Does political dominance of one community in a social location define their socio-economic dominance?
Could you explain the question a bit more
What example are you thinking of?
If we speak of racial and ethnic dominance, then contemporary history tells us that minoritarian groups are almost de facto subordinated (and subjugated) to the political culture, institutional practices and socio-economic frameworks of the dominant group. Take the case of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant groups in Latin America, all of whom where forcefully incorporated and annexed into colonial nation-states at the start of the nineteenth century. Their political and economic marginalisation can only be made sense of through their status as a minoritariam group in society. Of course, there are cases such as Bolivia (where 60% of its population identifies as indigenous) when the majority has for the most part being subordinated to a minority (in this case of European descent).
Hi, Sukanta,
The precedence of political dominance over socioeconomic dominance is one of the central themes of Acemoglu and Robertson's book, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. One of their central claims is that the political institutions that create property rights and investments in public education, for example, are preconditions for sustainable socioeconomic growth.
The concentration of wealth in the hands of a national elite ultimately constrains socioeconomic growth as the elite structure institutions to limit creative destruction to maintain the status quo in their own favor. Acemoglu and Robinson are quite critical of these extractive economies in their book, but do not really seem to take this argument to its logical end - the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few lead to their political dominance and the erosion of socioeconomic growth for the many.
In my view, it hardly matters whether wealth concentration is achieved through dictatorship or market forces. Wealth concentration leads inevitably to the weakening of political and social institutions that provide for fair distribution of socioeconomic gains.
Perhaps let's consider the concept of "Tyranny of the Majority". That is, if one community composes the "Majority" in the political sphere; they may repress, dominate and "marginalize" the "Minority Community".
This concept is 'slippery and baffling'. Why? Because, most people - including me - tend to generalize and over-appreciate "Democracy'. The general line of thought is something like: democracy is a 'good' and 'fair' system.
In a "political sphere", citizens vote (have a referendum) on the question of: What is the Official State Religion?
The result is: 65% voted for religion "X", and 35% for "Y". Thus, since the "Y" religious community is in the minority; they might experience: repression, intolerance, discrimination, political and psychological pressure. I.e. group "X" is practicing/applying the "Tyranny of the Majority".
The aforementioned example, leads to the obvious conundrum of: is democracy 'good' and 'fair'?
You inquire re "socio-economic dominance". Well let's look at revolutions - starting from the French Revolution in 1789 to the modern-day, Ukraine "2014 Euro-Maidan and/or a Revolution of Dignity". They all begin with an aura of Idealism, fraternity, equality; i.e. 'Romanticized' beyond reality. Human nature is - well it is human nature! It is saturated by irrationality, hunger for 'Power', greed and self interests. "Man will always be man; and a Human is a Political Animal". Thus, naturally, the dominant (majority) will seek self interests and impose "socio-economic dominance" on the minority.
I hope that you - at least to some extent - agree with my hypothesis. Cheers!
Yevgeni Baron