One dramatic characteristic of the world during the last quarter of the 20th century is the
increase in ethnic conflicts. Historically, ethnic groups, nations, states, empires, and other
forms of large scale social organization have coexisted, but since the 17th century the
dominant form of social organization has been the state system, the organization of the
world’s people into a system of independent and territorial states. Since their emergence,
nation-states have generally had tense and conflict-ridden relations with minorities under
their jurisdiction. The problem arises from the discrepancy between the ideal of the
ethnically homogenous nation state and the widespread reality of polyethnic states.
Social, political and economic changes that have been taking place in the last two
decades, changes that have accelerated and deepened as a result of the Cold War, both in
the developed and underdeveloped world, made this tension and conflict more visible and
a more compelling topic for social scientists.
Ted Robert Gurr identifies in his study “Minorities At Risk” (1993) 233 minority groups
that are in conflict with more than 100 nation states. Only few states are ethnically
homogenous and many face the problem of disaffected ethnic minorities in their
territories.1 The phenomenon exists in all five continents.
This work will concentrate on four accepted western democracies and one of their
minority groups, United Kingdom (Catholics in Northern Ireland), Spain (the Basques),
France (the Bretons) and the Netherlands (the Frisians). It is expected that a discriminated
group with a strong group identity in a repressive political system will mobilize and
protest against the ruling group(s). The theoretical part will examine two concepts,
discrimination (economic and through the political system) and ethnic group identity. The
period of investigation will be two five year terms from 1976 – 1980 and from 1981 to
1985.
[...]
Index
Introduction
Theory
Economic discrimination:
The role of repression:
Ethnic group identity:
The level of democracy:
Data and Time
Operationalizing
Independent Variables:
Dependent Variables:
Cases
The Frisians in the Netherlands:
Political System:
The Bretons in France:
Political System:
The Basques in Spain:
Political System:
Catholics in Northern Ireland:
Political System:
Findings
Conclusion
References
Abbreviations:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Introduction
One dramatic characteristic of the world during the last quarter of the 20th century is the increase in ethnic conflicts. Historically, ethnic groups, nations, states, empires, and other forms of large scale social organization have coexisted, but since the 17th century the dominant form of social organization has been the state system, the organization of the world’s people into a system of independent and territorial states. Since their emergence, nation-states have generally had tense and conflict-ridden relations with minorities under their jurisdiction. The problem arises from the discrepancy between the ideal of the ethnically homogenous nation state and the widespread reality of polyethnic states. Social, political and economic changes that have been taking place in the last two decades, changes that have accelerated and deepened as a result of the Cold War, both in the developed and underdeveloped world, made this tension and conflict more visible and a more compelling topic for social scientists.
Ted Robert Gurr identifies in his study “Minorities At Risk” (1993) 233 minority groups that are in conflict with more than 100 nation states. Only few states are ethnically homogenous and many face the problem of disaffected ethnic minorities in their territories.[1] The phenomenon exists in all five continents.
This work will concentrate on four accepted western democracies and one of their minority groups, United Kingdom (Catholics in Northern Ireland), Spain (the Basques), France (the Bretons) and the Netherlands (the Frisians). It is expected that a discriminated group with a strong group identity in a repressive political system will mobilize and protest against the ruling group(s). The theoretical part will examine two concepts, discrimination (economic and through the political system) and ethnic group identity. The period of investigation will be two five year terms from 1976 – 1980 and from 1981 to 1985.
The source to the investigated problem lies historically in the process of nation building that involves the suppression of independent ethnic, geographic, linguistic and cultural enclaves, and their incorporation within the national whole (Kimmel 1990: 85). The net effect of this process in most parts of the world has been to substantially increase grievances of the majority of ethnic and communal groups that have not been able either to protect their autonomy or to participate meaningfully in governing coalitions.
Theory
Although ethnic conflict is a topic that has been occupying scientists for decades, there is no comprehensive and widely accepted theory of its causes and consequences. There are several theoretical approaches dealing with certain aspects of that topic, so that most current theories are derivatives of other concerns.
In the middle of this century, social scientists argued that greater political and economic interaction combined with widespread communication networks would break down people’s identifications with ethnic or archaic groups and replace them with loyalties to larger communities such as nation states or multi state pacts (e.g. EU). The political facts of the following decades showed exactly the opposite, conflicts based on ethnic identities increased sharply and presented a paradox to scholars. National Development and the “spread of markets, industrialization, urbanization, and national systems of education, politics, administration, and conscription [did not] diminish regional political, economic, and cultural distinctiveness”(Levi/Hechter in Tiryakian/Rogowski 1985: 128). Arend Lijphart speaks of the end of all politics that is not purely pragmatic. “In an age and in a world, in which ideology is coming to an end, the resurgence of ethnic conflict seems unthinkable (Lijphart in Esman 1977: 51).
This fact created the necessity for alternative theoretical approaches. One, called primordialism stresses that minorities mobilize to protect their culture and way of life that is threatened by modernization. Another alternative approach, instrumental, focuses on the increase of economic differences caused by modernization, that brings groups to seek material and political gains.
Ted Robert Gurr and Barbara Harff combine these two models in their book “Ethnic Conflict And World Politics” to what they call a “preliminary theory of ethnopolitical conflict” (Gurr/Harff 1994: 77): “[…] ethnic groups are most likely to mobilize when both conditions – a strong sense of ethnic group identity in combination with imposed disadvantages – are present” (Gurr/Harff 1994: 79). This theory[2] serves as the major source to this study, with a special interest on how non-violent discrimination respectively violent repression by the government or the majority group is responsible for non-violent respectively violent protest of ethnic groups.
Economic discrimination:
For a long time a group’s collective economic disadvantages vis-a-vis others was considered to be the main source of its members’ grievances and perceptions that they have a common interest in collective action. This perception was supported by the first wave of empirical research on political conflict (Moaddel 1994: 278). In particular the ethnic segregation model predicts that an ethnic group will mobilize politically when it is segregated into low-class occupation (Medrano 1994: 873). “Discrimination motivates demands for greater political and economic rights, while cultural differences prompt demands for protection of the group’s social and cultural rights”(Gurr 1993: 316).
Hechter argues that the uneven process of capitalism creates core and peripheral areas within nations where members of minority groups tend to occupy positions at the lower end of the stratification hierarchy. The aggregate economic differences between the core and the periphery are directly related to the culturally based differences (cited in Schock 1996: 103). The greater the level of economic discrimination, the more likely that the distinctive identity promotes group solidarity and political mobilization. Moreover the more intense and widespread the economic discrimination, the greater the discontent and grievances and the more likely that ethnic-based movements will arise to challenge the institutionalized system of economic inequality. Cross national research has found that separatist potential and the extent of political and economic discrimination are related to masspolitical violence (Schock 1996: 103).
The role of repression:
Repression can have in general both positive and negative effects on government opposition. For this work it is expected that the very success of repression is to produce a radicalization of collective action and a more effective organization of opponents (Tarrow 1994: 92). In this sense repression leads to micromobilization processes that raise the incentive for protest. Lichbach writes that reprisals by the regime require self-defense by the dissidents. As the use of violence by government increases, dissident tactics come increasingly to emphasize violence (Lichbach 1995: 59).
Violence gives the opponent group a single target and justifies the use of violence by themselves.[3] Violence tends to be answered by violence. It makes non-violent protest look less appropriate and difficulties the arguments for peaceful protest. Once it is resorted to, the atmosphere tends to escalate in a spiral of force. Violence also deepens cleavages and helps radical branches of the movement to gain more supporters and attention.
Ethnic group identity:
Contemporary movements are motivated by a desire to protect and assert group identity. Social psychologists (e.g. Sherif 1953: 185 – 191) emphasize the need for cohesion, which leads to demands and pressures for conformity in both small and large groups. Any group, in order to survive as a distinct entity, has to maintain a certain level of internal cohesion. Just as the groups have an intrinsic need for cohesion, most individuals have an equally basic need to belong.
Cohesion tends to be greater among groups that are regionally concentrated rather than dispersed. Since ethnic groups tend to be geographically concentrated and classes tend to be spread throughout the nation, the concentration proposition leads one to expect much less class solidarity than ethnic solidarity (Lichbach 1995: 160). The important factor is that ethnopolitical groups organize around their shared identity and seek gains for members of their group. They draw their strength from cultural bonds, not from associational ones (Gurr in Crocker/Hampson/Aall 1996: 53).
Therefore I offer three hypotheses:
(1) The greater the economic discrimination ethnic groups experience the more likely they are to organize for action against the sources of discrimination.
(2) The more repression / violence is used by political authorities, the greater the likelihood that challengers will respond with increased protest and violence.
(3) Rival hypothesis: the more strongly a person identifies with an ethnic group, the more likely he/she is to be motivated into action.
The level of democracy:
I will add one hypothesis to show whether there is a relation between the openness / closeness of the political system and the frequency and sharpness of the protest. From a global viewpoint minorities in the western democracies usually express their grievances rather in protest, rarely in violent rebellion, because in most cases they enjoy the same civil and political rights and benefit from the same social and economic programs as other citizens. Nonviolence then is often more potent than actual violence because it poses the possibility of violence without giving authorities an excuse for repression. Nevertheless there could also be observed violent forms of protest in the contemporary democracies. The explanation to this lays for me in the openness respectively closeness of the political system for all citizens. Violent protest seems to be a preferred and more common strategy in the “ context of a semi-repressive political system in which resource mobilization is possible and peaceful opposition typically ineffective” (Muller/Weede 1990: 627).
Lichbach points out that “where dissidents are by definition excluded from conventional politics, collective violence enables them to enter the political fray” (Lichbach 1995: 55). When repression is high (e.g. in authoritarian regimes and dictatorships) both violent protest and peaceful collective action will be low because of high costs and low expectancy of success. When repression is very low and the political system open to all groups of the society, peaceful collective action is expected to have the greatest benefits. But when repression is intermediate, “the expected benefits of rebellion will exceed those of peaceful collective action” (Muller/Weede 1990: 628), or as Eisinger writes, “protest is most likely in a system characterized by a mix of open and closed factors” (cited in Tarrow 1994: 86). Thus, I hypothesize:
(4) Protest in democracies is most likely in a semi-repressive system with certain restrictions. The more democratic the political system, the less the likelihood that there will be strong forms of protest.
[...]
[1] States that consist only of one ethnic group are for example Korea and Iceland.
[2] The authors use for their theory the terms theory, model, approach and concept. In the introduction the authors state what a theory should consist of and follow later exactly their guidelines, but are no longer consequent with their terminology.
Frequently Asked Questions about Ethnic Conflict Analysis
What is this document about?
This document appears to be a language preview or excerpt from a study or academic paper analyzing ethnic conflict in various countries. It includes an index, introduction, theoretical framework, and possibly case studies.
What is the main focus of the "Theory" section?
The theory section explores different approaches to understanding ethnic conflict, contrasting primordialism and instrumentalism. It highlights Gurr and Harff's combined model, which emphasizes the role of both ethnic group identity and imposed disadvantages (e.g., discrimination and repression) in driving ethnic mobilization and protest.
What does the document say about economic discrimination?
The document suggests that economic discrimination, particularly when it leads to ethnic segregation in low-class occupations, can be a significant source of grievance and motivate demands for greater political and economic rights.
What is the role of repression, according to the document?
The document argues that repression, while initially suppressing opposition, can ultimately lead to radicalization, increased organization, and a shift towards more violent forms of protest. Violence by the government tends to escalate the conflict.
What is the importance of ethnic group identity?
The document emphasizes that contemporary movements are often driven by a desire to protect and assert group identity. Cohesion is greater among regionally concentrated groups. Ethnic solidarity is stronger than class solidarity.
What hypotheses are presented in this work?
The document posits four hypotheses:
- Greater economic discrimination leads to organization for action.
- More repression/violence by authorities leads to increased protest and violence.
- Stronger ethnic identification motivates action.
- Protest in democracies is most likely in semi-repressive systems. More democratic, less protest.
What countries and ethnic groups are mentioned as cases?
The document mentions the United Kingdom (Catholics in Northern Ireland), Spain (the Basques), France (the Bretons), and the Netherlands (the Frisians) as potential case studies.
What time period is this study investigating?
The period of investigation will be two five year terms from 1976 – 1980 and from 1981 to 1985.
What does the document mean by "semi-repressive system" within a democracy?
A "semi-repressive system" in a democracy refers to a political environment where some degree of restrictions or limitations on civil liberties, resource mobilization, or effective political participation exists, making peaceful opposition less effective and violent protest a seemingly more viable option.
What is the purpose of including political system information with each case?
To analyze the relationship between the openness/closeness of the political system (level of democracy) and the frequency/intensity of protest from the minority groups.
- Quote paper
- Ekrem Eddy Güzeldere (Author), 1997, Ethnic protest in Western democracies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/115831
