Constituting and politicizing Turkish ethnicity in Southeast Europe: An institutionalist approach to

1
Constituting and politicizing Turkish ethnicity
in Southeast Europe An institutionalist
approach to minority politics in the
post-communist and European context

• Dia Anagnostou

2
Objectives

• To understand and explain the politics of ethnic
  minorities that emerged in Central-East and
  Southeast Europe in the post-1989 period
• Studies have established the role of
  political-elite construction and structural
  factors in the politicization of ethnic identity,
  
• Yet, we still have an insufficient understanding
  of the underlying social-cultural preconditions
  and dynamics of contemporary ethnic identity.
• How did minority nationalist movements emerge in
  1989, and what where the social bases from which
  they drew? Why did nationalist ideas resonate at
  the juncture of regime transition and why do they
  continue to be embraced by communities?

3
Theoretical underpinnings

• Elite-driven constructivist analyses historical
  institutionalist approach than traces how state
  institutions and the context of strategic
  interaction that they provide over time lead
  rationally-motivated leaders to vest a strong
  interest into politicizing nationalism and
  diffusing it among the society at large.
• But, what is the nature of ethnic belonging, how
  is it forged and reproduced, why does it resonate
  among the community at large? This is a central
  interest of this paper.
• Ethnic belonging constructed and can be
  politically available but not overnight or in a
  short period of time more entrenched but also
  more ordinary pass a certain point it may
  acquire a force of its own that constraints how
  leaders act and the political strategies that
  they employ.

4

5
Case studies Greece and BulgariaTurkish
minority politicization

• What factors account for and contributed to the
  transformation from Muslim religious communities
  to ethnic Turkish minorities in the post-World
  War II period, as well as to its politicization
  on such basis?
• What are the ties and practices that constitute
  Turkish collective solidarity and identity?
• What explains different ethnic political
  strategies of Turkish minorities in the two
  countries?

6
Ethnicity

• Culturalist perspective?
• Ethnic belonging dense clusters of practices
  that develop over time within specific
  institutional contexts, and which tightly
  intermesh cultural ties and social-economic
  interests in important areas of social action.
• Historical institutionalism institutions shape
  both interests and identities through
  historically distinctive processes that are
  path-dependent.
• Path dependence the same political-economic
  forces do not necessarily generate similar
  results everywhere, but the effects of such
  forces are distinctly mediated and shaped by the
  specific national context of a given situation
  and they can often have unintended consequences.
• Sociological institutionalism institutions
  influence individual and collective behaviour not
  only by shaping their interests and frame of
  strategic interaction, but also by constituting
  their identity.

7
Greece

• Post-World War period extensive
  institutionalization of transborder political,
  cultural and economic links between motherland
  Turkey and the minority, thoroughly defined its
  economic interests, educational opportunities,
  and political orientations.
• The leadership of ethnic Turkish nationalism that
  appeared in Thrace in the 1980s, as well as the
  far-reaching communal support that it commands
  are shaped by and reproduced through these
  transborder ties and practices,
• It is no accident that contemporary minority
  politics centres around the demand for official
  recognition of its ethnic Turkish character, and
  its political strategy is thoroughly shaped by
  advocacy provided by the kin-state.

8
Bulgaria

• State socialism (can be can be said to apply to
  other states of the region, like Romania and
  Slovakia) created an indigenous ethnic Turkish
  elite and an educated strata among the minority.
• Despite a number of immigration waves from
  Bulgaria to Turkey in the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s,
  the political leadership that emerged in the late
  1980s was domestically educated and formed.
• It is no accident that its strategy since then
  has been to operate through and thoroughly
  utilize national parliamentary and government
  institutions in pursuit of minority interests.
• Well-integrated and widely supported ethnic
  parties of the sort have emerged as dominant
  actors across Eastern Europe and have so far
  prevailed over more radical segments that have
  mounted nationalist challenges outside state
  institutions.

9
In conclusion

• Constructivist analyses of ethnic politicization
  expose how political leaders chose to appropriate
  symbols and grievances in order to frame problems
  in ethnic terms.
• Yet, they are less revealing about why such a
  strategy resonates more or less among the society
  and why ethnic belonging is readily available to
  be politically mobilized.
• The mobilizational potential of ethnicity is
  decisively shaped by a) preconditions such as a
  pool of minority leaders, activists and a
  cultural intelligentsia, and b) a deeper
  collective solidarity based not necessarily on a
  consciously held ethnic-cultural identity but on
  institutionalized practices and
  community-dependent strategies of action that
  define how individuals routinely act in important
  spheres of their life such as economy and
  education.
• These factors not only elucidate why ethnicity is
  politically available and potentially resonant
  but they also influence the kind of ethnic
  politics and nationalist strategies that emerge.