MINELRES: Publication: Can Liberal Pluralism be Exported? Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe

[MINELRES moderator]

Publication: 
Can Liberal Pluralism be Exported?
Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe

Edited by WILL  KYMLICKA and MAGDA  OPALSKI

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2001


CONTENTS
 
Notes on Contributors 
List of Figures 
List of Tables

Preface and Acknowledgements 
Will Kymlicka

Introduction 
Will Kymlicka and Magda Opalski
 
1   'Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe'
WillKymlicka
 
2   Commentaries
1.   'Liberal Pluralism and Post-Communism' 
George Schopflin
2.   'Rethinking the State, Minorities, and National Security'  
Urszula Doroszewska
3.   'On the Chances of Ethnocultural Justice in East Central Europe'
Tibor Vdrady
4.   'Nation-States and Immigrant Societies'
Michael Walzer
5.   'New Democracies in the Old World'
Boris Tsilevich
6.   'Some Doubts about "Ethnocultural Justice"'
Alexander Ossipov
7.   'Reflections on Minority Rights Politics for East Central
European Countries'
Panayote Dimitras and Nafsika Papanikolatos
8.   Territorial Autonomy as a Minority Rights Regime in
Post-Communist Countries' 
Pal Kolsto
9.   'Nation-Building and Beyond'
Janos Kis
10.   'Ethnocultural Justice in East European States and the Case of
the Czech Roma'
Pavel Barsa
11.   'Definitions and Discourse: Applying Kymlicka's Models to
Estonia and Latvia'
Vello Pettai 
12.   'Universal Thought, Eastern Facts: Scrutinizing National
Minority Rights in Romania'
Gabriel Andreescu
13.   'Perspectives on a Liberal-Pluralist Approach to Ethnic
Minorities in Ukraine'
Volodymyr Fesenko
14.   'Can Will Kymlicka be Exported to Russia?'
Magda Opalski
15.   'Nation-Building, Culture, and Problems of Ethnocultural
Identity in Central Asia: The Case of Uzbekistan'
Aleksander Djumaev

3    Reply and Conclusion
Will Kymlicka

Index



INTRODUCTION

WILL  KYMLICKA  AND  MAGDA  OPALSKI

The aim of this volume is to explore whether recent work by Western
liberal theorists on issues of pluralism and minority rights is useful
to understanding and evaluating ethnic conflicts in the post-Communist
countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. There has
been a great deal of important work done recently by Western political
theorists on the importance of accommodating ethnocultural, linguistic
and religious pluralism in democratic societies- for example works by
Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Yael Tamir, David Miller, Jeff Spinner,
Alien Buchanan, Rainer Baubock, James Tully, Michael Walzer, and Iris
Marion Young. These and other theorists have helped to define a new
approach to ethnocultural diversity that argues that justice requires
the public recognition and accommodation of diversity. This new
position-we will call it the 'liberal pluralist' approach-differs
significantly from the standard post-war liberal view-we will call it
the 'orthodox liberal' view- that ethnocultural diversity should be
relegated to the private sphere and not publicly supported in the form
of minority rights or multiculturalism.

According to liberal pluralists, learning to live with the public
expression and institutionalization of ethnocultural diversity is a
key precondition for a stable and just democracy. This raises the
obvious question: can the new Western models of liberal pluralism
assist in the democratization and stabilization of post-Communist
Europe?
Surprisingly, there has been very little written exploring this
question. None of the major Western political theorists of liberal
pluralism have themselves written extensively on Eastern Europe,
although several have made brief discussions or comparisons between
Western democracies and the post-Communist countries (1). And, so far
as we know, no Eastern European scholar has attempted to
systematically apply any of these liberal pluralist theories to their
own region, although here again several scholars have made passing
references or citations to the works of Western theorists.

This is surprising since there is, in our experience, overwhelming
interest in such a question amongst both Western and Eastern
intellectuals and policy-makers. Many people in Eastern Europe are
searching for (non-ideological) ways of conceptualizing their
situation. There is no shortage of detailed descriptions and diagnoses
of particular ethnic conflicts in particular countries, but very
little in the way of general theorizing about the nature of minority
rights or their relation to justice and democracy. As a result,
proposals for resolving ethnic conflicts almost always appear as
special pleading on behalf of this or that minority, rather than as
the appropriate application of defensible moral principles. To avoid
this perception that ethnic relations are nothing more than ad hoc
compromises, there is interest amongst Eastern Europeans in
determining whether Western theory provides useful ways to
conceptualize minority rights in their region.

But the topic is also of great interest to many Western liberals.
Western liberals are deeply interested in and committed to the
democratization process in Eastern Europe, but are often confused by
the role of ethnic conflict in this process. Indeed, recent events
have shown that most Westerners have no clear how idea how they should
respond to ethnic claims in the region.

Part of the explanation for this confusion, we believe, is that many
Western discussions of the situation in Eastern Europe continue to
reflect post-war 'orthodox liberal' assumptions about diversity. In
particular, they tend to invoke stereotypical contrasts between the
(peaceful, democratic, tolerant) 'civic nationalism' of the West and
the (aggressive, authoritarian, xenophobic) 'ethnic nationalism' of
the East; or between the (ethnically inclusive) 'constitutional
patriotism' of the West and the (ethnically exclusive) 'Balkanization'
of the East. In so far as Western liberals start with these
dichotomies, they automatically interpret ethnic conflicts in Eastern
Europe as relics of premodern and preliberal tribalisms that must be
overcome if liberal democracy is to be achieved. These conflicts are
seen as evidence that Eastern Europe is not ready for liberal
democracy, rather than as conflicts which Western models of liberal
democracy might help to resolve.

Recent theorists of liberal pluralism have disputed these conventional
dichotomies between ethnic relations in Western democracies and
Eastern Europe. The assumption that Western 'civic' nations have
transcended all forms of ethnocultural particularism has been strongly
challenged by recent liberal pluralists. By highlighting the extent to
which issues of ethnocultural particularism remain salient to Western
democracies, the liberal pluralist approach may have more relevance to
Eastern Europe than is typically supposed.

Our main aims in this volume are thus two-fold: (a) to make available
to Eastern Europeans recent work in Western political theory on
ethnocultural pluralism, and to start a dialogue with Eastern
Europeans on the ways in which this work may be relevant to the
Eastern European context; and (b) to show to Western liberals that the
conventional ways of distinguishing between ethnic relations in the
West and East are unhelpful in understanding or responding to ethnic
conflict in the post-Communist world, and to suggest an alternative
framework to help Westerners in thinking about ethnic conflict in the
democratization process.

The importance of this issue is obvious. The ability or inability of
countries in Eastern Europe to resolve their ethnic conflicts has
profoundly affected the process of democratization. While most
countries without significant ethnic tensions have democratized
successfully - for example Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovenia -
those countries with major ethnic and linguistic cleavages are having
a more difficult time consolidating democracy and civil society - for
example Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Macedonia. At worst, these ethnic
conflicts have led to civil wars that have shocked the world with
their levels of brutality: Serbia, Croatia, Georgia, Azerbaijan,
Chechnya. It is important to try to identify the relevant lessons and
principles - if any - that the experience of Western democracies might
offer to newly-democratizing countries struggling with these
conflicts.

But the topic is urgent in another way. Several Western organizations
have recently decided that respect for minority rights is one of the
preconditions for post-Communist countries to 'rejoin Europe'.
Countries which fail the test of respect for minority rights will not
be allowed to join NATO and the European Union, and may lose their
standing in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) or the Council of Europe. Countries wishing to join these
Western organizations must agree to allow detailed international
monitoring of their treatment of minorities, and agree to abide by
recently:established European norms on minority rights, such as the
principles adopted by the OSCE on national minorities in 1990, or the
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities adopted
by the Council of Europe in 1995. From the point of view of many
Eastern European countries, Western countries are no longer simply
offering models for possible consideration, but rather are imposing
their own ideas of minority rights on Eastern Europe.

Many Eastern European countries have grave reservations about this
process. And indeed there are many important questions to be asked
about this decision to pressure Eastern European countries to respect
pan-European standards on minority rights. But it is worth noting that
this is in fact just one example of a much broader trend towards the
codification of minority rights in international law. For example, the
United Nations has adopted a declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
(1992), and is debating a Draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (1993). These may lead to much greater monitoring
of the way countries around the world treat their minorities. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is also playing a role in
formulating regional standards of minority rights in the Americas. Or
consider the recent decision of the World Bank to include minority
rights as one of the criteria for evaluating development projects
around the world. There is even talk of trying to develop a 'universal
declaration of minority rights', to supplement the 1948 universal
declaration of human rights. In short, there is clear movement in the
direction of internationalizing minority rights. The treatment of
minorities is increasingly seen as a matter, not only of domestic
politics, but also of legitimate international monitoring and perhaps
even international intervention. As the OSCE puts it, minority rights
'are matters of legitimate international concern and consequently do
not constitute exclusively an internal affair of the respective State'
(2). 

This growing movement for the international codification and
monitoring of minority rights presupposes that at least some minority
provisions are not simply a matter of discretionary policies or
pragmatic compromises but rather are a matter of fundamental justice.
It implies that minority rights are indeed basic rights. This movement
has primarily been advanced by Western organizations, NGOs and
scholars, together with their allies in the rest of the world. And not
surprisingly, their proposals typically involve codifying Western
models as universal standards. There has been little input, and even
less enthusiasm, from governments in Eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa,
most of which tend to be very sceptical about the whole idea of
internationalizing minority rights issues.

What is happening today in Eastern Europe, therefore, may be a
harbinger of things to come elsewhere in the world. The decision of
Western organizations to insist on respect for minority rights in
Eastern European countries will be the first serious test case for the
feasibility and desirability of 'exporting' Western minority rights
standards to the rest of the world. For this reason, it is worthy of
careful consideration by anyone interested in the issue of minority
rights.

Given this background, there are two increasingly important tasks.
First, we need to clarify the theoretical basis of Western models of
minority rights, so as to distinguish the underlying principles from
the myriad local variations in the way that these principles are
institutionalized. As several commentators have noted, while Western
organizations have decided to demand respect for minority rights
standards, there remains considerable confusion about what these
standards actually are, and it is far from clear that there is any
consensus yet within the West on the precise nature of these
principles. We need to distinguish the fundamental principles from the
contingent practices, and to think carefully about the presuppositions
and preconditions of these principles, and hence about the extent to
which they are applicable elsewhere.

Second, we need to promote a dialogue with intellectuals and leaders
from other parts of the world about issues of minority rights. Our aim
in this volume is neither to support nor criticize recent moves to
internationalize minority rights standards. But we do believe that any
attempt to develop such international standards must be done in an
inclusive way, with the active participation of non-Western countries,
including representatives of both majority and minority groups. We
need, in short, to start a transnational and intercultural dialogue on
minority rights (3). Many intellectuals and policy-makers in Eastern
Europe have no clear idea of the principles underlying these Western
standards. They are told that respect for minorities is an essential
part of democratization, but are not told why minority rights are
linked to democracy, or how these rights relate to principles of
justice or freedom. Under these circumstances, it is essential to
establish a genuine dialogue on this issue involving both Western and
Eastern European scholars and practitioners (4). We hope this volume
will serve as a small step towards both of these goals.


Overview of the Volume

The volume has three main parts. It begins with a lengthy paper by
Will Kymlicka entitled 'Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations
in Eastern Europe'. This paper has two main sections. The first half
explores some of the interesting recent work done by Western political
theorists on the management of ethnocultural diversity. It begins by
rejecting what Kymlicka calls the myth of the 'ethnocultural
neutrality' of the liberal state, and offers instead an alternative
model of ethnic relations that several recent liberal pluralist
theorists have developed. This alternative model defends the general
principle that ethnocultural minorities can legitimately demand
certain group-specific rights for the accommodation of their distinct
identities, but argues that the precise nature of these rights depends
on the nature of the minority group. He distinguishes six types of
ethnocultural groups found in Western democracies: national minorities
and indigenous peoples; legal immigrants with the right to become
citizens; illegal immigrants or guestworkers without the right to
become citizens; racial caste groups; and isolationist ethnoreligious
sects. He argues that each type of group has specific needs that
require distinct rights.

He focuses in particular on the differences between the rights of
immigrants and the rights of national minorities/indigenous peoples.
He explores the sorts of accommodation rights claimed by immigrant
groups, which lead to the familiar forms of immigrant
'multiculturalism' we see in Canada, Australia, Britain, the United
States and increasingly other countries as well. He then contrasts
this with the sort of self-government rights claimed by non-immigrant
national minorities and indigenous peoples, of the sort which lead to
familiar forms of regional autonomy or 'multination federalism' for
national minorities-as in Quebec, Puerto Rico, Catalonia, and
Scotland-and to forms of self-government for indigenous peoples- such
as the American Indians, Inuit in Canada, Sami in Scandinavia, or
Maori in New Zealand. Kymlicka argues that these forms of immigrant
multiculturalism and self-government for national minorities have
worked well in the West, and promote liberal values of freedom and
justice.

The second half then examines some of the possible applications of
this model to Central and Eastern European countries. Kymlicka focuses
in particular on two common objections to applying models of liberal
pluralism in the region. The first objection states that the sorts of
ethnocultural groups in Eastern/Central Europe are often very
different from those in the West. For example, there is no group in
the West that is quite like the Roma or 'gypsies' who are found
throughout central and Eastern Europe; nor is there any clear parallel
to the special situation of the ethnic Russians in the Baltics or
Central Asia. Also, unlike in the West, many national minorities in
Eastern Europe have a neighbouring kin state, which makes them
potentially irredentist, rather than merely autonomy-seeking. And,
unlike in the West, migration in Eastern Europe tends to be the result
of forced migration rather than legal immigration. Given these
profound differences in the nature of the minority groups themselves,
Western models of immigrant multiculturalism or multination federalism
may not be applicable to these groups. The second objection states
that the very idea of liberal pluralism has little applicability to
states in this region, which are rooted in very different political
traditions, with their own distinct notions of nationhood and
statehood. On this view, the absence of the appropriate traditions of
either liberalism or democratic pluralism means that Western-style
models will fail, and may indeed worsen the situation, promoting
expectations that cannot be met and playing into the hands of
dangerous ethnic entrepreneurs. Kymlicka concedes that there is some
truth in both of these objections, but argues that Western experiences
of the accommodation of ethnic differences can nonetheless be relevant
for the region. Indeed, he suggests that there may be few viable
alternatives to Western models of immigrant multiculturalism and,
multination federalism. Whatever the limits of these models, the
alternatives may be even worse.

(2) The main paper is then followed by 15 replies and commentaries.
Most of these are from scholars and writers in Eastern Europe: Urszula
Doroszewska (Poland); Boris Tsilevich (Latvia); Alexander Ossipov
(Russia); Aleksander Djumaev (Uzbekistan); Volodymyr Fesenko
(Ukraine); Janos Kis (Hungary); Gabriel Andreescu (Romania); Tibor
Varady (Serbia); Pavel Barsa (Czech Republic); and Vello Pettai
(Estonia). Five commentaries are by Western scholars who have written
about Eastern Europe: Michael Walzer, George Schopflin, Pal Kolst0,
Magda Opalski, and Panayote Dimitras and Nafsika Papanikolatos. These
authors represent a very wide range of countries, disciplines and
professions, and political perspectives.

These commentaries address two types of issues. First, commentators
directly respond to the theory developed in Kymlicka's paper,
discussing whether the liberal pluralist approach is applicable in the
region. While some of the authors express general sympathy with the
approach, many identify distinctive features of the ethnopolitical
situation that make it difficult or undesirable to apply liberal
pluralism in the region. These factors include the legacy of
Communism, the economic distress facing many countries, the history of
empires and boundary-changes, the role of kin-states, the lack of
political accountability for both state and minority elites, the
inability of some states to implement policies and enforce the rule of
law, and so on.

Second, commentators describe the existing terms and arguments used in
the public discourse in their region, both at the elite and popular
levels. It is clear that the sorts of concepts and terms used in
Western political theory are not commonly used in many countries of
Eastern Europe. To be sure, a certain discourse of human rights,
tolerance, and respect for minorities has been adopted-or at least
mimicked-widely in the region, particularly when international
observers are present. However, this Western-style rhetoric co-exists
with other forms of public discourse in Eastern Europe which are less
liberal. The commentaries discuss, for example, the tendency of public
discourse in some countries to draw on quasi-genetic arguments about
national characteristics; the tendency to invoke the 'clash of
civilizations' thesis or related views about the impossibility of
peaceful ethnic co-existence; the pervasive discourse of loyalty and
disloyalty; the role of stereotypes and historical memories, and so
on. The authors discuss' how these aspects of the existing public
discourse assist or inhibit the accommodation of ethnocultural
diversity, and how they affect the consideration of liberal pluralist
models.

These commentaries provide rich insights into the nature of
ethnocultural relations in post-Communist Europe, and the challenges
facing any attempts to promote Western models of minority rights in
the region.

The volume concludes with a reply by Will Kymlicka, which examines
some of the specific issues raised in the commentaries, and also
reflects on the more general issue about the exportability of Western
political theory to newly-democratizing countries, and about the
possible benefits/pitfalls of such comparative discussions. In
particular, he focuses on what we could call the priority problem.
Several authors argue that certain minority rights are unhelpful, and
perhaps even dangerous, if they are adopted in an unstable or
undemocratic context, without adequate legal and political safeguards.
This suggests that priority should be given to consolidating democracy
and the rule of law before attempting to deal with minority rights.
The alternative view, often advanced by minority groups, is that the
failure to manage ethnic conflicts properly is itself the cause of
delayed democratiza-tion, and that giving priority to (central)
state-building over issues of minority rights plays into the hands of
authoritarian majority nationalists who are equally opposed to liberal
democracy as to minority rights. Kymlicka considers these and other
dilemmas associated with promoting ethnocultural justice under
conditions of democratic and economic transition. He also discusses
various difficulties in the role that Western organizations have
played so far on issues of ethnic relations in the region, such as the
lack of clear standards, the selective monitoring of ECE countries,
and the vacillation between norms of justice and considerations of
security as the basis for Western interventions. Kymlicka concludes by
offering suggestions on how these organizations can play a more
helpful and constructive role.

Although the volume mentions many cases of ethnic conflict in Eastern
Europe, and many aspects of minority rights, it only scratches the
surface of the topic. Our goal is not to provide a comprehensive
survey of these issues, let alone to conclusively resolve any of them,
but rather to give an indication of both the immense potential of, and
the great need for, new work in this area. We hope to show that,
despite the very great differences between the East and West in
history, economic and political circumstances, academic training, and
the vocabulary of public debate, we can learn from each other about
these pressing issues of democracy and diversity.


NOTES

1. There are a few books by Western political theorists on Eastern
Europe, but they have typically ignored or downplayed the issue of
ethnic conflict-for example Ackerman (1992). There are a few shorter
discussions by Western theorists on minority rights in Eastern
Europe-for example a section in Michael Walzer's On Toleration (1997);
and articles by Elizabeth Kiss (1995) and Graham Walker (1997). But
these are isolated chapters in books that are generally focused on
other topics or other regions of the world.

2. Report of the CSCE Meeting of Experts on National Minorities
(Geneva, 1991).

3. Onuma Yasuaki has argued for an 'intercivilizationaP approach to
human rights (Onuma 1997), and there has indeed been a vibrant
cross-cultural dialogue on human rights in the last decade (for
example An-Na'im and Deng 1990; An-Na'im 1992; Bauer and Bell 1999).
There has been much less of a cross-cultural dialogue on minority
rights.

4. As Andre Leibich notes, even when Eastern European countries are
members of these international organizations 'their voices are seldom
listened to. They remain at the receiving end of these institutions'
decisions, even in matters that concern them directly' (Liebich 1995:
317).