Political Science and Interethnic Relations - Essay Example

Two main theories try to explain the phenomenon of ethnic conflicts: they are spiral equilibria and in-grouping policing equilibria (Fearon and Laitin 723). There are three factors to put into consideration in assessing theory qualifications in explaining the existence of ethnic conflicts. The first quality is that the theory should explain why interethnic relations are mostly based on tension and mistrust. The second one should explain why the results of interethnic relations are peace and cooperation instead of violence. Lastly, it should explain why in some situations interethnic relations result in spirals of violence or sometimes in war.

According to Fearon and Laitin, interethnic conflicts have claimed over ten million lives worldwide since the end of the Second World War (715). However, the approach of many scholars to analyzing this situation is biased, especially while selecting the cases of ethnic conflicts. They focus mainly on post-Soviet and African countries where actual cases of ethnic violence are relatively fewer than potential cases of ethnic violence. To avoid a biased selection of ethnic violence cases, there is a need for theories that not only account for causes of ethnic violence but also the outcomes of ethnic tension other than violence. The first is rationalist theories, which refer to ethnic groups as joint forces that take or defend beneficial materials from others. These materials include education, labor, and state investments. In case one ethnic group denies the other the right to possess a certain material, then violence would result between the two groups. The others are psychological theories that refer to ethnic groups as a satisfaction to the need of belonging to a group. Therefore, in this case, ethnic violence may occur if one group threatens the psychological satisfaction of the other.

In addition to rationalist and psychological theories, game theories would be more precise in explaining outcomes of ethnic conflicts other than violence. Game theories consist of spiral equilibrium and in-group policing equilibrium. Spiral equilibrium is where an individual action during the game is taken to be a joint action of the whole group. In this case, all members of Group A punish Group B members following unacceptable behavior from one member of Group B. A single player from either group immediately triggers a state of complete breakdown of cooperation that once existed between the groups. On the other hand, in-group policing equilibrium is where one group ignores violating actions from the other group, assuming that the other group is going to take disciplinary action against the individual that caused the violation (Fearon and Laitin 730). In this case, the defection of a member from either group does not affect the reaction of the other group. Instead of members from Group B responding negatively to members in Group A because one of the members from Group A portrayed unacceptable behavior, the game continues as if nothing had happened.

In some cases, there is the presence of “noise” which, in this context, refers to additional defections such as drunkenness, misinterpretations, or sudden passions. In such a case, the best theoretical approach to addressing ethnic outcomes would be in-group policing equilibrium. In group policing, unlike a spiral regime, punishment is only applicable to the individual responsible for a defection. The other reason that makes in-group policing more appropriate is the fact that in spiral equilibrium members respond to a tiny issue in the same way they would respond to a serious issue. However, there are alternatives to in-group policing equilibrium. In the first alternative, both groups know the interethnic interactions likely to take place during the game. Therefore, in case a member from Groupp B cheats on Groupp A, both groups make the observation, but the spiral remains between the two victims in that case. The other alternative is to use institutional mechanisms where there is an additional player to each team to play the role of a mediator. The mediator’s role is to ascertain what happened to member A or member B and make judgments (Fearon and Laitin 726). 

In addition to the two most appropriate theories: spiral equilibria and in-grouping policing equilibria, there are other theories to consider, which include rationalist and psychological theories.

 

Read More