Ethnicity_Reading Memo

In my memo, I firstly summarize all four required readings which were dealing with issue of ethnicity and identity politics in particular African states or generally in whole Africa. I will provide thoughts and insights of these authors as well as their opinions. I will be focused mainly on the ones I considered as indeed important and interesting. I will also provide my own proper views and questions.

The first article by E. Osaghae and R. Suberu: A History of Identities, Violence, and Stability in Nigeria was dealing with case study of Nigeria. Authors started their article by describing Nigeria as „deeply divided state“ (Osaghae, Suberu, 2005, 4) and de facto one of the most divided in Africa which was struggling with state cohesion, legitimacy, stability and democratization for years. However, they already at the beginning highlighted that „diversity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for conflict.“ (Osaghae, Suberu, 2005, 5) In my opinion, this is very essential idea and they emphasized it various times. Authors also provided the comparison of the most diverse countries which are stable as Switzerland, Belgium, Malaysia with the least diverse that are indeed violent such as Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi. Based on this, they posed important questions. They tried to found out what are the major identities and how they could become politically salient and what are the Nigerian conflicts and how they are managed.

Thus, authors were firstly focused on concept of identity and examined its diversity in case of Nigeria. They described various concepts which try to understand and explain this concept and they concluded that identities are constructed, not pure but inter-connected and mutually influencing and depend on situation. They could be also firstly dormant and then active (for example, gender). And also neutral or politicized. The three main ethno-regional identities are Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo. Then there are also ethno-religious identities, Muslims mainly in North and Christians in South. Other important distinction is between „indigenes“ and „migrants“ or „settles“. Authors mentionned also new identities such as class, gender, youth. However, the strongest and most important identity for Nigerians tend to be ethnicity. Authors were dealing separately with all these various identities and I indeed like how they showed that there are many other sub-identities and also intra-group struggles. On the notion of new identities, they revealed how identities are fluid and still constructed.

Then they explained how colonial time and legacy influenced ethnicity, violence and stability in Nigeria. Mainly British strategy of divide and rule as well as strategy of distinction between privileged and marginalised groups. British also influenced regionalism when they divided Nigeria into three regions. This led to various conflicts which were mismanaged. I indeed liked the structure of the text and the way how authors were explaining particular phenomena and issues to make the distinction clear.

I think that the second article by S. Hutchinson: A Curse from God? Religious and political dimensions of the post-1991 rise of ethnic violence in South Sudan could be summarized by the first sentence of its introduction : „A political movement´s strenght is limited by the clarity of its objectives.“ (Hutchinson, 2001, 307) because the cause of the violence and fighting in South Sudan was split of the Sudan People´s Liberation Army (SPLA) into two faction in 1991. This led to inter and intra-ethnic fighting. SPLA was divided under the rule of two men – Dr John Garang, a Bor Dinka and Dr Riek Machar, a Nuer. Author described how SPLA emerged and then split and what were consequences. He classified it into four stages which made his analyses well understandable.

I indeed liked how he also explained the perception and views of ordinary people. The notion of „lightning victims“ as a special category of spirit was really interesting for me. However, this perception was later disrupted by Machar which distinguished „government wars“ and „homeland wars“ and de facto prohibited these  traditional habits of people connected with death. In case of South Sudan, author revealed that the cause of violent ethnic conflict was not ancient tribal hatreds or disputes but just two men, two leaders who made people fighting each other. According to various quotes of ordinary people that author provided, also Sudanese people viewed the conflict as not theirs. This desperate situation was strenghtened also by fatalistic attitude of people which started to understand war as God´s punishment. And I think this is the most tragical fact.

The third article by Lemarchand: Genocide in the Great Lakes: Which Genocide? Whose Genocide? was really interesting and special for me. It was focused on case of Hutu and Tutsi and the most important question posed by author was who were real genocidaires and who were real victims of genocide. I read about Rwanda and its infamous genocide various times and it seemed to me that it is quite clear and obvious who are victims. I have never come across similar article who tried to analyse the whole conflict between Hutu and Tutsi deeper and go into history before the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Author described the important events which de facto led to genocide in 1994. He mainly highlighted importance of so called forgotten first genocide which occured in 1972 in Burundi when Tutsi started mass killings and violence against Hutu. This partly explained attitudes and behaviour of Hutu in Rwanda. Killings were repeated after assasination of Ndadaye which was seen by Hutu as recall of 1972 events and they started to persecute Tutsi. However, then there was brutal repression of Hutu by Tutsi army. Vast numbers of people had to leave and seek refuge. And many of them just in Rwanda. Author was then dealing with issue of how to heal and reconcile the society, how to overcome violence and myths. I indeed liked this article because it showed how myths could be created and how important events and facts could be easily forgotten.

The last article by E. Osaghae: Ethinicity and the State in Africa is dealing with issue of ethnicity and identity in general terms. He posed important questions whether the multiethnicity means instability of state and whether federalism is only possible solution for such state. Author also distinguished different concepts – ethnic group, tribe, nation which tend to be applied in wrong way. Then he focused on the question of state building and ethnicity and why is ethnicity so important for African states´ organization. He stated three reasons: competition between needs and demands of state and the ones of ethnic group; use of ethnic principle in process of postcolonial state construction and similarities of mismanagement of ethnic question between colonial and post-colonial state. Author explained that ethnic conflicts have their roots in colonial times and were caused mainly by colonial policy which divided society between privileged and marginalised groups. Then he examined the mismanagement of ethnic question which is according to his opinions caused by purely elite management which is not sufficient. Author also dealt with the issue of state reconstruction and the role that ethnicity could play in this process.

All of these articles provided interesting insights into the issue of ethnicity. All of them were dealing with colonialism as source of ethnic conflicts. I thus agree that ethnicity is in many cases socially constructed concept. I would like to ask whether society can overcome ethnic divisions between groups or is ethnicity today essential and stable part of people´s identity. How should multiethnic states deal with this issue? Is federalism and power-sharing the only option? I think that examples of Switzerland and similar states are not suitable for African countries because their history, development and current situation are indeed different and special. I think that we should be focused rather on issues such as poverty and underdevelopment which could lead to transformationa and maybe also reconciliation of diverse parts of society. These are the real causes of conflicts and I think that ethnicity is simply misused.