Decentralization as a conflict transformation tool: The challenge in Kosovo

Abstract

Perspectives are divided on whether decentralization can ease ethnic conflict. This article considers whether asymmetric decentralization reforms in Kosovo have reduced tensions between Kosovo Albanians (K‐Albanians) and Serbs (K‐Serbs). We argue that because decentralization has been linked to Kosovo's sovereignty in the years after the NATO bombings, during the final status talks, and after independence, it has not achieved intended outcomes throughout the territory of Kosovo. Instead of assuaging tensions and generating allegiance to the central government, decentralization has re‐inforced ethnic divisions and strengthened K‐Serb ties to Serbia, particularly in northern Kosovo. Concessions to majority Serb municipalities in Kosovo have been seen by K‐Serbs as a bribe to buy acceptance of independence, while K‐Albanians question their leaders' continued policy of asymmetric decentralization. Since independence, there have been some encouraging developments in southern municipalities, where K‐Serbs have participated in municipal elections organized by Pristina. Based on Kosovo's experience, we argue that policy‐makers must consider the impact of decentralization reforms at multiple levels of conflict. Further, although we find that decentralization may engage minorities in political processes if reforms are attempted after the establishment of a central government, we caution that it must be combined with policies to encourage interaction and dialogue between ethnic groups if it is to assuage conflict. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Strengthening District Administration In Plural Communal Context: An Analysis On The Potential Impact Of Establishing A Kalmunai Administrative District In Sri Lanka

“…By sharing powers with and devolving authority and responsibility to locally established political and administrative bodies, the central government may seem less threatening. Local groups can also settle their grievances with their own mechanisms or with the interference of the central government through decentralized powers and institutions (Yusoff, Sarjoon & Hassan, 2016a;Lyon, 2013;Gjoni, Wetterberg & Dunbar, 2010). In this manner, decentralization is a flexible institutional mechanism that accommodates varied concerns and priorities of diverse populations at local-level administration (Siegle & O'Mahony, 2009).…”

‘If This Was a Normal Situation’: Challenges and Potentials for Deliberative Democratic Peacebuilding in Kosovo's Emerging Governance Networks

“…Programmes of 'deeper democracy' are promoted in peacebuilding and elsewhere along three dimensions: decentralisation, participation and deliberation (Fung and Wright, 2001;Fung, 2004;McAlister, 2010;Goldfrank, 2011). Decentralisation of political institutions is hypothesised to reduce ethnic conflict by granting ethnic groups autonomy, either territorially or sectorally, which is hoped will counteract dominance by a majority group (Brancati, 2006;Schneider and Wiesehomeier, 2008;Gjoni et al, 2010). A distinction can be observed between two strands of participation.…”

“…In Kosovo, decentralisation is characterised by the issue of parallel governance institutions in Serb-majority areas that affiliate towards the state system of Serbia (Gjoni et al, 2010;Heijke, 2010;Heijke et al, 2012), enabling at least initially an effective resistance against Prishtina-led reforms (KIPRED, 2009;van der Borgh, 2012). Where it has been at least nominally implemented, decentralisation has been seen to increase tensions between ethnicities, for example, being interpreted as a bribe for Kosovo Serbs to accept an Independence (Gjoni et al, 2010) or with autonomy over education leading to increased segregation among youth not learning the languages or histories of the other communities (Heijke, 2010;Heijke et al, 2012;van der Haar and Heijke, 2013).…”

Decentralization as a Tool for Ethnic Diversity Accommodation: A Conceptual Analysis

“…Many theorists and practitioners argue that decentralization reforms and initiatives can be used to ease tensions among ethnic groups in post-war as well as post-conflict societies. By sharing powers with and devolving authority and responsibility to locally established political and administrative bodies, the central government may seem less threatening, and all ethnic groups and communities can run their own affairs independently and settle their grievances sing their own mechanism or without them most interference of central government (Brinkerhoff, 2005;Turner, 2006;Duncan, 2007;Siegle & O'Mahony, 2009;Linder, 2009;Gjoni et al, 2010;Lyon, 2013).…”

“…The high degree of autonomy and self-rule offered to groups, especially of minorities may actually mark a turning point in the conflict and enhance national cohesion (Gjoni et al, 2010). The conflict-mitigating rationale of decentralization in ethnically diverse societies is that by ensuring diverse minority groups' participation and representation, it provides political and administrative channels, through which differences can be reconciled.…”