Many peoples, many systems
There was never a single Apache government. The Apache peoples are a family of related nations whose languages belong to the Southern Athabaskan branch, and each developed its own ways of making decisions. Western Apache groups, the Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Lipan and the Plains Apache (also called Kiowa Apache) lived in different country, with different neighbors and histories. Anyone describing “Apache governance” as one uniform system is simplifying, and the sources themselves sometimes differ on details. This article gives a general outline and points to where the nations diverge.
Traditional organization: kin first
Before the reservation period, political life was closely tied to family. The basic unit was usually the extended family, often several households of related people living near one another. Several extended families that camped, farmed or hunted together formed a local group, which is generally described in the ethnographic literature as the most important political unit for many Apache peoples.
Local groups were not rigid. Families could move between them, especially through marriage, and the size of a group changed with the seasons and the food available. Larger bands or divisions existed among several nations, but they were looser than the word “band” suggests. Among the Chiricahua, for example, the literature describes several named divisions, each made up of local groups, and cooperation between them depended on circumstances rather than a fixed chain of command.
Headmen and the authority of respect
Local groups usually had a recognized leader, often called a headman in English-language sources. The role was earned through reputation, not inherited by right or won by election in the modern sense. People followed a headman because they trusted his judgment, his record of looking after others and his skill in speaking. If followers lost confidence, they could drift to another group. Accounts of the qualities people valued are covered in our look at the qualities of Apache leaders, and the daily work of a leader is a separate topic.
Authority was limited. A headman could advise, mediate and propose, but he generally could not compel. Decisions on moving camp, joining a raid or making peace were typically reached through discussion and consent. Women and elders had real influence within families, and in matrilocal groups such as the Western Apache, the households people lived in were organized around related women.
Clans and wider ties
Among the Western Apache, matrilineal clans linked people across local groups. A person belonged to the clan of their mother, and clan ties created obligations of hospitality and support, which also helped neighbors settle disputes. The Apache clan system is documented most thoroughly for Western Apache groups, and other nations organized kinship somewhat differently, so it should not be generalized to every group.
The reservation era
From the second half of the nineteenth century, the United States and earlier Spanish and Mexican authorities intruded on this pattern. Under the reservation system, federal Indian agents and the military held real power over Apache communities. Groups that had never lived together were sometimes placed on the same reservation, and the Chiricahua were held for years as prisoners of war, first in Florida and Alabama and later at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Appointed police, agent-chosen representatives and government rules replaced or pressed against older ways of choosing leaders. How this differed from earlier practice is the subject of our article on traditional leadership.
Constitutions and councils
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 encouraged tribes to adopt written constitutions and elected councils, and several Apache nations organized under such documents in the 1930s or later. Later federal policy, including the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, gave tribal governments more control over programs once run by federal agencies. Today the Apache nations are separate governments, among them the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe and the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. The Lipan Apache have a distinct history, and their communities in Texas and elsewhere have sought recognition in various ways.
Modern structures differ. Most have an elected chairperson or president and a council, with terms, qualifications and powers set by each nation’s own constitution or code. Some also run tribal courts. Election rules, enrollment requirements and the balance between council and chair are specific to each nation and change over time.
Continuity and change
Tribal governments today operate within federal law, yet they are governments with their own authority, and many communities describe a continuing role for elders, clan relations and family networks beside elected office. How strongly these older patterns shape present-day politics varies by nation and community, and outsiders should be careful not to assume.
For current officials, constitutions and enrollment rules, consult each nation’s official website. This site is independent and does not speak for any Apache nation.