How Can Indigenous Self-government be Perfected?

For the past few decades, the Canadian government has been attempting to reconcile their relationship with Indigenous peoples and correct their past wrongdoings in order to move forward to create a better future for Indigenous peoples in Canada. The government’s commitment to reconciliation appears through more representation for Indigenous people, which allows for the recognition of Indigenous issues and voices in the government. Although the government has made an effort to increase representation, it has not reached its full potential due to the lack of Indigenous self-government. Indigenous representation inherently involves giving Indigenous peoples the power to make decisions for themselves through self-government—which comes in many forms—due to the complexities of pre-colonial forms of Indigenous sovereignty.

In this essay, I will analyze the government’s current solution to the under-representation of Indigenous peoples, then I will look at two solutions to improving Indigenous representation and analyze their merits and disadvantages, using real-world examples of each solution in order to develop the most ideal form of Indigenous representation. The two solutions are Indigenous ridings and Indigenous sovereignty. Indigenous ridings are unique ridings with Indigenous representatives that focus on integrating Indigenous self-government into the current government system, and Indigenous sovereignty focuses on the separation of Indigenous self-government with the current government and implementing pre-colonial forms of Indigenous self-government. Both solutions tackle the under-representation of Indigenous peoples in the federal government, but they each focus on two different aspects of Indigenous representation: integration vs. decolonization.

Great amounts of progress have been made in representing Indigenous peoples in the government and acknowledging their rights. For example, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples is an Indigenous-only committee in parliament that focuses on issues pertaining to Truth and Reconciliation, the Indian Act, self-government, and more issues related to Indigenous peoples. Additionally, many organizations across Canada have been established, including The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), that work together to represent First Nations, Inuit, Métis, status and Non-status Indians living on and off-reserve in legal and government-related cases and bills. But these actions view Indigenous representation as synonymous with the representation of ethnic minorities in the sense that presence is sufficient representation. In reality, Indigenous peoples are very different from ethnic minorities in terms of representation. Indigenous representation requires Indigenous peoples to be able to directly make decisions for themselves because of Canada’s history of stripping Indigenous peoples of their autonomy.

The sources I looked at were divided between two main approaches: one approach being giving Indigenous peoples more power by deeply integrating Indigenous sovereignty into the current political structure, and the other approach being focusing on decolonization by establishing Indigenous self-governance through the idea of shared sovereignty.

The first solution that many sources mentioned is the idea of Indigenous ridings, which separates the Indigenous nations into ridings that each have an Indigenous representative who are elected by the Indigenous peoples in their riding. Réal Carrière, a Nehinuw and Métis award-winning researcher and Assistant Professor of Political Science, and Royce Koop, an award-winning author and Professor of Political Science, claim that developing Indigenous ridings allows Indigenous peoples to reclaim power in a colonial system and gain the little autonomy they can have in this government system. On the other hand, Richard Stacey, an author and Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, argues that fitting into the current Canadian government through ridings is insufficient, and Indigenous sovereignty must involve re-establishing pre-colonial systems of Indigenous self-governance.

I agree that Indigenous ridings can provide Indigenous peoples with accessible forms of power while still maintaining current systems of government, but I also acknowledge that, although Indigenous voices are amplified through Indigenous ridings, Indigenous cultures and traditions are continuously ignored. I believe that this is due to the inherent integration of Indigenous peoples into the government systems of the state that Indigenous ridings present and lack of recognition of pre-colonial systems of Indigenous self-government.

Carrière and Koop counter Stacey’s point, stating that Indigenous ridings succeed because they accommodate “Indigenous political theories and practices while recognizing that a singular Indigenous political entity does not exist.” Essentially, they are saying that the system acknowledges that Indigenous self-government needs vary greatly between different regions, and allows accommodation to region-specific issues. They are also arguing that since one part of Indigenous cultures is a unique view on territorial boundaries, Indigenous ridings accommodate Indigenous cultures through its Indigenous ridings-specific boundaries. Though I agree with their point, I must add that they mention only one part of a diverse range of cultures.

Yet, Indigenous ridings have been implemented before outside of Canada. In New Zealand, there are two electoral rolls (the New Zealand version of ridings): one general roll and one Māori roll. The Māori are the Indigenous people of New Zealand. Each roll has different parliamentary candidates that are split up between different regions. The Māori electoral roll has been extremely effective in increasing Māori representation in the government, allowing the Māori an equal number of seats in parliament as the percentage of the Māori population in New Zealand as well as allowing the Māori a voice in both Māori and general issues. The Māori roll shows that Indigenous ridings can be effective in increasing Indigenous representation in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous issues.

I think Indigenous ridings triumph most in their integration of Indigenous self-government into the current government system, because, while this feature is very much criticized, it shows how Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples can exist and thrive together. But I acknowledge that Indigenous ridings do not fully recognize the diversity of Indigenous cultures and traditions. Robert A. Milen, an Aboriginal Research Co-ordinator at the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, reminds us that “the creation of [Indigenous ridings] is but one component in” the path towards Indigenous self-government. So, what is the next step in building Indigenous self-government?

The second solution, which outlines the next step towards Indigenous self-government, is Indigenous sovereignty, which is a separate government that is ruled by Indigenous peoples. Meaghan Williams, academic researcher in Indigenous-settler relations who worked at the Assembly of First Nations and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource’s Aboriginal Policy Branch, and Robert Schertzer, a former member of the Government of Canada with a focus on social policy and intergovernmental relations, concede that Indigeneity cannot be treated like ethnicity in terms of representation in the sense that presence is insufficient representation. Instead, Indigenous representation must involve Indigenous sovereignty in order to re-establish Indigenous culture and traditions in the government. Carrière and Koop argue that there are many ways to preserve Indigenous culture while an Indigenous person is acting as a member of parliament outside the context of Indigenous self-government. Their unique backgrounds and histories provide different opinions and views on certain issues that only an Indigenous person could provide, which can emphasize Indigenous culture through mere involvement in parliament. I disagree with Carrière and Koop because they do not acknowledge the inherent colonization of Indigenous practices that Indigenous ridings maintain. Due to the presence of pre-colonial systems of Indigenous sovereignty, decolonization is necessary when considering improving Indigenous representation further. Implementing pre-colonial systems of Indigenous sovereignty can take many forms. I wonder which form is most effective?

One form of Indigenous self-government has, in fact, been implemented in Canada, specifically, in the territory of Yukon. In Yukon, 11 out of the 14 First Nations are self-governing, which was achieved through the Umbrella Final Agreement. Currently, the eleven self-governing First Nations have a “right to develop their own constitutions, and pass laws for their own settlement land and citizens.” This form of Indigenous sovereignty follows state systems of government and does not adhere to pre-colonial systems of Indigenous sovereignty. I believe that this form of self-government is effective in granting Indigenous sovereignty, while also acknowledging that Indigenous cultures are constantly changing by not fully embracing pre-colonial systems of Indigenous sovereignty. Paul Nadasdy, a researcher with a focus on the people of the Kluane First Nation in the southwest of Yukon and author of Sovereignty’s Entailments: First Nation State Formation in the Yukon, disagrees with me, stating that the self-government agreements in Yukon continue to apply colonial ideas of sovereignty, including “the existence of geographically and socially bounded First Nations” on First Nations peoples and ignore “First Nations’ prior sovereignty.” I agree that the system of Indigenous self-government in Yukon does not fully decolonize colonial systems of government, but I must add that it is also important to acknowledge that although many aspects of the Indigenous self-government in Yukon did not exist prior to colonization, many Indigenous cultures and traditions are changing from their pre-colonial forms, and possibly could accommodate a blend between pre-colonial practices and modern practices.

Kathryn Reinders, a Graduate Research Assistant in Political Science at the University of Guelph, suggests focusing on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which declares that the right of Indigenous peoples “to freely determine their political status and freely pursue economic, social and cultural development” is a key right. She presents the government of the Nisga’a people in British Columbia’s Nass Valley as an example of the application of UNDRIP’s definition of Indigenous sovereignty. When the Nisga’a Lisims government was formed, all Nisga’a people were removed from the Indian Act and the government was given all rights to the land they occupied. In the Nisga’a Lisims government, there are representatives not only from the Nass Valley region, but also from people living around the land they own.

The central question is how Indigenous representation in the Canadian government can be improved while preserving pre-colonial Indigenous traditions and recognizing that Indigenous sovereignty must also adapt to post-colonial government systems. Indigenous ridings and Indigenous sovereignty offer two possible answers to this question, each with distinct strengths and limitations. Indigenous ridings are an efficient method of Indigenous self-government that works within colonial structures of governance. Indigenous sovereignty, by contrast, offers a stronger path toward decolonization because it recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to govern themselves according to their own laws, cultures, and political traditions.

I believe that the Nisga’a Lisims government is a perfect amalgamation of all the best parts of the different forms of Indigenous self-government that the previous sources presented. It presents Indigenous sovereignty in the context of the current government system while also acknowledging pre-colonial systems of community governance and allowing the Indigenous government to finally rule alongside the state government in co-sovereign collaboration.