Taking part in public policy means being able to influence questions, priorities and decisions. To explore Roma women’s participation, we suggest looking at the space their voices are given and what happens to the contributions they make.
In this article
From being heard to having influence
A meeting may provide time to speak while leaving an important question unanswered: how do those words reach the final decision? We suggest making that journey visible. Knowing what can be decided, who will decide and when a response will follow helps people assess an invitation to participate.
Roma women can have different priorities, backgrounds and opinions. An invitation should therefore explain who it is for, how to take part and what role each participant will have. Participation becomes more valuable when it allows disagreement and questions the institution has not yet considered.
Rromanipe’s areas of work
The projects page presents Roma women and public policy as an area of work seeking influence in policy design, implementation, evaluation and research through participation and mentoring.
It also includes Amare Xakaj, Manuśikane Hakaja, which focuses on Roma women’s and girls’ participation and leadership in city governance. These descriptions document the stated aims. Specific activities, schedules and results should be discussed with the project team.
For context, Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)1, adopted on 5 April 2024, includes a section on Roma and Traveller women’s and girls’ participation in public and political life. It is an institutional recommendation, rather than an evaluation of Rromanipe’s.
Questions for participation that makes a difference
Building on this area of work, we suggest some questions organisations and institutions can use to reflect on the process they offer:
- Which decisions remain open when participants are invited?
- Is information understandable and provided early enough to prepare?
- What difficulties with timing, travel, language or digital access should be discussed and addressed?
- How will proposals be recorded, and who will explain what happens to them?
- Will participants be able to recognise and review the way their contribution has been summarised?
The answers need to be worked out for each process. A clear invitation, an identified contact person and an agreed response can help establish a starting point. Quality also shows in how disagreements are recorded and how the limits of a decision are explained.
Reading “Do not empower me” in context
The opinion article “Do not empower me”, published on 22 May 2024, criticises institutional and structural anti-Roma racism. Reading it with its date preserves the context of the original intervention and distinguishes an opinion piece from updated reporting.
This new text connects it with an editorial question: who defines the needs, and who has the power to change the response? An institution can begin by reviewing the wording of its invitation and asking participants whether the role being offered is sufficiently clear.
The guide to anti-Roma racism in the classroom continues this reflection in education. The 2024 opinion article retains its own voice and place in the archive.
Community voices in culture and memory
Decisions about how an experience is presented also arise in Romani heritage in Gràcia and Rromnjako Seripen. Who receives a credit, who reviews the account and what may be shared are useful questions for recognising each person’s cultural contribution.
To explore the association’s work further, discover its work on participation and rights and ask the team for information. An initial conversation can help clarify the scope of a proposal, who might take part and which next steps could be agreed.
Sources and further reading
Public sources consulted on 17 October 2026. External references retain their original language.