doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.12095 Democratic Multinationalism: A Political Approach to Indigenous-State Relations Fiona MacDonald Many western settler societies appear to be relin- quishing greater autonomy to their various Indigenous populations. 1 Yet in these same societies Indigenous populations are experiencing social problems of epi- demic proportions. This has certainly been the case in the Canadian context. Canada has been a frontrunner in adopting the discourse of Indigenous autonomy in its political initiatives from healthcare to welfare. Despite this approach, however, there has been little improve- ment in the well being of Canada’s Indigenous popu- lations. In fact, in many ways, the situation appears to be getting worse. 2 These circumstances beg for criti- cal inquiry into the concept of Indigenous autonomy and the meanings that are attached to its employment by various agents. The argument presented here uncov- ers and responds to the limitations and constraints of current conceptions of autonomy and contributes to a new dialogue that has emerged in pursuit of theoretical approaches that understand Indigenous autonomy as a political practice rather than a resource to be distributed by a benevolent state. Drawing on a Canadian case discussion, I situ- ate Indigenous autonomy in a robustly political model of democratic multinationalism—an approach centered on practices of relationality, agonism and delibera- tion. This approach runs contrary to those of domi- nant multiculturalists. 3 While most Indigenous scholars and activists do not identify as part of the multicultur- alism rubric (nor do they self identify as a ‘minority group’), prominent scholars of multicultural citizenship (most notably Will Kymlicka) have nevertheless made the experiences of Indigenous peoples a central part of their scholarship and the prescriptive force of this work should not be underestimated. Recent court deci- sions on Aboriginal rights in Canada have increasingly moved towards a more restrictive notion of Aboriginal rights based on ‘culture,’ a fact demonstrated by the 1996 Van Der Peet decision. 4 This approach has also been found problematic from a policy perspective in assessments of the devolution practices in Canada cen- tered on certain conceptions of Indigenous “autonomy”. In these instances, the discourse of cultural autonomy employed by the state masks a kind of neoliberal priva- tization of Indigenous issues and policy jurisdictions. 5 As we shall see, the multiculturalist model is highly vulnerable to co-optation by Canadian governments. This vulnerability is in large part due to the fact that multicultural citizenship is exclusively framed as a cultural issue that excludes any in depth discussion of the political relationships and processes required for meaningful Indigenous autonomy. 6 In contrast, the democratic multinationalism approach outlined here is centered on understanding Indigenous issues as inher- ently political in nature, as opposed to culturally defined and constituted, and therefore better meets the chal- lenges of the colonial legacy and context of deep dif- ference in which Indigenous-state relations take place today; a context that, due to the effects of colonialism, is fraught with mistrust, inequality, competing interests and misrecognition. From this perspective, Indigenous peoples are po- litically distinct Peoples. Indigenous peoples are not “immigrants among immigrants” 7 nor “citizens plus” 8 nor “minorities” among a majority. 9 Instead, as Tully compellingly argues, Indigenous peoples must be rec- ognized as Peoples both constitutionally and dialogi- cally. In fact, the constitution must be understood as perpetually contingent on dialogue. “The primary ques- tion is thus not recognition, identity or difference, but freedom: the freedom of members of an open society to change the constitutional rules of mutual recogni- tion and association from time to time as their identities change”. 10 Constitutional accommodations are now in- creasingly understood as unable to deal with the reali- ties of self-determination justly and pragmatically in a multinational democratic context. Still, recent political practices of “recognition” and “minority rights-based” accommodation have been closed in nature and have taken Indigenous-state relations in Canada further away from the kind of holistic and process-oriented change recommended in the long completed Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Report. 11 Whereas the commission included the views of many Indigenous peoples on Indigenous-state relations in Canada as articulated by Indigenous peoples through a consultative process, the recent state led devolution ini- tiatives are not indicative of taking up these recommen- dations or a change in relationship between Indigenous peoples and the various aspects of the Canadian state. Instead these initiatives are evidence of cooptation of In- digenous discourse to meet state objectives. While some scholars have taken this current reality as a reason to turn away from Indigenous-state interactions, 12 I, like Tully, advocate the need to further “sketch out” and develop Constellations Volume 21, No 4, 2014. C  2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.