Introduction
The role of government in the administration of law, order and the promotion of individual right is very crucial. However, in time of national crisis or threat, the government can choose to forfeit individual rights for the greater benefit of the nation.
Normally, the county’s constitution provides for this action by the government and it extends beyond the law. It gives the government or a body of the government the authority to act beyond the law in response to a particular crisis facing the country.
Regardless of the provision, this state of crisis can provide for the continued denial or violation of the right of other people or the violation of their citizenship resulting to a state of dictatorship.
This piece of work will highlight some of the core issues that such constitutional matters present in addition to the core purpose of the paper, which is to determine whether the theory presented by Agamben is a valid instrument as the world comes to terms with the architecture and spatial articulation of Indian Residential Schools.
Background information
The Canadian Indian residential school system began in the 19th century with the sole purpose of assimilating the Indian child into Christianity and bringing civilization thorough education.
This system involved separating children from their parents and keeping them confined within the school (Miller 68). The major players in this court were the federal government, which through an Act of parliament, established these schools and the church, whose chief responsibility was running those institutions.
It is important to note that these schools were began by missionaries and the reason for the federal government for choosing these established facilities was that it gave them an economic advantage.
In this setup, each of the two players had a responsibility in keeping the schools running, with that of the government being funding and that of the church being provision of services in education.
In this system, it was a taboo, which was at times severely punishable, for children to speak their own languages and to practice their own faiths (Milloy 123). It was no long before more problems were unearthed.
The former students of these schools accused the teachers and the overseeing officials of cultural genocide and much worse, of physical and sexual abuse within the school by teachers.
Most of these accusations proved true and the government had to pay compensation to some of the former students (Miller 68; Milloy 123). Consequently, the end of the system came in the late 20th century with the last of the schools, White Calf Collegiate, closing in 1996.
Much later in 2011, archeological surveys have led to the discovery of human remains at Mohawk institute in Brantford. This shades more light to the severity of the situation as it was since evidence from these remains adds a new dimension to the problem, the probability that victims were tortured and even killed in those schools.
Since the 20th century, former students of these institutions have come forward and claimed compensation for the harm caused to them during their time in these schools.
Besides all these, there are persistent effects that have remained in the lives of those who went through those schools including psychological, physical and social problems
Lately various parties which are allegedly responsible in carrying out these wrongs have come forward apologizing for these violations of rights. The process of accepting and dealing with the past is still on with new information unveiling thus creating more questions than answers.
The core issue
Even though the system has become part of history, its effects remain with us up to date. The injuries to both individuals and the communities remain a wound yet to heal.
Regardless of the apologies and compensations by the governments and the Vatican, the reconciliation process has not yet accomplished its purpose.
The atrocities and the injuries caused at this period are a deal that the world has to come into terms with. In this paper, the most important enquiry under scrutiny is how dispensable is the notion of state of exception in the prowess of accepting and dealing with the wound that continues to eat up the conscience of many people.
Understanding the state of exception
One of the most outstanding aspects of the state exception, also referred to as the state of emergency, is that it is a constitutional provision made by governments with the aim of protecting themselves in case of a threat to their existence.
A good example of events that may lead to the declaration of a state of emergency is the threat of civil war or the threat of foreign invasion (Agamben 79; Carl and Schwab 45).
This provision draws its inspiration from the concept of sovereignty. Under this provision, the constitution grants the government or a branch of the government or even individuals powers extended beyond the law. Such powers provide for the violation of individual rights, including the fundamental rights, in the name of public good.
The resulting implications of the state of exception are that it poses two problems whose gravity must attract the corresponding weight.
The first problem is that of exceptional contingency and limit, while the second one is the ‘politics of exceptionalism’. In order to understand the applicability of Agamben’s theory, it is of paramount importance that we focus first on understanding his arguments in the theory.
Exceptional contingency and limit
In his piece of work, Agamben opposes the sovereign political authority by claiming that the exception is exclusion, and what not included in the general law is an individual case.
According to him, it is of great importance that a balance exists in the relationship between security and liberty, thus providing exceptional contingency is a violation of the balance (Agamben 79).
He also argues that sovereign exceptionalism must be in line with the principles of modern liberty without the potential contradiction of sovereign power defending liberty by destroying liberty.
In this case, therefore, sovereignty does not affirm its power by asserting dominion but rather by withdrawing its protection and thus exposing life to the danger of lawlessness (Agamben 79). He sees the exceptional contingency as the withdrawal of the normal prohibition to killing and as a result exposing lives to danger.
Since this is unacceptable, Agamben introduces the limit condition. Under this condition, the exclusion of a person from normal human law is necessary. By doing so, he establishes a limit for the condition that corresponds to the sphere of the sovereign ban.
Biopolitics
The second problem inherent in this theory is that of biopolitics. This concept brings the aspect of ‘bare life’ and ‘qualified life’ as in the Greek setting.
In his argument, it comes out clearly that there is an overlap of many elements and this can produce the possibility of holding some interpretative connections between the state of exception and the state of absolute law; logic of the enemy and punitive culture (Agamben 79; Carl and Schwab 45).
The proponents of this theory agree that the state of exception is ‘essentially extra juridical’ meaning that it is beyond the law. The factor that promotes this is the acknowledgment that the possible threats to national security are infinite and therefore impossible to provide for litigation measures within the law.
Therefore, this necessitates for a legal space that allows untrammeled action to restore order (Miller 68). This provides the government with the power to make an ambiguous choice of the ‘enemy combatants’ who it treats as persons excluded from the normal human rights.
Relationship with the issue
Before ruling the theory dispensable or otherwise, it is important to critically analyze and understand the ways in which the Indian residential relates to the theory.
The important questions are; to what extend were the subjects in these schools treated as excluded persons; to what extend did the government act in its unlimited sovereignty and was biopolitics practiced in this issue. The answers to these questions are the ultimate lead to the final decision.
Subjects
The subjects of the practice were the aboriginal Canadian residents who are mainly Indian and Eskimos. At this point in history, Canada was a colony of the Great Britain and the federal British government.
The colonies sought to civilize the the Canadians. One of the main aspects that were important in the course of civilization was the introduction of a school system.
A branch of the government known as the Department of the Interior was responsible for running both the administrative and operational roles of the school system.
First, these people were children who were not a threat to the security of the nation. This means that the children under the rule of law were not excluded individuals on whom personal liberties and right were forfeit.
However, regardless of their legal standing, they faced discrimination from the British government. The colonialists deprived their subjects the freedom of worship.
The people were required to quit their religion and join Christianity. If anyone violated this law, the rulers made sure that they received a heavy punishment.
By so doing, they ensured that the people lost their religious roots. Secondly, the law did not allow them to use their native language. They were required to learn and communicate using English-the language of the colonialists. These two acts were a violation to the rights of the natives not only as humans but also as citizens of the country.
Another extend of the government’s ambiguous application of sovereignty is the aspect of abuse. There were several cases of child abuse. However, the judicial system had not put in place a legislative process for punishing those who abused the children.
Owing to this, Agamben considers the people who used to commit inhumane activities such as child abuse as sovereign. This is evident in that, even when they were violating the rights of others, the government assumed they were carrying out their duties and did not count them as offenders according to the law.
This translates to the fact that government did not pay much attention to the inhumanity of the whites. This rendered the victims of abuse helpless, as there was no law in place to protect them.
They could not raise their grievances to the government because it would not take any action towards protecting their human rights. The unraveling of the human remains at Mohawk Institute in Brantford reveals another aspect of their sovereignty. The abusers behaved as having the legal right to take the lives of the children. In this sense, they possessed prerogative rights.
The situation
As other theories agree, the legal space allowed for extra judicial activities by the government or a branch of the government is for the purposes of litigating any possible threat not provided for under the constitution.
This brings us to another fundamental question in this relationship; were the aboriginal groups fundamentally a threat to the British government as to trigger an extra juridical action?
This clearly shows the reality about the legal space provided; it may result to the very attempts of colonizing life itself a concept he refers to as politicizing life itself.
The above situation highlights the aspects that Agamben illustrates. First, the prerogative rights given to the government may be misguided. The abuse of the rights of the aboriginal residents of Canada has served as a perfect example among others. In the hands of the British government, it was a tool of fueling the political interest of the government of the day.
To the church, it was an instrument of forcing the Indians into Christianity (Haig-Brown 47). At any given moment, this kind of an unlimited legal space by the constitution will afford the government and other branches of the government or individuals the autocratic right to violate the right of others.
Despite the fact that the children received ‘excluded persons’ considerations, the education system was included in the legal system. The establishments of legal foundations inform of acts, namely the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 suggests that this system was not an extra juridical activity.
However, the inherent assumptions of the Acts were that the British were superior to any other, and therefore the Indians had to become like the Britons (Haig-Brown 47). This aspect brings again the aspect of sovereignty as denoted by Agamben.
Is the concept dispensable?
From the insight offered above, it is very clear that the concepts posed by Agamben are important when trying to accept and dealing with the pains and losses suffered in this period. The first step in overcoming hard situations involves understanding the facts surrounding the issue then accepting them.
This will then enable the victims to start dealing with the difficult and painful situations. The concept of state of exception is important in the healing process and dealing with the problems in various ways.
The concept of exceptional contingency and limit is one of the concepts greatly opposed by Agamben. The government of the time treated the residential schools as individual cases and therefore they were not necessarily included in the legal system.
The result of such exclusion is exactly what Agamben warns about, the violation of individual rights. Acceptance is very important in the healing process. However, acceptance comes only with the full knowledge of what happened and why it happened.
Therefore, this work by Agamben is of critical importance in informing the victims about what happened. This is pivotal in enabling them to go through the healing process.
Furthermore, his work offers substantial moral support to the victims. Adamancy fuels the need for revenge, which is a handle in the healing process. This kind of moral support is a communication tool to imply that other people acknowledge that there are wrongs that were done which need correction.
In addition, this piece of work evidently points out the mistakes committed in governance. This relates directly to the problems experienced in the Indian resident schools. Such information is essential in eliminating the adamancy of the British government and the other oppressors.
Conclusion
Focusing on the discussion above, it is clear that the theory of state of exception brings various complications and provides for avenues of wrongful violation of other people’s rights. The empirical evidence from the case of the Indian residential schools proves these facts.
Either of the two concepts within the theory of state of exception have their own inherent dangers, which are almost inevitable. This explains Agamben’s position concerning the theory.
With regard to the issue at hand, his contribution is of great importance to the victims in the Indian residential schools as they come into terms with the pains of abuse, which resulted from this constitutional discrepancy.
It forms a critical part of Indian history. This inference bases its ration on the fact that knowledge is part of the healing process of the Indians and such an exploration is instrumental in providing vital knowledge.
Works Cited
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1998. Print.
Carl, Schmitt and George Schwab. Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print.
Haig-Brown, Celia. Resistance and Renewal : Surviving the Indian Residential School. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 1988. Print.
Miller, John. Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Canadian Residential Schools. Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Print.
Milloy, John. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System 1879–1986. Canada: University of Manitoba Press, 1999. Print