Sami self‐determination in the making?^*

Abstract

The article discusses whether principles of territorial or non-territorial jurisdiction ought to guide the future distribution of decision-making power between the Norwegian Sami Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament. It argues that an acceptable distribution of powers must satisfy two normative criteria: first, decisionmaking power ought to be distributed on the basis of individuals' desire to be politically associated with some people rather than with others. Second, a normatively defensible distribution of decision-making power must ensure that those who are subject to the jurisdiction of a particular body have the right to vote in elections for, and thus have the possibility to affect the composition of, that particular body. The article concludes that a non-territorial principle for distribution of decision-making power provides a more fruitful point of departure for discussions of the future status of the Sami Parliament in the Norwegian political system than do notions of territorial jurisdiction.What principle ought to guide the future distribution of decision-making power between the Norwegian Sami Parliament (Sametinget) and other popularly elected bodies in Norway? The principal aim of this article it is to present and critically discuss two different answers to this question. The empirical focus of the article will thus be the Norwegian polity and the question of how decision-making power ought to be distributed between different popularly elected bodies in Norway. It is my contention, however, that the Norwegian case shed light on some important normative questions pertaining to many, if not most, claims for self-determination. These are questions that must be addressed by anybody who takes an interest in the issue of whether and/or how claims for self-determination by indigenous or other groups ought to be accommodated. The relevance of these questions is

Is Indigeneity like Ethnicity? Theorizing and Assessing Models of Indigenous Political Representation

“…This has not proven to be a complete barrier to its effectiveness in terms of policy making, and the development of the Sámediggi into a more autonomous, authoritative body is certainly possible—although the institution will always rest on a problematic foundation, since its incorporation, infrastructure and implementation are all imposed measures by the Norwegian settler state. The very definition of who constitutes a Sámi has been largely dictated by the state, and Sámi selfhood remains hotly contested (Semb, 2005: 533).…”

“…Despite the Sámi's assertions of sovereignty over their own affairs (Semb, 2005), without stronger state recognition of the Sámi as a sovereign Indigenous people and greater respect for that sovereignty by meeting the claims of the Sámi to choose for and by themselves the mechanisms by which they represent themselves to the state, the Sámediggi will likely continue to be challenged as a truly self-determining body.…”

Transnational Romani and Indigenous Non-territorial Self-determination Claims

“…Nimni et al in Nimni, 2005a). While the NCA model as proposed by Renner and elaborated by Bauer is not flawless, 36 it provides a good starting point for a viable solution for Romani and indigenous self-determination claims (Klímová-Alexander, 2005b;Semb, 2005), not only because it is close to the Romani and indigenous view. As I described earlier, Romani elites are actually couching their self-determination demands largely in terms of non-territorial autonomy.…”

Indigenous immersion education

“…In addition, a separate Sámi curriculum was introduced in Finnmark in 1997, and in 2000 the Sámi Parliament took responsibility for some aspects of the Sámi school system, previously controlled by the central Norwegian Government (Todal, 2003). Both these latter developments, along with the passing of the (2005) Finnmark Act, have further entrenched regional autonomy and indigenous control for Sámi in the area (Semb, 2005), particularly with respect to education.…”