Introduction

Recognising differences does not counter liberalism's sacrosanct protection of individual rights. Individual identity must come from somewhere. It is heavily shaped by culture and derives meaning from communal relationships. Differences in political identities contribute to the differences in ideas that democracy requires for its own effectiveness. The ideas that compete for popular ascendancy are not confined to abstract philosophical positions and ‘The unity of society and the allegiance of its citizens to their common institutions rest not on their espousing one rational conception of the good, but on an agreement as to what is just for free and equal moral persons with different and opposing conceptions of the good’ (Rawls, 1971, p. 160).

The degree to which difference and diversity ought to co-exist is contested, however. Public attitudes to differentiation and diversity influence the opportunities and practices of indigenous civil society. The tension is an intellectual contest between liberal democracy's capacity for inclusion and its practical tendency towards exclusion. It is also a tension between the policy outcomes that might proceed from each possibility.

The chapter assesses examples of democratic inclusion and exclusion in Australia and New Zealand, for the political values they reflect about differentiated citizenship, before proposing the concept as one that might contribute stability and coherence to Fijian politics as foundational conditions for the greater self-determination that indigenous Fijians seek.

‘Belonging together differently’

Although the previous chapter described circumstances where liberalism reasonably limits the claims of culture, there remain alternative positions which actually remove culture from the individual and therefore undermine freedom and equality, for example, the denial of collective representation in parliaments and local governments, especially as indigenous peoples argue for such representation as an important constituent of self-determination.

The former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard (1996–2007), for example, developed a powerful assimilationist narrative to counter growing demands for indigenous self-determination. The line in an election campaign theme song: ‘Son, you’re Australian; that's enough for anyone to be’ (Brett, 2005, p. 25) became a simple theme of his Prime Ministership. He was untroubled by the intellectual conflict between socially conservative emphases on homogeneity and liberal emphases on freedom.