Roots of Democracy: The Haudenosaunee and the Wendat

Roots of Democracy

by Aditi Singh

Democracy is often viewed as a Western, European concept, tracing back to ancient Athens. But if we look deeper, we find that the roots of democratic governance reach far beyond Europe, into the forests and river valleys of North America where indigenous democratic systems were thriving. Among the most notable were the Haudenosaunee, also known as the Iroquois Confederacy, and the Huron-Wendat people.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy was a powerful alliance of five nations—Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca—later joined by the Tuscarora.¹ Before European contact, they occupied territory across what is now New York State and Ontario. Their political union is widely recognized as one of the oldest participatory governance systems in the world. Meanwhile, the Huron-Wendat lived further north in southern Ontario.² Closely related to the Iroquois in language and culture, they also followed a matrilineal, clan-based system, but it is important to note that these two societies were different.

To assess how democratic these societies were, we can look at three key markers: equality of rights and individual freedom, separation of powers, and peaceful transitions of leadership.

 In both societies, freedom and equality were deeply integrated in their way of life.
The Haudenosaunee followed the Great Law of Peace, a sophisticated constitution encoded in wampum belts. Power resided with the people, and decisions were based on consensus. The Grand Council of 50 sachems (chiefs) represented clans across the nations.³ Though leadership roles were held by men, leaders were chosen by Clan Mothers, senior women in the clan.⁴ Leaders were appointed based on character, honesty, and service, not wealth or lineage alone.⁵ Each clan had their own smaller councils, Men’s and women’s clan councils, which could meet independently to discuss issues affecting the community.⁶ Both men’s and women’s clan councils had equal authority to bring recommendations to the grand council.⁷ When it came to large decisions, referendums were held and the people's decision overruled the council if needed, exemplifying direct participatory democracy.⁸ Ordinary citizens had the right to object to decisions made outside the Great Law, and could demand correction.⁹ These practices of the Haudenosaunee, most of which are outlined in the great law of peace, provided much equality and freedom to the people.

The Huron-Wendat also upheld values of freedom and equality. Governance was organized into village, clan, and confederacy councils. In confederacy wide councils, each clan had its own representative, a civil headman or chief, and thus retained its autonomy.¹⁰ Civil chiefs relied on public opinion and persuasion to lead, holding no coercive power.¹¹ No man was bound by a decision unless he gave willing consent.¹² Leadership roles such as headman were earned through merit, and even those without hereditary claims could rise to power by displaying traits like bravery, eloquence, generosity, and intelligence.¹³ Even inherited titles required community approval and consensus to be recognized. Women, while not eligible to serve as headmen, were central to decision-making, selecting leaders.¹⁴

Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat societies had structural safeguards that kept leaders from gaining too much power. The Haudenosaunee had a layered decision-making process. In the grand council which consisted of 49 sachems and 1 symbolic seat for the Peacemaker, decisions followed a multi-stage process with checks at each phase.¹⁵ Beginning with the Mohawk sachems, then passing to the Senecas, followed by the Oneidas and Cayugas, and lastly reviewed by the Onondaga firekeepers who held veto power.¹⁶ This consensus-based system kept any single group from dominating decisions. There were also checks built against abuse of power. In addition to the sachems or civil chiefs, each clan had War Chiefs and clan mothers. War chiefs conveyed complaints from the people but had no voting power while clan mothers held the power to publicly correct chiefs in council, offering accountability from outside the male-dominated political sphere.¹⁷ Together, they had the power to depose authoritative chiefs. These numerous roles (chiefs, Clan Mothers, War Chiefs, council divisions, Firekeepers) created a system of mutual oversight.

            The Huron-Wendat had a clear division of power between civil and military leaders to prevent abuse of power.  Civil headmen, managed diplomacy, internal governance, and community affairs within the bounds of community consent.¹⁸ On the other hand, War chiefs led only in times of conflict, focusing strictly on strategy and preparation.¹⁹ War chiefs had no power to punish or reward ensuring their authority remained contained.²⁰ This division ensured that no one leader had total power within a clan. To keep a single clan or leader from dominating, each clan was given the freedom to shift alliances or form new political groupings.²¹ Thus, attempting to dominate often led to fractured alliances. Generally, each clan controlled its own members and matters, and the broader council was only convened when there were cross-group disputes.

In case leaders lose popular support, it is important that societies have a way to peacefully replace them. The Haudenosaunee and Huron-Wendat have very similar ways of going about this.

The authority of sachems, clan mothers, and war chiefs was revocable in Haudenosaunee society. Primarily, leadership was granted by the Clan mothers, but it could also be withdrawn peacefully in the case of misconduct, neglect, or violation of duty.²² However, this process was multi-stepped and included warnings and community-based decision making. Though ultimately the power to depose a leader came down to the clan mothers, the process was often initiated by the people. After the clan mothers chose a new leader, whether it be a sachem or war chief, the transition was marked by ceremony during which the new leader took on the “condolence name” of his predecessor, symbolizing continuity and respect.²³ Chieftainship titles were held through wampum strings by the clan Mothers, but even this title could be reassigned to another woman if the Clan Mother acted wrongly.²⁴

Transition of Power worked similarly for the Huron-Wendats. Senior women of the clan held the power to nominate and remove leaders. Their choices were made in consultation with other women, and the final approval came from the council of existing headmen.²⁵ A public investiture feast marked the transition, during which the new leader symbolically "resurrected" his predecessor by taking on their name, continuing a lineage of leadership through ritual and consensus.²⁶ Both the traditions of the Haudenosaunee and Huron-Wendat were conducted with dignity, not violence.

The Haudenosaunee and Huron-Wendat built sophisticated participatory societies where rights, freedoms, checks on power, and accountability were deeply embedded in governance. Their systems may not align perfectly with modern definitions of democracy, but they embody its spirit.²⁷ So the next time early democracies are being discussed, don’t stop at Athens. Remember the Great Law of Peace. Remember the councils by consensus. Remember the Haudenosaunee and the Huron-Wendat.

 

1.     C. L. Bagley and J. A. Ruckman, “Iroquois Contributions to Modern Democracy and Communism,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 7, no. 2 (1983), http://dx.doi.org/10.17953.

2.     Jennifer Birch, “Relations of Power and Production in Ancestral Wendat Communities,” Palethnologie, no. 8 (2016), https://journals.openedition.org/palethnologie/482.

3.     Bagley and Ruckman, “Iroquois Contributions,” 56.

4.     Bagley and Ruckman, 56.

5.     The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations: The Great Binding Law, Gayanashagowa, trans. Arthur C. Parker, in Fordham University Internet Modern History Sourcebook, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/iroquois.asp.

6.     Constitution of the Iroquois Nations, trans. Parker.

7.     Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

8.     Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

9.     Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

10.   Reuben Gold Thwaites, ed., The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610–1791, vol. 10 (Cleveland: Burrows Brothers, 1898), 211–249, https://archive.org/details/jesuits10jesuuoft/page/n221/mode/2up.

11.   Gabriel Sagard, The Long Journey to the Land of the Hurons, Located in America, near the Mer douce to the Far Borders of New France, Called Canada (Paris: Denys Moreau, 1632), PDF, https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667014/.

12.   “Order and Freedom in Huron Society,” in Perspectives on the North American Indians, ed. Bruce G. Trigger (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1972), 43–56, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w6tchf.8.

13.   Birch, “Relations of Power and Production,” 35.

14.   Birch, 35.

15.   Bagley and Ruckman, 56.

16.   Bagley and Ruckman, 55.

17.   Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

18.   Kathryn Labelle, “They Spoke Only in Sighs: The Loss of Leaders and Life in Wendake, 1633–1639,” The Journal of Historical Biography (University of the Fraser Valley), 1–33, https://www.ufv.ca/jhb/Volume_6/Volume_6_Magee.pdf.

19.   Labelle, “They Spoke Only in Sighs,” 5.

20.   Labelle, 5.

21.   Trigger, “Order and Freedom,” 154.

22.   Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

23.   Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

24.   Constitution of the Iroquois Nations.

25.   Labelle, 4.

26.   Labelle, 4.

27.   Donald A. Grinde and Bruce E. Johansen, “Sauce for the Goose: Demand and Definitions for ‘Proof’ Regarding the Iroquois and Democracy,” The William and Mary Quarterly 53, no. 3 (1996): 621–36, https://doi.org/10.2307/2947208.

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Sagard, Gabriel. The Long Journey to the Land of the Hurons, Located in America, near the Mer douce to the Far Borders of New France, Called Canada. Paris: Denys Moreau, 1632. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021667014/.

The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations: The Great Binding Law, Gayanashagowa. Translated by Arthur C. Parker. Fordham University Internet Modern History Sourcebook.https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/iroquois.asp.

Thwaites, Reuben Gold, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610–1791. Vol. 10. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers, 1898. Pages 211–249. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/jesuits10jesuuoft/page/n221/mode/2up.

Bagley, C. L., and J. A. Ruckman. "Iroquois Contributions to Modern Democracy and Communism." American Indian Culture and Research Journal 7, no. 2 (1983). http://dx.doi.org/10.17953.

Birch, Jennifer. "Relations of Power and Production in Ancestral Wendat Communities." Palethnologie no. 8, 2016. https://journals.openedition.org/palethnologie/482.

Grinde, Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen. “Sauce for the Goose: Demand and Definitions for ‘Proof’ Regarding the Iroquois and Democracy.” The William and Mary Quarterly 53, no. 3, 621–36, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2307/2947208.

Labelle, Kathryn. "They Spoke Only In Sighs: The Loss of Leaders and Life in Wendake, 1633–1639." The Journal of Historical Biography, 1–33. University of the Fraser Valley. https://www.ufv.ca/jhb/Volume_6/Volume_6_Magee.pdf.

Trigger, Bruce G. “Order and Freedom In Huron Society.” In Perspectives on the North American Indians, 43–56. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1972. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1w6tchf.8.