PaperVersion1

Maria Spirova
Political Representation of the Roma Minority in Bulgaria
Draft Research Paper

Uploading Still in Progress

1. Introduction
2. The need for representation of minorities in the political process
    2.1 Democratic theory and the participation of minorities
    2.2. Policy considerations
3. Forms of political representation
     3.1 National level politics
           Representation in the legislature
              Electoral laws and minority participation
                  Ethnic political parties
                Political representation through multi-ethnic political parties
           Representation in the policy-making process
    3.2 Regional and local level
    Representation in local legislatures and decision making bodies
    3.3 Complex systems of representation: self-government in Hungary
4. Representation of Ethnic Minorities in Bulgaria: Constitutional, Legal, and Political Context
    4.1 Constitutional Provisions
    4.2 Electoral Legislation
    4.3 Party Legislation
    4.4 Other State Policies
    4.5 Policies of non-ethnic specific parties towards minorities
5. Electing Roma representatives at national and regional level: trends in Bulgaria
    5.1 General trends
    5.2 Roma participation in the electoral process through non-Roma parties
    5.3 Roma parties
6. The many ways to Roma participation in the Bulgarian political life: the experience so far and advice from the inside
7. Possible ways for encouraging Roma representation in the political process:
    6.1 Constitutional and electoral legislation
    6.2 Initiatives to encourage the cooperation of Roma political parties during and between elections
    6.3 Initiatives to encourage non-Roma parties to nominate Roma on their lists
    6.4 Roma NGOs and political activity
    6.5 Encouraging a conscious Roma political participation at the individual level: education
7. Conclusions and prospects for the future

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, the dire situation of the Roma minorities throughout Eastern Europe has been a continual challenge for the democratic development in these countries. Various policies and initiatives have attempted to deal with, and improve on, problems like poverty, unemployment, inadequate education, crime, and inhuman living conditions. However, relatively little attention has been paid, and even less done, to encourage a higher level of political participation and representation of the Roma in the political process, although there is little doubt that the Roma have been insufficiently represented in the policy making process in many of the Easter European countries. Not only is their exclusion problematic in terms of the democratic idea, but it also seems to to be a hindrance to solving numerous policy issues. Increased representation of the Roma in the legislative and executive branches of government seems to make it more likely that both their problems will be put on the agenda of the government and that the cooperation of the Roma population in implementing the policies aimed at their solution will be ensured. Given the high level of alienation of the minority and the lack cooperation between them and the authorities on numerous occasions, this seems to be key to efficient policy implementation. Finally, European accession seems to have been at least partly conditioned on resolving the problems of the Roma minorities thus making their political representation even more desirable.

The roads to political representation in the mainstream political process are numerous and diverse. Minority representation can take the form of sending representatives in the legislative institutions at both national and regional level. Alternatively, it can call for having Roma non elected “experts” in various consultative bodies to the government. Further, achieving legislative representation can also be done in several ways. Roma can participate in the political process through already established non ethnic or ethnic parties, or they can try to form their own political parties, and once formed, to achieve representation along ethnic lines. There are also various ways in which the state, through its political institutions and actors, can encourage the representation of the minority. These include legal, institutional and political initiatives.

The present project attempts to do several things. It begins with a theoretical and policy justification for the need for a concern with the political representation of the Roma in Bulgaria. Next, it provides an overview of the possible ways of achieving minority representation in the political process using the experience of other countries and minorities. Further, it discusses the experience of the Bulgarian Roma in gaining political representation in detail, paying special attention to the achievements and problems of the Roma political movement in Bulgaria. Finally, the paper discusses the possible ways in which the representation of the Roma minority can be encouraged and supported and offers some recommendations.

Back to Top

2. The need for representation of minorities in the political process
    2.1 Democratic theory and the participation of minorities

Special provisions for minority participation in the democratic policy-making process are a controversial issue. Many of the common definitions of democracy do no include these as one of the elements of a democratic government. These usually limit the conception of democracy to free and fair elections and competition among several political parties.   According to this conceptual understanding of democracy, it is up to individual groups to organize and participate in the political process and as long as their access to the process is ensured (thought free elections and multi-party competition) the state does not need to provide for anything further. Within this thinking, the Roma gain representation in the policy making process only by using their own devices and working within the mechanism available to the whole of the population.

However, some of the broader definitions of democracy pay special attention to the idea of participation. Huber, Rueschemeyer and Stephens, for example, discuss the idea of participatory democracy which requires “high levels of participation without systematic differences across social categories (for example, class, ethnicity, gender)” (Huber, Rueschemeyer & Stephens 1997, 323-324) This definition implies that there should be no major difference in the political participation of Roma and non-Roma are at least no difference that is due to the fact that one groups is a minority.

Political participation includes several elements, one of which is representation in the political process. The principle of representation implies the ability of people belonging to a democratic polity to have their views, opinions and demands transmitted to the process of policy-making through their representatives. This principle is typically provided for through the process of electing representatives and sending them to the national and regional legislatures and /or through having representatives of certain groups directly involved in the policy-implementation process.

One of the most basic and common problems with a democratic form of government is that it does not ensure the representation of all. The issue becomes a problem when a group of people is systematically denied representation because of either formal barriers to entry (e.g. denial of the right to vote) or because of some other systemic factor which prevents the problems of the group to be addressed and their views represented in the policy making process.

This situation often pertains to ethnic minorities. In many cases, the dominant majority dominates the political process as well and either willingly or by circumstance prevents the participation of representatives of the minority in political life. When the minorities are small in numbers, scattered throughout the country, poor, or in some other way easily ignored, their interests are easily sacrificed the will of the majority. As a result, members of the ethnic minority tend to feel alienated from the political process as a lot of the problems they face might not be understood, fully appreciated and addressed by the political system. It is in these situations when political activity of the minority itself becomes crucial for the incorporation of their interest in the political process.

While there might not be a guarantee that the mere presence of minority representatives will result in an improvement of the minority situation, ensuring ethnic minority participation in the political process is one of the pathways to encourage democracy (Simard 2). To reverse the argument, high levels of alienation might prove quite detrimental to the political system. As Lijphart has argued, failure to incorporate the minority in the political process not only violates the right of the minority itself, but might also challenge the stability of the political system as situations of exclusion are more likely to result in ethnic conflicts. (Lijphart, ?)

The characteristics of the Roma minority in Bulgaria make them particularly susceptible to exclusion form the political process. They are poor and relatively uneducated with little to offer to the political process besides their votes at election times. As a consequence, their problems have not been addressed properly by any of the Bulgarian democratic governments.


    2.2. Policy considerations
Leaving the democratic debate side, incorporating the minority in the process of policy-making and policy-implementation seems to be a good way of resolving their problems more efficiently. The experience of the limited participation of Roma in the local governments in Bulgaria provide evidence that when Roma people are involved in making policy, implementation seems to be a lot smoother (Mladenov, 2003).

The Roma themselves would benefit greatly from a more active involvement in the political process. The decisions taken in the political process affect their lives directly. The long list of problems the Roma have – inadequate housing, unemployment, domestic conditions, segregation and poor quality schooling just to name the few – can get resolved though the political process (ERRC 2001: 4-5)

However, it is important to understand that the Roma problems have repercussions on the whole country. The consequences of Roma poverty, unemployment, crime, and lack of proper education impact do not stay contained in their neighborhoods. They impact the prosperity and development of the Bulgarian cities and towns and thus on the development of the whole economic and poltiical system.

[Impact of the European accession process on the issue of Roma political representation]

Back to Top

3. Forms of Political Participation
3.1 National politics
    Representation in the legislature

One of the most obvious roads to minority representation in the political process is through participation in the national legislative bodies. Ethnic minorities have been able to gain representation, and in some cases an important position in the policy making of the Eastern European countries. In the case of Bulgaria, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, a de facto ethnic Turkish party have maintained representation in all of the Bulgarian Parliaments since 1989 and is currently a partner in the governing coalition. The Hungarian minority in Romania has similarly played a very important role in the political development of this country since 1989.
[insert tables showing the presence of minorities in the legislatures]

Where the Roma are concerned, however, the situation is quite different. In Hungary, since 1990, three members of the Roma community have been members of the Hungarian parliament. At present there are none. In Macedonia, there was one representative of the Roma Party in the 1998-2002 Parliament.

The different levels of success for the ethnic minorities’ ability to gain representation in the national legislatures in Eastern Europe have partially been a result of the different approaches the state has taken towards minority political representation. The policies can vary from effectively banning ethnic representation, to overlooking the issue, to supporting ethnic representation and, even to granting ethnic representation (Juberias 2000).


                Electoral laws and minority representation

One of the most direct ways to ensure minority representation in the legislature is to provide special electoral law requirements for them. The electoral systems in Romania, Croatia and Slovenia all positively discriminate towards ethnic minorities, providing various types of guaranteed representation. Reserved seats for minorities have provided five seats for different minorities in the Croatian parliament (as of 2000), two seats for minorities in Slovenia, and about fifteen different minorities with seats in the Romanian national legislatures. The Romanian is an extremely strong system of positive discrimination in this regard as it doesnot limit the number of minorities that can get representation. Through that system the Roma parties in Romania have been able to maintain one seat in the legislation irrespective of their electoral performance (Juberias 2000, 44-49).

Electoral laws can also make it easier for ethnic parties to participate in the electoral process without granting them representation directly. These steps include making it easier of ethnic parties to field candidates, register candidates and run national campaigns. Such measures have been use, at various times in Poland and Hungary (Juberais 2000, 38)

Electoral systems can similarly overlook the issue of ethnic representation making the electoral process equal for all parties competing in the system, or even discourage the appearance or existence of ethnic parties, or alternatively, to encourage the creation of multiethnic parties. This is especially common in societies which are deeply divided along ethnic lines (Reilly 2003). Bulgaria and Albania are examples of systems in which ethnic based parties are banned in either the Constitution or the Law on Parties and their activities discouraged by the electoral laws (Juberias 2000, 37). However, in both countries de facto ethnic parties have managed to maintain a stable position in the political process by not openly registering as ethnic political entities. The ability of the Turkish DPS to function freely in Bulgarian politics was challenged numerous times in the early 1990s. By 2003, though, there is no major concern that the constitutional provision can prevent either the DPS or the fledgling Roma political parties from participating in the political process.


                Ethnic political parties

The use of electoral means to influence the fate of minority representation presupposes the presence of political parties that are specific to the ethnic minority. Their actual existence though is often the subject of a heated debate. In Horowitz’ classic definition, an ethnic based party is a party that “derives its support overwhelmingly from an identifiable ethnic group (or cluster of ethnic groups) and serves the interests of that group.” (Horowitz 2000: 291) However, any ethnic party does not have to be an exclusive party of that minority as minorities might split their political support among more than one political party. It is the group’s cohesion and division that determines how many parties emerge (Horowitz 2000: 293).

Ethnically based support becomes the principal source of support and trying to find other sources of support will only be done if it comes at extremely low cost.” This is what transforming an originally ethnic party into a multi ethnic one becomes so difficult.” (293) Because of this, states often make concerted efforts to encourage the initial development of multiethnic parties though their electoral and party legislation. (Reilly 2003)

Horowitz has made a strong argument against ethnic parties by maintaining that ethnic parties tend to divide a divided society even further. As they often represent strictly groups interest, they are often seen as unable to concern themselves with issues of national importance and their behavior as dangerous for the good government of the country (Horowitz 2000: 294). Other authors have similarly argued that because ethnic parties make their political appeal specifically on ethnicity, their emergence ‘often has a centrifugal effect on politics” (Reilly 2003). The resulting fragmentation of the party system has a detrimental effect on the stability of democracy and government in these situations.

Stroschein, however, has argued for the desirability of the ethnic parties. In her view, they do not cause ethnic conflict, but reflect differences (cleavages) that already exist. However, to “domesticate” ethnic issues into institutional forms, thus allowing them to be resolved in parliament rather than through violence.” Ethnic parties, she maintains, usually play by the rules and have obtained some of their demands through the democratic process. Conflicts between these and other parties have been routinized and the political process has allowed the parties to “find a way to bargain over heated issues and negotiate alternatives” (Stroschein 2001:61).

It seems then, that the likelihood of ethnic parties to promote ethnic conflict depends on the exact circumstances in which they exist. Empirical evidence also seems to suggest that when societies are deeply divided (like in many African countries, but Bosnia and Kosovo, too) ethnic parties might come to further solidify these divisions and, ultimately, to help bring about, if not cause conflict. However, in other cases, when the divisions are not so deep, integrating ethnic political parties in the democratic process seems to help deal with the demands of the minorities and improve their situation.

Moreover, whatever the arguments for and against ethnic parties, they have been present in Eastern European politics. Hungarian parties have been very active and followed the rules of democracy in Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine. (Stroschein. 2001) The Hungarian Democratic Federation of Romania has evolved into a strong organization, usually represented in Parliament through about 7% of the popular vote. Although its platform has been viewed by some as extremist (they have called for Hungarian autonomy at times) they have proved a fair player in the democratic game (Shafir 2000:102-103), Stroschein, 2001).

Similarly, Turkish minority parties have been active in Bulgaria and Macedonia (Juberias 200, 55) The MRF in Bulgaria has been represented in parliament throughout Bulgaria’s democratic history and has been played a pivotal role in Bulgarian politics including being a governmental partner in the 2001- government. In addition, various minority ethnic parties have been represented in the legislatures in most of the Eastern and Central European countries, with the exception of Hungary and Moldova (Juberias 2000, 55).

Roma parties have been also present in the Eastern European political systems. As early as 1992 five different Roma parties competed elections in Romania. There were about 13 Romani political parties registered in Slovakia by 1998 (Barany 2001, 2) Hungary and Macedonia also have a variety of Roma parties each. However, only in Macedonia and Romania have Roma political parties been represented in parliament. In Romania, the Party of the Roma (PR) has been able to get one seat in consecutive elections due to their reserved minority seat. There were four different Romani parties represented in the 1998 legislature in Macedonia, although three of them only succeeded due to a coalition with the Socialist Party (Juberias 55).

It seems that Roma political parties exist but can rarely make it to the national legislatures in East/Central Europe. The strength of the entry barriers (due to both electoral and party nomination procedures), the heterogeneity of the Roma population and the inability of the various Roma political formations to form effective coalitions with each other are all factors blamed for this lack of success. This becomes of quite some importance considering the substantial number of Roma populations that are present in the countries of the region. (Table 1)

Table 1: Roma populations in East, Central and Southeastern European countries. Source: CEDIME

Albania	1989 census returned no figure. Estimated up to 100,000 (2.9 per cent)
Bosnia-Herzegovina	Estimated pre-1992 at 100,000 (2.3 per cent)
Bulgaria	312,000 (3.7 per cent). Estimates: 600,000-700,000 (8.3%)
Croatia	18,000 (0.37 per cent)
Czech Republic	33,500 (0.3 per cent). Other estimates: up to 300,000 (2.9 per cent)
Cyprus	500 – 1,000 (0.07 – 0.13 per cent)
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia	official data 137, 265 (1.3 per cent). Other estimates; 500,000 (4.8 per cent)
Greece	official estimates: 160,000 – 200,000 (1.5 – 1.9 per cent); MRG-G estimates around 350,000
Hungary	143,000 (1.3 per cent). Other estimates; 250,000 – 800,000 (2.4 – 7.8 per cent)
Macedonia	No reliable census figures. Other estimates 200,000 (10.3 per cent)
Moldova	20,000 – 25,000
Poland	15,000 (0.03 per cent)
Slovakia	80,600 (1.5 per cent). Other estimates; up to 350,000 (6.6 per cent)
Slovenia	2,293 (0.11 per cent). Unofficial estimate: 7,000 (0.35 per cent)
Turkey	50,000 (0.08 per cent)
Romania	1.800,000-2.000,000 (7.9 per cent)

To be successful, an ethnic party must obtain a high percentage of votes from a finite political base – the group that it represents (Stroschein 2001: 61) Ethnic parties thus require a lot of consensus minded politics. Achieving this is often an infeasible option for the diverse Roma communities (Baranyi 2001: 2) Fragmentation has been a common feature of the Roma political organizations throughout Eastern Europe (Baranyi 2001, 3). Cooperation with existing parties has been another alternative (one actually advocated by a lot of activist) for achieving Roma representation in national level politics (ERRC 2001: 13).

                Political representation through multi-ethnic political parties

Representatives of ethnic minorities can also gain representation in the national decision-making bodies through multi-ethnic parties. The opponents of ethnic parties have indeed argued that this is the better way to ensure participation ad representation the ethnic groups as it is provides for their integration in the political process without dividing it along ethnic lines (Horowits 2000, Reilly 2003).

Representatives of the Roma community have tried to gain seats in the legislature through already established parties as well. In fact, the European Roma Rights Center in its “A Short Guide for Romani activists” has encouraged this kind of participation as more feasible given the absence of unity and lack of resources in the Roma communities, as well as the legal difficulties ethnic parties face in some systems (ERRC 2001: 14). However, this has proven to be a difficult process. The logical underlying the possible cooperation between majority and Roma politicians is that the latter will bring the support of the Roma voters, which the majority party needs – “Such parties should want Romani candidates, because they should want Romania votes”(ERRC 2001: 14). However, in practice, majority parties find other ways of getting the votes of the Roma and including Roma candidates on their party lists has proven exceptionally rare (Barany 4). Roma candidacies are considered to be a risk for losing the “white vote” and when included they are placed so low on the party lists that they rarely have any chance of winning (Barany 2001:4). ). As a result, the Roma that have been able to gain representation through majority parties are a single digit number in most of the Eastern European countries.

Cooperation with majority parties has been more successful in terms of coalitions between Roma ethnic parties and established parties. In both Romania and Macedonia Roma parties have been able to work together with the Socialist parties in the 2002 and 1998 elections respectively and to achieve some, although limited representation in the case of Macedonia and in the policy-making body (in the case of Romania) (Barany 2001:5, Juberais 2000: 35).

Representation in the policy-making process

A further option of political participation is non-electoral involvement. Roma can acquire positions within the state administration, and participate in consultative bodies (ERRC 2001: 14). In effect, this pattern of incorporating the Roma in the political process problems has been present in the Czech and Slovak Republics and Poland. In the Czech Republic, for examples, the government has set up an advisory body, called the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Romani Community Affair, later transformed into the Council for Roma Community. While its chairperson is member of Cabinet, the advisory body remains the lowest in status in the Czech government and a very limited avenue for Roma political representation (Sobotka 2001: 9-10)

The major problems limitations of such bodies come from their nature They are not based on the principle of representation through elections, but are comprise of appointed officials, which might or might not have a real impact on policy. “…Roma had “voice” but no influence in the policy adoption process.” (Sobotka 2001:9) Thus any effective system of representation of the Roma (and other) minority need to include at least a combination of real participation in the political process through elections complemented by a direct involvement in the policy-formulation process through advisory bodies.

3.2 Regional and local level

Local politics seem to provide for an easier start in political activity. The policy-making process in cities and municipalities is not only more accessible, but also relate most directly to the most pressing of the problems of the Roma minority. (ERRC 2001:15) Local political involvement educate both the Roma political elite as well as the Roma electorate in the intricacies and benefits of being involved or being represented in the political process and thus provide a solid stepping stone for building larger political communities.

In Slovakia, Roma have been actively working to achieve political representation at the local level and some success has been achieved in the Brno local elections. (RrAJE 2003) In Romania 162 Roma were elected in the 1996 Romania local elections through a Roma alliance of 12 Romani political formations (Barany 2001).

3.3 Complex systems of representation: self-government in Hungary

Besides these quite direct way o participation in the political processes, political representation of ethnic minorities can be achieved through specially set up structures. The Hungarian minority self government institution provides an example for this. It is a complex system that provides for different levels of autonomy of the minority groups. Although based on the principle of cultural autonomy of the individual, it does provide, at least in theory, the possibility of a minority to actively participate in the decision-making mechanism through local and national structures. The rules of this system distinguish between larger and smaller minorities. In cases where the numbers a re sufficient, the system allows for the establishment of local level minority government with rights that are equivalent to those of territorial autonomy (Krizsan 2001 253). In localities where the minority is not large enough, the system allows for the establishment of parallel structures with much more limited rights.
In situations where the minority is very scantly represented, a minority spokesperson is the embodiment of the principle of minority self-government.

The structures also have a national level body which is elected by the local self-governments. These so called national minority parliaments participate in the work of the national legislature and have veto right over matters concerning education, culture, local media, tradition, language use. In other areas their role is mainly consultative. (Krizsan 2001: 253) The Hungarian system thus provides for flexible system which takes into account each local situation (Krizsan 261).

Despite its ingenuity and flexibity, the Hungarian system of self-government has also been criticized extensity, especially as it relates to the Roma minority.

Back to Top
4. Electing Roma representatives at national and regional level: trends in Bulgaria

    4.1 General Trends

Right after the democratic changes of 1989, the Roma in Bulgaria began to organize. By the mid 1990 they had formed the Democratic Union Roma (DUM), led by the Manush Romanov. The union, however, was denied registration as political party and could not compete in the immediate elections. In addition, the Union was plagued by disagreements about its ideology and position on cooperation with the BSP (Parushev 2003). While the Roma NGO sector grew relatively quickly over the next few years, and partly because it did, Roma political mobilization was stunted. For the most of the 1990s the only representation the Roma got was through the mainstream political parties. . This was a very limited form of representation in which one or two Roma had a symbolic presence in Parliament during each term.

It was not until 1997-1998 that Roma organizations began to show genuine political ambition and to make the first steps towards organizing for elections (Mladenov 2003). The reason for this was that

“The practice of the major political parties to pretend inclusive policies by choosing a single representative of the Romani community and giving him the chance to have a seat in Parliament, has exhausted its credibility. This practice proved to be a dead-end road for the representation of Roma in parliamentary politics. Not only it accounts for severe under-representation of Roma, but also makes their cause contingent on the policies of the majority parties, generally indifferent—if not hostile—to the aspirations of Roma. Again, this practice served best the majority politicians and the authorities who were provided with a shield against criticism that Roma were excluded from political life" (Danova 2001).

4.2 Roma participation in the electoral process through non-Roma parties

                Cooperation with the DPS

Cooperation with the party of the Turkish minority, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (DPS), seemed to be a natural choice for some of the Roma leaders. The argument that the two minorities faced common problems (especially given that some of the Bulgarian Roma are Muslim and identify with the Turkishish minority) as well as the proclaimed desire of the DPS to defend the rights and freedoms of all minorities and individuals in Bulgaria, made this an alluring possibility. However, up to the present day it remains only a possibility.

In 1994, Georgi Parushev, a leading Roma activist and DUR founder, campaigned for the DPS hoping to manage to get into Parliament though their lists, arguing that this was good way to use already existing structures to achieve political representation for the Roma (Tarashleva, 1994). However, he was unsuccessful. Cooperation between the two ethnic groups did not pick up again until the 2001 elections.

In the 2001 elections the DPS formed an electoral coalition with Evroroma, an important Roma organization in Bulgaria. “MRF placed a number of Romani representatives on its ticket, all of them, however, at unelectably low positions. As a result, the MRF failed to ensure the election of a single Romani candidate in the 2001 elections”(Illiev 2001). By 2003, the DPS discarded any possibility for future cooperation with the Roma party (Dal 2003)

                Cooperation with the BSP

Cooperation with the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) has also been a common policy for the Roma political leaders and has been relatively welcome by the BSP leadership through most of the 1990s. The major argument behind this position is that the problems of the Roma are mostly of a nature that calls for a very active state involvement. Consequently, the Roma are on the left side of the political continuum and they naturally should support the major political actor on the left – the BSP. (Sega 2002) Also, the traditional link between the BSP (BCP before 1989) and some of the Roma socialist-time leaders has also facilitated this cooperation (Parushev 2003).

However, this cooperation has been far from fair to the Roma minority. Although a couple of Roma leaders have achieved representation through the BSP over the years, the concern of the BSP, when it has been both in and out of government, with the situation of the Roma minority has been minimal.

“The 2001 partnership agreement between the BSP and the Romani organizations did not diverge from the established model in its vagueness with respect to the status of the Romani organizations in the coalition and the commitments of the BSP, beyond the election of one or two Romani MPs……The final result - the election of just one Romani MP - only reaffirmed the status quo in relations between the Socialist party and the Romani organizations“ (Illiev 2001).

                Cooperation with the UDF

The Union of Democratic Forces, as the major anti-communist opposition political organization in Bulgaria, was also a natural partner for the new Roma political organizations in the early 1990s. Manus Romanov –the first Roma representative in the new Parliament was elected on the UDF lists, which was at the time loosely united coalition of numerous anti-communist organizations of various ideological biases.

However, for the rest of 1990s the UDF became “ notorious for disregarding Roma as possible partners during elections” (Iliev 2001). Despite the fact that some of the Roma Leaders were openly pro-UDF, their loyalty bore no fruit. While cooperation between the UDF and some Roma parties exists in some localities, there has been no major cooperation at national level (Mladenov 2003).

At present, there are two Roma representatives in the Bulgarian Parliament. One – Toma Tomov -- elected through coalition of his party with the BSP and one -- Alexander Filipov – elected through the lists of NDSV. The newest of the major Bulgarian parties, NDSV (National Movement Simeon the Second) quickly adopted the policy common to the rest of the Bulgarian parties – it courted Roma voters before elections, nominated (and sent to Parliament) one Roma representative and decided its job of representing the Roma to be done.

    4.3 Roma parties

Political mobilization among the Roma began really in 1997. It has to be mentioned, however, that the Constitution still forbids the establishment of ethnic parties. Because of this Roma political organizations are either not registered as parties or have non-Roma specific names.

An organization called Free Bulgaria -- led by Tzar Kiro – the self-proclaimed tsar of the Roma in Bulgaria, was established in 1997. It is currenlty led by his son, Prince Angel.

Prince Angel in late 2003. Picture from Sega 2003

ROS Kupate, another organization with political ambitions followed suit. It was an organization primarily concerned with the economic development of the Roma, and had with an ideology close to the “democratic idea” (i.e. the UDF). (Mladenov 2003) The organization’s leader established in 2000 the Party for Social and Democratic Change (PSDC).

In 1998, Tzvetelin Kunchev established Evroroma. Kunchev was elected to the National Assembly through the Bulgarian Business Black lists in 1997. By 2000, his immunity was removed to allow the courts to prosecute him for several crimes. However, he claims that by that time his organization had 237 local organizations and 138 000 members.

Kunchev in 2002. Picture from Sega 2000.

Eight Roma political parties were founded between 1997 and 2000 in total in Bulgaria, including the Citizens’ Union Roma, founded by Toma Tomov, today a member of parliament through coalition with the BSP.

The local elections in late 1999 were the first at which these competed in elections. Free Bulgaria managed to get three Roma elected as mayors and place over 60 Roma as local councilors. The successful Roma participation led to quite high optimism about the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2001. “The recent local elections indicate that there is a possibility that a Roma party may reach the 4% threshold and win seats in parliament in the next parliamentary election in 2001“ (ERRC 1999).

After 2000 there were a lot of initiatives attempting to unify the various Roma political parties and organizations. OSCE and other international organizations helped promote intuitive for a united Roma participation at the 2001 elections. Two main parties – Free Bulgaria and PSDC carried out the process with the support of six other smaller organizations and parties. As already mentioned, Evroroma chose to run in a coalition with the Movemner for Rights and Freedoms, while Tomov’s  Citizens’ Union Roma joined the BSP coalition. At the 2001 elections, National Union Tzar Kiro, as the coalition was called, got 27,000 votes or about 0.6% of the popular vote. After what the coalition perceived as a defeat, it fell apart. (Mladenov 2003)

According to Roma leaders and NGO activists, there are four important Roma parties as of late 2003 – and about 23 registered . Of course, each of the leaders plays down the importance of one of the others. According to Mladenov, Evroroma and PSDC are the only two strong political organizations (Mladenov 2003). According to Tomov, there are three political parties: his own, Free Bulgaria, and Evroroma. (Tomov 2002)

While in early 2002 Tomov was quite optimistic about the future unification of the three Roma parties, by late 2002 he was actively campaigning for continuation of his cooperation with the BSP in light of the upcoming local elections in October 2003 (Tomov 20002, Sega 2002). By mid- 2003 Evroroma and PSDC were planning to participate mostly on their own in the local elections, while Free Bulgaria did not run their own candidates, but supported various candidates depending on local circumstances. (BTA 2003, Sega 2003) There were no plans for cooperation among the four.

Back to Top
5. The many ways to Roma participation in the Bulgarian political life: the experience so far and advice from the inside

The following section using information from Roma leaders to discuss their attitudes, criticisms, and recommendations on the issues of Roma representation in Bulgarian political life. Although their personal experiences differed, the major points were shared by all.

The Experience So Far: Doing an Impossible Job

The problem of Roma representation stems from the impossibility for the Roma to get representation at national level through both Roma and non-Roma parties. As Mladenov put it, Roma parties lack the resources and the non-Roma parties lack the desire to provide for Roma representation in the national policy-making bodies (Mladenov 2003). The major parties have only placed 1-2 Roma each in parliament “for color and smell” (Mladenov 2003).

At a different level, the problems is that the Roma population itself seem to trust the “big parties” more than they trust the Roma parties -- “Roma don’t trust Roma” (Mladenov 2003) Moreover, the big parties campaigns much better among the Roma than their own parties, because the former have many more resources and possibilities (Mladenov 2003).

The concentration of resources into the development of an extensive Roma- related NGOs sector have also negatively influenced the development of political participation. As Georgi Parushev put it “The Roma moved from living under a dictatorship to living in a civil society; they missed the political participation phase” (Parushev 2003) Leaving the Roma problems to be resolved by the non-governmental sector automatically also leaves them outside the political process.

The policy of the donors – international organizations mostly – to fund NGOs rather than organizations with political ambitions has also stunted the latter’s development. By pouring money into various Roma-related organizations it has drawn the potential Roma elite away from the political arena. (Tahir 2003)

Local Elections Work

Overall, leaders and experts agreed that local elections are the first and most suitable arena for Roma political activity. The fact that Free Bulgaria managed to place a substantial number of Roma in the local governments and mayoral office is a big step forward for the representation of the Roma minority. According to Zlatko Mladenov, leader of PSDC, it was the first time Roma received an indication that hey can be part of the government, and showed the minority that something can be done to improve on their situation (Mladenov 2003). Local elections are easier to get into, and provide for quicker results, both arguments for increased involvement of Roma politicians at the local level (Zhivkova 2003).

Mladenov’s personal work with the Sofia municipality, he argued, has given quite some results. Roma re now more likely to support Roma politicians, there has been a substantial change in the attitudes of the Roma towards the municipality as an institution. A dialogue has been facilitated and some improvements in the areas of basic utilities, housing and health care have been achieved (Mladenov 2003). It is at local level that “good” people from the Roma community have the chance to make it into the local structures and together with the non-Roma to work together improve the situation of the Roma. (Mladenov 2003)

There are Many Roads to Political Participation

Mladenov maintained that the Roma community needs ethnic Roma parties, but should attempt to get involved in the political process through other parties as well (Mladenov 2003) According to him, ideally there should be 2-3 Roma parties at most so that they can have enough resources an potential to win representation.
Cooperation between Roma and non-Roma parties is also a good way to promote Roma representation. The PSDC, for example, was getting ready for the 2003 local elections by working with various parties depending on local circumstances. In places where they have structures and people ready to finance Roma campaigns they had chosen to run independently. But when this is no possible coalitions with non-Roma parties can result in mutual benefits (Mladenov 2003)

Similar views were expressed by Parushev, who argued that the best way to solve the Roma parties is to integrate them in multi-ethnic parties. However, given the practical impossibility of this at present, he saw getting Roma involved in politics through any channel – Roma parties, non-Roma parties or appointed bodies – to be beneficial for the Roma community (Parushev 2003)

Involvement of all forms and shapes is crucial for building a stronger and better Roma political elite. Roma leaders need to get the political experience but there is also a lot to be done in terms of educating younger Roma leaders in political behavior. This is particularly serious issue because of two main reasons. First, the current Roma leaders have often have personal interests for being in Parliament and have not been concerned with representing their “people” (Mladenov 2003) Second, a lot of the younger and better educated Roma elite has been concentrated in the NGO sector (Tahir 2003). There is a clear need to get these people really involved in the real way through which the problems of the Roma minority can be resolved.

Prejudices Exist on Both Sides and Need to be Overcome

The Roma leaders agreed that both the Roma and the non-Roma in Bulgaria have numerous prejudices against each other and until these are overcome no meaningful integration of the Roma population will be possible. Especially important is that the Roma people themselves need to understand that some elements of their traditional way of life are backward and improvement of their conditions needs the elimination of some of these practices and the acceptance of some of the rules of the majority (Parushev 2003).

The only way to do so, Mladenov argued is to work together to solve the problems of the Roma minority. The experience of the limited participation in the local governments is very reassuring of the effects Roma participation in the governmental structures can have (Mladenov 2003)

Back to Top
6. Possible ways for encouraging Roma representation in the political process:
    6.1 Constitutional and electoral legislation
    6.2 Initiatives to encourage the cooperation of Roma political parties during and between elections
    6.3 Initiatives to encourage non-Roma parties to nominate Roma on their lists
    6.4 Roma NGOs and political activity
    6.5 Encouraging a conscious Roma political participation at the individual level: education
Back to Top
7. Conclusions and prospects for the future