The Inclusion and Exclusion of Minorities in European Countries: A Comparative Analysis at the Local Level
| Published date | 01 September 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852304046201 |
| Author | Berry Tholen,Michiel S. de Vries |
| Date | 01 September 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
The inclusion and exclusion of minorities in European
countries: a comparative analysis at the local level
Berry Tholen and Michiel S. de Vries
Abstract
Facing the reality of groups in Europe being in effect socially and politically
marginalized, this article asks how the political inclusion of minorities is and should
be established at the local level. First, a model is developed building on normative
theories of political inclusion. This points to the importance of two dimensions of
inclusion and exclusion, namely the possibility of direct participation and the grant-
ing of (special) rights to minorities. In order to test the relevance of the model data
based on a survey among approximately 5000 members of the local élite in East
and West European countries are analysed. The conclusion is that most local
officials in East and Western Europe are remarkably unwilling to allow for special
participatory arrangements or special rights. A difference between the old and
new democracies in Europe as to the propensities towards possible democratic
arrangements is revealed. In the old democracies, local élites are more positive as
to general participatory arrangements, whereas the élites in the new democracies
are more inclined to grant minorities the right to organize and institutionalize.
Further analysis indicates that the differences found cannot be explained in terms
of individual traits. Moral and cultural values and structural circumstances seem to
be dominant factors. The relative stability of such factors suggests that we cannot
be optimistic about the development of more inclusive arrangements on behalf of
those that now seem to be systematically excluded.
Introduction
In many European countries, wealth is divided unequally. This not only refers to
financial wealth but also to social wealth. Some groups seem to be systematically
excluded. This applies especially to (ethnic) minorities. Notwithstanding the existence
B. Tholen and M.S. de Vries are in the Department of Public Administration, Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Copyright © 2004 IIAS, SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)
Vol 70(3):455–476 [DOI:10.1177/0020852304046201]
456 International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(3)
of laws that treat everyone equally, the democratic rights and inclusion of minorities
in decision-making processes are often lacking. This presents an increasingly impor-
tant problem, because in recent decades, partly because of globalization processes
but especially because of the political turmoil all around the world, almost every
country in Europe has witnessed a growth in the number of immigrants. This has
created what some have called the fourth world, i.e. black holes in affluent capitalist
societies, because these people are often poor and deprived of democratic rights
(Castells, 1996).
Nevertheless, a major part of the studies into the phenomenon of migration is not
directed at the impact thereof on the position of the minorities but is framed into a
more general debate about the position of the (mostly West European) states. They
study the hollowing out of the state, i.e. the loss of sovereignty over a specific terri-
tory by government because of, among others, international migration (Guiraudon,
2001). Another part of the studies into international migration focuses on the discur-
sive and institutional aspects thereof. Its impact on the national culture, discussions
about integration and segregation and law-making to limit the influx of immigrants
and to restrict their rights.
International comparative research into the consequences of international migra-
tion for the minorities themselves has only recently entered the stage. Most of it
notably focuses on the role of national states: the arrangements and regulations
providing opportunities and restraints for minorities made at national level. Such
arrangements and regulations are often explained in terms of cultural differences in
national identity and the meaning of citizenship in different countries (Soysal, 1994;
Brubaker, 1996). Sometimes differences in national conceptions concerning the
proper path leading to full citizenship are examined (Favell, 1998). National political
opportunity structures are also seen as explanatory for the position of minority
groups (Geddes and Favell, 1999; Joppke, 1999).
On the arrangements at the local level and also on the perspectives élites in local
administrations have, the research is remarkably silent. In fact, we know very little
about the opportunities and restrictions of minorities in different countries regarding
involvement in processes about decisions that directly influence their own lives. This
article tries to fill this gap. It asks how political inclusion of minorities is and should be
established at the local level.
In order to answer this question, this article first goes into the recent wave of new
theories about democratic practices: theories under such headings as deliberative
democracy, republicanism, neo-corporatism, associationism, politics of recognition,
etc. These theories give answers to the question of how to avoid the exclusion of
minorities. In these theoretical debates, it is not just the outcome of democratic
processes, in terms of public participation or representative democracy, that is promi-
nent but, in particular, the building of institutional arrangements for the weaker
groups in society in order to create structural conditions for the inclusion of these
groups.
These new lines of reasoning point to two dimensions of inclusion and exclusion,
namely the possibility of direct participation and the granting of (special) rights. This
recent theoretical discourse will be described first. The resulting outline will structure
the empirical second part of this article.
Tholen and de Vries The inclusion and exclusion of minorities 457
The theoretical part will show that there are four views on social inclusion and
exclusion. In the first, neither direct participation nor special arrangements for minori-
ties is created, this being the view of simple representative democracy. Minorities
have to join existing channels and organizations and are represented by the political
élite. Second, there can be direct participation between the members of the local
élite and individuals but there are no special arrangements for the organization of
ethnic minorities, this being the proposal for deliberative democratic procedures.
Third, there can be special organizations and arrangements for minorities and par-
ticipation occurs through those organizations, which is basically a form of so-called
representation of difference. The last model is that of the separate organization of
minorities and practices of direct participation, i.e. the full associational model of
democracy.
After these four models have been sketched, the article continues with a descrip-
tion of the position of local élites in these models. This part of the article is based on
a large international survey among members of the local élite in several East and
West European countries. Its aim is to enhance our understanding of the possibilities
and restraints local élites are willing to grant to minorities. The question to be
answered being: What are the tendencies of inclusion or exclusion at the local level
in these countries and how do these relate to theories about inclusion and exclusion?
In this part, we will show that most of them are in favour of simple representation
with the drawback of excluding the vulnerable groups. Furthermore, we will show
that there is a difference between the old and new democracies in Europe as to the
tendencies towards other democratic arrangements. In the new democracies, there
seems to be a propensity among members of the local élite to favour some form of
republican deliberationism, while in the old democracies there tends to be a prefer-
ence for a model of representation of difference. At the end of this article, we will
reflect on these outcomes and try to give an explanation for the findings.
Of course a special word regarding the concept ‘minority’ is in order. As has often
been noted, in the context of political analyses, minority does not refer to the relative
size of any group in terms of group members. As a matter of fact, a group of people
that together amount to more than half of a population might be a minority in the
political sense. Furthermore, the term ‘group’ when used to specify a minority might
be suggesting more than the idea of minority strictly implies. A minority might
be some socially organized and structured clan but it might also be a category of
people sharing a way of life or a language or even simply the individuals of one
sex. Here we will follow the definition of Wilensky, who denotes a minority as any
collectivity that on the basis of shared social characteristics is discriminated against by
a dominant group, comes to see itself as an object of discrimination and organizes
around this perception (Wilensky, 2002: 14). Of course, a more precise definition of
the concept of a minority would ask for a further specification of ‘discrimination’. Such
a specification would bring us to different ideas about political exclusion. It is these
ideas with which we will deal in this article.
458 International Review of Administrative Sciences 70(3)
Dimensions of political inclusion
Political inclusion is a broad concept with many connotations. In its vagueness, it is
also a concept...
To continue reading
Request your trial