Suchergebnisse

Die multikulturalistische politische Theorie von Will Kymlicka, die sich mit den Bedingungen von "guter" Demokratie in kulturell heterogenen Gesellschaften befasst, formuliert zwei zentrale Forderungen: Die Forderung nach sozialer sowie politischer Anerkennung kultureller Minderheiten. Wie relevant sind diese Anerkennungs-Maximen im Kontext innerstaatlicher Konflikte? Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, Ansätze der multikulturalistischen Theorie und der empirischen Konfliktforschung in einen Dialog zu bringen. Zu diesem Zweck wurde eine erste Regressionsanalyse durchgeführt. Diese erste tentative empirische Untersuchung generiert drei zentrale Ergebnisse: Von den geforderten Maßnahmen politischer Anerkennung entfalten allein die politischen Repräsentationsrechte die erwartete konfliktmindernde Wirkung. Im Gegensatz dazu haben Autonomierechte keine Wirkung, beziehungsweise eine den Erwartungen entgegengesetzte, also konfliktsteigernde Wirkung. Die Toleranz einer Gesellschaft weist ebenfalls keine konfliktmindernde Wirkung auf. Wichtigste (multikulturalistische) Erkenntnis hierbei ist, sowohl für die Wissenschaft als auch für die mit kulturellen Konflikten befassten Politikpraktiker, dass politische Anerkennungsrechte, wenn überhaupt, erst dann wirkungsvoll sind, wenn sich jene Gruppen, die davon profitieren sollen, auch tatsächlich dadurch anerkannt fühlen.

While the conditions under which states introduce power-sharing and autonomy rights for minorities are well researched, the reasons why they do so to varying degrees are less known. This article introduces the argument that the level of certainty about a country's future democratic development explains variation in the extent of minority rights across states. Ethnic groups assess the chance for successful democratic transition and, if they are optimistic about the prospects, they are satisfied with limited minority governing rights. In contrast, groups that are uncertain about their future position in power relations and that fear an autocratic backlash, request extensive power-sharing and autonomy rights. Democratic prospects and the extend of minority governing rights are, thus, negatively correlated. This theoretical proposition finds support in the analysis of seven former Yugoslav countries, which shows that states with more pessimistic democratic prospects at independence, introduced more extensive minority governing rights afterwards. This innovative argument contributes to the literature focusing on the preferences of a country's elites by highlighting the role of citizens' interests.

While the conditions under which states introduce power-sharing and autonomy rights for minorities are well researched, the reasons why they do so to varying degrees are less known. This article introduces the argument that the level of certainty about a country's future democratic development explains variation in the extent of minority rights across states. Ethnic groups assess the chance for successful democratic transition and, if they are optimistic about the prospects, they are satisfied with limited minority governing rights. In contrast, groups that are uncertain about their future position in power relations and that fear an autocratic backlash, request extensive power-sharing and autonomy rights. Democratic prospects and the extend of minority governing rights are, thus, negatively correlated. This theoretical proposition finds support in the analysis of seven former Yugoslav countries, which shows that states with more pessimistic democratic prospects at independence, introduced more extensive minority governing rights afterwards. This innovative argument contributes to the literature focusing on the preferences of a country's elites by highlighting the role of citizens' interests.