How Slovakia Constructs and Engages Its Diaspora

2015–2016

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Diasporas, nation states and mainstream societies in Central and Eastern Europe

How Slovakia engages and constructs its Diaspora Svetluša Surová

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Erste Foundation Fellowship for Social Research for the Year 2015/2016

„Diasporas, nation states and mainstream societies in Central and Eastern Europe.”

Working paper May, 2016

How Slovakia Constructs and Engages Its Diaspora

Svetluša Surová©

1

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Erste Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Working paper How Slovakia Constructs and Engages its Diaspora

Author: Svetluša Surova*

Biographical note Dr. Svetluša Surova is Visiting Fellow at Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University in Bratislava, within the framework of the National Scholarship Programme of the Slovak Republic for the Support of Mobility of Students, PhD Students, University Teachers, Researchers and Artists during the summer semester of the academic year 2016/2017. Dr. Surova was accepted to prestige international short-term residential programme BIARI- Brown International Advanced Research Institutes in 2016 and toghether with her team, she has won BIARI Alumni seed award for the year 2016-2017. For the years 2015-2016 she was a Research Fellow of Erste Foundation under the Fellowship for Social Research.

Dr. Surova received her doctorate and graduated with honours in Political Theory at the University of Matej Bell in Banska Bystrica, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Department of Political Science. Her recent publications include articles on Ethnic politics and minority policies in Serbia: evolution and constitutional design since the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting (1990) In: Economic, political and legal issues of international relations 2016 Volume of Scientific Papers, Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo EKONÓM, 2016; then article“Exploring the opportunities for trans-ethnic cooperation within and across Serbia through the national minority councils” In: Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe (JEMIE), ECMI, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2015 and article on Language in the context of human and minority rights. In: Language in Political, Ideological and Intercultural Relations. Sociolinguistica Slovaca 8. Wachtarczyková, J- Satinská, L.- Ondrejovič, S. (ed.).

Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV, 2015. Her current research interest includes diaspora, ethnicity, identity, minority rights and multiculturalism.

*

Visiting Fellow at Department of Political Science, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University in Bratislava.

Gondova 2, PO Box 32, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovak republic, Email: svetlusa_surova@biari.brown.edu; svetlusa.surova@gmail.com "This work was supported by the Erste Foundation for Social Research for the Year 2015/2016 under research grant.”

2

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Content 1.

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

2.

Literature review........................................................................................................ 7

2.1.

Defining terms and notions: conceptual perspective ..................................................................................7

2.2.

Diaspora engagement: terms and concepts ..............................................................................................10

3.

Theory and methodology ...........................................................................................12

5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................27 References .......................................................................................................................30 Notes ...............................................................................................................................36

3

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

How Slovakia engages and constructs its Diaspora

Abstract Relevant literature recognizes the significant role of diasporas in international relations and in domestic politics. It has been acknowledged that diasporas can have an impact on both the country/countries where they live and on the country/countries to which they relate. Conversely, states can have a great influence on their citizens and co-ethnics living abroad. For these reasons, the traditional research focus on diasporas and their impact on the state has shifted towards examining the role of states in forming and supporting diasporas. Today, most states attempt to engage with their population abroad in some way or another. There is a growing trend of state adoption of diaspora engagement initiatives and policies around the world.

Therefore, the question of how and why states engage their diasporas is highly relevant in the contemporary global, mobile, and interconnected world and its answers can shed the light on state-diaspora relations. This article explores how and why Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora. The topic is addressed from the perspective of political science by applying a new institutionalism approach and a qualitative research design. The qualitative methods used in this article are case study, archival analysis, and text- and document-based techniques. The time period under consideration begins in 1993, when Slovakia declared independence, and continues to the present. Slovakia constructed the term ‘Slovaks living abroad’ generally so as to include both Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens living outside of Slovakia, establishing under one label two different groups of people with distinctive identities and forms of political membership. The groups have equal legal status but different rights, obligations, and benefits. This article argues that Slovakia is trying to use its diaspora policies to extend its authority over citizens and even co-ethnic non-citizens living abroad within and beyond its territory. This means that diaspora policies have the potential to be a challenging factor for nation-states and the nation-state system. However, citizenship still remains the main demarcating line between Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens. The boundaries between the members of the Slovak political community were not erased, just slightly redrawn in favour of Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens.

Key words: diaspora, Slovak diaspora, Slovaks living abroad, diaspora policies, diaspora institutions, Slovak diaspora policies, Slovak diaspora institutions

4

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

1. Introduction

Relevant literature recognizes the significant role diasporas can play in international relations and in domestic politics (Sheffer 1986, 2003). It has been acknowledged that diasporas can have an impact on both the country/countries where they live and on the country/countries to which they relate. Conversely, states can have a great influence on their citizens or co-ethnics living abroad. For these reasons, traditional research focus on diasporas and their impact on the state has shifted towards examining the role of states in forming and supporting diasporas. Today, most states attempt to engage with their population abroad in some way or another (Gamlen et al. 2013; Gamlen 2006, 2008, 2014; Collyer 2013; Yamashiro 2014; Délano-Gamlen 2014, 2015). There is a growing trend of state adoption of diaspora engagement initiatives and policies around the world. Additionally, diaspora institutions are being established at an exponential rate. Therefore, the question of how and why states engage their diasporas is highly relevant in the contemporary global, mobile, and interconnected world and its answers can shed the light on state-diaspora relations.

There is a vast amount of literature on state-diaspora relations, consisting mainly of case studies focusing on individual country policies. Against this backdrop, Délano and Gamlen (2014, 2015) have suggested a new way of theorising state-diaspora relations by studying them in comparative perspective and applying a multimethod approach combining quantitative and qualitative research design. Although there is a definite need for summarisation and generalisation of the results and conclusions of the relevant literature from past decades, there is still uncertainty about whether this is an achievable goal and if it is, about how best to carry out this work. Firstly, scholars examining diasporas and state-diaspora relations reflect different theoretical backgrounds and various ontological and epistemological positions on research.

Secondly, there is no generally accepted definition of the term diaspora. We still lack universal consensus among scholars about whether diasporas exist objectively or whether they are imagined. Scholars also do not agree on which criteria, whether objective, subjective, or a combination of both, should be included in the definition of the term. Definitional problems reflect the difficulty with pre-determination versus self-determination positions on more general level. The question is then how to compare and generalise our knowledge in the absence of conceptual clarity of key analytical terms? Cant this be done by approaching the subject of study in a different ways? These conceptual and methodological issues in diaspora studies are legitimate, relevant, and require our careful consideration. Nevertheless, the variety of 5

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

approaches towards studying state-diaspora relations should not be percieved as an obstacle towards cumulative knowledge in the discipline. Additionally, the value of in-depth case studies should not be disregarded on account of comparative studies.

From a political science perspective, diaspora research focuses on the policies and political activities of governments, migrants, and national movements as well as on the identities, multiple state memberships, rights and loyalties of diaspora members (Popova in Malloy, 2013). We have an immense literature on the accommodation of different minority cultures in liberal democracies, but state-diaspora relations were until recently neglected in normative political science. This is interesting as diasporas are very old phenomena. In order to understand relations between states and the minorities that live within their borders, we can use international standards and norms governing state-minority relations as guidance. These norms stem from organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe (COE), the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU), all of which deal to different degrees with the protection of minority rights and the regulation of state-minority relations. However, there is a lack of international documents and laws governing and regulating state-diaspora relations. This paucity has already caused disagreements between states concerning control over people outside of the state’s territory. Diasporas have been used historically as justification for starting wars—for example, the German minority in Poland was misused as an excuse for the German invasion of Poland that led to the Second World War. More recently, the Russian diaspora in Crimea was manipulated through an independence referendum and later annexed by the Russian Federation. History has many examples of diasporas supporting either the creation of new states or the recreation of old ones, as well as secession, irredentism, and even wars from abroad. Consequently, it can be argued that statediaspora relations may constitute a challenge to the Westphalian nation-state system and its basic principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Clearly diaspora studies offer a fertile field for research, especially from the perspective of political science. Since there are no previous studies on Slovak state-diaspora relations, this paper will attempt to fill that gap in the literature. This paper will examine how Slovakia engages its diaspora and why. Can these policies be seen as a challenging factor for the nation state and the Westphalian state system in general? Additionally, this paper will examine factors that determine diaspora policy design, the timing of policy adoption, and its consequent implementation. This paper will also investigate how and why the term diaspora is defined and used in the Slovak context. Who is included in the legal definition and official notions of the 6

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

term and why? What can the legal definition of diaspora tell us about Slovak state-diaspora strategies, policies, and even their legitimacy? In order to answer these questions, a new institutionalism approach was applied in combination with a qualitative research design, which includes case study, archival analysis, and text- and document-based techniques. The time period covered by this study spans from the beginning of the 1990's, when the Slovak republic was established, until the present.

Slovakia started to develop diaspora engagement policies immediately after it was established in 1993. In the early 1990's diaspora policies targeted only Slovak co-ethnics living abroad but today they target Slovak citizens as well as non-citizen Slovak co-ethnics residing permanenty outside Slovak borders. Slovakia has established many rights and benefits for Slovaks living abroad, which can be utilized within its territory and even beyond its borders. As such, statediaspora relations can be seen as challenging nation-states and the nation-state system in general.

The logic of the paper is as follows. The next section offers a literature review on the definitional issues of the term diaspora and on diaspora engagement policies. The third section discusses the theory and methodology of this study. The fourth section presents the results of the study in detail. Finally, the fifth section summarizes the findings of the research.

2. Literature review

2.1.

Defining terms and notions: conceptual perspective

Each and every study addressing diaspora phenomena must first contend with a fundamental question: what is diaspora? Scholars have proposed various definitions and many conceptualisations of the term but have yet to reach a general consensus on its definition1. In political science diaspora is generally understood as a “group of persons of the same ethnonational origin who themselves, or their ancestor, voluntarily or under coercion migrated from one place to another or to several other places, settled in these other places, and maintain their identity and various kinds of contacts with their place of origin” (Sheffer)2. In the early days of diaspora studies, scholarly debate focused on the meanings and definitional characteristics of the diaspora concept and term (Sheffer 1986, 2003; Safran 1991, 1999; Tölölyan 1991, 2012; 7

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Clifford, 1994; Cohen 1995, 2008; Vertovec 2005; Brubaker 2005; Esman 2009; Bauböck-Faist 2010). For a very long time, the term diaspora was understood as pertaining to the expulsion of the Jewish people from their homeland and subsequent scattering across other countries, with an emphasis on the repression and moral degradation that resulted from that scattering (Safran, 1991). From the 1960ˊs and 1970ˊs the use of the term diaspora was extended to include other groups such as Africans, Armenians, the Irish, and later also Palestinians (Cohen, 2008). In the early 1990's, the term diaspora started to be used in reference to immigrants, expatriates, refugees, guest-workers, the exile community, and overseas and ethnic communities (Tölölyan 1991).

Safran (1991) proposed one of the most influential definitions of diaspora. He widened Walker Connor's3 working definition of diaspora to include members of expatriate minority communities who have the following common features: they are dispersed from their original ‘center’ to two or more foreign ‘peripheral’ regions; they retain a ‘collective memory’ of the homeland; they feel partially or fully excluded or marginalised from the host society; they have a desire to return to their homeland; they seek to maintain or restore their homeland; and they have a collective consciousness and solidarity defined by their relationship with the homeland (Safran, 1991). On the other hand, Clifford (1994) suggested that diasporas are transnational identities, which link multiple communities of a dispersed population. However, according to him, these transnational connections linking diasporas “need not to be articulated primarily through a real or symbolic homeland” (Clifford, 1994: 306) as was suggested by Safran. Many other scholars define diasporas as transnational communities (Tölölyan 1991), yet Vertovec (2005) highlights that “not all diasporas are transnational communities” while transnational communities can emerge from diasporas.4 The concept of diaspora developed by Safran (1991) focuses predominantly on forced migration and connectivity with the homeland, while Cohen's definition (2008) pays attention to the emergence and main characteristics of diasporas in the countries where they live. Cohen (2008) has suggested that the term diaspora should also include groups of people who moved voluntarily. In pursuance of classical and Safran's concept of diaspora, he developed nine features of diasporas5 and five ideal types of diaspora: victim, labour, imperial, trade, deterritorialized. In contrast to Cohen's five-part typology, and based on functions that diaspora perform in the countries where they live, Milton J. Esman (2009) has proposed an alternative taxonomy of three classes, namely settler, labourer, and entrepreneurial diasporas. Other scholars such as Michele Reis (2004) have pointed out that modern-day diasporas are formed 8

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

not only by political conflicts and forced migration but are also a result of opportunities and voluntary migration.

These suggested definitions focus on different underlying characteristics of the concept, diverging on the features of forced vs. voluntary migration, connectivity to real or imagined home, result vs. reasons of migration. Based on these criteria, scholars define diasporas in different ways by including or excluding various groups from the concept. Modern definitions go beyond the classical concept of diaspora and in general, they refer to the term as a migrant community which maintains material or sentimental attachments to their country of origin while adapting to the environment and institutions in their host country (Esman, 2009, s. 14 and 20).

According to Gamlen, scholars generally take one of two extreme stances on the various meanings and usage of the term diaspora. On one side are the proponents of restricting the use of the term to refer only to “victim groups dispersed through coercion, who maintain an antagonistic relationship with their host societies” (Gamlen, Working paper No. 63, 2008). In extreme opposition to this, some scholars advocate for a broad conception of the term which would refer to any group living outside of the state of their origin and even to any group sharing the same features.

Most proposed definitions of the term diaspora include dispersion in space, orientation to a socalled ‘homeland’ and boundary maintenance (Brubaker, 2005). Most of them have been criticised for treating diasporas as homogeneous, historically-fixed entities and for holding an essentialist position on identity. Brubaker was the first who stressed the problem of understanding diasporas as actual entities with countable, quantifiable memberships and as unitary actors. He suggested we think of diaspora not as a bounded entity, an ethnodemographic or ethno-cultural fact, but instead as an idiom, a stance, a claim, a practise, a project, etc. (Brubaker 2005: 12). Disagreements over whether the term should be understood as a real versus a constructed entity reflect larger definitional problems concerning whether the term encapsulates a phenomenon that is objective, subjective, or a combination of both. These definitional problems are related to the more general debate over pre-determination vs. selfdetermination. Pre-determination operates with pre-selected, pre-accepted characteristics that groups must have to have in order to be considered diasporas. These characteristics are usually established by someone from 'outside' and not by the subjects themselves. Self-determination, on the other hand, means that diaspora members can decide themselves if they feel diasporic and want to be treated as such.

9

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Recently, migrants and their descendants have begun using the word diaspora as a term of selfidentification. Vertovec (2005) has argued that in order to gain real meaning, claims and criteria for diasporic boundaries and membership must be self-ascribed and that it is illegitimate for others to decide who belongs to a diaspora group. For Vertovec, diaspora belonging involves a consciousness of, or emotional attachment to, the group’s origins and cultural characteristics.

These can include ethno-linguistic, regional, religious, national, or other attributes. Moreover, identifications of diaspora members can be multiple. Even as members of a diaspora share a common identity, their views and experiences may be different. This means that scientists should be very cautious while studying diasporas, as diasporas are complex, dynamic, and manifold phenomena.

Brubaker (2005) has suggested we think of diaspora firstly as a category of practice and only then can we see the benefits gained by using diaspora as a category of analysis. However, such suggestion is not really tenable in empirical science because science requires precise and clear definitions of terms and concepts. Studies must define their key terms to allow for analysis and in order to meet the academic criteria for using the scientific method. We cannot study diasporas if we do not define them as categories of analysis. Neither the explosion of literature on diaspora nor the expanded definitions of the term have brought conceptual clarity to diaspora studies.

Does this mean that the project of finding a universally accepted definition of diaspora is doomed to failure? I will elaborate on the definitional problem of the term diaspora in the theoretical and methodological section.

2.2.

Diaspora engagement: terms and concepts

There has been an immense interest in fair accommodation and the integration of diverse minority groups in multicultural societies over the last two and a half decades in political theory and philosophy (Taylor 1994; Kymlicka 1995; Kymlicka 1996; Walzer 2002; Kymlica-Patten 2003; Sartori 2005; Parekh 2006; Kymlicka 2007; Laden-Owen 2007). Great attention has been paid to issues of minority rights, cultural rights, and the inclusion or exclusion of different minority groups within liberal democracies. However, R. Bauböck (2013) has noticed that relations with emigrants were until recently disregarded by political theorists. According to R. Bauböck, there are three major normative approaches to emigration. The first examines the relationship between individual liberty and collective benefits and burdens in the context of 10

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

state-emigrant citizen relations. The second approach reconsiders democratic principles for citizenship inclusion with regards to the questions of demos, citizenship, political participation, and representation. Thirdly, the relations between migrants and destination states are discussed.

These may include the questions of authority over emigrants, taxation, and the nature of dual or multiple citizenship. Normative theory lacks clear answers about the relations between states and their citizens or co-ethnics living abroad.

As was mentioned earlier, most states try to engage their citizens and/or co-ethnics living abroad using various strategies and policies. Relevant literature offers a wide range of different definitions and classifications of diaspora engagement policies and strategies. According to Gamlen (2008), diaspora policies can be defined as state institutions and practices that apply to members of that state's society who reside outside its borders. Further, he classifies diaspora engagement policies as capacity-building policies, extending rights and extracting obligations from the diaspora (Gamlen, Working paper No. 32, 2006). Another scholar, Mahieu (2014), defines diaspora policies as strategies used by states to connect with expatriate citizens.

Recently, Yamashiro (2015) suggested three different kinds of diaspora strategies: diasporaconnecting (the formalization of exchanges and affinities which were already expressed), diaspora-cultivating (attempts to cultivate connection to the homelandn), and diaspora-creating (building interest in the national culture and society, usually through soft power- strategies).

These strategies are understood as policy initiatives which aim to develop and manage relationships with diasporas and they may target co-ethnics or citizens living abroad.

Formal government offices which support and coordinate state activities towards diasporas are defined as diaspora institutions (Gamlen 2014)6. Relevant literature indicates that diaspora institutions have rapidly increased in numbers over the past few decades. While in 1970 less than 10 states had diaspora institutions, by 2014 already 110 of 193 UN Member states had established at least one (Gamlen, 2014). Moreover, empirical literature has shown that diaspora engagement policies are continually present and that they are practiced by almost all states regardless of differences between them. For example, Gamlen (2006) has analysed diaspora engagement policies in seventy countries worldwide and concluded that diaspora policies are very often focused on capacity-building policies, i.e. through symbolic and institutional nation building as well as on extracting obligations from the diaspora (e.g. mandatory payments, knowledge transfer programmes, remittances). Interestingly, the policies oriented towards the extension of rights and incorporation of diaspora into the home state, such as dual citizenship, parliamentary representation, voting rights, and so forth, are less common. Notably, it was 11

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

suggested that states “extend their sovereignty and redefine the boundaries of citizenship and membership to include targeted members of populations abroad” through the engagement policies (Waterbury in Bauböck 2010: 141). In other words, diaspora policies “(re)produce citizen-sovereign relationships with expatriates” (Gamlen 2006). Furthermore, case studies edited by Michael Collyer (2013) revealed some similarities in the diaspora policies and patterns of emigration of different states. New empirical studies show shifts in state understandings of “the people” to include emigrants, something which was previously uncommon7.

The growing literature on state-diaspora relations is largely empirical, descriptive, and undertheorised. There is no one dominant theory on why state-diaspora relations emerge and what policy aims they pursue. However, scholars (Gamlen et al 2013; Délano and Gamlen 2014, 2015) have organised relevant literature on state-diaspora relations into three main perspectives: tapping, embracing, and governing motivations. The tapping perspective focuses on the development potential of migration, such as remittances. The embracing perspective is based on the belief that state-diaspora relations are influenced by the idea that nation states have the capacity to extend beyond territorial borders. The governing perspective highlights the importance of forming global agreements on how best to govern diasporas. State-diaspora relations raise important questions about the relationship between state authority and space, and about membership and citizenship in political science. This study focuses on these issues.

3. Theory and methodology

As was previously mentioned, even if we cannot reach a consensus on a general, universally accepted definition of diaspora, we still need a definition of the term. Acknowledging diaspora as a category of practice should not preclude using it as an analytical category. Without defining the concept, it is difficult to build and compile our knowledge about diaspora in comparative political science or other social sciences. Definitions are indispensable for empirical and comparative work but how do we create them? First of all, a definition should state or describe all of the characteristics or meanings of the studied phenomenon. A definition should be positive–it should emphasize all the features which make the defined object what it is. If all of the characteristics of the defined phenomenon are not known, then negative definitions may be used. Negative definitions stress the features that the studied phenomenon cannot have in order 12

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

to be classified as the defined object. Usually, negative definitions are used when positive definitions are not perfectly clear or comprehensive. However, the theory of logic suggests that definitions should be comprehensive and complete, meaning that they should include all or almost all characteristics or aspects of the defined phenomenon. If the defined phenomenon is complex, then its definition should be complex and exhaustive too. Lastly, terms must be defined by other previously defined terms (Panić, 1999).

Most suggested definitions from prominent scholars establish strict criteria that diasporas must satisfy “to warrant the scientific designation as a diaspora” (Dufoix, 2008, s. 22). However, these proposed definitions are working definitions and they reflected each scholar's own research interests, positions, and methods. Clearly, this raises an important question; how can we meaningfully discuss diaspora and do comparative research in the field if the key term is vague and indistinct? On the other hand, social realities, especially social groups such as diasporas, are not abstractions that can be easily captured in definitions. Should we recognize that various diaspora groups manifest some similar characteristics, yet differ from case to case in their experiences, reasons for existing, and results of migration, and therefore working definitions are the best we can achieve? Or should we move beyond the problem of definition and focus more on diaspora policies and politics? It has been suggested that scholars should focus on how and why the term diaspora is used by state and government representatives, politicians, and in diaspora policies and to what effect (Délano-Gamlen 2014; 2015).

Nevertheless, scholars must define diasporas as analytical categories, and their definitions should be precise, comprehensive, and clear.

The definition of the term diaspora proposed in this study captures former classifications employed in diaspora studies, partly builds upon and partly departs from previous work.

Diasporas, I propose, are clusters of individuals who either migrated themselves or are the descendents of migrants who moved, by will or coercion, from a particular place to a different place or parts of the world and who perform diasporic identity8. Like most previous definitions of the term, this definition refers to the dispersion of people in space and to the spreading of something that was originally localised, such as people, ethnicity, language, culture, or religion.

Building on relevant literature on identity, diasporic identity is deliberately understood here as a process of identification and as something that is done. Scholars have agreed that identity is not a 'thing', a 'property' or something that one can have or not have; rather it is product of social relations, a process, and something achieved (Nagel 1996; Laitin 1998; Fearon 1999; BrubakerCooper 2000; Howard 2000; Burke-Stets 2009; Eriksen 2010; Chandra 2012; Wimmer 2013; 13

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Lawler 2014; Jenkins 2014; Mccrone-Bechhofer 2015). Identity has been regarded predominantly as a dynamic, fluid, multidimensional, and ongoing process. Scholars have acknowledged that members of minorities and diasporas can have complex, multiple identities which are dependent on social context and which are changeable over time. Different identities can be activated in different contexts, meaning there can be as many activated identity categories as there are contexts (Chandra, 2012). Therefore, applying the concept of identity appears to be very useful in diaspora studies.

According to Chandra (2012), identity can be used as a category to classify or describe an individual. This means that identity can be conceptualized as a category for which individuals possess the attributes that determine eligibility for membership. Diaspora studies can also benefit from another innovative conceptual proposition made by Chandra. The distinction between categories and attributes is between nominal and activated identities, and can help us determine what diasporas are and who belongs to them. Nominal identities are those categories for which an individual possesses the attributes that determine membership. Activated identities are those identities from amongst the nominal set that are used to describe an individual by choice or assignation. According to Chandra (2012: 101),9 identity always refers to nominal rather than activated identities and the term membership refers to nominal membership. The activated membership of an ethnic category refers to those individuals who actually claim membership in that category. Amongst activated identities Chandra distinguishes between chosen and assigned identities. A chosen identity is an identity that an individual uses to describe herself in any given situation. An assigned identity is a category assigned to an individual by others. Chosen and assigned identities may or may not coincide. These propositions can help us resolve some of the definitional problems that arise from the term diaspora, bringing more clarity to our conceptualization of the term and improving our comparative research on diaspora.

Building on Chandra's contribution to constructivist understanding of identity, diasporic identity would then be one of many forms or categories of identities that a person can perform.

Diasporic identity includes identity categories associated with one or more of the following elements: migration, nationality (citizenship), ethnicity, language, dialect, religion, region, country, culture, etc. The suggested conceptualisation of diasporic identity here is inspired by Chandra's definition of ethnic identity (2012) and follows her logic of defining identity in general10. Thus, diasporic identity is understood here as a subset of categories in which features or traits associated with descent or non-descent are required for membership. Chandra uses 14

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

'descent-based attributes' as a phrase to refer to characteristics associated with or believed to be associated with descent. The features associated with descent are the traits obtained through historical heritage (citizenship based on descent, ethnicity, place of birth or origin, places of origin of one's parents or ancestors, one's own migration from one place to another or several other places, or migration by one's parents or ancestors), or through cultural inheritance (such as names, language, dialect, religion), or through genetic inheritance (such as physical features, skin colour, eye colour, hair type, height) or in the course of one's lifetime (such as naturalisation, last names). The non descent based feature in this case is citizenship in contexts where the rules governing membership to the nation are based on civic criteria. It has been emphasised in relevant literature that membership rules are always socially constructed and very often have multiple criteria. These criteria can fluctuate in their importance and can be contested over time (Chandra, 2012: 66-7).

In my definition of the term diaspora, I exclude the requirement of having an orientation toward the 'homeland' or sentimental or material attachments to the country of origin, because these are not necessary and constitutive definitional conditions of diasporas. Individuals living in a diaspora can, but do not necessarily have to, have any sentimental or material attachments to the so-called 'homeland'. Further, even if we were to acknowledge that sentimental or material attachments are definitional features of diasporas, how could these attachments be conceptualized and operationalized? What does it actually mean to say that someone has a sentimental attachment to the homeland? Does this mean they have affection for the homeland?

That they think of the homeland? If yes, how often and how intensively? Or that someone loves their homeland? Further, what does it really mean to have material attachment to the homeland?

That someone sends remittances to homeland? But how often and how much? And how can we know about these attachments? Most likely only through asking the members of the diaspora themselves. Accepting sentimental and material attachments as definitional features of the term diaspora would exclude many eligible individuals from falling under this label. And what about those who consider themselves members of a diaspora and act as such? For example, what about those who are members of diaspora organisations abroad and participate in various events that diaspora institutions organize but who do not necessarily think of or have any sentimental attachment to the so-called homeland and who do not necessarily send remittances? Should they be excluded from definitions of diaspora? No, of course not. However, material and sentimental attachments as definitional conditions could on the other hand include many ineligible individuals for membership in the diaspora category. For example, what if a migrant 15

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

from Poland that lives in USA or Germany develops a sentimental attachment to Slovakia after visiting? Or what if migrant from Poland living in USA or Germany sends material help to Italy after a devastating earthquake? Does this emotional or material attachment make these migrants living in USA or Germany part of the Slovak or Italian diasporas? Of course not.

The main problem with sentimental or material attachments and the ‘homeland’ orientation concept is that they are very difficult to operationalize and measure. In some cases it can be very difficult to establish which country should be considered the homeland, since there are no strict criteria defining this term. Usually it refers to one's country or country of birth. Homeland can also mean country of citizenship. However, sometimes one’s country of birth, country of citizenship, and imagined homeland are not the same. People can perceive homeland(s) in ways that do not fit within scientific or legal definitions of the term. Individuals may also have dual or multiple citizenships. In that case, which homeland orientation should be taken into account?

Other individuals, such as stateless persons, do not have a homeland in the sense of citizenship but may be considered part of a diaspora (for example, the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia and Estonia). For these reasons, the concepts of homeland orientation and attachment to homeland are not very helpful for empirical research. Due to their ambiguity, fuzziness, and lack of clarity, I abandon these definitional features in my suggested definition of diaspora. My definition, in contrast to previous definitions such as Cohen's (2008) or Esman's (2009), is not concerned primarily with reasons for or results of migration. Rather, I employ the concept of diasporic identity as an analytical category in order to bring more clarity to the conceptualisation of the term diaspora and to support meaningful empirical and comparative work on diaspora.

How can this proposed definition help us ascertain what a diaspora is and who belongs to it? In order to determine if someone belongs to diaspora as a category, membership rules must be taken into account. These characteristics, which are required for eligibility for membership in the category of diaspora, are called features associated with descent or non-descent. This set of characteristics constitutes a collection of nominal diasporic identity categories. Consequently, each individual can choose or can be assigned diasporic identity from this collection of identities. Choosing diasporic identity means that an individual herself is declaring and affirming her membership in the diaspora category. Assigning diasporic identity means that an individual is assigned, designated, or identified by someone else as a member of the diaspora category. If the diasporic identification of individuals, whether chosen or designated, is based on descent or non-descent characteristics, then these individuals belong to the category of 16

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

diaspora. However, if the choice or designation is made purely on a self-identification or voluntary basis, without taking descent or civic citizenship into account, they should not be considered members of the diaspora category.

In other words, if I have the descent or non-descent features which are necessary for the diaspora category within my collection of identities, I can choose to call myself a diaspora member or be designated by someone else as such. Consequently, if I do not possess the features required for eligibility for membership in the diaspora category, I am not entitled to call myself a diaspora member nor can others designate me as such. This proposed definition of diaspora is meant to be as broad and inclusive as possible, while the membership rule allows for selfdetermination or assignation in this category. This analytical definition does not presuppose that diasporas are pre-existing groups of people or homogenous and fixed entities. Identities, and diasporic identities in particular, can change over time and in different contexts. But these changes are not without constraints; they are bound by the set of features associated with descent and non-descent based characteristics.

Diaspora policies are understood here as state and government strategies, plans, actions, and approaches that are adopted and implemented to connect with and engage citizens and/or coethnics living abroad. Diaspora institutions are defined as formal (i.e. state or government) and informal organisations that are established for the purpose of dealing with diaspora matters.

They can be divided into formal ones, such as state and governmental organisations which have an official state diaspora agenda in their competences. They coordinate and implement diaspora policies into practise and represent the state while dealing with diasporas. The informal organisations also deal with diaspora matters but are not official state or governmental institutions. They can be NGOs, civil society institutions, various chambers, foundations, or organisations established by citizens, the private sector, or diasporas themselves.

My suggested definition of diaspora can be very useful in empirical and comparative studies on diasporas, but it must be recognized that collecting the necessary data for research can be very challenging. In order to apply this definition of diaspora in research, we would need to collect data on the membership rules used for the diaspora category. Even though data collection can be difficult, it is more beneficial to proceed with research using a definition than without one.

Moreover, if we deploy our own definitions of diaspora in research, then we should take care that our own classifications and types of diasporas correspond to postulated definitions. The

17

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

data and statistics on diasporas used in our research should also correlate with our own definition of diaspora.

The Slovak case of state-diaspora relations has been so far neglected by political scientists from both the normative and empirical perspectives; I have therefore decided to study Slovak diaspora policies. The main objective of this paper is to investigate how and why Slovakia engages its diaspora and how it has legally constructed the term ‘diaspora.’ My research questions are as follows: How does Slovakia construct and define the term diaspora? What were the main factors that contributed to the current legal construction of the term? How does the term diaspora refer to the people or demos and nation in the Slovak context? Does the term diaspora challenge the common understanding of political boundaries? How and why is Slovakia engaging its diaspora? What kind of diaspora engagement policies can be identified in Slovakia? Are the diaspora policies formal or informal? What are the institutional and constitutional models for engaging the Slovakian diaspora? Do the diaspora policies extend state sovereignty and control outside Slovak territory and to what extent? Are they extraterritorial? Do these diaspora engagement policies challenge the basic principle of the nation state? What kind of role does Slovakia play in forming and transforming its diaspora?

To what an extent can Slovak diaspora policies be seen as an agent of change in state-diaspora relations?

Building on the embracing perspective, I assume that state interests in engaging diasporas are formed by ideas of nation-states and different identities such as citizenship (nationality), ethnicity, religion, etc. My hypothesis here builds on the work of Watebury (in Bauböck, 2010), Gamlen (2006), and Collyer (2013) and stipulates that states use diaspora policies to try to extend their sovereignty beyond their territorial borders and expand their sovereign-citizen relation to include diasporas. By doing so, diaspora policies reformulate the boundaries of citizenship and membership in the polity. They also challenge conventional understandings of “the people” or demos in order to include members of diasporas living abroad in uncommon ways. As such, diaspora policies can be seen as a challenging factor to the basic principles of nation states and nation state system.

This study will focus primarily on the processes through which diaspora policies are developed, the evolution and constructions of the legal term ‘Slovaks living abroad,’ and the challenging issues accompanying this phenomenon. The phenomenon under scrutiny is examined from the perspective of political science, using a new institutionalism approach and a qualitative research 18

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

design. Neo-institutionalism is concerned with the impact of institutions upon individuals, but also with the interaction between institutions and individuals. In this context, institutions are formal constitutions and organizational structures as well as informal rules of political behaviour. Neo-institutionalism refers broadly to regular and repeated patterns of behaviour11.

The focus of new institutionalism is on values and power relationships that are embodied in institutions, as well on institutional design and the opportunities and obstacles that confront it.

This paper builds on the new-institutional notion that political institutions play an autonomous role in shaping political outcomes and that the “organization of political life make a difference” (Marsh-Stoker 2010: 63)12. New-institutionalism is understood by scholars as an organizing perspective and not a causal theory. It is a broad, variegated approach to politics (Hall-Taylor, 1996; March-Olsen, 2005; Lowndes, 2010; Lowndes- Roberts, 2013) which holds that institutions as a variable can explain most of political life and are therefore the factors that require explanation. Neo-institutionalism is a relevant and adequate approach for the analysis of Slovak diaspora engagement and diaspora policies. The constitutional and legal framework that sets up formal rules for relations between the state and the diaspora is important for diaspora engagement.

The research methods used here are qualitative. Qualitative methods are a broad category, encompassing everything from interviews and process tracing to archival analysis to fieldwork and ethnography (Mosley, 2013). By using qualitative methods, how and why research questions can be answered. The main aim of qualitative methods in political science is to find “detailed, text-based answers that are often historical or include personal reflections from participants in political institutions, events, issues or processes” (Vromen in March-Stoker, 2010 249). My main reasons for using a qualitative research design are the following: case studies allow for a deep analysis of a phenomenon and enable us to study events in significant detail; they can help us to explain the outcomes in individual cases; and they emphasise the importance of context for understanding human, social, and political behaviour (Mahoney and Goertz in March-Stoker 2010: 255; Vromen in March-Stoker 2010: 257). In this paper case study, archival analysis, and text- and document-based techniques have been applied. Data collection was done through both desk and field research. Primary sources such as original documents produced by political actors ranging from executive to parliamentary bodies, as well as documents from governmental and public organisations and institutions were examined in this paper13. The data was found and collected on the internet or in libraries, the Slovak national archive, and government agencies (parliament, ministries, and special offices) mainly in 19

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Slovakia. Some documents and statements were obtained under Slovak Freedom to Information. My review and analysis of data from political contexts was done with caution and an awareness of the possibility that they “could contain varied biases, or intentionally emphasize (and deemphasize) particular aspects or dynamics of the phenomenon of interest” (Kapiszewski, D.- Maclean, Lauren M.-Read, Benjamin. L., 2015, p. 155). The time period under scrutiny spans from 1993, when Slovakia declared its independence, until the present.

4. Analysis

After the peaceful separation of Czechoslovakia in 1993, also known as the velvet divorce, the Slovak republic became an independent state. From its independence, Slovakia tried to engage its diaspora living abroad and started to build diaspora policies and institutions. The first conceptual document on cooperation with Slovaks living abroad was approved in 199314 and the first Law on Slovaks living abroad was adopted in 199715. In 1999 the National Council of the Slovak Republic (NCSR) adopted its declaration on foreign Slovaks. A subsequent amendment of the Slovak constitution in 2001 recognized the importance of diaspora engagement in the country’s highest legal document and pledged to support national awareness and cultural identity in Slovaks living abroad16. In 2005, Slovakia adopted a new law on its diaspora and consequently its diasporic agenda was included in other official government documents. The contemporary model of Slovak diaspora engagement was established in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter constitution 1993)17, the Declaration of NCSR on Foreign Slovaks (1999)18, the Law on Slovaks Living Abroad (2005)19, the Conception of State Care Policy of Slovaks Living Abroad until the Year 2020 (adopted in 2016)20, the Manifesto of the Government of the Slovak Republic (2016),21 and the Document of Priorities, Concepts, and Trends in Slovak Foreign Policy22. These documents set up and determine the focus, goals, and philosophy of state policy towards Slovaks living abroad. The Law on Slovaks Living Abroad regulates the scope of state-diaspora relations as well the issue of state support for foreign Slovaks. Firstly, I will examine how and why the term diaspora is defined and used in the Slovak context.

20

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

4.1. Legal definition of Slovaks living abroad: constructing diaspora and redrawing the boundaries between citizens and non-citizen co-ethnics

In order to better understand Slovak diaspora policies and strategies it is important to know who belongs to the Slovak diaspora. Strategy is a pragmatic matter in the most cases, but when it comes to diaspora it also has great political significance. Very often diaspora policies “legally and politically” create diasporas and determine whether individuals belong to them or not.

Therefore, a close examination of how diasporas are legally defined in official documents can contribute to a better understanding of the strategies and goals of diaspora engagement policies.

In the strict legal sense, a ‘Slovak living abroad’ is a person who resides permanently abroad and is either a Slovak citizen or a non-citizen Slovak co-ethnic23. The previous law on Foreign Slovaks (Law no. 70/1997 from 14 February 1997; Law on Expatriate Slovaks, which changed and complemented some laws24, hereinafter Law on Expatriates) used various designations for members of the diaspora such as Foreign Slovak, Slovak Abroad, and Expatriate Slovak. More importantly, the definitions of these terms were much narrower than the contemporary one.

According to the older law, a Slovak Abroad was a person who had been granted special expatriate status. This special certificate was granted to Slovak non-citizens who have Slovak nationality or Slovak ethnic origins or any direct Slovak ancestors up to the third generation25.

In the contemporary law, the term diaspora or phrase “Slovaks living abroad” is defined broadly, including both citizens and non-citizen co-ethnics living permanently abroad. Another difference is that individuals don’t need to legally demonstrate their status of Slovak living abroad by holding a special certificate as was the practice under the previous law (from 1997 until 2005). Finally, the contemporary law equalized all phrases used in the old law (e.g. Slovak Abroad, Expatriate Slovak, and Foreign Slovak) with the legal term Slovak living abroad.

4.2. Slovaks living abroad: one term, two distinctive groups

The new legal definition of diaspora, i.e. Slovaks living abroad, includes two distinctive groups of people: citizens and non-citizen co-ethnics living outside of Slovakia. The Law on Slovaks living abroad grants Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens residing outside of Slovakia the same legal status. Including two distinct groups of people, such as citizens and 21

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

aliens, in one category raises important questions about the nature of this kind of community.

Can the boundaries between the members and non-members of a political community be redrawn or erased? Can or should the boundaries of a political community be extended to also include citizens living abroad? Is Slovakia creating transnational citizenship? Is Slovakia establishing citizenship or quasi-citizenship based on ethnic kinship? Can the state extend its authority beyond its territorial borders and exercise power over citizens and non-citizens abroad as well?

It has been suggested by Bauböck (2013) that diaspora policies should not be explained through the lens of civic or ethnic nationhood or statehood. In my opinion, the Slovak model of citizenship and notions of the Slovak nation can help us understand the legal definition of the Slovak diaspora. By 1999, the Slovak parliament had already recognized Slovak co-ethnics living abroad as an integral part of the Slovak nation and as spiritual holders of Slovak statehood (Declaration of NCSR on foreign Slovaks, 1999)26. Notions of the Slovak nation are predominantly based in ethnicity in other Slovak documents such as the constitution and the language law. The constitution clearly separates the Slovak nation from others nations which form national minorities and ethnic groups in Slovakia27. Secondly, the overall spirit of the preamble indicates that the Slovak nation is defined in ethnic terms and covers ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and historical links between the members of this nation28. Thirdly, the conception of the Slovak language in the preamble of the language law also supports an ethnic understanding of the Slovak nation. It states that the “Slovak language is the most important feature of distinctiveness of the Slovak nation, the most esteemed value of its cultural heritage and an articulation of the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic”29. The Slovak language is established by this law as the state language and thus has priority over other languages in the Slovak Republic (Article 1, section 2). Both the constitution and the language law emphasize an ethnic understanding of the Slovak nation and differentiate between ethnic Slovaks, the Slovak language, and other Slovak citizens, who are members of national and ethnic minorities.

Nevertheless, citizenship is defined in a mixed ethnic and civic sense. Citizens are individuals who hold citizenship and they may belong to the Slovak nation or to other nationalities and ethnic groups. Slovak citizenship can be obtained in 3 ways; through birth, by adoption, or it may be granted30. Acquisition of Slovak citizenship by birth usually means descent31; it refers mainly to jus sanguini and not to unconditional jus soli. This is another argument—Slovak citizenship is not purely civic but a mixture of both civic and ethnic principles.

22

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Why did the definition of Slovaks living abroad change? Why does the legal term Slovak diaspora comprise two distinct groups of people, citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens? In the draft Law on Slovaks living abroad, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs originally proposed the change to limit the scope of the law to include only those Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnics living abroad who preserve a Slovak awareness32. However, later in the adoption process this condition was removed for Slovak citizens living abroad. It is assumed that the ministry was forced to withdraw this stipulation due to the EU acquis communautaire33 principle of equality of citizens and the anti-discrimination norm, according to which it is forbidden to discriminate against people on grounds such as citizenship, ethnicity, race, language, gender, etc. Were the diaspora law to be applied only to Slovak citizens living abroad who maintain Slovak awareness, it would be discriminatory towards other Slovak citizens belonging to national and ethnic minorities. It can be concluded that Slovakia’s membership in the European Union had a significant influence on its definition of Slovaks living abroad and on its redesign of Slovak diaspora policies in general. The issue of Slovak awareness is dealt with asymmetrically between citizens and non-citizen co-ethnics in the Law on Slovaks living abroad because of this external influence.

4.3. Slovaks living abroad and Slovak national awareness

As was mentioned earlier, the Law on Slovaks living abroad doesn’t deal with the national awareness, identities, and loyalties of the two distinctive groups in the same way. While Slovak citizens living abroad don’t have to maintain Slovak awareness, Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens have to both have Slovak ethnicity and preserve Slovak awareness. They must have direct ancestors, such as parents, grandparents or great grandparents, with Slovak ethnicity. For the purpose of the law, 'national awareness' is understood as an active declaration that the person belongs to the Slovak nation and adheres to the values represented by the Slovak language, Slovak cultural heritage, and traditions34. Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens living abroad should be able to speak the Slovak language and moreover should publicly perform their national awareness. If an individual does not have any evidence of public activities exemplifying their national awareness, then the formal Slovak organisation or institution in their country of residence must write a testimony as evidence of the person’s national awareness.

23

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

This assymmetric approach concerning the identities, membership, and loyalties of diaspora members has different consequences on the two groups. Slovak citizens living abroad are assumed to be loyal to Slovakia and to be dedicated to the preservation of their Slovak culture, language, religion, or heritage on the basis of their Slovak citizenship. The membership, identity, and loyalty of Slovak citizens living abroad are not questioned by law. On the other hand, Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens must prove that they have Slovak ethnicity and maintain a Slovak national awareness. It is not sufficient for a person to declare him or herself to be an ethnic Slovak. Public manifestation of this awareness is also required. The law does not recognise self determination for these characteristics. It is compulsory to demonstrate Slovak awareness in a written declaration or testimony and to prove Slovak ethnicity using official documents such as birth certificates or an extract from the registry of births and marriages.35 The definition of Slovaks living abroad has shifted from its initial meaning to include Slovak citizens living abroad. The meaning and understanding of the term Slovak diaspora was redesigned. Two distinct groups, citizens and aliens, have been constituted as equal in status by Slovak diaspora policies. Were the boundaries between members and non-members, i.e. citizens and non-citizens, of Slovakia erased or redrawn? To answer this question I will analyse the structure and nature of institutions and diaspora policies with regard to the rights, duties, and obligations accorded to members of the new Slovak diaspora.

4.4. Contemporary model of Slovak diaspora engagement: institutions and policies

Slovakia has established various diaspora institutions and policies in order to engage, cooperate with, and support its diaspora. On the national level, the highest constitutional and state authority towards Slovaks living abroad is the President of the Slovak republic. The president cooperates with the diaspora through formal and informal activities. He grants state honours to distinguished Slovak personalities living abroad. The key institution responsible for diaspora cooperation and engagement is the Office of Slovaks Living Abroad (OSLA), which is under the political responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of SR (MFEASR).

OSLA works with MFEASR to implement state policy towards Slovaks living abroad and support the diaspora36. The ministry provides consular services for Slovak citizens living abroad and handles applications for the status of Slovak living abroad. Furthermore, MFEASR 24

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

implements Slovak foreign policy together with the government and plays an important role in preparing, negotiating, and signing international multilateral and bilateral treaties between Slovakia and other international entities (states and international or supranational organisations). The government of the Slovak republic sets up the basic political principles regarding diaspora engagement, concludes intergovernmental and international treaties, and prepares annual reports on state policies and support towards Slovaks living abroad. The Slovak government signed a number of bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries and countries where Slovak communities live. In the educational sphere, Slovakia has signed interstate bilateral agreements with Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine. Slovakia has signed intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements with more than thirty states.

The main objective of diaspora policies is preservation and development of the cultural, linguistic, and religious identity of Slovaks living abroad. Much of the state’s interest towards its diaspora is care for its kin-minority through the protection of the rights and interests of Slovak communities living abroad based on international law and its bilateral agreements.

Political authorities understand relations between Slovakia and its diaspora as bilateral, mutual, bidirectional, and beneficial. The goal of diaspora policies is to support and strengthen ties between diaspora members and Slovakia as well as to motivate diaspora members to “work in [Slovakia’s] interest”37 and cooperate in the economic sphere. The engagement of the Slovak diaspora manifests in various formal and informal ways and involves a great number of state, municipal, and local bodies as well as non-governmental ones. Support for diaspora communities living abroad is implemented mainly through cultural, educational, and scientific programmes. All three of Gamlen’s (2008) diaspora policy types i.e. capacity building, extending, and extracting obligations are present in Slovakia’s diaspora engagement. Different diaspora policies are present to various degrees. Moreover, the application of different diaspora policies depends on whether one is a Slovak citizen or a co-ethnic non-citizen.

Slovakia is very active in implementing capacity building policies. Policies that aim to extend rights and extract obligations for diaspora members are uncommon in the Slovak context.

Symbolic nation and state building are present in Slovak public and political discourse.

Inclusive rhetoric and symbols are used when speaking about the Slovak nation, which is described as a home for all Slovaks living abroad. Slovakia has established extensive programming to promote Slovak culture to its diaspora. Numerous diaspora celebrations, contests, and events happen each year in the country, such as the Day of Slovak Expatriates, Compatriots Sunday, folklore celebrations, various contests such as “Why I love the Slovak 25

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

language” and “Why I love Slovakia,” presentations of publishing; cultural; and artistic activities, summer schools, and a Journalism school. Diaspora matters are promoted by the Slovak media. In the educational sphere, Slovakia has prepared a number of programmes, seminars, and workshops to promote the Slovak language. There are a variety of scholarships and grants reserved for foreign Slovaks and their projects concerning culture, education, and informing. The Slovak academy of Science has also established programmes, fellowships, and grants for excellent Slovaks scientists working and living abroad in order to motivate them to return to Slovakia to live and work. These capacity building policies aim to create feelings of belonging in the Slovak nation and Slovakia. These policies are also meant to strengthen ties between Slovakia and its diaspora communities.

In 2006 Slovakia established a separate institution for diaspora cooperation and engagement OSLA. MFEASR and OSLA implement diaspora policies in practise, cooperate with and engage the diaspora, and support the diaspora in numerous symbolic and financial ways. Slovak embassies in countries with diaspora populations monitor their situation and offer consular and consultative support. The activities of diaspora institutions are implemented both on Slovak territory as well in foreign states. In many cases Slovak support, whether material, personal, or financial, is used by diaspora communities abroad. Are these activities a challenging factor for nation-states and the nation-state system?

The political incorporation of a diaspora involves the extension of rights to its members. Special policies that extend political rights include membership concessions (through the special Slovak-living-abroad certificate), voting rights (only for citizens living abroad), and dual nationality in some cases. Slovaks living abroad can vote by post in parliamentary elections but must return to Slovakia to vote in other national and local elections. Other political rights concerning political participation and representation such as special quotas in parliament are not reserved for diaspora members.

Holders of the Slovak-living-abroad certificate are entitled to certain rights and benefits on the territory of the Slovak republic depending on their status as either citizen or alien. Different laws and provisions are applied to Slovak citizens living abroad because they fall under the agenda of Slovak diplomatic and consular affairs. Slovak co-ethnics do not enjoy full citizenship rights. However, they do derive certain privileges and benefits from their status as Slovaks living abroad. The holders of this certificate have the right to start a business in Slovakia after they have been granted temporary residency38 and the right to work without an 26

SvetluĹĄa SurovĂĄ

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

employment permit39. Foreign Slovaks can also benefit in the areas of social services40, pension41, the labour market42, ownership rights for domestic real estate,43 and education. The certificate holder is entitled to education, accommodation, and meals in schools under the same conditions as Slovak citizens44. Additionally, foreign Slovaks who hold the certificate have an advantage when applying for Slovak citizenship; they may be granted citizenship after three years of uninterrupted residency (provided that period immediately preceeds their application for citizenship)45, whereas others must have eight years of permanent, uninterrupted residency before they may be granted citizenship. Foreign Slovaks from non-EU can especially benefit from holding the certificate. Furthermore, holders of the certificate may be awarded state honours if they make an extraordinary contribution to the preservation of the Slovak national awareness, the preservation of the cultural and language identity of Slovaks living abroad, or an effort to strengthen links between Slovaks living abroad and the Slovak Republic46.

Generally, the least popular of the policies which extend rights to diaspora members are those concerning political rights. The development and implementation of policies that extract obligations has been minimal thus far. Slovakia has only recently recognized the potential of Slovak diaspora communities living abroad in the sphere of investment, tourism, and knowledge transfer. The Slovak state engages the capacities of its diaspora abroad through civic diplomacy.

5. Conclusion

Slovak diaspora policies have been gradually developed since Slovakia became an independent state in 1993. Provisions in the Slovak constitution and various other diaspora laws form the main framework of diaspora engagement. The most important milestones in the development of diaspora policies were the special acts on Slovaks living abroad (1997, 2005). The first act on foreign Slovaks was predominately influenced by domestic political factors, while the second act, which is still in place, was affected by external factors. Both laws reflect distinct political values and the objectives of the respective political parties in power at the time of their adoption yet were passed with the general agreement of parliament. Slovak diaspora policies have strong legitimacy due to the considerable support they have garnered from across the political spectrum.

27

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Analysis has proven that the Slovak state can be seen as an agent of change because it constructs, forms, and supports its diaspora living abroad. The legal definition of the term diaspora was introduced in 2005 and refers to both Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic noncitizens who do not have permanent residency in Slovakia. The two distinctive groups of people, citizens and alien co-ethnics, were granted the same status. However, holding the same status doesn’t guarantee the same rights, duties, or obligations for its holders. Different rights, duties, and benefits apply to Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens in Slovakia and in the territories of other states. The certificate of Slovak-living-abroad status grants certain privileges and benefits for Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens that can be exercised in Slovakia. This can have many advantages and benefits for Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens as third country residents in Slovakia. However, citizenship remains the main demarcation line between Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnic non-citizens. The boundaries between members of the Slovak political community were not erased, just slightly redrawn in favour of Slovak co-ethnic noncitizens.

All three of the diaspora policy types outlined by Gamlen (2008) (capacity building, extending rights, and extracting obligation) are present in the case of Slovakia. These diaspora policies have been implemented to various degrees and in different ways. The most common policies are concerned with capacity building. Policies that extend political rights, whether for citizens or non-citizens, are not common or popular in Slovakia. Policies that extract obligations from the diaspora are in the early stages of development.

It can be argued that Slovakia, like other states, is using its diaspora policies to attempt to incorporate its diaspora into the ‘people’ and ‘nation’ in an uncommon and unusual way. It can therefore be stated that Slovak diaspora policies may be a significant challenging factor for the nation-state. Analysis shows that Slovakia is trying to extend its authority over Slovak citizens and Slovak co-ethnics living abroad. Slovakia is expanding certain rights and benefits for its citizens as well as its co-ethnic non-citizens. These additional and special rights for Slovaks living abroad can be exercised both in Slovakia and beyond its borders. Diaspora policies are therefore extraterritorial in their nature.

Diasporas and diaspora policies contest the basic principles of a nation-state, namely sovereignty, territoriality, and citizenship. The predominant view on the nation-state as a territorially bound entity must be reconsidered. States are extending their authority as well as rights, duties, and obligations beyond their territorial borders through diaspora policies.

28

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Diasporas are challenging the classical concept of state sovereignty (meaning the supreme power of states over the people within their territories). Until recently, it was believed that indispensable condition for exercising the citizenship is sovereign and territorial state.

Citizenship draws a boundary between its holders and non-holders and generates different status, rights, and obligations for each. The question of if and in which ways the boundaries of political communities must be reconsidered and reconceptualised due to these insights on the relationship between diasporas and nation states is still unanswered. Legal and political boundaries of citizenship still predominately determine who belongs and who doesn’t belong to the political community. It also seems that citizenship’s main function, which is to say creating boundaries between the members and non-members of a polity, remains very relevant.

However, citizenship can be exercised beyond the territorial borders of a nation-state. In the period of intensive European integration, globalisation, migration, and development of information technologies, traditional and classical concepts of nation-states are reaching their limits. We should abandon the traditional understanding of the nation-state and move towards a new post-national and progressive organisational principle of people and societies. We need new concepts based on which the rearrangement of the state and international system will be possible.

29

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

References Act no. 70/1997 Coll., on Slovaks abroad. (1997).

Amy Gutmann (ed.). (1994). Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Anthony Simon Laden and David Owen. (2007). Multiculturalism and Political Theory.

Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Alexandra Délano and Alan Gamlen. (2015). Comparing and theorising state-diaspora relations. In A. G. N. Sigona (Ed.), Diasporas Reimagined: Spaces, Practises and Belonging.

Oxford: Oxfoprd Diaspora Programme. Retrieved November 28, 2016 Alexandra Délano and Alan Gamlen (2014). Comparing and theorizing state-diaspora relations.

Political Geography 41 (2014) 43-53.

Bauböck, Rainer- Faist, Thomas eds. (2010). Diaspora and Transnationalism. Concepts, Theories and Methods. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Burke, P.J.-Stets, J.E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1 January 2005, 1-19.

Brubaker, R. & Cooper, F. 2000, "Beyond "Identity"", Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp.

1-47.

Chandra, K. (2006). What is ethnic identity and does it matter?

Chandra, K. 2004. Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India.

Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Chandra,

K.

Ethnic

parties

and

democratic

stability

available

at

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks% 206-7/Chandra%20--%20Ethnic%20Parties%20and%20Democracy.pdf Chandra, K. ed. 2012. Constructivist Theories of Ethnic Politics. Oxford- New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Collyer, M. (2013). Emigration Nations. Policies and Ideologies of Emigrant Engagement.

Palgrave Macmillan.

30

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Council of Europe. (2005, December 13). The Concept of „nation“. Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Doc. 10762.

Cohen, R. (2008). Global Diasporas. An introduction. New York: Routledge Taylor&Francis Group.

Conception of state care policy of Slovaks living abroad until the year 2015 Clifford, J. 1994, "Diasporas", Cultural Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 302-338.

David Marsh and Gerry Stoker (ed.) (2010). Theory and Methods in Political Science. Third Edition. Hampshire and New York: Palgrive Macmillan.

Declaration of National council of SR. (1999).

Dohoda medzi vládou Slovenskej republiky a Zväzovou vládou Zväzovej republiky Juhoslávia o spolupráci v oblasti vzdelávania, kultúry a športu. (1998). Retrieved from www.zbierka.sk: file:///C:/Users/Lenovo/Downloads/98-z138.pdf Dohoda medzi vládou SR a vládou MR o spolupráci v oblasti kultúry, školstva, vedy, športu a mládeže. (2004). Retrieved from www.minedu.sk: https://www.minedu.sk/data/att/2269.pdf Dufoix, S. (2008). Diasporas. Berkeley and Los Angelos: University of California Press.

European Parliament and the Council of EU. (2011, DEcember 13). Directive 2011/98/EU. Directive 2011/98/EU on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State. Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011L0098 Epstein, G.S.- Cohen, O.H. (2015). Ethnic identity: a theoretical framework. IZA Journal of Migration 4 (1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/s40176-015-0033-z Eriksen, T. H. (2010). Ethnicity and Nationalism. Third Edition. Antropological Perspectives.

New York: Pluto Press.

Esman, M. J. (2009). Diasporas on the Contemporary World. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fearon, J. D. (1999). What is identity (as we now use the word)? Retrieved September 5, 2015, from

https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/What-is-Identity-as-we-now-use-the-word-.pdf

31

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Gamlen, A. 2014, "Diaspora Institutions and Diaspora Governance", International Migration Review, vol. 48, pp. S180-S217.

Gamlen, A.-Cummings, M.-Vaaler, Paul M.-Rossouw, L. (2013) Working Papers. Explaining the Rise of Diaspora Institutions. International Migration Institute. University of Oxford.

Gamlen, A. 2013, "Creating and destroying diaspora strategies: New Zealand’s emigration policies re‐examined", Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 38, no. 2, pp.

238-253.

Gamlen, A. (2011). Working paper No 31 Creating and destroying diaspora strategies.

University of Oxford (Oxford, International Migration Institute. Cit. 25. March 2015. Dostupné na

Internete:

http://www.migration.ox.ac.uk/odp/pdfs/WP31%20Creating%20and%20Destroying%20Dias pora%20Str Gamlen, A. (2008). Working paper No. 63. Why Engage Diasporas? University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Dostupné na Internete: https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/working_papers/WP_2008/WP086 3%20A%20Gamlen.

Gamlen, A. (2006). Diaspora engagement policies: What are they, and what kinds of states use them? University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Cit. 25.

MArch 2015. Dostupné na Internete: http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/ Government of SR. (1991). Resolution of government of Slovak republic, number 3 from 3rd March, 1991.

Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity (Key ideas). New York: Routledge.

Kapiszewski, D.- Maclean, Lauren M.-Read, Benjamin. L. (2015). Strategies for social inquiry.

Field Research in Political Science. Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koncepcia štátnej politiky starostlivosti o Slovákov žijúcich v zahraničí do roku 2015. (2008).

Kymlicka, W. (1996). Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

32

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Kymlicka, W. (2009). Multicultural Odysseys. Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Laitin, D. D. (1998). Identity in Formation: The Russian-speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. USA: Cornell University Press.

Lawler, S. (2014). Identity: sociological perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.

March, James. G.-Olsen, Johan. P. . (2005, March). Elaborating the New Institutionalism.

Working

Paper

No.11.

Retrieved

June

20,

2015,

from

http://www.unesco.amu.edu.pl/pdf/olsen2.pdf Mahieu, R. (2015). Feeding the Ties to "Home": Diaspora Policies for the Next Generations.

International Migration, Vol. 53 (2), 397-408. Retrieved November 28, 2016 Nagel, J. (1995, December). American Indian ethnic renewal: politics and resurgence.

American sociological review, Vol. 60(No. 6), pp. 947-965.

Mccrone, D.- Bechhofer, F. (2015). Understanding national identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mosley, L. (2013). Interview research in political science. New York: Cornell University Press.

Panić, Vladislav. 1999. Aksiologika ili logička argumentacija vrednosti. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike I nastvna sredstva, 1999.

P.A. Hall. and R.C. Taylor. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms.

Political Studies, 44, 936–957.

Parekh, B. (2006). Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cultural Diversity and Political Theory.

Second Edition. New York: Palgrave MAcmillan.

Programové vyhlásenie vlády Slovenskej republiky august 2006.

Programové vyhlásenie vlády Slovenskej republiky november 2002.

Programové vyhlásenie vlády SR na obdobie rokov 2010-2014.

Programové vyhlásenie vlády SR na roky 2012-2016.

Programové vyhlásenie vlády SR od 13. 12. 1994 do 30. 10. 1998.

33

Svetluša Surová

Programové

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

vyhlásenie

vlády

SR

na

roky

2016-2020,

Available

at

http://www.vlada.gov.sk/data/files/6483_programove-vyhlasenie-vlady-slovenskejrepubliky.pdf Reis, M. 2004, "Theorizing Diaspora: Perspectives on “Classical” and “Contemporary” Diaspora", International Migration, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 41-60.

Safran, W. (1991). Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 1, no. 1, 83-99.

Sheffer, G. 2012, "Loyalty and Criticism in the Relations between World Jewry and Israel", Israel Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 77-85.

Sheffer, G. Diaspora. Encyclopedia Princetoniensis. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Selfdetermination.

Cit.

25.

January

2017.

Dostupné

na

Internete:

http://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/232 Sheffer, G. Ed. 1986. Modern Diasporas in Internationa Politics. London-Sydnes: Croom Helm, 1986.

Sheffer, G. 2006. Diaspora politics. At home abroad. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Tölölyan. K. (1991). The nation-state and its others: in lieu of a preface. A Journal of Transnational Studies 1 (1), 3-7 Tölölyan, K. (2012). Working Paper 55. Diaspora studies. Past, present and promise. Universtiy of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Cit. 25. March 2015.

Dostupné na Internete: http://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/wp/wp-55-2012-diaspora-studies-past Ústava Slovenskej republiky č. 460/1992 v znení neskorších predpisov. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.nrsr.sk/web/default.aspx?SectionId=124) ÚSŽZ. (n.d.). Štatút Úradu pre Slovákov žijúcich v zahraničí.

Uznesenie Vlády SR z 28. septembra 1993 číslo 678 k správe o postavení zahraničných Slovákov a koncepcii spolupráce s nimi Vertovec, S. (2005). Working paper No. 13. The Political Importance of Diasporas. . University of Oxford (Oxford, ESCR Centre on Migration, Policy and Society). Retrieved March 25, 2015,

34

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

from https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/files/Publications/working_papers/WP_2005/Steve Vivien Lowndes- Mark Roberts. (2013). Why Institutions Matter. The New Institutionalism in Political Science. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vláda Slovenskej republiky. (1993). Uznesenie Vlády SR z 28. septembra 1993 číslo 678.

Vláda SR. (2012). Vláda SR. Retrieved from Programové vyhlásenie vlády Slovenskej republiky: http://www.vlada.gov.sk/data/files/2008_programove-vyhlasenie-vlady.pdf Vládna koncepcia spolupráce so Slovákmi v zahraničí (Uznesenie č. 678/94). (1993).

Vyhodnotenie medzirezortného pripomienkového konania k návrhu zákona o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene niektorých zákonov. (n.d.).

Wimmer, A. (2013). Ethnic boundary making. Institutions, Power, Newtworks. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Zákon č. 70/1997 Z. z. o zahraničných Slovákoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov Zákon č. 211/2000 Z. z. o slobodnom prístupe k informáciám v znení neskorších predpisov. (n.d.).

Zákon č. 270/1995 Z. z. o štátnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky v znení neskorších predpisov.

(1995).

Zákon č. 35/2011 Z. z., ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č.

270/1995 Z. z. o štátnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky v znení neskorších predpisov. (2011).

Zákon č. 474/2005 Z. z. o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov. (2005).

Zameranie zahraničnej a európskej politiky Slovenskej republiky na rok 2016, available at http://www.mzv.sk/documents/10182/2198827/2016++Zameranie+zahrani%C4%8Dnej+a+eur%C3%B3pskej+politiky+Slovenskej+republiky Yamashiro, Jane H. (2015), Working towards conceptual consistency in discussion “diaspora” and “diaspora strategies”: Ethnicity and affinity in the case of Japan, Geoforum 59 (2915) 178186.

35

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

Notes The origin of the term can be traced to the Septuagint (Deuteronomy 28:25) “in the phrase esē diaspora en pasais basileias tēs gēs 'thou shalt be a dispersion in all kingdoms of the earth'”. See Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/diaspora and Web dictionaries. (n.d.).

Retrieved March 25, 2015, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diaspora 2 Encyclopeida Princetonensis, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination, available at: https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/232 3 “Segment of the people living outside the homeland.”

4 According to Vertovec (2005), to be transnational means to belong to two or more societies at the same time and it is only at this moment that diaspora functions as a transnational community.

5 Common features of diasporas according to Cohen (2008: 17): 1) dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically to two or more foreign regions; 2) the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions; 3) a collective memory and myth about the homeland; 4) an idealization of the real or imagined ancestral home and its maintenance or restoration or creation; 5) return movement to the homeland; 6) a strong ethnic consciousness sustain over a long time and based on a sense of distinctiveness; 7) a troubled relationship with the host societies; 8) a sense of empathy and co-responsibility with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement; 9) the possibility of a distinctive, creative, enriching life in host countries with a tolerance for pluralism.

6 Diaspora institutions are defiend by Gamlen as “formal state offices dedicated to emigrants and their descendants“. In Gamlen. A. 2014. Diaspora institutions and Diaspora Governance. International migration review, Volkumen 48 Number S1 (Fall 2014).

7 See Conclusion in COLLYER, Michael. (ed). 2013. Emigration Nations. Policies and Ideologies of Emigrant Engagement. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

8 I use the term 'place' here rather than countries or states, because migration started long before the establishment of modern states and the Westphalian nation-state system .

9 See also the Introduction in Chandra, Kanchan: Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India. Cambridge University Press, 2004. and Chandra, Kanchan. Ethnic parties and democratic stability available at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%2067/Chandra%20--%20Ethnic%20Parties%20and%20Democracy.pdf 10 In her definition of ethnic identity, Chandra (2012) uses only membership rule, namely descent-based attributes or attributes believed to be associated with descent which are determining eligibility for membership.

11 Lowndes. Vivien. 'The Institutional Approach'. In: Theory and Methods in Political Science. Third Edition. Ed. David Marsh and Gerry Stoker. Palgrive Macmillan: Hampshire and New York, 2010.

12 The core features of this approach depart along six analytical continua: from focus on organizations to a focus on rules; from a formal to an informal conception of institutions; from a static to a dynamic conception of institutions; from submerged values to a value-critical stance; from a holistic to a disaggregated conception of institutions and from independence to embeddedness (Lowndes in March-Stoker, 2010).

13 Primary sources are considered to be documents that reflect a position of an actor and do not have analysis in them, however there are exceptions to this definition such as newspaper articles and organizational research reports. In: March-Stoker, 2010: 262.

14 Uznesenie Vlády SR z 28. septembra 1993 číslo 678 k správe o postavení zahraničných Slovákov a koncepcii spolupráce s nimi 15 Zákon č. 70/1997 Z. z. o zahraničných Slovákoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov 16 Ústava Slovenskej republiky č. 460/1992 v znení neskorších predpisov, článok 7a, (The Slovak Republic Constitution no. 460/1992 Coll, Chapter I., article 7a). The article 7a) was added in constitution in 2001, when broad amendment of constitution was carried out. The new article states that “The Slovak Republic supports the national awareness and cultural identity of the Slovaks living abroad; it supports their institutions established to achieve this purpose and their relations with the mother country.”

17 Ústava Slovenskej republiky č. 460/1992 v znení neskorších predpisov 18 Declaration of National council of SR. (1999) 19 Act no. 474/2005 Coll., on Slovaks living abroad as amended) 20 Koncepcia štátnej politiky starostlivosti o Slovákov žijúcich v zahraničí do roku 2015 21 Programové vyhlásenie vlády SR na roky 2016-2020 22 Zameranie zahraničnej a európskej politiky Slovenskej republiky na rok 2016 23 A Slovak living abroad is a person who doesn’t have permanent residence in the Slovak republic and is either a citizen of Slovakia or a non-citizen of Slovakia who preserves a national awareness and holds Slovak nationality or at least has direct ancestors who held Slovak nationality (Article 1, section 2, Law on Slovaks living abroad, 2005) 1

36

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

24

Act no. 70/1997 Coll., on Slovaks abroad, as amended Act no. 70/1997 Coll., on Slovaks abroad, as amended, § 2, part 1), 2) 26 Declaration of NCSR on foreign Slovaks, 1999. It stated that “in the spirit of building Slovak statehood,..., strengthening national cultural identity of members of Slovak nation home and abroad,..., with interest of strengthening cooperation and contacts with Slovaks living abroad,...“Slovakia and Slovak republic always considered and consider Slovaks abroad as integral national part, their life and history as part of Slovak national history and their culture as part of national cultural heritage. Slovak republic is aware that Slovaks in the world are common spiritual holders of Slovak statehood....”

27 There is quite a misunderstanding about concept of the Slovak nation in academic, political, and public discourse in Slovakia. In the report on the concepts of nation of the Council of Europe (2005) it was stated that the Slovak constitution refers explicitly or exclusively to the concept of nation in the sense of a civic nation. See CoE 2005.

“The Concept of nation,” (Council of Euroep, Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Doc. 10762. from 13. December 2005). The main argument for this claim was the provision in the preamble of Slovak Constitution, which starts with “We, the Slovak nation…”. If we look more closely at the text of the constitution and other laws, we can find counter arguments to this claim. The preamble indeed starts with the provision “We the Slovak nation” but it continues and further states “together with members of national minorities and ethnic groups living on the territory of the Slovak Republic” and ends with expression “we, the citizens of the Slovak republic.”

28 The whole preamble of Constitution declares: “We, the Slovak nation, mindful of the political and cultural heritage of our forebears, and of the centuries of experience from the struggle for national existence and our own statehood, in the sense of the spiritual heritage of Cyril and Methodius and the historical legacy of the Great Moravian Empire, proceeding from the natural right of nations to self-determination, together with members of national minorities and ethnic groups living on the territory of the Slovak Republic, in the interest of lasting peaceful cooperation with other democratic states, seeking the application of the democratic form of government and the guarantees of a free life and the development of spiritual culture and economic prosperity, that is, we, citizens of the Slovak Republic, adopt through our representatives the following Constitution.”

29 Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 270/1995 Z. z. o štátnom jazyku SR v znení neskorších predpisov 30 Zákon č. 40/1993 Z. z. o štátnom občianstve SR v znení zákona č. 70/1997 Z. z., zákona č. 515/2003 Z. z., zákona č. 36/2005 Z. z., zákona č. 265/2005 Z. z. a zákona č. 344/2007 Z. z.

31 Person born to a citizen of a country (birth in that country or in a foreign country), článok 5 Zákona č. 40/1993 Z. z. o štátnom občianstve SR v znení zákona č. 70/1997 Z. z., zákona č. 515/2003 Z. z., zákona č. 36/2005 Z. z., zákona č. 265/2005 Z. z. a zákona č. 344/2007 Z. z.

32 Vyhodnotenie medzirezortného pripomienkového konania k návrhu zákona o Slovákoch žijúcich v zahraničí a o zmene niektorých zákonov 33 And other regulations concerning access of Slovakia in Schengen area, EU migration policy and European integration.

Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011L0098 34 The national awareness should be demonstrated by the person's declaration of their public activities, demonstrating their national awareness, or by written testimony, issued by the Slovaks-living-abroad organisation in their place of residence. If such an organisation or association in the place of residence does not exist, then a written testimony regarding the national awareness of the person by at least two Slovaks living abroad in the same country as the person is required. The national awareness is also demonstrated by having a command of the Slovak language, specifically in the form of a personal interview at the time of application filing with the OSLA or abroad at the Embassy or a Consular Offices of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter the Slovak Republic Diplomatic Mission offices or the “DM SR“) (pursuant to § 2 letter b and § 7 par. 4 of the Act).

35 The marriage certificate, citizenship certificate, or permanent residency permit, school certificate, citizenship release confirmation issued by the Czech or Slovak Socialist Republic, the Slovak Socialist Republic or the Slovak republic (§7 par. 3 of the Act/Law) 36 Štatút Úradu pre Slovákov žijúcich v zahraničí, čl. 3 37 Conception of state care policy of Slovaks living abroad until the year 2015 38 § 29 in conjunction with other § 31 through 33 of Act no. 404/2011 Coll., on alien residency as amended 39 § 22 par. 7 letter e/ of Act no. 5/2004 Coll., on services, employment as amended 40 § 4b par. 2 letter e) of Act no. 195/1998 Coll., on social assistance as amended, § 3 of Act no. 599/2003 Coll., on assistance in material need, § 3 par. 2 letter l) of Act no. 448/2008 Coll., on social services and on changes and amendments to Act no. 455/1991 Coll., on self-employment (the Self-employment Ac) as amended 41 § 82a of Act no. 461/2003 Coll., on social insurance as amended by subsequent regulations on the terms of transfer of pension rights within EU 25

37

Svetluša Surová

How Slovakia constructs and engages its diaspora?

42

Act no. 82/2005 Coll., on illegal labour and illegal employment as amended, is also linked to Act no. 5/2004 Coll.

43 § 19a par. 1 of Act no. 202/1995 Coll., the Foreign currency Act as amended by subsequent regulations 44 § 146 par. 2 of Act no. 245/2008 Coll., on education (the School Act) as amended as amended 45 § 7 par. 3 of Act no. 40/1993 Coll., on citizenship of Slovak Republic as amended 46 § 3 par. 1 letter b/ of Act no. 474/2005 Coll., on Slovaks living abroad as amended

38