Tuesday 25 May 2021

Working Alongside Maori Capitalism To Enrich “Aotearoa Inc.”

Culture Clash: The Samoan Chief Justice, in his very English ceremonial robes, tests the locked doors of the Samoan Parliament. The crisis now gripping Samoa is the product of an almost entirely unanticipated collision between the traditional Samoan way of doing politics, and the formal requirements of Samoa’s democratic constitution. Would the recommendations contained in the He Puapua Report produce a similar collision of political cultures?

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS currently gripping Samoa calls into question John Minto’s optimistic conclusions regarding the He Puapua Report. Underlying the political stand-off in Samoa is the as yet unresolved tension between the democratic institutions inherited from New Zealand, and the much older set of political and cultural expectations inherited from pre-colonial Samoan society. So long as democracy was able to accommodate traditional leadership hierarchies and decision-making customs, the two traditions rubbed along together with minimal friction. The crisis now gripping Samoa is the product of an almost entirely unanticipated collision between the traditional Samoan way of doing politics, and the formal requirements of Samoa’s democratic constitution.

John’s core argument in favour of the recommendations contained in He Puapua is that they will give Maori and Pakeha more democracy – not less. He quite correctly points to the anti-democratic motives driving New Zealand’s nineteenth century colonial governments’ efforts to contain the potential political power of Maori – in deliberate contravention of Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi. Successive settler regimes were determined to do no more than was absolutely necessary to keep the peace between the two peoples. The four Maori seats (established in 1867) were a reluctant acknowledgement of the decisive role played by kupapa Maori (also known as “Friendly Maoris” or “Queenites”) in the recent armed conflicts over land and sovereignty.

The question raised by New Zealand’s 2010 decision to sign up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is: To what degree is it possible for a colonial regime, founded on “a revolutionary seizure of power” (the phrase used by the New Zealand legal scholar, Professor Jock Brookfield, to describe the effective nullification of the Treaty of Waitangi occasioned by the establishment of on-the-ground settler supremacy in the 1850s and 60s) to unpick the political and cultural needlework of nation building? Helen Clark’s straightforward answer was: No. It’s not possible. Which is why she refused to sign New Zealand up to the Declaration. John Key, under pressure from the Maori Party, not only decided to sign the document, but in 2014 agreed to produce some sort of roadmap towards its eventual implementation. He Puapua is that roadmap.

The first stage of the He Puapua journey is, as John suggests, all about bringing Maori into the places where important decisions are made about their health, housing, education and employment. But, is this equation of participation and democracy justified? Although every Pakeha citizen enjoys exactly the same political rights as every other Pakeha citizen, how common is it for poor, working-class Pakeha to be found in the places where critical decisions about the allocation of economic, social and cultural resources are being made? The answer, of course, is: Not very often – if ever. Our capitalist society, like the feudal society which preceded it, reserves seats at the decision-making table for members of its ruling class, their most trusted servants – and bugger-all others. Are the exclusively Maori power structures proposed by He Puapua likely to prove any less careful about who gets invited to sit at their tables?

An answer, of sorts, is provided by the fate of Maori Television. When it began, Maori TV was based in Auckland, staffed by an outstanding bunch of extremely talented journalists and broadcasters. Its news and current affairs section was particularly effective at bringing the stories of Maori and Power to its viewers. Too effective – as it turned out. In retaliation for turning the media spotlight on the management of Kohanga Reo, Maori Television was gutted of its best and its brightest talent and relocated to Rotorua. As in Samoa, the expectations of democratic scrutiny and accountability ran head-first into traditional cultural expectations of discretion and respect.

Over the course of the past 30 years, the brutal imposition of neoliberalism on Maori communities has required the colonial New Zealand state to do all within its power to thwart the rise of effective Maori resistance. It has done this in two ways. First, by working closely with traditional Maori power structures to foster the development of what the academic writer Elizabeth Rata calls “Neo-Tribal Capitalism”. (Treaty Settlements have played a crucial role in this process.) Second, by facilitating the growth of the educated Maori middle-class needed to run this new “Maori Economy”.

There is scant evidence, to date, that Neo-Tribal Capitalism is any more inclined to encourage democratic participation than the common-or-garden Pakeha variety. It is, almost certainly, no accident that the radical recommendations contained in He Puapua owe a great deal to the ideas contained in Matike Mai Aotearoa – the report on “constitutional transformation” commissioned by the neo-tribal capitalist “Iwi leaders Group”.

If any more evidence is required for the essential incompatibility of traditional and democratic expectations within Maoridom, one has only to consider the fate of the participatory governance structures set up to co-manage the resources handed over by the Crown in the Tainui Treaty Settlement. This brave attempt to hold chiefly power accountable did not end well.

In his post, John makes much of what he calls “the dictatorship of the majority”. This is, indeed, an aspect of the democratic process that has come in for much criticism over the centuries. In almost every case, however, those complaining most loudly about the tyranny of the majority are those most likely to suffer a reduction in power and wealth should the needs of the many ever be permitted to outweigh the greed of the few.

John simply does not admit the possibility that this might also be the case in Maoridom. He seems to see Maori as an undifferentiated mass of poor and oppressed people, held permanently in that condition by the undifferentiated racism of their colonial masters. Unaccounted for in his description of the problem are the power structures – both traditional and modern – which have been encouraged to concentrate political and economic power in the hands of tribal capitalist elites.

It is these elites who have most to gain from the changes proposed in He Puapua. Allied to the elites attached to the Crown, and the elites which still control Pakeha society, the Maori elites will be well placed to enjoy the rewards, and strengthen the defences, of “Aotearoa Inc”. The prospect of ordinary New Zealanders, of any ethnicity, working alongside the Maori, or any of the other elites, in this enterprise, is neither anticipated, nor desired.

As the people of Samoa are discovering, when push comes to shoves, it’s those with the power already in their hands who push and shove the hardest.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 25 May 2021.

15 comments:

Tom Hunter said...

So long as democracy was able to accommodate traditional leadership hierarchies and decision-making customs, the two traditions rubbed along together with minimal friction.

What the worship of the latter often forgets in the NZ context is just how many of the White settlers to this nation were escaping such crap in their home countries. There was a rather large number of Scots and Irish immigrants who spoke bitterly through two generations or more of the lairds and the landowners that they had grown to hate but could not defeat politically. In Scotland the lairds who booted crofters from their pitiful little hovels so that sheep could be farmed, being much more valuable than crops. The land owners in Ireland who found that wheat was more valuable than potatoes and so forth.

As well as the fact that it was usually the local ruling class suspects who were at the forefront of screwing over little people, more so than the hated English who in many cases acted as little more than distant enablers.

Various historians have commented on how this sense of victimisation ofen led to basic empathy of many such Scotch/Irish settlers to Maori, enabling the large degree of intermarriage that has been the norm from early in this nation's history and may yet be our saviour against the primitive racist brutality of Identity Politics, "Woke" politics and Critical Race Theory.

But such histories also enabled the creation of the Social Welfare state so approved of by the Left. As numerous 19th century European Leftist visitors noted, the systems we had that they so envied and wished for their own nations did not seem to have arisen from much theory but simply, practical needs to solve problems. As result some of the snobs were less than impressed with us.

And perhaps the core aspect of that history is that as a people we did not and still do not take kindly to wankers who set themselves above us, and that includes not just the typical targets of this blog - the elites of Big Business and the National-ACT parties - but the Maori elite who still move in and enjoy the trappings of tribal, chiefly respect and their "decision-making customs".

Indulging more of this is not a way forward, as idiots like Far Lefter John Minto suppose, but a return to an older, failed reactionary past that people have escaped from for centuries now. Tribes can be nice and even necessary for survival, but they can also be the most stifling, soul-destroying and even self-destructive of institutions, whether Sicilian and Italian "families", Irish and Scottish "tribes" or NZ Iwi.

He seems to see Maori as an undifferentiated mass of poor and oppressed people, held permanently in that condition by the undifferentiated racism of their colonial masters.

Of course he does. It's the old, crude, reductive Marxist view of society with the "new" twist of racism being the driver of the oppressors rather than the economic drive of a capitalist class (the latest wheeze to shoehorn all this together is that capitalism is merely another expression of racism).

It's not surprising that Minto refuses to see where all this could go. It is simply a repetition of his life long faith that such systems would lead to his ultimate Far Left utopia, when in fact they always end up with some ruling class planted in place of the previous one that was destroyed by the revolution.

The Barron said...

Unfortunately Chris, some of this is a fundamental misreading of the Samoan constitution.

The constitution was drawn up by a preliminary Samoan Parliament lead by Fiame Mata'afa Faumuima Mulinu'u II, who went on to become the first Prime Minister of Western Samoa in 1962, and is the father of the Fiame Naomi Mata'afa. The Samoan delegates wrote the constitution with the advise of, and in consultation with, NZ officials including Guy Powles and James Davidson.

Unlike NZ, Australia and Britain, there are no 'reserved powers' for the Head of State. The HOS is a position originally derived from one made by the German authorities, and carried on by the colonial NZ authorities. It was a position that was passed between the title holders of the two leading Samoan 'families'. Recently, the Samoan Parliament extended this to the four royal Tafa'ifa titles.

The decision of the current HOS to call a second election was dismissed by the Samoan Supreme Court on the basis that the Samoan constitution does not allow for reserve powers. That is extraordinary powers not specified in the constitution. In this, the HOD did not have the power to interfere with the democratic decision of the Samoan people outside that which was specified in the constitution.

The Queen has this power in Britain. The Governor General has reserve powers (as bestowed as the representative of the Monarch) in New Zealand and the Governor General exercised this power in Australia in 1974. Hereditary power (acknowledging that Kerr did not consult the Palace over exercise of the powers given by the Hereditary Monarch) is greater in those jurisdictions than Samoa in regard to Governing.

Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that constitutionally Samoa's current problem is based on hereditary rights. Where the problem is resides in a view that there are three equal levels of Government - the HOS, the Parliament and the Courts. This is incorrect in regard to the actual constitution of Samoa. The Judiciary alone have the power to interpret the constitution. This is in line with the best models of modern democracy.

Unknown said...

A brave and principled man Chris
D J S

Jens Meder said...

With no systematic "democratization of capitalism" (i.e. at least an adequate material level capital ownership by all, in addition to education) in place -

perhaps the tribal elites are right in not "democratizing" their treaty settlement wealth in the knowledge, that too many would just consume it in "having a good time" - and then be just as poor and more dissatisfied than before, after having tasted the pleasures of some more consumption.

The Socialist experiment of equality in poverty under State Monopoly Capitalism has failed in delivering adequate prosperity in freedom (and in preventing the inequalities resulting from different rates of educational investments and achievements) -

so would not a "people's capitalistic" Ownership Democracy be the most promising prospect for a mixed capitalist Social Democracy -

to overcome most of our current class, race and religious differences based distractions from a universally constructive and benevolent unity ?

With adequate prosperity and freedom by all, what kind of honest people would want to change it through destructive actions ?

David George said...

Where does the power lie in our (reasonably) functional society, who are these powerful (but unidentified) elites lording it over us. It seems they have, appropriately, identifiable limits to their power and systems in place if they overstep the mark. The judiciary, the police, Government MPs, top civil servants, union bosses, business leaders and so on have strictly limited power and autonomy; that's how it should be with authority a product of competence rather than raw power.

The traditional Maori hierarchical structure doesn't have these same formal restraints, they're not as essential for small tribal units I guess. Unfortunately that doesn't work so well in a large opaque organisation that's not directly and effectively accountable and that's the danger. Our local rununga is dogged with nepotism, corruption, incompetence and inefficiency; the benefits flowing to the everyday Maori are incredibly modest as a consequence.
I don't have an answer but good on you for raising the question Chris.

David George said...

John Minto would say that wouldn't he, a product of his simplistic and crossly unbalanced way of looking at the world. He sees what he wants to see; Maori as innocent victim, a mere avatar of his imaginary cartoon like view of Maori perhaps; no nuance and no balance.

What is the risk and what is the value of a largely unaccountable, often self serving and tribally affiliated governance when confronted with the problems inherent in large, complex and multi cultural societies.

Some lessons on post colonial, post apartheid Africa for us? This from an African surveying the scene:
"Since independence, I think it is safe to say that the quality of governance in sub-Saharan Africa has gone from bad to worse, and we must surely boast some of the most corrupt and incompetent regimes in the world. The hope that many of us clung to that South Africa, with all the systems, structures, expertise, and resources inherited at the advent of black majority rule, would provide a shining light on the Dark Continent have been effectively destroyed. If anything, the incompetence and corruption endemic to the north have not only been emulated, but have been surpassed to new, dizzying heights.

A root cause of the problem lies in the fact that throughout the postcolonial period, racial discrimination against whites has long been condoned, even incorporated in law, because it has been seen by the world as an understandable corrective action required to right alleged wrongs of the past—a deserved quid pro quo for the crimes of colonial oppression dumped on the white minorities who never asked to be born in Africa, not the citizens of the Mother nations who scrambled for Africa and occupied it in the first instance. The fact that these policies have forced the exclusion of people of European descent from every spectrum of the private and public sector where they contributed mightily, out of all proportion to their small numbers, with ruinous results, has been accepted as inevitable collateral damage.
https://www.takimag.com/article/in-africa-black-lives-dont-matter/


Nick J said...

Tom, thank you for crystalising the non racial principle of boss-ship. Elites dont care about colour, they just want to be the boss.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

As usual, Barron shows a knowledge lacking in many of the commenters on Polynesian matters. I myself know nothing about the Samoan constitution so I won't comment on that.
But enough comments on Minto. I must say, his simplistic and crossly (sic) unbalanced view of Polynesians can easily be matched by "Their capacity for mindless violence" right? Which of course isn't racist simply because it's a "fact".

Geoff Fischer said...

Chris wrote: "Underlying the political stand-off in Samoa is the as yet unresolved tension between the democratic institutions inherited from New Zealand, and the much older set of political and cultural expectations inherited from pre-colonial Samoan society."
My reading of the Samoan constitution suggests that it is more democratic than the New Zealand counterpart, and I cannot see from where Chris draws the idea of a clash between pre-colonial and democratic values.
On the other hand, The Barron wrote:
"Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that constitutionally Samoa's current problem is based on hereditary rights."
That is correct, in my reading of the constitution. He goes on:
"Where the problem is resides in a view that there are three equal levels of Government - the HOS, the Parliament and the Courts. This is incorrect in regard to the actual constitution of Samoa. The Judiciary alone have the power to interpret the constitution. This is in line with the best models of modern democracy."
True, there are not "three equal levels of government".
There are three main organs of government, each with distinct roles, namely the executive (the Head of State, Prime Minister and Cabinet), the legislative assembly, and the courts.
The courts have the power to interpret the constitution, but that is all they can do. In particular they have no executive or legislative power. The judiciary are appointed by but expected to be independent of, the executive. Their role is to interpret the law and to judge according to law. They have authority in the state on account of having been appointed by the executive, but any authority they have in society derives from the quality of their judgements. In other words, if the courts are respected for the general quality of their decisions, then they will be seen to have authority when it comes to judging who has best claim to legitimacy when there is a contest within and among the institutions of state.
Having said that, if the executive determines to defy a ruling of the court, the courts have no direct power of enforcement, and the people themselves must assert their sovereignty over the executive. The courts, however, can lend to such assertions of popular sovereignty over the executive a legitimacy by implication.
When the executive comes into conflict with the courts and/or the legislature, only the people themselves acting directly can bring down the executive. That is the simple and obvious fact of the matter regardless of the particularities of any given constitution. However in a democracy operating under rule of law the people will tend to act, if at all, only when given the blessing of the elected legislature and judiciary.
The situation in Samoa is that the executive has rebelled against the legislature which appointed the executive on behalf of the people and only the people will be able to bring the executive to heel.
In similar circumstances in New Zealand, the outcome would be very different because in New Zealand the people are not sovereign. The monarch is. The courts here would most likely find in favour of an executive (in New Zealand "The Crown") which defied the legislature (Parliament). Not because the courts are anti-democratic (although they may be), but because that is the way that the New Zealand constitution works.
However, for Chris and his supporters, this discussion is not really about Samoa at all. That is why they pay so little attention to the actual structure of the Samoan constitution and the workings of Samoan politics. The Samoan coup becomes a stalking horse for their campaign against "He puapua" and what they are pleased to call "the zombie culture" of Maoritanga. Allow Maori to have a hand in government, they are saying, and you will have Samoa, or worse.

John Hurley said...

This seems to be a key assumption in cultural politics

246 Recalling Aotearoa
Discourses at loggerheads
Bi-nationalism and multiculturalism differ as ideals. Take, for example, the intended target groups. The targets of multiculturalism are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, such as New Zealanders of Asian origins or Tagata Pasifika, most of whom are willing to accept the rules of the new country as a price of admission or settlement. Bi-nationalism is concerned instead with redefining the relationship between peoples or nations. Unlike voluntary immigrants, indigenous peoples such as Maori did not voluntarily consent to be ruled or dominated. Nor did they expect to have language and culture eroded because of colonialism or assimilation. The rules of society that once suppressed indigenous peoples have proven unacceptable; preferred instead are indigenous models of self-determination that sharply curtail state jurisdiction in favour of local autonomy.

Given that anyone with one ancestor is Maori - do we know that?

David George said...

Yes John, there really is so much nonsense spewed it's had to know where to start.
"Maori did not voluntarily consent to be ruled or dominated" Yes they did and 180 years of, at least, de facto acceptance proves consent.
More to the point, no one born here gave voluntary consent to be governed either. Consent to governed, also essentially, by acceptance is just assumed. The alternative?

Nick J said...

GS, do you have to kick Minto when he's down? He has done so much good in the past that conflating his out of touch opinions with what a RWNJ would say is unkind to say the least.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Nick. Was that sarcasm? Because I wasn't being critical of Minto, but simply of whoever said that PI people have the "capacity for mindless violence." I myself have no knowledge of whether he is actually "simplistic and crossley unbalanced" and to be honest I have better things to worry about than his opinion on Samoa, about which I know very little in spite of having worked with Samoans on and off for years.

Nick J said...

Fair enough GS, if you say that you weren't being critical of Minto thats fine. I just reread your original comment and reply, cant see where I got you so wrong though. Sarcasm, no, just a direct response to how I read it.

John Hurley said...

here's Elliot Ilkelei on He puapua
Eliot is is cross between Marty Feldman and Mr Potato Head
https://fb.watch/5-wQjs_ekn/