Political Participation and Party Preferences among Immigrants of Turkish Origin in Germany/Almanya'daki Turkiye Kokenli Gocmenlerin Siyasi Katilimi ve Parti Tercihleri.

• Author: Uslucan, Haci Halil

Introduction: The Relevance of Political Participation

Research studies into political participation go back a long way, (1) regaining prominence with the studies on the subject of election turnout and membership in political parties in the 1970s. (2) The focus point of these studies was on understanding/classifying the political behaviour and participation of the social players. More recent studies (from the realm of political psychology) concern the issue of decreasing election turnout (in Germany), explaining it as the result of the convergence of the major parties' aims and stances and the ensuing lack of any voting incentive, which lead to a reduction of mobilisation potential. (3)

However, the general question as to why political participation is relevant can be outlined relatively effectively in terms of democratic theory: a functioning democratic system relies on the participation of the citizens, whether directly through elections or through civic or individual engagement in the process of political consensus-building, because political sovereignty requires participation in and, in the best-case scenario, also the full consent of those governed if it wishes to be perceived as a legitimate regime. Also, possibilities of influencing and taking part should be distributed as evenly as possible. Precisely at this point the participation of immigrants (4) raises questions: non-naturalised immigrants in Germany are largely excluded from participation in national and state parliamentary elections, something which rightly provokes criticism from the point of view of the theory of democracy, because on the other hand they are subject to political rule like everyone else. (5) Thus a political system which ignores immigrant interests forfeits its legitimacy.

However, besides issues of democratic theory, the political participation of immigrants is also relevant from the point of view of integration policy, because it is also accompanied by structural integration, with the opening of spheres of influence, which demands greater social participation and greater interaction between majority and minority societies. (6)

For political participation the interest in politics is a key factor. It is a precondition for grappling with political issues, learning about them and possibly playing an active role. Political interest is considered to be an extremely robust indicator of election turnout; (7) at the same time that interest can be fundamentally influenced by general opportunities for participation. (8) Various studies show that there is less interest in (German) politics among persons with an immigration background than among indigenous people. This also applies if the socio-structural characteristics to which an influence on political interest are ascribed are comparable for persons with and without an immigration. (9) For example, with regard to persons of Turkish origin, a recent study shows that young people of Turkish origin have significantly less political knowledge compared to young people of other ethnic backgrounds as far as politics in Germany are concerned. (10)

Furthermore, political participation goes hand in hand with the dimensions of identity and belonging, which are of relevance in terms of integration theory. Thus, for example, a sense of belonging can be reinforced through offers of participation from the majority society and the inclusion and representation of immigrants' interests in the political process. However, these offers must also be perceived by immigrants and the interests must be clearly formulated. The requirements for this are a certain degree of political sensitivity, political knowledge and also the conviction that one is able to influence political processes, i.e. a type of political sense of self-efficacy. (11)

Against this background, therefore, actually unequal consideration for immigrants' interests and also individual perception of such inequality may lead to alienation from the political system, a tendency to withdraw and ultimately to a sense that one is merely a second class citizen. A further conceivable alternative outcome of this perceived disregard for interests is the establishment of alternative representation of interests or the persons in question being inclined to accept already existing "offers" from outside. This can be clearly observed, for example, in the case of persons of Turkish origin in Germany who support, from Germany, the interests of the ruling party in Turkey, the AKP. (12)

With regard to persons who either are or are not immigrants, political participation is also accounted for with reference to specific individual resources such as education, participation in the labour market, professional status, income and also gender, age and family integration. However, for immigrants the degree of integration, the time of immigration, the period of residence and experiences and impressions previously accumulated in the country of origin also play a significant role, although they lose their relevance as the period of residence increases. (13) The naturalisation process (simplification or complication) also plays a key role and, for example, also explains differences within the immigrant groups (for example between ethnic German resettlers and persons of Turkish origin). (14)

If we consider the changes in the last 15-20 years in Germany from an institutional perspective, it is clear that immigrants represent a potential of increasing significance, above all for political parties, as their general share currently amounts to more than 23% of the population. Over half of them hold German citizenship and are therefore eligible to vote upon reaching the age of majority--according to the micro-census approx. 7 million people, accounting for 12% of those eligible to vote in total. (15) Furthermore, the demographic fact that this group is significantly younger than the indigenous population underscores its future political relevance. Thus, knowledge and inclusion of the specific needs, desires, attitudes and mindsets of voters with an immigration background may be an election winner in the future. Because many countries permit their citizens to participate in parliamentary elections abroad (e.g. Turks abroad since 1995), they are also of interest politically for the former countries of origin. Thus, for example, the share of persons eligible to vote who are living abroad amounts to 5%, of which 2.7% live in Germany. With regard to exercising their right to vote, an earlier study by Wüst (16) shows that the figure for immigrants is approximately the same as those recorded for the indigenous population. Particularly in elections which may be expected to have a tight outcome, this group may therefore be in a position to tip the scales.

Though participation in elections is only one of many forms of political participation, it is a very central one, as elections determine and legitimise the government and the composition of parliament and therefore the focal points and orientation of policy. Against this background, in recent years political parties have deliberately striven to recruit immigrants as mandate holders or party members. If we look at the current 19th German Federal Parliament, the distribution of mandates is characterised by a marked asymmetry, particularly in the conservative, Christian democratic parties: of the whole of 709 elected deputies only 58 (8.2%) have an immigration background. (17) In detail, the Left Party (Die Linke) has the highest share of deputies with an immigrant background (19%), followed by the Green party (Die Grünen) (15%) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) at 10%. The share in the Alternative for Germany (AfD) stands at 9%, in the Free Democratic Party (FDP) at 6% and in the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) fraction at only 3%. (18) It may be that some parties consider the risk of nominating a candidate with an immigrant background to be higher than the benefits gained from mobilising and securing immigrant votes, because their voter base has reservations vis-à-vis cultural diversity. (19)

However, what tendencies have voting behaviour shown up to now? What are the immigrants' preferences? Between 2016 and 2018 party preferences underwent considerable changes, which indicate that old patterns of party affiliation are breaking down: up to 2016 immigrants, if one considers all groups, seemed to have found their political home rather in the SPD, with a substantial lead over the union parties (40.7% vs. 27.6%). "Bündnis 90/Grüne" and "Die Linke" were almost neck and neck (13.2% vs. 11.3%). However, in 2018 a shift occurred - now across all immigrant groups the CDU/CSU at 43.2% was ahead of the SPD at 25% (38% CDU/CSU and 17% SPD for people without an immigrant background). This striking change is due above all to the change in the party preference of persons of Turkish origin; less had changed in the preferences of the other large immigrant group, the ethnic German resettlers, who showed an inverse party preference pattern, with a significantly higher affinity for the CDU/CSU. While the group of ethnic German resettlers favours Christian democrats (around 41%) and the SPD accounts for only 15%, for people of Turkish origin the SPD (37%) is still the most popular party, though the CDU/CSU still attains 33%. However, in 2016 with regard to people of Turkish origin the SPD still stood at almost 70% and the CDU/CSU at only 6%. At around 10% Bündnis 90/Die Grünen enjoy the fourth strongest preference, while Die Linke has more supporters (12%). (20) For people of Turkish origin there has therefore been a considerable shift in party preference from the SPD to the CDU, which points towards an alignment with the general party preference, a tendency which for people of Turkish origin is also apparent in other surveys. (21)

Despite the strong shift in party support from the SPD to the CDU/CSU, the...