Coop D'etat wrote:If your diversity rule requires that the two sides be relatively equal in number I think you'd find less objection to the theory, but that is a rare case.
It's not so rare in the Middle East. See the numbers above.
Moreover, diversity is not about having exactly two equal groups in a country. There are differing levels just as there are different proportions in each country. Having 20%of Americans speak primarily Spanish now is more diverse than in the 60s where Spanish-speakers was less than 10%; but is certainly not something that could be compared to the actual current 40-50 split in Iraq.
Again, it's about having multiple distinct and active societies within the country. Having one dominant group - e.g. the US WASPs - and have everyone else trying to be like them or follow them is not demographic diversity. It's this essential conceit
of the Anglo-Saxon world that they live in "diverse" societies that make them unable to recognize
that it's very different from the challenges faced by Iraq, Yemen, or Libya.
Canada is historically been about 1/3rd to 1/4th French, not 15% like you think. (has been in relative decline since the 1970s for birth rate demographic reasons but its), and the actual dominant culture of British Canadians has often been more of a plurality rather than an outright majority, relying on the regular assimilation of outsiders for growth.
Which would explain the lack of a wedge issue among French-Canadians recently.
Disregard the Kurds and the proportion of Sunni to Shia Iraqis is quite similar (Iraq being about 3/5ths Shia Arab, 1/5th Sunni Arab). The Sunni's are only comparable in numbers if you include the Kurds in their numbers, which is historically a simply laughable proposition. The population balance between Sunni and Shia Arab in Iraq isn't close to equal in the slightest.
Except that the Kurds are not exactly allied with the Shia either, which is the point. It's not about equality.
Now, if you want to make the point that in polities with weak instutions and limited history of unification, the pick 2 of 3 rule is appropriate. Its a natural part of lacking the instutional and cultural capital to restrain the tensions. I'd also quite agree that its foolish to even try to get all three in an under-developed state. In the Iraq case, if you'd want to predict that the future is either dictatorship, partioning, or a federal state so loose that the central government barely exists, I'd also agree with you.
But that isn't what you were saying with your theory, you were saying that it is impossible to have all three simulaneously, regardless of the nature of the polity in question. If you want to suggest that the three will typically be in tension with each other, that is also a viable theory, but what you are suggesting is that reconciling the three is impossible, which I don't think holds water.
I really wish people would stop listening to maddoctor's hysterical ramblings and read what I actually said in conclusion
in the first post:
"Of course one may argue that the premise is wrong to begin with, and that a nation can have Order, Freedom, and Diversity without drawbacks, but I think you need to have a lot of time to develop institutions that would allow such an "ideal" nation to emerge in the first place."
Gee doesn't that sound exactly like what you just said?