Turning discontent into votes: Economic inequality and ethnic outbidding

Ethnic outbidding, where parties adopt ever more extreme positions to capture electoral advantage, has become an increasingly common practice among ethnic parties. As economic issues have often served as a catalyst for ethnic tension, increasing levels of economic inequality should lead parties to adopt more extreme positions in an attempt to outbid one another. Furthermore, as their economic and ethnic platforms will appeal to the same ethnically defined constituency, ethnic outbidding should be more effective where inequality is high. Using a sample of over 150 ethnonational parties in Europe between 2011 and 2017, this paper finds that inequality is linked to increasing ideological extremism along a number of policy dimensions. Employing local-level voting data for Romania and Slovakia, we show that higher inequality makes adopting a more ideological extreme position a more successful electoral strategy, especially where economic issues are ethnically salient.

Political Parties and Democratization

Parties are indispensable to the building and maintenance of democracy. This is because parties are purported to promote representation, conflict management, integration, and accountability in new democracies. Second, the failures of parties in helping to build democracy in systems in transition are because they have not performed these functions very well. Third, there are three emerging research agendas to be explored that address the relationship between parties and democratic consolidation: (a) the promotion of institutional innovations that help build institutionalized party systems; (b) the role of ethnic parties in democratization and democratic consolidation; and (c) the role of rebel parties in building peace and democracy after civil wars. Although not entirely exhaustive, these three agendas represent promising avenues of research into the role political parties play in democratization.

ETHNIC NPOs AS AN ORGANIZATIONAL FORM OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF MINORITIES IN CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA

Ethnic parties are conventionally considered as the main form of politicization of ethnicity, but in those countries where they are absent, the social and political activity of ethnic minorities is manifested in the form of non-governmental organizations - “ethnic NPOs”. In contemporary Russia, both the main areas of activity of ethnic NPOs and the normative and institutional infrastructure of their interaction with the authorities are strongly unified by the framework of the state ethnic policy. However, an in-depth study of several cases (the sample from municipal units of Ulyanovsk and Penza regions) allows us to conclude that the most important interactions on issues, which are significant for both NPOs and the authorities, are most often carried out outside the framework of the normative and institutional infrastructure, through other channels. As a result, actual interactions vary considerably. An important factor is the resource potential of the ethnic NPO, the share of an ethnic minority in the population, as well as the presence of a strong leader. In some cases, the format of localization of an ethnic group is of key importance: if a minority lives apart from others, the resource weakness of an NPO is compensated by the concentration of resources, and sometimes by the practice of combining statuses, when the leader of an ethnic NPO occupies an important political and administrative position at the local level. In other cases, human resources come to the fore. In general, it can be argued that ethnic NPOs to some extent compensate for the absence of ethnic parties. They do not demonstrate their own political ambitions, but they are able to promote the interests of ethnic minorities using the available channels and mechanisms of political representation.

Segmental Volatility in Ethnically Divided Societies: (Re)assessing Party System Stability in Southeast Europe

This article examines the role of ethnicity and ethnic parties as stabilizing factors in Southeast European party systems. It compares two ethnically divided countries in Southeast Europe: Bosnia and Herzegovina, where ethnic identities that form the political cleavage are firm, and Montenegro, where they are malleable. Theoretically, it addresses the debate between scholars who either find stability or instability in East European post-communist party systems. The article traces the role of ethnicity in the formation and development of electoral contests and compares the two cases by utilizing measures of block volatility, based on analysis of official electoral data. We argue that party systems in ethnically diverse countries are stable at the subsystems level, but unstable within them. In BiH, firm ethnic identity stabilizes the party system by limiting competition between blocks, leading to closure. Malleable ethnic identity in Montenegro opens competition to non-ethnic parties seeking to bridge ethnic divisions, leading to more instability. We find that party system dynamics in ethnically divided new democracies depend on identity rigidity and cleavage salience, in addition to levels of heterogeneity.

Beyond the core: Do ethnic parties ‘reach out’ in power-sharing systems?

While power-sharing arrangements are often commended for establishing peaceful relations between major ethnic groups, they are also criticised for excluding ‘Others’. Nevertheless, more complex forms of party competition can emerge in power-sharing systems, including parties representing the dominant communities (‘ethnic parties’) seeking to engage Others (‘non-dominant’ groups). Drawing on semi-structured interviews with parties from Northern Ireland, we examine the extent to which dominant parties reach beyond their core ethnic constituencies, how and why. We consider increasingly salient non-sectarian issues, such as marriage equality and abortion, and explore how ethnic parties have sought to respond to these debates. We consider whether liberal forms of power-sharing influence the willingness of dominant parties to advance inclusion of non-dominant groups. Our findings suggest that under favourable conditions, flexible power-sharing can create space for incremental moves by ethnic parties to reach out to constituencies beyond their core, gradually moving the system towards more inclusive representation.

Suriname: The National Army in Politics

Suriname is a multiethnic society (from African, Asian, and European countries, and smaller contingents of the original indigenous peoples) formed in colonial times. After 1863, a small colonial army detachment with conscript Dutch soldiers was stationed in Suriname. The colony was provided autonomy in 1954, except for defense and foreign affairs. The same army detachment was now open for Surinamese noncommissioned officers (NCOs). Independence was obtained in 1975; the Dutch transferred all infrastructure of the colonial detachment. Suriname’s political culture was (and partially still is) based on ethnic belonging and clientelism. After independence, the government started spending big money and rumors of corruption arose. The NCOs, headed by Sergeant-Major Bouterse, staged a coup in 1980. They appointed a new civilian government but remained in control though a Military Council overseeing government. After two and a half years it generated a strong civilian opposition, supported by the students, the middle classes, and the trade unions. In December 1982, the military arrested the leaders and tortured and killed them. Between 1980 and 1987, Bouterse, now a colonel, was the de facto president as leader of the Military Council. The generally leftist but zig-zagging military government disrupted the economy. “Colombian entrepreneurs” assisted with financial support. Economic and political bankruptcy prompted the government to organize elections. The “old ethnic parties” won the election in 1987, but the army leadership remained in power. A second coup, in December 1991, was settled by general elections six months thereafter; the same ethnic parties returned to power. Armed opposition had emerged in the Maroon region. The Army, backed by paramilitary forces, organized a counterinsurgency campaign during several years of civil war. The civilian government brokered a preliminary peace agreement, but Army Chief Bouterse continued the war. Eventually the Organisation of American States mediated, resulting in a formal peace. Bouterse and his staff were discharged and became businessmen and politicians. Consecutive civilian government strongly curtailed military budgets, personnel, and equipment. Instead, they strengthened the police. In 2005, Bouterse participated in the elections with a pluriethnic political platform. His party became the largest one in parliament. He won the presidential elections in 2010 and was reelected in 2015. A Military Tribunal initiated a process against the actors of the December 1982 murders. In November 2019, the Tribunal convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 20 years in prison, without ordering his immediate arrest. The National Army, after decades of neglect, was reorganized. It is in fact an infantry battalion equipped with Brazilian armored vehicles. Brazil, Venezuela, and India supplied some assistance and training. The Coast Guard is part of the Army, as well as the Air Force which has a couple of Indian helicopters. Of the 137 countries ranked in military strength by Global Firepower (2019), Suriname is positioned at place 135. On the other hand, the country has no external enemies, although there exists a dormant frontier dispute with Guyana since the late 1960s.

Federal and Political Party Reforms in Asia: Is There a New Model of Federal Democracy Emerging in Ethnically Diverse Countries in Asia?

How do ethnically divided countries create inclusive and stable democratic institutions? Why do some kinds of federalism fail while others evolve? Scholars looking for answers to these kinds of questions have tended to focus on the West. Yet there are important lessons arising from the substantial democratic and federal reforms that have taken place in Asia over the last few decades. These reforms signal a new model of federal democracy in Asia, comprising multilevel ethnoterritorial federalism, mixed-majoritarianism and a party system that includes both ethnic and multi-ethnic parties. This model has emerged as a response to ethnic conflict and secession risks and reflects the high diversity of clustered communities and cross-cutting cleavages. Despite its overarching majoritarianism, the federal model has led to highly fragmented party systems and coalition governments, with positive implications for democratic stability. Together, these features go some way towards blending otherwise conflicting consociational and centripetal paradigms.

Book review: Amit Ahuja, Mobilizing the Marginalized: Ethnic Parties without Ethnic Movements

Amit Ahuja, Mobilizing the Marginalized: Ethnic Parties without Ethnic Movements. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2019. 238 pp. ₹550. ISBN: 9780190916435

Ruling party will win Myanmar poll but emerge weaker

Significance Voters will be electing lawmakers for regional and state legislatures as well as parliament’s upper and lower houses. State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD), which is defending majorities in both houses, faces a tough challenge from several ethnically based parties. Impacts As the polls draw closer, some populist parties may try to use social media to stoke ultra-nationalist, anti-Muslim sentiment. Doubts among external critics about the fairness of the elections will do further harm to Myanmar’s already damaged reputation. Ethnic parties will try harder to push their agendas in parliament, having lost confidence in the NLD’s ability to advance their interests.