Political Theory

H01 - Indigenous Democratic Theory

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 08:30am to 10:00am | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Dale Turner (University of Toronto)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Yann Allard-Tremblay (McGill University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Etienne Cardin-Trudeau (University of Toronto)

Much of contemporary democratic theory remains rooted in Euro-American intellectual and political traditions that are thoroughly imbricated with the history and ongoing reality of the settler colonial and neocolonial domination of Indigenous peoples. To be sure, there is exciting recent work that aims to “decolonize” democratic theory, to advance the emerging subfield of comparative democratic theory, and to critically examine settler sovereignty as the basis of putatively democratic orders in settler societies such as Canada. Together, these contributions help to deconstruct mainstream democratic theory’s claims to validity by problematizing its tendency to erase or abstract away from the dispossession, exclusion, and domination of Indigenous peoples within democratic institutions. Nonetheless, the work of reconstructing Indigenous conceptions of political order in conversation with democratic theory remains in its infancy. This panel will contribute to the project of critical but generative engagement between Indigenous political thought and practice and contemporary democratic theory through a series of lenses: the (ir)relevance of elections to the democratic legitimacy of Indigenous governments; the continuities and tensions between the constructivist turn in theories of political representation and the relational forms of representation authors find in Indigenous collective action; and the distinctive character of Indigenous forms of constituent power. Panelists will also discuss whether “Indigenous democratic theory” is an oxymoron, that is, whether normative democratic theory inescapably functions ideologically to suppress Indigenous perspectives on politics, particularly in settler colonial contexts.

Relational Representation: Iskwewuk E-wichiwitochik and the Limits of the Constructivist Turn in Representation Theory: Kathy Walker (University of Saskatchewan), Denali YoungWolfe (University of British Columbia), Melissa Williams (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Through an analysis of Iskwewuk E-wichiwitochik (IE), an Indigenous women-led grassroots organization in Saskatchewan, this paper examines how Indigenous political movements enact forms of relational representation that both reinforce and extend Western constructivist theories of political representation. Through its work supporting families of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit people (MMIWG2S+), IE challenges dominant frameworks of political belonging. While scholars like Saward and Disch have expanded understandings of representation beyond principal-agent models through concepts like "representative claims" and "mobilizational effects," IE's approach reveals both the possibilities and limitations of applying Western democratic frameworks to Indigenous political action. Drawing on Indigenous concepts of wâhkôhtowin (relationality) and practices of "standing with," this analysis demonstrates how IE refuses the politics of recognition inherent in conventional representative structures while fostering deep networks of accountability to Indigenous families and communities. Beyond constructing constituencies for representation, IE enacts a mode of relational politics that dissolves the separation between representer and represented while modeling alternative forms of collective responsibility and belonging. The paper argues that IE's non-hierarchical structure and grounding in Indigenous knowledge systems enables a form of grassroots democratic legitimacy. This case contributes to broader theoretical debates about whether "Indigenous democratic theory" is possible or desirable, suggesting that Indigenous political movements operate through modes of representation that may be irreducible to Western democratic frameworks. The analysis speaks to fundamental questions about decolonizing political theory while illuminating how Indigenous concepts of relationality might inform new ways of theorizing political representation beyond settler colonial logics.

The Democratic Legitimacy of Unelected Indigenous Governments: Daniel Sherwin (Carleton University), Daniel Hutton Ferris (Newcastle University)
Abstract: The Canadian state exhibits “electoral bias” in its regulation of Indigenous Governments. That is, it assumes that democracy should be expressed through elections, and is inhospitable toward non-electoral regimes of Indigenous democracy. This article draws on normative democratic theory to argue that this is a mistake. While elections have important democratic virtues, so do many non-electoral practices of Indigenous governance. Moreover, Canada’s practice of coercively imposing elections weakens their ability to function as institutions of egalitarian self-rule. Given this, we argue that Canada should reform its laws and policies to encourage Indigenous innovations in non-electoral democratic governance.

Indigenous Constituent Power: Melissa Williams (University of Toronto), Dale Turner (University of Toronto)
Abstract: The core meaning of constituent power resonates with many historical traditions of Indigenous political thought and practice. Indigenous peoples continue to exercise constituent power through the (re-)constitution of political orders at multiple scales of governance, from the local to the global. These jurisgenerative practices are often grounded in Indigenous spirituality and treaty-making, affirming relations of interdependence between Indigenous polities, non-Indigenous polities, and other living beings. This paper proceeds through an exploration of four cases at different scales of politics: the constitution of the Anishinaabeg of White Earth Nation; the Anishinaabe Chi-Naaknigewin; the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and the Buffalo Treaty. It concludes that Indigenous constituent power challenges conventional understandings of the concept on at least five dimensions: (1) its collective subject is not a state-bounded demos; (2) it is de-linked from state-centered conceptions of sovereignty; (3) it does not usually assert comprehensive jurisdiction over all subject matters of legislation; (4) it generates politico-legal orders at multiple scales of politics, above, below, and across state boundaries; and (5) it constitutes orders that regulate not only human political relationships, but also relations between human societies and the more-than-human environments that sustain them.