Political business with the unknown and otherness: actors and context of (de)securitisation of migration in the Czech Republic and Central-East Europe

Despite the fact, that the Czech Republic has not been marked by high numbers of asylum applications during the 2015 ’migration crisis’, securitization of international migration and related issues have become powerful instruments in a ’businesses’ of Czech political actors for several coming years. Contrasting to the high number of securitizing political actors (cf. Kingdon 1984/2014; Léonard and Kaunert 2011), only few actors have been aiming at de-securitization of migration, migrants and refugees; in many instances, any potentially desecuritizing moves have been over-ridden by parallelly developing course of securitizing processes (cf. Austin and Beaulieu Brossard 2017). On the basis of (critical) discourse-historical analysis of narrative ’frames’, (de)securitizing practices of political actors in the Czech Republic in the years 2015-2019, this paper aims to contribute to understanding of contextual factors at play in the ’phantom’ (Kucharczyk and Mesežnikov, 2018) migration-related crisis in Czechia and beyond. Hereby, the paper aims to compare the Czech case with (de)securitizing discourse and practices of political actors in other CEE states (Slovakia, Hungary or Poland), in which we could witness a similar and highly paradox situation of flagrant anti-migrant political rhetoric and underlying practices contrasting to only low numbers of migrants and refugees from the MENA region aiming to settle in also in other Central-East European countries. The paper discusses underlying political and societal factors at play in the securitization – or failed desecuritization – processes, which include not only political actors themselves, but also public moods and media scene. Withal, the paper discusses a possible relation of securitization of migration, migrants and refugees with deeper illiberal tendencies and/or democratic backsliding across the region (cf. Stojarová 2018; Kazharski 2017). References: Austin, John Luke and Phillipe Beaulieu-Brossard (2017): ’(De)securitisation dilemmas: Theorising the simultaneous enaction of securitisation and desecuritisation.’ Review of International Studies 44(2), 301-323. Kazharski, Aliksei (2017): ’The End of ‘Central Europe’? The Rise of the Radical Right and the Contestation of Identities in Slovakia and the Visegrad Four.’ Geopolitics 23(4): 754-780. Kingdon, John W. (1984/2014): Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Kucharczyk, Jacek and Grigorij Mesežnikov (eds.): Phantom Menace. The Politics and Policies of Migration in Central Europe. IVO, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Bratislava, Prague: IVO, Heinrich Böll Stiftung. Léonard, Sarah and Christian Kaunert (2011): ’Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory.’ In Thierry Balzacq (ed.) Securitization theory. How security problems emerge and dissolve, 57-76. Oxon, New York: Routledge. Stojarová, Věra (2018): ’Populist, Radical and Extremist Political Parties in Visegrad countries vis à vis the migration crisis. In the name of the people and the nation in Central Europe.‘ Open Political Science (1): 32–45.