That Eternal Scourge Of Ethnic Conflict: Where It Comes From, How To End It

-Analysis-

“Juriens, the fight continues!” That was the slogan of French-speaking supporters of secession in the Swiss canton of Bern. Yes, even while ethnic conflicts may sometimes seem distant, in time or space, they are actually never far away.

The ever calm and prosperous Switzerland faced turmoil in the late 1970s when the Francophone minority in the German-speaking Bern canton sought autonomy. This conflict included a referendum, disputed results, street clashes with police, and even acts of terrorism. Eventually, a second referendum led to the creation of the separate French canton of Jura — but even then, tensions persisted.

Diversity in cultures, traditions and morals often sparks our interest and can become valuable assets for different ethnic groups. But cultural differences often also lead to conflict as people construct their ethnic identity by distinguishing ourselves from others. This delineation can involve recognizing differences in physical appearances, beliefs, holidays, and cuisine.

And yet, there are also external forces that can shape ethnic boundaries. Soviet ethnic policies, for example, segregated people into designated territories with unique cultural identities. Consequently, pressure from dominant groups on ethnic minorities politicized and radicalized identities, fueling anger and a desire for independence. This manifested in protests among Georgians, Latvians, and Chechens as the USSR decline accelerated.

Of course, conflicts can also arise across borders, often drawn arbitrarily during the collapse of colonial empires. It’s a story as old as human history.

Surprisingly, perhaps, studies indicate a decline in the frequency of ethnic conflicts since the mid-1990s. Research by conflict specialist Lars-Erik Cederman suggests a global trend toward compromise in resolving inter-ethnic issues since the latter half of the 20th century. Instances of discrimination between ethnic groups have also decreased.

Still, the impact around the world of such conflicts has never seemed higher. We see it playing out in recent events in Ukraine, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the Israel-Hamas war. Each situation has its own dynamic with multiple factors, and yet there are certain lessons we can learn about the origins, and eventual solutions, of ethnic conflicts.

What fuels ethnic conflicts?

There are recurring conditions that contribute to intense ethnic conflicts, and their mixture exacerbates the situation.

Poverty generates social deprivation, fueling anger and crime. The quality of governance also plays a significant role. Weak governance leads to political instability, fostering violence among opponents. In societies with diverse ethnic groups, inadequate governance not only affects economic stability but also the basic maintenance of order, paving the way for conflict.

Boundaries, whether physical or social, can also fuel conflict. Research shows that when ethnic groups interact positively, it’s beneficial. Conversely, setting up boundaries leads to negative consequences. Studies of U.S. cities demonstrate that mixed living fosters joint initiatives, businesses, reduces poverty, and leads to more balanced public spending.

Cultural differences often drive discord as people define their ethnic identity by distinguishing themselves from others.

These factors — along with a large population size and geographical conditions like rugged terrain — increase the risk of conflict.

The Kashmir conflict serves as an example. The region, home to India’s Muslim minority, has been a battleground between India and Pakistan for decades. Characterized by frequent terrorist attacks and armed clashes, the area is marked by poverty, particularly among its oppressed Muslim population.

The government’s heavy-handed approach, instead of addressing social issues and improving living standards, attempts to suppress protests through force and diminishes the region’s political autonomy. Meanwhile, Muslim resistance activists, supported by Pakistan, resort to terrorist methods in response to oppression from the Hindu majority.

What extinguishes ethnic conflicts?

There’s no universal solution for resolving ethnic conflicts, but two key principles have shown promise, particularly when combined: power-sharing and territorial autonomy.

Power-sharing involves distributing political power among different ethnic groups, promoting cooperation and preventing one group from monopolizing authority. Examples from European multi-component societies like the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland illustrate how diverse groups can govern collectively, fostering consensus-based relationships and coalition governments.

This principle has also been effective in African and Asian nations like Indonesia, South Africa, Botswana, and Cameroon, where granting autonomous political representation to ethnic groups reduced intergroup violence and supported democratization.

In Indonesia’s Aceh region, once in conflict with Jakarta, granting regional ethnic parties representation in the national parliament and significant autonomy led to peace after decades of strife.

Territorial autonomy is another effective principle, especially when ethnic minorities are concentrated in specific areas. Granting political autonomy to these groups doesn’t necessarily mean separation; instead, it promotes peaceful coexistence.

How to avoid ethnic conficts

Two fundamental ways to avoid ethnic conflict have been developed based on the principles of power-sharing and broad autonomy in managing societies with diverse ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups: they are generally referred to as the community model and the integral model.

The community model emphasizes interaction among segments of society, supporting diversity and identities of all groups. It encourages political participation through proportional representation in parliament, fostering diverse governments formed through broad coalitions. An essential feature is the right of a represented group to veto decisions directly affecting its interests, promoting consensus-building among different groups. The Netherlands exemplifies this model, where an extremely low parliamentary threshold led to a diverse yet stable political elite, emphasizing problem-solving through consensus over decades.

In contrast, the integral model aims to strengthen the political center by encouraging alliances among different groups. It often employs a majoritarian electoral system to ensure the autonomy of representatives in parliament. Emphasizing the formation of interethnic political parties or movements, this model seeks to create negotiation and conciliation institutions, promoting constant interaction among groups in a unified political space. The Malaysian case illustrates the integral model, where a strong interethnic movement formed before independence, uniting Malay, Chinese, and Indian parties.

Sometimes peace fails, though. Lebanon is a clear example of this. This model aimed for communal representation, distributing key positions in parliament among the largest religious groups through quotas. Despite initial success, fostering peace and economic growth, Lebanon’s experience turned tragic with a 15-year civil war. Today, the nation remains fragile, with Hezbollah controlling southern territories and posing a threat to stability.

Ending the conflict

Can the above principles and insights apply to the conflicts making headlines today? Cooperation over boundaries, poverty fostering radicalization, and democracy quelling it. Power-sharing promotes integration, while autonomy aids sustainability and de-radicalization between groups.

But these principles hinge on a critical assumption: the parties’ minimal willingness to meet halfway, something that neither Israel or Hamas, nor Russia or Ukraine are able to do.

It remains a long and hard journey to reduce aggression, foster deradicalization and establish power-sharing and political autonomy. But there is, to put it simply, no other way.