Deciding Who Gets to Decide

I have always been both proud and happy that I live in a democracy. I recognize that most days it is not a particularly effective democracy. In spite of the fact that for the last 800 or so years there has been a sporadic evolution in terms of suffrage and access to the political process, our democracy still does not represent all of the people even part of the time. It has been argued with some justification that democracy's primary clients are those who control the means of production - that is the capitalists; that the primary function of the democratic state is to ensure that the political environment is sufficiently stable to allow commerce to occur freely. However, as inadequate as our system is, it, at the very least, does allow me to participate in the process of choosing who will speak on my behalf in Parliament. I, theoretically have even more control or at least input at the municipal level.

Democracy for many First Nation communities has traditionally been less useful for their members. At a federal level, Indigenous peoples have felt (with good reason) that their needs and issues have not been accurately carried to Ottawa. At the local level, partially because of the imposed system of band councils (and their election every two years) as well as chronic underfunding and the lack of resources (or the capacity to develop them), some band councils have struggled to meet the needs of their constituents. For other communities, band councils have been effective advocates for the people. Those successful councils have in part been flourishing because they have developed resources independent of the federal government that have allowed them to enhance employment, education and health resources.

The Government of Canada has just signed an agreement with the Elders of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that may make it more difficult for that community to move forward. The agreement appears to create a two-tier system of government where one - the elected and councils will have the continued responsibility to manage the services for the community. They will need to continue to beg or advocate for an increase in federal funding to meet their community's needs. The second layer of government -the self-appointed elders; individuals who in some cases inherit the right to decide - will have effective control over any outside development of the natural resources. No development can occur on the land by outside corporations without the agreement of the Elders.

How the Wet'suwet'en decide to manage their land is up to them. I should have no input into any part of that decision-making process. It is their land and they, ideally collectively, will get to decide what should happen. But it seems to me that whenever one political body gets to decide that someone else loses the right to democratically decide what should happen - we have all lost something.

Late last winter a number of Canadians across the country braved the cold to protest the fact that the traditional elders of the Wet'suwet'en were not being listened to. I wonder if anyone will now protest that individuals have lost the right to be part of deciding how that nation's land gets used.

I suspect not and that is a shame.