In deeply divided societies, ethnic identity provides obvious borders to determine who will be included and who will be marginalized. Under the name of religion; every group, crust and party follows some unified packages of normative and ethic “Musts and Must Nots”. This packages determine the approach of the respective groups to the social and political issues and phenomena, including democracy. And these groups and parties, as the main players of the society and government, are somehow resembling the football players from different opposite teams, approaching to the ball of democracy with different aims, ambitions and tactics. Of course these characteristics are not the same for every society and government. The consequences of the strong ethnic and religious ties for every society, are contingent on the structure of that society and the platform or environment (political or social) which they are applied to. So, it will be more logical to firstly classify our analysis into two sections: 1) Analysis in the social platform and 2) Analysis in the political (governmental) platform, and then consider these processes in two different types of the societies: Divided societies like Afghanistan and coherent societies. The procedures can be represented as following:
Afghanistan is an example of a deeply divided society with strong ethno-religious ties. Here the probability of the strong affiliation of the groups X,Y,Z; which are the examples for the involved groups in society, to their religion is shown by P(R), and to their ethnicity is shown by P(E), and the total consolidated democracy in the model society is shown by ƩD. The quota from democracy, which every group uses in its way to advocate for its interests and values, is represented by πx, πy and πz. So:
P(R) x + P (E) x P (ƩD – πx)
P(R) y + P (E) y P (ƩD – πy)
P(R) z + P (E) z P (ƩD – πz)
So, when different groups with strong ethnic and religious ties get involved in a civic activity, in every attempt of these players, different goals and ideologies are chased. And by enjoying the fundamental constitutional rights of every nation and society, every group consumes a portion from the democracy. In this type of societies, due to multiplicity of the groups and players, the majority cannot be achieved by a single group. So it leads the way to the deadlock and conflict.
Although, we can firstly think that achieving the majority in this kind of societies, may be possible by forming coalitions, but considering the importance of the religion and ethnicity to every group, the problem of inflexibility among the groups and parties forming this coalition, exacerbates the conflict. So in this case, the society is made up of multiple minorities and there is no majority. And the democracy, resembling a ball, is disputed between the different ethno-religious players and its fragilability is very high.
Contrary to divided societies like that of Afghanistan, there are also societies that are either coherent or the difference between ethno-religious groups are well-managed. The religion and ethnicity here, are either the same or there is a certain majority among the ethnic and religious groups, which can be easily dominant over the minorities and overshadow them. So the total probability of the strong reliance and ties of the dominant majority group and the minorities clouded by it, to their religion and ethnicity can be shown by ƩP(R)t and ƩP (E)t. And the total quota of democracy used by them or belonging to them is shown by ƩD. So:
P(R) t + P (E) t ƩD
As represented, since the society is coherent and there is less difference in the ethnicity and religion, the probabilities are considered as a total, and the democracy is stronger from that in divided societies. Also here, being affiliated to the religion and ethnicity cannot much affect the performance of democracy. Because, the democracy is not shared or divided among many minority groups, so its fragilability is too low and it is supposed to be tenacious against religious and ethnic resistance.
In the political platform, there are too many examples to describe the situation of the respective society. So, before examples, it is better to have a general structure for the political case in each type of societies.
We have a concept called “Balance of Power” in International Relations. This is the circumstance in which no superpower is present to control the actions of the micro powers in the political scene. All of the players of the international community bear approximately equal powers along with different interests.
So here, the “Polarizability” of the power is almost zero. Considering this term of International Relations for the national platform, we can claim that in divided societies which are made up of multiple minorities, if the ethnic and religious, or generally ideological ties are strong, the opportunity for achieving the consensus decreases and the polarizability of power is zero, since there is not any group having the ability to achieve the majority and form the dominant pole. And as a general fact, in non-polar reactions, the bonds are weak, fragile and oscillating. These circumstances create an anarchic atmosphere, where there is no guarantee of the current conditions to survive.
In the governmental platform, three main positions are disputed among the groups: 1) Executive Branch 2) Legislative Branch (Parliament) and 3) Judicial Branch.
The most common channel to get a position in the executive branch is the presidential elections. In divided societies, considering the diversity of the ethnicity, religion, ideas and interests and inability of the groups to reach the majority; the risk of electoral deadlock is too high. In such cases, supposing the ethnic and religious ties to be high and considering the lack of flexibility, the dispute among the contender parties cannot be resolved by simple intra party negotiations and usually a third-party mediator is needed to avert the crisis and lead the case to a solution. The formation of the National Unity Government of Afghanistan in 2014 is an obvious example for this case.
Presidential elections were held in Afghanistan on 5 April 2014, with a second round held on 14 June. Results were expected on 22 July. However, widespread accusations of fraud delayed these results. As a result, John Kerry, United States Secretary of State mediated the negotiations between the two final running presidential candidate; Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah. After series of negotiations and talks between Ashraf Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah and John Kerry, the two running president candidates agreed to sign an Agreement to form a National Unity Government based on 50 & 50 power sharing. Then a separate position was created for Abdullah Abdullah as Chief Executive.
This government is created and the president is elected by the external factor mediation, so “the appointment or selection of the president by the direct vote of the nation”, or simply the “Popular Sovereignty” which is one of the key features of democracy, is overruled here. Secondly, many Afghan and foreign politicians and thinkers claim that this government doesn’t have a valid legal basis, because its formation and existence hinge on an agreement which is against Afghanistan’s 2004 Constitution. So here, also “the rule of law” which is another key feature of democracy, is ignored.
The legislative branch also must undergo the process of the direct elections by the nation. In most of the divided societies, Proportional Representation method and Multi Member District (MMD) electoral systems are used. Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.
The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result not just a plurality, or a bare majority. Almost all proportional representation systems use MMDs, because it is impossible to distribute votes proportionally if there is only one seat. Here, since the case is examined in divided societies, the probability of disagreement between the different parties forming the members of the parliament or congress, and the usage of veto system by the opposite parties against each other, are at their highest level.
It is shown analytically that one dimension of party’s ideology may create incentives for veto players to block policies that, ideologically, they might not like. This is the case because when party attachments dominate voters’ behavior across different electoral arenas, veto players in the opposition might find it in their electoral interests to prevent popular policies from being adopted. So here, generally the ideological ties and the conflicts derived from them, not only among the opposite parties but also inside the parties, are likely to cause “Legislative Deadlocks” or simply “Gridlocks”.
The most interesting example to this case is “The Brexit” crisis in the Britain’s parliament. Brexit stands for Britain’s split from the European Union, changing its relationship to the bloc on trade, security and migration. Britain’s two main political parties (Conservative Party and Labor Party) bargain over the nation’s withdrawal from the European Union. Here, the badly divided government is in crisis, unable to agree on an approach to the country’s biggest peacetime decision in decades. The legislative branch or the parliament which is the key democratic institution in every state, is stuck in a storm of different controversial ideas which are the consequences of the ethnic, ideological, religious and normative ties of the disputing parties. So, this situation may cause the paralysis of the legislative system, and the democracy, cannot be significantly represented in this branch of the government.
The third branch in a government, is the Judicial Branch. While the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the head of state and confirmed by parliament.
In countries with strong ethnic and religious ties, the elected president or party usually tends to follow his/its self-intended policies, ideologies and interests. And the appointment of the judges by this president or the dominant party of the parliament, lays the groundwork for the risk of “judicial dependency” and limitation of judicial power. The interesting point is that this dependency, may cause two contradictory procedures: 1) Judicialization of Politics and 2) Judicial Avoidance.
Often in Third World countries, where political corruption is high, the heads of the governments usually tend to pursue authoritarianism. Some political issues can be referred to the judges who are trusted by the president. This action is called “Judicialization of Politics”. Contrary to this action, some decisions are not deemed suitable to be made by judges, since in case they are made, they may provoke political backlashes by the executive or legislature. Fearing these backlashes causes the judiciary to choose the strategy of “Judicial Avoidance”. Judicial avoidance is referred to the decision of the courts not do decide upon a specific case.
Judicialization of politics and judicial avoidance as two opposite phenomena, are undermining judicial independence mostly in the Third World countries. Judicialization of politics forces the courts to intervene in some issues that may not be in the arena of their authority or jurisdiction. In some cases, this act forces judges to engage in legislation either expressly or implicitly, a role not traditionally belonging to the judicial branch. As a result, the “Independence of Judicial Branch” which is another feature of democracy, is derailed here.
By the twentieth century, as a result of rampant flows of the countries through nationalism, governments tried to homogenize the societies and arrange the social and political groups in a special way to make their languages, cultures, religions, and ethnic ancestry the same, and marginalize the groups which remain out of the chamber after homogenization. Some countries already had uniform, homogenous or similar national characteristics. Though it is nearly impossible to find a perfect coherent society, yet some great examples of coherent and homogeneous societies are Japanese society, Chinese society, and a number of African tribes.
In these kind of societies, these uniform ideological, ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious specifications form a real “National Identity”. This national identity also surrounds the common ethnic and religious connections and ties. And here, if we consider the existence of a strong affiliation and reliance of the nation to its common ethnicity, a new phenomenon called “Ethnic Nationalism” comes to the agenda. Ethnic Nationalism, also known as Ethno-Nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation is defined in terms of ethnicity.
The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that “nations” are defined by a common heritage including common language, common culture, and common ethnic ancestry. One of the obvious examples for this case is Japanese society. In the process of democratization of Japan, the homogenous national identity of this country, helped the democracy to become gradually assimilated by the Japanese society. The case of Japan illustrates the importance of demonstrating that democracy is compatible with those traditions and institutions which constitute the core of the country’s national identity.
And if strong religious ties are considered here, the “Religious Nationalism” appears. In this kind of Nationalism, the nation is defined by its members’ common religion. In these types of societies, since different groups bear the same ethnicity and religion, the probability of the disagreements and conflicts originating from the ethnic and religious ties is really low. And the nation enjoys the right for self-determination, which is another word to define democracy. Thus, the reactions in all three chambers of the government, occur with very less friction and controversy in compare with those in divided societies. It is often witnessed that the society’s common inheritance of identity, mixing with the strong ideological affiliations unites the channels of democracy utilized by the nation. So it is consequently inferred that the ethnic and religious ties here, don’t disturb the functioning of democracy.
The effects of ideological affiliations inside a society, especially the strong ethnic and religious ties, differ according to the structure of the respective societies (divided or coherent). Thus, the democracy in a society with ethnic and religious divisions, is deemed vulnerable against strong ethno-religious ties. While the democracy in a society with a common heritage of religion, ethnicity, and culture is unlikely to be harmed by ethno-religious ties. In some cases it is even strengthened by them, as witnessed in the case of Democratization of Japanese society.
(Maryam Jami is a senior graduate student at the Faculty of Law and Political science, Herat University, and works for the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS) since 2018. She recently received an LLM scholarship from the Embassy of India in Afghanistan. Views expressed are personal.)
