Indigenous peoples play an important role in the Arctic. Every state in the region tries to establish a robust system of their political representation. However, what happens when such initiatives fail?
For many years, the indigenous peoples of the Arctic have been considered a key element of the region’s sustainable development. Their way of life, molded by centuries of traditional knowledge, and their unique culture are invaluable to the Arctic. For this reason, all the Arctic states are actively working to improve the political representation of these peoples in the political sphere, as it may help to resolve many of the ever-present issues of the region.
One of the most effective models of political representation for the indigenous peoples is the model of the Sámi Parliament. While those Parliaments have different legal boundaries in the Nordic states, their main goals are to address the cultural and socio-economic problems of the Sámi. Researchers believe that these institutes demonstrate high levels of effectiveness in decision-making. As of 2025, there are 3 Sámi Parliaments—in Norway, Finland, and Sweden. All the states for which the Sámi people are indigenous have such institutes, except Russia.
In the late 2000s the Sámi of the Kola Peninsula, part of the Murmansk Region, attempted to create their own Parliament, the Sámi Parliament of the Kola Peninsula. Considering that Russia has over 40 indigenous ethnic groups in the Arctic that play an important role in the country’s Arctic policy, we may ask ourselves: Why did it fail? And, more importantly, is it possible for Russia to implement such a system to establish a dialogue between the Government and the indigenous peoples?
Too Close To The Sun
The Kola Parliament was established in 2010. However, the organisers of this ethnic legislature started lobbying for their idea in 2008, during the First Congress of the Sámi of the Murmansk Region. The delegates of that meeting split into two groups. The first group supported Indigenous representation in the Gubernatorial Administration, and the second group suggested adapting the Nordic Sámi Parliament model.
Most attendees supported the Parliament, which finally became official after the Second Congress in 2010. However, the delegates decided not to register it as an NGO or a NCO, they wanted to receive a special legal status. However, due to the conflict between the Murmansk Government and the Sámi organisations, they never received any recognition.
This conflict started in 2009, when the regional legislature passed a new law allowing Indigenous representation in the Gubernatorial Administration. The deputies believed that this would be enough for the Sámis to voice their problems and concerns. However, most Congress delegates spoke out against this initiative, as it had no direct election procedure and no special legal status.
However, some organisations supported this law, which caused a rift between the Russian Sámis. When the Parliament was created in 2010, it wasn’t fully recognised by the ethnic group itself, nor by the regional government.
The Murmansk Region also started a smear campaign against the newly founded ethnic legislature. The most high-profile case was the accusation that members of the Kola Parliament were spying for Norway due to their use of the Sámi national flag, which was adopted by the Sámi Union.
Due to all these events the Parliament was finally closed in 2018, according to the former President of the Association of the Kola Sámi, Elena Goi, the Kola parliament couldn’t establish the dialogue with the government, which was its downfall.
Delegates of the IV Congress of the Indigenous Peoples of the North—the Sámi—decided to close the Council of Representatives of the Sámi and the Sámi Parliament due to the fact that these bodies represent the interests of few Sámi people and have not fulfilled the task of establishing a constructive dialogue with the authorities.
The Downfall
The failure of the Kola Sámi Parliament can be attributed to two main factors:
- Insufficient interaction with regional authorities. A feature of similar legislative bodies in Northern Europe is that the creation of such parliaments took place with the full support of the state. While in the Murmansk Region, the creation of the Parliament was an initiative of the indigenous people themselves.
- Conflict of interests between different models of representation. The parallel existence of two essentially identical bodies could not last forever, so the Gubernatorial representatives continued their activities, unlike the Parliament.
Will The Phoenix Rise Again?
Today, when similar parliaments are successfully operating in all countries where the Sámi live, with the exception of Russia, the story of the Kola experiment remains an example of how misunderstanding and a lack of political will may ruin an important social institute. Under modern conditions, using the experience of the Northern European countries can make it possible to use the knowledge of such ethnic groups in the sustainable development of the Arctic more effectively.
The need for further study of mechanisms for effective representation of indigenous peoples’ interests in the political process is an integral part of the development of the Arctic as a whole. This requires a comprehensive analysis of existing models of representation for peoples. Thus, the creation of bodies with direct election procedure could increase interest among the indigenous peoples in the development of the region.
AUTHORMaxim Kuropov
Independent Researcher