![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
The article explores the idea of self-determination as a collective capability that enhances the freedom and well-being of indigenous peoples in colonial settler states. Collective capabilities have not attracted much attention in the literature to date, but the article sets out to demonstrate that the collective capability for self-determination is precisely the sort of freedom Amartya Sen describes as both the primary objective and the principle means of development. Two ideas lie at the core of the argument: the necessary interdependence that exists between the individual and the collective capability for political self-determination; and the intrinsic, instrumental and constructive value of collective political empowerment in the developmental process. To bolster the theoretical argument, the article examines some of the available evidence linking self-determination with concrete improvements in the social and economic welfare and well-being of indigenous peoples in different regions of the globe.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Julia Schwamborn for timely and meticulous research assistance. Financial assistance from the Canada Research Chairs program and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
About the Author
Michael Murphy is an Associate Professor in the Political Science Program at the University of Northern British Columbia, where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Comparative Indigenous State Relations. His current research focuses on reconciliation and indigenous self-determination and the socio-political determinants of indigenous health.
Notes
1. Sen would argue further that economic growth and job creation have important implications for reducing the negative physical and mental health consequence of chronic unemployment (Citation1999a, 21 and 94–96).
2. I have adapted Nussbaum's concept slightly. Control over one's environment is one of her list of 10 central human capabilities, which includes control over both political and material environments.
3. Based on his survey of existing empirical and statistical studies, Sen concludes that “the case for democracy and civil rights cannot be based on their likely positive impact on economic growth, nor can that case be demolished by their likely negative effect on economic growth” (Citation1999b, 91).
4. The example depends on the assumption that the countries in question were faced with a crisis of food distribution rather than an absolute food shortage.
5. The quote from Taylor actually refers to the idea of a “communal good” but it is equally apt in this context. For more on the idea of communal goods, see Waldron (Citation1987).
6. Schmitter and Karl, for example, include self-government on their list of “procedures that make democracy possible”. As they conclude: “The polity must be self-governing; it must be able to act independently of constraints imposed by some other overarching political system” (Schmitter and Karl Citation1993, 45). However, they consider only examples of outside control pertaining to relations between states, not relations between states and their sub-state communities or nations.
7. For some of the institutional variations, see Catt and Murphy (Citation2002).
8. See, for example, the accounts of these policies in Australia (Chesterman and Galligan Citation1997), Canada (Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Citation1996, vol. 1), Latin America (Diaz Polanco Citation1997), and the USA (Prucha Citation1986).
9. It should be noted, however, that in countries such as Fiji, Bolivia and Guatemala, indigenous peoples comprise the majority of the population, while in others, such as Ecuador, Mexico and New Zealand, they comprise fairly substantial minorities.
10. For a sample of the literature discussing this multinational democratic model, see Gagnon and Tully (Citation2001), Kymlicka (Citation1995, Citation2001a, 91–119), Harty and Murphy (Citation2005) and Yashar (Citation2005).
11. Sen is not opposed to partial or tentative lists of capabilities, but they must always be subject to change and elaboration on the basis of local democratic deliberation. Nussbaum also cites the importance of respecting local norms and preferences, but she nevertheless insists on a core list of (10) universal capabilities all of which “are part of a minimum account of social justice” (Citation2006, 57, cf. 59–60). See their debate on this subject in Nussbaum (Citation2008) and Sen (Citation2004).
12. For related discussion on this point, see Gigler (Citation2005, 3–4), Schlosberg and Carruthers (Citation2010, 16), and Binder and Binder (Citation2012). Indigenous peoples have also suggested the need to develop their own distinctive indicators of well-being. For discussion, see Taylor (Citation2008) and Swepston (Citation2011, 422–423).
13. Here I borrow the language of the capability Nussbaum labels “Other Species” (Citation2008, 605).
14. Nussbaum herself includes only individual property rights under this capability (Citation2008, 605). One of the anonymous referees suggested also exploring the relevance of Nussbaum's capability for “affiliation” and in particular whether self-determination is an essential component of the social bases of self-respect for indigenous individuals. Although I cannot follow up on this very promising line of inquiry here, the seeds for such a discussion can be found in Tully (Citation1995, 189), Weinstock (Citation1998, 299) and, more generally, Taylor (Citation1994).
15. One of the more destructive policies involved the removal and re-education of indigenous children, many of whom were subjected to verbal, physical and sexual abuse in their new surroundings (Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Citation1996, vol. 1, 333–389; Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Citation1997, 25–245; Chansonneuve Citation2005; Elias et al. Citation2012).
16. Compare Borrows: “Aboriginal control of Aboriginal affairs is important to the flourishing of Aboriginal communities” (Citation2002, 156).
17. Chandler and Lalonde place more emphasis on the issue of a community's success in securing its cultural continuity, while other interpreters of their results place more emphasis on the issue of community control per se (see Hunter and Harvey Citation2002, 16; Kirmayer, Simpson, and Cargo Citation2003, S18). Tiessen, Taylor, and Kirmayer (Citation2009) also find a correlation between greater perceived community control and improvements in the psychological well-being of individual community members, although they do not specifically link the concept of communal control to the idea of indigenous political self-determination.
18. Capable governing institutions is the third factor. This refers to factors such as institutional stability, the separation of business and politics, effective and authoritative dispute-resolution mechanisms, and skilled leadership and administration—all of which help to provide a conducive environment for investors in the widest sense of that term (e.g. not only capital providers but also job seekers, entrepreneurs, and those interested in a viable life on tribal lands, etc.) (Cornell and Kalt Citation1998, 192–193; Cornell Citation2005, 207). While the Harvard research emphasizes the importance of all three of these factors in tribal economic development, the most crucial factor is effective sovereignty, and the greatest threat to tribal economic progress is government retrenchment on its self-determination policy (Cornell and Kalt Citation1998, 208–209; Cornell and Kalt Citation2007, 28; Kalt et al. Citation2008, 136).
19. This criticism was raised in different ways by both of the anonymous referees, and I thank them for encouraging me to address it.
20. Neither of the anonymous referees endorsed this more categorical version of the capitalism–indigeneity argument.
21. In another direct parallel with Sen's research, this evidence also illustrates the interdependent and mutually reinforcing nature of the outcomes of collective self-determination in a wide variety of areas spanning the social, political and economic. This suggests that, at the collective level as well, “free and sustainable human agency [is] a generally effectual engine of development” (Sen Citation2001b, 507).
22. However, compare Minore and Katt (Citation2007), who found that a similar initiative in Northern Ontario did not yield the desired outcomes in suicide reduction.