More Cherokee Nation of OK politics Summary: The election of 1999 defeated the rural power cabal in northeastern Oklahoma, and it was prevented from dominating in the Cherokee Nation for the next 12 years. Interested? Read on… To watch/listen to this update, go to youtu.be/UJD0YmJe6nk I am a professor of most aspects of sociocultural and political/governmental topics in Native American Studies. I have studied development anthropology and I have taught tribal economic development theories. From the perspective of contemporary development theories about what works and what doesn’t in tribal governance and development, the differences between the Byrd administration, which was heavily influenced by the local rural patronage network, and that of the incoming Smith administration were right out of the textbooks. Tribal governance and development specialists have identified two general styles of contemporary tribal government in Indian Country.[i] The “Standard Approach” is probably most common and is characterized by leadership that views the government and their role in it primarily as distributors of resources. In this view, government exists to give you a home, to give you a stipend, to give you all kinds of things. This style of government fits like a glove for those who employ patronage as a means of gaining and holding political and economic influence. In a region such as northeastern Oklahoma, where anywhere from 22-30% of the people exist at or below the federal poverty level, and where casino profits are steadily increasing, the pressure to simply disperse government resources can be tremendous. The “Nation-Building Approach,” which is less common in Indian Country (probably because it is more politically challenging to implement) doesn’t deny the need for services to individuals who require them. But it views the dispensing of services as an administrative function rather than the reason for the government’s existence. In the nation-building approach, the government exists to mobilize individuals and institutions to find long-term solutions and to truly build a government and nation. It doesn’t exist to give you a home or a stipend, but rather to create social institutions and systems that allow you to be self-sufficient. This approach is much harder, but in the long run, it is the only thing that genuinely lifts people out of poverty and restores pride, rather than keeping them in relationships of dependency as patronage does. And if this sounds like typical conservative American pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps rhetoric, know that it is not. This development theory addresses Indian tribes specifically, and it recognizes that Indians on tribal reservations and rural areas are the poorest category of people in the country. It recognizes that tribal government needs to be a significant player in helping to eradicate the conditions that contribute to poverty. So, back to the Cherokee Nation specifically… The Nation Building Approach denounces patronage, political favoritism, and corruption since they reduce politics to battles over tribal resources with the rewards to going to political supporters, and it appeared that had happened big time under the Byrd administration. When Chad Smith became Principal Chief in 1999, he inherited a Nation that had been looted and was in financial chaos. Outside audits initially indicated that about $11 million could not be accounted for. As auditors continued to work throughout the first year of the Smith administration, they were able to locate about $5 million. But to this day, around $6 million remains unaccounted for from the administration of Chief Joe Byrd. It is suspected that much of it went into the pockets of political cronies in the form of unapproved and undocumented salaries, contracts, and legal fees. From the start, anti-patronage, anti-crony principles had been an important part of Smith’s campaign platform. He often stated that if one supported him, they should do so because they believed in the vision, not because they expected jobs or other resources in return. As Principal Chief, he held to that ideal. For instance, Smith broke with Byrd’s practice of sweeping out political opponents from Cherokee Nation employment. Most prominently, in the high-level directorships at the Cherokee Nation which are generally hired by the Chief, Smith indicated that no one holding those positions from the Byrd administration would be fired and that they would be continued, as long as they understood that a new vision and new principles would be in place and they could agree to work within that organization. Some directors resigned, others continued successfully, and still others were eventually reassigned to different positions or replaced, but only after having first been given an opportunity, yet still not having worked out. But they were not automatically replaced with Smith’s political supporters. The same standard held for employees. After the hundreds of firings of those known or suspected of being political opponents that had occurred under the Byrd administration, Smith assured people that no one would be fired without cause and due process -- certainly not because they had supported a candidate other than him. In particular, employees were not moved out of their jobs in order that a political supporter could replace them. As confidence was restored, the rate of turnover of employees at the Cherokee Nation had been reduced within a couple of years from about 35% to less than 12%. Related principles were also practiced. Programs were to follow the policies (often in the form of federal guidelines attached to the contracts they operated under) as to who qualified for programs and who did not, and who was in line first and who came next. This re-established faith that had been lost among many Cherokees that the programs were operated fairly, and that no one was receiving patronage that placed them at the head of the line or allowed them to participate in programs for which they did not qualify. A different principle was also applied in Chief Smith’s appointments to the various boards and commissions of the Cherokee Nation. Rather than looking only to one’s own business associates and cronies within a small region, Smith sought expertise from Cherokees anywhere, whether he knew the individuals or not. As a result, the business board and executive positions were populated by Cherokees who worked at the highest levels of business and finance – who were accustomed to starting new businesses, to doing extensive market research, and to dealing with the regulation of corporations operating at these highest levels. They also researched actual economic development policy and theorized innovative ways in which to bring jobs into a depressed rural region – a very, very difficult task. Several of the people on that board were from more urban areas and were At Large Cherokee citizens who had been extremely successful in the larger world and who wanted to contribute to bringing success to the Cherokee Nation and its communities as well. There were other things about the Smith administration that people may disagree with. But in focusing on the resistance to the networks of patronage that had dominated other aspects of the region, and which threatened to dominate the Cherokee Nation, this was a time when patronage was simply unable to get a toehold. When Chief Smith put together a slate of candidates to run for tribal council in 2007, there were a series of principles that each of us was asked to agree to if we were going to be part of the team. Prominent among them was that we would reject patronage. We would not expect jobs for our relatives, we would not support the “slush funds” (tribal monies that were allocated to councilors that they could hand out as they saw fit, and which had been used by some to curry political favor), etc. I have been painted by political opponents as someone who blindly followed the Smith vision, but it wasn’t blindness at all on my part. There were very conscious reasons that I and others supported this administration. The refusal to bow to patronage and corruption was at the top of the list. If Smith had ever compromised that, he would have lost my support. While I know what good tribal governance and development theory is, I had never been in a position to actually see it in practice. I was thrilled that it was being implemented by the Smith administration and I was thrilled that on the ground and over time, it was working. In the twelve years between 1999 and 2011, the Cherokee Nation experienced a 300% increase in employment and a 12-fold increase in tribal revenues. More people were gotten into housing than ever before, the health care system expanded tremendously, and cultural, community, and language revitalization programs were implemented. The At Large Cherokee citizens were on the radar for the first time. There was still so very much to do in terms of combatting poverty in a systemic fashion, but the principles were in play and a dent had been made. And then…more next time. Julia 1 These theories are the bases of research done by the Harvard Project on Indian Economic Development and Governance, a project of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The Harvard Project has set the contemporary baseline for understanding what does and does not work in governance and development in Indian Country.
Posted on: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 06:00:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015