Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
One view of the war . . .
• “It’s really a tragic problem . . . The hatred between all three groups – the Bosnians, the Serbs, and the Croations – is almost unbelievable. It’s almost terrifying, and it’s centuries old. That really is a problem from hell.”
- Warren Christopher, Secretary of State under President Clinton
Geography and Demographics
• 6 republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia
• 2 autonomous regions in Serbia: Vojvodina and Kosovo
Geography and Demographics
• Many ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc.
• Serbs largest in country, but not majority
• Complications: boundaries of ethnic groups not the same as boundaries of republics!
Geography and Demographics
Geography and Demographics
Ancient History
• Prior to WWI: Area dominated by Austro-Hungarian (in NW) and Ottoman (in SE) Empires.
• No history of fighting, groups not enemies.
• At times, groups cooperated to oppose foreign occupying powers.
First Yugoslav State
• Formed at the end of WWI.
• Marriage of convenience, entered into willingly by all parties.
First Yugoslav State
• BIG challenges:
– Economic
– Political: what would this new state look like?• Serbs: wanted strong, centralized state to protect Serb
minority populations in other regions.• Others: wanted decentralized state to protect against
Serb domination.
First Yugoslav State
• Solution: a strong, centralized state
– Serb preferences won out (this time).
– Other groups not happy, but try to work together to iron out problems.
WWII
• Hitler invades Yugoslavia in 1941
– Installs puppet regimes in Serbia and Croatia. • Croat state (Ustasha): cleanse Croatia of Serbs.• Serb paramilitaries (Chetniks) organize and fight
Ustasha.
– Horrific fighting, bitter memories. Irony: Ustasha
not popularly chosen.
WWII
• Tito and the Partisans– Communists.– Integrating force.– Fought with Allies– Fought civil war against Ustasha and Chetniks– Won, took power at close of WWII
Tito’s Yugoslavia
• Inherited a tough situation:
– Economic devastation
– Bitter memories of civil war
– Demographic snake pit: what to do about Serbia?
Tito’s Yugoslavia• Use the CP as an integrating force.
• Promote ideology of growth and development.
• Stomp out nationalism.
• Not a democracy. Dissent and opposition not tolerated. CP only game in town.
• Rely on personal popularity and charisma.
Tito’s Yugoslavia
• Give republics autonomy over own affairs, veto power over central decisions.
• Make Vojvodina and Kosovo autonomous regions, give them veto power also.
• Consociationalism: keep the power of the largest group (Serbs) in check.
Tito’s Yugoslavia
• Happy Days:– Country experienced economic growth into the
1970s.– Peace!
• But: costs of stifling alternative political voices, vacuum when Tito died.
Post-Tito
• 1980s: Economic slowdown, population distressed, unhappy.
• CP bureaucrats paralyzed by crisis:– What was good for one region was bad for
another.– Regions used veto in Federal Presidency to block
any policy that hurt them.– Stalemate!
Post Tito
• Political crisis also:
– Serbian leaders unhappy about status of Kosovo and Vojvodina.
– Tried to address problem legally, but were blocked by veto power of other republics.
– Deadlock!
Moves by Serbia
• Serb politicians look for way around the deadlock: appeal to Serb grievances in Kosovo.– Kosovo: historical significance to Serbs.– Serbs a minority in Kosovo (largely for economic
reasons), felt discriminated against.– Politicians: Serbs are being run out of their
homeland! (exaggerated claim, but effective).
Moves by Serbia
• Enter Slobodan Milosevic
– 1988: President of Serbia, Ivan Stambolic, sends Milosevic to Kosovo to hear out the complaints of the Kosovo Serbs
– Was supposed to stick to CP anti-nationalist line.
Moves by Serbia
• Instead, took the side of the nationalists.
• Famous words, addressing crowd:“You will not be beaten again.”
Moves by Serbia
• “Rallies for Truth”– Orchestrated by politicians– Demanded end of autonomy of Vijvodina and
Kosovo– Dramatized situation of Serbs in Kosovo
• Non-Serb leaders continue to refuse to negotiate with Milosevic.
Moves by Serbia
• Milosevic topples leaders in Vojvodina, Kosovo, and Montenegro, installs men loyal to him.
• Radical effect on balance of power in Yugoslavia: Milosevic now controls 4 out of 8 votes in the Federal Presidency.
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
• Leaders of Slovenia and Croatia very nervous, set about trying to weaken the federal authority of Yugoslav state.
• Slovenia:– Backed Albanian resistance in Kosovo– Refused to allow rally for truth– Pulled out of Yugoslav CP
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
• Croatia:– At first: try to broker compromise, preserve
Yugoslavia
– Strategy changed abruptly with election of Franjo Tudjman in May 1990.
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
• Tudjman and cronies: provocative nationalists.– Checkerboard flag.– Serbs: secondary
minority status.– Talked big about taking
Croatia out of Yugoslavia.
Escalation
• Serb minority in Croatia: scared. Fears played up by Serb politicians.
• Summer 1990: Serbs in Krajina (area of Croatia) armed themselves and declared self-rule.
• Tudjman: formed own paramilitaries
Escalation
• June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence.
• Serbia lets Slovenia go without fight.
Escalation
• Not so Croatia. Serbia, plus Yugoslav National Army (JNA), fight to keep it in.
• Large-scale war erupts in Croatia. Fighting spread from there to Bosnia.
Implications for Ethnicity Theories
• Contrary to expectations of Primordialism, war in Yugoslavia not the result of ancient hatreds. Peace, not conflict, was norm.
• And yet, the population responded quickly to the provocations of politicians. Hard for instrumentalism to explain why.
• Also difficult for instrumentalism: the brutality and emotion of the fighting.
Implications for Conflict Theories
• Yes, grievances existed. However, they were nothing new. Why did they suddenly flower into conflict? Societal explanations important, but insufficient.
Implications for Conflict Theories
• Politicians played a critical role: whipped up emotions, initiated conflict.
• At national level, change in political leadership important: Tito suppressed nationalism, his successors encouraged it.
Implications for Conflict Theories
• But also key: the weakness of the Yugoslav state after Tito.– Communist Party: unable to cope with challenges.– Veto power of republics => deadlock.– State unable to contain nationalist politicians, gave
them critical window of opportunity.
For the rest of the course…
• How do we explain democratic stability? Why is democracy the “only game in town” in some countries but not others?
• Different answers:– Level of economic development – Culture– Institutions
And culture is?
• Political culture = the set of attitudes, beliefs, and norms held by a population toward politics.
And culture is?
• Attitudes = dispositions towards politics (political leaders, events, institutions, governments, policies, etc.).
– Examples: support for the government, tolerance for opposing view points, trust in political institutions, feelings of political efficacy and so on.
And culture is?
• Beliefs: cognitive ideas about cause and effect.
– Example: the “domino theory” in the 1950s.
And culture is?
• Norms: evaluative ideas about the world, judgments about good and bad.
– Example: “Democracy is good.”
Liberalism
• Liberalism arose in Western Europe response to feudalism, which was very hierarchical and involved very little social mobility.
• Feudalism = individuals at the mercy of the social hierarchy.
• Liberalism = individuals over social hierarchy.
Liberalism’s Key Norms• The protection of individual rights from powerful groups and
governments.
• Competition and disagreement versus harmony and consensus.
• Tolerance of dissent rather than unanimity.
• Egalitarianism over hierarchy.
• Society should have a separate, protected realm from the state.
Liberalism and democracy
• Historically, liberalism was a precedent to democracy in Western Europe and the US.
• This has lead some to see liberalism as a necessary condition for democracy.
Liberalism and democracy
• Why?
• Norms like egalitarianism and tolerance of dissent may improve the quality of competition.
• Emphasis on individual rights may make majority rule less frightening for minorities.
Huntington’s cultural argument
• Samuel Huntington: liberal norms are associated with some religions (Protestantism) but not others (Catholicism, Confucianism, Islam).
• No democracy where these “non-liberal” religions are found.
Huntington’s cultural argument
• Catholicism: hierarchical, emphasizes a single, collective good. Values harmony and consensus.
• Confucianism: authority, hierarchy, responsibility, harmony. Sees conflict as dangerous. Merges state and society.
• Islam: rejects separation of religion and state.
Huntington’s cultural argument: problems
• Religions and cultures are dynamic, not static.
• All religions have aspects that conform with liberal norms and others that contradict them.
• Consensus building may be as important to democracy as competition.
• And the empirical record is bad!
Liberalism and Democracy
• Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
• Even if we do not buy Huntington, perhaps specific liberal norms – eg. tolerance – none-the-less matter for democratic consolidation?
Political Tolerance in Great Britain, the United States, Russia, and South Africa
Great Britain United States
Russia South Africa
Enemy should be allowed to hold a public rally
34 33 6 15
Enemy should be allowed to make a public speech
51 50 10 25
Liberalism and Democracy
• But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Democracy or liberalism, liberalism or democracy? Can living in a healthy democracy teach people to be liberal?
• More generally: correlation is not the same as causation! Just because x and y are often found together, doesn’t mean x causes y. Maybe y causes x?
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
• Two components:– A participatory attitude toward politics.
Individuals value participation and become involved in their communities (not just their own narrow self interest). Communities therefore have a rich associational life.
– Trust in other people and a willingness to cooperate.
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
• In contrast to “Amoral Familism.”– All loyalty and trust is centered in the family.
– People are not public-spirited: they don’t participate in community life, are not informed about politics, etc.
– No trust of “outsiders,” no willingness to cooperate.
– Maximize material, short-run advantage of family.
– Communities lack much associational life.
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
• Hypothesis:
– Civic Culture => Stable Democracy
– Amoral Familism => Unstable Democracy
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
• Test: – Measure civic culture in 5 countries that vary in
their level of democratic stability– Prediction: Civic culture high in US and GB, low in
Mexico and Italy, moderate in Germany.• Results: hypothesis confirmed!• Conclusion: culture => democratic stability
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
• BUT: Couldn’t the relationship run the other way? Perhaps high levels of civic culture are an effect of stable institutions, not their cause!
• AND: Perhaps both cultural values and democratic stability are caused by something else, namely, economic development?
• In general: correlation is not the same as causation!!!
The Civic Culture revisited: Putnam’s Making Democracy Work
• Why does democracy work well in some places but not others?
• The Italian experiment: 15 identical regional governments situated in different economic and cultural contexts. Would they perform differently? If so, why?
The Civic Culture revisited: Putnam’s Making Democracy Work
• In fact: performance has been quite varied. Government in the north = good; government in the south = not so good.
• The institutions are the same but their performance varies. WHY?
Explanations for the difference between the North and the South?
• Explanation One: Economic development. The North is rich, the South is poor.
• Explanation Two: Culture. Civic culture is high in the North, low in the South.
• So which is it? And what causes what?
Explanations for the difference between the North and the South?
• Putnam: Culture.
• Why? Because the cultural differences observed in Northern Italy emerged first, before the economic differences, and long before the political ones.
The historical argument . . .
• Medieval Italy: a time of great violence and anarchy. Insecurity was a constant fact of life.– In the South: the solution was to strengthen the
power of the king, who could then secure the area. Cost: community autonomy.
– In the North: the solution was self-governance and mutual aid and defense.
The historical argument . . .
• These different solutions had a long-lasting impact on the cultural traditions of the areas. A rich associational life flourished in the North, atrophied in the South.
• Furthermore, these cultural traditions emerged well before economic differences became entrenched.
• Thus, culture preceded politics and economics.
Okay, so why?
• Rich associational life (“social capital”) => Solves collective action problems.
– Rich associational life means people interact repeatedly with one another, which helps them identify and punish free-riders.
– Rich associational life also promotes “norms of reciprocity.”
Questions and Problems
• Cooperation might be good or bad for democracy.
• Not all associational life is created equal. Associational life has a dark side too.
• Trust may not be all it’s cracked up to be. Liberalism: good government is founded on distrust!
