Williams 2019

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

Canadian Journal of Political Science (2019), 1–20

doi:10.1017/S0008423919000192

RESEARCH ARTICLE / ÉTUDE ORIGINALE

Is Indigeneity like Ethnicity? Theorizing and


Assessing Models of Indigenous Political
Representation
Meaghan Williams1* and Robert Schertzer2
1
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3 and
2
Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3
*Corresponding author. Email: meaghan.williams@mail.utoronto.ca

Abstract
Within the broader literature on political representation, studies exploring Indigenous forms
of representation are rather limited. Where they exist, they tend to explore how Western
models of political representation include Indigenous peoples, conflating Indigenous groups
with ethnic minorities. This article asks whether and how Indigenous political representa-
tion might be distinguished from the representation of ethnic minorities. Our argument is
that Indigenous groups’ identities tend to be based on different claims and relationships to
the state than ethnic groups, which leads to political mobilization seeking a means to
respond to the colonial nation-state project. We develop a theoretical framework that iden-
tifies three principles that ought to inform an effective and legitimate model of Indigenous
political representation: recognition, protection and decolonization. We then apply this the-
oretical framework to assess the extent to which existing models of Indigenous representa-
tion in Bolivia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway correspond with these three principles.

Résumé
Dans la bibliographie sur la représentation politique, les études explorant les formes
autochtones de représentation sont plutôt limitées. Lorsqu’elles existent, elles ont tendance
à déterminer la manière dont les modèles occidentaux de représentation politique incluent
les peuples autochtones, les associant aux minorités ethniques. Cet article demande s’il
convienne de distinguer la représentation politique autochtone de celle des minorités eth-
niques et dans quelle mesure. Notre argument est que les identités des groupes autoch-
tones ont tendance à être fondées sur des revendications et des relations avec l’État
différentes de celles des groupes ethniques, ce qui mène à une mobilisation politique
recherchant le moyen de répondre au projet colonial nation-État. Nous élaborons un
cadre théorique qui définit trois principes susceptibles de guider un modèle efficace et
légitime de représentation politique autochtone : la reconnaissance, la protection et la
décolonisation. Nous appliquons ensuite ce cadre théorique pour évaluer dans quelle
mesure les modèles existants de représentation autochtone en Bolivie, au Canada, en
Nouvelle-Zélande et en Norvège correspondent à ces trois principes.

© Canadian Political Science Association (l’Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de
science politique 2019

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
2 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer
Keywords: Political representation; Indigenous peoples; comparative politics; ethnic groups

Positionality Statement
As non-Indigenous scholars, we are keenly aware of the limitations we encounter
when carrying out work that engages with the heterogeneous political identities,
perspectives and objectives of Indigenous peoples. In line with this view, we actively
seek to avoid the objectification of Indigenous peoples and their lived realities and
to avoid prescribing solutions to challenges that we cannot fully understand. Our
objective in this article is thus to reflect upon and open up space within a larger
body of literature for the perspectives and needs of Indigenous peoples as expressed
by themselves and to account for, wherever possible, the ongoing marginalization
of Indigenous peoples in a variety of contexts.

Introduction
Representation is a critical component of effective and legitimate political institu-
tions. The central challenge in achieving representative institutions is to find mech-
anisms that can reflect the diverse needs, interests and views of different groups
within a political community. While there are many such groups, this article
focuses on Indigenous peoples.
There is a well-established theoretical and empirical literature on political repre-
sentation, though consideration of Indigenous voices and identity within this body
of work is relatively circumspect. The central focus of the literature is the impor-
tance of “presence” within political institutions to achieve descriptive and substan-
tive representation (Pitkin, 1967). The groups most often seen as lacking presence,
and thus requiring institutional mechanisms that facilitate their inclusion in the
political process through electoral designs, are women and ethnic minorities
(Mansbridge, 1999). Following Mala Htun (2004), one of the foundational logics
of this work is that institutional mechanisms for representing gender and ethnicity
rightly differ: gender is framed as an identity that cuts across partisan divides, and
so quotas for female candidates are typically seen as the means to facilitate the elec-
tion of women, whereas ethnicity is framed as coinciding with political cleavages,
and thus reserved seats in legislatures for ethnic groups and parties are seen as
the means most likely to facilitate their inclusion in politics. To the extent that
Indigeneity is considered in this body of work, the tendency is to explore the inclu-
sion of Indigenous peoples in Western models of political representation, equating
them with other ethnic groups and viewing them as similar to migrants, racialized
groups or national minorities (Htun, 2004; Krook and O’Brien, 2010; Lublin and
Wright, 2013; Bird, 2014; Kroeber, 2017).
This tendency raises important questions: Is Indigeneity like ethnicity? Does
Indigenous identity cut across or coincide with political cleavages in the modern
nation-state system?
This article takes up these questions and the related conceptual puzzle of repre-
senting Indigenous peoples within contemporary democracies, clarifying the extent
to which Indigenous and ethnic identities differ. Its goals are to outline how theories
of representation ought to account for the identity and interests of Indigenous
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 3

peoples separate from ethnic minorities and to assess the extent to which existing
models of institutional design can account for these differences in practice. The
core argument is that Indigeneity is distinct from ethnicity, defined by unique repre-
sentational needs that stem from Indigenous peoples’ relation to the colonial nation-
state project. This relational aspect of Indigeneity complicates the means and goals of
political representation, requiring arrangements and institutions that are designed to
both respond to and rectify a colonial past, rather than ones designed to establish
mechanisms facilitating inclusion in the state infrastructure or ones that re-create
imposed forms of political autonomy. To help guide the development of such insti-
tutional mechanisms, we seek out the key principles that ought to inform an effective
and legitimate theory of Indigenous representation. Taking into account the unique
components of Indigenous identity and the political objectives voiced by Indigenous
groups through their mobilization and scholarship, we find that three principles
underpin most understandings of Indigenous representation: recognition, protection
and decolonization. When assessing actual models of Indigenous representation
against these three principles, it becomes clear that existing approaches largely fall
short of these ideals; often, these models are flawed precisely because they conflate
Indigenous groups with other ethnic minorities.
Our argument builds upon a particularly strong tradition of work on Indigenous
and minority national political representation in Canada. This scholarship has
identified Indigenous groups as distinct from other national minority groups,
pointing both to the particular challenges Indigenous groups face in colonial
state infrastructure (Papillon, 2012; Sabin, 2014) and to the multitude of avenues
by which Indigenous peoples might exercise their autonomy within the state
(Abele and Prince, 2006; Ladner, 2005). Historically, however, the focus of this lit-
erature has been on self-government (Henderson, 1994; 2002; Canada, Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) rather than considering institutions of
shared rule, as we do in this article. The work that grapples with the complexity
of Indigenous political representation in the Canadian context—and its implica-
tions for the theory of political representation—has not been sufficiently integrated
into the broader comparative politics literature. We seek to build on these insights
to advance thinking about institutions of shared rule in Canada and more broadly.
The article proceeds in four parts. We start by discussing representative theory
and by distinguishing between ethnicity and Indigeneity. Next we identify the prin-
ciples distilled from Indigenous mobilization and scholarship that ought to inform
Indigenous representative mechanisms. We then apply these principles to assess
existing models of Indigenous representation in four countries (Bolivia, Canada,
New Zealand and Norway). Assessing this cross-section of institutional models
against the three principles shows their limitations (and promise). We conclude
by discussing how our analysis can help us move past the view that political repre-
sentation for Indigenous peoples is “good” and toward an understanding of what
“good representation” should look like.

Untangling Threads: Theorizing Ethnic and Indigenous Representation


Three elements of the contemporary literature on ethnic representation are critical
to consider when theorizing models of Indigenous representation, particularly
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
4 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

when developing a framework of Indigenous political representation that stands in


contrast to theories of ethnic representation.
The first element is the foundational role that presence plays in the theory of
political representation for minority groups. Presence in political institutions is
seen as the necessary condition to achieve descriptive and substantive representa-
tion (Pitkin, 1967). For ethnic minorities, there are two sets of mechanisms most
often promoted to include group delegates or trustees within the state: electoral
mechanisms (such as reserved seats, constituency designs, or lower thresholds for
ethnic candidates and parties; Htun, 2004; Bird, 2014) and territorial autonomy
(Htun, 2016).
The second element is a recent strand of theory that focuses on the relational
nature of representation and the act of making a claim for special status and rep-
resentation. From this position, representation is seen as a dynamic two-way pro-
cess whereby constituents choose representatives and representatives choose
constituents through claims to a connection (Saward, 2006: 301–2). This concep-
tion of representation is based on an explicit link between recognition and repre-
sentation: it is the recognition or rejection of claims that are seen to shape the
dynamics and legitimacy of a representative relationship and mechanisms
(Rehfeld, 2006).
The third element is a focus on the value of including minorities within state
institutions. Central to this work is accounting for the outcomes of representative
mechanisms. This work highlights the effect of minority inclusion on decision
making (Swain, 1993; Turgeon and Gagnon, 2013; Schertzer, 2016), the empower-
ment of the groups themselves and the overall increase in political legitimacy
(Banducci et al., 2004).
These developments in the theory and study of ethnic representation raise a
number of problems—and potentially fruitful avenues—when applied to
Indigenous representation. The problems of applying theories of ethnic representa-
tion to Indigenous peoples largely stem from incorrectly conflating two different
forms of identity.
Broadly, ethnicity is an ascriptive category derived from symbols and boundary
markers between groups of people (Barth, 1969). More precisely, ethnic groups
are a form of identity on a conceptual continuum with nations (Smith, 1998:
181). The widely accepted definition of ethnic groups reinforces this continuum:
they are named groups that loosely share a set of characteristics (history, ancestry,
culture) and a home territory, but their sense of identity, political institutions and
public culture is not as developed as nations (Smith, 2009: 27). Ethnic minorities
are generally understood through one of two lenses: 1) as minorities by will—groups
that mobilize for independence from other groups within a state (for example,
Québécois); or 2) as minorities by force—groups that seek a measure of inclusion
within the national community but are denied access due to their ethnic heritage
(for example, migrants) (Laponce, 1960). In short, ethnic minorities are inherently
tied to the nation-state enterprise, as either “proto-nations” seeking their own state
or as groups that want to better integrate into the national community in some
respect.
By contrast, Indigeneity as an identity largely stems from social and political
movements of indigenism, in which specific groups of peoples assert their political
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 5

identities as the original inhabitants of particular tracts of land. This claim to abo-
riginality (to initial and ongoing habitation), combined with the significance of par-
ticular tracts of territory to these peoples’ spiritualities, is the anthropological
foundation of Indigenous identity. These ideas anchor Indigenous identity as a het-
erogeneous yet definitive category of identity and are strengthened by the kind of
global recognition of distinctiveness found in documents such as the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Following Knight
(2001), we contend that as groups that have faced explicit systemic discrimination
due to their Indigeneity, Indigenous peoples have legitimate claims to political rep-
resentation on that very basis.
Contemporary Indigenous identity can be further distinguished from ethnic iden-
tity by a specific relationship with the nation-state: Indigenous identities are held not
only as individuals or even as groups of individuals but as a relation of difference
with others and the colonial state (Weaver, 2001). Taiaiake Alfred has captured
this position well: “It has been said that being born Indian is being born into politics.
I believe this to be true; because being born a Mohawk of Kahnawake, I do not
remember a time free from the impact of political conflict” (Alfred, 1995: 1, quoted
in Ladner and McCrossan, 2007: 9). Indigenous identity is, at least in part, a political
identity held as a response to the legacy of relations between a people and a settler
colonial state. Thus, in addition to being defined through a process of self-
identification of Indigeneity and the communal confirmation of that identity by
those who share the same self-identification, Indigenous peoples are also defined
by their relations with states, governments and non-Indigenous national communi-
ties (Weaver, 2001; Bowen, 2007; Maddison, 2013).
Conflating ethnic and Indigenous political identity causes a significant compli-
cation for a theory of Indigenous representation: it problematizes the concept of
presence. For ethnic groups seeking their own state or inclusion in the state, pres-
ence within existing political institutions is a viable avenue to achieve legitimate and
effective governance. For Indigenous peoples, inclusion in existing institutions can
be at odds with the group’s political anchor. Promoting measures that are applica-
ble to ethnic groups, such as additional seats in national parliaments, devolution of
existing government powers or integration into existing political parties, can perpet-
uate a colonial relationship. Special Indigenous electoral districts—or reserved seats
in the national legislature—are the central mechanism promoted in this vein
(Ladner and McCrossan, 2007; Morden, 2016; Canada, Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing, 1991; Fleras, 1991; Knight, 2001; Tanguay
and Bittle, 2005; Evans and Hill, 2012; Medeiros and Frost, 2014). While many
of those promoting these mechanisms do so considering the complex colonial his-
tories and the past injustices of assimilative policies (Morden, 2016; Murphy, 2008),
there are also more strong-form critiques of these mechanisms as an extension of
the colonial enterprise (Schouls, 1996; Maddison, 2010; Williams, 2016). In short,
these critiques help us see that the main approaches promoting presence, which are
central to the theory of ethnic representation, fail to account for the unique iden-
tities, distinct claims and specific needs of Indigenous peoples.
The debate over specific mechanisms promoting Indigenous presence in state
institutions mirrors a foundational debate over the relationship between
Indigenous peoples and the colonial state enterprise. There is a significant scholarly
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
6 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

debate on this relationship in the Canadian context, between those stressing the
irreconcilability of Indigenous sovereignty within the colonial state enterprise
(Alfred, 2008; Coulthard, 2014) and those stressing that reconciliation can be
achieved through increased participation in the state (Borrows, 2000; Cairns,
2001). This divide and the related reflection on Indigenous identity bring the prob-
lem of presence as a basis for a theory of Indigenous political representation into
sharp relief: Indigenous voices and mobilization make clear that presence alone
cannot serve as the sufficient condition for an effective and legitimate model of
political representation. We cannot rely upon this core principle of ethnic represen-
tation to theorize and assess models of Indigenous representation. At the same
time, the other two aspects of recent representative theory—the relational and
claim-based understanding of representation and the focus on its value for the
minority group—can be adapted to build a theory that at least partially addresses
aspects of these problems.

Recognition, Protection and Decolonization: Principles of Indigenous


Representation
In this section we seek a correction to the approach of applying principles of ethnic
representation to inform and assess models of Indigenous political representation.
Turning away from a reliance on presence, we sketch alternative principles that can
inform a more justifiable basis for developing and assessing models of Indigenous
representation. These principles are drawn from the mobilization of Indigenous
peoples and the voices of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars reflecting on
the Indigenous–settler state relationship. Two lines of thought within this mobili-
zation and literature are particularly central to our theory: 1) simple descriptive rep-
resentation in state-level institutions does not necessarily provide substantive
representation of Indigenous views, nor has it tended to produce sufficient policy
outcomes for the attainment of Indigenous political objectives (Fleras, 1985;
Maddison, 2010); and 2) the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in settler states can
re-create unequal power structures, impose political orders and amount to an
assimilation into, or acceptance of, the colonial infrastructure (Alfred, 2005;
Murphy, 2008; Irlbacher-Fox, 2009; Coulthard, 2014; Nadasdy, 2017).
Given these foundations, we identify three principles unique to Indigenous
groups seeking models of political representation: recognition, protection and
decolonization. These three principles are informed by the critical literature on
Indigeneity, which has sought to grapple with the need for autonomous
Indigenous peoples to interact with and represent themselves to colonial settler
states. What differentiates these principles from other groups’ norms with regard
to political representation is their opposition to existing state infrastructures and
the push for principles that challenge the colonial narrative and respect the auton-
omy of Indigenous peoples (Alfred, 2008; Coulthard, 2014; Nadasdy, 2017).
Consequently, the three principles that we argue underpin most conceptions of
Indigenous political representation seek to respond to the limitations of the goal
of presence, while also serving as useful tools to assess models aimed at represent-
ing Indigeneity in and to settler states.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 7

Recognition
While the politics of recognition has been central to the claims of ethnic minorities
for special representative mechanisms, its application to Indigenous peoples is con-
troversial and contested. The conceptual ties to liberalism can frame the core tenets
of the politics of recognition—such as presence and inclusion in political institu-
tions—as extensions of the colonial project (Coulthard, 2014; Alfred, 2005).
Basing a model of political representation upon recognition can re-create signifi-
cant power imbalances between Indigenous groups and the colonial state.
Centring the colonial state as the key agent of recognition exacerbates the funda-
mental power imbalances in an Indigenous–settler relationship, reinforcing para-
digms of social suffering and delegitimizing Indigenous sovereignty as
autonomous from its recognition by the colonial state (Coulthard, 2014;
Irlbacher-Fox, 2009).
However, the claim for recognition can be reframed to decentre the state. The
fact of Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty prior to colonization and the use of this
fact as justification for a specifically Indigenous claim to self-determination are
what set their claim apart from other claims for representation. The claim to self-
determination often rests on the premise of “lost sovereignty” and the missed
opportunity of recognizing Indigenous statehood resulting from discriminatory
colonial architecture (Charters, 2010: 229). Consequently, the recognition of not only
the legitimacy but also the distinctiveness of the Indigenous claim to self-determination
is a crucial principle for Indigenous peoples seeking political representation. Such rec-
ognition has typically been denied or resisted by the governments of settler states, which
fear that acknowledgment of a sovereign Indigenous people could challenge the
legitimacy of state power or lead to secession (Charters, 2010). However,
Indigenous claims for recognition of their inherent sovereignty are rarely an out-
right rejection of all facets of state authority and almost never express a desire
for secession. Rather, the recognition that Indigenous peoples demand is a rejection
of status quo intergovernmental relations based on unilateralism, domination and
exclusion (Murphy, 2004).
While its form varies across cases, recognition, at a foundational level, is
grounded by the need for inclusion without imposition and for participation with-
out subjugation. Unlike ethnic minorities, whose political representation is aimed at
increasing the legitimacy, efficacy and trust of existing state structures or the
broader nation-state enterprise, Indigenous peoples’ objectives for political repre-
sentation are typically to reacquire Indigenous control over Indigenous affairs
and to establish an egalitarian relationship with non-Indigenous states and peoples
(Borrows, 2000). Indigenous autonomy presupposes not only an element of self-
government but also extensive relations with other existing state institutions and
peoples both within and outside of Indigenous territories (Broderstad, 2011).
The claim to Indigenous self-determination is not usually one of further
Indigenous alienation; instead, it is a claim that implies a focus on “shared destiny
and reciprocal dependency” (Broderstad, 2011: 898). The principle of recognition
can thus be reframed as one of sharedness and of mutuality, rather than a simple
extension to participate in existing state power structures. Where Indigenous groups
seek political representation, the principle of recognition grounds their

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
8 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

representation as an enactment of self-determination and an application of shared


sovereignty.

Protection
Alongside the demand for processes of recognition are requests for specific guaran-
tees of protection. In the context of Indigeneity, this is not a claim for paternalistic
protection by the state; rather, it is a principle of political representation that
empowers Indigenous peoples to protect themselves against further encroachments
by the state. Separation from, rather than inclusion in, state institutions is particu-
larly stressed by Indigenous peoples, for whom these institutions embody colonial
attitudes and practices. Thus, the principle of protection is closely related to, and
predicated on, state acceptance of the principle of recognition. Indigenous groups
seek a principle of recognition that secures mutuality and consent of their right
to self-determination symbolically, as well as a principle of protection that secures
this right by way of substantial, enforceable and binding guarantees (Murphy,
2004). For many Indigenous groups, the embedding of these guarantees into settler
state constitutions fosters their sense of protection, granting them leverage in both
domestic and international spheres (Broderstad, 2011). Constitutional recognition
of Indigenous identities, rights and sovereignties provides one means by which
these peoples can seek protection and redress by invoking the very institutions of
the colonial settler state (Dubois and Saunders, 2013).
However, it does not follow that Indigenous peoples necessarily seek institutions
of political representation within existing state structures. A corollary of the princi-
ple of protection is that it ensures that Indigenous peoples have the right to choose
by and for themselves the means by which they interact with the colonial settler
state. Their institutions of political representation must be self-determining, and
the existing institutions of the settler state need not be employed by Indigenous
peoples where they reject them. This autonomy to decide the level of interaction
reflects the fact that institutions of political representation in settler states have a
tendency to perpetuate the dominant culture by maintaining norms and practices
as “universal” (and consequently erasing the ways in which they are underpinned
by specific cultural norms and values). Indigenous peoples can see these institutions
as fundamentally hostile to their cultural and political identities (Maddison, 2010).
They may opt instead for mechanisms and bodies that are more culturally hospita-
ble and politically influential, deciding for themselves the nature of the representa-
tive relationship between their group(s) and the state. A theory of Indigenous
representation needs to be built on the principle that Indigenous groups have a
right to choose for themselves the nature of their relationship with the
settler state. This right must be not only respected but guaranteed through
clear mechanisms, in order to ensure the effectiveness of their political
representation.

Decolonization
The processes and outcomes of colonization are uniquely felt by Indigenous peo-
ples. Colonization has historically functioned by stripping the Indigenous peoples
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 9

of a given territory of their political autonomy and subsequently establishing central


“state” institutions of a new, often exclusionary, order. The elevation and accentu-
ation of Indigenous sovereignty in relations with the state is one crucial way in
which the settler colonial features of the imposed state can be deconstructed.
Decolonization as both a practice and theory holds that structures of Indigenous
representation that simply build into or out of existing state infrastructure are likely
insufficient and ultimately hostile to the enterprise. This is because settler colonial
states and the non-Indigenous groups that control them have historically oscillated
between policies of exclusion from and co-optation into the existing political sys-
tem, with the goal of undermining inclusivity (Bowen, 2007). This has led to a leg-
acy of apprehension and suspicion toward state-initiated and state-oriented political
institutions, particularly legislative institutions, which for Indigenous groups now
carry the stigma of prior disenfranchisement and assimilation (Murphy, 2008).
For Indigenous peoples, participation in settler colonial state institutions often
presents a paradox: it is an opportunity to make progress on policy or political
issues of importance for Indigenous peoples, but it can also be an act of acknowl-
edging the legitimacy of settler state authorities. Such acknowledgment of state
authority is at odds with the objectives of decolonization.
To help address this paradox, following Tuck and Yang (2012), we conceive of
the principle of decolonization as one that centres Indigenous sovereignty and futu-
rity—a position that calls into question the commensurability of institutional
arrangements imposed unilaterally by the settler state with the overall project of
decolonization. We understand the principle of decolonization as the core objective
that runs through and relies upon our two other principles. Recognizing and enact-
ing Indigenous sovereignty, while protecting that sovereignty through the inclusion
and participation of Indigenous peoples on their own terms, furthers the broader
project of decolonization. At the same time, a commitment to the principles of rec-
ognition and protection that avoids imposing unequal power structures requires a
recentring of Indigenous sovereignty through a commitment to the act of decolo-
nization. Only when all three principles are implemented in tandem is it possible to
envision the political representation of Indigenous peoples in institutions of their
own making, co-sovereign with settler state institutions of political representation
and protected by the constitutions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike.

Assessing Contemporary Models of Indigenous Representation


In this section we apply the principles that we argue ought to inform a theory of
Indigenous political representation to briefly assess existing models and mecha-
nisms of representation. The application of our framework to real-world designs
serves two purposes. First, it grounds our theoretical reflection, providing an indi-
cation of how existing approaches to facilitating Indigenous representation can fol-
low—or fall short of—these principles in practice. Second, it demonstrates the
potential utility of our theory as an analytical framework. Applying our framework
to a set of cases allows us to assess the limitations and potential of particular insti-
tutional designs. It is by applying our theoretical reflections to real-world examples
that we clearly see how Indigenous demands for representation complicate the
nation-state project and thus require different mechanisms than those that may
be justifiable for migrants or national minority groups.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
10 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

We consider mechanisms of Indigenous representation in four settler states:


Bolivia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway. These cases provide broad geographic
coverage across the globe and reflect different contexts in terms of Indigenous–settler
relationships. Each country has also been a foundational case in the literature on
ethnic representation, informing the development of the theory and empirical
study of representative dynamics. Consequently, they are important cases for assess-
ing the conflation of Indigeneity with ethnicity. Together, these countries also pro-
vide a cross-section of the main institutional models currently used to facilitate
Indigenous representation. They thus provide a useful subset to (1) consider the
potential differences between institutional models of representing ethnic groups
and Indigenous groups and (2) assess how the models stack up against the princi-
ples that we argue ought to underpin an autonomous theory of Indigenous
representation.

Bolivia
Approximately 6.2 million people identify as belonging to one of 36 recognized
Indigenous groups, constituting over 60 per cent of the Bolivian population.
Despite their numerical majority, Spanish colonialism and a history of marginali-
zation have pushed Indigenous peoples into a political minority situation (Bird,
2014). Nevertheless, new opportunities for Indigenous peoples to achieve greater
political influence have followed redemocratization in Bolivia.
Two pillars define Indigenous representation in Bolivia: the first is the
Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) and the leadership of Evo Morales; the second
is the institutionalization of reserved seats for Indigenous peoples. The electoral
success of Morales and his MAS party, which is historically linked to Indigenous
social movements, has sharply increased the numbers of Indigenous individuals
in the national legislature, from just 3 per cent in 1989–1993 to 25 per cent in
2009 (Madrid and Rhodes-Purdy, 2016: 895). In 2015, however, the Indigenous
population comprised 41 per cent of the population but only 25 per cent of
Congress seats (The Global Americans, 2017). A new constitution, passed in
2009 under the leadership of Morales and the MAS, incorporated several measures
geared at the representation of Indigenous peoples in Bolivia. It recognized the
rights of Indigenous peoples to autonomy according to their own customs and
norms, while reserving seven seats in the national legislature for Indigenous peoples
(Tockman et al., 2015). Indigenous organizations had originally demanded 34
reserved seats—one for almost every recognized Indigenous group in Bolivia. In
response, the MAS-led government proposed 15 seats (intended as a compromise
between the Indigenous demands and the actual demographic weight of the
groups); however, the opposition party negotiated this down further, resulting in
the seven seats, each accorded to a separate Indigenous electoral district (Htun
and Ossa, 2013; Bird, 2014). Any individual in Bolivia can opt to vote on the
Indigenous or the general electoral roll, but they cannot vote on both.
Indigenous mobilization pushing for recognition of their status—as part of the
broader move toward democracy in Bolivia over the past two decades—has largely
been successful. In addition to recognizing 36 different Indigenous groups in the coun-
try and granting many of these groups’ languages some official status in the state, the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 11

Bolivian government ratified the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of


Indigenous Peoples in November of 2007. A number of institutional mechanisms rep-
resenting Indigenous peoples have followed these recognitions, including the seven
reserved seats for Indigenous peoples in the national legislature. However, despite rec-
ognition of the right of Indigenous peoples to autonomy, particularly over their tradi-
tional territories, the Bolivian constitution sets clear limits on that recognition: the
autonomy of Indigenous peoples does not supersede the preservation of the unitary
state (Tockman et al., 2015). Although there are a few cases of Indigenous self-
government within Bolivia, these self-governing units are generally seen as devolved
from the unitary state. Indigenous autonomy is understood less as an expression of
the right to self-determination and more as a model of decentralized governance within
the existing system (Tockman et al., 2015).
Lacking strong institutional mechanisms for guaranteeing the self-determining
rights of Indigenous peoples, many of the current features of Bolivian
Indigenous representation are a result of political negotiation and compromise.
For example, the seven seats that are presented as reserved for Indigenous peoples
are open for any party or group to nominate candidates and can be voted on by any
Bolivian who chooses to self-enrol for representation by these seats. Weak protec-
tive mechanisms simultaneously feed into a lack of consideration for the decoloni-
zation of the Bolivian political architecture. Assessments of the success of Morales
and the MAS with regard to the substantive representation of Indigenous interests
at the state level are mixed (Bowen, 2007; Htun and Ossa, 2013). The fact that
Indigenous groups themselves challenge the mechanisms instituted to date, as
well as criticize the ways in which the MAS purports to represent their interests,
suggests that seeking descriptive representation through settler state institutions
is insufficient for meeting the decolonizing objectives of Bolivian Indigenous
peoples.

Canada
There are approximately 1.7 million Indigenous people across Canada (4.9% of the
total population) in three broad groups: First Nations, Métis and Inuit. Of these,
First Nations constitute the largest group, with over 600 distinct communities.
State–Indigenous relations have been defined by a series of processes and insti-
tutional mechanisms that sought to expand state power. Early mechanisms of
expansion include the “pre-confederation” treaties between Indigenous peoples
and the British Crown, as well as the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which claimed
British sovereign authority over the territory and purported to recognize
Indigenous title over lands that could only be ceded through treaty negotiations.
The British North America Act in 1867 shifted relations, placing “Indians and
lands reserved for Indians” under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The
Indian Act (passed in 1876 and still in place today) created a registry, reservation
system and “band councils” (local governance regimes). In the mid-twentieth cen-
tury, the government shifted again toward a more individualist approach to state–
Indigenous relations, exemplified by the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy that
promoted the assimilation of Indigenous peoples. Significant mobilization against
this proposal ushered in the modern treaty period. This approach was further
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
12 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

reinforced through two provisions in the Constitution Act, 1982: section 35, which
recognizes and affirms existing Indigenous and treaty rights; and section 25, which
requires the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to respect Indigenous rights.
Contemporary Indigenous–state relations in Canada are largely shaped by mod-
ern treaty making. These treaties are comprehensive agreements negotiated directly
with Indigenous communities relating to land title, development and self-
government. They solidify mechanisms of autonomy and facilitate pathways to self-
rule, largely through self-governing agreements (Abele and Prince, 2006;
Irlbacher-Fox, 2009; Alcantara and Whitfield 2010). Over 20 self-governing agree-
ments have been signed, with approximately 90 ongoing negotiations (Eyford,
2015: 7).
The institutional and ideational legacies of these different phases of state–
Indigenous relations have shaped the lack of specific mechanisms facilitating
Indigenous political representation. At the federal level, there are no special
mechanisms that facilitate the direct inclusion of Indigenous representatives. The
now-symbolic nature of the queen and regnal representatives, such as the governor
general, has left state–Indigenous relations primarily in the hands of the federal
bureaucracy, which has long had a department (now two) dedicated to administering
the Indian Act. Provincial institutions similarly have no special representative mech-
anisms (though in 1992, Nova Scotia created one reserved seat in its legislature for a
Mi’kmaq representative, which the group has declined to fill for the past 25 years).
Indigenous peoples instead largely employ umbrella and regional organizations
(for example, the Assembly of First Nations, Métis Nation of Canada and Inuit
Tapiriit Kanatami) to advocate on their behalf.
These mechanisms of Indigenous representation reflect a number of contradictory
principles. The pre-confederation treaties, particularly the Royal Proclamation and
Treaty of Niagara (1764), are often lauded as treating Indigenous groups as co-equals
with the Crown, recognizing and protecting their claims to title and sovereignty.
Subsequent mechanisms were increasingly imposed and exclusionary: the Indian
Act and historical treaty making treated Indigenous people as wards of the state, dis-
possessed them of their land and erased their legal sovereignty. Even the provisions of
the Constitution Act, 1982 intended to “protect” Indigenous peoples are attempts at
reconciling the existing legal architecture with Indigenous rights, rather than a clear
recognition and protection of Indigenous sovereignty. However, over time, a num-
ber of mechanisms have emerged that allow for Indigenous participation in the
political process, facilitating inclusion without complete imposition. The negotia-
tion of self-governing agreements and comprehensive land claims agreements
have become the main avenue for this recognition, creating political space for
Indigenous models of governance and representation. In many of these agreements,
particularly in the far north, mechanisms of shared governance are established
between Indigenous and settler communities (Davidson, 2018).
This mixed assessment of Canada’s approach to Indigenous representation in
terms of the recognition and protection of Indigenous claims reflects the uneven
process of decolonization. The process of dismantling the imposed and colonial
architecture of the Canadian state has been slow—as the continued reliance on
the Indian Act and the reservation system attest. Despite some progress, these insti-
tutional legacies have created significant barriers to facilitating Indigenous political
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 13

representation, particularly in terms of shared political spaces rather than solely


through autonomy and self-rule.

New Zealand
There are approximately 600,000 Māori people in New Zealand, constituting nearly
15 per cent of the population. While today there is an established pan-Māori identity,
pre-contact and early contact identities were divided along territorial and clan lines.
There are three institutional pillars underpinning the relationship between the
state and Indigenous peoples in New Zealand. The first is the 1840 Treaty of
Waitangi, which has three articles. Article 1 asserts the sovereignty of the British
Crown. Article 2 recognizes Māori rights to control collective and individual
land titles. Article 3 extends the protection and rights of British subjects to the
Māori. There are, however, critical differences between the English and Māori ver-
sions: in Article 1, the English version uses “sovereignty,” while the Māori transla-
tion uses “kāwanatanga”(governorship); and in Article 2 of the Māori version, the
concept of continued “tino rangatiratanga” (chieftainship or self-determination)
over territory is used, while it is absent from the English version (Hill, 2004).
The second pillar is the 1867 Māori Representation Act, which created four
reserved electoral seats in Parliament for Māori with blood ties (requiring 50 per
cent ancestry to run or vote). The seats overlaid the existing electoral districts,
were designed with little relation to the actual distribution of Māori communities
and were significantly under-representative relative to the population (with esti-
mates that a more representative number ranged from 14 to 20 seats) (Murphy,
2008: 190–91). The third pillar is the shifting nature of direct Māori government,
which has incorporated a range of mechanisms: these include a short-lived (1892
to 1902) parallel Māori Parliament (Kotahitanga); the government’s response of
establishing Māori councils in 1900, which were largely flawed local governance
mechanisms; and reformed councils dating from the mid-twentieth century,
which provided a measure of local control, with a national umbrella Māori
Council to facilitate state-Indigenous consultation (Hill, 2004).
The current institutional mechanisms that facilitate Indigenous representation in
New Zealand build on these pillars. The most significant is the system of reserved
seats for the Māori. In 1975, the blood requirement for the seats was changed, and
in 1996, the shift to a mixed- member proportional (MMP) electoral system led to
an increase in the number of reserved seats to reflect population levels and a ten-
dency to include Māori candidates higher on party lists for the general rolls. The
result is an upward trend in the number of Māori MPs in Parliament—from less
than 7 per cent of seats prior to 1996, to 13 per cent that year and 24 per cent
in 2017 (Lublin and Wright, 2013). The MMP system has also facilitated the growth
of Indigenous political parties, gaining in both seats and influence. Indirect repre-
sentation of Māori interests finds expression in a special Waitangi Tribunal
(roughly half Māori), which has provided advisory opinions on perceived violations
of the Treaty since 1975, as well as in the Ministry of Māori Development, which is
responsible for government policy on Māori affairs (Schertzer, 2018).
The mechanisms of representation today, and the foundations upon which they
rest, provide both opportunities and challenges for the Māori. The contemporary
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
14 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

reserved seat system promotes inclusion in shared decision making without impos-
ing particular understandings of the Indigenous role in state activities—the hall-
marks of a defensible approach to Indigenous representation. The system
empowers Māori representatives and parties to promote ideas that define and pro-
tect the interests of the group, with some success influencing government policy in
recent years (Humpage, 2017). However, the foundations of this system are deeply
flawed: the reserved seat system was a tool of colonial imposition, aimed at assim-
ilating Māori and dividing their existing power bases (Fleras, 1985). Similarly,
although the Treaty of Waitangi, and the special tribunal system established to
advise on violations, has increasingly become a mechanism to empower Māori to
protect their interests and rights, the treaty rests on shaky foundations: it legiti-
mized a widespread capture of Māori land in the 1860s and the individualization
of title away from collective ownership (McHugh, 1991; Kingi, n.d.). Today the leg-
acies of this colonial enterprise remain. While a shift is taking place to find methods
of collective ownership and control, the shift is slow and hindered by institutional
legacies such as the strictly advisory nature of the Waitangi Tribunal. In short, New
Zealand demonstrates how mechanisms that rest on colonial legacies aimed at
including Māori within the state-building enterprise can nevertheless recognize
and empower the Māori to protect their interests as part of a longer road toward
decolonization.

Norway
Inhabiting an ancestral territory known as Sápmi, the Sámi people are an
Indigenous people found across Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of Russia.
The Sámi people number approximately 36,000–60,000, with the largest share of
the population in Norway.
Following conflict between the Norwegian state and the Sámi people regarding
the building of a dam on the Alta River in the 1970s, political pressure led to the
first official safeguards of the Sámi and their culture in the 1980s. First, the Sámi
Act (1987) legislated several protections of Sámi language, culture and community
life, including the establishment of a Sámi parliament. Second, in 1988, the
Norwegian constitution was amended to require Norwegian authorities to facilitate
the protection of Sámi culture, language and way of life (Semb, 2005; Broderstad,
2011). Little changed for more than 15 years, until the Finnmark Act in 2005 pro-
vided for a new resource management regime between the Sámi and the Norwegian
state.
The key vehicle for Sámi political representation to the Norwegian state has
become the Sámediggi, the Sámi Parliament. The Parliament has 39 representatives,
chosen in direct elections from seven constituencies across Norway every four years.
It has primarily been advisory in nature, although it has the power to take some
policy initiatives and has been granted some authority in areas of particular rele-
vance to the Sámi, such as linguistic and cultural preservation, education, and
industry and resource management (Gaski, 2008: 3). Since the 1990s, the
Sámediggi has increased its power by moving from a purely advisory body into
one that consults and strengthens relations with all levels of government
(Broderstad, 2011: 901).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 15

The Parliament has faced numerous challenges and critiques, both from the
Sámi as well as non-Indigenous critics. Concerns range from those that suggest
“special” measures for the representation of a particular group can increase tensions
between groups within Norway, to the more specific concerns of factions within the
Sámi population, such as the reindeer herders, that the Parliament will fail to meet
the needs of the group or effect substantive change (Semb, 2005: 534–35). While
the Sámi Parliament acknowledges the distinctiveness of the Sámi people as a
group with legitimate claims to some form of guaranteed representation in the
Norwegian state, the fact that the body is merely advisory and is endowed with
devolved powers is insufficient for full recognition of the Sámi as a self-determining
people. This has not proven to be a complete barrier to its effectiveness in terms of
policy making, and the development of the Sámediggi into a more autonomous,
authoritative body is certainly possible—although the institution will always rest
on a problematic foundation, since its incorporation, infrastructure and implemen-
tation are all imposed measures by the Norwegian settler state. The very definition
of who constitutes a Sámi has been largely dictated by the state, and Sámi selfhood
remains hotly contested (Semb, 2005: 533).
Despite the Sámi’s assertions of sovereignty over their own affairs (Semb, 2005),
without stronger state recognition of the Sámi as a sovereign Indigenous people and
greater respect for that sovereignty by meeting the claims of the Sámi to choose for
and by themselves the mechanisms by which they represent themselves to the state,
the Sámediggi will likely continue to be challenged as a truly self-determining body.

Conclusion
Ethnic and Indigenous groups seeking political representation share some charac-
teristics: both are defined in relation to an other, and both are seeking to increase
their political power and protect their interests. However, our theoretical and
empirical reflections above drive toward a common point: Indigenous representa-
tion differs in fundamental ways from ethnic representation. A defensible theory
and model of Indigenous representation needs to start from a position that takes
these differences into account. Among the most important of these differences is
the particular nature of the claim being made. Whereas ethnic groups are largely
seeking to join the nation-state enterprise in some manner (either through inclu-
sion or secession), Indigenous peoples are often seeking models of representation
that challenge the foundations of the nation-state model as part of a process of
decolonization. The legacy of the colonial enterprise has fundamentally shifted
the nature of the Indigenous claim to political representation, such that the objec-
tive of representation is a means to institutionalize co-sovereignty. Accordingly,
while theories of gender representation are largely based on the idea that gender
cuts across political cleavages, and theories of ethnic representation hold that eth-
nicity largely coincides with political cleavages, a theory of Indigenous representa-
tion needs to start from the basis that Indigenous groups complicate and challenge
existing political cleavages within the nation-state system.
Moving from the position that representation is good for Indigenous peoples
toward conceptualizing what good representation entails requires appreciation of
this difference between gender, ethnicity and Indigeneity. In particular, conflating
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
16 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer

ethnic and Indigenous identities, and promoting representation without an appre-


ciation of the differences between these groups, can lead to questionable mecha-
nisms and models.
We have identified three principles that can act as a foundation for the separa-
tion of Indigenous representation from ethnic representation. The principle of rec-
ognition rests on the fact of Indigenous pre-colonial sovereignty, tying the
legitimacy of the claim to self-determination to its distinctiveness. The principle
of protection builds on this foundation of unextinguished sovereignty, seeking
mechanisms of mutuality and consent, as well as the security of these measures
by way of substantial, enforceable and binding guarantees that empower
Indigenous groups. Finally, the principle of decolonization requires that
Indigenous peoples choose the degree and manner of their representation to the
settler state. The opportunity and ability for Indigenous peoples to deconstruct
colonial legacies and institutions, as well as implement mechanisms of their own
choosing that both build into and build out of the state, are crucial for the long-
term viability of Indigenous representative institutions. There are, of course, addi-
tional elements of these principles and other ideas that need to be incorporated to
build a theory of Indigenous representation that stands apart from theories of eth-
nic representation. Most notably, an autonomous theory of Indigenous representa-
tion also has to grapple with notions of accountability between governed and
governors (Alcantara et al., 2012). The role federal political systems can play as
either enablers or constrainers of different pathways to Indigenous representation
also begs for additional reflection (Henderson, 1994; 2002; Papillon, 2012; Sabin,
2014; Davidson, 2018). However, here we have sought to focus on three core prin-
ciples that can act as the foundation for an autonomous theory of Indigenous
representation.
Combined, these principles provide more than just the basis of a theory of
Indigenous political representation; they can also be used as a set of tools to assess
current practice. Our analysis above shows the potential utility of these principles as
a framework to understand and evaluate existing models of Indigenous peoples’
representation across the globe. Employing the principles in this manner demon-
strates not only how Indigenous groups differ from ethnic groups but how their
claims and mobilization complicate the existing structures and mechanisms of rep-
resentation in the nation-state system. Indigenous groups challenge the very logic of
the nation-state to a greater extent than the claims and mobilization of ethnic
groups.
Our analysis of existing models in the four cases above demonstrates the com-
plexity and contradictions inherent in different models of Indigenous representa-
tion. The key takeaway here is that the different pathways and contradictory
approaches have been employed with decidedly mixed results. In Bolivia, the
reserved seats at least partially recognize the status of Indigenous peoples, but
their participation in the political system exists without adequate protections. In
Canada, representation has been pursued through negotiated self-governance,
which rests on a significantly qualified recognition and protection of Indigenous
identity, given the existing colonial legacies. New Zealand epitomizes a contradic-
tory model, with its colonial foundations designed to facilitate assimilation today
supporting a measure of recognition and protection as part of a decolonization
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 17

process. The Sámediggi in Norway, similarly, has considerable potential to provide


recognition and protection for the Sámi but largely falls short, given its nature as an
advisory board with its status delegated from the colonial state. The complications
and contradictions of these different models—highlighted through an assessment of
the principles of recognition, protection and decolonization—help make the case
for the need to further develop and employ an autonomous theory of Indigenous
representation.
The common theme for the inherent contradictions in these models is colonial-
ism: most mechanisms employed to date rest on shaky colonial foundations,
extending representation to Indigenous peoples as part of the colonial enterprise.
The incorporation of reserved seats for the Māori in New Zealand is a case in
point. However, some mechanisms demonstrate an ability to facilitate Indigenous
representation that recognizes, at least to some degree, Indigenous sovereignty
(such as the self-governing agreements achieved in Canada and Bolivia) and
empowers their ability to protect their interests (as in the case of the Norwegian
constitutional amendments and Sámediggi). These elements of the models across
the four cases direct our attention to the importance of the principle of decoloni-
zation—they indicate that political representation can be understood as a process of
decolonization by centring Indigenous sovereignty and futurity in whichever mech-
anisms are pursued. Interestingly, as our cases demonstrate, there are different
pathways to abide by these principles; Indigenous peoples need neither employ
nor understand these principles in the same way. The differences between them
can be attributed to different contexts of Indigenous–state relations, different lega-
cies of colonialism and the heterogeneity of Indigenous identity itself. However,
while there is room for variation among Indigenous peoples with regard to their
political representation, we must nevertheless start by disentangling Indigenous
peoples from other groups seeking representation.
Author ORCIDs. Meaghan Williams, 0000-0003-2855-8287

Acknowledgments. Robert Schertzer gratefully acknowledges the support of the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (grant number 430-2016-00318).

References
Abele, Frances and Michael J. Prince. 2006. “Four Pathways to Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada.”
American Review of Canadian Studies 36 (4): 568–95.
Alcantara, Christopher, Zachary Spicer and Roberto Leone. 2012. “Institutional Design and the
Accountability Paradox: A Case Study of Three Aboriginal Accountability Regimes in Canada.”
Canadian Public Administration 55 (1): 69–90.
Alcantara, Christopher and Greg Whitfield. 2010. “Aboriginal Self-Government through Constitutional
Design: A Survey of Fourteen Aboriginal Constitutions in Canada.” Journal of Canadian Studies 44
(2): 122–45.
Alfred, Gerald R. 1995. Heeding the Voices of Our Ancestors. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Alfred, Taiaiake. 2008. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Banducci, Susan A., Todd Donovan and Jeffrey A. Karp. 2004. “Minority Representation, Empowerment,
and Participation.” Journal of Politics 66 (2): 534–56.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
18 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer
Barth, Fredrik. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Bird, Karen. 2014. “Ethnic Quotas and Ethnic Representation Worldwide.” International Political Science
Review 35 (1): 12–26.
Borrows, John. 2000. “‘Landed’ Citizenship: Narratives of Aboriginal Political Participation.” In Citizenship,
Diversity and Pluralism, ed. Alan Cairns. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Bowen, James D. 2007. “Indigenous Movements and Political Representation in Latin America.” Latin
American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies 2 (1): 93–103.
Broderstad, Else Grete. 2011. “The Promises and Challenges of Indigenous Self-Determination: The Sami
Case.” International Journal 66 (4): 893–907.
Cairns, Alan C. 2001. Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Canada. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. 1991. Final Report: Reforming
Electoral Democracy. Vol. 2. Ottawa.
Canada. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. 1996. Restructuring the Relationship. Vol. 2 of Report of
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa.
Charters, Claire. 2010. “A Self-Determination Approach to Justifying Indigenous Peoples’ Participation in
International Law and Policy Making.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 17 (2): 215–40.
Coulthard, Glen. 2014. Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Davidson, Adrienne. 2018. “Flexibility in the Federal System? Institutional Innovation and Indigenous
Nations’ Self-Determination in the US and Canadian Far North.” Doctoral dissertation. University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Dubois, Janique and Kelly Saunders. 2013. “‘Just Do It!’: Carving Out a Space for the Métis in Canadian
Federalism.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 187–214.
Evans, Glynn and Lisa Hill. 2012. “The Electoral and Political Implications of Reserved Seats for Indigenous
Australians.” Australian Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 491–505.
Eyford, Douglas. 2015. A New Direction: Advancing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. Ottawa, Government of
Canada.
Fleras, Augie. 1985. “From Social Control towards Political Self-Determination? Maori Seats and the
Politics of Separate Maori Representation in New Zealand.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 18
(3): 551–76.
Fleras, Augie. 1991. “Aboriginal Electoral Districts for Canada: Lessons from New Zealand.” In Aboriginal
Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada, ed. Robert A. Milen. Research Studies of the Royal Commission
on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. Vol. 9. Toronto: Dundurn.
Gaski, Lina. 2008. “Contesting the Sami Polity: Discursive Representations in the Sami Electoral Campaign
in 2005.” Acta Borealia 25 (1): 1–21.
Henderson, James (sákéj) Youngblood. 1994. “Empowering Treaty Federalism.” Saskatchewan Law Review
58 (2): 241–329.
Henderson, James (Sákéj) Youngblood. 2002. “Sui Generis and Treaty Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 6
(4): 415–40.
Hill, Richard. 2004. State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy: Crown-Māori Relations in New Zealand /
Aotearoa 1900–1950. Wellington: Victoria University Press.
Htun, Mala. 2004. “Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups.” Perspectives
on Politics 2 (3): 439–58.
Htun, Mala. 2016. Inclusion without Representation in Latin America: Gender Quotas and Ethnic
Reservations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Htun, Mala and Juan Pablo Ossa. 2013. “Political Inclusion of Marginalized Groups: Indigenous
Reservations and Gender Parity in Bolivia.” Politics, Groups and Identities 1 (1): 4–25.
Humpage, Louise. 2017. “Does Having an Indigenous Political Party in Government Make a Difference to
Social Policy? The Maori Party in New Zealand.” Journal of Social Policy 46 (3): 475–94.
Irlbacher-Fox, Stephanie. 2009. Finding Dahshaa: Self-Government, Social Suffering and Aboriginal Policy
in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Kingi, Tanira. n.d. Maori Landownership and Land Management in New Zealand. Palmerston North:
Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University.
Knight, Trevor. 2001. “Electoral Justice for Aboriginal People in Canada.” McGill Law Journal 46 (4): 1063–116.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
Canadian Journal of Political Science 19
Kroeber, Corinna. 2017. “Exploring the Impact of Reserved Seat Design on the Quality of Minority
Representation.” Ethnopolitics 16 (2): 196–216.
Krook, Mona Lena and Diana Z. O’Brien. 2010. “The Politics of Group Representation: Quotas for Women
and Minorities Worldwide.” Comparative Politics 42 (3): 253–72.
Ladner, Kiera L. 2005. “Up the Creek: Fishing for a New Constitutional Order.” Canadian Journal of
Political Science 38 (4): 923–53.
Ladner, Kiera L. and Michael McCrossan. 2007. “The Electoral Participation of Aboriginal People.”
Working Paper Series on Electoral Participation and Outreach Practices. Elections Canada, Ottawa.
Laponce, J. A. 1960. The Protection of Minorities. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Lublin, David and Matthew Wright. 2013. “Engineering Inclusion: Assessing the Effects of Pro-Minority
Representation Policies.” Electoral Studies 32 (4): 746–55.
McHugh, Paul G. 1991. The Māori Magna Carta: New Zealand Law and the Treaty of Waitangi. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Maddison, Sarah. 2010. “White Parliament, Black Politics: The Dilemmas of Indigenous Parliamentary
Representation.” Australian Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 663–80.
Maddison, Sarah. 2013. “Indigenous Identity, ‘Authenticity’ and the Structural Violence of Settler
Colonialism.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 20 (3): 288–303.
Madrid, Raúl L. and Matthew Rhodes-Purdy. 2016. “Descriptive Representation and Regime Support in
Latin America.” Political Studies 64 (4): 890–909.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent
‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.
Medeiros, Mike and Benjamin Frost. 2014. “Unrepresented No More: Noncontiguous Ridings Could
Enhance Aboriginals’ Voice in Our Political Institutions.” Inroads (34): 118–25.
Morden, Michael. 2016. “Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation.” Canadian
Parliamentary Review 39 (2): 24–33.
Murphy, Michael. 2004. “Understanding Indigenous Nationalism.” In The Fate of the Nation-State, ed.
Michel Seymour. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Murphy, Michael. 2008. “Representing Indigenous Self-Determination.” University of Toronto Law Journal
58 (2): 185–216.
Nadasdy, Paul. 2017. Sovereignty’s Entailments: First Nation State Formation in the Yukon. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Papillon, Martin. 2012. “Adapting Federalism: Indigenous Multilevel Governance in Canada and the
United States.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 42 (2): 289–312.
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation.” Journal of Politics 68 (1):
1–21.
Sabin, Jerald. 2014. “Contested Colonialism: Responsible Government and Political Development in
Yukon.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 375–96.
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 5 (3): 297–318.
Schertzer, Robert. 2016. “Quebec Justices as Quebec Representatives: National Minority Representation and
the Supreme Court of Canada’s Federalism Jurisprudence.” Publius 46 (4): 539–67.
Schertzer, Robert. 2018. “Mapping Institutional Mechanisms of Ethno-national Representation: Toward a
Better Measurement Approach.” Nations and Nationalism 24 (4): 1046–75
Schouls, Tim. 1996. “Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada: Differentiated Representation
versus Voter Equality.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 729–49.
Semb, Anne Julie. 2005. “Sami Self-Determination in the Making?” Nations and Nationalism 11 (4): 531–49.
Smith, Anthony D. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism. London: Routledge.
Smith, Anthony D. 2009. Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach. London: Routledge.
Swain, Carol. 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tanguay, Brian and Steven Bittle. 2005. “Parliament as a Mirror to the Nation: Promoting Diversity in
Representation through Electoral Reform.” Canadian Issues, Summer: 61–63.
The Global Americans. 2017. “Report on indigenous political representation: Introduction and summary.”
https://theglobalamericans.org/2017/10/report-indigenous-political-representation-introduction-summary/
(retrieved May 2, 2018).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192
20 Meaghan Williams and Robert Schertzer
Tockman, Jason, John Cameron and Wilfredo Plata. 2015. “New Institutions of Indigenous
Self-Governance in Bolivia: Between Autonomy and Self-Discipline.” Latin American and Caribbean
Ethnic Studies 10 (1): 37–59.
Tuck, Eve and K. Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40.
Turgeon, Luc and Alain-G. Gagnon. 2013. “The Representation of Ethnic and Linguistic Groups in the
Federal Civil Service of Belgium and Canada.” Canadian Public Administration 56 (4): 565–83.
Weaver, Hilary N. 2001. “Indigenous Identity: What Is It and Who Really Has It?” American Indian
Quarterly 25 (2): 240–55.
Williams, Melissa. 2016. “Indigenous Representation, Self-Determination and Electoral Reform.” In Should
We Change How We Vote? Evaluating Canada’s Electoral System, ed. Andrew Potter, Daniel Weinstock
and Peter Loewen. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Cite this article: Williams M, Schertzer R (2019). Is Indigeneity like Ethnicity? Theorizing and Assessing
Models of Indigenous Political Representation. Canadian Journal of Political Science 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0008423919000192

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The Libraries - University of Missouri-St Louis, on 05 Nov 2019 at 01:52:47, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423919000192

You might also like