In countries where ethnic groups have lived peacefully for centuries, why recently has conflict occurred along ethnic lines? To what extent are state policies to blame?
This paper explores the causes of state disintegration and nationalities conflict experienced in Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia since World War II. In both countries, the state is argued to have played a divisive rather than conciliatory role in ethnic relations.
In Sri Lanka, the nationalistic and politically dominant Sinhalese- Buddhist elites’ violent repression and exclusion of Tamils from political dialogue fuelled a conflict to assert ethnic identities. In Yugoslavia, the League of Communists’ limited decentralisation to subelites resulted in locally- focused power centres. The resultant fragmentation promoted regional ethnic loyalty – visible in the conflict following Milosevic’s violent promotion of Serbian nationalism in 1988.
However, Bose believes the above outcomes were not inevitable. Tension has risen in previously harmonious multi- ethnic countries because the modern state has evolved as one nationality undemocratically dominating a country politically. However, different national identities can be accommodated within a state: the choice need not be between repression within a centralised state or independence via any means necessary, including conflict. Other conclusions are that:
- Non-negotiable unitary control – one body controlling everything – is divisive and destructive of the state if not all needs are addressed.
- A policy by dominant elites of repressing other ethnic identities to achieve an homogenous society is counterproductive, serving only to encourage ethnic solidarity and nationalities’ need to assert their identities.
- In Communist Yugoslavia, the informal decentralisation of authority resulted in locally-focused power centres. With no choice of political affiliation, regional nationality was thus the focus of collective identity – dividing the state along ethnic lines.
- Without dialogue between parties representing each nationality, the state fails to address all interests. As ethnic communities’ frustration increases, so does their (peaceful or violent) demands to be heard.
- Furthermore, without any policy attempting to unify groups within an ethnically fragmented state, independence may be the only option for a nationality to have its needs addressed. (Independence is only possible for a geographically concentrated ethnic group.)
The critical issue for preventing nationalistic conflict in multiethnic states is forwarding democratic values. Ethnic diversity cannot simply be ignored or be neutralised through repression of minorities’ rights and their exclusion from political processes. Policy lessons include:
- Stabilisation of multiethnic countries is possible through cooperation and alliances between regions of peoples with different national identities. Federations should be considered, with a body responsible for common interests while regions retain autonomy over local affairs.
- It is essential to consider different options regarding political arrangements, particularly the degree of autonomy for (ethnic) regions.
- A (peaceful) solution to power sharing, which is satisfactory to all, is only possible through open-minded dialogue.
- Despite ethnic fragmentation, Yugoslavia need not have disintegrated totally as most nationalities did not want total independence. A loose union of nationalities, cooperating on common issues such as economic policy, is therefore still conceivable.
- In Sri Lanka, the state has not yet totally disintegrated. Thus it may be possible to negotiate a federation between Sinhalese- and Tamil- dominated regions.
- In both countries, fairly addressing all interests is critical in any future alliance between nationalities. Beginning the dialogue is the first mountain to climb, particularly for Sri Lanka.
