Oped»
Regional rights
JAN 21 -
Self-Determination is largely understood as the right to create separate states for nations even though that is not the sole interpretation. This interpretation became widespread after the principle was used to create new states in Europe after empires were destroyed during the First World War and during the decolonisation in Asia and Africa after the Second World War. Since states believe giving this right could threaten their territorial integrity, they, along with inter-governmental agencies formed by them like the United Nations, generally oppose this form of self-determination.
However, many groups like the indigenous peoples who are demanding self-determination rights are not demanding separate states. Late Iris Marion Young in her posthumously published book Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice argues that the dominant concept of self-determination as the right to form sovereign states based on the principle of non-interference does not encompass the demands put forth by indigenous and other groups around the world seeking group autonomy. Young criticises the non-interference concept even for the state system. Even when the non-interference concept was adopted, states and peoples in reality were affected by interactions and relationships with other entities. States and peoples do not live in isolation. On the other hand, in many instances, interference, in fact, is necessary, such as to prevent gross human rights violations. Stronger states and peoples as well as multi-national corporations and INGOs dominate weaker states and groups despite lip service to non-interference principle.
Young presents an alternate concept of self-determination. She argues that instead of non-interference the concept of non-domination should be the basis of self-determination, especially with regard to marginalised cultural groups. The principle of self-determination understood as non-domination provides autonomy to groups to self-govern themselves as they see fit. Self-determination as autonomy does not mean that groups will live in isolation but that the interactions and relationships with other local, regional, national, and global actors should be based on non-domination principle. Institutions should be established to prevent domination by other actors so that justice and equality among all is promoted.
The concept of self-determination is based on democratic ideals of liberty and autonomy. It emerged during the period of Enlightenment to make human beings truly free. According to Robert Dahl, “In the absence of a compelling showing to contrary everyone should be assumed to be the best judge of his or her own good or interests.” This is so because each adult is better informed about his or her needs, wants, aspirations and what they are willing to give up for those preferred goals. The underlying premise of democracy is that citizens, whether educated or not, may not be aware and informed about each and every policy issue but overall they generally understand public good and can identify leadership that represent and protect their interests.
The principle of self-determination is applicable to groups who share language, culture, worldview etc. to govern themselves for their groups’ welfare, development and growth. Hence, in multicultural societies different cultural groups will be served better if they are governed by institutions based on their norms, cultures and worldviews. Self-governance will enable efficient provisions of services to the people. For instance, Tamang administrators will be better able to serve the Tamang population than non-Tamangs in many instances because of language command and sensitivity toward Tamang culture, lifestyle and preferences. In Malaysia Milton Esman found that the “qualified” Chinese doctors were unable to serve well the rural Malay population because they lacked the essential qualification, such as command over local language and sensitivity towards Malay culture. On the other hand, if diverse groups are not provided with autonomy, they will be governed by institutions based on the value systems of dominant group and such institutions will harm and constrain their growth and development. For instance, in the Hindu state, the non-Hindu Nepalis were constrained because they had to follow unfamiliar laws and regulations that were influenced by elite hill Hindu male values.
The non-domination conceptualisation of self-determination does not give any group the right to dominate others. According to this conceptualisation Newar, Tamang, Madhesi, Tharu, Limbu and others can govern themselves but they cannot dominate others, including not only the marginalised dalits, others smaller groups and women but also Bahuns and Chhetris. All individuals and groups’ political rights, civil liberties, and cultural values should be protected. Thus, this conceptualisation of self-determination would promote equality and justice among all groups in the society. The formation of the European Union demonstrates the power of the non-domination concept to bring people together. Countries that waged two World Wars, which resulted in millions of deaths, have given up many of their ‘sovereign’ rights after sitting together as equal entities and reaching agreements acceptable to all sides.
Most of the people and groups demanding self-determination in Nepal are not seeking separate states but group autonomy. Only a few underground Madhesi and indigenous groups are seeking independence and currently support for these groups is not strong. Majority of the people seeking rights are still envisioning self-determination as autonomy with ethnic named regions for reducing and/or ending their historic and contemporary domination. Explicit ethnic naming of regions would not take away rights of other groups. In any democratic society individuals and groups have inalienable right to call themselves what they prefer, especially by their traditional names. Migrants to the regions should respect local history, including local names of the land, with which native peoples’ identities, lifestyle, and well being are closely interlinked. Such names are national resources as they are imbued with histories of different regions. All equality and justice loving Nepalis should be proud of them.
If self-determination understood as group autonomy is denied, then the disadvantaged groups could become further alienated and separatist tendencies may grow. Denial of self-determination may not end a movement for it. In fact, global experience demonstrates that denial of autonomy often fuel separatist movements while granting of self-governance rights undermine such movements. After a comprehensive review of all self-determination movements in the world since 1940, David Quinn concluded that “Although many observers are concerned that autonomy agreements will set the stage for all out wars for independence and result in redrawing of international boundaries, these fears are rarely realised. More commonly, conflicts end with governments and group representatives agreeing on a framework that acknowledges collective rights, provides institutional means for pursuing collective interests within states, and/or devolves some amount of central power to autonomous regional institutions.”
Due to multiple meanings of self-determination, the state and political process controlled by the dominant group may not be willing to recognise formally the right to self-determination for fear that it could be interpreted as the right to secede. However, denial of self-determination as autonomy may further intensify the problems. One compromise out of this could be granting self-determination rights in practice by granting autonomy even if self-determination is not formally recognised. If the state ensures self-governance rights through ethnic autonomy, the demands of the marginalised ethnic groups will be largely fulfilled. It will prevent violent conflicts and unite the country based on equality, and foster growth and development of various groups as well as the country.
(Professor Lawoti’s new book is Democratic State-building: Challenges in Framing the Nepali Constitution, Bhrikuti Academic Publishers, 2009)
Headlines
Advertisements
