- RSS feed 
- Twitter 
After clicking with left mouse button on book cover, an Amazon page (or publisher's) with book info appears in a new browser window.
Leonhardt van Efferink is a PhD student at Royal Holloway, University of London. For more information about his PhD, please check:
Leonhardt van Efferink: Geopolitical scripts and the (de)legitimisation of ISAF
He holds Master’s degrees in Geopolitics, Territory and Security (King’s College London) and Financial Economics (Erasmus University Rotterdam).
This article addresses the role that democratisation can play in the settlement of ethnic conflicts. It starts with a discussion of the critical concepts: ethnicity, ethnic conflicts, democracy and democratisation. Then the paper continues with a discussion of the central question: what factors affect the effectiveness of democratisation in terms of the settlement of ethnic conflicts?
This is the first part of the article which discusses the definitions of democratisation and ethnic conflicts. Parts 2 and 3 each address six relevant factors that affect the effectiveness of democratisation to settle ethnic conflicts. Part 4 provides the conclusion, bibliography and endnotes of this article.
To address the central question, we need to define ethnic communities, ethnic conflicts and democratisation. To start, the influential view of Smith (1991, p. 21) is that the more of the following features a human group has, the more it resembles an ethnic community:
Horowitz (1985, p. 52-53) stresses that members of an ethnic group generally believe that they share specific qualities obtained at birth. He asserts that ethnic groups can be differentiated along racial, lingual and religious lines. Horowitz further emphasises that ethnicity is a dynamic concept, as some ethnic groups have split into new ones and individuals occasionally change their ethnic identity.
How does ethnicity relate to conflicts? Wolff (2006, p. 2) speaks of an ethnic conflict when at least two groups seek to achieve different goals, with at least one of the groups basing these on its ethnic identity. The groups consider their respective goals, which are impossible to achieve at the same time, completely justified.
In this article, the definition of Horowitz is used (1985, pp. 53 and 95). He defines an ethnic conflict as hostilities between a combination of "'tribes,' 'races,' 'nationalities,' and castes", with each group attempting to achieve their respective goals and weakening or destroying their opponents. We further define conflict settlement as seeking the creation of institutions that foster ethnic groups to use non-violent, possibly democratic means to achieve their ends (Wolff, 2006, p. 134-135).
Moreover, the definition of democratisation is here a process where a country introduces one or more democratic features, in line with Snyder’s definition (2001, p. 26). Lijphart (1999, p. 48-49) states that most experts in the field broadly concur with the eight criteria for democracy that Robert Dahl put forward in his 1971 book ‘Polyarchy’:
These definitions allow us to discuss what factors influence the effectiveness of democratisation in terms of ethnic conflict settlement. In this discussion, we also draw on insights from literature that is not exclusively focused on ethnic conflicts. After all, Wolff (2006, p. 5-6) observes that ethnic conflict is never the result of only ethnic considerations, stressing the importance of territory, power and natural resources in all conflicts.
Parts 2 and 3 each address six relevant factors that are relevant for the usefulness of democratisation to settle ethnic conflicts. Part 4 provides the conclusion, bibliography and endnotes of this article.
