‘Kubernáo’ a Greek word which means to ‘steer’, was used by Plato to conceptualize a ruler’s guide in decision making. This eventually developed into what is presently understood as Governance. In the long historical development of this concept, there have been many models, standards and score cards that attempt to define what ‘good governance’ is. The understanding and exercise of governance is also as numerous and as varied as the multitude of nations and Peoples who lived their own forms of governance.

Indigenous Peoples and Governance

“For the Lumad, Governance is the exercise of self-determination,” said Edtami Mansayagan, an Aromanen Menuvu and a Fellow of Samdhana Institute. He is one of the first Commissioners of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) from 1997 to 2003, also was a member of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UN EMRIP) for Asia and the Pacific, from 2014 to 2020. 

In the past, the Lumad, a term used to collectively refer to the Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao in the Philippines, had no need to strictly identify the constituency under specific leaders. Mansayagan explained that leaders became leaders by customary standards – they had the wisdom and capacity to lead, and they abided by customary laws and expectations of the community. 

“Each People (tribu) had their own idea of governance over their respective territories,” Mansayagan said. “They were autonomous, complete and could resolve issues and conflicts among themselves. Self-determination, and thus governance, necessarily entails the exercise of collective rights and collective responsibility.”

Presently, however, this collective responsibility has become a vague idea. Influences external to the indigenous communities have introduced individualism and many leaders have been coopted for self-gain. This complication has led to the need for a clear definition of constituencies to whom leaders would be accountable to.

“Mainstream [postcolonial] governance is based on an individual – an individual’s right to vote,” Mansayagan said. “Ideally, the person elected is accountable to the voter and the voter can choose new leaders. However, for IPs, leaders are not elected. If they are bad, then their constituency suffers.”

Erwin Quiñones, Deputy Executive Director for Philippines and Mekong Operation of Samdhana Institute, shares from their experience in the Philippines that community members simply tend to stop attending activities if they don’t like the leadership. There is also the possibility of looking towards other institutions within or outside community where they have hope of being given a voice or where they can feel acknowledged, their problems addressed.

The presence of other institutions in the lives of Indigenous Peoples has also greatly impacted the way the communities govern themselves. “During colonial and postcolonial periods, many of the communities’ way of life has mirrored mainstream institutions,” Quiñones said. “Some leaders have, for example, become part of the Catholic church or the religious denominations influential in their localities. The leadership concepts of these institutions have mixed with indigenous traditions.”

The bigger problem in defining the governance of indigenous communities, however, comes from the government institution that is supposed to help the communities – the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The NCIP has required all applicants for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title to submit a structure of their Indigenous Political System (IPS).

“With the introduction of the requirements for the recognition of their AD, they are sometimes forced to create structures that are no longer present,” said Quiñones. They sometimes follow whatever mainstream institutions they have been exposed to. And when presented with ‘templates’ from the NCIP, they appropriate these governance structures even if it doesn’t work for them or is not according to their lived experiences.”

Quiñones notes that some communities also confuse IPS with Indigenous People’s Organizations (IPO) precisely because their traditional governance has not been working for a long time. What has been present and assisting the community in their daily needs could be non-traditional organizations.

“In this case, who are we to say that this IPO, which may be effective in governance, is not valid or authentic because it is not composed of ‘customary leaders’?” said Quiñones. “What the community identifies as their governance structure should be respected. These are the structures that we, as external organizations, should support and not impose our own understanding.”

The Pakayan Proposal of the Aromanon Menuvu

For the Illianen community of the Aromanon Menuvu, they see the clear need to first reestablish clan-based governance. “There had been no need for extensive formations in the old days because everything can be resolved within the family or among families,” said Mansayagan. “Today, there are issues and conflicts that involve non-IP parties. It has made conflict resolution and decision-making more complicated. We, the leaders and elders of our community, have discussed this and we came to the conclusion that there should be a clear set of constituencies that would held a specific leader accountable for decisions that will be made.”

They propose to go back to their traditional concept of a pekayan which means someone who is trustworthy. A pekayan would be the identified leader of at least three families. Issues that need to be addressed at a higher level will be addressed by a Pekilukasen. A Pekilukasen will be responsible – or be held accountable by – nine to ten families. These are the most basic units necessary.

It should be noted that more complicated structures of governance had not been necessary for all indigenous communities. The development of their systems had depended on their context and situation, the nature of their production, transactions and relationships. [JJ1] Although they might have an identified a leader for their larger community, this leader didn’t have to be the decision-maker for everything.

The Aromanon Menuvu, for example, only has a Timuay at the level of an Ugpaan, composed of several groups of families headed by a Pekilukasen. Admittedly, many of the Aromanon Menuvu had misused the term ‘Timuay’ simply because that was their immediate association when they are asked how they call their ‘leader.’ But that level of leadership had not always been present in small communities that more often only have the presence of several Pekayan or a Pekilukasen.

“The need to seek the intervention or mediation of the Timuay had been rare,” said Mansayagan. “In the past, conflicts could be resolved by families, among neighbors. It is only now that there is outsider influences that conflicts are also more complicated and thus there is a need for someone who could look at the bigger picture and not just within families.”

Rethinking IP Governance in the Work of Non-Profits and Non-Government Organizations

“Let them define their own governance systems,” said Quiñones. “As an institution that is external to the communities’ historical development, we should not expect to encounter the same structure or institutions in different communities we engage with.”

Quiñones finds it therefore necessary that organizations that want to work with indigenous communities should observe how they manage themselves. Their way of governance is not always the same, not even when the communities are of the same People.

“Consequently, the idea of good governance is also not absolute. Each leader has his or her own way of leading their community. Leadership is usually tested over time,” Quiñones said. “It’s not a matter of bad or good governance but rather to have a governance system that respects the rights of IPs.”

In the development of new systems of governance appropriate to the present situation of the communities, Mansayagan also noted that it is also necessary that the traditional leaders are still given importance and are consulted. When existing community leaders are excluded, this could cause factions within the community especially when outside parties come in and favor one group over another.

In the work of Samdhana Institute among the Indigenous Peoples in Northern Mindanao, this method of observing and supporting has been employed. For the Higaonon People, for example, the communities define Gaup or Talogan, understood to be the basic unit of their governance, differently. The terminologies they use when referring to their leaders, to the meetings of leaders or community members vary depending on their experiences. The highest meeting of leaders among the Higaonon, the Dumalongdong, was not regular. It was only called for when the need arises. And since in the olden times communities could govern themselves and resolve issues at a lower level, there was no need for a constant meeting of leaders.

Evolving Governance

The change in the problems that affect the communities had necessarily changed their governance needs. In present time, they have to abide by policies and laws that were set beyond their communities. Despite having a national law that supposedly recognizes an independent Indigenous Political Structures, some of the IPS that were created as part of government ‘requirements’ for recognition are still tied to mainstream politics. The management of their territory and resources are not fully within their control.

“Governance entails generating and managing your own resources,” said Mansayagan. However, laws like the Mining Act which encompasses the minerals within Ancestral Domains, are beyond the control of the IPS. Even with Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), supposedly giving the indigenous communities freedom to decide for or against external proposals for their territorial resources, they are struggling to assert their right to self-determination.

“What is the scope of the territory being governed?” asked Quiñones. “Even if you have constituencies but they don’t have a clear control over their territories, could you call it governance?”

The exchanges and the evolution on indigenous governance is ongoing. For Samdhana, we remain committed to supporting facilitate the process and to bring in the broadest participation, especially those of the women and youth. More spaces are needed to continue connecting and listening among members within the communities, at the unified ancestral domain level and between Peoples, to bring forward a robust governance that addresses the needs of the people and the times. 

* The Indigenous Governance series is an ongoing documentation and capturing of stories and lessons Samdhana has encountered together with the IPLCs we partner with in the last six years since 2017.

Basic course on fund raising june 24-26, 2024

Art of engagement: donor management june 27, 2024