“Power,” as Lord Acton famously put it, “tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Our rethinking of the tangled relationship between the state and its non-dominant cultural minorities should lead us to resist allocating absolutist notions of jurisdictional authority to either of them. Greater promise lies in envisioning new ways of dividing and sharing jurisdictional authority between them. By creating an ongoing dialogue between state- and group-based norms according to the principles of joint governance, it is hoped that a new “horizontal” separation of powers may become established: each entity will now be required to contribute its distinct legal input devoid of monopoly, with each individual self-selecting his or her own jurisdictions. But this will not be an easy transformation. It will demand vigilance and patience to break away from deep-seated modern assumptions about the exclusivity of jurisdictional authority.

We must reject the “hands-off” message broadcast by the “unavoidable costs” approach to multiculturalism, because this often simply cements the group's license to perpetuate preexisting power hierarchies at the expense of more vulnerable group members. At the same time, we must reject the hierarchical enforcement of state law, as it is replayed in the “reuniversalized citizenship” response. In rejecting these “either/or” types of solutions to the paradox of multicultural vulnerability, we are opening the door to newer, more complex, and more attractive state- and group-based possibilities for dialogue.