Indigenous….
By Ashok Priyadarshi Nayak,
Jamia Millia
Islamia,
INTRODUCTION
THE WORD INDIGENOUS MEANS originating in and characteristic of a particular
region or country.
When the outsiders met indigenous peoples for the
first time over five centuries ago, their concept understanding on indigenous
peoples was very disparaging and called them aborigine, natives, tribal,
schedule tribes, ethnic minorities and ethnic nationalities, connoting
backwardness and primitiveness. With such a concept, indigenous systems
including governance, culture, social, legal and judiciary, philosophy,
economic systems were replaced with supposedly more advanced systems to
assimilate and "modernize" indigenous peoples.
However, when excessive exploitation of natural
resources resulted in almost the degradation of the environment, affecting all
livelihoods, the international community started to think about sustainable
utilization of resources in which they realized and gradually recognized the
sustainability of indigenous systems.
The historical background of Indigenous peoples relations since the Spanish Conquest has been marked by violence between two forces, namely Amerindian societies and the Conquerors. This struggle led to subjugation, defeat, servitude, expropriation, as well as to the ethnic and cultural annihilation of large numbers of this continent's native societies.
The
differentiation—partly created by Indigenous peoples themselves—was
and still is a form of cultural resistance and strategy for survival, enabling
them to reassess the notion of self against the nation-state's view of
assimilation. This strategy fragmented the Indigenous nations during Colonial
and Republican periods; while at the same time helped
to rebuild, empower and assert their own internal governments, often by using
another survival strategy, namely invisibilization.
“Indigenous governance is defined as the sphere of
self-administration by Indigenous peoples that, in harmony with applicable law
and with Indigenous peoples’ own organizational structures, contemplates: (a)
the recognition of the special relationship that exists between the land and
ethnic and cultural identity; (b) the recognition of the autonomy in the
management of Indigenous lands within the States of which they are part; and
(c) the effective participation of Indigenous peoples within local, provincial,
and national government.”
Indigenous governance has different spheres, scope and limits, depending
on the particularities of each national or regional history.
Spheres
One specific area
of Indigenous governance is that of multinationality as conceived by Indigenous
peoples who traditionally live in more than one country.
This sphere has prompted bilateral or multinational agreements on the
rights of Indigenous peoples who share more than one nationality. So far, this
has been mainly an area of easy governance, good neighbours, and scarce
hostility. This does not mean that the globalization principles of universality
of rights have taken hold here, nor has the impact of being fragmented by
national and territorial borders on Indigenous peoples been recognized.
However, to date these cases have not involved major governance conflicts. On
the other hand, Indigenous peoples have learned how to re-establish links above
and beyond national borders, and rebuild their cultural units and internal
government as a people.
Another aspect of
Indigenous governance takes place at the national level. In these cases,
tensions have revolved around the rights exercised by the Indigenous peoples'
internal government and those that are recognized in the national laws and
constitutions or de facto. It is mainly in this sphere where Indigenous
governance has developed. In keeping with similar regional market and capital
trends, the near future will surely witness a growth of regional, bi-national
or multinational Indigenous governances.
Indigenous governance tends to be more internally focused when they are a demographic minority and when the cultural effects of discrimination have a strong hold on the actions of Indigenous communities. But as the grip of cultural submission begins to loosen, and as the awareness of being a demographic majority increases, Indigenous governance reaches out seeking access to the political and governmental structures.
Thus, Indigenous governance is a bi-directional process that operates both internally and externally. On the one hand, it involves the exercise of traditional systems of authority, and on the other, to the inter-relations of these systems with national, regional, and local governments.
Scope
Indigenous
authority is not based on the democratic principles of representation and
majority, but rather on each community's own traditional criteria. Indigenous
leaders, who act as cultural intermediaries with mainstream society, are
entrusted with a mandate from their communities and peoples. Contrary to
western democracies, Indigenous leaders are not independent authorities, but
rather spokespersons on behalf of Indigenous internal authorities and the mandate
and assembly given to them by their people. This particular issue has
become particularly relevant with the creation of special districts in some
countries and the opening of legislative and executive spaces, which has led
some Indigenous leaders who have either been elected or appointed to take on
their role in an individualistic way as in the Western tradition.
Indigenous autonomy began gaining recognition in several countries during the 19th century, and later reinforced by constitutional and legal reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. It has been further reinforced by Agreement 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples, the Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Durban Conference, among others.
Limits
Latin American systems have superimposed their governance on Indigenous governance. In every country, Indigenous peoples are deemed special nationals, and have either been granted, or governments have been pressed to grant them, certain administrative functions of representation and participation.
One of the reasons for the lack of understanding in certain areas is the
fact that Indigenous governance systems precede the republican government
systems and do not respond solely to present needs. Indigenous peoples’ demands
today are a consequence of the exclusion they were forced to in the past as
well as to the current growing threats to their ethnic and cultural rights and
their very survival.
Thus, the confines of Indigenous governance may be defined by the
legislation, constitutions, or national governance agreements, though
Indigenous peoples do not internally apply these unilateral definitions.
Indigenous governance system
Administrative
System
Traditionally, the unit of administration and
governance among the indigenous peoples was restricted to the village level.
However, after means of communication developed, the sphere of administration
and governance were expanded in which a number of villages came partially under
one administrative system. Before colonial rule, indigenous peoples were
effectively independent. Generally, four major institutions of authority
governed indigenous political and administrative system: the Village Head or
Chief, the Council of Elders, the Priestesses or Priests, and the Warriors. The
four institutions worked closely together to safeguard the interest of the
community. Customary law was used to govern and control the behavior of members
of the community.
Because various tribes or communities were often at
war with one another, prosperity, harmony and security were major
considerations in the selection of community leaders. Thus, community leaders
usually comprised of individuals who were knowledgeable about customs and
tradition, have certain specialized knowledge, were
wealthy, generous, brave and physically strong. Furthermore, personal
integrity, reliability, honesty, wisdom and a sense of justice were valued as
personal characteristics when selecting leaders.
The Chief or Village Head held the highest authority
in term of hierarchy. She/he was responsible for the overall administration of
the village and management of resources.
She/he was also responsible for maintaining law and order in the
village. The Chief or Village Head presided over village meetings and hearings
and played a major role in ensuring that the traditional land boundaries,
customary laws and rituals were followed. The Chief or Village Head was usually
inherited as long as his/her personal integrity was fit enough in the eyes and
standards of the villagers. In most cases, the Chief or Village Head was
selected for his extensive knowledge of the custom, wisdom as well as his
prowess and organizational ability to protect the village from raids.
The Council of Elders comprised of members of the
community who were usually 40 years old and above. The Council advised the
Chief or Village Head on all important matters concerning the village. The
Council of Elders was the village administrative body, which made important
decisions pertaining to security, development, justice, health, moral,
spiritual standards of the community.
The Council of Elders sought their advice from the
village Priestesses or Priests. The Priestesses were involved in most aspects
of village life: birth, marriage and death as well as other daily activities
such as farming, hunting and fishing. Besides being a medical specialist, the
Priestesses were also ritual specialists who ensured moral and spiritual
integrity. Tradition and custom formed the basis of individual behavior and it
was believed that non-adherence to these traditional customs would bring
diseases, sickness and natural disasters. To restore harmony, appropriate
rituals had to be performed by the Priestesses. They were thus very influential
and powerful figures in the community.
The last of the major institutions of authority was
paramount leader or warrior who was responsible for security of the community
by leading his group of warriors in protecting the village from outside
intruders. The paramount leader or warrior was chosen for his prowess in war
and in the defense of the community. He represents the higher authority but
still seek the advice and assistance from the Priestesses to ward off enemies.
Socio-Economic system
The key characteristics of indigenous economic
system are its subsistence nature, limited goods and services and small scale
production. This means that labour is derived locally – usually among family
members. Distribution of land, labour and produce is determined to a large
extent by social relationships. The tools used are simple and made from locally
available resources.
The economic system is based on the principles of reciprocity,
social responsibility and sustainability of resources. In the exchange
of goods and services, inter- and intra- community relationships are important
to support the mutual need for survival. In terms of practices, these
principles are seen in the way communities share what they have caught during
hunting expeditions (reciprocity). The principle of social
responsibility ensures that all members of the community, particularly
those in a disadvantaged position, are taken care of. There should be no
exploitation of others, including outside communities that come to trade, by unfair
valuation goods. Everyone is expected to assist a member of the community who
is in need by giving or making an exchange even if the product being traded is
not needed. This is also expressed through the borrowing of land, the hiring of
needy members as a farm labourer, or the selling of a
calf before it is born at a very low price to the needy person who is looking
after the pregnant cow. When someone had a good harvest, the person would throw
a feast for the whole community or contribute the surplus for needy families.
The principle of sustainability relates
mainly to the exploitation or collection of natural resources. Customary laws
and the social and judiciary systems ensure that over-exploitation of resources
do not occur. Indigenous knowledge on resource management is handed down from
generation to generation. Small-scale productions and moderate yields/catch
using non-destructive tools in farming and fishing characterize the livelihood
of indigenous communities. Care is also taken so that only enough food and
other needs for the family to subsist are taken from the environment.
The differences with respect to indigenous systems
with the present governance systems, concepts and practices are very obvious.
While the present governance systems opt towards globalization, indigenous
system is much localized and its sphere is expanded only when there is a common
issue to share. Indigenous governance
system also is very loose and flexible. The core goals of indigenous systems
are prosperity, harmony, peace, sustainability, reciprocity and responsibility
for the whole community while globalization budgies moving more towards
individualism.
Indigenous governance goes beyond self-management to include
their whole universe as peoples. Indigenous governance indeed includes the
management of material and social resources, but its notion of governance
encompasses many other aspects of their social and spiritual world. Other
analysts define Indigenous governance based on current demands for the
recognition of their rights, identities or their desire to help build
inclusive, diverse, multicultural and multiethnic national societies. “(...)
the notion of governance promoted by Indigenous peoples first requires
the legal and political recognition of social, cultural and ethnic diversity,
accompanied by the creation of a system that provides for multicultural and
multiethnic relations.
International agencies like the World Bank
and Asian Development Bank are promoting the concept
of "good governance" in the Pacific islands. But indigenous societies
in the region have their own ways of governing family and community.
Governance
in the indigenous concept is linked to a belief system that supervises and
monitors peaceful co-existence of everyone and everything that share the
multi-dimensional natural world that we live in. This is done in accordance
with the natural laws of society, which are based on our indigenous creation
stories and the protocols that have been made by human beings.
The role of leadership
The leader takes responsibility to compensate for breaches of the peace on behalf of his community members. Truth and justice are prerequisites for good governance, social security, economic self-reliance and political stability. Quality leadership, authority and good governance is measured by the ability to uphold cohesive community spirit, with a state of peace and feelings of social security, economic self-reliance and political stability.
Collective ownership
One of the fundamental characteristics of indigenous communities is their collective ownership and responsibility to everything.
Conclusion
Indigenous governance is, above all, a series of dynamics and forces
that flow between two or more views of the world, in a constant flux and
change, achieving or losing balance, which aims at maintaining unity and an
Indigenous ethnic conscience based on consensus and respect. It operates both
internally and externally within a wider global system that contains them. Internal
Indigenous governance refers to the role that traditional leaders should play
as advisors and companions of their peoples. Management and administration are
secondary for Indigenous governments. Their main duty is to know of the
conflicts and problems that affect social control and regulation; the relations
with nature, spirituality and the sacred; the material and spiritual control
over their lands and strategies for survival and the future. External
governance aims at the defence of self-determination (or
self-government); the creation and maintenance of mechanisms of intermediation
and contact for dialogue and negotiation with national societies and
governments; to democratic representation and participation (in legislative or
executive domains); the control of natural resources (use, conservation, and
exploitation), to the possession and ownership of land and territory; to the
development of a chosen way of life and society and the definition of how and
to what extent to integrate to capitalist development and the market economy.
Indigenous governments have
existed within national governments that disown them but make them a part of
them