110 3 Discussion The outcomes of this research contribute to the literature on affinity voting (Bird et al., 2016; Dolan, 2008; van der Zwan et al., 2020). In-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, experiences with discrimination and views on immigration are key to understanding why minority citizens vote for DENK, a party consisting of members of parliament of Turkish or Moroccan descent and/or Muslims. In-group favouritism, discrimination and issues should become a standard part of understanding the electoral behaviour and attitudes of minority citizens as they reveal how they experience their relationship to – and what sets them apart from – majority citizens. In-group favouritism and discrimination could also shape how minority citizens relate to the society around them and should therefore receive careful consideration beyond the literature of affinity voting as well (as already done by Fischer-Neumann, 2014; Fleischmann et al., 2011; Leszczensky et al., 2020; Scuzzarello, 2015; Simon and Ruhs, 2008; Slootman, 2016, 2018, 2019; Slootman and Duyvendak, 2015; van Heelsum and Koomen, 2016; Verkuyten and Yildiz, 2009). In this section we discuss the caveats to this study and implications for future research. First, it is striking that we did not find that positions on the Islam-related issue variable explain why minority Dutch citizens vote for DENK. One explanation might be that the issue we studied, i.e. “Islam should be restricted by law”, was particularly broad or difficult to interpret. More specific and clear statements might explain voting for DENK more fully, e.g. we need to do more to end Islamophobia/discrimination, cartoons with the prophet Mohammed should be forbidden, or halal meals should be available in schools. More ethnonationalist-related items might also relate to voting for DENK, e.g. we should not criticise Erdoğan, the Armenian genocide never took place, the Grey Wolves are not a danger to Turkey, or Turkish and Moroccan Dutch citizens should be allowed to have two nationalities. Second, the discrimination and in-group favouritism variables are vulnerable to endogeneity. In this paper, we have assumed that the causality runs from ethnic background measured through parental place of birth (an unquestionably exogenous variable) and religious background (less exogenous, but still very much a product of the family you were born in) to experiences of discrimination and in-group favouritism (both arguably endogenous), all leading to voting for DENK. The causality could also be the other way around: voting for DENK could raise awareness of discrimination, making voters more likely to state they have experienced it. Voting for DENK could also heighten Muslim in-group favouritism because the party puts Islamophobia on the agenda. Particularly due to the lagged effect experiences of discrimination tend to have (Fleischmann et al., 2019), multiple waves of panel studies over time are needed to clear up in which direction the causality runs: is DENK expressing or fuelling discontent amongst voters (to borrow the terminology from Rooduijn et al., 2016)?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw