Disaggregating Turkish citizenship and immigration practices

TLDR: In this article, a growing literature and academic interest increasingly questioning established notions of Turkish national identity and the boundaries of Turkish citizenship is presented, as well as the official formulation of Turkish identity denies the existence of ethnic and cultural diversity in the country, the only exception being the religious minorities recognized in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923.

Abstract: There is a growing literature and academic interest increasingly questioning established notions of Turkish national identity and the boundaries of Turkish citizenship. The official formulation of Turkish national identity denies the existence of ethnic and cultural diversity in the country, the only exception being the religious minorities that were recognized in the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The founders of the Turkish republic had embarked upon a modernist project that aimed to homogenize a society within the geographical area determined by the National Pact. A society that traditionally had been known as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural one would be transformed into a uniform and homogeneous Turkish nation-state. A civic and territorially based formulation of Turkish nationalism became the ideological tool with which this was to be achieved. In 1924 following a fascinating debate concerning the definition of the term 'Turk', the parliament adopted Article 88 of the Constitution.' Accordingly, 'the people of Turkey regardless of their religion and race were, in terms of citizenship, to be Turkish' and as such would enjoy equal rights. This formulation has persisted across the 1961 and 1982 constitutions, and government officials frequently make references to it. The Turkish President, Siileyman Demirel, for example, in his end-of-the-year press conference in late December 1994 stated that the constitutions of the Turkish Republic did not specify origin, belief or language as the basis for citizenship or 'national belonging'. Membership to the Turkish nation merely entailed that one must be a Turkish citizen.2 Against such a formal definition of citizenship and national identity that emphasizes territoriality rather than ethnicity, actual state practice has been very different.3 The first signals of the gap that would evolve between the formal and substantive definitions of citizenship came as early as the mid1 920s. As the modernist project confronted growing challenges, the government increasingly resorted to policies that emphasized a preference for Turkish ethnicity and language. The initial civic or territorial conceptualization of Turkish national identity and citizenship became