Related Links:

Overview: Approaches to Studying Genocide

Why the U.S. Has Failed to Stop Genocide

Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

Women and Children Are Particularly Vulnerable to Violence in Darfur

Arab Women Play a Role in War-Related Rape in Darfur

States are often made up of different, competing and sometimes hostile ethnic or religious groups. While states cannot end all conflict between these groups, they can help decrease the likelihood that these conflicts will become deadly.

The causes of genocide and mass political murder are complex, and there is no single policy or solution that will render these horrors impossible. However, state policies may help or they may make matters worse. According to Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley, state policies toward minority groups play large into encouraging or hindering mass political murder.

Styles and Strategies

States have different styles and strategies when it comes to dealing with diverse groups within their borders.

First, a state may have a more or less tolerant style when it comes to dealing with the interests of competing groups. Second, a state may use different strategies for dealing with these groups:

• Inclusion. The state might seek to erase differences between groups.
• Distinction. The state might try to maintain distinct identities among groups while keeping all groups securely within the state.
• Exclusion. The state may attempt to exclude a group from the life of the state.

For each strategy, a state may take a more or less tolerant style.

Now, imagine a state that is dominated by one ethnic group, but which contains a number of other ethnic groups. If we look at state policies in terms of style and strategy, we see six different ways that this state might try to manage minority groups within its boundaries.

	Inclusion	Distinction	Exclusion
Tolerant Style	Gentle assimilation	Multiculturalism	Voluntary separation or emigration
Intolerant Style	Forced assimilation	Segregation	Ethnic cleansing or genocide

Coming at state policies in this way, we can see that as the policies become more intolerant and more exclusive, the likelihood for violence and mass political murder increases.

What do these different types of state policies look like in real life?

Gentle Assimilation

In gentle assimilation the minority group is encouraged to take on the values and behaviors of the majority. Assimilation can be encouraged through such institutions as public schooling (where separate private schools are allowed so long as they meet certain criteria) and military service. This doesn't mean that all differences between groups are erased. Only, what differences there are become largely symbolic or superficial. The U.S. approach to assimilating western European immigrants is an example of gentle assimilation.

Forced Assimilation

All assimilation is not so tolerant. In some cases, as with the U.S. government's policies toward Native Americans, the strategies for assimilation may be coercive. Methods of forced assimilation include taking minority children from their parents to be educated in boarding schools, the minority group's language may be prohibited and religious texts and practices may banned. Members of the minority group may also be required to renounce their religion and convert to the religion of the dominant group.

Multiculturalism

In multicultural states, members of minority groups are not required to assimilate to the powerful or elite group. They can retain their own identity within the state.

There is no single way that multiculturalism “works.” Some different types of multicultural strategies include:

Empire. In large empires minority groups were sometimes allowed to maintain their ethnic and religious identity and even given a fair amount of autonomy to govern their local affairs so long as these things did not affect other groups within the empire and did not threaten the authority of the state.

Federalism. In a federated system, local ethnic, religious or language groups may retain a degree of local autonomy, and political lines may be drawn to fit the geographical dispersal of the group. This allows the group, as a group, to retain local control and autonomy within a larger federated system. The local groups are then forced to compromise with other locales and groups at the federal level.

Consociationalism. In some cases members of different groups are allowed to maintain separate identities and practices but are allowed to draw equally from state resources (as in the case of Catholics and Protestants in the Netherlands). The groups maintain their identity within the larger state, but are not forced to compete for state resources. Affirmative action policies are also a kind of consociationalism. In this case, because of perceived past inequalities, one group may be given preferences for some kinds of state resources (e.g., licenses, contracts with the government, places in state educational institutions, etc.). So long as the larger group is not substantially harmed, policies of this sort can lessen the likelihood of violence.

Segregation

A state may force a minority group retain its distinct identity by excluding members from certain activities or institutions or by limiting contact between minority and majority group members. In some cases, as with the segregation of minority groups within empires, the group may retain some local autonomy but it can make little or no claim to state resources. If the group is content with this, then segregation may look like a the multiculturalism characteristic of some empires. However, if contact between the majority and minority groups is minimized and the minority group has very limited access to basic resources, then the likelihood of violence increases greatly.

Voluntary Separation

In some cases, two groups within a single state may decide that it just makes more sense to split amicably rather than continue to try to co-exist within the same state. The peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993 is an example of this type of separation.

Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide

In extreme cases, separation may be forced through ethnic cleansing. If the very existence of the minority group is a threat, then genocide is possible. If leaders of the majority group are convinced that the minority group, if given the chance, will seek to destroy the majority group, then they may feel that exterminating the entire minority group is the only option.

Bottom Line

State policies may increase or decrease the likelihood of mass political violence. As state policies become more intolerant and exclusionary, atrocities like ethnic cleansing and genocide become more likely.

Full Text Availability:

Available for purchase at

Other Keytexts from this source

A Tribal Mentality Can Lead to Genocide

Civil Society Institutions May Protect against Mass Political Violence

International Action May Limit Genocide but Is Unlikely to Bring Lasting Peace

What Can States Do to Decrease Mass Political Violence?