Engaging the next generation: authoritarian regimes and their young diaspora

Abstract

Recent scholarship on diaspora engagement and transnational repression has investigated how authoritarian regimes seek to engage, govern and control their diasporas. Recognizing that diasporas are diverse and that homeland states thus devise different strategies in relation to different groups, this research has—to a large extent—focused on the varied positions held by regime supporters and dissidents. Inter-generational differences, however, have not been studied in this context. Drawing on established frameworks theorizing extraterritorial authoritarian practices, this article explores the ways in which second-generation diaspora—or diaspora youth—is either included as subjects, patriots and clients, or excluded as outlaws and traitors by authoritarian regimes. Drawing on the literature on transnationalism and second-generation migrants, and using examples from empirical cases, we argue that the skills, resources and multi-sited embeddedness of the second-generation diaspora can make them particularly interesting targets for transnational engagement—or repression. We draw attention to specific strategies for mobilizing the support of diaspora youth, but also note that some techniques to control or repress extraterritorial subjects are less efficacious in relation to this generation.

Migrant associations, other social networks of Portuguese Diaspora, and the modern political engagement of non-resident citizens

“…There is recognition that associative structures are diversified and subject to continuous change: there are associations that, satisfied with the specific initial objectives of the founding generations, enter a stage of lethargy while others seek to undertake processes of reconfiguration to become a permanent feature in their CoR (Thränhardt 2013, see also Wackenhut and Orjuela 2023 in this special issue for more details on this relation). In this process, they need to deal with the specific dimensions of the organisational field in which they engage (for example, how to obtain sporting success in the system prevailing in their CoR) (Thränhardt 2013) and according to the functional logics of the different functional systems in which they are involved (religious structures, sporting systems, etc.)…”