Managing Ethnic Diversity in the Middle East

Author : Chahine A. Ghais

Dr. Chahine A. Ghais, Dean, Faculty of Political Science, Public Administration & Diplomacy, Notre Dame University, Zouk Mosbeh-Lebanon A paper presented at the panel on “Power-sharing in Multiethnic States” in the 16th International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) conference, July 27-31, 2009, in Kunming China.IntroductionThe overwhelming majority of states in the contemporary international system of “Nation-States” have heterogeneous societies with a number of diverse cultural and ethnic groups. This pluralist structure of many of the nation-states is the very source of ethnic conflict, where the constituent nations or groups develop different agendas and priorities than those of their own states. The successful management of this cultural and ethnic diversity is essential for internal harmony and for external stability and peace. Such management is most critical and difficult during periods of systemic transition, especially towards democratization. Europe has for long suffered the disastrous consequences of cultural, religious and ethnic diversities. Most West European states have learned to manage their pluralistic societies through the institutionalization of federalism or consociationalism, protecting individual as well as group rights and participation. They have achieved socio-economic development and stable democracies, serving as modern models of democratic rule for the rest of the world. The Middle East, since independence from the Ottoman Empire and after a brief period of European rule, has evolved along different tracks. All Middle Eastern states, with the clear exception of Lebanon, have managed to quell their diversities through establishing unitary regimes of either monarchies or military government. Democratic remodeling of the Middle East requires special attention and proper management of the Ethnic and Faith Diversity of the different societies. Ethnic Pluralism is a major source of conflict in the Middle East, and will be for the foreseeable future unless institutional mechanisms are put in place to guarantee Minority Rights and participation under suitable conditions of domestic development, regional stability and international support. The institutional mechanisms of a pluralistic democracy are by definition based on federal or consociational formulae of power sharing, where the constituent groups are represented along side the representation of individuals. Such states are “weak” by nature, and depend for their legitimacy and viability on the continuous support of all the national groups. However, the frontiers of the national groups do not always fall within the state borders, and in many cases they extend into the territories of neighboring states, causing all kinds of conflicting loyalties and contradicting politics that mix the domestic with the foreign and generate high instability and intense conflict. The paper focuses on the inherent weaknesses and shortcomings of power sharing formulae in general, and uses Lebanon as a Middle Eastern case study. It introduces an operational definition of Ethnic Conflict, tracing its theoretical roots into the very structure of the Nation-State system. The paper then presents the debate about the success prospects of power sharing formulae, identifying the essential conditions that sustain democracies in ethnically pluralistic societies to include: even socio-economic development to precede democratization, enlightened elite who enjoy legitimate representation of their groups and are committed to the unity of the state, “citizens” who belong and perceive full legal equality and participation, and the very important recognition and support of the neighboring states and major powers. In light of these theoretical dimensions, Lebanon and other ethnically diversified societies in the Middle East seem likely to have turbulent futures.