Ka hoku a ka pakipika: possible futures for Hawai'i and Hawaiians

Abstract

Since the Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown in 1893 and Hawai'i was annexed in 1898 by the United States, the question of Hawaiian sovereignty and the future of Hawai'i has become a perennial one. For a time, the issue was obscured by questions of Hawai'i's status as a territory and then state of the United States of America. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a reawakening of pride in culture and political consciousness by the Hawaiian people during the renaissance period. Since then there has been a proliferation of organizations and groups linked to Hawaiian sovereignty. Since the late 1980s, the sovereignty question has become a dominant feature of Hawai'i's political landscape. With a number of sovereignty organizations advocating distinctive sovereignty models, this thesis has examined the major models and assessed their feasibility as viable futures for Hawai'i and Hawaiians. Within this thesis and its examination of the models, the term sovereignty is employed flexibly to reflect its usage by the groups involved. Three major sovereignty models are examined - independent statehood, nation within a nation and state within a state. Each is examined in terms of a conceptual framework, comparative experience of relevant polities, as well as application to Hawai'i and implementation of the model. Each model is assessed to determine how it might meet the needs of the Hawaiian people in the preservation and betterment of the people and culture, protection of their rights, and capacity to control their own destiny. Both the nation within a nation and state within a state models are explored. They are found to possess territorial characteristics particularly in terms of a land base that, when applied to Hawai'i, potentially to render them unfeasible as mechanisms of self-governance. The idea of sovereignty-at-suffrance, that is the endowment of self-governance in each particular model is dependent on the continued benevolence of the United States, was considered both disturbing and unsatisfactory in meeting the needs of Hawaiians. The term in itself is a contradiction in terms since sovereignty is either exercised or not. A status that is qualified in these terms, that it is 'dependent on the continuing benevolence of the United States' ceases to be sovereign. The independent statehood model was the preferred option of the thesis for Hawaiians. This would create an environment more conducive to the resolution of the problems and meeting the needs of Hawaiians. However, this would not prove sufficient alone, and a number of proactive measures would needed. The most prominent difficulty attached to this model would lie in its implementation, since it is unlikely that the United States will in either the immediate or near future allow Hawai'i to become independent. Yet, this was not considered sufficient cause to render the model unfeasible. Intensive education of all of the peoples of Hawai'i is needed about how the independent statehood model might benefit them. In the end, any decision regarding the future of Hawai'i will affect not only Hawaiians but indeed all the peoples of Hawai'i. While Hawaiians look forward to the day when once again they may call Hawai'i their own, they must not create a new injustice.