Individual or collective rights? Consequences for the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples in Latin America

IF 3.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Democratization Pub Date : 2023-06-07 DOI:10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163
Sven-Patrick Schmid
{"title":"Individual or collective rights? Consequences for the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples in Latin America","authors":"Sven-Patrick Schmid","doi":"10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For decades, Indigenous peoples and their movements have fought for the recognition of their rights. Since the multiculturalist turn, these demands are – at least partially – a legal reality in many countries in Latin America. Indigenous group rights can be attributed to individual group members or in a collective way to the group as such. Here, I investigate how these contrasting approaches impact on Indigenous citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. From normative theory, I derive the expectation that incorporating collective Indigenous rights increases satisfaction with democracy, because they address the historical loss of Indigenous sovereignty and open new spaces for the participation of previously marginalized groups. In contrast, the individualization of Indigenous group rights can be seen as a form of assimilation. The empirics show that collective rights increase the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples – and among the wider public. Thus, recognizing collective minority rights does not seem to stir division but sends a message that democracy is working well.","PeriodicalId":47953,"journal":{"name":"Democratization","volume":"30 1","pages":"1113 - 1134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2213163","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT For decades, Indigenous peoples and their movements have fought for the recognition of their rights. Since the multiculturalist turn, these demands are – at least partially – a legal reality in many countries in Latin America. Indigenous group rights can be attributed to individual group members or in a collective way to the group as such. Here, I investigate how these contrasting approaches impact on Indigenous citizens’ satisfaction with democracy. From normative theory, I derive the expectation that incorporating collective Indigenous rights increases satisfaction with democracy, because they address the historical loss of Indigenous sovereignty and open new spaces for the participation of previously marginalized groups. In contrast, the individualization of Indigenous group rights can be seen as a form of assimilation. The empirics show that collective rights increase the satisfaction with democracy among Indigenous peoples – and among the wider public. Thus, recognizing collective minority rights does not seem to stir division but sends a message that democracy is working well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个人权利还是集体权利?拉丁美洲土著人民对民主感到满意的后果
几十年来,土著人民和他们的运动一直在争取他们的权利得到承认。自从多元文化主义转向以来,这些要求在拉丁美洲的许多国家至少部分地成为法律现实。土著群体的权利可以归于个别群体成员,也可以集体地归于群体本身。在这里,我调查了这些截然不同的方法如何影响土著公民对民主的满意度。从规范理论中,我得出这样的期望,即纳入土著集体权利会增加对民主的满意度,因为它们解决了土著主权在历史上的丧失,并为以前被边缘化的群体的参与开辟了新的空间。相比之下,土著群体权利的个体化可被视为同化的一种形式。这些经验表明,集体权利增加了土著人民——以及更广泛的公众——对民主的满意度。因此,承认少数群体的集体权利似乎不会引起分裂,而是发出了民主运作良好的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Democratization
Democratization POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Democratization aims to promote a better understanding of democratization - defined as the way democratic norms, institutions and practices evolve and are disseminated both within and across national and cultural boundaries. While the focus is on democratization viewed as a process, the journal also builds on the enduring interest in democracy itself and its analysis. The emphasis is contemporary and the approach comparative, with the publication of scholarly contributions about those areas where democratization is currently attracting considerable attention world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Benign bureaucracies? Religious affairs ministries as institutions of political control Legitimation, co-optation, and survival: why is Turkey silent on China’s persecution of Uyghurs? Neoliberal Citizenship: Sacred Markets, Sacrificial Lives Neoliberal Citizenship: Sacred Markets, Sacrificial Lives , by Luca Mavelli, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2022, 190 pp., £75(hardback), index, ISBN 978-0-19-285758-3 Democratization, state capacity and developmental correlates of international artificial intelligence trade Bread, freedom or social justice? An empirical investigation into the determinants of the Arab Spring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1