Abstract
This chapter examines the preferences of young Belarusians towards the values of political culture and their perception of civil and political rights with a particular focus on refugee rights. We explored if and how the attitudes of young people in Belarus (N = 677) towards authoritarianism, governing institutions, and political powers predicted their perception of refugee and citizens’ rights relying on the results of the Religion and Human Rights Project 2.0. We analysed the migration context of our respondents and the role of pluralist views, interreligious contacts, and positive attitudes towards diversity vis-à-vis perception of refugee rights. This research suggests that the migration context matters for citizens’ right to vote and freedom of speech. Critical attitudes towards governing institutions together with positive attitudes towards multiculturalism and pluralism serve as strong predictors of refugee rights.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For more information see the website of the project “Religion and Human Rights”: https://www.theologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/rp/research/religion-and-human-rights-2012-2019/.
- 2.
Launched by the Council of Europe Ministers of Foreign Affairs at their 118th Ministerial Session (in Strasbourg, 7 May 2008).
- 3.
See Astley and Francis (2016) for the discussion about the operationalisation of pluralism concept.
- 4.
We rely on the following rule in interpreting the means: 1.00–1.79 = disagree totally; 1.80–2.59 = disagree; 2.60–2.99 = negative ambivalence; 3.00–3.39 = positive ambivalence; 3.40–4.19 = agree; 4.20–5.00 = agree totally.
Bibliography
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Astley, J., & Francis, L. J. (2016). Introducing the Astley-Francis theology of religions index: construct validity among 13- to 15-year-old students. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 37(1), 29–39.
Beaman, L. G. (2017). Deep equality in an era of religious diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bekemans, L. (2013). Globalisation vs Europeanisation. A human-centric interaction. Brussels, Berlin, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: International Academic Publishers Peter Lang.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Breskaya, O., & Botvar, P. K. (2019). Views on religious freedom among young people in Belarus and Norway: Similarities and contrasts. Religions, 10(6), 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10060361.
Brysk, A., & Shafir, G. (2004). People out of place: Globalization, human rights and the citizenship gap. New York and London: Routledge.
Calder, G., Cole, P., & Seglow, J. (2009). Citizenship acquisition and national belonging: Migration, membership and the liberal democratic state. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Council of Europe. (2008). White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”. https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/Publication_WhitePaper_ID_en.asp. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.
Devos, T., Spini, D., & Schwartz, Sh H. (2002). Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 481–494.
DeGooyer, S., Hunt, A., Maxwell, L., & Moyn, S. (2018). The right to have rights. London and New York: Verso.
Doise, W., Spini, D., & Clémence, A. (1999). Human rights studied as social representations in a cross-national context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 1–29.
Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281–306.
Dzesiatava, G. (2016). Migration and national security in Belarus. BelarusDigest. https://belarusdigest.com/story/migration-and-national-security-in-belarus.
Estèvez, A. (2012). Human rights, migration, and social conflict: Towards a decolonized global justice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giordan, G., & Lynch, A. P. (2019). Interreligious dialogue: From religion to geopolitics. Leiden: Brill.
Giordan, G., & Pace, E. (2014). Religious pluralism: Framing religious diversity in the contemporary world. Cham: Springer.
Makaryan, S. (2012). Estimation of international migration in post-Soviet republics. International Migration, 53(5), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2012.00740.x.
Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1223–1234.
Morselli, D., Spini, D., & Devos, T. (2012). Human values and trust in institutions across countries: A multilevel test of Schwartz’s hypothesis of structural equivalence. Survey Research Methods, 6, 49–60.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Eastern and Western Europeans differ on importance of religion, views of minorities, and key social issues. https://www.pewforum.org/2018/10/29/eastern-and-western-europeans-differ-on-importance-of-religion-views-of-minorities-and-key-social-issues. Accessed 17 Aug 2019.
Piper, N., & Rother, S. (2015). Migration and democracy: Citizenship and human rights from a multi-level perspective. International Migration, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12186.
Richardson, J. T. (2014). From religious diversity to religious pluralism: What is at stake. In G. Giordan & E. Pace (Eds.), Religious pluralism. Framing religious diversity in the contemporary world (pp. 31–49). Cham: Springer.
Somers, M. (2008). Genealogies of citizenship: Markets, statelessness, and the right to have rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somers, M., & Roberts, C. N. J. (2008). Toward a new sociology of rights: A genealogy of “buried bodies” of citizenship and human rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 385–425.
Staerklé, C., Clémence, A., & Doise, W. (1998). Representation of human rights across different national contexts: The role of democratic and non-democratic populations and governments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 207–226.
Staerklé, C., Clémence, A., & Spini, D. (2011). Social representations: A normative and dynamic intergroup approach. Political Psychology, 32, 759–768.
Ulasiuk, I. (2013). What can migration policymakers learn from legal frameworks on national minorities? National minorities and migration in Armenia and Belarus. International Migration, 52(5). https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12129.
Van der Ven, J., & Ziebertz, H.-G. (1995). Jugendliche in multikulturellem und multireligiösem Kontext. Schülerinnen zu Modellen interreligiöser Kommunikation – ein deutsch-niederländischer Vergleich. RpB, 35, 151–167.
Yasemin, S. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Breskaya, O. (2020). Democratic Values of Young Belarusians and Attitudes Towards Refugee Rights. In: Jacobsen, M., Berhanu Gebre, E., Župarić-Iljić, D. (eds) Cosmopolitanism, Migration and Universal Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50645-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50645-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50644-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-50645-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)