The ‘Camps System’ in Italy

Corruption, Inefficiencies and Practices of Resistance

Riccardo Armillei

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9783319763170
• eBook ISBN:
  9783319763187
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Social Sciences

This book deals with the social exclusion of Romanies ('Gypsies') in Italy. Based on interviews with Romani individuals, institutional and Civil Society Organisations' (CSOs) representatives, participant observation and a broad range of secondary sources, the volume focuses on the conditions of those living in Rome's urban slums and on the recent implementation of the so-called 'Emergenza Nomadi' (Nomad Emergency). The enactment of this extraordinary measure concealed the existence of a long-established institutional tradition of racism and control directed at Romanies. It was not the result of a sudden, unexpected situation which required an immediate action, as the declaration of an 'emergency' might imply, but rather of a precise government strategy. By providing an investigation into the interactions between Romanies, local institutions and CSOs, this book will deliver a new perspective on the Romani issue by arguing that the 'camp' is not only a tool for institutional control and segregation, but also for 'resistance', as well as a huge business in which everyone plays their part.

© The Author(s) 2018

Riccardo ArmilleiThe ‘Camps System’ in ItalyMapping Global Racismshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76318-7_1

Begin Abstract

1. Inside campi nomadi: The Italian Approach to the Global Shanty Town Development

Riccardo Armillei¹

(1)

Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation (ADI), Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia

End Abstract

Global ‘Slummification’, Romani People and the EU’s Response

The development of urban slum areas is a global phenomenon and one of the major issues of the twenty-first century: a sad reflection of the dire living conditions and sense of abandonment experienced by its inhabitants. Aggravated by the global economic crisis, the foci of poverty have been shifting to cities, with the formation of ‘shanty towns’ representing an evident sign of this process (Gago-Cortés and Novo-Corti 2015: 2). According to the UN-Habitat (2016), urban areas around the world are facing greater challenges (demographic, environmental, economic, social and spatial) than ever before, largely due to a continuous rural–urban migration. Today, more than a half (54 per cent) of the world’s population lives in urban areas, and this is a figure that is expected to grow larger by 2030. While cities keep sprawling, they have also faced growing difficulties integrating migrants and refugees. Unable to keep up with the growing demand, particularly from the neediest, the dominant model of urbanisation has generated multiple forms of inequality, exclusion and deprivation, with spatial inequalities and divided cities as an unwelcome side effect (e.g. gated communities and slum areas).

Already in 2001, UN-Habitat had estimated that ‘924 million people, or 31.6 percent of the total urban population in the world, lived in slums’ (UN-Habitat 2016: 13). The absolute number of slum dwellers has continued to increase since then, with one in eight people across the world today, living in areas whose defining characteristics are their ‘precarious legality and almost non-existent level of services such as community facilities, potable water, and waste removal’ (ibid.). Though this is clearly a phenomenon affecting the developing world, the rising presence of housing deprivation can be observed in the developed world as well (58). In Europe, for instance, migrant slums sprang up in some of the major capital cities (Madrid and Paris, just to name a few). Canada Real Galiana, only a 15-minute drive from the centre of Madrid, is believed to be Europe’s largest shanty town, with around 30,000 people (many from North Africa or Eastern Europe) living here illegally (Keller 2016). In Paris, the derelict Petite Ceinture railway, once known for its hipster cafe and beer garden, is now home to a squatter camp. Home to an estimated population of 350 people (mainly Romanies from Romania and Bulgaria), it also houses refugees from the Middle East (Azadé 2016).

With an estimated population of 10–12 million, the Romani people make up Europe’s largest ethnic minority (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA] 2017a). They have been subjected to social exclusion and marginalisation for centuries and are still today one of the poorest and most discriminated against groups on the continent (e.g. securing access to health, education, employment and housing is extremely difficult). According to data collected by the EU Commission’s network of National Focal Points (RAXEN), many Romani people live in informal settlements or unauthorised housing. As the Fundamental Rights Report 2017 shows, around 80 per cent of Romani people ‘live below their country’s at-risk-of-poverty threshold, one in three live in housing without tap water and one in 10 live in housing without electricity’ (FRA 2017b: 18). People living in such conditions are also under the constant threat of forced evictions (Council of Europe [CoE] 2016). There are thus a number of obstacles that prevent Romanies from accessing basic goods and services, such as securing equal rights to housing, health care, education and work. In addition, ‘throughout Europe, the Roma are poorly represented in political and administrative structures and face considerable difficulties in integrating into mainstream society’ (Renzi 2010: 40).

In the last few decades, European institutions have increasingly raised their concern about the situation of Romani communities throughout the continent. The emergence of this new interest can be better understood if placed within the perspective of two major events: the collapse of the Eastern European Communist regimes in 1989 and, later, the eastward enlargement of the European Union (EU). The presence of a large Romani population in Central and Eastern Europe, whose lived environment was one of severe discrimination and marginalisation, was perceived with fear by the more prosperous Western European countries. They feared being ‘invaded’ by poor and desperate waves of Romani migrants, whose situation had worsened after the economic and political collapse of the former Soviet bloc (Bartlett et al. 2011). The situation of the Romani minority groups ceased to be treated as a mere ‘external affair’ (Pogány 2004: 2): this increased its political salience within the European agenda. With the aim of creating a new and united community, the EU became a fertile ground for the promotion of human rights.

Clearly, the plight of Europe’s biggest and most marginalised ethnic minority group could no longer be ignored. Throughout the process of consolidation of the EU and of its institutions and mechanisms, Romani-related issues were now considered to be one of its major concerns, and improvement of Romani living conditions became a pre-requisite for joining the EU (Rövid 2011). In 2008, the European Platform for Roma Inclusion was launched during the first European Roma Summit held in Brussels (European Commission 2013). A year later, the Ten Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion was adopted as a tool for both policymakers and practitioners managing programmes and projects designed to support Romani inclusion (European Commission 2009). In 2011, the European Commission introduced the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 aimed at improving the economic and social situation of this minority through the implementation of ‘common European goals’. This communiqué marked a joint effort by European institutions and EU member states to achieve by 2020, the social inclusion and integration of Romani people by developing targeted measures in four crucial areas: education, employment, health care and housing (European Commission 2011: 4–7).

Nevertheless, many Romani advocates have strongly criticised this strategy, because it neither introduced real measures to combat a widespread anti-Romani sentiment nor did it involve the Romani communities themselves in the elaboration of inclusion policies directed specifically towards these people (European Public Health Alliance 2011). A critical aspect of the new EU approach is that social inclusion would merely imply a ‘top-down process’. Drawing on Musgrave and Bradshaw’s work (2014), EU institutions continue to use a model, the outcomes of which view inclusion as ‘assimilation’ to a mainstream: ‘Decisions about what an individual can be included in are made on this normative basis and are not negotiable by those who are to be included’ (ibid.: 198). In a way, this conceptual change would seem to reflect the new global ‘tendency to split societies and people into “included” and “excluded”’ (Molero-Mesa and Jiménez-Lucena 2013: 13). Social inclusion-related issues point to complex contextual questions that researchers and policymakers should pay attention to. For example, who defines inclusion? And what does inclusion signify for those in different social and economic positions? (Wotherspoon and Hansen 2013: 34). These are questions that are generally ignored. In other words, instead of challenging the status quo and raising awareness as to how society might be made more inclusive, discourses of social inclusion/exclusion served to normalise and unquestioningly strengthen existing arrangements.

The Politics of the Romani People in Contemporary Italy

Romanies from Central and Eastern Europe have moved to and from Italy for centuries. The first settlements can be traced back to around the fourteenth century; part of migratory flows from South-Eastern Europe during the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into the Balkan region (Bellucci 2007). The Romanies in Italy represent a very small minority group. According to the most recent figures, between 120,000 and 180,000 Romani are living in Italy. This corresponds to 0.25 per cent of the national population. It is also estimated that 28,000 of t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Inside campi nomadi: The Italian Approach to the Global Shanty Town Development
• 2. The Institutional and Spatial Segregation of Romanies in Italy
• 3. The Paradoxes of the Italian Approach Towards the Romani People
• 4. The Business of the Camps During the ‘Nomad Emergency’
• 5. Between Self-Determination and ‘Collective-Identity Closure’
• 6. Conclusions
• Back Matter