Canada

Reconciliation doesn't by default mean "Democratic government takes a back seat and does what FN demand, abdicating all authority to FN interests". You can vote for reconciliation without wanting to see the province give up its ability to govern. With NDP members also being FN leaders, and voting in the interests of FN -- it's a very clear conflict of interest violation, and a very clear ethical violation. But no one seems to be highlighting that, because FN must always be portrayed in a positive light in Canadian media.

Like you'd need to explain to people exactly how their ability to be represented / have government act based on their votes, is worth giving up to allow FN bands to have the deciding say on everything, before you could pretend like you're representing the larger community's interests. I don't think there'd be any hope of a convincing argument to say, in a democracy, "You're better off without representation/voting for the people making decisions in govt".

And these sorts of issues are going to push the cons into power, most likely -- so you're going to get the cons' approach in the semi near future. And what we've seen lately with the right wing approach to government in general, is basically "Fuck it, this isn't working for us, so we're goin to burn the whole thing down to start over". If the treaties / approach to reconciliation was working, if it had proof that it was benefiting the province / non-FN and FN alike, then it'd be a stronger argument to continue with the NDP approach. That's not the case though -- the province is getting constant downgrades on its credit standing, its budget is out of control, and its got a bunch of messy court cases that basically place all authority into the hands of non-elected groups. We've got infrastructure projects that are years and years behind schedule due to the craziness of BC's gov. It's dysfunctional.