Ch.2 Extraterritorial Authoritarian Practices (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Repertoire of Extraterritorial Repression: Diasporas and Home States
This article scrutinises the extraterritorial repression strategies of contemporary non-democracies, as evidenced by the Turkish Justice and Development Party’s efforts to purge the Gülen Movement globally after the 2016 coup attempt. Adopting “repertoire”, as conceptualised by Charles Tilly, this article explores it in light of “extraterritorial repression,” which includes the diverse skills and tactics mobilised to stifle dissent beyond national borders. This set of repressive measures is further directed at making claims on individuals and movements in the diaspora. By bringing attention to the repressive side of diaspora engagement, this article shows that diasporas are also shaped by repressive policies from their home countries.
Extraterritorial authoritarian practices: a framework
This introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Authoritarian rule of populations abroad’ develops a new theory to better understand how authoritarian rule is exercised over populations abroad and to connect this extraterritorial dimension to the character and resilience of contemporary authoritarian rule. Authoritarian states today have various motivations for tolerating or even sponsoring their population's mobility, and they have learnt to manage and offset the risks population mobility poses to them. The key to understanding the particularities of authoritarian mobility management is that it does not approach its populations, abroad or at home, as citizens with rights. The authoritarian state can adapt to the specific assets and insecurities of populations abroad with policies to include or exclude them as subjects or outlaws, as patriots or traitors, or as clients. The article concludes that authoritarian rule should not be considered a territorially bounded regime type, but rather as a mode of governing people through a distinct set of practices.
Democratization, 2023
Authoritarian regimes do not only target and oppress their opponents at home, they also try to repress dissident diaspora members abroad. The literature on transnational (extraterritorial) repression has shown that authoritarian regimes normally use transnational organs of the state such as intelligence services as part of their usual transnational repression activities. However, since they do not have sovereignty in the countries, their transnational repression has limits. This article argues that loyal diaspora supporters help these regimes as additional repression and violence apparatuses by trying to repress diaspora members from the same country of origin. However, the discursive mechanism behind this phenomenon has not been studied. This study aims to address this gap. Based on the competitive authoritarian Turkish case, it introduces the concept of “transnational securitization” to securitization theory. The article argues that what makes this type of securitization different is that the audience (pro-government Turkish and non-Turkish Muslim diaspora groups) is not only convinced by the securitization narrative that legitimates the use of extraordinary means that are normally undertaken by the state, but takes it upon themselves to carry on the anti-dissident repressive and violent actions. The article contributes to both transnational repression and securitization literatures.
After the 1980 coup that shook Turkey and almost twenty years after the bilateral ‘guest worker’ treaty shifted Germany's demographic make-up, West German policy makers proposed increasingly restrictive regulations on the ‘guest workers’ who had heavily contributed to West Germany's economy. In this crucial historical moment, Turkish-language newspapers, published in West Germany, created a politically motivated extranational public sphere in which they launched claims against both the West German and Turkish states. These claims shaped immigration and integration policy between the two countries, fostered diasporic activism and cross-national religious and political organisations and gave rise to a variety of unexpected organisational outcomes that continue to impact both Germany and the Turkish Republi
Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, 2021
What motivates diasporas to support undemocratic rule in their countries of origin while enjoying democratic freedoms in their countries of settlement? This study adopts a meso-level approach to answer this question, and focuses on the Turkish diaspora in Europe as a case study. Lately, the diaspora governance literature has focused on official diaspora institutions and the policies of countries of origin. This study, alternatively, highlights “diasporic civic space” as an arena entrenching authoritarian practices “at home.” It investigates the conditions under which diasporic civic space can be co-opted by undemocratic countries of origin and the role of “home state oriented diaspora organizations” in this process of co-optation. The study shows that diasporic civic space can offer resources to undemocratic regimes to mobilize previously dormant diaspora communities and create a support base abroad that is driven by nationalism and partisanship. The empirical discussion unveils four factors behind the successful mobilization of diasporas by undemocratic countries of origin: (1) nationalist sentiments among the diaspora; (2) motivations to get a share from the perks that may be meted out by home country government; (3) feelings of insecurity, fear, and marginalization as immigrants; and (4) the desire to assert one’s identity and cultural ties vis-à-vis the majority in countries of settlement. The findings are based on the case of the Turkish diasporic civic space in Europe, which has recently been mobilized by a diaspora organization with political ties to the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Original data are drawn from semi-structured interviews conducted in 2018–2019 with members and representatives of major pro-AKP diaspora organization known as the Union of International Democrats (UID), as well as Alevi, Kurdish, and Islamist/conservative diaspora organizations in Sweden, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Germany. The findings contribute to the understanding of undemocratic home states’ non-coercive and de-territorialized governance practices beyond their borders.
Non-state authoritarianism and diaspora politics
Global Networks, 2020
Diaspora politics has been celebrated as a form of transnationalism that can potentially challenge authoritarian regimes. Arguably, opposition groups and political activists can mobilize beyond the territorial limits of the state, thus bypassing some of the constraints to political organization found in authoritarian states. The literature on transnational and extraterritorial repression complicates this model, for it shows that states can use strategies of 'long-distance authoritarianism' to monitor, intimidate and harass diasporic populations abroad. Yet, non-state actors in the diaspora also sometimes use such repressive strategies to mobilize internally, gain hegemony within the diaspora, and marginalize or eliminate internal rivals. This raises the question of whether such activities can be understood as non-state forms of authoritarianism. Cases of diasporic politics pertaining to Turkey and Sri Lanka are briefly explored with a view to examining how state and non-state forms of trans-national repression can, under some conditions, result in the dynamics of competitive authoritarianism within a diaspora. In such cases, 'ordinary' members of the diaspora may become caught between multiple forms of transnational repression in addition to potentially experiencing marginalization and securitization in their new home.
Surveil, Datafy, Publicize: digital authoritarianism and migration governance in Turkey
Democratization
Scholarly interest in digital authoritarianism has primarily focused on consolidated authoritarian regimes, where digital tools and data are employed for surveillance, repression, propaganda, and manipulation of citizens. This study redefines the scope of digital authoritarianism by examining its role in migration governance and its application beyond fully authoritarian states. It introduces a theoretical framework that examines digital authoritarianism through three key mechanisms: digital surveillance, datafication, and the selective publicization of migration data. Using Turkey as a case study, the empirical analysis highlights the distinct impacts of digital authoritarianism on citizens and non-citizens (i.e. refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants). While non-citizens are targeted by the punitive use of surveillance and datafication, the selective dissemination of migration data serves to manipulate public opinion in a failed policy area. The study then examines the European Union's role in enhancing Turkey’s digital authoritarian capacities. It demonstrates that digital authoritarianism is becoming increasingly transnational, with democracies actively driving and financing its implementation in semi-authoritarian contexts, often circumventing democratic oversight. This study advances the theorization of digital authoritarianism by unpacking its nuanced and cross-border dynamics.
DIASPORA AND SOVEREIGNTY: THREE CASES OF PUBLIC ALARM IN THE NETHERLANDS
Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 2009
Studies in transnationalism raise the expectation that new forms of ‘flexible citizenship’ will attune the frozen world of territorial sovereignties and citizenship to the reality of global migration and borderless business. In the Netherlands, however, the focus of the integration debate has recently shifted to an affirmation of sovereignty. Three cases in which ethnic minorities in the Netherlands were exposed to (possible) action from their homelands (Turkey and Morocco) elicited political discussion in which dual citizenship and transnational political influence were rejected. We conclude that a changed policy of homeland governments (diaspora engagement) is not the most likely explanation of the public excitement. The new sovereignty discourse fits into a neo-nationalist trend but may also be explained as a way to contain the unpredictable effects of the sustained multiculturalism underlying Dutch policy toward migrant communities.