Militarization of ethnic conflict in Turkey, Israel and Pakistan
Date
2015
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
How does the military influence on politics affect interethnic relations and ethnic policies within a state? This study aims to answer this question that has been largely unanswered in both ethnic conflict and civil-military relations literature. In the last decade, there has been a growing scholarly interest in the relationship between the regime type and international conflict. Several scholars argue that because soldiers are more war-prone than civilians as a result of certain characteristics, military regimes are more likely to initiate international conflicts. I use the arguments of this theory, which is called military activism, to explain if military influence on politics has a role in the decision to use force against ethnic groups within a state. I also explain the historical roots of military influence and ethnic policies by adopting historical institutionalism in this study. I use a comparative case study method to see how different forms of military influence affect ethnic policies within a state. In this regard, I compare military control in Turkey, military participation in Israel and military rule in Pakistan. In addition, because the level of military influence varies in a state's history, it is also possible to make within-case comparisons to see if the increase or decrease of military influence on politics has a role in the changes in ethnic policies. In these cases I will analyze Turkey's Kurdish policy, Israel's Arab/Palestinian policy and Pakistan's Bengali/Baloch policy. The main finding in the study is that regardless of its form, military influence on politics is detrimental to interethnic relations and the more the military has an influence on policymaking, the more likely it is to see militarist policies against rebellious ethnic groups. Military activism has significant explanatory power in all cases while the categorical distinction this theory makes between the officers and civilians varies depending on the form of military influence. I also found out that history matters and the developments in the state-building processes shape the military influence and ethnic policies in the following decades. Finally, the study brings some important observations in favor of constructivism and democratization theories.