Getting Started
This chapter examines political and social cleavages, the internal divisions that structure societies and shape political conflict. A social cleavage is a division within a population based on characteristics like ethnicity, religion, region, or class that becomes politically significant. We will compare how these cleavages manifest across China, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, and the United Kingdom, and analyze how they affect political stability, citizen relationships, and state legitimacy.
What You Should Be Able to Do
Describe the most politically relevant ethnic, religious, and regional cleavages in each of the six course countries.
Compare how cleavages in Nigeria and Mexico have been shaped by different historical contexts.
Explain the range of state responses to social cleavages, from repression to accommodation.
Analyze how governments can manipulate social cleavages to either strengthen or undermine their legitimacy.
Evaluate the impact of social cleavages on political stability, including the emergence of separatist and autonomy movements.
Key Developments & Analysis
Social cleavages are not inherently destabilizing, but they become politically consequential when they align with party systems, voting behavior, or demands for state resources and recognition. The nature and intensity of these divisions, along with the state's response, determine their impact on a country's political life. We can compare these dynamics across authoritarian and democratic/hybrid regimes.
Cleavages in Authoritarian Regimes
| Country | Primary Cleavage(s) | Impact on Political Stability & State Response |
|---|---|---|
| China | Ethnic: Han majority vs. minority groups (e.g., Uighurs, Tibetans).Regional: Wealthier, developed coastal areas vs. less developed interior. | Ethnic cleavages fuel separatist movements, which the state addresses with brute repression and attempts at forced assimilation. Regional economic disparities challenge the party's narrative of national unity and equitable growth. |
| Iran | Religious: Shi'a Muslim majority vs. Sunni minority and other recognized religions (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism).Ethnic: Persian majority vs. minority groups (e.g., Azerbaijanis, Kurds). | The state reinforces its legitimacy through its Shi'a identity, creating a threatening atmosphere for religious minorities. Ethnic cleavages have led to separatist movements, which the theocratic state actively suppresses to maintain territorial integrity. |
| Russia | Ethnic & Religious: Ethnic Russian (largely Russian Orthodox) majority vs. non-Russian minorities, particularly Muslim groups like the Chechens in the Caucasus region. | The state has used brute repression to crush separatist movements (e.g., in Chechnya). The government often co-opts the Russian Orthodox identity to bolster national legitimacy, further alienating minority groups. |
Cleavages in Democratic & Hybrid Regimes
| Country | Primary Cleavage(s) | Impact on Political Stability & State Response |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | Ethnic: Mestizo and white majority vs. Amerindian (indigenous) populations.Regional: Wealthier, more industrialized north vs. poorer, more agrarian south. | Ethnic and regional cleavages are often overlapping. They have fueled demands for autonomy (but not independence) and greater social inclusion. These cleavages influence voting behavior, with southern, indigenous populations often supporting different parties than the north. |
| Nigeria | Ethnic: Divisions among over 250 groups, notably the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo.Religious & Regional: Predominantly Muslim north vs. predominantly Christian and animist south. | These cleavages are deeply politicized and have a profound impact on the party system and elections, often leading to conflict. The state has struggled to manage these divisions, which fuel separatist movements and undermine national unity and legitimacy. |
| United Kingdom | National/Regional: Divisions between the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish.Religious: Protestants vs. Catholics, primarily in Northern Ireland.Racial: White majority vs. non-European minorities. | National cleavages have led to both separatist movements (Scotland) and demands for autonomy, resulting in devolution. Religious cleavages in Northern Ireland have caused significant conflict. Racial tensions also exist, stemming from the UK's colonial history. |
Data & Organization Tools
Concept-to-Countries Matrix: Cleavage Types
This matrix organizes the primary cleavages present in each course country according to the provided Essential Knowledge.
| Country | Primary Ethnic/National Cleavage | Primary Regional Cleavage |
|---|---|---|
| China | Han vs. Uighurs, Tibetans, and 53 other minorities | Developed coastal areas vs. underdeveloped interior/west |
| Iran | Persian vs. Azerbaijanis, Kurds, and other minorities | Not a primary cleavage specified in the curriculum |
| Mexico | Mestizo/white vs. Amerindian (indigenous) | North vs. South |
| Nigeria | Hausa-Fulani vs. Yoruba vs. Igbo (among 250+ groups) | North vs. South (coincides with religious cleavage) |
| Russia | Ethnic Russian vs. Chechens and other non-Russian minorities | Center (Moscow) vs. Caucasus and other regions |
| United Kingdom | English vs. Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish | Not a primary cleavage separate from national identity |
| Country | Primary Religious Cleavage |
|---|---|
| China | Not a primary cleavage specified in the curriculum |
| Iran | Shi'a Muslim majority vs. Sunni Muslim minority and other religions |
| Mexico | Not a primary cleavage specified in the curriculum |
| Nigeria | Muslim vs. Christian and animist |
| Russia | Russian Orthodox vs. Muslim minorities (e.g., Chechens) |
| United Kingdom | Protestants vs. Catholics (primarily in Northern Ireland) |
Institution–Actor–Function Map: State Responses to Cleavages
This map illustrates how state institutions and policies interact with social groups to manage or exploit cleavages.
| Institution / State Response | Actors Involved | Function / Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Brute Repression(e.g., China, Russia) | State security forces; ethnic/religious minorities (Uighurs, Chechens) | To crush separatist movements and enforce state control; undermines legitimacy and can lead to radicalization. |
| Devolution / Creation of Autonomous Regions(e.g., UK, Mexico) | National government; sub-national groups (Scottish Parliament, Zapatistas) | To accommodate demands for autonomy and reduce separatist pressures; can manage conflict but may also embolden independence movements. |
| Politicization of Identity(e.g., Nigeria, Iran) | Political parties; religious leaders; ethnic groups | To mobilize voters and consolidate power by appealing to group identity; strengthens legitimacy within the group but deepens societal divisions and can undermine national unity. |
| Official Recognition (Limited)(e.g., Iran) | Theocratic state; recognized religious minorities (Christians, Jews) | To create a facade of tolerance while maintaining the dominance of the majority religion; results in a threatening atmosphere for minorities. |
Country Anchors Bank
Uighurs in China: A predominantly Muslim ethnic minority in the northwest Xinjiang region. The Chinese state's brutal repression of Uighur separatism is a key example of a state using force to manage ethnic and religious cleavages.
Chechens in Russia: A predominantly Muslim ethnic group in the Caucasus region. Russia's military campaigns to suppress Chechen separatism demonstrate a state's use of force to maintain territorial integrity against challenges from ethnic minorities.
Scottish Nationalism (UK): A national cleavage leading to demands for autonomy and independence. The UK's response through devolution (creating a Scottish Parliament) is a prime example of accommodating, rather than repressing, regional cleavages.
Northern Ireland Conflict (UK): A deep-seated religious and national cleavage between Protestants (often unionist) and Catholics (often nationalist). It exemplifies how religious divisions can fuel long-term, violent political conflict.
Zapatista Movement (Mexico): An indigenous group in southern Mexico demanding autonomy and greater rights. This movement highlights Mexico's regional and ethnic cleavages and represents a demand for autonomy rather than outright independence.
Biafra Separatism (Nigeria): A movement for independence by the Igbo ethnic group in southeastern Nigeria. It is a powerful example of how Nigeria's deep, politicized ethnic cleavages can lead to civil war and persistent separatist challenges, undermining state stability.
Kurds in Iran: An ethnic minority group with a distinct language and culture, parts of which seek autonomy or independence. Iran's suppression of Kurdish movements illustrates how ethnic cleavages can lead to conflict in a multi-ethnic, authoritarian state.
Skill Snapshots
Comparison:
Nigeria's ethnic cleavages are more numerous and politically salient than Mexico's, largely due to differences in colonial history and the post-colonial politicization of identity.
The UK has responded to national cleavages with devolution and accommodation (e.g., Scotland), whereas Russia has responded to ethnic separatism with brute repression (e.g., Chechnya).
While both Iran and Nigeria have significant religious cleavages, Iran's is defined by a dominant Shi'a majority versus others, while Nigeria's is a more balanced division between a Muslim North and a Christian South.
Mechanism:
State repression of ethnic minorities in China → fuels separatist sentiment and undermines the state's legitimacy internationally.
Devolution of power in the UK → manages demands for autonomy from national groups like the Scottish and Welsh, preserving the state's integrity.
Politicization of ethnicity in Nigeria's party system → reinforces ethnic identities over a national one, contributing to political instability and conflict.
Change Over Time:
Baseline (Nigeria): Colonial-era British policies often exacerbated ethnic and regional divisions by administering the northern and southern regions separately.
Change: Since independence, these cleavages have become the primary organizing principle of Nigerian politics and a persistent source of conflict.
Change: The state has attempted to mitigate these cleavages through institutional rules like requiring presidential candidates to have broad national support.
Continuity: Despite these efforts, ethnic, religious, and regional identities continue to be more powerful than a unified Nigerian national identity.
Common Misconceptions & Clarifications
Cleavages are not always negative. They are a natural feature of society; they only become problematic when they are deep, reinforcing (e.g., when ethnic, religious, and regional lines all match up), and lead to political conflict.
"Ethnic" and "National" cleavages are different. In the UK, the division between the Scottish and English is a national cleavage (between distinct nations within one state), not simply an ethnic one.
Not all minority groups want independence. Many, like the Zapatistas in Mexico or the Welsh in the UK, primarily seek greater autonomy and recognition of their culture within the existing state.
States can benefit from cleavages. Regimes can strengthen their own power and legitimacy by highlighting "us vs. them" divisions, rallying their base of support against a perceived internal or external threat.
One-Paragraph Summary
Social cleavages are internal divisions based on ethnicity, religion, and region that structure political life in all six course countries. The nature of these cleavages varies significantly, from the highly politicized ethnic and religious divides in Nigeria to the national cleavages in the United Kingdom and the state-suppressed ethnic minorities in China and Russia. States respond to the political consequences of these divisions along a spectrum, from brute repression of separatist movements (China, Russia) to accommodation through autonomy and devolution (UK, Mexico). These cleavages can be manipulated by political actors to bolster legitimacy among a core group, but they can also profoundly undermine political stability, challenge state sovereignty, and shape the very nature of party competition and citizen-state relationships.