Mapping Trends and Challenges in Political Science Research in Indigenous Policy and Politics (2019-2023)

The relationship between Indigenous peoples and nation-states

The examination of the Canadian context, as initiated by Beauvais and Stolle (2022), serves as a central entry point into the broader debate on the relationship between Indigenous communities and nation-states. Basing their analysis on survey data, these political scientists discuss what they call the “resentment attitude” of white non-Indigenous Canadians toward the country’s Indigenous population. The authors argue that there is a strong correlation between “resentment attitudes” and a defense of spending on economic and social policies that benefit the non-Indigenous population. In addition, individuals holding these attitudes tend to reject policies perceived as being too favorable to Indigenous peoples. This correlation is further reflected in the voting patterns of non-Indigenous whites, who tend to support conservative politicians. In other words, the source of resentment among a significant portion of the population is rooted in a popular sentiment that Indigenous peoples receive “undue” privileges from the government.

From an opposing perspective, Norman (2019) discusses the relationship between the Lhaq’temish people of the Lummi Nation and non-Indigenous farmer leaders in Washington State, USA. Both groups had the goal of establishing a partnership to achieve an appropriate river management process that would meet the economic needs of the farmers as well as the interests of the Lhaq’temish in restoring their traditional shellfish culture. In addition to the complexities of establishing such a partnership, including the reconciliation of different worldviews, Norman’s article provides pertinent evidence that relationships between Indigenous peoples and surrounding communities are not necessarily conflictual or fraught with resentment and intractable grievances.

At the heart of investigations into the relationship between states and Indigenous peoples is undoubtedly the question of whether Indigenous peoples’ demands are being heard by the nation-state’s political elites and settler societies. To find out whether the voices of Australia’s Indigenous peoples were being heard in the national debate over the constitutional recognition of this population’s rights, Parkinson, Guillém, and Laile (2021) utilize a Structural Topic Modeling. They read 46,659 virtual interactions recorded between 2015 and 2017 and found splits and overlaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous conversations in five different public spheres. Conversations in the informal spheres tended to focus on symbolic issues, while the more formal ones mainly hosted elite dialogues. Indigenous people tended to speak more about shared responsibility, respect, and listening to each other, while non-Indigenous people focused their arguments on individual rights and financial resources. In sum, there was no true exchange of ideas between the two groups. No wonder, then, that the Australian government recently failed to establish a parliamentary advisory body on Indigenous affairs due to the lack of meaningful public dialogue. ²

In the field of Indigenous electoral participation, Tan (2022) introduced a thematic dossier on institutional designs that favors the political-electoral inclusion of minorities in political institutions. She notes that politicians, scholars, and Indigenous activists should go beyond the conventional knowledge about the availability of seats for minority representation in parliaments and discuss lesser- known mechanisms, such as electoral incentives and party quotas. The studies in this dossier reflect various cases across different continents and based on multiple methodologies. To mention only those directly related to Indigenous issues, Rice (2022), for example, discusses the mechanisms for representing Indigenous interests in the government of Evo Morales in Bolivia (2006-2019), who made the issue one of the pillars of his administration. Ewig (2022), writing on Ecuador, measures the impact of a strong Indigenous party on the presentation and approval of legislation of Indigenous interest, concluding that this organization facilitates the inclusion of Indigenous issues on the national legislative agenda.

Evans and McDonnell (2022) assess Indigenous candidates for the Australian Parliament between 2001 and 2021, providing the most comprehensive picture of Indigenous electoral participation in Australia to date. In addition to collecting data on Indigenous candidates, the authors interview 50 individuals about their political careers. They find that Indigenous candidates are often successful in contesting winnable seats, contradicting the expectation that they would be “sacrificed” in competitive electorates while white candidates are placed in safe positions. Indigenous candidates are not chosen at random by their political parties; instead, they are individuals who actively participate in their party, shaping their political path within the organization and becoming key players in the broader political system. Finally, Indigenous women are far more politically successful than Indigenous men, projecting female leadership in political spaces traditionally occupied by men, a trend that exists elsewhere. ³

By the same token, Saglie, Mörkenstam, and Bergh (2020) contribute to the understanding of the internal dynamics of Indigenous peoples and their relationship to electoral processes. These authors show significant political cleavages in their analysis of survey data collected among a Sámi population in Norway and Sweden. Based on the application of Lipset and Rokkan’s political cleavage theory (1967), the theoretical framework mobilized by the authors draws attention to the social cleavages that shape political behaviors, such as those between urban/rural areas, center/periphery, left/right, and capital/labor, and seeks to identify the importance of these cleavages in populations where common sense would expect unanimity of opinion. Their study is particularly interesting because it highlights the differences in political opinion on self-determination among individuals from the same Indigenous people scattered across different European nation-states. It also shows how nation-states can act to deepen internal divisions among Indigenous groups, creating artificial cleavages that last for decades.

What can be done when one finds a scenario of complete complexity, such as the one described by the authors above? Hoskins and Bell (2021) provide a critical answer to this question based on the case of New Zealand. Their idea is not to “turn our backs on the state” but to increase the volume and intensity of relations between Indigenous peoples and the state to make their demands effectively heard by political elites. Privy to this idea, the Australian government has been seeking a process of reconciliation and truth-telling with Indigenous peoples of the continent since the Uluru Statement from the Heart ⁴ was issued in 2017, although it has suffered recent setbacks (Little, 2020).

Finally, studies reveal a wide range of relationships between nation-states and Indigenous peoples that suggest a tense dynamic between Indigenous peoples, non-Indigenous populations, and governments. These range from resentment to more collaborative engagements, including challenges to mainstream policies.

Indigenous activism and struggles for territorial, cultural, and environmental rights

Indigenous activism in struggles on a range of rights are also of concern to researchers. Studies highlight the multiple forms resistance takes when Indigenous populations recognize that their ways of life are under attack, because, as Warren and Jackson (2002, 9) warn, “It would be a mistake to freeze groups in formulaic sorts of essentialism or activism.”

Accordingly, a study published by Mitchell (2023) focuses on the case of Uganda and is based on in-depth field research, including 39 semi-structured interviews. The author weighs variations in the political strategies used by two ethnic groups in the country – the Batwa and the Karamojong – to satisfy their claims for territorial recognition, notably their demand for free, prior, and informed consent. These strategies range from legal processes to alliances with politicians to achieve various political goals. The difference in the military power of these groups, which is not often considered in studies of Indigenous peoples in the Americas – whose repertoire of actions has been much more symbolic and dialogical than contentious – is a particularly interesting variable in this research (Belanguer & Lackenbauer, 2014; Coates, 2015; Soares, 2017). However, despite the Karamojong’s greater capacity to challenge the state, neither group was able to enforce their claims. This finding underscores the importance of considering the broader context when analyzing countries where Indigenous peoples’ fundamental rights are either not recognized or only reluctantly recognized by the state.

The intersectionality between ethnicity and gender is another noteworthy element in the field of Indigenous activism studies, as shown in the publication of Sempértegui (2019). The author maps the mutual transformations that Indigenous women and ecofeminists have undergone through their interactions over the years through data collection between 2014 and 2019, as well as field research to conduct interviews. She succeeds in demonstrating that studies seeking to map the interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous activists must be able to go beyond the dichotomy of cooperation and antagonism, drawing a more nuanced and complex picture of tensions and complementarities. Furthermore, her analysis is notable for introducing two concepts that emerge from this fruitful interaction and become part of the discursive field of both groups, namely “living forest” – an idea that adapts elements of ecofeminist condemnations of extractivism – and “body- territory,” which expands the scope of understanding the importance of the body for ecofeminists based on Indigenous women’s debates.

Furthermore, Eimer (2019) discusses cases of Indigenous movements in Brazil and India to assess their demands for regulations on the access and use of their traditional knowledge. After seven years of field research (2011-2017), which included the compilation of a wide range of documents, reports, official and unofficial data, as well as 136 interviews with various actors involved in the national and international discourse on these movements, the author revealed the challenges and limitations faced by Indigenous peoples and their movements in colonial contexts. Eimer presented evidence that the sense of self-determination of traditional peoples is still severely limited, even when there is interaction between the state and Indigenous social movements.

These studies often include lengthy periods of field research and in-depth interviews. They deal with the complexity of concrete situations of social struggle that sometimes result in violent political contexts, and with a broad range of actors involved, thus increasing methodological challenges.

Impact of mega-infrastructure projects on Indigenous territories

Among the many harmful public and private interventions in Indigenous peoples’ territories, large infrastructure construction projects stand out as especially disruptive. Power plants, transmission towers, roads, military bases, ports, railroads, and large economic projects such as tourist resorts, large-scale mining, and oil and natural gas pipelines, to name a few, often alter the way of life of Indigenous peoples around the world.

The cumulative impacts of the construction of the Site C dam on the Saaghii Naachii/Peace River in the northwestern province of British Columbia, Canada, are analyzed in an article by Behn and Bakker (2019). This dam was built in the sacred territory of the Eh-cho Dene and Dunne-Za peoples and was added to other regional projects. Methodologically innovative, Behn and Bakker’s article presents, in one section, a conventional academic assessment of the regulatory process of the dam and its violations and, in another section, a letter from an Indigenous leader (who happens to be one of the paper’s authors) to his son. The letter describes significant differences in how Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives view the Canadian government’s environmental governance approaches.

The political geographer and member of the Nishnaabeg Nation Madeline Whetung (2019) discusses how the construction of the Trent-Severn Waterway, which connected Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay in Canada, was disruptive to the Mississauga people. She shows how the colonial occupation of this people’s territory completely disrupted their legal conceptualization of their relationship to the river and other living things around them. As an analytical tool for her discussion, the author introduces the concept of “shoreline law,” which refers to the moving lines between land and water, between human and non-human beings, and between Indigenous peoples and colonizing societies. The author then reflects on how her people have developed their own form of internationalism, recognizing the multiplicity of beings interconnected in each territory, and how this sacred space of connectivity has often been violated by the Canadian government and private actors. Furthermore, Whetung draws attention to the correspondence between the violation of Indigenous women’s territories, waters, and bodies – a continuum of violence that continues to occur in post-colonial contexts, as Collier (2023) also notes.

National and private companies often violate Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination through the forced implementation of large-scale projects. Interestingly, Whetung’s (2019) and Behn and Bakker’s (2019) papers refer to the impact of projects related to rivers, which are essential for the survival of traditional communities worldwide. Recalling the catastrophic impacts of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam on Indigenous territories in Brazil further solidifies the strong connections between traditional waters and livelihoods.

The studies discussed here demonstrate very clearly what Neville and Coulthard (2019) identify as the “ontological divide” between Indigenous and non- Indigenous people. This is the recognition that individuals from both groups start from very different existential positions in conceiving the basic terms of their existence in the world and their way of relating to other human and non-human beings, which poses additional challenges for building collaborative action. Moreover, the present sample of studies lacks discussion on the impacts of large- scale mining projects and the construction of roads, wind farms, railways, airstrips and other mega-developments on Indigenous territories.

Critical engagement with Western political theory

Finally, the selected articles show theoretical frictions between traditional knowledges and the classical concepts of Western political science. Classical political philosophy and contemporary political theories most often adopted by the political science discipline largely follow the Eurocentric matrix (Macoun, Parker & Strakosh, 2019). Some of the most recent studies in the field of Indigenous policy and politics, analyzed in the present paper, however, challenge this pattern, showing a healthy trend toward decolonial arguments and worldviews emerging from a fruitful dialogue with Indigenous knowledges.

A study by Scherwin (2022) provides a good and constructive example of this trend. The author points to the importance of moving political science toward embracing Indigenous concepts, worldviews, and resistance practices. Nonetheless, due to centuries of inappropriate or careless extraction of Indigenous knowledge by non-Indigenous researchers, Indigenous groups may even refuse to engage in political science research. In the North American context, Scherwin argues for a “treaty political theory,” that is, a mutual engagement between researchers and Indigenous peoples that is guided by the terms of the historical treaties signed between Indigenous peoples and the state. It would set the stage for a more respectful and consistent dialogue between both groups based on the worldviews of Indigenous peoples.

Belonging to the group of traditional political thinkers who discuss theoretical solutions to the tension between Indigenous peoples and liberal democracies within the framework of classical theories of multicultural liberalism, O’Sullivan (2019a) explores how Australia’s Indigenous peoples can strengthen their political positions on their right to self-determination and territorial sovereignty based on the very conceptual tools typical of classical theories of political liberalism. O’Sullivan (2019b) also evaluates the case of New Zealand and argues that multiculturalism is a political philosophy that provides the rationale to critically assess biculturalism, the official ideology which has prevailed in public debate in the country for decades.

The propositions observed in the publications selected here about the epistemic frictions between traditional concepts of Western political theory and those derived from Indigenous thought matrices are overwhelming. They must serve as the basis for bold theoretical dives in the years to come.