This article asks why indigenous peoples have been so unsuccessful in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Carl Schmitt’s analysis of parliamentarism appears to provide a coherent account. Schmitt suggests that parliamentary forums require homogeneity of participants and without this sameness they are sites of empty talk that disguise the true locale of power and decision making. The analysis of the IGC deliberations shows that this is the experience of indigenous peoples within the IGC. There are gestures to inclusion and much talk, but power and decision making are located elsewhere. This article concludes that the IGC is symptomatic of a broader problem in international organisations positing participation as a means to engagement with indigenous peoples’ specificity and interests.