Search

Asylum is at the core of political discussions in Turkey. The country has rapidly turned into the world’s largest host state in less than a decade, despite a long tradition of excluding non-Western refugees. Existing studies shed light upon the government’s policy choices, which have fluctuated between a generous welcome and a hasty restriction. However, despite declining electoral support towards Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), few studies examine how other political parties approach Syrian refugees. How do different political parties in Turkey frame Syrian refugees and what are the reasons behind alternative framings? A qualitative content analysis on party group speeches between 2011 and 2019 is conducted to answer this research question. Findings indicate that political identities are significant in shaping refugee governance more so than well-established policy choices on the subject matter. Political identities have led to different framings on Syrian refugees by Islamic Neo-Ottomans and secular modernizers, on the one hand, and by Turkish and Kurdish nationalists, on the other. Yet, identity-related explanations also have their limits. The AKP’s Neo-Ottoman embracing of Muslim brothers from former Ottoman territories have faded with changes in the domestic and international context since 2016. The Turkish nationalists, in contrast, toned down their opposition after aligning with the ruling AKP within the new presidential regime introduced in 2018. No sponsor

Whether there is a trade-off between ‘here’ (country of settlement) and ‘there’ (the country of origin) is one of the key political questions and concerns regarding political attitudes and behaviors of immigrant minorities. We take this issue by the horns and study three components of political attitudes and behavior within a transnational framework among Dutch-Turkish citizens in the Netherlands: turnout, political trust and interest, and party choice. The empirical data draws on original exit polls held during the Turkish presidential and parliamentary elections at a polling station in 2014 (n = 791) and in 2015 (n = 456). We find that that gender and country of birth influence electoral participation; social class (working class background as labor migrants) influences voting behavior. While there is a trade-off for political trust and voting behavior, there is no trade-off for political interest. These findings call for a more nuanced approach to transnational political behavior that is attentive to processes of convergence between ‘here’ and ‘there’ and the diversity within migrant groups.

This study investigates the representative patterns of MPs with immigrant backgrounds in the case of the Netherlands. Departing from existing literature on minority representatives, we claim that minority representatives can adopt suppressive, as well as supportive, framings when addressing constituencies with whom they share similar backgrounds. A content analysis was conducted on the parliamentary work of minority representatives to detect which frames those representatives adopt when they address cultural and/or religious rights and liberties. As for explanatory variables, we examined the role of the retreat from multicultural policies in the Netherlands on the one hand and individual and group related variables on the other. Our content analysis reveals no fundamental linear shift towards more suppressive framing during the 2002–2017 period. Minority MPs from progressive parties are more likely to use supportive frames than those MPs from conservative parties. Coming from a Turkish background – the most organized ethnic group with the highest social capital in the country – significantly adds to the likelihood of a supportive form of representation. Gender is another significant variable explaining where minority representatives stand, with male MPs being more inclined to use supportive frames on ethnic and/or religious rights and liberties than female MPs.

No sponsor

The presence of minority representatives is generally discussed along their contributions to ethnic and/or religious minority identities in political arenas. Coming from a politically disadvantaged background, however, might bring further offerings to pluralistic democracies. Minority representatives can challenge a limited understanding of politics that is shaped along the interests of upper-class white men. Groups that have been similarly excluded from political representation mechanisms may build solidarity in making democracies more pluralist (Ceyhan, 2018; Phillips, 1995; Saward, 2006). With similar experiences, it is possible to develop awareness of common problems and to follow inclusive policies towards the traditionally excluded segments in political representation mechanisms (Philips, 1995: 2; Saward, 2006), i.e. the disabled, LGBTI people, the poor, and women. This study asks how often and in what ways do minority MPs address other politically disadvantaged groups. To answer this question, the researchers conduct a content analysis on parliamentary questions posted by minority and non-minority MPs in the Netherlands. The Dutch case has been particularly selected by taking the high number of minority representatives of migratory backgrounds into consideration. In our explanation, we particularly focus on party ideology, gender and ethnic identity as well as the characteristics of disadvantaged groups addressed. No sponsor

International Zeugma Conference On Scientific Research (7. : 2022 : Gaziantep, Turkey) No sponsor

No sponsor

International Mardin Artuklu Scientific Researches Conference (7. : 2021 : Mardin, Turkey) No sponsor

No sponsor

A growing literature in Western Europe investigates the role of immigrant minority politicians in representing voters with whom they share similar backgrounds. However, not much has been said on the possible contributions of those minority representatives in framing other sorts of immigrants. This research examines how Members of the Parliament (MPs) of immigrant minority origin frame asylum related and other kinds of immigration in their parliamentary work. This is a significant research question as it sheds light upon immigration related policy perspectives constructed by those who themselves have immigrant backgrounds. To answer this question, the researcher conducted a content analysis on parliamentary questions posted by MPs with migratory backgrounds. The paper particularly focuses on differences between representatives with migratory backgrounds by considering party ideology, gender and ethnic identity starting from early 2000’s. The qualitative nature of the research allows space to reveal unforeseen (intersections of) explanatory factors. The Dutch case has been particularly selected for its tradition of group representation under the notion of multiculturalism., Batı Avrupa özelinde göçmen kökenli milletvekillerinin kendileri ile benzer geçmişlere sahip seçmenleri temsil etmek noktasındaki rollerini araştıran çalışmalar giderek gelişen bir literatür oluşturmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, göçmen kökenli parlamenterlerin gerek iltica gerekse diğer sebeplerle yaşadıkları ülkelerden farklı ülkelere yönelen yeni göçmenleri hangi çerçeve içinde ele aldıkları henüz üzerinde çok fazla tartışılmamış bir sorun alanı olarak karşımızda durmaktadır. Kendileri göçmen kökenlere sahip milletvekillerinin yeni göçmenleri nasıl bir çerçevede ele aldıkları son derece önemli bir sorudur. Zira, bu sorunun cevaplanması göçmenliği tecrübe etmiş olan kişilerin göç ile ilgili siyasi perspektiflerine ışık tutacaktır. Bu çalışmada, göçmen kökenli milletvekillerinin yeni gelen göçmenlere dair siyasi tercihlerini araştırmak üzere parlamentoya sundukları soru önergeleri üzerinde bir içerik analizi gerçekleştirilmektedir. Makalede parti ideolojisi, cinsiyet ve etnik kimlik faktörlerinin göçmen kökenli milletvekillerinin ortaya koydukları siyasi tercihler üzerindeki etkileri incelenmektedir. Araştırmanın niteliksel doğası, alanın öngörülemeyen (kesişme noktaları) açıklayıcı faktörleri ortaya çıkarmasına izin vermektedir. Hollanda örneği, çok-kültürlülük kavramı altında grup temsil geleneği nedeniyle özellikle seçilmiştir.

Recent literature on discursive opportunities shows broad consensus on the importance of media communication in determining the success of minority mobilization. However, the impact of media discourse on formal forms of political participation is less clear. This article examines to what extent, if any, media coverage on immigrant minorities shapes the parliamentary activities of “minority representatives” in the Netherlands and the UK. We investigate whether salience and tone on minorities have impact on how often and in what ways minority members of parliament address ethnic and/or religious constituencies. To study this relationship between media coverage and parliamentary activity, we conduct two separate content analyses of parliamentary questions and newspapers between 2002 and 2012 in the Netherlands and the UK. Multivariate analyses reveal that a more negative tone in newspaper coverage results in more suppressive framing in the Dutch parliament. Our findings for the British case indicate a negative effect of media salience and minority presence on parliamentary salience. No sponsor

No sponsor

The subject of return has been a salient topic in European public since the migration crisis in 2015. A recent literature addresses the heavy burden put on the shoulders on the EU member states bordering the Mediterranean. Another strand of new studies focuses on outsourcing the unpleasant task of return to neighbouring countries surrounding the “Fortress Europe”. Still, not much has been said on relevant political discussions within the EU. Reasons behind possible variations in framing return remains inconclusive. This paper first identifies patterns in debates on returning forced immigrants in political discussions within the European Parliament. The second part pursues providing nomothetic explanations by immigrants’ group and individual characteristics as well as ideological and national differences of MEPs into account. What are the main issue areas on the topic of return? How are problems defined and what are put forward as policy formulations? What is the role of party group’s ideologies in shaping relevant framings? Do MEPs coming from different countries, or geographical regions, frame asylum differently? Is there a tendency to keep asylum seekers with certain SES, countries, ethnic backgrounds, or sectarian identities while sending some others? To answer these questions, I conduct a qualitative content analysis on the parliamentary questions of MEPs between 2011 and 2019. Parliamentary questions are taken deliberately for enabling more freedom for individual politicians. The nested characteristics of the relevant content will be studied by considering change across important events such as the ‘migration crisis’ in 2015, signing re-admission treaties with neighbouring countries, national elections, international crises, and terrorist attacks. No sponsor