Politics of Indigeneity: Challenging the State in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand

by Roger Maaka, Augie Fleras (Illustrator)

Overview

The period 1995 to 2004 was the UN's International Decade of World Indigenous Peoples. This reflected the increasing organisation of indigenous peoples around a commonality of concerns, needs and ambitions. In both New Zealand and Canada, these politics challenge the colonial structures that social and political systems are built upon.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780947522285
Publisher:	Otago University Press
Publication date:	04/24/2017
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	352
File size:	908 KB

About the Author

Roger Maaka is Professor of Native Studies, University of Saskatchewan, and former Professor of Maori Studies at Canterbury University, New Zealand. Augie Fleras is Professor of Sociology at the University of Waterloo, Canada.

Read an Excerpt

The Politics of Indigeneity

Challenging the State in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand

---

By Roger Maaka, Augie Fleras

Otago University Press

Copyright © 2005 Augie Fleras and Roger Maaka
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-947522-28-5

---

CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Taking Indigeneity Seriously

This Adventure Called Indigeneity

Adventure: n, daring enterprise; hazardous activity; incur risk

Indigenous peoples around the world are casting for ways to de-colonise 'from within' (Fleras and Elliott, 1991; Stasiulis and Yuval-Davis, 1995; Ivison et al, 2000; Pearson, 2001; Kymlicka, 2001; Hoge, 2001). The politics of decolonising are particularly striking in those settler societies where the conventional blueprint for 'living together differently' is sharply contested. To one side is an indigenous activism where longstanding models that marginalised indigenous peoples are challenged. A post-colonial alternative is emerging that endorses a new social contract based on constitutional partners living in constructive co-existence. These constitutional challenges may appear unorthodox by conventional standards. Nevertheless, indigenous peoples justify their society-bending claims on the grounds of historical continuity, cultural autonomy, original occupancy, and territorial grounding (Havemann, 1999).

To the other side is state resistance and reaction. Central state authorities claim a right to govern, impose order, enforce rules, and expect compliance in advancing the national interest of all citizens. However much indigenous peoples claim to be sovereign self-determining nations instead of citizens or Crown subjects, governments will neither accept a power that is above the constitution nor relinquish sovereignty over territory through submission to a doctrine that even the UN does not condone (Johnson, 2003). The result is a fiercely contested struggle for control of the national agenda. Sorting through the competing demands of governments and indigenous peoples will prove daunting and may be as disruptive as the decolonisation that re-configured the post World War II global order. What is at stake in each of these upheavals is nothing less than the very notion of what society is for.

The profile of indigenous peoples has expanded immeasurably in recent years. The revolution envisaged by the International Decade of Indigenous Peoples is already underway, an epic upheaval that encompasses nearly every aspect of indigenous peoples' lives and life-chances (see also Bordewich, 1996). Indigenous peoples are challenging popular stereotypes that depict them as doomed victims and perpetual losers, with only themselves to blame. They have evolved into astute political actors who are shaping their destinies, largely outside of white control, reinventing indigenous models of justice and education, exploring the principle of sovereignty to determine their place in modern society, and seeking compensation to right historical wrongs. Paradoxically, indigenous peoples are compelled to work for changes through those frameworks, channels and forums that do not reflect their experiences and realities, but have historically served to advance colonial rather than indigenous interests (Niezen, 2003).

To be sure, this political ferment is not an unalloyed success. Critics insist that:

(a) indigenous communities remain a source of insoluble social problems despite a transfer of power and resources;

(b) cultural renewal tends to regress into ethnic chauvinism;

(c) claims to autonomy may imperil the integrity of the nation-state;

(d) sovereignty talk is largely a smokescreen for preserving élite privilege at rank and file expense, and

(e) irresponsible indigenous demands can cripple local economies.

These criticisms cannot be summarily dismissed. Nevertheless, it would appear that indigenous peoples are playing an entirely new game, where only they seem to understand the shifting ground-rules and conflicting expectations (also Bordewich, 1996).

At the forefront of this transformation are the politics of indigeneity. The emergence of indigeneity as a principled framework for 'living together differently' poses a threat to the foundational principles of a monocultural constitutional state. The conflict in finding a fit between nations and states is captured by the Australian historian Henry Reynolds: 'How will the world manage the profound misfit between the more than 5000 cultural communities and the less than 200 states?' (Reynolds, 1996:174).

The implications are staggering. The politics of indigeneity challenge not only the legitimacy of the sovereign state as the paramount authority in defining 'who gets what' (Maaka and Fleras, 2000). The principle of indigeneity also secures a framework for advancing an innovative, if unorthodox, pattern of belonging that endorses the notion of nation-states as sites of multiple yet interlocking jurisdictions, each autonomous and self-determining yet sharing in the governance of the whole. References to indigeneity do not necessarily mean secession or separatism, any more than demands for self-determination preclude the possibility of co-operative co-existence. Instead, a post-colonial constitutional order is endorsed, one anchored around a new social contract for living together differently in partnership with non-indigenous populations. That is, indigenous peoples insist on surviving as distinct nations while participating in society at large, but on their own self-determining terms rather than conditions imposed by authorities (Frideres, 1998).

The de-colonising process is complicated by paradoxes. To one side, the politicisation of indigeneity disrupts the balance of any society constructed on compromise. The foundational structures that once compartmentalised indigenous peoples into a nested hierarchy of fixed placement are sharply contested (Ivison et al., 2000). To the other side, governments have moved to appease indigenous peoples by removing the most demeaning and debilitating aspects of colonial tutelage. Indigenous peoples can now vote, possess full citizenship rights, have access to higher education and economic opportunities, may engage in cultural practices and protest against injustices. But further advances in re-aligning indigenous peoples–Crown relations will abort if the largely unexamined constitutional conventions that systemically privilege the status quo are not rethought (Jackson, 2000). According to Moana Jackson (1992) 'while the obvious and tangible components of colonialism are being addressed, the intangible and subtle are not, especially in the racist and arrogant right to define what is acceptable or not'. The most egregious expressions of colonialism have been discredited, in other words, but what remain untouched are those 'colonial agendas' that have had a controlling (systemic) effect in privileging national (white) interests at the expense of indigenous rights.

Time will tell whether settler societies are poised to 'take indigeneity seriously' in drawing up a new social contract. Evidence points to a very cautious optimism, and this book analyses how the politics of indigeneity are challenging the settler constitutional framework of New Zealand and Canada. The book begins with the premise that indigenous peoples are fundamentally autonomous political communities, with claims to indigenous models of self-determining autonomy. The book concludes with the assertion that the prospect of living together differently in the deeply divided societies of Aotearoa New Zealand and Canada will involve radical changes to the foundation principles that govern a settler constitutional order. A post-colonial constitutional alternative is proposed; one that advances the principles of a constructive engagement model as the basis for 'engaging indigeneity'. In between, the book addresses how the politics of indigeneity are played out in Canada and New Zealand, with progress in some areas matched by stagnation or regress in others. The interplay of indigenous politics with the politics of indigeneity combine to contest indigenous peoples–Crown relations at the level of government policy, institutional response, and indigenous protest.

The book thematically addresses four levels of analysis. At one level, The Politics of Indigeneity addresses a political framework for living together differently in deeply divided societies. Indigeneity politics endorse a post-colonial social contract that challenges the foundational principles of a settler constitutional order. Not unexpectedly, central authorities have reacted nervously to this seemingly impertinent affront to the national agenda. Key questions arise: how do we live together differently if the differences between the coloniser and colonised are largely incompatible? How do we construct a constitutional framework – a new post-colonial social contract, so to speak – that incorporates the equally legitimate yet divergent claims of coloniser and colonised (Jackson, 2000)? The Politics of Indigeneity explores the politicisation of indigenous peoples–Crown relations in Canada and New Zealand, within the context of a growing commitment to:

(a) indigenous rights;

(b) indigenous models to self-determination;

(c) treating indigenous peoples as relatively autonomous political communities;

(d) acknowledging the principle of indigenous difference; and

(e) restructuring of indigenous peoples–Crown relations on a nation-to-nation basis.

A constructive engagement model is proposed as post-colonial alternative. It is one that advocates exploring a middle way, without succumbing to the polemics of either extreme.

At a second level, The Politics of Indigeneity is about theorising indigeneity as a politicised ideology for challenge, resistance, and transformation. The book contends that any constitutional change to indigenous peoples–Crown relations must confront the foundational principles that govern the constitutional order. Any hope of repairing the relationship involves a double-edged dynamic: first, incorporating indigeneity into the constitutional order ('indigenising the constitution'); and second, acknowledging the constitutional status of indigenous peoples as politically autonomous and self-determining communities ('constitutionalising indigeneity'). To constitutionalise indigeneity by indigenising the constitution entails a normative framework that will include at the minimum:

(a) incorporating the principle of indigeneity as discourse and transformation;

(b) exploring the concept of indigenous rights and their relationship to the sovereignty discourses;

(c) analysing the possibility of a new constitutional order based on the foundational principles of constructive engagement;

(d) exposing the contradictions between a settler constitutional order and a post-colonial social contract; and

(e) addressing the obstacles in re-priming indigenous peoples–Crown relations.

The Politics of Indigeneity concludes by articulating the promise of a constructive constitutional paradigm for engaging indigeneity as a basis for repairing relations (Maaka and Fleras, 2001b).

A third level looks at constructive change and the obstacles in implementing such an agenda. There is much to recommend in discarding an intellectual inheritance that continues to hinder progressive change but the constitutional cornerstones of modern liberal-democracies will not be easily dislodged (Tully, 2000; Lea, 2002). Indigenous peoples are seeking a post-colonial relationship based on mutual consent rather than force, on difference rather than assimilation, on partnership rather than wardship, and on notions of self-determining autonomy rather than institutional accommodation (see Russell, 2003). In doing so, the terms of discourse are shifting from needs to rights, from problems to capacities, from litigation to relationships, and from citizenship to peoples (see Erasmus, 2002). It is inevitable that there will be delays in revamping indigenous peoples–Crown relations along post-colonial lines without a commitment to compromise. Indigenous rights to self-determination and crown rights to regulatory rule are mutually exclusive yet equally valid. A failure to find a balance between the two will lead to conflict. There is hope that a new social contract based on indigenous models of self-determining autonomy will find this balance. A paradigm shift toward the foundational principles of a constructive engagement model may also unlock the quintessential constitutional riddle: The creation of a new social contract in which coloniser and colonised can live together differently in partnership despite their deeply-dividing differences.

At the fourth level, The Politics of Indigeneity focuses on debates and developments in Canada and Aotearoa New Zealand. As democratic and progressive countries they can be justifiably proud of their many achievements in the management of indigenous relations. New Zealand has embarked on a mission to right historical wrongs by means of treaty settlements, at the same time that both government policy and state institutions are moving over to make bicultural space for Maori realities. Canada is experimenting with a new social contract for living together differently through self-government for Aboriginal peoples. In other words, developments in Canada and New Zealand are advancing the constitutional yardsticks in decolonising their colonial inheritances by doing what is necessary, workable and just.

The intent of this book is not a critical comparison. Any kind of ranking exercise invariably involves subjective elements for reassessment; for example, is the possession of constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada's constitution more important than guaranteed Maori seats in Parliament (Ladner, 2003)? Our objective is to demonstrate how the politics of indigeneity are being played out in Canada and New Zealand by relying on developments in each country to better understand the complexities of each other. The book is predicated on the assumption that both of these countries remain foundationally 'white' (colonial) because of their political workings, the distribution of wealth and privilege, and unspoken assumptions (see also Roediger, 2002). The colonialism in Canada and New Zealand is implicit, deeply rooted in the constitutional order, and embraces a largely unchallenged legacy.

The challenges that await in the new millennium will prove daunting. Settler societies must confront those largely unexamined conventions that systemically continue to defame, demean, and deform. A post-colonial order challenges a tacitly assumed paradigm of white superiority proposing, instead, to see it as one of many possible racialised positions to have attracted power and privilege (see Nelson and Nelson, 2003). Each country is also under pressure to atone for the injustices incurred in the process of colonial society-building (Chesterton and Galligan, 1997). Such is the injustice of colonial process that the continued denial and concealment of theft, forcible incorporation, and marginalisation is abortive of any reconciliation. The Politics of Indigeneity addresses the injustices of colonisation, both now and then, by exploring the political 'interface' at the confluence of indigenous politics with government policies. The timing cannot come too soon. Improving our insights into this emergent dialogue between sovereigns will assume an even greater salience if the promise of living together differently is to become a millennium reality.

Indigeneity in the New Millennium: Shifting the Discourse

Why a book on the politics of indigeneity? Why now? The politicisation of indigeneity as a discourse marks a reshaping of the political contours of white settler societies. There are challenges to the political conventions that established the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Crown through nested hierarchies where everyone knew their place and played by the same rules. Indigenous peoples, as resistant and remembering peoples, have employed diverse strategies to bring about change. These range from strategic compliance to legal political challenges, with acts of civil disobedience in between.

Central authorities have also been at the vanguard of the restructuring process. Although political initiatives have been varied, they have tended to acknowledge the following concessions:

(a) indigenous peoples as a distinct minority;

(b) indigenous peoples have title and customary rights to property;

(c) indigenous peoples have experienced settler injustice which needs to be restituted through regional agreements;

(d) indigenous cultures are living and lived-in realities; and

(e) indigenous peoples have rights to some form of self-determination.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from The Politics of Indigeneity by Roger Maaka, Augie Fleras. Copyright © 2005 Augie Fleras and Roger Maaka. Excerpted by permission of Otago University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Contents

Front Cover,
Title Page,
Copyright,
Preface: Unlocking the Silence,
1 Introduction: Taking Indigeneity Seriously,
2 Engaging Indigeneity: Challenge, Resistance, and Transformation,
3 Nga Tangata Whenua: Maori in Aotearoa,
4 Sovereignty Lost, Tino Rangatiratanga Reclaimed, Self-Determination Secured, Partnership Forged,
5 Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: Peoples, Problems, and Policies,
6 Re-Priming the Partnership: The Politics of Aboriginality in Canada,
7 Contesting the Constitutional Terrain, Shifting the Foundational Rules: Paradoxes, Politics, and Promises,
8 Indigeneity at the Edge: Towards a Constructive Engagement,
References,
Index,