- Related Topics:
- war
- ethnic cleansing
- ethnic group
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.
Underlying causes
Structural factors
Weak or failed states often serve as an impetus for ethnic conflict. Many times such states are artificial products (e.g., former colonies) that were created without regard for the existing ethnic and political divisions within their borders, and their political and legal institutions tend to be ineffective. Violent conflicts are likely if changes in the economic situation of a state (e.g., cuts in foreign aid, corruption, administrative incompetence, and the inability to promote economic stability) are associated with the deterioration of the political situation in the country and the mobilization of ethnic groups. Group rivalry can lead to military mobilization, which leads to general armament of all ethnic groups within the state. That causes a security dilemma: by making efforts to provide a means with which to defend themselves, ethnic groups often threaten the security of others, whose reactions to that threat may, in turn, increase the threat level faced by the original group or groups. Violent conflicts and internal security dilemmas lead to massive human-rights violations, refugee flows, and spillover effects with the potential to destabilize whole regions.
Ethnic geography—the geographic distribution and territorial concentration of ethnic groups in pluralistic states—also contributes to the likelihood of violent ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict is particularly common in states with territorially concentrated ethnic groups located near a border or with ethnic kin in an adjacent state. Those groups show high levels of organization and increased group cohesion and are able to use shared homelands as a territorial base for their political struggle.
Political factors
Ethnic conflict is particularly likely in states where ethnic groups lack sufficient representation in public and political institutions. Authoritarian one-party regimes with discriminatory legislation and a lack of opportunities for ethnic groups to participate in state decision-making processes are particularly prone to ethnic conflict. Liberal democracies that focus on the ideals of inclusion, political debate, and the attempt to reach consensus among all participants in the political process facilitate nonviolent ethnopolitical action and are thus less likely to experience rebellion or uprisings.
Exclusionary national ideologies may also serve as a source of conflict. Nationalism and, in an increased form, citizenship based on ethnic distinctions are especially dangerous because such ideologies tend to flourish in situations of political uncertainty and economic collapse. Other forms of exclusionary national ideologies include religious fundamentalism and supremacist fascist expressions.
The existence, or lack of existence, of stable domestic intergroup relations can also have a bearing on whether violent ethnic conflict is likely to occur. Violent conflict is particularly probable if the claims of the various ethnic groups are incongruous, if groups have strength and are organized, if it is possible for groups to take action, if success is a feasible outcome, and if there is a tangible fear of suppression and discrimination on the basis of ethnicity.
The tactics that may be utilized by leaders and elites during political turmoil also affect the likelihood of violent ethnic conflict. Scapegoating, hate speech, and manipulation of the mass media are means that have the potential to heighten existing discord between ethnic groups.
Economic and social factors
Economic problems such as slowdowns, stagnation, deterioration, and complete collapse are sources of state destabilization and can lead to increased tensions and competition among ethnic groups. Discriminatory economic systems in which various groups are faced with inequitable options (in terms of economic opportunities, access to land and other resources, standards of living, and the like) generate resentment and also contribute to tensions and destabilization. Fast economic transitions (e.g., from centrally planned to market economies) and development can also aggravate instability by creating favourable conditions for domestic migration, urbanization, and other societal changes to which the existing political and social structures might not be able to adapt. These changes also can raise hopes for economic and political gains that might not come to fruition and might then serve as a source of frustration.
Cultural or perceptual factors
Cultural factors such as problematic group histories, stereotypical perceptions, and grievances over cultural discrimination—including limitations on religious and cultural practices, unequal educational opportunities, and restrictions on the use of minority languages—are common causes of ethnic conflict. In addition, a weakening of traditional forms of dispute settlement (such as a council of elders) changes the environment for the resolution of ethnic disputes.
Proximate causes
Brown notes that proximate causes can be situated within a matrix that identifies them as being instigated at either an elite level or a mass level and as being instigated by developments that occur internally or externally. He thus identifies four main types of proximate causes of internal conflict: internal mass-level factors, external mass-level factors, external elite-level factors, and internal elite-level factors.
Internal mass-level factors
Internal mass-level factors may include fast-paced economic changes, modernization, patterns of political or economic discrimination, and internal migration. Brown deems those “bad domestic problems.”
External mass-level factors
“Bad neighborhoods,” according to Brown, are created when radicalized politics in a region lead to contagion, diffusion, and spillover effects (external mass-level causes). Those effects can also occur when refugees or fighters from neighbouring countries cross the border and bring violence and unrest with them.
External elite-level factors
External elite-level factors exist when governments make decisions to provoke conflicts in weak neighbouring states for political, economic, security, or ideological reasons, leading to Brown’s label “bad neighbors.” In addition, in some cases, ethnic minorities decide to wage a violent struggle in the hope of political gains and international support. Ethnic groups assume the willingness of the international community to react and to provide a political forum to support negotiation, arbitration, and the settlement of disputes.
Internal elite-level factors
Brown uses the term “bad leaders” to refer to internal elite-level factors. Those include power struggles by leaders of different groups, ideological disputes over the way a country should be organized, and criminal activity directed against a country’s sovereignty by leaders of organized crime. Leaders have the ability to “play the ethnic card”—to invoke ethnicity in situations where it may or may not be relevant—in a manner that can quickly lead to increased tensions between ethnic groups.
