UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of
transnational governmentality
van Baar, H.J.M.
Publication date
2011
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
van Baar, H. J. M. (2011). The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the
limits of transnational governmentality.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
Chapterȱ7ȱ
TravelingȱActivismȱin/againstȱ
theȱSpiritȱofȱNeoȬLiberalismȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTION:ȱTHEȱROMANIȱMOVEMENTȱAFTERȱTHEȱFALLȱOFȱCOMMUNISMȱ ȱ DuringȱoneȱofȱtheȱlargeȱNovemberȱ1989ȱdemonstrationsȱagainstȱtheȱcommunistȱleaderȬ shipȱinȱCzechoslovakia,ȱVáclavȱHavelȱappearedȱonȱtheȱstageȱtogetherȱwithȱEmilȱŠ²uka,ȱ Janȱ Rusenko,ȱ andȱ Vojt¼chȱ Ziga.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ threeȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechoslovakȱ Romaniȱ leadersȱ whoȱ wereȱ alreadyȱ activeȱ inȱ theȱ 1980sȱ andȱ pioneersȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ andȱ Slovakȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ(Pe²ínkaȱ2003).ȱDuringȱtheȱnonȬviolentȱprotestsȱthatȱwouldȱleadȱtoȱtheȱresigȬ nationȱ ofȱ theȱ communistȱ leadership,ȱ theseȱ Romaȱ foundedȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Civicȱ Initiativeȱ (ROIȱ orȱ Romskáȱ ob²anskáȱ initiativa)ȱ andȱ joinedȱ Havelȱ andȱ otherȱ dissidentsȱ whoȱ hadȱ foundedȱtheȱCivicȱForumȱ(Ob²anskéȱforum)ȱaȱfewȱdaysȱearlier.ȱOnȱ22ȱNovember,ȱtheȱROIȱ leadershipȱformulatedȱaȱproclamationȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱstated:ȱ ȱ Brothersȱandȱsisters,ȱRoma!ȱArise!ȱLetȱusȱawaken!ȱOurȱdayȱhasȱcome,ȱtheȱdayȱweȱhaveȱ awaitedȱforȱsoȱmanyȱyears.ȱTheȱdayȱisȱhere.ȱTheȱRomaȱlivingȱinȱthisȱcountryȱhave,ȱforȱ theȱfirstȱtime,ȱtakenȱtheirȱdestinyȱinȱtheirȱownȱhands.ȱNowȱitȱisȱupȱtoȱus,ȱifȱweȱshowȱ ourselvesȱ capableȱ ofȱ unitingȱ andȱofȱ doingȱ somethingȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ ourȱ childrenȱ …ȱ Theȱ [Civic]ȱ Forumȱ andȱ theȱ ROIȱ willȱ defendȱ allȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ country.ȱ Letȱ ourȱromanipenȱ [‘Romaniȱ soul’]ȱ leadȱ usȱ toȱ aȱ betterȱ life.ȱ Letȱ usȱ notȱ forgetȱ theȱ truthȱ ofȱ ourȱ
fathers:ȱ whoȱ givesȱ respectȱ receivesȱ respect!ȱ (Englishȱ translationȱ citedȱ Liégeoisȱ 2007:ȱ 212)ȱ
ȱ
Threeȱdaysȱlater,ȱŠ²ukaȱandȱRusenkoȱgaveȱaȱspeechȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱaboutȱaȱmillionȱofȱ peopleȱ whoȱ hadȱ gatheredȱ atȱ Prague’sȱ Letnáȱ plain.ȱ Whileȱ someȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ audienceȱ wereȱwavingȱaȱRomaniȱflag,ȱtheseȱRomaniȱactivistsȱwereȱcallingȱforȱaȱdemocraticȱsocietyȱ withȱequalȱcitizenshipȱrightsȱforȱtheȱRoma,ȱincludingȱtheȱrightȱtoȱmaintainȱandȱdevelopȱ theirȱ ownȱ culturalȱ andȱ ethnicȱ identity.ȱ Theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ Havelȱ andȱ otherȱ dissidentsȱ togetherȱwithȱtheȱRomaniȱleadersȱwasȱmoreȱthanȱaȱsymbolicȱgesture.ȱSinceȱtheȱlateȱ1970s,ȱ anȱ explicitȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ communistȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ Romaȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ dissidentȱ attemptsȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱdictatorship,ȱincludingȱitsȱviolationȱofȱhumanȱandȱcivilȱrights.ȱ Tenȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ communism,ȱ theȱ civilȱ movementȱ Charterȱ 77ȱ warnedȱ thatȱ aȱ modernizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechoslovakȱ economyȱ wouldȱ haveȱ radicalȱ consequencesȱ forȱ theȱ Roma:ȱ
Theȱ demandȱ forȱ unskilledȱ laborȱ willȱ thenȱ fall,1ȱ threateningȱ theȱ Romaȱ withȱ massiveȱ
unemploymentȱ whichȱ willȱ exposeȱ thisȱ ruthlesslyȱ urbanizedȱ minorityȱ toȱ extremeȱ pressure,ȱ andȱ fuseȱ theirȱ socialȱ ostracismȱ andȱ materialȱ oppressionȱ withȱ aȱ newȱ ethnicȱ consciousness,ȱ allȱ theȱ strongerȱ theȱ moreȱ cruellyȱ itȱ isȱ todayȱ suppressed.ȱ (Charterȱ 77ȱ 1979b:ȱ7)ȱ
ȱ
Inȱaȱnutshell,ȱthisȱwarningȱaccuratelyȱexpressesȱwhatȱhappenedȱinȱtheȱimmediateȱafterȬ mathȱ ofȱ theȱ collapseȱ ofȱ theȱ communistȱ regimesȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ developmentsȱ differedȱ fromȱ countryȱ toȱ countryȱ (Guyȱ 2001a;ȱ Baranyȱ 2002).ȱ LargeȬscaleȱ unemploymentȱ amongȱ theȱ Roma,ȱ radicalȱ formsȱ ofȱ institutionalȱ andȱ citizenȱ violenceȱagainstȱthem,ȱandȱtheirȱbuddingȱethnicȱmobilizationȱwereȱthreeȱimportantȱcharȬ acteristicsȱ ofȱ theirȱ situationȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s.ȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ establishedȱ politicalȱ partiesȱthatȱranȱorȱareȱcurrentlyȱstillȱrunningȱforȱlocalȱandȱnationalȱelections,ȱwhileȱothersȱ joinedȱ newlyȱ establishedȱ politicalȱ parties.ȱ Yetȱ othersȱ foundedȱ newȱ Romaniȱ culturalȱ orȱ mediaȱcentersȱorȱreshapedȱculturalȱorganizationsȱthatȱhadȱtheirȱrootsȱinȱlateȱcommunism.ȱ TheseȱdevelopmentsȱledȱtoȱtheȱlaunchȱofȱnumerousȱRomaniȱjournals,ȱnewspapers,ȱmagaȬ zines,ȱandȱradioȱandȱtelevisionȱprograms.ȱThisȱhasȱalsoȱrevitalizedȱtheȱRomaniȱlanguage,ȱ forȱ manyȱ ofȱ theseȱ mediaȱ startedȱ toȱ useȱ Romanesȱ orȱ publishȱ andȱ broadcastȱ bilinguallyȱ (Matrasȱ2005).ȱYetȱotherȱRomaȱstartedȱtoȱcollaborateȱwithȱtheȱfirstȱNGOsȱthatȱenteredȱorȱ wereȱestablishedȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱtoȱlaunchȱcommunityȱdevelopmentȱandȱ otherȱ empowermentȱ andȱ aidȱ initiativesȱ forȱ theȱ Roma,ȱ primarilyȱ atȱ localȱ levels.ȱ Theseȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ ethnicȱ mobilization,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ domesticȱ civilȱ movementsȱ andȱ theȱ transnationalȱ socialȱ andȱ humanȱ rightsȱ movementsȱ wereȱ theȱ mainȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ theȱ current,ȱheterogeneousȱRomaniȱmovementȱinȱEurope.2ȱ
ȱ WeȱcanȱdistinguishȱtwoȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱFirstly,ȱ someȱscholarsȱ(Vermeerschȱ2006;ȱMcGarryȱ2010;ȱRamȱ2010a)ȱhaveȱprimarilyȱfocusedȱonȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ fromȱ theȱ viewpointȱ ofȱ socialȱ movementȱ theory,ȱ transnationalȱ advocacy,ȱ andȱ ethnicȱ mobilization.ȱ Theyȱ focus,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ onȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ dynamicȱ relationȱ betweenȱ internationalȱ governingȱ institutionsȱ andȱ transnationalȱ proȬ RomaȱactivismȱandȱadvocacyȱhasȱcontributedȱtoȱgettingȱtheȱRomaȱonȱtheȱpolicyȱagendasȱ ofȱEuropeanȱinstitutionalȱbodiesȱandȱnationalȱgovernments.ȱTheyȱdiscussȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱ 1ȱInȱmostȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱtheȱdemandȱforȱunskilledȱlaborȱwasȱalreadyȱsubstantiallyȱ fallingȱsinceȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱtheȱeconomicȱcrisisȱinȱtheȱ1970sȱ(Szelényiȱ1983;ȱStarkȱandȱNeeȱ1988).ȱThis,ȱandȱ theȱsocialȬeconomicȱinequalities,ȱradicallyȱworsenedȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱregionȱ(Kovatsȱ1997;ȱ Mrózȱ2001;ȱFosztóȱandȱAn©st©soaieȱ2001).ȱȱ 2ȱTheȱpreȬ1989ȱinternationalȱRomaniȱmovement—mainlyȱinitiatedȱbyȱtheȱInternationalȱRomaniȱUnionȱ(IRU)ȱ
thatȱ wasȱ developedȱ inȱ theȱ 1960sȱ andȱ 70s—hasȱ alsoȱ influencedȱ theȱ postȬ1989ȱ developments.ȱ Yet,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ 1990sȱtheȱimpactȱofȱtheȱIRUȱonȱtheȱmovementȱhasȱrapidlyȱdecreased,ȱmostȱofȱallȱbecauseȱitȱdidȱnotȱsucceedȱ inȱmodernizingȱitsȱdecisionȬmakingȱstructuresȱandȱformsȱofȱleadershipȱ(ActonȱandȱKlímováȱ2001;ȱKlímováȬ Alexanderȱ2005).ȱItȱremainsȱtoȱbeȱseenȱwhichȱroleȱtheȱIRUȱcanȱplayȱinȱfutureȱdevelopmentsȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱ Romaniȱmovement,ȱinȱparticularȱnowȱstateȱandȱsupraȬstateȱbodiesȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱignoredȱtheȱIRUȱandȱ preferȱ toȱ negotiateȱ withȱ NGOsȱ formedȱ andȱ ledȱ byȱ aȱ youngerȱ generationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ (Nirenbergȱ 2009).ȱParticularlyȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱRomaniȱmemory,ȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱofȱGermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱ(Zentralratȱ
Deutscherȱ Sintiȱ undȱ Roma),ȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1970sȱ inȱ Heidelberg,ȱ hasȱ increasinglyȱ playedȱ anȱ interȬ
nationalȱroleȱinȱdebatesȱaboutȱtheȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱnaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱ(chapterȱ8,ȱMatrasȱ 1998).ȱ
achievedȱinȱtermsȱofȱpoliticalȱmobilizationȱandȱtransnationalȱstructuresȱofȱrepresentationȱ andȱconcentrateȱon,ȱamongȱotherȱthings,ȱtheȱpositionȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱ(claimȱto)ȱrepresentȱ theȱ Romaȱ orȱ suggestȱ defendingȱ theirȱ interest.ȱ Theseȱ scholarsȱ focusȱ onȱ thoseȱ formsȱ ofȱ advocacyȱ andȱ activismȱ thatȱ formȱ whatȱ Peterȱ Vermeerschȱ callsȱ “theȱ formalȱ sideȱ ofȱ theȱ movement”ȱ (2006:ȱ 9,ȱ hisȱ italics).ȱ Theyȱ concentrateȱ onȱ governmentalȱ andȱ nonȬgovernȬ mentalȱbodiesȱandȱorganizationsȱthatȱ“attemptȱtoȱrepresentȱRomaniȱinterestsȱorȱareȱsupȬ portiveȱorganizationsȱthatȱaimȱtoȱassist,ȱprotect,ȱorȱtoȱmobilizeȱtheȱRoma”ȱ(ibid).ȱTheseȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ pointedȱ toȱ variousȱ ambiguitiesȱ thatȱ haveȱ goneȱ togetherȱ withȱ attemptsȱ toȱ legitimizeȱandȱframeȱdifferentȱformsȱofȱactivismȱandȱadvocacy.ȱNevertheless,ȱtheirȱanalȬ ysesȱhaveȱgenerallyȱledȱtoȱaȱrelativelyȱpositiveȱevaluationȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱactorsȱandȱtheirȱ impactȱonȱEuropeanȱandȱdomesticȱRomaȱpolicyȱchanges—evenȱthoughȱthisȱhasȱnotȱyetȱ ledȱ toȱ aȱ substantialȱ improvementȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ livingȱ conditions.ȱ Thisȱ firstȱ groupȱ ofȱ scholarsȱhasȱextensivelyȱexaminedȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱnewȱRomaȬrelatedȱsitesȱofȱparticipaȬ toryȱ governanceȱ and,ȱ accordingly,ȱlookedȱ atȱtheȱ variousȱnewȱ andȱreshapedȱ bodiesȱ andȱ NGOsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ establishedȱ atȱ andȱ beyondȱ theȱ stateȱ levelȱ (chapterȱ 5).ȱ Yet,ȱ theseȱ scholarsȱ doȱ notȱ reallyȱ explainȱ howȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ sitesȱ ofȱ participatoryȱ goverȬ nanceȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱstate/civilȱsocietyȱrelationsȱhaveȱsignificantlyȱchangedȱ sinceȱ1989.ȱThisȱtopicȱrelatesȱtoȱhowȱ‘theȱstrengtheningȱofȱcivilȱsociety’ȱinȱpostȬcommuȬ nistȱcountriesȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱhugeȱprojectȱinȱitself,ȱinȱwhichȱbothȱtransformingȱstatesȱandȱ IGOsȱ haveȱtriedȱ toȱmobilizeȱ civilȱsocietiesȱ toȱreinforceȱ stateȱ andȱ supraȬstateȱ powerȱ andȱ sovereigntyȱ(chaptersȱ5,ȱ6,ȱseeȱalsoȱbelow).ȱ
TheseȱpostȬ1989ȱsocioeconomicȱandȱpoliticalȱshiftsȱareȱamongȱtheȱstartingȱpointsȱofȱaȱ secondȱ groupȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ whoȱ haveȱ analyzedȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movement.ȱ Manyȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ describedȱ howȱ theȱ optimismȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ leadersȱ andȱ activistsȱ inȱ theȱ immediateȱ aftermathȱ ofȱ ‘1989’ȱ soonȱ madeȱ placeȱ forȱ pessimismȱ orȱ evenȱ cynicism.3ȱ Someȱ ofȱ theseȱ
scholars,ȱwhoȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱgroupȱIȱdistinguish,ȱhaveȱdrawnȱequallyȱpessimisticȱ conclusionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ movement’sȱ chancesȱ toȱ becomeȱ reallyȱ effectiveȱ andȱ democratic.4ȱ
Theirȱassessmentȱisȱprimarilyȱbasedȱonȱfactorsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱ(re)emergenceȱofȱinstitutionalȱ andȱcitizenȱviolenceȱagainstȱtheȱRoma;ȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱthisȱviolenceȱisȱembeddedȱinȱ institutionalȱstructuresȱandȱrelatedȱtoȱcommunistȱlegacies;ȱtheȱdifficultyȱtoȱmobilizeȱcivilȱ societalȱforcesȱtoȱchangeȱthis;ȱtheȱlackȱofȱgrassrootsȱsupportȱforȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement,ȱ andȱtheȱdisplacementȱofȱ‘theȱgrassroots’ȱinȱRomaȬrelatedȱactivism.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱrelateȱ theȱ limitationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ andȱ theȱ difficultiesȱ inȱ challengingȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ marginalizationȱaboveȱallȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱneoȬliberalȱstates,ȱmarkets,ȱandȱsocietiesȱinȱ Europe,ȱandȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱinȱparticular.5ȱTheseȱscholarsȱareȱbothȱcriticalȱ
ofȱwhereȱtheȱRomaniȱmovementȱhasȱhithertoȱledȱtoȱandȱusuallyȱnotȱveryȱhopefulȱaboutȱ itsȱshortȬtermȱprospects.ȱNandoȱSigonaȱandȱNidhiȱTrehan,ȱforȱinstance,ȱsuggestȱthatȱneoȬ liberalismȱ hasȱ becomeȱ hegemonicȱ inȱ theȱ region,ȱ ifȱ notȱ throughoutȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ ledȱ toȱ seriouslyȱunderminingȱviableȱpossibilitiesȱforȱcivilȱsocietalȱactorsȱtoȱfurtherȱtheȱRomaniȱ
3ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱHancockȱ(1993),ȱBaranyȱ(2002),ȱGuyȱ(2001a),ȱVermeerschȱ(2006),ȱandȱLiégeoisȱ(2007).ȱ 4ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱKovatsȱ(1997),ȱBaranyȱ(1998),ȱTrehanȱ(2001;ȱ2009a),ȱTrehanȱandȱKóczéȱ(2009),ȱandȱRostasȱ
(2009).ȱ
5ȱ See,ȱ mostȱ notably,ȱ Emighȱ etȱ alȱ (2001),ȱ Ladányiȱ (2001),ȱ Ladányiȱ andȱ Szelényiȱ (2006),ȱ Sigonaȱ andȱ Trehanȱ
livingȱconditions.6ȱTheyȱdoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱchangingȱstate/civilȱsocietyȱrelationships,ȱbut,ȱatȱ theȱsameȱtime,ȱtendȱtoȱpresentȱtheȱRomaȱprimarilyȱasȱvictimsȱofȱ‘neoȬliberalism.’ȱInsofarȱ asȱtheyȱseeȱaȱwayȱoutȱofȱtheȱsuffocating,ȱhegemonicȱlogicȱofȱneoȬliberalism,ȱitȱisȱthroughȱ mobilizingȱandȱsupportingȱformsȱofȱlocalȱRomaniȱgrassrootsȱcommunityȱresistanceȱandȱ givingȱvoiceȱtoȱRomaniȱsubalternȱvoices.7ȱ IȱshallȱreȬexamineȱtheȱchancesȱandȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement,ȱrelateȱthemȱtoȱmyȱ analysisȱofȱneoȬliberalȱgovernmentalityȱ(chaptersȱ5,ȱ6),ȱandȱquestionȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱ theȱchancesȱandȱbarriersȱofȱthisȱmovementȱhaveȱthusȱfarȱbeenȱanalyzed.ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱ littleȱ orȱ onlyȱ oneȬsidedȱ attentionȱ hasȱ beenȱ paidȱ toȱ howȱ theȱ blurringȱ ofȱ theȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱ state,ȱ market,ȱ andȱ civilȱ societyȱ hasȱ profoundlyȱ influencedȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱWeȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱobserveȱinȱpostȬ1989ȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱ EuropeȱwhatȱMitchellȱDeanȱcallsȱanȱunfoldingȱofȱtheȱformallyȱpoliticalȱsphereȱintoȱcivilȱ society,ȱwhichȱhasȱledȱtoȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱseveralȱprivateȬpublicȱpartnerships.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱ time,ȱ theȱ parallelȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ theȱ region’sȱ civilȱ societiesȱ hasȱ entailedȱ anȱ enfoldingȱ ofȱ civilȱ societyȱ regulationsȱ intoȱ theȱ politicalȱ sphereȱ andȱ ledȱ toȱ attemptsȱ toȱ incorporateȱ someȱ ofȱ civilȱ society’sȱ coreȱ values—agency,ȱ participation,ȱ voice,ȱ etc.—intoȱ formalȱpoliticalȱinstitutionsȱatȱandȱbeyondȱtheȱstateȱlevelȱ(Deanȱ2007:ȱ116Ȭ17).ȱIȱwillȱshowȱ thatȱtheȱsimultaneityȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱprocessesȱmakesȱitȱdifficultȱtoȱconsiderȱcivilȱsocietyȱasȱ merelyȱaȱ“supplementȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱpoliticalȱinstitutions”ȱ(Matveevaȱ2008:ȱ12).ȱ Weȱ needȱ toȱ reflectȱ onȱ theȱ effectsȱ ofȱ theirȱ boundaryȱ blurringȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ possibilitiesȱ ofȱ theirȱ boundaryȱ crossingsȱ forȱ developingȱ newȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ agency.ȱ Anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theseȱ effectsȱ andȱ possibilities,ȱ Iȱ willȱ show,ȱ hasȱ twoȱ majorȱ implicationsȱ forȱ howȱ theȱ Romaniȱmovementȱhasȱhithertoȱbeenȱinvestigated.ȱFirstly,ȱweȱwillȱgetȱaȱdifferentȱpictureȱ ofȱ changedȱ state/civilȱ societyȱ relationsȱ andȱ theȱ opportunitiesȱ andȱ limitsȱ thatȱ areȱ goingȱ withȱthem.ȱSecondly,ȱweȱwillȱgetȱanotherȱideaȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement’sȱpoliticsȱofȱrepȬ resentationȱandȱitsȱrelationȱtoȱbothȱtheȱRoma’sȱEuropeanizationȱandȱtheȱinvolvedȱuseȱofȱ knowledgeȱandȱexpertise.ȱTakenȱtogether,ȱtheseȱtwoȱaspectsȱwillȱallowȱmeȱtoȱrevealȱsomeȱ novelȱdimensions,ȱprospects,ȱandȱambivalencesȱofȱtheȱcontemporaryȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱ
ToȱmakeȱanȱalternativeȱreadingȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovementȱpossible,ȱIȱproposeȱthatȱatȱ leastȱ twoȱ stepsȱ willȱ beȱ made.ȱ Firstly,ȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ assessȱ itsȱ politicsȱ ofȱ representationȱ beyondȱ theȱ ‘globalȱ hegemonicȱ neoliberalȱ power’ȱ versusȱ ‘localȱ grassrootsȱ communityȱ resistance’ȱ binary.ȱ Goingȱ beyondȱ thisȱ artificialȱ opposition,ȱ whichȱ tendsȱ toȱ essentializeȱ resistanceȱasȱresidingȱinȱdiscreteȱlocalizedȱplacesȱorȱactors,ȱwillȱshedȱlightȱonȱhowȱneoȬ liberalȱ powerȱ isȱ constituted,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ contestedȱ throughȱ diverseȱ socialȱ relationsȱ andȱ everydayȱ practicesȱ inȱ andȱ outsideȱ institutionalȱ contexts.ȱ Secondlyȱ andȱ correlatively,ȱ alongsideȱanȱ‘activist’ȱnotionȱofȱRomaniȱpolitics,ȱweȱalsoȱneedȱtoȱadoptȱaȱlessȱdramaticȱ notionȱofȱpolitics.ȱSomeȱscholarsȱtendȱtoȱassessȱtheȱmovementȱprimarilyȱinȱtermsȱofȱmassȱ mobilization.8ȱYet,ȱaȱlessȱ‘revolutionary’ȱconceptionȱofȱpoliticsȱisȱrequiredȱtoȱrevealȱhowȱ
everydayȱpracticesȱinȱwhichȱRomaȱareȱinvolvedȱdoȱnotȱnecessarilyȱpreserveȱambivalentȱ statusȱ quos,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ tryȱ toȱ contributeȱ toȱ transformativeȱ participationȱ andȱ newȱ constelȬ
6ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱSigonaȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a;ȱ2009b)ȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a;ȱ2009b).ȱ 7ȱSeeȱalsoȱKóczéȱ(2009)ȱandȱTrehanȱandȱKóczéȱ(2009).ȱ
8ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Vermeerschȱ (2006:ȱ 212,ȱ 228),ȱ Sigonaȱ andȱ Trehanȱ (2009a:ȱ 297),ȱ andȱ Marušákȱ andȱ Singerȱ
lationsȱofȱcitizenship.ȱSeenȱfromȱthisȱangle,ȱtheȱdailyȱstrugglesȱof,ȱforȱinstance,ȱactivistsȱtoȱ getȱ ‘theȱ Roma’ȱ onȱ domesticȱ andȱ Europeanȱ policyȱ agenda,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ thoseȱ ofȱ ‘ordinary’ȱ Romaȱ canȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ difficultȱ yetȱ importantȱ attemptsȱ toȱ reȬpoliticizeȱ inequalityȱ andȱpovertyȱaffectingȱtheȱRoma.ȱCombiningȱbothȱnotionsȱofȱpoliticsȱrevealsȱnotȱonlyȱthatȱ suchȱ strugglesȱ contestȱ neoȬliberalȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ participationȱ andȱ existingȱ citizenshipȱ framesȱatȱandȱbeyondȱtheȱnationalȱlevel.9ȱItȱalsoȱilluminatesȱhowȱdiverseȱactorsȱinvolvedȱ
inȱ theȱ Romaniȱ socialȱ andȱ civilȱ movementȱ strategicallyȱ mobilizeȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ EuropeanȬ izationȱacrossȱspaceȱandȱdifferenceȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱframeworksȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaȱareȱ oftenȱframed.ȱ
ȱ Iȱwillȱshowȱthatȱtheȱextensionȱofȱaȱconceptualizationȱofȱpoliticsȱalongȱtheseȱlinesȱcanȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ politicsȱ ofȱ citizenshipȱ ofȱ participation.ȱ Iȱ willȱ illustrateȱ howȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ actorsȱ haveȱ developedȱ practicesȱ ofȱ citizenshipȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ tryȱ toȱ renegotiateȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ participationȱ beyondȱ itsȱ limited,ȱ neoȬliberalȱ meaningȱ ofȱ individualistic,ȱmarketȱparticipationȱ(chapterȱ6).ȱTheȱnotionȱ‘citizenshipȱasȱparticipation’ȱ thatȱIȱuseȱinȱthisȱchapterȱrefersȱtoȱcitizenshipȱstrugglesȱforȱtheȱdeepeningȱofȱdemocracyȱ andȱforȱchallengingȱoldȱandȱnewȱpracticesȱandȱmechanismsȱthatȱ(tendȱto)ȱreproduceȱinȬ equalityȱandȱexclusion.ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱofȱparticipationȱpartlyȱ reliesȱonȱstrategiesȱthatȱIȱcallȱtravelingȱactivism.ȱWithȱthisȱnotion,ȱIȱdrawȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱ significanceȱofȱhowȱvariousȱdiscourses,ȱstrategies,ȱandȱtechniquesȱofȱactivismȱareȱtransȬ latedȱacrossȱspaceȱandȱdifference.ȱMyȱexaminationȱofȱtravelingȱactivismȱwillȱclarifyȱhowȱ activistsȱtravelȱthroughȱdisjunctiveȱcircuitsȱandȱhowȱtheȱdiverseȱformsȱofȱcoalitionȱbuildȬ ingȱthatȱariseȱfromȱtheseȱactivitiesȱcanȱserveȱasȱaȱproductiveȱsourceȱforȱRomaȱtoȱclaimȱtheȱ rightȱtoȱparticipateȱasȱequalȱandȱfullȱcitizens.ȱTheseȱcitizenshipȱpracticesȱalsoȱrevealȱthatȱ theȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ civilȱ societyȱ hasȱ hadȱ diverseȱ effects.ȱ Whileȱ itȱ hasȱ goneȱ toȬ getherȱ withȱ practicesȱ thatȱ persistentlyȱ deȬpoliticizeȱ subjectsȱ andȱ programsȱ ofȱ developȬ mentȱ byȱ renderingȱ themȱ natural,ȱ private,ȱ orȱ technicalȱ (chapterȱ 6),ȱ itȱ hasȱ alsoȱ provokedȱ processesȱ ofȱ reȬpoliticizationȱ thatȱ challengeȱ theseȱ mechanismsȱ ofȱ reificationȱ andȱ revealȱ theirȱ‘dilemmatic’ȱcharacterȱ(Honigȱ1996).ȱTheseȱprocessesȱofȱreȬpoliticizationȱhaveȱconȬ tributedȱtoȱtheȱproductionȱofȱnewȱformsȱofȱagency.ȱ
Thisȱ chapterȱ proceedsȱ asȱ follows.ȱ Iȱ willȱ firstȱ explainȱ whyȱ weȱ cannotȱ discussȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ alongȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ easy,ȱ straightforwardȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ empowermentȱ andȱemancipation.ȱIȱwillȱclarifyȱhowȱtheȱpostȬ1989ȱRomaniȱmovementȱhasȱemergedȱfromȱ aȱ peculiarȱmixtureȱ ofȱparticipatoryȱ democraticȱ andȱ neoȬliberalȱ elements,ȱ andȱhowȱ theirȱ confluenceȱhasȱconfrontedȱproȬRomaȱadvocatesȱandȱRomaniȱactivistsȱwithȱdilemmasȱthatȱ radicallyȱ traverseȱ theirȱ activities.ȱ Thereafter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ howȱ practicesȱ ofȱ travelingȱ activismȱrepresentȱattemptsȱatȱarticulatingȱaȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱasȱparticipation.ȱIȱwillȱ illuminateȱthatȱtravelingȱactivismȱdoesȱnotȱdepartȱfromȱorȱrejectȱneoȬliberalȱdevelopmentȱ asȱsuch,ȱbut,ȱrather,ȱtriesȱtoȱmobilizeȱandȱarticulateȱneoȬliberalȱtechnologiesȱofȱgoverningȱ forȱdifferentȱends.ȱIȱwillȱlookȱatȱseveralȱactivitiesȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱdevelopedȱbyȱtheȱEuroȬ peanȱRomaȱGrassrootsȱOrganizationsȱnetworkȱ(ERGO)ȱtoȱillustrateȱhowȱIȱreadȱtravelingȱ activismȱ andȱ theȱ relatedȱ citizenshipȱ practices.ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ thatȱ practicesȱ ofȱ travelingȱ
9ȱForȱaȱcompellingȱcaseȱstudyȱonȱhowȱcurrentȱRomaniȱpracticesȱofȱmobilityȱcontestȱEUȱcitizenshipȱregimes,ȱ
seeȱ Aradauȱ etȱ alȱ (2010).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ caseȱ study,ȱ insightsȱ fromȱ citizenshipȱ studiesȱ (Isinȱ andȱ Nielsenȱ 2008)ȱ haveȱ beenȱmobilizedȱtoȱdevelopȱanȱoriginalȱapproachȱtoȱmobilityȱandȱcitizenship.ȱ
activismȱ areȱ relyingȱ onȱ aȱ specific,ȱ strategicȱ redeploymentȱ ofȱ expertiseȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ howȱ thisȱ mobilizationȱ hasȱ goneȱ togetherȱ withȱ newȱ kindsȱ ofȱ knowledgeȱ formationȱ andȱRomaniȱagency.ȱ
ȱ ȱ
BEYONDȱTHEȱPERVERSEȱCONFLUENCEȱOFȱPARTICIPATORYȱDEMOCRACYȱANDȱNEOȬLIBERALISMȱ
ȱ
Theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ hasȱ beenȱ confrontedȱ byȱ aȱ dilemmaȱ thatȱ hasȱ largelyȱ emanatedȱ fromȱ aȱ ‘perverseȱ confluence’ȱ (Dagninoȱ 2008)ȱ ofȱ twoȱ differentȱ processes,ȱ relatedȱ toȱ twoȱ differentȱ politicalȱ projects:ȱ aȱ participatoryȱ democraticȱ andȱ aȱ neoȬliberalȱ project.ȱ Theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ hasȱ profoundlyȱ beenȱ influencedȱ byȱ postȬcommunistȱ processesȱ ofȱ democratization,ȱwhichȱhaveȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱnewȱpublicȱspaces,ȱ newȱ forms,ȱ subjects,ȱ andȱ sitesȱ ofȱcitizenship,ȱ deȬcenteredȱ formsȱ ofȱgovernance,ȱ andȱ theȱ increasedȱ participationȱ ofȱ civilȱ societalȱ actorsȱ inȱ decisionȬmakingȱ linkedȱ toȱ publicȱ andȱ policyȱ issues.ȱ Dissidentȱ movementsȱ withȱ rootsȱ inȱ oppositionȱ againstȱ theȱ communistȱ regimes,ȱhumanȱrightsȱandȱsocialȱmovementsȱthatȱappearedȱinȱtheȱWestȱsinceȱtheȱ1970s,ȱ andȱtheȱmomentumȱofȱ‘1989’ȱhaveȱallȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱthisȱparticipatoryȱ processȱ aimedȱ atȱ developingȱ andȱ deepeningȱ democracy,ȱ includingȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ aȱ viableȱcivilȱsociety.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱRomaniȱmovementȱhasȱbeenȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱ neoȬliberalȱ project.ȱ PostȬcommunistȱ stateȱ andȱ civilȱ societyȱ buildingȱ andȱ theȱ transitionȱ fromȱplanȱtoȱmarketȱeconomiesȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱhaveȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱ theȱprofoundȱarticulationsȱofȱneoȬliberalȱgovernmentalȱtechnologiesȱ(chaptersȱ5,ȱ6).ȱTheȱ participatoryȱdemocraticȱandȱtheȱneoȬliberalȱprojectsȱhaveȱambiguouslyȱflownȱtogether:ȱȱ ȱ
Theȱ perversityȱ liesȱ inȱ theȱ factȱ that,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theseȱ projectsȱ pointȱ inȱ oppositeȱ andȱ evenȱ antagonisticȱ directions,ȱ eachȱ ofȱ themȱ notȱ onlyȱ requiresȱ anȱ activeȱ andȱ proactiveȱ civilȱ society,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ usesȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ commonȱ conceptsȱ andȱ pointsȱ ofȱ reference.ȱ Inȱ particular,ȱ notionsȱ suchȱ asȱ citizenship,ȱ participation,ȱ andȱ civilȱ societyȱ areȱ centralȱ elementsȱ inȱ bothȱ projects,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ beingȱ usedȱ withȱ veryȱ differentȱ meanings.ȱ (Dagninoȱ2008:ȱ55)ȱ
ȱ
Iȱwillȱshowȱhowȱtheȱuncomfortableȱmergingȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱpoliticalȱprojectsȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ hasȱ ledȱ toȱ ambiguitiesȱ thatȱ complicateȱ aȱ readingȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱalongȱstraightforwardȱlinesȱofȱempowermentȱandȱemancipation.ȱ
Thereȱ isȱ anȱ importantȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movement,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ otherȱ socialȱmovementsȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱsocialȱmovementsȱ inȱpartsȱofȱtheȱworldȱwhereȱparticipatoryȱdemocracyȱhadȱbeenȱestablishedȱlongerȱago,ȱonȱ theȱ other.ȱ Theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ civilȱ societiesȱ haveȱ beenȱ revivedȱ andȱ wovenȱ inȱ postȬ communistȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱhasȱroughlyȱtakenȱplaceȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱofȱtheȱ globalȱ‘NGOȱboom.’ȱThisȱboomȱtookȱplaceȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱinfluentialȱtransformationsȱofȱ theȱ structuresȱ ofȱ capitalism,ȱ includingȱ newȱ approachesȱ toȱ povertyȱ andȱ developmentȱ (chaptersȱ2,ȱ5).ȱMoreover,ȱcontraryȱtoȱwhatȱisȱoftenȱsuggested,ȱneoȬliberalȱconceptsȱandȱ practicesȱ haveȱ transnationalȱ ‘roots,’ȱ includingȱ someȱ inȱ preȬ1989ȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europeȱ (chapterȱ 6).ȱ Inȱ someȱ countries,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱ inȱ Hungary,ȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ neoȬ liberalizationȱhasȱalreadyȱbecomeȱtangibleȱsinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1980sȱ(Haneyȱ2002).ȱForȱtheseȱ
reasons,ȱtheȱsimultaneityȱofȱtheȱpostȬ1989ȱNGOȱboomȱwithȱemergentȱneoȬliberalizationȱ inȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱmakesȱitȱmoreȱdifficultȱtoȱdistinguishȱorȱphaseȱtheȱparticiȬ patoryȱ democraticȱ andȱ neoȬliberalȱ projects,ȱ inȱ particularȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ situation.ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱsomeȱstudiesȱandȱreportsȱthatȱhaveȱdiscussedȱtheȱRomaniȱmoveȬ mentȱidentifyȱ‘civilȱsociety’ȱwithȱprivateȱfoundationsȱandȱNGOs,ȱforȱinstance,ȱcouldȱitselfȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ symptomȱ ofȱ theȱ postȬ1989ȱ confluenceȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ politicalȱ projects.ȱ Indeed,ȱlimitingȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱtoȱNGOsȱorȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱcalledȱtheȱ‘thirdȱ sector’ȱ(nextȱtoȱtheȱstateȱandȱtheȱmarket)ȱisȱitselfȱexpressiveȱofȱtheȱtrendȱ“toȱimplementȱaȱ ‘minimalist’ȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ politicsȱ andȱ toȱ nullifyȱ theȱ extensionȱ ofȱ publicȱ spacesȱ forȱ politicalȱdeliberationȱthatȱhadȱbeenȱachievedȱbyȱtheȱdemocratizingȱstruggles”ȱ(Dagninoȱ 2008:ȱ59).ȱ
Untilȱlateȱintoȱtheȱ1990s,ȱandȱpartlyȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱColdȱWarȱEastȬWestȱrelationsȱ andȱ theȱ relatedȱ Westernȱ distrustȱ ofȱ stateȱ authoritiesȱ inȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ theȱ directȱ WesternȱsupportȱforȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱmainlyȱconsistedȱ ofȱ establishingȱ smallȬscaleȱ NGOs.ȱ Inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ years,ȱ theȱ steadilyȱ growingȱ numberȱofȱRomaȬrelatedȱcivilȱsocietalȱorganizations,ȱmainlyȱfundedȱbyȱWesternȱdonors,ȱ becameȱ aȱ majorȱ channelȱ forȱ theȱ initialȱ developmentȱ ofȱ andȱ supportȱ forȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movement.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ theȱ restructuringȱ ofȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europeanȱ statesȱ andȱ theirȱ institutionalȱ infrastructuresȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ influentialȱ changeȱ ofȱ stateȬcivilȱ societyȱ relations.ȱTheȱ‘strengtheningȱofȱcivilȱsociety’ȱandȱtheȱpostȬ1989ȱrestructuringȱofȱtheȱstateȱ wereȱ parallel,ȱ largelyȱ interconnectedȱ processes.ȱ Partiallyȱ andȱ incoherently,ȱ theseȱ proȬ cessesȱ contributedȱ toȱtheȱ decentralizationȱ ofȱ formerlyȱ authoritarianȱ communistȱgovernȬ mentalȱstructures,ȱtoȱtheȱprivatizationȱofȱformerlyȱstateȬownedȱsectors,ȱtoȱtheȱreformȱofȱ welfareȱregimes,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱprivateȬpublicȱpartnerships.ȱ Thus,ȱtheȱsupportȱforȱRomaniȱorȱproȬRomaȱNGOsȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱforȱdemocraticȱ stateȱ andȱ marketȱ reformȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ wentȱ togetherȱ withȱ anȱ unprecedentedȱ transforȬ mationȱofȱstateȬcivilȱsocietyȱrelationshipsȱandȱwithȱaȱpartialȱtransferȱofȱstateȱresponsibilȬ itiesȱtoȱexisting,ȱbutȱmostȱofȱallȱnewlyȱdevelopedȱcivilȱsocietyȱactors.ȱ
Theseȱcomplexȱchangesȱinȱtheȱstructures,ȱpatterns,ȱtools,ȱandȱformsȱofȱgovernanceȱdoȱ notȱinvolveȱ aȱ deȬregulation,ȱ but,ȱ rather,ȱ aȱ reȬregulationȱofȱ governmentȱ inȱtheȱFoucaultȬ ianȱsenseȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱTheyȱhaveȱbeenȱaccompaniedȱbyȱaȱblurringȱofȱtheȱboundariesȱbeȬ tweenȱ state,ȱ market,ȱ andȱ civilȱ societyȱ (chapterȱ 5).ȱ Thisȱ hasȱ certainlyȱ notȱ onlyȱ beenȱ anȱ outwardlyȱ drivenȱ processȱ governedȱ byȱ westernȱ actorsȱ orȱ IGOs,ȱ butȱ aȱ complexȱ processȱ supportedȱbyȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱgovernmentalȱactors,ȱincludingȱlocalȱandȱnationalȱonesȱinȱ theȱregion.ȱAsȱpartȱofȱtheseȱprocessesȱofȱstateȬcivilȱsocietyȱtransformations,ȱIGOs,ȱforeignȱ donors,ȱ andȱ stateȱ authoritiesȱ inȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europeȱ haveȱ beenȱ lookingȱ forȱ reliableȱ Romaniȱ civilȱ societyȱ partnersȱ withȱ whomȱ theyȱ couldȱ buildȱ upȱ formalȱ andȱ informalȱpartnerships.ȱInȱsomeȱcases,ȱtheseȱemergingȱdialoguesȱbetweenȱstateȱandȱproȬ Romaȱ orȱ Romaniȱ civilȱ societyȱ actorsȱ haveȱ hadȱ theirȱ rootsȱ inȱ lateȱ communistȱ economicȱ crisesȱandȱtheȱneedȱforȱrestructuringȱtheȱsocialistȱeconomyȱandȱreducingȱtheȱcostsȱofȱtheȱ thenȱ existingȱ Romaȱ assimilationȱ programsȱ (Kovatsȱ 1997).ȱ Inȱ 1984,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ Hungarianȱauthoritiesȱarguedȱthatȱ“theȱintegrationȱ[ofȱtheȱGypsies]ȱisȱrestrictedȱbyȱourȱ difficultȱeconomicȱsituationȱ…ȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱwhichȱisȱthatȱweȱmustȱnowȱconsiderȱtheȱ Gypsyȱpopulationȱasȱplayingȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱaȱnewȱconsensus”ȱ (citedȱKovatsȱ1997:ȱ57).ȱMartinȱKovatsȱclarifiesȱthatȱallowingȱtheȱRomaȱtoȱplayȱaȱroleȱinȱ
communistȱ Romaȱ policiesȱ wasȱ largelyȱ motivatedȱ byȱ socioȬeconomicȱ difficulties,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱbyȱaȱdesireȱtoȱestablishȱRomaniȱminorityȱselfȬgovernanceȱandȱtoȱallowȱRomaȱtoȱimȬ pactȱonȱpoliticalȱandȱpolicyȱdevelopments.ȱHeȱsuggestsȱthatȱthisȱambiguityȱhasȱnotȱdisȬ appearedȱwithȱtheȱfallȱofȱcommunismȱandȱwithȱtheȱpostȬ1989ȱdevelopmentȱofȱimportantȱ newȱ representationalȱ structures,ȱ suchȱ as,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ minorityȱ selfȬgovernmentȱ systemȱinȱHungary.ȱHeȱstatesȱthatȱtheȱintroductionȱandȱbuildingȱofȱpolicyȱdialoguesȱwithȱ tacticallyȱchosenȱmembersȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱminorityȱrepresentȱambiguousȱstateȱstrategiesȱ toȱ postponeȱ theȱ developmentȱ andȱ implementationȱ ofȱ theȱ socioeconomicȱ policiesȱ thatȱ wereȱandȱareȱstillȱneededȱtoȱimproveȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱ
Kovats’ȱobservationsȱonȱtheȱambivalentȱeffectsȱofȱtheseȱpolicyȱdialoguesȱcouldȱbeȱputȱ intoȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱperverseȱconfluenceȱofȱtheȱtwoȱpoliticalȱprojects.ȱStateȱactorsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ (partial)ȱ transferȱ ofȱ theirȱ responsibilitiesȱ toȱ civilȱ societyȱ actorsȱpotentiallyȱconsiderȱRomaniȱorȱRomaȱadvocacyȱNGOsȱasȱtheȱrelativelyȱidealȱandȱ trustworthyȱpartnersȱforȱ(assistingȱwith)ȱtheȱimplementationȱofȱpolicies.ȱTheseȱNGOsȱareȱ seenȱasȱagentsȱwhoȱareȱoperatingȱinȱtheȱproximityȱofȱRomaniȱcommunitiesȱandȱwhoȱhaveȱ developedȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ expertiseȱ aboutȱ theȱ localȱ situation.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ viewpointȱ ofȱ nationalȱorȱinternationalȱgoverningȱorganizations,ȱtheseȱfeaturesȱmakeȱsuchȱNGOsȱidealȱ intermediariesȱ betweenȱ governmentsȱ andȱ stateȱ orȱ supraȬstateȱ institutionsȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱandȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱandȱ‘grassrootsȱcommunities,’ȱonȱtheȱother.ȱSinceȱtheȱearlyȱ 1990s,ȱmuchȱhasȱbeenȱexpectedȱofȱtheȱ‘strengtheningȱofȱcivilȱsociety’ȱthroughȱsupportingȱ andȱestablishingȱNGOsȱandȱmobilizingȱorȱimprovingȱtheirȱ‘local’ȱconnectionsȱandȱformsȱ ofȱexpertise.ȱForȱthoseȱRomaniȱorȱproȬRomaȱNGOsȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱapproachedȱbyȱgovȬ ernmentalȱoffices,ȱforeignȱdonorsȱorȱIGOsȱ(andȱviceȱversa),ȱtakingȱupȱsuchȱrolesȱinȱpolicyȱ deliveryȱ isȱ mostȱ oftenȱ notȱ aȱ questionȱ ofȱ choiceȱ and,ȱ moreȱ oftenȱ thanȱ not,ȱ representsȱ aȱ challenge.ȱHowever,ȱtheseȱinvolvementsȱhaveȱalsoȱhadȱmoreȱambivalentȱeffects.ȱ
Theȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ civilȱ societyȱ organizationsȱ byȱ stateȱ andȱ internationalȱ governmentalȱactorsȱembodiesȱaȱcomplexȱattemptȱtoȱlooselyȱbutȱeffectivelyȱattachȱsuchȱ NGOsȱ toȱ theȱ stateȱ andȱ supraȬstateȱ institutionalȱ frameworksȱ ofȱ governance.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ cases,ȱ theseȱ processesȱ ofȱ governmentalizationȱ haveȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱsoȬcalledȱ QUANGOsȱ orȱ quasiȬautonomousȱ NGOs.ȱ Aȱ substantialȱ numberȱ ofȱ newȱ civilȱ societalȱ structures,ȱ andȱ privateȬpublicȱ partnershipsȱ inȱ particular,ȱ areȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ howȱ statesȱ themselves,ȱ whileȱ mobilizingȱ neoȬliberalȱ techniquesȱ ofȱ government,ȱ haveȱ establishedȱ NGOsȱandȱotherȱquasiȬautonomousȱbodiesȱ(autonomousȱfromȱtheȱstateȱorȱotherȱdonors)ȱ toȱcarryȱoutȱtasksȱthatȱwereȱformerlyȱdirectlyȱorganizedȱbyȱstateȱauthorities.ȱ
Theȱ Hungarianȱ minorityȱ selfȬgovernmentȱ (MSG)ȱ systemȱ couldȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ goodȱthoughȱcomplexȱexampleȱofȱsuchȱaȱquasiȬautonomousȱcivilȱsocietalȱstructure.ȱTheȱ MSGȱsystem—officiallyȱinitiatedȱinȱ1993ȱtoȱprotectȱminorityȱcultures—hasȱenabledȱethnicȱ andȱnationalȱminoritiesȱinȱHungaryȱtoȱchoose,ȱestablish,ȱandȱdevelopȱselfȬgovernmentsȱ atȱ theȱ local,ȱ regional,ȱ andȱ nationalȱ level.ȱ Throughȱ aȱ complexȱ andȱ muchȱ amendedȱ legalȱ framework,ȱofficiallyȱrecognizedȱminorities,ȱincludingȱtheȱRomani,ȱhaveȱacquiredȱgreaterȱ culturalȱ autonomyȱ (Eilerȱ andȱ Kovácsȱ 2002).ȱ Sinceȱ 1993,ȱ Romaniȱ minoritiesȱ inȱ Hungaryȱ haveȱ establishedȱ severalȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ minorityȱ selfȬgovernmentsȱ atȱ theȱ localȱ level,ȱ someȱ atȱ theȱ regional,ȱ andȱ oneȱ atȱ theȱ nationalȱ level.ȱ Theȱ MSGȱ systemȱ hasȱ beenȱ developedȱintoȱaȱquasiȬautonomousȱcivilȱsocietalȱstructure,ȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱsinceȱoneȱofȱitsȱ
latestȱamendmentsȱrequiresȱthatȱ‘representative’ȱRomaniȱNGOsȱbackȱtheȱformationȱandȱ electionȱofȱRomaniȱminorityȱselfȬgovernments.ȱ
Theȱsystem,ȱandȱparticularlyȱitsȱeffectsȱonȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱbeenȱmuchȱ criticized,ȱ mostȱ ofȱ allȱ forȱ itsȱ limitedȱ focusȱ onȱ culturalȱ autonomyȱ andȱ itsȱ effect,ȱ MSG’sȱ financialȱ andȱ logisticȱ dependencyȱ onȱ otherȱ officialȱ governmentalȱ bodies,ȱ andȱ itsȱ probȬ lematicȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱselfȬdefinitionȱofȱminorityȱmembers.ȱAtȱanȱevenȱmoreȱfundamenȬ talȱlevel,ȱtheȱsystemȱhasȱbeenȱcriticizedȱforȱhowȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱdeȬpoliticizedȱtheȱsocioȬ economicȱreasonsȱforȱRomaȱmarginalizationȱandȱdisplacedȱcritiquesȱofȱhowȱtheseȱnewlyȱ establishedȱ structuresȱ themselvesȱ areȱ partlyȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theȱ reproductionȱ ofȱ inȬ equality.10ȱNidhiȱTrehan,ȱforȱinstance,ȱputsȱforward:ȱ
ȱ
ProgressiveȱrepresentativesȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱcommunitiesȱperceivedȱ[theȱMSG]ȱsystemȱ asȱ aȱ cleverȱ mechanismȱ ofȱ politicalȱ controlȱ onȱ theȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ toȱ coȬoptȱ Romaniȱ leadershipȱ inȱ Hungary,ȱ effectivelyȱ neutralizingȱ radicalȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ theȱ situationȱ …ȱ Neverthelessȱ…ȱlargeȱnumbersȱofȱRomaniȱleadersȱ…ȱhaveȱtacitlyȱacceptedȱtheȱimporȬ tanceȱofȱtheȱMSGȱsystem,ȱwhichȱtheyȱviewȱasȱaȱtypeȱofȱ‘trainingȱground’ȱforȱaȱcareerȱ inȱprofessionalȱpoliticsȱasȱcommunityȱrepresentatives.ȱ(Trehanȱ2009a:ȱ113)ȱ
ȱ
Weȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ noticeȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ similarȱ stateȬcivilȱ societyȱ structuresȱ andȱ partnerships,ȱresultingȱinȱsimilarlyȱambiguousȱsituationsȱforȱtheȱRoma,ȱinȱotherȱcountriesȱ inȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEurope.ȱForȱinstance,ȱtheȱnationalȱagenciesȱforȱtheȱRomaniȱminorȬ itiesȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱestablishedȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublicȱandȱRomaniaȱrepresentȱequivalentȱ attemptsȱ toȱ attachȱ NGOsȱ toȱ stateȱ institutionalȱ bodies.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theseȱ Czechȱ andȱ Romanianȱ agenciesȱ areȱ structurallyȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ Hungarianȱ MSGȱ systemȱ and,ȱ toȱ someȱ extent,ȱ moreȱ centralizedȱ thanȱ theȱ latter,ȱ theyȱ couldȱ alsoȱ beȱ consideredȱ fromȱ theȱ angleȱofȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱRomaniȱandȱproȬRomaȱcivilȱsocietalȱactors.ȱ RomaȬrelatedȱscholarshipȱhas,ȱhowever,ȱnotȱstressedȱhowȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱ civilȱsocietyȱhasȱalsoȱtakenȱplaceȱatȱtheȱinternationalȱlevel,ȱinȱIGOsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱEuropeanȱ Union,ȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱEurope,ȱandȱtheȱWorldȱBank.ȱTheȱWorldȱBank’sȱ‘goodȱgovernance’ȱ andȱtheȱEUȱgovernanceȱagendasȱareȱalsoȱdedicatedȱtoȱhowȱtheȱmobilizationȱofȱcivilȱsocieȬ talȱactorsȱneedsȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱnewȱparticipativeȱandȱdeliberativeȱformsȱofȱglobalȱandȱ EuropeanȱgovernanceȱandȱtoȱdemocratizingȱdecisionȬmakingȱ(chapterȱ5).ȱTheȱEuropeanȱ Commission,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ putsȱ forwardȱ thatȱ NGOsȱ “canȱ becomeȱ ‘centersȱ ofȱ expertise’ȱ andȱcapitalizeȱonȱtheirȱknowledgeȱofȱcommunitiesȱbyȱbecomingȱtrainersȱandȱadvisorsȱforȱ mainstreamȱ providersȱ orȱ governmentalȱ authorities”ȱ (ECȱ 2007:ȱ 26).ȱ Withinȱ theȱ EU,ȱ theȱ governmentalizationȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱrelatesȱtoȱaȱlongerȱtraditionȱtoȱtryȱtoȱbringȱ‘Europe’ȱ closerȱtoȱitsȱcitizens.ȱParticularlyȱsinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱtheȱUnionȱhasȱlaunchedȱvariousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ ‘proximityȱ policies’ȱ toȱ improveȱ participatoryȱ democracyȱ andȱ limitȱ theȱ EU’sȱ muchȱdiscussedȱdemocraticȱdeficit.ȱTheȱdesireȱtoȱbringȱtheȱEUȱcloserȱtoȱitsȱcitizensȱwasȱ oneȱofȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱinitiatingȱtheȱinfluentialȱsubsidiarityȱprincipleȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s:ȱ11ȱ
10ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Kovatsȱ (1996;ȱ 1998;ȱ 2001c),ȱ Watersȱ andȱ Guglielmoȱ (1996),ȱ Szalaiȱ (2000),ȱ Koulishȱ (2003;ȱ
2005),ȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a).ȱ
11ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ principleȱ ofȱ subsidiarity,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ enshrinedȱ inȱ EUȱ lawȱ byȱ theȱ Treatyȱ ofȱ Maastrichtȱ
(1992),ȱ “theȱ EUȱ mayȱ onlyȱ actȱ …ȱ whereȱ memberȱ statesȱ agreeȱ thatȱ actionȱ ofȱ individualȱ countriesȱ isȱ insuffiȬ cient.ȱTheȱprincipleȱservesȱtheȱfunctionsȱof,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱsettingȱupȱaȱdivisionȱofȱcompetenceȱbetweenȱ
Weȱ affirmȱ thatȱ decisionsȱ mustȱ beȱ takenȱ asȱ closelyȱ asȱ possibleȱ toȱ theȱ citizen.ȱ Greaterȱ unityȱ canȱ beȱ achievedȱ withoutȱ excessiveȱ centralizationȱ …ȱ Bringingȱ toȱ lifeȱ thisȱ principle—‘subsidiarity’ȱorȱ‘nearness’—isȱessentialȱifȱtheȱ[European]ȱCommunityȱisȱtoȱ developȱwithȱtheȱsupportȱofȱitsȱcitizens.ȱ(CEUȱ1992:ȱ5)ȱ
ȱ
Inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ itsȱ newȱ governanceȱ agenda,ȱ theȱ EUȱ hasȱ introducedȱ numerousȱ newȱ discourses,ȱmechanisms,ȱandȱtoolsȱthatȱneedȱtoȱbringȱdecisionȬmakingȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱEU’sȱ citizens.ȱLifelongȱlearningȱ(ECȱ1995),ȱactivation,ȱandȱtheȱ‘openȱmethodȱofȱcoordination’ȱ (OMC)ȱareȱexamplesȱofȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱconceptualizedȱasȱneoȬliberalȱgovernmentalȱtechnolȬ ogiesȱofȱproximity:ȱ
ȱ
Technologiesȱ ofȱ proximityȱ referȱ toȱ allȱ thoseȱ discoursesȱ andȱ practicesȱ whichȱ imagineȱ democracyȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ positiveȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ localȱ engagement,ȱ participation,ȱ andȱ connection.ȱ Proximityȱ isȱ affirmedȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ citizenȱ body:ȱ democraticȱ lifeȱ isȱ seenȱ toȱ benefitȱ fromȱ aȱ certainȱ closenessȱ andȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ citizens.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ affirmedȱ betweenȱ citizensȱ andȱ theȱ formalȱ institutionsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ authority:ȱ peopleȱ shouldȱfeelȱ‘closer’ȱtoȱgovernment.ȱ(WaltersȱandȱHaahrȱ2005:ȱ76)ȱ
ȱ
Theȱ toolsȱ thatȱ haveȱ beenȱ developedȱ atȱ local,ȱ national,ȱ andȱ supranationalȱ levelsȱ toȱ inȬ creaseȱtheȱroleȱofȱRomaniȱandȱproȬRomaȱcivilȱsocietalȱactorsȱinȱdecisionȬmakingȱcanȱbeȱ consideredȱ fromȱ theȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ suchȱ neoȬliberalȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ proximity.12ȱSeveralȱRomaniȱactivistsȱhaveȱmovedȱintoȱcloserȱcollaborationsȱwithȱnationȬ
alȱ orȱ supranationalȱ politicalȱ institutionsȱ orȱ evenȱ intoȱ theirȱ officialȱ bodiesȱ toȱ helpȱ fosterȱ RomaȬrelatedȱ developmentȱ programs.ȱ However,ȱ theseȱ commitmentsȱ haveȱ oftenȱ beenȱ consideredȱasȱcoȬoptions,ȱratherȱthanȱsuccesses.13ȱWhetherȱcoȬoptionȱorȱaȱlimitedȱformȱofȱ
successfulȱparticipationȱinȱdecisionȬmaking,ȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱhasȱ undoubtedlyȱledȱtoȱanȱambiguousȱsituation:ȱ
ȱ
[T]heȱ increasingȱ politicalȱ autonomyȱ ofȱ NGOsȱ createsȱ aȱ peculiarȱ situationȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱNGOsȱareȱresponsibleȱtoȱtheȱinternationalȱagenciesȱwhichȱfinanceȱthemȱandȱtheȱ stateȱ whichȱ contractsȱ themȱ asȱ serviceȱ providers,ȱ butȱ notȱ toȱ civilȱ society,ȱ whoseȱ representativesȱ theyȱ claimȱ toȱ be,ȱ norȱ toȱ theȱ socialȱ sectorsȱ whoseȱ interestsȱ theyȱ bear,ȱ norȱtoȱanyȱotherȱorganȱofȱaȱtrulyȱpublicȱcharacter.ȱ(Dagninoȱ2008:ȱ59Ȭ60)ȱ
ȱ
theȱEUȱandȱmemberȱstatesȱandȱonȱtheȱother,ȱendorsingȱtheȱprimacyȱofȱtheȱmemberȱstatesȱinȱsomeȱdomains,ȱ oneȱofȱwhichȱisȱsocialȱpolicy”ȱ(DalyȱandȱSilverȱ2008:ȱ551n52).ȱ
12ȱSeenȱfromȱtheȱangleȱofȱthisȱtransnationalȱdevelopmentȱofȱtechnologiesȱofȱproximity,ȱQUANGOsȱare,ȱthus,ȱ
notȱ onlyȱ GONGOsȱ orȱ governmentȬorganizedȱ NGOs;ȱ theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ whatȱ couldȱ beȱ calledȱ EURONGOsȱ orȱ EuropeanȱUnionȬorganizedȱNGOsȱ(orȱNGOsȱorganizedȱandȱsupportedȱbyȱotherȱIGOs,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱCouncilȱ ofȱEuropeȱandȱtheȱWorldȱ Bank).ȱYet,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱrealizeȱthatȱ EUȱfundsȱforȱ theȱdevelopmentȱofȱcivilȱ societyȱinȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱhaveȱusuallyȱbeenȱdistributedȱthroughȱstateȱstructuresȱinȱtheȱregion.ȱ TheȱnumberȱofȱnationalȱRomaniȱNGOsȱthatȱgetȱdirectȱfundingȱfromȱBrusselsȱisȱstillȱlimited.ȱNevertheless,ȱ theȱCouncilȱofȱEuropeȱhasȱfundedȱseveralȱnewȱinternationalȱRomaniȱNGOs,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱInternationalȱRomaȱ WomenȱNetworkȱ(IRWN),ȱtheȱFederationȱofȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱYoungȱPeopleȱ(FERYP),ȱandȱtheȱEuropeanȱ RomaȱandȱTravellersȱForumȱ(ERTF)ȱ(Nirenbergȱ2009).ȱ 13ȱSee,ȱforȱinstanceȱNirenbergȱ(2009:ȱ113),ȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a:ȱ113).ȱ
ThisȱsituationȱhasȱimportantȱconsequencesȱforȱissuesȱofȱminorityȱparticipationȱandȱrepȬ resentation.ȱ Propagatorsȱ ofȱ newlyȱ developedȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ proximity—suchȱ asȱ theȱ HungarianȱMSGȱsystemȱandȱRomaȬrelatedȱprivateȬpublicȱpartnershipsȱmoreȱgenerally— claimȱ thatȱ theseȱ technologiesȱ representȱ mechanismsȱ thatȱ takeȱ decisionsȱ ‘asȱ closelyȱ asȱ possible’ȱtoȱtheȱcitizenȱorȱtheȱinvolvedȱcommunityȱofȱidentity.ȱHowever,ȱoftenȱ“theȱuseȱ ofȱnewȱtechnologiesȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱpublicsȱcanȱspeakȱtoȱgovernmentsȱinȱwaysȱthatȱ areȱunmediated”ȱ(NewmanȱandȱClarkeȱ2009:ȱ136).ȱFrequently,ȱparticipativeȱgovernanceȱ impliesȱthatȱcivilȱsocietyȱactorsȱcanȱhelpȱimplementȱpolicies,ȱwhileȱhavingȱnoȱdirectȱsayȱ inȱhowȱtheseȱpoliciesȱareȱactuallyȱdeveloped.ȱTheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱparticipativeȱtechnoloȬ giesȱofȱproximityȱhaveȱbeenȱarticulatedȱonȱtheȱgroundȱ“highlightȱtheȱcontinuedȱsignifyȬ canceȱ ofȱ questionsȱ aboutȱ whoȱ setsȱ agendas,ȱ whoȱ claimsȱ toȱ representȱ whom,ȱ andȱ howȱ differentȱexperiences,ȱidentities,ȱandȱinterestsȱcanȱbeȱgivenȱvoiceȱinȱtheȱpublicȱdomain”ȱ (ibid).ȱ
Theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Romaȱ haveȱ increasinglyȱ beenȱ involvedȱ inȱ participativeȱ andȱ deliberativeȱformsȱofȱgovernanceȱreflectȱaȱmoreȱgeneralȱandȱwidespreadȱideaȱthatȱdemoȬ cracyȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ basedȱ onȱ formsȱ ofȱ governingȱ thatȱ areȱ betterȱ attunedȱ toȱ individualȱ preferencesȱ andȱ questionsȱ ofȱ differenceȱ thanȱ theȱ classicȱ welfareȱ stateȱ andȱ moreȱ classicȱ formsȱ ofȱ representativeȱ governance.ȱ Deliberativeȱ formsȱ ofȱ democracyȱ “areȱ viewedȱ asȱ moreȱ responsiveȱ toȱ subtleȱ differencesȱ ofȱ interestȱ andȱ identityȱ thanȱ theȱ aggregativeȱ electoralȱprocessesȱofȱrepresentativeȱdemocracy”ȱ(Newmanȱ2005:ȱ131).ȱHowever,ȱoneȱofȱ theȱ outcomesȱ ofȱ dealingȱ withȱ questionsȱ ofȱ differenceȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ is,ȱ Janetȱ Newmanȱ suggests,ȱthatȱtheȱpublicȱorȱcitizenryȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱconstructedȱasȱ“aȱdifferentiatedȱentityȱsoȱ thatȱcitizensȱorȱserviceȱusersȱcanȱbeȱincludedȱfromȱappropriateȱcategories”ȱ(ibid).ȱTheseȱ processesȱ ofȱ categorizationȱ tendȱ toȱ naturalizeȱ groupȱ identitiesȱ andȱ toȱ divideȱ peopleȱ inȱ relativelyȱ clearlyȱ distinguishedȱ populationȱ groups,ȱ basedȱ onȱ categoriesȱ ofȱ age,ȱ gender,ȱ ethnicity,ȱ profession,ȱ andȱ theȱ like.ȱ Similarly,ȱ participativeȱ andȱ deliberativeȱ practicesȱ ofȱ governanceȱoftenȱtendȱtoȱassumeȱaȱclearlyȱdefined,ȱmoreȱorȱlessȱhomogeneousȱRomaniȱ community.ȱThisȱidentificationȱoftenȱgoesȱwithȱanȱambivalentȱproblematization:ȱ
ȱ
[T]heȱ processȱ ofȱ categorizationȱ tendsȱ toȱ constructȱ problemsȱ asȱ theȱ propertyȱ ofȱ theȱ groupȱ concernedȱ ratherȱ thanȱ ofȱ theȱ widerȱ socialȱ orȱ politicalȱ system.ȱ ‘Hardȱ toȱ reach’ȱ groupsȱareȱconstitutedȱthroughȱaȱdoubleȱtaxonomyȱofȱassumedȱdeficitsȱ(lackȱofȱskillsȱ orȱconfidence,ȱunwillingnessȱtoȱparticipate)ȱandȱpotentialȱassetsȱ(inȱtheȱformȱofȱsocialȱ capital).ȱAsȱsuch,ȱtheirȱparticipationȱisȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱsocialȱinclusionȱagendaȱratherȱthanȱaȱ democraticȱone.ȱ(Newmanȱ2005:ȱ132,ȱmyȱitalics)ȱ ȱ Consequently,ȱnational,ȱbutȱalsoȱsupranationalȱpoliticalȱinstitutionsȱtendȱtoȱreduceȱtheirȱ redistributiveȱroleȱtoȱtheȱcapacityȱbuildingȱofȱRomaniȱcommunities.ȱIȱhaveȱclarifiedȱhowȱ theȱtendencyȱtoȱisolateȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱfromȱtheȱlargerȱpolitical,ȱhistorical,ȱandȱ socioeconomicȱ contextȱ hasȱ moralizingȱ andȱ deȬpoliticizingȱ effectsȱ (chapterȱ 6).ȱ Politicallyȱ complexȱissuesȱofȱmarginalizationȱtendȱtoȱbeȱreducedȱtoȱproblemsȱofȱmorality,ȱdecency,ȱ andȱ individualȱ responsibility,ȱ whichȱ primarilyȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ solvedȱ byȱ theȱ marginalizedȱ themselves.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ thisȱ governingȱ throughȱ communityȱ isȱ thatȱ structuralȱ problemsȱ affectingȱ theȱ Romaȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ territorialized.ȱ Theseȱ problemsȱ andȱ howȱ theyȱ areȱ supposedȱ toȱ beȱ solvedȱ areȱ oneȬsidedlyȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ inhabitantsȱ andȱ
infrastructuresȱofȱspecificȱlocalities,ȱsuchȱasȱseparatedȱorȱsegregatedȱRomaniȱsettlements,ȱ sites,ȱandȱghettoesȱ(seeȱalsoȱTimmerȱ2010).14ȱInȱsuchȱcasesȱofȱgoverningȱthroughȱrelativeȬ
lyȱ fixedȱ Romaniȱ communities,ȱ weȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ noticeȱ theȱ simultaneityȱ ofȱ threeȱ overlappingȱphenomena:ȱtheȱreductionȱofȱaȱdemocraticȱagendaȱtoȱaȱsocialȱinclusionȱone;ȱ theȱterritorializationȱofȱcomplexȱstructuralȱproblems,ȱandȱtheȱlimitationȱofȱtheirȱsolutionȱ toȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ targetȱ groupsȱ andȱ theirȱ livingȱ places.ȱ Theȱ combinationȱ ofȱ theseȱ phenomenaȱoftenȱgoesȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱsuggestionȱthatȱ‘theȱRomaniȱculture’ȱisȱtheȱ‘keyȱ problem’ȱ toȱ beȱ addressed.ȱ Hence,ȱ “aȱ culturalȱ glossȱ isȱ overlaidȱ onȱ structuralȱ problems”ȱ (Newmanȱ2005:ȱ132).ȱInȱhisȱevaluationȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement,ȱValeriuȱNicolaeȱ(2008)ȱ putsȱ forwardȱ that,ȱ despiteȱ allȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ onȱ theȱ equalȱ participationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ asȱ citizens,ȱ theȱ dominantȱ publicȱ discourseȱ onȱ theȱ Romaȱ isȱ thatȱ theyȱ needȱ toȱ changeȱ theirȱ cultureȱ andȱ lifestyle,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ needȱ toȱ sendȱ theirȱ childrenȱ toȱ school,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ needȱ toȱ obeyȱtheȱlaw,ȱandȱthatȱtheyȱneedȱtoȱintegrateȱintoȱmainstreamȱsociety.ȱTheȱproblemsȱtheȱ Romaȱ faceȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ ‘privatized’ȱ andȱ theirȱ solutionsȱ consideredȱ asȱ theirȱ ownȱ private,ȱ ‘community’ȱmatterȱand,ȱthus,ȱnotȱasȱaȱcollective,ȱpublicȱresponsibilityȱ(chapterȱ6).ȱ ȱ Letȱmeȱlinkȱthisȱissueȱtoȱtheȱsuggestionȱofȱscholarsȱofȱtheȱsecondȱgroupȱ(discussedȱinȱ theȱ introductionȱ toȱ thisȱ chapter)ȱ thatȱ thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ startedȱ toȱ representȱ theȱ Roma— includingȱRomaȱthemselves—andȱspeakȱinȱtheirȱnameȱhaveȱbecomeȱinvolvedȱinȱanȱambiȬ valentȱorȱevenȱdirtyȱpoliticsȱofȱrepresentation.ȱSomeȱofȱtheseȱscholars,ȱforȱinstance,ȱhaveȱ discussedȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘NGOization’ȱ atȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ moveȬ ment.15ȱThisȱphenomenonȱrelatesȱtoȱhowȱparticularlyȱRomaȱadvocacyȱNGOs,ȱgraduallyȱ
departingȱ fromȱ aȱ movementȱ agendaȱ ofȱ solidarityȱ andȱ participatoryȱ democracy,ȱ haveȱ becomeȱaȱkindȱofȱserviceȱdeliverersȱthatȱcontributeȱto,ȱratherȱthanȱchallenge,ȱtheȱsuccessȱ ofȱtheȱnewȱneoȬliberalȱorthodoxiesȱofȱstateȱandȱsupraȬstateȱactors.ȱNGOizationȱleads,ȱitȱisȱ argued,ȱ toȱ anȱ ambiguousȱ situationȱ inȱ which,ȱ atȱ newȱ sitesȱ ofȱ participation,ȱ theȱ compeȬ tencesȱofȱsomeȱrepresentatives—wellȬeducatedȱRomaȱand,ȱparticularly,ȱproȬRomaȱadvoȬ cates—tendȱ toȱ beȱ preferredȱ aboveȱ theirȱ capacityȱ toȱ democraticallyȱ orȱ authoritativelyȱ representȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱRomaniȱgrassrootsȱcommunities.ȱNGOization,ȱsoȱtheȱargumentȱ goes,ȱ hasȱ resultedȱ inȱ aȱ troublesomeȱ divideȱ withinȱ theȱ movement,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ someȱ bureaucratic,ȱ professionalizedȱ NGOsȱ runȱ theȱ showȱ andȱ limitȱ “theȱ dynamicsȱ andȱ flexibilityȱ ofȱ civilȱ society”ȱ (Rostasȱ 2009:ȱ 170).ȱ Advocacyȱ NGOs,ȱ mostlyȱ staffedȱ byȱ nonȬ Romaniȱhumanȱrightsȱactivists,ȱwouldȱcurrentlyȱdominateȱtheȱNGOizationȱtrendȱandȱtheȱ settingȱofȱtheȱmovement’sȱagenda.ȱTherefore,ȱNGOizationȱhasȱcausedȱaȱdisplacementȱofȱ RomaniȱNGOsȱandȱsubaltern,ȱgrassrootsȱvoices.16ȱNidhiȱTrehan,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱcritiquesȱ
whatȱ sheȱ considersȱ theȱ “marketizationȱ ofȱ ‘Romaȱ rights’”,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ haveȱ takenȱ “aȱ logicȱofȱitsȱown,ȱwhichȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱisȱdisconnectedȱfromȱtheȱdiverseȱneedsȱofȱRomaniȱ
14ȱThisȱterritorializationȱoftenȱgoesȱtogetherȱwithȱcriminalizingȱtheȱRoma.ȱSuchȱstrategiesȱofȱcriminalizationȱ
andȱ makingȱ theȱ marginalizedȱ responsibleȱ forȱ (solving)ȱ theirȱ problemsȱ areȱ evidentlyȱ notȱ limitedȱ toȱ theȱ Roma.ȱSuchȱstrategiesȱareȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱpoorȱmoreȱgenerallyȱ(Wacquantȱ2009;ȱIlcanȱandȱLaceyȱ2011).ȱHowȬ ever,ȱproblematizingȱRomaniȱidentitiesȱandȱmobilitiesȱasȱirregularȱintensifiesȱtheȱapplicabilityȱofȱstrategiesȱ ofȱstigmatizationȱandȱ‘responsibilization’ȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱ(chapterȱ6,ȱvanȱBaarȱ2011b).ȱ
15ȱ See,ȱ mostȱ notably,ȱ Trehanȱ (2001;ȱ 2009a;ȱ 2009b),ȱ Baranyȱ (2002),ȱ Kóczéȱ (2009),ȱ Nirenbergȱ (2009),ȱ Rostasȱ
(2009),ȱandȱSigonaȱandȱTrehanȱ(2009a;ȱ2009b).ȱ
communities”ȱ(2009b:ȱ65).ȱInȱshort,ȱNGOizationȱwouldȱhaveȱradicallyȱdisplacedȱRomaniȱ grassrootsȱcommunitiesȱandȱsubjectsȱandȱtheirȱvoices,ȱinterests,ȱandȱneeds.ȱ NandoȱSigonaȱandȱNidhiȱTrehanȱargueȱthatȱNGOizationȱisȱgenerallyȱtheȱeffectȱofȱhowȱ neoȬliberalismȱhasȱimpactedȱonȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱTheyȱconsiderȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱ anȱideologicalȱpolicyȱframework,ȱmainlyȱimposedȱonȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeȱfromȱ outsideȱandȱwhichȱwouldȱinstrumentalizeȱ“theȱNGOȱvehicle”ȱtoȱachieveȱitsȱaimsȱ(2009a:ȱ 297).ȱForȱinstance,ȱtheyȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱformerȱWorldȱBankȱPresidentȱWolfensohnȱandȱtheȱ billionaireȱSorosȱareȱeliteȱfiguresȱwhoȱplayedȱaȱcrucialȱroleȱinȱ“theȱ‘Americanization’ȱofȱ Easternȱ Europe”ȱ (2009b:ȱ 3).ȱ Referringȱ toȱ Davidȱ Harvey’sȱ (2005)ȱ viewȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalism,ȱ theyȱlinkȱtheȱregion’sȱmarketizationȱmainlyȱtoȱtheȱdisseminationȱofȱdiscoursesȱofȱ“AmeriȬ canȱ andȱ EuroȬAtlanticȱ liberalȱ andȱ neoȬliberalȱ politicalȱ elites”ȱ (2009b:ȱ 8).ȱ Theyȱ primarilyȱ followȱaȱreadingȱofȱhegemonicȱneoȬliberalismȱasȱpolicyȬcumȬideologyȱ(chapterȱ5).ȱInȱsuchȱ aȱview,ȱIȱarguedȱinȱchaptersȱ5ȱandȱ6,ȱisȱneitherȱmuchȱspaceȱforȱaȱconsiderationȱofȱunevenȱ articulationsȱofȱneoȬliberalism,ȱnorȱforȱanȱacknowledgementȱofȱtheȱpossiblyȱconstitutiveȱ roleȱofȱcritiqueȱinȱproducingȱambivalencesȱwithinȱarticulationsȱofȱneoȬliberalȱgovernance.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ theyȱ tendȱ toȱ understandȱ itȱ asȱ aȱ rampantȱ hegemonicȱ mechanismȱ thatȱ rulesȱ everythingȱ andȱ everybody,ȱ atȱ leastȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ dailyȱ realitiesȱ ofȱ Europe’sȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱ Thisȱ viewȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ alsoȱ impactsȱ onȱ theȱ alternativeȱ theyȱ proposeȱandȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱperceiveȱRomaniȱagency.ȱ
Sigonaȱ andȱ Trehanȱ presentȱ theirȱ alternativeȱ mainlyȱ byȱ contrastingȱ itȱ toȱ whatȱ theyȱ considerȱasȱcounterproductive.ȱTheyȱoppose,ȱforȱinstance,ȱurbanȱproȬRomaȱandȱRomaniȱ elitesȱ toȱ ruralȱ Romaniȱ grassrootsȱ communities,ȱ topȬdownȱ toȱ bottomȬupȱ approaches,ȱ externalȱexpertiseȱtoȱlocalȱknowledge,ȱtechnocraticȱprofessionalismȱtoȱsocialȱjustice,ȱandȱ NGOizationȱtoȱgrassrootsȱempowerment.ȱWhileȱtheyȱvalueȱpositivelyȱandȱwantȱtoȱmobilȬ izeȱtheȱlatterȱsidesȱofȱtheseȱbinaries,ȱtheyȱconsiderȱtheȱformerȱasȱintrusiveȱmanifestationsȱ ofȱaȱneoȬimperialȱneoȬliberalȱorder.17ȱUltimately,ȱalternativesȱneedȱtoȱbeȱlookedȱforȱatȱtheȱ
local,ȱgrassrootsȱlevel.ȱForȱinstance,ȱTrehanȱproposes,ȱthatȱ“[w]hatȱisȱneededȱ…ȱisȱ…ȱanȱ analysisȱ thatȱ accountsȱ forȱ Romaniȱ diversityȱ inȱ Europeȱ throughȱ anȱ emphasisȱ onȱ privilegingȱ localȱ levelȱ knowledgeȱ …”ȱ (2009b:ȱ 65).ȱ Yet,ȱ whileȱ Sigonaȱ andȱ Trehanȱ payȱ ampleȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ latterȱ sidesȱ ofȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ binaries,ȱ inȱ theirȱ analysisȱ theȱ ‘grassroots’ȱremainȱanȱalmostȱemptyȱsignifier.ȱThisȱissueȱrelatesȱtoȱtheirȱspecificȱunderȬ standingȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement’sȱpoliticsȱofȱrepresentation.ȱInȱtheirȱview,ȱtheȱneeds,ȱ interests,ȱ andȱ problemsȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ grassrootsȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ naturalizeȱ asȱ given,ȱ transȬ parent,ȱandȱincontrovertible.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱviewȱdisregardsȱhowȱtheseȱneeds,ȱinterests,ȱ andȱ problemsȱ areȱ constitutedȱ “withinȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ politicalȱ representationȱ itself,ȱ andȱ notȱsomehowȱapartȱfromȱorȱpriorȱtoȱit”ȱ(Sawardȱ2005:ȱ181,ȱhisȱitalics).ȱSuchȱaȱviewȱsugȬ
17ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ Trehanȱ putsȱ forward:ȱ “Inherentȱ toȱ theȱ neoȬliberal,ȱ technocraticȱ policyȱ approachȱ towardsȱ
NGOȱdevelopment,ȱtheȱ‘NGOization’ȱofȱhumanȱrightsȱhasȱcurtailed,ȱifȱnotȱstunted,ȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱanȱ autonomous,ȱdemocraticȱvoiceȱwhichȱwouldȱeffectivelyȱinterveneȱorȱmediateȱonȱbehalfȱofȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱ communitiesȱ andȱ theirȱ mostȱ criticalȱ needsȱ …ȱ [T]heȱ advocacyȱ cultureȱ andȱ methodsȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalȱ humanȱ rightsȱentrepreneurshipȱcontinuesȱtoȱhaveȱaȱprofoundȱimpactȱonȱyoungerȱgenerationsȱofȱRomaniȱactivists,ȱ whoȱ haveȱ beenȱ exposedȱ toȱ aȱ ‘technocratic,ȱ professional’ȱ modelȱ …ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ selfȬhelp,ȱ bottomȬupȱ modelȱofȱcommunityȱdevelopment”ȱ(2009a:ȱ225).ȱ
gestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ representativesȱ are,ȱ butȱ theȱ representedȱ Romaniȱ grassrootsȱ comȬ munitiesȱareȱnotȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱrepresentationȱ(orȱlessȱproblematically).18ȱ IȱcallȱintoȱquestionȱtheȱbinaryȱoppositionsȱbetweenȱtheȱRoma’sȱrepresentativesȱandȱtheȱ representedȱRoma,ȱelitesȱandȱgrassroots,ȱorȱformalȱandȱinformalȱsidesȱofȱtheȱmovement.ȱ Suchȱaȱ‘binary’ȱapproachȱtoȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱ(im)possibilitiesȱofȱNGOȱ developmentȱinȱparticular,ȱembodiesȱseveralȱontologicalȱandȱepistemologicalȱproblems.ȱ Theseȱbinaryȱconstructionsȱandȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱopposeȱexpertȱtoȱlocalȱknowledgeȱ privilegeȱ aȱ problematicȱ viewȱ ofȱ ‘localȱ needs’ȱ andȱ ‘grassrootsȱ communities’ȱ (chapterȱ 2,ȱ MohanȱandȱStokkeȱ2000).ȱTheȱRomaniȱgrassrootsȱcommunitiesȱandȱlocalȱRomaniȱNGOsȱ areȱ setȱ againstȱ aȱ nonȬRomaniȱ andȱ Romaniȱ elite,ȱ includingȱ theȱ professionalizedȱ interȬ nationalȱNGOsȱwithȱwhomȱtheyȱareȱaffiliated.ȱCritically,ȱthisȱallȱaddsȱupȱtoȱtheȱvalorizaȬ tionȱ ofȱ ‘local’ȱ orȱ ‘insider’ȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theȱ localȱ Romaniȱ NGOsȱ areȱ ‘closest’ȱtoȱtheȱRomaȱmostȱinȱneed.ȱThisȱformȱofȱlocalismȱtendsȱtoȱ“essentializeȱtheȱlocalȱ asȱdiscreteȱplacesȱthatȱhostȱrelativelyȱhomogeneousȱcommunitiesȱor,ȱalternatively,ȱconstiȬ tuteȱsitesȱofȱgrassrootsȱmobilizationȱandȱresistance”ȱ(MohanȱandȱStokkeȱ2000:ȱ264).ȱTheȱ glorificationȱofȱlocalȱcommunityȱasȱtheȱsiteȱwhereȱRomaniȱactivismȱneedsȱtoȱstartȱandȱtoȱ beȱmobilizedȱprivilegesȱaȱnotionȱofȱpoliticsȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmainȱaimȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtoȱcarveȱ “outȱ spacesȱ ofȱ empowermentȱ whereȱ ordinaryȱ peopleȱ canȱ defineȱ theirȱ livesȱ outsideȱ theȱ imprisoningȱ architectureȱ ofȱ developmentalism”ȱ (Corbridgeȱ 2007:ȱ 185).ȱ Iȱ haveȱ critiquedȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whoȱ considerȱ theȱ ‘developmentȱ industry’ȱ itselfȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ coreȱ problemsȱ ofȱ howȱ developmentȱ isȱ organizedȱ (chapterȱ 2).ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ haveȱ calledȱ forȱ rejectingȱ thisȱ entireȱ ‘industry,’ȱ includingȱ theȱ expertsȱ whoȱ haveȱ ‘flownȱ into’ȱ indigenousȱ movementsȱ andȱ contexts,ȱ tendȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ ‘local’ȱ andȱ ‘nonȬlocal’ȱ areȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ discreteȱentitiesȱthatȱcanȱbeȱeasilyȱseparatedȱinȱspace.ȱTheȱsameȱrhetoricȱandȱproblematicȱ appearȱwhenȱsomeȱscholarsȱareȱdiscussingȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovementȱinȱtermsȱ ofȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ anȱ ‘ethnoȬbusiness,’ȱ ‘Romaȱ industry,’ȱ orȱ ‘humanȱ rightsȱ industry’.19ȱ
TheseȱscholarsȱtendȱtoȱpresentȱtheȱRomaȱasȱeitherȱvictimsȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱandȱemȬ powermentȱ programsȱ orȱ activeȱ contributorsȱ toȱ theirȱ ownȱ ideologicalȱ deception.ȱ HowȬ ever,ȱcontraryȱtoȱwhatȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheseȱscholars’ȱacademicȱaspiration,ȱtheȱultimateȱtheoȬ reticalȱconsequenceȱofȱthisȱrepresentationȱisȱthatȱtheȱspaceȱforȱRomaniȱagencyȱvanishesȱ intoȱthinȱair.ȱIndeed,ȱifȱtheȱRomaȱareȱonlyȱvictimsȱofȱtheȱdevelopmentȱprograms,ȱtheyȱareȱ deniedȱ agency.ȱ Andȱ whenȱ some,ȱ moreȱ organizedȱ andȱ eliteȱ Romaȱ are,ȱ throughȱ NGOȬ ization,ȱ merelyȱ contributingȱ toȱ anȱ ambivalentȱ politicsȱ ofȱ representation,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ simplyȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱrightȱkindȱofȱagency,ȱ“becauseȱtheyȱhaveȱboughtȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱ myth”ȱ(Sharmaȱ2008:ȱ119).ȱIndeed,ȱtheyȱhaveȱstartedȱtoȱdefendȱpositionsȱthatȱneglectȱtheȱ ‘real’ȱ needsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ ‘grassrootsȱ communities.’ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ theȱ viewȱ ofȱ ‘globalȱ
18ȱ Evenȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Vermeerschȱ andȱ McGarry,ȱ whoȱ haveȱ carefullyȱ analyzedȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ interestȱ andȱ
identityȱformationȱandȱtheȱprocessesȱinȱwhichȱinterestsȱandȱidentitiesȱareȱframedȱandȱlegitimized,ȱtendȱtoȱ followȱPitkin’sȱ(1968)ȱseminal,ȱyetȱunidirectionalȱtheoryȱofȱrepresentation.ȱFocusingȱonȱ“theȱformalȱsideȱofȱ theȱmovement”ȱ(Vermeerschȱ2006:ȱ9),ȱtheyȱconcentrateȱonȱtheȱflowȱofȱinterestsȱfromȱtheȱrepresentedȱtoȱtheȱ representativesȱandȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱlatterȱinȱtheȱmovement’sȱpoliticsȱofȱrepresentationȱ(seeȱalsoȱvanȱBaarȱ 2012b).ȱ 19ȱSeeȱTrehanȱ(2001;ȱ2009a),ȱTrehanȱandȱKóczéȱ(2009),ȱandȱBaranyȱ(2002).ȱ
hegemonicȱ neoȬliberalȱ power’ȱ versusȱ ‘localȱ grassrootsȱ communityȱ resistance’ȱ makesȱ itȱ methodologicallyȱhardȱtoȱspecifyȱtheȱrequisiteȱagencyȱtoȱrealizeȱanyȱalternative.20ȱ
Ratherȱ thanȱ romanticizingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ localȱ Romaniȱ grassrootsȱ communitiesȱ outsideȱ neoȬliberalȱ articulationsȱ ofȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ government,ȱ Iȱ proposeȱ toȱ interrogateȱ theȱ politicalȱusesȱofȱ‘theȱgrassroots’ȱbyȱvariousȱactors,ȱincludingȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱconsideredȱasȱ localȱRomaniȱNGOsȱandȱgrassrootsȱorganizationsȱ(seeȱalsoȱvanȱBaarȱ2005b;ȱ2008a).ȱSuchȱ anȱinterrogationȱrevealsȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱcivilȱsocietyȱhasȱalsoȱledȱtoȱtheȱ formationȱofȱnewȱformsȱofȱRomaniȱagency.ȱMoreover,ȱitȱleadsȱusȱbeyondȱanȱanalysisȱofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ movementȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ merelyȱ aȱ perverseȱ confluenceȱ ofȱ theȱ neoȬliberalȱ andȱ participatoryȱdemocraticȱprojects.ȱTheȱconfluenceȱofȱbothȱpoliticalȱprojectsȱinȱitselfȱdoesȱ notȱ tellȱ usȱ muchȱ aboutȱ whetherȱ andȱ toȱ whatȱ extentȱ theȱ confluenceȱ hasȱ transformedȱ practicesȱofȱparticipation.ȱThoughȱtheȱperverseȱconfluenceȱapproachȱhelpsȱtoȱunderstandȱ howȱ solidarityȱ movementsȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ displacedȱ byȱ theȱ individualisticȱ approachȱ ofȱ theȱ neoȬliberalȱproject,ȱitȱtellsȱusȱlittleȱaboutȱhowȱtheseȱdisplacementsȱareȱnegotiatedȱonȱtheȱ ground.ȱToȱsomeȱextent,ȱtheȱ‘perverseȱconfluence’ȱapproachȱstillȱtendsȱtoȱformulateȱtheȱ conflictsȱbetweenȱtheȱparticipatoryȱdemocraticȱandȱtheȱneoȬliberalȱprojectȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱ howȱ participationȱ isȱ theorizedȱ andȱ conceptualized,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ itsȱ actualȱ practice.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ approach,ȱ however,ȱ canȱ provideȱ insightȱ intoȱ howȱ andȱ underȱ whatȱ conditionsȱparticipatoryȱspacesȱandȱformsȱofȱgovernanceȱhaveȱengenderedȱnewȱcitizenȬ shipȱpractices.ȱThisȱleadsȱmeȱtoȱask:ȱHowȱdoȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱothersȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱ movementȱ actuallyȱ negotiateȱ theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ participationȱ inȱ theirȱ dailyȱ practices?ȱ Doȱ theyȱmobilize,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtheȱcontestedȱboundariesȱbetweenȱtheȱpublicȱsectorȱandȱtheȱ thirdȱ sectorȱ toȱ tryȱ toȱ developȱ theirȱ ownȱ agendas?ȱ Whatȱ isȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ activists’ȱ involvementȱ inȱ networkingȱ onȱ attemptsȱ atȱ creatingȱ bothȱ aȱ moreȱ engagedȱ civilȱ societyȱ andȱmoreȱresponsiveȱandȱeffectiveȱofficialȱinstitutions?ȱIsȱitȱpossibleȱforȱRomaniȱactivistsȱ orȱ subalternȱ subjectsȱ toȱ appropriateȱ andȱ reȬembedȱ neoȬliberalȱ toolsȱ inȱ locallyȱ situatedȱ practices,ȱratherȱthanȱmerelyȱreplicateȱtheseȱtoolsȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱofȱtheirȱopportunitiesȱtoȱ redirectȱtheȱmovement?ȱ
ȱ ȱ
20ȱPalomaȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱhasȱadoptedȱanȱevenȱmoreȱradicalȱviewȱofȱRomaniȱactivism,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱwouldȱbeȱaȱ
formȱ ofȱ anȱ almostȱ totalȱ assimilationȱ ofȱ theȱ involvedȱ Romaȱ toȱ theȱ patternsȱ andȱ modelsȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ outsiders.ȱWithoutȱseeingȱaȱpossibilityȱforȱaȱproductiveȱcontestationȱofȱtheȱboundariesȱbetweenȱtheȱ‘Gypsy’ȱ andȱ theȱ ‘nonȬGypsy’ȱ worlds,ȱ sheȱ presentsȱ theȱ followingȱ caricatureȱ ofȱ Americanȱ andȱ EuroȬcentricȱ theoriesȱ andȱideasȱofȱidentityȱandȱpersonhood:ȱ
ȱȱ
[Romani]ȱactivismȱisȱpremisedȱonȱnonȬGypsyȱmodelsȱofȱpersonhood,ȱbyȱwhichȱallȱpersonsȱbecomeȱentitledȱ toȱtheȱsameȱhumanȱrights,ȱeffectivelyȱworkingȱasȱequallyȱvaluableȱunitsȱofȱhumanityȱ…ȱRomaȱactivistsȱbeginȱ toȱ moveȱ awayȱ fromȱ aȱ performativeȱ modelȱ ofȱ identityȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ emphasisȱ onȱ historicalȱ andȱ biologicalȱ
continuityȱthatȱliesȱatȱtheȱcoreȱofȱEuroȬAmericanȱethnoȬtheoriesȱ…ȱRomaȱactivismȱbothȱmimicsȱtheȱwayȱinterȬ nationalȱpoliticsȱareȱorganizedȱandȱmodelsȱitselfȱuponȱnonȬGypsyȱparadigmsȱofȱidentityȱandȱpersonhood.ȱ(Gayȱyȱ
Blascoȱ2002:ȱ181,ȱ184,ȱ185,ȱmyȱitalicsȱandȱabridgement)ȱ ȱ
Theȱ Czechȱ anthropologistsȱ Marekȱ Jakoubekȱ andȱ Lenkaȱ Budilováȱ haveȱ proposedȱ aȱ similarlyȱ negativeȱ approachȱtoȱeverythingȱthatȱrelatesȱtoȱproȬRomaȱhumanȱrightsȱactivism,ȱRomaniȱpoliticalȱmobilization,ȱandȱ theȱ kindsȱ ofȱ identityȱ formationsȱ thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ provokeȱ (Jakoubekȱ 2004;ȱ 2008;ȱ Budilováȱ andȱ Jakoubekȱ 2007;ȱforȱaȱcritiqueȱofȱtheirȱviewȱofȱRomaniȱethnoȬpoliticsȱandȱproȬRomaȱactivism,ȱseeȱCahnȱ2009).ȱ
TRAVELINGȱACTIVISM:ȱTOWARDȱAȱPOLITICSȱOFȱCITIZENSHIPȱASȱPARTICIPATIONȱ ȱ
Aȱ networkedȱ theoryȱ ofȱ powerȱ (chapterȱ 1)ȱ andȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ neoȬliberalismȱ asȱ governmentalityȱ(chapterȱ5)ȱleadȱusȱbeyondȱtotalizing,ȱglobalȱviewsȱofȱneoȬliberalȱpowerȱ andȱenableȱusȱtoȱseeȱhowȱactivistsȱhaveȱmobilizedȱandȱincorporatedȱneoȬliberalȱelementsȱ inȱtheȱRomaniȱmovementȱforȱdifferentȱthanȱneoȬliberalȱends.ȱIȱcallȱtheȱformsȱofȱactivismȱ thatȱ areȱ basedȱ onȱ thisȱ understandingȱ ofȱ powerȱ andȱ governmentalityȱ travelingȱ activism.ȱ Withȱ thisȱ term,ȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ underscoreȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ howȱ various,ȱ transnationallyȱ circulatingȱdiscourses,ȱstrategies,ȱandȱtechniquesȱofȱactivismȱareȱtranslatedȱacrossȱspaceȱ andȱ difference.ȱ Travelingȱ activismȱ pointsȱ toȱ howȱ activists,ȱ byȱ crossingȱ theȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱdifferentȱpoliticalȱterrainsȱandȱbothȱinstitutionalȱandȱnonȬinstitutionalȱsettings,ȱ articulateȱaȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱasȱparticipationȱandȱcontributeȱtoȱshapingȱnewȱformsȱofȱ agencyȱ andȱ transformativeȱ spaces.ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ theseȱ citizenshipȱ practicesȱ areȱ oftenȱ frustratedȱ andȱ usuallyȱ achieveȱ neitherȱ theȱ desiredȱ aimsȱ norȱ matchȱ theȱ writtenȱ projectȱ results,ȱtheyȱexceedȱ“theȱsearchȱforȱsimpleȱtechnicalȱfixes”ȱ(HickeyȱandȱMohanȱ2004:ȱ168)ȱ andȱaddressȱparticipationȱinȱtermsȱofȱbroaderȱsocialȱtransformation.ȱ
InȱtheȱcaseȱstudiesȱthatȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱinȱtheȱremainderȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱ theȱ involvedȱ notionȱ ofȱ participationȱ refersȱ toȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ claimȱ making,ȱ includingȱ claimingȱtheȱ rightȱ toȱ haveȱ rights,ȱclaimingȱ accessȱ toȱ publicȱ services,ȱ claimsȱ toȱ beȱ heardȱ andȱ represented,ȱ andȱ strategiesȱ toȱ makeȱ publicȱ andȱ visibleȱ whatȱ hasȱ hithertoȱ oftenȱ remainedȱinvisibleȱandȱbeenȱrenderedȱtheȱRoma’sȱ‘privateȱmatter.’ȱUsingȱtheseȱclaimsȱasȱ entryȬpointsȱtoȱchallengeȱcontemporaryȱdevelopmentȱandȱotherȱpolicyȱpracticesȱmayȱbeȱ aȱusefulȱstrategyȱinȱpromotingȱaȱbasicallyȱhybridȱnotionȱofȱempowerment.ȱAccordingȱtoȱ thisȱviewȱofȱempowerment,ȱvariousȱelements,ȱamongȱwhichȱneoȬliberalȱones,ȱareȱrecomȬ binedȱtoȱrevealȱtheȱlimitsȱofȱexistingȱpolicyȱframeworksȱand,ȱpossibly,ȱrenewȱthem.ȱEvenȱ ifȱtheseȱactivistȱstrategiesȱalwaysȱneedȱtoȱbeȱarticulatedȱatȱlocalȱlevels,ȱtheȱlocalȱdoesȱnotȱ boundȱ theseȱ strategies.ȱ Theyȱ tryȱ toȱ achieveȱ “relativeȱ levelsȱ ofȱ empowermentȱ withinȱ networks,ȱratherȱthanȱproducingȱbounded,ȱlocalizedȱspacesȱofȱliberation”ȱ(Williamsȱ2004:ȱ 102).ȱThus,ȱtravelingȱactivismȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱanȱevenȱgeographyȱofȱactivism.ȱRather,ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ spacesȱ thatȱ theseȱ formsȱ ofȱ activismȱ produceȱ areȱ essentiallyȱ multiȬ scalar,ȱ entailȱ complex,ȱ overlappingȱ andȱ traversingȱ geographies,ȱ mobilizeȱ diverseȱ formsȱ ofȱknowledgeȱandȱexpertise,ȱandȱincludeȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱallianceȱbuilding.ȱ
ȱ TravelingȱactivismȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱformȱofȱcounterȬconductȱ(chapterȱ1).ȱInȱhisȱsearchȱ forȱanȱadequateȱtermȱtoȱspecifyȱchallengesȱtoȱprevailingȱgovernmentalitiesȱandȱexistingȱ powerȱ relationships,ȱ Foucaultȱ callsȱ suchȱ resistancesȱ ‘counterȬconducts.’ȱ Heȱ tellinglyȱ rejectsȱtheȱtermsȱ‘revolt,’ȱ‘dissidence,’ȱandȱ‘disobedience.’ȱHeȱrejectsȱtheȱfirstȱ“becauseȱtheȱ wordȱ ‘revolt’ȱ isȱ bothȱ tooȱ preciseȱ andȱ tooȱ strongȱ toȱ designateȱ muchȱ moreȱ diffuseȱ andȱ subduedȱ formsȱ ofȱ resistance”ȱ (Foucaultȱ 2007b:ȱ 200).ȱ Heȱ discardsȱ ‘dissidence’ȱ forȱ theȱ nounȱ ‘dissident’ȱ impliesȱ theȱ ‘substantification’ȱ andȱ ‘santification’ȱ ofȱ resistance,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ limitȱ resistanceȱ toȱ particularȱ personsȱ orȱ groups,ȱ andȱ excessivelyȱ glorifyȱ theirȱ individualȱstatusȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱcontestationȱ(ibidȱ202).ȱHeȱconsidersȱ‘disobedience’ȱasȱ tooȱweakȱaȱterm,ȱthoughȱ“theȱproblemȱofȱobedienceȱisȱinȱfactȱatȱtheȱcenter”ȱ(ibidȱ200)ȱofȱ whatȱheȱwantsȱtoȱdemarcate.ȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱheȱintroducesȱtheȱtermȱ‘counterȬconduct’ȱ toȱanalyzeȱtheȱcomponentsȱofȱeverydayȱlifeȱstrugglesȱthatȱcouldȱcontributeȱtoȱreshapingȱ “theȱveryȱgeneralȱfieldȱofȱpolitics”ȱandȱ“powerȱrelations”ȱ(ibidȱ202).ȱ
