Decentralised Indigenous Organisations (DIOs) — Part II : The Forces of our Time (1/2)
Conventional Forces : An Inclusive Legitimacy
Part II (1/2) on the DIOs series.
In the first part of the series we show the relevance of DIOs in the context of the metacrisis, let’s explore in Part II how the creation of DIOs could rely equally on Conventional Forces such as international laws and Unconventional Forces such as Web3.
This pluralism into one framework should allow conflicting forces to be coordinated intelligently and harmoniously. It is important to note, so as not to be too naive, that the creation of DIOs might not accommodate everyone. In any case, we must remain independent and free in our thinking. For each of us who want to address the depth of the metacrisis, it is important to start from the premise that we should have total freedom over our actions.
The Conventional Forces
Conventional forces can be defined as those forces that are legally accepted and recognized by existing authorities. In this context, DIOs should seek to work with existing authorities to achieve beneficial coordination. By rooting this solution in conventional forces, it is possible to achieve a form of legitimacy1 that is important to those who are sensitive to the norms and rules established by modern society.
1. The UNDRIP
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the most comprehensive international human rights instrument on Indigenous Peoples. This declaration was adopted by an overwhelming majority at the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007 after more than 20 years of negotiations. The UNDRIP doesn’t create new rights but elaborates on existing ones that are enshrined in various international human rights treaties and instruments, placing them in the context of indigenous peoples’ realities.
As mentioned in the introduction, the UNDRIP grants a multitude of rights to Indigenous Peoples, including the right to create and develop their own independent institutions. Based on this declaration, we could justify the creation of independent Decentralised Indigenous Organisations.
Does the UNDRIP set a limit to the creation of new Indigenous Institutions?
Yes, it does. We can find a limit in Article 46, §1 :
‘Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States’.
However, we could assume that the creation of DIOs respects this article and will not interfere with ‘sovereign and independent States’ especially, as we will see below, DIOs will be created in vitro to the Internet2.
In the event that the United Nations rejects the creation of DIOs on the basis of Article 46 and/or other justifications, the legitimacy and technology of such organizations in the context of decolonization is sufficient to move forward.
As the UNDRIP is the legal cornerstone of Indigenous rights, it will deserve a full paper on its own to clarify and outline these legal claims.
2. The United Nations
The United Nations should give support to the creation of DIOs. It is even explicitly stated in the article 41 of the UNDRIP, the ‘organs and specialised agencies of the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organisations shall contribute to the full realisation of the provisions of this Declaration through the mobilisation, inter alia, of financial cooperation and technical assistance. Ways and means of ensuring participation of indigenous peoples on issues affecting them shall be established’.
A UN recognition of DIOs should be sought by its stakeholders, as it will anchor the framework in a positive relationship with traditional actors such as nation-states and other global institutions.
3. Nation-States
Nation-states are for the time being still the leader of mainstream coordination. They may have failed to manage the future of humanity and use the tools of colonisation to get this power, but we can acknowledge that they succeeded in coordinating large territories with extremely complex problems to deal with.
They use the monopoly of violence in order to stabilise and control these large areas, and generates a lot of tension over their populations, especially for Indigenous Peoples who have been, and still are, killed and expulsed from their lands. However, anthropology has shown that this repeated pattern of violence might have been the inevitable cultural emergence of our common history as highly social animals. Nevertheless, we can't change the past, and it's only recently that alternatives to global coordination mechanisms have emerged thanks to the internet, strong cryptography and blockchain technologies3.
In this context, the DIO framework should operate outside the status quo of nation-states, but seek for their collaboration and support at the local level.
4. Formal Institutions & companies (public & private)
There are already a multitude of institutions and companies actively seeking to address the overlapping crises of our time. By formal, we mean organisations operating through established rules, procedures, and regulations within traditional jurisdictions.
It concerns traditional actors like NGOs, private companies, and public institutions working already with Indigenous Peoples.
In this context, DIOs could improve communication, negociation, balance of power and symmetry of information, while keeping self-determination at the heart of the organization.
. . .
Conventional Forces provide a necessary anchorage in the fabric of our history, especially with the UNDRIP adopted by the United Nations in 2007. However, these elements are relatively dense and slow to coordinate. This is why the real strength lies in Unconventional Forces, as it opens up the real power we need to protect future generation. Whether in financial, social or cultural terms, the presentation of the forces below is really our Lego set to assemble!
Next : Part II (2/2) — Unconventional Forces
Although I think that legitimacy should not be a matter of norms and legal construction, but rather like indigenous leaders, on the ability to take care of the community, and future generations. They are often skilled at conflict resolution and consensus-building, using the knowledge of their communities and are often accountable for their decisions.
Because web3 enables the creation of global networks of value exchange that operate independently of geographical boundaries and government control (no physical presence, no single point of control that can be targeted by nation states to enforce their jurisdiction, global reach to operate across national borders, digital encryption, anonymous participation and so on).
In 1996, 36 million computers were connected to the Internet, in 2021 there are 4.6 billion connected. The creation of an internet-in-vitro-currency took place in 2009 with the creation of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto, and in 2022 we counted over 20,000 different cryptocurrencies in circulation. For many, this technological breakthrough is as important as Gutenberg's printing press with similar effect on the separation of religion and state, but this time with the monetary system;