The problem of asymmetric representation: The marginalisation, racialisation, and deservedness of Roma in Slovenia
| Author | Andreja Zevnik,Andrew Russell |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0263395721996550 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395721996550
Politics
2023, Vol. 43(1) 54 –69
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0263395721996550
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
The problem of asymmetric
representation: The
marginalisation, racialisation,
and deservedness of Roma
in Slovenia
Andreja Zevnik
The University of Manchester, UK
Andrew Russell
University of Liverpool, UK
Abstract
Special rights (such as a right to representation) are often used to address under-representation of
minority and marginalised groups in political institutions. The case of Roma community in Slovenia
is no different. Using a framework of social and political marginalisation, our article outlines
asymmetry and exceptionality in the existing minority protection provisions for Slovenian Roma.
We argue that the existing provisions are a consequence of majority’s perception of Roma as
racialised, marginalised, and undeserving group. We show that the limited access to special rights
for Roma is not an oversight in the Slovenian democratic institutional design but a result of deep-
rooted stereotypes and racialisation that this marginalised group is subjected to. More broadly,
the case of Slovenian Roma demonstrates how principles of racialisation and marginalisation can
help us understand absences of different marginalised minority groups from frameworks of special
protection.
Keywords
deservedness, institutional design, marginalisation, minority rights, racialisation, representation,
Roma, Slovenia
Received: 19th January 2021; Revised version received: 19th January 2021; Accepted: 22nd January 2021
Introduction
Roma are probably the largest minority group in Slovenia. The need to protect this group
was recognised in the 1991 Constitution – the founding document of the new independent
Republic. Yet Roma political rights are inferior to the other two named national minorities
Corresponding author:
Andreja Zevnik, Politics Department, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Email: andreja.zevnik@manchester.ac.uk
996550POL0010.1177/0263395721996550PoliticsZevnik and Russell
research-article2021
Article
Zevnik and Russell 55
(Italians and Hungarians). This is particularly significant, we argue, because Roma are not
only a minority but also a marginalised group. By marginalisation, we mean a group who to
‘varying degrees, exist politically, socially, or economically “outside” of dominant norms
and institutions’ (Cohen, 1999: 37) and unless special provisions are provided for such
groups, they remain outside political realm subjected to racial abuse and deprivation.
The Slovenian Constitution grants special status to three minority communities dem-
onstrating a willingness to acknowledge issues of under-representation. However, one of
the three communities lacks equal access to political institutions. This article aims to
determine how Roma were excluded from the ‘special access’ provided for the other two
minorities, and how this exclusion is still reflected in Slovenia’s governing structures
today. We argue that Roma’s democratic disadvantage stems not from their minority sta-
tus per se but from marginality and racialised discourses which underpin institutional
design for minority protection. The founding constitution is grounded in liberal notions of
minority representation which recognised the need to grant special rights to minority
populations (Bešter et al., 2017). The absence of Roma from the list of minorities would
seem less strange than the peculiar halfway house solution that Slovenia manufactured.
We argue that this case presents a particularly intense problem for a community known to
lack political power, suffering from stigmatisation and racialisation and, as McGarry
(2017) shows, confronted by discriminatory and inflammatory media representation.
Some have drawn attention to inadequate representation of Roma in Slovenia (Bešter
et al., 2017; Žagar, 2017) but while their analysis aids the understanding of the political
status of Slovenian Roma within the existing framework of minority protection laws, it
ignores the marginalisation of the Roma community and how ‘minority provisions’ per-
petuate marginalisation.
Our approach is grounded in critical theory and unstructured modes of discourse analysis
which loosely aligns with Foucauldian critical praxis. For Foucault (1981: 48), discourse or
praxis comprises of rules, system, rituals, processes, and procedures which constitute and
are constituted by power (truth). Discourse is not a bearer of truth/meaning but a violent
imposition through which ‘subjectivities are created and bodies acted upon’ (Manchanda,
2020: 18). While ideas of marginalisation, racialisation, and deservedness build the article’s
theoretical framework, they also guide analysis of the selected material. They highlight
moments of contention, and reveal biases and stereotypes which discursively construct
Slovenian Roma as racialised subjects. Using collage or montage-as-method (Manchanda,
2020; Shapiro, 2012), materials for the analysis were selected: following the established
literature on minority protection, we selected key legal documents concerning Slovenian
Roma (Bešter et al., 2017; Žagar, 2017); the minutes of the Commission for Constitutional
Questions (CCQ, 2001) provide insight into how Roma were perceived at a point when
minority protection laws were discussed, while publicly accessible interviews with Roma
politicians and key political institutions provide insight of the continuing racialised margin-
alisation of the group. We analysed the selected material using unstructured content analysis
and applied Foucauldian praxis to determine the contexts (including biases and stereotypes)
in which Roma are discussed and the intended outcomes. This is not an exhaustive account
of how the discourse about Roma is constructed. However, it is an important insight into
how Roma are racialised at a politically significant moment and how that racialisation trans-
lates into political institutions and continues today.
The article opens with an outline of analytical framework which builds on theories of
marginalisation, racialisation, and deservedness, and sets out approaches to representation
(wide and narrow) for minority and marginalised groups. Second, we outline representative
To continue reading
Request your trial