You'll Do It My Way: Observers have noted the extraordinary condescension of a middle-aged Pakeha and former Green MP setting forth the correct moral path for a party dominated overwhelmingly by young, marginalised Maori. Her refusal to be bound by their votes, followed by the very public repudiation of both their judgement and their party, has given rise to considerable speculation concerning exactly who Sue Bradford thinks she is – much of it less-than-flattering.
THERE’S NO SHOW WITHOUT PUNCH, they say. But on the left of
New Zealand politics it’s more a matter of there being no show without Sue
Bradford. Hone Harawira and Vikram Kumar may have been the ones up on the
platform announcing the formation of the Internet-Mana electoral alliance, but it was Sue who, once again, gate-crashed the party.
Since the decision to join forces with the German
millionaire, Kim Dotcom, clearly struck at the heart of everything Mana stood
for, Sue told the world, she was left with no other choice but to quit the
party in protest.
No other choice? Well, not exactly, Sue. You could have
decided to abide by Mana’s democratic decision-making processes. Having put
forward the case against an alliance with the Internet Party to Mana’s
membership, you could have left the final determination to them and accepted
the outcome with good grace.
But, you weren’t willing to do that, were you, Sue? Right
from the start, when you very publicly hung the threat of your resignation over
Mana’s head, you made it very clear that if the party rejected your advice,
made the wrong decision, then you were out of there.
Now, an unkind commentator might draw his readers’ attention
to the extraordinary condescension involved in a middle-aged Pakeha and former
Green MP setting forth the correct moral path for a party dominated
overwhelmingly by young, marginalised Maori. He might even observe that her
refusal to be bound by their votes, followed by the very public repudiation of
both their judgement and their party, might give rise to considerable
speculation concerning exactly who Sue Bradford thinks she is – much of it
less-than-flattering.
And, while he was at it, that commentator might also question
why a person steeped in the writings of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao
Zedong, and possessing an encyclopaedic knowledge of twentieth century
revolutionary movements, should be so down on politically motivated
millionaires.
Was it not the Belarussian millionaire, Alexander Parvus,
who bankrolled the Bolsheviks into power? And wasn’t it Parvus’s gold that paid
for Lenin and 30 of his comrades to be spirited across Germany in a sealed
train to join a Russian revolution that had had the temerity to start without
them?
JFK’s father, Joseph P. Kennedy once quipped to his son: “A
man only needs three things to become President of the United States. The first
is Money. The second is Money. And the third is … Money!” The same formula clearly
works for revolutionary leaders.
And maybe, Sue, that is the real reason behind your
rejection of Kim Dotcom’s money. That it might make Mana into something more
than a mere pin-prick in the shins of power. That with the funding Mr Dotcom
will undoubtedly make available to the alliance, Mana’s Annette Sykes will have
a better than even chance of knocking Te Ururoa Flavell – and with him the
Maori Party – out of Parliament. That with the Dotcom dollars behind him, Hone
Harawira will be able to bring into the House of Representatives your erstwhile
comrade, John Minto. (Not since the days of Harry Holland will our Parliament
have welcomed a more revolutionary MP!) Isn’t that the unspoken explanation behind
all your many party entrances and exits over the years, Sue? That, to remain
pure, your parties must relinquish any prospect of political success?
If I’m wrong, you have my sincere apologies. It’s just that,
sometimes, I think the entire New Zealand Left would rather cling to their
principles in a state of weakness than compromise some of them from a position
of strength.
Revolutionary ambition is made of many things. For Hone
Harawira it was the crushing effect of the Pakeha nation’s economic and
cultural power upon an indigenous people beaten to their knees by 150 years of
settler injustice and racism. For John Minto it was the obscenity of Apartheid
South Africa.
And for Kim Dotcom? Perhaps it was the experience of having
his home invaded and his family terrified by 80 heavily armed police officers
acting on information illegally supplied to them by the Government
Communications Security Bureau, at the behest of the United States Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and with the smug approval of the New Zealand Prime
Minister.
Sometimes, Sue, the story’s about more than your principles.
This essay was
originally published in The Waikato Times, The Taranaki Daily News, The
Timaru Herald, The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 30 May 2014.
