What are the pros and cons of changing government structure in order to address identity issues?

    In the article “Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism?” author Dawn Brancati hypothesizes that even though decentralizing government has often been a proposed solution to ethnic conflicts, there are many reasons to believe that this option can actually increase ethnic tensions by encouraging regional parties to emerge. These parties then “increase ethnic conflict and secessionism by reinforcing regionally based ethnic identities, producing legislation that favors certain groups over others, and mobilizing groups to engage in ethnic conflict and secessionism or by supporting terrorist organizations that participate in these activities.” Brancati also theorizes that some countries have more success than others with the decentralization method for dealing with ethnic conflict due to additional factors regarding the specific components of the decentralization such as “the size of regions, the number of regional legislatures in a country, the method used to elect upper houses of government, and the sequencing of national and regional elections.” Brancati concludes that decentralization can work to reduce ethnic conflict, but only if strong regional parties fail to materialize or are heavily regulated.

With Brancati’s research in mind, I see several pros and cons to altering government structure in response to identity issues. As Brancati points out, changing the form a government takes can be successful in addressing identity-based conflicts. That being said, the change must be specific and regulated. One major benefit to changing government structure is it can allow for increased representation. Identity groups that are excluded from the governing process or oppressed socially or politically can benefit greatly from incorporation into government structures. On the other hand, it is noted in the article that changing structures can actually exacerbate imbalances in power, and serve to worsen oppression and violence. I think that in this sense, one of the cons to changing government structure is upsetting the status quo, which can create strong opposition from groups that are satisfied with an existing power-sharing arrangement. Furthermore, changing a government structure for the specific or stated purpose of addressing identity issues can cause groups to feel excluded or disregarded, generating backlash from powerful groups and perhaps apathy or opposition from other oppressed groups that feel ignored. Playing this game of “identity politics” in rearranging a government structure seems like it might be a gamble that could alienate potential allies and evoke the wrath of current leaders. That being said, if completed successfully, a transition to a more inclusive and accurately representative government would benefit a large number of constituents and could result in a decrease in conflict due to a closer parallel between what groups feel entitled to and what they are receiving as far as representation and social acknowledgement go.

Before reading this article, I was unaware that decentralization had been proposed as a solution to ethnic conflicts. It makes sense, but I agree with Brancati that if improperly executed, it could serve to strengthen divides. The key to creating a government that discourages conflict is to provide representation and protection for all salient identity groups. I do not think that centralized government is necessarily the problem itself, rather, the composition of any given government is the primary factor in reducing tensions. This article definitely seems relevant today, as I think it will almost always be the case that having control over one’s own community governance can decrease conflict and engender more positive emotions towards other groups in the country context.