| Review of: | The Global Dynamics of Racial and Ethnic Mobilization by Susan Olzak |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Bert Klandermans |
| Reviewed in: | International Studies Review |
| Date accepted online: | 10/04/2008 |
| Published in print: | Volume 09, Issue 02, Pages 295-297 |
The Globalization of Ethnic Mobilization
Susan Olzak has had a long career studying ethnic mobilization (see, for example, Olzak 1992, 2004). In
The empirical heart of
Based on her analysis of these data sets, Olzak concludes that nonviolent protest is more widespread than large-scale violence. She also argues that both forms of ethnic activity peaked in 1989-1990 and then gradually declined between 1990 and 1995. Olzak's observation that ethnic activity and government reactions to it appeared to be in decline by the mid- to late-1990s is the first in a series of refutations of assumptions that typically frame debates about ethnic violence in the literature. In an attempt to understand why the level of violence has fluctuated over time, Olzak explores the link between ethnic activity and state repression. Although causality is difficult to assess with time series graphs, repression seems to follow ethnic activity. Peaks in actions by groups and authorities appear in the same year. However, when violence occurs, violent acts by insurgents seem to precede repression by state authorities, which presumably starts as an attempt to constrain the violence.
Obviously, the level of ethnic activity differs substantially across the various countries included in the two datasets.
Olzak presents the results of her study in six analytic chapters, and they are generally consistent with her overall argument. Before the end of the Cold War, countries in the core did experience moderate forms of ethnic nonviolence, whereas countries in the periphery had higher rates of ethnic violence. However, since the Cold War ended, both core and periphery countries have had more ethnic violence than countries in the semiperiphery. The impact of the global diffusion of human rights ideology is reflected in her finding that the exclusion of minorities increased the level and seriousness of ethnic violence. Furthermore, when different ethnic groups within a single country have competing goals and interests, ethnic violence rises. Finally, ethnic violence and civil war appear to be mutually reinforcing (that is, each one leads to higher levels of the other). On the other hand, ethnic violence ignites conflicts between countries, but interstate conflict does not spur ethnic violence within countries.
What makes Olzak's analysis so intriguing, and convincing, is the interaction between local or national characteristics and such global factors as integration in the world system. The internal dynamics of countries in the periphery and the core differ in terms of such things as poverty, political instability, and repression. Specifically, in the periphery, countries experience more poverty, instability, and repressive regimes. As a consequence, the two sets of countries experience ethnic mobilization differently as well. As Olzak expects, countries in the periphery experience more ethnic violence. This conclusion does not hold for the number of events, but it does hold for the level of violence. However, since the end of Cold War, countries at the core of the world system have experienced a higher incidence of ethnic violence as well. In other words, centrality in the world system does not inoculate countries against outbreaks of ethnic violence, which is an observation that has been absent from the literature up to this point.
Olzak also expects the embeddedness of a country in international nongovernmental networks to generate higher rates of ethnic mobilization because such organizations raise levels of ethnic awareness and facilitate mobilization within the country. Contrary to commonly held assumptions, nongovernmental organizations are not always peacemakers. Of course, being "disruptive" is not necessarily a bad thing when these organizations represent excluded groups within a society. Such organizations can strengthen democracy by encouraging inclusion. In addition, the effects of global integration can be seen in the diffusion of global ideologies regarding justice and the right to self-determination, independent of specific international organizations. As these ideas diffuse within a society, the global ideology of injustice becomes linked to local or national patterns of economic inequality and consequently to local demands for redress. Yet, inequality and poverty do not automatically lead to mobilization. In line with social movement theory, an ideology of self-determination is also needed. Collective action is conducted by hopeful, not hopeless, people.
Two other local or national factors that Olzak explores are the impact of democratic versus autocratic regimes and the impact of state repression. With respect to the first, perhaps surprisingly, she finds that democratic and autocratic regimes do not differ in terms of the ethnic violence they experience. On the other hand, she finds that state repression does escalate both violent and nonviolent ethnic mobilization. Indeed, state-sponsored violence and ethnic violence are mutually reinforcing. Ethnic violence spurs state repression. Repression increases group solidarity and escalates both the magnitude and the violence of ethnic activity.