THE LEGITIMACY BASIS FOR SAMI RIGHTS

Special rights for ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples may initially seem contradictory to the principle of equal treatment embedded both in democracy and in citizenship. A closer look, however, reveals that majoritarian democracy struggles with an unsolved legitimacy problem concerning permanent minorities, a problem that can best be solved through special rights and institutional arrangements for these kinds of groups. When a system for Sami self-determination was being established through the Sami Parliament, the principal choice stood between a territorial and a non-territorial administrative model. The non-territorial model was adopted, which means that the authority of the Sami Parliament is not defined on a geographical basis and that Sami voters may vote in the Sami Parliament elections wherever in the country they live. Based on the Sami settlement pattern, this seems to be the most natural choice and the model may work well in policy areas such as culture and education. The model falls short, though, when it comes to handling of the Sami land and water rights. In these matters, a Sami-Norwegian cooperative model has been chosen. This, too, seems like a reasonable solution, although it raises another legitimacy challenge: the problem of Sami double voting rights. But this problem should not be exaggerated.