Commentary: Romani representatives will only be legitimate when actually elected
During discussions on the website of the Romea news server (www.romea.cz), the debates between pro-Romani and Romani activists have often returned on various occasions to the topic of legitimacy – who can and should "speak on behalf of Romani people" or "represent Romani people" in the Czech Republic? The Editor-in-Chief of the Romano hangos periodical, Pavel Pečínka, has reached out to a circle of his regular contributors with questions that can all be summarized under the basic question of: Who can speak "for Romani people"? News server Romea.cz is gradually publishing the responses submitted to him by selected authors. Below is the translation of the response submitted by musician Gyulla Banga.
I don’t consider anyone today to be our representative. If, of course, we were to hold our own elections, it would greatly depend on whether we alone elected our "Prime Minister" or if the gadje voted with us. If we were to vote on our own, it’s hard to say what the outcome would be. Today I do not see among us a truly striking person who would suit everyone.
If the gadje were to vote too, they would definitely choose the duo of Patrik Banga & [Drahomír] Radek Horváth. They are active, people know of them, and many gadje agree with their radical opinions. Of course, the problem is they are unacceptable to most Romani people, and that should play a role.
I think the best thing would be to create various entities in different regions where Romani people would have representatives (personally, I would not be afraid of returning to the old vajda [chief] system). Then it might be easier to speak a common language, but I don’t much believe that, of course. It’s complicated.
If I personally were to select a person to represent us, I would choose Ms Anna Poláková. She is intelligent, recognized, and she might suit everyone. It’s a shame she emigrated, but I understand it.
Who is toying with being Romani representatives today? Well, it’s a rather diverse list: Previously it was Rusenko, then Veselý, Ščuka. Today it’s Tancoš, Gorol, Kováč, Radek Horváth, David Tišer and others….
What conditions and criteria should our representative meet? It should be a person accepted by both sides, non-Romani and Romani, and every activist should have very good communications skills in both languages. It wouldn’t do any harm for it to be an educated Romani person, but that of course should not be a condition. The person should have a clean record, be at least 30 years old, know Romani issues in all the regions, have the social network mapped out, and have at least a basic knowledge of legal matters and social science.
Our representative should appear in the media as often as possible, during situations that impact us both negatively and positively. I have the feeling that today activists only speak up when something happens. They should also be active even when nothing is going on. It’s exhausting, but it is necessary to constantly inform the majority society about our everyday life. For example, I have the feeling that the media, including our media, give very little space to reporting on positive news or actions. Here’s a typical example – the communists just dominated the recent regional elections, and it wouldn’t hurt if Romani personalities were to comment on that!
On the other hand, I decidedly would not recommend such an activist apologize on behalf of all Romani people whenever some inexcusable crime is committed [by a Romani individual]. That doesn’t help anyone, on the contrary. It is not possible to apologize for actions committed by other individuals – the activist can apologize on his own behalf, but not on behalf of the whole community. Furthermore, I would not recommend activists mix the issues of different minorities together. Here the typical example is the homosexual minority and the Romani minority. That’s nonsense, the issues are about entirely different things.
Our representatives will only ever have a legitimate mandate if Romani people actually elect them. As I wrote above, we should return to our original vajda system, because that worked. Sure, it would be complicated, society has radically changed in the meantime, but why not try it? Why couldn’t each region have its own representative? Why not try a system where we would have our own "government" that everyone would have to respect? Every potential candidate would have to convince his people in the regions why he should represent them. Maybe, finally, a strong party would emerge that could play a strong role in the state. It’s a long-term proposition, but have we ever tried it? What do we have today? In Moravia there’s a group around Mr Holomek, and in Bohemia we only have websites like Romea, where the "black" work is being done by the gadje anyway. As for the new party, the SRP (Strana rovných příležitostí – Equal Opportunities Party) – who has any idea how it really works? It’s not enough, we’re not organized, we don’t have anyone to lean on. We are incapable of unity – if we could unify, I believe we would be capable of finding strong allies in the other political parties.
Any potential representatives must earn respect themselves, on their own. As I wrote above, they themselves have to convince everyone why they should be the representative. Every group of Romani people in the region should also know why they want him (or her) to represent them.
I don’t believe it’s necessary for Romani people to speak with one voice only in the media. Anyone speaking on behalf of others should know how to communicate with the media. It wouldn’t be bad if the people who are active in the media were to agree on when to display unity, on what fundamental questions require it. Here’s a typical example: The usage of "Romani" versus "Gypsy", etc. How can we achieve this? It’s individual, it’s about each and every one of us. If I write up a list of topics on which we should display unity, then someone will call me a racist, someone else will say I’m an idiot, etc. So how can we achieve this? There has to be another way, because we don’t have a group keeping track of this and we aren’t capable of reaching agreement among ourselves on it.
At the same time, there should be respect for elders, even when we don’t like the way in which they speak. Of course, a respected older man should not abuse that respect, saying "I’m older, so you shut up." In my opinion, everyone interprets our tradition differently, and it doesn’t actually say anywhere, as some interpret it, that the oldest person is the wisest. The oldest person once deserved the greatest respect in Czech culture too, he was respected because he had lived through things, that was why he deserved respect. Just because he raised his family, provided for them, etc. Doesn’t that deserve respect? However, once again, this is because a person, if he is wise, knows how to correctly guide his youth and raise them to respect him. The youth, if they are wise, know how to behave even during moments when their elder is harping on about "horseshit". It’s about respect, nothing more.
Should women be able to criticize elder men, and in the media, no less? Absolutely not! Today it may be common, but it’s bad. The woman represents the family, so that approach just makes her family look ridiculous. Previously it was not the custom that our women meddled in male affairs, they had a different role to play. However, earlier that applied to almost all women, not just to our women. All you have to do is look at how young women communicate today with older men (and with older women). The old days when people respected one another are gone, unfortunately. That’s why I’ve been asking, for quite some time, what missing "integration" people are even talking about here? Our Romani people have integrated, unfortunately, in every way, but we are incapable of realizing it.
Published with the agreement of the author. Originally published in Romano hangos number 17.
