Ethnic Fragmentation and its Strain on Democracy
Ethnic fractionalization to a certain degree can advance modern democracy while at another level work against the principles which hold it together. Democratic systems of ethnically marginalized societies in practice demonstrate uncertainty in what factors delineate the sustainability of democracy. The societal fragmentation within the democratic countries of Papua New Guinea, India, and African nations reflect alternate outcomes regarding ethnic equality and political stability.
A nationality or ethnic grouping establishes the foundation of a group with united sympathies that they do not share with other groups. These ethnic groupings often desire to be governed by themselves exclusively. Many of these nationalities are tied together by a community by language, religion, and social identity. The salience of ethnic cleavages depends on various factors, including but not limited to common descent and collective ancestry. These factors draw a path which demands independence from other nationalities and the desire for self-government.
"Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities" (Mill, pg. 2). One can attribute this to the relative language barriers of each nationality; for example, Spain and Catalonia face political struggles and a language barrier that bolsters the decline of the state's democratic pillars.
Additionally, competition for political power intensifies the effect of ethnic division on democratic sustainability. Ethnic fractionalization and politics frequently lead government candidates to search for an active constituent base in their nationality's faction. Mobilization of shared ethnic identities lead to increased power struggles between communities and result in lower levels of democratic cooperation. Further entrenchment of ethnic and political cleavages is a direct relationship of ethnic fractionalization. Repeatedly unfair situations arise when one ethnicity holds a majority of the power while the other is forced to adhere to the more powerful group and be reduced to subjugation.
Bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption are also outcomes of ethnic fragmentation; much of it is caused by ethnic favoritism where one community, who is in power, allocates most of the state's resources to the ethnic grouping they hail from. The uneven distribution of capital results in inadequate development between ethnic clusters, further cementing one group's position in society while increasing the negative sentiment towards the government in the losing population. Lessened attempts to cooperate equate to poorer outcomes and decreased levels of democracy. The minimal cooperation creates a system of deadlock if the rivaling ethnicities are represented equally in government. Often this equal representation is not the case for most ethnically fragmented states.
Democracy becomes even harder to sustain due to the strength of divides caused by ethnic violence. The level of ethnic fractionalization does not seem to have a notable impact on violence within fragmented states. So, countries like Papua New Guinea, with a high degree of fractionalization, and Myanmar, with a relatively normal distribution of fragmentation, have proportionally similar ranges of ethnic violence. States with high levels of ethnic diversity demonstrate violence at local levels. While countries with low levels of fractionalization often display violence against other peoples on a more national level. The power struggles between ethnic minorities and elites can lead to increased violence and accumulate into separatist movements. Additionally, the nationalized violence reflects government instability which puts a more significant strain on the ethnic cleavages, cultivating civil wars. The wars in these states degrade democracy, making it nearly impossible to sustain.
Something suitable for one nationality can be detrimental to another; this is seen in many religious disputes where one ethnic group limits the ability of a group to practice their faith. A significant example of religious intolerance occurred in India while under British colonial rule when the military was forced to use bullets greased with pig and cow fat which led to an attempted revolution against the nationality in power.
Furthermore, an ethnically divided army faces an ethical dilemma that forces the soldiers to define who the enemy is; Mill denotes these soldiers as "executioners of liberty," resulting in public distrust of the government's military forces. The soldiers in these ethnically fragmented countries also lose respect in the state and solely place their trust in military officials. This fragmentation could subsequentially lead to a military coup of the government.
Moreover, scholars often point to ethnic fragmentation as a reason for the political struggles and instability in the African continent. Many countries in Africa were drawn artificially by colonial predecessors with no regard for ethnic and cultural groupings, resulting in separate communities that share a cultural heritage and the loose assemblage of ethnically differentiated peoples. These African nations are plagued with political cleavages and government instability, which creates a society where democracy has no place to take root, making it very difficult to establish and near impossible to sustain.
Moreover, Papua New Guinea is a collection of individualized island cultures that cooperate to sustain a democratic system. As a state with highly fractionalized ethnic identities, Papua New Guinea has developed into a thriving democracy lauded as one of the only countries not to be seriously threatened by political upheaval since the onset of its independence. The usual shortcomings that strike down fractionalized nations' attempts at democracy have little to no effect on Papua New Guinea's ability to sustain democracy. For example, the state's high number of ethnic identities has not been detrimental to the country's political development but is critical to the nation's democratic success. The intensity of fractionalization protects against the ability of a single ethnic group to gain power over the others. The sheer number of ethnicities makes it essential to form coalitions of different ethnicities or lose out on influencing government.
Furthermore, a highly fractionalized society, the nation of India appears to be an outlier with severe divisions with concerns to race, class, and religion while continuing to maintain its status as a democratic state. While it does have its fair share of ethnic violence, the state could find stability through ethnic plurality and coalition formation. The state's ability to cooperate allows democracy to be sustained despite the hardships of ethnic cleavages. Though this cooperation occurred, the severe controversy between ethnic identities in India led to the development and separation of the state of Pakistan. The separatist movement happened because of the regional grouping present in the two countries; Pakistan has a large Islamic population, and India is primarily Hindu. These religious cleavages assisted in separating the two nations, which undermined the sustainability of democracy in the region.
Ethnic fragmentation does not directly correlate with an unsustainable democracy; ethnic relations can vary significantly across countries. Democratic stability is threatened by the unequal representation of ethnicities in governance and power grabs, which incentivize the capture of positions over governance quality. Ethnic violence furthers the process of democratic instability by increasing cleavages between groups. Democracy is sustained through collective ethnic pluralism where cooperative coalitions form strong governments, most notably in Papua New Guinea.
Comments