Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:22:05.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Austrian Solution for Canada? Problems and Possibilities of National Cultural Autonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2009

Tim Nieguth
Tim Nieguth*
Affiliation:
Laurentian University
*
Tim Nieguth, Department of Political Science, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury ON, CanadaP3E 2C6, tnieguth@laurentian.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. Over the last few decades, non-territorial forms of national self-government have attracted increasing interest in political science, especially in the guise of national cultural autonomy. National cultural autonomy is a model of self-government that was pioneered by Austrian theorists and politicians Karl Renner and Otto Bauer in the waning days of the Habsburg Empire, yet was never implemented in Austria–Hungary. This paper will examine some of the problems and possibilities that may attend a transfer of national cultural autonomy as a model of self-government into Canadian political discourse, especially as regards Quebec nationalism, Francophone communities outside Quebec, Anglophone Quebecers, self-government for Aboriginal peoples, and political values in English-speaking Canada.

Résumé. Au cours des dernières décennies, les formes non territoriales d'autonomie gouvernementale nationale ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt croissant en science politique, en particulier le concept de l'autonomie culturelle nationale. L'autonomie culturelle nationale est un modèle autonomiste développé par les théoriciens et politiciens autrichiens Karl Renner et Otto Bauer lors du déclin de l'Empire habsbourgeois, mais qui ne fut jamais mis en place dans l'Empire austro-hongrois. Cet article examinera quelques-uns des problèmes et quelques-unes des possibilités qui pourraient émerger d'un transfert de ce modèle dans le discours politique canadien sur l'autonomie gouvernementale, en particulier en ce qui a trait au nationalisme québécois, aux communautés francophones situées à l'extérieur du Québec, aux Québécois anglophones, à l'autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones et aux valeurs politiques du Canada anglais.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Edward. 2004. “Our Treaty, Our Inherent Right to Self-Government: An Overview of the Nisga'a Final Agreement.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 11(3): 233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Otto. 1924. Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie. Vienna: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, Jacques. 2004. “What does it mean to be a Quebecer? Between Self-Preservation and Openness to the Other.” In Québec: State and Society, ed. Gagnon, Alain-G.. 3rd ed.Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Deschouwer, Kris. 2006. “And the Peace Goes On? Consociational Democracy and Belgian Politics in the Twenty-First Century.” West European Politics 29(5): 895–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, David. 1995. Beyond Sovereignty: Territory and Political Economy in the Twenty-First Century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Grosby, Steven. 1995. “Territoriality: the transcendental, primordial feature of modern societies.” Nations and Nationalism 1(2): 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hueglin, Thomas. 1999. Early Modern Concepts for a Late Modern World: Althusius on Community and Federalism. Waterloo ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Jans, Maarten Theo. 1999. “Personal Federalism: a Solution to Ethno-National Conflicts? What It Has Meant in Brussels and What It Could Mean in Abkhazia.” In Federal Practice: Exploring Alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia, ed. Coppieters, Bruno, Darchiashvili, David and Akaba, Natella. Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
Kann, Robert A. 1973. Renners Beitrag zur Lösung nationaler Konflikte im Lichte nationaler Probleme der Gegenwart. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Karmis, Dimitrios. 2004. “Pluralism and National Identity(ies) in Contemporary Québec: Conceptual Clarifications, Typology, and Discourse Analysis.” In Québec: State and Society, ed. Gagnon, Alain-G.. 3rd ed.Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Don Mills ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McRoberts, Kenneth. 2001. “Canada and the Multinational State.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34(4): 683–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nimni, Ephraim, ed. 2005. National Cultural Autonomy and its Contemporary Critics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Peters, Evelyn J. 2005. “Geographies of Urban Aboriginal People in Canada: Implications for Urban Self-Government.” In The State of the Federation, 2003: Reconfiguring Aboriginal-State Relations, ed. Murphy, Michael. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Poggi, Gianfranco. 1990. The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Renner, Karl. 1897. Grundzüge für eine endgiltige Lösung der Nationalitätenfrage in Oesterreich: Ideen und Betrachtungen eines Patrioten. Vienna and Leipzig: M. Breitenstein.Google Scholar
Renner, Karl. 1906. Grundlagen und Entwicklungsziele der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie: Politische Studie über den Zusammenbruch der Privilegienparlamente und die Wahlreform in beiden Staaten, über die Reichsidee und ihre Zukunft. Vienna and Leipzig: Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
Renner, Karl. 2005. “State and nation.” In National Cultural Autonomy and its Contemporary Critics, ed. Nimni, Ephraim. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Resnick, Philip. 1994. “Toward a Multinational Federalism: Asymmetrical and Confederal Alternatives.” In Seeking a New Canadian Partnership: Asymmetrical and Confederal Options, ed. Seidle, F. Leslie. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996a. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Restructuring the Relationship. Vol. 2. Ottawa: Ministry of Supplies and Services.Google Scholar
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996b. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Perspectives and Realities. Vol. 4. Ottawa: Ministry of Supplies and Services.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2007a. “Aboriginal Identity Population (3), Registered Indian Status (3), Age Groups (11B), Sex (3) and Area of Residence (7) for Population, for Canada, Provinces and Territories, 2001 Census—Sample Data” [Table]. http://www.statscan.ca (July 2, 2007).Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2007b. “Population by selected ethnic origins, by province and territory (2001 Census) (Nunavut)” [Table], http://www.statscan.ca (September 25, 2007).Google Scholar
Todd, Roy. 2000–2001. “Between the Land and the City: Aboriginal Agency, Culture, and Governance in Urban Areas.” London Journal of Canadian Studies 16: 49–67.Google Scholar
Todd, Roy. 2003. “Urban Aboriginal Governance: Developments and Issues.” In Not Strangers in These Parts: Urban Aboriginal Peoples, ed. Peters, E.J. and Newhouse, D.. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiative, Government of Canada.Google Scholar