Public discourse in the ethnic relations field in Poland - institutional and cultural constraints
- Autores: Joanna Jasiewicz
- Directores de la Tesis: Juan Díez Medrano (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat de Barcelona ( España ) en 2010
- Idioma: español
- Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Christian Joppke (presid.), Jacint Jordana Casajuana (secret.), Ruud Koopmans (voc.)
- Materias:
- Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
- Resumen
What are the patterns of public activism in the Polish ethnic relations field? How does one explain the rise of ethnic minority claims in Poland's public sphere since the end of Communism? What factors underlie contrasts in the extent to which ethnic minorities have taken advantage of new political opportunities? This dissertation demonstrates that institutions and transnational networks underlie trends in ethnic minority mobilization in the public sphere. Institutional transformations triggered by the fall of the Iron Curtain and by Poland's integration in the European Union opened ethnic issues to public debate and generated a rise in ethnic and national minority activism in the domestic public arena. The character of the transnational networks in which ethnic minorities were embedded played a role, however, in the extent to which Poland's minorities seized on the new political opportunities. In order to address the questions above, this dissertation has examined publicized claims on ethnic issues over thirteen years, from the early 1990s to 2006.
With the end of the Cold War in 1989, Poland entered a new chapter in its long and convoluted history. Under communist rule it parted ways with Western countries, ignoring the ethnic groups' political aspirations and, often, their mere existence. Minorities were made subject to repression whenever their political, social and cultural activities fell out of line with the communist government's policies. Since state authorities forced a nationally homogeneous vision on Poland, there was no room for minority claims in the public sphere. The revolutionary political, economic and social change that began in 1989 with the Round Table negotiations exerted a profound impact on the situation of ethnic groups and on society at large. The state started to view minorities as legitimate political actors with a right to put forward public demands. This dissertation shows that ethnic and national minorities eagerly seized on the new opportunities offered by the democratic transition and Poland's aspiration to become part of the European Union. Ethnic groups have become very active in the Polish public sphere, demonstrating their will to shape political debate on ethnic issues in Poland. As chapter 3 reveals, ethnic and national minority claims account for about 44% of all claims in the field of ethnic relations. Not surprisingly, the minorities' main adversaries in the debate on ethnic questions are the state representatives. Public authorities and minority members entered into lengthy negotiations on such diverse political questions as electoral legislation, the 2002 national census, the state's territorial organization, or monuments commemorating minority histories.
My explanation rests on theories that suggest that institutional and cultural context formal and informal norms, traditions, customs, national myths, narratives and stereotypes shape the opportunities of action in the public sphere and the cognitive processes that lead to this action. Chapter 1 describes the theoretical and methodological tools I use in order to examine public discourse in the ethnic relations field and national and ethnic minority publicized claims in particular. The new institutionalist, political opportunity structure and framing approaches have proved to be useful instruments for the examination of publicized claims. They complement one another in their focus on both the purely formal, material aspects of institutions and their cultural dimensions. Chapter 1 argues that Poland is a suitable case study when examining the role of institutions and networks in the explanation of ethnic mobilization because during the period under study Poland underwent radical political transformations out of Communism and was preparing for entry in the EU. The EU, in particular, introduced minority rights in the political agenda and made EU membership conditional on implementing provisions on minority protection. At the same time, Chapter 1 stresses that Poland's large number of ethnic and national groups enables rich comparisons that can illuminate the study of public mobilization by ethnic minorities.
Chapter 2 describes Poland's ethnic structure, with a special focus on the German and Ukrainian minorities. It also discusses the domestic and supranational environment in which public debate between minorities and state authorities took place. I argue that the domestic and supranational regulatory framework that refers to minority rights defines opportunities for action available to claimants in Poland. I also point out that the European Union and supranational organizations have exerted a subtler impact on the ethnic minorities' opportunities for mobilization than one would expect. The EU conditionality's direct impact, for instance, has been rather limited because it leaves room for flexible interpretation and because of interference of domestic factors. Pressure by supranational organizations, including the EU, however, enhanced the resonance of the minority question in the Polish public sphere. In other words, supranational institutions have certified (Tarrow 2005) ethnic minorities and their claims. Also, the European Union and other supranational organizations, by recognizing and openly endorsing minority rights, have predisposed the ethnic minorities toward them. Chapter 4 shows indeed that the valence of ethnic and national minority claims toward these organizations is clearly positive.
Ethnic and national minority representatives and state authorities have taken advantage of global framing (Tarrow 2005) and provided their claims with a supranational scope. My analysis shows that although supranational claims do appear in Poland, they are to a great extent domestically oriented and directed at national addressees. Thus, in Poland, similar to other European countries, national discussions on European and supranational themes hardly ever involve supranational or European actors. The empirical evidence suggests that Europe does not play the role that many scholars assumed it would play. Domestic mass-media, in my case a national broadsheet, rarely gives voice to supranational and European claimants. More importantly, however, Polish claimants do not see the point in addressing supranational constituencies. This finding is consistent with Statham's and Koopmans's analysis of migrant organizations' mobilization and contradicts Soysal's postnational thesis. Interestingly, ethnic and national minorities do not back up their claims with references to supranational legislation. In chapter 4 I argue that this does not mean that that they are not empowered by supranational institutions. On the contrary, ethnic and national groups take advantage of ideas and concepts related to Europe, European organizations, and supranational institutions. I have emphasized that it is the European and supranational organizational setting as a whole that has empowered ethnic and national groups. Minorities have seized on the fact that their publicized claims resonate with the supranational institutional framework. As Olzak argues, while international non-governmental organizations engage in human rights, rural development, education, health, and other fields, these organizations also indirectly endorse principles of sovereignty and ethnic rights. To the extent that these global ideologies become relevant to local realities, intergroup conflict, protest, or anti-state activity occurs (2006:217). In Poland, the European Union and other supranational organizations have been the carriers of the ideology on human and minority rights. Thanks to pressuring Poland into adopting anti-discrimination principles, these organizations changed the salience of minority rights in the Polish public sphere and have certified their right to raise political demands publicly.
Supranational legislation has created a favorable environment for ethnic groups, but it does not account for different levels of participation by ethnic and national minorities in the Polish public sphere. Chapter 5 reveals that Germans put forward relatively fewer claims in the public arena than did Ukrainians. The extent to which minority groups participate in organized activities beyond the borders of Poland has had an impact on their predisposition and ability to participate in public debates over minority rights. Chapter 5 proposes a key conceptual and analytical contrast between transnational lives and transnational ties. Many common German minority members lead transnational lives, commuting between Poland and Germany to improve their economic situation. The German's transnational network ties with minority organizations abroad and with European organizations are scarce. Meanwhile, Ukrainians rarely engage in economic cross-border activities, but their umbrella organization - The Association of Ukrainians in Poland has forged a wide network of ties with organizations established by Ukrainians abroad, associations that group different minorities, and with supranational institutions such as the OSCE and the Council of Europe. Careful analysis of the German and Ukrainian network ties lends credibility to the argument that transnational organizational ties provide access to different sorts of capital otherwise unavailable to ethnic groups and thus empower them to break free from the constraints set by the nation-state. I conclude that material factors do not explain the differences in the participation levels of Germans and Ukrainians in the Polish public sphere. Instead, cognitive resources, limited in the German movement but abundant in the Ukrainian movement can significantly impact on a group's level of mobilization in the public sphere.
Chapter 5 finally shows that the content of public debate on minority rights is strongly influenced by the discursive opportunity structures. National history and culture shape the likelihood that some topics and not others be raised in this debate. Interestingly, linguistic rights delimit the boundaries of legitimate action within the ethnic relations field in Poland. The use of minority languages as an auxiliary ones in contacts with public authorities and topographic double-naming are highly contentious issues in Poland.
This dissertation has begun to examine the interplay of institutions and transnational networks. This issue has not yet been addressed systematically in the literature. Against the new institutionalism's emphasis on the institutions' constraining power, I show that participation in network ties that reach beyond nation-states' frontiers enable actors to access cultural and institutional resources unavailable to groups whose main field of activity is domestic ground. The findings call for further inquiry into the complex interface between institutions and networks in order to specify the conditions under which links that provide access to cognitive resources develop. The literature on transnationalism, institutions, and European integration would be enriched by studies that examine this question and illuminate the role that different types of transnational network ties have in fostering civil society's mobilization. Another promising path of future research would be to move beyond the study of the direct effects of institutions into their more indirect, symbolic, ones. Comparative studies could thus be designed that analyze, for instance, how institutions can become resources not only because of their content but also because of what they symbolize or have been constructed to stand for.
