Sámi authority and the importance of territory

Sámi politics is indigenous politics in which international law plays a crucial role. Even so, the governance system of a country is crucial in the design and development of indigenous politics. As a result of the deep conflict around the building of the Alta power plant in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a completely new Sámi public space developed and the new Sámi Parliament became the core institution. The main objective of this article to discuss of the meaning and importance of the territorial dimension in the development of Sámi politics in Norway in the light of a new model of indigenous authority in which the two dimensions – self-governance and political integration – determine the type of authority the Sámi may exercise. It is argued that it is possible to develop a Sámi public space with self-determination arrangements without operating with the distinction territorial vs. non-territorial autonomy as the key factor. Sámi politics seems to operate in a specific and contested space between self-determination and corporatism, one in which the collective and territorial dimensions are at the core in the understanding of the Sámi people as an indigenous people.

Abstract

French, British and to a limited degree German soldiers are being deployed with increasing frequency to solve security problems, often at such short notice that there is no time to consult parliament. Security experts and politicians in all three countries have debated how the relationship can be redrawn to grant more powers to MPs, and the main points are analysed in this article. The dilemma presenting itself is how the respective governments can be guaranteed sufficient autonomy to respond to a threat, while at the same time informing parliament and giving it time to express its opinion. The formal mechanisms of parliamentary influence: question hour, defence committees and special inquiries, are discussed to assess their efficiency as tools with which insight and influence can be gained in governmental policies. In particular, when national units participate in a multinational operation, these tools are moot. Governments and parliaments alike know that a ‘no’ to participation means that a country’s credibility as an ally suffers, which is enough to dampen any parliamentary effort to criticise an ongoing operation. One conclusion drawn here is that formal access to criticise is of little importance if willingness to take advantage of the possibilities is lacking. This goes a long way in explaining why parliaments are marginalised when governments decide to use military power. However, if an operation ends in failure, governmental predominance means being left with the responsibility, and for that reason governments may be willing to surrender some of their privileges.

Keywords War powers, defence, security politics, royal prerogative, government, parliament, special inquiries, multinational defence, secrecy, drones, Germany, Britain, France.

Accountability in local democracy: in or between elections?

Elections, when the electorate can penalize or support their representatives, are usually understood as the key mechanisms of political accountability. We argue that direct contact between politicians and citizens, in which politicians have to explain and justify their actions, is also a mechanism of accountability. Using qualitative interviews with politicians, administrative leaders and journalists in twelve Norwegian municipalities, we explore the extent to which the conditions for accountability are fulfilled. In Norwegian local democracy, citizens and politicians both value consensus-building. This may blur the responsibility for decisions and make voting less suitable as a mechanism of accountability. However, direct contact between citizens and politicians also involves some challenges. Accommodating citizens’ demands may conflict with fulfilling election pledges, and undermine the election as an accountability mechanism. Direct citizen involvement may be limited and skewed, in this way reducing the quality of accountability. Citizens may be poorly informed about local politics, and so both accountability mechanisms are weakened. Nevertheless, our interviews indicate that direct contact between citizens and representatives is a significant accountability mechanism – making representation and accountability continuous processes.