Upload
keegan-hubert
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
South Africa
• Factors for and against democracy:
– Moderate level of development
– Highly unequal society
– History of labor coercive practices
General backdrop: Apartheid
• Established in 1948 with coming to power of National Party
• Three parts:– Political: complete exclusion of non-whites
from political process.– Economic: use of coercive means to keep
wages of non-whites low.– Social: physical separation of races.
General backdrop: Apartheid
• But, economic and social goals conflicted: the dependence of whites on non-white labor made segregation difficult.
General backdrop: Apartheid
• Solution: Homelands policy.
• But, this never really worked. Africans came to the cities anyway.
Timeline of African Response
• 1912: Formation of ANC
• 1950s: Initial response to apartheid– Freedom Charter (1955): non-racial
democracy, mild socialism.– Sporadic peaceful protests.– State response: ban ANC, jail leaders– Why so easy to contain? Small urban
population.
Timeline of African Response
• 1960s: Quiet decade of economic growth– Urban African populations grew (and grew!)– Flourishing of civil society in African areas
Timeline of African Response
• 1970s:– New organizations, political movements
• Young people influenced by Black Consciousness • Civics• Trade Unions
– Economic slowdown– Renewed protest: 1976 riots in Soweto,
spread to rest of country.– Much harder for the state to contain.
Timeline of African Response
• P.W. Botha liberalizes the unions in 1978:– The hope: this will moderate the conflict.– The reality: Unions (COSATU) initiate wave
after wave of protest in early 80s.
• United Democratic Front (UDF) forms, contributes to mass insurrection.
• South Africa: “ungovernable” by 1986.
Timeline of African Response
• Mid 1980s: Economic Crisis– Worker productivity down– Massive capital outflows– IMF cuts off loans
• South African capitalists: Apartheid not worth it! Begin pressuring government to negotiate.
Negotiations and Love Songs
• 1990-1993: Hammering out a plan – ANC, NP: Very different notions of what “New”
South Africa should look like– Dicey moments, but desire to avoid war kept
both parties at the table.– Deal involved compromises for everyone
• April 1994: Nelson Mandela elected
Conclusions
• Structural factors mattered:– Greater development made protest easier.– Change in interests of economic elite key to
initiation of negotiations.
• However, political factors mattered also:– Economic interests changed because of
political protests– Political leadership key at certain critical
points.
Conclusions
• Finally, international factors once again very important. Domestic politics cannot tell us the whole story.
Extra Office Hours
• Schedule an appointment with me if you can’t make my office hours.
• Steve Oliver: 11-1:50 Monday (today!) SSB 328
• Lydia Lundgren: 10:30-12:30 Monday (today!) SSB 323
• Kai Ostwald: 10:30-11:30 Monday (today!) SSB 326
Definition: Ethnic Group
• Membership determined by descent or ancestry. Ethnic identity is ascriptive: something you are born with instead of something you choose.
• Members of ethnic groups know and value membership in the group. It has meaning to them.
Definition: Ethnic Group
• Group members share distinguishing cultural features.
• The group has a shared history, which may be partially invented.
• Most ethnic group has a homeland, or at least memories of one.
Factoids
• Ethnic identities are quite prevalent.
• Ethnic identities are only one of many different kinds of collective identities. Other examples: class, occupation, age, gender, hobby, school ties, sports affiliations, etc.
Factoids
• Ethnic identities are distinguished from many other types of identity (esp. economic ones) in that they are less voluntary in nature. But even here, there’s ambiguity.
Classic Approaches to Ethnicity
• Liberalism:– Ethnicity is “morally suspect” because it
places groups above individuals. For better or worse, modernization would dissolve ethnic ties, create “new” people unconnected to the old ways.
– Fiction: White Teeth by Zadie Smith; Hunger by Lan Samantha Chang
Classic Approaches to Ethnicity
• Marxism:– Ethnicity is epiphenomenal, secondary to
deeper forces (i.e. material interests).
– Ethnic identifications = false consciousness.
– Marxist revolution (Workers of the World Unite!) will end ethnic based thinking.
But the reality is . . .
• Ethnicity is alive and well in all corners of the globe!
• Developed countries: anti-immigrant parties in Europe, separatist movements in Spain and Canada, minority mobilizations in US.
But the reality is . . .
• Former communist countries of Eastern Europe: many new ethnic mobilizations.
• Developing countries: economic development fuels ethnic mobilization.
• Since the end of the Cold War, the world has seen a series of destructive wars in which ethnicity has played some role.
Primordialism
• Ethnic identities are more fundamental than other types of identitity. Ethnicity is not subject to rational cost/benefit calculations. It belongs to the realm of emotion.
• Ethnicity is immutable, unchangeable, fixed.
Primordialism
• Ethnic mobilizations are motivated by expressive not instrumental needs.– Participation is related to our search as human beings
for security in an insecure world.– Individual self esteem is a function of group position.– More about expressing belonging than further self
interest.
• Conflict based on ethnicity is inevitable, persistence is a given.
Instrumentalism
• Ethnic identities are not more fundamental or powerful than other types of identity.
• Ethnicity is fluid. Individuals have multiple identities, these identities shift according to context.
Instrumentalism
• Mobilization is about getting something. People join ethnic movements when there is a pay-off to doing so. Furthermore, when it is useful to them, they may even invent new identities.
• Ethnicity leads to conflict when someone has something to gain from going to war.
Instrumentalism
• Persistence? As long as ethnicity is a useful way of organizing people, it will persist.
Critiques of each theory?
• Primordialism:
– Empirically, identities do appear to shift according to context.
– If conflict is so inevitable, how do you explain long periods of peace? And why are most multiethnic societies peaceful?
Critiques of each theory?
• Instrumentalism:
– How do we explain the intensity and emotional quality of ethnic bonds?
– Ethnic conflict may be instrumental for leaders, but it rarely is for followers. How do we explain their behavior?
What is civil conflict?
• Examples: civil war, rebellions, insurrections, political revolutions, social revolutions, genocides.
• Definition: sustained armed conflict within a state that involves large numbers of people either as participants or as victims.
“State” versus “Society”
• Society: basic social forces and groups, the population at large and how it is structured and organized.
• State (review): the set of permanent institutions and structures of authority in a country.
“State” versus “Society”
• What is the relationship between them?
– State is a mirror that reflects society. Politics is a function of social forces alone.
– State is not just a mirror: it exerts an independent effect out outcomes. We can’t just look at society to understand politics! Have to look at state too.
Society-Based “Bottom Up”
• Misery breeds revolt: civil conflict is a function of the level of grievance in the population.
• Variants:– Ethnic group hatreds– Extreme poverty and deprivation– Unfulfilled expectations (economic crisis)
Political Entrepreneurs
• Grievance alone is insufficient to produce war. Politicians provide the spark that converts grievance into action.
• Motivations of politicians vary from idealism to personal gain.
Political Entrepreneurs
• Articulate existing grievances, sometimes even accentuating them.
• May not be enough: collective action problems may prevent people with common grievances from acting together. Examples: free-rider problem, first-mover problem.
Free Rider Problem
• There are gains to collective action. • No one can be excluded from these gains,
even if they didn’t take part in the action. • High personal costs to taking part.• Individual rationality: don’t participate, don’t
pay costs, yet capture benefits. “Free-ride.”• Everyone free-rides, no collective action, no
collective benefits.
First Mover Problem
• Risks for collective action are highest for those who act first.
• Once everyone else is acting, then risks decline. “Safety in numbers.”
• But who will go first? An action may be highly desirable by everyone, but may never occur because no one is willing to take the first step.
Political Entrepreneurs
• Politicians help people overcome collective action problems:– Provide selective benefits to participation (to
overcome free-riding problem)– Throw the first stones (to overcome first-
mover problem)
State Centric “Top Down”
• Grievances (even grievance organized by politicians) is insufficient for explaining civil conflict.
• State factors are key: are the state’s coercive organizations coherent and effective? If yes, grievances are never allowed to flower.
Strengths/Weaknesses
• Bottom-up approach
– Pros: explains why ordinary people might participate in conflict.
– Cons: Can’t explain why grievances persist for long periods of time without producing conflict.
Strengths/Weaknesses
• Political entrepreneurs approach:
– Pros: Better at explaining timing.
– Cons: Why do people follow politicians into war? When do politicians see war as a better option than working within institutions?
Strengths/Weaknesses
• State centric approach
– Pros: Can better explain incentives of political leaders.
– Cons: State weakness is insufficient for explaining violence. Many weak states never experience civil conflict.