National chief needs to listen to dissenters

Page 5

Dear Editor:

I thoroughly enjoyed Windspeaker's article on the hooky-playing chiefs in Charlottetown (see September edition 2004), and I truly hope that a future article will be devoted to this issue.

This isn't the first time a quorum wasn't reached simply because resolutions were placed on the final day when chiefs were traveling back to their communities. The question is why hasn't there been any action taken to correct this unacceptable practice and move resolutions foreword on the agenda to the first or second day and presentations and information sessions on the last and final day.

The very fact that only two of more than 60 resolutions were passed with the remaining 58 to be approved by an 11-member executive body can only be described as an undemocratic process. It effectively takes away the political authority of duly elected chiefs to hear, debate and provide direct input.

It effectively puts the care, control and direction into the hands of an 11-member body that, according to the design of the Assembly First Nations, is dependent on the collective wisdom and guidance of the chiefs across Canada, chiefs who are to debate and pass by majority the actions and undertakings of the AFN.

A national convention to elect a national leader is simply that and can not be construed by the supporters of the successful candidate as a coronation and, once in office, it can not be construed that they represent everyone's interests, including those that didn't vote for them. We are not of Western European descent; we're not heirs of the political process of opposition that runs contrary to our inherent political processes. Ours is based upon the solid foundation of the rights of all to speak freely and openly before all in attendance in a respectful manner and take part in the final decision

I have a feeling that those people who question any elected representative who seeks accountability would love to move our system of governance towards a Western European model based upon the flawed concept of opposition parties. This system of governance insures that the institutions of colonization remain intact and unchanged with political power bestowed upon those who conform and consent to the interests of the colonizing power. In turn they are rewarded with financial gain and the meager funding of initiatives that neither provide self-reliance nor achieve political independence from those people they represent.

[It is essential that] someone stand and draw attention to this flawed process and identify a possible solution to make the changes needed to ensure open and inclusive debate, such as changes to an agenda to ensure that business is being discussed, debated and put to a majority vote. This is being politically responsible. What is wrong with debate? Didn't the national chief win 61 per cent of the vote? Aren't you guaranteed as a supporter to win every motion put foreword based upon this?

The truth of the matter is that all agendas can be manipulated to serve the purposes and aspirations of those in power. One of the most effective uses of this strategy is to structure an agenda to place any contentious issue where it can be circumvented in favor of a process that provides the mechanisms of control.

The current national chief would do well to listen to those people, regardless of who they supported, on any issue that seriously erodes the confidence of the constituents concerning accountability and due process. [To ignore them] casts doubt on the motives [of the national chief, and spotlights] an unaccountable political process that circumvents debate and free majority vote.

Simply put business first. Our business is first and foremost and should always be before presentations and information sections. If the conference is three days in duration, then the entire second day should be devoted to debate of the merits of resolutions.

-Byron Louis, Okanagan Nation