Halito-
The merit concept of leadership is probably the closest to
what
I consider to be the most adaptable to making consensus functional
among
Nations.
I am not sure whether this concept of leadership on the basis
of merit
was true for every Nation before the appearance of Europeans.
It would
be interesting to get opinions from the Elders of different
Nations
on this.
Also we could discuss whether merit related to character- i.e.
to one
who was honorable, trustworthy, and 'belonged to the People' (had
only
the whole People's interest at heart) or to a functional merit-i.e.
was
a leader of hunters, or warriors. Perhaps another merit would be
in
the
form of Spiritual leadership. Certain men perhaps had the personal
power
and integrity to have had more than one of these meritorious
attributes-
but I imagine they were few and far between.
Then there is the method of acquiring leadership through ones
charismatic
personality or command of language and persuasive abilities.
And
we haven't yet begun to discuss personal motivation for those who
sought
or accepted a role of leadership.
One thing is certain- in the old days the People were unified in
some
undeniable ways- they needed and depended on each other to obtain
food
and the necessities of life, to protect each other from enemies, to
support
each other culturally, to marry and procreate, to promote art,
beauty
and entertainment in each others lives, and to sustain each other
and
fulfill their spiritual responsibilities to the Earth and the
Powers.
Before the European occupation, however, there was no need for
the
leadership to be rigid and defined. Most probably it was fluid and
as changeable
as the People themselve. Choice and re-choice was the
option
of everyone- no one was locked into a relationship of leadership
or constituancy
that could not be changed. Certainly there were Nations
who
had more organized and formal forms of decision making than others-
perhaps
these are the Nations we should look to in order to examine
forms
of alternative govt. Undoubtedly they had the most experience in
dealing
with the governing of large bodies of People. After the coming
of the
Europeans and their desire to manipulate the nations by forcing
them
to recognize 'leaders' to represent their 'interests' in treaty
negociations,
(though we all know that many of these so-called leaders
were
chosen by the govt and not by the People- many of whom did not even
understand
the concept of representative leadership that the Europeans
demanded),
the concepts of leadership took on different meaning.
Today we face generations of being told what to do. Many of our
'leaders'
during these times were functionally powerless. Many were
simply
puppets of the Feds. All the meritorious things that leaders
used
to do for the People- acquiring food, or prestige, or honor in
battle,
or deciding where to winter, etc- all these decisions were
forced
on us by our 'guardians'. What was there for a 'leader' to do?
To be
on the tribal council gave one a certain self gratification and
prestige,
at least in the eyes of the Feds. That prestige is and was
attractive
to some tribal members. There were also the perks of being
the
original tribal representatives to govt treatying and tribal
councils-
gifts and favors from the Feds.
Today we have to face a difficult climate. To steal a quote from
a popular
novel-
"when the entire surface of the earth is changed, there is
nothing
to do but live on it as it is. We cannot camp by the shore of a
lake
if it is now a creek. We cannot follow a trail the earth has
swallowed
up. We cannot eat buffalo that died in the time of our
grandfathers."
What are the characteristics of leadership in todays's Nations?
What
types of leadership is relevant. Does leadership relate to the
actions
one undertakes for the People or does it also imply public
political
activism? Are representative leaders necessary? Can groups of
People
effectively obtain power and govern through council and consensus
without
having 'leaders'? What are the attributes today's People expect
in their
leaders? Should leadership be private through example or public
through
organization? Will the People choose them or will they put
themselves
forward to be chosen, much the way the US politicians do?
What
if the People who have the capacity to lead, choose not to do so
because
of the enmity it can bring them from others? What if many of the
People
do not view anyone capable to represent them, or who do not
choose
to make their ideas known? These are just a few of the more
pressing
questions I believe we face. If changes are to come about in
the
way we govern ourselves so that sovereignty be preserved and
augmented-
some People will have to step forward, give of their time and
energy
to bring people together for discussion of issues, or present
ideas
to the People with which they can accept and agree upon, then
initiate
actions to have these ideas and changes implemented. Whether
this
occurs through fed acceptance or sovereign agreement, these hardy
few
will suffer for their sacrifice- that's a given! But they are needed-
now!