Does Diversity Hurt Democracy?
نویسندگان
چکیده
While reporting recently on his organization’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties around the world, Freedom House president Adrian Karatnycky repeated the claim—heard often in academic and public discourse alike—that ethnic diversity hinders open politics. Reviewing the findings of the 2001 survey, he concluded that “democracy has been significantly more successful in monoethnic societies than in ethnically divided and multiethnic societies.” In saying this, Karatnycky was hardly being provocative or counterintuitive. A number of eminent political scientists have seen diverse societies as disadvantaged when it comes to democratization. According to many observers, ethnic differences divide society and make compromise and consensus difficult. Heterogeneity poses the risk of intercommunal violence, which can quickly undermine open politics. What is more, political parties and other organizations coalesce more readily around ethnic than other identities. Political entrepreneurs therefore have an incentive to play on such divisions and to neglect efforts to mobilize citizens around civil rights and class concerns. And in a particularly ironic twist, well-meant efforts to defuse ethnic conflict can take the form of elite bargains, made amid political openings, that later block further democratization. Empirical evidence seems abundant. Writing in the wake of the Soviet demise, Donald L. Horowitz observed: “Democracy has progressed furthest in those East European countries that have the fewest serious ethnic cleavages (Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland) and progressed more slowly or not at all in those that are deeply divided M. Steven Fish is associate professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a coauthor of Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy (2001). Robin S. Brooks is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. She is writing her dissertation on ethnic identity and political change in southeastern Europe.
منابع مشابه
Intrinsic Distinction of Religious and non-Religious Democracies with an Emphasis on Experiences of Democracy in Islamic Iran and West
Unlike common impressions, religious democracy does not share a common meaning with non-religious (western) democracy due to the fact that the essence of religious democracy seeks unity while non-religious democracies are based on plurality. An objective example of western democracy is built upon the principle of plurality. Therefore disputes and fights have been considered as a natural phenome...
متن کاملRe-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four 'positions'
There is currently a diversity of understandings of digital democracy being deployed within popular commentary, research, policy making, and practical initiative. However, there is a lack of resources clearly outlining this diversity; this article undertakes such an outline. It provides a reconstruction of four digital democracy positions. These four positions are referred to here as liberal-in...
متن کاملHow the twain do meet
Writing about democracy, Walt Whitman said, “It is a great word, whose history, I suppose, remains unwritten because that history has yet to be enacted.” The word “diversity”— or the term “cultural diversity”—also has a history in Virginia that has yet to be enacted or actualized in some meaningful way. Clearly, a relationship between these two pieces of unfinished business exists, a relationsh...
متن کاملEpistemic democracy in classical Athens : Sophistication , diversity , and innovation
Analysis of democracy in Athens as an “epistemic” (knowledge-based) form of political and social organization. Adapted from Ober, Democracy and Knowledge, chapters 1-4. Jon Elster (ed.), volume on “Collective Wisdom” (to be published in English and French). © Josiah Ober. [email protected]
متن کامل