Abstract: This paper analyzes the successes, failures, and unintended consequences of the innovative experiments in decolonization that are currently underway in Bolivia and Nunavut, Canada. Bolivia and Nunavut are the first large-scale tests of Indigenous governance in the Americas. In both cases, Indigenous peoples are a marginalized majority who have recently assumed power by way of democratic mechanisms. In Bolivia, the inclusion of direct, participatory, and communitarian elements into the democratic system under the administration of President Evo Morales, the country’s first Indigenous head of state, has dramatically improved representation for Indigenous peoples. In Nunavut, the Inuit have also opted to pursue self-determination through a public government system rather than through an Inuit-specific self-government arrangement. The Nunavut government seeks to incorporate Inuit values, beliefs, and worldviews into a Canadian system of government. In both cases, the conditions for success are far from ideal. Significant social, economic, and institutional problems continue to plague the new governments of Bolivia and Nunavut. Based on original research in Bolivia and Nunavut, the paper finds that important democratic gains have been made. I argue that the emergence of new mechanisms for Indigenous and popular participation has the potential to strengthen democracy by enhancing or stretching liberal democratic conceptions and expectations.

Paper / Communication

Abstract: This paper seeks to develop a deeper understanding of how standards for determining whether a claimant has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” are developed and applied. Asylum policy has become particularly politicized as providing an opportunity for economic migrants to ‘jump the queue. This has been coupled with political pressure to speed up the processing of claims, so as to ensure the return of dubious claimants as quickly as possible. Access to reliable information in order to process claims ‘fairly’ becomes an important way through which to frame restrictive changes such that they are consistent with treaty and international norms. While some point the adjudicator’s personal values or the lack of legal representation as important variables effecting the success of a claimant, there is lack of understanding of the role of the Country of Origin (‘CO’) reports that inform the whole process. This paper seeks to fill this gap by focusing on the procedures that are used in Canada to designate a country as either safe or not. How do the experts involved in writing CO reports for countries attempt to measure fear, safety and risk? And how do the people responsible for adjudicating cases make sense of and apply the information presented to them? The goal is not simply to destabilize the myth of ‘objective’ knowledge or expertise, but to consider the ways in which the experts involved in the implementation of asylum policy, and migration policy more generally, experiment with resistance and change within existing structures.

Abstract: "Since the 1970s, First Nations in Canada have developed tripartite arrangements with federal and provincial governments in a range of governance and service delivery areas. Little research attention has been paid to these agreements, which some some scholars dismiss as “mere” devolution. Notably, though, the number of such agreements has tripled since 2000. Three scholars (Papillon, 2008 and 2011; Alcantara and Nelles, 2013) debate whether the proliferation of regional tripartite service delivery agreements marks an overlooked instance of multi-level governance (MLG) and more collaborative Crown/indigenous relationship. Beyond this, the basic pragmatic question remains. Do such agreements promote positive changes to services for First Nation communities and their members? The proposed paper focuses on the second question, while also contributing to the first. Seeking to gauge the impact of tripartite approaches on services for First Nations, it analyses regional tripartite arrangements in four sectors: First Nation policing, child welfare, primary/secondary education, and health. It then draws on available evaluations, scholarly, and “grey” literature in seeking to identify challenges and successes at the crucial stage of implementation. The paper will argue that, by and large, tripartite approaches to First Nations service delivery have not yet realized their goal to improve the outcomes of the people receiving these services. That said, some have shown real promise in promoting the conditions necessary to improve those outcomes. Such achievements should not be dismissed in any context—and certainly not in service areas with as vexed a history as these."