Does Ethnic Diversity cause Political Violence?

In the article, “Ethnicity and Development in Africa: A Reappraisal”, Bates says that Ethnic Diversity is not a significant reason or cause for political violence. Although Bates tries to form strong evidence on why he believes this is true, he fails to convince the reader that this is really a strong hypothesis. I think it is important to define Ethnic Diversity, before arguing what it does or doesn’t do. Bates fails do this, but touches upon what makes up human capital. In my opinion, his description of the structure of families in Africa is only part of what an ethnic group is. These ethnic groups are formed from many of these familial generations that he speaks about. They extend throughout society and as time goes on they are bound to achieve different ethos and standards of political satisfaction. Bates fails to account for the human aspect of these ethnic groups but rather takes a mathematical approach which in my opinion does not bolster his thesis.

Rather than presenting a mathematical model to provide evidence on why his thesis is correct, he confuses his reader and in my opinion proves the antithesis. He says that when an ethnic group represents the hegemony then the chance of violence is greater. In the case of Africa, most of the ruling parties are seen as the hegemonic power, though they might not be the full majority, they are most probably viewed as the hegemony to the other ethnic groups. According to Bates, if the other ethnic groups feel a hegemonic power they are more prone to political violence. Bates says that this is usually possible when the ethnic group represent 50 percent or more of population. I would suggest that a majority of ruling parties in Africa are seen as the hegemonic power and are therefore ruling, but do not represent more than 50 percent of the population.