３.
Generate new questions and assertions
Where would you place the United States in terms of scope and strength?
Has this changed over the past few decades? If so, why and how?
3 NATIONS AND SOCIETY
Indian police march at celebrations for India’s newest federal state, Telangana, which was created in
2014. The establishment of a new state is one example of how countries manage diverse cultural
identities.
How do people organize themselves into political
communities?
I
n the previous chapter we addressed the question of why Pakistan has been
unable to institutionalize democracy and has slid toward state failure. In that
discussion, we made some comparisons with India because the two states were
part of a single country under British rule until 1947. Both countries faced similar
challenges, including poverty, ethnic diversity, a weak state, and linguistic and
regional differences. In fact, in a number of these areas it can be argued that India
was at a greater disadvantage.
On independence, India was forced to contend with several major religious
divisions, including those between Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs; at least
10 major languages; hundreds, if not thousands, of caste divisions (hereditary
classes); and the sheer size of the country, the seventh largest in the world
geographically and the second largest in population (then and now). In the course
of partition, approximately 15 million people moved between India and Pakistan, a
situation that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths from ethnic and religious
violence.
Following partition, India continued to face internal threats to its stability and
sovereignty. For example, jurisdiction of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir was
contested by Pakistan because of the state’s overwhelmingly Muslim population.
Many Indian Kashmiris have continued to seek greater autonomy within India,
unification with Pakistan, or outright independence. Adherents of the Sikh religion
(established in India in the fifteenth century) similarly agitated for greater rights and
complained of discrimination in the Hindu-majority country. This revolt eventually
culminated in a separatist movement for an independent Sikh state and a violent
conflict between government forces and Sikh separatists in the 1980s. After that
uprising was crushed, India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her
own Sikh bodyguards. Although Sikh separatism has abated, violent conflict, both
backed by and directed toward the Muslim community, has increased. In the past
two decades, riots and acts of terrorism have left several thousand dead. Hindu
nationalism has also increased, led by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which
has been associated with anti-Muslim violence.
Yet in spite of these difficulties, India not only has been able to stay intact, it has
been willing and able to devolve power to an ever greater number of federal states,
often along ethnic lines. In 1956 India had only 14 full-fledged states; as of 2019, it
had 29, having added the newest, Telangana, in 2014. Why has India experienced
so much devolution, and to what effect?
Instead of founding India on a strong, unified national identity, on
independence the country’s leaders attempted to accommodate as many religious,
ethnic, and cultural differences as possible. Indian identity in the new constitution
was built around citizenship rather than ethnicity. English, alongside Hindi, was
established as a national language of government, allowing for greater integration
while not giving any single Indian language political dominance. Religious holidays
for all major groups were officially recognized. To meet local demands, a system of
asymmetric federalism (see Chapter 2) devolved power differently across states.
Finally, central executive and legislative institutions were set up in a manner that
decreased the chance that any one group could come to dominate. As a result,
some scholars have concluded that India has managed to encourage multiple and
complementary identities that have strengthened, not weakened, democracy. Rather
than a nation-state, India can be seen as a statenation, in which multiple nations are
given varying degrees of autonomy under one central state.1 This structure is quite
the opposite of Pakistan, where the state has not succeeded in effectively drawing
diverse groups into a functioning political system. These explanations are valuable
in solving the puzzle of India’s national and democratic success but also raise
questions as to how states might craft institutions to prevent or resolve ethnic and
national conflict.
However, we should not conclude that India’s solution is perfect. As we noted,
regional, ethnic, and national conflicts continue in India, and it can be argued that
religious conflict in particular between Hindus and Muslims has intensified over
time. Hindu nationalists resent the fact that Hindu identity is not the core national
identity, and many Muslims feel disenfranchised from Indian democracy because of
this growing Hindu nationalism and Muslims’ continuing exclusion from economic
and political power. In 2019 the Indian government in fact eliminated certain
autonomous powers that Kashmir had enjoyed since the 1950s, leading to
widespread protests and violence.
Finally, the ongoing devolution of power acts as a significant check on central
state power. Though we might assume automatically that this is a positive
component of democracy, it also can create barriers to implementing national
policies, a task at which India falls short. Until recently, India contended with a
variety of tariffs between states, requiring border checkpoints that undercut
productivity and trade. What is the proper balance between devolution, autonomy,
and capacity? In a country with major ambitions and significant deficiencies, this is
no small concern. We will return to this issue at the end of the chapter in the
“Institutions in Action” section when we look at the case of federalism in Nepal.
■Understand different types of identities and their social and political effects.
■Summarize the history and causes of ethnic and national conflict.
■Compare and contrast political ideologies and attitudes.
Ethnic Identity
IN FOCUS
Ethnic Identity Is . . .
■ A set of specific attributes and societal institutions that makes one group of people culturally different
from others.
■ Often based on customs, language, religion, or other factors.
■ Ascriptive, generally assigned at birth.
■ Not inherently political.
National Identity
IN FOCUS
National Identity Is . . .
■ A sense of belonging to a nation (a group that desires self-government through an independent state)
and a belief in its political aspirations.
■ Often (but not always) derived from ethnic identity.
■ Inherently political.
■ The basis for nationalism: pride in one’s people and the belief that they have a unique political destiny.
Citizenship and Patriotism
IN FOCUS
Citizenship Is . . .
■ An individual’s relation to the state; citizens swear allegiance to the state, and the state in turn provides
certain benefits or rights.
■ Purely political and thus more easily changed than ethnic identity or national identity.
■ The basis for patriotism: pride in one’s state and citizenship.
Ethnic Identity, National Identity, and Citizenship:
Origins and Persistence
Ethnic and National Conflict
IN FOCUS
Views of Ethnic and National Conflict
■ Societal explanations emphasize such issues as ethnic heterogeneity.
■ Economic explanations emphasize poverty and the struggle for natural or other resources.
■ Political explanations emphasize state capacity or autonomy and the type of regime.
FIGURE 3.1
Ethnolinguistic Diversity in Africa
Political Attitudes and Political Ideology
Political Attitudes
IN FOCUS
Political Attitudes Are . . .
■ Concerned with the speed and methods of political change.
■ Generally classified as radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary.
■ Particularistic: relative to the specific context of a given country. “Radical” in one country may be
“conservative” in another.
■ Distinct from political ideologies.
FIGURE 3.2
Two Views of Political Attitudes
Political Ideology
IN FOCUS
Political Ideologies Are . . .
■ Sets of political values regarding the fundamental goals of politics.
■ Exemplified by five dominant modern ideologies: liberalism, communism, social democracy, fascism,
and anarchism.
■ Universalistic: not specific to one country or time.
■ Distinct from political attitudes.
IN FOCUS
Different Meanings of the Term Liberalism
■ As a political attitude: favoring slow, evolutionary change.
■ As a political ideology outside North America: favoring free markets and individualism, accepting
greater inequality.
■ As a political ideology in North America: favoring a greater state role in limiting inequality; many outside
the region would call this ideology “social democracy.”
■ As a political-economic system: favoring a limited state role in the economy.
FIGURE 3.3
Political Ideologies: Balancing Freedom and Equality
Liberals and anarchists favor decentralized power and weaker (or nonexistent) states as well as high levels of
individual freedom; communists and fascists favor the concentration of state power at the expense of individual
freedom; social democrats prefer a balance between state power and individual freedom.
IN FOCUS
Ideology and Political Attitudes
CORRESPONDING
POLITICAL
ATTITUDE IN
IDEOLOGY TENETS NORTH AMERICA
LIBERALISM Favors a limited state role in society and economic activity; Conservative
emphasizes a high degree of personal freedom over social
equality.
COMMUNISM Emphasizes limited personal freedom and a strong state in Radical
order to achieve social equality; property is wholly owned by
the state and market forces are eliminated; state takes on task of
production and other economic decisions.
SOCIAL Supports private property and markets but believes the state has Liberal
DEMOCRACY a strong role to play in regulating the economy and providing
benefits to the public; seeks to balance freedom and equality.
FASCISM Stresses a low degree of both personal freedom and equality in Reactionary
order to achieve a powerful state.
ANARCHISM Stresses the elimination of the state and private property as the Radical
only way to achieve both a high degree of personal freedom
and social equality for all.
Religion, Fundamentalism, and the Crisis of Identity
Political Culture
IN FOCUS
Political Culture Is . . .
■ The basic norms for political activity in a society.
■ A determining factor in what ideologies will dominate a country’s political regime.
■ Unique to a given country or group.
■ Distinct from political attitudes and ideologies.
FIGURE 3.4
Inglehart Values Map
In Sum: Society and Politics
INSTITUTIONS IN ACTION
Has Nepal’s New Constitution Ended Civil
War?
Our chapter has noted the persistence of ethnic and national conflict across the globe and how these can
overlap with ideological or theocratic values. For example, at the start of the chapter we spoke of India. In
spite of its robust democratic institutions and practices, it has faced a rise in a reactionary Hindu
fundamentalism that views India as a Hindu, rather than secular, state. This has increased tensions between
different ethnic and religious groups and challenged the country’s political culture of statenations. Some
worry that Indian democracy may be eroding.
At the same time, however, one of India’s neighbors—Nepal—has moved in a somewhat different
direction. A country known largely by outsiders for Mount Everest, in recent years Nepal has made a
dramatic transition from monarchical rule to democracy, and from centralization to federalism. Yet the path
has been bloody and it is by no means certain that recent changes have put an end to ethnic conflict.
Nepal is exceptionally diverse. No one ethnic group makes up more than 20 percent of the population;
over 100 languages are spoken, and less than half the population speaks Nepali as their mother tongue.
While 80 percent are Hindu, there are significant Buddhist and Muslim communities as well. The country
also has a strong caste system, that is, hereditary social classes that have their origins in Hinduism. In many
ways, then, the country resembles India. Yet a major difference is that, as opposed to India’s history of
British colonial rule, from 1769 until 2008 Nepal retained an independent monarchical regime. During most
of that time Nepal was largely closed off from the outside world. Economic and political power was
monopolized by upper caste elites within the royal court, and discussions of ethnic difference or inequality
were suppressed. Attempts at democratization were unsuccessful until 1990, when, in the face of mass
protests, the king accepted a new constitution with multiparty democratic elections and limitations on his
power.
During the following period of constitutional reforms and democratic elections, various ethnic, religious,
and ideological conflicts came to the fore. For example, a number of minority ethnic groups began to
organize, challenging the existing notions of what made up Nepali identity—in essence, who was a “true”
Nepali. However, one of the greatest rifts that emerged was within the Hindu majority itself. The Madhesi, a
marginalized Hindu population in the lowlands, began to adopt arguments that they were a separate ethnic
group relative to upper caste Hindu elites who had traditionally monopolized power. And yet even as ethnic
identity sharpened, it remained illegal to form parties based on religion, ethnicity, region, or caste. The
proliferation of politicized identities, fueled by the sense that democratic change had not led to a more just
redistribution of power, contributed to government instability.
Civil war eventually did come in 1996, though on the surface it did not appear to be a manifestation of
these ethnic, national, or religious divisions. Rather, it began when a faction of radical communists launched
an uprising against the government, modeling themselves after Mao Zedong’s struggle to power in China.
Why did ideology, rather than ethnicity, become the engine of conflict in Nepal? While poverty was
certainly a major factor in mobilizing support, many who joined the communist insurgency were motivated
by group differences, supporting the communists’ desire to end the political domination of upper caste
Hindus. Over the course of the next decade over 15,000 individuals would die in the conflict. Peace talks,
the abolition of the monarchy, and elections helped eventually bring an end to the Maoist insurgency.
A peace agreement and the creation of a republican regime was a dramatic transformation of Nepali
political institutions. But a major sticking point remained: How should power be distributed in such a diverse
country, where political divisions had only intensified over time? After years of negotiation, in 2015 Nepal
passed a new constitution that enshrined federalism—though not, as in India, in an asymmetric form. Seven
new provinces were created, each with its own legislature, and local elections were held in 2017.
Importantly, the new federal provinces and lower municipalities were not drawn on the basis of a dominant
identity (as many Madhesis demanded), for fear that this could exacerbate conflict by increasing divisions
between groups. Indeed, violent protests broke out among Madhesis in 2015 and 2017 over their perceived
marginalization in the new system. As of late 2019 four of the seven provinces still lacked names, in part
because of the tension inherent in any particular choice that might reflect the preference of one identity over
another. Would borders drawn more clearly around specific identities have helped create a more inclusive
regime, or would they have further exacerbated existing tensions and weakened the state? When is
federalism a solution to conflict—and when does it worsen it?
A Nepali woman in Birguni Parsa district examines the ballot before casting her vote in the third
phase of the 2017 Nepalese local elections—the first local elections held in Nepal in almost 20
years.
１. How do India and Nepal’s political institutions differ? How effective are
these institutions in accommodating each country’s profound ethnic
diversity?
２. What is an example of ethnic conflict in Nepal? How has the proliferation
of politicized identities contributed to government instability?
３. How do the Madhesi’s violent protests demonstrate why Nepal’s
implementation of federalism was not successful, while India’s
implementation of federalism was successful?
Earn a better grade on your test. InQuizitive personalizes your learning path
to help you master the concepts from this chapter and practice applying them to
examples from the text and beyond.
Can Federalism Solve Ethnic Conflict?
In this and the previous chapter we have discussed different identities that may make claims to political power,
and also the way in which that power can be centralized or decentralized within a state. Often ethnic groups
will over time develop a national identity within an existing state, such as the Basque and Catalan peoples in
Spain. This national identity will carry within it notions of sovereignty—the desire to create a state for their own
people, under their own rule. Such demands for independence inevitably clash with the goals of the existing
sovereign state, and the result is often violent conflict, even civil war. With this knowledge in mind, some
countries have attempted to reconcile this problem with devolution, creating a federal system where different
groups have significant power in their own regions.
But does devolution work? Look at the data in the table below. We have noted India as a success story, and
Canada can be viewed as one as well. However, there are counterexamples. For example, Ethiopia’s 1994
federal constitution appears to have mobilized, rather than placated, various ethnic groups, with smaller ones
agitating for more rights while the largest have battled for control over the central government. Scholars are so
divided on whether devolution mitigates or exacerbates ethnic conflict and secession that they commonly speak
of “the paradox of federalism.”
MAJOR EXAMPLES OF MAJOR EXAMPLES OF
FEDERALISM THAT FEDERALISM THAT DID
ENDED IN SECESSION
NOT END IN SECESSION
Rather than relying on individual cases, a consistent review of devolution might give us a better scholarly
understanding and even guide policy makers considering such institutional change. One important observation
takes us back to our discussion in Chapter 1 of independent and dependent variables. If, for example, we
simply look at unitary states, there are few examples of secession since 1945, suggesting that this is the better
option for political stability. However, if we widen our focus, scholars note a large number of cases where
unitary states adopted federal institutions in order to prevent secession, often after a period of ethnic or national
conflict. In those situations, the vast majority subsequently avoided secession. Federalism may often be the last
resort to avoid or end conflict, but as a last resort its track record is relatively good.a
One subject our discussion has not addressed is exactly what elements of federalism may be critical to
stability. All three of the failed cases in the table were preceded by a long history of communist
authoritarianism; was ideology, or regime type, a factor in their dissolution? What important differences might
there be among forms of federalism that could contribute to its success—or failure?
１. Consider the implications of variables on political institutions
What would be the strongest arguments for how federal or unitary states
could limit or exacerbate ethnic and national conflict?
２. Evaluate contending hypotheses
Which of the arguments in Question 1 do you find the most convincing?
Explain why.
３. Generate new hypotheses related to the discussion
Imagine that you were tasked with creating a new federal system in a
country with several ethnic groups with varying degrees of national
identity. What kinds of power would you devolve? What is your reasoning
for why those powers would help reduce conflict?
4 POLITICAL ECONOMY
