ethno-politics in Europe
The ethno-political models that have emerged in multicultural countries can be divided into those that aim to eliminate differences and those that manage differences. The most extreme form of the former is genocide, when the force on power wants to make the biological reproduction of a community impossible (e.g. the extermination of Armenians in Turkey, the Holocaust, the massacre in Bosnia).
The other type of political effort to create ethnically homogeneous areas in a country is to remove the other – minority – community or communities from a country by mass resettlement. This can be done through internment, deportation, population exchange or population buyouts (e.g. the Greek-Turkish population exchange, the numerous deportations during and after the Second World War, and the ‘sellout’ of Jews and Germans of Romania).
Integration and assimilation are ethnopolitical strategies that are difficult to separate. In both cases ethno-cultural differences are sought to be overcome by a common sense of identity that unites the communities concerned. The integration strategy aims to achieve dominance of a common civic identity (constitutional patriotism), while the assimilation strategy focuses on the elimination of differences by generalising the cultural identity of the dominant ethnic group (e.g. English, French) or by means of a new constructed identity (e.g. Soviet, Yugoslav, Belgian). To this end it calls for common institutions, common schools, common language use and mixed marriages. This practice runs counter to the recognition of collective rights and the aspirations of ethnic parties.
The most widespread of the practices that accept and seek to manage rather than eliminate the tensions between different cultural communities is autocratic practice, whereby the administration of the state controlled by the dominant nation does not allow conflicts between national groups to escalate. It deals with the problem by providing for language use at different levels and by keeping political advocacy – if it can be institutionalised – under the control of the state (e.g. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the United Kingdom and the Irish question, the ‘Leninist’ policy on minorities in the Soviet Union, Spain and the Catalan and Basque question, the Yugoslav system of self-government).
Arbitration in the management of ethnic tensions can include external and internal arbitration, ‘managing conflicts through international cooperation’, or violent interventions by self-proclaimed powers to stabilise crisis zones. The effectiveness of arbitration depends on the extent to which it succeeds in gaining the trust of the parties to the conflict. The role of internal arbitrator may be taken by a public figure or by various institutions (e.g. a political leader, supreme court, regional government). If internal arbitration is not an option, external or international arbitration may be pursued either in a single country or in the context of wider international action (e.g. Cyprus, Bosnia).
The principle of subsidiarity – maintaining that political decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level and with the widest possible involvement of stakeholders – is put into practice in ethno-political practice through cantonization (Switzerland). It is based on ethnically homogeneous cantons with political power. These different ethnic entities with limited sovereignty are directly linked to the central government.
The federal system presupposes separate units usually larger than cantons, with a written constitution and a bicameral parliament (Belgium, Canada). Territorial autonomy as a solution can be placed between cantonization and federalisation.
The consociation model is the institutionalisation of an ethnically plural society in which different groups (as socio-cultural pillars) can simultaneously preserve and develop their communal identity and culture, assert their freedoms, and are in a relationship of partner-nations with each other. The consequences of power asynchrony and socio-economic marginalisation are minimised by the agreements reached by ethnic elites in ongoing bargaining processes. This model requires the existence of a broad political grand coalition; ethnic representation in the labour market, public services, the budget and public life; community autonomy to ensure that communities can decide their own affairs; and a constitutional veto for minorities. (See also: minority marginalisation.)