk Culture Encyclopedia, Vol. 2], (Bratisla−va: VEDA, SAV Ethnology Institute, 1995).

8. Haišman, Tomáš: “Romové v Československuv letech 1945 – 1967: vývoj institucionálníhozájmu a jeho dopady” [‘The Roma in Czecho−slovakia from 1945 – 1967: The Developmentof Institutional Interest and its Impact’] inRomové v České republice [Roma in the CzechRepublic], (Prague: Socioklub, 1999).

9. Hanzelová, Eneke: “Aktuálne otázky posta−venia Rómov na trhu práce v SR” [‘CurrentIssues in the Roma’s Position on the LaborMarket in Slovakia’], Práca a sociálnapolitika, No. 3, 2000, p. 2 – 6.

10. Kriglerová, Elena: “Rómovia verzus majorita.Postoje, vzťahy, konflikty” [‘Roma Versus theMajority: Attitudes, Relationships, Conflicts’]in Vašečka, Michal, Jurásková, Martina,Kriglerová, Elena, Puliš, Peter, and Rybová,Jana: Rómske hlasy. Rómovia a ich politickáparticipácia v transformačnom období [RomaVoices: The Roma and their Political Partici−pation During the Transformation Period],(Bratislava: Institute for Public Affairs, 2002).


12. Smith, Tracy: “Recognizing Difference – TheRomani Gypsy Child Socialization and Edu−cation Process”, The Roma Education Re−source Book, No. 1, 1999, http://www.osi.hu/iep/minorities/ResBook1/ResBook.htm.

13. Somorová, Renáta and Kňažiková, Mária:“Postoje Rómov k národnosti a k rómskemujazyku” [‘Attitudes of the Roma To Nation−ality and the Roma Language’], Pedagogickéspektrum, No.1 – 2, 2001, p. 52 – 55.

14. Šalomon, Pavol: “Cigáni z Abovskej a Tur−nianskej stolice v období osvietenstva”[‘Gypsies from the Abov and Trenčín RegionsDuring the Enlightenment’] in Mann, Arne B.(ed.): Neznámi Rómovia [The UnknownRoma], (Bratislava: Ister science Press, 1992).

15. Šotolová, Eva: Vzdělávání Romů [Educatingthe Roma], (Prague: Grada Publishing, 2000).

16. Štatistické analýzy a informácie. Rómoviav roku 1994 [Statistical Analyses and Infor−mation: The Roma in 1994], (Bratislava: Sta−tistics Office of the Slovak Republic, 1995).

17. www.rpa.sk

457

Summary: This chapter describes the con−text of the decision by the Roma to emigrateto seek asylum in the late 1990s, and presentsfacts that should prompt state intervention.The main causes of the Roma migration wereinsufficient development opportunities forthe Roma, their feeling of discrimination, andtheir resistance of development strategies.The decision of some Roma to migrate andthus solve these problems was also stimu−lated by racially motivated violence and aresulting feeling of vulnerability, as well asby the existence of a migration model as−sisted by information and help channelswithin the Roma community.

Key words: exclusion, discrimination, mi−gration, mistrust, racially motivated vio−lence, development strategies, the Roma,opportunities, external help.

“Considering all these circumstances, wefeel it would be an exaggeration to speakof the causes of the Roma’s departure fromIndia. It would be more appropriate tospeak of impulses.”

(Horváthová, 1964, p. 25)

Every single Roma we talked to insistedthat the Roma had been better off before1990. They perceive the present as a stepback. As one of them said: “The Romashould be returned to where they were 10years ago.”

(Vašečka, I., 2000)

IMRICH VAŠEČKA

ROMA MIGRATION FROM SLOVAKIA

INTRODUCTION

The above quotations represent two possibleexplanation of the Roma migration. The firstsuggests that there are no causes, only reac−tions to changing local conditions. The sec−ond indicates that the migration of the Roma,as well as migration by other minority mem−bers, has identifiable causes. This chapter isbased on the latter opinion.

Migration occurs when a man, a family or anentire group moves from one social environ−ment to another. There are many possiblecauses for this movement, but in generalmost are related to defects in the society thepeople are leaving.

The decision to migrate involves solvingcurrent and future problems in the given so−cial environment by departing from them.Such departures may have two basic causes.On the one hand, the social environment mayexclude the individual and leave him nochoice but to go and find a home elsewhere;examples include the forced departures ofdissidents during the communist regime. Onthe other hand, an individual may alsochoose to leave by himself, meaning that hisdeparture takes the form of a separation fromthe original environment. These processes ofexclusion and separation usually take placeconcurrently, and influence each other.

From the viewpoint of the majority popula−tion, the migration of the Roma to European


Union (EU) countries took the form of aseparation from the environment that used tobe their home, and was perceived as proof oftheir disloyalty, which is why the majoritylabeled their flight “ethno−tourism”. Fromthe viewpoint of the Roma, however, themigration was a reaction to their exclusionfrom society after 1989, and had deep eco−nomic and political reasons – in other words,their migration was a consequence of thediscrimination the Roma face in society.

This chapter views the migration of theRoma to EU countries as a result of theirexclusion from society after 1989, a changethat forced the Roma to the bottom of thesocial structure; to outsiders, this processappeared to be an example of Roma separa−tion. Some readers may object that the Romawere never a part of Slovak society, that theywere always on its outskirts, and that it is thusinappropriate to speak of exclusion. How−ever, this chapter is based on the assumptionthat the Roma were gradually becoming partof Slovak society during the communist re−gime, even if this was due to controversialforced assimilation measures. The depth ofthis process is not known, because no com−prehensive research has been conducted onthe issue. Nevertheless, after 1989 the Romawere increasingly excluded especially fromemployment, housing, and education. Migra−tion seems to have been one of the answersto this process.

INTERNATIONAL AND POLITICALCONTEXT OF ROMA MIGRATION

Migration to EU countries, which is stillongoing, gives the Roma the chance to ac−quire a job and thus become equal membersof society. It also grants access to the moregenerous welfare programs of these coun−tries. Most Roma are what is known as “longterm” unemployed (i.e. without jobs for over

a year), and have for years been involuntar−ily dependent on welfare benefits, as in theearly 1990s they were the first to be dis−charged from work. They form a large groupin Slovak society for whom welfare benefitshave for years been the only source of legalincome. Meanwhile, many Roma have lostany chance of finding another job. Migrationto EU countries, where asylum proceduresprovide access to both jobs and greater wel−fare benefits, has thus become the only ra−tional way for the Roma to improve theirsituation, as they can only gain – either a jobor more money through welfare benefits.This explains why the Roma migration, bothin the past and now, has taken the form ofmigration of entire families, sometimes evenextended families, and why the main targetsof the Roma have been countries with laxasylum procedures (as well as why thesecountries have reacted by tightening theirasylum policies).

The migration of the Roma from Slovakiastarted between 1995 and 1997, when the

Table 1Number of asylum seekers originating fromSlovakia in EU countries, Norway, and theCzech Republic (1998 to 2001)

8��.� ,115� ,111� 0***� 0**,�

�� E��!� �� !�� ?�!�� O��!� �� C�� O��'�� .� �� P7�'�� 2N35,� -N*3/� 0N5,2� 0N*5,��?�.� �� 8@�' ��'� �� &��(� 2N354� -N,1,� -N/**� 0N3//�

Source: International Organization for Migration.Note: The share of Roma is not stated, because asylumseekers were not registered according to nationality. Itcould be assumed, though, that the majority of the asy−lum seekers were Roma.

459R o m a M i g r a t i o n f r o m S l o v a k i a

first Roma departed eastern Slovakia forGreat Britain. The number of Roma depart−ing for abroad climaxed between 1999 and2000 (Murín, 2002).

The table shows that the number of asylumseekers culminated at different times in dif−ferent countries. The first migration waveheaded for Great Britain, but after Britain re−imposed a visa requirement on Slovak citi−zens, the migrating Roma chose Belgium andthe Netherlands as their targets in a secondmigration wave. These countries reacted bytightening their rules for granting asylum.Belgium also introduced the institution of“clearly unfounded requests”, which allowedasylum applications to be examined in “ac−celerated asylum proceedings”, and deniedmonetary benefits to asylum seekers in theseproceedings. A third migration wave thusturned towards the Scandinavian countries –Finland, Denmark and Norway. These coun−tries too began imposing visa obligations onSlovak citizens. Their response proved effec−tive, and the influx of Roma dropped off;however, most of the measures taken wereadministrative in nature, and are expected tobe replaced in time by preventive measures.

The possible future of mass Roma migrationto EU countries has been foreshadowed bythe migration of Slovak Roma to the CzechRepublic since the early 1990s. The extentof this migration has never been recorded, asthe Roma have been coming to the CzechRepublic to live with their relatives on long−term visits, thus bypassing asylum proce−dures. Since 2000, the number of Slovakasylum seekers in the Czech Republic hasbeen further influenced by Slovak measurestightening the provision of welfare benefitsand poor relief.

From the legal viewpoint, the Roma in Slo−vakia do not suffer from discrimination. Dis−plays of discrimination against the Roma

come from individuals acting without theendorsement of the state and contrary to thelaw. Slovakia is justly considered a safecountry, and the requests of the Roma forasylum are generally judged to be un−founded; since asylum procedures werechanged, these requests have been examinedin accelerated asylum proceedings. Never−theless, it has to be remembered that beforethese changes were made, some cases wererecognized as justified, and the applicantsgranted refugee status (in Great Britain andDenmark). It is possible that the Roma in Slo−vakia may be exposed to latent discrimina−tion. The majority of the Slovak Roma popu−lation also faces an extremely bad economicsituation, which has structural causes. Vio−lations of their human rights, attacks byskinheads, the indifference of state bodies,and everyday discrimination in contacts withthe majority population, are also facts of lifefor Slovakia’s Roma.

The migrating Roma may actually regard theabove facts as disadvantages and discrimina−tion, and may act and state reasons for theirdeparture from Slovakia accordingly. How−ever, the suspicion remains that the Roma areabusing the asylum procedures of EU coun−tries with the aim of taking advantage of theconsiderable welfare benefits provided dur−ing this procedure. This suspicion, however,cannot be generalized, and cannot becomethe basis for tackling the entire issue.

Undoubtedly, the Roma are not migrating toEU countries only from Slovakia. Equalmass migrations of Roma have been seen inother Central European post−communistcountries. Researches in the Czech Repub−lic and Hungary show that the causes aresimilar to those among Slovak Roma. Thus,the migration issue is not a local one or theproblem of just one country. It has become aEurope−wide problem that no country cansolve it on its own.


Displays of racial hatred, xenophobia andother forms of hatred against certain ethnicgroups and foreigners represent a problemacross Europe. The cooperation of theSlovak government with the governments ofEU countries, other candidate countries, hu−man rights organizations and Slovak NGOsdealing with the issue is thus very important.

PRECONDITIONS FORROMA MIGRATION FORMEDDURING COMMUNIST REGIME

In the first half of the 20th century, the SlovakRoma lived a mostly settled life, unlike, forinstance, the Czech Roma. Measures takenby the Nazi−puppet Slovak state from 1939to 1945, as well as the measures of the com−munist regime from 1948 to 1989, under−mined the traditional structure of Roma com−munities and the traditional position of theRoma within the structure of local commu−nities.

OPENING OF PREVIOUSLYSECLUDED SETTLEMENTS

During the twentieth century, many Romaleft the settlements where they had been bornand which had traditionally protected themfrom the world of the non−Roma. The Romabegan to divide into urban (more prestigious)and rural (less prestigious) groups. They alsodivided into those who lived in normalhouses and flats scattered among the non−Roma (more prestigious) and those who con−tinued to live in shacks in large concentra−tions in segregated Roma settlements (lessprestigious).

Those who left the Roma settlements – eithervoluntarily or as part of the forced relocationsdecreed by the communist state – were to acertain extent emancipated from the social

isolation typical of the settlements. The so−cial prospects of these people opened up, asdid the world of institutions and organiza−tions, and they were given new opportunities.They adopted new ways of organizing groupactivities, which on the one hand destabilizedtheir previous social order, but on the otherlaunched the process of overcoming the spir−itual immobility typical of traditional com−munities, such as that of the Roma.

The majority population did not assign suf−ficient importance to these processes. Theprevailing opinion was that the problems ofthe Roma were temporary in nature, as as−similation would solve them once and for all.In fact, the cultural change and the drive to“civilize” the Roma caused many problemsand conflicts, because neither the Roma northe non−Roma were prepared for it.

CHANGES INTHE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OFTHE ROMA

The aim of the measures adopted during thecommunist regime was to end poverty inRoma settlements and gain control over theRoma community. The life of the Roma insettlements that the regime did not fully con−trol was undermined by a policy of “indi−vidualization” that broke up Roma socialgroups all the way down to the level of thenuclear family.

The communist regime was able to reachboth goals (beating poverty and control) bymoving the Roma away from their settle−ments in eastern Slovakia into other parts ofthen Czechoslovakia, mainly larger Czechcities. In the relocation process, differentRoma from various environments and groupswere mixed together. The difficulty was thatthere were often insurmountable barriers be−tween these groups. This haphazard mix,


along with the anonymous environment ofthe city, weakened the traditional communityorganization of the Roma, and prevented theRoma’s traditional system of social controlfrom functioning. If the fact that the Romawere simply not prepared for the move isadded, to the point of never having seen the“conveniences” of civilization that they sud−denly encountered and were required to use(e.g. flushing toilets, gas stoves, life in multi−storey buildings, paying rent and other fees,etc.), we get a community that was unable tofind its position in this new world. It was atthis time that the Roma population started toslide into deep trouble.

ASSIMILATION AS THE WAY OFINTEGRATING THE ROMA INTOSOCIETY AND THE MEANS OFUNDERMINING THEIR IDENTITY

One of the goals of ethnic policy in countrieseast of the former Iron Curtain was to createan atomized mass of “people” in which eth−nic differences ceased to exist. This also per−tained to the Roma. The “socialist countrypeople” concept, according to its creators,would allow both the minority and the ma−jority to overcome the burdens of their eth−nicity, and to create a joint social entity ridof all ethnic features. However, when appliedin practice in communist countries, this con−cept tended to force the “people” to adopt thecharacteristics of the majority population, i.e.the state−forming nation. The real aim was torid the Roma – and not just them – of theiridentity.

The communist regime strove not only tomake the Roma part of the country’s social−ist country people, but also to transform theminto “socialist state citizens”. This concepthad both positive and negative consequencesfor the Roma. For many it meant giving uptraditional community relationships, al−

though after 1989 it also gave them an op−portunity – like all other inhabitants of Slo−vakia – to enter a society in which everyonewas equally protected regardless of theirphysical, ethnic or other characteristics. Thisopportunity was not matched by reality in thecase of the Roma, for two reasons:

1. The open ethnicization of society, particu−larly after 1992, designated them as sec−ond−class citizens – “non−Slovaks” –while attacks by skinheads as well as theindifference of the majority society forcedthem to seek support among equally stig−matized people.

2. The Roma, as the least qualified and po−litically weakest group of the population,had to shoulder a large proportion of thesocial cost of economic transformation. Asa result, they increasingly turned for safetyto the mutual help provided by membersof the traditional Roma community, withmany Roma returning to the settlements inwhich they were born, or forming urbancolonies (or being forced to form them),as when they do not pay their rent the statemoves them into “community housing”.

SOCIAL EMANCIPATION ANDTHE REPRODUCTION OFPOTENTIAL ON THE LEVEL OFUNSKILLED LABOR

The life of the Roma community was funda−mentally changed by the measures taken bythe communist state pertaining to all people,as well as by the social measures intendedspecifically for the Roma. While the ban onenterprise affected everyone, the Roma, mostof whom were small craftsmen and traders,were hurt the most. Due to their cultural andlanguage differences from the majority, theirchances of acquiring education were (andstill often are) very limited. Thus, since thebeginning of the communist era, the income


and possibilities of the Roma have often de−pended on unskilled labor.

The aim of the social measures that wereespecially focused on the Roma was to wipeout their poverty and increase their level of“civilization”. The tool used to achieve thesegoals was special welfare benefits and advan−tages. This “external welfare help” limitedthe poverty of the Roma on the one hand, buttaught them passivity on the other. The Romaacquired a new philosophy, according towhich the state was obliged to look after thestandard of living of the country’s inhabit−ants. This attitude can also be found amongthe non−Roma (and not just in Slovakia) inlow income households where unemploy−ment is endemic, although with one funda−mental difference. In the majority populationonly a tiny minority of people have this atti−tude, while among the Roma more than halffeel that the state is responsible for them.This is largely due to the fact that most Romaformed the lowest social class during thecommunist regime. The majority population,however, regards this attitude as typical ofthe Roma, not of all low income households,regardless of ethnicity, that are dependent onwelfare benefits. The result is that the Romaare stigmatized, and the social environmentof people dependent on welfare becomesethnicized.

ROMA SOCIAL STRUCTUREDURING THE COMMUNIST REGIME

As a result of the aforementioned processesand the measures taken by the state, the tra−ditional differentiation of the Roma popu−lation was overlaid by additional layers ofdifferentiation, some according to the crite−ria of modern society, and others created bythe measures the state had taken against theRoma since 1939. This process, however,ground to a halt halfway through, because

the admission of the Roma to the modernworld proved to be not simply a purely so−cial issue, as the communists had thought,but also a cultural and political one, whichthe regime had not grasped. This is why theprocess of inclusion failed, and why todayit appears that we will have to return to thepoint of departure and start the process ofthe inclusion of the Roma community allover again.

The Roma excluded from society by themeasures taken by the 1939 to 1945 Slovakstate gradually began to be included againafter the war ended. Communist policy mak−ers divided them into three groups: Romaliving scattered and integrated among themajority population, Roma living on theedge of municipalities but maintaining con−tact with the majority, and finally Roma liv−ing isolated in settlements far from munici−pal boundaries with no contact with the ma−jority population. This communist−era divi−sion survives today.

Roma living integrated and scattered amongthe majority were further divided accordingto the criteria of modern society:• A small but significant class of Roma in−

telligentsia was created.• A growing class of Roma arose, labeled

“the socialist Roma middle class”.1 Thisclass included unqualified but literate andpartially assimilated Roma.

• The lowest class were Roma living in set−tlements, those standing outside societyand its social structure.2

Segregated settlements regularly supportedand reproduced the lowest Roma class dueto the high birth rate of the Roma populationsin these settlements. The Roma here livedin incredibly primitive social, cultural, andhygienic conditions despite the social andpolitical measures taken. The communist re−gime was unable to solve the problem even


by destroying these settlements and spread−ing the Roma across the country. The so−cial exclusion of these people was so deepthat not even the communist totalitarianstate was able to keep them fully undercontrol. The settlements were able to someextent to “hide” the Roma from the non−Roma, and their inhabitants also protectedeach other.

CHANGE IN STATE ROMA POLICYAFTER 1989: FROM EXTERNAL TOINTERNAL SOCIAL HELP

The artificial and forced interventions of “so−cialist engineers” into Roma issues endedsuddenly in 1989. The Roma population wasnot prepared for such a sudden change, andwas unable to cope with the demanding mar−ket and social environment. That the Romawere so unprepared was due to the fact thatthe level of emancipation that they hadachieved during the communist regime hadbeen thanks to help from outside the group,not to internal aid and self−developmentwithin the Roma community. If the advancesrecorded by the Roma had arisen from theirmotivation and efforts, they might not havebeen as spectacular, but they would havelasted longer and proven more resistant in theface of new rules of the game and changingexternal social conditions.

FROM SCATTER BACK TOCONCENTRATION

Unemployment among the Roma is todayalmost 100%. As a result, fewer and fewerRoma live individually among the majoritypopulation. If they are unable to pay theirrent, they are moved into community hous−ing, or themselves move back to rural areasor the settlements where they were born. Themigration to settlements and the formation of

Roma colonies in towns were triggered bythe fear of being attacked by members ofextremist groups, and were an attempt to“hide” from the threat. In the towns of east−ern Slovakia, entire streets and neigh−borhoods inhabited exclusively by Romahave arisen. These are territorially and so−cially isolated places with above−averagelevels of social pathology, critical health situ−ations, and gradually failing infrastructure.These newly arising concentrations of Romathrow together those who are accustomed tolate 20th century civilization, and those whohave just started the process of acclimatiza−tion. As a result, the standard of living of allRoma is gradually dropping to the lowestlevel in society, and the non−Roma behaviorpatterns that they have acquired are slowlybeing lost. The final result of this process willbe the return of community−based living, theseclusion of these colonies from the non−Roma, and the growth of mistrust againstthem.

THE THREAT OF SOCIALDEGRADATION

All of this is imperiling the ambitions and lifeopportunities of the recently formed Romamiddle class. Unemployment is reducingtheir income to the level of lower class Romaliving in settlements, i.e. to the level of wel−fare benefits. These people are trying to staveoff sliding down the social ladder with allmeans at their disposal, including illegalones. The fact is that the 1989 revolutioncaught the Roma middle class unprepared,and it crumbled together with the communistregime.

The non−Roma “middle” class formed dur−ing the communist regime is similarly ex−posed. However, the level of exposure is dif−ferent – among the Roma, everyone is ex−posed to degradation, while among the non−


Roma only the unemployed have somethingto fear. The second difference is that theRoma middle class stands no chance of shak−ing the threat off – their low skills and theirdark complexions are handicaps on the labormarket. A major problem and challenge forthe non−Roma population is not just the fateof people living in Roma settlements andurban colonies, but especially the fate of thechildren of the former Roma middle class.These are the children of people whom thecommunist regime elevated to the position ofthe Roma middle class, but who were unableto keep this position and thus give their chil−dren an opportunity of social advancement.The new Roma middle class (children withambitions but without opportunities) mightdiffer from the old Roma middle class (par−ents on whom ambitions and opportunitieswere virtually imposed, and who today havelost both) in that its position would befounded on modern education, practical orentrepreneurship skills – if only they had thechance to find a job.3

SOLIDARITY DENIED ANDMULTIPLE EXCLUSION

The Roma were not the only ones caughtunprepared by developments. Slovak societyas a whole was equally unprepared to showcivic solidarity. As a result, the majoritypopulation largely does not care about themiserable situation of the Roma. Instead ofsocial solidarity, which would have de−manded the provision of real help, Slovaksociety showed no interest in the fate of theRoma after the devastating floods in 1998,and part of the majority and its political rep−resentatives even labeled the Roma asfreeloaders. The worst thing, however, hasbeen the multiple exclusion of the Roma(economic, social, cultural, and political),which is growing steeply without drawing aprotest or even the notice of the majority

society. Not even racially motivated attacksagainst the Roma have brought significantattention. This situation only began to changein the last two years after state institutionsbegan to act.

THE WAY OUT: EMIGRATION

Many Roma have realized that their oppor−tunities and the opportunities of their chil−dren have dramatically decreased in Slova−kia. Their reactions to the changed situationhave varied – some reacted by migrating toan EU country, hoping that the move wouldbring about a fundamental change in theirlives and in the lives of their children. Oth−ers have concluded that although the chanceof all Roma for a better life has decreased inSlovakia, the fortune of individuals mayvary. And so they have become moneylend−ers, taking advantage of the poverty of otherRoma. Among other things, migration hasbecome a source of considerable income forthem.

THE CAUSES4 OFMASS ROMA MIGRATION(SUMMARY OF RESULTS OFRESEARCHES)

Decisions to migrate tend to be made if thefollowing factors are present:a) Deep structural causes that force people to

act to change their situation, which theyperceive as problematic. The result is notnecessarily a decision to migrate; every−thing depends on the stimuli and condi−tions.

b) Stimuli that are strong enough for peopleto consider migration as a suitable solutionto their complicated situation. The stimuli,as it has been mentioned, are not the realcauses of migration, but can only contrib−ute to the fact that under certain conditions


the Roma community chooses migrationas its strategy. Besides that, the stimulidepend on the situation, and are inter−changeable, i.e. under different conditions,various factors can serve as stimuli.

c) Suitable conditions allowing the stimuli toacquire the necessary force as initiators ofaction.

An research on the causes of Roma migra−tion from Slovakia to EU countries was con−ducted in 2000 at the initiative of the Inter−national Organization for Migration (IOM)in Bratislava (Vašečka, 2000). A similar re−search supported by the Organization forSecurity and Co−operation in Europe(OSCE) was conducted in Warsaw by severalRoma organizations (Červeňák, 2000). An−other poll was conducted in Great Britain(Trojanová, 1999). The results of these pollsshow three categories of reasons for theRoma’s migration to EU countries. Ofcourse, these are not causes in the sense ofcausal relations, but merely the context inwhich the Roma decided to migrate.

ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVETHE POST−1989 SITUATION

After 1989, the Roma’s path to social eman−cipation and overcoming inequities becamefar more complicated. The opportunitiesavailable to the Roma after 1989 were gradu−ally sealed off. The respondents of the afore−mentioned researches said they had beenlooking for opportunities to improve theirsituation, one of which was to migrate.

Another category of causes was distrust ofthe majority and its institutions, and a relatedfeeling of discrimination, which the respond−ents cited as a major cause. Finally, the Romacited contradictory role models, under theinfluence of whom some respondents be−haved one way in public and another in pri−

vate. This conflict caused respondents to re−ject adaptation or development strategiesaimed at solving their complicated situation(e.g. retraining, increasing their qualifica−tions, entrepreneurship, moving to find work,etc.), and led them to choose the traditionalprotective strategy of the Roma – mass mi−gration.

Added to these stimuli was the fact that theRoma middle class formed during the com−munist regime, whose members representedthe main body of migrants, was unable todefend its position in Slovakia’s discrimina−tory environment without help from outside.Under these conditions, migration seemedthe only sensible strategy for solving theirproblems.

Complicated Journey to Emancipationand Overcoming Inequities

When talking about the complicated path ofthe Roma to emancipation, we are referringto the social decline of that part of the Romapopulation that before 1989 had become partof Slovak society. We are also referring to theproblems of those Roma whose process ofadaptation to modern society halted after1989. The Roma generally perceive this prob−lem as ethnic discrimination, and only second−arily as a social and economic problem.

The housing situation of most Roma familiesworsened in the 1990s, Roma unemploymentgrew enormously, and the school systemcontinued to reproduce a low level of edu−cation among the Roma. As a result, poverty,social disorganization, crime, and drug ad−diction increased among the Roma. The so−cial exclusion of the Roma, and the socialgap between the Roma minority and themajority population also grew, and inter−ethnic relationships became increasinglyradical. The Roma were forced out of all ar−eas that under the changed economic and


social conditions became attractive to non−Roma for some reason.

The New Role of the State, and itsFailure in Relation to the Roma

In general, the social cost of economic trans−formation among the Roma minority is ex−tremely high. It has been further increased bythe disintegration of the welfare system cre−ated by the communist regime, and the lackof interest in the fate of the Roma on the partof the state, which lasted until the late 1990s.The consequence has been the social degra−dation of the Roma and their inability to takeadvantage of the opportunities offered by the1989 revolution. The ideology of social en−gineering, which shaped the development ofthe Roma through external help and statesupervision, was in 1989 replaced by thephilosophy that everyone is responsible forhis own fate, which triggered the degradationof the Roma. It was never stressed that theprinciple of personal responsibility can onlybe applied in communities where thestronger are also responsible for the weaker.

The main failure of the state in connectionwith the Roma after 1989 was that the policyof Roma emancipation pursued by the formerregime was not replaced by a new policy ofemancipation in all areas (not just political,but also cultural, economic, and social). Theresult of this failure is a large middle class ofRoma who are unable to help themselves.

Researches suggest that the mass migrationof Roma was a reaction by the Roma middleclass to the threats present in all walks oftheir lives, and to their exclusion from theopportunities created after 1989. Althoughthis is just a hypothesis that cannot be con−firmed, it is nevertheless an important clueas to what social interventions it should befocused on: those targeting the Roma whoproved able over the past several decades to

adapt to 20th century civilization, and whonow face social and cultural decline if theydo not receive aid.

Existing Threats –the Result of Restrictions andDiscrimination against the Romaafter 1989

The most important restrictions are thosekeeping many Roma unqualified and unem−ployed, and those reducing their chances ofacquiring and keeping a flat. While the edu−cation and housing problems are quite wellknown, the most important phenomenon –Roma unemployment – is at the same timethe least understood.

In the long term, Roma unemployment is duemainly to a reduction in jobs requiring lowqualifications, the unsuitable system of edu−cating Roma children and youth, and the in−difference of Roma parents to the level ofeducation acquired by their children. In theshort term, high Roma unemployment is alsorelated to the influx of cheap labor fromUkraine.However, the essence of the problem, ac−cording to researches on the causes of migra−tion, consists of three main factors:1. Complexion – Many employers are preju−

diced against the Roma, believing they arenot reliable workers, and thus are unwill−ing to risk employing them. Fully 100% ofrespondents claimed to have been invitedby employers to job interviews over thetelephone, but that when they had shownup in person and had been found to beRoma, on the basis of their skin color, theyhad been told the position was taken.

2. Inadequate system of welfare benefits –There are many cases in which the totalsum of welfare benefits in one family is sohigh that it is no longer worth it for anymember of the family to work (i.e. thewage would be equivalent to the welfare


benefits). The best solution for such fami−lies is to continue receiving the welfarebenefits, and to work illegally (i.e. at “un−official” jobs that are not taxed or reportedto the state) at the same time.

3. Discriminatory practices by non−Romaentrepreneurs in cooperation with theRoma – The illegal short term employ−ment of the Roma is an effective means forcompanies to cut costs at the expense oftaxpayers.

It can be assumed that the Roma, who rep−resent a source of seasonal, cheap, unskilledand illegally employable labor, encouragedemand from employers, who benefitequally from this relationship. The fact re−mains, however, that illegal work by theRoma hurts the taxpayer in the short term,and the Roma themselves in the long term,because without official jobs they minimizetheir participation in the social and health in−surance systems. The only solution is to re−organize the system of paying welfare ben−efits.

Discrimination against the Roma, and thefear that it causes, are among the greatestproblems the minority faces. Most respond−ents mentioned discrimination as their mainreason for emigration. To the Roma, the term“discrimination” has a very broad meaning:They say they are afraid of skinheads, of thestate police, and of the authorities; they areafraid to leave the protective environment ofthe Roma community (they are not allowedto enter restaurants, they are afraid to travelon public transport, etc.); they are also afraidthat something will happen to their childrenif they attend school beyond their street orneighborhood. The world is constantly fullof threats for the Roma, who feel discrimi−nated against and unequal.

The researches showed three forms of dis−crimination faced by the Roma in Slovakia.

1. Latent structural discrimination – Thistype of discrimination is not intentionaland is very hard to prove. Administrativeprocedures and systems often discriminatedespite being built on the civic principle.It may seem that if they are applied equallyto all people, they are just.

2. Ethnic discrimination – This takes placeabove all on the symbolic level, especiallyin schools and when the Roma are treatedas a stigmatized group. Discrimination inthe school system results from the fact thatSlovak culture is used as the standardteaching framework, even though to Romachildren it represents a strange culture. Onthe other hand, in the target countries ofthe Roma migration, Roma children alsovisited schools that represented a strangeculture, but neither the parents nor thechildren had a problem with it. It would beinteresting to learn whether the Roma chil−dren were accepted by their peers and bythe teachers, and how well they performedin the different educational systems.

Many respondents maintain that the bu−reaucrats and police in the target countriestreated them as they would have anyoneelse. In Slovakia, conversely, the Roma feelstigmatized, a feeling justified by suchevents as attacks by police units on Romasettlements in the Žehra and Rudňany mu−nicipalities, or the treatment of Roma atpolice stations, including the torture andmurder of a Roma man in police custody in2001 (Červeňák, 2000, p. 19). The fact thatfew Roma are regularly employed, whileso many are illegally employed, alsoshows that different criteria apply when itcomes to hiring a Roma. The respondentsin all researches universally maintain thatthe treatment they received in the targetcountries was completely different fromwhat they were used to in Slovakia, andthat they at last felt like human beings. Onerespondent said: “England must be gov−


erned by non−whites, [because] theytreated us fairly.”

On the other hand, it must be noted that thebehavior of many Roma dependent onwelfare handouts at state social welfareoffices lacks even basic manners, as bothGabal and Vašečka have written in theirworks. Clerks have complained of curses,insults, aggressive behavior and threats.

Intervention is thus required in the field ofcommunication and conflict management.Such training courses are provided to pub−lic administration staff, police, teachers,and similar professionals in many placesaround Slovakia. The level of coordina−tion and consistency in these interventionsmay be another issue altogether, however.

3. Positive discrimination – Roma repre−sentatives categorically rejected this ap−proach, pointing to bad experiences fromthe communist regime.

Need for Special Help

Many respondents said they had had prob−lems finding jobs, even those who had morethan elementary school education; many hadalso found their children placed in “specialschools” for mentally handicapped studentswithout any justification; others reported that“special classes” had been formed consistingonly of Roma students. They also said it wasvery difficult to acquire a flat outside thepurely Roma environment. The basic prob−lem is thus how to overcome these handicapswithout measures specially tailored to theirneeds.

The Roma don’t seem to receive the desir−able extent and quality of special help, helpthat would motivate them and not rewardinactivity, and that would develop the inter−nal potential of the minority.

Help from the majority population shouldcome on two levels: removing all traces ofdiscrimination, and providing special aid forRoma dependent on social benefits. Theseforms of help require programs on the locallevel, including projects to increase the ma−jority’s tolerance and acceptance of suchhelp.

Unavailability ofthe Opportunities Created after 1989

Most Roma have not made use of the chancesfollowing the political change in 1989 toacquire new qualifications and skills. So far,the freedoms they have used the most havebeen those to travel and associate. The mi−gration, however, showed the Roma that iffreedom is not connected with relevant quali−fications and skills, it does not contain realopportunities. In the research conducted inSlovakia (Vašečka, 2000), the respondentsadmitted this connection, but most consid−ered leaving Slovakia for some EU countryopportunity enough.

The main factor preventing the Roma fromusing the opportunities created after 1989 hasbeen their low level of qualifications. This isdue to the failure of the school system to re−spond properly to two contradictory facts.The first is that Roma children are taught inan environment dominated by ethnic Slovakculture, which for many of them is foreign.The second is that the Roma, as the answersof the respondents again demonstrated, gen−erally do not want their children to study inRomany, while some do not even want theirchildren to be taught about the Roma. Fur−thermore, as other researches show, the am−bitions of Roma parents regarding their chil−dren usually end at the secondary schoollevel, while for many, vocational educationis sufficient. However, this level of educationdoes not make it any easier to find a job. Thusfar, the Slovak school system has not only


failed to find a way to respond to these facts,but has placed far too many Roma childrenin “special schools” for the mentally handi−capped, and has allowed many children toleave the school system with only elementaryschool education.

The Roma’s lack of access to opportunitiesis also related to the fact that the emancipa−tion of the Roma has halted in the field ofovercoming their ethnic stigmatization. Be−fore 1989, emancipation in this field wasdefined as having a chance to become amember of the “socialist country people”, i.e.a kind of assimilation. After 1989 thischanged (at least on the level of words) intothe opportunity to become an equal citizen.The mass migration of the Roma to EU coun−tries indicates that the Roma have not wel−comed the changes in this field.

Two things impede Roma from becomingequal citizens of the state and not being per−ceived as Roma. The ineffaceable stigma ofskin color leads to discrimination againstthem and forces them to the outskirts of so−ciety, because the ethnic Slovak majorityhas elevated the ethnic principle to the ba−sis on which the state is built. Second, dif−ficult living conditions also force Roma outof society. Both factors lead Roma to livein local Roma communities based on mu−tual help and protection. Emancipation onthe basis of citizenship has evidently beenpostponed.

The shortcomings in the help extended frommainstream society and the state were iden−tified by the respondents as consisting ofindifference to their problems (in the bettercases), or withholding resources available toother members of the municipality (in theworse cases). This is again related to dis−crimination, which seems to underlie everyaspect of the Roma migration to EU coun−tries and the Roma issue in general.

So far, the Roma have been unable to re−spond adequately to the opportunities andthreats they face by themselves, without helpfrom the majority population and the state.The formation of a new Roma middle classbuilt on new foundations within the currentgeneration of Roma youth is in jeopardy,while the reliance of the welfare−dependentlower classes of Roma on the state and theirown Roma upper classes has increased. Thelack of opportunities has led young, educatedRoma to share the opinion of their parentsthat the Roma were better off before 1989.This means we must try to find and helpthose Roma children who have a chance ofcompleting secondary school, to locate andacquire decent jobs.

Rejection of Development Strategies byWelfare−Dependent Roma

Speaking of the Roma minority rejecting onething and preferring something else, we arereferring to existing behavior models that in−dividual Roma, through their daily social ac−tivities, continually confirm or change. We arenot talking about the activity of some socialconstruct above the level of the individual,such as a group or the entire minority itself.

When we speak of development strategiesbeing rejected, we are also referring tobehavior models or orientations that differ inthe public sphere on the one hand, and inprivate on the other, and which the rest ofsociety regards as the “hijacking” of fundsintended for the protection of economicallyvulnerable people. Thanks to the traditionalstigmatization of the Roma, these attitudesand behavior patterns are attributed to theentire Roma ethnic group, even though theyare typical of ghetto cultures everywhere(Mareš, 2000, p. 175 – 184). Ethnicity canplay an important role only in cases when thegiven ethnic group is stigmatized, which withthe Roma is unfortunately the case.


Concerning the need for social security, somerespondents view it as a set of measures takenby the state in keeping with its obligationtowards its citizens. We cannot generalizefrom this opinion, on the basis of severalinterviews, and ascribe it to the entire com−munity; however, it can be used to identifythe causes of migration, the source of whichlies within the Roma community, and to findappropriate measures to motivate the Romato enter the labor market.

Social security from this viewpoint does notmean an opportunity to satisfy one’s needs– it is regarded as a world that belongs to thestate, a world without threats, and one thatthe state is obliged to provide to all citizens.According to some respondents, the stateshould ensure that people’s basic needs aremet, i.e. food, clothes, housing, health care,and essential, long term consumer goods.The state should also provide jobs. Socialsecurity, according to this view, is perceivedas something constant, something that doesnot depend directly on one’s efforts or theresults of one’s work. In this “world of thestate”, individual responsibility for one’ssuccesses or failures is rejected.

On the other hand, we cannot ignore the crea−tivity and personal engagement with whichthese people began to secure their future byadopting protective strategies (migration, il−legal labor, moving back to Roma settlements,etc.). When the Roma decide to migrate, theyexpose themselves and their families to in−creased risk. When they decide to work ille−gally, they are risking the consequences. It isimportant that they have not chosen the adap−tation strategy of retraining or the develop−ment strategies of education and entrepreneur−ship. They apparently believe these ap−proaches do not work (citing the failures ofRoma entrepreneurs, and unemploymentamong young, educated Roma), or for variousreasons do not feel they are important.

Thus, in the public sphere we may encoun−ter demands for state−guaranteed security,while in the private sphere we may see per−sonal engagement, and the willingness to riskuncertainty and failure. Again, on the onehand, one sees passivity and criticism of thestate for not creating sufficient jobs and liv−ing conditions; and, on the other hand, dis−trust of retraining and other forms of adap−tation requiring a change in lifestyle but notguaranteeing success. In the private sectorone sees initiative and creativity in lookingfor additional income, whether this involvesillegal activity or the generous welfare sys−tems of EU countries.

The existence of such contradictory behaviorpatterns is due to the simultaneous influenceof the communist regime (passivity) and thetraditional Roma community (creativity).The Roma are also driven by external fac−tors, which lead us to believe that the prob−lem could be solved with a combination ofexternal intervention and adequate laborprojects.

Distrust Between the Roma andthe Majority Population

Discussions of whether racial discriminationexists in Slovakia, and if so to what extent,lead nowhere, because posed in this form theproblem is a political one. A much broaderbasis for interpreting and solving the issue isoffered by the issue of trust, and the relatedstatement that the “Roma issue” consistsmainly in the distrust the Roma feel towardsthe majority population and its institutions,and vice versa – the majority population’sdistrust of the willingness of the Roma to re−spect rules, to work, etc. This distrust has pre−vented both sides from seeing things as theyreally are, and has blocked communication.Moreover, it has triggered feelings of dis−crimination and helplessness among theRoma.


Distrust is related to discrimination, bothopen and latent. The relationship is both di−rect, as acts of open and latent discriminationencourage and strengthen distrust of theRoma, and indirect, as distrust itself warpsperceptions of reality (in that the Roma arevery sensitive to every step and action by themajority, and tend to connect these actionswith racial violence, discrimination and per−secution even if there is no basis for this con−nection). Discrimination may be uninten−tional, based on stereotypes, or institutional,as happens when civic and social justice prin−ciples are applied regardless of the historicalhandicaps of the Roma.

When trust is disturbed on both sides we canexpect problems in mutual communication.The Roma can be expected to try and profitfrom everything the world of non−Roma in−stitutions is able to provide, and at the sametime to take advantage of its weaknesses. Thenon−Roma, on the other hand, can be ex−pected to act with caution towards the Romaand to treat them with distrust.

STIMULI AND CONDITIONS OFROMA MASS MIGRATION

Although the stimuli we identified are not thereal and structural causes of the migration, itdoes not mean that we do not have to addressthem. On the contrary, they represent a clearopportunity to take operative measures espe−cially on the local level, and to focus on solv−ing complicated situations in other ways thanmigration.

Based on the researches that were conducted,we can infer that migration was adopted as acollective strategy by the Roma communityunder the influence of several stimuli, eachof which acts under certain conditions thatmust be present for the stimulus to be effec−tive. Only under these conditions does each

stimulus have the power to initiate this proc−ess. Such stimuli and conditions include ra−cially motivated violence accompanied by afeeling of defenselessness, and the existenceof a migration model accompanied by aninformal information and help system withinthe Roma community.

RACIALLY MOTIVATEDVIOLENCE AND FEELING OFDEFENSELESSNESS

The fear of violence has always been a strongstimulus of migration. Racially motivatedviolence takes two different forms: raciallymotivated physical attacks, and symbolicracial violence. The respondents spoke ofracially motivated physical attacks in Slova−kia, and about their fear of such violence.However, not one had been the victim of aracially motivated attack. Of course, thisdoes not mean that the attacks do not happen:The most important fact is that these peoplewere afraid it could happen to them or theirchildren. What is more, racial violence seemsfar more threatening when seen through thehaze of distrust, in which many otherwiseinnocent events are seen as racially moti−vated. People start to behave as if it actuallyoccurred far more frequently than it does,and take decisions based on their fears.

EXISTENCE OFA MIGRATION MODEL,INFORMALLY PROVIDEDINFORMATION AND HELP WITHINTHE ROMA COMMUNITY

Another stimulus of migration is the exist−ence of a local model for solving problemsthrough migration. The majority of localRoma live in community−type organizations.The positive experience of the entire commu−nity is drawn on, and the behavior of indi−


viduals copies the experience of the entirecommunity (among the non−Roma, this ac−cumulation and preservation function is per−formed by various institutions, such as librar−ies, schools, and civic organizations).

Thus it is that Roma who try a certain pro−cedure and succeed (in this case, migratesuccessfully) report their success to everyonewith whom they are connected by the bondsof mutual assistance, mutual values, andmutual fate. If any Roma kept such informa−tion for himself, he would be banished fromthe community, which protects him from theinsecure and treacherous world of the non−Roma. Of course, the actions of these “suc−cessful” Roma are not limited to providinginformation, but may lead them to supportthe others in doing what they did and accom−plishing their goals. To an outsider, thismight seem an organized activity, but whatwe really have is the solution of one indi−vidual becoming a model for other commu−nity members. This casual information andhelp spreads through the information chan−nels of the Roma community like a forestfire, becoming the spiritual property of thecommunity – its “know−how”. This can re−sult in spontaneous, mass departures. Onlylater do people begin to behave in a calcu−lating manner, or even to organize a commu−nity−wide movement.

Other researches (e.g. Osińska and Śliwiń−ska, 1999) show that sharing information isa common feature also in non−Roma commu−nities and welfare−dependent families. Eth−nicity plays no role here.

CONCLUSION

The Roma minority at the moment dependson external help from the majority. Thismeans that the minority is not capable ofsolving its own problems by itself.

The basic precondition for effective externalhelp is that the majority regards helping asits duty and as the repayment of a debt to theminority, while the minority must accept thehelp offered without suspicion and distrust.

External help should thus focus on strength−ening the Roma community’s ability toemancipate itself. This calls for projectswhose aim is to increase the human poten−tial of individuals and the social potential ofthe minority as a whole.

The national government and regional andmunicipal administrations should reassessand step up their activities to remove latentethnic discrimination, and to improve the liv−ing conditions of the Roma, especially inRoma settlements (in cooperation with theRoma). They should also strive to improvecommunication between the Roma and thenon−Roma, to remove mutual prejudices, andimprove the performance of municipal ad−ministrations.

In recent years, we have seen how EU coun−tries gradually and successfully preventedthe Roma from solving their complicatedsituation through migration. Naturally, thiswas legitimate. However, for Slovakia itmeans that the longer the state hesitates tosolve the Roma issue, the greater the threatof political instability. The Roma may viewa situation in which all opportunities arebarred to them as threatening, which maymake their collective behavior even lesspredicable than it is today.

ENDNOTES

1. We know a lot about the social structure of thetraditional Roma community, but we havealmost no information about the various so−cial layers within the community. We can onlyguess at the changes that took place during


their integration into society. Despite the factthat the author calls one of these Roma socialclasses “middle”, this is not and never hasbeen a proper middle class. In terms of over−all society, for example, it has always beenpart of the lower class of society. Only a fewpeople, collectively referred to as the Romaintelligentsia, could be considered truly mid−dle class. However, from the viewpoint of theRoma community, the difference between theintelligentsia and the people living in povertyand exclusion in segregated Roma settlementsand colonies is steadily increasing. Thus,when I call a certain group of people “theRoma middle class”, I do so to point out adifferentiation within the Roma minority thathelps identify the causes of migration in theprocesses of social mobility and the differen−tiation of society.

2. The idea of the “Roma settlement” is, to acertain extent, a fiction. In one place such asettlement may consist of tumbledownshacks, in another beautiful houses that can’tbe distinguished from non−Roma houses. Oneplace may be inhabited by several dozen peo−ple in a rural−type settlement, another may behome to a thousand or more inhabitants in anurban−type settlement. Some settlements arejust continuations of villages, others consistof several houses right in the center of a vil−lage, while still others are completely segre−gated. Life in crowded urban−type settlements(one to three thousand inhabitants, such as Ja−rovnice) resembles life in the city in its ano−nymity and degree of individualization.Smaller rural−type settlements have kept theiroriginal protective function. Some anthro−pologists maintain that human relationships inboth types of settlement are far stronger thanrelationships between the Roma who live intowns. Rural settlements protect the Romafrom the outside world, and help them in need.The Roma share the status of the settlement,and in leaving it lose not only their collectiveposition, but also their own position within thesettlement. The usurer, for example, is a baroninside the settlement, and a nobody outside it.So why should they leave? As a matter of fact,they don’t. On the contrary – some of thosewho left their settlements during the commu−nist regime are coming back, as if they felttheir luck was running out elsewhere.

3. Among the roughly 30 young, educated Romaauthor has met, only two had a regular job.Unless NGOs find some solution, the otherswill gradually lose their qualifications.

4. Local Roma communities and individualRoma families adopted migration (and notsome other strategy) as a way of solving theirproblems under the influence of certainstimuli. However, this does not mean thatthese stimuli were the real causes of theirmigration. In other words, we have to differ−entiate between the causes, stimuli, and con−ditions of migration. The circumstances thatfor the Roma created a complicated situationthat they had to solve are referred to as thecauses of migration. The circumstances thatinitiated the migration as a reaction to thecomplicated situation – the “triggers” of thedecision to migrate, but not the causes of themigration per se – are referred to as thestimuli of migration. Finally, the circum−stances that allowed the migration to begin arethe conditions of migration (they gave thestimuli the power to initiate action).

REFERENCES

1. Červeňák, Jozef: Správa o príčinách migrácieRómov v SR [A Report on the Causes of RomaMigration in Slovakia] Final report, (Bratisla−va: Organization for Security and Co−opera−tion in Europe, 2000).

2. Mareš, Petr: Sociologie nerovnosti a chudoby[Sociology of Inequality and Poverty], (Prague:Sociologické nakladateľstvo, 1999).

3. Murín, Marek: “Sloboda pohybu osôb povstupe Slovenska do Európskej únie a migrá−cia Rómov” [‘Freedom of Movement afterSlovakia’s EU Accession and the Roma Mi−gration’] in Vašečka, Michal (ed.): Čačipenpal o Roma. Súhrnná správa o Rómoch naSlovensku [A Global Report on Roma in Slo−vakia], (Bratislava: Institute for Public Af−fairs, 2002, p. 796).

4. Pompová, Anna: “Terénny výskum, vzorko−vá práca, štatistika” [‘Field Research, Sam−ple Work, Statistics’] in Červeňák, Jozef:Správa o príčinách migrácie Rómov v SR[A Report on the Causes of Roma Migrationin Slovakia] Final report, (Bratislava: Or−


ganization for Security and Co−operation inEurope, 2000).

5. Trojanová, A.: Výpovědi romských žadatelůo azyl ve Velké Británii. Zpráva utvořená nazákladě rozhovorů s českými a slovenskýmiRomy ve Velké Británii v srpnu 1999 [State−ments by Roma Asylum Seekers in GreatBritain. A Report Created on the Basis of In−terviews with Czech and Slovak Roma in Great

Britain in August 1999], (Prague, 1999).Manuscript.

6. Vašečka, Imrich: “Profile and Situation ofSlovak Asylum Seekers and Potential Mi−grants to the EU Countries” in Social andEconomic Situation of Potential Asylum Seek−ers from the Slovak Republic, (Bratislava: In−ternational Organization for Migration,2000).

475

(Parts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were written by K. Be−záková; parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 by J. Lajčáková)

Summary: This chapter deals withmulticulturalism, its history and the differentforms it takes in the US, Canada, and Europe.It analyzes the basic ideas behind multi−culturalism, and describes the nature of amulticultural society. The second part of thechapter notes the need for multicultural edu−cation at all schools, and describes the formand objectives such education might have, aswell as the related changes that must occurin the current school system. The chapter atthe same time highlights group−differentiatedrights and the dangers of accommodatingmulticultural elements in society. In conclu−sion it analyzes multiculturalism in Slovakia,and the inclusion of multicultural educationinto the curricula of Slovak schools.

Key words: multiculturalism, multiculturalsociety, multicultural upbringing and educa−tion, multicultural concept of citizenship,assimilation, segregation, integration, ac−commodation, inclusion, minority, tolerance,discrimination, cultural pluralism, attitude,prejudice.

INTRODUCTION

While multiculturalism is an increasinglypopular term in Slovakia, it is explained andinterpreted in different ways. One of the most

KATARÍNA BEZÁKOVÁ and JARMILA LAJČÁKOVÁ

MULTICULTURALISM ANDINCLUSION AS SOLUTIONS TOTHE ROMA ISSUE

common statements heard today is: “Slo−vakia is a multicultural country.” The claimis based on the fact that several ethnic mi−norities live on Slovak territory.1 Such state−ments involve simplifications of what theterms “multicultural” and “multiculturalism”truly express. The academic literature doesnot contain a single definition of this notion,or of the word “culture” from which it is de−rived. The meaning usually varies accordingto the environment, time, and country inwhich it is employed. For that reason, theterm multiculturalism is used differently inWestern Europe and overseas.

Understanding the ideas behind multi−culturalism and its active presence in societyshould be part of Slovakia’s integration to theEU. Besides bringing its legal and economicrules into line with European regulations,Slovakia will also have to change the atti−tudes and prejudices that prevent its citizensfrom understanding ethnic diversity as anatural and enriching aspect of every society.During this process Slovaks must understandthat the Roma must be included in society.

In Western countries, the hypothesis ofmulticulturalism theorists that traditional,liberal, individual human rights codes are in−sufficient to ensure the real equality of allpeople is gaining increasing support. Themulticulturalists are deserting traditional lib−eralism, and moving to what they call “groupdifferentiated” rights, which they claim rep−resent an effective way of ensuring the free−

476 K a t a r í n a B e z á k o v á a n d J a r m i l a L a j č á k o v á

dom and equality of members of minoritycultures. This accommodating approach tocultural minorities gives them room to de−velop and, at the same time, prevent the riseof ethnically motivated violence. Countriesthat take such approaches towards their na−tive Indian inhabitants, national and religiousminorities, and immigrants have formed plu−ralistic societies, whose members find it fareasier to achieve both legal and socio−eco−nomic equality with the majority population.Multiculturalism has thus become a very at−tractive avenue of approaching minoritypolicy.

HISTORY OF MULTICULTURALISM,ITS FORMS AND SIGNIFICANCE

The concept of multiculturalism is becomingincreasingly popular in Slovakia, not justamong academics but also among influentialpoliticians. The need for a multicultural ap−proach to national and ethnic minorities, es−pecially the Roma minority, is often empha−sized in the context of Slovakia’s integrationto the EU. Unfortunately, the term “multicul−turalism” and the institutional measures re−quired to put it into practice are often onlyvaguely or wrongly grasped. Because expe−rience to date with multiculturalism comesalmost exclusively from Western liberal de−mocracies, the notion has to be adapted to fitthe Central European context.

THE US AND CANADA –THE HOME OF MULTICULTURALISM

The history of multiculturalism, and its dif−ferent forms and interpretations, can best beapproached through the examples of coun−tries where the concept was developed, andwhere many theories, debates, and controver−sies on the topic have arisen – the US andCanada. Both are immigrant countries that

have had to accommodate cultural differ−ences from their earliest history.

On their way to multiculturalism, both coun−tries first had to go through policies of assimi−lation, integration, and segregation. Withinthese policies, the only principles, values andinstitutions acknowledged were those of thedominant culture. Each of these policies rep−resented a certain relationship between theminorities and the majority. The first policyapplied was that of assimilation, which tried toforce the majority’s culture, social standards,values, and institutions upon the minority inorder to make it as similar to the majority aspossible; in the ideal case, the minority’s socialand cultural patterns would be destroyed.

Starting in the mid−20th century, the principleof integration began to gain ground as a fu−sion of minority and majority cultures and therise of a new cultural entity bearing signs ofboth original cultures. In America this phe−nomenon was called “the melting pot” (inwhich different cultures are “melted” togetherand a new composite emerges), the achieve−ment of which was the proclaimed objectiveof American politics. However, this metaphorwas just an ideal, as in reality the values andopinions of the dominant culture prevailed.

Segregation was yet another way of dealingwith social and cultural differences. It is typi−fied by compulsion and various “measures”forcing the majority and minority popu−lations to live separately, in different waysand without mutual contact, in a situationwhere the minority culture is considered in−ferior or even dangerous. Such policies stillexist in different forms and intensities.

THEORY OF CULTURAL PLURALISM

The notion of multiculturalism began to ap−pear as an adjunct to the theory of cultural

477M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m a n d I n c l u s i o n a s S o l u t i o n s t o t h e R o m a I s s u e

pluralism in the late 1960s. Its first roots werelaid in North America, especially in the US,as a result of a large influx of immigrantsafter the Second World War and the attemptsof the US to come to terms with the heritageof the original inhabitants. It was also trig−gered by the increased activism of variousminorities (ethnic, sexual, religious, etc.) thatwere trying to emphasize their characteristicsin order to secure representation in publicinstitutions, the media, and schools, and tobolster their fight for civil rights, equality,and greater political autonomy (such as theFrancophone inhabitants of Canada). For allof these reasons, the term “multiculturalism”in North America now covers a wide rangeof minority movements fighting for theirrights and full integration into society (e.g.sexual minorities, handicapped people, etc.).

As indicated by Pavel Barša (1999), the1980s in America were a period of constantstruggle for those who did not belong to thegroup of “white, heterosexual, Anglo−Saxon,protestant, middle−class men”, and whofaced constant attempts to push them to theoutskirts of American society. The outcomeof this struggle was a situation in which any−one who belonged to an oppressed groupgained a certain moral superiority and theability to inflict collective guilt on everyonewho belonged to the group of their oppres−sors. This attitude underpinned the politicalcorrectness movement that swept Americanuniversities. “Politically correct multicul−turalists consider any reference to Americanculture and politics as a regression to theimperialism of the WASP (White Anglo−Saxon Protestant) ruling group, which forcesits culture on everyone as the binding norm”(Barša, 1999, p. 21).

The notion of multiculturalism at this timewas defined as the struggle for the socialacceptance of difference. To counter its pro−ponents and the political correctness move−

ment, the equally dogmatic “patriotic cor−rectness” movement arose. Its aim was toprotect American unity based on a commonculture that ought to be accepted by allgroups as a generally binding norm. Even−tually, both movements were criticized ascounterproductive, given the obvious needfor peaceful coexistence between mutuallyenriching and communicating minoritieswithin one political community.

In Canada, the process leading to multicul−turalism started as a consequence of thestruggle of the Francophone inhabitants tostrengthen biculturalism in the country’s pre−vailingly Anglophone culture. In 1971, theCanadian government officially declared“the policy of multiculturalism within thepolicy of bilingualism”, the aim of whichwas to take other ethnic minorities into ac−count within the framework of two languagecultures and one political unity. As indicatedby Barša (1999), in practice this meant statesupport for the cultural activities of differentethnic groups on the one hand, and system−atic assimilation within the English andFrench language framework on the other.Knowledge of either language was seen as aprerequisite for taking part in the economicand political life of Canadian society. On theone hand, during the 1990s, the view ofmulticulturalism broadened to include “thecreation of a society more tolerant and inclu−sive of cultural and group differences in allsocial fields and institutions” (Barša, 1999,p. 22). On the other hand, this period also sawthe polarization of French−English relation−ships due to the biculturalism dispute.Multiculturalism in Canada has in fact coun−terbalanced the rocky relationship betweenthe French and the English. On the one hand,francophone inhabitants cannot challengethe concept because they would be accusedof the same discrimination they blame onEnglish−speaking Canadians. On the otherhand, if the Anglophone side wanted to ac−


cuse the Francophone of intolerance, itwould have to show exemplary tolerance it−self. This is what makes the Canadian ap−proach multicultural.

MULTICULTURALISM IN WESTERNEUROPEAN COUNTRIES

The history and forms of multiculturalism inWestern Europe have differed from those inNorth America. European countries begandealing with multiculturalism in the secondhalf of the 20th century, in relation to an influxof cheap workers from non−European coun−tries, the migration of ethnic groups, and thearrival of refugees. Equally important, afterthe adoption of the General Declaration onHuman Rights (on which many constitutionsare based) and other treaties (regulating theposition of minorities, banning discriminationand protecting human rights), the minorities,refugees and other marginalized groups wereable to refer to these documents and demanda full and equal position in society. Individualcountries introduced different measures forthe admission of immigrants, which boremarks of assimilation, integration, and segre−gation. The accepted starting point for Euro−pean democracies became the British ap−proach to cultural and group heterogeneity,known as “cultural pluralism”, although with−out the traditional “hierarchical” attribute seenduring the colonial era. Hierarchical culturalpluralism combined “the acknowledgment ofcultural and group differences and the as−sumption of the inequality of the members ofsome of these groups, as reflected in their in−ferior socio−economic and political positions”(Barša, 1999, p. 221).

At the end of 1960s, the British govern−ment, besides tolerating cultural differ−ences, also began enforcing the rule of in−dividual equality, which was a significantstep in terms of social democratic princi−

ples. The change from hierarchical and con−servative pluralism to egalitarian and liberalpluralism was the expression of a specificEuropean form of multiculturalism. Thisofficial policy was also supported in theNetherlands and Sweden in eddition toGreat Britain. Its common feature was “theunification between the acknowledgementof and public support for cultural and groupdifferences, and respect for the equality ofthe members of all groups” (Barša, 1999, p.222). This kind of multiculturalism givescultural groups the opportunity “to developtheir sovereignty within one political com−munity and democratic state, provided theyrespect the fundamental constitutional rightsand freedoms of all inhabitants and citizensof the given society, and none of the groupscloses itself off from the others to such anextent that it does not leave room for inter−nal disagreement, or a change in membershipor individual contacts between the groups”(Barša, 1999, p. 233).

WHAT IS THE VALUE OFTHE MULTICULTURAL CONCEPTOF CITIZENSHIP?

Defenses of multiculturalism are generallybased on the fear that the power of the stateand its dominant groups is able to erode mi−nority cultures. But why else do minoritiesstrive to preserve their own cultures? Whatlegitimacy do these efforts have? The initialargument in favor of accommodating minor−ity cultures is the value of belonging to acultural group. Membership in a culturalgroup is an important asset, and at the sametime is a relevant criterion for assessing theway advantages and rights are distributed instates (Kymlicka, 1989, p. 162 – 166). Be−ing a part of a cultural group provides a sig−nificant structure for people’s personalities,gives them content and identity, and connectsthem with a certain group of people (Parekh,


2000, p. 156). Membership in a culturalgroup provides individuals with meaningfulpossibilities for leading their lives, buildingcareers, or forming relationships (Margalitand Raz, 1995, p. 81 – 85).

In defending multiculturalism, theoristCharles Taylor focused on the idea that theacknowledgement of people’s different cul−tural identities fulfills a vital human need.Public acknowledgment is necessary for ourindependent human existence. Failure toacknowledge the identities of members ofcultural groups may, to a great extent, injurethose who belong to discriminated minoritycultures that have been denied equal respect(Taylor, 1994, p. 25). Individual freedom andprosperity largely depend on membership ina respected and evolving cultural group. If acertain group suffers discrimination, it is alsoharder for its members to make their marks(Raz, 1994, p. 159). In situations where thestate’s legal, social and economic institu−tional mechanisms are intended mainly forthe majority population, it considerably re−duces the chances of minority members tosucceed in society. Integration into a differ−ent culture is a very difficult and long proc−ess requiring the transformation of the indi−vidual’s identity (Raz, 1994, p. 88). Whencultural assimilation is the precondition forminority group members to participate insociety, these group members are also forcedto transform the content of their own identi−ties. On the level of the group, this may leadto the complete annihilation of the group’sidentity (Young, 1989, p. 272). The moredifferent the minority culture is from themajority culture, the greater the disadvantageof the minority.

The purpose of group−differentiated rights,on the other hand, is to compensate thesegroups for the systematic disadvantages theyface, and to allow them to achieve real equal−ity. Such rights for cultural groups are not in

conflict with the basic values of liberalism;on the contrary, they are a necessary prereq−uisite for securing the individual freedomand equality of all people. The point is thatthe equality of all people cannot be achievedby treating them identically; instead, a sys−tem of differentiation respecting the culturalspecifics of minorities must be used (Kym−licka, 1995, p. 108 – 115). Multiculturalismis not about the uncritical acceptance of themajority culture, which is then used to evalu−ate the requirements of the minorities and todefine their rights. Multiculturalism is aboutsecuring fair terms for the relationship be−tween different cultural communities(Parekh, 2000, p. 13).2 Which group−differ−entiated rights should be used to achievethese fair conditions?

TYPES OFGROUP−DIFFERENTIATED RIGHTS

One of the most frequently cited typologiesof group−differentiated rights comes from thebreakthrough work of multicultural theoristWill Kymlicka, published in 1995. Kymlickapresented three basic forms of group−differ−entiated rights: 1) political autonomy, or self−government rights; 2) multi−ethnic rights;and 3) rights to special political representa−tion. However, the typology produced byJacob Levy is far more detailed and moresuitable for our purposes (Levy, 1997, p. 22– 66). On the basis of moral and institutionalsimilarities, Levy identified eight types ofminority demands to be granted rights:

1. Exceptions from laws penalizing or bur−dening certain cultural practices. Laws thatminorities demand exceptions from usu−ally appear harmless at first sight, but infact may prevent members of cultural mi−norities from freely practice their religion.The best−known examples are exceptionsfor Sikhs in Great Britain and in Canada.


In 1972, the British parliament adopted alaw imposing the obligation to wear a hel−met when riding a motorcycle. However,as wearing a turban is a significant part ofthe Sikhs’ religion and traditions, theynaturally objected to the law, saying a tur−ban was just as safe as a helmet. They alsonoted that as they had fought for Britainin both world wars, and nobody had thenobjected that their turbans were not safeenough, they should have the right to ridea motorcycle without a helmet as well. Thecontroversial law was duly amended in1976, and Sikhs were exempted from theobligation.

In another case, the Royal CanadianMounted Police (RCMP, a federal policeforce) exempted Sikhs employees fromhaving to wear a helmet while riding a mo−torcycle on the job, triggering an evenmore interesting debate. The wave of re−sentment against the exemption was led byarguments that the police should be neu−tral and free of any religious or ethnicmanifestations; wearing a turban violatedthe non−religious nature of the RCMP, crit−ics claimed. However, both the Canadianfederal and supreme courts rejected thisallegation, and acknowledged the right towear a turban at work. Precisely becausethe RCMP is a national institution, thewearing of turbans should be seen as asymbol of Canada’s multicultural identity,and not as damaging the professional in−tegrity of the police. Moreover, nobodyobjects if police who practice the Christianfaith wear wedding rings or the symbol ofthe cross. Laws requiring that helmets beworn in the police service clearly limit thepossibilities of minority members to applyfor such jobs. In other cases, orthodoxJews demanded to be allowed to wear the“yarmulke” when serving in the US AirForce, while Muslim girls requested per−mission to wear the “chador” when attend−

ing public school in France (Parekh, 2000,p. 243 – 245).

2. Financial benefits and help in areaswhere the majority population does notrequire such help. These frequently in−clude requests for subsidies for the devel−opment of and education in the languageof the minority, the use of the minoritylanguage in communications with officialbodies, funding for ethnic art, and othertypes of preferential treatment (e.g. inadmitting students to universities and soon). The aim of such requirements is tosurmount the obstacles that minoritymembers face as a consequence of theimplicit support of the state for majorityculture. Multicultural theorists, unlike thesupporters of affirmative action, argue thatthese policies should not be temporary butpermanent.

3. The right to self−government for ethnicand national minorities. Requests to begranted the right to decide one’s own fateare among the most frequent demands re−lated to cultural rights. Such rights havegranted in Slovenia, in the establishmentof a federal unit in Catalonia, in reserva−tions for Indian tribes in North America,and above−standard terms for Quebec inthe Canadian federal system. Nationalminorities frequently claim that self−gov−ernment is necessary to ensure the freedevelopment of minority members. How−ever, the right of national minorities toterritorial autonomy has only very limitedsupport in international law3. One of thepossibilities for cultural accommodation isa federal system that includes a centralgovernment and several self−governingregions. As for territorially concentratedminorities, the borders of self−governingregions can be set so that the minorityforms the majority in at least one of theregions (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 27 – 30).


4. External rules affecting people or insti−tutions that are not members of the minor−ity, with the aim of protecting minorityculture members. Examples of such exter−nal rules include the requirement that com−panies operating in Quebec and employ−ing more than 50 employees use theFrench language in carrying out their ac−tivities. Another example is the right ofIndian tribes to withhold from others theright to buy land in Indian reservations.

5. Acknowledgment and enforcement oftraditional customary law by the state.A frequent argument in favor of the ac−knowledgment of minority customary lawis that state law is not sufficiently cultur−ally neutral. After all, it is unjust for peo−ple to have to obey an unknown body oflaw that is culturally foreign to them, andwhich they did not help to create. Exam−ples are the acknowledgment of the cus−tomary criminal law of aborigine tribes inAustralia and Indian tribes in the UnitedStates and Canada; Muslims in India fol−low a special code in the field of familylaw.

6. Requirements that internal rules be ac−knowledged that enable minorities to pun−ish certain actions by members of the mi−nority, or to banish members from thegroup if they break the group’s informalinternal rules. Examples here include theexpulsion and disinheritance of Men−nonites who marry outside the group.Many rules and standards that minoritymembers follow do not have the weight oflaw, but represent the group’s expectationsregarding the behavior of its members.The community may punish violations ofthese rules by expelling the violator fromthe group. According to most democraticand liberal theories, such rules would beperceived as unjust if they were enforcedby the state. For example, the state cannot

withdraw people’s citizenship arbitrarily;should the Catholic Church be allowed todo so? The acknowledgment of minoritycustomary law opens up this controversialquestion – should the state tolerate theinternal restrictions of certain groups evenif they impair the individual rights of itsmembers? As this question requires moredetailed examination, author will deal withit in a separate section.

7. Ensuring special representation for mi−nority members in institutions with execu−tive and legislative powers. The aim of thisspecial representation is to secure priori−ties and rights for minorities, to preventdiscrimination, and to secure de factoequality with the majority population.Example of this approach include the res−ervation of three out of nine chairs on thetribunal of the Canadian Supreme Court,or the quota representation of Maori in theNew Zealand parliament. A frequent ob−jection to this form of cultural accommo−dation is that it assumes that the minorityis unified, and ignores existing differencesbetween the interests of individual minor−ity members. However, if the democraticmajority system is not sufficiently flexibleto allow any representation of minoritymembers, this objection loses its weight.

8. Requests for symbolic acknowledgmentthat confirm the equal status, value andexistence of different cultural groups. Ex−amples of this approach include findingagreement on the name of a state or region,acknowledging the national holidays of aminority group, or agreeing to includesome non−majority events in the curriculaof history courses. Demands for suchforms of accommodation, while oftenplayed down, are very important. In meet−ing them the majority acknowledges thatto be a full citizen one does not have tobelong to the majority ethnic group.


RISKS OF MULTICULTURALACCOMMODATION

Even well intentioned cultural accommoda−tions can imperil the individual rights ofminority members. Chandran Kukathas ar−gues that the key value of liberalism – toler−ance – is reason enough to prefer a policy ofnon−interference in the internal affairs ofcultural groups (Kukathas, 1997, p. 69 – 99).Michael Walzer, however, does not agreewith this claim, and argues that the principleof non−interference can be applied only onthe international level (Walzer, 1997, p. 105– 111). Bikhu Parekh advises the majority tolead an intercultural dialogue with the minor−ity on controversial cultural issues, such aspolygamy or female circumcision. Both par−ties should present rational arguments as towhy a certain practice is important or unac−ceptable to them (Parekh, 2000, p. 268).Ayelet Shachar approaches the issue in themost complex manner. He calls the phenom−enon the paradox of multicultural vulner−ability, which denotes a situation in which awell−intentioned accommodation of culturaldifferences is not able to protect the mostsensitive cultural minority members. Shacharconnects two almost incompatible things –multicultural principles and feminist criti−cism. In this way she creates a solid institu−tional legal solution based on the principle ofjoint governance. The system of joint gov−ernance allows individuals to simultaneouslyexist as citizens and as minority members.The laws to which they conform are not de−signed by the majority only, but also bymembers of their own group. Shachar devel−oped a new model of common decision−mak−ing called transformative accommodation(TA). The aim of TA is to provide an institu−tional basis for the ongoing dialogue betweenthe state and its minorities, with a view toimproving the situations of the most sensi−tive cultural group members. These membersare perceived as holding multiple identities

and affiliations with both sources of author−ity (the group and the state). The culturalgroups thus interact equally and mutuallyinfluence each other.

The philosophical basis of this model in−cludes three basic principles: 1) neither thestate nor the group has a monopoly on decid−ing the affairs of the group; 2) clear choicesmust be defined – i.e. members of the minor−ity must have the right to leave the group; and3) each social arena should be divided intosub−areas (for example, criminal law shouldbe divided into decisions on guilt and deci−sions on punishment). Division into sub−ar−eas allows for a more sensitive distributionof power. This form of accommodation forcultural groups makes it possible to exposediscriminatory internal standards to criticismfrom the inside, and thus to initiate a culturalchange from the inside, which is always bet−ter than a forced change from the outside(Shachar, 2001, p. 117 – 145). TA can bestbe illustrated by an example. The division ofcriminal law into sub−areas occurs within theprocess of deciding on guilt or innocence,and if the defendant is found guilty, in decid−ing on a suitable punishment, protecting thepublic, and deterring or rehabilitating theconvict. In Anglo−American law, decisionson guilt or innocence are within the compe−tence of the jury, while punishment is metedout by the presiding judge.

Among other criticisms of the multiculturalmodel of citizenship, the most commonlymentioned is the fear that this policy willweaken the social bond that connects all citi−zens to a single state. However, experiencefrom Canada and Australia, which activelyapply a policy of multiculturalism, shows adramatic decline in discrimination and stere−otyping of minority members, and an equallydramatic increase in the number of multicul−tural friendships and marriages (Kymlicka,2001, p. 37). The multicultural approach to


immigrant groups, which allows them to studyboth the official language and their mothertongues as well as preserve their ethnic tradi−tions, has proven a far more effective form ofintegration than forced assimilation.

MULTICULTURALISM INTHE CENTRAL−EUROPEANCONTEXT

A debate recently began among Central andEastern European intellectuals on the possi−bilities of importing multiculturalism intothis region to prevent ethnic conflicts andtensions from arising (Kymlicka and Opal−ski, 2001). Although many authors wouldwelcome this solution, in essence they haveagreed on four reservations or obstacles thateither make this project impossible, or muchharder to implement. These are:

1. The role of elites in defining and manipu−lating the demands of minorities in a waythat does not reflect the real identity andinterests of minority group members. Apossible solution here would be to allowself−appointed minority leaders to run ascandidates in free and equal elections. Itis also necessary to critically examinewhether the demands of minority leaderswho reject minority rights and advocategreater support for integration or assimi−lation actually correspond with the inter−ests of rank−and−file minority members.

2. The problem of intolerant minorities, i.e.situations in which intolerant minoritiesabuse their rights to oppress their ownmembers.

3. The precondition for the application ofminority rights is the completion of demo−cratic consolidation. The fear exists notonly that minority rights themselves couldpresent a threat to minority members, but

also that granting such rights might slow theprocess of democratization. However, it hasto be understood that there are significantdifferences between individual countries inthe region in terms of the degree of demo−cratic consolidation. We could also arguethat democratic consolidation and minorityprotection are complementary processes, inwhich each supports and deepens the other.

4. The fact that the territorial autonomy modelmay be inappropriate. Many fear that thespecific nature of the Central−Europeanregion makes it impossible to apply a fed−eral or quasi−federal system. Some arguethat the region’s ethnic groups are too scat−tered, making territorial autonomy impos−sible. Others object to the degree of distrustbetween the majority and the minority. Mi−nority diasporas exist in the West as well;the problem is handled there on the basis ofnon−territorial principles in individual civic,political and cultural rights. The second ob−jection, however, is far more grave. The re−gion’s majorities do not reject the idea ofsharing power in itself, but rather the ideaof sharing it with a disloyal minority. Theminority can only prove its loyalty by re−linquishing its demand that power beshared, and by trying to gain certain culturalrights instead (Kymlicka and Opalski,2001, p. 347 – 369). However, “if minori−ties have to give up their demand for au−tonomy in order to be able to participate inpolitical decision−making, then what de−mands remain for them to present?” (Kym−licka and Opalski, 2001, p. 367)

MULTICULTURALISM ANDINCLUSION OF THE ROMA ASPOSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FORSLOVAKIA

Slovakia is not one of those democratic coun−tries in which the ideology of multicul−


turalism plays an integral part. If we look atthe history, present, and future of Slovakia,however, we see that institutionally it is al−most inevitable that such a society will beformed. Here are three basic reasons why:

• from the historical viewpoint, Slovakia hasexperienced a certain traditional multicul−turalism in the fact that Slovak culture hasbeen formed and influenced by other cul−tures, a process that is still in progress(other European nations have had a simi−lar experience);

• both now and throughout history, Slovakiahas been the home of people of differentethnic origins, social status, religions andlanguages. They have influenced eachother, and will continue to do so;

• from the viewpoint of Slovakia’s EU inte−gration, ethnic diversity will become aneven more common part of everyday life,and every individual who belongs to anethnic or national minority, or the major−ity, will be a part of this.

Changes in Slovak society, in order to ad−vance it towards a multicultural society in thetrue sense of the word, must occur simulta−neously on two levels, as follows.

CHANGES IN ATTITUDES ANDVIEWS OF DIFFERENCESBETWEEN PEOPLE

This change requires a long and systematicprocess of education to teach people to ac−cept differences. It is very difficult to getpeople who think “traditionally” to startthinking multiculturally. Many have a prob−lem admitting that there are other culturesbesides their own, or if they do admit theexistence of other cultures, they considerthem inferior to their own. This kind of eth−nocentrism is the main barrier to mutual un−derstanding and tolerance. Prejudices, stere−

otypes and the rejection of difference mustbe overcome by accepting the positive val−ues of other religious, cultural, ethnic or othergroups, which, far from representing a threatto the majority, are a source of creativity, self−recognition and enrichment. While prejudiceis a natural human characteristic and cannotbe eradicated, it is important to learn to dis−tinguish and eliminate “harmful” prejudicesfrom those that do not harm anyone. For thisto happen, individuals must understand theirown culture, values and behavior so they cangradually start perceiving and adopting thevalues and patterns of other cultures as well.

CHANGE ININSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

This involves a change in institutional struc−tures that allows minorities and their differ−ent cultures develop further. This kind ofchange must be preceded by legislation thatenacts all of the rights, obligations, anddemocratic principles that contribute toequality and plurality without enforceddominance. Following this, the democraticgovernment must take all appropriate stepsto allow society to differentiate internally andcreate a suitable environment for enrichingmutual communication. The governmentmust also create facilities for the completeand equal participation of minority repre−sentatives in institutions at all levels of soci−ety. When political decisions are taken, staterepresentatives must take into account theneeds of all different cultural and socialgroups in society, and see that these needs arereflected. This change is in the hands of boththe government and the national minorities.

As regards the Roma issue, multiculturalismseems to be philosophically and politicallythe most suitable approach. History has seenthe failure of many “approaches” that, know−ingly or unknowingly, attempting to solve the


Roma issue. “Attempts to re−educate” theRoma have done nothing but “take theiroriginal values and standards from them,while not replacing them with new ones”(Barša, 1999, p. 271). All endeavors havebeen focused on making the Roma as simi−lar to the dominant culture as possible.

If Slovakia wishes to be seen as a countryopen to multicultural approaches, both themajority population and the Roma minoritymust do their share of the work. A prerequi−site of multiculturalism with the participationof the Roma is their inclusion into society.The democratic principles of equality, free−dom, and solidarity do not allow anyone tobe excluded from society. Groups feelingexcluded wish to be included, which meansthat the majority first has to acknowledge theminority and adapt to its “different−ness”.The first step on the way to inclusion is tol−erance and the realization of the need to in−clude the minority. The aforementioned factssuggest that society and politicians in Slova−kia should strive to include the Roma fullywhile protecting their cultural differences,unless they violate Slovak law.

Pavel Barša (1999) speaks of three levels inthe social system on which systematic stepsmust be taken leading to change and the crea−tion of conditions for including the Roma: thecultural, educational, political, and socio−eco−nomical levels. Steps towards inclusion on thecultural level should lead to the cultural ac−knowledgment of the Roma by the public.Engagement of the Roma in the educationsystem should ensure that their differences areaccepted, and that changes occur to curricula,methods and texts in which the Roma are pre−sented as a group equal to the dominant cul−ture and the majority population.

As for the political level, conditions of equal−ity should be created. Because, at the mo−ment, the state and its institutions represent

majority society in the minds of the Roma.Roma should be represented in the state ad−ministration, the political representation, andthe decision−making process.

Socio−economic inclusion should equalizethe opportunities of the Roma in the socialand economic spheres, and create conditionsfor inclusion in areas that at present are ar−eas of exclusion (employment, living condi−tions, etc.). Achieving change on these lev−els is a long and challenging process thatneeds the active participation of the Roma.

CHARACTERISTICS ANDOBJECTIVES OFMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

Countries that claim to have a liberal−demo−cratic regime should make multicultural edu−cation and upbringing part of the educationsystem, with the state supporting its devel−opment. Multicultural upbringing in Europestarted in the early 1980s through interna−tional organizations and institutions such asthe European Union, the Organization forSecurity and Cooperation in Europe (OCSE),the High Commissioner for National Minori−ties, and especially the Council of Europe(CE), which in its activities has graduallymoved from educating those who are cultur−ally different, to educating everyone with theaim of understanding differences and learn−ing mutual appreciation and accepting theinfluence of different cultures. Despite themany recommendations and resolutionsadopted by CE member states, few have ac−tually been fully implemented.4

In general, multicultural education and up−bringing have an interdisciplinary characterin the building of a multicultural society.They include knowledge from various socialand scientific disciplines, and therefore mustbe included in all subjects taught.


Multicultural education “helps overcomeeach culture’s limitations, and helps peopleemerge from the shadow of the majority cul−ture and see minority cultures as a naturalpart of the system” (Mistrík et al, 1999, p.116). Erich Mistrík mentions three stages inthe multicultural view of the world, and theeducational goals resulting from this viewthat he wants to see achieved usingmulticultural education and upbringing(Mistrík et al, 1999). The first stage in multi−cultural understanding is tolerance, which,however, must be more than just a passiveattitude, and must be based on actual under−standing. The second stage is empathy,which includes an active attempt to feel thedifferent attitudes of others and understandthem. Care is the highest stage, meaningcivic engagement and the active develop−ment of skills for protecting “the different”.The ideal result of this process is a changein negative attitudes and the elimination ofstereotypes. The main results achievedthrough multicultural education include theability to understand not only the natural dif−ferences between individual cultures, butalso the equality of their positions and con−tributions to world history, their mutual com−munication and dynamics in the course ofhistory, and their influence on each other.People who have gone through multiculturaleducation also have an ability to talk with andbe open to other cultures, and to see the limi−tations of their own and of other cultures.

To achieve the goals of multicultural educa−tion, the education process has to be changedon three mutually connected levels:1. the classroom level;2. the school level;3. the level of local, national and interna−

tional institutions responsible for theschool system.

Several areas within the three levels requirea change towards multicultural education

and upbringing, and have been elaboratedin detail in the academic literature. On theclassroom level, change should include dif−ferent curricula, texts and teaching aids thatreflect the reality of the multicultural envi−ronment from different points of view (notjust from the majority’s viewpoint, as in thecase of Slovak textbooks). These changesshould lead from knowledge to building “amulticultural environment in which themembers of different minorities have equalchances, and in which conditions exist forthe full use of one’s own cultural identity incommunication with others and within theeducational process” (Mistrík et al, 1999, p.122).

Besides the contents of education, the waypupils are taught is also important. If non−interactive teaching methods are used, it isvery hard to develop differences and createequality. Traditional teaching methodsbased on lecturing and doing individualexercises from textbooks must be changedto interactive methods. Students from dif−ferent cultural environments have differentstudy habits, which is why they require adifferent style of teaching5. The methodsused should focus on developing the stu−dent’s personality. In practice this means achange in education methods led from thefront of the classroom accompanied by thepassive reception of information, into astyle of education that makes the studentcreate and build knowledge and which,through social interaction, shapes his atti−tudes, morals, emotional qualities, and com−munication skills.

Making such changes would be useless un−less they were accompanied by a change inthe field of multicultural education of teach−er’s college students and teachers at schools.Students preparing to become teachersshould be trained to teach in a culturally het−erogeneous environment, and besides knowl−


edge of the different cultures they should alsoacquire skills that help them to create a tol−erant environment and equality, to engage allstudents in the classroom, to eliminate preju−dices and stereotypes, and finally to createconditions for mutual communication, coop−eration, and spiritual enrichment from cul−tural differences.

Changes on the level of schools and insti−tutions responsible for the education proc−ess should occur especially in the influenceof these organizations on the multiculturalenvironment. Schools should create condi−tions for equality and multicultural educa−tion (as part of taught subjects, further edu−cation of teachers, etc.), while cultural het−erogeneity should be a source of enrichmentin the education process, and not a problemthat needs to be transformed into the shapeof the dominant culture. The prerequisite isto stop marginalizing “different” childrenand to secure equal treatment for all. Theschool should not shun these activities, butshould develop and support cooperationbetween teachers, parents, and the localcommunity.

The local, national, and international institu−tions in charge of the school system are thebasic pillar on which all teachers should beable to lean. However, the entire system mustfirst realize the importance of reforming edu−cation in keeping with the needs of multicul−tural education. The strategies chosen shouldapply multicultural education and upbring−ing in individual subjects at all levels ofschools. Research, methodical, and otherspecial activities should focus on developingthe mentioned areas, such as changing thecurricula, goals, and methods of education,as well as the education of teachers and theterms used in textbooks.

MULTICULTURALISM ANDMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION INSLOVAKIA

The policy of multiculturalism and multicul−tural education in Slovakia is in its infancy.As the basis for our analysis of the presentstate of multiculturalism, we will look at twomain documents that represent the directionof the government’s policy in general, and ofthe Ministry of Education’s policy of educa−tion and upbringing in particular. These arethe 1998 Program Manifesto of the SlovakGovernment, and the National Program ofUpbringing and Education in the SlovakRepublic.

The 1998 Program Manifesto of the SlovakGovernment, in the section entitled Demo−cratic Rule of Law, declares the need to cre−ate a legal framework eliminating all formsof discrimination, unemployment, and theexclusion of larger groups of people from thecivilized environment, and on the contrary tocreate a society of freedom and solidaritybased on mutual respect and tolerance, whichpursuant to the Constitution does not allowany forms of racial or national hatred. Asfurther stated in the program manifesto, nocitizen of Slovakia can be disadvantaged forbelonging to a national minority or ethnicgroup, and the government will support allforms of mutual respect between nationali−ties, as well as specific programs to integratethe Roma into society, to educate and raiseRoma children, and support Roma employ−ment.

The 1998 to 2002 Slovak government wrotethat it considered national and ethnic diver−sity to be a historical and enriching fact, andpromised to participate in creating a systemof international human rights standards in−


cluding the rights of national minority mem−bers. In the Upbringing and Education chap−ter of the program manifesto, the governmentundertook to increase the level of educationamong national minority members to thenational average, and to start preparingteachers for schools that teach in minoritylanguages. As for culture, the governmentvowed to preserve and support cultural diver−sity, and to create conditions for the equaldevelopment of the cultures of national mi−norities and ethnic groups.

The National Program of Upbringing andEducation proposes a system of conceptualand concrete changes that should be madein the school system during the next 20years, which should help Slovakia toachieve the level of the most advancedcountries in Europe and the world. Thedocument is based on internationally ac−cepted and ever−more widely used basiceducation system functions, such as “edu−cation teaching people openness and coop−eration, allowing us to accept and respectthe differences of other people, nations andcultures without feeling threatened, allow−ing us to live without confrontation andconflicts” (Národný program výchovy...,2000, p. 69). The document emphasizes thatthe education objectives stipulated in Arti−cle 29 of the Agreement on the Rights of theChild should be respected,6 which is thebasis of educational programs and strategiesfor tolerance and understanding of nationaland other minorities. The basic principleexpressed in the National Program of Up−bringing and Education is the following:“we must prepare responsible citizens of anintegrated Europe, i.e. we must increasemutual understanding, the comprehensionof differences and equality in Europeanculture, knowledge of and respect for his−torical and current socio−economic, culturaland political processes in Europe, and sup−port for mutual values, tolerance, and inter−

national cooperation” (Národný programvýchovy..., 2000, p. 18).

As for the national school system, the docu−ment speakes of “equal education chancesfor every citizen, and upbringing that teachesthe value of coexistence between differentethnic groups, nationalities, and culturesbased on the principle of universal values, ofcoexistence between EU countries, and onEU principles for the education of nationaland ethnic minority members” (Národnýprogram výchovy..., 2000, p. 42). In relationto children from poorer social environments,especially Roma children, the document pro−poses to create, verify, and implement suchmodern features and programs of upbringingand education that will assist in their integra−tion (see Národný program výchovy..., 2000for details).

Both documents – the Program Manifesto ofthe Slovak Government and the NationalProgram of Upbringing and Education –declare the need of tolerance, the need to bandiscrimination and exclusion, and the needto respect and esteem others. All of theseitems are part of the ideology of multicul−turalism and multicultural upbringing, al−though neither term was mentioned explic−itly in the documents.

Multicultural education and upbringinghave not yet been included in the Slovakeducation process. As Mistrík indicated(2001c), the curricula of elementaryschools, especially in ethics and civics butto some extent also in history, geographyand Slovak literature, might satisfy thegoals of multicultural education, althoughit is up to the teacher whether he or shepresents these topics in the “multiculturalspirit”, or as just another set of facts with−out explaining their meaning, context, andimportance7. Aesthetics is one of the multi−cultural subjects taught at elementary


schools (optional) because it deals with theart of different cultures.

As Mistrík (2001c) goes on to state, the situ−ation is similar at the secondary school level.The curricula of subjects such as history,geography, and foreign languages includesome multicultural education, but it dependson the teacher whether these elements arefully used or not. Only in the teaching of Slo−vak literature can one find explicit educationleading to the understanding of the culturesof different regions, nations, and ethnicgroups. Aesthetics and civics also includeseveral topics that increase intercultural un−derstanding (such as the history of art, socialgroups, sub−cultures, religions and so on);however, how they are taught again dependson the teacher.

Within the framework of university studiesthere is no independent program of Multi−cultural Education and Upbringing. Severaluniversities have independent lectures onthis topic, or incorporate multiculturalisminto other subjects.8 In connection withmulticultural education and education tofight prejudice, several projects were car−ried out by state institutions or NGOs thatcould be considered the first concrete resultsin this area in Slovakia. For example, theEducation Ministry in cooperation with theKingdom of Sweden launched a project thatresulted in the publishing and distributionof a book entitled Katici, ty to zvládneš(“Katici, You Can Do It”) by the Swedish−Roma author Katarína Taikon.9 The book isused in Slovak language, ethics, civics, andhistory lessons. It encourages discussion ontopics such as human rights, tolerance, thecoexistence of different cultures, and so on.The feedback the Education Ministry has re−

ceived so far on the use of the book showsa positive influence on students from boththe Roma and non−Roma communities, in−cluding mutual accommodation, respect fordifferences, and the elimination of preju−dices and stereotypes.

Another project with Education Ministryparticipation, which focused on elementaryschools and the multicultural approach ineducation and upbringing, was the Phareproject named The Improvement of Educa−tional Standards and the Teaching of Lan−guages at Schools with a Minority TeachingLanguage, and the Establishment of an Edu−cational, Informational, Documentary, Ad−visory and Consultation Center for the RomaEthnic Minority, which is part of the Pro−gram of Tolerance Towards Minorities coor−dinated in 2001 and 2002 by the GovernmentOffice Section of Human Rights and Minori−ties under the auspices of the Deputy PrimeMinister for Human Rights, Minorities andRegional Development.

Some NGOs also provide grants or carry outprojects promoting the social inclusion of theRoma, an improvement in the educationprocess based on the multicultural approach,and an increase in tolerance and mutual com−munication, especially in locations with ahigh proportion of Roma. Various researchand professional activities in multiculturaleducation and the upbringing of Roma pupilsare also performed at universities inBratislava, Prešov, Banská Bystrica, andNitra10. In this regard author would like todescribe in more detail the TEMPUS project– Multicultural Education: Teaching Mate−rials, Preparation of Teachers – which wascoordinated by the Faculty of Education atComenius University in Bratislava.


Box 1Program of Tolerance Towards Minorities

In 1999, Slovakia was given the opportu−nity to prepare a project within the Phareprogram, whose main aim was to eliminateprejudices and stereotypes, to prevent dis−crimination, and to create a more tolerantand open society at all levels of the rela−tionship to national minorities, especiallyto the Roma.

Objectives of the Program ofTolerance Towards Minorities• To increase tolerance towards national

minorities in the state administration,self−governments, and among Slovakpeople.

• To improve the position of national mi−norities by developing their educationsystem with special emphasis on theRoma.

Sub−Projects in the Program ofTolerance Towards Minorities

1. Training program for local munici−palities and opinion−formersThis project was started in April 2001 bythe Sándor Márai foundation in southernSlovakia’s Dunajská Streda, and wasscheduled to end in November 2002. Theaim of the one−week trainings in 55 loca−tions in Slovakia with a high representationof Roma was to strengthen democracy andtolerance, to help remove prejudice, toprevent conflict within individual ethnicgroups, and to strengthen cooperation be−tween local municipalities, the Roma, thepolice and other opinion−forming peoplewho participated in the training. Thetrainings usually focused on the followingareas: communication, law application,conflict solution and prevention, project

management, empathy, and cultural his−tory, while taking into account the localsituation and the needs of the participants.

2. Public information campaign aboutminorities in the electronic mediaIn December 2001, the Tolerance: A For−eign Word? project was launched by thePeter Hledík – Barok Film company. It,too, was scheduled to end in November2002. The aim was to help create a moretolerant society, and to eliminate preju−dices, stereotypes and communication bar−riers, by producing and broadcasting a se−ries of 10 documentary films presentingnational minorities and coexistence be−tween them in Slovakia and Europe. TheSTV public channel showed the moviesfrom August to September, 2002. Thefilms were accompanied by TV debates onthe issues presented in the movies. Repeti−tions of the movies and TV debates werescheduled for October through November2002. An important part of the project wasa communication campaign in the form ofnotices and commercial spots funded incooperation with Phare and the Slovak Re−public.

3. Improving education standards and theteaching of languages at schools that teachin a minority language, and the establish−ment of an Educational, Informational,Documentary, Advisory and ConsultationCenter for the Roma.This project started in September 2001thanks to an Irish contractor, FÁS Interna−tional Consulting Ltd., and was due to endin September 2002. It consisted of threemain components supporting multiculturaleducation in the following areas:


• Improving the learning and teaching ofthe Slovak language. Here, the projectaimed to create modern, efficient and in−teractive materials and teaching tech−niques for the teaching of Slovak.

• Strengthening education in minoritymother tongues. Here the aim was to pre−pare new approaches to education andthe teaching of minority languages as ameans of supporting multicultural edu−cation in schools.

• Establishing an Educational, Informa−tional, Documentary, Advisory and Con−sultation Center for the Roma.

The aim of the third component was to pre−pare alternative curricula for children fromsocially and educationally handicappedenvironments, to prepare teachers and theirassistants who work with students from

such environments, and to establish anEducational, Informational, Documentary,Advisory, and Consultation Center for theRoma (hereafter “the Center”) which wasto become part of the Methodical Centerin Prešov. It was intended especially forteachers from schools with a high propor−tion of Roma pupils, as well as for thewider Roma and non−Roma communities.As its name suggests, the Center will fulfillseveral functions.

Some 79 minority schools (i.e. schoolswhich teach in the language of a nationalminority, schools teaching a national mi−nority language, or schools with a highproportion of Roma students) joined theproject. These schools received some ma−terial help in the form of teaching aids andtechnical equipment.

Box 2Project TEMPUS – Multicultural Education: Teaching Materials and Preparation ofTeachers

The Multicultural Education: TeachingMaterials and Preparation of Teachersproject was carried out from 2000 to 2001.It was funded by Phare, which also coversuniversity projects under the TEMPUSumbrella. The project was carried outmainly by Slovak universities: the Facultyof Education at Comenius University(CU), which coordinated the project, aswell as the CU Arts Faculty, the Arts Fac−ulty of Constantine the Philosopher Uni−versity in Nitra, and universities in Oulu(Finland), Paisley and Ayr (Scotland) andLeicester (England), which provided ad−vice based on their own experiences.

Objectives of the project:• To prepare documentation for Slovak

universities which would allow them toprovide intercultural skills to the stu−dents of pedagogical faculties.

• To prepare students so that after theystart teaching they are able to lead theirstudents towards tolerance and respectfor the cultural differences of their class−mates.

Main activities of the project:• To prepare curricula for the multicultural

education of teachers within their uni−versity studies, including standards for


CONCLUSION

In comparison with Western European coun−tries, Central Europe is far behind in intro−ducing the modern concept of multicul−turalism. Present day Central Europe has thesame problems (assimilation, integration,segregation) as the US and Western Euro−pean counties had in the past. It is thus veryimportant to learn from the mistakes of oth−ers and be inspired by their successes in or−der to find the quickest way to modernmulticulturalism. This ideology represents adesirable and basically inevitable approachthat all democratic countries including Slo−vakia should be taking in both their actionsand thinking.

The ideology conforms to cultural pluralismand the principles of freedom, tolerance,equality, and the acceptance of individualdifferences. To create a multicultural society,it is not enough to declare equality and bandiscrimination – what is needed is the willand active efforts of individuals to changetheir attitudes, opinions and prejudices, andabove all the effort of major policymakers to

change institutional structures to allow theactive participation and equality of all. Thispolicy cannot be implemented in only onedirection, without the direct participation ofminorities. It is needed to realize this also inSlovakia, especially in connection with theRoma. The high degree of social exclusion,the huge social gap between the Roma andthe majority population, and their low degreeof emancipation connected with their pov−erty, are preventing the creation of a func−tional multicultural society. The inclusion ofthe Roma into society is thus a vital and in−separable part of the creation of such a so−ciety.

The basic criteria that have to be met to cre−ate a multicultural society with the participa−tion of the Roma are the following:• mutual tolerance;• mutual understanding and acceptance of

differences;• acceptance of the principle of equality on

both sides;• inclusion of the Roma on the cultural/edu−

cational, political, and socio−economic lev−els;

the intercultural skills of the teacher. Thecurricula and standards were publishedas a whole in October 2000. More infor−mation about them can be obtained fromthe Ethics and Civics Department of theCU Faculty of Education in Bratislava.Even though the curricula’s main targetgroup is universities, it could also beused at lower school levels and in con−tinuing education.

• Training materials for the multiculturaleducation of teachers. The set of teach−ing texts was published in 2001 underthe name From Cultural Tolerance To−

wards Cultural Identity (Training Textsfor Multicultural Education). These textswere prepared by the students of the CUFaculty of Education and the Arts Fac−ulty of Constantine the PhilosopherUniversity in Nitra, under the guidanceof their teachers. They created a uniqueset of texts based on active teaching anddeveloping the intercultural skills of fu−ture teachers. An international confer−ence was held at the end of the projectwhose aim was to present and dissemi−nate the results of the project amongteachers in Slovakia (Mistrík, 2000a,2001c, 2001d).


• mutual adaptation by majority society to theRoma, and the Roma to majority society;

• creation of space for the inclusion of theRoma into society.

A necessary part of this process is reform of theeducation system to develop individualmulticultural skills. For activities supportingmulticultural education to become effective andused in the educational process, similar activi−ties must be monitored in Slovakia and abroad,while mutual communication must be encour−aged, knowledge and experience exchangedbetween local, national, and international insti−tutions active in the field, and working teach−ers supplied with current information.

ENDNOTES

1. Given the existence of multiple national mi−norities in Slovakia, it would be more preciseto speak of the country’s multi−ethnicity;Slovakia’s multiculturalism is linked to theexistence of numerous local cultural groupswhose composition is not necessarily identi−cal with the ethnic differences in the givenlocation.

2. However, multiculturalism is not identicalwith culturalism (or cultural relativism). Eventhough cultural scientists correctly assignedimportance to the value of culture, they didnot comprehend its real nature. Because theyadopted an organic view of culture, they wereunable to explain its changes and how someof its members were able to criticize it. Thecultural scientists divided humanity into nu−merous cultural units, but were unable to pro−vide a coherent explanation of why peoplefrom different cultures were able to commu−nicate with each other, or to evaluate the hab−its and practices of other cultures (Parekh,2000, p. 76 – 79).

3. The right to self−determination, according tothe General Declaration of Human Rights,was granted according to the “salt water the−sis” – i.e. only to former overseas colonies.

4. As noted by Peter Batelaan, information pub−lished by the Council of Europe rarely makes

its way to schools, universities, and other in−stitutions preparing future teachers (Batelaan,1995).

5. Viktor Sekyta, for example, claims in the text−book Education for Tolerance and AgainstRacism that the monotonous presentation ofteaching material by teachers is one of the mainfactors preventing Roma children from achiev−ing better results. Roma children comprehendonly one third of the information presented inthis way, and thus fail to understand the whole.This results from the fact that Romany, alongwith other Indian languages, contains manyinterjections, onomatopoeias, and ambiguouswords, so the meaning of entire sentences canonly be understood when accompanied by in−tonation, gestures, mimicry and empathy, toolsthat the Roma use when communicating inRomany as well as in other languages. Goodteachers capable of empathy and lively presen−tation of the material can teach Roma childrenfar more regardless of which language they use(Sekyta, 1998).

6. Countries that have signed the Agreement onthe Rights of Child agree in Article 29 thateducation should: “(…) strengthen esteem forhuman rights and fundamental freedoms…,focus on strengthening esteem for parents,one’s own culture, language, values and thenational values of the country of residence andthe country of origin (…), prepare the child fora responsible life in a free society within a spiritof understanding, peace, tolerance, equality ofthe sexes and the friendship of all nations, eth−nic, national and religious groups…” (Národnýprogram výchovy..., 2000).

7. Only the most recent handbook for civicsteachers explicitly presents the need to de−velop intercultural understanding and knowl−edge as one of the aims of this subject (Mis−trík, 2001c). The civics textbook for studentsin the final (8th) year of elementary schoolincludes the basics of law; one of the topicsis devoted to equality and discrimination, andpresents such notions as the right to equalityand freedom from prejudice, direct and indi−rect discrimination, racism and so on.e anddiscrimination erand the country of origin(...ide a coherent explanation of why people

8. Lectures on multicultural education are partof the History of European Culture coursetaught in the European Studies program at the


Arts Faculty of Constantine the PhilosopherUniversity in Nitra. Meanwhile, ComeniusUniversity’s Faculties of Education and Artshave included lectures on multicultural edu−cation in their curricula as well. The situationat the Faculty of Education in Prešov (Mistrík,2001c) is similar, while the Faculty of Edu−cation at Matej Bel University in Banská Bys−trica has introduced a Multicultural Educationand Upbringing course for students preparingto be elementary school teachers. The projectis supported by the Wide Open School Foun−dation (headquartered in central Slovakia’sŽiar nad Hronom). The aim of the seminarsis to inform students of the basic principlesand pedagogical approaches that will allowthem to satisfy the needs of students regard−less of their ethnic origin, religion, sex, cul−ture, and social background.

9. This book was distributed in Slovak and Hun−garian through the Ministry of Education anddistrict Slovak authorities to 367 kindergar−tens, 1,560 elementary schools, educationaland psychological prevention centers, peda−gogical−psychological advice bureaus, andleisure centers (Report of Deputy EducationMinister László Szigeti within the frameworkof the international conference Slovakia andthe Roma: Partnership and Participation,May 2, 2002.)

10. The CU Faculty of Education is doing re−search called Research of Roma Education inthe Slovak Republic. Its Ethics and CivicsDepartment, together with the Department ofTeacher Training at the university in Oulu,Finland, published a book called Culture andMulticultural Education, one of the first spe−cial publications of its kind in Slovakia. Thebook was published within the MulticulturalEducation project, which was funded and or−ganized by the Ján Hus Foundation in Brati−slava from 1996 till 1998. The CU Arts Fac−ulty also put out several publications, such asa training material for teaching faculty stu−dents called Anti−Prejudice Education and amaterial called Multiculturalism, Intercul−turality, Transculturality.

The Faculty of Education at Prešov Univer−sity, in cooperation with the Wide OpenSchool Foundation, is performing several re−search and project tasks such as The Accelera−

tion of Roma Pupils, Roma Assistants, andThe Reintegration of Roma Pupils from theSocially and Educationally Handicapped En−vironments of Special Schools into the Major−ity Population. The Arts Faculty of PrešovUniversity joined the Education Ministry’sVEGA project called On Issues of Inter−Eth−nic Communication in Post−Communist Soci−eties, and published several books such as TheRoma in the Process of Cultural Change, OnSome Displays of Intolerance, and others.

The Education Faculty of Matej Bel Univer−sity is running the Step by Step programfunded by the Wide Open School Foundationand dealing with the education of teacherswho teach in classrooms with many Romapupils. The Arts Faculty of Matej Bel Univer−sity is also cooperating on the Tolerance andIntercultural Communication project.

The Arts Faculty of Constantine the Philoso−pher University in Nitra participated in theERAZMUS international project, whose aimwas to create a European multimedia knowl−edge bank that would facilitate mutual under−standing of different cultures via the Internet.The faculty also took part in a grant task un−der the title Formation of Civic Society in theMulticultural Environment of the Slovak Re−public.

(Report of Deputy Education Minister LászlóSzigeti for the international conference Slo−vakia and the Roma: Partnership and Partici−pation, May 2, 2002.)

REFERENCES

1. Barša, Pavel: Politická teorie multikulturalis−mu [Political Theory of Multiculturalism],(Brno: Centrum pro studium demokratickékultury, 1999).

2. Batelaan, Pieter: Education and Tolerance inMulti−Cultural Groups, (Strasbourg: Councilof Europe, 1995).

3. Kukathas, Chandran: “Cultural Toleration” inShapiro, Ian and Kymlicka, Will (eds.): Eth−nicity and Group Rights, (New York: Nomos1997, p. 69 – 74).


4. Kymlicka, Will: Liberalism, Community andCulture, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).

5. Kymlicka, Will: Multicultural Citizenship,(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

6. Kymlicka, Will: Politics in the Vernacular:Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizen−ship, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2001).

7. Kymlicka Will and Opalski Magda: “CanLiberal Pluralism be Exported?” in WesternPolitical Theory and Ethnic Relations in East−ern Europe, (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 2001).

8. Levy, Jacob L.: “Classifying Cultural Rights”in Shapiro, Ian and Kymlicka, Will (eds.):Ethnicity and Group Rights, (New York: NewYork University Press, 1997, p. 22 – 66).

9. Margalit, Avishai and Raz, Joseph: “NationalSelf−Determination” in Kymlicka, Will (ed.):The Rights of Minority Cultures, (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 79 – 92).

10. Mistrík, Erich et al: Kultúra a multikultúrnavýchova [Culture and Multicultural Educa−tion], (Bratislava: IRIS, 1999).

11. Mistrík, Erich: “Kultúrny život na Slovenskua multikulúrnosť” [‘Cultural Life in Slovakiaand Multiculturalism’], Civitas, No. 21,2001a, p. 1.

12. Mistrík, Erich: “Aktuálne informácie o pro−jekte TEMPUS – Multikultúrna výchova”[‘Current Information About the TEMPUSProject – Multicultural Education’], Civitas,No. 21, 2001a, p. 2.

13. Mistrík, Erich: “The State of MulticulturalEducation in Slovakia”, Civitas, No. 20,2001c, p. 3 – 4.

14. Mistrík, Erich: “Aktuálne informácie o pro−jekte TEMPUS – Multikultúrna výchova”[‘Current Information About the TEMPUS

Project – Multicultural Education’], Civitas,No. 20, 2001d, p. 2.

15. Národný program výchovy a vzdelávaniav Slovenskej republike [National Program ofUpbringing and Education in the Slovak Re−public], (Bratislava: Ministerstvo kultúry SR,2000).

16. Parekh, Bhikhu: Rethinking Multicul−turalism: Cultural Diversity and PoliticalTheory, (New York: Palgrave Press, 2000).

17. Raz, Joseph: Ethics in the Public Domain:Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics,(Oxford: Claredon Press, 1994).

18. Sekyt, Viktor: “Odlišnosti mentality Romůa původ těchto odlišností” [‘Differences in theMentality of the Roma and the Origin ofThese Differences’] in Šišková, Tatiana (ed.):Výchova k toleranci a proti rasismu [Educa−tion For Tolerance and Against Racism],(Prague: Portál, 1998).

19. Shachar, Ayelet: Multicultural Jurisdiction:Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2001).

20. Taikonová, Katarina: Katici, ty to zvládneš[Katici, You Can Do It], (Prague: Ivo Železný,1999).

21. Taylor, Charles: “The Politics of Recogni−tion” in Gutmann, Amy (ed.): Multicul−turalism: Examining the Politics of Recogni−tion, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1994, p. 25 – 73).

22. Walzer, Michael: “Response to Kukathas” inShapiro, Ian and Kymlicka, Will (eds.): Eth−nicity and Group Rights, (New York: Nomos1997, p. 105 – 111).

23. Young, Iris M.: “Policy and Group Differ−ence: A Critique of the Ideal of UniversalCitizenship” Ethics, No. 2, 1989, p. 250 – 274.

496

497

The Global Report on Roma in Slovakia andits authors have answered many challengingquestions regarding the life of the Roma inSlovakia, and I hope that they have suc−ceeded in showing the reader how complexthe issue truly is. The book at the same timeasks many new questions, and deepens un−derstanding of the dilemmas that have ago−nized minority issues experts for ages. Thesolutions that individual authors present intheir various areas are not likely to thrillpolicy makers. The Global Report on Romain Slovakia notes that the main cause of mostof the serious problems the Roma face is theirdeepening institutional and non−institutionalsegregation. Positive solutions of the “Romaissue” must start from the most demanding,unpopular, and difficult to grasp problem –the inclusion of the Roma into society, whichmust become the aim of both the minorityand the majority.

The Roma issue in Slovakia is not excep−tional, and one can find other countries, re−gions and communities that have similarproblems. However, Slovakia must learn alesson from the mistakes of others. If it doesso, the solutions it produces could become aninspiration to others. But a basic questionremains to be answered: “Is Slovak societyboth ready, able, and willing to address theissue?” The book you have in your handsshows that after many experiments, opinionson solutions to the Roma problem have sta−bilized, and the expert potential for socialchange is close to escape velocity.

MICHAL VAŠEČKA

CONCLUSION

The Global Report on Roma in Slovakiashows that a long−term, positive solution tothe Roma issue cannot be found in an eth−nically defined state, which is what Slova−kia is. However, this is a structural problemthat is also present in many Western coun−tries. To paraphrase A. D. Smith (1995),nation and nationalism represent the onlyreal socio−cultural framework of the mod−ern world order, despite their ability to bringabout general destruction. This does notmean that all majority populations of ethni−cally defined states are predisposed to ex−tremism – the problem is the existence of“banal nationalism”, or as M. Billig says,widespread nationalist practices whoseroots penetrate deep into our everyday ritu−als and activities. Slovak society shouldprepare for changes that developed Westerncountries have already undergone, such asattempts to reconfigure collective identitiesin connection with globalization. Nobody isa member of just one collective – in realitywe are a storehouse of identities, fromwhich we choose the one that is required by,or the best suited to a particular situation.This ability, documented by anthropolo−gists, to switch between individual compo−nents of the human personality may, underfavorable conditions, help national andother collective identities to coexist, on boththe global and local levels. In this kind of“switch−between” world, many problemsrelated to the Roma would be far easier andless painful to solve, for both the majorityand the Roma.

498

Many of the Global Report’s authors writedirectly or indirectly of the need for toler−ance, empathy, and solidarity if we are to seeany fundamental changes in the Roma issue.Social solidarity is indeed a key preconditionfor preventing conflicts, reducing anomy(social breakdown and lawlessness), and in−creasing social cohesion. To paraphraseHobbes, it is not clear whether cohesion is aproduct of the economic development ofsociety and the prosperity that comes with it,or whether the modern social state is a prod−uct of a cohesive society based on sharedvalues. From whatever direction one ap−proaches the issue, increasing social cohe−sion, which has been badly damaged in postcommunist Slovakia, is a precondition ofsocial development, qualitative change, andthe solution of problems requiring universalconsensus. The Roma issue, undoubtedly, issuch a problem. The issue must also be ex−amined from the other side – unless minor−ity problems are solved, the cohesion of Slo−vak society cannot increase.

Another element that all chapters in thebook have in common is a focus on coex−istence between the Roma and the majoritypopulation. Coexistence is generally under−stood to mean the way of life of variouspopulations and groups, which may differin nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion,values, or lifestyles, but for whom socialinteraction and relationships are the basicmanifestations of their common life. Thereare four different kinds of interaction: com−petition, conflict, accommodation, and as−similation. As for the coexistence of theRoma and the majority population in Slo−vakia, for more than 200 years the Romahave been assimilated, although in manycases also successfully accommodated. Thepost−1989 democratic process also createdroom for the two remaining processes thathad not yet been seen – competition andconflict.

The relationships between the Roma and themajority population can take several forms.At present, Slovakia should consult somemore general definitions, in order to under−stand which categories of relationships ex−ist in this country:

Segregation is the physical or social sepa−ration of a category of people. Entirepopulations may be separated on the basis oftheir ethnic or social differences. Althoughethnic groups occasionally separate from themajority population voluntarily, segregationis usually forced. In a segregated society,only certain forms of contact exist betweenindividual groups. Members of the minoritydon’t live where the majority does, don’t visitthe same organizations or attend the sameschools, and don’t use the same public serv−ices. Segregation that is based on unofficialsocial models, unlike segregation definedby law, is referred to as de facto segregation.Although de iure segregation (e.g. theformer South Africa) is hard to find thesedays, ethnic ghettos and city neighborhoodsstill exist.

Assimilation is the process by which theminority gradually adopts the standards andvalues of the majority. The minority partici−pates in the cultural and social life of thedominant population, and loses its character−istic features until it ceases to exist as a sepa−rate entity. Assimilation represents a changein values, religion, and language, wherebyone group gobbles up the other. Sociologistsdefine three stages of assimilation. The firstis cultural assimilation, when a minoritymember or a stranger adopts the externalcharacteristics of the dominant group’s life−style, but remains a member of anothergroup. The next stage is structural assimila−tion, which occurs when a person gains ac−cess to society, makes friends with membersof the majority group, and gradually looseshis/her bonds with the minority. The last

499

stage is assimilation by wedding, when mi−nority members marry members of the domi−nant group. At this point, membership in theminority is lost completely.

Multiculturalism exists when various racialor ethnic groups live side by side, with eachof them maintaining their own identity, lan−guage, and lifestyle, and their members keep−ing company primarily with members oftheir own group. At the same time, they takepart in the economic and political system, aswell as certain facets of common life andculture. None of the groups has special privi−leges or positions, and none accentuate theirvalue system or lifestyle as any better thanthose of other groups.

The melting pot concept is typical ofAmerica. It simply mixes populations, differ−ent cultures, values, and habits together inorder to create a new cultural hybrid. Al−though this concept was considered a goodsolution to racial and ethnic conflicts in thepast, it is questionable whether the “meltingpot” still exists, or whether it existed at all.

Based on this information, the attentivereader will surely be able to define the typeof coexistence between the Roma and themajority in Slovakia. Non−institutional andinformal segregation is becoming a realityespecially for the Roma who live in Romasettlements; despite the overall democratiza−tion of society, the process of desegregationhas not yet begun. To a large extent, mostRoma living in Slovakia have been culturallyassimilated, although the ensuing stages ofassimilation have not yet been reached. It islikely that at the moment the process ofRoma assimilation was in full swing, themajority yielded to “the racist paradox”. Thisparadox occurs when the minority fulfills theoriginal demand, but is nevertheless thenrejected as a danger to the majority. In Slo−vakia, the majority originally demanded that

the Roma fully adapt, but when several failedto do so, the majority then recanted and re−jected them. The consequence of thisbehavior is the deepening social, cultural,symbolic, and spatial exclusion of the Roma,and their growing segregation.

The “racist paradox”, first described by po−litical scientist Rainer Bauböck (1994), is notafter all a new phenomenon in Central Eu−rope – the same “racist paradox” led to theslaughter of European Jews during the Sec−ond World War. German and other CentralEuropean communities demanded full assimi−lation from the Jews as a precondition of theirpossible integration into society; however,when this failed, especially in Germany, themajority felt menaced, and produced a newconspiracy theory to explain the processestaking place within the Jewish community.

However, German post−war history is alsoworth following in many respects. In Slova−kia, which forms part of the same culturaland geographical space, the process of na−tional self−identification is more an ethnicand cultural one than a civic and territorialone. The Slovak reality, just as the German,can be described as “Staatsnation” (self−de−termining political nation), rather than“Kulturnation” (broad cultural community).In Slovakia, the following holds true: themore the nation is identified with blood re−lationships and specific aspects of culture,the less room the state allows for culturaldiversity. And, conversely, the more it iden−tifies with spatial and liberal−democraticprinciples, the more room it offers to culturaldiversity. In other words: The more univer−sal the terms in which society is capable ofdefining its identity, the more different ele−ments and groups it is capable of including.From this viewpoint, in introducing multicul−turalism, countries that tend towards ethnicand cultural self identification (like Slovakia)are starting from a more difficult position

500

than those in which civic and territorial self−identification prevails. This also sets theboundaries of Roma minority integration inSlovakia, as well as the prevention of con−flict in society.

Just as Germany, Slovakia too can overcomehistorical determinism; everything dependson how and whether it takes advantage of theopportunity provided. Shifting from a cul−tural definition of one’s nation to a voluntarydefinition does not mean that one has to giveup one’s identity. The important thing is thatone’s nation professes universal values. Ac−cording to the German sociologist JürgenHabermas (1993), such values include therule of law and democracy. Habermas’ “con−stitutional patriotism”, as the basis of loyaltyto nation and state, for the first time givescountries like Slovakia the chance to bindpeople’s national loyalty not to an ethnic andcultural homeland, but to a legal and politi−cal space defined by the universal principlesof freedom and equality. Slovakia too, if itintends to succeed in integrating the Romainto society, should choose an “elective”(Ernst Renan) definition of nation that allowspolitical and legal identity to be separatedfrom ethnic and cultural membership.

According to Habermas, Slovak societyneeds a new partnership agreement. With theformation of a political Slovak nation, theRoma would cease to be “the most signifi−cant civilization challenge Slovakia faces”,with all its grave social and economic con−sequences. On the other hand, if the currentsituation does not change, we can expect thatover the next two decades, the Roma politi−cal scene will become more radical, and es−tablish new internal and external relation−

ships. Considering the deepening social ex−clusion and marginalization of the Roma, onecan even expect that, despite globalization,European integration, and the improvementof the Slovak economy, the gulf between themajority and the Roma will continue todeepen. The fate of the Roma will also beaffected by the process of Roma nationalemancipation, as promoted by both majoritypopulation elites and foreign Roma elites,which can be expected to grow increasinglyradical. This process will be very significantfor the future of the Roma community. Evennow, a new generation of young Roma lead−ers is growing up whose stances and opinionsare bound to clash with those of the older(pre− and post November) generation, and itis not clear in which direction this new eman−cipated Roma elite will go. It may speed upthe process of Roma integration, or, vice−versa, polarize society and radicalize theRoma’s stance towards the majority.

The majority, of course, can intervene in thisprocess. The reasons for intervention are nothard to find, regardless of the ideology of thepolitical parties now in charge. One part ofthe political spectrum, which is based on theliberal concept of the state as a neutral guar−antor of rights, may use pragmatic instead ofmoral arguments to accede to the demandsof minorities. On the other hand, critics of thecultural neutrality of orthodox liberalismmay maintain that if the state wants to ensurethe equality and dignity of its citizens, in−cluding minority members, it must ensurepublic acknowledgement and security forminority cultures. Regardless of the reason−ing, a direction must be set. I believe that theGlobal Report on Roma in Slovakia can helpin this process.

501

Katarína Bezáková (1975) graduated fromthe Faculty of Arts at Comenius Universityin Bratislava, majoring in ethnology. Shethen continued her studies at the Institute forInternational Relations and Law Approxima−tion of the Law Faculty at Comenius Univer−sity, and at Academia Istropolitana Nova –European Integration and Cooperation. Since2000 she has worked at the Project Coordi−nation Department of the Human and Minor−ity Rights Section at the Government Officeas a coordinator of Phare projects for thedevelopment of minorities.

Ján Cangár (1946) graduated from thePedagogical Faculty in Nitra. Upon gradua−tion after 1968, he was unable to work as ateacher. Since 1989 he has worked in thefield of education. He cooperates with anumber of NGOs, and works with the SlovakGovernment Representative for Roma Com−munities. He focuses on education issues,and helped to draft education concepts andthe reform of the education system. Since1994 he has been devoted to the educationof the Roma, and since 1999 he has cooper−ated with the MEMO 98 media−monitoringgroup in examining the treatment of Romaissues. He has written and co−written anumber of studies, i.e. Nová koncepcia vy−učovania dejepisu v základných a strednýchškolách [A New Concept of Teaching His−tory at Elementary and Secondary Schools],1993; Nová koncepcia vyučovania sloven−ského jazyka a literatúry v základnej strednejškole [A New Concept of Teaching Slovak

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Language and Literature at Elementary andSecondary Schools], 1994; Vzdelávanienárodnostných menšín v Slovenskej republike[Educating Minorities in Slovakia], 1996;Menšiny vo vybraných médiách [Minorities inSelected Media], 2001; Rómovia v elektronic−kých médiách 2000 – 2001 [Roma in the Elec−tronic Media, 2000 – 2001], 2002. He haspublished a number of articles in academicjournals. In 2002 his supplementary textbookfor elementary and secondary schools, calledĽudia z rodiny Rómov [People from the RomaFamily], was published as the first book in theINTERFACE international series.

Stanislav Cina (1972) studied at the Peda−gogical Faculty in Nitra, majoring in teach−ing the earliest elementary school gradesfocusing on Roma culture. In his fourth yearat university he started to teach the Romalanguage and Roma History and Traditionsat the faculty under the auspices of the RomaCulture Department of the Pedagogical Fac−ulty. He has worked at the faculty as an as−sistant lecturer since 1994. In 1995 he startedworking in Stropkov as a teacher at the Lei−sure Time Center, and as an external consult−ant on Roma language and Roma history atthe detached office in Spišská Nová Ves.Since 2000 he has taught a preparatory Romaclass of the Third Elementary School inStropkov. He has authored a number of pub−lications and articles in scholarly journals.

Ivana Černáková (1976) completed herbachelor studies at the Slovak Technical

502

University in Bratislava, majoring in theTechnology of Environmental Protection.Since 2000 she has worked on the Manage−ment Board of the National Labor Bureau(NÚP), focusing on unemployment amongthe Roma and regional development.

Roman Džambazovič (1973) studied soci−ology at the Arts Faculty of Comenius Uni−versity in Bratislava. He is a lecturer at theSociology Department at the Arts Faculty ofComenius University, and is also working onhis PhD in the same department. He worksas a research fellow at the InternationalCenter for Family Research in Bratislava. Hespecializes in the sociology of social prob−lems and the sociology of family, and alsostudies social inequalities, poverty, socialexclusion, and marginalized groups. He hascooperated on many domestic and interna−tional projects, and coauthored a number ofacademic studies. In 2001 he worked at theSociology Department and the Center forComparative Research at Yale University inthe US within the international project Pov−erty, Ethnicity and Gender in the TransitionCEE Countries.

Marek Harakaľ (1974) graduated from theFaculty of Theology at Trnava University inBratislava, majoring in philosophy and the−ology. Since 2000 he has been the managerof Roma programs at the Open Society Foun−dation, which supports NGOs working onprojects and programs for the Roma.

Eva Haviarová (1976) studied Human Ge−ography and Demography at the NaturalScience Faculty of Comenius University inBratislava. Between 2000 and 2001 she dida professional work placement at CharlesUniversity in Prague focused on demogra−phy. Since 2001 she has worked at the De−partment for Analyses and Planning of theSlovak Government Office. She is doing apart−time doctoral degree at the Geography

Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences,the title of her thesis being Spatial Differen−tiation, Demographic and Social Dimen−sions of the Life of the Roma in Slovakia.

Daniela Hivešová−Šilanová (1952) is awriter, dramatist, director, and pedagogue.She has written 13 collections of poems andfairy tale books for children and adults. In1984 she founded an ensemble of Roma po−etry, songs and dances called Romane čhajale čhavenca in Prešov. She was one of theintellectuals who promoted the establishmentof the Secondary School of Arts and theRomathan Theatre, where she later workedas a pedagogue and dramatist. Currently sheis the editor of the Romano nevo ľil periodi−cal. She works in the Jekhetane – Togetherassociation, which publishes the Romanonevo ľil, and also specializes in presentingRoma art.

Ivan Hriczko (1980) studies at the PrivateBusiness Academy in Košice. In 1999 hefinished the first year of the preparatorycourse for Roma journalists at the Center forIndependent Journalism in Bratislava, andjoined the team of TV Naša in Košice (laterTV Global). Since 2002 he has managed theRoma Press Agency project.

Balázs Jarábik (1972) studied at the ArtsFaculty of Comenius University in Bratisla−va, the ELTE University in Budapest, andColumbia University in New York. At themoment he works for Freedom House Slo−vakia and provides advisory services at theCenter for Legal Analyses – Kalligram Foun−dation, dealing with minority legislation,anti−discrimination programs, and minoritysupport programs.

Martina Jurásková (1979) studied at theDepartment of Sociology of Comenius Uni−versity’s Arts Faculty in Bratislava. In 2000she cooperated with the SPACE Foundation

503

in a research project called The Roma and theLabor Market. Since 2001 she has worked atthe Institute for Public Affairs as a researchassistant, and since 2003 as coordinator ofthe Ethnic Minorities Program. She has par−ticipated in a number of research projects fo−cused on the Roma. She has written and co−written a number of publications, studies andresearch reports. She specializes in poverty,social exclusion, and the underclass, relatingespecially to the Roma minority.

Milan Jurík (1978) graduated from theEvangelical Theological Faculty of Come−nius University in Bratislava, where he nowworks as an assistant lecturer at the Depart−ment of Practical Theology. From 2000 to2001, in cooperation with the SPACE Foun−dation, he participated in a field researchproject called The Roma and the Labor Mar−ket, conducted for the World Bank. Since2001 he has worked in the Ecumenical Coun−cil of Churches in Slovakia within the RoundTable grant program.

Anna Jurová (1953) studied History andGerman Language at the Arts Faculty of Pa−vol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice,graduating in 1976. For three years shetaught at the Secondary Agricultural Schoolin Košice – Barca. From 1979 through 1986she worked as an archivist at the State Re−gional Archives in Košice. Since 1986 shehas worked at the Socio−Scientific Instituteof the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Ko−šice. As the institute specializes in minorityresearch in Slovakia, she was involved in the“minority team” focusing on the socio−eco−nomic aspects of the development of the eth−nically mixed districts in southern Slovakia.Since 1990 she has specialized in research ofthe Roma minority and its position after1945, with an overview of the entire 20th

century. In 1994 she defended her doctoralthesis, entitled Vývoj riešenia rómskej prob−lematiky na Slovensku v rokoch 1945 – 1969

[The Development of Roma Issue Solutionsin Slovakia from 1945 to 1969]. Besideswriting a number of articles and participat−ing in several events in Slovakia and abroad,she published the monographs Vývoj rómskejproblematiky na Slovensku po roku 1945[Development of the Roma Issue in Slovakiaafter 1945], 1993; and Rómska problematika1945 – 1967 [The Roma Issue from 1945 to1967], 1996.

Zuzana Kollárová (1964) studied Slovaklanguage and literature and history at the ArtsFaculty of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University inPrešov, defending a diploma thesis entitledK cigánskej otázke na Spiši v rokoch 1918 –1945 [On the Gypsy Issue in the Spiš Regionfrom 1918 to 1945]. From August 1988 un−til now she has worked at the State DistrictArchives in Poprad. Her writings on regionalhistory (mainly of the Spiš region, the historyof the Roma, health care, culture, and archi−val work) have been published in Slovakiaand abroad. She edited, wrote, or co−wrotethe following publications: Bibliografia Štát−neho okresného archívu v Poprade [Bibliog−raphy of the State District Archive in Pop−rad], 1994; Podhorany [The Municipality ofPodhorany], 1998; Dejiny Popradu [Historyof Poprad], 1998; Švábovce v toku dejín [His−tory of the Švábovce Municipality], 1998;Veľká [The Municipality of Veľká], 1998;Sprievodca po slovenských archívoch [Slo−vak Archives Guide], 1999; Dejiny Ždiaru[History of the Ždiar Region, 2000; Šuňava[Municipality of Šuňava], 2001; Tatry a pod−tatranská oblasť [The Tatras and the Sub−Tatras Region], 2001.

Stanislava Kompaníková (1977) studiessociology at the Arts Faculty of ComeniusUniversity in Bratislava. From 2000 to 2001she participated in research by the WorldBank and the SPACE Foundation entitledThe Roma and the Labor Market, as well asresearch by the Institute for Public Affairs

504

and the UNDP called The Roma HumanDevelopment Project. In 2002 she was in−volved in research by the Institute for Pub−lic Affairs and Freedom House called TheRoma Before the 2002 Parliamentary Elec−tions.

Eva Končoková (1943) specializes in theeducation of pre−school and school−age chil−dren and adults over 30. Since 1994 she hascooperated with a number of NGOs; she isworking on the internal reform of the schoolsystem, and is the administrator of the OpenSchool Foundation. She is the executive di−rector of the international Step by Step Pro−gram initiated by the Open Society Institutein New York. She cooperates with selectedpre−school facilities, elementary schools andspecial elementary schools in creating aneffective school model able to meet the re−quirements for the successful developmentof Roma pupils on a multicultural basis. Shenow coordinates several research projectsaimed at the Roma minority. She has pre−sented her professional experience in variousdomestic and international forums.

Alena Kotvanová (1961) graduated fromthe Prešov Arts Faculty of the Pavol JozefŠafárik University in Košice. From 1983through 1990 she worked at the SlovakAcademy of Sciences. Since 1996 she hasworked as an analyst at the Slovak Instituteof International Studies. She is the editor ofRočenka zahraničnej politiky Slovenskejrepubliky [Yearbook of Slovak ForeignPolicy], the third volume of which was pub−lished in 2002. She works on projects aimedat preventing racially motivated conflicts inSlovakia.

Milan Kováč (1967) studied philosophy andhistory at the Arts Faculty of Comenius Uni−versity in Bratislava. He later studied religionat the same university, and received his doc−toral degree in 1999. Since 2002 he has been

a senior lecturer of religion. He focuses onearly religion systems and common religios−ity. He has supervised a number of long−termresearch projects in Europe and CentralAmerica. In Slovakia he has worked on fieldresearch of common religiosity, superstitionsand magic sayings. The last large project hesupervised was The Religiosity of the SlovakRoma. He co−edited the books Normatívni ažité naboženství [Normative and Experi−enced Religion], 1999; Na cestách zaposvätnom [Searching for Sanctity], 1999and Boh všetko vidí. Duchovný svet Rómovna Slovensku [God Sees Everything: TheSpiritual Life of the Slovak Roma], 2002. Heco−wrote the book Lacandónci – poslednípraví Mayovia [The Lacandons: The LastGenuine Mayas], 2001 and wrote the mono−graph Slnko jaguára: Náboženský svet Olme−kov, Mayov a Aztékov [The Sun of the Jag−uar: The Religious Life of the Olmecs,Mayas and Aztecs], 2002. He has been pub−lished in domestic and foreign academicjournals, and has lectured at several univer−sities abroad. He is now the head of the Sec−tion of Religious Studies at the Departmentof Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology ofComenius University in Bratislava.

Elena Kriglerová (1980) studies at the De−partment of Sociology of Comenius Univer−sity in Bratislava. In 2000 she participated inthe Roma and the Labor Market researchconducted by the SPACE Foundation. Since2001 she has worked as a research assistantat the Institute for Public Affairs in the Eth−nic Minorities Program. Within this programshe participated in several projects, such asthe international comparative research RomaHuman Development Project, and the Rómo−via pred parlamentnými voľbami 2002[Roma before the 2002 Parliamentary Elec−tions] research; she also co−wrote the bookRómske hlasy [Roma Voices], 2002. She nowworks as a fellow of the Rómovia na Sloven−sku [Roma in Slovakia] project conducted by

505

Bundeswehr University in Hamburg, Ger−many.

Zuzana Kumanová (1970) graduated fromComenius University in Bratislava, majoringin ethnology and philosophy. During herdoctoral studies she completed a study stayat Charles University in Prague. Her PhDdissertation thesis was called Rómska rodina(Na príklade prípadových štúdií príklade ro−dín v Plaveckom Štvrtku) [The Roma Fam−ily: Examples of Case Studies of Familiesfrom Plavecký Štvrtok]. In 1998 she partici−pated in the international project Rómovia vstrednej a východnej Európe – 1998/1999[The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe –1998/1999] conducted in the Néprajzi Mu−seum in Budapest. She focuses on Romastudies and applied ethnology, and works inthe non−profit sector.

Natália Kušnieriková (1964) is a projectmanager, instructor, and consultant for Part−ners for Democratic Change Slovakia. Shestudied ethnography at Comenius Universityin Bratislava. She has worked at the Histori−cal Museum of the Slovak National Museumas a specialist and collection custodian (thea−tre and literature). She has worked in the thirdsector since 1996 in the fields of alternativeapproaches to conflict solving, communica−tion, supporting coexistence between theminority and majority, and supporting ethnictolerance. She is an external lecturer forintercultural communication, history, and thecultural traditions of the Roma minority at thePedagogical Faculty of Comenius University,in the social work program. She has co−writ−ten a number of publications dealing with theaforementioned issues. She is a member of theAssociation of Slovak Mediators.

Jarmila Lajčáková (1978) is now in herfifth year of a sociology program at Come−nius University in Bratislava. In 2000 shecompleted her bachelor studies at the Law

Faculty of Comenius University in Bratisla−va, and in 2002 earned a Master of Lawsdegree at the Law Faculty of the Universityof Toronto. She specializes in internationalpublic law, particularly international humanrights, international environmental law, andcurrent multiculturalism theories. Besidesher studies, she works as a consultant for theSection for Human Rights, Minorities andRegional Development at the Slovak Gov−ernment Office, and cooperates with Trans−parency International Slovakia. She coau−thored the article “Violation of HumanRights Through State Tolerance of Street−Level Bribery: Case Study, Slovakia” (Buf−falo Human Rights Law Review, 2003).

Adriana Lamačková (1976), a lawyer,graduated from the Law Faculty of Pavol Jo−zef Šafárik University in Košice. From 1999to 2000 she participated in a program calledThe Right to Each Day, run by the Citizenand Democracy Foundation, Minority RightsGroup – Slovakia. Since 2000 she hasworked in the Section for Human Rights andMinorities of the Slovak Government Office,where she deals mainly with the preventionof discrimination in Slovakia. Since Septem−ber 2001 she has been a postgraduate studentat the Law Faculty of Charles University inPrague, engaged in constitutional law, inter−national law, and European law. She haswritten and co−written a number of worksdealing with human rights, and since 2001has also been a lecturer.

Tibor Loran (1960) studied at ComeniusUniversity in Bratislava. After 1991 he wasexternal director of the Office of the SlovakRoma Intelligentsia Association. From 1994through 2000 he worked as a specialist at theDepartment for International School Systemsof the State Pedagogical Institute in Bratisla−va, dealing with education and the socialaspects of the Roma minority. He was alsoan external lecturer in social policy at the

506

Roma Culture Department of Constantinethe Philosopher University in Nitra. In 2000he worked as a director of the State LocalAuthority in Košice – Lunik IX. He hasauthored a number of publications on socio−educational issues, the protection of humanrights and freedoms, and state administrationand self−government.

Mária Maczejková (1943) is a pedagogue,still working as a teacher at an elementaryschool and a special elementary school, andas an internal methodologist. She is the au−thor of the “zero grade” project. She has co−operated in the preparation of supplementarytextbooks for Roma pupils (Romano han−goro, 1993; Genibarica, 1993; Amari abece−da [Amari Alphabet], 1995). She is a mem−ber of the board of the Slovak UNICEF com−mittee, and cooperates with Slovak and for−eign NGOs.

Kristína Magdolenová (1964) graduatedfrom Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Pre−šov, majoring in Slovak language and litera−ture and history. In 1996 she started work asa journalist for the Sme daily, and later be−came editor−in−chief of the Východosloven−ské noviny journal. Since 1996 she hasworked on Roma issues, and in 2002 becamethe coordinator and executive director of theRoma Press Agency project in Košice.

Jozef Majchrák (1975) graduated fromTrnava University, majoring in sociologywith a specialization in political science.Since 1999 he has been pursuing his doctoralstudies at the Faculty of Health and SocialWork at Trnava University. He now works atthe Institute for Public Affairs as the direc−tor of the Civil Society Program. He has beenpublished in the daily and the scholarly press.

Marek Murín (1971) works at the ForeignMinistry, where he deals with human rightsissues within the Council of Europe as well

as migration issues. From 1996 to Septem−ber 2000 he worked at the Slovak Embassyin Paris as a consul. His diploma thesis wascalled Základné ľudské práva a slobody vústavnoprávnom systéme Francúzska [Fun−damental Human Rights and Freedoms in theFrench Constitutional System].

Alexander Mušinka (1969) is a culturalanthropologist who works as an assistant atPrešov University. He is also the coordina−tor of the Canadian−Slovak Project Svinia,within which he also coordinates the work ofthe Regional Center for Roma Issues in Pre−šov. He specializes in interethnic relations inSlovakia in the European context, focusingon the Ukrainian−Ruthenian and Roma com−munities. He has worked at the UkraineAcademy of Sciences in Kiev and at theMulticultural Society of Ontario in Toronto.He has published a number of works: FloriánZapletal (1884 – 1969), 1998; Rešov, dejinyobce a farnosti [Rešov: History of the Mu−nicipality and the Parish], 1999; Projekt Svi−nia a jeho vzdelávacie aktivity [The SviniaProject and its Educational Activities], 2000;Niekoľko poznámok k vybraným problémometnicity Rómov na Slovensku [Comments onSelected Issues in the Ethnicity of the Romain Slovakia], 2000; Význam terenního výzku−mu při formování rozvojového projektu vromské osadě obce Svinia [The Importanceof Field Research in Forming the Develop−ment Project in the Roma Settlement of theSvinia Municipality], 2000; and Projekt Svi−nia – Niekoľko poznámok k problematike in−tegrácie Rómov [The Svinia Project: Com−ments on the Issue of Roma Integration],2000.

Karel A. Novák (1965) studied Roma stud−ies and ethnology at Charles University inPrague. Since 1998 he has worked in variousorganizations in Slovakia, where he has par−ticipated in humanitarian, development, andresearch programs in Roma settlements. He

507

has also worked with the Man in Dangergroup, in the program of social fieldwork inexcluded communities. On behalf of thisorganization he participated in several hu−manitarian missions (Great Britain, Slovakia,Kosovo). He now works for ETP Slovakia inthe community program Tvoj Spiš [YourSpiš]. He is also a consultant for the Officeof the Slovak Government Representativefor Roma Communities in launching the so−cial fieldwork program in Roma communi−ties. He specializes in applied anthropology.

Valentina Petrus (1969) completed herstudies at the Pedagogical Faculty of Co−menius University in Bratislava, and then didher doctorate at the Criminal Law Depart−ment of Comenius University’s Law Faculty.During her doctoral studies she cooperatedwith the InfoRoma Foundation on theUNHCR project in Slovakia as a legalcounselor and a representative for asylumseekers and refugees in Slovakia. Since 2001she has worked as a lawyer and project co−ordinator for the InfoRoma Foundation, andhas dealt with human rights and migrationwith an emphasis on the Roma minority.

Jaroslav Pilát (1976) studied at the LawFaculty of Comenius University in Bratisla−va. He has cooperated with a number ofNGOs (Gemma 93, the Permanent Confer−ence of the Civic Institute). From June 2000to September 2001 he worked at the Officeof the Slovak Deputy Prime Minister forEconomy, Ivan Mikloš, cooperating with theGovernment Representative for Decentrali−zation and Reform of Public Administration;he focused on the reform of public adminis−tration and its legal aspects. Since Septem−ber 2001 he has worked at the MESA 10economic think tank as a legal analyst. Hecooperates with the Union of Towns of theSlovak Republic. He has co−written severalpublications aimed at reform of public ad−ministration and elections to regional assem−

blies. He publishes articles on decentraliza−tion and the reform of public administration.

Peter Puliš (1979) graduated from the Depart−ment of Sociology at Comenius University inBratislava. He has dealt with the transforma−tion of social policy in Slovakia after 1989,women in politics, the economic situation anddiscrimination against the Roma in Slovakia,and rightist extremism in Slovakia. He coop−erated with the SPACE Foundation in the re−search Ženy v politike [Women in Politics] andRómovia a trh práce [Roma and the LaborMarket]. He co−wrote the publications Ženyv politike [Women in Politics], 2000 andRómske hlasy [Roma Voices], 2002. From2001 to 2003 he worked at the Institute forPublic Affairs in Bratislava as a research as−sistant in the Ethnic Minorities Program.

Iveta Radičová (1956) graduated fromComenius University in Bratislava. She spe−cializes in social benefits policy in the con−text of social benefits expenditures during thetransformation process. She is the executivedirector of the SPACE Foundation – theCenter for Social Policy Analyses. She lec−tures on social science methodology and oncurrent trends in social benefits analysis atthe Political Science Department of Co−menius University, at Masaryk University inthe Czech town of Brno, at Academia Istro−politana Nova in Bratislava, and as a visit−ing professor at a number of universitiesabroad. She has authored a number of pub−lications and studies, and also works as anexpert in social benefits issues with theCouncil of Europe.

Ingrid Repová (1974) graduated from thePedagogical Faculty of Constantine the Phi−losopher University in Nitra, majoring incontinuing education aimed at the Romacommunity. She continued her studies insocial work at the same university. Since1998 she has worked as a project coordina−

508

tor with the InfoRoma Foundation. She spe−cializes in information, counseling and advi−sory activities, and in community, health andeducation projects. She has co−written anumber of publications, research projects,reports and papers on how to solve the prob−lems of the Roma minority.

Silvia Rigová (1972) graduated from thePedagogical Faculty of Constantine the Phi−losopher University in Nitra, majoring inteaching the lowest elementary schoolgrades, and completed her doctorate at thePedagogical Faculty of Comenius Universityin Bratislava. After graduation she taughtfirst grade at elementary school. Since 1998she has worked in the third sector as a coor−dinator of educational projects. She is nowthe director of the civic association ProjektSchola.

Eleonóra Sándor (1959) earned her univer−sity degree at the Department of Ethnogra−phy and Folklore Studies at Comenius Uni−versity in Bratislava. From 1987 to 1990 sheworked as an ethnographer in a museum.After a brief stint in the public sphere, shewas involved in publishing until 1999. Be−sides a number of articles in Slovak andHungarian periodicals, she co−wrote the an−thology Slovakia in the Sixth Year of Trans−formation, 1996 and The 1998 Slovak Elec−tions: Who? Why? How?, 1999, and co−wrote the documentary The Rights of Minori−ties, 2000. Since 1999 she has been the sec−retary of the Slovak Parliamentary Commit−tee for Human Rights and Minorities.

Boris Strečanský (1967) graduated fromComenius University, majoring in philoso−phy and history. He is now the director of theCenter for Philanthropy – ETP. Since 1999he has been the co−director of the grant pro−gram Your Country, supporting the participa−tion of citizens in public administration is−sues as well as the sustainability of the non−

profit sector. From 1993 to 1998 he workedfor the University of Minnesota as a coordi−nator of the education program in Slovakiacalled Environmental Training Project. In1995 he co−founded the ETP Foundation inSlovakia. As an instructor and consultant inevaluating grant and development programs,strategic planning, creation and manage−ment, he has worked in Bulgaria, Hungary,Poland, Moldavia, Ukraine, Macedonia,Georgia, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, and the CzechRepublic.

Attila Szép (1966) graduated from Co−menius University in Bratislava. From 1991to 1992 he worked for the Slovak Govern−ment Office. He completed a study sojournat George Washington University in the US,and earned his MA in political science at theCentral European University in Budapest. Hehas worked for the Forum Institute in Brati−slava. Since 2000 he has been the director ofthe Slovak Institute of International Studies.

Peter Šaško (1979) graduated from the Fac−ulty of Medicine of Comenius University inBratislava. During his studies he has workedexternally for the foreign news desk of thePravda daily, and in 2001 he participated inresearch on Roma settlements for the SPACEFoundation. He now works externally for theMetabolic Policlinic, where he worked on histhesis called Výskyt kardiovaskulárnychochorení v rodinách s familiárnou hyper−cholesterolémiou [Incidence of Cardiovascu−lar Disease in Families with Hyper−cholesterolemia]. This thesis was presentedat the Faculty Conference in 2002.

Michal Šebesta (1978) studied political sci−ence at Comenius University in Bratislava,and is now pursuing a doctorate at Comeniusentitled The Political System and EthnicStructure. Since 1998 he has worked at theSlovak Government Office, since 1999 fo−cusing on the problems of Roma communi−

509

ties. He has co−written a number of govern−ment papers on Roma communities, includ−ing Vyhodnotenie aktivít vlády SR v oblastiriešenia problémov rómskych komunít za rok2001 [Evaluation of Government Activitiesin Solving the Problems of Roma Commu−nities for 2001], 2002; Komplexný rozvojovýprogram rómskych osád [Complex Develop−ment Program for Roma Settlements], 2002;Program sociálnych terénnych pracovníkov[Social Field Workers Program], 2002. In2001 he helped coordinate the research of theWorld Bank and the SPACE Foundationcalled Rómovia a trh práce [Roma and theLabor Market]. He wrote the empirical reportfrom the Stará Ľubovňa district for Iveta Ra−dičová’s publication Hic Sunt Romales(2001). He participated in the research of theInstitute for Public Affairs, the Roma HumanDevelopment Project in 2001, and in the re−search of the Institute for Public Affairs andFreedom House called Rómovia pred parla−mentnými voľbami 2002 [Roma Before the2002 Parliamentary Elections] in 2002.

Ľudmila Šimčáková (1957) studied teachingat Comenius University in Bratislava. From1986 to 1996 she worked at the PedagogicalResearch Institute, later at the State PedagogicInstitute, specializing in pedagogy and didac−tics. Since 1996 she has worked at the Insti−tute for Information and Prognoses in Educa−tion, where she heads the department foranalyses and prognoses in regional education.She focuses on research of verbal communi−cation, the overburdening of pupils, finalschool exams, kindergarten teachers, elemen−tary and secondary schools in the transforma−tion process, young people and democracy,and also pedagogical terminology. She nowcoordinates the international projectVzdelávanie pre všetkých [Education for All].She has co−written six publications and morethan 80 studies and articles. She has publishedthe results of her work at conferences andsymposiums in Slovakia and abroad.

Anna Tkáčová (1975) graduated fromTrnava University in 1998, majoring in his−tory. Since 2000 she has worked as a researchfellow in the Socio−Scientific Institute of theSlovak Academy of Sciences in Košice,which focuses on research of minorities inSlovakia. In her research work she special−izes in the Slovak Roma in the 18th and the19th centuries. Since October 2000 she hasbeen pursuing a doctoral degree at the Insti−tute of History of the Slovak Academy ofSciences in Bratislava. Among her majorpublished works are the municipal mono−graph Valaliky od najstarších čias po súčas−nosť [The Municipality of Valaliky fromAncient Times until Today], 1998, and stud−ies on Roma issues in the 18th and the 19th

centuries, published in the Internet journal ofthe Socio−Scientific Institute of the SlovakAcademy of Sciences called Človek a spoloč−nosť [Man and Society] and in the anthologyof the international conference called Národ,spoločnosť, konfesia [Nation, Society, Confes−sion] held in Pilišská Čaba in June 2001.

Adrian Tokár (1976) graduated from theLaw Faculty of Comenius University in Bra−tislava in 1999, whereupon he began work asa fellow at the European Parliament in Brus−sels. Since 2000 he has clerked at a lawyer’soffice in Bratislava, and has been a doctoralcandidate at the Institute of State and Law atthe Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratisla−va, focused on the theory of law. He cooper−ates with the Center for Legal Analyses andthe Kalligram Foundation, which specializesin human rights and rights of the minorities.

Zdeněk Uherek (1959) is the deputy direc−tor of the Institute of Ethnology of the CzechAcademy of Sciences, and the chief of itsDepartment of Ethnological Studies. He fo−cuses on migrations and ethnic processes,lecturing on the theory of ethnicity and ur−ban ethnology at Charles University, andmigration theory and urban anthropology at

510

the University in Pilsen. He is a member ofthe academic council of the Arts Faculty ofCharles University, a member of the Ethno−logical Institute at the Czech Academy ofSciences, and of the Institute of Ethnologyat the Slovak Academy of Sciences. He isalso a member of the editorial team of theCzech Nation and Slovak Ethnography jour−nals, and a member of the commission of theInterior Minister of the Czech Republic forthe integration of foreigners and relationsbetween communities. He has conductedresearch in Central and Eastern Europe, Cen−tral Asia, and the Balkans.

Boris Vaňo (1955) graduated from the Eco−nomic University in Bratislava, and thenpursued postgraduate studies in demographyat Charles University in Prague. Until 1999he worked at the Institute for InformationScience and Statistics as a research fellow inthe field of demography. Since 2000 he hasbeen the director of the Demographic Re−search Center.

Imrich Vašečka (1947) is a lecturer at theDepartment of Social Benefits Policy andSocial Work of the Social Sciences Facultyof Masaryk University in the Czech town ofBrno. He is also an expert with the SlovakUnion of Towns. He focuses on minorities,particularly in the Central European context,and on local social benefits policy. In 2000he was the coordinator of the project PrečoRómovia migrujú zo Slovenska do krajín EÚ[Why the Roma Migrate from Slovakia toEU Countries] (field research), sponsored bythe International Organization for Migration.From 2000 to 2001 he was a member of theresearch team for the World Bank project inSlovakia called Rómovia a trh práce [The

Roma and the Labor Market]. In 2002 he wasa member of the team that prepared a studyfor the Slovak Government Office called Ví−zia vývoja Slovenskej republiky do roku 2020[Vision on the Development of the SlovakRepublic to 2020]. He is now researchingwelfare benefits policy focusing on the Romapopulation within the research plan of theDepartment for Social Studies at MasarykUniversity called Marginalizované, menši−nové a etnické skupiny [Marginalized, Mi−nority and Ethnic Groups].

Michal Vašečka (1972) graduated fromMasaryk University in Brno with a degree insociology. Between 1991 and 1992 heworked at the Slovak Culture Ministry, andfrom 1991 to 1995 at the DocumentationCenter for the Research of Slovak Society.From 1995 to 1996 he worked as a researcherand legal counselor at the InfoRoma founda−tion, and lectured in Public Policy Analysisat Academia Istropolitana. Between 1996and 1997 he studied at the New School forSocial Research in New York City. Since1997 he has been pursuing his PhD at theSocial Sciences Faculty of Masaryk Univer−sity. From 1997 to 1998 he worked at theOpen Society Foundation, and since 1999 hehas been a visiting lecturer at AcademiaIstropolitana Nova. Since January 1999 hehas worked as an analyst at the Institute forPublic Affairs. Between 2000 and 2001 heworked as a consultant for the World Bankin Slovakia. Since September 2002 he hasworked as a lecturer at the Sociology Depart−ment of the Social Sciences Faculty atMasaryk University. He has written and co−written a number of expert publications andresearch reports focused on minorities andmedia discourse.

511

CONTENTS

Preface ................................................................................................................................. 7

ANNA JUROVÁFrom Leaving the Homeland to the First Assimilation Measures ...............................11

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11ORIGIN AND POSITION OF THE ROMA IN INDIA ............................................. 11

First Attempts to Discover the Origin of the Roma by Linguistic Comparison .... 12Identifying the Territory Originally Inhabited by the Roma .................................. 13Original Position of the Roma in the Indian Caste System ................................... 14

NAMES OF THE ROMA ............................................................................................ 15Names for the Roma Based on Guesses and Legends ........................................... 15What Do the Roma Call Themselves? ................................................................... 17

ARRIVAL OF ROMA IN EUROPE AND CE REGION ............................................ 18Through the Balkan and Pyrenees Peninsulas ....................................................... 18The Oldest Mention of the Roma in Europe .......................................................... 18Historical Mentions of the Roma in the Slovak Region ........................................ 19

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 21ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................. 21REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 22

ANNA TKÁČOVÁThe Roma from the Reign of Empress Mária Terézia untilthe First Czechoslovak Republic .................................................................................... 23

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 23THE ROMA DURING THE ENLIGHTENMENT ..................................................... 23

Ways of Addressing the Roma Issue, and the Position of the Roma in Ugriain the 18th Century ................................................................................................. 23Application of Enlightenment Reforms of the Roma in Practice .......................... 25

THE ROMA IN UGRIA IN THE 19th AND EARLY 20th CENTURY ....................... 25Decrees and Measures against the Roma in the 19th Century ............................... 25Position of the Roma in Light of the 1893 Hungarian Listing .............................. 27Position of the Roma on the Threshold of the 20th Century ................................. 32

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 32ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................. 33REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 34

512

ZUZANA KOLLÁROVÁThe Roma During the First Czechoslovak Republic,the Second Czechoslovak Republic, and the First Slovak State .................................. 35

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 35POLITICAL AND LEGAL TREATMENT OF THE ROMA BY THE STATE .......... 35

Adoption of Austro−Hungarian Legislation ............................................................ 35Social Position of the Roma after the Formation ofthe Czechoslovak Republic ..................................................................................... 36Measures against the Nomadic Roma ..................................................................... 36Measures against the Roma after the Formation of the Slovak State ..................... 37

DEMOGRAPHIC DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 39RELATIONSHIP OF THE MAJORITY POPULATION TO THE ROMA ................ 39

Profession as the Key to Acceptance ...................................................................... 40Measures to Address Roma Poverty ....................................................................... 40

THE ROMA WAY OF LIFE AFTER 1918 ................................................................. 41CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 42ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................. 42REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 43

ANNA JUROVÁThe Roma from 1945 until November 1989 ................................................................... 45

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 45CULMINATION OF REPRESSION AGAINST THE ROMAAT THE END OF THE 1940s ...................................................................................... 45

Perception of the Roma’s Problems as Social Problems ........................................ 45Use of Roma in the Post−war Recovery .................................................................. 46Two Different Approaches to the Roma by the State ............................................. 46The Law on Labor Camps as a Means of Pressuring the Roma ............................. 47Addressing the Issue of Roma Settlements ............................................................. 47Reaction of the Roma to the Repression ................................................................. 48

THE COMMUNIST REGIME AND ITS RESPONSE TO THE ROMA ISSUEAT THE OUTSET OF THE 1950s ............................................................................... 48

From Discrimination to the First Attempts to Address the Roma’s SocialBackwardness .......................................................................................................... 48Attempts to Support the Ethnic Development of the Roma ................................... 48Considerations on the Use of Romany as a Teaching Language ............................ 49Proposals to Create Independent Territories with Roma Inhabitants ...................... 50

POLICY OF SOCIAL ASSIMILATION DURING THE 1950s .................................. 50Creation and Implementation of the “Universal Solution” to the “Gypsy Issue” .. 50Rejecting the Importance of Language and Culture ............................................... 50Application of the Directive “On the Reform of Conditions for Gypsy People” ... 51Liquidation of Roma Settlements ........................................................................... 51Rejection of Ethnic Development, and the Beginning of Forced Assimilation ...... 52Unrealistic Plans for Tackling Social Backwardness .............................................. 52

THE DISPERSAL AND RELOCATION CONCEPT VS.THE UNION OF GYPSIES – ROMA ......................................................................... 53

Failure of Assimilation to Achieve the Desired Results ......................................... 53Relocation of Roma from Places with High Concentration of Roma ..................... 53

513

The Results of Dispersal: Growing Social Distance and Conflicts withthe Majority Population .......................................................................................... 54Reaction to the Dispersal: Activation of Roma Representation ............................. 55Repeated Refusal to Accept the Roma .................................................................... 55Constitutional Meeting of the Union of Gypsies – ROMA .................................... 56

“SOCIO−CULTURAL INTEGRATION” OF THE ROMA IN THE NEXTSTAGE OF COMMUNISM ......................................................................................... 56

Reassessment of Controlled Assimilation ............................................................... 56Concept of Comprehensive Social and Cultural Integration .................................. 57Principles of Nation−wide Socio−cultural Measures ............................................... 57New Demands by Roma Representatives ............................................................... 58

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 59ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................. 60REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 60

IVETA RADIČOVÁThe Roma on the Verge of Transformation ................................................................... 63

INTRODUCTION – HERITAGE ON THE VERGE OF CHANGE ........................... 63LIVING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 63EDUCATION ............................................................................................................... 65LABOR ......................................................................................................................... 65POST−1989 CHANGES ................................................................................................ 67

Consequences of Transformation for the Roma Community ................................. 67Poverty and Life Strategies ..................................................................................... 70The Phenomenon of “Double Marginalization” ..................................................... 72

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 73

ZDENĚK UHEREK and KAREL A. NOVÁKThe Ethnic Identity of the Roma .................................................................................... 75

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 75SOCIAL GROUPS AND THE ROMA ........................................................................ 75

Language and the Roma .......................................................................................... 75The Roma as a Social Category .............................................................................. 76Social Groups .......................................................................................................... 77The Roma as Members of Social Groups ............................................................... 77

THE HUMAN IDENTITY ........................................................................................... 78Definition of Identity .............................................................................................. 78Identity of the Roma ............................................................................................... 78

ETHNICITY AS A SPECIFIC FORM OF IDENTITY ............................................... 79Ethnic Groups and their Characteristics .................................................................. 79The Roma and Ethnic Groups ................................................................................. 80The Roma, Ethnicity, Sub−ethnicity and Caste ....................................................... 80The Sub−ethnicity of the Roma in Local Society .................................................... 81Ethnicity and Family Solidarity .............................................................................. 83Ethnicity and the Roma ........................................................................................... 83

THE NATION AND ETHNIC IDENTITY .................................................................. 84What are Nations? ................................................................................................... 84The Roma Identity and the National Consciousness .............................................. 84

514

ISSUES IN THE PROCESS OF ROMA ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION ..................... 85Majority Population Stereotypes ............................................................................. 85Culture of Poverty ................................................................................................... 85Dispersal as a Factor Limiting the Creation of Hierarchical Structures ................. 85Shaping of Nations .................................................................................................. 86

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 86ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................. 87REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 88

STANISLAV CINAThe Roma Language and its Standardization ............................................................... 91

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 91PAST NOTIONS OF THE ROMA TONGUE ............................................................. 92DIVISION OF DIALECTS IN EUROPE AND IN SLOVAKIABASED ON GEOGRAPHY AND LANGUAGE FEATURES ................................... 93

Classification of Dialects ........................................................................................ 93Classification of Roma Dialects in Slovakia ........................................................... 94

THE STANDARDIZATION OF ROMANY ............................................................... 94COMMUNICATION IN ROMANY AT PRESENT .................................................... 95

The State Language Law and the Law on the Use of Minority Languages ............ 95The European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages ................................... 96The Recodification of Romany ............................................................................... 97

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 97REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 98

MILAN KOVÁČ and MILAN JURÍKThe Religious Life of the Roma and the Activities of the Church in Relationto the Roma ....................................................................................................................... 99

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 99FACETS OF ROMA RELIGIOUS LIFE ................................................................... 100

Multilevel Faith ..................................................................................................... 100The Notion of God, Private Rituals, and Cults ..................................................... 101Eschatology and the Sanction of God ................................................................... 102

NEW RELIGION AND ATHEISM ........................................................................... 103ETHNICITY, CONFESSION, AND IDENTITY ...................................................... 104EVALUATION OF ROMA RELIGIOUSNESS ........................................................ 105WORK OF CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONSWITH THE ROMA .................................................................................................... 106

The Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic Church ................................................ 106Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession ................................................. 108The Orthodox Church in Slovakia ........................................................................ 108The Reformed Christian Church ........................................................................... 108United Methodist Church in Slovakia ................................................................... 109The United Brethren of Baptists in Slovakia ........................................................ 109Brethren Church .................................................................................................... 109Apostolic Church in Slovakia ............................................................................... 109Seventh Day Adventists ........................................................................................ 109Jehovah’s Witnesses .............................................................................................. 110

515

Other Christian Churches and Denominations ..................................................... 110EFFECTS OF THE MISSIONARY AND PASTORAL WORK OF CHURCHESAND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ON THE ROMA ........................................ 110CONCLUSION............................................................................................................ 111ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 112REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 112

DANIELA HIVEŠOVÁ−ŠILANOVÁThe Cultural Activities of the Roma ..............................................................................115

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 115VISIONS AND FULFILLMENT OF THE CULTURAL NEEDS OF THE ROMA .. 115

Roma Self−realization ............................................................................................ 115Practical Satisfaction of Roma Demands by the State .......................................... 116Funding for Minority Cultures .............................................................................. 117The Enactment of Roma Ideas on the Development oftheir Culture – Activities and Initiatives of the Roma .......................................... 119Compatibility of Roma Demands and State Support ............................................ 121

ROMA CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA ........................................................................... 122Music ..................................................................................................................... 122Literature ............................................................................................................... 123Roma Fine Art ....................................................................................................... 123Photography .......................................................................................................... 123Cinematography .................................................................................................... 124State Institutions Focusing on Roma Culture ....................................................... 124

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 126REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 127

KRISTÍNA MAGDOLENOVÁ and IVAN HRICZKORoma Media .................................................................................................................... 129

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 129THE MAKE−UP OF THE ROMA MEDIA AFTER 1989 ......................................... 129

Romano Nevo Ľil .................................................................................................. 130Other Print Media .................................................................................................. 133Remaindered Copies ............................................................................................. 134

THE ROMA PRESS AGENCY ................................................................................. 134TV AND RADIO BROADCASTING FOR THE ROMA ......................................... 135EDUCATION OF ROMA JOURNALISTS AND THEIR PROSPECTS ................. 136CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 136REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 137

ADRIÁN TOKÁR and ADRIANA LAMAČKOVÁThe Legal and Institutional Framework of the “Roma Issue” .................................. 139

THE CONSTITUTION .............................................................................................. 139Introduction ........................................................................................................... 139The Constitutional Principle of Equality .............................................................. 139The Constitutional Rights of National Minorities and Ethnic Groups ................. 141Application of International Human Rights Documents in Slovakiain Light of the Constitution ................................................................................... 142

516

LEGISLATION ........................................................................................................... 143Introduction ........................................................................................................... 143The Principle of Equality and the Ban on Discrimination in Slovak Law ........... 143Rights Pertaining to Members of the Roma Minority as Members ofa National Minority ............................................................................................... 144Protection Afforded to the Roma by the Criminal Law Corpus ........................... 145

STRATEGIC SLOVAK GOVERNMENT MATERIALS ADDRESSINGTHE PROBLEMS OF THE ROMA AFTER 1989 .................................................... 146STATE INSTITUTIONS DEALING WITH THE ROMA ISSUEBETWEEN 1998 AND 2002 ..................................................................................... 149ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 151REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 151

ELEÓNORA SÁNDORInternational Documents Concerning the Roma ........................................................ 155

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 155THE ROMA IN UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS............................................... 155

Conclusions and Recommendations of UN Committees onSlovakia’s Periodical Reports ............................................................................... 157

THE ROMA IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE DOCUMENTS ....................................... 160Conclusions and Recommendations of CE Monitoring Bodies ........................... 162

THE ROMA IN OSCE DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... 163CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 165ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 165REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 166

BALÁZS JARÁBIKPerspectives of Affirmative Action in Slovakia ........................................................... 169

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 169TERMINOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 169CONCEPT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ................................................................ 170INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION – PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATIONIN INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... 171

Slovak Legislation and International Documents ................................................. 171Protocol No. 12 to the European Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms Convention ..................................................................... 171Recommendations of the European Commission against Racism........................ 172

DOMESTIC LEGISLATION ..................................................................................... 172Slovak Constitution ............................................................................................... 172Preparation of Non−discrimination Legislation in Slovakia ................................. 173Legal Aspects of Affirmative Action in Slovakia ................................................. 174

POSSIBLE FORMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN SLOVAKIA ....................... 175Slovak Government Pilot Program of Social Field Workers ................................ 175Roma Advisors ...................................................................................................... 176NGO Program: Roma Assistants .......................................................................... 176Access to Education – Comenius University Medical School ............................. 177Decentralization .................................................................................................... 177

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 179

517

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 179REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 179

IMRICH VAŠEČKAThe Roma Issue in Local Social Policy ......................................................................... 181

THE ROMA ISSUE AS A COMPLEX, LONG−TERM SOCIAL ISSUE ................. 181WHOM DOES THE ROMA ISSUE CONCERN? .................................................... 181THE PRESENT FORM OF THE ROMA ISSUE ...................................................... 182APPROACH OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO THE ROMA ISSUE ................... 184

The Wall Strategy .................................................................................................. 184Strategy of Inactivity against People Abusing the Roma Situation ...................... 185Strategy of “Normalizing” Problems .................................................................... 186Strategy of External Help ...................................................................................... 186Strategy of Internal Help ....................................................................................... 187


JOZEF MAJCHRÁKThe Roma as a Topic of Debate for Political Parties ................................................... 189

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 189THE ROMA ISSUE AS PART OF THE AGENDA OFMAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES ................................................................................ 189

The Attitude of Political Parties to Selected Events Relatedto the Roma Issue: Populism vs. Realism ............................................................. 189Absence of a More Complex View ....................................................................... 191On the Verge of Racism ........................................................................................ 191

THE ROMA IN THE ELECTION PLATFORMS OF POLITICAL PARTIES ........ 1921990 Parliamentary Elections ............................................................................... 1921992 Parliamentary Elections ............................................................................... 1931994 Parliamentary Elections ............................................................................... 1931998 Parliamentary Elections ............................................................................... 1942002 Parliamentary Elections ............................................................................... 195

HOW THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES ADDRESSED ROMA VOTERS ....... 196CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 196REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 197

MICHAL ŠEBESTAThe Roma Political Scene .............................................................................................. 199

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 199COOPERATION OF ROMA POLITICAL LEADERS ANDATTEMPTS TO UNITE THE ROMA POLITICAL SCENE .................................... 200

Why not Independently? ....................................................................................... 203The Roma Parliament ............................................................................................ 204The 2002 Elections ................................................................................................ 205

ELECTION PLATFORMS AND PRESENTATION OFROMA POLITICAL PARTIES .................................................................................. 205

The Roma Civic Initiative (ROI) .......................................................................... 206Political Movement of the Roma in Slovakia – ROMA ....................................... 206

518

THE ROMA IN THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ANDTHE FIRST REGIONAL ELECTIONS ..................................................................... 206THE FUTURE – THE ROMA AS MEMBERS OFNON−ROMA POLITICAL PARTIES? ...................................................................... 207APPENDIX................................................................................................................. 209ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 210REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 210

INGRID REPOVÁ and MAREK HARAKAĽThe Roma and the Third Sector ....................................................................................211

THE THIRD SECTOR IN SLOVAKIA ..................................................................... 211THE ROMA AND THE THIRD SECTOR ................................................................ 211

The Roma Third Sector – Efforts to Create a Common Platform ........................ 213Sources of Funding ............................................................................................... 214Most Frequent NGO Activities ............................................................................. 214


BORIS STREČANSKÝApproach to the Roma Issue by Local and Foreign Donors ...................................... 217

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 217DONOR ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 217

Slovak Foundations ............................................................................................... 217Foreign Foundations ............................................................................................. 218Foreign Public Resources ..................................................................................... 218Slovak Public Resources ....................................................................................... 218Basic Fields of Donor Activity: Grants vs. Operational Programs ....................... 218Factors Influencing the Setting−up of Donation Programs ................................... 219Donors and “Donors” ............................................................................................ 219Donors and the Roma Issue .................................................................................. 220

FROM UNCONSCIOUS GHETTOISATION TO CONSCIOUS INTEGRATION ... 221EFFICIENCY OF ROMA−ORIENTED DONATION PROGRAMS ........................ 222

Natural Donor Limits ............................................................................................ 222Pilot Projects as a Donor Approach to the Issue ................................................... 223Subjective Factors ................................................................................................. 223Narrowing the Scope of Grant Programs: an Undesirable Trend? ....................... 223The Short−term Nature of the Grant Cycle ............................................................ 223

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 224ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 224REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 225

MICHAL VAŠEČKARelationship of the Majority Population to the Roma ................................................ 227

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 227RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ROMA AND THE REST ................................. 228SOCIAL GAP BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND THE ROMA ............................ 230SOCIAL GAP BETWEEN THE MAJORITY AND “OTHER MINORITIES” ....... 231PERCEPTION OF THE ROMA’S POSITION IN SOCIETY .................................. 232

519

RESPONDENTS’ OPINIONS ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE ROMA ISSUE ...... 232ANTIDISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDES OF RESPONDENTS ANDTHE DEGREE OF EMPATHY TOWARDS THE ROMA ........................................ 234CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 234REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 235

MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁRelationship of the Roma to the Majority Population ................................................ 237

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 237ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ROMA ANDTHE MAJORITY ....................................................................................................... 237

Attitudes of the Roma to the Majority Population ................................................ 238Perception of Mutual Relationships and Coexistence .......................................... 239

DIFFERENCES IN PERCEPTION OF THE MAJORITY ANDMUTUAL RELATIONSHIPS BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ROMA .......... 242

Differences in Nature, Intensity, and Atmosphere of Coexistence ...................... 243Differences in the Degree of Identification with the Majority andwith the Roma ....................................................................................................... 244

EXPECTED FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS ................................................................ 245CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 247REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 247

JÁN CANGÁR, ALENA KOTVANOVÁ, and ATTILA SZÉPDepiction of the Roma in the Media ............................................................................. 249

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 249THE ROMA AND THEIR PUBLIC IMAGE ............................................................ 250IMAGE OF THE ROMA IN THE SLOVAK MEDIA ............................................... 251MONITORING OF PRINT MEDIA .......................................................................... 255THE ROMA IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FROM 2000 TO 2002 .............................. 257MEDIA COVERAGE OF ROMA MIGRATION ...................................................... 258

Roma Media and the Migration ............................................................................ 258The Relationship between the Media and the Migration – Examples fromthe Czech Republic and Hungary ......................................................................... 260Media Coverage of the Roma Migration Abroad ................................................. 260

CONCLUSION – THE MEDIA AND ETHICS ........................................................ 262ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 264REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 264

PETER PULIŠForms and Scope of Roma Discrimination in Slovakia .............................................. 267

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 267LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ROMA PROTECTION IN SLOVAKIA ..................... 267

Constitutional Framework of the Protection of Rights ......................................... 267Absence of Antidiscriminatory Legislation .......................................................... 268The Concepts of Direct and Indirect Discrimination ............................................ 268Public Defender of Rights (Ombudsman) ............................................................. 269

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE ROMA IN SLOVAKIA ................................. 270Social Welfare and Social Services ....................................................................... 270

520

The Labor Market ................................................................................................. 271Education System .................................................................................................. 271Health Care ............................................................................................................ 273Housing ................................................................................................................. 273The Police and the Penal Justice System .............................................................. 274Shops and Services ............................................................................................... 274Discrimination in the Media ................................................................................. 275Subsidies for Cultural Activities ........................................................................... 275


PETER PULIŠThe Roma as the Target of Political Extremism .......................................................... 279

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 279DEFINITION OF POLITICAL EXTREMISM ......................................................... 280

Political Extremism and Democratic Societies ..................................................... 280SOURCES OF SYMPATHY FOR EXTREMISM ..................................................... 280RACISM ..................................................................................................................... 281

The Concept of Race in the Social Discourse ....................................................... 281ACTORS OF POLITICAL EXTREMISM ................................................................ 281

The Skinhead Movement ...................................................................................... 281Registered Civic Associations with Links to Extremist Groups ........................... 287

SLOVENSKÁ POSPOLITOSŤ (SLOVAK COMMUNITY) .................................... 287Political Parties ...................................................................................................... 288

CRIMES BY EXTREMIST MOVEMENT MEMBERS IN SLOVAKIA ................. 288Racially Motivated Crimes According to Police Records .................................... 289Center for Monitoring Racism and Xenophobia ................................................... 291The Committee for Racially Motivated Crime ..................................................... 292


BORIS VAŇO and EVA HAVIAROVÁRoma Population Demographic Trends ....................................................................... 297

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 297SOURCES OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON THE ROMA ...................................... 298ROMA NUMBERS IN SLOVAKIA .......................................................................... 299

Slovak Roma in the European Context ................................................................. 299Development of Roma Headcounts in Slovakia ................................................... 300

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ROMA ............................................................ 302ROMA POPULATION STRUCTURE ...................................................................... 304

Structure According to Sex ................................................................................... 304Age Structure ........................................................................................................ 304Structure According to Martial Status .................................................................. 305

REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR OF THE ROMA ..................................................... 305Birth Rate .............................................................................................................. 306Mortality ................................................................................................................ 306

521

NATURAL POPULATION INCREASE.................................................................... 307NUMBER AND STRUCTURE ESTIMATES OF ROMAIN SLOVAKIA TO 2020 ............................................................................................ 307CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 308ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 309REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 309

ZUZANA KUMANOVÁ and ROMAN DŽAMBAZOVIČThe Roma Family: On the Border Between Tradition and Modernity .....................311

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 311THE TRADITIONAL ROMA FAMILY IN SLOVAKIA .......................................... 311

Data on the Roma Family in the 19th and Early 20th Century ............................. 311The Implications of Ethnological Research and the Traditional Roma Family .... 313The Structure of the Traditional Roma Family and the Position of its Members .... 314

THE ROMA FAMILY TODAY ................................................................................. 317Specifics of Roma Demographic Behavior ........................................................... 317Roma Family Types .............................................................................................. 318Assumptions and Determinants of the Coming Demographic Revolution .......... 319


ROMAN DŽAMBAZOVIČ and MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁSocial exclusion of the Roma in Slovakia ..................................................................... 325

CHANGES IN POVERTY AFTER 1989 .................................................................. 326THE ROMA: THE SOCIAL CATEGORY MOST THREATENED BYSOCIAL EXCLUSION .............................................................................................. 327SOCIAL EXCLUSION MECHANISMS ................................................................... 328

Economic Exclusion ............................................................................................. 329Spatial Exclusion ................................................................................................... 331Cultural Exclusion ................................................................................................. 334Symbolic Exclusion .............................................................................................. 336

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION .................................... 337CONCLUSION – STRATEGIES OF INCLUSION .................................................. 340ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 342REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 343

MARTINA JURÁSKOVÁ, TIBOR LORAN, and IVANA ČERNÁKOVÁThe Roma and the Labor Market ................................................................................. 345

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 345POSITION OF THE ROMA ON THE LABOR MARKET ...................................... 346

Long−term Unemployment .................................................................................... 348Secondary Labor Market ....................................................................................... 349Informal Labor Market .......................................................................................... 349

STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING ROMA UNEMPLOYMENT ............................... 350Strategies of the Slovak Government ................................................................... 350Activities of the National Labour Office to Combat Roma Unemployment ........ 352


522

STANISLAVA KOMPANÍKOVÁ and MICHAL ŠEBESTARoma Living Strategies .................................................................................................. 357

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 357TYPES OF LIVING STRATEGIES ........................................................................... 358

Individual Living Strategies .................................................................................. 358Family Living Strategies ....................................................................................... 358Collective and Local Living Strategies ................................................................. 359

FORMS OF LIVING STRATEGIES ......................................................................... 359Education .............................................................................................................. 359Unemployment and its Influence on Living Strategies ......................................... 360Migration ............................................................................................................... 361

LIVING STRATEGIES OF THE POOR ................................................................... 362Crime ..................................................................................................................... 362Usury ..................................................................................................................... 363The Settlement as Safe Haven .............................................................................. 363

EXAMPLES OF LIVING STRATEGIES IN THREE SLOVAK REGIONS ........... 364Relationship to Land – Self−help as a Living Strategy ......................................... 365Specific Strategies of the Unemployed ................................................................. 366Informal Employment ........................................................................................... 366Dependence on Welfare Benefits .......................................................................... 366

CONCRETE SOCIAL POLICIES ............................................................................. 367CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 367ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 368REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 368

ALEXANDER MUŠINKARoma Housing................................................................................................................. 371

INTRODUCTION – DIFFERENTIATION CRITERIA OFROMA HOUSING...................................................................................................... 371TRADITIONAL DWELLING OF NOMADIC ROMA ............................................ 372

Living in a Tent or a Shelter .................................................................................. 372Living in Wagons and Trailers .............................................................................. 372

TRADITIONAL HOUSING OF SEMI−SETTLED ANDPERMANENTLY SETTLED ROMA ........................................................................ 373

Living in Mud Houses .......................................................................................... 373Semi−mud House as a Transitional Form of Dwelling ......................................... 374The Most Frequent Type: Single−room House ...................................................... 374Two−room House ................................................................................................... 376Multi−room Houses ............................................................................................... 377

PRESENT HOUSING OF ROMA LIVING IN THE COUNTRYSIDE ................... 378Living in “Housing Cells” ..................................................................................... 379Living in Apartment Buildings ............................................................................. 379Apartment Buildings with Varying Standards of Living ...................................... 379

ROMA HOUSING IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT .......................................... 380Different Housing Rules ....................................................................................... 380Absorption of Housing Standards from the Majority Population ......................... 380Urban Ghettos ....................................................................................................... 381

ROMA SETTLEMENTS............................................................................................ 381

523

Rural Roma Settlements ........................................................................................ 381Urban Roma Settlements ...................................................................................... 385

SELECTED ROMA HOUSING ISSUES .................................................................. 386Socio−cultural Integration ..................................................................................... 386Legality of Building .............................................................................................. 386Haphazard Government Activities ........................................................................ 387Discrimination against Roma in Acquiring Housing ............................................ 388


PETER ŠAŠKORoma Health ................................................................................................................... 391

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 391GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ROMA HEALTH ......................................... 392INFECTIOUS DISEASES ......................................................................................... 395ROMA HEALTH BEHAVIOR AND LIFESTYLE ................................................... 397

Roma Nutrition Compared to the Remainder of the Population .......................... 397CONGENITAL DISEASES ....................................................................................... 400

Congenital Glaucoma ............................................................................................ 400Phenylketonuria and Congenital Hypothyreosis ................................................... 402

SLOW MENTAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 402CHRONIC AND UNCLASSIFIED DISEASES ....................................................... 403THE ROMA AND THE HEALTH SYSTEM ............................................................ 404

Access of Roma to Health Care ............................................................................ 404Discrimination in Medical Care ............................................................................ 404Suspected Sterilizations of Roma Women ............................................................ 405

GOVERNMENT MEASURES IN ROMA MEDICAL CARE ................................. 408The Health Ministry .............................................................................................. 409Regional Authorities ............................................................................................. 409Roma Settlements ................................................................................................. 409Discrimination ....................................................................................................... 410


SILVIA RIGOVÁ, MÁRIA MACZEJKOVÁ, EVA KONČOKOVÁ,ĽUDMILA ŠIMČÁKOVÁ, and ELENA KRIGLEROVÁThe Roma in the Education System and Alternative Education Projects ................ 415

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 415ROMA STUDENTS IN THE SLOVAK EDUCATION SYSTEM ............................ 416

The Roma Child in the Pre−school Preparation System........................................ 418The Roma Child in the Compulsory Education System ....................................... 419Government Activities to Achieve a Higher Level of Education amongthe Roma ............................................................................................................... 423

ROMA EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ................................................ 425Roma Students in Special Schools for Handicapped Children ............................. 425Secondary Schools and Roma Students ................................................................ 427

524

Roma Students and Higher Education .................................................................. 428TEACHER TRAINING .............................................................................................. 428

Teacher Qualifications .......................................................................................... 428ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROJECTS FOR ROMA STUDENTS .................. 429

Roma Teaching Assistants .................................................................................... 429The Step by Step Project ....................................................................................... 430Project to Accelerate the School Success of Roma Students ................................ 430Reintegration of Roma Students from the Socially andEducationally Handicapped Environment of Special Elementary Schools intothe Majority Population ........................................................................................ 432Alternative Program of Pre−school Education for Roma Children ....................... 435The Hej Rup Project of Home Pre−school Education ofRoma Children with the Direct Involvement of Parents ....................................... 436School and the Roma Child .................................................................................. 438The Gandhi School ............................................................................................... 439Let’s Help the Roma help the Roma ..................................................................... 439


ELENA KRIGLEROVÁ and NATÁLIA KUŠNIERIKOVÁEducational Attitudes and Aspirations of the Roma .................................................. 443

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 443EDUCATIONAL ATTITUDES OF THE ROMA IN THE PAST ............................. 444EDUCATION OF ROMA IN THE HABSBURG MONARCHY ............................. 444

Education of Roma in the First Czechoslovak Republic ...................................... 444Roma Education During the Second World War,the Wartime Slovak State, and the Period from 1945 to 1948 .............................. 445Education of Roma During the Communist Regime from 1945 to 1989 ............. 445

EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE ROMA .................................................................... 447FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE ROMA ............ 447SPECIFIC ROMA ATTITUDES TO EDUCATION ................................................. 449

Education as a Prerequisite for Success in Life .................................................... 449Roma Opinions on What Level of Education is Sufficient ................................... 451The Roma’s Idea of the Ideal Education System .................................................. 453


IMRICH VAŠEČKARoma Migration from Slovakia .................................................................................... 457

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 457INTERNATIONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF ROMA MIGRATION ....... 458PRECONDITIONS FOR ROMA MIGRATION FORMED DURINGCOMMUNIST REGIME ............................................................................................ 460

Opening of Previously Secluded Settlements ....................................................... 460Changes in the Social Organization of the Roma ................................................. 460Assimilation as the Way of Integrating the Roma into Society andthe Means of Undermining their Identity .............................................................. 461

525

Social Emancipation and the Reproduction of Potential onthe Level of Unskilled Labor ................................................................................ 461Roma Social Structure during the Communist Regime ........................................ 462

CHANGE IN STATE ROMA POLICY AFTER 1989:FROM EXTERNAL TO INTERNAL SOCIAL HELP.............................................. 463

From Scatter back to Concentration ..................................................................... 463The Threat of Social Degradation ......................................................................... 463Solidarity Denied and Multiple Exclusion ............................................................ 464The Way out: Emigration ...................................................................................... 464

THE CAUSES OF MASS ROMA MIGRATION(SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF RESEARCHES) .................................................... 464

Attempts to Improve the post−1989 Situation ....................................................... 465STIMULI AND CONDITIONS OF ROMA MASS MIGRATION ........................... 471

Racially Motivated Violence and Feeling of Defenselessness ............................. 471Existence of a Migration Model, Informally Provided Information andHelp within the Roma Community ....................................................................... 471


KATARÍNA BEZÁKOVÁ and JARMILA LAJČÁKOVÁMulticulturalism and Inclusion as Solutions to the Roma Issue ................................ 475

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 475HISTORY OF MULTICULTURALISM, ITS FORMS AND SIGNIFICANCE ....... 476

The US and Canada – the Home of Multiculturalism........................................... 476Theory of Cultural Pluralism ................................................................................ 476Multiculturalism in Western European Countries ................................................. 478

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE MULTICULTURAL CONCEPT OFCITIZENSHIP? .......................................................................................................... 478TYPES OF GROUP−DIFFERENTIATED RIGHTS ................................................. 479RISKS OF MULTICULTURAL ACCOMMODATION ............................................ 482MULTICULTURALISM IN THE CENTRAL−EUROPEAN CONTEXT ................ 483MULTICULTURALISM AND INCLUSION OF THE ROMA AS POSSIBLESOLUTIONS FOR SLOVAKIA ................................................................................ 483

Changes in Attitudes and Views of Differences between People ......................... 484Change in Institutional Structures ......................................................................... 484

CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES OFMULTICULTURAL EDUCATION ........................................................................... 485MULTICULTURALISM AND MULTICULTURAL EDUCATIONIN SLOVAKIA ........................................................................................................... 487CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 492ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 493REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 494

MICHAL VAŠEČKAConclusion ....................................................................................................................... 497

About the Authors .......................................................................................................... 501

The following publications are now availablein the English language fromthe Institute for Public Affairs

� Slovakia 2002. A Global Report on the State of Society, edited by Miroslav Kollár,Grigorij Mesežnikov and Tom Nicholson.The publication offers a compilation of 35 essays by 61 authors on major developmentsin the areas of domestic politics, foreign policy, economy, social policy, minorities, publicopinion, culture and education, to name a few. Price 29.95 EUR.

� Slovak Elections ’02: results, consequences, context, edited by Grigorij Mesežnikov,Oľga Gyárfášová, Miroslav Kollár and Tom Nicholson.The publication subjects to analysis various aspects of the 2002 parliamentary electionsin Slovakia. It offers a comparative perspective on the process of transition, providesthe analysis of party system, election results, as well as different aspects of votingbehavior. Furthermore, the publication provides insight into the dynamism of develop−ment of public opinion, communication strategies of political parties, the role of the non−governmental sector and the media in this process, as well as maps the main issues of thepre−election discourse (Collection of 14 studies by 16 authors). The publication is forth−coming in May 2003. Price 19.95 EUR.

� Global Report on Roma in Slovakia, edited by Michal Vašečka.The publication offers a comprehensive analysis of the Roma issue in Slovakia, includ−ing the historical context, traditions, identity, demographic trends, culture, education,language, health, migration, legislation, social structures and others (32 chapters, com−posed by 48 authors). The publication is forthcoming in June 2003. Price 29.95 EUR.

� Slovakia 2001. A Global Report on the State of Society, edited by Miroslav Kollár,Grigorij Mesežnikov and Tom Nicholson. Price 19.95 EUR.

� Slovakia 2000. A Global Report on the State of Society, edited by Miroslav Kollár,Grigorij Mesežnikov and Tom Nicholson. Price 19.95 EUR.

� Slovakia 1998−1999. A Global Report on the State of Society, edited by Grigorij Me−sežnikov, Michal Ivantyšyn and Tom Nicholson. Price 19.95 EUR.

� Visegrad Countries in an Enlarged Trans−Atlantic Community, edited by MarekŠťastný.The publication is a compilation of essays of authors from Slovakia the Czech Repub−lic, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Germany and the United States of America. They subject toa detailed treatment the common history of the Visegrad 4 countries. They focus on thenational identities of these countries, discussing its role in the process of integration intothe European Union and NATO, and assess the potential for future cooperation andcohesion of this grouping in representing their interests in the common institutions of

ORDER FORM

Please, indicate which publication(s) you would like to purchase: ................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

Your Name: ...........................................................................................................................

Full address: ..........................................................................................................................

Tel./Fax.: ................................................................................................................................

Account details (in order to charge the mailing cost):

Please, send this Order Form back to: Institute for Public Affairs,[email protected], Fax: +421 2 5443 4041, Tel: +421 2 5443 4030

the European Union. The authors also discuss the state of affairs in the area of economyand outline possible preferences of these countries on the road to European economicintegration, compare the way these countries relate to EU and NATO, and ponder theirpresent and future likely position on crucial issues of Trans−Atlantic security architec−ture. Price 14,95 EUR.

� Security of the Slovak Republic and Integration into NATO and European Unionby Vladimír Kmec.The publication offers a complex treatment of the developments in the areas of internal,as well as external security of the Slovak Republic. It maps out the progress made in thelegislative area and provides detailed analysis of relevant strategic documents. The au−thor also addresses the position of the Slovak Republic toward EU’s Common Securityand Defense Policy and analyses the process of integration into NATO and EU. Further−more, the author discusses the security potential of the Slovak Republic for joining theAlliance, as well as scenarios of possible development within the process of integrationinto Euro−Atlantic security structures. Price 9,95 EUR.

� Transatlantic economic relations – position and prospects for the Slovak Republicby Ingrid Brocková.The publication offers a complex analysis of economic relations between the UnitedStates and the European Union, assessing the extent to which these relations play outon partnership versus competition basis, and how they are affected by the process ofglobalization. The publication further analyzes the prospective role of Central and EasternEurope in transatlantic cooperation, touches upon the political and economic implica−tions of EU enlargement, and the position of the Slovak Republic. Price 9,95 EUR.



Published by the Institute for Public Affairs, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Translated by: Marcel Hlbočan and Katarína Kollárová

Proof reading: Ben Novak

Typesetting and layout: Kalligram Computing, s. r. o., Bratislava

Cover design: Andrea Labudová, Max & friends creative studio, Bratislava

Printing: Expresprint, s. r. o., Bánovce nad Bebravou

Copyright © 2003 by the Institute for Public Affairs

ISBN 80−88935−46−6EAN 9788088935469