Public Policies in Shared Societies

A Comparative Approach

M. Fitzduff

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137276322
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Communities throughout the world are increasingly diverse in their racial, ethnic and religious make up. Using examples drawn from over 50 countries in a variety of fields from economics to education, this book explores how governmental, economic and social institutions are adapting their policies to create more cohesive and peaceful societies.

1

Introduction

Mari Fitzduff

A diversifying world

One of the most startling facts about the events of 9/11 was the number of countries whose citizens also died in the tragedy, alongside those who were citizens of the United States. It has been estimated that there were more than 90 nationalities among the 9/11 dead (Walker, 2006). Increasingly New York has become a symbol of the globalizing polyglot world in which many of us are living. Around 40% of New York’s population is now foreign born, compared with less than 18% in 1960. The number of foreign-born people in the United States as a whole is at an all-time high, at 40 million – an increase of about 9 million since the 2000 census to a total US population of almost 309 million (US Census Bureau, 2010). In the much tinier Republic of Ireland, with a population of only 4.6 million, more than 167 languages are being used in Irish homes and workplaces (Gallagher, 2006), and statistics show that 17% of the people in Ireland were not born in Ireland (Ireland Central Statistics Office, 2012). Across the border in Northern Ireland, home to only 1.7 million people, there were 40 different languages spoken in their schools in 2009 (Belfast Telegraph, 2009). Among the 196 countries today, there are estimated to be about 4,000 ethno-cultural entities and 40% of states have five or more of such groups (Premdas, 2003). Some states, including India and Nigeria, possess over one hundred ethno-cultural groups each. Only a very few states remain homogeneous or almost homogeneous. Both North Korea and South Korea have a population that is almost 100% Korean. Japan and Portugal are 99% homogeneous, while approximately 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim. However, these kinds of states are an increasingly rare exception.

In Europe tensions between nations and economic migrants, and the debates about citizenship in places such as France and Germany, are testimony to our confusion about how best to address the reality of increasing immigration and the resultant pluralistic societies. Even North African countries like_Morocco which used to be, and still are, part of the entry point for immigrants to Europe are now having to defend their own borders from sub-Saharan immigrants (Wordcrunch: 2012). South Africa is similarly concerned about the number of refugees coming across its borders (UNHCR 2013), as is Brazil which is increasingly seen as a target for South Americans from lesser developed countries (Rogine, 2012). Iran is also dealing with problems of ethnic diversity as it struggles to find frameworks to manage its differing ethnic and religious groups and the tensions between them (Chalabi, 2010), as are almost all of the diversifying Arab states as they struggle with existing and increasing diversity, and their need for new constitutions to serve their emerging democracies (Kuttab, 2011).

The reasons for such poly-ethnicity are varied. Without doubt the major factor is the many people seeking migratory labour both now and in the past allied with the increasing mobility of those seeking to use their skills more widely in the globalizing labour market. However, other factors have also been significant. The forced mobilization processes of Stalin have vastly increased the plurality of much of the ex-Soviet states, and global immigration has also increased because of regional conflicts, political repression, environmental disasters, economic collapse and human rights oppressions. The number of refugees and internally displaced persons occurring as a result of war and natural disasters is estimated by UNHCR to be about 43.7 million (UNHCR, 2010). It has been calculated that there are now around 200 million international immigrants, more than double those of over 30 years ago, which means that 1 out of every 35 people on earth is now a migrant with the tensions that such changes in populations can bring to societies (Koser, 2012). It has also been estimated that global warming could create 150 million ‘climate refugees’ by 2050 (Environmental Justice Foundation, 2009).

Societal challenges posed by pluralism

The result of such increasing diversity is that even the best resourced of governments are struggling with how to manage the resultant tensions within their borders – which if left unmanaged can lead to societal conflict and turmoil. Although some countries such as Canada, the Baltic States, the United Kingdom, the United States, Mauritius, Suriname, Ghana and the Scandinavian countries appear so far to have managed their diversity relatively constructively, and without violence, they continue to confront many challenges in such management, not least when world economic downturns put heavy pressures on their societies (C.I. Country Studies, 2006–2010). The majority of states are now facing significant difficulties in managing the cultural, religious, linguistic, ethnic and political differences within their borders today. Which identity is salient or contentious can rest on a variety of factors and the importance of these aspects can vary over time. While racial difference has been a contentious issue for Britain over the past five decades, religion is now proving to be the more problematic identifier, as it is in much of Europe and in many of the Arab states today.

Managing diverse populations is not a new need. Most colonial powers have had to undertake such processes but often within a context where minorities have accepted a lesser respect for their identities or where colonizers have utilized countries’ diversities to their own advantage, often through divide-and-rule processes. However, the extent of unprecedented population mobility both chosen and forced has never been greater than today, and in an increasing number of contexts second-class or third-class citizenship is no longer acceptable within a context of increasing democratization and a much sharper awareness of the necessary protection of the human rights of minorities.

Why is addressing diversity so critical to stability?

Positive management of diverse groups of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-national and multicultural nature is now a worldwide requirement for human security, as the mismanagement of identity groups is the main cause of conflict in the world today. Where international conflicts were the norm a few decades ago, most of the conflicts in today’s world are within states, or regional conflicts that have occurred around issues of identity and inclusion, e.g. Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, South Africa, Nigeria, Sudan, Former Yugoslavia, Turkey, the Basque country, East Timor, Georgia, Mali etc. In 2011, there were 76 such socio-political conflicts happening around the world, and of these, only 5 were international – the other 71 were in the main intranational and centred on issues of identity (Alert, 2010). These figures do not include all of the Arab democracy-seeking countries which are not only struggling with the fundamentals of democracy but also with the issues of pluralism in their countries (Muasher, 2009; Gerges, 2012). Many of these conflicts have turned into what are called ‘intractable conflicts’ due to their long-standing nature, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that 1.5 billion people currently live in conflict-affected and fragile states (International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding, 2012). The consequences of such identity conflicts are significant. ‘Where minorities and indigenous peoples are excluded from political, social and economic decisions that have major repercussions on their lives, the price that a society pays can often be enormously high, in terms of economic cost, missed opportunities, conflict and ruined lives’ (Ghai, 2003). If diversity challenges are not addressed positively, the number of socio-political conflicts will increase, with severe consequence for the peacefulness of our world.

The role of shared society work

Within the context of the above challenges, and given the real possibilities of increasing identity conflicts, the need is vital to prepare our societies and our institutions to positively and proactively adapt and embrace processes of access and inclusion that can better prepare our societies for their future demographics and the needs of an ever more pluralistic society. This book is about the developments of such ‘shared society’ work across a variety of fields and institutions, and within a variety of contexts. It is not focused on the specifics of conflict resolution, peacebuilding or mediation, important as such work is in many contexts. It is about how the normal models of our society by which we order our work and social lives – business, governance, policing, education, health, environments, land issues and culture – can be tweaked, adapted and transformed into models that increase our social capacities for equality and inclusion, thus contributing to sustainably shared and more peaceful societies. A variety of newly developing conceptual frameworks have informed such work in recent years. The first is that a growing number of institutions and individuals working in the peacebuilding field have come to the conclusion that an integrated, holistic or complementary approach to developing sustainably peaceful societies is most effective (Berns and Fitzduff, 2007; Fitzduff, 2006; Ricigliano, 2012; Schirch, 2005; Zelizer, 2013). What the term ‘integrated’ highlights is that preventing and resolving conflicts and achieving shared societies require complementary efforts across relevant fields, between levels of society, i.e. grassroots to elite, and between institutions. Conflicts are never one dimensional, the causes of tensions and conflict are many, and the responses need to be strategic and multi-pronged. Working across various fields allows the many facets of a conflict to be addressed more satisfactorily (Fitzduff, 1993; 2002; 2004). With only a one-dimensional approach to shared society work, the work can never be sufficient or sustainable. If the work is to succeed, it is important that what it entails should inform all relevant fields, so as to ensure that such work is not derailed by other societal agencies and can, where possible, be assisted by them.

In concrete terms, this means ensuring that institutions use a conflict-sensitive ‘lens’ that takes into account the particular needs of shared societies. The organizations or fields of work addressed within this book are not per se peacebuilding organizations, i.e. organizations whose prime function is to work primarily on the conflict rather than those organizations, such as those noted in this book, that happen to work in the conflict zones. The prior are taxed with designing programmes specifically to create and consolidate peace while the latter are tasked with at least not making the conflicts worse by consolidating or increasing divisions and if possible making a contribution that is positive to the development of a society which is fair, inclusive and able to solve conflicts without violence (Woodrow and Chigas, 2009). What these non-explicitly peace-focused groups can contribute is ‘conflict sensitivity’, which is defined as different efforts, methods and tools for working in a context with the objective of avoiding destructive, negative, harmful, unintended effects and if possible contributing to peacebuilding through positive efforts to connect people through their work (Otieno, Wepundi and Aliow, 2003).

Such a lens requires organizations and others to (a) understand the context in which they are operating through conflict analysis, (b) understand the interaction between their work and the context and (c) act upon that understanding in order to avoid negative impacts and maximize positive impacts on the conflict (Van Brabant, 2010). It requires that organizations working in programmes other than those directly addressing peacebuilding issues need to recognize that the contexts in which they work are not neutral, and that their interventions have the potential to do harm and impact negatively upon the conflict context. It needs organizations to recognize that their work can impact positively by reinforcing bridge building or ‘connections’ or negatively by increasing tensions and exacerbating conflict (Anderson, 1999; Collaborative Learning Projects, 2004). Conflict sensitivity requires that all institutions and groups within a conflict context need to learn to apply a conflict lens with which to examine their activities, and adjust them as necessary in order to increase their capacity to build bridges, and to contribute to a more equal, fair and inclusive society, with a capacity to solve problems without violence.

Once such a ‘conflict lens’ has been adopted, the related concept of ‘mainstreaming’ will come into play, i.e. the idea that institutions adapt their policies and strategies and resources so as to reflect the requirements of conflict sensitivity. For at least the past decade, agencies within the development field have been combining development and humanitarian needs with the need for ‘Do No Harm’ and conflict-sensitive work within and between communities (Anderson, 1999). This work has multiplied. Within the United Nations (UN) family, the UN Development Program, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and others have been working to ensure that the development dimensions of crisis situations can also, where possible, lead to long-term development agendas that are integrated with conflict management and conflict prevention measures. Such an approach has been institutionalized in the UN Interagency Framework for Preventive Action, which is an informal mechanism for assisting various UN agencies, departments and country teams to work together with national stakeholders in a complementary fashion in building local capacities to prevent and mitigate destructive conflict. An integrated form of complementarity has also become more important in the approaches to development of many of the US agencies, such as the US State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization whose strategic document on the essential tasks for post-conflict reconstruction includes the necessity for security, governance, humanitarian assistance, economic stabilization and justice and reconciliation to work in a complementary fashion (Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, 2005).

As much has already been written on this approach within the development field, this book will not dwell on such work, as there are many resources which are freely available on its development, its and implementation, as well as its initial evaluation processes (Conflict Sensitivity Consortium, 2012; Collaborative Learning, 2012; Chapman et al., 2009; OECD/DAC, 2012). It will rather concentrate on how the concepts from the ‘Do No Harm’ field are being utilized by other fields, i.e. in governance, business and economic development policing, health, education, environment, culture and land issues. The policies, strategies and practices addressed in this book are of a relatively recent development. Much of the work that is described has been emerging under the radar of many academics and policy makers. Much of it is experimental, and although many interesting and potentially useful practice frameworks are developing (see Chapter 11) its evaluation is still at an early stage. The purpose of this book is therefore to analyse and describe such efforts, to encourage discussion about the concepts behind the work, the challenges it faces and its worth as a possible contribution to the on-coming challenges of our increasingly varied world.

Each of the authors were asked to provide an introduction to shared society issues in relation to their work focus, and why they thought that these issues were important to consider within the contexts of divided and often conflicted societies. Examples in relation to their field that have shown promise were also sought, as well as their analysis of the implementation challenges, their understanding of the lessons as they saw them for policy makers and a brief introduction to additional web or print resources for those who wished to take forward the study or development of the work. As demonstrated in the book, the work described in the chapters is truly global and contains examples drawn from 50 different countries around the world.

From separatism to cohesion

The first major challenge for such work, and echoed in the chapters of this book, is the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Preface
• Notes on Contributors
• 1   Introduction
• 2   Governance for Shared Societies
• 3   Economics for Shared Societies
• 4   Policing for Shared Societies: An Institutional Approach to Reform
• 5   Health Work for Shared Societies
• 6   Education for Shared Societies
• 7   Environments for Shared Societies
• 8   Culture for Shared Societies
• 9   Land for Shared Societies
• 10   Implementing Policies for Shared Societies
• 11   Practice Frameworks for Shared Societies
• 12   Conclusion
• Index