Search

Democratization has been heralded as both a “curse” and “cure” for ethnic conflict. Using a comparative analysis of ethnic conflicts in Senegal and Nicaragua, this article makes the case that the breadth of accommodation provided by a central government following democratization is a key variable that can provide a deeper understanding of why conflict sometimes worsens and sometimes ameliorates. By adopting a framework that conceptualizes the range of accommodation provided to territorial minority ethnic groups in advanced capitalist democracies as falling into three general categories, “loyalty,” “voice,” and “recognition,” the article illustrates that using a combination of these three strategies helped Nicaragua quell violent ethnic conflict. On the other hand, the conflict in Senegal continued because the newly democratic government refrained from using strategies to provide “voice” and “recognition” for the Diola minority. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]