Communalizing Colonial Policies and Postcolonial Ethnic Warfare: A Multimethod Analysis of the British Empire

Abstract

In this article, we reorient the literature on colonialism and ethnic violence by exploring how different types of communalizing colonial policy (CCP) affected postcolonial patterns of ethnic warfare. We hypothesize that CCPs have limited or mixed effects when they simply recognize or empower communities but that they promote ethnic warfare when explicitly favoring some communities over others, especially when this discrimination affects the power of communities. To test these hypotheses, we combine a statistical analysis of the British Empire with a focused case study of Myanmar. We find that two relatively non-discriminatory CCPs—the use of communal census categories and high levels of indirect rule—had limited or mixed effects on postcolonial ethnic warfare. Unequal communal representation in the legislature and security forces and a mixed use of indirect rule, on the other hand, are three highly discriminatory CCPs, and we provide evidence that they increased the odds of postcolonial ethnic warfare.

Community‐based legislative representation and postcolonial ethnic civil warfare in former British and French colonies

“…This paper is positioned within the subtopic of ethnic violence that takes interest in the effect of communalising colonial policies on postcolonial ethnic civil warfare. In particular, it digs deeper into the effect of a communalising colonial policy that has been reported by two recent papers as being especially conducive to postcolonial ethnic warfare: community‐based representation in the colonial legislature (Lange et al, 2021; Lange, Amasyali, & Jeong, 2021). The British and less commonly the French empire granted certain ethnic groups guaranteed representation in the colonial legislature by institutionalising ethnic seat quotas or making separate ethnic electorates, and it has been argued that this promoted ethnic rivalry, animosity and ultimately violent conflict after independence.…”

“…The author mainly relied on an ‘anxiety’ theory of ethnic warfare postulated by Horowitz (1985) to hypothesise the accelerating effect of police under representation but additionally reasoned that ‘the same considerations that make the most backward ethnic groups predisposed to mobilize when a country is newly independent also sensitize the most advanced ethnic groups to mobilize pre‐emptively to preserve the status quo’ to make sense of the effect of colonial police over representation (Ray, 2016, p. 802). Using yearly panel data of countries that were formerly British colonies, Lange, Amasyali, and Jeong (2021) also reported that the degree of underrepresentation of the most populous indigenous community in the colonial police force predicts higher odds of postcolonial war onset. Like Ray (2016), the authors provided a predominately grievance‐theoretic explanation for this finding.…”

“…Adding to the existing literature on the link between CCPs and postcolonial ethnic conflict, Lange et al (2021) and Lange, Amasyali, and Jeong (2021) examined the lasting effect of the widespread colonial practice of granting protected representation in the colonial legislative assembly to some ethnic groups. These papers identified this political institution as a typical example of the category of CCP that they labelled as ‘discriminating’, or CCPs that ‘recognize communities in order to privilege particular communities more than—and commonly at the expense of—other communities’ (Lange et al, 2021, p. 146).…”

“…The reasoning that postcolonial ethnic conflict could be fuelled by psychological strain arising from a history of unequal treatment under colonial rule is also readily supported by actual cases. In Burma (Myanmar), the Karens were the only indigenous community to receive ethnic representation in the legislative council, which they used to protect and even enlarge Karen ethnic interests while ‘voting in league with colonial officials to oppose Bamar nationalism and anticolonialism’ (Lange, Amasyali, & Jeong, 2021, p. 25). After independence, this history of colonial inequality and favouritism lead to a process of prolonged mutual escalation between the Bamars seeking remedy for their discriminated status under colonial rule and the Karens becoming increasingly wary of their precarious status in the newly independent state.…”

“…Although the historical causes of ethnic wars are diverse and vary across cases, a large volume of studies has pointed to the enduring effect of European colonial rule on postcolonial ethnic warfare (Blanton et al, 2001; Cederman et al, 2013; Horowitz, 1985; Lange & Dawson, 2009; Lieberman & Singh, 2017; Ray, 2012, 2016; Wucherpfennig et al, 2016). Most notably, European empires often implemented ‘communalising colonial policies’ that differentiated and sometimes even discriminated the indigenous population by communal affiliation (Lange, Amasyali, & Jeong, 2021). The seeds of ethnic conflict sown during colonial rule sometimes erupted in the form of violent conflict once the political order imposed by the coloniser was lifted by decolonisation.…”