Ethnicity_Reflection Memo

In this class memo I will be focusing on the ethnicity and ethnic problems in connection to the colonization and decolonization while trying to summarize main points and arguments from the class and also introduce some other ideas from my point of view. I would like to also mention how particular issues related to ethnicity and ethnic problems can be possibly overcome.

More than half of all African countries have experienced at least a year of armed conflict which usually tends to last many years before peace is restored. And almost all of them have some ethno-regional character what makes them even more complex and widely not understood. The one of the reasons is maybe the fact that those conflicts are in generally labeled as “ethnic conflict” without no clear explanation how is “ethnicity” perceived and what actually makes the conflict ethnic and not for instance conflict between rich class and poor class.

As a result, ethnicity is often connected to negative connotations as a catalyst for long-lasting and destructive conflict. There is also a popular opinion that it is something socially constructed, invented or created – just an illusion created by human imagination. Of course, it can be true to some measure but they are also decidedly real. Even before colonialism which is often blamed for ethnic conflicts, some parts of Africa had what may be described as ethnic polities – political societies with governmental institutions in a local space where territoriality and ethnic identity roughly coincided. Ethnic groups are actual people that are united in consciousness of their common identity even though it has not to be as coherent as we imagine it from European perspective.

Colonialism cannot be blamed for ethnic problems. This can sound as a simplified apology and justification of states that were involved in the colonial activities. However, colonialism was a critical moment and an early source of political ethnicity. All colonial administration relied to some degree on indigenous structures what to a great extent altered power relations within traditional power structures. Furthermore, it also induced intense political competition among ethnic groups. It was for the first time when African people where subjected to some artificially created political units and territories so it had to bring some further implications for African continent. Those boundaries were drawn with little or no consideration to the actual distribution of indigenous ethno-cultural groups. European powers undermined long-standing patterns of social organization and authority and they distributed “benefits” unevenly across ethnic groups. It led to the situation where some elite was able to capture control of the state and assert its hegemony within the post-colonial state while other subordinate groups were less able to develop either the political leaders or the organizational capacity to mobilize their members for any kind of collective action.

As it was mentioned in the class, this systematic division can be called thick and thin ethnicity where thick ethnicity is comprehensive one that organizes a great deal of social life and thins ethnicity represents less comprehensive group that organizes little of social life and action. This kind of division cannot really function from the long-term point of view. Societies and ethnic groups are dynamic units that are constantly developing and changing what can eventually lead to the undesirable clashes of thick and thins ethnicities. 

The second critical moment came with decolonization in the post-colonial era. For the most part, the nationalist leaders who came to power in Africa inherited the colonial state instead of transforming it in accordance with the democratic aspirations of the nationalist movement. Eventually, the post-colonial state became more violently repressive what just accentuated political ethnicity as the image of a hostile and threatening state. After this it could seem that ethnic groups just became purely interest groups while competing with each other.

But ethnicity itself does not generate conflict and is not threatening in its nature. During the lecture, an interesting argument was introduced and thus that ethnicity is being used in order to manipulate some group of people so they can serve to some selfish political purposes. In this case, are not ethnic problems only problems of a particular political dynamics which just happens to be pinned on ethnicity?

“Ethnic rhetoric” works mostly for politicians who wants to survive or to conceal exploitative practices by building solidarities across class lines and many ordinary people therefore give their loyalty to the local community or the ethnic group for very good reasons. So the conflicts where are the ethnic groups just misused should not be identified as “ethnic conflicts” as they are usually deeply rooted in political aspirations of some individuals.

So how can be overcome ethnic conflicts and negative connotations that are related to the ethnicity? Firstly, it is necessary to stress out that ethnicity has been a major element of political pluralism in Africa and it should be perceived as the best defense against the totalizing tendencies of the post-colonial state. Of course, the mixture of ethnic groups can live peacefully only when it is well-governed. For instance, in Nigeria a competition among ethnic groups contributed to human rights and democracy. Another point that could help to overcome all those problems is economic development that put an emphasis on political harmony and cooperation among the ethnic groups. On the other hand, it cannot be applied to every case as some scholars suggest. Economic development can very easily lead to the economic growth that won’t be equally distributed and therefore will cause problems and misunderstanding in the society.

However, I think that some changes should be done in the discourse about ethnic conflict itself. Sometimes labeling and simplifying those conflicts can cause the same damage as the direct violence. Ethnicity itself is not a security threat to a country but the particular circumstances, poverty and other factors are. Weak and failing state structures are the elements that make ethnic groups violent and angry. The question is then what is the way of transforming such a state without causing wide ethnic clashes among the population?