Ethnocracy
Identity politics have been occupying my time lately - particularly when it comes to nationalism, imagined communities, contested territories and indigenous groups.
An Ethnocracy is:
a political regime that facilitates the expansion and control of a dominant ethnicity in contested lands. (Oren Yiftachel, LAND AND IDENTITY POLITICS IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE).
or the Wikipedia definition which states that
it is a form of government where representatives of a particular ethnic group(s) hold a number of government posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population that the particular ethnic group(s) represents and use them to advance the position of their particular ethnic group(s) to the detriment of others. The minority ethnic groups are systematically discriminated against by the state and may face repressions or violations of human rights at the hands of state organs. Ethnocracy can also be a political regime which is instituted on the basis of qualified rights to citizenship, and with ethnic affiliation (defined in terms of race, descent, religion, or language) as the distinguishing principle. Generally, the raison d’être of an ethnographic government is to secure the most important instruments of state power in the hands of a specific ethnic collectivity. All other considerations concerning the distribution of power are ultimately subordinated to this basic intention. Ethnocracies are not dependent on any particular form of government organization - ethnocratic governments run the gamut from (non-liberal) democracies to dictatorships.
More is said in this article - Politics of Ethnocracies: Strategies and Dilemmas of Ethnic Domination
History & tradition support an ethnic group’s claim to territory. Ok! Particularly for groups like the Kurds, Nagas, indigenous peoples, etc. And the preservation of culture does have merit, although caution is required when gender apartheid (e.g. Taliban) or class (e.g. Hindu Caste System) are considered cultural and traditional practices. How sustainable are identity politics, the politics of otherness and how do you define who is who? What is the scale of analysis? Region? Nation State? Group? Individual? The worst examples are the Nazis, KKK, Hussein’s Baath Party, Rwanda, etc. The milder cases are family matters, such as questions of marrying outside the group (e.g. mixed race, marrying a non-Jew, East Indians going against arranged marriage, etc.). The great parts are linguistic diversity, art, music, food, values, norms of ethnic groups around the world (e.g. Gypsies, Chiapas, Penan). How pure do you have to be, to be of that group? What if you marry out? What of those kids? How much is identity connected to a particular piece of land? The Penan for example are hunter gatherers and thus need a fairly big part of the rainforest to maintain their culture. Which cultural traits have merit and who decides? Is it biological determinism? Genetics? Appearance? What is the ticket in and out?
How is time a factor? Do you start with ethnicity and let history evolve? How are the boundaries determined? Are there buffer zones of mixed races along the borders that encircle the "pure race"? What is a pure race?
I am just so uneasy right now with ethnic nationalism, yet i fully support cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. I am just not sure that states should govern themselves and be ideologically driven along those lines. Is a secular colour blind state possible? I just don’t know!
