The Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria - Policy and Community Development

By: Elena Marushiakova & Vesselin Popov, Institute for Folklore
Source: Unpublished Paper

Part of research: Possibilities of external intervention in Eastern European socio-economic change: Roma and diaspora migration as examples of the use of development policy as an instrument of migration control. Berliner Institute for Comparative Social Research. 1993-1997 (forthcoming)

Historical Background
The large-scale settlement of Gypsies (endonym Roma, exonym Tsigani) in Bulgarian lands can be traced back approximately to the period of the 12th - 14th c., some earlier contacts are also possible (some authors are inclined to think that Gypsy presence in these lands began in the 9th century). [Marushiakova & Popov 1997] Numerous historical sources have records of Gypsy presence in Byzantium in that period and their entry into Serbia, Wallachia and Moldova. [Gilsenbach 1994] Considering the geographical situation of the Bulgarian lands, it is quite logical to suppose that the coming of Gypsies to Bulgaria should be referred to no later than that period.
There is a wealth of historical information about Gypsy presence in Bulgarian lands during the times of the Ottoman Empire. [Marushiakova & Popov 2001] References to them as "chingene", "chingane", "chigan", or "kibti" are found in many official documents (mainly tax-registers) from that period. [Galabov 1961; Stojanovski 1974].
Processes of sedentarization in the towns and villages were active among the Gypsy population in the Ottoman Empire. A new type of semi-nomadic lifestyle emerged (Gypsies with a specific residence and an active nomadic season within regional boundaries). Most certainly, these processes did not include all Gypsies, nevertheless they were very active. Often Gypsies would break away from their traditional crafts and take up farming but usually they still practised some occupations and crafts. The most popular occupations were those of the village blacksmiths and town musicians. Registers from the years 1522-1523 listed also tinsmiths, farriers, goldsmiths, sword-makers, cutlers, shoe-makers, curriers, sieve-makers, butchers, guards, servants, etc. It is hard to define which occupations were traditional and which were newly acquired, but the traditional professional specialization of Gypsy groups seems to have been the case in most instances. The demographic information about Gypsies in Bulgarian lands in the 18th and 19th c. is incomplete and quite unreliable.
The issue of the civil status of Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire is a rather complicated one as Gypsies had a special place in the overall social and administrative organization of the Empire. Despite the population division into two main categories - Moslem (the faithful) vs. Raya (gentiles), Gypsies had their own, rather specific dual status outside these two categories. Gypsies were differentiated according to the ethnic principle (something quite unusual for the Ottoman Empire) with no sharp distinction between Muslim and Christian Gypsies (for tax and social status purposes). As a whole Gypsies were actually closer to the subordinated local population, with the exception of some minor privileges for Muslim Gypsies (Gypsies who worked for the army were more privileged). Nevertheless, Gypsies were able to preserve a number of ethnocultural characteristics such as their nomadic lifestyle and some traditional occupations.
A good example for the civil status of Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire were Gypsy slaves running from the vassal principalities of Wallachia and Moldova to seek refuge in the Empire. This process increased in the 17th and 18th c. when a great number of Gypsies made use of the wars between Austria and the Ottoman Empire and the temporary Austrian occupation of parts of Northeastern Serbia, Northwestern Bulgaria and Wallachia (1690 - 1718) to enter the Ottoman Empire and settle there (the so called Second Gypsy migration wave in Bulgarian lands). The so called "big Kelderara invasion" from Wallachia and Moldova began after the Crimean war. It led to new waves of Gypsy groups coming to Bulgaria in the second half of the 19th c. (third Gypsy migration wave in Bulgarian lands). The migration of Gypsies from neighbouring countries (mainly Rumania and Greece) as a result of their nomadic lifestyle continued until the 20th c. and was usually related to the change of country borders in the wars (the two Balkan wars, W. W. I and W. W. II).
Regular population censes were conducted after the Russian-Turkish war and the reestablishment of the Bulgarian State (1878). The majority of Gypsies in that period (more than 2/3 of their total number) lived in the country, nomads with permanent winter settlements were probably considered as belonging to that group as well. Processes of sedentarization and orientation towards life in "mahalas" (ethnic quarters) developed in some nomadic Gypsy groups in the 20's and 30's of this century.
In the first half of the 20th century part of the Gypsies in Bulgaria were affected by an important phenomenon - the search for their own place in the social and political structure of the macrosocieties where they were living. The centuries of coexistence between Gypsies (this is true especially for the sedentary ones) and the surrounding population brought about a gradual effacement of their particular ethnosocial structures, forms of social life and self-government. Certain patterns of social organization were borrowed from the macrosociety.
Particularly interesting are the amendments in the Electoral Law of 1901 which deprived Gypsies of the right to vote and the Gypsy response to them which indicated the trends in the development of social consciousness among Bulgarian Gypsies. The 61st session of the Eleventh Regular National Assembly, held on May 31, 1901 debated on and passed a "law for amendment of the Electoral Law". In conformity with its stipulations (paragraphs 2, article 4 and 7 - "Who cannot be a voter") the following text was added "including the non-Christian Gypsies and also all those Gypsies who cannot establish residence", i.e. the electoral rights of the Muslim Gypsies (the majority at this time) and the nomads were suspended. During the long debates on this law in the presence of all prominent Bulgarian political leaders, no speaker showed concern about these discriminatory and anti-constitutional encroachments upon the rights of Gypsies (Article 86 of the Constitution of Bulgaria stated that "Voters are all Bulgarian citizens who are 21 or more years of age and are in full possession of their civil and political rights").
The reaction of the Gypsies (or at least of some of them) took Bulgarian society by surprise. The first Gypsy conference was convoked in Vidin, in 1901, immediately after the amendments to the Electoral Law were passed and a decision was taken to start a campaign in order to revoke them. After lengthy preparations, the "tzari-bashi of Bulgarian Gypsies", Ramadan Ali, invited the Gypsy leaders from all over the country to Sofia where they drew up a common petition, insisting that Gypsies in Bulgaria should have the same rights as the rest of the population. The petition was taken to the National Assembly on June 1 1905. The complete silence and lack of any response which the petition encountered, led to the convocation of the first Gypsy Congress in Sofia on December 19 1905, where a new petition was voted with the same demands and brought once again to the attention of the National Assembly. Eventually, the Bulgarian National Assembly voted a new Electoral Law, where the restrictions on the voting rights of Gypsies were dropped.
The end of World War I was the beginning of a new period in the development of Gypsy civic organizations. In 1919 or 1921, the organization "Egypt" was founded in Sofia, headed by Shakir Mahmudov Pashov (outlawed in 1925 with the Supplements to the Law for Protection of the State), in 1929 in the Koniovitza quarter of Sofia a new Gypsy organization "Istikbal" (Future) was created (again headed by Shakir Pashov). In 1931 the organization started to publish the newspaper Terbie (Education) as an edition of the "Mohammedan cultural organization for national education". In 1932 a conference in the town of Mezdra made efforts to broaden the nationwide influence of the organization but after the coup of May 19, 1934 which overthrew the elected government, the organization was dissolved.
After the communist takeover on September 9 1944, the Gypsies in Bulgaria became the target of a carefully elaborated policy, carried out by the new regime. Different tools and means were used to secure its success: decisions of the Communist party, state and administrative ordinances, manipulations of the structures of the different social and political organizations, usually in the guise of the Fatherland Front (a union of all non-fascist parties in Bulgaria, created in 1942, which was later reduced to the status of a totalitarian Communist organization) and so on. How straightforward this policy was and, what is more important, how and to what extent it worked in practice is another question.
For a relatively short period (the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s) in unison with the Soviet model, this policy consisted of trying to establish Gypsies as an ethnic community within the structure of the Bulgarian nation, with equal rights and their own identity, to involve them actively in the "building of the new life". At first Gypsies were defined as a specific nationality, with their own rights, formulated in the so called "Dimitrov constitution" (1947). They were well taken care of and an active Gypsy intelligentsia was organized. Through the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the Fatherland Front committees Gypsy intelligentsia was actively included in the problems of the Gypsy population. At this stage the aim was mainly to make Gypsy living conditions equal to those of Bulgarians (i.e. Gypsies had to become citizens with equal rights and natural ideological supporters of the communist ideology). An All-Gypsies' Organization against fascism and racism and for the Promotion of the Cultural Development of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria was created on March 6 1945, headed by Shakir Mahmudov Pashov. The newspaper Romano essi (Gypsy voice) made its appearance in 1946, the Gypsy theatre Roma was founded in 1947 in Sofia. The local authorities actively assisted in the creation of local branches of the Gypsy organization and their integration into the local structures of the Fatherland Front as sections with equal rights. The National conference of the Gypsies in Bulgaria held on May 2 1948 confirmed its commitment to the policy of the Fatherland Front.
However, the attitude of the authorities toward the Gypsy organizations changed with time. In the beginning of the 1950's the local branches of the Gypsy organizations were dissolved and their members joined the sections of the Fatherland Front, the Roma theatre merged with local cultural centers - the reading-rooms and the All-Gypsies' Organization against fascism and racism and for the Promotion of the Cultural Development of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria ceased to exist, and Shakir Pashov (by this time a deputy in the National Assembly) was sent to a concentration camp on the Danubian island of Belene. This marked the end of the Gypsy organizations and the shift to a new policy towards Gypsies which aimed at ethnic and cultural effacement - the final goal being their complete assimilation into the "Bulgarian socialist nation".
In accordance with this policy the official mention of Gypsies became very restricted (the census held in 1956 is the last one where the numbers of Gypsies in Bulgaria were officially published). In the mid-fifties the practice of "renaming" Muslim Gypsies i.e., substituting Bulgarian names for their original Turkish-Arabic ones was introduced. Decree # 1216 of October 8 1957 of the Council of Ministers on the resolution of the problem of the Gypsy minority in Bulgaria was followed and supplemented by another, Decree # 258 of 17.10.1958 on the settlement of the issue of the Gypsy population in the People's Republic of Bulgaria. In accordance with the latter, "vagrancy and pan-handling" were prohibited in the People's Republic of Bulgaria and citizens were obliged "to get involved in labour beneficial to society and to work according to their strength and abilities". A glance at the explanations attached to the Decree reveals that it was intended to solve all issues concerning nomadic Gypsies, who had no permanent residence at that time (they numbered around 14 000): they were to settle in permanent domiciles and acquire permanent jobs.
On April 5 1962 the Politburo of the Central Committee of BCP voted Decision A 101 whose purpose was "to curb the negative tendencies ... among Bulgarian Muslims, Gypsies and Tartars to identify with the Turks ... and to enhance patriotic education". In compliance with the terms of this Decision "they can register themselves and their children as Bulgarians, and change their first, middle and last names without a ruling of the People's court but simply by a legal request sent to the respective Local councils".
Typical for the policy of socialist Bulgaria was its fear of problems which this minority might create - on the one hand because of their Muslim religion some Gypsies might become bridges of Turkish and Muslim policy and influence, on the other hand they could join the Muslim community in Bulgaria and make it too big and dangerous.
Gypsies were considered a demographic threat as well. An existing popular opinion held that Gypsies had a higher birthrate than Bulgarians and their relative number would grow steadily in the total number of the population, to become in a few generations higher than that of Bulgarians who would then be a minority. This fear produced the new socialist family code. It introduced the system of decreasing per-child allowances in large families - a vestige of the totalitarian regime's encouragement of birthrate only in ethnic Bulgarian families (which averaged fewer than two children per family).
Another aspect which also saw Gypsies as a threat was the cultural one (this was reflected in the thesis about the vulgarization and "Gypsy transformation" of Bulgarian culture).
The achievements of the state policy were still quite insignificant and in the end of the 70s a new strategy was adopted towards Gypsies. The outcome of this new strategy was Decision # 1360 of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of BCP of October 9 1978 - For further improvement of the work among Bulgarian Gypsies, for more active integration into the building of a developed socialist society. Besides the general directions in the policy toward Gypsies ("The emphasis should be laid on their involvement in labour which benefits society, on advancement in their education, on improvement in their living standards, on an increase in their consciousness and self-confidence as full-fledged citizens of socialist Bulgaria, on their growing participation in the building of a developed socialist society"), this Decision formulated certain specific measures: "to gradually eliminate segregated sections and quarters in the next ten to twelve years, to improve the professional skills of working Gypsies, to construct a vast network of day-care centers and kindergartens to enable the children to learn the Bulgarian language at an early age, to ban all segregated schools and boarding-schools, to make special efforts to attract Gypsies to amateur art groups, to reflect and artistically recreate the positive changes in the life and thinking of Bulgarian Gypsies" and so on. [Materials] The directives were elaborated in details in a Decree issued by the Council of Ministers on January 26 1979. The practical realization of these decisions deserves special mention. In practice the results were meager, even the opposite of what was intended, notwithstanding the excess of formal reporting. For example, only 36 out of the 547 existing Gypsy quarters (thinking mainly of urban ones) were "closed", but some of them sprang up again a couple of years later. Only a few families received apartments - many of them after bribing the officials. The rest continued to live in their old ghettos, or joined their relatives in other Gypsy quarters of the country. Even though the Decision explicitly stated "not to allow the existence of segregated schools" for Gypsies, schools of this kind not only survived but even acquired legal status (from 1966 until 1993) hidden behind the euphemism "schools for children with low living standards and culture". Their goal was to teach "elementary literacy and some professional skills and discipline". Thus began the policy of unequal education for Gypsies. These segregated Gypsy schools limited considerably the educational options of Gypsy children from a very early age and prepared a mass of low-skilled labour. [128] The communist government made a simultaneous effort to prepare a small group of Gypsy intelligentsia through some unofficial privileges to study in "normal" schools and then high schools and universities. So an ascendant Gypsy intelligentsia was formed with the goal to create loyal supporters and instruments for the dispersal of communist ideology among Gypsies.
The last phase in the government's special policy towards Gypsies coincided with the "Process of Revival" of 1984-85. By the end of the 70's and the beginning of the 80's the majority of Muslim Gypsies were renamed. Nearly 180 000 Gypsies with Turkish-Arabic names were directly affected by this process (the numbers are from 1981). Those who had preserved their names were forced to take Bulgarian names at the time of the renaming of the Turkish population in Bulgaria during the "Process of Revival", the largest of all taking place in the period 1984-1985. As it proved impossible to create a "scientifically argumented" explanation for their Bulgarian origin that had to be "recovered" ("revived"), the official position was to deny the very existence of Gypsies in Bulgaria. The authorities considered them officially non-existent - there was no mention of Gypsies in the media and academic publications, in many places Gypsy ghettos were surrounded by high concrete walls to hide them from foreign observers. It was forbidden to speak Romanes in public, to perform Gypsy music and sing Gypsy songs, Muslim women could not wear traditional clothes, some customs and rituals were declared a dangerous heritage from old times or a cultural vulgarity and were therefore banned, such as male circumcision, the ritual bath of young brides, arranged marriages, etc.
In connection to the "process of Revival" an old practice concerning Gypsies was remembered - an attempt was made to send at least some of the Gypsies to Turkey together with the Turks during the so called "great excursion" (the forced emigration of Bulgarian Turks to Turkey in 1989).
Naturally, such a ridiculous policy yielded no results - neither the foreign observers (let alone the Bulgarian population) could be convinced that the Gypsies and their culture were non-existent, nor was there any Gypsy integration with the Bulgarian nation (the effect of the later was exactly the opposite). Finally, the failure of the "socialist national model" of attitude towards the Gypsies as a state policy became evident - its basic purposes (apart from the means that were being used) turned out to be unattainable.
The official treatment of Gypsies during socialism was sometimes absurd and controversial. Its main strategic goal was to deprive the Gypsies of their ethnic individuality and gradually assimilate them completely. But at the same time efforts were made (despite their mediocre practical implementation and predominance of paper work) to improve the living conditions and elevate the educational standards of Gypsies in order to make them equal citizens. For the sake of objectivity, we must say that despite its shortcomings this policy had some positive results for the Gypsies. For example, in Bulgaria, as in the other Eastern European countries, an active, though not very numerous Gypsy intelligentsia emerged (a phenomenon almost unknown and inconceivable in the countries of Western Europe). At the population census in 1992 there were 464 Gypsies with M.A. degrees and 274 with B.A. degrees, but the actual number is bigger. [Rezultati 1994] Unemployment was unknown to them, racial attacks and open demonstrations of ethnic hatred were impossible (unfortunately all these phenomena exist now and make the present situation of Gypsies different and difficult again.)

back to top

Ethnosocial structure
Gypsies are a specific ethnic community, the so called "intergroup ethnic community" (IGEC) which has no analogue in the other European peoples. Gypsies in Bulgaria, like Gypsies around the world, are not a united and homogeneous community. They are divided into many internal subdivisions - separate groups, metagroup units and subgroup divisions. Gypsies in Bulgaria can be classified on the basis of group self-consciousness reflected in their endonymes. A complete and well-grounded classification must also consider additional criteria such as language, lifestyle, boundaries of endogamy, professional specialization, time of settlement in Bulgaria, etc. All these criteria reflect on their self-consciousness and give the complete picture of the present state of Gypsy ethnos in Bulgaria. This is by no means a static picture, it used to be different and will yet be different in other periods of history.
The metagroup community of settled Gypsies or "Yerlii" (a generic name) is the most numerous and varied one. These are the descendants of the first group who more or less gave up nomadism and settled on the Balkans at the time of the Ottoman Empire. They speak different dialects of the "Balkan" group of Gypsy languages which belongs to the first and earlier stage of development of these dialects ("strata I" according to some authors). Dialects can differ a lot with each group, some groups have forgotten the Gypsy language and speak Turkish (or are bilingual). The community of "Yerlii" is divided into two main subdivisions - Dasikane Roma (Christian or Bulgarian Gypsies) and Xoraxane/Xoroxane Roma (Muslim or Turkish Gypsies). Within the boundaries of these subdivisions there are some well-preserved groups - the awareness of belonging to the group comes first, the groups have preserved their traditional functions, they are strictly endogamous and differentiate themselves from other Gypsy groups and the surrounding population. These groups often have preserved their traditional occupations and sometimes their nomadic way of life.
At the same time there are large communities whose members remember the old time occupations and the respective group division, but no longer practise them, the boundaries between groups have been obliterated to a great extent and moved to the frame of the bigger community (Dasikane or Xoraxane Roma). These processes are typical mostly for big city mahalas. In some instances, especially after a number of name and religion changes (such as those in Sofia), community awareness may be on a still higher level (only as Yerlii) while in others the memory of the past religion and the respective differentiation as a separate community may remain - such is the case of Xoraxane Roma (Turkish Gypsies) who are Christians.
Sometimes the memory of old occupations and group division is completely absent. The ethnic self-consciousness here, as in the above example, is in the frame of the metagroup.
The Agupti (Blacksmiths) in the Rhodope mountains stand apart from the other Yerlii. They are probably an older wave of settlement on the Balkans, they observe a strict distance from other Gypsy groups and have a strong urge to blend with the surrounding Turkish or Bulgarian-Muslim population and sometimes also accept the Turkish or Bulgarian language.
There is another big subdivision of the Gypsy community in Bulgaria which now belongs to the Yerlii framework. This is the community of Vlax Gypsies (an appellation used in Western Bulgaria) or Laxo (with variants - Laxoria - used in Eastern Bulgaria). They use second level dialects (dialects of strata II of the Balkan group), some authors even classify them in a separate Vlax dialect group (together with the third level). Their settlement in Bulgarian lands can be dated back approximately to the 17th - 18th c. when their ancestors came from Wallachia (mostly runaway slaves within the Ottoman Empire). They used to be nomads with several group divisions, who gradually became settled in the 20's and 30's (some of them even later) mostly in town mahalas, some changed their religion (those in Eastern Bulgaria are now Moslems) and gradually joined the existing metagroup communities (Dasikane and Xoraxane Roma). Today co-existence and intermarriages are normal, but the different group origin is still remembered, there are also some differences in appearance, some cultural and behavioural specifics, which give them a special place in the general metagroup frameworks of the communities they have entered.
Some groups of this first subdivision are more specific. These are Gypsies with Turkish self-consciousness who have a preferred self-consciousness and declare themselves to be Turks. These are Muslim "Turkish" Gypsies who have lost most of their group specifics and are often bilingual (speaking Turkish and Romani) or entirely monolingual (speaking only Turkish). Similar processes develop with some "Bulgarian" Gypsies such as "Dzhorevtsi" part of whom are also descendants of intermarriages between Bulgarians and Gypsies.
A second major and very distinct metagroup community among Bulgarian Gypsies is the one of Kaldarasha/Kardarasha (also a generalizing name given by the Yerlii). These are former nomads who were forced to become sedentary in 1958 with a special decree of the Council of Ministers. They live mostly in villages and small towns and less often in bigger towns, in small groups scattered among the surrounding population without forming their own mahalas. Kardarasha use their own dialects (the so called third level or strata III of the Balkan group or some Vlax dialects according to another classification). They are descendants of groups who scattered around the world from Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania during the great Kelderara invasion (in the second half of the 19th c.).
There are two major subdivisions, internally divided into differentiated groups and subgroups (according to regional, clan or other features). All Kardarasha Gypsies differ greatly from the rest and are strictly endogamous within the wider boundaries of the community as a whole.
The Thracean Kalaidjia (tinsmiths) occupy a very specific place between the two major metagroup societies (Yerlia and Kardarasha). A number of criteria, such as lifestyle, group preservation, primary role of group self-consciousness, etc. make them similar to the Kardarasha community, while their language is similar to level II. They are rigorously closed in their own group and keep their distance from the two major subdivisions of the Gypsy community.
Rather a different example is the one of the third major Gypsy community in Bulgaria - Rudara (called Vlax or Vlax Gypsies by the surrounding population). Its members speak an old dialect of Rumanian and have a preferred ethnic self-consciousness (i.e. identify themselves as Vlax or old Rumanians and distinctly differentiate themselves from Gypsies, although they are aware of a certain relationship). Like Kardarasha, they scattered around the world during the great Kelderara invasion and are Orthodox Christians. Rudara were nomads until recently and they have preserved the nomadic lifestyle with seasonal traveling mainly of Ursara who travel with their bears and monkeys across the country in the warm seasons. Rudara representatives can be seen all over the country, they live mostly in villages and small towns, sometimes in their own mahalas.
A very interesting issue is how to determine the number of Gypsy groups and especially the major subdivisions of the Gypsy community in Bulgaria according to the above classification. Unfortunately, we have to admit that there is no exact information (and probably it will not be available soon), such indicators have never been part of any census and are not considered in geographical and sociological studies. Given this situation, we can only rely on a general and personal estimation in order to define the number of Gypsies in the major subdivision of the Gypsy ethnic community in Bulgaria. There is no doubt that more than half of the Bulgarian Gypsies belong to the provisionally limited Yerlia community (including the Laxoria who have joined it). Xoraxane Roma are more numerous than Dasikane Roma, but it is most likely that about one third of them have preferred Turkish self-consciousness. As far as the other communities are concerned, we can say that Rudara are more numerous than Kardarasha, but it is hard to make a more precise internal comparison. These estimations are only approximate, nevertheless they can give an idea of the current internal distribution within the Gypsy community in Bulgaria.

The number of Gypsies and their migrations
The question of how many are the Gypsies in Bulgarian lands in each period of history has never been answered unequivocally, even in official population censes.
After the liberation from the Ottoman Empire and the restoration of the Bulgarian state in 1878, the first Bulgarian government in power began to carry out regular censes. Despite short-comings concerning their statistical principles and methods, these population counts provided a fairly clear (though not an absolutely complete) idea as to the number of Gypsies in Bulgaria, without, however, taking into consideration other parameters of this community (religion, number of wandering Gypsies, if counted at all, group and metagroup divisions, preferred ethnic identity).
The first two censes were held in 1881 and 1885 in the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia; they were designed to supplement each other with the principal identification criterion of "mother tongue". The summarized data for 1881/85 shows that 37 600 Gypsies or 1, 87 % of the total population lived in the Principality and 26 724 Gypsies or 2, 83% of the total population - in Eastern Rumelia. [Sarafov 1893]
The first general census in united Bulgaria was carried out on December 31, 1887 (the date is only given for the sake of convenience, the census actually lasted several months) and in 1888 50 191 Gypsies were reported (31 986 in the former territory of the Principality and 18 305 in former Eastern Rumelia), i.e. there was a visible drop in their number.
Subsequent censes in Bulgaria were held in 1892, 1900, 1905, 1910, 1920, 1926. The data collected is once again unreliable and incomplete (at least as far as Gypsies are concerned) but still deserves some attention:
- In 1905, 99 004 people were listed as Gypsies, 20 545 of them living in the cities and 78 459 in the rural areas. This represents a total of 2, 45% of the population, Romanes being the "mother tongue" of 1, 67%.
- In 1910, 122 296 people were listed as Gypsies, 28 486 of them living in the cities and 93 810 in the rural areas. Gypsies represented 2, 82 % of the total population, and for 1, 76 % of them Romanes was their "mother tongue".
- In 1920, there were 98 451 Gypsies in Bulgaria, 25 486 of them in the cities, 73 401 in the rural areas. They represented 2, 03% of the total population and Romanes was "mother tongue" of 1, 27% of them (the drop in the number of Gypsies in this case can be explained with the territorial changes after World War I - Southern Dobrudzha was lost to Rumania, Northeast Macedonia and parts of the Rhodopes and the Strandzha mountains were annexed to Bulgaria).
- In 1926, 134 844 people were listed as Gypsies, 32 101 of them living in the cities and 102 743 in the rural areas. They represented 2, 46% of the total population, while only 1, 5 % of this population claimed Romanes as their "mother tongue". [Chankov 1935]
The quoted numbers do not allow for any serious conclusions, however, two important points should be emphasized. First, the statistical data rejects the firmly established and widespread misconception (both past and present) that Gypsies are mostly urban dwellers, settled on the outskirts of cities. In Bulgaria during this period, the majority lived in the countryside (more than two thirds of the total number); they were probably wandering Gypsies, some of them with permanent winter residence in the villages were also assigned to this group. Second, we can observe a significant discrepancy between the number of people who considered themselves Gypsies and the number of people who claimed Romanes as their "mother tongue". Gypsies whose maternal language was not Romanes (unfortunately the relative extent of other mother tongues such as Bulgarian, Turkish, and Rumanian was not recorded) amounted to approximately one third of the total number, and the tendency shows a slow but clear increase over the years.
The demographic data on Gypsies in Bulgaria during this last historical period (1994-1989) is no doubt of great interest. Unfortunately, as with the previous period, the numbers are incomplete and unreliable, though for different reasons. The population census of 1946 registered 170 011 Gypsies, and the last officially published census of 1956 quoted 197 865 people identifying themselves as Gypsies. [Rezultati 1994] Since then, all data has been classified and preserved in the archives of BCP. Thus, in 1959, 214 167 Gypsies were counted, 8 103 of them in Sofia; the last census of 1976, according to unpublished sources registered 373 200 Gypsies. These data, however, did not seem satisfactory to the Central Committee of BCP and following a special order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, with the assistance of the organizations of the Fatherland Fronts, another census, this time classified, was carried out. In this census, not only those who declared themselves to be Gypsies were counted as Gypsies, but also all those who were defined as Gypsies by the surrounding population, according to their visage, way of life and cultural traits. The numbers from this census, completed in 1980, show 523 519 Gypsies living in Bulgaria i.e. there is a substantial discrepancy between the data from the two censes which were based on different criteria. [Materials]
Data collected during the work on the Ethnographic Atlas of Bulgarians of Gypsy origin prepared for the Central Committee of BCP in 1979, is also of some interest. According to the numbers cited in it, in 1968 37 % of Gypsies in Bulgaria were living in the cities, 63 % - in the countryside, while only four years later, in 1972, the numbers were resp. 50,9 % in the cities and 49,1 % in the villages. The change in numbers should not, however, be explained with some sort of mass migration from rural to urban areas (which, of course, did happen), but by the fact that several settlements received the status of towns in this period. [Ethnographic Atlas]
The practice of secret, unannounced censes (especially of Gypsies) carried out by the forces of the Ministry of Interior (MI) continued in the following years. The last one was carried out in January 1989 in order to collect information about the "process of Revival"; it showed 576 927 Gypsies (or 6,45 % of the total population in Bulgaria) and a special note stated that "more than half of the Gypsies tend to identify themselves with the Turks" (i.e. had preference for Turkish ethnic identity). A similar census of Gypsies organized by the Ministry of Interior through the regional Directorates, corresponding to the former districts, was held in May 1992 but it was incomplete. The figures from the National census of population and housing stock on December 4 1992 and data from the 2 % representative sample (taking into account the expected stochastic errors) [Demografska 1993] allows for comparisons between the figures from these last three censes (concerning the numbers of the Gypsy population in Bulgaria). [see the Table - Annex]
One thing that is clearly visible in this table are the many instances of serious discrepancies between the data provided by the different censes; the reliability of many numbers is questionable and cannot be accepted without serious reservations. Thus, the first census found only 38 Gypsies in the region of Pernik (the former district) - an obviously unreliable piece of information, since the number of Gypsies in only one quarter (the Rudnichar quarter) of the city is far greater, let alone the entire district. The numbers obtained during the second census seem more adequate. In the region of Gabrovo (the former district), the situation is reversed: the numbers in the first census seem more reliable than those from the second. The observer is also impressed by the fact that the numbers are too rounded (35 000 in Varna, 50 000 in Pazardzhik), while in other places both censes carried out by MI showed precisely the same numbers (for example Russe and Silistra). Similar errors cast serious doubts about the precision and correctness of this table.
A question which immediately comes to mind is about the different methodologies used in the censes: while the first two censes, organized by the MI, depended on "external" information (data was submitted by the militiaman in charge of the quarter, assisted by a circle of collaborators), i.e. this census showed "who is considered a Gypsy by the surrounding population". The last nation-wide census was based on information contributed personally by the respondents who had to declare themselves and their ethnic identity. When it comes to Gypsies, this second method discloses a whole new set of problems related to the complex hierarchical structure of their ethnic consciousness and to the widespread phenomenon of preferred ethnic identity. Last but not least come a number of ill-suited statistical and sociological methods applied in the study of this ethnic community (or, at the very best, a number of poorly formulated questions). The inappropriateness of these methods becomes evident when we compare the 2% representative sample with the final census data (the error margin is from 30 to 260% in different districts).
In short, we can now say that the total number of Gypsies in Bulgaria given in the last three censes (and especially the latest one) are low, while the estimate of the MI, put forward after the census of 1989, "that more than half of the Gypsies in Bulgaria tend to identify with the Turks" is exaggerated. The comparison of these figures with data collected from certain local authorities and personal observations and calculations, made by the authors, allow us to estimate the number of people of Gypsy origin in Bulgaria as being approximately 700-800 000, which makes Bulgaria the country with the highest proportion of Gypsies. Another question altogether is how many of them, for various reasons, would like to declare themselves Gypsies. This situation is not unknown in Eastern Europe, as became obvious after the censes in Rumania, Hungary, the Czech republic and Slovakia. In any case, the data from the last census helpfully illustrates the direction and depth of the ethnic processes taking place among the Gypsies in Bulgaria.
One of the factors which makes it even more difficult to define the number of Gypsies, is their mobility both within and outside the country.
In order to understand correctly the nature of present day Gypsy migrations, we have to look at their direct relationship with the Gypsy nomadic traditions. One of the primary ethnocultural features of a given community is their way of life; with the Gypsies this aspect is closely related to their professional specialization. The Gypsy situation is very specific indeed, as it cannot be established with certainty whether their initial "traditional" way of life was settled or wandering. The question whether their ancestors in Ancient India were sedentary or not, whether the nomadic way of life was adopted during the long journey to Europe or has prevailed since the very beginning, still remains open. It seems quite probable that the answer is not unequivocal, just like any other assumption concerning the origin of Gypsies. It is quite possible that the distinction "settled-wandering" always existed at the time of departure, i.e. some parts of the Gypsy community were traditionally bound to one kind of living, while others stuck to the other.
This distinction has been observed since the very arrival of Gypsies on the Balkans and in Europe and persists until nowadays. Even in countries where a process of forced, mandatory sedentarization took place in the 1950's and the 1960's (mainly in Eastern Europe), the former nomads preserved a marked taste for a life on the move, on the contrary, sedentary Gypsies, even when pressured by different circumstances to change their habitat and move into new territories (for example, the migrations from former Yugoslavia into Italy), bring with them their propensity for permanent settlement. Of course, the lines drawing the distinction "sedentary-wandering" are very mobile and precarious and often may change (for example, nomads may settle and adopt the main characteristics of sedentary Gypsies), but still they do exist. On the other hand, the correspondence between the way of life and professional specialization (traditional occupations) is not absolute (though certain crafts and occupations definitely entail nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life): several alternatives may appear and it is difficult to decide which occupations are pertinent respectively to the wanderers and to the sedentary Gypsies (it is certainly normal that a craft may be practised indiscriminately by the two groups).
In socialist Bulgaria there was a system of compulsory residence, i.e. administrative registration of people in their places of residence, which made migrations within the country quite difficult. And yet, Gypsies always managed to find gaps in the existing legal norms and continued with their migrations (in different forms), including the mid-season nomadic lifestyle of some Gypsies.
The nomadic traditions of the Kardarasha were not lost after the forced sedentarization in the 1950's. Kardarasha men continued to practice their traditional crafts (making, repair and tinning of copper utensils, all kinds of trade) under one form or another. They continued to move, too, but over greater distances and only one family. Recently, when the authority-imposed restrictions were suppressed, these traditions were revived, expanded and modified and part of the groups returned to their semi-nomadic way of life (seasonal, with a permanent domicile). The modifications in the nomadic tradition among some other subgroups of "Kardarasha" are stronger. In many instances, they adopted new forms of seasonal activities after sedentarization (for example, a few families, working together in construction enterprises on contract); at the same time they initiated specific, familial wandering of women. Since recently, a tendency can be observed of expanding this modified wandering abroad.
The wandering of the Ursara (Rumanian speaking bear and monkey trainers) has been for a long time transborder and of a very specific kind. The scope of Ursara wanderings was gradually scaled down, especially markedly after World War II. However, they never broke completely away from their traditional occupation, modified as it was in the new situations. It is interesting to note that they have preserved their penchant for working with animals and have often been hired as seasonal or permanent workers in animal farms; performances with bears and monkeys are transferred to the elderly members of the family. The wandering groups are small, consisting of family members only. Lately, a tendency of proliferation of this traditional occupation can be discerned (as a possible alternative to the economic crisis and unemployment) and younger participants appear side by side with elderly ones. Most often we can observe a change in the way of traveling - by train to the big cities and resorts (mostly at the Black Sea coast) and temporary camp-sites with bears and monkeys are built close to train stations.
A "second" revival of the nomadic way of life in contemporary conditions is not uncommon among other Gypsy groups, too. This trend is most strongly manifested among the "Thracean Kalajdjia" whose semi-nomadic (seasonal) way of life, bound to a certain region, is typical of Bulgaria and occurs (or has occurred) among other Gypsy groups as well. These Gypsy groups are committed to a certain territory or locality (place of their winter settlements in the past, and of their permanent residence at present), and the entire group meets regularly once a year before and after periodical meetings of the different sub-divisions. Their present day wanderings are strongly reminiscent of past descriptions: they travel by open horse-drawn carriages and sleep in tents. Their preferred routes ramble through the countryside where they can pick up orders (to make and repair copper utensils) and especially in mountainous regions. Certainly, this current way of life is not the one and only lifestyle of all representatives of the community, but it can still be observed among large parts of them.
These basic models of nomadic traditions emerged after the forced sedentarisation in the 50's. Sedentarization in Bulgaria took place (it is not clear whether deliberately or accidentally) in the winter period when the nomads were in their winter settlements and authorities let them choose their own places of permanent settlement. Thus, each group could settle in specific regions without mixing and choose the way of sedentarization within the group - e.g. one or two families of "Thracean Kalajdjii" go to one village and cover wide regions; Kardarasha are united in local communities (several extended families in nearby villages and small towns, mainly around big towns and highways), and thus they cover greater territories; there is a higher concentration in some villages, etc.
One should not conceive of the transition from nomadic to sedentary way of life, which in Bulgaria took place in two rounds in the same century (first in the 1920's and 1930's, and second and almost definite in the 1950's) as an automatic and radical change in the way of life and total break away from nomadic traditions. On the contrary, this tradition is most often modified and preserved under different forms. The possession of a proper home and a permanent residence opened new opportunities for the development of stable occupations. Certainly, the traditional crafts were abandoned in many instances, yet in other instances they survived as a source of supplementary income in the past, or, very often, as the only possible mean of subsistence nowadays. Except for the already mentioned examples of resumed wanderings, quite often traditional crafts, organized in the permanent residence, are combined with short trips to carry around the merchandise in the villages (in addition to the fairs in the big cities), as with the Lingurara (spoon-makers), Koshnichara (basket-makers), the makers of different kinds of ironware, etc. In addition, the popular in olden times custom of a seasonal family or group (a few families) wandering connected with lumbering, preparation of charcoal, gathering of wild berries and medicinal herbs, etc., continues to proliferate. It is interesting that these phenomena are also popular among members of groups who have never had a strong tradition of a nomadic way of life, like the so-called Gradeshki Tsigani (from the village Gradetz, in the Kotel region).
In most recent times, a new type of wandering abroad has emerged and is actively growing. Its beginning was the autumn of 1989. One of the first steps of the new government after the collapse of the former regime was to permit the possession of passports for traveling abroad and to abolish the requirement of visas for Bulgarian citizens to travel outside the country. On the other hand, the entry of Bulgarian citizens in other European countries was sharply restricted (a humiliating visa requirement, different financial requirements, etc.) including the restrictions of some East European countries, which still preserved their visa-free regulations for Bulgarian citizens.
We have to make explicit the fact that the existing visa regulations and the huge lines in front of the Western embassies in Sofia were not a serious obstacle and everyone who really wanted to leave Bulgaria was able to do it (and still can do it) including a large number of Gypsies. It is difficult to give precise information about the number of people who have left the country because there is no system to differentiate between those Bulgarians who have immigrated and those who are working abroad only temporarily. On the whole, in 1992-1993 the number of immigrants per year was about 60-65 thousand, and the percentage of Gypsies among them was not specified. This number has definitely decreased later on, but more specific information is needed for quantitative estimations.
The transborder travelings of Bulgarian Gypsies should not be considered as emigration only, since they are much larger in scope and scale and belong to several basic types, which are often mutually related or interlapping.
First come the migrations of Gypsies from Bulgaria to the countries of Western Europe (as well as the USA and Canada) with the goal to remain there for good. However, these are comparative less cases, immigration was initially made possible through asking for a political asylum and sometimes through marriages (often fake) with citizens of European countries. The possibility for demanding the political asylum was limited in line European countries and at present it is used mainly in countries where is foresaw not directly administrative decision and extradition but legal process (Great Britain, USA, Canada). Exact facts are missing and we must to note that comparatively much often are the cases in which the ethnic Bulgarians present themselves as "Gypsies sacrifices of racial discrimination" who "have forgotten their language because of the prohibition during the socialism times". In this original "emigration business" are included rows of NGO of respective countries.
A variant of such migrations are seeking a temporary (as long as possible) stay in a foreign country. The Kardarasha were the trail-blazers along this road of migrations, even before the changes of 1989. This migration belongs to the "invisible" type - individuals go to another country, investigate the situation and establish a base for the transfer of their relatives in case of need. Preference is given to the Benelux countries, as well as the Scandinavian countries and Germany. During the last two years in string with the hard economical situation in Bulgaria which has brought to stagnation of their business has formed a part of Kardarasha community for more-permanent settle in Western Europe, especially in Belgium and Great Britain, where already there are settled several thousands their families.
Much larger in scale and extremely "visible" were the migrations of settled Yerlii Gypsies in Bulgaria, especially the "Turkish Gypsies" from North-East Bulgaria in the beginning of the 90's. Their first destination was Germany due to its geographical convenience (a relatively easy access via the former socialist countries which do not require visas) and mostly because of its liberal legislature and considerable (especially for Bulgarian standards) social assistance. The Gypsies moved about in larger groups, usually organized on the principle of relatives or people sharing the same territory without relating strongly to Gypsies from other countries. They made camps in Poland and the Czech Republic, near the German border, and tried to cross the border into Germany illegally. On their arrival in Germany (and in the other Western countries as well), they would most often use the formula "demand for political asylum" (they would most often present themselves as Turks who had suffered in the "process of revival"). The denial of asylum did not have tragic consequences for them - thanks to the social assistance for their big families, illegal work, small-scale illegal trade and similar activities they returned to Bulgaria with foreign currency and goods which provided them with a decent living standard.
The data illustrating this model of migration are the following: In 1991 3 927 applications for political asylum were filed in Germany, out of which only 14 were approved. The others were rejected or settled in another way (most often the "political refugees" themselves left the country a little before the term for reviewing of their applications had expired). Unfortunately we do not know what was the percent of Gypsies among these people, but all sources point to the fact that it was rather high. In 1992 the so called "political immigrants" from Bulgaria to Germany were 31 540 and in 1993 more than 23 000. Following changes in German legislature in the end of 1993, which limited the assistance for such "refugees", the flood began to recede very quickly in 1994 and the present migration of Bulgarian Gypsies has taken other destinations.
Another relatively frequent variant are seasonal or irregular transborder migrations of Bulgarian Gypsies. To a certain extent they are related to the already mentioned revival (often in new forms) of their former nomadic or semi-nomadic way of life, although sometimes these migrations also include a smaller number of settled Gypsies. These are hired workers (most often in construction) and musicians, who have official work contracts with some countries of the former Soviet Union and or the Middle East, rarely Western Europe. Most often there is a great interest in this type of migration and Gypsies can only seldom be part of the groups of workers. Musicians are an exception since they are competitive, especially for a specific type of music.
Far more popular is working abroad as "black workers" (i.e. illegally) without official documents and permission from the respective country. The undisputed leaders in this migration are the Rudara communities. The countries of their choice are Greece and Cyprus, where they work in agriculture, mostly in harvesting, and the Rudara women are household helpers and attend the sick as well. In these countries the Rudara rely on the assistance of their related Gypsy groups. They usually cross the Bulgarian-Greek border illegally (sometimes via Macedonia). The Greek authorities have quite a liberal attitude towards their presence there and almost encourage them, thus providing cheap labour. Rudara also travel to Italy where the situation is easier for them as they speak a related language, and work as unqualified labourers, have odd jobs in farming and very rarely deal with speculative trade. In the last few years the most popular is Spain where has formed comparatively considerable Rudara community working illegally in the agriculture. Exact facts for this migrations are missing but seldom there can be met Rudara-family which has not got representative on temporary work in the foreign parts.
Xoraxane Roma are active participants in these migrations as well. They prefer Turkey, Cyprus, and less often Italy where they often present themselves as Turks. Work migrations are usually made by small groups of men united on the principle of being relatives or neighbours. Often (more and more often recently) the whole family participates in the migration (including the children, at least those children who are able to work).
Another frequent type of transborder migrations of Bulgarian Gypsies are the regular return trips abroad with the purpose of speculative trade. This process began in 1989 when the Bulgarian border with former Yugoslavia was opened and Bulgarian goods and foodstuffs were taken to Yugoslavia on a large scale in return for hard currency. At the same time, another common phenomenon was travels for speculations with hard currency which were made possible with the unification of Germany. These trading routes were later on enlarged to include the markets of Eastern Europe (Rumania, Hungary, Poland) with Turkey (Istanbul) occupying a special place as a source of large amounts of cheap (mostly Turkish and Middle Eastern) goods which were then sold in Bulgaria. The so called "shopping tours" have become the custom for Bulgaria. Between 1990 and 1995 dozens of tourist companies flourished thanks to such "excursions". Gypsies, mostly settled Gypsies in urban ghettos, are among the permanent "tourists" touring Eastern Europe in buses overflowing with goods. For their trips the "Turkish Gypsies" from Eastern Bulgaria, who usually speak Turkish, often chose Turkey and the Gypsies from Western Bulgaria - the countries from former Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe. This type of activity has grown and acquired new dimensions with the embargo on former Yugoslavia and Macedonia, when whole border regions would make their living with this type of trade. Recently (1996-1997) there is a certain decrease in this type of commercial activity, but it still has an essential influence on the lives of many Gypsies, as specially for the Turkish Gypsies from North-Eastern Bulgaria the preferred country is Poland where they spend months to the markets of different cities.
In the Bulgarian media are often talking about the Gypsy migrations as a high criminal. Usually the Gypsies are blaming about the visa regiment for all Bulgarians. However this accusations are speculative. The Gypsies are excluding of the prosperous criminal transborder business as the prostitution, car thefts and drugs traffic in which interfere Bulgarian citizens or the Gypsies occupy peripherally place in it as a cheap prostitutes or a speculative small merchants from Bulgaria to Poland.
Other Gypsy groups are beginning to look for ways to resume their former transborder nomadic travels, but so far only individual attempts have been made (such as a few families of "Thracean Kalajdjia" going to Macedonia where they tin household utensils).
All these possible combinations clearly indicate that the passage from nomadic to settled way of life is not unilateral. Depending on the specific social and economic conditions, new modifications of traditional nomadism may arise as well as its "resuscitation" for a second life.
An interesting question arises here: what are the perspectives of transborder Gypsy migrations and can we speak about a new big wave of migrations after the "great Kelderara invasion" of the 19th c. and after the "Yugoslav wave" of the 60's and 90's of 20th century. On a European scale we can certainly speak about a third wave of transborder Gypsy migrations in Europe, especially with Gypsies from Rumania and former Yugoslavia. What will be the participation of Bulgarian Gypsies in this process? This is a question which still cannot be answered with certainty. No doubt, there is a great potential for mobility and the direction it may take depends on the development of the Gypsy community in Bulgaria and the assistance they receive from abroad, but even more important is the overall situation in Bulgaria, which is far from optimistic.

Policy of the State institutions and local authorities after 1989
In Bulgaria the collapse of the East European socialist system in 1989 was followed by a long transition period (which is still going on now), accompanied by permanent social, economic and political crises. The general crisis reflected very strongly on many aspects of the situation of the Gypsies in Bulgarian society. In the economic aspect Gypsies were the first ones to suffer after the changes began. The majority of them were left unemployed in the cities (after factories were closed down) and in the villages (after the collapse of the cooperative farms). Unemployment and the lack of social assistance changed their way of life. Gypsies adapted relatively quickly to the new situation, primarily in the sphere of "gray" [shadow] economy which is a leading one in Bulgaria. We would like to emphasize the latter fact because if one were to believe official statistics or representative sociological data, Gypsies in Bulgaria should not be able to live at all since almost all of them are unemployed, with no registered income, and only a small part of them receive occasional social assistance.
At present the Gypsies are implementing various economic strategies. Many Gypsies, mostly in the towns, have become involved with peddling, quite often abroad as well (mostly in Turkey and Yugoslavia). Others rely on being hired for occasional unqualified work, e.g. in construction. Some Gypsies, mostly living in villages, make their living with seasonal agricultural work and gathering of wild herbs and mushrooms. Yet others have gone back to their old traditional crafts, sometimes in a modified version (different kinds of blacksmith services, tinsmith work, weaving of straw mats, baskets and others). Some of these crafts are related to the nomadic lifestyle. There is a large number of transborder labour migrations, especially of the Rudara, who work illegally in the agricultural farms of Greece, Italy, Spain. Some Gypsies, mainly Kardarasha, have won relatively good positions in the sphere of gray business (manufacture of alcoholic beverages, building undertaking, buying and selling of metals or agricultural produce). The overall picture is rather diversified and it depends on a number of factors, including the internal differentiation of the Gypsy community itself.
Considerable changes have also taken place in the sphere of public relations. The economic crisis and political struggles have caused a tension in society, which often leads to a crisis in the inter-ethnic relations. In the beginning of the transition period the Gypsies were a necessary "scapegoat" in the search of people to blame for the social crisis, often going as far as pogroms, murders of Gypsies by skinheads and police violence.(Bulgarian Helsinki Committee; Human Rights Project). Gradually, however, the situation became relatively calmer and the relationships gradually entered their age-old framework. The Gypsies are still discriminated against and are still victims of violence on the level of personal relations and certain everyday situations, as well as on the level of state institutions (mainly the police). However, the predominant pattern in Bulgarian society is the one of despising the Gypsies as an inferior people who have to know their place. Problems usually arise when the Gypsies are no longer willing to remain in this place. Due to their higher civil consciousness the Gypsies now seem to have become more sensitive towards the attitude of discrimination. There are small and unorganised groups of young men who introduce themselves as skinheads and are an imitation of similar movements in the West. The attempt to create a popular movement based on a racist ideology and directed against the Gypsies remains on the level of sensations in the media and has at the moment no real potential for development.
The Gypsy policy of State institutions and local authorities can be summed up most generally as a denial of active politics and an imitation of activities although the manifestations of this approach differ over the years. In 1991 a new constitution was adopted based on the presumption of individual civil rights. The most frequently cited Gypsy-related excerpt from this constitution is Art. 6, para. 2 which does not allow for "any limitations of the rights or privileges based on ... ethnic belonging ..." and thus, anytime the problem of minorities have to be solved, the typical reply is that according to the Constitution all Bulgarian citizens are equal and there can be no privileges. In November 1992 the Constitutional Court gave an explanation to the above text allowing for "certain socially justified privileges" for "groups of citizens" in "an unfavourable social situation", thus encouraging a certain State policy towards Gypsies, although mostly in a narrow socio-economical field.
The situation remained almost unchanged in the system of executive government despite the change of various cabinets and political powers. For a few years there were discussions about having a special body of the Council of Ministers with representatives of various ministries which would realize a coordinated State policy in respect of Gypsies. Finally, in 1994 an Inter-departmental Council on Ethnic Problems was organized. In 1995, with the coming in power of a new government of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), this council was transformed into Inter-Administrative Council on Social and Demographic Issues, but the Council had no activities whatsoever.
In the beginning of 1997 the new government of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) declared a new state approach to the Gypsy issue. A new government body was established - the National Council on the Ethnic and Demographic Issues at the Council of Ministers. For a long time this Council had no tangible activities and this attitude of the state made the Roma organisations take the lead themselves. A Roma Non-governmental organisation the "Human Rights Project" initialises and organises the preparation of a framework Programme For Equal Participation of Roma in the Life of Bulgaria by Roma leaders and independent experts. (Program 1998) The Programme turned its back on cheap speculation with specific social and economic problems and paid special attention to the major reason for them - the unequal position of the Gypsies in Bulgarian society. Hence the major directions which the state has to follow in order to implement its Gypsy policy - the establishment of State body for fighting discrimination, desegregation of "Gypsy schools", legalising of the existing Gypsy neighbourhoods, access to the national media and others.
The Framework Programme was discussed in detail, supplemented and approved by all Roma organisations in the country at a National Round table in October 1998 and consequently proposed to the government as a basis of its future work. In response to the initiative of the Roma organisations and in view of the then approaching local elections, the government adopted the slogan for integration of the Gypsies through their participation in local governments. The government also tried to impose, with collaboration of an well-known international NGO, its own programme prepared by Spanish experts of the Council of Europe. The Roma leaders rejected the government proposal and following long negotiations an agreement was signed between the Roma organisations and the Council of Ministers on 07.04. 99. The Council of Ministers discussed and approved with a special Decision the Programme proposed by the Roma on its session of 22.04.99. (The representatives of the Council of Ministers introduce some minor changes into the Framework Programme, such as addition of the word "integration" and including of the so-called women issue in it). Until the present, however, the Bulgarian government has limited itself to appointing one Gypsy (Yosif Nunev) expert in the National Council and to making a number of statements in the media and at international forums, without implementing any specific activities for the accomplishment of the programme goals.
On the whole, the Gypsy policy of the state can be characterised in brief as a lack of any real desire to change the existing situation. In the instances when for one or another reason the Bulgarian state has to have a position on specific problems related to the Gypsies (such as participation in certain programmes of European institutions) it still prefers to fake activity instead of making use of the existing potential. This situation is not influenced by the differences between political powers because the attitude towards the Gypsy issue has been predetermined by the underlying stereotypes of and prejudice towards the Gypsies in the Bulgarian society.

back to top

Gypsies and the Non-Governmental sector
The non-governmental sector presents a situation similar to the one in the State and local authorities, although it is much more dynamic and diverse. The non-governmental sector in Bulgaria was created after the changes in 1989 and it exists thanks solely to the financial support of different programs and foundations from abroad (mainly from the USA and Western Europe and recently more and more from European Union programmes). The non-governmental sector in Bulgaria had a powerful surge of development. This, however, was a rather specific development, especially in respect of Gypsies and their problems. The non-governmental sector firmly believed that the problems of minorities (and specifically those of Gypsies) were a basic priority. Almost all of the newly emerged non-governmental organizations rushed to solve the problems of Gypsies, to help them and defend their rights, to build civic education, community development, conflict resolution and others. This simple phraseology has proved to contain the magical words that can provide financial aid from abroad regardless of the actual activities of the organizations and their vague ideas about Gypsies and Gypsy problems. A reference book published in 1995 "Non-governmental Organizations in Bulgaria" (which did not include the whole non-governmental sector) included a total of 467 organizations with more than a fourth of them listing minority rights as their priority. [Spravochnik 1995] According to information from 1997 from the Association of Bulgarian Foundations and Societies, the organizations which wanted and intended to work with minorities (i.e. mainly Gypsies) then are more than 1200!
However, one should not be misled by these numbers. Neither the Bulgarian society as a whole, nor the Gypsies themselves have a clear idea about the number of people and organizations "taking care" of them. Often a dummy Gypsy is included in an organization or project in order to facilitate funding. The argument is that minority representatives are active in a certain NGO. Another variant is keeping in touch with a Gypsy organization (often consisting of one or a few people) and presenting a "joint" project of the two NGOs. Most of these organizations are semi-legal - they are registered officially and present their "activity" to sponsors from abroad while rigorously avoiding any mention of their activity in Bulgaria (and only occasionally enter the media). This "semi-legality" often is maintained deliberately. In 1994 we asked a dozen NGO's with declared Gypsy-oriented activities for their annual reports or information on their "Roma" projects. The results were so indicative that there is no need for further comment - only two !!! NGO's agreed to present their materials to us.
A weird situation has emerged - Bulgarian NGOs working (or at least reporting such an activity) with Gypsies are more numerous than the Gypsies or Gypsy organizations who want or are able to be their partners. This has led to some curious situations, such as having a Western foundation with representation in Bulgaria help a project of one Gypsy NGO through two (2) other non-governmental organizations. Nobody is in a position to explain the use of paying office rent, salaries and other expenses to these "mediators". There is a Bulgarian proverb saying that "He is not crazy who eats the spinach pie, but the one who gives it to him", but Gypsies have no chances of seeing their problems solved once and for all through such an approach. Moreover, there is a persistent negative opinion of "the privileged" Gypsies and the non-governmental sector in Bulgarian society. Bulgarian public opinion finds it hard to explain how the salary of a female student associate in the non-governmental sector can be two, three times higher than the salary of her university professor, or how the budget of a NGO employing 5 or 6 persons can be much higher than those of a school, a kindergarten or an academic institution. These moods only serve to discredit the idea of a non-governmental sector. Another question however is that the salaries of Bulgarian academics are so low that they do not cover they living expenses (let alone work expenses), which is one of the reasons why some of the young and flexible researchers are moving from Universities and Academic institutions into the NGO sector.
In order to illustrate the relevant problems of working with Gypsies, we can analyze some especially poignant examples where the deficiencies of the third sector in Bulgaria are most obvious. [Marushiakova & Popov 1997] For several years now there have been projects on homeless children in Bulgaria. The issue flourished in the period of 1994-1996. This is a "profitable" problem which has attracted some State institutions and a number of non-governmental organizations. The result was: a multitude of projects, enormous for Bulgaria budgets, advertising campaigns in the press, heartbreaking reportages, press conferences, charity balls and cocktails, gift-giving campaigns, associates hired to work with these children, and others. Hypocrisy culminated in the event of dressing a few of these children in theatrical costumes and taking them to the Sheraton Hotel ... so they could dance for the President of Bulgaria, diplomats and businessmen. Then the children were again changed into their old clothes and sent back on the street.
These activities unfortunately distorted the nature of the whole issue. Various organizations would present the number of homeless children as being incredibly high - scores of thousands of such children - so that the problem was artificially blown out of proportions and acquired apocalyptic dimensions. The relatively precise data of the Ministry of the Interior, however, give the number of homeless children as being about 3 000 registered in all the country for the period of 1991 - 1995, although in reality the permanently homeless are maybe about a few hundred (about a few dozen for Sofia in particular). An unpleasant fact was the ethnic definition, i.e. "a Gypsy problem", attached to this social problem (although not all homeless children were Gypsies). Thus, the negative stereotypes about Gypsies were confirmed in Bulgarian society. Mass media described Gypsies as people who did not take care of their children and deliberately sent them out to beg, steal, become prostitutes and take drugs. Nobody, including the non-governmental organizations busily working on their projects, was willing to tell the truth - which is that there are about a few dozen homeless Gypsy children in Sofia and also a few thousand "normal" Gypsy children, living with their parents, who have serious problems of a rather different nature.
The activities of the non-governmental organizations were used by the State to distance itself from the problem of homeless children and transfer the responsibility to the non-governmental sector. The official explanation for long period of time was that the State was powerless since there was no law for Child Protection, but the followed accepting of this law didn't change the situation. A shelter, financed by many sponsors from abroad, was finally built in Sofia and officially opened in the presence of State and diplomatic officials. This is a place where homeless children can come to eat and spend the night, but they cannot stay there for good. Here we do not go so far as to speak of literacy, but merely of the minimal assistance for biological survival and an attempt to accomplish State tasks. Universal opinion, including the opinions of those directly involved in this activity, which started off with great hopes and extensive advertising, is that it has proved completely unsuitable and the situation of "street children" is still the same. The children spend all their time on the streets and have neither the wish nor the chance for a normal life. This is an example of how impossible it is for the non-governmental sector to assume all State tasks, all it is able to do is undertake palliative measures. Enormous danger stems from the fact that the non-governmental sector not only does not urge the State to perform its functions, on the contrary - it has made it stay away from the problem.
Another problem attracting the attention of non-governmental organizations, is related to the education of Gypsy children. In 1991 the special status of Gypsy schools was canceled de jure, but de facto the situation there has remained unchanged. The control of the Ministry of Education has decreased, and given the economic problems of Gypsy families, the lack of interest in such an "education" on the part of Gypsies has become especially obvious. In their attempt to bring Gypsy children back to school and improve the conditions of schooling, quite a few organizations (including some Gypsy ones) have worked on projects on the repair of existing schools and distribution of free food to some of the children who have been selected as most needy. There is nothing bad about this type of activities, but in the long run they are merely palliative ones and do not solve the educational problems of Gypsy children. Free food can increase attendance, but the quality of education in these schools does not improve. Parents who appreciate the importance of good education for their children try to enroll them in "normal" schools and not in "Gypsy" ones, so they can receive equal education.
Far more unsuccessful and with a markedly negative effect are the projects which aim at keeping the children in school by means of changing the curriculum or introducing additional school hours. A typical example was the project "Let us bring the children back to school" financed by UNESCO through a Bulgarian foundation. The project sounds theoretically logical - it aims at attracting Gypsy children to the schools by means of additional programs which pay attention to some of their ethnic and cultural characteristics - such as lessons in music, dance, drawing, traditional Gypsy occupations and others. This project, which was realized as a "pilot" one (another magical word in the non-governmental sector) in seven schools, has relatively good results - the evident increase in the school attendance of Gypsy children. However, there is another issue here - whether the basic aim of the education of Gypsy children should not be different and directed at increasing their level of education in view of their future professional and social realization. Schools should attract children with the increase of the practical results of education which is clearly not possible in segregated schools. People graduating from "Gypsy schools" are, and will remain, second rate, their education is insufficient no matter how regularly they have attended school. The implementation of such kind of projects only confirms the existence of schools based on the segregation principle, instead of being radically reformed and gradually closed down. A ridiculous situation has emerged - Bulgarian human rights activists launched a campaign against the segregation of Gypsy children while the people responsible for the project (who were also high-ranking government officials - obviously a Bulgarian patent for "combining" the non-governmental sector and the State) claimed that "Gypsy" schools do not exist in Bulgaria at all (and the subsequent implementation and continuation of the project were transferred to mixed schools in order to avoid all talks of Gypsy schools). Even worse, this project has given the Ministry of Education the necessary grounds for offering a return to the near past - an introduction of segregated professional education for Gypsy children from an earlier age which would be at the expense of their general education, thus they will have opportunities for professional realization. In the long run, despite the good intentions of its organizers, the project "Let us bring the children back to school" has only moved the situation backwards instead of providing Gypsy children with new and equal opportunities, however later after hard critic in Human rights press the organisers change the project and take the activities out from regular curriculum and move the implementation of the project into mainstream (mixed) schools.
The greater part of Gypsy literacy-related projects implemented in the non-governmental sector do not have any hazardous consequences, they are rather harmless, but with almost no tangible results. It is not clear how the "NGO sector experts" gain such a high level of self-confidence and have the courage to create such conceptual programs facing an ethnic community which is practically unknown to them, e.g. a group of physicians from one NGO conducted a "sociological research" among some Gypsies in three Gypsy quarters and based on it they proposed a national program for the sexual education of Gypsy children. This approach to the "scientific argumentation" of the problems is not a Bulgarian patent, but a wide spread model of work in the NGO sector worldwide. In order to illustrate this it is enough to mention an example of a dilettante bibliography on Gypsies prepared by a Rumanian lawyer on the basis of "own research" in libraries in USA and proposed as a basic source for work with Gypsies from the network of Soros foundations in Eastern Europe [Roma 1997]
A parallel, "unofficial" NGO science is created, financed and serviced by the NGO sector, which is much lower in quality but (at least in Eastern Europe) is far better financed and distinctly different from the "official" science (for example, it uses only a certain type of quasi-scientific literature). We can cite the examples of the reports on Gypsies in the countries of Eastern Europe, prepared by various human rights organizations, which at best are prepared by young lawyers fresh out of law school, and quite often by people with no professional training and experience. It would not be serious to think that such a type of "specialists" can learn to perceive the strange cultural and historical reality in a few weeks time, to learn the strange legislature, come to know the Gypsy community, its problems in the respective countries, etc., let alone offer an adequate solution to their problems.
The numerous larger-scale projects on civic education, conflict resolution, "open education", sexual literacy, family planning, protection of Gypsy women from violence and others belong to the same type of projects, which are rather harmless, but with almost no tangible results. They usually take the guise of endless courses and seminars with an insignificant or totally zero effect for the development of the Gypsy community. Usually the lecturers are highly qualified and well-meaning Western specialists who are totally unfamiliar with the specifics of the Gypsy community and the overall situation in Bulgaria. Sometimes it is quite curious to see that the lecturers and "experts" are people, who do not know any Gypsies in their own countries, but this does not prevent them from giving generous advice on how to solve the "Gypsy problem" in Bulgaria. Usually the same people (most often teachers or social workers) and a small circle of Gypsies who have become professional "seminar attendants" take part in all projects. The level of similar projects and the true interest of their participants in Gypsy issues and Gypsy community development became obvious during an international meeting in 1995 of the "Step by Step" program (a program of the Open Society foundation network in Eastern Europe aiming to provide an equal start for minority children through specialized kindergartens). The Bulgarian representatives attending the meeting could not even answer the specific question of whether there were separate Gypsy quarters in Bulgaria. There are no opportunities for applying what has been learned, which obviously does not seem to interest the organizers or their sponsors. A project is over, the activities and expenses have been accounted for and what is next ... there will be a similar project and its multiple carbon copies.
The evaluation of these numerous projects touches upon another problem - the unwillingness to inform society about ongoing or finished projects. The above-mentioned principle of "semi-legality" is strictly observed here - information about these projects can be found mainly in the reports of the sponsor foundations from abroad, presentation in the media is most often avoided, and the greater part of the Gypsy community involved never understand how many people and funds have been used to assist their development.
The evaluation of these numerous projects touches usually also upon another problem - the financial one - the evaluation is ordered and paid by sponsoring organisation, and sometimes also by implementing organisation with clear aim - to underline the "positive" experience, i.e. to receive a positive evaluation. The evaluators are paid to be positive and only as rare exception it is possible to see a negative evaluation. Negative evaluation of a project or of an organisation is negative evaluation also of the donor, who makes mistake by choosing the project or organisation and as high is the amount invested as low is the eventuality to receive a negative evaluation.
Yet another problem is the common interest uniting most non-governmental organizations in receiving as much funds as possible without any concern for their proper use. If we look at the reports of big foundations working in Bulgaria, as well as the reports of the European programs, we will immediately perceive an interesting regularity - Bulgaria is always one of the first countries whose projects on Gypsies have been approved, i.e. on the background of the general crisis the "Gypsy industry" is one of the few flourishing developments. The increase in funds usually results in more people working for a non-governmental organization, renting of bigger offices and consequently seeking ever more expensive and inefficient projects to support the non-governmental organization. There is an interesting regularity - the more expensive the project, the smaller the chance of spending money on something specific rather than on office rent and salaries. Quite often we can observe curious situations, such as having a given foundation give priority to the projects of their "experts", i.e. one and the same people vote approval of their own projects, complete them and then report their success to themselves. The tendency for inflated projects receives outside assistance as well when the projects are evaluated by the organizations which fund them. Typical in this respect was the macro-project from 1996, evaluated as the most successful so far within the Phare-Democracy program. It consisted of selecting about ten children of different ethnic backgrounds and their repeated education in an isolated group by at least twice as many "experts" in the spirit of "intercultural dialogue". Certainly, such an educational model is not entirely meaningless, but its practical implementation is hardly possible in the near future, moreover the economic hardships and the crisis in the educational system in Bulgaria makes it ridiculously out of place.
Their common interest stops project participants from criticizing other projects for fear of having the funding of the whole non-governmental sector stopped. A relatively small circle of people is formed, all of whom use the simple phraseology of the "civic society", occupy key position in the NGO sector and to a great extent control and distribute the funds.
We can observe with increasing clarity a transfusion of the NGO models of work with those of the state institutions, which often are partners in various European programmes and their interests coincide to the detriment of the Gypsies. Only one example is enough: in spring of 1998 in the town of Lom was held a seminar, where the representatives of government, local authorities and the organisers (one well-known international NGO) proclaimed their success in establishing of model of collaboration for solving of social and economical problems of the Gypsies; only few weeks after Roma from Lom who did not receive social assistance money for more than one year tried to self ignite themselves publicly (PER 1998).
In other instances there is a direct clash of interests of the NGO sector and the Gypsy community, such as in the case of segregated Gypsy schools. Several NGOs implement a number of projects on the education of Gypsy children which cannot be implemented if these schools cease to exist. One of the clearest examples for this is the project coordinated by Minority Rights group (London) for the training of teaching assistants of Gypsy origin (i.e. this is a consolidation of the principle of specialised - i.e. segregated education for the Gypsy children, which presupposed the existence of segregated Gypsy schools or at least of segregated Gypsy classes, instead of general education). It consisted of a short training course in the Nova Skola Foundation (The Czech Republic) in 1998 for the training of young Roma teaching assistants of Gypsy pupils. The Ministry of Education has promised to employ these teaching assistants in the system of education (their salaries will be paid by Council of Europe funds), even though there is no position of teaching assistant according to Bulgarian legislature. And of course there are not project for preparing of teaching assistants for other minorities or for the Bulgarian majority .
Similar (oriented towards segregational schooling) is the PHARE program project for Inter-cultural Education, implemented in 1995-1998 by Minority Rights Group (London) and Foundation "Inter Ethnic Initiative for Human Rights". The basic part of the project is extensive and expensive printing of special (out from regular school curriculum) teaching materials on Gypsy history, Gypsy literature and Gypsy music. The project was accomplished and praised highly and now is prepared its continuation. Nobody however propose a more effective and cheap solution - to include the information on Gypsies in regular teaching material which are used by all children in Bulgarian schools.
Actually, we are witnessing an active process in Bulgaria and worldwide, a transformation of the NGO sector into a "world in itself". Enormous resources circulate within this "world" without substantially influencing their targets, which they are supposed to change. However, despite the disadvantages described above and maybe some others, the non-governmental sector still assists the positive changes in Bulgarian society, and it contributes actively to the change in social consciousness which will eventually lead the way to a modern civic society.

back to top

Gypsy movement
After the changes in the autumn of 1989, Gypsies in Bulgaria were free to express their ethnic belonging and organise their respective unions. Gradually, various Gypsy organizations began to emerge, and in the course of their development they were actively influenced by the overall social and political environment.
At the founding conference on March 17 1990, in the town of Sofia, a decision was taken to establish a Democratic Union Roma, whose chairman became Manush Romanov. The initial initiative for this union came from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the former Bulgarian Communist Party). However, in the process of acute political conflicts during the so called Round table, the union changed its course towards the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) - a varied political coalition, formed on an anti-Communist basis, with no clear political face, which constantly fell prey to the contradictions of its member parties and organizations, as well as individual leaders and groups. At the initiative of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, in the eve of the elections in the spring of 1990, alternative local Gypsy organizations began to emerge, such as "The Union of Bulgarian Gypsies for democratic socialism" in Sofia, which became the basis for the "Movement for social and cultural development of the Gypsies", including mostly Gypsies from Sliven and Sofia, whose chairman was Assen Zlatev. In Plovdiv and Assenovgrad the "Birlik" (Unity) union was formed, headed by Assen Kolev and Syuria Yusuf. Later on Assen Kolev left the union and renamed his organization "Cultural and educational society - Unity". In Varna the "Organization for social development of Gypsies - Ascent" emerged, headed by Kiril Bakardzhiev, in Shumen the "Cultural and Educational Society of Gypsies" headed by Bogdan Petrov, in Haskovo the "Unity" union was registered in court headed by Acho Yordanov, a little later in Sofia the Club of Gypsy intellectuals, headed by Gospodin Kolev was organized, and others. The majority of these associations have a vague status, most of them are not registered in court and actually ceased to function after the parliamentary elections.
For a certain period of time the Gypsy organizations restricted their activities, even though the Parliament at that time had three Gypsy members - Manush Romanov (UDF), Sabi Golemanov and Peter Alexandrov (BSP). The Gypsy organizations stirred again only in the summer of 1991, when the political conflicts in the country were on the rise and new elections were approaching. Manush Romanov failed completely in his attempt to transform the Democratic Union Roma into a political power. In the autumn of 1991 he left UDF, where he had the unclear status of "observer", because he was ignored in the pre-election coalition. The Democratic Union Roma gradually dissolved, Gypsies no longer had their representatives in Parliament, and after the elections the influence of the Movement for Rights and Liberties (uniting mainly the Turkish and Muslim population of Bulgaria) increased considerably, mostly among those Muslim Gypsies who speak Turkish and have a preferred Turkish ethnic awareness.
In the beginning of 1992 the existing Gypsy organizations manifested a certain tendency towards unification, irrespective of their political views. A group of Gypsy leaders from Sofia launched an appeal for the creation of a confederacy. On the other hand, in April 1992 Manush Romanov launched the idea for founding a Gypsy party independent of the other political powers, which would unite all Gypsies in Bulgaria. This idea did not find a sufficient number of supporters. After a number of preliminary meeting, at the so called Unifying Conference in Sofia on October 17 1992, the United Roma Union was created with chairman Vassil Chaprazov and secretary Georgi Parushev. The supporters of the confederacy refused to join the new leadership and declared at the conference that they would not dissolve their organizations (such as the newly created Social Foundation "Roma" in Plovdiv headed by Anton Karagiozov and Ivan Kotchev). Other Gypsy leaders, such as Manush Romanov and Vassil Danev (Business Association Indi-Roma from the town of Varna), boycotted the conference and publicly declared that they would not dissolve their organizations.
In the beginning of 1993 the leaders of some Gypsy organizations declared a new initiative for the creation of a Confederacy of Roma whose individual organizations would preserve their independence. On May 8 1993 a new national conference for unification was convened in Sofia. The new organization was officially named Confederacy of the Roma in Bulgaria. Its leaders were 5 co-chairmen - Peter Georgiev (Sofia), Assen Zlatev (Sliven), Assen Kolev (Plovdiv), Alexander Kracholov (Stara Zagora), the secretary-in-chief was Alexander Emilov (Sofia), and spokesman Velko Kostov (Sofia). The goal of the confederacy was to "enter the corridors of power", always having in mind the existing reality, i.e. it still was an officially "non-political organization" which would work for the unity of Gypsies in Bulgaria and their ethnic emancipation in Bulgarian society.
In July 1993 yet another attempt was made at founding a political party of the Gypsies in Bulgaria. Ramadan Rashid from the town of Isperih declared his intention to create the political party "Union Roma - Muslims", but made no practical moves in this direction. Acho Yordanov, who presented himself as a leader of the non-existing United Roma Union for Southern Bulgaria, also declared his wish to be politically active. Acho Yordanov shocked Bulgarian public opinion with his loudly proclaimed statements that 2 and a half million Gypsies were living in Bulgaria, who would create their own political party or enter into coalition with other political powers. In the end of August 1993, in Varna, the president of "Indi-Roma" Vassil Danev organized a Second Gypsy Assembly, where he declared the creation of a new national organization, Federation of the United Roma Communities, which was going to seek unity with the other Gypsy organizations. At the same time and at the initiative of Georgi Parushev, former secretary of United Roma Union, who was dismissed from the management of the union, an initiative committee was organized which had to prepare the creation of a Corporation for Economic Development of the Roma in Bulgaria, and later on a Center for Strategies and Analyses. However, no tangible results were ever attained.
Over a fairly long period of time the Gypsy organizations were less active until the parliamentary elections in the autumn of 1994 stirred them again. After long pre-election negotiations, during which part of the United Roma Union was transformed into Roma Union for Social Democracy, headed by Milcho Russinov, some Gypsy leaders were included in the electoral lists of various political parties and unions. However, their places in these lists made their future election almost impossible. The pre-election agreement of Georgi Parushev with the Movement of Rights and Freedoms (MRF) is especially interesting. It gave Gypsies the right to participate in the elections as MRF members in more than one third of the electoral districts (in Western Bulgaria where there is no Turkish population and MFR received no votes). In reality, Gypsies still had no presence in Bulgarian political life after the elections. Only one Gypsy was member of the new Parliament - Peter Georgiev from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (in 1966 Dimitar Dimitrov from Vidin also entered Parliament as a member of BSP and a substituting deputy).
The political crisis in the end of 1996 and the beginning of 1997, as well as the elections in spring 1997 stirred the Gypsy organizations anew. They had several meetings in order to prepare a joint political line of action and eventually, joint candidates for Parliament. No agreement was reached, some Gypsy leaders were included in the electoral lists of some parties, again in places where the chance of being elected was almost non-existent, others ran for Parliament as "independent" candidates, but on the whole Gypsies did not have any political representation in the new government.
In the period between 1989 and 1997 some new organizations have come into being, all of which pretend to be "national" and to have clear-cut political ambitions. As usual, we associate them with their leaders - Confederacy of Roma in Bulgaria (Peter Georgiev, Alexander Kracholov), United Roma Union (Vassil Chaprazov, Georgi Golov), Democratic Union Roma (Manush Romanov, Vassil Vassilev), Federation of the United Roma Communities (Vassil Danev), Roma Union for Social Democracy (Milcho Russinov), as well as some similar regional organizations - Independent Democratic Union Roma - Varna (Sali Ridvan, Yosif Mihailov, Assen Hristov), Club Union - Mezdra (Toma Tomov), Society "Agreement" (Zlatko Marinov). We have to emphasize that the aspirations of the so called "national" organizations are to a great extent unreasonable. They consist mainly of their leaders and at best include a limited number of activists, usually concentrated in a few regions, they have almost no organizational activities, no political lobby or representation even in the lowest echelons of power. Their popularity among the Gypsy population in Bulgaria is insignificant on the whole (or rather the majority of the Gypsy population know nothing about their organizations). A relevant fact is that they do not rely on Gypsy votes to be elected for Parliament, they would rather like to use the lists of the major political powers. Though they often declare that they would like to have a separate Roma party, the discriminating constitutional law banning religious or ethnic parties has turned out to be a convenient alibi for them. Experience so far has clearly shown us that this ban is rather a formal one and could easily be trespassed in many ways, which is being done by the MRF, as well as by a number of smaller Turkish or Muslim parties.
The disappointment in the "political road of development" gave a powerful impetus to the development and transformation of the Gypsy NGO sector in relation to specific projects. Underlying the NGO sector are the Gypsy organizations (which have the status of NGO according to Bulgarian legislature, even though they were initially created with other goals) and their leaders. The road of their transformation in a classical NGO sector most often goes through the "mediators" - NGO organizations attracting Gypsies from the already existing organizations, who later on begin to establish their own organizations or foundations (according to Bulgarian legislature the most problem-free form of registration is the one-man foundation). This process is still very active and far from being completed.
The first steps of the "classical" non-governmental organizations were marked with the strong feeling of dependence on non-Gypsies, on the person in power, the mediator in the non-governmental sector. For a long time Gypsies used to think that they were unable to prepare a project and work on it on their own, that they needed special blessings, joint activities with representatives of a higher institution or people close to the wealthy foundations (in Bulgaria these usually coincide, it is considered normal for a State official to be a member of the executive board of a foundation). Experience has taught Gypsies what they could not learn from the numerous courses and seminars on the development of non-governmental Gypsy organizations and project-writing. The individual development of the Gypsy non-governmental sector could no longer be stopped, however inconvenient it might have been to many "mediator" NGOs, whose existence and global perspective are already beginning to lose their meaning.
In Bulgaria at present there is a visible "boom" in the development of the Gypsy NGO sector. Dozens of Gypsy NGOs have already been registered and are now functioning - Social Foundation "Roma", Foundation for Regional Development "Roma", Foundation "New Life for Bulgarian Roma", "Support for Roma" Foundation, "Women for Charity - Roma" Foundation, Association of Roma Women and Children, Association of Roma Women "Hope", Independent Women's Organization "Lachshi Romni", "Romani Dai Bulgaria" Foundation, "Romani Dukh" Foundation, "Romani Bah" Foundation, "Roma" Foundation, "Romi" Foundation, "Social Roma Bureau" Foundation, "Roma Social Bureau" Foundation - Montana, Social Foundation "Stolipinovo", Roma Foundation "Iskra", "Cebros" Foundation, "Bahatale Chave" Foundation, "Zemia" Foundation, "Hayir" Foundation, "Right Way" Foundation, Balkan Foundation for Cross-cultural Education and Understanding "Diversity" and many others. It is a curious fact that all these numerous foundations obtain projects and money from various sources, but none of them has a program for financing of any projects other than their own.
The attempts to unite or at least coordinate the activities of all Gypsy organisations have so far been unsuccessful. The Association of Roma NGO's, established by Peter Kostov (Foundation "New Life for Bulgarian Roma") and headed by Toma Tomov ("Union Club") failed to attract all Roma organisations and foundations and develop any activities.
However, the development of the Non-governmental sector of Bulgarian Gypsies is not only positive. Influenced by the example of the Bulgarian NGOs working with them, most Gypsy NGOs rapidly began to repeat their activities, thus repeating their major weaknesses. These negative effects are normal to a great extent - clearly meaningless projects are being offered which have real chances of being approved. The most cunning Gypsies have even registered several foundations (one in their name, another "female" foundation in their wife's name, a third "youth" one in their sons' names), so they can have more opportunities. The work of the non-governmental sector is perceived as a specific type of business, conducted according to certain rules which should be observed (the kind of rules which surround them). It should not be surprising that corruption on many levels and in many guises is another rule of the game (at least for the majority of the non-governmental sector in Bulgaria).
These disadvantages in the work of the non-governmental sector in Bulgaria should not, by all means, be perceived as a complete rejection of the meaning and importance of the sector. Although only a few in number, there still are some organizations which have specific and useful activities related to Gypsies. Here we would like to mention the "Human Rights Project". This is a Gypsy organization which is not closed within community frameworks, it also includes non-Gypsies and co-operates actively with other organizations in Bulgaria and abroad. The "Human Rights Project" was created as an organization for Gypsy civil rights watch in Bulgaria, and at present it has its regional coordinators and a wider range of activities. Other NGOs, which are non-"Gypsy" in concept, but include Gypsies or have active co-operation with representatives of the Gypsy community, have similar roles, for example the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee. There are also some local organisation with usefull projects and good results - such as e.g Foundation for regional development Roma -Plovdiv, Foundation Romani Baxt, Drom and others.
Unfortunately a similar type of actually functioning NGOs, either "Gypsy" or "non-Gypsy" ones, are an exception rather than the rule.
Another interesting question is how these processes and forms of modern social life (NGO) enter the life of the Gypsy community and become part of it. We can say with certainty that they concern only a limited part of the Gypsy community and only in some locations. Large subdivisions of the community remain virtually unaffected (such as Rumanian speaking Rudara, great parts of Turkish speaking Gypsies, many traditional Gypsy groups, Gypsies in most regions of the country, etc.). Most Gypsy communities in Bulgaria stand apart from these processes, many of them still rely on their traditional lifestyle.
In the beginning the community of Kardarasha stood apart from these processes too. Kardarasha keep well-preserved ethnic and cultural traditions (including internal self-government - the Meshariava or Gypsy court), strong endogamy, and they are relative rich. They are always looking for new economical niches and logically they have come to the idea to turn to the new social activities in the attempt to legalize partially their business and tie it up with public procurement (which is the most profitable type of activity in the present circumstances).
Initially, they sent their representatives to participate in the new system of Gypsy NGOs - for example Vassil Danev, Toma Tomov, Zlatko Mladenov, Alexander Philipov (Rroma Soros Foundation and the Roma Program of the Open Society Fund). Parallel to this, with the help of the media they applied the familiar pattern of "Gypsy kings" (such as Kiril Rashkov "Tzar Kiro"). They experimented with a transformation of the traditional forms of internal self-government (the creation of "Supreme Meshare" headed by Zlatko Mladenov).
It is the Kardarasha community which has become the basis for the new stage in the development of the Gypsy community related to the activities of the Euro-Roma organisation. Its establishment was initiated by Tsvetelin Kanchev - a Bulgarian who has been adopted in the Kardarasha community, a rich businessman and a Parliament member since the autumn of 1997 (initially a member of the Bulgarian Business Block and later a member of the Bulgarian Euro-left). After a lengthy preparation, a founding congress of the National Euro-Roma Association was held in Sofia in December, 1998. It was attended by 3 386 delegates of 205 municipal organisations of all regions in the country. This was the first in the history of Bulgaria public event of such scope, moreover, it was the first such event in modern Gypsy history which subdivisions and independent participation in the political life of the country.
The new organisation has been very active in the preparation for the coming local elections. The establishment of Euro-Roma is a proof of the fact that Gypsies do not need the shelter of somebody else's political umbrella because they can rely on their own power. The existing constitutional ban on parties on an ethnic principle has proved to be ineffective since it could easily be ignored. In 1999 a few other Gypsy political parties also became active in their preparation for the local elections - Democratic Congress Party (led by Ramadan Rashid), Union for Democratic Development (Ivan Kirov) Bulgarian Party "Future" (led by Sabi Golemanov), "Free Bulgaria" Party (led by Angel Rashkov, the son of "Tzar" Kiro) and small Rudara Party "Political Party Democratic Movement 'Rodoliubie'" (recently created and led by Ivan Kostov - a member of Rudara community ).
This stirring up of the Gypsy parties frightened the government which reciprocated with a strike against the most popular organisation by depriving Tsvetlin Kanchev of Parliamentary immunity in the summer of 1999 in the eve of the coming local elections, and detaining him under charges of criminal acts, which the Bulgarian public opinion does not take seriously (moreover, there was a similar situation with Kiril Rashkov, who was detained for a few months following ridiculous charges which were not proven).
The desire to try to achieve economic power and political influence through ow political representation however could not be destroyed more.
The empty slot left by Euro-Roma was partially filled by the Free Bulgaria party whose election campaign relied on the principle of Roma voting for Roma and milliets voting for milliets. The results of the local elections (October 1999) were to a great extent a shock for the Bulgarian society. The Free Bulgaria party received 52 300 votes and 81 municipal counsellors and was formed as a political power among the top ten ones. Euro-Roma had 56 municipal counsellors and all Gypsy parties (individually or in various local coalitions received about 2% of the votes and about 200 municipal counsellors and key positions in a number of municipal councils, as well as several mayors (in bigger villages). Thus the Roma and their parties have become an important factor in the country's modern political development and only the future will show what the further development of these processes will be.
A specific variant of searching for another way of community development, different from the already mentioned ones, is the entrance of different Evangelical churches among Gypsies in Bulgaria. These doings are not totally new, Between the World Wars, the British Bible Society commissioned the translation of part of the New Testament into Romanes and the first evangelical churches were built in Gypsy neighbourhoods (e.g. Baptist Gypsy mission in Lom, in the 1920's, publication of first Gypsy newspaper in Bulgaria). During the years of "building socialism", the activity of these evangelical churches was greatly restricted, sometimes illegally so, but never stops to exist at all.
After the sweeping changes of November 10, 1989, the already established churches in Bulgaria (the Pentecostalians, the Sabbatarians) were joined by a number of new ones (Truth from Sion, Bulgarian Church of God, Word of Life, Jehovah' Witnesses, etc.), including some (e.g. "Roma-Turk"), whose activity is directed mainly toward Gypsies and Muslims. These churches are especial effective and spreading fast among the inhabitants of large urban ghettos. In some urban Gypsy neighbourhoods the evangelists have started to prevail; in other places they are joined by entire communities, including some of the "Gypsies who tend to identify with the Turks" (in the last case we might see some syncretic modifications of Islam in an evangelical sense).
All the evangelical churches in Bulgaria center their attention on the poorest and most underprivileged members of the Gypsy community of Yerlii, segregated not only from the macro-society but also from the rest of the Gypsies. In doing so the religious missions offer an alternative to those of the Gypsy community who have turned to anomie. The acceptance of an individual or a group in a given religious community is an opportunity to leave the marginal life and find new lifestyle. A change of religion or the conversion to a new religion is an often seen as a possibility to seek a new place in the overall structure of the macro-society, to adjust to new conditions, to find an outlet from the crisis in one's own ethnic body; under Balkan conditions (where ethnic and religious identity often are confused) this could be a way to change one's own ethnic attribution.

back to top

Summary
At present it is not easy to outline the tendencies of development of the Gypsy community. Observations have revealed that the highest potential exists in the combination of traditional ethnocultural forms with the capacities of the non-governmental sector. However, the complete implementation of this variant will require too much time. Without participation of the State, at least in trying to solve the most important problems of equal integration of the Gypsy community (such as school education), and without the provision of equal civil rights and opportunities, we cannot expect any essential changes. The palliative measures of the non-governmental sector in all their clearly negative aspects, will still prevail. It is obvious that in the near future State and local authorities will have neither the desire (considering the social attitudes regarding Gypsies) nor the needed skills, knowledge and potential for a special policy in this direction. The non-governmental sector is working actively, but the actual results of their work are unlikely to be seen soon. The attempts to create a civic society with a well-developed NGO sector under Bulgarian conditions, in a society with a different type of social stratification and different cultural and historical tradition, in reality has led to the formation of a small closed stratum of paid "professionals of the NGO sector" and "civic society fighters", who have no real interest in the actual creation of a civic society, because such type of society will stultify their "missionary zeal" (and will have a negative effect on their financial situation). There is a serious danger, especially if the Western approach remains unchanged, that the pseudo-dissident neo-nomenclature will have a firm hold of the non-governmental sector and work primarily for themselves without eventually influencing Gypsy development. This will be the final compromise of the entire idea of a civic society in Bulgaria.
Based on current experience, we can summarize that especially negative for the development of the Gypsy community is the influence of the paternalistic approach of the State and the non-governmental sector whenever development issues have to be faced and solved. A flagrant example of this approach is the attempt to present Gypsies as a destructuralised, marginalised community without their own ethnocultural traditions. This has even been done in some quasi-scientific research works [Tomova 1995], servicing the State and the NGO sector in this approach towards the Gypsies. The excuse that it was done with the good intention of attracting public attention to the Gypsies and their problems, is rather suspicious considering the actual effect - funds from abroad coming for the "good-natured " benefactors of the Gypsies, while the negative attitude of Bulgarian society towards Gypsies becomes permanent.
At present it is not easy to outline the tendencies of development of the Roma community‚ in Bulgaria. In most general terms the situation may be summarised as being a disappointment in the present patterns of development and a search for new perspectives. Bitter experience has convinced the Gypsies that the roads tried so far do not lead to actual results, moreover, do not have the potential to ensure the real development of their community. The paternalistic approach of "the good white brothers", which is exactly the same in the activities of the political parties, the State, and the NGO sectors, has placed them in a position of being forever taught and guarded, has destroyed the adaptive mechanisms of the community and in the long run will hinder the natural development of the community. A clear-cut example of the above is that fact that whenever there is an opportunity for independent Gypsy movement or initiatives, such as Euro-Roma or the Framework Programme, the state and the NGOs (with a few exceptions) would use a very lame excuse to unite unanimously against the Gypsies (or refuse to support them. The political parties (and the governments as their derivatives) need the Gypsies as voters, and the NGOs (including those based outside Bulgaria) need a community with problems to care for, protect, defend its rights, etc. However, no one would benefit from the development of a community which will solve (or try to solve) its problems in an independent manner.
It has become clear that the international institutions cannot solve the problems of the Gypsies in the country, and the numerous instances of the "Gypsy industry" sector on various levels (both state and NGO) only confirm this belief. Moreover, the patterns proposed by the West are often inadequate to the situation or lead to the opposite results (as in the examples of Bosnia and Kosovo). The abolishment of restrictions on contacts with Gypsies from abroad shows that the all-Gypsy unity is still only an idea which will take a long time to reach and will become successful if it is based on what the Gypsies have achieved in each country.
It is not easy to say whether the Bulgarian Gypsies will have the strength to take their destiny in their own hands through NGO's or through Political movements, but it is very clear that the idea of such a development already exists and it could hardly be forgotten despite the inevitable disappointments.

back to top

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chankov 1935 - Chankov, Zh. Naselenieto na Bulgaria. [The Population of Bulgaria]. Sofia: Kazanlashka dolina, 1935.
Crowe & Kolsti 1991 - Crowe, D. & Kolsti, J. (eds.) The Gypsies in Eastern Europe. Armonk - New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991.
Crowe 1996 - Crowe, D. A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.
Demografska 1993 - Demografska charakteristika na Bulgaria (rezultati ot 2% izvadka). [Demographical Characteristic of Bulgaria. (results from a 2% sample)]. Sofia: Natsionalen statisticheski institut, 1993.
Dimitrov & Col. 1980 - Dimitrov, D.; Chakalov, B.; Dechev, K.; Georgieva, Iv.; Georgiev, P. Utvarzhdavane na socialisticheskia nachin na zhivot sred bulgarskite grazhdani ot tsiganski proizhod. [The Affirmation of Socialist Life Style among Bulgarian Citizens from Gypsy Origin]. Sofia: CK na BKP, 1980.
Ethnographic Atlas - Ethnographic Atlas of Bulgarians of Gypsy Origin. - Archive of the Central Committee of Bulgarian Communist Party. [unprocessed].
Galabov 1961 - Galabov, G. (ed.) Turski izvori za istoriata na pravoto v balgarskite zemi. [Turkish Sources on History of Law in Bulgarian lands]. Sofia: BAN, 1961.
Genov & Col. 1968 - Genov, D.; Tairov, T. ; Marinov, V. Tsiganskoto naselenie v Bulgaria po patia na socialisma. [The Gypsy Population in Bulgaria on the Way of Socialism]. Sofia: Otechestven Front, 1968.
Georgiev & Col. - Georgiev, Zh.; Tomova, I.; Kanev, K.; Grekova, M. Etnokulturnata situatsia v Bulgaria - 1992. Sociologichesko izsledvane. [Ethnocultural Situation in Bulgaria - 1992. A Sociological study]. [unpublished].
Grevemayer 1998 - Grevemeyer, J.-H. Geschichte als Utopie. Die Roma Bulgariens. Berlin: Parabolis, 1998.
Gilsenbach 1994 - Gilsenbach, R. Weltchronik der Zigeuner. Teil 1: Von der Anfaengen bis 1599. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 1994.
Groves 1996 - Groves, R. "Changing the face of policing in Bulgaria." - In: CPRSI Newsletter, Vol. 2, 1996, # 2, p. 1-3.
Groves 1997 - Groves, R. Developments within policing and the Roma community in Nadejhda, Bulgaria. - In: CPRSI Newsletter, Vol. 3, 1997, # 2, p. 3-5.
Hammer 1834 - Hammer, J. von Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches. Band I-III, Pest, 1834.
Izuchavashti, 1996 - Izuchavashti maychini ezici prez uchebnata 1995/96 godina. [Learners of mother tongues in 1995/96 school year]. Spravka na Ministerstvo na obrazovanieto, naukata i tehnologiite., 1996. Reference of the Ministry of education, sciences and technologies.
Kanitz 1882-1887 - Kanitz, F. Donau Bulgarien und der Balkan. Band I-II. Leipzig, 1882-1887.
Kanchov, V. Makedonia. Etnografia i statistika. [Macedonia. Ethnography and Statistic]. Sofia, 1900.
Kenrick & Puxon 1972 - Kenrick, D. & Puxon, G. The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies. London: Sussex University Press and Chato-Heinemann, 1972.
Kolev 1985 - Kolev, A. Formirane i razvitie na ideyno-politichesko saznanie na balgarskite tsigani. [Formation and Development of Ideological and Political Consciousness of Bulgarian Gypsies]. Sofia: CK na BKP, 1985.
Konceptsia 1994 - Konceptsia za socializatsia na detsa ot romski proizhod v neravnostoyno socialno polozhenie. [A Concept for Socializing Children of Roma Origin with an Unequal Social Status]. Sofia: UNICEF, 1994.
Marushiakova 1992a - Marushiakova, E. "Ethnic Identity Among Gypsy Groups in Bulgaria." - Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society (Ser. 5) 2:2 (1992): 95-116.
Marushiakova 1992b - Marushiakova, E. "Gruppi ed Organizzazioni zingari en Bulgaria e il loro attegiamento verso l'impegno politico." - Lacio Drom 28:1-2 (1992): 51-61.
Marushiakova & Popov 1993a - Marouchiakova, H. & Popov, V., 1993a: "L'attitude des administrations bulgares face au probleme Tsiganes." - Etudes Tsiganes 39:1 (1993): 99-105.
Marushiakova & Popov 1993b - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. "The Gypsies in Bulgaria - History and Present Day." - Roma (Chandigarh) 38 & 39:1 (1993): 50-67.
Marushiakova & Popov 1993c - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Tsiganite v Bulgaria. [Gypsies in Bulgaria]. Sofia: Club '90, 1993.
Marushiakova & Popov 1994 - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. "The Cultural Traditions of the Gypsies in Contemporary Bulgaria and the Attitude of the State and Local Authorities Towards Them." - In: Gypsies in the Locality. Strassbourgh: Council of Europe Press, 1994, pp. 111-116.
Marushiakova & Popov 1997 - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria. Frankfurt am Main-Berlin-Bern-New York-Paris-Wien: Peter Lang, 1997.
Marushiakova & Popov 1997 - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. "Gypsy minority in Bulgaria literacy, policy and community
development (1985-1995)." - Alpha 97. Toronto: Culture Concepts Publishers & Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 1997, pp. 37-56
Marushiakova & Popov 2001 - Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001
Materials - Materials of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party. - Archive of the Central Committee of Bulgarian Communist Party. [unprocessed].
Mihov 1915-1968 - Mihov, N. Naselenieto na Turtsia i Bulgaria prez 18 i 19 vek. Bibliografski izdirvania, sâs statisticheski o etnografski danni. [Population of Turkey and Bulgaria in 18th and 19th century. Bibliographical Surveys, with Statistical and Ethnographical Data]. Tom I-V. Sofia, 1915-1968.
Milanov 1990 - Milanov, P. "V nachaloto be "Egipet"..." [In the Beginning there was "Egypt"...]. - Sofiyski vesti, 05.04.1990.
Rezultati 1994 - Rezultati ot prebroyavaneto na naselenieto. Tom I - Demografski charakteristiki. [The Results from the People Census, Vol. 1 - Demographic Characteristic]. Sofia: Natsionalen statisticheski institut, 1994.
Roma 1997 - "Roma and Forced Migration. An Annotated Bibliography." - In: The Forced Migration Projects. Special Report. Open Society Institute. March 1997.
Sarafov 1893 - Sarafov, M. K.: "Naselenieto na Kniazhestvo Bulgaria po parvite tri prebroyavania." [Population of the Bulgarian Principality According to the First Three Censes]. - Periodichesko spisanie na Bulgarskoto knizhovno druzhestvo, 41-42 (1893): 75-87
Silverman 1986 - Silverman, C. "Bulgarian Gypsies: Adaptation in a Socialist Context." - Nomadic Peoples 21/22 (1986): 51-62.
Silverman 1988 - Silverman, C. "Tsiganes musique et politiques en Bulgarie." - Etudes Tsiganes 34:4 (1988): 14-20.
Silverman 1995 - Silverman, C. "Music, Ideology, and Marginality: The Roma (Gypsies) of Bulgaria and Macedonia." - In: Sobin, M. (ed.) Retuning Culture: Musical Change in Eastern Europe. Duke University Press, 1995, pp. 126-134.
Sklar 1994 - Sklar, M. Doklad za poseshtenieto na rabotnata grupa na Departamenta na truda. [Report on the Visit of the Work Group of the Department of Labour]. Sofia, 1994.
Spravochnik 1995 - Spravochnik. Nepravitelstveni organizatsii v Bulgaria. [Reference-book. Non-governmental Organisations in Bulgaria]. Sofia: Sajuz na balgarskite fondacii i Fondacia Otvoreno obshtestvo, 1995.
Soulis 1961 - Soulis, G. C. "The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the late Middle Age." - Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961): 143-165.
Stojanovski 1974 - Stojanovski, Al. "Romite na Balkanskiot poluostrov." [Gypsies on the Balkan Peninsula]. - Prilozi na Makedonskata Akademia na naukite i umetnostite. (Skopje) 7:1 (1974), pp. 38-44.
Todorov 1972 - Todorov, N. Balkanskiyat grad XV-XIX. Socialno-ikonomichesko i demografsko razvitie. [The Balkan Town. Social, Historical and Demographical Development]. Sofia: BAN, 1972.
Tomova 1995 - Tomova, I. The Gypsies in the Transition Period. Sofia: International Centre for the Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 1995.
Zang 1991 - Zang, T. Destroying Ethnic Identity. The Gypsies of Bulgaria. A Helsinki Watch Report., New York,1991.

Annex
TABLE No. 1

Regional Direction of MI 1989 1992 1992 1992
(former District) (MI) (MI) (Census*) (Census**)
------------------------------
Sofia - the city 38 000 n.a. 10 797 13 902
Sofia - district 14 136 17 077 10 812 11 684
Blagoevgrad 16 100 18 000 7 652 8 216
Burgas 37 894 38 453 16 365 16 120
Varna 20 682 35 000 14 313 17 077
Veliko Târnovo 20 880 n.a. 2 750 7 236
Vidin 15 115 12 000 6 142 7 965
Vratsa 22 160 23 715 9 924 11 927
Gabrovo 5 920 114 2 314 1 585
Dobrich (Tolbuhin) 23 665 18 000 17 210 18 449
Kârdzhali 9 024 9 843 1 562 1 899
Kyustendil 8 463 12 762 6 248 6 057
Lovech 17 746 12 490 5 581 6 384
Montana (Mihailovgrad) 28 813 29 480 8 867 19 079
Pazardzhik 45 705 50 000 22 124 21 810
Pernik 38 6 600 1 604 2 142
Pleven 24 870 27 747 6 559 7 111
Plovdiv 45 333 61 585 24 403 21 139
Razgrad 5 213 16 468 7 639 7 464
Russe 16 306 16 306 8 917 11 934
Silistra 12 826 12 826 4 570 6 519
Sliven 46 491 40 590 17 170 18 183
Smolyan 548 1 225 n.a. 514
Stara Zagora 28 289 38 000 22 309 24 143
Târgovishte 17 035 n.a. 6 487 9 474
Haskovo 13 488 26 100 12 135 14 014
Shumen 20 128 15 823 15 760 14 727
Yambol 11 240 12 762 8 515 6 669
-----------------------------------
Total 576 927 553 466 287 732 313 396

____________________________

* 2% representative sample. [22, 136]
** Final census data. [196, 372-378]

back to top