Differences Of Collier, Hoeffler And Qualitative Political Science

2073 Words 9 Pages
There’s an old Jewish saying that says “Two Jews, Three opinions”. The same can be said about political scientists. When it comes to complex topics such as the causes of civil wars, many in the field of political science have differing opinions on how they start and how to classify them. Many of the written material read for class, such as Jesse and Williams’ “Ethnic Conflict”, stride more towards a constructivist side of civil war, reinforce more of a primordialist view on Civil Wars. Some political scientists look more towards the actual details and side more with the qualitative side of political science, others want broad generalizations based on numbers given by the quantitative side of political science, and some, like Collier, Hoeffler, …show more content…
They don’t necessarily see each case as being able to have a generalized rule applied to it, but being unique in what causes their civil wars to have occurred. Their disagreements with the quantitative political scientists center on the application of their results to other cases. If the results only apply to the certain case, the quantitative side says, then what good is their research in the first place? This disagreement is solved to a degree, however, by the Collier-Hoeffler Model, or the CH …show more content…
Grievances between persons or ethnic or otherwise divided groups can run much deeper than a dispute over loose change and a parcel of land. In Rwanda, for example, the Hutus and the Tutsis have been in a constant power struggle ever since their Belgian colonists left their land decades before. Both sides went back and forth with who was in power, putting down the other side in an effort to maintain their own power and the other side retaliating in response. This created a deep seated hatred between the two groups, portrayed in Philip Gourevitch’s article dealing with the genocide in Rwanda. People like Hassan Ngeze, a famous newspaper producer and writer, fueled the fires in the late 20th century of this hatred, creating tenants such as the “Hutu Ten Commandments” and establishing principles that drove a stake between the Hutus in power at the time and the Tutsis (Gourevitch 137). It was this building hatred as well as the escalating conflict between the two groups that caused the country to explode in genocide and leave around a half a million people dead in a span of 90 days. “Killing Tutsis” Gourevitch states, “was a political tradition in postcolonial Rwanda; it brought people together.” (Gourevitch 140). It was fueled by past grievances that this conflict came to a cataclysmic turning point, and helped established the concept of grievance against another

Related Documents