liberal citizenship: ambiguities and inconsistencies37 whether citizenship is, or can be, genuinely inclusive – even of its own subjects – begins to surface. Now, looking at the broader context of multi-ethnic state systems, practices arise that appear to accommodate the political and social dominance of one group with the concept of democratic citizenship. A major trend within Western nation-states has been the development of new calls for inclusion, representation and protection. But, as explained by Isin and Turner, “what is new is the economic, social and cultural conditions that make possible the articulation of new claims and the content and form of these claims as citizenship rights” (Isin and Turner 2002, 1). Hence, depictions of these new frameworks for rights and obligations as “minority rights” are limited and misleading because these calls for rights and representation are not put forward by distinct collectives and cultures merely because of their statistical minority; rather, such claims for inclusion and recognition are the result of a series of changes in economic, social, political and cultural processes and structures. An analysis of these processes also reveals the (often devastating) dynamics of the citizenship available to minority or marginalized communities within the state system. This illustrates the importance of the specific social and political milieu in determining the practice and relation of citizenship rights. With an examination of the kind of model of state-minority relations that is adopted by a society, certain complexities, inconsistencies, and ambiguities emerge around the formulation of the types of rights, for which groups, and in which contexts (Kymlicka 2008). These models often depend heavily on the distinction between indigenous and minority communities and their associated rights, argues Canadian political theorist Will Kymlicka, pointing to the official international legal position “that indigenous peoples have a right to accommodation, whereas minorities have a right to integration” (Kymlicka 2008, 3). An accommodationist approach involves questions of self-government, self-determination and institutional pluralism, whereas an integrationist approach focuses on questions of non-discrimination and socio-civil rights. Kymlicka explains the use of these approaches to understanding the differing rationales behind indigenous rights and minority rights in the development and interpretation of key international legal texts by the United Nations Working Group on Minorities and the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (Kymlicka 2008, 4). Three basic differences between minorities and indigenous peoples takes shape as a result of these initiatives: (i) minorities seek institutional integra­ tion while indigenous peoples seek a degree of institutional separateness,