The struggle of ethnic groups for recognition, equality or independence within the structure of an existing territorial state, is not a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, ethnic conflicts have long been a component of international politics. Even today, ethnic wars continue to be the most common form of armed conflicts around the world. In the recent past for instance, there have been many unfortunate instances of ethnic conflict including ethnic war in Somalia, Kurdish struggle for autonomy in Iraq, Iran and Turkey, guerrilla wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, insurrection in Chechnya, and the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda to name a few (Sadowski 1998).
Identity conflicts are subdivided into territorial conflicts, ethnic or minority conflicts, religious assertions and struggles for self-determination. Ethnic, national, racial, linguistic or cultural groups exist within many countries, which more often than not are not accepted as full members of this state or the nation they reside in. According to Bates (et. al. 2003) ethnic conflict can be defined as any episode of sustained violent conflict in which national, ethnic, and religious or other communal minorities challenge governments to seek major changes in status; therefore the term “ethnic conflict” can used to describe a wide range of internal conflicts. The major characteristic of identity conflicts is ethnic, religious, tribal or linguistic differences; which involve the search for security where the prime contention concerns the devolution of power.
In the following paragraphs I will examine ethnic conflicts and possible causes within the 20th and 21st century while relating to conflicts that have occurred around the world; specifically I will analyze the situations that contribute to ethnic conflict. I will also explore insights regarding the relationships of economic structure, conceptions of deprivation, and the constructions of narratives making sense of civil strife.
I believe that to thoroughly discuss ethnic conflict and its cause, one must know what ethnicity actually means. The terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are central qualities in the process of categorisation and from my understanding, ethnicity is more subjectively defined; it is first and foremost a label or set of symbolic ties that is utilized for political advantage-much like interest group membership or political party affiliation. Literature regarding the terminology about ethnicity has little to no consensus; different authors use terms such as “ethnic group”, “ethnic community” minority, in various ways. Defined by geographical locations, ethnicity is largely a matter of personal preference it can also be conditioned in other terms. Although similar to the construction of race, social stratification theory shows that an ethnic group refers to distinguishable differences in cultural values for instance in religion, traditions, physical characteristics, dialect, ways of life, a common homeland (Barth, 1981, p 198– 227). Such groups exist over time, even as they emerge and may well change and disappear.
Ethnic conflicts, on the other hand, can be defined as conflicts between ethnic groups within a multi-ethnic state, which have been persistent and somewhat unsolvable to the groups involved. M. Brown (1993,p5) claims that, ethnic conflict is a dispute about important political, economic, cultural, or territorial issues between two or more ethnic communities. Unfortunately these conflicts result in a significant loss of life, serious violations of basic human rights, which sometimes result in interethnic or internal war. According to Lebamoff and Ilievski’s (2008) there are various definitions to the types of ethnic conflict such as: “group-state conflict” (tension between a minority and state institutions) and “inter-group conflict”(conflict between the host nation and a minority) and finally conflict between two or more minorities. The authors assume that, regardless of the type, ethnic conflicts are waged due to clash oaf values or culture or the struggle for resources and power. Since the 1960s increasing numbers of ethnic groups have begun to demand more rights and recognition, demands that are now recognized as the major source of domestic and international conflict in the post-Cold War world with separately. As stated in previous paragraphs the desire for secession or independence from an existing state, the demand for greater autonomy within a state, or recognition and protection of minority interest within a society are three general issues of ethnic conflicts. Other ethnic conflicts emerge from attempts to improve status within existing boundaries of a state rather than to secede from it; for instance, most black South Africans want majority control of state power and Indigenous peoples in America wanting to protect what is left of their traditional lands (Dakota access pipeline).
There are currently several hundred ethnic conflicts of various intensity, all over the world. As stated above said ethnic, national, racial or cultural groups exist either as an unaccepted entity (completely excluded) within the state or do not they identify with the dominant model of nation-state. Many states regard these groups as a potential threat or somewhat of a destabilizing force, especially when they are politically organized. This is particularly the case when power in the state rests principally with a dominant or majority ethnic group. The inability to constructively deal with the ethnic pluralism existing within a state’s borders and lack of recognition these “sub-groups” face is one of the main elements contributing to the outburst of ethnic wars and conflicts (Stavenhagen, 1996, p197).
More often than not ethnic violent conflicts are usually blamed on the notion of ethnicity itself as well as intergroup differences, however this is not the case. For instance, Tanzania has a great deal of ethnic diversity yet has remained strife free as a result of a government system that effectively manages and distributes political and economic power Switzerland and the United States are other examples of diverse nations without widespread outbreaks of violent conflict. According to Horowitz (1989) the majority of ethnic groups pursue their interests through peaceful measures and through established political channels. The majority of the literature on ethnic conflicts fails to explain why conflicts have broken out in some places, but not others, and why some ethnic conflicts are more violent than others. For instance M.E Brown (2001,p3) claims that violent ethnic wars that had risen in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere, where due to the collapse of authoritarian rule; I found this argument inadequate to fully explanation of the root of ethnic conflict.
I believe that ethnicity only becomes an important issue when it overlaps with patterns of relative deprivation. Deprivation rather than poverty is an essential indicator to the source of conflict. I find the argument of poverty insufficient, as it would suggest that poor nations are more prone to conflict, where many states are significantly impoverished, such as Kenya, and have not experienced such violent crises. According to Nafziger, Stweard,& Väyrynen( 2000, p96) relative deprivation as when “people feel deprived of something they had, but subsequently lost, or when others have gained relative to them.” This phenomenon can occur in the economic or the political spheres and between groups or for a particular group across time. Ethnic conflict is based on the struggle between different groups for political power and status particularly when two or more ethnic groups must reside in close proximity. These can be the case with political deprivation, which occurs when a group or individual is excluded from the political process or disadvantaged in some way. This type of deprivation is where political elites maintain power to control, administrate and allocate economic resources.
For instance former Yugoslavia has experienced both horizontal and longitudinal differences in the economic and political spheres, where the Serbian majority experienced relative economic decline. Over eight-years Serbs began to feel a decline in their economic condition and then in 1991 were faced with serious pressures to their political power and to make matters worse Slovenia and Croatia threatened to remove the economic resources that Serbians used their political positions to control; this relative economic deprivation allowed for the escalation of the conflict. Another similar case is one that took place over two phases in Rwanda; the post-colonial transitional period and the liberalization period of the early nineteen-nineties. Hutu deprivation coupled with continued Tutsi violence primed Rwanda for the genocide that followed. When the Hutu majority won power and control over government from the Tutsi minority; the Tutsi rebelled against the new government. This sudden loss of political power and access to resources facilitated the sense of insecurity. The prolonged Tutsi rebellion placed huge strains on the Rwandan economy, which led to the violent outburst of conflict between the two groups as well structural adjustment programs of the 1990s. A. Storey (1999p 6) states that these economic factors shifted the nature of political power, which led to the Rwandan genocide and ethnic cleansing.
The ability of states constructively addressing the concerns of their ethnic groups as well as the impact of natio¬nalism on inter-ethnic relations, and the impact of democratiza¬tion on inter-ethnic relations can be another factor contributing to ethnic conflicts. I believe that ethnicity can be used as a mechanism for groups and political elites to mobilize in pursuit of their common interests when the actual source of turmoil is relative. However there are certain degrees to which these said groups can be used as a tool for mobilization, T. Gurr (1993) describes that resources and abilities for collective action depend solely on what group members are willing to provide for their common interests for instance ethnicity can become an instrument of mobilization due to the fact that “ethnic groups are often easier to organize and consolidate than interest groups since the norms restricting entry and exit are more powerful (and the boundaries are less fluid and the defining characteristics more easily identifiable) in the former” (Pranab, 1996 p15). For instance political leaders in Mexico relied on the large indigenous population, The Zapatista, to mobilize in response to disadvantages felt by the entire region. The Zapatista’s movement of 1994 showed the need of utilizing the inscriptive approach to ethnicity.
Another factor contributing to the rise of ethnic conflict is a phenomenon known as the rationalization process; this allows individuals with the opportunity to assess their current, past, and future situations. Literature on this notion claims that human use reason to determine the best solution to their problems; the average human employs violent tactics because he/she understands it to be the best or only option. As I stated above the presences of ethnic diversity does not necessarily lead to conflict; for example Collier and Hoeffler (1998 p563-573), suggest that there is a correlation between the degree of diversity in a state and the incidence of civil war by analyzing the economic causes of war. However I believe that the benefit of war depends on the state in crisis but can include an variety of common long-term and short-term economic advantages, for instance opportunities for pillaging, looting, redistributing or accumulating land, political advantages to gain control of and access to resources. The choice to participate in violent conflict is different for minority and marginalized groups; such as the 1994 Zapatista movement in Mexico as the North American Free Trade agreement allowed the use of violence as a tool for exercising their political will (source). Minority groups resort to violence when they think they have nothing to lose or there are no other channels for addressing their grievances (source) rather than dominating groups utilizing it based on utility.
Violence, ethnicity, deprivation and rationalization are key characteristics of the compound phenomenon of ethic conflict. Using Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia, and Mexico as examples of the very explicit connecting between relative deprivation and ethnic diversity that leads to conflict. When certain groups continuously experience deprivation of political, economic and social resources, the possibility for conflict is inevitable. This deprivation can be horizontal and longitudinal (or both at the same time), as each of the four cases I chose shows the result such deprivation along ethnic line can cause to a society; yet there is also the notion of violence driven by a cost-benefit analysis, whether long-term or short-term. I think that countries that ethnically diverse should effectively spread political and economic power because when relative deprivation is eliminated the resort to violence, as political instrument is no longer an option.