A Reflection On Kymlicka’s “Evaluating Group Representation"
Upon evaluating group representation Mr. Kymlicka claims that two arguments can justify limited forms of group representation. Those two arguments boil down to being a basis for making the distinction on which groups should be represented. The first is whether or not the members of a group are subject to systematic disadvantage in the political process. If they are then they meet this principled criterion to have representation. The second is whether or not the members of the group have claim to self-government. Since Mr. Kymlicka realizes the difficulty that arises when it comes to the first criterion, namely that everyone and their mother will claim to be the subject of being systematically disadvantaged in the political process, I find it fit to discuss here just the second criterion.
Mr. Kymlicka identifies that “self-government rights are typically demanded by national minorities.” The examples he gives are Canada’s Aboriginals and the Quebecois, and our own United States’ government of Puerto Rico, Indian Tribes, and the Chamorros of Guam, and other Pacific Islanders. If we are to consider, as Kymlicka would like us to, that some groups have a right to self governance, then we should be asking ourselves what individuals have a right to self-governance. An individual, to be heard in our democratic process, is a given. This individual can say anything that he/she likes, he/she has the power to govern himself according to the rules, and has a right to be heard, but he or she as a sole individual will never have the force or the power of a group. It seems to be the case that it is a pact of individuals that make up a group, some of these “groups” are known to be the dominant actors in international affairs and are known to us—obviously—as States or countries. I have in mind Hobbes’ “Leviathan.” A group of individuals come together as one, and act as one for the preservation of itself. It is clear that states seek hegemony in the international arena. And according to its the size and power it will have the force to achieve its ends. Thus this is the reason why individuals form groups of this kind: to come together and reap the benefits—the benefit of strength. An individual to seek his end within his state is one thing, but for a group to seek its end within the state is no different than a foreign state seeking its end against another. Clearly Mr. Kymlicka has forgotten the purpose of the State. I am, of course, expounding here a Hobbesian notion of the state since I think we should go back to the beginnings of the doctrine of natural rights. My opinion on the matter is as follows: I do not give support for groups to have self-governance within a state of any kind. The individual is the main component within the state. Why? It is individuals that come together to form the state. If rights are given then individuals are the ones to have them. Groups that attempt to form any kind of self-governance—in a sense as if they were to take the states place—within a state must be seen as an act of sedition. One only has to look at groups such as Al-Qaeda to understand that groups seek strength and wish for the benefit of its members. If groups are given power within the state the state will have to, at some point, compete against it, as it does in the international arena.
Apostle On Water 