Most ethnic movements seek political autonomy, not total national independence. Not every one of the 1000 or so ethnic entities can have a state of its own; the number of states in the international system is already too large, at 180.
However, if they are not aiming to separate from the states in which they live, most groups have certain demands. If they feel that their culture and beliefs are being suppressed, threatened, or devalued, they demand acceptance, recognition, or even protection from their state. If they feel economically disadvantaged or discriminated against, they want access similar to that of the dominant majority, either through a public subsidy or through protected opportunities to offset their initial disadvantage. If they feel that they are politically excluded, they want greater participation in political decision-making, from bottom to top. As a whole, they want equality of status and opportunity in all respects.
The ways in which governments deal with these demands can be classified under four headings: containment, assimilation, pluralism, and power-sharing. These four treatments form a scale from the most oppressive (barring outright genocide or ethnic cleansing) to the most enlightened, but each has certain drawbacks.
Containment means keeping minorities separate from the mainstream society – separate and unequal. This is the meaning of apartheid and Bantustans in South Africa until recently, of Indian reservations in North America, and of enforced ghettos for Jews in medieval Europe. It is often justified by religious doctrines (e.g. Bahais are persecuted as heretics in Iran, even though they actually have not made any demands for additional privileges), or by presumed racial superiority (i.e. in the white conquest of the Americas, or European colonialism in Africa and Asia), or by security interests (e.g. the Kurds and the Palestinians), or by “unfair” economic competition (the Chinese in Southeast Asia).
Sometimes containment is combined with benevolent paternalism, which makes it less harsh but still debilitating. An example is the treatment of religious minorities in the Ottoman empire, and the treatment of Australian aborigines.
In general, containment may mean any or all of the following: residential and social segregation, separate and unequal education, restricted access to higher education, restriction on religious practices, forced labour, restrictions on occupations and property and land ownership, prohibition of labour unions, and banning of political organizations.
Containment policies are no longer considered acceptable these days, though they are still practised in many places.
Assimilation gives minority individuals equal opportunities, but gives no special rights to groups. It is a highly individualistic approach along classical lines of liberalism. Ethnic groups are not supposed to continue as such, but are expected to merge into the “melting pot”, to abandon their old identity, language and culture.
This was the preferred strategy in North America for treating new immigrants until the early 1960s. There may have been subtle differences between the United States and Canada, the latter being somewhat less oriented toward the “melting pot” idea; but new immigrants were still expected to learn English as fast as possible and to function publicly in that language. Their children were expected to be entirely assimilated by the time they grew up. New immigrants usually accepted this strategy as a way toward individual and family social and economic advancement. They had relatively little interest in the cultural survival of their group as a distinct entity; after all, they had left home for a reason, and wanted to start a brand-new life.
This approach did eliminate discrimination, but led to a cultural uniformity and homogenization. This may be good if the aim is “national” (i.e. state) unity and territorial patriotism, but one may regret the levelling down of diversity, akin to merging all the vivid colours of the colour wheel to a uniform grey.
Under the assimilation process, residential segregation becomes class-based rather than based on voluntary ethnic “ghettoes”. As an immigrant family advances economically, usually through hard work, it moves in several stages to higher-class neighbourhoods. Sometimes this happens only with the second generation, but often much sooner.
In education, “remedial classes” are given to teach the dominant language. There are development funds, health and welfare programs, and job training for immigrants. Anti-discrimination laws protect the rights of individuals. Civil and political rights are guaranteed, but group rights are not recognized. There is selective recruitment (cooptation) of leaders into mainstream parties and public office. This unfortunately may deprive the ethnic groups of their natural leaders. Yet minority interest groups usually form, even if only for cultural rather than political purposes.
The next approach is pluralism, also called multiculturalism. This began to be practised in the 1960s and is the predominant approach today. More weight is now given to collective or group rights, though individual rights continue to exist. Different nationalities are now seen as “separate and equal”. This is not apartheid, because of the equality feature. The ideal is to have separate coexisting entities. Instead of a melting pot, the new metaphor is a salad, a blending of ingredients in which the lettuce and the onions and the celery are still recognized as such.
Separate identities for the ethnic groups are now actually encouraged, being considered enriching. We sing the praises of cultural diversity as being ecologically sound, as in biology. We taste each other’s foods, exchange recipes, hold festivals, enjoy dances and songs.
Under pluralism, cultural and religious diversity is protected and encouraged. Education and media are often in multiple languages, so that multilingualism accompanies multiculturalism. There are group social and economic entitlements, and group representation in public and private employment. Ethnic interest groups and political parties are organized, and gain representation in legislative assemblies and governing coalitions.
Pluralism benefits the ethnic groups and makes them flourish, but there are also drawbacks to the system. It may be divisive to state-national unity (e.g. in Canada it produces a lot of hyphenated Canadians with their ethnic name put first, at the expense of just plain Canadians). The special privileges, and especially the separatist tendencies that it may encourage, are apt to provoke a backlash by the dominant majority, and ethnic friction and tension may result.
The fourth and last approach is power-sharing. Here, state power is exercised jointly by two or more ethnic communities, each proportionally represented in government and each with veto power as well, at least on matters crucial to its own interests. If each ethnic group resides in separate territories, they may have a great deal of local autonomy. Even if this is not the case, there may be non-territorial arrangements for each to run its own show, e.g. as religious communities did in the Ottoman empire.
This whole arrangement has been called the consociational model, or consociational democracy (cf. Lijphart). It is the method of choice in states with a deep ethnic or religious cleavage. It is verging close to separation or at least mere confederation of the ethnic groups, but they do manage many affairs in common, more by consensus than by majority rule. But the initial constitutional arrangement may be quite difficult to negotiate.
This system is practised successfully in the Netherlands (between the main religious groups), in Belgium (between Flemish and Walloon language groups), and in Austria (again religious groups). It is being considered for the black and white inhabitants of South Africa, but that would probably be a mistake, as the system works best if there had been previous approximate equality between the constituent groups. It has been suggested that it would be inappropriate for Northern Ireland. It failed completely in Lebanon, where a long civil war developed between the communities, and likewise in Nigeria. One third-world country that has made it work – so far – is Malaysia. Zambia and Kenya are trying it too. In multicultural Switzerland, where there are 4 language groups, the solution was a federation, not consociationalism; this is certainly always an alternative.
Under power-sharing, there may be separate residential districts, separate schools and media, and separate universities and many other institutions. Economic activities and services may be organized communally. There may be group quotas in public and private employment. There are almost always separate political parties and interest groups. Participation in governing bodies is guaranteed constitutionally to each ethnic group. Along with communal veto power and territorial and functional autonomy, this means a guarantee of protection for the group rights of each ethnic community.
The choice of system must depend on the local situation at the time the choice is being made. No absolute preference scaling can be constructed. It is very much a matter of situational ethics. In particular, the preferences of each group must be respected. A problem may arise of course if different groups prefer different arrangements.
The above is a summary and interpretation of a paper presented at the International Peace Research Association Conference in Kyoto in Summer 1992.
I would like to append to this a scheme of “inter-cultural progression” in attitudes, described in Ecole et Paix, December 1992, p. 25.
1. Ethnocentrism. At this stage, a person is immersed in his or her own culture to the extent of not recognizing, or hardly noticing, other cultures.
2. Perception of differences. At this stage, the differences are noticed, but only with a sort of peripheral vision.
3. Understanding. After some inter-cultural contact and communication, one gets to understand what the other culture is all about and what makes it work for its participants.
4. Acceptance and respect. The value of the other culture is now acknowledged on a more or less equal basis as one’s own.
5. Appreciation and valuation. The other culture is to be protected, promoted and celebrated as an enriching example of human cultural diversity.
6. Selective adoption. Certain features of the other culture are incorporated in one’s own culture, in a mutual cross-fertilization.
7. This in turn may lead either to the assimilation of the two cultures to each other, i.e. a merger, either on an equal or an unequal basis; or to a less complete mutual adaptation and coexistence; or to biculturalism carried out in a parallel manner.
It is important to realize that there are multiple ways for resolving inter-ethnic conflict. At this time when large-scale inter-ethnic violence threatens in many places, and has already erupted in some, this knowledge of alternatives is of overriding importance.