Flexibility in the Federal System? Institutional Innovation and Indigenous Nations’ Self-Determination in the US and Canadian Far North
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Flexibility in the Federal System? Institutional Innovation and Indigenous Nations’ Self-Determination in the US and Canadian Far North by Adrienne M. Davidson A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Adrienne Davidson, 2018 Flexibility in the Federal System? Institutional Innovation and Indigenous Nations’ Self Determination in the US and Canadian Far North Adrienne M. Davidson Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2018 Abstract Since the early 1970s, Indigenous nations in northern Canada and the United States have secured a heightened level of governing autonomy through the creation of new institutions of self- and shared-rule. While much attention has been devoted to the political factors that allowed for development of these institutions, and their operation within the federal governance framework, this thesis argues that these new institutions have important political implications that have, as yet, been largely unexplored. The settlement of modern land claim agreements, beginning in the 1970s, was a response by the United States and Canadian federal governments to Indigenous demands for self-determination. The decision to settle modern land claim agreements marked a move away from the dominant policy paradigm of assimilation, and into a new paradigm that recognized Indigenous goals for economic self-determination, and which is increasingly responsive to Indigenous demands for political self-determination through self- government. This ideational shift enabled the development of new sites of Indigenous authority within the federal political system. By building a comparative analysis of the political dynamics across four cases—the Northwest Arctic and North Slope regions in Alaska, and the Inuvialuit and Gwich’in regions in the Northwest Territories—this thesis argues that early decisions by the state have had significant, and reinforcing, effects on the development of the institutional spaces for Indigenous minority nations. How these institutions were designed and implemented has had important implications for the degree to which they reinforce or reconstitute conceptions of national or cultural identity. It also has important implications for the degree to which these new institutions are successful at reducing conflicts between the minority nation and the state. By developing a novel framework of minority national conflict, I am able to illustrate how these decisions influence contemporary political dynamics. ii Acknowledgments I would not have made it to this point without the dedicated support of so many people in my life. My supervisor, Grace Skogstad, has been a consistent champion. She has steered me in the right direction, provided thoughtful guidance, and given me the space to grow intellectually and explore my ideas fully. She is an incredible scholar and mentor, and I can only hope to emulate her in my own career. I would not have been able to make it over the finish line but for the support of my committee members: Graham White, whose penchant for exactitude and attention to detail pushed me to be a better researcher and writer; and Robert Schertzer, who challenged me to stand my ground and position myself intellectually and strategically. I am also so grateful to the members of my extended committee. Linda White has been an incredible mentor and teacher, and I have been so fortunate to learn from her in our work together. Martin Papillon eagerly took on the role of external, applied a keen eye, and has given me much to think on and engage with as I take this work into the next phase. I am so fortunate to have found such a rich and supportive scholarly environment at the University of Toronto. In the department of Political Science, professors Christopher Cochrane, Peter Loewen, Robert Vipond, Erin Tolley and Jonathan Craft have all been sounding boards at one time or another. In the School of Public Policy and Governance, professors Mark Stabile, Michal Perlman, Carolyn Tuohy, Mel Cappe and Ian Clark have provided guidance and mentorship over the years. I have benefitted from many other friends and colleagues in the Department of Political Science including: Gabriel Arsenault, Heather Millar, Matt Lesch, Carmen Ho, Andrew McDougall, Jerald Sabin, Emily Scott, Maxime Héroux-Legault, Gabriel Eidelman, Carey Doberstein, Paul Thomas, Erica Rayment, Meghan Snider, Busra Hacioglu, Milena Pandy, and Sophie Borwein. I also want to acknowledge and thank the wider community of scholars I have had the opportunity to work with over the years and who have shaped my growth, including: Christopher Alcantara at Western University; Gary Wilson at the University of Northern British Columbia; Amanda Winegardner at McGill University; Emma Hodgson at Simon Fraser University; Mara Kimmel at Alaska Pacific University; Lee Husky at the University of Alaska Anchorage; Christopher Sands at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; Sarah Jordaan at iii Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies; and Leah Sarson at Dartmouth College. My research would not have been possible without support from the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto, the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Fulbright Canada, and the Government of Canada Northern Scientific Training Program. I would like to thank all my interviewees for giving me their time and their insights, as well as the archivists and librarians at the Tuzzy Consortium Library in Barrow, Alaska; the University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library; and the Prince of Wales Research Center in Yellowknife, NWT for helping guide me through the research process. To my dear friends, Vass Bednar, Jane Hilderman, and Jessica Jewell – you have seen me through the best and worst parts of this process. You were always willing to share a laugh and divert my attention. To my family – my parents, John and Lydia: you instilled in me a love of learning that has carried me through; my siblings Jenna and Graeme: you have supported me always; and in particular, my sister Lauren and her wonderful family – Wayland, Hermione, Mia, and Imogen – you have enriched my life in ways I cannot begin to describe, and I appreciate the fact that none of you, ever, asked me what my dissertation was about. And a special thank you to my aunt Lorna Jean, who pushed me to apply to the program in the first place, and who has been a source of support and guidance throughout my graduate education. But at the end of the day, none of this would have been possible without my partner in life, Jordan Katz. Not only has he supported me in every way from the very start, he is a constant source of joy in my life. He is an amazing father to our wonderful daughter, Maren, and I could not imagine this journey without him. And to my darling puffin, Maren: thank you for being a good sleeper those first three months of your life. I quite literally would not have finished but for your sleepy little head, and I am so excited to watch you grow. I love you both so much. iv Table of Contents Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. ix List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ x Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Federalism, Indigenous Minority Nations, and Conflict Potential – The Puzzle ........................ 4 1.3 Research Design.......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Case Selection and Methodology .............................................................................................. 12 1.5 Chapter Description .................................................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2 – The Indigenous-State Relationship in Canada and the United States: Federalization in Theory and Practice ................................................................................................................................................. 21 2.1 The Indigenous-State Relationship in Canada and the United States ........................................ 21 2.2 Indigenous Nations and the Multinational Federation .............................................................. 23 2.2.1 The Institutional Value of Federalism in a Multinational State.................................... 28 2.2.2 Federalism as Political Development ..........................................................................