Debating diaspora: Securitization framework and the Turkish state's making of dissent abroad

Abstract

A burgeoning scholarly interest in diaspora governance has recently established that state policies of engagement and mechanisms of control exist simultaneously. While the sending state aims at fostering relations with some groups, it devises strategies to monitor and control some others in diaspora. In explaining this discrepancy, the scholarship points at the heterogeneity in diaspora as well as state perception of political migrants as a security threat due to their role in long-distance opposition. Referring to the legitimacy of the political apparatus in defining their subjects, the literature indicates that migrants are framed as dissent when the political authority classifies them as such. This article contributes to the existing literature by examining how certain diaspora groups are politically constructed as dissent. Using securitization theory as an analytical framework and taking Turkish parliamentary debates (1960–2003) as a case study, this research explores the politics of establishing three major dissent groups in Europe, namely the communists, Islamists, and Kurds. The article shows that based on distinct narratives each category has its own course of construction though at times these processes occur simultaneously. It also demonstrates the agreements and conflicts among political parties over how to frame diaspora groups and the role of symbolic power as a constitutive element in the practice of securitization. Finally, it argues that while securitization rests on the symbolic power of political actors, under certain circumstances they do not need to occupy a position of authority as they can mobilize securitization despite being in the opposition.