« The Economics of Airport Shopping | Main | Friday Dolphin Blogging »

The Dilemmas of Multiculturalism

31 Aug 2007 04:22 pm

Not that I have anything in particular to say about Belgium (took a trip to Brussels one time and found it delightful -- I'm personally a huge fan of both Renée Magritte and mussels) but Ingrid Robeyns has an interesting teaser for projected future coverage of Belgian politics:

For those of you in countries where there hasn’t been any reporting – it’s day 82 after the federal elections, and the Flemish and Walloon parties are so bitterly opposed to each other’s demands, that commentators are talking aloud of “the end of Belgium” (which is not going to happen soon, since neither of them wants to give up Brussels – but there are signs that the crisis between the Dutch/Flemish-speaking and Francophone regions is deeper than it has been in decades).

And the more I thought about what I should write, the more it became clear that it’s a complicated issue to write about. One problem is that the interpretations of the political events differ dramatically between the Dutch-language and the Francophone Belgian press – truly as if they are from two different planets – so any (foreign) journalist/reader who masters only one of those two languages will almost inevitably get a distorted or one-sided pictured. Then there is the question whether, as a Flemish person, I can write sufficiently neutral about this.

Whenever I try to chart a course between the "Iraq would have been great if we'd just had smarter people in charge of the occupation" and the "Arabs can't handle democracy" school of thought, I tend to come back to things like this -- the great difficult Belgians have in creating a viable, legitimate binational democratic state. Or think of the Canadians. Or the endless problems in Spain with the Basques. It's genuinely difficult to work these kinds of things out. And then there's the former Czechoslovakia where it couldn't be worked out, or else Northern Ireland where it also couldn't be worked out but where there proved to be no adequate line of partition. None of these places are precisely like the others, of course, but the general point is just that there's shouldn't be anything surprising about the fact that it's proven very difficult to come up with a vision for Iraq that's appealing across sectarian and ethnic lines in Iraq.

Share This

Comments (43)

The most interesting thing I've ever learned about Belgium is that at some point they started charging to use public women's restrooms, but not men's rooms. One woman thus inaugurated a campaign called "Peeing in the Street" until the policies were changed.

It's a shame because it truly is a beautiful country. Even if I've only seen it on the train between Paris and Amsterdam.

If you want to study the problems of Getting Democracy Right, try looking at this interesting country called the United States of America prior to, say, 1865. Of course, to do it properly you have to give up this silly habit of calling a sizeable proportion of the country at that time "traitors," as it really confuses the issue [Confederates were, of course, convinced that they were the True Heirs to the Revolution, and even called southern white Unionists "Tories," which really confused the issue--but I digress]. But once you set aside the curious notion that one side was obviously "right" [Lincoln himself knew better--see the Second Inaugural], the leadup to the Civil War becomes a grimly fascinating exercise in how difficult it is to deal with issues such as slavery when there's fundamental disagreement over just which entity is owed ultimate loyalty. We had a hard time getting it right.

Switzerland does OK. China has different spoken languages all over but has been more-or-less unified for the last couple of millennia or so. Nicaragua's east coast is English-speaking.

…or else Northern Ireland where it also couldn't be worked out but where there proved to be no adequate line of partition.

I’m no grammar stickler (pot-kettle issues), but I have no idea what this means.

nm

The U.S.A. is still a most amazing experiment.

We had a hard time getting it right.

And settling that matter ended up involving a ton more violence than anyone wants to see happen nowadays. So these things fester on forever, with everyone permanently embittered. It's more or less why, growing up in Canada, I always wanted to leave it. (Not the 'distaste for violence' thing; the permanent bitterness.)

It isn't that Arabs can't handle democracy, it's that most Arab nations (like most African nations, some South American nations, the odd Eastern European nation, etc.) don't have the conditions necessary to start a functioning democracy (or even a functioning state, in some cases.) Democracy doesn't just happen when you have elections and ink-stained fingers. Democracy requires infrastructure-- physical, social, political, economic, beurocratic. Building that kind of infrastructure is difficult and expensive. It helps if you have a government that has been around in some form for a very long time (as in the Western European nations, Japan), a great deal of monetary and/or natural resource wealth (the United States, Canada) geographic isolation so as to not face competition from your neighbors (the US, Australia, to an extent Japan), a history of colonialism (the European democracies), a massive slave workforce (the US), or any combination therein.

You just can't dump ballot boxes on a fractured society and expect meaningful democracy to begin. The truth is, democracy happens when the people of a sufficiently advanced country make it happen. You just aren't going to turn around and make an Afghanistan or Liberia into a functioning democracy. They don't have the civic facilities necessary.

Sorry, I missed what multicultural disasters were supposed to be happening in Canada these days. The days of arguing over French on the cereal boxes are long past.

"Iraq would have been great if we'd just had smarter people in charge of the occupation" and the "Arabs can't handle democracy" school of thought dilemma very well...

For me personally it is more: "Iraq would have been great if we'd just had smarter people in charge AND all of Europe behind us..." sorry - this has triggered some longish thoughts that are not directly related to multi-cultural problems..

Germany and France (both dudes long gone) have cost the world a lot... What do you want to do with somebody like Saddam - especially post 9/11... you get all free democracies together and put him under pressure. An United Europe and America would have not given shred of a doubt that they will attack unless Iraq becomes IAEA compliant... The necessarily signaling to the region could have happened without blood - but not without a real threat?

I supported all of that.. I was disappointed with the Europeans and I underestimated their own understanding of democracy vs dictatorship.. but it was also worth noting that the Eastern European states (who do recall dictatorship), Spain, Italy, UK did support the effort - even against popular pressure..

Only the two pseudo-former-empires with their own atrocities.. anyway. Germany especially hates the fact that it was them who did what they did and that the world knows about it and that the US freed them.. playing the pacifist card was... stinking kraut! (It was not the oil interest that Europe has in Iraq but the German elections who were more important (to Schröder) than world stability... pfui!)

Germany and France, with all their Anti-Americanism, have been underestimated by myself at the time. it is mainly in this respect that the Bush administration comes up in my memories. those two "old" European nations could have been played better (despite their pathetic and local worldview). The whole international front could have been played better. There was nobody in office, as far I recall, who has lived several years in Europe for example? Do I err? Bush tried to make it sound like an international effort.. but for national-politics reason he was always conveying that this was "his" war (what got him reelected).

However - it is so easy to critic in hind-sight..

I will not forgive my own continent (France and Germany) but maybe I will forget?

Now - we ARE in Iraq. As Russia and Eastern Europe showed us - it will take at least another decade before the population feels an improvement.. They are capable of democracy - Turkey and Egypt may be bad examples but maybe not? But I am not sure how much of our war chest is spend on education and how much on fighting terror...

PS: I just hope that somebody has a good book on puppy education..

as long as the puppy knows that she will get your treats - she will also try to get less tasty treats from strangers. it is imperative for the puppy to learn that you have the best treats and that she will miss those if she accepts ANYTHING from strangers.. and when the puppy doesn't obey when you call her - run away - never chase her...

use force too much or even hurt the puppy and you train an actor.. who behaves as you wish him to as long as you are looking and are present - but who retaliates behind your back. it is so easy to turn a puppy into a problem dog?

either way - change will come when business and investment comes back.. the "terrorists" know that and as long as they can prevent stability with a few home made explosives...

patience will be a substantial part of the equation - partitioning of Iraq or not?

Switzerland does OK. China has different spoken languages all over but has been more-or-less unified for the last couple of millennia or so.

I'll grant you Switzerland, though should you ever meet a Swiss person, you'll know instantly why their history is comparatively peaceful - they just can't be bothered. But China's history is littered with millions upon millions dead from internal struggles and thus probably not such a good example.

And speaking of Brussels, on my only visit there, we were driving in the suburbs to visit a relative. Typical suburb, shops, restaurants, when off to the right I see a large field and in the distance a rectagular sloped mound that I know I had seen somewhere. Seemed out of place. Then it hit me, we were in the suburban town of Waterloo.

The examples cited here should be a warning to those individuals who think that a 1 state solution in Palestine is feasible.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 5:39 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yep ! Damn France, Germany, and Russia and China and all those which, by opposing to the war, made it unavoidable and necessary. They are responsible for the Iraq war, yes. A war that George Bush didn't want at all, and made everything to avoid. Yep ! The American threat wasn't a real threat, it would have been so only with France and Germany. Damn them damn them damn them !

The US should send the bill to them.

22867-SIGNSTOCK


Re: China has different spoken languages all over but has been more-or-less unified for the last couple of millennia or so.

China was in near anarchy for almost half of the 20th century. And going back further, China was not unified back when the Mongols came (13th century), which is one reason Genghis Khan was able to walk right in and take over. Also, after the Han dynasty fell (3rd century) China went through a very bad period comparable to Europe after the fall of Rome, but recovered quicker and more fully.
The Chinese languages is an interesting situation in its own right: there are rea;ly eight Chinese languages, as distinct from one another as, say, the Romance languages, but because they are written with same ideograms a sort of (written, but not spoken) universal Chinese exists, helping knit the country together.

Re: It helps if you have a government that has been around in some form for a very long time (as in the Western European nations, Japan), a great deal of monetary and/or natural resource wealth (the United States, Canada) geographic isolation so as to not face competition from your neighbors (the US, Australia, to an extent Japan), a history of colonialism (the European democracies), a massive slave workforce (the US

I agree that having a long established government helps (though not too much. See: Russia) And having a functioning and diversified economy helps a lot too. Geogrophical isolation was not really present anywhere in Europe; even Britain was subject to threats from its neighbors. Nor am I sure that colonialsm did anything worthwhile one way or the other-- some colonizing countries (Spain, Portugal) ccame very late to democracy and some countries with no real colonies (Sweden) democratized easily enough. Also, I think slavery was a definite hinderance, as it very nearly destroyed American democracy and its residual effects are a bane on the nation to this day.

Zap!

YES! Damn, France, Germany, and Russia in this case. not China - unless you have noticed, they almost always stay neutral (unless one mentions Taiwan)!

Remember a beautiful, small European country? Yugoslavia.. a fairy tale! Then - Christians want to kill all Muslims.. oh..?

What does the UN decide? France, Germany, Russia? No... genocide in Europe is.. ok.. let's wait and use diplomacy a bit longer.. they are only Muslims anyway. US - says: fuck that - we make sure this time the same countries (D, F, R) don't accuse us later that we were "too late again".

Where were the millions of Germans and French marching the streets to prevent the Genocide and to save the Muslims then? No - they simply did not want to get their hands dirty themselves...

Saddam invaded another country during Bush I.. what was the reason for him remaining in power -despite Thatchers advise at the time?

My father has worked for the IAEA most of his life btw. Saddam played games with the IAEA - an organisation that is rendered meaningless if it cannot do more than "send angly lettels"? Do you know why N. Korea was not put under pressure earlier - during the first nuclear findings (late 1990s?)? My recalls some baguettes?

And I did criticize Bush for making this "his" war - and for not having used diplomacy better.. And now I will critique Bush I for not listening to Thatcher during the first golf war - when there was much more international support for an invasion (except for France, Russia, ...).

PS: Most American wanted and voted for that war including myself). For better or worse - this is how it is? Would I turn back the clock if I could - most certainly yes. Do I know what should have been done instead? Most certainly not!

PS II: That does not mean I "hate" Germany, France, etc... quite the contrary - I love those countries for many different reasons... but not for political ones necessarily! If they had held the power that the US has held for so long.. mama mia! France, Germany and Bush have more in common than you think?

I disagree with some of the comments, the establishment of democracy is initially all about elections.

The key point the losers of elections must respect the verdict; the winners should not postpone the next regularly scheduled elections. If this happens, democracy will take root.

The example of India is a case in point.

The closest that India came to losing its democracy was in 1975-77, when then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency after she was convicted in a court of election fraud. This meant suspension of civil liberties and she became a virtual dictator.

But she did hold elections again, in 1977, was thoroughly defeated, and she respected the verdict, and stepped down.

Of course, elections were not exactly clean. Booth capturing and vote rigging were common in some areas. But the election cycles continued and eventually India got a series of incorruptible Chief Election Commissioners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Election_Commissioner_of_India

This opened up political participation even more.

Now things like a freedom of information act, and the ability of citizens to file public interest litigation are further improving matters.

At Independence in 1947, India had a literacy of 10-20%, a political elite drawn from a very small class of people, enormous political difficulties, the economic disruption caused by Partition (the formation of Pakistan), innumerable languages and many different religions, and that too, mostly jumbled up with each other. Didn't look like it would work, did it?

I would further say that keeping a very diverse population in one political entity helped keep conflict down. E.g., you could imagine innumerable border wars if the Indian states were separate, and enormous ethnic tensions if you needed visas to cross artificial borders.


While China has different languages and regional cultural differences far more deep-seated and significant than - say - US regions - 97% of China is Han ethnicity.

Only a few "islands" exist of minorities in a Han Sea, and along its Borders, exist many cultures like the Thai, Vietnamese, Koreans, Uighurs that once existed in whole or in part inside China proper and were pushed out. The Tibetans are the latest to "Meet the Borg".

Switzerland does OK. China has different spoken languages all over but has been more-or-less unified for the last couple of millennia or so.

1) switzerland is extremely decentralized, as i'm sure you know. in some localities towns can vote on whether an immigrant becomes a naturalized citizen! (there is also the interesting fact that the two major language groups are both split into catholic and protestant confessions, resulting in cross-linked identities).

2) chinese has a unified written language. that has long mattered since the ruling class was unified by the same literary canon.

p.s. i think bringing up the collapses of prior chinese dynasties isn't really appropriate.

1) i doubt that there was language based nationalism in the pre-modern era which is analogous to what we see around us today in the post french revolution period (e.g., the decline of latin in constantinople wasn't because the greeks protested the use of that language as much as an evolutionary process as the east shed legacies of the unified roman empire which weren't necessary anymore).

2) i don't know of language based conflict in china. there were some correlations (e.g., hakkas were central in the taiping rebellion), but i don't think it was anything explicit.

I should perhaps write a few words about the great failure in South Asia, which is the partition into India and Pakistan. To avoid getting into arguments, please take these as my views only.

A sizeable faction of the Muslims of British India wanted absolute parity with the Hindus and everyone else. A 20% minority wanted parity with the 80%. Not in the sense of equal citizenship for all, but in terms of 50-50 say in everything. The negotiations were long and futile and ultimately ended in "Direct Action". On the one side those arguing that all have lived cheek-to-jowl for centuries, separation is unrealistic, and on the other, the insistence that Muslims were a separate nation from the rest.

----

There are some lessons to be learned. Among one of the points of contention was joint versus separate electorates. The Pakistan side wanted separate electorates - Muslims vote for Muslims, Hindus vote for Hindus, Christians vote for Christians etc. The India side was willing to concede reserved constituencies to make sure say, that Muslims were guaranteed 30% of the Parliament, but not separate constituencies. Namely, a constituency might be designated that only Muslims could run for the Parliamentary seat, but they would have to win votes from everyone. Mahatma Gandhi persuaded the Hindu Dalits to accept this kind of arrangement. However the Pakistan faction never accepted this.

The reason for insisting on joint electorates is that the problems of a people in an area are common problems and do not split neatly by religion or community. Second, if you have to win an election in a diverse electorate, you are going to be a moderate. Separate electorates encourage extremism (exactly like the Democratic and Republican primaries :)).

Interestingly enough, the minorities in Pakistan, who number about 3% of the population DON'T want separate electorates after their experience of it. The legislators who represent their religion are likely from some far away place and don't know about their problems. The local (Muslim) legislator doesn't care much about them because they can't vote for him.

IMO, one big mistake among many that the US made in Iraq was that it should have held a census and created geographical constituencies based on that and then conducted elections. The set of people who would have won would be much more reasonable, amenable to compromise, non-extremist. Instead, the US held sectarian elections. IMO, this is one of the decisions that is helping tear Iraq apart.

Arun,

"IMO, one big mistake among many that the US made in Iraq was that it should have held a census and created geographical constituencies based on that and then conducted elections."

Krauthammer made a similar point in his column today (and has made the same point in the past). If memory serves, it was a non-American adviser to the Iraqi provisional government that suggested the party-list system.

A sizeable faction of the Muslims of British India wanted absolute parity with the Hindus and everyone else.

let's add a little context here. urdu speaking muslim elites were not excited by the inevitable hegemony of hindus (in practice, upper caste hindus) in a unified nation, so they wanted pakistan. but in a place like bengal the muslim support for the muslim league was in part simply a function of local dynamics: the muslim masses resented hindu bhadrolok economic hegemony and wanted to translate their numerical preponderance into leadership of the province. the hindus of bengal reacted negatively to this and forced partition of the province because they didn't want to be dominated by the upstart muslim bengalis (until the late 19th century there really wasn't much of a muslim bengali middle class, the muslims of bengal were led by urdu speaking elites).

Speaking of Belgium... I've lately wondered why it is that when Germanic people living in Great Britain started speaking French, they invented the English language, but in Belgium and Switzerland, Germanic- and Romance-speaking people have been neighbors for centuries without such a fusion.

I've lately wondered why it is that when Germanic people living in Great Britain started speaking French, they invented the English language, but in Belgium and Switzerland, Germanic- and Romance-speaking people have been neighbors for centuries without such a fusion.

the normans were a tiny minority. if you've heard frisian it definitely sounds like english, english has big latinate influx of words, but you can still use only germanic words and be intelligible (though you should a bit low class ;-) switzerland is made up of very independent self-governing cantons. you didn't have a german speaking elite ruling geneva, or french speakers ruling zurich. so the analogy doesn't work. also, i think it is more appropriate to say that the french speaking normans switched to the saxon language but brought in many latinate words. i'm skeptical that bilingualism among the peasantry was ever common.

One of my biggest complaints about Thomas Friedman over the years has been his complete inability to recognize and take into account this ugly tendency in humanity and its significance. The world isn't flat, not every cab driver is waiting to maximize his utility via the internet -- many people are animated by thoughts of killing the "dog-like" people down the road who speak a different language, worship a different god, or embrace a different theological path to the same god. I won't even mention skin color, tribe or ehnic group.

Befre embarking on utopian military adventures it might be worth at least giving these factors some thought.

Why Magritte, Matt? I hope it isn't because of the "philosophical" content, which is pretty sophomoric. (A picture of a pipe isn't a pipe! Dude!) OK, Foucault made a decent case for it, but that was more Foucault than Magritte.

Belgium's University of Leuven (aka Louvain, but the two language groups were split to different campuses in the early 1970s) is a good place to read philosophy, though. They have the archive of all the manuscripts of Husserl (one of the few 'continentals' who gets anything like respect from A-A types like Matt probably is).

Also, the beer. Mmmm.

Language and culture is one thing; religion is another. If there is a God (I hope there is but fear there isn't), she/he must spend a great deal of time crying over what we do in her/his name.

Maybe we've made more progress than I can see at the moment. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other and watch the earth pass by... I guess -- aka KEEP ON TRUCKING :-)

Matt has a good point. In a basic sense people generally have a problem sticking in a group and seeing beyond their 'self'. Anyone in a relationship can testify to that. In societies like Iraq I guess the tribe etc. replaces the self. At the end folks stick together if they feel the benefits outweigh the costs.

Maybe the two Belgiums are moving apart but it is true that all of Europe is moving closer together. And they are primarily because (I think) of economic reasons.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 7:10 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh My ! Now we jump to Yugoslavia (that country would fit nicely in the discussion about the dilemmas of multiculturalism)… A fairy tale, indeed !

OK. You have to make a point. You don't hate France or Germany, but somehow, they are responsible, or France is responsible for Bush I not getting rid of Saddam, North Korea not being put under pressure sooner… What else ? And if France or Germany had held the power that the US has held for so long, who knows, they probably would have invented the theory of preemptive war, deposed some democratically elected leaders, militarized space, got rid of a bloodthirsty dictator with the help of other bloodthirsty dictators, like Saparmurat Nyazov, or Islam Karimov…

Look, I don't want to go further in this off topic discussion, so this is my last post about it.

Ciao !

I wonder if it's not easier to have a multicultural state than a bicultural state. In a way, the tensions must be more diluted if you have more than two groups.

Switzerland is a very special case : as far as I know, it is the only country that has been created by the free willing of its constituents, without any tentative of assimilation.

In practice, the hegemony of the "feudals" has remained more or less unshaken in Pakistan. In India, political space has opened up for the so-called lower castes, and actually they are preponderant today.

Recently a Dalit woman, became chief minister of India's largest (by population) state, by creating a historic coalition.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2410/stories/20070601003209800.htm

More important, Mayawati has effected a paradigm shift in Indian politics. She has, for the first time ever, succeeded in building a social coalition that inverts the pyramid of caste/class hierarchy by building a rainbow alliance of social groups, now dominated by that greatest underclass of all, Dalits.

Crudely put, this is a transformed, indeed subverted, subaltern version of the classic Congress-style broad `winning coalition' until the 1970s, which comprised the upper castes and the `core minorities' (Muslims, Dalits and, to an extent, Adivasis). But there are three crucial differences between the two blocs. First, Mayawati's is a coalition or bloc from below, in which the lower, subaltern orders of society dominate. The terms of this alliance are set by Dalits through the BSP transparently and without fuss or pretension.

Second, the Congress' classical formula papered over the distinctive identities of castes and communities. It was sustained by the distribution of patronage and co-option of leaders. By contrast, Mayawati's coalition is based on an explicit recognition of group identities but under the overarching presence of Dalits.

And third, unlike in the Congress coalition, which tended to exclude the Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in the Hindi belt - such as Kewats, Nishads, Dhobis, Bhishtis, and so on - Mayawati's coalition gives them a prominent place.

The BSP's politics seeks to unify people across castes and communities on a secular non-religious basis without denying their essential differences and divergences.

It is a vindication of the vision of the Indian National Congress, from a time when all of them were from the elite, that elections, democracy, joint electorates would work over time.

I'd also point out that one of the early reasons Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, broke with the Congress and Gandhi was that Gandhi threw open the membership of the Congress to the masses, requiring only two annas (like 50 cents) as membership fee. (This was back in the 1920s).


To be a "multiculturist" do you have to believe that all cultures are equal?

Notice in Belgium the division involves a language. I think one of the things the US has done well is integrate people from all over the world by using a common language. I see much of the debate over English as a second language as an inadverdent Balkanization of our country.

Multilinguistic states

Some places where it is maintained by force

China for a couple millenia
Yugoslavia under Tito
Soviet Union until 1989
Roman Empire
Russian Federation
Pakistan
Iraq under Saddam and similar leaders
Nigeria
Serbia

Some places where it works in a democracy, with asterisks indicating some degree of ongoing constitutional crisis or violence as a result
Belgium*
Spain*
India*
Switzerland
Canada*

Places that gave it up more or less peacefully
Norway-Sweden
Czechoslovakia
Sweden-Finland


The examples cited here should be a warning to those individuals who think that a 1 state solution in Palestine is feasible.

Of course, before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was multiethnic, multilingual and multidenominational, and it's hard to erase that, despite the best efforts of fringe elements.

The homogenous nation-state is a recent arrival.

What's significant about Belgium is that it's a product of a European settlement that pre-dates the unifying nationalism of the mid-19th century, let alone the post-1918 cartographic experiments. Admittedly, it was intended as a monarchist buffer state to smother the revolutionary impulse from France, but it's not really that long ago, from the historian's perspective, that most bits of continental Europe sustained diverse cultural and linguistic constituencies. The EU has been good at supporting constituent regional minorities; it's not so good when the tensions in national governments are so finely balanced.

"While China has different languages and regional cultural differences far more deep-seated and significant than - say - US regions - 97% of China is Han ethnicity."

To a certain extent, however, the idea of "the Han" as it is understood today is a modern conceit made for the creation of a modern Chinese nation-state that could fight back against imperialism. Sun Yat-sen felt that the Chinese nation was a patchwork of different peoples under a common culture and was afraid they would all fly apart as China was cut up like a melon. European race theory, Darwinism and social Darwinism became popular among nationalist intellectual elites (especially those educated in Japan) that led them to help craft an ethnic/racial identity out of the former empire's old cultural identity (this often left out groups like the Tibetans and the Uighurs). In the non-Western post-colonial world, ethnicity as it is practiced today involved the importation and application of Western concepts of identity to fit into the dictates of what the nation-state was understood to be.

Multiculturalism will eat itself.

It seems to me that multilingual/multiethnic states tend to work better than binational or biethnic states. In a multiethnic state, it's often the case that no one group can completely dominate and all or most groups can, at least in theory, share power at some point or another.

In a binational state, by contrast, two large communities will constantly be in conflict over who gets the reins of power. And a binational arrangement tends to adversarial relations.

There are lots of diverse or multiethnic states in the world - some democratic, some not. The USA, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, India, China, Indonesia, etc. How many functioning binational states really exist, apart from Belgium? (Which, as the subject of this post indicates - has plenty of trouble as it is).

Ba'al: "Places that gave it up more or less peacefully: Sweden-Finland"

Huh? Sweden gave up Finland because the Russians took it by force in 1809. More to the point, you could include Finland itself as a modern-day multilinguistic democracy.

Thanks for answering my question, razib.

"There are lots of diverse or multiethnic states in the world - some democratic, some not. The USA, Mexico, Brazil, Iran, India, China, Indonesia, etc. How many functioning binational states really exist, apart from Belgium? (Which, as the subject of this post indicates - has plenty of trouble as it is)."

I think you're onto something here. However, cases like Iraq and Nigeria tend to suggest that even at three major groups (or multiple groups that gravitate into three major groupings together) can still create turmoil. The problem is when there does exist some major fissure that can create definite fault lines. In India, if you're a Hindu by birth, an atheist by belief, a Brahmin by caste, upper-middle class by income, Gujarati by tongue and location, etc. you belong to multiple groups that compete for loyalty within the Indian context. However, once such a person starts to define themselves primarily as Hindu as part of a political-social group and India as an Hindu nation, then a major binational fault line - Hindu vs. Muslim - emerges. Similarly, blacks and whites in America could have bonded over a shared sense of Christianity, geographic identity and the English language, but race has been a huge point of contention that has only started to settle down somewhat in the past few decades.

Re: What's significant about Belgium is that it's a product of a European settlement that pre-dates the unifying nationalism of the mid-19th century

Belgium began for religious reasons: it was that portion of the Netherlands that remained mainly Catholic in the reformation and hence remained under Spanish rule when the Dutch rebelled and became independent. Later the country was passed to the Austrian Hapsburgs when the Spanish branch became extinct and for a time after Napoleon the region was united with the Netherlands, but then rebelled and became an independent country in 1830. I'm not sure when the trouble began between Walloons and Flemings-- anyone know the history there?

RE: Belgium began for religious reasons: it was that portion of the Netherlands that remained mainly Catholic in the reformation and hence remained under Spanish rule when the Dutch rebelled and became independent. Later the country was passed to the Austrian Hapsburgs when the Spanish branch became extinct and for a time after Napoleon the region was united with the Netherlands, but then rebelled and became an independent country in 1830. I'm not sure when the trouble began between Walloons and Flemings-- anyone know the history there?

***

I know that the Walloons were at one point the national elite and French the language of commerce and business. In the last half-century, that's changed.

I guess I didn't really answer your question. I might venture to guess that the tensions probably got worse when the Flemish region industrialized and gained the upper hand?


Comments closed September 14, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.