| Popis: |
Why do seemingly similar political parties adopt different positions on the same issue? We answer this question by studying different approaches of dominant nationalist parties to Syrian refugees in Turkey under the new presidential system. Drawing on an original Twitter dataset and party manifestos, we argue that new electoral dynamics and the rise of urban-liberal nationalism as an alternative to rural-conservative nationalism have contributed to the divergence in nationalist parties’ approaches to refugees in recent years. The findings of this paper are threefold. First, pre-electoral alliance loyalties constrain nationalist parties’ discourses about refugees. Second, when the electoral salience of refugee issues increases, the convergence between dominant pre-electoral alliances’ positions might motivate a strategic opening/niche in the political space. Third, urbanization leads to the rise of contradictory forms of nationalism in cities: civic-liberal and ethnic-nativist, affecting the discursive strategies of nationalist party elites toward immigrants and refugees. |
