Our differences

A prerequisite for doing things together is to learn to live with our differences. (1) In our increasingly pluralistic societies, implementing inclusive social policies need proper approach to avoid marginalization of democratic machinery by hostile voice using democratic tools to perpetrate group conflicts. We have a moral and social responsibility to ensure that our value systems are not compromised by extremist views. Restricted boundaries of identities where it is ill defined can turn into major cause of violent conflicts and unsatisfactory social issues.

On the political side, there is a need for inclusivity. Monopolisation of political power by one group or another is often responsible for many sort of unresponsiveness and for violent reactions when the system fails to manage the pressure. Achieving political inclusivity is not an automatic result of democracy since there is a strong tendency for political parties in divided societies to represent and argue for particular ethnicities or religious practices.

Segregations can be used by groups and their leaders in order to achieve political or economic goals. Differentiation politics are played for local audiences to justify and gain the support of international community as a means for holding power, hence there is emphasise on heightening separation walls. Similarly, cases of hostile cultures emphasis on marginalisation dilemma have been used to justify reluctance in power sharing.

The use of ethnic symbols and the enhancement of ethnic identities are used for the mobilization of support often by reworking historical memories. Where educational system is not responsive, groups are imperfectly informed and limitations are imperfectly understood. Indeed, individuals who had had some disappointing experiences might come to reject dominant social culture. Triggering group differences raise the level of social expectations that can hold back the sense of social cohesion or strengthening social bonds.

While, ethnic conflicts are sometimes played as motivating mechanism for bringing changes, it can block the very democratic changes that it was intended to accomplish. Ceaseless ethnic conflicts have been the major characteristics of conditions in which failing states come short to find acceptable ways for groups to live with their differences. It is sometimes assumed, that greater democracy comes at a cost of reduced efficiency, what ever the cultural context. There are cases of democratic regimes that are replaced by tyranny since they were not prepared to challenge the requirements of contemporary measures.

There should be caution about consequences where political system moderate tendencies were undermined by democratic competition. There is the danger of ethnicization of politics where too many unfounded claims of differentiations weaken social cooperation. This can lead to negative externalities of belonging to certain groups. Membership of deprived groups can cause resentment among individuals on behalf of the group. This tendency of ethnic sensitization has been motivating factor for civil war therefore driving politicians to avoid multiparty democracy.

Researcher, however, point out that wars and conflicts are increasingly used by political leaders to sustain status quo confirmed by evidences that wars are fought mostly to sustain holding power rather than for making changes. But uncertainties caused by wars and conflicts might yield unpredictable outcomes other than initially intended.

On the other hand, adherence to the laws of war and the use of very proportional means, like precision-guided munitions are changing the concept of war as well as victory, since victory is not just on the side of the victors; the losers must give victory to the winners.(2) There is an explicit recognition of the fact not only that fighting wars is of little use if the subsequent peace is not won, but also that war itself is a recognition of failure. It is hard to see how states will concede a loss when precision guided munitions are used and there is no engagement on the battlefield.

In any case, those resorting to wars or conflicts, do so because they see no other solution to make changes. It is suggested that democracy in strongly divided countries needs to be a form of constrained democracy, designed to ensure an inclusive system while the prospect of future wars fought by advanced technology does raise the question on the choice between non-violence and non existence.

Finally, the big question is raised for societies who have reached agreement to live in peace over the management and wisdom to curb their ever growing population. The security implications for states of demographic pressures and resource depletion needed to be taken on board alongside the consideration of threats of ethnic conflicts and wars.

How do we respond to overpopulation that has led to the phenomena of human produced in mass, powerless to afford a human life for too many of the kind.




(1) Kalypso Nicolaïdis, University of Oxford Lecturer in International Relations.

(2) Dr David Whetham, The Moral and Legal Challenges posed by Emerging Weapon Technologies, Defence Studies Department, King's College London


References:

Frances Stewart, (2002), Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development, Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE, QEH, University of Oxford

Williams, Bernard (2000) ‘Formal Structures and Social Reality’, in Gambetta,
Diego (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, chapter 1, pp. 3-13

Lauer, Robert H., Perspective on social change, 1974, (in Farsi translation, Emami, K.)