Tribal Governance and Public Administration

Date01 November 2002
AuthorJames Ortiz
Published date01 November 2002
DOI10.1177/009539902237271
Subject MatterArticles
ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2002Ortiz / TRIBAL GOVERNANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
This article examines tribal governance and its relationship with the U.S. government
through the lens of laws and treaties.There are more than 550 American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes in the United States. Tribesare sovereigns having their own governance struc-
tures, with richcultures that are intertwined with the founding of our nation. This calls for a
renewedawareness of tribes by the field of public administration, requiringcareful consider-
ation and respect of tribal cultural,historic, and social values, which are an integral part of
tribal governance.
TRIBAL GOVERNANCE AND
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
JAMES ORTIZ
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Although American Indian and Alaska Native tribes make up approxi-
mately 2.5 million inhabitants of the total population, they constitute a
completely different level of governance within the United States (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 2001). Tribes possess inherent powers of self-
governance that predate the founding of our nation and the Constitution
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1999). Although the Constitution pro-
vides for a delineation of responsibilities between the federal and state
governments, the more than 550 American Indian and Alaska Nativetribes
have their own governancestructures and are dealt with on a government-
to-government relationship by the United States (Bureau of Indian Affairs,
2001).
This article examines tribal governance and its relationship with the
U.S. government through the lens of laws and treaties. Furthermore, it
calls for an awareness of a population that the majority of the field of pub-
lic administration does not know—the more than 550 American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes within the United States. As pointed out by
Aufrecht (1999), “The public administration literature almost completely
ignores the topic of Native American governance.” Furthermore, tribal
459
ADMINISTRATION& SOCIETY, Vol.34 No. 5, November 2002 459-481
DOI: 10.1177/009539902237271
© 2002 Sage Publications
cultures are guided by their values and beliefs, and it is important to exam-
ine their governance structures along with the federal and state govern-
ments (Poupart, Martinez, Red Horse, & Scharnberg, 2000).
TRIBES, THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES,
AND THE SUPREME COURT
The Constitution refers to Indians in two clauses. Article 1, section 9
(commerce clause) grants to Congress the sole authority to regulate com-
merce “with Indian tribes.”According to Monette (1994), some have pro-
posed this language to mean that tribes possess sovereignty more similar
to that of the Union than that of states. The reference to “Indians not taxed”
in article 1, section 2 (apportionment clause) applied to the apportionment
of state taxes and representation in the Union. Monette notes, however,
that its significance to the sovereign status of tribes remains unclear.
Tribes have always had formal government-to-government relation-
ships with a variety of European powers. The colonial powers, and later
the federal government, recognized the sovereign status of tribes, and it
developed into a unique political relationship with the United States.
According to Deloria and Lytle (1984), tribes should be understood as
“nations within the nation” of the United States, and sovereignty is the
foundation upon which this relationship was built. Unlike all other politi-
cal entities within the borders of the United States, tribes derive their pow-
ers through their sovereign existence, past and present (Getches,
Wilkinson, & Williams,1998). The manner in which each tribe tradition-
ally exercisedthese rights varied according to its distinct cultural practices
and the needs imposed by its environment.
The issue of tribal sovereignty is at the very heart of tribal existence.
Proponents of tribal sovereignty claim that tribes are stepchildren in the
family of the government. They arguethat tribes have many powers equal
to the states but remain subordinate to the federal government,and that the
government is the trustee of tribal lands but more often acts as the takerof
tribal lands and therefore raises a potential conflict of interest. Conversely,
those who are opposed to tribal sovereignty claim that tribes, as American
citizens, are subject to the same laws as everyoneelse and should not have
special status.
Sovereignty, however, is a right of self-government that for the most
part has never been extinguished by tribes.
460 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / November 2002

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT