Others in Deeply Divided Societies: A Research Agenda

Abstract

This article identifies a central problem in the theory and practice of democracy in divided societies: the systematic exclusion of Others. Defining the exclusion-amidinclusion (EAI) dilemma of consociational power-sharing, whereby in including the main groups to the conflict it works to exclude those beyond these groups, the article offers the first systematic conceptualization of this issue. The article outlines the type of individuals and groups affected by the EAI dilemma, the varying strategies they adopt to navigate power-sharing frameworks and the potential routes out of this normative and empirical puzzle. Finally, it lays out a challenge for scholars to build on this conceptualization and address the EAI dilemma in future research. In 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled for the third time against the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). At stake was whether BiH's constitutional framework-a particularly rigid and complicated form of corporate consociationalism-violated the rights of non-constituent peoples to free and democratic elections and to freedom from discrimination. The court took issue with the electoral rules for the state presidency and the House of Peoples, both of which restrict access to BiH's constituent peoples-Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosnian Croats. The court sided with Ilijaz Pilav, a Bosniak living in the Republika Srpska, who could not contest the presidential elections on the basis of his residence, as the current rules restrict candidacy to Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats who live in the Federation of Bosnia of Herzegovina and to Bosnian Serbs who live in the Republika Srpska. This decision reinforced two earlier rulings. In Finci and Sejdić vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009), the court determined that the electoral rules discriminated against members of the Jewish and Roma populations, who, as non-constituent peoples, were prohibited from reaching these offices. In Zornić vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2014), the court sided with Azra Zornić, who, because she was unwilling to declare an ethnic affiliation, was prohibited from contesting the election. Despite these rulings, the electoral rules remain in place and politicians remain deadlocked on how to revise them. In addition to their legal ramifications, the ECHR rulings expose an acute problem that emerges in consociational settings, which we refer to as the exclusion-amid-inclusion (EAI) dilemma. That is, the institutional inclusion of some groups necessarily results in the exclusion of others. As Jakob Finci noted in response to the 2009 ECHR ruling, the

Regional Identities in Europe

“…This case illustrates a critical issue for the development of collective identities, especially in the context of power-sharing arrangements for divided societies, which has recently attracted increasing attention, i.e. the systematic exclusion of smaller groups, often referred to as 'others' (Agarin et al 2018). What has been termed the exclusion-amid-inclusion (EAI) dilemma effectively includes the main groups involved in the previous (but often only frozen) conflict, but at the same time excludes certain 'others'.…”

“Nonaligned Citizens”: Ethnic Power-Sharing and Nonethnic Identities in Bosnia Herzegovina. The Case of Sarajevo

“…The implementation of such mechanisms represented the post-conflict solution towards peace-and state-(re)building; it was, back in 1995, the most viable way to accommodate ethnic claims while slowly bringing about democracy. However, although consociationalism has been applied to secure equal representation and participation of the three major Bosnian ethnic groups, it has institutionalized ethnicity (O'Leary 2005), but also excluded from the system all those who do not belong to any of the three "constituent peoples" and who do not identify themselves in ethnonational terms (see Agarin, McCulloch, and Murtag 2018).…”

“…This however does not mean that their "members or the mobilised do not have feelings of affiliation for their national group" (Touquet 2011, 461): on the contrary, it is by putting the attention on the notion of citizenship, rather than on ethnic belonging, that these parties respect and include any kind of identity. Additionally, by acknowledging that identities are multiple and fluid, while recognizing the existence of ethnic sentiments, these parties address two Bosnian specificities: the cultural one, which is linked to the fact that many individuals cannot fit into the ethnic system due to, for example, their ethnically mixed backgrounds or feelings of belonging linked to the old Yugoslav system; the second one is, instead, constitutional and consequently institutional, connected to the absence of a supra-ethnic constituent people and, thus, the exclusion of all those not identifying themselves in exclusive ethnic terms from the system (see Agarin et al 2018), in other words, of all those formally falling into the category of "others. "…”

The limits of inclusion: Representation of minority and non-dominant communities in consociational and liberal democracies

“…Neglecting 'others', i.e. anyone who does not identify with the ethno-divide (Agarin, McCulloch, and Murtagh 2018), might be justified to stop violence. Yet, if 'others' are coopted into bringing peace, but are not allocated guaranteed representation, the outcomes of transitions will result in political regimes that are democratic for a selected group of citizens, rather than for all citizens (Diamond 1994).…”

“…These provisions, however, have not prevented the political elites of Albanians and Serbs, the two main ethnic groups, from overlooking group-specific interests of other ethnic groups when drawing up policies on education and the visibility of minority cultures in public, policies which are all arguably central to sustaining ethnic minority identities. Likewise, the guarantee of 30 per cent of seats for women in the Kosovo Assembly has barely changed the electorates' preferences for greater female representation in decisive political offices of the country(Agarin, McCulloch and Murtagh 2018).Finally, as consociational institutions curtail input, importance and significance of political issues that do not map neatly on group identities represented, they open up space for novel forms of challenging the political status quo. Under some conditions, this might offer critical opportunities for non-dominant groups to hold the balance-of-power.…”