Abstract
ABSTRACTEthnofederalism has been contested as a solution for diverse societies as seen recently in Nepal (where federalism has been accepted, but the design and number of units remains heavily contested) and Myanmar (where ethnic minority demands for increasing federalization have had to take a back seat to the demands for increasing democracy). It remains a heavily contested subject in Sri Lanka. Concerns are expressed that ethnofederalism will increase pressures for secession and/or lead to increased violence through increasing a sense of separateness of the people living within that territory, providing resources for political entrepreneurs to mobilize groups against the center and will lead to the persecution of minorities within the ethnofederal units. India is an example of a federation that appears to demonstrate that ethnofederalism decreases rather than increases conflict through its successful reorganization of states along linguistic lines. However, a group-level analysis reveals a more diverse picture. India has simultaneously been both a success and a failure at conflict management.
Highlights
Ethnofederalism has been contested as a solution for diverse societies as seen recently in Nepal and Myanmar
India is the world’s largest multinational federation. It contains a large number of sizeable religious, linguistic, caste and tribal groups, plus many regional divisions
Most other decolonizing states saw the politics of territorial recognition as divisive and as a threat to their territorial integrity (e.g. Pakistan and Ceylon)
Summary
Ethnofederalism has been contested as a solution for diverse societies as seen recently in Nepal (where federalism has been accepted, but the design and number of units remains heavily contested) and Myanmar (where ethnic minority demands for increasing federalization have had to take a back seat to the demands for increasing democracy). In states with multiple territorially concentrated groups, many politicians have either rejected the federal arrangement, as happened in Afghanistan in 2004, or have sought to deliberately cross cut group boundaries with internal governing institutions in what Liam Anderson terms “antiethnic” federalism.vii In the case of Iraq a mixed solution was adopted, with the Kurds subdivided between three governorates, with important areas such as Kirkuk left outside the control of the Kurdish Regional Government Despite these concerns, over half of the federations existing today intentionally associate “at least one constituent territorial governance unit [ ...] with a specific ethnic category.”viii This is Henry Hale’s definition of an ethnofederation, which we adopt. Name of state 1 Argentina 2 Australia 3 Austria 4 Belgium 5 Bosnia-Herzegovina 6 Brazil 7 Canada 8 Comoros 9 Ethiopia Germany India Iraq (in transition) Malaysia Mexico Micronesia Nepal Nigeria Pakistan Russia St Kitts and Nevis South Africa Spain Sudan Switzerland UAE USA Venezuela
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
