rights led to the exclusion of other minority
groups from political participation and economic rights, increasing ethnic polarization. In
connection with the PSDA process, representatives from all communities came together to
elaborate their ‘Vision for Fiji’, one that was inclusive of all ethnic and religious identities while at
the same time building an overarching multicultural Fijian identity: “where the rich ethnic and
historical heritage of its peoples is celebrated;
people work together for national development
and there is a strong civic pride in being a Fijian
citizen” (UNDP Fiji 2005). They recommended a
series of confidence-building measures to bring
together divided ethnic and religious communities for dialogue and cooperation. This
approach worked well in the Fijian context and
was developed by the communities directly; in
other contexts, dynamics will differ and so might
the outcomes. The bottom line is to ensure that
minority and majority communities have an
equal opportunity to contribute to their collective vision of peace.
To improve conflict sensitivity in dealing with
minorities, an analysis that identifies issues, risks
and vulnerabilities related to minorities in the
overall context is needed. With this information,
actors are better positioned to define possible
responses both in terms of specific programmes
addressing minority issues and re-adaptation of
existing mainstream programmes.
Minorities being targeted as the beneficiaries of
programmes can sometimes lead to tensions,
especially where the relatively less well-off feel
that they will suffer as a result. Minority groups
encourage governments and other actors to
adopt transparent and inclusive strategies for
elaborating development interventions. This
transparency can mitigate concerns of other
(majority) communities by outlining clear justifications for targeted programmes for minorities
where needed and to create opportunities for
integration of minority concerns into mainstream development interventions. The balance
60
between these two approaches is determined by
the needs of the respective communities, their
rights and their expressed interests (see section
5.2 of this Guide and Table 5).
In the post-conflict situation in Nepal, UNDP
analysis recommended to consider targeting
programmes in favour of the excluded groups
in order to compensate for their disadvantage.
In particular, it was recommended to deliberately target villages with a higher proportion
of underprivileged ethnicities and lower castes.
UNDP programmes have begun reorienting to
this by including percentages of ethnic minorities as a criterion for selecting the inclusion
of new villages and implementing positive
discrimination policies.
Key Messages
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to
recovery from inter-ethnic conflict.
At a minimum, the basic minority
rights to exist, to non-discrimination, to
protection of identity and to participation
need to be guaranteed.
Adopting minority-sensitive crisis prevention
and recovery strategies:
Foster dialogue:
The establishment of mechanisms at the local
and national level for redressing grievances
expressed by minorities could prevent wider
conflict. Of central importance are complaints
mechanisms to address discrimination (past
and present) and participation mechanisms to
enable minority voices to be heard in decisionmaking and through inter-communal dialogue.
These mechanisms can help prevent the use of
coercive assimilation policies and elaborate voluntary integrative policies.
M A R G I N A L I S E D M I N O R I T I E S I N D E V E LO P M E N T P R O G R A M M I N g