The international society perspective on world politics reconsidered

In this paper, I outline and assess the international societyperspective on world politics, and identify the distinctivecommon ground of the leading English School writers in termsof the three dimensions of their main subject-matter –structural, functional and historical. I focus on the majorworks of Manning, Bull, Wight, Watson, Wheeler, and Buzan andLittle, paying special attention to the structure of each writer'sargument and the interconnections of these writers' ideas. Iconclude by listing a number of themes that the English Schoolwriters offer. These provide us with significant points of departurefrom where we may build on or transcend their collective andindividual achievements.     

Entropy and the trajectory of world politics: why polarity has become less meaningful

The random and indeterminate nature of the current unipolar world suggests a condition of increasing entropy. There are two reasons for this claim. First, relative capability advantages under unipolarity do not translate as easily as they once did into power and influence over others. Second, systemic constraint is a property that limits actors' freedom of action by imposing costs and benefits on certain kinds of actions. Unlike past multipolar and bipolar systems, the current unipolar system exerts only weak, if any, systemic constraints on the unipolar power and all other actors as well. Thus, polarity has become a largely meaningless concept. Today, system process rather than structure best explains international politics, and this process is one of entropy. Finally, I suggest two pathways from unipolarity to a more balanced system: one is fairly consistent with standard balance-of-power realism but adds an ideational component; the other restores equilibrium by means of entropy.     

Democratization and communal politics

Understanding the complex interplay between democratization and communal politics is a crucial issue for students of democracy and political practitioners. Political liberalization can exacerbate communal politics, which can then bring setbacks to democratization, even violent conflict. As prospects of political liberalization grow in a society marked by a lack of agreement on the form of the state, communal politics will shape inter‐group relations. There is an in‐group‐out‐group dilemma. The dilemma is rooted in two, potentially mutually conflicting imperatives. Democratization requires group leaders to engage in compromise and negotiation. But they may also face an imperative to promote self‐styled conceptions of the state‐idea to suit the needs of group cohesion, especially where relations between groups become highly politicised. Two factors condition whether or not the dilemma can be resolved: the strategies of the legitimate leadership of the groups, and the ‘ideological’ landscape within the groups. The argument is applied to case studies that compare Algeria and South Africa.     

Negotiation,politics, and management

Book reviews in this article:
Samuel B. Bacharach and Edward J. Lawler , Power and Politics in Organizations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions, and Bargaining .
Max H. Bazerman and Roy J. Lewicki , eds., Negotiating in Organizations .
Jeffrey Pfeffer , Power in Organizations .     

Youth,culture, negotiation and politics

The following paper was motivated by a series of seminars held in 2004 at University of Bayreuth on the Harvard Negotiation Concept of Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton (R. Fisher, W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without giving in, 2nd edn, Penguin Books, New York 1991). When comparing the advices of the Harvard Negotiation Concept with my own negotiation experiences in youth politics, I realized that the Harvard Concept is rather useless in many forms of intercultural negotiations. It does not sufficiently address how much culture influences our perceptions of negotiations. Politics is not the only, but surely the most prominent field of intercultural negotiation. Therefore my focus of research was: does culture influence politics? In the first chapter, I describe the reason for the science of negotiation, the validity of universal negotiation concepts, the definition of culture and the existing research on intercultural negotiations. In the second chapter, I discuss concrete examples of how culture allegedly influences politics, such as in International Youth Politics and in the ASEM process. I also give some results from a survey that I carried out in 2004 (The extended version of the paper can be found at my webpage at http://www.karsten-wenzlaff.de). All examples cast a doubt on whether culture really influences politics.     

Conflict-generated diasporas and transnational politics in Ethiopia

Diaspora groups link processes of globalisation and transnational migration to homeland politics and conflicts. In some cases, diaspora groups produced by a specific set of traumatic memories create ‘conflict-generated diasporas’ that sustain and often amplify their strong sense of symbolic attachment to the homeland. Conflict-generated diasporas tend to be less willing to compromise and therefore reinforce and exacerbate the protractedness of homeland conflicts. Economists have focused on the links between remittances and civil war. Beyond resources, however, conflict-generated diasporas frequently have a prominent role in framing conflict issues and defining what is politically acceptable. Diaspora groups created by conflict and sustained by traumatic memories tend to compromise less and therefore reinforce and exacerbate the protracted nature of conflicts. The 2005 political opening and subsequent crackdown in Ethiopia illustrates how this diaspora shaped recent political developments and points to broader patterns of transnational linkages among diasporas and homeland political processes.     

The politics of Hegemony and the politics of development: The 1994 elections in South Africa's Eastern Cape

Following the first multi‐racial, democratic elections in South Africa, in April 1994, the new leadership and the country are confronting the dual task of political transformation and economic redistribution having won a clear popular mandate on the basis of a populist, Reconstruction and Development Programme. In government, however, the former liberation movement is now under pressure to adjust its policies and its developmental strategy in the light of new economic constraints, both domestic and international. The choice is between the politics of compromise, suggesting adoption of a corporatist (and elitist) model of policy‐making, with the co‐optation of various constituencies, or adherence to a more radical style of direct popular political participation, akin to the ‘mass action’ of recent decades. Nowhere is this contradiction clearer than in the Eastern Cape Province, with a long tradition of militant mass action, strong trade unions and industrial action and a history of popular involvement in the liberation struggle.     

The Naga dream and the politics of peace

A section of Naga tribes-people in northeastern India are engaged in an insurrection against the government on the premise that they had been an independent people until the British brought the areas where they lived under its control after the signing of the Treaty of Yandaboo in 1826 with the Burmese. The Burmese were defeated by the British and this treaty brought the curtains down on the first Anglo-Burmese War. Even before the seeds of the Naga insurgency movement were sown in 1946, the Nagas had petitioned the British authorities, in the wake of the possibility of India gaining independence, saying they should not hand over the Naga areas to India when they leave after granting Delhi freedom. The Nagas wanted London to let them revert back to their way of life before the signing of the Treaty of Yandaboo. This was not to be and Naga areas became a part of India as they were in any case a part of British India before that. The Naga insurrection was shaped in 1946 and since then has undergone a massive transformation. Today, the Naga insurgency movement is faction-ridden, with four groups on the scene, pushing the dream of an independent Naga homeland. The dominant among these groups, the Isak-Muivah faction of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland or the NSCN-IM has been engaged in peace talks with the Indian government ever since a ceasefire was reached between the two sides in 1997. A solution is nowhere in sight although dozens of rounds of parleys have been held. The problem is compounded by the emergence on the scene of other Naga rebel players, formed mostly by break-away groups from the NSCN-IM. Factional wars have become the order of the day, resulting in the authorities focusing their attention to ending the turf battles among the factions rather than pushing the peace process forward. The situation is hazy to say the least and the politics of peace has assumed different dimensions, posing newer challenges to peace-makers.     

Violence,politics and the state in Bangladesh

The politics and ideology of South Asia has been characterised by violence for a considerable time. Bangladesh is no exception, where violence is both widespread and multifaceted. It arises for political, economic, and socio-cultural reasons and is evidenced not only in the incidence of violence but also in the availability of small arms, in the evident political ties with violent organisations and criminal activities, in the prevalence of corruption and the effect which all this has on the forces of law and order. This poses enormous challenges for the state which urgently needs to introduce measures of reform in the judicial and police administration system. De-linking politics from the activities of criminals and terrorists is an important first step toward this goal.