tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post7198179997175834661..comments2024-03-29T03:41:12.499+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Can Sovereignty Be Shared?Chris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78859875138527236162023-06-16T13:52:13.381+12:002023-06-16T13:52:13.381+12:00Geoff Fisher
TE TIRITI O WAITANGI: SOVEREIGNTY CC...Geoff Fisher<br /><br />TE TIRITI O WAITANGI: SOVEREIGNTY CCEDED II<br />If ‘Tino Rangatiratanga’ means in its broadest sense “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship’ as claimed by Kawharu, it was certainly not being used that way in Te Tiriti in 1840.<br /><br />In the context of Te Tiriti, the words narrow in their meaning to be a guarantee of property rights in land and personal property to both the natives and pre-Treaty settlers alike.<br /><br />It is thus impossible to construe Te Tiriti as having been drafted to provide for the Crown to govern the settlers according to Article I and the chiefs to continue to govern their tribes according to Article II.<br /><br />The reference to the white settlers in Article II stonewalls any possible interpretation of Te Tiriti as a Constitutional document providing for spheres of co-governance as asserted today, and torpedoes any suggestion that Article II is a reservation of chiefly authority.<br /><br />Even if Article II didn’t contain that inconvenient reference to “all the people of New Zealand,” an open-ended co-governance arrangement would surely have been worded “the Queen of England HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording] confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes THEIR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS [emphasis added to additional wording] the possession [tino rangatiratanga] of their lands, dwellings and all their property ..." <br /><br />The recorded words of the chiefs on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere when Te Tiriti was debated make it clear the majority who chose to sign it (and the minority who didn’t) were well-aware their acceptance of Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson stood Queen Victoria.<br /><br />Article III reads:<br /><br />"In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.<br /><br />In signing Te Tiriti, all Maori – including the chiefs – became not ‘partners’ but EQUAL SUBJECTS of the Crown in a nation state the white settlers would henceforth create where none had existed before.<br /><br />EQUAL SUBJECTS means INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP – nothing more and nothing less.<br /><br />Te Tiriti cannot possibly be construed as a guarantee of perpetual group rights to brown supremacist part-Maori (with an ever-declining Maori blood quantum).<br /><br />It is ludicrous and intellectually incoherent to propose that the cession of sovereignty in Article I--restated in Article III--would be countermanded by a reservation of chiefly authority in Article II.<br /><br />“Sovereignty” means “the supreme power or authority.”<br /><br />It is thus Constitutionally impossible for a sovereign to be in ‘partnership’ with a subject or group of subjects.<br /><br />It is also clearly impossible for ordinary Maori to enjoy “the rights and privileges of British subjects” if still subject to tribal-style rule by chiefs.<br /><br />On 6 February 1840, one party (the Crown) absorbed and digested the parties of the other side (the chiefs and those whom they represented) rendering Te Tiriti from the moment it was signed analogous to a used table napkin after a meal, and other than as a historical artefact, about as relevant.<br /><br />Te Tiriti is best-described not as “New Zealand’s Founding Document,” but as “New Zealand’s Founding Moment.”<br /><br />https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty<br />ENDSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-45528681561944367422023-06-16T13:51:13.051+12:002023-06-16T13:51:13.051+12:00Geoff Fisher
What you post about the assumed mean...Geoff Fisher<br /><br />What you post about the assumed meaning of 'rangatiratanga' is sheer casuistry and revisionist wishful thinking.<br /><br />Have a free history lesson.<br /><br />TE TIRITI O WAITANGI: SOVEREIGNTY CEDED I<br />The National Party’s Treaty of Waitangi spokesman, Joseph Mooney, is 110% correct in stating that Article II of Te Tiriti grants “tino rangatiratanga” not just to brown supremacist part-Maori, but to ALL New Zealanders.<br /><br />James Busby’s final English language draft dated 4 February 1840 (aka ‘the Littlewood Treaty’) was translated into Maori by the missionary Henry Williams and his son (fluent Maori speakers, resident in NZ since 1823) for presentation to the Chiefs on 5 February 1840.<br /><br />Article I reads:<br /><br />"The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country."<br /><br />That wipes out the ridiculous Declaration of Independence of the Confederation of the United Tribes [He Whakaputanga] fudged up by British Resident, James Busby, to wave at annexation-minded foreign competitors and the false assertion that Maori had a sovereign nation state prior to 6 February 1840.<br /><br />Article II reads:<br /><br />“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes [the natives] and to all the people of New Zealand [the pre-Treaty white settlers], the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property ...” <br /><br />In Te Tiriti, the word “property” was translated as “taonga.” Today, based on the erroneous Sir Hugh Kawharu [a Waitangi Tribunal member AND claimant] back-translation that word has come to mean treasures, both tangible and intangible, including language and culture.<br /><br />This blatant try-on would have astonished Sir Apirana Ngata. In his 1922 explanation of the Treaty, Ngata described “taonga” as applying to “this canoe, that taiaha, that kumara pit, that cultivation.” Not once did he hint that taonga included intangibles as claimed today and accepted by the Waitangi Tribunal.<br /><br />Ngata was well-fluent in the Maori language, His explanation was consistent with Kendall and Lee's 1820 vocabulary, the Williams 1844 dictionary, and Frederick Maning's personal account of pre-Treaty New Zealand. Check these texts. You will learn that in the context of Te Tiriti, “taonga” meant goods, property, things, chattels, or in legal terms “personalty” [personal property].<br /><br />F.E.(Frederick) Maning settled in Northland in 1833. He fathered four children to the sister of a Maori chief and as a fluent Maori speaker well-versed in Tikanga, later became a Judge of the Native Land Court. In his book Old New Zealand, Maning translates “taonga” as “Goods; property.”<br /><br />When it came to both land and personal property, everyone in New Zealand as at 6 February 1840 needed the same assurance from the incoming sovereign: that existing private property rights would be upheld and protected. <br /><br />This was obviously important to the natives. <br /><br />It was also important to the pre-Treaty white settlers who held land and personal property according to Tikanga (meaning in practical terms only for as long as 'their' tribe could defend the locality against outsiders).<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-58999408343561331982018-02-21T12:24:31.170+13:002018-02-21T12:24:31.170+13:00Victor:
I believe that Jim Bolger (as a Catholic o...Victor:<br />I believe that Jim Bolger (as a Catholic of Irish descent) had some republican sympathies which, as an honorable man, he put to one side when he swore allegiance to the monarch on becoming a member of parliament.<br />I can only believe that the other two politicians named were genuine and sincere in their oaths of allegiance to the monarchy.<br />Most political parties in New Zealand hold themselves to be "nationalist" (ACT may be an exception) but Labour and National could more correctly be described as "globalist" parties in terms of economics and geo-politics, while the Greens are environmental globalists, with a nationalist tendency on economic issues. New Zealand First is a party of economic nationalism, but that economic nationalism does not carry through into constitutional or geo-political nationalism.<br />It is theoretically possible that a parliament consisting entirely of representatives who had pledged allegiance to the monarchy could turn around and depose the queen as head of state, but whatever kind of republic they created through such an act of betrayal would not be one in which the ordinary New Zealander could take pride or in which they could have trust and confidence.<br />To cut a long story short, if you are a republican and a nationalist who will not pledge allegiance to a British monarch, then you cannot sit in the New Zealand Parliament.<br />Critics would do better to take note of what I actually believe, and have written over many years, rather than put their own construction ("supine tool of a long defunct empire", "specifically anti-British freedom fighter" etc) on what they imagine might be my position.<br />"Ko tau rourou, ko taku rourou, ka makona matou"<br />"From your truth and my truth the full truth will emerge".<br />So let's stick to the truth, avoid misrepresentation, and refrain from sarcasm or other forms of verbal belligerence.<br />It seems that my posts on the open ballot have not passed moderation, though I can see no reason Chris Trotter would invoke his prerogative to censor in this case, so I have posted my response to your comment on the open ballot at www.republican.co.nz Geoff Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00509885628971898371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-12135620061851053202018-02-14T09:07:14.291+13:002018-02-14T09:07:14.291+13:00Geoff Fischer
Of course there have been republica...Geoff Fischer<br /><br />Of course there have been republicans in New Zealand's Parliament.<br /><br />Jim Bolger, Steve Maharey and Peter Dunne for three. No doubt there have been many more.<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by "nationalist", but NZ First has been described as a nationalist party by its deputy leader. <br /><br />Personally, I'd argue that Labour also has a nationalistic streak but that's open to contention.<br /><br />New Zealand has many faults but your attempts to paint it as the supine tool of a long defunct empire are totally without foundation. <br /><br />That's not to say that there aren't two other (rival) empires that exert a very real degree of influence over us.<br /><br />But if you want to pose as a specifically anti-British freedom fighter, you've left it approximately 80 years too late. Sorry about that.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-27064994826500827482018-02-13T15:28:47.153+13:002018-02-13T15:28:47.153+13:00Geoff Fischer
Your obstinacy over this point is b...Geoff Fischer<br /><br />Your obstinacy over this point is becoming rather silly.<br /><br />Approximately 30 countries that were once either "Realms" or Crown Colonies have become republics during the reign of Elizabeth II. At least 25 of these are still Commonwealth members, most of them having chosen republican status some time after independence.<br /><br />Why should this norm not apply in New Zealand if we wanted it to apply?Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-56834072610352911162018-02-13T10:40:20.288+13:002018-02-13T10:40:20.288+13:00To Victor
I did type a lengthy reply (in two parts...To Victor<br />I did type a lengthy reply (in two parts) to your question on the advantages of moving to an open ballot system. It may still be waiting moderation, or it may have been lost in transit. If it does not appear within the next few hours I will re-post.<br />To Peter Hemmingson<br />While not a "Treatyist" myself, any document may be subject to interpretation. The words "principles" and even "partnership" would not have to be present in the Treaty for them to never-the-less be applicable to the Treaty.<br />However the point that I keep coming back to is that the rangatiratanga promised to the chiefs is the same word the missionaries used in 1835 (and probably earlier) to translate the word "kingdom" in the Gospel according to Luke. So "rangatiratanga" indicated sovereignty to both Maori and European at the time the Treaty was signed. Therefore how can it now be claimed that the Treaty was a cession or surrender of sovereignty by Maori to the British?Geoff Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00509885628971898371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-19063338668533561592018-02-12T18:51:13.732+13:002018-02-12T18:51:13.732+13:00PARTNERSHIP PROOF: A CHALLENGE
NZ's "tru...PARTNERSHIP PROOF: A CHALLENGE<br /><br />NZ's "true and only" Treaty is the Te Reo version. This was what was presented orally to the chiefs, and this is what they agreed to. There is no English version. Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 does not contain the Maori words for "partnership" and "principles." <br /><br />First open challenge to Treatyists: point to the words “partnership” and “principles" in Te Tiriti.<br /><br />This nonsense is of recent invention, and originated in what we might call "The Treaty of Wellington (aka Section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act) 1986.” Activist judges on the Court of Appeal hearing a 1987 case involving the NZ Maori Council then took Section 9’s unclarified in the statute reference to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” to concoct “partnership” and "principles" out of thin air. <br /><br />Everything the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere, as well as the words of those who refused to sign it, make it abundantly clear they were well-aware that by signing the Treaty this would place Captain Hobson in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria. Reiterated at the Kohimarama Conference of 1860.<br /><br />Second open challenge to Treatyists: produce a single primary source account recording the words of a chief who thought he was going into "partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement with the Crown.<br /><br />Eyewitness accounts of the pre-Treaty debates make it clear that none of the chiefs who signed it thought they were going into “partnership” with the Crown. Those who spoke up for Hobson also leave no doubt that they expected British sovereignty to bring lasting peace to the land, as well as protecting them from less benevolently inclined foreign powers, such as the French.<br /><br />Third open challenge to Treatyists: explain why, for 147 years between 1840 and 1987 and the Court of Appeal decision in the New Zealand Maori Council Case, nobody knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement.<br /><br />It was only after the Court of Appeal invented “partnership” and “principles” in 1987 that demands along these lines first surfaced. If nobody knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was a racial partnership for 147 years, that's probably because it isn’t.<br /><br />Peter Hemmingsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-51378188067884070632018-02-12T11:41:25.735+13:002018-02-12T11:41:25.735+13:00"Can two peoples exercise equal sovereignty i..."Can two peoples exercise equal sovereignty in an undivided state?" What are peoples?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11107971490458466462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-21473664890503865172018-02-12T10:39:50.150+13:002018-02-12T10:39:50.150+13:00"It" (the right to self-determination) &..."It" (the right to self-determination) "was also acknowledged by the monarch's father, when Eire and India became republics."<br />That is true, and the stance of the British monarchy has always been "we are only here so long as you want us".<br />But in Eire the people had to demonstrate their disaffection for the monarchy through a long brutal civil war, and in India through a mass campaign of civil disobedience. Which makes my point that if you put obstacles in the way of change, then change, when it comes, may assume a destructive form.<br />Even the simple step of allowing republicans and nationalists to sit in the New Zealand parliament would do something to open the way for future peaceful, as opposed to violent, change.Geoff Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00509885628971898371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-39621047089460075772018-02-11T17:08:56.195+13:002018-02-11T17:08:56.195+13:00Geoff Fischer
The advantages of a secret ballot a...Geoff Fischer<br /><br />The advantages of a secret ballot are obvious and I can't think what advantages there would be to abandoning it. What advantages would you suggest might come from doing so?Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-39461988369296122702018-02-11T15:42:05.588+13:002018-02-11T15:42:05.588+13:00Correcting my previous post:
"her eldest son...Correcting my previous post:<br /><br />"her eldest son and eldest grandson" should read "her eldest son and his eldest son".Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-38572590430467754242018-02-11T12:35:49.244+13:002018-02-11T12:35:49.244+13:00And if they were smart, under a system of continuo...And if they were smart, under a system of continuous election the politicians would not welch, and there would be no need to boot them out. Geoff Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00509885628971898371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-44967661478847255502018-02-11T11:46:05.623+13:002018-02-11T11:46:05.623+13:00Geoff Fischer
"The way out of this situation...Geoff Fischer<br /><br />"The way out of this situation, where a foreigner occupies the office of New Zealand Head of State, is not at all straight-forward given that to sit in Parliament one must swear allegiance to the person of the monarch, and Parliament is the only institution which can lawfully remove her as Head of State."<br /><br />The oath of allegiance is to the current monarch who is now in her nineties.<br /><br />It is up to Parliament to decide who her "heirs and successors" might be. There was a revolution in Britain in 1688-89 which more or less established that point. <br /><br />In any event, the willingness of the current reigning dynasty to cede its status if requested to has been continuously acknowledged by the current monarch, her eldest son and eldest grandson.<br /><br />It was also acknowledged by the monarch's father, when Eire and India became republics. <br /><br />The monarch has herself experienced innumerable examples of her erstwhile "realms" choosing republican status. Most of these nations have subsequently chosen to remain within the Commonwealth but others have not. <br /><br />Why should New Zealand be any different if it chose a republican path?<br /><br />Have you not created a "man of straw"?Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-63502711913327327872018-02-11T08:28:54.633+13:002018-02-11T08:28:54.633+13:00Geoff Fischer
Hi I'm pretty sure there have...Geoff Fischer<br />Hi I'm pretty sure there have been several polls over the years that have clearly shown that most New Zealanders do want to keep the tie to the Queen. As a figurehead I think. I'm sure if a Br monarch started interfering much that would change quickly.<br /><br /> With that thought it is probable that the US presidency is much more comparable with the Brtsh seramonial head of state than <br />generally realised. Something Mr Trump has been learning over the past year.<br /><br /> I like the idea of continuous election. Boot them out as soon as they start to welch on their promises! Brilliant!<br />D J SDavid Stonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-50005780892041977852018-02-10T19:22:31.512+13:002018-02-10T19:22:31.512+13:00I was careless in using the definite article "...I was careless in using the definite article "the British sovereign" after earlier referring to her as "a British sovereign" and Victor was right to correct me on that point. But does anyone dispute that the Queen of New Zealand is British, and that therefore New Zealand has a British Head of State? I don't believe that she is even nominally a New Zealand citizen, and few would go so far as to assert that she is a New Zealander in any shape or form.<br />The way out of this situation, where a foreigner occupies the office of New Zealand Head of State, is not at all straight-forward given that to sit in Parliament one must swear allegiance to the person of the monarch, and Parliament is the only institution which can lawfully remove her as Head of State.<br />So is it not reasonable to suggest that she is still imposed on our people, and that if the people of New Zealand had a free choice in the matter it is most improbable that she would be elected Head of State?<br />That, however, is secondary to the question of what kind of democracy we would choose to install if we could cut ourselves free from the constraints of 178 years of colonial rule, and the political model adopted from 19th century England (whatever virtues it may have).<br />Some of the questions we might ask ourselves are "Do we need to limit ourselves to geographical constituencies? Could people be free to choose their own constituency? Do all constituencies really need to be of approximately equal size? Do the benefits of the secret ballot still outweigh its disadvantages? Do we need to have triennial elections? Why not continuous election?". Maori might answer these questions differently to Europeans because iwi systems are designed to accommodate such variables. Clearly we now have the tools to create a political system which is much more flexible, responsive and transparent than the inherited Westminster model, a system in which ordinary people could truly exercise their own voice, and in which the notion of "choosing one's own leaders" becomes more than a figure of speech. If we fail to address the possibility of radical change we may end up with a society in which the rates of democratic participation (both within political parties and in parliamentary elections) continue to decline inexorably, politics becomes the preserve of a small middle class elite and the political outcomes are increasingly unsatisfactory for all.Geoff Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00509885628971898371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-47750937022562689592018-02-10T15:35:51.222+13:002018-02-10T15:35:51.222+13:00DJS
It's not so much enlightened leadership t...DJS<br /><br />It's not so much enlightened leadership that (according to the "Law and Liberty" argument) makes an undemocratic parliamentary regime a good seed bed for democracy.<br /><br />Autocrats such as Frederick the Great or Joseph II of Austria had a rather stronger claim to enlightenment than the venal peers and brutish squires who tended to dominate the eighteenth century Westminster Parliament. <br /><br />Rather, it was the long-standing existence of representative organs (albeit on a restricted franchise), more or less free debate, legal equality, limits on executive power etc. that, according to this argument, made the difference. <br /><br />But, as I say, there's also merit in the counter-argument I've culled from "Dissent", which can be read as commending a French-style revolutionary road to Democracy.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-41092601039454596032018-02-10T11:01:24.942+13:002018-02-10T11:01:24.942+13:00DJS
"They are too closely involved with ineq...DJS<br /><br />"They are too closely involved with inequality not to have empathy."<br /><br />I'm not sure about that. Those with little are often the most censorious of those with nothing<br /><br />"Fair mindedness doesn't necessarily accompany education and privilege , or even intelligence."<br /><br />Absolutely!Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-68156822044748284522018-02-10T10:54:56.725+13:002018-02-10T10:54:56.725+13:00Picker
Try saying something and we'll compare...Picker<br /><br />Try saying something and we'll compare your shite to mine.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-22435659882453948942018-02-09T16:24:51.972+13:002018-02-09T16:24:51.972+13:00Victor, Your wife is absolutely right, you talk a ...Victor, Your wife is absolutely right, you talk a lot of shite, and she would know!One Law for Allhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14660543791200151344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-42651349047982476722018-02-09T15:05:24.749+13:002018-02-09T15:05:24.749+13:00Victor
I'm in wide agreement with all that , p...Victor<br />I'm in wide agreement with all that , perhaps even the last. I think most humans if thrust into that position would do their honest best for everyone. Unfortunately most would avoid the responsibility and those who seek it do so for other reasons than the best for everyone.<br /> I have argued here that US imposed regime-change activities, forcibly removing autocratic governments in other countries will never bring about a caring democratic government to replace the despot. Out of the chaos will emerge another ,probably worse dictatorship, or waring factions. And the only path to social democracy is a stable state and gradual relaxation of the autonomy from an enlightened leadership. As British democracy evolved, and as Gorbachov tried and partially achieved in Russia. So I agree with G W totally if that was his (her?) argument.<br /> But what we seem to be facing now is a regression from a social democratic system that has worked well for decades as vested interests working within it and subverting the machinery of it's democratic processes , to erode power from elected government. With the co-operation of elected government, by wheedling control of resources and financial creation (Debt creation), and defeating the social democratic ideal. It is the intelligent educated elite that are doing this, not the ignorant masses, and the ignorant masses would not wish to bring about such imbalance as is happening even were they on the winning side. They are too closely involved with inequality not to have empathy. Fair mindedness doesn't necessarily accompany education and privilege , or even intelligence.<br />Perhaps you can contribute Greywarbler seeing Victor and I seem to be debating your argument.<br />Cheers all D J S<br />David Stonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-53305162652411389412018-02-09T12:00:51.887+13:002018-02-09T12:00:51.887+13:00DJS
I suspect that greywarbler should be allowed ...DJS<br /><br />I suspect that greywarbler should be allowed to speak for himself without excessive interpretation from others. But I took him to be referring to the time-honoured theory that democracy succeeds best in countries where its establishment was preceded by inegalitarian and undemocratic parliamentary regimes, which nevertheless created a culture and tradition of open, free politics.<br /><br />Exhibit A for this theory has tended to be 18th century England, a country totally dominated by aristocratic landed interests but acting through a free if extremely corrupt and unrepresentative parliament, with a legal system that, at least at a theoretical level, was posited on equality before the law and placed a very conscious and self-celebratory emphasis on the liberty of the subject. This has been referred to as a “Law and Liberty” regime.<br /> <br />The theory goes that this type of arrangement created stable, authoritative and historically grounded institutions which the democratic masses were able to take over and use for their benefit, as the franchise was gradually extended during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It also suggests that the masses were schooled in discursive politics by this process, which, of course, would have included peaceful agitation for the extension of voting.<br /><br />A contrast is often made between this tradition and those of much of continental Europe, which was dominated by autocracies of one sort or another that did not valorise liberty to the same extent and tended to view people’s legal rights as determined by their formal status as aristocrats, bourgeois, peasant etc. <br /><br />The argument goes that all the ills of Europe, from the Reign of Terror to the rise of Hitler were broadly ascribable to the absence of the free traditions enjoyed by the English, the Dutch and a few other happy breeds. It’s not an argument for government by elites but for a particular form of elite government providing a more accommodating soil in which successor non-elite politics could grow. BTW a number of left-wing historians, at least one of them a Marxist, have (if my memory serves me right) ascribed to this view.<br /><br />Despite its whiff of Whiggish determinism, I think there’s some truth to the theory but I also liked the article from ‘Dissent’, a link to which I posted and which makes a very different case, based around the usual exemplars of the “Law and Liberty” theory. <br /><br />As to the ideal form of government, it would, of course, consist of dictatorial rule by myself. Unfortunately, my wife doesn’t agree and thinks she should be a sort of universal supreme autocrat. As she’s normally right, I have to conclude that she’s probably correct on this matter as wellVictornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-2966594045114742122018-02-08T22:47:40.773+13:002018-02-08T22:47:40.773+13:00Continuing comments from previous post......
“But...Continuing comments from previous post......<br /><br />“But you should also respect our people's right to choose their own leaders, to follow their own culture and to live peacefully in their own land.”<br /><br />And why do you believe that I don’t respect everybody’s right to follow what they deem to be their culture and to live peacefully. A more sensitive soul than myself might be rather upset by your unwarranted assumption. <br /><br />“The Westminster model, even when modified by mixed member proportional representation system, will struggle to deliver good political outcomes in such an ethnically and socially diverse society as New Zealand.”<br /><br />I agree. There’s an inherent tension between the rights of majorities, minorities and, for that matter, individuals. The challenge is to make this into a creative <br />tension. <br /><br />But I also think we owe it to ourselves and all our ancestors to strengthen what is good within the generally beneficent system of proportional parliamentary democracy. We should always be wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. <br /><br />“A confederation offers better prospects for stability and harmony, and it would not involve separating Southland from Auckland. In fact the dividing lines would not necessarily be geographical (most iwi membership, for example, being widely dispersed across the country), though of course those who wish to remain in their current geographic constituencies should be free to do so.”<br /><br />OK. I now understand that you’re using the term ‘confederation’ as a sort of analogy. Rather than advocating a territorial carve-up, you seem to want people within the same territory to have the right to be under a sovereignty of their own choice. <br /><br />Perhaps your analogy was misleading. Even so, I do think there’s room for discussion over how this broad concept might work. The tightly-defined exclusive sovereignty of the “Westphalian” state hasn’t been a constant in human history and there might just be alternative models that are practical in our weirdly interconnected modern world.<br /><br />It would be a “hard sell” though and I can’t help but wonder whether the effort might be better expended sorting out pressing issues connected with social provision, infrastructure, health, education etc. <br /><br />BTW on the education front, I would certainly favour Te Reo becoming compulsory for all children in New Zealand, not least because the evidence shows that people who speak two languages find it progressively easier to learn a third, fourth or fifth language. And the best place to start is a language that resonates in more than half our place names.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-34192627768539338252018-02-08T22:37:14.050+13:002018-02-08T22:37:14.050+13:00Geoff Fischer
“There can be no disputing that a...Geoff Fischer <br /><br /><br />“There can be no disputing that a British Head of State is imposed on our peoples.”<br /><br />No, a British Head of State was once imposed but her great great grand-daughter's authority depends on our free volition, although that volition may not be extended to her successors. <br /> <br />“Every Member of Parliament, military or judicial officer and new citizen is required to swear allegiance to the British sovereign.”<br /><br />No, they swear allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand. This is not just a formal distinction as, in matters relating to New Zealand , the Queen acts on the advice of her New Zealand prime minister.<br /> <br />“None are given a choice in the matter, and that is they way that it has been since 1860.”<br /><br />You're right. There’s no choice in the matter. Similarly, no French official has the right to swear allegiance to something other than the French Republic. The same will be true here, if and when we opt for republican status. <br /><br />“British culture (in the widest sense of the phrase) has also been imposed through the compulsory education system, and further promoted through the press, broadcasting and other media.”<br /><br />That’s because, for over a century and up till very recently, most people in New Zealand were largely descended from British (and Irish) settlers. Perhaps their ancestors shouldn’t have come here and they certainly shouldn’t have dispossessed the Tangata Whenua. But what other cultural frame of reference should they have chosen? <br /><br />I would agree, though, for what it’s worth, that our news media are far too influenced by “Atlanticist” views of what’s significant in our world. <br /><br />“New Zealand's geo-political alliance with Britain obviously derives from the Treaty, the unlawful establishment of British sovereignty,”<br /><br />Well, for all Bojo’s absurd neo-imperial posturing, we don’t have much of a geo-political alliance with Britain these days. And to the extent that it’s still there and not wholly voluntary on our part, you can, these days, largely blame the Yanks. <br /><br />Just like us, the Brits can be excessively anxious to please the big boys in Washington. And, also like us, they’re increasingly anxious to please the other big boys, in Beijing. But that’s a topic for another day.<br /><br />More to come.....Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-36936586539022411472018-02-08T19:46:23.809+13:002018-02-08T19:46:23.809+13:00Victor
Re your ref and discourse on democracy w...Victor<br /> Re your ref and discourse on democracy with Doug R and GreyW. <br /> Firstly I reckon that a totally honest benevolent dictator with absolute power is probably the best form of government. She could access advice from anyone, and delegate responsibilities to whoever was most able to discharge them. No faction or individual can wield undue influence because the incumbent has absolute power.There have probably been examples that came close in history, but they have been few and far between. And they only ever can last a lifetime; the likelihood of a suitable successor is one in a million.<br /> So the default to the next best is to involve everyone to have equal influence, but with millions of participants the best that can be done is for representatives to be elected to govern as the population wishes them to govern. Basically what we have.<br />I reject the idea that any elite can be identified as having any innate qualities to justify greater influence than any-one else. Granted people need a decent broad education, and essentially an honest unbiased news source that covers the things that matter, and as GW says to think about it ,but the basics of a fair society don't require genius. <br /> The problem with democracy as we know it is that truthfulness has completely abandoned politics and our politicians. How can the wisest and most thoughtful electorate select a "representative " government when what their elected representatives do in government bares no relationship to what they said they wanted to do? And it's no use waiting 3 years and voting for the other crowd because they are just as false.<br /> So why can't they do what they say they will do? Is it because they crave the kudos of the the office? Or is it because they discover that they are not really in control at all, and do what they are told?. Some of each probably , but some kind of sanction for reversing significant electoral platform undertakings seems essential if none of them can be trusted to go forward with what they were elected to do. Maybe they should see out their 3 yr term and then be disqualified from standing for election ever again.<br /> For all it's shortcomings democracy is the one system that has within it's basic structure the inherent mechanism for change. So though cumbersome it has the potential for gradual improvement.<br />D J S<br /> David Stonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-69882535808032998992018-02-08T13:15:49.994+13:002018-02-08T13:15:49.994+13:00Doug Robertson
I thought greywarbler was expressi...Doug Robertson<br /><br />I thought greywarbler was expressing the widely held view that democracy succeeds best when the ground has been laid by undemocratic yet parliamentary "Law and Liberty" regimes, which provide an institutional and cultural template for future progress. <br /><br />Historically, there is some justification for this view. But, as ever, with such propositions, you can make an alternative case. So you may draw comfort from this recent article, which has certainly provoked me to further cogitation:<br /><br />https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/against-technocrats-liberal-democracy-historyVictornoreply@blogger.com