Institutions Mute Ethnic Tension?

There was an interesting column yesterday in the Washington Post from M. Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig about the on going crisis in Kenya.

In brief, their argument is that the main cause of the crisis in Kenya is a weak legislature, not necessarily ethnic tension. They argue that many multi-ethnic societies are largely peaceful and that the ethnic tension only arises when the interests of ethnic groups are not well represented in the government institutions. The ethnic tension and violence beind displayed now is a result of an incredibly weak legislature in Kenya relative to the executive. Because the legislature is weak, losers of the presidential election are relegated to virtual powerlessness and are subject to the whims of the ethnic group that controls the executive branch. Therefore, the presidential elections have served to be a zero-sum situation which can provide incentives for leaders to escalate tensions to rally support based on ethnic lines. Thus, the authors argue that the ethnic tensions are not necessarily inherent to the society, but are instead a result of an unbalanced political system that provides for all the power in a single branch that can be seized by one ethnic group.

Fish and Kroenig recommend that US democracy promoters should focus more attention institutional aspects of countries when considering their work. I think that they make a good case for the importance of considering institutional factors when designing democracy assistance. However, there are two weaknesses to this piece I think they over look. I recognize this is a quick column written for a newspaper, but I hope they at least consider these items outside.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why don’t they add seats to the House?

As the 2010 US census nears, redistricting and reapportionment enter the news. CMC’s Rose Institute has pulled together a handful of snippets concerned with redistricting reform. For others, the apportionment question is equally interesting. How will 435 House seats be reshuffled among states whose relative populations have changed?

A spirited Pennsylvanian call for ‘fair’ redistricting touches on the problem:

With most of the nation’s population growth taking place in the South and West, Pennsylvania is on track to lose another congressional district — dropping to 18 — when reapportionment takes place after the 2010 census.

The Burnt Orange Report cites some projections from the Swing State Project on who’s likely to get what: four more for Texas, one or two for Florida, two for Arizona and one each for Georgia, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. Expected losers are mostly in the midwest and northeast.

The partisan desire to guard marginal advantage is strong. Majority parties fight independent redistricting initiatives tooth-and-nail. A modest reform like 3-seat STV is pie-in-the-sky.

But the House sets its own size. Why wouldn’t incumbents facing the axe move to add seats?

Bipartisan gerrymandering could shore up every incumbent. Increasing the size of the House could make new seats the battlegrounds, allaying fears about freezing a status quo.

I suppose it’s possible in theory.