The past decades have witnessed a series of events, such as the Quebec referendum in Canada, the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and the Crimean and Scottish referendums. All these have underscored the importance of building harmonious ethnic relations and strengthening internal political integration in multi-ethnic countries.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to ethnic issues. In this regard, China has come up with its own approaches based on its own history and realities.

Institutional options for structuring ethnic relations in different countries

In multi-ethnic countries, failure to build harmonious ethnic relations and reconcile the interests of ethnic groups can easily lead to ethnic separation and national division. Yugoslavia and the USSR are examples of such failures. Therefore, the tension between national unity and ethnic autonomy has emerged as a key challenge in the development of multi-ethnic countries.

To address this challenge, different countries have adopted different types of ethnic policies based on the origins and characteristics of their ethnic issues by taking into account their traditions, national conditions and concepts of social governance. There are no inherently advantageous or disadvantageous ethnic policies which have been tested throughout history in the practice of different countries.

Currently, the ethnic policies of multi-ethnic countries can be broadly classified into the following models: regional ethnic autonomy, local autonomy, federalism, ethnic self-determination, multiculturalism, social assimilationism, etc.

Countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain have adopted local autonomy; Belgium, Switzerland, India, Ethiopia, Russia, and Myanmar have applied the model of federalism; the United Kingdom (in response to the Scottish ethnic issue), Denmark (in response to the Icelandic issue), Canada (in response to the Quebec issue), Sudan (in response to the independence issue of South Sudan), and Indonesia (in response to the East Timor issue) have chosen the model of ethnic self-determination; Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Sweden, and South Africa have taken the multiculturalism model; and France, Brazil, Turkey, and Israel have embraced the social assimilationism model. China has implemented a system of regional ethnic autonomy.

Due to the diversity and complexity of ethnic issues, a single country may employ different models over time or in response to specific ethnic issues. For example, the United Kingdom adopted the Home Rule model in the 20th century. However, this model failed to cope with the Scottish issue, and hence the model of ethnic self-determination was started in 2014. For Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK continued to implement Home Rule. Canada adopted the ethnic self-determination model for the French community in Quebec but applied the multiculturalism model for immigration in other regions.

Dilemma of addressing ethnic issues in the West

Most Western countries have implemented a multi-party system. As different political parties have different perspectives on ethnic issues, they may easily influence ethnic policies.

For example, in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Labor Party of the United Kingdom agreed to Scottish self-government to secure votes in the Scottish region. After winning the UK general election in 1974, the Labor Party proposed to the UK Parliament the creation of a Scottish Parliament with some legislative powers, which directly contributed to the 1979 referendum on establishing the Scottish Parliament. Following the Conservative Party's win in the 1979 election, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reformed the Home Rule powers. In 1997, the Labor Party regained power and pushed for another referendum, which resulted in the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. After the establishment of the Parliament, Scotland gained autonomy over a range of issues, including education and healthcare, and it has proceeded to move towards the goal of independence.

Another case in point is Germany, where the influx of immigrants at the end of the Second World War transformed the Federal Republic of Germany (formerly West Germany, i.e., before German reunification) from a traditionally homogeneous society into a pluralistic one. It was against this background that multiculturalism, as a political stance against right-wing political parties in Germany, was first proposed by the German Green Party and entered the public arena. Influenced by the ruling philosophy of political parties, Germany's ethnic policy remains in flux.

The divergent views of different political parties on ethnic issues have led some Western countries to be unable to balance national unity and ethnic autonomy within their political systems. Consequently, ethnic issues manifest mainly as ethnic secessionist movements, ethnic conflicts, local nationalism, grand nationalism, transnational ethnic issues, and the development of ethnic minorities.

Why was the USSR divided?

Before the October Revolution, influenced by Marx and Engels' relevant ideas, Lenin advocated the establishment of a unitary state. After the October Revolution, to ease the historically acute ethnic conflicts, Lenin adopted a federal system to solve ethnic issues, proposing that the Soviet republics join together to form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics based on the principle of equality and voluntariness.

The federal system of the USSR was an ethnic federation composed of various administrative formations, such as individual union republics, autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous districts. Meanwhile, all Soviet-era constitutions provided the members of the Union the right to withdraw from the Union. This practice of administrative division based on ethnic composition and the assertion of ethnic self-determination set the stage for the subsequent disintegration of the USSR.

According to Lenin's vision, ethnic issues would be resolved automatically with the completion of the socialist revolution by granting full political and cultural autonomy to all ethnic groups and accelerating the formation of new socialist people who could abandon their ethnic prejudices of their own accord. According to Marxist theory, the process from class extinction to state extinction and then to national extinction is the law underlying the development of history.

However, Soviet leaders generally ignored the long historical process of ethnic extinction and were overly optimistic about the resolution of ethnic issues within the country. Lenin believed that the oppression and unequal status faced by ethnic minorities had been completely addressed upon the establishment of their own republics or autonomous oblasts. Stalin stated that the social basis of ethnic disputes had been eliminated; Khrushchev further declared that the USSR had resolved the problem of mutual relations among ethnic groups, and Brezhnev stated that the problem of inter-ethnic relations had been resolved once and for all. Such evasive, negligent, and even concealing attitudes led to critical mistakes in the USSR's work on ethnic affairs, which ultimately led to the accumulation of ethnic issues that were too difficult to resolve.

The nationalization of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was also one of the major causes of the USSR's disintegration. In the late Soviet period, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was divided along ethnic lines. The declaration of independence from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by the Communist Party of Lithuania in December 1989 and the establishment of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in June 1990 marked the split of the Soviet Communist Party as a unified political organization, which became a prelude to the dissolution of the USSR.

The practice of the USSR's ethnic policy demonstrated that the division of regions into ethnic groups and the introduction of local autonomy did not promote the integration of all ethnic groups or the strengthening of national identity. Instead, it led to the rise of regional nationalism and, ultimately, the disintegration of the country.

China's path of ethnic governance

Throughout its long history, unlike most countries today, and regardless of which ethnic group held central power, China invariably adopted the strategy of governing areas with large ethnic minority populations in line with local customs. The governance philosophy of "providing moral and ethical education to ethnic minorities without altering their traditions and ensuring uniformity in governance without disrupting their lifestyle" has been upheld for thousands of years.

In practice, most dynasties governed border areas with large ethnic minority populations in line with their special circumstances. Most central governments established institutions for the management of border and ethnic affairs. All the dynasties attached great importance to ethnic affairs. While their governance methods varied, they were all characterized by strict sovereignty and flexible governance.

In addition, whichever ethnic group came to dominate the Central Plains, they established a unified multi-ethnic state, followed the political philosophy of great unity of ethnic groups, regarded their reign as the legitimate authority of China, and prioritized the unification of the country, the enduring peace of the nation, and the ease of the people's mind. Under this political philosophy and related policies, China's various ethnic groups became closer and closer. They came to live amongst each other, their cultures interacted and merged, and their economies became interdependent, eventually forming the Chinese nation as a pluralistic unity.

The system of regional ethnic autonomy is rooted in China's fundamental national conditions. It combines traditional Chinese culture, intellectual resources, and political institutions. It is a unification of historical traditions and contemporary realities. Under China's unitary state structure, regional ethnic autonomy differs from the one-ethnicity-one-state model of Western nation-states and the local autonomy model in federal systems. Guided by the belief in national reunification and ethnic solidarity, China has successfully paved the way for addressing ethnic issues through the significant creation of the system of regional ethnic autonomy.

The author is Tian Ye, professor at Northwest Ethnic Minority Research Center and Director of the Center for European Union Studies at Lanzhou University.

Liu Xian /Editor    Wu Yongqiang /Translator

Yang Xinhua /Chief Editor    Ren Qiang /Coordinator

Liu Li /Reviewer

Zhang Weiwei /Copyeditor    Tan Yujie /Image Editor

The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.