Ethnic Diversity and the Nation State

Diversity of ethnicity is crucial. It is the harmonious coexistence of different races that exist throughout the world and have different skin tones, languages, and cultures. There are several peoples or ethnic groups in the mute, each with their own customs, dialects, traditions, and so forth. We must distinguish between the key terms within cultural or ethnic diversity.

The term “diversity” describes the range of components present in a specific area. A society can be identified by its culture in terms of its material, spiritual, emotional, and intellectual features. Last but not least, ethnicities are groups of people who are united by a shared cultural history. A group of people or a region’s ethnic and cultural diversity refers to the variety of various cultures.

Ethnic Diversity and Nation State

The essential tenet of the contemporary state’s legitimacy, the co terminality of country and state, has recently come under attack from various ethnic groups all over the world. Two of these issues are highlighted in this article:

1. The Claim of Alternative Statehood, which rejects current nation-state political limits, upholds the coterminality of cultural and political community, and bases its secessionist aspirations on a more exact congruence between nationality and state.
2. The Alternative Citizenship Claim, which does not pose a danger to the nation-state and only requests protection for the unique needs of the cultural community, both of these problems have a tendency to engulf the individual as they defend the opposing claims of nations and cultural groupings.

It is argued that a reevaluation of the idea of citizenship is necessary in light of the broken promise of diversity in contemporary multiethnic nations. In a non-majoritarian and non-homogenizing political environment, expanding citizenship beyond the polity/state to include society as a whole and allowing for affiliative and affinitive identities in addition to affiliative ones may serve to develop civil society.

Ethnic, Nation and Nation-State

In his empirical study of 132 nations, Connor (1978) claimed that academics frequently refer to a minority group that has its own language, culture, and/or religion that is different from that of the dominant group as an “ethnic group.” The language, culture, and religion of the “nation” are only a few examples. Connor defines nations and ethnic groups as social groups with a sense of camaraderie among their members.

Connor asserts that the “ethnic group” needs to be seen as a “proto country.” Every so-called “ethnic group” has the potential to develop into a “country.” According to Connor, the degree of solidarity that one has separates the two. Unlike members of an ethnic group, citizens of a nation share more than just a common culture, language, and religion. They acknowledge the group’s common leadership and share a similar political objective.

Since political solidarity and recognition of a shared leadership of the community are still weak, if not contested, in the ethnic group, the nation is a more politically united community than the ethnic group. Instead of “ethnic group,” “nation,” or “race,” Connor thinks the word “ethnic-nation” is more applicable in this situation.

Ethnic Conflict

A situation in which two or more actors are pursuing objectives that are irreconcilable is referred to as a conflict. While conflict, discomfort, and tension are not usually violent, they are more frequent in peaceful settings. Ethnic conflict is a type of conflict that has an ethnic component as a result. The conflict, its origins, and potential solutions are seen through ethnic glasses, and at least one party’s goals are characterized in terms of ethnicity.

Instead of ethnic differences, conflicts are typically caused by political, economic, social, cultural, or territorial challenges. If the political objective of ethnic mobilization is self-determination, the movement is referred to as nationalism. A country in this context is an ethnic group that has become politically active and desires autonomy. This autonomy can take many different forms, such as involvement in public affairs, local segmental autonomy, and territorial claims, such as independence.

Ethnic strife is one of the biggest dangers to world peace and security. Among the most well-known and devastating examples from the late 20th and early 21st centuries are the wars in the Balkans, Rwanda, Chechnya, Iraq, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Darfur, as well as Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Frequently, ethnic conflict results in the instability of provinces, states, and perhaps entire regions.

Grave human rights abuses including genocide and crimes against humanity, as well as economic stagnation, state failure, environmental problems, and refugee flows, are commonly present in ethnic conflicts. People suffer a great lot as a result of violent ethnic conflict.

Conclusion

Not only do developing nations experience ethnic tensions and conflicts, but also ex-communist nations and Western liberal democracies. The majority of nations are multiethnic, or, as Connor puts it, “multination-states,” which may explain this. The nation was built in the contemporary era. It is fabricated.

Therefore, the choice is between imagining a nation more along civic-territorial lines, which treats everyone equally regardless of ethnic, religious, or regional origin, and one more along ethnic-genealogical lines, which makes it more exclusive. We choose the latter because it would lead to a more inclusive process of nation-building.