Nation-States Confront the Global: Discourses of Indigenous Rights in Fiji and Tanzania

Abstract

How do global issue constructions serve as resources for actors engaged in domestic political contention, and what does the appropriation of global ideas by domestic actors imply about the spread of global culture? To contribute to knowledge about conflict-based diffusion of global ideas, we examine the histories of global constructions of indigenous rights and national debates about indigenous rights in Fiji and Tanzania. While global models of indigenous rights emphasize self-determination for nondominant, culturally distinct groups at risk from the nation-state, advocates for indigenization policies in Fiji and Tanzania have argued for state policies to entrench political and economic rights for majority or near-majority groups that were well integrated into the nation-state. Although transnationally connected indigenous rights organizations have a greater presence in Tanzania than in Fiji, actors in Fiji remain more engaged with changes in international indigenous rights discourse than their counterparts in Tanzania. This difference reflects variations in the leverage global culture offered in the two cases because of its externality to national political debates. In Fiji, actors appropriated global culture as a means to internationalize a domestic dispute, while in Tanzania the impetus for indigenization came from global economic pressures. Our findings imply that conflict-based diffusion concentrates agency with respect to the use of global legal discourses in domestic actors rather than the globally connected actors and experts who carry global culture in consensus-based diffusion.

Citizenship Beyond Borders: A Cross‐National Study of Dual Citizenship*

“…This may be the result of a carryover effect from the early independence period, when residents desired dual citizenship status in the newly independent state as well as in the European state. Interestingly, these policies have persisted broadly over time in many states, despite well‐publicized conflicts over citizenship in specific countries (Aminzade 2003; Larson and Aminzade 2005).…”

“…As these new states seek to build a national polity, the residue of lingering colonial influences leads to debates about dual citizenship. Recently such debates have occurred in ex‐colonial states such as Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and several of the former Soviet republics (Aminzade 2003; Cheater and Gaidzanwa 1996; Larson and Aminzade 2005). Russia has also pressed for dual citizenship for its 25 million citizens who reside in the new post‐Soviet republics, which non‐Russians view suspiciously as a mechanism for extending Russian control beyond its boundaries (Barrington 1995; Brubaker 1992b).…”

Fiji's 2014 parliamentary election

“…5 By seeking support through communal and religious appeals (targeted particularly toward the Methodist church and some charismatic evangelical Christian churches), SODELPA's priorities continue a political legacy of promoting i Taukei "paramountcy" previously expressed by supporters of the 1987 and 2000 coups, in the 1990 constitution, and by SDL's priorities when it led government (Larson and Aminzade, 2007;Larson, 2014). 7 The turnout rate was slightly lower than in 2006 (87%) but the number of registered voters had increased by 23%.…”

The Dialectic of Nation Building in Postcolonial Tanzania

“…This poses a serious challenge to political legitimacy, especially when political leaders have embraced national self‐reliance and an end to alien rule to legitimate their power, and have made greater racial and class equality a central political goal. Political legitimacy may also be undermined by state efforts to conform to global norms and discourses concerning the protection of property rights or minority rights (Larson and Aminzade , ). Efforts to garner external resources by deregulating foreign private investments and strengthening private property rights may conflict with popular domestic policies of Africanization, nationalization, and indigenization that limit the employment or property rights of foreigners and domestic minorities.…”