Browsing by Author "Chance, Samantha Jane"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemA culture of peace? Ethnic partitioning in Pakistan and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus(Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2020-03) Chance, Samantha Jane; Steenekamp, Cindy; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Political Science.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Ethnic partitioning is regarded as a solution to ethnic conflict that aims to achieve a degree of negative peace, defined as the absence of violence. While negative peace is an important element of contemporary peace studies, in the recent decades there has been a new appreciation for positive peace, especially as it relates to conflict resolution theory. A problem can be identified while reviewing the literature on ethnic partitioning pertaining to its relevance as a method of conflict resolution for its main assumptions are primarily based on principles of negative peace. Most of these assumptions do not directly relate to fostering values associated with positive peace that are now regarded as essential for sustaining a peaceful environment. For this reason, this study has aimed to assess the success of ethnic partitioning as a method of conflict resolution, incorporating elements of both negative and positive peace. In doing so, it has assessed its ability to foster a sustainable culture of peace. A research design and methodology must enable a thorough assessment of ethnic partitioning’s ability to foster a sustainable culture of peace in a variety of contexts as this will lead to a conclusion as to whether ethnic partitioning can be regarded as an effective method of conflict resolution. A case study comparative analysis is the most optimal method for this assessment as it is able to compare cases of ethnic partitioning in relation to various cultural and identity factors associated with a culture of peace. To structure this analysis, the cases of Pakistan and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) have been compared against the prescriptions for a culture of peace outlined in the official United Nations’ “Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace”, or more specifically, De Rivera’s (2004) categorisation of these prescriptions and indicators into four distinct dimensions, namely liberal development, violent inequality, state use of violent means, and nurturance. The two cases were assessed on whether they fulfilled the prescriptions for a culture of peace in each dimension. The comparative analysis has found that ethnic partitioning has failed to foster a sustainable culture of peace in Pakistan and the TRNC as all dimensions outlined by De Rivera (2004) are linked to norms associated with exclusion, intolerance, blame and violence. While ethnic partitioning aims to decrease the intensity of the security dilemma naturally stimulated through ethnic conflict, in the long-term the security dilemma is only extended and heightened. When a country is partitioned and violent processes associated with homogenisation are implemented, the points of contention that sparked the ethnic conflict are only further entrenched and new points of contention and hostility are created. The fear associated with living amongst hostile members of an opposing ethnic group are merely transformed into fears of international violence and potential invasion. In conclusion, this comparative analysis of the cases of Pakistan and the TRNC has found that ethnic partitioning, having been analysed as a method of conflict resolution, is unable to foster a sustainable culture of peace.