Transcript Ethnic Minorities in Public Administration

Dr.Tanju Tosun
[email protected]
The concept of ethnic minorities
 According to a common definition, a national minority
is a numerically non-dominant group of people
characterized by the ethnic, linguistic and religious
features differentiating it from the rest of the
population.
 Members of a given community have to display, at least
implicitly, a sense of solidarity aimed at preserving the
common culture, traditions, religion and language
The concept of ethnic minorities
 The minority status is determined not only by or not to
the measure of its originality or possession of certain
discriminatory features, self-awareness, etc., but rather
by the collective volition of its membership.
The concept of ethnic minorities
 The concept of ethnic minority is relevant only with
regard to the politically organized ethnic domination,
i.e. when there is a state-forming or the Title Nation,
as it were
 Thus, the national minority is explicated solely within
the framework of a political entity: a state and
autonomy, etc.
Democracy and Ethnic Minorities
 Powerful arguments have been developed about
democracy in multiethnic states. These theories argue
that democracy is based on the consent of those
governed and emphasize the role of the state in
establishing order and maintaining the rule of law.
 When the state and its institutions are not regarded as
neutral and fair by all actors, minority groups may find
themselves forced to create their own, potentially
divergent forms of self-protection, which can come to
be seen by the ethnic majority as threatening to the
integrity of the state.
Democracy and Ethnic Minorities
 These theories emphasize that only those democracies
that are able to re-integrate and engage all ethnic
groups (majority and minorities) into the same society
can lead to order and stability. Democratic institutions
(governments, administration, welfare and justice)
should therefore be accessible to all minorities
including ethnic groups.
Democracy and Ethnic Minorities
 A government, local or central, is considered as
legitimate if its decisions are generally acceptable to its
constituency as fair and equitable. If policies of a
government appear to be biased in favor of a particular
group, the legitimacy of the state and the support of
policies will be weakened.
Ethnic Bias
 Ethnic bias refers to gaps in to policy process that result in
the failure of governments and public institutions to
provide equitable access to power and public resources to
various ethnic and national groups in a society.
 A policy is ethnically biased if
 one ethnic group has disproportionate (or exclusive) power
on defining policy goals and priorities,
 if structural arrangements favor the interest of one or another
ethnic group in the course of policy formulation and finally,
 if rules of distribution of public resources are not neutral in
their effects.
Ethnic Bias
Ethnic bias is a policy problem because;
 it results in weakening social cohesion in multi-ethnic
communities and because it is often the underlying
cause of conflicts, instability and crisis of legitimacy in
many new democracies as well as in CEE.
 it makes policies inefficient: by giving preference to
dominant group, ethnically biased policies will weaken
the results of other public policies and reproduce
inequalities. (costs of rights)
 ethnic bias is a failure of democratic process. Ethnic
diversity cannot be seen separate or distinct from issues
relating to allocation of power and public resources.
Ethnic Bias
 Ethnic bias is a policy concept that explains inequity
and indirect discrimination in access of minorities to
public services with the relationship between the
institutional structure and public policies determining
rules and structures of service delivery.
Ethnic Bias
 The type and level of ethnic bias depends on the
combination of the following four main components:
 participation in setting the policy agenda,
 representation in the process of policy formulation and
adoption,
 the involvement in the implementation of public
policies and
 the type of encounter between the dominant group and
the minorities
Obstacles to the Political
Participation of National
Minorities
 A lot of problems in the field of performance of
national minorities rights are stipulated only by hard
economic situation not allowing to consider their
requirements in social sphere, in employment,
cultural, educational and health where are
concentrated the fundamental interests of national
minorities.
Obstacles to the Political
Participation of Ethnic Minorities
 Lack of Citizenship
 Regarding elections as the main source of legitimacy in
democratic systems we should look at the state regulation of
situation with participation both at the local and
parliamentary elections. Generally non-citizens have no right
to participate in elections, neither as candidates nor as
electors.
 Language Restrictions
 Lack of Conditions Necessary for the Effective Participation
of Ethnic Minorities
 As for the public administration, it must be acknowledged
that the language and citizenship requirements pave the
way for the exclusion of minorities on the legal basis.
Obstacles to the Political
Participation of Ethnic Minorities
 The process of building the state of ethnic democracy is
inevitably accompanied by “politisation” and conferring of
ethnic dimension on almost every sphere of life. In many
country the citizenship and language issues are the key to
understanding the political nature of social processes.
 Needless to stress that exclusion as such undermines the
very principles and core values of liberal democracy. People
whose voices cannot be heard will either keep silence or
marginalize searching for another ways of making the
majority count with their interests.
Policy agenda: “filter hypothesis”
 Minorities have little impact on formulation of the
local policy agenda. Policy-makers are mostly
members of the dominant group and act as gatekeepers to filter demands of ethnic groups. Without
the effective participation of minorities in the local
decision-making process becomes biased against
inputs from minorities.
Policy formulation: “hypothesis of
biased policy choices”
 Ethnic minorities may have policy preferences that are different from
that of the dominant groups. However, due to the lack of appropriate
institutions of bargaining and the frequent under-representation of
minorities, minorities have little chance to develop and promote policy
alternatives to solve policy problems.
 In case of lack of formal (or at least informal) institutions of bargaining
involve a risk of biased choices: minorities will not be able to influence
selected policy options, including the rules of access.
Policy implementation:
“hypothesis of ethnic monopoly”
 There are very few representatives working in civil service and public
administration. Consequently, state administration remains the
monopoly of the state. This situation affects the implementation of
various policies. Ethnic bias may occure in at least two ways.
 First case is when access is hindered by linguistic, cultural, social or
other differences between the public official involved in the delivery of
public service.
 The second case is when members of minority feel discouraged by
applying for services to public agencies run by the dominant group.
 In most countries, government and state administration remained the
monopoly of dominant ethnic groups. Mono-cultural (and in most
cases mono-lingual) view of government and administrative culture as
well as the lack of power-sharing and effective participation of
minorities often resulted in ethnically biased institutions and policies.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
 Article 10 of the Turkish Constitution includes provisions on equal
treatment and prohibits discrimination. Language, race, colour, sex,
political opinion, philosophical belief and religion are enumerated as
grounds of equality in the Article. Individuals are equal before the law
on “similar grounds” too.
 The legal status of minorities in Turkey was established by the 1923
Treaty of Lausanne, which defined minorities on the basis of religion.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
Non-Muslim minorities
 The Treaty of Lausanne grants non-Muslim minorities (represented
by approximately 25,000 Jews, 3,000 Greeks and 50,000 Armenians)
substantial negative rights as well as positive ones, with obligations
for the Turkish government to undertake measures for the
enjoyment of those rights. Most significantly, the Treaty gives nonMuslim minorities the right to equal protection and
nondiscrimination, the right to establish private schools and
provide education in their own language, the conditional
entitlement to receive government funding for instruction in their
own languages at the primary level in public schools, the right to
settle family law or private issues in accordance with their own
customs and the right to exercise their religion freely.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
 There have been two sets of problems with the practical
implementation of these rights. First was the selective application
of these rights to the three main non-Muslim communities, hence
excluding other non-Muslim minorities such as the Assyrians
(approximately 15,000). The second problem related to
shortcomings in the implementation of these rights, especially
regarding property issues and religious/educational institutions.
The reform process initiated with the prospect of EU accession has
aimed at resolving these issues.
 The main problems suffered by religious minorities in Turkey have
been the lack of a legal personality and the impossibility of
acquiring or selling property.
Reforms undertaken in the field of
religious minorities
 A new paragraph was added to Art. 312 of the Penal Code that prohibits degrading a
part of society in a way that violates human dignity and hence penalises individuals
who express degrading comments about ethnic and religious groups within the
country.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
 The Kurdish question
 The conflict with the PKK, the terrorist-guerrilla organisation
that launched a violent secessionist campaign in the south-east,
which led to more than 35,000 fatalities including 5,000
civilians, had immense economic and social consequences and
left deep scars in the country.
 Thus it is imperative to understand the sources of this conflict
and establish the means to achieve a sustainable solution to the
issue that will prevent any future violence and guarantee the
unity of the country by democratic means.
 The PKK’s eventual defeat by the Turkish military and the
emergence of EU conditionality triggered a change in the official
view on the Kurdish issue, leading to significant reforms that
directly intended to improve the lives of Kurds in the country.
Reforms undertaken on the Kurdish
issue
 The constitutional amendments of October 2001 removed the
restriction on the use of any language prohibited by law in the
expression and dissemination of thought from Art. 26 of the
constitution. Similarly, restrictive language on broadcasting
was also removed from Art. 28.
 Broadcasting in Kurdish was permitted with the third
democratisation package in August 2002. The seventh
package adopted in July 2003 further amended the
broadcasting law to provide for such broadcasting by public
and private radio and television stations.
Reforms undertaken on the Kurdish
issue
 The law that deals with the teaching of foreign languages
was also amended with the third package in August 2002,
opening the way for private courses in Kurdish. The
seventh package adopted in July 2003 allowed the teaching
of such languages in existing private courses without
requiring that new courses be created altogether. It also
prescribed that the Council of Ministers alone would
regulate and decide which languages are to be taught
(without having to obtain the approval of the National
Security Council).
 The Civil Registry Law was amended in July 2003 to permit
parents to name their children in Kurdish.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
 The most notable of these reforms concerned the right
to broadcast in Kurdish, the right to learn the Kurdish
language and the right to name children in Kurdish.
The legislation regarding education was implemented
in March 2004 by the opening of Kurdish courses in
three cities in the south-east (Batman, Şanlıurfa and
Van). Upon the amendment of the related regulation,
broadcasting in Kurdish by the Turkish state
broadcasting corporation (along with broadcasts in
Bosnian, Arabic and Circassian) started in June 2004.
Protection of Minorities in Turkish
Case
 The protection of minorities is no longer a taboo subject in Turkish
political life. There are serious efforts to improve the lives of minorities
in Turkey.
 Regarding non-Muslim minorities, the remaining problems in the field
of property rights for community foundations and religious freedoms
are resolvable through the correct and full application of the provisions
of the Treaty of Lausanne.
 The other minority groups, particularly the Kurds, would greatly
benefit from the extension of cultural rights such as the granting of
local broadcasting rights, the introduction of optional language classes
in public schools upon demand and the lifting of restrictions on
expressions of cultural identity. In order to ensure effective
implementation of such measures for all minorities, it is also necessary
to undertake a gradual shift from the traditional interpretation of the
monolithic Turkish nation to a redefined notion of political community
that requires a more inclusive and truly civic concept of citizenship.
Conclusion
 Professionally, it is timely and important to contribute
to the promotion of equal opportunities, equitable
access and non-discrimination within public services.
This issue has become a key priority for all
governments of the states in the process of EU
accession.
REFERENCES
 Aydın, S., Keyman, F., “European Integration and Transformation of Turkish




Democracy”, Center for European Policy Studies,EU-Turkey Working Papers, No:2,
August 2004.
Bogushevitch, T., “Political Participation and Representation of Ethnic Minorities
and Their Access to Public Services in Latvia”, Working Group on Democratic
Governance of Multiethnic Communities, http://unpan1.un.org/
intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan003711.pdf
Keyman, F. and Öniş, Z. (2004), “Helsinki, Copenhagen and Beyond: Challenges to
the New Europe and the Turkish State”, in Mehmet Uğur and Nergis Canefe (eds),
Turkey and European Integration: Accession Prospects and Issues, London:
Routledge.
Kovacs, P., “Who Benefits? Ethnic Bias and Equity in Access of Ethnic Minorities to
Locally Provided Public Services in CEE”, Paper prepared for the 10.Nispacee
Conference, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/
documents/nispacee/unpan004466.pdf
Selimyan, G., (2004) “Ethnic minorities in public administration in the Republic of
Armenia: distant utopia or a tangible future?”, The 12th NISPAcee Annual
Conference “Central and Eastern European Countries inside and outside the
European Union: Avoiding a new divide” Vilnius, Lithuania, May 13 – 15, 2004.