How do social divisions affect politics ? Explain giving example of Northern Ireland.
(3 marks question)
Answers
Answered by
48
Social divisions” affect politics in both negative ways and positive ways.
Negative Impact
If we observe social division and politics together at first sight;
(i) Itwouldappearthatthecombinationofpoliticsand social divisions is very dangerous and explosive.
(ii) Democracy involves competition among various political units/parties. Their competition tends to divide the society.
In case political parties start competing in terms of some prevalent social differences it can further lead to social conflict and disintegration of society. For example, Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.
• In Northern Ireland there has been a violent and bitter ethnopolitical conflict for many years.
Positive Impact
(i) At the same time every expression of social divisions in politics does not lead to such disasters because wherever social divisions exist, they are reflected in politics.
(ii) Social divisions also affect voting in most countries. People from one community tend to prefer some party more than others.
(iii) In many countries there are parties that focus only on one community, e.g., DMK, AIADMK, BSP in India.
(iv) Thus, it would be best if there are no social divisions in any country.
Negative Impact
If we observe social division and politics together at first sight;
(i) Itwouldappearthatthecombinationofpoliticsand social divisions is very dangerous and explosive.
(ii) Democracy involves competition among various political units/parties. Their competition tends to divide the society.
In case political parties start competing in terms of some prevalent social differences it can further lead to social conflict and disintegration of society. For example, Yugoslavia and Northern Ireland.
• In Northern Ireland there has been a violent and bitter ethnopolitical conflict for many years.
Positive Impact
(i) At the same time every expression of social divisions in politics does not lead to such disasters because wherever social divisions exist, they are reflected in politics.
(ii) Social divisions also affect voting in most countries. People from one community tend to prefer some party more than others.
(iii) In many countries there are parties that focus only on one community, e.g., DMK, AIADMK, BSP in India.
(iv) Thus, it would be best if there are no social divisions in any country.
Answered by
18
The combination of politics & social divisions is very explosive and dangerous.
a) Democracy involves competition among various political parties. Their competitions tend to divide society.
b) If they start competing in terms of some existing social divisions, they can make social divisions into political divisions and lead to conflict, violence or even disintegration of a country.
c) Social divisions affect voting in most countries, people from one community tend to prefer one party more than others.
d) In many countries there are parties which focus only on one community.
--yet all this does not always lead to disintegration.
This has happened in many countries ---Examples (negative results)
1. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this region of UK has been for many years a sight of violence& bitter ethno- political conflict.
--Its population is divided into two major sects of Christianity: 53%--Protestants & 44%--Catholics.
--Catholics are represented by the Nationalist parties, who wanted Northern Ireland to be united with the Republic of Ireland, predominantly catholic.
--Protestants are represented by the Unionist who wanted to remain with UK.
--hundreds of civilians and militants were killed in the fight of political parties till 1998, the UK govt. & the Nationalists reached a peace treaty after which the latter suspended the armed struggle.
2. In Yugoslavia the political competition along religious and ethnic lines led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia into six independent countries.
--such examples lead some people to think that politics & social divisions should not be allowed to mix; if social divisions exists in a country they must never be expressed in politics.
POSITIVE EXAMPLES:
Every expression of social division in politics does not lead to disasters. Social divisions of some or the other kind do exist in every society of the world and are reflected in politics.
--in a democracy it is only natural that political parties talk of these divisions, make different promises to different communities, look after their representation and policies to redress the grievances of disadvantaged communities.
THREE DETERMINANTS:
There are three factors which are crucial in deciding the outcome of politics of social divisions.
1. Outcome depends upon how people perceive their identities. If they see their identities in singular and exclusive terms it becomes very difficult to accommodate. As in India we think of ourselves as Indians as well as belonging to a state or a language group or a social or religious community.
2. It depends on how political leaders raise the demands of a ny community. It is easier to accommodate demands that are within the constitutional framework and are not at the cost of another community.
Example –the demand for only Sinhala was at the cost of the interest and identity of Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia also the ethnic communities presented their demands in such a way that these could not be accommodated with in a single country.
3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the demands of different groups. Example—In Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing to share power & accommodate the reasonable demands of minority community, social divisions become less threatening for the country. But if they suppress such a demand in the name of national unity, the end result can be quite opposite & such a forced integration can sow the seeds of disintegration.
a) Democracy involves competition among various political parties. Their competitions tend to divide society.
b) If they start competing in terms of some existing social divisions, they can make social divisions into political divisions and lead to conflict, violence or even disintegration of a country.
c) Social divisions affect voting in most countries, people from one community tend to prefer one party more than others.
d) In many countries there are parties which focus only on one community.
--yet all this does not always lead to disintegration.
This has happened in many countries ---Examples (negative results)
1. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this region of UK has been for many years a sight of violence& bitter ethno- political conflict.
--Its population is divided into two major sects of Christianity: 53%--Protestants & 44%--Catholics.
--Catholics are represented by the Nationalist parties, who wanted Northern Ireland to be united with the Republic of Ireland, predominantly catholic.
--Protestants are represented by the Unionist who wanted to remain with UK.
--hundreds of civilians and militants were killed in the fight of political parties till 1998, the UK govt. & the Nationalists reached a peace treaty after which the latter suspended the armed struggle.
2. In Yugoslavia the political competition along religious and ethnic lines led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia into six independent countries.
--such examples lead some people to think that politics & social divisions should not be allowed to mix; if social divisions exists in a country they must never be expressed in politics.
POSITIVE EXAMPLES:
Every expression of social division in politics does not lead to disasters. Social divisions of some or the other kind do exist in every society of the world and are reflected in politics.
--in a democracy it is only natural that political parties talk of these divisions, make different promises to different communities, look after their representation and policies to redress the grievances of disadvantaged communities.
THREE DETERMINANTS:
There are three factors which are crucial in deciding the outcome of politics of social divisions.
1. Outcome depends upon how people perceive their identities. If they see their identities in singular and exclusive terms it becomes very difficult to accommodate. As in India we think of ourselves as Indians as well as belonging to a state or a language group or a social or religious community.
2. It depends on how political leaders raise the demands of a ny community. It is easier to accommodate demands that are within the constitutional framework and are not at the cost of another community.
Example –the demand for only Sinhala was at the cost of the interest and identity of Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia also the ethnic communities presented their demands in such a way that these could not be accommodated with in a single country.
3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the demands of different groups. Example—In Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing to share power & accommodate the reasonable demands of minority community, social divisions become less threatening for the country. But if they suppress such a demand in the name of national unity, the end result can be quite opposite & such a forced integration can sow the seeds of disintegration.
Similar questions