Opinion Editorial: Improving Participation for Indigenous Communities

This opinion editorial examines the principle of the common good, defining it through the lens of John Rawls' communitarian and distributive principles, with a focus on the latter's relevance to indigenous communities. The editorial highlights the importance of the distributive principle in addressing the specific rights and needs of indigenous populations, particularly in areas like education, healthcare, business, and law. It then discusses the challenges that hinder indigenous communities from achieving their rights and freedoms, including poor governance, the lasting effects of colonization, and disparities in healthcare. The editorial provides both local and global contexts, referencing international laws and declarations that support indigenous rights, while also acknowledging the ongoing discrimination and loss of resources faced by these communities. The piece concludes by emphasizing the need for improved governance and the realization of the distributive principle to promote the common good for indigenous populations.

Running head: OPINION EDITORIAL 1
Opinion Editorial: Improving the Participation for Indigenous Communities
Name
Institutional Affiliation

OPINION EDITORIAL 2
Definition of the Principle of the Common Good
The common good refers to an overall model that is used by community members in
a political perspective for practical reasoning. The community members create facilities that
serve a certain common interests, and serve a shared point of deliberations (Hussain, 2018).
John Rawls, a political theorist classified the common good into the communitarian and
distributive principles. The communitarian principle argues that each individual has an equal
right to have the most extensive liberty that is compatible to a similar liberty for other
individuals. The distributive principle views citizens in terms of various subgroups that
comprise of people born into certain status within social life. The subgroups determine the
independence of the citizens in terms of choice, clad at birth and innate talent levels
(Hussain, 2018).
The context of participation of indigenous communities in various fields such as
education, the distributive principle of common good is suitable in describing health
sciences, business and law. The principle argues that social facilities should address the
sectional interests based on the prescription of the distributive principle (Hussain, 2018).
The indigenous populations are subgroups that are defined by their positions of birth and
social situations. Therefore, they have specific rights facilities that should guide their
survival.
Discussion
The distributive principle argues that the economic and social inequalities should be
arranged to ensure that they are accepted reasonably to every person’s advantage, and they
are attached to the offices and positions that are open to all (Jaede, 2017). Based on the
distributive principle of common good, indigenous population have the rights to create and
maintain designated facilities for their common good based on their social status. However,

OPINION EDITORIAL 3
they are unable to achieve and enjoy their rights and freedoms for common resources and
facilities due to various challenges.
Poor governance is a major challenge in the local context within Australia that affects
the indigenous populations. Whin the Australian context, community governance involves the
strengthening of decision-making among the indigenous communities, promoting their
identity and goals, shared commitment to the governance processes chosen by their
organizations building individuals’ skills and enhancing control over other organizations
(Tsey, McCalman, Bainbridge, & Brown, 2012).
Another challenge is the experience of colonization that has long-term effects on the
indigenous population and has resulted in enormous inequalities within the health status of
indigenous citizens. For instance, the life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians was 10 years less than of non-Indigenous Australians. Similar trends were
demonstrated among indigenous and non-indigenous populations in United States, Canada
and New ZeaLand (Harfield, Davy, McArthur, Munn, Brown, & Brown, 2018). In the field
of healthcare and medicine, medical education initiatives have failed to yield adequate
outcomes in the improvement of healthcare for indigenous populations and the minimization
of gaps and disparities (Jones et al., 2019). Durey and Thompson (2012) explained that
countries that were colonised such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Latin America, and
Unites States have challenges achieving equal rights and sustainability of indigenous people.
Australia records the highest disparities in terms of life expectancies and representation
indigenous people and non-indigenous populations.
Local and Global Context
Phillips (2015) also confirmed that the international law guarantees and upholds the
rights of indigenous people on the basis of human security, cultural preservation traditional
lands and knowledge. Additionally, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and

OPINION EDITORIAL 4
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man along with other international
treaties support the distributive principle of common good. They support indigenous
populations in their efforts to achieve cultural and physical survival through participation
and recognition in development projects that threaten their environmental sustainability.
Such declarations prevent indigenous populations from forceful removal from their lands
and uphold that indigenous people should be relocated only after prior, free and informed
consent, and after agreement of fair and just compensation (Phillips, 2015).
Unfortunately, in spite of the numerous declarations that support the common good of
indigenous populations, they have continued to face discrimination, and deprivation of their
fundamental freedoms and human rights. In local contexts, most indigenous communities
have lost their land and the valuable resources to state enterprises commercial companies and
colonists. Additionally, the preservation of their historical identity and culture is jeopardised
in most parts of the world (Phillips, 2015). In Australia for instance poor governance that is
characterised by favourism, corruption, neglect, nepotism, self-serving public official and
political leaders, red tape and apathy are poses a critical challenge in the realization of
distributive principle of common good in the indigenous population (Tsey et al., 2012).

OPINION EDITORIAL 5
References
Durey, A., & Thompson, S. C. (2012). Reducing the health disparities of Indigenous
Australians: time to change focus. BMC health services research, 12, 151.
doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-151
Harfield, S. G., Davy, C., McArthur, A., Munn, Z., Brown, A., & Brown, N. (2018).
Characteristics of indigenous primary health care service delivery models: a
systematic scoping review. Globalization and Health, 14(1), 12.
Hussain, W. (2018). The common good. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/common-good/
Jaede, M. (2017). The concept of the common good. University of Edinburgh working
paper. Retrieved from
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Jaede.pdf
Jones, R., Crowshoe, L., Reid, P., Calam, B., Curtis, E., Green, M., ... & Milroy, J. (2019).
Educating for indigenous health equity: An international consensus
statement. Academic Medicine, 94(4), 512.
Phillips, J. S. (2015). The rights of indigenous peoples under international law. Global
Bioethics, 26(2), 120-127. doi:10.1080/11287462.2015.1036514
Tsey, K., McCalman, J., Bainbridge, R., & Brown, C. (2012). Improving Indigenous
community governance through strengthening Indigenous and government
organisational capacity (Vol. 10, pp. 1-15). Australian Government.