Multi-Ethnic Divisions and Governance: The Problem of Institutional Reform and Adaptation

• Author: Ralph Premdas
• Pages: 348-368

348 STATE, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

Most states in the international system are poly-ethnic. The cleavages that

divide these states are many, among the most prominent are race, religion,

region, language and values. In most of these cases, the cleavages are multiple

and coinciding, creating deep divisions which render inter-communal

accommodation and reconciliation difficult if not intractable. An ethno-cultural

community constructs its collective consciousness and shared identity on

putative commonalties in region, religion, race, language and/or values. While

such claims may be fictive and imagined, they are the bedrock that confers

belonging and serve as the means of mass mobilisation in quest of recognition,

resources and influence in the state. There are several variants of ethno-cultural

or ethnic communities with some marked by the salience of a particular trait

such as language creating, thereby, what can be deemed an ethno-linguistic

community as in Quebec and Sri Lanka.1

Similarly, those that are marked mainly by religious cleavage may be called

ethno-religious such as in Northern Ireland and Kashmir; by regional divide,

called ethno-regional as in Spain and the Canadian West; by racial division

called ethno-racial such as Fiji and Guyana.2 To be sure, most multi-ethnic

communities are carriers of multiple cleavages but often one may be dominant

and defines the cultural character of the group.

In most states with ethno-cultural divisions, the crux of the political

challenge pertains to the establishment of a generally acceptable, just and

democratic government that will accommodate the divergent claims of the

respective communities for equality, equity and autonomy. Implicated are vexing

issues related to the status and recognition of all communities equally, the removal

of discrimination and domination and the institution of policies regarding the

equitable distribution of resources.

Over the past two decades, a variety of institutional forms and formulae

have been advanced to design democratic governance in these deeply divided

states.3 All of these proposals tend to be aimed at multi-ethnic states generally.

Multi-ethniC diviSionS and

GovernanCe: the ProbleM of

inStitutional reforM and

adaPtation

RALPH PREMDAS

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

Multi-Ethnic Divisions and Governance 349

Most of the problems thrown up by these divided states, however, tend to be

similar in that the diacritica that describe their particularity (be it race, religion,

or language) are held to be inherent and immutable. We shall look at the more

important of these packaged formulations and prescriptions comparatively and

critically suggesting what opportunities they offer and their limits. From

extensive research for reforming the state, a number of findings have emerged

rendering the state more sensitive to the interests of the ethnic and racial

communities in promoting democratic governance.

InstitutiInstituti

InstitutiInstituti

Institutioo

oo

onal Adaptnal Adapt

nal Adaptnal Adapt

nal Adaptaa

aa

atiti

titi

tioo

oo

on and Prn and Pr

n and Prn and Pr

n and Proo

oo

oblems oblems o

blems oblems o

blems off

ff

f

DD

DD

Demem

emem

emocraocra

ocraocra

ocratiti

titi

tic Governanc Governan

c Governanc Governan

c Governancece

cece

ce

Examination of relevant instances from around the world with regard to

the appropriateness and choice of institutions and practices of racially and

ethnically divided states in establishing democratic and just governance offer

an assortment of insights. It must be emphasised that this is a problem area that

is as controversial as it is difficult to reach decisive conclusions. It is locked into

basic philosophical and ethical issues related to the problem of cultural

relativism, specifically, to the appropriateness of transferring the experiences

and institutions of one state to another, especially where this entails the

superimposition of the institutions and practices of the developed industrial

countries unto governments in the environment of the Third World.

It is essential to place the current quest for democratic governance in multi-

ethnic and multi-racial states, most located in the less developed countries,

within the larger ongoing process of postcolonial experiments for well-being,

security and justice. Over the past 50 years since the end of World War II,

worldwide decolonisation in the Third World has witnessed the creation of

over a hundred new independent sovereign states. In what has been conceived

as “Three Waves” of tectonic change, most of the new states have since progressed

from initial constitutional government, to socialist experiments, to authoritarian

one-party and military regimes culminating with a new phase of democratic

transition.4 The Sub-Saharan African experience illustrates aspects of these

transformations as Michael Bratton and Nicholas van de Walle describe:

At the turn of the decade (late 1980s), the predominant types of regime in

Africa were military oligarchies, civilian one-party systems, or hybrids of

the two. The most common institutional formation was a plebiscitary system

in which a personalistic leader, who had come to power by a military coup,

had constructed a single ruling party that periodically ratified its limited

political legitimacy through ritualistic, non-competitive elections. In 1989,

29 African countries were governed under some kind of one-party constitution,

and one-party rule seemed entrenched as the modal form of governance in