Deliberative democracy and historical perspectives on American Indian/Alaska native political decision-making practices

Justin Reedy (), Raymond Orr, Paul Spicer, Jessica W. Blanchard, Vanessa Y. Hiratsuka, Terry S. Ketchum, Bobby Saunkeah, Kyle Wark and R. Brian Woodbury
Additional contact information
Justin Reedy: University of Oklahoma
Raymond Orr: University of Oklahoma
Paul Spicer: University of Oklahoma
Jessica W. Blanchard: University of Oklahoma
Vanessa Y. Hiratsuka: Southcentral Foundation
Terry S. Ketchum: East Central University
Bobby Saunkeah: Chickasaw Nation Department of Health
Kyle Wark: Southcentral Foundation
R. Brian Woodbury: Southcentral Foundation

Palgrave Communications, 2020, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-11

Abstract: Abstract Public deliberation has risen to the forefront of governance as a technique for increasing participation in policy making. Scholars and practitioners have also noted the potential for deliberation to give greater influence to historically marginalized populations, such as Indigenous peoples. However, there has been less attention paid to the potential fit between the ideals of deliberation and the governance and decision making practices of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) peoples. In this paper, we begin to address this gap by analyzing accounts of AI/AN governance from the perspective of deliberation, and note areas of overlap, synergy, and conflict. We conduct a close reading of key historical and ethnographic accounts of four historical AI/AN contexts—the Iroquois Confederation under the Great Law of Peace, 19th century accounts of the Ojibwa village, the Santa Clara Pueblo government in pre-19th century, and Yup’ik village life in the early 20th century—and a more contemporary case in the form of the Santa Clara Pueblo’s Constitution from the Indian Reorganization Act period. We then apply two sets of key criteria for deliberative democracy—from the scholars Robert Dahl and John Gastil—to these accounts and note the ways in which each system is or is not congruent with these frameworks of deliberation. We find variations between these historical tribal contexts in our analysis. Social components of deliberation, such as respectful discussion and equal opportunities to participate, were partially or fully present in many accounts of governance practices, but it was less clear whether the analytic components, such as discussion of a range of solutions, were included in some forms of tribal governance. We then explore the potential implications of our findings for public deliberation within and in AI/AN tribes. We note that deliberative scholars and practitioners should be wary of overgeneralizing about AI/AN tribes.

Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0506-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:7:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0506-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0506-4

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().