Democracy as Conflict Prevention.

In 1992, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities broke new ground by suggesting that States should try to accommodate their ethnically diverse populations through democratic governance. The preamble to the Declaration counselled that the promotion and realization of minority rights within "a democratic framework based on the rule of law would contribute to the strengthening of friendship and cooperation among peoples and States".

Little noticed, this unprecedented advice goes against a common assumption that nationalism inevitably leads to war and disorder. And it points to the failure of authoritarian States to manage ethnic diversity: indeed, to raise just one question-how often has nationalism contributed to the breakup of empires? Almost a decade later, despite the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Central Africa, and the fact that threats to the survival of many States emanated from domestic causes, I take the view that the Declaration's advocacy of democracy to manage ethnic diversity holds good. The causes of the conflicts that occurred, as well as the absence of war in most multi-ethnic post-communist countries, bear this out.

Ethnic conflict usually has its origins in discrimination against minorities, attempts at assimilation, and sometimes even genocide. Exclusivist nationalist leaders mobilize support on a platform of ethnic intolerance in order to seek to win and/or maintain power-in short, to build or preserve nation-States in the literal sense by aligning ethnicity and territory. It is not merely that the identities of minorities are threatened, it is their very survival. It is then that minorities tend to resort to force to carve out their own homeland, in effect to change the borders of the States in which they are living. It is precisely to prevent this from happening that the Declaration counsels States to protect the identities of minorities within their respective territories and to encourage conditions for the promotion of their identity, thereby adopting legislative and other measures to achieve those ends. The Declaration also advocates giving minorities the right to enjoy their own culture, use their own language, and form their own associations.

The intellectual and political pluralism inherent in democracy goes against the assimilationist logic of the nation-State. It refutes the inbuilt assumption of the nation-State that there can be no political and intellectual differences within and between communities, and that different communities cannot coexist in one country. The "pluralist nation" is the imagined community of the future.

The Declaration also attempts to reconcile individual and group rights. Group rights are underlined in Articles 1, 2 and 4 to 8. But Article 3 upholds individual rights; in other words, it is for individuals to decide whether they wish to identify with a group. Article 3(1) states that persons belonging to minorities may exercise rights "individually, as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination". Article 3(2) underlines, in circumlocuted fashion, that "no disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights ... in the present Declaration".

The Declaration thus assumes that ethnically mixed societies and multiple identities are a reality. Democracy implies acceptance of intellectual and political pluralism within groups and the chance for individuals to develop their identity, culture and language. It tacitly anticipates that differences within and between ethnic groups are there to stay. Strong States will he those based on the consensus of their multi-ethnic populations, and encompassing the diverse identities and interests of individuals and groups. And consensus can only he forged through democracy. Seen in this way, democracy is pragmatism.

Many political leaders construe United Nations advice about handling minority problems through democracy as outside meddling in their domestic domain. In fact, the Declaration seeks to strengthen States and preserve their sovereignty. Article 8(4) is explicit that: "Nothing in the present Declaration may be construed as permitting any activity contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of States." This is only logical-for democracy can only be forged within the sovereign State.

Article 2(5) highlights sovereignty, yet again, in a different way: "Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties."

In practice, of course, cross-border ties can only be forged if state borders are secure, and international frontiers can only be secure if States have renounced territorial claims on neighbouring countries. Equitable treatment of minorities, advised by the Declaration, can also ensure that discontented minorities will not seek to change borders by force, or be enticed by irredentist propaganda, which is often an excuse for territorial expansion: Croatia under Tudjman, Serbia under Milosevic, Hitler and the Sudentenland Germans-the list goes on.

Most post-communist States, like West Europe after the Second World War, renounced territorial claims. The benefits are evident in Western Europe where more than half a century of peace facilitated its economic development. Ethnic nationalism does not in itself trigger armed conflict. War is a method of political choice and it tends to break out when attempts are made to change international borders by force. The majority of post-communist countries are multi-ethnic, but they have not experienced war. Their leaders have sought the advice of international and European regional organizations, especially the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), on accommodating ethnic variety through democracy, and welcomed the framing of new international norms on minorities. For the most part, post-communist Europe shows that nationalism and democracy are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Good leaders learn from the experiences of others. Can regional organizations in Africa play a role analogous to that of the Council of Europe and the OSCE and persuade African countries to renounce territorial claims and forge political nations through democracy? Would it help if the United Nations worked more closely with regional organizations in Africa and Asia? Would it be seen as impartial if it did? In the long run, the onus for enforcing the 1992 Declaration on minorities is on States. The Declaration has universal significance: its implementation could make worldwide peace a reality.

Anita Inder Singh is a Research Fellow of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Wolfson College, Oxford. She wrote this article as a Visiting Fellow at the International Forum for Democratic Studies, National Endowment for Democracy in 2000. She wishes to thank Dr. Marc Plattner, co-Director of the Forum and his colleagues for their warm hospitality.