Main topic

POLITICAL PROCESSES AND POLITICAL PARTIES

THE JUSTIFICATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF THE MINORITY NON-TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN LIBERAL DEMOCRARCY

Abstract

In this paper the author analyses the justifications and the limits of minority non-territorial autonomy arrangements in liberal democracy. Non-territorial autonomy can be defined as a self-rule of a group of persons through a sub-state entity with a non-territorial character, in matters considered vital for the maintenance and reproduction of their culturally distinctive features which could be their language, culture, religions or customs. The concept of non-territorial autonomy is essentially linked with national minorities and with institutional arrangements for their representation and for the exercise of such autonomy. This concept, named as segmental autonomy, along with grand coalition, mutual veto and proportionality, is considered to be one of the constitutive elements of the consociational democracy model. The justification for the adoption of the minority non-territorial autonomy concept within liberal democracy model could be found in the necessity of the collective rights’ acknowledgement and the representation of national minorities as their subjects, theoretically based on Kymlicka’s works. On the other hand, it seems to be some inherent limits for the creation of the non-territorial minority arrangements in the liberal democracy model. First of all, there is a problem linked with the democratic legitimacy of such arrangements. Many authors are of the opinion that the democratic legitimacy of the non-territorial minority bodies can only be achieved through free elections in which the voters are persons belonging to national minorities and which are enrolled in the separate voter’s register. That solution creates huge and probably unsolvable problem of competences for the solution of disputes in case of a conflict between two constitutional values: democratic legitimacy if it is based on described election model and the freedom of ethnic affiliation, namely a conflict between individual self-identification and the objective, eventually legally defined, criteria for the estimation of one persons’ origin wich can, in last instance, involve the state authorities. But that kind of problem isn’t the only argument for the thesis of the existence of the inherent limits for the creation of the non-territorial minority arrangements in the liberal democracy model. To be specific: if the acknowledgement of the collective rights and the necessity of the fondation of the non-territorial autonomy arrangements are the acceptable and required correction of the classical liberal democracy model, than we can claim that minority cultural and educational associations should take part in the establishment of the minority non-territorial arrangements, especially because they are emanation of the previously expressed collectivity and of the sense of solidarity which are subjective elements in the concept of a minority. Moreover, minority non-territorial arrangements are not political representations and their legitimisation can’t be founded on the classical liberal legitimacy formula. That lead us to the second type of the inherent limitations for the non-territorial minority arrangements in the liberal democracy model. In liberal democracy the normative functions are vested in the political representations. Because of that, the regulatory functions are exceptional among the public powers of those arrangements. Moreover, the veto power can’t be a part of the those arrangements’ public powers because it would mean the recomposition of the liberal democracy model and turn to the consociational democracy model.

keywords :

References

    • Capotorti, Francesco. 1979. Study on the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. New York: United Nations. E/CN 4/Sub/2/384.
    • Coakley, John. 1994. “Approaches to the Resolution of Ethnic Conflicts: The Strategy of Non-territorial Autonomy.” International Political Science Review 15 (2): 297-314. doi:10.1177/019251219401500305
    • Coakley, John. 2016. “Introduction: Dispersed Minorities and Non-Territorial Autonomy.” Ethnopolitics 15 (1): 1-23. doi:10.1080/17449057.2015.1101842
    • Decker, Christofer. 2008. “Contemporary forms of cultural autonomy in Eastern Europe: recurrent problems and prospects for Improving the functioning of elected bodies of cultural autonomy.” In The Participation of Minorities in Public Life, 101-112. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
    • Đurić, Vladimir. 2018a. Neteritorijalna manjinska autonomija/samouprava, Knj. 1. Neteritorijalna manjinska autonomija/samouprava u uporednom pravu. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo.
    • Đurić, Vladimir. 2018b. Neteritorijalna manjinska autonomija/samouprava, Knj. 2. Neteritorijalna manjinska samouprava u Republici Srbiji. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo.
    • Erk, Jan. 2015. “Non-territorial Millets in Ottoman History.” In Minority Accommodation through Territorial and Non-territorial Autonomy, eds. Tove Malloy and Francesco Palermo, 119-132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Ghai, Yash. 2002. “Ethnicity and Autonomy: A Framework for Analysis.” In Autonomy and Ethnicity, Negotiating Competing Claims in Multi-Ethnic States, ed. Yash Ghai, 1-28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Goemans, Piet. 2013. “National Cultural Autonomy: Otto Bauer’s Challenge to Liberal Nationalism.” In The Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy, Theory and Practice, eds. Ephraim Nimni, Alexander Osipov and David Smith, 25-38. Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang.
    • Jovanović, Miodrag. 2005. “Recognizing Minority Identities Through Collective Rights.”Human Rights Quarterly 27 (2): 625-651. doi: 10.1353/hrq.2005.0019Jovanović, Miodrag. 2004. Kolektivna prava u multikulturnim zajednicama. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
    • Jovanović, Miodrag. 2008a. „Postoje li kolektivna prava?” Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 56 (1): 89-107.
    • Jovanović, Miodrag. 2008b. „Postoje li kolektivna prava? – II deo.” Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 56 (2): 25-46..
    • Korhecz, Tamas. 2002. “Democratic Legitimacy and Election Rules of National Ethnic Minority Bodies and Representatives – Reflections on Legal Solutions in Hungary and Slovenia.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 9(2): 161-181. doi:10.1163/157181102761163109
    • Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    • Kymlicka, Will. 2007. “National Cultural Autonomy and International Minority Rights Norms”, Ethnopolitics 6 (3): 379-393. doi: 10.1080/17449050701487389
    • Lapidoth, Ruth. 1997. Autonomy. Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts. Washington: US Institute of Peace Press.
    • Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    • McGarry, John and Moore, Margaret. 2005. “Karl Renner, power sharing and non-territorial autonomy.” In National Cultural Autonomy and its Contemporary Critics, ed. Ephraim Nimni, 74-94. London-New York: Routledge.
    • Nimni, Ephraim. 2005. “Introduction: National Cultural Autonomy Revisited.” In National Cultural Autonomy and its Contemporary Critics, ed. Ephraim Nimni, 1-12. London-New York: Routledge.
    • Nimni, Ephraim. 2007. “National-Cultural Autonomy as an Alternative to Minority Territorial Nationalism.” Ethnopolitics 6 (3): 345-364. doi:10.1080/17449050701487363
    • Nimni, Ephraim. 2013. “The Conceptual Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy.” In The Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy, Theory and Practice, eds. Ephraim Nimni, Alexander Osipov and David Smith, 1-24. Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang.
    • Nimni, Ephraim. 2015. “Minorities and the Limits of Liberal Democracy, Democracy and Non-Territorial Autonomy.” In Minority Accommodation through Territorial and Non-territorial Autonomy, eds. Tove Malloy and Francesco Palermo, 57-82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Nootens, Geneviève. 2015. “Can Non-Territorial Autonomy Bring an Added Value to Theoretic and Policy-Oriented Analysis of Ethnic Politics.” In Minority Accommodation through Territorial and Non-territorial Autonomy, eds. Tove Malloy and Francesco Palermo, 33-55.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
    • Online Compendium Autonomy Arrangements in the World, January 2016, www.world-autonomies.info.
    • Osipov, Alexander. 2013a. “Can ‘non-territorial’ serve as a category of analysis? Between ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ approaches.”European Consortium for Political Research, 41st ECPR Joint Session of Workshops: 1-20. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg Universität. doi:10.1163/15718115-02503008
    • Osipov, Alexander. 2013б. “Changing the Angle: Does the Notion of Non-Territorial Autonomy Stand on Solid Ground?” European Centre for Minority Issues Brief no. 29: 3-13. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.26947.60967
    • Pentassuglia, Gaetano. 2002. Minorities in International Law. Strasbourg:Council of Europe Publishing.
    • Renner, Karl. [1899] 2005. “State and Nation.” In National-Cultural Autonomy and its Contemporary Critics, ed. Ephraim Nimni, 15-47. London-New York: Routledge.
    • Roshwald, Aviel. 2007. “Between Balkanization and Banalization: Dilemmas of Ethno-cultural Diversity.” Ethnopolitics 6 (3): 365-378. doi: 10.1080/17449050701487371
    • Salat, Levente. 2015. “Conclusion.” In Managing Diversity Through Non-Territorial Autonomy: Assessing, Advantages, Deficiencies and Risks, eds. Tove Malloy, Alexander Osipov and Balázs Vizi, 249-275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Smith, David. 2008. „The revival of cultural autonomy in certain countries of eastern Europe: were lessons drawn from the inter-war period?” In The Participation of Minorities in Public Life, 87-100. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
    • Smith, David and Hiden, John. 2012. Ethnic Diversity and Nation State, National Cultural Autonomy Revisited. London-New York: Routledge.
    • Smith, David. 2014. “Minority Territorial and Non-Territorial Autonomy in Europe: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Challenges.” In Autonomies in Europe: Solutions and Challenges, ed. Z. Kántor, 15-24. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
    • Vizi, Balázs. 2015. „Minority Self-Governments in Hungary: a Special Model of NTA?”. In Managing Diversity Through Non-Territorial Autonomy: Assessing, Advantages, Deficiencies and Risks, eds. Tove Malloy, Alexander Osipov and Balázs Vizi, 31-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 3/2020 3/2020 УДК 323.17:34 63-82
ç