Public State Formation And Stimulation Of Increased Ethnic Conflict

Identity continues to be a major cause for many wars, both within and without a country. History has proven that conflicts within the borders mostly involve people with very little difference between them. Most of civil wars in nations often start as ethnicity feuds and end up to full scale wars. In the chapter, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, Blok argues that it is often the small differences that lead up to prolonged struggles (p115, 2000). Somalia is an example of a nation where majority of its people share the same cultural and religious background but for a third decade now, members

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

This does not mean to exclude those economic and other related institutions, but focuses this dissatisfaction on the political institutions as key to this process. This dissatisfaction is only exacerbated by the government’s inability or unwillingness to engage with this segment of the population in order to resolve the emerging conflict early in its development. Instead, the government ignores or even attempts to repress this expression of dissatisfaction, resulting in allegations of human rights abuses, among other symptoms. This only fuels a greater desire for secession in this marginalized and underrepresented segment(s) of society, as secessionism is seen as the only option available for the group to alleviate the injustices it feels is levied against it. This results in a “balkanization” of ethnic and religious groups as the

While advocacy of federalism as a tool for managing ethnic conflict continues to grow with respect to a diverse set of cases, its proponents and opponents point to different cases of federal success and failure. However, supposed benefits and no-benefits of federalism have been challenged by both those who argue that federalism exacerbates or mitigates ethnic conflict. This debate about the merits and demerits of post-conflict federalism has reached a deadlock, largely as a consequence of

When Americans think of nationalism, most conjecture visions of high-flying flags, soldiers returning from war, and a montage of red, white and blue. Some envision fireworks on the Fourth of July, or a hometown parade on Memorial Day. To many, the term “nationalism,” is just a synonym for “patriotism,” or the emotional allegiance one feels to his or her country. But in fact, nationalism carries a wholly different meaning, one that has earned a negative connotation especially over the past few centuries. Nationalism, at its simplest is the patriotic sentiment for a nation, or aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, generally inhabiting a particular country or territory. Nationalism therefore implies the superiority of a homogenous group of people, whether it be by race, culture, language, etc. Over the years, nationalism has been used to justify, in some cases, the genocide of ethnic or religious groups that fail to fit the national mold of the majority faction. This justification has procured nationalism its unsavory historical connotation, which peaked in Europe during World War II and still remains healthy today in Africa and the Middle East.

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.

Conflict between and within nations is proven by history to be expected, but the answer to which countries are at a higher risk for conflict depends on whom you are asking. The reading “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” by James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, argues that the conditions that favour insurgency are better predictors of which countries are at risk for internal conflict. Determining which countries are at a higher risk depends on multiple logical factors for the perfect environment for rebellion to occur. These factors are based on the political, economic, and organization of the state in question. Fearon and Laitin dissect the formula for rebellion piece by piece over the course of the entire article. By the end it left me in

“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.

In this day and age, we find ourselves at odds with our “identity” as we find that not only are we representing ourselves, but we also have ties to religion, sect, tribe, and family (Angrist). This shows that despite the cohesiveness and threads that attach us, it has the power to pull people, families, and in some cases countries apart. This conflict comes to a head when religion and ethnicity are interwoven. Hence when divisions occur, this can lead to violent wars that destroy trust between individuals. This can ingrain a sense of uneasiness and distrust that plagues people’s ideas and leaves a country divided. This is particularly evident in Lebanon. Ethnic and religious division led to the festering of feelings of marginalization and discrimination, which boiled over into the Lebanese civil war, a war that claimed the lives of 150,000 people (Szekely). The anger and frustration birthed from this to chaos, and conflict has in turn increased the division between ethnic and religious factions and led to the crumbling of Lebanese nationalism. This essay is specifically aimed at assessing the relationships between ethnic and religious divisions in Lebanon and explores how it contributed to the civil war. This is done by identifying and analyzing the main actors and makes an explanation of the historical divisions stemming from the National Pact, branching out to include the consequences of the civil war on the political structures and the identities of the

Given the fact that within many countries, there are various different cultures, political views, ethnicity, religious beliefs and so forth; it is no surprise when internal state conflicts emerge. Each country has a different way of resolving their internal state conflicts. Canada for instance uses a federal system in order to efficiently resolve local and national issues. Other countries such as, Sudan applied State separation in order to resolve their internal state conflicts, resulting into the creation of South and North Sudan as two separate countries. This essay argues that federalism is a much more efficient way of resolving internal state issues than State separation. In order to support this statement, this paper will: First define federalism and state separation to ensure a better comprehension of the essay. Secondly it will highlight the pros of both of these ideologies. Thirdly I will analyze the financial consequences of state separation. Then I will analyze the social benefits of federalism and lastly I will analyze the political benefits of federalism.

Ethnic violence in the late 1990s broke out due to the sudden emergence of a political space to contest this national model. Bertrand argues that complete legitimacy was not achieved because of the emergence of a narrow ethnic conception of the nation. Two factors of this were the strife in Kalimantan, and another in the role of Islam in Indonesia's political institutions. This began to threaten Christian minorities in Indonesia. These conflicts between Muslims and Christians situate the violence in Maluku in relation to the evolving role of Islam in Indonesia’s national model.

The author looks at the sources leading to survival or collapse of ethnofederal states, and is seeking to explore the casual mechanisms leading to instability of ethnofederal state by examining the factors leading ethnofederal states to disintegration or civil wars. Hale argues that ethnofederal states that have a core ethnic region (CER) are highly prone to collapse. He defines CER as “a single ethnic federal region that enjoys dramatic superiority in population” (Hale 166). Hale posits that the presence of CERs in ethnofederal states is likely to cause three main challenges. These include ‘dual

One definition of ethnicity reads as followed “identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group’s customs, beliefs, or language”. Ethnicity defines many of us but a few want our definition to be “cleansed” and this is when civil conflict arises. Ethnicity is frequently cited as an explanation for conflicts in the post cold war era. Yugoslavia, a prime example of a system that encountered ethnic conflict that led to a violent civil war, consisted of six republics and two autonomous districts. The government at the time wanted control of these republics but the republics wanted to be free from government control. There was a push by several ethnic groups to form their own sovereign

Leonard Binder states, "Most observers see little good coming out of an ethnic narcissism that conduces to the demonization of the other." (p. 6) These conflicts often escalate to the point where the original crisis fades into the background, and the participants lose sight of it altogether. Each group believes that when one gains, the other loses automatically. Similarly, when one group compromises, it is also a loss. This is particularly difficult when religion is involved because groups will not compromise their beliefs and ethnic loyalties are very strong. Additionally, nation-states include ethnic strategies into their government, foreign policy, and politics in general. (Binder 8)

For more than 25 years in the late 20th century and into the 21st, the island nation of Sri Lanka tore itself apart in a brutal civil war.  At the most basic level, the conflict arose from ethnic tension between Sinhalese and Tamil citizens.  Of course, in reality the causes are more complex, and arise in large part from Sri Lanka 's colonial legacy.