Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T19:02:14.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges in conflict management in multi-ethnic states – the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and Serbia and Montenegro

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Emanuela Macek-Macková
Emanuela Macek-Macková*
Affiliation:
Central European University, Prague, Czech Republic
*
* Email: emanuelamacek@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the break-ups of post-communist Czechoslovakia and the Union of Serbia and Montenegro under consociationalism. According to Arend Lijphart, social divisions may be neutralized at the elite level with power-sharing mechanisms. Lijphart's theory has been abundantly criticized, particularly because, while its intention is to induce cooperation, consociationalism does not give leaders actual incentives to cooperate. Czechoslovakia and the Union qualified as consociations; however most favorable factors were absent. The states failed to overcome their divisions and broke apart. Both states were going through a democratization period, experienced differently in each republic. The article argues that the application of consociationalism at this time magnified the divisions. Stirring up the ethnic sensitivity of the population was the most reliable strategy for politicians to secure popular support. In this context, and with the EU enlargement prospect, the consociational structure, instead of bringing elites together, weakened the federal power and provided elites the opportunity to defend republican interests at the expense of the federations. Hence, while a consociation requires certain conditions and favorable factors, the context in which consociationalism is implemented, and particularly democratization periods, may have a decisive influence on the leaders’ ability to cooperate, on their decisions, and thereby on the state.

Keywords

consociational democracyethnicitydivided societyelitesconflict managementdemocratizationtransition
Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 615 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andeweg, Rudy. “Consociational Democracy.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (2000): 509–36. Print.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. “Political Accommodation and Consociational Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 5.4 (1975): 477–505. Print.Google Scholar
Bieber, Florian. “Montenegrin Politics Since the Disintegration of Yugoslavia In Montenegro.” Transition. Ed. Florian Bieber. 2003: 11–42, Print.Google Scholar
Bieber, Florian. The Instrumentalization of Minorities in the Montenegrin Dispute over Independence. ECMI Brief Report 8: 4. March 2002. Web. May 2009. <http://www.ecmi.de/download/brief_8.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Bieber, Florian. Transition: Problems of Identity and Statehood. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003. Print.Google Scholar
Bogaarts, Matthijs. “Electoral Choices for Divided Societies: Multi-Ethnic Parties and Constituency Pooling in Africa.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 41.3 (2003): 59–80. Print.Google Scholar
Bogaarts, Matthijs. “The Favourable Factors for the Consociational Democracy: A Review.” European Journal of Political Research 33.4 (1998): 475–96. Print.Google Scholar
Bottomore, Tom. Elites and Society. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1964. Print.Google Scholar
Brass, Paul. Ethnicity and Nationalism. Theory and Comparison. New Delhi: Sage, 1991. Print.Google Scholar
Brassil, Eric. “Consociationalism and Its Limits: A Case Study of Iraq's Constitutional Configuration.” Diss. Central European U, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Brusis, Martin. “Serbia and Montenegro: Democratic Consensus Susceptible to Populist Actors.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 6.1 (2006): 103–23. Web. 19 April 2009.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. “Rethinking Recent Democratization: Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience.” World Politics 55.2 (2003): 167–92. Print.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. Subversive Institutions: The Design and the Destruction of Socialism and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.Google Scholar
Butenschen, Nils. “Conflict Management in Plural Societies: The Consociational Democracy Formula.” Scandinavian Political Studies 8.1-2 (1985): 85–103. Print.Google Scholar
Caspersen, Nina. “Elite Interests and the Serbian-Montenegrin Conflict.” Southeast European Politics 4.2-3 (2003): 104–21. Print.Google Scholar
Caspersen, Nina. “Good Fences Make Good Neighbors? A Comparison of Conflict Regulation Strategies in Post-War Bosnia.” Journal of Peace Research 41.5 (2004): 569–88. Print.Google Scholar
June CEDEM. Department for Empirical Research. Public Opinion in Montenegro. Annual N° 2 (May 2005–April 2006). Podgorica 2006. Web. 2 May 2009. <http://www.cedem.cg.yu/publications/files/Godisnjak_2_eng.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Cerović, Stojan. Serbia and Montenegro: Reintegration, Divorce or Something Else? Special Report, United States Institute for Peace, 2001. Web. 11 May 2009. <www.usip.org>..>Google Scholar
Cohen, Lenard, and Dragovic-Soso, Jasna, eds. State Collapse in South-Eastern Europe: New Perspectives on Yugoslavia's Disintegration. West Lafayette: Princeton UP, 2008. Print.Google Scholar
Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Web. 21 April 2009. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country_NATLEGBOD_SRB_43e7547d4,0.html>..>Google Scholar
Cornell, Svante. “Autonomy as a Source of Conflict: Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective.” World Politics 54 (2002): 245–76. Print.Google Scholar
Daalder, Hans. “The Consociational Democracy Theme.” World Politics 26.4 (1974): 604–21, Web. 27 April 2009.Google Scholar
“Distrust Between Opposing Montenegrin Blocs ‘Unparalleled’ in Europe-EU envoy.” SRNA, 2 Feb. 2006. Web. 13 May 2009.Google Scholar
Dix, Robert. “Consociational Democracy, the Case of Columbia.” Comparative Politics 12.3 (1980): 303–21. Print.Google Scholar
Durić, Dragan. “Montenegro's Prospects for European Integration: On a Twin-Track.” South-East Europe Reviews 4 (2004): 79–106. Web. 26 April 2009.Google Scholar
European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission). Draft Opinion on the Compatibility of the Existing Legislation in Montenegro Concerning the Organization of Referendums With Applicable International Standards. Strasbourg: 2005. Web. 13 April 2009.Google Scholar
European Intelligence Unit. Serbia and Montenegro. Country Profile Main Report 2006. Web. 21 April 2009. <http://www.eiu.com/report_dl.asp? issue_id=1630225348&mode=pdf>..>Google Scholar
Fearon, James, and Laitin, David. “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97 (2004): 75–90. Print.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald. A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society. Berkeley: UCP, 1991. Print.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: UCP, 1985. Print.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald. “Patterns of Ethnic Separatism.” Comparative Studies of Society and History 23.2 (1981): 165–95. Print.Google Scholar
House of Commons, Committee on Foreign Affairs. Montenegro. February 2005. Web. 18 April 2009. <http://www.pubucations.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/87/8707.html>..>Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (ICG). Montenegro Launches New Divorce Bid. Balkan Crisis Report 544. Podgorica: 2005.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (ICG). Montenegro's Independence Drive. Europe Report 169. Podgorica/Belgrade/Brussels: 2005. Web. 19 April 2009.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (ICG). Montenegro's Referendum. Europe Briefing 42. Podgorica/Belgrade/Brussels: 2006. Web. 19 April 2009.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (ICG). Serbia's U-Turn. Europe Report 154. Belgrade/Brussels: 2004. Web. 19 April 2009.Google Scholar
International Crisis Group (ICG). Still Buying Time: Montenegro, Serbia and the European Union Balkans Report 129. Podgorica/Belgrade/Brussels: 2002. Web. 19 April 2009.Google Scholar
Jenne, Erin. Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2007. Print.Google Scholar
Kim, Julie. Serbia and Montenegro Union: Background and Pending Dissolution. CRS Report for Congress. 24 May 2006. Web. 15 April 2009. <www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RS21568.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Kopecky, Petr. “From Velvet Revolution to Velvet Split.” In Irreconcilable Differences?: Explaining Czechoslovakia's Dissolution Eds. Michael Kraus and Allison Stanger. 2000: 69–86. Print.Google Scholar
Kraus, Michael, and Stanger, Allison, eds. Irreconcilable Differences?: Explaining Czechoslovakia's Dissolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Law on the Implementation of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. 4 Feb. 2003. Official Gazette of Serbia and Montenegro, No 1, 2003. Web. 11 April 2009. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/43e7550b4.html>..>Google Scholar
Lajčák, Miroslav. Personal Interview. 19 May 2009.Google Scholar
Lajčák, Miroslav. “Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: Awkward Bedfellows.” Chatham House, London, United Kingdom, 20 April 2009. Speech (text version).Google Scholar
Lederach, John Paul. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. “Consociational Democracy.” World Politics 21.2 (1969): 207–25. Print.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in The Netherlands. Berkeley: UCP, 1975. Print.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale UP. 1977. Print.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. “Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries.” New Haven: Yale UP, 1999. Print.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. Power-Sharing in South Africa. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, UCP, 1985. Print.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan, and Stepan, Alfred. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1996. Print.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Daniel. “Serbia Rejects Split from Montenegro.” The Irish Times, 24 Feb 2005. Web. 11 May 2009.Google Scholar
“Montenegrin Opposition Firmly Opposed to Proposal to Alter Serbia and Montenegro Charter.” Radio Montenegro, 13 Feb. 2005. Web. 11 May 2009.Google Scholar
“Montenegrin Premier Urges Independence from Serbia to Boost EU, NATO Entry.” Die Presse 19 Sept. 2004. Web. 11 May 2009.Google Scholar
“Montenegro to be Independent ‘One Way or Another.'” Mina News Agency 24 Feb. 2005. Web. 11 May 2009.Google Scholar
Morrison, Kenneth. Montenegro: A Modern History. London: I. B. Tauris: 2009. Print.Google Scholar
Musil, Jiří, ed. The End of Czechoslovakia. Budapest: CEU, 1995. Print.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Eric. Conflict Regulation in Divided Societies. Cambridge, MA: Center for International Affairs UP, 1972. Print.Google Scholar
OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Referendum Observation Mission. 2006 Republic of Montenegro Serbia and Montenegro. Interim Report 2, 2006. Web. 16 April 2009. <http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2006/05/18982_en.pdf>..>Google Scholar
OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Referendum Observation Mission. Final Report. Web. 16 April 2009. <http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2006/08/20077_en.pdf>..>Google Scholar
“Our Election Proposal Satisfies Both Sides – Serbian Premier's Adviser.” Dan 1 Feb. 2005. Web. 16 May 2009.Google Scholar
Pappalardo, Adriano. “The Conditions For Consociational Democracy: A Logical and Empirical Critique.” European Journal of Political Research 9.4 (1981): 365–390, Web. 12 May 2009.Google Scholar
Skalnik-Leff, Carol. The Czech and Slovak Republic: Nation Versus State. Boulder: WP, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Skalnik-Leff, Carol. “Democratization and Disintegration in Multinational States.” World Politics 51.2 (1999): 205–35. Print.Google Scholar
Skalnik-Leff, Carol. “Inevitability, Probability, Possibility: The Legacies of the Czech-Slovak Relationship, 1918-1989, and the Disintegration of the State.” Irreconcilable. Eds. Michael Kraus and Allison Stanger. 2000. 29–48. Print.Google Scholar
Skalnik-Leff, Carol, and Mikula, B. “Institutionalizing Party Systems in Multiethnic States: Integration and Ethnic Segmentation in Czechoslovakia 1918-1992.” Slavic Review 61.2 (2002): 292–314. Print.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg. “Research Strategies Beyond Consociational Theory.” The Journal of Politics 43.4 (1981): 1241–1250. Web. 10 April 2009.Google Scholar
Van Meurs, Wim. “The Belgrade Agreement: Robust Mediation between Serbia and Montenegro.” Bieber, ed. Transition. 63-82. Print.Google Scholar
Van der Berghe, Pierre L. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier, 1981. Print.Google Scholar
Schendelen, Van. “The Views of Arend Lijphart and Collected Criticisms.” Acta Politica 19 (1984): 19–55. Print.Google Scholar
WRITENET. FRY: Persistent Crisis Challenges the UN System. 1 August 1998. Web. 29 April 2009. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a6be4.html>..>Google Scholar
“WTO Approves Accession Process for Serbia, Montenegro on Separate Requests.” Radio B92 text web site. 15 Feb. 2005. Web. 11 May 2009.Google Scholar
Žák, Václav. “The Velvet Divorce – Institutional Foundations.” The End of Czechoslovakia. Ed. Musil. 245-68. Print.Google Scholar