Nasiebou in 'n eenheidstaat versus die toekenning van groepregte: Diskoerse oor die akkommodering van diversiteit met spesifieke verwysing na Afrika en Suid-Afrika

Abstract

In the introduction of this article the focus falls on the opinions of prominent South African leaders on the relationship between the majority and the minority in post-apartheid South Africa. These opinions echo the political liberalism and nation-building ideologies that have not only dominated discourses on societal diversity in South Africa since 1994, but have also been the dominant models for handling heterogeneity in Africa and elsewhere in the world. In contrast to discourses on nation-building and political liberalism which emphasise a unitary civic state, individual dignity and human rights, the article focuses in particular on the work of the Canadian political philosopher Will Kymlicka (1995) regarding liberal multiculturalism and the rights of minorities in heterogeneous and deeply divided states.

Attention is first given to the nature of minorities and the various types of minorities (national groups, First Nations and ethnocultural or immigrant groups) which characterise heterogeneous societies in today’s world. The focus, furthermore, falls on political liberalism with its emphasis on the individual citizen as the (only) holder of rights versus liberal multiculturalism, which propagates the acknowledgement of societal groups and their distinctive characteristics. Due to the differences between the needs of various types of minorities, Kymlicka proposes a system of targeted group rights in order to address the differential needs of the various types of minorities. In this regard he distinguishes between the self-determination needs of national groups and First Nations, the polyethnic needs of immigrant groups, and special representation needs, which are aimed at giving minority groups meaningful representation in decision-making bodies. The discussion also focuses on the global discourse on minority rights, which, among others, is characterised by the proliferation of a number of international declarations on the rights of minorities.

The critical discourse on the work of Kymlicka is reflected in: discussions on problems with the defining of key concepts; opinions that the allocation of group rights can counteract the solidarity that is essential for the smooth running of democratic states; opinions that group rights place too much emphasis on ethnicity and ethnic groups, since this could enforce identification with minority groups and give rise to the manipulation of group claims, and the needs of groups could differ; criticism of Kymlicka’s system of group categorisation and his overemphasis on the current borders of nation states in the allocation of group rights; the limitations of declarations on minority rights; and a critical perspective of Kymlicka’s views on the prominent role of a societal culture in the lives of individuals.

Many of the points of criticism discussed in the previous section are addressed in Kymlicka’s later work on deep diversity, which is subsequently discussed. Deep diversity involves the acknowledgement that the citizens of heterogeneous states do not differ only with regard to language and culture, but also with regard to the relationship in which they wish to stand to the state. Kymlicka therefore holds that there is not a single recipe that applies to all societal groups and that the allocation of group rights should be adapted to the specific needs of a particular group. Kymlicka furthermore proposes that nation-building in order to create homogeneous societies in diverse states should be abolished, and that the unitary civic state should be transformed into a multinational and/or multicultural state. A multinational and/or multicultural state should, furthermore, be characterised by the fact that citizens are not subjected to nation-building strategies which enforce assimilation with a majority culture. Instead, the history, language and culture of all societal groups should be acknowledged and fostered.

The practice and failure of nation-building in order to address the deep heterogeneity of many African states is also discussed. Attention is given to the various ways in which diverse cultures are suppressed in order to create homogeneity and a single national identity, such as the emphasis on unity in constitutions, the centralisation of governance, the abolition of multi-party and federal systems, and the adoption of colonial languages such as English, French and Portuguese as languages of national unity. In-depth attention is, furthermore, given to the problems associated with these practices and the failure of nation-building in many African countries. Systems of group rights, as proposed by Kymlicka, are also proposed in order to provide solutions for the continuation of diverse identities and cultures in many African countries despite decades of nation-building.

Finally, the focus falls on discourses on nation-building in post-apartheid South Africa. Various viewpoints on nation-building, such as the rainbow nation discourse, the ideology of non-racialism and the African turn in the nation-building discourse are covered. Criticism of, and the problems associated with, nation-building in the deeply heterogeneous South African society are discussed. It is finally proposed that – similar to many other African countries – nation-building has not yet succeeded, and probably will not succeed, in suppressing diverse identities and cultures in South Africa.

The article concludes that despite a sophisticated discourse in the rest of the world and the extensive problems experienced with diversity on the continent, African and South African leaders have given little attention to the protection of minorities and the acknowledgement of group rights. Instead, many are clinging stubbornly to ideas of nation-building and a unitary state. Finally, the article calls for a new discourse in which attention is given to the acknowledgement of diversity and the rights of minorities in Africa and South Africa.