Democracy And Ethnic Conflict example essay topic

With democracy comes the idea of multi-ethnic societies with freedoms such as civil liberties, expression, speech and equality. This does mean though, that these multi-ethnic societies are a utopia, existing without conflicts and war. Ethnic differences are a major factor for tensions among people of a common land. Kosovo is a recent reminder to this very point. Kinship to the land is not as strong as ethnic differences, even in a democracy.

Looking at two points of view from authors Cynthia Enloe, and Donald Horowitz, one will learn to realize that democracy is not always what one expects. While not directly discussing the relationship between democracy and ethnic conflicts or war, Cynthia Enloe goes into detail about ethnic differences leading to conflict. She also goes on to discuss the inferiority of ethnic groups leading to military servitude in order to advance their social or class status. One thing that she points out is that groups have also been stereotyped into being prone to soldiering. These people have been labeled as Martial races. An interesting point that she makes about Martial races is that they have traditionally been set on the regional peripheries of a state.

This makes it seem as though the only reason for their being allowed to remain part of the state is to protect it from outside invaders. With this kind of covered seclusion breeds contempt, both from the main stream people of the state as well as the martial races forced outside the framework of society for their differences. These people are looked upon as expendable, not needed for higher levels of society. The united States, supposedly the greatest democracy in the world, has had a long history of using expendable peoples for their protection. The African Americans during W.W. II, were used in great numbers to fight the Nazi threat of Germany, but when it came time to come home, they were sent back to their segregated communities, not honored for their great courage in battle. What was seriously troubling for African Americans is that they served their country in the hopes to advance their social standing.

This of course did not happen. It took a battle of sorts called the Civil Rights Movement in order for blacks to gain the same rights as whites. This example only strengthens the point that Enloe makes that democracy leads to ethnic conflicts, in that when people are given some freedom it is inevitable that they want more, and when one group gets more then another turmoil is likely to follow. Horowits moves away from the soldiering aspect of ethnic conflicts to a more symbolic conflict. He talks about the tensions that arise from different ethnic classes on the bases of symbols, such as names of towns, anthems, color of flags and the identity of state officials. He gives some examples of places that have had major conflicts over these types of issues.

One such example involves the election of the principle of the University of Nairobi. The position was either going to go to a Kikuyu or to a Luo. The ethnicity of the principle seemed, at least to the people of Nairobi, to signal the superiority of one group over the other. Horowits calls this Symbolic Politics and Ethnic Status. What is meant by this is summed up best by a man studying the temperance movement in the United States, Joseph R. Gus field. He states that The origins of such a movement is found in the propensity of groups to derive prestige and self-respect from the harmony between their norms and those which achieve dominance in the society.

It is a constant tug of war between ethnic classes to gain an equal share of rights and privileges. The problem is that one group always wants more then the other to feel superior. Horowits goes on to discuss the importance of symbolism in a society. He states that it is effective in ethnic conflict, because it clothes ethnic claims in ideas and associations that have acknowledged moral force beyond the particular conflict, thereby masking something that would otherwise be controversial. His claim is that symbolism is a necessity in that it allows for other groups to shield their views and goals of superiority. Even though these two authors do not explicitly talk about democracy and ethnic conflict, the signs are all there.

People are used as puppets in all societies and democracies are no exception to this. People are more likely to take advantage of others for their own gains when one is given some leeway to begin with. The freedoms associated with a democracy are many times taken as inherent rights that can not be taken away from what is associated as the superior group. In order for the supposed superior group to hold on to these inherent rights, the lower ethno's of the state are manipulated in order to maintain a sense of social dominance. Enloe used the martial state as an example, where lower peoples are used only for the protection of the upper class, because those people are given a sense of false hope in that they will rise in social status. Horowitz uses the idea that symbolic politics and ethnic status are linked by a kind of manipulative morality.

Ideas of equality are masks for a group to hide their true intentions of domination. When a democracy is formed, people flood in, all trying to gain a piece of that democracy. Even though the intentions may be to split the democracy equally among all, it rarely happens. One can look at a democracy as the breeding ground for contempt all stemming from the fight for equal say and rights. Soldiering & Symbolism Nick Nonnemacher Ethnic and Racial Politics 3/30/99.