6.1. Summary and Conclusion Inter-ethnic conflict is a conflict by which the primary line of confrontation is ethnic markers. In ethnic conflict whatever the cause, ethnic groups confronted each other with special emphasis to their ethnic identity. Moreover, for inter-ethnic conflict to happen two or more ethnic groups must reside in close proximity with in common political and socio-economic territory. Thus, the existing literatures claimed that multi-ethnic states are more prone to ethnic conflict than homogeneous states.
It argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
While liberalism violates liberal democratic foundations, constructivism provides an alternative theoretical framework to understand this phenomenon. Constructivism emphasizes the aspect of identity that shapes social and political actions through normative and material structures (Reus-Smit, p. 188). The significance of normative and material structures illustrates how they shape the behaviour of socio-political actors (individuals and/or states). Furthermore, constructivism argues that political action is influenced by shared beliefs and ideas that consists of structural characteristics, these shared ideas, values, and beliefs manifest greatly in shaping the individual/state (Reus-Smit, p. 196). Additionally, social and political actors identities
Conflicts which appear as a mere inter-ethnic differences consisted of multifaceted variables (Lubo, 2012). He mentioned a number of ethnic conflicts that occurred after 1991 and their causes and concludes: “In spite of the creation of ethnic federalism as an endeavor to address inter-ethnic conflictual problems with Ethiopia” (ibid, 2012:66). Thus, the ethnic federal arrangement has become major source of ethnic conflicts over identity, territory and claims to power and resources. Moreover, according to Mesfin (2006), ethnic conflicts are the results of deliberate manipulation of ethnic sentiments and identities by either leader of ethnic groups or government officers who want to use conflicts as a means of securing economic and political
Both authors use it as a means to justify their respective ends: for Locke, to justify a type of proto-capitalism and the need for government and for Swift, to critique modernity and its turn away from morals in the direction of focusing more on quantifiable science. Swift was skeptical of Locke’s views because he felt that if humans were to act out of self-interest, it would not serve the common good, but only themselves as evidenced through the character of Lemuel Gulliver. Ultimately, it neither Swift’s nor Locke’s main focus, and as such the concept was not of the utmost importance to either of
He puts emphasis on our understanding that ideology functions differently, and with this in mind, we may begin to recognise the complex intervention that lies between culture and ideology. He sees ideology as a ‘human perception of the “lived experience” of human existence itself.’ Ideology’s function is basically to imitate relationships between the society and their ways of producing daily life. Nowadays, a dominant ideology is easily developed which further serves to fortify the already existing economic organization of the civilisation. Thus relations of production are reverted to relations of capitalist exploitation. Evidently, there was a constant class struggle within ideology and this led to a process of ‘contention’ amongst the different classes.
Instead, Derrida attempts to deconstruct, or uncover, hidden differences that underlie logocentrism. At the heart of the notion of logocentrism is the silencing of voices by intellectual elites in the creation of the dominant discourse. Derrida argues for a decentering, so that previously excluded or silenced voices may contribute. While the ultimate result of this is unclear, Derrida privileges a movement away from any sort of silencing, a movement away from the fallacy of universal truth, and movement towards a society characterized by participation, play, and difference. Michel Foucault Perhaps the most recognizable figure associated with poststructuralism is Michel Foucault(1937-1984).
In this quote, the realist’s position is confirmed. Indeed the antagonism in international relations currently exists in high percentages. Power politics and interests rather than democratic views are the driving forces of the word. Quoting Lord and Harris (2006) “the main criticism of cosmopolitanism is that its civilizing project presumes a degree of universality which is far from present at the global level and its morally contestable whether it should be”. Concluding this first part of explaining my thesis on why realists are against the idea of global polity and they don’t see it as a viable or practical plan at least not based on current political situation, I will now present arguments in support of why global polity can not
Thus there is on the surface, a good deal of difference between a Punjabi and a Madrashi, or between a Bengalee and a Parsi. Stalin pointed out that of the four bases of common language territory, economic life and psychological makeup the absence of any one will prevent the growth of a nation. Certainly the nationality of India is not a fact indubitable enough to ensure an easy solution of our national problem and it would be well to regard her as a multi-national
A theory explains, describes and predicts phenomena. Since a theory provides a framework within which to operate, it is hard to think without a theory. In this case, a theory provides a coherent framework for the investigation of phenomena. The study utilizes the Instrumentalist Theory to understand ethnicized electoral violence. Instrumentalist theory explains the main sources of the ethnic conflict through modernization, economic factors and elite ambitions.