|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 24 April 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Liberal democracy and the rights of minorities FREEDOM MEANS DIVERSITY. Never was uniformity in human society achieved without coercion, nor will it ever be possible without coercion.
This simple truth is nowhere more evident, and more relevant, than with the peoples and countries that constitute today's world society. None of these is homogenous in ethnic, cultural or religious terms. All of them comprise minorities of various kinds, and the state of relations between majorities and minorities provides the yardstick by which the degree of freedom can and must be measured in every one of them. For this reason, the rights of minorities are of paramount importance to all who cherish human freedom. No society and no county can be termed a liberal democracy that does not acknowledge, implement and respect the rights of minorities. In defining what these rights should be, this Declaration takes as its starting point the reality as we find it on the eve of the third millennium. World society is organised in states, the large majority of which conceive of themselves as nation states, which form the basic units and prime actors in the international system. They are, for all practical purposes, the main source of all laws and regulations that govern the relationship between majorities and minorities within their borders, and of those international covenants that have been, and hopefully will yet be, concluded for the worldwide implementation of minority rights. It is a common tendency of modern states to assume a 'national' identity, culture, etc., and hence a 'need' for unitary 'national' institutions and solutions. Far too often this tendency leads to a disregard for, or underestimation of, the multiethnic, multicultural, or multi-religious diversities that exist within the boundaries of a nation state. Thus, nation states tend to be 'nationalising' states, assuming uniformity where it does not exist, and far too often misuse the coercive power of state machinery and legislation to impose such uniformity. Liberal democracy, in contrast, emphasises the rights and liberties of the individual citizen. It is because these include the right freely to associate with others that they have a group-related dimension as well. Belonging to a community based on common cultural, linguistic or religious heritage is an important factor of identity for most people, and where they freely and voluntarily associate on this basis, no government and no state legislation - and no majority, however large - may deny the right of such groups to be different within the limits of internationally accepted human rights. It is obvious that the need to protect such rights corresponds directly with the degree to which governments interfere with civil society. It is where government interferes with the social and cultural life of minorities that most assault on such minorities take place. The principle of subsidiarity, which stipulates that decisions should always be made at the most local level that is practically feasible, and preferably at the level of civil society, will always provide reliable guidance to safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities and majorities alike. The classical liberal concept of limited and strictly subsidiary government can in itself be seen as a far from-negligible element of minority protection. While enforcing human rights and the rule of law by itself will go a long way to protect minorities, it must be realised that modern states are thoroughly interventionist, with a high density of regulation, and thus titled towards uniformity. As long as this situation persists, specific measures to safeguard minority rights are called for, including positive measures to progressively realise minority rights where entrenched inequities exist. Whenever such specific measures are discussed, it must be clearly understood that their function will always be a subsidiary one to the very basics of every free society: the rule of law and human rights. Unless these are firmly and reliably established, every attempt at safeguarding minority rights will be futile. For many minorities around the world, the most urgent problem concerns the denial of their basic human rights, including genocide, ethnic cleansing, economic discrimination, and religious persecution, amongst others. These basic human rights are already the subject of numerous international conventions, treaties and laws, and we urge that these be better enforced. The provisions that are needed in addition to the basic requirements of classical human rights and the rule of law are the subject of the present Declaration. In defining what these provisions ought to be, we start from two sets of premises: In the sphere of values, we hold individual liberty supreme. Minority rights must always contribute to safeguarding individual liberty for the members of minorities and majority alike. To the extent that this requires rights and provisions related to groups rather than individuals, it must always be understood that such group rights, while emphasising the distinct identity of groups, ultimately serve the rights of their individual members, but must in no case infringe them. Thus, minority group rights may never put individual rights at the disposal of the group, whatever the traditions of a particular community may be. Group rights may never be used as a disguised form of discrimination. In particular, we emphasise the importance of protecting and promoting gender equality. On the one hand, when minority rights have been denied, women members of the group have often been the most severely disadvantaged. On the other hand, when minority rights are respected, they must not be exercised in ways that undermine women's equality. In the sphere of facts, we accept that different situations and conditions in which minorities find themselves call for different solutions. Therefore, this Declaration deals with minority rights under three different headings, not all of which are traditionally included in the notion of minorities: First, ethnocultural minorities. These often consist in immigrants and refugees and their descendants, who are living, on a more than merely transitional basis, in another country than that of their origin. This category also includes internally-displaced persons. In most of the current discussions on minority problems., these groups are not included, i.e. they are not generally accepted as minorities in the classical sense. While this Declaration does not intend to engage in any disputes on legal or political definitions, we simply take note of the undeniable fact that we live in an age of large-scale migration, and that the problems arising from this fact call for solution. While immigrants and refugees certainly cannot lay claim to all the rights that 'classical' minorities or indigenous peoples are entitled to, they do have rights, too, and it is one of the purposes of this Declaration to spell out what these rights should be. - This category also includes groups which are different from the majority in certain characteristics such as race or religion which quite often have their historical roots in migrations of the past. Second, national minorities, i.e. historically settled communities which have a distinct language and/or culture or religion of their own. Very often, they became minorities as a result of a re-drawing of international borders and their settlement area changing from the sovereignty of one country to another; or they are ethnic groups which, for a variety of reasons, did not achieve statehood of their own and instead form part of a larger country or several countries. Obviously, this is the 'classical' minority situation with which most of the existing national and international instruments of minority protection deal. Third, indigenous peoples. To them, all the characteristics of national minorities apply, but their additional and distinguishing characteristic consists in their having been settled in the land prior to the majority, and having become a minority by conquest and/or colonisation. Being the 'first nations' of their countries and having much older claims to the land those who superseded and usually subjugated them, they are entitled to specific rights taking account of these facts. While we find it useful to structure this Declaration according to these three basic categories of minorities, we are aware that reality is more varied and complex than any 'compartmentalisation' can reflect. It must be borne in mind, therefore, that actual minority situations will not always fit neatly into one of these categories and that each case must be judged and solved taking into account its own specific conditions. Irrespective of all differentiation, however, there are rights, duties and rules which apply to all or several kinds of minority situations; with these we deal first. (Courtesy: The Rights of Minorities, a Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung publication) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
