Instructor: Dr. Hans Oversloot
National groups and ethnic groups have been playing an increasingly important role in both domestic and international politics. Liberalism, however, has been weak in embracing this trend. Liberal political philosophy emphasizes the autonomy of every individual and clings to the principle that all rights must be ‘difference-blind’, possibly leading to unworkable policies and even injustice. Kymlicka tries to develop liberal political philosophy in his book ‘Multicultural Citizenship’ by including the theory of minority rights.
In the first chapter of his book, he makes an important distinction between multinational and polyethnic situations. In his view, nation means ‘a historical community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 11). By contrast, immigrant groups are identified as ethnic groups without the intention to establish their own states, but they also want to express their culture and protect themselves from discrimination. This distinction may help us to better understand the demand of minority groups.
Kymlicka has listed and distinguished several different kinds of minority rights which might be demanded by national groups and ethnic groups, including self-government rights, polyethnic rights, and special representation rights. 1. Self-government rights, restricted to national minorities. ‘In most multination states, the component nations are inclined to demand some form of political autonomy or territorial jurisdiction, so as to ensure the full and free development of their cultures and the best interests of their people.’ (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 27) One mechanism to achieve this is federalism, which guarantees the autonomy of national minorities without being discriminated against by national majorities. 2. Polyethnic rights, concerned with the increasing demand of ethnic groups. One demand is about public funding of their cultural practices, and a much more controversial demand is an exemption from disadvantaging laws and regulations. Kymlicka argues that these polyethnic rights ‘are intended to help ethnic groups and religious minorities express their cultural particularity and pride without it hampering their success in the economic and political institutions of the dominant society’ (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 31). 3. Special representation rights, for both national minorities and ethnic minorities. It is important because underrepresentation can be avoided through more inclusive political parties, a proportional representation mechanism, and a certain number of special seats for disadvantaged groups in the legislature.
According to Kymlicka, ‘self-government rights’, ‘Polyethnic rights’, and ‘special representation rights’ are three forms of group-differentiated rights, or ‘collective rights’. In fact, there are two kinds of collective rights, internal restrictions, and external protections. Kymlicka believes the distinction here is important because external protections do not conflict with individual rights. He also makes arguments about the reasons why minority rights should be implemented and protected. The first equality-based argument is rooted in liberal political philosophy. He points out that, as minorities are actually facing some unfair disadvantages, it is fair to give them group-differentiated rights to achieve overall justice. The second history-based argument refers to the minorities’ historical claims such as ‘the treaty rights of indigenous peoples, or the agreement by which two or more peoples agreed to federate’ (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 116). Third, the importance of minority rights also derives from the value of cultural diversity. This argument is also closely related to liberalism which emphasizes individualism because cultural diversity provides meaningful choices for individuals.
I personally have some questions about this book. The first question is about the concepts of ‘national groups’ and ‘ethnic groups’. Kymlicka says that the national groups have a historical homeland in the state, sharing a distinct language and culture, whilst the ethnic groups enter the society without the demand for forming nations. However, nation, or nationalism, is often regarded as the foundation of the modern nation-state and defined by its final political pursuit of establishing a nation-state. ‘Nation’ has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community’ in his famous book, emphasizing the abstract and constructive nature of the nation. AD Smith comprehensively elaborates on the notion of nationalism in his book ‘Nationalism: Theory, ideology, history’, arguing that a nation is intentionally constructed, while ethnic groups are more blood-bonded. One example is China, which has 55 national minorities (as Kymlicka defines, because China has few immigrants, and all the national minorities exist prior to nation-building) but has constructed a notion of ‘Chinese nationality’ to be the foundation of the nation-state. Kymlicka says nothing about the constructive aspect of the nation, so the concept is still confusing.
Another question is about the practice of group-differentiated rights. As mentioned, Kymlicka gives out an equality-based reason for group-differentiated rights, saying group-differentiated rights are the compensation for their disadvantage. However, in practice, the question is about how many group-differentiated rights should be given to minorities. I think the expected precise amount of compensation is not clear, and the criteria are various. Therefore, either the minority or the majority would feel discriminated against.
Finally, cultural discrimination is caused by complicated factors and is not easy to reduce. The government can surely make policies to protect minorities, e.g. special seats in parliament or funding for their cultural activities, but these policies may on the other side lead to hatred from the majority and jealousy from other minority groups.
