Yugoslavia in the late 1980s was, in V. P. Gagnon's view, on the verge of large-scale sociopolitical and economic change. He shows that political and economic elites in Belgrade and Zagreb first created and then manipulated violent conflict along ethnic lines as a way to short-circuit the dynamics of political change. This strategy of violence was thus a means for these threatened elites to demobilize the population. Gagnon's noteworthy and rather controversial argument provides us with a substantially new way of understanding the politics of ethnicity.
A social constructionist approach to politics. Gagnon argues that "ethnicity" is not a fixed or primordial identity. Nor were ancient hatreds at the root of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Instead, people in Serbia, such as Milosevic, and Croatia who wanted power created the conflicts through manipulation of the media, massive electoral fraud, and the arming of their supporters. Convincing in large part because of the author's use of Serbo-Croatian language sources that provide insight into what went on behind the scenes to foment the tragic violence and refugee crises.
Good stuff. Was always curious why neighbours would start killing each other randomly especially in the case of civil wars starting out in previously harmonious states. This book definitely helped to clarify my understanding and made me realise that not all wars presented as “ethnic wars” are mobilised by divisions between ethnic groups. Instead, political leaders can try to demobilise individuals with political dissatisfaction by creating conflict between different ethnic groups which we see is the case in the Balkans. Good to get me thinking about how this applies to the Dayton Accords too.
What are usually attributed as the causes of the wars in former Yugoslavia have actually been the effects; the intended effects, and the primary aims of the war-makers.