TOWARDS A CONCRETE STRATEGY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ABORIGINAL LIFE CHANCES IN CANADA AND THE U.S.A.

By: Jim Ward

In the past couple of weeks I have read two recently published books on the North American Aboriginal issue:  Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian  and John Ralston Saul’s The Comeback .  They are very different books in terms of writing style and approach but both are pretty much focused on the need to do something to rectify a whole series of wrongs done to those who inhabited the North American continent from the north pole to the Rio Grande,  prior to the arrival of the Europeans and who have continued to do so, often in less than ideal conditions. Saul deals exclusively with the Aboriginal situation in what is now Canada, whereas King deals with both Canada and what is now the United States.

The two books are very different in their approach to the issue.  King alleviates the name calling with considerable sophisticated humour.  By contrast Saul’s approach is without humour and brimming with statements of mea culpa on behalf of himself and all those considering themselves Canadian, from early European settlement days until the present. The fly cover of Saul’s book makes the claim that Saul is the leading “public intellectual” in Canada.  Saul is irritating, King is thought provoking.  For Saul the major point is that Aboriginal people in Canada are finally getting their act together and making some progress toward the goals of having the original agreements between |European representatives and Aboriginal representatives recognized. The current Idle No More movement is seen by him as evidence of this.  King’s major argument is that if you don’t understand the importance of land to Aboriginal peoples in both what is now the United States and Canada, then you don’t understand the issue.  Both take the stand that state bureaucracies that deal with “Indian Affairs” in both nations are rigid, time and money-consuming entities that are not much interested in a fair deal for their “charges”. 

For both authors, it is largely about recognizing the need for Aboriginal self-government. In 2006, Frances Abele and Michael Prince  published a comprehensive article examining the different potential approaches to Aboriginal self-government in Canada.  They describe four models of self-government:

•    First Nations as Mini-Municipalities  

•    Adapted Federalism: Public Government as Aboriginal Self-Government

•    Aboriginal Government as A Third Order Government: Trilateral Federalism

•    Dual Federations: Nation-to-Nation

Each of these models is described comprehensively in the Able and Prince article.  Essentially, they work up from the small scale – e.g. current reserves becoming like municipalities, to the creation of a separate nation, geographically within what is currently called Canada but with all the attributes of a modern Nation-state.  

The point I am attempting to make in this article is that the old fights about treaties and self-government need to be abandoned and replaced by a strategy aimed at achieving more power within the Nation-states of Canada and the United States.  This would be a recognition that these European-created states are probably here to stay for some time, so why not accept that situation and work towards increasing power within those states?

The most obvious way of doing this is to get greater power within the existing political systems.  As the eminent economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued in his book The Culture of Contentment  , elected governments tend to work towards satisfying the needs of those who put them in power.  In a democracy, that means those who voted them into power.  Galbraith’s argument in his 1992 book was that those governments put in power were voted for primarily by the middle to upper classes of society, therefore the needs of those that are not attended to are those who tend not to vote, i.e. the working classes and low-income and marginalized people.  In most nations where voting is not compulsory, it is the relatively powerless who tend to vote the least. Thus, a vicious cycle develops, those with the poorest ‘life chances’, participate the least in the democratic system and their low participation guarantees a continuation of a situation of poor life chances for them. In the recent history of Canada and the United States, Aboriginals, once they had the right to vote have tended not to exercise this right.

Life Chances is one of the many concepts developed by the 19th century German sociologist Max Weber.  The concept describes the range of possibilities an individual has in her or his lifetime.   Such life chances are largely determined by the social and political structures into which we are born.  In the 21st century world most of us are born into the reality of a particular nation-state and, although most of these geo-political entities have really only been around for fewer than two hundred years, they are now exceedingly important in determining our life chances.  Such entities extend over a particular geography, bounded by national boundaries about which, except in times of warfare, there tends to be general agreement.  The United Nations is built on this very notion, i.e. that most of humanity lives (and dies) within one of these entities.  It tends to be pure serendipity into which one of these we are born.  Nowadays, if you’re one of the lucky ones, you’re born into one of these nation-states where there is a reasonable amount of economic equality and equality of opportunity.  At this stage of history, Canada and the United States are two such nation-states.  However, even in such relatively open societies such as Canada and the United States, the good luck may not extend to you and members of your group.  An individual’s particular place is still largely determined by class, race, ethnicity and gender.

The only feasible way out of such a situation – short of outright revolution (something that is unlikely to be successful if your group is relatively powerless) is to develop a strategy for increasing the level of power of the particular powerless group.  A recent Canadian example of this that has been reasonably successful was the formation of the Bloc Quebecois, a political party with the avowed goal of making Quebec into a separate nation-state.  That avowed goal has not been reached but it has possibilities of success in the future.  Certainly, the fact that members of that party holds seats in Federal Parliament means they have a voice.  Given that they are there, they can ensure that voice is heard.

To some extent I look to the Maori experience in New Zealand for my model.  In 1840, representatives of British colonizers and several Maori chiefs on the North Island of New Zealand signed the Treaty of Waitangi and, although there have been many arguments over the extent to which the treaty has been honoured, one of the key aspects has been that Maoris have held seats in national parliament ever since New Zealand’s foundation.  Currently, there are three Maori members of the Maori party and several Maori members of parliament in such mainstream parties as the liberal party and the labour party.  Since New Zealand also uses a proportional representation system of elections, this has further assisted Maori in winning election in mainstream parties.

Given that self-government models are unlikely to work, the most likely strategy of success is to work towards having a greater say in Canada’s future direction, through becoming actively involved in the current major political system, i.e. the federal government.  It behooves First Nations peoples to forget the separate nation strategy.

The strategy I propose would involve three concrete goals. 

Firstly, work towards the development of a sense of real collectivity among all First Nations people; a sense of collectivity that builds on the common experience of all Aboriginals in Canada and the United States, i.e. the experience of colonisation.  Granted, this is a huge challenge, particularly given the wide range of histories and experiences, and geographic location of Aboriginals across North America.  But surely the working-class movements of the 19th century had a similar task in getting disparate peoples to recognize common cause.

Secondly, create a First Nations political party, possibly using the formation of the Bloc Quebecois as a model.  Given the historically strong opposition to third parties in the United States, this is more likely to be a challenge there than in Canada, where the notion of multiple parties is more readily accepted.  Many nation states, of course, e.g. Italy and Israel have a multiplicity of political parties.

Thirdly work closely with others in the country to create a mix of first past the post by geographic riding and proportional representation.  There can be little doubt that there are many, certainly in Canada and possibly in the United States that are frustrated by the undemocratic outcome of first-past-the-post election systems. In the current Canadian situation, although the Green Party garnered almost four percent of the popular vote in the 2011 federal election, they only have one member sitting in the 308 member houses of parliament.  With a system of proportional representation the Green Party could have as many as 12 members sitting in the house.  Through spearheading the call for proportional representation, the Aboriginal population would get considerable support from the wider population.  And, if proportional representation becomes a reality, then this reality will spur Aboriginal organizers to work towards ensuring that every Aboriginal over 18 years of age gets out to vote.

I believe that the three-point strategy I have outlined here both accepts the reality of the nation-states of Canada and the United States and, importantly for effective grass-roots organizing, the approach has concrete, identifiable and achievable goals.

There are also two further steps that would further solidify full Aboriginal participation in the political structure of the two nation-states.  The first of these is to advocate for compulsory voting. In such a system all those over 18 years of age who do not vote are subject to a relatively modest fine.  This approach has served Australia well for 90 years and it certainly means that those who are relatively powerless are much more likely to get out and vote.  Australians who argue for the effectiveness of their compulsory voting system often state that it is particularly helpful in integrating new immigrants into the Australian way of life.  In the previously cited work by Kenneth Galbraith, the economist argues that it is those on the economic margins who tend not to vote in systems where voting is not compulsory. They are, literally, the disenfranchised.   Ergo, it would further integrate (not assimilate) Aboriginals into the existing political systems. 

And a final approach that, together with proportional representation and compulsory voting, would further rectify the anti-democratic outcomes of first-past-the post voting systems is that of preferential voting, again a system that has serve Australia well.  In such a voting system, electors cast their votes as ranked preferences.

Although taking the foregoing steps will take an enormous amount of organizing and political activity, I see them as a being realistic steps towards Aboriginals in Canada and the United States becoming an effective political voice through playing an active part in the political machinery of these two nation-states.

________________________________________________________

  i Thomas King (2012) The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America Anchor Canada
  ii John Ralston Saul (2014) The Comeback  Toronto: Viking

  iii I’m a little flummoxed by both writers’ definition of North America as excluding that piece now occupied by the nation-state of Mexico. But that’s another issue that needs to be dealt with elsewhere.  It is particularly puzzling however since Mexico is that part of North America that was the home to more Aboriginals prior to European interference than were present in what are now the nation-states of the USA and Canada combined.  And currently, the population estimates are that there are over  eight million indigenous people in Mexico, compared to about 1.5 million in Canada and 4.3 million in the USA.

   iv Frances Abele and Michael J. Price, (2006) Four Pathways to Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada American Review of Canadian Studies 36:4 pp568-581
   v Much like the current struggle of the Palestinians to become recognized as a fully-fledged Nation-State by the United Nations.
   vi John Kenneth Galbraith (1992) The Culture of Contentment  New York: Houghton Mifflin
   vii  A study of voting patterns for Elections Canada, conducted by Paul Howe and David Bedford of the University of New Brunswick was unable to come up with specific reasons for the low voter turnout.  My guess is that it is largely the sense of powerlessness that keeps people away from the polls.

    viii Certainly, the Bloc Quebecois has lost much of its clout in recent years.  In the early days of the party they won 52 seats in the Canadian House of Commons, making the party the official opposition.  The number of seats has recently dropped to two, meaning that it simple does not have official political party status.  However, the fact there is still a structure in place provides a base from which future successes may be mounted. 

published on: January 26th 2015