Government

by Cara Marantz

Dartmouth students arrive in Hanover for their freshman year with a wide variety of backgrounds. They spend four years lounging on the Green and taking classes they may or may not enjoy, all while intermingling with people they may never have encountered if not for a similar acceptance letter. This is to say that a student at Dartmouth spends their time here being exposed to numerous viewpoints. However, once that same student graduates, it is impossible to know whether they will remember these exposures or internalize the lessons they learned. One thing that is certain is that every single student is a citizen who will be governed — or perhaps do the governing — and exploring how the term “government” operates in terms of Native American and Indigenous Studies fosters a broader understanding of the world and country in which we live.

The word “government” can be traced back to the late fourteenth century, with the first recorded use emerging in Geoffrey Chaucer’s translation of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae.[1] It read, “Men myȝten speke or writen of his goode gouernement,” with the word coming from Old French and meaning control, direction, or administration.[2] In simpler terms, “government” refers to the operation itself and the people it oversees. Such an operation can be understood as a small group or individual who makes decisions on behalf of the larger community. The leader is chosen (or self-appointed) through various methods, and the scope of their control is most often determined by location. While the etymology and history of the term are quite relevant in a piece discussing “government’s” place as a keyword in Native American and Indigenous Studies, more important is understanding the real-life applications that led to its being designated as such.

In the United States, the federal government and tribal governments are two separate entities, both of which provide for their people and make decisions that significantly impact the day-to-day lives of all who live under their control. The federal government operates by distributing power between the national and local governments, with the Constitution treated as the “supreme law of the land” and superseding state legislation.[3] While tribal governments existed well before the formation of the United States, they currently function under the federal government and alongside state governments. These sovereign entities are “responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens and communities.”[4] The relationship that state and tribal governments have is essential to maintain such well-being. Coordination between the two entities allows those living on Native American reservations to maximize access to quality agencies and service providers.[5] These duties have caused “government” to evolve from a simple noun detailing a political system into a living, breathing phenomenon.

To that end, it is imperative to understand how tribal governments function in order to better assess what the word means within Native American and Indigenous Studies. There are 574 federally recognized domestic dependent tribal nations in the United States that all govern themselves, and they often do so parallel from the states in which they are located.[6] Tribes run under various foundational documents, including constitutions, articles of association, or other bodies of law. There are also tribes who do not use any of these but rather combine their traditional systems of government with a modern framework.[7] These can vary from true democracies to complex systems of checks and balances led by a “dual clan and town system.”[8] These bodies are helmed by a chief executive, referred to by a wide variety of titles, who “presides over the tribe’s legislative body and executive branch.”[9] Regardless of the manner in which they function, the primary aim of all of these tribal governments is to provide for their people.

While tribal governments have a certain degree of independence, they are still subject to the power and responsibility of the federal government. Despite this, tribes do not have the power to send representatives to the United States Congress. This demonstrates an interesting divergence from the typical two-pronged understanding of government, which names the structure and the citizens as the two major actors. In fact, this lack of representation eliminates the latter as a player altogether, showing the colonialist nature inherent in the relationship between the United States and tribal governments. Scholars like Elizabeth Reese, a professor at Stanford Law School, argue that the current system should be amended so that those living on reservations have voices speaking on their behalf in Washington.[10] These arguments are particularly interesting to me as a Government major because they offer a different perspective from those taught in my other courses. When I sit down in class to learn about the presidency or American public policy, I take the information at face value when there are actually numerous underlying factors. If my aforementioned class on the president had included how the office had interacted with Native Americans, it could have sparked a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of United States history and politics. The same is true for the keyword “government” on a broader scale. One can only grasp its true meaning when seeing the fullest picture.

To that end, a discussion on “government” would be incomplete without examining the impact that such structures have had on Native American and Indigenous people. Economic development on Native American reservations serves as a key example of the United States government’s role in influencing Native American and Indigenous peoples' livelihoods. The land upon which Native Americans live is often resource-rich, both naturally and culturally, but they are also often the poorest parts of the country.[11] These are not isolated phenomena — there has been a demonstrated relationship between institutions and poverty rates among Native Americans. Scholarship proving this connection has placed the blame on formal governance structures, “especially inefficient property-rights regimes and excessive bureaucratic governance.”[12] Such institutions, which can be defined as the formal and informal rules that guide the behavior of actors, are foundational in fostering economic development. This is because they are capable of either promoting mutually beneficial exchanges, entrepreneurship, and innovation or hindering economic relations and encouraging socially wasteful behavior.[13]

Another — and perhaps more obvious — example of how “government” has impacted Native American and Indigenous communities is displacement. The Trail of Tears was a landscape of forced migration that removed Native Americans from their long-established homes. Legislation like the Forced Removal Act of 1830 came out of Congress along with a “constant pressure to economize.”[14] From the executive branch came numerous removal treaties. The federal government was deeply concerned about “thrift, speed, and raising revenue” when it came to their decisions regarding forced removal and the subsequent Trail of Tears. These considerations influenced every layer of the United States government’s decision-making, from the broadest choice to the most minute detail. Notably, this meant that the War Department’s 1812 Regulations were more concerned with “curbing fraud and standardizing accounting” rather than maximizing the health and safety of those they were pushing westward.[15] The primary takeaway from these two examples — development and displacement — is that the United States government has demonstrated a divergence from ensuring its people's well-being. 

In light of this, one might consider how “government” could change to better suit the needs of all of its people. It is clear that the current and historical relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments has not been beneficial for Native Americans and Indigenous people, and that is putting it lightly. In her June 2007 article in the Columbia Law Review, Angela R. Riley offers a thorough analysis of tribal governance in the context of evolving international standards of good governance, which increasingly outline the responsibilities governments have toward their citizens.[16] She argues that governance will most effectively meet the needs of Native Americans when it neither departs from nor mimics the West. To do so would require tribes at all stages of nation-building to identify foundational principles and empower leaders and tribe members to “press the bounds of such principles if change is necessary.”[17] It is entirely possible that the needs of Native Americans will diverge from those addressed by Congress, offering tribal leaders the unique opportunity to present evidence that they are able to address these issues properly and effectively.[18]

In my opinion, the United States government is obligated to be flexible in responding to its people’s desires for two reasons. Firstly, the country was founded by disgruntled colonists who were upset with the British monarchy for limiting their governmental representation and broader freedoms. It is hypocritical to follow a stringent line of policy and operations that harm the well-being of a significant portion of the population. Secondly, the United States government has historically demonstrated such hypocrisy through the aforementioned examples in this essay. By pursuing displacement and colonizing Native American land, the United States has perpetuated the behavior they sought to break from in 1776. Just as Native Americans can shift the way they govern themselves, as suggested by Riley, so too can the United States adjust its priorities. It is hard to say how this might arise, especially as the country reaches nearly 300 years of official existence, with some practices cemented in tradition. However, just because something is not easily imaginable does not mean it should not be done. In fact, it is even more admirable to break from tradition, especially when those practices have caused long-standing harm. As argued earlier, government is not a static entity, and its dynamic nature will allow it to adjust to better represent all people and ensure that it is not standing in the way of anyone chasing “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Bibliography

Davis, Ethan. “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal.” American Journal of Legal History 50, no. 1 (2010): 49-100.Lofthouse, Jordan K. “Institutions and Economic Development on Native American Lands.” The Independent Review 24, no. 2 (Fall 2019): 227-248.

National Conference of State Legislatures. “Separation of Powers: State-Tribal Relations and Interstate Compacts.” Last modified November 17, 2022. https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-state-tribal-relations-and-interstate-compacts#:~:text=Native%20American%20tribal%20governments%20are,their%20citizens%20and%20their%20communities.National Geographic. “The Roles of State and Federal Governments.” Accessed May 27, 2024. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/roles-state-and-federal-governments/.

O’Brien, Sharon. “Tribal Governments.” National Forum 71, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 18-20. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9609192171&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Online Etymology Dictionary. “Government (n.).” Accessed May 27, 2024. https://www.etymonline.com/word/government#etymonline_v_29945.

Reese, Elizabeth. "Tribal Representation and Assimilative Colonialism." Stanford Law Review 76, no. 4 (2024): 771-884.Oxford English Dictionary. “government (n.).” Last modified March 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1016415416.

Riley, Angela R. “Good (Native) Governance.” Columbia Law Review 107, (June 2007): 1049-1125.U.S. Department of the Interior. “How are tribal governments organized?” Indian Affairs. Last modified August 19, 2017. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/how-are-tribal-governments-organized.

[1] “government (n.),” Oxford English Dictionary, last modified March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1016415416.

[2] “Government (n.),” Online Etymology Dictionary, accessed May 27, 2024, https://www.etymonline.com/word/government#etymonline_v_29945.

[3] “The Roles of State and Federal Governments,” National Geographic, accessed May 27, 2024, https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/roles-state-and-federal-governments/.

[4] “Separation of Powers: State-Tribal Relations and Interstate Compacts,” National Conference of State Legislatures, last modified November 17, 2022, https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-state-tribal-relations-and-interstate-compacts#:~:text=Native%20American%20tribal%20governments%20are,their%20citizens%20and%20their%20communities.

[5] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Separation of Powers.”

[6] Elizabeth Reese, "Tribal Representation and Assimilative Colonialism," Stanford Law Review 76, no. 4 (2024): 771.

[7] “How are tribal governments organized?” Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, last modified August 19, 2017, https://www.bia.gov/faqs/how-are-tribal-governments-organized.

[8] Sharon O’Brien, “Tribal Governments.” National Forum 71, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 18. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9609192171&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[9] U.S. Department of the Interior, “How are tribal governments organized?”

[10] Reese, “Tribal Representation,” 771.

[11] Jordan K. Lofthouse, “Institutions and Economic Development on Native American Lands,” The Independent Review 24, no. 2 (Fall 2019): 227.

[12] Lofthouse, “Institutions and Economic Development,” 227.

[13] Ibid., 228.

[14] Ethan Davis, “An Administrative Trail of Tears: Indian Removal,” American Journal of Legal History 50, no. 1 (2010): 98.

[15] Davis, “An Administrative Trail of Tears,” 99.

[16] Angela R. Riley, “Good (Native) Governance,” Columbia Law Review 107, (June 2007): 1049.

[17] Riley, “Good (Native) Governance,” 1083.

[18] Ibid., 1117.