This could be construed as a true test of self-governance: Will those seeking it for Native Hawaiians be able to pull together as a sovereign entity and make a collective decision, by themselves?
That is essentially the challenge that faces the organizers of a campaign to ratify a Native Hawaiian constitution, approved in February by supporters of Hawaiian nationhood.
The initiative, organized by the nonprofit Na‘i Aupuni, was adopted at an aha, or convention, by a decisive 88-30 vote. It was an impressive result, codifying an agreement among a constituency that’s often at odds on the issue of sovereignty for Hawaii’s indigenous population.
What’s less impressive is that there’s been slow progress in fulfilling a plan to self-finance a ratification election, an end result toward which an estimated $2 million must be raised. This means a timetable-setting vote for the end of 2016 must be scrapped and a new date, a year later, is being penciled in.
The movement for Hawaiian sovereignty has enjoyed significant public support, in the form of enabling legislation and a grant to Na‘i Aupuni that originated from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs trust fund. Supporters argue that the fund comprises not tax dollars but revenue from land holdings authorized to benefit Native Hawaiians.
But opponents have filed legal challenges asserting, among other things, that there is a link between state government and the initiative of forming a race-based political entity that would violate the U.S. Constitution.
And, in fact, the end product of the aha was a document that would be the underpinnings of a government representing only descendants of the indigenous people who lived in the islands before Western contact in 1778.
The process of electing delegates to the aha was suspended, but the convention went on, opening participation to all of the candidates.
To further extricate itself from the state, the decision was made to conduct the ratification of the newly adopted organic documents as a strictly private organization, using only private funds. Any group of people has the right of assembly, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution, advocates rightly argued.
Now, however, the ball is quite clearly in the court of the Native Hawaiian community.
There continues to be alliances between some political institutions in the U.S., at the federal and state levels, and Native Hawaiian interests.
For example, the support of Native Hawaiians is an element of the Democratic Party’s national platform. And the Department of the Interior has been investigating an administrative way to confer federal recognition on a future Hawaiian political entity, although that approach is certainly not universally embraced by the Native Hawaiians themselves.
Whatever form sovereignty might take, it’s time for those supporting the birth of this nation to ramp up their efforts. That community is responsible for regenerating its lost momentum.
This energy is essential to rally Native Hawaiians to provide the resources for plebescites to ratify the constitution and elect officials.
Some $70,000 was raised immediately after the convention, but the excitement was allowed to fizzle and the fundraising tailed off. It’s moved to a low-key, grass-roots educational campaign of presentations to community groups and small gatherings.
Advocates said the process slowly but more intimately connects with the community whose backing is needed. But there is no formal organization overseeing the process, and the absence of one almost certainly will cause the project to stall out.
Leadership is required to conduct a fundraising effort with any potential for success.
“The status quo is no longer working for our people,” said one of the aha participants, Rebecca Soon.
If the Native Hawaiian community believes that, then a more active and aggressive push is needed to change it. And the energy for that must come from within.
