<p>The study explores how struggles for social justice by Guatemalan and Ecuadorian indigenous peasant movements are affected by ethno-politics (the strategic political use of ethnicity), by using a comparative historical approach incorporating structural change and strategic agency. The analysis revolves around the partly enduring, partly changing oligarchic structures. The choice of the countries rests primarily upon the composition of their respective oligarchic classes. In Guatemala, the despotic agrarian oligarchs have dominated for much of the past century; whereas in Ecuador, the oligarchy was divided into an agrarian and a modernist fraction.</p><p>Scholars often locate ethnic politicisation in Latin America within the context of a shift from ‘national popular’ and ‘corporatist’ political orders toward political and economic liberalisation. This shift supposedly unleashed ethnic identities which were previously subordinated by the way indigenous communities were politically incorporated. This study shows that dramatic openings for ethnic politicisation in the 1990s occurred where corporatism had been weak and oligarchic structures persisted. But the elites were unable to use ethnicity as a tool for hegemonic control. Due to the oligarchic legacy, class discourses could not be prevented from being reproduced, and ethnic ones were politicised in a way that is dysfunctional to the elites’ effort to politically disarm the rural poor. Another finding is that the persisting influence of the agrarian oligarchy made the Guatemalan movement more focused on the land struggle and more unwilling/unable to integrate into the political arena prescribed by those in control of the state. In Ecuador, the demise of the agrarian oligarchy and the rise of a strong neo-liberal fraction constituted the context within which the movement moved away from the land struggle. It accessed the ethno-political spaces more firmly but resembled the Guatemalan movement in keeping its strategy of mass mobilisation.</p>

The study explores how struggles for social justice by Guatemalan and Ecuadorian indigenous peasant movements are affected by ethno-politics (the strategic political use of ethnicity), by using a comparative historical approach incorporating structural change and strategic agency. The analysis revolves around the partly enduring, partly changing oligarchic structures. The choice of the countries rests primarily upon the composition of their respective oligarchic classes. In Guatemala, the despotic agrarian oligarchs have dominated for much of the past century; whereas in Ecuador, the oligarchy was divided into an agrarian and a modernist fraction. Scholars often locate ethnic politicisation in Latin America within the context of a shift from ‘national popular’ and ‘corporatist’ political orders toward political and economic liberalisation. This shift supposedly unleashed ethnic identities which were previously subordinated by the way indigenous communities were politically incorporated. This study shows that dramatic openings for ethnic politicisation in the 1990s occurred where corporatism had been weak and oligarchic structures persisted. But the elites were unable to use ethnicity as a tool for hegemonic control. Due to the oligarchic legacy, class discourses could not be prevented from being reproduced, and ethnic ones were politicised in a way that is dysfunctional to the elites’ effort to politically disarm the rural poor. Another finding is that the persisting influence of the agrarian oligarchy made the Guatemalan movement more focused on the land struggle and more unwilling/unable to integrate into the political arena prescribed by those in control of the state. In Ecuador, the demise of the agrarian oligarchy and the rise of a strong neo-liberal fraction constituted the context within which the movement moved away from the land struggle. It accessed the ethno-political spaces more firmly but resembled the Guatemalan movement in keeping its strategy of mass mobilisation.

Ethno-politicization has been identified as a covert yet pervasive contributing factor in the various outbreaks of violence throughout Sierra Leone’s post-independence history. With the latest round of violent conflict having ended in 2002, the government of Sierra Leone in collaboration with local and international partners is presently engaged in peace-building. That being said, institutionalized peace-building has a considerable but imperfect track record of success. Furthermore, the intricate way in which ethno-politicization is woven into the social-political fabric of Sierra Leone is such that, if not effectively treated, it poses a continuing threat to the stability of the nation. Accordingly this thesis examined the extent to which ethno-depoliticization strategies have been directly incorporated into the peace-building framework. This task was accomplished through the development of a five-point definition of ethno-politicization that is based on the institutional instrumentalist theory. The definition provided an analytical framework used in the interpretation of results from a policy audit and field interviews with representatives of the peace-building architects. The research revealed that within the peace-building framework, ethno-politicization is not directly acknowledged as a real and ongoing threat to peace and stability and hence, a prioritized component of the peace-building architecture. However, some of the policy initiatives contained within the peace-building framework will indirectly result in ethno-depoliticization outcomes. These policy initiatives nevertheless require more rigorous and focused implementation and monitoring to be effective. Accordingly, the study recommends (i) the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (ii) a constitutional amendment stipulating ethnic quotas for political party leadership and parliamentary candidates; (iii) the strengthening of civil society;(iv) an intensive nation-wide campaign promoting a national identity and; (v) the strengthening of democratic institutions, which also includes making ethnically-inclusive and ethnically impartial practices within public institutions as part of the performance evaluation of senior public servants.

Ethno-politicization has been identified as a covert yet pervasive contributing factor in the various outbreaks of violence throughout Sierra Leone’s post-independence history. With the latest round of violent conflict having ended in 2002, the government of Sierra Leone in collaboration with local and international partners is presently engaged in peace-building. That being said, institutionalized peace-building has a considerable but imperfect track record of success. Furthermore, the intricate way in which ethno-politicization is woven into the social-political fabric of Sierra Leone is such that, if not effectively treated, it poses a continuing threat to the stability of the nation. Accordingly this thesis examined the extent to which ethno-depoliticization strategies have been directly incorporated into the peace-building framework. This task was accomplished through the development of a five-point definition of ethno-politicization that is based on the institutional instrumentalist theory. The definition provided an analytical framework used in the interpretation of results from a policy audit and field interviews with representatives of the peace-building architects. The research revealed that within the peace-building framework, ethno-politicization is not directly acknowledged as a real and ongoing threat to peace and stability and hence, a prioritized component of the peace-building architecture. However, some of the policy initiatives contained within the peace-building framework will indirectly result in ethno-depoliticization outcomes. These policy initiatives nevertheless require more rigorous and focused implementation and monitoring to be effective. Accordingly, the study recommends (i) the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (ii) a constitutional amendment stipulating ethnic quotas for political party leadership and parliamentary candidates; (iii) the strengthening of civil society;(iv) an intensive nation-wide campaign promoting a national identity and; (v) the strengthening of democratic institutions, which also includes making ethnically-inclusive and ethnically impartial practices within public institutions as part of the performance evaluation of senior public servants.

Ethno-politicization has been identified as a covert yet pervasive contributing factor in the various outbreaks of violence throughout Sierra Leone’s post-independence history. With the latest round of violent conflict having ended in 2002, the government of Sierra Leone in collaboration with local and international partners is presently engaged in peace-building. That being said, institutionalized peace-building has a considerable but imperfect track record of success. Furthermore, the intricate way in which ethno-politicization is woven into the social-political fabric of Sierra Leone is such that, if not effectively treated, it poses a continuing threat to the stability of the nation. Accordingly this thesis examined the extent to which ethno-depoliticization strategies have been directly incorporated into the peace-building framework. This task was accomplished through the development of a five-point definition of ethno-politicization that is based on the institutional instrumentalist theory. The definition provided an analytical framework used in the interpretation of results from a policy audit and field interviews with representatives of the peace-building architects. The research revealed that within the peace-building framework, ethno-politicization is not directly acknowledged as a real and ongoing threat to peace and stability and hence, a prioritized component of the peace-building architecture. However, some of the policy initiatives contained within the peace-building framework will indirectly result in ethno-depoliticization outcomes. These policy initiatives nevertheless require more rigorous and focused implementation and monitoring to be effective. Accordingly, the study recommends (i) the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (ii) a constitutional amendment stipulating ethnic quotas for political party leadership and parliamentary candidates; (iii) the strengthening of civil society;(iv) an intensive nation-wide campaign promoting a national identity and; (v) the strengthening of democratic institutions, which also includes making ethnically-inclusive and ethnically impartial practices within public institutions as part of the performance evaluation of senior public servants.

Power-sharing is introduced in ethnic-divided and ethnic-polarised countries with the aim to prevent and/or end conflicts. The purpose is to include different groups in power-sharing positions. This paper has focused on two of most used power-sharing theories, Centripetalism and Consociationalism, and conducted two case studies in Bosnia and Hercegovina and Nigeria who both have implemented one of these power-sharing arrangements. While previous research has focused on whether power-sharing institutions are effective when wanting to meddle peace, we found that there was absence of research and understanding in who is allowed in the power-sharing and which groups are excluded from power-sharing. From the previous research we found that there is an underlying idea that the people included in power-sharing are the majorities within the context, which we found problematic. We used data from the first and the latest election of each country, as well as political manifestos from the most popular political parties, and public documents to understand if there is a correlation between power-sharing arrangements and the inclusion or exclusion of minorities. The method used to analyse the empirics was the Critical Discourse Analysis which is used when wanting to analyse social power in terms of control. The result showed that there has been a positive change over the past years where the discourse of including minorities in power-sharing is more common today than during the first election. Although there were some positive results, we also found that this discussion is more theoretical than practical and if this was to become reality, there could be a backlash on the peace. Although these power-sharing arrangements have been used for over two decades in both of the countries, both of the studied countries have discriminatory constitutions, where some groups are favoured in the society.

This thesis concerns the differences in how ethinic groups co-exist in two different environments in the same country, with a focus on the ethno-political. My research questions are: Why are ethnic or interpersonal relations characterized differently in different regions? How and why do conflicts or agreements arise in specific environments? The aim is to understand the connection between inter-ethnic relations and environmentally specific factors. I am concerned with those mechanisms and processes which determine the type of ethnic relation – as conflict or mutual understanding - in specific environments. The thesis uses case studies of two contrasting multiethnic cities with different interethnic relations – Erbil and Kirkuk in Kurdistan/Iraq. My explanatory model consists of four main factors: I) historical factors in terms of critical events; II) institutional factors such as institutional efficiency and security; III) structural factors such as group size, territorial base and different tolerance systems; and IV) social relational factors such as the significance of inter-ethnic contacts and social capital. The empirical work demonstrates that the relations between the above mentioned factors in the respective environments determine the outcome of the inter-ethnic relations. The results show that one factor can be more important than another factor, but how the factors impact upon one another and under what circumstances is of significance. The presentation of environmentally specific differences shows that ethnic groups do not have static boundaries and are not necessarily hostile to one another. Conflict is not the given form of relationship between ethnic groups. That is, the result can be read as a critique of those who necessarily see potential conflicts between groups with cultural differences and those who essentialize cultural groups. In this context one can see a chain of interrelated factors; the relevance of which is dependent on the specific situation. Some of the negative factors that can increase the possibility of conflict and decrease the possibility for peaceful co-existence include: Instability in the political climate; insecurity; institutional ineffectiveness; segregation; undefined relations of power; and an ethnic composition maintaining the balance of power. If these factors combined result in a high level of complexity, which makes ethnicity stand out in terms of ethnic competition, the likelihood of ethnic conflict is significant.