ethnicity and state fragility essay

8/11/2019 Ethnicity and State Fragility Essay

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethnicity-and-state-fragility-essay 1/6

Devin McConnell

Failed States

3/4/14

Ethnicity and State Fragility

In 1976 evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins published a work entitled “The Selfish

Gene” which attempted to extend Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to take into account the

role of human genetics in the process of natural selection[1]. In doing so Dawkins gave birth to

what’s known as the gene centered view of evolution and altered a great deal of thinking about

the way humans came to be as a species. Dawkins’ theory explained that humans are instinctually

driven at the most basic biological level to pass on their genetic code not for the wider purpose of

perpetuating the human race as a whole, or even their particular subset of the human race, but

simply to preserve themselves in the form of their basic genetics. Dawkins, and many others,

believed that this idea explained the reasons behind human socializing and altruism. The idea

being that humans act to help and protect those members of the species closest to themselves,

particularly family, in order to increase the likelihood that their line of genetic code survives[2].

While this is a fairly staid scientific look at why humans form into groups, there is no doubt

that ethnic identity, be it religious, national or racial is as strong a force as any imaginable in

human motivation. It is uncontroversial in a political sense to state that humans tend to adhere to

the groups with which they identify. This is true both because of natural biological reasons as well

as classical political ones. It is impossible by definition for individuals to escape the Hobbesian

state of nature on their own. In order to overcome brutish competition over scarce resources



humans come together into a social contract in order to surrender certain absolute freedoms,

such as hunting each other, and receive the guarantee of security from such violence by forming

a government that can enforce the rules of the agreement, thus the state is born. However as the

real world can easily attest to, not all states are created equally. Some states are much more easily

formed than others and some still have yet to seriously take up the tasks of enforcing that social

contract between a government and its citizens. Possibly one of the strongest reasons that states

have trouble forming and remaining viable is the ethnic identities of the populations they govern.

As the biological explanation of the Selfish Gene suggests, people have an easier time

cooperating with and protecting people they believe to be their kinfolk. This kind of tribalistic

mentality is so commonly understood that it had arisen in political thought long before Dawkins’

time with works like Frederick Engel’s “The Origin of Family, Private Property, and The State”.

[3]

In examining the possibilities for the outbreak of civil war and the collapse of a viable state

Cederman, Wimmer and Min conclude that, “ethnonationalist struggles over access to state

power are an important part of the dynamics leading to the outbreak of civil wars.”. [4] They

find that citizens have an ingrained preference and expectation to have a government made up of

co-ethnic authorities such as politicians, police, and judges. It’s this kind of expectation of ethnic

homogeneity that may very well explain the success of many modern western democratic states.

Countries like France, England, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Australia,

Norway, Finland, and New Zealand are all relatively homogenous in race and creed [5]. In these

nations the state is not only viable but is powerful and even welcomed in the form of cradle to

grave welfare programs. In homogenous nations like these people can more easily place their

faith and trust in the state to carry out the social contract on their behalf due to a stronger feeling



of kinship. On the other hand states with relatively diverse or divided ethnic populations such as

Iraq, Rwanda, Syria, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavia faced governments either besieged

by rebel groups, utilized to commit genocide, or collapsed altogether. Carter Johnson explains

that these countries are plagued with ethnic conflict, forced population expulsion, and genocide

because of a security dilemma between different ethnic groups [6]. This may very likely be

thanks to the largely arbitrary borders that were drawn to form these countries in the first place.

Without allowing for different groups to naturally settle out and form states along more

ethnically defined boundaries, as they were allowed to do to a much greater extent in Europe, the

world is instead left with nations that force together different ethnic groups without organically

constructed trust or mutually assured boundaries. This would be why Carter Johnson’s major

suggestion to world policy makers would be to consider partition for some troubled states to

ensure very high ethnic homogeneity within the new borders including ethnic relocation. It’s also

why he asserts haphazard partitions like the separation of India and Pakistan were not successful

because it was not correctly partitioned to fully separate the muslim and hindu populations [7].

A different solution from partition might be to establish political systems more similar to

the American model than the European model. The American political system of checks and

balances between different branches of the federal government and then disbursal of power down

to states and localities has proven very effective in making the political process in the United

States and countries with similar systems, such as Germany, much more slow, deliberate, and

conservative. Most importantly they carry out the function of balancing factions to contain

differences within the political system and keep a majority party from accumulating and

centralizing state power and utilizing it to crush minority groups entirely. The European

parliamentary system hands far more power over to a centralized national government and then



entrusts that power to a majority in an elected body. This allows for more radical and reactionary

governments that have little reason to consider the rights of the minority groups in the system. As

was discussed in class on the topic of Rwanda [8]. Once political opportunity was extended to

the whole population the Hutu majority quickly and easily took and consolidated power in order

to persecute the Tutsi elite [9]. Additionally Iraq currently faces a similar problem in the wake of

the US withdrawal from the country as the Sunni muslim population has felt much like a

underrepresented minority within the parliament and has felt that way politically since the

overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. This has led fueled sectarian violence both throughout

and after the US occupation of the country[10].

For reasons ranging from biological to political it’s clear that humans cooperate with those

they believe to be ethnically close to themselves. States invariably built on the cooperation of

human beings clearly benefit from the presence of at least some ethnic homogeneity and trust

and very clearly suffer disastrous consequences from the presence of ethnic discord.

Wow. An elegant, thoughtful, and theoretically informed argument that draws on a wider

base of knowledge then we have time to explore in the class. Just a couple of minor editing

suggestions and one or two requests for a bit of clarification, but this is a first rate essay.

A = 19/20



Work Cited

1. 2. Dawkins, Richard. The selfish gene. New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

3. Engels, Friedrich. The origin of the family, private property, and the state, in the light of

the researches of Lewis H. Morgan. Moscow: Progress, 1968.

4. Cederman, Lars, and Andreas Wimmer. "Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel?." In Why Do

Ethnic Groups Rebel?: New Data and Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University, 2010. 2.

5. "A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries." Washington

Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-

the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/ (accessed March 5, 2014).

6. Johnson, Carter. "Partitioning To Peace: Sovereignty, Demography, And Ethnic Civil

Wars." International Security 32, no. 4 (2008): 142.

7. Johnson, Carter. "Partitioning To Peace: Sovereignty, Demography, And Ethnic Civil

Wars." International Security 32, no. 4 (2008): 142-144.

8. Class Notes, “Rwanda" 3/4/14



9. Gourevitch, Philip. We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our

families: stories from Rwanda. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998.

10. Sly, Liz. "In Iraq, a Sunni revolt raises specter of new war." Washington Post. http://

www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-iraq-a-sunni-revolt-raises-specter-of-new-war/

2014/01/06/280f9216-7714-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html (accessed March 6, 2014).

ethnicity and state fragility essay

Documents