Territorial Identity and Centre–Periphery Contestation in Post-Communist Europe: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia

This paper examines the conditions under which regional and minority identity mobilisation becomes politically consequential in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. It asks: why do some territorial identity movements remain symbolically marginal, while others become institutionalised and politically embedded within state structures? Through a structured comparison of Silesia in Poland, Moravian identity in the Czech Republic, and the Hungarian minority in Slovakia, the study analyses how post-communist state-building, institutional design, and centre–periphery relations shape divergent trajectories of identity politics. Following 1989, CEE states underwent simultaneous processes of democratic transition, territorial consolidation, and nation-state redefinition. While all three cases inherited centralised administrative legacies, they diverged significantly in how regional and minority claims were incorporated into political institutions. Poland has resisted formal recognition of Silesians as a national minority, resulting in periodic mobilisation around census declarations and symbolic autonomy demands. In the Czech Republic, Moravian identity experienced a brief surge during the early transition but failed to achieve sustained institutionalisation. In contrast, Slovakia constitutionally recognises its Hungarian minority, embedding minority rights within a broader framework of territorial and language governance that remains politically sensitive. The paper develops a comparative framework grounded in centre–periphery theory, post-communist institutionalism, and scholarship on minority rights regimes. It conceptualises identity mobilisation as an interaction between three factors: the degree of institutional recognition, the territorial implications of identity claims, and the responsiveness of political elites. Rather than treating identity movements as culturally predetermined, the analysis focuses on how institutional incentives structure mobilisation strategies and conflict intensity. Empirically, the study combines documentary analysis of constitutional provisions, minority legislation, decentralisation reforms, and party manifestos with examination of parliamentary debates and electoral data. It also draws on official census statistics and public statements by regional actors to trace patterns of institutional incorporation and political salience over time. This mixed-method design enables systematic comparison across cases while maintaining sensitivity to national contexts. The analysis yields three findings. First, early post-communist institutional choices exert long-term path-dependent effects on identity mobilisation. Second, formal recognition alone does not resolve centre–periphery tensions; rather, the territorial scope and implementation of minority rights determine whether mobilisation stabilises or persists. Third, movements lacking institutional channels, as in Poland and the Czech Republic, tend to rely on symbolic and episodic mobilisation, whereas constitutionally embedded minorities, as in Slovakia, generate sustained political negotiation within established frameworks. The paper argues that territorial identity politics in CEE cannot be understood solely through cultural or historical narratives. Instead, they reflect the interaction between institutional design, nation-building strategies, and elite competition in post-communist democracies. By situating regional and minority mobilisation within broader debates on state formation and democratic consolidation, the study contributes to the comparative politics of Central and Eastern Europe and advances understanding of how centre–periphery dynamics evolve in transitional political systems.