Nga paepae Maori

Maori seats and wards

The New Zealand Maori parliamentary seats are unusual, but they are not internationally unique and there is no way in which they violate basic democratic principles as their opponents claim. Representation for different ethnic groups (as in Singapore) or language groups (as in Belgium) and indigenous minorities (as in Colombia and Ecuador) make as much sense as representation for different geographic localities, as is the norm in Westminster style systems. In fact, if they reflect real divisions within the community they could be said to serve the interests of democracy better than the homogenized blandness of a general electorate.

There is a valid concern be over whether such representation can aggravate tensions between different communities rather than providing a means by which they can be worked out openly and transparently. But does that apply in the New Zealand case? The events of the present term of government might suggest that tensions have been raised by the presence of Te Pati Maori members in the Maori electorates but dig a little deeper and we see that the opposite is true. There was an ill-conceived move by colonialist parties to effectively do away with the Treaty of Waitangi. That move reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the mood of the nation, and of Maori in particular. Te Pati Maori members of parliament made it very clear to the colonialist parties that the onslaught against the Treaty was a bad idea and the public reinforced that message in spades. The problem was not that the Maori voice had been heard too loudly in parliament. The problem was that the more extreme colonialist parties had not heard it at all, and the moderate colonialists had failed to properly take note.

In reaction, the more extreme colonialists now want to do away with the Maori seats altogether. In other words, rather than having taken note of the public reaction, they want to double down on their blind drive towards colonialist hegemony. As the mainstream colonialist parties are all too aware, this is a risky move which if carried through successfully will put the entire colonialist project in jeopardy.

The Maori seats were first established in order to bring Maori safely within the colonialist tent, to give them a voice, to allow negotiation and compromise and to prevent the resumption of armed conflict. That purpose remains valid today, but with some differences. In 1868 Maori and non-Maori were closely matched in numbers, Maori had fought a series of wars of resistance to British incursions, and the colonialists had to take account of Maori. Therefore they allocated Maori just four seats in Parliament.

The situation today is different but in some ways more complex. Maori are only about one in five of the population, and their resistance to colonialism is conducted strictly on the political level. However, in 1868 only a small proportion of Pakeha had strong sympathies for Maori rights and aspirations, whereas now large numbers of Pakeha are disaffected with colonialist society, identify with Maori, and see Maori as bearers of the true character of the nation to which they belong. So colonialism still needs to tread carefully. It remains on shaky ground and needs to watch its back.

There are three organizations that say they want to tear down the historic compromise between Maori and the colonialist regime by removal of the Maori seats. They are the “ACT” party, the “New Zealand First” party and the “Hobson’s Pledge” organisation, and, naturally enough, the arguments they bring to their case are not overtly anti-Maori. Instead they are (quite falsely) based on ideas of political equality and national unity. They have been able to get away with this political sleight of hand at least to a degree because their critics - both Maori and Pakeha - who have an interest in maintaining that historic compromise have veered away from the kind of analysis which would threaten its survival from the opposite direction.

Put simply, the moderate critics of the colonialist extremists are reluctant to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with the classic Westminster system of representation or that the institutions of New Zealand government remain solidly and unashamedly colonialist. They hesitate to argue that the Maori system of governance, rangatiratanga, is more genuinely democratic than the Westminster system and ultimately is the only system that can serve the national interest of all our people. Thus they are left defending Maori wards on local councils and Maori seats in parliament on grounds which sometimes smacks of liberal condescension to Maori interests and therefore can be counterproductive with the voters.

We first perhaps should give brief consideration to the question “What is a Maori?”. The notion of race in New Zealand does not have the same simple clarity that it had in apartheid South Africa, the US, or even in Singapore. Our working definition of Maori is “anyone who had an ancestor living in Aotearoa prior to 1769”. This is the defacto definition used by the New Zealand state and by Maori themselves. Physical characteristics (as in the South African “pencil test”) or “percentage ethnicity” (as in Singapore) are not pertinent, except to those colonialists who while insisting that they are “colour blind” make a big deal of the fact that some who identify as Maori are hard to distinguish from Pakeha on the basis of their physical characteristics. Among some colonialists there is a savage contempt for those who they judge to be “not real Maori” on the basis of physical characteristics or ancestry which is revealing of the fundamental truth of the debate over Maori seats and Maori wards: that the Maori seat and ward issue is one of community first, culture second, after that political persuasion, and only lastly, and chiefly in the eyes of the colonialists, does it become a question of race.

So let’s go on to examine the arguments for the abolition of Maori seats and Maori wards on local councils.

How are we to reconcile the ACT party’s economic and political ideas with its stand against Maori wards and Maori seats in parliament? In economics they are all over the idea of choice. But not so in politics. The Maori voter’s current right to choose between the Maori roll and the general roll must go, or so the ACT Party would tell us.

In economics ACT criticizes the idea that we should all become equal by taking wealth away from those who have more than others. Yet they somehow believe that taking rights away from Maori will leave non-Maori better off. Money taken from the rich must go somewhere (hopefully to the poor), but taking rights from one group does not automatically benefit any other group.

Can a single non-Maori voter show us he will be better off if his Maori neighbour loses the right to choose the Maori roll? Would it not make more sense for that non-Maori voter to say “I want the same right as my neighbour, the right to be a member of a constituency with which I identify and with which I have a real, natural or organic connection, a constituency in which I can be an active participant rather than being limited to the performance of a ritual once every three years”?

ACT say that instead of envying the rich and trying to take away what the rich have, the poor should aspire to become wealthy themselves. Then why not have non-Maori aspire to the same rights as Maori?

We are told that “ACT in government will repeal the relevant sections of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and will oppose the introduction of any new legislation that allows race-based representation.” and “David Seymour, leader of the ACT Party and Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, has consistently argued that whakapapa (genealogy/ancestry) should not be a qualification for political rights or differential treatment in New Zealand law” (Google AI which I have no reason to doubt in this case). How to reconcile that attitude to the way in which the regime chooses its Head of State? No one, they say, should be privileged on account of their whakapapa. Yet they pledge allegiance to an unelected head of state who has been selected solely on the basis of whakapapa, ancestry or inheritance, call it what you will. The contrast is astonishing. If you are a foreigner with little interest in or connection to our people then your ancestry alone is sufficient to secure you the highest position in the land. But if you are part of an indigenous community, then your ancestry does not even entitle you to be represented in parliament as a member of that community.

The colonialists say they want to get rid of Maori seats because they are “racist”, or, when they are being a little less disingenuous, because they are “race based”. Yet all their own arguments against the Maori seats are in fact “race based”. They choose to ignore the questions of political principle, social cohesion, and democratic effectiveness.

First, they come up with the positive, though irrelevant, argument of “twenty-seven percent of the House having a Māori background – far higher than the often claimed seventeen percent of the country’s Māori population” (New Zealand First). That may be true but to see how irrelevant it is one only needs to look at two of those who “have a Maori background”: David Seymour and Winston Peters himself. We all know that both men are devoted to the colonialist cause. Both are committed to colonialist hegemony symbolized in the person of the monarch King Charles. For reasons best known to themselves both are hostile to the interests of Maori communities. Both can get up in arms at the mere sound of a word in te reo. They are seriously troubled individuals who provide no sensible alternative to genuine Maori political representation.

Hobson’s Pledge argues that “James Meager, Tamatha Paul, Arena Williams, and David Seymour all have Māori heritage and all won general electorate seats. Winston Peters and Willie Jackson stand on opposite sides of the House as senior list MPs for their parties. It is undeniable that Māori do not need a leg up to get proportionate representation”. That may be true, but it is beside the point. Maori who win a general electorate seat “represent” a confusing mix of different cultural and economic interests just as every other general seat member does. The do not represent a Maori community. Maori who gain a place on a political party list represent the policies and constituency of that party and they are beholden to the hierarchy of the party. By contrast, Maori who win a Maori electorate seat are accountable to their electors, not just in theory, but in practice through the network of hapu and marae organisations.

So, overall, Maori who gain list seats in a colonialist party serve the interests of colonialism. Maori who gain a general electorate seat are assumed, rightly or wrongly, to serve the interests of the general electors. None of them can claim to specifically represent the interests of Maori communities as do the members who occupy the Maori seats.

Then we get down to the truly nasty and politically biased stuff. “That is why it is time to call it a day on Māori seats. This term of Parliament has demonstrated that they serve only to reserve a spot for the most extreme activists rather than provide representation for ordinary Māori families. Te Pāti Māori has put the final nail in the coffin of Māori Seats with their hateful rhetoric and disrespectful antics. They loathe everything about our Parliament and what it stands for. They take every opportunity to undermine the idea that we are all New Zealanders.” (Hobson’s Pledge). “The Māori Party’s behaviour over the past two years has been the last straw. They hold the majority of the Māori seats and do not turn up to parliament, disregard the rules and processes, and show utter disdain for the system that gives them the very seats they hold – they represent no one. They have proven the seats they hold are no longer relevant nor serve their original purpose”. (New Zealand First).

Deconstruct these statements and it becomes obvious just how anti-democratic they are. In essence New Zealand First and Hobson’s Pledge are saying “Maori electorates have made such bad choices that we need to take away their right to be represented. They have chosen representatives who are not colonialists, representatives who think like Maori and act like Maori and threaten to turn the whole country against the colonialist project”. New Zealand First comes uncomfortably close to the truth when it says “the seats.. no longer ..serve their original purpose”. What was that original purpose? It was to strengthen colonialist rule by bringing Maori inside the tent, yet with strict limitations to ensure that they could not threaten the survival of the system.

So how could we make the principle of Maori representation universal? The first step would be to make the Maori seats properly representative. At present all we can say is that they are political chimaera. They are more democratic than the general seats both in theory and in practice, because they give Maori a limited choice of constituency, and because within those constituencies there exist marae and hapu organizations which provide an organic connection between the representatives and those who they are supposed to represent. On the other hand they are artificial colonialist constructs, and the connection between the elected representatives and marae and hapu can be tortuous. The people cannot direct or recall their representatives. They can only hope to persuade. Constituencies like “Tai Tokerau” for example do not have really solid communal connections. Ngapuhi and Ngatiwahi and Te Rarawa have their own membership, organizations and loyalties which are much more real than any geographical allegiance to “Te Tai Tokerau”. Therefore in a genuine democracy, in rangatiratanga, Maori would be allowed to choose to be represented as members of a hapu which could exercise real control over their own rangatira. That much we can all see quite clearly. How could it be made to work with the resultant constituencies being many in number and varying greatly in size? Quite simply if every vote in parliament consisted of three million proxy votes rather than 123 member votes. It takes a little more imagination to see how the system would work for non-Maori, but it is not too difficult. They could choose to be represented through a geographic constituency, a church, a trade union, a clan or whatever community they most closely identified with. They could be given the same expanded range of choice as Maori. Yes, it would be radical. Yes it might threaten the colonialist stranglehold over politics and society. But it would be a good thing and it would not be hard to implement. Coupled with other reforms such as the open ballot and continuous election it would solve the crisis of Western pseudo-democracy.

The real reason why the colonialist extremists want to do away with the Maori seats is because in a small and imperfect way they point the way forward for our nation and the world at large. But even if they succeed in their plan to abolish the Maori seats, the colonialists will not succeed in their overall objective of preserving colonialism and frustrating the popular hunger for a genuine democracy.