National Minorities in Public Administration

NationalMinorities in PublicAdministration Dr.Tanju Tosun tanju.tosun@ege.edu.tr

The concept of ethnic minorities • According to a common definition, a national minority is a numerically non-dominant group of people characterizedby the ethnic, linguistic and religious features differentiating it from the rest of the population. • Membersof 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 themeasure of its originality or possession of certain discriminatory features, self-awareness, etc., but rather by thecollective 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.

DemocracyandEthnicMinorities • Powerful arguments have been developed about democracy in multiethnic states. These theoriesargue that democracy is based on the consent of those governed and emphasize the role of thestate in establishing order and maintaining the rule of law. • When the state and its institutions arenot regarded as neutral and fair by all actors, minority groups may find themselves forced tocreate their own, potentially divergent forms of self-protection, which can come to be seen by theethnic majority as threatening to the integrity of the state.

DemocracyandEthnicMinorities • These theories emphasize that onlythose democracies that are able to re-integrate and engage all ethnic groups (majority andminorities) into the same society can lead to order and stability. Democraticinstitutions(governments, administration, welfare and justice) should therefore be accessible to all minorities including ethnic groups.

DemocracyandEthnicMinorities • A government, local or central, is considered as legitimate if its decisions are generallyacceptable to its constituency as fair and equitable. If policies of a government appear to bebiased 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 thefailure of governments and public institutions to provide equitable access to power and publicresources 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 andpriorities, • if structural arrangements favor the interest of one or another ethnic group in the course ofpolicyformulationandfinally, • 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 andbecause it is often the underlying cause of conflicts, instability and crisis oflegitimacy 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 andreproduce inequalities. (costs of rights) • ethnic bias is a failure of democratic process. Ethnic diversity cannot be seenseparate or distinct from issues relating to allocation of power and publicresources.

Ethnic Bias • Ethnic bias is a policy concept thatexplains inequity and indirect discrimination in access of minorities to public services with therelationship between the institutional structure and public policies determining rules andstructures of service delivery.

Ethnic Bias • The type and level ofethnic 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 NationalMinorities • A lot of problems in the field of performance of national minorities rights are stipulated only by hard economicsituation not allowing to consider their requirements in social sphere, in employment, cultural, educational andhealth 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 thestate 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. • LanguageRestrictions • Lack of Conditions Necessary for the Effective Participation of Ethnic Minorities • As for the public administration, it must be acknowledged that the language and citizenshiprequirements 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. Inmanycountry thecitizenship and language issues are the key to understanding the political nature of socialprocesses. • Needless to stress that exclusion as such undermines the very principles and core values of liberaldemocracy. People whose voices cannot be heard will either keep silence or marginalizesearching for another ways of making the majority count with their interests.

Policyagenda: “filterhypothesis” • Minorities have little impact on formulation ofthe local policy agenda. Policy-makers are mostly members of the dominant group and act asgate-keepers to filter demands of ethnic groups. Without the effective participation of minoritiesin the local decision-making process becomes biased against inputs from minorities.

Policy formulation: “hypothesis of biased policy choices” • Ethnic minorities may have policypreferences that are different from that of the dominant groups. However, due to the lack ofappropriate 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 biasedchoices: 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 theimplementation of various policies. Ethnic bias may occure in at least two ways. • First case iswhen access is hindered by linguistic, cultural, social or other differences between the publicofficial involved in the delivery of public service. • The second case is when members of minorityfeel discouraged by applying for services to public agencies run by the dominant group. • In most countries, government and state administration remained the monopoly ofdominant ethnic groups. Mono-cultural (and in most cases mono-lingual) view ofgovernment and administrative culture as well as the lack of power-sharing and effectiveparticipation of minorities often resulted in ethnically biased institutions and policies.

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase • 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 asgrounds 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, whichdefined minorities on the basis of religion.

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase 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, withobligations for the Turkish government to undertake measures for the enjoyment of those rights. Mostsignificantly, the Treaty gives non-Muslim minorities the right to equal protection and nondiscrimination,the right to establish private schools and provide education in their own language, theconditional entitlement to receive government funding for instruction in their own languages at theprimary level in public schools, the right to settle family law or private issues in accordance with theirown customs and the right to exercise their religion freely.

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase • There have been two sets of problems with the practical implementation of these rights. First was theselective application of these rights to the three main non-Muslim communities, hence excluding othernon-Muslim minorities such as the Assyrians (approximately 15,000). The second problem related toshortcomings in the implementation of these rights, especially regarding property issues andreligious/educational institutions. The reform process initiated with the prospect of EU accession hasaimed at resolving these issues. • The main problems suffered by religious minorities in Turkey have been the lack of a legal personalityand 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 away that violates human dignity and hence penalises individuals who express degrading comments aboutethnic and religious groups within the country.

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase • TheKurdishquestion • The conflict with the PKK, the terrorist-guerrilla organisation that launched a violent secessionistcampaign in the south-east, which led to more than 35,000 fatalities including 5,000 civilians, hadimmense economic and social consequences and left deep scars in the country. • Thus it is imperative tounderstand the sources of this conflict and establish the means to achieve a sustainable solution to theissue that will prevent any future violence and guarantee the unity of the country by democraticmeans. • The PKK’s eventual defeat by the Turkish military and the emergence of EU conditionality triggered achange in the official view on the Kurdish issue, leading to significant reforms that directly intended toimprove 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 languageprohibited 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 seventhpackage adopted in July 2003 further amended the broadcasting law to provide for such broadcasting bypublic 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 inAugust 2002, opening the way for private courses in Kurdish. The seventh package adopted in July 2003allowed the teaching of such languages in existing private courses without requiring that new courses becreated altogether. It also prescribed that the Council of Ministers alone would regulate and decide whichlanguages 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 TurkishCase • The most notable of these reforms concerned theright to broadcast in Kurdish, the right to learn the Kurdish language and the right to name children inKurdish. The legislation regarding education was implemented in March 2004 by the opening ofKurdish courses in three cities in the south-east (Batman, Şanlıurfa and Van). Upon the amendment ofthe related regulation, broadcasting in Kurdish by the Turkish state broadcasting corporation (alongwith broadcasts in Bosnian, Arabic and Circassian) started in June 2004.

Protection of Minorities in TurkishCase • The protection of minorities is no longer a taboo subject in Turkish political life. There are seriousefforts to improve the lives of minorities in Turkey. • Regarding non-Muslim minorities, the remainingproblems in the field of property rights for community foundations and religious freedoms areresolvable through the correct and full application of the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne. • Theother minority groups, particularly the Kurds, would greatly benefit from the extension of culturalrights such as the granting of local broadcasting rights, the introduction of optional language classes inpublic schools upon demand and the lifting of restrictions on expressions of cultural identity. In orderto ensure effective implementation of such measures for all minorities, it is also necessary to undertakea gradual shift from the traditional interpretation of the monolithic Turkish nation to a redefined notionof 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 keypriority for all governments of the states in the process of EU accession.

REFERENCES • Aydın, S., Keyman, F., “EuropeanIntegrationandTransformation of TurkishDemocracy”, CenterforEuropeanPolicyStudies,EU-TurkeyWorkingPapers, No:2, August 2004. • Bogushevitch, T., “PoliticalParticipationandRepresentation of EthnicMinoritiesandTheir Access toPublicServices in Latvia”, WorkingGroup on DemocraticGovernance of MultiethnicCommunities, http://unpan1.un.org/ intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan003711.pdf • Keyman, F. and Öniş, Z. (2004), “Helsinki, Copenhagen and Beyond: Challenges to the NewEurope and the Turkish State”, in MehmetUğur and NergisCanefe (eds), Turkey and European Integration:Accession Prospects and Issues, London: Routledge. • Kovacs, P., “WhoBenefits? Ethnic Bias and Equity in Access of Ethnic Minorities toLocally Provided Public Services in CEE”, Paperpreparedforthe 10.NispaceeConference, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/nispacee/unpan004466.pdf • Selimyan, G., (2004) “Ethnic minorities in public administrationin the Republic of Armenia: distant utopia or a tangible future?”, The 12th NISPAcee Annual Conference “Central and Eastern European Countries insideand outside the European Union: Avoiding a new divide”Vilnius, Lithuania, May 13 – 15, 2004.

National Minorities in Public Administration