Wednesday 4 September 2024

A Time For Unity.

Emotional Response: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon addresses mourners at the tangi of King Tuheitia on Turangawaewae Marae on Saturday, 31 August 2024.

THE DEATH OF KING TUHEITIA could hardly have come at a worse time for Maoridom. The power of the Kingitanga to unify te iwi Māori was demonstrated powerfully at January’s national hui, where upwards of 10,000 people answered King Tuheitia’s summons to the Turangawaewae marae. But now, at this fractious historical hour, the power of the Kingitanga is passing into untested hands.

If the traditional “kingmakers” of the royalist iwi choose unwisely, then the divisions and tensions between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti may widen further. In the weeks and months that lie ahead, rash and angry words from King Tuheitia’s successor have the potential to ignite a political conflagration. In these circumstances, Māori and Pakeha have an equally pressing need for the Kotahitanga [Unity] that was the late King’s guiding star.

This need for unity was expressed with affecting sincerity at the King’s tangi by someone many New Zealanders would regard as its most unlikely champion. As the leader of the conservative coalition government responsible for sharpening the points of Māori-Pakeha difference, Christopher Luxon’s participation in the King’s funeral ceremonies could easily have been construed as perfunctory, or, even worse, provocative. That he spoke of his relationship with the King with such obvious emotion, his voice close to breaking, unquestionably impressed his Tainui hosts. That said, the thought surely crossed their minds: “What is it with this Pakeha, who weeps with us, even as his ministers assault us?”

What indeed? The most obvious answer is that Luxon, like all politicians, is a complex mixture of emotion and calculation; sincerity and subterfuge. What’s more, though reason reels from the thought, Luxon, like many politicians, can be both at the same time. Very few Pakeha New Zealanders are immune to the extraordinary, almost magical, power which Maoridom is able to summon at moments of great historical significance. It brings our emotions suddenly, and often unexpectedly, to the surface, catching us off-guard.

This blending of the spiritual with the material was a skill which, until relatively recently, was manifest in all cultures. Those over the age of 70 will recall the state funeral of the slain President, John F. Kennedy: the soldiers slow-marching with arms reversed; the riderless horse, its master’s boots facing backwards; and that unforgettable image, almost unbearably poignant, of Kennedy’s young son innocently snapping his father a filial salute as the funeral cortege passed by.

Symbols, and the powerful feelings they evoke, were much more available to Westerners sixty years ago. New Zealand, now one of the world’s most secular societies, was then an emphatically Christian nation. Pakeha religiosity was strong in the 1950s and 60s, and, come Sunday morning, most of the nation’s churches were full. Back then, the spiritual world and the material world overlaid each other and intermingled in ways that today’s secular Pakeha would struggle to accept.

But not today’s Māori. In te Ao Māori the spiritual infuses the material in ways that at once entrance and confuse Pakeha. A cynic might say that this spirituality, this affinity for the metaphysical, is Maoridom’s secret weapon, and that Christopher Luxon is as susceptible to its magic as any number of his equally entranced compatriots.

Why, then, does he not take advantage of it? Why impress Tainui and the Kingitanga with your tears, and then return to a Parliament where Act and NZ First continue to drag the National Party down the path of “pernicious polarisation?

Typically, “pernicious polarisation” is initiated by political elites that have been electorally sidelined and are willing to do almost anything to get back in the game. They deliberately stoke class, racial and/or religious divisions – often in cahoots with more extreme groups. Their hope is to extend their electoral reach by advancing under the cover of their new allies’ more inflammatory political rhetoric, and by quietly promising to introduce at least some of the extremists’ most radical policies as soon as power has been reclaimed.

Clearly, the National Party, alongside Act and NZ First, has been drawing heavily from the pernicious polarisers’ playbook. Equally clearly, it has worked: National has reclaimed the Treasury Benches and is sitting pretty as the dominant party within a conservative coalition government.

National’s problem, now, is that, having been assisted into office by its more extreme coalition partners, it is required to deliver on the promises made to get them (and keep them) onside. Since these commitments are mostly bound up with Act’s and NZ First’s determination to rein-in what both parties believe to be an over-mighty Maoridom, New Zealand’s politics risk becoming convulsed to a degree not seen since the 1981 Springbok Tour.

Such convulsions are most unlikely to spare the National Party. Its record on race-relations is a proud one, and trashing it to keep David Seymour and Winston Peters happy is not a course of action a significant number of National Party MPs and members are likely to accept with equanimity. Indeed, the louder the chorus of protest from Māori and progressive Pakeha New Zealanders grows, the more misgivings National is likely to experience.

There will be some in the party who look to National’s past and argue that civil unrest has always been the Right’s friend. Certainly, National romped back into office after the 1951 Waterfront Dispute, and Rob Muldoon’s facilitation of the 1981 Springbok Tour saw National returned (narrowly) to power. But, the past is not always prelude, sometimes it represents an end, not a beginning.

With the King’s tangi as a backdrop, Christopher Luxon could earn considerable praise from across the country if he was to announce that, as a coronation gift, he was giving the new Māori monarch his solemn promise that the National Party would not allow Act’s Treaty Principles Bill to reach the floor of Parliament.

Would David Seymour respond by breaking up the Coalition? Quite possibly. Luxon should let him. National still has plenty of money. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Maori are in no position to mount a credible threat to National’s re-election chances. Indeed, the parties of the Left would be hard-pressed not to cheer Luxon on!

Moreover, if National categorically ruled out entering into another coalition with Act and NZ First, and Luxon, taking inspiration from Kamala Harris’ playbook, declared it time to “turn the page” on the politics of racial division, then he and his party would likely be rewarded with a runaway electoral victory. Kiwis don’t like political confrontation at the best of times – especially not with their own friends and whanau.

Kotahitanga, in addition to being King Tuheitia’s guiding star, could very successfully double as National’s campaign slogan.


This essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz website on Monday, 2 September 2024.

20 comments:

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Interesting how race relations in the eyes of Pakeha are only ever good when they are satisfied with them. Maori opinion doesn't seem to matter. Doesn't matter how dissatisfied they might be with the current situation as long as white people are happy, and Maori who are dissatisfied are regarded as troublemakers – almost "outside agitators". As soon as Pakeha start feeling a bit "persecuted" then all of a sudden race relations are in the toilet.

new view said...

Chris Luxons speech could and was most likely a combination of feelings as Chris T describes. No-one blames him for that and it shows to me anyway, a level of sincerity by Chris Luxon toward a good relationship with Maori. Of course those who are Act voters will believe CL isn’t taking a strong enough line, but to me Luxon has been consistent. He, like me, wants a system that includes Maori and Pakeha and all other ethnicities, to be treated equally at every level. We know this hasn’t worked out in the past because Maori have been hesitant to fully accept the Pakeha way on most things, and a large part of the fault has been the way the system has been administered, presented and it’s perceived accessibility by Maori. Having said that it is with frustration to some Pakeha, as to why Maori have ended up in this position. Chris Luxon will try, like many before him to make the system more equatable. Whether he succeeds or not will be for history to decide but he has never believed in separatism and he believes the Crown has sovereignty over all who live here. His stance on the Treaty Bill hasn’t changed and Maori have no reason to believe that it would get through the preliminaries in parliament, so kicking it out beforehand would please many but would be in the end a gesture only, and would put the Coalition at risk. Those Maori who want self determination or seperate systems of health and education and who are still upset at the way treaty claims are administered, are pushing their interpretation of the Treaty. That is why we have this discontent, and that is Why Seymour has brought this bill to parliament. Many see Luxon as a fence sitter but I don’t. He wants the Treaty to be honoured in the way he believes it was originally intended, and he wants all NZrs to have a fair go. That is not anti Maori. A radical PM is not what is needed at present. Luxon has to have a foot in both camps and failure to do so would be his downfall. Whoever becomes the New Maori King will indeed have a profound influence how all this plays out in the future of our nation.

The Barron said...

I applaud your sense of unity and optimism.

A broad translation of 'kia manawanui' is 'to be resolute, steadfast, tolerant, dedicated, unwavering and committed. I hope this continues to be present in your writing. I am less sure in the steadfast nature of this National'led government.

Little Keith said...

Ironically, all I could see from the "left", especially the awful Ardern era was racial division, obsession with race and an us and them narrative. You couldn't help but be negatively overwhelmed by the effort put into it.

Maori health. Everyone else health.
Maori health prioritised over any other mere mortals health.
Maori science. Abandonment of modern science.
Maori justice somehow supposed to fit into organised modern justice.
Te tiriti over all else.
Government department jobs demanding te tiriti politics as a must have over competense.
Government contracts, likewise.

All of the above, and there are more, are recent inventions by the left. You couldn't help but feel if you were an inferior race to Maori, which is all non maori, then who cares?

But I see Maori, not as clones, not as this homogeneous unthinking mass needing some slimy politicians weasel worded guidance like the Willie Jacksons of this world would like to make them, but as good people who are, like the rest of us, trying to get on in life. They don't need their hands held. Not by anyone. They're adults.

And non Maori have spirituality and culture in abundance, it's just not fashionable to mention them or to roll around endlessly about it nor reinvent the not so nice bits like the Winston Smiths of Maori academia do.

NZ First and ACT speak a rare language of common sense in a narrative of absurdities and gas lighting. Is that so shocking? Colour blindness? Geez, stop it. Now.

The vast majority want to get along and shock horror, there are those who just want to get on with life without the constant self indulgence of being superior beings who feel the need to tell everyone else how great or how hard done by they are and how evil the rest are!

Anonymous said...

"Luxon, taking inspiration from Kamala Harris’ playbook, declared it time to “turn the page” on the politics of racial division, then he and his party would likely be rewarded with a runaway electoral victory......"

You may be right, a significant proportion of the electorate is now so politically fickle it would vote for a toothbrush moustache if it promised a ring of confidence.

Brendan McNeill said...

Chris

Have you forgotten why the previous Labour Government was unceremoniously pushed off the treasury benches? Aside from their demonstrable incompetence, they attempted to introduce a radical interpretation of Treaty obligations across all of government.

The electorate soundly repudiated this attempt at cultural ‘transformation by stealth’.

If Luxon was foolish enough to promote a public policy agenda on race relations and Treaty obligations that remotely resembled that of the former labour government he wouldn’t be forming any government. He would lead a minor party in the new coalition with ACT taking the lead role.

We had six years of a government whose ministers were led by their emotions. The electorate is in no mood for a repeat performance. But then you know this.

John Hurley said...

How do you get around the human need for a "stable and coherent moral order".
Good luck arguing the Treaty as a foundation stone. The parties in which that reality exists are the New Zealand public. Explaining the principles is loosing.
If you want to know what a crappy country this is watch this:
https://youtu.be/pYfZSyiRqM4

The Barron said...

Chris rose to the occasion, and laid down the wero.

The usual suspects contribution the blog have again shown a complete inability to have a vision for the nation. I hope Chris continues to walk alongside Maori, while those contributors have tried to push in front are ultimately left behind.

John Hurley said...

Tauiwi: Racism and ethnicity in New Zealand Paperback – January 1, 1984
by P. Spoonley (Editor), C. MacPherson (Editor), D. Pearson (Editor), C. Sedgwick (Editor)

Introduction
During the last decade, there have been marked changes in the way that 'race relations' have been viewed in New Zealand. The optimism and self-congratulatory stance of the 1950s and 1960s dissolved as the 1970s witnessed new alliances and tensions in the wake of economic recession and the increased proximity of pakeha and Polynesian people in urban areas. Confirmation that race relations would need to be taken more seriously was provided by a series of debates in the late 1970s that culminated in open conflict: Bastion Point and the Haka party' incident were two examples. These provided dramatic evidence of a need to resolve longstanding and contemporary issues and gave notice that race relations would assume new importance in the 1980s. However, the issue that has attracted major pakeha support to date has not been a matter of domestic racism but the presence in New Zealand of a rugby team representing a racist regime in South Africa. Whatever the private, and sometimes the publicly expressed hopes of many people, the issues that constitute race relations will not diminish in importance In the future. The prognosis must be that they will consume an increasing amount of resources and attention. Despite the inevitability of this, the material available for those wishing to understand these issues remains limited' and is scattered so widely as to prevent people from gaining a coherent picture. As a consequence, the debates over matters such as the future of te reo Maori, or the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi, are often ill-informed and there is a tendency to rely on comfortable myths that derive from New Zealand's colonial past. Pakehas have an obvious investment in reproducing these myths although there are members in other groups who share a similar commitment. Some Maoris and Pacific Islanders support the dominant group's mythologies much to the consternation of activists and to the delight of conservatives. The task of increasing the awareness of New Zealanders is obviously difficult given the commitment of particular groups to views which correspond to vested political and economic interests. Nevertheless, it is the aim to of this book to inform, to stimulate discussion and to try and dispel some of the myths surrounding race relations in New Zealand.

Ranginui Walker didn't like immigration being used as an economic tool.
Paul Spoonley said Maori should have to role of welcoming immigrants.
The majority of Maori (less academics) oppose our open immigration policy.
So who is doing what Maori want? When you take the Paul Spoonleys out of it, how many Maori were uncomfortable with myths that derive[d] from New Zealand's colonial past?

CXH said...

Maori is no longer a racial classification, it is purely cultural. Therefore people that would qualify as Maori on a racial basis are now 'the wrong type' of Maori.

This cultural group wants to force change on the whole country. They despise the concept of a partnership, therefore any thought of discussion on the future is closed down as colonialist oppression.

Yet this same cultural group has no problem with culturally appropriating the idea of a King or Queen, the most colonialist idea there is. Rules for one, but not the other.

Anonymous said...

How is all this supposed to work when the Maori monarchy doesn't even represent all Maori in NZ. Is one iwi superior over another because it has a king/queen? And why do we have a monarchy in NZ?

Chris said...

Those on the right especially the far right are very clever at colonising the words of therir opposition and happily exploit this technique to spread their malice and misinformation. The Kingitanga movement was a response to the lies and misinformation of Governer Grey and his associates and it remains that today.

AprilGuy said...

Your link takes me to an immigration discussion. Is that what you intended, if so please explain why the content makes NZ crappy. Not obvious to me.

David George said...

Ethnically based rights and responsibilities as a foundation for unity?
Seriously Chris, do you think those opposed to discussing and deciding the principles of governance are the slightest bit interested in unity. What sort of unity is it that's conditional on everyone else falling into line?

Anonymous said...

Brendan and John
There will be a change of government in the future. There is absolutely no chance that such a government will let any of Act’s policies survive. Māori will not tolerate their treaty rights being overridden by a majoritarian approach. By definition the majority can’t just negate minority rights within a treaty without any reference to the minority.
If the current government attempts to do so, the next government will simply repeal any legislation that purports to do that.
Luxon is fully aware of this, which is why he is restraining his smaller coalition partners. Not to the extent that our host would like, but it is clear Luxon is becoming more aware of the risks that Act poses to National’s reputation and the work that previous National governments have done in the area of treaty relations.

Anonymous said...

Given neither party to the treaty now resembles the entities they were then, we do need to have an open discussion about the nature of our citizenship, and if we are prepared to accept or even tolerate spirituality as part of our governing principles.

The Golem said...

Between universal suffrage, the breakup of empire, changes in tribal organisations and loyalties, assorted wars, the vast amount of common law created and many other changes, the two signatories to the Treaty now bear little resemblance to who they were then.

We badly need an open discussion of what that means, to formalise it to create certainty and allow us to function as a nation. Divided houses do not prosper and we are in increasingly dire straits with unavoidable infrastructure, superannuation and health expenditure looming that we can't tax our way out of, if we don't get a lot more cohesive and productive to support that demand for money. And it is a demand, not a request.

However: how can we do that without having the discourse overwhelmed by those who have a vested interest in an uncertain and polarised status quo, are prepared to make decisions on the basis of emotion and spirituality rather than evidence, and have only a limited interest in democracy?

Unknown said...

Someone called John gets schooled by Sean Plunket
https://youtu.be/bGBcSN4_ICs

The Barron said...

Once again to note that race is a social construct with no basis in science. In NZ to be Maori you have to be descreended from a NZ Maori and self identity as a NZ Maori. The same basis for hapu and iwi affiliation. Tiriti rights are through descent.
The concept of a monarch or Arikinui goes as far back in Polynesia as other societies. The Kingitanga follows traditional lines, the difference is that it has cross Iwi affiliation. Unified Ali'i, Aliki, Ariki monarchy happened in Tahiti, Hawaii, Tonga and attempted in Samoa, all as a result of and response to colonization. Nothing appropriated but traditional leadership for changing circumstances.

The Barron said...

Presumably you are not affiliated with the Kingitanga so your questions are moot. Maori will organize as they wish.