Deliberative democracy and historical perspectives on American Indian/Alaska native political decision-making practices

Vanessa Y Hiratsuka,Paul Spicer,Terry S Ketchum,Kyle Wark,Jessica W Blanchard,Justin Reedy,R Brian Woodbury,Raymond Orr,Bobby Saunkeah

doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0506-4

Abstract

Public deliberation has risen to the forefront of governance as a technique for increasing participation in policy making. Scholars and practitioners have also noted the potential for deliberation to give greater influence to historically marginalized populations, such as Indigenous peoples. However, there has been less attention paid to the potential fit between the ideals of deliberation and the governance and decision making practices of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing accounts of AI/AN governance from the perspective of deliberation, and note areas of overlap, synergy, and conflict. We conduct a close reading of key historical and ethnographic accounts of four historical AI/AN contexts—the Iroquois Confederation under the Great Law of Peace, 19th century accounts of the Ojibwa village, the Santa Clara Pueblo government in pre-19th century, and Yup’ik village life in the early 20th century—and a more contemporary case in the form of the Santa Clara Pueblo’s Constitution from the Indian Reorganization Act period. We then apply two sets of key criteria for deliberative democracy—from the scholars Robert Dahl and John Gastil—to these accounts and note the ways in which each system is or is not congruent with these frameworks of deliberation. We find variations between these historical tribal contexts in our analysis. Social components of deliberation, such as respectful discussion and equal opportunities to participate, were partially or fully present in many accounts of governance practices, but it was less clear whether the analytic components, such as discussion of a range of solutions, were included in some forms of tribal governance. We then explore the potential implications of our findings for public deliberation within and in AI/AN tribes. We note that deliberative scholars and practitioners should be wary of overgeneralizing about AI/AN tribes.

Highlights

The rise of public deliberation, in both research and politics, inevitably raises questions about the origin and value of deliberative democracy, especially in the presence of competing political orders
Such inquiry is especially indicated when we think about using these methods in the context of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities, where tribal entities regularly balance Indigenous and imposed forms of governance
To guide our analysis of AI/AN discussion practices, we review relevant scholarship on deliberative democracy and provide an overview of two models of democratic decision making from the U.S.—one a more general theory of a democratic process advanced by political theorist Robert Dahl, and the other a more specific model of the practice of public deliberation developed by deliberative scholar John Gastil

Summary

Introduction

The rise of public deliberation, in both research and politics, inevitably raises questions about the origin and value of deliberative democracy, especially in the presence of competing political orders. For the Yup’ik people, accounts of village-level deliberation suggest it was inclusive, but discussions primarily involved male elders first, followed by discussions with other men in the village; women and bright young people were included in some cases, and women sometimes served as village leaders These discussions seemed to meet the criterion of participation opportunities: Leaders typically shared their thoughts with village residents on important decisions faced by the communities, and residents could comment but likely mostly listened. Whether the contract be on the overall presence of public deliberation components in historical accounts of tribal discussion practices (highly present in Iroquois and not Santa Clara Pueblo) or specific factors, such as the inclusion or exclusion of youth (Yup’ik in contrast to Ojibwa), the variation has important implications for thinking about who to include in a discussion process and why

Discussion and implications

Conclusion