Thread: What makes a diaspora influential.
1. It is very misrepresentative to define the ability of a diaspora to influence policy based on numbers or financial means dedicated to it alone. Though they are both important and cannot be underestimated, there are other factors that

2. contribute in a much more influential way in shaping public opinion and subsequently policy.
A diaspora’s influence is better understood when considering six parameters that are fundamental to its effectiveness.

3. They are: a) Host country pre-disposition b) Level of integration c) Level of education d) Ability to act independent of party lines e) Ability to leverage common traits between the diaspora and the host country and f) Presence in centers/countries of influence.

4. It is therefore critical to examine each one of them.
a)Host country pre-disposition. Very large diasporas (in numbers) can, more often than not, be counterproductive to their goals. Many examples exist where host country public opinion as a whole becomes disillusioned and

5. hostile towards specific national identities which are perceived to be invasive due to their large numbers. Especially when the host country’s indigenous population tends to be reasonably politicized and conservative in nature while the diaspora originates from a culturally

6. and socially different background.
b) Level of integration. Irrespective of numbers, diasporas whose members tend to perform better in quickly integrating to their host country’s society and actively engage in public, economic and cultural life become more successful in

7. influencing both public opinion and policy. Where sizeable numbers of immigrants of one ethnic background appear, the natural tendency is for them to cluster together thus effectively limiting their chances to integrate to local society at the level perceived as acceptable by

8. the native population and leading to feelings of “us versus them”. Especially in Western Europe, ethnic ghettos exist even after many decades of presence of particular ethnic groups in their host country. c) Level of education. While the correlation between the average

9. education level of a certain diaspora group and its prospects to become financially and politically successful is relatively easy to understand, what is often missed is that there is a definitive time lapse for that level to significantly be raised. More often than not it is

10. even a generational one. Thus, diasporas with a generally higher average education level at their starting point have a unique advantage over their peer groups. d)Ability to act independent of party lines. Diaspora groups which are formed based on the home political

11. affiliations of their members and their primary goal is to either support or oppose policies of their home country’s political entities abroad are hugely impotent. They tend to consume a huge amount of effort, resource and political capital while infighting. That capital

12. could be much better spent in advancing the diaspora’s common goals.
e) Ability to leverage common traits between the diaspora and the host country. Whether it is common ancestry, religion, language, culture or historical ties, ethnic groups which find themselves as members

13. of a diaspora in a country that shares similar traits are more likely to prosper and influence policy to suit their needs. It is inherently easier to be a member of the Chilean diaspora in Spain or the Irish diaspora in the US than be a member of the Iraqi community in the

14. United Kingdom or the Turkish diaspora in Norway.
f) Presence in centers/countries of influence and unique gravitas. There are certain host countries that carry a political, economic, historical and cultural significance on the world stage and others that do not to that

15. extent. Should diasporas fulfil all of the above criteria but be active and present in the latter, they can expect a more limited influence by default.
In conclusion, the size of a certain diaspora and the financial means they dedicate to advance their goals are nowhere near

16. as important as many might think they are. Next time one wonders why certain groups tend to be more successful in advancing their agenda than others, it might be worth remembering the above.