Date post: | 24-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | benjamin-hardy |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Dimensions of elites‘ political identity
formation in Central and Eastern Europe
Heinrich BestUniversity of JenaPresentation prepared for the conference
“Elites and the formation of political identity in post soviet space; global influences”
King’s College, Cambridge, 27 November 2009
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 2
collective political identity
feeling of sameness belongingness and common destiny or purpose
directed to a political entity (party, political movement,
state or federation) and
shared by a large collective.
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 3
mass identity formation essentialist understanding:
unique core or essence of mass identities (ethnic origins, “authentic” cultural traditions)
constructivist understanding:constructed or invented character of mass identities (first “composed” than “imposed”)
“historical constructivism”: ‘”invention” or “construction” of mass identities is … constrained and directed by specific historical givens and experiences shaping the collective memories and conditions of living of the same population” (Best 2009)‘… the adjustment of the idea of the nation to the situational constraints of the relevant agents involves its conceptualization in terms of indigenous traditions.’ (Greenfield 1992 )
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 4
national identity, concept of
nation ‘[…] concept of “nation” […] cannot be stated
in terms of empirical qualities common to those who count as members of the nation. […] means above all, that it is proper to expect from certain groups a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups’. (M. Weber, EAS 922)
‘[…] concept “nation” directs us to political power. […] refers us to a specific kind of pathos which is linked to the idea of a powerful political community [which] may already exist or may be desired’. (M. Weber, EAS 398)
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 5
the role of elites
Elites are the creators and creations of mass political identities. “Creative” role of intellectuals and politicians in composing and imposing mass political identities, …
… but they are sorcerer apprentices … … and cannot manipulate mass political
identities at will. Identity implies sameness and
continuity.
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 7
dimensions of mass identity formation
dimension
concept mode time horizon
essence
idea sameness cognitive past Who am I?
identification
belongingness
normative present To whom do I
belong?
agency destiny and
purposeconative future
What is my commitment?
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 8
hypothesis
The challenges encountered in the process of mass political identity formation will lead to a sharper definition of collective identities, a stronger identification with and commitment to one’s own community.
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 9
distinctive features of mass political identity formation in Central and Eastern Europe
Imposition of foreign rule by multinational empires (Osman, Russian, Austro-Hungarian). Delayed formation of independent nation states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Enforced inclusion in the informal Soviet Empire or loss of independence through annexation by the Soviet Union.
Challenged mass political identity formation in Central and Eastern Europe.
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 10
research question
Is there a distinct pattern of mass political identity in Central and Eastern European post communist countries?
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 11
sample configuration 80 Political Elites
National MPs incl. 5-15 MEPs Proportional Quota according:
Age (under 50 vs. 50+), Sex, Tenure (Newcomer vs. Senior MPs) Top Politicians (former or present Ministers, Junior ministers, Presidents and Vice
Presidents of the House / Parliamentary Groups / Standing Committees, EU Commissioners)
Territorial Distribution (constituency/region of residence) if applicable 40 Economic Elites
Leaders (CEO or Board Members) of main business associations, major bank groups and companies selected from a list of `Top 100´, ranked according to balance sheet total and number of employees.
1000 General Population Proportional Quota according: Sex, Age, Region, Ethnicity
Total: 18 Countries 1411 Political Elites 730 Economic Elites 17138 General Population
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 12
territorial coverage 1st IntUne survey
Only Elite Surveys• Czech Republic• Lithuania
Only Mass Survey• Slovenia
Elite + Mass Surveys• Austria• Belgium• Bulgaria• Denmark• Estonia• France• Germany• Great Britain• Greece• Hungary• Italy• Poland• Portugal• Serbia• Slovakia• Spain
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 13
sameness national: to have national parents – very important
24
32
28
28
50
28
42
23
51
39
49
57
50
54
66
48
12
37
3
16
10
5
20
28
28
18
17
29
29
41
39
43
32
37
0
4
9
10
16
17
18
20
24
27
29
33
37
41
45
49
51
53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Germany
United Kingdom
Austria
Belgium
Serbia
Denmark
Spain
France
Portugal
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Italy
Greece
Lithuania
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 14
sameness national: to be born in [country] – very important
24
36
30
37
31
35
27
47
50
40
56
41
53
49
52
67
9
0
5
8
11
6
8
12
20
13
13
27
30
17
26
26
26
27
1
4
10
10
11
13
15
18
20
24
29
32
34
35
36
36
40
41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Germany
Great Britain
Denmark
Serbia
Belgium
Austria
France
Czech Republic
Spain
Greece
Slovakia
Lithuania
Portugal
Hungary
Italy
Estonia
Poland
Bulgaria
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 15
samenessnational: to share cultural traditions – very important
37
35
60
44
47
44
71
38
62
65
59
35
68
62
70
59
25
33
38
31
47
33
16
60
69
44
57
50
21
63
31
64
66
67
14
21
21
22
24
34
39
54
57
57
58
60
62
67
69
71
78
83
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Belgium
Germany
Austria
Spain
United Kingdom
Denmark
Lithuania
Portugal
France
Serbia
Greece
Italy
Slovakia
Estonia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Bulgaria
Poland
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 16
sameness national: to be a christian – very important
10
19
24
12
31
24
26
26
12
14
52
18
39
46
52
46
0
13
2
21
0
13
10
3
3
3
3
8
5
16
5
20
28
22
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
7
9
10
12
14
16
19
25
33
34
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
France
Spain
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Belgium
Portugal
Germany
Austria
Slovakia
Denmark
Estonia
Serbia
Hungary
Lithuania
Italy
Bulgaria
Greece
Poland
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 17
sameness national: to master [language of country] – very important
54
59
83
69
76
66
68
74
80
73
78
73
82
82
68
85
43
18
44
43
55
47
73
52
86
93
51
74
79
65
73
84
84
98
30
31
49
50
52
52
68
68
71
71
72
74
78
78
80
81
87
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Spain
Serbia
Austria
Italy
Poland
Greece
France
Czech Republic
Belgium
Portugal
Slovakia
Hungary
Lithuania
Denmark
Bulgaria
Germany
United Kingdom
Estonia
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 18
samenessnational: to respect [national] laws / institutions – very important
66
82
79
67
79
56
65
63
56
80
81
78
72
81
82
74
40
20
47
59
48
70
51
46
69
85
79
83
80
77
75
74
85
90
38
48
58
61
64
64
65
70
73
75
75
81
87
88
89
93
95
95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Germany
Hungary
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Portugal
Lithuania
Poland
Spain
Serbia
Slovakia
Italy
Estonia
Bulgaria
Greece
United Kingdom
France
Denmark
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 19
samenessnational: to be a country citizen – very important
19
35
15
13
21
45
31
29
34
24
28
41
62
38
72
57
65
63
14
21
26
29
33
41
43
44
48
51
51
53
54
55
60
68
73
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Hungary
Germany
Austria
Serbia
Czech Republic
Belgium
Spain
Slovakia
Greece
Poland
Denmark
Portugal
Lithuania
Italy
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Estonia
France
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 20
belongingnessattachment to [country] – very attached
37
43
61
53
39
73
62
69
41
65
78
72
55
70
76
68
33
35
28
51
65
63
69
90
45
24
67
64
55
89
81
90
64
90
30
33
58
65
68
72
77
77
78
79
82
86
87
87
88
93
94
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Belgium
United Kingdom
Serbia
Germany
Spain
Austria
Italy
Estonia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Greece
Bulgaria
Denmark
Lithuania
France
Portugal
Hungary
Poland
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 21
belongingness attachment to Europe – very attached
10
19
15
14
34
20
19
19
19
28
30
26
47
23
19
24
10
21
22
18
27
23
37
28
30
45
36
50
30
38
54
28
79
55
11
15
19
23
24
26
28
29
38
40
44
44
45
45
49
53
53
66
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Estonia
Czech Republic
Greece
Austria
Serbia
Slovakia
Belgium
Spain
Italy
Germany
Portugal
Hungary
Denmark
France
Poland
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 22
destiny and purpose member states to remain central actors of EU – agree strongly
18
38
19
28
30
34
49
33
34
38
42
33
42
43
55
43
73
38
21
22
24
29
33
37
37
40
41
46
49
49
51
52
58
61
70
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Spain
Germany
Italy
France
Belgium
Hungary
Estonia
Serbia
Austria
Portugal
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Greece
Poland
Lithuania
Denmark
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 23
destiny and purpose European Commission to become the true EU-government– agree strongly
6
8
10
13
10
7
2
10
6
5
17
21
26
7
33
25
17
38
0
2
2
5
5
6
8
9
10
12
17
20
22
22
25
29
29
34
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Poland
Germany
Portugal
Austria
Lithuania
Greece
Bulgaria
Spain
France
Hungary
Belgium
Italy
Serbia
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 24
destiny and purpose immigratin from non EU countries – big threat
20
53
23
24
55
37
33
26
47
54
36
39
37
32
59
63
50
65
14
19
20
26
27
28
30
32
38
38
46
47
48
51
51
53
54
75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Spain
Portugal
Serbia
Greece
United Kingdom
Italy
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Czech Republic
France
Hungary
Poland
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Slovakia
Estonia
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 25
destiny and purpose interference of Russia in European affairs – big threat
5
24
25
38
18
43
26
26
28
41
52
39
50
30
55
93
69
83
12
19
24
29
31
31
31
34
34
34
35
36
43
45
46
67
74
84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Serbia
Greece
Portugal
Denmark
Austria
Bulgaria
United Kingdom
Italy
Germany
Spain
Belgium
France
Slovakia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Poland
Estonia
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 26
destiny and purpose inclusion of Turkey – big threat
38
38
35
40
61
48
51
30
34
65
63
62
42
55
51
68
61
50
13
18
24
25
34
34
34
37
47
47
47
49
49
58
58
58
58
64
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Czech Republic
Germany
Serbia
Poland
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Denmark
Austria
Slovakia
Estonia
Hungary
France
Belgium
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 27
destiny and purpose inclusion of countries other than Turkey – big threat
14
3
12
10
26
32
35
44
23
38
26
33
12
31
43
38
70
50
7
10
12
13
13
16
19
22
23
25
27
29
30
32
37
38
57
61
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Serbia
Poland
Slovakia
Spain
Czech Republic
Portugal
Italy
Lithuania
Greece
Bulgaria
Estonia
Austria
Hungary
Germany
Denmark
France
Belgium
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 28
destiny and purpose make European economy more competitive
20
24
56
48
36
29
24
30
33
37
35
43
32
35
25
27
34
55
67
45
79
91
53
83
68
73
90
62
93
68
81
74
86
79
7
15
18
21
23
26
28
30
36
40
44
46
49
50
58
59
61
66
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Greece
Spain
France
Serbia
Italy
Austria
Bulgaria
Portugal
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Estonia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 29
destiny and purpose effects of globalization on welfare – big threat
28
8
20
22
15
21
28
38
28
15
53
30
36
40
32
26
34
11
19
21
24
33
34
35
37
38
39
43
44
45
45
48
49
53
58
68
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Denmark
Estonia
United Kingdom
Poland
Spain
Greece
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Italy
Portugal
Belgium
Hungary
Germany
Czech Republic
France
Serbia
Austria
Political Elites Economic Elites
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 30
destiny and purpose common system of social security – strongly in favour
17
16
38
39
34
25
27
50
36
42
35
42
50
15
45
32
5
13
12
10
21
9
20
15
33
20
30
24
40
51
40
18
53
81
0
7
10
17
18
19
19
20
23
26
30
34
37
41
47
48
59
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Denmark
Czech Republic
Estonia
Austria
Germany
Belgium
Slovakia
Portugal
Spain
Lithuania
Poland
Serbia
Bulgaria
Hungary
France
Greece
Italy
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 31
destiny and purpose a unified tax system – strongly in favour
11
7
16
16
32
33
26
26
24
25
26
31
29
32
22
37
0
15
0
8
10
19
23
45
38
45
27
30
29
37
33
53
51
76
0
2
4
9
10
15
15
18
22
22
25
25
29
30
38
50
54
63
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Denmark
Estonia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Poland
Portugal
Hungary
Lithuania
Serbia
Spain
Belgium
Austria
Germany
Bulgaria
Greece
France
Italy
Political Elites Economic Elites Masses
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 32
destiny and purpose representative of the citizens of your country (Political Elites)
13
24
31
32
32
38
38
41
46
46
53
54
58
61
63
65
72
81
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
United Kingdom
Austria
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Belgium
Denmark
Czech Republic
Serbia
Spain
Germany
Italy
France
Greece
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
Portugal
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 33
summary of results – part I In all dimensions of political identity (cognitive,
normative, conative) there are large differences between countries, sometimes spreading between 0% and 90% approval rates.
There is no pan-European consensus about the bases and consequences of mass political identities!
Within countries there are also marked differences between political elites, economic elites and the general population.
Elites tend to agree less to ascriptive criteria of national identity and they tend to be more attached to their countries than the general population!
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 34
summary of results – part II CEE countries do not form a coherent “block” in
the rankings of countries. At least there are outliers (mostly Serbia).
But there are large clusters of CEE-countries which stand out by their elites’ support for ascriptive criteria of nationality (born in
country, national parents, share of cultural traditions) hesitation to cede rights of national sovereignty to the EU concern about Russian interference in European affairs
(except for Bulgaria and Serbia!) concern about immigration to Europe from non-EU-
countries priority of economic competitiveness over the
development of the welfare state
Heinrich Best - Cambridge 2009 35
theoretical implications Mass political identities are “made to measure” for
specific polities and societies. There are very few elements of mass political identities common to all 18 countries included in our study.
Elites and masses diverge in their expressions of political identities.
Political identities do reflect historical experiences (even distant ones), leading to a clustering of CEE-countries (with some internal differentiation).
Communalities of challenged nation building in the CEE-states: historically late and challenged nation building forced inclusion in the Soviet empire late joining of the EU geographical situation at the periphery of “core” Europe