1) Indigenous democracies in North America tended to be decentralized, consensus-based systems focused on kinship and community, unlike the centralized states of European powers. While indigenous influence on new American democracies is debated, indigenous nations now seek recognition and compatible relations with nation-states. 2) Most nation-states prefer to incorporate indigenous peoples as individual citizens rather than recognize indigenous political entities, conflicting with indigenous political processes based on family and territory. Some successful examples include the Mexican and Canadian systems that allow for indigenous self-governance compatible with the larger state. 3) As indigenous nations regain self-determination, they will challenge nation-states to rethink liberal democracy and accommodate diverse indigenous

1. Che-Wei Lee 1
Copyright © 2014 by Che-Wei Lee. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this manuscript may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.
Champagne, Duane. 2014. “Preserving Indigenous Democracy.” Indian Country Today Media
Network, February 17. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/02/17/preserving-
indigenous-democracy-153597.
Review by: Che-Wei Lee, Department of Administrative and Policy Studies, University of
Pittsburgh
Accessed: Saturday, 19 April 2014, 23:47 p.m.
Note: This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).
Comment
Without rigorously and systematically studying American Indian/Native American history, many
people in the United States or broader audience outside of North America context may inquire at
least four questions: 1) what is indigenous democracy?2) Do indigenous people have a
comparable definition of contemporary democracy to the nation state, such as the United States?
3) To respond to this article’s title, do we have to preserve indigenous democracy? and 4) What
can indigenous people benefit from the reconstruction of indigenous democracy if they have lost
their indigenous political system or their political sovereignty has been destroyed to some extent?
Obviously, Dr. Duane Champagne did not dwell upon the definition of indigenous democracy;
however, in his first paragraph, Dr. Champagne has succinctly pointed to the different nature of
indigenous democracy that indigenous people indeed have a political system that focuses on
relations in line with the nature of their “decentralized, consensus based, and inclusive” tribal
government. Also apparently, this indigenous political system is different from the concept of the
contemporary term democracy filled with capitalism market mechanisms. For many indigenous
nations, maintaining indigenous democracy is vital to their sustainable development, irrespective
of their economy, politics, culture, education, and society. It would be constructive in discussing
this significance in depth. Providing more cases of successful tribal governance may help
achieve the stated purpose of this article.
Nevertheless, Dr. Champagne chose to highlight the actual incommensurability between these
two inconsistent political systems. From concisely describing the history of creation of
democratic American to explicitly criticizing the assimilationist political agenda that has hurt the
political autonomy of Native American, Dr. Champagne aimed to underscore that it will be
unjust to let contemporary Native Americans suffer for the loss of cultural and political
autonomy by invalidating indigenous unique government entities. Interestingly, in his second
paragraph, Dr. Champagne argued that many indigenous people express their willingness to
engage in the nation state as citizens while keeping and respecting their ancient cultural and
political structure. But this phenomenon might solicit audiences to ask: Then why “most
indigenous nation states do not recognize indigenous nations as political entities, and prefer to
incorporate Indigenous Peoples into the body politic as individual citizens”? If the nation state
does realize that “such a position is consistent with the values of equality, individual citizenship,
and inclusive political processes that characterize modern liberal democratic states, but are not
consistent with most contemporary indigenous political processes based on family, community,
and territory” Dr. Champagne mentioned, then we really need to rethink and have a legitimate
position to question about: 1) Who is the true trouble maker or peace interrupter? 2) Does the

2. 2 Incommensurate Indigenous Rights?
Copyright © 2014 by Che-Wei Lee. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this manuscript may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.
nation state, sincerely and seriously, take responsibility to make sense of indigenous political
systems to avoid their many misconceptions or biases? For instance, the nation state may think in
such way that granting indigenous nations self-governance may cause a negative social
separatism or potential civil strife, which may harm American national security. When people
have this kind of this question, then they have to take their responsibility to find the evidence and
raise the crisis report at the same time. In other words, the nation state does not offer enough and
valid room for mutual understandings and negotiations. Or even the nation state has done that,
but each of them in fact does not achieve the authentic consensus.
To demonstrate a necessity of normalizing ethical relationships as the premise of a peaceful
coexistence, Dr. Champagne raised two successful cases in paragraphs 4 and 5, such as Mexican
mestizo nation and Canadian First Nations, as evidence to justify the feasibility of a positive
symbiotic relationship between Native Americans and the nation state. These two promising
examples have documented a sound argument to respond to the question why we have to
preserve indigenous democracy and evidenced that indigenous people indeed can benefit from
their indigenous-based democracy.
I contend that nation states do not necessarily worry about giving political autonomy and
sovereignty back to these indigenous nations because indigenous nations will need to take
responsibility for the results of their self-determination and self-governance, even if they have to
face various challenges as their ancestors have had experienced. But they are born to be
survivors with intelligence and wisdoms as their ancestors have had overcome. And as one of
members for pursuing social justice, what we need to do is to recognize, respect, support, and
bless.
I would argue that recognizing indigenous people’s political autonomy and sovereignty is an
opportunity for non-indigenous friends and some indigenous nations to learn what kind of
indigenous political systems can support indigenous nations to survive for at least thousands of
years. How do these unique political systems work to make them get along with each other and
balance their life and ecological systems for a long time? Being humble to observe, respect, and
learn is always our best teacher.
To break the stalemate for recognition of indigenous self-determination and self-governance, I
suggest that we can consider Freire’s idea of “intersubjectivity” and “dialogue politics” (Freire
2000) to eliminate the constantly hostile state-nation relationship between indigenous and non-
indigenous peoples.
Original Text
Paragraph 1: When Europeans first came to the Americas they took note of the democratic
processes they observed in most indigenous nations. Indigenous political relations were usually
decentralized, consensus based, and inclusive. Indigenous democracies may not seem remarkable
by contemporary standards, but when Europeans arrived their governments were not democratic.
Most of Europe was characterized by centralized absolutist states dominated by class structures,
where the majority of people did not participate in the political process. Wars of independence,
starting with the United States in 1775 and then throughout Latin and South America during the

3. Che-Wei Lee 3
Copyright © 2014 by Che-Wei Lee. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this manuscript may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.
early 1800s, enabled creation of democratic states after overthrowing European colonial
governments. The new democratic American states engaged market economies, and retained
class structure, albeit within a nation of individual citizens.
Paragraph 2: While the influence of indigenous political cultures on American democracies is
heatedly debated, contemporary indigenous nations seek respect, compatibility, acceptance, and
mutually beneficial relations within contemporary democratic nation states. Indigenous political
processes often remain based on kinship, community, culture, and territory. Most nation states do
not recognize indigenous nations as political entities, and prefer to incorporate Indigenous
Peoples into the body politic as individual citizens. Such a position is consistent with the values
of equality, individual citizenship, and inclusive political processes that characterize modern
liberal democratic states, but are not consistent with most contemporary indigenous political
processes based on family, community, and territory. Many indigenous people want to
participate in the nation as citizens, but at the same time retain loyalties to their ancient cultural
and political communities. Gaining nation state recognition of the political rights and powers of
indigenous governments has been extremely difficult.
Paragraph 3: Most nation states prefer that Indigenous Peoples accept citizenship, and
participate within the nation state as an individual. The Mexican mestizo nation, for example,
consists of individuals who participate in national government and market economy. About 10
percent of the Mexican population live as indigenous people within their own communities, often
declining to speak Spanish. Many Mexican indigenous communities are willing to work within
the Mexican constitution, and accordingly have organized their communities as municipal
governments. The municipal governments, or pueblos, follow Mexican law, but at the same time
Indigenous Peoples can enact laws, and carry on government activities in ways that conform to
their own values and preferences.
Paragraph 4: In Canada, the First Nations are governed by the Indian Act of 1876 and
subsequent revisions, which imposed electoral processes on First Nations under Canadian
government administration and monitoring. The original political forms of First Nations were
subordinated to electoral systems by parliamentary legislation without First Nation consent. In
recent years about 20 Canadian bands sought greater autonomy from the band form of
government, composed of a chief and elected council, in favor of First Nation control over band
government administration and constitutional matters. The Akwesasne Mohawk have negotiated
release from the controlling Indian Act in all but two clauses. Other First Nations are beginning
to rethink the band government and are looking to recover greater local cultural and political
control over land and communities. In the United States, the self-determination policy fostered
greater tribal control over government programs. Tribal governments actively seek economic
sustainability that will support cultural expression, political autonomy, and preserve territorial
rights.
Paragraph 5: While indigenous and nation states share some common ground, history, and
concerns with inclusive political participation, each indigenous nation retains unique cultural and
political heritage, and ways of managing government. Indigenous governments and cultures are
diverse. Most indigenous nations engage the contemporary world through a mix of traditional
values and selected political and economic innovation. The diversity of indigenous cultures and

4. 4 Incommensurate Indigenous Rights?
Copyright © 2014 by Che-Wei Lee. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act
of 1976, no part of this manuscript may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.
political processes, however, is not compatible with the theory and practice of most
contemporary liberal nation states, which prefer common acceptance and primacy of national
political institutions. As indigenous nations regain greater self-determination, they will challenge
nation states to rethink the concepts of liberal democracy in order to accommodate culturally
diverse indigenous democratic governments and perspectives.
Author Note
Duane Champagne is a member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa from North Dakota.
He is Professor of Sociology, American Indian Studies Center, and Law at UCLA. He is
currently a member of the Faculty Advisory Committee for the UCLA Native Nations Law and
Policy Center, and is Acting Director of the UCLA School of Law’s Tribal Learning Community
and Educational Exchange. His research interests focus on issues of social and cultural change in
historical and contemporary Native American communities. He has written and edited over 125
publications. Recent publications include Captured Justice: Native Nations and Public Law 280
(with Dr. Carole Goldberg, UCLA School of Law) (Carolina Academic Press, 2012) and Notes
from the Center of Turtle Island (AltaMira Press, 2010).