Ethnic Conflict and Forms of Government:
Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia, Oleg.Zaznaev@kpfu.ru
elibrary_id: 199322 |
Zaznaev O.I. Ethnic Conflict and Forms of Government: Contemporary Discussions. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 1. P. 25-40. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.01.03
The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 20-011-00102 “The role of form of government in the prevention and resolution of ethnic conflicts: a comparative study”
Ethnic conflicts are a danger to the stability and integrity of a state; to prevent and resolve these, the state changes the form of political-territorial structure, the electoral system, or the form of government. The purpose of the article is to provide a critical overview of current discussions in political science regarding the relationship between ethnic conflicts and forms of government. The author focuses on two key points: the influence of ethnicity on the form of government; and the influence of the form of government on ethnic conflict. The choice of the form of government in a divided society is determined by the conceptual approach: supporters of consociationalism believe that the parliamentary system, due to its collegial nature, is the desired design of power in a multi-ethnic society; supporters of centripetalism and power-dividing approach, on the contrary, advocate for the presidential system, since it provides group consensus as well as checks and balances. One of the poorly studied research problems is to find out what is the role of presidential, parliamentary, and semi-presidential systems in resolving ethnic conflicts. The author claims that the impact of the form of government on ethnicity is ambiguous. There are sufficient arguments in favor of the fact that the presidential system reduces the risk of ethnic conflicts and favors ethnic peace and harmony, but at the same time leads to low chances of political representation for ethnic groups. On the other hand, the parliamentary system creates more opportunities for ethnic representation, but increases the risks of ethnic conflicts. The author demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of various forms of government in the context of ethnic contradictions. At the same time, he notes that the form of government is not a determinant of ethnic conflicts, but only a condition, since historical, social, and cultural factors have a stronger impact on ethnic conflicts.
Basedau M. 2013. A Context-Sensitive Approach to the Study of Presidentialism and Ethnic Violence. – Ethnopolitics. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 89-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2013.746011
Brancati D. 2006. Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conﬂict and Secessionism? – International Organization. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 651–685. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830606019X
Cordell K., Wolff S. 2016. The Study of Ethnic Conflict. An Introduction. – The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict. Ed. by K. Cordell, S. Wolff. New York, London: Routledge. P. 1-12.
Horowitz D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press. 607 p.
Horowitz D. L. 1990. Presidents vs. Parliaments: Comparing Democratic Systems. – Journal of Democracy. Vol. 1. No. 4. P. 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1990.0056
Horowitz D. L. 1991. A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press. 293 p.
Horowitz D. L. 2004. The Alternative Vote and Interethnic Moderation. A Reply to Fraenkel and Grofman. – Public Choice. Vol. 121. No. 3-4. P. 507-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-004-2488-y
Hutchinson J., Smith A.D. 1996. Introduction. – Ethnicity. Ed. by J. Hutchinson, A.D. Smith. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. P. 3-15.
Kaufman S.J. 2016. Ethnicity as a Generator of Conflict. – The Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict. Ed. by K. Cordell, S. Wolff. New York, London: Routledge. P. 91-101. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315720425.ch8
Lijphart A. 1990. The Southern European Examples of Democratization: Six Lessons for Latin America. – Government and Opposition. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 68-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.1990.tb00747.x
Lijphart A. 1991. Constitutional Choices for New Democracies. – Journal of Democracy. Vol. 2. No. 1. P. 72-84. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0011
Lijphart A. 2007. Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 305 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934685
Linz J.J. 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. – Journal of Democracy. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1990.0011
McGarry J. 2013. Is Presidentialism Necessarily Non-collegial? – Ethnopolitics. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 93-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2013.746014
Reilly B. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies. Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491108
Rothchild D., Roeder P. G. 2005. Dilemmas of State-Building in Divided Societies. – Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars. Ed. by P.G. Roeder, D. Rothchild. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. P. 1-25.
Ross M.H. 2007. Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 388 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491115
Saideman S.M., Lanoue D.J., Campenni M., Stanton S. 2002. Democratization, Political Institutions, and Ethnic Conflict: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis, 1985-1998. – Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 103-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400203500108
Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. 1999. Ed. by R. Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 320 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198293860.001.0001
Sisk T.D. 1996. Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press. 176 p.
Schneider G., Wiesehomeier N. 2008. Rules That Matter: Political Institutions and the Diversity–Conﬂict Nexus. – Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 45. No. 2. P. 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307087176
Smith A.D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. NY: Wiley-Blackwell. 312 p.
Stepan A., Skach C. 1993. Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism. – World Politics. Vol. 46. No. 1. P. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2950664
Suberu R. T., Diamond L. 2002. Institutional Design, Ethnic Conflict Management, and Democracy in Nigeria. – The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy. Ed. by A. Reynolds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 400-428. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246467.003.0015
Theuerkauf U.G. 2010. Institutional Design and Ethnic Violence: Do Grievances Help to Explain Ethnopolitical Instability? – Civil Wars. Vol. 12. No. 1-2. P. 117-139. https://doi.org//10.1080/13698249.2010.486121
Theuerkauf U. G. 2013a. Presidentialism and the Risk of Ethnic Violence. – Ethnopolitics. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2013.746007
Theuerkauf U. G. 2013b. Presidentialism and the Risk of Ethnic Violence: A Reply to Reilly, Sisk, Basedau and McGarry. – Ethnopolitics. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 98-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2013.751746
Wolff S. 2005. Electoral-Systems Design and Power-Sharing Regimes. – Powersharing. New Challenges for Divided Societies. Ed. by I. O’Flynn, D. Russell. London, Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. P. 59-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt18dzsm7.8
Wolff S. 2011. Managing Ethno-national Conﬂict: Towards an Analytical Framework. – Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. Vol. 49. No. 2. P. 162-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2011.564471
Borisov N. 2018. Prezidentstvo na postsovetskom prostranstve. Protsessy genezisa i transformatsii [Presidency in the Post-Soviet Space: the Processes of Genesis and Transformations]. Moscow: RGGU. 537 p. (In Russ.)
Farukshin M. 2013. Ehtnichnost’ i federalizm [Ethnicity and Federalism]. Kazan: Kazan: Center for Innovative Technologies. 348 p. (In Russ.)
Farukshin M. 2014. Ehtnopolitologiya [Ethnopolitical Science (Ethnopolitics)]. Kazan: Kazan University Publishing House. 280 p. (In Russ.)
Horowitz D. L. 2016. Ethnic Power Sharing: Three Big Problems. (Review). – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 210-223. (In Russ.)
Kharitonova O. 2014. Post-Soviet Constitutions: Do Institutions Only Matter? – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 69-93. (In Russ.)
Kharitonova O. 2016. Ethnic Wars and Post-Conflict Democracy. – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 34-59. (In Russ.)
Kudryashova I. 2016. How to Accomplish Stability in Divided Societies. – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 15-33. (In Russ.)
Lijphart A. 1997. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration (Russ. ed.: Lijphart A. Demokratiya v mnogosostavnykh obshchestvakh: sravnitel’noe issledovanie. Ed. by A.M. Salmin, G.I. Kamenskaya. Moscow: Aspect Press. 287 p.).
Markarov A. 2014. Semi-Presidential System: Concept Content and Main Characteristics. – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 34-50.
Panov P. 2015. Institutsional’nye modeli organizatsii vlasti v poliehtnicheskikh obshchestvakh: varianty, problemy i resheniya [Institutional Models of Power Organization in Multiethnic Societies: Options, Problems and Solutions]. – Rossiiskaya politicheskaya nauka: Idei, kontseptsii, metody [Russian Political Science: Ideas,
Concepts, Methods]. Ed. by L. Smorgunov. Moscow: Aspekt Press. P. 289-306. (In Russ.)
Tishkov V.A. 2003. Rekviem po ehtnosu. Issledovaniya po sotsial’no-kul’turnoi antropologii [Requiem for Ethnos. Research on Socio-Cultural Anthropology]. Moscow: Nauka. 544 p. (In Russ.)
Zaznaev O.I. 2006. Poluprezidentskaya sistema: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty [Semi-Presidential System: Theoretical and Applied Aspects]. Kazan: Kazan State University. 374 p. (In Russ.)
Zaznaev O.I. 2013. Forma pravleniya kak politicheskii proekt: ot razrabotki do realizatsii [Form of Government as a Political Project: from Development to Implementation]. – Politicheskoe proektirovanie v prostranstve sotsial’nykh kommunikatsii [Political Design in the Space of Social Communications]. Proceedings of the X International Scientific Conference. Part 1. Moscow: LENAND. P. 30-38. (In Russ.)
Zaznaev O.I. 2014. Understanding the Forms of Government in Foreign Political Science: The Latest Debate. – Political Science (RU). No. 1. P. 10-33. (In Russ.)
Zaznaev O., Sidorov V. 2020. Presidential or Parliamentary System: What Hinds an Ethnic Conflict? – Political Science (RU). No. 4. P. 290-308. (In Russ.) https://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.04.14
Mixed Forms of Government, or How Oil Will Mix with Water. – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No4
Russia’s political system: experience of social engineering projections (based on the materials of the ISP report). – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No6
Typology of Forms of Government: Rectification of Mistakes. – Polis. Political Studies. 2006. No1
The Educational System as Instrument for the Estimation of Post-Soviet Reforms. – Polis. Political Studies. 2001. No2
Presidential and Parlamentary Pepublics as Forms of Democratic Transit (Russian and Ukrainian Experience in the Global Context). – Polis. Political Studies. 1998. No5