Are Institutions the Answer? Mitigating Sectarian Protest in Divided Nations

Ethnic violence has increased exponentially in the decades following World War II. As such, it is imperative that cures for the unique ills found in divided societies be discovered. This article seeks to quantitatively investigate the effici ency of formal political institutions in curbing ethnically-based violent protest in divided societies. As such, the dependent variable is the level of violent protest, while the independent variables include: a parliamentary system of government, a proportional representation electoral system, and a federated system. It is my contention that such institutions will significantly lessen incidents of ethnically-motivated violent protest. In addition, this article concludes with suggestions for further research in examining institutional structures and ethnic conflict. The third wave of democratization has ushered in a global movement toward democracy and the creation of newly independent states. However, the transitions to democracy have not always been peaceful. For all its excitement and reported benefits, this wave of democratization has coincided with an increase in ethnic conflict, particularly in the developing world (Gurr 1993). In order to quell the increase in sectarian violence it is necessary to explore which political institutions moderate violent protest in multi-ethnic societies. By moderating violent protest, it is hoped that more wide-ranging ethnic violence will be prevented. In all societies, institutions serve as structures which govern human interactions and behavior. Douglass North defines institutions as “the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, [institutions as] the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (2004: 3). There are few societies that are more in need of strong institutional structures to ensure stability than those with numerous conflicting ethnic groups. Only through the implementation of specifically designed political institutional structures can a state limit violence between ethnicities. Two paradigms stand at the fore of institutional design in multi-ethnic societies: the consociational and majoritarian models of democracy. The consociational model contends that, in divided societies, a system of consensus between actors is paramount in the policy-making process. The institutions created in a consociational democracy recognize ethnic divisions as autonomous entities and make those cleavages “the basis for rule in decision making, territorial division of power, and public policies” (Caspersen 2004: 570). Some political institutions found in the consociational model include a power-sharing government, a proportional representation system, and some degree of federalism. The Hilltop Review, Fall 2009 40