The Unfinished Revolution: Political Science of Indigenous Sovereignty on Turtle Island
Indigenous sovereignty on Turtle Island is not merely a cultural aspiration; it is a profound and complex challenge to the political foundations of settler states, demanding a re-evaluation of governance, land rights, and national identity. Far from being a niche issue, the political science of Indigenous sovereignty delves into the very core of state legitimacy, international law, and the pursuit of justice, asserting a pre-existing right to self-determination that predates and, in many ways, supersedes colonial claims. This article explores the multifaceted political dimensions of Indigenous sovereignty, examining its historical roots, legal evolution, contemporary manifestations, and the inherent tensions it presents to settler-colonial systems.
At its heart, Indigenous sovereignty is an inherent right. Unlike the sovereignty of settler states, often derived from conquest, international recognition, or popular mandate, Indigenous sovereignty stems from continuous occupation, distinct political systems, and spiritual connections to ancestral lands since time immemorial. As the late Oglala Lakota scholar Vine Deloria Jr. argued, "Tribes are not created by the federal government, nor are their powers delegated to them by the federal government." Their political existence is a fundamental truth, recognized, albeit imperfectly, by early European powers through treaties and later, through the slow grind of legal battles and international declarations.
Pre-contact Turtle Island was a mosaic of sophisticated Indigenous nations, each with intricate political, legal, and economic systems. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy, for instance, operated under the Great Law of Peace, a complex constitutional framework that influenced early American democratic thought. The arrival of European powers, however, ushered in an era of colonialism, predicated on the myth of terra nullius – empty land – or the assertion of superior European civilization. This ideological framework allowed settler states to systematically dispossess Indigenous peoples of their lands, suppress their governance structures, and assimilate their populations, fundamentally altering the political landscape.
The early interactions, particularly the treaty-making process, provide a critical lens into the original understanding of Indigenous sovereignty. Many treaties, especially in what is now Canada, were understood by Indigenous nations as nation-to-nation agreements, establishing shared use of land and mutual respect, not outright cession of sovereignty. The Two Row Wampum Belt, a Haudenosaunee covenant with Dutch settlers, famously symbolizes this vision: two parallel rows, representing two distinct peoples and their laws, travelling down the river of life side-by-side, never interfering with each other. This original intent stands in stark contrast to the subsequent interpretations by colonial governments, which often viewed treaties as mechanisms for land surrender and Indigenous subordination.
The legal and political struggle for the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty has been a protracted and often painful one. In the United States, landmark Supreme Court cases in the 19th century, such as Worcester v. Georgia (1832), famously articulated that Indigenous nations were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive." While subsequent policies like the Indian Removal Act and the reservation system severely undermined this principle, the concept of "tribal sovereignty" remains a cornerstone of US federal Indian law, albeit a limited and often challenged one, operating within the plenary power of Congress.
In Canada, the legal recognition of Aboriginal rights and title has been a more recent development, largely driven by judicial activism. The 1973 Calder v. British Columbia case first acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title based on prior occupation, challenging the notion that Indigenous land rights were merely privileges granted by the Crown. This was followed by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in the 1990s, which extensively documented the historical injustices and recommended a fundamental reshaping of the relationship based on recognition, respect, and self-determination. The 1997 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia decision further defined Aboriginal title as a communal right to the land itself, not just the right to hunt, fish, or gather, and crucially, required consultation and accommodation where Crown actions might infringe upon these rights. Most recently, the 2014 Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia case marked a historic moment, as the Supreme Court of Canada made the first declaration of Aboriginal title to a specific tract of land, affirming Indigenous nations’ right to "exclusive use and occupation" of their traditional territories.
Internationally, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted in 2007, represents a critical global consensus on the minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples. UNDRIP, though non-binding, affirms Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination (Article 3), their right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social, and cultural institutions (Article 4), and their right to lands, territories, and resources (Articles 25-30). Its endorsement by Canada, the United States, and other settler states signals a normative shift, placing a moral and political imperative on these nations to align their domestic laws and policies with its principles.
From a political science perspective, the assertion of Indigenous sovereignty presents several core challenges to the liberal democratic state:
-
Pluralism vs. Unitarism: Settler states typically operate under a unitary understanding of sovereignty, where the state is the ultimate authority. Indigenous sovereignty demands a pluralistic model, where multiple sovereignties coexist within a defined geographical space. This necessitates new forms of intergovernmental relations, moving beyond a federal-provincial/state dynamic to a true nation-to-nation relationship.
-
Constitutional Reconciliation: The inherent rights of Indigenous peoples are often seen as external to settler constitutional frameworks. Reconciling these requires constitutional amendments, new legislation, and innovative political agreements that entrench Indigenous self-governance and land rights, shifting from a power-over relationship to one of co-existence and shared authority. The Nisga’a Final Agreement in British Columbia, for example, is a modern treaty that recognizes Nisga’a self-government and land ownership, creating a distinct governance structure within Canada’s constitutional framework.
-
Resource Sovereignty and Economic Justice: A major flashpoint for Indigenous sovereignty is the control over land and natural resources. Settler states, built on resource extraction, frequently view Indigenous land claims as obstacles to economic development. However, for Indigenous nations, resource sovereignty is integral to self-determination, economic self-sufficiency, and the protection of ancestral lands and cultures. Conflicts over pipelines (e.g., Coastal GasLink in Wet’suwet’en territory, Enbridge Line 5 in Anishinaabemowin territory) vividly illustrate this clash of sovereignties, where Indigenous nations assert their jurisdiction against state-sanctioned industrial projects.
-
Fiscal and Administrative Capacity: Genuine self-determination requires not just political recognition but also the fiscal resources and administrative capacity to govern effectively. Decades of colonial policies have deliberately undermined Indigenous institutions and economies. Therefore, political science must also examine how settler states can transfer sufficient resources, support capacity building, and negotiate equitable revenue-sharing agreements to enable Indigenous governments to fulfill their responsibilities to their citizens.
-
Decolonization and Reconciliation: The political science of Indigenous sovereignty is inextricably linked to the broader processes of decolonization and reconciliation. Decolonization, as articulated by scholars like Taiaike Alfred, is not simply about reversing colonial policies but fundamentally transforming power structures and societal attitudes. Reconciliation, as emphasized by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, requires acknowledging past harms, implementing the UN Declaration, and fostering new relationships based on mutual respect and equity. This is a political project that demands action from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
The challenges are immense. Settler governments often resist fully relinquishing control or sharing jurisdiction, fearing a loss of territorial integrity or economic leverage. Systemic racism, deeply embedded in institutions, continues to impede progress. The sheer diversity of Indigenous nations, each with unique histories, languages, and governance structures, means that a one-size-fits-all solution is neither feasible nor desirable.
Yet, the momentum for Indigenous sovereignty continues to build. The "Land Back" movement, for example, is a powerful political assertion demanding the return of unceded or illegally seized lands, often challenging the very legitimacy of settler land ownership. It is a call for restorative justice and a recognition of the ongoing responsibilities that come with occupying Indigenous territories. Similarly, the growing number of self-governing agreements, the revitalization of Indigenous legal orders (like the Anishinaabe law of Anishinaabe Akiing), and the increasing political participation of Indigenous peoples in both their own nations and settler political systems, all underscore a vibrant and evolving political landscape.
In conclusion, the political science of Indigenous sovereignty on Turtle Island is not a static field; it is a dynamic, ongoing struggle for recognition, self-determination, and justice. It compels settler states to confront their colonial legacies, to rethink the nature of sovereignty, and to forge new relationships based on respect for inherent rights. The journey towards true nation-to-nation relations is complex, fraught with historical grievances and contemporary challenges, but it is an essential path towards a more just, equitable, and pluralistic future for all inhabitants of Turtle Island. The unfinished revolution of Indigenous sovereignty continues to reshape the political landscape, demanding that we all engage with its profound implications for governance, law, and shared existence.
