In his roughly 64 years of life as a Native Hawaiian, Kuhio Asam has followed a gradual progression in his understanding of what he now calls Hawaiians’ "inherent right to sovereignty and to determine their future."

It wasn’t always the center of his world, as it is now for the president of Na’i Aupuni, the nonprofit organizers of the coming election of delegates to an ‘aha, or constitutional convention.

Both he and his dad had "James" as their first name, but especially after he enrolled at Kamehameha Schools, Asam soon shed the childlike nickname of "Jimmy Boy" and was known as Kuhio.

The next weeks will be telling for Asam and the other directors of the group. They will learn the decision by judges at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that challenged the constitutionality of the election. That funding came from the state Office of Hawaiian Affairs is a basis of the suit.

Assuming the election is upheld, voting, which started Nov. 1, will conclude at month’s end, and the ‘aha will be planned to convene in February.

The group’s president defends the entire initiative and praises the "passionate" work by the directors. But the plan has come up against opposition from various fronts, including former candidate Walter Ritte.

Asam studied at Yale University and the John A. Burn School of Medicine. Retired as a child psychiatrist, married and the father of two grown sons, Asam has occasion to discuss all this with family, too.

"We’re all lifelong learners, I would suspect, and that includes family," he said. "So my function really has been to educate about the process. It’s been fun."

Is he hopeful about a consensus?

"More than hopeful: confident that people who are open with their views and willing to listen … very confident that in a lot of areas that will happen," Asam said.

"Certainly there may be areas where there is not a confluence of ideas or a consensus. But we have time. This is a wonderful start for that process to get going."

QUESTION: Is your Hawaiian first name hard to live up to?

ANSWER: Not hard to live up to at all. I was born on March 26, which is Kuhio Day. And my parents, I would imagine, weren’t very creative, so they named me James for my dad and Kuhio for the day on which I was born.

And think about it — had I been born six days later it would be April 1. My name would either be April or Fool. (Laughs)…

Q: I assume Hawaiian affairs is one of your interests now, outside your profession.

A: This is a big portion of my current interest, and it’s been progressive over time.

Q: When did you veer in that direction?

A: I wouldn’t even use the word "veer." I was just thinking about this. I was born Hawaiian, raised Hawaiian and never identified myself as Hawaiian because that was not part of what one did when I was a kid.

Although we had an imu in the backyard, and grated coconuts for haupia, it was never identified as a Hawaiian thing. It was just something that our family did.

And therefore, I grew up with Hawaiians, grew up with Hawaiian friends, families, acquaintances, and over time got to hear a lot of different voices about Hawaiians, went to Kamehameha Schools and learned more.

I went through the ’60s and ’70s with the protests, and the Hokule’a and the (Hawaiian) renaissance. So it’s really a progression, as opposed to a "veering."…

What was very interesting is about 20 years ago when my son was in college, I actually helped host a conference on sovereignty … at Yale University, bringing together leaders in the community, of all different voices, to come together for the East Coast students at that time. And I think that sparked a renewed interest.

And after that I went back and learned the Hawaiian language, because I thought it was crucial in order to understand Hawaiian culture and what we’re doing, to be able to have at least a small level of being able to understand our language. It’s been very helpful.

Q: A lot of culture lives in the language, right?

A: Exactly. As I’ve progressed, gotten older, I’ve begun to hear a number of more voices, and different voices, and stronger voices with a lot of different opinions.

And I kept thinking, what is it that can be brought together, so that all of these voices at least have an opportunity to be heard? And not only heard — to make a difference and have an impact for the future.

And this opportunity with Na’i Aupuni came along, and it was like, "Aha!" Timing, everything seemed right. I have the interest, I have the time. I met people who are passionate from the community, who knew the community. It was, if not a marriage made in heaven, certainly the timing for myself was wonderful.

Q: So this was the element you wanted to pursue, the shape sovereignty would take?

A: Well, the wonderful thing about Na’i Aupuni is we are not predetermined, in terms of what form of government is possibly out there, if it is at all, that the ‘aha delegates may choose.

But really, what’s exciting is laying out a path so that all Hawaiians who choose to can actually participate, and through their participation figure out how they can come to some kind of consensus about what form of nation they would propose back to the Hawaiian community.

Q: There was an earlier attempt to have a convention, called Ha Hawaii, years ago, right?

A: I think the beauty of what’s currently going on with Na’i Aupuni is that, one, there’s funding, which is always important. Second, there’s a list of people who are interested in participating … the timing is right for all of this.

Q: How do you feel about the Native Hawaiian critics who are seeing some predetermined purpose in the whole process?

A: I think there are two things. One, we respect all of the voices, loud and/or soft. Because that’s really where governance starts. People think about governance like a piece of paper and structure. But governance has to start with people talking.

And those who may oppose the path that we are setting, et cetera, are talking. And that’s important; I think that’s an important ingredient of the start of governance. Not only talking, but questioning. …

I think that’s important to recognize: Not only are they questioning others, I think they’re questioning themselves as well. People have changed their minds, which means they have been questioning themselves. As long as people are talking, that is good. …

I would worry if people stop talking.

Q: So you’re seeing the critique as part of the conversation?

A: Oh, definitely. It’s helpful, it’s healthy.

Q: How is it helpful to the process? Viewed from the outside it looks like Walter Ritte is bowing out … extracting himself as a form of protest.

A: I think it’s helpful because it really shows that we are respectful of those who may or may not support what we’re doing. it carries on the conversation so that people will ask further questions. …

Q: But do you think it will influence the discussion that does happen, ultimately?

A: Oh, certainly … I would say, "Isn’t that great that they’re thinking about other persons’ ideas and bringing it to the table, and not being exclusive of parts of our Hawaiian community?" So very helpful, in that sense.

I think the other part … is the confusion between federal recognition and what Na’i Aupuni is setting out to do, which is to set the path without a predetermined end point.

So with the Department of the Interior having come in at the juncture of where we’re unfolding it, people have put the two together.

Q: Right. They’re suspicious?

A: Not suspicious, just the timeliness of it, I think, has caused people to marry the two. And part of what we need to do, I think, is to assure people that we are quite independent from that process. It’s happening, unfolding at a very similar time period.

But it’s the delegates at the ‘aha who will be making a determination about what kind of government — if they can figure out one — that they would like to propose back to the Hawaiian community.

Q: The statements made by people about the process, do you think that diminishes the credibility of it, as being a statement of the whole community?

A: I really believe, with us being as transparent as we can be, that it has opened us up for people to scrutinize and to question, and I think that’s good….

Q: Gosh, you’ve got a lot of people running.

A: Among the many successes that we’ve appreciated is the number of delegate (candidates). Two hundred or so persons who are willing to spend time, their energies and perhaps even their resources — one, to become candidates, and second, to represent what they believe is a good portion of the Hawaiian community at an ‘aha — I think is one of our first successes. I mean, 200 people is a lot.

Q: You are supposed to be separate from OHA, which gave you your grant. Usually, doesn’t a grantee give a report back? Any communications of that sort?

A: That would be typical of a grant, in terms of reporting structure. In our case, our three-party agreement — that would be Akamai Foundation, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Na’i Aupuni — that is not part of the contract, not part of the expectation and no plans to have any kind of reporting structure back to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. …

Q: How do you think you will engage in things, after this is over? Have you thought about what’s next for you in this movement?

A: No, I haven’t. Not at all. The focus really has been how do we get this process in place, make it work as best as possible, and in as transparent a way as we can have it. And then further decisions about my involvement in whatever happens next is — I’ve never thought about it. I truly have not.

Q: I guess this is immense already.

A: You know, it’s immense, it’s fun, it’s exciting, it’s a historic time.