3
1998; Amoretti and Bermeo 2004). It is intuitive enough to argue that a measure of national self-
government should satisfy most people (Horowitz 1985:601-28; Lijphart 1977; Lapidoth
1996:121-25) and there is empirical evidence for the proposition in both case studies (Bajpai
1997; Conversi 2000; Mitra 2000; Watts 2000) and cross-national studies (Cohen 1997; Bermeo
2002; Saideman et al. 2002:97). Political autonomy for minority nations would mean that
"groups, states, or nations would govern themselves while participating in supranational political
institutions...in order to solve common problems...It is not that federalism eliminates all ethnic
conflict. Rather, it provides mechanisms by which this type of conflict can be checked by groups
committed to maintaining an interconnected system without necessarily trampling on the
interests of minorities" (Jusdanis 2001). The idea is logical (Hechter 2000) and historical
precedents, above all the enormous history of indirect rule in sophisticated empires throughout
history, suggest that it has promise.
The reason is simple enough; modern states’ abilities to penetrate individual life are so
great that they are almost certain to routinely touch sensitive areas of culture and group life with
their educational, regulatory, legal, economic, and other policies (Bendix 1969; Gellner 1983;
Anderson, B. 1991; Jusdanis 2001). If these policies clash with the group’s practices, then they
will become a point of contention and the state will clash with that group. Since the state is likely
to be reflecting some other nation when it does so, and possibly some other nationalism, the
result is all of the ingredients required for conflict in divided societies-- unless the state devolves
responsibility for these intrusive functions onto the minority groups.
In such circumstances federalism can be thought to mitigate the security dilemma, in
which mutual mistrust leads to increasingly defensive and aggressive behavior by each group,
which thereby increases mistrust and can eventually explode into violence (Posen 1993;
Rothchild and Lake 1998:211-12). Furthermore, such a view of the relationship between state
and group suggests what would need to be devolved to a self-governing group, namely the areas
of public policy and administration such as education that are most likely to touch on group
preferences and values.
Federalism might not be enough to prevent conflict and keep a state intact and decent, but
while Simeon and Conway find that "federalism does not guarantee ‘success’" they also argue
that "it is hard to see any form of successful accommodation of multiple nations within a single
state that does not include federalism" (Simeon and Conway 2001:364-5). It might be logically
difficult to turn state-seeking nationalists into happy autonomists, but it seems to work in
practice (O'Leary 2003). And the judgement of Alfred Stepan, no indiscriminate advocate of
federal government, is that "if countries such as Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, China and Burma are
Convention