In 1973, the Canadian government created the federal comprehensive land claims process to negotiate modern treaties with Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Despite 35 years of negotiations, many Aboriginal groups have failed to complete modern treaties. This dissertation explains why some Aboriginal groups have been able to complete modern treaties and why some have not. After examining four sets of negotiations in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon Territory, I argue that scholars need to pay greater attention to the institutional framework governing treaty negotiations and to a number of factors relative to the Aboriginal groups.

The primary task of this work is a comparative analysis of the understanding of ‘freedom’ as presented in the works of Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault. I argue that, taken together, Heidegger and Foucault represent the most systematic and coherent articulation since Marx of the notion that our primary experience of the world is not mediated by consciousness but is, instead, a practical relation. This position permits Heidegger and Foucault to cast freedom not as a property, status or standing to be achieved by the subject, nor as an end-state to be achieved through a developmental anthropology, but rather as an ethical relationship to a field of possibilities—an ethos— and the practices that sustain this relationship. I use this discussion on freedom as a means of also contributing to two other debates, one regarding the general possibility of combining ontological and historical forms of critical analysis and the second, more specific question of Foucault’s relationship to Heidegger.

My thesis argues that in 1982-2008, “state Islam” created a pluralistic Indonesia and an anti-pluralistic Malaysia. The rubric of “state Islam” is a political alliance of secular politicians, religious bureaucrats, and Islamic socio-religious organizations. During these twenty-five years, state policy in Indonesia repressed Islam through the political marginalization of the formal and informal institutions of Muslim piety and practice. On the other hand, state policy in Malaysia accommodated Islam through promoting similar institutions. The rise of Islamic political and cultural consciousness in 1979 had triggered leadership transition and elite factionalism in 1982 in Malaysia and in 1989 in Indonesia, during which a new Islamic-centric force of entrepreneurs drove policy change. From 1982 to 2008, Indonesia and Malaysia created new state religious bureaucracies that regulated Islam, persecuted minority Islamic sects, and curbed the political autonomy of socio-religious organizations embedded in Islam. Chapter 1 constitutes a literature review and outlines my argument and key variables, while Chapter 2 provides the historical context of Islam in pre and post-independence Indonesia and Malaysia. The next chapter takes us to Indonesia in 1982-1994, when the Suharto government embarked on its institutional repression of Islam. Chapter 4 demonstrates how in 1982-1994 the Mahathir government in Malaysia launched its parallel institutional accommodation of Islam. Returning to Indonesia, Chapter 5 shows how Suharto’s institutional repression from the late 1990s directly created the conditions for a pluralist Indonesia today. Chapter 6 examines how the Mahathir government, previously locked in a close relationship with Islam through institutional accommodation in the late 1990s to early 2000s, produced a contemporary Malaysia resolutely hostile to political and socio-cultural pluralism. The final chapter explores the concept of unintended consequences and suggests comparative and cross-regional implications for my findings.

Over the past 30 years, the Chinese policy of village self-governance has promoted a system of democratically elected autonomous committees to wield authority at the village level. Particularly in the period since 1998, the village committee system has made impressive achievements in most areas of electoral rules and procedures. Relatively free and fair elections have become commonplace throughout much of the Chinese countryside, and the level of competition and openness has gradually increased. Nonetheless, village self-governance has had only a modest impact on the actual political configuration of most villages, as Communist Party influence and state-imposed constraints have limited the ability of elected officials to exercise authority independently. It is hoped that future Chinese leaders will continue to strengthen the institutional framework of democratic village governance, and take steps to restrain the influence of non-democratic actors.

Over the past 30 years, the Chinese policy of village self-governance has promoted a system of democratically elected autonomous committees to wield authority at the village level. Particularly in the period since 1998, the village committee system has made impressive achievements in most areas of electoral rules and procedures. Relatively free and fair elections have become commonplace throughout much of the Chinese countryside, and the level of competition and openness has gradually increased. Nonetheless, village self-governance has had only a modest impact on the actual political configuration of most villages, as Communist Party influence and state-imposed constraints have limited the ability of elected officials to exercise authority independently. It is hoped that future Chinese leaders will continue to strengthen the institutional framework of democratic village governance, and take steps to restrain the influence of non-democratic actors.

In 1973, the Canadian government created the federal comprehensive land claims process to negotiate modern treaties with Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Despite 35 years of negotiations, many Aboriginal groups have failed to complete modern treaties. This dissertation explains why some Aboriginal groups have been able to complete modern treaties and why some have not. After examining four sets of negotiations in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon Territory, I argue that scholars need to pay greater attention to the institutional framework governing treaty negotiations and to a number of factors relative to the Aboriginal groups.

The primary task of this work is a comparative analysis of the understanding of ‘freedom’ as presented in the works of Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault. I argue that, taken together, Heidegger and Foucault represent the most systematic and coherent articulation since Marx of the notion that our primary experience of the world is not mediated by consciousness but is, instead, a practical relation. This position permits Heidegger and Foucault to cast freedom not as a property, status or standing to be achieved by the subject, nor as an end-state to be achieved through a developmental anthropology, but rather as an ethical relationship to a field of possibilities—an ethos— and the practices that sustain this relationship. I use this discussion on freedom as a means of also contributing to two other debates, one regarding the general possibility of combining ontological and historical forms of critical analysis and the second, more specific question of Foucault’s relationship to Heidegger.

In this dissertation I attempt to build a bridge between normative discussions about multinational democracy and political recognition, and a contextually-sensitive empirical analysis of the Spanish case. I argue that, by looking at the characteristics and political dynamic of Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, we can gain a better understanding of the definition, composition and viability of a multinational democracy. Combining normative discussions and a description of an empirical case (Spain) I seek to bridge both normative and empirical literatures about political recognition and multinationality highlighting the fruitful interconnections between them. In doing so, I attempt to provide adequate tools to normatively assess concrete and actual processes of political recognition in a context-sensitive manner. The dissertation also emphasises the possibilities (and limits) of federalism as a viable political and institutional framework to accommodate multinational demands in a democratic fashion. By looking at the Spanish case and the controversies and challenges that Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia present, I believe I offer a better understanding of political recognition. I defend a view of democracy and politics that is open by definition and is amenable to contestation and ongoing negotiations. I contend that the temptation to arrive at a solution as if it were a final and permanent state of affairs should be avoided; rather, the indeterminate and open-ended nature of the processes analysed should be not only tolerated but rather assessed according to the conditions and dynamic of the process of political recognition identified and discussed in my dissertation.

In this dissertation I attempt to build a bridge between normative discussions about multinational democracy and political recognition, and a contextually-sensitive empirical analysis of the Spanish case. I argue that, by looking at the characteristics and political dynamic of Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia, we can gain a better understanding of the definition, composition and viability of a multinational democracy. Combining normative discussions and a description of an empirical case (Spain) I seek to bridge both normative and empirical literatures about political recognition and multinationality highlighting the fruitful interconnections between them. In doing so, I attempt to provide adequate tools to normatively assess concrete and actual processes of political recognition in a context-sensitive manner. The dissertation also emphasises the possibilities (and limits) of federalism as a viable political and institutional framework to accommodate multinational demands in a democratic fashion. By looking at the Spanish case and the controversies and challenges that Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia present, I believe I offer a better understanding of political recognition. I defend a view of democracy and politics that is open by definition and is amenable to contestation and ongoing negotiations. I contend that the temptation to arrive at a solution as if it were a final and permanent state of affairs should be avoided; rather, the indeterminate and open-ended nature of the processes analysed should be not only tolerated but rather assessed according to the conditions and dynamic of the process of political recognition identified and discussed in my dissertation.

My thesis argues that in 1982-2008, “state Islam” created a pluralistic Indonesia and an anti-pluralistic Malaysia. The rubric of “state Islam” is a political alliance of secular politicians, religious bureaucrats, and Islamic socio-religious organizations. During these twenty-five years, state policy in Indonesia repressed Islam through the political marginalization of the formal and informal institutions of Muslim piety and practice. On the other hand, state policy in Malaysia accommodated Islam through promoting similar institutions. The rise of Islamic political and cultural consciousness in 1979 had triggered leadership transition and elite factionalism in 1982 in Malaysia and in 1989 in Indonesia, during which a new Islamic-centric force of entrepreneurs drove policy change. From 1982 to 2008, Indonesia and Malaysia created new state religious bureaucracies that regulated Islam, persecuted minority Islamic sects, and curbed the political autonomy of socio-religious organizations embedded in Islam. Chapter 1 constitutes a literature review and outlines my argument and key variables, while Chapter 2 provides the historical context of Islam in pre and post-independence Indonesia and Malaysia. The next chapter takes us to Indonesia in 1982-1994, when the Suharto government embarked on its institutional repression of Islam. Chapter 4 demonstrates how in 1982-1994 the Mahathir government in Malaysia launched its parallel institutional accommodation of Islam. Returning to Indonesia, Chapter 5 shows how Suharto’s institutional repression from the late 1990s directly created the conditions for a pluralist Indonesia today. Chapter 6 examines how the Mahathir government, previously locked in a close relationship with Islam through institutional accommodation in the late 1990s to early 2000s, produced a contemporary Malaysia resolutely hostile to political and socio-cultural pluralism. The final chapter explores the concept of unintended consequences and suggests comparative and cross-regional implications for my findings.