I will therefore use the more neutral terms of political inclusion. 4 These dynamics are often framed by scholars in terms of “political integration” (Bauböck et al. 2006 Giugni and Morales 2011 Hellgren 2015 Penninx and Garcés-Mascareñas 2016), but the concept tends to convey the idea of a passive process of conforming to a political status quo which runs counter to the article’s objective of studying the modalities of assertion of migrants as political agents in their country of settlement, whereby they contribute to the political evolution of their host-society as much as the host-society influences their own political trajectory.
By political inclusion, in this article I do not refer to the provision of political rights and opportunities to immigrants by the host-society, but to the socialization of migrants to political norms and causes encountered in their host-country 3 and to their participation in the political affairs of that host-country. 2 Beyond this strategic dimension, the issue of the relations between diaspora politics and migrants’ broader political inclusion in their country of settlement is rarely addressed. 4 This includes any form of political participation, in elections but also in social movements or int (.)ġ While numerous authors have looked at the relation between “diaspora politics” 1 and the political environment of migrants’ host-countries, they have mostly focused on the strategic adaptation of diaspora activists to their immediate political context (see for instance Østergaard-Nielsen 2003 Massicard 2007, 2013 Koinova 2010, 2011 Baser 2015 Sökefeld 2016 Orjuela 2018).3 The content of these norms and causes, which can be dominant or marginal in the host-society, does (.).2 Koinova for instance showed that diaspora activists engaged in separatist struggles tend to strateg (.).
1 The concept of “diaspora politics” refers to the engagement of migrants and their descendants in th (.).The case of Tamil diaspora politics shows that the modalities of incorporation of diaspora activists into host-country politics can be a major stake for them, leading to thorough reflections about their role as migrant political actors, to deep disagreements between various poles of a diasporic field, and to diverse pathways of insertion in the host-country political arena.
While LTTE diasporic associations promoted a form of political inclusion which did not challenge the primacy of the Tamil cause, independent diasporic groups incorporated external ideological influences in their conception of the Tamil struggle and merged their homeland-oriented activism with a broader engagement in host-country politics. But the articulation of a homeland-oriented struggle with the broader political participation of migrants has been a highly contentious issue in the diasporic political field, some activists seeing in these dynamics a risk of co-optation and dilution of the Tamil cause. Tamil diaspora political mobilization against the Sri Lankan government shows that, contrary to a commonly held view, migrants’ transnational political engagement can be a vector, rather than an obstacle, to their political inclusion in their country of settlement.
0 kommentar(er)
