South Africa
• Factors for and
against democracy:
– Moderate level of
development
– Highly unequal society
– History of labor
coercive practices
General backdrop: Apartheid
• Established in 1948 with coming to power
of National Party
• Three parts:
– Political: complete exclusion of non-whites
from political process.
– Economic: use of coercive means to keep
wages of non-whites low.
– Social: physical separation of races.
General backdrop: Apartheid
• But, economic and social goals conflicted:
the dependence of whites on non-white
labor made segregation difficult.
General backdrop: Apartheid
• Solution: Homelands
policy.
• But, this never really
worked. Africans
came to the cities
anyway.
Timeline of African Response
• 1912: Formation of ANC
• 1950s: Initial response to apartheid
– Freedom Charter (1955): non-racial
democracy, mild socialism.
– Sporadic peaceful protests.
– State response: ban ANC, jail leaders
– Why so easy to contain? Small urban
population.
Timeline of African Response
• 1960s: Quiet decade of economic growth
– Urban African populations grew (and grew!)
– Flourishing of civil society in African areas
Timeline of African Response
• 1970s:
– New organizations, political movements
• Young people influenced by Black Consciousness
• Civics
• Trade Unions
– Economic slowdown
– Renewed protest: 1976 riots in Soweto,
spread to rest of country.
– Much harder for the state to contain.
Timeline of African Response
• P.W. Botha liberalizes the unions in 1978:
– The hope: this will moderate the conflict.
– The reality: Unions (COSATU) initiate wave
after wave of protest in early 80s.
• United Democratic Front (UDF) forms,
contributes to mass insurrection.
• South Africa: “ungovernable” by 1986.
Timeline of African Response
• Mid 1980s: Economic Crisis
– Worker productivity down
– Massive capital outflows
– IMF cuts off loans
• South African capitalists: Apartheid not
worth it! Begin pressuring government to
negotiate.
Negotiations and Love Songs
• 1990-1993: Hammering out a plan
– ANC, NP: Very different notions of what “New”
South Africa should look like
– Dicey moments, but desire to avoid war kept
both parties at the table.
– Deal involved compromises for everyone
• April 1994: Nelson Mandela elected
Conclusions
• Structural factors mattered:
– Greater development made protest easier.
– Change in interests of economic elite key to
initiation of negotiations.
• However, political factors mattered also:
– Economic interests changed because of
political protests
– Political leadership key at certain critical
points.
Conclusions
• Finally, international factors once again
very important. Domestic politics cannot
tell us the whole story.
Extra Office Hours
• Schedule an appointment with me if you
can’t make my office hours.
• Steve Oliver: 11-1:50 Monday (today!)
SSB 328
• Lydia Lundgren: 10:30-12:30 Monday
(today!) SSB 323
• Kai Ostwald: 10:30-11:30 Monday (today!)
SSB 326
Definition: Ethnic Group
• Membership determined by descent or
ancestry. Ethnic identity is ascriptive:
something you are born with instead of
something you choose.
• Members of ethnic groups know and value
membership in the group. It has meaning
to them.
Definition: Ethnic Group
• Group members share distinguishing
cultural features.
• The group has a shared history, which
may be partially invented.
• Most ethnic group has a homeland, or at
least memories of one.
Factoids
• Ethnic identities are quite prevalent.
• Ethnic identities are only one of many
different kinds of collective identities.
Other examples: class, occupation, age,
gender, hobby, school ties, sports
affiliations, etc.
Factoids
• Ethnic identities are distinguished from
many other types of identity (esp.
economic ones) in that they are less
voluntary in nature. But even here, there’s
ambiguity.
Classic Approaches to Ethnicity
• Liberalism:
– Ethnicity is “morally suspect” because it
places groups above individuals. For better
or worse, modernization would dissolve ethnic
ties, create “new” people unconnected to the
old ways.
– Fiction: White Teeth by Zadie Smith; Hunger
by Lan Samantha Chang
Classic Approaches to Ethnicity
• Marxism:
– Ethnicity is epiphenomenal, secondary to
deeper forces (i.e. material interests).
– Ethnic identifications = false consciousness.
– Marxist revolution (Workers of the World
Unite!) will end ethnic based thinking.
But the reality is . . .
• Ethnicity is alive and well in all corners of
the globe!
• Developed countries: anti-immigrant
parties in Europe, separatist movements in
Spain and Canada, minority mobilizations
in US.
But the reality is . . .
• Former communist countries of Eastern
Europe: many new ethnic mobilizations.
• Developing countries: economic
development fuels ethnic mobilization.
• Since the end of the Cold War, the world
has seen a series of destructive wars in
which ethnicity has played some role.
Primordialism
• Ethnic identities are more fundamental
than other types of identitity. Ethnicity is
not subject to rational cost/benefit
calculations. It belongs to the realm of
emotion.
• Ethnicity is immutable, unchangeable,
fixed.
Primordialism
• Ethnic mobilizations are motivated by expressive
not instrumental needs.
– Participation is related to our search as human beings
for security in an insecure world.
– Individual self esteem is a function of group position.
– More about expressing belonging than further self
interest.
• Conflict based on ethnicity is inevitable,
persistence is a given.
Instrumentalism
• Ethnic identities are not more fundamental
or powerful than other types of identity.
• Ethnicity is fluid. Individuals have multiple
identities, these identities shift according
to context.
Instrumentalism
• Mobilization is about getting something.
People join ethnic movements when there
is a pay-off to doing so. Furthermore,
when it is useful to them, they may even
invent new identities.
• Ethnicity leads to conflict when someone
has something to gain from going to war.
Instrumentalism
• Persistence? As long as ethnicity is a
useful way of organizing people, it will
persist.
Critiques of each theory?
• Primordialism:
– Empirically, identities do appear to shift
according to context.
– If conflict is so inevitable, how do you explain
long periods of peace? And why are most
multiethnic societies peaceful?
Critiques of each theory?
• Instrumentalism:
– How do we explain the intensity and
emotional quality of ethnic bonds?
– Ethnic conflict may be instrumental for
leaders, but it rarely is for followers. How do
we explain their behavior?
What is civil conflict?
• Examples: civil war, rebellions,
insurrections, political revolutions, social
revolutions, genocides.
• Definition: sustained armed conflict within
a state that involves large numbers of
people either as participants or as victims.
“State” versus “Society”
• Society: basic social forces and groups,
the population at large and how it is
structured and organized.
• State (review): the set of permanent
institutions and structures of authority in a
country.
“State” versus “Society”
• What is the relationship between them?
– State is a mirror that reflects society. Politics
is a function of social forces alone.
– State is not just a mirror: it exerts an
independent effect out outcomes. We can’t
just look at society to understand politics!
Have to look at state too.
Society-Based “Bottom Up”
• Misery breeds revolt: civil conflict is a
function of the level of grievance in the
population.
• Variants:
– Ethnic group hatreds
– Extreme poverty and deprivation
– Unfulfilled expectations (economic crisis)
Political Entrepreneurs
• Grievance alone is insufficient to produce
war. Politicians provide the spark that
converts grievance into action.
• Motivations of politicians vary from
idealism to personal gain.
Political Entrepreneurs
• Articulate existing grievances, sometimes
even accentuating them.
• May not be enough: collective action
problems may prevent people with
common grievances from acting together.
Examples: free-rider problem, first-mover
problem.
Free Rider Problem
• There are gains to collective action.
• No one can be excluded from these gains,
even if they didn’t take part in the action.
• High personal costs to taking part.
• Individual rationality: don’t participate,
don’t pay costs, yet capture benefits.
“Free-ride.”
• Everyone free-rides, no collective action,
no collective benefits.
First Mover Problem
• Risks for collective action are highest for
those who act first.
• Once everyone else is acting, then risks
decline. “Safety in numbers.”
• But who will go first? An action may be
highly desirable by everyone, but may
never occur because no one is willing to
take the first step.
Political Entrepreneurs
• Politicians help people overcome
collective action problems:
– Provide selective benefits to participation (to
overcome free-riding problem)
– Throw the first stones (to overcome firstmover problem)
State Centric “Top Down”
• Grievances (even grievance organized by
politicians) is insufficient for explaining civil
conflict.
• State factors are key: are the state’s
coercive organizations coherent and
effective? If yes, grievances are never
allowed to flower.
Strengths/Weaknesses
• Bottom-up approach
– Pros: explains why ordinary people might
participate in conflict.
– Cons: Can’t explain why grievances persist
for long periods of time without producing
conflict.
Strengths/Weaknesses
• Political entrepreneurs approach:
– Pros: Better at explaining timing.
– Cons: Why do people follow politicians into
war? When do politicians see war as a better
option than working within institutions?
Strengths/Weaknesses
• State centric approach
– Pros: Can better explain incentives of political
leaders.
– Cons: State weakness is insufficient for
explaining violence. Many weak states never
experience civil conflict.