INTL 450 Religious Conflicts and Murat Somer © Problems of ...home.ku.edu.tr/~musomer/Lecture...
Transcript of INTL 450 Religious Conflicts and Murat Somer © Problems of ...home.ku.edu.tr/~musomer/Lecture...
Week 12: Ethnic and
Religious Conflicts and
Problems of
Democratization
INTL 450
Murat Somer © 2016
• Cold War used to contain ethnic-regional conflicts and self-determination movements by supporting nation-states
• 1990s: resurgence? of ethnic-regional conflicts
• 2000s: authoritarian regimes learned to use these conflicts to buttress their own powers
Chapter 2 (Debating Secession Peacefully and
Democratically by R. Simeon) in Stepan, A.
(Ed.). (2009). Democracy in Danger.
Managing diversity
• Case of success: Canada. – in terms of accomodation and management of difference.
• Three distinct dimensions of «deep diversity»: – 1. Language: French-speaking Quebecers.
– 2. Aboriginal population.
– 3. Immigrants mostly from non-Western cultural background.
Managing diversity
• What is meant by «success» in managing
diversity? – Reference to the striking fact that a debate about the very
future of the country as a single political entity has been
conducted vigorously since the early 1960s in a democratic
and peaceful manner.
Quebec issue
• Quebec referandum (Do you agree that Quebec should
become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for
a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the
bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed
on June 12, 1995?): Yes: 49,42%
No: 50,58%
Quebec leaders: standard democratic rule is «50% plus one».
vs.
Federalists: fundamental constitutional change requires «super
majority».
Quebec issue
• Canadian Constitutional Court: – In international law, the right to self-determination is possible
only if the claimant nation suffers from oppression by the
majority. This is not the case in Canada.
– BUT, if Quebec were to vote for secession «by a clear
majority» and on a «clear question», then the rest of Canada
is constitututionally obliged to negotiate the matter.
– The method is unclear, yet fundamental principles are
obvious in the Constitution: democracy, federalism,
constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for
minorities.
Quebec issue
• The federal government: – declared the Clarity Act (2000), clarifying the terms under
which a referandum could trigger a negotiation process:
Parliament reserves itself the judgment about the fairness of
the referandum question and the «sufficient majoirty»
required to trigger negotiations.
• Quebec: – Simple majority would be enough to secede!
Quebec issue
• In the first decade of 21st century: – sovereignist movement seemed to be in decline with the rise
of federalist Liberal government at the provincial level.
• In 2008: Conservative government which
replaced Liberal party: – espoused a decentralist «open federalism»: Major fiscal
transfers to the provinces and the recognition of Quebec as
«nation».
Quebec issue
• It is striking that this long-debated issue of
secessionism remained democratic,
nonviolent and peaceful on both sides. – Due to which factors?
• We can distinguish cultural, historical,
institutional and contextual factors.
1. Cultural factors
• 1.a. Democratic cultures: Both in Quebec and
in the Rest of Canada, there is a powerful
commitment to democratic values and to
free and open discussion. – None have argued that secessionists were «traitors». And they
were never denied the right to defend secessionism.
– The result is that the separatist movement was never driven
underground. No need to resort to violent means.
– The lesson is that the more open the democratic space, the
greater the chances of a peaceful process, whatever the
outcome.
1. Cultural factors
• 1.b. Predominantly «civic» nationalisms:
English-Canadian nationalism has never been
rooted in an ethnic definition of the country.
Quebec’s nationalism is also inclusive.
• 1.c. Common political and social values:
Canada-Quebec debate is not one of competing
and antithetical worldviews. These are very
similar societies in social and economic terms.
2. Historical legacies
• Canada has always been a «negotiated
country». – In the first encounters between Europeans and indigenous
people: negotiation on fur trade.
– When Britain defeated France and took control of Canada:
people kept their Catholic religion, language and civil law.
– Confederation in 1867 was negotiated among the British
North American colonies.
– Canada’s step-by-step independence from Britain.
3. Institutional factors
• 3.a. A multi-unit federeation: – Quebec’s dual role in the federation: simultaneously one of the two
«nations» and one of ten provinces.
– A decentralized Canada helps accomodate Quebec and the presence of Quebec ensures that Canada’s federalism will be highly decentralized.
– The lesson is that polarization is less likely to occur when the federation has multiple units.
• 3.b. Provincial autonomy: – The Canadian federal system has provided a high degree of
autonomy to Quebec.
– The lesson is that decentralization –to give minority groups control over matters important to their identity and survival and to protect them from the imposition of the will of the majority- can provide an effective means of accomodation.
3. Institutional factors
• 3.c. Integration at the center – Quebec and Quebecers have also been built into national
political structures.
– Not possible to form a federal government in Canada without
substantial support from Quebec.
– Almost all Canadian prime ministers since the 1960s have
been Quebecers.
– The lesson is that autonomy for minority groups is one
element in a larger accomodation, but equally important is the
integration of minorities into the central political system.
3. Institutional factors
• 3.d. The role of an independent court – When the stakes of political conflict are high, an independent
institution, trusted by all sides can be of critical importance.
– The Supreme Court of Canada has played this role on several occasions.
– The lesson is that accomodation is facilitated where there exists institutions that are above the fray, not captured by any side, and commited to critical constitutional values.
• 3.e. Caution about constitutional reform – Following years of fruitless constitutional negotiation,
Canadians and Quebecers have tacitly agreed that constitutional bargaining and referanda are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
4. Contextual factors
• 4.a. Distinct but interdependent societies – Strong economic linkages, decreasing economic disparities and
more and more cooperation among civil society organizations from both sides.
• 4.b. Presence of the US – Both sides recognize that the US has a major stake in political and
economic stability of the country on its northern border, with which it is joined in the NAFTA.
– The lesson is that unbiased external actors and a benign geographic neighborhood can mitigate domestic conflicts.
• 4.c. Saying no to violence – While violence must be stopped, the channels for democratic
politics must be kept open at the same time.
Chin-Huat Wong, James Chin & Norani Othman
(2010) Malaysia –towards a topology of an
electoral one-party state, Democratization.
Malaysia: An electoral authoritarian
regime
• The most accurate characterization of
Malaysia’s political system is «electoral
authoritarian regime». – hybrid regimes with elections without democracy.
– the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (National Fornt, BS)
has been in power for several decades.
Malaysia: electoral one-party state
Democracy Authoritarian
systems
One-party-
predominant
democracy
Electoral one-
party state
One-party state
Party system and
its freedom
A dominant
party, but real
oppositions
unconstrained
A dominant
party, and real
oppositions
constrained
A dominant
party, and real
oppositions
not allowed
Elections Free and fair Controlled or
manipulated
No elections
Separation of
state and party
Clear separation Blurred
boundary
between state
and party
No separation
Historical overview
• The emergence and growth of dominant party – Except for the 1969 elections, the ruling coalitions, the
alliance (1955–1974) and later the expanded Barisan
Nasional (BN) have always won more than half the popular
vote and more than two-thirds of parliamentary seats.
– Alternation hardly imaginable.
Historical overview
Historical overview
• Barisan Nasional: – formed as Alliance coalition among three parties (United
Malays National Organisation, Malaysian Chinese Association and Malaysian Indian Congress) after the defeat in the elections in 1969.
– Increased tension among different communities (13 May Riots) led to the suspension of democracy until 1971.
– In 1973, it took the name «Barisan Nasional». A grand coalition of 11 parties.
– Why opposition parties accepted to be coopted? • They hoped that a power-sharing pact with the alliance would
strengthen their own positions within the party
• They believed that their subnational governments cannot survive without UMNO’s blessing in the post-1969 political climate
Historical overview
• UMNO’s splits: – UMNO’s schisms in 1987 and 1998 had given birth to two
splinter parties,
– the Malay-nationalist Semangat 46 Party
– the multiethnic centrist Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party, PKR, since 1999),
– And three opposition coalitions: the Gagasan Rakyat-Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah (1990–1995/6), Barisan Alternatif (1999–2001) and Pakatan Rakyat (since 2008).
• Sensing no future in the opposition, many opposition parties have instead hoped to become UMNO’s partners and join BN. A contemporary example is the Indian Progressive Front (IPF).
Construction and maintenance of
electoral dominance
• The ability of a dominant party to eliminate its
rivals in elections and/or co-opt them after
elections lies in the construction and
maintenance of a powerful electoral base.
• It can be enhanced via: – Control of enfranchisement
– Changing of international and administrative boundaries
– Mal-apportionment and gerrymandering
– Other forms of electoral manipulation: ‘phantom voters’, non-
transparency
Blurring of state and party lines
• Fusion of the Malayan/Malaysian state and the
UMNO-led ruling coalition – Ideology: Malaya’s Constitution has stipulated a special
position for the Malays and defines a Malay person with
Islam, Malay language and Malay customs.
– Economic redistribution: the public sector expanded
tremendously to elevate the Malays, UMNO’s powerbase.
– Politicization of state institutions: All the institutions such
as the EC, police and military, universities, state-owned media
to all and sundry government agencies and state-owned
corporations are packed by the party.
Blurring of state and party lines
• An electoral one-party state cannot survive
functioning federalism or decentralization
(with vertical division of power). – The erosion of federalism.
• Four tactics to eliminate state-level rivals used
by alliance/BN: – 1. administrative and economic discrimination against the
state governments, so that they will be deprived of economic
development and the electorate will be compelled to vote for
the federal ruling coalition to get development funds.
Blurring of state and party lines
• Four tactics to eliminate state-level rivals used by alliance/BN (cont’d): – 2. political persecution, including selective investigation and
prosecution.
– 3. triggering defection of opposition lawmakers.
– 4. direct federal intervention.
• Like state governments, elected local governments which were once controlled by the opposition parties and provided an effective check to the electoral one-party state soon became the latter’s victim.
Conclusion
In sum, how the Barisan Nasional has managed
to perpetuate its rule?
Initial electoral strength due to:
• control of franchise
• alternation of international and administrative boundaries,
• mal-apportionment and gerrymandering of electoral constituencies
• controlled electoral campaigns and polling irregularities.
Political opposition is disempowered with:
• infringement of civil and political liberties
• extensive patronage networks
• abuse of federal apparatus to suppress intergovernmental competition.