Alaska Politics and Public Policy: The Dynamics of Beliefs, Institutions, Personalities, and Power

By Clive S. Thomas

Politics in Alaska have changed significantly since the last major book on the subject was published more than twenty years ago, with the rise and fall of Sarah Palin and the rise and fall of oil prices being but two of the many developments to alter the political landscape.

This book, the most comprehensive on the subject to date, focuses on the question of how beliefs, institutions, personalities, and power interact to shape Alaska politics and public policy. Drawing on these interactions, the contributors explain how and why certain issues get dealt with successfully and others unsuccessfully, and why some issues are taken up quickly while others are not addressed at all. This comprehensive guide to the political climate of Alaska will be essential to anyone studying the politics of America’s largest—and in some ways most unusual—state.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of Alaska Press
• Release date: Jun 15, 2016
• ISBN: 9781602232907

Book preview

PART I

Alaska Politics and Public Policy: An Introduction

About Part I

As indicated by its Table of Contents, this book contains a massive amount of information on Alaska politics and the public policies that the state enacts and implements. This amount of information can be daunting for the novice and a challenge even to the informed observer in making sense of the many factors involved in politics and policy making in the state. However, as with other subjects, we can explain the essence of Alaska politics and policy making in an encapsulated form. The purpose of the three chapters in the first part of the book is to provide a basic political and policy road map for navigating the rest of the book. In sum, the three chapters are intended to do six things.

First, they explain many terms and concepts, some common to politics and government in general, others specific to Alaska, necessary for understanding the arguments and information throughout the book.

Second, in each of the three chapters there is an attempt to separate the myths and misconceptions about Alaska, its politics, and public policy-making process from the reality. One of these myths is that Alaska is vastly different from other places in many aspects, including its politics.

Third, the three chapters show the link between the academic study of politics and public policy and its practical day-to-day operation. This is particularly important because throughout the book there are references to both the concept and the exercise of political power to explain many actions and inactions of government.

Fourth, in combination, the three chapters provide an overview of the economic, social, cultural, geographical, and other factors shaping Alaska’s political environment. This environment in turn shapes the way politics are conducted and the policies that result.

Fifth, in Chapter 2, twelve characteristics of Alaska politics are identified. These provide a shorthand explanation for much of what happens in the state politically. The characteristics appear in various forms and combinations throughout the book as they relate to the various aspects of Alaska politics, government, and public policy.

And sixth, this first part of the book places Alaska within the context of politics and policy making in other states, particularly the American West. This comparative approach facilitates an understanding of how similar or different Alaska is from other states and is a valuable exercise in itself. But it also provides perspectives for assessing the experience of other states in working to improve the effectiveness of Alaska’s democratic system of politics and its policy process.

In reading these three chapters, the newcomer to Alaska politics will become less intimidated by the scope of the book and will find many ideas and circumstances that are familiar. The informed observer should find different ways of looking at Alaska politics, its government and policy process and, it is hoped, gain new insights. After completing Part I, both the novice and the seasoned reader will be well equipped to approach any of the chapters or topics in the rest of the book.

CHAPTER 1

Understanding Alaska and Its Political Environment

Clive S. Thomas and Laura C. Savatgy

Hundreds of thousands of Americans and people from all over the world visit Alaska each year. Among the questions some visitors ask are: What currency do Alaskans use? What country do they belong to? Is it dark for half the year? Other common images of Alaska among those from Outside (as Alaskans refer to the rest of the country and the world) are outrageously high prices for most goods and services, rugged individualists battling against the elements on the Last American Frontier, the romance of the Iditarod sled-dog race, the yearly giveaway payment to the state’s citizens from the Alaska Permanent Fund, and the idyllic life of Eskimos in their igloos. Even as recently as 2006 a survey revealed that many Americans felt that Alaska was different, still manifesting much of the frontier spirit, and that Alaskans were different too.¹

More recent images of Alaska among Outsiders include the political corruption scandals involving Alaska’s state and federal politicians of 2006 through 2008, including the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens. Then there is the flamboyant figure of the hockey mom, Governor Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential candidate who resigned as governor unexpectedly in July 2009 with nearly eighteen months of her term left, and her continuing place in the national spotlight. And Alaska’s 2010 U.S. Senate race received national attention when the incumbent Republican, Lisa Murkowski, was beaten in the primary election by a Tea Party–backed candidate, Joe Miller. Murkowski then ran the first successful U.S. Senate general election write-in campaign since 1954.

However, it is not only Outsiders from Maine, California, Japan, England, and Brazil, among a host of other places, who hold mixed, distorted, or blinkered views of Alaska. Many Alaskans, among them politicians and other public officials, view their state as an intricate mix of myth, misconception, wishful thinking, and reality. This mix includes beliefs such as Alaskans are individualists and would be much better off with less government; Alaska has boundless economic potential if only Outside forces would not block the state from developing them; and that the federal government has a stranglehold on Alaska. This mix of beliefs often translates into a range of negative attitudes toward government in general as epitomized by the support for Joe Miller, who ran on an essentially antigovernment platform in 2010 and again in 2014.

One of the purposes of this book is to separate the myths, misconceptions, and misunderstandings from the realities of Alaska politics. This involves addressing such questions as: Are the oil companies running Alaska? Is, in fact, the federal government choking the state’s economic and political potential? Is there a solution to the state’s chronic revenue instability? Is Alaska unique from other places or, at least, exceptional in its politics? What is the role of Alaska’s indigenous population (Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts) in state politics? This segment of Alaska’s population is referred to collectively as Alaska Natives or simply as Natives. Do the political corruption scandals exposed during 2006–2008 mean that Alaska is one of the more corrupt states in the nation?

The first three chapters in the book provide the background for tackling these questions. This chapter provides essential information for studying Alaska politics and for understanding Alaska’s political environment. Chapter 2 builds on this and explains the essence of Alaska politics, partly by placing it in context with other states, particularly the American West. Chapter 3 provides an overview of public policy making in general and draws on the first two chapters to explain the specifics of Alaska’s state policy-making process. The three chapters include explanations of many terms, concepts, and acronyms used in other chapters in the book. In addition, there is an extensive glossary at the end of the book that includes short explanations of more than 250 terms, concepts, acronyms, events, court cases, and Alaska-specific parlance that are used in various chapters throughout the book.

Specifically, this chapter has five goals. The first is to explain the approach to analyzing Alaska politics used in the book. The second is to explore some basic but key concepts to enhance this analytical approach, which emphasizes politics as first and foremost a human activity. Goal three is to explain the essentials of the state’s political geography and the local parlance associated with it. The fourth is to raise the issue of Alaska’s exceptionalism as a frame of reference to question common beliefs about the state and, in particular, attitudes toward Alaska politics. And fifth, the key events in Alaska’s political history and development are outlined.

1. ANALYZING ALASKA POLITICS: A FOCUS ON THE BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVE

There are a number of generally recognized approaches to explaining and understanding politics. These include three that were used extensively up until the 1960s: the historical perspective (viewing current policy making as the product of historical forces); the institutional approach (primarily describing the structure and powers of government institutions); and the political economy approach (which views politics as being driven primarily by economic forces). Since the 1960s a fourth perspective has become the most prominent one—the so-called behavioral approach, which emphasizes human behavior and attitudes. The behavioral approach focuses on: (1) political culture, which emphasizes the importance of peoples’ beliefs and values in shaping political actions and policies; (2) the political process, which concentrates on the policy-making process and sees it as a set of interrelated stages forming a policy cycle; and (3) the realist perspective, which emphasizes human self-interest, pragmatism, and power as a way of explaining political action and inaction.

While all approaches have insights to offer, none by itself tells the whole story, and we should be wary of those who say there is a single, exclusive, comprehensive approach to explaining politics. The most enlightening analysis uses elements of all of the various approaches, emphasizing some as major explanations and using others as supplementary. Our primary emphasis is on the behavioral approach, combining political culture, political process, and the realist perspective. This combination provides an in-depth understanding of the dynamic nature of Alaska politics and policy making.

2. POLITICS, GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC POLICY, AND RELATED TERMS AND CONCEPTS

For many of us, our high school civics classes focused on the contents of the U.S. Constitution and the structure and power of governmental institutions, such as Congress and the powers of the president. At its root, however, politics results from clashes over issues that emerge from the needs and desires of the citizenry and is shaped by historical experiences (particularly economic and social factors); geography (physical location, terrain, and resources or lack thereof); contact with Outside forces (particularly close neighbors); and the values and beliefs of the citizenry as well as the beliefs and personalities of public officials elected and appointed to various positions in government. All of these factors shape the power structure of a political system. Above all, in Alaska as elsewhere, it is, in fact, political power that determines which policies will be enacted and which ones will not.

So to provide a foundation for studying Alaska politics and public policy, we first explain the concepts that are central to this book and how they are interrelated. These are: (1) politics; (2) power, authority, and political compromise; (3) government; (4) political issues; (5) public policies; and (6) political leadership.

Politics

While many Americans, including Alaskans, have a negative perception of politics (associating it with politicians, bureaucratic controls, wasteful government, benefits to special interests, and so on), politics is actually among the most common of all human activities. Politics occurs in almost all situations where two or more people get together, not just in government. Politics occurs in families, clubs, and the workplace (office politics), as well as at the city, state, national, and international level.

If we accept the pluralist perspective of politics (that many forces compete to get public policies enacted or defeated), political activity results from three human characteristics: (1) a strong social tendency and the desire to live with other human beings as opposed to being hermits; (2) an essentially selfish nature and the desire to benefit oneself, one’s close kin, and friends; and (3) a variety of different goals that sometimes clash with the goals of others. When we combine these three elements, the result is conflict between and among people—one of the most common aspects of human existence. For example, some people might want to develop a piece of land for houses while others may want to turn the land into a park.

Conflict requires some form of resolution, whether this is movement to a new situation, such as using the land to build houses, turning the land into a park, or a compromise in which some of the land is used for houses and some is set aside for a park. Or the resolution could be to do nothing and maintain the status quo. Doing nothing is often the resolution to a political conflict because the status quo is very difficult to change, particularly in the U.S. political system and in Alaska. This emergence of conflict, and the process of resolving it, is the core of the activity of politics or what is often called the political process.

Power and Influence, Authority, and Political Compromise

A common mistake often made by those not attuned to politics is to assume that the organizational chart represents the power structure in that organization. What an organizational chart represents is the authority structure. The power structure is best described in terms of who actually determines what gets done or, to use political parlance, who has the political clout or the political juice.

While the authority structure in most cases approximates the power structure, there are usually variations between the two, and the reality is usually much more complex. Authority is the vested right to exercise power given to an official by a constitution or law. But to turn authority into power, which we define as the ability to influence behavior and make someone do something they would not otherwise do, requires many factors in addition to authority, including personal intercommunication skills. Some people are good at exercising political skill and acumen and others are not, regardless of whether they are in a high position on an organizational chart. Individuals lower down the chart may be much more effective in getting things done. For example, one of the most effective and powerful politicians in Alaska was the late Senator Frank Ferguson of Kotzebue, whose highest legislative position was as chair of a senate committee. He never held the top job of president of the twenty-member senate. Also, for many years, his chief aide, Mike Scott, was also very powerful and often referred to as Alaska’s twenty-first senator. Both men were powerful because they had extensive political skills that many who had much more authority lacked.

What determines how close a person or group gets to what they want in a political conflict is not so much whether they are right or wrong, good or bad, or are known to be fair or unfair, though these factors may come into play, but how much political power they wield. That is, how much pressure, clout, or juice they can bring to bear on the situation, which in turn is based upon their control over resources, such as information and money.

Some people, including some scholars, differentiate between the degree of pressure exerted in politics and the level of effectiveness of individuals and organizations by distinguishing between power and influence. While some see influence as less extensive and decisive than power, others see it as more extensive and more subtle in its operation. Thus, the exact difference between influence and power has yet to be satisfactorily determined. Consequently, in this book the terms power and influence are used synonymously and interchangeably.

In pluralist democracies such as the United States, including Alaska, power is not concentrated in one source, as it is in a dictatorship. Power is fragmented into many locations—the legislature, the executive, the courts, political parties, interest groups, the media, prominent individuals, and so on. Thus, resolving an issue usually requires compromise when the various power forces clash. Compromise, then, is one of the major characteristics of democratic politics, including politics in Alaska.

Government

Political conflicts in families and small groups can often be resolved, and the resolution enforced, in informal ways among the parties. For instance, this would be the case when, after a discussion, a group of friends decide to go to the same movie even though originally some of the group wanted to go to a different one. When the organization gets to a certain size, however, like a club, a workplace, or a town, state, or nation, more formal rules to resolve conflict and to apply and enforce the resolution are needed. Institutions—legislatures, executive departments, courts, boards and commissions, and so on—created to formalize this process of conflict resolution, to formalize the resolution in laws and regulations, and enforce them, are what constitute government. The basic structure of government is usually set out in a constitution, but the details of its day-to-day operation are found in statutes, regulations, court rulings, and so on.

Obviously, politics and government are inextricably linked. For some purposes, however, it is useful to see politics as mainly a product of human nature and to view government as mainly a human creation, originating from human choice and decisions, even though many of these choices are shaped by political influences. Keeping this distinction in mind enables us to understand why politics is the way it is in Alaska and how politics may have shaped the structures and processes of government in terms of their strengths and weaknesses.

Political Issues

People turn to government to deal with concerns that they cannot resolve themselves or that the private sector cannot or will not handle. These include public safety, defense, regulation of environmental quality, and building and maintaining infrastructure. Some people also want government to perform tasks for philosophical reasons: for the common good, including securing a fair distribution of benefits to all citizens as in social democracies like Sweden, and to create a sense of community and increased human self-worth. Others strongly oppose this perspective and question whether these are legitimate roles for government.

In essence, then, a political issue is a problem that an individual, a group, or a segment of society expects government to solve. The issue could be anything from what to do about bears raiding trashcans in an Anchorage neighborhood, to what to do with revenue surpluses in Alaska, to what the United States should do about international terrorism. These and a myriad of other issues become subjects of public debate because a conflict develops among some individuals, groups, or segments of society about how to resolve them. Conflict develops for one or more of the following reasons: whether the problem is in fact a problem, and if so, whether government should deal with it; if government is to deal with it, how it should do so; and if dealt with, whether the result has had the desired effect.

Some political issues, though very few, are easily resolved and never appear again. These are usually simple, technical issues, such as the color and shape of a stop sign, or the date for filing income taxes. Most issues, however, are less easily dealt with and often have only a short-term solution, if any solution at all. Three major reasons underlie the inability to permanently solve most political issues.

First, any issue based upon a value—a person’s or group’s beliefs of what is right or wrong, good or bad, fair or unfair, and so on—will likely be contentious, even on such a seemingly simple subject as how best to educate children. Not only that, over time people’s values undergo change and adaptation and this often causes issues to resurface, even after they appear to have been permanently resolved, such as use of the death penalty.

Second, policy solutions apply to future events and circumstances, and no one can predict those future developments with certainty. In addition, some policies may have unforeseen consequences, and others that may be appropriate for a while lose their relevancy or are no longer workable when conditions change. For this reason, today’s solutions are often tomorrow’s problems. This is certainly the case with the push to develop biofuel from corn and other cereals as a substitute for oil. It now appears that diverting corn production from food to fuel has contributed to worldwide food shortages and increased costs.

Third, an issue may be beyond government’s ability to resolve. This could be because the issue is so contentious that no long-term compromise is possible, as with the issue of abortion in the United States. Or it could be because the issue is beyond the ability or the political capacity of government to handle. A good example is Alaska’s inability to stabilize state revenues. With the bulk of state revenues coming from oil production, there is little public support for imposing taxes on individual Alaskans, particularly when the price of oil is high. This lack of public support translates into a lack of political capacity on this issue—the inability to muster support within Alaska society necessary to form a political consensus to deal with the problem.

Public Policies

A public policy is the course of action taken by government to deal with a political issue resulting from a short- or long-term resolution of conflicting perspectives of various groups and individuals on that issue. As noted earlier, a political conflict can be resolved by establishing a new course of action or by doing nothing for the moment (thus maintaining the status quo), either out of choice or the inability to muster support. If the resolution is a new course of action, it is usually accomplished by the enactment of that policy into law. Once a policy is enacted, and its rules and regulations are drawn up, it is usually implemented by one or more agencies of the executive branch of government and enforced by the courts. Examples of relatively simple issues dealt with through policies are limiting bar hours, prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors, and determining who is and who is not eligible to receive an Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). More complex and challenging policy issues include determining and enforcing water quality standards, improving Alaska high school graduation rates, and deciding on the rate at which to tax the oil industry to maximize state revenue but not discourage oil exploration and production.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that all new policies or the revision of existing ones are clear in their intent, are diligently implemented by the executive, and once dealt with are solved for all time. As there is rarely one force, group, or interest powerful enough to get everything they want in resolving an issue, the need for compromise sometimes leads to policies that lack clarity because they are so general. Furthermore, if a policy is passed over the objection of the executive branch, the agency concerned may drag its feet in implementing the policy or try to avoid implementing it at all. Plus, because many political issues are never permanently resolved, the original policies developed to deal with them are often revisited and amended or completely rewritten. So policy making through the policy process is an intermittent but continual policy cycle as attempts are made to reform many policies. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the policy process and its political dynamics in Alaska.

Political Leadership

In the rough-and-tumble of everyday politics, some people are better at the political game than others. Particularly among elected officials, but also among senior appointed officials and political party and interest group leaders, the more adept individuals usually move into leadership positions and often become household names in the nation, state, or community.

But just because a person is a skillful politician and holds a formal and high-profile leadership position, it does not necessarily follow that he or she has good political leadership skills. Such skills are central to politics in a democracy (in fact, in all political systems). They are needed to bring people together to make things happen, to resolve clashes of values, beliefs, and issues, and to navigate diverse power points, personalities, and egos involved in politics and the policy process. So what is political leadership? Box 1.1 explores the concept and shows that it involves more than high office or popularity.

With these general concepts in mind, we begin our examination of Alaska politics by looking at the state’s political geography. Then, we raise the question of Alaska’s exceptionalism followed by a brief historical outline of Alaska’s political development.

3. ALASKA’S POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY

In essence, political geography includes the political issues that geography—what geographers call the spatial environment—generates in a particular place. Geographical factors such as location, neighbors, and physical features (including climate and natural resources) often produce political issues, some long-standing, some short-term. For example, the lack of water in deserts in the American West means that acquiring, controlling, and allocating water is a hot issue that continues to be part of the political geography of the region. And the dominant factor that shapes the political geography of Israel is that nation’s establishment in 1948 against the will of many of its Middle East Arab neighbors. Box 1.2 explains important geographical terms used in Alaska, including some of the parlance of Alaska politics, and raises awareness of the imprecise terms bush and rural.

---

BOX 1.1

Political Leadership: A Complex Phenomenon

Political leadership is a complex phenomenon. Good leaders are not always high-profile, charismatic politicians. They do, however, share some common attributes.

At a basic level, leadership is the ability to guide, direct, or influence people toward achieving a goal. In the case of politics, this means a political or policy goal. To be a leader a politician needs followers. The fact that they get elected to office is evidence that they have some followers in the electorate and some measure of persuasive ability. Beyond this basic attribute, the quality, extent, and level of leadership skills depend on personal traits, political style, and political circumstances and events.

Regarding personal traits, good leaders tend to have three qualities. First is courage—the courage to take chances, at times even go against the wishes of their constituents, and the courage to admit when they are wrong and pursue a new course of action when circumstances require it. Second is judgment or intuition, what some call political smarts—the ability to see a situation in its various political facets, make calculated judgments about the consequences of various courses of action, and recognize when it is appropriate to act or not to act. Third is will power—a combination of determination and self-discipline that enables a politician to persevere despite the difficulties involved. Finally, while many good political leaders possess charisma in varying degrees, charisma is not in itself essential to good leadership.

Political style refers to whether a politician tends to be outgoing or more of a behind-the-scenes type. Everyone who seeks elective office needs to be extroverted to some extent in order to get elected. Once in office, however, some are more inclined to seek publicity and the limelight. Others are more introverted deal-makers, political managers, or technical types. The same is true for high-level appointed officials.

Opportunity also plays a role in the making of a political leader. Political circumstances and events may present some politicians with opportunities to exercise their leadership skills and be viewed as great leaders. George Washington had the War of Independence and the founding of the new nation, Abraham Lincoln the Civil War, and Franklin Roosevelt the Great Depression and World War II. All of them rose to the occasion and ultimately became some of the most prominent leaders in the nation’s history. Other politicians do not get such opportunities. It seems unfair to label certain politicians as poor leaders solely because they did not have the opportunity to rise to the occasion in a major crisis. It is impossible to know, for instance, whether President Hayes (1877–81) or President Taft (1905–13) might now be considered a great president if he had had an opportunity to deal successfully with a major crisis during his presidency.

Finally, values, particularly partisanship and ideology, have a lot to do with popular views of good or great leaders. Conservatives and Republicans are less likely to consider a liberal or a Democrat as a good or great leader, and vice versa. For example, partisanship and ideology very much separate those who disagree about the leadership qualities of President Barack Obama and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Plus, it is sometimes hard to assess a politician’s leadership skills in the present moment. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were very divisive characters and were dismissed and despised as leaders by many Americans during their presidencies. Unbiased assessments of leadership qualities often need the distance of time, perhaps forty or fifty years or even longer.

Source: Developed by the authors.

---

There are four geographic factors that have far-reaching effects on politics and public policy in Alaska: the state’s relatively remote location, the size of the state, its physical environment, and the size and distribution of the population. Maps 1.1 and 1.2 (on pages 50 and 51) illustrate these four factors and help explain their political consequences.

---

BOX 1.2

The Parlance of Alaska’s Political Geography

The Bush: An imprecise term to designate parts of the state in which communities are mostly inaccessible by road (only by air and sometimes by water), have a predominantly Alaska Native population, and subsistence (hunting, fishing, and gathering) plays a very important part in their economy. Naknek and King Salmon in Southwest Alaska and Ambler and Kobuk in Northwest Alaska are examples. See rural and rural-bush below for a further amplification of this term and its use in this book.

The Aleutian Chain or The Chain: The Aleutian chain in Southwest Alaska that crosses the international dateline at its far end.

Down south: Used to refer to the Lower 48 states or the continental United States (usually not including Hawaii). Thus, it does not mean the southern states (the old Confederacy), as down South means in the Lower 48.

Lower Kuskokwim: Part of Southwest Alaska; the area centered around Bethel.

The Interior: The term is an imprecise one. It generally refers to the vast central part of the state, with Fairbanks as the major city.

Mat-Su: Shorthand for the Matanuska-Susitna valley, which extends about thirty-five miles north and east of Anchorage and includes the cities of Palmer, Willow, and Wasilla. The Mat-Su has seen a major population increase since the early 1980s and is one of the most conservative areas of the state.

The North Slope: The part of the state north of the Brooks Range that slopes down to the Arctic Ocean. Its major town is Barrow, and its major local government is the North Slope Borough (NSB). The North Slope includes the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).

Northwest or Northwest Alaska: This is the area south and west of the North Slope; Kotzebue is the major city.

Outside: Everywhere outside of Alaska. Implicit in this parlance is the notion that Alaska is separate, isolated, and to some extent different or exceptional.

The Railbelt: The area served by the Alaska Railroad from Seward on the southern Kenai Peninsula, through Anchorage to Fairbanks. Over 70 percent of the state’s population resides along the Railbelt, the middle and southern portions of which are part of Southcentral Alaska.

Rural: This term, like the bush, is broadly and imprecisely used to designate parts of Alaska, usually small, Caucasian/non-Native communities outside of the major urban areas that are on the road system and have a cash economy. Haines and Skagway in Southeast Alaska, Anderson southwest of Fairbanks on the road to Anchorage, and Delta Junction, southeast of Fairbanks on the Alaska Highway, are examples. See also bush and rural-bush.

Rural-bush: The term used in this book to designate areas outside of major urban centers both on and off the road system. There has never been a clear distinction made between urban, rural, and bush Alaska, so there is no consensus on their use in the state. This vagueness is at the root of several problems in state policy making, including the issue of subsistence. What is particularly confusing is that the terms rural and bush are often used synonymously in everyday speech in Alaska as well as by writers and academics.

Southcentral or Southcentral Alaska: The greater Anchorage metropolitan area including the northern Kenai Peninsula and the Mat-Su valley.

Southeast or Southeast Alaska: The mountainous region bordering the Yukon and British Columbia is shaped like a panhandle (though it is rarely referred to as the panhandle by Alaskans, but rather as Southeast). Its three major cities are Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan, all of which are inaccessible by road.

Southwest or Southwest Alaska: The region that includes Bethel in the Lower Kuskokwim and the Bristol Bay and Dillingham areas.

Source: Developed by the authors.

---

A Noncontiguous State of the Union

Alaska’s remote location from the Lower 48 states means that it costs more to ship goods to and from the state. This pushes up the cost of doing business and makes many business ventures not feasible, particularly manufacturing. These and other factors translate into political issues by exacerbating Alaska’s constant search for economic development, as well as political issues such as whether or not the major airlines and barge companies are taking advantage of their often monopoly positions to charge Alaskans more for their services than they could in more competitive markets. Its location also means that Alaska is dependent on Seattle, Washington, as a shipping port, particularly for goods coming into the state, though whether Alaska is a colony of Seattle is very debatable (see Box 1.3 on page 53).

The State’s Size, Physical Environment, and Population Distribution

The sheer size of Alaska, 663,267 square miles (571,951 land and 91,316 water) or about one-sixth the size of the continental United States and more than twice the size of Texas (258,581 square miles), is often represented by placing a map of Alaska on an outline of the Lower 48 states (see the inset in Map 1.1). Then there is the climate, with heavy snowfalls and frozen ground in much of the state for at least six months of the year and rain and a lack of sunshine in Southeast Alaska and along the Aleutian chain. Plus, the terrain varies from high mountain ranges to tundra, making the building of roads very expensive and difficult in some places. But under this terrain lies some of the world’s most extensive deposits of natural resources, including oil and gas, copper, gold, and many other minerals. And there are more than 6,600 miles of coastline and an ocean teeming with marine life.²

But this vast state has only a small population. It stood at 710,231 in 2010 (estimated at 732,000 in 2013 and projected to be about 800,000 by 2020). In 2013 this ranked Alaska forty-seventh in the Union (just above Vermont, North Dakota, and Wyoming at fiftieth). Alaska had less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the 309 million total U.S. population in 2010 and the estimated 316 million in 2013 (California has 12 percent and Washington State about 2 percent). In 2010 Alaska had the fewest inhabitants per square mile of any state at 1.2 (New Jersey ranks highest at 1,195 and Wyoming forty-ninth at 5.8). However, Alaska’s population is highly concentrated in four or five urban areas, with Anchorage and its nearby communities dwarfing them all. Anchorage has 41 percent of the state’s population and is the only city in Alaska with more than 100,000 people (California has 71 such cities).

As to its ethnic and racial composition, Alaska Natives are by far the largest minority group, with about 15 percent of the population or just under 105,000 in 2010, about half of whom live in rural-bush Alaska. Nationwide, American Indians and Alaska Natives make up only 0.95 percent of the population. Those of Latino and Asian origin each make up about 5 percent of Alaska’s population, but constitute 16.3 and 4.8 percent respectively of the U.S. population. African Americans make up just over 3 percent of Alaska’s population, but 12.6 percent nationwide. Allowing for other small minority groups, about 66 percent of Alaskans are white or Caucasian, about 4 percent above the national average of 62 percent in both 2010 and the estimates for 2014.

Image: MAP 1.1 Map of AlaskaImage: MAP 1.2 The Physical Geography of Alaska

Taken together, these spatial or geographical factors (including human geography), particularly those internal to the state, produce a political geography manifesting certain long-standing elements of Alaska politics and a range of political issues. These issues include the high cost of providing infrastructure, such as roads and airports, especially in rural-bush Alaska; the minimal role of agriculture and the central role of resource extraction; and the often intense conflict between those who want to develop the state for economic benefit and those who want to preserve or conserve it for its natural beauty.

Two aspects of Alaska’s political geography provide particular insights into the political conflicts and the processes by which they are resolved. The first is regionalism and the related issue of conflict between urban and rural-bush areas. The second is the concept of friends and neighbors politics. These concepts are explained in detail in Chapter 2.

4. ALASKA’S EXCEPTIONALISM: AN INITIAL EXPLORATION

There is a belief among many Alaskans and many outside the state that Alaska is unique or exceptional in a number of ways. Several scholars have also argued the case for Alaska exceptionalism both past and present.³ But is contemporary Alaska exceptional or unique and, if so, in what ways?

Certainly, when it comes to easily measurable characteristics such as land area, miles of coastline, inhabitants per square mile, and so on, Alaska is exceptional. When we turn to the realms of its socio-economic, political, and governmental characteristics, however, Alaska exceptionalism is subject to considerable debate. Scholars and informed observers disagree about the degree of exceptionalism, as we will see in many chapters in this book. Furthermore, to return to a point made earlier, many aspects of Alaska life are subject to myths and misunderstandings that tend to get perpetuated down the years. For instance, there is a belief among many Alaskans and some scholars that Alaska has unique features because it is still a colony of the Lower 48 states, the federal government, and international interests.⁴ This view, however, is subject to a strong counterargument. Box 1.3 provides a closer look at the extent to which Alaska is or is not a colony.

Specifically, a question that we tackle in this book is the extent to which Alaska politics, government, political issues, and public policies are unique or exceptional. As with the issue of Alaska as a colony, informed observers disagree on this, depending on what aspects of Alaska politics and government are under discussion. In general, however, the most balanced answer to this question is to view Alaska’s exceptionalism on a spectrum. At one end there are some undeniably unique characteristics or features, such as the role of Alaska Natives, the local government system, and the fact that the state owns and in some cases manages vast quantities of natural resources (the so-called Owner State). At the other end of the spectrum, Alaska has many elements in common with other states, such as the separation of powers in its governmental structure, similar components of the policy process, and semi-sovereign status within the federal system. Between these two points of the spectrum there are a combination of similarities and differences, such as the role and influence of political parties and interest groups, and the role of political ideology in shaping politics and policy making.

---

BOX 1.3

Is Alaska a Colony of the Lower 48 and International Economic Interests?

In the days of the British, French, and Spanish empires (from around 1500 to after World War II), what might be called traditional colonialism or imperialism was characterized by military conquest and control by the colonial power, including: (1) rule of the colony by the imperial country and exclusion of the colony’s inhabitants from politics, including voting and forming political organizations; (2) a military presence by the imperial power for internal security and to ward off imperial rivals; (3) economic exploitation of the colony with little benefit to the local people; and (4) a very low standard of living and often extensive poverty among the colony’s inhabitants.

Modern forms of colonialism are far less overt. They are often spearheaded by strong national governments, such as the United States since the turn of the twentieth century, or by multinational corporations (MNCs), often aided by national governments. This new imperialism involves the colonial power and/or the MNCs gaining indirect control of the economies of countries by being a major purchaser of their products. Furthermore, these contemporary colonies have little control over the prices of these products, which are determined by world markets. The natural resource and one-crop economies of many developing countries are often seen as victims of this new imperialism.

Given these perspectives, to what extent is Alaska a colony? By any stretch of logic Alaska is not a colony in the traditional sense. Like all states in the Union, Alaska is politically semi-sovereign, with its own government and freedom of political association. There is no military occupation by a foreign power. It is also hard to argue that major economic exploitation of Alaska occurs, given the close to $190 billion in revenues it generated from oil and gas taxes and royalties by 2014, and given a Permanent Fund with assets of over $52 billion at the end of fiscal year 2015 (June 30, 2015), four times the state budget that fiscal year. Plus, overall, Alaskans are not poor. Their median household income in 2012 was $66,521 (compared with a national average of $51,371), putting Alaska third among the fifty states that year, with Maryland first and New Jersey second.¹ Even given the higher cost of living in Alaska (which is much lower than it was in the 1980s) Alaskans are still among the most affluent people in the world.

As to the modern form of economic imperialism, Alaska is, more or less, a one-crop economy—oil—and is also highly dependent on the federal government for funding for many programs and on Seattle and its various businesses for shipping goods to the state. So, if one defines a colony narrowly in this economic dependency sense, Alaska is a colony. Even here, however, Alaska is far from politically and economically powerless. It has the wherewithal—with the Permanent Fund—to become independent of dictates by MNCs and could even become less dependent on the federal government if it chose to do so.

Generally, however, Alaskans choose not to do so, and they tax themselves as little as possible. So a good case can be made that Alaska has imposed colonial status upon itself as a result of fiscal conservatism and internal political divisions. For example, in 1990 Alaska lost the right to manage subsistence hunting and fishing on federal lands because it could not deal with the subsistence issue. Furthermore, almost all economies are dependent on Outside forces to some extent. Agricultural economies, like those in the Midwest, are affected by unpredictable weather as well as market prices over which the farmers have little control. Even industrial states like Michigan depend on people buying U.S. instead of foreign products.

¹ U.S. Census, Household Income: 2012, retrieved July 27, 2014, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf.

Source: Developed by the authors.

---

---

BOX 1.4

Alaska Historical Timeline

THE PRE–ALASKA PURCHASE PERIOD—TO 1867

10,000-3,000 years ago Humans inhabit the Bering Sea coast.

1741 Russian seafarers Vitus Bering and Alexei Cherikov sight Alaska.

1799 Alexander Baranov establishes the Russian post of Old Sitka. Trade charter given to Russian-American Company.

1853 Russians find the first oil seeps in Cook Inlet (near present-day Anchorage).

1867 Under President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward, the United States purchases Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. The purchase was often referred to at the time as Seward’s folly. After the formal transfer took place on October 18, at Sitka, the U.S. Army was given jurisdiction over what was called the Department of Alaska.

FROM THE PURCHASE TO TERRITORIAL STATUS—1967–1912

1872 Gold discovered near Sitka.

1878 First salmon canneries established in Southeast Alaska at Klawock and Old Sitka.

1884 An Organic Act gives Alaska its first civil government.

1891 First oil claims staked in Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska.

1897-1900 Klondike gold rush in the Yukon Territory; heavy traffic through Alaska on the way to the gold fields.

1898 Gold discovered on Nome beaches in Northwest Alaska.

1906 Peak gold production year.

Alaska is granted a nonvoting delegate to Congress.

Governor’s office moves from Sitka to Juneau.

1912 Territorial status granted by Congress for Alaska.

FROM TERRITORY TO STATEHOOD—1912–59

1913 First territorial Legislature convened in Juneau.

1914 President Woodrow Wilson authorizes construction of the Alaska Railroad.

1916 First bill proposing Alaska statehood introduced in Congress.

1920 Jones Act passed by Congress. Shipping goods between U.S. ports must be in U.S.-built vessels with U.S. crews.

1923 President Warren Harding drives spike completing the Alaska Railroad.

1935 Matanuska Valley Project, which moves farming families to Alaska, begins.

1942 Alaska Highway built—first overland connection to Lower 48.

NOV.-FEB. 1955-56 Alaska Constitutional Convention of fifty-five delegates held on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus.

1956 In April, Alaska voters ratify the Constitution by a 2–1 margin.

1957 Oil discovered at Swanson River on the Kenai Peninsula, marking the start of Cook Inlet oil and gas production.

1958 Congress passes Alaska statehood measure.

1959 Statehood is officially proclaimed on January 3, 1959.

FROM STATEHOOD TO THE ALASKA PIPELINE—1959–77

1963 State ferry service begins between Seattle and Southeast Alaska.

1966 Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) established.

1968 Oil and gas discovered at Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope.

1969 Lease sale on state selected lands totaling $900 million for Prudhoe Bay oil field.

1971 Congress enacts Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), granting title to 44 million acres of land and providing $962.5 million in payment to Alaska Natives.

1972 Federal passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. State constitutional amendment institutes limited entry in the Alaska fishery.

1973 Congress passes the Endangered Species Act.

1974 Trans-Alaska pipeline system (TAPS) receives final approval; construction build-up begins.

1975 Alaska’s population and labor force soar with construction of the pipeline. Alaska gross domestic product (GDP) hits $5.8 billion—double the 1973 figure.

1976 Creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund by constitutional amendment.

The Molly Hootch settlement. The state agrees to build high schools in most Alaska villages. Before this, Native students had to attend regional boarding schools for high school.

1977 Completion of TAPS from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez; shipment of first oil by tanker from Valdez to Puget Sound in Washington State.

FROM THE PIPELINE TO THE PRESENT

1978 A 200-mile offshore fishing zone goes into effect.

President Jimmy Carter withdraws fifty-six million acres of federal lands in Alaska to create seventeen new national monuments.

1979 State of Alaska files suit to halt withdrawal of the fifty-six million acres. The suit was unsuccessful.

1980 Alaska repeals the personal state income tax.

U.S. Census shows Alaska’s population grew by 32.4 percent during the 1970s, to more than 400,000.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) enacted by the federal government.

1982 First Permanent Fund dividend checks mailed to all qualified residents of Alaska.

1984 State of Alaska purchases the Alaska Railroad from the federal government.

1985 Failed attempt by the Alaska Legislature to impeach Governor Bill Sheffield.

1986 Price of oil drops to under $10 a barrel (usual price was around $30) causing major budget crisis, job layoffs, mortgage foreclosures, and the exodus of tens of thousands from Alaska.

1989 Worst oil spill to date in U.S. history occurs in Prince William Sound when the Exxon Valdez runs aground.

1994 Exxon is found liable for actual and punitive damages in litigation over the 1989 oil spill in Prince William Sound.

2002 The U.S. Congress defeats an amendment to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development. Alaska’s congressional delegation vows to continue the fight to access the oil.

2005 Oil prices reach all-time high of nearly $70 per barrel.

2006 Alaska voters elect the state’s first woman governor, Sarah Palin.

Federal corruption investigation begins into Alaska state and federal politicians, lobbyists, and oil service company VECO’s executives. Several convictions follow in the next two years.

2008 Oil reaches close to $150 a barrel. State projects a $12 billion–plus surplus by 2009—twice the annual state budget at that time.

July Alaska U.S. Senator Ted Stevens indicted on federal charges of failing to disclose gifts from oil service company VECO.

August Governor Palin chosen as vice presidential running mate by Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

October Senator Stevens found guilty by a Washington, D.C., jury on all counts for failing to disclose gifts.

November The McCain and Palin Republican ticket defeated in the presidential election.

Senator Stevens defeated by Democrat Mark Begich in the U.S. Senate race.

2009 In April, Stevens’s conviction overturned and charges dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct. On July 3, Sarah Palin resigns as governor; Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell sworn in as governor.

2010 Former Senator Ted Stevens killed in plane crash.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski defeated in primary election by Joe Miller, who was supported by the Tea Party Express, but she wins write-in campaign for the seat in the fall election.

Sean Parnell elected as governor in his own right.

2011 Governor Parnell proposes tax break for the oil companies to encourage exploration. State Senate majority, the Bipartisan Working Group (BWG) of Republicans and Democrats, oppose the governor’s proposal.

2012 Governor’s oil tax proposal defeated. But BWG suffers losses in the November election and it falls apart.

2013 Republican-dominated legislature in both houses passes oil company tax break (Senate Bill 21—the More Alaska Production Act [MAPA]), prompting a citizen referendum to repeal it. The legislature also introduces several conservative proposals, including a constitutional amendment to allow state funds to go to private and religious schools.

2014 Tax referendum—Proposition 1—defeated in August primary—MAPA remains in force.

June–Dec. Oil prices drop almost 50 percent, from more than $100 to less than $60 per barrel. A major budget crisis ensues.

In the November general election:

Governor Parnell defeated for a second term by nonpartisan candidate Bill Walker.

Democrat Mark Begich defeated for reelection to the U.S. Senate by former Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan.

Use of marijuana legalized by initiative—Ballot Measure 2.

2015 The 2015 legislative session was dominated by the need for budget cuts due to low oil prices. Disagreements between Governor Walker and the Republican majority in each house over the gas pipeline and Medicaid expansion were also prominent.

Oil prices gradually declined from the mid-$60s range per barrel in July 2014 to the mid- to high-$40s range per barrel by July 2015.

By June 30 the Alaska Permanent Fund had passed the $52 billion mark.

Late summer: President Obama visits Alaska to highlight dealing with climate change.

September: Royal Dutch Shell pulls out of drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic.

December: Oil prices hover in the mid-$40s a barrel and then drop to the low-$30s.

Governor Walker proposes major restructuring of the Permanent Fund and a state individual income tax to help fund the state’s budget shortfall.

Source: Developed by the authors.

---

An exploration of the extent of Alaska’s political and governmental exceptionalism and how this is intertwined with the myths, misunderstandings, and realities of politics, threads throughout the book. This is one aspect of placing Alaska in a comparative context. Chapter 2 provides a foundation for this comparative aspect of the book by offering insights on the degree to which Alaska’s politics, government, and public policy are exceptional.

5. FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT: ALASKA’S POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

It is certainly true that understanding the past can teach us a lot about the present, but an initial understanding of contemporary Alaska politics does not require extensive historical details and explanations. Those interested in the details of Alaska history can consult the Further Reading and Research Sources section at the end of the book. Plus, background on historical developments as they relate to specific aspects of Alaska politics, issues, policies, and political and governmental institutions are provided in the individual chapters. Much more useful than a detailed historical review is the identification of the major events and broad phases of Alaska’s political, social, economic, and political development. These major events and phases are set out in Box 1.4.

6. CONCLUSION: MOVING FROM THE GENERAL POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT TO THE SPECIFICS OF ALASKA POLITICS

This general background on Alaska’s past and present political environment provides a basis for understanding the specifics of Alaska’s contemporary politics and public policy and for placing these in a broader regional, national, and international context. So we are now equipped to explore the specific factors that shape the characteristics of Alaska politics, the issues that face the state, and the particulars of the policy process for addressing these issues. And we have a foundation for delving into the factors that shape the power relationships in Alaska and how these play out to advance or block various policy proposals to deal with the short- and long-term problems facing the state.

ENDNOTES

¹ Dittman Research Corporation, How the U.S. Views Us (Anchorage: Dittman Research, 2006).

² These and other statistics on Alaska and comparisons with other states are taken mainly from Almanac of the 50 States: Basic Date Profiles with Comparative Tables (Woodside, CA: Information Publications, 2010); The Book of the States, volume 43 (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, 2012); and U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census: Population Distribution and Change 2000 to 2010, Table 1, retrieved April 15, 2011, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census: Population Density, retrieved April 15, 2011, from http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-dens-text.php; U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder Fact Sheet: Race and Hispanic or Latino, 2010, retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL1.ST13&prodType=table; and U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates for 2013, retrieved August 2, 2014, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

³ See Stephen Haycox, Alaska: An American Colony (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002) and his Frigid Embrace: Politics, Economics and Environment in Alaska (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2002); Stephen W. Haycox and Mary Childers Mangusso, eds., An Alaska Anthology: Interpreting the Past (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994); and Peter Coates, The Crude and the Pure: Oil and Environmental Politics in Alaska, in Richard Lowitt, ed., Politics in the Postwar American West (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995).

⁴ See Haycox, Alaska: An American Colony, esp. Chapters 1 and 13.

CHAPTER 2

The Fundamentals of Alaska Politics: Influences, Characteristics, Issues, and Power

Clive S. Thomas and Mary Sattler

Building on the initial insights into Alaska politics presented in Chapter 1, this chapter provides a more in-depth exploration. It does so by identifying the fundamental characteristics of Alaska politics, the influences that shape them, the issues they generate, and the power dynamics that work to deal with them or not deal with them, as the case may be. Explanation of the fundamental factors that make Alaska politics what they are (and what they are not) is essential to understanding the topics treated in the rest of the book. In exploring these topics, we will not be looking at Alaska in isolation but will compare it with other states, principally those in the American West.

The chapter is set out as follows. First, we distinguish between characteristics and influences. Then, after explaining why Alaska should be considered a western state, we review the traditional influences that have shaped both Alaska politics and those in other western states. This is followed by examining some recent trends and influences in the region and in Alaska. With an understanding of these influences and trends, we move to identify the contemporary characteristics of Alaska politics. Next we review the major issues in Alaska, both past and present. Finally, we turn to the question of where power lies in Alaska—a question that will be addressed throughout the book in the context of a variety of policies and issues.

1. DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS AND INFLUENCES

By characteristic we mean a distinguishing feature of politics. The political characteristics of a city, state, or nation incorporate three elements that shape political action: (1) the prevailing political values and attitudes; (2) the organization of the political and governmental institutions and the power relationships between and among them; and (3) the current issues and concerns. Some characteristics are unique to Alaska, such as the role of Alaska Natives in Alaska politics. Others, while not unique to the state, have a particular Alaskan or western bent to them, such as regionalism.

On the other hand, influences are the factors that shape or determine the political characteristics of a place. Influences are part of the larger environment and include a multitude of factors, many of which were identified in Chapter 1. These include historical developments; geography; social and economic factors such as religion, race, and ethnicity; economic opportunity or lack thereof; and, in some cases, international conditions.

So while political characteristics are by definition political, influences are often not political. For example, it is the vastness of many states in the American West and often the distinct economies in different parts of these states that have produced the political characteristic of regionalism.

2. ALASKA AS A WESTERN STATE

While the politics and government of all fifty states share much in common, Alaska differs most from the states of the Northeast (such as Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey) and the Upper Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), as will be explained in various chapters in the book. Alaska’s similarities to and differences from the southern states will also be explored. Alaska is most similar to other states in the American West, particularly the Mountain West, and not just for geographical reasons. With regard to its economy, social makeup, political traditions, and its recent and contemporary politics, Alaska is a western state. Plus, for reasons of geography and common political issues, it has more interaction with states in the West than with those in other regions.

The way we define the American West is different from the images of the Old West or Wild West that come to mind from hundreds of Hollywood westerns and thousands of books. While one can still find areas of the American West that resemble those images, the boundaries are hard to precisely identify and for the most part they cannot be defined in political terms. In this book we define the West strictly in terms of geography. As arbitrary as this may sound, there is a political logic to it as states in the West share many common characteristics and influences.

The American West in this book includes the thirteen states west of the Great Plains: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sometimes we need to make a distinction between the subregions of the West, such as the Pacific states, Mountain states, the Pacific Northwest, and the Southwest. The exact extent of these subregions varies, however, depending on who is using them and the purpose for their use. For example, the Pacific states usually include Washington, Oregon, and California. In some ways, however, Alaska can also be viewed as a Pacific state, particularly in regard to fisheries issues. Similarly, Arizona is sometimes regarded as part of the Southwest, but both Arizona and Alaska share some characteristics and political issues with the Mountain states, particularly in regard to mining issues. To avoid misunderstanding, we specify the boundaries of a subregion when referring to it.

3. THE TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES ON WESTERN AND ALASKA POLITICS

Box 2.1 briefly explains the traditional influences on western politics and the extent to which they apply to Alaska.¹ They are labeled as traditional because they are the influences that have worked to shape the characteristics of western politics over many years—in some cases since the days of the Wild West. In reviewing Box 2.1, it is important to bear in mind that there are always exceptions to generalizations, and this is true of the influences on western politics. California, as a giant in the region with one of the largest and most balanced economies in the nation (it would be the eighth largest in the world if it were a separate country), is an exception to