| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
How does a national liberation movement address the security fears of the Other to promote a democratic transition? We consider South Africa and Israel-Palestine apt cases for comparison as the intractability of each conflict derives in large part from a colonial settlement process that led to the creation of ethno-nationalist states. Similarly the manner in which the liberation movements have defined themselves and the Other accounts in part for the successful transition in South Africa and the lack thereof in Israel-Palestine. In the Palestinian case collective intra-movement struggles framing the post-liberation state in exclusive terms have reinforced a predilection by Israelis to fight, leading to an ongoing stalemate and violence; in the South African case framing the post-liberation state in inclusive terms initiated a cycle of movement-Other concessions and democratisation. Our study suggests that universalistic democratic principles codified in public charter will function as a 'master frame' applicable to divided society struggles.
|