Transformation of the Ethiopian Political Elite and the Armed Conflict in Tigray: from Driving Predecessors out to De-Escalation?

In the article the authors consider elite dimension of the conflict in Tigray. Conducting the analysis of intra-elite processes allows both to find out the roots and to estimate the consequences of the most fast-moving conflict in the Horn of Africa. The research consists of five conceptual parts, which are preluded by a short description of the run of events. In the first part the conflict potential which takes its roots in 1994-2018 is explained. It starts with the basic notion that ethnic lines predetermine formation of elites in Ethiopia. Then the study shows that one of the main causes for the dispute which has severely divided political elites was the hegemony of the TPLF in government institutions. The second part refers to the transit of power. Here the point under consideration is redistribution of resources and particular strategies adopted by polarized elites. The analysis demonstrates that Abiy Ahmed and his allies did their best to deprive the TPLF leaders of power and economic resources. The TPLF resorted to ethnic mobilization while their rivals tried to break the unity of Tigrayans through stressing the existence of a class conflict. The third and the fourth chapters focus on the investigation of federal elites’ and «tigrayan clan’s» current positions respectively. In conclusion, the authors structure their findings and estimate the perspectives of inter-elites consensus. The research provides three important conclusions. Firstly, the roots of the conflict led to the formation of «action-response» cycles which was the basis for a rapid development and escalation. Secondly, the ongoing war even consolidates ruling elites in their fear of the TPLF. Finally, de-escalation and negotiations may become possible amid internal disputes in the Prosperity Party.

Do Voters Respond to Cross-Ethnic Campaigning inDivided Societies?

In order to comply with electoral rules incentivizing cross-ethnic mobilization, candidates in divided societies often campaign in opponents’ strongholds among non-coethnics. In this paper, we show that such cross-ethnic campaign rallies may actually depress outgroup candidates’ support among non-coethnics. We argue that candidates’ holding of campaign rallies in non-coethnic constituencies can inadvertently trigger perceptions of intergroup competition, increase the salience of ethnicity, and depress support for non-coethnic candidates. We leverage a natural experiment that exploits the timing of an unscheduled campaign rally held by a presidential candidate in a non-coethnic county in his opponent’s stronghold during Kenya’s 2017 election. In comparing survey respondents before and after the rally, we find that the candidate’s post-rally favorability significantly decreased among non-coethnic voters, while the proportion of voters identifying in ethnic terms simultaneously increased. These findings have important implications for the efficacy of institutional design to promote cross-ethnic political mobilization in polarized societies.

Politicization of Ethnicity and Related Phenomena

In the article, the phenomenon of the politicization of ethnicity is analyzed, together with the related phenomena, i.e. ethnopolitical mobilization (including pan-ethnic mobilization and demobilization), ethnicization of politics and of other social fields for political ends. The author works within the framework of constructivist and ethnosymbolist approaches. The nature, dynamics and actor structure of the processes are considered, and an attempt is made to conceptualize them correctly. The author points at the interconnectedness of the phenomena in the terminological field of the political science as well as at the necessity to distinguish them and adapt ethnopolitical strategies to their variations. The politicization of ethnicity is defined as an attachment of political functions to the ethnic identity. Ethnopolitical mobilization is different in that it has a particular goal. Main factors stimulating ethnopolitical mobilization are: dissatisfaction of a group with different aspects of its status, political opportunities, material and non-material resources available, activities of ethnopolitical elites. Pan-ethnic mobilization employs the wider group identity involving not only actors’ own ethnic group but also other groups close to it within a linguacultural cluster. The ethnicization of politics is defined as the inclusion of ethnic components into the political process. Though both politics ethnicization and ethnicity politicization are typical of majority as well as minority groups, the ethnicization of politics is usually conducted “from above” employing memory archetypes and socially significant symbols. Other social identities, namely religion, sport affiliation, etc. are prone to be ethnicized for political goals, but this process has some important constraints. For instance, religion can be ethnicized if a territorially close ethnic group has other religious affiliation or is less devote; ethnicization of sport depends on a specific historical context. Especially the ethnicization of social discrepancies has a conflict potential and is to be prevented by relevant ethnopolitical management.

How Ethnic Mobilization Leads to Neighborhood Inclusion

This article compares various collective actions carried out by ethnic Chinese residents against violence in their communities, and the negotiations these residents initiated with local authorities on this issue, in two suburbs of Paris, Aubervilliers and La Courneuve. Although French national policy toward immigrant minorities has been guided by the principle of “color-blindness,” some municipalities in the Paris region have gradually recognized the increasing diversity of their populations, and have incorporated the vocabulary of multiculturalism in their local governance. Consequently, the municipalities’ different approaches to identifying and coping with violence against Chinese residents vary according to how they perceive the diversity of local residents, and according to inter-ethnic relations in those areas. We consider that the different degrees of recognition with regard to Chinese communities within the two municipalities have affected the consequences of the Chinese residents’ collective actions, and their sense of inclusion in the cities where they live. Beyond the appearance of inter-ethnic conflicts, our comparative study demonstrates the intersectional cause of violence against the Chinese population—especially with regard to the disparities, both social and spatial, among Chinese residents themselves.

Substate Nationalism

This chapter shows how formal recognition by the Soviet state of ethnolinguistic elites and cultures created opportunities for republican leaders to negotiate the problems of authoritarian control and authoritarian power sharing through ethnic mobilization. It looks at the early post-Stalin era that witnessed various campaigns to raise the political or cultural autonomy of national groups. The chapter describes the campaigns that rode on the coattails of the center's policy of reinvigorated indigenization and designed to promote ethnoterritorial elites and cultures. It talks about the litmus test of nationalism, in which an ethnoterritorial elite presented its interests as being opposed not only to those of other ethnoterritorial groups but also to those of the Soviet Union as a whole. It also explains ethnic mobilization that meant going over the heads of the party membership and appealing to the wider titular ethnic group.