Peleg, I. (2007) ‘Classifying Multinational States’

Peleg, I. (2007) ‘Classifying Multinational States’, in I. Peleg, Democratizing the Hegemonic State, Cambridge, CUP, 78-104.

• How does a hegemonic state (‘HS’) transform into a more inclusive polity?
• Classificatory system with both static and dynamic components, that helps studying HSs’ potential for transformation and focuses on five modes of reaction adopted by states in deeply divided societies.
• Classification

• Key issues:
  1. Units being classified: societies that are deeply divided ethnically – at least two distinct groups (subjective self-identification based on enduring social constructs desired by the group or imposed by others) living within the same political space. Key question: Does the system allow dual identities? Accomodationist states vs. ethnohegemonies.
  2. Logic of classification: broad – deals with both democratic and non-democratic systems; each type of regime identified is both logically possible and empirically identifiable;
  3. Importance of classification: concerned primarily with transformation of hegemonic regimes into accommodationist systems;
  4. Useful classificatory system: analyses politics in deeply divided societies; however, it is oversimplified, accepts that states can adopt a mixture of policies, it is not exhaustive, and regimes can be found in combination.
• Functions of the classificatory system:
  1. Highlight differences between political regimes in deeply divided societies;
  2. Describe differences;
  3. Explain differences;
  4. Offer some prescriptions regarding possible transformation of hegemonic regimes into more accommodationist ones.
• Three key conditions:
  1. Empirical
  2. Broad
  3. Explicit
• Accomodationist (state-centric: recognizes its own diversity by balancing interests of various ethnic groups) vs. exclusivist (ethno-centric: enhances and perpetuates dominance of one group over the others) multinational state:  what conditions allow the transformation of the latter into the former?
• States can pursue a mixture of both approaches at the same time towards various ethnic groups.
• Once accomodationism takes over as a characteristic of the state, its identification with only one ethnic group weakens and it becomes committed to either neutrality or reconciliation.
• Exclusivist regimes institutionalize the dominance of one ethnic group over all others; the ‘nation’ is more central that the state, which is merely an institutional tool of the former, whose form or design may be transformed.
• Two types of hegemonic exclusivist regimes:
  1. Majority-based: majority rules over a minority (ethnoocracy: Smooha); relatively informal discrimination against minority groups, especially in democracies; semi-consociational arrangements can emerge over time; can even move towards forms of liberal democracy: transformation from exclusivism to accomodationism is difficult (problem of ‘ethnic overbidding’ 88), but possible.
  2. Minority-based: minority rules over a majority; formal, official, explicit, public discrimination against both minority groups and individuals belonging to them; incompatible with any form of pluralism, based on brute force.
• Democratization breeds opposition to ethnic exclusivity.
• Hegemonic exclusivism can survive in the short- to medium-term, but is likely to be overthrown in the long run because it breeds radical resistance.
• Two types of accommodationist regimes:
  1. Individuals-rights based: all citizens are equal before the law; state is neutral towards social groups; unfriendly towards any notion of group rights: privatization of ethnicity; attempts to foster an overarching civic identity – clear preference for integration.
  2. Group-rights based: power-sharing and power-division variants; fully developed liberal democracies can afford recognition of some group rights.
• “[A]lthough individual-based democracy is altogether a very attractive regime, it often does not respond to the needs of all ethnic groups within a deeply divided society” (92).
• Very problematic to move from individual to group rights regimes: difficult to define authoritatively which groups are entitled to what rights.
• Individual and group rights can overlap: ex – affirmative action.
• Two types of individual-based regimes:
  1. Liberal democracies: favor decentralisation – USA, UK.
  2. Jacobin democracies: promote cultural centralism – France, Turkey; one dominant state-building ethnic group thinking of itself as ‘the nation’; have adapted over time because assimilationism is increasingly illegitimate:
     1. Extensive welfare states not unrelated to ethnic stratification;
     2. Ethnic associations benefit from governmental financial assistance;
     3. Regional languages experiencing a rebirth in education systems.
• “[I]n deeply divided societies the principles of liberal democracy, based on individual rights, while important and even crucial, are insufficient for creating a stable and just polity” (95): need to be complemented by group rights, based on principle of ‘diversification’.
• Different types of group-rights regimes:
  1. Centralised power-sharing vs. decentralised power-division regimes: both serve as modes for establishing stable interethnic regimes;
  2. Within power-sharing regimes (trust and cooperation), difference between consociational and bi- or multinational regimes (higher order of power-sharing; very rare): grand coalitions where elite groups make common decisions based on relatively even distribution of powers;
  3. Within power-division regimes (agree to avoid each other), three approaches: autonomy (both separate and shared power areas, both Territorial and non-territorial -personal, cultural-  autonomy), federalism (mononational and multinational; symmetrical vs. asymmetrical), cantonization (ethnic and territorial power division to minimize ethnic conflict and maximize state cogerence): clear distribution of powers; dominant nation grants limited powers to weaker ethnicities. Hegemonic states can be transformed into accommodationist ones via various types of federalism (ex: asymmetrical), but can also lead to separatism movements and secession attempts (biethnic federations are especially fragile). Emergence of supranational bodies (ex: EU) allows for development of more creative power-sharing schemes in the future (100).    
  4. Some believe that, in deeply divided societies, consociationalism is the only game in town; but it has very mixed track record and clear limits (outbidding: Northern Ireland).
• How do hegemonic regimes transform themselves into either individual-based  or group-based accomodationism through dynamic processes of change (direction, intensity, internal/external) ?
• Seven types of potential transformation in multi-national states:
  1. Status quo;
  2. Moderate democratization;
  3. Radical (‘mega-constitutional’) democratization;
  4. Moderate (‘benign’) ethnicization;
  5. Radical (‘malignant’) ethnicization;
  6. Peaceful separation;
  7. Forced partition.