Na’i Aupuni… Really? Part 1 of 2, “Peter Apo: Who Are We Building a Nation For?” [from 9-3-15]

The decades of excruciating confusion over what Hawaiians mean by nationhood or “restoring the nation” is nearing an end.

A path is becoming clear that leads toward Hawaiians formally defining a political proposal that brings specificity to the vision of a restored Hawaiian nation.

Na’i Aupuni, an organization independent of government and made up of a volunteer board of directors, is moving forward with a Hawaiians-only election of 40 delegates from around the state. Election ballots will be sent to voters by Oct. 15. The election is scheduled to be complete by Nov. 30.

Delegates will then convene in what Hawaiians refer to as an ‘Aha, which is a form of constitutional convention, and are expected to emerge with a document defining the political path toward restoring a Hawaiian nation by April, 2016.

Flag waving Aloha Aina Unity marchers in August, 2015, walk along Kalakaua Avenue on their way to Kapiolani Park to join the rally. (Cory Lum/Civil Beat)

If a nationhood proposal emerges — and there’s no guarantee — it will have to be ratified by a majority of Native Hawaiian voters to be seriously considered as representing the “will of the people.” In other words, it will need to be validated by a democratically constituted process.

The politics of nationhood, though, are rarely straightforward.

So where are some of the potholes in the road? First, there is a legal hurdle launched by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, a libertarian group, that is challenging the Hawaiians-only election by arguing that the process is a violation of a number of U.S. constitutional amendments dealing with equal protection and voting rights.

Second, there is the controversial voter registration process known as Kanai’oluwalu, which is often referred to as the “roll,” that was triggered by the Legislature in 2012 and funded by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Hawaiian nationals — a sometimes strident segment of the Hawaiian community that does not recognize state or federal authority — argue that state involvement in creating the roll is a breach of Native Hawaiian self-determination, not to mention a contamination of the election process. It remains unclear to what degree these Hawaiian Nationals will participate in or oppose the election process.

Despite the confusion related to both of these complicated issues, which I cannot fully address in this column, I expect challenges to the election and the convening of the ‘Aha to be overcome.

Many members of the Hawaiian community have made clear they want the electoral process, as well as any proposals that emerge from the ‘Aha, to be free of government influence or intervention by Na’i Aupuni. That organization does not answer to OHA or the authorities of the state of Hawaii.

OHA funds that were given to Na’i Aupuni were not state funds, as they are drawn from the Native Hawaiian Trust Fund portfolio of private investments on behalf of OHA’s Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. OHA, it is worth remembering, is a semi-autonomous state agency with a foot planted in both state government and the private sector, which is as the Legislature intended it to be.

Citizens of a Hawaiian Nation

So what happens once the delegates are chosen?

Delegates are expected to debate and choose between two critical distinct approaches to shaping a nationhood proposal. One is to seek federal recognition and negotiate a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This has long been the preferred option that sprang out of the Hawaiian activism of the 1970s, and it has been supported for decades by Hawaii’s congressional team and state leaders, with widespread support from the pantheon of Hawaiian institutional leaders.

The Akaka bill — named after retired U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, and formally titled the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 — would have created a process for Native Hawaiians to gain federal recognition and negotiate a nation-within-a-nation governance model similar to Native American and Alaska Native tribes. But the bill failed to pass the U.S. Senate and the congressional opportunity collapsed, leaving a political vacuum.

The single most critical question is about who will constitute the citizenry of this nation?

The second option is one that I expect to be driven by Hawaiian nationals, who have grown into an aggressive and viable constituency over the years. This option would have the ‘Aha adopt the position that Hawaii is an illegally occupied nation whose sovereignty was usurped in a coup d’état staged by U.S. businessmen who were aided and abetted by American Marines. This option would amount to an end-run around the U.S. government and seek direct redress under international law. The goal is the restoration of a Hawaiian nation by some international process, although many details remain murky. Much separates these two groups.

From my perch it seems the ship of nationhood is about to set sail without a rudder, a captain, or a crew. The failure of the Akaka bill and the vacuum that failure has left since 2009 have had the chilling effect of denying the emergence of any present-day center of political gravity or clearly defined leadership. That is true both within and outside the Hawaiian community.

Of all the political challenges faced by the ‘Aha, the single most critical question is about who will constitute the citizenry of this nation?

While the current nation-building process is intentionally limited to Native Hawaiians, it is not likely that a Hawaii nationhood model limited exclusively to Native Hawaiians would stand a political test that is unofficially referred to as “continuum.” A continuum means that if a nation is to be restored, the construct of the nationhood model must have existed at the time its sovereignty was usurped. So pursuing the restoration of a nation is not likely to succeed if the nationhood model being proposed is different from the original. However, once the restored nation is recognized by the U.S., or under international law, it can then proceed to make constitutional changes to the national model.

The concept of continuum is critical to the process of restoring a Hawaiian Nation. At the time of the coup d’état in 1893, the Hawaiian Nation was a multi-ethnic one. It remained a multi-ethnic nation in 1898, when Hawaii was annexed to the U.S.

So it would be disingenuous for delegates to emerge from the ‘Aha with a proposal for a Hawaiians-only nation that never existed going back to the time when Kamehameha I united the kingdom in 1795.

Some scholars may disagree, but academic scholarship aside, I do not believe a Hawaiians-only nationhood proposal would survive the political vetting process of U.S or international scrutiny.

In the end, the most important reality check is whether the people of Hawaii will accept and support the nationhood model that is proposed.