Government and Minority rights
Discuss about the Minorities And The Limits Of the Liberal Democracy.
Minority rights are considered to be one of the important issues in present case scenario of the world. In most of the countries, the minorities become subject to humiliation and domination of the majority of the country. The continuous bullying and humiliation of the minorities can damage the very existence of democracy. In this regards, the role of the government is very significant to safeguard the interests of the minority communities not as they are minority but also they are the citizens of the country.
Therefore, the discussion is going to reflect some roles of the government of different countries where the interests and rights of the minorities are in grave danger and the reluctance from the government’s end intensified the existence of the minority communities. In this context, the essay puts emphasis on two particular countries France and Australia. The reason behind choosing these two countries specifically are that both the countries witness minority issues but in different aspects. In case of Australia, the country has a historical tradition of isolating the aboriginals of Australia and the government does not express any interest in incorporating them in the mainstream social strata. On the contrary, France encompasses a hostile attitude towards its Muslim community. The country is considered to be one of the largest Muslim populated region but not willing to grant them as the citizens of France.
Therefore, the essay incorporates four articles which are directly linked with the discussion. In course of the discussion it has been found that media and campaigns are the determinant factors that play the role of impetus in influencing the government policy of alienate the minority section.
In a conclusion, it can be argued that some previous histories of violence and atrocities might have pushed the countries to take such a drastic and punitive measure to isolate the minorities but it is detrimental to the edifice of democracy. Perhaps, inclusion of them into the main strata of the society will guide the respective governments to curb down the possible threat of violence. Hence, the government only can make an amicable relation with the minorities as they are part of the country and considered to be the beneficial factor for the development of the country.
The government response for recognition of the indigenous people is supposed to be identified as an act of democratic governance. It is necessary to reconcile the indigenous people in the mainstream society because these native people always keep them isolated from modernity. It is not a cause of their unresponsiveness towards modernity rather the exploitative nature of the new world makes them hostile towards mainstream society. In this context, the role of the state is to provide the natives an open space where they can enjoy and flourish a close bonding with modernity (Ray 2015).
Case study on Australia
This article delivers a clear understanding of the indigenous people of Australia and the state initiative to bring them back into the manifold. In this matter, the author pointed out two types of reconciliation has been practiced in Australia in order to deal with the natives of the country. The first one is focused on the practice of “Acknowledgement”. It is generally organised in a public event and involves a deep but concise speech about the tradition of the continent in relation to the indigenous Australians. The non-Australian people are also taken participation in this event and acknowledge their native brothers and sisters. On the other hand, the other custom of recognition in the name of “Welcome to the Country” is developed with the practice of organising traditional dances and other performances in order to assimilate the whites and the natives of Australia. The government intervention played an important part in this program of reconciliation. For an instance, in 2005 the New South Wales Health Department organised events and festivals that were primarily based on incorporation and recognition of the native people.
In the global spectrum, the Australian government are known for their lack of willingness to take back the natives into the manifold of the society. Moreover, there is a number of other factors such as the inability or inefficiency of the Australian government to recognise the native inhabitants of Australia create a long gulf between the whites and the natives. Despite of these limitations it can be argued that there are some initiatives taken by the government in order to recognise the native inhabitants of Australia. With the advancement in media and technology, in recent times social media becomes a key part of the government endorsement to recognize and acknowledge the natives of Australia as one of the core factors of the country (Rice 2016).
In this context, the author puts some light on the government initiatives and state participation in the process. It also includes the role of media and networking as a proper tool to formulate the steps of the government. The state approach and government policies regarding the campaign for constitutional amendments, branded as Recognise is considered to be the major concern of the Australian government. It can be argued that recognition is an attempt to redress the exclusion of aboriginals from the Australian constitution. This shift in the governmental perspective is occurred due to the media outrages on recognising the indigenous peoples of Australia.
Case study on France
After the incident of 9/11 and the serial blasts in London the European countries imposed a hostile attitude in accepting the Muslims as a part of their irrespective country (Koenig 2015). It was an act of Jihad according to the Islamic followers against the evil impacts of western modernisation on their lands. In retaliation the western countries enforced a ban on the Mohammedan citizens of the country. The radical fringes in the European continent followed an antagonistic approach in this regards. Therefore, it is important to understand the role of each government to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation in one hand and deal with the individual rights on the other.
This article ventilated the perception of the French government in articulating specific policies for Muslims and compares it with the existence of sovereignty in the country. In course of the discussion it was seen that there was a historical background of the Muslims to spread terrorism across France as well as in Europe. The bombings in Spain in 2004 or the serial blasts in London in 2005 and the riots in Paris in 2005 all are deliberately organised by the Islamic followers. As a result of that France imposed some rigorous policies against the Islamic citizens. Historically, France possesses a multicultural environment which was effectively suited the national vision of France. However, these kinds of nocturnal activities pushed the country on the verge of protectionism in terms of safeguarding the rights of the citizens excluding Muslims. In this context, one has to keep in mind of the fact that France is considered to be the home of largest Muslim community in Western Europe and the protectionist policy of the government may be safeguard the sovereign edifice of the nation but goes against the protection of individual rights in a multicultural environment.
Despite of the case study of multicultural environment in France, there are some evidences where the state sovereignty is aligned with incorporating the indigenous people into the mainstream society. In relation to this, there are some moral underpinnings that foster collectivism in protecting the rights of the aboriginals. In a democratic form of government, there should have some benevolent attitude of the authority which includes people from various cultural backgrounds. In fact, it is the responsibility of the government to safeguard the interests of the minorities. In this regards, it can be argued that diversity is explicitly related to the question of minorities as most often they are suffered with racial discrimination (Nimni and Ireland 2015).
In the context of global approach of protecting individual rights and safeguarding national sovereignty, the role of human rights can be considered as very important and pragmatic. The fundamental dichotomy between individual and state interest is highly related to the democratic framework of the nation. The article shows that the international laws put more emphasis on the individual right than contributing to the protection of national sovereignty. This conflicting idea of safeguarding the individual or national right becomes more relevant in present case scenario where it is argued that individual protection leads to global peace and help indirectly to establish national sovereignty.
Reference
Koenig, M., 2015. Incorporating Muslim migrants in Western nation states—a comparison of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. In After Integration (pp. 43-58). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Nimni, E. and Ireland, N., 2015. Minorities and the limits of liberal democracy. Democracy and non-territorial autonomy. Minority accommodation through territorial and non-territorial autonomy.
Ray, A.J., 2015. Traditional Knowledge and Social Science on Trial: Battles over Evidence in Indigenous Rights Litigation in Canada and Australia. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 6(2).
Rice, R., 2016. How to Decolonize Democracy: Indigenous Governance Innovation in Bolivia and Nunavut, Canada. Bolivian Studies Journal/Revista de Estudios Bolivianos, 22, pp.220-242.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
