|
|
LGI / Resources / Ethnic relationsLocal Governance in Multi-ethnic Communities of Central and Eastern Europe Background to the WorkshopLocal government and public administration in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have been transformed since the collapse of communism. For example, many local authorities now have the devolved responsibility of implementing policies to conform with international minority rights standards. Yet these authorities are often hindered in their capacity to respond to local needs due to tight controls by the central government. A number of countries have made provisions to enact minority rights within the sphere of local administrative districts. Yet these provisions may be poorly implemented due to inadequate resources, insufficient technical expertise and a lack of political will at all levels. There is an urgent need to develop methods to overcome these barriers and to support local governance’s ability to meet the specific needs of diverse communities. While communities in other parts of the world also struggle with these issues, methods and approaches must be appropriate to the unique situation of European countries in transition. Tensions and innovationWhile people may be aware of the tensions in inter-ethnic relations in the region, few know of the many innovative approaches that exist to promote multicultural harmony. These good practices can become a source of inspiration for strategies to address persistent problems – if others are aware of them. To support this process, Minority Rights Group International (MRG) and the Liga Pro Europa co-organized a skills exchange workshop on local governance in multi-ethnic communities in the region. Civil servants, members of minority communities, non-governmental organization (NGO) activists and public officials from Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia met for four days in Romania in April 1997 to analyze the problems they encounter in their own communities and to share ideas and experiences of good practice. The workshop discussion showed that there is an underlying similarity between situations, even though diversity is also apparent. Overall, participants realized that it is impossible to disassociate problems at the local level from their national and international context. Yet, because broader conflicts manifest themselves locally, there is a need to develop systems to manage and resolve them through local governance and public administration. Many participants expressed their belief that – at its best – local government is in a better position than central authorities to respond to the diverse needs of multi-ethnic communities. This is due to its capacity to negotiate with different local interest groups and foster a framework of shared local identity. However, there is also a need to ensure that local authorities do not fail in their responsibility to fully protect and promote human and minority rights. This issue is at the centre of the tension in the transition period between the imperative of the rule of law, and the realization that law operates within a broader social and political context – in which the law is not always implemented. The tension between the law, on the one hand, and politics and society on the other, became clear in the discussion; it emerged that local political leaders are sometimes able to develop stronger rights-based policies and practices than existing national legislation and jurisprudence. While local government must obey the law, it is also possible for it to go beyond the minimal level of protection which the law may currently offer. While participants identified an extremely broad array of concerns among multi-ethnic communities, three main themes emerged:
This Workshop Report summarizes some of the key discussions and illustrates some of the examples of good practice that were presented. The skills exchange workshop methodologyParticipants were recruited based on their direct experience of issues related to local governance in multi-ethnic communities and their reputation for a commitment to good practice. In the workshop, facilitated discussions encouraged joint analysis and problem-solving. On the first evening, participants identified the key issues that are most problematic in their work. On the second day, participants analyzed the issues identified, discussed the relationships between the issues and chose the three topics to be explored in greater depth. The third day focused on the problems and shared strategies for solutions to the three priority topics. On the final day, participants discussed conclusions and future activities, both in country-specific groups and in a full plenary session. Discussion was enabled by simultaneous interpretation in five languages. Participants found this type of meeting valuable because they were able to determine the agenda and discuss the issues most important to them. They also stressed the importance of developing links with others trying to address similar problems, both within and across countries. They anticipated that they would stay in contact with other participants. The legal and political framework for management of minority/majority relationsThe intersection of law, politics, and structures of public administration was a major focus. Participants discussed issues ranging from the importance of local government in implementing law at the local level, to structural arrangements for promoting the political representation of minority interests, to tensions around decentralization of power and administrative responsibilities, and the various integrating functions of local government and local identity. The rule of law and political willParticipants agreed that all CEE societies are multicultural. Yet the position of minorities within these societies is dependent on the willingness of political regimes to acknowledge this multiculturalism. This has led members of minority groups and others to demand legal and institutional guarantees of their rights. While CEE states are moving towards becoming constitutional democracies based on the respect of human rights, participants noted that, in practice, rights are not protected evenly in every country or for every minority. Many participants pointed out that implementation of minority rights in particular, has depended largely on political will at both the national and local levels. Some argued that this problem can only be remedied through the rule of law. This led to the question of whether the implementation of law is possible without the necessary political will, particularly in the transition period. A participant from Hungary said that the legal framework should emerge as the expression of political will through the legislative process, where all the diverse interests that constitute the society should have an opportunity to participate. He emphasized the need for control mechanisms to ensure that the resulting legal provisions are implemented at all levels. This is particularly important because most policies that impact on the everyday life of minorities are implemented at the local level. Some Bulgarian and Slovakian participants were concerned that governmental control mechanisms may only be effective in strong democracies. Therefore social controls that emerge out of a strong civil society, e.g. from community or media pressure, are necessary for the effective guarantee of rights and the rule of law. A local public official from Romania pointed out that sometimes legal solutions are not necessarily the best means to tackle problems found in diverse communities. Law is, in effect, the lowest common denominator of a society. It lacks the sensitivity to manage real life situations and good solutions usually go beyond legal norms. He claimed that local officials must often rely on their own creativity to devise solutions that are responsive to local needs – usually through negotiation, with outcomes that address the needs of both majority and minority communities. Another participant countered that while it may be true that measures developed locally can offer better protection for minorities than national policies; conversely, there is also a risk that local authorities, due to their particular interests, may refuse to harmonize their policies and practices with national or international standards and offer inferior protection. Participants discussed the variety of control mechanisms that can be used to ensure that minority rights are protected and the law is implemented at local and national levels. Monitoring by rights-based NGOs, the media, and, more generally, by voters, can put pressure on public officials. Direct or indirect involvement of minorities in decision-making processes can serve as a preventive measure. Seeking legal remedies through administrative and constitutional courts can be an effective means of enforcement. Ombudsman offices can help ensure implementation.
Models of local administrative and governance arrangementsAnother crucial issue participants identified concerned the structural and practical
arrangements that might ensure the representation of minorities in political decisions at
the local level. They identified two basic models. The Participants debated which model is more effective. One participant said that the success of the co-administrative model may be dependent, in part, on the degree of minority representation among administrative staff and elected officials. The composition of local government should reflect the composition of the whole community. Minorities will then have more opportunities to generate understanding and responsiveness to their concerns. They may also have more opportunities for effective participation in decision-making and implementation, participating as equals. Another participant felt that the cooperative model may be better suited to the preservation of group identity because minorities can elect to voluntarily create separate institutions that permit group development. Someone else cautioned that separate institutions can exacerbate tensions between the majority and minority groups, and, at its most extreme, can serve to enforce segregation between ethnic communities. In Hungary, the cooperative model has been established through legislation that provides for autonomous minorities self-governments at the local and national level. According to several participants, the effects of this arrangement have been mixed, mainly because budgeting constraints have frequently created competition between the minorities’ local self-governments and the local authorities. (See below.)
Minority representation in local level decision-makingAn observer from the United Kingdom (UK) raised concerns about typical problems of minority representation within elected bodies. In practice, local election procedures often impede the representation of minorities’ interests and preserve the representation of influential groups or individuals’ views. A participant from Poland noted that dispersed minority groups are particularly at a disadvantage when there are no compensatory mechanisms to support their representation. In Poland, minorities can only achieve political representation in areas where compact minority groups represent the local majority. Therefore Germans and Roma have no direct political representation as communities at either the national or local levels. The situation of the Roma, in particular, was raised by several participants. According to a Roma civil rights activist from Hungary, their effective political representation is extremely weak. This is because most Roma live in fragmented communities, struggling against discrimination and the Roma leaders are not sufficiently unified to counter this problem. It is therefore important that local governments support the local Roma community and the development of civil society so as to strengthen the basis for self-organization and political representation. He noted that there are some positive trends in Hungary in the fields of education and political empowerment. However, he pointed out that previous governments have treated the Roma and their self-governments as inferiors, rather than as equal partners. He argued nevertheless that Roma share common interests with the broader society in which they live and must therefore be integrated into government at both the central and local levels. A participant from Slovakia said that in his country, the Roma have been represented by several political parties. These parties have had little electoral success in either national or local elections. He felt that forming political parties on an ethnic basis may not be effective because ethnic minority communities are subdivided into different interest groups, including socio-economic and other divides. He argued that mainstream political parties should take on minority concerns and run candidates from different ethnic groups. It was observed that participation in decision-making depends on the demographic composition of the group. In areas where the majority is numerically dominant, minorities must have a voice in decision processes. When the minority is dominant in an area, the issue becomes the way in which this area interacts with the larger state. One participant argued that when decision-making occurs through political processes, problems can be addressed most easily when there are minority representatives addressing the full spectrum of political issues at the local, regional, and central levels. The challenge for local authorities is to manage the tensions and promote development in a way that represents the plurality of local society. Public administration and decentralization: the subsidiarity principleIn most CEE countries, the democratization of the political sphere and the privatization of the economy have been accompanied by reforms in public administration. This process has been marked by tension between the central government and local authorities over who will have competency over specific areas of public life. In most countries, reform has involved varying degrees of decentralization, although power has at times oscillated between central and local authorities. Participants explored the extent to which decentralization promotes the participation of minority communities in public administration and governance. One participant argued that decentralized systems facilitate minority representation and said that, in general, the subsidiarity principle – when decisions are taken at the lowest appropriate level – is the best form of governance to address minority/majority issues. Another participant agreed, but argued that there is no pre-set, ‘ideal model’ between fully centralized and fully decentralized systems. The best arrangements develop when minorities are able to participate in the process of renegotiating subsidiarity arrangements within the new structures of public administration. Identity, community, and conflict preventionMost participants agreed that problems are not caused by the existence of different identities within a society, but arise when authorities promote and privilege one identity over others. Participants decided that membership of the state should be based on citizenship rather than on a particular ethnic (or ‘national’) identity. According to a participant from Romania, this implies that the local community consists of all the inhabitants – regardless of their ethnic identity. A key role of local government is to support a common local identity that generates a local community and a peaceful, multicultural coexistence. Strong communities are better able to solve their problems than weak, fragmented communities. Another participant questioned this idea, claiming that it might not be appropriate for the different dynamics present in areas with large populations where people may have less opportunities to come into contact. Here, it may be more difficult to ‘integrate’ different cultures into a common local community identity. Other participants pointed out that mobility of the population is another factor that can add to the difficulty of creating a common local community. It appears that the characteristics of local identity are dependent upon the size of the community, the mobility of its population, and its own unique history and circumstances. Some cautioned that there might be a danger of trying to engineer local identity artificially. Another commented that while local government should not interfere with individual identities, which tend to be complex and diverse, it must manage the background structures that facilitate an overarching civic identity. Legal guarantees are particularly important to protect identities where there is a conflict of interests, such as in the use of minorities’ own languages; local government must provide this protection. Others said that in addition to legal protection, citizens must take responsibility for their own attitudes and behaviour. Mutual respect is essential for peaceful cohabitation. Some argued that while the majority must respect the lifestyles and values of the minority, minorities must also extend the same respect to the majority. There was some debate about how this respect operates in public spaces, such as a street or local park, where different traditions and lifestyles can come into conflict. One participant suggested that common rules must govern public spaces, but that there should be no interference or violation of private space. However, no agreement was reached on how these common rules should be defined or on who decides what constitutes ‘public’ versus ‘private’ space. Participants also discussed the role of public celebrations and how they reflect history and cultural values. Such celebrations can reinforce the sense of a divided society when they are seen to represent the values of one group over another. Yet they can be opportunities for reconciliation between groups. Because local authorities are often in the position of sanctioning or even sponsoring these events, they can play an important role in bringing people together. A participant from Romania suggested that by reinterpreting historic themes in a contemporary context, it is possible to generate reciprocity and integration. Yet it was pointed out that this may only be possible if the participating groups share common values. It may also depend on the particular political leadership present in a community.
Education in diverse communitiesParticipants identified education as the second major focus area and discussed issues related to education for minority group members and education for understanding. Many of the issues raised by participants are regulated through central government policy; yet, because the application of these policies impacts on local community needs, participants felt that local authorities should develop ways of addressing these issues. They analyzed tensions between central and local authorities in educational provision; dilemmas over whether separate or integrated schools and classrooms better serve children from minority groups; and approaches through education for promoting understanding, multiculturalism, and group identity. Education for Roma children was seen to be one of the most sensitive and urgent issues in the field of education. Education for children from minority communitiesA number of participants commented that educational institutions appear to be slow to respond to the new political and social environment. There have been few changes in the legal framework in which educational institutions operate. Policies and practices are also still generally directed by central government. This means that local authorities are limited in their capacity to respond to local needs. According to a participant from Romania, the tensions between centralization and decentralization in education result from two antagonistic tendencies. On the one hand, there are strong political interests with a stake in a conservative, centralized system. This interest develops out of the perception of education as a state security concern because it is through education that the state reproduces the intellectual capacity and national identity of the next generation of its citizens. Yet, on the other hand, the education system plays a crucial role in developing both the specific skills and general attitudes that are necessary for a marketable workforce. This implies a modernizing impetus both culturally and technically. The participant argued that local authorities are often in a much better position to assess the potential workforce and social needs of their communities. Therefore, education should also be decentralized. Some participants expressed doubts over the feasibility of this given the political environment in their countries. Others countered that while radical educational reform may be unlikely, there are still opportunities for local authorities to encourage solutions that address the gap between local demands and the mainstream educational provisions offered by the state. Such mechanisms might involve supplementary teacher training programmes or cooperation with NGOs or businesses to provide alternatives to state education. Most participants seemed to agree that in the long-term, local communities should have a key role in the educational system because institutions tend to perform better if they are controlled by the community that uses them.
Many participants were concerned with the politicization of the education system, especially regarding minority issues. A participant from Slovakia commented that in his country, 96 per cent of all schools are state-run. Central government controls virtually all aspects of the education system and parents, pupils, and teachers have little or no influence over its form and content. The teachers are employees of the state and not of their local community. This has become a sensitive issue due to perceptions that their employment contracts make them vulnerable to political misuse. There are also problems regarding the language of education. Students from minority groups do not receive instruction in their mother tongue at primary and secondary school, because these languages are taught only as foreign languages. Conflict is also generated over perceptions of ethnic bias in the curriculum with claims that key subjects for forming identity are taught from the perspective of the majority. A participant from Hungary who represents the German community said that Germans constitute one third of Hungary’s minority population. Their two main concerns are the arrangements for education in the mother tongue and the financing of education for minorities. They want provisions for bilingual education because they believe they must be fluent in Hungarian as well as German to be successful. They also want to maintain links with Germany and take advantages of its cultural resources. He argued strongly that the state must finance education which meets minority communities’ needs because minorities are full citizens of a given country and fulfil their responsibilities such as paying taxes and obeying the law. According to a participant from Bulgaria, specific provisions for minority education are not considered by the state to be part of its obligations. He cited the case of the Pomak community. They are not allowed to form their own schools and even in areas where they constitute the majority, the language of instruction is Bulgarian. According to this participant, Pomak’s cultural links with Turkey are discouraged because they represent a ‘national security risk’. These controls are seen as serious barriers to the preservation and development of a distinct Pomak identity. Most participants acknowledged the importance of instruction in the mother tongue to protect and promote group identity. There were heated discussions on the different types of arrangements for minority education and the language of instruction. Participants agreed that no one type of education is preferable in all circumstances, instead authorities should be flexible and responsive to opportunities. Three types of arrangements were identified:
Several participants were concerned about the danger of promoting separate institutions. A participant from Poland argued that integrated institutions should be able to allow children from all groups to develop their own identity and become familiar with people from other groups. Integrated institutions could also help children to adapt to multi-ethnic environments. A participant from Hungary said that separate and integrated forms of minority education could be offered in parallel, so that parents can choose where to send their children. Others claimed that while this might be ideal, there are likely to be practical difficulties due to the scarce resources available for education.
Arrangements for educational success and cultural development in Roma communitiesA number of participants believe that the issues are different in educational arrangements for Roma children. A participant described the situation in Hungary where, for example, the form of education for Roma is generally considered to be a ‘pedagogical problem’ rather than an issue related to the protection of identity. Segregated classes for Roma are offered by many local authorities as a form of social intervention, yet their quality is often poor, affecting the future life chances of the children. A participant from Bulgaria claimed that few Roma parents request Romani as the medium of instruction for their children. He believes that this is through fear that it would be disadvantageous to their children’s futures. A Roma participant from Bulgaria pointed out that few Roma complete secondary and higher education. He attributes this in part to the low standard of schools attended by most Roma children. He believes that the solution lies in special pre-school programmes that equip Roma children with a knowledge of Bulgarian and prepare them to enter mainstream primary schools that meet the national standard. A participant from Romania agreed with this analysis. While he feels that this would be best accomplished in pre-schools, there are currently no provisions for these schools in Romania. His local authority does, however, offer Roma classes at the entry level to primary school. It allows Roma children to adapt to the school’s requirements in a supportive environment without the stress of rejection or discrimination from other students. Teachers in these pre-school programmes are professionals, often from the Roma community, who are paid from the normal school budget. A participant from Slovakia said that low educational attainment is often related to Roma’s poor knowledge of Slovakian. Here, pre-schools allow children to learn Slovakian to address this difficulty. He argued that Roma identity and culture can be promoted through alternative cultural institutions that also serve as a focus for developing the Roma community.
According to a Roma leader from Hungary, it is also very important to create institutions that further the development of a Roma intelligentsia. A participant from Slovakia agreed with this and pointed to the development of a university Chair of Roma Studies. The ‘Romaversitas’ programme, Hungary
‘Education for tolerance’/intercultural educationIn addition to concerns about the educational arrangements for members of minority communities, most participants agreed on the need for education to promote understanding. This is especially important because of the common perception in majority communities that they are somehow ‘sponsoring’ minority cultures (despite minorities also being taxpayers). Participants felt that majorities may frequently be willing to tolerate the existence of minorities but resist any manifestation of their identity. The task, therefore, is to educate majorities to understand minorities’ histories and contexts, while also providing legal and institutional guarantees for the protection of minority rights. Many strategies may be needed to achieve this, including the development of appropriate curricula and teaching materials, special classroom activities and teachers’ training programmes. The aim is to raise consciousness, fight prejudice and stereotypes, and promote understanding in a multicultural environment. Once institutionalized, programmes can have lasting effects. Liga Pro Europa in Romania, for example, operates a ‘Democracy College’ as a civic education project which has mixed groups of students working together on a variety of topics. They noticed that with the third generation of students, a multicultural community was gradually forming. Several participants pointed to the role that local government can play in selecting or creating educational curricula that includes and demonstrates the contributions of minorities. Participants from Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia countered this with the difficulties they have experienced in proposing alternative curricula. Yet most agreed that it might be possible to cooperate with NGOs and other institutions in meeting these aims.
Social and economic development: approaches for empowering minoritiesLocal authorities have a range of responsibilities for promoting social and economic development in their community. Participants acknowledged that many complex issues must be addressed if socio-economically disadvantaged minorities are to benefit equally from development. This is particularly important when groups have both identity-protection needs and socio-economic disadvantages. Participants discussed the dilemmas of developing special programmes for minorities. One participant pointed out that there are two contradictory tendencies in post-communist societies. The establishment of democratic governance and society has often been at odds with the neo-liberal methods of economic transition that have resulted in the impoverishment of many people. Some minorities, especially Roma, have been among the most vulnerable. While most governments run social assistance programmes for Roma, many of these resources do not actually benefit them. Sometimes this is because the authorities responsible are afraid of the backlash that could come from other citizens if they implemented these programmes. Another participant said that visible support for specific minority communities can trigger hostility among members of other groups who believe that minorities are receiving unfair privileges – even though the minority as a whole may clearly be disadvantaged. Thus development projects can stimulate conflict, even though they are needed. Programmes for Roma have often encountered this resistance. Another participant suggested that it may be best to involve minority and majority representatives to conceive, plan, and implement programmes so that they are well understood. It was argued that this approach could foster a sense of shared responsibility and enhance the community as a whole. Participants discussed practices that could address these problems, including local authorities cooperating with minority rights and development-oriented NGOs to provide services.
Difficulties can arise when local authorities decide to implement social development programmes without local people’s participation. While technocratic approaches to policy design may seek to be ‘ethnically neutral’, communities should be involved if conflicts are to be prevented. In several Bulgarian towns, local authorities and civil organizations have worked together to develop a holistic programme to tackle the complex issues that are experienced by low-income Roma neighbourhoods. One of the most important features is that the technical experts have worked with Roma community residents as consultants to the project.
ConclusionsTowards the end of the workshop, participants reflected on the broader context of inter-group relations in the CEE region. Some pointed out that peaceful cohabitation and multiculturalism have a long tradition in the region, although people outside have often only been aware of the problems. One participant commented that national identity is not static, it continues to change and develop. The direction of change in majority/minority identities may depend on the state of inter-group relations and, in particular, whether the majority tries to force the minority into submission. New identities may now emerge that do not rest on one culture or one language, but on a complex interaction with the many elements present in a country or region. These identities can be positively fostered through common values, ideas and celebrations. Yet this may only be possible if there is already a basis of trust and reciprocity between groups, because then individuals will want to share with each other. One participant observed that as European integration deepens, a fundamental shift will occur in the traditional understanding of majority/minority relations. Europe will become the superstructure through which each ‘nation’ becomes, in effect, a minority within the larger community. This should radically alter our understanding of the ‘nation state’ and may transform the position of groups that have been a minority within the state. Another participant commented on minorities’ special role in promoting multicultural societies. Both practically and at a social-psychological level, the multiple identities that members of minority groups are often forced to develop may be the source of new attitudes and ideas that can support coexistence and cooperation. One of the barriers to this is the lack of contact and exchange between different minority and majority groups in the region. Participants agree that there is a need for an infrastructure of communication that allows for a cross-fertilization of ideas and practices within and between countries of the region. However, participants believe that the CEE’s specific problems are best addressed through problem-solving from within the region. It is hoped that this skills-exchange workshop has served as a catalyst for networking to develop creative solutions in the future. List of participantsBulgaria
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
This workshop was an activity of the CEE Initiative. This is a three-year programme coordinated by MRG International and nine regional NGOs and academic institutions from Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia who are working together to promote minority rights and the development of pluralistic democracies in the region. Participants for this workshop were recruited by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland, the Inter-Ethnic Initiative for Human Rights in Bulgaria, and Minority Rights Group-Slovakia. Future skills exchange workshops will be organized on topics including education in diverse communities, minority participation and socio-economic development. We are grateful for the help of the British Know How Fund and the National Forum Foundation for funding the workshop and to the Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative (affiliated with the Open Society Institute) for its general assistance and funding support for research and publication projects on minorities and local governance. We are also grateful to the Dutch Bureau for Central and Eastern Europe for its general funding support for the CEE Initiative. We would especially like to acknowledge and thank Petra Kovács who served as workshop rapporteur in a voluntary capacity. The views expressed in this Workshop Report represent a summary of the views of the individual participants and do not necessarily reflect those of MRG International. LGI / Resources / Ethnic relations |