Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Self-DeterminationThis usage, however, is less common outside the United States,where sovereignty often is viewed in zero-sum terms: to theextent that “we” have it, “you” don’t. 17 The term self-rule, on theother hand, appears to carry less definitional baggage.In any case, the core question from a development viewpoint issimple and can be phrased in a number of ways: Who controlsthe primary relationships involved? Who is exercising decisionmakingpower? Who is calling the shots within a given policydomain or set of decisions? Who’s in charge? To the degree thatthe answer to such questions is the Indigenous nation, this is anexample of Indigenous self-rule. To the degree that the answer issomeone else, it is the absence of self-rule.The U.S. research noted above shows that as Indian nationsexpand the scope and degree of their own decision-makingpower, the chances of sustainable economic development rise.This is particularly so in certain domains such as constitutionalauthority, the design of governing institutions, law-making, themanagement of lands and resources, the organization of civilsociety, and the determination of strategies for community andeconomic development. In such areas, the likelihood of achievingsustainable development rises as power and authority are devolvedto Indigenous nations or communities, moving non-Indigenousentities, including central governments, from decision-makingto resource roles and freeing Indigenous peoples to decide thesethings for themselves and by their own criteria.Admittedly, the shift in jurisdictional power is in itself no guaranteeof sustainable development; it merely makes such developmentpossible. As the research results summarized above indicate, more17. See Tully (2000: 51), who describes this view as holding that “either thedominant state exercises exclusive jurisdiction or the indigenous people do,”with no middle ground. Labeling this as one of the “underlying presumptions”that states use “to legitimize the system of internal colonization,” he notes thatit ignores the possibility that “jurisdiction can be shared.”16
Cornellis needed. Those nations making the decisions have to be capableof governing well. They have to put in place an institutionalenvironment that their citizens support and which can encourageand sustain economic activity and community initiatives that fittheir strategic objectives and opportunities. But self-rule itselfremains essential. Jurisdiction that is not backed up by effectivegoverning institutions will be unproductive, but a set of welldesignedgoverning institutions that lack jurisdictional authoritywill be toothless. In either case, the result will be something otherthan sustainable development.Why does self-rule play such a large role in producing theseeffects? There are several reasons. First, with self-rule, decisionmakingreflects Indigenous agendas and knowledge, making itmore likely that solutions to problems will be appropriate andinformed and, therefore, viable. Second, it puts developmentresources in Indigenous hands, allowing a more efficient use ofthose resources to meet Indigenous objectives. Third, it fosterscitizen engagement in economic and community development,something effectively discouraged—with the attendant humanenergy being wasted—when the nation lacks substantive power.Fourth—and most importantly—it shifts accountability.Devolution makes governmental decision-making accountableto those most directly affected. The decision-makers themselvespay the price of bad decisions and reap the benefits of good ones.Consequently, and allowing time for a learning curve, decisionquality improves. For generations, authority over Indigenouspeoples not only in the U.S. but in Australia, New Zealand andCanada has rested with non-Indigenous governments, which haveseldom been held accountable to the Indigenous peoples they havegoverned. This divorce between those with the authority to makedecisions and those bearing the consequences of those decisionshas resulted in an extraordinary and continuing record of centralgovernment policy failure in all four countries.17
Page 1 and 2: Joint Occasional Papers on on Nativ
Page 3 and 4: CornellIndigenous Peoples, Poverty
Page 9 and 10: CornellObviously the differences ar
Page 11 and 12: CornellCommonalitiesAlthough there
Page 13 and 14: CornellThe present inquiry, while p
Page 15 and 16: CornellCentral governments, on the
Page 17 and 18: Cornellstark discrepancy between In
Page 19 and 20: Cornellusual economic factors such
Page 21: CornellThe meaning and role of self
Page 25 and 26: CornellThe U.S. government had inad
Page 27 and 28: CornellSuch variation does not nega
Page 29 and 30: CornellBern and Dodds discuss the s
Page 31 and 32: Cornellgroup identities and boundar
Page 33 and 34: CornellThe overall policy implicati
Page 35 and 36: CornellReferencesAnaya, S.J. 1996.
Page 37 and 38: Cornell-----. 1995. ‘Where does e
Page 39 and 40: CornellHarvard Project on American
Page 41 and 42: CornellJorgensen, M., and J. Taylor
Page 43 and 44: CornellNative Nations Institute for
Page 45 and 46: CornellWakeling, S., M. Jorgensen,
Page 47 and 48: Joint Occasional Papers on Native A

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?