Sovereignty, self-governance, and self-determination

This post contains some notes I’ve compiled as I work through my own understanding of several terms: sovereignty, self-governance, and self-determination. I imagine I will revisit this in the future, but I’ve found some interesting resources to share – so here goes.  

In May 2016, The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General Canada at the time) announced that Canada would adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Here is part of what she said:   

“There is room in our country for different legal traditions and ways of governing. An approach that respects the diversity and supports the social and economic advancement of indigenous peoples as part of our evolving system of cooperative federalism and multi-level governance.” (Watch the full speech here.) 

Understanding the process of achieving reconciliation includes understanding the following terminology as it pertains to Indigenous peoples: 

Sovereignty – A nation with sovereignty has the supreme authority to govern itself. 

Self-governance – A sovereign nation decides how to govern based on the culture and traditions of its people. 

The inherent right to self-governance exists based on the right of prior occupation. Indigenous peoples were doing just fine governing themselves before Europeans showed up and imposed their methods on them. Indigenous peoples feel responsible as stewards of the land they were entrusted with by their creator – protecting their land, languages, cultures, and people. (More on this.)

Self-determination – The inherent right of a nation (bestowed upon them by Creator) to determine their own set of cultural practices and teachings, relationships with others, etc., without the input of external groups.   

A prominent news story that highlights the importance of self-determination is the outing of Buffy Sainte-Marie as possibly not a genetically indigenous person. Ira Lavallee, the acting chief of Piapot First Nation where Buffy was adopted by an indigenous family, explains why they are not going to abandon her as one of their own:

“When it comes to Buffy specifically we can’t pick and choose which part of our culture we decide to adhere to.… We do have one of our families in our community that did adopt her. Regardless of her ancestry, that adoption in our culture to us is legitimate.” (Read the full article.)

This is an example of cultural beliefs and practices that are used to determine membership in the Piapot First Nation. It’s their business! This trumps any lingering rules from the Indian Act or opinions of other groups. That there are people bothered by this highlights the differences that have yet to be embraced by people who carry a different world view — probably a Eurocentric one, but what do I know? 

Join the conversation by commenting below.
What part of this content was new learning for you? What questions do you still have?

One comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *