Copyright © 2011 by University of Nebraska–Lincoln, all rights reserved. Redistribution or republication in any medium, except as allowed under the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law, requires express written consent from the editors and advance notification of the publisher, the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
One of the most interesting questions that can be asked about contemporary tribal government is, what is its source of authority and power? Unlike the federal government or any state governments, tribal governments in the United States do not have their foundations in the U.S. Constitution. Indigenous North American peoples had sociopolitical organizations that preceded the federal constitutions of both Canada and the United States and were not part of the people or political units that created these federal systems. Treaties in both nation-states provide one source for the ongoing relationships between these nation-states and the Indigenous governments, but these are not the only sources. Executive orders, national legislation, and court cases set further parameters on the interactions of Indigenous peoples with dominant states in North America; however, these are not the sources of tribal authority.
Current research from several directions in
the United States and Canada concludes that
the most successful tribal development occurs
where traditional structures match the contemporary
ones. This notion is intuitively satisfying,
but it contradicts the historical policy
behind the major pieces of legislation affecting
the structure of tribal government in the
twentieth century. The Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934 (IRA) created a centralized corporate
model for tribal governments, assuming
that traditional systems were inadequate to
the demands of modern society. Similarly, the
Indian Act in Canada (1876) created band
councils. Decision making and development
under these model governments has been uneven
at best.
One successful fusion of traditional and contemporary governments is the Cheyennes'. Their prophet, Sweet Medicine, gave the Cheyennes their code of sacred laws, including organization of the council of forty-four chiefs for the ten bands of Cheyennes. The council consulted with warrior societies before making its political decisions. While contemporary Northern Cheyenne government is organized under the ira, traditional values maintain a strong influence. Tribal government is represented at the annual ceremonies, and ceremonial leaders receive tribal grants and, in some cases, a salary. This has the added benefit of continuity in the formal network between the Northern Cheyennes of Montana and the Southern Cheyennes of Oklahoma. Additionally, while the ira model centralizes decision making, the Northern Cheyennes use a referendum to allow the community a voice on major decisions.
In a different configuration, the basic political
unit for the nomadic Lakota (Sioux) was
groups of families, or tiyospayes, each governed
by a wicasitancan, or chief. Through the
leaders of fraternal societies the local unit became
part of the band, then part of the larger
Lakota Nation. A signal value for the Lakota
was autonomy, and the critical level of allegiance
was local, to the tiyospaye. Their political
structure was designed to maximize and
encourage this autonomy. In 1889 the United
States forced the Sioux Nation to accept six
separate reservations: Cheyenne River, Crow
Creek, Lower Brulé, Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and
Standing Rock. Those contemporary Lakota
governments, later organized under the ira,
emphasize tribal councils, centralized authorities
with few mechanisms to include the community
or traditional leadership in the decision-
making process. Government decisions
at the Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservations
have been undermined by local and kinshipbased
allegiances, as would be expected when
the formal governing systems are seen as illegitimate
by many in the community.
The influence of tribal values in tribal political approaches at the end of the twentieth century is illustrated in a contemporary interpretation of Treaty Number 7 as considered from the position of the Blackfoot Confederacy of southern Alberta. In the treaty the Blackfeet, Bloods, and other signatories promise to "maintain peace and good order." The clause broadly requires order between and among Indigenous people and with other Crown subjects at the time of the treaty (1877) and in the future. Such an agreement, it is argued, requires or implies the authority and power to implement the treaty terms by the Native nations. One avenue is to participate with the federal and provincial governments through guaranteed representation or comanagement.
Despite the amount of influence or interference from the United States and Canada and their efforts to transform, and even terminate, tribal polities, tribal governments persist. Even Indigenous nations that were forced to relocate several times, or those whose governments were repeatedly dissolved by external forces and whose populations were scattered, seem to find the most success when they draw their source of legitimate authority and power today from historic or traditional structures.
See also NATIVE AMERICANS: Blackfoot; Cheyennes; Sioux.