one view of the war
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
One view of the war . . .

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 60

One view of the war . . . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

One view of the war . . . “It’s really a tragic problem . . . The hatred between all three groups – the Bosnians, the Serbs, and the Croations – is almost unbelievable. It’s almost terrifying, and it’s centuries old. That really is a problem from hell.”

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'One view of the war . . .' - zola

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
one view of the war
One view of the war . . .
  • “It’s really a tragic problem . . . The hatred between all three groups – the Bosnians, the Serbs, and the Croations – is almost unbelievable. It’s almost terrifying, and it’s centuries old. That really is a problem from hell.”

- Warren Christopher, Secretary of State under President Clinton

geography and demographics
Geography and Demographics
  • 6 republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia
  • 2 autonomous regions in Serbia: Vojvodina and Kosovo
geography and demographics1
Geography and Demographics
  • Many ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc.
  • Serbs largest in country, but not majority
  • Complications: boundaries of ethnic groups not the same as boundaries of republics!
ancient history
Ancient History
  • Prior to WWI: Area dominated by Austro-Hungarian (in NW) and Ottoman (in SE) Empires.
  • No history of fighting, groups not enemies.
  • At times, groups cooperated to oppose foreign occupying powers.
first yugoslav state
First Yugoslav State
  • Formed at the end of WWI.
  • Marriage of convenience, entered into willingly by all parties.
first yugoslav state1
First Yugoslav State
  • BIG challenges:
    • Economic
    • Political: what would this new state look like?
      • Serbs: wanted strong, centralized state to protect Serb minority populations in other regions.
      • Others: wanted decentralized state to protect against Serb domination.
first yugoslav state2
First Yugoslav State
  • Solution: a strong, centralized state
    • Serb preferences won out (this time).
    • Other groups not happy, but try to work together to iron out problems.
  • Hitler invades Yugoslavia in 1941
    • Installs puppet regimes in Serbia and Croatia.
      • Croat state (Ustasha): cleanse Croatia of Serbs.
      • Serb paramilitaries (Chetniks) organize and fight Ustasha.
    • Horrific fighting, bitter memories. Irony: Ustasha not popularly chosen.
  • Tito and the Partisans
    • Communists.
    • Integrating force.
    • Fought with Allies
    • Fought civil war against Ustasha and Chetniks
    • Won, took power at close of WWII
tito s yugoslavia
Tito’s Yugoslavia
  • Inherited a tough situation:
    • Economic devastation
    • Bitter memories of civil war
    • Demographic snake pit: what to do about Serbia?
tito s yugoslavia1
Tito’s Yugoslavia
  • Use the CP as an integrating force.
  • Promote ideology of growth and development.
  • Stomp out nationalism.
  • Not a democracy. Dissent and opposition not tolerated. CP only game in town.
  • Rely on personal popularity and charisma.
tito s yugoslavia2
Tito’s Yugoslavia
  • Give republics autonomy over own affairs, veto power over central decisions.
  • Make Vojvodina and Kosovo autonomous regions, give them veto power also.
  • Consociationalism: keep the power of the largest group (Serbs) in check.
tito s yugoslavia3
Tito’s Yugoslavia
  • Happy Days:
    • Country experienced economic growth into the 1970s.
    • Peace!
  • But: costs of stifling alternative political voices, vacuum when Tito died.
post tito
  • 1980s: Economic slowdown, population distressed, unhappy.
  • CP bureaucrats paralyzed by crisis:
    • What was good for one region was bad for another.
    • Regions used veto in Federal Presidency to block any policy that hurt them.
    • Stalemate!
post tito1
Post Tito
  • Political crisis also:
    • Serbian leaders unhappy about status of Kosovo and Vojvodina.
    • Tried to address problem legally, but were blocked by veto power of other republics.
    • Deadlock!
moves by serbia
Moves by Serbia
  • Serb politicians look for way around the deadlock: appeal to Serb grievances in Kosovo.
    • Kosovo: historical significance to Serbs.
    • Serbs a minority in Kosovo (largely for economic reasons), felt discriminated against.
    • Politicians: Serbs are being run out of their homeland! (exaggerated claim, but effective).
moves by serbia1
Moves by Serbia
  • Enter Slobodan Milosevic
    • 1988: President of Serbia, Ivan Stambolic, sends Milosevic to Kosovo to hear out the complaints of the Kosovo Serbs
    • Was supposed to stick to CP anti-nationalist line.
moves by serbia2
Moves by Serbia
  • Instead, took the side of the nationalists.
  • Famous words, addressing crowd:

“You will not be beaten again.”

moves by serbia3
Moves by Serbia
  • “Rallies for Truth”
    • Orchestrated by politicians
    • Demanded end of autonomy of Vijvodina and Kosovo
    • Dramatized situation of Serbs in Kosovo
  • Non-Serb leaders continue to refuse to negotiate with Milosevic.
moves by serbia4
Moves by Serbia
  • Milosevic topples leaders in Vojvodina, Kosovo, and Montenegro, installs men loyal to him.
  • Radical effect on balance of power in Yugoslavia: Milosevic now controls 4 out of 8 votes in the Federal Presidency.
response of slovenia and croatia
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
  • Leaders of Slovenia and Croatia very nervous, set about trying to weaken the federal authority of Yugoslav state.
  • Slovenia:
    • Backed Albanian resistance in Kosovo
    • Refused to allow rally for truth
    • Pulled out of Yugoslav CP
response of slovenia and croatia1
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
  • Croatia:
    • At first: try to broker compromise, preserve Yugoslavia
    • Strategy changed abruptly with election of Franjo Tudjman in May 1990.
response of slovenia and croatia2
Response of Slovenia and Croatia
  • Tudjman and cronies: provocative nationalists.
    • Checkerboard flag.
    • Serbs: secondary minority status.
    • Talked big about taking Croatia out of Yugoslavia.
  • Serb minority in Croatia: scared. Fears played up by Serb politicians.
  • Summer 1990: Serbs in Krajina (area of Croatia) armed themselves and declared self-rule.
  • Tudjman: formed own paramilitaries
  • June 1991: Slovenia and Croatia declare independence.
  • Serbia lets Slovenia go without fight.
  • Not so Croatia. Serbia, plus Yugoslav National Army (JNA), fight to keep it in.
  • Large-scale war erupts in Croatia. Fighting spread from there to Bosnia.
implications for ethnicity theories
Implications for Ethnicity Theories
  • Contrary to expectations of Primordialism, war in Yugoslavia not the result of ancient hatreds. Peace, not conflict, was norm.
  • And yet, the population responded quickly to the provocations of politicians. Hard for instrumentalism to explain why.
  • Also difficult for instrumentalism: the brutality and emotion of the fighting.
implications for conflict theories
Implications for Conflict Theories
  • Yes, grievances existed. However, they were nothing new. Why did they suddenly flower into conflict? Societal explanations important, but insufficient.
implications for conflict theories1
Implications for Conflict Theories
  • Politicians played a critical role: whipped up emotions, initiated conflict.
  • At national level, change in political leadership important: Tito suppressed nationalism, his successors encouraged it.
implications for conflict theories2
Implications for Conflict Theories
  • But also key: the weakness of the Yugoslav state after Tito.
    • Communist Party: unable to cope with challenges.
    • Veto power of republics => deadlock.
    • State unable to contain nationalist politicians, gave them critical window of opportunity.
for the rest of the course
For the rest of the course…
  • How do we explain democratic stability? Why is democracy the “only game in town” in some countries but not others?
  • Different answers:
    • Level of economic development
    • Culture
    • Institutions
and culture is
And culture is?
  • Political culture = the set of attitudes, beliefs, and norms held by a population toward politics.
and culture is1
And culture is?
  • Attitudes = dispositions towards politics (political leaders, events, institutions, governments, policies, etc.).
    • Examples: support for the government, tolerance for opposing view points, trust in political institutions, feelings of political efficacy and so on.
and culture is2
And culture is?
  • Beliefs: cognitive ideas about cause and effect.
    • Example: the “domino theory” in the 1950s.
and culture is3
And culture is?
  • Norms: evaluative ideas about the world, judgments about good and bad.
    • Example: “Democracy is good.”
  • Liberalism arose in Western Europe response to feudalism, which was very hierarchical and involved very little social mobility.
  • Feudalism = individuals at the mercy of the social hierarchy.
  • Liberalism = individuals over social hierarchy.
liberalism s key norms
Liberalism’s Key Norms
  • The protection of individual rights from powerful groups and governments.
  • Competition and disagreement versus harmony and consensus.
  • Tolerance of dissent rather than unanimity.
  • Egalitarianism over hierarchy.
  • Society should have a separate, protected realm from the state.
liberalism and democracy
Liberalism and democracy
  • Historically, liberalism was a precedent to democracy in Western Europe and the US.
  • This has lead some to see liberalism as a necessary condition for democracy.
liberalism and democracy1
Liberalism and democracy
  • Why?
  • Norms like egalitarianism and tolerance of dissent may improve the quality of competition.
  • Emphasis on individual rights may make majority rule less frightening for minorities.
huntington s cultural argument
Huntington’s cultural argument
  • Samuel Huntington: liberal norms are associated with some religions (Protestantism) but not others (Catholicism, Confucianism, Islam).
  • No democracy where these “non-liberal” religions are found.
huntington s cultural argument1
Huntington’s cultural argument
  • Catholicism: hierarchical, emphasizes a single, collective good. Values harmony and consensus.
  • Confucianism: authority, hierarchy, responsibility, harmony. Sees conflict as dangerous. Merges state and society.
  • Islam: rejects separation of religion and state.
huntington s cultural argument problems
Huntington’s cultural argument: problems
  • Religions and cultures are dynamic, not static.
  • All religions have aspects that conform with liberal norms and others that contradict them.
  • Consensus building may be as important to democracy as competition.
  • And the empirical record is bad!
liberalism and democracy2
Liberalism and Democracy
  • Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
  • Even if we do not buy Huntington, perhaps specific liberal norms – eg. tolerance – none-the-less matter for democratic consolidation?
liberalism and democracy3
Liberalism and Democracy
  • But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Democracy or liberalism, liberalism or democracy? Can living in a healthy democracy teach people to be liberal?
  • More generally: correlation is not the same as causation! Just because x and y are often found together, doesn’t mean x causes y. Maybe y causes x?
the civic culture almond verba
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
  • Two components:
    • A participatory attitude toward politics. Individuals value participation and become involved in their communities (not just their own narrow self interest). Communities therefore have a rich associational life.
    • Trust in other people and a willingness to cooperate.
the civic culture almond verba1
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
  • In contrast to “Amoral Familism.”
    • All loyalty and trust is centered in the family.
    • People are not public-spirited: they don’t participate in community life, are not informed about politics, etc.
    • No trust of “outsiders,” no willingness to cooperate.
    • Maximize material, short-run advantage of family.
    • Communities lack much associational life.
the civic culture almond verba2
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
  • Hypothesis:
    • Civic Culture => Stable Democracy
    • Amoral Familism => Unstable Democracy
the civic culture almond verba3
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
  • Test:
    • Measure civic culture in 5 countries that vary in their level of democratic stability
    • Prediction: Civic culture high in US and GB, low in Mexico and Italy, moderate in Germany.
  • Results: hypothesis confirmed!
  • Conclusion: culture => democratic stability
the civic culture almond verba4
The Civic Culture: Almond &Verba
  • BUT: Couldn’t the relationship run the other way? Perhaps high levels of civic culture are an effect of stable institutions, not their cause!
  • AND: Perhaps both cultural values and democratic stability are caused by something else, namely, economic development?
  • In general: correlation is not the same as causation!!!
the civic culture revisited putnam s making democracy work
The Civic Culture revisited: Putnam’s Making Democracy Work
  • Why does democracy work well in some places but not others?
  • The Italian experiment: 15 identical regional governments situated in different economic and cultural contexts. Would they perform differently? If so, why?
the civic culture revisited putnam s making democracy work1
The Civic Culture revisited: Putnam’s Making Democracy Work
  • In fact: performance has been quite varied. Government in the north = good; government in the south = not so good.
  • The institutions are the same but their performance varies. WHY?
explanations for the difference between the north and the south
Explanations for the difference between the North and the South?
  • Explanation One: Economic development. The North is rich, the South is poor.
  • Explanation Two: Culture. Civic culture is high in the North, low in the South.
  • So which is it? And what causes what?
explanations for the difference between the north and the south1
Explanations for the difference between the North and the South?
  • Putnam: Culture.
  • Why? Because the cultural differences observed in Northern Italy emerged first, before the economic differences, and long before the political ones.
the historical argument
The historical argument . . .
  • Medieval Italy: a time of great violence and anarchy. Insecurity was a constant fact of life.
    • In the South: the solution was to strengthen the power of the king, who could then secure the area. Cost: community autonomy.
    • In the North: the solution was self-governance and mutual aid and defense.
the historical argument1
The historical argument . . .
  • These different solutions had a long-lasting impact on the cultural traditions of the areas. A rich associational life flourished in the North, atrophied in the South.
  • Furthermore, these cultural traditions emerged well before economic differences became entrenched.
  • Thus, culture preceded politics and economics.
okay so why
Okay, so why?
  • Rich associational life (“social capital”) => Solves collective action problems.
    • Rich associational life means people interact repeatedly with one another, which helps them identify and punish free-riders.
    • Rich associational life also promotes “norms of reciprocity.”
questions and problems
Questions and Problems
  • Cooperation might be good or bad for democracy.
  • Not all associational life is created equal. Associational life has a dark side too.
  • Trust may not be all it’s cracked up to be. Liberalism: good government is founded on distrust!