ethnic conflict
- Related Topics:
- war
- ethnic cleansing
- ethnic group
ethnic conflict, a form of conflict in which the objectives of at least one party are defined in ethnic terms, and the conflict, its antecedents, and possible solutions are perceived along ethnic lines. The conflict is usually not about ethnic differences themselves but over political, economic, social, cultural, or territorial matters.
Ethnic conflict is one of the major threats to international peace and security. Conflicts in the Balkans, Rwanda, Chechnya, Iraq, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Darfur, as well as in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, are among the best-known and deadliest examples from the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The destabilization of provinces, states, and, in some cases, even whole regions is a common consequence of ethnic violence. Ethnic conflicts are often accompanied by gross human rights violations, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, and by economic decline, state failure, environmental problems, and refugee flows. Violent ethnic conflict leads to tremendous human suffering.
Ethnic identity, ethnicity, and ethnic group
The terms ethnic and ethnicity have their roots in the Greek word ethnos, which describes a community of common descent. In ethnic conflict research, the terms ethnic group, communal group, ethnic community, people, and minority are mostly used interchangeably. Two elements provide the basis to identify ethnic groups: first, the accentuation of cultural traits and, second, the sense that those traits distinguish the group from the members of the society who do not share the differentiating characteristics. Anthony D. Smith, a scholar of ethnicity and nationalism studies, identified ethnic criteria that provide the origins of communal identity. Those include shared historical experiences and memories, myths of common descent, a common culture and ethnicity, and a link with a historic territory or a homeland, which the group may or may not currently inhabit. Elements of common culture include language, religion, laws, customs, institutions, dress, music, crafts, architecture, and even food. Ethnic communities show signs of solidarity and self-awareness, which are often expressed by the name the group gives itself.
Ethnic identity is formed by both tangible and intangible characteristics. Tangible characteristics, such as shared culture or common visible physical traits, are important because they contribute to the group’s feeling of identity, solidarity, and uniqueness. As a result, the group considers perceived and real threats to its tangible characteristics as risks to its identity. If the group takes steps to confront the threats, its ethnicity becomes politicized, and the group becomes a political actor by virtue of its shared identity. On the other side, ethnicity is just as much based on intangible factors—namely, on what people believe, or are made to believe, to create a sense of solidarity among members of a particular ethnic group and to exclude those who are not members.
Theories of ethnic identity
Although communal identity provides the foundation for the definition of ethnic groups, disagreement exists over how ethnic identity forms and how it changes over time. A first school of thought, known as the primordialist approach, explains ethnicity as a fixed characteristic of individuals and communities. According to primordialists, ethnicity is embedded in inherited biological attributes, a long history of practicing cultural differences, or both. Ethnic identity is seen as unique in intensity and durability and as an existential factor defining individual self-identification and communal distinctiveness. Mobilization of ethnic identity and ethnic nationalism is a powerful tool to engage the group in a political struggle. Ethnic divisions and ethnic conflict are considered inherent to multiethnic societies and a common phenomenon.
The primordialist focus on fixed identities, however, fails to recognize variations in ethnic group formation, ranging from relatively short-term associations to long-standing, strong, and cohesive groups with biological and historical roots. To account for these differences, a second approach, referred to as instrumentalist, was developed, which understands ethnicity as a device used by individuals and groups to unify, organize, and mobilize populations to achieve larger goals. Those goals are mostly of a political nature and include, among others, demands for self-governance, autonomy, access to resources and power, respect for the group’s identity and culture, and minority rights. Instrumentalists hold that ethnicity has very little or no independent ranking outside the political process and is in its character comparable to other political affiliations such as ideological beliefs or party membership. According to instrumentalists, ethnicity is a result of personal choice and mostly independent from the situational context or the presence of cultural and biological traits. Ethnic conflict arises if ethnic groups compete for the same goal—notably power, access to resources, or territory. The interests of a society’s elite class play an important role in mobilizing ethnic groups to engage in ethnic conflicts. Ethnic conflict is thus similar to other political interest conflicts.
Instrumentalism is criticized by those who argue that ethnicity, in contrast to political affiliations, cannot be willfully decided on by individuals and is instead rooted in and regulated by the society as a whole. Advocates of another school of thought, known as social constructivism, focus on the social nature of ethnic identity. In their view, ethnicity is neither fixed nor entirely open. Ethnic identity is created by social interactions between individuals and groups and remains therefore beyond a person’s choice, but it is subject to change if the social conditions change. Individuals and groups cannot avoid the fact that ethnic differences exist, but they determine for themselves what to make of those differences. Ethnic conflict depends thus to a great extent on the opportunities provided for the group to reach their goals. Violent conflict is caused mainly by social and political systems that lead to inequality and grievances and do not offer options for the peaceful expression of differences. Changes in social interactions, such as increased tensions or violent conflict, influence the socially constructed nature of ethnicity. Social constructivists explain the tremendous atrocities committed during ethnic conflicts—such as genocide, mass rape, and ethnic cleansing—by the fact that, by virtue of ethnicity, ultimately everyone becomes involved in the struggle, regardless of their intent.
A fourth view, that of psychocultural interpretations, ascribes to ethnicity deep cultural and psychological roots, which make ethnic identity extremely persistent. The scholar Marc Howard Ross, drawing on psychocultural interpretation theory, defines ethnic identity as originating in “shared, deeply rooted worldviews” that shape group members’ relationships with others, their actions, and their motives. Ethnic identity cannot be changed, only made more tolerant and open-minded. Ethnic conflict engages central elements of each group’s identity and invokes fears and suspicion about real and potential opponents. Ethnic conflict is thus not simply a political event but a drama that challenges the very existence of the group by contesting its identity. This explains why ethnic conflicts are very difficult to resolve.
In reality, some ethnic groups have identities with deep historical roots whereas others do not, and some groups have static identities whereas others have dynamic identities. The concrete expression of ethnicity and its propensity to lead to violence and warfare depend on the context. Ethnic identities are adaptable to and activated by unexpected threats and new opportunities. Ethnicity cannot be politicized unless an underlying core of memories, experience, or meaning moves people to collective action. In light of this, Milton J. Esman, in his book Ethnic Politics (1994), noted that ethnic identity usually “can be located on a spectrum between primordial historical continuities and (instrumental) opportunistic adaptations.”
Several factors contribute to the salience and intensity of ethnic identities. Indisputably, the strongest factor is war and violence. First, the history of common efforts, stories of sacrifices for a common goal, and memories of human suffering create strong connections among the members of affected ethnic groups. Similarly, if a group experiences economic, political, and cultural discrimination, group cohesion tends to increase. Second, a group’s ethnic identity is stronger if mass literacy is achieved. Literacy allows elements of identity to be stored in writing, which means that historical and cultural narratives can reach a mass audience and stay the same over time. Even if an ethnic identity lies dormant for some time, it can be revived. Finally, the identities of nonimmigrant groups tend to be more pronounced than the identities of immigrant ethnic groups. While immigrants often assimilate, nonimmigrant minorities generally adhere to their traditions, especially if they are easily distinguished from the rest of the society by tangible traits such as physical markers.
Types of ethnic groups
Not all ethnic groups are politically active or engage in ethnic conflict. Depending on the political structure of the state (democracy versus authoritarian regimes) and the size and situation of the ethnic minority (large versus small portion of the society, regionally concentrated versus dispersed), ethnic groups will have different claims and will use different means to voice their demands. The Minorities at Risk Project at the University of Maryland began tracking ethnic groups in 1986, and it developed six types for categorizing the groups: ethnonationalists, indigenous peoples, ethnoclasses, communal contenders, religious sects, and national minorities.
Ethnonationalists are large, regionally concentrated ethnic groups with a history of autonomy or separatist struggles.
Indigenous peoples are original inhabitants, or descendants of the original inhabitants, of a colonized territory. These groups typically have traditional social, economic, and cultural customs that set them apart from the rest of the society. Even though indigenous peoples are often notably different from the dominant group (they usually are set apart not only by physical markers but also by language, religion, traditions, etc.), they tend to be badly organized, have weak connections among group members, and, consequently, are usually unable to voice their claims (mostly to land and access to resources) in a successful manner. As a result, indigenous peoples are among the most-marginalized ethnic groups in the world.
Ethnoclasses are physically or culturally distinct groups who are typically descendants of slaves or immigrants. In many cases, these groups perform distinctive economic activities, mostly at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. Ethnoclasses generally strive for equal treatment, economic opportunities, and political participation. Mobilization of these groups varies widely. Ethnoclasses have successfully pursued their interests in many Western democracies, but they remain relatively unorganized in most other places.
Communal contenders are culturally distinct groups that have or desire a role in state power. Some of them can also be classified as ethnonationalists opting for separatism and seeking independence. The Minorities at Risk Project distinguishes between dominant, advantaged, and disadvantaged communal contenders. Dominant groups hold both political and economic power over other groups in their societies. Advantaged groups enjoy political benefits but are not in control of governing power. Disadvantaged communal contenders are the most common, and they often face political or economic discrimination or both. Changes to group relations involving communal contenders are particularly likely if power structures change. Intergroup shifts of relative political influence and economic prosperity can provoke violent reactions, which tend to be particularly long-lasting and disastrous. Power-sharing models that take differences and external changes into account are the only way to deal with these issues. However, as history shows, such power-sharing arrangements are often very difficult to achieve.
Religious sects are ethnic groups that differ from the rest of their society mostly by their religious beliefs and related cultural practices. Religious minorities tend to have high group cohesion because religion is a highly salient trait. In addition, religious groups usually already possess an organizational structure, which makes mobilization of the groups particularly easy and likely. For these politicized religious minorities, their faith is what sets them apart, but their goals are political in nature (e.g., participation in the government, nondiscrimination, or the recognition of the minority).
National minorities are groups with kinfolk in a neighbouring state but who are a minority in the state in which they reside. Most of these groups have a history of political autonomy, which they strive to reinstate.
Origin and nature of ethnic conflict
Conflict describes a situation in which two or more actors pursue incompatible goals. It is not necessarily violent, but the use of tension, dispute, or unease is more common in a nonviolent context. A violent internal conflict is generally called a civil war or armed conflict when casualties and destruction are substantial, the conflict has a certain duration, the protagonists are organized, and military operations are used to achieve political goals.
Ethnic conflict, therefore, is a form of conflict in which there is an ethnic dimension. The ambitions of at least one party are defined in ethnic terms, and the conflict, its antecedents, and possible solutions are perceived along ethnic lines. The conflict tends not to be about ethnic differences themselves but over political, economic, social, cultural, or territorial matters.
If the political goal of ethnic mobilization is self-determination, the movement is called nationalism. A nation in this context is a politicized ethnic group with the desire for self-government; that self-government may take a variety of forms, ranging from participation in public affairs to local segmental autonomy to territorial claims, including independence. The use of the word nation is problematic. On the one side, nation can mean the state as a whole (the way the term is used in international or United Nations). If nation refers to people in this context, it can be understood as the aggregate, permanent population of the state, based on citizenship. On the other side, the word nation is also widely used to refer to a politicized ethnic group, in which case the link among people is based on ethnicity rather than citizenship.
Ethnic disputes are common in every multicultural society. Intergroup problems arise in periods of substantial political, economic, and social change and lead to uncertainty, emerging opportunities for action, and particularistic interests. Grievances and polarizing leadership lead to mobilization, ranging from political action (conventional politics, strikes, demonstrations, and other nonviolent means) to violent acts such as terrorism, armed uprisings, guerrilla activity, and civil wars.
Causes of ethnic conflict
In several scholarly articles, Michael Edward Brown provided a useful approach to understanding the causes of ethnic conflict. In those articles, he distinguished between underlying causes and proximate causes. Underlying causes include structural factors, political factors, economic and social factors, and cultural and perceptual factors. Proximate causes embrace four levels of conflict triggers: internal mass-level factors (what Brown calls “bad domestic problems”), external mass-level factors (“bad neighborhoods”), external elite-level factors (“bad neighbors”), and internal elite-level factors (“bad leaders”). According to Brown, both underlying and proximate causes have to be present for ethnic conflict to evolve. This section first summarizes what Brown described as the “four main clusters of factors that make some places more predisposed to violence than others”—the underlying causes—and then presents the four catalysts, or triggers, that Brown identified as proximate causes.
