Self-Determination and Multi-Ethnic Societies

The concept of self-determination is not entered around colonies or to colonialism. We find that in Europe also, a number of states, backed up by a large chunk of population, seek to possess an autonomous national identity. Therefore, pursuing a study, we observe that there have been over 50 armed state formation rebellions during the post-Cold War regime, some of which militated before the end of the cold War. And most of these conflicts were seen to occur in Europe. Among these about thirteen have been able to reach some kind of settlement and some of these have found expression in the UN. Again, the response of the international community and the UN has been inconsistent. Let us focus our attention to some of these cases and examine the factors involved in the application of the principle of self-determination.

The cases fall under two categories, broadly speaking: (a) collapsed or failed states; and (b) former colonies or failed cases of nation building.

The term nation-hood and the considerations determining nationhood are highly uncertain and varying. It being a subjective emotion, nation-hood like any other form of loyalty, is a matter of degree. So, some nations may be closely integrated, while some others may have the tendency to bend before disintegrative pressures. Claim to ‘national self-determination’ becomes more powerful if the factors of dissonance (race, language, religion, history, economic conditions etc.) with respect to national identity have geographical foundations, i.e., if they are concentrated in a geographical region. If we compare this with the reality, we would realize the importance of the phenomenon. According to a study, of 132 contemporary states, in 31 states the largest ethnic group accounts for only 50 to 74 percent of the population. In 39 cases, the largest group could not attain a portion of half of the population. This evidently proves that fissiparous tendencies are widespread.

We also noted that ‘national consciousness’ is mainly a subjective feeling. This means that a regionally concentrated religious/linguistic/ethnic minority may perceive that it is being discriminated against. Such a realization and the consequent separation may lead for national self-determination. Besides, the feeling of oneness may differ in degree and time. It may also depend on the subject-matter. For example, the ethnically alienated population of the Yugoslav province of Kosovo felt greater likeliness to Albania. The repressive policy of Slobodan Milosevic and the imminent break up of the federation brought out the discontent into open. The open hostility of the neighbouring nations and the NATO to the Serbian regime gave are added impetus to utilize militant means to achieve its aims.

Thus given the right opportunity the fissiparous forces that remained inert under the surface could become active and operative. In Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union/Yugoslavia not only led to the complete in dependence of its federating states but also led to militant struggles with Russia and Yugoslavia by ethnic identities Chechnya and Kosovo for independence.

Most of the colonies and their boundaries were by-products of historical background and the process of their acquisition by the imperial powers. Therefore, there was nothing common among them to distinguish this people, except for the legacy of the colonial rule. In most cases, the population was diverse in terms of religion/language or ethnicity. After independence, when the uniting factor of anti-colonialism had faded away, there was dearth of a strong bond to keep the people together. On the contrary, competition for economic resources, employment what Myron Weiner calls “Politics of Scarcity” brought in the open the dividing lines in the society. Where the new nations had adopted democratic form of government, party politics found the primordial loyalties of language, religion etc. as convenient bases to build their organizations. These further sharpened the edges of the dividing lines. These further made the differences more prominent where these divisions coincided especially with regional boundaries; the call for autonomy was natural. The response of the dominant group in the country was not always sympathetic. As a matter of fact, such calls for autonomy were regarded in the suspicion as evidence of treason. The groups were viewed as unpatriotic forgetting that the state had yet to emerge as a nation. Repression following turning the struggle militant. If a strategy for freedom from colonial rule is called ‘external self-determination’ then the struggle for separation may be called ‘internal self-determination.’