Introduction
Written at the beginning of a new chapter of European history, the German writer and Nobel laureate GĂŒnter Grass
captured an important moment in the centuries-old relationship between Gypsies and the states and societies in which they live.
They have no allies. No politician represents their case, whether in the European Parliament or the Bundestag. No state they can appeal to would support their demands for compensation ⊠for Auschwitz, or make them a national priority. ⊠Gypsies are bottom of the heap ⊠Why? Because they are different. Because they steal, are restless, roam, have the evil eye and that stunning beauty that makes us ugly to ourselves. Because their mere existence puts our values into question. Because they are all very well in operas and operettas, but in reality? It sounds awful ⊠they are antisocial, odd and donât fit in. ⊠Let half a million and more Sinti and Romanies live among us. We need them. They could help us by irritating our rigid order a little. Something of their way of life could rub off on us. They could teach us how meaningless frontiers are: careless of boundaries. Romanies and Sinti are at home all over Europe. They are what we claim to be; born Europeans. (Grass 1992, p. 107)
Some of the ideas Grass expresses about Gypsies are rooted in the past, such as the belief that they constitute a distinct people and a fascination with their supposed transgressive behaviour and desire for freedom that has made the Gypsy such a potent cultural symbol. Grass also reflects more contemporary perceptions of Gypsies as disadvantagedââbottom of the heapâ and discriminated against âbecause they are differentâ, representing some vague moral challenge to the complacency of mainstream society. This sympathetic view acknowledges that Gypsies have been, and continue to be, victims of prejudice and recognises that there are implications of a violent past for social cohesion today.
Of particular significance for this book is how Grass builds on traditional Romanticism and modern liberal paternalism to anticipate the politicisation of Roma identity. The quotation opens by referring to the Gypsiesâ political marginalisation. While the unpopularity of Gypsies and their lack of a mainstream political champion are both an historical fact and an observation on contemporary political culture, the very idea that there are Gypsy political interests which can or should be publicly represented is novel. These lines were written at a time of flourishing Roma political activism as part of the process of post-communist democratisation. A quarter of a century later, Roma representation has received unprecedented levels of support and Roma have become the target of numerous policies and programmes nominally designed to improve their lives.
Grass also mentions some notable features of emergent Roma politics. Public recognition of the persecution experienced at the hands of Nazi Germany and its allies has been important not only for the development of Roma/Sinti politics in Germany but also for the transnational Roma movement, exemplified by the institutionalisation of International Roma Holocaust Day. The Europeanness of Gypsies is emphasisedââthey are what we claim to be: born Europeansâ and national citizenship is seen as less important because they are âcareless of boundariesâ, living symbols of the New Europe. Anticipating that cross-border migration would become a central feature of the politics of Roma, the call for many more to âcome and live among usâ responded to a tense public debate at the time (and since) in Germany about the reception of Roma asylum seekers.
The quotation also highlights the varied nomenclature that can be applied, referring to Gypsies, Romanies and Sinti. The word âGypsyâ is used in the context of tradition, while Romanies and Sinti are identities associated with contemporary political considerations. This book utilises these and other labels that have been applied to a wide variety of communities which have been integrated (politically) into a wider Roma identity. The complexity of Roma identity is discussed in the next chapter, but for now it is sufficient to note that part of the process has been increasing preference for the word âRomaâ, particularly at the European level, subsequently influencing domestic national discourses.
The Politics of Roma in Western Europe
In Western Europe, the politics of Roma is most often explicitly associated with immigration from Central and Southeast Europe. In 1997, the arrival in Dover of a few hundred people seeking sanctuary from the new European democracies of the Czech Republic and Slovakia attracted public attention in Britain. These people became the target of tabloid indignation and exaggeration as the country was assailed by fears of an invasion of scrounging Gypsies (encouraged by television programmes in their home countries) seeking an easy life at the UK taxpayersâ expense. It seemed hard to believe claims that these people were genuine refugees when they came from countries which had only just returned to the democratic fold following the Westâs victory in the Cold War. When it was shown that Roma communities were suffering deep poverty and prejudice, the anxiety became even more acute due to the implication that (if something was not done soon) 100,000s more would come.
The UK government responded by posting immigration officials at Prague airport to âpre-clearâ passengers heading for Britain so that they would not claim asylum or otherwise breach immigration rules. Though there was no explicit mention of Roma, both the cause and effect of the action led to the widespread perception that this screening was based on a form of racial profiling. In 2004 the government suffered political embarrassment when the House of Lords came to the view that âan operation like this, prompted by an influx of asylum seekers who are overwhelmingly from one comparatively easily identifiable racial or ethnic group, requires enormous care if it is to be done without discrimination. ⊠That did not happen. The inevitable conclusion is that the operation was inherently and systemically discriminatory and unlawfulâ (Lords of Appeal 2004).
In the years that followed, East European Roma ceased to be a subject of national debate. Along with hundreds of thousands of other immigrants, many Roma found work, housing and enrolled their children in school. A study carried out by Equality of Czech and Slovak Roma children in the UK found almost universal fluency in English with standard of numeracy, literacy and science just below the national average. These results had been achieved despite the fact that the children were learning in a foreign language and that 85% of the pupils surveyed had previously been categorised in their home countries as having special educational needs (Equality/REF 2011).
Roma hit the headlines again in 2013 as UK political anxieties about the countryâs relationship with the European Union (EU) focussed on fears about immigration from Bulgaria and Romania. Roma initially had a relatively minor role in this debate, such as the dismantling of a number of âcampsâ in central London (London Evening Standard 2013), but the finding by academics that there were almost 200,000 East European Roma in the UK attracted national attention. Though presented as a âconservative estimateâ, the publication by the University of Salford implied that that there were a huge number of East European Roma in the country, almost as many as the total number of citizens from the Eastern EU (excepting the Poles who numbered around half a million). The research also found that Roma migrants were seen as having âcomplex needsâ which local authorities found âchallengingâ, and linked this problem with the need for more funding (Brown et al. 2013, p. 8).
The Salford research reflected a common feature of political discussions about Romaâa preference for high population numbers, the association of Roma with social problems and a call for extra resources. More Roma equals more problems requiring more resources to be made available to address these issues. The methodology used to arrive at the estimate was quickly questioned by academics (Matras 2015a, pp. 29â30) and even the UK government warned that the research should be âtreated with extreme caution, as they are estimates based on replies from only a third of local authorities and rely on anecdotal informationâ. Nevertheless, this alarming number was enough to inspire a former Home Secretary to denounce Roma for behaving as if they lived âin a downtrodden village or woodland, because many of them donât even live in areas where there are toilets or refuse collection facilitiesâ and to talk menacingly of social unrest (BBC 2013).
The arrival of migrants with little or no English from disadvantaged backgrounds produces needs which public authorities have had to respond to and there have been local initiatives developed in cities, such as Manchester and Glasgow, explicitly to support Roma. Yet, Roma has not become an acute or even significant political issue and there are grounds for cautious optimism that the UK may be able to cope with Roma migration relatively well. Though far from perfect, there are well-established structures for and experience of assisting new communities, as well as effective laws against racial discrimination which deter media demonisation. The UK economy has created many low-paid jobs which have allowed communities, such as those studied by the University of Manchesterâs MigRom project, to work hard, learn English, attend school and also support relatives at home (MigRom 2015).
The prospects for France are less auspicious. Though East European asylum seekers had attracted public attention from the 1990s, Roma became the subject of domestic political debate in spectacular fashion in 2010 following a violent protest by a community of the countryâs indigenous Gens du Voyage (a legal categorisation of travellers). In response, the government ordered the demolition of shanty towns and temporary settlements, including the growing number of camps created by groups of migrants from new EU Member States. The ambiguity of whether this action was aimed at the native travelling population or immigrant Roma was soon overcome by the release of a government circular to regional police chiefs ordering that â300 camps or illegal settlements must be evacuated within three months; Roma camps are a priority. ... It is down to the PrĂ©fect [state representative] in each department to begin a systematic dismantling of the illegal camps, particularly those of the Romaâ (Guardian 2010).
This policy of explicit ethnic targeting and the violence of the clearances sparked protest at home and abroad, but it was the timing of the action that turned it into an international political issue. Instead of processing each personâs case on its merits in accordance with the law, in taking collective action to remove EU citizens the French governmentâs actions called into question the meaning one of the EUâs four freedoms. The Commissioner for Rights and Justice, Vivienne Redding, made a passionate intervention likening it to the treatment of Jews in Vichy France. The Sarkozy government responded by expressing dismay at the criticism rather than its cause but, to avoid being censured a European Commission investigation, the circular was withdrawn and commitments given to respect the rights of camp residents.
In 2012 the new Hollande government issued detailed guidance to local authorities on what steps they should take when dismantling camps and processing their inhabitants for removal (Carrera 2013). A senior official was appointed to supervise the policy and France also signed a repatriation agreement with Romania. Evictions continued and even increased, with the number of Roma affected rising from 11,982 in 2012 to 13,483 in 2014 (EURACTIV 2015). Having a policy allowed politicians to explain to the public what should happen, but Amnesty International noted that in practice Roma were âstill being repeatedly chased out of their living spaces without being adequately consulted, informed or rehoused, in breach of Franceâs international commitments. No effective safeguards to prevent forced evictions have been put in place, and the situation on the ground shows that, in fact, the measures taken by the government so far are insufficient to remedy this violation of international human rights lawâ (Amnesty International 2013).
While Interior Minister Valls insisted that Roma should go home and integrate in Romania or Bulgaria ...
