EDITORIAL
Hawaiian government easier said than done

U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton wants a clearer definition of the type of government Hawaiians envision before the federal government recognizes an indigenous Hawaiian people's nation.

"I would urge people in Hawai'i to really define what they think the relationship should be in terms of jurisdiction for law enforcement, for land planning, for social services, whether this is to be a separate government from the (Hawai'i state) government. If so, what are its geographic boundaries?" Norton said.

That sounds reasonable enough. But on closer analysis, it's a heck of a lot easier said than done.

In fact, her questions may suggest less a desire for more details than the reluctance of this particular administration to recognize Hawaiians as a nation in the first place.

First of all, Norton should consider the fact that Hawaiians are not organized as a tribe, nor is there a tribal council or other governing entity that represents a Native Hawaiian "nation." That opens the question of how they can reach consensus on a type of government, let alone demonstrate that to the federal government.

Should the state or federal government sponsor a referendum for Hawaiian voters asking what form of government they support? And if not, then how should Hawaiians proceed with this daunting task?

Earlier versions of the Akaka Bill, which provides a mechanism for Native Hawaiians to achieve federal recognition, spelled out one process under which Hawaiians could eventually form a government. Although that language was removed from the draft legislation, federal recognition nonetheless requires an indigenous group to form a governing entity and decide on a model of government.

Otherwise, with whom will the United States negotiate?

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands are state, not sovereign, entities. And self-proclaimed nations, such as Ka Lahui Hawai'i, certainly don't yet have the support of the majority of Hawaiians.

So how do hundreds of thousands of people of Hawaiian ancestry get together and reach a consensus on leadership and model of government?

And consider the results of past attempts: In 1996, the state appointed a Hawaiian Sovereignty Elections Council that launched the 1996 Native Hawaiian Vote, in which voters were asked if they favored a plan to elect delegates to a Native Hawaiian convention.

About 70 percent of Hawaiians either voted against the referendum or didn't vote at all. Critics charged that the process was too closely tied to the state. Nonetheless, a nonprofit organization, Ha Hawai'i, held the referendum in 1999. This time, only 9 percent of eligible Hawaiian voters participated. Again, the criticism was that the referendum was too closely linked to the state.

The delegates met, but their lack of broad support in the Hawaiian community didn't help.

Today, there's no clear indication of whether Hawaiians have come to a consensus on what model of government they favor — independence, a nation-to-nation relationship with the United States or some other model.

And there are undoubtedly many Hawaiians who favor maintaining the status quo, but would like to see a fair settlement from the state for its use of ceded lands.

It would be a breakthrough if Hawaiians could clear the high hurdle Norton placed in front of federal recognition. We'd like that goal met, but we're not holding our breath.