70o

80o

60o

Arctic Human Development Report

The political systems of the Arctic are the resultsof an historical development that was initiatedby the expansive colonial policies of theEuropean and Euro-American states. The sub-sequent claims for self-government by indige-nous peoples have given rise to a number ofnew self-governing autonomous regions. Thetiming of this historical trend has not been thesame in all parts of the Arctic. One region mayhave been colonized several hundred years ago,while other regions were only incorporated afterWorld War II. One of the main trends identifiedin this chapter is nation building in the Arcticfollowed by decolonization and the growth ofregional autonomy.

Today, most of the Arctic falls within stateswhere a majority of the inhabitants live outsidethe Arctic region, with a range of political struc-tures to govern the relationships between thenation states and their northern regions. Thisremarkable variation in the types of govern-ment arrangements reflects demographic, geo-graphic, and political variations. But a commontheme is an increasing integration of indige-nous affairs into mainstream local, national,and regional government arrangements. Thisdevelopment is the second major trend dis-cussed in this chapter.

Despite differences in political systems, acommon feature of Arctic politics is increasedindigenous participation in political processes.The main focus of this chapter is thus on thedevelopment of indigenous influence in thepolitical systems of the Arctic.

Nation building anddecolonizationTodays political structures in the Arctic are theresult in part, of the historical formation of thestates and the building of new nations. The

Arctic was seen as a frontier, and colonialismand assimilation became the main strategies ofthe states bordering on the Arctic in theirnation-building processes. This sectiondescribes the concept of nation building, andprovides an historical context for nation build-ing in the Arctic.

The concept of nation buildingNation building denotes a process in which cen-tral claims on behalf of the state for economicand cultural standardization within its territoryare met with counterclaims for political partici-pation and economic redistribution. The gener-al development in the Arctic has followed thephases of nation building described by SteinRokkan, with state formation and territorialconsolidation followed by standardization andcultural integration (1). Strengthening of humanrights and general democratization have forcedthe states to change this policy, but the respons-es have differed depending on history and statesystem. Arctic nation building was a process bywhich dispersed communities were unifiedunder new autonomous political entities. Someof these efforts led to the creation of new states,while others were based upon the quest ofindigenous peoples for self-rule.

Nation-building processes lead to the closerintegration of a state and its population. It shouldno longer be possible to take decisions affectingthe lives of the population of a country entirelywithout regular channels of communicationbetween decision makers and those affected bytheir decisions. One relevant conflict dimensionin these processes involves the center versus theperiphery. Examples from the contemporarydebate about the Arctic include discussionsabout democratic legitimacy and the strengthen-ing of political citizenship, redistribution ofresources, and the growth of public welfare.

85Chapter 5

Political SystemsLead authors: Else Grete Broderstad, University of Troms, Norway, and Jens Dahl, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Denmark.

Contributing authors: Marcus Buck (University of Troms), Gail Fondahl,(University of Northern British Columbia), Ludger Mller-Wille (McGill University), Natalja Novikova (Russian Academy of Sciences), Gordon L. Pullar (University of Alaska, Fairbanks), Kathrin Wessendorf(International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs).

Nation building is a long-term process andincludes much more than the last and ultimatespurt of the state formation process. Also,nation building may be followed by integrationson a higher post-national level, similar to whatcan be seen, for example, within the EuropeanUnion.

The aim of nation building is to secure politi-cal stability and affiliation of political institu-tions across, among other things, ethnic loyal-ties. But this process can also create problemsthat relate to the understanding of the conceptof a nation as homogenous. In the nation-build-ing process, the state has several alternatives inits relationship with national minorities andindigenous peoples. The common characteristicof official minority policy in the North has beenassimilation.

As an answer to assimilation policies, nation-al minorities and indigenous peoples havetaken the concept of nation building for theirown use. Nation building then refers to theefforts of indigenous peoples to increase theircapacities for self-rule and for self-determinedsustainable community and economic develop-ment. It also involves building institutions ofself-government.

Lingering influence of colonial historyThe Arctic was colonized during different timeperiods. While the indigenous peoples of theEuropean and Asian North came under the con-trol of traders, missionaries, and state represen-tatives in the 16th and 17th centuries, some areasof the Canadian North remained as almostindependent communities far into the 20th cen-tury. This asymmetric development is an impor-tant factor explaining differences in politicalactivities in the circumpolar North.

Using rivers or traveling along the coast,some parts of the North were easily accessibleto miners, missionaries, and traders. As theysettled, they appropriated indigenous lands andterritories and subjugated indigenous languagesand cultures. Other areas were difficult to reachand were only controlled through trading sta-tions or scattered representatives of stateauthorities. It was in these latter regions that theindigenous peoples remained the majority ofthe population. Such demographic factors laterplayed a key role in the building of Arcticnations and the different political structures.

In addition, nation building and politicalstructures in the Arctic have been determined bythe fact that colonization imposed national bor-

ders where there had been none before orwhere the borderlines were unsettled. Forexample, the Saami people inhabit an areadivided by borders of what are today four coun-tries: Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia.

During the colonization of Arctic NorthAmerica, Inuit became incorporated in differentpolitical hegemonies: Newfoundland, Quebec,the Northwest Territories, and Alaska (UnitedStates). Each of these territories had powerfulagencies that ruled over the Inuit, including theHudson Bay Company, the Royal CanadianMounted Police, and the church in theNorthwest Territories. By and large, it was notuntil after World War II that the Canadian statemade its political entre in the Arctic.

In some areas, missionaries following in thewake of colonization created divisions based onreligion or systems of writing. This was the caseamong Inuit and Indians in North America. Notonly did they come to belong to differentdenominations, but those Inuit living in thewestern Canadian Arctic used the Romanalphabet when the Inuit language was put inwriting, while the eastern North American Inuitused a specially designed syllabic alphabet. Thesignificance of this cannot be underestimated.For example, while Greenland began develop-ing as a political reality with one vernacular asearly as in the middle of the 19th century, inCanada, where neither religion nor written lan-guage unified the Inuit, the process of creatingNunavut was not initiated until the 1970s. Also,while the first newspaper in the Greenlandiclanguage was published in 1861, the first news-paper using the Inuit language (Nunavut) cameout more than 100 years later.

In the Russian North, dozens of distinctindigenous groups were brought under TsaristRule from the 16th century onward. The Tsaristadministrative system encouraged identity for-mation at the clan level. Later under Soviet rule,larger territorial-linguistic groups were identi-fied as important organizational units andbegan to self-identify as cohesive nations. Thiswas encouraged by the creation of a standard-ized written language for some northern groupsunder the establishment of ethno-territorialunits in the 1930s. These ethno-territorial units,however, only encompassed a portion of thepeoples for whom they were established. Forexample, the Evenki Autonomous District onlyembraced within its bounds less than one-halfthe Evenki, and the Nenets people were dividedbetween three different Autonomous Districts,

86 Arctic Human Development Report

as well as regions outside of these. Such bound-aries hindered the development of nationalmovements among the indigenous peoples, asdid state policies strongly repressive of whatwas termed bourgeois nationalism. However,the Soviet creation of a special legal classifica-tion, the small peoples of the North, encour-aged the formation of a pan-aboriginal identity.This facilitated the indigenous peoples coordi-nation of their common concerns, and eventual-ly, toward the end of the Soviet period, activeresistance to ethnocidal state policies (2-3).

Assimilation and recognitionWorld War II and its aftermaths, particularly theCold War, were a turning point for all regions ofthe circumpolar North. This was also the case inthe Soviet Union, although concerted expansioninto the Arctic took place prior to World War II.Had the central governments not been interest-ed in these areas before, the military signifi-cance of the polar seas changed that situation.In the Nordic countries (including Greenlandand the Faroe Islands), the social welfare ideol-ogy with its objectives of comprehensive socialwelfare, formal equality, and economic restruc-turing provided further reasons for payingattention to the North.

Another component of the post-World War IIdevelopment was the continuation of the poli-cies of assimilation. Indigenous peoples were tobe integrated into mainstream society. Asdescribed in Chapter 3. Societies and Cultures.Change and Persistence, indigenous languageswere suppressed and children were forced intoboarding schools. Over a longer time-period,however, examples exist showing that the pen-dulum has swung between assimilation andrecognition of the unique position of indigenouspeoples. Details vary across the North, however,and are connected to not only the asymmetriccolonization but also the internal policies of theArctic states.

Fennoscandia: In Fennoscandia, the historicalrelationship between the Saami and the nationstates has taken several distinct forms during dif-ferent historical periods. The first period, from theMiddle Ages to the middle of the 19th century,was marked by state expansionism and attemptsto establish hegemony in the northern areas. Theattitude towards the Saami people was accom-modating (4), and both the Swedish-Finnish andthe Danish-Norwegian states acknowledgedSaami rights. When the borders betweenDenmark/Norway and Sweden/Finland were

settled in 1751, the so-called Lapp codicil wasdrawn up as an appendix to the treaty. A basicemphasis in this law document concerningSaami rights is the conservation of the Saamination.

In the second period, which runs roughlyfrom 1850 to 1950, a different relationshipemerged. Several efforts at colonization werecarried out. Local rights were removed and anew management system was established thatencouraged settlement in the Saami areas (5).Assimilation became official state policy. Thegeographical position and security concerns inthe border areas of the North are one explana-tion for the harsh assimilationist policy (6). Thispolicy also affected a minority group in Norwaycalled Kvens, who are descendants of Finnishimmigrants.

After World War II, the development of theNordic welfare states introduced the principle ofequality through individual rights. In theprocess of assigning rights to the individual, cul-tural or ethnic identity was not considered rele-vant. The post-war recognition of the Saami asequal members of the state was thus that ofindividual members, not that of members of aseparate ethnic group or nation. However, thepost-war period ushered in an attitudinalchange in terms of how the nation state con-ceived of the Saami. Finland was the first toinquire into aspects of Saami affairs and devisesome institutional channels for managingSaami demands (7). In Norway, the NorwegianParliament agreed that the previous policy ofassimilation belonged to the past. At that time,such a change was not obvious in Sweden andnot until the beginning of the 1970s did somereadjustments in the states policy appear (9).

Russia: Shortly after the revolution in 1917,Soviet authorities created a legal category, theSmall Peoples of the North, who because oftheir alleged backwardness would need specialassistance to reach the stage of socialism. Some26 peoples were identified in this category,though this number shifted over time, as thestate occasionally demoted groups and mergedthem with others, or reversed such decisionsand considered them as distinct. The Sovietgovernment founded ethno-territorial adminis-trative units for some of these peoples in the1930s (though with little real power), supportedthe development of writing systems in some ofthe indigenous languages, and initially estab-lished schooling in these languages. Medicalservices and trading cooperatives were built

87Political SystemsChapter 5

throughout the North. The state also collec-tivized the reindeer herds and hunting equip-ment of the northerners, persecuted richerindigenous persons and religious leaders(shamans), attempted to settle the nomadicreindeer herding and hunting populations asmuch as possible, and instituted a boardingschool system. The latter two policies resulted inthe rupture of indigenous families.Consolidation of initial, predominantly indige-nous settlements into larger multi-ethnic vil-lages increased assimilation pressures.

Starting in the 1930s, and increasing afterWorld War II, a strong policy of Soviet autarkyled to the state encouraging massive in-migra-tion to its northern regions, both to developresources and to assert its sovereignty over itsperipheries. By the mid-20th century, indige-nous peoples had become minority populationsin most areas of the Soviet North. Nationalcensuses showed poor growth and evenabsolute decline among a number of theindigenous peoples in the 1960s and 1970s,which was the result of both high mortality andrussification (3).

Alaska: Originally colonized by Russia,Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867.The heavy-handed policy of Russia towards theindigenous peoples had mainly affected thesouthern and south-western part of whatbecame Alaska, but under US rule educationand religion were used to assimilate all indige-nous Alaskan peoples. It was not until the1930s that Alaska Natives were included ingeneral US policy towards indigenous peoples.Moreover, the Indian Reorganization Act of1934, which ended the assimilation policytowards indigenous peoples in other parts inthe United States, did not apply here. By thenmost Alaska Native villages had self-govern-ment, often combining traditional governmen-tal forms with western influences. In 1936, theIndian Reorganization Act was amended toprovide Alaska Native villages with the author-ity to reorganize themselves for governmentaland business purposes based on a commonbond of occupation, association or residencewithin a well-defined neighborhood, commu-nity or rural district. The most important effectof post-World War II development was thatAlaska became a state in 1959.

Canada: The Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples, in a report issued in 1996, states thatCanadian policies for 150 years have promotedassimilation. Despite differences in treatment

between Indians with a distinct legal status andInuit and Mtis, the goal was assimilation (10-11). The governments proposal in the so-calledWhite Paper of 1969, which suggested that theIndian Act should be repealed and reserve landstransferred from federal to provincial control,was seen as an accelerated policy of assimilation(10). The seeming contradiction between segre-gation on reserves and assimilation was bridgedby the premise that territorial separation was apreparation for assimilation (11). In 1970, thegovernment abandoned these proposals. Theconstitution was amended in 1982 to recognizeand affirm existing aboriginal and treaty rights.The constitutional recognition of AboriginalPeoples includes Indians, Inuit, and Mtis.

Greenland: In Greenland, the first Danishcolonial settlement was established in 1721. Inreligion, language and administrative proce-dures, assimilation has always been part ofDanish colonial policy. Decolonization, whichstarted earlier than in other parts of the Arctic,was also used in this respect. It was initiatedfrom the top and the political attitude of theDanes toward the colonized people can becharacterized as benign paternalism. Mostlikely inspired by the political developments inEurope in the middle of the 19th century, decol-onization and indirect rule became importantin governing Greenland. The first step wastaken in the early 1860s with the introductionof district councils that were quasi-democraticstructures made up of elected Greenlanders(male only) and members of the colonialadministration. These councils had a number ofsocial and legal functions, but the most impor-tant was to distribute part of the profit from thecolonial trade back to the skilled hunters. Theywere also important because it was the firsttime during the colonial period thatGreenlanders were involved in political andlegal decisions. In 1911, elected municipalcouncils had replaced these district councilsand two indirectly elected provincial councilswere established. Franchise for women wasgiven in 1948.

Decolonization and negotiationsThe attempts to decentralize but to keep controlwere a logical concomitant to the assimilationistpolicies of the Arctic states. Greenland was anearly example, and since the end of World War IIsome transfer of political authority has takenplace all across the Arctic. However, the earlyattempts at state-controlled decolonization

88 Arctic Human Development Report

have not checked local and indigenousdemands for inherent rights and attempts tobuild new political units in the Arctic. In NorthAmerica and Greenland, decolonization has to alarge extent been characterized by negotiationsbetween indigenous peoples and central gov-ernments. This is not the case in the relationshipbetween the Saami and their state counterparts,as the principle of negotiations between anindigenous party and the state has not beenaccepted. Rather, the establishment of theSaami parliaments was formally a result of thework of public committees in Finland, Norwayand Sweden, to clarify political and territorialrights. These investigations to review the rightsof the Saami still continue.

Greenland and the Faroe Islands: An earlyexample of negotiating for self-governance isIceland, which was the first territory within theArctic to become completely independent. Itwas a de facto self-governing state within theDanish realm from 1918, but became complete-ly independent in 1944. During World War II,the Icelandic parties worked together to create anew constitution, which was put to a referen-dum in 1944. As a result of the referendum,Iceland claimed itself to be an independentrepublic. In the Faroe Islands, a majority votedfor Faroese independence in a referendum afterWorld War II, but the outcome was rejected bythe Danish Government. Instead, the election ofa new provincial council was followed by nego-tiations that resulted in an arrangement forHome Rule to be established in 1948.

Although the heavy-handed Danish policyagainst Faroese claims for Home Rule in 1948postponed the process, it was not able to stop it.The situation in Greenland was no different.With the new Danish constitution of 1953,Greenland and the Faroe Islands became dis-tinct regions within the Danish realm. The FaroeIslands had had representation in the DanishParliament since 1849. Greenland was nowdivided in two electoral districts, each sending arepresentative to the Danish Parliament.Initially, only West Greenland was included, andthe Provincial Council chaired by the Danishgovernor. In 1962, East Greenland and NorthGreenland were included, and from 1967 theCouncil elected its own chair. In 1975, modernmunicipalities were established with wide exec-utive functions and economies based on incometaxes. This was also when Greenlanders tookover the political initiative and claimed decolo-nization.

Decolonization was initiated a few years ear-lier when a new generation of young politi-cians entered the scene. One of them wasMoses Olsen, who was elected to the DanishParliament in 1971. It soon became obviousthat Greenlandic and Danish members of theparliament were not considered equal and thisfeeling of discrimination was further enhancedin the referendum concerning Danish mem-bership in the European Community (later theEuropean Union) in October 1972. Althoughthere was a substantial majority in Greenlandagainst joining the European Community, itnevertheless became a member because of themajority in Denmark. Voices were raised in theadvisory Provincial Council in Greenland infavor of setting up a committee to look into thepossibilities for self-government forGreenland. Only a few months later, the min-ister for Greenland, a Greenlander himself,established the Home Rule Committee com-posed of the Greenlandic members of theDanish Parliament and members of theProvincial Council.

The report produced by the committee rec-ommended the establishment of a Home RuleCommission with an equal number of Danishand Greenlandic members. The commissionsreport was adopted by the Danish Parliamentand endorsed in a referendum held inGreenland in January 1979. The result was thatHome Rule was introduced in Greenland May 1,1979. The Home Rule process diverged from allearlier decolonization initiatives in Greenland inthat unlike the reforms in the 19th and early 20th

centuries which were instigated and controlledby the Danish authorities, the Home Ruleprocess had its roots in Greenland, and was ini-tiated and promoted by Greenlanders who for-mulated a position from which they could nego-tiate with the Danish state.

Alaska: Two events have been decisive inshaping Alaskas recent political history. Thefirst was Alaskan Statehood in 1959, the initia-tive and push for which came from Alaska.Statehood created a new urgency for negotiat-ing a settlement of indigenous land claims,which in turn formed the basis for todays polit-ical organization, in particular the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act (ANCSA) passed in theUS Congress in 1971.

The process leading to ANCSA started in thebeginning of the 1960s when a series of AlaskaNative associations were formed. In 1966, theAlaska Native leaders established the first

89Political SystemsChapter 5

statewide Alaska Native organization: theAlaska Federation of Natives. There were noformal negotiations between governmentauthorities and these indigenous representa-tives. All influence took place through lobbyingactivities. The first bill to settle land claims,introduced in the US Congress in 1967 andpassed by the Congress in 1971, was thereforenever formally presented to indigenous repre-sentative bodies and neither confirmed nor rat-ified by the people concerned. A new group ofNative statewide leaders emerged from thiseffort. Superseding the tribal governmentswhich did not actively participate in the move-ment. After 1971, the political power of theAlaska Federation of Natives increased evenfurther. In particular, the newly formed AlaskaNative regional corporations that are the mem-bers of Alaska Federation of Natives becamesignificant participants in the Alaskan economy.

Canada: The Canadian Arctic remained a colo-nial territory long after democracy had enteredthe scene in other areas of the Arctic. In mostcommunities, municipal governments were notestablished before the 1950s and 1960s. The Inuitwere not allowed to vote in federal electionsbefore 1962 and territorial elections until 1966. Astrong indigenous movement in the NorthwestTerritories in the late 1960s and the 1970sbecame the starting point for a series of negotia-

tions between indigenous peoples and the fed-eral and territorial governments.

The indigenous peoples of the CanadianArctic opted for land claims agreements,inspired by ANCSA. But they went further thanthe Alaska Natives and, from the outset ofnegotiations, they demanded that economic,social, cultural, and political rights be included.To a large extent, this reflected the fact that theindigenous peoples of the Arctic make up themajority of the population in these regions (incontrast to Alaska). The first of these agree-ments was the James Bay and Northern QuebecAgreement affecting Inuit and Cree. In severalcases, initial agreements were rejected becausethey did not allow enough self-government. TheCanadian North is home to a large number ofindigenous peoples, each with their own priori-ties and, as it looks today, their own agreement,(see box page 91).

Fennoscandia: In contrast to North America andGreenland, the Fennoscandian central govern-ments have not transferred any political authori-ty to new self-governing units but have only del-egated management authority and defined tasks.However, there are indications that negotiationsas a strategy of dividing management betweenthe state and its indigenous people may also berelevant in Fennoscandia, as illustrated by thediscussions following a proposed land manage-ment act for Finnmark County in Norway. Thisact was supposed to close a process that startedin the 1970s and 80s following controversiesover Saami land rights in relation to the estab-lishment of a hydroelectric power plan in Alta.(see also Chapter 6. Legal Systems).

The Finnmark Act has received extensive crit-icism from the Saami Parliament and from legalexperts appointed by the NorwegianGovernment. The main critique concerns thelack of proper identification and recognition ofSaami rights to their lands, both on the individ-ual, and on the community and collective level.The Saami Parliament has stated that the bill isneither in conformity with the internal andinternational rules by which the state is bound,nor with the states moral and political obliga-tions vis--vis its indigenous peoples. Theimportance of the international standard, ILOConvention 169, is stressed, especially in rela-tion to Articles 14 and 15, concerning the needto gain consent from the indigenous peoplesconcerned, and the recognition of rights toownership and identification of land in ques-tion. During the second half of 2003, an initial

90 Arctic Human Development Report

Alaska Native organizationsThere is a proliferation of formal organizationsin Alaska that are usually referred to as AlaskaNative Organizations. They are controlled byAlaska Natives, but in most cases they arebased on a western model and do not have anytraditional Native structure or way of operat-ing. A few were established in the early twen-tieth century but most came much later. One ofthe first Alaska Native Organizations was theAlaska Native Brotherhood, founded in Sitkain 1912 by a group of nine Tlingits and oneThimshian Indian. The primary goal was tosecure the right to vote for Alaska Natives,which was granted in 1924 when the USCongress passed the Citizenship Act makingall Natives citizens.

The majority of Alaska Native organizationsthat are active today stem from the non-profitregional associations established in the 1960s.These associations formed regional profit cor-porations under the Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act (ANCSA), which in turn helpedto form over two hundred village corporationswithin their respective regions.

91Political SystemsChapter 5

The Inuit of the Northwest Territories initiated theirclaim for self-government in the early 1970s andthe strong quest for self-government led already in1976 to a claim for the establishment of Nunavut.Although the Inuvialuit (the westernmost Inuit)soon left the process, the basic claims remainedintact until Nunavut was enacted by law in 1994.The process that followed from 1976 was long andcomplicated. In 1982 all the inhabitants of theNorthwest Territories voted on the division of theterritory. In the Nunavut region, 82% voted in favorof the division and outnumbered the majorityagainst in the west part of the territory. In 1991 theInuit negotiating team and the government enteredan agreement in principle and in 1992 the exactborder was decided in a referendum among all theindigenous peoples. With an overwhelming major-ity, the Inuit of Nunavut ratified the agreement in aseparate referendum later the same year. TheCanadian Parliament adopted the Nunavut Laws in1993 and Nunavut became a reality in 1999.Although the Inuit initially had no elected repre-sentatives, the Canadian Government accepted tonegotiate with the Inuit organizations that hadtaken the lead. The first Inuit became members ofthe parliament in Ottawa in 1979, the same year asthe indigenous peoples obtained a key position inthe newly elected legislative assembly of theNorthwest Territories. It was only later that theGovernment of the Northwest Territories becameinvolved in the negotiations, further confirming thelegitimacy of those negotiating on behalf of theInuit. In the 1980s, the Inuit Tapirissat of Canadasucceeded in lobbying for a separate federal con-stituency, Nunatsiaq, that ensured Inuit representa-tion in the parliament in Ottawa.

Referenda and negotiations were also promi-nent features in the relationship between the cen-tral government and indigenous peoples in otherparts of Canada, even if the conditions have dif-fered. In Nunavik, the process has been compli-cated by a land claims agreement from 1975. Thegovernments of Canada and Qubec and industri-al corporations wanted to use indigenous land todevelop hydroelectric power, and the Inuit andCree of Northern Qubec entered the James Bayand Northern Qubec agreement after enormouspressure. Although the agreement was acceptedby referendum as a negotiated legal framework fordealing with indigenous rights, land claims, andownership, as well as education, health and econ-omy, the Inuit of Nunavik have never been at easewith it. There was also a wish for political autono-my under a regional government. This concept hasgradually been accepted as another level of publicgovernment within the confederative frameworkof Canada (cf. Nunavut Territory). There have beenseveral initiatives to that effect, including a refer-endum, an election focusing on constitutional

issues, and a constitutional committee set up bythe Inuit. On November 5, 1999, the NunavikPolitical Accord was signed by the Nunavik Party,representing the Inuit, the Government ofQubec, and the Government of Canada. This wasa step towards creating public government for allresidents of Nunavik within the political frame-work of Qubec and Canada, but there are stillmany problems and a final agreement has still notbeen reached as of September 2004.

In 1969, the Indian Brotherhood was formed torepresent about 7,000 treaty and status Indianswho were descendants of leaders who had signedtwo historical treaties between the Dene and theCrown in 1899 and 1921. The Dene published theDene Declaration in 1975, which stated theirright to traditional lands, self-determination, andspecial status under the Canadian constitution.

The Dene peoples of the Northwest Territoriespresented a land claim to the CanadianGovernment in 1976. This initiated negotiationsand in 1988, an agreement in principle wassigned by the Dene-Mtis Association and thefederal government, which was finalized in 1990.However, many Dene disagreed with the agree-ment as they had to give up their Native title inexchange for land and financial compensation.Requests for re-negotiation were made at theDene Assembly and as a result negotiations start-ed for individual land claims and self-government.The Gwichin and the Sahtu Dene and Mtis soonreached agreement with the federal government.Since then, other peoples have followed or are inthe process of negotiations. Several of the agree-ments that have been reached so far all includesome provision for negotiating self-government.In one case, the agreement includes establishing areserve through a process called Treaty LandEntitlement.

The Council of Yukon Indians was formed in1973, and two tentative land claims agreementswere reached in 1976 and 1984. However, bothwere rejected at the Council of Yukon IndiansGeneral Assembly. A major reason was theabsence of self-government powers and authori-ties for the Yukon First Nations. Talks resumed in1985, this time with greater emphasis on commu-nity involvement and input from the individualFirst Nations. The Yukon First Nations and federaland territorial governments signed an umbrellaagreement in 1993, and subsequently individualYukon First Nations finalized self-governmentagreements. These agreements went into effect onFebruary 14, 1995, with the proclamation of theYukon First Nation Land Claims Settlement Act(Canada) and Yukon First Nation Self-Government Act (Canada). Eight of the fourteenYukon First Nations presently have self-govern-ment agreements in legal effect (12).

Canada: a complex quilt of negotiations and agreements

dialogue was begun between the NorwegianParliament, its Judicial Committee, and theSaami Parliament to find a procedure thatwould move the issue forward. But with the lackof proper identification and recognition ofSaami rights, it is still an open question whetherthere is a basis for negotiations.

According to the Finnish Saami Act, thenational authorities have an obligation to nego-tiate with the Saami Parliament in all extensiveand important cases that directly or especiallyrelate to the Saami as an indigenous people.This obligation includes more than just simpleconsultation, since it also includes the obliga-tion to seek a solution through negotiationswith the Saami Parliament (13). In reality how-ever this comes down to little more than theright to be heard and consulted.

Russia: Devolution in the Russian North isless advanced than in other Arctic areas. Duringthe early 1990s, some of the ethnic territorial-administrative units were able to assert morepower vis -vis Moscow by establishing andimplementing legislation that governed controlover resources, cultural development, and otherfacets of life. However, these ethnic units arebasically public governments, and indigenouspopulations constitute but a small minority inthem (1-15%), even after the vast out-migrationof Russians and other in-migrants from theNorth in the past decade (14). Thus, indigenouspeoples ability to influence decisions made bysuch regional governments has remained negli-gible across the North. In numerous places,regional governments established laws andpractices that were less favorable to indigenousrights than central legislation demanded.

In the latter 1990s, President Putin attemptedto stem devolutionary trends and bring regional

Boom and bust activitiesBoom and bust activities have had long-termimpacts upon political developments in thatthey made it necessary for indigenous peoplesto come together. This was the case with theplan in the 1970s to build a pipeline from theBeaufort Sea down the Mackenzie Valley,which directly gave impetus to the indigenousmovement in Canada and the claim for land-rights. Similarly, the Saami quest for self-determination was provoked by the construc-tion of the Alta dam in the early 1980s, thoughthe history of Saami land claims goes furtherback in time.

practices into adherence with federal stipula-tions. Indigenous groups in Russia have fre-quently sought protection of the federal govern-ment against regional governmental practicesthat threaten to erode their ability to practicetheir traditional activities, especially land-inten-sive industrial development schemes. A quasi-political organization, the Russian Associationof Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON),established in 1990, and its associated regionalbranches, have achieved some level of input intodrafting federal and regional legislation thatestablish procedures for increased rights to landand self-government (15-16).

An important development since the 1990s isthe ability of communities of individuals whoview themselves as distinct ethnic groups withinthe category the indigenous numerically smallpeoples of the North to petition the governmentfor recognition as such. During the Soviet period,the state identified groups deserving of suchrecognition and regularly erased groups from itslist of recognized northern peoples. Self-defi-nition (with state sanction) has resulted in a sig-nificant increase in the number of northern peo-ples, from 26 to approximately 40, including sev-eral groups who were earlier recognized by thestate, then eliminated from the records.

Trend summaryThe past decades have witnessed a trend ofmajor restructuring of the political systems inthe Arctic in response to decolonization. Thistrend can be seen as a part of a nation-buildingprocess where the state historically was thedominant part, the homogenous nation statewas the ideal, and the strategy of assimilationwas the official policy. In North America thiswas often followed by devolution, i.e. transfer-ence of authority from central to regional level.As a response, indigenous nation- buildingprocesses inspired by international humanrights development managed to build a bridgebetween indigenous political efforts and themodern Arctic nation-building. In Canada andGreenland, indigenous peoples pushed fordecolonization, by negotiating with the centralgovernments. Meanwhile, in Fennoscandia, thecentral governments have only delegated man-agement authority, while in Russia, decentral-ization following the fall of the Soviet Unionwas soon replaced by recentralization. In manyparts of the Arctic, quests for indigenous self-governance have been a major driving force fordecentralization.

92 Arctic Human Development Report

Arctic governance systemsA major trend in Arctic political systems is theproliferation of governance structures that rec-ognize the unique position of indigenous peo-ples. Within this trend, there is a diversity ofnew agreements and institutions. Public gov-ernment and ethnic self-government are twomajor categories.

Asymmetry and territoriality are keyaxes in an analytical frameMost political systems encompass a plurality ofcultures. These cultures may produce identitiesthat can become politicized (17-19). The likeli-hood that a cultural or ethnic identity becomespoliticized has increased with the spread of theprinciple of political autonomy through globalcommunication. We can therefore expect agrowing number of claims by groups of uniqueidentity. The situation in the Canadian Northdescribed in the box on page 91 is a good illus-tration of this trend.

At the same time, state responses in dealingwith such claims are likely to become more andmore similar for the reason that the historicalstate responses, such as genocide, deportation,oppression, assimilation, or even agreeing tosecession, are considered illegitimate in todaysdemocratic systems. States thus increasinglyresort to some sort of decentralization of deci-sion-making power in order to meet theseclaims (20).

Decentralization of decision making togroups with unique identities is not as straight-forward as one might assume at first glance. Abrief assessment of the post-World-War-II peri-od reveals two dimensions of this multifacetedissue as particularly important: the degree ofterritoriality and the degree of asymmetry.

A purely territorial response would typicallyentail some sort of regionalization or federal-ization of the state structure. If this is done in asymmetric fashion, decision-making rights willbe decentralized to territorial regions in strictcompliance with the principle that all individu-als living in the various territorial entities pos-sess the same rights regardless of their mem-bership in identity groups (the jus solis princi-ple). If the decentralization is instead conduct-ed in an asymmetric fashion, individuals livingin some regions will possess more rights toautonomy than individuals living in otherregions because of their unique identities (thejus sanguinus principle).

In dealing with indigenous claims, Canadahas created an asymmetric federal state inwhich some regions enjoy more autonomy thanothers, i.e. it entails both territoriality and asym-metry. The Soviet Union also created an asym-metrical federalism. During the Soviet period, itwas operationally fictive but it is now manifestin numerous ways, which depend on the sta-tus of the territory and its human and naturalresources.

We also find processes of decentralizationthat entail no notion of territoriality at all. Theelectoral census for Saami parliamentary elec-tions is a case in point. Anyone who meets cer-tain criteria of identity (subjective self-identifi-cation and objective language criteria) is entitledto vote in the elections, regardless of where inthe respective country they live, whereas thosewho do not meet these criteria do not possessthis right. This means that some individuals in astate, as members of a particular identity group,possess more rights to autonomy than others,regardless of territorial location.

Decentralization of decision making powerfrom the modern state apparatus can thus meanthat individuals obtain political, cultural, and/oreconomic autonomy according to their member-ship in a territorial entity, in an identity group, orin a combination of the two. This yields a two-dimensional grid which can be used to analyzeboth the claims put forward on behalf of identi-ty groups and the state responses.

Self-determinationIn an Arctic context, state responses along thelines of asymmetry and territoriality cannot bediscussed without giving attention to the specialstatus of indigenous peoples and their rights toself-determination. As described in more detailin Chapter 6. Legal Systems, the principle of self-determination is a fundamental principle ininternational law. In recent discussions, it hasalso come to include indigenous peoples, even ifit was traditionally understood as the right of anation state in relation to other nation states.However, the concept is dynamic, and the con-tent of self-determination and the question ofwhat constitutes a people have changed overtime, especially within the United Nations.

There are various models for how the self-determination of peoples should be organizedand institutionalized, and the principle of peo-ples self-determination does not define eitherwho the peoples are or what the subject or unitof self-determination can be. The tendency

93Political SystemsChapter 5

towards developing indigenous self-govern-ment arrangements seems particularly appro-priate where a group of indigenous peoplesforms a permanent minority. Examples can befound in the traditional homelands of the Saamiin northern Scandinavia and the First Nations inthe Yukon. In these indigenous areas, settlershave over time become the majority. These canbe contrasted with areas where indigenous peo-ples are in the majority, such as Greenland andNunavut, which are ruled by public govern-ments. Overall, state responses to calls forindigenous self-determination have becomemore and more similar. In areas where indige-nous peoples constitute permanent minorities,dual systems of governance arrangements arebeing established.

In the circumpolar North, we find differenttypes of government. A particular challenge hasbeen to find ways that take the particular histo-ry of indigenous peoples and their present legalstatus into account. Most self-governmentstructures and institutions in the Arctic areestablished under western laws and regulations.By and large, none of the Arctic models of self-governance are based upon traditional gover-nance, although local cultures are reflected inthe performance and proceedings of the politi-cal bodies. Two types of structures can be iden-tified: public governments and self-governmentarrangements.

Public governmentThe creation of Home Rule arrangements andnew territories involve public governments,which entail that all persons above a certain ageare eligible to vote and to be elected to a legisla-

tive assembly. This is the case for both theGreenland Home Rule government with its par-liament, and the Nunavut Government with itslegislative assembly. Officially, ethnicity is not arelevant factor in any part of the political sys-tem, including not only the national and munic-ipal systems, but also the political parties. Homerule arrangements are a territorial responsewhere decision-making rights are decentralized.

94 Arctic Human Development Report

Greenland Home Rule and NunavutHome Rule in Greenland was introduced May1, 1979. All persons above the age of 18 whoare Danish citizens and who have resided atleast six months in Greenland can vote for andbe elected to the Home Rule Parliament. Thereare specific rules for Greenlanders living tem-porarily outside Greenland. Danes have neverplayed any role in the Greenland Home RuleParliament. Currently, there is one Danishmember out of 31 (Danes make up 12% of thepopulation). In recent years, there have beenseveral moves to get more Greenlanders intothe political and administrative system, andcompared to the situation 20 years ago, thenumber of Greenlanders in managerial posi-tions has increased significantly.

In Nunavut, all adult Canadian citizens havethe right to vote and can be elected to the leg-islative assembly. Inuit who temporarily liveoutside Nunavut have no specific rights inNunavut. Rights and responsibilities vested inthe Nunavut Government follow the generalCanadian federal regulations, although anongoing devolution will transfer more andmore authority from Ottawa to Nunavut andthe other territories. This will make them moreand more equal to the Canadian provinces.

The development of governance arrangementsrecognizing indigenous rights seems in somecases to coincide with regionalization processes,such as in the European Union. It includes newalliances between indigenous and majority inter-ests. For instance, the European regionalizationprocess, which is clearly evident in Sweden andFinland, is also important in the Saami contextand affects both national policy towards theSaami and the Saami directly. Specifically, theFinnish and Swedish EU memberships created aneed to expand EU policy with a northern dimen-sion in order to create a platform for cooperationconcerning stability and security in relation toRussia and the Baltic countries. In the dialoguebetween the European Union and Canada, the

interests of Arctic indigenous peoples are also apriority area. The Second Northern DimensionAction Plan, 2004-2006, Annex 2 states that:Strengthened attention is to be paid by allNorthern Dimension partners to indigenousinterests in relation to economic activities, and inparticular extractive industry, with a view to pro-tecting inherited rights of self-determination, landrights and cultural rights of indigenous peoples ofthe region. This statement is a result of the workof the Saami Council and the Saami ParliamentaryCouncil for the EU Commission. (For further dis-cussion on northern dimensions policies, seeChapter 12. Circumpolar International Relations andGeopolitics.)

Indigenous voices in regionalization processes

In these newly created political units, indige-nous peoples constitute majorities.

In Russia, special variants of public govern-ments are the autonomous districts (okruga) andthe national regions (rayony) and townships(selksie administratsii). National regions andtownships, originally established in the 1920sand 1930s but liquidated in the late 1930s, havebeen revived in the 1990s in several areas of theNorth. Although governments in such districts,regions and townships are public governments,recent legislation provides that indigenous peo-ples can be given preferential treatment, as forexample a guaranteed number of seats in thegoverning bodies (21). It is mainly only at thetownship level where indigenous populationsdominate numerically.

Self-governance and dual structuresAcross the Arctic, a number of legal and politi-cal arrangements have also been established topromote a greater degree of autonomy forindigenous peoples in areas where they are inthe minority. This development has created dualsystems of governance where indigenous politi-cal arrangements operate simultaneously withpublic governments in the same geographicalarea. There are several examples.

In Canada, the self-government agreementsof the Yukon First Nations include law-makingpowers as well as the power and authority tomake decisions in a manner consistent withindigenous cultural values and institutions. Inaddition, they establish a broad and flexibleframework for self-government that will evolveat a pace determined by the Yukon FirstNations. So far, the Yukon First Nations haveexclusive authority to enact laws with respectto the administration of their affairs and theirinternal operation and management. They alsohave the authority to enact certain laws thatapply to their citizens throughout the Yukonand other laws that apply to all persons on set-tlement land. According to the self-govern-ment agreement, Yukon First Nations and thefederal government are to identify the areas inwhich Yukon First Nation laws will prevail overfederal laws, should there be any conflictbetween them.

Native tribal governments in Alaska are alsoself-government systems set up in parallel withthe public government system. The tribal gov-ernments are organized in two tiers. In thecommunities, the Native population can usetribal councils to exert its influence on a number

of matters relating to daily life. At a higher level,there are twelve regional non-profit NativeAssociations. Together with the tribal councils,they are specifically influential in social and cul-tural affairs. In parallel with these indigenousself-government structures, towns and villageshave city councils elected by all inhabitants.Even in the rural communities where AlaskaNatives make up the majority, there will usuallybe a city council operating in parallel with tribalcouncils. The public government system alsoexists on the state level and in the regions thathave been organized as boroughs, which oper-ate on the level between the city councils andthe state. In two of the Alaska boroughs, theNorth Slope Borough and the Northwest ArcticBorough, the Iupiat majorities have been ableto use the exploitation of oil and mineralresources for local self-government initiatives,see Chapter 7. Resource Governance for furtherdetails.

Further examples of indigenous self govern-ment parallel to public governments are theSaami Parliaments in Norway, Sweden, andFinland, established by the Saami Acts of therespective states. These are ethnic govern-ments, and only Saami have the right to regis-ter, vote, be elected, and present proposals inconnection with elections. With regard to theelectoral roll, the Nordic Saami Acts use bothobjective and subjective criteria. The funda-mental subjective element is the self-identifica-tion as Saami, while the objective criteria arerelated to the Saami language. The most impor-tant warrant for the Saami Parliaments is thevery fact that they are bodies elected by Saami,for the Saami. These parliaments have a contin-uing dialogue with the Nordic governmentsregarding the question of authority, and someauthority in administrative matters has beentransferred. Formally, the Saami Parliamentsonly have advisory status. Actually, however,they play a central political role within thenational constitutional systems in relation toSaami political issues, and they function as gov-ernmental bodies and as instruments for realiz-ing the principal policies of the respectivestates. The political rights achieved by theSaami as a people, may be understood in thecontext of a stronger Saami relation to thenational constitutions (22).

The process of strengthening the politicalautonomy of the Saami Parliament has beenmost significant in Norway. Here, recent agree-ments between the Norwegian Saami

95Political SystemsChapter 5

Parliament and the county municipalities couldcreate a base for cooperation also on a regionallevel. So far, agreements of cooperationbetween the Saami Parliament and the twonorthernmost county municipalities have beensettled. They involve a coordination and cooper-ation of efforts concerning matters of politicalimportance to the Saami and preparations for adivision of duties and responsibilities.

The question of Saami influence is not only amatter between an individual state and itsSaami indigenous minority but is also inde-pendent of national borders. Internationalcooperation between the Saami Parliaments isformalized in the Saami Parliamentary Council.Its work has been directed towards theEuropean Union.

A comparison between the Canadian andScandinavian systems with regard to self-deter-mination arrangements shows the potential offederal systems compared to unitary state sys-tems. The principle of division of executive andlegislative power in federal systems where theauthority to make laws within the federation isdistributed between the national government

96 Arctic Human Development Report

The Saami Parliaments

The Saami Parliament in Finland was empow-ered in January 1996 and has 21 elected mem-bers. The Norwegian Saami Parliament wasestablished in 1989 and consists of 39 repre-sentatives elected from 13 electoral districts inNorway. The Swedish Saami Parliament,established in 1993, consists of 31 memberswith the whole of Sweden as one electoral dis-trict. The three Saami Parliaments do not haveidentical functions and tasks but share the abil-ity to raise questions and issue statements onall questions within their area of activity. InFinland, a constitutionally protected culturalautonomy, the obligation of the authorities tonegotiate, and the Saami Parliaments rightand obligation of representation are importantelements in the strengthening of this self-gov-ernment. In comparison, the NorwegianSaami Parliament has a somewhat weak formalpolitical authority, but has still developed intoa central political actor. The Saami Parliamentin Norway also has a far better economicframework than do the Saami Parliaments inFinland and Sweden (13).

Saami Parliament,Norway

PHOTO:SAAMI PARLIAM

ENT

and the sub-units, creates space for expandingthe competence of both the self-governmentarrangements and the regional public govern-ments. In unitary states, delegation or transferof authority is more common, as in the case ofthe Saami. But such devolution does not removethe power of the central government to legislatein relation to devolved matters. RegardingGreenland, however, it is generally recognizedthat Home Rule cannot be revoked by theDanish Parliament.

Land claim settlementsA third type of response of state governmentsto indigenous claims has been to negotiate landclaim agreements. The political structureswhich they have given rise to can operate inparallel with both public governments and self-government structures. In Alaskas rather com-plex governance structure, the Native corpora-tions established by the Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 represent thisthird alternative. ANCSA was the first modernland claims agreement in the circumpolarNorth and its principles and limitations haveplayed an important role for later models asdeveloped in the Canadian North. These corpo-rations often play a key role for the indigenouspeoples and control many aspects of their lives.Even if they are in fact for-profit corporations,they should be treated as a kind of governancestructure.

The basic idea behind a land claims agree-ment is that the indigenous peoples give up ter-ritorial rights that are based on aboriginal rights.These rights are exstinguished in exchange for

title to specified tracts of lands and for a once-and-for-all monetary compensation. In Alaska,Native peoples received 11% of the lands theyclaimed. The lands and the financial compensa-tion were to be administered by 13 regional andmore than 200 village corporations that workunder corporate law with registered Natives asshareholders. The most important criterion forbeing an Alaska Native is biological. WhenANCSA was passed in 1971, any person whocould prove one-quarter blood quantum waseligible to enroll and become a shareholder in aNative corporation. Only those born byDecember 1971 have shares under ANCSA, butshares can be inherited.

The Canadian land claims agreements, suchas the James Bay and Northern QuebecAgreement (1975), the Inuvialuit FinalAgreement (1984), and the Nunavut LandClaims Agreement (1993) basically follow theAlaskan model. A very important difference isthat these are comprehensive agreements thatprovide, in addition to the land and moneycompensation, a number of benefits in relationto the use of land and resources, employment,environmental management, etc. The Nunavutagreement also contains a political accord toestablish the Nunavut public government.Management and control of land is morerestrictive in Canada than in Alaska but alsomore democratic and more similar to a publicmanagement institution. In Nunavut, the landsand financial compensation are monitored byan organization elected by Inuit, NunavutTunngavik Inc. This organization exerts a signif-icant political power and the issue is sometimesraised who is the real power-holder in Nunavut:Tunnavik Inc or the Nunavut Government.

So far, land claim agreements have mostlyplayed a role in the North American Arctic.

Land claims in Russia have followed a dif-ferent pattern of development (23). Indigenousgroups who wish to pursue traditional activi-

97Political SystemsChapter 5

Suktul Yukagir Self-GovernmentOne of the numerically smallest peoples of theRussian North is the Yukagir people, whosehomelands stretch across the northeast ofRussia including areas of the Sakha Republic(Yakutia) and the Magadan Province. TheYukagir of the Sakha Republic successfullyfought for the adoption of a special law guar-anteeing Yukagir self-government in the twotownships where much of their population isconcentrated, Nelemnoe and Andrushkino. In1998 the Sakha Republic government passedlegislation to this effect, known by the Yukagirterm for self-government, suktul. Otherindigenous peoples of the Sakha Republic havediscussed whether to pursue similar legislationfor self-government rights.

A comparison between Nunavut and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)

Nunavut ANCSA

Land compensation to lands claimed 18% 11%Sub-surface rights to lands claimed 1.80% 11%Surface priority rights to lands given up 82% 0%Benefits agreements +

Royalty of extraction of non-renewable resources on non-owned lands +

Political accord +

All indigenous have equal rights +

Shares and benefits can be transferred to non-indigenous +

Lands can be sold +

ties, such as hunting and reindeer herding, canpetition for a land allocation. These lands thentheoretically become inalienable and closed toindustrial development unless the holders ofthis tenure agree to such development.Hundreds of such native territorialized groups(obshchiny) have been established across theRussian North, although the ease of doing sodiffers substantially across the region. A federallaw regarding the establishment of obshchiny,adopted in 2000, superseded regional decrees(or the lack thereof) (24). Poor capitalization andthe collapse of state subsidies in the post-Sovietera led to the demise of many of these shortlyafter their formation, while industrial interestshave stymied the ability of other groups toattain such lands (25-26).

A parallel development is the establishmentof much larger territories of traditional natureuse, which are areas set aside from industrialdevelopment (obshchina lands may overlap orbe completely encompassed within these) (27-28). Federal legislation to establish such terri-tories of traditional nature use was passed in2001 (29). Indigenous groups are now workingto establish several such model territories inorder to identify challenges to the operational-ization of the law.

Theme summaryClaims for more regional autonomy and indige-nous self-determination have given rise to bothnew regional public governments and differentforms of indigenous self-government in theArctic. On the one hand, there is a generaltrend of decentralization of decision-makingpowers. On the other hand, the degree of terri-toriality and asymmetry vary to a great extentamong self-governing arrangements. Indeed,in some areas, there are dual structures wherethese government types exist in parallel, andsometimes also include corporations created inthe process of land claim settlements. In a larg-er perspective, this process can be described asone where ethnic and cultural identities are alsobecoming political identities. Thus the individ-ual in the Arctic will have to relate to varyingdegrees of multiple political identity: One, say,related to his or her ethnic group, another tothe local or regional government, another tothe state, and - in some cases yet another tosupra-state bodies like the European Union. Aspeople learn to live with asymmetric arrange-ments, we expect to see a general increase inthe legitimacy of the political systems of the

Arctic and a transition from single and exclusivepolitical identities to multiple and compatibleidentities, along the trends identified byMartnez-Herrera (20). Furthermore, in theprocess of accommodating indigenous claims,we expect that the democratic states of theArctic will have to embark upon a transforma-tion towards some sort of plurinational democ-racy, as described and discussed by MichaelKeating (30).

Key conclusionsHistorically, nation-building processes in theArctic follow the theoretical framework of stateformation, standardization, and integration.The historical relationship towards indigenouspeoples can be characterized as paternalistic,and the states understanding of integrationwas equal to the rhetoric and practices ofassimilation.

The states need and desire for utilizing theresources of the Arctic are closely linked to theircolonial histories. At the same time, there is andhas been acknowledgement of the special statusof indigenous peoples, illustrated by the histor-ical treaties in North America, the formerSoviets legal classification of the small peopleof the North, Greenland Home Rule, and thehistorical acknowledgement of Saami rights inFennoscandia. A particular feature in the Arcticstates is the involvement of indigenous peoplesas independent political actors in modernnation-building processes.

The contemporary formal polices and idealwith regard to increased indigenous influenceseems to be widely shared in the Arctic states,even if political and administrative solutionsvary from state to state. One answer, which isclosely linked to the growth of regional autono-my, is the establishment of public governments.This solution has been most prominent in areaswhere indigenous peoples are in the majority.Another solution has been self-government,which may operate as a part of dual systemswhere indigenous arrangements operate simul-taneously with public governments in the samearea. Self-government institutions can evenhave functions as state government bodies as inthe case of the Saami Parliaments.

The level of participation becomes crucialwith regard to both the decentralization ofdecision-making powers and the degree of ter-ritoriality and asymmetry of self-governingarrangements. Negotiations show a high level

98 Arctic Human Development Report

of indigenous participation. This has been thecase when land claims have been negotiated inCanada, and it also characterized the introduc-tion of self-governing arrangements inGreenland. In none of the other Arctic regionshave indigenous peoples been involved asequal negotiating partners in the process ofestablishing special arrangements for indige-nous peoples.

Gaps in knowledgeModern self-governing arrangements in theArctic are still of comparatively recent date,and future comparative studies will obviouslybe able to provide us with an increased under-standing of the significance of the variouspolitical arrangements for the human develop-ment.

Information about human participation inpolitical systems and in activities and institu-tions such as the media, important for politicalparticipation, must be further investigated.

References1. S. Rokkan, State Formation, Nation-Building and

Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan,P. Flora, Ed. with S. Kuhnle, D. Urwin (OxfordUniv. Press, Oxford, 1999.

2. Y. Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors. Russia and the SmallPeoples of the North (Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca,1994).

3. N. Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North(Minority Rights Group, London, 1994).

4. E. Niemi, Kulturmte, etnisitet og statlig inter-vensjon p Nordkalotten. Et historisk perspek-tiv, in Den nordiska mosaiken Rapport, human-istdagarna 15-16 mars 1997, Uppsala universitet,Uppsala, 1997), pp. 261-272.

5. S. Pedersen, Statens eiendomsrett til grunnen iFinnmarken del av den interne kolonihisto-rie, in Samer og nordmennn, H. Eidheim, Ed(Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo, 1999).

6. K. E. Eriksen, E. Niemi, Den finske fare.Sikkerhetsproblemer og minoritetspolitikk i nord18601940 (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1981).

7. D. Lewis, Indigenous rights claims in welfare capi-talist society: recognition and implementation. Thecase of the Saami people in Norway, Sweden andFinland (University of Lapland, Arctic CentreReport, Rovaniemi, 1998).

8. I. Roung, Samerna (Bonniers, Stockholm, 1982).9. N. J. Nyst, Najonalstat og minoritet. En kom-

parativ studie av norsk og svensk samepolitikk,Hovedfagsoppgave, Institutt for samfunnsfag,Universitetet i Troms (1993).

10. D. Sanders, The report of the Royal

Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: seekingcoherence in Canadian aboriginal policy, inSamiske rettigheter utfordringer lokalt, regionalt,nasjonalt og internasjonalt, E-G. Broderstad, Ed,(Senter for samiske studier, Universitetet iTroms, 1998).

11. A. Cairns, Citizens Plus. Aboriginal Peoples and theCanadian State (UBC Press, Vancouver Toronto,2000).

12. Daryn Leas, unofficial paper prepared forIWGIA, 2003.

13. J. B. Henriksen, Saami parliamentary co-opera-tion. An Analysis (Nordic Sami Institute,IWGIA Document No. 93. Guovdageaidnu andCopenhagen,1999).

14. T. Heleniak, Migration from the Russian Northduring Transition, Social Protection, DiscussionPaper Series, Paper No. 9925, World Bank,September 1999.

15. R. S. Moiseev, Nekotorye voprosy upravleniya razvi-tiem severnykh rayonov Rossii v kontse XX veka(Kamchatskiy pechatnyy dvor, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, 1999).

16. V. Kryazhkov, Uchastie korennykh malochislen-nykh narodov v politicheskom voleobrazovanii(gosudarstvenno-pravovye voprosy), Gosudarstvoi pravo 1:20-25 (2000).

17. E. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (Blackwell,Oxford, 1983).

18. A. D. Smith, State Making and NationBuilding in States in History, J. A. Hall, Ed.(Blackwell, Oxford, 1986).

19. J. J. Linz, State Building and Nation BuildingEuropean Review 1(4): 355 (1993).

20. E. Martnez-Herrera, From nation building tobuilding identification with political communi-ties: consequences of political decentralization inSpain, the Basque Country, Catalonia andGalicia, 1978-2001 European Journal of PoliticalResearch no. 41: 421 (2002).

21. Russia, O garantiyakh prav korennykh mal-ochislennykh narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii,Russian Federal Law 82-F3, 30 April 1999.

22. Cf. Saami Parliament (Norwegian) Plan 1991-1993:13.

23. G. Fondahl, G. Poelzer, Aboriginal land rights inRussia at the beginning of the twenty-first centu-ry Polar Record 39 (209):111 (2003).

24. Russia, Ob obshchikh printsipakh organizatsiiobshchin korennykh malochislennykh narodovSevera, Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka RossiyskoyFederatsii, Russian Federal Law 104-F3, 20 July2000.

25. N. Novikova, Rodovye ugodya: perspektivypravovogo pluralizma (predstavleniya pred-staviteley korennykh narodov i zokonodateley),Gosudarstvo i pravo 6:102 (2000).

26. J. Ziker, Assigned territories, family/clan/com-munal holdings, and common-pool resources inthe Taimyr Autonomous Region, NorthernRussia Human Ecology 31(3):331 (2003).

99Political SystemsChapter 5

27. O. Murashko, Etnoekologicheskie refugium:kontseptiya sokhraneniya traditionnoy kultury isredy obitaniya korennykh narodov Severa,Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 5:83 (1998).

28. O. Murashko, Kak mozhno realizovat konsti-tutsionnoe pravo na zashchitu is iskonnoy sredyobitaniya i traditsionnogo obraza zhizni, inSevernye narody Rossii na puti v novoe tysyacheletie(IWGIA, Moscow, 2000), pp.158-174.

29. Russia, O territoriyakh traditsionnogoprirodopolzovaniya korennykh malochislen-nykh narodov Severa, Sibiri i Dalnego VostokaRossiyskoy Federatsii, Russian Federal Law 49-F3, 7 May 2001.

30. M. Keating, Plurinational Democracy - StatelessNations in a Post-Sovereignty Era (Oxford Univ.Press, Oxford, 2001).

100 Arctic Human Development Report