It is interesting to catch up on the furore over the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, since I have to admit that I am a latecomer to the question. Now here is a question for readers to bat around: granted that the Akaka bill is based on the particular, local circumstances of Hawaii, isn’t this recourse to such an ethnic state that claims the right of secession one of the few paths left to decentralists now that state sovereignty is largely irrelevant in our politics? Might this law enable the native Hawaiians to do what the Vermont Republic folks hope to do? The “native Hawaiians” tell a tale of exploitation and oppression–much of it is mythologised and exaggerated, as such tales will always be (anyone read the implausible list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence lately?)–but aren’t perceived grievances, even if they seem absurd to us, real grievances all the same? But before anyone peg me as an enthusiast for Hawaiian nationalism, let’s not get carried away.

The problem with the Akaka bill is not that it threatens Hawaiian independence (in any event, the government, and the Navy in particular, would never allow a strategic territory like Hawaii to be lost), but that it will simply be another layer of bureaucracy within the existing system, like the Scottish Parliament and other token contrivances of New Labour’s brand of oppressive pseudo-decentralisation. The problem is not that it will run the risk of challenging the forces of consolidation, which would be excellent, but that it is actually going to be just another vehicle for controlling government spoils.