������Ƶ

I am amazed and delighted that Nai Aupuni, the Hawaiians-only political gathering referred to as an Aha, somehow has survived months of contentious circumstances, has actually convened, and is emerging with a self-disciplined political maturity that few suspected would occur.

The Politics of Survival

An unfriendly U.S. Supreme Court triggered what seemed a major setback to Nai Aupuni in December, just as the Aha candidate voting period ended. The court raised a big red stop sign, placing a temporary stay on the Hawaiians-only election, barring the counting of votes and referring the matter to U.S. District Court Judge Michael Seabright. So the Aha, which some refer to as a constitutional convention, seemed doomed to a long legal derailment undermining, and perhaps delivering a death blow to, an election process in its final stages.

But without missing a beat, Nai Aupuni decided to forego the election process and simply invite all 201 candidates to don a delegate hat and gather to kuka-kuka (talk story). About 150 candidates accepted. It was a brilliant legal counter to the U.S. Supreme Court roadblock that left many scratching their heads. Then, as I’m writing this column, there’s a news flash that Judge Seabright has ruled Nai Aupuni as a private election, completely independent of government, and not subject to public-election laws. A significant and remarkable turn of events.

The two and a half years of public meetings and political dialogue leading up to Nai Aupuni was fraught with disagreement and face-offs, especially among Hawaiians. There were fears that the gathering of candidates would be like a gathering of storm clouds, given the deep political divide between several of the factions represented by the candidates turned delegates. The fear was that attempts at anarchy would be the outcome of the day and chaos would triumph.

But after a shaky start, order was quickly established within the first few days when the vast majority of the delegates elected to adopt Robert’s Rules of Order to govern procedures. That decision ensured fairness in the deliberations, set standards of civility and respect for and toward each other, and brought a sense of dignity to the body. As of this writing, the Aha has taken a second pivotal step, again supported by a convincing majority, by electing a leadership structure in preparation for launching a series of plenary sessions. Remarkable.

In a few short days, Aha delegates have been able to merge a sense of urgency with a disciplined and structured dialogue that sets the body on a fast track to formalizing into a legitimate convention of Hawaiian leaders. They are racing the clock set for a 20-day session with much to accomplish.

For me, this is a historic passage for native Hawaiians. First, who would have thought that foregoing the election would be good thing? Instead, native Hawaiians of all political persuasions, from all walks of life, men and women, some well-seasoned in the dialogue of nationhood, and others still with a learning curve, have stepped forward. An impressive field of self-defined leaders, credentialed by patriotic devotion to self-governance, were spared having to face off in an election. Now they have convened as, in my opinion, the most credible Hawaiian body politic to emerge since the lowering of the Hawaiian flag at Iolani Palace in 1893.

To be sure, their climb is steep, their challenges are formidable. But they are free from the yoke of government influence and biased institutional intervention in their deliberations. They are set free to be blessed or cursed by the enormity of their responsibility to lead us out of a sea of confusion toward a political landfall that, hopefully, will lift all Hawaii to a state of reconciliation from which we can emerge as one people.

Federal Recognition or Independence

I cannot represent myself as knowing all the governing model options available to the Aha delegates as they craft a document to define what Hawaiians have commonly referred to as nationhood. But I do know that delegates will have to clearly define the political path up the mountain.

Two options seem to be generally accepted as the crossroads to be navigated: federal recognition or independence. Federal recognition is a familiar road blazed by Native American Indians and Native Alaskans. Not that a Hawaiian national model would resemble any existing model from those indigenous peoples; but their experience provides tremendous guidance as to what is or is not politically possible within that framework.

Independence, on the other hand, means pursuing political separation from U.S. jurisdiction and becoming recognized as an independent nation by at least some segment of the international community of nations. There are those in the Hawaiian community who have pursued that option for decades and who continue to argue for it with spirited determination.

But I think that before arguing for either option, it might be a good idea to simply – or not so simply – lay out a detailed political framework for a Hawaiian nation, perhaps a draft of a constitution, without any tip of the hat to either federal recognition or independence. Then determine which option is more likely to achieve the constitutional vision.

Governance Models

It may serve the Aha well, in their shaping of a constitution, to take the time to consider governance models that might fit Hawaii’s circumstance. I believe such an educational process is occurring in these first few days and that options are being vetted to insure informed decisions.

Of course, there are more than a few delegates who already are aware of the assortment of governance concepts readily referenced as constitutional models. The checklist would include Native American Indian and Native Alaskan models. A consultation I recently engaged in with an expert in federal recognition models cited a top four preference of Algonquin, Haida, Iroquois, and American Samoa constitutional models as possible good places for an intellectual intersect of ideas to kick start dialogue.

There is one model of a Pacific Island nation that has a conditioned relationship with the United States that strikes me as a unique compromise between total independence and self-governance: the nation of Palau in the western Pacific. Following World War II, in 1947, under UN auspices as part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the United States assumed administration of Palau. In 1982, Palau signed a Compact of Free Association with the United States. Palau gained its independence and established diplomatic relations with the United States in 1994, with the entry into force of the Compact, under which the U.S. remains responsible for Palau’s defense for 50 years.

Palau is a sovereign nation and conducts its own foreign relations. The United States and Palau cooperate on a broad range of issues, including strengthening regional security, promoting sustainable development and addressing climate change, and protecting fisheries and the environment.

Alternatives

Of course there is an option that probably will not make it to the table, because it doesn’t go far enough to qualify as self-governance. That option would be to use existing opportunities under U.S. law to pursue a coalescing of the considerable economic capacity of primary Hawaiian institutions.  The idea would be to create a common vision of  a Hawaiian economic future by forging an agreement whereby each institution remains autonomous but assumes certain responsibilities to address quality-of-life issues that depend on access to economic resources.

What is the purpose of nationhood if not to provide quality of life for its citizens by insuring prosperity?

To the discomfort of some, I have been on record citing the collective economic capacity of the five major Hawaiian institutions in terms of economic assets. Two of the organizations, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, are government aligned, but with the flexibility to establish economic ties with the private non-profit sector. The other three are private non-profit institutions of long standing – the Kamehameha Schools, the Queen Liliuokalani Trust and the Queen Emma Land Company. The Lunalilo Trust is a sixth organization but still struggling with recovering its economic capacity.

The combined capacity of these institutions amount to billions of dollars in liquid assets and hundreds of thousands of acres of land in fee title. Such an economic alliance may not meet the test of nationhood, but could offer an intermediary step toward a  yet-to-be-determined nationhood model. It is hard to imagine any form of a nation that, at least at the outset, would not include these institutions somewhere in the dialogue over shaping a model.

I’m compelled to point out that the combined spending of these five organizations represents a profound economic contribution to the Hawaii economy in the millions of dollars disbursed throughout every major economic sector. I would especially note that the flow of dollars that benefit every community on every island in the state is color blind.

Shaping a Constitution

Assuming that a primary function of the Aha is to write a constitution gives focus to a pivotal task for the delegates. While indigenous peoples’ national constitutional models abound and are readily available for reference, many are repetitive in outlining the basic premises of government authority over its citizens. Constructing language for a constitution probably is not rocket science.

And although I know that, for some Hawaiians seeking Hawaiian independence, there may be some bias toward not referencing the U.S. constitution, it would be a mistake to ignore its brilliance as one of the greatest documents in history – regardless of the nation of authorship.

While constitutions specify political order, they rarely specify economic systems; yet it is the economic systems of a nation that underpin the quality of life of its citizenry.

The degree to which a constitution allows or restricts the commerce within a nation, between the political subdivisions of the nation, and with other nations is critical.

What is the purpose of nationhood if not to provide quality of life for its citizens by insuring prosperity?

For instance, the Hawaii state constitution assigns the billions of dollars of general excise tax revenue to the state, including the right to impose the general excise tax. On the other hand, the four counties of Hawaii have jurisdiction over setting and levying property taxes as their main source of revenue. So the greater burden of supporting all county functions is put on the backs of property owners, because the revenues generated do not approach the need and demand for services. Hence the counties have to essentially go hat in hand to the state legislature to beg for a share of the general excise, even though many of the functions of county government overlap state responsibility.

I am not a constitutional or economic expert; and while this column cannot possibly begin to articulate the myriad challenges of crafting a thoughtful constitution that can second-guess economic or other matters that would be driven by constitutional provisions, here are just a few that come to mind:

First, and probably most important, is citizenship. Will citizenship require one to be an ethnic Hawaiian? Is dual citizenship a consideration? Second, is there an assumption that all of Hawaii and its political subdivisions would be claimed by the new constitution? If not, then how will the constitution address incorporating non-contiguous lands to form a national whole? A third assumption would be that the State of Hawaii and its constitution will still be in play, which raises the question as to what governmental functions would be assumed or shared by a new Hawaiian government – taxes, law enforcement, welfare, health care laws, public education, and so forth.

Moving Forward

Shortly after this column is published the 20 day session will have expired – but I hope not adjourned. While it is not clear what will follow, I expect there will still be plenty of work for the Aha to address. If declaring a recess subject to the call of the chair is not a parliamentary option to adjournment, then perhaps there is some other provision to keep the body intact in anticipation of a subsequent resumption of plenary activity.

District Court Judge Michael Seabright cited the Nai Aupuni election as an important matter and stated that “the state has a compelling reason to give dignity to the indigenous people” and let Native Hawaiians “decide for themselves whether they want self-governance”.

While this column has jumped way ahead of the actual reality of the moment, the decision by Hawaiians to support self-governance is not a given. The self-governance proposal will have to be put to the test of a referendum of the Hawaiian people to accept or reject – and I would think its survival will rest on specifics. How will it make life better, not just for Hawaiians, but for Hawaii?