Bhinneka Tunggal Ika is a popular Indonesian phrase meaning -œunity in diversity.- Through comparing Canadian and Indonesian approaches to conceptualizing and administering legal pluralism vis-Ã -vis indigenous peoples, the paper uses this concept to recommend direction for the administration of justice in Canada. The areas of comparison are the three main barriers to instituting a robust legal pluralism in Canada -“ legitimacy, dependency, and implementation. Where Asian and particularly Indonesian philosophies of legal pluralism create an atmosphere that legitimates legal pluralism’s role as a nation-building tool, North American philosophies exacerbate an already adversarial and hierarchical relationship between multiple coexisting legal orders. While these divergent ways of framing legal pluralism have not resulted in large differences for these countries in terms of legislating to reconcile the existence of indigenous legal orders with those of the state, they have affected the way indigenous peoples and state citizens actually practice such coexistence. In general, current Indonesian practices founded on the idea of regionalism and bhinneka tunggal ika (unity in diversity) offer more opportunities for indigenous legal traditions to function. In contrast, Canadian practices founded on the centralization of power and the dominance of state legal order over indigenous ones hinder such opportunities. Ironically, the origins of the Canadian legal system and the creation of the nation were dependent on and shaped significantly by indigenous and non-indigenous societies’ early respect for each other’s legal orders -“ as treaties and early Canadian jurisprudence show. This paper advocates for a return to that respect in the interest of Canadian nation-building.
