“Empty versus Full or Half-Full
Medicine Chest”
CONTROVERSIES IN INDIGENOUS
GOVERNANCE IN CANADA
13/04/2015
1
© Dr. Francis Adu-Febiri, 2013
INTRODUCTION
 The
main controversy over Indigenous
governance in Canada has been the
conflict between Canadian
government’s “hidden” agenda of neocolonization and Indigenous stance on
de-colonization.
13/04/2015
2
MAJOR CONCEPTS
Power and Authority
 Empowerment
 Sovereignty
 Governance
 Self-government
 Colonialism, Neo-colonialism, and Decolonization
 Aboriginal Title

13/04/2015
3
MODELS OF GOVERNANCE
1.
Power Model
2. Empowerment Model
3. Combinations
13/04/2015
4
WESTERN MODEL OF GOVERNANCE: POWER MODEL
POWER:Ability to compel compliance
DOMINATION: Power
relations in which regular
pattern of inequality is
established, whereby the
subordinate accepts that
position , obeying the
commands of the dominant
mainly because of fear of
violence/suffering
FORCE
AUTHORITY: Compliance
to command because it is
perceived as legitimate:
1. Tradition
2. Legal-Rational
3. Charisma
SOVEREIGNTY
13/04/2015
GOVERNANCE:
Distribution and Exercise of
Power: Sovereignty vs Delegation.
5
INDIGENOUS MODEL OF
GOVERNANCE
 EMPOWERMENT
MODEL:
–Consensus Governance
 Structure
of government may be
hierarchical/centralized,
acephalous, or segmented while
the dynamics of governance is
egalitarian.
13/04/2015
6
EMPOWERMENT
 Empowerment
is “the expansion of
assets and capabilities of people to
participate in, negotiate with,
influence, control, and hold
accountable institutions that affect
their lives” (World Bank, 2002).
13/04/2015
7
EMPOWERMENT

“Empowered people have freedom of
choice and action. This in turn enables them
to better influence the course of their lives
and the decisions which affect them”(World
Bank 2002).

Reference:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/
TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTEMPOWERMENT
/0,,contentMDK:20244572~pagePK:210058~piP
K:210062~theSitePK:486411,00.html
13/04/2015
8
THE NISGA’A GOVERNANCE
MODEL: Power or Empowerment?

Power Governance vs. Empowered and Empowering
Governance:

Over one hundred years of rejection, in 1999
the Nisga’a signed a treaty that gives them selfgovernment powers akin to municipal
government, land, resource rights and cash.
Under the treaty, they will once again govern
themselves by their own institutions within the
context of Canadian law…The Nisga’a will be
allowed once again to follow their ayuukh, their
code of law under their own government and
self-determination (Steritt 1998-99: 73).
13/04/2015
9
“EMPTY VERSUS FULL
MEDICINE CHEST”



The Nisga’s self-government template is the latest
among a series of templates the Canadian government
has offered/proposed to Indigenous peoples of Canada.
The templates the government offers represent the
“empty medicine chest” approach to Indigenous
governance that the First Nations have rejected over
and over again. The Sechelt, Alberta Metis Settlements,
and Nunavut templates are mere repackaging of this
“empty medicine chest” approach.
This approach is in contrast to the First Nations “full
medicine chest” template of “Aboriginal governance
which seeks for sovereign independent Aboriginal
nation states” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 251).
13/04/2015
10
FRANK CALDER’S REMARKS after
Parliament passed the Nisga’a Treaty

We are now liberated, that is what is
going on here… Now we’re free to
exercise what we wanted to do, instead of
remaining under the confinement of the
reservation. The reservation, and to get
out of it, that’s the main theme of what
we’re doing (Matas 1999).
13/04/2015
11
THE REAL MEANING OF THE “EMPTY
VERSUS FULL MEDICINE CHEST”
CONTROVERSY
 Neo-colonization
Versus
Decolonization
13/04/2015
12
NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
THE LOGIC:
 By colonizing Indigenous people, EuroCanadians
have had full access to material resources of
Canada. To maintain this access colonization must
continue. However, in the face of increased
sophistication of Indigenous resistance and
conventions of international human rights, it is
suicidal to pursue classic/blatant colonialism.
Hence Canadian government’s proposals of
Indigenous governance templates since the 1970s
that have the guise of self-government but
maintain
the
core
of
colonialism.
This
is
neo13/04/2015
13
colonialism.

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE



THE EVIDENCE:
1. Interpretations of Indigenous Governance:
a) According to the Canadian government,
“Indians, Inuit, and Metis were never nations in
the legal sense and are not now to be treated as
such” (: 236). Treaties signed with Aboriginals are
not equal to that signed between other sovereign
international peoples or nations. Indigenous
people cannot therefore be accorded with full
political autonomy.
13/04/2015
14
NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE


b) Indigenous claim to sovereignty is false: Any
sovereignty that existed in Canada was vested in the
Crown.
According to the government, the following charters,
treaties and acts phased out any Indigenous sovereignty
in Canada (Frideres and Gadacz 2001):
– Royal Charters including the Hudson Bay Company Charter
of 1670.
– Treaty of Utrecht: 1713.
– Various treaties in 1725 between Indians and the British.
– The Royal Proclamation of 1763.
– The Constitution Act 1867 (BNA Act).
– Rupert’s Land Transfer Act.
– The Indian Act of 1876.
13/04/2015
– The Constitution Act of 1982.
15
NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
2. Government’s unilateral introduction
of rehashed versions of the 1876 Indian
Act’s band Aboriginal self-government
policy. This policy has been delegation of
power to Aboriginals not recognition of
Aboriginal sovereignty. The latest is the
First Nations Governance Act (FNGA)
2003.
 This conclusion is borne out by a content
analysis of the following positions of the
Canadian government on Aboriginal selfgovernment:
13/04/2015
16

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA OF
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
A). The extent and division of powers
between the federal and provincial
government will not be changed through
self-government negotiations.
 B). There will be an attempt to
accommodate Indigenous governments
within the existing constitutional
framework.
 C). The resultant self-government
structures must conform to the
established principles, jurisdictions, and
13/04/2015
institutions of Canadian jurisprudence. 17

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

This self-government policy was introduced in 1986
and the government began negotiating with specific
Indigenous communities. Each band is given the
opportunity to choose the form and structure of its selfgovernment within the framework of the communitybased self-government template:
– The Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, 1986.
– Community-based self government, 1986.
– Municipal style government.
This form of “Aboriginal self-government does not
include a right of sovereignty in the international law
sense, nor will it result in sovereign independent
Aboriginal nation states” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001:
251).
13/04/2015

18
NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
The “hidden” agenda of the community-based
self-government template:
 The structure of the new forms of selfgovernment would ensure that concern and
hostility would be deflected to local leadership,
not Indian Affairs personnel. Finally, the
acceptance of the municipal style government
by Indigenous people would lead to the
acceptance of the dominant society’s culture
and values, thus ensuring the further
assimilation [sic] of Indigenous persons
(Frideres
and
Gadacz
2001:
256).
13/04/2015
19

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA
OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
Indigenous peoples’ responses to the
community-based self-government template:
 1. Non-Status Indians, Inuit, Metis, and some
First Nations communities have bought into the
Canadian state’s neocolonial template of
Indigenous governance for pragmatic reasons.
 2. Sechelt and a few other First Nations
communities have accepted municipal type
governance template.
 3. Nunavut preferred provincial-type
governance but settled for a municipal-type
13/04/2015
government (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, p. 20
253).

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA OF
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
4. Non-status Indians and Metis “have
publicly accepted the fact that any
government for them will have to be
delegated by either the provincial or the
federal government” (Frideres and
Gadacz 2001: 245) .
 5. Metis Settlement Governance Model of
Alberta is an old [internal colonial]
structure infused with contemporary
management notions and practices (Wall,
13/04/2015
21
2000).

DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
In contrast to the neocolonial governance
template offered by the government, most
First Nations “have insisted that their
inherent sovereignty defines and
formalizes them as a fourth level of
government” in Canada (Frideres and
Gadacz 2001: 245).
 For some First Nations “a fourth level of
government” means “internal
sovereignty”, while for others it means
13/04/2015
22
“full independence.”

DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

Internal Sovereignty: This is partial
sovereignty; the freedom to regulate
certain of their own affairs without
interference from outside (Kulchynski
1994).

Full Independence: This is full sovereignty; a
complete control over their own affairs; does
not receive its “enabling organizational act”
from neither the federal or the provincial
government; similar to pre-contact traditional
Aboriginal governance.
13/04/2015
23
DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

The Aboriginal decolonization agenda of
governance demands self-government
derived from “Aboriginal title and not from
Parliament” (Tennant 1984). This demand
is premised on the fact that Aboriginal
societies originally had a system of selfgovernment that was in complete control
over their internal and external relations
(Boldt et al 1985).
13/04/2015
24
DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE

First Nations leaders cite the following as a proof
of pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty: These
charters, treaties, and legislation recognized that
“Indians existed as nations” (Frideres and Gadacz
2001: 236-7).
– Royal Charters including the Hudson Bay Company Charter
of 1670.
– Treaty of Utrecht: 1713.
– Various treaties in 1725 between Indians and the British.
– The Royal Proclamation of 1763.
– The Constitution Act 1867 (BNA Act).
– Rupert’s Land Transfer Act.
– The Indian Act.
13/04/2015
25
– The Constitution Act of 1982.
DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE


Based upon these evidences, the Supreme Court
has supported Aboriginal sovereignty. For
example,
In the Delgamuukw case, the Chief Justice noted
that the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal duty
to enter negotiations with Aboriginal people in
good faith with the objective to achieve
reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal
societies with the sovereignty of the Crown
(Laselva 1998-99).
13/04/2015
26
DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE
The evidences shown above seem to suggest that
Aboriginals have pre-existing sovereignty.
 However, the Crown has presented the following
arguments purported to refute these claims of
sovereignty (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 238):
 1. The continuity doctrine: in the case of conquest or
cessation the sovereignty of a “civilized” original people
continues until they change it through their own act of
parliament.
 2. The Royal Proclamation states that the British
became the sovereign after the proclamation.
 3. Canadian courts have concluded that European
treaties with the Aboriginals were not international
13/04/2015
27
treaties. Moreover, no continuing right to selfgovernment is mentioned in any of the treaties.

DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE
Given the arguments of the federal
government and the judicial system’s lack
of power to enforce its decisions, Frideres
and Gadacz (2001: 238) may be right when
they conclude that:
 “It is unlikely that the courts or the
government will ever find Aboriginal
peoples to have sovereignty.”

13/04/2015
28
SOURCES OF AND SOLUTIONS TO
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY



“Aboriginal people still argue that they have
sovereignty; the government says they don’t.”
(Frideres and Gadacz (2001: 238)
If the controversy is settled in favor of the
Indigenous peoples they would achieve selfgovernment beyond the municipal-government
style that the Canadian government has
offered.
On the other hand, if it is settled in favor of the
government, as the case is now, Indigenous
peoples have to settle for limited control type of
self-government.
13/04/2015
29
FOURTH LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FOR
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE




What is the feasibility of Indigenous peoples in
Canada realizing the “Fourth Level of
Government” vision?
Fourth level of government is full independence
Full Independence: a complete control over
their own affairs; does not receive its “enabling
organizational act” from neither the federal or
the provincial government; similar to precontact traditional Indigenous governance.
What are the positions of the sociological
paradigms on this controversy?
13/04/2015
30
FUNCTIONALIST POSITION ON
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY

Cause: Dysfunctional Aboriginal Political Culture:

The controversy is the result of the dysfunctional Aboriginal
political culture in contemporary Canada. Demand for Aboriginal
sovereignty is unreasonable given that it would cause so many
problems (dysfunctions) that would disrupt the balance
(homeostasis) of Canadian social structure:
13/04/2015
31
FUNCTIONALIST POSITION ON INDIGENOUS
GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY
Dysfunctions of Aboriginal sovereignty:
– From a practical point of view it would be
unwieldy to operate over 500 governments in
Canada; the economic implications of such an
arrangement would be staggering (Mickingberg
1971).
– Politically speaking, a fourth level Aboriginal
self-government will not be a palatable solution
to most Canadians (Frideres and Gadacz 2001).
– Pragmatically, it would require a substantial
overhaul of Canadian democratic system
13/04/2015(Jhappan 1990).
32

FUNCTIONALIST POSITION ON
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY
 Solution: Assimilation
– The limited control or municipal type
self-government currently being offered
is the solution because it would facilitate
the assimilation of Aboriginal political
culture into Canadian governmental
system without much disruptions in
Canadian society.
 Many Aboriginal communities have bought
into that template already.
13/04/2015
33
 What is the main flaw of this position?
SOCIAL CONFLICT POSITION ON
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY
 Cause: Competition over Resources:
 Industrial capitalist economic processes
require that internal colonialism is
entrenched over Indigenous peoples to give
a competitive advantage to EuroCanadian
capitalists. Indigenous peoples’ resistance
aimed at achieving a fourth level of
government is a logical response to this
disguised class inequality.
13/04/2015
34
SOCIAL CONFLICT POSITION ON
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY
 Solution: Proletariat Revolution
– It is only when Indigenous join the proletariats
of all other racial groups in Canada to use
militant means to overthrow capitalism that true
Aboriginal sovereignty would be re-established.

What is the main flaw in this position?
13/04/2015
35
FEMINIST POSITION ON INDIGENOUS
GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

Cause: Feminization of Aboriginality: Western
Patriarchy
The feminist paradigm postulates that controversy over
Indigenous governance is caused by feminization of
Aboriginality: the ideology that Indigenous peoples are not
human enough or sufficiently “developed” to make major
political decisions to effectively manage a fourth level
government.
 Solution: Elimination of Western Patriarchy
 Indigenous self-government would occur beyond the
municipal type government only when western patriarchy
is no more. Indigenous peoples should therefore join the
feminist movement to eliminate western patriarchy.
13/04/2015
36
 What is the main flaw in this position?

INTERACTIONIST POSITION ON THE
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY

Cause: Differential Definition of good governance:

The Western definition of governance in terms that
favor individualism and hierarchically organized and
impersonal politics is antithetical to Indigenous
traditional definition of governance. For the western
political mind a fourth level of government in Canada
symbolizes chaos, but for the Indigenous political mind
this form of governance is a symbol of equality in
sharing power—empowerment--the most viable way to
organize politics.
The interaction between these definitions generates
changing perceptions of governance, thus constantly
changing the emphasis of the Indigenous governance
controversy.

13/04/2015
37
INTERACTIONIST POSITION ON THE
ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY



Solution: Continuous re-definition and
negotiation:
The controversy demands continuous negotiations
between the government and Indigenous political
leaders as action units or human agents. There
won’t be a time when the controversy is
completely resolved; it will keep on shifting with
shifting definitions/symbols of self-government.
What is the main flaw in this position?
13/04/2015
38
POSTMODERNIST POSITION ON THE
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY





Cause: Homogenization of governance:
Globalization-induced homogenizing influence of
Western political culture on traditional Indigenous
governance is the main source of the controversy
Solution: Multiculturalization of politics:
Extend egalitarian pluralism or multicultural
policy to political culture of Canada. Such a policy
would compel the mainstream to respect and
facilitate the reinvention of traditional Indigenous
governance—the empowerment model.
What is the main flaw in the position?
13/04/2015
39
POSTSTRUCTURALIST POSITION ON
THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY



Cause: Structured intersectional power inequality
in the Canadian State system:
The controversy is a reflection of the power base
of the Canadian state structure which is white,
male, middle/upper class, able-bodied dominated.
Groups such as Indigenous people who are outside
this structural intersection are excluded from the
center of power, that is, federal and provincial
governments and pushed to the margins of
political power structure—municipal government.
13/04/2015
40
POSTSTRUCTURALIST POSITION ON
THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY


Solution: Elimination of the Centralized State
Structure:
Indigenous should join forces with other
racial/ethnic minorities, women, the lower/under
class, and other disenfranchized Canadians to
organize politically to eliminate the Canadian state
structure and redistribute power equally (Bannerji
2000).
– “Change takes power, power takes organization, and
organization takes unity” (Taiaike Alfred 2002: 3)

What is the main flaw in this position?
13/04/2015
41
POSTCOLONIALIST POSITION ON
THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY
Cause: Colonial Cultural Mentality (Franz Fanon):
 Cultural domination of Indigenous peoples has
caused them to buy into Western imperialist
notions of governance – Power Model.
 Solution: De-colonization of the colonial mind-set
 Unless Indigenous peoples are liberated from this
colonial mentality, true self-government will elude
them like the case of African, Latin American and
Asian countries which are “politically
independent” but are still operating western
imperialist governance systems that continue to
13/04/2015
42
oppress them.

ABORIGINAL POSITION ON THE
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY
 There
has never been a single
position among Indigenous
groups as to what selfgovernment means or how it is
to be implemented (Cardinal
1986).
13/04/2015
43
ABORIGINAL POSITION ON THE
INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE
CONTROVERSY

As stated earlier, there has been a continuum of
Aboriginal positions on the Indigenous
governance controversy:

At the lower extreme are some status Indians who accept the
Indian Act type Band Council system and at the upper extreme
are the First Nations that seek a fourth level/order of government
with powers similar to those of the federal and provincial
governments (Frideres and Gadacz 2001).
In between these two extremes are Indigenous groups
who settle for municipal type (Sechelt, Nisga’a and
Alberta Metis Settlements) and enlarged municipal
type (Nunavut) of self-government (Steckley and
Cummins 2001).
 What is the main flaw in this position?
13/04/2015

44
CONCLUSION: EMPOWERING
GOVERNANCE OR TYPES OF SELFGOVERNMENT?


There cannot be good governance in a nation or
group without the power of self-government.
However, Good governance is not necessarily
produced by systems of self-government. Many
countries, nations and groups with powers of
federal, provincial/state/regional, municipal/local
governments in a capitalist or socialist political
system have failed to achieve empowering
governance that enhances the lives of their citizens
because of human factor decay/deficiency (AduFebiri 1998).
13/04/2015
45
CONCLUSION: EMPOWERING
GOVERNANCE OR TYPE OF SELFGOVERNMENT?



In this regard, the type of self-government the
Canadian government offers Indigenous peoples
does not matter as much as the state/level of
Indigenous peoples human factor competency.
In effect, it is the development of Indigenous
human factor competency rather than the type of
self-government that would guarantee effective,
liberating Indigenous governance.
What is the main flaw in this position?
13/04/2015
46
REFERENCES
Adu-Febiri, Francis. 1998. “The Failure of Socialist
Experiments in Africa: Misconceptions, Myths and
Realities.” In Senyo Adjibolosoo and Benjamin OforiAmoah (eds.). Addressing Misconceptions About
Africa’s Development. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen
Press.
 Alfred, Taiaike. 2002. “The Great Law of Change.”
The Eastern Door.
 Boldt, M., J.A. Long and L. Little Bear (eds.). 1985.
The Quest for Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
 Cardinal, H. 1986. “Constitutional Change and the
Treaty 8 Renovation.” In Indian-Provincial Relations.
M. Boldt, J.A. Long and L. Little Bear (eds.).
13/04/2015
47
Lethbridge: The University of Lethbridge.

REFERENCES




Fanon, Franz. 1952. Black Skin, White Masks. New
York: Grove Press.
Frideres, James S. and Rene R. Gadacz. 2001.
Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts.
Sixth Edition. Chapter 9. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
Kulchynski, P. (ed.). 1994. Unjust Relations: Aboriginal
Rights in Canadian Courts. Toronto: Oxford University
Press.
Laselva, S. 1998-99. “Aboriginal Self-Government and
the Foundation of Canadian Nationhood.” B.C. Studies,
120: 41-55.
13/04/2015
48
REFERENCES




Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism.
Steckley, John L. and Bryan D. Cummins. 2001. Full
Circle: Canada’s First Nations. Chapter 24. Toronto:
Prentice Hall.
Sreritt, N. 1998-99. “The Nisga’a Treaty: Competing
Claims Ignored!” B.C. Studies, 120: 73-98).
Wall, Denis. 2000. “Aboriginal Self-Government
in Canada: The Cases of Nunavut and the Alberta
Metis Settlements. In David Long and Olive
Patricia Dickason (eds.). Visions of the Heart:
Canadian Aboriginal Issues. Toronto: Harcourt
Canada.
13/04/2015
49