Dr.Tanju Tosuntanju.tosun@ege.edu.tr

The concept of ethnic minoritiesAccording 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 minoritiesThe 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 MinoritiesPowerful 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 MinoritiesThese 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 MinoritiesA 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 BiasEthnic 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 BiasEthnic 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 BiasEthnic 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 BiasThe 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 andthe type of encounter between the dominant

group and the minorities

Obstacles to the Political Participation of National MinoritiesA 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 MinoritiesLack 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 RestrictionsLack of Conditions Necessary for the Effective

Participation of Ethnic MinoritiesAs 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 MinoritiesThe 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 gate-keepers 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 CaseArticle 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 CaseNon-Muslim minoritiesThe 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 non-Muslim 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 CaseThere 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 CaseThe Kurdish questionThe 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 issueThe 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 issueThe 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 CaseThe 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 CaseThe 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.

ConclusionProfessionally, 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.