Exam Question PTR 330 - Assignment Example

PTR 30: Exam Questions 2. What does it mean to say that the nation is an ‘imagined community’? Ans. The phrase ‘imagined community’ was first coined by Benedict Richard Anderson in his 1983 book Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. He used it to define the word nation and to trace the origin of nationalism. Nation, according to him is as an imagined community because his studies of the concept reveal that it first came into being as a product of social construct rather than an actual and real entity. According to his theory, the concept of a nation is an “imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” Anderson justified the qualification “imagined” with logical notion that it is impossible for every person in a nation, even in the smallest one at that, to personally know or be acquainted with all the rest of the inhabitants of that nation. In addition, the concept of a nation is not only imagined but it is imagined as “limited” because a nation has always fixed and definable boundaries as no nation can ever claim the whole of mankind as belonging to it. Moreover, this imagined limited concept of the term is also characterised as sovereign because according to Anderson, the concept of the nation began to emerge around the same time when the people trying to wean themselves from the ancient conception of monarchical and stratified class divisions as “divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm” which was around the onset of the Enlightenment and Revolution period. Finally, a nation is a community because it is a congregation or association of persons who see themselves as being bound together by certain, unique affinity like ethnic origin, race, religion and creed, colour and customs and traditions despite the fact that people within the same nation may experience certain inequities not experienced by the rest of the rest. According to Anderson, this bond of affinity holding people together, and calling themselves citizens of one nation, is the underlying reason why people of a nation are willing to fight for and sacrifice their lives for that nation. 3. What is a Civic Nation? Ans. The civic nation model is an association of citizens, without distinction in race, colour, creed, gender, language or ethnicity and is bound together as one only because of their common advocacy to the nation’s political creed. This community of people is characterised as ‘civic’ because the congregation is underpinned by equality of rights and duties of citizens, united by patriotism and a commonality of shared values and political practices. The concept of the civic nation can also be explained by defining its anti-thesis – the ethnic nation. As opposed to the civic nation, an ethnic-nation is one where the association of people making up the nation is based on a common descent and therefore pre-determined by birth. It is a closed and exclusive and is not determined where one lives or resides at the moment as opposed to the open, voluntary, principally location-based membership of the civic nation. In the civic nation state, governance and justice are based on the principle that the state is “culturally neutral,” that is, the state does not distinguish between cultures or ethnicity because citizenship, which is the basic unit of its composition, is universal and voluntary in nature and not based on racial or ethnic origin. The concept of a civic nation first began to take root in the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century in France, England and the United States and was understood to refer to a community of persons who exhibit political awareness, stand equal before the law without regard to their colour, ethnicity, social status and religious beliefs. In 1882, a French historian referred to the concept as a “daily plebiscite” implying that the concept only becomes a reality if and when the citizens begin to think of themselves as citizens of a nation and equate citizenship to nationality. 6. What is a Plural Society? A plural society is a conglomeration of people belonging to different ethnic groups but peacefully co-existing with each other within a specific territory. The concept of a plural society was first coined by the anthropologist J.S. Furnivall who, while studying India and Burma, was struck at the ethnic mixture of Europeans, Chinese, Indians and natives all living and co-existing in those territories. He marveled at the fact that although these people of different ethnic origins live together, this did not led to the blurring of their respective individual religion, culture, language, ideas and ways. These individual qualities unique to respective ethnic groups are preserved notwithstanding their co-existence. Furnivall believed that the viability of a plural society was made possible by the presence of colonial powers which acted as a balancing mechanism between them. In addition, the different ethnic groups share a common ground which is the market place. Nevertheless, the potential for great conflict always keeps plural societies in a constant state of impending danger. While Furnivall’s definition necessarily limited and equated the term to the colonial period as well as to racial and ethnic differentiations neglecting other types of social schisms, M.G. Smith expanded the theory to make the term applicable to post-colonialism situations and other types of social differentiations. In particular, Smith referred to the multi-racial states in the Caribbean and Africa. According to Smith, a society can only be called strictly plural if the differentiation exist at the most basic level like “the family, patterns of socialization and other small-scale, intimate relationships.” Frederik Barth, a Norwegian anthropologist, subsequently added to the concept by proposing two antithetical characteristics at work in pluralistic societies: economic interdependence, and; ecological specialisation. According to Barth, some characteristic cultural features of the different ethnic groups in a pluralistic society can find complementarity with each other which can be made the basis of interaction among the groups. This can give rise to the positive result of symbiosis or interdependence. The more an ethnic group can operate in particularised niches, the more stable is the plural society because there is less competition. Particularised niches which ensue from ecological specialisation or the ability of an ethnic group to utilise the ecological resources unique to its community give rise to economic interdependence because groups rely on the products of another unique only to it and vise-versa. 8. What is ‘Ethnocracy’? Ethnocracy is a form of government or regime type that cannot be classified as either a democracy or authoritarian and is initially put into effect by a dominant ethnic group that takes advantage of its dominance by appropriating the state apparatus and taking control of a territory that is contested by other smaller ethnic groups. Ethnocracy works to expand, ethnicise and control the local territory by the dominant ethnic group. This form of government is characterised by, among others, partial democratic features, like political competition, free media and other civil rights. An Ethnocracy is usually the product of the following historical-political forces: settler-colonialism; ethnonationalism, and; ‘ethnic-logic’ of capital. Ethnocracy is underpinned by a coordinated and unified effort of a majority ethnic group to take control of a territory which it sees as its own homeland and to which it thinks it has a right over for its self-determination. The problem with this ethnic-based form of government however, is the inevitable presence of other ethnic groups and other ethnic interests that creates tension within the territory and results in conflicts. Such conflicts are usually triggered by the fact that such other ethnic groups are likewise nursing the sentiment of having inherent rights over the same territory especially if they had successfully established dominion over it in past historical periods. This is the reason why an ethnocratic government will always direct its efforts to manipulate every geographical space within and without its original territory through ethnicization. The process of state-led ethnicization necessarily results in the marginalisation of minorities and the expropriation of their territories. Further tension and escalation of conflicts often ensue. Ethnocracy is characterised by the following: ethnicity is the basis of the hierarchical allocation of power with the highest share given to the dominant group and mere partial rights meted to the minorities; the dominant ethnic group has control over state apparatus and steers the course of political, social and cultural directions; it has vague political boundaries; it imposes a strict classification of ethnic segregation and socio-economic hierarchies despite prevailing legal and market trends; religion is employed as a tool to strengthen ethnicization; it eventually results in instability as marginalised minorities gradually put up resistance. 9. Explain ‘consociationalism’? Consociationalism is a democratic form of government which, according to political scientist Arend Lijphart, takes shape when deviant cases of fragmented systems managed to sustain stability. A consociational democracy necessarily comprises several subcultures competing against each other but surprisingly do not create instability enough to rip the society apart because of the presence of a stabilising third variable (aside from political culture and role structure) which is the political elites. The political elites act as stabilising forces in such a form of government by exerting concerted and deliberate effort to minimise and counteract the destabilising effect of tension created by competition among the different subculture. The political elites may go as far as the electoral level to guarantee the stability of the state by violating the rule of majority. During critical times, for example, the elite cartel of these democracies can form themselves into a grand coalition cabinet or any other form of elite grouping to prevent the further cleavage of hostile subcultures. This is what others may call power-sharing among all the components of society. The components of a successful consociationalism democracy are: the ability of the elites to accommodate the different interests of the various subcultures; the ability of the elites to go beyond differences and cooperate with the other elites of the other subcultures; the strength of the elite’s commitment to the cause; the capacity of the elites to comprehend the dangers of political fragmentation. Examples of successful consociationalism democracies are that of the Low Countries, Switzerland, Lebanon and Austria. An examination of consociationalism in the above mentioned countries reveals that their success is underpinned by several factors: the relationship among the elites of different subcultures; the relationship among the masses of the different subculture, and; the relationship between the elites and the masses in a subculture. Read More