Separating Politics and Business: The Secret to High Performing DevCorps

One of the structural barriers that limits long-term, stable development in many First Nations is the tight intertwining of elected leadership and business operations.

Imposed by the Canadian government through the Indian Act, Chiefs are required to be elected every two years (though in some Nations the terms have shift to three or four years), and thus councils change frequently. This cemented rhythm of short cycles, campaign seasons, and frequent turnover sows instability because projects initiated under one administration are disrupted—or completely stalled—when leadership changes.

What Research Tells Us

Harvard’s Project on Indigenous Governance and Development has repeatedly documented that Indigenous nations whose enterprises are run directly by elected politicians have about 50% lower completion rates than those whose business affairs are separated from government.

Further, the Indigenous Business Toolkit Project led by Vern Bachiu, Murray Fulton, and Kristy Jackson, provides detailed case studies in Saskatchewan showing that Development Corporations (a type of economic development corporation, or “EDC”) function better when their governance is clearly separated from Chief & Council decision-making. The Toolkit heavily emphasizes the need for a dev corp to have its own board, CEO, staff, charter, and operational autonomy.

Clint Davis is a useful example of Indigenous leadership pushing for separation. He is CEO of Cedar Leaf Capital, Canada’s first majority Indigenous-owned investment dealer. Institutional investors, capital markets, and First Nations see Cedar Leaf as a model of combining corporate rigor with Indigenous ownership.

Early “first development corporations” in Canada are harder to precisely date but what is clear is that many Nations are now forming EDCs or Dev Corps to take business functions (procurement, real estate, infrastructure, partnerships) out of the day-to-day governance of elected councils. This pattern is growing especially in Western Canada (Saskatchewan, British Columbia, etc.), driven by capacity-building efforts, legal toolkits, and research like that of Bachiu’s.

Best Practices: How Separation is Structured

Successful Indigenous Development Corporations tend to have the following features:

1. Legal and ownership structure: The Nation owns 100% of the corporation. It is incorporated (with clear enabling documents), with a board of directors, its own CEO/leadership, and staff that are separate from Chief & Council governance staff.

2. Board charter and governance documents: These define what decisions the board can make, what require referenda or long-term community consent (for example, divestment, dissolution, or significant investment thresholds), and where political oversight ends and business operation begins.

3. Stability and continuity: Because business operations require multi-year horizons (real estate, construction, infrastructure), the separation of politics and business  protect projects from being derailed by electoral cycles. The corporation is insulated from daily political change (not from ultimate accountability to the community, but from frequent interference).

4. Lender and partner confidence: Separation of politics and business is often a hard and fast requirement of Indigenous capital partners. By showing separation, dev corps can better negotiate financing, attract investment, and form partnerships. Lenders want clarity on who is making decisions, continuity of cash flow, and assurance operations won’t be reversed.

5. Community accountability: Even with separation, dev corps are accountable to communities—via reporting, referenda, or community oversight. The community must understand both the business risks and rewards.

Why It Works

• Separation reduces “start-stop” risk. Projects don’t get abandoned simply because elections change council composition.

• Predictability allows for longer term contracts, better financing, more efficient procurement which saves time and cost.

• Dedicated management (staff with business experience) tends to make better decisions in sustaining operations, maintenance, and growth.

How Énska sees this working in practice

We view the development corporation model not as theory but as a necessity for real, lasting infrastructure and development in Indigenous communities.

When our clients establish dev corps with clear separation from politics, stable governance, and professional management, they succeed more often. And we are here to help our partners design dev corps, draft board and project charters, support referenda or community input when needed, and establish operating structures that can survive elections.

Separation doesn’t mean distance. It’s about designing systems that let each part of a Nation—political, cultural, and economic—function in sovereignty. And development corporations can provide that stability, allowing First Nations to plan beyond election cycles, attract investment, and build prosperity for their communities.