Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto (review)

Clearly a prophet for our time, Taiaiake Alfred competently tackles a variety of very complex issues related to Aboriginal self-determination in Canada. He is admirably equipped to take up this challenge, having grown up amidst the political struggles of the Kahnawake Mohawk, and armed with a Ph.D. in comparative and political thought from Cornell University.

Alfred’s primary objective is to clarify what Aboriginal self-determination means and how it can become a reality. In doing so he takes both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaders to task for shortsightedness, unfairness, and misrepresentation.

The book includes three sections—peace, power, and righteousness—all of which have to be read if Alfred’s intent is to be appreciated. Peace is apparently unattainable for First Nations in a society that fosters materialism, consumerism, and corporate globalization, all of which stand diametrically opposed to traditional Indigenous values (25, 40). As the process of decolonization finally gets underway, Native communities often find themselves represented by leaders who have moved away from the principles embedded in traditional First Nations cultures, accommodated Western cultural values, and endorsed the larger political and economic system (28). They, like government bureaucrats, seem to have forgotten that, at the time of European contact, Native American societies had already achieved true civilization and functioned democratically. Alfred does not romanticize the past, but observes that it is time for First Nations to stop “rejoicing in our survival,” recognize their past pain and sorrows, and take up the challenge of fulfilling their responsibilities to their ancestors.

Power is defined and analyzed in the second section. Alfred analyzes the phrases—abuse of power and re-empowerment—in delineating violations in power brokering by leaders in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. He contends that some Native power wielders have become disconnected from their communities by emulating the philosophy and tactics of dominant government structures and operations.

Thankfully, some traditionalists, recognizing the risk of intellectual co-optation, have adopted a more Indigenous stance and focused on actualizing their own powers and ignoring opposing external powers (72). Formalizing a traditional perspective could keep Indigenous peoples from pursuing sovereignty in the format practiced in Canada and the United States. By becoming Westernized, current Aboriginal leaders may legitimize dominant societal hierarchical structures that allow leaders to rule their own people in despotic fashion. By contrast, “Native leaders have the responsibility to expose the truth and debunk the imperial pretence that supports the doctrine of state sovereignty and white society’s dominion over indigenous nations and their lands” (83).

On a positive note, Alfred notes that Indigenous leaders around the world have experienced a measure of success in undermining the intellectual credibility of state sovereignty as the only legitimate form of Aboriginal self-government. Alfred elucidates a series of formalized steps used by state agents to co-opt Aboriginal leaders (99), a paradigm by which Native leaders can achieve balance in their political lives (103), a list of characteristics indicative of a healthy traditional Aboriginal outlook (106), and four Machiavellian principles to avoid in forging honest forms of leadership (113).

Righteousness is sometimes understood in terms of acting kindly, honestly, and fairly towards other human beings. For Native people, the challenge of meeting the terms of this definition are particularly complex. Aboriginals find themselves caught between attempting to meet the needs of their communities and restoring them to health, and, at the same time, trying to satisfy the demands and expectations of mainstream society. This is not always easy when leaders are insensitive or out-of-touch with their constituents. “Unfortunately, many Native politicians share a political vision that mirrors the worst tendencies of mainstream society” (139). Alfred documents the experience of the Sechelt First Nation in which members of the local community found it necessary to reject an Agreement-in-Principle signed by their leadership with government officials. Subsequent elections and confrontations brought negotiations between the Sechelt Band and the government to a halt.

But...