A Comparison with U.S. Governance

Several differences emerge when traditional American Indian leadership is compared to the U.S. model of governance. Again, we emphasize that this is an deliberately simplified depiction of both American Indian leadership and of U.S. governance. With U.S. governance, we purposefully neither discuss the complex levels of government nor engage in a discussion of conflicting political philosophies. Our intent is to overview some of the major differences between U.S. governance and traditional American Indian leadership. The following is a brief comparison of these dichotomous systems.

As discussed, culture and tradition were fundamental to American Indian leadership. American Indian elders were sought for their experience and wisdom, and leaders were followed because they demonstrated generosity, kindness and concern. Those who showed responsibility for the welfare the tribe and emerged as leaders through their contributions to the community.

In contrast, the power and legitimacy for making decisions in the U.S. system is established through the institutions of government. Lowi and Ginsburg (1996) state that "government is . . . the formal institution through which a land and its people are ruled. To govern is to rule" ( p. 9). Governance, therefore, has distinct characteristics and goals that are significantly different from those of traditional American Indian leadership.

One fundamental difference is that U.S. decision-making is grounded in a formal bureaucratic organizational authority. An element of a bureaucracy, according to sociologist Max Weber (1946), is that "the regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties" (p. 196). In the U.S. system, authority is located in positions that exist independent of the leaders who fill them. The power and authority to make decisions are official duties legitimized by the organizational position and exists independently of the person selected to operate in that position.

The U.S. governance system derives its authority to create and enforce laws from the consent of the people to be governed. In the European-American tradition, this power and consent of the people is based on the "social contract" in which the governed give up individual liberties for security and order. This form of consent is partially rooted in the political philosophy of John Locke (1632-1704) who asserted that, "the only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community...[and] they are thereby presently incorporated to make one body politic" (pp. 98-99). With implied consent, granted through the voting process, the U.S. government has power over people through enforcement of laws and regulation. Casting a vote allows a voter to select a leader for a fixed term of service. Voters have little control over a leader's decisions or actions once the leader is elected.

American Indian leaders, in comparison, had no power over their people. An illustration is the 1695 response of Chief Chingouabé to the request from Comte de Frontenac that the Ojibwe align themselves with the French. Chief Chingouabé replied, "When you command, all the French obey and go to war. But I shall not be heeded and obeyed by my nation in like manner. Therefore I cannot answer, except for myself, and those immediately allied or related to me" (O'Callaghan, 1855, p. 612 as cited in Smith, 1979, p. 311).

American Indian people were free to cease following a leader at any time. American Indian leaders' responsibilities were to the welfare of the tribe and future generations, and they led only as long as their leadership was needed or wanted. Johnston (1995) states:

In the Anishinaubae [sic] nation there was no central authority or government, divinely appointed or humanly seized, to issue and enforce laws, dispense favors to friends, impose fines on enemies, declare war against other nations, or demand homage and tributes from its subjects (Introductory Pages).

Most American Indian societies had holistic systems of leadership in which community members shared in the leadership of different tasks.

In the U.S. government, on the other hand, the bureaucracy is methodically arranged to provide for the continuous and regular fulfillment of official duties (Weber, 1946). Individuals are elected, appointed or hired to positions within this system of power. Citizenship, age, formal education and credentials are required and act as measures of skills or competencies for these positions. Elected officials enter positions contingent on their ability to convince the electorate to vote for them and they fill their position for specified terms or for the duration of their employment.

In addition to differences in the selection of leaders, traditional American Indian leadership and U.S. governance have different philosophical foundations, and regarded the welfare of the people differently. American Indian leadership was wedded with spirituality and all leadership had spiritual significance. American Indian elders protected the welfare of the tribe as guardians of tribal culture with spirituality at the core of their leadership. Equipped with the knowledge of the elders, generations of American Indian people carried on the practices which were most important to the existence of the tribe.

U.S. governance, on the other hand, is based on the protection of individual rights, private property and economic growth. The U.S. was founded by European immigrants who came to America to escape abuses of governing power under the European monarchy. They purposefully structured a government based on the protection of individual rights, with a division between church and state, and strict limitations on the power of leaders. Locke (1632-1704) asserted that the right to private property was an individual right that stemmed from natural law. Adam Smith (1776), the father of capitalism, believed the protection of free trade defined a civilized society. Based on this philosophy, U.S. governance operates on the principle that the welfare of society is based on the protection of private property, free markets and individual rights.

Decision-making in U.S. governance is significantly different than that of traditional American Indian leaders. As noted, consensus-building was the driving force behind American Indian decision-making and leaders deliberated on a matter until a resolution became clear to all. In this way, all persons involved supported the decision. Decisions were not made lightly. American Indian leaders made decisions bearing in mind the welfare of future generations. The Iroquois Great Binding Law, or Gayanashagowa, states "look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present but also the coming generations, even those whose faces are yet beneath the surface of the ground -- the unborn of the future Nation" (The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations Website, August, 1997).

Rational decision-making is the central component of the U.S. governance model. With elected officials, obtaining majority vote is the driving force behind decision making. Debate is central to this process. Support of all the people is not required because consent to be governed through the social contract binds citizens to the conclusions of the majority (Locke, 1632-1704). Government decisions, viewed as part of an official duty, may not be as directly linked to the integrity of the official as are decisions made by American Indian leaders.

In sum, traditional Indian leadership and U.S. governance represent two very distinct world views, values and ways of life. Table 1 compares some of the key components under the two systems.

Table 1

American Indian Leadership	U.S. Governance
Leaders were chosen as leaders for their knowledge, experience and contribution.	Leadership is a position.
Leaders were chosen by the tribe and thus remained leaders as long as the tribe needed them.	Leaders seek and are employed or elected to a position. They serve for a specified term or for the duration of their employment.
Leaders had no power over others and could not command.	Leaders can create laws which are enforced by police and justice system.
Welfare of the tribe protected through maintaining culture and traditions.	Protection of individual rights. Protection of nation through economic growth and maintenance of private property.
Consensus was driving force behind decision-making.	Decisions arrived at by majority vote.
Spirituality inextricably intertwined in decision-making.	Rationality is the driving force behind decision-making.
Restitution-based justice which was focused on restoring relationships.	Retribution-based justice.

The Well-Being of American Indian Children in Minnesota: Economic Conditions, 1994