- Drawing on assigned readings, how is ethnicity important in politics? Be sure to include its impact in the areas of citizenship, electoral politics, social movements, and conflict.
Ethnicity is a significant variable in politics. In many aspects, ethnicity is the driving force behind a lot of individuals’ and institutions’ motives. It is important to study and discuss ethnicity because history has provided us with an ample amount of examples of how ethnicity has been used by political institutions, and political actors to help shape individuals and their conceptions of their ethnic identity. In helping shape group identities, ethnicity has also helped create nations and their frameworks for citizenship. It has helped determine ethnic cleavages and ethnic boundaries, it has been used as a motivating tool to rally individuals in a pursuit of social change, and also it has been the cause of many conflicts in different nations. Therefore studying the impact ethnicity has on politics provides useful insight and patterns that can help in the future.
As seen in the case of Germany and France, ethnicity can play a very crucial role in developing the criteria for who can become “French,” or “German.” In his book, Brubaker discusses the question: “On what basis do you belong to a nation?” He argues that citizenship is not just an object of social closure but also an instrument. The process and rules of becoming a citizen of a particular state is left entirely up to that state (Brubaker, 3). This means that the state is allowed to use its discretion however it deems necessary in order to establish the framework for becoming a citizenship of that country. France and Germany offer two very different frameworks under which a person may become integrated into French or German society.
Brubaker claims that Germany’s strict citizenship rules are the causes of Germany’s history and can be traced back to its early days as Prussia. “Nation and supranational empire were sharply distinct in Germany,” (Brubaker, 4) “the ethno-cultural frontier between Germans and Slavs not only in eastern Prussia but throughout the zone of mixed settlement in the East Central Europe, has been basic to German self understanding” (Brubaker, 5). Why? Because there was a big surge of German eastward migration in the middle ages that had established several groupings of German settlement in Slavic lands (Brubaker, 5-6). Despite living in “enclaves and outposts” in the Slavic East, Germans were able to maintain their culture, language and national identity. This history he argues, “furnished to the German elite a differentialist, bounded model of nation hood, a feeling for the tenacious maintenance of distinctive ethno national identities in zones of mixed populations” (Brubaker, 6). Germany at this point had established itself as a frontier state. The point is that Germany’s shared sense of ethnic identity gave rise to this nationalism that helped shaped their strict citizenship/naturalization laws.
France’s understanding of nationhood emerged out of completely different circumstances and historical context than Germany’s. Brubaker states that France’s understanding of nationhood was essentially decided by the French Revolution and the repercussions it had (Brubaker, 6). In France’s case, reformists and the general public did not want the privileged elite or other big corporations to benefit from the new nation, (for fear of returning to the old regime of oppression) so they, “gave the concept of nationhood a critical, new dynamic political significance” (Brubaker, 7). When this new reform failed to lead to success, “The radicalized Third Estate constituted itself as the National Assembly and proclaimed [that] membership to [the] sovereign nation [would be] conceived in political, not ethno cultural terms” (Brubaker, 7). This shaped the structure and process of French naturalization. It is a very dramatic contrast in comparison to Germany and its framework concerning citizenship.
By illustrating the cases of France and Germany, Brubaker offers an important comparison and in doing so effectively demonstrates the deep impact ethnicity can have in politics. As seen in France and Germany, ethnicity can be used instrumentally to create boundaries, restrictions and to uphold certain ethno cultural, nationalistic ideas/norms. Whereas if the state chooses to not use ethnicity as the primary tool of selection it can have definite impact on the process of naturalization. And this is true with France because even in the current day it is easier to become a French citizen than it is to become a German one.
Germany’s history of ethnic based nationalism affects the process of how one may become a German citizen. In fact, Germany makes it very hard for people (even residents who have been born on German soil) to become a German citizen. This is due to the strong value Germans place on their ethnic identity and its effects are seen through its immigration policies as well. Germany is not very opened to immigration, especially in comparison to France. Years ago, in France, Algerian integration into the French nation was accepted and even welcomed. The state of France cared not if you were of true French descent, but that you could assimilate into French society and learn what it meant to be a French citizen. In Germany you need to provide proof of German blood descent, it is not enough to be born on German land.
Ethnicity doesn’t just affect a state’s citizenship policy; it also can greatly impact electoral politics. Posner’s “Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa,” really defines as well as illustrates the power ethnicity can have on politics when used instrumentally. Posner argues that, “Political institutions help determine which ethnic cleave becomes politically salient…via two distinct causal mechanisms” (Posner, 3). The first mechanism is through shaping the range of ethnic identities, second is by providing motivation for individuals to select one possible ethnic identity (Posner, 3-5). “This helps coordinate these choices across individual to produce society level outcomes” (Lecture, Feb. 7).
Posner defends his argument on how political institutions can determine an individual’s identity choice with three main propositions: 1) People need/want the resources from the state, 2) They comprehend that the most logical way of getting their resources is by having someone from their ethnic group in a position of political power, 3) They understand that in order to do this, they must form a political coalition group with the rest of their ethnic group (Posner, 4). Basically, political institutions use ethnic cleavages as a way to assemble a wide range of interests, ethnicity makes it easier for political actors to unite people who would otherwise be scattered everywhere with no set political goals. So the use of ethnic cleavages helps to provide policies in a more efficient and quickly manner. It works on the assumption that people will follow a candidate from who shares the same ethnic identity as they do—it provides them comfort in knowing that that political leader will be fighting for that particular ethnic identity’s best interest. “Ethnic identities are assumed to convey information about the likelihood that a person in a position of power will channel resources to another person,” (Posner, 129).
Regarding social movements, ethnicity also plays a large role and influences the outcomes. In lecture, two explanations of social movements were discussed: Civil Rights Movement and the Ethnic Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet Union (Lecture, Feb. 4) Using the example of the Civil Rights movement, there are many factors that led to its success, primarily their shared ethnic identity. Social movements require mobilization and this is more easily done if that specific group shares common beliefs, ideas and values, in other words if they share a common ethnic identity. This facilitates mobilization in that there is little ambiguousness on what each person wants. When a group of people with the same ethnic identity join forces to gain something they want, it is more likely they will succeed because there won’t be too many conflicts or disagreements among themselves to stop progress. The Civil Rights Movement was facilitated because there were common grievances, political opportunity, similar ideology, common interests and the same goals. African Americans felt great pride for their shared ethnic identity and culture. This united them in a way that is difficult to break. Their unity and shared beliefs along with the political opportunity they were fighting for made the movement such a large scale social movement—an effective one at that. In summary, through a shared ethnic identity comes a strong bond and similar beliefs about what is wanted for that group. This unifies a group (like it did in Civil Rights Movement) and makes social change possible. That is not to say it is easy, however, the point here is that ethnic identity plays a big role because it unites people, it is the glue needed for a social movement to have legitimacy and power to get through all the challenges.
In terms of conflict, ethnicity also plays a crucial role. There are several different kinds of ethnic problems one: the distribution of ethnic groups, two: geographic concentration—scattered or joined, three: dominant group vs. multiple small group (Lecture, March 4). When ethnic groups are close together along boundary lines like they are in Africa that can lead to a lot of disorder that usually results in violence. When these groups are further apart there is less tension because of decreased interaction between them, so this is often a better way for different ethnic groups to coexist next to each other. And like in the case of Cyprus, the dominant vs. multiple small groups factor plays a huge role. In Cyprus, the small minority of Turkish Cypriots living in the northern part of the island was enough to make Turkey stage a full fledge attack on Cyprus after the Greek coordinated coup on the island. So in the case of Cyprus ethnic tensions can lead to ethnic conflict. This isn’t always true, because many nations have lived side by side in conjunction with other ethnic groups different from theirs and have had relatively little to no conflict in their homelands. However, when ethnic pride becomes nationalistic, that becomes a dangerous signal. This is what happened in the case of Cyprus. Greeks became prideful and believed they had the right to invade Cyprus, conquer the island, and make it an expansion of Greece. The Turkish Cypriots responded with even strong violence until a full fledge ethnic conflict ensued. In cases like this, the resolutions are often hard to debate, with some in favor of partition and others a diplomatic agreement. In summary, ethnicity plays a determining role in whether or not conflict will result. How nations are bordered, and how different ethnic groups interact determine a large part of that country’s future.
From the readings and lectures, it is clear that ethnicity is very important in politics. Political institutions can use ethnicity to shape identity and that identity determines other crucial aspects of the political system—such as citizenship. In electoral politics, Posner clearly demonstrated how ethnic cleavages are used to determine who is in what group and what each group will get. In regards to social movements, a shared ethnic identity provides a strong foundation for people to come together and fight for a certain cause (as in the Civil Rights Movement). And in terms of conflict, ethnicity also plays a huge role, and this is seen all over the world. Different ethnic groups living together has lead to a lot of violence, (Rwanda, Cyprus, Israel) these are all examples of where conflict has emerged to great lengths primarily due to ethnic differences. So it is safe to say that ethnicity helps determine a lot in politics, and helps shape policy and boundaries.
Works Cited
Brubaker, Rogers. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992. 4-70. Print.
Burke, Peter J., and Jan E. Stets. Identity Theory. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2009. N. pag. Print
Crothers, Lane, and Charles Lockhart. "Culture and Politics: Social Movements, Collective Identiy, and Political Culture." (2000). Web. 17 Mar. 2010. <https://gauchospace.ucsb.edu/courses/file.php/2420/Cult_Pol.pdf>.
Posner, Daniel N. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 15-80. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment