Ethnofederalism and Indigenous self-determination in Northern Canada and the Russian Federation

ABSTRACT

This article explores the impacts of ethnofederalism on the efforts of Indigenous peoples in Canada and the Russian Federation to self-determine in regional contexts that are politically dominated by ethnic groups who constitute national minorities. We compare the evolution of Indigenous governance institutions in Quebec and Sakha (Yakutia), asking whether Indigenous peoples in these jurisdictions have benefitted from the efforts of the titular nationalities (the Quebecois and Sakha) to enhance their own autonomy within their respective federations. We consider whether these constituent units’ governments, as representatives of larger ethnic minorities who have struggled to assert autonomy within a federal system, are more sympathetic to the territorial and political aspirations of smaller Indigenous groups. The article contributes to a dearth of scholarship comparing the efforts of Indigenous peoples in Canada and Russia to achieve greater self-determination. We conclude that while the Inuit of Nunavik in northern Quebec have made significant progress in realizing autonomy, they have been constrained by the political environment in the province. Indigenous peoples in Sakha (Yakutia) have made less progress in terms of securing political autonomy but have benefitted from an alliance with the Sakha in the face of centralizing tendencies at the federal level.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnofederalism
• Indigenous
• Canada
• Russia
• self-determination

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers for insightful and helpful comments.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

¹ Roeder, Ethnofederalism, 204.

² Anderson, Ethnofederalism.

³ Many ethnofederations have failed, e.g. the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia (Ibid.). While multiple pressures caused their disintegration, ethnicity and nationalism played key roles.

⁴ Ibid., 2–3.

⁵ The Sakha are recognised widely, including by the UN, as an Indigenous people; however, the Russian legal definition of ‘Indigenous’ excludes them, as explained below. In using the term ‘ethnic minority’ for both the Quebecois and Sakha, we underscore their similar position in their respective ethnofederal structures. We recognise that the Sakha, as Indigenous, enjoy rights to self-determination beyond those of Quebecois.

⁶ Watts, Comparing Federal Systems.

⁷ Kuokkanen, Restructuring Relations, 1.

⁸ Wilson and Selle, Indigenous Self-Determination.

⁹ Hall and Taylor, Political Science, 938.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Beland, Ideas, Institutions.

¹² Wilson et al., Nested Federalism. We acknowledge that many charismatic Indigenous and non-Indigenous political actors contributed to effecting political and institutional change at all levels in both Quebec/Canada and Sakha (Yakutia)/Russia. Space limitations preclude naming these leaders.

¹³ Thelen, Historical Institutionalism, 387.

¹⁴ Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy; Cameron, ‘Quebec’.

¹⁵ Balzer and Vinokurova, Nationalism; Poelzer, ‘Federalism’.

¹⁶ But see Young, Republic of Sakha and Balzer, Galvanizing Nostalgia?.

¹⁷ Wilson ‘Federalism’; Kymlicka, ‘American Multiculturalism’.

¹⁸ One exception is Wilson, Alcantara and Rodon’s work on Nested Federalism in Canada. See also Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus on nested sovereignty.

¹⁹ Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Métis National Council.

²⁰ Wilson et al., Nested Federalism.

²¹ Russian Federation, On Guarantee of Rights.

²² Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors. In the post-Soviet period the number grew due to groups who had been lumped together under one name having the state accept that they were distinct peoples.

²³ In 2013 RAIPON was co-opted by the state, and essentially made a GONGO.

²⁴ Kryazhkov, Indigenous.

²⁵ Statistics Canada, Census 2016.

²⁶ Desbiens, Power from the North.

²⁷ The term Quebecois has been used to define the descendants of the original French-speaking settlers in Quebec but can also refer to all French-speaking inhabitants of the province regardless of where they come from (Labelle and Vallée-Dubois, ‘Quebec’s Ethnic Nationalism’).

²⁸ Cameron, ‘Quebec’; Handler, ‘Nationalism’.

²⁹ Desbiens, Power from the North.

³⁰ Rodon, ‘From Nouveau Québec’. A number of ‘historical’ treaties were signed between Indigenous peoples and the Crown (as represented by the British and then Canadian governments) prior to 1923. The JBNQA was the first signed since 1923.

³¹ ‘Yakut’ (for the people and the language; Yakutia for the territory) was used throughout the Tsarist and Soviet periods. Since 1990 Sakha (endonym) has replaced Yakut. The Republic’s official name incorporates both.

³² Forsyth, Peoples of Siberia.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Sidorova and Rice, Being Indigenous.

³⁵ Chevalier, School-based revitalisation’.

³⁶ Young, Republic of Sakha, 182.

³⁷ Balzer and Vinokurova, ‘Nationalism’; Chevalier, ‘School-based revitalisation’; see also Balzer, ‘Galvanizing Nostalgia?’

³⁸ Chevalier, School-based revitalisation.

³⁹ Balzer, Indigeneity.

⁴⁰ Supreme Court of Canada, Whether Indians Include Eskimos.

⁴¹ Desbiens, Power from the North.

⁴² Nungak, Wrestling with Colonialism; Qumaq, Que les Inuit soient libres.

⁴³ Desbiens, Power from the North.

⁴⁴ Nungak, Wrestling with Colonialism, p. 21.

⁴⁵ The irony of this situation was not lost on the Inuit. For decades, the federal and provincial governments had neglected the region. During Levesque’s visit, another Inuit leader, Jacob Oweetaltuk, asked: ‘In all those years, when you were knowingly the government of this land, why didn’t you erect an outpost, even the size of an outhouse, somewhere here?’ Ibid., p. 16.

⁴⁶ Qumaq, Que les Inuit soient libres; Godin, ‘Réné Lévesque’.

⁴⁷ Desbiens, Power from the North.

⁴⁸ Wilson, Alcantara and Rodon, Nested Federalism.

⁴⁹ The JBNQA also created divisions within Nunavik, with some communities supporting the agreement and others not.

⁵⁰ Wilson, Nested Federalism.

⁵¹ Wilson and Alcantara, Mixing Politics.

⁵² Wilson, Alcantara and Rodon, Nested Federalism. This support was in stark contrast to his earlier views on Inuit self-determination. When asked in the mid 1960s if Inuit should be consulted or even allowed to vote on whether the administration of the region should be transferred from the federal to the provincial government, Levesque said this would be an abuse of democracy. He was paraphrased by one journalist as characterising Inuit as ‘primitive people who don’t know what was best for them’ (Fraser, ‘Battle of Nouveau Quebec’).

⁵³ Wherret, Aboriginal Peoples.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Makivik Corporation, Nunavik Inuit Land Claims.

⁵⁶ Shadrin Indigenous Peoples.

⁵⁷ From Summary Report, 2009 Congress of Evenki, quoted in Marfusalova, Life – in Development, 91.

⁵⁸ The Soviets’ modernisation project for KMNS had involved collectivisation, sedentarisation and disruption of the family unit through the introduction of ‘productive nomadism’, and subsequent resettlement into larger villages for many. This critical juncture greatly challenged Indigenous lifeways and culture.

⁵⁹ RAIPON, mentioned above, at the national level; KMNS also established a myriad of regional-level associations. In Sakha (Yakutia) this included a regional branch of RAIPON and Councils for each of the republic’s KMNS.

⁶⁰ The Russian term for ‘self-government’ (samoupravlenie) differs in meaning from its corollary in English and may be as readily translated as ‘self-administration’.

⁶¹ Russian Federation, On Guarantees of Rights.

⁶² Yeltsin, On Urgent Measures.

⁶³ Goloviznina, Indigenous Agency, 86.

⁶⁴ Fondahl and others”,Indigenous Territorial Rights”.

⁶⁵ Goloviznina, Indigenous Agency.

⁶⁶ Sakha Republic, ‘On Nomadic Clan Obshchina’; RF, ‘On Organization of Obshchinas’. While the Sakha (Yakutia) government has generally been very supportive of KMNS initiatives for rights, schism have appeared along interesting lines: for instance, fractious debate arose regarding this law prior to its passage, concerning whether it should apply only to KMNS, or to ‘Indigenous peoples’, i.e. including Sakha (the former prevailed) (Astakhova 2021, ‘From the history’).

⁶⁷ See https://yakutiakmns.org/archives/tag/obshhiny.

⁶⁸ Russian Federation, On Territories of Traditional Nature Use.

⁶⁹ Yeltsin, On Urgent Measures.

⁷⁰ Russian Federation, On Territories of Traditional Nature Use.

⁷¹ Filippova, Fondahl and Savvinova”,Indigenous Land Rights”.

⁷² Akinin, ‘Establishment of Territories’ and Parlato and others, ‘Evolution of Territories’ each give accounts of processes and challenges involved in establishing TTPs in Sakha (Yakutia).

⁷³ Sakha Republic, On Territories of Traditional Nature Use.

⁷⁴ Balzer, Indigeneity.

⁷⁵ Filippova, Fondahl and Savvinova”, Indigenous Land Rights”.

⁷⁶ Russian Federation, On Guarantees of Rights.

⁷⁷ Sakha Republic, ‘On Ethnological Expertise’. When Sleptsov failed to rouse the Ministry’s interest, he approached the republic’s then President V. Shtyrov, who supported the law’s passage – another example of access and influence KMNS have had in the Republic’s government (Interview with academic, March 2019).

⁷⁸ Fondahl and others”, Indigenous Territorial Rights”.

⁷⁹ Akinin, ‘Establishment of Territories of Traditional Nature Use’.

⁸⁰ Interview, May 2017.

⁸¹ OIPR, ‘Report of Ombudsman’; Goloviznina, Indigenous Agency.

⁸² Fondahl and others, Niches of Agency.

⁸³ The number has grown to 63 in 2023. Zakharov and others, Landscape Mapping.

Additional information

Funding

SSRHC Grants 435-2016-0702 and 435-2012-1438 supported parts of this research.