Just over two months ago nearly 9.5 million Australians voted to reject proposals to give the Australian Indigenous population a series of symbolic and constitutional reparations. This is in spite of an increasing awareness of the historical suffering of some minority groups and how we maybe need to right those wrongs of the past now. Take the United Kingdom for instance, why was there such outrage at the UK Government’s plans to deport many of the Windrush generation in 2018. for those not aware, the Windrush generation were those Caribbean migrants from British Colonies who emigrated to the UK as a result of the British Nationality Act. This is significant there was heightened awareness that this was significantly wrong considering the colonial inequalities previously suffered by members of this community. 

Moreover, we can look to civil society to see this increasing awareness too. Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon highlighted the systematic murders of Native Americans and institutional suppression of any investigations into the murders. What film directors decide to focus on is not arbitrary; Scorsese’s focus on the systemic killing of Native Americans is a wider comment about increasing awareness of the historic plight of minority groups. Additionally, Canada represents a good example of where reparations have been practically implemented: in 1991 the Canadian Government set up a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples; and in 2006 the Canadian Government provided $2 billion to the survivor’s previous Aboriginal discrimination in the Canadian school system. 

Yet, despite rising awareness of the historical plight and the success of some reparation schemes, there is still distrust of reparational schemes- Australia’s no vote as the case in point. The question remains then, where do supporters of reparation programmes go from here? How can they turn increasing awareness into increasing support? 

Moral and political theorists have often claimed that reparation schemes, whether that be symbolic or material reparations, are imperative. This claim is often based on two separate arguments: 1) utilitarian argument; and 2) a rights-based argument. In this sense, we should pursue reparations as they may equalize the oppressed against the privileged or restore the rights of the oppressed. Furthermore, either argument relies on an additional claim that shows that the historical oppression and inequality has undermined the current minorities’ rights or standing in society. This raises an important conundrum as the arguments that are articulated by politicians on the left are perhaps not as forthright as those forwarded as moral and political theorists.

This is to be expected though as politicians are often constrained by the practical dimensions of campaigns and voting: they have to pursue an understandable message that appeals to a large number of people. In the realm of reparations, those on the left have often been torn between arguing that such reparations would be transformative. Meanwhile, they are also trying to argue that such reparations would not change much to avoid scaring away moderate voters who may be more reluctant to endorse a seemingly radical measure. This potentially raises a catch 22 for the left, how might they satisfy the potential egalitarian intuitiveness of reparational schemes while retaining their electoral appeal. 

This dilemma is evident in Australia’s voice referendum and particularly the referendum booklet released by both campaigns to voters that summarises their positions. 

In the YES campaign’s section, they grounded support for the constitutional changes through ‘recognition’, ‘listening’ and ‘better results.’ Moreover, they continually cited the institutional inequality that Aboriginals face through worse life expectancy, educational opportunity and a higher suicide rate and infant mortality rate. Despite this, there was no overt appeal to the principles of equality and egalitarianism.

This perhaps represents a clear example of the left’s reparation dilemma in action: the left is happy to detail the unequal relations between the majority and the minority which are sustained by the historical oppressions but not comfortable to overtly ground these concerns as a fundamental issue of egalitarianism. This is made worse as egalitarianism was seized by the right. For example, in Australia’s voice referendum, the NO campaign was allowed to argue that such reparations give preferential treatment to Aboriginals. Through this point they contended that reparations they went against the very principles of egalitarianism as they cited a former federal court judge who contended that the vote may mean that ‘we are not all equal.’ This for the left, feels like a disappointing retreat from the very principles that should encapsulate it.

A solution?

Where does this leave us regarding reparations? Perhaps the left needs to be more direct and forward about the moral issues at stake. In this sense, the left needs to be clear about why most people find The Killers of the Flower Moon such an abhorrent story: it’s a tale of egalitarian injustices and we find this intuitively awful. Additionally, the same goes for the UK Government’s treatment of the Windrush generation. Consequently, more needs to be done to connect this intuitive reaction to such historical injustices and the lasting impact they have in modern society and reparational programmes themselves. The left needs to be clear that this is an issue of egalitarianism. To clarify, our commitment and the intuitiveness of equality and egalitarianism is why we find such historical injustices abhorrent and the left needs to be clear that this can be satisfied through reparations. This is because they promote equal standing and equal outcomes. Nevertheless, it’s not enough to say this in other words as the Australian YES campaign did, it needs to be an overt link to the principles of egalitarianism and equality.

Therefore, maybe this is an issue of framing for the left. This is not to say that a simple reframing of the debate will solve the issue. However, by making it forthrightly about equality it may do something to harm the right’s issue ownership of equality in the current debate. Moreover, reframing may do some work to equate reparational programmes more closely with other equality-based policies that are so consistently endorsed such as equal pay and anti-discrimination laws. Potentially then, a more forthright endorsement of equality and egalitarianism in pro-reparation arguments may open a window of opportunity for the left.