Democracy and Groups

HOW can relations among groups be arranged in ways that are compatible with sustaining democracy? In this article I consider three ways that groups can order their relations within a democratic framework—national separation, liberal nationalism, and civic liberalism. I assess these choices both with respect to democratic criteria and in terms of the conditions in which they might be more or less appropriate. The first part of the article explains what I mean by the political dimension of groups, and why this is an important aspect of group relations. In assessing different types of group relations, I consider groups as collectivities with an interest in autonomy and in self-determination. As political entities, groups are united by the aim of enhancing their autonomy. Autonomy is both an aim for groups and a means of sustaining or increasing the value of whatever common feature defines them.1 1. Contemporary Groups as Political Projects In a world where countries most often contain multiple and diverse groups, there are three main ways to coordinate group relations in a democratic fashion. The first is separation, or one nation, one state. The second is liberal nationalism, in which one group dominates others alongside and through democratic institutions . In a third form of coordination, civic liberalism, politics SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Summer 2003) Democracy and Groups* DAVID PLOTKE *This paper is based on lectures presented at a seminar sponsored by the Graduate Faculty of New School University in Cracow, Poland, in 2002. Guadalupe Correa and Mara Kolesas provided valuable research assistance. is structured by civic and liberal themes. It is not defined by any of the groups that remain active in political and social life. These groups maintain their distinctive cultural and social practices, and enter politics to defend those practices and for other purposes . But they cannot claim the polity or the state as intrinsically and properly their own. Given democratic commitments, we should choose among these options according to two criteria. One is the aim of avoiding civil war. The other is the aim of expanding the portion of the population that can reasonably aspire to participate in the formation of a government. By group I mean any collectivity that is defined by a common attribute recognized by members as a point of reference. Thus I define the term widely, to include ethnic, national, racial, and religious groups. In politics, groups are unified primarily by the aim of autonomy or self-determination. This aim constitutes a strong and defining interest for the groups per se. Groups want autonomy in the sense that firms want profits, both as a good thing and as a means to other goods. Considered from all perspectives (cultural, social, political, economic), groups will be more homogenous in some respects than others. With regard to autonomy they tend to be relatively homogeneous because for most if not all of their members, autonomy has a crucial double meaning. It means a secure prospect of continued group existence . And this prospect signifies the possibility of making further choices about a range of matters, both at the level of the group and for individual members. Diverse groups—in terms of their size, location, and defining features—can now move toward becoming increasingly autonomous. The horizon of their efforts is to become a nation, as that term is commonly understood. As nations they can seek autonomy and self-determination in different forms. Given this fluidity, there is not much to be gained from efforts to decide whether a group is really an ethnic group, national minority, or nation at a particular moment. This status can change within a 464 SOCIAL RESEARCH relatively brief period, depending on political processes inside and outside the group in question. To consider groups as political agents means engaging two major discussions about democracy. One discussion concerns how group relations can be managed in an already democratic context. This discussion includes such issues as: How can group competition enrich rather than strain democratic political institutions ? And how can civic life be a site of robust and varied practices while also providing support to democratic political life? The other discussion considers how to prevent group conflicts from blocking the...