Democracy Underpinned by Values. Demonstrated by Indigenous Peoples for Centuries.
April 23, 2025
Image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Haudenosaunee_seal.png#/media/File:Haudenosaunee_seal.png
About the symbols in this logo: https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/symbols/
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy consists of six First Nations: the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora, all united under the Great Law of Peace which dates back to the mid fifteenth century (approx. CE 1451), although some believe it may be older. The Great Law of Peace comes from the story of Ayenwahtha (Hiawatha), a Mohawk warrior who wanted to take revenge on Atatarho, a violent chief responsible for the death of his family in war. Instead, Hiawatha was met by the Great Peacemaker – a spiritual leader named Deganawida. The two travelled across what is today New York state, Ontario, and Quebec, to visit all the Iroquoian tribes in an effort to bring about peace and reconciliation amongst them. The Clan Mothers in each tribe were influential in persuading their people to accept Hiawatha’s message When the Five Nations (the Tuscarora joined later) were finally persuaded to stop warring and be at peace, they then followed Deganawida the Peacemaker to a tall white pine tree. The tree was uprooted and warriors from all nations threw their weapons into the hole. The tree was then replanted and became known as the Tree of Peace.
The Six Nations collective name Haudenosaunee means ‘People of the Long House,’ signaling and signifying their intent to live as family under one roof. The Great Council, made up of fifty chiefs from the six nations, met in a longhouse to discuss common issues. The intent was to meet to advance “peace, civil authority, righteousness, and the Great Law” as the foundations for their confederation. The Six Nations united to stand together against invasion and later to work together to resist the colonization efforts of the Europeans. In Great Council deliberations, each tribe had one vote. Unanimous agreement was required for decisions.
The Great Law is not a written document (though in modern times it has been rendered into writing), rather it is transmitted through oral traditions and wampum belts, which are used to record agreements and guide the telling of stories. The Law promotes a democratic system where the people have authority. It maintains equal responsibilities for men and women. Some have argued that the Great Law was the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution, but this is doubtful.
It is evident that the Iroquois leader Canassatego advocated for the federal union of the American colonies. As demonstrated in the quote below, he recommended to the colonists that they adopt a union similar to the Haudenosaunee Confederation and explains why:
“Our wise forefathers established a union and amity between the [original] Five Nations. This has made us formidable. This has given us great weight and authority with our neighboring Nations. We are a powerful Confederacy and by your observing the same methods our wise forefathers have taken you will acquire much strength and power; therefore, whatever befalls you, do not fall out with one another.”
Some of the American Founding Fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, were thus familiar with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and their constitution and admired the sophistication of their democracy. Franklin famously wrote about the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, noting how remarkable it was that six nations could form a lasting union when the American colonies were struggling to do so. He used the confederacy as an example of successful union and questioned why it couldn't be replicated among the colonies. However, this is precisely what he said:
“It would be a very strange Thing, if six Nations of Ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union, and be able to execute it in such a Manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble; and yet that a like Union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies, to whom it is more necessary, and must be more advantageous; and who cannot be supposed to want an equal Understanding of their Interests”.
Interestingly, despite the reverence Franklin had for the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, his use of the derogatory term “Ignorant Savages” showed the prevalent racism that existed in America. While he and others may have taken note of the Six Nations’ democracy it is clear that the model the Americans ended up developing was rooted in European institutions and practices.
Three of the key principles followed by the Haudenosaunee were clearly not made part of the American Constitution. The first was the fact that Haudenosaunee men and women were treated as equals in political matters and with respect to decision making. It would be over a century before America adopted female suffrage. The second was the Haudenosaunee consensus decision-making model versus majority voting. Consensus requires all parties to work together and debate issues until they are able to fashion solutions that work for everyone. It takes time and patience but is the foundation of the Six Nations Confederation’s strength.
The third is the principle that decisions had to be made with the perspective of how they might impact on the seventh generation from now. This kind of future thought is more strategic and requires more depth than the short-term, “instant gratification” style of decision-making that dominates western settler culture. It is reflected, for example, in the consistent seeking of balance with nature and the natural stewardship indigenous cultures assume for the environment.
Similar consensus models are found amongst other First Nations groups and in Inuit society. When the government of Nunavut was formed on April 1, 1999, following agreement with the Canadian federal government it evolved from just such a model and today as part of their values, Nunavut government exists without political parties.
In Nunavut, all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) are elected as independent candidates in their constituencies. There are no political parties. The resulting non-party, consensus style of government is consistent with the way that Inuit have traditionally made decisions and has the feature of being a far more democratic form of government. In Nunavut, unanimous agreement is not necessary for decisions to be made, motions passed, or legislation enacted in the Legislative Assembly, it requires just a simple majority.
The system therefore encourages debate and creates an environment where building consensus and working cooperatively and collaboratively are key.
Following a general election, MLAs gather together as the “Nunavut Leadership Forum” to select the Speaker, Premier and Ministers in a secret ballot election. This process is open to the public to observe. These choices are formalized through formal motions at the first sitting of the Legislative Assembly. The Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, formally appoints the Premier and Ministers.
Cabinet solidarity is required. Although Ministers are expected to voice their views during the in-camera deliberations of Cabinet and its committees, once a collective decision has been reached, all Ministers are expected to publicly support it. For example, Ministers are expected to vote in favour of Bills introduced by the government, while Regular MLAs may vote as they deem fit.
There are no “government backbenchers” who are expected to vote on matters according to the preferences of the Cabinet. Although unanimous agreement is not required for the passage of Bills or other items before the House, it is frequently achieved. Regular MLAs do not vote against government measures simply for the sake of opposing them (nor are they being “whipped”, as they say, by a political party to vote a certain way, because there are no political party points of view).
In these days of existential crisis within Canada we can learn from the philosophies and recent experiences of the indigenous people with whom we share this land. You the indigenous peoples continue to show us that there are better ways. The systems adopted by the Haudenosaunee and the Inuit may seem idealistic to some, but they represent a healthier way to ensure the public feels fully represented and the elected decision-makers operate in a system that reinforces working together for the common good.
We can learn a lot from our collective history and perhaps appreciate that the people once viewed as Ignorant Savages were in fact well ahead of settler society when it comes to understanding how to make democracy work for the benefit of all citizens and the long term greater good.