The Promises and Challenges of Indigenous Self-Determination
| Author | Else Grete Broderstad |
| Published date | 01 December 2011 |
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070201106600416 |
| Subject Matter | III. Civil Society |
The promises
and challenges of
indigenous self-
determination
TheSamicase
THE INDIGENOUS ARCTIC: COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES
The Arctic is currently experiencing profound transformations. Rapid
climate change in an era of increased globalization is perceived by a range of
global actors to be opening up new economic opportunities. These changes
are the most apparent drivers in the current debate on Arctic governance.1
The Arctic is no doubt a wide and open space, but it is, however sparsely,
already populated. An important concern is therefore to ensure that the
debate on Arctic governance gives sufficient attention to those who are
already there: the debate must include a salient focus on indigenous peoples
and other permanent residents of the Arctic. Indigenous claims for self-
ElseGreteBroderstadistheformerdirectorandacurrentresearcheratthecentre
forSamistudiesattheUniversityofTromsø,Norway.SheisgratefulforJohnErik
Fossum’sconstructivecomments.
1 “The Arctic governance project: Arctic governance in an era of transformative
change—Critical questions, governance principles, ways forward,” 14 April 2010,
www.arcticgovernance.org.
| International Journal | Autumn 2011 | 893 |
| Else Grete Broderstad |
determination, regional and local claims of effective participation, and the
capacity of governance arrangements to address challenges resulting from
large-scale changes have to be addressed and accommodated. This article
focuses on the Sami case so as to illuminate the bridge between indigenous
self-determination and regional participation in mainland Arctic Norway.
For centuries Arctic indigenous peoples have experienced a common
history of colonization and assimilation. This has unfolded within different
legal and nation-state systems, which accounts for some of the variations
in results, including forms of oppression, modes of incorporation, and
types of rectification. It is also important to be aware of the historical
acknowledgement of the special status of indigenous peoples, as illustrated
by the treaties in North America and the historical acknowledgement of
Sami rights in Fennoscandia.2
Indigenous people play a prominent role in modern Arctic nation-
building processes. The Sami serve as a good illustration. By applying
different channels of influence—the public Sami parliamentary one, and
the Sami organizational one, the NGO channel—Samis have become
well-known political actors in their own right. The contemporary policy of
change implies new indigenous political and legal arrangements, but the
opportunities for establishing indigenous autonomy differ. Differences
matter, and an important one is that between federal and unitary states.
In unitary states, such as the Scandinavian ones, law-making authority
lies with the national authorities, and local self-government has no formal,
constitutional role. Denmark’s relationship with Greenland is an exception
and the current development of self-government enhances Greenlandic
legislative power. With regard to the Sami-Norwegian context, the unitary
state system entails transfer and delegation of management tasks from
the central authorities to the Sami parliament. However, developments
in the consultation practices between the Sami parliament and national
2 When the borders between Denmark/Norway and Sweden/Finland were settled in
1751, the so-called Lapp codicil was drawn up as an appendix to the treaty. This is
the oldest legal document on Sami rights. It is not a treaty in the same sense as
those treaties made between the crown and native peoples or with aboriginals in
North America because the Samis did not participate in any treaty process. The basic
emphasis of the codicil is the notion of the conservation of the Sami nation, where the
Samis are given the right to cross the state border in order to follow their traditional
reindeer-herding routes. Samis who practice crossborder reindeer husbandry use the
Lapp codicil to maintain their right to move with their herds across state borders. The
supreme court of Norway affirmed this right in 1968.
| 894 | Autumn 2011 | International Journal |
| The promises and challenges of indigenous self-determination |
authorities suggest that in recent years there has been a gradual change
in governance practices related to the Sami as an indigenous minority in
Norway. Histories, state systems, and democratic traditions—including the
two dimensions of decentralization of decision-making power, the degree of
territoriality, and the degree of asymmetry—are central determinants in the
development of political arrangements of indigenous self-determination.3
Federal state structures can respond to claims for decentralized decision-
making authority in symmetrical as well as in asymmetrical (territorial-
functional) terms. Canada has created an asymmetrical federal state in
which some regions enjoy more autonomy than others. Unitary states also
fashion territorial responses but are generally less responsive to claims for
decentralized authority and also more curtailed than federal states. But
what is also notable is that regardless of the degree of regional autonomy or
asymmetry between regions, members of an ethnic group may nevertheless
possess rights to autonomy that set them apart from the majority population,
which is illustrated by the Sami parliamentary elections.
Another relevant difference is that in the Nordic countries the Sami
people have been more strongly integrated as individuals than is the case
with native Americans, who experienced a system of differential treatment
based on the reservation system.4 Samis gradually became integrated in
postwar sociopolitical developments. Today, everybody—Sami as well as
non-Sami—benefits from the rights and services provided by an advanced
welfare state, be that in education or healthcare. But the earlier recognition of
the Sami as equal members of the state did not acknowledge their existence
as a permanent minority or separate ethnic group. Thus, even though
the previous policy of assimilation was gradually abandoned, the effects
of the determined Norwegian assimilation policy are still apparent today.5
These comments suggest that indigenous peoples’ aspiration for, as well
as achievement of, self-determination is conditioned by state systems and
3 On asymmetrical and symmetrical autonomy, see John McGarry, “Asymmetry in
federations, federacies and unitary states,” Ethnopolitics 6, no. 1 (2007):1005-16.
4 Vigdis Stordahl, “Identity and Saminess: Expressing worldview and nation,” Nordic
Sami Institute, Kautokeino, Norway, 1994.
5 The Sami are an indigenous people in each of these countries. In each of these
states, to varying degrees, legal and political arrangements have been established
that are intended to promote a greater measure of Sami self-government. The Sami
consider themselves to be one people, one nation. Estimating the total number of
Samis is difficult, although it is estimated at 60,000-80,000, with half of them living
in Norway, 20,000 in Sweden, 8000 in Finland, and 2000 in Russia.
| International Journal | Autumn 2011 | 895 |
| Else Grete Broderstad |
the nature of the state’s relationship with indigenous peoples. Arctic states
today generally share a commitment to increased indigenous influence, a
commitment that is also reflected in practice, although it must be added
that political and administrative solutions vary from state to state.6 There
are several ways of accommodating indigenous political claims of self-
determination. Self-determination comprises a right to self-government,
autonomy, territorial integrity, and the exclusive enjoyment of indigenous
land and resources.7 These claims also present some challenges regarding
the rights and interests of “others.” Thus, I find useful a relational approach
to self-determination and democracy to capture core challenges to the
implementation of indigenous self-determination.8 Applying the Sami-
Norwegian context as a case in point, how has this relational aspect of self-
determination been handled?
Even if the focus is here on the challenges to implementation, such a
focus also requires paying attention to the historical processes that...
To continue reading
Request your trial