Researchers have differed considerably in defining the concept of a minority, as its meaning varies according to the nature of the minority itself and the degree of its strength. The concept “is always shaped by the historical context that gives it its particular character and social dimensions, which may range from demands for equality to calls for independence and the establishment of a separate state. Minorities are not always equal in terms of strength, nor are they at the same level of social development.”^([1])However, three main approaches to defining minorities can be distinguished: The First Approach: This approach defines a minority on the basis of the number of its members in comparison with the number of members of other groups living within the same territory. It represents the traditional approach in this field. For example, an ethnic minority is defined as “that segment of the population of a state whose members belong to a national origin different from that of the majority of the population.”^([2])Others define a minority as “a group within the population who generally hold the nationality of the state but maintain a distinct identity from the majority of citizens in terms of ethnicity, language, religion, culture, history, customs, and linguistic characteristics.”^([3])The Dictionary of Diplomacy, meanwhile, defines a minority as “a group of citizens of a state who differ from the majority of the population in terms of ethnicity, language, or religion.”^([4])This approach has been subjected to considerable criticism on the grounds that numerical size is not a reliable indicator of a minority’s status. Consequently, relying on this criterion may inevitably lead to misleading conclusions, including an exaggerated emphasis on numerical strength in the struggle for power.^([5])Indeed, there are some numerically large groups, such as the Hutu in Burundi, who constitute about 85% of the population, yet their political, economic, and social position has led them to be regarded as a minority. The same was true, until relatively recently, of Black people in Namibia. Accordingly, although the numerical criterion may be valid in many cases, it is not always reliable, which makes it potentially misleading. The real criterion, therefore, is not the number of members of the group—the minority—but rather the degree of its political and economic importance and influence, the extent of its cohesion and organization, and the level of loyalty and sacrifice demonstrated by its members in pursuit of the minority’s objectives. In this regard, the strict hierarchical organization of the Tutsi community enabled it to remain in power for a long period despite repeated Hutu attempts to overthrow its rule. The Second Approach: Because the first criterion can be misleading in determining the status of a minority, a second approach emerged that focuses on the group’s political, economic, and social position. According to this approach, a minority is any group that is politically oppressed, economically disadvantaged, or socially marginalized within its society. Thus, a minority is defined as “a group of persons within a state who are not in a position of control or dominance, who possess the nationality of that state, but who differ from the rest of the population in terms of ethnicity, language, or religion, and who seek to preserve their own culture, traditions, and language.”^([6])Others define a minority as “a group that shares one or more cultural or natural characteristics, as well as a number of common interests reinforced by particular forms of organization and patterns of interaction. Its members develop an awareness of their distinctiveness in relation to others as a result of political, social, and economic discrimination against them, which in turn strengthens their solidarity and mutual support.”^([7])It should be noted that neither of these two definitions refers in any way to the numerical size of the group. Accordingly, a minority, under this approach, is a group that experiences a sense of inferiority, marginalization, isolation, and discrimination at the hands of dominant groups. Thus, a minority in this sense is essentially a non-dominant group, whereas dominant groups cannot be considered minorities regardless of their numerical size. The marginalization of certain groups may stem from biological, cultural, or educational factors that prevent them from participating effectively in national politics. During the Bagaza era, for example, when the Hutu in Burundi were given opportunities for political participation, the limited number of educated and qualified Hutu cadres hindered their effective participation in government, which led Bagaza to rely on the Tutsi minority. According to this approach, therefore, a minority is a vulnerable and non-dominant group, regardless of its numerical size. However, this approach has also been criticized on the grounds that the concepts of majority and minority are fundamentally numerical in nature. The political weakness of the Hutu in Burundi or Black people in South Africa does not alter their status as numerical majorities despite the oppression they experienced. The use of such criteria could therefore create considerable confusion and disagreement in determining minorities and majorities in general. Moreover, the generalization that all non-dominant groups are oppressed and therefore constitute minorities is not necessarily accurate. Some non-dominant groups are treated on an equal footing with other groups within the state, to such an extent that they neither perceive themselves as minorities nor do majority groups regard themselves as enjoying any particular advantage over them. The Third Approach: This approach attempts to reconcile the two previous approaches by defining a minority as a group that is both numerically smaller and non-dominant. One definition associated with this approach describes a minority as “a group of citizens of a state who differ from the majority of the population in terms of ethnicity, religion, language, or culture, who are not dominant or in a position of control, and who experience a sense of oppression.”^([8])In 1958, the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities proposed a definition of a minority as “a group of citizens within a state who constitute a numerical minority, occupy a non-dominant position in that state, and possess ethnic, religious, or linguistic characteristics that differ from those of the majority of the population. They share a sense of solidarity, reinforced by a collective will to preserve themselves as a distinct group, and their objective is to achieve equality with the majority.”^([9])One of the strengths of this definition is that it gives due attention to numerical size as a criterion for determining minority status, since the distinction between a minority and a majority is fundamentally based on numbers rather than on any other consideration. This approach also adds another condition, in addition to numerical inferiority, namely non-dominance. The limitation of the first approach lies in the fact that being numerically smaller does not always provide an accurate indication of the status of an ethnic group. Conversely, the dominance of a numerically small group does not make it a majority, regardless of the extent of its power. In this way, the third approach succeeds in reconciling the two previous approaches. Dr. Ahmad Wahban has proposed a comprehensive definition of the concept of a minority, describing it as “an ethnic group or groups that are numerically smaller within their society and that differ from the rest of the population in terms of race, physical characteristics, language, religion, or culture. Their members are conscious of the elements of their identity and distinctiveness and continually seek to preserve them. Such a group or groups are often in a non-dominant position within society, and many of them suffer, to varying degrees, from discrimination, oppression, and subjugation across the political, social, and economic spheres of society.”^([10])Baghdadi emphasizes the need to take the following considerations into account when defining the concept of minorities: The number of individuals belonging to the minority group must be relatively significant. The mere presence of a small number of families or individuals who do not, in themselves, constitute a distinct human group in the eyes of the society in which they live is not sufficient. There must be common bonds among the members of the group—linguistic, ethnic, or religious—that distinguish them from the rest of the population. The members of the group must be aware of the nature of the bonds that unite them and must have a desire to preserve those bonds. Baghdadi maintains that all these elements must be present collectively in a particular group before it can be described as a minority.^([11])In general, national minorities can be divided into two types: national minorities whose presence is concentrated in areas along the borders of the state in which they live, and minorities that share their national or ethnic identity with a neighboring state. Both types are found on the African continent. The arbitrary partition of Africa among the colonial powers at the Berlin Conference of 1885 resulted in ethnically and culturally diverse groups being incorporated within the boundaries of a single state. At the same time, the reverse also occurred, as the artificial borders drawn by the colonial powers divided single ethnic communities among several different states. Sudan provides a clear example of this situation. On the one hand, national borders divided a number of tribes, leaving part of each group within Sudan and the remainder outside it. Examples include the Zaghawa, Borno, and Salamat, who were divided between Sudan and Chad; the Nubians and Bisharin between Sudan and Egypt; the Beja between Sudan and Eritrea; and some southern tribes between Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and the Congo. At the same time, Sudan itself encompassed a large number of ethnic groups, estimated at nearly six hundred subgroups, speaking approximately 115 languages and dialects.^([12])This problem is also evident in the case of the Somalis, who are currently divided among the Federal Republic of Somalia, the Republic of Djibouti, as well as Somali populations in Ethiopia’s Ogaden region and northeastern Kenya. This division has contributed, on the one hand, to ethnic conflicts among different groups within individual states and, on the other hand, to conflicts between some Somali minorities in Kenya and Ethiopia and the ruling authorities in those countries, with the aim of secession and unification with Somalia in order to establish a “Greater Somalia” bringing together all Somali populations. In the first case, such conflicts may be resolved without resorting to secession through the adoption of tolerant policies, the granting of autonomy to distinct groups, and the achievement of balanced development that integrates different groups within a unified state. In the second case, however—where groups aspire to unite with their ethnic or national kin—it may be difficult to satisfy such groups by means short of independence. Nevertheless, a state may agree to the separation of a region inhabited by a minority for certain reasons, which may be summarized as follows: A decline in the strength of the state and its inability to bring under its control a minority that insists on secession. The state’s inability to bear the costs of economic development in minority regions, particularly when minority groups insist on such development as a condition for remaining within the state and abandoning demands for secession. The state’s inability to withstand external pressure aimed at recognizing the minority’s right to secede.^([13])However, there are other possible solutions to minority problems, depending on the nature of the issue and on whether it requires secession or other forms of settlement. A government may seek to accommodate minority groups by responding to some of their demands. For example, if their demands are economic, the government may promote development in the region inhabited by the group. If their demands concern political participation or the right to manage their own affairs, the government may grant them a degree of autonomy within the framework of a unified state. Governments concerned with minority issues may also resort to the exchange of minority populations, as occurred between Greece and Turkey in the period between the two World Wars, when Greeks living in Turkish Asia Minor were exchanged for Turks living in Greece.^([14])States may also resort to inhumane methods in dealing with minority issues, as Nazi Germany did through the physical extermination and forced mass expulsion of non-German minorities, followed by the resettlement of their areas with ethnic Germans.^([15])However, in addition to being inhumane, such a method is no longer a viable option for states because it conflicts with international human rights conventions. The spread and advancement of modern media and communication technologies have also made it more difficult to pursue such policies. This has been reinforced by the growing presence of human rights organizations, especially under globalization, which has effectively turned the world into a “small village” where events are closely observed and widely known. The collapse of the socialist bloc also enabled Western countries to place greater emphasis on political reform—including the status of minorities—and respect for human rights as important conditions in their relations with other states. This development strengthened the position of ethnic groups, which found greater opportunities to express their demands amid the wave of democratization that affected many countries around the world and contributed to the collapse of authoritarian regimes that had previously remained stable with Soviet support. However, the sudden political opening that followed long periods of repression also led to what may be described as a form of minority-related disorder based on ethnic divisions, and Africa experienced a particularly significant share of these developments. (1) Burhan Ghalioun, The Secular Question and the Problem of Minorities, Dar al-Tali‘ah, Beirut, 1979, p. 15. (2) Ismail Sabri Muqallad, Strategy and International Politics: Basic Concepts and Facts, 2nd ed., 1985, p. 85. (3) Ahmad Suwaylim al-Umari, Foundations of International Political Relations, Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, Cairo, 2nd ed., 1959, p. 576. (4) Samouhi Fawq al-‘Adah, Dictionary of Diplomacy and International Affairs (English–French–Arabic), Beirut, 1968, p. 267. (5) Nevin Abdel Moneim, op. cit., p. 5. (6) Ahmed Wahban, op. cit., p. 81. (7) Nevin Abdel Moneim Saad, op. cit., p. 2. (8) Ahmed Wahban, op. cit., p. 88. (9) Abd al-Salam Ibrahim Baghdadi, op. cit., p. (10) Ahmed Wahban, op. cit., p. 89. (11) Abd al-Salam Baghdadi, op. cit., p. 91. (12) Ibrahim Ahmed Nasr al-Din, “National Integration in Africa and the Sudanese Option,” Arab Future, No. 63, May 1984, p. 40. (13) Ismail Sabri Muqallad, op. cit., p. 86. (14) Ibid., p. 87. (15) Ibid., p. 89.