Power to the people: the North American experience of empowering indigenous communities

Economically, too, jurisdiction matters.

Economic development

• In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Winnebago Tribe of Wisconsin faced high unemployment rates and an economy heavily dependent on government employment and a casino gaming operation. Taking responsibility for its own economic future, the tribe used casino revenues to start a diversified set of businesses under the control of a wholly owned, tribal corporation. Importantly, the tribe made its corporation a profit-oriented, first-class, corporate enterprise. The results have been spectacular. Today, there are a number of successful businesses, dividends are used to fund other programmes, and unemployment at Winnebago has more than halved.
• Cochiti Pueblo. This is a very traditional Indian community in New Mexico where a still powerful Indigenous culture compels public-spirited behaviour from tribal leaders and focuses governance away from distributive issues - who gets what -and toward productive activity. The result is a viable, sustainable, self-determined economy that provides jobs and revenue for its people.

There are other problems that respond to a change of jurisdiction.

Adolescent suicide

• This is a major problem in numerous native communities in North America. But the rates vary: in some communities, suicide is rampant among young people; in others, it is virtually unknown. Recently, two researchers examined adolescent suicide rates in 195 Aboriginal communities in British Columbia, Canada. They tested the effects of a number of factors on adolescent suicide rates, and what they found, in short, was that where assertions of self-governing power were greatest or most numerous, suicide rates were lowest. The apparent explanation: affirmations of cultural value and assertions of control over Indigenous lands and affairs create an environment that supports young people. Having both a sense of confidence in who they are and a belief in a viable future creates a hedge against suicide.

In one way or another, all of these are success stories - they trace significant improvement in the daily lives of aboriginal peoples. But they do more. They show that jurisdiction can be a win-win proposition. Both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people benefit: programmes operate more efficiently, health improves, costs decline, and the long-term burden of native poverty begins to be reduced for both Indigenous nations and the society as a whole.

In other words, in these cases, self-governing power has been matched by competent, resourceful self-governance. Without that, we would have had no progress but just a great spinning of wheels.

When Indigenous nations gain power over their own affairs, at least three things tend to happen. First, bureaucratic priorities are replaced by Indigenous priorities. Second, decisions begin to reflect local knowledge and concerns. And the third is that decisions get linked to consequences. When distant policy-makers and bureaucrats make decisions, they can make mistakes with relative impunity. When they mess things up, they don’t pay the price: Indigenous people pay it. Decision-makers are saved from the consequences of their decisions, so there is no discipline to compel them to do better in the future. But when Indigenous peoples themselves are in charge, they pay the price of bad decisions and reap the rewards of good ones. Over time and allowing for mistakes, the quality of decisions improves because it is the decision-makers’ own future that is at risk. Jurisdiction, in other words, creates accountability.

These empowered nations are solving problems that the United States and Canada have failed to solve for nearly a century. We have compelling evidence from diverse settings in the United States and, on a smaller scale, Canada showing that self-governing power, backed up by capable, effective, and culturally appropriate Indigenous governing systems and practices, provides the most promising foundation of native community and economic development.

What we have learned would have to be applied thoughtfully and carefully and in ways that fit the peoples and the context of Australia. There are differences, but the similarities are substantial, too. These stories are not really North American stories at all; they are human stories. The lessons they teach are these: give people power in their own affairs, encourage and support them in taking responsibility for themselves, offer them assistance as they design or adopt tools that they see as appropriate for the exercise of that power and the chances are good that they will do remarkable things. Deny them all of that - as we have done for too long - and you should be prepared to pick up the pieces and pay the costs for generations to come.