Over the last few years, right-wing populist parties have made considerable electoral gains at local, state, and national levels of governments. With Donald Trump as the president of America and the increasing number of conservative leaders in Europe, it is apparent that a considerable part of the society believes in the conservative agenda. Christoph Blocher is best known for transforming the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) into the most active party in Switzerland. SVP is now a solid right-wing and the largest party in Switzerland. More than ever, society is receptive to conservative parties and leaders. Thus, this paper discusses the arguments of Rogers Brubaker and Andreas Wimmer on citizenship and immigration, and how they are shaping local and national politics.
Conservative populist politics and leaders are making a strong comeback. The election of President Trump is not something unique, as many countries are reverting to conservative populist politics. The right-wing populism claimed another country when Jair Bolsonaro, a former captain, became the president of Brazil. The UK’s referendum to leave the European Union and the advances of the far-right in France and Germany show that populist politics are part of modern society. Conservative populist groups are often characterized by traditional and religious values, dedication to the community and national interest, protection against immigration. However, there are unique factors in every nation that could explain why conservative populist politics is on the rise.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Immigration continues to change the ethnic and demographic patterns of the nations. Immigration also raises the question of how immigrants are integrating into western societies. The US is a highly diverse society with many ethnic groups. It was known for its tolerance for immigrants, but this is not the case anymore. The conservative populist leaders want to control immigration, and a growing section of the population seems to agree with the leaders.
In the essay, Brubaker establishes links between immigration and citizenship. According to Brubaker (2010), postwar migrations pose fundamental challenges to nation-states of Europe and North America. The immigration has forced these nations to reinterpret traditions, reshape their institutions, and rethink the meaning of citizenship. Nations are re-inventing themselves as nation-states. Brubaker defines citizenship as membership to a nation-state. Nation-states are home to a fraction of the human population, and the states aspire to mold the citizenry into something more than a mere group of individuals living in a certain location. Nation-states attempt to create a cohesive and homogenous nation, yet, the persistence of ethnic strife puts an end to this aspiration. Brubaker adds that a nation-state is also an idea or ideal; a unique way of thinking characterizes a nation-state, and the membership to a nation-state informs the current debate on immigration. The membership model is egalitarian, sacred, national, democratic, unique, and socially consequential.
Brubaker (2010) analyzes the model of membership/citizenship in detail by exploring all of its components. In the essay, he summarizes certain inherited ideas and ideals that inform the political debate on immigration, nationality, and citizenship. The first idea is that a nation-state should be egalitarian such that all members have full membership as citizens. The second idea is that membership is sacred. Citizens must be prepared to perform sacred acts for the nation. They should be willing to die for the country if need. The third component of the model is that state membership is based on nation-membership. The political community is also a cultural community. A nation-state is legitimized when its members share a language and a belief system.
Individuals aspiring to be members of the nation-state, if they did not acquire their membership through birth and upbringing, must earn the membership through assimilation. Another ideal of the membership model is that membership should be democratic. Members have significant participation in how the nation-state. There is a way in which nonmembers can become members and attract the rights reserved for the members. State-membership is unique as one cannot belong to more than one state, unless on a special occasion. Dual or multiple citizenships exists, but legal techniques are guiding this situation. Nonetheless, legal techniques cannot solve the problem of divided allegiance, which is the main problem of dual citizenship. The last ideal is that membership should be socially consequential. Membership comes with important privileges and duties. Brubaker adds that the privileges should be easily identifiable to the members, and it should be what separates them from nonmembers. Membership to the state should be objectively and subjectively valuable.
Brubaker (2010) acknowledges that the membership model is vestigial. The ideals/ ideas of egalitarian and democratic membership mean the same thing. Also, the idea that membership should be sacred and based on cultural belonging has different implications. However, the model persists because of a lack of an alternative. The postwar immigration accentuates the existing deviations in the nation-state model. Immigration has led to the increasing number of individuals with partial membership, the declining value of citizenship and exploitation of the advantages meant for the citizens. Temporary labor immigration in France, Germany, and Sweden paved the way for settlement immigration. The labor immigration or settlement immigration generate delicate problems to the memberships. Some of these immigrants have an intermediate status on their way to becoming full citizens. They attract the same privileges and obligations as full members, and this does not sit well with some of the members. The immigration was expected, but it was not expected in its volume and consistency. Immigration has changed the culture and demographics of society.
In Chapter 5 titled, “Categorization Struggles,” Wimmer (2013) illustrates how ethnocultural differences are relevant in the eyes of the policymakers and immigrant political entrepreneurs. The policymakers often emphasize the cultural differences and the communal division lines that label immigrants as others to exclude them. Wimmer introduces the concept of ‘racialization’ to refer to the process of creating cultural barriers, and later the creation of integration policies to make it look like the society is actively trying to break the barriers.
Wimmer conducted a primary study in Switzerland to evaluate the racialization hypothesis. Switzerland has witnessed an increase in immigration since the end of the 19th century. Switzerland is a classical country for immigration with remarkable wealth and a lack of marginalized high-poverty areas in comparison to Great Britain, the UK, and the US. Switzerland also lacks the history of slavery, making it perfect for the study. The study focused on immigrant areas in the downtowns of Basel, Bern, and Zurich. The interviewers sought the opinions of blue-collar and clerical workers regarding immigration. The study found out that old-established Swiss residents born in the neighborhoods have a highly localized web of relationships that go back to the 1950s and 1960s. They also had relatively stable civil society organizations, including the church, sports, and athletic clubs used to recruit new members. The neighborhoods are homogeneous in terms of social class and social control, which is the social order. The social order is used to make boundaries between the residents and the immigrants. In the study, social order meant keeping up with the “petit bourgeois” values of cleanliness, punctuality, quiet, and maintaining social relationships.
According to Wimmer’s study, it is important to maintain social order in spatial and social surroundings. The societal institutions reward individuals who maintain the social order. Wimmer gives an example of how Zurich cooperatives allocate higher floors, quieter apartments, and infrastructure to individuals who maintain the social order. This scheme of cognition and practice has allowed the working-class residents to be at the center and to draw boundaries against individuals who fail to master the code and are unworthy of the dignity that working-class life can provide.
Immigrants are outsiders because immigrants are born in other countries. They cannot fit in and adopt the social order because they are not given a chance to do so by the citizens who feel that the immigrants are incapable of meeting the social order. From the perspective of old-established, sociodemographic changes in recent decades are a sign of the loss of order and the devaluation of order. Immigrants and younger Swiss, especially those involved in the “alternative scene” do not acknowledge order as the center of the moral universe and are not willing to conform to it. The established residents thus view the immigrants as a threat to their own worth and social standing. In the US, President Trump has demonized illegal immigrants and blamed them for disrupting peace and social order in the US. President Trump gained more support after promising to build a wall on the Mexican border. The immigrants are not to blame for the disruption in the social order, but they are often the scapegoats.
In the article, Wimmer (2013), the groups that are seen as dangerous for the maintenance of social order differ. Newly arrived members of the Swiss alternative scene are considered outsiders even with Swiss passports they acquired since birth. Whereas, Italian and Spanish first-wave guest workers are now considered among the established and decent individuals fitting the well-ordered social world. The ethnic group of the foreigner defines whether one is more likely to abide by the social order or not. From the study, the respondents reported that Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka are more likely to fit in when compared to the immigrants from the culturally and racially more proximate Yugoslavia. Certain immigrants, especially those from Africa and the Middle east, are facing many challenges in being accepted because of the cultural difference and the perception that they will not abide by the social order. These immigrants are perceived to be extremely different and have the potential to cause the most harm to the soial order. The older, established citizens are the ones who draw the boundary between the ones who fit the order and those who do not.
The two articles show the changing perspective of citizenship and nationhood in the midst of immigration. Wimmer focuses on the concept of social order and how it defines the relationship between citizens and immigrants. Right-wing conservative leaders such as Donald Trump appeal to the voters who believe that immigrants cannot live by the social order that is already established in the society. President Trump blamed the immigrants for the rising insecurity cases in America. The sentiment is echoed by European conservative populist leaders who blame immigrants for the rising cases of terrorism. Aside from the high-profile attacks in Paris in 2015, most of the terrorist attacks and insecurity issues across the world are not caused by immigrants. The conservative populist leaders know they will gain support from individuals who believe that immigrants cannot adapt to the social order by associating them with the rising insecurity and terrorism cases.
Brubaker’s essay can explain the increasing support for conservative populists better. Brubaker refers to the membership-model to a nation-state that determines the meaning of citizenship and how citizens interact with foreigners. One of the ideals of the nation-based model is that membership is sacred and nation-based. A popular narrative for the conservative populists is the creation of a sense of exclusive nationalism. The conservative leaders often remind their followers that they are different and unique from the immigrants. The leaders often argue that immigrants cannot be like the citizens because they do not share the language, culture, values, and belief system of the citizens of the nations.
Another idea of the membership model that can explain the rise of conservative populist leaders is that membership is socially consequential. Membership to a state comes with privileges and responsibilities. Immigration is closely intertwined with socio-economic issues. Most immigrants move to other nations to seek new economic opportunities. Conservative populist leaders often blame the immigrants for taking away opportunities or overwhelming the social systems at the expense of the citizens. President Trump attracted a huge following after promising to put “America First.” Conservative populist leaders often blame immigration or globalization for their country’s economic problems. This is often not the cause of the economic problem, but it appeals to individuals who have been affected by economic loss.
In conclusion, the Wimmer and Brubaker explore how the immigration issue has played a role in the electoral breakthrough of conservative populist leaders and parties. Immigration is a contentious issue affecting developing nations. Conservative populist leaders are more likely to pass policies to limit immigration. However, the policies might not remedy the situation as there are many immigrants in developing nations. Wimmer explores how the concept of social order continues to separate the citizens from the immigrants such that the immigrants cannot fully integrate into society. Individuals who believe in the social order are more likely to support conservative populist leaders as a way of reviving the old society where social order and traditions mattered. Alternatively, Brubaker discusses the membership model made up of six ideals that define membership to a particular nation-state. Conservative populists often believe that membership is unique and sacred, and immigrants cannot truly understand what it means to be a member of society. The two perspectives not only explain the conservative populist perspective, rather they can be used to predict future immigration policies now that conservative populist leaders are on the rise.
References
Brubaker, W. R. (2010). Introduction to immigration and the politics of citizenship in Europe and North America. Selected Studies in International Migration and Immigrant Incorporation , 1 , 215.
Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic boundary making: Institutions, power, networks . Oxford University Press.
