Diversity recognition and minority representation in Central and Southeast Europe: a comparative analysis

Abstract

The need to handle ethnocultural diversity and the external pressures of Euro-Atlantic integration have led to the development of complex minority rights regimes in Central and Southeast European states. The aim of this paper is to perform a comparative analysis of the political representation dimension of these regimes, and to investigate how the regulations in this domain are related to the more general attitude of states toward diversity recognition and registration. For this purpose, we classify the states according to a series of variables concerning the manner in which ethnocultural diversity is recognized and portrayed, as well as the regulations concerning the representation of minorities, and identify patterns of their incidence. The formal-legal analysis of the constitutions, minority protection laws and of the electoral legislation of the included countries reveals a clear connection between the general attitude of the state toward diversity and the incidence of autonomies, and a less unequivocal, yet strong relationship in the case of minority representation in the national polity.

Mapping institutional mechanisms of ethno‐national representation: towards a better measurement approach

“…This perspective follows a broadly neo‐institutionalist logic, whereby early and foundational institutional choices, along with the associated ideational context, structure subsequent choices and dynamics (for an overview, see Lecours ; Beland and Cox ). This dual focus also follows the method of Szekely and Horvath (), who examine the relationship between broader state approaches to the recognition of diversity and specific measures of minority representation through the electoral system in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. Through a study of constitutional arrangements and legislative schemes, they show how a state's approach to diversity recognition, categorised as promoting either a dominant ethnicity, a civic identity or the accommodation of diversity, is correlated to the representation of minorities, categorised as restrictive, neutral or facilitating representation (, p. 439).…”

“…This dual focus also follows the method of Szekely and Horvath (), who examine the relationship between broader state approaches to the recognition of diversity and specific measures of minority representation through the electoral system in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe. Through a study of constitutional arrangements and legislative schemes, they show how a state's approach to diversity recognition, categorised as promoting either a dominant ethnicity, a civic identity or the accommodation of diversity, is correlated to the representation of minorities, categorised as restrictive, neutral or facilitating representation (, p. 439). Similarly, Krook and O'Brien show that recognition and representation are closely linked – they find that the early recognition of group identity in the design of state institutions is linked to the presence of more specific electoral mechanisms facilitating their representation (, p. 269).…”

“…The key determinate of this vision is how the state defines the political community, for example as a multinational or multicultural polity, or as one indivisible nation. Following Szekely and Horvath (, pp. 430–433), indicators of a state's broad approach in this area should focus on the status granted to national and ethno‐cultural minorities by looking at how a constitution depicts the constituent political community and whether minority groups are named and treated as groups or individuals .…”

“…As noted earlier, given the electoral system's importance as a direct conduit for groups to select representatives, and its influence on other institutional venues, it remains a critical area of study. Following Bird, the framework here considers the general rules governing elections and the more specific rules governing the election of ethno‐national minorities (, 15; Szekely and Horvath , 429–30). The general rules establishing a plurality or proportional electoral system are important to consider given their central role in shaping dynamics affecting minority representation, notably by tilting the state towards more majoritarian or consensus democracy (Lijphart ).…”

“…These studies examine how such designs affect minority representation in states across a range of geographic areas, from Central and Eastern Europe (Shvetsova 1999;Friedman 2005;Bochsler 2010), to Asia (Chandra 2004;Raina 2014), to Africa (Posner 2005;Bogaards 2007), to South America (Van Cott 2005, to North America and Western Europe (Swain 1993;Saggar 2000;Bird 2005;Bloemraad & Schönwälder 2013). There are also a relatively smaller number of crossnational studies, which have sought to clarify the logic and forms of special representative mechanisms employed in practice (Reynolds 2005(Reynolds , 2006, examined the features of regional tendencies and patterns (Szekely & Horvath 2014;Htun 2016) and categorised models at a global scale with a view to understanding their drivers and consequences for minority presence in national legislatures (Htun 2004;Meier 2009;Ruedin 2009;Krook & O'Brien 2010;Lublin & Wright 2013;Bird 2014).…”