Trickledown politics: Do excluded ethnic groups benefit from non-violent national resistance campaigns?

When do excluded ethnic groups obtain more political inclusion? Scholarship demonstrates that ethnic minority-based behavior is consequential for more inclusion. Yet we know little of the consequences of national resistance campaigns for ethnic minorities. Building on literature identifying non-violent national resistance (NVR) campaigns as consequential for outcomes such as democracy, this article identifies non-violent tactic use as key to understanding when national resistance campaigns trickle down to benefit excluded ethnic groups. It establishes empirically that an excluded ethnic group whose country experiences an NVR campaign has a higher probability of more political inclusion.

Democratic Decentralizaton and Socio-Political Inclusion of Marginalized Communities: A Study of Musahar Community in Madhubani District of Bihar, India

Democratic decentralization is the process of devolving the state’s roles and resources from the centre to the lower-level elected officials to encourage greater direct participation of people in governance. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act (1993), which gave the constitutional mandate to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in India, is considered as an opportunity for historically marginalized groups like women, Dalits (Scheduled Caste) and others to actively engage in the grassroot governance as members of local government institutions. Further, gram panchayats have been mandated for formulating their own annual development plan for economic development and social justice in their area. Although in these 25 years, since the enactment of the Act, various measures have been introduced through Panchayati Raj Institutions for increasing people’s participation and effective implementation of developmental programmes, but there is a little or no evidences—either the theoretical or the empirical, which can give a hint on its performance on social and political inclusion of marginalized communities. Against this backdrop, this empirical research paper attempts to explore the linkages between the democratic decentralization and socio-political inclusion of marginalized, by focussing on the Musahar community in Bihar state of India, using primary data collected from the field. The researchers argue that decentralization has ameliorated the social inclusion to some extent but shows very dismal rate of political inclusion of the Musahar Community.

Age-Distinctions, The Philosophy of Childhood, and Political Participation

<p><b>In the philosophy of childhood, conceptions about children and childhood are often understood to be contextually dependent on time and place. I explore and question contemporary conceptions about childhood and how these might be subject to change in the political sphere. Not only is there much vagueness inherent in the adult-child distinction, but many implied inaccuracies as well. Although these distinctions allow for the efficient structuring of social institutions, this comes at the cost of exacerbating the problems brought about by this vagueness and inaccurateness. I challenge the different enfranchisement status of children and adults, arguing that it is better to do away with age-based distinctions in politics. These distinctions are arbitrary and constitute ageism towards children. </b></p> <p>My approach is unique in applying a philosophy of childhood lens to children’s enfranchisement. Emerging ‘strengths-based’ conceptions about childhood that move away from ‘deficit’ conceptions allow for a more accurate representation of children and support a case for their political inclusion. This reconceptualisation of childhood involves a shift in focus away from what children lack relative to adults. Consistently with the strengths-based conception, broader understandings of competency allow us to see children’s perspectives and lack of habituation to the world as an asset, including in the political sphere.</p> <p>Age-based demarcations that prohibit children’s inclusion reinforce inaccurate, exaggerated and misleading stereotypes about children and adults alike. Actively challenging these stereotypes allows us to overcome these inaccurate understandings about children to see their political inclusion as justified. Practical concerns with children’s inclusion, including whether this would compromise the ‘goods of childhood’, are addressed and quelled. I also speculate on the possible implications of children’s enfranchisement in other domains. Challenging the adult-child distinction does not amount to an argument to do away with talk about ‘adults’ or ‘children’, but it does command a critical analysis of the implications associated with these terms. Ultimately, there are many avenues for political participation, of which voting is just one. Still, this paper provides a framework for establishing on what terms citizens are justifiably involved in political participation at all.</p>

Age-Distinctions, The Philosophy of Childhood, and Political Participation

<p><b>In the philosophy of childhood, conceptions about children and childhood are often understood to be contextually dependent on time and place. I explore and question contemporary conceptions about childhood and how these might be subject to change in the political sphere. Not only is there much vagueness inherent in the adult-child distinction, but many implied inaccuracies as well. Although these distinctions allow for the efficient structuring of social institutions, this comes at the cost of exacerbating the problems brought about by this vagueness and inaccurateness. I challenge the different enfranchisement status of children and adults, arguing that it is better to do away with age-based distinctions in politics. These distinctions are arbitrary and constitute ageism towards children. </b></p> <p>My approach is unique in applying a philosophy of childhood lens to children’s enfranchisement. Emerging ‘strengths-based’ conceptions about childhood that move away from ‘deficit’ conceptions allow for a more accurate representation of children and support a case for their political inclusion. This reconceptualisation of childhood involves a shift in focus away from what children lack relative to adults. Consistently with the strengths-based conception, broader understandings of competency allow us to see children’s perspectives and lack of habituation to the world as an asset, including in the political sphere.</p> <p>Age-based demarcations that prohibit children’s inclusion reinforce inaccurate, exaggerated and misleading stereotypes about children and adults alike. Actively challenging these stereotypes allows us to overcome these inaccurate understandings about children to see their political inclusion as justified. Practical concerns with children’s inclusion, including whether this would compromise the ‘goods of childhood’, are addressed and quelled. I also speculate on the possible implications of children’s enfranchisement in other domains. Challenging the adult-child distinction does not amount to an argument to do away with talk about ‘adults’ or ‘children’, but it does command a critical analysis of the implications associated with these terms. Ultimately, there are many avenues for political participation, of which voting is just one. Still, this paper provides a framework for establishing on what terms citizens are justifiably involved in political participation at all.</p>

Inclusive conflict? Competitive clientelism and the rise of political violence

Conflict across African states has often been linked to ethnic-based biases in government, and exclusive policies. However, the domestic politics of developing states, and the elites who contest for power therein, have often been overlooked when explaining the patterns and risk of disorder and violence. We consider how African leaders practice politics in whom to represent, and at what level. These choices have consequences as how regimes accommodate political elites creates different competitive conditions which, in turn, create incentives and opportunities for political violence. Using a dataset on cabinet appointments over twenty years, we find that high levels of elite political inclusion and mal-apportionment in positions is consistently associated with increases in non-state violence. Power distribution levels among those groups included in senior positions account for more political violence than that which stems from exclusive politics.