Democracy flourishes when individuals are proactively involved in political activities, which serves as the fundamental for national governance. Ostrom (2000) emphasized the significance of individuals’ continuous political participation, such as affiliating with political parties, voting, or participating in advocacy groups, civic organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to sustain democracy (Deth, 1997; Ostrom, 2000). Nevertheless, political participation is required to be accessible to guarantee all citizens possess equal chances to determine relevant policy-making initiatives and implementation and convey collective opinions to policymakers (Schlozman et al., 2012). Conventionally, political participation is defined as a series of individuals’ demeanors to shape governmental outcomes and policy-making decisions directly or indirectly (Verba et al., 1978), which encompass campaigning, advocacy, and voting (Milbrath and Goel, 1977). The definition has recently been expanded to electoral activities and political party participation, whereas unconventional participation encapsulates civil resistance, demonstrations, and online activism (Dalton and Welzel, 2014). Political participation reinforces governmental accountability, representation, and responsiveness in ensuring democratic governance. Nonetheless, political participation is not necessarily open for all citizens, especially Indigenous Peoples worldwide, who continue to be substantially neglected in their respective rights and underrepresented in formal political institutions. The status as a minority group and structural barriers, such as limited electoral representation, ambiguous legal status, insufficient channels for meaningful communications, and low awareness of political participatory means, impede Indigenous Peoples’ political participation (Dabin et al., 2019; Arrese, 2020; Tomaselli, 2020), on top of low accessibility to education, systemic discrimination, and economic marginalization (Usek and Dunlop, 2023).

The present study seeks to explore the contemporary forms of political participation among Indigenous Peoples, with a particular focus on contributing factors, prevailing challenges, and contextual dynamics that shape their participation by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) guided by the following research question: What are the global trends in Indigenous Peoples’ political participation? To date, no comprehensive SLR has explicitly focused on this topic. While one existing review has examined trends and challenges in political science research related to Indigenous politics and policy, its scope was limited to publications from 2019 to 2023 and did not adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Soares, 2024). In light of this gap, the current study offers a novel and methodologically rigorous contribution by systematically analyzing international scholarship on Indigenous political participation. This review aims to provide a nuanced understanding of participation patterns and inform academic audiences and policymakers about the current global landscape of Indigenous political participation.

Particularly, 15 peer-reviewed studies were scrutinized by adhering to the PRISMA framework to guarantee a rigorous analysis. A total of five emerging themes were discovered, namely land rights and political participation, Indigenous People governance and state relations, gender and identity in political participation, online activism and Indigenous People mobilization, and environmental governance and climate justice. The first theme examined how territorial sovereignty and legal recognition contributed to Indigenous People’s political agency while the second theme appraised how Indigenous People navigated national and global political structures. The third theme evaluated the intersectionality between Indigenous People political participation and leadership, whereas the following theme analyzed the higher usage of social media and online channels for political advocacy and civic disobedience. The final theme scrutinized Indigenous People’s political advocacy toward climate change challenges and policy-making decisions. Simultaneously, several existing literature gaps were addressed, including limited intersectional research on the diversity of Indigenous communities, methodological shortcomings in comparative research, and limited theorization of online political participation. Accordingly, this study integrated existing empirical evidence across various geopolitical settings and assisted in providing a more holistic comprehension by performing comparative techniques to pinpoint both facilitators and barriers to Indigenous People’s political participation and governance. Theoretically, intersectional feminism, digital resistance, political ecology, and decolonialism were also investigated to formulate a more nuanced conceptual model. Methodological improvements in thematic analysis beyond descriptive analysis were also elucidated to appraise systemic power dynamics and emerging trends in Indigenous People’s political participation. The detailed methodology is delineated in the following section by explaining the inclusion criteria of selected articles for the SLR before performing both descriptive and thematic analyses in the third section. The fourth section elucidates the implications of existing empirical evidence, followed by the fifth section summarizing the current SLR with potential future directions. Several study limitations are also underscored for future scholars evaluating similar topics. Resultantly, the present study offered valuable insights into the continual discourse on Indigenous People political representation, self-determination, and future inclusion into the democratic governance structure.

This study applied PRISMA by searching for relevant past studies in online research databases as the initial phase before identifying relevant articles, screening selected studies, assessing eligibility, and synthesizing existing empirical evidence.

Indigenous People’s political activities are dynamic and evolving due to the involvement of protests, electoral processes, environmental advocacy, and online activism. The present SLR highlighted Indigenous People’s political participation with governmental institutions was limited owing to existing bureaucracy, systemic discrimination, and persisting colonial legacies despite growing recognition in both legal and political frameworks. Data synthesis demonstrated effective approaches to resolve the aforementioned political obstacles that significantly impeded comprehensive political inclusion, which produced wider implications and identified gaps in existing governance systems to fully incorporate Indigenous People’s sovereignty and self-determination. Particularly, land rights were a pivotal factor contributing to Indigenous People’s political participation as formal land tenure drove higher participation in electoral and governance procedures (Nandwani, 2023). Nonetheless, land recognition is not synonymous with political empowerment as Indigenous People frequently encounter barriers in government-led bureaucracy emphasizing economic development over Indigenous People’s sovereignty (Raj and V, 2024). For instance, legal land recognition did not effectively resolve conflicts over resource control of the Kaingang in Brazil as the recognition heightened collective mobilization due to unfulfilled promises (Barbosa et al., 2022). Therefore, land recognition might also result in co-opting Indigenous People’s protests within existing governance models.

Prior scholars revealed that political participation within existing governance systems aggravated instead of mitigating persisting power asymmetries. For example, REDD+ in Peru continued to be restrained by top-down decision-making approaches emphasizing market-based conservation frameworks over Indigenous People’s ecological governance despite securing political representation (Lozano et al., 2023). Similarly, Indigenous Peoples’s political representation continued to be symbolic instead of substantive despite being involved in the electoral process. Māori voter registration in New Zealand indicated persisting historical grievances without leading to higher political influences within current governmental frameworks (Greaves et al., 2023). Resultantly, Indigenous People’s marginalization persisted within existing governance models despite higher political recognition and representation. Furthermore, the intricate relationship between identity, gender, and political participation deteriorated Indigenous Peoples’ political participation, especially among females who were required to counter additional layers of exclusion emerging from persisting colonial power structures and gender-specific discrimination. Santamaría et al. (2020) demonstrated how gender-specific interventions were integral to resolving political violence and achieving justice among Indigenous females involved in the Colombian Truth Commission. Nevertheless, structural obstacles, including institutional biases and racialized maternal expectations, persisted with significant influences on political development among Irish Indigenous women (Cullen, 2024). Therefore, further endeavors are necessary to counter existing patriarchal power structures.

Online activism provided both opportunities and limitations in Indigenous People’s political activities. Particularly, social networking sites and online channels have served as effective instruments to mobilize civic disobedience and protests, record unjust treatments, and challenge prevalent narratives (Lupien et al., 2021; Tank et al., 2024). Latin American Indigenous activists have capitalized on digital technologies to circumvent conventional media censorship to advocate for land rights. Nevertheless, digital technologies can also expose Indigenous activists to online harassment, governmental surveillance, and algorithmic suppression, which restrain the capability to mobilize without risks (Lupien et al., 2021). Online activism also necessitates access to digital technologies, which is low among indigenous peoples in remote areas. Therefore, more Indigenous People-specific digital infrastructures and more effective protections against online suppression should be provided to guarantee that online activism functions as a secure and feasible channel for political activities. While Indigenous Peoples are internationally acknowledged as the vanguards of biodiversity and climate justice movements, existing environmental governance models continuously comprise colonial power systems and structures. The REDD+ in Peru demonstrated restricted decision-making power over land and resources despite Indigenous Peoples being allowed to participate in climate policy (Lozano et al., 2023). Indigenous People’s countermeasures to agricultural business expansion and deforestation in Brazil were perceived as an environmental issue rather than a political movement for self-determination (Barbosa et al., 2022). Hence, Indigenous Peoples’ climate governance could not be decolonized without acknowledging Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty as pivotal to environmental decision-making instead of an advisory or secondary concern.

The current study systemically reviewed current international trends in Indigenous People’s political participation and underscored the emerging opportunities and persistent barriers. While Indigenous Peoples are participate in political activities via traditional and alternative methods, the participation rate remains low owing to the presence of systemic obstacles in terms of electoral discrimination, legal exclusion, and socioeconomic marginalization. Numerous countries continue to implement policies constraining Indigenous People participation in governance frameworks, although the recognition of Indigenous People rights in global forums demonstrates a growing trend. While certain Indigenous communities successfully mobilized for political inclusion, relevant endeavors varied across geographical locations and political environments. The advocacy for land sovereignty continued to be one of the most politically significant issues that spurred electoral and political participation. In addition, the interconnection between Indigenous Peoples’ governance and governmental institutions continually exhibited significant tension when governments continuously regarded Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination as a threat to national sovereignty instead of an expansion of existing democratic governance structures. The intersectionality between identity, gender, and socioeconomic status also significantly shaped Indigenous People’s political agency, wherein Indigenous females experienced exacerbated obstacles to political participation, which underscored the importance of inclusivity for diverse Indigenous People’s experiences. Summarily, significant systemic and epistemological challenges persist despite higher recognition of Indigenous People political participation in both scholarly and policymaking discourses. Indigenous People are required to strive for more meaningful representation via civic movements, governmental institutions, or online advocacy. Future researchers, activists, and policymakers should collaborate to effectively remove existing systemic challenges to facilitate inclusive governance and Indigenous People’s political agency, which can assist in developing a more just and equitable political landscape for Indigenous Peoples across the globe.

Several study limitations exist owing to the sole focus on Indigenous People’s political participation through governmental models without incorporating Indigenous People-specific governance structures and conventional political systems. Future academicians can appraise how Indigenous Peoples define and exert political influences beyond electoral processes and legal recognition. Moreover, existing empirical evidence on gender and intersectionality is limited due to minimal concentration on Indigenous LGBTQ+ communities. Intersectional research can be conducted more by future scholars to offer a more holistic comprehension of how several identity symbols determine Indigenous People’s political agency. Regional bias may also be present as most studies were performed in North America, Latin America, and Oceania, whereas investigations on Indigenous Peoples political movements in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Arctic are limited. Future scholars can expand geographical representation to integrate a wider range of Indigenous People’s political experiences. In addition, online activism related to algorithmic oppression, governmental surveillance, and the role of AI in contributing to Indigenous Peoples discourse is an emerging topic to pinpoint both risks and opportunities of online mobilization when emphasizing Indigenous People-led digital infrastructure. Meanwhile, an integrated methodology with digital ethnography, participatory action research, and Indigenous Peoples oral traditions can be implemented to acquire enriched and comparative insights. Existing studies only advocate for Indigenous People’s political participation within governmental institutions without evaluating the challenges posed by such inclusion toward systemic power systems. Future academicians can extend the current study topic to Indigenous People-led governance frameworks, land-back movements, structural transformation, and transnational Indigenous People political networks to discover effective methods of self-determination. A further limitation of this review is its narrow scope, as it synthesized findings from only 15 articles due to the application of strict quality standards, issues with duplication, language barriers, and the unavailability of full texts from other potentially relevant sources. While such criteria enhance the rigor of the review, they also restrict the comprehensiveness of the synthesis. Therefore, future research should aim to expand the evidence base by incorporating a wider range of diverse and interdisciplinary literature.