Tuesday 2 August 2022

A Grand Coalition For Peace, Unity and Democracy.

Co-Leaders? The uncomfortable truth is: not the Army, not the Police, not the Spooks, and not even a combination of all three, could defeat the scale and violence of White Supremacist and Māori Nationalist resistance which the imposition of radical decolonisation – or its racism-inspired defeat – would unleash upon the country. A Grand Coalition of Labour and National is one of the few correctives available to halt New Zealand’s steady drift towards civil war.

THOSE RESPONSIBLE for New Zealand’s national security face problems considerably greater than anti-vaxxers issuing bomb-threats. (Although with an anti-vaxxer currently being held in what sounds suspiciously like preventive detention, on a charge of sabotage, perhaps they’re mistaken!) Over the next 12 months, the NZ Defence Force, the Police, and the SIS – The Forces of Order – will have to decide which group of potential insurrectionists they have the best chance of beating: White Supremacists or Māori Nationalists?

These two extreme tendencies, both of them hostile to democracy, currently stand outside the arena of practical politics. For them to remain there, however, a political environment supportive of traditional democratic principles and, most crucially, supported by all key state institutions, will have to be actively promoted. Not only that, but an emphatic majority of citizens will have to believe the such official promotion is sincere, and that it will not simply evaporate if ordered to do so by radical political actors.

This is a predicament without precedent in New Zealand history. At no point in the 170-year history of responsible government in these islands has the arbitrary introduction of fundamental constitutional change turned on the outcome of an election. Radical changes have been made in the past, but always within the parameters of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. It is one of the great strengths of our Westminster system of government: that change is always reversible. What’s done can be undone – if the people will it.

If, however, the next general election produces a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori coalition government, then fundamental constitutional changes, of the sort recommended in the He Puapua Report, will be introduced. This can be stated with confidence for the very simple reason that an unwavering tripartite commitment to the “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” of Aotearoa’s governing arrangements would be a precondition for any such coalition’s formation. The Māori Caucus of the Labour Party would demand it. The Greens would expect it. And the support of Te Pāti Māori (TPM) could not be contemplated without it.

These constitutional commitments could not be kept hidden from the electorate. Their necessity would be loudly proclaimed in the run-up to the election by TPM as a means of mobilising Māori voters generally, and energising young Māori voters in particular. TPM’s most obvious electoral strategy would be seek all seven Māori seats, while freeing their supporters to cast a Party Vote for Labour by way of compensation. Should TPM win all seven seats, but fail to win a commensurate share of the Party Vote, then the next Parliament would have an “overhang” of Left seats – making it even more difficult for the Right to secure a majority.

Would Labour consent to TPM’s strategy? Almost certainly. On the issues of decolonisation and indigenisation the Labour Party Caucus has demonstrated a firmness of purpose not seen since its predecessor’s embrace of “Rogernomics” back in the 1980s. It was not unusual in the late-80s to hear Labour MPs declare that they would rather lose their seat than reverse their support for Roger Douglas’s radical economic reforms. Faced with the option of repudiating the Treaty “partnership”, and the co-governance measures they believe it mandates, this present Labour Caucus (with a handful of exceptions) would almost certainly evince a similar determination to win through or leave Parliament altogether.

Such a coalescence of the Left around te Tiriti and co-governance would, naturally, generate an equal and opposite reaction from the Right. Any notion the National Party may have entertained of attempting to ride the Treaty-and-Co-Governance tiger would have to be jettisoned hastily. Christopher Luxon would have no choice but to embrace Act’s maximalist anti-separatist/pro-democracy policies as his own. David Seymour’s plans for legislatively defining the meaning of the Treaty, and having the resulting law either ratified or rejected by referendum, would thus be presented as the rock-solid commitment of the National-Act coalition government-in-waiting.

Faced with the possibility of losing every centimetre of ground they had won since 1985, Māori nationalists would make no bones about the consequences of a National-Act Government. The re-colonisation of Aotearoa would be resisted – by any means necessary.

Not to be outdone, White Supremacist groups would make it clear that any attempt to “re-tribalise” New Zealand society, by stripping its citizens of their democratic rights and property, would be met with armed resistance.

How would the Forces of Order respond to such threats? Their first move would likely be against the most ardent promoters of the decolonisation and indigenisation agenda. Senior public servants, vice-chancellors and media editors would be “invited” to moderate their radical stance on the politics of partnership. With “radicalisation” occurring apace among the activists of both camps, the Forces of Order’s top priority would be to “depressurize” the increasingly tense political atmosphere.

At the same time “the usual suspects” of the activist Right and Left would be made the subjects of heightened surveillance. All forms of intelligence gathering would be utilised in an attempt to keep abreast of the White Supremacists’ and Māori Nationalists’ activities. From the perspective of the Forces of Order, the best outcome of such a surveillance programme would be the uncovering of plans by both sides to launch a series of attacks on their opponents – up to and including the assassination of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

In these circumstances, the Forces of Order would be presented with the opportunity to persuade the leaders of the Centre-Left and the Centre-Right to dispense with their respective coalition partners and announce their intention to go into the election as a Grand Coalition for Peace, Unity and Democracy. The urgent necessity for such a dramatic solution could be demonstrated by a few suitably terrifying leaks to the most co-operative media outlets. Poll data, real or concocted, would indicate the public’s overwhelming support for the Grand Coalition. Dissenting MPs from Labour and National could then be purged ruthlessly from their Party Lists. At the electorate level, the candidate from the party assessed as most likely to win would be given a clear run by their coalition partner.

With the Grand Coalition parties promising to respect both the Treaty and New Zealand’s democratic traditions, while spending billions to “close the gaps” between Māori and Pakeha, the political prospects for Act, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori would take a decided turn for the worse.

The Forces of Order would breathe a massive sigh of relief. Principally because the question originally posed: who could they beat? – is a trick question. The uncomfortable truth is: not the Army, not the Police, not the Spooks, and not even a combination of all three, could defeat the scale and violence of White Supremacist and Māori Nationalist resistance which the imposition of radical decolonisation – or its racism-inspired defeat – would unleash upon the country. An uncompromising government’s pursuit of one or the other would simply topple the nation into a bloody civil war.

And who would win that conflict? The answer, almost certainly, is – The Australians. Canberra could not afford to have a failed state on its eastern flank – ripe for the picking by a Chinese regime only too happy to sail to the rescue of whichever side seemed most likely to prevail. The Aussies’ pre-emptive intervention would see Aotearoa-New Zealand become the eighth state of the Commonwealth of Australia.

We would all have lost.

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Tuesday, 2 August 2022.


Geoff said...

The current situation is indeed dire, and can fairly be said to be solely attributable to Ardern.
Australian intervention on the scale you suggest seems sensible...preferable in my opinion to our accelerating drift to ethno-nationalism !

AB said...

Very funny Chris. This is an excellent spoof of the sort of post-Covid hyperbolic silliness that is all around us. And as you know, we already have a grand coalition of fairly neoliberal Labour and very neoliberal National. They peacefully hand power back and forth between each other every 6-9 years (on average) - which explains our slow but inevitable decline over 50 years. As you explained quite nicely in a previous post.

Unknown said...

More strong. direct common sense analysis. Thanks Chris -. For looking at the true issues we are facing

Anonymous said...

It would never get to that point as the forces of order would include Australian 'boots on the ground' long before the violence started, and it would also include Australia and other Commonwealth countries such as the UK taking a public, and behind the scenes stance. The public would expect such action from the outset. Kiwis are civil.

'Overtearoa' is the result you get when you don't consult with the entire civilian population; the polity 'stomping about' due to parliamentary supremacy, and ignorance. The polity is uncivil.

A Senate would have had NZ in a far better position for all Kiwis than what the NZ unicameral chamber has constantly achieved in the last 3 decades; endless and pointless division. Editors are uncivil.

I left NZ long ago for Australia, and are all the healthier for it, others are now questioning their health.

boudicca said...

A worst case scenario Chris, but not impossible considering the rhetoric of The Maori Party. My concern now is that we will not have a fair and free election next year. Actual White Supremacists are still a small group in NZ. Those who want to preserve democracy are however the majority. Any Grand Coalition would rest on Labour ditching its separatist policies

Don Franks said...

There's lots of talk about the dangers of White Supremist Groups inhabiting New Zealand these days. I'm not aware of any of any of any serious consequence. Some activists expend much energy keeping tabs on unapetising losers like the National Front while the likes of New Zealand First and Labour do the real anti immigrant and militaristic business.

greywarbler said...

It would be a good idea to read John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids and see how it would work out for our lives. There is a strong totalitarian power that emerges at the end of his story. Good words from Don McLean -
But strong men often fail
Where shrewd men can prevail...

You know I'd like to put my finger on that trigger once again,
And point that gun at all the prideful men.
All the voyeurs and the lawyers who can pull a fountain pen,
And put you where they choose,
With the language that they use,
And enslave you till you work your youth away,
Oh god how I worked my youth away.

Andrew Nichols said...

Dear oh dear. You really have gone over the edge with your panic over the bogeyman "Maori Nationalism" Sounds like a 21st Century version of a Red scare with mokoed Tame Iti warriors brandishing aged shotguns storming state institutions instead of dancing cossacks. Do you realise how like Piggy Muldoon you are becoming?

Unknown said...

Thanks for your analysis Chris Looking at the real world rather than a world people want to believe exists

Gary Peters said...

Chris, I have an extremely wide circle of contacts and consider that they encompass both extremes of the political spectrum.

I can assure you and anyone else that the white supremacists in this country could be counted on the fingers and feet of an armless man.

Kiwis don't resort to violence unless they're pissed so I can't see the fanciful situation posted by Chris ever coming to fruition.

Nationalist maori are mainly the leite who are far too lazy to get grubby hands and their serfs beneath have way more nous to wage battle on their behalf, especially as "trickle down" has been restricted to crumbs from the table.

We don't need a coalition because labour deserted their supporters long ago. ardern has merely confirmed that she has no regard for the workers of this country and would cheerfully sell us out for another bauble. She has learned at the feet of the master bauble getter ... and we all know who that was.

PS: No relation!

Guerilla Surgeon said...

I wasn't going to comment, because this is nonsense. But given that some commenters have taken it seriously, I'd just like to say – this is nonsense. Andrew Nichols has said everything else. :)

Archduke Piccolo said...

Talk about jeremiads! Has the socio-political situation in this country really come to this? I can understand that expectations rising faster than real improvements can lead to volatile outcomes - but ... civil war? Are people really so stupid? No one would win - except maybe the fat cattists at the top of the heap sitting safe in their gated communities, that is to say, the causes of it all.

On the matter of possible interventions from Australia, the United States or China, the colonial records of all three are pretty damned piss haggard to say the least. There is no high ground there, moral or otherwise. The record of Maori colonisation is also nothing to skite about.

Bloody hell -
Ion A. Dowman

Shane McDowall said...

I am not certain whether the significant Maori presence at the protest outside parliament were actual Maori ethno-nationalists.

More likely they were dim-witted, semi-literate high school dropouts with a penchant for waving tino rangatira and 1834 flags.

I doubt they could spell "ethno-nationalism", let alone understand what it means.

Domestic violence and Third World school attendance are New Zealand's real problems. And, sadly, Maori are leaders in both.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

The link doesn't work Chris – and the signs I might see in the US that she seems concerned with, have been there for some time – so if there is political violence in the US I certainly wouldn't be surprised by it. If there was more political violence in New Zealand, along the lines of the idiots who occupied Parliament grounds, I wouldn't be surprised either. But a full-blown civil war? At a stretch – maybe in the USA – but not in New Zealand. There simply aren't enough people willing to take up arms in this country – for whatever cause. If "Maori radicals" start some sort of guerrilla war, they might have some sympathy in the wider community but basically there will only be a few 100 or so if that.
I'm certainly not sleeping with a shotgun under my bed because you happen to be fear mongering. If it does happen there will be quite a long lead up time I suspect and it will be obvious.
The case studies she uses, particularly Yugoslavia are not a good fit for the USA, let alone NZ. It was held together by a dictator, and while it might not have been particularly obvious it was going to fall apart after he disappeared, it was certainly on the cards – you yourself have said there are some countries that can only be held together by a dictatorship.


Maybe you should have read a couple of reviews before after you read the book.

The Barron said...

Grand Coalition?

It is now official, Kansas is now more socially liberal than Luxon.

David George said...

It seems increasingly obvious (to me anyway) that the only way to peacefully resolve the co-governance question is for it to be put to the people in the form of a referendum as ACT have proposed . Ardern & co don't even consider that an option so the coming election can't help but be seen as a proxy. It looks like National are coming round to that POV as well.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister Willie Jackson said the nature of democracy has changed. And I suppose the question is: “To what?” And when did we decide, as a country, that the nature of our democracy has changed? I don’t recall going along to a constituent assembly where we all decided that the nature of our democracy had changed. I don’t recall a referendum where we decided, and I don’t recall the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, going to the people at the 2020 election saying, “By the way, I’m going to change the nature of our democracy.” What mandate have they got for it, and what does it mean?

The suggestion is that the Treaty of Waitangi demands this. Well, it is our view, on this side of the House, that the Treaty of Waitangi does not trump democracy, and the country hasn’t decided that, and so, ultimately, what is being pushed here is, I think, a very divisive agenda which is pitting one group of New Zealanders against the others. "

David George said...

The vast majority of Kiwis are pretty easy going, trusting, naïve.

"That Waititi, he's a bit of a poser, a hard case but he means well. Or Jackson, Davidson and Mahuta going on about those dreadful colonisers - glad there's none of them around anymore"

When they finally wake up and realise that, no, they don't mean well (not as far as you and your descendants are concerned anyway) and that a coup has taken place I wouldn't be surprised if it generated a lot of anger. Some people will take their anger to the next level.

Anyone (Andrew above?) that thinks some of the ethno nationalist types would react with equanimity if their separatist fantasies were destroyed is equally naïve. They seem relatively benign at present; Jacinda & Co are rubber stamping every outrageous demand they make. What happens when that changes - as Goldsmith promises:

"I want it on the record that this bill was passed against the will of the Opposition—a change with widespread implications for democracy—that has been pushed through without any attempt whatsoever to bring widespread acceptance across the House. It has been done on crude majority numbers and, as such, it will be repealed if we get the opportunity at the next election. Thank you, Mr Speaker".

Unsettling as it may be, a general referendum on the basis of our democracy is the only way forward. Sooner or later we have to come to terms with the obvious: the TOW is one of our foundations not a formula for the future.

David George said...

To understand the mechanisms being used, we need to look back to 2019 when Jacinda Ardern boasted to the Bill Gates Foundation about how she was implementing the radical objectives of the United Nations:

“My Government is doing something not many other countries have tried.

“We have incorporated the principles of the 2030 Agenda into our domestic policy-making in a way that we hope will drive system-level actions… It is about fundamentally changing how we make decisions and allocate resources…”

In another address that same year to the World Economic Forum, she explained her reforms were designed to lead to permanent change:

“One of the biggest threats we have … are political cycles. This needs to be something that we embed in our national cycles, in our political cycles, and in our actions and it needs to endure beyond us as individuals.”

Elizabeth Rata: “The question we must ask is this: How has a small group of individuals, both Māori and non-Māori, managed to install a racialised ideology into our democracy? The corporate tribes have already acquired considerable governance entitlements – the next and final step is tribal sovereignty. It’s a coup d’état in all but name, accomplished not by force but by ideology – enabled by a compliant media.

Given the enormous success of retribalism is it too late to reclaim New Zealand from the relentless march to blood and soil ethno-nationalism?
That depends upon our willingness to understand, value, and restore democracy.”


greywarbler said...

I've had an amazing idea. Everyone should be able to prove that they know something about the politics and practices of whom and what they vote for! It
used to be that the vote went to people who owned property and just ordinary people got left out. That was changed but now the vote goes to anyone whether they have much knowledge or real interest in their area or country or not.

Reading some of the stuff written on TDB it seems to me that for many their apparent interest is more of a hobby, an enjoyment of contention, a habit, and they write to register their distaste for what they've got, like elegant aristos passing judgment on what's offering in the market.

That isn't what democracy needs. There need to be workshops to give basic info and a certificate issued when passing that allows you to vote but also a scratchy to be done at the time with some basic questions like - what parties do you know about and what people standing and what are their beliefs in general - tick two of these boxes.

Seems radical but the old saw about if you keep doing what you have always done then likely you'll get what you've always got. And what we have got in this civilised? year of 2022 is a mess and it's bloody well not good enough for an advanced country. Saw or sore what's it to be?

Trev1 said...

I have seen ethnic conflict in Bosnia (in 1995 in Kiwi Company's Area of Operations) and its aftermath in Rwanda (in 1997 with UNHCR). While both countries had troubled histories going back many generations, the speed and ferocity with which conflict broke out was overwhelming. In each country conflict was provoked by the reckless, ethno-nationalist ambitions of politicians.

It's interesting to reflect that many Australians served in the New Zealand Wars in the 19th century; they are commemorated in the Australian National War Memorial in Canberra. The time is fast approaching when New Zealand should take up the offer of statehood made to us under the Australian Constitution since we seem increasingly incapable of governing ourselves in a rational, truly democratic manner.

Brendan McNeill said...

That's a bleak picture you paint Chris, and while anything is possible, not every scenario is probable. I rate the probability of civil war very low, not because we lack examples from history, but because there are likely much better options.

I would place non-violent civil disobedience high on the list for those who have the most to lose from the abandonment of democracy in favour of some form of race based governance. It would begin slowly at first, but eventually non-compliance would weaken if not totally destroy the aspirations of the radical elites.

Any and all departures from our democratic heritage would cause untold suffering for large numbers of New Zealanders. One can only hope that Labour dials back the expectations before serious damage is done to our social cohesion. Their blindness is truely mind numbing in its depth and potential for serious harm.

Chris Trotter said...

TO: Guerilla Surgeon & Andrew Nichols:

I would like to thank you both for so amply confirming the thesis of my earlier post. This is how it began:

"According to Barbara Walter, author of "How Civil Wars Start: And How To Stop Them", the most common reaction to the outbreak of serious civil strife is surprise.

"One minute the ordinary citizen is pausing amidst the familiar rush of daily chores to try and make sense of an alarming headline, and the next minute there’s the sound of machine-gun fire in the streets. Because most people simply cannot imagine the collapse of the political system they have believed and trusted in all their lives, they almost never see it coming, and are profoundly surprised when it arrives."

You two, like so many others, will have no idea what has hit you.

Here's the link:


Alya Aetos said...

Is this a joke?

A fantasy.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

As it turns out, find I had Walter's book unread for some reason on my Kindle. Now I don't know much about some of the case studies she promotes in the book but I do know a fair bit about the Rwandan massacres, having done an assignment about them some years ago. It's not worth going into huge detail, but let's just say this – as far as I can see, she gets it wrong. And I'm afraid I'm not the only one who thinks so. If her research into the other case studies is as poor as this one – and I'll check her bibliography, I don't really feel much confidence in her conclusions.

Kit Slater said...

Both White Supremacists and Maori Nationalists are on the extreme Right, echoing the ethnonationalism of the Nationalsozialismus, mutatis mutandis. Limp liberals support Maori Nationalism while dreaming of the Noble Savage of Arcadia, and revanchist Maoris dream of a rentier status free of civilisational responsibility. There’s irony that the Left is now defined not by its traditional support for the poor and the working class, but by the ethnicity of those protagonists. But White Supremacists have none of Maori ethnonationalists’ resources – financial, ideological, teleological, governmental, educational, MSM support, and the single-minded dedication of its members – to have any influence whatsoever. It’s Spoonley’s straw man, based on an exception – Tarrant – not a rule. The difference between two is telling, however. White Supremacists want minimal change to the status quo, Maori Nationalists the maximum. Borne in mind too, should be the issue of institutions. Maoris have none applicable to civilisation and rely totally on those introduced by Europeans for success in the modern world. Changes forced on institutions by matauranga Maori have already served to weaken them, a process that will accelerate.

Cui plagalis? Civilisation, plus yours truly and perhaps others, forced by the destructive insanity of the woke Left into the ordure of my maiden National vote.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Back with the racist nonsense again I see kit? Throwing around civilisation like it meant something. So if Maori have no institutions applicable to civilisation, then neither do Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Indians, Russians, and indeed many Brits. After all, Maori might have done some bad things in the past but probably nothing quite approaches the "civilisation" of Nazi Germany.
And "White Supremacists want minimal change to the status quo"? Did you actually realise what you were saying there?