The growth of Sámi political institutions

Luke Laframboise

ImagePer Melander

Shows a growing gap between expected outcomes and political realities

Luke Laframboise says that the Sámi of Sápmi are an Indigenous people of one nation, split across four borders. 
 
“Perhaps unsurprisingly, working within and across four separate state systems has made them excellent diplomats. Yet, until recently, their role in international politics has been underexplored”, Luke Laframboise says and continues:  
 
“Moreover, the question of how and why they engage with state institutions has become ever more relevant, as Sámi–state relations across the Nordics have become increasingly strained. This has only been made worse by climate change, neglect and the changing nature of international politics”.

Adaptive and pragmatic strategies

He further says that using three case studies spanning three political levels, and how his dissertation explores how the structures that govern Sámi-state relations have been shaped over time, and what the current state of relations says about placing faith in state institutions. 
 
“Through this process, this project finds that historically Sámi political institutions grew through adaptive, pragmatic strategies of engagement. However, as these institutions have matured and become embedded within state frameworks, their strategic flexibility has diminished”.
 
As a result, Sámi actors now face barriers towards expanding their political influence through the very same institutions they have come to rely on.
 
“What this demonstrates is a growing rift between expected outcomes and political realities, highlighting risks inherent in pursuing Indigenous sovereignty through formal political institutions.” 
 
This dissertation contributes to Sámi research, Indigenous studies, and International Relations by theorising the effects of institutional maturation on Indigenous political agency, empirically tracing Sámi engagement across borders and governance levels, and critically problematising state-based pathways to Indigenous self-determination. In doing so, it highlights the structural limits and risks inherent in pursuing Indigenous sovereignty through formal political institutions.