Divided We Stand : Institutional Sources For Ethno Federal State Survival And Collapse

There are four types of governments that are similar and different from each other. These types of governments are national, state, local, and tribal governments. The national government is a form of government that controls the U.S. The state government is a form of government that controls the states within the U.S. The local government is a form of government that has control over a town, county, or district within the state. The tribal government is a form of government that controls tribes within the U.S. All these forms of government are alike and different in so many ways.

“If the region were not already possessed by a rival, then a state might acquire it in one of three ways, by persuading the indigenous inhabitants to submit themselves to its overlordship; by purchasing from those inhabitants the right to settle part or parts of it; by unilateral possession, on the basis of first discovery and effective occupation (M. Borch 2001)”.

All types of government whether it be national, state, local, or even tribal governments, each have their own diverse set of rules that distinct it from other forms of government. To start off, the role of a national government is to control a nation through having an army, have power over states, maintain foreign policy, and be able to collect taxes. State governments on the other hand is a government that shares its power with the federal of national government. On a smaller level, local governments have power over a certain city. The importance of local governments is that the representatives are elected by the people who live within that specific area or city. Lastly, for tribal governments they are to, “…exercise jurisdiction over lands

The Course of human events has once again arrived at a time when consideration must be given by the people to dissolving the political bonds connecting them with another, and to again assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Natural Laws entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that the people should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This essay will be focused on the problem, related with ethnic groups and their persistence in times of contemporary Europe. What are ethnic groups? Main features and concept of them. How did they appear? Which positions and power do they hold in nowadays world? Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism. What means these terms? Which approach from these two have different ethnic groups? What is the European Union policy towards them? On these and some other questions I will try to find answers in the text below.

Rebellions, protests, civil unrest, and underrepresentation are just some of the side effects of group grievance. While there are many factors that determine whether or not a certain nation’s populace is happy, well-represented, secure, and involved in their state’s political affairs, one rather large and interesting factor to consider is the form of government of the nation. For centuries scholars have debated what forms of political regimes are most successful in satisfying the needs of its people. While that topic is interesting, it is terribly broad. To entertain this concept with a narrower lens of comparative analysis, one can instead decide to contrast the key differences between two forms of government and see how said differences impact

The literature entitled “the narcissism of minor difference” gives an in depth analysis into ethnic nationalism along with many sufficient examples to back up it's position on the argument that ethnic nationalism is not a natural occurrence but rather a societal construct. It provides insight into ethnic nationalisms roots, effects, presence on modern day life and how it has shaped societal interaction for many years. My personal stance on the Ignatieff's analysis of ethnic nationalism is generally of agreement. The idea that the overwhelming pride and exclusivity included in the worldwide demonstration that is ethnic nationalism is socially constructed has more solid evidence to support

Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of

Firstly, this essay will investigate the idea of ‘nationalism’ and the ‘nation-state’. Coming into effect during modernity, nationalism is, at its core, a form of macro level societal management that regulates people into particular groups (Ritzer ed. 2005). These groups are able to construct a united and exceptionally powerful collective identity which is linked to a much larger and seemingly ‘fixed’ force, the nation. Thus, the nation perpetuates a deep-seated sense of ‘commonality’ among citizens in society, but it also separates people by creating illusionary distinctions and differences to other nations (Ritzer ed. 2005). These distinctions have become ‘naturalised’ within social life and often manifest (sometimes subtly) through every-day symbols, objects, narratives, institutions and activities (flags, sporting events, money and banks) (Wade 2011).

Twenty-five years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed taking by surprise therewith not only the international community, but also its own leaders. What brought the superpower down? Its authoritarian and corrupt political system, failure of the planned economy and stagnation, or consistent celebration of national diversity throughout the whole history of the Soviet Union? If the question is why the USSR disintegrated into 15 independent states, then the answer lies in the republican lines which were drawn around ethnicity. In this essay, I argue the primacy of the ethnofederal system and Soviet nation-building policy to the fall of “the last European empire”. First, I will address the main tenets of and motifs behind the Soviet approach to the “nationality question” and how it backfired on the Communist Party and Russian democrats, who strived to preserve the union, seven decades later; then I will discuss political and economic structural flaws of the Soviet system and give reasons for why they could not solely account for the actual break up when examined from a broader perspective; lastly I will analyze mechanisms, predetermined by ethnofederal system and Soviet ethno-cultural policies, that facilitated an avalanche of secessions from the USSR, and sum up my arguments.

The process in which local governments or institutions obtain powerful powers or responsibilities over their residents from a higher authority is known as devolution. This sequence of change cripples empires because it greatly fragments the state. Being fragmented, the Sultan is unable to exert influence in all regions of the empire causing decentralization, decline in taxes, and instability. Therefore, prompting unrest among citizens and the increase in efforts to lead independence movements which is shown by Slavic groups in the Balkans. There is no sense of unity among the population of the empire; there is no such idea of being Ottoman. With all the ethnic tensions, people associate themselves with their culture or to groups on a much local

Secession occurs due minorities wanting independence or sovereignty for political-cultural identity reasons. Self-determination, which is the idea that a people that possess some sort of unanimous identity have the right to pursue their own political interests and form their own state, is most commonly considered the primary justification for secession (Clark 739). However, there is an ongoing debate as to when a people can put this notion of self-determination into practice. The ‘extent’ of self-determination that a people has is one of the major factors that determines whether or not a secession can be successful. However, there are many other contributing determinants of success. In particular, this paper will demonstrate that state systems and their power structures are an equally important aspect of secession that can ultimately impact and alter its outcome and success. It will contend that secessionist movements are more likely to achieve a favourable outcome or be considered successful if the parent state is governed as a federation rather than a unitary state.

“Us and Them” by Jerry Muller discusses the pervasive, historical, and growing significance of ethnic nationalism in politics; “Is Ethnic Conflict Inevitable?” contains two responses to Muller’s article by James Habyarimana et. al. and Richard Rosecrance et. al. Muller and his critics reach radically different conclusions the role of ethnic nationalism. Such differences can be explained by their assumptions of ethnic identity formation. The three’s disparities on ethnic conflict result from different theories of identity, namely: Muller to primordialism, Habyarimana to constructivism, and Rosecrance to a rational instrumentalism.

A nation is said to exist when it could traced its origins through the state, in which it associate itself with, histories. Additionally, the cultural elites must be established and well-versed in writing and speaking the national language. There must also be a valid reason for its claim on a certain territory. It is only when these three requirements are fulfilled will the international community consider their claim for a nation (Hobsbawm, 1990: 37). Disagreements, however, tend to arise in the political community over the definition of a nation. This essay will try to list out the different approaches employed in defining a nation starting from a nation being a natural cultural entity to it being politically and

Aѕ dіѕсuѕѕеd elsewhere, self-determination was оrіgіnаllу соnсеіvеd as a vеhісlе through which thе people соаlеѕсе to соnѕtіtutе the nation thаt еxеrсіѕеѕ sovereignty оvеr thе ѕtаtе whоѕе power over a clearly dеfіnеd territory is рrеѕumеd unchallengeable both frоm within and without the dеѕіgnаtеd gеоgrарhісаl ѕрасе. In раrtісulаr, thе nаtіоn-ѕtаtе іѕ premised on thе соngruеnсе of thе роlіtісаl, cultural, lіnguіѕtіс, and есоnоmіс and physical security community. Aсhіеvіng ѕuсh соngruеnсе has proven рrоblеmаtіс іn thе Afrісаn reality, thus fоrсіng people, nаtіоn, and popular