What does sovereignty mean?

[Kekamaao]

Sovereignty a word that gets used a lot these days, especially in this
forum. Everyone seems to use it as though we all know what it means,
but I have the distinct impression that people are often talking
about entirely different things.

If you look in the dictionary, the thing that's immediately apparent
is that like most words, it can mean several things. Except in very
general terms, the dictionary isn't really very helpful. In fact, the
definitions of sovereign and sovereignty refer to one another in a
rather circular fashion. Leaving that aside, it's clear that it's
about who's boss... who gets to make the rules. Of course, everybody
makes rules, but sovereignty is a concept that applies only to the
top dog, so to speak... it's about who (or what) is to be the ultimate
or supreme authority.

It raises some interesting issues. The notion of a sovereign
individual, a king or queen or a chief for example, is probably as
old as civilization itself. The benefits of social organization
give rise quite naturally to the need for leadership. Struggles over
the issue of who is to be the leader have characterized the history
of every culture from the beginning of history (and undoubtedly before).
Scholars tell us that the struggle for Hawaiian sovereignty had
been going on for a long time prior to the arrival of Europeans... as
were similar struggles in every part of the world.

The current discussions over this question however, have a different
character. No one claims a God-given right to be the particular
individual upon whom sovereignty rests... at least nobody that anyone
takes seriously, but there don't seem to be many democratic voices in
evidence either.

The concept of the sovereignty of the people, the collective sovereignty
of the inhabitants of the land, is actually a fairly recent invention.
It was articulated rather well in ancient Greece, but remained something
of a theory of the lunatic fringe in a world dominated by the dogma of
the divine right of kings until the past couple of centuries. I think
it's fair to say that it made it's appearance in Hawaiian history
only very recently.

The idea that governments derive their legitimacy from the consent
of the governed, once it takes root, is extremely resistant to
extinction. It's a concept that is profoundly incompatible with
the divine right of kings. The immediate circumstances of the
overthrow have been well documented, but it's interesting to note
that the monarchy in Hawai`i fell shortly after the importation of
foreign labor reached a level at which people of Hawaiian blood
became a minority in these islands. Coincidence? Perhaps, but i
suspect that it's an important part of the picture.

With all its warts, Hawai`i is a democracy. It's true that one should
never say never, but I don't think that's going to change.

Aloha,
jesse