The Ties that Bind: Social Minority Policies and their place in the Majority Scheme - Essay Example

The Ties that Bind: Social Minority Policies and their place in the Majority Scheme Across the globe in recent years, political movements advancingthe plight of social minorities in divided societies have gathered momentum, demanding both recognition and response from states that are all too often run by the social majority. Most of the social minority groups in such states display the same syndromes: abject poverty, social exclusion, and negligible social mobility. (Tomasevski: 2000) More often than not, they comprise the lower socio-economic strata of wider society, and as such their plight in most cases entered national interest under the auspices of the global human right movement’s thrust towards equality and poverty reduction. Through the years however, the intensity by which the political struggle of minority groups has been carried out, particularly in Northern Ireland, has necessitated the recognition by many states of social minority issues as distinct from the general human rights movement. The escalation of tensions between minority groups and the dominant majority in the past years, in some places culminating in violent secessionist struggles and a backlash of genocidal assaults by the dominant sector, further heightened national and global interest on the issue of minority rights. (UNOHCHR: 1998) Heightened interest in addressing the concerns and welfare of social minority groups has thus prompted the construction of social policies meant to alleviate the plight of the social minority. This paper advances the position that the formulation of social policies for the welfare of these minorities must take into consideration the existing relationships between these minority groups and the larger society wherein they are situated. It presents the view that the advancement of minority rights cannot be effectively carried out by the simple arithmetic of band-aid legislation that only succeeds in reiterating the state’s responsibility to provide for all its constituents without regard for existing conflicts which make implementation untenable. To be effective, minority social policies must involve the delicate balancing of minority and majority concerns, as well as address existing conflicts between the two groups. Social minorities and their concerns cannot be addressed in isolation from the concerns and social paradigm of the wider society firstly because the troubled status of disadvantaged minority groups are often directly and actively caused by problematic social paradigms prevailing in the larger society. Furthermore, the implementation of social policies for the benefit of minority groups require proper consideration of the direct consequences that these policies may entail on the larger society. An examination of the socio-political divide between the Protestant majority and the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland lends credence to this position. The long-standing antagonism between the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland is said to be based not only on the religious differences of these two groups but on social, economic and political differences as well. (Ireland vs. United Kingdom: 1978) Composing largely 2/3 of Northern Ireland’s population, the Protestant sector, also identified as the Unionists or Loyalists, descend from the British Protestant settlers of the Northern provinces of Ulster, and consequently, identify themselves with the British populace in the mainland. The minority Catholics, on the other hand, mostly descend from the Irish natives of the said provinces and share historical traditions more similar to that of the Irish Republic. (Craith: 2002) Whereas these two groups have co-existed since the settlement of British settlers, the traditional differences of the two groups came to the fore upon the emancipation of the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s, and the subsequent retention of British rule over the remaining six counties of Ulster which compose Northern Ireland. (Ireland vs. United Kingdom: 1978) Differences between the political aspirations of these two groups, with the Unionist Protestants opting for British rule and the Nationalist Catholics’ desire to form part of a unified Republic of Ireland, has been credited by many as the primary conflict dividing these two groups. (O’Leary: 2004) It is dangerous, however, to believe that the political differences produced by the establishment of an Independent Republic of Ireland is the only source of the internal divide which cost the lives of thousands in Northern Ireland. Antagonism between the two groups is also deeply rooted in the active discrimination of the Protestant majority against the Catholic minority. Even prior to the heightened political polarization of these two groups, distrust and competition between members of the two groups was already present. (Craith: 2002) Distrust and competition resulted not only in societal divisions, but in actual socio-economic discrepancies between the groups, with the larger group often holding the better side of the deal. The underprivileged status of the Catholic minority who now compose the lower levels of the socio-economic strata did not come about from a phenomenal series of bad choices made by its members but from deliberate acts of discrimination carried out by the Protestant majority. Discriminatory gestures from the Protestant sector riddle the course of Northern Ireland’s history, especially after the 1920s. As O’Leary himself concedes, the victorious Protestant group actively abused their control of Northern Ireland’s majority and suppressed the Catholic minority in practically all sectors of living: “..few observers deny that Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1968 was an example of a society in which hegemonic control was exercised by Ulster Protestants. Historians, government-appointed commissions, political scientists, and Marxists all agree that political, economic, and cultural domination, discrimination, and monopoly were widespread in the province.” (O’Leary: 2004, p.100) Apart from denying the political aspirations of the Catholic minority to form part of a unified Irish Republic, therefore, the discriminatory practices employed by the Protestant Unionists further exacerbated the already strained relationship between the two groups. Coupled with the abolition of proportional representation and the geographical arrangement of constituencies in the Ulster counties in the period directly after , the Catholic minority found themselves neglected in policy-making, socially discriminated, and economically deprived. (Ireland vs. United Kingdom: 1978) The following passage in the decision of the European Court on Human Rights against the United Kingdom’s extrajudicial arrest of Northern Ireland civilians points out the credibility of accusations made by the Catholic minority in regards to unfair discriminatory practices: “The Catholics in the population regarded themselves as discriminated against on various counts. The Cameron Commission, a body appointed by the Northern Ireland Government in March 1969 to report.. on the causes of disturbances in the six counties in 1968-1969, considered justified many of the grievances then felt by the Catholics, in particular those concerned with the allocation of houses, local authority appointments, limitations on local electoral franchise and deliberate manipulation of ward boundaries and electoral areas. The European Commission of Human Rights itself came to the conclusion that there certainly was an element of inherent bias in the whole political system in Northern Ireland in favour of one community.” (Ireland v United Kingdom: 1978, p.3) As such, the state of poverty, social immobility, and under-representation in the legislative process under which the Catholic minority found themselves in was a consequence of discriminatory traditions actively carried out by the dominant Protestant sector. The Catholic minority was deprived of minority rights not really because of the absence of laws institutionalizing those rights (which were incidentally absent at the time) but because the Protestant Majority knowingly and actively wielded the strength of their numbers in imposing superiority over the minorities. Considerations addressing this active discrimination on the part of the majority group is vital in the creation of effective social policy for the Catholics in Northern Ireland. The formulation of social policies directed towards the alleviation of a minority group’s poverty must thus also address the issue of discrimination and bias as a social paradigm on the part of the majority. The state cannot formulate policies to alleviate poverty without addressing or arresting the cause. In the case of Northern Ireland, the minority is underprivileged not because it is powerless but because the majority is both more powerful and antagonistic to the minority. In the light of existing antagonism prevailing in the relationship between the minority group and the larger society or majority group, policies which view social minorities in a vacuum and seek only to secure non-discrimination for them fall on their face because they fail to address the social paradigm of the majority. Minorities whose members are assured only of basic equal opportunities to voice out their concerns still find their concerns falling on deaf ears in the face of a bulwark majority equipped with sufficient numbers to “democratically” bulldoze their concerns. This explains the very failure of earlier efforts to address minority issues through the generic non-discriminatory provisions of the human rights movement: “The view was that if the non-discrimination provisions were effectively implemented, special provisions for the rights of minorities would not be necessary. It was very soon evident, however, that further measures were needed in order to better protect persons belonging to minorities from discrimination and to promote their identity. To this end, special rights for minorities were elaborated and measures adopted to supplement the non-discrimination provisions in international human rights instruments.” (UNOHCHR: 1998, p.1) Non-discriminatory measures that are formulated without considering the actual relationship and status of the social minority in larger society thus turn out to be ineffective. An illustrative case, that of Northern Ireland’s Fair Employment Regulation, shows how negligence of the minority’s existing status in society can ultimately lead to the ineffectivity of resulting non-discriminatory measures. Operating under the principle of equal opportunity and equality among all constituents regardless of membership in the minority or majority group, the Fair Employment Act simply banned discrimination in the work place against an individual based on his political or religious beliefs. (Yarrow: 1997) It did not consider that equal competition could not exist in the current situation wherein the Catholic minority belonged to the lower socio-economic economic strata, and were generally less able than those in the Protestant majority to afford sufficient education, experience and resources to compete with Protestant employment seekers. As a consequence, there are still more unemployed Catholics than Protestants and the socio-economic divide between the two groups persists. (Yarrow: 1997) Although basic non-discriminatory measures fail to take existing inequalities in society into account and thus fail to truly empower the social minority, not only does it dominate the spirit of the Belfast Agreement purported to end the conflict in Northern Ireland, it also remains as the governing principle behind Northern Ireland’s treatment of its minorities. Discriminatory antagonism and the absence of a level playing field in the larger society thus render insufficient non-discriminatory legislation which simply secure the rights of minority group members only as constituents who should “also” enjoy equal protection and opportunity under the law. Because of this, it becomes imperative that the underlying causes of the minority group’s predicament, specifically those causes which stem from their relationship with the larger social group be adequately studied so as to produce the desired results of real equality and empowerment. The issue of minority rights cannot be separated from the agenda of the larger social group not only because the disadvantaged state of minority groups is often caused by existing social institutions within the majority group. The protection of minority rights also transforms into a vital concern of the majority since the majority is also bound to share in the scars left by any failure to implement adequate and effective minority right policies. The heightened interest in the global scene for the implementation of adequate policies promoting minority protection and empowerment come in the wake of disastrous and violent upheavals which illustrate the consequences of domestic social divisions being left to fester. The cases of Rwanda, Darfur, East Timor, Guatemala, and Kosovo all showcase the dire consequences of state negligence in the protection of minority rights. The list continues to get longer especially as we approach the post-Communist European states whose shifted borders encapsulate new societal divisions. (Mandelbaum: 2000) The issue of minority rights is emphasized by the increasing number of societal divisions within these countries and the number of bloody conflicts around the globe that have so far arisen as a result of such divisions. Northern Ireland’s own history of violent conflict, accounting for casualties from both sides of the divide, lies testament to the ravages of civil war and disorder. Rising resentment among minority groups brought about by state negligence and attempts at societal homogenization has been credited as the underlying force behind secessionist movements and political violence around the globe today. (Tomasevski: 2000) The protection and empowerment of minority groups through proper social policy provides for a legal avenue by which the concerns of the minority can be addressed. The curtailment or absence of such an avenue only tends to corner the minority, as well as propagates a rise in ethnic tensions between the two groups. For as long as the state institutionalizes, either through discrimination or neglect, the favored status of one group over the other, antagonistic sentiments will continue to persist between the majority and minority groups thus deepening the social divide. These divisions can have disastrous effects in the stability of such states, resulting ultimately in the emergence of two pseudo-nations inside one territory. As is eloquently stressed by Mandelbaum: “Where nationalism is concerned, the most nearly viable definition turns out to be a tautology: Nations are groups that believe that they are nations and are willing and able to mobilize themselves to secure their own state.” (Mandelbaum: 2000, p.293) In a state where two groups are divided in such a way as to feel completely detached and alien to the other, two pseudo-nations arise which consequently cannot exist within the same territory. In the course of the 20th Century, two possible results from such a situation have come to be more than sufficiently illustrated by actual events: The first, that of successful secessionism wherein the minority group ultimately succeeds in separating itself into a separate nation with a separate national identity and, the second, that of brutal genocide, wherein the majority group embarks on a violent rampage to annihilate the minority for the purpose of homogeneity and a solid national identity. Regardless of which path is undertaken, both paths require the loss of lives on both sides. The prevention of adverse scenarios leading to such phenomena thus becomes a prerogative of the state through proper social policy and protection of minority rights not only for the good of the minority group involved, but ultimately for the welfare of the larger society as a whole. In conclusion, the welfare and protection of social minorities cannot be adequately examined and secured in isolation from their relationship with the larger society because the larger societies wherein these minority groups are situated not only determine the efficacy of minority rights legislation, they are also at risk should such mechanisms fail. BIBLIOGRAPHY Craith, M. Nic (2002) Plural Identities-Singular Narratives: The Case of Northern Ireland. UK: Berghahn Books. Ireland vs United Kingdom 5310/71 [1978] European Court of Human Rights (18 January 1978) Mandelbaum, M. (2000) The New European Diasporas: National Minority and Conflict in Eastern Europe. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (1998) Fact Sheet No. 18, Minority Rights. Geneva, Switzerland: UN OHCHR O’ Leary, B., & MacGarry, G. (2004) The Northern Ireland Conflict: Consociational Engagements. UK: Oxford University Press. Tomasevski, K. (2000) Minority Rights in Development Aid Policies. London: Minority Rights Group International Yarrow,  S.  Steele,  J.  (1997) Religious and Political Discrimination in the Workplace: Seeking Justice in Northern Ireland. London: Policy Studies Institute. Read More