Reedy Justin, Orr Raymond, Spicer Paul, Blanchard Jessica W, Hiratsuka Vanessa Y, Ketchum Terry S, Saunkeah Bobby, Wark Kyle, Woodbury R Brian
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA.
Southcentral Foundation, Anchorage, AK, USA.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2020;7. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-0506-4. Epub 2020 Jun 24.
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 over-generalizing about AI/AN tribes.
作为一种提高政策制定参与度的技术，公众审议已成为治理的前沿。学者和从业者也指出，审议有可能给予历史上被边缘化的群体（如原住民）更大的影响力。然而，对于审议理想与美国印第安人和阿拉斯加原住民（AI/AN）的治理及决策实践之间的潜在契合度，关注较少。在本文中，我们通过从审议的角度分析AI/AN治理的描述来开始填补这一空白，并指出重叠、协同和冲突的领域。我们仔细研读了四个历史上AI/AN背景的关键历史和人种志描述——《和平大法》下的易洛魁联盟、19世纪奥吉布瓦村的描述、19世纪前的圣克拉拉普韦布洛政府以及20世纪初尤皮克村的生活——以及印第安重组法案时期圣克拉拉普韦布洛宪法形式的一个更当代的案例。然后，我们将来自学者罗伯特·达尔和约翰·加斯蒂尔用于审议民主的两组关键标准应用于这些描述，并指出每个体系与这些审议框架相符或不相符的方式。我们在分析中发现这些历史部落背景之间存在差异。审议的社会要素，如尊重讨论和平等参与机会，在许多治理实践描述中部分或全部存在，但在某些部落治理形式中，分析要素（如对一系列解决方案的讨论）是否包含则不太明确。然后，我们探讨了我们的发现对AI/AN部落内部及外部公众审议的潜在影响。我们指出，审议学者和从业者应警惕对AI/AN部落进行过度概括。
