Readers of the Journal are well served—as am I—by Lianne Charlie's review (Charlie, Reference Charlie2020). Fair-minded and thoughtful, it raises difficult but important questions as to mainstream political science's role in understanding and addressing the needs and aspirations of Canada's Indigenous peoples.

I have no complaint about her assessment of the book as a work of standard political science. How could I, when she describes it as “an impressively detailed analysis” and “a substantial and generous contribution to the field”? As well, that she recognized my attempts at nuanced analysis of very complex issues is reassuring. My only quibble is that she notes the “wide range of written and interview sources” underpinning the book but doesn't mention the many board meetings I attended, which were exceptionally valuable sources of information and insight.

Especially important in Charlie's review is her comment that “alternative perspectives rooted in Indigenous theory challenge elements of his analysis.” That's putting it mildly. She asks, quite rightly, whether the treaty process requirement that Indigenous peoples extinguish Aboriginal title to much of their territories in exchange for certain rights can lead to genuine power-sharing. This is a fundamentally important question. Many Indigenous leaders, but by no means all, have decided that such a compromise is indeed warranted. Less clear is what the members of various Indigenous communities think. Charlie says that I don't believe there is a viable alternative to co-management, despite evidence of functioning alternatives “albeit on localized scales.” That's not quite what I argued. My position is that while various authors, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, contend in very abstract ways that far better alternatives than co-management exist, I've not seen concrete, feasible proposals for alternative governance regimes capable of dealing with the vast range (and geography) of issues that co-management is designed for.

I'm a little surprised that Charlie did not allude to a powerful anti-co-management argument put forward by scholars whom I greatly respect. Not only are better alternatives possible, they maintain, but the limited gains offered by co-management schemes are outweighed by their imposition of Euro-Canadian governance processes that seriously erode Indigenous culture. I struggled with this, ultimately concluding that given the adaptability of Indigenous cultures and the agency provided by co-management, overall, co-management entails more gains than losses.

I just referred to Euro-Canadian. For Charlie, my use of this term obscures the profound impact of settler colonialism, especially with regard to political institutions. Not for a moment do I dispute the power and reach of settler colonialism. My recourse to Euro-Canadian was meant to highlight a specific element of settler colonialism, especially evident among claims boards: modes of thought and operation intrinsic to the Western bureaucratic state. The larger question, of course, as Charlie points out, involves evaluating Indigenous influence through co-management in the larger context of the continuing, multifaceted impact of settler colonialism on Indigenous peoples. I was certainly aware of this need throughout the research and writing but knew that, fundamental as it is, I simply lacked the insight and experience to examine and evaluate it properly. Few traditional non-Indigenous political scientists, I suspect, are so equipped.

Accordingly, we need Indigenous scholars like Charlie to engage in this (and related) important work. So, too, while I like to think that Indigenous Empowerment through Co-management makes a useful contribution, Charlie is right that bringing its findings to the peoples and communities in need of them requires an approach not involving 400-page academic tomes. Here the prospects of collaboration between Indigenous approaches and university-based political science may be more promising.