In the Name of Equality—An Examination of Equality Arguments for National Self-Government

What is it about?

Both Kymlicka and Patten argue that, in a multination state, the equal treatment of different national groups require that the state officially recognize the right of each group to create its own autonomous government. Because both arguments appeal to the value of equality, I label them equality arguments. In this paper, I consider the soundness of these equality arguments. My examination reveals that equality arguments are based on the assumption that equal treatment of different national groups requires equal benefits, in this case, a group’s own autonomous government. However, this assumption, in turn, rests on the dubious premise that the state belongs only to the majority group but not the minority and that a multinational state can never treat minority groups equally. Both premises are inherently anti-pluralistic. Thus, the equal treatment of different national cultures does not require that each be granted the right to self-government.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Both Kymlicka and Patten argue that the equal treatment of different national groups requires that the state officially recognize the right of each to create its own autonomous government. After carefully examining their arguments, I show that they both make the false assumption that, in a multinational state, the state belongs only to the majority group but not the minority, and that a multinational state can never treat minority groups equally. Both claims are inherently anti-pluralistic. Thus, the equal treatment of different national cultures does not require that each be granted the right to self-government.