Asymmetrical autonomy and conflict regulation: A response to Adeney, Conversi, Hechter and Rezvani

To conclude this symposium, McGarry responds to the contributors -- Katherine Adeney, Daniele Conversi, Michael Hechter, & David A. Rezvani -- thanking them for their constructive comments on his paper. Acceptance of the primary theme -- that a state's different communities seek different,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ethnopolitics 2007-03, Vol.6 (1), p.133-136
Main Author: Mcgarry, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Autonomy
Federations
Minority Groups
Pluralism
Secession
State Failure
Symposia
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To conclude this symposium, McGarry responds to the contributors -- Katherine Adeney, Daniele Conversi, Michael Hechter, & David A. Rezvani -- thanking them for their constructive comments on his paper. Acceptance of the primary theme -- that a state's different communities seek different, ie, asymmetrical, levels of autonomy -- appears to be unanimous. However, the commentaries raise important issues regarding what determines the level of autonomy desired by minority communities & how the dominant community in the pluri-national state can work to mitigate the concerns of the minority communities to lessen their demand for an excessive level of autonomy, or even secession. As Adeney suggested, there are various "consociational mechanisms of power-sharing & representation at the centre" that can prevent such conflict. The Soviet Union & Yugoslavia failed as federations because they did not use such mechanisms, while such pluralist federations as Canada, Belgium, & Switzerland have succeeded because they did. References. J. Stanton
ISSN:1744-9057
1744-9065
DOI:10.1080/17449050701233023