Democracy and ethnicity

Democracy is not to be blindly introduced and applied. The vessel must never be more important than its contents, and therefore democratic structure can never be the goal on the outcome or impact level. Development of democratic structure and procedures can only be at the output level, and be seen as arenas for people’s activities. On the outcome/impact level one will find aspects like behavior, relations, and actions of people – and these are the tings democracy is about.
People living together in a democratic framework pose a number of challenging questions: Is ethnicity subversive (breaking down) of democracy? If democracy is about majoritarian rule, how can (ethnic) minorities ever be considered equal to larger groups or have equitable access to power, resources and justice? How best can democracy address the problems of individual versus group representation and accountability in complex political societies? Because of unreflected and too quick responses to these questions, sometimes people make the assumption that democracy at its root is “Wrong!” and responsible for all internal uprising, fights, war etc. Even thought it sometimes happen that ethnicity in pluralistic societies leads to political instability and intra-state conflicts, blaming democracy is drawing too quick conclusions. Democracy cannot be held responsible for these tensions. The problem is most likely located elsewhere: how people view one another and cooperate.
Sometimes, in the Christian tradition, a polarization of democracy with theocracy can be noted. The assumption is that theocracy proposes:

1) election of trusted people to represent God,
2) tools to be used like revelation, charisma, the Word, spiritual guidance,
3) boundaries drawn up relates to how revelation is distributed,
4) making God’s Kingdom visible.

On the other hand, the polarization proposes that democracy is just about people’s business:

1) entrusted people represent people,
2) tools to be used are, policies, laws, protocol, agreements etc.,
3) distribution of power,
4) building the good society.

For a Christian democracy ought to be both about people and about God. There need to be a balance between the two in a way that gives space for people to participate in the spiritual and the social processes (just like it is modeled in the Bible). In order for democracy to not be reduced to just a matter of structure it needs a value base, and theocracy/spirituality needs the involvement of humans that whole heartedly can live out the intentions with creativity and in cooperation.
The assumptions of democracy, in relation to ethnicity, is that the structure is capable of framing that all citizens are equal before the law and thereby have equal right to power. Everybody has the right to voice their perspectives, and to mobilize others to include new perspectives. On the “democracy and ethnicity agenda” there are issues of rights, cooperation, stability and development.
In the midst of challenging negotiations it is also important to remember that democracy is about freedom, otherwise, it will not be able to spur development. The links between the participants does not only aim at cooperation but also, on general level, to forward social capital and trust. Sometimes it is important to build trust before introducing a democratic structure (which might have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan). Wisely used, democracy can help in building a nation, and provide a framework for unity, which can eliminate destabilizing and divisive tendencies. Above all, it is procedures and channels for information flow that add to stability.
The forming of a nation in relation to democracy is very much about citizenship. There is a division between:

A liberal view of citizenship and the legal membership of a nation-state, where individuals have equal moral worth deserving equal respect by government. This is a citizenship based on equal individual rights; individual liberty, freedom of choice, free markets, popular sovereignty, legitimacy of the freely elected representatives of the people who are accountable to the electors (the people).
A pluralist view of citizenship; the multinational nature of the modern state and the primacy of subnational membership as a building block for political membership. This is a citizenship based on recognition of group and community rights; popular empowerment, group rights, the social nature of the people, continuous collective participation in decision making, equalization of power relations, equitable access to material benefits within society.

Nowadays citizenship is a contested issue. The once taken for granted correspondence between citizenship, nation, territory, and state has been called into question as new forms of supra-national and sub-national membership and belonging have taken on an increasingly trans-territorial character. The increasingly transnational character of global migration flows, cultural networks, and grassroots political engagement; all have dramatically changed the discourses and practices of citizenship in the past two decades. A national setting for democracy requires that social rights and national membership are linked, but this is not always the case. For a nation to harbor different and diverse ethnicity there needs to be a broad understanding of the particular ethnicity and its situational roots. Not just the authorities need this understanding, the people at large, also needs this understanding. What needs to be grasped is that ethnicity is dynamic in its perceived ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic similarities – not all members of a group think and act the same. People also need to see that ethnicity as political behavior depends on power relations (distribution of power and access to resources in plural societies).
In many countries all over the world the tendencies are that ethnicity is part of the democratic project. It is fashionable to be democratic. The use of democracy by “out of power politicians”, democratization is less a commitment than a strategy for power – power elite’s quest for power. It is also seen among ethnic, national and communal groups who are obliged to wage struggles for democratic incorporation, because a manipulative leadership has seized state power in the name of an ethnic or national group” – people’s demand for a “second independence” (can be seen among Indian tribes in Latin America, and elsewhere).
Considering the group representation issues, it is important to remember that groups are not just made up of ethnic belongings. It is therefore a fluid foundation for the democracy agenda – internal variations and contradictions (for or against specific aspects…). Not all groups are ethnic; there are also groups that are defined due to occupation, faith, profession, community associations, gender, and age… Every group is made up of individuals with a shared sense of space, rights, entitlements and destiny, and all this individuals must be given the chance to voice their perspectives as individuals and as members of a group.