Why, Metiria, Why? In light of the Greens’ recent ideological contortions on the subject of immigration, it is possible to interpret Metiria’s attack on NZ First as being driven by internal – not external – considerations. It is possible that the immigration issue has become a symbol of the increasingly bitter divisions that have opened up between idealists and pragmatists within the Green Party. If so, then NZ First has been made the whipping-boy for offences much closer to home.
PRINCIPLE AND PRAGMATISM are not, as Radio New Zealand’s
Guyon Espiner attempted to assert on yesterday morning’s (10/7/17) Morning Report, incompatible. They are, however, obliged to get out
of each other’s way. If the Greens’ Metiria Turei has a principled objection to
aspects of NZ First’s immigration policies, then she needs to be careful about
how those objections are expressed. Especially when she and her colleagues are
also committed to the principled objective of bringing a progressive government
into existence on 23 September.
Pragmatism is all about working out what you want most. This
morning, Metiria informed New Zealand that her top priority is securing a
change of government. Obviously, she would like to see her own party playing a
major role in any new government. Furthermore and ideally, the progressive
administration she’s after would include only the Greens and the Labour Party.
There is, however, a very strong likelihood that the two left-leaning parties
will not secure sufficient electoral support to govern on their own.
Realistically, the support of Winston Peters’ NZ First Party will be required
to drive the National Party from the Treasury Benches.
All of which raises the question of why, over the course of
the weekend just past, Metiria felt moved to attack NZ First’s immigration
policies in such uncompromising terms. Whether or not their policies are
“racist” – a charge vehemently denied by NZ First – the question arises: what
principle was served by levelling such an accusation?
It certainly wasn’t the principle of doing everything within
one’s power as a co-leader of the Green Party to put an end to the cruelty and
incompetence being meted out by the present National-led Government. Nor was it
the principle of collegiality: of doing everything possible to ensure that the
inevitable differences between the members of a Red-Green-Black coalition can
be resolved amicably and in the spirit of generous compromise. Even the
principle of racial equality was ill-served by Metiria’s intemperate
accusations. Dismissing people and parties as “racists” not only discourages
dialogue, it also generates hostility and a hardening of attitudes. In this
context, Metiria’s charge that NZ First is a “divisive” political force takes
on a grimly ironic aspect.
Simply put, Metiria’s claim that she takes a pragmatic
approach to the political exigencies of coalition government cannot be
sustained. A pragmatic politician would not have drawn public attention to
matters about which there remain serious disagreements between the Greens and
NZ First. Ideally, she wouldn’t have mentioned NZ First at all – preferring
instead to promote her own party’s policies. If asked to comment on potential
areas of difficulty between the Greens and NZ First, she would have highlighted
those areas where the two parties are in agreement. At all times, her objective
would be to demonstrate how easily and how well the two parties could work
together. In relation to NZ First, nothing Metiria did over the weekend, or on Morning Report, could be considered
pragmatic – or principled.
Which leaves a great many progressive voters asking
themselves: “Why did she do it? What’s eating the Greens?”
In light of the Greens’ recent ideological contortions on
the subject of immigration, it is possible to interpret Metiria’s attack on NZ
First as being driven by internal – not external – considerations. It is
possible that the immigration issue has become a symbol of the increasingly
bitter divisions that have opened up between idealists and pragmatists within
the Green Party. If so, then NZ First has been made the whipping-boy for
offences much closer to home.
Given that the Greens long ago left behind their original
mission of bearing witness to the need for fundamental environmental, economic
and societal change, this sort of internecine bickering is unforgiveable.
Accepting the need for pragmatism means accepting the definition of politics as
the art of the possible. It also means accepting that morality is not
indivisible. That for good people to have a chance of achieving anything at
all, a lot of bad people must remain unpunished.
If the sixteenth century Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre
(later to become the very Catholic Henry IV of France) was willing to concede
that “Paris is worth a mass”, then Metiria Turei should be willing to concede
that the Ninth Floor of the Beehive is worth biting her tongue over Winston’s
shortcomings.
This essay was
originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Monday, 10 July 2017.
