PhD Thesis, University of Geneva
Author: Mohammad Aghdam
Committee: Prof. Simon Hug (Advisor, University of Geneva), Prof. Marco Giugni (Chair, University of Geneva), Prof. Lars-Erik Cederman (ETH Zürich), Prof. Livia Isabella Schubiger (Duke University)

---

This thesis examines the role of ideology for political violence. It looks more specifically at the interaction of ideology and ethnicity- how and what type of ideologies of ethno-political organizations translate into mobilization and violence. The results suggest that the integration/disintegration characteristics of ideologies of ethno-political organizations is the main source for their choice of a violent strategy. While holding integrationist ideologies restrain organizations from using violence, having a territorial disintegrationist ideology or a normative disintegrationist ideology with rigid political and religious doctrines increases the likelihood of organizations using violence. Furthermore, these impacts depend on state institutions and regime type, and are conditioned by state behaviour. Repressive state behaviour and discrimination increase this probability especially in less democratic and authoritarian regimes. Overall, the results suggest that armed conflicts are not only driven by economic systems, but also by ideological struggles that must be considered for conflict resolution.

Disintegrationist Ideologies: These ideologies challenge the existing state order by seeking to shift or modify intergroup boundaries. The dissertation identifies two main types:

• Territorial: Aim to change territorial boundaries through:
  • Autonomism: Demanding self-rule within an autonomous region.
  • Separatism: Seeking full secession and the creation of a new independent state.
• Normative: Aim to transform the state system through changes in the hierarchical order and the creation of new institutions based on specific doctrines, such as:
  • Political: Ideologies like Marxism or socialism.
  • Religious: Ideologies based on religious doctrines and principles, such as those advocating for an Islamic state.

Impact on Violence: The study finds strong empirical support for the hypothesis that disintegrationist ideologies increase the likelihood of EPOs using violence.

• Territorial ideologies, especially separatism, significantly increase the probability of violence. This is because claims for territorial change directly threaten the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, often triggering a more forceful response from the government.
• Normative ideologies, particularly those with a religious basis, also increase the likelihood of violence due to their absolutist nature, making compromise difficult and justifying violence as a means to achieve their goals.

State Repression: The study also analyzes the interaction between disintegrationist ideologies and state institutions, finding that authoritarian regimes, due to their centralized power structure and lower tolerance for dissent, are more likely to respond violently to EPOs with territorial ideologies.

Case Study: Iraq: The dissertation uses Iraq as a case study to illustrate its arguments.

• Kurdish Struggle: The Kurdish struggle for autonomy and independence exemplifies how territorial ideologies, coupled with state repression, contribute to protracted conflicts.
• Sunni-Shia Conflict: The conflict between Shia and Sunni Arabs, fueled by religious normative ideologies, underscores how competing visions of statehood based on religious principles can escalate into violence.
  

1. What are disintegrationist ideologies? How do they differ from integrationist ideologies?

Disintegrationist ideologies promote intergroup differentiation and challenge existing power structures within a state. They emphasize the distinct identity and grievances of a specific ethnic group, often advocating for autonomy, separatism, or a fundamental transformation of the state based on specific political or religious principles. This contrasts with integrationist ideologies, which seek a greater degree of inclusion and participation for the ethnic group within the existing state framework.

2. What are the two main types of disintegrationist ideologies?

Disintegrationist ideologies can be categorized into two main types:

• Territorial disintegrationist ideologies: These ideologies focus on altering territorial boundaries. Autonomist ideologies demand self-rule within a distinct region within the existing state, while separatist ideologies advocate for complete secession and the creation of an independent state for the ethnic group.
• Normative disintegrationist ideologies: These ideologies aim to transform the state system itself based on a particular set of doctrines and principles. They can be further classified into political normative ideologies (e.g., socialist, fascist) and religious normative ideologies (e.g., Islamist, Christian nationalist).
  
  

3. How do disintegrationist ideologies contribute to ethnic mobilization?

Disintegrationist ideologies mobilize ethnic groups by:

• Politicizing identity: They sharpen intergroup boundaries by emphasizing the unique history, culture, and grievances of the ethnic group, often portraying them as being in conflict with the dominant group.
• Providing a political interpretation of grievances: They frame existing social, economic, or political inequalities as injustices inflicted by the state or dominant group, thereby justifying a struggle for change.
• Offering alternative political visions: They present autonomy, separatism, or a new state order based on their specific principles as solutions to the perceived injustices, providing a motivating force for mobilization.
  
  

4. Are disintegrationist ideologies the only factor driving ethnic organizations to violence?

While disintegrationist ideologies can make ethnic organizations more prone to violence, they are not the only factor. The dissertation highlights the crucial role of state response:

• Repression: State repression against an ethnic group, particularly when combined with disintegrationist ideologies, significantly increases the likelihood of violent conflict.
• Regime type: Authoritarian regimes are more likely to suppress ethnic mobilization, potentially leading to a higher risk of violent resistance. Democratic regimes, while not immune to conflict, often provide more avenues for peaceful resolution.
  
  

5. What is the relationship between territorial disintegrationist ideologies and violence?

The dissertation found that both autonomist and separatist ideologies were significantly associated with the use of violence by ethnic organizations. This is because these ideologies directly challenge the state’s territorial integrity, often leading to a more forceful response from the government.

6. How do normative disintegrationist ideologies affect the likelihood of violence?

Doctrinal ideologies, whether based on political or religious principles, also increase the risk of violence. Their uncompromising nature, emphasis on absolute truths, and focus on transforming the entire state structure based on their own worldview can escalate tensions and make compromise difficult.

7. Can you provide a real-world example of how disintegrationist ideologies contribute to conflict?

The dissertation analyzes the case of Iraq, where both territorial and normative disintegrationist ideologies have fueled decades of conflict:

• Kurdish struggle: Kurdish organizations, espousing both autonomist and separatist ideologies, have long fought for self-determination, leading to violent confrontations with the Iraqi government.
• Sunni-Shia conflict: The conflict between Sunni and Shia Arabs in Iraq is primarily driven by competing religious normative ideologies and their visions for the state, leading to sectarian violence and the rise of groups like ISIS.
  
  

8. What are the key takeaways regarding disintegrationist ideologies and ethnic conflict?

The dissertation emphasizes that disintegrationist ideologies, by shaping identity, framing grievances, and offering alternative political visions, play a crucial role in ethnic mobilization and can significantly increase the risk of violence, especially when met with state repression. Understanding these ideologies is therefore crucial for analyzing and addressing the root causes of ethnic conflict.

Overall, this dissertation provides valuable insights into the powerful role of disintegrationist ideologies in shaping the strategic choices of ethnic political organizations and their proclivity towards violence. It emphasizes the need for policymakers and conflict resolution practitioners to understand the ideological underpinnings of ethnic conflicts to develop effective strategies for peacebuilding and reconciliation.