Indigenous people’ endeavors to survive, have their basic needs met and their fundamental rights honored has been complicated by compelling circumstances and exceptional challenges created by the State’s homogenizing and hegemonizing nature.
While State-formation has raised questions of legitimacy and democratic principles of consent, it continues to pursue its dominance and rule by pushing indigenous people to the margins. Many governments have created numerous ‘special privileges and reservations’ for indigenous people that are far from being implemented in the spirit of dignity and respect. For the most part, countries continue to use hostile approaches when addressing basic human needs which raise questionable doubts of their intent and purpose.
In situations where various ethnic and national groups co-exist, the State has, on one hand, drawn physical boundaries that coincide and complement the cultural values of its inhabitants to assert ‘internal pacification’ and ‘unity in diversity.’ Whereas, in cases concerning issues of ‘territorial security’ and ‘national interests’ arbitrary boundaries are created to negate the organic relationship of land as being inherent to identity. The State’s organization of territorial space and people has forced situations of dependency that limits indigenous people’s growth and desire for sovereignty.
The State relishes holding a pre-eminent position which defines and establishes the parameters of State-indigenous peoples relationships. For instance, the State has the capability of diverting a State-People conflict to a conflict between and among indigenous peoples. Such conflicts effectively create a situation that separates and divides. These circumstances deprive indigenous people of the practical means for communicating effectively with each other independent of the state. Furthermore, the State always claims and projects itself as a ‘neutral’ and ‘impartial’ arbitrator expressing the necessity of self-auditing by instituting enquiry commissions.
Time and time again, structural violence that is institutionalized in State mechanisms, invisible and hidden has a far reaching and devastating impact on indigenous people. The State thrives on the basis of what it does, what it promises to do, and projects itself as sensitive with self-reflection through auditing mechanisms. This posturing projects the appearance of being more credible and legitimate. The unwillingness to acknowledge existing conflicts of interests and aspirations between State and indigenous people poses a problem when framing contentious issues themselves. This tactic effectively sets aside having possible and available options for addressing the situation.
Many conditions contribute to indigenous people’s distrust of the State’s efforts to address contentious issues and being conflicts to a peaceful end. These include the lack of having an inclusive and participatory negotiating forum with representative from all parties, in addition to failed peace accords. This distrust is validated by indigenous people when they see the State using negotiating opportunities to dominate rather than nurture understanding and participation. Past experiences have demonstrated that they will be forced to accept unwanted compromises in the face of vast power imbalances.
Almost all peace processes and agreement have caused resistance groups to disintegrate while their respective communities and societies simultaneously become dispirited and polarized. The State’s agenda to continually legitimize its hegemonic claim over indigenous peoples in a given space by way of ‘domination through negotiation’ has created an environment of suspicion. These conditions block any existing space that is conducive to and essential for reaching peaceful democratic settlements between the State and peoples.
