Modovan government started
paying a special attention to Moldovan extraterritorial communities residing
abroad since when the economic statistics showed that about 30% of the national
GDP is pumped in Moldova from abroad and since emigrants proved a high
electoral commitment during the national elections. Since then the Government
developed a special branch called BRD (Bureau of Cooperation with Diaspora) in
this manner defining the extraterritorial communities residing abroad as
diasporic.
In this post I will try to challenge
what government defines as Moldovan diaspora abroad since this community by far
does not qualify to this all catchy term of “diaspora”. I will show that
Moldovan communities abroad can be rather attributed to short-term migration or
trans-migrants assuming a different political functions/attributes these types
of communities retain.
For proving my point I will need to conceptually
define who are the actors we refer to as migrants, extraterritorial community
or diaspora. This is essential as all of them can easily incorporate a large
spectrum of actors including short- and long-term e/migrants, refugees,
diaspora, expatriates, trans-migrants and others. Moreover, these terms are
oftentimes used and analyzed interchangeably in the literature. They display
however different types of influences on their homelands that need to be
distinguished. The most commonly identified names for these communities are diaspora, emigrants, and trans-migrants.
Since emigration is by no means a new
global phenomenon, the terminology used in the literature is constantly
recycled and adjusted to incorporate the newly emerging extraterritorial groups
into the new settings of each “age of migration”. Thus, the terms once used to
exclusively define a particular group, acquires new meanings over time. The
terms also continuously broaden their meanings to get adapted to new
conditions. A vivid example is the stretching and redefinition of the concept
of “diaspora”. Diaspora which is a
generic appellative initially used to refer to the Jewish emigrant communities,
stretched its meaning throughout history to incorporate other migrant and
professional groups such as the Armenians, or specific trading and professional
communities. Latter on, the meaning of diaspora
was extended further to incorporate new sets of characteristics of “imagined
communities” not necessarily related to emigration as for instance the case of Russian
ethnics residing outside the Russian Federation after the disintegration of the
Soviet Union or Moldovan ethnics residing in Russia or Ukraine. In the 1990s,
about 20 million Russians became diasporas by never emigrating from one place
to another. The term is extensively used nowadays to define new and more
heterogeneous in nature migratory groups. Despite the fact that the concept
still preserves the basic features of migration it has been enriched with many
other components that did not exist in the past (Dufoix, 2008). Moreover,
diaspora have also changed its social role and purpose. As Portes (1999), claims:
“[diasporas] have often been the cradle from which independence movements and
revolutionary organizations have sprung in the past” (p. 475). That is why
Jewish communities have been oftentimes persecuted for being suspected in
anti-government movements. Yet, todays’ diaspora are very distinct from
historical ones. They are different in how they identify themselves and also in
the repertoire of political actions they undertake to influence the political
processes home. Political transnational activities are significantly supported
by technological advancements and by the magnitude and financial resources of
communities that settled abroad. Oftentimes, governments in countries of origin
become actively interested in their diaspora and the transnational activity they
get involved though they might undermine the government authority.
The clear understanding of the concept
and meaning of diaspora is important
for several reasons. The non-systematic use of the concept in the literature
introduces an immeasurable confusion in understanding which groups are covered
by theoretical frameworks, and which are not.
Predominantly, the term diaspora is used in a broader sense to
describe any population, which is considered “deterritorialized” or
“transnational”, that currently resides on a territory other than the one of
its origin, and that manages to create an international network of cultural,
economic and political exchange primarily with its motherland (Vertovec, 1999).
This definition is oftentimes confusing since it is increasingly applied among
academics, transnational intellectuals and opinion leaders as a loose
embodiment of different categories: immigrants, trans-migrants, transnationals,
guest-workers, ethnic and racial minorities, refugees, expatriates, travellers
and nomads (Safran, 1991; Tatla, 1993; Cohen, 1995). The reason for this
interchangeable use of terms is the difficulty to always clearly distinguish
the morphology of different groups and how they differ one from another. For
instance, a guest worker residing abroad can become a member of a diaspora if
he chooses not to return but still maintain strong psychosocial ties with his
motherland. Or, a foreign-born diaspora member can choose to intensify his
connections with his country of cultural origin, to return home after some
generations or, to regain the citizenship of his motherland, thus switching his
status from diaspora to a member of a transnational community, an emigrant, or
to preserve them all.
Any thorough investigation of the concept
of diaspora starts with Safran’s
(1991) list of five necessary defining characteristics that distinguish this
group from others: dispersal in two or more locations; collective mythology
about homeland; alienation from host-land; idealization of return to homeland;
and an ongoing relationship with the homeland. Robinson et al. (2001) adds one
more criteria to the list: diaspora members have developed a very strong
ethno-national consciousness. Sheffer’s (1995) definition describes diaspora as
a group of migrants that maintain a
common ethno-national identity, create networks with their homelands and their
brethren in other countries, and feel strong connections with both their
homelands and their new host countries (p. 9). Migrants in this sense could
also be considered part of diaspora though they not necessarily form one. They
may become a diaspora by
“developing a new imagination of community” (Sokefeld, 2006, p. 267).
The literature also explains the nature
of diaspora as a product of a
specific constructed identity along a common history, religion or language
(Vertovec, 1999; Baumann & Sunier, 1995). Moreover, it is possible to
differentiate between “solid” diaspora, discernible by “powerful myths” of a
common origin, and “liquid” diaspora, that consists of new cultural connections
that manage to substitute the old “sacred icons” with the new ones (Cohen,
2006, p. 1; Vertovec, 1997, 2004). These concepts are based on Anderson’s
(1983) constructed “imaginary reality” of the diaspora that combines the
perception about the past with its adaptation to modern needs.
Two necessary elements, out of this set
of definitions and characteristics, are the most important to be considered in
this study First, the strong feeling of identity that keeps emigrants together
as a single community. The awareness of having a common history, religion, or
language shapes their common interests and empowers their common voice in
exercising pressure on political system. Second, the attachment to the
motherland that serves as an explanation why the diaspora gets involved in the
political life in their remote homeland that, for many exists just at the level
of collective memory. Safran (1991) claims that what connects all diaspora
members is their believe that:
“… they are not…and
perhaps cannot be…fully accepted by their host society and therefore feel
partly alienated and insulated from it” (p. 83-4). Thus, recognizing their
ambiguous situation both in the receiving and sending states diaspora members
tend to protect and lobby their interests in both societies (Sheffer, 1986).
The above-identified
definitions clearly explain the existence of a connection between a diasporic
group and its homeland. They do not specify however the mechanisms of diaspora
mobilization. How does it get engaged in political life by exercising pressure
on the political leadership in their perceived land of origin? At least three
different theoretical sources provide an answer to this question. For instance,
Tsing (2000), Sökefeld (2006), Lamben
(1998) and
Anthias (1998) observe diaspora mobilization mechanisms through the prism of
existing social movements theories, Heindl (2013) examines the capacity of a
diaspora to lobby hosting governments, and finally, the theory on
transnationalism studies the overall impact of trans-migrants on diverse
spheres of socio-political development of their states of origins.
Another commonly used term is that of migrants. Though the concept is close to
diaspora and is oftentimes used
interchangeably it has a distinct connotation. When the term migrant is used in the literature,
several elements such as country of birth, country of destination, nationality,
religion, and length of stay usually come into discussion. The latter element
is a key characteristic used by the international organizations to
differentiate between different types of migrants. The United Nations in this
context differentiates between long-term and short-term migrants. The long-term
migrant is defined as: “a person who moves to a country other than that of his
or her usual residence for a period of at least a year, so that the country of
destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence”
(United Nations, Recommendations on statistics of international migration.
Revision 1, adopted in 1998, par. 36). The same document defines short-term
migrants as “…when the duration of stay in the country, or away from the
country, lies between three months and one year” (United Nations, par. 37).
Belonging to an emigrant community
implies a clear choice to leave the motherland for a temporary or extended
period of time. To choose short or long-term emigration means the preservation
of all political and economic rights for the emigrants while abroad. Thus the
majority of emigrants continue to maintain strong relationships with their home
country. One of these ties is the connection to their dependents back home. In
terms of political rights, they guard all citizenship obligations, such as the
right to take active participation in political processes and mainly to elect
and be elected in any elections back home. On
the other hand, being part of a diaspora does not necessarily imply the same
citizenship rights in the country of perceived origin. This is because diaspora members are most often already citizens of a
new country, and do not or cannot have double citizenship. In this sense, emotional affiliation
sometimes is all that is left. In terms of political rights, diaspora members
most often have no citizen-endowed mechanisms to influence the political
processes in the state of perceived origin. Thus they have less direct leverage
to influence the domestic political processes from oversees.
The most important difference between the
two groups for this particular study is their intent to return, and intent to
participate in home socio-economic and political life. In this sense, emigrants are usually leaving the country
with the intention to return. Yet, the reason for their temporary leave is
usually a crucial reason why they do not participate so actively in home
politics. High unemployment, and lack of job opportunities usually imply a
disappointment with home politics and belief that nothing can be changed. This
means that they are less interested to invest much political force in their
country of origin. Remittances are usually their most important added value to
home societies. Diaspora, on the other hand, is already a well-established community
that lives abroad and does not intend to return. It is bound to their perceived
motherland through self inflicted sense or responsibility. This emotional
relationship potentially makes them strong investors in political
transformations in their motherland, such as the case of the Jewish and
Armenian diasporas in the United States, or Turkish diaspora in Germany. Sokefeld (2006) rightly notes that migrants
could also be attributed to a diaspora though they not necessarily form one.
They may become a diaspora
“by developing a new imagination of community” (p. 267).
To analyze the effects of international
migration, Kapur (2013) uses the terms of migrants
and diaspora under a functional
perspective to describe the extraterritorial community impact on the
motherland. He identifies four main channels how migrants can influence
home societies: prospect, absence, diaspora, and return (Kapur & McHale,
2005). The prospect channel analyzes
how the possibility of leaving the country of origin influences individual
decisions to invest in the development of human and social capital, which
already changes the dynamics of human capital in the country. The absence channel takes into account the
effects of the leave of the highly skilled migrants, who could contribute to
institution building instead. The diaspora
channel assumes that “an emigrant retains certain connections to the home
country… They may be more likely to transact with those in the country of
origin, act as intermediaries, or send back remittances, both financial and
social” (p. 13). Finally, the return
channel analyzes the effects of the return of emigrants who bring along new
skills, savings, as well as social and ideational capital.
For many the concepts of political transnationalism or political transnational field are better
idioms to explain the extraterritorial political activity of diverse actors who
derive their influence from emigration. The concept of political
transnationalism constitutes just a segment from the overall transnational
activity that also includes cultural, political, and humanitarian engagement.
Schiller and Fouron (1999) define transnational migration as:
“a pattern of migration
in which persons, although they move across international borders, settle, and
establish relations in a new state, maintain ongoing social connections with
the polity from which they originated” (p. 344).
In their understanding, the actors of
this phenomenon are worth being analyzed as a distinct category of international
actors that they call transnational
migrants or shortly, transmigrants.
The problem with this definition is the
same as in the case of defining diaspora,
it does not provide an explicit gauge for distinguishing those who take part in
the transnational activity from those who do not. It also does not provide an
indicator of how intense their transnational engagement is. Assuming that
almost every migrant sends remittances to his country of origin, or undertakes
visits home, which are considered acts of transnationalism, does not mean that
each of them should qualify as a trans-migrant (Foner, 1997).
In the same manner we can puzzle the
trans-migrants’ political participation. It is worth asking how frequent and
dedicated migrants’ political participation should be to be categorized as a
separate group, and to be analyzed as a distinct type of political activity.
This question was researched by Guarnizo et al. (2003) on the cases of the Salvadorian,
Colombian, and Dominican recent emigrant communities in the United States. They
concluded that the political
transnational field exists as a separate category, and trans-migrants should be analyzed as a separate type of actors.
This is because they identify permanent and persistent political actions that
connect emigrants to their home countries. They, however, recognize that the
trans-migrant political activism is much weaker and less intense than many
scholars claim. This activism also varies across different political events.
The trans-migrant political involvement is significantly felt only in crucial
moments such as competitive elections or reaction to humanitarian crises.
It is important to note that the types of
political influence exercised by different deterritorialized groups also vary
across groups. All of them can exert a certain level of influence on the
homeland political landscape however this influence is disproportional across
them and vary in function of a number of factors such as availability of
financial and human resources, expertise, time and others. Some groups exercise
more direct forms of political influence while others recur to hidden lobbying
practices. The repertoire of their political mobilization practices depends on
their ability to bring about the needed political change. It is however salient
to differentiate between the various communities to understand the differential
impact they might have.
Instead of conclusion: The prospect of gathering economic
contribution without officering electoral rights to Moldovan emigrants, by
putting them in the box of diaspora,
is an interesting option for Moldovan government since it was clearly noticed the
emigrants are not willing to vote for the power elites preferring
preponderantly the non-incumbent parties/candidates.
Comentarii
Trimiteți un comentariu