Indigenous self-government

Indigenous self-government is the exercise of political authority by indigenous peoples over their own affairs, lands and resources, through institutions they create or control. It can take many forms: tribal governments with jurisdiction over reservations, territorial governments in regions with indigenous majorities, elected indigenous parliaments with advisory or cultural powers, customary authorities recognised by the state, and treaty or land-claim arrangements that combine ownership of land with governance powers.

The idea rests on the claim that indigenous peoples were self-governing nations before colonisation and that their authority was never legitimately extinguished. Self-government is therefore framed not as a grant from the state but as the recognition of an inherent right.

Several bodies of thought inform indigenous self-government.

• International law. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the General Assembly in 2007, affirms the right to self-determination (Article 3) and the right to autonomy or self-government in internal and local affairs (Article 4), together with the principle of free, prior and informed consent for measures affecting indigenous lands.
• Nation-building research. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, led by Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt, argued that the central development opportunity for Indian nations is political and organisational, "nation-building", in which tribes exercise real decision-making power, build capable institutions and match them to their own cultural norms of legitimacy.
• Recognition and treaty federalism. Political theorists argue for treaty-based relationships between indigenous nations and states, sometimes described as a third order of government alongside federal and state or provincial levels.
• Customary governance. Many indigenous systems emphasise consensus, clan or kinship representation, elders' councils and relationships with land, which do not fit easily into the electoral and bureaucratic forms of modern states.

Forms of indigenous self-government

• United States. Federally recognised tribes are domestic dependent nations with their own constitutions, courts and police. Since the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, tribes have taken over many programmes previously run by federal agencies.
• Nunavut (Canada). The Nunavut Act of 1993, passed together with the act ratifying the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, created Nunavut as a separate territory with its own legislature and executive council from 1 April 1999. Its government is a public government elected by all residents, but because most residents are Inuit it functions as a form of Inuit self-government; the land-claim organisation Nunavut Tunngavik represents Inuit as beneficiaries.
• Sámi parliaments. Norway, Sweden and Finland have elected Sámi parliaments with powers over language, culture and some land-use questions. Their influence over resource extraction, including wind farms and mines on reindeer-herding land, remains contested.
• Guna Yala (Panama). After the 1925 Guna revolt, Panama recognised an autonomous region (comarca) governed by the Guna General Congress, one of the oldest indigenous territorial autonomies in the Americas.
• Haudenosaunee and Zapatistas. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy maintains a traditional government that issues its own passports. The Zapatista autonomous municipalities in Chiapas, created outside state recognition, are a rare example of self-government asserted in open defiance of the state.
• Whanganui River. New Zealand's 2017 Te Awa Tupua Act recognised the river as a legal person, with guardians appointed jointly by the Crown and Whanganui iwi.

• Limited powers. Many arrangements give authority over culture and services but not over land, resources or taxation, leaving real power with the state.
• Fiscal dependence. Self-governing bodies often depend on transfers from central governments, which can be used to control them.
• Internal accountability. Like any government, indigenous governments can suffer from factionalism, corruption or exclusion of women and younger members; critics also question the democratic legitimacy of customary authorities.
• Who is a member? Membership rules, sometimes inherited from colonial administrations, can exclude people with indigenous ancestry and create disputes.
• State resistance. Several states delayed endorsing UNDRIP; Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States voted against it in 2007 and later endorsed it. Free, prior and informed consent is frequently not respected in practice.
• One model does not fit all. Imposing uniform templates, such as standard tribal constitutions, can undermine cultural legitimacy, a point stressed by nation-building research.

Indigenous self-government has expanded considerably since the 1970s, from US self-determination policy and Canadian land claims to Nordic Sámi parliaments and Latin American territorial autonomies, and UNDRIP has given it a global normative framework. Research associates real decision-making power and culturally legitimate institutions with better development outcomes. Yet many arrangements remain partial, under-resourced and subject to state override, particularly where valuable resources are at stake.

• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)
• Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, Justice Laws Website
• Stephen Cornell and Joseph P. Kalt, "Sovereignty and Nation-Building", American Indian Culture and Research Journal 22(3) (1998)
• Miriam Jorgensen (ed.), Rebuilding Native Nations (University of Arizona Press, 2007)