MINORITY

Short definition: "a group which is smaller in number than the rest of the population of a State, whose members have ethnic, religious or linguistic features different from those of the rest of the population, and are guided, if only implicitly, by the will to safeguard their culture, traditions, religion or language. Any group coming within the terms of this definition shall be treated as an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority. To belong to a minority shall be a matter of individual choice". (The definition comes from Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994a: 107, Note 2, and is based on her reformulation of the definition by the Council of Europe Commission for Democracy through Law (91) 7, Art. 2).

Discussion

In this definition the requirement of citizenship ("who are nationals of that State") which many legal definitions use, has been omitted because a forced change of citizenship to my mind cannot be required in order to be able to enjoy basic human rights. This interpretation has since been borne out by the U.N. Human Rights Commission's General Comment (4 April, 1996, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5) on Article 27 of the I.C.C.P.R. (the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). As long as many immigration states practise a fairly restrictive policy in granting citizenship (for instance, residence requirements which are longer than 3-4 years, and/or linguistic requirements, often based on evaluations by non-language-professionals, or ius sanguinis (only children whose parents have the citizenship, i.e., "sons and daughters of the soil", have a right to citizenship), it also seems that especially children may suffer unduly if they are only granted basic linguistic rights after, in the best case, upwards of 5 years in the new country.

The definitions of both minority and different types of minorities (indigenous, national, regional, territorial, immigrant, etc.) are notoriously difficult. There is, despite many attempts, no legally accepted universal definition of a minority: see Andrések 1989; Capotorti 1979; Eide 1990, 1991; Palley 1984; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994a, note 2 and references in it for overviews of the criteria used in different definitions. For definitions and thorough treatises on the legal problems involved, see, e.g., Alfredsson 1990, 1991; Chernichenko 1996, 1997; Deschênes 1985; de Varennes 1996a; Eide 1993, 1996; Gromacki 1992; Packer 1993; Thornberry 1987, 1991, 1995, 1997. See also U.N. Human Rights Fact Sheet No. 18, Minority Rights, 1992: 8-10, and the revised version 1998: 13-14.

Most definitions use as defining characteristics a combination of the following:

A. Numbers;

B. Dominance is used in some but not others ("in an inferior and non-dominant position", Andrések 1989: 60; "in a non-dominant position", Capotorti 1979: 96);

C. Ethnic or religious or linguistic traits, features or characteristics, or cultural bonds and ties which are (markedly) different from those of the rest of the population (in most definitions);

D. A will/wish (if only implicit) to safeguard, or preserve, or strengthen the patterns of life and behaviour, or culture, or traditions, or religion, or language of the group is specifically mentioned in most definitions (e.g., Capotorti 1979: 96). Language is included in most but not all definitions (e.g., not in Andrések's definition 1989: 60);

E. Citizenship/nationality in the state concerned is required in most definitions in charters and covenants as part of the definition, i.e. minorities are defined so as to give national or regional minorities more rights than to immigrants and refugees (who, by definition, are considered non-national and non-regional). In contrast, academic definitions for research purposes often make no mention of nationality as a criterion.

If an individual claims that she belongs to a national minority, and the State claims that there are no national minorities in that State (e.g., Kurds in Turkey or Finns in Sweden until 1998 -- France and the U.S.A. belong to this group, too), there is also a conflict, and the State may refuse to grant the minority person or group rights which it has accorded or might accord to national minorities. In most definitions of minority, minority rights thus become conditional on the acceptance by the State of the existence of a minority in the first place, i.e., only exo-definitions (see this definition entry) of minorities are accepted. According to my definition, minority status does NOT depend on the acceptance of the State, but is either "objectively" ("coming within the terms of this definition" -- but see the discussion about ethnicity as a characteristic or a relation) or subjectively verifiable ("a matter of individual choice").

Many of the definitions of indigenous peoples also have this combination of "objective" characteristics and self-identification (e.g., the definitions of "Sámi" for the purposes of voting rights to the Sámi Parliaments in Finland and in Norway). The processes whereby indigenous peoples are (or are not) "recognised" by the states in which they live still often reflect profoundly paternalistic approaches where exo-definitions only are valid.

The trend, though, seems to be towards self-identification only (endo-definitions), for numerically small groups. Minority definitions can be compared to definitions of ethnic groups -- they are similar. One benefit of endo-definitions is that even groups who have lost the mother tongue as a result of (forced) assimilation can still claim minority or indigenous status, because "language" is not necessarily part of an endo-definition. (We also get the same result if "mother tongue" is defined on the basis of self-identification, not competence -- see the definition entry mother tongue. Another benefit is that nobody who does not want to belong to a minority is forced to do so. This has been an important consideration in many legal and, especially, political discussions. On the other hand, "self-identification only" definitions tend to be to some extent paperwork products, describing an ideal situation where power relations are equal or do not influence what happens, i.e. they often work badly in real-life situations where dominant groups can prevent any rights accruing to a self-identifying (minority) group, even very large groups like the Kurds or the Palestinians. Likewise, some individuals may in a changing situation endo-define themselves as minority members because of economic benefits only.

We might also mention the relational aspect of definitions from three points of view. The first concerns the size of the unit of measurement. If a local or regional unit (or, for instance, a school district) is the unit of measurement, Spanish-speakers in Hayward (Oakland, California) or Russian-speakers in Narva or Sillamäe (Estonia) would be a majority. If the state is the unit of measurement, they are a minority. Native English-speakers are in many urban school districts in the U.S.A. a minority; in the whole of the U.S.A. they are a majority; on a global scale, again, they are a minority. The second aspect concerns the dependence of each group on the other: both "minority" and "majority" are concepts that require each other: you can only be a "minority" if you are compared to another unit which is in some aspect bigger/larger. The third aspect concerns the usual (power) relation between endo- and exo-definitions: the power of the respective groups is decisive for who can decide on both the unit of measurement and which comparisons are relevant, and therefore on the validation of the labels.

See also the question "Why is it important whether a group is defined as a minority according to international law or not?" (TSK)

Source: Terralingua