This article has a threefold aim. First, to create a typology of Balkan migration crises. Second, to reflect on how migration is theorized in a crisis situation by analyzing the competing conceptual clusters and proposing new ones. Third, to measure the ratio between the region’s crisis and anti-crisis potential in the field of migration in regard both to agency and policies. The article is structured in four parts. The first part reconstructs the conceptual history of “crisis” and its affirmation as the hegemonic discourse of contemporary times. The second part introduces temporality as a theoretical zoom that illuminates a different migration profile depending on whether we are observing it in a short-term, mid-term, or long-term perspective. The third part presents a new typology of Balkan migration crises based on different criteria. It structures Balkan migration crises into two clusters: real and constructed. The article seeks to answer the question of why, given the abundance of real refugee and migration crises, new ones are constructed. The fourth part goes beyond the crisis and analyzes the migration and development nexus as a major policy innovation. The conclusion offers a comparative analysis of the diverse Balkan migration crises.
Southeastern Europe is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish innovative research on contemporary developments in Southeastern Europe.
Southeastern Europe embraces multi- and interdisciplinary scholarship and comparative approaches. The journal publishes thematic issues that contain essays, articles, interviews, debates, reviews, and news.
Southeastern Europe is made in cooperation with the Institute for Central-Eastern and Balkan Europe,
This article examines the reinvention of post-communist democracy through contestation and new mobilizations on and offline. The hypothesis of this analysis is that we are currently witnessing a second democratic revolution: following the velvet revolution of the 1990s, a second, digital and contestatory revolution has been occurring in the 2010s. Whereas the first revolution introduced parliamentary democracy into the post-communist states, the new revolution sets the conditions for the emergence of contestatory citizenship. The article is structured in three parts. The first section analyses the emergence of a new type of citizenship and identifies its ‘3 I’ formula: indignation, Internet, and imagination. Furthermore, the conception of contestatory (e-)citizenship is articulated along four axes: the ‘augmented’ citizen, the digital indignados, ‘speaking up’, and the networked individual. The second part examines the political cartography of protests and their uses (politization, aesthetization, self-reflexivity, civic takeover of political temporality, ‘exit or voice’). The article compares three waves of mobilization and, armed with the analytic toolkit of contestatory citizenship and a scheme of four axes, proposes a classification. The third part of the paper, finally, looks at the new mobilizations through the perspective of the new actors.
The analysis starts from a key question: how many transformations did post-communism, which came as a promise and project for one transformation, actually carry out? This article is a conceptual, not an event narrative about the transformations of democratization. Its theoretical ambition is threefold. The first aim is to develop a new analytical model for the study of transformations based on the concept of ‘symbolic-ideological hegemony’ and a matrix of two pairs of indicators. The first pair reflects the intentionality of the change and examines the (non-)existence of an explicitly formulated political project as well as its (self-)designation by elites and citizens. The second pair of indicators concerns agency and covers the supply side and the demand side, the perspective and role of elites, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the perspective and role of citizens. The other ambitions of the study are to identify the key transformations in Bulgaria’s three-decade-long post-communist development – a democratic, a (national) populist, and a post-democratic one, and to analyze them in a comparative perspective.
The political representation of minority groups in Bulgaria is analyzed from three perspectives. The first relates to political socialization: the mechanisms of minority political preference, and their materialization into political behavior, mostly during elections or through party membership. The second relates to political actors' conduct towards minorities: their attitudes toward minority identities and the significance of minority representation in their practice. The third perspective relates to the institutional framework that politically regulates minority status. This third perspective raises questions of minimum representation, and the legal formalization of minority political parties. Bulgarian ethnic politics is analyzed regarding both the ethnic factors in constructing the political scene and the political factors in structuring the ethnic model. The present article questions the applicability of the distinction between the 'politics of ideas' and the 'politics of identities' to Southeastern Europe in general, and to Bulgaria in particular. This theoretical question is addressed through two empirical comparative analyses: the similarities and divergences of the minority management model in the Bulgarian Constitution and the one applied in the political practice, and the differences between minority representation in Bulgaria and in neighboring countries such as Romania.