Ethnic Conflict & Accommodation : Comparative Perspective

Mohd Hazad bin Saharin

BA14110745

Abstract

The seminar is presented by Emeritus Prof. Donald L. Horowitz James B. Duke Professor of
Law & Political Science, Duke University. The seminar conducted on 25 April 2017 at 9.00
am in the Teater Ahmad Nifsu, FKSW, UMS. The seminar was attended by many lecturer
and student. Based on the seminar tittle Ethnic Conflict & Accommodation : Comparative
Perspective , presenters discuss about constitutional design for severely divided societies
which is a divided society is one in which its ethno-cultural diversities have such a political
weigh that can take the constitutional stability out of balance; and, the way in which
societies respond to that challenge is of practical importance. The presenter also talk about
Consociation Regime and Centripetal Regime which discuss about how different regime
effect the politic. Moreover, The seminar also discuss about a severely divided society that
discuss about conflict between groups with ascription differences which is highly salient in
politics. The seminar discuss many ethnic issue and have question and answer session that
make the seminar more interesting and make audience got many knowledge.

1. Introduction

The speaker introduce his topic very well, Ethnic Conflict & Accommodation : Comparative
Perspective is his seminar topic. The speaker start his presentation well and it was
engaging and got my attention, he start his presentation with a little bit joke that
entertained the audience. He give an outline to his presentation by providing a slide show
that make audience more easy to follow up his presentation.
2. Section 1

The speaker focused on an a severely divided society, Suppose a society contains two
ascriptive (birth-derived) groups: the As with 60 percent of the population, and the Bs, with
40 percent. The groups have the same age structures and rates of natural increase; their
proportions are not vulnerable to change through immigration; they vote at the same rates;
and they vote for ascriptively defined political parties, the A party and the B party. Under
virtually every form of fair majoritarian political arrangement and every electoral system, the
As will dominate government and Bs will be in opposition for perpetuity. The speaker
discuss that few main groups compete for power at the center, or one strong group
excludes others from power and a history or current experience of intergroup antipathy or
suspicion. The speaker organize his presentation by discuss about severely divided society
and what it done .

2.1. Subsection 1

The speaker also elaborate distribution of opinion for parties of two groups in conflict by
showing a diagram adapted from Robert A. Dahl, Political Oppositions in Western
Democracies (Yale, 1966). Moreover, the subsection of the presentation is :

a) Consociation Regime

Elaborate guarantees:

All groups included in government proportionately

All groups have vetoes over sensitive issues

Proportional representation in parliament via PR

Proportional representation of groups in civil service and financial allocations

Group autonomy in cultural matters

An inclusive, consensual regime, not government versus opposition

 b) Centripetal Regime

Incentives, not guarantees:

Electoral incentives for politicians to behave moderately toward groups other than
their own

Multiethnic coalitions of ethnic parties, usually based on pooling votes across ethnic
lines

An interethnic majority government of moderates = interethnic majority rule

c) Forms of government: Democratic Constitutions Adopted 1995-2010 (N=26)

Constitutional monarchy

Presidential: plurality, two-round majority

Presidential powers: Strong, weak

Semi-presidential: multiple electoral systems

Semi-presidential: president appoints PM or parliament does; president does, from

majority party in parliament

Parliamentary with plural executive

Electoral System: FPTP; PR; AV; STV; SNTV; Two-round majority

Parliaments: unicameral; bicameral (equal power); bicameral (weak upper house)

Minority rights: extensive guarantees; more limited guarantees; autonomy

guarantees

Minority inclusion: guaranteed positions at the center

Minority veto (limited)

Regional devolution: decentralization; autonomy

Federalism

Judicial review: wide-ranging judicial power; narrower power

Conclusions

Donald Horowitz depicts a very clear ideal scenario that best describes his version of a
divided society; his description provides an appropriate vantage point from where to gain
good perspective. a divided society isnt merely one which is ethno-culturally diverse.
Rather, what makes a divided society is that those differences are politically salient that is,
they are persistent markers of political identity and bases for political mobilization. Hence, a
divided society is one in which its ethno-cultural diversities have such a political weigh that
can take the constitutional stability out of balance and the way in which societies respond to
that challenge is of practical importance. The ethnic composition of a society need not itself
be problematic from a political perspective the critical issue us the extent to which ethnic
differences are translated into political divisions and the ease with which these divisions may
be accommodated by existing political structure.

4. Reference

Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society (1991)