Democratization and economic development are impacted by ethnic diversification directly or indirectly. The article notes that whether ethnic fragmentation causes ethnic conflict, or is mitigated by the rules of economic, political, and cultural systems in a country, depends on the relationship between ethnic fractionalization and institutional quality. When institutions are weaker, the negative consequences of ethnic fractionalization start to become more common and apparent in societies. On the contrary, the presence of well-developed institutions works as a guarantor for countries, preventing them from the violent results of ethnic conflict such as wars and genocide. Furthermore, from sociological point of view, functionalist perspective also give support to validity of the role of institutions on development and democratizaiton.
Polarization of society and the level of social conflict are the main focus of political economy explanations of development outcomes. In this regard, ethnically fragmented countries play a significant role because they are more likely to experience social conflict and polarization. Alesina and Drazen, the authors of the article, “Why are stabilizations delayed?” state that “wars of attrition” is the main reason underlying the conflicting and disadvantageous impact of ethnic conflict on growth and democratization. However, because ethnic fractionalization is substantial after controlling for civil wars, the negative impacts of ethnic fragmentation on growth and consolidation of democracy should not be reduced merely to wars among ethnic groups.
At this point, institutions take center stage. Institutions play a key role in protecting one ethnic group from harming another by supporting freedom from confiscation, establishing legal protections, and ensuring independence from contract repudiation. In this line, high-quality institutions that emphasize the significance of forming explicit rules for business in order to preserve minorities take an increasingly important place in ethnically fragmented states than in ethnically homogeneous states. To illustrate, less qualified institutions in Africa, which underlie its ethnic fragmentation, contribute to its poor development. Moreover, several studies argue that Africa’s poor development and limited economic growth stem from hostile institutions. According to these studies, to increase investment and improve economic development, countries must not only present business rules explicitly and build trust, but also find ways to resolve ethnic conflict peacefully and quickly. Knack and Keefer (1995) describe the measures and qualifications of highly developed institutions as qualified bureaucratization, the rule of law, independence from government confiscation, and independence from government disavowal of contracts. Knack and Keefer’s qualifications are critical because they find that ethnic conflict is influenced when institutions require these measurement qualities (Easterly and Levine, 1997).
Similarly, another major area where institutions matter is war casualties. To illustrate, Sivard (1993) notes that there is a high correlation between ethnic fragmentation and war casualties. In other words, ethnically diverse societies are more likely to experience war. Afghanistan and Sudan are examples of how ethnic diversification and conflict are influential on war casualties. However, Easterly expresses that violent consequences of ethnic conflict, such as war, could be mitigated thanks to highly developed institutions. In light of this, historical examples of civil wars show that societies without strong institutions are more likely to experience civil war, whereas societies with consolidated institutions tend to manage ethnic diversity without resorting to civil war. For instance, ethnic fractionalization caused civil wars in Kosovo, Sudan, and Rwanda, while this is not the case in Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. In other words, good institutions give the chance to come through ethnically fractionalized characteristic which lead to civil wars.
Furthermore, not only the possibility of civil war but also its duration was affected by ethnic diversity, and their relationship is quadratic. Collier and Hoeffler claim that because the interaction between ethnic fragmentation and civil war is quadratic, good institutions are more essential for preventing the long-lasting effects of ethnic fragmentation. The more the civil war endures, the worse consequences on society occurs.
Genocide, which is one form of violent manifestation of ethnic conflict, plays a very significant role in terms of showing the severe consequences of ethnic struggle. Easterly explores whether genocide is more likely to emerge or not when highly qualified institutions are present in ethnically diverse societies. The results demonstrate that, on the one hand, ethnic diversity and the possibility of the emergence of genocide are positively correlated, and the positive effect of ethnic diversity on the possibility of genocide is incontrovertible. However, on the other hand, the reciprocal relationship between institutions and ethnic fragmentation and genocide is negatively correlated. In other words, the mutual effect between ethnic fragmentation and institutions has a negative influence on genocide. More clearly, when institutions are highly qualified, there is less chance for ethnic fragmentation to conclude as genocide. Easterly divided countries according to the degree of quality of their institutions. According to his study, results show that societies with the lowest-quality institutions are more prone to face genocide when ethnic fractionalization rises. More clearly, countries in the lowest third category have more difficulty in handling the possibility of genocide triggered by ethnic diversification. Countries like Angola, Nigeria, Zaire, and Guatemala have the lowest level of institutional quality. In contrast, countries with higher-quality institutions (first- and second-category countries) are more successful in navigating ethnic fractionalization and work to shape its trajectory to avoid genocide. Most prominently, societies with highly qualified institutions do not have genocide, regardless of the degree of ethnic fragmentation. In this regard, Canada, Malaysia, and Thailand are highly ethnically diverse countries with strong institutions. Therefore, they can prevent genocide.
In addition, another noteworthy reason underlying the importance of institutions is their safeguarding role for ethnic minorities in society. To explain why institutions safeguard ethnic minorities, we must first define minority, because the answer lies in that definition. A minority refers to groups exposed to some kind of discrimination based on certain characteristics. They are treated unequally. The way they are treated by others makes them a minority group. Another criterion is being denied access to power and resources that are available to other members of society. Even if they are not denied access, they can be defined as a minority group if they have access to certain resources and power in a different and unequal way, or if they are given fewer opportunities, privileges, and rights than other members of society. A group experiences inequality and discrimination in access to certain resources. If the dominant group blocks another group’s access to certain resources, that group becomes a minority. In this regard, well-established and highly developed institutions are critical to giving minority groups the chance to access resources and power. Otherwise, minority groups will be more and more disadvantageous position in front of dominant group.
From the sociological point of view, there are 3 major perspectives or sociological theories. These theories help us understand, interpret, and explain social reality in distinct ways, and they provide a framework. The functionalist perspective states that every institution, every part of society, is there to function for society. Everything exists because they serve a certain function, and the most important function is stability and order. A good society should work effectively and efficiently within a stable social order. If anything disturbs that stability and order, it is considered a social problem. Anything that can lead unstability, make social institutions disorder is going to be prime reason for most functionalist at the root of existing problems in society.
The functionalist approach to existing racial inequality claims that there has been no society since the beginning of humanity that didn’t have any inequality. Inequality must be serving certain functions for society. According to the functionalist perspective, everything in society exists to serve certain functions. Ideally, that function should focus on maintaining stability and order. Social institutions can protect social order and stability. Once social order and stability are lost, the whole society would collapse. Therefore, existing social institutions should serve that function. Of course, they do not always serve these functions effectively and efficiently; that’s why social problems exist. There are several researches and studies display the deificient implications of institutions which cause inequality and discrimination among ethnic minority groups.
According to a survey of public attitudes conducted by an international research organization in 2005, 44% of Turks believe that Kurds have a very bad influence on society. Besides, 22% believe that Kurds have a somewhat bad impact on society. As a result, 66%, which is two-thirds of the population of Turkey, who identify themselves as Turks carry some sort of anti-Kurdish belief. If majority of the population believe that a category of groups have some sort of a bad influence on society what are the potential consequences?
Another study conducted by Ali Çarkoğlu and Binnaz Toprak (2007) also shows there is a very strong anti-minority and particularly anti-Kurdish belief in Turkey. Participants were asked, “Would you object if any of the following people became your neighbor?”… According to the results, 75% said that they do not want any family from a different sect, which means a non-Sunni sect; 70% state they do not want any Kurdish family; 60% do not want any Jewish family; 57% do not want any Armenian family; and 56% do not want any Greek family.
Another study by Saraçoğlu plays a big role in pointing out other crucial observations. Saraçoğlu (2011) did ethnographic research in İzmir. He argues that in İzmir, which receives a lot of Kurdish immigrants, there is a high level of ethnic segregation in urban areas and very strong prejudices against the Kurds among the Turkish middle classes. He calls this exclusive recognition. He argues that middle-class people in Izmir develop very strong anti-Kurdish attitudes, actions, and behavior as well, stemming from their interactions with those immigrant Kurds. Some of that has to do with their attitudes and beliefs when they interact with each other. Not have real relationships. Because of the things dependent Structural opportunities didn’t provide these two categories of people with a real interaction. That interaction always remains superficial.
According to the studies given above, inequality and disadvantageous conditions are apparent for one of the minority groups living in Turkey, and this issue could be handled by the means of institutions. Parallel to this, functionalists also think that inequality may become dangerous for society because the existence of ethnically and racially too polarized and politicized groups in society may cause the emergence of violent conflicts. When it becomes uncontrolled and disrupts society, functionalists note that it is dangerous. As a consequence, the potentially destructive consequences of inequalities among different ethnic groups should be considered. Therefore, the importance of institutions must be emphasized.
All in all, according to Easter and Levine, ethnic fragmentation influences economic development directly or indirectly. Moreover, Easter argues that whether ethnic fragmentation leads to conflict or is mitigated by the rules of economic, political, and cultural systems depends on the relationship between ethnic fractionalization and institutional quality. The poorer the institutions, the more destructive the consequences of ethnic diversification. Furthermore, economic and political development is affected more severely by poor institutions. At the same time, the presence of well-developed institutions works as the guarantor of countries with regard to preventing them from the violent results of ethnic conflict, such as wars and genocide. Another noteworthy reason for the importance of institutions is their safeguarding role for ethnic minorities in society. By the same token, “Under what circumstances do oppression and discrimination against ethnic minorities occur? is a significant question in terms of deciding which institutions should be improved and what other implications are required. The importance of institutions is emphasized not only from an international relations perspective but also from a sociological perspective. In this regard, interdisciplinary explanations of the role of institutions in resolving ethnic conflict are increasingly important. In a nutshell, establishing well-developed, highly qualified institutions is necessary for societies that want to maintain their consolidation of democratization, peace, and prosperity.
Kardelen DUDULAR
REFERENCES
- Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler, “On economic causes of civil war,” Oxford Economic Papers 50 (1998), 563-573.
- Easterly, William. “The Middle Class Consensus and Economic Development.” Mimeo, World Bank, 1999.
- Easterly, William and Ross Levine, “Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions,” November 1997, Quarterly Journal of Economics. CXII (4), 1203-1250.
- Knack, Stephen, and Philip Keefer, “Institutions and Economic Performance: Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures,” Economics and Politics, VII (1995), 207-227.
- Sivard, Ruth L., World Military and Social Expenditures: 1993. 15th ed. (Washington, DC: World Priorities, 1993).
- Lu, A., & Toprak, B. (2007). Religion, society and politics in a changing Turkey. Karaköy, İstanbul: TESEV publications.
- Lu, C. (2011). Kurds of modern Turkey migration, neoliberalism and exclusion in Turkish society. London: I.B. Tauris.
