How can diaspora groups created by conflict contribute to either increased polarisation or new opportunities for peace in the homeland? This article in Conflict, Security and Development explores ways in which conflict-generated diaspora groups link processes of globalisation and transnational migration to homeland politics and conflicts. The case of the Ethiopian diaspora in North America illustrates how recent political developments were shaped by this diaspora and points to broader patterns of linkages among diasporas and homeland processes.
Diasporas often frame conflict in the homeland in categorical, uncompromising terms. Political leaders in the homeland are often ambiguous about the political influence of those who left, perceiving that they have lost touch with everyday struggles in the homeland. Diaspora plays critical roles in financing political activities and framing political debates. They may be transformed into a force for peace if they shift support from militant leaders towards positions that support the leaders and movements seeking peace.
In the case of Ethiopia, most diaspora organisations and media focus on cultural, professional and economic self-help initiatives rather than partisan politics.
- Many social and professional organisations contribute to relationships and social capital that are used by more political organisations to mobilise the community. Those who support the government have less need to establish diaspora organisations or media, leaving these organisations and publications in the hands of opposition leaders.
- Past and ongoing conflicts in the homeland serve as focal points of diaspora identities. Ethiopian political groups are fractured between nationalist pan-Ethiopian groups, ethnic and regional groups, and those who favour the right to self-determination and independence for ‘Oromia’ state. Many in the diaspora have framed the conflict categorically, supporting militant and uncompromising leaders at home, making conflict resolution more difficult and the conflict more protracted.
- The breakdown in the 2005 political process shattered main opposition coalitions and created new divisions within Ethiopia, in the diaspora and between Ethiopia and the diaspora. The crisis mobilised many in the diaspora to become engaged in new ways in homeland politics through fundraising, lobbying and engaging in political debates.
- The diaspora’s ability to frame political debates and act as gatekeeper for opposition strategies were crucial in enabling the 2005 elections to be broadly contested.
The Ethiopian case suggests that diaspora groups are not external to homeland politics but serve to link actors in dispersed locations both within the country of origin and in host countries. Diaspora networks and transnational politics create outcomes that are shaped by multiple sources of power and authority that are based in different physical locations but part of a single political process.
- For conflict-generated diaspora groups, homeland territory often takes on a high symbolic value and becomes a focal point for mobilisation.
- Diasporas often support militants and tend to frame conflicts in uncompromising and categorical ways that influence political strategies of parties at home.
- Parties directly engaged in the homeland’s conflict depend on diaspora supporters for resources and access to international media, international organisations, and powerful host government. This gives diaspora groups influential roles in the adoption of strategies relating to conflict.
- Beyond financial resources and influence through lobbying, transnational links between diasporas and homeland parties highlight the importance of the ways that diasporas frame conflicts and promote political strategies.
