H ISTORISKA INSTITUTIONEN
A comparative analysis of the Norwegian and Swedish states Sami politics 1980-1999
An examination of the two states view of Sami identities and how Sami politics was legitimised
Master’s programme in modern history Master’s thesis in history: 45 credits Author’s name: Amalie Drage Habbestad Name of supervisor: Björn Furuhagen Semester: Spring 2021
Date of submission: 17th of May 2021
Abstract
This thesis will analyse the framework of ideas that legitimised the new Sami politics from 1980- 1990, and utilises a comparative analysis to explore how and why the similar states of Norway and Sweden, developed dissimilar Sami policies and had dissimilar official views of the Sami during this period. Sami policy and the states’ official view of Sami identity will be examined through three chosen themes: attitudes towards reindeer herding Sami identity, the establishment of the Sami Parliaments, and the different attitudes to the International Labour Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal peoples. This will explain the different trajectories Sami policy took during the period analysed, and will show that Norwegian Sami policy relied to a greater extent on international norms of indigenous rights, which meant that Sami policy was treated as indigenous policy only. Additionally, the Norwegian state developed a view on Sami identity as being more heterogenous, but focused on the geographical area of the county of Finnmark in order to resolve Sami demands on rights to land and natural resources. Comparatively, Swedish Sami policy will be shown to have relied on national norms of Sami policy that had been formed in the 19th century, based on the segregation of reindeer herding Sami and non-reindeer herding Sami. This will be shown to have affected the states’ view of the Sami as dually indigenous and a national ethnic minority, which to some extent hindered the Sami in Sweden from gaining national and international recognition as indigenous.
Acknowledgements
The process of writing this thesis would not have been possible without the support of a number of people and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to them. I would like to thank my supervisor Björn Furuhagen for the support and advise during the process of writing this thesis. My deepest gratitude also goes out to my good friend and proof reader extraordinaire Amalie
‘Amsi’ Egeland Moen. Thank you for the time you have spent reading through this thesis, as well as the moral support you have given me throughout this process. You are the best Amsi. I would like to thank my family: Mum, Dad, and my four sisters who are always there for me, they are an endless source of inspiration, love, and comfort. Thank you to my friends, in particular Hannah, Sofi and Amanda, for discussing my thesis with me. Sofi especially for inviting me to every online seminar that could possibly be connected to my thesis. Thank you all for providing excellent moral support and banter during this very strange year. Lastly, studying this master programme would not have been the same without the amazing history group, ‘historians just wanna have fun’, who have during my two years in Uppsala been a fabulous group of historians to discuss ideas with, as well as have a laugh. These two years would not have been the same without you.
Clarification of terms and abbreviations
Reindeer husbandry and reindeer herding identity: these terms will be used interchangeably in this thesis Sameby/Sami village: in Sweden the Sami village system is a judicial unit that manages the right to reindeer herding, as well as hunting, fishing and natural resources connected to the Sami village.
Only Sami who has a membership to a Sami village can execute these rights. In some cases, the Sami village system is based on the traditional Sida system, however this is not always the case.
ILO: International Labour Organisation
C169: ILO Convention no. 169 will for the most part be referred to as C169.
NOU: Norske offentlige utredninger: Official Norwegian Reports
SOU: Statens offentliga utredningar: Official Reports of the Swedish Government
Sápmi: this is the term used to describe the geographical area that the Sami have traditionally lived and used. The area stretches over the north of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.
Sameting/Sámediggi: Sami Parliament will be used for the sake of simplicity in this thesis.
Norwegification/Swedification: These were the terms commonly used for the assimilation policies in Norway and Sweden towards the Sami as well as other minority groups, such as the Kven and Tornedalingar.
ICCPR: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights In Norway: Storting/In Sweden: Riksdag: Parliament
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 1
Acknowledgements ... 1
Clarification of terms and abbreviations ... 2
Chapter one ... 6
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1 Sami policy in the similar states of Norway and Sweden should be very similar, right? ... 6
1.2 Norway and Sweden: Sami – state relationship and Sami policy in history ... 6
1.3 Assimilation policies: Norway ... 8
1.4 Assimilation policies: Sweden ... 9
1.5 The build-up to a shift in Sami policy ... 9
1.6 Developments of indigenous – state relationship in other parts of the world ... 11
1.7 Empirical source material produced by the state ... 12
1.8 The chosen period of time examined ... 14
1.9 Research questions and purpose ... 15
1.10 Method and chapter breakdown ... 16
1.11 Previous research, comparative history and studying state-indigenous relationship in Scandinavia 21 1.12 Other scholarship, comparative and otherwise, on indigenous – state relationship ... 23
Chapter two ... 25
2. Norwegian and Swedish Sami policy and official view on Sami reindeer herding identity: A comparative analysis of how Sami identities were legitimised. ... 25
2.1 Historical background of the attitudes of the two states towards Sami reindeer herding identity ... 25
2.2 This chapter will examine ... 27
2.3 Research on indigenous identities ... 28
2.4 The official view of Sami reindeer herding identity within Sami politics: Norway ... 30
2.5 Did Norwegian political development on Sami issues affect Sweden? ... 32
2.6 The official view of Sami reindeer herding identity within Sami politics: Sweden ... 32
2.7 A short overview of the Sami village system ... 33
2.8 Did the ideologies behind the ‘Lapp shall remain Lapp’ policy impact Sami policy in the 1980’s and 1990’s? 34 2.9 SOU reports from the 1990’s construction of reindeer herding identity ... 39
2.10 Comparative conclusions ... 40
Chapter three ... 43
3 A comparative analysis of the establishment of the Sami Parliaments and the implication of institutionalising Sami identity through electoral registers ... 43
3.1 Historical context of the establishment of the Sami Parliaments and other indigenous self- government institutions ... 43
3.2 This chapter will examine ... 44
3.3 Previous comparative research on the Sami Parliaments and other indigenous self-governments ... 45
3.4 Why were the Sami Parliaments founded? ... 46
3.5 The establishment of the Sami Parliament: Norway ... 47
3.6 The establishment of the Sami Parliament: Sweden ... 50
3.7 Comparative conclusions ... 52
3.8 The Sami Parliaments electoral register and Sami identity: Norway ... 53
3.9 The Sami Parliament electoral register and Sami identity: Sweden ... 55
3.10 Comparative analysis ... 56
Chapter four ... 58
4. The parting of the ways: the road to and consequences of Norway’s ratification and Sweden’s non- ratification of the ILO Convention 169. Comparing Sami policies and official views on Sami identity in the 1990’s. ... 58
4.1 Historical context ... 58
4.2 This chapter will examine ... 59
4.3 Comparative research on state attitudes towards and adoption of the ILO Convention no. 169. ... 60
4.4 Why did Norway ratify C169? ... 62
4.5 What followed in terms of Sami policy in the aftermath of the ratification of the C169? ... 63
4.6 The Finnmark Act ... 64
4.7 The Sami in Sweden: a national minority, indigenous people, or both? Why did Sweden not ratify the C169? What happened to Sami policy and the official view of the Sami in the 1990’s? ... 66
4.8 The Swedish deliberation on C169, and the probable causes for non-ratification ... 67
4.9 Swedish indigenous policy abroad: the blue water principle ... 70
4.10 Comparative conclusions ... 71
Chapter five ... 75
5. Conclusions ... 75
Sources and literature ... 80
Primary sources ... 80
Norwegian official print: ... 80
Swedish official print: ... 80
Literature ... 81
Chapter one
1. Introduction
1.1 Sami policy in the similar states of Norway and Sweden should be very similar, right?
During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the Sami began pressuring the Norwegian and Swedish states to take Sami issues seriously and to disavow the assimilationist policies of the states’ pasts in favour of policies that recognised the Sami’s rights as the indigenous people of Norway and Sweden.
This political pressure partly arose from major conflicts between the Sami and the states; in Norway it was in the form of the Alta crisis when the state wanted to dam up the Alta river, which in turn caused the greatest civil disobedience protests since the Second World War. In the end the state ended up getting the proposal through, but the political climate on Sami politics was conclusively changed. In Sweden, the conflict was related to the Taxed Mountain case, a dispute over reindeer grazing rights in the Taxed Mountain, where similarly the Swedish supreme court decided in favour of the state.
This thesis seeks to explain and examine how and why Norway and Sweden developed dissimilar Sami politics during the 1980’s and 1990’s, and why the two states responded dissimilarly to international treaties on recognition of indigenous rights. Moreover, this thesis will also seek to explore what implications the Sami politics had on the legitimisation and institutionalisation of official Sami identities. This will be achieved by a comparative analysis of three categories that were significant to the development of the new Sami politics in Norway and Sweden during these two decades: reindeer herding Sami identity, the establishment of the Sami Parliaments, and the Norwegian ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal peoples, as well as Swedish non-ratification of the aforementioned convention.
These three themes all show important variations and dissimilarities in the two otherwise similar welfare-states’ approach to Sami politics, which rendered the Sami—who considers themselves one people living across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia- in very different legal situations as well as achieving different degrees of recognition of indigenous and minority rights, self-government, and autonomy.
1.2 Norway and Sweden: Sami – state relationship and Sami policy in history
Firstly, I would like to offer an overview over the Norwegian and Swedish states historical relationship with the Sami. Who are the indigenous Sami people? The mere word indigenous has
been debated for a long time, and I do not intend to solve this debate here. I will subscribe to Bartholomew and Levi’s explanation that:
…in English, the term indigenous conveys the meaning of being native or belonging naturally to a place. As a synonym for native (based on the idea of antecedence), indigenous has a long history of use in Europe. In contrast, the label indigenous peoples is a relatively novel one, appearing in treaties and conventions promulgated after the establishment of the UN in the wake of the Second World War.1
In Norwegian and Swedish, indigenous peoples would be translated to urfolk.2Another useful definition of indigenous peoples in the context of the Sami, is a peoples who lived in a geographical area before national boarders were drawn, and who have successfully maintained entirely or partially their social, economic and cultural institutions.3The Sami are the only recognised indigenous people in Europe, and this is due to their distinct culture, language and community life, as well as their connection to the geographical areas in the north of what is today Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Kola Peninsula in Russia.4 The Sami was a hunter-gatherer culture, but it is estimated that the Sami around the 16th and 17th century started partially developing and relying on reindeer husbandry and reindeer herding as primary way of life and income.5
It is difficult determine from historical written sources exactly when the distinct Sami culture and language commenced, but it is clear that Sami settlements existed in all four countries before the formation of the same aforementioned states. Critically, there is a mention of the Sami in the sources from the Viking Ottar’s communication with King Alfred of England from the year 890, which states that there were two people living in Norway: the Sami and the Norwegians. In many ways, this serves to legitimize the Sami as indigenous of these areas.6
According to a Norwegian report from 1994, Norwegian colonisation with the goal to increase the settlement of ethnical Norwegians in the region of Finnmark, an area traditionally mainly populated by the Sami, was an explicit goal already from the late 15th century onwards.7 Further internal colonisation with the goal of outnumbering the Sami with Norwegian population in northern territories was also supported by the state as late as the mid-19th century.8 The Swedish colonisation of the Sami started in the 16th century and further developed with the purpose of offering farming land to Swedish settlers from the southern regions in the late 17th century.9 The
1 Dean and Levi 2003, p. 5
2 Formerly urbefolkning, but this term was deemed unsuitable during the 1980’s, as that would translate to indigenous populations.
3 "Är Samerna Ett Urfolk? - Sametinget". 2021. Sametinget. Accessed May 14. https://www.sametinget.se/urfolk
4 To use the word language is somewhat of an oversimplification, as there are in fact several Sami languages that are used by Sami today.
5 NOU 1984:18, p. 120
6 NOU 1984:18, p. 404
7 NOU:1994:21, p. 93
8 NOU:1994:21, p. 93; Internal colonisation: Similar to, but less known compared to the more familiar settler colonisation of in example the Americas
9 SOU 1986:36, p. 43–44
colonisation caused conflicts about land and natural resources between Sami and the Swedish settlers, which have lasted until today.10
In 1814, as Denmark – Norway was on the losing side of the Napoleonic war, Denmark was forced to give Norway up to Sweden, and Norway entered a union with Sweden. However, Norway got their own constitution as well as their own governing body, on the condition that they accepted the Swedish king and did not interfere with foreign policy. Thus, in effect, the two states started to develop their own modern policies, including Sami policy, which developed very dissimilarly.
The 19th century saw the beginning of Sami policies that were based on the ideologies of nationalism, social Darwinism, and eugenics. Although the idea that the Sami should be assimilated into Norwegian and Swedish society developed simultaneously in both states, it did not develop similarly.
1.3 Assimilation policies: Norway
In Norway from 1850’s and onwards there was an overall harsh assimilation policy towards the Sami, which aimed to eradicate Sami language and culture through law. This included bans on language and cultural expressions of in example yoik. As Eva Josefsen, Ulf Mörkenstam and Jo Saglie argue, the school policies in particular, which only allowed Norwegians in the classroom, were responsible for «…huge cultural and sociocultural consequences in creating feelings of shame, self-denial and defeat in terms of being Sámi.” 11
In 1905, Norway was peacefully emancipated from Sweden, and became, - like Sweden - a democratic constitutional monarchy. Henriette Sinding Aasen argues that the motivation to assimilate the Sami only grew stronger after Norway gained independence from Sweden in 1905 due to a surge of nationalistic framed policy aimed at ensuring a homogenous Norwegian citizenship.12 This was in part expressed thought the harsh assimilationist policy aimed at the Sami.
Consequently, contrary to Swedish assimilation policy, reindeer herding Sami in Norway were only tolerated and were thus targeted though assimilation policies on the same basis as non-reindeer herding Sami.13 The 19th century also saw the rise of racial biology, and in 1922 the institute for racial biology was founded in Uppsala.14 Both in Norway and in Sweden phrenology was utilised to study the Sami and other minority groups, in order to study race and to prevent racial mixing to preserve the ‘homogenous’ Norwegian and Swedish people. Additionally, the Sami along with other minorities during this period, in both countries, were subjected to cruel mistreatment which included lobotomization and forced sterilisation, among other things. This is additionally parallel
10 SOU 1986:36, p. 43–44
11 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015, p. 36
12 Aasen 2005, p. 465
13 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015, p. 36
14 Samers rättigheter; Motion 2011/12:K210 av Mia Sydow Mölleby m.fl. (V)
to the history of other contemporary minorities and indigenous peoples in many corners of the world, due to such ideas of racial hierarchies and eugenics.
1.4 Assimilation policies: Sweden
Swedish assimilation policy, as previously stated, developed somewhat differently to Norwegian assimilation policy. Lantto and Mörkenstam argues that the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century saw Sami policy in Sweden focusing on the protection of the nomadic way of life of the reindeer herding Sami as the main lane of Sami policy.15 This in turn meant that the only
‘authentic’ Sami from the point of view of the state was the nomadic reindeer herding Sami, who in actuality were a minority of the Sami population in Sweden. This led to the segregation of the Sami in Sweden based on romanticised ideas about indigenous identity; the reindeer herding Sami were to be protected from modern society due to their authentic ethnicity, while the non-reindeer herding Sami who were to assimilate into Swedish society and become Swedish citizens. This became known as the ‘Lapp shall remain Lapp policy’. It should be explained that the term Lapp was previously used in both Norway and Sweden to describe the Sami people. Notably, the term Lapp is by contemporary standards considered a derogatory term or even a racist slur, having become so, especially in the period of time examined in this thesis, a derogatory term or even a racist slur. It will be argued in this thesis, as Lantto and Mörkenstam does, that this fundamental ideology continues influence Swedish Sami politics to this day and became the main differentiation between Norwegian and Swedish Sami politics.
Nevertheless, Sami people during this period were forcibly removed from their traditional living areas, non-reindeer herding Sami were assimilated and harsh state policies banned the Sami language in a similar fashion as Norway did, except for the reindeer herding Sami.
1.5 The build-up to a shift in Sami policy
The Second World War was two extremely different experiences for Norway and Sweden, and left the two countries in vastly different situations in 1945. While Sweden’s neutrality strategy had succeeded, the situation in Norway after five years of foreign occupation was utterly different. Why this this is relevant can be exemplified with actions such as during the autumn of 1944 German occupational forces burnt large parts of Finnmark and northern Troms down, leaving many with nothing.16 This is one of many examples that illustrates that Norway and Sweden had totally different start off points socially and politically after the war had ended; Sweden could continue as usual, whereas Norway had a whole country to rebuild with a fragile economy at that.
15 Lantto and Mörkenstam 2008, p. 29–30
16 NOU:1994:21, p. 170
After the war, both Norway and Sweden set out to build welfare-states, where universalism and equality were to be the core building blocks. The development did in general enhance the living conditions for its citizens, and it was generally thought that the Sami, as citizens of the welfare state were on equal standing with the majority population when it came to opportunities within the welfare state and socioeconomic standing. Which, according Broderstad, only lead to further cultural assimilation of Sami.17 In other words, there is little that suggests that the development of the welfare states paid any particular attention to the Sami as indigenous minorities within the nation state. Regardless, due to the revelations of the horrors of the Second World War harsh assimilation policies were abandoned little by little.18 Nevertheless, active assimilation targeting the Sami through the school system, in Norway at least, lasted through to the 1960’s.19 There is some debate on the subject, but I would agree with Henry Minde, who argues that at least an inactive assimilation process lasted until the Sami Rights Commissions of the 1980’s evaluated the legal positions of the Sami within the states and the establishment of the Sami Parliaments.20
Thus, we arrive at the period of state Sami politics that this thesis will examine, the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The Taxed Mountain Case in Sweden, and in Norway the Alta crisis, put Sami issues on the political map, in addition to pressures from Sami organisations and the fact that the international discourse on indigenous rights was taking off.21 One can describe the processes of incorporating Sami issues into the political discourse that commenced during the 1980’s as a set of new issues that became a political reality.22 The Red Power movement which started in the 1960’s, inspired by the Black Power movement, is an example of how after the Second World War minorities and marginalised people all over the world drew inspiration from one another and sometimes got together in order to become more impactful.23 It is widely recognised that it was not until the 1980’s in both Norway and Sweden that Sami politics became a serious issue, which is evident through the amount of state and government sources devoted to the deliberation of Sami rights, Sami history and the Sami as an indigenous people within the nation state from the 1980’s onwards. At this point it seems pertinent to draw historical parallels to other indigenous peoples within nation states at the time who also struggled for recognition and self-government.
17 Broderstad 2008, p. 172
18 Minde 2003, p. 123
19 Minde 2003, p. 123
20 Minde 2003, p. 122
21 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015, p. 37; Vidmar 2017, p. 167
22 Broderstad 2001, p. 152–153
23 Dean and Levi 2003, p. 9
1.6 Developments of indigenous – state relationship in other parts of the world Assimilationist policies directed towards indigenous peoples within western or similar nation states’ as Norway and Sweden, permeated official policies from the 19th century onwards, as in Norway and Sweden. Indigenous peoples in example in the Americas or in Oceania who had suffered great loss of life, culture, and language due to the harsh nature of settler colonies, were also targeted though assimilation policies.
In some cases, the assimilation efforts contemporary to those in Norway and Sweden were even more egregious, in example with the stolen generation of Aboriginal children in Australia who were adopted away from their families into white families in order to become ‘civilised.’ Similar practises targeting indigenous peoples were also used in North America and Greenland. There was no introspective into these policies being harmful or morally wrong until well after the Second World War. A commonality which can be found in indigenous communities was the political mobilisation from the 1960’s onwards, which aimed to gain back autonomy and sought self-determination in various forms, as the idea of self-determination is to a degree very fluid and meant different things to different indigenous peoples. States’ response to such claims sometimes culminated forms of self-government, as well as acceptance of land and resource rights of which I shall mention an example.
Similar to the Sami in Norway and Sweden, the Inuit in Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland who represented the majority population in Greenland became increasingly politically mobilised aiming for increased self-determination during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Similar to Norway and Sweden, events sparked the flame; in Greenland it involved the forced relocation of a whole mining town in the 1960’s.24Greenland was a colony under Denmark until 1953 when it was incorporated into Denmark, but became a self-governing territory of Denmark in 1979 under The Home Rule Act.25 The Home Rule Act “…allowed the administration of internal affairs (except the police, judicial system, and defence) and adoption of legislation by the Home Rule Government which consists of the Greenland Parliament, an elected assembly, and the Cabinet serviced by various government departments.”26
Thus, securing a high level of indigenous self-determination within the region of Greenland while still connected to the former colonizing country of Denmark. Denmark ratified the International Labour Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in 1996, six years after the Norwegian ratification, and in 2009 a Self-Governing Act was passed in Greenland, providing the majority Inuit population in Greenland with a stronger case of regional legal autonomy.
24 Kuokkanen 2019, p. 64
25 Kuokkanen 2019, p. 62
26 Kuokkanen 2019, p. 62
1.7 Empirical source material produced by the state
The primary sources I have chosen to examine for this thesis are generated from the Norwegian and Swedish state institutions, governments, and parliaments, and are public documents. They concern different aspects, deliberations and evaluations of Sami policies and Sami issues by the states and cover twenty years of complex change in Norwegian and Swedish Sami policy. In addition, international documents of interest have been consulted, namely the ILO Convention 169., and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
The main sources analysed for this thesis are NOU/SOU reports. The NOU/SOU reports are commissioned by the government with a directive, often to deliberate a social issue and to offer recommendations on what the government should do with said issues. In that sense, these reports offer an indirect view of the government opinions, as these committees had directives appointed by the governments, and the suggested proposals that eventually made it through and became a reality offers the direct opinions of the governments who commissioned them. Thus, the proposals that did make it through to actual policy and new laws etc., shall also be examined.
The reason for choosing these sources was due to my interests in further understanding how these official reports developed a certain discourse which influenced the state's official views on indigenous and minority rights, how it contributed to the legitimatisation of certain aspects of Sami identities, as well as activities and economies. Owing to the two states similar structures of deliberating new policy and legal change, these sources are very apt for a comparative analysis. The reports are an excellent choice for this comparative analysis in that the system commissioning SOU/NOU reports function similarly in both Norway and Sweden. The reports were the processes through which both states debated and in turn formulated Sami policies, and thus they offers insight into what precursory ideas and frame of thought these policies were legitimised through and which regional, national, and international processes and ideas that influenced them. Although attitudes professed in these sources sometimes did not lead to any actual policy change, it is helpful to understand why they sometimes did, and other times did not.
Taking part in the commissioned NOU/SOU reports about Sami affairs were often experts in various fields, but there was always a representative from various Sami organisations or a representative that Sami organisations had suggested and later the Sami Parliaments. Other experts in these sources consisted of lawyers, judges, agronomist, members from political parties, and in some cases representatives from interest groups such as forestry associations, farmers, and hunters.
Due to the nature of the different point of views in the diverse group of committee members, being experts or directly affected by the issues discussed, can also tell us something about the general discourse and discursive norms utilised when discussing Sami issues. Certainly, the committees sometimes had diverging opinions on the topics discussed, which were either made
clear as a dissenting vote on certain topics evaluated or through special opinions in the appendix of the report.
Nevertheless, more should be said about the authors of the majority of the primary sources. As Mörkenstam points out in the case of Sweden, which I would argue applies for Norway too, is that:
In Swedish Sami politics there are both implicit and explicit rules for who can speak, from where and how. The Sami have long been and still are to a certain extent excluded from the discourse in the capacity of being Sami, but even “normal” political actors, like members of parliament, have found it difficult to obtain an authoritative status. Scientists - experts, and men with “experience of Sami people”, have been viewed as the only authoritative interpreters of what is Sami and of the political focus. This boarder has been strengthened by the institutional structure - a
large number of public investigations with following parliamentary debates – which at large has guided how participation in the Sami political discourse have been possible.27
Thus, according to Mörkenstam, not just anybody has had the ‘authority’ to speak about Sami issues in these sources. Not even Sami themselves have always been included in discourse on politics that explicitly affect them to a broad degree. This begs the question: what implications does this have for the source material? The authors of these sources usually had a high degree of knowledge on the history of state – Sami relationship, and did include representatives from Sami organisations and/or the Sami parliament at a later stage, and the opinions and recommendations especially from the reports did not always corollate with legislative change.
Therefore, it is important to place the sources within the context of what they did or did not lead to in terms of actual change, both legislatively and politically. The opinions in the sources also do not always represent the opinions of the majority population in both states, but I have found that they do very often correlate with opinions expressed by the politicians formulating Sami policy, which again is a reason for analysing these sources.
Additionally, Else Grete Broderstad points out that the success of the agreement between Sami organisations and the Norwegian government to split the Sami Rights Commission into different parts where
…political issues and the question concerning the development of a representative body for the Saami should be prioritized. This implies that the clarification of political rights were of main concern in the first stage, and resulted in the establishment of procedures for Saami self- representation through the popularly elected Saami Parliament.28
Thus, these sources, particularly the ones produced in relation to the Sami Rights Commission in Norway, and later in Sweden, was a product of some degree of cooperation between the Sami and the states.
Due to the ongoing pandemic, I have been limited to sources that are available online, nevertheless, I have been able to access a wealth of my chosen sources. All sources
27 Mörkenstam 1999, p. 53
28 Broderstad 2008, p. 38–39
examined in this thesis are easily found on the Swedish and Norwegian government and parliament websites. My research is limited to sources written in English, Norwegian and Swedish, as these are the languages I am proficient in. This, and the page limitations of this thesis, is the reasons why I will not at any length discuss Finnish and Russian official view of the Sami. Another aspect of these reports that I would like to mention is that they often have summaries in English and, as a rule, in one or several Sami languages, when the report concerns the Sami.
1.8 The chosen period of time examined
The period I have chosen to analyse is 1980 to 1999 and is a direct result of the empirical sources I have chosen to analyse. The first reports on Sami rights, recognition and status as indigenous came out in both countries in the 1980’s, starting with the NOU 1984:18 Om Samenes Rettsstilling, in English: On the legal position of the Sami. This report was a part of the extensive Sami Rights Commission. The final reports analysed for this thesis is from 1999, and is a Swedish SOU report discussing ratification of the ILO Convention 169. However, this thesis will also take into consideration a Swedish report from 1975, as it dealt directly with reindeer herding and thus connects with and consequently contributed as a foundation for the Swedish reports in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This thesis will also consider the Finnmark Act, which was not established until 2005, but was a direct result of the Norwegian ratification of the ILO convention no. 169, and the reports which followed the ratification.
Given the scope of this thesis, I have chosen to focus primarily on the 1980’s and 1990’s for the analysis of empirical sources, as these two decades were decisive in determining how Sami policy would develop and be constructed in Norway and Sweden. During this period, official Sami policy changed from active and inactive assimilation policies in both countries, towards recognition of certain Sami rights, in particularly indigenous rights or ethnical minority rights. Additionally, both countries established some form of Sami self-government, a Sameting/Sámediggi, or Sami Parliament in English, which I will refer to it as from now on. Moreover, both countries dealt differently with the international pressures of acknowledging Sami rights as indigenous rights, with Norway ratifying the ILO Convention 169. and Sweden not doing so.
Thus, these two decades offer much to comparatively examine when it comes to the two states’
official policy and view of the Sami. As I will discuss regarding the framework of this thesis, I argue that both countries follow similar patterns away from assimilation policies, towards recognition, recognition of certain rights and identities, cooperation, and to some extent reconciliation efforts during these two decades. This period sees the making of official and legitimate Sami identities through the institutionalisation of the two Sami Parliaments and the recognition of certain indigenous and minority rights.
1.9 Research questions and purpose
The aim of this thesis is to analyse, explain and compare the development of Norwegian and Swedish state's politics and official view of the Sami in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and to establish how and why it changed from the assimilation politics that lasted up until the 1980’s. This will be achieved through examining three different themes: reindeer herding identity, the establishment of the Sami Parliaments and the implications of the Norwegian ratification and Swedish non- ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.
The second purpose of this thesis is to seek some understanding of how the states’ official views of the Sami shaped official and legitimised Sami identities, influenced by decisions relating to the three themes analysed, and to problematise this within the context of international laws and internationally accepted ideas of indigenous rights at the time. Another area of interest is to consider the different levels upon which these official politics operated upon, local, national, Nordic and international levels, all of which intertwine. This thesis will argue that the different paths of Sami policy chosen by these two very similar welfare states, were to some extent caused by the historical relationship with the Sami and the respective states.
I argue that before the time analysed, both states followed similar patterns of colonisation and assimilation, and that during the period analysed they developed policies revolving around ideas of recognition, Sami rights as basis of politics, and some cooperation with the Sami and Sami organisations in formulating Sami policies. By means of a comparative analysis, this thesis argues that this developed markedly different for several reasons, and had different outcomes in each state.
The overarching research questions are:
- How were Sami policies constructed differently in Norway and Sweden?
- Was there any form of policy diffusion from one state to another regarding Sami policy?
- And how were Sami politics legitimised and developed within these two decades?
- What happens when the state is responsible, in cooperation with Sami organisations, for institutionalising Sami identity? And how did the states formalise Sami identities?
- Why did the two countries choose differently in the question of ILO Convention no. 169 ratification? Moreover, how did the different outcomes in ILO Convention no. 169 ratification and Sami Parliament establishments render the Sami in the two different countries with different claims to indigenous rights?
- In what way did international pressures on legislation and indigenous rights impact the Sami policy discourse in different ways?
These questions will be subsequently discussed within the framework of the three aforementioned themes that I have chosen as most relevant as categories of analysis.
This thesis will examine how official state reports, debates, protocols, and laws developed and framed Sami politics and the official view on the Sami, and how it was formulated trough these sources. Through comparing the system of beliefs that can be discerned from the empirical sources, I aim to explore how the two states legitimised and developed Sami policy, and their official view of the Sami. My aim is thus also to evaluate and compare how the developments on Sami policy during these two decades left the Sami in Norway and Sweden with different levels of legal protection and recognition as indigenous on a regional, national, and international level.
A comparative model will sharply highlight the differences and be a model which can help identify why such different paths of Sami policy was chosen. This thesis seeks not only to compare and analyse how and why these two similar states ended up choosing different paths of indigenous and minority policy, but also seeks to contribute to the further historical discussion of the development of the recognition, acknowledgment and protection of indigenous rights within nation states.
Lastly, another aim of this thesis is that it might inspire further historical research on this topic, be it about the Sami or other indigenous population. Additionally, this is why writing this thesis in English has been important for me, so that it is available for more people who might be interested in this topic.
1.10 Method and chapter breakdown
This thesis is a comparative analysis of the Norwegian and Swedish states official view of the Sami and their Sami policies in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Norway and Sweden were similar democratic welfare states, who had similar patterns in formulation welfare-state policies as well as a focus on human rights and signing human rights treaties, as well as a wealth of other similarities. Despite this, Norway and Sweden’s approach to Sami politics in this period seems to differ markedly, from creating differently constructed institutions for Sami self-government, to diverging attitudes towards the ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.
It is perhaps more suitable to define my analysis as partially a comparative analysis and partially an entangled history analysis of the development during these two decades, the entanglement and degree of policy diffusion from one country to the other during this period, which is most prominently explored in the second chapter about the establishment of the Sami Parliaments. The comparative method will show that the similar states, Norway and Sweden responded differently to regional, national, and international pressures when it came to developing national Sami policy during these two decades.
Norway and Sweden are two very similar states; indeed it is not long ago that Sweden and Norway were in a union, albeit with different governments, together until 1905. During this period both states were democratic constitutional monarchies, had a significant number of Sami utilising
the land for different purposes and living in the northern regions from time immemorial, and importantly before the states got their borders. Both states had a history of colonisation of Sami territory, a history of active assimilationist policy towards the Sami from at least the 19th century until after the Second World War. Both states after the war intended on constructing welfare states and had a history of valuing human rights and ratifying international human rights treaties. Both the Norwegian and Swedish state were in conflicts concerning land right with the Sami during the 1970’s and 1980’s that resulted in state-initiated commissions to investigate the legal position of the Sami within the state as well as started processes towards some sort of Sami self-government in the 1980’s. There are thus a convincing number of similar factors which makes it poignant to comparatively analyse why the Norwegian and Swedish states had similar issues but developed dissimilar ways of politically dealing with Sami politics and Sami demand for self-determination, identity recognition, self-government and indigenous land and resources rights.
The fact that there was such a difference in the development of Sami policy in Norway and Sweden during these two decades makes the application of the comparative method of Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD) a perfect choice.29When utilising the method of MSSD the compared subjects should be as similar as possible, “…except with regard to the phenomenon…”30which makes a comparison of the dissimilar development of Sami politics in, as described above, very similar Norway and Sweden, a perfect candidate for applying this method.
Another reason why I argue that a comparative approach is highly applicable is because the Sami consider themselves and are considered officially by the states that they currently live in, with perhaps the exception of Russia, one people with a common history and culture living in four different states today. The difference in Sami politics in Norway and Sweden have made it so that the Sami, depending on which country they live in, have different prerequisites for indigenous rights and autonomy as a people. This is where, I argue, the value of exploring the history of why this is, is important. This thesis will also endeavour to place the developments of Norwegian and Swedish indigenous politics in an international context. The main aim is to analyse how the two states shaped official indigenous identity and indigenous/minority politics directed towards the Sami people in different ways, and to evaluate why the two states developed so differently and the comparative impact this had on the levels self-determination achieved by the Sami in the two different states. Various scholars of indigenous studies also advocate for using the method of comparison within the field of indigenous studies and research of the relationship between state and indigenous peoples.31
In order to reconstruct and analyse the sets of belief systems that these sources constructed and/or utilised, I have approached my sources is by applying discourse analysis of power structures,
29 Anckar 2008, p. 389
30 Anckar 2008, p. 389
31 Ruru 2016, p. 23; Henderson 2017, p. 4
legitimacy, identity, framing of indigenous and minority rights and Sami place within majority national society. As I argue that discourse on Sami issues constructed ideas that developed into political reality. I have read and analysed the sources with particular interest in certain themes:
reindeer herding Sami identity, the establishment of the Sami Parliaments, and attitudes towards the ILO Convention no. 169.
The sources reflect different opinions about Sami policy, attitudes about identity, about how to respond to international politics, and of special interest to my research, about how other countries are approaching and interpreting questions about Sami rights, as well as how other countries were dealing with the international pressures at the time concerning indigenous rights. An interesting factor about these sources is precisely what Ryymin and Nyyssönen argues, that:“[P]artly historical research had been part of legitimising political decisions, partly the political processes have generated new research on the minorities.”32 Thus, some of my sources, in particular the reports SOU/NOU’s, have been to some extent informed by developing historical research at the time in order to legitimise Sami policy, which have in turn to some degree informed the state’s official policy towards the Sami.
There are a few core ideas that needs to be clarified when it comes to what is meant by achieving indigenous and/or minority rights, one of them being the right to self-determination, which was in important goal for indigenous people to achieve then and is still today. In Sweden the Sami was recognised as indigenous by the Swedish Parliament in 1977, but only protected by national law under the constitutional protection of ethnic minorities. In 1999 the Sami were recognised as one of five national minorities in Sweden under the protection of the Council of Europe’s framework convention concerning the protection of national minorities.33 The Sami in Norway was recognised as indigenous during the 1980’s, this recognition culminated from a national legal framework standpoint with the Sámi Act of 1987 that states:“[T]he purpose of the Act is to enable the Sami people in Norway to safeguard and develop their language, culture and way of life.»34In addition to constitutional amendment §110a of 1988 in which the state committed itself to secure Sami rights to develop their culture, language and way of life in Norway. Internationally, Norway recognised the Sami as indigenous by ratifying ILO Convention no. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Norway also ratified the Council of Europe’s framework convention concerning the protection of national minorities, however, to secure that Sami issues were treated as indigenous the Sami was not explicitly named as a national minority, but they were protected under the convention, particulary when it comes to language rights.
32 Ryymin and Nyyssönen 2012, p. 543
33 DO:s rapportserie 2008:1, Diskriminering av samer – samers rättigheter ur ett diskrimineringsperspektiv, p. 5
34 The Sámi Act of 12 June 1987 No. 56 concerning the Sameting (the Sami parliament) and other Sami legal matters
The generally accepted definition of a minority was constructed by Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Francesco Capotorti in 1977 and describes a minority as:
A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of the State—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic
characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.35
Another important concept to be aware of is the main difference between minority and indigenous rights is the indigenous ties to land and economies and cultural activities that relies on the usage of said land. As Sinding Aasen explains the difference it is the indigenous peoples
…status as the original inhabitants of a particular territory, or the fact that they inhabited a particular territory before it was colonized, occupied or taken forcibly by a state. Thus, the special position of indigenous peoples within a nation-state derives from their historical rights to particular lands. Such historical continuity and attachment, and the fact that their lands were forcibly taken away from them, from the basis of their claim to self-determination.36
Indigenous people can claim both minority and indigenous rights, but minorities can only claim minority rights which usually entail rights about language and cultural expression. Indigenous rights in the period discussed was also very much tied with goals of achieving the indigenous right to self- determination. Else Grete Broderstad explains self-determination as such: “Self-determination comprises a right to self-government, autonomy, territorial integrity, and the exclusive enjoyment of indigenous land and resources.”37Thus, the concept of self-determination is vital to understand going forward in this examination, as it was one of the expressed goal of not just the Sami, but a goal articulated by indigenous peoples around the globe at the time. The implications. Jeff Corntassel and Marc Woons explains that the concept of self-determination
…has provided stateless Indigenous nations with ways to attempt to (re)assert and (re)claim their authority. Self- determination provides an avenue for Indigenous peoples to create political entities that can be recognised by the international community. The process is based on the idea that people should be free to form their own governments and control their own affairs – something central to the ethics and legality underpinning the United Nations.38
Recognition is another important aspect of indigenous political goals to grasp; the demand to be recognised as an indigenous nation with rights thereafter.39 Recognition as indigenous, or a permanent minority within the nation states, is an important concept that will be analysed comparatively though the source material. This will show that the Norwegian and Swedish states
35 Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation, 2010, p. 2
36 Aasen 2005, p 473–474
37 Broderstad 2011, p. 896
38 Corntassel and Woons 2017, p. 133
39 Spitzer and Selle 2019, p. 726
went to different lengths to secure Sami indigenous recognition on a local, national and international scale. For instance, ideas posed by among others political scientist Else Grete Broderstad out that increased recognition, can go hand in hand with increased political integration, which in turn can open up possibilities for power sharing.40
The empirical research of this thesis is divided into three chapters, based on analysis of three selected themes which have stood out from the empirical source material as relevant to examine in order answer the research questions. The themes were central in the development of Sami politics in Norway and Sweden during these two decades, and is also the three areas which I would argue the two states differed most in approaching. These three themes are: reindeer herding identity, establishment of the Sami Parliaments and the states attitudes towards ratification of ILO Convention no. 169. Each chapter will discuss specific historical context for each theme, present relevant research as well as discuss certain relevant parallels to contemporary state-indigenous relationships.
The first chapter will compare and examine the two state’s Sami policy through the lens of Sami reindeer herding identity and will compare the states belief systems behind the policies on this subject though examining empirical evidence from the entirety of the period of which I am investigating, thus there will be some overlap to the other themes. The main questions considered are: Why was reindeer herding constructed as a legitimate Sami identity? And what are the issues with states preferring to legitimise certain expressions of Sami identity?
The second chapter will focus on the build-up to the establishment of the Sami parliaments and will thus mostly concern itself with the late 1980’s as well as the early 1990’s. The chapter will highlight though comparative examination why the Sami Parliaments were established, how they were constructed and consider if there was any degree of policy diffusion between Norway and Sweden on this topic. Additionally, the second chapter will problematise the institutionalisation of legitimate Sami identities though Sami Parliament electoral register.
The third chapter will concern itself with ILO Convention no. 169 On Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and ask: is there a viable explanation for why Norway ratified C169 and Sweden did not?
Another important question to ask is if ratification or non-ratification altered or further reinforce the structures of the state’s relationship with the Sami and official view of the Sami? An additional question which will be problematised is; how did the different outcomes in C169 ratification rendered the Sami in the two different states with different degrees of legitimacy in indigenous rights claims? Comparatively analysing the very different responses to the convention, and Sami policy in Norway and Sweden during the 1990’s in general.
40 Broderstad 2008, p. 9
1.11 Previous research, comparative history and studying state-indigenous relationship in Scandinavia
The comparative and transnational approach is a trend within indigenous history and scholarship.
Thus, the methodological approach chosen for this thesis very much follows this same pattern.
However, there seems to be an extensive amount of comparative research on indigenous and minorities relationship with a state within the in the social sciences and the humanities and these disciplines have utilised this method to a larger degree than historical research on the topic.41 This is another reason why, including the general historical research on Sami – state relationship, that much of the previous research presented is exactly not primarily historical research but are derived from other disciplines from the humanities as well as the social sciences. This is where this thesis would contribute to the field. Much of this research has been of much value while conducting the research for this thesis, but very few have attempted a comparative historical analysis in order to offer some sort of explanation of the major differences in Norwegian and Swedish Sami policy, and neither do they pay much attention to the importance of the role of Sami identity.
In addition, the area of research on Sami history must be considered for this thesis, comparative and nation specific to Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The historiography of the Sami was until recently, the 1970’s-80’s, usually framed within the national narrative, as the peculiar others in the north of Norway and Sweden. Nevertheless, indigenous history and Sami history started to attract more scholarly interest from the after-war period onwards.
There is now indeed a plethora of scholars, both of history and the various social sciences who have examined questions which permeates scholarship on Sami history, as wells as that of other indigenous peoples. Themes such as Sami historiography, the assimilation period, Sami rights, Sami identity, rights to self-determination, land and resource rights, the Sami parliaments and ILO C169.
ratification have been analysed by Scandinavian scholars from various disciplines from, but to a lesser degree these themes have been a subject of historical analysis. I want to contribute to this field with a comparative analysis which includes a historical perspective.
In Patrik Lantto and Ulf Mörkenstam’s ‘Sami rights and Sami challenges, 1886-2006’42 very successfully argue that despite the Swedish state establishing a Sami Parliament and the general political rhetoric on Sami politics did change during this time period, there was not much actual change in Swedish Sami policy during over a century.43 Lantto and Mörkenstam’s method was to analyse primary sources both generated from the state as well as Sami organisations in order to make this argument. This piece of research lies closest to what this thesis aims to do, and I would argue that in comparing and contrasting the development of Sami politics by examining the sources generated by the state in Norway and Sweden, albeit within a shorter timeframe, would serve to a
41 Haupt and Kocka 2009, p. 12
42 Lantto and Mörkenstam 2008
43 Lantto and Mörkenstam 2008, p. 41
further understanding of the seemingly underwhelming changes to Sami politics in Sweden and explain why it was possible for Norway to approach Sami politics so differently. Eva Josefsen, Ulf Mörkenstam and Jo Saglie work on Different Institutions within Similar States: The Norwegian and Swedish Sámediggis show that the method of comparison of similar institutions can contribute to highlighting the dissimilarities and variations of the composition of the two Sami parliaments.44 Their analysis focus on the construction of the institutional design and the political development of the two Sami Parliaments, and conclude that the Norwegian Sami Parliament achieved a higher level of autonomy than the Swedish counterpart.45 The authors argues that this was due to two reasons:
…the work of the Sámi Rights Commissions in the 1980s: the national cultural and ideological repertoires available to the political actors; and the strength of the Sámi movement in the two countries after Alta and the Taxed Mountain cases. Together, these factors made the scope of political options broader in Norway, giving the political actors greater chances for influencing the outcome.46
A very well argued conclusion which I agree with, however the work of Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie is a political science analysis focused on the political structure and the possibilities in the future for the Sami Parliaments and the consequences of the way they were established for the political opportunities for the Sami. This thesis seeks to comparatively analyse this aspect, but to add to the understanding of how Sami identity was legitimised through the construction of the Sami Parliaments as well and how the state contributed to this legitimisation. I would argue however that their work supports the argument that a comparative analysis of the broader spectrum of Sami policy of these two countries can provide valuable results. In addition, in the authors concluding remarks they argue that there was indeed some degree of policy diffusion from Norway to Sweden in establishing the Sami Parliament. This thesis seeks to add to this, but asking the question why this policy diffusion happened, and if such policy diffusion can be detected in any other areas of the two countries Sami policy.
The last piece of comparative scholarship I will mention, is Ann Julie Semb’s Why (not) Commit?
Norway, Sweden and Finland and the ILO Convention 169.47 This is yet another piece of research from a political science point of view, however, the article makes use of the comparative method in order to try and discern why these three very similar countries chose so differently when it came to the ratification of the ILO Convention 169. Semb aims to try and explain this legal anomaly and argues that the issues concerning land rights of the conventions article 14 was the main factor in Sweden
44 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015
45 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015, p. 47–48
46 Josefsen, Mörkenstam and Saglie 2015, p. 48
47 Semb 2012
and Finland not ratifying the convention. In addition to what Semb refers to a cost versus benefit model.48 Simply explained this model suggests that for the Norwegian state it was perceived that the benefit of C169 ratification outweighed the cost, and in Finland and Sweden it did not.49 Again, Semb shows the benefits of a comparative model and the reason why it is so effective in examining the political differences in such otherwise similar countries. This thesis would, again, further such an analysis of Norway and Sweden’s different attitudes towards the ILO Convention 169 by including a comparative historical analysis of the political traditions and ideas behind Sami politics.
Through including comparisons of the different themes of indigenous identity and its ties to resources specifically reindeer herding, the establishment of the Sami Parliaments, and the two states different approaches to ratification of the ILO Convention no. 169, this thesis seeks to combine these themes in order to add to the understanding of how to such similar states could develop such different Sami politics and to understand the historical causes and consequences of this.
1.12 Other scholarship, comparative and otherwise, on indigenous – state relationship There is a tendency in scholarship of comparing the developments of indigenous self- determination and self-government to include more internationally well-known indigenous who reside within former settler colonies turned nation state. This usually includes the Canada, USA, New Zealand/Aotearoa and Australia. Scholarship on indigenous peoples relationship with the nation state in the CANZUS countries, (an acronym utilised for the aforementioned countries), often focuses on some of the same themes that will be explored in this thesis, recognition, indigenous identity, self-determination, self-government etc.50The comparative method is very popular within this field. Scholarship also focuses on the same period from when indigenous issues and rights became a part of the political agenda hand in hand with the civil rights protest around the world in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
However, as Johanna Heritz argues that there has been a broadening of the field in recent years:
Internationalization broadens the scope of analysis beyond the settler countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and United States, to include Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Norway, and Sweden, which facilitates exposure to more states and their responses to Indigenous groups and the latter’s demands for inclusion, representation, and self-determination in divergent ways.
Internationalization creates opportunities for research on institutional arrangements....51
Another development in the comparative literature on the comparative research of indigenous identity such as Evelyn Peters and Chris Andersen’s Indigenous in the city, contemporary identities and
48 Semb 2012, p 146–147
49 Semb 2012, p 146– 147
50 Cf: Cornell 2015
51 Heritz 2017, p. 291
cultural innovation,52 is to question established ideas of indigenous identity. Indeed, Sami identity as constructed and perceived by the state will be a central point through my comparative analysis of the three themes chosen. Another aspect of the aforementioned work, which is in my opinion a great development within the field, is the perspective of indigenous scholars themselves, this seems to be a growing theme, which I believe is important.
52 Peters and Andersen 2013
