The London School of Economics and Political Science Shifting Paradigms: Null Remedies for National Minorities From Civic Egalitarianism to Ethnic Multiculturalism A Context Sensitive Approach By Durukan Kuzu A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics and Political Science for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. London, October 2013. Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work. The part entitled 5.1.3 Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism (pp.150-170) in this thesis is a result of my previous study towards the MSc. degree in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The same piece was also published by the Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorization does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 97,254 words Statement of use of third party for editorial help I confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Ellie Knott and Kristin Hissong. 2 Abstract National minorities, who claim autonomy and self-government rights, have always been a controversial problem in the fields of international law, political theory and nationalism. Multiculturalism and egalitarianism are two approaches that have long been discussed in all of these fields and implemented in various contexts. The success of policies that seem to be associated with these two approaches, however, has varied from one case to another. This study asks if failures of these approaches have anything to do with the contexts in which they take place. If so, what is the context in which these approaches prove to be futile? Theorists themselves explain aspects of an ideal context under which their theories can become fruitful. These ideal contexts and circumstances are, however, unrealistic; and their assumptions about the nature of social relationships do not always correspond with the reality. This study aims to find a more reliable criterion to assess the applicability of multiculturalism and egalitarianism. The thesis explains the relationship between national minorities and the state through a phenomenological paradigm. In this paradigm national minorities, the thesis argues, vary according to the state nationalisms they have experienced in the past. The thesis analyses the relational nature of minority and state nationalisms from this inter-subjective perspective. Within this framework, this study posits the hypothesis that multiculturalism and egalitarianism cannot produce viable solutions to the problems of national minorities who were persistently exposed to the policies of forced assimilation and civic state nationalism. The study reveals that a certain strand of multiculturalism that is ethnocentric cannot come to terms with such national minorities under the integrationist civic state nationalism because, from an inter-subjective perspective, the boundaries between the majority and the minority communities in this context are more fluid and diverse than they would otherwise have been. In such cases, resorting to ethno-centric multiculturalism and promoting the ‘authentic’ ethnic identities hampers the very diversity it seeks to promote. The thesis suggests that difference- blind egalitarianism is equally problematic in such cases because it cannot come to terms with the systematic injustice and the concomitant conflict that the policies of forced assimilation have created. As such its implementation weakens the very equality it seeks to promote. In order to explore and test this hypothesis, the dissertation makes use of a single in-depth case study of Turkey. In the period of candidacy for accession to the EU, Turkey is currently experimenting with ethno- centric multiculturalism to accommodate its Kurdish population more equitably. In Turkey, however, neither the contemporary discourse of ethno-centric multiculturalism nor the historical implementation of difference-blind egalitarianism seems to be a viable option from a liberal perspective. Observing the reasons for this failure enables the reader to develop a new insight to identify the cases where those theoretical perspectives could be more successful. Mindful of the fact that generalizing from a single case study is difficult, the case of Turkey will also be situated within a study of comparative cases to test the consistency of the hypothesis in this dissertation. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Chandran Kukathas and John Hutchinson, for their guidance and unfaltering support. I consider it a great privilege to have been taught by these two exceptional scholars. At LSE I have had the pleasure of working alongside a number of incredibly thought provoking individuals. I have learnt a lot from all participants at the Political Theory Workshops in my first year and the Nationalism and Ethnicity Workshops over the past four years at LSE. I thank them all for the intellectual stimulation they have offered. I would also like to thank everyone at the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism for giving me the opportunity to work with the most distinguished scholars in the field. The first part of the chapter 5 of this thesis was published by the Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe. I thank the journal’s anonymous referees for their helpful comments. I am also grateful to the LSE and Government Department for their generous financial support. I would like to thank my mother Elcin Ceyran and my brother Volkan Yakin, for their love and unwavering support. I also cannot thank David McNeil enough for his encouragement and affection. He gave me the hope I needed to finalize this thesis over the past year. It is to my family and David that this thesis is dedicated. 4 1 List of Charts Chart 1: What do you think your ethnic origin is? (141) Chart 2: What’s your mother tongue? (141) Chart 3: Kurdish Frequency Chart in Hurriyet Newspaper 1997-2011. (145) Chart 4: Ratio of Kurds to Others by Region (156) Chart 5: Distribution of Kurds by Region (156) Chart 6: How does the Turkish school anthem make you feel? (178) Chart 7: What do you understand and expect from education in mother tongue? (179) Chart 8: Can you live your identity freely? (180) Chart 9: Distribution of groups by income (180) Chart10: Education by ethnicity (182) Chart11: Perception of Discrimination and Level of Education (183) Chart12: What should be the primary action to take as to make the Kurds happy? (184) Chart13: PKK Conflict Graphic 2000-2012 (195) List of Tables Table 1: Regional tendency of the Kurds to move away for good (158) Table 2: Population by native language in 2006 (163) Table 3: Flanders and Wallonia Relative Weigh in Economy (Row percentages) (214) List of Figures Figure 1: Turkey Map by Region (157) Figure 2: Socio-economic Development of Regions in Turkey (169) 1 The information used for all Charts except Chart 3 and Chart 13 was retrieved from Konda 2010 Survey Research conducted with more than 10,393 people from 59 cities, 374 boroughs, and 902 villages in Turkey. KONDA (2011) A Survey on Social Structure: Perceptions and Expectations in the Kurdish Question. Istanbul: IIetisim. All source references for other tables, charts and figures are indicated in the text. 5 Contents Abstract__________________________________________________________________3 List of Charts ______________________________________________________________ 4 List of Tables ______________________________________________________________ 5 List of Figures______________________________________________________________ 5 Chapter 1: Introduction _____________________________________________________ 8 1.1 Applied Political Theory and Political Sociology of National Minorities ____________ 15 1.2 Hypothesis __________________________________________________________ 21 1.3 Contextualization and Empirical Case Study ________________________________ 22 1.4 Data Collection and Analysis ____________________________________________ 24 1.5 A Comparative Perspective _____________________________________________ 25 1.6 Thesis Structure______________________________________________________ 26 Chapter 2: Civic-Ethnic State Nationalisms and National Minorities _______________ 31 2.1 The Civic-Ethnic Dichotomy: False Opposites?______________________________ 32 2.1.1 The Conceptual Critique____________________________________________ 34 2.1.2 The Empirical Critique _____________________________________________ 35 2.2. From Understanding Nations to Analysing Nationalisms ______________________ 36 2.3 The Civic–Ethnic Dichotomy as an Independent Variable ______________________ 39 2.4 National Minorities under Civic and Ethnic State Nationalisms __________________ 43 2.5 What Does It Have to Do With Political Theory? _____________________________ 50 2.6 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 55 Chapter 3: A Context-Sensitive Approach to Egalitarianism and Multiculturalism____57 3.1 Theoretical Background ________________________________________________ 58 3.1.1 Political Liberalism and Civic Nationalism ______________________________