Introduction
On 14 May 2024, the Council of Europe adopted the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. Discussion of this document, both prior to and following its adoption, has revealed the differing attitudes of EU Member States towards immigration. In this study, we focus on attitudes towards immigration in one of those Member States, namely the Czech Republic, where public opinion supports immigration from certain groups of (mainly forced) migrants but not from others. While the Czech population willingly accepts refugees with similar cultures, religions and languages to their own, such as the recent influx of refugees from Ukraine, some sectors of the population have a negative attitude towards refugees from different cultural and religious backgrounds, especially those from countries with predominantly Muslim populations. These attitudes are reflected in the results of surveys carried out by the Public Opinion Research Centre (CVVM 2013, 2016, 2023) and the Ministry of the Interior (MoI 2024), here presented in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
Figure 1. Attitudes towards accepting refugees from countries affected by war.
Note: Respondents were asked ‘What is your attitude to accepting refugees from countries affected by war?’ and could choose from the following responses: (a) YES – Yes, we should accept them and let them settle here; (b) YES, temporarily – Yes, we should accept them until they are able to return to their country of origin; (c) NO – No, we should not accept refugees. Respondents who did not answer this question are recorded as ‘No opinion’.
Source: Ministry of the Interior (MoI 2024). https://www.mvcr.cz/chh/clanek/postoj-ceske-verejnosti-k-uprchlikum-v-pruzkumech-verejneho-mineni-cvvm-v-sirsim-kontextu.aspx
Figure 2. Attitudes towards accepting refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.
Note: Respondents were asked ‘What is your attitude to accepting refugees from the Middle East and North Africa?’ and could choose from the following responses: (a) ‘Strongly in favour’; (b) ‘Somewhat in favour’; (c) ‘Somewhat against’; (d) ‘Strongly against’. In this graph, responses (a) and (b) have been combined into the ‘YES’ category (within these, response (b) was dominant), while responses (c) and (d) have been combined into the ‘NO’ category (within these, (d) was dominant).
Source: Ministry of the Interior (MoI 2024). https://www.mvcr.cz/chh/clanek/postoj-ceske-verejnosti-k-uprchlikum-v-pruzkumech-verejneho-mineni-cvvm-v-sirsim-kontextu.aspx
Figure 3. Attitude of Czech public towards accepting refugees from Ukraine (%).
Note: Respondents were asked ‘In your opinion, should the Czech Republic accept refugees from Ukraine?’ and could choose from the following responses: (a) Yes, we should accept them and allow them to settle here; (b) Yes, we should accept them until they are able to return to their country of origin; (c) No, we should not accept these refugees. Respondents who did not answer this question are recorded as ‘No opinion’.
Source: Authors based on CVVM data (CVVM 2023). https://cvvm.soc.cas.cz/images/articles/files/5817/pm240415.pdf
Figure 1 illustrates the Czech population’s reluctance to accept war refugees. In the first survey data (September 2015), half of the respondents stated that they were against accepting refugees. By the end of 2015, this reluctance had increased by 10 percentage points, likely in reaction to the expected arrival of war refugees from the countries of the Middle East at this time. Figure 2 specifically depicts public attitudes in the Czech Republic towards accepting refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, i.e. from countries with predominantly Muslim populations.
As can be seen from Figure 2, there is strong reluctance among the Czech public to accepting refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Although the cited research covers only a three-year period, similar studies (Gorodzeisky Reference Gorodzeisky2023; Pavelková et al. Reference Pavelková, Hanus and Hasman2020) show that this attitude is persistent over time. This might seem to suggest that the Czech population is heavily xenophobic. However, a closer look shows that the situation is more complex than this. In Figure 3, we present attitudes among the Czech population towards accepting refugees from Ukraine.
Examining the evolution of attitudes towards Ukrainian migrants after 2022, we find that Czechs have adopted a markedly different stance towards these forced migrants. Figure 3 shows that between 2022 and 2024, the Czech public has generally had a positive attitude towards accepting Ukrainian refugees. After the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, the Czech Republic took in approximately half a million Ukrainian refugees, and responded very flexibly to the sharp increase in refugee numbers (Jelínková et al. Reference Jelínková, Plaček and Ochrana2024). This led to the Czech Republic being the country that received the largest number of refugees from Ukraine per capita. The public attitude towards these refugees stood in stark contrast to the opposition seen just a few years earlier towards accepting refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. Why did the public attitude differ so strongly? Is it driven by the fact that Ukrainian refugees speak a similar language and share many aspects of their culture and religion with the Czech population, whereas those from the Middle East and North Africa do not? In this article, we consider whether ethnicity is an influential factor in determining the Czech population’s willingness to accept refugees.
The Czech Republic is a typical Central European country with a non-colonial history and 40 years of experience under a totalitarian communist regime. Like other countries of the Central European region (Slovakia, Poland, Hungary), the Czech population’s historical experience of cultural differences and migration is different from the experience of Western European countries.
Public attitudes to the acceptance of refugees are influenced by a complex range of factors and conditions (Esses et al. Reference Esses, Hamilton and Gaucher2017). Here, we focus particularly on the role that one of these factors plays in determining Czech attitudes to refugees: ethnic nationalism (see Csámpai, Reference Csámpai1999; Walter, Reference Walter2007). Based on the analysis of the literature, we found that there is no study in the scientific discourse that addresses ethnic nationalism as a factor in the (non-)acceptance of refugees. Since ethnic nationalism affects how people perceive and evaluate individuals from other cultural or ethnic groups, we suppose that it may play an important role in shaping attitudes to immigration.
To examine whether this assumption is correct, we address the following research question (RQ): To what extent is ethnic nationalism associated with public attitudes towards refugees in the Czech Republic?
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Ethnicity – the idea of belonging to a group of people who share common cultural traits, such as language, religion, customs, history, or origins – is a key concept for this research (Csámpai Reference Csámpai1999; Walter Reference Walter2007). Ethnicity can influence individuals’ and groups’ behaviour, identity and opinions and can play a significant role in shaping how people relate to their own community and to other communities. On the basis of existing research, we believe that ethnicity – encompassing shared prejudices and stereotypes, historical and political experience, cultural values and religion – can influence peoples’ attitudes towards (im)migrants.
Preference for ethnic similarity – or ethnocentricity – is evident in the fact that attitudes to migrants who are culturally and ethnically similar tend to be more positive (Ford Reference Ford2011). Conversely, attitudes towards migrants from very different cultural or ethnic backgrounds tend to be more negative. This preference is associated with fears that newcomers might threaten the cultural values, customs or social fabric of the local community. Esses et al. (Reference Esses, Dovidio, Jackson and Armstrong2001) examine how perceived cultural similarities and differences influence attitudes towards immigrants, arguing that people tend to be more accepting of immigrants who are culturally closer to them. Similarly, Ford (Reference Ford2011: 1019) summarizes several studies that have found that ‘preference for cultural unity is the strongest predictor of hostility to immigration in a wide range of European societies’. Likewise, Berry (Reference Berry1997) examines how differences in cultural values impact the migrant adaptation process and illustrates how cultural differences can lead to rejection of newcomers.
Ethnocentric attitudes towards social identification (the ‘we’ versus ‘them’ mentality) also manifest themselves as discomfort with the idea of migrants from different ethnic groups joining an existing community (Melucci Reference Melucci1989; Melucci et al. Reference Melucci, Keane and Mier1989; Stets and Burke Reference Stets and Burke2000; Tajfel and Turner Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986).
Moreover, ethnicity is strongly associated with prejudices and stereotypes. If certain ethnic groups are perceived negatively or have negative stereotypes associated with them, people may be unwilling to accept migrants from these groups. Pettigrew and Tropp (Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006) show that prejudices and negative stereotypes against ethnic groups can be reduced through positive intergroup contact.
Relationships between different ethnic groups are shaped by historical events; historical hostility and past political tensions between ethnic groups can affect how those groups interact and, in turn, influence attitudes to migration between them. Schneider (Reference Schneider2007), for example, shows how historical conflicts and political tensions between ethnic groups continue to influence attitudes towards (im)migration in European countries.
Public attitudes towards refugees may be hospitable (see Alrawadieh et al. Reference Alrawadieh, Altinay, Urbančíková and Hudec2024), hostile (see Betz and Meret Reference Betz, Meret and Rydgren2013; Davidov et al. Reference Davidov, Meuleman, Billiet and Schmidt2008; Schneider Reference Schneider2007), or neutral (see Heath et al. Reference Heath, Schmidt, Green, Ramos, Davidov and Ford2014). We will explore the role of hospitableness (Alrawadieh et al. Reference Alrawadieh, Altinay, Urbančíková and Hudec2024) in relation to refugees of different ethnicities in the Czech Republic. In their study, Alrawadieh et al. (Reference Alrawadieh, Altinay, Urbančíková and Hudec2024) show that hospitableness has an important role in fostering pro-social attitudes and behaviours towards refugees.
Ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism that is defined on the basis of ethnicity. We look at this from the perspective of historical institutionalism (David Reference David2007; Mahoney and Thelen Reference Mahoney and Thelen2010; North Reference North1990; Plaček et al. Reference Plaček, Vaceková, Valentinov and Ochrana2024; Schmidt Reference Schmidt2008, Reference Schmidt2010), which is further elaborated in detail in studies by Jelínková et al. (Reference Jelínková, Plaček and Ochrana2024); and Ochrana (Reference Ochrana2022). The concept of historical institutionalism makes it possible to reveal the historical-social conditions under which ethnic nationalism emerged and developed, and how ethnic nationalism depends on these conditions (the influence of path dependence), helping us to understand how it arose.
We also refer to the theory of social identity (Lee Reference Lee2023; McPherson et al. Reference McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook2001; Melucci Reference Melucci1989) in order to explain why ethnocentric ‘us’ versus ‘them’ divisions arise in society (Sapolsky Reference Sapolsky2017), where ‘us’ refers to actors in the ethnic nation, and ‘them’ to ethnically-different migrants towards which the ‘us’ group is hostile. The members of the ‘they’ group, who may be ethnically and otherwise diverse, are seen as a homogeneous group that the ‘us’ group perceives as different – in ethnicity, race, culture, religion – from themselves. Social identity, i.e. an individual’s awareness of belonging to a particular social group, significantly influences individual behaviour (Davis and Moore Reference Davis and Moore2014). Social groups with shared values are inherently resistant to external threat and will mobilize to preserve the group’s identity and homogeneity (Iosifides et al. Reference Iosifides, Lavrentiadou, Petracou and Kontis2007; Lee Reference Lee2023; Stolle et al. Reference Stolle, Soroka and Johnston2008; Lee and Moon Reference Lee and Moon2011; Putnam Reference Putnam2000). Immigration is one possible source of such an external threat to group identity, with the potential to disrupt a group’s values and culture. Hence, social identity theory suggests that existing social groups will naturally be reluctant to accept migrants whom they perceive as not sharing their group identity.
Research Methods and Sources of Information
Our research for this study consists of a combination of desk research, textual analysis, retrograde analysis, secondary empirical analysis on public attitudes towards refugees in the Czech Republic, and interviews with experts. We use some similar methods to those employed by Stemler (Reference Stemler2001) and Ochrana (Reference Ochrana2022) for related research.
We begin with a textual analysis of historical documents and studies on the concept of ethnic nationalism. We then employ retrograde analysis to examine how ethnic nationalism developed in the Czech lands, from its emergence during the Czech National Revival (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) to the present day. Secondary analysis of empirical surveys examining public attitudes to refugees, conducted by the Public Opinion Research Centre (2015–2024), enables us to quantify those attitudes and observe trends over time and between different groups. By carrying out structured interviews with experts, we are able to describe the associations between ethnic nationalism and current attitudes towards the reception of refugees (see Table 1).
Table 1. List of experts.
The questions used in the in-depth, semi-structured interviews were formulated following our textual analysis of historical documents and publications concerning the origin, development and historical transformations of ethnicity and ethnic nationalism in the Czech lands (i.e. the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czechoslovakia, and the Czech Republic).
We selected interview participants through purposive sampling to ensure relevance and expertise. In total, we approached 18 academic, governmental and independent experts. Since our topic of investigation is politically and ideologically sensitive, some of the experts we invited to interview did not respond to our invitations, and some refused to participate in these interviews for fear of possible professional repercussions, even though we guaranteed that their participation would be anonymous. In total, seven experts consented to participate in interviews (see Table 1). Some of them asked for a higher degree of anonymity, and for this reason their age and gender are not specified. We respected all such requests.
The interviews were conducted in December 2023 and January 2024, primarily online via Google Meet, and for Expert G, part in person and part by phone. At the beginning of each interview, we presented the results of our analysis of the history of ethnic nationalism in Czech lands to the expert.
We then asked the experts the following two questions:
-
(1) What is your opinion on the historical sources relating to ethnic nationalism in the Czech Republic that we have presented?
-
(2) Empirical research conducted by the Public Opinion Research Centre suggests that the Czech public has diametrically different attitudes towards refugees from countries with predominantly Muslim populations and towards those from Ukraine. What is your opinion on this?
The interviews were transcribed and then coded using both deductive and inductive approaches. This made it possible to identify key themes relevant to our research question and identify new, emerging topics.
To address the risk of social desirability bias or other individual biases affecting the analysis of the interview material, the interpretation of the data was always discussed collectively within the research team. By engaging in these discussions, we were able to critically evaluate and challenge each other’s interpretations, reaching more balanced and objective conclusions.
Results
Historical Sources of Czech Nationalism
We identified the following stages in the developmental trajectory of ethnic nationalism in the Czech lands (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. The historical trajectory of the Czech Republic in relation to ethnic nationalism.
Czech National Revival
Between 1526 and 1918, the Czech lands were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. With the Age of Enlightenment, nationalist tendencies developed which led to the emergence of Czech ethnic nationalism during the Czech National Revival (late eighteenth and early nineteenth century) (Im Hof Reference Im Hof1993; Balbín Reference Balbín1775; Kočí Reference Kočí1978; Kollár Reference Kollár1997; Masaryk Reference Masaryk1990a, Reference Masaryk1990b, Reference Masaryk1990c; Palacký Reference Palacký1998). Those tendencies were then strengthened by the establishment of independent Czechoslovakia. Czech ethnic nationalism relied on the idea of ‘Czechness’ (see Palacký Reference Palacký1998), which served as a social ‘glue’ during the national revival (Stets and Burke Reference Stets and Burke2000), the ‘us’ group that was heavily contrasted with the ‘them’ of ‘Germanness’ (Rádl, Reference Rádl1993; Stets and Burke, Reference Stets and Burke2000).
The national revivalists’ programme was grounded in ethnic nationalism (Kočí Reference Kočí1978; Kollár Reference Kollár1997) and participants in structured interviews also suggest that these historical roots in ethnic nationalism are part of the reason why Czechs are unwilling to accept refugees from certain countries (experts A, B, C, E, F, and G).
Evolution and Residues of Ethnicity in the Czech Republic. Experts’ Perspective
For example, Expert B states: ‘Ethnicity is one of the factors that can influence the public’s willingness to accept refugees’ (Expert B). Experts A, C, E, F, and G have a similar opinion.
The idea of an ethnic concept of the nation remained rooted and discussed in Czech society even after the collapse of the Austrian monarchy and the establishment of Czechoslovakia (1918). The escalated theoretical dispute is known as the so-called dispute over the meaning of Czech history, whose main protagonists were T.G. Masaryk (the first president of Czechoslovakia) and J. Pekař (Masaryk Reference Masaryk1990a; Pekař Reference Pekař1990, Reference Pekař1991).
Masaryk, in accordance with F. Palacký, understands Czech history as an eternal encounter and struggle between Slavism (‘we’) and Germanness (‘them’). Even today, a part of the Czech public adopts this view of ‘us’ and ‘them’ of other ethnicities in the Czech Republic.
Expert B points to the above-mentioned connections:
From the point of view of history and our concept of ethnicity, it is necessary to remember that Czechoslovakia was founded on an ethnic (national) principle. See T. G. Masaryk and his idea of ‘Czechoslovakism’. That is why the approximately 3 million German minority could not identify with this ethnic state. Although the Czech Republic was already established on a ‘civic’ principle, in essence the state was ethnically inhomogeneous. This explains why a large part of the Czech public is generally very conservative towards immigrants.
This opinion is fully in line with our assumption that the ethnic conception of a nation influences the relationship to the (non)acceptance of migrants.
Pan-Slavism
Pan-Slavism, the idea of a unified cultural, ethnic and political Slavic community, also emerged in the nineteenth century (Kollár Reference Kollár1997). Often associated with Russophilism, of whom the first Czechoslovak Prime Minister Karel Kramář was a key proponent, Pan-Slavism became an influential element of Czech political thought post-1918. Its influence can still be seen in the ideas supported by some of the nationalist political parties active today (e.g. Freedom and Direct Democracy Party) (SPD 2024), and among some sectors of the Czech population. It manifests itself, for example, in sympathy with Putin’s Russia and in reluctance to accept Ukrainian refugees (MoI 2022). From the perspective of social identity theory, these Czech Russophiles see themselves as an ‘us’ group in opposition to a ‘they’ group consisting of other, non-Russophile Czechs. The experts we interviewed, however, state that, in their opinion, pan-Slavism or Russophilism have a negligible (expert E) or zero (expert A) influence on attitudes to accepting Ukrainian refugees.
The Czechoslovak Republic
Ethnic nationalism remained firmly rooted in Czech society after Czechoslovakia gained independence in 1918. The Czechoslovak Republic was established as a multinational state (an artificial fusion of Czechs and Slovaks into the ‘Czechoslovak nation’) that was seen as liberating the Slavs (Czechs and Slovaks) from the Germans and Hungarians. Both T.G. Masaryk (the first President of Czechoslovakia) and F. Palacký (the leader of the Czech National Revival), interpreted Czech history as an eternal confrontation and struggle between Slavism (‘us’) and Germanness (‘them’) (Masaryk Reference Masaryk1990a; Pekař Reference Pekař1990, Reference Pekař1991).
These historical events, characterized by the dichotomy between the Czech ‘we’ and the German ‘they’, are one of the key causes of ethnic nationalism, influencing the Czech population’s (non)acceptance of migrants.
Communism
Under the communist regime (1948–1989), the main theoreticians of nationalism in the countries of the Soviet bloc were J.V. Stalin (see Stalin Reference Stalin1950) and V.I. Lenin (Lenin Reference Lenin1957). Their conception of the nation’s social identity pitted the socialist ‘us’ against the bourgeois ‘them’ – a class-based identity. Official propaganda also spoke of the friendship of the Slavic nations that were part of the Soviet bloc. These ideas changed the way the socialist nations viewed other (non-socialist) nations. This view has remained rooted in the consciousness of a part of the public and has become one of the factors behind the reluctance to accept refugees of different ethnicity.
Liberal Democracy
After the fall of the communist regime in November 1989, the Czech (until 1993 Czechoslovak) state became an independent liberal democracy. Migration was not on the agenda. The problem of migration arose gradually.
Immigration in the Czech Lands
Immigration did not become a political and public issue in the Czech Republic until the twenty-first century. Although the break-up of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia brought members of foreign mafias (Russian, Ukrainian, Albanian) to the Czech Republic in the 1990s, this was not perceived as a migration issue. It was not until the first decade of the twenty-first century that extremist political parties (in particular the Workers’ Social Justice Party) began addressing this issue.
The outbreak of war in Iraq (2003) and later in Syria (2011) increased public interest in the issue of migration; in the years following 2011, as the numbers of migrants from countries with predominantly Muslim populations increased in Western and Southern Europe, this became a key topic in public discourse.
As we have seen, the Czech public was opposed to accepting refugees from countries with predominantly Muslim populations (see Figure 2). On the other hand, since 2022 it has willingly accepted Ukrainian refugees (see Figure 3). According to experts, ethnic nationalism and identity theory may be among the factors that explain the attitudes of contemporary Czech society towards accepting migrants with different ethnic backgrounds.
Expert D believes that ethnicity plays a role in the Czech population’s willingness to accept migrants,
but it is not a blanket reason for rejecting migrants… However, it is a fact that part of the public rejects these refugees from Islamic countries mainly because of cultural and religious differences… this means that the Czech public does not reject migration in general, but primarily Muslim migration, which is militant. (Expert D).
He/she suggests that some groups within the Czech population cannot distinguish between Islamic culture in general and militant Islam, because they do not have enough information about or direct personal experience with Islamic cultures. They consider that all people from primarily Muslim states must match the limited information they have about a few such people, which leads them to the logically erroneous conclusion (see Popper Reference Popper1994) that Islamic culture as a whole is hostile to European culture. Since ‘they’ (refugees from countries with predominantly Muslim populations) are different from ‘us’ (Czechs), ‘we must necessarily have well-founded fears about Islam’ (Expert D).
Expert F compares public attitudes to refugees in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He is not surprised that these attitudes are almost identical in both countries, since he considers that these attitudes stem from the countries’ common history and their historic ethnic and cultural proximity. Expert G points out that it is necessary to distinguish between Islamic culture in general and radical Islamism and that the Czech attitudes to each are different.
According to Expert C and Expert E, positive attitudes towards migrants from Ukraine are not only due to these migrants being of ‘the same ethnicity’ but also due to other characteristics of these immigrants and their goals. They point out that Ukrainians have been living in the Czech Republic since the 1990s and are known to be very hardworking. They also mention the problematic influence of the Ukrainian mafia. National stereotypes of different migrant groups therefore play an important role; these may be particularly important in the perception of refugees from countries with a predominantly Muslim population.
Expert E comments: ‘And that’s the problem, that some people aren’t sure if such people will come to us’ (Expert E). According to expert E, this can give rise to a twofold ethnic view among part of the public: European refugees in general, and refugees from Africa and Asia. One time the public sees them as ‘we’, the other time as ‘them’. The opinions of experts on the reception of war migrants are in line with our theoretical concept of social identity.
Discussion and Conclusion
Ethnic nationalism, in the Czech lands, first emerged in the late eighteenth century during the Czech National Revival, at which time it played a relatively progressive role. After the establishment of the independent Czechoslovak state (1918), elements of Czechoslovak ethnic nationalism remained anchored in the society. The political presentation of the newly established Czechoslovakia created a purposeful construct that viewed the ‘Czechoslovak nation’ as ‘us’ and saw the German and Hungarian ethnic minorities in the country as ‘them’. This ethnic view of the nation was further strengthened by the expulsion of the ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia after the Second World War.
After the liberation of most of Czechoslovakia from German fascism by the Red Army, pan-Slavism partially took over from Czechoslovak ethnic nationalism. However, this influence was lost with the fall of the communist regime. All the experts we interviewed confirmed that Pan-Slavism had rather a fleeting influence on public opinion and is not a significant factor influencing attitudes towards refugees today. Similarly, they agreed that the communist regime and its teachings did contribute to cementing ethnic nationalist views among the Czech population. The communist view of social identity contrasted a socialist nation with a bourgeois nation, but on the other hand, still emphasized Slavic unity under the wings of the Soviet Union.
After the fall of the communist regime (1989), the era of liberal democracy began, although remnants of ethnic nationalism remained rooted in the consciousness of a significant part of the Czech public. The Czech public is willing to accept migrants if they have the same (similar) ethnicity and culture. If they differ significantly, then they reject such migrants. And this is precisely the case with the rejection of refugees from countries with a predominantly Muslim population. This conclusion is in line with the ethnic concept of the nation and with the perception of refugees from the perspective of the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’. If we briefly summarize the answers to the research question, then we can formulate the conclusion that in the Czech Republic we can find manifestations of the ethnic nationalist opinions, both among the public and in the politics of the SPD parliamentary political party.
The examination carried out is of more general application. Other Central European countries (e.g. Slovakia and Poland) have undergone a similar historical development. The study opens the discussion about understanding why Central European countries are reluctant to accept refugees from countries with a predominantly Muslim population, and why, on the contrary, they are open to accepting Ukrainian refugees. Different from other studies that look at the different reactions of Central European countries to refugees (Dražanová and Geddes Reference Dražanová and Geddes2023; Main and Kujawa Reference Main and Kujawa2023), this study attempts to incorporate historical development and the ethnic concept of the state to answer the question of why Central European countries (former Soviet bloc countries) are hostile to migrants from countries with predominantly Muslim populations and, on the contrary, welcome war refugees from Ukraine.
This research yields several theoretical and practical implications. Our analysis reveals that there has not yet been a thorough study of ethnic nationalism as a determinant of the (non)acceptance of refugees in the Czech Republic. Our study demonstrates that ethnicity can be deemed as one factor which can be associated with attitudes towards migration within specific institutional and historical contexts. Using the example of the Czech Republic, it shows that public ideas about ethnicity have been shaped by the country’s historical development.
The Czech Republic shares many similarities with other CEE countries, such as Slovakia, Hungary and Poland; our findings may be relevant for them. The survey data we presented here suggests that the Czech public is largely opposed to accepting refugees whose culture and religion are different from their own. This apparently ethnically driven opinion can be explained in part by considering the historical development of ethnic nationalism in the Czech lands.
The interviews we conducted with experts, presented in this article, confirmed that ethnicity-based ideas are one factor that influences Czech public opinion in relation to refugees, but not the only one. They point to various other variables that influence public attitudes to refugees in the Czech context, including the country’s history, historical events, attitudes towards and representations of different religions and social groups, economic conditions, and populism. The impact of these variables requires further examination. Understanding how these influences interact to influence public opinion is essential for us to gain an understanding of why certain political measures succeed in the Czech context, while others do not.
Limitations of this Study
This study has several limitations. To start with, our research conclusions are not supported by robust quantitative data. At present, there is no political or social will to open a public debate on this highly sensitive issue. This is demonstrated by the limited willingness of experts to participate anonymously in our study. Further, we present a single-country study and see the need for comparative studies – in particular considering the similar socio-historic development of other countries in the CEE region – to draw more robust conclusions.
Moreover, the case of Ukrainian migration following the invasion of Ukraine by Russian armed forces is exceptional in that it may resonate with the experience of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia (1968) within living memory. Public attitudes in the Czech Republic towards hypothetical Russian or Belarussian refugees, might not be as positive. Ethnicity may not always be the decisive factor in Czech public attitudes towards refugees; political, historical, and economic factors may play important roles. Lastly, the role of ethnicity in attitudes towards refugees is a complex phenomenon, making it difficult to identify causal factors.
Despite these limitations, we believe that our study contributes to scientific discourse and public policy. It highlights the need for a comprehensive examination of attitudes towards refugees and encourages evidence-based public policy that seeks to understand the root causes behind social realities. This is crucial for effectively addressing attitudes to refugees not only in the Czech Republic but also in the Central European region. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses are essential to understand the phenomena of ethnicity and attitudes to refugees. In particular, it is desirable to examine the historical context and conduct longitudinal research.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Cooperatio Program, research area SOAS, and the European Regional Development Fund project ‘Beyond Security: Role of Conflict in Resilience-Building’ (reg. no.: CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004595).
Disclosure Statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
About the Authors
František Ochrana is Professor of Public Administration at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, in Prague. His scholarship spans public governance, performance-based budgeting, and policy evaluation, with a long-standing interest in improving transparency and effectiveness in public institutions.
Marie Jelínková is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University. Her research focuses on migration and integration policies, particularly the dynamics of local and regional governance, multilevel coordination, and the role of institutional actors in shaping migrant inclusion in Central and Eastern Europe.
Michal Plaček is Professor of Public Administration at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University. His work examines innovation and accountability in the public sector, with particular emphasis on performance auditing, strategic management, and the professionalization of public service delivery in post-socialist contexts.
Open access
