Arctic indigenous representation in national parliaments

ABSTRACT

National parliaments in democracies are key arenas for political deliberation, national agenda setting, and public negotiation of interests. In addition – of course – they legislate and control the government. Accordingly, the ways that the interests of Indigenous people in the Arctic are represented in national parliaments are important for their current and future autonomy from the nation-state. Setting from the concept of representation as defined by Pitkin (1967), this article reviews the scholarly literature on the national parliamentary representation of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Doing so, it takes a first, comparative look at this topic, discusses the formal, descriptive, and substantive representation of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic, and asks if there is a certain Arctic model of Indigenous national representation. The review shows that none of the Arctic Indigenous peoples are formally represented in their national parliament as a demos, and descriptive Indigenous representation is rather low (except in the case of the Danish parliament). Additionally, although similar formal and informal institutions seem to influence the substantive representation of Indigenous interests it is not fitting to talk of a particular Arctic model of Indigenous national representation.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous peoples
• parliamentary representation
• Arctic
• Tribal
• Inuit
• Sami

Introduction

Though questions of great importance to Arctic Indigenous peoples are debated – promoted or neglected – and decided upon in national parliaments, these parliaments have generally not received much interest from either Indigenous peoples or scholars of Indigenous politics. In Canada and the U.S., most Indigenous peoples, Arctic and non-Arctic alike, prefer the model of nation-to-nation relations.¹ Hence, in Canada and the U.S. juridical litigation, mobilisation, activism, and lobbyism rather than direct representation in the federal parliament, have been the preferred avenues for Indigenous influence.² Likewise, in Finland, Norway, and Sweden, the Sami have sought influence through channels other than those of direct representation in the national parliaments.³ Most notably, this has been done, through mobilisation in Sami interest organisations and over the last decades through the Sami parliaments, which were set up by law in 1987 (Norway), 1992 (Sweden), and 1995 (Finland).⁴⁵ Also, in Greenland, the push for greater self-governance does not seem to have been fought in the Danish parliament, but in negotiations between the Danish and Greenlandic governments and the Commissions which have negotiated the institutional models for the Greenlandic self-governing arrangements.⁶

Since the focus of Arctic Indigenous peoples’ political mobilisation has not been the national parliaments, the literature has not been much concerned with national parliaments as arenas of Indigenous politics. Rather, in Finland, Norway, and Sweden, political scientists have particularly been interested in how the Sami are represented in the three Sami parliaments.⁷ In the U.S. and Canadian contexts, scholars of Indigenous politics have generally studied the courts and the activities of interest groups rather than the parliament as arenas of Indigenous influence.⁸

Nevertheless, the question if Indigenous peoples should be directly represented in the national parliament is a topic of intense political debate and consideration particulary in Canada and the U.S. In Canada, in 1992, a majority of both Indigenous and second nation peoples voted no to a model of direct Indigenous representation, as this was sketched in the Charlottetown Accord.⁹ After the referendum, however, other models that could ensure better Indigenous national representation have been suggested, but Canadian Indigenous peoples, in particular, are generally sceptical towards the suggestion that they should be included as a demos in the national parliament: Besides the historical legacy of national suffrage, it is argued that participation in the political institutions of a settler state would wrongly legitimise this state. Also, participation in Canadian parliamentary politics is viewed as being inconsistent with the nation-to-nation relation that most Nations prefer to have with the state.¹⁰ However, recently the number of Indigenous representatives in both the Canadian and U.S. parliaments has risen considerably.¹¹ Moreover, in 2019, the U.S. the Cherokee Nation¹² formally announced its intention to apply its treaty-based right to send a non-voting delegate to the U.S. Congress, thus re-constructing how this parliament is usually approached from an Indigenous perspective.¹³

Whether direct formal representation in the national parliament is politically or normatively desirable for Indigenous peoples is a question of great democratic importance, which the present article does not try to answer. However, it points out that, the question of representation is much wider than that of direct, formal representation. Accordingly, despite normative views of direct Indigenous representation in the national parliaments, the lives and destinies of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic are, among others still decided by the national parliaments in Canada, Denmark, Finland, North America, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the U.S. To gain more knowledge on how this representation occurs, this article systematically reviews peer-reviewed – primarily second nation – research on the different ways in which Arctic Indigenous peoples are represented in national parliaments.

In line with the theoretical perspective of this special issue, the study focuses on the importance of institutions for Indigenous parliamentary representation. Accordingly, I set out to answer the following questions:

1. How are Indigenous peoples and their interests represented in the national parliaments that make decisions of importance to Arctic Indigenous people?

2. How do formal and informal institutions influence Indigenous representation in these parliaments?

3. Is there a special model of Arctic Indigenous national parliamentary representation?

The article applies the definition of parliamentary representation as it was laid forth by Pitkin. Accordingly, as I describe below, I approach representation as a phenomenon that may exist in a formal, descriptive, and substantive way.¹⁴¹⁵

Since I aim to illustrate the democratic potential and pitfalls of Indigenous peoples’ representation in democracies, the study only reviews research on how Indigenous peoples are represented in national Western parliaments. Hence, I focus on parliamentary representation in the federal parliaments in Canada and the U.S. and the national parliaments in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Initially, several factors speak against the occurrence of a specific Arctic model of indigenous parliamentary representation. Most notably, there are great differences between the Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Also, the relations that each of these peoples have had with their settler state varies greatly – indeed, even within the same states Indigenous peoples have been treated differently.¹⁶ In addition, there are great differences between the procedures and dynamics of the bicameral, federal parliaments in Canada and the U.S. on the one hand, and the unicameral, national parliaments in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden on the other. Such differences, as well as differences in terms of electoral systems, party group structures, and parliamentary cultures are likely to influence representation in important ways.¹⁷ Nevertheless, since Indigenous peoples on the one hand and second nation representatives on the other interact across nation states (i.e. in the Circumpolar Council and the Nordic Council) it is not unlikely that common characteristics may have developed.

Below, I start by describing my theoretic approach to the concept of representation, and how I carried out the systematic review. Then, I review and discuss the current research, first in terms of the formal aspects of this representation, and second in terms of its descriptive characteristics. Lastly, I discuss the results of studies that focus on how Indigenous peoples are substantively represented in national parliaments that make decisions of importance to Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. In the conclusion, I sum up the key findings and discuss if national representation of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic has similar characteristics – that is, if we may talk of a certain Arctic model of Indigenous representation in national parliaments.

Theoretical perspectives

Within the last decade, the concept of political representation has been theorised in new and innovative ways. Most notably, scholars have stressed representation as a constitutive act, which involves both the active engagement of the representative and those who are represented.¹⁸ Also, it has been pointed out that political representation neither take place within parliaments only, nor does it only exist as an act where a representative represents a constituency.¹⁹ For instance, as explained by Mansbridge, representatives do sometimes represent people who do not live in the representative’s district.²⁰ Mansbridge terms this phenomenon ‘surrogate representation’ ²¹

Since this paper focuses on the representation that takes place in national parliaments, and reviews literature that generally applies Pitkin’s concept of representation (1967), I setting out from Pitkin’s classical conceptualisation of this phenomenon (Pitkin 1967). To Pitkin, representation can be defined as”the making present in some sense of something which is nevertheless not present literally or in fact”.²² According to Pitkin, scholars, political philosophers, and politicians generally tend to think of parliamentary representation in one (or several) of four ways: formal, descriptive, symbolic, or substantive.²³

Scholars who conceive of representation in a formalistic sense focus on representation in terms of the formal arrangements that precede and initiate it (how authorisation is given to the representee, and how this person is held accountable).²⁴ Below, current research that investigates the formal institutions through which Indigenous peoples are represented – or not represented – is reviewed here.

In Pitkin’s writing, the most interesting distinction is that between being descriptively represented (representation as”standing for”) and substantively represented (representation as”acting for”). A person, idea, or political interest is descriptively represented through resemblance.²⁵ Accordingly”, to represent descriptively” is about resembling or reflecting the opinions of one’s constituency, not about acting (exept perhaps, in terms of providing information).²⁶ A young Greenlandic Inuit woman, for example, would probably be excellently represented through a Greenlandic MP who is also a young Inuit – since this person would resemble her in terms of some of her important identity characteristics. Likewise – though this is less often applied – a young Greenlandic Inuit woman could also be descriptively represented by an older, Danish man if they shared political views. Following most current literature on descriptive representation, I will focus on the first of these two examples here.²⁷

Contrary to descriptive and symbolic representation, substantive representation is about acting in the interest of one’s constituency. As I have discussed elsewhere these interests may be thought of as either linked to the identity of a certain group of people (so-called”attached interests”), or linked to interests that are formulated outside of the matrix of identity (so-called”unattached interests”).²⁸ In line with the analogy above, a young Greenlandic Inuit woman could be substantively represented when an MP promotes the political interests, she has or finds to be right. As pointed out by Pitkin, substantive representation is the most important aspect of representation.²⁹ Accordingly, the present review especially focuses on the results of former studies concerning the ways that the interests of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic are substantively represented.

Design and method: systematic literature review

The article is based on a systematic literature review as designed by Fink (Fink 2014). Accordingly, it prioritises a systematic, explicit, and reproducible method.³⁰ The review included only peer-reviewed, published studies, written in English or one of the three Scandinavian languages Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. It was carried out in three steps. First, I conducted a search in Scopus with Boolean operators. I searched within”title, abstract, and keywords”, and used the words that are usually used for parliament and the large groups of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic part of the world.³¹ In addition, I included only texts in the category of Social Science. This search provided 282 results. In addition, I carried out similar searches on Web of Science and Google Scholar. The cut-off date was 12 September 2023. Then, I read the title and abstracts of the texts to exclude any texts that were not relevant or – in the case of texts found through Google Scholars – had not been peer-reviewed. In addition, I performed a snowball search for relevant literature in articles identified by the systematic search. In the end, I found 30 articles that touched upon the topic: 15 on Indigenous representation in the Canadian parliament, seven on Indigenous representation in the U.S. Parliament, four on the representation of the Sami in the three Nordic parliaments (all texts studied all three parliaments), three on the Greenlandic representation in the Danish parliament, and one which studied Indigenous representation in several of these parliaments. It should be pointed out that these articles are primarily written by second-nation scholars like me. Accordingly, it is important to point out that the knowledge studied by the review, as well as the knowledge it produces, is not generated by Indigenous peoples.

In this search for previous research, it was often not possible to distinguish between the representation of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic and other Indigenous peoples within the Canadian and U.S. parliaments. In addition, there are no studies that address national representation of Arctic Indigenous peoples in these parliaments (which are the two countries in the study that also include Indigenous peoples outside the Arctic in their territories). Due to this, though the national representation of Arctic Indigenous people is my main focus (as evident in research question 3), I have chosen to also review studies that look at the representation of non-Arctic Indigenous peoples in the Canadian and U.S parliaments (as evident in research question 1 and 2). Indeed, parliamentary institutions that constrain or provide opportunities for the representation of non-Arctic Indigenous peoples in these parliaments are important to the first. Hence, such institutions may work in similar ways for Arctic Indigenous peoples’ past, current, or future representation in these parliaments.

Formal: are indigenous peoples formally represented as demos?

From the perspective of historical institutionalism, the institutional arrangements that preceded the current national representation of Indigenous peoples may still be influencing this current representation. Due to this, this section includes historical formal institutional arrangements, when these are discussed in the literature. Because of their special importance for descriptive representation, studies regarding formal electoral districts are discussed in the section on descriptive representation below.

In Canada, the question of direct representation of Indigenous peoples has been one of much thought and deliberation. The suggestion of electing dedicated Indigenous senators (among other suggestions) was rejected in a national referendum in 1992 (as suggested in the so-called Charlottetown Accord, where a majority of the Canadian Indigenous peoples voted”no”.³² However, before and after this referendum alternative institutions have been suggested, for example the construction of a House of First Peoples that would participate in the legislative process like the Senate and the House of Commons do today, as well as the set-up of a professional Indigenous population in the parliament, an Aboriginal ombudsman.³³ Besides the circumstances described above, scholars note that the historical beginning of Indigenous peoples’ inclusion in the Canadian democracy could be influential for Canadian Indigenous peoples’ opposition to direct representation. Until the 1960 amendments to the federal Indian Act, status Indians were legally excluded from the electoral franchise,³⁴ and an Indian man had to give up his Indian status to become a British citizen with the right to vote ³⁵ Hence, in the 19^th century, enfranchisement was applied by the state as an instrument of assimilation, and as stated by Morden,

“It is no wonder, then, that when Status Indians were granted the unconditional right to vote in Canadian elections in 1960, many viewed the move with supreme skepticism, and demanded to know whether this was intended to diminish their treaty relationship with the Canadian state”..³⁶

However, it should be emphasised that Indigenous peoples in Canada have had different historical relation with the Canadian state. Consequently, we should be careful not to overemphasise historical parallels between the Arctic and non-Arctic Indigenous peoples in Canada.³⁷

The Greenlandic people gained the right to vote and stand for election to the Danish parliament in 1953 when Greenland went from being a Danish colony to a Danish county.³⁸ During the meetings of the committee that negotiated the Danish-Greenlandic relations before the inclusion of Greenland in the Danish Kingdom in 1953, it was requested by one of the two Greenlandic members of the committee that Greenland – like the Faroe Islands – should elect two members to the Danish parliament so that Greenland would have a direct influence on the bills concerning Greenland, not least the annual financial bill.³⁹ The Greenlandic request was made, and since 1953 Greenland has been represented in the Danish parliament with two MPs who are full and equal members of the parliament (Clegg, Harder, Nauclér Alomar 2022, 10–11). In the election for the Danish parliament, the Greenlandic people currently vote as one large constituency, and the amount of citizens that a Greenlandic representative represents is approximately equal to the number of citizens that a Danish representative represents on average.⁴⁰ Due to the demographic characteristics of Greenland, a large majority of the Greenlandic voters are Inuit. Nevertheless, it should be underscored that it is the citizens who live in the territory of Greenland that are represented in the Danish parliament, not the Inuits as a demos. In Sweden, Norway, and Finland, Sami citizens can vote and stand for election in their national parliament like all other parts of the population in their country.⁴¹ Josefsen writes that though direct Sami representation in national parliaments has been suggested on occasion, the issue has not yet been seriously considered in any of the three Nordic countries.⁴²

Like in the other Arctic states, Indigenous peoples in the U.S. may participate and stand for election in their national parliament, and there are no formal arrangements through which Indigenous peoples are represented in the U.S. parliament as a demos. Nevertheless, in 2019 the Cherokee Nation announced its intention to nominate a delegate to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the Cherokee Nation for the first time.⁴³ The Cherokee Nation’s quest to send a delegate to Congress is rooted in the Treaty of New Echota which the Nation made with the U.S. Government in 1835.⁴⁴ Historically, sending Indian delegates to Congress was initiated in the colonial period and other nations – for instance the Choctaw Nation – have agreed to treaties with the U.S. Government which also list the possibility of sending a delegate to the U.S. Congress.⁴⁵ According to a Congressional report, since the Constitution demands that the House is composed of ‘Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States’, if approved, the delegate is likely to become a non-voting delegate, like the delegates that U.S. territories like Samosa and Costa Rica send to Congress.⁴⁶ Thus far, the House has not yet decided on the request from the Cherokee Nation.⁴⁷

Apart from the recent request made by the non-Arctic Cherokee Nation, Indigenous peoples in the U.S., like Indigenous peoples in Canada, have generally favoured a model of a treaty-based nation-to-nation relation rather than one of direct inclusion within the state as a demos. Also, Oesert’s interpretation of American Indigenous peoples’ national suffrage is similar to the experiences of the Indigenous peoples in Canada. Accordingly, he writes”,the right of reservation citizens to participate in non-tribal elections started as the capstone of a federal policy designed to destroy tribal sovereignty”.⁴⁸

Interestingly, the opposition towards participation in the political institutions of the settler state that is very present in Canadian scholarship, and to a lesser degree in North American scholarship, does not exist in Danish literature. From a historical institutional perspective, a lack of Greenlandic unease towards inclusion in settler state institutions could be found in the circumstance that representation in the Danish parliament was institutionalised at the point in time when colonisation was officially ended. Moreover, the fact that it was a Greenlandic request may be of importance for the Greenlandic view of this representation still today. Nevertheless, an important difference between the circumstances of Greenlandic and Canadian national suffrage is that, unlike in Canada, the Greenlanders did not give up any rights or identities to gain Danish suffrage. Also, it is possible that the different views on the participation in settler states institutions are a sign of the somewhat less critical view of the Danish colonial past and post-colonial present in Danish society and scholarly literature.

Descriptive: are indigenous peoples present in the national parliaments?

Looking to the Canadian parliament first, in 2020 11.6% of senators identified as Indigenous, while only 3,1% of the 42nd total parliament identified as such.⁴⁹ Historically, there have been only 43 Indigenous representatives in the Canadian parliament since its creation in 1867.⁵⁰ As of today, the Canadian Senate, where senators are appointed by the Prime Minister rather than elected, has historically had a better descriptive representation of Indigenous peoples than the Canadian House. Hence, since the Confederation, 2,5% of all senators have identified as Indigenous, whereas only 1% of all members have identified as such.⁵¹

In the Nordic countries, there is no tradition of grouping people – nor elected officials – into their ethnicity or indigeneity. Therefore, there are no official statistics on the number of Indigenous MPs in the four Nordic, national parliaments. Yet, due to the demographic characteristics of Greenland, the two MPs elected by Greenland to the Danish parliament (with 179 seats) are generally Inuits.⁵² In turn, Danish constituencies have occasionally elected Inuits who live in Denmark to represent them, yet there is no statistical information on this. Regarding Sami, information concerning descriptive representation is similarly fragmented as it has not been collected in a systematic way. In 2005, Josefsen writes that no Sami have been elected to the Swedish parliament ,⁵³ but Sami candidates have been elected to the national parliament in Norway.⁵⁴ For example, according to Josefsen (2005) the first Norwegian Sami was elected to the parliament in 1906, and in 1993 two Sami women were elected.⁵⁵ Also, in periods, Norwegian Samis have set up their own lists for election to the national parliament.⁵⁶ Unlike in the Canadian parliament, Indigenous people have been more successful in gaining election to U.S. House than the Senate. Accordingly, as of 2021 only three American Indians or Alaska Natives had been elected to the Senate (with 100 seats), while 14 had been elected to the House (with 432 full members).⁵⁷

Besides the election of representatives, it is common for studies of descriptive representation to investigate the ways that underrepresented groups are descriptively represented through more direct means – most notably the degree to which members of these groups give evidence in committees.⁵⁸ In terms of such indirect representation of Indigenous peoples, this question has only been studied in the North American context, where Carlson has investigated the degree to which Indigenous peoples testify at referral hearings. She finds that out of the referral hearings between 1975 and 2012 on 530 bills of importance to Indigenous peoples, 50% included testimonies from at least one Indigenous witness.⁵⁹ Also, in a Nordic context, we may assume that Indigenous representatives of the Finnish Sami parliament are occasionally present in the Finnish parliament since the Finnish parliamentary committees have had hearings with members of the Finnish Sami parliament since 1973.⁶⁰

When discussing why Indigenous peoples have not been descriptively well-represented in their national parliaments, the literature generally assumes that Indigenous peoples vote for Indigenous candidates. Accordingly, one of the circumstances that are often mentioned in the literature is that Indigenous peoples constitute minorities in their electoral districts – this has been discussed especially in the Canadian context, where the electoral system of single-member plurality does not work in the favour of Indigenous House candidates.⁶¹ Also, the circumstance that Indigenous electoral participation in Canadian, Danish, and the U.S. national parliamentary elections is usually low is put forward. This low participation is explained by Indigenous opposition towards participation in the national elections (in Canada and the U.S. in particular) as well as demographic characteristics of the Indigenous population, which makes them less likely to vote (such as level of education and political knowledge.).⁶² Likewise, American scholarship suggests that state laws for registration have a disproportionally negative effect on Indigenous peoples’ participation,⁶³ just like the circumstance that unlike in the case of other minorities U.S. political campaigns seldomly target Indigenous peoples.⁶⁴

However, in the Greenlandic context, I have suggested that since participation in Greenlandic elections is usually higher than in the Danish election, interest rather than particular demographic characteristics of Greenlanders probably explain the low Greenlandic turn out in the Danish national election.⁶⁵ Similar arguments are made regarding Indigenous participation in the U.S. context.⁶⁶ Moreover, in the U.S. context, a reason for the low descriptive representation of Indigenous peoples could be that Indigenous peoples prioritise substantive above descriptive representation in their national parliament. Hence, when studying what makes Indigenous leaders in California, New Mexico, and Oklahoma engage to support candidates in second nation elections, Corntassel finds that candidates’ stand on political issues rather than membership of the tribe is a primary concern.⁶⁷ Yet, the study was published in 1997, and things may have changed.

Substantive: do representatives act in support of indigenous interest?

Scholarship on parliamentary representation and identity has primarily been interested in whether or not representatives with certain minority identity characteristics act to promote the political interests that are important for citizens with similar identity characteristics.⁶⁸ Also, the literature on Indigenous representation in the Canadian and Danish parliaments touches on this topic, and below, I start by discussing the findings of this scholarship. Then, I move to discuss the findings of studies concerning if and how non-Indigenous representatives act in favour of Indigenous interests. Following the focus of the special issue, this section especially focuses on findings concerning the way in which institutions influence the representation of Indigenous interests. Unlike the sections on formal and descriptive representation, this section on substantive representation is structured around conceptual themes rather than national parliaments.

Indigenous representatives’ substantive representation of indigenous interests

In most democratic parliaments, representatives may pose parliamentary questions. Most often, such questions are posed by members in opposition to the government, and though the questions may be posed with goals such as influencing the agenda or indirectly communicating to the press or constituencies, they also have the effect of controlling the government.⁶⁹

Morden studies parliamentary questions on issues of special importance to Indigenous peoples that are posed by representatives from the opposition in the Canadian parliament between 2001–2015.⁷⁰ He finds that although Indigenous representatives never constitute more than 1.3% of the opposition, they raised approximately 15% of all Indigenous issues during the period.⁷¹ Hence, in particular, Indigenous representatives (or some Indigenous representatives at least) are acting on these Indigenous issues. However, due to the strong party discipline of the Canadian parliament, Morden is not able to conclude if this tendency is caused by Indigenous representatives actively seeking to take on this role themselves or whether it is rather”an indication that Indigenous MPs are deployed strategically by their leaders as the most effective advocates on these issues”.⁷²

In a Danish context, I have studied the parliamentary questions posed by the Greenlandic members within the Danish parliament in the period 2005– 2019. I found that these questions are in particular concerned with issues of direct relevance for the Greenlandic population.⁷³ However, 12% of all questions raised specifically concern challenges met by Greenlanders who live in Denmark.⁷⁴ In posing these questions the Greenlandic MPs carry out what Mansbridge terms surrogate representation, that is, representing people who do not live in the district of the representative.⁷⁵ Also, in terms of the Greenlandic representatives’ committee memberships, Greenlandic representatives have especially been members of the committees that are responsible for the few policy areas that are formally still decided in and by Denmark.⁷⁶

Carrière and Koop study the substantive representation carried out by Indigenous representatives in Canadian federal and local parliaments through interviews with Indigenous representatives. Following the findings of Morden they conclude that ‘Indigenous elected officials see it as their role to bring knowledge of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous way of life to parliament and to act for Indigenous interests’.⁷⁷ In fact, like in the Danish parliament, Indigenous representatives even engage in surrogate representation.⁷⁸ In addition, they find that representation of Indigenous interests is done both in front and behind the scenes, that is, on the parliament floor (on stage) as well as within parties, in committees, and by reaching out to ministers (on stage).⁷⁹ In a similar vein, Manning describes how two Indigenous committee members in the Canadian parliament were especially engaged in the representation of Indigenous peoples’ interests at the committee stage when a bill of special importance to Indigenous peoples was being scrutinised. In addition, Manning illustrates how, during the legislative process, one of these members brought forth amendments that have been suggested by Indigenous witnesses who testified in front of the committee.⁸⁰ Finally, in the Canadian context, Carrière and Koop find that Indigenous representatives will quite often cooperate across party lines on issues of importance to Indigenous peoples, though such cooperation is very difficult if it requires going against party lines.⁸¹

The qualitative findings on Indigenous substantive representation in Canada resonate well with the testimony of a female Sami representative in the Norwegian parliament.⁸²According to Josefsen, though this representative was not a member of the committee that especially dealt with the overreaching Sami policy, she generally tried to contribute to the work of the parliament with her knowledge of Sami issues and she was often consulted on Indigenous issues by colleagues of her party.⁸³ The representative, however, testifies that it was difficult to keep track of all issues of importance to the Sami in the parliament.⁸⁴

In general, Indigenous representatives seem to be respected as representing Indigenous peoples in a particularly effective way.⁸⁵ Yet, the literature also shows that being an advocate of Indigenous peoples is not without difficulties.

In Canada, for example, the informal institution of party lines may set a limit for how much Indigenous representatives may engage in open representation of Indigenous interests.⁸⁶ In addition, Indigenous representatives find it difficult to represent Indigenous peoples as a group, because Indigenous peoples in Canada are so diverse.⁸⁷ Also, the circumstance that Indigenous representatives are elected in constituencies that are not Indigenous puts pressure on these representatives to make sure that they do not appear as advocates of Indigenous peoples only. Hence, Carrière and Koop conclude”,While elected officials may wish to act as surrogates for the interests of Indigenous peoples, the imperative of re-election within geographically defined constituencies can create obstacles to doing so”.⁸⁸ This conclusion resonates with the testimony of Ouellette, a Cree member of the Canadian parliament who describes his feelings towards being an Indigenous representative when he was just elected as ”I also knew that I did not want to be cataloged as ’just that Indigenous guy’ or ‘just that Indigenous MP’”.⁸⁹

On the contrary, for the Greenlandic representatives in the Danish parliament, acting too much on Indigenous interests is not a concern – most likely because their constituency, as described above, is mainly Inuit. However, in the Danish parliament, the Greenlandic MPs may occasionally find themselves in situations where Danish representatives do not think it is appropriate that they interfere in so-called ‘Danish’ political matters. Hence, in situations where the actions of one or both of the Greenlandic representatives may influence the construction of the majority within the chamber, Greenlandic representatives have been bullied by representatives from Danish parties, who have publicly stated that due to the circumstance that Greenland has a large degree of self-government, the Greenlandic representatives ought to keep out of so-called”Danish politics”.⁹⁰ Yet, in most of these situations, the Greenlandic representatives seem to have insisted on their legal rights and have not withdrawn from the question.⁹¹

Besides the circumstance that Indigenous peoples and interests may be very diverse, the construction of electoral districts, strong party discipline, and the risk of facing political ‘harassment’ from non-Indigenous political opponents, the literature points to two additional challenges that may face Indigenous representatives when they try to act on Indigenous interests. One potential challenge is that the actions of the Indigenous representatives may clash with the actions or opinions of Indigenous representatives in other institutional bodies, for instance those who act on behalf of a nation in the nation-to-nation relation with the state or those who are elected to an Indigenous representative body such as the Sami parliaments.⁹² Secondly, Josefsen anticipates that Sami members of mainstream parties may become hostages of mainstream policies thus legitimising initiatives of importance to the Sami that are not in accordance with the interests of the Sami, a question which is also touched upon in the Canadian context by Carrière and Koop.⁹³

Non-indigenous representatives’ substantive representation of indigenous interests

How non-Indigenous representatives as well as parliaments in general act on Indigenous interests has primarily been studied in the Canadian and U.S. parliaments.

In Canada, Morden’s study questions posed by the opposition on issues of importance to Indigenous peoples shows that control of government on these issues has risen during the period 2002–2015 (Morden 2018, 129). However, Canadian representatives mostly frame the problems of Indigenous peoples as linked to social policy – most notably poverty and education. Thus, issues that are of great importance to Indigenous peoples in Canada – such as land claims, treaties, and rights – are not put on the agenda by opposition members.⁹⁴ In accordance with the importance put on the formation of electoral districts above, Morden concludes that the trend of not taking up issues of importance to Indigenous peoples has to do with the circumstance that opposition is performed for a majority audience. Accordingly, to gain re-election, representatives need to act in a way that”resonates with the settler public”.⁹⁵ Nevertheless, when she studies the content of questions posed by the Greenlandic representatives, who are elected in districts that are primarily Inuit, I do not find questions on overall sovereignty or interpretation of the treaties between Denmark and Greenland. Rather, the Greenlandic representatives are concerned with issues of importance to Greenlandic foreign policy as well as the everyday life of Greenlandic Inuits.⁹⁶ Within the parliaments that make decisions of importance to Indigenous peoples in the Arctic, the question of whether non-Indigenous representatives act on Indigenous interests when they carry out their legislative tasks has especially been studied in the U.S. parliament.

Conner studies member roll call votes on legislation that directly affects Indigenous peoples in the U.S. (exempt native Hawaiians) in the period 1970–2000.⁹⁷ He finds that especially in the House, representatives who have a tribe in their districts are more likely to vote for pro-Indigenous legislation.⁹⁸ Yet, party affiliation is also of importance in both houses. Hence, in both the US. Senate and House, Democrats more often vote for pro-Indigenous legislation, and this tendency has grown over the years.⁹⁹ Yet, Carlson does not find statistical evidence that a unified Democratic Congress is less likely to enact bills of importance to Indigenous people when Indigenous people oppose these during the period 1975–2012.¹⁰⁰ I return to the question of second nation parties and Indigenous representation below.

Carlson’s study of the U.S. Congress shows that from 1975 to 2012 Congress has been more likely not to enact a bill that Indigenous peoples oppose when Indigenous opposition is united. This has especially been the case in relation to issues of natural resources or land.¹⁰¹ In addition, her analysis illustrates that Congress amended 50% of the bills that Indigenous peoples opposed in the period and that Congress in general only enacted a few bills with Indigenous opposition.¹⁰² In addition, in terms of legislation in the U.S. Congress, Carlson finds that during the period 1975–2013, the enactment rate for Indian-related legislation was higher than the enactment rate for legislation in general.¹⁰³ Of special interest, she also notes that a high rate of specific tribe-related legislation illustrates the government-to-government relationship between Nations and the U.S. federal state.¹⁰⁴

Unfortunately, we do not know much concerning the parliamentary control of government or legislative behaviour on issues of importance to Indigenous peoples in Scandinavia and Finland. However, Josefsen points out that the Swedish parliamentary debate is primarily concerned with questions related to reindeer husbandry.¹⁰⁵

Conclusion

Based on the systematic review of the literature on the national parliamentary representation of Indigenous peoples in the Western part of the Arctic, we may conclude that none of these peoples are directly represented in their national parliament as a demos. Also, looking at the relation between the historical circumstances in which national suffrage was given to Indigenous peoples in Canada, the U.S., and Greenland and the current attitudes towards Indigenous peoples’ parliamentary participation in national parliaments, we see signs that the different historical circumstances could be influencing Indigenous attitudes still today.

In terms of descriptive representation, only the Greenlandic Inuits may be said to be well-represented in their national parliament. This high descriptive representation is linked to the circumstance that the constituencies that elect the Greenlandic representatives are primarily Inuit. In turn. To explain the low descriptive Indigenous representation within the other Western parliaments, scholars generally set forth the circumstance that Indigenous peoples only constitute minorities in parliamentary electoral districts. Also, in a Canadian context, the single-member plurality electoral system is often mentioned as a reason. Likewise, factors that contribute to the low descriptive representation could be Indigenous peoples’ low participation in national elections and – in the North American context at least – it might also be a relevant circumstance that Indigenous peoples care more about candidates’ stand on political issues than their identity characteristics. An important difference between the otherwise somewhat similar Canadian and U.S. parliaments is that there are more Indigenous senators in the Canadian Senate than there are Indigenous representatives in the House, while the trend is the opposite in the U.S. Congress.

Moving to substantive representation, studies of the Danish and Canadian parliaments suggest that Indigenous representatives are especially engaged in acting for Indigenous interests. Also, they engage in surrogate representation of Indigenous peoples, and when they act on Indigenous interests they are acknowledged as legitimate representatives of these people. However, in Canada, representatives testify that it is difficult to represent the very heterogeneous group of Canadian Indigenous peoples. Also, formal and informal national parliamentary institutions such as party discipline, the logic of appropriate behaviours, and the geographical construction of electoral districts diminish Indigenous representatives’ possibility to act (openly) on Indigenous interests in Canada. An interesting difference between the struggles that Indigenous representatives in the Danish and Canadian parliaments meet is that where the Canadian Indigenous representatives are self-regulating that they are not acting too much for Indigenous peoples only (because this may hurt their chances of re-election), Danish representatives are sometimes harassed for interfering in issues that are not of importance to Greenlanders only.

Studying the ways that non-Indigenous representatives act on Indigenous interests, evidence from the U.S. Congress showed that senators who had Indigenous peoples in their constituency were more likely to act in favour of Indigenous interests. Also, Carlson’s studies of the legislative behaviour of the U.S. Congress on topics of importance to Indigenous peoples showed that this parliament is not at all un-sensitive to Indigenous people’s testimonies.

What conclusion may be drawn concerning the existence of a particular Arctic model of Indigenous parliamentary representation from the findings of the review? Are there traits of the representation in the Canadian, Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and U.S. parliaments that are particularly alike? The answer seems to be ‘no’: Although both the formal and the descriptive representation of Arctic Indigenous peoples are rather alike (exept the Greenlandic descriptive representation), the characteristics found here do not seem to be particularly alike nor unique in terms of representation of minorities in general.

In terms of substantive representation, the literature is still too scarce to allow for any conclusions to be drawn. Yet, interestingly, as showed by Carlson, the U.S. Congress is not at all un-sensitive to the views of Indigenous peoples, especially when these peoples stand united.¹⁰⁶ Moreover, both studies of the Canadian and Danish parliament suggest that indigenous representatives often see themselves as important representatives of indigenous interests. Also, in both parliaments, Indigenous representatives carry out surrogate representation of Indigenous peoples outside of their constituency. Finally, it seems that the demography of Indigenous representatives’ constituencies as well as settler parliamentary culture influence Indigenous substantive representation in both countries, but in different ways. Hence, while the demography of Canadian constituencies as well as Canadian parliamentary culture prevent Indigenous representatives from acting extensively on Indigenous interests, the demography – and the relative independence of Denmark – of the Greenlandic constituencies as well as Danish parliamentary culture impose that the Greenlandic representatives that are elected in Greenland do not act on so-called ‘Danish issues’ when they will be decisive.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Manning, “The Canadian Senate”; Morden, “Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case”; Wilkins and Stark Kiiwetinepinesiik, American Indian Politics and the American Political System.

² Carlson, “Congress and Indians”; Carlson, “Making Strategic Choices”; Rice, Indigenous Representation and Political Parties in Canada and Latin America.

³ Josefsen, The Sami and the national parliaments; Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia.

⁴ According to Lawrence and Mörkenstam, The first popularly elected Sámi Parliament in the Nordic countries was established in Finland as early as 1973 (called the Sámi Delegation) but with a different mandate and legal status than the parliament of today, Lawrence and Mörkenstam, “Indigenous Self-Determination through a Government Agency? The Impossible Task of the Swedish Sámediggi,” 107.

⁵ Josefsen, The Sami and the national parliaments, 4, 9–12.

⁶ Ackrén and Jakobsen, “Greenland as a Self-Governing Sub-National Territory in International Relations: Past, Current and Future Perspectives”; Gad, “Greenland Projecting Sovereignty: Denmark Protecting Sovereignty Away”; Harder, “Færøske og grønlandske mandater i Folketinget.”

⁷ Berg and Saglie, “Self-Determination as a Political Cleavage: The Norwegian Samediggi Election of 2009”; Josefsen, “The Sami and the national parliaments“; Josefsen, Mörkenstam, and Saglie, “Different Institutions within Similar States: The Norwegian and Swedish Sámediggis”; Nilsson, Dahlberg, and Mörkenstam, “Sametingsval: Väljare, Partier Och Media.”

⁸ Boehmke and Witmer, “Representation and Lobbying by Indian Nations in California’; Carlson, ‘Congress and Indians”; Carlson, “Beyond Descriptive Representation: American Indian Opposition to Federal Legislation”; Rice, ‘Indigenous Representation and Political Parties in Canada and Latin America’.

⁹ Manning, “The Canadian Senate’; Morden, ‘Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation.”

¹⁰ Manning, “The Canadian Senate’; Mercer, ‘The Two-Row Wampum: Has This Metaphor for Co-Existence Run Its Course?”; Morden, “Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation”; Morden, “Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case”; Schouls, “Aboriginal Peoples and Electoral Reform in Canada: Differentiated Representation versus Voter Equality.”

¹¹ Carlson, “Congress and Indians”; Manning, “The Canadian Senate.”

¹² The Cherokee Nation does not belong to the group of Arctic Indigenous peoples. However, following the research design of this review – in which the national parliament in which Arctic Indigenous peoples are represented, rather than the Arctic Indigenous peoples themselves is the focus, the Cherokee Nation is part of the study.

¹³ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek, “Legal and Procedural Issues Related to Seating a Cherokee Nation Delegate in the House of Representatives.”

¹⁴ Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.

¹⁵ I do not include Pitkin’s dimension of symbolic representation here due to the limited amount of research that touches upon the symbolic representation of Arctic Indigenous peoples in their national parliaments.

¹⁶ Josefsen, Mörkenstam, and Saglie, “Different Institutions within Similar States: The Norwegian and Swedish Sámediggis.”

¹⁷ Dahlerup, Has Democracy Failed Women?; Jensen, Partigrupperne i Folketinget; Kittilson, “Women, Parties and Platforms in Post-Industrial Democracies”; Morden, “Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case.”

¹⁸ Andeweg, “Beyond Representativeness? Trends in Political Representation”; Saward, “The Representative Claim”; Severs, “Representation As Claims‐Making. Quid Responsiveness?”

¹⁹ Mansbridge, “Rethinking Representation”; Mansbridge, “Clarifying the Concept of Representation”; Saward, The Representative Claim, 2010; Squires, “The Constitutive Representation of Gender: Extra- Parliamentary Representations of Gender Relations.”

²⁰ Mansbridge, Rethinking Representation.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, 8–9.

²³ Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.

²⁴ Pitkin, Ibid, 11.

²⁵ Pitkin, Ibid, 89–90.

²⁶ Pitkin, Ibid, 90.

²⁷ Espirito-Santo, Freire, and Serra-Silva, “Does Women’s Descriptive Representation Matter for Policy Preferences? The Role of Political Parties”; Wängnerud, “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation.”

²⁸ Harder, “Pitkin’s Second Way: Freeing Representation Theory from Identity”; Harder, “Parting with “Interests of Women”.”

²⁹ Pitkin, The Concept of Representation.

³⁰ Fink, Conducting Research Literature Reviews. From the Internet to Paper, 3.

³¹ I searched for ((parliament* OR legislature OR congress OR house OR senate OR chamber) AND (indigenous* OR native* OR aboriginal* OR Inuit* OR Indian* OR Sami*) AND representation*). I tried to include the names of different peoples in the search e.g. ’iñupiat OR Métis OR Yupik OR aleut OR eyak OR tlingit OR haida OR Tsimshian’ after ’Sami’, but such additions did not provide more results.

³² Morden, Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation, 3–4.

³³ Morden, Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation.

³⁴ Williams, Sharing the River: Aboriginal Representation in Canadian Political Institutions, 93.

³⁵ Morden, Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation, 25.

³⁶ Morden, 25.

³⁷ I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for emphasising this important distinction.

³⁸ Clegg et al., “Representation of Overseas Territories in the Metropolis,” 6.

³⁹ Beukel and Jensen, Greenland on the Path to Constitutional Equality, 248–50.

⁴⁰ Clegg et al., Parliamentary Representation of Overseas Territories in the Metropolis, 10–11.

⁴¹ Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …,186.

⁴² Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …187, 193.

⁴³ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek, Legal and Procedural Issues Related to Seating a Cherokee Nation Delegate in the House of Representatives.

⁴⁴ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek.

⁴⁵ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek, 3–5.

⁴⁶ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek, 1.

⁴⁷ Schwartz, Novak, and Oleszek, Legal and Procedural Issues Related to Seating a Cherokee Nation Delegate in the House of Representatives.

⁴⁸ Oesert, Tribal Citizen Participation in State and National Politics: Welcome Wagon or Tronjan Horse?, 812.

⁴⁹ Manning, The Canadian Senate, 10.

⁵⁰ as of 2020, Morden, Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case, 124.

⁵¹ Manning, ‘The Canadian Senate’, 10; Morden, ‘Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case’.

⁵² Clegg et al., Parliamentary Representation of Overseas Territories in the Metropolis.

⁵³ Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …, 189, 191.

⁵⁴ Josefsen, “The Sami and the National Parliaments”; Josefsen, “An Indigenous Parliament?: Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …”.

⁵⁵ Josefsen, “An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives” in Russia and The …, 192.

⁵⁶ Josefsen, ibid.

⁵⁷ Carlson, Beyond Descriptive Representation: American Indian Opposition to Federal Legislation, 68.

⁵⁸ Celis and Childs, “Feminist Democratic Representation”; Grace and Sawer, “Representing Gender Equality : Specialised Parliamentary Bodies.”

⁵⁹ Carlson, Beyond Descriptive Representation: American Indian Opposition to Federal Legislation, 72.

⁶⁰ Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …, 188.

⁶¹ Morden, Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case, 127.

⁶² Koch, “Voter Registration and Political Knowledge among American Indians’; Morden, ‘Indigenizing Parliament: Time to Re-Start a Conversation,” 25.

⁶³ Barreto, Sanchez, and Walker, Battling the Hydra.

⁶⁴ Koch, Voter Registration and Political Knowledge among American Indians.

⁶⁵ Harder, Færøske Og Grønlandske Mandater i Folketinget.

⁶⁶ Koch, Voter Registration and Political Knowledge among American Indians, 122.

⁶⁷ Corntassel, American Indian Tribal Government Support of Office-Seekers, 518.

⁶⁸ e.g. Black, “Ethnoracial Minorities in the Canadian House of Commons: The Case of the 36th Parliament. 2000”; Celis and Erzeel, “Beyond the Usual Suspects: Non-Left, Male and Non-Feminist MPs and the Substantive Representation of Women”; Childs and Withey, “Women Representatives Acting for Women: Sex and the Signing of Early Day Motions in the 1997 British Parliament”; Rocha and Wrinkle, “Gender, Ethnicity, and Support for Bilingual Education: Will Just Any Woman or Latino Do? A Contingent “No”.”

⁶⁹ Martin, ‘Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures’; Saalfeld, ‘Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation’; Senninger, ‘Issue Expansion and Selective Scrutiny – How Opposition Parties Used Parliamentary Questions about the European Union in the National Arena from 1973 to 2013’.

⁷⁰ Morden, Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case.

⁷¹ Morden, Ibid. 131.

⁷² Morden, Ibid.

⁷³ Harder, Færøske og grønlandske mandater i Folketinget, 13–15.

⁷⁴ Harder, Ibid, 13.

⁷⁵ Mansbridge, Rethinking Representation.

⁷⁶ Harder, “Færøske og grønlandske mandater i Folketinget, 15–17.

⁷⁷ Carrière and Koop, Indigenous Political Representation in Canada, 265.

⁷⁸ Ibid, 268.

⁷⁹ Ibid, 267–268.

⁸⁰ Manning, The Canadian Senate, 16–17.

⁸¹ Carrière and Koop, Indigenous Political Representation in Canada, 267.

⁸² Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The ….

⁸³ Ibid, 192.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ Carrière and Koop, “Indigenous Political Representation in Canada”; Josefsen, “An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …,” 192; Manning, “The Canadian Senate,” 16–17.

⁸⁶ Carrière and Koop, Indigenous Political Representation in Canada, 270.

⁸⁷ Carrière and Koop, Ibid, 12.

⁸⁸ Carrière and Koop, Ibid, 269.

⁸⁹ Ouellette, Honouring Indigenous Languages Within Parliament, 3.

⁹⁰ Clegg et al., Parliamentary Representation of Overseas Territories in the Metropolis.

⁹¹ Harder, Færøske og grønlandske mandater i Folketinget.

⁹² see Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament?: Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …, 202 on the Sami example.

⁹³ Carrière and Koop, “Indigenous Political Representation in Canada’, 270; Josefsen, ‘The Sami and the National Parliaments,” 34–35.

⁹⁴ Morden, Parliament and the Representation of Indigenous Issues: The Canadian Case, 125.

⁹⁵ Morden, Ibid, 126,140.

⁹⁶ Harder, “Færøske og grønlandske mandater i Folketinget,” 13.

⁹⁷ Conner, Exploring Voting Behavior on American Indian Legislation in the United States Congress.

⁹⁸ Conner, Ibid, 163.

⁹⁹ Conner, Ibid, 165.

¹⁰⁰ Carlson, Beyond Descriptive Representation: American Indian Opposition to Federal Legislation, 77–82.

¹⁰¹ Carlson, Ibid, 72–74.

¹⁰² Carlson, Ibid, 78, 80.

¹⁰³ Carlson, Congress and Indians, 87.

¹⁰⁴ Carlson, Ibid, 154.

¹⁰⁵ Josefsen, An Indigenous Parliament? Realities and Perspectives in Russia and The …,190.

¹⁰⁶ Carlson, Beyond Descriptive Representation: American Indian Opposition to Federal Legislation.