THE MESSAGE OF THE KAYANEREKOWA

Continued from last week

THE PROCEDURE OF

COUNCIL:

The Council is divided into three parts. The Chiefs of each of the original Five Nations sit in their own circles, since their decision on any matter must be unanimous as a nation. The Mohawks and Senecas are called the “Elder Brothers”---they are both the largest nations in terms of population, and the nations at either end of the Confederacy’s geographic longhouse. Any matter that comes into the Confederacy from outside comes through the Mohawks if it is from the east, and through the Senecas if it comes in from the west. A matter to be considered in council must be put forward first by one of those two nations.

Before the matter can be “put across the fire”, it must have the consensus of both the Mohawks and Senecas. The matter is then put to the Oneidas and Cayugas for their consideration. These nations are the “Younger Brothers”, and for the matter to proceed, it must receive their approval as well. The matter is considered first by the council of each nation separately, and then by that “side” together. Since the 1720’s, the Tuscaroras have sat with and “under the wing of” the Younger Brothers.

Since coming to one mind is a careful and respectful procedure, the process of building consensus is gradual. Often only part of a proposal is put forward, for the “other side” to confirm and add to. The Confederacy’s way of dealing with an issue is built piece by piece, without confrontation.

This is in contrast with British parliamentary procedure, in which there are also “sides” in the lawmaking body. The “Government” brings in a Bill in virtually completed form. The function of the other side---which is actually called “the Opposition”---is to test and challenge the proposed legislation. The hammering of the Opposition on the legislation hardens and tempers the law, hopefully removing imperfections and making it better. The course of the law through Parliament involves a series of challenges and votes. At each step, the vote involves the majority having its way, “beating” the minority. There are winners and losers, but the process hopefully leads to a law, which will benefit all the people. The “Opposition” is supposed to accept its losses in the votes as part of the rules of the legislature---it is supposed to be able to resume its goodness of mind and equanimity in time for the next issue, keeping its mind focused on the day when it will no longer lose the votes and will become the Government itself.

Lafitau described the manner of deliberation in council:

... each of the opposing sides first takes up the proposition in a few words and sets forth all the reasons which have been alleged pro and con by those who first expressed their opinion. He [the speaker] then states his own opinion and concludes with these words: “That is my thought on the subject of this, our Council”. After their deliberation on whatever subject it may be, there is almost no reason, for or against, which they have not seen or weighed.

[Customs of American Indians, Lafitau, 2: 296-97]

Instead of the parliamentary adversary process, Haudenosaunee lawmaking is a co-operative one. Proposals are not opposed: they are modified, built. All possible steps are taken to ensure that the Council comes to one mind, that there is no person and no nation that feels that it has “lost”. To that end, the language of Council is full of moderation, of indirectness, of politeness.

Euro-American lawmakers have adopted part of that indirectness, in theory. They do not attack one another directly, but address their comments to “Mr. Speaker”, a third party, to avoid having their words cause injury. “Parliamentary language” is also expected to be respectful and of proper decorum, and members can be removed from the chamber for language which does not meet those standards.

Initially, though, the Europeans found difficulty in understanding the degree of indirectness required in building consensus: what they saw, instead, was so much “civility” that no serious decision could be made, since there was never direct confrontation: