The Greek Military Dictatorship: Revisiting a Troubled Past, 1967-1974

On 17 November, SEESOX hosted a seminar on The Greek Military Dictatorship: Revisiting a Troubled Past, 1967-1974. Speakers were Othon Anastasakis (SEESOX), Foteini Dimirouli (Keble College, Oxford), and Kostis Kornetis (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid). Katerina Lagos (California State University, Sacramento) chaired.

Lagos recalled the history of the 1967 coup and its aftermath, noting that the seminar was taking place on the anniversary of the Polytechnic uprising on 17 November 1973 which contributed to the discrediting and the eventual downfall of the military junta. The seminar marked the publication of a volume of the same name (edited by herself and Anastasakis), a book which contained contributions on the history, internal and external policies of the Greek military regime.

Anastasakis focused on the junta’s policy towards education. At first, he drew a distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in how they treat education and youth; while totalitarians seek to dominate education totally and mobilise youth around their totalitarian ideology (i.e. Nazi and fascist regimes), authoritarian regimes focus on restricting and controlling liberties – a more limited aim – and show reaction and scepticism towards education and youth. In the case of Greece, a textbook military dictatorship, they sought to deal with the education system in a reactionary way, reversing earlier democratic and liberal reforms. This was based on no particular beliefs other than ultranationalism, with the Army as the embodiment of national consciousness, and a fixation on the purified Greek language (Katharevousa) as the official language, with Demotic Greek described as “semi-barbarian”. Alongside this, there was censorship of a long list of publications, they sought to suppress the youth movement, infiltrate the universities and impose their own clientilistic and loyalist networks.

All the President’s Men: Institutions and key players in Erdogan’s Turkey

This SEESOX seminar was held on 3 November in the European Studies Centre of St Antony’s College, Oxford. The speaker was Selim Koru (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey), the discussant was Sinem Adar (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), and Dimitar Bechev (Oxford School of Global and Area Studies) chaired.

Bechev opened proceedings by noting that the Erdogan system was currently in trouble. It had run out of ideas and was failing on economic policy. The Opposition had learnt lessons in local elections and was now preparing for 2023 elections. Erdogan was no longer an unstoppable power.

Koru said that Erdogan rule was approaching its natural end. What had happened in the past 20 years, and where would Turkey go? Turkey after the AKP rise to power in 2002 had become an early version of a global tendency towards populism. It combined the far right rhetoric of civilisational change with sharp changes in economic/capital structures, bringing together an alliance of islamists and nationalists, and claiming to restore social harmony, economic success, and military glory. Today, although there was economic growth, there was inflation of 40-50%, and a catastrophic fall in the value of the lira. In the cities, there was a mix of two worlds: restaurants were full, but bus users worried about affording the fare. Istanbul especially was feeling acute economic pain. The Erdogan rating level was down to 40%, and going to get worse. Polls suggested that the governing coalition and opposition coalition had 40% each, 10% Kurdish, and 10% smaller opposition parties. It would be dangerous for Erdogan to hold elections, and unlikely that he would: though he presented himself as embodying the nation (“divinely ordained sovereignty”).

Afghan crisis, migration diplomacy and Turkey-EU relations

On October 27, 2021 SEESOX organised its first seminar of the academic year entitled “Afghan crisis, migration diplomacy and Turkey-EU relations” in the context of the SEESOX project on Turkey’s Migration Diplomacy supported by the Oxford-Berlin Partnership. The speakers included Franck Duvell (Universitat Osnabrück), Başak Kale (METU) and Kemal Kirişçi (Brookings Institution) and the panel was chaired by Othon Anastasakis (SEESOX) and Mehmet Karli (SEESOX).

The panel looked into the recent migration developments between the EU and Turkey, taking into consideration the follow up negotiations to the EU-Turkey 2016 migration deal, the impact of the summer 2021 Afghan crisis on the refugee flow via Turkey and the ongoing Turkish complaints calling out the EU for failing to share its burden of hosting refugees and to keep to its commitment on visa free travel. In light of these issues, the panel reviewed the current state of migration diplomacies between the EU and Turkey, looked at the prospects of the migration deal and evaluated the impact of the prevailing transactionalism over the EU-Turkey relations in general.

Basak Kale started by presenting a brief historical account of the last 15 years on the issue of EU-Turkey migration relations claiming that the migration issue has come to dominate relations since the 2016 deal and by looking at the positive and negative repercussions of this deal. She reminded us that the deal was not a treaty or a formal document but a statement whose validity could be questioned because it was not ratified by the European Parliament. She also emphasised the transactional nature of the deal, instrumentalising the refugees and leaving open various legal and humanitarian issues. She concluded that the statement triggered changes in Turkey regarding the management of the refugees, and in terms of their integration into Turkey’s labour force, where a limited number of work permits having been issued and mostly an informal integration has taken place.

Book discussion: A Citizen’s Guide to the Rule of Law

A Citizen’s Guide to the Rule of Law

Book discussion with authors, Kalypso Nicolaidis and Adis Merdzanovic

On 17 June 2021, in collaboration with the European University Institute, SEESOX organised a book roundtable moderated by Alexander Stubb (School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute) for the recently-published “A Citizen’s Guide to the Rule of Law”, authored by Kalypso Nicolaidis (School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute) and Adis Merdzanovic (School of Management and Law, Zurich University of Applied Sciences).

Sarah Nouwen (School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute) first presented the book and underlined that the rule of law is the most precious human invention of all times – for this reason, it should be accessible to everyone. She explained that the book engages citizens in a clear and direct way and raises awareness on the shared responsibility for threats directed towards the rule of law. While the book focuses on the rule of law in Europe, many of the lessons of this book should be applied for EU rule of law promotional activities beyond the Western Balkans. The fundamental argument of the book is that on one hand, the EU should be more ambitious in promoting the rule of law, while on the other, it should be humbler. The book identifies the areas where the EU should be more ambitious and where it should be humbler, supporting its arguments with suggested alternatives.

Emigrants and emigration states: A contested relationship?

The webinar ‘Emigrants and emigration states: A contested relationship?’ was given by Alexandra Délano Alonso, Associate Professor and Chair of Global Studies at The New School (New York City) that took place on 3 June 2021, within the context of the SEESOX/COMPAS webinar series ‘The Politics of Emigration: Representations and Contestations’; it focused on Mexican migrants in the U.S. The seminar was chaired by Manolis Pratsinakis (SEESOX/COMPAS). Robin Cohen, Emeritus Professor and Former Director of the International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, acted as discussant.

In her presentation, Professor Délano Alonso focussed on what diaspora policies reveal about tensions and contestations over policies and politics that are negotiated, as well as how diaspora policies can be a space of accountability, in relation to other aspects of migration. She used the uniqueness of the Mexican case, given the space it shares in relation to the US and also that it is a country of emigration, asylum and transit, as well as of return. Recalling that Mexico’s relationship with its diaspora dates back to the 19th century, she pointed to the strong consular network that protect diasporans’ rights. Most of the policies in their origins focused on documentation, emergency responses on issues of confrontation with US authorities, need for repatriation, and promotion of Mexican culture. Over time there was a shift in the focus towards issues such as expanding consular services, extending ties with migrant organizations (in come cases with practices of control and co-optation), and strengthening the Mexican-American population as a potential lobbying power. They also shifted towards giving rights to Mexicans abroad, such as symbolic recognition (naming them as heroes, talented diaspora), offering voting rights, dual nationality, support through matching programmes for investment (e.g., 3 for 1 programme), in some cases allowing them to participate in the design of programmes that concerned them through the creation of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad and its Advisory Council. She also focussed on consular programmes that support access to social rights in the country of destination, mainly in the US, highlighting the shift from the idea of returning to the reality that most migrants were staying and settling in the US.

Is emigration a blow to liberal democracy?

A webinar on this subject was held by SEESOX and COMPAS on 27 May. The main speaker was Ivan Krastev, Chair of the Centre for Liberal Strategies, Sofia and Permanent Fellow, Institute of Human Sciences, IWM Vienna. Discussants were Maria Koinova (University of Warwick) and Othon Anastasakis (St Antony’s College, University of Oxford). Jessie Barton Hronesova, also of Oxford, chaired.

Krastev described the background and context. In Central and Eastern Europe, there was, broadly speaking, a fear of immigration; but the real trauma was emigration and population loss. The countries were shrinking demographically. Surveys showed that Poland was shrinking by 15%, BiH by 29%, Bulgaria by 40%. These declines were unprecedented in the absence of war and natural disasters. One economic effect was shortages in labour markets. COVID -19 revealed the devastation caused in the health sector, with the loss of medical professionals to countries where they were better paid.  This also meant the loss of money invested eg in the education of medical professionals, and the invisible transfer of money from the periphery to the centre. Governments were unsure how to react.  Strong nationalist rhetoric was employed, like the Berlin Wall, to stop the exodus of people.  There was also a major generational imbalance, with the young especially likely to leave: and a political effect, with the tendency of pro-EU voters to leave. The very fact of going abroad and making a living outside a country was seen as a success; just as under Communist rule moving from country to city was seen as a move-up. Illiberal governments, eg in Hungary and Poland, were not closing their countries to foreigners, rather welcoming them as guest workers; but were not giving them political rights, thus divorcing labour markets from politics and the nation.