Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical analysis reveals the systemic oppression of youth in Western governance compared to Indigenous models, highlighting the political agency of children in non-state democracies.
Democracy is a fraught concept in the realm of Indigenous politics. In its western, state-centric forms, it is used to justify colonial and imperialist violence across the globe. While in some of its earliest Indigenous forms, it constitutes a way of being that rejects constitutions of violence and fosters care-centric world-building. Oppression of children (adultism) is taken for granted in western democracies, while many Indigenous nations have children embedded within their legal and political structures for governance, as critical, if not central political agents. In this article I argue that the oppression of children is an overlooked distinction between Indigenous and western democracies and that the centering of children in human governance demonstrates an ontological alternative that provokes new possibilities for emergent non-state democracies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morgan Mowatt (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: