Getting Started
Political and social cleavages are deep, persistent divisions within a society that structure political competition and can threaten state stability. This chapter explains how cleavages related to national, ethnic, and religious identity in multinational states—countries containing multiple national groups—create distinct challenges for governments in the United Kingdom, Russia, China, Mexico, Nigeria, and Iran. Understanding these challenges is crucial for analyzing why some states remain stable while others face pressure for autonomy, intergroup conflict, or even civil war.
What You Should Be Able to Do
Explain how ethnic, regional, and national cleavages create conflicting interests among groups in different course countries.
Compare how governments in authoritarian and democratic regimes respond to pressures for autonomy and secession.
Analyze the relationship between a government's perceived legitimacy and its ability to manage intergroup conflict.
Evaluate how the management of cleavages affects political stability and the potential for terrorism or civil war.
Key Developments & Analysis
The primary challenge for a multinational state is reconciling the central government's need for authority with the demands of distinct national, ethnic, or religious groups for recognition and autonomy. Governments respond with a range of strategies, from accommodation to repression, each carrying different implications for political stability. The following tables compare how these dynamics play out in democratic, hybrid, and authoritarian regimes.
| Theme/Dimension | United Kingdom | Mexico | Nigeria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Cleavage | National/Regional: Deep divisions between England and the nations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, each with a distinct political identity. | Ethnic/Regional: A major cleavage exists between the mestizo majority and indigenous populations (concentrated in the south), as well as a north-south regional divide. | Ethnic/Religious/Regional: Overlapping cleavages among 250+ ethnic groups, primarily the Hausa (north, mostly Muslim), Yoruba (southwest), and Igbo (southeast, mostly Christian). |
| Challenge: Group Competition & Autonomy Demands | Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties (e.g., SNP) compete in elections and demand greater autonomy or full independence, challenging the unitary nature of the state. | Indigenous groups, most notably the Zapatistas (EZLN) in Chiapas, have demanded regional autonomy, land rights, and recognition, leading to intergroup conflict. | Ethnic and regional groups compete fiercely for control of the central government and its oil revenues, leading to pressure for secession (e.g., Biafra) and intergroup violence. |
| Government Response & Impact on Legitimacy | The government has used devolution, granting significant powers to regional assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This has accommodated some demands but also legitimized secessionist movements. | The government has officially recognized indigenous rights in the constitution and engaged in negotiations, but implementation is weak, leading to a perceived lack of authority in certain regions. | The state uses a federal structure to give groups representation, but this is often undermined by corruption and military force, weakening government legitimacy and fueling conflict. |
| Resulting Stability Threat | The primary threat is peaceful secession, as seen in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. In Northern Ireland, historical intergroup conflict has included terrorism. | The main threat is sustained, low-level intergroup conflict and the erosion of state authority in regions where non-state actors challenge the government's monopoly on power. | High threats of terrorism (Boko Haram), intergroup conflict over resources, and potential civil war stemming from secessionist pressures. |
| Theme/Dimension | Russia | China | Iran |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Cleavage | Ethnic/National: Division between the ethnic Russian majority and dozens of minority nations, most notably in the Caucasus region (e.g., Chechens). | Ethnic/National: A sharp cleavage between the Han Chinese majority (over 90%) and minority nationalities, particularly Tibetans and Uyghurs in the west. | Ethnic/Religious: Division between the Persian majority and significant ethnic minorities like Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs, as well as a Sunni-Shia religious cleavage. |
| Challenge: Group Competition & Autonomy Demands | Chechen separatists have demanded independence, leading to violent conflict. Other ethnic republics push for greater autonomy within the federal system. | Uyghur and Tibetan groups have advocated for cultural preservation, autonomy, and, in some cases, independence, challenging the unitary state's authority. | Kurdish and Arab groups have demanded greater autonomy and cultural rights, leading to periodic protests and armed resistance against the centralized state. |
| Government Response & Impact on Legitimacy | The government has used overwhelming military force (e.g., Chechen Wars) to crush secessionist movements, followed by centralized control, undermining its legitimacy among minority groups. | The state employs extensive repression, surveillance, and forced assimilation policies in regions like Xinjiang and Tibet to eliminate threats to its authority. | The regime suppresses minority political activity and promotes a Persian-centric national identity, viewing autonomy demands as a threat to national security and its own legitimacy. |
| Resulting Stability Threat | The primary threat has been terrorism and insurgency stemming from the Caucasus. The state's weakness was exposed during the First Chechen War, inviting intergroup conflict. | The state's actions have created severe intergroup conflict and drawn international condemnation, but its coercive power has so far prevented civil war or successful secession. | The main threats are intergroup conflict and pressure for secession in border regions, which can be exploited by neighboring states sensing government vulnerability. |
Data & Organization Tools
Concept-to-Countries Matrix
This matrix maps the core challenges faced by multinational states to specific examples in the six course countries.
| Challenge from Cleavages | United Kingdom & Mexico | Nigeria & Russia |
|---|---|---|
| a. Conflicting interests & competition | UK: Scottish National Party competes with UK-wide parties for power. MEX: Zapatistas compete with the state for control over land and resources. | NGA: Ethnic groups compete for control of oil revenues. RUS: Ethnic republics compete with Moscow for political and economic autonomy. |
| b. Perceived lack of legitimacy | UK: Government legitimacy is challenged by independence referendums. MEX: State authority is weak in southern indigenous regions. | NGA: Legitimacy is damaged by corruption and inability to stop terrorism. RUS: Legitimacy is low among groups subjected to military force (e.g., Chechens). |
| c. Pressure for autonomy/secession & conflict | UK: Pressure for Scottish independence. MEX: Zapatista uprising demanding autonomy. | NGA: Biafran secessionist movement; Boko Haram terrorism. RUS: Chechen wars for independence; ongoing insurgency. |
| d. Encroachment of neighboring states | Less applicable; stable borders. | NGA: Porous borders allow terrorist groups to move freely. RUS: Border conflicts and interventions in neighboring states (e.g., Georgia, Ukraine) are linked to internal ethnic politics. |
| Challenge from Cleavages | China & Iran |
|---|---|
| a. Conflicting interests & competition | CHN: Uyghur/Tibetan interests in cultural autonomy conflict with the CCP's goal of national unity. IRN: Kurdish/Arab interests conflict with the Persian-dominated state's central control. |
| b. Perceived lack of legitimacy | CHN: CCP's legitimacy is non-existent among groups seeking independence. IRN: The regime's legitimacy is weak among ethnic and religious minorities who feel marginalized. |
| c. Pressure for autonomy/secession & conflict | CHN: State repression has created severe intergroup conflict in Xinjiang and Tibet. IRN: Armed Kurdish groups demand autonomy, leading to conflict with state security forces. |
| d. Encroachment of neighboring states | CHN: Less applicable due to state strength. IRN: Neighboring states (e.g., Iraq, Saudi Arabia) may support rival ethnic or sectarian groups, sensing government vulnerability. |
Institution–Actor–Function Map
| Institution / Policy | Key Actors | Function (Related to Managing Cleavages) |
|---|---|---|
| Devolution (UK) | Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd, Northern Ireland Assembly | Accommodate autonomy demands by transferring specific policy powers from the central government to regional bodies, thereby reducing pressure for secession. |
| Federalism (Nigeria, Russia, Mexico) | State/Republic Governments, Ethnic/Regional Groups | Manage conflict by granting subnational units constitutional authority, though its effectiveness varies greatly depending on the degree of centralization and repression. |
| Unitary State Structure (China, Iran) | Central Government (CCP, Supreme Leader), Security Forces | Suppress autonomy demands by concentrating all sovereign power in the national government, denying legitimacy to regional or minority political claims. |
| Security Apparatus (Russia, China, Iran) | FSB (Russia), Ministry of State Security (China), Revolutionary Guard (Iran) | Coerce and control dissenting ethnic and national groups through surveillance, intimidation, and military force to ensure state stability and territorial integrity. |
Country Anchors Bank
UK Devolution: The process of transferring powers to legislative bodies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is a key example of a democratic state attempting to manage national cleavages through accommodation rather than repression.
Chechen Wars (Russia): Two brutal military conflicts between the Russian federal government and separatists in the Republic of Chechnya. They demonstrate a state's use of overwhelming force to crush a secessionist movement, leading to terrorism and long-term instability.
Uyghur Conflict in Xinjiang (China): The Chinese Communist Party's systematic repression of the Uyghur ethnic minority. This illustrates an authoritarian state's response to perceived secessionist threats through assimilation, surveillance, and coercion.
Zapatista (EZLN) Uprising (Mexico): A 1994 rebellion by a largely indigenous armed group in the southern state of Chiapas. It highlights how ethnic and regional cleavages can lead to intergroup conflict and challenge the state's authority and legitimacy.
Boko Haram Insurgency (Nigeria): A terrorist movement based in Nigeria's northeast that exploits religious and regional cleavages. It exemplifies how unresolved group competition can escalate into terrorism and threaten the state's very existence.
Kurdish Separatism (Iran): The long-standing demand for autonomy or independence by the Kurdish ethnic minority in western Iran. This shows how multinational, authoritarian states often suppress minority demands, leading to persistent, low-level intergroup conflict.
Skill Snapshots
Comparison: The UK manages national cleavages through democratic devolution, whereas China uses authoritarian repression. Nigeria's federal system is intended to manage ethnic competition, but it is often less effective than Mexico's at preventing violence. Russia and Iran both use centralized power to suppress ethnic demands, but Russia's federal structure provides a nominal outlet for autonomy that Iran's unitary system lacks.
Mechanism: In the UK, the institution of devolution channels Scottish nationalist demands into electoral competition and parliamentary politics, which can lead to outcomes like an independence referendum. In China, the state's security apparatus directly suppresses Uyghur political expression, leading to an outcome of surface-level stability but deep intergroup conflict. In Nigeria, the process of distributing oil revenues through federal states creates intense competition among ethnic groups, often leading to conflict.
Change Over Time: In Russia, the state's approach to Chechnya shifted from military defeat and weakness in the mid-1990s (Baseline) to a brutal and successful reconquest by the early 2000s (Change 1), followed by the installation of a loyalist local regime to maintain centralized control (Change 2). A key continuity has been the persistent desire for autonomy among many non-Russian ethnic groups.
Common Misconceptions & Clarifications
Cleavage vs. Disagreement: A cleavage is a deep, structural division (like ethnicity or religion), not a simple policy disagreement (like tax rates).
All Multinational States Are Unstable: Not necessarily. States like the UK have managed deep national cleavages for centuries through political accommodation, even if the threat of secession remains.
Federalism Always Solves Cleavages: False. As seen in Nigeria and Russia, a federal structure can be a source of conflict if it is not perceived as fair or if the central government uses force to override regional autonomy.
Only Authoritarian States Use Force: Democratic states may also use force to prevent secession or stop terrorism, though they are more likely to pair it with political solutions.
One-Paragraph Summary
Governments in multinational states face profound challenges to their stability and legitimacy arising from deep-seated political and social cleavages. These divisions create competition among ethnic, national, and religious groups, often leading to demands for autonomy or secession. Democratic regimes like the United Kingdom may respond with accommodation through institutions like devolution, while authoritarian states like China and Iran rely on repression to maintain control. Hybrid regimes like Russia, Mexico, and Nigeria employ a mix of federal structures and force, with varying success. The failure to manage these cleavages can erode government authority, fuel intergroup conflict, and create existential threats to the state in the form of terrorism, civil war, and secession.