I. Introduction
The study of ethnic conflict has always suggested that elites play a role in the formation
of nationalism and the escalation to violence. While the various theoretical perspectives have
not agreed on the extent to which elites shape the course of ethnic conflict, there has been a
consensus among scholars that elites do matter and that their role in ethno-nationalist politics are
worthy of investigation. Unfortunately, scholars examining the role of ethnic leaders have given
little attention to the people that follow nationalist leaders. As a consequence of this neglect all
of the theoretical discussions of the role of elites in ethnic conflict have failed to ask a very basic
question, why follow a leader? This is problematic because, as Roger Peterson aptly notes, we
should not assume that participants in ethnic conflicts are ignorant dupes of elites, as whether or
not the masses are manipulated by elites is an empirical question.
The purpose of this paper is
to begin to address this difficult, yet very important question.
This examination asks, what are the factors that prompt people to elect nationalist
leaders? This question is important because the ethnic conflict literature has not yet examined
the factors that would prompt ordinary people to follow ethnic leaders and eventually engage in
violence for the sake of their group. Furthermore, a mass centered approach is critical given that
in ethnic conflicts it is often the mass populations, and not elites who engage in violence and
commit atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and genocide. To address this theoretical and
empirical gap, I will develop a theory of ethnic leadership and followership that builds upon
symbolic politics theory and insights from social psychology. I will then draw a series of
hypotheses from this theory and test them with a psychological experiment.
1
Roger Peterson, Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in Twentieth Century Europe,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 5.
2
Convention