Skip to main content
Log in

Facilitating crisis: Hungarian and Slovak securitization of migrants and their implications for EU politics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Politics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article scrutinizes the securitization of migrants in Hungary and Slovakia at the height of the EU’s migration ‘crisis’. It illustrates how political narratives portrayed migrants as a security threat and how they intersected with EU discourse and practice. I demonstrate how the logic of securitization was deployed by both governments for domestic political gains. I show that both prime ministers focused on ‘civilizational’ threats or alleged threats to their respective cultures along with economic insecurity, and physical threats they would allegedly create through, inter alia, ‘terrorist’ activities. Their ostensible intentions were to protect the economic, societal and human security of Hungarians and Slovaks, whilst ignoring the (in)security of migrants, and essentially using the ‘crisis’ to gain electoral support for their waning politics. This prioritization contradicted EU policy, thwarting the development of common practice. The securitization used to justify the two governments’ policies and practices raises further questions about EU order and governance including about what are commonly claimed to be EU values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Initially the situation was referred to as a ‘migration crisis’ then changed to ‘migrant/refugee crisis’ by the EU.

  2. The consultation had 12 questions. It include questions such as 3) Some people believe that migrants, who have been misrepresented by Brussels as migrants, have links to terrorists organisations. Do you agree with this? Is there a relationship between migration and terrorism?; 8) Do you support the Hungarian government in introducing stricter laws to allow the detention of illegal migrants crossing into Hungary? 10) Do you agree that economic migrants while they stay in Hungary should cover the cost of their own needs?

  3. There was a counter-campaign by NGOs showing a different face of Hungary. While including this is beyond the scope of this paper, the counter-campaign demonstrate that the acquiescence of the Hungarian public was not simply to be take for granted but was an object of struggle.

  4. Between 13 May and 13 August 2016, anti-EU-quota plan ads were ran 6224 times on TV, 1403 times on the radio, 2078 times in public places, 542 times in daily newspapers and 53 times in magazines (Román 2016).

  5. The Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Latvia also vetoed the Commission’s proposal.

  6. This was because of the deliberate and successful strategy from opponents to boycott the referendum, hence the 43.9% turnout.

References

Download references

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Katarína Jakubčeková for her assistance with the article. Also, the funding body NIAS-KNAW should be acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrix Futák-Campbell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Futák-Campbell, B. Facilitating crisis: Hungarian and Slovak securitization of migrants and their implications for EU politics. Int Polit 59, 541–561 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00305-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00305-4

Keywords

Navigation