Search results

This report examines the media scene in Hungary and how it serves as a tool of radicalisation. It traces mediatisation of certain events that we call first migration related and second cultural legacies related radicalisation and follows the depiction of these issues both in legacy and social media. We interpret such two mechanisms as resonators of micro events to reach macro audiences. In the first instance, the issue relates to what appears as a racially incited attack by a tv camerawoman against an irregular migrant that happens to cross the Hungarian-Serbian border and enter Hungary. In the second instance, we review the general cultural scene in Hungary in order to depict more specifically how certain legacies are circulated and presented for general public consumption. In this instance, we depart from the politicisation of theatre and its consideration as a particular reflection of Hungarian national culture. We delineate more general cultural memes that replicate existing historical legacies in order to maintain theatre in particular and culture in general as pinnacles of keeping historical grievances alive and polarising the society along the themes that continue to serve as a currency of radicalisation. The conclusion wraps up our discussion as to why culture as a topic of research relates to understand the relationship between I-GAP spectrum as an instrument of radicalisation.

This report reviews the unfolding of the future of Europe and external migration related narratives in Hungary, and the liberal/conservative dilemmas that Hungarian politicians proposed since 2015. Its particular scope is the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speeches and how they were quoted by or referred to in the Hungarian media. The abrupt increase in the number of irregular migrant arrivals to Hungary prepared the conditions for Orbán to project the course that he foresaw for the conservative transformation for Hungary to transform Europe. After his victory in 2010 and 2014 at Hungarian general elections, Orbán presented his country as the vanguard for the conservative transformation that Europe also needed. In this respect, external migration from those countries where Islam was the majority religion presented Orbán the context whereby he could project the historical other for Europe as the future danger. The report is empirically focused first and foremost on Viktor Orbán's speeches regarding external migration and Europe; introduce quotations from 25 speeches extracted from mostly Orbán's as well as other Fidesz politicians. The report also looks at the conservative (Magyar Hírlap), centrist (hvg.hu), and liberal (Népszava) media outlets in Hungary in order to see how they have embedded narratives, slogans and tropes from these speeches.

This report reviews the unfolding of the future of Europe and external migration related narratives in Hungary, and the liberal/conservative dilemmas that Hungarian politicians proposed since 2015. Its particular scope is the Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's speeches and how they were quoted by or referred to in the Hungarian media. The abrupt increase in the number of irregular migrant arrivals to Hungary prepared the conditions for Orbán to project the course that he foresaw for the conservative transformation for Hungary to transform Europe. After his victory in 2010 and 2014 at Hungarian general elections, Orbán presented his country as the vanguard for the conservative transformation that Europe also needed. In this respect, external migration from those countries where Islam was the majority religion presented Orbán the context whereby he could project the historical other for Europe as the future danger. The report is empirically focused first and foremost on Viktor Orbán's speeches regarding external migration and Europe; introduce quotations from 25 speeches extracted from mostly Orbán's as well as other Fidesz politicians. The report also looks at the conservative (Magyar Hírlap), centrist (hvg.hu), and liberal (Népszava) media outlets in Hungary in order to see how they have embedded narratives, slogans and tropes from these speeches.

AbstractThis article shows how similar humanitarian narratives of states can travel across different geographies in response to refugee crises. Empirically, it follows Turkey's position vis-à-vis the Syrian and Rohingya refugee crises. Considering Turkey's migration management practices, humanitarian activism narrative, and its political ambition to foster domestic and international audiences for this narrative, this article elaborates on how Turkey has become a humanitarian actor responding both to Syrian and the Rohingya crises. In both cases, the Turkish political discourses have been very resonant of each other, despite Syria and Myanmar being in different geographies and proximities to Turkey. The article also shows how Turkish politicians and the civil servants aspired to enhance visibility and credibility of Turkey as a humanitarian actor. Delineating Turkey's humanitarian narrative shows the role of political agency in forging sympathetic domestic and international audiences. Overall, the Turkish case presents how states operate migration regimes at the cusp of discourses and institutions affecting their forced migration management and humanitarian engagements.

This article shows how similar humanitarian narratives of states can travel across different geographies in response to refugee crises. Empirically, it follows Turkey's position vis-à-vis the Syrian and Rohingya refugee crises. Considering Turkey's migration management practices, humanitarian activism narrative, and its political ambition to foster domestic and international audiences for this narrative, this article elaborates on how Turkey has become a humanitarian actor responding both to Syrian and the Rohingya crises. In both cases, the Turkish political discourses have been very resonant of each other, despite Syria and Myanmar being in different geographies and proximities to Turkey. The article also shows how Turkish politicians and the civil servants aspired to enhance visibility and credibility of Turkey as a humanitarian actor. Delineating Turkey's humanitarian narrative shows the role of political agency in forging sympathetic domestic and international audiences. Overall, the Turkish case presents how states operate migration regimes at the cusp of discourses and institutions affecting their forced migration management and humanitarian engagements.

This article deals with the political responses of the Turkish Republic when faced with incursions of refugees from its neighboring countries forced to migrate due to conflicts. It develops a general argument that the restrictive Turkish asylum regime and averse Turkish public philosophy to immigration have enforced political authorities to continuously resort to discursive rather than institutionalized means to handle impacts of forced migration. Responding to increasing cases of forced migration and the resulting influx of refugees from the bordering countries, therefore, the Turkish political authorities have pursued selective policy responses resting on narratives. Via strategic discourses, these narratives have expressively embedded the Syrian as an "acceptable refugee" in political responses to forced migration. The acceptable refugee in this instance is the one that implies historical and social responsibilities for Turkey, given its history. The outcome is the discursive construction of some as acceptable rather than extending institutionalized refugee rights for all.

This article scrutinizes how the Syrian crisis affects the management of Turkey's refugee regime. It also analyses how the Turkish government has treated the Syrian refugees preferentially in comparison to refugees of other nationalities. The article illustrates that the current Turkish humanitarian assistance to refugees is selective, and it predominantly welcomes those that have religiously, ethnically and politically acceptable backgrounds to the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party) ideology in government. This attitude is merely in line with the selective application of what remains as the anomaly of the Turkish asylum regime, that is, it limits itself to accepting asylum applications only from European nationals. This geographical limitation dates from the time when Turkey adopted the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees in 1961, while having published a declaration that it would admit only aliens coming from Europe due to the geographical region in which Turkey is located. Non-European asylum seekers who qualify for the internationally accepted 'refugee' definition are granted the right of temporary asylum (Asylum and Migration Legislation, 2005, pp. 13-14) in Turkey, while the UNHCR deals with their cases to find a country of settlement. This process can take years in many instances, and these refugees can neither leave their places of temporary residence nor be afforded any employment rights while waiting.