The Doctrine of Substantive Equality and the Democratisation of Diversities

Abstract

The coexistence of cultural and religious minorities in liberal democratic systems presents various complexities, particularly in the context of applying the law to everyone equally. Minority groups within such states often struggle when they reach out for justice or are subject to the general legal system. Many theorists have tried to address the plight of the minorities and some of the complexities presented. Liberal theorists have sought to predicate rights on the core principles of the common good and individual autonomy whilst others have debated the liberal’s dilemma. Theorists of multiculturalism have also attempted to develop models of accommodation of group rights and offered a communitarian critique to liberalism. However, others yet have pointed to the critical failures of multiculturalism.

One critique levelled against liberals and multiculturalists alike has been directed at their flawed assumption about the homogeneity of a society and its cultural attributes. This has been particularly problematic for theorists of multiculturalism who, until recently, overlooked the plight of minorities within minorities and the critical effects that the intersectionality of multiple experiences of marginalization has on issues relating to identity.

This paper traces some of the recent developments in the discourse on democratic deliberative mechanisms and civic responsibility in the context of citizenship and minority rights and argues that the application of the doctrine of substantive equality is critical to address and account for the politics and effects of history, gender, race, ethnicity, and other experiential marginalizations of the minority community. Through the review of the various models that have been recently proposed to democratize diversity, this paper argues that the doctrine of substantive equality is an effective and useful tool which helps account for and explain some of the gaps in existing deliberative theory, for example, impartiality, reasonableness, imperialism, group representation and obstacles to a consensus-building model for democratic deliberation. The paper concludes with illustrations of how, through individual uses of the doctrine, existing models for deliberative democratic politics can be advanced to the next level with a view to empowering minorities and encouraging them to engage in their civic responsibilities.